WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/192 
30 May 2006 
 (06-2585) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
ISSUES IN THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE AGREEMENT ON THE 
APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES  
 
Japanese Comments and Proposals
 
 
 
 The following communication, received on 16 May 2006, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegation of Japan. 
 
_______________ 
 
  Japan welcomes the discussion on regionalizati on that has taken place in the Committee on 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the Committ ee) to improve the implementation of the SPS 
Agreement.  We would like to submit the following comments on the background paper (G/SPS/GEN/640) and our proposals to increase pr edictability in the recognition procedure for 
regionalization.  I. GENERAL COMMENTS 
A. W
ORK OF THE RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS SETTING BODIES (ISSB S) 
1. As agreed in the previous meetings of the Committee, international standards on technical 
issues should be fully discussed by the relevant ISSBs in light of their expertise and terms of reference 
entrusted by the SPS Agreement.  
2. In view of the recent progress made by the OIE and the IPPC, it is obvious that these ISSBs 
are dealing with issues relating to the implementa tion of regionalization, including administrative 
aspects in a positive manner.  Recognizing such ongoing  efforts, Japan is of the view that the 
Committee should let the ISSBs complete their work , rather than start developing overarching or 
overlapping guidelines.  Therefore, Japan believes that the Committee’s primary responsibility in this 
area is, as articulated in the Article 12.3 of the Ag reement, to closely communicate with the ISSBs to 
avoid unnecessary duplication. 
B. TIME-FRAMES  
3. Regarding the time-frames on the steps which invol ve scientific or technical considerations, 
Japan thinks that this should be addressed exclus ively by the competent I SSBs.  The necessary period 
of examination for each step will differ accordin g to various conditions, such as the nature and 
prevalence of the disease/pest, the geographical s ituation and the quality of data provided by 
exporting countries.  
4. With regard to the general time-frame, we think it is difficult to introduce because such a 
time-frame may impair the delicate balance be tween importing countries and exporting countries 
under the SPS Agreement.  On the one hand, a short time-frame undermines the right of importing G/SPS/W/192 
Page 2  
 
  countries to conduct indispensable processes such as scientific analysis or risk communication with 
domestic stakeholders, in accordance with the nature  of the case;  and on the other hand, a long time-
frame might be used only as a justification of undue  delay.  In addition, taking into account various 
situations among countries, such as a difference in the number of requests to the countries or the 
regulatory system of the countries, it is difficult to  reach an acceptable compromise on this issue.  
II. COMMENTS ON SECTION IV OF G/SPS/GEN/640  
5. As mentioned above, Japan is of the view th at the Committee should refer these issues to the 
OIE and the IPPC.  However, acknowledging that active discussion in the Co mmittee facilitates the 
improvement in the implementation of the regiona lization, Japan submits the following comments on 
Section IV of G/SPS/GEN/640.  
B. S
EQUENCE OF STEPS  
6. Japan agrees that the sequence of  steps described in B to J of Section IV of G/SPS/GEN/640 
is a typical flow of work for the recognition of the pest- or disease-free ar ea.  However, further 
elaboration of the details of each step by the Committee is not appropriate because such a detailed 
guideline will not provide the ISSBs or Members with  the flexibility which is important in dealing 
with various situations.  
C. EXPEDITED PROCESS  
7. Japan agrees that all of the three suggested  elements provided in K of Section IV of 
G/SPS/GEN/640 ((a) existence of offici al recognition, (b) recovery of status of previously recognized 
area and (c) familiarity with the sanitary or phytosanitary service in exporting country)) can 
significantly contribute to the recognition of the pest- or disease-free area, including the possible 
omission of some of the procedures.  Japan thin ks that the importing coun try should accept expedited 
procedures when it can be confident that the propos ed measures can achieve the appropriate level of 
protection in the country.  Otherwise, exped ited procedures undermine the rights of importing 
countries under the SPS Agreement.  
(a) Official recognition 
 Japan agrees that official recognition is one of the important factors in the 
consideration of the recognition of the pest- or disease-free area.  Japan has 
harmonized the lists of information requested of exporting countries for the recognition of pest- or disease-free areas with those of the OIE.  Japan thinks it is difficult to automatically recognize a pest - or disease-free area solely depending on 
the official recognition for the following reasons: 
 
