. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SPS/W/266 
19 June 2012 
 (12-3235) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS 
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION 
 
Draft Fourteenth Annual Report
1 
 
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 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement.  The Committee 
extended the provisional monitoring procedure in 1999, 2001, and 2003, and adopted a revision of the 
procedure in October 2004.2  On 28 June 2006, the Committee agreed to extend the provisional 
procedure indefinitely, and to review its operation as an integral part of the periodic review of the 
operation and implementation of the Agreement under Article 12.7.3  This procedure was reviewed as 
part of the Third Review of the Agreement adopted by the Committee in March 2010.4  T h e  
Committee is to undertake a review at least once every four years. 
2. The Committee has previously adopted thirteen annual reports on the monitoring procedure.5  
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 Thirteenth Annual Re port in July 2011, no new issue has been 
raised under this procedure.  In March 2012, a number of Members raised a horizontal concern 
regarding the number of SPS measures that were not based on international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations. 
SPS Measures and International Standards, Guidelines and Recommendations:  Joint 
Communication from Argentina, Australia, Braz il, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, New 
Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines and the United States 
4. At the March 2012 meeting of the Committee, Brazil introduced a joint submission on SPS 
Measures and International Standa rds, Guidelines and Recommendations on behalf of the co-sponsors 
(G/SPS/GEN/1143/Rev.2).  The document raised con cerns with the increase in the number of SPS 
measures that were not based on international standards, guidelines and recommendations or that had 
inadequate scientific justification.  These measur es often unduly restricted trade and appeared to be 
associated with objectives not deemed as legitimate  under international trade rules.  Given these 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the position of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/14, G/SPS/17, G/SP S/25 and G/SPS/11/Rev.1. 
3 G/SPS/40. 
4 G/SPS/53. 
5 These were circulated as G/SPS/13, G/ SPS/16, G/SPS/18, G/SPS/2 1, G/SPS/28, G/SPS/31, 
G/SPS/37, G/SPS/42, G/SPS/ 45, G/SPS/49, G/SPS/51, G/ SPS/54 and G/SPS/56. G/SPS/W/266 
Page 2  
 
  concerns and in order to fulfil the objectives of the SPS Agreement, the submission aimed at 
reaffirming:  (i) the need for science-based intern ational guidelines, standards and recommendations;  
(ii) the need to support and strengthen confidence in SPS international standard-setting bodies;  and 
(iii) the need for sanitary and phytosanitary measu res which resulted in a higher level of protection 
than would be achieved by measures based on the re levant international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations to be established on the basis of science. 
5. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia , Costa Rica, the European Union, Mexico, 
Paraguay, the Philippines, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States all supported the 
communication and in particular the importance of elaborating standards based on science.  Argentina 
emphasized that this issue particularly affected developing countries and small producers.  Chile 
recalled its proposal to improve the manner in  which the Committee monitored the process of 
international harmonization referred to in Article 3.5.  The Philippines stressed the importance of 
complying with the principles of the SPS Agreem ent to limit loss of consumer confidence and of 
suppliers' credibility following an outbreak.  The Un ited States referred to other factors such as 
consumer preferences, which should not be taken into consideration in  the elaboration of international 
standards.  The European Union drew attention to its strong support of the three standard-setting 
bodies and of the importance it attached, as the worl d's largest importer and exporter of agricultural 
products and foods, to food safety. 
6. India requested clarification on the issue of consumer preferences and referred to Article 13 
of the SPS Agreement and the need for Members'  to ensure that non-governmental bodies also 
complied with the Agreement.   
C. P
REVIOUS ISSUES  
7. Since the adoption of the Twelfth Annual Repor t, there has been no discussion of issues 
previously raised under this procedure.   
D. RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM THE RELEVANT STANDARD -SETTING ORGANIZATIONS  
8. At the October 2011 meeting of the Committee, the IPPC noted that, thanks to generous 
support from the European Union, it had put in pl ace an Implementation Review and Support System 
(IRSS), which would follow a three-year cycle.  The IRSS addresses the use and implementation of standards.  A questionnaire would be sent to Member s to collect information on the implementation of 
the IPPC and ISPMs.  In addition, the implementa tion of ISPM No. 6 Guidelines for Surveillance was 
being assessed, and a preliminary report would be available in March 2012.  The IPPC was also 
developing a Help Desk facility, whereby Members c ould contact the IPPC for assistance with the use 
and implementation of international st andards, and which would contain, inter alia , databases, rosters 
of experts, lists of donors, and criteria for funding. 
9. Chile thanked the IPPC for their assistance in helping Members to make the best use of 
international standards, and urged Members to corre ctly complete SPS notification forms rather than 
indicate that no relevant standards existed. 
10. At the March 2012 meeting of the Committee, the IPPC again reported on the IRSS 
(G/SPS/GEN/1153).  A global series of IRSS workshops had been conducted to review 
implementation and the resulting recommendations were  being considered.  The IRSS had led to the 
activation of the dispute settlement mechanism, a nd was expected to bridge all activities under the 
IPPC framework. 
 
___________