WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/241 
12 June 2009 
 
 (09-2875) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   Spanish 
  
 
GOOD OFFICES OF THE CHAIRPERSON 
 
Communication from Argentina
 
  
 The following communication, received on 11 June 2009, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegation of Argentina
. 
 
_______________ 
  
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. As a result of the Second Review of the Oper ation and Implementation of the Agreement on 
the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary M easures (SPS), Members agreed  to encourage the use 
of ad hoc consultations, including through the good offices of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee, 
to facilitate the resolution of specific trade concerns.
1  The Committee subsequently discussed a 
number of proposals aimed at giving effect to this commitment, including the WTO Secretariat's 
proposal2 to adopt specific guidelines that favour the use of the good offices of the Chairperson, 
provided for in Article 12.2 of the SPS Agreemen t and the Working Procedures of the Committee.3 
2. During the Committee's discussions on this matter, several Members supported the 
recommendation made by the WTO Secretariat, noting that: 
(a) The mechanisms currently used within the Committee4 have not always been 
effective in achieving the objective of elim inating sanitary or phytosanitary measures 
that are inconsistent with the provisions of  the SPS Agreement.  In this respect, one 
only has to look at the yearly summar ies prepared by the WTO Secretariat5, from 
which it is clear that although this tool ma y be useful, it has not been adequate to 
resolve reported problems, and that most of the claims made remain pending.  In over 
14 years of the Committee's existence, only 76 of the 277 trade concerns raised have 
been reported resolved.6 
(b) The dispute settlement process envisaged in the Dispute Settlement Understanding 
(DSU) has inherent limitations which prev ent the prompt settlement of identified 
disputes.  While it should be recognized that  the DSU is a distinct improvement over 
the erstwhile GATT procedures due to its predictability and enforceability, as well as 
being one of the most efficient mechan isms available under international legal 
                                                      
1 G/SPS/36, paragraph 88. 
2 JOB(07)/14, paragraph 30. 
3 G/SPS/1. 
4 Principally the raising of issues under the agenda item "Specific Trade Concerns". 
5 G/SPS/GEN/204 and its revisions. 
6 G/SPS/GEN/887/Rev.1. G/SPS/W/241 
Page 2  
 
  regimes, the DSU is expensive, and the time of up to two years taken for an 
enforceable decision often frustrates the exporter's need for a timely solution. 
3. Against this background, Argentina has submitted its proposals in an individual 
communication
7 and in a joint communication with the United States8, with a view to the Committee 
taking steps to encourage the use of all the tools that  are currently available to Members to help them 
address problems arising from the adoption or implementation of sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures. 
4. At the 43rd regular meeting of the SPS Committee, however, several Members expressed their 
concerns with regard to avoiding any duplicatio n or conflict with the horizontal mechanism under 
consideration within the framework of th e Negotiating Group on Market Access (NAMA).9 
5. With a view to furthering the analysis of the issue raised within the context of the current 
negotiations, we feel it is appropriate  to highlight a number of points: 
(a) The communications submitted by Argentin a to the SPS Committee propose practical 
guidelines to facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the SPS Agreement, in 
particular Article 12.2, and the furtherance of their objectives.  Under no 
circumstances is the intention to add to  or detract from the existing rights and 
obligations of Members under the SPS Agre ement or any other WTO Agreement, or 
to provide any legal interpretation or modification to the SPS Agreement itself. 
(b) The communications in question are consistent with the horizontal mechanism 
proposals tabled by the NAMA-11 Group in the Negotiating Group on NAMA, in that, within a general and non-specific context for sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures, they are based on the same c oncern, seek the same objectives, propose 
similar solutions and also envisage flexibilities. 
(c) The two proposals are, however, part of di fferent negotiating processes, with distinct 
origins, characteristics and dynamics.  It is important to take these differences into 
account when assessing the action to be taken in the SPS Committee. 
II. DIFFERENT ORIGINS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS 
6. The work carried out in the Negotiating Group on NAMA is a result of paragraph 16 of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration
10, which states that:  " We agree to negotiations which shall aim, by 
modalities to be agreed, to reduce or as appropri ate eliminate tariffs, including the reduction 
or elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs, and tariff escalation, as well as non-tariff barriers, 
in particular on products of export interest to developing countries " (underlining has been added).  
Under this mandate, Members have put forwar d numerous proposals to reduce or eliminate, 
as appropriate, non-tariff barriers, as detailed in  the Fourth Revision of Draft Modalities for 
Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA).11 
7. The work in the SPS Committee orig inates in the Members' realization that Article 12.2 of the 
SPS Agreement had been underused and in the WTO Secretariat's recommendation that the 
SPS Committee adopt specific guidelines favouring the use of good offices.  We would also like to 
                                                      
