RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
5 March 2010 
 (10-1201) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 
POSSIBLE ACTIONS FOR THE SPS COMMITTEE REGARDING  
PRIVATE SPS STANDARDS  
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
Revision  
  1. The SPS Committee has been discu ssing the issue of private SPS standards since June 2005, 
when Saint Vincent and the Gren adines raised a specific trade c oncern regarding EurepGAP (now 
called GLOBALGAP) requirements for banan as destined for sale in the United Kingdom.
2  Since then 
this issue has been on the agenda of every SPS Committee meeting.3 
2. In an effort to bring more structure and concrete examples to its discussions on private 
standards, the SPS Committee decided in October 20 08 to undertake a three-step study on the effects 
of private SPS standards.4  
3. As the first step of this process, the Secr etariat circulated a Questionnaire on SPS-related 
Private Standards on 5 December 2008.5  The questionnaire sought information from Members 
regarding products and markets of concern, the rele vant private and international standards, trade 
effects, costs of compliance and a number of related elements. 
4. As the second step, a compilation of replies summarizing the information contained in the 40 
responses received from 22 Members was circulated on 15 June 20096. The individual responses, 
including responses received after the circ ulation of the compilation of replies7, can be consulted 
through the WTO Members' website.8  Most of the responses reiterated a number of concerns 
regarding private standards, which had already b een raised on various occasions at the Committee.  
Some responses also underlined the positive and trade facilitating impact of private standards.   
5. The compilation of replies was discussed during the SPS Committee's meetings held in June 
and October 2009.  In addition, a number of Me mbers submitted written comments on the compilation 
following the Committee meetings.  While some Memb ers found the report to be an useful basis for 
the Committee's deliberations, others  raised concerns about the limit ations of the report, especially 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/GEN/766; specific trade concern no: 219. 
3 A list of all SPS Committee documents referring to private standards can be found in Annex 1. 
4 G/SPS/R/53, para. 132. 
5 G/SPS/W/232. 
6 G/SPS/GEN/932. 
7 Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago submitted responses after the circulation of the descriptive report. 
Argentina also provided additional information, complementing its two original responses.  
8 Please click on this address: http://members.wto.org/WTO_ resources/SPS/SPS-Private-
Standards_tri.htm .  All responses are available in English and Span ish as these are the working languages of the 
30 Members participating in the SPS Committee's ad hoc working group on private standards. G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
Page 2 
 
 
  with regard to the accuracy, precision and scope of some of the data provided in the replies to the 
questionnaire.  For example, some replies were f ound to be very general and lacking specificity and 
others went beyond SPS issues to include references to  quality, environmental, and social standards.  
A revised version of this compilation was circul ated on 10 December 2009 taking into account some 
of the comments from Members.9  
6. As the third step, the Secretariat was request ed to prepare a document identifying possible 
actions by the SPS Committee and/or Members regardi ng private SPS standards.  The first version of 
the document was circulated on 20 October 2009,10 drawing upon the Committee's discussions on the 
topic, Members and Observers' specific written cont ributions, and the compilation of replies, keeping 
in mind its limitations.  It was discussed during the meetings of the ad hoc working group on private 
standards and of the SPS Committee in October 2009.11  In addition, Switzerland and MERCOSUR 
members (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Urugua y) submitted written contributions on this topic 
following the circulation of the Secretariat document.12  The Chair of the Committee invited Members 
to submit written comments on the Secretariat document by 16 December 2009, indicating in 
particular any sequencing they would like to see in discussing the possible actions identified.  
Subsequently, the Secretariat received written comments from nine Members and one observer 
organization.  This revised version of the document on possible actions has been prepared in light of 
Members' oral and written comments and submissions as well as updates from th e sister organizations 
(i.e., Codex and the World Organizati on for Animal Health (OIE)).   
7. In light of the concerns raised regarding some  of the examples in the compilation of replies, 
this document does not purport to provide a substantive an alysis of the matter but rather focuses on 
possible actions that could be taken by the SPS Comm ittee and/or Members to enhance the benefits of 
private standards and address their negative effects on market access, especially for 
producers/exporters in developing countries.   
POSSIBLE ACTIONS 
8. The recommendations for possible actions below have been compiled in light of Members' 
and observers' oral and written inputs on this topic.   Some of them focus on practical approaches for 
the Committee to address concerns raised regarding private standards.  Others address systemic and 
legal questions.  Eleven possible actions were listed in the first version of this document, which were 
presented in no particular order of importance, pr iority, or acceptability.  In light of inputs from 
Members, this revised document contains 12 reco mmendations, some of which have been revised 
significantly.  They have been grouped differently , but still without a precise ordering, to reflect 
Members' comments as to which ones could be furt her elaborated or acted upon in the short run and 
which ones are premature to raise at this stage or in appropriate for the Committee to take up.  Some of 
the recommendations are related or similar;  th ey have, however, been presented separately to 
accommodate the nuanced comments from Members. 
9. The SPS Committee can only take decisions by con sensus.  Therefore, there will need to be 
agreement by the Committee to pursue any of these recommendations. 
                                                      
