WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/53 
3 May 2010 
 (10-2381) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Report adopted by the Committee on 18 March 2010
 
 
 
 
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 into  force of the WTO Agreement, and thereafter as the 
need arises".  A First Review of the Agreement was completed in March 1999.1 
2. At the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conf erence, Ministers instructed the Committee to 
review the operation and implementation of the Ag reement at least once every four years.  The 
Second Review of the Agreement was completed in July 2005.2  At its October 2008 meeting, the 
Committee adopted a procedure and timetable to undertake the Third Review of the Agreement.3 
3. Members were invited to identify issues for discussion as part of the Third Review and any 
other issues they wished to have considered during the Review, by 28 November 2008.  Members 
were also invited to:  (i) submit papers on the i ssues proposed for consideration and to identify any 
further issues for consideration during the Review, by 9 February 2009;  and (ii) submit any further 
papers on issues proposed for consideration, by  27 March 2009.  Since October 2008, the Committee 
has held four informal meetings and four formal meetings at which it considered issues and proposals 
identified by Members.  The draft report of the Review4 was discussed at the June 2009 meetings of 
the Committee, and Members were invited to submit written comments on the draft report by  
27 July 2009. 
4. In accordance with the procedures for the Third Review, the Committee considered, for 
adoption at its October 2009 meeting, a draft report of the Review5.  The report was not adopted, 
however, and Members were invited to submit wr itten comments on the draft report, and on the 
proposed changes to the draft report contained in the 28 October Room Document, by 16 December 
2009.  The Secretariat circulated a revised draf t report of the Review based on Members comments 
and suggestions (G/SPS/W/237/Rev.2) for consid eration by the Committee.  At its March 2010 
regular meeting, the SPS Committee adopted, on an ad referendum  basis, the report on the Third 
Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement.  No objections to the adoption of 
the report as agreed at the March meeting 2010 meeting were received by the deadline of 
15 April 2010. 
                                                      
1 G/SPS/12. 
2 G/SPS/36. 
3 G/SPS/W/228. 
4 G/SPS/W/237. 
5 G/SPS/W/237/Rev.1. G/SPS/53 
Page 2  
 
  5. As in the two previous Reviews, the Committee discussions in the Third Review have focused 
on operation and implementation issues related to: 
• Consistency (Article 5.5); 
• Equivalence (Article 4); 
• Transparency (Article 7 and Annex B); 
• Monitoring the use of international standards (Article 3.5 and 12.4); 
• Technical assistance and training activities (Article 9); 
• Special and differential treatment (Article 10); 
• Regionalization (Article 6); 
• Monitoring the implementation of the Agre ement (Articles 12.1 and 12.2) – Specific 
trade concerns / Use of ad hoc consultations; 
• Cooperation with Codex Alimen tarius, World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), 
and the International Plant Protection Co nvention (IPPC) (Article 12.3);  and 
• Dispute settlement activities (Article 11). 
6. In addition, in this Third Review the Committee also considered: 
• Implementation of the Agreement – Article 13; 
• Private voluntary standards; 
• Good regulatory practice;  and 
• Control, Inspection and Approval Pr ocedures (Article 8 and Annex C). 
7. Appendix A of this document provides a summary  of Committee activities since the Second 
Review in 2005.  Appendix B provides informati on about SPS-related dispute settlement activities.  
Appendix C provides a list of documents submitted by Members since the Second Review of the 
Agreement relevant to the various issues raised in this report. 
II. CONSISTENCY (ARTICLE 5.5) 
8. Efforts and deliberations by the Committee to develop guidelines for consistency began 
during the Committee's first meeting in March 199 5 and progressed through informal and formal 
meetings.  During these discussions, Members raised conceptual issues related to the links between 
appropriate level of protection, measures and risk assessment. 
9. In the Second Review of the Agreement in  2005 ("the 2005 Review"), the Committee noted 
that it should undertake another review of the ope ration of the guidelines to further the practical 
implementation of Article 5.5 whenever Members id entified the need, and in any case not later than 
December 2008.  Members were encouraged to provi de information regarding their experiences in the 
implementation of Article 5.5 and in the use of the guidelines.
6 
10. To date no Member has suggested a need to  modify these guidelines.  Although there is no 
standing agenda item regarding Article 5.5, there is opportunity for Members to provide information 
                                                      
6 G/SPS/15.  G/SPS/53 
 Page 3 
 
 
  regarding their experiences in this regard under the Agenda Item "Activities of Members".  No 
Member has provided any such information since June 2005. 
11. Some Members have suggested, however, that the Committee should solicit information from 
Members in order to determine the extent to whic h these guidelines, as well as others adopted by the 
Committee, are actually being implemented by Members. 
12. Australia suggested that Members submit any issue of concern they might have on the 
Article 5.5 Guidelines by the June 2009 meeting of th e Committee.  Should no specific issue be raised 
by June, it was proposed that the Committee consid er the current guidelines on consistency as having 
been reviewed and maintain the guidelines as such. 
13. In its proposal on issues for consideration in the Third Review7, India (i) noted the need to 
review the progress achieved in this issue through the use of the Committee's guidelines (G/SPS/15), 
and (ii) asked that the Committee analyze some SPS measures of key trading Members which have a 
major effect on other countries' exports and assess to what extent they were "arbitrary or unjustifiable". 
14. Recommendations
: 
• 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). 
• The Committee should agree to review the guide lines in G/SPS/15 as part of the periodic 
review of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement, unless any Member requests a specific review of these guidelines in the intervening period, based on specific 
proposed amendments to the existing guidelines. 
 
III. EQUIVALENCE (ARTICLE 4) 
15. In the 2005 Review, the Committee encouraged Members to provide information regarding 
their experiences in the implementation of Article 4 and in the use of the guidance developed by the 
Committee.
8  In particular, Members were encouraged  to notify any agreements reached on the 
recognition of equivalence.  Finally, the relevant in ternational organizations were invited to keep the 
Committee informed of any work they undertook w ith regard to the recognition of equivalence. 
16. Equivalence is a standing agenda item for regul ar meetings of the Committee.  At each 
meeting, Members are invited to report on their ex periences regarding equivalence, and the relevant 
international organizations are invited to provide information.  The following Members provided 
information under this agenda item:  Brazil a nd Chile (June 2005), Egypt (March 2006) and the 
United States (June 2007).  On 9 August 2007, Panama submitte d the first notification on a 
recognition of equivalence (G/SPS/N/EQV/PAN/1) .  A second notification of the recognition of 
equivalence of SPS measures was submitted to th e Committee in 2008 by the Dominican Republic 
(G/SPS/N/EQV/DOM/1). 
17. The Secretariat noted that Members' officials often made reference informally to various 
equivalence agreements with trading partners, but  these had not been notified to the SPS Committee.  
Some Members agreed that equivalence agreements did exist, and that the guidance developed by the 
Committee was being used.  They suggested that one reason Members did not notify these agreements 
was to avoid other exporters benefiting from the arrangements.  Furthermore, in many cases the 
notion of equivalence was applied withou t any formal recognition of equivalence per se , or without 
                                                      
7 G/SPS/W/236/Rev.1. 
8 G/SPS/19/Rev.2. G/SPS/53 
Page 4  
 
  calling the bilateral arrangements "equivalence".  They  agreed, however, that it would be useful for 
Members to provide information regard ing their experiences in this area. 
18. The international standard-setting organizations have developed guidance in this area, and the 
Codex, IPPC and OIE have regularly provided inform ation on equivalence issues at meetings of the 
Committee.  The Codex Alimentarius Commission h as adopted Principles for the development of 
equivalence agreements regarding food import a nd export inspection and certification systems, and 
Guidelines on the judgement of equivalence of such systems.
9  The OIE has developed guidelines for 
reaching a judgement of the equivalence of sanitary measures.10  At the October 2008 meeting of the 
Committee, the OIE elaborated on a new approach whereby two ad hoc groups were analyzing various chapters in the terrestrial and aquatic anim al health codes, and noted that it would keep the 
Committee informed of the work of those ad hoc groups.  The IPPC adopted in 2005 a standard with 
guidelines for determination and recognition of equiva lence of phytosanitary measures (ISPM 24).  In 
addition, ISPM 1, which also includes principles on equivalence, was revised in 2006.
11 
19. In its proposal for the Third Review12, India proposed that:  (i) the Committee prepare a 
country-specific status report, listing the cases wh ere Members had successful ly negotiated bilateral 
equivalence agreements;  (ii) Members be encour aged to share their experiences in and difficulties 
with implementing Article 4.2;  and (iii) even if a Member did not enter into any equivalence 
arrangements, it could be required to make a statement to that effect. 
20. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should maintain e quivalence as a standing item of  the agenda for its regular 
meetings. 
• Members are encouraged to provide information regarding their experiences, or lack thereof, 
in the implementation of Article 4 and in the use of the guidance developed by the Committee 
(G/SPS/19/Rev.2).  In particular, Members a re encouraged to notify any agreement 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) 
21. In the 2005 Review, the Committee:  (i) encourag ed Members to ensure full implementation 
of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreemen t;  (ii) asked that developing country Members 
clearly identify specific problems faced in im plementing the transparency provisions of the 
Agreement;  and (iii) asked that assistance be pr ovided to least-developed and developing country 
Members in order to enable them to fully implemen t the transparency provisions and to make use of 
the benefits associated with transparency.  R ecognizing that the recommended procedures established 
by the Committee13, while not creating legal obligations, coul d facilitate Members' implementation of 
the provisions of the SPS Agreement, the Comm ittee agreed to consider whether further 
recommendations could be beneficial. 
                                                      
9 http://www.Codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10047/CXG_053e.pdf . 
10 http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/en_mcode-2004.htm . 
11https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=ispms&tx_p ublication_pi1[showUid]=133583&frompage=13399
&type=publication&subtype=&L=0#item . 
12 G/SPS/W/236/Rev.1. 
13 G/SPS/7/Rev.2.  G/SPS/53 
 Page 5 
 
 
  22. The Secretariat organized a Workshop on Transp arency in October 2007.  This was the third 
SPS workshop on transparency organized by the WTO Secretariat, the first two having been held in 
1999 and 2003.  Various funding arrangements made it possible for a large number of participants 
from least-developed and developing countries to a ttend.  The objectives of the workshop were to 
enhance the implementation of transparency obliga tions and to identify best practices for drawing 
benefits from a transparent system. 
23. The main recommendations from the Workshop involved the following six issues:  revision of 
the Recommended Transparency Procedures containe d in G/SPS/7/Rev.2;  training and dissemination 
on the SPS Information Management System ( SPS IMS) as well as other sources of SPS-related 
information;  regular updates on the level of implem entation of transparency provisions;  explanatory 
documents on timeframes related to transparency obligations and on benefits  of the SPS Agreement;  
establishment of a mentoring mechanism betwee n officials responsible for implementing the 
transparency provisions in different Members;  a nd development of a practical procedural manual.  
Significant progress has been made with respect to all six recommendations. 
24. On 30 May 2008, the Committee adopted revised recommended procedures for 
transparency.14  The new procedures, inter alia , clarify the definition of the comment period, 
encourage the notification of measures conforming to  international standards, and provide links for 
access to full texts of regulations and their transla tions.  The new transparency procedures, including 
new notification formats, took effect on 1 December 2008.  These new formats provide the possibility for Members to include hyperlinks to texts of draft regulations or to submit these draft regulations to 
the Secretariat in PDF format so that they can  be placed on a server and a hyperlink included. 
25. 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 notifications
15 received by the Secretariat and an annual listing of all 
SPS documents.16  Links to these documents can be found on the SPS web page. 
26. Furthermore, the Secretariat has established a mechanism for Members to inform each other 
of the availability of translations of notified measure s into one of the official languages of the WTO.  
These are submitted in the form of supplemental notifications. 
27. The Secretariat has also developed the new SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS), 
the public version of which was launched and pr esented on 15 October 2007 during the Transparency 
Workshop.17  The system includes the most recent information on SPS notifications as well as 
Committee documents and specific trade concerns.  It facilitates the conduct of searches according to 
specific needs and interests (product codes, geogr aphic groups, etc.) and also the preparation of 
reports and summaries which can be shared with inte rested stakeholders.  The website of the SPS IMS 
is constantly updated with the latest contact details on Members' Enqui ry Points and National 
Notification Authorities. 
28. The WTO Secretariat has provided demonstration sessions on the SPS IMS during the SPS 
Committee meetings and during its technical assistan ce programmes.  It has also responded to ad hoc 
requests from Members and other interested parties for assistance. 
                                                      
14 G/SPS/7/Rev.3. 
15 See, for example, documents  G/SPS/GEN/977, 98 6 and 990 for October to December 2009. 
16 G/SPS/GEN/991 for 2009. 
17 http://spsims.wto.org/ . G/SPS/53 
Page 6  
 
  29. The Secretariat has begun to provide annual up dates on the level of implementation of the 
transparency provisions.  In October 2007, the Secretariat circulated a first background note
18 
providing an overview regarding the level of implem entation of the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement.  An updated versi on of this note was circulated as G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 in October 
2008, and a second revision was circulated in Oct ober 2009.  The development and updating of the 
SPS IMS facilitate the compilation and analysis of  data related to the implementation of the 
transparency provisions, as well as specific searches by Members and the preparation of summary reports.  Furthermore, Members' implementation of the new recommendations on transparency should 
result in substantially enhanced information. 
30. Managing information on transparency, however , remains challenging for many developing 
country Members, and many have flagged their n eed for assistance and support to resolve individual 
transparency difficulties, for example with the pr ocess of sending notifications to the WTO.  Other 
difficulties faced by developing country Members relate to the operation of their SPS National 
Notification Authority and their National Enquiry Point. 
31. As recommended in the 2007 Workshop on Tran sparency, the Secretariat developed a 
procedure for an informal mentoring mechanism to assist officials responsible for transparency in 
developing country Members. Nineteen Members have been "matched" with mentors in other 
Member countries that should provide guidance when requested.
19 
32. In addition, New Zealand work ed with the Secretariat, along with contributions from 
Australia and a number of other Members, to de velop a step-by-step procedural manual for the 
operation of Enquiry Points and Na tional Notification Authorities.  The document is available for 
Members in English, French and Spanish.  A PD F version of the document can be downloaded from 
the SPS gateway of the WTO website (under the "trans parency toolkit" section).  This Transparency 
Manual reflects the new transparency procedur es and replaces the 2002 handbook on "How to Apply 
the Transparency Provisions of the SPS Agreement". 
33. In line with the Committee's previous decision to normally hold a special meeting on 
transparency every three years, back-to-back with a regular Committee meeting, a special meeting on 
transparency will be held on 18 October 2010.  Na tional Notification Authorities and Enquiry Points 
are encouraged to attend. 
34. As of 31 December 2009, Members have subm itted 7,315 regular notifications and 1,163 
emergency notifications (not including related a ddenda and corrigenda).  The Committee has also 
adopted a special format and recommended procedur es for the notification of determination of the 
recognition of equivalence of sanitary or phyt osanitary measures, now included in the new 
transparency procedures.  As of 31 Dece mber 2009, two equivalence and 14 supplemental 
notifications have been circulated. 
35. Out of the 153 WTO Members, 101 (66 per cent) have to date submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO.  This figure stood at 98 in October 2008, meaning that three additional 
Members (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Sw aziland, and Ukraine) have submitted at least 
one notification during the past year.  Members which have not submitted any notification so far 
include 20 developing countries and 23 LDCs, as well as a number of EC member States.20 
                                                      
