WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/230 
25 September 2008 
 (08-4519) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
  
PRIVATE STANDARDS - IDENTI FYING PRACTICAL ACTIONS  
FOR THE SPS COMMITTEE – SUMMARY OF RESPONSES 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
INTRODUCTION 
 
1. On 5 July 2008, the Chairman of the SPS Comm ittee circulated a number of questions for the 
attention of Members to solicit proposals regardi ng what the SPS Committee can and should do to (1) 
reduce the negative effects that private SPS standard s have on international trade, especially for 
developing countries, and to (2) enhance the potentia l benefits arising from private SPS standards for 
developing countries (.JOB(08)/58).  Responses were received from 30 Members;  these have been compiled and are contained in JOB(08)/97. 
2. A brief summary of the responses received is gi ven below for each of the questions.  Specific 
suggestions regarding concrete actions by the SPS Committee have been highlighted, where these 
were submitted by Members.  Finally, this documen t contains a proposal for further actions by the 
Committee, based on the responses from Members. 
3. To avoid possible confusion, in this document  the use of the term "international standard" 
refers exclusively to the standards, guidelines or recommendations developed by the Codex, IPPC or 
OIE.  The term "national" requirement  refers to governmental requirements. 
 
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES 
 
1. Should the SPS Committee limit the focus of its  work to certain categories of private SPS 
standards?  If so, to only collective international schemes (e.g., GlobalGAP, ISO 22000, Global Food 
Safety Initiative);  or also collective national sch emes (e.g., British Retail Consortium (BRC) Global 
Standard, Assured Food Standards);  or also indi vidual firm schemes (e.g., Tesco Nature's Choice, 
Carrrefour Filière Qualité)?  (Document G/SPS/GEN/746 provides a useful description and categorization of different types of private standards.) 
Virtually all of the respondents to this qu estion suggested that the Committee should 
consider all of these categories of private standa rds, as all could have significant effects 
on trade.  A few Members, however, sugg ested that the Committee should either 
exclusively, or at least initially, fo cus on collective international schemes. 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/W/230 
Page 2  
 
  2. Would it be useful to the SPS Committee to  have a study which compares private standards 
with corresponding Codex, IPPC and OIE standards? 
While most respondents supported a study, sev eral suggested that it was premature, and 
that the Committee should first focus its e fforts on clearly identifying the problems 
related to private standards. 
If this would be useful,  
(a)  Which types of private standards should be included in the study:  only collective 
international schemes;  or also collective national  schemes;  or also individual firm schemes?  
Which ones? 
Most Members suggested that there should be no a priori exclusion of any category of 
private standard, although some suggested that priority should be given to examination 
of collective international schemes.  One Memb er suggested that attention should focus 
primarily on the standards of GlobalGAP, BRC, Tesco, SQF, and Global Food Safety 
Initiative (GFSI);  while another specifically identified also ISO 22000  and ISO 22005 . 
One suggestion on how to identify which pr ivate standards would be considered was to 
base the study on specific products and spec ific private standards, identified by 
Members, whose trade is affected by privat e standards.  This would permit a very 
focussed study which compared an identified private standard with the relevant Codex, 
OIE or IPPC standard for the same product,  as exported by Member X to Member Y. 
(b)  Should all three sister standards be incl uded in the study?  If not, which ones? 
Most respondents indicated that Codex, IPPC and OIE standards should all be 
included, however some suggested that Codex standards were of most relevance in this 
regard.  One Member suggested that the three organizations should decide whether they 
wished to participate in this study.   
(c)  How can such a study be done quickly, in a practical way? Some respondents suggested that private consultants could be engaged to do this study, 
or other international organizations (i.e., FAO, IICA, UNCTAD, World Bank),  or that 
the Codex, IPPC and OIE secretariats could be requested to undertake such a study in 
their respective fields of work;  or an ad hoc group of Members could work together;  or that the work be undertaken by Members working at the regional level.  Several Members stressed that clear terms of referen ce for the study were critical before any 
work was undertaken.  Some very specifi c proposals for structuring a study were 
submitted.   
One proposal was a 3-stage approach.  In the first stage, Members would be invited to 
each identify one product of export interest wh ose trade is affected by private standards.  
For this product the Member should provide (1) a description of the relevant private standard(s) which are applied in each of  its export markets;  (2) the relevant 
international standard(s);  (3) information on  the positive and/or negative effects of the 
private standard(s) (including, to the extent possible, data on trade, costs of compliance 
with the standard(s), identification/categorization of businesses that meet the international standard (eg, small, medium or large, national, foreign or multi-national), 
benefits obtained from compliance with the private standard(s), etc);  and (4) 
identification, to the extent possible, of the relevant SPS provisions.    G/SPS/W/230 
 Page 3 
 
