RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/237 
8 May 2009 
 (09-2262) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Draft Report of the Committee
1 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. Article 12.7 of the Agreement on the Applica tion of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
("the Agreement") provides that "the Committee shal l review the operation and implementation of this 
Agreement three years after the date of entry into  force of the WTO Agreement, and thereafter as the 
need arises".  A First Review of the Agreement was completed in March 1999.2 
2. At the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conf erence, Ministers instructed the Committee to 
review the operation and implementation of the Ag reement at least once every four years.  The 
Second Review of the Agreement was completed in July 2005.3  At its October 2008 meeting, the 
Committee adopted a procedure and timetable to undertake the Third Review of the Agreement.4   
3. Members were invited to identify issues for discussion as part of the Third Review and any 
other issues they wished to have considered during the Review, by 28 November 2008.  Members 
were also invited to: (i) submit papers on the i ssues proposed for consideration and to identify any 
further issues for consideration dur ing the Review, by 9 February 20 09; and (ii) submit any further 
papers on issues proposed for consideration, by  27 March 2009.  Since October 2008, the Committee 
has held one informal meeting and one formal me eting, at which it considered issues and proposals 
identified by Members. 
4. In accordance with the procedures adopted by the Committee (G/SPS/W/228), this draft 
report of the Review is for discussion at the 22-24 June meeting of the Committee, and written 
comments by Members on this draft are to be submitted to the Secretariat by  25 July 2009 . 
5. In both the First and Second Reviews, th e Committee discussions have focused on 
implementation and operation issues related to: 
• Consistency (Article 5.5); 
• Equivalence (Article 4); 
• Transparency (Article 7 and Annex B); 
• Monitoring the use of international standards (Article 3.5 and 12.4); 
• Technical assistance and training activities (Article 9); 
                                                      
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/12. 
3 G/SPS/36. 
4 G/SPS/W/228. G/SPS/W/237 
Page 2  
 
  • Special and differential treatment (Article 10); 
• Regionalization (Article 6); 
• Monitoring Implementation of the Agreemen t (Articles 12.1 and 12.2) – Specific trade 
concerns; 
• Cooperation with Codex Alimenta rius, World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and 
the International Plant Protection C onvention (IPPC) (Article 12.3);  and 
• Dispute settlement activities (Article 11). 
6. Although the main focus and discussions were on the issues listed above, in the Second 
Review, the Committee also consid ered some additional issues: 
• Clarification of definitions of terms; 
• Clarification of the relationship between  certain Articles of the SPS Agreement; 
• Undue delays; 
• Good regulatory practice;  and 
• Control, Inspection and Approval Pr ocedures (Article 8 and Annex C). 
7. In this Third Review, the Committee review ed all of the above provisions, except 
[clarification of definition of terms, and clarificati on of the relationship between certain Articles in the 
SPS Agreement], and  considered one additio nal issue: private voluntary standards. 
8. Appendix A of this document provides a summary  of Committee activities since the Second 
Review in 2005.  Appendix B provides informati on about SPS-related dispute settlement activities.  
Appendix C provides a list of documents submitted by Members since the Second Review of the 
Agreement relevant to the various issu es raised in this Background Paper. 
II. CONSISTENCY (ARTICLE 5.5) 
9. Efforts and deliberations by the Committee to develop guidelines for consistency began 
during the Committee's first meeting in March 199 5 and progressed through informal and formal 
meetings.  During these discussions, Members raised conceptual issues related to the links between 
appropriate level of protection, measures and risk assessment. 
10. In the Second Review of the Agreement in  2005 ("the 2005 Review"), the Committee noted 
that it should undertake another review of the ope ration of the guidelines to further the practical 
implementation of Article 5.5 whenever Members id entified the need, and in any case not later than 
December 2008.  Members were encouraged to provi de information regarding their experiences in the 
implementation of Article 5.5 and in the use of the guidelines (G/SPS/15). 
11. To date no Member has suggested a need to  modify these guidelines.  Although there is no 
standing agenda item regarding Article 5.5, there is opportunity for Members to provide information 
regarding their experiences in this regard under the Agenda Item "Activities of Members".  No 
Member has provided any such information since June 2005. 
12. Some Members have suggested, however, that the Committee should solicit information from 
Members in order to determine the extent to whic h these guidelines, as well as others adopted by the 
Committee, are actually being implemented by Members.  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 3 
 
 
  13. Australia noted that no Member had provided info rmation on their experiences with regard to 
Article 5.5 since June 2005.  In that context, Au stralia suggested that Me mbers submit any issue of 
concern they might have on the Article 5.5 Guide lines (G/SPS/15) by the June 2009 meeting of the 
Committee.  Should no specific issue be raised by June, it was proposed that the Committee agree to 
consider the current guidelines on consistency as having been reviewed  and maintain the guidelines as 
such. 
14. In its proposal on issues for consideration in the Third Review5, India (i) noted the need to 
review the progress achieved in this issue through the use of the Committee's  guidelines (G/SPS/15), 
and (ii) asked that the Committee analyze some SPS measures of key trading Members which have a 
major effect on exports from other countries and assess to what extent they were "arbitrary or 
unjustifiable". 
15. Recommendations : 
• Members are encouraged to provide informa tion regarding their experiences in the 
implementation of Article 5.5 and in the use of the guidelines (G/SPS/15). 
 
• Should no specific issue be raised by [the e nd of the Third Review], the Committee should 
agree to consider the current guidelines on consistency as having been reviewed and 
maintain the guidelines as such. 
• The Committee should agree to review these guidelin es as part of the periodic review of the 
operation and implementation of the SPS Ag reement, unless any Member requests a specific 
review of the guidelines in G/SPS/15 in the intervening period. 
 
III. LEAST TRADE RESTRICTED (ARTICLE 5.6) 
16. India has proposed that the Committee clarify th e words "reasonably available" in the context 
of alternative measures referenced in foot note 3 of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.6 
IV. EQUIVALENCE (ARTICLE 4) 
17. In the 2005 Review, the Committee encouraged Members to provide information regarding 
their experiences in the implementation of Article 4 and in the use of the guidance developed by the 
Committee (G/SPS/19/Rev.2).  In particular, Member s were encouraged to notify any agreements 
reached on the recognition of equivalence.  Finally,  the relevant international organizations were 
invited to keep the Committee info rmed of any work they undertook with regard to the recognition of 
equivalence. 
18. Equivalence is a standing agenda item for regul ar meetings of the Committee.  At each 
meeting, Members are invited to report on their ex periences regarding equivalence, and the relevant 
international organizations are invited to provide information.  The following Members provided 
information under this agenda item:  Brazil a nd Chile (June 2005), Egypt (March 2006) and the 
United States (June 2007).  On 9 August 2007, Panama submitte d the first notification on a 
recognition of equivalence (G/SPS/N/EQV/PAN/1).  A second notification of  the recognition of equivalence of SPS measures was submitted to th e Committee in 2008 by the Dominican Republic 
(G/SPS/N/EQV/DOM/1). 
                                                     
 
5 G/SPS/W/236. 
6 G/SPS/W/236. G/SPS/W/237 
Page 4  
 
  19. The Secretariat noted that Members' officials often made reference informally to various 
equivalence agreements with trading partners, but  these had not been notified to the SPS Committee.  
Some Members agreed that equivalence agreements did exist, and that the guidance developed by the 
Committee was being used.  They suggested that one reason Members did not notify these agreements 
was to avoid other exporters benefiting from the arrangements.  Furthermore, in many cases the 
notion of equivalence was applied withou t any formal recognition of equivalence per se , or without 
calling the bilateral arrangements "equivalence".  They  agreed, however, that it would be useful for 
Members to provide information regard ing their experiences in this area. 
20. The international standard-setting organizations have developed guidance in this area, and the 
Codex, IPPC and/or OIE have provided informa tion on equivalence issues at each meeting of the 
Committee since June 2005.  The Codex Alimentari us Commission has adopted Principles for the 
development of equivalence agreem ents regarding food import and export inspection and certification 
systems, and Guidelines on the judgement  of equivalence of such systems.
7  The OIE has developed 
guidelines for reaching a judgement of the equivalence of sanitary measures.8  At the October 2008 
meeting of the Committee, the OIE elaborated on a new approach whereby two ad hoc groups were 
analyzing various chapters in the terrestrial and aqua tic animal health codes, and noted that it would 
keep the Committee informed of th e work of those ad hoc groups.  The IPPC adopted in 2005 a 
standard with guidelines for determination and r ecognition of equivalence of phytosanitary measures 
(ISPM 24).  In addition, ISPM 1, which also incl udes principles on equivalence, was revised in 2006.9 
21. In its proposal for the Third Review10, India proposed that the Committee prepare a country-
specific status report, listing the cases where Member s had entered into bila teral consultations and 
where a successful equivalence agreement had been negotiated as a result thereof.  India also noted 
that Members, especially developing country Memb ers and least developed country Members, should 
be encouraged to share their experiences in and difficulties with implementing Article 4.2, all this 
would help other Members also to ne gotiate similar agreements.  Finally, India suggested that even if 
a Member did not enter into any equivalence arrange ments, it could be required to make a statement 
to that effect.   
22. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should maintain e quivalence as a standing item of  the agenda for its regular 
meetings. 
• Members are encouraged to provide informati on regarding their experiences, or lack thereof 
in the implementation of Article 4 and in the use of the guidance developed by the Committee 
(G/SPS/19/Rev.2).  In particular, Members a re encouraged to notify any agreements reached 
on the recognition of equivalence in a ccordance with the agreed procedure. 
• The relevant international organizations are in vited to keep the Committee informed of any 
work they undertake with regard to the recognition of equivalence . 
 
V. TRANSPARENCY (ARTICLE 7 AND ANNEX B) 
23. In the 2005 Review, the Committee:  (i) encourag ed Members to ensure full implementation 
of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreemen t;  (ii) asked that developing country Members 
clearly identify specific problems faced in im plementing the transparency provisions of the 
Agreement;  and (iii) asked that assistance be pr ovided to least-developed and developing country 
                                                      
7 http://www.Codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10047/CXG_053e.pdf . 
8 http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/en_mcode-2004.htm . 
9https://www.ippc.int/servlet/Bin aryDownloaderServlet/124047_200 7_ISPMs_book_Engl.doc?filenam
e=1187683730555_ISPMs_1to29_2007_En_with_convention.doc&refID=124047 . 
10 Ibid.  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Members in order to enable them to fully implemen t the transparency provisions and to make use of 
the benefits associated with transparency.  R ecognizing that the recommended procedures established 
by the Committee (G/SPS/7/Rev.2), while not crea ting legal obligations, co uld facilitate Members' 
implementation of the provisions of the SPS Agreem ent, the Committee agreed to consider whether 
further recommendations could be beneficial. 
24. The Secretariat organized a Workshop on Transp arency in October 2007.  This was the third 
SPS workshop on transparency organized by the WTO Secretariat, the first two having been held in 
1999 and 2003.  Various funding arrangements made  it possible for a large number of developing 
country and LDC participants to attend.  The objectives of the workshop were to enhance the 
implementation of transparency obligations and to identify best practices for drawing benefits from a 
transparent system. 
25. The main recommendations from the Workshop involved the following six issues:  revision of 
the Recommended Transparency Procedures containe d in G/SPS/7/Rev.2;  training and dissemination 
on the SPS Information Management System ( SPS IMS) as well as other sources of SPS-related 
information;  regular updates on the level of implem entation of transparency provisions;  explanatory 
documents on timeframes related to transparency obligations and on benefits  of the SPS Agreement;  
establishment of a mentoring mechanism betwee n officials responsible for implementing the 
transparency provisions in different Members;  a nd development of a practical procedural manual.  
Significant progress has been made with respect to all six recommendations. 
26. On 30 May 2008, the Committee adopted revised  recommended procedures for transparency 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.3).  The new procedures, inter alia , clarify the definition of the comment period, 
encourage the notification of measures conforming to  international standards, and provide links for 
access to full texts of regulations and their transla tions.  The new transparency procedures, including 
the use of the new notification formats,  took effect  on 1 December 2008.  These new formats provide the possibility for Members to include hyperlinks to texts of draft regulations or to submit these draft 
regulations to the Secretariat in PDF format so th at they could be placed on a server and a hyperlink 
included. 
27. To facilitate Members' management of the la rge volume of SPS-related information, the 
Secretariat regularly produces summary documents containing relevant SP S-related information, 
including monthly summaries of notifications
11 received by the Secretariat and an annual listing of all 
SPS documents.12  Links to these documents can be found on the SPS web page. 
28. Furthermore, the Secretariat has established a mechanism for Members to inform each other 
of the availability of translations of notified measure s into one of the official languages of the WTO.  
These are submitted in the form of supplemental notifications. 
29. The Secretariat has also  developed the new SPS Information Management System (SPS 
IMS), the public version of which was launc hed and presented on 15 October 2007 during the 
Transparency Workshop.13  The system includes the most recent information on SPS notifications as 
well as Committee documents, specific trade concerns  and Members' National Enquiry Points and 
Notifications Authorities.  It facilitates the condu ct of searches accordi ng to specific needs and 
interests (product codes, geographic groups, etc. an d also the preparation of reports and summaries 
which can be shared with interested stakeholders .  The website of the SPSIMS is constantly updated 
with the latest contact details on Members' Enqui ry Points and National Notification Authorities. 
                                                      
