G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1  
 
15 October 2019 
(19-6673) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
FIFTH REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE AGRE EMENT  
ON THE APPLICATION O F SANITARY AND PHYTO SANITARY MEASURES  
COMPILATION OF DRAFT RECOMMENDATION S SUBMITTED  BY MEMBERS  FOR THE FIFTH REVIEW  
Note by the Secretariat1 
Revision  
The following draft recommendations  for the Fifth Review Report , and other suggestions , have been 
compiled from the proposals submitted under the Fifth Review, and Members' written inputs in 
response to  the Chairperson's request at the July 2019 S PS Committee meeting  and the September 
2019 consultations . 
This compilation of recommendations should be read in conjunction with the summary of the informal 
SPS Committee meeting s on the Fifth Review  (JOB/SPS/2/Rev.3 ), which summarizes Members' 
reactions to submitted propo sals. The recommendations included in this compilation reflect the latest 
submissions from the proponents, in the case where a proponent subsequently revised their original 
proposal/recommendations.  The recommendations are ordered alphabetically by topic, similar to the 
format used in the draft Report of the Fifth Review ( G/SPS/ W/313 ). 
In some cases, the recommendations have been slightly edited in order to provide additional context 
contained in other sections  of the submitted proposal s. 
Members are invited to review these recommendations and provide comments at the informal 
consultations on 25 September 2019 , and/or in writing to the Secretariat 
(SPSCommittee@wto.org ) by 4 October  2019 .2 
1  APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF  PROTECTION, RISK AS SESSMENT AND SCIENCE  
1.1  Brazil  
1.1.  Recommendations /suggestions  as contained in G/SPS/W/308 : 
a. In order to develop and promote the adoption of science -based p rocedures for the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement, Brazil proposes the following:  
i. Members should be urged to recognize that the risk assessment, as regulated under 
Article 5.1, is the main criteria and means by which scientific justification is attained 
for the adoption and implementation of SPS measures.  
ii. Members should – when making notifications of corresponding provisional measures – 
specify that they are taken under Article 5.7, stating their views on the insufficiency 
of sci entific evidence in relation to the issue that gave origin to the measure and that 
the Member has sought and will continuously seek additional information in order to 
review the measure accordingly and within a reasonable period of time.  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 This deadline was subsequently extended to 1 0 October 2019.  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
 iii. The Committee shou ld ask Codex Alimentarius, as well as other relevant international 
organizations, to work on the procedural steps necessary, given the impossibility of 
establishing a proper risk assessment, for the adoption and application of provisional 
measures.  
1.2  Canada  
1.2.  Recommendations/suggestions  on ALOP, risk assessment and science:  
a. The International Standard Setting Bodies are invited to inform the Committee of their 
standards, guidelines, and recommendation or other relevant documents that they have 
developed regardin g the consideration of insufficient scientific evidence.  
b. The Committee should continue to discuss the topic of risk and consider next steps for 
discussion based on the information provided by the ISSBs.  
1.3  Ecuador  
1.3.  Ecuador supports the views expressed by Brazi l in document G/SPS/W/308. It is vital that 
Members uphold the notion that risk assessment is fundamental for the implementation of SPS 
measures and that such measures must be science -based in order to mitigate identified risks without 
creating unnecessary  barriers to trade. Ecuador is willing to continue to engage in dialogue on this 
matter with a view to ensuring that decisions are made on the basis of scientific evidence and 
existing international parameters.  
1.4  Turkey  
1.4.  Regarding Brazil's proposal ( G/SPS/W/308 ) on risk assessment and appropriate level of 
protection, Turkey conside rs Article 5 - Assessment of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate 
Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection of the SPS Agreement to be quite clear and enough. 
Therefore, Turkey does not see any need to urge countries to recognize the same objectiv es given 
there and adding a requirement to notifications given under paragraph 2.1(b) of Brazil's proposal 
which will create an additional burden in terms of both administrative work and time.  
