WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/613 
16 December 2005 
 (05-6105) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
  
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
(REGIONALIZATION) 
 
Communication from Canada  
 
 
 The following communication, received on 14 December 2005, is being circulated at the 
request of the Delegation of Canada.  
_______________ 
  
1. Adaptation of sanitary or phytosanitary measures to regional conditions is of key importance 
and potential benefit to both impor ting and exporting countries.  Artic le 6 of the Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es (SPS Agreement) encourages Members to ensure 
that sanitary or phytosanitary measures are adapted to the sanitary or phytosanitary conditions of the 
area from which a consignment originat es and for which it is destined.   
2. The implementation of Article 6 has been an  agenda item of the SPS Committee at every 
meeting since the Twenty-Sixth Session in April 2 003, and has also been the subject of informal 
meetings at each session.  Concerns have been ra ised over the lack of, or delays in, recognition by 
importing countries of regional conditions in exporting countries. 
3. In March 2004, Canada put forward a proposed  draft decision regarding the implementation 
of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/W/145) .  This draft decision recognized the need for 
guidelines related to Article 6 and encouraged the relevant International Standard Setting Bodies 
(ISSBs) to establish such guidelines and regularly to inform the Committee regarding their activities 
in this area.  The proposal also called on Member s periodically to inform the SPS Committee of their 
experiences regarding the implementation of Article 6, with a view to developing best practices.  
Ideally, these experiences would include the pe rspectives of both importers and exporters. 
4. Implementation of Article 6 was also identified as a priority area for the Committee as part of 
the Second Review of the Operation and Implemen tation of the Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (G/SPS/36).  The report of the Review included recommendations that the Committee develop a proposal  for a decision on the effective application of 
Article 6; that Members provide information on their experiences in the implementation of Article 6; 
and that observer organizations, and in particular the ISSBs, inform the Committee of their activities 
relevant to the issue. G/SPS/GEN/613 
Page 2  
 
 A. C
ANADA 'S EXPERIENCE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 6 
5. Delays in recognition of regional disease conditi ons are problematic from both an exporting 
and importing perspective.  Canada  has experiences from both perspectives, and two recent examples 
are recounted below. 
Avian Influenza  
 
6. Canada has experienced challenges in deali ng with some trading partners following the 
outbreak in British Columbia, Canada, of highly pathogenic avian influenza in domestic poultry in 
2004. 
7. Canadian authorities established zoning to define infected and disease-free areas.  The OIE 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code Chapter 2.7.12 on  Avian Influenza defines avian influenza in its 
notifiable form (NAI) and takes into account regional considerations by specifying an internationally 
accepted standard for determining the NAI status of a country, a zone or a compartment. 
8. During this outbreak, many trading partne rs followed OIE guidelines, appropriately 
recognizing the sanitary safety of international trad e in poultry products originating from outside of 
the controlled zone.  However, a number of count ries did not recognize differences in Canada’s 
regional status for the disease.  Many countries, incl uding some seeking development of guidelines 
related to Article 6 by the SPS Committee, conti nued to maintain such measures (some regional, 
others national in scope) for more than six months after Canada was declared NAI-free.  
9. Recently, some trading partners contravened OI E Guidelines in a more exceptional manner by 
banning domestic poultry imports from regions of  Canada where non-NAI low pathogenic avian 
influenza had been detected in migratory w ild birds as part of routine surveillance. 
10. Canada believes that restrictions on poultry imports  adopted in response to avian influenza, in 
particular import bans on poultry that do not distin guish between infected and non-infected regions 
and are not based on a scientific risk assessment, serve as a deterrent to countries to make the 
appropriate investments in surveillance and disco urage transparency in disease reporting.  Such 
restrictions are neither conducive to global security nor prosperity. 
Foot and Mouth Disease  
 11. Following the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in 2001 in the United Kingdom, 
France, the Netherlands and Ireland, the Canadi an Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) temporarily 
suspended import permits and entry of FMD-susc eptible products from all EU countries.  Live 
ruminant animals and pigs, embryos, semen, meat and other animal products, such as unpasteurized 
milk and cheese products were affected by the susp ension.  Processed dairy products were permitted 
subject to defined treatment (e.g., heat or pH adjustment).  Enhanced import measures for milk, 
regulated milk products and dairy products from EC countries were also implemented.  
12. Following a review of requested information received from the Commission in May 2001 
concerning the FMD situation in all EC member States and the control measures taken, Canada 
modified its enhanced measures related to FMD for importations from the European Communities.  In 
May 2001, Canada lifted the enhanced measures restricting the import of animals and animal 
products, under specified conditions, for 10 EC member States that had not had confirmed cases of FMD, and conducted a scientific assessment relevant to five EC countries that had experienced cases 
of FMD.  While that assessment was being completed, the suspension of importations of FMD 
susceptible animals and animal products from these inf ected countries remained in effect, with some 
modifications related to the impor tation of germplasm.  In July 2001, Canada lifted measures for  G/SPS/GEN/613 
 Page 3 
 