11 See documents G/SPS/GEN/903, 910 and 917 for January to March 2009. 
12 G/SPS/GEN/897 for 2008. 
13 http://spsims.wto.org/ . G/SPS/W/237 
Page 6  
 
  30. The WTO Secretariat has provided demonstration sessions on the SPS IMS during the SPS 
Committee meetings and during its technical assistan ce programmes.  It has also responded to ad hoc 
requests from Members and other interested parties for assistance. 
31. With respect to the recommendation on regular  updates on the level of implementation of 
transparency provisions, the Secretariat has begun to  provide annual updates.  In October 2007, the 
Secretariat circulated a first background note (G /SPS/GEN/804) providing an overview regarding the 
level of implementation of the transparency provis ions of the SPS Agreement.  An updated version of 
this note was circulated as G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 in  October 2008.  The development of the SPS 
IMS facilitates the compilation and analysis of data related to the implementation of the transparency 
provisions.  Furthermore, Members' implementa tion of the new recommendations on transparency 
should result in substantially enhanced information. 
32. Managing information on transparency remain s, however, challenging for many developing 
country Members who struggle with implementing basi c obligations with respect to the transparency 
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  Many developing  country Members have flagged their need for 
assistance and support to resolve their individual tr ansparency difficulties, for example with the 
process of sending notifications to the WTO.  Othe r difficulties faced by developing country Members 
relate to the operation of their SPS National Notifi cation Authority and their National Enquiry Point. 
33. In October 2007, New Zealand proposed that  these concerns be addressed through the 
establishment of an informal mentoring mechanism f acilitated by the Secretariat.  The proposal from 
New Zealand became one of the Committee' s recommendations from the 2007 Workshop on 
Transparency.  As a follow up, the Secretariat deve loped a procedure for a mentoring mechanism  to 
assist officials responsible for transparency in developing country Members, and a number of 
Members have already been "matched" to pr ovide and receive guidance when requested.
14 
34. In addition, New Zealand work ed with the Secretariat, along with contributions from 
Australia and a number of other Members,  to develop a procedural manual for the operation of 
Enquiry Points and National Notification Authoriti es.  The English version of this document is 
available for Members and the French and Spanish ve rsions of the Manual should be available for the 
next meeting of the Committee in June.  A PD F version of the same document can also be 
downloaded from the SPS gateway of the WTO website (under the "transparency toolkit" section).    
This Transparency Manual reflects the new tran sparency procedures and replaces the 2002 handbook 
on "How to Apply the Transparency Provisions of the SPS Agreement". 
35. As of 31 December 2008, Members have subm itted 6,648 regular notifications and 1,086 
emergency notifications (plus re lated addenda and corrigenda).  The Committee has also adopted a 
special format and recommended procedures for the no tification of determination of the recognition of 
equivalence of sanitary or phytosanitary measures, now included in the new transparency procedures.  
As of 31 December 2008, two equivalence and 12 supp lemental notifications have been circulated. 
36. Out of the 153 WTO Members, 100 (70 per cent) have to date submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO.  Excluding EC member States,  44 developing countries of which 23 are 
Least Developed countries ("LDCs"), have  not yet submitted any notification. 
37. As can be seen in Figure 1, the share of notifications submitted by developed country 
Members reaches 55 per cent while the share of those submitted by developing country Members 
                                                      
14 G/SPS/W/217.  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (excluding LDCs) is 44 per cent.15  A very small share comes from LDCs.  Still, there has been a 
steady increase in notifications from developing country Members over the years. 
Figure 1 
Development Status of Notif ying Mem bers 
as of 31 August 2008
55.20%44.43%0.37%
Developed Developing Least Developed
 
 
38. Looking at the geographic regions from which the notifications originate, Figure 2 shows that 
the majority of notifications come from North Amer ica, followed by Asia, and then South and Central 
America and the Caribbean.16 
Figure 2  
 Notifications by Geographical Region
EuropeAsia
AfricaMiddle East
CISSA, CA and 
the CaribbeanNA
05001000150020002500300035004000
 
                                                      
15 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the 
Integrated Database (IDB ) for analytical purposes. 
16 The geographical groupings used rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the Integrated 
Database (IDB) for analytical purposes.  The same groupings are used in the WTO Annual Reports. G/SPS/W/237 
Page 8  
 
  39. Under the SPS Agreement, Members are required to  notify both an Enquiry Point to provide 
answers to all reasonable questions from interested  Members and a National Notification Authority to 
implement the notification procedures detailed in the Agreement.  Among the 153 WTO Members,  
134 Members have, as of March 2009, designated a "N otification Authority".  Those which have not 
yet done so include  12 LDCs and seven developing  country Members.  As of March 2009, of the 153 
WTO Members,  143 have provided the WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point.  
Those which have not yet done so include nine LDCs and one developing country.
17 
40. The Secretariat regularly updates documents c ontaining the contact information of National 
Enquiry Points and of National Notification Author ities.  In addition, regularly updated lists are 
available from the SPS IMS and from the SPS  ga teway on the WTO web page.  Members should 
provide updated contact information to the Secretaria t so that it could be reflected in the SPS IMS. 
41. In 2005, the Committee agreed to extend the Pr ocedure to Enhance the Transparency of 
Special and Differential Treatment adopted in October 200418, and Members were invited to share 
with the Committee their experiences under this pr ocedure.  See Section VII for more details. 
42. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should maintain transparency as a standing item of the agenda for its regular 
meetings. 
• Members should ensure their full implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS 
Agreement, and the recommended procedures estab lished by the Committee (G/SPS/7/Rev.3), 
including those relating to the publishing and notify ing of draft measure at a sufficiently early 
stage to allow comments to be made and taken into consideration, pub lication of measures, 
and establishment of effective national notification authorities and enquiry points. 
• Members should clearly indicate in the notific ation of emergency measures, how long the 
measure will be maintained. 
• Developing country Members should clearly id entify specific problems they face in 
implementing the transparency provisions of th e Agreement.  Assistance should be provided 
to least developed and developing country Memb ers in order to enable them to fully 
implement the transparency provisions and to make use of the benefits associated with 
transparency. 
VI. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS (ARTICLES 3.5 
AND 12.4) 
43. In the 2005 Review, the Committee noted that it should continue to monitor the use of 
international standards at each of its regular meetings. 
44. The monitoring of the use of international st andards is a standing item on the agenda of 
regular Committee meetings, and in accordance with  the agreed procedure (G/SPS/11/Rev.1), the 
Committee has produced annual reports relating to  the process of monitoring international 
harmonization.19 
45. In 2006, the Committee reviewed the operati on of the provisional procedure based on a 
document prepared by the Secretariat (G/SPS/ W/200).  The Committee decided to extend the 
                                                      
17 The most recent Enquiry Point contact informat ion is contained in G/ SPS/ENQ/24, and the most 
recent National Notification Authority contact information is contai ned in G/SPS/NNA/14. 
18 G/SPS/33 and G/SPS/33/Add.1. 
19 G/SPS/37, G/SPS/42 & Corr./1, G/SPS/45 , G/SPS/49 for the period 2005-2008.  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 9 
 
 
  provisional procedure indefinitely.  The Committee al so decided that it will review the operation of 
the provisional procedure as an integral part of its periodic Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement under Article 12.7, with a view to deciding whether to continue 
with the same procedure, amend it or develop a nother one.  The Committee furthermore encouraged 
Members to make use of this procedure to address  their concerns regarding specific international 
standards or the need for such st andards.  The decision of the Committee was subsequently circulated 
as G/SPS/40. 
46. This Review thus provides the opportunity fo r the Committee to examine the monitoring 
procedure.  In 2008, the Committee agreed to cons ider the monitoring procedure in light of the 
information gained from notifications under the new notification procedure and the implementation of 
the IPPC mechanism.  Members were also encour aged to provide inform ation on obstacles they 
encountered when exporting, not just on national measures applied to imports. 
47. The standard-setting bodies have promptly addressed the concerns raised by Members 
through this procedure in their respective compet ent bodies and regularly reported on their actions to 
the SPS Committee.  The procedure has not been u sed extensively by Members.  To enhance the 
participation of developing country Members in standard-setting meetings and activities, training 
programmes and regional technical c onsultations on standards and th eir implementation, the Codex, 
IPPC and OIE have established trust funds.  The OI E also continues to provide financial support for 
the participation of Chief Veterinary Officers of its member countries in OIE standard-setting 
activities. 
48. Chile has noted that if Members follow the new Transparency Recommendations and notify 
also when they impose measures based  on the international standards, this could provide useful data 
to more effectively monitor the use of internationa l standards.  The Committee may wish to revise the 
monitoring procedure in light of that development. 
49. In its proposal on issues to be considered during the Third Review
20, India suggested that the 
Secretariat prepare: (i) a Member-specific compilation listing the various measures notified by each 
country and assess how many of these were based on in ternational standards, and (ii) a consolidated 
compilation of all notifications relating to SPS measures from 1 December 2008 and analyze the 
results over a one-year period from 1 December 2008 to 30 November 2009. 
50. India also proposed that, in relation to Articl es 3.5 and 12.4 of the Agreement, the Committee 
review:  (i) the progress achieved through the use of  its recommended monitoring procedure, and (ii) 
the monitoring procedure, including timelines for completion of the harmonization process. 
51. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should continue to monitor the u se of international standards at each of its 
regular meetings. 
 
• Members should ensure their full implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS 
Agreement, and the recommended procedures est ablished by the Committee (G/SPS/7/Rev.3), 
including those relating to the notification of measures conforming to international 
standards. 
 
                                                      
20 G/SPS/W/236. G/SPS/W/237 
Page 10  
 
  VII. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (ARTICLE 9) 
52. In the 2005 Review, the Committee encouraged  Members requiring technical assistance to 
identify their specific need s in a clear and detailed manner to permit those needs to be effectively 
addressed.  The Committee also encouraged Memb ers providing technical assistance to keep it 
informed of specific programmes of assistance.  Members were encouraged to report on the 
effectiveness of the technical assistance received,  and, on the basis of that information, and 
information on the experiences of Members in the provision of technical assistance, the Committee 
would consider identifying best practices in the area of SPS-related technical assistance.  The 
Committee invited Members to share information on their experiences regarding the use of the tools 
developed by the Secretariat to assist Members w ith the understanding and implementation of the SPS 
Agreement.  Finally, the Committee requested the S ecretariat to keep it informed of its relevant 
technical assistance activities and of the activities of the Standards and Trade Development Facility 
(STDF), and invited observer organi zations to report on their capacity building activities relevant to 
the SPS Agreement. 
53. Technical assistance is a standing agenda item.  At each regular meeting, Members and 
Observers are invited to identify any specific techni cal 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, report on their assistance activities. 
54. WTO's technical assistance activities in the SPS ar ea contribute towards the strengthening of 
the capacities of developing country Members in meeting standards for market access of food and 
other agricultural commodities.  The activities increase participants' awareness about rights and 
obligations under the SPS Agreement and its implications at the national level.  In the organization of 
SPS technical assistance activities, the levels of fa miliarity with the Agreement and advancement in 
its implementation are taken into consideration to meet and res pond to individual country/regional 
needs.  The programmes of national/regional ac tivities include presentations on the transparency 
obligations, dispute settlement, implementati on problems, specific trade concerns and 
technical/scientific issues such as risk analysis and equivalence, as well as the work undertaken by the 
three standard-setting organizations referenced  in the SPS Agreement (Codex, OIE and IPPC). 
55. The Secretariat has developed a number of tools to assist Members with the understanding 
and implementation of the Agreement.  In pa rticular, 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 application of the transp arency provisions of the Agreement, which will 
soon be replaced by a Procedural Manual reflecti ng recent changes in the recommended procedures.  
A CD-ROM explaining and discussing in detail the provisions of the Agreement, and dealing in 
particular with implementation, transparency, speci al and differential treatment and dispute settlement 
issues, has been produced by the Secretariat.  Th e CD-ROM includes text, video and audio material 
and is complemented by multiple-choice tests to enab le users to monitor their individual progress.  In 
order to meet Members requests for a more advanced  training activity on the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement, a three-week Specialized Course  on SPS has been develope d and is offered once 
each year.  The Secretariat also offers a distance-learning course on the SPS Agreement. 
56. In the context of the discussions on special and differential treatment a nd actions to address 
the underlying concerns of developing country Memb ers, in October 2006 the Secretariat prepared a 
preliminary analysis of SPS-related technical assistance (G/SPS/GEN/726), with a view to addressing 
issues regarding the effectiveness of assistance pr ovided.  The Committee agreed to continue to 
consider the issue, and to explore the possibility of identifying best practic es in the area of SPS-
related technical assistance.  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 11 
 
