WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/196 
2 June 2006 
 (06-2651) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS 
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION 
 
Draft Eighth Annual Report
1 
 
 
A. INTRODUCTION  
1. At its meeting of 15-16 October 1997, the SPS Committee adopted a provisional procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization a nd the use of international standards, guidelines 
or recommendations, as provided for in Articles 3.5 a nd 12.4 of the SPS Agreement.  This procedure 
was subsequently revised by the Committee in October 2004.2  The Committee decided to extend the 
provisional monitoring procedure for a further two-ye ar period in July 1999, and again in July 2001.3  
On 25 June 2003, the Committee agreed to further extend the provisional procedure for 36 months, 
and to review its operation in Ju ly 2006 to determine at that tim e whether to continue with the 
provisional procedure, amend it, or develop another one.4 
2. The Committee has previously adopted seven annual reports on the monitoring procedure.5  
These reports summarize several standards-related issues that the Committee haS considered and the 
responses received from the relevant  standard-setting organizations.  
B. NEW ISSUES  
3. Since the adoption of the Seventh Annual Report,  two new issues have been raised under this 
procedure. One issue is with rega rd to the need for a Codex standard for maximum residue levels of 
sulphur dioxide in cinnamon and the other concerns the chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health 
Code on Avian Influenza. 
Maximum residue levels of sulphur dioxide in cinnamon 
4. At the meeting of the Committee on 24 Octobe r 2005 and when the meeting resumed in 
February 2006, Sri Lanka raised the issue of the non-existence of a Codex standard on sulphur dioxide 
in cinnamon.6  Trade problems had arisen for Sri Lanka due to the lack of such a standard, particularly 
regarding Sri Lanka's exports to the European Communities.7  Although the European Communities 
accepted the use of sulphur dioxide in some herbs and species which, like cinnamon, are used as food 
additives, its use in cinnamon was not permitted.  Th is situation was aggravated by the lack of a 
                                                      
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/11/Rev.1. 
3 G/SPS/14 and G/SPS/17. 
4 G/SPS/25. 
5 These were circulated as G/SPS/13, G/SPS/ 16, G/SPS/18, G/SPS/21, G/SPS/28, G/SPS/31 and 
G/SPS/37.  
6 G/SPS/R39 and G/SPS/R40. 
7 G/SPS/GEN/597. G/SPS/W/196 
Page 2  
 
  relevant Codex standard.  A specific proposal had be en submitted to Codex for the establishment of a 
maximum level of sulphur dioxide for all herbs and spices, including seasoning and condiments such as cinnamon.
8   
5. During the meeting of the Committee on 29-30 March 2006, Sri Lanka recalled the trade 
losses to his country arising from this problem and as ked for an expedited handling of the matter.  He 
requested the Committee to make appropriate reco mmendations to Codex to expeditiously develop 
this standard.  
6. The European Communities supported Sri Lanka's request, noting that a certain period of time 
was required until a new maximum residue level c ould be adopted.  The European Commission was 
encouraging EC member States to be tolerant in respect to sulphur dioxide in cinnamon in the 
meantime. 
7. The Committee agreed that the Chair should immediately send a letter to the Codex 
Commission to draw its intention to this matter.  The Codex indicated that the comments submitted by 
Sri Lanka would be considered by the Code x Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants 
(CCFAC) at its forthcoming meeting in April 2006. 
8. [Update from Codex, discussions at June meeting.] 
Avian influenza 
9. At the meeting of the Committee on 24 October 2005, Canada recalled that according to the 
provisions of Chapter 2.7.12 of the OIE Terrestrial  Animal Health Code 2005, countries free of highly 
pathogenic avian influenza but which reported cases of notifiable low pathog enic avian influenza 
should be able to trade on the basis of appropriate veterinary certification.  However, as Canada had 
experienced, trading restrictions were being im posed also when cases of low pathogenic avian 
influenza were reported.  Countries that took ap propriate surveillance and control measures in a 
transparent manner consistent with the OIE provision s should not be penalized but rather treated in a 
manner consistent with the provisions of the OIE.   Canada also noted that several countries had 
introduced prohibitions on imports of birds, pou ltry and poultry products from all countries, one 
exempting only the European Communities.  Given th e current international context, it was important 
that Members act on the basis of science when applying their measures so as not to deter countries 
from making appropriate investments in surveillan ce and reporting.  Colombia reported that it had 
encountered similar problems.  
10. The OIE observed that Croatia had also encountered a similar problem and stressed that this 
was not compliant with the OIE standard.  When developing the standard at the OIE, the objective 
was to find a balance between what countries were re quired to notify that was of sufficient importance 
to result in justified trade restrictions and what  information countries should notify to improve OIE's 
understanding of the evolution of the disease ar ound the world.  The OIE strongly encouraged 
Members to follow the OIE recommendations and to not discourage countries to share information. 
11. Discussions on this matter also occurred at the meetings of the Committee in October 2005, 
February 2006 and March 2006 under the agenda item on specific trade concerns.  These discussions 
are summarized in the relevant reports of the meetings.9 
12. [Update from OIE, discussions at June meeting.]  
                                                      
