WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
23 February 2005 
 (05-0761) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Revision  
 
 
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, and ther eafter 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 Agreement at least once every four years.  The SPS 
Committee adopted a procedure and timetable to unde rtake the Second Review of the Agreement at 
its meeting of 22-23 June 2004.  This revision of the background document contains additional 
information which Members have requested be in cluded during the course of the Second Review.  
3. 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); 
 Special and differential treatment (Article 10); 
 Regionalization (Article 6);   
 Monitoring Implementation of the Agreement (Articles 12.1 and 12.2) – Specific 
trade concerns; 
                                                      
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. G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
 Co-operation with Codex Alimentarius, World Organization for Animal Health 
(OIE), and the International Plant Protec tion Convention (IPPC) (Article 12.3);  and 
 Dispute settlement activities (Article 11). 
4. Appendix A of this document provides a summa ry of Committee activities since the First 
Review in 1999.  Appendix B provides informati on about SPS-related dispute settlement activities. 
5. Appendix C provides a list of documents submitted by Members since the last review of the 
Agreement relevant to the various issues raised in the background paper.  Relevant Decisions of the 
Committee have also been included along with documents produced by the Secretariat which 
summarized submissions on certain issues (e.g. rela ting to transparency) or which gave rise to 
submissions from Members (e.g. the technical assistance questionnaires). 
II. CONSISTENCY (ARTICLE 5.5) 
6. While the First Review did not examine the Co mmittee's early efforts to develop guidelines 
for consistency, deliberations on this issue bega n during the Committee's first meeting in March 1995 
and progressed through informal and formal meetings.  During these discussions, Members raised conceptual issues related to the links between a ppropriate level of protection, measures and risk 
assessment. 
7. In July 2000, the Committee adopted guidelines to further the practical implementation of 
Article 5.5.
3  The Decision marked the culmination of su stained efforts by the Committee to promote 
the consistent application of the concept of appropria te level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection.  
The guidelines are designed to assist national regulator y officials in avoiding arbitrary or unjustifiable 
distinctions in the level of health risk they determin e to be appropriate in different situations, if these 
differences result in discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade.  The Committee agreed to 
review the guidelines periodically and revise them as necessary.   
8. A first review of the Article 5.5 guidelines was conducted as part of the Second Review 
process.  It was noted that Members had not raised  any concerns related to these guidelines since their 
adoption in July 2000. 
III. EQUIVALENCE (ARTICLE 4) 
9. In the First Review of the Agreement, the Co mmittee recognized the need for further efforts 
to facilitate the practical applicati on of Article 4, including the rec ognition of equivalence of measures 
applied by developing country Members.  In res ponse to the conclusions of the First Review, the 
Committee held a first informal meeting to discuss th e issue of equivalence and the implementation of 
Article 4 in June 2000.  The importance of these  deliberations was emphasized by the General 
Council when it requested, during a Special Sessi on on 18 October 2000, that the SPS Committee 
"… examine the concerns of developing countries regarding the equivalence of SPS measures and to 
come up with concrete options as to how to deal with them …"   Discussi ons by the Committee in a 
series of informal meetings and Special Meetings  lead to the adoption of a formal Decision on 
equivalence.4  In adopting this Decision, several Members noted the need to clarify certain provisions 
of the Decision. 
10. In March 2002, subsequent to this Decision a nd in response to the Decision at the Fourth 
Ministerial Conference regardi ng implementation-related issues5, the Committee adopted a 
                                                      
3 G/SPS/15. 
4 G/SPS/19. 
5 WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 3.3.  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
programme of work to clarify its Decision on equivalence.6  Furthermore, in June 2002, the 
Committee adopted a format for the notification of equivalence agreements.7  To date, no Member has 
submitted an equivalence notification. 
11. In March 2004, the Committee completed its  work programme on Equivalence which 
included clarifications on the Decision on Equivalence related to: 
• the facilitation of recognition of equivalen ce based on historic trade (Paragraph 5); 
• the effect of a request for recognition of equivalence on trade (Paragraph 6);  and 
• the importance of scientific information in evaluating the impact of exporting countries' 
measures (Paragraph 7). 
 
The Decision, including the agreed clarifications , is contained in G/SPS/19/Rev.2.  Equivalence 
remains a standing agenda  item for the Committee. 
 
12. The international standard-setting organizations have developed guidance in this area.  The 
Codex Alimentarius Commission has adopted Pr inciples for the development of equivalence 
agreements regarding food import and export insp ection and certification systems and guidelines on 
the judgement of equivalence of such systems.   The OIE has developed guidelines for reaching a 
judgement of the equivalence of sanitary measures.   The IPPC is in the process of developing a 
standard on the equivalence of phytosanitary measur es.  At the earliest, the Standards Committee of 
the IPPC could approve these measures at  its seventh session in spring 2005.   
IV. TRANSPARENCY (ARTICLE 7 AND ANNEX B) 
13. In the 1999 Review, the Committee recalled th at it had adopted recommended notification 
procedures, as well as formats for routine  and emergency notifications.8  The Committee stressed the 
need for an accurate summary of the notified measu re in one of the WTO official languages.   
14. In response to a number of concerns about  the implementation of the transparency 
obligations, in November 1999, the Committee agreed  on a first revision of recommended notification 
procedures and notification formats.9  In 2002, the Committee adopted its second revision to 
recommended procedures for implementing transparency obligations.10  This revision addressed, 
inter alia , Members' concerns over the timing of notifications ;  notification of final rules;  how to deal 
with addenda, revisions and corrigenda;  extensions  to the comment period;  what to do when a 
regulation contained both SPS and TBT measures;  relevant standard-setting bodies for the purposes 
of the Agreement;  multiple and single enquiry points;   as well as changes to the notification formats. 
15. To further facilitate the implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement, 
the Secretariat produced a handbook "How to Appl y the Transparency Provisions of the SPS 
Agreement" in 2000 and updated it in 2003.11  This handbook, which is available in English, French 
and Spanish, provides guidance on the establishmen t and operation of notification authorities and 
enquiry points.  The handbook also covers all three areas of transparency: the publication of 
regulations, notifications, and responding to enquiries. 
16. As of 31 December 2004, 4163 notifications had been circulated, not including corrigenda, 
addenda and revisions.  The number of annual notif ications in 2004 (617) was 42 per cent higher than 
                                                      
6 G/SPS/20. 
7 G/SPS/7/Rev.2/Add.1. 
8 G/SPS/7. 
9 G/SPS/7/Rev.1. 
10 G/SPS/7/Rev.2. 
11 The most recent version of the handbo ok is available on the SPS website. G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
the number of annual notifications in 1999 (432).  Out of 147 Members, 83 had notified at least one 
SPS measure since 1995.  The regional breakdown of all notifications, including corrigenda, addenda 
and revisions, submitted before the end of 2004 is represented in Figure 1. 
17. 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 th e Agreement.  In July 1999, 103 out of 134 
members (77 per cent) had notified an enquiry point and 97 members (72 per cent) had identified their 
national notification authority.
12  As of December 2004, 136 out of 147 Members (93 per cent) had 
notified an enquiry point and 127 (86 per cent) ha d identified their national notification authority.13 
 
Figure 1 - Regional Breakdown of Notifications 1995-2004
North America
35%Africa and the Middle 
East
2%
Asia
18% Asia
12%
Europe
15%South America and the 
Caribbean
18%
 
