WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/195 
31 May 2006 
 (06-2606) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE AGREEMENT ON THE 
APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 
(REGIONALIZATION) 
 
Communication from the Republic of Korea
 
 
 
 The following communication, received on 29 May 2006, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of the Republic of Korea.  
_______________ 
 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
1. The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the 
"SPS Agreement") stipulates the roles of Member s, the SPS Committee and relevant international 
organizations for the development, adoption and implementation of SPS measures and the 
interrelations among them.  Paragraph 3 of Articl e 12, in particular, clearly specifies how the 
SPS Committee shall maintain its re lationship and cooperate with those relevant international 
organizations: 
12.3 The Committee shall maintain close c ontact with the relevant international 
organizations in the field of sanitary and ph ytosanitary protection, especially with the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Intern ational Office of Epizootics, and the 
Secretariat of the International Plant Pr otection Convention, with the objective of 
securing the best available scientific and technical advice for the administration of 
this Agreement and in order to ensure that unnecessary duplication of effort is 
avoided. 
2. Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement states that "
[I]n assessing the sanitary or 
phytosanitary characteristics of a re gion, Members shall take into account, inter alia , the level of 
prevalence of specific diseases or pests, the existence of eradication or control programmes, and 
appropriate criteria or guidelines which may be  developed by the re levant international 
organizations". 
3. In light of the relevant provisions of th e SPS Agreement, it is important for the 
SPS Committee as well as Members, in applying th e concept of regionalization in accordance with 
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, to rely upon the ac tivities and standards of the relevant international 
organizations.  On the other hand, it is also necessar y to ensure that Members' rights as specified in 
other provisions of the SPS Agreement are not infringed upon. G/SPS/W/195 
Page 2  
 
  II. UNDERSTANDING OF THE SECRETARIAT'S BACKGROUND DOCUMENT 
4. The Secretariat circulated a background docum ent on regionalization (G/SPS/GEN/640).  The 
document illustrates typical steps of administrative procedures for recognition of pest -or disease- free 
areas or areas of low prevalence by summarizi ng Member countries' experiences relating to the 
application of the regionalization principle, discussions within the SPS Committee and several 
proposals by Members. 
5. According to Section IV of the document  G/SPS/GEN/640, administrative procedures for 
recognition of regionalization cons ist of ten general steps which are sequential in order and one 
expedited step.  However, it can be pointed out that, at the 35
th SPS Committee meeting, some 
Members maintained that Step A,  which requires an exporting Member to request recognition by an 
International Standard Setting Body (ISSB), should not be considered as a prerequisite for the next 
steps.  Taking this into consideration, there are, in  fact, only nine, not ten, steps from Step B to Step J 
for administrative procedures for recognition. 
6. It is also noteworthy that the nine steps from St ep B to Step J are similar to the procedures 
already adopted by the OIE1 and those procedures now being considered by the IPPC.2  It means that 
the procedures which are now under consideration w ith regard to Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement 
have already been prepared or, at least, are being discussed in other relevant organizations. 
7. The OIE defines the concept of zoning (equivale nt to the word "regionalization") in both the 
International Terrestrial Animal Health Code and the International Aquatic Animal Health Code, and 
recommends basic elements to be considered a nd the procedures to be taken in establishing and 
recognizing disease free zones.  In particular, Article  1.3.5.5 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code 
recommends the sequence of steps to be taken in de fining a compartment or a zone in the bilateral 
trade.  We can also see that t hose steps are similar to the admi nistrative procedures suggested in 
Section IV of G/SPS/GEN/640.  In addition, the OIE sets different technical standards for major 
animal diseases such as FMD, Classical Swine Fe ver and Avian Influenza re garding the establishment 
and recognition of a free zone or a free compartment. 
8. Meanwhile, the IPPC has developed guidelines fo r the establishment of pest -or disease- free 
areas, free production sites and areas of low pest  or disease prevalence, and has been discussing 
standard procedures for recognition of the free are as or production sites.  At the seventh Interim 
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM) in Ap ril 2005, agreement was reached to urgently 
develop a concept standard on "Guidelines for the recognition of the establishment of pest free areas 
and areas of low pest prevalence".  Based on this, terms of reference (TOR) for a working group to 
develop the guidance were established at th e first CPM meeting held in April 2006. 
9. Against this backdrop, a number of Members including Korea, have maintained that 
development by the SPS Committee of a separate admi nistrative procedure overlaps, to a significant 
degree, with discussions, and the results thereof, of  other relevant international organizations.  It 
should be highlighted that the limited resources of  the SPS Committee could better be used for other 
important areas. 
10. Regarding the expedited process in paragraph 41 of the background document, Korea is of the 
view that it is extremely difficult to implement th is provision if an importing Member does not have 
sufficient information on the epidemiological characte ristics and disease or pest control systems of the 
concerned region.  In practice, only the Members w ho have previous experiences in risk assessment of 
                                                      
