WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/45 
10 July 2007 
 
 (07-2936) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS 
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION 
 
Ninth Annual Report
 
Adopted by the Committee on 28 June 2007 
 
 A. 
INTRODUCTION  
1. At its meeting of 15-16 October 1997, the SPS Committee adopted a provisional procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization a nd the use of international standards, guidelines 
or recommendations, as provided for in Articles 3.5 a nd 12.4 of the SPS Agreement.  This procedure 
was subsequently revised by the Committee in October 2004.1  The Committee decided to extend the 
provisional monitoring procedure for a further two-year period in July 1999, and again in July 2001, and in June 2003 the Committee further extended the provisional procedure for 36 months.
2  O n  
28 June 2006, the Committee agreed to extend the pr ovisional procedure indefinitely, and to review 
its operation as an integral part of the periodic Re view of the Operation and Implementation of the 
Agreement under Article 12.7.3  The next such Review is to be  completed in 2009, and every four 
years subsequently. 
2. The Committee has previously adopted eight an nual reports on the monitoring procedure.4  
These reports summarize several standards-related is sues that the Committee has considered and the 
responses received from the relevant  standard-setting organizations.  
B. NEW ISSUES  
3. Since the adoption of the Eighth Annual Report,  one new issue has been raised under this 
procedure.  At the meeting of 27-28 June 2007, Ar gentina drew attention to the problem faced in 
particular by developing country Members, wh en importing Members establish national maximum 
residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides which are stricter than those developed by Codex without 
scientific justification.5  In contrast to the MRLs established by Codex on the basis of worldwide risk 
assessments, a number of Members have established MRLs based on limited testing within their own 
territories, and which are often set at the limit of detection.  Furthermore, Members remove active substances from their national registries of permitted products not for scientific reasons but for purely 
commercial reasons.  Developing country Members lack the scientific and financial resources to challenge the inconsistency of these trade-restric ting measures with the SPS Agreement.  Argentina 
observed that additional problems arise from the fact  that for many of the active substances used by 
food-exporting Members, there are no Codex standards.   
                                                     
 
1 G/SPS/11/Rev.1. 
2 G/SPS/14, G/SPS/17 and G/SPS/25. 
3 G/SPS/40. 
4 These were circulated as G/SPS/13, G/SPS/16, G/SPS/18, G/SPS/21, G/SPS/28 , G/SPS/31, G/SPS/37 
and G/SPS/42.  
5 G/SPS/W/211. G/SPS/45 
Page 2  
 
  4. Argentina proposed that  
(a) The SPS Committee set up appropriate mech anisms to ensure that the Codex 
Alimentarius undertakes or accelerates wo rk on establishing pesticide MRLs for 
substances of interest to agricultural exporti ng Members, and that it urge Members to 
provide the scientific information available to  them so as to facilitate the technical 
work; 
 (b) a mechanism be developed to monito r the establishment of national MRLs for 
substances that have Codex MRLs; 
  (c) procedures be defined to facilitate, a nd secure the transparency of, risk assessments 
which support MRLs that are more demanding than those of the Codex; 
  (d) the SPS Committee analyze its own areas of responsibility and those of the Codex 
with a view to securing effective monito ring of the mechanisms and procedures 
established;  and that 
 
 (e) the Committee make a recommendation to the Codex Alimentarius Commission to 
approve the decision to continue addressing this issue at its highest decision-making 
level and in the most appropriate technical fields. 
 5. Many Members agreed with Argentina regard ing the problem and supported Argentina's 
proposals in this respect.  Other Members observe d that the proposal had been submitted only during 
the course of the meeting, and that they requi red more time to consider the matter.   
6. The representative of the Codex observed that Codex standards were established on the basis 
of the best available scientific data by the Jo int FAO/WHO Meetings on Pesticide Residues (JMPR).  
However, this necessitated a commitment by govern ments to generate the necessary data and to 
provide these to JMPR.  Codex had no procedure to  identify which countries applied Codex standards 
and which did not do so.  The issue raised by Ar gentina would be considered also by the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission at its July 2007 meeting, with a view to determining how to proceed. 
7. The Committee agreed to revert to this  issue at its October 2007 meeting. 
C. 
PREVIOUS ISSUES  
8. Since the adoption of the Eighth Annual Report,  there has been no fu rther discussion on any 
issue previously raised under this procedure.   
D. RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM THE RELEVANT STANDARD -SETTING ORGANIZATIONS  
9. At the meeting of the Committee in October 2006 , the representative of the Codex reminded 
the Committee of the decision by the Codex Alim entarius Commission to abolish the procedure 
regarding the notification of acceptance by Members on the use of Codex standards.  The main 
reasons for the abolition were that it created a dichotomy between those Codex standards submitted 
for acceptance by Codex members and  those that we re not actually used substantively by Codex 
members.  There had been ongoing discussion in the Codex as to which new procedure or measures or 
instruments could be introduced to address the wish  of Codex members to monitor the use of Codex 
standards.  One proposal to this effect had been  that the regional Codex c oordinating committees have 
a standing agenda item regarding the use of Codex standards and related texts at the national and 
regional level.  The Codex secretariat had sent a circ ular letter to all Codex members that contained a 
questionnaire related to:  (1) the use of Codex sta ndards and related texts at  the national and regional  G/SPS/45 
 Page 3 
 
 
  level;  (2) non-use of Codex standards and related texts;  (3) any difficulties encountered by Codex 
members in using Codex standards and related texts;   (4) relevance of Codex standards as a basis for 
harmonization;  and (5) any other health and trade problems related to standardization (G/SPS/GEN/727).   
 
__________