WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SPS/R/65 
17 January 2012 
 (12-0280) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE WORKSHOP ON SPS COORDINATION AT THE 
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS 
17 OCTOBER 2011 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
I. SUMMARY 
1. The WTO Secretariat organized a workshop on SPS Coordination at the National and 
Regional Levels on 17 Octobe r 2011, back-to-back with the Oct ober meetings of the SPS Committee.  
The programme for the workshop is attached (A nnex).  The workshop was open to all Members, 
Observer governments and organizations with  observer status in the SPS Committee. 
2. The workshop was held in response to a recommendation adopted at the October 2009 
workshop on the Relationship between the SPS Co mmittee and the International Standard-setting 
Organizations (G/SPS/R/57), that the SPS Committee identify ways to improve coordination at a national level of the relevant representatives of the Three Sisters and SPS representatives, and Japan's 
proposal in this regard (G/SPS/W/251). 
3. The objective of the workshop was to bring togeth er officials responsible for participation in 
and implementation of the SPS Agreement, th e FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission 
(Codex), the FAO International Plant Protection Co nvention (IPPC), and the World Organization for 
Animal Health (OIE) (the "Three Sisters") for an in  depth discussion, at a technical level, on best 
practices in coordination at nati onal and regional levels.  The WT O Secretariat, through the Global 
Trust Fund (GTF), sponsored the participation of fifty officials from least-developed and developing 
countries to the workshop and the subsequent meetings of the SPS Committee. 
4. The workshop included presentations by representatives from Belize and the Philippines 
concerning national experiences with coordination;   and presentations from the Common Southern 
Market (MERCOSUR) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) 
concerning regional experi ences with coordination. 
5. The Secretariat presented a background document (G/SPS/GEN/1115) that describes and 
compares the procedures used by the Three Sisters to  develop standards.  The Three Sisters outlined 
the strengths and challenges of their respectiv e standard-setting procedures, and changes under 
consideration.  The Secretariat also presented a pr eliminary analysis of the treatment of SPS matters 
in Regional Trade Agreements.  The results of two studies concerning national and regional 
coordination in Africa were presented by the St andards and Trade Development Facility (STDF). 
6. Four breakout sessions took place during the work shop, two in English, one in French and 
one in Spanish.  Participants discussed their own experiences with ensuring coordination at the 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/65 
Page 2  
 
  national level, identified the causes and effects of poor coordination, and discussed solutions to 
improve coordination and the entities responsible  for the implementation of these solutions.  
7. The workshop resulted in a number of recomme ndations, of which two were considered by 
the SPS Committee at its October meeting. 
8. The presentations made at the workshop are available at: 
http://www.wto.org/english/news _e/news11_e/sps _17oct11_e.htm .  
II. BACKGROUND 
9. In the Third Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/53), 
the Committee agreed, inter alia : 
(a) that it should follow-up on the recommendations that resulted from the October 2009 
workshop (G/SPS/R/57) with a view to st rengthening the relationship between the 
Committee and the Codex, IPPC and OIE;  and 
(b) to encourage Members to provide inform ation on their experiences in coordinating 
their involvement in the work of Codex, IPPC and OIE at the national level. 
10. One of the recommendations (Recommendation 10) that resulted from the October 2009 
workshop was that the SPS Committee identify ways to  improve coordination at  the national level of 
the relevant representatives of the Three Sister s and SPS representatives.  At the October 2010 
meeting of the SPS Committee, Japan proposed that a workshop be organized to focus on 
Recommendation 10 of the Octobe r 2009 workshop (G/SPS/W/251). 
11. The Secretariat, with the endorsement of th e SPS Committee, organized a workshop on SPS 
coordination, including at the re gional level, on 17 October 2011.  
III. PRESENTATIONS  
A. WTO  SECRETARIAT  
12. The Secretary of the SPS Committee provided  an overview of key aspects that needed to be 
addressed concerning coordination at the national and regional levels between officials responsible for 
the work of the Three Sisters and of the WTO SPS Committee.  The Secretariat presented a 
background document that summarized the standard- setting procedures of each of the Three Sisters, 
compared these procedures, highlighting the s ubstantive differences am ong them (G/SPS/GEN/1115). 
B. COMPARISON OF THE THREE SISTERS STANDARD -SETTING PROCEDURES (IPPC,  OIE  AND 
CODEX ) 
13. The IPPC provided a general overview of the work and standard-setting procedures of the 
IPPC, highlighting the opportunities for IPPC members to comment on draft standards and the 
important role of regional plan protection organiza tions in helping countries provide comments.  The 
IPPC standard-setting procedure was inclusive;  of  a consultative nature and focused on needs;  
transparent;  open to the best scientific advice and to learning from other international standard-setting 
bodies;  and supported by the interest and particip ation of its members.  At the same time, the 
procedure was bureaucratic;  limited by the availab ility of resources and not as rapid as expected;  and 
susceptible to lobbying.  However the main conc ern was with the implementation of the IPPC 
standards by the contracting parties.  A focu s group meeting in September 2011 had recommended 
more commenting periods before the meeting of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, simpler  G/SPS/R/65 
 Page 3 
 
