WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/199 
14 June 2006 
 (06-2852) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
COMMENTS ON THE SECRETARIAT'S REPORT "ISSUES IN THE APPLICATION OF 
ARTICLE 6 OF THE AGREEMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND 
PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES" (G/SPS/GEN/640) 
 
Submission by the United States  
 
 
 The following communication, received on 6 June 2006, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
A. INTRODUCTION  
1. In response to the Secretariat's background document on the application of Article 6 
(G/SPS/GEN/640), the United States has prepared th is paper to consider how the Committee might 
bridge remaining differences of view among Members, and what future work the Committee could undertake to make further progress in this area. 
2. This paper reflects upon the status of the Co mmittee's discussions of regionalization as 
presented in the Secretariat's document and expands  upon the provisional procedure for monitoring 
the use of international standards, first adopted by the Committee in October 1997, and then extended 
through July 2006.  When the Committee adopted a m odification to the procedure in November 2004, 
it left open the possibility of expanding the m onitoring function as part of the next review: 
"In particular, the Committee may wish to cons ider developing standard formats for the 
supply of information under pa ragraphs 6-8 [of G/SPS/11], and using those standards, 
guidelines or recommendations which have been identified as having a major impact on 
international trade and are of widespread concern to Members (paragraph 8 refers) as the basis for a pilot project to obtain additional information as to how Members are dealing with 
the standards, guidelines or recommendations of concern."
1 
3. The existing mechanism for monitoring the pro cess of international harmonization and use of 
international standards, guidelines or recommendati ons has been effectivel y used to advance the 
Committee's consideration of Article 6.  Under th e auspices of the Committee's existing mechanism, 
the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and the International Plant Protection Convention 
(IPPC) have undertaken work activities that, upon completion, will provide the Committee with a 
greater means of bridging the current gaps am ong Members regarding enha nced implementation of 
Article 6. 
4. The United States proposes that, as part of their evaluation of extending or modifying the 
current procedure for monitoring harmonization, Members may wish to also consider whether 
                                                      
1 G/SPS/11/Rev.1. G/SPS/W/199 
Page 2  
 
  concerns about the implementation of Article 6 c ould be the subject of a pilot project under the 
existing mechanism.  This proposal is without prej udice to any other Member's proposals related to 
this topic including, but not limited to, enhan ced notification procedures or development of 
administrative procedures and normative timeframes. 
5. The United States believes that it may be u seful for the Committee to have a focused 
consultation with the OIE and IPPC representatives to  help in the development of any such proposal. 
B. THE
 CURRENT PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL 
HARMONIZATION AND THE COMMITTEE'S  DISCUSSIONS OF ARTICLE 6 
6. In October 2004, the Committee adopted modifi cations to the provisional procedure to 
monitor the use of international standards until July 2006.2 
7. The monitoring procedure is limited to standa rds, guidelines or recommendations developed 
by the OIE, IPPC and Codex where their applicati on (or absence of application) has a major trade 
impact on the movement of goods. 
8. The procedure calls on Members to submit, at least 10 days in advance of each regular 
meeting of the Committee, concrete examples of what  they consider to be problems with a significant 
trade impact which they believe are related to the use or non-use of relevant international standards, 
guidelines or recommendations, utilizing a propo sed format that has been widely used.3  I n  t h e i r  
submissions, Members should describe the nature of  each of these trade problems and note whether it 
is the result of: 
(a) the non-use of an appropriate existing international standard, guideline or 
recommendation;  or 
(b) the non-existence or inappropriateness of an  existing international standard, guideline 
or recommendation, i.e. that it is out-dated, technically flawed, etc. 
9. At the Committee's October 2004 meeting, New Zealand presented its paper (G/SPS/W/151) 
requesting that the Committee invite the OIE and IP PC to examine the specific matters Members had 
raised regarding Article 6 with respect to the relevant international st andards, guidelines or 
recommendations.  New Zealand identified a number of specific issues for the OIE and IPPC to 
examine, including:  
(a) whether it would be appropriate for them  to develop and include administrative 
procedures on the recognition of pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest prevalence within their international st andards, recommendations or guidelines; 
(b) the technical feasibility of ascribing define d time-limits to the consideration of 
regionalization requests under existing inte rnational standards, recommendations or 
guidelines;   
(c) the issue of recognizing pest- or disease-free status by the relevant international 
standard-setting bodies:  
(i) the process for Member acceptance of OIE recognition of disease-free status;  
                                                     