2  CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDU RES (ANNEX C)  
2.1  Canada  
2.1.  Recommendation/suggestion  on approval procedures as contained in G/SPS/W/310 : 
a. Canada proposes that a thematic session on approval procedures be held in November 
2019 as part of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on 
the Application  of SPS Measures. As part of a thematic session on approval procedures, 
Members, International Standard Setting Bodies (ISSBs) and other organizations that have 
valuable perspectives in this area could be invited to share experiences, best practices, 
devel opments as well as relevant standards, guidelines and recommendations of ongoing 
or potential work relevant to approval procedures.3 
2.2  Turkey  
2.2.  Turkey would like to express its willingness to share its experiences on the subject.  
 
3 A Thematic Session on Approval Procedures will be held on 5 November 2019. In addition, a Workshop 
on Control, Inspection  and Approval Procedures was held in July 2018.  
 G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
 3  EQUIVALENCE4 
3.1  Australia  
3.1.  Recommendations/suggestions on equivalence  as contained in G/SPS /W/299 : 
a. Within the framework of the Fifth Review, the SPS Committee would explore the 
impediments to the application of the concept and practices of equivalence to manage SPS 
risks in trade. Where it would assist Members to expand their use of equivalence to facilitate 
safe trade, the SPS Committee could expand on existing guidance on recognition of 
equivalence in relation to systems approaches for achieving equivalence in achieving the 
importing Members' appropriate level of protection of plant, animal and  human health while 
permitting trade to begin, continue or resume.  
b. The Review would expand on guidance provided to Members in the Decision on the 
Implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures specifi cally in relation to the determination of equivalence of a 
systems approach.5 
c. The Review would draw on existing and ongoing work of the ISSBs, in relation to systems 
approaches that may be used in determining if a systems approach could be considered as 
equivalent to existing measures and achieve the importing Member's appropriate level of 
protection.  
3.2  Brazil  
3.2.  Recommendations/suggestions  on equivalence as contained in G/SPS/W/301 : 
a. To improve the implementation of Article 4, Members should recognize the importance of 
the Decision  (G/SPS/19/Rev.2 ), commit to follow its provisions and reinforce the 
commit ment of their countries to enter into consultations when requested, following Article 
4.2 and the procedures described in the Decision itself.  
3.3  Canada  
3.3.  Recommendations/suggestions  on equivalence as contained in G/SPS/W/302/Rev.1 : 
a. Canada would like to propose, for the Committee's consideration, a workshop or thematic 
session on equivalence as part of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of 
the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  
3.4.  Recommendations/suggestions  on equivalence proposed in the July 2019 informal SPS 
Committee meeting : 
a. The Committee should continue discussions and information exchange on the topic of 
equivalence through the existing agenda item and in -depth discussion during future 
thematic sessions, informal meetings, and working groups as appropriate.  
b. Members are encou raged to coordinate with their Codex, OIE, and IPPC representatives 
and experts to highlight the importance of understanding trade impacts during the 
development and discussions of international standards, guidelines, and recommendations 
on the issue of eq uivalence.  
3.4  Ecuador  
3.5.  For Ecuador, enhancing dialogue on the principle of equivalence is essential given that these 
issues are of interest when conducting trade negotiations. In this respect, it should be noted that 
 
4 The SPS Committee held a two -part Thematic Session on Equivalence in October 2018 and February 
2019. 
5 Australia subsequently noted that while there might still be a need to review the existing guidance, 
especially in relation to systems approaches, it also recognized that Members did not have an appetite to do so 
(paragraph 1.3(o) of JOB/SPS/2/Rev.3 ). G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
 Ecuador has aligned itself with the interna tional practices established in the Codex and will continue 
its efforts in this area.  
4  FALL ARMYWORM6 
4.1  Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay  
4.1.  Recommendations/suggestions  on fall armyworm as contained in G/SPS/W/305 : 
a. We recommend 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 Committee.  
i. 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 determine if any 
of these principles have not been employed in the FAW contex t as well as the reasons 
why, and how the principle could be relevant in the future.  
ii. 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 Members' rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement.  
iii. Brazil, Kenya, Madagasc ar, 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 Memb ers 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.  
