G/SPS/R/91  
 
5 September 2018  
(18-5548) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
REPORT  
WORKSHOP ON CONTROL,  INSPECTION AND APPRO VAL PROCEDURES  
(ARTICLE 8 AND ANNEX  C OF THE SPS AGREEME NT) 
MONDAY, 9 JULY – TUESDAY, 10 JULY 201 8 
WTO, CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD, GENEVA  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Secretariat of the World Trade Organization held a workshop on SPS control, inspection and 
approval procedures in Geneva, Switzerland, on 9 and 10 July 2018.  
The WTO funded the participation of 32 governmental officials from developing country Members 
and Observers in the workshop, with  assistance from the Doha Development Agenda Global Trust 
Fund (DDAGTF).2 Sponsored participants were selected from 249 applications. In addition, the 
WTO covered the participation of fou r external speakers . More than 150 participants attended the 
workshop , including Geneva - and capital -based delegates and representatives from 
intergovernmental organizations.  
Members were invited at several stages to make comments on the programme and to put forward 
names of speakers, and their proposals and suggestions wer e considered in preparing the 
programme. The final programme for the workshop is co ntained in G/SPS/GEN/1613/Rev.2,  and 
the presentations are available via the SPS Gateway at 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop910718_e.htm . 
1  OBJECTIVE OF THE WOR KSHOP  
1.1.  The objective of the workshop was to bring together officials responsible for implementing 
the SPS Agreement, as well as the relevant international standard -setting b odies and other 
international organizations, for discussion and experience sharing on internat ional rules and 
guidance on SPS  control, inspection and approval procedures, and their national implementation 
and application. More specifically, the workshop pr ovided an opportunity to:  
 Exchange information on Members' experiences (challenges, best practices, lessons 
learned) in SPS control, inspection and approval procedures;  
 Review the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement – Article 8 and Annex C – as well a s 
related jurisprudence  and SPS Committee discussions;  
 Explore how the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement applies to SPS control, inspection and 
approval procedures, and discuss  international initiatives on trade facilitation; and  
 Inform participants ab out ongoing work in Codex, OIE , and IPPC.  
2  OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOP  
2.1.  Throughout the two -day workshop, participants benefited from detailed presentations and 
discussions on Members' implementation of Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement to identify 
ways to fac ilitate safe trade through streamlined and efficient SPS controls. Highlights included:  
                                                
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 Since 2016, WTO -funded workshop participants are no longer sponsored to participate in the SPS 
Committee meetings, in addition to their attendance at the workshop.  G/SPS/R/91  
 