 
  57. The Secretariat has compiled document G/SPS/GE N/521/Rev.4, which contains an updated 
overview of all SPS-related technical assistance ac tivities provided by the WTO Secretariat from 
September 1994 through December 2008. 
58. For the period 1994 to 2008, the WTO Secretariat has undertaken a total of 173 technical 
assistance activities on the SPS Agreement, including 65 regional (or sub-regional) and 72 national 
workshops.  Table 1 provides information about the number of (sub)regiona l and national activities 
per year since the last review of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement in 2005.  
Table 2 shows the overall number of activities per region since 1994. 
Table 1:  Number of SPS Technical Assistance Activities 
Type of Activity 
Year National 
Seminar (Sub)Regional 
Workshop Other Total 
     
2005 4 7 2 13 
2006 9 3 3 15 
2007 7 4 2 13 
2008 12 2 4 18 
Total 32 16 11 59 
 
 
Table 2:  SPS Technical Assistance Activities per Region (1994-2008) 
 
Type of activity 
Region National 
Seminar (Sub)Regional 
Workshop Other Total 
Africa 20 21 7 48 
Arab and Middle East Countries 12 6 2 20 
Asia and the Pacific 16 11 15 42 
Central and Eastern Europe and 
Central Asia 6 5 - 11 
Europe 1 3 6 10 
Latin America and the 
Caribbean 17 19 5 41 
North America -  1 1 
Total 72 65 36 173 
 59. The STDF was established in September 2002 fo llowing 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 
explore new technical and financial mechanisms to promote the efficient use of resources in SPS-
related activities.  The STDF has two main ai ms:  to assist developing countries enhance their G/SPS/W/237 
Page 12  
 
  expertise and capacity to analyze and to implemen t international sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) 
standards, improve their human, animal and plant he alth situation, and thus their ability to gain and 
maintain market access;  and to act as a vehicle for coordination among technical assistance providers 
relating to the mobilization of funds, the excha nge of experience and the dissemination of good 
practice in relation to the provision and receipt of SPS-related technical assistance.  Secretariat 
documents give regular overviews and updates of  STDF activities, including funding offered for 
projects and project preparation grants in developing countries.
21 
60. As part of its co-ordination function, the STDF has organised a number of events that provide 
information and assistance to all Members.  Hence the STDF organized, jointly with the World Bank and UNIDO, a session on laboratory projects in Nove mber 2007.  In March 2008, the STDF held a 
Workshop on Capacity Evaluation Tools used in the SPS area.
22 
61. Likewise, the STDF organized an information session on private standards in June 2008.  The 
information session focussed on developments in th e area of private standards since the June 2007 
information session, and drew conclusions w ith regard to SPS-related technical assistance.23  Finally, 
the STDF organized a Special Workshop on Good Pr actice in SPS-related technical cooperation in 
October 2008, in collaboration with the OECD.  More than 200 delegates participated in the 
workshop, some with assistance from the WTO Global Trust Fund or the STDF.  The workshop 
presented the results of research on good practice in  SPS-related projects identified by Members as 
having been successful, and considered how to apply the Paris Principles on Aid Effectiveness in this 
area.24 
62. In November 2008, the STDF presented a d esk study on SPS needs and the assistance 
provided to eight least developed countries (LDCs) at the LDC Ministerial Conference on Aid for 
Trade in Cambodia.  The study identified areas wh ere future SPS technical cooperation activities with 
a positive trade effect might be focused (G/SPS/GE N/900).  Similar SPS briefings are envisaged for 
other countries.  The STDF also prepared a b ackground paper for the "Open-Ended Working Group 
for the Development of an IPPC Capacity Build ing Strategy" held in Rome in December 2008 
(G/SPS/GEN/898).  The objective of the report w as to identify current flows of phytosanitary 
technical cooperation, examine how phytosanitary needs were evaluated and discuss how these could 
be mainstreamed into national development plans. 
63. The STDF, jointly with the World Bank, will held a workshop on 22 September 2009 to 
discuss information regarding climate change and SPS risks.  Presentations will highlight how climate 
change may require countries to upgrade their SPS systems in order to deal with emerging chalenges. 
64. In addition, a workshop on cost-benefit anal ysis is planned for 30 October 2009.  The 
objective is to show how greater use of economic an alysis could help to increase awareness about the 
potential benefits of investing in SPS capacity as a means to prevent SPS-related problems, and the 
likely returns on different types of investments. 
65. Since the 2005 Review, the international sta ndards setting bodies have consistently provided 
updates about their technical assistance activities.  All three organizations have developed training 
programmes, including conferences, seminars a nd workshops, to enhance national capacities on WTO 
matters.  The OIE reported in 2008 that the Perform ance, Vision and Strategy (PVS) tool related to 
animal health had been conducted in many countries to  identify their needs and priorities, in order to 
solve existing problems.  In addition, the OIE s upported the participation of developing country 
                                                      
21 G/SPS/GEN/595, 648, 718, 748, 774, 847, 865, 877 and 902. 
22 G/SPS/GEN/826. 
23 G/SPS/R/50. 
24 G/SPS/GEN/875 and G/SPS/R/52.  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Members in the elaboration of standards by ensuri ng that experts from every region participated in 
developing the draft text of a scientific standard.  The Codex and the IPPC have trust funds which 
sponsor the participation of officials from developi ng country Members and economies in transition to 
participate in their meetings.  The programme is  aimed at enhancing tho se officials' level of 
participation in the elaboration of Codex standards.   In addition to information from the OIE, IPPC 
and the Codex, other observers organizations, including FAO, the World Bank, OIRSA, IICA, 
UNIDO and UNCTAD, provide regular updates concerning their provision of technical assistance. 
66. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should maintain technical assistance as a standing item of the agenda of its 
regular meetings. 
• Members requiring technical assistance are encour aged to identify their specific needs in a 
clear and detailed manner that will permit these needs to be effectively addressed. 
• Members providing technical assistance are en couraged to keep the Committee informed of 
specific programmes of assistance. 
• Members are encouraged to report on the effecti veness of the technical assistance they have 
received. 
•  Members are invited to share information on their experiences regarding the use of the tools 
developed by the Secretariat to assist Members with the understanding and implementation of 
the SPS Agreement. 
• The Secretariat is requested to  the keep the Committee informed  of its relevant technical 
assistance activities and of the activities of th e Standards and Trade Development Facility. 
• The observer organizations are invited to keep the Committee informed of their capacity 
building activities relevant to the SPS Agreement. 
VIII.  SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT (ARTICLE 10) 
67. In the 2005 Review, the Committee agreed to cont inue to consider specific, concrete actions 
to address the problems faced by least-devel oped and developing country Members in the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement and in making u se of the benefits of the Agreement.  Members 
were encouraged to provide information regarding the special and differential treatment or technical 
assistance they have provided in response to specifi c needs identified by Members in accordance with 
the procedure adopted by the Committee (G/SPS/33). 
68. Special and differential treatment is a standing agenda item.  In 2005, Members were invited 
to share with the Committee their experience under th e new procedure to enhance the transparency of 
special and differential treatment adopted in October 2004.25  With respect to the proposals referred to 
the SPS Committee by the General Council, the Co mmittee adopted, in June 2005, a report to the 
General Council on these proposals.26  The report expresses the Committee's commitment to continue 
to examine the proposals before it, and any revisi on of these proposals, with the aim of developing 
specific recommendations for a decision.  The report also identifies elements for discussion on further 
work to assist the Committee to address the concerns underlying the proposals as identified by 
Members, with a view to fulfilling the Doha De velopment Mandate.  Discussion of these elements 
commenced at the Committee meeting of October 2005. 
 
                                                      
25 G/SPS/33. 
26 G/SPS/35. G/SPS/W/237 
Page 14  
 
  69. In March 2006, a Special Workshop was held to  further identify ways to address the problems 
faced by developing country Members in implemen ting the SPS Agreement.  Discussions at this 
Workshop focussed on the effectiveness of technical  assistance and suggested the need for further 
work to improve the implementation of the transp arency provisions (G/SPS/R/41).  Both of these 
issues have been further addressed by the Committee as noted in Sections  IV and VI, above.  In 2007, 
Egypt proposed some amendments to the proce dures for S&D transparency, some of which were 
adopted by the Committee as revisions to the gene ral recommended procedures for transparency.  
Egypt's proposals are contained in JOB(07)/104 and the revised Transparency Recommendations are 
in G/SPS/7/Rev.3. 
70. In February 2006, the Committee agreed to furt her extend the procedure for transparency of 
special and differential treatment or technical assi stance provided in response to specific needs of 
developing country Members (G/SPS/33/Add.1), but to date there has been no indication that 
Members are using this procedure.  Starting in 2008, the Committee has considered proposals for the 
revision of the procedure to enhance the transpar ency of special and differential treatment.  The 
proposal has been revised several times to incorporate further co mments and suggestions made by 
Members at informal meetings on Special and Differential Treatment in October 2008, 
February 2009, and thereafter.
27  However, to date, the Committee has not reached a decision on the 
revision of G/SPS/33. 
71. The Committee also continued its examination of the implementation of the SPS Agreement 
and the concerns of developing country Members.   The proposals referred to the SPS Committee by 
the General Council were on the agenda of each meeting of the Committee.  Although there were 
substantive discussions of some revisions informally  suggested by the African Group at the February, 
March and October 2006, meetings, the Committee w as not able to reach a decision on any of the 
specific proposals as presented.28 
72. However, with a view to fulfilling the D oha Development Mandate, several Members 
suggested approaches to advance the work of th e Committee to address the proposals as identified by 
Members including seeking clarification of the concer ns underlying the proposals.  In June 2006, the 
United States introduced a paper containing a comp ilation of ideas related to technical assistance and 
special and differential treatment29, taking into account information provided by developing country 
Members at the Workshop on the Implementation of the Agreement, held in March 2006.30 
73. At an informal meeting on Special and Di fferential Treatment held in February and 
March 2007, the Committee discussed the five proposal s on special and differential treatment referred 
to it in August 2004.  In particular:  (i) the G/SPS/ 33 procedure and its extens ion until 2008;  (ii) the 
G/SPS/35 report;  (iii) the Committee's discussion of the Africa Group's revisions to its proposal on Article 9.2;  (iv) the adoption by the General Council of the proposal from a number of small and 
vulnerable economies;  and (v) Members' submission s on technical assistance and the paper from the 
United States on Special and Differential Treatment  (G/SPS/W/198).  A revised proposal regarding 
Article 10.1 was presented to the Committee in June 2007 and discussed at its October meeting.
31 
74. The Decision on Implementation taken at the D oha Ministerial Conference in 2001 included 
inter alia  a clarification on Article 10.2.32  It specifies that where the appropriate level of protection 
allows scope for the phased introduction of SPS measures, the "longer time-frame for compliance" 
                                                      
27 G/SPS/W/224/Rev.3. 
28 G/SPS/41. 
29 G/SPS/W/198. 
30 G/SPS/R/41. 
31 JOB(07)/99. 
32 WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 3.1.  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 15 
 
 
  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 indicates 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. 
75. The Committee on Trade and Development Speci al Session (CTD-SS) has before it two 
proposals under consideration whic h are related to the SPS Agreem ent:  one proposal relating to 
Article 10.2 tabled by India and another proposal re lating to Article 10.3 tabled by the African Group 
and a group of developing country Members.  The sp ecific proposals and the last language considered 
under each article in February 2008 has been circ ulated to all participants.  With respect to 
Article 10.2, the proponents were of the view th at the current interpretation of the phrase "longer 
time-frame for compliance" found in paragraph 3.1 of the Doha Decision on Implementation-Related 
Issues and Concerns was not sufficient for operationaliz ing this Article.  With respect to Article 10.3 
relating to the granting of time-limited exceptions  by the SPS Committee from obligations under the 
Agreement, the proponents claim that their focus is on ensuring predictability of the process to request 
such an exception, while other Members are con cerned that the proposal would prejudge the outcome 
of such requests and amount to automatic granting of waivers.  The objective of the CTD SS is to 
come up with specific recommendations on all outstanding proposals.  Some Members have recommended that all the SPS-related propo sals be discussed in the SPS Committee. 
76. India has proposed that the issue of the cons ideration of Article 10.2, being currently 
discussed in the Committee on Trade and Development Special Session, be kept in mind during the 
Third Review. 
77. In its proposal on the Third Review
33, India stressed the need to  expedite the work under the 
S&D agenda, and asked that the implementation of th e procedure to enhance transparency of special 
and differential treatment be evaluated.   
78. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should maintain special and diff erential treatment as a standing item of the 
agenda for its regular meetings. 
• The Committee should continue to consider sp ecific, concrete actions to address the problems 
faced by developing country Members, and in par ticular least-developed country Members,  
in the implementation of the SPS Agreement and in making use of the benefits of the 
Agreement. 
• Members are encouraged to provide inform ation regarding the special and differential 
treatment or technical assistan ce they have provided in res ponse to specific needs identified 
by Members in accordance with the proc edure adopted by the Committee (G/SPS/33). 
IX. REGIONALIZATION (ARTICLE 6) 
79. In the 2005 Review, the Committee decided to  develop a proposal for a decision on the 
effective application of Article 6, taking as the point of departure the various proposals submitted by 
Members and discussions in the Committee.  Member s were encouraged to provide information on 
their experiences in the implementation of Article 6,  and observer organizations were invited to keep 
the Committee informed of their activities relevant to  the recognition of pest- or disease-free areas or 
areas of low pest or disease prevalence ("regionalization"). 
                                                      
