RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/W/128/Rev.2
10 June 2003
(03-2986)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
CLARIFICATION OF PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE DECISION ON EQUIVALENCE
Note by the Secretariat1
Revision
On the basis of discussions and suggestions made during the informal meeting of the SPS
Committee on 23 May 2003, the Recommendations in paragraph 9(b) and 9(d) have been revised.
Paragraph 8 has also been revised to reflect adoption of the recommendation on equivalence duringthe OIE General Session of May 2003.
* * *
1. Paragraph 7 of the Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Decision on Equivalence", G/SPS/19)
states that:
"When considering a request for recognition of equivalence, the importing Member
should analyze the science-based and technical information provided by the exporting
Member on its sanitary or phytosanitary measures with a view to determining whether
these measures achieve the level of protection provided by its own relevant sanitary or
phytosanitary measures."
2. When this Decision was adopted, some Members noted that further work was required to
explore the relationship between the level of protection provided by the importing Member’s own
measures and what it required from imported products.  Other Members noted that Article 5.5 of the
SPS Agreement addressed the issue of consistency in the application of the concept of appropriatelevel of sanitary or phytosanitary protection (ALOP), and that the Committee had adopted Guidelines
to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5 (G/SPS/15).  The Committee's Programme for
Further Work on Equivalence (G/SPS/20) foresees consideration of a draft text clarifying the
provisions of paragraph 7 for the first informal and regular meetings of 2003.
3. Several Members addressed this concern in oral and written contributions, including
Argentina (G/SPS/W/117) and Australia (G/SPS/GEN/331).  Argentina stressed that, for the purposes
of determining equivalence, the exporting country had to demonstrate that its sanitary or
phytosanitary measures achieved the same appropriate level of protection as that provided by the
relevant measures of the importing country.  According to Argentina, paragraph 7 of Decision
G/SPS/19 clarified Article 4 of the SPS Agreement, which refers to an exporting Member objectivelydemonstrating that its measures achieve the importing Member's appropriate level of sanitary of
phytosanitary protection.
                                                     
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/128/Rev.2
Page 2
4. Argentina indicated that, in some situations, an importing Member's sanitary or phytosanitary
measure may not achieve its own ALOP.  When determ ining equivalence in such a situation, in order
to avoid discrimination, the importing Member should not compare an exporting Member's measure
to its ALOP, but to the level of protection actually attained by the importing Member's own measure.
According to Argentina, paragraph 7 had the objective of ensuring that the principle of non-discrimination, as reflected in Articles 2.3 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement, was applied in the
determination of equivalence.
5. Australia highlighted the fact that the text of paragraph 7 did not precisely correspond with
the text of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement.  According to Australia, in most instances no difficulty
would arise, because the level of protection achieved by the importing Member's measures would be
the same as the importing Member's ALOP.  Where there was a disparity between the ALOP required
by the importing Member and the level achieved by its own measures, however, difficulties couldarise.  Australia suggested overcoming these difficulties by recognizing the primacy of the SPS
Agreement, so that paragraph 7 could not be interpreted inconsistently with Article 4.
6. Australia furthermore raised the issue of how to judge whether an exporting Member's
measure reliably achieved the ALOP of an importing Member.  Since many Members did not clearly
state their ALOP, some practical means for comparing measures might be necessary to determineequivalence.  Australia suggested that the importi ng Member should specify an objective basis for
comparison of alternative measures.  Noting that paragraph 2 of the Decision required an importing
Member to provide certain information, Australia suggested that importing Members could be
encouraged to provide such an objective basis fo r comparison as part of the "additional information"
referred to in paragraph 2.  For example, an importing Member could state that equivalence would bedemonstrated if the exporting Member provided evidence that its measure resulted in a sanitary or
phytosanitary risk no higher than that resulting from application of the importing Member's own
measure.
7. At its meeting on 2-6 December 2002, the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export
Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) forwarded draft Guidelines on the Judgement ofEquivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems to the
Codex Alimentarius Commission for final adoption in June/July 2003.
2  According to these draft
Guidelines, the determination of equivalence would be based on an objective basis for comparison.
On the subject of the objective basis of comparison, the draft Guidelines state:
"15. Since the sanitary measures applied by an importing country have the purpose
of achieving its ALOP, an exporting country may demonstrate achievement of the
importing country's ALOP by demonstrating that the measures it proposes asequivalent have the same effect, relative to the achievement of the importing country's
ALOP, as the corresponding sanitary measures applied by the importing country by
using an objective basis of comparison.
"16. The importing country should, at the request of the exporting country, specify
as precisely as possible an objective basis for comparison of the sanitary measuresproposed by the exporting country and its own measures. Dialogue between the
exporting and importing country will assist in the development of understanding and,
desirably, agreement on the objective basis for comparison.  Supporting information to
be provided by the importing country may include:
                                                     
2 See the Report of the Eleventh Session of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export
Inspection and Certification Systems, contained in ALINORM 03/30A, available from the Codex website
(http://www.codexalimentarius.net).G/SPS/W/128/Rev.2
Page 3
(a) the reason/purpose for the sanitary measure, including
identification of the specific risks that the measure is intended to
address;
(b) the relationship of the sanitary measure to the ALOP, i.e., how
the sanitary measure achieves the ALOP;
(c) where appropriate, an expression of the level of control of the
hazard in a food that is achieved by the sanitary measure;
(d) the scientific basis for the sanitary measure under consideration,
including risk assessment where appropriate;
(e) any additional information that may assist the exporting country
in presenting an objective demonstration of equivalence."
(footnote omitted)
8. The OIE recommendation on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Relating to
International Trade in Animals and Animal Products (draft described in G/SPS/W/119) takes a similar
approach.  The sequence of steps to be taken in judgement of equivalence includes that "the importing
country explains the reason for the measure(s), in terms which would facilitate comparison with an
alternative sanitary measure(s) … ".
Recommendation
9. It is recommended that the Committee agree the following clarification of paragraph 7:
(a) The Committee notes that conscientious implementation of the Guidelines to Further
the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5 (G/SPS/15) will assist Members in
determining equivalence.
(b) The Committee further notes that the relationship between the level of protection
provided by the importing Member’s own measures and what it requires from
imported products has been explicitly addressed in the draft Codex Guidelines on the
Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Meas ures Associated with Food Inspection and
Certification Systems.3  The Committee agrees that Members should consider the
Codex approach of establishing an "objective basis for comparison" when
determining the equivalence of SPS measures, especially in the food safety area.  The
Committee notes that the OIE recommendation on the Judgement of Equivalence of
Sanitary Measures Relating to International Trade in Animals and Animal Products
also recognizes the importance of facilitating comparison of the exporting and
importing Members' measures.  The Committee encourages the FAO/WHO Codex
Alimentarius Commission and the Office International des Epizooties to ensure thatthe recognition of the importance of facilitating comparison of the exporting and
importing Members' measures is maintained in any elaboration of guidance by these
organizations.
                                                     
3 The Committee recognizes that the Codex Guidelines for the Development of Equivalence
Agreements Regarding Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems are also relevant in this
regard.G/SPS/W/128/Rev.2
Page 4
(c) The Committee requests that the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures
(ICPM) take into consideration the Decision on Equivalence and this clarification in
its future work on judgement of equivalence with regard to measures to address plant
pests and diseases.
(d) The Committee agrees that where the "objective basis for comparison" demonstrates
that the level of protection achieved by the importing Member's sanitary or
phytosanitary measure differs from its appropriate level of protection, the importing
Member should resolve this difference independently of the procedure for
determination of equivalence.
__________