WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/543 
28 February 2005 
 (05-0834) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
PROPOSALS AND PROGRESS ON SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
A. 
INTRODUCTION  
1. In May 2003, the General Counc il requested the SPS Committee to consider five proposals on 
special and differential treatment as part of its ongoing work (JOB(03)/100).  These proposals had 
previously been considered by the General Counc il in formal and informal consultations.  In 
June 2003, the SPS Committee adopted a schedule of work for the consideration of these proposals, 
which it pursued until its conclusion in March 2004 (G /SPS/26).  Unfortunately, this work programme 
did not result in any decisions by the SPS Committee on the five S&D proposals (G/SPS/27, G/SPS/30).   
2. On 1 August 2004, the General Council decided to  refer the agreement-specific proposals for 
special and differential treatment to the respectiv e WTO bodies, with the stipulation that these bodies 
expeditiously complete the consideration of these proposals and report to the General Council, with 
clear recommendations for a decision, by no later than July 2005.   
3. The purpose of this document is to provide a f actual background to facilitate the consideration 
of these proposals by the SPS Committee.  The first part of this document contains the five proposals for special and differential treatment, presented ac cording to the provisions of the SPS Agreement 
which they propose to modify.  The second part of this document provides a summary of the 
discussion of these proposals in the Special Sessi ons of the Committee on Trade and Development 
(CTD) held between May 2002 and February 2003
2, and of a joint CTD/ SPS Committee session3 that 
took place in November 2002.  A third part of the document describes develo pments in recent years 
which address, in part, some of the concerns iden tified in the proposals for special and differential 
treatment.   
B. PROPOSALS REFERRED TO THE SPS COMMITTEE  
4. The proposals referred to the SPS Committee suggest  interpretations and/or modifications to 
Articles 9 and 10 of the SPS Agreement, and in pa rticular to paragraph 2 of Article 9, and 
paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of Article 10. 
Proposals related to Article 9.1 
5. The African Group has presented several proposals as relating to Articles 10.1 and 10.4 which 
appear to also be directly related to technical assistance (Articles 9.1): 
                                                      
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 Based on the records of these meetings in TN/CTD/M/3, TN/CTD/M/4, TN/CTD/M/5, TN/CTD/M/7, 
TN/CTD/M/13, TN/CTD/M/1 4, and TN/CTD/M/15. 
3 TN/CTD/M/10 and Corr.1. G/SPS/GEN/543 
Page 2  
 
 (a) "Members shall establish a facility within the Global Trust Fund for ensuring that:  
(i) developing and least-developed country  Members have the financial and 
technical capacity to meet the requirements under the Agreement;  
(ii) delegations from developing and least -developed country Members attend 
and effectively participate in mee tings of the Committee and relevant 
international standard setting organisations;  
(iii) developing and least-developed country Members effectively utilise the 
flexibility under the Agreement;  and  
(iv) measures adopted under the Agreement do not contravene the rights of 
developing and least-dev eloped country Members." 
(b) "It is understood that technology transfer a nd any technical and financial assistance 
under the Agreement to developing and l east-developed country Members shall be 
cost free." 
Proposals related to Article 9.2 
6. Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mauritius, Pakistan, 
Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Zimbabwe (TN/CTD/W/2) have proposed the following modification to 
Article 9.2:  
"Where substantial investments are requi red in order for an exporting developing 
country Member to fulfil the sanitary or phytosanitary requirements of an importing Member, the latter shall consider providing
  provide such technical assistance as will 
permit the developing country Member to maintain and expand its market access 
opportunities for the product involved.  If an exporting developing country 
Member identifies specific problems of inadequate technology and 
infrastructure in fulfilling the sanitary or phytosanitary requirements of an 
importing developed country Member, the latter shall provide the former with 
relevant technology and technical faciliti es on preferential and non-commercial 
terms, preferably free of cost, keeping in view the development, financial and 
trade needs of the exporting developing country Member. " 
7. The African Group (TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2) has sugge sted several additions and interpretations 
of Article 9.2:  
(a) "The phrase "substantial investments" in Ar ticle 9.2 shall be construed relative to 
resources of concerned government depart ments in developing and least-developed 
country Members and to their development needs.  Any changes that would require 
additional resources to existing levels of curre nt expenditure or their restructuring, or 
additional training or staffing, shall be  construed to amou nt to "substantial 
investments". 
(b) "Where the importing Member does not actually provide such technical assistance, 
that Member shall withdraw the measures immediately and unconditionally;  or the 
importing Member shall compensate the exporting developing country Members for 
loss resulting directly or indirectly from the measures."  G/SPS/GEN/543 
 Page 3 
 