18 G/SPS/GEN/804. 
19 G/SPS/W/217. 
20 See G/SPS/GEN/456 for notification procedures  for the European Communities and its member 
States.   G/SPS/53 
 Page 7 
 
 
  36. As can be seen in Figure 1, the share of notifications submitted by developed country 
Members reaches 53 per cent while the share of those submitted by developing country Members 
(excluding LDCs) is 46.6 per cent.21  A very small share comes from  LDCs.  Still, there has been a 
steady increase in notifications from developing country Members over the years. 
Figure 1 
 
    
 
    
 
    
  
 
 
37. Looking at the geographic regions from which the notifications originate, Figure 2 shows that 
the majority of notifications come from North Amer ica, followed by Asia, and then South and Central 
America and the Caribbean.
22 
                                                      
21 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the 
Integrated Database (IDB ) for analytical purposes. 
22 The geographical groupings used rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the Integrated 
Database (IDB) for analytical purposes.  The same groupings are used in the WTO Annual Reports.  North 
America (NA) here, as well as in Figure 2, includes Canada, Mexico and the United States. Development Status of Notif ying Mem ber s 
as of 31 December 2009
53.06%46.59%0.35%
Developed Developing Least DevelopedG/SPS/53 
Page 8  
 
  Figure 2 
    
 
    
 
   
 
38. 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  the Agreement.  Among the 153 WTO Members, 
137 Members have, as of February 2010, designated a "Notification Authority".  Those which have 
not yet done so include 8 LDCs and 7 developing c ountry Members.  As of February 2010, of the 153 
WTO Members, 146 have provided the WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point.  
Those which have not yet done so includ e six LDCs and one developing country.
23 
39. The Secretariat regularly updates documents c ontaining the contact information of National 
Enquiry Points and of National Notification Author ities.  In addition, regularly updated lists are 
available from the SPS IMS and from the SPS gate way on the WTO web page.  Members should 
ensure that updated contact information is provided to the Secretariat so that it can be reflected in the 
SPS IMS. 
40. In 2005, the Committee agreed to extend the Pr ocedure to Enhance the Transparency of 
Special and Differential Treatment adopted in October 200424, and Members were invited to share 
with the Committee their experiences under this pr ocedure.  See Section VIII for more details. 
41. During this Third Review, Egypt suggested that  the Committee examine ways to ensure the 
effective functioning of the National Notification Authority and Enquiry Po ints of least-developed 
and developing country Members.  Egypt also s uggested that the Committe e establish a mechanism 
for sharing comments submitted by Members in response to SPS notifications. 
                                                      
23 Enquiry Point contact information is contai ned in G/SPS/ENQ/25, and National Notification 
Authority contact information is contained in G/SPS/NNA/15.  This most update information is available from the SPS Information Management System at http://spsims.wto.org
. 
24 G/SPS/33 and G/SPS/33/Add.1. Notifications by Geographical Region
NA
SA, CA and 
the Caribbean
CISMiddle East AfricaAsia
Europe
05001000150020002500300035004000 G/SPS/53 
 Page 9 
 
 
  42. 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, and to the extent possible, follow the recommended procedures established by the 
Committee in G/SPS/7/Rev.3. 
• Developing country Members should clearly id entify specific problems they face in 
implementing the transparency provisions of th e Agreement.  Assistance should be provided 
to least-developed and developing country Members, and to their National Notification 
Authority and Enquiry Points as required , in order to enable them to fully implement the 
transparency provisions and to make use of the benefits associated with transparency. 
• The Committee should continue to explore means to enhance the implementation of the 
transparency provisions, and the benefits from  this transparency, by least-developed and 
developing country Members. 
V. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS (ARTICLES 3.5 
AND 12.4) 
43. In the 2005 Review, the Committee noted that it should continue to monitor the use of 
international standards at each of its regular mee tings.  The monitoring of the use of international 
standards is a standing item on the agenda of re gular Committee meetings, and in accordance with the 
agreed procedure25, the Committee has produced annual reports  relating to the process of monitoring 
international harmonization.26 
44. In 2006, the Committee reviewed the operati on of the provisional procedure based on a 
document prepared by the Secretariat.27  The Committee decided to extend the provisional procedure 
indefinitely.  The Committee also decided to review the operation of the provisional procedure as an 
integral part of its periodic Review of the Op eration and Implementation of the Agreement under 
Article 12.7, with a view to deciding whether to continue with the same procedure, amend it or 
develop another one.  The Committee furthermore encouraged Members to make use of this 
procedure to address their concerns regarding specifi c international standards or the need for such 
standards.28  The procedure has not been used extensively by Members. 
45. The standard-setting bodies have promptly addressed the concerns raised by Members 
through this procedure in their respective compet ent bodies and regularly reported on their actions to 
the SPS Committee. To enhance the participation of developing country Members in standard-setting 
meetings and activities, training programmes and re gional technical consultations on standards and 
their implementation, the Codex, IPPC and OIE have  established trust funds.  The OIE also continues 
to provide financial support for the participation of  Chief Veterinary Officers of its member countries 
in OIE standard-setting activities. 
46. In 2008, the Committee agreed to consider the monitoring procedure in light of the 
information gained from notifications under the new notification procedure and the implementation of 
the IPPC mechanism.  Chile noted that if Me mbers follow the new Transparency Recommendations 
and notify also when they impose measures based on the international standard s, this could provide 
                                                      
25 G/SPS/11/Rev.1. 
26 G/SPS/37, G/SPS/42 and Corr./1, G/SPS/45, G/SPS/49, G/SPS/51 an d Corr.1 for the period 2005-
2009. 
27 G/SPS/W/200. 
28 G/SPS/40. G/SPS/53 
Page 10  
 
  useful data and that the Committee may wish to revise the monitoring procedure in light of that 
development.  Members were also encouraged to provide information on ob stacles they encountered 
when exporting, not just on national measures applie d to imports.  Egypt noted that International 
Standard-Setting Organizations s hould continue enhancing the par ticipation of developing country 
Members in their relevant activities and re port back to the Committee as appropriate. 
47. In its proposal on issues to be considered during the Third Review
29, India suggested that the 
Secretariat prepare:  (i) a Member-specific compilation listing the various measures notified by each Member and assess how many of these were based on international standards, and (ii) a consolidated analytical compilation of all notifications relating to SPS measures over the two-year period from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2009. 
48. India also proposed that, in relation to Articl es 3.5 and 12.4 of the Agreement, the Committee 
review:  (i) the progress achieved through the use of  its recommended monitoring procedure, and (ii) 
the monitoring procedure, including the introduction of timelines for the resolution of specific concerns raised by Members. 
49. Recommendations
: 
• The Committee should continue to monitor the u se of international standards at each of its 
regular meetings and should consider revisi ng the procedure to monitor the use of 
international standards (G/SPS/11/Rev.1) to mo re closely correspond to the provisions of 
Article 12.4. 
• Members are encouraged to provide informati on regarding their experiences, or lack thereof 
in the implementation of international standards (Articles 3.5 and 12.4). 
• Members should ensure their full implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS 
Agreement, and to the extent possible, follow the recommended procedures established by the 
Committee (G/SPS/7/Rev.3), including those relating to the notification of measures 
conforming to international standards. 
 
VI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (ARTICLE 9) 
50. In the 2005 Review, the Committee encouraged  Members requiring technical assistance to 
identify their specific need s in a clear and detailed manner to permit those needs to be effectively 
addressed.  The Committee also encouraged Memb ers providing technical assistance to keep it 
informed of specific programmes of assistance.  Members were encouraged to report on the 
effectiveness of the technical assistance received,  and, on the basis of that information, and 
information on the experiences of Members in the provision of technical assistance, the Committee 
would consider identifying best practices in the area of SPS-related technical assistance.  The 
Committee invited Members to share information on their experiences regarding the use of the tools 
developed by the Secretariat to assist Members w ith the understanding and implementation of the SPS 
Agreement.  Finally, the Committee requested the S ecretariat to keep it informed of its relevant 
technical assistance activities and of the activities of the Standards and Trade Development Facility 
(STDF), and invited observer organi zations to report on their capacity building activities relevant to 
the SPS Agreement. 
51. Technical assistance is a standing agenda item.  At each regular meeting, Members and 
Observers are invited to identify any specific techni cal assistance needs which they may have, and/or 
to report on any SPS-related capacity building activities in which they are involved.  The WTO Secretariat, as well as observer organizations, report on their assistance activities. 
                                                     
 
29 G/SPS/W/236/Rev.1.  G/SPS/53 
 Page 11 
 
 
  52. WTO's technical assistance activities in the SPS ar ea contribute towards the strengthening of 
the capacities of developing country Members in meeting standards for market access of food and 
other agricultural commodities.  The activities increase participants' awareness about rights and 
obligations under the SPS Agreement and its implications at the national level.  In the organization of 
SPS technical assistance activities, the levels of fa miliarity with the Agreement and advancement in 
its implementation are taken into c onsideration to meet and respond to  individual country or regional 
needs.  The programmes of national and regional activities include presentations on the transparency 
obligations, dispute settlement, implementati on 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, IPPC and OIE). 
53. The Secretariat has developed a number of tools to assist Members with the understanding 
and implementation of the Agreement.  In pa rticular, a booklet discussing the text of the SPS 
Agreement published under the WTO Agreements Seri es (Volume No. 4).  The Secretariat has also 
printed the step-by-step Procedural Manual on the application of the recently revised transparency 
procedures.  A CD-ROM explaining and discussing in  detail the provisions of the Agreement, and 
dealing in particular with implementation, transpar ency, special and differential treatment and dispute 
settlement issues, has been produced  by the Secretariat.  The CD-R OM includes text, video and audio 
material and is complemented by multiple-choice t ests to enable users to monitor their individual 
progress.  In order to meet Members requests for a more advanced training activity on the implementation of the SPS Agreement, a three-w eek Specialized Course on SPS has been developed 
and is offered once each year.  The Secretariat also offers a distance-learning course on the SPS 
Agreement. 
54. In the context of the discussions on special and differential treatment a nd actions to address 
the underlying concerns of developing country Memb ers, in October 2006 the Secretariat prepared a 
preliminary analysis of SPS-related technical assistance
30, with a view to addressing issues regarding 
the effectiveness of assistance provided.  The Committee agreed to continue to consider the issue, and 
to explore the possibility of identifying best prac tices in the area of SPS-related technical assistance. 
55. Under the Third Review, Egypt has suggested that the Committee examine possible ways to 
fund the participation of National Notification Aut horities and/or Enquiry Points from least-developed 
and developing country Members, to meetings of the Committee.  Egypt also noted that regional 
organizations could play a role in that process. 
56. The Secretariat has compiled document G/SPS/GE N/521/Rev.5, which contains an updated 
overview of all SPS-related technical assistance ac tivities provided by the WTO Secretariat from 
September 1994 through December 2009. 
57. For the period 1994-2009, the WTO Secretariat has undertaken a total of 198 technical 
assistance activities on the SPS Agreement, including 70 regional (or sub-regional) and 85 national 
workshops.  Table 1 provides information about the number of (sub)regiona l and national activities 
per year since the last Review of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement in 2005.  
Table 2 shows the overall number of activities per region since 1994. 
                                                      
30 G/SPS/GEN/726. G/SPS/53 
Page 12  
 
  Table 1 - Number of SPS Technical Assistance Activities 
Type of Activity 
Year National 
Seminar (Sub)Regional 
Workshop Other Total 
2005 4 7 2 13 
2006 9 3 3 15 
2007 7 4 2 13 
2008 12 2 4 18 
2009  13 5 2 20 
Total 45 21 13 79 
 
 
Table 2 - SPS Technical Assistance Activities per Region (1994-2009) 
 
Type of activity 
Region National 
Seminar (Sub)Regional 
Workshop Other Total 
Africa 25 24 10 59 
Arab and Middle East Countries 14 6 1 21 
Asia and the Pacific 21 13 14 48 
Central and Eastern Europe and 
Central Asia 7 5 - 12 
Europe 1 3 7 11 
Latin America and the 
Caribbean 17 19 5 41 
North America -  1 1 
Global - - 531 5 
Total 85 70 38 198 
 
 
58. The STDF was established in September 2002 fo llowing 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 
explore new technical and financial mechanisms to promote the efficient use of resources in SPS-
related activities.32  The STDF has two main aims:  (i) to assist developing countries enhance their 
expertise and capacity to analyze and to implemen t international SPS standards, improve their human, 
animal and plant health situation, and thus their ability  to gain and maintain market access;  and (ii) to 
act as a vehicle for awareness raising on the impor tance of SPS issues, coordination among technical 
assistance providers, the mobilization of funds, the exchange of experience and the dissemination of 
                                                      