 Firstly, according to Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement, a Member may introduce or 
maintain sanitary or phytosanitary measures wh ich result in a higher level of sanitary 
or phytosanitary protection than woul d be achieved by measures based on the 
relevant international standards, as long as th ere is a scientific justification, or other 
requirements are met. Automatic recogniti on based solely on official recognition 
makes it impossible for Members to adopt sanitary and phytosanitary measures to 
achieve a higher level of protection even if there is a scientific justification. 
  Secondly, Japan would like to point out th e fact that there is a disclaimer in the 
official recognition of disease-free status by the OIE, which indicates a probability of 
inaccuracy.  Taking this disclaimer into account, it is difficult for importing countries 
to automatically accept the official recognitio n.  In addition, when using official  G/SPS/W/192 
 Page 3 
 
 
  recognition as a basis for the decision on the application of a fast-track procedure, it 
is important that not only the data submitted to the relevant ISSBs are shared with the 
Members, but also that details of the disc ussion in the ISSBs leading to the approval 
of official recognition are accessible to us. 
 
(b) Recovery 
 It is Japan’s view that the confidence generated through the original recognition 
procedure can facilitate the process of r ecognition, and there may be some cases 
where we can expedite recognition by omitti ng some elements of the procedure.  
However, there would be other cases where Jap an thinks it inappropriate to apply the 
fast-track procedure, such as the case wh ere the confidence in the quarantine systems 
was damaged by the outbreak.  Based on th e fact that the decisions for applicability 
require technical considerations, Japan thi nks that the use and applicability of the 
fast-track procedure for recovery cases should be addressed by the relevant ISSBs, rather than introducing a fast-track proce dure which is generally applicable to all 
recovery cases. 
 
(c) Familiarity 
 Japan agrees that, in most cases, familiar ity and confidence gene rated through similar 
experiences or successful past records on th e quarantine and/or disease control system 
of an exporting country can facilitate the recognition of the pest- or disease-free area.  
However, we would like to point out the fact that the nature of familiarity differs on a 
case-by-case basis and does not always accelerate the decision on recognition.  
 
III. PROPOSALS 
8. Based on our view presented above, Japan would lik e to propose the steps described below, if 
the Committee discusses the guideli nes on regionalization based on Section IV of G/SPS/GEN/640 
(following paragraph 28).  Japan is convinced th at these steps will help enhance transparency, 
promote predictability and avoid undue dela y in the bilateral consultation process. 
28.bis(i)  The importing Member shall show the whole sequence of steps throughout their 
recognition process and communicate with the exporting Member in order to gain 
sufficient understanding of the steps.  
 
28.bis(ii)  If the importing Member receives multiple requests from one country or various 
requests from several countries, and the available resources of the importing Member 
are limited, the Member needs to prioritize these requests.  The importing Member 
shall, after having bilateral communications  with the exporting Members, if deemed 
necessary by the importing Member, decide
1 and communicate to the relevant 
countries the priority for recognition. 
 
                                                      
1 To prioritize multiple re quests, the importing Member should take into account relevant factors including, 
inter alia : 
- completeness of available data for scientific analysis 
- the priority lists submitted by the exporting Members 
- available resources for scientific analysis 
- existence of relevant international standards or official recognition 
- expected volume of importation estimated from the previous records before interruption of trade (for 
requests of re-recognition) 
 G/SPS/W/192 
Page 4  
 
  28.bis(iii)  The importing Member shall present the list of necessary data/information to the 
exporting Member and, upon request, provide information on the current status of the 
request to the exporting Member.
2 
 
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
2 Based on our experience, in many cases, it take s a long time until all data/information necessary for 
examination is submitted in spite of the fact that the procedure for recognition can not proceed without 
sufficient information. Japan thinks that the fo llowing can contribute to solving this problem: 
i) Detailed specification of data/information listed should be attached to the request for 
data/information;  and  
ii) The data/information should be provided in the language in which the importing Member can 
work (official language of the importing Member or English).