WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/607 
6 December 2005 
 (05-5789) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:   Spanish 
 
  
 
REGIONALIZATION 
 
Communication from Peru
 
  
The following communication, received on 1 December 2005, is being circulated at the 
request of the delegation of Peru. 
_______________ 
 
1. Peru would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee for his willingness to continue 
discussions on matters relating to Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures. 
2. Peru has prepared the following information on th e basis of its own experience with a view to 
helping to clarify the difficulties on the applicatio n of Article 6 and identify the elements required to 
formulate a draft decision on the effective application of that article. 
I. GENERAL EXPERIENCE 
3. Peru participates in the work of the internat ional reference organizations such as the World 
Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and the Secr etariat of the International Plant Protection 
Convention (IPPC).  It recognizes and fully applies the standards and guidelin es laid down by these 
organizations in its internal standard-setting proc edures relating to the es tablishment and recognition 
of pest- or disease-free areas or area s of low pest or disease prevalence. 
4. On the basis of these international standards and guidelines, Peru has built up a sound and 
effective legal framework for the establishment and maintenance of pest- or disease-free areas or 
areas of low pest or disease prevalence.  Sim ilarly, it has strengthened both the institutional 
infrastructure and the specific infr astructure required for the establishment and maintenance of pest- 
or disease-free areas. 
5. On the basis of these international standards and guidelines, Peru is  committing substantial 
resources to the eradication of pests and diseases with a view to applying the concept of 
regionalization, establishing pest- or disease-free  areas and thus gaining access to international 
markets. 
6. It costs as much if not more to maintain pest- or disease-free areas as to obtain such a status, 
and maintenance mainly depends on the degree of  commercial benefit that the producers can gain 
from that status and on the measures that the gove rnment and the private sector will take in order to 
extend the range of international markets. 
7. Thus, access to international markets is the ma in objective of our sanitary policy and, 
therefore, of the investment to establish pest- or disease-free areas, although uncertainty in the G/SPS/GEN/607 
Page 2  
 
 recognition of such areas by the importing countries, as a form of trade facilitation, puts at risk the 
sustainability of such pest - or disease-free areas. 
8. Peru applies the same scientific rigor to both  regionalization measures applied for domestic 
reasons and to those applied with a view to gaining access to export markets, both in the agricultural 
and the fisheries sectors. 
9. The establishment of pest- or disease-free areas is a medium- and long-term process.  In 
addition, the uncertain period of time for such status  to be accepted and to become of real benefit in 
gaining access to internationa l markets of interest is expensive and difficult, despite the fact that Peru 
applies the guidelines of the international or ganizations recognized by the WTO SPS Agreement.
1  
However, the weakness in the actual application of Article 6 of the WTO SPS Agreement is reflected 
in the lack of definition, slowness and/or variation of the requirements, procedures and results 
required by the importing countries for recognition of  a pest- or disease-free area once it has been 
officially declared to be so.  
10. Owing to the reasons set out in the previous paragraph, Peru has so metimes taken several 
years to obtain recognition of the status of areas alr eady declared pest- or disease-free by the national 
authority;  in other cases, the process of recognition has been expeditious. 
11. In addition to the factors mentioned above, the relevant international organizations approach 
the application of Article 6 differently:  while the OIE provides recognition for some specific 
diseases, the IPPC has set international standard s for phytosanitary measures that lay down the 
guidelines for the declaration of pest- or disease-free areas and for places or sites of production that 
are pest-free. 
12. In this regard, Peru has disease-free areas that have been recognized by the OIE, but such 
recognition has not been validated by the importing  countries automatically or expeditiously and 
consequently has not resulted in compliance with Article 6. 
13. The IPPC provides no international recognition, al though this subject was discussed at the last 
IPPC meeting.  Peru supports the proposal that the IPPC should operate in a similar fashion to the OIE 
in this respect.  The importing countries should automatically accept international recognition. 
II. SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE 
1. Experience on recognition procedures for th e export of animals, animal products and 
by-products from an OIE-recognized pest- or disease free area without vaccination 
14. Peru invested the sum of US$12 million betwee n 1998 and 2004 to eradicate foot-and-mouth 
disease from its territory.  The cost of protection an d maintenance of that status amounts to US$1.5 
million each year. 
15. As a result of the investment made, 97.6 per ce nt of the territory is recognized by the National 
Agrarian Health Authority as an area free of foot-and-mouth disease without vaccination and 
2.4 per cent is recognized as a disease-free area with vaccination. 
16. Following the request submitted by Peru, the OIE recognized approximately half the national 
territory as a disease-free area where vaccination does not apply. 
                                                      
1 Peru recognizes that the OIE and the IPPC have the capacity and are the accredited international 
organizations to establ ish guidelines for the recognitio n of pest- or disease-free areas.  G/SPS/GEN/607 
 Page 3 
 
 
 16. Peru has submitted to an importing country  a request for recognition of "an area free of foot-
and-mouth disease without vaccination" already recognized as such by the OIE, with a view to being 
able to export animals, and animal products and by-products. 
17. Despite such internatio nal recognition by the OIE of a diseas e-free area wher e vaccination is 
not practised, the importing country does not recogn ize the status obtained.  On the contrary, the 
information requirements and the need to fulfil a large number of requirements established by the 
health authority of the importing country have led to delays in the preparation of the questionnaires.  
At least one of these additional requirements cannot  be fulfilled by Peru;  i.e. the establishment of an 
indemnification fund. 
18. Furthermore, the sanitary authority of the impor ting country in question has established, in a 
document, a two-year period for the recognition of disease-free areas, during which sanitary 
information is requested from the country on such matters as the  veterinary administration, economic 
resources, human resources, the quar antine system, traceability, etc. 
2. Experience on the recognition of pest - and disease-free agricultural areas  
19. Peru's experiences in the phytosanitary field include the following cases. 
20. Firstly, there is the case relating to the recognition, by the National Plant Protection 
Organization (NPPO) of one of Peru's important tr ading partners, of five of Peru's central and 
southern coastal regions as an area free of the disease Anastrepha grandis (cucurbit fly).  That 
recognition was  rapid  and there was no need for an official declaration as a previously disease-free 
area by the NPPO of Peru. 
21. Secondly, there is the case of the recognition of  Peru as "a country free of three quarantine 
pests of citrus fruits".  That process took significantly longer and included the promulgation of a supreme decree by Peru, recognition by the General Secretariat of the Andean Community of Nations 
(CAN) and notification to the WTO. 
22. In this case, the activities directed to obtaini ng the recognition of pest-free areas began in 
1995 with the establishment of a protocol of work previously agreed with the NPPO of the importing 
country in order to prove that the thr ee quarantine pests did not exist in Peru. 
23. The implementation of the final part of the protocol, which included a technical visit by 
NPPO specialists of the trading pa rtner (initially planned for the second year), took place eight years 
after the field monitoring work began (4 years after the declaration as a pest-free area by Peru). 
24. Once the technical visit had been made and as a result of a monitoring programme of several 
years  backed up by the respective reports, Peru was recognized by the trading partner, on the basis of 
the corresponding risk analysis, as a country free of the pests in question. 
25. At the present time measures are being taken to maintain the status of a pest-free country, and 
access to the market of the impor ting country will soon be achieved. 
__________