4.2  Brazil, Kenya, Paraguay and the United States  
4.2.  Recommendations/suggestions  as containe d in G/SPS/W/317 : 
a. Brazil, Kenya, Paraguay and the United States propose th at the concepts identified below 
could productively be a subject of further Committee discussion in connection with FAW 
and could be assembled into a Committee document, connected to the Fifth Review, on 
approaches to streamline regulatory processes with r espect to FAW. We recognize these 
concepts can be helpful in addressing other SPS challenges as well, particularly for 
authorities facing capacity constraints. Such a document could assist Members in 
strengthening implementation of Article 9 of the SPS Agr eement.  
i. The concepts are: (i) data portability; (ii) common application dossiers; (iii) joint risk 
assessments; (iv) adaptation to regional conditions; (v) unilateral recognition; 
(vi) mutual recognition; (vii) familiarity; (viii) history of safe use; (ix)  equivalence; 
(x) harmonization; and (xi) emergency use authorization.  
4.3  India  
4.3.  The following are India's comments on the draft recommendations/suggestions in document 
G/SPS/W/318 regarding paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 about fall armyworm (FAW):  
a. We recognize the im portance of devising ways and means to tackle fall armyworm (FAW). 
We are also committed to building stakeholder’s capacities through mutual cooperation 
and support. However, we feel that further deliberations are required to obtain clarity on 
some of the concepts being proposed in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2. We note that market 
access to products, tools, and technologies will be governed by regulations and laws in 
 
6 The SPS Committee held a Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm in February 2019, followed by the first 
meeting of the open -ended working group on fall armyworm.  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
 force in each Member’s territory. We request the proponents to elaborate upon the 
following:  
i. Are the concepts being proposed to address the SPS challenges relating to FAW 
voluntary in nature or are they to be adhered to in a prescriptive manner?  
ii. Is the list of concepts exhaustive or is it merely an indicative/inclusive one?  
iii. With respect to the followi ng: 
1) Data portability;  
2) Common application dossiers;  
3) Joint risk assessments;  
4) Familiarity  
5) History of safe use; and  
6) Emergency use authorization.  
What is the legal basis for these concepts under the SPS Agreement? Do the concepts 
adhere to the requirements specified under the SPS Agreement or are some of them 
SPS-plus? 
5  NATIONAL SPS COORDIN ATION MECHANISMS  
5.1  Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, 
Nigeria, the United States and Zambia  
5.1.  Recommendations/suggestions  on national SPS committees  as contained in G/SPS/W/297 : 
a. We propose that the SPS Committee examine the  following matters , as well as others of 
interest to Members, through an exchange of experiences in a thematic session or workshop 
to be held in late 2018 or early 2019 :7 
i. The mechanism for establishment and composition of national SPS committees;  
ii. The role of the private sec tor in advising or providing input to national SPS committees;  
iii. The procedures for developing national SPS strategies and positions in regional and 
international organizations;  
iv. Use of established information exchange mechanisms; and  
v. Role of national SPS com mittees in advocacy.  
b. Following the Committee's examination of these matters, we would welcome other 
Members' views as to whether a "good practices" document would be useful to Members.  
In our view, a collection of good practices could assist developing cou ntries, recently 
acceded Members and countries seeking to accede to the WTO. We are interested in others' 
views.  
5.2  Canada  
5.2.  Recommendation/suggestion on national SPS coordination mechanisms:  
a. Members are encouraged to implement appropriate national coordination  mechanisms to 
enable consultation and communication between relevant technical and trade policy experts 
to enable the development of coordinated SPS positions.  
 
7 A joint Workshop on Transparency and Coordination was held on 15 -16 July 2019.  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
 6  NOTIFICATION PROCEDU RES AND TRANSPARENCY  
6.1  Brazil  
6.1.  Recommendations/suggestions  on notification procedures and transparency as contained in 
G/SPS/W/300 : 
a. Without prejudice to the rights and obligations of Members under other committees, and 
for the purpose of enhancing predictability and transparency in situations where a Member 
considers it is difficult to establish or foresee wh ether a draft technical regulation may fall 
under the SPS and/or the TBT Agreement, Brazil understands that Members should notify 
simultaneously the measure in both Committees in accordance with the recommended 
procedures for implementing the transparency obligations of the SPS Agreement set forth 
on G/SPS/7/Rev.4 . 
b. In line wit h the above, and taking into account the challenges arising from defining whether 
a measure falls within the scope of one or both agreements, Brazil proposes to further 
address this cross -cutting issue through thematic sessions and workshops, with a view t o 
developing practical guidelines for notifications.8 
6.2  Canada  
6.2.  Recommendations/suggestions  on notification procedures/transparency:  
a. Members are encouraged to clearly indicate in their SPS Committee notification when a 
measure has been notified to another Committee.  
b. The Secretariat is requested to update the SPS notification templates to include a new 
section 'related notifications'. The 'related notifications' section would be completed by 
Members when a SPS measure is notified to other Committees or when there are other 
related notifications.  
