WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/37 
19 July 2005 
 (05-3211) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
 
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS 
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION 
 
Seventh Annual Report
 
Adopted by the Committee on 30 June 2005  
  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 Ar ticles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement.1  The Committee 
decided to extend the provisional monitoring procedur e for a further two-year period in July 1999, 
and again in July 2001.2  On 25 June 2003, the Committee agre ed to further extend the provisional 
procedure for 36 months, and to revi ew its operation in July 2006 to determine at that time whether to 
continue with the provisional procedur e, amend it, or develop another one.3 
2. The Committee has previously adopted six annual reports on the monitoring procedure.4  
These reports summarized several standards-related issues that the Committee had considered and the 
responses received from the relevant  standard-setting organizations. 
B. REVISION OF THE PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL 
HARMONIZATION  
3. At its meeting of 27-28 October 2004, th e Committee adopted modifications to the 
provisional procedure to monitor the use of international standards.5  The deadline for identifying 
issues as established in the agreed proce dures was reduced from 30 days to ten days. 
C. NEW ISSUES  
4. Since the adoption of the Sixth Annual Report, two new issues have been raised under this 
procedure.  One issue is with regard to regionali zation and the other concerns the implementation of 
the International Standard for Phytosanita ry Measures (ISPM) number 15 on wood packaging 
material. 
Pest and Disease-free Areas (Article 6) 
5. At the meeting of the Committee on 27-28 Oc tober 2004, New Zealand proposed that the 
Committee consider the issue of regionalization un der the procedure for monitoring international 
                                                      
1 G/SPS/11. 
2 G/SPS/14 and G/SPS/17. 
3 G/SPS/25. 
4 These were circulated as G/SPS/13, G/SPS/ 16, G/SPS/18, G/SPS/21, G/S PS/28 and G/SPS/31.  
5 G/SPS/11/Rev.1. G/SPS/37 
Page 2  
 
 harmonization.
6  Using this procedure could facilitate progress in discussions on regionalization by 
seeking the best available scientific and technical advice and thereby avoid unnecessary duplication of 
work.  In accordance with Article 12.6 of the SP S Agreement, New Zealand requested that the 
Committee invite the secretariats of the OIE and the IPPC to examine the speci fic matters raised with 
respect to the relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations. 
6. Discussions on regionalization also occurred at the meetings of the Committee in October 
2004, March and June 2005 under the agenda item on regiona lization.  These discussions are 
summarized in the relevant reports of the meetings.7 
Implementation of ISPM 15 on Wood Packaging Material 
7. At the meetings of the Committee on 27-28 Oc tober 2004 and 9-10 March 2005, China raised 
a number of concerns regarding the implementa tion of ISPM 15 on wood packaging material.8  In 
particular, China highlighted the problems concerni ng the effectiveness of ISPM 15 in controlling the 
pine wood nematode.  A study conducted by a Sino-Korean research group concluded that the 
nematode could not be effectively eradicated by methyl bromide fumigation.  This study was 
presented to the Interim Commission on Phytosan itary Measures (ICPM) in April 2003 and to the 
ICPM Standards Committee in November 2004 for th e ICPM's consideration for amendment of the 
methyl bromide fumigation index. 
8. At the meeting of the Committee on 9-10 Marc h 2005, Mauritius raised concerns over the 
problems that small developing countries faced with the implementation of ISPM 15, particularly the 
heat treatment requirements for wood packaging material for export.9  Mauritius had already initiated 
a program to develop the capacity for heat treatme nt of exports of wood packaging materials, but 
required more time for the full implementation of IS PM 15.  In this regard, Mauritius was seeking a 4-
year moratorium on the implementation of ISPM 15 from the IPPC and from those Members who had 
adopted the standard.  Mauritius requested Member s to give positive consideration to the use of 
phosphine fumigation treatment as an equivalent treat ment during the interim period.  The European 
Communities' efforts to take into consideration developing countries' concerns as reflected in 
G/SPS/N/EEC/221/Add.3 were welcomed and othe r Members were urged to show similar 
consideration. 
9. At the meeting of the Committee on 29-30 June 2005, the United States raised concerns 
regarding the additional requirement by some Member s of the debarking of wood packaging material 
that was compliant with ISPM 15.  The United Stat es recalled that according to Article VII.2.(a) of 
the new revised text of the IPPC a technical justific ation was required to justify this additional risk 
management measure.  In this context, the Un ites States requested the European Communities to 
suspend the implementation of the debarking requi rement in EC Directive 2004/102 until the EC's  
technical justification documents had been reviewed.  It was noted that the IPPC was currently developing a standard on debarking. 
10. Discussions on ISPM 15 also occurred at the meeting of the Committee in October 2004, 
March and June 2005 under the agenda items of information from Members and specific trade 
concerns.  These discussions are summarized in the relevant reports of the meetings.
7 
                                                      