18. The Secretariat facilitates information excha nge among Members concerning enquiry points 
and national notification authorities in a variety of ways.  The Secretariat regularly updates a 
document containing contact information of nationa l enquiry points and of national notification 
authorities.14  In addition, the Secretariat maintains links to these documents from the SPS website on 
the WTO web page. 
19. The Committee held a Special Meeting on the Tr ansparency Provisions of the SPS Agreement 
in November 1999 and another Special Meeting on the Operation of Enquiry Points in October 2003.  
These events brought together officials from Me mbers' enquiry points and national notification 
authorities for an in-depth discussion of concerns and suggestions relating in part icular to notifications 
and the functioning of enquiry points and national notification authorities.15   
                                                      
12 G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.5. 
13 G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.13. 
14 The most recent enquiry point c ontact information is contained in  G/SPS/ENQ/16, Co rr.1, Add.1 and 
Add.2 and the most recent national notification authority  contact information is c ontained in G/ SPS/NNA/6, 
Corr.1, Add.1 and  Add.2. 
15 G/SPS/R/16, G/SPS/GE N/458, G/SPS/R/32.  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
20. Since the 1999 Review the Secretariat has circ ulated several questionnaires to gather 
information from Members regarding the management at the national level of their SPS transparency 
obligations, including the challenges and constraint s they face.  The Secretariat distributed two 
questionnaires on enquiry points:  the first in 1999 and the second in 2003.16  More than 80 Members 
responded to the second questionnaire and key points  from these responses were included in the 
summary of the special meeting on enquiry points.  The Secretariat also circ ulated questionnaires to 
gather information concerning Members' SPS related websites in  1999 and in 2003.17  T o  d a t e  t h e  
Secretariat has received detailed information from 20 Members, including EU member States.18  The 
Secretariat has placed the list on the SPS homepag e and established appropria te links.  Some links 
lead to official websites; others connect to email addresses of officials with SPS-related 
responsibilities. 
21. 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 notifications19 received by the Secretariat and an annual listing of all 
SPS documents.20  Links to all these documents can be found on the SPS web page.  The Secretariat 
has also initiated the establishment of a searchable database contai ning notifications and other SPS 
documents.   
22. In the First Review, the Committee noted that acce ss to informal translations (especially in a 
WTO official language) of texts of notified measure s would facilitate their consideration by other 
Members, particularly if made available to Me mbers through electronic means.  In March 2004, the 
Secretariat established a mechanism to circulat e information on the availability of unofficial 
translations of draft regulations notified by Members.21  This will be done via the circulation of a 
supplement (in the three official languages of the WTO) to the original notification submitted by a 
Member.   
V. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS (ARTICLES 3.5 
AND 12.4) 
23. In the 1999 Review, the Committee recalled that, as required by Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the 
SPS Agreement, it had adopted a preliminary proce dure to monitor the process of international 
harmonization and the use of internationa l standards, guidelines or recommendations.22 The 
Committee noted that several concrete examples had b een submitted to the Comm ittee  as reflected in 
the annual report on the procedure.23  The Committee recalled that the operation of the monitoring 
procedure was to be reviewed 18 months after its  initial implementation.  The procedure has been 
extended three times: in 1999, in 2001 and in 2003.24  At its October 2004 meeting, the Committee 
agreed to modify the deadline fo r identifying issues of international harmonization and the use of 
international standards, guidelines or recommendati ons on its agenda from 30 days to 10 days in 
advance of the Committee's meetings.25  
                                                      
16 G/SPS/W/103, G/SPS/W/103/Rev.1. 
17 G/SPS/W/102 and Rev.1, G/SPS/ GEN/144/Rev.1 and Addenda. 
18 Argentina, Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Czec h Republic, Finland, European Communities, 
Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, Hong Kong-China, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Slovak, 
Thailand, and Turkey. 
19 For example, see documents G/SPS/GEN/465, 471, 48 5, 488, 493, 507 and 50 9 for 2004 notification 
summaries. 
20 G/SPS/GEN/467. 
21 G/SPS/GEN/487. 
22 G/SPS/11. 
23 G/SPS/13. 
24 G/SPS/14, G/SPS/17, and G/SPS/25.  
25 G/SPS/11/Rev.1 G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
24. The Committee has produced annual reports relating to the process of monitoring 
international harmonization.
26  Since the implementation of the procedure, Members have raised 
eleven issues.  The standard-setting bodies have pr omptly addressed these concerns in their respective 
competent bodies and regularly reported on their actions to the SPS Committee.  The procedure has 
not been used extensively by Members.  In 200 1, the Committee organized a workshop to discuss 
standard setting procedures (see paragraph 33 below). 
25. The Committee noted the concerns raised by de veloping country Members about their limited 
ability to actively participate in the development of international standards and the lack of a 
mechanism to take into account the economic and technical capacity of developing country Members 
to implement such standards.  However, the Commi ttee considered that it was more appropriate for 
these concerns to be addressed within the relevant international organizations.  The Committee agreed 
to communicate developing country concerns to these  organizations and to request the representatives 
of these organizations to keep the Committee inform ed of actions taken to address these concerns. 
26. To enhance the participation of developing  countries in standard-setting meetings and 
activities, training programmes and regional tec hnical consultations on standards and their 
implementation, the Codex, IPPC and OIE have established trust funds.  These trust funds will be 
supported through contributions by donor agencies and member countries.  The OIE also continues to 
provide financial support for the par ticipation of Chief Veterinary Offi cers of its member countries in 
OIE standard-setting activities.  
VI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (ARTICLE 9) 
27. In the First Review, the Committee stressed the need for enhanced technical assistance and 
cooperation to developing country Members, in  particular with regard to human resource 
development, national capacity building and the transf er of technology and info rmation.  It recognized 
that technical assistance had been provided by the Secr etariat, by Members on a bilateral basis, and by 
the international organizations recognized in the Agreement, as well as other international 
organizations.  However, the Committee emphasized the need for further assistance from the relevant 
standard-setting international organizations and agreed  to bring this matter to their attention.  The 
Committee also reiterated the need  for Members and the relevant international organizations to 
provide information on their technical cooperation and assistance programmes on a regular basis.  
Members agreed to make available such information. 
28. The Secretariat has circulated two questionnair es seeking information on technical assistance 
which has been provided and on technical assistance  needs in the context of the SPS Agreement.  
Most replies to the first questionnaire circul ated in July 1999 reported on assistance provided.27  The 
second questionnaire, focusing on technical assistance needs, was circulated to WTO Members in July 
2001 and has been used as a basis for technical assistance discussions.28  By December 2004, 
36 Members had submitted responses to the questionna ire regarding their technical assistance needs.29  
The WTO Secretariat also prepared a not e on typology of technical assistance. 30 
29. In the SPS Committee, technical assistance is discu ssed as a regular agenda item.  Under this 
agenda item, Members are invited to identify any specific technical assistance needs which they may 
                                                      
