WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/239 
29 May 2009 
 (09-2590) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
 
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS 
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION  
 
Draft Eleventh Annual Report
1 
 
 A. INTRODUCTION 
1. At its meeting of 15-16 October 1997, the SPS Committee adopted a provisional procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization a nd the use of international standards, guidelines 
or recommendations, as provided for in Articles 3. 5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement.  The Committee 
extended the provisional monitoring procedure in 1999, 2001, and 2003, and adopted a revision of the 
procedure in October 2004.
2  On 28 June 2006, the Committee agreed to extend the provisional 
procedure indefinitely, and to review its operation as an integral part of the periodic review of the 
operation and implementation of the Agreement under Article 12.7.3  The next such review is to be 
completed in 2009, and every four years subsequently.  
2. The Committee has previously adopted tenth an nual reports on the monitoring procedure.4  
These reports summarize several standards-related is sues that the Committee has considered and the 
responses received from the relevant  standard-setting organizations. 
B. NEW  ISSUES 
3. Since the adoption of the Tenth Annual Report in June 2008, two new issues have been raised 
under this procedure.  One issue is with regard to concerns raised relating to a draft regional standard 
of the North American Plant Protection Organi zation (NAPPO) entitled "Guidelines for Regulating 
the Movement of Ships and Cargoes Aboard those Ships from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy 
Moth".  The other issue pertains to provisions of  the Constitutive Agreement of the Asia Pacific Plant 
Protection Commission (APPPC) regarding havea plants and South American leaf blight. 
Concerns on draft regional standard of the North American Plant Protection Organization 
 
4. At the meeting of the Committee of 15-16 Oct ober 2008, China raised the issue of a draft 
regional standard developed by NAPPO which woul d require NAPPO members (Canada, Mexico and 
the United States) to impose strict phytosanitary  measures on ships and cargoes from China, Japan, 
Korea, Mongolia, and Russia.5  China, along with Japan, Korea a nd Indonesia, were concerned that 
the draft regional standard would have a serious imp act on international trade if implemented, that it 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the position of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/14, G/SPS/17,  G/SP S/25 and G/SPS/11/Rev.1. 
3 G/SPS/40. 
4 These were circulated as G/SPS/13, G/ SPS/16, G/SPS/18, G/SPS/2 1, G/SPS/28, G/SPS/31, 
G/SPS/37, G/SPS/42, G/SP S/45 and G/SPS/49. 
5 G/SPS/R/53, paragraphs 112-120. G/SPS/W/239 
Page 2  
 