 
 (c) "It is understood that technical assistance sha ll be fully funded technical assistance 
and shall not entail financial obligations on the part of the exporting developing and 
least-developed country Members." 
(d) "It is agreed that the WTO shall reco mmend that impact assessments shall be 
conducted to determine the likely effect on the trade of developing and least-
developed country Members for any proposed standards before adoption, and if the 
impact would be adverse, the standards would not become applicable until it is 
established that developing and least-dev eloped country Members that would be 
affected have acquired the capacity to beneficially comply with them." 
Proposals related to Article 10.1 
8. Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mauritius, Pakistan, 
Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Zimbabwe (TN/CTD/W/2)  have suggested the following addition to 
Article 10.1: 
"If an exporting developing country Member identifies specific problems in 
complying with a sanitary or phytosan itary measures of an importing developed 
country Member, the latter shall upon request en ter into consultations with a view to 
finding a mutually satisfactory solution. 
In this regard, such special needs shall include securing and enhancing current levels 
of exports from developing and least deve loped country members, maintain their 
market shares in their export markets, as well as developing their technological and infrastructural capabilities.  While no tifying a measure, Members shall, inter-alia , 
indicate the following:  (i) systems and/or e quivalent systems that could be used to 
comply with such a measure;  (ii)  the names of the developing and least-developed country Members that could be affected by the applied measure." 
9. The African Group (TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2) has suggested several interpretations of 
Article 10.1: 
(a) "The requirement to "take account of the special needs of developing country 
Members, and in particular least developed country Members" in Article 10.1 shall be 
understood to mean that Members shall either withdraw measures that adversely affect any developing and least-developed country Members or which they find 
difficult to comply with, or shall provide  the technical and financial resources 
necessary for the developing and least-devel oped country Members to comply with 
the measures." 
(b) "The requirement shall be further understood to mean that Members shall always 
initiate consultations in the Committee whenev er they propose or intend to take any 
measures that are likely to affect imports from developing and least-developed country Members.  In the consultations, Members shall establish whether or not the 
proposed or intended measures, if justif ied under the Agreement, would adversely 
affect any developing and least-developed country Members." 
Proposals related to Article 10.4 
10. The proposal from the African Group identified in pa ragraph 5(a)(ii) above is also related to 
Article 10.4. G/SPS/GEN/543 
Page 4  
 
 11. India has proposed (TN/CTD/W/6) an interpretation of Article 10.4: 
"In Article 10.4 the term "should" be read to express "duty" rather than mere 
exhortation.  This could be clarified th rough an authoritative interpretation under 
Article IX.2 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO." 
C. S
UMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS OF THE PROPOSALS .   
12. The following paragraphs summarize the discussions of these five proposals which had 
occurred in the special sessions of the Committ ee on Trade and Development, held between May 
2002 and February 20034, and of a joint CTD/ SPS Committee session5 that took place in November 
2002, as reflected in the minutes of meetings of that body. 
General comments 
13. A number of Members (including Australia , Canada, the European Communities, Japan, 
Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United States) expressed the view that it was necessary to make special and differential treatment provisions more effective, user friendly and profitable.  They did not believe that this would be achieved by rendering some special and 
differential treatment provisions binding, but ra ther by increasing the utilization of existing 
provisions, upgrading information flows, and delivering more needs-driven technical assistance and 
capacity building – notably thr ough a clearer expression by developing countries of the problems 
faced in utilizing individual special and differe ntial treatment provisions.  Furthermore, these 
Members shared the view that making the special and differential treatment provisions binding would 
imply that Member's rights to implement scien tifically justified SPS measures would become 
conditional and not automatic as provided for in the SPS Agreement.  
14. Chile suggested that any agreement-specific pr oposal had to be examined from the point of 
view of the effects it would have not only for developing countries but also among developing 
countries.   
15. A number of Members (including the Philippi nes, Saint Vincent an d the Grenadines and 
Uganda) stated that making the provisions bindi ng would increase the effectiveness of technical 
assistance as developing countries would no longer be required to request such assistance.  They, 
however, recognized that it would be a strain on developed countries' economies.  These country 
Members also shared the view that techni cal assistance should be more needs-driven. 
16. Proponents of the proposals (including Cuba, Egyp t and Kenya) maintained that the aim of 
the proposals was to amend existing special and differential treatment provisions in order to 
strengthen them and to make them  more responsive to the needs of developing country Members.  
According to Egypt, non-recorded utilization of the special and differential treatment provisions 
should not be a pretext to refrain from examining the proposed amendments to these provisions.   
Comments on proposals related to Article 9.2 
17. Norway and New Zealand noted that the proposal  by the Like-Minded Group did not fit into 
the regular technical assistance framework as govern ments could not commit to providing exporting 
developing country Members with the technology usually provided by private companies in the 
importing developed countries.  
                                                     