31 SPS Specialized Courses. 
32 More information on the STDF can  be obtained on the website:  http://www.standardsfacility.org .  G/SPS/53 
 Page 13 
 
 
  good practice in relation to the provision and receipt  of SPS-related technical assistance.  Secretariat 
documents give regular overviews and updates of  STDF activities, including funding offered for 
projects and project preparation grants in developing countries.33 
59. As part of its co-ordination function, the STDF has organized a number of events that 
provided information and assistance to all Members.  In November 2007, the STDF organized, jointly 
with the World Bank and the United Nations I ndustrial Development Organization (UNIDO), a 
workshop to examine issues related to investment in laboratory infrastructure in developing countries 
which provide services for food safety and agricultural health .34  In March 2008, the STDF held a 
workshop on Capacity Evaluation Tools used in the SPS area.35  A publication providing information 
on the scope and use of twelve Tools developed by  international organizati ons is available on the 
STDF website.  
60. In June 2008, the STDF organized an informa tion session on private standards.  The session 
focussed on developments in the area of private standards since the June 2007 information session, 
and drew conclusions with regard to SPS-related technical assistance.36  Finally, in October 2008, the 
STDF organized a special workshop on Good Prac tice in SPS-related Technical Cooperation, in 
collaboration with the Organization for Economic C ooperation and Development (OECD).  More than 
200 delegates participated in the workshop, some with assistance from the WTO Global Trust Fund or 
the STDF.  The workshop presented the results of  research on good practice in SPS-related projects 
identified by Members as having been successful, a nd considered how to apply the Paris Principles on 
Aid Effectiveness in this area.37 
61. In November 2008, the STDF presented a desk study on SPS needs and assistance provided to 
eight LDCs at the LDC Ministerial Conference on Aid for Trade in Cambodia.  The study identified 
areas where future SPS technical cooperation activities with a positive trade effect might be focused.38  
In the near future, similar SPS briefings may be envisaged for other countries.  The STDF also 
prepared a background paper for the "Open-Ended Working Group for the Development of an IPPC 
Capacity Building Strategy" held in Rome in December 2008.39  The report identified current flows of 
phytosanitary technical cooperation, examined how  phytosanitary needs are evaluated and discussed 
how these could be mainstreamed into national development plans. 
62. In the first half of 2009, the STDF develope d a 30 minute film entitled "Trading safely: 
Protecting health, promoting development".  The pur pose of the film, which was screened in the SPS 
Committee meeting in June 2009, is to raise awar eness among policy and decision-makers about the 
importance of SPS issues and to promote SPS capacity  building.  With stories from Benin, Belize, 
Thailand and Viet Nam, the film illustrates how some  countries are rising to the challenge of meeting 
food safety and animal and plant health requirement s to be able to benef it from trade in food and 
agricultural products.  The film is available on a trilingual DVD in English, French and Spanish and 
can also be downloaded from the STDF website. 
63. Three STDF events took place in the second ha lf of 2009.  On 22-23 September, a joint 
STDF/World Bank workshop was held in Washington D.C. to discuss new developments in climate 
change and trade, and the implications for SPS ri sks.  The event addressed key issues related to 
climate change, including effects on agriculture trad e and the regulatory reforms needed to adapt to 
                                                      
33 G/SPS/GEN/595, 648, 718, 748, 774, 847, 865, 877, 902 and 939. 
34 G/SPS/GEN/823. 
35 G/SPS/GEN/826. 
36 G/SPS/R/50. 
37 G/SPS/GEN/875 and G/SPS/R/52. 
38 G/SPS/GEN/900. 
39 G/SPS/GEN/898. G/SPS/53 
Page 14  
 
  these changes, as well as the expect ed SPS impacts.  Presentations highlighted how climate change 
may require countries to upgrade their SPS systems in order to deal with emerging challenges, and the 
implications for SPS technical cooperation and assistance.  
64. On 29-30 September, the STDF co-hosted with  the Economic Community of West African 
States (ECOWAS) a stakeholder workshop in Bama ko, Mali on the implementation of a regional 
action plan to control fruit fly in West Africa, in close collaboration with the World Bank, the 
European Communities and the Europe-Africa-Cari bbean-Pacific Liaison Committee (COLEACP).  
Close to 100 participants, including government re presentatives, private sector, civil society, research 
institutions and development partne rs, validated the regional action plan, prepared by COLEACP, and 
adopted the Bamako Declaration, outlining a roadmap of recommended actions to commence 
implementation of the action plan. 
65. On 30 October, the STDF organized a workshop in  Geneva, back-to-back with the meetings 
of the SPS Committee, on the use of economic anal ysis to inform SPS decision-making.  The 
workshop discussed the costs and benefits of st rengthening SPS systems.  Relevant experiences and 
lessons from both developed and de veloping countries were presented, as well as guidelines to assist 
countries in applying economic analysis in SPS d ecision-making.  Detailed information about these 
three events, including summary reports, background documentation and presentations, is available on 
the STDF website.  In addition, the STDF Secretariat prepared short briefing notes summarizing the main discussions and conclusions emerging from these events.
40 
66. Two STDF thematic events are scheduled in  2010.  A workshop/expert seminar on SPS 
performance indicators will take place on 1 July , back-to-back with the WTO SPS Committee 
meeting in Geneva, aiming at assisting SPS practitio ners in improving the design and management of 
SPS projects, and lead to better monitoring and measurement of results.  The event will build on previous STDF work on good practice and present the results of a joint STDF/OECD study on indicators to measure performance and ensure sustai nability of SPS-related technical cooperation.  A 
workshop on public-private partnerships in SPS capac ity building is scheduled in the second half of 
the year, aiming at exploring new modalities of cap acity building and fostering a more systematic 
dialogue with the private sector.  The event will pr esent examples and seek to identify the elements of 
effective and successful public-private partnerships in SPS capacity building. 
67. Since the 2005 Review, the international standa rd-setting bodies have consistently provided 
information about their technical assistance activitie s to the SPS Committee.  All three organizations 
have developed training programmes, including co nferences, seminars and workshops, to enhance 
national capacities on SPS matters.  The OIE reported in 2009 that the Performance of Veterinary 
Services (PVS) tool related to animal health had been conducted in many countries to identify their 
needs and priorities, in order to solve existing problems.  In addition, the OIE supported the participation of developing country  Members in the elaboration of standards by ensuring that experts 
from every region participated in developing the draft text of a scientific standard.  The Codex and the 
IPPC have trust funds which sponsor the particip ation of officials from developing country Members 
and economies in transition to participate in their meetings.  The programme is aimed at enhancing 
those officials' level of participation in the elabora tion of Codex standards.  In addition to information 
from the OIE, IPPC and the Codex, other observe rs organizations, including FAO, the World Bank, 
OIRSA, IICA, UNIDO and UNCTAD, provide re gular updates concerning their provision of 
technical assistance. 
                                                     
 
40 STDF Briefing notes are available at:   
http://www.standardsfacility.org /Archive_1PageBriefings.htm .  G/SPS/53 
 Page 15 
 
 
  68. 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, including hard  or soft infrastructure developments or any 
other technical assistance approaches. 
• Members are encouraged to report on the effecti veness of the technical assistance they have 
received to assist them in complying wi th international and official standards. 
•  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) 
69. In the 2005 Review, the Committee agreed to cont inue to consider specific, concrete actions 
to address the problems faced by least-devel oped and developing country Members in the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement and in making u se of the benefits of the Agreement.  Members 
were encouraged to provide information regarding the special and differential treatment or technical 
assistance they have provided in response to specifi c needs identified by Members in accordance with 
the procedure adopted by the Committee in October 2004.41 
70. Special and differential treatment is a standing agenda item.  In 2005, Members were invited 
to share with the Committee their experience under the procedure to enhance the transparency of 
special and differential treatment.  With respect  to the proposals referred to the SPS Committee by the 
General Council, the Committee adopted, in June  2005, a report to the General Council on these 
proposals.42  The report expresses the Committee's commitm ent to continue to examine the proposals 
before it, and any revision of these proposals, w ith the aim of developing specific recommendations 
for a decision.  The report also  identifies elements for discussion on further work to assist the 
Committee to address the concerns underlying the propo sals as identified by Members, with a view to 
fulfilling the Doha Development Mandate.  Disc ussion of these elements commenced at the 
Committee meeting of October 2005. 
71. In March 2006, a Special Workshop was held to  further identify ways to address the problems 
faced by developing country Members in implemen ting the SPS Agreement.  Discussions at this 
Workshop focussed on the effectiveness of technical  assistance and suggested the need for further 
work to improve the implementation of the transparency provisions.43  In 2007, Egypt proposed 
amendments to the procedures for S&D transparency , some of which were adopted by the Committee 
as revisions to the general recommended proce dures for transparency.  Egypt's proposals are 
contained in JOB(07)/104 and the revised Transparency Recommendations are in G/SPS/7/Rev.3. 
                                                      
41 G/SPS/33. 
42 G/SPS/35. 
43 G/SPS/R/41. G/SPS/53 
Page 16  
 
  72. In February 2006, the Committee agreed to furt her extend the procedure for transparency of 
special and differential treatment provided in r esponse to specific needs of developing country 
Members
44, but to date there has been no indication that Members are using this procedure.  Starting 
in 2008, the Committee has considered proposals fo r the revision of the procedure to enhance the 
transparency of special and differential treatment.  The proposal has been revised several times to 
incorporate further comments and suggestions made by Members at informal and regular meetings in 
October 2008, and in February, June and October 2009.45 
73. At its October 2009 regular meeting, the Co mmittee adopted, on an ad referendum basis, a 
revision of the procedure to enhance the transpar ency of special and differential treatment.  No 
objections were raised by the 16 December 2009 d eadline, and the revised decision was subsequently 
circulated as G/SPS/33/Rev.1. 
74. The Committee also continued its examination of the implementation of the SPS Agreement 
and the concerns of developing country Members.   The proposals referred to the SPS Committee by 
the General Council were on the agenda of each meeting of the Committee.  Although there were 
substantive discussions of some revisions informally  suggested by the African Group at the February, 
March and October 2006 meetings, the Committee was not able to reach a decision on any of the 
specific proposals as presented.46 
75. However, with a view to fulfilling the D oha Development Mandate, several Members 
suggested approaches to advance the work of th e Committee to address the proposals as identified by 
Members including seeking clarification of the concer ns underlying the proposals.  In June 2006, the 
United States introduced a paper containing a comp ilation of ideas related to technical assistance and 
special and differential treatment47, taking into account information provided by developing country 
Members at the Workshop on the Implementation of the Agreement, held in March 2006.48 
76. At an informal meeting on Special and Di fferential Treatment held in February and 
March 2007, the Committee discussed the five proposal s on special and differential treatment referred 
to it in August 2004.  In particular:  (i) the G/SPS/ 33 procedure and its extens ion until 2008;  (ii) the 
G/SPS/35 report;  (iii) the African Group's revisions to  its proposal on Article 9.2;  (iv) the adoption 
by the General Council of the proposal from a numbe r of small and vulnerable economies;  and (v) 
Members' submissions on technical assistance a nd the paper from the United States on Special and 
Differential Treatment.49  A revised proposal regarding Article 10.1 was presented to the Committee 
in June 2007 and discussed at its October meeting.50 
77. The Decision on Implementation taken at the D oha Ministerial Conference in 2001 included, 
inter alia,  a clarification on Article 10.2.51  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 indicates 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. 
                                                      
44 G/SPS/33/Add.1. 
45 G/SPS/W/224 and subsequent revisions. 
46 G/SPS/41. 
47 G/SPS/W/198. 
48 G/SPS/R/41. 
49 G/SPS/W/198. 
50 JOB(07)/99. 
51 WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 3.1.  G/SPS/53 
 Page 17 
 
 
  78. The Committee on Trade and Development Special Session (CTD-SS) has been considering 
two proposals which are related to the SPS Agreement:  one proposal relating to Article 10.2 tabled 
by India and another proposal relating to Artic le 10.3 tabled by the African Group and a group of 
developing country Members.  The specific propo sals and the most recent language considered under 
each article was brought to the attention of the SP S Committee.  With respect to Article 10.2, the 
proponents were of the view that the current interpretation of the phrase "longer time-frame for 
compliance" found in paragraph 3.1 of the D oha Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and 
Concerns was not sufficient for operationalizing this Article.  With respect to Article 10.3 relating to 
the granting of time-limited exceptions by the SPS Committee from obligations under the Agreement, 
the proponents claim that their focu s is on ensuring predictability of the process to request such an 
exception, while other Members are concerned that the proposal would prejudge the outcome of such 
requests and amount to automatic granting of waivers.  The objective of the CTD-SS is to agree on specific recommendations on all outstanding proposals.   Some Members have recommended that all 
the SPS-related proposals be discussed in the SPS Committee. 
79. In its proposal on the Third Review
52, India stressed the need to  expedite the work under the 
special and differential agenda, and asked that the implementation of the procedure to enhance 
transparency of special and differential treatment be evaluated.  Egypt suggested that the Committee 
develop a "quick guide" to inform least-developed and developing country Members of the steps to 
take should a new or modified SPS measure potentially  have significant effect on their international 
trade. 
80. 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 developing country Members, and in particular least-developed country 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 assistan ce they have provided in res ponse to specific needs identified 
by Members in accordance with the procedu re adopted by the Committee (G/SPS/33/Rev.1), 
to be periodically compiled in a report by the Secretariat. 
VIII.  REGIONALIZATION (ARTICLE 6) 
81. In the 2005 Review, the Committee decided to  develop a proposal for a decision on the 
effective application of Article 6, taking as the point of departure the various proposals submitted by 
Members and discussions in the Committee.  Member s were encouraged to provide information on 
their experiences in the implementation of Article 6,  and observer organizations were invited to keep 
the Committee informed of their activities relevant to  the recognition of pest- or disease-free areas or 
areas of low pest or disease prevalence ("regionalization"). 
82. Regionalization is a standing agenda item.  At each regular meeting of the Committee, 
Members are invited to provide information regardin g their experience with the recognition of pest- or 
disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease pr evalence.  Observer organizations regularly 
provide information to the Committee regarding re levant advances in their work on this issue. 
83. In May 2008, the SPS Committee adopted "Guidelines to Further the Practical 
Implementation of Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
                                                      
52 G/SPS/W/236/Rev.1. G/SPS/53 
Page 18  
 
  Measures", to facilitate the recognition of pest- and disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease 
prevalence.
53  The guidelines identify the type of information normally needed for the recognition of 
regionalization, as well as typical administrative steps in the recognition process.  The Committee 
agreed to monitor the implementation of Article 6, on the basis of information provided by Members. 
84. Both the IPPC and the OIE have provided guidan ce for countries seeking to establish, or to be 
recognized for, pest- or disease-free status.  The IPPC currently has several directly relevant 
standards:  ISPM 4 on requirements for the estab lishment of pest-free areas;  ISPM 10 for the 
establishment of pest-free places of production and production sites;  and ISPM 29:  on the 
recognition of pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence.  In addition, IPPC has a number of 
supporting standards, including gui delines for pest surveillance.. 
85. The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code describes the requirements for obtaining disease-
free status including requirements for surveillance and monitoring based on the concept of geographic 
zones.  At its 77th General Session in May 2009, the OIE adopt ed a number of resolutions related to 
recognition of disease-free areas.  These are contai ned in the annexes to document G/SPS/GEN/943.  
The World Global Assembly (formerly Internationa l Committee) approved a list of countries or zones 
that had applied for official OIE recognition of th eir sanitary status concerning four diseases:  BSE, 
FMD, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP), a nd rinderpest.  In addition, the OIE is working 
with the FAO to eradicate rinderpest globally and is  considering the possibility of granting official 
recognition of freedom from certain horse diseases. 
86. The procedures established by the OIE for FM D-free compartments as a new approach are 
described in document G/SPS/GEN/971.  The OIE also  continues to consider standards based on the 
treatment of commodities as a mechanism to avoi d the requirement for zones to establish disease 
freedom.  That mechanism will be further discussed at the next meeting of the Code Commission and 
at the OIE General Session in May 2010. 
87. Recommendations : 
• The Committee should maintain regionalizatio n as a standing item of the agenda for its 
regular meetings. 
• Members are encouraged to provide informati on on their experiences in the implementation 
of Article 6, including on the use of the Gu idelines adopted by the Committee in that regard 
(G/SPS/48). 
• The observer organizations are invited to keep the Committee informed of their activities 
relevant to the recognition of pest- or disease- free areas or areas of low pest or disease 
prevalence . 
 
