WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/236/Rev.1 
3 November 2009 
 (09-5478) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
THIRD REVIEW OF THE WTO SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Proposal by India
 
 
Revision  
 
  The following communication, received on 27 Octo ber 2009, is being circulated at the request 
of the Delegation of India
. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
1. Monitoring the Use of International Standards 
1. Article 3.1 of the Agreement on the Applica tion of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
("SPS Agreement") permits WTO Members to base their sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures 
on international standards, guide lines or recommendations in order to seek harmonization of the SPS 
measures on as wide a basis as possible.  At the same time Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS 
Agreement require the SPS Committee to devel op a procedure for monitoring the process of 
international harmonization and the use of intern ational standards, guidelines or recommendations.  
Article 3.5 of the SPS Agreement also requires the S PS Committee to coordinate efforts in this regard 
with international organizations. 
2. India realizes that Members are not obligated to notify measures the content of which are 
substantially the same as that of an international st andard.  The notification format has always had an 
entry (item 8) on international st andards (also asking for deviations ), but the information provided by 
Members may not always be clear as to whether a notified measure was "based on" or "conformed to" 
an international standard or to what extent it de viated from it.  With the adoption of the revised 
transparency guidelines (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) by  the SPS Committee, Members are specifically 
encouraged to notify all regulations that are based on, conform to, or are substantially the same as an 
international standard (paragraph 8).  Also, item 8 of the revised notification format seeks more 
specific information from Members on the relations hip between the notified measure and relevant 
international standards.  The new notification form ats have been in operation since 1 December 2008. 
3. The monitoring of the use of international st andards has been a standing item on the agenda 
of the SPS Committee.  While acknowledging the good wo rk done by the Committee in this regard so 
far, India considers that it is still difficult for Members to assess the degree of harmonization of 
various SPS measures imposed by different Members with the relevant international standards. 
4. India therefore suggests that the Secretariat prepare a Member-specific compilation, listing 
the various measures notified by each Member and assess how many of these were based on 
international standards.  India c onsiders that ever since the adop tion of the revised transparency G/SPS/W/236/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  guidelines (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) and the revised notification format
1 it may be easier to assess which 
measures are based on international standards and to what extent.  To economize on the limited 
manpower resources of the Secretariat, a constraint  identified by the work relating to the data 
collection may be outsourced, if required, to an indepe ndent agency.  It is suggested therefore that the 
Committee request the Secretariat to compile and an alyze the notifications over the two-year period 
from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2009.  An analysis of the notifications may be particularly useful in 
ascertaining the degree of harmonization of the notif ied measures with the relevant international 
standards.  This would provide some useful food fo r thought on what needs to be done to increase the 
use of international standards. 
5. Further, India is concerned that the detailed procedures2 developed by the SPS Committee for 
monitoring the process of international harmonizati on and the use of international  standards, 
guidelines or recommendations may not have been put to  much use.  It appears that the use of these 
procedures by Members to seek redressal of their c oncerns regarding specific international standards 
or the need for such standards h as been minimal.  This calls for a review of the overall progress 
achieved through the use of these monitoring procedures developed by the SPS Committee.  In 
addition, India suggests that the Committee may c onsider including an indicative timeline within 
which a concern raised by a Member may be resolved. 
2. Equivalence 
6. Article 4.2 of the SPS Agreement requires a Me mber, when so requested, to enter into 
consultations with the aim of achieving bilatera l and multilateral agreemen ts on recognition of the 
equivalence of specified SPS measures.  In this rega rd, India considers that the work undertaken by 
the Committee, including the guidelines issued by th e Committee to facilitate the process of achieving 
"equivalence" under the Article 4.2 of SPS Agreement has been very useful.3  As noted in the Draft 
Report of the Committee on the Review of the Op eration and Implementation of the SPS Agreement  
the issue of "equivalence" has consistently b een on the agenda for the SPS Committee meetings.4  
Several Members, including the United States, Br azil, Chile Panama and the Dominican Republic, 
have provided information in this regard or notified the Committee of  their recognition of equivalence 
of SPS Measures.5 
7. India, however, considers that it may now be  useful for the Members if the SPS Committee 
undertakes the task of preparing a country-specific status report, listing the cases where the Members 
have successfully negotiated bila teral equivalence agreements.  The SPS Committee may also take 
steps to encourage the Members to notify thei r respective equivalence agreements and share 
information regarding their experiences and diffi culties in implementing Article 4.2 of the SPS 
Agreement.  India considers that a country-specifi c status report may be particularly useful to 
Members in negotiating similar equivalence agreem ents.  Members may be invited to share their 
experiences, including examples of successful equivalence agreements in order to help frame a model equivalence agreement. 
                                                     
 
 1 The revised notification formats have been in operation since 1 December 2008 and specifically 
require Members to provide information on the relatio nship between the notified measures and relevant 
international standards. 
 2 As contained in the documents G/SPS/11/Rev.1  dated 15 November 2004; and G/SPS/40, dated 
5 July 2006.  
3 SPS Committee Decision, Implementation of Article  4 of the Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, G/SPS/19/Rev. 2, dated 23 July 2004. 
 4 SPS Committee Report, Review of the Operatio n and Implementation of the SPS Agreement, 
G/SPS/W/237, dated 8 May 2009. 
 5 Ibid., para 18.  G/SPS/W/236/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  8. Again, to economize on the limited manpower resources of the Secretariat, the work relating 
to the data collection may be outsourced, if required, to an independent agency. 
3. Private Standards 
9. WTO Members in the previous meetings of the SPS Committee, expressed concerns about the 
proliferation of private voluntary standards ( "private standards") and their impact on trade.  
Considering its importance, the Committee in its Fe bruary 2007 meeting included the issue of private 
and commercial standards as part of its work agenda.  Thereafter the Committee has carried out significant work on understanding the use of private standards and their impact on trade. 
10. India is of the view that Article 13 of th e SPS Agreement requires WTO Members to take 
reasonable measures to ensure that non-governmental  entities within their territories comply with the 
disciplines contained in the SPS Agreement.  I ndia suggests that the SPS Committee further discuss 
the issues surrounding the impact of private standards on trade and clarify the scope and applicability of the SPS Agreement vis-à-vis private standards.   A number of Members, including India, have 
already submitted information to the Secretariat on th eir products of export interest that have been 
affected by private standards, in response to the questionnaire G/SPS/W/232. 
11. India also suggests that the SPS Committee deve lop specific guidelines on the measures to be 
taken by Members in cases where private standa rds are adopted by various non-governmental entities 
within their territories.  In addition, India consid ers that it may be useful to develop and introduce a 
Code of Good Practice on the same lines as the Code of Good Practice under Annex 3 of the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, to  be followed by all the non-governmental entities 
engaged in formulating standards. 
4. Clarifications of Terms 
12. In addition to the above issues, India concurs with China’s proposal
6 and considers that 
certain terms and phrases as used in the SPS Agreemen t lack clarity and may be open to divergent 
interpretations.  India therefore suggests that th e SPS Committee may seek to clarify the meaning of 
the following terms or phrases: 
(a) The phrase "reasonable and necessary" as used in paragraph 1(e) of Annex C to the 
SPS Agreement; 
(b) The phrase "what is necessary" as used in para graphs 1(c) and (h) of Annex C to the 
SPS Agreement; 
(c) The phrase "reasonable inspection" as used in paragraph 3 of Annex C to the SPS 
Agreement; 
(d) The phrase "reasonably available" as used in footnote 3, Article 5.6 of the SPS 
Agreement. 
__________  
                                                      
 6 G/SPS/W/234 and G/ SPS/W/234/Add.1.