PART
A – SIXTH REVIEW DISCUSSIONS
1.1. In the Sixth Review, the Committee considered proposals submitted by
Members on the following topics (see Annex I for
an overview of the proposals)[7]:
§_ Addressing modern challenges and emerging risks;
§_ Cooperation with ISSBs;
§_ Regionalization;
§_ Technical assistance and Special
and differential treatment (S&DT);
§_ Technology and IT tools;
§_ Transparency and
Notification procedures; and
§_ Other topics:
o_
Maximum residue limits (MRLs);
o_
Facility registration; and
o_
Systems approach.
1.2. Section 2 below provides information on proposals, related
discussions and thematic sessions, as well as recommendations for further work
under each of these topics.[8] Section 3 outlines previous
Committee decisions, guidelines, and recommendations that Members were invited
to examine as part of the Sixth Review.
2 Proposals And Recommendations
2.1 Addressing modern challenges and emerging risks
2.1. Several Members made proposals to continue discussions that had been
held in the context of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme in relation
to modern challenges and emerging risks, as a follow-up to the recommendation
adopted by the Committee.[9]
2.2. Canada[10] suggested a workshop or thematic session to facilitate
discussions between developed, developing and least developed country (LDC)
Members around the development, assessment, and implementation of new
agricultural technologies to address sustainability while facilitating trade. Canada hoped to have a particular focus on
LDC perspectives. The European Union[11] proposed a thematic session on SPS-related emerging risks to discuss the definition and identification of emerging
risks, the development and improvement of emerging risk identification
methodologies and approaches for characterization, the communication on
possible issues and risks, and the development of effective measures to
address these risks by Members and the relevant international organizations. Given synergies between initial proposals, Canada and the European
Union[12] subsequently made
a joint proposal to hold a thematic session on SPS-related emerging risks and
new agricultural technologies to address them, which could include a focus on
the challenges faced by LDCs.
2.3. In addition, Australia[13]
proposed that the Sixth Review focus on areas
of innovation, emerging technologies and increasing awareness and
implementation of international standards that can support improved approaches
to the implementation of the SPS Agreement. The United
States[14] suggested that
Members further advance constructive engagement around appropriate SPS regulatory
practices that encourage innovation in the production and facilitate trade of
safe food and agricultural products. Other proposals summarized under other key
topics in this document also linked to the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme
and addressing modern challenges and emerging risks, such as India's proposal
on adaptation of SPS measures to regional conditions (see Section 2.3 below),
Australia's and the United States' proposals on technologies and innovation (see
Section 2.5 below),
and Indonesia's proposal on systems approaches (see Section 2.9 below).
2.4. The continued exploration of modern challenges and emerging risks in
the SPS field was favourably received, particularly in light of the
recommendation that had emerged from the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme.[15]
Members also flagged the importance of thematic sessions reflecting a diversity
of views to facilitate a continued discussion between developed and developing Members,
including LDCs. The discussion could consider flexibilities needed by
developing Members to comply with SPS requirements, for example, to deal with
the use of irradiation technologies. In addition, one Member suggested to
include the topic of e-commerce in the agenda.
2.5. The Committee agreed to hold a first thematic session in November 2024 on modern challenges and emerging risks and
technological approaches to address them, followed by a thematic
session in March 2025 on innovative regulatory approaches to facilitate safe
trade.