IX. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
88. In the 2005 Review, the Committee encouraged Me mbers to make use of the opportunity to 
identify specific trade problems and to seek to fi nd mutually satisfactory resolutions of those 
problems.  Members were encouraged to inform the Committee when specifi c trade concerns were 
resolved, and the Secretariat was re quested to continue to provide regularly updated information on 
the specific trade concerns c onsidered by the Committee. 
89. Part of each Committee meeting is devoted to the consideration of specific trade concerns 
raised by Members.  Since 2000 , the Secretariat has annually updated a document that summarizes 
                                                      
53 G/SPS/48.  G/SPS/53 
 Page 19 
 
 
  the specific trade concerns brought to the Committee's attention since 1995.54  The excerpts below are 
from the tenth revision of G/SPS/GEN/204, issued in February 2010, which in cludes all issues raised 
at SPS Committee meetings through to the end of 2 009.  All information on specific trade concerns 
can also be searched in the SPS IMS. 
90. Altogether, 290 specific trade concerns were  raised between 1995 and 31 December 2009.  
Figure 3 shows the number of new concerns raised each year;  13 new concerns were raised in 2009.  
Figure 4a categorizes the trade concerns raised si nce 1995 into food safety, animal or plant health 
issues.  It is important to keep in mind, however, that some issues may relate to more than one of 
these categories.  Concerns relating to zoonoses, fo r example, may concern measures taken with both 
animal health and food safety objectives.  For the purposes of these graphs, a single objective has 
been designated as the principle concern, however all relevant keywords have been assigned for 
purposes of electronic searches of the data on specific trade concerns.  Overall, 28 per cent of trade 
concerns relate to food safety concerns, 26 per cent re late to plant health, and 6 per cent concern other 
issues such as certification requirements or translati on.  Forty per cent of concerns raised relate to 
animal health and zoonoses.  The animal health and zoonoses category is further divided into foot-
and-mouth disease (FMD), transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), Avian Influenza (AI) 
and other animal health concerns (OAH).  That la tter category includes issues related to influenza 
A/H1N1.  Figure 4b shows that TSEs account for 36 pe r cent of animal health concerns, while issues 
related to foot-and-mouth disease account for 24 per cen t.  The remaining 40 per cent relate to other 
animal health concerns and avian influenza. 
 
Figure 3 - Number of New Issues Raised 
 
 
  
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
      
 
                                                     
 
54 G/SPS/GEN/204 and Revisions 1 through 10 and addenda. 2112423
13
1029 29
2131
1016 16
1342
051015202530354045
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YearNumber of IssuesG/SPS/53 
Page 20  
 
  Figure 4a – Trade Concerns by Subject 
    
 
    
 
    
 
     
 
 
Figure 4b – Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses  
 
 
 
     
 
    
 
     
 
 91. Developing country Members are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS 
Committee meetings.  Figure 5a indicates that si nce 1995, developing country Members have raised 
146 trade concerns (on many occasions more than one  Member has raised, supported or maintained an 
issue) compared to 190 raised by developed country Members and three raised by least-developed 
country Members.
55  A developing country Member has supporte d another Member raising an issue in 
                                                      
55 The European Communities was counted as one Member.  Similarly, when one Member spoke on 
behalf of ASEAN, it was counted as one Member only. Animal Health
40%
Food Safety
28%Plant Health
26%Other
6%
Animal Health
Food Safety
Plant Health
Other
TSE
36%
FMD
24%AI
9%OAH
31%
TSE
FMD
AI
OAH G/SPS/53 
 Page 21 
 
 
  188 cases, compared to 136 for developed country Members and one for least-developed country 
Members.  In 178 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a developed country Member, and in 
149 cases it was maintained by a developing country Member.  No trade concerns regarding measures 
maintained by least-developed country Members have  been raised.  Figure 5b shows the number of 
new issues raised each year by each category of Member. 
Figure 5a – Participation by WTO Members (1995-2009) 
    
 
    
 
     
 
    
 
 
 
 
Figure 5b – Number of New Issues Raised by Members 
 
 
 
    
 
     
 
    
 
   18813
190
178136
149146
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Members Maintaining
the Measure in
QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the
IssueNumber of Members
Developed Countries Developing Countries Least-Developed Countries
4101719
8
529
19
1316
710
6521
6914
119
15
211
5519
13
1015
5
2
05101520253035
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Number of Issues
Developed countries Developing countries Least-Developed CountriesG/SPS/53 
Page 22  
 
  92. Figure 6 indicates that 79 trade concerns have been reported resolved out of the 290 trade 
concerns raised since 1995.  Three issues were re ported resolved in 2009.  Eighteen trade concerns 
have been reported partially solved.  In these in stances, trade may have been allowed for selected 
products or by some of the importing Members main taining the measure in question.  No solutions 
have been reported for the remaining 193 trade concerns .  It is also likely that other concerns have 
been resolved without the Committee be ing made aware of these developments. 
Figure 6 – Solved Trade Concerns 
   
 
    
 
     
 
    
 
 
93. During the discussions related to the Third Revi ew, Cuba noted that several of the trade 
concerns had been continuously raised over a l ong period of time, and asked that the Committee 
consider the best way to deal with those concerns. 
94. 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 expeditious and mutually satisfactory resolutions of these problems. 
• Members are encouraged to inform the Committ ee of all specific trade concerns resolved. 
• The Secretariat is requested to  continue to provide regular ly updated information on the 
specific trade concerns considered by the Committee. 
 
X. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT – ARTICLE 13 
95. The members of MERCOSUR (Argentina, Brazil,  Paraguay and Uruguay) referred to Article 
13 of the Agreement and to Members' res ponsibility to comply with the SPS Agreement.56  As some 
Members had difficulties understanding and appl ying Article 13, MERCOSUR proposed that the 
                                                      
56 G/SPS/W/245. 79193
18
050100150200250
No solution reported Solution reported Partial solution reported
StatusNumber of Issues G/SPS/53 
 Page 23 
 
 
  Committee elaborate guidelines to implement Artic le 13 and render its provisions effectively 
applicable by Members. 
96. Some Members considered the MERCOSUR propo sal as a good basis for further discussion 
on the issue of private standards and on Article 13, to enable, in particular, small developing country 
Members to better implement SPS provisions and improve market access. 
97. Other Members noted that developing guidelines for Article 13 or a Code of Good Practice 
for private standards could pre-empt the results of  the Committee's current work on private standards. 
98. Recommendations : 
• Members are encouraged to make use of the Co mmittee's meetings to share, on an ad hoc 
basis, information regarding their experien ces in the implementation of Article 13.  
• Specific problems relating to the implementation of  Article 13 may be raised as specific trade 
concerns. 
 
XI. PRIVATE VOLUNTARY STANDARDS 
99. Since the 2005 Review of the SPS Agreement, there has been frequent discussion in the 
Committee on the issue of private voluntary stan dards ("private standards").  The discussions 
considered the impact of commercial and private st andards on market access;  the effect of private 
standards on development and whether it is appropr iate for the Committee to have a discussion on 
related legal aspects, as some Members do not cons ider this to be within the mandate of the 
Committee.  There has been no formal determina tion within the WTO on whether privates standards 
fall under the jurisdiction of the SPS Agreement. 
100. The issue of private standards was first rai sed at the June 2005 meeting of the Committee.57  
At that meeting, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines raised a concern regarding the operation of a 
EurepGAP scheme in relation to trade in banan as with supermarkets in the United Kingdom.  The 
requirement was with respect to the use of certain pesticides.  Other Members also expressed concerns 
with the effects of private standards on their tr ade.  An information session was subsequently 
organized in the margins of the October 2006 meeting with representatives of EurepGAP and 
UNCTAD.58  The Committee also decided to include the issue of private and commercial standards as 
part of the agenda of its February 2007 meeting.  A background note by the Secretariat described the 
different types of private standards, and summarized the types of concerns that had been identified by 
Members.59 
101. In 2008, the Committee conti nued to discuss the effects of commercial and private SPS –
related standards on trade, and the appropriate role of the SPS Committee.  At its June meeting, an 
informal information session was held with repr esentatives of entities involved in the development 
and certification of private standards, as well with or ganizations who have undertaken related studies.  
Members were invited to propose possible actions  by the SPS Committee in response to a series of 
questions. 
102. Members agreed to work within a small group on an informal and flexible basis, with a 
commitment to keep the Committee fully informed .  A list of documents and other information on 
                                                      
57 G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras.16-20. 
58 G/SPS/R/43, paras. 40-42. 
59 G/SPS/GEN/746. G/SPS/53 
Page 24  
 
  private standards, including all the documents on private standards circulated in the SPS Committee, 
and a list of research and researchers on private st andards, was made available by the Secretariat.
60 
103. In October 2008, the Committee agreed to th e actions proposed in document G/SPS/W/230, 
with the following changes:  (1) that the Secretaria t provide a format for the information solicited for 
purposes of undertaking a comparative study;  (2) that there be no limitation on the number of 
products a Member could identify as affected by pr ivate standards;  and (3) that although Members 
should make every effort to provide as complete information as possible with regard to each product 
identified, a lack of complete information should not necessarily prevent consideration of the product 
within the comparative study. 
104. As a follow up, in December 2008, the Secret ariat circulated a questionnaire on SPS-related 
private standards.61  Members were invited to send th eir responses to the questionnaire by 
16 February, which was subsequently  extended until 24 April 2009.  A total of 22 Members provided 
responses , in many cases for several products. 
105. These responses were summarized in a compilati on document, considered by the Committee 
at its June meeting.62  The document was revised following the October meetings of the Committee 
and was circulated under a new title.63 
106. The initial replies to the questionnaire indicat ed that producers and companies considered 
private standards as "the" market access condition with  which they had to comply.  For most of them, 
there was no understanding of a distinction betw een national and international versus private 
standards.  Those producers and companies which ma naged to meet private standards were able to 
gain or maintain market share, although that did not necessarily provide a price premium.  For many 
producers supplying a number of markets or buyers, private standards mean complying with a 
multitude of standards and paying separately for their certification. 
107. According to the initial responses, smaller produ cers were particularly affected by private 
standards due to their limited capacity to undertake the investment necessary to meet the detailed 
requirements and pay for the certification.  Some which could meet official national food safety 
requirements in their export markets found themselves unable to satisfy the "safety" requirements of 
private standards.  In some instances, tec hnical assistance could assist farmers to meet the 
requirements of private standards. 
108. On the other hand, it has been suggested th at private standards and their certification 
requirements serve an important function in providing assurances to buyers and in responding to consumer demands in the area of food quality as well as in other areas such as labor and 
environmental requirements.  Some Members consid er that interfering in these initiatives of private 
entities could be inappropriate, except in instan ces of deceptive practices and distortions of 
competition.  At the same time, some sensitizati on of entities involved with private standards was 
occurring, they were alerted to concerns related to lack of transparency and adverse effects on 
developing countries.  Still, it was unrealistic for a ll producers to expect to be able to participate 
competitively in international trade. 
109. An underlying preoccupation expressed by many Members was the importance of preserving 
the principles and relevance of the SPS Agreement in  international trade matters related to sanitary 
and phytosanitary issues, and in not undermining the value of international standards.  Several 
                                                     
 
60 G/SPS/GEN/865 and G/SPS/GEN/891. 
61 G/SPSW/232. 
62 G/SPS/GEN/932. 
63 G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1.  G/SPS/53 
 Page 25 
 
 
  Members also asked for, in addition to the ad-hoc  working group, the establishment of a permanent 
monitoring mechanism by the Committee of private standards. 
110. In its proposal of issues for the Third Review64, India suggested that the Committee develop 
specific guidelines on the measures to be taken by Members in cases where private standards were 
being adopted by various entities within their te rritories.  Some Members also suggested that 
Members consider introducing a Code of Good Practi ce (similar to Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement) 
for all voluntary standard-setting authorities located w ithin their territories.  Egypt suggested that the 
SPS Committee ask the Secretariat to prepare a lega l note on the scope of the SPS Agreement and its 
relation to private standards. 
111. The Committee's consideration of private standa rds has revealed widely divergent views.  
Some Members suggest that resources would be best  used by focussing on the development of official 
measures and on specific trade concerns.  In additi on, Members could address their concerns directly 
to private standard and certification bodies, and highlight the need for improved transparency, 
consultation of stakeholders and, benchmarking of standards to offi cial international standards.  
112. As agreed by the Committee, the Secretaria t prepared a document compiling Members' 
suggestions of possible actions that could be ta ken by the Committee and/or Members to address 
concerns regarding the effects of private SPS standards.65  This document was considered at the 
October 2009 meeting and will be revised to reflect Members' concerns. 
113. MERCOSUR expressed concerns regarding the pr oliferation of private standards and how 
these affected market access in the same manner as regulations66.  They suggested that the SPS 
Committee was competent to find a solution to the c oncern of many Members that private standards 
were being applied in a manner that re ndered the SPS Agreement ineffective.  
114. The OIE, IPPC and Codex also provided upda tes with respect to their work on private 
standards.  The Committee decided to further cons ider the Secretariat's second report, G/SPS/W/247, 
in light of comments from Members and work undertaken by the OIE and Codex. 
115. Recommendations : 
• Members and Observers are encouraged to provid e information on any relevant studies or 
analysis which they have undertaken, or of which they are aware. 
 
