RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/173 
11 April 2005 
 (05-1482) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
 
REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT  
ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 
 
Draft Report of the Committee
1 
 
Members are reminded that in accordance with the procedures adopted by the 
Committee (G/SPS/32), written comments by Members on this draft report of the Review are to be submitted to the Secretariat by  10 June 2005
. 
 
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.
3  In 2004-2005, the Committee held  three informal meetings and 
three formal meetings, at which it considered i ssues and proposals identified by Members.  These 
discussions were informed by a number of background papers submitted by Members. 
3. In both the First and Second Reviews, th e Committee discussions have focused on 
implementation and operation of the Agreement.  In the first Review, the Committee considered 
issues and proposals related to:  
 Equivalence (Article 4); 
 Transparency (Article 7 and Annex B); 
 International harmonization (Article 3.5 and 12.4); 
 Technical assistance (Article 9); 
 Special and differential treatment (Article 10); 
 Adaptation to regional conditions (Article 6);   
 Risk assessment (Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3) 
 Dispute resolution (Articles 11 and 12.2). 
                                                      
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. 
3 G/SPS/32. G/SPS/W/173 
Page 2  
 
4. In the Second Review, the Committee also consid ered all of the above provisions, except risk 
assessment, as well as the following additional issues: 
 Consistency (Article 5.5); 
 Specific trade concerns; 
 Use of ad hoc consultations; 
 Co-operation with the Codex Alimentarius  Commission (Codex), World Organization 
for Animal Health (OIE), and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) (Article 12.3); 
 Clarification of definitions of terms; 
 Clarification of the relationship between certain Articles; 
 Undue delays; 
 Good regulatory practice;  and 
 Control, Inspection and Approval Pr ocedures (Article 8 and Annex C). 
5. 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.  
Appendix C provides a list of documents submitte d by Members since the last review of the 
Agreement relevant to the various issues raised  in the background paper (G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1).  
Relevant Decisions of the Committee have also b een included along with documents produced by the 
Secretariat which summarized submissions on certain  issues (e.g. relating 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.
4  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. 
9. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should undertake another review of the operation of th e guidelines whenever 
Members identify the need, and in an y case not later than December  2008. 
                                                      
4 G/SPS/15.  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 3 
 
 
• Members are encouraged to provide informa tion regarding their experiences in the 
implementation of Article 5.5 and in the use of the guidelines (G/SPS/15). 
 
III. EQUIVALENCE (ARTICLE 4) 
10. 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.5  In adopting this Decision, several Members noted the need to clarify certain provisions 
of the Decision. 
11. In March 2002, subsequent to this Decision a nd in response to the Decision at the Fourth 
Ministerial Conference regardi ng implementation-related issues6, the Committee adopted a 
programme of work to clarify its Decision on Equivalence.7  Furthermore, in June 2002, the 
Committee adopted a format for the notification of equivalence agreements.8  To date, no Member has 
submitted an equivalence notification. 
12. 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. 
 
13. 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.   
14. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should maintain e quivalence as a standing item of  the agenda for its regular 
meetings. 
• Members are encouraged to provide informa tion regarding their experiences in the 
implementation of Article 4 and in the u se of the guidance developed by the Committee 
                                                      
5 G/SPS/19. 
6 WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 3.3. 
7 G/SPS/20. 
8 G/SPS/7/Rev.2/Add.1. G/SPS/W/173 
Page 4  
 
(G/SPS/19/Rev.2).  In particular, Members a re encouraged to notify any agreements reached 
on the recognition of equivalence in a ccordance with the agreed procedure. 
• The relevant international organizations are in vited to keep the Committee informed of any 
work they undertake with regard to the recognition of equivalence . 
 
IV. TRANSPARENCY (ARTICLE 7 AND ANNEX B) 
15. In the 1999 Review, the Committee recalled th at it had adopted recommended notification 
procedures, as well as formats for routine  and emergency notifications.
9  The Committee stressed the 
need for an accurate summary of the notified measu re in one of the WTO official languages.   
16. 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.10  In 2002, the Committee adopted its second revision of the 
recommended procedures for implementing transparency obligations.11  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. 
17. 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 2003.12  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. 
18. 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 
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. 
19. 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.13  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.14 
20. 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 
                                                      
