G/SPS/W/305  
 
11 September 2018 
(18-5613) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
THE ROLE OF THE WTO SPS AGREEMENT IN ENA BLING ACCESS TO TOOL S AND 
TECHNOLOGIES AND FAC ILITATING INTERNATIO NAL TRADE  
A CASE STUDY ON FALL  ARMYWORM  
Submission from Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States of America and Uruguay  
The follow ing communication, received on 10 September 2018, is being circulated at the request 
of the Delegation s of Brazil , Kenya , Madagascar , Paraguay , the United States of Ame rica and 
Uruguay . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  In the meetings of the SPS Committee in 2017, several Members shared their concerns 
regarding an invasive new pest to Sub -Saharan Africa, the fall armyworm (FAW, Spodoptera 
frugiperda ): 
• First, in March 2017 , Senegal and Madagascar reported on their heightened surveillance 
efforts with regard to this scourge, and Senegal invited international cooperation on 
surveillance, sanitary control and the evaluation of progression of the FAW;1 
• Next, in July 2017, Madag ascar cited its recent emergency notifications regarding FAW and 
new phytosanitary certificates. Zambia reported FAW had infested all 10 of its provinces 
and its farmers faced serious problems. Burkina Faso reported harvest reductions of up to 
90 percent d ue to FAW. Kenya stated FAW affected its crops and expressed concern 
regarding food insecurity for its population. Zambia called for partners to support capacity 
building in integrated pest management (IPM) and Kenya asked for help on detection, 
management  and control;2 
• Then in November 2017, Burkina Faso updated Members on the status of the threat posed 
by FAW across Africa; expressed appreciation for the collaboration across many partners to 
restore safety and security to its staple crops; and called for further support for IPM 
efforts. Senegal noted the speed at which the pest was spreading and again drew 
Members ' attention to the threat of FAW in African countries. Togo noted that it had 
detected FAW in 2016 and, along with Madagascar, echoed Senegal 's call for increased 
cooperation and technical assistance.3 
1.2.  Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States a nd Uruguay believe that the 
SPS Agreement offers viable strategies that African Members can employ to enable greater access 
to the necessary tools and technologies – physical, chemical and biological – to manage FAW in an 
integrated approach. Many Members across the Americas have established regulatory frameworks 
that enable access to these essential technologies consistent with high levels of public health and 
environmental protection, including frameworks conducive to commercial release of highly 
efficacious transgenic traits and to greater access to pesticides, including lower -risk alternatives, in 
the fight against FAW.  
                                                
