WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/698/Rev.1 
21 June 2006 
 
 (06-3021) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
PROCEDURES FOR RECOGNITION OF PEST- OR DISEASE-FREE AREA 
OR AREAS OF LOW PEST PREVALENCE UNDER ARTICLE 6 
 
Comparison of Standards developed by th e International Standard-setting Bodies
 
 
Communication from New Zealand 
 
Revision  
 
 
 The following communication, received on 19 June 2006, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of New Zealand.  
_______________ 
 
 I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The Secretariat prepared a background doc ument (G/SPS/GEN/640) for the March 2006 
meeting of the SPS Committee ("the Committee").  This provided a summary of: 
- the issues discussed in the Comm ittee regarding regionalization, 
- Members' experiences, 
- the work of the international st andard-setting organizations, and 
- proposals for typical steps for administrative procedures for recognition. 
2. New Zealand undertook to prepare a paper at  the last meeting of the SPS Committee 
comparing the work of the international standard setting bodies (ISSBs) with the elements identified 
in section IV of the Secretariat’s paper (G/SPS/ GEN/640).  This paper is without prejudice to 
New Zealand's position that work related to the development of normative rules in the form of 
international standards, guidelines and recommendati ons is the responsibility of the ISSBs and that 
the SPS Committee should avoid duplica tion of effort in this regard. 
3. The paper noted that there were common or recurrent elements in Members' proposals 
regarding the administrative process for recognisi ng pest- or disease-freedom.  These elements were 
listed in section IV of the paper, "Typical step s for administrative procedures for recognition: 
summary of proposals". 
4. At the March 2006 meeting of the Committee it was agreed that these elem ents form a useful 
basis for discussion.  Members noted though that ISSB recognition should not be seen as a required 
step prior to bilateral recognition by a trading partner. G/SPS/GEN/698/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  5. For purposes of illustration, New Zealand has ad apted these steps into a flowchart as follows: 
Figure 1 – Typical steps for administrative procedures for recognition: 
summary of proposals (taken from G/SPS/GEN/640) 
  
 
  G/SPS/GEN/698/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. New Zealand notes that the procedural steps depicted in Figure 1 are very similar to those 
developed by the OIE and under consideration by th e IPPC.  We believe it is important to avoid 
duplication that cuts across work done in the standa rd setting bodies or that may lead to conflicting 
requirements.  We therefore provi de the following analysis comp aring the elements proposed by 
Members against the standards developed by the I SSBs in the recognition of regionalisation.  This 
analysis is presented without prejudice. 
II. WORK OF THE STANDARD SETTING BODIES ON RECOGNITION OF 
REGIONALISATION 
A. OIE 
7. In response to concerns raised by its Member s, the OIE revised its chapter on zoning and 
compartmentalization (i.e. regionalization) at the last  General Session in May 2005.  Revisions of the 
chapter, on which all OIE Members had an opport unity to comment, provide more guidance to 
Members on the procedures for regionalization.  A number of these additions can be classified as 
"administrative", encompassing the process of re questing recognition, information exchange, 
evaluation, notification "within a reasonable pe riod of time", dispute resolution and formal 
agreements between parties. 
8. Some additional small changes are being proposed  for the next General Session in May 2006.  
Again all members of the OIE have had the opportunity to provide comment on these proposed changes.   
9. For the purposes of illustration, New Zealand has adapted article 1.3.5.5, which indicates the 
steps for zoning, into a flowchart (see Figure 2 below).  The steps for compartmentalization are 
similar to the steps for zoning so these have not been illustrated. G/SPS/GEN/698/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  Figure 2 – Steps for zoning under the OIE Article 1.3.5.5 
 