 
4 TN/CTD/M/3, TN/CTD/M/4, TN /CTD/M/5, TN/CTD/M/7, TN/CTD /M/13, TN/CTD/M/14, and 
TN/CTD/M/15. 
5 TN/CTD/M/10 and Corr.1.  G/SPS/GEN/543 
 Page 5 
 
 
 18. Venezuela, China and Haiti shared the view that the proposal by the Like-Minded Group 
complemented the objectives of the SPS Agreement becau se if Article 9.2 was not binding it would be 
impossible for the developing countries to fully implement the SPS Agreement. 
19. Proponents of the Like-Minded Group's proposal (including Indonesia, Pakistan and 
Sri Lanka) and India observed that assistance could cu rrently only be sought bilaterally and that, as it 
was not mandatory, developing co untries could not be assured of any assistance once it had been 
requested.  This was why the proposals suggested th at the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement 
be made binding in order for them to become more flexible, effective and operational to facilitate and 
increase developing countries' exports.  These Member s also indicated that these proposals sought a 
clear commitment from major trading partners for technical assistance when an exporting developing 
country Member faced a difficulty in fulfilling the SPS requirements of an importing developed 
country Member. 
20. Argentina maintained that it was the devel oped countries Members who had the technical 
capacity to provide technical assistance and that a simplification of their administrative procedures would make it less costly for developing country Members to export and easier for them to comply 
with SPS rules.   
21. Malaysia indicated that there were several typ es of technical assistance already available to 
make the SPS Agreement more effective. 
22. The European Communities and Switzerland indicated that the second paragraph of the 
African Group's proposal, which aimed to make it an obligation to pay compensation once a problem 
had been identified, had unacceptable budgetary impl ications and would be difficult to accomplish.  
23. The European Communities further noted that the provision in the proposal by the Like-
Minded Group, which stated that "shall consider providing" be changed into "shall provide", was 
actually implemented through several bilateral efforts in addition to the efforts under the Trust Fund.  
Although more could always be done, the real  problem was how to make the assistance more 
effective. 
24. Chile questioned what the consequences of th e monitoring of special and differential 
treatment, as suggested in the African Group's pr oposal, would be for the subsidiary bodies. 
Comments on proposals related to Article 10.1 
25. New Zealand observed that the first paragraph of the proposal by the Like-Minded Group, as 
drafted, only imposed an obligation on develope d country Members although South-South trade was a 
particularly important issue given the widely varying stages of development amongst developing 
countries and the size of some developing country markets. 
26. Chile and New Zealand shared the view that, with  regard to the first paragraph of the Like-
Minded Group's proposal, a legally binding obligation to enter into consultations with a view to 
finding a mutually satisfactory solution was not appr opriate.  If a mutually satisfactory solution could 
not be found, the proposal might lead to legal solutions which would have  other effects upon the SPS 
Agreement.  
27. Canada indicated that its proposal (G/SPS/W/127)
 6 stemmed from the same preoccupation as 
expressed by the Like-Minded Group as Canada's propo sal stipulated that when an importing Member 
                                                      