6.3  Ecuador  
6.3.  In this regard, it should be emphasized that the ePing system has been extremely useful for 
the internal analysis of draft regulations and for sending comments. Ecuador is constantly analyzing 
notifica tions received via the ePing platform, thanks to the coordinated efforts of the Permanent 
Mission to the WTO, the Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, Investment and Fisheries, and 
agencies directly involved in the application of sanitary and phytosanita ry measures.  
6.4.  Nevertheless, Ecuador considers it important to point out that even though Members submit 
notifications in the official WTO languages (English, Spanish or French), the notified regulations 
themselves are often drafted in the language of the no tifying country, which makes it difficult to 
properly understand not only their scope but their potential impact on Ecuador's exportable supply. 
We therefore suggest looking at ways of facilitating access to English, Spanish or French translations 
of notif ied regulations.  
7  PESTICIDE MRLS  
7.1  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, 
Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uganda, the United 
States and Uruguay  
7.1.  Recommendations/suggestions  on pesticide MRLs  as contained in G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4 :9 
a. We believe the Commit tee should encourage Members, as a matter of some urgency, to 
approach their Codex representatives to highlight the trade issues raised during discussions 
 
8 A joint Workshop on Transparency and Coordination was held on 15 -16 July 2019.  
9 Minist ers of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala,  
Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uganda, the United States and Uruguay signed a joint 
statement supporting the recommendations contained in this submission. See WT/MIN(17)/52 . G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
 on MRLs at the SPS Committee and to participate actively in their inter -ministerial 
discussions on MR L issues. Members should encourage national discussions of options that 
could enable a more productive Codex MRL system; and in particular, to hasten discussions 
on ways to achieve sustainable funding for the scientific bodies. Such discussions would 
take place in the context of national resource availability, and could include, inter alia, 
options for increasing support to JMPR, increasing representative expert participation and 
other forms of support for the scientific bodies as well as encouraging progra mmes to 
support submission of data from developing countries especially on minor crops. The 
Committee should also invite regular updates from Codex on its progress in the evaluation 
of new compounds and new uses.  
b. We believe the SPS Committee should conside r ways for WTO Members to provide greater 
transparency and predictability worldwide on MRLs by urging Members to: (1) notify all 
proposed changes to their MRLs, including changes to MRLs that are based on international 
standards; and (2) review and improve  their ability to take the comments of their trading 
partners meaningfully into account when considering proposed changes on MRLs.  
c. We believe the Committee should welcome efforts by Members of these regional initiatives 
and the relevant observer organizations to provide regular updates to the Committee on 
their harmonization and other collaborative activities on MRLs. Such information could 
provide the basis for other Members to take up creative new MRL -related initiatives at the 
national and regi onal levels to improve harmonization to Codex MRLs as well as to regional 
MRLs where relevant, in order to facilitate trade.  
d. We believe the SPS Committee should invite Members, on a voluntary basis, to explore 
ways in which their domestic regulatory approa ches to pesticide registration and use can 
impact – both negatively and positively – the incentives of the private sector to invest in 
registration and stewardship of lower -risk alternative pesticides in their countries. The SPS 
Committee should also invit e Members to evaluate their own minor use needs and to 
collaborate in global data generation activities.  
e. We recommend the Committee include all of the recommendations put forward in this paper 
in its Report of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implemen tation of the SPS 
Agreement.  
7.2  Ecuador  
7.2.  Ecuador supports the recommendations set out in document G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4. The work of 
the JMPR needs to be strengthened in order to ensure a timely response to issues that arise regarding 
the setting of MRLs. In Ecuad or's view, it is vital that all Members be aligned with the principles 
established in the SPS Agreement and base their measures on the international decisions on 
pesticide MRLs adopted by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.  