9 G/SPS/7. 
10 G/SPS/7/Rev.1. 
11 G/SPS/7/Rev.2. 
12 The most recent version of the handbo ok is available on the SPS website. 
13 G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.5. 
14 G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.13.  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 5 
 
 
authorities.15  In addition, the Secretariat maintains links to these documents from the SPS website on 
the WTO web page. 
21. 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.16   
 
22. 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 2003.17  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.18  The Secretariat also circulated questionnaires to 
gather information concerning Members' SPS related websites in  1999 and in 2003.19  T o  d a t e  t h e  
Secretariat has received detailed information from 20 Members, including EU member States.20  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. 
23. 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 notifications21 received by the Secretariat and an annual listing of all 
                                                      
15 The most recent enquiry point co ntact information is contained in G/SPS/ENQ/18 and Add.1 and the 
most recent national notification auth ority contact information is cont ained in G/SPS/NNA/8 and  Add.1. 
16 G/SPS/R/16, G/SPS/GE N/458, G/SPS/R/32. 
17 G/SPS/W/103, G/SPS/W/103/Rev.1. 
18 G/SPS/R/32. 
19 G/SPS/W/102 and Rev.1, G/SPS/ GEN/144/Rev.1 and Addenda. 
20 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. 
21 For example, see documents G/SPS/GEN/465, 471, 48 5, 488, 493, 507 and 50 9 for 2004 notification 
summaries. 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% G/SPS/W/173 
Page 6  
 
SPS documents.
22  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 (the "SPS information management system").   
24. 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.23  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.   
25. The Committee's discussions of transparency in the context of the Review benefited from 
submissions by Argentina, Canada, Chile, Chin a, the European Communities, Mexico and New 
Zealand.24   
26. The Committee discussed expanding current recommended notification procedures to 
enhance transparency, including a proposal that Members notify all measures that have significant 
impact on trade, including those based on international standards.25  Proponents of these proposals 
highlighted the potential trade disruption associat ed with the implementation of international 
standards, such as ISPM 15, and observed that notification of measures based on such standards 
would provide useful information to Members.  Neither the OIE nor the IPPC had a mechanism to 
capture information about the nationa l application of international st andards, and while the Codex had 
a notification mechanism, the mechanism was not used.  Using the well-established and active SPS 
notification system to enhance transparency regardin g the use of international standards could be an 
efficient option.   
27. The Committee also discussed concerns about expanding notification responsibilities when 
Members were not yet adequately fulfilling thei r existing notification obligations.  Members 
emphasized the importance of seeking mechanisms  to improve implementation of the existing 
transparency obligations.   
28. The Committee noted that previous modifi cations to the recommended notification 
procedures and the notification format had led to  improvements in the quality of the information 
submitted on these forms.  Another possible m odification would be to include a box on the 
notification format that specifically indicated the co mment period would be 60-days as of the date of 
circulation of the notification, unless a notifying Member explicitly identified a different period, and 
indicated whether a 60-day period was not provided because the notified measure was trade 
liberalizing. 
29. The Secretariat informed the Committee of its development of an SPS database to facilitate 
information management by the Secretariat.26  The intention is to make the database also available to 
Members, and therefore to ensure that it is struct ured to also address Members’ information needs. 
                                                      
22 G/SPS/GEN/467. 
23 G/SPS/GEN/487. 
24 Argentina (G/SPS/W/167); Canada (G/S PS/W/158); Chile (G /SPS/W/170); China 
(G/SPS/W/162/Rev.1); European Co mmunities (G/SPS/W/159); Mexico (G/SPS/W/166); and New Zealand 
(G/SPS/W/150, 157 & 168). 
25 See comments by Canada (G/SPS/W/158), the European Communities (G/SPS/W/159) and New 
Zealand (G/SPS/W/157). 
26 See comments by New Zealand (G/SPS/W/150).  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 7 
 
 
30. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should maintain transparency as a standing item of the agenda for its regular 
meetings. 
• Members should ensure their full implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS 
Agreement, including those relating to the pub lishing and notifying of draft measure at a 
sufficiently early stage to allow comments to  be made and taken into consideration, 
publication of measures, and establishment of effective national notification authorities and 
enquiry points.   
• Least developed and developing country Member s should clearly identify specific problems 
they face in implementing the transparency provis ions of the Agreement.  Assistance should 
be provided to least developed and developing co untry Members in order to enable them to 
fully implement the transparency provisions and to  make use of the benefits associated with 
transparency.  
• Recognizing that the recommended procedures established by the Committee 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.2), while not creating legal obligations, can facilitate Members’ 
implementation of the provisions of the SPS Agreement, the Committee should consider 
whether further recommendations co uld be beneficial, inter alia: 
- to ensure that an adequate period of ti me is provided to receive and consider 
comments from trading partners; 
- to encourage advance notification of regulatory calendars or programmes; 
- to encourage transparency regarding th e use of the relevant international 
standards. 
• Members welcome the development of an SPS information management system by the 
Secretariat. 
 
V. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS (ARTICLES 3.5 
AND 12.4) 
31. 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.27 The 
Committee noted that several concrete examples had been submitted to the Committee as reflected in 
the annual report on the procedure.28  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 2003.29  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.30  
32. The Committee has produced annual reports relating to the process of monitoring 
international harmonization.31  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.  In 2001, the 
Committee organized a workshop to discuss standard setting procedures (see paragraph 38 below). 
                                                      
27 G/SPS/11. 
28 G/SPS/13. 
29 G/SPS/14, G/SPS/17, and G/SPS/25. 
30 G/SPS/11/Rev.1. 
31 G/SPS/13, G/SPS/16, G/SPS/18, G/ SPS/21, G/SPS/28 and G/SPS/31. G/SPS/W/173 
Page 8  
 
33. 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. 
34. Partly in response to the concerns identified by the SPS Committee, the Codex, IPPC and OIE 
have established trust funds to enhance the partic ipation of developing countries in standard-setting 
meetings and activities, training programmes and re gional technical consultations on standards and 
their implementation.  These trust funds will be s upported through contributions by donor agencies 
and member countries.  The OIE also continues to provide financial support for the participation of 
Chief Veterinary Officers of its member countries in OIE standard-setting activities.  
35. Recommendations
: 
• The Committee should continue to monitor the u se of international standards at each of its 
regular meetings. 
 
VI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (ARTICLE 9) 
36. 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. 
37. 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 
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.  The WTO Secretariat also prepared a note on typology of technical assistance.
 32 
38. 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.33  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.34  By December 2004, 
36 Members had submitted responses to the questionna ire regarding their technical assistance needs.35   
                                                      
32 G/SPS/GEN/206. 
33 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). 
34 G/SPS/W/113. 
35 These responses are circulated  as addenda to G/SPS/GEN/295.  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 9 
 
 
39. The Secretariat has developed a number of other tools to assist Members with the 
understanding and implementation of the Agreement.  In particular, 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 app lication of the transparency provisions of the 
Agreement (see paragraph 15).  Finally a CD-ROM explaining and discussing in detail the provisions 
of the Agreement, and dealing in particular with implementation, transparency, special and 
differential treatment and dispute settlement issues, has been produced by th e Secretariat.  The CD-
ROM includes text, video and audio material and is  complemented by multiple-choice tests to enable 
users to monitor their individual progress. 
40. The Secretariat has sponsored workshops and se minars on risk analysis (see paragraph 37), 
enquiry point operation (see paragraph 19), standa rd setting procedures (see paragraph 38) and 
capacity building (see paragraph 39), to address concer ns raised in the questionnaire responses and to 
promote information exchange. 
41. 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.36  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. 
42. In March 2001, the Secretariat organized a workshop entitled "International Standard-Setting 
Organizations:  Process and Participation".37  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.  
43. 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 assist ance needs and experiences.  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. 
44. 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 
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). 
45. Since 1999, SPS technical assistance activities orga nized by the Secretariat have included 35 
regional (or sub-regional) and 34 national workshops.  Table 1 provides information about the number 
                                                      
36 G/SPS/GEN/209. 
37 G/SPS/GEN/250. G/SPS/W/173 
Page 10  
 
of (sub)regional and national activities per year si nce 1999.  Table 2 shows the number of Secretariat 
activities per region since 1999.   
46. 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.
38  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.  
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 
 
47. In September 2002, the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) was established 
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 
                                                     
 
38 http://www.ippc.int.  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 11 
 