9 G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
10 G/SPS/W/247. 
11 G/SPS/R/56, paras. 155-175. 
12 G/SPS/GEN/967 and G/SPS/W/249 respectively.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Recommendation 1 :  SPS Committee, Codex, the OIE, and the IPPC to update each other 
regularly regarding developments in thei r respective bodies on private standards 
10. One of the concerns raised regarding privat e SPS standards has been that they sometimes 
deviate from international standards set by the three sister organizations.  For example, in the area of 
food safety, some retail schemes have been identifie d as having MRLs which are more restrictive than 
those set by the Codex.  In the area of animal h ealth, examples of private standards with more trade-
restricting BSE requirements than those of the OI E have been provided.  Given the interlinkages 
between private SPS standards and the standards developed by the sister organizations, the SPS 
Committee should liaise regularly and collaborate with th e sister organizations regarding this issue.  
In addition, the Secretariats of the four organi zations should exchange in formation regularly and 
consult each other regarding their work in this area. 
11. The Codex Alimentarius Commission considered the issue of private standards during its 32nd 
session held in July 2009.13  A paper commissioned by the FAO and the WHO regarding the impact 
of private food safety standards on the food chain and on the public standard-setting process was also 
presented during the session.14  The Commission was of the opinion that Codex standards should be 
benchmarks for private food safety standards and ag reed to monitor developments in the WTO and 
work in cooperation with the OIE and the IPPC to consult on a common position on this matter.  The 
Commission also agreed that a study be conducted to  analyze the role, cost, and benefits of private 
standards for consideration by the Executive Committ ee and the Commission.  In addition, the Codex 
Secretariat was asked to prepare an  analysis of the speed of the Co dex standard-setting process, as this 
had been identified as one of the possible reasons fo r the emergence of private standards.  Private 
standards will be on the agenda of the next meeti ng of the Commission scheduled for 5-9 July 2010. 
12. OIE members adopted a resolution regarding the implication of private standards in 
international trade of animals and animal products in May 2008.15  This resolution asks the Director 
General of the OIE, among others, "to work w ith relevant public and private international 
organizations with the objective that concerns of  Members are taken into consideration and that 
private standards, where used, are consistent  with and do not conflict those of the OIE." 
13. The OIE Secretariat has provided regular updates to the SPS Committee and submitted a 
document entitled "Considerations Relevant to Privat e Standards in the Field of Animal Health, Food 
Safety, and Animal Welfare".16  An OIE ad hoc working group w as established to consider private 
standards in the areas of animal health and welfar e.  This group met in October 2009 to review the 
results of a questionnaire sent to Members and rele vant organizations and prepare recommendations 
for future action by the OIE.  The group's report17 was reviewed by the Code Commission in February 
2010 and will be published as an annex to the Code  Commission report in March 2010.  The latter 
report  will be considered by the World Assembly  in May 2010, which is when any recommendations 
would be adopted. 
14. As most of the 68 OIE Members responding to the questionnaire recommended that the OIE 
work more closely with private standard setting organi zations in an effort to avoid negative effects of 
private standards, the OIE convened a meeting with pr ivate organizations, with the participation of the 
WTO Secretariat on 16 February to exchange in formation and consider possible next steps.  
                                                      
13 ALINORM 09/32/REP, paras. 246-271. 
14 ALINORM 09/32/9D-Part II: The Im pacts of Private Food Safety Standards on the Food Chain and 
on the Public Standards-Setting Process, Paper prepared for FAO/WHO by Spencer Henson and John 
Humphrey. 
15 Resolution No. XXXII. 
16 G/SPS/GEN/822. 
17 Executive summary at http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/en_executive%20summary.pdf G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
Page 4 
 