2.6. The November 2024 Thematic
Session on Emerging Risks and New Agricultural Technologies to Address Them
discussed ways to define, identify, and characterize SPS-related emerging risks
and the development and implementation of new technologies based on the joint
proposal by Canada and the European Union.[16]
Following presentations from FAO, WHO, and WOAH on relevant work, Members shared
experiences developing policies and tools for the identification and
communication of emerging risks and discussed specific risks such as those
associated with e-commerce or African swine fever. The thematic session then
looked at a large variety of new technologies, from automated processes, artificial
intelligence (AI), novel treatments such as irradiation to new technologies in
animal production. The event highlighted the diversity of emerging risks and
technologies as well as challenges associated with regulatory frameworks,
timelines for approvals, costs, communication when dealing with novel
approaches, and resistance to change across supply chains. The event also
recognized the crucial role the Committee plays for Members to share ideas, to promote
a common understanding of key issues, and to provide a predictable framework
for science-based SPS measures.[17]
2.7. The March 2025 Thematic
Session on Innovative Regulatory Approaches to Facilitate Safe Trade
considered four topics based on the proposals submitted by Australia[18],
India[19],
Indonesia[20], and the United
States[21], namely: (i) addressing animal disease outbreaks through
regionalization, including different concepts of regional conditions, to
promote a common understanding of regionalization and learn from the
experiences of ISSBs and Members; (ii) addressing phytosanitary risks through
systems approaches, with Members identifying and discussing challenges and
opportunities; (iii) science-based approaches to pesticide MRLs and veterinary
drug residues in food, with Members highlighting the importance of
science-based SPS measures and the practical implementation challenges they
face when complying with MRL-related SPS measures; and (iv) innovative
regulatory approaches for new technologies to promote them and discuss the application
of such technologies in a real-world environment.[22]
2.8. Recommendations:
·_
Further to the recommendation in the MC12 SPS
Declaration Report, the Committee will continue its targeted discussions and
reflections on the implementation of the SPS Agreement in light of
emerging challenges and opportunities including in specific thematic sessions
and events, as appropriate, while reaffirming the existing rights and
obligations of Members established by the SPS Agreement.
·_
Noting the importance of sustainable and resilient
food systems and recognizing that there is no "one size fits all" approach
to these issues, WTO Members will continue discussions on addressing emerging
risks and modern challenges within the scope of the SPS Agreement while
recognizing the importance of differences in local and regional conditions and
in Members' capacities to respond to SPS challenges.
·_
Acknowledging the particular
relevance of science, research, and innovation as a means to address SPS issues
and sustainably increase production to feed a growing world population, the Committee will continue to explore approaches to the application
of agriculture-related technology to address emerging risks and modern
challenges.
·_
Committee work in this area should take account of
the needs and concerns expressed by developing and LDC Members.
2.2 Cooperation with ISSBs
2.9. The European Union[23] submitted a
proposal to explore ways to enhance cooperation with ISSBs and with observer
organizations, with
special regards to their ongoing observatory projects, and to look at
possibilities to foster enhanced cooperation with the observer organizations to
better use their expertise. New Zealand[24] submitted a proposal on monitoring the process
of international harmonization. In the submission, New Zealand proposed to review specific trade concerns (STCs) highlighting the themes and evidence
of harmonization with ISSB standards; to review the list of international
standards, guidelines, or recommendations relating to SPS measures that the
Committee determines to have a major trade impact; and to review, in
consultations with the ISSBs, the notification template to gather more
specific information on international harmonization. Belize[25] submitted a proposal to hold
a thematic session on monitoring the use of international standards, looking at
the implementation of the Codex Guideline on the Use of Voluntary Third-Party
Assurance Programmes (CXG 93-2021), as an opportunity for
Members to share their approaches, experiences and best practices; to explore tools available to assist in
the evaluation of third-party assurance programmes; to receive updates on pilot
projects on Data Sharing; to identify capacity building opportunities; and for beneficiary
countries of the STDF Pilot projects in West Africa (STDF/PG/665) and in Central America (STDF/PG/682) to report on their experience in establishing a roadmap for the
implementation of the guideline at the national level.
2.10. While there was overall support to
holding this debate on cooperation within the Committee, thinking critically
about the most appropriate way to highlight the
significance of the ISSBs and how to reflect their contributions across the
board, the Committee was invited to keep in mind each body's respective
responsibilities and scope of work. The United States suggested that it
may be particularly helpful for the ISSBs to share more information about their
standards with Members, with particular focus on challenges faced by Members in
the implementation of specific international standards.[26]
2.11. Some of the proposals aimed at assisting ISSBs moving forward in terms of monitoring
international standards, providing them with data to support their
standard-setting activities, and included elements that could be covered under
a package of transparency recommendations as an outcome of the Sixth Review.
However, caution was raised at the large amount of work necessary to undertake
a review such as suggested by New Zealand. Some Members were opposed to the ISSBs
intervening in discussions on STCs in the Committee. Given Members' view
that the Committee was not the appropriate forum to discuss the meaning of
terms such as "reservation" and "abstention from
acceptance" used in the context of Codex standard adoption, New Zealand
withdrew its proposal to explore the meaning of these terms.