6 This proposal and the procedure for its implementation were subsequently adopted by the SPS 
Committee (G/SPS/33). G/SPS/GEN/543 
Page 6  
 
 notified a measure and an interested developing coun try Member expressed an interest therein, there 
was an obligation for the notifying Member to c onsult with the developing countries on a means to 
address their concerns.  Canada also believed that  if the solutions found were notified, it would 
encourage other developing country Members to a pply and/or undertake similar actions, thus allowing 
them to take full advantage of existing provisions. 
28. Egypt noted that the Canadian proposal was a valuable contribution but did not address the 
requirement contained in the proposal by the Like -Minded Group, which was to secure and enhance 
current levels of exports from developi ng and least-developed country Members.  
29. Malaysia considered that, with regard to the first paragraph of the Like-Minded Group's 
proposal, prior consultations would be complement ary to the current obligation of providing a 
designated period for comments on notifications.  Howe ver, that might not be possible for emergency 
measures. 
30. Norway and New Zealand argued that, with regard  to the second paragraph of the proposal by 
the Like-Minded Group, an importing Member could not be obliged to secure and enhance exports 
from other countries in disregard of its own na tional legislation under the SPS Agreement.  In 
addition, committing to the maintenance of market  shares, as proposed, would imply agreement to 
manage trade through a quota system that was contrary to the purpose of the SPS Agreement. 
31. Proponents of the Like-Minded Group's proposal  (including Pakistan and Sri Lanka) 
remarked that there were justifiable reasons for developed country Members to provide compensation 
for the loss of export revenue resulting from the imposition of SPS measures.  Moreover, Members 
were not being asked to surrender their rights to impose SPS measures but to assist developing 
country Members to acquire the infrastructure capabilities they needed to comply with the SPS 
requirements that developed countries imposed.   
Comments on  proposals related to Article 10.4 
32. New Zealand indicated that, with regard to the proposal by India to change or interpret the 
SPS Agreement so as to make participation in th e relevant standard-setting bodies almost mandatory, 
would not deliver practical benefits. 
33. The European Communities expressed the view that  it would be useful to get more factual 
information on the effects of the Doha Decision and the status of assistance currently provided to enable the active participation of  developing countries in these organi zations.  Canada recalled that 
progress had already been made with respect to th e proposal made by the delegation of India, as 
Canada had created a specific mechanism run by  the Standards Council of Canada to assist 
developing countries to participate in th e relevant international institutions.   
34. The United States drew attention to a progr amme, funded by several developed countries 
including the United States, to enable the thirty -two countries in the American and the Caribbean 
Region to participate in the activities of the SPS Committee since November 2002. 
35. Argentina recognized that efforts had been ma de by some developed country Members with 
regard to the implementation of the provisions of th is article, but suggested that improvement was still 
needed. 
D. 
DEVELOPMENTS THAT ADDRESS SOME OF  THE CONCERNS IN THE PROPOSALS  
36. This section of the document describes a number of developments which have, inter alia , 
addressed some of the concerns underlying several of the special and differential treatment proposals.   G/SPS/GEN/543 
 Page 7 
 
 
 These developments are briefly presented below acco rding to whether their primary focus is on 
technical assistance (Article 9) or on special and differential treatment (Article 10). 
Actions to enhance technical assistance (Article 9) 
37. Technical assistance has been a regular item on the agenda of SPS Committee meetings since 
1995.  Under this agenda item, Memb ers are invited to identify any sp ecific technical assistance needs 
which they may have, and/or to report on any SPS- related capacity building activities in which they 
are involved.  The WTO Secretariat, as well as observer organizations, also report on their assistance activities.  
38. In July 1999, the Secretariat circulated a questionnaire seeking information on the SPS-related 
technical assistance provided by Members and on tec hnical assistance needs in the context of the SPS 
Agreement.  A number of Members provided info rmation on their programmes and projects for SPS 
capacity building in reply to the questionnaire, and others submitted similar information in separate 
documents.
7  The volume of information provided make s evident that a substantial amount of 
assistance is being provided on a bilateral b asis to address some SPS-related concerns. 
39. A second questionnaire, circulated in July  2001, sought information specifically on SPS-
related technical assistance needs.8  By December 2004, 36 Members had submitted responses to the 
questionnaire regarding their technical assistance ne eds, and several Members also submitted separate 
documents with this information (see Attachment 1).9  The information provided in these responses 
has subsequently been used in the planni ng of various technical assistance activities. 
40. At the request of the SPS Committee, the WTO Secretariat prepared a note on typology of 
technical assistance needs in order to help Member s identify the most appropriate type of technical 
assistance.10   Furthermore, a workshop on technical assis tance needs and how to best address these in 
relation to the SPS Agreement was organized by  the WTO Secretariat in November 2002.   
41. In order to address some of the concerns raised  in the questionnaire responses, the Secretariat 
has also organized workshops and seminars on the principles and methods of risk analysis 
(June 2000);  the processes and procedures of th e relevant standard setting organizations 
(March 2001);  and on the effective operation of national SPS enquiry points (November 2003). 
42. The Secretariat initiated technical assistance ac tivities, in the form of regional and national 
training workshops, in November 1994.  The primar y focus of these activities is to ensure that 
officials of developing countries are fully aware of  the rights and obligations of Members under the 
SPS Agreement, and of how to use the provisions of th e Agreement to facilitate their trade interests.  
The number of training activities organized by the WTO Secretariat has increased substantially in 
recent years.  These training activities are describ ed in more detail in document G/SPS/GEN/521. 
43. The Secretariat has also developed a number of tools to assist Members with the 
understanding and implementation of the Agreement.  In particular, a booklet discussing the text of 
the SPS Agreement was published under the WTO Agreements Series (Volume No. 4).  The 
Secretariat has also issued a handbook on the app lication of the transparency provisions of the 
Agreement.  Finally a CD-ROM explaining and discu ssing in detail the provisions of the Agreement, 
                                                      