• The Committee may continue its consideration of SPS-related private standards and their 
effects on international trade taking into acc ount the guidance to be provided by the ad hoc 
working group on this matter. 
XII. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT – USE OF AD HOC 
CONSULTATIONS 
116. In the 2005 Review, Members were encouraged to make use of the possibility for ad hoc 
consultations, including through the Good Offices of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee, to 
facilitate the resolution of specific trade concerns. 
117. Article 12.2 states that the Committee "shall enc ourage and facilitate ad hoc consultations or 
negotiations among Members on specific sanitary or ph ytosanitary issues".  To date, this has been 
                                                      
64 G/SPS/W/236/Rev.1. 
65 G/SPS/W/247. 
66 G/SPS/W/246. G/SPS/53 
Page 26  
 
  done through:  (1) Members raising specific trade co ncerns at regular meetings of the SPS Committee;  
(2) discussions by the Committee of specific is sues such as implementation of ISPM 15 and 
private/commercial standards;  and (3) provision in the Committee's Workin g Procedures for the use 
of the Good Offices of the Chairperson. 
118. Document G/SPS/GEN/781 gives a broad overview of different ways in which the SPS 
Committee has facilitated ad hoc consultations am ong Members.  Most commonly, Members have 
raised specific trade concerns at meetings of th e Committee, and sought bilateral resolutions.  During 
the Second Review, there had been proposals to impr ove and increase the use of the mechanism, such 
as providing more time for this purpose at Committee meetings, establishing specific procedures, disseminating information about the resolution of concerns raised in the past and facilitating 
participation of developing and least-developed co untry Members.  Rules and procedures for using 
the "Good Offices" of the Chair had also been propo sed.  This confidential procedure had been used 
on three occasions.  In addition, according to Article  5.8, Members could request an explanation of 
the reasons for a measure which did not conform to  an international standard or for which an 
international standard does not exist.  This provi sion has been invoked by several Members over the 
years, and some had suggested developing a proce dure for its use, however no specific procedure has 
been proposed. 
119. Following-up on the Second Review, the United States and Argentina submitted proposals on 
guidelines for the use of the Chairperson's Good Offi ces, first individually and subsequently jointly.
67  
Many Members welcomed the focus on addressing the technical issues, and the possible involvement 
of Codex, IPPC or OIE as appropriate.  Several Members, however, indicated their preference to 
instead pursue the development of an horizontal  mechanism to address non-tariff measures, under 
discussion in the Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) Negotiations.  Argentina and the United 
States noted that their joint proposal on ad hoc c onsultations was in line with proposals in NAMA. 
120. Argentina submitted a further proposal to develop a procedure to enhance the use of the good 
offices of the SPS chairperson68 and noted that there was no conflict between the joint Argentina-US 
proposal69 and the most recent draft under discussion in the NAMA negotiations on a "horizontal" 
mechanism for the resolution of trade concerns.  The European Communities and India noted their 
support for the NAMA horizontal approach, and thei r concern that the development of a mechanism 
specific to the SPS Committee could undermin e the work on a horizontal approach. 
121. In June 2009, the Committee agreed to consider  a provisional mechanism for use in the SPS 
Committee, that would be reviewed and revi sed as necessary when a conclusion was reached 
regarding the horizontal mechanism.  The propos ed provisional mechanism, based on the joint 
Argentina-US proposal, is contained in G/SPS/W/243. 
122. India proposed that in the context of the Th ird Review, Members assess the work undertaken 
by the Committee to implement the provisi ons of Article 12.2 of the SPS Agreement.70 
123. In October 2009, Brazil proposed a modified c onsultation mechanism in the SPS Committee, 
with the objective of ensuring the effectiv e resolution of SPS divergences amongst Members.71  India 
and the Philippines stated a preference for the pr ocedure currently under negotiation in NAMA, to 
ensure coherence across the board.72  China recognized the need for ad hoc negotiations and 
                                                      
67 G/SPS/W/233. 
68 G/SPS/W/241. 
69 G/SPS/W/233. 
70 G/SPS/W/236/Rev.1. 
71 G/SPS/W/248. 
72 TN/MA/W/106.  G/SPS/53 
 Page 27 
 
 
  consultations amongst Members under the SPS Agreemen t, but expressed concerns about the costs in 
bringing technical experts from capital for th e relevant meetings.  Mexico submitted written 
comments in response to documents G/SPS/W/243 and G/SPS/W/24873. 
124. A number of Members indicated their preference for the mechanism proposed in 
G/SPS/W/243.  They noted that they had been wa iting for the results of the NAMA discussions for 
many years, and that paragraph 3 of G/SPS/W/ 243 would require that the outcome of the NAMA 
negotiations be taken into account. 
125. Although Argentina was a co-author of the te xt under discussion in the NAMA negotiations, 
it was of the view that the SPS Committee had to move  soon to formalize rules with respect to ad hoc 
consultations and in particular on the use of the good offices of the Chair.  A revision of 
G/SPS/W/243 was prepared for consideration by the Committee in March 2010 . 
126. Recommendations : 
• Members should endeavour to expeditiously concl ude this outstanding issue from the Second 
Review in a manner which facilitates the use of  ad hoc consultations, including through the 
good offices of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee, for the resolution of specific trade concerns. 
XIII.  COOPERATION WITH THE CODEX, OIE AND IPPC 
127. In the 2005 Review, the Committee noted that the relationship between the Committee and 
the Codex, OIE and IPPC should be clarified with a view to facilitating the implementation of the SPS 
Agreement while avoiding duplication of activities.  The Committee also invited Members to provide 
information regarding their experiences in that  regard and to submit specific suggestions for 
consideration by the Committee. 
128. The Committee is required to monitor the process of international harmonization and 
coordinate efforts with these bodies (Article 3.5), and to develop a procedure to monitor the use of 
international standards, guidelines and recommenda tions (Article 12.4).  The Committee adopted a 
provisional monitoring procedure in July 1997, wh ich has been subsequently extended and revised.
74  
In addition, on the basis of an initiative from a Member, the Committee may, through appropriate 
channels, invite the relevant intern ational organizations to examine sp ecific matters with respect to a 
particular standard, guideline or recommendation (A rticle 12.6).  In practice, this has been done 
through a letter from the Chairperson of the SPS Co mmittee drawing the attention of the Codex, IPPC 
and OIE to relevant issues that have been identif ied in the annual report on the monitoring of the use 
of international standards. 
129. Representatives from each of these organizati ons attend the SPS Committee meetings and 
representatives from the WTO Secretariat attend mee tings of these international organizations as 
observers.  Cooperation between the SPS Committ ee 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 previous Sections of this  Report.  The STDF provides an additional forum for 
coordination among its partner or ganizations, including the WTO, Codex, IPPC and OIE. 
130. In the context of the recommendation arising from 2005 Review, New Zealand tabled a 
proposal to clarify the relationship between th e SPS Committee and the Codex, IPPC and OIE, 
                                                      
73 G/SPS/GEN/988 and G/SPS/GEN/989. 
74 G/SPS/11/Rev.1. G/SPS/53 
Page 28  
 
  including a number of questions to be put to the Three Sisters.
75  Japan proposed, in light of the 
various cross-sectoral issues under consideration such as regionalization or private standards, that the Committee organize a workshop on the standard-setti ng procedures of the Codex, IPPC and OIE.
76 
131. A special workshop was held on 26 October 2009 to  examine the work of the Codex, IPPC 
and OIE and how to enhance the relationship between them and th e SPS Committee.  The programme 
for the workshop was organized around:  (i) presen tations by the international standard-setting 
organizations on the procedures and issues they face  in the development, adoption and monitoring of 
the use of international standards of relevance to  the SPS Committee;  and (ii) discussions on concrete 
actions to improve coordination between the Comm ittee and Codex, IPPC and OIE, to increase the 
use of international standards and avoid duplication of efforts.77 
132. The standard-setting procedures of each organiza tion were reviewed, with a focus on how to 
enhance the participation of developing countries.   Areas for future collaboration between the four 
bodies were identified, and the need for more effec tive coordination of positions at the national level 
was stressed.  The workshop also  resulted in 11 recommendations which seek to improve coordination 
and collaboration between the SPS Committee, Codex, IPPC and OIE.  The report of the workshop is 
found in G/SPS/R/57, and the presentations from th e workshop are available on the SPS gateway of 
the WTO website.78 
 133. Under the Third Review, Egypt suggested that Members provide information on their 
experiences on how the work of Codex, IPPC and OIE was being coordinated at the national level. 
134. Recommendations
: 
• The Committee should follow-up on the recommendations that resulted from the 
October 2009 workshop (G/SPS/R/57) with a view  to strengthening the relationship between 
the Committee and the Codex, IPPC and OIE.  
• Members are encouraged to provide informati on on their experiences in coordinating their 
involvement in the work of Codex, IPPC and OIE at the national level. 
XIV.  GOOD REGULATORY PRACTICE 
135. In the 2005 Review, some Members noted that many problems related to gaining market 
access were directly linked to failure to comply in a timely fashion with certain obligations laid down 
in the SPS Agreement.  Mexico proposed that the Committee consider developing guidelines that 
would promote practical implementation of specific provisions of the SPS Agreement.79  This type of 
guideline on good regulatory practices would enable Me mbers to check that the obligations of the SPS 
Agreement had been respected, before adop ting new sanitary and phytosanitary measures. 
136. During the Third Review, some Members have flagged the issue of the lack of information on 
the implementation and use of the various guidelines adopted by the Committee.   Chile observed that 
very little information has been provided by Memb ers regarding, for instance, their recognition of 
equivalence or of pest- and disease-free areas.  It would be desirable to receive more information 
regarding the implementation of the Committee's decisions and guidelines and Chile urged Members 
to notify these agreements using the appropr iate mechanism established by the Committee. 
                                                      
75 G/SPS/W/206. 
76 G/SPS/W/226. 
77 G/SPS/W/235. 
78 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps _e/wkshop_oct09_e/wkshop_oct09_e.htm  
79 See G/SPS/W/166.  G/SPS/53 
 Page 29 
 
 
  137. Canada noted that given the excellent search  facilities available through the SPS Information 
Management System80, there was no need for a questionnaire  to solicit information from Members on 
their use of the Committee's decisions, guidelines and recommendations. 
138. Recommendations : 
• Members are invited to provide information re garding their experiences in the use of the 
guidelines developed by the Committee with respect  to transparency, equivalence, recognition 
of pest- or disease-free  areas, and the avoidance of arbitra ry or unjustifiable distinctions in 
levels of protection.  
 
XV. CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES (ARTICLE 8 AND 
ANNEX C) 
139. In the 2005 Review, the European Communities s uggested that a discussion on issues related 
to implementation of control measures would be us eful to clarify ambiguity regarding who should 
bear the cost of Members' inspections.  The Eur opean Communities drew attention to the increasing 
number of requests for inspection visits and the resource intensive nature of these visits.  The 
European Communities suggested that the Committee should discuss the possibility of developing 
common practices in this regard. 
140. It was agreed that the Committee should consid er the most effective 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 co sts related to inspection visits and conformity 
assessment.  Members were invited to provide inform ation on their experiences in that regard and to 
submit specific suggestions for consideration by the Committee. 
141. In the context of the Third Review of the Ag reement, the Committee had an initial discussion 
of a proposal by China for clarification of certain provisions in Annex C with  regard to conformity 
assessment procedures.81  China noted that many specific trade concerns related to control, inspection 
and approval, however, Annex C was seldom used to  justify requirements, perhaps because some of 
its clauses were ambiguous.  India supported China's proposal for further clarification on the control, 
inspection and approval procedures in Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, and suggested 
that guidelines on those procedures would assist  Members and avoid problems among trading 
partners.82  MERCOSUR also stressed the need to clarify some of the provisions of Annex C to 
prevent different implementation criteri a and unjustified trade restrictions.83  
142. In their respective proposals on Article 8 and Annex C, China, India and MERCOSUR 
proposed, inter alia , that: 
• Members be encouraged to exchange inform ation on their experiences and difficulties in 
implementing Article 8 and A nnex C of the Agreement. 
• The SPS Committee initiate discussions to identif y typical steps of control, inspection and 
approval procedures in relation to sanitary and phytosanitary measures, as well as application 
recommendations and good practices, to provide guidance for implementation. 
• Certain terms in Annex C such as "undue delay" in paragraph 1(a), "reasonable and 
necessary" in paragraph 1(e), "necessary assistance" in paragraph 2, "reasonable inspection" 
                                                      
80 http://spsims.wto.org/ . 
81 G/SPS/W/234 and Add.1. 
82 G/SPS/W/236/Rev.1. 
83 G/SPS/W/244. G/SPS/53 
Page 30  
 
  in paragraph 3, and the procedure referred to  in paragraph 1(i) be discussed in the SPS 
Committee so that necessary explanations and cl arification can be made to facilitate their 
implementation. 
• The SPS Committee draw the attention of Codex,  IPPC and OIE to these issues and consult 
with them regarding the development of relevant  international standards pertaining to control, 
inspection and approval procedures, such as samp ling, on-site inspection, determination of 
soil free, etc., to further the implementation of Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. 
143. Australia noted
84, along with several other Members, that Codex, IPPC and OIE played 
important roles in this area.  Codex noted that it was active in developing guidance on the conduct of audits and inspection, and that new work was be ing undertaken on guidance for national food control 
systems.  The OIE recalled that there were existing standards on certificates, inspections, etc., and that 
it was also looking at infrastructure needs.  Ho wever the OIE did not give guidance on what was 
reasonable or necessary as this could vary from situa tion to situation and be specific to diseases.  The 
IPPC noted that it had two general standard s on inspection procedures and on phytosanitary 
treatments, and welcomed any specific suggestions to further its process on the issue.  In response to a 
request by the Chairman, Codex, IPPC and OIE circ ulated papers describing their work in this area 
for consideration at the June 2009 meeting of SPS Committee.
85 
144. Several Members noted that the absence of mention of Article 8 and Annex C was not 
necessarily due to lack of clarity in these provisi ons.  Issues related to control, inspection and 
approval procedures were frequently discussed bilate rally, thus making it unnecessary to raise issues 
in the multilateral setting.  Some Members suggested  that it would be of little relevance to define 
"reasonable and necessary" broadly as those criteria would likely vary based on the context and the 
measures that were being discussed.  It was essential that the interpretation of "reasonable" be 
determined on a case-by-case basis.  Discussions in the SPS Committee could help educate Members 
about the relevant work of Codex, IPPC and OIE on control, inspection and approval procedures, as 
well as application recommendations and good practice. 
145. Some Members noted that Article 8 had been id entified in the previ ous Reviews as an issue 
for further work, and that duplication of work coul d be avoided by leaving technical issues to the 
standard-setting bodies.  A more in-depth di scussion on Article 8 and Annex C based on specific 
examples from Members could facilitate the implemen tation of Article 8.  It was suggested that 
information sharing on implementation experiences  be included as a standing agenda item of the 
Committee. 
146. Recommendations : 
• Members are encouraged to provide informa tion regarding their experiences in the 
implementation of Article 8 and Annex C. 
• 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, based on specific suggestions for consideration by the Committee. 
• Codex, IPPC and OIE should be invited to continue to provide information on their work in 
this area to the SPS Committee and should also envisage to further th eir processes in this 
regard. 
 
