WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/970 
21 October 2009 
 (09-5198) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English 
  
 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SPS COMMITTEE AND THE THREE 
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD-SETTING BODIES 
REFERENCED IN THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Submission by the European Communities
 
 
  The following communication, received on 19 Octo ber 2009, is being circulated at the request 
of the Delegation of the European Communities
. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The main objective of this workshop is to exchange views on how to improve the 
coordination of the work between the three interna tional standard-setting bodies referenced in the SPS 
Agreement (ISSBS - "the three sisters") - the Wo rld Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the 
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) 
and the SPS Committee to enhance effectiv eness and avoid duplication of work. 
2. The European Communities encourage dialogue and exchanges with a view to enhance 
coordination between the three sisters and the SPS  Committee; in addition there are a number of 
cross-sectoral topics already discussed (regionalizati on) or under discussion (private standards) which 
would benefit from improved cooperation.  The Eu ropean Communities are of the view that this 
workshop could be very useful in  considering how the SPS Committee could operate to ensure that 
unnecessary duplication of work is avoided between th e three ISSBs and that no major gaps exist in 
the international standards. 
II. ROLE OF THE THREE ISSBS 
3. The SPS Agreement recognizes the need for sound scientific and technical advice in order to 
effectively implement it;  in consideration of ach ieving this objective, it recognizes international 
organizations as standard-setting bodies to fac ilitate the harmonization of SPS measures by WTO 
Members in the areas of food safety, animal hea lth, zoonoses and plant health.  Members have the 
legal obligation to base their SPS measures on sta ndards developed by the three standard-setting 
bodies unless there is a scientific justification or as a consequence of the level of protection a Member 
determines to be appropriate. 
4. Article 12.3 of the SPS Agreement requires the SPS Committee to maintain close contact with 
these three standard-setting bodies to ensure that  unnecessary duplication of effort is avoided. 
5. The European Communities are of the view th at the communication and reporting between 
the SPS Committee and the three sisters could be improved:  the current participation in each SPS 
Committee of representatives of the three sisters and of representatives of the SPS secretariat in some G/SPS/GEN/970 
Page 2  
 
  of the meetings of the ISSBs is useful but not suffici ent.  Oral reports are given, but no concrete action 
follows.  This is currently just an exchange of information without any coordination attempt. 
6. The SPS Secretariat could liaise more regularly with  the three sisters in order to have a clearer 
process to exchange information.  For example, th e business plan for IPPC or the strategic plan for 
Codex for the coming years should be better taken into account. 
III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SPS COMMITTEE 
7. Under Article 12.1 of the SPS Agreement, th e SPS Committee was established to provide a 
regular forum for consultations about food safety or  animal and plant health measures which affect 
trade and to ensure the implementation of the SPS Agreement. 
8. Article 12 of the SPS Agreement identifies specif ic tasks more relevant to the relationship 
between the SPS Committee and the three ISSBs:  
• The SPS Committee shall maintain close contact wi th the relevant international organizations 
in the field of sanitary and phytosanitary prot ection, especially with the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission, OIE and IPPC. 
• The SPS Committee shall develop a procedure to monitor the process of international 
harmonization and the use of internationa l standards, guidelines or recommendations. 
• In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, th e SPS Committee may use the information 
generated by the procedures, particularly for notification, which are in operation in the 
relevant international organisations.  
• The SPS Committee may invite the relevant intern ational organizations or their subsidiary 
bodies to examine specific matters  with respect to a partic ular standard, guideline or 
recommendation. 
• The SPS Committee should further analyze possibl e mechanisms to monitor the process of 
international harmonization and the use of  international standards, guidelines or 
recommendations, privileging options that ar e simple, less burdensome and do not impose 
additional notification duties to countries.  It has to be noted that the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission recently abolished the so-called " acceptance procedure" which was a mechanism 
for member states to report on their acceptanc e and implementation of the international 
standards and related texts.  This procedure wa s abolished because it was very rarely used by 
Codex members.  Any new inventory mechanism put in place should be directly managed by 
the WTO SPS Committee, using in particular information provided by WTO Members in the 
new format for notification (section 8). 
 
