WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/239/Rev.1 
13 July 2009 
 (09-3411) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS 
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION  
 
Revised Draft Eleventh Annual Report
1 
 
 
 The draft Eleventh Annual Report on the Proce dure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization was considered by the SPS Committ ee at its meeting of 23-24 June 2009.  The 
Committee agreed to adopt the report subject to its revision to include information arising from 
discussions under the relevant agenda item at that m eeting.  This revision includes that information. 
 
 Members wishing to suggest modification to this draft report are invited to submit their comments to the Secretariat no later than 25 July 2009
.  If no substantive objection to the report has 
been submitted by that date, the report w ill be considered to have been adopted. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS 
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION  
  
A. INTRODUCTION 
1. At its meeting of 15-16 October 1997, the SPS Committee adopted a provisional procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization a nd the use of international standards, guidelines 
or recommendations, as provided for in Articles 3. 5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement.  The Committee 
extended the provisional monitoring procedure in 1999, 2001, and 2003, and adopted a revision of the 
procedure in October 2004.
2  On 28 June 2006, the Committee agreed to extend the provisional 
procedure indefinitely, and to review its operation as an integral part of the periodic review of the 
operation and implementation of the Agreement under Article 12.7.3  The next such review is to be 
completed in 2009, and every four years subsequently.  
2. The Committee has previously adopted tenth an nual reports on the monitoring procedure.4  
These reports summarize several standards-related is sues that the Committee has considered and the 
responses received from the relevant  standard-setting organizations. 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the position of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/14, G/SPS/17,  G/SP S/25 and G/SPS/11/Rev.1. 
3 G/SPS/40. 
4 These were circulated as G/SPS/13, G/ SPS/16, G/SPS/18, G/SPS/2 1, G/SPS/28, G/SPS/31, 
G/SPS/37, G/SPS/42, G/SP S/45 and G/SPS/49. G/SPS/W/239/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  B. NEW
 ISSUES 
3. Since the adoption of the Tenth Annual Report in June 2008, two new issues have been raised 
under this procedure.  One issue is with regard to concerns raised relating to a draft regional standard 
of the North American Plant Protection Organi zation (NAPPO) entitled "Guidelines for Regulating 
the Movement of Ships and Cargoes Aboard those Ships from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy 
Moth".  The other issue pertains to provisions of  the Constitutive Agreement of the Asia Pacific Plant 
Protection Commission (APPPC) regarding havea plants and South American leaf blight. 
Concerns on draft regional standard of the North American Plant Protection Organization 
 
4. At the meeting of the Committee of 15-16 Oct ober 2008, China raised the issue of a draft 
regional standard developed by NAPPO which woul d require NAPPO members (Canada, Mexico and 
the United States) to impose strict phytosanitary  measures on ships and cargoes from China, Japan, 
Korea, Mongolia, and Russia.5  China, along with Japan, Korea a nd Indonesia, was concerned that the 
draft regional standard would have a serious impact on international trade if implemented, that it was 
inconsistent with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Ag reement, and that it had ambiguities regarding the 
technical application of the measure in differe nt NAPPO countries and in different climatic 
conditions.  
5. The United States stressed that the NAPPO standard was still in a draft form, and was 
amenable to changes based on comments submitted by  concerned Members.  China had declined an 
invitation to attend an October 2008 meeting regarding this draft sta ndard.  This pest was not present 
in the NAPPO countries, but it was known to be ve ry invasive.  A harmonized standard would allow 
ships to enter any port in a NAPPO country, after be ing approved at the first port of call.  Canada 
supported the statement of the United States, citing th e damage previously caused by incursions of the 
Asian Gypsy Moth in Canada.  These interv entions were also supported by Mexico. 
6. China stated that it had already sent technical  comments to the NAPPO secretariat and hoped 
there would be further meetings between the NAP PO secretariat and the concerned Members.  The 
representative of Norway also expressed interest re garding the possible impact on Norway's exports. 
7. The European Communities reported that they had not introduced any new measures with 
regard to the Asian Gypsy Moth, although they remain ed vigilant to any potent ial risk.  The European 
Communities noted the similarities between this is sue and ISPM 15 on wood packing material, and 
hoped that a similar solution to the Asian Gypsy Moth problem could be found. 
8. At the meeting of the Committee in February 2009, China reported that it had maintained 
good communications with the officials of the NA PPO countries since raising its concern on this 
issue.  The draft standard had been revised a nd was undergoing a second comment-soliciting process, 
and technical expert groups had been sent to China, Japan and Korea from NAPPO to exchange 
information.  China welcomed the open and transp arent working procedure of the NAPPO countries, 
and requested that they delay adoption of the sta ndard until comments and c oncerns were taken into 
account.  Moreover, China reaffirmed the need for scientific evidence for every SPS measure, as 
provided for in Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  China also reported that the occurrence of the 
Asian Gypsy Moth had decreased sufficiently within its territory that this pest was not detected during 
joint surveillance with the Unite d States in some Chinese ports.  China also recalled the SPS 
Agreement provision for the least trade- restrictive measure to be applied. 
9. Indonesia, Japan and Korea shared similar concer ns in regard to the draft standard.  Japan 
requested that the standard not be adopted until all comments were duly considered.  Indonesia noted 
                                                      