                                                      
84 G/SPS/W/238. 
85 G/SPS/GEN/927, 929 and 947, respectively.  G/SPS/53 
 Page 31 
 
 
  XVI.  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 
147. Article 11 of the SPS Agreement indicates that  the Dispute Settlement Understanding will 
apply to SPS disputes and provides for the consulta tion of experts when a dispute involves scientific 
or technical issues.  As of 31 December 2009, more  than 400 disputes had formally been raised under 
the WTO's dispute settlement system.  Of these, 40 alleged violation of the SPS Agreement, although 
in seven cases this was not the main focus of the di spute.  Panels have been  established to examine 
fifteen SPS-related complaints:  the United States' a nd Canada's complaints regarding the EC ban on 
meat treated with growth-promoting hormones;  comp laints by Canada and the United States against 
Australia's restrictions on imports of fresh, chilled or  frozen salmon;  one at the request of the United 
States to examine Japan's requirement that each variet y of certain fruits be tested with regard to the 
efficacy of fumigation treatment;  Japan's restricti ons on apples due to fire blight requested by the 
United States;  the Philippines complaints against Au stralia's quarantine procedures;  complaints by 
the European Communities against Australia's quarantine procedures;  complaints by the United 
States, Canada and Argentina concerning EC measu res affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products;  complaints of the European Communities against the United States and Canada on 
their continued suspension of obligations relati ng to the EC-Hormones dispute;  New Zealand's 
complaint against Australia's restrictions on apples;   Canada's and Mexico's complaints regarding 
against the United States on the Certain Country Labelling (Cool) Requirements;  China's complaint against certain United States measures affecting impo rts of poultry;  and Canada's complaint against 
Korea's measures affecting the importation of bovi ne meat and meat products from Canada.  These 
cases are further detailed in Appendix B.  
  G/SPS/53 
Page 32 APPENDIX A 
Summary of major SPS Committee activities, 2005-2009 
 
Subject Year Type of Activity Related Documents 
Consistency    
Equivalence    
2006 Questionnaire on the Operation of SPS Enquiry Points and 
National Notification Authorities - Revision G/SPS/W/103/Rev.2 
2007 Compilation of Proposals regarding the Revision of the 
"Recommended Procedures for Implementing the 
Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement" (Art. 7) G/SPS/W/215, Rev.1 & Rev.2 
2007 Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Operation of 
the Enquiry Points and National Notification Authorities G/SPS/GEN/751 
2007 Overview regarding the Level of the Implementation of the 
transparency provisions  of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/GEN/804 
2008 Proposal for a "Mentoring" System of Assistance relating to 
the Transparency Provision s of the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/W/217 
2008 Recommended Notification Procedures G/SPS/7/Rev.3 
2008 Workshop on Transparency - October 2007 G/SPS/R/47 
2008 Overview regarding the Level of the Implementation of the 
Transparency Provisions of the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 
2009 Implementation of the Transp arency Obligations as of 21 
March 2009 G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.19 Transparency 
2009 Overview regarding the Level of Implementation of the 
Transparency Provision of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
2005 Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization – Seventh Annual Report  G/SPS/37 
2006 Review of the Provisional Procedure to Monitor the Process 
of International Harmonization  G/SPS/W/200 
2006 Decision to Modify and Extend the Provisional Procedure to 
Monitor the Process of International Harmonization  G/SPS/40 
2006 Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization – Eighth Annual Report  G/SPS/42 &Corr.1 Monitoring International Standards 
2007 Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization – Ninth Annual Report  G/SPS/45  
   G/SPS/53
 Page 33Subject Year Type of Activity Related Documents 
2008 Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization – Tenth annual report  G/SPS/49 
2009 Programme for a Workshop on the Relationship between the 
SPS Committee and the International Standard-Setting 
Organizations G/SPS/GEN/933  
2009 Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization – Eleventh Annual Report G/SPS/51 & Corr.1 
2005 Update on the Operation of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility (STDF) G/SPS/GEN/595 
2005 Review of Standards related Issues identified in the 
Integrated Framework Diagnostic  Trade Integration Studies  G/SPS/GEN/545 
2006 Update on the Operatio n of the STDF  G/SPS/GEN/718 
2006 Overview of SPS-related Technical Assistance reported to 
the WTO/OECD Trade Capacity Building Database  G/SPS/GEN/726 
2006 Workshop on the Implemen tation of the SPS Agreement -
March 2006 G/SPS/R/41 
2006 SPS Technical Assistance and Trai ning Activities  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.1 
2007 Idem  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.2 
2007 SPS Technical Assist ance Activities in 2007  G/SPS/GEN/797 
2007 Update on the Operatio n of the STDF G/SPS/GEN/774 
2007 Background Document from the STDF for the Global 
Review of Aid for Trade G/SPS/GEN/812 
2008 SPS Technical Assistance and Trai ning Activities  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.3 
2008 Workshop on SPS-related Cap acity Evaluation Tools G/SPS/R/48 
2008 Mobilizing Aid for Trade for SPS-related Technical 
Cooperation – Conclusions from Pilot Activities of the STDF G/SPS/GEN/864 
2008 Report on Workshop on Good Practice in SPS-related 
Technical Assistance  G/SPS/R/52 
2009 SPS Technical Assistance and Trai ning Activities  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.4 
2009 Update on the Operatio n of the STDF G/SPS/GEN/902 Technical Assistance 
2009 Update on the Operatio n of the STDF G/SPS/GEN/939  
  G/SPS/53 
Page 34 Subject Year Type of Activity Related Documents 
2009 SPS Technical Assistance Activities in 2009 G/SPS/GEN/956 
2009 SPS Technical Assistance and Training Activities 
(1 September 1994 to 31 December 2009) G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.5 
2009 Evaluation of the Standards and Trade Development Facility 
(STDF) G/SPS/GEN/899 
2009 STDF Workshop "Using Ec onomic Analysis to Inform SPS 
Decision Making" - Geneva – 30 October 2009 – 
Background Note and Draft Agenda  G/SPS/GEN/961/Rev.1 
2009 Update on the Operation of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility G/SPS/GEN/969  
2009 Overview of SPS Need and Assistance in Eight Least 
Developed Countries G/SPS/GEN/900 
2005 Report on Proposals for Speci al and Differential Treatment G/SPS/35 
2005 Proposals and Progress on Special and Differential 
Treatment  G/SPS/GEN/543 
2006 Decision to Extend the Procedures to Enhance Transparency 
of S&D in Favour of Developing Country Members G/SPS/W/184 
2005 Special and Differential Treat ment – Report by the Chairman 
to the General Council G/SPS/39 
2006 Idem G/SPS/41 
2007 Idem G/SPS/44 
2007 Idem G/SPS/46 
2008 Proposed Revision of the Procedure to Enhance 
Transparency of S&D in Favour of Developing Country 
Members (G/SPS/33)  G/SPS/W/224 
2008 Idem - Revision G/SPS/W/224/Rev.1  
2009 Idem - Revision  G/SPS/W/224/Rev.2, Rev.3, Rev. 4, 
Rev.5 & Rev.6 Special and Differential Treatment 
2009 Procedure to Enhance Tran sparency of S&D in favour of 
Developing Country Members  G/SPS/33/Rev.1 
2006 Compendium of Documents regarding Article 6  G/SPS/GEN/636 & Corr.1 & Rev.1 
and Rev.1/Corr.1 
2006 Issues in the Application of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement 
– Background Document  G/SPS/GEN/640 & Rev.1 Regionalization 
2006 Summary of the Special Meeting on Article 6  G/SPS/R/38 & Corr.1  
   G/SPS/53
 Page 35Subject Year Type of Activity Related Documents 
 2008 Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 
6 of the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/48 
2005 Specific Trade Concerns G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5 and Addenda 
2006 Idem  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6 and Addenda 
2007 Idem  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7 and Addenda 
2007 Ad hoc Consultations and Resolu tion of Trade Concer ns  G/SPS/GEN/781 
2008 Specific Trade Concerns  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8 and Addenda 
2009 Specific Trade Concerns  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9 and Addenda 
& Corr.1 Implementation of the Agreement-Specific Trade Concerns  
2009 Proposed Recommended Procedure for Ad Hoc 
Consultations or Negotiations among Members under the SPS Agreement (Article 12.2) G/SPS/W/243 
2005 Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement  G/SPS/36 
2006 SPS Agreement – Designa tion of a Regional Body – 
Communication from Antigua, Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, 
Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Mauritius, Papua New 
Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines – Revision 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.1 & 
Rev.2 
2006 Committee on Trade and Deve lopment in dedicated Session 
– Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small 
Economies in Meeting their Obligations under the 
Agreements on SPS M easures, TBT and TRIPS WT/COMTD/SE/5 
2007 Private Standards and the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/GEN/746 
2007 Joint UNCTAD/WTO Informal Information Session on 
Private Standards Job(07)/89/Rev.1 
2007 Relationship with Codex, IPPC and OIE G/SPS/GEN/775  
2008 Private Standards – Identifying Practical Actions for the SPS 
Committee – Summary of Responses  G/SPS/W/230 
2008 Report of the STDF Information Session on Private 
Standards G/SPS/R/50 Other 
2008 Proposed Procedure fo r Third Review G/SPS/W/228  
  G/SPS/53 
Page 36 Subject Year Type of Activity Related Documents 
2008 Report to the Council for Trade in Goods on China's 
Transitional Review G/SPS/50 
2008 Questionnaire on SPS-rela ted Private Standards G/SPS/W/232 
2008 Documents and other Informati on of Private Standards G/SPS/GEN/865 
2008 Research and Researchers on Private Standards G/SPS/GEN/891 
2009 Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement – Background Document  G/SPS/GEN/887/Rev.1 
2009 Effects of SPS – Related Private Standards – Descriptive 
Report G/SPS/GEN/932 & Rev.1 
2009 Report of the Council for Trade in Goods on the Transitional 
Review under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of 
the People's Republic of China G/SPS/52 
2009 Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/W/237 & Rev.1 
2009 Possible Actions for the SPS Committee Regarding Private 
Standards G/SPS/W/247 
2009 Membership in WTO and International Standard-Setting 
Bodies G/SPS/GEN/49/Rev.9  
2009 Report (2009) on the Activities of the SPS Committee G/L/897 & Rev.1  
   G/SPS/53
 Page 37APPENDIX B 
WTO Disputes Invoking the SPS Agreement 
 
Since 1 January 1995, violations of the SPS Agreement have been  alleged in the following 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  Mutually satisfactory solution notified in July 2001 
(G/SPS/GEN/265). 
2 WT/DS41 US complaint against Korea's inspection procedures for 
fresh fruits  Mutually satisfactory solution notified in July 2001 
(G/SPS/GEN/265). 
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 Canadian complaint against Australia's import restrictions 
on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon 
Australia - Salmon WT/DS18/R (1998) 
WT/DS18/AB/R (1998) 
WT/DS18/RW (2000) 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 Canadian 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) 
WT/DS26/ARB (1999) Suspension of concessions authorized on 
26 July 1999.  EC request for Article 21.5 
consultations on 22 December 2008. 
8 WT/DS48 Canadian 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) 
WT/DS48/ARB (1999) Same panel handled both complaints.  See above. 
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.  
  G/SPS/53 
Page 38  DS Number Parties and nature of complaint Panel Report / Appellate 
Body Report circulation Comments 
13 WT/DS134 Indian complaint against EC restrictions on rice imports  Consultations requested on 25 May 1998; pending. 
14 WT/DS135 Canadian 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 Canadian complaint against EC restrictions due to pine 
wood nematodes  Consultations requested on 17 June 1998; pending. 
16 WT/DS144 Canadian 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's 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 Ecuadoran 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) 
WT/DS245/RW (2005) Mutually agreed solution notified on 2 September 
2005. 
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 in 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 Nicaraguan 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  Mutually agreed solution notified in March 2007. 
27 WT/DS291 US complaint against EC on GMO approvals 
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products WT/DS291/R (2006) Panel report adopted on 21 November 2006. 
Arbritration requested on the level of suspension of 
concessions (Art. 22.6) on 7 February 2008; 
suspended on 15 February 2008.  
   G/SPS/53
 Page 39 DS Number Parties and nature of complaint Panel Report / Appellate 
Body Report circulation Comments 
28 WT/DS292 Canadian complaint against EC on GMO approvals 
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products WT/DS292/R (2006) Panel report adopted on 21 November 2006. 
29 WT/DS293 Argentinian complaint against EC on GMO approvals 
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products WT/DS293/R (2006) Panel report adopted on 21 November 2006. 
30 WT/DS297 Hungary's complaint against Croatia's restrictions on live 
animals and meat products (TSEs).  Consultations requested on 9 July 2003; pending. 
31 WT/DS320 EC complaint against the US continued suspension of 
obligations in the EC-Hormones dispute* 
US – Continued Suspension of Obligations  WT/DS320/R 
WT/DS320/AB/R 
 Reports adopted on 14 November 2008. 
32 WT/DS321 EC complaint against Canada's continued suspension of 
obligations in the EC-Hormones Dispute* 
Canada– Continued Suspension of Obligations  WT/DS321/R 
WT/DS321/AB/R 
 Reports adopted on 14 November 2008. 
33 WT/DS367 New Zealand complaint against Australia's restrictions on 
apples 
Australia - Apples   Panel established on 21 January 2008.   
34 WT/DS384 Canadian complaint against the US country of origin 
labelling requirements 
United States – Certain Co untry of Origin Labelling 
(COOL) Requirements  Panel established on 19 November 2009. 
35 WT/DS386 Mexican complaint against th e US country of origin 
labelling requirements 
United States – Certain Co untry of Origin Labelling 
(COOL) Requirements   Panel established on 19 November 2009. 
36 WT/DS389 US complaint against EC Measures Affecting Poultry 
Meat and Poultry Meat Products 
EC - Poultry   Panel established on 19 November 2009. 
37 WT/DS391 Canadian complaint against Korea's measures affecting 
the importation of bovine meat and meat  products 
Korea –Bovine Products   Panel established on 31 August 2009.  
38 WT/DS392 China complaint against US m easures affecting imports of 
poultry 
US — Poultry  Panel established on 31 July 2009.   
* Neither of these two requests for consulta tions claim violation of the SPS Agreement,  however, the reports address issues rel ated to the implementation of the SPS 
Agreement. G/SPS/53 
Page 40  
 