 
  As the second phase, a working group of the SPS Committee would undertake a 
descriptive comparative study, followed by an analytical study.  The information from 
Members would be compiled in a matrix which would permit identification of the products most affected;  the private standard s most frequently identified;  the costs and 
benefits of compliance with private standards;  differences and similarities between the 
private standards and the international standards;  level of compliance of the private 
standard with the SPS Agreement provisions;  whether the private standards facilitate 
implementation of the international standa rd.  The descriptive matrix and Member's 
comments on it would provide the input for an analytical study by the working group focussed on whether the private standards crea te trade difficulties;  the nature of any 
such difficulties;  the most relevant SPS discip lines;  the role of Codex, IPPC and OIE;  
etc.  Finally, in the third phase the workin g group would propose concrete actions for 
consideration by the SPS Committee based on the above study and the comments of 
Members. 
Another suggestion was that the SPS Committ ee work with the FAO on a questionnaire 
which identifies the standards relevant for tr ade, categorizes these as international or 
private standards;  identifies who develope d the standard and who certifies compliance 
with the standard;  indicates which commodities  are affected and in which country it is 
applied, etc.  The responses to this questionna ire could be used to identify those private 
standard schemes which have the greatest impacts on trade, the entities involved and the scope of the impact on trade;  subsequently strategies to address the effects could be 
developed.   
A third specific suggestion was to invite  the private standards bodies to submit 
information on their existing standard s, processes of developing standards, 
transparency, equivalence, scientific justification,  etc.  On the basis of this information, 
the Codex, IPPC and OIE could be invited to  identify similarities and deviations from 
their relevant standards.  This would provi de a basis for the SPS Committee to develop 
guidance aimed at bringing private standards into compliance with the principles of the 
SPS Agreement. 
(d)  What elements should a study focus on (i.e. transparency, equivalence, scientific 
justification, development)? 
Most respondents identified the issues of tr ansparency and scientific justification as 
most important, while others included also  equivalence, harmonization and technical 
assistance.  One suggestion was to focus on  how private standards are implemented by 
private operators, identifying the problem areas in this regard.  There were also suggestions that the study clarify how privat e standards can contribute to and facilitate 
trade and development.  Some Members considered it necessary to first have clarity 
regarding the legal relationship between private standards and the WTO agreements 
before any study were undertaken. 
One specific suggestion was to focus the study  on:  defining to what extent private 
standard are scientifically justified;  identify ing a set of solutions that could be used to 
balance the relation between the consumer rights to consume high quality goods and the rights of the producer/exporters;  defining the rules that could be followed to avoid 
duplication and overlap between the private and official standards in one country;  
identifying the role of the importing/export ing countries;  identifying differences among 
different private standards schemes and the frequency with which standards are modified;  clarifying the role of developing  countries in the process of setting private G/SPS/W/230 
Page 4  
 