26 G/SPS/13, G/SPS/16, G/SPS/18, G/ SPS/21, G/SPS/28 and G/SPS/31. 
27 A summary of the replies to this questionn aire (G/SPS/W/101) are contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/143/Rev.1 and Addenda.  Replies to the same questionnaire  have also been provided separately by 
Australia (G/SPS/GEN/472);  the US (G/SPS/GEN/181 a nd Add. 1-3);  and New Zealand (G/SPS/GEN/352).  
Information has also been provided by the EC (G/SPS/GEN/244). 
28 G/SPS/W/113. 
29 These responses are circulated  as addenda to G/SPS/GEN/295. 
30 G/SPS/GEN/206.  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
have, and/or to report on any SPS-related capacity bu ilding activities in which they are involved.  The 
WTO Secretariat, as well as observer organizations, report on their assistance activities.   
30. 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 th e transparency provisions of the Agreement (see 
paragraph 13).  Finally a CD-ROM explaining a nd discussing in detail the provisions of the 
Agreement, and dealing in particular with impl ementation, transparency, special and differential 
treatment and dispute settlement issues, has been pr oduced by the Secretariat.  The CD-ROM includes 
text, video and audio material and is complement ed by multiple-choice tests to enable users to 
monitor their individual progress. 
31. The Secretariat has sponsored workshops and se minars on risk analysis (see paragraph 31), 
enquiry point operation (see paragraph 19), standa rd setting procedures (see paragraph 33) and 
capacity building (see paragraph 32), to address concer ns raised in the questionnaire responses and to 
promote information exchange. 
32. In June 2000, the Committee held a workshop on SPS risk analysis which focused on the 
complex relationship between risk analysis, the di sciplines of the SPS Agreement, the work of the 
relevant standard-setting organizations  and actual policies of WTO Members.31  M a n y  o f  t h e  
presentations from this workshop highlighted the importance of establishing links among government 
institutions, scientists, international standard-se tting organizations, and th e general public.  In 
addition, participants stressed that even rudime ntary risk analyses based upon rational arguments can 
provide crucial foundations for polic y dialogue among trading partners. 
33. In March 2001, the Secretariat organized a workshop entitled "International Standard-Setting 
Organizations:  Process and Participation".32  Representatives from the OIE, the Codex and the IPPC 
described the processes and proce dures used in the development and adoption of international 
standards, guidelines, and recommendations of rele vance to the SPS Agreement.  The presentations 
focused in particular on the degree of involvement of developing countries in their standard-setting 
procedures.  
34. In November 2002, the Secretariat held a seminar on technical assistance and capacity-
building related to the SPS Agreement.  Represen tatives of the FAO (including Codex and IPPC), 
OIE, UNCTAD, UNIDO and the World Bank, as we ll as of regional organizations (SADC, APEC, 
IICA) reported on technical assistance activities.  Two developing country Members, Mauritius and 
the Philippines, reported on their technical assistance needs and experiences.33  The presentations 
described technical assistance and capacity building activities at both national and regional level and 
emphasized the need to improve coordination and cooperation among donor agencies. 
35. WTO's technical assistance activities in the SPS ar ea contribute towards the strengthening of 
the capacities of developing countries in meeting standards for market access of food and other 
agricultural commodities.  The ac tivities increase participants' awareness about rights and obligations 
under the SPS Agreement and its impl ications at the national level.  In the organization of SPS 
technical assistance activities the levels of familia rity with the Agreement and advancement in its 
implementation are taken into consideration to meet and respond to individual country/regional needs.  
The programmes of national/regional activities includ e presentations on the transparency obligations, 
dispute settlement, implementation problems, specific trade concerns and technical/scientific issues 
                                                      
31 G/SPS/GEN/209. 
32 G/SPS/GEN/250. 
33 Document G/SPS/INF/15 contains a list of participating individuals. G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
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). 
36. Since 1999, SPS technical assistance activities organized by the WTO Secretariat have 
included 35 regional (or sub-regi onal) and 34 national workshops.  Table 1 provides information 
about the number of (sub)regional and national ac tivities per year since 1999.  Table 2 shows the 
number of Secretariat activities per region since 1999.   
Table 1:  Number of SPS Technical Assistance Activities 
 Type of Activity  
Year National 
Seminar (Sub)Regional 
Workshop Other Total 
1999 - 2 1 1 
2000 6 3 6 15 
2001 4 3 1 8 
2002 8 11 3 22 
2003 7 10 4 21 
2004 6 7 4 17 
Total 34 36 19 89 
 
  
Table 2: SPS Technical Assistance Activities per Region (1999-2004) 
 
 Type of activity  
Region National 
Seminar (Sub)Regional 
Workshop Other Total 
Africa 7 12 4 23 
Arab and Middle East Countries 8 3 1 12 
Asia and the Pacific 8 5 8 21 
Central and Eastern Europe and 
Central Asia 4 4  8 
Europe 1 1 3 5 
Latin America and the Caribbean 6 11 2 19 
North America    1 1 
Total 34 36 19 89 
 
37. Since the First Review of the SPS Agreement, the international standards setting bodies have 
consistently provided updates about their technical ass istance activities.  All three organizations have 
developed training programmes, including conferences,  seminars and workshops, to enhance national 
capacities on WTO matters.  The IPPC developed a diagnostic tool, the Phytosanitary Capacity 
Evaluation (PCE), to help countries address their cu rrent capacity and identify needs for assistance.  
The PCE is available on CD-ROM and can  be downloaded from the IPPC website.34  In addition to 
information from the OIE, IPPC and the Codex, ot her observers organizations, including FAO, the 
World Bank, OIRSA, IICA, UNIDO and UNCTAD,  provide regular updates concerning their 
provision of technical assistance.  
                                                      
34 http://www.ippc.int.  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
38. The Standards and Trade Development Facility  (STDF) was established in September 2002 
following the commitment made by the Heads of the WHO, the FAO, the WTO, the OIE and the 
World Bank at the Doha Ministerial Conference to e xplore new technical and financial mechanisms to 
promote the efficient use of resources in SPS-related activities.  The purpose of the STDF, which is administered by the WTO, is to enhance the capaci ty of developing countries in the standards area 
through co-operation between the re levant institutions in SPS-related activities, including through the 
development of joint institutional projects, and pr ovision of STDF-funding to projects in developing 
countries.  The STDF maintains a database whic h provides information on SPS-related technical 
assistance and capacity building projects.
35  
VII. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT (ARTICLE 10) 
39. In the First Review, the Committee noted that it had no information on the extent to which the 
S&D treatment provided for in Articles 10.1 and 10.2 had been provided to developing country 
Members, nor information on the extent to which developing country Members had made use of any 
S&D provided to them.  The Committee encouraged Members to further the practical implementation of Articles 10.1 and 10.2.   
40. The Committee also recalled the provisions of Article 14, which allowed for delays in the 
application of certain provisions of the Agreement by LDCs and developing counties.  This provision 
has since lapsed.  Reference was also made to Article 10.3, according to which the Committee can 
grant, upon request, specified time-limited exceptions in whole or in part from obligations under the 
SPS Agreement to developing countri es, taking into account their fina ncial, trade and development 
needs.  As of September 2004, no Member has asked for such an exception.   
41. The Decision on Implementation taken at the D oha Ministerial Conference in 2001 included 
inter alia  a clarification on Article 10.2.
36  It specifies that where the appropriate level of protection 
allows scope for the phased introduction of SPS measures, the "longer time-frame for compliance" 
referred to in Article 10.2 shall normally mean at least 6 months.  Where the phased introduction of a 
new measure is not possible, but a Member iden tifies specific problems, the Member applying the 
new measure shall enter into consultations, upon request, to try to find a mutually satisfactory 
solution.  The Decision also indicated that in th e context of paragraph 2 of Annex B of the SPS 
Agreement, a period of 6 months shall normally be provided between the publication of a measure 
and its entry into force. 
42. Since the First Review, the Committee's discu ssions related to special and differential 
treatment have been pursued throug h three tracks:  (i) issues raised  under the standing agenda item on 
S&D, relating in particular to Article 10;  (ii) issues referred to the SPS Committee by the General 
Council;  and (iii) issues raised in the context of  other specific topics discussed in the Committee, 
including guidelines on equivalence (see section III), recommendations on fulfilling transparency 
obligations (see section IV), and techni cal assistance activities (see section VI).   
43. With regard to specific issues raised in the Committee, Egypt proposed the inclusion of an 
S&D treatment box in the SPS notification format.37  In response, Canada proposed that an importing 
country should consider any requests for S&D or technical assistance made  in response to their 
notification of a new measure and notify th e SPS Committee of any subsequent action.38  I n  
March 2003, the Committee adopted in principle the Canadian proposal and in October 2004 it adopted an elaboration of the steps to implement this procedure.
39  This procedure provides for the 
                                                      