 
  15. There has thus far been limited discussion of private standards at the IPPC. 
Recommendation 2 :  The Secretariat to brief the SPS Committee regularly on any developments 
regarding private standards in the TBT Committee and/or other WTO fora 
16. In view of the intertwined nature of SPS a nd TBT-related requirements in certain private 
standards, it would be beneficial for the SPS Commi ttee to keep abreast of any discussions on private 
standards taking place in the TBT Committee.  
17. There has thus far been limited discussion on the issue of private standards in the TBT 
Committee.  During the March 2009 TBT Workshop on  the Role of International Standards in 
Economic Development, several participants expressed  concerns about the proliferation of private 
standards that could result in unnecessary barriers to  trade and create confusion in the market place.18  
18. In the context of the Fifth Triennial Review of the TBT Agreement, which was concluded in 
November 2009, the issue of private standards was raised for discussion.19  The relevant section of the 
report of the Fifth Triennial Review states the following:20 
 "The Committee notes that several Members have raised concerns  regarding "private 
standards" and trade impacts thereof, includi ng actual or potential unnecessary barriers to 
trade.21  The Committee also notes that other Members consider that the term lacks clarity and 
that its relevance to the implementation of the TBT Agreement has not been established.  
Without prejudice to the different views expressed , the Committee recalls that Article 4.1 of 
the TBT Agreement requires that Members shall take such reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure that standardiz ing bodies accept and comply with the Code of 
Good Practice.  The Committee further expresses the need to strengthen implementation of 
Article 4.  In view of this, the Committee
:  
(a) Recalls  its discussion in the Third Triennial Review22 regarding standards 
developed by bodies that are not commonly considered standardizing bodies;  
(b) Reiterates  its 1997 invitation to Members to shar e their experiences with respect to 
steps taken to fulfil their obligations under Article 4, and to exchange information 
regarding the reasons some standardizing bodies have not yet accepted the Code of 
Good Practice23; and 
(c) With a view to facilitating an informed  discussion on the development and use of 
standards in general, including with regard to standards developed by non-
governmental bodies, Members are invited to share their experiences  related to the 
implementation of the TBT Agreement, in cluding the Code of Good Practice.  
Discussions will neither prejudge the role of the TBT Committee nor the scope of the TBT Agreement with respect to any issue that may arise." 
19. The SPS Committee could request that the Secr etariat provide regular updates to the 
Committee regarding any discussions on private stan dards taking place in the TBT Committee.  The 
Secretariat should also inform Members of an y relevant discussions in other WTO fora.   
                                                     
 
18 G/TBT/W/310, para. 63. 
19 G/TBT/W/318. 
20 G/TBT/26, para. 26. 
21 The Committee notes that the issue has been discussed in other fora. 
22 G/TBT/13, para. 25. 
23 G/TBT/1/Rev.9, p.21.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Recommendation 3 :  SPS Committee to develop a working definition of private SPS standards 
20. It is apparent from the discussions in the WT O and from the literature on this issue that 
private standards play an increasingly important role  in international trade and pose new challenges as 
well as opportunities for producers and exporters.  They can cover safety, quality, social and 
environmental issues and affect a wide range of products. 
21. Given its mandate, the SPS Committee should focus its discussions solely on private SPS 
standards, most of which are currently in the ar ea of food safety.  However, some Members have 
expressed concerns that the discussions are digressing  to issues beyond private SPS standards.  One of 
the reasons for this is that many private sta ndards, such as GLOBALGAP, cover food safety as well 
as other requirements, making it more difficult to  single out the SPS requirements and determine 
whether any trade effects can be attributed directly to these.  At the same time, producers/exporters do 
not necessarily focus on the distinction between SPS versus TBT measures or public versus private 
standards, but rather on whether they are able to fulfill the totality of the requirements imposed by the 
importer.  
22. For this purpose and given its mandate, the SPS Committee could agree to focus its 
discussions only on: 
 Requirements established and/or adopted by non-governmental entities to fulfill one 
of the four objectives stated in Annex A, pa ragraph 1 of the SPS Agreement, and control, 
inspection, and approval procedur es related to these requirements.  These four objectives are:   
(a) to protect animal or plant life or health within the territory of the Member from risks 
arising from the entry, establishment or sp read of pests, dis eases, disease-carrying 
organisms or diseas e-causing organisms; 
(b) to protect human or animal life or health within the territory of the Member from 
risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in 
foods, beverages or feedstuffs; 
(c) to protect human life or health within the territory of the  Member from risks arising 
from diseases carried by animals, plants or products thereof, or from the entry, establishment or spread of pests;  or 
(d) to prevent or limit other damage within th e territory of the  Member from the entry, 
establishment or spread of pests. 
Recommendation 4
:  SPS Committee to work with sister organizations to prepare promotional 
materials underlining the importance of international SPS standards  
23. The responses to the Secretariat's questionnaire re vealed that not all producers might be aware 
of the differences between public and private SPS standard s.  In an effort to provide further clarity on 
this issue and promote the use of internati onal standards, the SPS Committee could work in 
collaboration with the three international standard -setting organizations (Code x, OIE, and the IPPC) 
to prepare and disseminate promotional material s (brochure or video).  Such materials would 
underline the merits of science-based internationa l standards, which, when adopted by Member 
governments and private schemes, serve to facilitate trade while ensuring safety.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
Page 6 
 