 
 France and the Republic of Ireland and in September 2001, restrictions were lifted for the Netherlands 
and Northern Ireland. 
B. WORK OF STANDARD SETTING BODIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES RELATED TO 
ARTICLE 6 
13. The IPPC and OIE have responded promptly to  requests by the SPS Committee over lack of 
adequate guidelines to address delays in recognition of regional disease conditions.  
14. In May 2005, the OIE concluded its work on a ch apter within the Terrestrial Animal Health 
Code related to zoning and compartm entalization.  In addition, the Terrestrial Animal Health Code 
Commission is planning to include zoning and compartmentalization provisions within disease-
specific chapters.  The first example of this is the chapter on Avian Influenza which includes 
references to zoning and compartmentalization specific to this disease. 
15. In April 2005, the IPPC initiated the developm ent of a standard that would provide guidelines 
for bilateral recognition of pest free areas, assigni ng it high priority in its work programme.  In 
October 2005, an expert working group of the IPPC met to prepare a draft standard on the subject.  Since the IPPC had already developed a full comple ment of technical guidelines relating to pest free 
areas, and areas of low pest prevalence, these new (draft) guidelines address primarily administrative 
issues, while ensuring that all relevant technical  issues are accommodated.  During 2006, an IPPC 
working group will convene to consider the possib ilities for an international IPPC recognition system 
for pest free areas, similar in concept to the role that the OIE carries out in this regard. 
16. Canada supports the ongoing work by ISSBs in the development of guidelines for the 
implementation of sanitary and phytosanitary meas ures based on regional conditions that support the 
implementation of Article 6.  Such guidelines would encourage all Members to adopt regional 
measures, where appropriate. 
C. 
WAY FORWARD  
17. All Members recognize that both the ISSBs and the Committee have a role to play in the 
implementation of Article 6.  There has been ge neral consensus that the ISSBs should deal with 
technical aspects of guidelines because of their technical competence. 
18. In Canada’s view, it can be difficult to diffe rentiate between administrative and technical 
issues in addressing delays to recognition of regional pest/disease status, given the technical underpinnings of such administrative guidelines.  Any technical requirements related to recognition 
are entwined within an administrative framework .  On the other hand, and more importantly, 
administrative procedures and timelines can be depe ndent on the issue-specific technical complexities 
and scientific assessment methods necessary in recognizing, and adapting measures to, regional 
conditions.  Beyond the difficulties in attempting to  separate technical and administrative guidelines, 
any guidelines developed that address only administra tive delays would have to be drafted with a 
detailed knowledge of technical requirements for recognition of regional pest/disease status as 
promulgated by the standard setting bodies.  To pro ceed otherwise is to risk developing guidelines 
that conflict with guidelines adopted or under preparation by the ISSBs.   
19. The ISSBs have been receptive and responsive to requests by the Committee, and sufficient 
time must be allowed to review the results of th eir work in relation to SPS Committee concerns.  In 
our view, the most effective course of action would be  to allow the ISSBs to continue the work that 
they have initiated related to the provisions of Ar ticle 6 and for them to report to the Committee upon, 
or prior to, the conclusion of their work.   G/SPS/GEN/613 
Page 4  
 
 20. If, following the conclusion of the work of th e ISSBs, it is determined by the Committee that 
further guidance is still required, the SPS Committee should communicate this to the ISSBs.  If the 
ISSBs do not respond to any remaining concerns communicated to them, then the SPS Committee could consider addressing any remain ing requirements for guidelines. 
 
__________