1 Article 1.3.5.5, International Terre strial Animal Health Code (2005). 
2 Draft standard:  Guidelines for the recognition of th e establishment of pest free areas and areas of low 
pest prevalence.  G/SPS/W/195 
 Page 3 
 
 
  the concerned area can determine whether to apply the expedited process or not.  Accordingly, any 
example of the expedited process, in our opinion, should not be indicated, and an importing Member 
should be able to deal with this issue on a case  by case basis considering experiences of risk 
assessment, etc.  In particular, regarding para graph 41(a), Korea believes that although the risk 
information or data used, as well as the result of  assessments made by the relevant international 
organizations for recognizing the establishment of  pest -or disease- free areas and areas of low 
prevalence, can be helpful for an importing Memb er, they do not provide a foundation for skipping 
necessary risk assessment procedures as well as certain evaluations of contents. 
III. HOW TO ADDRESS REGIONALIZATION-RELATED ISSUES THAT MEMBERS 
ARE INTERESTED IN? 
11. Some Members have put on the table several proposals supporting the view that it is 
necessary for the SPS Committee to develop administra tive procedures with regard to recognition of 
regionalization.  Among those opinions, the following are those with the most conflicting views among Members: 
- Whether time limits shall be set or not for the recognition of regionalization;  or 
- Whether importing Members shall accept the free area or area of low prevalence 
approved by the relevant in ternational organizations. 
12. As the risk assessment procedures and the ev aluation factors for the recognition of the 
establishment of pest -or disease- free areas and ar eas of low pest or disease prevalence are very 
complicated and require scientific and technical cons ideration, Korea believes that it is not reasonable 
to set time limits for such a complicated work. 
- Given that animal diseases and plant pests ha ve totally different epidemiological as well 
as ecological characteristics, and that each Member has a different level of protection, it is not possible to set the average time limit that can be applied to all cases. 
- The OIE and IPPC do not consider setting specified time limits for such procedures, 
acknowledging that various factors can affect the speed of the assessment. 
- As all the Members differ in level of  capabilities and resources for recognition of 
regionalization, a uniform timescale will not be implemented by many Members. 
- From the importing country's point of view, setting a kind of physical target, especially 
in the form of a time limit, will adversely affect the risk assessme nt work as it is an 
infringement of the risk assessor's own responsibilities and expertise.  Especially, importing Members who are frequently requested by many countries to permit 
importation are required to put a lot of human resources with expertise, as well as 
financial resources, into meeting the time limits.  It is an excessive burden on importing Members. 
13. As for some Members' argument that the pest -or disease- free area approved by international 
organizations shall be automatically accepted by impor ting Members, Korea is of the opinion that this 
runs squarely against the right of Members unde r the SPS Agreement to implement SPS measures to 
achieve an appropriate level of protection. G/SPS/W/195 
Page 4  
 
  14. Lastly, Korea believes that the following issues also should be duly considered in discussing 
recognition of regionalization, although the Secretariat's document does not mention these. 
- Whatever the decision of the SPS Committee on recognition of regionalization may be, it 
should not infringe upon the rights and responsibilities of Members under the SPS Agreement and the other WTO Agreements. 
- The issue of recognition of regionalization sh ould be dealt with between importing and 
exporting Members on a bilateral basis.  Th erefore the roles and responsibilities of the 
Members concerned should be balanced.  From  our experiences, whether risk assessment 
is predictably conducted or  not depends largely on the fact of whether exporting 
countries submit the necessary information and data in a timely and sincere manner or 
not. 
- As many Members are not familiar with one of the official languages of the WTO, they 
need to spend considerable time and expen ses to translate the information and data for 
risk assessment.  This also needs to be considered. 
__________