2.12. The Committee agreed to hold, in November 2024, a thematic session on
monitoring the use of international standards, focusing on the implementation
of the Codex guidelines for voluntary third-party assurance (vTPA) programmes, based on the proposal by Belize.[27] The event included interventions from the
Chairperson of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and
Certification Systems (CCFICS) and the WHO, and Members shared experiences in
implementing vTPA programmes. The thematic session linked to three projects
supported by the STDF in West Africa, Central America,
and East
Africa on piloting the use of the Codex guidelines. Beneficiary countries
and implementing partners shared lessons learned from these projects and
capacity building initiatives. A last session was dedicated to discussing the
uptake of public private partnerships. The event highlighted the importance of
defined roles and responsibilities and trust between regulators, scheme owners,
and food business operators for the successful operation of vTPA programmes.[28]
2.13. Recommendations:
·_
The Committee invites Codex, WOAH, and the IPPC to
continue to share information at Committee meetings on their observatory
projects and on issues, challenges, and
impediments identified by their members, in particular developing and LDC
members, in relation to the development and implementation of international
standards.
·_
The Committee will act as a Member-driven hub for
information exchange with the ISSBs on monitoring activities.
·_
The Committee will continue to monitor the use of
Codex, WOAH, and IPPC standards, guidelines, and recommendations addressing
scientific uncertainty in risk analysis. The Committee recalls the
recommendation that the approach and method taken by Members to address the
uncertainty be clearly documented and communicated in a transparent manner.
2.3 Regionalization
2.14. Canada[29] submitted a proposal to hold a thematic session to explore SPS
challenges associated with the adoption/implementation and recognition of new
agriculture technologies, possibly considering Articles 6, 7 and 9. The
objective of the workshop would be to explore how the SPS Committee can
facilitate productive discussions between developed, developing and LDC Members
around the development, assessment, and implementation of new agricultural
technologies by Members to address sustainability, while facilitating trade. In
the spirit of continuing discussions held in the context of MC12 SPS Declaration
Work Programme and previous reviews of the SPS Agreement, the European
Union[30] invited the
Committee to exchange on the recognition of regionalization in view of building
high levels of trust and confidence between Members and to facilitate trade,
considering technical assistance and mentorship for developing Members as tools
for supporting the implementation of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. India[31]
submitted a proposal for further exchanges on the recognition and harmonization
of regional conditions to ensure trust and confidence among Members on
variations of regional conditions. This could possibly be done through a work
programme on recognition and harmonization of regional conditions; workshops to
improve Members' understanding on areas of low pest or disease prevalence; and
a work programme to create a common understanding in relation to areas of low
disease prevalence.
2.15. While there was general support for and readiness to engage on
India's proposals, some Members expressed reservations[32]
or requested clarification regarding certain elements that seemed to relate to
the operation or governance of ISSBs and could infringe on Members' rights
under the SPS Agreement. The United States suggested including
discussions on the establishment and use of compartments, or
compartmentalization, in these conversations and generally supported
discussions on improving the understanding of Members on areas of low pest or
disease prevalence and on science-based analyses for establishing areas of low
pest or disease prevalence.[33]
Other Members expressed support for the exchange of information on
regional conditions through a possible workshop. However, other Members
raised caution against establishing a work programme on the reasons for not
recognizing regional conditions that could infringe on Members' right to set
their appropriate level of protection (ALOP).
2.16. In March 2025, as a follow up to the November 2024 Thematic
Session on Emerging Risks and New Agricultural Technologies to Address Them,
a thematic session was dedicated to innovative
regulatory approaches to facilitate safe trade, which included discussions
on regionalization (see Section 2.1 above).
2.17. Recommendations:
·_
The Committee reaffirms the importance of
regionalization for safe trade in agricultural products. The Committee
encourages Members to exchange information on adaptation of SPS measures to regional
conditions, including through the recognition of pest- or disease-free areas or
areas of low pest or disease prevalence, and on the different forms of
regionalization recognized by WOAH and IPPC, to facilitate safe trade.
·_
The Committee will discuss the recognition of pest-
or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence, inter alia building on the March
2025 thematic session on innovative regulatory approaches to facilitate safe
trade.