 
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 first results from the medium-term projects currently underway are expected in the 
first half of 2006.  The STDF maintains a da tabase which provides information on SPS-related 
technical assistance and capacity building projects.39  
48. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should maintain technical assistance as a standing item of the agenda of its 
regular meetings. 
• Members requiring technical assistance are encour aged to identify their specific needs in a 
clear and detailed manner that will permit these needs to be effectively addressed. 
• Members providing technical assistance are en couraged to keep the Committee informed of 
specific programmes of assistance. 
• Members are encouraged to report on the effecti veness of the technical assistance they have 
received.  On the basis of this information, a nd information on the experiences of Members in 
the provision of technical assistance, the Co mmittee may wish to consider identifying best 
practices in the area of SPS-related technical assistance. 
•  Members are invited to share information on their experiences regarding the use of the tools 
developed by the Secretariat to assist Members with the understanding and implementation of 
the SPS Agreement. 
• The Secretariat is requested to  the keep the Committee informed  of its relevant technical 
assistance activities and of the activities of th e Standards and Trade Development Facility. 
• The observer organizations are invited to keep the Committee informed of their capacity 
building activities relevant to the SPS Agreement. 
 
VII. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT (ARTICLE 10) 
49. In the First Review, the Committee noted that it had no information on the extent to which the 
special and differential treatment provided for in  Articles 10.1 and 10.2 had been provided to 
developing country Members, nor information on th e extent to which developing country Members 
had made use of any special and differential provi ded to them.  The Committee encouraged Members 
to further the practical implementation of Articles 10.1 and 10.2.   
50. The Committee also recalled the provisions of Article 14, which allowed for delays in the 
application of certain provisions of the Agreem ent by least developed and developing country 
Members.  This provision has since lapsed.  Refe rence 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 de veloping countries, taking into account their 
financial, trade and development needs.  
51. Since the First Review, the Committee's discu ssions related to special and differential 
treatment have been pursued through three tracks:   (i) issues raised in the SPS Committee under the 
agenda item on special and differential, relating in par ticular to Article 10;  (ii) issues raised in the 
SPS Committee in the context of other specific topics discussed in the Committee;  and (iii) issues 
referred to the SPS Committee by the General Council.  In addition, (iv) there have been relevant 
actions and decisions taken in b odies other than the SPS Committee. 
52. During the course of this Review, the Committ ee's discussion of the issue of Special and 
Differential Treatment progressed through a series of informal meetings.  In particular, the Committee 
                                                      
39 Available on-line at http:/stdfdb.wto.org. G/SPS/W/173 
Page 12  
 
considered the proposals for implementation of the provisions on technical assistance and special and differential treatment which had b een referred by the General Council.
40   
 (i) Issues raised in the SPS Committee und er the agenda item on special and differential 
treatment 
53. Special and differential treatment is a standing agenda item for the Committee.  
54. One of the specific issues raised in the Committe e has been the need to enhance transparency 
regarding the provision of special and differentia l treatment.  In this regard, Egypt proposed the 
inclusion of an special and differential treatment box in the SPS notification format.41  In response, 
Canada proposed that an importing country should consider any requests for special and differential 
treatment or technical assistance made in response to their notification of a new measure and notify 
the SPS Committee of any subsequent action.42  In 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.43  This procedure provides for the submission of specific addenda to notifications which 
indicate when special and differential treatment or technical assistance has been requested in the 
context of the notification of a new or modified SPS measure, and what response has been given to 
the request. 
(ii) Special and differential treatm ent in other SPS Committee activities 
55. Other guidelines and decisions adopted by the Committee have taken in to consideration the 
specific needs and concerns expressed by deve loping country Members.  These include the 
recommended procedures for implementing the tr ansparency provisions of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.2 and Add.1 and 2);  the guidelines to further the practical implementation of 
Article 5.5 (G/SPS/15), and the decision on the implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement 
regarding recognition of e quivalence (G/SPS/19/Rev.2).  
(iii) Special and differential treatment proposals referred to the SPS Committee 
56. In May 2003, the Chairman of the General Council referred five proposals to the SPS 
Committee.44  These proposals relating to Articles 9,  10.1 and 10.4 of the SPS Agreement had 
originally been put forward in the context of the Doha mandate to review all special and differential 
treatment provisions, with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and 
operational.45  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 developing countries, a number of developing country Members expressed 
concern that proposals for technical assistance to be provided by developed countries to specific 
developing country trading partners could discrim inate 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 te chnical assistance.  In addition, a number of 
delegations suggested that special and differen tial treatment and technical assistance could be 
provided by some developing countries to other deve loping countries.  Some Members also noted that 
justified SPS measures should not be withdrawn si mply because some Members might have difficulty 
complying with the requirement.   
                                                      