33 G/SPS/W/236. G/SPS/W/237 
Page 16  
 
  80. Regionalization is a standing agenda item.  At each regular meeting of the Committee, 
Members are invited to provide information regardin g their experience with the recognition of pest- or 
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease pr evalence.  Observer organizations regularly 
provide information to the Committee regarding re levant advances in their work on this issue. 
81. In May 2008, the SPS Committee adopted "Guidelines to Further the Practical 
Implementation of Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures", to facilitate the recognition of pest- and disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease 
prevalence (G/SPS/48).  The guidelines identify the type of information normally needed for the 
recognition of regionalization, as well as typical ad ministrative steps in the recognition process.  The 
Committee agreed to monitor the implementation of Ar ticle 6, on the basis of information provided by 
Members. 
82. Both the IPPC and the OIE have provided guidan ce for countries seeking to establish, or to be 
recognized for, pest- or disease-free status.  The I PPC currently has two relevant standards, one 
(ISPM 4) on requirements for the establishment of pest-free areas and another (ISPM 10) for the establishment of pest-free places of production and pr oduction sites.  In addition IPPC has a number 
of supporting standards including guidelines for su rveillance and a standard under development on 
low pest prevalence.  In March 2007, the IPPC adopt ed the International Standard for Phytosanitary 
Measures (ISPM) 29:  "Recognition of Pest-Free Areas and Areas of Low Pest Prevalence". 
83. The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code describes the requirements for obtaining disease-
free status including requirements for surveillance and monitoring based on the concept of geographic 
zones.  At its 76
th General Session in May 2008, the OIE adopt ed a number of resolutions related to 
recognition of disease-free areas.  These are contai ned in the annexes to document G/SPS/GEN/853.  
The International Committee has approved a list of c ountries or zones that had applied for official 
OIE recognition of their sanitary status concerning four diseases:  BSE, FMD, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP), and rinderpest.  In additio n, new resolutions on procedures for the official 
recognition and maintenance of country /zone status were also adopted. 
84. Recommendations
: 
• The Committee should maintain regionalizatio n as a standing item of the agenda for its 
regular meetings. 
• Members are encouraged to provide informati on on their experiences in the implementation 
of Article 6, including on the use of the Gu idelines adopted by the Committee in that regard 
(G/SPS/48). 
• The observer organizations are invited to keep the Committee informed of their activities 
relevant to the recognition of pest- or disease- free areas or areas of low pest or disease 
prevalence . 
 
X. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
85. In the 2005 Review, the Committee encouraged Me mbers to make use of the opportunity to 
identify specific trade problems and to seek to fi nd mutually satisfactory resolutions of those 
problems.  Members were encouraged to inform  the Committee of all specific trade concerns 
resolved, and the Secretariat was re quested to continue to provide regularly updated information on 
the specific trade concerns c onsidered by the Committee. 
86. Part of each Committee meeting is devoted to the consideration of specific trade concerns 
raised by Members.  At the March 2000 meeting of the SPS Committee, the Secretariat was requested to prepare a paper summarizing the specific trade concerns that had been brought to the Committee's  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 17 
 
 
  attention since 1995 and to update this document annually to include new information provided by 
Members.34  The excerpts below are from the ninth re vision of GEN/204 to be issued in 
February 2009, and include all i ssues which have been raised at SPS Committee meetings to the end 
of 2008.  All information on specific trade concerns can also be searched in the SPS IMS. 
87. Altogether, 277 specific trade concerns were raised between 1995 and the end of 2008.  
Figure 3 shows the number of new concerns raised each year;  16 new concerns were raised in 2008.  
Figure 4a categorizes the trade concerns raised over the fourteen years into food safety, animal or 
plant health issues.  It is important to keep in mi nd, however, that some issues may relate to more than 
one of these categories.  Concerns relating to z oonoses, for example, may concern measures taken 
with both animal health and food safety objectives.  For the purposes of these graphs, a single 
objective has been designated as th e principle concern, however all relevant keywords have been 
assigned for purposes of electronic searches of the data on specific trade concerns.  Overall, 28 per cent of trade concerns relate to food safety concerns , 27 per cent relate to plant health, and 4 per cent 
concern other issues such as certification requirements or translation.  Forty-one per cent of concerns 
raised relate to animal health and zoonoses.  The animal health and zoonoses category is further 
divided into foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), transm issible spongiform encephalopathy (TSEs), Avian 
Influenza (AI) and other animal health concerns  (OAH).  Figure 4b shows that TSEs account for 
35 per cent of animal health concerns, while issu es related to foot-and-mouth disease account for 
23 per cent.  The remaining 42 per cent relate to ot her animal health concerns and avian influenza. 
Figure 3 – Number of New Issues Raised 
 
2112423
13
1029 29
2131
1016 1642
051015202530354045
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
YearNumber of Issues
 
 
                                                      
34 G/SPS/GEN/204 and Revisions 1 through 9 and addenda. G/SPS/W/237 
Page 18  
 
  Figure 4a – Trade Concerns by Subject 
 
Animal Health
41%
Food Safety
28%Plant Health
27%Other
4%
Animal Health
Food Safety
Plant Health
Other
 
 
 
Figure 4b – Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses  
 
TSE
35%
FMD
23%AI
10%OAH
32%
TSE
FMD
AI
OAH
 
 
88. Developing country Members are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS 
Committee meetings.  Figure 5a indicates that over the fourteen years, developing country Members 
have raised 135 trade concerns (on many occasions more than one Member has raised, supported or 
maintained an issue) compared to 188 raised by de veloped country Members and three raised by least-
developed country Members.35  A developing country Member has supported another Member raising 
                                                      
35 The European Communities was counted as one Member.  Similarly, when one Member spoke on 
behalf of ASEAN, it was counted as one Member only.  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 19 
 
 
  an issue in 183 cases, compared to 128 for deve loped country Members and one for least-developed 
country Members.  In 173 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a developed country Member, and in 135 cases it was maintained by a developing country Member.  No trade concerns regarding measures maintained by least-developed country Members have been raised.  Figure 5b 
shows the number of new issues raised each year by each category of Member. 
Figure 5a – Participation by WTO Members (1995-2008) 
 
18313
188
173128
135135
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Members Maintaining the
Measure in QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the IssueNumber of Members
Developed Countries Developing Countries Least-Developed Countries
 
 
 
Figure 5b – Number of New Issues Raised by Members 
 
4101719
8
529
19
1316
710
621
69
119
15
211
5519
13
1015
5
2
05101520253035
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Number of Issues
Developed countries Developing countries Least-Developed Countries 
 
89. Figure 6 indicates that 76 trade concerns have been reported resolved out of the 277 trade 
concerns raised over the fourteen years.  Two issu es were reported resolved in 2008.  Nineteen trade 
concerns have been reported partially solved.  In  these instances, trade ma y have been allowed for 
selected products or by some of the importing Memb ers maintaining the measure in question.  No G/SPS/W/237 
Page 20  
 
  solutions have been reported for the remaining 182 trade concerns.  It is also likely that other concerns 
have been resolved without the Committee being made aware of these developments. 
Figure 6 – Solved Trade Concerns 
 
182
76
19
020406080100120140160180200
No solution reported Solution reported Partial solution reported
 
90. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should continue to consider spec ific trade concerns raised by Members as a 
standing item of the agenda of its regular meetings. 
• Members are encouraged to make use of this oppor tunity to identify specific trade problems 
and to seek to find mutually satisfactory resolutions of these problems. 
• Members are encouraged to inform the Committ ee of all specific trade concerns resolved. 
• The Secretariat is requested to  continue to provide regular ly updated information on the 
specific trade concerns considered by the Committee. 
 
XI. PRIVATE VOLUNTARY STANDARDS 
91. Since the 2005 Review of the SPS Agreement, there has been wide discussion in the 
Committee on the issue of private voluntary stan dards ("private standards").  The discussions 
considered the impact of commercial and private st andards on market access;  the effect of private 
standards on development and whether it is appropr iate for the Committee to have a discussion on 
related legal aspects, as some Members do not cons ider this to be within the mandate of the 
Committee.  There has been no formal determina tion within the WTO on whether privates standards 
fall under the jurisdiction of the SPS Agreement. 
92. The issue of private standards was first rai sed at the June 2005 meeting of the Committee.36  
At that meeting, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines raised a concern regarding the operation of a 
EurepGAP scheme in relation to trade in banan as with supermarkets in the United Kingdom.  The 
requirement was with respect to the use of certain pesticides.  Other Members also expressed concerns 
with the effects of private standards on their tr ade.  An information session was subsequently 
organized in the margins of the October 2006 meeting with representatives of EurepGAP and 
                                                      
36 G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras.16-20.  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 21 
 
 
  UNCTAD.37  The Committee also decided to include the issue of private and commercial standards as 
part of the agenda of its February 2007 meeting.  A background note by the Secretariat described the 
different types of private standards, as well as su mmarized the types of concerns that had been 
identified by Members.38 
93. In 2008, the Committee conti nued to discuss the effects of commercial and private SPS –
related standards on trade, and the appropriate role of the SPS Committee.  At its June meeting, an 
informal information session was held with repr esentatives of entities involved in the development 
and certification of private standards, as well with or ganizations who have undertaken related studies.  
Members were invited to propose possible actions  by the SPS Committee in response to a series of 
questions.   
94. Members agreed to work within a small group on an informal and flexible basis, with a 
commitment to keep the Committee fully informed .  A list of documents and other information on 
private standards, including all the documents on private standards circulated in the SPS Committee, 
and a list of research and researchers on private st andards, have been made available by the 
Secretariat .39 
95. In October 2008, the Committee agreed to th e actions proposed in document G/SPS/W/230,  
with the following changes:  (1) to request that th e Secretariat prepare a format for the information 
solicited for purposes of undertaking a comparative st udy;  (2) that there will be no limitation on the 
number of products a Member may identify as affected  by private standards;  and (3) that although 
Members should make every effort to provide as comp lete information as possible with regard to each 
product identified, a lack of complete informati on should not necessarily prevent consideration of the 
product within the comparative study. 
96. As a follow up, in December 2008, the Secret ariat circulated a questionnaire on SPS-related 
private standards (G/SPSW/232).  Members were i nvited to send their responses to the questionnaire 
by 16 February, which was subsequently extende d until 24 April 2009.  A total of 21 Members had 
provided responses by that date, in many cases for several products.  The Chairman of the Committee 
held informal consultations in February 2009 w ith a number of Members regarding these responses 
that had been provided to the questionnaire by that tim e.  The consultations were also attended by the 
representatives of Codex and the OIE. 
97. The initial replies to the questionnaire indicat ed that producers and companies considered 
private standards as "the" market access condition with  which they had to comply.  For most of them, 
there was no understanding of a distinction betw een national and international versus private 
standards.  Those producers and companies which ma naged to meet private standards were able to 
gain or maintain market share, although that did not necessarily provide a price premium.  Still, for those supplying a number of markets or buyers, that  meant complying with a multitude of standards 
and paying separately for their certification. 
98. AccordinG to the initial responses, smaller produ cers were particularly affected by private 
standards due to their limited capacity to undertake the investment necessary to meet the detailed 
requirements and pay for the certification.  Some which could meet national food safety requirements 
in their export markets found themselves unable to k eep up with the "safety" requirements of private 
standards.  In some instances, technical assistance could assist farmers to meet the requirements of 
private standards. 
                                                     
 
37 G/SPS/R/43, paras. 40-42. 
38 G/SPS/GEN/746. 
39 G/SPS/GEN/865 and G/SPS/GEN/891. G/SPS/W/237 
Page 22  
 
  99. On the other hand, one Member had pointed out that private standards and their certification 
requirements served an important function in providing assurances to buyers and responded to 
consumer demands in the area of food quality as well as in other areas such as labor and 
environmental requirements.  Governments needed to make sure that products coming into their 
market were "safe".  Interfering in further initiatives of private entities could be inappropriate, except 
in instances of deceptive practices and distortions  of competition.  At the same time, some 
sensitization of entities involved with private standard s was occurring, they were alerted to concerns 
related to lack of transparency and adverse effect s on developing countries.  Still, it was unrealistic for 
all producers to expect to be able to par ticipate competitively in international trade. 
100. An underlying preoccupation expressed by many Members was the importance of preserving 
the principles and relevance of the SPS Agreement in  international trade matters related to sanitary 
and phytosanitary issues, and in not undermining the value of international st andards.  Several other 
Members also asked for, in addition to the ad-hoc  working group, the establishment of a permanent 
monitoring mechanism by the Committee of private standards.   
101. In its proposal of issues for the Third Review
40, India suggeseted that the Committee develop 
specific guidelines on the measures to be taken by Members in cases where private standards were 
being adopted by various entities within their territori es.  India also suggested  that Members consider 
introducing a Code of Good Practice (similar to A nnex 3 of the TBT Agreement) for all voluntary 
standard-setting authorities located within their territories. 
102. Recommendations : 
• Members are encouraged to make use of the Committee's standing agenda item on private 
standards to raise concerns and report on developments.   
 
