WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/205 
21 June 2006 
 
 (06-3022) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
COMMENTS ON SECRETARIAT'S REPORT "ISSUES IN THE APPLICATION OF 
ARTICLE 6 OF THE AGREEMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY 
AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES" 
(G/SPS/GEN/640) 
 
Communication from the Separate Customs Territory
 
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
  
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pe nghu, Kinmen and Matsu would like to express 
its appreciation to the Secretariat for providi ng the background document (G/SPS/GEN/640), which 
summarizes Members' experiences, the contributions of relevant internationa l standard-setting bodies 
(ISSBs), and typical administrative procedures for recognizing pest- or disease-free status. 
2. The issues of implementation of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement (hereafter "regionalization") 
have been discussed in the SPS Committee for seve ral years. Difficulties experienced by certain 
developing or least developed Members have been  raised.  The Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu also would like to thank Members who have offered their 
proposals to standardize the recognition procedur es and reduce uncertainty on how to apply the 
provisions of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  
3. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu considers, however, 
that a line must be drawn between the interpretation  for the purpose of implementation and the 
amendment  of Article 6.  While the former can be ma de at this Committee so that Members may be 
well oriented towards adopting appropriate domes tic measures, including laws and regulations 
concerning the recognition of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence 
under Article 6, the latter needs to be considered with  great care, so that the balance embedded in the 
SPS Agreement between the interests and the ri ghts of exporting countries and importing countries 
would not be impaired.  At the present time there is  neither a need nor a mandate to amend the SPS 
Agreement.  Therefore, we would like to provi de the following comments on the background paper, 
based on the interpretation of Article 6, and to  share our experiences on regionalization from the 
perspective of an importing Member.  
II. COMMENTS ON G/SPS/GEN/640 
A. P
REDICTABILITY /TIME 
4. An examination of Article 6 of the SPS Agreem ent reveals that importing Members have the 
following obligations: 
(i) To ensure that their SPS measures are adapted to the pest or disease status of the area 
from which the product originated; G/SPS/W/205 
Page 2  
 
  (ii) When assessing the pest or disease status of a region, to consider, inter alia , the level 
of prevalence of specific diseases or pests, the existence of eradication or control 
programmes, and appropriate criteria or guidelines which may be developed by the 
relevant international organizations; 
(iii) To recognize the concept of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence;  and 
(iv) To base the determination of such areas on factors such as geography, ecosystems, 
epidemiological surveillance, a nd the effectiveness of SPS measures.
1 
5. When determining generally the status of pest - or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence, it is necessary for importing Memb ers to consider various factors such as the 
biological characteristics of the pest or disease, the status of occurrence of pest or disease in a specific 
area and its surroundings, and particular geogr aphic and climatic c onditions, among others.  
Moreover, for each specific case, importing Members s hould also evaluate other various factors such 
as credibility of surveillance, monitoring, emergency control and protection systems, and the ability of 
the animal and plant quarantine authority of the expo rting country to maintain the system in order to 
prevent the introduction of the pest or disease in question. 
6. The prerequisite for this process to run smoothl y is that exporting Members must provide the 
necessary and reliable information and data to im porting Members in a timely manner in order for 
importing Members to examine and evaluate the a bove-mentioned factors.  Thus, the time necessary 
for examination of the above-mentioned factors does not depend on importing Members alone.  The 
quantity and quality of information and data provided by the exporting Member and the complexity of 
each case also contribute to the overall time necessary for any careful assessment. 
7. Therefore, the Separate Customs Territory of  Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu is of the 
opinion that it may not be appropriate or practi cal to establish in the SPS Committee and relevant 
ISSBs administrative and technical timeframes for the recognition of pest- and disease-free areas or 
areas of low pest or disease prevalence. 
B. WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD -SETTING BODIES  
8. Several Members emphasize the importance of implementing Article 6 based on guidelines or 
recommendations set by ISSBs.  Members are also en couraged to discuss this issue and develop some 
guidance on the application of regionalization decisions at ISSBs. 
9. In the implementation of the SPS Agreement,  International Standards, Guidelines and 
Recommendations, as well as ISSBs, play a vital role.  No matter whether the Members are taking 
their SPS measures in conformity with Internationa l Standards, Guidelines and Recommendations, or 
developing a higher level of SPS protection than would be achieved by measures based on 
International Standards, Guidelines and Recomme ndations, ISSBs assert a strong influence upon such 
national decisions.  Members recognize that the SPS Agreement seeks to establish a multilateral 
framework of rules and disciplines to guide the development, adoption an d enforcement of SPS 
measures in order to minimize their negative trade effects, and to further the use of harmonized SPS 
measures with International Standards, Guidelin es and Recommendations, developed by the ISSBs.2 
10. However, not all Members of the WTO are members of these international organizations.  For 
example, since the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen  and Matsu is not a 
                                                      
1 SPS Agreement, Article 6. 
2 SPS Agreement, Preamble.  G/SPS/W/205 
 Page 3 
 
 
  contracting party to the International Plant Protec tion Convention (IPPC), there is no direct channel 
through which we can participate in the discussions  of the issue of regionalization and relevant 
technical drafting sessions for phytosanitary measures.  The interests of those Members who for various reasons are in a similar situation would not be  considered, and in fact may be impaired by the 
application of international standards set by the IPPC.  As stated in our paper (G/SPS/W161), the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Ki nmen and Matsu would like to call on the SPS 
Committee to ensure that the rights and interests of every WTO Member would not be impaired by 
any international standards de veloped and adopted without th e endorsement of the full WTO 
Membership, especially by those International Standards, Guidelines and Recommendations which 
could be deemed as important references fo r the implementation of the SPS Agreement. 
11. If Members are prevented from playing a fu ll part in ISSBs, including in their 
decision-making process, it would be unreasonable to assu me that such Members will be able to fulfill 
the obligation to harmonize their domestic measures in accordance with international standards the 
standardization process of which they were unable to participate. 
C. E
XPEDITED PROCESS  
12. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan , Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu notes that the 
situations listed in paragraph 41 of G/SPS/GEN/640 may accelerate the recognition process of a pest- 
or disease-free area.  However, as mentioned by so me Members the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu cannot accept that the pest- or disease-free area recognized by the ISSBs would be automatically recognized by the importing country.
3  The primary reason is that, 
as stated above, we are not a contracting party to IPPC, and currently cannot participate in any expert 
working group discussion or other relevant  decision-making processes at the IPPC.  
13. In addition, the criteria for the recovery of pr eviously recognized pest- or disease-free status 
of an area due to an outbreak may be complicated.  The exporting country should provide the importing country with sufficient information regarding the cause of the outbreak, enforced safeguards to maintain its pest- or disease- free status  in that area, etc., to apply for the recovery 
recognition.  Only when the importing country is convinced that there is no longer systemic or other 
implementation deficiencies in the area in ques tion could recovery status be granted.  
III. CONCLUSIONS 
14. In accordance with the views stated above, th e Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu would like to propose the following: 
(i) The SPS Committee's decisions should avoid transgressing the rights of Members 
under the SPS Agreement, especially by the mandatory incorporation of standards, 
guidelines or recommendations set by ISSBs in whose activities not all WTO Members 
can participate; 
(ii) The SPS Committee may recommend a guideline or procedures on regionalization, but 
should not require Members to complete the recognition process within a certain 
timeframe as proposed by some Members;  and 
(iii) The SPS Committee should continue to enc ourage bilateral consultations between 
exporting and importing Members to resolve issues of regionalization. 
__________  
                                                     
 
3 Australia (G/SPS/W/191), Japan (G /SPS/W/192), Korea (G/SPS/W/195).