WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/189 
24 May 2006 
 (06-2519) 
Committee on Sanitary and  
Phytosanitary Measures Original:   Spanish 
 
 
COMMENTS ON BACKGROUND DO CUMENT G/SPS/GEN/640 "ISSUES 
IN THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE AGREEMENT 
ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND  
PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES" 
 
Document Submitted Jointly by Argentina, Brazil, Colombia , 
Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay  
  
 The following communication, received on 10 May, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Co lombia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay. 
_______________ 
 
 At the 35
th regular meeting of the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(SPS Committee), document G/SPS/GEN/640 by the S ecretariat of the SPS Committee on issues in 
the application of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement was the focal point of the discussions on 
regionalization.  We commend the Secretariat of the Committee for drafting the document, and in 
particular, for taking the initiative to invite comme nts thereon in order to achieve further progress 
towards finding a solution for the effective implementation of Article 6.   In view of the concerns expressed by Members with respect to the effective implementation 
of the provisions of Article 6, particularly as regards undue delays in the procedures for the 
recognition of regionalization, the co-sponsor s of this document decided, during the 34
th meeting of 
the SPS Committee, to work together to produce a proposal containing suggested steps and time-
frames for the procedures involved in recognizing pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence.  
 Thus, with a view to operationalizing the provi sions of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, and 
bearing in mind the work we have been conducting in  parallel, we would like to submit the following 
considerations exclusively with respect to Part IV of document G/SPS/GEN/640 in the hope that they 
will be reflected in the Committee's decision on procedures for the recognition of regionalization 
(what we would like to see deleted has been struck through, and what we ha ve added is bold and 
underlined). 
  Our suggestions are motivated by the following c oncerns with respect to Part IV of document 
G/SPS/GEN/640:  
 - To avoid the linkage of prior rec ognition by international standardization 
organizations with bilateral rec ognition (paragraphs A 27 and B 28); 
  - to introduce a reasonable time-frame
 for fulfilling the various stages of the process 
and criteria for bilateral negotiations. 
_______________ G/SPS/W/189 
Page 2  
 
  IV. TYPICAL STEPS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR RECOGNITION:  
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
31 
25. As previously noted, a number of Member s have submitted proposals regarding the 
administrative process for recognizing pest- or disease-freedom.  Although these proposals vary in a number of requests, there are some common or recurrent elements.  This section of the paper 
identifies these common elements. 
26. The administrative process for achieving bila teral recognition is typically preceded by a 
country eradicating the disease or pest in question and obtaining a particular sanitary or phytosanitary status within part or all of its territory.  
V. EXPORTING MEMBER REQUESTS ISSB RECOGNITION 
27.
 Following this, a country may seek recognition of its status by the competent international 
organization.  Upon obtai ning the status of pest - or disease -free area or area of low prevalence, a 
Member officially declares this status (see step K for discussion of expedited procedure).  
B. EXPORTING MEMBER REQUESTS BILAT ERAL RECOGNITION  
28. Once achieved, the free status is commun icated to relevant trading partners along with a 
formal request for recognition of this status , initiating the bilateral process of recognition.32  T h i s  
request for the recognition of a pest - or disease -free area or an area of low pest or disease prevalence  
may be accompanied by science -based and technical information to  support the exporting Members' 
objective demonstration of its sanitary or phytosan itary status, including reference to relevant 
international recognition of free status.  Alternatively, the initial request could relate to requirements 
and procedure specific to the importing Member, and the technical information could be sent later 
(see step D).  
A. REQUEST FOR REQUIREMENTS AND PROC EDURES FOR THE RECOGNITION OF PEST - OR 
DISEASE -FREE AREAS OR AREAS OF LOW PEST OR DISEASE PREVALENCE 
(ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES OF THE EXPORTING MEMBER ) 
27. The following administrative procedures shall be observed during the first stage : 
 (a) The exporting Member asks the importing Member to communicate the 
requirements and necessary stages for ob taining recognition of sanitary or 
phytosanitary status with respect to a given pest or disease and to provide the 
specific questionnaire for the evaluation of free areas ; 
  (b) the exporting Member specifies in its application the body and specialists
 
designated to handle the procedures relating to its request . 
 
B. IMPORTING MEMBER CLARIFIES REQUIREMENTS  
28. At the request of the exporting Member, the importing Member explains the requirements and 
procedures for recognition of sanitary or phytosanitary  status with respect to a given pest or disease 
                                                      
31 See in particular Argentina (G/SPS/GEN/60 6); Brazil (G/SPS/W/185);  Chile (G/SPS/W/129, 
G/SPS/W/140/Rev.2 and G/SPS/W/144);  Colombia (G /SPS/GEN/611);  Mexico (G/SPS/GEN/388); Peru 
(G/SPS/W/148). 
 