35 Available on-line at http:/stdfdb.wto.org. 
36 WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 3.1. 
37 G/SPS/GEN/358. 
38 G/SPS/W/127. 
39 G/SPS/33. G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 10  
 
submission of specific addenda to notifications whic h indicate when special and differential treatment 
or technical assistance has been re quested in the context of the notif ication of a new or modified SPS 
measure, and what response has been given to the request. 
44. In addition to on-going Committee discussions, th e Chairman of the General Council referred 
five proposals to the Committee in May 2003.
40  These proposals relating to Articles 9, 10.1 and 10.4 
of the SPS Agreement had originally been put forwar d in the context of the Doha mandate to review 
all special and differential treatment provisions, w ith a view to strengthening them and making them 
more precise, effective and operational.41  In the discussions, proponents of several proposals argued 
that they would help developing countries comply  with importing countries' SPS measures.  Noting 
their growing interest in trading with other de veloping countries, a number of developing country 
Members expressed concern that proposals for tec hnical assistance to be provided by developed 
countries to specific developing country trading part ners could discriminate among trading partners.  
While recognizing the importance of needs-based technical assistance, other delegations also 
disagreed with language that would require some countries to provide technical assistance.  In addition, a number of delegations suggested that S&D and technical assistance could be provided by 
some developing countries to other developing coun tries.  Some Members also noted that justified 
SPS measures should not be withdrawn simply because some Members might have difficulty 
complying with the requirement.   
45. Although the Committee completed its work  programme envisaged for 2003 on these 
proposals, it did not reach a decision on  any of the specific issues raised.
 42  In November 2003, the 
Chair of the SPS Committee submitted a report to th e General Council regarding the work of the 
Committee on these as well as other S&D and implementation issues.43  In August 2004, the General 
Council decided to refer the agreement-specific propo sals for special and differe ntial treatment to the 
respective WTO bodies, with the stipulation th at these bodies expeditiously complete the 
consideration of these proposals and report to the General Council, with clear recommendations for a 
decision, by no later than July 2005. 
46. Special and differential treatment remains a standing agenda item for the Committee.  
47. Since the First Review, some Members have called for specific actions to address obligations 
outlined in Article 10.4 of the Agreement which st ates that Members "should encourage and facilitate 
the active participation of developing country Member s in the relevant international organizations."  
In October 2000, the General Council asked the Di rector-General of the WTO to work with the 
standard-setting organizations as well as interna tional financial institutions to identify ways to 
increase the participation of developing countries in international standard-setting activities.  He 
provided three reports regarding his efforts in this  area, the last one in the lead up to the Doha 
Ministerial Conference.44  At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Members urged him to continue his 
efforts to facilitate participation of de veloping countries in standard setting.  
48. The growing consensus that financial support was needed to enhance participation of 
developing country Members in international orga nizations led to the creation of several funding 
initiatives.  The Heads of the FAO, the OIE, the WHO, the World Bank and the WTO issued a joint 
statement during the Doha Ministerial Conference reaffirming their commitment to enhance developing countries' capacity to participate eff ectively in the development and application of 
international standards and in taking full advantage of trade opportunities.
45  (These discussions led to 
                                                      
40 Job(03)/100. 
41 WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 12. 
42 G/SPS/26. 
43 G/SPS/30. 
44 WT/GC/45, WT/GC/46, WT/GC/54. 
45 WT/MIN(01)/ST/97.  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
the establishment of the STDF, described in more de tail in paragraph 38).  In addition, Codex, IPPC 
and the OIE have established Trust Funds to enhance the participation of developing countries in their 
meetings (see paragraph 26).  As for the mee tings of the SPS Committ ee, IICA (Inter-American 
Institute for Co-operation on Agriculture), through su pport provided by Canada and the United States, 
has funded the participation of a large number of Latin American, Central American and Caribbean 
countries in some of the meetings of the SPS Committee. 
VIII.  REGIONALIZATION (ARTICLE 6) 
49. In the 1999 Review, the Committee noted that the recognition of pest or disease-free areas or 
areas of low pest or disease prevalence could facilita te trade in agricultural products.  In this regard 
the Committee welcomed the application of these con cepts by an increasing number of Members.  At 
the same time, the Committee noted Members f aced difficulties in implementing the Article, 
including excessively lengthy administrative processes for recognition in importing countries, 
divergences in interpretation and implementation of international guidelines, and complexities 
involved in risk assessment. 
50. The Committee initiated substantive discussion of  problems linked with the implementation 
of the provisions for recognition of pest- and di sease-free areas at the June 2003 Committee Meeting.  
The Committee held informal meetings on the issue in 2003 and 2004. 
51. These discussions have focused on two aspects of  regionalization: the establishment of pest- 
or disease-free areas by exporters and the recognition of the pest- or disease-free status by importing countries.  Both the IPPC and the OIE have provide d guidance for countries seeking to establish, or to 
be recognized for, pest- or disease-free status.  The IPPC 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 such as guidelines for su rveillance or one under development on low pest 
prevalence.  The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health C ode describes the requirements for obtaining disease 
free status including requirements for surveillance and monitoring based on the concept of geographic 
zones.  The OIE is currently considering simplifie d definitions and procedures for regionalization and 
compartmentalization to be included in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 
52. Despite the OIE and IPPC guidelines, e xporting countries still suffer from delayed 
recognition of their pest- or disease-free status by importing countries.  A number of delegations, 
including developing countries, have proposed th at the Committee develop clear procedures with 
timelines for the recognition of pest- or disease-free areas, while others maintain that OIE and IPPC 
should have the primary respons ibility in this regard.   
IX. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
53. 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 
attention since 1995 and to update this document annually to include new information provided by 
Members.
46  The fifth revision includes all issues which have been raised at SPS Committee meetings 
through the thirty-first regular meeting of the Committee on 27-28 October 2004. 
54. Altogether, 204 specific trade concerns were rais ed in the ten years between 1995 and 2004.  
Figure 2 shows the number of new concerns raised each year.  Figure 3a categorizes the trade concerns raised by subject.  Overall, 27 per cent of trade concerns relate  to food safety concerns, 
29 per cent relate to plant health, and 4 per cen t concern other issues such as certification 
                                                     
 
46 G/SPS/GEN/204 and revisions 1 through 5. G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 12  
 
requirements or translation.  Forty per cent of con cerns raised relate to animal health and zoonoses, 
but this category includes issues such as transmi ssible spongiform encephalopathy (TSEs) that are 
also relevant for food safety.  Figure 3b shows that TSEs account for 40 per cent of animal health 
concerns, while issues related to foot-and-m outh disease (FMD) account for 25 per cent.  The 
remaining 35 per cent relate to other animal health concerns such as avian influenza. 
 
 
FIGURE 2 – NUMBER OF NEW ISSUES RAISED 
 
2112423
13
102942
29
21
051015202530354045
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
 
 
   G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
FIGURE 3A – TRADE CONCERNS BY SUBJECT 
 
Food Safety
27%
Animal Health 
& Zoonoses
40%Plant Health
29%Other 
Concerns
4%
 
 
FIGURE 3B – TRADE CONCERNS RELATED TO ANIMAL HEALTH 
 
TSEs
40%
FMD
25%Other Animal 
Concerns
35%
 G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 14  
 
55. Developing countries are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS Committee 
meetings.  Figure 4 indicates that developing co untry Members have raised 101 trade concerns  
compared to 143 raised by developed country Me mbers and two raised by least-developed country 
Members.
47  In 149 cases, a developing country Member  has supported another Member raising an 
issue, compared to 99 for developed country Members and zero for least-developed country Members.  
In 124 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a developed country Member, and in 99 cases it 
was maintained by a developing country Member.  No trade concerns regarding measures maintained 
by least-developed country Members have been raised. 
 