• Members and Observers should provide information on any relevant studies or analysis 
which they have undertaken, or of which they are aware. 
 
• The Secretariat should consider periodically organizing informal information sessions with 
appropriate representatives of bodies involved in  the setting of private standards, assessment 
of conformity, or assistance with compliance with private standards. 
 
XII. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT – USE OF AD HOC 
CONSULTATIONS 
103. In the 2005 Review, Members were encouraged to make use of the possibility for ad hoc 
consultations, including through the Good Offices of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee, to 
facilitate the resolution of specific trade concerns. 
104. Article 12.2 states that the Committee "shall enc ourage and facilitate ad hoc consultations or 
negotiations among Members on specific sanitary or ph ytosanitary issues".  To date, this has been 
done through:  (1) Members raising specific trade co ncerns at regular meetings of the SPS Committee;  
(2) discussions by the Committee of specific i ssues such as implementation of ISPM 15;  
private/commercial standards;  and (3) provision in the Committee's Workin g Procedures for the use 
of the Good Offices of the Chairperson. 
105. Document G/SPS/GEN/781 gives a broad overview of different ways in which the SPS 
Committee has facilitated ad hoc consultations am ong Members.  Most commonly, Members have 
raised specific trade concerns at meetings of th e Committee, and sought bilateral resolutions.  During 
                                                      
40 G/SPS/W/236.  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 23 
 
 
  the Second Review, there had been proposals to impr ove and increase the use of the mechanism, such 
as providing more time for this purpose at Committee meetings, establishing specific procedures, disseminating information about the resolution of concerns raised in the past and facilitating 
participation of developi ng and least developed country Members.   Rules and procedures for using the 
"Good Offices" of the Chair had also been proposed.  This confidential procedure had been used on 
three occasions.  In addition, accord ing to Article 5.8, Members could request an explanation of the 
reasons  for a measure which did not conform to  an international standard or for which an 
international standard does not exist.  This provi sion has been invoked by several Members over the 
years, and some had suggested developing a proce dure for its use, however no specific procedure has 
been proposed. 
106. Following-up on the Second Review, the United States and Argentina have submitted 
proposals on guidelines for the use of the Chairp erson's Good Offices, first individually and 
subsequently jointly.
41  Many Members welcomed the focus on addressing the technical issues, and 
the possible involvement of Codex, IPPC or OIE as appropriate.  Several Members, however, 
indicated their preference to instead pursue the de velopment of an horizontal mechanism to address 
NTMs, under discussion in the Non Agricultural Ma rket Access (NAMA) Negotiations.  Argentina 
and the United States noted that their joint proposal on ad hoc consultations was in line with proposals 
in NAMA. 
107. India proposed that in the context of the Th ird Review, Members assess the work undertaken 
by the Committee to implement the provisi ons of Article 12.2 of the SPS Agreement.42 
108. Recommendations : 
• Members will endeavour to expeditiously conclude  this outstanding issue from the Review in 
a manner which facilitates the use of ad hoc c onsultations, including through the good offices 
of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee, fo r the resolution of specific trade concerns. 
XIII.  COOPERATION WITH THE CODEX, OIE AND IPPC 
109. In the 2005 Review, the Committee noted that the relationship between the Committee and 
the Codex, OIE and IPPC should be clarified with a view to facilitating the implementation of the SPS 
Agreement while avoiding duplication of activities.  The Committee also invited Members to provide 
information regarding their experiences in that  regard and to submit specific suggestions for 
consideration by the Committee. 
110. The Committee is required to monitor the process of international harmonization and 
coordinate efforts with these bodies (Article 3.5), and to develop a procedure to monitor the use of 
international standards, guidelines and recommenda tions (Article 12.4).  The Committee adopted a 
provisional monitoring procedure in July 1997, wh ich has been subsequently extended and revised 
(G/SPS/11/Rev.1) (see Section V above).  In addition,  on the basis of an in itiative from a Member, the 
Committee may, through appropriate channels, invite  the relevant international organizations to 
examine specific matters with respect to a particular standard, guideline or recommendation 
(Article 12.6).  In practice, this has been done  through a letter from the Chairperson of the SPS 
Committee drawing the attention of the Codex, OIE and IPPC to relevant issues that have been 
identified in the annual report on the monitoring of the use of international standards. 
111. Representatives from each of these organizati ons attend the SPS Committee meetings and 
representatives from the WTO Secretariat attend mee tings of these international organizations as 
                                                      
41 G/SPS/W/230. 
42 G/SPS/W/236. G/SPS/W/237 
Page 24  
 
  observers.  Cooperation between the SPS Committ ee and the international standard-setting 
organizations is enhanced by coordinating meeti ng schedules to facilitate Member participation in 
regularly scheduled meetings.  Several of the ac tivities of the international standard-setting bodies 
have been discussed in previous Sections of this Background Document.  The STDF provides an 
additional forum for coordination among its partne r organizations, including the WTO, IPPC, OIE 
and Codex. 
112. In the context of the recommendation arising from 2005 Review, New Zealand tabled a 
proposal to clarify the relationship between th e SPS Committee and the Codex, IPPC and OIE, 
including a number of questions to be put to the Three Sisters.
43  Japan proposed, in light of the 
various cross-sectoral issues under consideration such as regionalization or private standards, that the 
Committee organize a workshop on the standard-setti ng procedures of the Codex, OIE and IPPC.44 
113. A special Workshop has been scheduled for Oct ober 2009 to examine the work of the Three 
Sisters and how to enhance the relationship be tween them and the SPS Committee.  The proposed 
programme for the workshop includes two main parts:  (i) presentations by the international standard-
setting organizations on the procedures and issues they face in the development, adoption and 
monitoring of the use of international standard s of relevance to the SPS Committee;  and (ii) 
discussions on concrete actions to improve coordination between the Committee and OIE, Codex, and 
IPPC, to increase the use of international standards and avoid duplication of efforts.45 
114. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should follow-up any recomme ndations that may result from the 
October 2009 workshop with a view to strengt hening the relationship between the Committee 
and the Codex, OIE and IPPC.  
XIV.  GOOD REGULATORY PRACTICE   
115. In the 2005 Review, some Members noted that problems related to gaining market access 
were directly linked to failure to comply in a timel y fashion with certain obligations laid down in the 
SPS Agreement.  Mexico proposed that the Comm ittee consider developing guidelines that would 
promote practical implementation of specific provisions of the SPS Agreement.46  This type of 
guideline on good regulatory practices would enable Me mbers to check that the obligations of the SPS 
Agreement had been respected, before adop ting new sanitary and phytosanitary measures. 
116. In the course of this Third Review, some Members have flagged the issue of the lack of 
information on the implementation and use of th e various guidelines adopted by the Committee.  
Chile observed that very little information has been  provided by Members regarding, for instance, 
their recognition of equivalence and recognition of p est- and disease-free areas.  It would be desirable 
to receive more information regarding the implementation of the Committee's decisions and 
guidelines and Chile urged Members to notify these agreements using the appropriate mechanism 
established by the Committee. 
                                                      
43 G/SPS/W/206. 
44 G/SPS/W/226. 
45 G/SPS/W/235. 
46 See G/SPS/W/166.  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 25 
 
 
  117. Canada noted that given the excellent search  facilities available through the SPS Information 
Management System47, there was no need for a questionnaire  to solicit information from Members on 
their use of the Committee's decisions, guidelines and recommendations. 
XV. CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES (ARTICLE 8 AND 
ANNEX C) 
118. In the 2005 Review, the European Communities s uggested that a discussion on issues related 
to implementation of control measures would be us eful to clarify ambiguity regarding who should 
bear the cost of Members' inspections.  The Eur opean Communities drew attention to the increasing 
number of requests for inspection visits and the resource intensive nature of these visits.  The 
European Communities suggested that the Committee should discuss the possibility of developing 
common practices in this regard. 
119. It was agreed that the Committee should consid er the most effective way of facilitating the 
implementation of Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, with a focus on those problems 
identified by Members, including the issue of co sts related to inspection visits and conformity 
assessment.  Members were invited to provide inform ation on their experiences in that regard and to 
submit specific suggestions for consideration by the Committee. 
120. In the context of the Third Review of the Ag reement, the Committee had an initial discussion 
of a proposal by China for clarification of certain provisions in Annex C with  regard to conformity 
assessment procedures.48  China noted that many specific trade concerns related to control, inspection 
and approval, however, Annex C was seldom used to  justify requirements, perhaps because some of 
its clauses were ambiguous.  India supported China's proposal for further clarification on the control, 
inspection and approval procedures in Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, and suggested 
that guidelines on those procedures would assist  Members and avoid problems among trading 
partners.49 
121. China and India propose, inter alia, that: 
• The SPS Committee initiate discussions to identif y typical steps of control, inspection and 
approval procedures in relation to sanitary and phytosanitary measures, as well as application 
recommendations and good practices, to provide guidance for implementation. 
• Such terms as "reasonable and necessary" in Article 1(e) and "reasonable inspection" in 
Article 3 of Annex C of the Agreement be di scussed in the SPS Committe e so that necessary 
explanations and clarification can be ma de to facilitate their implementation. 
• The SPS Committee draw the attention of OIE, IPPC and Codex to these issues and consult 
with them regarding the development of relevant  international standards pertaining to control, 
inspection and approval procedures, such as samp ling, on-site inspection, determination of 
soil freedom, etc., to further the implementation of Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. 
122. Several Members noted that Codex, OIE and IPPC played important roles in that area and 
Codex noted that it was active in developing guida nce on the conduct of audits and inspection, and 
that new work was being undertaken on guidance for national food control systems.  The OIE recalled that there were existing standards on certificates, inspections, etc., and that it was also looking at 
infrastructure needs.  However the OIE did not gi ve guidance on what was reasonable or necessary as 
this could vary from situation to situation and be specific to diseases.  The IPPC noted that it had two 
                                                     
 
47 http://spsims.wto.org/ . 
48 G/SPS/W/234. 
49 G/SPS/W/236. G/SPS/W/237 
Page 26  
 
  general standards on inspection procedures and on  phytosanitary treatments, and welcomed any 
specific suggestions to further its process on the issue. 
123. It was noted that the absence of mention of Article 8 and Annex C was not necessarily due to 
lack of clarity in these provisions.  Issues related to control, inspection and approval procedures were 
frequently discussed bilaterally, thus making it unnecessar y to raise issues in the multilateral setting.  
It would be of little relevance to define"reasona ble and necessary" broadly as those criteria would 
likely vary based on the context and the measures that  were being discussed.  It was essential that the 
interpretation of "reasonable" remain variable and be determined on a case-by-case basis.  Discussions 
in the SPS Committee could help educate Members a bout the relevant work of Codex, IPPC and OIE 
on control, inspection and approval procedures, as well as application recommendations and good 
practice therein. 
124. Recommendations:
 
• Members should be encouraged to share thei r experiences and difficulties with implementing 
Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. 
• The three Sisters should provide information on thei r work in this area for the June meeting 
and should also envisage to furth er their processes on this issue. 
 