7 G/SPS/W/219. 
8 G/SPS/W/233, prepared following the SPS Committ ee Chairperson's request that the two countries 
work jointly on one proposal. 
9 G/SPS/R/54, paragraph 100. 
10 WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1. 
11 TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3.  G/SPS/W/241 
 Page 3 
 
 
  point out that under Article 12.1 of the SPS Agreement, the Committee:  " ... shall carry out the 
functions necessary to implement the provisions of this Agreement and the furtherance of its 
objectives ".  Work in the SPS Committee forms part  of what could be described as the 
implementation of the commitments already assumed by Members in the Uruguay Round. 
8. Therefore, while work in the SPS Committee relate s to the adoption of guidelines that favour 
the implementation of Uruguay Round commitments (a  task in respect of which the Committee is 
expressly empowered), negotiations in the Negotiating Group on NAMA come under the Doha 
mandate and relate to the establishment of new commitments over and above those already agreed 
within the framework of the Uruguay Round. 
III. DIFFERENT NEGOTIATING PROCESSES 
9. In view of the above, it should be noted that the development and adoption of new 
commitments in the Negotiating Group on Market Access are inextricably linked to the rest of the 
negotiations taking place in the framework of th e Doha Round, under the umbrella of the Single 
Undertaking, which is why "nothing is  agreed until everything is agreed". 
10. In the SPS Committee, however, the work currently  underway represents a joint effort to 
favour the implementation of commitments already assumed in the Uruguay Round.  As such, there 
are no factors external to the SPS Committee negotiations which hamp er or affect the adoption of 
mechanisms agreed on by the Members. 
11. Without prejudice to our position on the submissions made by the NAMA-11 Group within 
the framework of the Doha negotiations, we wish to propose that the SPS Committee move forward in 
discussing a proposal of its own, which, neverthe less, takes into account ongoing work relating to 
NAMA. 
IV. CONSISTENCY OF BOTH PROPOSALS 
12. Having assessed the proposal tabled by the NAMA- 11 Group and the joint proposal tabled by 
Argentina and the United States in the SPS Committee,  we consider both to be consistent with 
each other, given that they: 
(a) Address the same concern :  Existing trade barriers. 
(b) Have the same objective :  To find pragmatic solutions aimed at overcoming these 
barriers within a short time-frame and at a relatively low cost. 
(c) Envisage a similar solution :  Practical procedures that involve the intervention of the 
respective Committee chairperson to try and bring the parties closer together, improve their understanding, and facilitate the search for solutions to resolve the 
access-related problems identified. 
(d) Are equally flexible :  The mechanisms and procedures envisaged are extremely 
flexible and give the parties concerned broad authority to agree on steps, bodies and meetings. 
V. SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS 
13. The document submitted by the NAMA-11 Grou p proposes the adoption of a horizontal 
mechanism which aims to eliminate any non-tariff barrier affecting trade in goods.  The mechanism 
would be applied to measures that come under a ny of the Agreements listed in Annex 1 of the G/SPS/W/241 
Page 4  
 
  Marrakesh Agreement.  Accordingly, the me chanism proposed in NAMA envisages only general 
issues, letting the specific competent Committee in tervene depending on the topic in question. 
14. The proposal drawn up jointly by the United States and Argentina (G/SPS/W/233) in the 
SPS Committee includes some specificiti es particular to the SPS Agreemen t and, in particular, to the 
type of measures involved.  As such, it includes,  among other issues specific to this Committee, the 
possible participation of the Codex, the OIE and th e IPPC in the consultation procedure and a specific 
procedure for presenting the report on the outcome of the consultations that is prepared by whoever 
acts as facilitator in meetings of the Committee, etc. 
VI. SUGGESTION 
15. Argentina requests that the SPS Committee consider  the possibility of moving forward in a 
project within the framework of the SPS Agreement with a view to the full implementation of the 
Uruguay Round commitments and, in particular, those provided for in Article 12.2 of the 
SPS Agreement.  An agreement in this respect  will make it possible to provide the necessary 
guidelines for recourse to an instrument that is prov ided for in the Agreemen t and intended for use in 
resolving specific trade issues, preventing ha rm to and additional costs for the Members. 
__________