WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/698 
31 May 2006 
 (06-2604) 
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 
 
 
 The following communication, received on 12 May 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.  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 recommendations is the responsibility of the ISSBs and that the SPS Committee should 
avoid duplication of effort in this regard. 
3. The paper noted that there were common or recurrent elements in Members' proposals 
regarding the administrative process for recognizi ng pest or disease freedom.  These elements were 
listed in Section IV of the paper:  "Typical st eps 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 
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 
 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 oppor tunity 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 
Page 4  
 
  Figure 2 - Steps for zoning under the OIE Article 1.3.5.5 
 
 
  G/SPS/GEN/698 
 Page 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). 
11. IPPC has also recognized the need to develop a standard for the process to be followed in the 
recognition of such areas.  Through this standard it aims to outline the criteria and procedures for the 
bilateral recognition of such areas and provide gu idance 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 has developed a draf t standard ("Guidelines for the recognition of 
pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence")  that is being considered by the Standards 
Committee in the week of 8 May 2006.  Following  any necessary modifications, it will be circulated 
for country consideration, providing all contracting pa rties of the IPPC the opportunity to comment on 
its content.  This standard could then be adopt ed at the CPM meeting scheduled for April 2007. 
13. Once the IPPC standard is published for consulta tion, New Zealand will revise this paper, so 
that it also includes analysis of the new draft standard under consideration.  
III. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED STEPS AND ISSB STANDARDS 
14. New Zealand has taken the elements pr oposed by Members in G/SPS/GEN/640 and 
compared these to the appropriate standards de veloped by the OIE addressing the recognition of 
regionalization.  The resulting matrix can be seen in Table 1 below. 
Table 1 - Comparisons between elements in cluded in G/SPS/GEN/640 with OIE standards 
 
G/SPS/GEN/640 OIE – Article 1.3.5.5 
a. Exporting Member requests bilateral 
recognition c. Exporting country explains that can 
be treated as a zone 
b. Importing Member clarifies requirements  
c. Exporting Member provides documentation c. Exporting country provides 
information (as listed in standard) 
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 
h. Exporting Member responds to inspection 
report  
i. Importing Member rejects or authorizes e. Importing country notifies exporting 
country of result and reasons within a 
reasonable period of time G/SPS/GEN/698 
Page 6  
 
  IV. CONCLUSION 
15. 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 regionalisation and considerable progress has been made to date. 
16. 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 th e elements identified by the Members of the 
SPS Committee as important in the recognition of regionalization. 
17. 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. 
 
__________