·_
The Committee will foster discussions, including in
specific thematic sessions and events, as appropriate, regarding the effective
use and recognition of newer approaches to regionalization, including
disease-free areas, zoning, and compartmentalization.
·_
Committee work in this area should take account of
the needs and concerns expressed by developing and LDC Members.
2.18. Canada, the European Union, New
Zealand, and the United Kingdom made proposals relating to the
particular needs and interests of developing and LDC Members, which linked to
the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme and/or the MC13 S&DT Declaration.[34]
2.19. Canada's[35]
proposal on technical assistance related to the sharing of information on
agricultural innovation to promote sustainable development and further engage
LDCs. Canada stressed the importance of having a particular focus on LDC
perspectives on the development, adoption, and approval of new technologies in
the context of the thematic session on emerging risks and technological
approaches to address them to be held in November 2024 (see Section 2.1 above).
Referring to the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme and its discussions on the
special needs of developing and LDC Members in the SPS area, the European Union[36] proposed that the Committee continue to explore how the existing
flexibilities in the SPS Agreement could be used more efficiently to
better address the special needs of developing and LDC Members in the SPS area
and provide more targeted support. In addition, the United Kingdom[37] proposed that the Committee consider ways to enhance accessibility
and effective utilization of existing flexibilities in the SPS Agreement to
build on the MC13 S&DT Declaration.
2.20. Members agreed on the importance of hearing contributions from
developing and LDC Members and some stressed the importance of a close
working relationship with the CTD-SS and the TBT Committee, in particular
in light of the MC13 S&DT Declaration.
2.21. Members' views differed on how to continue discussions on the needs
of developing Members and LDCs. Referring to related discussions in the context
of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme, prior work, and the corresponding
standing agenda item in the Committee, one Member noted that conversations
should be held in a concrete way, looking at specific issues to assist Members
beyond the assistance that was already provided. That Member suggested
including a focus on developing Members and LDCs in each line of future work of
the Committee. This echoed other suggestions to ensure diverse views are heard
in relevant thematic sessions agreed under other key topics.
2.22. The European Union insisted that it was essential that the
Committee hold targeted discussions on technical assistance and S&DT, and
deliver on the MC13 S&DT Declaration, with active
engagement from affected countries. Some Members highlighted that continued
efforts were required to explore a more efficient utilization of existing
flexibilities and increase accessibility. Ukraine commented that the SPS
flexibilities had not been adequately utilized and the Committee needed to
explore why.[38] The Committee
needed to find ways to promote more active use of these provisions. Another Member
insisted on the need to focus on possible solutions for Members that face
challenges.
2.23. As for New Zealand's[39]
proposal, it focused on revisiting a previous transparency mentoring system to
address some of the concerns raised in the G-90 document for the CTD-SS on 10 Agreement-specific
special and differential treatment proposals.[40]
The use of new technologies could enhance the feasibility of such a mentoring
system. Two Members underlined the importance of a mentoring system, and one of
them supported the need to promote and develop existing instruments and
mechanisms to improve ability of developing Members to engage more actively in
international trade. Ukraine noted the importance of considering G-90
views as well as those of developed Members that could offer mentoring support.[41]
New Zealand initially suggested that a recommendation on this topic would fit
well into a transparency-related recommendation for the Sixth Review, but the
Committee subsequently agreed to include a recommendation on this mentoring
system under the heading "Technical assistance / S&DT".
2.24. Recommendations:
·_
As reflected in other recommendations and considering
the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme and the MC12 SPS Declaration Report,
the Committee will take account of the needs and concerns expressed by
developing and LDC Members in all of its workstreams, in particular in the
context of the implementation of the MC13 S&DT Declaration. The Committee
will coordinate with the TBT Committee and the CTD-SS, as appropriate.
·_
The Committee will continue to engage on existing
flexibilities in the SPS Agreement by considering Member proposals for possible
improvements in technical assistance, sharing information and technical
knowledge and new avenues to support the participation of developing and LDC
Members in Committee work and the implementation of the SPS Agreement.