40 G/SPS/GEN/543. 
41 G/SPS/GEN/358. 
42 G/SPS/W/127. 
43 G/SPS/33. 
44 Job(03)/100. 
45 WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 12.  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 13 
 
 
57. 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. 46  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 special and differential treatment and implementation issues.47   
58. In August 2004, the General Council decided to again refer the agreement-specific proposals 
for special and differential treatment to the respec tive WTO bodies, with the stipulation that these 
bodies expeditiously complete the consideration of  these proposals and report to the General Council, 
with clear recommendations for a decision, by no late r than July 2005.  [The recommendations by the 
Committee in this regard are contained in G/SPS/W/....] 
(iv) Other activities related to special and diff erential treatment in the context of the SPS 
Agreement 
59. 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.48  At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Members urged him to continue his 
efforts to facilitate participation of de veloping countries in standard setting.  
60. 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.
49  (These discussions led to 
the establishment of the STDF, described in more de tail in paragraph 43).  In addition, Codex, IPPC 
and the OIE have established Trust Funds to enhance the participation of developing countries in their 
meetings (see paragraph 31).  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. 
61. The Decision on Implementation taken at the D oha Ministerial Conference in 2001 included 
inter alia  a clarification on Article 10.2.50  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. 
                                                      
46 G/SPS/26. 
47 G/SPS/30. 
48 WT/GC/45, WT/GC/46, WT/GC/54. 
49 WT/MIN(01)/ST/97. 
50 WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 3.1. G/SPS/W/173 
Page 14  
 
62. With respect to the provisions of Article 10. 3, as of April 2005, no Member has asked for 
such an exception. 
63. Recommendations
: 
• The Committee should maintain special and diff erential treatment as a standing item of the 
agenda for its regular meetings. 
• The Committee should continue to consider sp ecific, concrete actions to address the problems 
faced by least developed and developing count ry Members in the implementation of the SPS 
Agreement and in making use of the benefits of the Agreement. 
• Members are encouraged to provide inform ation regarding the special and differential 
treatment or technical assistance they have pr ovided in response to specific needs identified 
by Members in accordance with the proc edure adopted by the Committee (G/SPS/33). 
 
VIII.  REGIONALIZATION (ARTICLE 6) 
64. 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 faced difficulties in implementing the provisions of  
Article 6, including excessively lengthy admi nistrative processes for recognition in importing 
countries, divergences in interpretation and impl ementation of international guidelines, and 
complexities involved in risk assessment. 
65. 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. 
66. 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.   
67. 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 production sites.  In  addition IPPC has a number of supporting standards such as 
guidelines for surveillance or one under development on low pest prevalence.   
68. The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code d escribes the requirements for obtaining disease free 
status including requirements for surveillance a nd 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 Terrestri al Animal Health Code.  The OIE revised chapter 
on zoning and compartmentalization takes into account  many of the concerns expressed by Members 
in the SPS Committee.  It is proposed for adoption at the 73
rd General Session of the OIE in May 
2005. 
69. 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.    G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 15 
 
 
70. During the course of this Review the Committe e's discussion of the issue of Regionalization 
progressed through a series of informal meetings.51  [Reference to any decision taken by the 
Committee at its June meeting.] 
71. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should maintain regionalizatio n as a standing item of the agenda for its 
regular meetings. 
• The Committee should continue to consider th e most effective way of facilitating the 
implementation of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. 
• Members are encouraged to provide informati on on their experiences in the implementation 
of Article 6. 
• The observer organizations are invited to keep the Committee informed of their activities 
relevant to the recognition of pest- or disease-f ree areas or areas of low pest or disease 
prevalence. 
 
IX. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
72. 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.
52  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. 
73. 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 
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. 
                                                     
 
51 Several Members highlighted the importance of continued work in this area within the context of 
their proposals for the Review.  See G/SPS/W/162/Rev. 1, G/SPS/W/166, G/SPS/ W/167 and G/SPS/W/170. 
52 G/SPS/GEN/204 and revisions 1 through 5. G/SPS/W/173 
Page 16  
 
Figure 2 – Number of New Specific Trade Concerns Raised 
 
 
 
Figure 3A – Trade Concerns by Subject 
 
 
 Food Safety 
27% 
Animal Health 
& Zoonoses
40%Plant Health 
29% Other 
Concerns
4%2 1124 23
13
102942
29 
21 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 
1995  1996  1997  1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003  2004 G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 17 
 