IV. QUESTIONS RAISED BY TH E DOCUMENT G/SPS/GEN/933 
9. Document G/SPS/GEN/933 suggests the need  to identify concrete actions to: 
(i) Enhance the coordination between the Comm ittee and three sisters, and also between 
the three sisters; 
(ii) Increase the use and usefulness of  international standards; 
(iii) Avoid unnecessary duplication of effort;  and 
(iv)
 Ensure that the standard setting process is in  line with the implementation of the SPS 
Agreement and facilitates trade in  agriculture and food products.  G/SPS/GEN/970 
 Page 3 
 
 
  1. Enhance the coordination between the Commi ttee and three sisters, and also between 
the three sisters 
10. The European Communities are of the view th at the first priority is to enhance the 
coordination between the three si sters themselves rather than between the SPS Committee and three 
sisters, however there is room for improvement here as well. 
11. The work undertaken by OIE and Codex on Ca mpylobacter and Salmonella spp. should be 
better coordinated in the future with a view to avoi d duplication of energy and resources.  It should be 
noted that some improvements have already been made in this area in particular with OIE and Codex.  
The OIE is initiating work to improve its relations hip with Codex.  The OIE is now tackling some 
food safety aspects (e.g. zoonoses) while the Codex Al imentarius Commission is dealing with some 
aspects of primary production.  It is important th at both OIE and Codex coordinate their work in 
advance where these issues overlap. 
12. For example, the 40th session of the Code x Committee on Food Hygiene requested FAO and 
WHO to provide the necessary scientific advice to  ensure that the Guid elines for control of 
Campylobacter and Salmonella spp. in chicken meat  were underpinned with the most robust scientific 
data.  In response, the FAO and WHO convened an  expert meeting on 4-8 May 2009, in Rome, which 
the OIE attended.  The Physical Working Group met in Brazil on 7-11 September 2009 to further 
develop the proposed draft Guidelines for control of Campylobacter and Salmonella in chicken meat.  
The draft Guidelines include references to relevant OIE standards as the primary source of recommendations regarding the primary production ph ase and it is noted that the Codex Guidelines 
are supplementary to relevant OIE standards w ith regard to control measures during primary 
production.  In addition, the Codex Working Group agreed to use OIE definitions where they exist.  
The proposed Guidelines include OIE definitions fo r competitive exclusion, epidemiological unit, 
establishment and flock.  The OIE will continue to participate actively in the drafting and revision of 
the Guidelines according to the CAC procedures.  
13. This example illustrates how CAC and OIE are ab le to work together, however it has to be 
underlined that CAC and OIE never succeeded to estab lish joint task forces despite multiple attempts. 
14. It is important that the three sisters do not expand their field of work beyond their core 
business, as this would create more discrepancies between them, with resulting negative effects.  When needed, they can echo their opinion and substa ntiate their views with rational arguments and 
the SPS Committee could play a role of coordi nation when appropriate.  For emerging new 
developments it would be appropriate if the SPS Secr etariat could have discussions directly with the 
three sisters and maybe agree on a common appro ach, when possible, before tabling it to the 
respective Committees.  This could help to avoid situations where there are major discrepancies 
between the players. 
15. It is worth mentioning some im provements and concrete actions: 
(a) In the "IPPC Business Plan drafted for 2007- 2011" and in particul ar on page 20 (Goal 
6 - International promotion of the IPPC and cooperation with re levant regional and 
international organizations), IPPC recogni zes the importance of maintaining strong 
links with international and regional orga nizations that share common interests and 
especially with the WTO.  It does not sp ecifically address the inter-three sisters' 
cooperation, but it is still useful to not ice that it emphasizes the IPPC cooperation 
with the WTO. 
(b)
 During the 4th session of the Commission of Phytosanitary Measures (CPM 4) held 
in April 2009, the establishment of a system  of international recognition of pest-free G/SPS/GEN/970 
Page 4  
 