·_
Working with the STDF, Members should continue to
support engagement with developing and LDC Members, including through technical
assistance, capacity building and South‑South cooperation, to support
implementation of the SPS Agreement and to create, maintain, and expand export
market opportunities by complying with and establishing SPS import
requirements based on international standards, scientific principles, and risk
assessment.
·_
The Committee will work with the Secretariat to
explore a mentoring system to assist developing and LDC Members, including with
respect to transparency and their timely engagement on SPS matters, taking into
account lessons learned from previous experiences with mentoring systems.
2.5 Technology / IT tools
2.25. Several Members made proposals in relation to electronic tools and
information technology, which linked back to some of the discussions held in
the context of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme. Australia[42]
proposed that the Committee
focus, through thematic sessions and ongoing dialogue, on the application of
digital technologies such as electronic certification, remote audits, remote
inspection, and verification activity, as well as the potential application of AI.
The United Kingdom[43]
proposed to explore in more detail the role of electronic tools and techniques
that can be employed to aid the application of SPS measures, including ensuring
that cost and ease of implementation do not create undue barriers to trade (for
developing and LDC Members in particular). The United States[44]
proposed to take into consideration the impact that COVID-19 had on the
functioning of the Committee, including lessons on where in-person meetings are
preferable to virtual exchanges, and vice versa, and international trade and
look at how technology was being used around the movement of food and the
interaction between competent authorities. In addition, the United States
encouraged discussions to further the shared understanding by Members of the
opportunities and challenges posed by greater use and adoption of electronic
certificates, including sanitary certificates and other digitalized documents. In
the March informal Committee meeting, given various linked proposals, the United States
suggested to hold a thematic session on digital tools. The United States also
made a proposal on the topic of misinformation and disinformation, as a
follow-up to the November 2023 Thematic
Session on Risk Communication, Misinformation, and Disinformation.
2.26. There was general support for further looking at new technologies and
IT tools, such as electronic certification, remote audits and verifications, AI,
the ePing SPS&TBT Platform, and other tools, with some Members noting
overlaps with other proposals, in particular those relating to modern
challenges and emerging risks (see Section 2.1 above).
One Member considered that there were two major areas in relation to these
proposals: IT tools for the use of the Committee and IT tools about
the application of SPS measures. Suggestions included organizing thematic
sessions, workshops, peer-to-peer exchanges that promote raising capacity for
the adoption of new technologies, and a comprehensive discussion on the topic
of AI. Some Members noted potential sensitivities arising from the use of IT tools
and the need to guarantee data protection, confidentiality, and authenticity of
data.
2.27. In March 2024, upon the United States' suggestion, the Committee
decided to hold a thematic session on digital
tools, which was held in June 2024.[45] Based on proposals submitted by the European Union, Norway, and the
United States, the thematic session aimed to explore the utilization of
technological solutions in the SPS field, focusing on facilitating safe trade
through enhanced transparency and efficiency. The ISSBs and the OECD shared
their perspectives on digitalization in the SPS area for trade facilitation.
This was followed by representatives from Members and industry, who presented the
objectives, tools, and obstacles to digitalizing trade facilitation processes. During discussions on the future of digital tools and new
technologies, the Secretariat presented possible technological
enhancements to the ePing SPS&TBT Platform,
as well as on the objectives and expected outputs of a new STDF project
focused on enhancing the ePing SPS&TBT Platform (STDF/PG/1000). Speakers from
Members and industry also shared their views on digitalization in the SPS area
and the use of AI.
2.28. In addition, the Committee agreed to hold a two-part thematic
session on modern challenges and emerging risk in the SPS area in November 2024
and March 2025, which covered certain areas of innovation and new technologies
(see Section 2.1 above).
2.29. Recommendations:
·_
Building on the discussions in the MC12 SPS
Declaration Work Programme and the June 2024 Thematic Session on Digital
Tools, the Committee will continue to engage and encourage Members to share
experiences with new technologies and digital tools to facilitate safe trade,
including electronic SPS certification.
·_
The Committee will continue discussions on how to
facilitate the adoption of novel approaches and related technologies, including
digital tools to facilitate safe trade, and address challenges preventing their
uptake. Members are invited to share any challenges faced in the implementation
of new technologies and digital tools in the SPS area, to enable the Committee
to identify and discuss the technologies of most interest.