FIGURE 4 – PARTICIPATION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 
 
12499143
991491012
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Member Maintaining
the Measure in
QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the
Issue
Number of countries
Developed countries Developing countries Least-Developed Countries
 
 
X. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT – USE OF AD HOC 
CONSULTATIONS 
56. The Committee recalled that ad hoc consu ltations among Members, as provided for in 
Article 12.2 of the Agreement, on specific sanitary and phytosanitary measures, otherwise referred to 
as the "good offices" of the Chair, had b een used on several occasions since 1995.48  The Committee 
recalled that this was a useful route to fac ilitate agreement between Members and encouraged 
Members to avail themselves of this option where appropriate.  
                                                      
47 The European Communities was counted as one Member.  Similarly, when one Member spoke on 
behalf of ASEAN, it was counted as one Member only.  On  certain issues, more than one Member has raised the 
same concern at a Committee meeting.  Hence although the total number of specific trade concerns raised since 
1995 is 204, the number of Members raising concerns, 246, is higher.. 
48 G/SPS/GEN/204/rev.5  Eu ropean Communities – Citrus Canker, March 1998, paras. ; Poland – 
Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds paras. November 1998 ;  India – Import restrictions on bovine semen paras. 
March 2001,  References to follow.   G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
XI. CO-OPERATION WITH THE CODEX, OIE AND IPPC 
57. Representatives from each of these organizati ons attend the SPS Committee meetings and 
representatives from the WTO Secretariat attend the m eetings of these international organizations as 
observers.  Co-operation between the SPS Comm ittee 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 section VI on technical assistance and in Section VII on S&D.  The STDF provides an additional forum for coordination among its partner organizations, including the WTO, 
IPPC, OIE and Codex (see paragraph 36). 
XII. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 
58. Article 11 of the SPS Agreement stipulates th at 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 September 2004, over 300 disputes had formally been raised under the WTO's dispute settlement system.  Of these, 30 alle ged violation of the SPS Agreement, although in 
five cases this was not the main focus of the dispute.   Eight panels have been established to examine 
eleven complaints:  one panel to examine the Unite d States' and Canada's complaints regarding the 
EC ban on meat treated with growth-promoting horm ones;  two panels to examine complaints against 
Australia's restrictions on imports of fresh, ch illed or frozen salmon;  one 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 a pples due to fire blight;  two panels to examine 
complaints against Australia's quarantine procedures ;  and one panel to examine complaints by the 
United States, Canada and Argentina concerning EC  measures affecting the approval and marketing 
of biotech products (see Appendix B for details). 
  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 16 APPENDIX A 
 
Summary of major SPS Committee activities 
 
Subject Year Type of Activity Related documents 
2000 Committee Decision G/SPS/15 Consistency 
   
2004 Committee Decision G/SPS/19/Rev.1 and Rev.2 Equivalence 
   
2002 Revised recommended procedures G/SPS/7/Rev.2 
2000 
2003 (revision) Handbook: "How to Apply the 
Transparency Provisions of the SPS 
Agreement"  http://www.wto.org/english/tr atop_e/sps_e/spshand_e.doc 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spshand_e.pdf 
2004 Enquiry point information - update  G/SPS/ENQ/16, Corr.1, Add.1 and Add.2 
2004 National notification authority - upda te G/SPS/NNA/6, Corr.1, Add.1 and Add.2 
2004 New mechanism on unoffici al translations G/SPS/GEN/487 
2000 Questionnaire on SPS-related websites G/SPS/W/102; G/SPS/GEN/ 144/Rev.1 and Addenda 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spslinks_e.htm Transparency 
2003 Questionniare to update list of SPS-related 
websites G/SPS/W/102/Rev.1 
1999 Procedure extended G/SPS/14 
2001 Procedure extended G/SPS/17 
2003 Procedure extended G/SPS/25 
1999 Annual report G/SPS/13 
2000 Annual report G/SPS/16 
2001 Annual report  G/SPS/18 
2002 Annual report G/SPS/21  Monitoring International 
Standards 
2003 Annual report G/SPS/28   G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1
 Page 17Subject Year Type of Activity Related documents 
2004 Annual report G/SPS/31 
2004 Initiation of Codex trust fund  
2004 Initiation of IPPC trust fund  
2004 Modification of timeframe for inclusion of 
items concerning harmonization on SPS 
Committee agenda G/SPS/11/Rev.1  
   
2001 Workshop: "International Standard-setting 
Organizations:  Process and Participation" G/SPS/GEN/250 
2000 Workshop:  "SPS Risk Analysis" G/SPS/GEN/209 
 CD-ROM   
1999 Special Meeting on Transparency G/SPS/R/16 
2003 Special Enquiry Point Meeting G/SPS/GE N/458; G/SPS/R/32 
1999 Questionnaire G/SPS/W/101; G/SPS/GEN/143/Re v.1 and Addenda 
2001 Questionnaire G/SPS/W/113;  G/SPS/GEN/295 and Addenda. Technical Assistance 
2004 Adoption of STDF Businss Plan by partner 
agencies and overview of project activities G/SPS/GEN/523 
2003 Adoption in principle of transparency 
proposal G/SPS/W/127 Special and Differential 
Treatment 
2004 Committee Decision on Procedure to 
Enhance Transparency of Special and 
Differential Treatment in favour of Developing Country Members G/SPS/33 
2003-2004 Informal Committee meetings  Regionalization 
   
Implementation of the 
Agreement- Specific Trade 
Concerns 2000-2004 Summary document of specific trade 
concerns G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1, Rev.2, Rev.3, Rev.4, Rev.5  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 18 APPENDIX B 
 
WTO Disputes Invoking the SPS Agreement  
Since 1 January 1995, violations of the SPS Agreement have been alleged in the followi ng 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  Consultations requested on 6 April 1995; pending. 
2 WT/DS41 US complaint against Korea's inspection procedures 
for fresh fruits  Consultations requested on 24 May 1996;  pending. 
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) 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) Suspension of concessions authorized on 26 July 1999. 
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) Same panel handled both complaints.  See above.   G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1
 Page 19 DS Number Parties and nature of complaint Panel Report / Appellate 
Body Report circulation Comments 
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. 
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 fr uit, 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) Article 21.5 (pending) and Article 22.6 (suspended) panels 
established in July 2004. 
21 WT/DS256 Hungarian complaint against Turkey's restrictions  Consultations requested on 3 May 2002;  pending.  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 20  DS Number Parties and nature of complaint Panel Report / Appellate 
Body Report circulation Comments 
on imports of pet food (BSE) 
22 WT/DS270 Philippine complaint against Australia's restrictions 
on fresh fruits and vegetables, including bananas 
Australia - Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Panel established 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 Panel established 
November 2003   
27 WT/DS291 US complaint against EC on GMO approvals 
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech 
Products Panel established August 
2003 Same panel to handle three complaints 
28 WT/DS292 Canadian complaint against EC on GMO approvals 
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech 
Products See above  
29 WT/DS293 Argentina complaint against EC on GMO approvals 
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech 
Products See above  
30 WT/DS297 Hungary's complaint against Croatia's restrictions 
on live animals and meat products (TSEs).  Consultations requested on 9 July 2003; pending. 
 