  standards;  identifying how to increase the ability of developing countries to comply 
with such standards. 
The costs of third party certification, especia lly in case of small enterprises and farmers 
in developing countries, and the requirements to use specified certification bodies were 
suggested as focuses for the study, along with  the recognition of certificates issued by 
developing countries.  It was further suggest ed that the study could cover also food 
hazards (identification, risk analysis, communication mechanisms) in domestic and international supply chains,  traceability systems.  
(e)  Who would cover the costs of the study? A number of respondents noted that if the study is undertaken based on information 
provided by Members, there would not be any specific costs.  Others suggested that a 
study could be funded by the STDF, FAO, UNCTAD, World Bank or other 
international bodies.  A few suggested th at WTO Members could finance the study 
directly, or that funding could be sought fr om  the private standard setting bodies. 
(f)  If the results of the study showed that in some specific cases private standards 
requirements exceed the international standar ds, what actions could the SPS Committee 
take? 
Several specific actions were proposed in resp onse to this question.  It was suggested 
that such results should be immediately published to ensure that not only the private standard-setting bodies but the public at la rge was made aware of the conclusions.  
Other suggestions included:   
• analyzing the rationale and justification for such discrepancies and whether 
there was any discriminatory element (e.g. if  the private standards apply only on 
the basis of country of origin);   
• determining whether there was any corresponding price compensation or 
whether the higher standards created an additional market opportunity;   
• developing guidelines to governments regarding vigilance and control over 
private standards;   
• meetings with the private standard-setting bodies;   
• workshops with competent government auth orities, consumer organizations and 
other relevant stakeholders;   
• assistance to developing countries to co mply with private standards;  and  
• requesting scientific justification of the private standard-setting bodies.   
 
(g)  If the results of the study showed that private standards requirements did not exceed the 
international standards, what actions could the SPS Committee take ? 
Many respondents indicated that in this case  it would be important to ensure greater 
transparency and harmonization in private standards, and to develop mechanisms to 
provide information and greater involvement by  developing countries in the creation of 
private standards, and technical assistance to comply with these.  G/SPS/W/230 
 Page 5 
 
 
  3. Should the Committee organize periodic inform ation sessions to which specific private 
standards-setting bodies are invited for the purpose of informing these bodies of Members' concerns 
and learning about relevant developments ?  If so, how frequently should such information sessions 
be scheduled?  Which private standards -setting bodies should be invited?  
There was strong support for the organization of periodic information sessions with the 
private standards-setting bodies.  Some suggested that this should be ad hoc, based on 
the identification of specific issues for di scussion, whereas others suggested at least once 
a year or even at each meeting of the Committee.  Among the private standards-setting bodies to be invited GlobalGAP, GFSI, SQF, BRC, Tesco Natures Choice, ISO CASCO, Bureau Veritas, SGS, Intertek and Loyallds were specifically identified. 
However, some Members were opposed to thes e meetings, indicating that efforts should 
be concentrated rather on a working group,  or that it was more important to meet 
regularly with Codex, IPPC and OIE, or with development agencies and others doing 
work in this area.  One Member stressed that  the private standard-setting bodies should 
channel their communications through their resp ective national government authorities, 
not directly to the SPS Committee.   
4. Should the SPS Committee invite the TBT Committee to jointly organize meetings and/or 
information sessions regarding private standards?  W hat should be the agenda of such meetings? 
 Members were split in their responses to this question, with almost half indicating that 
 joint meetings with the TBT Committee would not be appropriate, at least not at the  initial stages of the SPS Committee’s work. 
 Those Members who thought it would be useful to organize joint meetings with the TBT 
 Committee made various suggestions regar ding possible agenda items, including: 
• Specific trade concerns of Members; 
• Mechanisms for the application of pri vate standards by developing countries, 
and in particular problems with certifications systems; 
• Participation of Members in the development of private standards;  
• Reports of the Codex, IPPC and OIE regarding the work with private 
standards-setting bodies. 
• Good practices, mutual recognition and transparency, and conformity 
assessment; 
• The mandatory nature conferred on pr ivate standards by the market; 
• Application and binding force of the SPS and TBT Agreements with regard to 
the establishment of measures likely to constitute a restriction on trade, private standards as unnecessary technical barriers to trade; 
• Monitoring of the implementation of  the SPS and TBT Agreements by Members 
in relation to private standards;   
• Measuring "Certified once accepted everywhere; current standards and 
benchmarking;  lack of equivalence among private standards; 
• Government support for private standa rd implementation (certain countries 
cannot afford this, it is putting them at a disadvantage); 
• Feasibility of using private standards as the basis for the development of 
sanitary and phytosanitary meas ures and technical regulations; 
• Copyright implications of using private standards in the development of sanitary 
and phytosanitary measures and technical regulations; G/SPS/W/230 
Page 6  
 
  • Possible mechanisms which could be used by the WTO to ensure that private 
standards abide by the provisions of the SPS and TBT Agreements; 
• Possible role of governments as it pertai ns to the elaboration of these standards; 
• Possible mechanisms that could be utilized to address challenges 
• New standards and level of compliance; 
• The role of IAF and accreditation bodies.  
 