 
  24. Consideration could be given to requesting the Standards and Trade Development Facility 
(STDF) to spearhead this initiative.  The STDF has already prepared a well-received film entitled 
"Trading Safely: Protecting health, promoting development."24 
Recommendation 5 :  SPS Committee and/or the ad hoc working group to hold information 
sessions with entities involved in private SPS standards 
25. Members have raised a number of concerns regarding private SPS standards, including: 
• the lack of a scientific basis for requirements; 
• deviations from international standards or from official governmental requirements (for 
example, for maximum residue limits); 
• the multiplicity of standards and th e lack of harmonization among them; 
• the costs of compliance and certification, especially with a multitude of standards; 
• the lack of transparency, consultation and appeal mechanisms; 
• the prescriptive, rather than outcome-based, operational procedures required by private 
standards, disregarding the concept of equivalence;  and  
• the disproportionate effect on small- and medi um-sized producers/exporters in developing 
countries. 
26. A number of positive aspects have also been highlighted, including: 
• the facilitation of compliance with national a nd international standards, where private 
schemes take as a basis these standards and provide comprehensive guidance on achieving them; 
• the promotion of best-practices and productivity; 
• improved brand reputation a nd facilitation of access to markets and credits;  and 
• the ability to address emerging risks in a rapi d manner, fill gaps, and pave the way for 
eventual adoption of international standards. 
27. While a number of Members would like to see  the SPS Committee play a formal role in 
addressing concerns related to private standards, others are of the view that it is not for the governments of Members to interfere in the private contractual relations of firms, except when these 
result in deceptive practices or distortions of competition. 
28. With a view to enhancing understanding and awareness on international, governmental, and 
private SPS standards by all concerned, the SPS Committee (or the ad hoc working group) may 
continue to hold informal meetings with relevant  stakeholders, including inte rnational organizations;  
entities developing, adopting and certifying private st andards;  as well as producers and/or exporters 
who need to meet these standards.  To facilitate th e participation of a larger  number of delegations, 
such meetings could be held back-to-back w ith SPS Committee meetings and focus on particular 
aspects of private standards.  These information ex change meetings would be an opportunity for 
interested Members to highlight the concerns menti oned above and follow the latest developments in 
an evolving field.  It should be clear, howev er, that the SPS Committee does not endorse or support 
any particular entity participating in such meetings.   
                                                     