 
 B. IPPC
              
10. The IPPC has developed three standards in th e area of pest-free areas and areas of low pest 
prevalence (i.e. regionalization);  requirements for the establishment of:  
- pest-free areas (ISPM No. 4),  
- pest-free places of production and production sites (ISPM No. 10), and  
- areas of low pest prevalence (ISPM No. 22).    G/SPS/GEN/698/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  11. The IPPC has also recognized the need to devel op a standard for the process to be followed in 
the recognition of such areas.  Through this standa rd it aims to outline the criteria and procedures for 
the bilateral recognition of such areas and provide  guidance on the activities required to ensure there 
is not undue delay in the process, while maintaining the importing country's ALOP. 
12. An Expert Working Group developed a draft standard ("Guidelines for the recognition of 
pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence") th at was considered by the Standards Committee in 
May 2006.  This standard has now been circulated for country consideration, providing all contracting 
parties of the IPPC the opportunity to comment on it s content.  The standard could be adopted at the 
CPM meeting scheduled for April 2007. 
13. Many of the elements in this standard can  be classified as "administrative", covering 
processes of requesting recognition, identification of requirements and assessment process to be used, 
transparency, timeliness, notification and official recognition. 
14. The issues of predictability and the avoidance of undue delay are explicitly discussed in the 
standard. 
15. For the purposes of illustration, New Zealand has adapted section 4 of the draft standard into 
a flowchart (see Figure 3 below).  The standard al so has a flowchart appended that outlines the steps 
for recognition. 
Figure 3 – Procedure for the recognition of pest-free areas and areas 
of low pest prevalence under section 4 of the IPPC draft standard 
 G/SPS/GEN/698/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
   
III. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED STEPS AND ISSB STANDARDS 
16. New Zealand has taken the elements pr oposed by Members in G/SPS/GEN/640 and 
compared these to the appropriate standards developed by the OIE and IPPC addressing the 
recognition of regionalization.  The resulting matrix can be seen in Table 1 below. 
Table 1 – Comparisons between el ements included in G/SPS/GEN/640 
with OIE and IPPC standards 
 
G/SPS/GEN/640 OIE – article 1.3.5.5 IPPC – section 4, draft IPSM 
a. Exporting member requests 
bilateral recognition c.   Exporting country explains that 
can be treated as a zone 4.1  Request for recognition by the 
NPPO of the exporting 
contracting party (includes sample request form) 
b. Importing member clarifies 
requirements  4.3  Description of assessment 
process to be used by 
importing contracting party 
c.   Exporting member provides 
documentation c.   Exporting country provides 
information (as listed in 
standard) 4.1  (2nd sentence) Exporting 
contracting party provides a 
technical information package 
based on ISPM No.  4 or 22, which may include information 
listed in article. 
d.   Importing member evaluates 
documentation/additional information 
e.   Exporting member responds to 
comments 
f.   Importing member evaluates 
documentation 
g.   Importing member conducts 
on-site evaluation d.   Importing country evaluates 
and determines if can accept zone, taking into account: 
 
 i)  exporting country’s Vet 
Services  
 ii)  risk assessment on the 
information provided 
 iii) its own health status in 
respect to the disease concerned 
 iv)  other relevant OIE 
standards 4.4 Assessment of the technical 
information.  Includes: 
-  paragraph 3:  exporting party 
responds to technical 
concerns raised by importing 
party by providing 
information to facilitate completion of assessment 
- paragraph 4:  if technically 
justified, on-site verification or on-site review of 
operational procedures  
h.   Exporting member responds to 
inspection report   
i.   Importing member rejects or 
authorises e.   Importing country notifies 
exporting country of result and 
reasons within a reasonable period of time 4.5 Notification of results of 
assessment, and 
4.6 Official recognition 
 
IV. CONCLUSION 
17. As can be seen from the table above, the ISSBs ha ve been very responsive to the concerns of 
the Committee on the issue of regionalization and considerable progress has been made to date. 
18. Both the OIE and IPPC stress the need to avoi d undue delay and deliver an outcome within a 
reasonable period of time.  Both encourage tr ansparency and the importance of communication 
throughout the process between importing and exporting countries.  The "admin istrative" guidance 
developed by these bodies mirrors quite closely the elements identified by the Members of the SPS 
Committee as important in the recognition of regionalization.  G/SPS/GEN/698/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  19. New Zealand considers that it is important for Members to actively contribute to the OIE and 
IPPC standard setting process by submitting comments when draft standards are circulated.  We would therefore urge all Members to participate in this standard setting process. 
 
__________