  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
APPENDIX C 
 
List of SPS Committee documents from Members and 
other relevant documents, 1999-2004 
  
A. Comments/proposals regarding Consistency (Article 5.5)
 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Egypt Comments on the proposed guidelines to 
further the practical implementation of 
Article 5.5 G/SPS/W/106 2000 
 
SPS Committee Guidelines to further the practical 
implementation of Article 5.5 G/SPS/15 
 
B1. Comments/proposals regarding the Decision on Equivalence (Article 4)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
2000 United States Experiences of the United States regarding 
the practical implementation of Article 4 G/SPS/GEN/212 
Argentina Equivalence of co ntrol systems G/SPS/GEN/268 2001 
 SPS Committee Decision on the implementation of Article 
4 of the Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures G/SPS/19 
Argentina Equivalence (paragraph 5 of the Decision - 
Guidelines for "accelerating" the procedure) G/SPS/W/116 
Argentina Interpretation of paragraph 7 of the 
Decision on Equivalence G/SPS/W/117 
Argentina Clarification of paragraph 5 of the 
Decision on Equivalence G/SPS/W/123 
Australia Interpretation of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of 
Decision G/SPS/19 on  the implementation 
of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/GEN/331 2002 
 
New Zealand Equivalence (background information and 
New Zealand’s views on  associated issues) G/SPS/GEN/326 
Argentina Paragraph 5 of the Decision on 
Equivalence:  Guidan ce for accelerated 
procedures for the recognition of equivalence of products historically traded G/SPS/W/123/Add.1 
Argentina Guideline for a ccelerated procedures for 
the recognition of equivalence of SPS 
measures (paragraph 5 of the Decision) G/SPSW/123/Add.2 
Argentina Comments on the proposed clarification of 
paragraph 7 of the Decision on 
Equivalence G/SPS/W/130 2003 
 
European 
Communities Comments on Argentina's proposal 
(G/SPS/W/123/Add.1) JOB(03)/110 G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 22  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
 Chinese Taipei Comments on Argentina's proposal 
(G/SPS/W/123/Add.1) JOB(03)/114 
2004 SPS Committee Revision :  Decision on the implementation 
of Article 4 of the Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures G/SPS/19/Rev.1 
 SPS Committee Revision :  Decision on the implementation 
of Article 4 of the Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures G/SPS/19/Rev.2 
 
B2. Information on Members' experiences related to Equivalence (Article 4)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Australia An example of equivalence G/SPS/GEN/243 
Fiji Experience on e quivalence G/SPS/GEN/238 
Japan Experience of equivalence in the area of 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures G/SPS/GEN/261 
New Zealand Experiences in recognizing equivalence of 
phytosanitary measures G/SPS/GEN/232 2001 
 
Thailand Experience with recognition of 
equivalence G/SPS/GEN/242 
European 
Communities A practical example of implementation of 
the principle of equivalence G/SPS/GEN/304 2002 
SPS Committee Notification of determination of the 
recognition of equivalence of sanitary or 
phytosanitary measures G/SPS/7/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
C1. Comments/proposals regarding Tr ansparency (Article 7 and Annex B)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
United States Transparency issues after 5 years of 
implementation of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/GEN/147 
United States Voluntary transparency –Thoughts from 
the US SPS enquiry point/notification 
authority G/SPS/GEN/152 1999 
 
SPS Committee Recommended notification procedures G/SPS/7/Rev.1 
2001 New Zealand Enhancing transparency – Proposed 
changes to the recommended notification 
procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.1) G/SPS/W/112 
European 
Communities Comments on transparency and in 
particular on G/SPS/W/112 (New Zealand's proposal for review of the 
notification procedure) G/SPS/W/118 
2002 
 
    G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
 New Zealand Enhancing transparency:  Proposed 
changes to the recommended notification procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.1) G/SPS/W/112/Rev.1 
China Proposal for amending the recommended 
transparency procedures relating to the 
comment period of SPS notifications G/SPS/W/131 & Corr.1 
China Report of the analysis on SPS notifications 
in 2002 G/SPS/GEN/378 
Cyprus, the Czech 
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Malta, 
Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and the 
European 
Communities Transparency – Joint communication G/SPS/GEN/426 & Corr.1 
China SPS and developing countries – 
Transparency:  (Article 10.1) "Pre-
notification" G/SPS/W/143 
Mauritania Proposal on the operation of enquiry points 
for sanitary and phytosanitary measures G/SPS/GEN/457 2003 
 
Mexico Transparency (P roposed procedures to 
ensure compliance) G/SPS/W/136 
China Report of the analysis on SPS notifications 
in 2003 G/SPS/GEN/498 2004 
 
Secretariat Unofficial translations G/SPS/GEN/487 
 
 
C2. Information/Proposals submitted in the Cont ext of the Special Meetings on Transparency 
Provisions, 1999 and 2003  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Chile Case studies – Enquiry point-national 
notification authorities  G/SPS/GEN/154 
European 
Communities Case studies – Enquiry point-national 
notification authorities  G/SPS/GEN/149 
Malawi Case studies – Enquiry point-national 
notification authorities  G/SPS/GEN/150 
Thailand Case studies – Enquiry point-national 
notification authorities  G/SPS/GEN/155 1999 
 
Zambia Case studies – Enquiry point-national 
notification authorities G/SPS/GEN/156 
New Zealand The New Zealand experience:  Operation 
of the SPS notification authority and SPS 
enquiry point G/SPS/GEN/161 2000 
 
Secretariat Summary of the special meeting of the SPS G/SPS/R/16 G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 24  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
 Committee on the transparency provisions 
of the SPS Agreement – 9 November 1999  
Malawi Establishment of national WTO TBT/SPS 
Enquiry Point – Project proposal G/SPS/GEN/349 2002 
 
SPS Committee Recommended notification procedures G/SPS/7/Rev.2 
Argentina Special meeting on the strengthening 
of national notification authorities (Argentina's experience) G/SPS/GEN/425 & 
Corr.1 
Australia Special meeting of the SPS Committee on 
enquiry points (Australia's experience) G/SPS/GEN/429 
European 
Communities The EC notification authority and enquiry 
point for the WTO SPS Agreement 
(Operational procedures and recent 
experience)  G/SPS/GEN/456 & Corr.1 
European 
Communities Comments from the EC notification 
authority and enquiry point to the issues 
proposed for consideration by the Secretariat and to Members reactions G/SPS/GEN/455 
Mexico Special meeting on the strengthening of 
national notification authorities (Mexico's 
improvements to its national enquiry point) G/SPS/GEN/451 
Pakistan Special meeting of the SPS Committee on 
the operation of enquiry points-
Communication by Pakistan's Department of Plant Protection G/SPS/GEN/436 
Panama Special meeting on the strengthening of 
national enquiry points and notification 
authorities (Panama's notification procedures) G/SPS/GEN/438 
Senegal Special meeting of the SPS Committee on 
the operation of enquiry points (Senegal's 
experience) G/SPS/GEN/441 
Thailand Thailand's implementation of the 
transparency provisions under the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/GEN/450 2003 
  
Secretariat Special meeting of the SPS Committee on 
the operation of enquiry points held on 31 
October 2003 - Presentations by 
participants G/SPS/GEN/458 & Corr.1 
2004 Secretariat Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures - Special meeting of the SPS 
Committee on the operation of enquiry 
points Held on 31 October 2003 G/SPS/R/32 
  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
 