- 2 - 
 
   Control, inspection and approval procedures should not cause unnecessary delays, costs 
and uncertainty as SPS agencies protect food safety, animal and plant health;  
 Members are encouraged to use international standards (Codex, OIE, IPPC ), improve 
transparency, streamline SPS processes and use risk -based approaches;  
 Automation and modern techniques (electronic certification, single windows, automated 
predictive models, et c.) coupled with regulatory modernization can greatly expedite and 
improve the integrity and efficiency of SPS control, inspection and approval procedures;  
 Dialogue across SPS agencies, and with customs, at national level is vital to promote 
synergies. SPS  agencies should be part of national trade facilitation committees; and  
 Border controls are as efficient as their weakest link. Traditionally, customs offices have 
benefited from larger investments than SPS agencies, and it is crucial to optimize available  
resources for SPS capacity development.  
3  WORKSHOP SESSIONS  
3.1  Overview of the International Framework (Session 1)  
3.1.  Session 1  provided an overview of international rules and guidelines applicable to SPS 
control, inspection and approval procedures. Mr Rolando Al cala from the WTO Secretariat 
outlined the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement - Article 8 and Annex C - as well as related 
jurisprudence. Participants were informed that any procedure to check and ensure the fulfilment of 
SPS measures – such as sampl ing, testing and certification – was covered by Annex C. Referencing 
the relevant provisions and Panel/Appellate Body interpretations, Mr Alcala explained that SPS 
control, inspection and approval procedures should not be unnecessarily lengthy, burdensome or 
expensive, or discriminate against imports. Participants commented actively on the relevant 
provisions and jurisprudence, and expressed a special interest in continued exchanges on undue 
delays.  
3.2.  Subsequently, Mr Darlan Marti  also from the WTO Secretaria t outlined the WTO's Trade 
Facilitation Agreement (TFA), explaining how the Agreement linked to and complemented the SPS 
Agreement in the area of control, inspection and approval procedures. Such links and 
complementarities could be found in the TFA's prov isions on transparency, test procedures, or fees 
and charges levied in connection with imports and exports, among others. Mr Marti underscored 
that facilitating border procedures under the TFA did not undermine Members' right to enforce 
measures necessary to protect human, animal and plant health in acc ordance with the SPS 
Agreement.  
3.3.  The session pursued w ith presentations by Codex, OIE,  and IPPC, describing relevant work in 
their respective organizations. Mr Patrick Sekitoleko  (Codex) explained that most wo rk in this 
field took place in the Codex Committee on Food Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS), 
which developed guidance on food control systems and their monitoring, accreditation, inspection 
and certification. Mr Sekitoleko outlined emerging is sues and future directions for the work of 
CCFICS – such as an increased focus on controls of food integrity/authenticity – and invited 
Members to inform Codex, prior to the next CCFICS meeting in October 2018, about any topics 
they wished to include in th e committee's discus sion paper on emerging issues.  
3.4.  Ms Ann Backhouse  (OIE) explained that the key animal health standards relevant to 
control, inspection and approval procedures were included in Section 5 of the Terrestrial and 
Aquatic Animal Health Codes, which dealt with trade measures, import/export procedures and 
veterinary certification. In addition to the above -mentioned horizontal standards, the OIE's disease 
specific (vertical) standards also commonly addressed control, inspection and approval proced ures, 
providing guidance on procedures for diagnostic testing and inspection, among others. She also 
outlined the OIE's work to identify and address challenges that countries faced in implementing its 
standards, including the OIE Observatory, an ongoing pr oject to monitor i mplementation of OIE 
standards.  
3.5.  Ms Ketevan Lomsadze  (IPPC) outlined the International Standards for Phytosanitary 
Measures (ISPMs) that provided guidance on phytosanitary control, inspection and approval 
procedures. She described the ISPM s addressing export certification systems and the regulation of 
consignments in transit, as well as the related implementation guides. Ms Lomsadze also pointed 
to ISPMs under development, in particular one to authorize entities other than NPPOs to perform G/SPS/R/91  
 
- 3 - 
 
  specific phytosanitary actions such as inspection, testing, surveillance and treatment. When asked 
about the coexistence between international standard -setting bodies and private standards, 
speakers clarified that their organizations worked closely with re levant stakeholders to reduce 
duplications and costs.  
3.2  The Rationale behind Annex C (Session 2)  
3.6.  Session 2  of the workshop gave an overview of past Committee discussions on control, 
inspection and approval procedures, and highlighted the economic rationale f or strengthening the 
implementation of Annex C to reduce trade transaction costs. Ms Hanna Vitikkala  from the WTO 
Secretariat gave an overview of specific trade concerns, notifications, and Committee discussions 
on Annex C of the SPS Agreement, and Mr Eric h Kieck  from the World Bank Group s hared the 
Bank's economic analyses  to measure the benefits of implementing the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement. Mr Kieck referenced the World Bank's Trading Across Borders methodology and Doing 
Business report, which recorde d time and costs associated with traded goods. Mr Kieck noted that 
improvements in the areas of formalities, availability of trade -related information, and the 
possibility to request advance rulings – measures to enhance certainty and predictability – 
appeared to gene rate the greatest cost savings.  
3.3  Implementation of Annex C (Session 3)  
3.7.  Session 3  aimed to identify good practices in the application of SPS control, inspection and 
approval procedures, to facilitate safe trade. It included lessons learned from S PS capacity 
development initiatives, as well as practical experiences from developed and developing country 
Members. Ms Martha Byanyima , from the COMESA Secretariat, presented a case study extracted 
from an STDF -funded project, assessing the costs of SPS c ontrol, inspection and certification 
requirements applicable to UHT milk exports from Uganda to Kenya. While recognizing remaining 
challenges (e.g. delays, lack of awareness of procedures among traders), she also identified 
opportunities to promote safe an d efficient trade, including interagency collaboration, 
synchronization of border agencies' working hours, or use of easily accessible channels, such as 
trade information desks or leaflets, to inform small scale trader s about SPS controls.  
3.8.  Ms Marlynne Hopp er, from the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) 
Secretariat, described regional research work commissioned by the STDF that had assessed the 
practical application of SPS controls and inspections in selected countries in Southeast Asia and 
Southern Africa. Procedural obstacles such as excessive document requirements or multiple 
inspections remained, but the research had also resulted in greater understanding about the links 
between SPS and trade facilitation, as well as in identifying win -win op portunities to facilitate safe 
trade through increased transparency or using risk -based approaches. STDF's film "Safe Trade 
Solutions" depicted border control procedures in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Peru to facilitate 
trade while maintaining effective  SPS protection. Ms Andrea Bravo , Argentina, and Ms 
Alejandra Estrada , Chile, updated participants on a border co -operation arrangement between 
their countries, described in the film.  
3.9.  In a second part of this session, several Members presented on their experiences in 
implementing Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Mr John Mc Evoy  outlined the EU's 
systems -based audits to assess the performance of competent authorities within an d outside the 
European Union in enforcing EU rules. By concentrating on control systems rather than individual 
facilities/establishments, the systems audit approach had a positive impact on the performance of 
competent authorities within and outside the Eu ropean Union, increasing efficiencies, transparency 
and consumer trust (the audit work programme and report s were available online).  
3.10.   Ms Mara Burr  presented on PREDICT, a risk -based screening tool for imports used by the 
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA ). The system facilitated import screening and targeting by 
data mining and open source intelligence, and performed automated reviews of administrative and 
regulatory requirements. It assigned a risk score to shipments, thereby facilitating automated 
releases of non -violative goods and giving border inspectors more time to  evaluate higher risk 
products.  
3.11.   Mr Linye Cong  updated participants on China's recent reforms in the inspection and 
supervision systems of food imports, which had been centralized under the  country's general G/SPS/R/91  
 