6 G/SPS/R/35 and G/SPS/W/151. 
7 G/SPS/R/35 and Corr. 2, G/SPS/R/ 36/Rev.1 (in English) and G/SP S/R/36 (in French and Spanish) 
and G/SPS/R/37. 
8 G/SPS/GEN/551. 
9 G/SPS/GEN/547.  G/SPS/37 
 Page 3 
 
 
 D. RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM THE RELEVANT STANDARD -SETTING ORGANIZATIONS  
Pest and Disease-free Areas (Article 6) – Response from the OIE  
11. At the meeting of the Committee on June 29-30 2005, the OIE informed the Committee that 
the revised chapter of the Terrestrial Animal Heal th Code on zoning and compartmentalization had 
been adopted at the meeting of the General Session of the OIE in May 2005 and circulated to the SPS 
Committee.10  The revised chapter recommended a pro cedure which emphasized the role of the 
veterinary services in establishing zones or compar tments and in negotiating market access with 
trading partners. Further revisions were expect ed to be undertaken in 2006 or 2007 based on the 
feedback on a technical paper on compartmentaliza tion that was currently being circulated for 
comments. The OIE informed the Co mmittee that work was also being undertaken to harmonize its 
approach on regionalization with that of the IPPC.  
Pest and Disease-free Areas (Article 6) – Response from the IPPC 
12. At the meeting of the Committee on 29-30 June 20 05, the IPPC informed the Committee that  
an open-ended working group had been established to discuss the issue of regionalization at the 
meeting of the ICPM  on 4-11 April 2005. The I PPC noted that standards on establishing pest-free 
areas and areas of low pest prevalence already exis ted, but that there were no standards for the 
recognition of pest-free areas.  The ICPM had ther efore decided to urgently develop a concept 
standard on "Guidelines for the recognition of the est ablishment of pest free areas and areas of low 
pest prevalence", that would provide general guidance on the recognition process but would not 
provide timelines.  The specifications of this c oncept standard were developed by the Standards 
Committee at its meeting in April 2005.  The IPPC  also informed the Comm ittee that the ICPM had 
recommended undertaking a feasibility study on the in ternational recognition of pest-free areas, which 
would take into account legal, technical and econom ic factors and assess the sustainability of such a 
system.  
Implementation of ISPM 15 on Wood Packaging – Response from the IPPC 
13. The IPPC informed the Committee, at the mee ting on 9-10 March 2005, th at a technical panel 
would meet that week to consider the data submitted by China with respect to ISPM 15.  In addition, 
the IPPC had co-sponsored a workshop on the prac tical application of ISPM 15 in Vancouver, 
Canada, from 28 February to 4 March 2005. 
14. At the meeting of the Committee on 29-30 June , the IPPC informed the Committee that a 
standard on the guidelines for debarked and ba rk-free wood was currently under development. 
 
___________ 
 
                                                      
10 G/SPS/GEN/574.