G/SPS/60  
 
30 July 2013  
(13-4100)  Page: 1/3  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS 
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION 
FIFTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT 
Adopted by the Committee on 28 June 2013 
1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1.  At its meeting of 15-16 October 1997, the SPS Committee adopted a provisional procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization and the use of international standards, 
guidelines or recommendations, as provided for in Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement. 
The Committee extended the provisional monito ring procedure in 1999, 2001, and 2003, and 
revised the procedure in October 2004.1 In 2006, the Committee agreed to extend the provisional 
procedure indefinitely, and to review its operation as  an integral part of the periodic review of the 
operation and implementation of the Agreement under Article 12.7.2 This procedure was reviewed 
as part of the Third Review of the Agreement3, and will be reviewed again in 2014 in the context of 
the Fourth Review. 
1.2.  The Committee has previously adopted fourteen annual reports on the monitoring 
procedure.4 These reports summarize several standards-related issues that the Committee has 
considered and the responses received from th e relevant standard-setting organizations. 
2  PROPOSED REVISION TO THE MONITORING PROCEDURE (G/SPS/W/268) 2.1.  In July 2012, Argentina submitted a proposal to revise the monitoring procedure 
(G/SPS/W/268). The proposed modifications were further discussed at the October 2012 meeting 
of the SPS Committee. Argentina indicated that the aim of the proposal was to ensure that the 
reports adopted by the Committee on the monitoring  of the use of international standards better 
reflected the actual importance of the international standards. The proposed modifications to the 
procedure in G/SPS/11/Rev.1 would enable the Secretariat to include in the annual report, unless 
the submitting Member requested otherwise, the issues that had been raised under the agenda 
item on "Specific Trade Concerns" when these rela ted to non-use of international standards or the 
absence of existing standards. 
2.2.  In support of Argentina's proposal, Chile no ted that at the Transparency workshop held in 
October 2012, the Secretariat had demonstrated that it was possible while notifying a measure using the online notification system, to indicate any deviation from the existing international 
standards. Chile observed that more than 57% of  notifications did not indicate any international 
standards, even in cases where the standards exis ted. The notification system could be further 
developed to make it another tool for monitoring harmonization. 
                                               
1 G/SPS/14, G/SPS/17, G/SP S/25 and G/SPS/11/Rev.1. 
2 G/SPS/40. 
3 G/SPS/53. 
4 These were circulated as G/SPS/13, G/SPS/16, G/SPS/18, G/SPS/21, G/SPS/ 28, G/SPS/31, G/SPS/37, 
G/SPS/42, G/SPS/45, G/SP S/49, G/SPS/51, G/SPS/54, G/SPS/56 and G/SPS/59. G/SPS/60 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3.  While Canada agreed that the procedure to monitor international harmonization could be 
improved, it was a Member's right to identify problems related to deviation from international standards and to raise them either as Specific Trade Concerns or under the agenda item "Monitoring the use of International Standards". 
2.4.  The Chairperson noted the lack of consen sus on the proposal by Argentina and suggested 
that this be discussed again at the next Committe e meeting. Bilateral discussions among Members 
on the subject matter were encouraged. 
3  NEW ISSUES 
3.1.  At the October 2012 meeting, the United States encouraged all Members to promote the use 
of international standards in their national SPS programmes and to actively participate in the on-going work of the three standard-setting bodies recognised under the SPS Agreement. The work in 
progress included the OIE's General session in May 2012 where 29 standards were adopted by the 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code Commission; and the Codex Commission's adoption of a large number of standards, including maximum residue limits for the veterinary drug ractopamine. 
International standards were critical for ensuring safe food for consumers and facilitating trade. 
3.2.  Brazil, Canada, Chile and Paraguay also stre ssed the importance of international standards. 
The international standard-setting bodies needed to be inclusive to achieve harmonization. By 
participating in the work of the ISSBs and ascribing to these international standards, Members 
would contribute to minimizing diverging requirements. Benin, Burkina Faso and Morocco recognized the importance of the standard-setting bodies and noted the problems faced by developing countries in conducting risk assessments in the absence of standards. An appeal was 
made to speed up the process of standard setting, especially where there is a need for specialist / 
technical knowledge, and to support developing countries in producing local exposure data for conducting risk assessments. Burkina Faso urge d the renewal and increase of the Codex Trust 
Fund in order to support developing countries in the adoption of international standards. 
3.3.  At the March 2013 meeting, Brazil took the opportunity to draw the Committee's attention to 
the 50th anniversary of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Brazil highlighted that the 
organization had always remained fully committed to protecting the health of consumers and that 
it had been crucial in the establishment of science-based standards, guidelines and recommendations for food safety. 
3.4.  At the June 2013 meeting, Brazil tabled a paper noting the 50th anniversary of the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission, the importance of Code x standards and the need to ensure that these 
remain based on scientific evidence (G/SPS/GEN/1253). Many Members stressed the importance of Codex and other international standards, particul arly for developing countries. Several Members 
highlighted the importance of the Codex Trust Fund  in promoting the participation of developing 
countries in the body's work. Chile and Argentina reiterated their call that the SPS Committee's monitoring procedure adequately reflect how Code x and other standards are used by Members.  
3.5.  The observer from the Lebanese Republic noted the lack of a standard on maximum residue 
levels of antibiotics and pesticides in honey, and encouraged Codex to develop such a standard. 
4  PREVIOUS ISSUES 4.1.  Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Annual Report, there has been no discussion of issues 
previously raised under this procedure.  
5  RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM THE RELEVANT STANDARD-SETTING ORGANIZATIONS 5.1.  At the October 2012, March and June 2013 meetings of the Committee, the IPPC reported on 
its Implementation Review and Support System (IRSS) (latest update in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1259). The IRSS programme was developed as a proactive means to identify the extent of implementation of the IPPC and its International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 
(ISPMs), to diagnose challenges to implementation, and to offer support to strengthen future 
implementation. The IPPC reported in June 2013 that 73 contracting parties had replied to a survey sent on the implementation of the IPPC an d ISPMs, and that a draft report would be made G/SPS/60 
 
- 3 - 
 
  available at a later stage. Funding for the first three-year cycle of the IRSS had been made 
possible by the financial support of the European  Union and the first two years of the cycle had 
concluded in March 2013. The IPPC was preparing a concept note outlining the future direction and focus of IRSS work during the next cycle, and ho ped to provide further information on this to the 
October 2013 SPS Committee meeting. 
5.2.  At the October 2012 meeting, Codex indicated that it did not have a specific system of 
monitoring like the IPPC, but regularly gathered information on how Codex standards were being 
used, the needs of member countries and/or why standards were not being used in certain 
regions. Codex used a regular questionnaire for this monitoring process. The Codex Trust Fund 
initially had the objective of ensuring effective participation and addressing the issue of generation of data to ensure risk assessments were based on  data gathered throughout the world. The Trust 
Fund was financing pilot projects relating to food hygiene and food safety as part of the capacity 
building on the regional and sometimes national level. 
 
__________