32 Chile (G/SP S/W/129 ).  G/SPS/W/189 
 Page 3 
 
 
  and specifies the body or specialist designated to handle the procedures relating to the request 
of the exporting country .  The importing Member, upon receiving this information, may request 
answers to a specific questionnaire.   
C. EXPORTING MEMBER PROVIDES DOCUMENTATION  
29. The exporting Member sends the technical file  establishing compliance with the requirements 
laid down by the importing Member, accompanied by  an official declaration from the national 
regulatory body attesting that the ecosystem is a pest- or disease-free area or an area of low pest or 
disease prevalence.  Alternatively, the exporting Member provides supporting information showing that the procedures used to obtain recognition of that area
 are based on an international standard, 
guideline or recommendation established by co mpetent bodies under the SPS Agreement.  The 
exporting Member also supplies any further inform ation that could help the importing Member to 
reach its decision on recognition , even where there is already some sort of international 
recognition (bilateral,  regional, etc) . 
D. IMPORTING MEMBER EVALUATES DOCUMENTATION /ADDITIONAL INFORMATION  
30. The importing Member provides feedback to the exporting Member regarding whether the 
documentation is in order.  In addition, the impor ting Member can provide information regarding the 
necessity of additional information, the necessity of  on-site auditing, and suggestion of dates for the 
on-site auditing.  The importing Member may take  into consideration whether the recognition has 
been accorded previously by an international body or by another Me mber when scheduling a technical 
inspection visit. 
31. If the response from the importing Member is  negative, the importing Member issues a 
decision rejecting the request and providing reasons .  This allows the exporting Member to modify 
and adapt its system with a view to seeking recognition in the future. 
32. If the response from the importing Member is positive, the importing Member indicates 
comments where they exist.   
E. EXPORTING MEMBER RESPONDS TO COMMENTS  
33. If the evaluation report contains comments, the exporting Member provides the relevant 
clarifications, additi ons or modifications. 
F. IMPORTING MEMBER EVALUATES DOCUMENTATION  
34. The importing Member provides feedback to the exporting Member regarding responses and 
indicates whether further clarification is necessary.   If further clarification is needed the process 
repeats steps E and F .   
G. IMPORTING MEMBER CONDUCTS ON -SITE EVALUATION  
35. If necessary the importing Member carries out a visit in order to verify the information 
provided in support of the request for recognition of a pest- or disease-free area or area of low 
prevalence.   This technical inspection could consider, inter alia , the administrative structure of the 
regulatory bodies and the programmes they implem ent with a view to prevention, control and 
eradication.  The strength and credibility of the ve terinary or phytosanitary infrastructure of the 
exporting region(s) would also be  part of this evaluation. G/SPS/W/189 
Page 4  
 
  36. The importing Member indicates comments relating to the inspection visit in an inspection 
report. 
H. E
XPORTING MEMBER RESPONDS TO INSPECTION REPORT  
37. If the report of the visit contains comments,  the exporting Member provides the relevant 
clarifications, additi ons or modifications. 
I. IMPORTING MEMBER REJECTS OR AUTHORIZES  
38. Where its evaluation and verification of the in formation provided by the exporting country 
leads to an unfavourable conclusion, the impor ting Member provides technical grounds for the 
decision, so that the exporting Member may modify  and adapt its system with a view to future 
recognition requests. 
39. Where its evaluation and verification of the in formation provided by the exporting country 
leads to a favourable conclusion, the importing Member launches its internal administrative 
procedures to eliminate the restrictions relating to  the pest or disease associated with the recognition, 
to facilitate trade from the exporting Member that  requested recognition.  The importing Member 
modifies existing regulations or elaborates new ones to  support official recognition of free status.  In 
addition, the importing Member may circulate the m odified or new regulation for public comment.  
The recognition of free status by the importing Member would not preclude the importing Member from taking emergency actions if the status of the exporting Member changes. 
J. R
EPORTS AND NOTIFICATIONS WITH REGARD TO RECOGNITION PROCESSES  
40. Members are asked to keep the Committee in formed of applications for recognition of 
pest- or disease-free areas and the follow up th ereof.  When a Member has recognized a pest- or 
disease-free area, it shall so no tify the Committee, supplying the evaluation questionnaire and 
the analysis criteria . 
K. REFERENCE TIME -LIMITS  
41. In order to ensure greater predictability of processes for the recognition of pest- or 
disease-free areas while limiting undue delays , the following reference time-limits are 
recommended : 
 (a) For the importing Member to complete the stages under its responsibility (B, D, 
F, G and I – three years (36 months) ; 
  (b) for the exporting Member to complete the stages under its responsibility (A, C, E 
and H) – one and half years (18 months) . 
 
L. BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS  
42. Where the Members concerned so agree, or in the situations described below, they may 
establish new reference time-limits different from  those set forth above through bilateral 
negotiations, and may conclude a new work plan within a maximum period of 90 calendar days 
following the application : 
(a) When there is insufficient scientific knowledge of the epidemiology and control 
of the pest or disease ;  G/SPS/W/189 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (b) when the importing Member has never recognized a free area or an area of low 
prevalence with respect to the pest or disease in question ; 
(c) when the number of applications for recognition received by a Member exceeds 
that Member's analysis capacity with  due regard for the country's level of 
development ; 
(d) when there has been a significant change in the status of the pest or disease in 
the territories of the Members involved during the analysis period ; 
(e) when the authorities responsible for the analyses have been mobilized for other 
emergency activities . 
M. EXPEDITED PROCESS  
43. An expedited process for recognition of sanitary  status could be applied in the following 
situations: 
(a) When there has been official recognition following verification by one of the 
SPS Agreement's internationa l reference organizations; 
(b) when there has been an outbreak in a previously recognized area which, once the 
problem was eliminated, was restored to its former status, provided the eradication 
procedures comply with the relevant sa nitary standard and the time-limits 
established therein are respected ; 
(c) when the infrastructure and operation of the responsible veterinary or phytosanitary 
service of the exporting Member are sufficiently familiar to the importing Member owing to sanitary or phytosanitary recognitio n with respect to other pests or diseases, 
or to existing trade relations. 
44. This process involves the bilaterally agreed exclusion of one or more stages described in 
section IV above, preferably stages A, B and C . 
45. When there has been no previously notified  occurrence of the pest or disease and the 
surveillance procedures and activities have shown the non existence thereof, the territory of the 
Member in question shall be considered free of that pest or disease . 
__________