7 A summary of the replies to this questionn aire (G/SPS/W/101) are contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/143/Rev.1 and Add. 1-3.  Re plies to the same questionnaire have also been provided separately by 
Australia (G/SPS/GEN/472);  the United States (G /SPS/GEN/181 and Add. 1-4);  and New Zealand 
(G/SPS/GEN/352).  Information has also been provided by the Euro pean Communities  (G/SPS/GEN/244). 
8 G/SPS/W/113. 
9 These responses are circulated  as addenda to G/SPS/GEN/295. 
10 G/SPS/GEN/206. G/SPS/GEN/543 
Page 8  
 
 and dealing in particular with implementation, tr ansparency, special and differential treatment and 
dispute settlement issues, has been produced by th e Secretariat.  The inte r-active CD-ROM includes 
text, video and audio material and is complement ed by multiple-choice tests to enable users to 
monitor their individual progress. 
44. The international standard-setting bodies have  consistently provided updates to the SPS 
Committee on their technical assistance activities.  A ll three organizations have developed training 
programmes, including conferences, seminars a nd workshops, to enhance national capacities on WTO 
matters.  The IPPC developed a diagnostic tool, the Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE), to help 
countries address their current capacity and identify needs for assistance.  The PCE is available on 
CD-ROM and can be downloaded from the IPPC website.
11  In addition to information from the OIE, 
IPPC and the Codex, other obser vers organizations, including FAO,  the World Bank, OIRSA, IICA, 
UNIDO and UNCTAD, provide regular updates to the SPS Committee on their provision of technical assistance.  All of these organizations have substa ntial programmes related to SPS capacity building. 
45. Furthermore, following the consultations between  the WTO, FAO, OIE and WHO referred to 
in paragraph 49, the Codex, IPPC and OIE have est ablished trust funds to assist the more effective 
participation of developing country Members in thei r standard-setting activities.  These trust funds are 
supported through contributions by donor agencies and member countries.  The OIE also continues to 
provide financial support for the participation of  the Chief Veterinary Officers of its member 
countries in OIE standard-setting activities. 
46. The Standards and Trade Development Facility  (STDF) was established in September 2002 
following the commitment made by the Heads of the WHO, the FAO, the WTO, the OIE and the 
World Bank at the Doha Ministerial Conference to e xplore new technical and financial mechanisms to 
promote the efficient use of resources in SPS-related activities.
 12  The purpose of the STDF, which is 
administered by the WTO, is to enhance the capaci ty of developing countries in the standards area 
through co-operation between the re levant institutions in SPS-related activities, including through the 
development of joint institutional projects, and pr ovision of STDF-funding to projects in developing 
countries.  Eleven projects, related to building th e capacity of developing countries to identify specific 
needs, make effective use of international standa rds, and meet the SPS requirements of their trading 
partners, have been approved by the STDF.  Th e STDF also maintains a database which provides 
information on SPS-related technical assis tance and capacity building projects.13  
Actions to enhance the implementation of sp ecial and differential treatment (Article 10)  
47. Special and differential treatment is a standi ng agenda item for the Committee.  Under this 
item, Egypt proposed the inclusion of a special a nd differential treatment box in the SPS notification 
format.14  In response, Canada proposed that an im porting country should consider any requests for 
special and differential treatment or technical assist ance made in response to their notification of a 
new measure and notify the SPS Comm ittee of any subsequent action.15.  In March 2003, the 
Committee adopted in principle the Canadian proposal  and in October 2004, it adopted an elaboration 
of the steps to implement this procedure.16  This procedure provides for the submission of specific 
addenda to notifications which indicate when special and differential treatment or technical assistance 
has been requested in the context of the notifica tion of a new or modified SPS measure, and what 
response has been given to the request.   
                                                      