  APPENDIX C 
 
List of SPS Committee documents submitted by Members 2005-2009 
  A. Information on Member's experiences regarding Equivalence (Article 4
) 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
2005 Brazil Technical Committee on the health and 
hygiene of fishery products of Argentina, 
Brazil, Chile and Uruguay – Equivalence 
of inspection systems G/SPS/GEN/586 
2007 Panama Determination of the recognition of 
equivalence  G/SPS/N/EQV/PAN/1 
2008 Dominican Republic Determination of the recognition of 
equivalence G/SPS/N/EQV/DOM/1 
2009 European 
Communities Control regime applicable for imports 
from third countries of certain products of 
animal origin and of live animals with regards to provisions related to the 
agreement between the European 
Communities and the Swiss Confederation of Trade in Agricultural 
products G/SPS/GEN/896 
 
 
 B. Comments/Proposals regarding Tr ansparency (Article 7 and Annex B ) 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
2005 Kazakhstan Transparency G/SPS/GEN/544 
Australia, New 
Zealand and United 
States Second Review of the SPS Agreement – 
Review of the implementation of 
transparency provisions G/SPS/W/197 
Bulgaria Transparency G/SPS/GEN/737 
European 
Communities Transparency G/SPS/GEN/737 2006 
Romania Transparency G/SPS/GEN/737 
China Proposal on the amendment of "the 
recommended procedures for 
implementing the transparency obligations of the SPS Agreement 
(Article 7)" G/SPS/W/212 
2007 
European 
Communities The EC NNA/EP for th e SPS Agreement:  
experience acquired in the operational procedures and recent experience – 
Reflection note G/SPS/GEN/803 
Argentina Proposals regarding the revision of 
recommended procedures regarding 
transparency G/SPS/W/220 
2008 
Chile Chile's position on the implementation of 
the principle of tran sparency in 2008 G/SPS/W/221 
 
  G/SPS/53 
 Page 41 
 
 
   C. Comments/Proposals regarding monito ring the use of international standards 
 (Article 3.5 and 12.4 ) 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Kingdom of Bahrain Adoption of international Codex 
standards G/SPS/GEN/537 
Brazil Brazilian approval of the new revised text 
of the IPPC 1997 G/SPS/GEN/600 
China Monitoring the use of international 
standards:  ISPM 15 G/SPS/GEN/551 
Ecuador Establishment of the National Codex 
Alimentarius Committee G/SPS/GEN/591 
European 
Communities Implementation of ISPM 15 from 1 
March 2005:  new requirements for the import of wood packaging material and 
dunnage for a better protection against the 
introduction of pests or diseases in the 
European Communities G/SPS/GEN/556 2005 
Mauritius Implementation of intern ational standards G/SPS/GEN/547 
Argentina ISPM 15 G/SPS/GEN/653 
Brazil Brazilian approval of the new revised text 
of the IPPC 1997 G/SPS/GEN/696 
Japan Implementation of ISPM No. 15 as of 
April 2007 G/SPS/GEN/739 
New Zealand Relationship between the SPS Committee 
and the standard-setting bodies G/SPS/W/206 2006 
Sri Lanka Procedure to monitor the process of 
international harmonization G/SPS/W/187 
2008 Japan Relationship between the SPS Committee 
and Codex, OIE and IPPC G/SPS/W/226 
Argentina, Brazil, 
Paraguay and Uruguay Project on Cooperation for 
Harmonization of Veterinary and Phytosanitary Standards and Procedures, 
Food Safety and Differentiated 
Agricultural Production G/SPS/GEN/940 
European 
Communities Relationship between the SPS committee 
and the three International Standard-
Setting Bodies referenced in the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/GEN/970 2009 
Paraguay Harmonization G/SPS/GEN/935 
 
  D.1 Information regarding Member's provision of technical assistance and training 
 activities (Article 9)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
New Zealand Technical assistance provided to 
developing country Members by New Zealand since 1 January 1995 – Revision G/SPS/GEN/352/Rev.1 
2005 United States Technical assistance to developing 
country Members provided by the United 
States – Addendum/Revision G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.5 and 
Rev.1 G/SPS/53 
Page 42  
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Australia Technical assistance to developing 
country Members G/SPS/GEN/717 
Canada Technical assistance to developing 
country Members  G/SPS/GEN/728 2006 
European 
Communities Technical assistance in the SPS field 
provided by the EC G/SPS/GEN/669 
Australia Technical assistance to developing 
country Members G/SPS/GEN/717/Add.1 
Canada Technical assistance to developing 
country Members G/SPS/GEN/765 
European 
Communities EC Technical assistance in the SPS 
Sector G/SPS/GEN/839 
New Zealand Technical assistance for operating the 
SPS Notification Au thority and SPS 
Enquiry Point G/SPS/W/214 
Norway SPS technical a ssistance G/SPS/GEN/879 2007 
United States Technical assistance to developing 
country Members provided by the United 
States G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.6 
2008 United States Technical assistance to developing 
country Members provided by the United States G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.7 
2009 Chile International Technical Cooperation. 
Internships in Chile G/SPS/GEN/953 
 
  D.2 Information regarding Member's technical assistance and training needs 
 (Article 9)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
2005 Peru Technical assistance within the 
framework of the WTO Agreement on the Application of SPS Measures G/SPS/GEN/579 
Central African 
Republic Technical assistance G/SPS/GEN/644 
2006 Tanzania Technical assistance related to fisheries 
sector -  Experience from the United 
Republic of Tanzania G/SPS/GEN/687 
Costa Rica Technical assistance – Responses to the 
questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.29/Rev.1 
Guatemala Technical assistance – Responses to the 
questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.22/Rev.1 2007 
Rwanda Technical assistance – Responses to the 
questionnaire G/SPS/GEN/295/Add.37 
2008 Belize Technical Assistance G/SPS/GEN/885 
Belize Technical Assistan ce from the European 
Communities to enhance national SPS 
capacity in Belize G/SPS/GEN/912 
Belize Technical assi stance G/SPS/GEN/980 
Belize Strengthening of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary (SPS) capacity to increase 
competitiveness of Belizean products in 
the export markets G/SPS/GEN/978 2009 
Paraguay  Technical Assistance and Cooperation G/SPS/GEN/936 
  G/SPS/53 
 Page 43 
 
 
   E. Comments/Proposals regarding special  and differential treatment (Article 10)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
2006 United States Special and differential treatment G/SPS/W/198 
Egypt Statement to the informal meeting JOB(07)/25 
Egypt Proposed revision of G/SPS/33 JOB(07)/104 2007 
Egypt Suggested language by Egypt for Article 
10.1 of the SPS Agreement JOB(07)/99 
2009 Argentina Proposed revision of the procedure to 
enhance transparency of special and differential treatment in favour of 
developing country Members (G/SPS/33)  G/SPS/W/242 
 
 
 F.1 Comments/Proposals regarding Regionalization (Article 6)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Argentina Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application 
of SPS Measures G/SPS/GEN/606 
Australia Monitoring of international harmonization:  
regionalization G/SPS/W/172 
Brazil Improving the application of Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/177 
Brazil Recognition of the state of Acre and the 
municipalities of Boca Do Acre and Guajará 
in the state of Amazonas,  Northern region of 
Brazil, as Foot-and-Mouth Disease – Free zones where vaccinations is practiced G/SPS/GEN/601 
Canada Implementation of Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement  G/SPS/GEN/613 
Chile Proposal by Chile to further the discussion 
concerning the implementation of Article 6 
on regionalization G/SPS/W/171 
Colombia Procedures for rec ognition of pest- or disease- 
free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence under Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/GEN/611 
European 
Communities Clarification of Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/GEN/588 
Japan Implementation of Article 6 (Regionalization) 
of the Agreement on th e Application of SPS 
Measures G/SPS/GEN/605 2005 
Peru Regionalization G/SPS/GEN/607 
Argentina Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Brazil Implementation of Art. 6 of the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/W/185 
Brazil Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Colombia Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Ecuador Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Ecuador Regionali zation G/SPS/GEN/623 2006 
Egypt Article 6 – Procedures for recognition of pest- 
or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence G/SPS/W/193 G/SPS/53 
Page 44  
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
 Egypt Implementation of Art. 6 – Experience in 
establishing and Maintaining "Pest-Free Areas" G/SPS/GEN/630 
European 
Communities Application of Art. 6 of th e SPS Agreement G/SPS/GEN/632 
European 
Communities Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – Article 6 G/SPS/W/190 
Grenada Article 6 of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/194 
Japan Issues in the application of Art. 6 of the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/W/192 
Korea Article 6 of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/195 
Mexico Regionali zation G/SPS/GEN/622 
New Zealand Comments on  G/SPS/GEN/640/Rev.1 – 
Article 6 G/SPS/GEN/725 
New Zealand Procedures for r ecognition of pest- or disease-
free area or areas of low pest prevalence 
under Art. 6 – Comparison of standards 
developed by the ISSBs G/SPS/GEN/698 and 
Rev.1 
Paraguay Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Chinese Taipei Comments on G/SPS/ GEN/640 – Article 6 G/SPS/W/205 
United States Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – Article 6 G/SPS/W/199 
United States Additional comments on Art. 6 of the SPS 
Agreement – Adaptation to regional 
conditions G/SPS/GEN/631 2006 
Uruguay Comments on G/SPS/GEN/640 – Article 6 G/SPS/W/189 
Chile Chile's position on regionalization guidelines 
for 2008 G/SPS/W/222 
2008 New Zealand Guidelines to further the practical 
implementation of Art. 6 of the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/W/218 
 
 F.2 Information regarding Member's experience related to Regionalization 
 (Article 6)  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Brazil Pest free area of Minas Gerais state – 
Micosphaerella fijiensis  G/SPS/GEN/561 
Brazil Pest free area of Ceará state – Anastrepha 
grandis  G/SPS/GEN/562 
Brazil Foot and mouth disease free zone – Brazilian 
experience on regionalization G/SPS/GEN/584 
Brazil Newcastle disease – Brazilian experience in 
certifying disease free flocks G/SPS/GEN/608 
Brazil Classical swine fever – Brazilian experience 
in regionalization G/SPS/GEN/609 
Canada Update on developments in Canada regarding 
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) G/SPS/GEN/585 
Chile Notification of recognition of pest- and 
disease-free zones - Regionalization G/SPS/W/181 
Colombia  Avian influenza G/SPS/GEN/602 
Nicaragua Status of the national classical swine fever 
eradication programme in Nicaragua G/SPS/GEN/575 
Nicaragua Nicaragua initiates brucellosis – and 
tuberculosis - free certification for farms G/SPS/GEN/576 2005 
Peru Current FMD Status G/SPS/GEN/558   G/SPS/53 
 Page 45 
 
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Argentina Grains, fruits etc. – FMD G/SPS/GEN/654 
Australia Exercise Eleusis – Avian influenza 
simulation G/SPS/GEN/619 
Australia Issues in the application of Art. 6 of the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/W/191 
Australia Issues in the application of Art. 6 of the SPS 
Agreement - Addendum G/SPS/W/191 and Add.1 
Brazil Pest free area of Minas Ceará state – 
Micosphaerella fijiensis  G/SPS/GEN/562/Add.1 
Brazil Area of Rio Grande  do Norte State free of 
Anastrepha grandis  G/SPS/GEN/642 
Brazil Pest-free area of Bahia state – 
Mycosphaerella fijiensis  G/SPS/GEN/697 
Canada Update on developmen ts regarding BSE G/SPS/GEN/635 
Chile Situation regarding BSE G/SPS/GEN/633 
Chile Experience in the application of the principle 
of regionalization G/SPS/GEN/610 
Colombia Experiences in region alization:  FMD G/SPS/GEN/612 
Colombia Avian influenza H9N2 G/SPS/GEN/621 
Egypt Experience in establishing and maintaining 
"Pest-Free Areas" G/SPS/GEN/630 
Mexico Regionalization - Information for the 
recognition of fruit fly-free areas G/SPS/GEN/440/Rev.1 
Nigeria Current SPS measures regarding the avian 
influenza situation G/SPS/GEN/637 
Peru Recognition of Southern Peru as a foot-and-
mouth disease-free zone where vaccination is 
not practised G/SPS/GEN/578 2006 
Turkey Avian Influenza G/SPS/GEN/620 and 
Rev. 1 
Brazil Pest free area of Ceará state – Anastrepha 
grandis  G/SPS/GEN/562/Add.2 
Panama Pest-free area of cla ssical swine fever G/SPS/GEN/783 
Panama Certification and/or declaration of an area 
free of Mediterranean fruit fly in the Azuero 
peninsula G/SPS/GEN/752 2007 
Philippines Avian Influenza and FMD status as of 1 
March 2007 G/SPS/GEN/771 
Argentina Foot and mouth di sease situation G/SPS/GEN/868 
Belize Classical swine fever an d FMD-free status  G/SPS/GEN/861 
Canada Update on an outbreak of highly pathogenic 
avian influenza (H7N3) in the province of 
Saskatchewan G/SPS/GEN/866 
Chile Recognition of pest- and disease-free areas G/SPS/GEN/862 
Haiti Sanitary informa tion – BSE G/SPS/GEN/846 
Mexico Report on the classification of Mexico by the 
OIE regarding BSE G/SPS/GEN/858 
Peru Areas found to be free of Stenoma catenifer 
(Lepidoptera-oecophoridae) on the basis of 
survey work on this pest conducted in Peruvian coastal areas where avocado 
(Persea Americana)  is produced G/SPS/GEN/815 2008 
Switzerland BSE G/SPS/GEN/844 G/SPS/53 
Page 46  
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Belize Newcastle disease G/SPS/GEN/913 
Belize Declaration of the entire territory of Belize as 
free from the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis  Capitata) G/SPS/GEN/920 
Brazil Information on the Outbreaks of A/H1N1 
Human Influenza Virus G/SPS/GEN/922 
Chile Recognition of "Negligible Risk" Status with 
Regard to BSE G/SPS/GEN/952 
Costa Rica Costa Rica on Alert due to the Presence of 
the South American Cucurbit Fruit Fly 
(Anastrepha grandis ) in Panama G/SPS/GEN/955 
Costa Rica Phytosanitary state of emergency due to the 
Cotton Rat Pest ( Sigmodon spp. ) G/SPS/GEN/962 
Costa Rica Costa Rica declares itself free from Classical 
Swine Fever G/SPS/GEN/966 
Indonesia Free Status of Khapra Beetle (Trogoderma 
Granarium Everts) G/SPS/GEN/946 
Mexico Report on Activities Undertaken to Declare 
the Entire Territory of Mexico free from 
Classical Swine Fever G/SPS/GEN/908 
Mexico Information on Outbreaks of A/H1N1 
Human Influenza Virus G/SPS/GEN/921 
Paraguay Activities of Members G/SPS/GEN/934 2009 
Philippines Regionalization – Pe st Free Areas G/SPS/GEN/906 
 