1 See G/SPS/R/86, paragraphs 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.  
2 See G/SPS/R/87, paragraphs 5.3.3, 7.2.6 and 7.2.8.  
3 See G/SPS/R/88, paragraphs 2.1.4, 6.2.1 and 6.2.6.  G/SPS/W/305  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.3.  We believe the SPS Co mmittee can play a role in helping to mitigate the impact of FAW on 
food security and trade by sharing experiences on SPS approaches that reduce unnecessary 
burdens; increase the efficiency and predictability  of science -based outcomes; and  put urgently 
needed tools in the hands of farmers while protecting public health and the environment. To this 
end, this paper sets out background information on FAW and integrated pest management 
strategies. We also offer recommendations for further discussion in the Comm ittee. 
2  THE PROBLEM OF FALL ARMY WORM  
2.1.  The FAW is native to the tropical regions of the western hemisphere from the United States 
to Argentina. Since its first detection in West Africa in early 2016, the FAO has confirmed the 
presence of FAW in 39 African cou ntries, and it is likely to become endemic in many. Native to the 
Americas, FAW can feed on 80 different crop species but largely prefers maize, a staple food 
consumed by over 300 million African smallholder farm families. A highly mobile, fast -growing 
pest, FAW is particularly difficult and expensive to manage, posing a significant threat to food 
security, income and livelihoods in Sub -Saharan Africa. If countries do not implement proper 
control measures, the pest could cause extensive maize yield losses, estimated between $3.6 and 
$6.2 billion per year across the 12 major African maize producing countries, according to initial 
estimates published by the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI) in 
September 2017.  
2.2.  The response to FAW in Af rica must involve rapid dissemination of the appropriate knowledge 
and available tools, alongside efforts to build resilient, streamlined regulatory systems to enable 
access to a wider range of technologies by farmers, especially lower -risk crop protection  products 
and FAW -resistant crop varieties. Unfortunately, in many affected countries, the best products for 
sustainably managing FAW are not currently available, leading to increased pest damage, risks to 
human and environmental health from pesticide expo sure, and significant costs to farmers. In 
order to make these tools and technologies available to farmers in a timely manner, governments 
will need to develop approaches to streamline regulatory processes while safeguarding human, 
plant and animal health.  
3  ENABLING A RANGE OF TOOLS AND TECHNO LOGIES IN GROWER IPM  STRATEGIES  
3.1.  At the farm level, the FAO and the International Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement 
(CIMMYT) recommend an integrated pest management (IPM) approach to address FAW in Africa. 
IPM relie s on agronomic management techniques, biological control, and frequent farm field 
monitoring to avoid and reduce pest infestation. Farmers apply direct control measures only when 
pest populations exceed economic thresholds to minimize the need for pesticid e applications. 
Farmers in the Americas have been successful in controlling FAW by planting resistant crop 
varieties in combination with synthetic and/or organic pesticides. In some cases, FAW has 
developed resistance to both pesticides and transgenic Baci llus thuringiensis (Bt) traits in the 
Americas, though Bt resistance genes have not been found in genetic analysis of African FAW 
populations. Nevertheless, African farmers will need to employ a range of tools to manage this 
difficult pest and reduce the l ikelihood of resistance to specific tools.  
3.2.  Resilient IPM strategies require a variety of lower -risk pesticide tools to address quickly crisis 
pests, including FAW. There are several pesticides, both synthetic and organic, that can control 
FAW, without enda ngering human health and the environment, or interrupting trade through 
potential violations of pesticide maximum residue limits. However, many of these products are not 
available in all African countries for a variety of reasons, including a lack of a pol icy environment to 
enable registration, lack of data to support registration dossiers, inadequate extension 
infrastructure to farmers, or input market disincentives such as small sales potential and weak 
intellectual property protections. In addition, the widespread availability of inexpensive expired, 
off-label, counterfeit or otherwise substandard products provides unfair competition.  
3.3.  One of the three pillars of IPM is host plant resistance, which in the context of FAW requires 
maize breeders to develop a nd test resistant maize varieties through conventional breeding and 
biotechnology. CIMMYT and USDA researchers have identified resistant conventional maize 
varieties from the Americas. However, it will take time to cross these with African maize varieties 
and verify their efficacy in resisting FAW. Prior to commercialization, new seed varieties must often 
complete a registration process involving national performance trials. Many of the constraints on G/SPS/W/305  
 
