. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/46 
29 October 2007 
 (07-4681) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
 
SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
 
Report by the Chairman to the General Council
 
 
 
1. This report is further to the informati on provided in April 2007 regarding the SPS 
Committee's consideration of the issue of special and differential treatment (G/SPS/44). 
2. This issue has continued to be considered by the SPS Committee at each of its regular 
meetings, as well as at informal meetings just prior to the three regular meetings held in 2007.   
3. At an informal meeting in June, the representativ e of Egypt informally tabled two proposals.  
The first of these contained a revision of ear lier proposals on SPS Article 10.1, suggesting the 
inclusion of a new, first paragraph in the article, a nd further revisions to the existing first paragraph.  
This proposal can be found in document Job(07)99.  The other proposal submitted by Egypt suggested 
revisions to the procedures for transparency of S&D adopted previously by the Committee.  The 
adopted procedures are contained in document G/SPS/33, and the proposal by Egypt is in Job 
(07)/104.   
4. Discussion of these proposals at the June meeting was limited to preliminary reactions, as 
Members had not received the proposals prior to the meeting.   
5. In the discussion of the proposal relating to Artic le 10.1 at an informal meeting in October, 
several Members again stressed thei r concern that modifications to the text of the SPS Agreement 
would upset the delicate balance of rights and oblig ations contained therein.  The representative of 
Egypt indicated that modification of the text of the Agreement was not the primary intention, and 
suggested that an authoritative interpretation or d ecision of the General Council could alternatively be 
used to bring clarity and predictability to th e S&D provisions.  What was being sought was an 
obligation of result rather than the current oblig ation of conduct;  the process of taking into account 
the needs of developing countries should not be confu sed with the outcome of that process.  Technical 
assistance, while useful, could not substitute for S&D. 
6. Several Members noted that it was difficult for a Member considering the application of a 
food safety, plant or animal health protective meas ure to identify the special needs of developing 
countries and to take these into account.  They s uggested that further attention be given to the 
question of understanding the needs of developing countries and of how these could be taken into 
account.  The representative of Egypt noted that th e call for comments prior to the drafting of new 
legislation was one example of how the special ne eds of developing countries could be taken into 
account. 
7. With regard to revision of the procedure for transparency of S&D treatment, the 
representative of Egypt noted that proposed revi sions to the Committee's recommended notification 
procedures captured many of Egypt's proposed ame ndments to the G/SPS/33 procedure with regard to G/SPS/46 
Page 2  
 
  transparency.  However, these did not address the n eed to increase predictab ility of the special and 
differential treatment aspects of the procedure.   
8. Members discussed the level of obligation imp lied through the use of the terms "should" or 
"shall", "could" or "should", recognizing that the SPS Committee could not change the legal 
obligations contained in the SPS Agreement but could only develop non-binding recommended 
procedures.  While some Members felt that the u se of more compulsory terminology would limit the 
range of solutions which could be found when an  exporting Member identified significant difficulties 
with a measure, others considered that these te rms were essential to underline the importance of 
following the recommended procedures.  Severa l Members recalled the Committee's decision to 
review the operation of the procedure to enhance tran sparency of S&D treatment at its first meeting in 
2008, which should include consideration of  why it had not been used by Members 
(G/SPS/33/Add.1).  They suggested it would be more  appropriate to examine proposals to modify the 
procedure in that context.  
9. The SPS Committee was also made aware of the proposals under consideration in the Special 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTDSS) relating to Article 10.3 of the SPS 
Agreement.  The representatives of Egypt and of Ne w Zealand each explained the intention of their 
respective proposals in this regard.  Members high lighted the importance of sharing information on 
matters which could impact on the SPS Committee's future work.   
10. The representative of Egypt also raised qu estions regarding the Doha Implementation 
Decision on longer time frames for phasing in measur es on products of export interest to developing 
country Members (Article 10.2) and how that de cision should be considered in relation to the 
transparency obligations of Members.  The Secret ariat agreed to prepare a brief document regarding 
the relationship between the timeframes in different provisions of the Agreement.   
11. The Committee agreed to keep th e issue of special and differential treatment on its agenda for 
future meetings, and to meet informally to further consider this issue immediately prior to its next 
regular meeting in April 2008. 
__________