 
2 G/SPS/11/Rev.1. 
3 G/SPS/W/87.  G/SPS/W/199 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (ii) whether OIE recognition constitutes de termination in the context of 
Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement;  and  
(iii) whether under the IPPC, it is feasible to provide recognition of pest- or 
disease-free status for a limited number of pests or diseases which have a significant impact on international trade of Members.
4  
10. The OIE and IPPC have been highly engaged in supporting the work of this Committee in 
monitoring international harmonization and the use of international standards in general, and 
particularly so with regard to our discussions on Articl e 6, as is noted in the Secretariat's paper.  It is 
hoped that the Committee, in its annual report on the monitoring procedure, will recognize the 
importance of these bodies' extensive involvement in  advancing the Committee's work in this area. 
11. As the Secretariat indicates in its paper, th ere is no consensus among Members regarding the 
role that the Committee should play in formulati ng guidelines for the implementation of Article 6.  
The United States has expressed the view that devel oping such guidelines is the work of the OIE and 
the IPPC, which have the necessary technical and scie ntific expertise.  Moreover, the United States 
has supported the position that no clear, functional separation between administrative and technical 
processes for making a recognition decision exists, a nd therefore any proposals focusing exclusively 
on an administrative process would be incomplete. 
12. By contrast, the OIE and the IPPC have made considerable progress in identifying criteria and 
processes for recognition of pest -a nd disease free- areas.  At the 2005 OIE General Session, member 
countries adopted a revised chapter of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code on zoning and compartmentalization, which include the general pr inciples for defining a zone or compartment and 
some general steps to consider when establishing a z one or compartment.  It is recognized, however, 
that the precise sequence of steps to define either a zone or a compartment is determined bilaterally 
between the importing country and the exporting count ry.  A further refinement of these procedures 
will be considered at the General Session in 2006.  A number of these additions can be viewed as 
"administrative", encompassing the process of re questing recognition, information exchange, 
evaluation, notification "within a reasonable pe riod of time", dispute resolution and formal 
agreements between parties. 
13. The IPPC is developing a standard that will ou tline the main criteria for the recognition of 
pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence, d escribing the process that should be followed by the 
importing and exporting countries for recognition of such areas and providing guidance on the 
activities required to ensure there is not undue de lay in the process, while maintaining the importing 
country's appropriate level of protec tion.  This has been circulated to IPPC Members for their review 
and comment and may be ready for adoption by the IPPC in May 2007. 
C. A
 PILOT PROJECT TO EVALUATE MEMBERS ' APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
RELATED TO PEST AND DISEASE FREE AREAS  
14. The Committee's discussions of Article 6 coul d advance by building upon the progress that 
has already been made and will continue to be made toward developing guidelines for recognition of 
pest -and disease free- areas by the OIE and IPPC.  A pilot project conducted under an extension of 
the provisional procedure for monitoring the process of international harmonization could serve to 
gather and evaluate information about Members' use of these guidelines as previously envisioned by 
the Committee. 
                                                      
4 G/SPS/W/151. G/SPS/W/199 
Page 4  
 
  15. Under the pilot project, interested Members would voluntarily submit a comparison of their 
criteria and processes for regionalization with the cr iteria and processes developed by the IPPC and 
OIE. 
16. The pilot project could include, but not be limited to, the following components: 
• Initiation would either occur following adoptio n by the OIE and IPPC of guidelines on the 
recognition of disease or pest freedom, or immediately utilizing existing draft standards that 
have been developed but not yet adopted by the OIE and IPPC.  
• Interested Members would notify the Committee of their interest in participating in the pilot 
project, thereby allowing for a dialogue that is both manageable and sufficiently in-depth. 
• Interested Members would prepare a documen t comparing their criteria and processes for 
recognition of pest -and disease free- ar eas with the OIE and IPPC guidelines. 
• Interested Members who submit a comparison document would present their document at a 
Committee meeting as part of the discussion on m onitoring the use of international standards. 
• The representatives of the OIE and IPPC would be asked to comment on the comparisons. 
• At the conclusion of the pilot project, the Co mmittee would evaluate its effectiveness in 
addressing Members' concerns regarding the impl ementation of Article 6, and consider how 
the Committee might bridge any remaining differences of view among Members. 
D. CONCLUSION 
17. The existing procedure to monitor the process of  international harmonization has been very 
helpful in the Committee's examination of the implem entation of Article 6.  A pilot project to look 
specifically at Members' use of the guidelin es now being developed will further advance 
understanding of practical problems experienced by Members.  This pilot project would complement 
Members' submissions regarding their experiences with regionalization under the relevant agenda 
item for the Committee's meetings.  In addition, it will provide useful information for the OIE and 
IPPC for future modifications of their standards. 
__________