XVI.  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 
125. Article 11 of the SPS Agreement indicates that  the Dispute Settlement Understanding will 
apply to SPS disputes and provides for the consulta tion of experts when a dispute involves scientific 
or technical issues.  As of April 2009, over 392 di sputes had formally been raised under the WTO's 
dispute settlement system.  Of these, 38 alleged vi olation of the SPS Agreement, although in seven 
cases this was not the main focus of the dispute.  Ten panels have been established to examine eleven 
complaints:  one panel to examine the United States ' and Canada's complaints  regarding the EC ban 
on meat treated with growth-promoting hormones;  tw o panels to examine complaints by Canada and 
the United States against Australia's restrictions on imports of fresh, chilled or frozen salmon;  one at 
the request of the United States to examine Japan's requirement that each variety of certain fruits be 
tested with regard to the efficacy of fumigation treatment;  one regarding Japan's restrictions on 
apples due to fire blight requested by the United States;  one panel to examine the Philippines 
complaints against Australia's quarantine procedur es;  one panel to examine complaints by the 
European Communities against Australia's quarantine procedures;  one panel to examine complaints 
by the United States, Canada and Argentina concerning EC measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products;  one panel regarding the compla int of the European Communities 
against the United States and Canada on their conti nued suspension of obligations relating to the EC-
Hormones dispute;  and one panel to examine New Zealand's complaint against Australia's restrictions on apples.  These cases are further detailed in Appendix B.  
   G/SPS/W/237
 Page 27APPENDIX A 
Summary of major SPS Committee activities, 2005-2009 
 
Subject Year Type of Activity Related Documents 
Consistency    
Equivalence    
2006 Questionnaire on the Operation of SPS Enquiry Points and 
National Notification Authorities - Revision G/SPS/W/103/Rev.2 
2007 Compilation of Proposals regarding the Revision of the 
"Recommended Procedures for Implementing the 
Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement" (Art. 7) G/SPS/W/215, Rev.1 & Rev.2 
2007 Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Operation of 
the Enquiry Points and National Notification Authorities G/SPS/GEN/751 
2007 Overview regarding the Level of the Implementation of the 
transparency provisions  of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/GEN/804 
2008 Proposal for a "Mentoring" System of Assistance relating to 
the Transparency Provision s of the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/W/217 
2008 Recommended Notification Procedures G/SPS/7/Rev.3 
2008 Workshop on Transparency - October 2007 G/SPS/R/47 Transparency 
2008 Overview regarding the Level of the Implementation of the 
Transparency Provisions of the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 
2005 Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization – Seventh Annual Report  G/SPS/37 
2006 Review of the Provisional Procedure to Monitor the Process 
of International Harmonization  G/SPS/W/200 
2006 Decision to Modify and Extend the Provisional Procedure to 
Monitor the Process of International Harmonization  G/SPS/40 
2006 Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization – Eighth Annual Report  G/SPS/42 &Corr.1 
2007 Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization – 9th Annual Report  G/SPS/45 Monitoring International Standards 
2008 Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization – Tenth annual report  G/SPS/49 
 2009 Proposed Programme for a Workshop on the Relationship 
between the SPS Committee and the International Standard-
Setting Organizations G/SPS/W/235  
  G/SPS/W/237 
Page 28 Subject Year Type of Activity Related Documents 
2005 Update on the Operation of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility  (STDF) G/SPS/GEN/595 
2005 Review of Standards related Issues identified in the 
Integrated Framework Diagnostic  Trade Integration Studies  G/SPS/GEN/545 
2006 Update on the Operatio n of the STDF  G/SPS/GEN/718 
2006 Overview of SPS-related Technical Assistance reported to 
the WTO/OECD Trade Capacity Building Database  G/SPS/GEN/726 
2006 Workshop on the Implemen tation of the SPS Agreement -
March 2006 G/SPS/R/41 
2006 SPS Technical Assistance and Trai ning Activities  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.1 
2007 Idem  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.2 
2007 SPS Technical Assist ance Activities in 2007  G/SPS/GEN/797 
2007 Update on the Operatio n of the STDF G/SPS/GEN/774 
2007 Background Document from the STDF for the Global 
Review of Aid for Trade G/SPS/GEN/812 
2008 SPS Technical Assistance and Trai ning Activities  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.3 
2008 Workshop on SPS-related Cap acity Evaluation Tools G/SPS/R/48 
2008 Mobilizing Aid for Trade for SPS-related Technical 
Cooperation – Conclusions from Pilot Activities of the 
STDF G/SPS/GEN/864 
2008 Report on Workshop on Good Practice in SPS-related 
Technical Assistance  G/SPS/R/52 
2009 SPS Technical Assistance and Trai ning Activities  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.4 Technical Assistance 
2009 Update on the Operatio n of the STDF G/SPS/GEN/902 
2005 Report on Proposals for Speci al and Differential Treatment G/SPS/35 
2005 Proposals and Progress on Special and Differential 
Treatment  G/SPS/GEN/543 
2006 Decision to Extend the Procedures to Enhance Transparency 
of S&D in Favour of Developing Country Members G/SPS/W/184 Special and Differential Treatment 
2005 Special and Differential Treat ment – Report by the Chairman 
to the General Council G/SPS/39  
   G/SPS/W/237
 Page 29Subject Year Type of Activity Related Documents 
2006 Idem G/SPS/41 
2007 Idem G/SPS/44 
2007 Idem G/SPS/46 
2008 Proposed Revision of the Procedure to Enhance 
Transparency of S&D in Favour of Developing Country 
Members (G/SPS/33)  G/SPS/W/224 
2008 Idem - Revision G/SPS/W/224/Rev.1   
2009 Proposed Revision of the Procedure to Enhance 
Transparency of S&D in Favour of Developing Country 
Members (G/SPS/33)  G/SPS/W/224/Rev.2 and rev.3 
2006 Compendium of Documents regarding Article 6  G/SPS/GEN/636 & Corr.1 and Rev.1 
and Rev.1/Corr.1 
2006 Issues in the Application of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement 
– Background Document  G/SPS/GEN/640 & Rev.1 
2006 Summary of the Special Meeting on Article 6  G/SPS/R/38 & Corr.1 Regionalization 
2008 Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 
6 of the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/48 
2005 Specific Trade Concerns G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5 and Addenda 
2006 Idem  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6 and Addenda 
2007 Idem  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7 and Addenda 
2007 Ad hoc Consultations and Resolu tion of Trade Concer ns  G/SPS/GEN/781 
2008 Specific Trade Concerns  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8 and Addenda Implementation of the Agreement-
Specific Trade Concerns  
2009 Specific Trade Concerns  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9 and Addenda 
2005 Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement  G/SPS/36 Other 
2006 SPS Agreement – Designa tion of a Regional Body – 
Communication from Antigua, Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, 
Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent 
and the Grenadines – Revision 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.1 and 
Rev.2  
  G/SPS/W/237 
Page 30 Subject Year Type of Activity Related Documents 
2006 Committee on Trade and Deve lopment in dedicated Session 
– Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small 
Economies in Meeting their Obligations under the Agreements on SPS M easures, TBT and TRIPS WT/COMTD/SE/5 
2007 Private Standards and the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/GEN/746 
2007 Joint UNCTAD/WTO Informal Information Session on 
Private Standards Job(07)/89/Rev.1 
2007 Relationship with Codex, IPPC and OIE G/SPS/GEN/775  
2008 Private Standards – Identifying Practical Actions for the SPS 
Committee – Summary of Responses  G/SPS/W/230 
2008 Report of the STDF Information Session on Private 
Standards G/SPS/R/50 
2008 Proposed Procedure fo r Third Review G/SPS/W/228 
2008 Report to the Council for Trade in Goods on China's 
Transitional Review G/SPS/50 
2008 Questionnaire on SPS-rela ted Private Standards G/SPS/W/232 
2008 Research and Researchers on Private Standards G/SPS/GEN/891  
2009 Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement – Background Document  G/SPS/GEN/887/Rev.1  
   G/SPS/W/237
 Page 31APPENDIX B 
WTO Disputes Invoking the SPS Agreement 
 
Since 1 January 1995, violations of the SPS Agreement have been  alleged in the following invocations of the formal dispute sett lement provisions of the WTO.  Those 
which have been referred to a panel are highlighted.  
 DS Number Parties and nature of complaint Panel Report / Appellate 
Body Report circulation Comments 
1 WT/DS3 US complaint against Korea's inspection procedures for 
fresh fruits  Mutually satisfactory solution notified in July 2001 
(G/SPS/GEN/265). 
2 WT/DS41 US complaint against Korea's inspection procedures for 
fresh fruits  Mutually satisfactory solution notified in July 2001 
(G/SPS/GEN/265). 
3 WT/DS5 US complaint against Korea's shelf-life requirements for 
frozen processed meats and other products  Mutually agreed solution notified in July 1995. 
4 WT/DS18 Canada's complaint against Australia's import restrictions 
on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon 
Australia - Salmon WT/DS18/R (1998) 
WT/DS18/AB/R (1998) 
WT/DS18/RW (2000) Mutually agreed solution notified in May 2000. 
5 WT/DS21 US complaint against Australia's import restrictions on 
fresh, chilled or frozen salmon 
Australia - Salmonids  Mutually agreed settlement notified in November 
2000. 
6 WT/DS20 Canada's complaint against Korea's restrictions on 
treatment methods for bottled water  Mutually agreed solution notified in April 1996. 
7 WT/DS26 US complaint against EC's prohibition of meat from 
animals treated with growth-promoting hormones 
EC – Hormones (US) WT/DS26/R/USA (1997) 
WT/DS26/AB/R (1998) 
WT/DS26/ARB (1999) Suspension of concessions authorized on 
26 July 1999.  EC request for Article 21.5 
consultations on 22 December 2008. 
8 WT/DS48 Canada's complaint against EC's prohibition of meat from 
animals treated with growth-promoting hormones 
EC – Hormones (Canada) WT/DS48/R/CAN (1997) 
WT/DS48/AB/R (1998) 
WT/DS48/ARB (1999) Same panel handled both complaints.  See above. 
9 WT/DS76 US complaint against Japan's "varietal testing" 
requirement for fresh fruits 
Japan – Agricultural Products II WT/DS76/R (1998) 
WT/DS76/AB/R (1999) Mutually agreed solution notified in September 2001. 
10 WT/DS96 EC complaint against India's quantitative restrictions on 
agricultural and other products  Mutually agreed solution notified in April 1998. 
11 WT/DS100 EC complaint against US restrictions on poultry imports  Consultations requested on 18 August 1997; pending. 
12 WT/DS133 Swiss complaint against Slovakia's BSE-related 
restrictions on cattle and meat  Consultations requested on 11 May 1998; pending. 
13 WT/DS134 India's complaint against EC restrictions on rice imports  Consultations requested on 25 May 1998; pending.  
  G/SPS/W/237 
Page 32  DS Number Parties and nature of complaint Panel Report / Appellate 
Body Report circulation Comments 
14 WT/DS135 Canada's complaint against EC (French) measures 
affecting asbestos 
EC - Asbestos WT/DS/135/R (2000) 
WT/DS/135/AB/R (2001) SPS Agreement not invoked in the reports. 
15 WT/DS137 Canada's complaint against EC restrictions due to pine 
wood nematodes  Consultations requested on 17 June 1998; pending. 
16 WT/DS144 Canada's complaint against US state restrictions on 
movement of Canadian trucks carrying live animals and 
grains  Consultations requested on 25 September 1998;  
pending. 
17 WT/DS203 US complaint against Mexico on measures affecting trade 
in live swine  Consultations requested on 10 July 2000; pending. 
18 WT/DS205 Thai complaint against Egypt's GMO-related prohibition 
on imports of canned tuna with soybean oil  Consultations requested on 22 September 2000; 
pending. 
19 WT/DS237 Ecuador's complaint against Turkey's import requirements 
for fresh fruit, especially bananas 
Turkey – Fresh Fruit Import Procedures   Mutually agreed solution notified in November 2002. 
20 WT/DS245 US complaint against Japan's restrictions on apples due to 
fire blight 
Japan - Apples WT/DS245/R (2003) 
WT/DS245/AB/R (2003) 
WT/DS245/RW (2005) Mutually agreed solution notified on 2 September 
2005. 
21 WT/DS256 Hungarian complaint against Turkey's restrictions on 
imports of pet food (BSE)  Consultations requested on 3 May 2002;  pending. 
22 WT/DS270 Philippine complaint against Australia's restrictions on 
fresh fruits and vegetables, including bananas 
Australia - Fresh Fruit and Vegetables  Panel established in August 2003. 
23  WT/DS271 Philippine complaint against Australia's restrictions on 
pineapple  Consultations requested on 18 October 2002; pending. 
24 WT/DS279 EC complaint against India's Export and Import Policy  Consultations requested on 23 December 2002; 
pending. 
25 WT/DS284 Nicaragua complaint against Mexico's phytosanitary 
restrictions on black beans  Mutually agreed solution notified in March 2004. 
26 WT/DS287 EC complaint against Australian quarantine regime 
Australia – Quarantine Regime  Mutually agreed solution notified in March 2007. 
27 WT/DS291 US complaint against EC on GMO approvals 
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products WT/DS291/R (2006) Panel report adopted on 21 November 2006. 
Arbritration requested on the level of suspension of 
concessions (Art. 22.6) on 7 February 2008; 
suspended on 15 February 2008.  
   G/SPS/W/237
 Page 33 DS Number Parties and nature of complaint Panel Report / Appellate 
Body Report circulation Comments 
28 WT/DS292 Canadian complaint agains EC on GMO approvals 
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products WT/DS292/R (2006) Panel report adopted on 21 November 2006. 
29 WT/DS293 Argentina complaint against EC on GMO approvals 
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products WT/DS293/R (2006) Panel report adopted on 21 November 2006. 
30 WT/DS297 Hungary's complaint against Croatia's restrictions on live 
animals and meat products (TSEs).  Consultations requested on 9 July 2003; pending. 
31 WT/DS320 EC complaint against the US on its Continued Suspension 
of Obligations in the EC-Hormones Dispute* 
US – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – 
Hormones Dispute WT/DS320/R 
WT/DS320/AB/R 
 Reports adopted on 14 November 2008. 
32 WT/DS321 EC complaint against Canada on its Continued 
Suspension of Obligations in the EC-Hormones Dispute* 
Canada– Continued Suspension of Obligations in the 
EC – Hormones Dispute  WT/DS321/R 
WT/DS321/AB/R 
 Reports adopted on 14 November 2008. 
33 WT/DS367 New Zealand complaint against Australia's 
restrictions on apples  Panel established on 21 January 2008. 
34 WT/DS384/1 Canada complaint against the US and certain country of 
origin labelling requirements 
United States – Certain Co untry of Origin Labelling 
(COOL) Requirements  Request for consultations by Canada on 4 December 
2008. 
35 WT/DS386/1 Mexico complaint against the US and certain country of 
origin labelling requirements 
United States – Certain Co untry of Origin Labelling 
(COOL) Requirements   Request for consultations by  Mexico on 22 December 
2008. 
36 WT/DS389 US complaint against EC Measures Affecting Poultry 
Meat and Poultry Meat Products  Consultations requested on 16 January 2009. 
37 WT/DS391/1 Canada complaint against Korea Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Bovine Meat and Meat  Products  Consultations requested on 15 April 2009. 
38 WT/DS321/1 China complaint against United States Measures 
Affecting Imports of Poultry  Consultations requested on 21 April 2009. 
* Neither of these two requests for consulta tions claim violation of the SPS Agreement,  however, the reports address issues rel ated to the implementation of the SPS 
Agreement. G/SPS/W/237 
Page 34  
 