 
24 To view the film, go to http://www.standardsf acility.org/STDF_DVD.htm .  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  29. For example, the Global Food Safety Initiativ e (GFSI) could be invited to provide the 
Committee with an update on the number of firms an d private food safety standards involved in their 
"once certified, accepted everywhere" initiative, on  the development and implementation of the 
scheme, and on the recently launched Food Safety K nowledge Network (together with Michigan State 
University), which aims to build food safety capacity in developing countries.  
30. GLOBALGAP could be invited to present an update on their work, including their global 
consultation mechanisms and on th eir partnership with GFSI.  
31. Another meeting could focus on the experience of export-oriented initiatives such as Chile 
GAP and New Zealand GAP. 
Recommendation 6 :  SPS Committee to develop an information exchange  mechanism 
regarding private standards 
32. An information exchange initiative could enha nce awareness and understanding on the work 
of the SPS Committee and of the entities involved with private SPS standards.  On the one hand, 
Members, observers, and the Secretariat could provi de inputs and updates on developments in the area 
of private standards, including harmonization effo rts and technical assistance programmes.  On the 
other hand, the working group and/or the SPS Co mmittee could announce a call for private SPS 
standard-setting entities to come forward and pr ovide basic information on their requirements, 
procedures, and activities to the SPS Committee.  Th e Secretariat could prepare a template for such 
entities to fill in by a certain deadline and act as an in termediary to circulate the replies.  Members, the 
sisters, and other international or ganizations could be called upon to  alert relevant entities to this 
initiative.  This information exchange initiative c ould be covered as a sub-item under the agenda item 
on private standards but without prejudice to the different views of Members regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
33. Such a practical option would not attempt to imita te the transparency provisions applicable to 
Members governments.  Transparency is one of th e key principles of the SPS Agreement, requiring 
Members to notify their new or modified SPS measures while they are in draft form so that others 
Members have an opportunity to comment on them a nd producers/exporters have time to adapt their 
production and/or processing methods as necessary.  On e of the concerns raised regarding private SPS 
standards has been that there are limited opport unities to provide comments during the development 
of private standards and that it is very difficult to have an overview of the plethora of private standards.  Some Members have proposed creati ng a more formal transparency mechanism through 
the SPS Committee.  If this proposal is to be purs ued, it would have to be  clarified which entities 
would have the responsibility to notify, what form  notifications would take, and what status they 
would have. 
Recommendation 7
:  SPS Committee to provide a forum for the discussion of specific trade 
concerns related to private standards  
34. As stated earlier, Saint Vincent and the Gren adines raised a specific trade concern regarding 
EurepGAP (now called GLOBALGAP) requirements for bananas destined for sale in the United 
Kingdom, first in June 2005 and then again in Octo ber 2006.  No resolution has been reported on this 
concern.  Systemic issues arising from private SPS standards have been on the agenda of the SPS 
Committee since then and a number of specific concerns  have been highlighted in the context of the 
questionnaire circulated by the Secretariat.  Howe ver, no other private standard-related concern has 
been raised under the Committee's agenda item on sp ecific trade concerns, possibly because it is not 
always clear who should be the respondent to such concerns.    G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
Page 8 
 
 
  35. The SPS Committee could provide a practical fo rum for Members to raise specific trade 
concerns related to private SPS standards.  Such concerns could be covere d under a sub-item under an 
agenda item on private standards but without prejud ice to the different view s of Members regarding 
the scope of the SPS Agreement.  Conversely, Memb ers could raise such concerns under the agenda 
item on specific trade concerns. 
Recommendation 8 :  SPS Committee to develop guidelines on the implementation of Article 13 
of the SPS Agreement 
36. Members are investing their time and resources to work on systemic and specific issues in the 
SPS Committee with the goal of facilitating trade and ultimately drawing benefits from the 
multilateral trading system.  However, the increased prevalence of private standards is perceived by 
some Members to undermine this investment a nd devalue the principles and relevance of the SPS 
Agreement.  Developing guidelines regarding the im plementation of Article 13 and its application to 
private standards could be one way to reinforce the key principles of the SPS Agreement, such as 
scientific justification, transparency, and e quivalence, in the private standards arena. 
37. Such guidelines could also shed light on the "reasonable measures as may be available to 
Members" to ensure that entities involved with private standards comply with the "relevant" 
provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
38. Specific proposals in this rega rd were put forth by India25 and MERCOSUR members 
(Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay)26 in the context of the Third Review of the Implementation of 
the SPS Agreement.  
Recommendation 9 :  SPS Committee to encourage WTO Me mbers to hold regular meetings 
with entities involved in private SPS standards  
39. Given the diverse nature of entities involved in  private SPS standards such as retail firms, 
producers, certifiers, and NGOs, Member governments ma y be best placed to convene meetings of all 
stakeholders to sensitize them to the issues raised in the Committee, reiterate the main principles of 
the SPS Agreement and underline the importance attached  to international standards set by the sister 
organizations.   
40. Therefore, the SPS Committee could encourage Members to convene meetings with entities 
involved in private SPS standards.  Members co uld then report back to the Committee under the 
information exchange mechanism.   
41. However, it has been pointed out that for some  developing countries, such meetings might 
encompass  only producers and exporters facing private SPS standards in their export markets and not 
those setting and applying such standards.  
Recommendation 10 :  SPS Committee to develop a Code of Good Practice  
42. Some Members have proposed the development of  a Code of Good Practice similar to that 
found in Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement.  It provides disciplines, including those related to 
transparency, for the preparation, adoption and ap plication of standards (which are voluntary as 
opposed to mandatory) by central, governmental, loca l, non-governmental and regional standardizing 
bodies, all of which can formally submit their accepta nce of the Code.  Members are required to take 
such reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure that local government and non-
governmental standardizing bodies within their te rritories accept and comply with the Code.   
                                                      