 
  procedures for the approval of diagnostic protocol s and phytosanitary treatments, improved proposal 
for new ISPMs, and improvements in th e work of the standards committee. 
14. The OIE indicated that its standard-setting pro cedure resulted in two codes:  the Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code and the Aquatic Animal Health  Code.  The OIE's procedure was transparent and 
democratic, science-based, rapid and responsive,  with extensive member participation and 
collaboration with other international organiza tions.  One modification of the procedure under 
consideration would be the identification of whic h commodities are safe to trade irrespective of the 
disease status in a given country.  There was also  a plan to restructure the codes according to 
pathogens rather than according to disease, whic h would avoid confusions due to different names 
attributed to a given disease. 
15. The Codex stressed its continuous cooperation w ith the OIE and IPPC.  The Codex standard-
setting procedure provided members the opportunity to comment on draft standards at all stages of 
their development.  This, however, sometimes resulted in delays that were not related to the substance 
of the standard itself but to aspects such as lack of consensus, use of risk assessment by risk 
managers, or delays due to further requests for advice, endorsement by general committees and 
standards referred back to the originating co mmittee.  The process for starting new work was 
considered to be rigid, and approval was needed ev en for limited amendments.  With respect to food 
safety, Codex had a clear and detailed risk analysis  process, and one of the strengths of the system 
was the distinction between risk managers and risk assessors.  Among the issues currently under 
consideration by Codex were how scientific advice w as used by risk managers and how to ensure the 
continuity of the scientific advice to address emer ging issues;  how to pro ceed when standards and 
related texts were held at step 8;  how to a ddress concerns relating to the economic impact of 
proposed standards;  and the risk analysis princi ples applied by the Committee on Pesticide Residues. 
16. In discussions following the presentations by the Three Sisters, participants sought 
clarifications regarding the work being done a nd how coordination of work took place among them on 
cross-cutting issues. 
17. Japan was of the view that to improve coordina tion at the national level, it was important to 
(a) strengthen communication among representatives to the Three Sisters and SPS Committee;  (b) 
share knowledge about the procedures and practices of  each of the Three Sisters;  and (c) improve 
transparency and openness in the standard-setti ng procedures by the Three Sisters, ensuring 
opportunities for Members to provide inputs. 
NATIONAL COORDINATION 
A. STDF  SCOPING STUDY ON NATIONAL SPS  COORDINATION MECHANISMS IN AFRICA  
18. The Secretary of the STDF presented the preliminary recommendations of a study on 
National SPS Coordination Mechanisms in Africa.  Th e objective of the study was to analyze existing 
national SPS committees and to make practical recommendations to enhance the development, 
performance and sustainability of  SPS committees.  These recommendations were to:  (1) raise SPS 
awareness by organizing high-level stakeholder ev ents to define objectives and scopes, and by 
presenting estimates of economic impacts of potential SPS measures on trade;  (2) clarify organizational matters by integra ting SPS coordination into the over all national SPS policy and ensure 
that legislation was appropriate legislation;  (3 ) build on existing mechan isms;  (4) follow "good 
mentoring practices" such as the appointment of a s ecretary or chair, the establishment of terms of 
references, and the preparation of an agenda;  (5) establish clear and effective communication 
strategies making use of media and other existing tools;  and (6) promote sustainability.  G/SPS/R/65 
Page 4  
 