5. Does the TBT Code of Good Practice address the concerns relating to private SPS 
standards?  If not, why not? 
 Most Members did not consider that the TBT Code of Good Practice would be useful as 
 it was essentially applicable to government al or quasi-governmental standardization 
 bodies, not to private bodies.  Some noted, however, that it would be useful if private 
 standard-setting bodies adhered to the basic principles of the TBT Code of Good 
 Practice, in particular with regard to transparency, participation of developing 
 countries, impartiality and consensus, e ffectiveness and relevance, coherence, and the 
 development dimension. 
6. Should the SPS Committee encourage other bodies within or outside of the WTO to pursue the 
issue of private standards and their effects on trade?  If so, which other bodies? 
 Many respondents considered it unnecessary  for the SPS Committee to encourage other 
 bodies to pursue the issue of private standard s and their effects on trade, as several were 
 already doing so.  They suggested that it wo uld be useful to invite these organizations to 
 report on their work relating to private sta ndards if relevant to the Committee.  Several 
 Members noted that this could be done through the regular agenda of the SPS  Committee meetings.  In contrast, some respondents suggested that other bodies were  better placed to pursue this issue and should be encouraged to do so. 
 In addition to the WTO TBT, Trade and Environment and Trade and Development  
 Committees, Codex, IPPC and OIE, responde nts identified as other relevant bodies:  
 COMMARK, FAO (including regional committees), IICA, ISO, ITC, OECD, SADC,  SACU, UNCTAD, UNIDO and the World Bank.  7. How should the SPS Committee coordinate on this issue with the Codex, IPPC and OIE? 
 Most respondents suggested that the Codex, IPPC and OIE should be invited to 
 participate in any work on this issue by  the SPS Committee, although some suggested 
 this would be more appropriate at a later stage, or that the current agenda of the SPS  Committee provided ample opportunity for input  from these three sister organizations.  
 Some specific suggestions were submitted, including: 
• The question of how or whether compliance with SPS-related private standards 
could facilitate compliance with relevan t international standards, and the 
identification of precise actions to ensu re compliance, could be raised with the 
three sisters and other relevant bodies; 
• The three sister organizations should be advised to send observers to relevant 
private standard-setting bodies; 
• Devise strategies and joint work plans to develop projects at national and 
regional levels which allow for the partic ipation of the private standard-setting 
sector;  G/SPS/W/230 
 Page 7 
 
 
  • The three sisters should conduct a retrospective analysis of the development of 
private standards and their present role , and present their conclusions to the 
SPS Committee. 
 
(a)  To what extent has the issue of privat e standards been considered by these organizations? 
 Many respondents suggested that Codex, IPPC  and OIE should be invited to respond to 
 this question, however a number of Members noted that the issue had been addressed by 
 the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures at  its annual meeting in April 2008, and by 
 the OIE General Assembly in May 2008.  The Codex Commission had entrusted the  FAO with a study on the issue, to be presented at the next Commission meeting in June  2009. 
(b)  Have they undertaken (are they consid ering) studies regarding the differences between 
their standards and private standards? 
 It was apparent from all replies that none of  the organizations has to date undertaken a 
 study comparing their respective standards with private standards.  However, some 
 suggested that this would be included in the study to be undertaken by the FAO for 
 consideration by the Codex Commission.  
(c)  What are practical steps that can be taken  (or are being taken) to avoid conflicts between 
the standards of the three sisters and private standards? 
Specific suggestions included: 
• Information exchange and outreach be tween these organizations to improve 
coherence in the standard-setting universe;  
• Inclusion of private standards bodies as observers in the standard-setting 
procedures of the three sisters;  
• Joint meetings, information exchange and the publication of all draft private 
standards by private standard schemes; 
• Harmonization of the standards of the three sister organizations with private 
standards, in particular with ISO/IEC standards; 
• Increased dialogue between official regul ators and private standard-setting 
organizations; 
• Improved compliance of exports with offici al standards, including in particular 
the standards of the "three sisters", which could possibly reduce pressure for 
additional measures going beyond the latter standards; 
• Development of individual or a collective position paper on private standards by 
the Codex, IPPC and OIE for endorsem ent by their members and the WTO/SPS 
Committee; 
• Training and information on the market  requirements for access to markets;  
• Improved communication with all stakeholders including IAF, ISO CASCO, 
etc.; 
• Ensuring a better understanding of the role of each group and what conformity 
assessment is all about 
• Further a better understanding regarding th e role and impact of accreditation 
bodies and the IAF.  
 G/SPS/W/230 
Page 8  
 