25 G/SPS/W/236. 
26 G/SPS/W/245.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  43. From 1 January 1995 until 1 February 2010, 162 standardizing bodies from 122 Members 
have accepted the Code of Good Practice, among them, 87 central gove rnmental standardizing bodies, 
64 non-governmental standardizing bodies, three statutory bodies, two parastatal bodies, three non-governmental regional bodies, one central gove rnmental/non-governmental body, one central 
governmental/local governmental body and one autonomous body.
27 
44. Unlike the TBT Agreement, the SPS Agreemen t does not contain a distinction between 
mandatory "technical regulations" and "voluntary standards".  It only makes reference to SPS 
measures, which must be necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health.  Still, 
in light of some private standards which contai n SPS requirements, a Code of Good Practice could 
provide guidance and a framework for the developm ent, adoption, and certification of private SPS 
standards. 
45. An SPS Code of Good Practice could take th e form of an SPS Committee recommendation, 
or could be submitted through the Committee's pa rent bodies to the Ministerial Conference for 
adoption.  Alternatively, given that a number of private standards contain SPS as well as TBT-related 
elements, entities involved in private standards coul d be encouraged to sign on to the TBT Code of 
Good Practice.  However, questions could arise as to whether the "non-governmental standardizing 
bodies" referred to in the TBT Code  of Good Practice would cover the type of private standard-setting 
entities referred to in the SPS Committee discussions.  Also, concerns have been raised regarding the 
fact that developing such a Code could endorse private standard-setting entities and undermine the 
primacy of international SPS standards. 
Recommendation 11 :  SPS Committee to develop guide lines for Member governments to liaise 
with entities involved in private standards  
46. The SPS Committee is the forum convening WTO Member governments to focus on systemic 
and specific implementation issues arising from th e SPS Agreement.  At the same time, Member 
governments need to consult regularly with their domestic stakeholders, be they governmental or non-
governmental, export or import-orient ed, regarding the implementation of the SPS Agreement.  In an 
effort to facilitate the exchange of informa tion between Member governments and entities involved 
with private SPS standards in their territories,  the SPS Committee could develop guidelines for 
Member governments.  Such guidelines could under line the importance of relaying the concerns 
raised in the Committee to these en tities and of encouraging the application of the key principles of 
the SPS Agreement.   
47. Some Member governments may wish to devel op their own guidelines for the development of 
private standards or encourage entities developing pr ivate standards to develop their own codes of 
good practice.. 
48. A document submitted by Switzerland entitled "Voluntary Standards"28 outlines the Swiss 
Government's strategy for ensuring that priv ate voluntary standards contribute positively to 
sustainable development and that they do not oper ate as unnecessary barriers to trade.  It suggests that 
national enquiry points could serve as entry points  for ensuring "national" representation in private 
voluntary standards processes.29  Also, section 6 of the document on Actions Undertaken by the Swiss 
Government in Support of the Sustainable Use of Private Voluntary Standards provides some examples on how a Member has been engaging in the area of private standards, even if these 
initiatives are not limited to SPS measures only.  
                                                     
 
 27 G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.16.  
28 G/SPS/GEN/976 
29 G/SPS/GEN/976, para. 18. G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
Page 10 
 