  APPENDIX C 
 
List of SPS Committee documents submitted by Members 2005-2009  
  A. Information on Member's experiences regarding Equivalence (Article 4
) 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
2005 Brazil Technical Committee on the 
health and hygiene of fishery products of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay – Equivalence of inspection systems G/SPS/GEN/586 
2007 Panama Determination of the recognition 
of equivalence  G/SPS/N/EQV/PAN/1 
2008 Dominican Republic Determination of the recognition 
of equivalence G/SPS/N/EQV/DOM/1
 
 B. Comments/proposals regarding Tr ansparency (Article 7 and Annex B ) 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
2005 Kazakhstan Transparency G/SPS/GEN/544 
Australia Second Review of the SPS 
Agreement – Review of the implementation of transparency 
provisions G/SPS/W/197 
Bulgaria Transparency G/SPS/GEN/737 
European 
Communities Transparency G/SPS/GEN/737 
Romania Transparency G/SPS/GEN/737 
United States Second Review of the SPS 
Agreement – Review of the implementation of transparency 
provisions G/SPS/W/197 2006 
New Zealand Idem   
China Proposal on the amendment of 
"the recommended procedures for 
implementing the transparency obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7)" G/SPS/W/212 
2007 European 
Communities The EC NNA/EP for the SPS 
Agreement:  experience acquired 
in the operational procedures and 
recent experience – Reflection note G/SPS/GEN/803 
Argentina Proposals regarding the revision 
of recommended procedures regarding transparency G/SPS/W/220 
2008 Chile Chile's position on the 
implementation of the principle of 
transparency in 2008 G/SPS/W/221 
  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 35 
 
 
   C. Comments/proposals regarding monito ring the use of international standards 
 (Article 3.5 and 12.4 ) 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Brazil Brazilian approval of the new 
revised text of the IPPC 1997 G/SPS/GEN/600 
China Monitoring the use of 
international standards:  ISPM 15 G/SPS/GEN/551 
Ecuador Establishment of the National 
Codex Alimentarius Committee G/SPS/GEN/591 
European 
Communities Implementation of ISPM 15 from 
1 March 2005:  new requirements for the import of wood packaging 
material and dunnage for a better 
protection against the introduction of pests or diseases in the European Union G/SPS/GEN/556 
Kingdom of Bahrain Adoption of international Codex 
standards G/SPS/GEN/537 2005 
Mauritius Implementation of international 
standards G/SPS/GEN/547 
Argentina ISPM 15 G/SPS/GEN/653 
Brazil Brazilian approval of the new 
revised text of the IPPC 1997 G/SPS/GEN/696 
Japan Implementation of ISPM No. 15 
as of April 2007 G/SPS/GEN/739 
New Zealand Relationship between the SPS 
Committee and the standard-setting bodies G/SPS/W/206 2006 
Sri Lanka Procedure to monitor the process 
of international harmonization G/SPS/W/187 
2008 Japan Relationship between the SPS 
Committee and Codex, OIE and 
IPPC G/SPS/W/226 
 
 D.1 Information regarding Member's provision of technical assistance and training 
 activities (Article 9)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
New Zealand Technical assistance provided to 
developing country Members by 
New Zealand since 1 January 1995 – Revision  G/SPS/GEN/352/Rev.1 
2005 
United States Technical assistance to developing 
country Members provided by the United States – 
Addendum/Revision G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.5 
and Rev.1 
2006 Australia Technical assistance to developing 
country Members G/SPS/GEN/717 G/SPS/W/237 
Page 36  
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Canada Technical assistance to developing 
country Members  G/SPS/GEN/728 
2006 European 
Communities Technical assistance in the SPS 
field provided by the EC G/SPS/GEN/669 
Australia Technical assistance to developing 
country Members G/SPS/GEN/717/Add.1
Canada Technical assistance to developing 
country Members G/SPS/GEN/765 
European 
Communities EC Technical assistance in the 
SPS Sector G/SPS/GEN/839 
New Zealand Technical assistance for operating 
the SPS Notification Authority and SPS Enquiry Point G/SPS/W/214 
Norway SPS technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/879 2007 
United States Technical assistance to developing 
country Members provided by the 
United States G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.6
2008 United States Technical assistance to developing 
country Members provided by the United States G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.7
 
 D.2 Information regarding Member's technical assistance and training needs 
 (Article 9)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
2005 Peru Technical assistance within the 
framework of the WTO Agreement on the Application of 
SPS Measures G/SPS/GEN/579 
Central African 
Republic Technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/644 
2006 Tanzania Technical assistance related to 
fisheries sector -  Experience from the United Republic of Tanzania G/SPS/GEN/687 
Costa Rica Technical assistance – Responses 
to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.29/
Rev.1 
Guatemala Technical assistance – Responses 
to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.22/
Rev.1 2007 
Rwanda Technical assistance – Responses 
to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.37 
2008 Belize Technical Assistance G/SPS/GEN/885 
2009 Belize Technical Assistance from the 
European Communities to enhance national SPS capacity in 
Belize G/SPS/GEN/912 
  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 37 
 
 
   E. Comments/proposals regarding special  and differential treatment (Article 10)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
2006 United States Special and di fferential treatment G/SPS/W/198 
Egypt Statement to the informal meeting JOB(07)/25 
Egypt Proposed revision of G/SPS/33 JOB(07)/104 2007 
Egypt Suggested language by Egypt for 
Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement JOB(07)/99 
 
 F.1 Comments/proposals regarding Regionalization (Article 6)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Argentina Article 6 of the Agreement on the 
Application of SPS Measures G/SPS/GEN/606 
Australia Monitoring of international 
harmonization:  regionalization G/SPS/W/172 
Brazil Improving the application of 
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/177 
Brazil Recognition of the state of Acre 
and the municipalities of Boca Do Acre and Guajará in the state of 
Amazonas, Northern region of 
Brazil, as Foot-and-Mouth Disease – Free zones where vaccinations is practiced G/SPS/GEN/601 
Canada Implementation of Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement  G/SPS/GEN/613 
Chile Proposal by Chile to further the 
discussion concerning the implementation of Article 6 on 
regionalization G/SPS/W/171 
Colombia Procedures for recognition of pest- 
or disease- free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/GEN/611 
European 
Communities Clarification of Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement G/SPS/GEN/588 
Japan Implementation of Article 6 
(Regionalization) of the Agreement 
on the Application of SPS 
Measures G/SPS/GEN/605 2005 
Peru Regionalization G/SPS/GEN/607 G/SPS/W/237 
Page 38  
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Argentina Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – 
Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Brazil Implementation of Art. 6 of the 
SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/185 
Brazil Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – 
Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Colombia Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – 
Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Ecuador Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – 
Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Ecuador Regionalization G/SPS/GEN/623 
Egypt Article 6 – Procedures for 
recognition of pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence G/SPS/W/193 
Egypt Implementation of Art. 6 – 
Experience in establishing and Maintaining "Pest-Free Areas" G/SPS/GEN/630 
European 
Communities Application of Art. 6 of the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/GEN/632 
European 
Communities Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – 
Article 6 G/SPS/W/190 
Grenada Article 6 of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/194 
Japan Issues in the application of Art. 6 
of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/192 
Korea Article 6 of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/195 
Mexico Regionalization G/SPS/GEN/622 
New Zealand Comments on 
G/SPS/GEN/640/Rev.1 – Article 6 G/SPS/GEN/725 
New Zealand Procedures for recognition of pest- 
or disease-free area or areas of low pest prevalence under Art. 6 – 
Comparison of standards developed 
by the ISSBs G/SPS/GEN/698 and 
Rev.1 
Paraguay Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – 
Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Chinese Taipei Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – 
Article 6 G/SPS/W/205 
United States Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – 
Article 6 G/SPS/W/199 
United States Additional comments on Art. 6 of 
the SPS Agreement – Adaptation to regional conditions G/SPS/GEN/631 2006 
Uruguay Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – 
Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Chile Chile's position on regionalization 
guidelines for 2008 G/SPS/W/222 
2008 New Zealand Guidelines to further the practical 
implementation of Art. 6 of the 
SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/218 
  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 39 
 