D. Comments/proposals regarding  monitoring the use of international standards (Article 3.5 
and 12.4)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Thailand Procedure to monitor the process of 
international harmonization (Infectious 
Bursal Disease) G/SPS/W/99 
United States Procedure to monitor the process of 
international harmonization (Definitions of 
quarantine pests) G/SPS/W/97 1999 
 
SPS Committee Annual report G/SPS/13 
2000 SPS Committee Annual report G/SPS/16 
South Africa Monitoring/revision of an international 
standard  (African Horse Sickness) G/SPS/GEN/289 2001 
SPS Committee Annual report G/SPS/18 
United States Procedure to monitor the process of 
international harmonization (Avian 
Influenza) G/SPS/GEN/343 2002 
 
SPS Committee Annual report G/SPS/21 
2003 SPS Committee Annual report G/SPS/28 
2004 SPS Committee Annual report G/SPS/31 
 
E1. Information regarding Members' provision of  technical assistance and training activities 
(Article 9)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Australia Quarantine and other sanitary and 
phytosanitary capacity building and training activities undertaken by Australia G/SPS/GEN/124 
Secretariat Questionnaire on technical assistance G/SPS/W/101 1999 
 
Secretariat Summary of the replies to the 
questionnaire on technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/143 
United States Technical assistance to developing 
countries provided by the United States G/SPS/GEN/181 2000 
 
Secretariat Summary of the replies to the 
questionnaire on technical assistance – 
Revision and addenda G/SPS/GEN/143/Rev.1, 
Add.1 & Add.2 
European Communities Technical assistance to developing 
countries G/SPS/GEN/244 
2001 
 
United States Technical assistance to developing 
countries provided by the United States G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.1 G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 26  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
New Zealand Technical assistance provided to 
developing country Members by New Zealand since 1 January 2002 G/SPS/GEN/352 
2002 
 
United States Technical assistance to developing 
countries provided by the United States G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.2 
Mexico Sanitary and phytosanitary measures- 
Technical co-operation programmes G/SPS/GEN/382 
Secretariat Summary of the replies to the 
questionnaire on technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/143/Add.3 2003 
 
United States Technical assistance to developing 
countries provided by the United States G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.3 
Australia Technical assistance to developing 
countries provided by Australia G/SPS/GEN/472 2004 
 
United States Technical assistance to developing 
countries provided by the United States G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.4 
 
E2. Information regarding Members' technica l assistance and training activities needs 
(Article 9)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Jordan Technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/199 
Jordan Request for technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/208 2000 
 
Zambia Request for technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/174 
Chile Technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/287 
Gabon Technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/257 2001 
 
Secretariat Questionnaire on t echnical assistance G/SPS/W/113 
2002 Secretariat Responses to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295 
Belarus Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.7 
China Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.24 
Colombia Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.10 
Costa Rica Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.18 
Costa Rica Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.29 
Cuba Response to the ques tionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.13 
Cyprus Response to the ques tionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.11 
Egypt Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.1 
Gambia Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.23 
Georgia Response to the qu estionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.3 
Guatemala Response to the qu estionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.22  
Honduras Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.26  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Indonesia Response to the qu estionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.6 
Kenya Response to the ques tionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.21 
Maldives Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.15 
Mauritius Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.27 
Morocco Response to  the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.17 
Panama Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.16 
Panama Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.25 
Philippines Response to the qu estionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.14 
Saudi Arabia Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.8 
Senegal Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.20 & 
Rev.1 
South Africa Response to the qu estionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.19 & 
Rev.1 
Sri Lanka Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.2,  
Rev.1 & Rev.2 
Thailand Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.9 
Trinidad and Tobago Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.4 & 
Rev.1 
Tunisia Response to the ques tionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.12 
Uganda Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.5  
Yugoslavia Response to the qu estionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.28 
Barbados Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.30 
Cameroon  Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/401 
Cyprus Response to the ques tionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.32 
Dominican Republic Response to th e questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.33 & 
Corr.1 
Paraguay Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.34 2003 
Peru Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.31 
Antigua and 
Barbuda Response to the questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.35 2004 
Nicaragua Response to the qu estionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.36 
 G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 28  
 
F. Comments/proposals regarding special  and differential treatment (Article 10)
 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Egypt SPS Agreement and develo ping countries G/SPS/GEN/128 1999 
 Guatemala Development and adaptation of sanitary 
and phytosanitary systems in developing 
countries for the purpose of complying 
with commitments under the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/GEN/157 
Cameroon Summary of Cameroon's statements on 
SPS Agreement and developing countries and technical assistance and cooperation G/SPS/GEN/192 
India Implementation of the provisions for 
special and differential treatment G/SPS/GEN/197 2000 
 
Thailand Implementation of the provisions for 
special and differential treatment (availability of translations) G/SPS/GEN/190 
2001 Brazil Agreement on the Application of SPS 
Measures (implementation proposal under 
paragraph 21) G/SPS/W/108 
Canada Enhancing transparency of special and 
differential treatment within the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/W/127 
Secretariat Proposals on special and differential 
treatment referred to the SPS Committee  JOB(03)/100 2002 
 
Egypt Comments on the Canadian proposal 
(Transparency) G/SPS/GEN/358 
Japan Comments on the special and differential 
proposals set out in JOB(03)/100 JOB(03)/194 
United States Elaboration of  the proposal to enhance 
transparency of special and differential 
treatment in favour of developing country 
Members G/SPS/W/141 2003 
 
Secretariat Elaboration of the proposal to enhance 
transparency of special and differential 
treatment  G/SPS/W/132 & Rev.1 
2004 Papua New Guinea SPS and deve loping countries: Special and 
differential treatment, technical assistance, transparency G/SPS/GEN/469 
 Secretariat Elaboration of the proposal to enhance 
transparency of special and differential 
treatment  G/SPS/W/132/ Rev. 2 & Rev. 3 
 SPS Committee Committee Decision on Procedure to 
Enhance Transparency of Special and 
Differential Treatment in favour of 
Developing Country Members G/SPS/33 
  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
G1. Comments/proposals regarding Regionalization (Article 6)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
1999 South Africa Article 6.2, 6.3 and Annex A3(B):  
Recognition of the concept of pest- or 
disease-free areas as an international 
standard, guideline or recommendation G/SPS/GEN/139 
Argentina Implementation of the regionalization 
principle (Experiences with recognition of 
plant pest-free areas) G/SPS/GEN/433 
Chile Comments on Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement  (Recognition procedures) G/SPS/W/129 
European 
Communities Review of the SPS Agreement – Update 
on adaptation to regional conditions G/SPS/GEN/461 2003 
 
Mexico Comments on Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement (Procedures related to the recognition of disease-free areas) G/SPS/GEN/388 
Canada Decision on the implementation of 
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement (Proposal) G/SPS/W/145 
Chile Draft decision on the implementation of 
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/W/140, Rev.1 & 
Rev.2 
Peru Regionalization G/SPS/W/148 
Chile Additional comments on Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement (Proposed guidelines for 
the recognition procedure) G/SPS/GEN/381 
European 
Communities Draft decision on the implementation of 
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement – 
Comments on the proposal of Chile 
(W/140/Rev.1) G/SPS/W/144 
United States Regionalization (Experiences and 
observations) G/SPS/GEN/477 
New Zealand Monitoring of international harmonization:  
Regionalization  G/SPS/W/151 
Chile Clarifications – Regionalization and the 
need for guidelines to improve its implementation G/SPS/W/164 2004 
Chile Responses to questions  from the Chairman 
of the WTO SPS Committee concerning regionalization G/SPS/W/165 
 G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 30  
 
 
G2. Information regarding Members' experiences related to Regionalization (Article 6)
 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Costa Rica Declaration of Co sta Rica as a country free 
of classical swine fever G/SPS/GEN/110 1999 
 
