WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/191 
30 May 2006 
 (06-2580) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
ISSUES IN THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Communication from Australia
 
  
 The following communication, dated 18 May 2005, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Australia.  
_______________ 
  
I. BACKGROUND 
1. At the 35
th meeting of the Committee on Sanita ry and Phytosanita ry Measu res (SPS 
Committee) in March 2006, the Secretariat ci rculated a background document (G/SPS/GEN/640) 
which summarizes Members' experiences and outlin es a number of key issues in the implementation 
of Article 6 (pest- and disease-free areas) of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).  
2. The background document is a very useful su mmary reference document which will facilitate 
ongoing discussions about Members’ experiences and challenges in implementing Article 6 and the 
role of the International Standard Setting B odies (ISSBs).  As a contribution to making the 
background document as useful as possible, Australia  offers some comments on that document set out 
below. 
3. Members have emphasized the important role an d ongoing work of the ISSBs in the area of 
technical and administrative guidelines in implementi ng regionalization.  Australia supports the view 
that solutions to problems raised by Members should be fully consistent with the ongoing work of the ISSBs, which includes recommendations on the recognition of pest- and disease-free and low prevalence areas.  Australia considers that the ISSB s are the most suitably qualified bodies to develop 
guidance on the application of regionalizati on decisions.  Any guidelines adopted by the SPS 
Committee should therefore be fully aligned with the work of the ISSBs in this area so as to avoid 
unnecessary duplication and confusion.  
II. COMMENTS BY AUSTRAL IA ON G/SPS/GEN/640 
A. M
EMBERS ' EXPERIENCES  
4. The Secretariat's very helpful summation of Members' experiences has drawn Australia's 
attention to a particular emphasis of some point s on animal health aspects.  This understandably 
reflects the collection of experiences which Members have offered in the past as examples for Committee discussion, and also the substantial wo rk on compartmentalisation and zoning which has 
been completed by the World Organization for Animal  Health (OIE).  Following are some additional 
observations regarding plant health aspects, for information.  G/SPS/W/191 
Page 2  
 
  - Eradication:  In paragraph 10, the last sentence outlines some activities which 
could be included in eradication progr ammes for plant pests.  Australia's 
experience has been that in addition to those activities listed, other activities can 
include destruction of host plants, disinfestations and communication. 
- Control and emergency preparedness:  In paragraph 11, the second sentence:  
makes reference to containing an outbreak  with strict controls on trade and 
"animal" movement.  Australia's experience has been that control of movement can 
also be relevant for plant health manage ment (e.g., controlling movement of plants 
and plant hosts). 
- Public-private cooperation:  Paragraph 13 highlights the importance of cooperation 
with the private sector.  Australia has foun d this to be very important for both 
animal and plant health.  One component of Australia's approach to managing and reducing the risks posed by exotic pests and diseases has been to develop closer 
industry and government partnerships.  Th is includes through the development of 
cost sharing agreements for some issues and review (or development) of industry 
specific biosecurity plans.  These pre- emptive planning processes improve the 
capacity to maintain domestic and intern ational trade, negotiate access to new 
overseas markets and reduce the social and economic costs of disease and pest incursions on both growers and the wider community. 
- Predictability/Time:  In paragraph 14,  the last sentenc e summarizes some 
observations from an importing Member perspective.  An additional aspect which 
can be relevant is that  assessment of a request for recognition of zonal freedom (or 
low pest/disease prevalence) is usually pa rt of a broader import risk assessment 
addressing a range of pests/diseases.  Also the time taken to complete certain steps 
in the assessment process may vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the complexity and technical aspects of the situation being evaluated.   
B. T
YPICAL STEPS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES – SECTION IV 
5. Australia shares the concerns raised by a number of Members at the March 2006 meeting of 
the SPS Committee.  In particular: 
(i) Paragraph 26 does not acknowledge situati ons where particular pests or diseases 
have never been detected in the territory of a Member and refers only to situations 
in which pests or diseases have been eradicated;  and  
(ii) Regionalization is part of the overall pro cess of developing an SPS measure, and is 
not a stand alone activity. The developmen t of such measures is typically preceded 
by, or forms part of, an overall assessment of risk, subject to the rules of the SPS Agreement and relevant guidance fro m international organizations.  
6. To address these concerns, Australia offers the following alternative text for paragraph 26: 
"For the exporting country, the admini strative process for achieving bilateral 
recognition is typically preceded by obtaini ng a particular sanitary or phytosanitary 
status within part or all of its territory; both in situations where particular pests or 
diseases have never been detected in the territory of a Member and in situations where there have been significant chang es in pest or disease prevalence. 
  G/SPS/W/191 
 Page 3 
 
 
  For the importing country, the administ rative process for achieving bilateral 
recognition is typically preceded by, or forms part of, an overall assessment of risk for 
the pest or disease in question, which is subject to the provisions of SPS Agreement, especially Articles 5 and 6." 
 
7. Paragraph 27 (Step A) currently states that after a country achieves a particular sanitary or 
phytosanitary status, it may seek recognition by the competent ISSB.  While ISSB recognition may assist in expediting the bilateral recognition process (as outlined in paragraph 41(a) – Step K), under 
the provisions of the SPS Agreement, it does not abrogate the right of an importing Member to conduct its own assessment on a case-by-case basis.  Th erefore, as Members noted at the March 2006 
meeting, paragraph 27 is incorrect insofar as it implies ISSB recognitio n is a precondition for 
proceeding to the next step of the process (i.e., bilateral recognition). 
__________