5 G/SPS/R/53, paragraphs 112-120.  G/SPS/W/239/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  the need for further studies on the possibility of the survival of the insects on long distance journeys to 
North America via cargoes.  Korea argued that the draft standard might pose an excessive restriction 
on trade, and expressed regret that the low prevalence of the pest in Korea had not been considered by 
the United States.  
10. The United States reaffirmed that the Asian Gy psy Moth was a highly invasive pest, and had 
been found in port areas in North America on a num ber of occasions although it was not present in 
North America.  The United States stated that th e need for specific phyto sanitary measures had been 
stressed by the NAPPO pest risk assessment panel, subsequent to a risk assessment.  This assessment 
was available on request and was the basis of th e present draft standard.  The United States assured 
trading partners that the applied phytosanitary me asures would be consistent  with its WTO rights and 
obligations.  The statements of the United St ates were corroborated by Mexico and Canada. 
11. At the meeting of the Committee in June 2009, Ch ina stressed its concern that implementation 
of the draft NAPPO standard would potentially ha ve a tremendous impact on trade between China and 
countries in North America.  The draft standard applied to all ports in China, whereas AGM had 
historically been found only in the north-eastern part  of China.  The occurrence of AGM in China had 
been reduced significantly, and a joint survey c onducted by China and the USDA in 2008 identified 
no occurrence of AGM in China.  China invited NAPPO  members to participate in a workshop in July 
that would highlight the preventive and control meas ures it had taken.  China was concerned with the 
operability of the current draft standards, special ly with regard to certification and inspection 
requirements, noting the impossibility of checking ships and cargo at night, as many ships departed before dawn.  Moreover, as numerous non-plant rela ted cargo such as cars and steel also had to be 
inspected, it would lead to an increase in costs, thus creating a barrier to trade.  Japan, Korea and 
Indonesia again noted their similar concerns and requ ested that the standard not be implemented until 
these concerns had been addressed. 
12. Canada underlined that the NAPPO standard aimed at controlling a real risk to North 
American forests, which had been affected by AGM in the past with multi-million dollar costs for 
eradication.  Since March 2009, six ships had b een found with AGM egg-ma sses on board.  NAPPO 
members were aware of the trade impact and the co sts associated with control measures, however the 
draft regional standard had been  developed to be no more trade restrictive than necessary to 
effectively address the risks associated with AGM.  Co mments of all stakeholders  would be taken into 
account when the standard was finalized in A ugust 2009, and NAPPO members would work in a 
coordinated approach to consider direct impacts of the standard on trade. 
13. The United States affirmed that AGM was a highly invasive pest, not present in North 
America, and which had been found  on a number of occasions in port areas in North America.  The 
regional standard was based on a risk assessme nt which was available upon request.  NAPPO 
members had solicited scientific and technical input s from concerned countries.  In June 2009, the 
NAPPO forestry panel reviewed the comments receive d and a revised draft of the standard would be 
made available in August 2009.  Mexico concurre d with the statements by the Untied States and 
Canada, and reaffirmed its willingness to work w ith concerned trading partners to mitigate any 
potential risk of introduction of AGM into North America. 
14. Several Members expressed the view that this issue did not pertain to the monitoring or the 
use of an international standard, or to a need for de velopment of an international standard, and that in 
future it should be addressed more appropriately as a specific trade concern. G/SPS/W/239/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  Concerns on restrictions on imports of Havea Plants  
 