  (d)  To what extent could private standards be used to facilitate compliance with the 
international standards?  
Whereas some respondents were categorical th at private standards could not facilitate 
compliance with international standards, oth ers suggested that this was perhaps what 
private standards were attempting to do, through the development of good practices.  
Some specific suggestion for the use of pri vate standards to facilitate compliance with 
Codex, IPPC and OIE standards included:   
• Ensuring that private standards, whils t respecting SPS principles, strengthened 
Members' export capabilities, thereby fa cilitating compliance with international 
standards;  
• Ensuring that private standards are deve loped in accordance with the guidelines 
established by the three sisters and nation al government authorities, so that 
private and international standards doveta iled, whilst catering for the needs of 
each region and facilitating the creation  of mechanisms for monitoring the 
implementation of such standards at  regional and international level; 
• Ensuring that the private standard adoption process followed the procedures 
established by the international organizations;  
• Using private standards as a model to improve official national standards (for 
example, with regard to better food safe ty control practices and agricultural 
quality assurance procedures); 
• Compliance with private codes for agric ultural good practices, manufacturing 
good practices, laboratory analysis and rules setting can be a stepping stone to comply with the international sta ndards established by governments; 
• Private standards can provide economi c incentives for producers to ensure 
compliance with standards, irrespecti ve of whether they are private or 
international; 
• If certification of compliance with a private standard (i.e., GlobalGAP) means 
that a farmer does not have to be in spected by government for compliance to 
similar official standards, particularly if  all retailers (including local ones) agree 
to accept the main standards and not require compliance to additional ones. 
 
(e)  To what extent do the three sisters identify precise actions to be taken to comply with 
their standards (GAP, GMP, Good Aquaculture Practices, etc.)? 
Respondents noted that the  three sisters, within the limitations of their resources, 
increasingly provide important and invaluabl e guidance on the necessary measures to 
allow trade in food to take place under sa fe conditions.  This includes developing 
standards that include GMP and GAP.  Howev er, it was also stressed that the Codex, 
IPPC and OIE are only concerned with de veloping, not monitori ng compliance with, 
international standards. 
8. Should the SPS Committee coordinate on th is issue with other international 
intergovernmental organizations, e.g. , UNCTAD, World Bank, OECD, ITC? 
Some respondents suggested that it would be useful to coordinate with other 
organizations to get information on what they are doing, and some noted that this could 
be done under existing agenda items at meetings of the SPS Committee.  Other 
respondents suggested it was premature to coor dinate with the work of other bodies at 
this time .   G/SPS/W/230 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (a)  To what extent has the issue of privat e standards been considered by these organizations? 
As one respondent succinctly stated, mo st of the studies undertaken by these 
organizations analyze the positive and negative aspects of private standards on the basis of case studies. They do not, however, analyz e consistency of the private standards with 
SPS principles or with the international referen ce standards.  Neither, as a general rule, 
do they suggest courses of action aimed at preventing private standards from becoming 
unjustified barriers to international trade 
9. To what extent could private standards facilita te compliance with official SPS requirements 
(national requirements and/or the international st andards)?  Can you give specific examples of where 
this has occurred / is occurring? 
 There were significant differences in responses to this question.  A number of Members 
 replied that there was no evidence that pri vate standards contributed to the compliance 
 of official SPS requirements, and it was noted that most private standards did not 
 correctly address SPS issues.  It was noted th at the main objective of private standards 
 was as a means of differentiating these pro ducts from products that simply meet 
 national and/or international standards.  A number of respondents also stressed that 
 often private requirements exceeded the na tional ones and exporters from developing 
 countries had to incur very high costs, which generally resulted in market exit or a lack 
 of incentive to penetrate markets. 
 In contrast, some respondents noted that protocols of good agricultural practices, such 
 as GlobalGAP, adhered to and, to a certai n extent, facilitated compliance with official 
 requirements.  More generally , where private standards had a sound scientific basis and 
 promoted best practices consistent with SPS principles and national requirements, there 
 was likely to be significant facilitation of compliance with SPS requirements.  It was also 
 observed that compliance with official sta ndards did not guarantee market access.  To 
 find customers, it was necessary to meet the requirements of the market, and private 
 standards could create a bridge between the e ssential step of meeting official standards 
 and finding customers. 
10. Should the SPS Committee eventually purse a legal analysis of the relationship between the 
SPS Agreement and private standards ?   
 Many respondents considered that a legal analysis would be useful, and some described 
 it as essential.  Others, however, suggested that engaging in such analysis was unlikely to 
 yield a result that could be endorsed on a consensus basis and at the same time provide 
 clarity and direction for Members.  They suggested that the Committee should look 
 instead at practical actions that might assist Members who face specific problems .  
(a)  If so, how would this analysis be undertaken ? 
 Suggestions from Members who supp orted a legal analysis included: 
• Requesting a legal team of advisers from the WTO to write in plain language an 
opinion on the interpretation of the Agreement and where the authority lies for the introduction of measures which regulate trade between partners;   
• Forwarding the issue for a ruling by the WTO tribunal; 
• Consulting external legal experts with experience on such matters; G/SPS/W/230 
Page 10  
 