  G. Comments/proposals regarding Monito ring Implementation of the Agreement 
 (Articles 12.1 and 12.2)—Specific trade concerns  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Costa Rica Panama – Imports of products of animal 
origin G/SPS/GEN/582 
Sri Lanka Trade difficulties encountered in the export of 
Sri Lankan cinnamon to the European 
Communities G/SPS/GEN/597 2005 
Uruguay Undue delays G/SPS/W/169 
Argentina Review of concerns raised by Members 
pending their resolution G/SPS/GEN/693 
Colombia Proposal for preventing undue delays in the 
entry of animals, plants and their products G/SPS/W/201 
Colombia EC Regulation 258/97 on Novel Foods G/SPS/GEN/735 
Ecuador EC Regulation 258/97 on Novel Foods G/SPS/GEN/714 
European 
Communities Questions and answers on the EC control 
measures for avian influenza G/SPS/GEN/641 
European 
Communities Reply of the EC to the communication from 
Peru concerning Regulation 258/97 on Novel 
Foods G/SPS/GEN/699 
Peru Regulation 258/97 Of The European 
Parliament And Of The Council Concerning Novel Foods G/SPS/GEN/681 
Peru EC Regulation 258/97 on Novel Foods G/SPS/GEN/713 
Peru EC Regulation 258/97 on Novel Foods G/SPS/GEN/733 2006 
Uganda Fish exports from La ke Victoria G/SPS/GEN/685  G/SPS/53 
 Page 47 
 
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
New Zealand Australia – Measures affecting the 
importation of apples from New Zealand – Request for consultations G/SPS/GEN/796 
2007 
Thailand Undue delays in relation to Article 5 (risk 
assessment) and interim measures G/SPS/GEN/769 
Argentina Good offices of the Chairperson G/SPS/W/219 
Peru EC Regulation 258/97 on Novel Foods G/SPS/GEN/884 2008 
United States Article 12.2 – Consultations G/SPS/W/227 
Argentina and United 
States  Article 12.2 – Consultations G/SPS/W/233 
Argentina Good Offices of the Chairperson G/SPS/W/241 
Brazil Article 12.2 – Consultations  G/SPS/W/248 
Colombia Suspension of Inspection and delivery of 
plant and animal health certificates for 
imports from Colombia by the Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela G/SPS/GEN/983 
Mexico Article 12.2 – Consultations – Comments 
from Mexico on the Proposal by Brazil 
(G/SPS/W/248) G/SPS/GEN/988 
Mexico Recommended procedure for Ad Hoc 
consultations or negotiations among Members 
under the SPS Agreement (Article 12.2) – 
Comments by Mexico on document 
G/SPS/W/243 G/SPS/GEN/989 2009 
Peru Application and amendment of European 
Communities Regulation No. 258/97 
concerning novel foods G/SPS/GEN/976 
 
 H. Review of the Agreement  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Costa Rica Second review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement – Prioritization of issues for the future work 
programmes of the SPS Committee . G/SPS/W/180 
2005 
New Zealand Second review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement – Work programme G/SPS/W/179 
Brazil Second Review of the SPS Agreement – 
Prioritization of issues for the future work 
programme of the SPS Committee G/SPS/W/182 
Canada Second Review of the SPS Agreement – 
Clarification of the terms "measures" and 
"regulations" as contained in the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/186  
 
 
 
 
2006 Chile Second Review of the SPS Agreement – 
Undue delays G/SPS/W/202 
Chile Second Review of the SPS Agreement – 
Harmonization, relationship with int. organizations and int. standards G/SPS/W/203 
Chile Second review of the SPS – Proposed 
differences or clarifications procedure G/SPS/W/204  
Colombia Second Review of the SPS Agreement  – 
Priority topics to be taken into account in the future work of the Committee G/SPS/W/188 G/SPS/53 
Page 48  
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Costa Rica Second Review of the SPS Agreement – 
Discussion proposal for the more effective implementation of the a d hoc  consultations 
mechanism within the fra mework of Art. 12.2 G/SPS/W/183 
2006 
New Zealand Second Review of the SPS Agreement – 
Review of the implementation of 
transparency provisions G/SPS/W/197 
2007 Canada Second review of the SPS Agreement – 
Transparency enhancement proposal G/SPS/GEN/778 
Australia Third review of the SP S Agreement G/SPS/W/238 & Corr.1 
Argentina, Brazil, 
Paraguay and 
Uruguay Third review of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/245 
China Third review of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/W/234 & Add.1 2009 
India Third review of the SP S Agreement G/SPS/W/236 & Rev.1 
 
 
 I. Private Standards  
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Ecuador Private and commerc ial standards G/SPS/GEN/792 
St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines Private industry st andards G/SPS/GEN/766 
2007 United Kingdom Private voluntary standards within 
the WTO multilateral framework G/SPS/GEN/802 
Uruguay Terms of reference for the working 
group on private standards G/SPS/W/225 
2008 
Uruguay Private standards G/SPS/GEN/843 
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay Legal framewor k for private 
standards in the WTO G/SPS/W/246 
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay 
and Uruguay Private standards G/SPS/W/249 
Belize Statement on private and commercial 
standards G/SPS/GEN/911 2009 
Switzerland Voluntary standards G/SPS/GEN/967 
 
  J. Implementation of the SPS Agreement
 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Bangladesh Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement – Information for the 
workshop on 31 March 2006 G/SPS/GEN/676 
Benin Idem   G/SPS/GEN/670 
Burkina Faso Idem  G/SPS/GEN/662 
Burundi Idem  G/SPS/GEN/674 
Cameroon Idem  G/SPS/GEN/671 
Congo  Idem  G/SPS/GEN/659 
Costa Rica Idem  G/SPS/GEN/679 
Chad  Idem  G/SPS/GEN/667 
Colombia Idem  G/SPS/GEN/652 2006  
The Gambia Idem  G/SPS/GEN/664  G/SPS/53 
 Page 49 
 
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
 Guatemala Idem  G/SPS/GEN/682 
 Haiti Idem  G/SPS/GEN/677 
 Honduras Idem  G/SPS/GEN/683 
 Jamaica Idem  G/SPS/GEN/645 
Kenya Idem  G/SPS/GEN/660 
Madagascar Idem  G/SPS/GEN/672 
Mauritania Idem  G/SPS/GEN/684 
Mauritius Idem  G/SPS/GEN/657 
Cuba Idem  G/SPS/GEN/655 
Mongolia Idem  G/SPS/GEN/675 
Nepal Idem  G/SPS/GEN/656 
Niger Idem  G/SPS/GEN/678 
Dominican Republic Idem  G/SPS/GEN/691 
Egypt Idem  G/SPS/GEN/647 
Egypt Idem  G/SPS/GEN/649 
Egypt Idem  G/SPS/GEN/651 
Nigeria Idem  G/SPS/GEN/686 
Pakistan  Idem  G/SPS/GEN/661 
Pakistan Idem  G/SPS/GEN/692 
South Africa Idem  G/SPS/GEN/690 
Togo Idem  G/SPS/GEN/665 
Trinidad and Tobago Idem  G/SPS/GEN/680 
Peru Idem  G/SPS/GEN/668 
Uganda Idem  G/SPS/GEN/673  
 
 
  
 
 
2006 
Zimbabwe Idem  G/SPS/GEN/663 
 
  K. Other
 
 
Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Costa Rica Phytosanitary certificate G/SPS/GEN/604 
Cuba Measures implemented in the field of 
veterinary medicine G/SPS/GEN/538 
Dominican Republic Curren t domestic measures to 
facilitate the implementation of the 
WTO Agreement on the Application 
of SPS Measures G/SPS/GEN/587 
European Communitie s Traceability of food, feed, food-
producing animals, and any other 
substance intended to  be, or expected 
to be, incorporated into a food or feed imported into the Community for 
placing on the market G/SPS/GEN/539 
2005 
European Communities Questions and answers on the 
procedure to obtain import tolerances and the inclusion of active substances 
for plant protection uses in the 
European Communities list G/SPS/GEN/557 G/SPS/53 
Page 50  
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Colombia Centre for Phytosanitary Excellence – 
CEF – A Colombian cooperation initiative pursuant to Art. 5 of the SPS 
Agreement G/SPS/GEN/702 
Colombia Risk analysis G/SPS/GEN/734 
Colombia Strengthening of Colombia's system 
of sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures G/SPS/GEN/736 
Cuba Measures implemented in the field of 
veterinary medicine G/SPS/GEN/615 
European Communities Public consultation on the impact 
assessment of Regulation 258/97 on 
novel foods and food ingredients G/SPS/GEN/700 
European Communities Call for early comments on a 
Commission report on animal by-products not intended for human 
consumption G/SPS/GEN/719 
European Communities Adaptation of the common veterinary 
entry document to the trade control and export system (TRACES) G/SPS/GEN/742 
Paraguay Ban on the registration and 
importation of high-risk insecticides G/SPS/GEN/688 
Paraguay Health status  report G/SPS/GEN/689 
Paraguay Phytosanitary stat us report G/SPS/GEN/711 2006 
Paraguay Health status  report G/SPS/GEN/712 
Argentina MRLs for pesticides – Impact on 
exports from developing country 
Members G/SPS/W/211 & Corr.1 
(in English only) 
Bolivia Slaughter of imported breeding cattle G/SPS/GEN/768 
Costa Rica Clean stock program for Dracaena 
spp. intended for export to the US 
market G/SPS/GEN/784 
European Communities Call for comments on a Commission 
consultation on the review of Reg. 
(EC) 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products 
not intended for human consumption G/SPS/GEN/773 
European Communities Certification regime applicable for 
imports into the EC of bovine animals and of certain products of animal 
origin with regard to provisions 
related to certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies G/SPS/GEN/799 2007 
Chinese Taipei Veterinary and phytosanitary 
certificates G/SPS/GEN/744 & 
Corr.1 
Chile Bilateral agreements G/SPS/GEN/863 
Ecuador MRL for pinea pple G/SPS/GEN/841/Rev.1 
European Communities Rules related to the export of meat-
and-bone meal to third countries in 
order to ensure the prevention and 
control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSES) G/SPS/GEN/889 
2008 
Paraguay Information from  Members G/SPS/GEN/876 
 
 Paraguay Communication to the SPS 
Committee G/SPS/GEN/852  G/SPS/53 
 Page 51 
 
 
  Year Member Title/Subject Symbol 
Singapore Optical watermark on export 
certificates G/SPS/GEN/859 
Venezuela Comprehensive agricultural health 
system G/SPS/GEN/854  
 
2008 
Zambia Information on variou s SPS matters G/SPS/GEN/836 
Argentina Phytosanitary Import Authorizations G/SPS/GEN/923 
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay 
and Uruguay Control, inspection and approval 
procedure G /SPS/W/244 
Argentina National prevention programme for 
HLB (Huanglongbin) G/SPS/GEN/987 
Chile Health status, transparency and trade 
restrictions G/SPS/GEN/981 
China  China's safety administrative system 
for export poultry and poultry products  G/SPS/GEN/985 
Colombia New structure of the Colombian 
Agricultural Institute (ICA) G/SPS/GEN/984 
Costa Rica Information on Measures to be Taken 
to Prevent the Entry of the Huanglongbing (HLB) Bacterium that 
Attacks Citrus Fruit G/SPS/GEN/930 
Ecuador Communication on the Ecuadorian 
Agency for Agricultural Product Quality Assurance G/SPS/GEN/901 
Ecuador Progress in the area of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures G/SPS/GEN/982 
European Communities Guidance Document on the Animal 
Health Requirements for Placing on 
the Market, Import and transit of 
Aquaculture Animals According to Council Directive 2006/88/EC/ and 
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 
1251/2008 G/SPS/GEN/949 
European Communities Guidelines as Regards Measures to be 
Taken Concerning the Presence of 
Nicotine in Wild Mushrooms G/SPS/GEN/925 
Madagascar Sanitary and Phyt osanitary status G/SPS/GEN/975 
Mexico Committee on Technical Barriers to 
Trade G/SPS/GEN/491/Add.9& 
G/TBT/GEN/7/Add.9 
Panama  Colombia – Concerns Regarding 
Exports of Processed Chicken 
Products from Panama G/SPS/GEN/945 
Paraguay Transparency  of the Official 
veterinary Services G/SPS/GEN/937 
Singapore Optical watermark on export 
certificates G/SPS/GEN/959 
Viet Nam Report on food hygiene and safety 
control in Basa Catfish industry in 
Viet Nam G/SPS/GEN/931 
Zambia Plant Quarantine and Phytosanitary 
Service (PQPS) in Zambia Agriculture Research Institute G/SPS/GEN/941 2009 
Zambia Pest survey pr ogrammes G/SPS/GEN/965 
 
__________