  was inconsistent with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of  the SPS Agreement, and that it had ambiguities 
regarding the technical application of the measure  in different NAPPO countries and in different 
climatic conditions.  
5. The United States stressed that the NAPPO standard was still in a draft form, and was 
amenable to changes based on comments submitted by  concerned Members.  China had declined an 
invitation to attend an October 2008 meeting regarding this draft sta ndard.  This pest was not present 
in the NAPPO countries, but it was known to be ve ry invasive.  A harmonized standard would allow 
ships to enter any port in a NAPPO country, after be ing approved at the first port of call.  Canada 
supported the statement of the United States, citing th e damage previously caused by incursions of the 
Asian Gypsy Moth in Canada.  These interv entions were also supported by Mexico. 
6. China stated that it had already sent technical  comments to the NAPPO secretariat and hoped 
there would be further meetings between the NAP PO secretariat and the concerned Members.  The 
representative of Norway also expressed interest re garding the possible impact on Norway's exports. 
7. The European Communities reported that they had not introduced any new measures with 
regard to the Asian Gypsy Moth, although they remain ed vigilant to any potent ial risk.  The European 
Communities noted the similarities between this is sue and ISPM 15 on wood packing material, and 
hoped that a similar solution to the Asian Gypsy Moth problem could be found. 
8. At the meeting of the Committee in February, 2009, China reported that it had maintained 
good communications with the officials of the NA PPO countries since raising its concern on this 
issue.  The draft standard had been revised a nd was undergoing a second comment-soliciting process, 
and technical expert groups had been sent to China, Japan and Korea from NAPPO to exchange 
information.  China welcomed the open and transp arent working procedure of the NAPPO countries, 
and requested that they delay adoption of the sta ndard until comments and c oncerns were taken into 
account.  Moreover, China reaffirmed the need for scientific evidence for every SPS measure, as 
provided for in Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  China also reported that the occurrence of the 
Asian Gypsy Moth had decreased sufficiently within its territory that this pest was not detected during 
joint surveillance with the Unite d States in some Chinese ports.  China also recalled the SPS 
Agreement provision for the least trade- restrictive measure to be applied. 
9. Indonesia, Japan and Korea shared similar concer ns in regard to the draft standard.  Japan 
requested that the adoption of the standard be deferred until all comments were duly considered.  
Indonesia noted the need for further studies on the possibility of the survival of the insects on long 
distance journeys to North America via cargoes.  Ko rea argued that the draft standard might pose an 
excessive restriction on trade, and expressed regret that the low prevalence of the pest in Korea had 
not been considered by the United States.  
10. The United States reaffirmed that the Asian Gy psy Moth was a highly invasive pest, and had 
been found in port areas in North America on a num ber of occasions although it was not present in 
North America.  The United States stated that th e need for specific phyto sanitary measures had been 
stressed by the NAPPO pest risk assessment panel, subsequent to a risk assessment.  This assessment 
was available on request and was the basis of th e present draft standard.  The United States assured 
trading partners that the applied phytosanitary me asures would be consistent  with its WTO rights and 
obligations.  The statements of the United St ates were corroborated by Mexico and Canada. 
11.
 [Update on the basis of the June 2009 meeting]  G/SPS/W/239 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Concerns on restrictions on imports of Havea Plants  
 
12. At the meeting of the Committee of 25-26 Febr uary 2009, Brazil raised concerns regarding 
some provisions of the Constitutive Agreement of  the Asia Pacific Plant Protection Commission 
(APPPC), which includes a clause in its Article 4 and Appendix B on South American leaf blight.6  
By virtue of this clause, the APPPC contractin g parties are requested to prohibit by law the 
importation of havea plants from countries outside the region.  Brazil considered that this requirement 
lacked scientific justification, was not based on risk  analysis, and had already affected many countries 
in South and Central America.  Moreover, in 1999 the 117th Council of the FAO had recommended 
the revision of the APPPC Constitutive Agreement,  to bring it in line with the IPPC and SPS 
Agreement principles and provisions.  Brazil urge d a timely revision of the APPPC Constitutive 
Agreement. 
13. Brazil's concerns were supported by Japan.  Japan was not a member of the APPPC even 
though it was located in the region covered by it, due  to this provision against South American leaf 
blight.  A risk assessment for a regional standard  had been conducted by the APPPC, and Japan hoped 
that the APPPC would adopt a regional standard on this basis at its September 2009 meeting. 
14. The IPPC representative clarified the relations hip between the IPPC and the regional plant 
protection organizations.  The cooperation of the regional plant protection organizations with the 
IPPC secretariat to achieve the objectives of the In ternational Plant Protection Convention, and to 
develop relevant standards, is prescribed in Article  4 of the Convention.  Article 10 of the Convention 
provides that regional standards shall be consistent with the principles of the Convention.  The IPPC 
had also sought the revision of the APPPC Constitutiv e Agreement, to make it consistent with IPPC 
principles. 
15. [Update on the basis of the June 2009 meeting] 
C. PREVIOUS  ISSUES 
16. Since the adoption of the Twelfth Annual report, there has been [no] further discussion on any 
issue previously raised under this procedure.  [Update on the basis of the June 2009 meeting.] 
D. RESPONSES  RECEIVED  FROM  THE  RELEVANT  STANDARD-SETTING  
ORGANIZATIONS 
17. No further information has been provided by the relevant standard-setting organizations 
regarding issues previously raised.  [Update on the basis of the June 2009 meeting] 
___________ 
                                                      
6 G/SPS/R/54, paragraphs 125-127.