G/SPS/W/294  
 
2 June 2017 
(17-2959) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
WTO SPS COMMITTEE: T RANSPARENCY WORKSHOP  OCTOBER 2017  
COMMUNICATION FROM  THE UNITED STATES OF AME RICA 
The following communication, received on 31 May  2017, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States of America . 
 
_____________ __ 
 
 
1.  The United States appreciates the work of the Secretariat in organizing a Transparency 
Workshop to be held on the margins of the meeting of the SPS Committee on 2 -3 November 2017. 
We value the Committee’s work in strengthening Members’ implementation of the transparency 
obligations in the SPS Agreement. The work of other organizations, such as the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development1, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation2, and the 
World  Bank3, has established that transparency in rul emaking can confer broad societal benefits 
through more effective and efficient regulations.  
2.  Articles 5.3 and 5.4, as well as the second recital of the preamble, of the SPS Agreement place 
a premium on measures that improve human, animal and plant health w hile minimizing 
unnecessary economic costs associated with implementation. In our view, the information 
accessed through public consultations can play a key role in the ability of the regulatory authority 
to minimize such unnecessary costs. In particular, regulators’ consideration of and response to 
comments prior to finalizing an SPS measure, as provided for in paragraph 5(d) of Annex B of the 
SPS Agreement, is critical to minimizing the negative impact on trade.  
3.  At the Transparency Workshop held on the ma rgins of the Committee meeting in 
November  2015, several Delegates indicated challenges in accessing the benefits of transparency 
due largely to a lack of established administrative procedures to interact with the range of 
interested individuals and groups  in a fair, predictable and accountable way that can improve the 
efficiency and effectiveness – or in short, the quality – of SPS measures. In particular, several 
Delegates shared challenges in collecting information from the public – especially informatio n from 
their agricultural producers, processors and traders – on SPS conditions to sufficiently inform the 
development and implementation of effective and efficient SPS measures.  
4.  Therefore, we suggest that the upcoming Workshop to be held on the margins o f the 
Committee meeting on 2 -3 November 2017 examine the various methods and tools for the 
conduct of public consultations in the SPS rulemaking process. We suggest a focus on the benefits 
of open, inclusive and accountable procedures in preventing obstacl es to trade resulting from 
unjustified SPS measures. For example, Members could present case studies demonstrating 
procedures that prevented a negative impact on trade or that resulted in a more effective outcome 
on animal or plant health. Specifically, we  believe the following topics would be of value to 
Members:  
                                                
1 See https://www.oecd.org/mena/governance/36785341.pdf . 
2 See https://www.oecd.org/regreform/34989455.pd f. 
3 See http://rulemaking.worldbank.org/  and 
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated /en/543401468176979961/pdf/556450WP0Box0349461B0GovReg01P
UBLIC1.pdf  G/SPS/W/294  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Models and mechanisms for public consultation in SPS rulemaking  
 OECD Secretariat to speak on models of public consultation (consultation procedures and 
tools, consultation documents, etc.)  
 Exchang e of Members’ experiences in conducting public consultations (consultation 
procedures and tools, consultation documents, use of the internet, etc.) and internal 
mechanisms to link public consultations to SPS notifications  
 The role of eP ing in expanding pr ivate sector access to SPS notifications and opportunities 
for input into public consultations  
Achieving the benefits of public consultation in SPS rulemaking  
 Exchange of Members’ experiences: Case studies of public consultations that improved 
regulatory quality through  
o expanding access to expertise, scientific evidence, and proposed alternatives from the 
public;  
o assisting regulators in synthesizing/reconciling information from opposing interests;  
o deploying techniques and practices to assess the quality o f information provided by 
the public;  
o identifying unintended effects, practical problems and administrative burdens; and  
o improving the quality and accuracy of a risk assessment.  
 Private sector views  
o The role and value of the public in providing technical a nd scientific information as 
well as knowledge of production and technologies;  
o The importance of having sufficient time to review draft measures after the regulator 
has developed a proposal but is still able to make changes in response to comments;  
o The val ue of openness and accessibility in limiting undue influence and in providing 
confidence in how the government reconciles information and comments submitted by 
the public; and  
o Utilizing contributions of expert participation in consultative and advisory gro ups while 
ensuring access and participation by interested persons outside of advisory groups.  
5.  The United States strongly supports the Committee’s work on transparency. We appreciate the 
opportunity to share these views and look forward to the views of oth er Members.  
 
__________