 
Figure 3B – Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health 
 
 
 
Figure 4 – Participation of Developing Countries 
 
 
 TSEs 
40% 
FMD
25%Other Animal 
Concerns 
35% 
124 99143 
991491012 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Member Maintaining  
the Measure in
Question  Supporting Members  Members Raising the  
Issue  
Number of countries
Developed countries  Developing countries Least-Developed Countries  G/SPS/W/173 
Page 18  
 
74. Developing countries are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS Committee 
meetings.  Figure 4 indicates that least developed country Members have raised two specific trade 
concerns, whereas other developing country Members have raised 101 trade concerns, compared to 
143 raised by developed country Members.
53  In 149 cases, a developing country Member has 
supported another Member raising an issue, compared  to 99 for 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. 
75. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should continue to consider spec ific trade concerns raised by Members as a 
standing item of the agenda of its regular meetings. 
• Members are encouraged to make use of this oppor tunity to identify specific trade problems 
and to seek to find mutually satisfactory resolutions of these problems. 
• Members are encouraged to inform the Committee of the resolution of any of specific trade 
concerns. 
• The Secretariat is requested to  continue to provide regular ly updated information on the 
specific trade concerns considered by the Committee.    
 X. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 
76. The Committee noted that of the over 300 disput es which had formally been raised under the 
WTO's dispute settlement system, 30 alleged vi olation of the SPS Agreement.  Eight dispute 
resolution panels have been established to examine eleven complaints relating to the SPS Agreement, 
and in six of these cases the Appellate Body has also  given a ruling.  One panel was established to 
examine the United States' and Canada's complain ts regarding the EC ban on meat treated with 
growth-promoting hormones;  two panels to examine complaints against Australia's restrictions on 
imports of fresh, chilled or frozen salmon;  one to examine Japan's requirement that each variety of 
certain fruits be tested with regard to the effica cy of fumigation treatment;  one regarding Japan's 
restrictions on apples due to fire blight.  In on-goi ng complaints, two panels have been established to 
examine complaints against Austra lia'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 de tails).  In each of the cases alleging violation of 
the SPS Agreement, the panel has, in accordance w ith Article 11.2 of the Agreement, sought advice 
from scientific and technical experts.   
XI. USE OF AD HOC CONSULTATIONS 
77. 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.
54  The Committee 
recalled that this was a useful route to fac ilitate agreement between Members and encouraged 
Members to take advantage of this option where appropriate.  
                                                      
53 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. 
54By Argentina, Chile, South Africa and Uruguay with respect to measures relating to citrus canker 
taken by the European Communities, in March 1998 (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5 /Add.1, paras. 113-116);  by the 
United States with respect to restrictions on wheat and oilseeds maintained by Poland, in November 1998 
(G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2, paras. 220-221);  and by Canada with respect to import  restrictions on bovine 
semen  maintained by India, in March 2001 (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2, paras. 179-187).  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 19 
 
 
78. Recommendations : 
• Members are encouraged to make use of the po ssibility for ad hoc consultations, including 
through the good offices of the Chairperson of th e SPS Committee, to facilitate the resolution 
of specific trade concerns 
 
XII. CO-OPERATION WITH THE CODEX, OIE AND IPPC 
79. 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 the sections above on tech nical assistance and on special and differential 
treatment.  The STDF provides an additional forum for coordination among its partner organizations, 
including the WTO, IPPC, OIE and Codex (see paragraph 43).   
80. In discussions on the Review, delegates noted that by further clarifying the relationship 
between the Committee and the international standards-setting bodies,  the Committee could avoid 
duplication of effort in the development of its work programme.55 
81. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should further clarify the relati onship between the Committee and the Codex, 
OIE and IPPC with a view to facilitating the implementation of the SPS Agreement while avoiding duplication of activities.   
• Members are invited to provide information re garding their experiences in this regard and to 
submit specific suggestions for consideration by the Committee. 
 
XIII.  CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF TERMS 
82. The Committee noted that several terms within the Agreement were unclearly specified and 
had overlapping meanings.  In par ticular, Canada suggested that clarification of the definition of 
"measures" and "regulations" in the context of Article 7 and Annex C woul d permit better and more 
uniform implementation of the provisions with regard  to notification.  This clarification could be 
addressed by reference to specific existing Committ ee recommendations on transparency as well as 
possible additional clarifications.
56   
83. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should consider clarification of certain terms contained in the SPS 
Agreement, with a focus on those specifically  identified by Members, including the terms 
"measures" and "regulations". 
 