  B. S
HARING OF NATIONAL EXPERIENCES WITH COORDINATION (PHILIPPINES AND BELIZE ) 
19. Ms Karen Kristine A. Roscom from the Departme nt of Agriculture in the Philippines shared 
the country's experience on increasing awareness a nd advocacy of the SPS Agreement.  Ms Roscom 
described the role of each of the relevant mini stries and departments concerning SPS matters and 
elaborated on the coordination among the relevant mi nistries for each of the subjects covered by SPS 
(food safety, animal health and plant health).  Sh e highlighted the need for better coordination in 
terms of standard-setting procedures.  One of th e challenges for the Philippines was to be more 
proactive on issues relating to SPS, as currently the national SPS committee met only in response to 
topics of importance in the international arena. 
20. Ms. Delilah A. Cabb from the Belize Agricultu ral Health Authority shared Belize's 
experience regarding the establishment of a natio nal SPS committee.  The project to establish a 
national SPS committee resulted from participation in the WTO Advanced SPS Course and from the IICA Initiative of the Americas.  Ms. Cabb described  the steps taken and the challenges faced when 
establishing a national SPS committee.  Key steps include d a legal review to identify provisions that 
would allow for the establishment of a national SPS committee, and the identification of existing 
committees that could function as a national SPS committe e, or that could provide support with some 
of the tasks required.  Among the lessons learne d during the process of establishing the national SPS 
committee were the need to focu s on the outcome rather than the process, making use of existing 
mechanisms, and the importance of ownership and pa rtnership, particularly with key private and 
public sector entities.  
IV. BREAKOUT SESSIONS  
21. Four breakout sessions took place during the work shop, two in English, one in French and 
one in Spanish.  At these breakout sessions particip ants discussed their own experiences with ensuring 
coordination at the national level, and identified (i) th e effects of poor coordination, (ii) causes of poor 
coordination, (iii) solutions to improve coordi nation and (iv) the entity responsible for the 
implementation of the identified solutions. 
22. The effects of poor coordination were identified to include the following: 
 Inadequate implementation of the SPS Agreement; 
 Duplication of work, resulting in the waste of scarce resources; 
 Lack of a national position due to the absence of internal discussion; 
 Conflicting/non-coherent positions, which lead  to a loss of credibility of competent 
authorities; 
 Poor dissemination of information to stakeholders; 
 Application of inconsistent SPS measures; 
 Outdated information on National Notification Authorities and Enquiry Points; 
 Little participation at the SPS Committee;  
 Loss of market access; 
 Missing opportunities, including for traini ng and capacity-building assistance;  and  
 Foregone revenue. 
23. Among the identified causes of poor coordination were: 
 Existence of too many government agencies; 
 Roles and functions not clearly defined among gove rnment agencies dealing with SPS issues;  
 SPS issues not regarded as high priority; 
 Lack of a political agenda;  G/SPS/R/65 
 Page 5 
 