  • Having the analysis conducted by an ad hoc working group, made up of 
Members, working within a reasonable p eriod of time and in accordance with 
very precise terms of reference;  
• Having Members commission their own independent studies on the issue; 
• Basing the analysis on the main concern s and/or complaints concerning private 
standards received both by the SPS Co mmittee and by the Codex, IPPC and 
OIE.  It must also assess whether or not these standards comply with the 
provisions of the SPS Agreement and, if this is not the case, indicate how to 
proceed in order to achieve compliance; 
• Seeking STDF funding for a project interpreting Article 13 of the SPS 
Agreement and analyzing its scope in terms of government responsibilities and authority in relation to private standards, in particular those which cause unjustified barriers to trade; 
• Ensuring the analysis was not limited to the SPS Agreement but included other 
WTO agreements as well.  
 
(b)  What would be its form? 
Most respondents in favour of a legal analysis suggested that it should take the form of a 
report to the SPS Committee, with one suggestion that the analysis should propose amendments as necessary to the text s of both the SPS and TBT Agreements.  
(c)  What issues would this analysis examine that were not included in the analysis by 
Gascoine and O'Connor and company (see G/SPS/GEN/802)? 
A number of Members suggested that this do cument would be useful input and noted 
that the document itself suggested the need fo r further legal analysis.  In particular, the 
section on "Legal options and possible suggest ions, or courses of action, to address the 
issue of private standards and the positi on of non-governmental bodies' standards 
within the WTO system" included some suggestions on how both the SPS and TBT Committees could handle the issue of private standards. 
One respondent, however, noted that the study had been commissioned by a developed 
country Member and was not balanced as it ruled out different possibilities for assessing 
private standards in the light of the SPS and TBT Agreements.  Moreover, the study did 
not take account of the participation of develo ping countries as partners or of the role 
that such countries could have in the assessment of private standards . 
RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTIONS BY THE SPS COMMITTEE 
 