XIV.  CLARIFICATION OF THE RELATION SHIP BETWEEN CERTAIN ARTICLES 
84. In the context of the Review, several Members suggested that the Committee could clarify the 
relationship among various Articles of the Agreement,  with priority placed on the examination of the 
relationship between Articles 2.1 and 5.6 relati ng to no more trade restrictive than necessary.57  It was 
also suggested that the Committee clarify the relatio nship between Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.4 and 5.6 and 
                                                      
55 See submissions by Canada (G/SPS/W/ 158) and New Zealand (G/SPS/W/168). 
56 See G/SPS/W/158. 
57 See submissions by the United States (G /SPS/W/163) and New Zealand (G/SPS/W/168). G/SPS/W/173 
Page 20  
 
the implementation of these.  It was noted that th e work of the Committee would benefit from specific 
submissions from Members regarding their experiences and concerns. 
85. Recommendations
: 
• The Committee should consider clarification of th e relationship between various Articles of 
the SPS Agreement, with a focu s on those specifically identifie d by Members, including the 
relationship between Articles 2.1 and 5.6 relati ng to no more trade restrictive than necessary.   
• Members are invited to provide information re garding their experiences in this regard and to 
submit specific suggestions for consideration by the Committee. 
 
XV. UNDUE DELAYS 
86. The Committee discussed the need to broadly co nsider the issue of undue delays in the 
context of the SPS Agreement, rather than to conf ine discussion on this topic to a narrow subset of 
issues.58  Many Members supported Uruguay’s proposal to encourage discussion of this subject, 
particularly in the context of the Review. 
87. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should consider how to ensu re the timely implementation of various 
provisions of the SPS Agreement in specific ci rcumstances, so as to avoid unnecessary delays, 
inter alia, in the recognition of equivalence, in  the adaptation of measures to the pest or 
disease status of a trading partner, in the co mpletion of risk assessments related to the 
granting of market access, etc.   
• Members are invited to provide information re garding their experiences in this regard and to 
submit specific suggestions for consideration by the Committee. 
 
XVI.  GOOD REGULATORY PRACTICE 
88. Some Members noted that problems related to ga ining market access were directly linked to 
failure to comply in a timely fashion with certa in obligations laid down in the SPS Agreement.  
Mexico proposed that the Committee consider de veloping guidelines that would promote practical 
implementation of specific provisions of the SPS Agreement.59  This type of guideline on good 
regulatory practices would enable Members to chec k, before definitively issuing their respective 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures, that the subs tantive obligations laid down by the SPS Agreement 
had been fulfilled. 
89. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should consider how to facilita te Member’s practical implementation of 
specific provisions of the SPS Agreement, in cluding through the possible identification of 
good regulatory practices.  
• Members are invited to provide information re garding their experiences in this regard and to 
Agreement for consideration by the Committee.  
XVII.  ARTICLE 8 AND ANNEX C 
90. During the discussions related to the Review, the European Communities suggested that a 
discussion on issues related to implementation of control measures would be useful to clarify 
                                                      
58 See proposals by Uruguay (G/SPS/W/160 & 169). 
59 See G/SPS/W/166.  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 21 
 