 
   Limited participation of external stakeholders; 
 Lack of commitment;  
 Poor succession planning - lack of continuity;  
 Insufficient resources;  
 Poor understanding of in ternational obligations; 
 Inadequate legal texts; 
 Lack of technical knowledge;  and 
 Lack of communication between technical experts and politicians. 
24. The solutions to improve coordination and the entities responsible for the implementation of 
the identified solutions were presented as the recommendations ensuing from the workshop.  
REGIONAL COORDINATION 
A. REGIONAL SPS  FRAMEWORKS AND STRATEGIES IN AFRICA  
25. A scoping study undertaken by STDF regard ing African regional SPS protocols was 
presented.  This study flagged concerns about  the ability of the Regional Economic Communities 
(RECs) to assist Members implement the SPS Agreement, as the regional SPS frameworks were 
inadequate and fragmented, subject to slow deci sion-making and very limited political awareness.  
The study recommended that the African Union Comm unity and the RECs:  (a) ensure that regional 
SPS frameworks focussed on the most effective use of resources to enhance members benefits and 
avoid duplication of work;  (b) participate actively in the work of the inte rnational standard-setting 
bodies as well as the SPS Committee and develop the capacity for African countries to participate 
effectively in these mechanisms;  (c) assist in  strengthening national SPS coordination bodies;  
(d) increase awareness of SPS matters  at the political and general public level;  (e) focus capacity-
building efforts on demand-driven activities, identif ied through SPS capacity evaluations, and involve 
all relevant stakeholders;  and (f) avoid multiplicati on of transparency requirements and use existing 
tools developed by the SPS Committee.  
B. SPS  AND REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS  
26. The WTO Secretariat presented a preliminary an alysis of the treatment of SPS issues in 
Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs).  The analysis outlined some general trends of the SPS coverage 
of RTAs, and briefly described the most freque nt substantive SPS provisions and institutional 
structures.  Approximately 130 of the 194 RTAs analyzed contained some type of SPS provision, 
ranging from a general affirmation of the SPS Agreement to a dedicated SPS chapter.  
C. SHARING OF REGIONAL EXPERIENCES WITH COORDINATION (MERCOSUR  AND COMESA) 
27. Ms Roxanna Blassetti from Argentina's Mini stry of Agriculture presented MERCOSUR's 
experience on SPS harmonization.  MERCOSUR adopted the WTO SPS Agreement as a regulatory 
framework for trade between MERCOSUR states (A rgentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) and 
with other WTO Members.  The harmonization of  the national legislations of the MERCOSUR 
members had been initiated when ME RCOSUR was created in 1991, with  the objective of eliminating 
barriers to trade.  Harmonization was carried out und er the principles of the Three Sisters, using the 
regional fora of these three organizations.  MERCOSUR was developing a mechanism for the 
coordinated notification of SPS measures to the WT O, and MERCOSUR also coordinated positions in 
the SPS Committee on issues of high priority (i.e . SPS-related private standards).  The regional 
implementation of certain disciplines, such as region alization and verification, remained a challenge, 
as did the lack of coordination among the Three Sisters' contact points at the national levels.  G/SPS/R/65 
Page 6  
 
  28. Ms Martha Byanyima provided information on the role of the COMESA SPS regional sub-
committee.  Each of COMESA's 19 member countri es had a technical committee on agriculture which 
encompassed an SPS sub-committee, which coordi nated matters at the national, regional and 
international levels.  One of the roles of the s ub-committee was to implement decisions taken by the 
COMESA council and to formulate programmes with the use of technical and scientific institutions.  
A COMESA council decision directed SPS authorit ies to address SPS challenges in the Simplified 
Trading Regime, a simplified procedure which allowe d semi-illiterate and localized small traders to 
benefit from the COMESA free trade area, as complicated SPS measures constituted non-tariff 
barriers to regional trade.  COMESA was im plementing several projects to simplify SPS 
requirements, including the promotion of one-stop border posts, decentralized certification services, 
and recognition of equivalence among COMESA me mbers through a green pass certification scheme. 
V. DISCUSSION  
29. Many participants maintained that a national SPS committee, if structured properly, was 
fundamental for good coordination and the implem entation of the SPS Agreement.  Existing legal 
bases and agencies should serve as the building bl ocks for the establishment of national SPS 
committees to avoid duplication of work, and wast e of scarce resources.  The selection of which 
agency should house the NNA and the EP, and whethe r these should be the same office, was up each 
Member, depending on their circumstances. 
30. Low financial resources were described by participants as a major factor affecting 
coordination and the implementation of the SPS Agreem ent.  Technical expertis e was also affected by 
limited resources.  One suggestion was to create a network of experts available in national 
universities, which could assist governments. 
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS  
31. The workshop resulted in a number of specifi c recommendations, where the responsibility of 
implementation remained with the Members themselves.  The recommendations include: 
(a) The need to identify someone as specifically  responsible for national coordination; 
(b) The establishment of an effective mechanism to share information; 
(c) The establishment of an SPS policy at the national level; 
(d) The creation of an SPS agenda fo r work at the national level; 
(e) Continual sharing of experiences on coordination; 
(f) Ensuring that all stakeholders understand the importance of SPS issues; 
(g) Involvement of the private sector and acad emia in the coordination of SPS issues; 
(h) The building of institutions, guaranteeing continuity.  
 