4. As the summary above makes apparent, there is  a wide range of views held by Members 
regarding the issue of private standards, the exte nt to which they establish SPS requirements, their 
effects on trade and development, and their legal relationship with the SPS Agreement. 
5. There is also, however, much interest, in pa rticular on the part of developing country 
Members, for the SPS Committee to begin to address this issue in a practical manner.  The large 
number of respondents who favoured undertaking a st udy which compares relevant private standards 
with the corresponding Codex, IPPC or OIE standard s is a clear indication of the desire for the 
Committee to take some concrete steps on this matt er.  Some very useful, practical suggestions for 
such a study were made in respon se to Question 2(c), as noted above. 
6. It is therefore recommended that the SPS Comm ittee address the issue of private standards 
through a multi-track approach.  Most of this wo rk could be undertaken by a group of interested  G/SPS/W/230 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Members, reporting to each meeting of the SPS Co mmittee.  The proposed actions would be as 
follows: 
(a) Members and Observer Organizations would be  encouraged to provide any relevant 
information regarding studies or analysis which they have undertaken or of which 
they are aware for consideration by the group of interested Members.  Of particular 
interest in this regard would be the study being undertaken by FAO with respect to 
food safety standards.  Representatives of the Codex, IPPC and OIE, as well as of any other appropriate organizations , may be invited to meetings of the group of interested 
Members; 
(b) The group of interested Members could periodically request the Secretariat to 
organize informal information sessions with appropriate representatives of bodies 
involved in the setting of private standard s, assessment of conformity, or assistance 
with compliance with private standards;  and 
(c) The group of interested Members could undertake a comparative study, in three 
phases, similar to that summarized above in  response to Question 2(c) (suggested by 
Argentina).  These phases would be as follows: 
 Phase 1
: Each interested Member would be inv ited to identify one or two products of 
 export interest whose trade is affected by private standards.   For this product the Member 
 should provide:  
(i) a description of the relevant private st andard(s) which are applied in each of 
its export markets; 
(ii) the relevant Codex, IPPC or OIE standards) for that same product;  
(iii) information on the positive and/or negativ e effects of the private standard(s), 
including, to the extent possible: 
- data on trade,  
- costs of compliance with the standard(s),  
- information on recognition of comp liance with the standard(s); 
- identification/categorization of business es that meet the private standard(s) 
(e.g., small, medium or large, na tional, foreign or multi-national);  
- any technical or financial assistance received to assist compliance with the 
private standard(s);  and 
- benefits obtained from compliance with the private standard(s).  
(iv) identification, to the extent possible, of any provisions of the SPS Agreement 
that are relevant with regard to th e difficulties arising from the requirements 
established by the private standard(s).   
 The Secretariat could develop a format fo r the use of Members in providing the above 
 information, to ensure some consistency and comparability of the information provided and to 
 facilitate its consideration by the Committee.    Phase 2
: The Secretariat, with the assistance of  interested Members, would compile 
 the information provided by Members into a descriptive matrix.  This should permit the 
 group of interested Members to prepare a descriptive report, which would include:   
 G/SPS/W/230 
Page 12  
 
  (i) the identification of the products whose trade is most affected by private 
standards; 
(ii) identification of the markets where tr ade is most affected by private 
standards; 
(iii) the private standards most frequently identified;   
(iv) the costs of compliance with private standards; 
(v) the benefits of compliance with private standards; 
(vi) technical / financial assistance provided; 
(vii) differences and similarities between the private standards and the 
international standards;   
(viii) whether the private standards facilita te implementation of the relevant 
international standards;  and  
(ix) the provisions of the SPS Agreement most frequently identified.…  
 Phase 3
: On the basis of the descriptive report, and other relevant input, the group of 
interested Members could prepare an analytical report for consideration by the SPS 
Committee.  The report would  address, inter a lia, to what extent private standards create 
trade difficulties;  the nature of any such diffi culties;  the most relevant SPS disciplines;  the 
role of Codex, IPPC and OIE;  etc.  This  report should also propose concrete actions for 
consideration by the SPS Committee  based on the above study and the comments of Members. 
 
7. With regard to timing, it is recommended that the various phases identified above be 
scheduled to correspond with meetings of the SPS Committee.  That is, if the Committee were to 
agree to this recommendation at its meeting in Oc tober 2008, Members would be invited to submit 
information as requested in Phase I by the time of the Committee's meeting of  24-26 February 2009.  
The descriptive report would be prepared for presentation to the Committee at its meeting of 23-
25 June 2009, and the analytical report with reco mmendations could be presented for consideration by 
the Committee at its meeting of 13-15 October 2009. 
__________