 
   F.2 Information regarding Member's experience related to Regionalization 
 (Article 6)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Brazil Pest free area of Minas Gerais 
state – Micosphaerella fijiensis  G/SPS/GEN/561 
Brazil Pest free area of Ceará state – 
Anastrepha grandis  G/SPS/GEN/562 
Brazil Foot and mouth disease free zone 
– Brazilian experience on 
regionalization G/SPS/GEN/584 
Brazil Newcastle disease – Brazilian 
experience in certifying disease 
free flocks G/SPS/GEN/608 
Brazil Classical swine fever – Brazilian 
experience in regionalization G/SPS/GEN/609 
Canada Update on developments in 
Canada regarding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) G/SPS/GEN/585 
Chile Notification of recognition of 
pest- and disease-free zones - 
Regionalization G/SPS/W/181 
Colombia  Avian influenza G/SPS/GEN/602 
Nicaragua Status of the national classical 
swine fever eradication 
programme in Nicaragua G/SPS/GEN/575 
Nicaragua Nicaragua initiates brucellosis – 
and tuberculosis - free 
certification for farms G/SPS/GEN/576 2005 
Peru Current FMD Status G/SPS/GEN/558  
Argentina Grains, fruits etc. – FMD G/SPS/GEN/654 
Australia Exercise Eleusis – Avian 
influenza simulation G/SPS/GEN/619 
Australia Issues in the application of Art. 6 
of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/191 
Australia Issues in the application of Art. 6 
of the SPS Agreement - Addendum G/SPS/W/191 and 
Add.1 
Brazil Pest free area of Minas Ceará state 
– Micosphaerella fijiensis  G/SPS/GEN/562/Add.1
Brazil Area of Rio Grande do Norte 
State free of Anastrepha grandis  G/SPS/GEN/642 
Brazil Pest-free area of Bahia state – 
Mycosphaerella fijiensis  G/SPS/GEN/697 
Canada Update on developments 
regarding BSE G/SPS/GEN/635 
Chile Situation regarding BSE G/SPS/GEN/633 2006 
Chile Experience in the application of 
the principle of regionalization G/SPS/GEN/610 G/SPS/W/237 
Page 40  
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Colombia Experiences in regionalization:  
FMD G/SPS/GEN/612 
Colombia Avian influenza H9N2 G/SPS/GEN/621 
Egypt Experience in establishing and 
maintaining "Pest-Free Areas" G/SPS/GEN/630 
Mexico Regionalization - Information for 
the recognition of fruit fly-free areas G/SPS/GEN/440/Rev.1 
Nigeria Current SPS measures regarding 
the avian influenza situation G/SPS/GEN/637 
Peru Recognition of Southern Peru as a 
foot-and-mouth disease-free zone where vaccination is not practised G/SPS/GEN/578 2006 
Turkey Avian Influenza G/SPS/GEN/620 and 
Rev. 1 
Brazil Pest free area of Ceará state – 
Anastrepha grandis  G/SPS/GEN/562/Add.2
Panama Pest-free area of classical swine 
fever G/SPS/GEN/783 
Panama Certification and/or declaration of 
an area free of Mediterranean fruit 
fly in the Azuero peninsula G/SPS/GEN/752 2007 
Philippines Avian Influenza and FMD status 
as of 1 March 2007 G/SPS/GEN/771 
Argentina Foot and mouth disease situation G/SPS/GEN/868 
Belize Classical swine fever and FMD-
free status G/SPS/GEN/861 
Canada Update on an outbreak of highly 
pathogenic avian influenza 
(H7N3) in the province of Saskatchewan G/SPS/GEN/866 
Chile Recognition of pest- and disease-
free areas G/SPS/GEN/862 
Haiti Sanitary information – BSE G/SPS/GEN/846 
Mexico Report on the classification of 
Mexico by the OIE regarding BSEG/SPS/GEN/858 
Peru Areas found to be free of Stenoma 
catenifer (Lepidoptera-
oecophoridae) on the basis of survey work on this pest conducted in Peruvian coastal 
areas where avocado ( Persea 
Americana)  is produced G/SPS/GEN/815 2008 
Switzerland BSE G/SPS/GEN/844 
Belize Newcastle disease G/SPS/GEN/913 
Mexico Report on activities undertaken to 
declare the entire territory of 
Mexico free from classical swine fever G/SPS/GEN/908 2009 
Philippines Regionalization – Pest Free Areas G/SPS/GEN/906 
  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 41 
 
 
   G. Comments/proposals regarding Monito ring Implementation of the Agreement 
 (Articles 12.1 and 12.2)—Specific trade concerns  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Costa Rica Panama – Imports of products of 
animal origin G/SPS/GEN/582 
Sri Lanka Trade difficulties encountered in 
the export of Sri Lankan cinnamon 
to the European Communities G/SPS/GEN/597 2005 
Uruguay Undue delays G/SPS/W/169 
Argentina Review of concerns raised by 
Members pending their resolution G/SPS/GEN/693 
Colombia Proposal for preventing undue 
delays in the entry of animals, 
plants and their products G/SPS/W/201 
Colombia EC Regulation 258/97 on Novel 
Foods G/SPS/GEN/735 
Ecuador EC Regulation 258/97 on Novel 
Foods G/SPS/GEN/714 
European 
Communities Questions and answers on the EC 
control measures for avian influenza G/SPS/GEN/641 
European 
Communities Reply of the EC to the 
communication from Peru concerning Regulation 258/97 on Novel Foods G/SPS/GEN/699 
Peru Regulation 258/97 Of The 
European Parliament And Of The 
Council Concerning Novel Foods G/SPS/GEN/681 
Peru EC Regulation 258/97 on Novel 
Foods G/SPS/GEN/713 
Peru EC Regulation 258/97 on Novel 
Foods G/SPS/GEN/733 2006 
Uganda Fish exports from Lake Victoria G/SPS/GEN/685 
New Zealand Australia – Measures affecting the 
importation of apples from New 
Zealand – Request for consultations G/SPS/GEN/796 
2007 Thailand Undue delays in relation to 
Article 5 (risk assessment) and interim measures G/SPS/GEN/769 
Argentina Good offices of the Chairperson G/SPS/W/219 
Peru EC Regulation 258/97 on Novel 
Foods G/SPS/GEN/884 2008 
United States Article 12.2 – Consultations G/SPS/W/227 
2009 Argentina and United 
States  Article 12.2 – Consultations G/SPS/W/233 
 G/SPS/W/237 
Page 42  
 
   H. Review of the Agreement
 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Costa Rica Second review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement – Prioritization of 
issues for the future work 
programmes of the SPS Committee . G/SPS/W/180 
2005 
New Zealand Second review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement – Work programme G/SPS/W/179 
Brazil Second Review of the SPS 
Agreement – Prioritization of issues for the future work 
programme of the SPS Committee G/SPS/W/182 
Canada Second Review of the SPS 
Agreement – Clarification of the 
terms "measures" and "regulations" as contained in the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/186 
Chile Second Review of the SPS 
Agreement – Undue delays G/SPS/W/202 
Chile Second Review of the SPS 
Agreement – Harmonization, relationship with int. organizations and int. standards G/SPS/W/203 
Chile Second review of the SPS – 
Proposed differences or 
clarifications procedure G/SPS/W/204 
Colombia Second Review of the SPS 
Agreement  – Priority topics to be 
taken into account in the future work of the Committee G/SPS/W/188 
Costa Rica Second Review of the SPS 
Agreement – Discussion proposal for the more effective 
implementation of the a d hoc  
consultations mechanism within the framework of Art. 12.2  G/SPS/W/183 2006 
New Zealand Second Review of the SPS 
Agreement – Review of the implementation of transparency provisions G/SPS/W/197 
2007 Canada Second review of the SPS 
Agreement – Transparency 
enhancement proposal G/SPS/GEN/778 
China Third review of the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/W/234 2009 
India Third review of the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/W/236 
  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 43 
 
 
   I. China Transitional Review  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
European 
Communities Transitional Review Mechanism 
under paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the  People's 
Republic of China – Comments for 
China G/SPS/W/178 
2005 United States Transitional Review Mechanism 
pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China – Questions from the United States G/SPS/GEN/594 
European 
Communities Transitional Review Mechanism 
pursuant to paragraph 18 of the 
Protocol of Accession of the 
People's Republic of China – Questions from the European Communities G/SPS/W/208 
2006 
United States Transitional Review Mechanism 
pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the 
People's Republic of China – 
Questions from the United States G/SPS/W/207 
European 
Communities Transitional Review Mechanism 
pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China – Questions from the European 
Communities G/SPS/W/216 
2007 
United States Transitional Review Mechanism 
pursuant to paragraph 18 of the 
Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China – Questions from the United States  G/SPS/W/213 
European 
Communities Transitional Review Mechanism 
pursuant to paragraph 18 of the 
Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China – Questions from the European Communities G/SPS/W/231 
2008 
United States Transitional Review Mechanism 
pursuant to paragraph 18 of the 
Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China – Questions from the United States G/SPS/W/229 
 G/SPS/W/237 
Page 44  
 
   J. Private Standards
 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Ecuador Private and commercial standards G/SPS/GEN/792 
St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines Private industry standards G/SPS/GEN/766 
2007 United Kingdom Private voluntary standards within 
the WTO multilateral framework G/SPS/GEN/802 
Uruguay Terms of reference for the working 
group on private standards G/SPS/W/225 
2008 
Uruguay Private standards G/SPS/GEN/843 
2009 Belize Statement on private and commercial 
standards G/SPS/GEN/911 
 
 K. Implementation of the SPS Agreement  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Bangladesh Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement – Information for the workshop on 31 March 2006 G/SPS/GEN/676 
Benin Idem   G/SPS/GEN/670 
Burkina Faso Idem  G/SPS/GEN/662 
Burundi Idem  G/SPS/GEN/674 
Cameroon Idem  G/SPS/GEN/671 
Congo  Idem  G/SPS/GEN/659 
Costa Rica Idem  G/SPS/GEN/679 
Chad  Idem  G/SPS/GEN/667 
Colombia Idem  G/SPS/GEN/652 
The Gambia Idem  G/SPS/GEN/664 
Guatemala Idem  G/SPS/GEN/682 
Haiti Idem  G/SPS/GEN/677 
Honduras Idem  G/SPS/GEN/683 
Jamaica Idem  G/SPS/GEN/645 
Kenya Idem  G/SPS/GEN/660 
Madagascar Idem  G/SPS/GEN/672 
Mauritania Idem  G/SPS/GEN/684 
Mauritius Idem  G/SPS/GEN/657 
Cuba Idem  G/SPS/GEN/655 
Mongolia Idem  G/SPS/GEN/675 
Nepal Idem  G/SPS/GEN/656 
Niger Idem  G/SPS/GEN/678 
Dominican Republic Idem  G/SPS/GEN/691 
Egypt Idem  G/SPS/GEN/647 
Egypt Idem  G/SPS/GEN/649 
Egypt Idem  G/SPS/GEN/651 
Nigeria Idem  G/SPS/GEN/686 
Pakistan  Idem  G/SPS/GEN/661 
Pakistan Idem  G/SPS/GEN/692 2006  
South Africa Idem  G/SPS/GEN/690  G/SPS/W/237 
 Page 45 
 
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
 Togo Idem  G/SPS/GEN/665 
Trinidad and Tobago Idem  G/SPS/GEN/680 
Peru Idem  G/SPS/GEN/668 
Uganda Idem  G/SPS/GEN/673 2006 
Zimbabwe Idem  G/SPS/GEN/663 
 
 L. Other  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Costa Rica Phytosanitary  certificate G/SPS/GEN/604 
Cuba Measures implemented in the field of 
veterinary medicine G/SPS/GEN/538 
Dominican Republic Current domestic measures to 
facilitate the implementation of the WTO Agreement on the Application of SPS Measures G/SPS/GEN/587 
European 
Communities Traceability of food, feed, food-
producing animals, and any other 
substance intended to be, or expected 
to be, incorporated into a food or feed imported into the Community for placing on the market G/SPS/GEN/539 
2005 
European 
Communities Questions and answers on the 
procedure to obtain import tolerances and the inclusion of active substances 
for plant protection uses in the 
European Communities list G/SPS/GEN/557 
Colombia Centre for Phytosanitary Excellence – 
CEF – A Colombian cooperation initiative pursuant to Art. 5 of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/GEN/702 
Colombia Risk analysis G/SPS/GEN/734 
Colombia Strengthening of Colombia's system 
of sanitary and phytosanitary measures G/SPS/GEN/736 
Cuba Measures implemented in the field of 
veterinary medicine G/SPS/GEN/615 
European 
Communities Public consultation on the impact 
assessment of Regulation 258/97 on 
novel foods and food ingredients G/SPS/GEN/700 
European 
Communities Call for early comments on a 
Commission report on animal by-
products not intended for human consumption G/SPS/GEN/719 2006 
European 
Communities Adaptation of the common veterinary 
entry document to the trade control and export system (TRACES) G/SPS/GEN/742 G/SPS/W/237 
Page 46  
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Paraguay Ban on the registration and 
importation of high-risk insecticides G/SPS/GEN/688 
Paraguay Health status report G/SPS/GEN/689 
Paraguay Phytosanitary status report G/SPS/GEN/711 2006 
Paraguay Health status report G/SPS/GEN/712 
Argentina MRLs for pesticides – Impact on 
exports from developing country 
Members G/SPS/W/211 & 
Corr.1 (in English 
only) 
Bolivia Slaughter of imported breeding cattle G/SPS/GEN/768 
Costa Rica Clean stock program for Dracaena 
spp. intended for export to the US 
market G/SPS/GEN/784 
European 
Communities Call for comments on a Commission 
consultation on the review of Reg. (EC) 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption G/SPS/GEN/773 
European 
Communities Certification regime applicable for 
imports into the EC of bovine animals and of certain products of animal 
origin with regard to provisions 
related to certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies G/SPS/GEN/799 2007 
Chinese Taipei Veterinary and phytosanitary 
certificates G/SPS/GEN/744 & 
Corr.1 
Chile Bilateral agreements G/SPS/GEN/863 
Ecuador MRL for pineapple G/SPS/GEN/841/R
ev.1 
European Communities Rules related to the export of meat-
and-bone meal to third countries in order to ensure the prevention and control of certain transmissible 
spongiform encephalopathies (TSES) G/SPS/GEN/889 
Paraguay Information from Members G/SPS/GEN/876 
Paraguay Communication to the SPS 
Committee G/SPS/GEN/852 
Singapore Optical watermark on export 
certificates G/SPS/GEN/859 
Venezuela Comprehensive agricultural health 
system G/SPS/GEN/854 2008 
Zambia Information on various SPS matters G/SPS/GEN/836 
2009 Ecuador Communication on the Ecuadorian 
Agency for Agricultural Product 
Quality Assurance G/SPS/GEN/901 
 
__________