- 4 - 
 
  customs administration. China managed a growing volume of food and agricultural imports, while 
streamlining inspections and laboratory sampling, allowing for a rapid release of goods.  
3.12.   The next day, Mr Fred Gorrell  presented on Canada's m odernization of its approach to SPS 
inspections through risk assessment models underpinned by databases and mathematical 
algorithms, which assigned a preliminary risk profile to establishments/consignments. This system 
supported resource allocation and pri ority setting, allowing inspectors to address an increasingly 
complex landscape of evolving food and agricultural pro ducts and global supply chains.  
3.13.   Ms Tugba Adiguzel Kargin  described Turkey's inspection system for animals and animal 
products. She outlined  the country's legislative and regulatory framework, and explained the 
conditions to be met to be included in Turkey's list of countries and establishments to export 
animals and animal products, as well as the related documentary requirements. Mr Kenneth 
Msiska , Zambia, outlined a collaboration agreement whereby the NPPO delegated phytosanitary 
documentary checks to customs. Customs officials trained on phytosanitary certificates, plant 
import permits, fumigation certificates, etc., knew which consignments could pass the border 
without a certificate in accordance with ISPM 32, and had specimen signatures from exporting 
countries' NPPOs to facilitate documentary checks. Delegation of NPPO authority, coupled with 
joint inspections and effective collaboration w ith other border agencies, had resulted in faster 
clearance times, while at the same time maintaining an appropriate level of phytosanitary control.  
3.14.   Ms Delilah Cabb Ayala  outlined relevant legislation and regulations on SPS controls, 
inspections and approv als in Belize. She also drew participants' attention to third -party certification 
schemes faced by Belize's agricultural exporters, noting that fees to adhere to these schemes, as 
well as transparency and communication related issues, still presented unres olved questions. Ms 
Cabb Ayala called for further work to define how third -party certification schemes could best co -
exist with official control systems without marginalizing competent auth orities in exporting 
countries.  
3.4  Annex C in the digital world (Sessi on 4)  
3.15.   Session 4  was dedicated to electronic SPS certification. Ms Ketevan Lomsadze  reported 
on progress with the IPPC's ePhyto project to facilitate safe trade and reduce transaction costs 
through a new electronic system to exchange phytosanitary certifica tes. The pilot phase for setting 
up this system – called the "Hub" - ended in March 2018, and adherence to the system was open 
to all IPPC contracting parties. Developing countries without their own systems could benefit from 
a generic off -the-shelf system  (generic national system or GeNS) to exchange electronic 
phytosanitary certificates. The GeNS system development was completed in July 2018, with a pilot 
phase expected to begin by September 2018. Ms Lomsadze noted, alongside several other 
speakers and pa rticipants, significant benefits emanating from e -certification, including national 
efficiencies, improved security, and expe dited clearance of commodities.  
3.16.   Ms Rosine Uwamariya  from UNCTAD outlined Rwanda's e -portal launched in 2015 to 
process import/expor t permits and SPS certificates. She explained how traders and competent 
authorities communicated and exchanged documents through the portal, creating efficiencies and 
increasing predictability. Ms Uwamariya also explained how the e -portal automatically tra nsmitted 
information about approved certificates to the country's Electronic Single Window, supported by 
ASYCUDA, an integrated customs managem ent system developed by UNCTAD.  
3.17.   Mr Patrick Sekitoleko  and Ms Ann Backhouse  briefly updated workshop participants on 
their respective organizations' work in the field of e -certification. Mr Sekitoleko explained that 
CCFICS had been working on an e -certification guidance note since 2017 and that the proposed 
draft text would be available for comments on the CCFICS24 we bsite by September 2018. Ms 
Backhouse gave updates on an ongoing STDF project, implemented by the OIE, to assess the use 
of e-certification for trade in animals and animal products. This project aimed to assess the use of 
animal health e -certification in i nternational trade, and to assist developing countries to better 
engage in such trade by facilitating their understanding of e -veterinary certif ication and its 
implementation.  
3.18.   The workshop also benefited from three presentations describing national impleme ntation of 
e-certification systems. First, Mr Jay Mitchell  reported on the US experience in implementing G/SPS/R/91  
 
