WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/198 
13 June 2006 
 (06-2837) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
 
Communication from the United States
 
 
 
 The following communication, received on 6 June 2006, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of the United States.  
_______________ 
 Introduction and Background
 
 1. Members of the Committee have demonstrat ed a strong commitment to ensure full 
implementation of special and differential treatment provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement.  All Members of the Committee recognize the importan ce of these provisions and wish to find their 
practical value in meeting the special needs of de veloping, and especially le ast-developed, country 
Members.  The United States believes that the Committee's challenge is to identify technical 
assistance initiatives that will afford meaningful econom ic benefits to  developing, especially least 
developed, exporting countries without weakening every Member's right to take risk-based, non-
discriminatory measures to protect human, animal, a nd plant health.  We believe developed countries 
have a responsibility under the Agreement to take  into account the special needs of developing, 
especially least-developed, country Members to the exte nt possible.  It is also the responsibility of the 
developing countries to articulate their needs and concerns with other Me mbers' measures.  Our 
mutual goal is to find a more effective way to address both important objectives. 
2. As expressed by Egypt in G/SPS/GEN/647, the provision of technical assistance should be 
based on actual needs of the recipient countries (dema nd-driven), and should not be limited to certain 
types of technical assistance but vary according to th e recipients specified n eeds.  To make that 
happen, the Committee, and in particular develope d countries, must have a clear understanding of the 
needs of the less developed country. 
3. The WTO Secretariat should be commended for its outstanding efforts to provide extensive 
technical assistance and provide opportunities for Members to come together at various technical seminars such as the 31 March 2006 workshop in Ge neva to facilitate co mmunication between donor 
and recipient countries. 
Review of Papers on Special and Differential Treatment
 
 4. Papers prepared for the March 2006 Workshop on  the Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
provided the Committee with a number of possible proj ects and activities that should be considered in 
detail by the Committee.  We thank these countries for their submissions and urge the Committee to 
review these documents in detail.  The United Stat es believes that the workshop documents and our 
discussions during the March workshop will provid e the Committee with a way forward.  The 
Committee could use many of the ideas contained in  these documents to focus the Committee's work 
plan in the months ahead. G/SPS/W/198 
Page 2  
 
  5. In G/SPS/GEN/649, Egypt suggested that some developing countries may need specific 
technical assistance in the fields of risk assessment , risk analysis and risk management, as well as 
effective surveillance and monitoring services.  Potential areas for cooperation could include the 
creation of accredited laboratories to accurately di agnose diseases and pests, identification of toxic 
residues, and verification of the quality of agricultural chemicals and products. 
6. In G/SPS/GEN/667, Chad identified several are as where work could be done on a regional 
level such as the work underway between the Central African Economic and Monetary Community, 
Sao Tome and Principe, and the European Co mmunities to identify national SPS implementation 
priorities.  More information about their plans to  develop a "quality" system to ensure compliance 
with international standards and their pesticid e initiatives program would allow the Committee to 
decide whether regional technical assistance programs are viable. 
7. In G/SPS/GEN/680, Trinidad and Tobago discussed  their efforts to facilitate Argentina's 
request to export fresh apples, grapes and pears.  The paper illustrates how two countries can work 
together to identify and address specific issues and evaluate effective technical assistance programs.  
Their paper provides the Committee with a good illustra tion of how to work together to protect health 
and facilitate trade given the limited resources of  both Members.  The Committee may wish to pay 
close attention to their experience with prioritizati on of pest risk assessments (PRAs) and timelines.  
The paper also explained that sometimes given the sheer volume of work involved, "a PRA cannot be 
completed within the timelines.  The time taken to  complete a PRA may be determined by the number 
of commodities and the number of pests to be eval uated for each commodity in an application".  We 
note that the identification of feasible risk mitiga tion measures can also impact anticipated timelines. 
8. In G/SPS/GEN/668, Peru suggested that exporti ng countries interested in obtaining technical 
assistance should define "their technical assistance priorities within the context of medium and long 
term plans and ensure the involvement of local  actors in order to maximize the impact of 
investments."  As Peru discussed in its documen t, perhaps the OIE/IICA Performance, Vision and 
Strategy instrument could be used as a benchmark for determining technical assistance needs.  The 
United States also supports Peru's recommendation that requests for assistance should be organized 
and channeled by the authorities within the exportin g country responsible for implementation of the 
SPS Agreement in order to avoid dispersion and dup lication of effort.  The document also explains 
that the final step in the special and differentia l process should be implementation and evaluation of 
technical assistance. 
Future Activities on Special and Differential Treatment
 
 
9. During the March workshop, some Members sugg ested the development of a "good practices 
guide" for special and differential treatment.  We would encourage the Committee to give this idea 
every consideration.  The United States does not support any revisions to the text of the SPS Agreement.  However, we do believe a "good practices guide" could provide Members with a 
clearer understanding of the needs and capabilities of our trading partners and identify a series of 
possible methods to provide and evaluate effective technical assistance programs.  The result will be a 
more efficient trading system which preserves every Member's right to protect human, animal and plant life and health. 
10. Another source for considering proposals for spec ial and differential treatment is G/SPS/33.  
In this document, the Secretariat has provided a mech anism to ensure the transparency of special and 
differential treatment activities within the Committee.  We believe it would be advantageous to review 
how many requests the Secretariat has received, how many grants of special and differential treatment 
have been offered by Members, and what their impact was on the recipients, to determine if this is an effective approach to addressing these important con cerns or whether alternative methods should be 
explored.  G/SPS/W/198 
 Page 3 
 
 
  11. In 2001, the Secretariat issued a questionna ire (G/SPS/W/113) on technical assistance 
activities that focused on ascertaining devel oping country Members' technical assistance 
requirements.  It was intended to offer developi ng countries the possibility to present their specific 
needs in the SPS area in a way which would help to  better ensure the provision of targeted and 
efficient technical assistance.  At the March in formal meetings, some Members questioned the 
propriety/utility of some of the questions in the questionnaire.  The Chair noted that the SPS 
Committee questionnaire had not been vetted through the process used by the Technical Barriers to 
Trade (TBT) Committee .  Given that only 36 Members have responded to the questionnaire, the 
Committee should consider the benefits of having a thorough discussion of the questionnaire so that 
this mechanism can be best used to enhance the efficiency and eff ectiveness of technical assistance. 
 
__________