 
  Recommendation 12 :  SPS Committee to seek clarification as to whether the SPS Agreement 
applies to private SPS standards 
49. A number of factors have led to the proliferation of private standards and associated 
certification requirements.  These include the high profile of a number of food safety scares and 
reduced confidence in regulatory agencies;  lega l requirements on companies to demonstrate "due 
diligence" in the prevention of food safety risk s;  growing attention to "corporate social 
responsibility" and a drive by companies to minimize "reputational risks";  gl obalization and vertical 
integration of supply chains;  and the expansion of supermarkets nationall y and internationally. 
50. The SPS Agreement was negotiated during the Uruguay Round (1986-1994) as part of the 
Single Undertaking.  At the time, one of the main co ncerns of the negotiators was to ensure that the 
expected reduction of tariffs and e limination of quantitative restrictions would not be circumvented by 
governments through the use of protectionist me asures disguised as sanitary or phytosanitary 
measures.  The proliferation of private SPS standard s, due mainly to the factors listed above, had not 
been anticipated and no explicit reference to "priva te standards" is included in the text of the 
Agreement. 
51. Currently, Members have differing views as to whether the SPS Agreement applies to private 
standards.  Article 1.1 states th at the Agreement applies to "all  sanitary and phytosanitary measures 
which may, directly or indirectly, affect intern ational trade" (emphasis added) without explicitly 
limiting this application to SPS measures taken by go vernment authorities.  Likewise, the definition of 
an SPS measure in Annex A(1) and the accomp anying illustrative list of SPS measures does not 
explicitly limit these to governmental measures.  On the other hand, other provisions of the SPS 
Agreement explicitly refer to measures "taken" (Article  2.1), "established" (Article 5.6), "maintained" 
(Articles 2.2 and 5.6) or "adopted" (Article 5.7) by Members.  It is also not clear whether the 
certification requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance with private standards would be within the scope of Article 8 and Annex C of the Agreement.  
52. Article 13 has been brought up numerous times in Committee discussions.  The Article reads:  
"Members are fully responsible under this  Agreement for the observance of all 
obligations set forth herein.  Member s shall formulate and implement positive 
measures and mechanisms in support of th e observance of the provisions of this 
Agreement by other than central governm ent bodies.  Members shall take such 
reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure that non-governmental 
entities within their territories,  as well as regional bodies in which relevant entities 
within their territories are members, comply  with the relevant provisions of this 
Agreement .  In addition , Members shall not take measures which have the effect of, 
directly or indirectly, requiring or enc ouraging such regional or non-governmental 
entities, or local governmental bodies, to act in a manner inconsistent with the 
provisions of this Agreement.  Members shall ensure that they rely on the services of 
non-governmental entities for implementing sanitary or phytosanitary measures only if these entities comply with the provisions of this Agreement." (emphasis added) 
53. Currently, there is no further guidance on Arti cle 13 and Members have differing views as to 
whether "non-governmental entities" re ferred to therein includes entiti es involved in the development, 
adoption, implementati on, certification, and enforcem ent of private standards.   
54. The SPS Committee could pursue further work in  clarifying the relationship between private 
standards and the SPS Agreement.  This work coul d be based on specific written submissions from 
Members, which could be based on their own legal vi ews or views developed by a private legal entity.   G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Alternatively, the Committee could instruct the Secr etariat to seek a legal opinion on this question from 
a qualified private legal entity, for consideration by the Committee.   
55. If Members reach consensus on a decision, for ex ample clarifying the scope of Article 13, it 
could be forwarded to the Council for Trade in Goods and eventually to the General Council and/or the 
Ministerial Conference for formal a doption.  This work could be undert aken in the context of a periodic 
review of the Agreement.  In accordance with Arti cle 12.7 of the SPS Agreem ent and the decision of the 
Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Members are instructed to review the operation of the SPS 
Agreement at least once every four years.   
56. Article 12.7 also states that "Where appropriate, the Committee may submit to the General 
Council for Trade in Goods proposals to amend the text of this Agreement having regard, inter alia , to 
the experience gained in its implementation.".  Unlike an agreement on the clarification of a particular provision, any formal amendment of the text of the SPS Agreement would presumably need to be 
pursued in accordance with Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. 
57. Apart from any initiative through the SPS Committee , the extent of the applicability of the SPS 
Agreement to private SPS standards could also be th e subject of deliberations of a dispute settlement 
panel established under the WTO's Di spute Settlement Understanding.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
Page 12 
 