32. The workshop also resulted in recommendations  for consideration by the SPS Committee:  
(a) Development of guidelines on natio nal coordination;  and/or 
(b) Development of a manual of good practices on coordination. 
  G/SPS/R/65 
 Page 7 
 
 
  ANNEX 
PROGRAMME FOR THE WORKSHOP ON SPS COORDINATION AT  
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS 
 
Monday, 17 October 2011 (Council Room) 
  
09.00 – 09.15  Opening Remarks - Mr Deny Kurnia, Chair of the SPS Committee  
 
09.15 – 09.30  Session I:  Introduction  
Speakers:  Gretchen Stanton, Javier Ocampo, WTO Secretariat 
 The importance of coordination at the national and regional levels  
 Existing reference materials from  the WTO and other Organizations 
(SPS IMS, Step-by-step Manual, Mentoring system, IICA handbooks) 
 Logistics of the break-out sessions 
 Three Sisters Standard-setting Procedures (background document) 
 09.30 – 10.00 Session II:  Comparison of the Three Sisters' Standard-setting 
Procedures 
 Benefits and weaknesses of the procedures  
 Concerns raised regarding the procedures  
 Changes to the procedures under consideration  
  Speakers:  Codex (Selma Doyran), IPPC (Anna Peralta) and OIE (Patrick 
Bastiensen)  
 
   NATIONAL COORDINATION 
 
10.00 – 10.20  Session III:  STDF Scoping Study on National SPS Coordination 
Mechanisms in Africa 
  Speaker:  STDF Secretariat (Melvin Spreij)  
 
10.20 – 11.20  Session IV:  Sharing of National Experiences with Coordination 
 
10.20 – 10.40   Increasing Awareness and Advocacy of the SPS Agreement 
Speaker:  Karen Kristine A. Roscom, Chief Science Research Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Philippines 
 
10.40 – 11.00  The Path to Establish a National SPS Committee 
  Speaker:  Delilah A. Cabb, Coordinator, SPS Enquiry Point, Belize 
Agricultural Health Authority 
 G/SPS/R/65 
Page 8  
 
  11.00 – 11.20 Coordination between the SPS National Committee and the National 
Representatives to the Three Sisters 
  Speaker:  Ruth Montes de Oca S., Director, Office of Agricultural Trade 
Agreements, Ministry of Agriculture, Dominican Republic 
11.30 – 13.00  Session V:  Breakout Sessions (four groups) 
 English 
 English  
 French  
 Spanish  
  Participants will discuss their own e xperiences with ensuring coordination at 
the national level, and propose recommendations for "best practices" in light 
of the topics covered in the morning.  Facilitators will organize the 
discussions based on a list of questions that will be provided to each group.  Rapporteurs will be appointed for each group. 
  Facilitators:  WTO Secretariat  
 
13.00 – 15.00 Lunch break 
 
15.00 – 16.00 Presentation of recommendations from each group by the rapporteurs, 
followed by general discussion 
 
 REGIONAL COORDINATION  
 
16.00 – 16.20  Session VI:  Regional SPS Frameworks and Strategies in Africa 
Speaker:  Joao Magalhães, Consultant  
 
16.20 – 16.30  Session VII:  SPS and Regional Trade Agreements  
Speaker:  Hanna Vittikala, WTO Secretariat  
 
16.30 – 17.45  Session VIII:  Sharing of Regional Experiences in Coordination 
 
16.30 – 16.50  MERCOSUR: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Harmonization 
  Speaker:  Dr Roxana Blassetti, Di rector of Cooperation and Bilateral 
Negotiations, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fishery, Argentina 
 16.50 – 17.10  COMESA: The Role of the SPS Sub-Committee as a Policy Organ in 
determining Regional Investment Priorities 
  Speaker: Martha Byanyima, CAADP Regional Process Facilitator / SPS 
Expert, Zambia 
 17.10 – 17.45  Plenary discussion  
17.45 – 18.00  Concluding Remarks  
  Speaker:  WTO Secretariat 
__________