7.3  Turkey  
7.3.  It is considered t hat the countries setting more restrictive measures on MRLs than the 
international standards should share their risk assessments, on which these more restrictive 
measures are based, with the international standard -setting organizations. Hence, a common gro und 
would be established to facilitate risk assessment procedures.  
8  REGIONALIZATION  
8.1.  Recommendations/suggestions on regionalization were submitted in earlier proposals by Brazil 
(G/SPS/W/307 ), the European Union ( G/SPS/W/298 ) and the United States ( G/SPS/W/303 ). 
However, these proponents subsequently submitted a joint paper ( G/SPS/W/311 ) in order to gather 
responses from Members, as well as IPPC and OIE, on a set of questions to inform further discussions 
on the topic.  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
 8.1  Turkey 
8.2.  Regarding recognition of regionalization and pest and disease -free zones, recommendations of 
international organizations and the requirements of exporting country could be different. In addition, 
importing countries sometimes require implementation of their own procedures on recognition of 
pest and disease -free zones although they are defined in accordance with the international standards 
and notified to trading partner countries through SPS notifications.  
8.3.  Turkey has completed its regionalization studie s for its zones free of avian influenza in line with 
OIE recommendations, and has published a self -declaration of freedom from the disease through 
OIE and SPS notifications. However, Turkey still faces some problems regarding recognition of its 
free status  of avian influenza with countries.  
8.4.  Besides, some exporting countries do not recognize the disease -free status of regions or zones 
within a country and request disease -free status of the entire country.  
8.5.  In this respect, Turkey welcomes the proposal to revi ew the Committee's Guidelines on 
implementation of Article 6 with the contributions of the international organizations, such as OIE 
and IPPC, as well as organizing trainings with regards to related subjects.  
8.6.  It is beneficial to encourage countries to anno unce their regionalization efforts related to animal 
diseases, which may affect trade during peace time. This can be done through SPS notifications, in 
addition to self -declarations to OIE, as well as by identifying regions to impose import restrictions  
which therefore  does not affect the whole country, in case of an outbreak.  
9  ROLE OF CODEX, IPPC AND OIE IN ADDRESSIN G SPECIFIC TRADE CON CERNS  
9.1  South Africa  
9.1.  Recommendations/suggestions on the role of Codex, IPPC and OIE as contained in 
G/SPS/W/304/Add.1 . 
a. South Africa would like to propose that the Secretariat write to the ISSBs requesting them 
to implement recommendation 8 of the workshop:10 
i. To analyze the STCs and to identify those which could have been addressed by the use 
of existing international standards. The relevant Sister Organization will then submit a 
report to th e Secretariat;  
ii. Upon receipt of this report from each of the three Sisters, it is proposed that the 
Secretariat share the report with the Committee and organize a workshop wherein 
each of the three Sisters will share its analysis of the identified STC(s).  
9.2  Codex, IPPC and OIE  
9.2.  Recommendation/suggestion  as contained in G/SPS/W/314 : 
a. Members are encouraged to develop their understanding of the various standards adopted 
by Codex, IPPC and OIE in order to facilitate their implementation.  
 
10 Recommendation 8  of the 2009 workshop : Requesting the three Sisters to analyze the current specific 
trade concerns raised in the SPS Committee to see which of these could have been addressed by the use of the 
existing international standards  (Report of the 2009 workshop, G/SPS/R/57 ). 
 G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
 10  THIRD PARTY ASSURANC E SCHEMES  
10.1  Belize  
10.1.   Recommendation /suggestion  on voluntary third -party assurance schemes as contained in 
G/SPS/W/316 :11 
a. "In view of the ongoing work being und ertaken by CCFICS on the use of voluntary third -
party assurance to inform national food control system planning, and the current pilot 
projects that will be undertaken in Belize, Honduras, Mali, Senegal and Uganda, the 
Committee should hold a thematic sess ion on voluntary third -party assurance 
programmes."  
__________  
 
11 The recommendation in the original proposal referred to "a t hematic session or workshop", however 
in the July 2019 SPS Committee meeting, Belize informed the Committee that the four areas indicated in its 
proposal would  be best covered in a one -day thematic session, as opposed to a two -day workshop. The 
Committee a greed in the July 2019 SPS Committee meeting to include this recommendation in the revised 
draft Report of the Fifth Review.