Costa Rica Declaration that  Costa Rica is a country 
free of Newcastle disease, velogenic, viscerotropic form G/SPS/GEN/119 
2000 Indonesia Declaration of disease-free stat us G/SPS/GEN/162 
Argentina Foot-and-mouth disease measures 
affecting exports of Argentine products G/SPS/GEN/269 & Rev.1 
Canada Canadian BSE policy and related 
information G/SPS/GEN/245 2001 
 
Paraguay Country free from foot -and-mouth disease G/SPS/GEN/254 
Argentina Evolution of the national foot-and- mouth 
disease eradication plan in Argentina G/SPS/GEN/315 
Argentina Evolution of the national foot-and-mouth 
disease eradication plan in Argentina G/SPS/GEN/323 
Korea Foot-and-mouth disease eradication in the 
Republic of Korea G/SPS/GEN/348 
Paraguay Statement made at the meeting of 7-8 
November 2002 (Newcastle disease) G/SPS/GEN/359 
Paraguay Foot-and-mouth disease G/SPS/GEN/360 2002 
 
Paraguay Situation in Paraguay regarding the 
programme to keep the country free of Newcastle disease G/SPS/GEN/361 
Argentina Evolution of the foot-and-mouth disease 
eradication plan in Argentina G/SPS/GEN/377 
Chile Chile:  Free of avian influenza G/SPS/GEN/383 
Paraguay Foot-and-mouth disease (Paraguay's 
sanitary policy regime) G/SPS/GEN/413 
Paraguay Health information concerning foot-and-
mouth disease G/SPS/GEN/454 2003 
Peru Peru:  Country free from "citrus black 
spot", "sweet orange scab" and "citrus 
canker" G/SPS/GEN/386 
Peru Peru initiates a process for the declaration 
and recognition of areas free from and of 
low prevalence of fruit flies Ceratitis 
capitata  and Anastrepha spp  G/SPS/GEN/417 
Peru Peru close to eradicating foot-and-mouth 
disease G/SPS/GEN/418  
Peru Fruit fly-free areas and areas of low 
prevalence of fruit flies G/SPS/GEN/445  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Peru Monitoring and control of  poultry diseases G/SPS/GEN/446 
Chinese Taipei Eradication of  foot-and-mouth disease in 
Chinese Taipei G/SPS/GEN/402 & Corr.1  
Chinese Taipei Approval of  foot-and-mouth disease -free 
with vaccination status G/SPS/GEN/419 
United States Regionalization G/SPS/GEN/477 
Colombia Report on the situation and control of foot-
and-mouth disease G/SPS/GEN/492 
Mexico Regionalization:  Information for the 
recognition of fruit fly-free areas G/SPS/GEN/440 
Paraguay Foot-and-mouth disease eradication 
programme G/SPS/GEN/505 2004 
 
Costa Rica Establishment of areas free from Ceratitis 
Capitata  G/SPS/GEN/527 
 
H. Comments/proposals regarding Monito ring Implementation of the Agreement 
(Articles 12.1 and 12.2) – Specific trade concerns  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
1999 European 
Communities Implementation of the SPS Agreement – 
Trade Concerns  G/SPS/GEN/132 
2001 United States Specific Trade Concerns 
(G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1) G/SPS/GEN/265 
 
I. Comments/proposals regarding the Second Review of the Agreement  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Secretariat Proposed process for the review of the 
operation and the implementation of the 
Agreement  G/SPS/W/147 
Secretariat  Review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement – 
Submissions by Members of issues to be 
considered during the review  G/SPS/W/149 
SPS Committee Process for the review  of the operation 
and implementation of the Agreement – 
Decision by the Committee G/SPS/32 
New Zealand Second review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/150 
New Zealand The second review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement – 
Further elaboration of issues for consideration G/SPS/W/157 2004 
 
Canada Issues for consideration as part of the 
second Review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement – G/SPS/W/158 G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
Page 32  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Further elaboration of issues for 
consideration 
European Communities Review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/159 
Uruguay Undue delays (Review) G/SPS/W/160 
Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu Second review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement – Monitoring the use of international 
standards G/SPS/W/161 
China Second review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/162 and Rev.1 
United States Review of the SPS Agreement – Proposal 
for consideration G/SPS/W/163 
Mexico Second review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/166 
Argentina Review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/167  
New Zealand Second review– Pr ioritization of issues for 
the future work of the SPS Committee G/SPS/W/168 
 
J. Other relevant documents  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
European 
Communities Communication from the Commission on 
the precautionary principle G/SPS/GEN/168 
European 
Communities White paper on food safety G/SPS/GEN/169 
United States The role of th e centers for epidemiology 
and animal health as an OIE collaborating 
center for animal disease surveillance systems and risk analysis G/SPS/GEN/182 2000 
United States National regulatory measures related to 
trade in agricultural and food products 
modified by modern biotechnology G/SPS/GEN/186 
Canada The treatment of precaution in the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/GEN/246 
European 
Communities European Council resolution on the 
precautionary principle G/SPS/GEN/225 2001 
Kuwait Arab Scientific Veteri nary Associati on G/SPS/GEN/279 
Namibia SADC consultative forum on SPS/food 
safety issues- declarations of the 
Windhoek Workshop on SPS/Food Safety 
– 20-22 November 2000 G/SPS/GEN/272 
New Zealand Biosecurity risk anal ysis policy statement G/SPS/GEN/233  
New Zealand Biosecurity awar eness programme G/SPS/GEN/280  G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
New Zealand Development of a biosecurity strategy for 
New Zealand G/SPS/GEN/284  
New Zealand New Zealand pest risk assessment standard 
for plant biosecurity G/SPS/GEN/285 
Argentina Response from the European Commission 
to comments submitted by WTO Members 
under G/SPS/N/EEC /149 and 150 G/SPS/GEN/354 
European 
Communities Statement by the European Communities 
concerning notifications 
G/SPS/N/EEC/149 and G/SPS/N/EEC/150 and notifications G/TBT/N/EEC/6 and 
G/TBT/N/EEC/7 G/SPS/GEN/297 
European 
Communities Response from the EC to comments 
submitted by WTO Members under either or both G/TBT/N/EEC/6 and 
G/SPS/N/EEC/149 G/SPS/GEN/337 
European 
Communities Response from the EC to comments 
submitted by WTO Members under either or both G/TBT/N/EEC/7 and 
G/SPS/N/EEC/150 G/SPS/GEN/338 & Corr.1 
Korea Standards & Procedures for authorization 
of domestic-foreign official laboratories and for recognition of inspection 
certificates or certificates of laboratory test 
results G/SPS/GEN/318 
Chinese Taipei Relevant laws, decrees, regulations and 
administrative rulings of general 
application relating to SPS G/SPS/GEN/339& Corr.1 2002 
United States Information on the process for 
development of United States SPS 
measures and explanation for the volume 
of recent United States SPS notifications G/SPS/GEN/311 
European 
Communities Response to the comm ents from Argentina 
(G/SPS/GEN/354) G/SPS/GEN/405 
Mexico Communication from Mexico – Mexican 
official standards G/SPS/GEN/387 2003 
Venezuela Executive report by Venezuela G/SPS/GEN/442 
European 
Communities Establishment of the trade control and 
expert system (TRACES)  G/SPS/GEN/489 
Mexico Communication from Mexico – Mexican 
official standards G/SPS/GEN/491 2004 
Peru Compliance with phytosanitary regulations 
for the importation into Peru of plants, 
plant products and other regulated articles G/SPS/GEN/484 
 
__________