. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/158 
14 October 2004 
 (04-4328) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
    
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION AS PART OF 
THE SECOND REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION  
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Further elaboration of issues for consideration by Canada
 
 
  The following communication, received on 12 Octo ber 2004, is being circulated at the request 
the Delegation of Canada. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. At its meeting of 22-23 June 2004, the SPS Committee agreed to a process (G/SPS/32) for the 
review of the operation and implementation of th e Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures ("the SPS Agreement"), purs uant to the provisions of Article 12.7 of the 
Agreement. 
2. Members were invited to identify issues for cons ideration as part of the review by 30 June 
2004.  Members were also invited to submit papers  on the issues proposed for consideration and to 
identify any further issues for consideration dur ing the review by 12 October 2004.  Canada has 
identified the following two issues for consideration in the Review. 
II. TRANSPARENCY (ANNEX B) 
3. It is Canada's view that the transparency pr ovisions of the SPS Agreement are a cornerstone 
to its effective implementation.  Through the notification process adopted by the SPS Committee, 
Members can attain a greater degree of predictabilit y and clarity with respect to the adoption of SPS 
measures by trading partners. 
4. In this regard, Canada would like to lend s upport to the New Zealand proposal regarding the 
notification of all new measures that are base d on international standards, guidelines, or 
recommendations (G/SPS/W/157).  However, Canada is  of the opinion that, as per Annex B of the 
SPS Agreement ("Transparency of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulations") and the Committee's 
"Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Tran sparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement 
(Article 7)" (G/SPS/7/Rev.2), the proposal should be restricted to new regulations
 that are based on 
international standards, guidelines or recommendations. 
5. In addition, it is Canada's view that Member s would benefit from being notified of regulations 
that "conform to" (Article 3.2), are "based on" (Artic le 3.1), or are "not substantially the same as the 
content of" (Annex B, paragraph 5)  international standards, guidelines, or recommendations, because 
of the potential impact on trade.  This would be consistent with paragraph 5 of Annex B since both G/SPS/W/158 
Page 2  
 
 conditions for the proposed SPS regulation (i.e., subs tantially the same content as an international 
standard, guideline or recommendation, and no significant effect on trade of other Members) must be met for a Member to opt out of its notification obligations.  Canada believes that it would be 
exceptional for the adoption of a new SPS regulati on by a Member to not have the potential to 
significantly affect the trade of at least some other Members.  
6. Canada recognizes that Members have an obligation to harmonize SPS measures on as wide a 
basis as possible (Article 3.1).  In a situation where all of the measures implemented by trading 
partners conform to internationa l standards, guidelines or recommendations (i.e., the content of each 
SPS measure is the same as an in ternational standard, guideline or  recommendation), notification of 
proposed SPS regulations might not be necessary.  Unfortunately, not all Members adopt measures 
that conform to international standards, guidelines,  or recommendations.  The adoption, by a Member, 
of a regulation that is the same as an interna tional standard, guideline or recommendation has the 
potential to have a significant effect on trade.   A good example is the Committee’s discussions 
regarding implementation of IPPC's ISPM #15 (u nder the agenda item "Consideration of Specific 
Notifications Received" in Octobe r 2003 and March 2004).  In reality , it is changing conditions (e.g., 
new SPS regulations) that affect trade, re gardless of the basis for that change. 
7. In Canada's view, the administration of the SPS Agreement, particularly in terms of increased 
transparency, would be improved if Members notified all new regulations, whether they "conform to," 
are "based on," or are "not substantially the sa me as the content of" international standards, 
guidelines, or recommendations.  Therefore, Canada w ould like to have this proposal as an issue for 
discussion as part of the review of the SPS Agreement. 
III. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELEVANT STANDARD-SETTING BODIES AND 
THE SPS COMMITTEE 
8. It is Canada's view that the SPS Committee and the international standard-setting bodies 
(ISSBs) have distinct yet complementary roles in providing guidance and elaborating disciplines related to international standards, guidelines, and recommendations.  The ISSBs are clearly best 
placed to develop technical and scientific standard s, guidelines, and recommendations.  On the other 
hand, the SPS Committee's focus is on the effec tive implementation of the SPS Agreement.  This 
close relationship is recognized in Article 12.3 of the SPS Agreement, which states that the 
Committee shall maintain close cont act with the relevant internati onal standard-setting organizations 
"with the objective of securing the best available sci entific and technical advice for the administration 
of this Agreement and in order to ensure that unnecessary duplication of effort is avoided."  In 
Canada's view, one area where such duplication of e ffort has occurred and could continue to occur is 
with respect to the development of guidelines on procedures.  
9. It is Canada's view that Members would bene fit from a discussion amongst the Secretariats of 
Codex, OIE, IPPC, and the SPS Committee, and that the clarity gained from such a discussion would 
improve the administration of the SPS Agreement.  Such a discussion could include an articulation by 
the ISSBs of their respective mandates in the development of standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations, whether their mandates allow for th em to develop procedural guidelines, etc. 
Canada supports such a discussion as part of the review of the SPS Agreement. 
 
__________