. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/204 
20 June 2006 
 
 (06-3007) 
Committee on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures Original:   Spanish 
 
 
 
SECOND REVIEW OF THE OPERATIO N AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND 
PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 
 
Proposed Differences or Clarifications Procedure  
 
Communication from Chile 
 
 
 The following communication, received on 13 June 2006, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegation of Chile.  
_______________ 
 
 
1. At some of the Committee's meetings, particularly when discussing issues raised in 
connection with the review of the Agreement's operation, some delegations, for example, the 
United States, Costa Rica, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay, supported by other Members, proposed the 
structuring of procedures to clarify differences or  to make better use of the existing bodies under the 
Agreement with a view to resolving trade disagreem ents caused by different interpretations, failure to 
apply or inappropriate application of the principles of the SPS Agreement.  In the first instance, the 
series of bodies that could be used for this purpose are identified, the objective being to clarify differences and avoid any move towards a formal dispute settlement process. 
2. Article 5.8
1 of the SPS Agreement provides that wh en a Member has doubts regarding the 
scientific nature or justification for a specific meas ure, it may request the other Member to explain the 
reasons for the measure and the latter must do so.  The Member maintaining the measure shall provide 
the information requested in a timely manner and a void any unnecessary delay.  Following this step, if 
the doubts persist, there may be an exchange of documents, possibly with questionnaires and replies. 
3. If there is no agreement, a bilateral technical  meeting may be held either within the SPS 
Agreement framework or in any other body provide d in a bilateral agreement between the parties 
concerned.  The meeting's venue in one of the two countries may be agreed by the parties.  If the issue 
is not resolved, it may continue to be addr essed when the SPS Comm ittee meets in Geneva, 
informally in the intervals betw een meetings of the Committee. 
                                                      
1 "When a Member has reason to believe that a speci fic sanitary or phytosanitary measure introduced or 
maintained by another Member is constraining, or has th e potential to constrain, its exports and the measure is 
not based on the relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations, or such standards, guidelines or recommendations do not exist, an explanation of the reasons for such sanitary or phytosanitary measure may 
be requested and shall be provided by the Member maintaining the measure." G/SPS/W/204 
Page 2  
 
  4. If no agreement is reached, the complainant ma y bring the matter up before the Committee 
under the agenda item on specific trade concerns, sendi ng a communication to this effect sufficiently 
in advance (11 days) both to the Committee's Secret ariat and to the other Member.  It is suggested, 
although it is not mandatory, that the explanation should not only be given orally but also in writing and circulated in languages so as to give a proper understanding. 
5. If the problem persists, the country concerned may seek the good offices of the Chairman or 
the Secretariat so that they can act as mediator or facilitator at a joint meeting with the parties.  The 
issue will be followed up in the Committee itself unde r the agenda item "follow up" to specific trade 
issues previously raised.  Nothing prevents the i ssue being addressed bilaterally between meetings of 
the Committee.  If a solution is reached, this must  be communicated to the Committee, in agreement 
with the other party. 
6. It would also be appropriate to examine and obtain further details on the dispute settlement 
procedures in the OIE and the IPPC, bearing in mind that these are technical processes.  It would also 
be interesting to know the cost and any implications  of these procedures if the matter is subsequently 
brought before a WTO Panel.  The intention of the foregoing is to consider whether this is another 
avenue to complement the procedures indicated a nd thus avoid the convening of a formal panel. 
 
__________