 
ambiguity regarding who should bear the cost of Members' inspections.  The European Communities 
drew attention to the increasing number of requests for inspection visits and the resource intensive 
nature of these visits.  The European Commun ities suggested that the Committee should discuss the 
possibility of developing comm on practices in this regard.  
91. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should consider the most effecti ve way of facilitating the implementation of 
Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, with a focus on those problems identified by Members, including the issue of costs related to  inspection visits and conformity assessment.  
Members are invited to provide information re garding their experiences in this regard and to 
submit specific suggestions for consideration by the Committee. 
XVIII.  WORK PROGRAMME 
92. As a result of the Second Review  of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement, the 
Committee agreed to continue to pursue work on equivalence, transparency, monitoring of 
international standards, technical assistance, special  and differential treatment and regionalization.  
These issues, along with specific trade concerns, w ill remain as standing agenda items for future 
Committee meetings. 
93. The Committee also agreed to pursue work on  new issues raised by Members during the 
Review including co-operation with the Codex, I PPC and OIE (paragraph 81), clarification of the 
definition of certain terms (paragraph 83), clarifi cation of the relationship between Articles 2.1 and 
5.6 (paragraph 85), undue delays (paragraph 87), go od regulatory practice (paragraph 89), and Article 
8 and Annex C (paragraph 91).  The work of th e Committee on these issues is to be based on 
information provided by Members regarding thei r experiences and on specific suggestions submitted 
by Members for consideration by the Committee.  The issues may be considered individually, or 
where it would be more effective, several related issues may be considered together. 
  G/SPS/W/173 
Page 22 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 
2000 
2003 (revision) Questionnaire on SPS-related websites G/SPS/ W/102; G/SPS/GEN/1 44/Rev.1 and Addenda 
G/SPS/W/102/Rev.1 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spslinks_e.htm 
2004 New mechanism on unoffici al translations G/SPS/GEN/487 
2005 Enquiry point information - update G/SPS/ENQ/18 and Add.1 Transparency 
2005 National notification authorit y - update G/SPS/NNA/8 and Add.1 
1999 Procedure extended G/SPS/14 
1999 Annual report G/SPS/13 
2000 Annual report G/SPS/16 
2001 Annual report  G/SPS/18 
2002 Annual report G/SPS/21  
2003 Annual report G/SPS/28 
2003 Procedure extended G/SPS/25 
2004 Annual report G/SPS/31 2004 Monitoring 
International Standards 
2004 Initiation of Codex trust fund    G/SPS/W/173
 Page 23Subject Year Type of Activity Related documents 
2004 Initiation of IPPC trust fund  
2004 Initiation of OIE trust funds   
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 and Add. 1-
3.  G/SPS/W/173 
Page 24 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/W/173
 Page 25 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.  G/SPS/W/173 
Page 26  DS Number Parties and nature of complaint Panel Report / Appellate 
Body Report circulation Comments 
21 WT/DS256 Hungarian complaint against Turkey's restrictions 
on imports of pet food (BSE)  Consultations requested on 3 May 2002;  pending. 
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/W/173 
Page 27 
 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 Comments on Argentina's proposal JOB(03)/110 G/SPS/W/173 
Page 28  
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Communities (G/SPS/W/123/Add.1)  
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  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 29 
 
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
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 
 
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 1999 
 
Thailand Case studies – Enquiry point-national 
notification authorities  G/SPS/GEN/155 G/SPS/W/173 
Page 30  
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
 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 
Committee on the transparency provisions 
of the SPS Agreement – 9 November 1999  G/SPS/R/16 
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 
 
 
    G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 31 
 
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
 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 
 
 
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 
 SPS Committee Revision of procedure G/SPS/11/Rev.1 
 
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 t echnical assistance G/SPS/W/101 1999 
 
   G/SPS/W/173 
Page 32  
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
 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 
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 
2005 New Zealand  Technical assistance provided to 
developing country Members by New 
Zealand since 1995 G/SPS/GEN/352/Rev.1 
 Secretariat Information session on the SPS-related 
technical assistance of various international organizations  
 
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 
2001 Chile Technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/287  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 33 
 
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Gabon Technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/257  
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 
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 G/SPS/W/173 
Page 34  
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
 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 
 
 
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  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 35 
 
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
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 
2005 Secretariat Proposals and Progress on Special and 
Differential Treatment – Background Note G/SPS/GEN/543 
 
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 G/SPS/W/173 
Page 36  
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
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 
Chile Proposal by Chile to further the discussion 
concerning the implementation of Article 6 on regionalization G/SPS/W/171 
Australia Monitoring of international harmonization:  
regionalization G/SPS/W/172 2005 
OIE Recognition of member Countries Health 
Status G/SPS/GEN/542 
 
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  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 37 
 
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
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 
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 
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 
 G/SPS/W/173 
Page 38  
 
 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 
Canada Issues for consideration as part of the 
second Review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement – Further elaboration of issues for 
consideration G/SPS/W/158 
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 2004 
 
Mexico Second review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/166  G/SPS/W/173 
 Page 39 
 
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
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 
 Uruguay Undue delays G/SPS/W/169 
 Chile Second review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/170 
2005 Secretariat Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreement – 
Background document and Revision G/SPS/GEN/510 and Rev.1 
 
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 
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 
2002 Argentina Response from the European Commission 
to comments submitted by WTO Members 
under G/SPS/N/EEC /149 and 150 G/SPS/GEN/354 G/SPS/W/173 
Page 40  
 
 Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
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  
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 
 
__________