11 http://www.ippc.int. 
12 http://www.standardsfacility.org. 
13 Available on-line at http:/stdfdb.wto.org. 
14 G/SPS/GEN/358. 
15 G/SPS/W/127. 
16 G/SPS/33.  G/SPS/GEN/543 
 Page 9 
 
 
 48. Other guidelines and decisions adopted by the Committee have taken in to consideration the 
specific needs and concerns expressed by deve loping country Members.  These include the 
recommended procedures for implementing the tr ansparency provisions of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.2 and Add.1 and 2);  the guidelines to further the practical implementation of 
Article 5.5 (G/SPS/15), and the decision on the implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement 
regarding recognition of e quivalence (G/SPS/19/Rev.2). 
49. Following the request of the General Council in  October 2000, the Director-General of the 
WTO organized meetings with the standard-setting organizations as well as with international 
financial institutions to identify ways to increas e the participation of developing countries in 
international standard-setting activiti es.  He provided three reports regarding his efforts in this area.17  
At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Members ur ged him to continue his efforts to facilitate 
participation of developing countries in standard setting.  The establishment by the standard-setting 
organizations of trust funds to facilitate the par ticipation of developing country officials in their 
activities (see paragraph 45) has been in  part in response to this request. 
50. The Heads of the FAO, the OIE, the WHO, the World Bank and the WTO issued a joint 
statement during the Doha Ministerial Conference reaffirming their commitment to enhance 
developing countries' capacity to participate eff ectively in the development and application of 
international standards and in taking full advantage of trade opportunities.18  As a follow-up to this 
statement, the STDF (see paragraph 46) has been established. 
51. The Decision on Implementation taken at the D oha Ministerial Conference in 2001 included 
inter alia  a clarification on Article 10.2.19  It specifies that where the appropriate level of protection 
allows scope for the phased introduction of SPS measures, the "longer time-frame for compliance" 
referred to in Article 10.2 shall normally mean at least 6 months.  Where the phased introduction of a 
new measure is not possible, but a Member iden tifies specific problems, the Member applying the 
new measure shall enter into consultations, upon request, to try to find a mutually satisfactory 
solution.  The Decision also indicated that in th e context of paragraph 2 of Annex B of the SPS 
Agreement, a period of 6 months shall normally be provided between the publication of a measure 
and its entry into force. 
52. Finally, the Doha Ministerial Decision instruct ed the SPS Committee to undertake a review of 
the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreemen t every four years.  This review, the second 
since the entry into force of the Agreement, is currently underway. 
 
 
                                                      
17 WT/GC/45, WT/GC/46, WT/GC/54. 
18 WT/MIN(01)/ST/97. 
19 WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 3.1. G/SPS/GEN/543 
Page 10  
 
