WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/194 
30 May 2006 
 (06-2594) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS  OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE AGREEMENT 
ON SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 
 
Submission by Grenada  
 
 
 The following communication, received on 17 May 2006, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of Grenada. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. Grenada would like to thank the Chairman of  the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures (SPS Committee) for his willingness to c ontinue deliberations on Article 6.  The 
deliberations in our opinion are crucial to clearly define and reach consensus on the 
technical/scientific and administrative procedures to be followed and the prerequisite criteria that 
must be satisfied in order to recognize pest-free area s and areas of low pest prevalence.  As a result of 
the absence of such clearly defined procedures, exporting country Members experience undue delays 
for pest- or disease-free recognition and effec tively are unable to gain access to markets. 
2. We share the view that the provisions of Ar ticle 6 of the SPS Agreement which have been 
prominent on the agenda of the SPS Committee since the 26th Session (April 2003) and recognized to 
be of high priority, are fundamental to the SPS Ag reement since they do not only encourage exporting 
Members to improve their SPS status but also have the potential to increase market access 
opportunities for agri-food products. 
3. We are aware that in the recognition of re gionalization, the onus lies on the exporting 
Member to convincingly demonstrate to the im porting Member both a system for establishing 
freedom from a pest of quarantine significance and a system to maintain that freedom.  The latter 
must include a strategy to eradicate outbreaks w ithin the area for which freedom was previously 
recognized. 
4. We are also aware that the success and speed with which recognition of regionalization is 
achieved is a function of the complexity of the procedure established between exporting and 
importing Members, the technical and scientific requi rements to be fulfilled, the timelines (or lack 
thereof) for completion of the technical and admini strative procedures and the collaboration and trust 
between exporting and importing Members. 
5. Grenada recognizes the contribution and exper tise of the International Plant Protection 
Convention (IPPC) in developing guidelines, opera ting procedures and standards that address 
(ISPM 4, 10, 14 and 22) and support (ISPM 6, 8, 9, 14 and 17) the identification, recognition and 
maintenance of pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence in the area of plant health. G/SPS/W/194 
Page 2  
 
  6. Although not a Member of the World Organizat ion for Animal Hea lth (OIE), Grenada 
endorses their work in establishing procedures and guidelines for the recognition of regionalization 
for four diseases and for recent work on zoning and compartmentalization. 
7. There is also reason to commend the on-goi ng work of the SPS Committee in mapping the 
administrative procedures for the recognition of regiona lization.  It must be borne in mind, however, 
that en exporting Member could begin the pr ocess of recognition from a standpoint of the non-
existence of the pest or disease within the country or territory.  In this regard, therefore, it is 
recommended that Section IV, paragraph 26 of G/SPS/GEN/640 be reworded as follows: 
The administrative process for achieving bila teral recognition is typically preceded by 
a country eradicating the disease or pest in question (or by providing scientific 
evidence of its non existence) and obtaining a particular sanitary or phytosanitary 
status within all or part of its territory. 
II. GRENADA'S EXPERIENCE WITH REGIONALIZATION 
8. Grenada first put the concept of regionalization to work in 1985 (the same year the NPPO was 
commissioned) through a joint initiative with the Un ited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to 
determine the status of fruit flies of quarantine signi ficance in the Tri Island State.  After eighteen (18) 
months of surveillance, Grenada was officially re cognized as Fruit Fly Free in 1987;  a status it 
maintained for fifteen (15) years.  Consequen tly, between 1987 and 2003, the United States became 
Grenada's leading importer of fresh exotic fruits , netting on average US$ 1.5Million annually.  This 
contribution was significant to the livelihood of rural farm families in a country with undulating 
topography and a comparative advantage in tropical fruit production. 
9. In 1997, Grenada attempted to extend the range of its non traditional crop exports to the 
United States by embarking on a project entitled Survey of the Annonas.  The objective was to determine the status of all species of the Sour sop Wasp Bephratelloides spp  and the Sour sop Moth 
(borer) Cerconata anonella.  The procedure and protocols were agreed on by both Grenada and the 
USDA.  By 1999, Grenada requested revision of th e target quantities for fruit rearing and seed cutting 
because trees were sampled twice without the target pests being intercepted.  Although the survey was 
completed within two (2) years, it took four (4) additional years for the administrative procedures to 
be completed.  By then (2004) Grenada was struck  by a devastating hurricane (Ivan) which destroyed 
over eighty percent of the tree crops on the island and resulted in negligible quantities available for 
export. 
III. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS / SUGGESTIONS 
10. Grenada from its own experience and the experience of other Members is aware that the 
process of identification, recognition and maintenance of pest or disease freedom is a task that could 
involve several years of work and significant inv estment.  It could also result in huge risks and 
uncertainties over market access, because of a lack  of guarantee of recognition from the importing 
Member upon completion of the work. 
11. In light of the above, Grenada wishes to propose the following: 
(a) That importing Members recognize pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest 
or disease prevalence in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement and be open, sensitive and transparent in their dealings with 
exporting countries seeking such recognition.  G/SPS/W/194 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (b) That the SPS Committee urge all Members to  accept and implement the standards, 
guidelines and procedures developed by the International Plant Protection Convention 
(IPPC) and the World Organization for Anim al Health (OIE) for the establishment 
and recognition of pest- or disease-free areas. 
(c) That in order to guide the process and incr ease the predictability of outcome and rate 
of international and/or bilateral recogn ition of pest- or disease-free areas, Members 
encourage bilateral dialogue and agree if necessary, at an early stage in the negotiating process, to involve a "third party" preferably from the relevant International Standard Setting Body (ISSB). 
(d) That Members expedite the administrativ e procedures for recognition of pest or 
disease freedom where (in addition to the reasons outlined in Section 41 of 
G/SPS/GEN/640), an exporting Member has obj ectively demonstrated the absence of 
a quarantine pest which was never recorded as present. 
(e) That the SPS Committee, in its capacity as ad ministrator of the Agreement, continue 
to collaborate with the International Sta ndard Setting Bodies with the objective of 
encouraging the development of admini strative procedures to complement the 
technical procedures developed by the ISSBs. 
(f) That where the exporting and importing Members decide to use a different procedure 
from that established by the relevant ISSB  for the recognition of pest or disease 
freedom, the new procedure be mutually ag reed on and timeframes established for 
each of the following aspects: 
(i) Expression of intent by the exporting Member; 
(ii) Establishment of technical/scientific prerequisites; 
(iii) Exchange of scientific/technical information; 
(iv) Technical inspection visit by experts (from the ISSB or importing Member or 
both); 
(v) Report on findings and submi ssion of recommendations;  and 
(vi) Implementation of administrative pr ocedures to facilitate recognition. 
 
__________