- 5 - 
 
  electronic phytosanitary certificates. He outlined the country's Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance 
and Tracking (PCIT) web -based system, which tracked  the inspection of agricultural commodities 
and certified compliance with plant health standards of importing countries. Mr Mitchell noted that 
a well -functioning e -certification system required a solid infrastructure both on the phytosanitary 
and technica l fronts. Effective interagency cooperation, political will, and sustainab le financing 
were also crucial.  
3.19.   Ms Claudia Dantas  from Brazil explained her country's partly electronic document 
submission and sanitary/phytosanitary certification system. A project  initiated in 2018 to create a 
platform to issue and exchange electronic certificates was paving the way for fully electronic 
certificate exchanges by 2021, concerning which Brazil was already  consulting its trade partners.  
3.20.   Mr Philippe Loopuyt  outlined the EU's experience in e -certification. He spoke about 
electronic signatures, required for valid electronic document exchanges, and their implementation 
in the EU's online certification system TRACES. Electronic signature for phytosanitary certif icates 
and EU entry documents was available since 2018; and foreseen to be available by July 20 19 for 
veterinary certificates.  
3.21.   All speakers of the session underscored the benefits of e -certification, including reduced 
costs, improved security and expedited  clearance of commodities. Developing countries' technical 
assistance needs were recognized and the IPPC's ePhyto project widely commended. Participants 
expressed a high interest in electronic certification, and several speakers queried about 
possibilities  to integrate SPS certificates for animal and plant health.  
3.5  Opportunities to mobilize resources for SPS capacity building to support the 
implementation of Annex C (Session 5)  
3.22.   The workshop closed with a roundtable moderated by Mr Melvin Spreij  from the STDF , in 
which Mr Erich Kieck  (World Bank Group), Ms Pamela Ugaz  (UNCTAD), Mr Pierre 
Bonthonneau  (International Trade Centre), Ms Milena Budimirovic  (World Customs 
Organization), and Ms Sheri Rosenow  (WTO) discussed their organizations' ongoing capacity 
buildi ng programmes. Panellists pointed out to synergies between SPS and trade facilitation, 
highlighting opportunities to leverage resources available for trade facilitation to strengthen the 
implementation of Annex C, as long as SPS agencies were appropriately  integrated in trade 
facilitation work and national priority setting. These resources included the WBG's trade facilitation 
support programme, the UNCTAD's empowerment programme for national trade facilitation 
committees, the ITC's trade facilitation and q uality for trade programme, the WCO's Mercator 
programme, and the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility. Speakers agreed that effective 
coordination between the different initiatives was key, as was the clear sharing of responsibilities 
between devel opment partners and beneficiaries.  
3.23.   Ms Delilah Cabb Ayala  and Ms Martha Byanyima  summarized days 1 and day 2 of the 
workshop, and the outgoing Chairperson Mr Marcial Espinola  concluded the workshop and 
thanked participants for active and fruitful discussion s. 
 
__________