8 G/SPS/W/187. 
9 G/SPS/R39 and Corr.1 and G/SPS/R40.  G/SPS/W/196 
 Page 3 
 
 
  C. PREVIOUS ISSUES  
13. Since the adoption of the Seventh Annual Report,  two issues previously raised have been 
further discussed.  One concerns the implementation of the International Standard for Phytosanitary 
Measures (ISPM) number 15 on wood packaging materi al and the other concerns regionalization. 
Implementation of ISPM 15 on wood packaging material 
14. At the meeting of the Committee on 29-30 March 2006,  the United States drew attention to 
issues related to the implementation of the Intern ational Standard for Phytosanitary Measures on 
wood packaging material (ISPM 15).  The United St ates supported the IPPC's approach for addressing 
the debarking issue or any other issue with ISPM 15.  Argentina reported on a system it had developed for the implementation of ISPM 15.
10  The United States, Canada and the European 
Communities encouraged other Members to ma ke known their intentions regarding the 
implementation of ISPM 15.  A lack of universal  implementation of ISPM 15 could jeopardize trade 
in any product.  If countries notified and implemen ted the guidelines as developed by the IPPC and 
engaged in the IPPC process to aid in the implem entation of ISPM 15, this would help to avoid 
unnecessary restrictions to trade and reaffirm the importance of the international standards.  
15. At the meetings of the Committee on 24 Oct ober 2005 and March 2006, the United States and 
Canada expressed appreciation for the decision of the European Communities to postpone the 
debarking requirement contained in Directive 2004/102 until 1 January 2009. 
16. Discussions on ISPM 15 also occurred at the meeting of the Committee in October 2005 and 
February 2006, and March 2006 under the agenda items on specific tr ade concerns.  These discussions 
are summarized in the relevant reports of the meetings.11 
Pest- and disease-free areas (Article 6) 
17. Discussions on regionalization occurred at the meetings of the Committee in October 2005, 
February 2006 and March 2006 under the agenda  item on specific trade concerns and under the 
specific item on regionalization, but not under the item on monitoring the use of international 
standards.  These discussions are summarized in the relevant reports of the meetings.12 
D. RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM THE RELEVANT STANDARD -SETTING ORGANIZATIONS  
Implementation of ISPM 15 on wood packaging material – Response from the IPPC 
18. At the meeting of the Committee in October and February 2006, the IPPC informed the 
Committee that revision of ISPM 15 was given a high priority and that a draft standard on the debarking of wood would be presented for adopti on at the 2006 meeting of the Commission on 
Phytosanitary Measures (CPM).  A workshop on ISPM 15 had also been held, with great success.  To 
follow-up on this success, the IPPC secretariat wa s monitoring the SPS notifications of countries' 
implementation of ISPM 15.  At that ti me, 11 countries had notified implementation. 
19. [Update from IPPC at June meeting.]  
                                                     
 
10 G/SPS/GEN/653. 
11 G/SPS/R39 and Corr.1 and G/SPS/R40. 
12 G/SPS/R39 and Corr.1 and G/SPS/R40. G/SPS/W/196 
Page 4  
 
  Pest- and disease-free areas (Article 6) – Response from the OIE 
20. The OIE reported that the General Session of th e OIE to be held in May 2006 would consider 
zoning and compartmentalization.
13   
21. [Update from the OIE at June meeting.]  
 
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
13 G/SPS/GEN/646.