  areas similar to the practice carried out in OIE for certain animal diseases was 
considered amongst other topics.  Furtherm ore, during a workshop which took place 
in Thailand on 14-18 July 2008, the particip ation and input from an OIE expert was 
highly appreciated and contributed to a thorough analysis of the issue.  The outcome was discussed in CPM 4. 
(c) In its Strategic Plan for 2008-2013, th e Codex Alimentarius Commission committed 
to work closely on matters of common in terest with other relevant international 
organizations.  Monitoring by the CAC of  activities of other organisations dealing 
with food standards and coordination with  them, where appropriate and consistent 
with Codex procedures, is necessary to achieve a harmonized approach, avoid 
duplication and prevent developmen t of contradictory standards. 
(d) In its draft Fifth Strategic Plan for 2011- 2015, the OIE stresses the importance to 
develop animal production food safety standards complementarily to the CAC standards.  It also foresees a strong colla boration with its partners for promoting 
capacity building activities in terms of respect  of standards, thanks to the Standards 
and Trade Development Facility (STDF) work. 
The European Communities encourage the inter-exc hange of expertise between the ISSBs, with 
regionalization being one example.   
2. How to effectively encourage the use of international standards, guidelines or 
recommendations by all Members 
16. How can the SPS Committee effectively identif y relevant issues linked to non-use of 
standards, absence of standards, or inappropriate standards, and appropriately prioritize these issues? 
17. Once the SPS Committee has e ffectively identified relevant issues linked to non-use of 
standards, absence of standards, or inappropriate st andards, it should transmit this information to the 
three relevant ISSBs. 
18. The Committee should take more profit from the information generated by the procedures, 
particularly in the notifications, which are in opera tion in the relevant international organizations.  
Since December 2008, all WTO Members should comple te section 8 of the notification, even though 
the standards comply with the international sta ndards.  The SPS Secretariat strongly encourages the 
Members to fulfil the transparency provisions and it will be better able to identify the relevant issues 
linked to non-use of standards, absence of  standards or inappropriate standards. 
3. How to ensure effective collaboration and communication between the SPS Committee 
and the three sisters and among the three sisters? 
19. A number of questions arise in this respect, including: 
(a) Reporting/communication from the th ree sisters to the SPS Committee 
(i) Is reporting back to the Committee by the three sisters: (i) effective ;(ii) up to 
Members expectations; and (iii) a tool for harmonization? 
(ii) Does the Committee have a role in assessing the actions taken by the three 
sisters to resolve a specific issue? 
  G/SPS/GEN/970 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (b) Communication from the SPS Committee to the three sisters 
(i) Is the process used by the Committee to  invite the three sisters to address 
concerns clear and effici ent? To what extent can  or should the Committee: 
(i) give guidance towards an outcome; and/or (ii) provide information, guidance or background to the issue? 
(ii) What are the most effective mechan isms for the Committee to communicate 
to the three sisters on the importance an d priority placed on identified issues? 
(c) Joint action for the prevention/resolution of problems 
20. The establishment of regular meetings between the SPS Secretariat and the three ISSBs 
themselves would certainly improve the communication.  The oral reports made during SPS 
Committees by the three ISSBs are useful but not su fficient as there are currently limited possibilities 
of further exchanges and coordination.  The fact that  the reporting is put at the end of the agenda does 
not promote any extensive discussion thereof. 
21. A point of improvement could be to liaise closer with regard to capacity building activities 
which are now carried out independently from one another.  The SPS Committee could play a greater 
role in this to demonstrate more clearly how Articles 9 and 10 of the SPS Agreement are applied 
(which is still overly criticized by developing count ries).  In fact the SPS Secretariat should better use 
such coordination to its own bene fit and to underscore its "rais on d'être", because the SPS Committee 
could currently be assessed as having no added valu e and only being a forum to complain about 
current trade restrictions.  It is very importa nt for the SPS Committee to continue discussing about 
implementation issues as well. 
22. It should also be added that in terms of improving communication, the three ISSBs are also in 
favour to go in the same direction as the SPS Secret ariat does.  For example, the 5th Strategic Plan 
drafted by OIE for the coming years foresees a strong collaboration with its partners for promoting capacity building activities in terms of respect of standards, thanks to the STDF work. 
23. It should be analyzed whether a certain level of harmonization in the adoption procedures of 
the three ISSBs may facilitate closer cooperation, including when appropriate, joint meetings.  The 
procedures are currently very different in relation to  the history and background  of each organization:  
CAC by consensus with its eight steps, OIE by a vo te during general sessions and IPPC by consensus.  
Further reflection on this matter could be considered. 
4. What is the role of the SPS Committee in broader issues common to more than one (or 
all) of the three sisters? Is it to ensure consistency in interpretation of the SPS 
Agreement across the three sisters? 
24. The SPS Committee could contribute by assisting the three ISSBs in ensuring consistency of 
the interpretation of the SPS Agreem ent.  This could be done by e. g., providing guidance information 
in view to help them in their internal discu ssions.  The SPS Committee has a useful role of 
coordination and a role of facilitator to play as well,  however it should be made clear that there is no 
hierarchy between the SPS Committee itself and the th ree sisters which should remain independent in 
order to carry out their tasks in an appropriate manner. 
__________