 ATTACHMENT 1 
INFORMATION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED 
Document symbol Date of publication Country providing 
G/SPS/GEN/143/Rev.1 8 March 2000 Resp onses to  the first questionnaire 
G/SPS/GEN/143/Rev.1/Ad d.1 16 June 2000 Idem  - Submission by Canada  and update by Italy  
G/SPS/GEN/143/Rev.1/Add.2 3 November 2000 Idem  - Submission by Jordan  
G/SPS/GEN/143/Rev.1/Add.3 3 July  2001 Idem - Submission by Norway  
G/SPS/GEN/181 15 June 2000 Technical assist ance provided by the United States  
G/SPS/GEN/181/Add. 1 9 July 2001 Idem 
G/SPS/GEN/181/Add. 2 25 June 2002 Idem 
G/SPS/GEN/181/Add. 3 19 June 2003 Idem 
G/SPS/GEN/181/Add. 4 22 June 2004 Idem 
G/SPS/GEN/244 27 April 2001 Technical assistance provided by the European 
Communities  
G/SPS/GEN/352 28 October 2002 T echnical assistance provided by New Zealand  
G/SPS/GEN/472 10 March 2004 Tech nical assistance provided by Australia  
REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
Document symbol Date of publication Country requesting 
G/SPS/GEN/174 19 April 2000 Zambia  – Request for Technical Assistance 
G/SPS/GEN/199 27 July 2000 Jordan  – Request for Technical Assistance 
G/SPS/GEN/208 1 November 2000 Jordan  – Request for Technical Assistance 
G/SPS/GEN/257 2 July 2001 Gabon  – Communication on Technical Assistance 
G/SPS/GEN/287 29 October 2001 Chile  – Technical Assistance 
G/SPS/GEN/295 6 February 2002 Respon ses to the second questionnaire  
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.1 6 February 2002 Idem  – Submission by Egypt  
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.2 6 February 2002 Idem  – Submission by Sri Lanka 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.2/Re v.1 30 July 2002 Idem – Revision 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.2/Rev.2 6 June 2003 Idem  – Revision 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.3 8 February 2002 Idem – Submission by Georgia 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.4 8 February 02 Idem – Submission by Trinidad and Tobago 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.4/Rev.1 5 March 02 Idem – Revision  
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.5 8 February 02 Idem – Submission by Uganda 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.6 13 February 02 Idem – Submission by Indonesia 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.7 1 March 02 Idem – Submission by Belarus  
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.8 1 March 02 Idem – Submission by Saudi Arabia 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.9 1 March 02 Idem – Submission by Thailand  G/SPS/GEN/543 
 Page 11 
 
 
 REQUESTS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (cont'd) 
Document symbol Date of publication Country requesting 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.10 1 March 02 Idem  – Submission by Colombia 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.11 1 March 02 Idem – Submission by Cyprus 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.12 6 March 02 Idem  – Submission by Tunisia 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.13 18 March 02 Idem – Submission by Cuba 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.14 27 May 02 Idem  – Submission by the Philippines  
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.15 6 June 02 Idem  – Submission by the Maldives 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.16 10 June 02 Idem  – Submission by Panama 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.17 19 June 02 Idem – Submission by Morocco  
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.18 24 June 02 Idem – Submission by Costa Rica 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.19 26 June 02 Idem – Submission by South Africa 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.19/R ev.1 16 October 02 Idem  – Revision 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.20 8 July 02 Idem  – Submission by Senegal 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.20/R ev.1 20 August 02 Idem – Revision 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.21 16 July 02 Idem – Submission by Kenya 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.22 30 July 02 Idem – Submission by Guatemala 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.23 1 August 02 Idem – Submission by Gambia  
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.24 2 August 02 Idem  – Submission by China 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.25 14 August 02 Idem  – Submission by Panama 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.26 29 August 02 Idem  – Submission by Honduras  
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.27  12 September 02 Idem – Submission by Mauritius  
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.28 17 October 02 Idem – Submission by Yugoslavia 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.29  10 December 02 Idem  – Submission by Costa Rica 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.30 5 February 03 Idem – Submission by Barbados 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.31 6 March 03 Idem  – Submission by Peru  
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.32 24 March 03 Idem  – Submission by Cyprus 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.33 25 March 03 Idem  – Submission by Dominican Republic 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.33 /Corr.1 1 May 03 Idem  – Corrigendum 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.34 15 July 03 Idem  – Submission by Paraguay  
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.35 1 March 04 Idem – Submission by Antigua and Barbuda 
G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.36 & Corr.1 11 June 04 Idem  – Submission by Nicaragua 
G/SPS/GEN/401 20 May 2003 Cameroon  – Technical Assistance Request 
G/SPS/GEN/481 30 March 2004 Antigua and Barbuda  – Technical Assistance  G/SPS/GEN/543 
Page 12  
 
 GENERAL PROPOSALS REGARDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
Document symbol Date of publication Country requesting 
G/SPS/GEN/157 17 December 1999 Guatemala  – Development and Adaptation of Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Systems in Developing Countries 
GSPS/GEN/287 29 October 2001 Chile  - Technical Assistance 
G/SPS/GEN/382 1 April 2003 Mexico  – SPS measures technical co-operation 
programme 
G/SPS/GEN/469 8 March 2004 Papua New Guinea  – SPS and Developing Countries: 
Special and Differential Treat ment, Technical Assistance, 
Transparency 
 
__________