G/SPS/W/269  
 
7 June 2013  
(13-2959)  Page: 1/3  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS 
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION 
DRAFT FIFTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT1 
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 
adopted a revision of the procedure in October 2004.2 On 28 June 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 implem entation of the Agreement under Article 12.7.3 This 
procedure was reviewed as part of the Third Re view of the Agreement adopted by the Committee 
in March 2010.4 The Committee is to undertake a review at least once every four years. 
1.2.  The Committee has previously adopted fourteen annual reports on the monitoring 
procedure.5 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). Some Members requested more ti me to consider the proposed modifications. 
2.2.  At the October 2012 meeting of the SPS Comm ittee, 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 related to non-use of international standards or the absence of existing standards. 
2.3.  In support of Argentina's proposal, Chile noted that at the Transparency workshop held 
earlier in the week, the Secretariat 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. 
2.4.  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 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the position of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/14, G/SPS/17, G/SP S/25 and G/SPS/11/Rev.1. 
3 G/SPS/40. 
4 G/SPS/53. 
5 These were circulated as G/SP S/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/W/269 
 
- 2 - 
 
  standards and to raise them either as "Specific Trade Concerns (STCs)" or under the agenda item 
"Monitoring the use of International Standards". 
2.5.  The Chairperson noted the lack of consen sus on the proposal by Argentina and suggested 
that this be discussed again at the next Committee meeting. Bilateral discussions among Members 
on the subject matter were encouraged. 
3  NEW ISSUES 3.1.  Since the adoption of the Fourteenth A nnual Report in July 2012, only one new issue has 
been raised under this procedure, regarding the importance of international standards and their 
adoption.  
3.2.  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. 
3.3.  Brazil, Canada, Chile and Paraguay also stre ssed the importance of international standards. 
The international standards-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. 
3.4.  Benin, Burkina Faso and Morocco recognized  the importance of the standard-setting bodies, 
and noted the problem faced by developing countries in conducting risk assessments in the 
absence of standards. An appeal was made to speed up the process of standards setting, especially where there is a need for specialist / technical knowledge, and to support developing 
countries in producing local exposure data for co nducting risk assessment. Burkina Faso urged the 
renewal and increase of the Codex Trust Fund in order to support developing countries in the adoption of international standards. 
3.5.  At the March 2013 meeting, Brazil took the opportunity to draw the Committee's attention to 
the 50
th 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. 
4  PREVIOUS ISSUES 4.1.  Since the adoption of the Thirteenth Annua l 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 and March 2013 meetings of the Committee, the IPPC reported on its 
Implementation Review and Support System (IRSS) (G/SPS/GEN/1204). The IRSS system 
provides a help desk to address specific issues identified by member countries. 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. All of this was 
outside of the context of compliance. The project had received extensive positive feedback based 
on its unique approach of analysing implementation and tailoring support solutions to fit 
contracting parties' identified needs. However, the utility of the IRSS studies faced challenges in 
terms of lack of funds for translating the studies, in order to make the products more widely accessible to all interested parties. Funding for the three-year cycle of the IRSS was made possible 
by the financial support of the European Union and the first two years of the cycle concluded in 
March 2013. A summary of the major actions, review and support activities completed through the IRSS can be found in G/SPS/GEN/1225. G/SPS/W/269 
 
- 3 - 
 
  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. 
 
__________