 
  ANNEX 
 
SPS Committee documents referring to private standards 
 
Document Symbol Date of 
distribution  Submitted by Document title 
G/SPS/W/249 23/12/2009 Argentina, 
Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay Private Standards 
G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 10/12/2009 WTO Secretariat Effects of SPS-Related Private 
Standards – Compilation of Replies 
G/SPS/GEN/967 20/10/2009 Switzerland Voluntary Standards 
G/SPS/W/247 20/10/2009 WTO Secretariat Possible Actions for the SPS 
Committee Regarding Private SPS 
Standards 
G/SPS/W/246 30/09/2009 Argentina, 
Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay Legal Framework for private 
standards in the WTO 
G/SPS/W/245 15/09/2009 Argentina, 
Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay Third Review of the SPS Agreement 
- Guidelines on the Implementation of Article 13 of the SPS Agreement 
G/SPS/GEN/932 15/06/2009 WTO Secretariat Effects of SPS-Related Private 
Standards - Descriptive Report 
G/SPS/W/237 08/05/2009 WTO Secretariat Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement 
G/SPS/W/236 17/04/2009 India Third Review of the WTO/SPS 
Agreement  
G/SPS/GEN/911 16/03/2009 Belize Private and Commercial Standards - 
Statement at the Meeting of 25 - 26 
February 2009 
G/SPS/W/232 08/12/2008 WTO Secretariat Questionnaire on SPS-Related 
Private Standards 
G/SPS/GEN/891 08/12/2008 WTO Secretariat Research and Researchers on Private 
Standards 
JOB(08)/97 25/09/2008 WTO Secretariat Private Standards and Practical 
Actions for the SPS Committee - 
Compilation of responses to the questionnaire 
G/SPS/W/230 25/09/2008 WTO Secretariat Private Standards - Identifying 
Practical Actions for the SPS Committee - Summary of Responses 
G/SPS/R/50 24/07/2008 WTO Secretariat Report of the STDF Information 
Session on Private Standards (26 June 2008) 
G/SPS/GEN/865 11/07/2008 WTO Secretariat Documents and Other Information 
on Private Standards  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Document Symbol Date of 
distribution  Submitted by Document title 
Job(08)/58 03/07/2008 WTO Secretariat Private Standards - Identifying 
Practical Actions for the SPS Committee 
G/SPS/W/225 18/06/2008 Uruguay Terms of Reference for the Working 
Group on Private Standards 
G/SPS/GEN/843 21/05/2008 Uruguay Private Standards - Statement by 
Uruguay at the Meeting of 2 - 3 April 2008 
G/SPS/GEN/822 25/02/2008 World 
Organization for 
Animal Health 
(OIE) Considerations Relevant to Private 
Standards in the Field of Animal 
Health, Food Safety and Animal 
Welfare 
G/SPS/GEN/802 09/10/2007 United Kingdom Private Voluntary Standards within 
the WTO Multilateral Framework 
G/SPS/GEN/792 05/07/2007 Ecuador Private and Commercial Standards - 
Statement by Ecuador at the Meeting 
of 27 - 28 June 2007 
JOB(07)/89/Rev.1 15/06/2007 United Nations 
Conference on Trade and 
Development 
(UNCTAD), World Trade Organization (WTO) Joint UNCTAD/WTO Informal 
Information Session on Private Standards - Revision 
G/SPS/GEN/761/Corr.1 09/03/2007 United Nations 
Conference on 
Trade and 
Development (UNCTAD) Private Sector Standards and 
Developing Country Exports of 
Fresh Fruit and Vegetables - 
Communication from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) - Corrigendum 
G/SPS/GEN/766 28/02/2007 Saint Vincent 
and the Grenadines Private Industry Standards 
G/SPS/GEN/764 28/02/2007 Bahamas Report by the Commonwealth of the 
Bahamas to the WTO-SPS 
Committee on Private Standards and the SPS Agreement : the Bahamas Experience 
G/SPS/GEN/763 27/02/2007 Organization for 
Economic Co-operation and 
Development 
(OECD) Private Voluntary Standards and 
Developing Country Market Access: Preliminary Results G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 
Page 14 
 
 
  Document Symbol Date of 
distribution  Submitted by Document title 
G/SPS/GEN/761 26/02/2007 United Nations 
Conference on Trade and 
Development 
(UNCTAD) Private Sector Standards and 
Developing Country Exports of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables  
G/SPS/GEN/760 26/02/2007 United Nations 
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Typology of Global Standards 
G/SPS/GEN/750 16/02/2007 International 
Organization for 
Standardization 
(ISO) Submission by the International 
Organization for Standardization 
(ISO) to the SPS Committee Meeting 
- 28 February and 1 March 2007 
G/SPS/GEN/746 24/01/2007 WTO Secretariat Private Standards and the SPS 
Agreement 
 
__________