G/SPS/W/307  
 
17 September 2018 
(18-5721) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E SPS AGREEMENT – REGIONALIZATION  
FIFTH REVIEW  
Submission from Brazil  
The following communication, received on 14 September  2018, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of Brazil . 
 
_______________  
 
 
On the occasion of  the Fifth Review of the operation and implementation of the Agreement on 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), Brazil presents to the Committee on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures the following matter for its consideration, recommendation and poss ible 
adoption.  
1  REGIONALIZATION (ART ICLE 6)  
1.1.  Regionalization, as provided in Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, is one of the main instruments 
driving trade facilitation and promoting safe trade in agricultural products, enabling Members to 
tailor the implement ation of measures to the specific sanitary and phytosanitary conditions and 
characteristics of their territory.  
1.2.  Indeed, the effective implementation of Article 6 and of the concepts presented in Annex A of 
the SPS Agreement are important tools for the prom otion of the objectives of the SPS Agreement, 
including : (i) improving human health, animal health and phytosanitary situations; (ii) avoiding 
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between Members where the same conditions prevail , or 
disguised restric tions on international trade; and (iii) providing technical assistance in sanitary and 
phytosanitary matters to developing country Members.  
1.3.  Nevertheless, the adaptation of SPS measures to regional conditions may be hindered if 
Members do not accept a pest or disease status recognized by the pertinent international 
organizations. In order to tackle these challenges, Members should aim for the harmonization of 
their regulatory framework and for the recognition, expeditiously and without undue delay, of a 
disease status granted by the OIE or of an area established in accordance with the standards of the 
IPPC. Recent jurisprudence on the issue recognizes the key role the Agreement attributes to 
international organizations on  the matter.  
1.4.  Furthermore, Members face  other difficulties for the effective adaptation of SPS regulation s to 
regional status, which are related to several issues, including, but not limited, to : (i) the substantial 
investments needed to achieve and maintain the status of pest or disease free areas, or areas of 
low pest or disease prevalence (particularly for developing countries); (ii) the different requirements 
adopted by the competent international organizations (particularly OIE) and importing Members; 
and (iii) the lack of recognition by i mporting Members that specific areas are, and are likely to 
remain, pest - or disease -free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence.  
1.5.  On account of some of these challenges, Members continue to raise trade concerns related to 
the application of these  concepts. Temporary geographic prohibitions for SPS reasons and G/SPS/W/307  
 
- 2 - 
 
  geographical restrictions on eligibility are frequently the main motives behind the spec ific trade 
concerns discussed i n the regular meetings of the Committee.  
1.6.  Recent work by the SPS Committe e has highlighted some of these  issues, such as the adoption, 
in May 2008, of the "Guidelines to further the practical implementation of Article 6 of the Agreement 
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures", document G/SPS/48. The document 
was formulated with a view to provide assistance to Members in the practical implementation of 
Article 6 by improving transparency, exchange of information, predictability, confidence and 
credibility between importing and exporting parties. Periodical revi sions of the Guidelines were 
initially envisaged, but, as recalled by the European Union i n document G/SPS/W/298, this work has 
not been undertaken since its initial adoption.  
1.7.  The significance of the work on regionalization carried out by Members and by relevant 
international organizations, since the adoption of the SPS Agreement and of the Guidelines, can be 
showcased by the successful eradication of rinderpest in 2011. Other advances in recognition of 
disease -free areas and areas of low disease prevalence  worldwide are also constantly reported by 
Members during  the sessions of the Committee.  
1.8.  Taking into consideration the importance of the implementation of Article 6 and the positive 
outcomes for the work of SPS agencies and for international trade stemming  from the recognition 
of sanitary and phytosanitary status, as well as the important discussions carried out during the 
thematic session on regionalization held in July 2017, Brazil - in line with document G/SPS/W/303, 
presented by the United States, and G /SPS/W/298, presented by the European Union - understands 
that Members should strive to agree on actions and activities with an aim to facilitate the 
implementation of Article 6.  
2  PROPOSAL  
2.1.  In order to develop and promote the implementation of provisions rel ated to adaptation to 
regional conditions, including pest - or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or disease 
prevalence, Brazil proposes the following:  
(a) Members should reaffirm that regionalization, as a fundamental principle of the SPS 
Agreement, is a n important and necessary tool for the protection of human, animal or plant 
life or health, while promoting and facilitating trade in agricultural and animal products;  
(b) Members should continue their commitment to share experiences and information on their 
internal regulatory systems with a view to improving the implementation of regionalization 
provisions;  
(c) The OIE and the IPPC are invited to share with the SPS Committee the outcome of their 
on-going work, experience and activities in relation to regionaliza tion, recognition of pest -
free-areas and trade facilitation; and  
(d) The Committee should examine the Guidelines on Article 6 (G/SPS/48) in order to assess 
their effectiveness and their implementation, as well as to streamline and improve the 
Guidelines, with a view to promote the recognition, expeditiously and without undue delay, 
of pest — or disease — free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence granted by 
the relevant international organizations.  
 
__________