·_
The Committee reaffirms the importance of in-person
participation of delegations while acknowledging the significance of virtual
communication tools to enable online attendance in Committee meetings when
in-person attendance is not possible. The Committee recommends that online
tools continue to be used to enable delegations to attend Committee meetings
virtually.
·_
Committee work in this area should take account of
the needs and concerns expressed by developing and LDC Members.
2.6 Transparency / Notification
Procedures
2.30. Brazil[46] submitted a proposal to improve the handling of comments on
notified regulations through the inclusion, once a year, of an agenda item for
the informal meeting; increased use of the ePing SPS&TBT Platform; and a
request for the WTO Secretariat to develop changes in the ePing SPS&TBT
Platform or other systems to make comments and related answers more visible. Canada[47] submitted
a proposal to hold a thematic session to explore SPS challenges associated with
the adoption/implementation and recognition of new agriculture technologies,
possibly considering Articles 6, 7 and 9. Chile[48]
proposed that the Committee explore the comment process on SPS notifications,
through a thematic session or in another relevant manner, and shared the view
that new tools including the ePing SPS&TBT Platform may have potential to
allow for a better follow‑up of these comments. In its submission, the European Union[49]
proposed that the Committee continue to work towards improving the quality of
SPS notifications, the comments on notifications, and the replies to
comments, as well as further examine the possibilities of greater transparency
on national SPS legislation, timelines for approval procedures,
and other related information which would facilitate safe trade. In its
submission to address challenges relating to the
translation of notified SPS regulations in a collaborative manner, India[50]
proposed that the Committee hold a thematic session on
translations of notified SPS regulations and explore IT solutions for obtaining
translations. India also suggested that Members provide an additional period
for comments beyond 60 days where the notified measure is not in a WTO language
and that the Secretariat provide a service for translation of notified measures
at the request of a Member. New Zealand[51]
invited the Committee to propose solutions, in collaboration with the
TBT Committee, to find innovative ways to address the issue of
notification of measures not clearly fitting within the scope of either the SPS
or TBT Agreements.
2.31. Members agreed on the importance of the issue of comments on
notifications. While there was no agreement regarding the addition of an item
to the Committee's agenda[52],
Members were open to exploring other modes and tools to addressing the issue,
including an open dialogue and exchange of experience on transparency or the
possibility to enhance the guidance on transparency.[53]
Pointing at the ongoing work in the TBT Committee, several Members referred to
an increased use of the ePing SPS&TBT Platform to share information on
comments.[54] Ukraine
also saw value in establishing a two-committee (SPS and TBT) working group and
supported discussions that would focus on how to use existing instruments more
actively to make, request, and share translations of notifications.[55]
2.32. Building on the success of the 2022 edition, in March 2024, the
Secretariat organized another workshop on transparency.[56] The 2024 workshop brought
together SPS NNA and NEP government officials, in charge of the implementation
of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement, to engage in a
technical discussion on SPS transparency-related work and to exchange
experiences on the use of online transparency tools. Participants benefited
from presentations on the transparency‑related work of the SPS and TBT
Committees, an update by the ISSBs on the monitoring of the implementation of
international standards and Members' experiences on the preparation and
submission of notifications and on the use of the ePing SPS&TBT Platform to
reach out to national stakeholders and to other Members. Participants also
actively engaged on group work on the transparency provisions and the roles and
responsibilities of NNAs and NEPs, and deepened their knowledge on how to build
the operational capacity of these types of institutions.
2.33. The Committee envisaged to hold a dedicated informal meeting on
transparency. Subsequently, Members instead discussed creating a working group
on transparency.
2.34. Recommendations:
·_
The Committee will continue working on enhancing the
transparency of SPS measures, including control, inspection and approval
procedures in line with the Committee recommendations in document _G/SPS/68. The Committee will also continue working on enhancing the quality of
SPS notifications.