15. At the meeting of the Committee of 25-26 Febr uary 2009, Brazil raised concerns regarding 
some provisions of the Constitutive Agreement of  the Asia Pacific Plant Protection Commission 
(APPPC), which includes a clause in its Article 4 and Appendix B on South American leaf blight.
6  
By virtue of this clause, the APPPC contractin g parties are requested to prohibit by law the 
importation of havea plants from countries outside the region.  Brazil considered that this requirement 
lacked scientific justification, was not based on risk  analysis, and had already affected many countries 
in South and Central America.  Moreover, in 1999 the 117th Council of the FAO had recommended 
the revision of the APPPC Constitutive Agreement,  to bring it in line with the IPPC and SPS 
Agreement principles and provisions.  Brazil urge d a timely revision of the APPPC Constitutive 
Agreement. 
16. Japan expressed a similar concern as Brazil.  Japan was not a member of the APPPC even 
though it was located in the region covered by it, due  to this provision against South American leaf 
blight.  A risk assessment for a regional standard  had been conducted by the APPPC, and Japan hoped 
that the APPPC would adopt a regional standard on this basis at its September 2009 meeting. 
17. The IPPC representative clarified the relations hip between the IPPC and the regional plant 
protection organizations.  The cooperation of the regional plant protection organizations with the 
IPPC secretariat to achieve the objectives of the In ternational Plant Protection Convention, and to 
develop relevant standards, is prescribed in Article  9 of the Convention.  Article 10 of the Convention 
provides that regional standards shall be consistent with the principles of the Convention.  The IPPC 
had also sought the revision of the APPPC Constitutiv e Agreement, to make it consistent with IPPC 
principles. 
18. At the June meeting of the Committee, Brazil reca lled its concerns and noted that it had been 
exchanging technical and scientific information with APPPC countries since 1999.  However, the 
clause had not yet been revised, and Brazil remain ed concerned about APPPC member legislation on 
South American Leaf Blight (SALB). Paraguay an d Japan supported Brazil's concerns, and Japan 
reiterated its hope that efforts to harmonize the text of the APPPC with the SPS Agreement would 
soon be concluded.  New Zealand clarified that it was a member of APPPC, but all of it's Zealand's 
measures with regard to the import of plant materi al were based on the outcome of risk analysis 
19. Indonesia explained that the objective of the measure was to protect the rubber industry of 
Indonesia from the SALB.  A specific analysis was undertaken each time a decision to import was 
made in order to prevent trade disputes and to comply with the SPS Agreement. 
20. The IPPC stated that there were actually two issues:  (1) whether the clause pertaining to 
Havea should be included in the APPPC convention and (2) whether the draft PRA was technically 
sound.  The standard did not prohibit imports of a ll plants and plant products from Brazil.  The FAO 
had provided technical support to the region in or der to complete a PRA on which a regional standard 
could be based. 
                                                      
6 G/SPS/R/54, paragraphs 125-127.  G/SPS/W/239/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  C. PREVIOUS  ISSUES 
21. Since the adoption of the Twelfth Annual repor t, there has been no further discussion on any 
issue previously raised under this procedure. 
D. RESPONSES  RECEIVED  FROM  THE  RELEVANT  STANDARD-SETTING  
ORGANIZATIONS 
22. No further information has been provided by the relevant standard-setting organizations 
regarding issues previously raised. 
___________