. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/1080 
25 March 2011 
 (11-1494) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
CANADIAN EXPERIENCE USING ARTICLE 12.2 AD HOC CONSULTATIONS TO 
FACILITATE THE RESOLUTION OF AN SPS TRADE-RELATED ISSUE 
 
Communication from Canada
 
  
 The following communication, received on 24 March 2011, is being circulated at the request 
of the delegation of Canada
. 
 
_______________ 
 
 1. During discussions held in June and October 2010 at the informal and formal SPS Committee 
meetings on the topic of ad hoc consultations, cer tain Members indicated an interest in receiving 
information from those Members that had expe rience using the ad hoc consultation mechanism 
(Article 12.2;  the "Good Offices of the Chair") in  the SPS Agreement.  In particular, information was 
sought on what worked well, what could be  improved and the role of the facilitator.
1 
2. In light of the request by some Members for in formation about Members' experience with this 
provision, Canada, as a Member that has had occasion to utilize the provisions in Article 12.2, submits the following information.  Canada notes, however, that due to amount of time that has 
passed since its participation in ad hoc consultati ons, the access to detailed information is limited.  
Process
 
 3. Canada had raised India's ban on bovine seme n imports from Canada at bilateral technical 
discussions with India, at bilateral meetings with India, and as a specific trade concern on the formal 
WTO SPS Committee agenda (March 2000;  Ju ne 2000;  November 2000;  March 2001). 
4. During discussions on the margins of the N ovember 2000 SPS Committee meeting, Canada 
and India agreed to jointly pursue informal cons ultations under Article 12.2 of the SPS Agreement to 
further advance the issue. 
5. The process was coordinated through each Me mber's Geneva-based representatives. 
6. The first ad hoc consultation between Canada  and India was held on the margins of the 
March 2001 SPS Committee meeting.  At this meeting,  there was participation from representatives of 
both countries, and the Chair (represented by the WTO Secretariat).  
7. During the March 2001 SPS Committee meeting, Canada and India advised Members that 
they had agreed to informal ad hoc consultations (under the Agenda Item for Specific Trade Concerns 
- Issues Previously Raised). 
                                                     
 
1 G/SPS/R/59 para 102. G/SPS/GEN/1080 
Page 2  
 
  8. While the discussion that took place during the informal consultation was constructive, a 
resolution to the issue was not reached.  A second ad hoc consultation was agreed to and was held on 
the margins of the July 2001 SPS Committee m eeting.  Again, there was participation by 
representatives of both countries, and the Chair. 
9. During the July 2001 SPS Committee meeting, bot h Canada and India provided an update to 
Members under "Issues Previously Raised". Canada  noted that both parties were engaged in 
consultations, that the matter remained under revi ew, and that Canada was looking forward to early 
resolution.  India indicated that the relevant re gulations had been changed, and that these changes 
would soon be notified. 
10. Further progress was made bilaterally between  the July 2001 and the November 2001 SPS 
Committee meetings.  At the November 2001 SPS Committee meeting, Canada and India met 
bilaterally (i.e. without the "Good Offices of the Chai r).  At this time, it was agreed that the bovine 
semen issue, as raised in 2000,  appeared to be resolved.
2 
11. The issue is included in the Secretar iat's Specific Trade Concerns document 
(G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.2;  specific trade concer n #61) and its status is considered to be 
"partially resolved". 
Observations  
 
What worked well 
 
12. India agreed to Canada's request for informal consultations.  India's concurrence to pursue a 
resolution to the issue, including through the use of Article 12.2, allowed for continued good-will on 
both sides to find a reasonable solution to the issue. 
13. The presence of the Chair added rigour to the proces s.  The participation of the Chair in this 
informal consultation resulted in both parties arriving at the meeting prepared and able to participate 
constructively in discussions. 
What could be improved 
 
14. The Chair assisted in the pr ocess with little background on the issue other than information 
shared by Canada and India at three previous  SPS Committee meetings under the "Specific Trade 
Concerns" and "Issues Previously Raised" agenda items.  Requesting each Member to prepare a summary of their position on the issue in advance of the informal consultation, which would be shared 
amongst all participants (Members and Chair), would assist all participants in identifying the key 
areas for discussion to focus the consultations. 
Role of the facilitator 
 
15. Canada was unable to find specific information re lated to the role that the facilitator played.  
However, reports from that time indicate that the i nvolvement of the Chair served to highlight the 
importance of the issue and added rigour to the cons ultations.  Participants arrived at the meetings 
prepared to engage in substantive discussions on the issue. 
__________  
                                                     
 
2 The ad hoc consultation resulted in a positive outcome on the specific issue under discussion.  
However, there remained other restrictions that pr evented Canada and India from reaching agreement on 
certification.  Canada has chosen not to announce full resolution of the issue until all concerns have been 
addressed.