- 3 - 
 
  the introduction and adoption of novel pesticides apply as well to improved seed varieties, 
including poor enabling policy and market disincentives.  
3.4.  Biotechnology offers the advantage of adding insect resistance genes encoding for Bt proteins 
directly into farmer -preferred maize varieties that are already adapt ed to African agroclimates and 
consumer tastes. There are at least five transgenic traits in maize that confer resistance to FAW at 
higher levels compared to conventionally bred resistant varieties, and these genetically engineered 
(GE) traits can be stack ed to improve efficacy and delay insect resistance. In particular, some 
traits, such as Bt maize, have been highly efficacious when deployed against the FAW in Brazil, 
where it is widely adopted by the majority of farmers. In the United States approximatel y 87 
percent of farmers rely on these traits for control of FAW and other insect pests susceptible to Bt. 
Combined, the transgenic maize traits developed for FAW have already been approved by 
competent authorities in over 15 countries including: Brazil, So uth Africa, Japan and the European 
Union.  
3.5.  However, Bt maize varieties have only been developed for a handful of East and Southern 
African countries. South Africa is the only country affected by FAW to have commercialized Bt 
maize, which has reportedly help ed to limit FAW damage to their maize production. Field trials of 
Bt maize have been conducted in Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda and Nigeria, but these 
varieties have not yet been commercialized. Additional insect resistance traits targeting FAW have 
not yet begun fiel d trials in Sub -Saharan Africa.  
3.6.  Under IPM, farmers can use biological control methods in conjunction with resistant crop 
varieties and other management approaches. Biological control methods for FAW include releasing 
predatory insects and  parasitoids that aim to reduce pest populations within farmers ' fields. 
Another approach involves releasing GE self -limiting FAW moths that would reduce pest 
populations by mating with wild FAW moths to produce non -viable offspring. The self -limiting FAW 
would likely require coordinated government -sponsored releases across national boundaries, 
similar to the sterile insect technique (SIT) employed by FAO and the IAEA since the 1950s as part 
of area -wide IPM strategies to suppress insect pests. The self -limiting approach has proven 
successful for mosquito control in Brazil. Biocontrol methods require further research to validate 
their efficacy and applica bility to manage FAW in Africa.  
3.7.  Additionally, the regulatory process in most African countries for biocon trol products is 
unclear, especially where their use involves releasing non -native organisms into the environment. 
Many of the same regulatory challenges for GE crops will also apply to GE insects. Clear and 
predictable regulatory pathways need to be estab lished. The development of classical biological 
control tools in African countries will require engagement of national and regional authorities in a 
wide variety of ministries to address various laws enabling biological control (such as registration, 
biosa fety, etc.). Some African officials report a lack of technical capacity for conducting and 
evaluating environmental risk assessments. Capacity is also needed for implementation of 
stewardship of such tools once they are introduced.  
4  RECOM MENDATIONS FOR THE FIFTH REVIEW  
4.1.  Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay believe there is a 
compelling need to enable greater access to safe tools and technologies in the quest for safer and 
more sustainable agriculture and to prevent food insecurit y.  We also consider that the significance 
of FAW, and the importance of the application of principles affirmed in the SPS Agreement to the 
handling of FAW, make FAW an example that could form a basis for valuable discussion by 
Members. To that end, we rec ommend that interested Members of the Committee form a working 
group for the purpose of undertaking the activities outlined in sections 5 and 6 of this paper. The 
working group could, at an appropriate time, provide a report on its activities to the Commit tee. 
5  THE SPS AGREEMENT AN D FAW  
5.1.  Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay note that strengthened 
implementation of the following principles affirmed in the SPS Agreement in the development and 
implementation of SPS measures carries significant potential to reduce unnecessary burdens, 
increase the efficiency and predictability of science -based outcomes and improve human and plant 
health:  G/SPS/W/305  
 
- 4 - 
 
  a. Risk analysis;  
b. Scientific evidence ; 
c. Harmonization ; 
d. International standards ; 
e. Transparency and predi ctability . 
5.2.  We recommend that the working group examine, identify, and discuss examples of the 
effective use by Members of these principles to enable greater access to safe tools and 
technologies to manage FAW in Africa. The working group could also determi ne if any of these 
principles have not been employed in the FAW context as well as the reasons why, and how the 
principle could be relevant in the future.  
6  TOWARDS SAFER AND MO RE SUSTAINABLE AGRIC ULTURE  
6.1.  Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay recognize that 
collaboration at the regional and international level to streamline and improve regulatory 
approaches to pre -market approvals and inspection systems (e.g., for pesticides, bi otech, seeds, 
etc. as appropriate), with respect to products affected by FAW could support national and regional 
efforts to increase access to those products. Such collaboration could focus on, inter alia , the 
following areas:  
a. Field trials;  
b. Data portabilit y; 
c. Common application dossiers ; 
d. Joint risk assessments ; 
e. Unilateral recognition of the results of risk assessments/regulatory determinations ; 
f. Mutual recognition . 
6.2.  We recommend that the working group collect and compile information and experiences 
resulting from collaboration in these areas. The compilation could serve as a resource for national 
and regional authorities with capacity or expertise constraints in the development of their own 
systems and strategies. The compilation would obviously not affect Mem bers' rights and 
obligations under the SPS Agreement.  
6.3.  Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay believe there is a 
compelling need to enable greater access to safe tools and technologies in the quest for safer and 
more sustainable agriculture and to prevent food insecurity. We recommend that interested 
Members of the Committee form a working group to develop these  documents outlined in 
sections  5 and 6 of this paper for consideration by the Committee under the Fifth Review.  
 
_______ ___