SIXTH REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES
ADAPTATION
OF SPS MEASURES TO REGIONAL CONDITIONS
proposal
from india
The following proposal, received on 16 April 2024,
is being circulated at the request of the delegation of India.
_______________
1 BACKGROUND
1.1. The Sixth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS
Agreement) provides an opportunity for Members to continue the work towards
full and effective implementation of the SPS Agreement, including application
of the concepts and obligations under the Agreement to ensure that SPS measures
do not constitute means of arbitrary and unjustified discrimination between
Members as enshrined in the SPS Agreement. India expects that the Sixth Review
complements and continues the discussions on enhancing safe trade through
adaptation of SPS measures to regional conditions in pursuance of paragraph 7
of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Declaration for the 12th Ministerial
Conference: Responding to Modern SPS Challenges (SPS Declaration).
1.2. The work of Thematic Group 3 under the Work Programme of the SPS
Declaration has shown that there is a consensus amongst WTO Members on the
importance of regionalization in facilitating safe trade, the difficulties in
establishing a disease-free or pest-free area and the non-recognition of the
disease or pest status maintained by WOAH and IPPC.
1.3. These issues have regularly been discussed during the previous
reviews of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement. India had
presented its proposal to emphasize on resource constraints of developing
country Members and least developed country Members (LDCs) requiring the
discussions at the SPS Committee on how to improve technical and administrative
assistance with respect to establishing regionalization and harmonizing
different concepts of regionalization and the importance of establishing and
recognizing areas of low pest or disease prevalence.
1.4. Another important issue which has regularly been highlighted by many
Members is the non‑recognition by importing Members of the disease or pest
status in exporting Members as maintained by WOAH and IPPC and the non-recognition
of regional conditions as mandated under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.
2 PROPOSALS
2.1. In the draft report to the 13th Ministerial Conference,
the SPS Committee has recognized that adaptation of SPS measures to regional
conditions, including recognition of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of
low pest or disease prevalence, based on WOAH and IPPC guidance and SPS Committee
guidelines in _G/SPS/48, are an important means by
which to facilitate safe trade and can help avoid unnecessary trade
restrictions. The SPS Committee also highlighted that capacity building can
assist in bringing domestic regulatory frameworks in line with relevant
international guidance.
2.1 Recognition and harmonization of regional conditions
2.2. WOAH and IPPC recognizes several forms of regional conditions, each
with its own distinct meaning and purpose. Often the SPS regime in importing
Members fails to specify which from of regionalization their regulations
recognize. Thus, this lack of clear understanding of the forms of
regionalization creates hurdles for exporting Members to achieve recognition of
their regional conditions by importing Members.
2.3. WOAH recognizes three forms of regionalization: disease-free
countries, zones and compartments. Similarly, IPPC recognizes three forms of
regionalization: pest-free area, pest-free place of production (PFPP) or
pest-free production site (PFPS), and area of low pest prevalence. The prevalence
of several forms of regionalization and the nature of WOAH and IPPC guidelines
as recommendatory has permitted importing Members to selectively recognize
different forms of regional conditions.
2.4. However, due to the lack of harmonization of regional conditions and
their recognition by importing Members, there is an uncertainty on how an
importing Member should treat some of the forms of regional conditions. For
instance, there is no certainty on the manner in which an importing Member
recognizes a WOAH-endorsed control programme of an exporting Member and thereby
grants market access.
2.1.1 Proposal
2.5. Against this background, India would encourage further exchanges on
recognition and harmonization of regional conditions in order to ensure trust
and confidence among Members on variations of regional conditions, thereby
facilitating seamless trade.
2.6. Additionally, India proposes to establish a work programme which
identifies the reasons for non-recognition of regional conditions, including
disease or pest status recognized by relevant international organizations and
non-recognition of effective eradication programmes of exporting Members even
though endorsed by relevant international organizations.
2.7. The work programme should provide a set of guidelines and parameters
to enable harmonization of regions like zones and compartments (which could be
either free areas or areas of low prevalence) in line with the regions already
established by Members through preparing an indicative list of factors such as
geography, ecosystem, surveillance, and effective control system. The
guidelines must require importing Members to recognize compartments and zones
of the exporting Members if it has been objectively demonstrated to importing
Members that said zones and compartments are free areas or areas of low
prevalence as has been established by the exporting Members.
2.2 Establishment and Recognition of areas of low pest or disease
prevalence
2.8. As has been observed, Members face difficulty in establishing
disease-free or pest-free areas due to financial and regulatory limitations. A
solution to this issue may be through the establishment of areas of low pest or
disease prevalence (low prevalence areas) and recognition of such areas by
importing Members.
2.9. The general guidelines of the IPPC and WOAH provide considerable
flexibility to Members to determine the form and structure of their SPS
measures that are adapted to regional conditions. ISPM 22 of IPPC highlights
the advantages of establishing an area of low pest prevalence – removal of
post-harvest treatment, less restive control on movement into an area of low
pest prevalence and permitting the presence of a pest in an area up to a
specified population level.
2.10. While the flexibilities permitted for the establishment of an area
of low pest prevalence are welcomed, there may be concerns on the recognition
of the concept by importing Members. While ISPM 22 provides a procedure with
respect to the recognition of areas of low pest prevalence, it has been
observed that many Members have not permitted their domestic system to
recognize efforts by exporting Members to establish an area of low pest
prevalence. Moreover, many exporting Members face delays in recognition of their
regional conditions.
2.2.1 Proposal
2.11. In this regard, India suggests that the Sixth Review conducts
workshops in improving the understanding of Members on areas of low pest or
disease prevalence with emphasis on building trust among the importing Members
on safety of products originating from such areas.
2.3 Areas of low disease prevalence
2.12. Members have regularly highlighted issues around lack of
infrastructure and resources, lack of verification capacity, inconsistent
criteria, and lack of understanding of international guidelines to fully
establish pest-free or disease-free areas as per Article 6 of the SPS
Agreement.
2.13. As mentioned earlier, ISPM 22 provides requirements for establishing
areas of low pest prevalence. However, even though Article 6 of SPS Agreement
explicitly recognizes the concept of areas with low disease prevalence, WOAH
guidelines do not explicitly provide a procedure for establishing and
recognizing areas of low disease prevalence.
2.14. Trade in animals and animal products forms a major part of global
trade under the SPS Agreement. It is important for not only sustenance but
also survival of small stakeholders, including family-run businesses, in
developing country Members and LDCs that areas of low disease prevalence are
recognized by importing Members in order to facilitate trade in animals and
animal products.
2.3.1 Proposal
2.15. In light of the above, India proposes that a work programme is
established to discuss the elements and science-based analyses for establishing
areas of low disease prevalence and for importing Members to recognize such
areas so that trade can be facilitated from such areas.
2.16. The work programme must create a common understanding on and
recommend the factors which should be considered and procedures which should be
followed by the Members while establishing and recognizing areas of low disease
prevalence, in consultation with WOAH, on the same lines as ISPM 22 of IPPC.
__________