·_
The Committee agrees to create a working group on
transparency, open to the participation of all Members and Observers, with a
two-year duration that may be extended by the Committee. The working group
will, inter alia:
i._
explore possible ways to improve the quality of the
information contained in notifications and to facilitate access to translations
of notified measures;
ii._
discuss Members' practices with respect to comments
on notifications and explore possible ways to enhance the transparency of this
process, taking into consideration the resources and capabilities of developing
and LDC Members;
iii._
discuss challenges faced by Members when establishing
whether a measure falls under the SPS Agreement and/or the TBT Agreement, in
cooperation with the TBT Committee, as appropriate; and
iv._ identify priorities for Members and work with the Secretariat to explore the implementation
of any insights gained during the working group activities. This may include
enhancements to the ePing SPS&TBT Platform;
revisions of the recommended transparency procedures (_G/SPS/7/Rev.5), the annual report on transparency (_G/SPS/GEN/804 document series), and the practical manual for NNAs
and NEPs; and adaptation of the Good Practice Guide on Commenting on a TBT
notification (_G/TBT/GEN/386) to the needs of the SPS Committee.
2.7 Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs)
2.35. In its submission regarding science-
and risk-based SPS approaches for sustainable agriculture, Australia[57]
invited the Committee to explore how best to consider the
challenges associated to the absence of Codex MRLs or the differences of MRLs
between countries, which was essential to support agricultural
sustainability and meet food needs worldwide. India[58]
made several proposals for the Committee to address the challenges caused by
low or default MRLs in a collaborative manner and for Members to explore the
means of addressing the trade barriers imposed by the increasing use of
stringent MRLs, including through thematic sessions on
the impact of MRL measures; collective work for developing guidelines for determining
default MRLs; a compilation of information on MRL related measures; continued
collaboration with Codex; and technical assistance to developing Members and
LDCs.
2.36. Overall, Members expressed support
for the proposals, noting that the topic was best approached in a cooperative
and transparent manner while respecting Members' right to set their ALOP. Some
Members raised queries about how the proposed monitoring of MRL measures and
related discussion in other Committees could be implemented in practice, and several
Members expressed the view that the topic should focus on new ideas and new
ways to address issues. For example, the United States highlighted
the importance of promoting understanding among Members regarding available
options in the absence of Codex or domestic MRLs, which may be particularly
informative and useful for the Committee.[59]
The United Kingdom noted that any discussions would need to recognize and respect the rights of Members to set and
maintain appropriate levels of protection.[60]
Some Members cautioned that
guidance for determining default MRLs for situations where there were no international standards should come from Codex, and others
requested clarification as to why such guidance would be discussed in the Committee.
2.37. In March 2025, as a follow up to the November 2024 Thematic
Session on Emerging Risks and New Agricultural Technologies to Address Them,
a thematic session was dedicated to innovative
regulatory approaches to facilitate safe trade, which included discussions
on MRLs (see Section 2.1
above).
2.38. Recommendations:
·_
The Committee will continue discussions on Members'
proposals on the topic of MRLs with a view to, inter
alia, sharing best practices about the
determination of default MRLs, recognizing the importance of scientific
evidence and risk assessment. In doing so, the Committee will build on earlier
activities (including the March 2025 thematic session) without duplicating
efforts and respecting Members' rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement
and the remit of Codex.
·_
Committee work in this area should take account of
the needs and concerns expressed by developing and LDC Members.
2.8 Facility registration
2.39. The United States[61]
submitted a proposal inviting the Committee to explore best practices related
to facility registrations to enhance the common understanding on their purpose.
The United States shared the view that there was an opportunity to
discuss a contemporary issue relevant to a number of Members, with a possible focus
on emphasizing the importance of science and risk-based SPS measures and
discussing specific uses of facility registrations rather than best practices.
The United States suggested that the Committee discuss facility registration as
part of the March 2025 Thematic Session on Innovative Regulatory Approaches to Facilitate
Safe Trade, but, given the focus of that thematic session, subsequently
proposed to keep a separate recommendation on this topic.
2.40. Recommendation:
·_
The Committee will hold dedicated discussions on science- and risk-based approaches to
facility registrations.
2.9 Systems approach
2.41. Indonesia[62] submitted a proposal to
hold a thematic session on addressing the challenges of the application of a
systems approach to minimizing phytosanitary risk. The thematic session would:
(i) draw insights from the experience of Members
that have already implemented systems approaches, such as ISPM 7, ISPM 14, or
similar measures, with a view to optimizing Members' own phytosanitary
certification processes; (ii) identify challenges in preparing a national
phytosanitary capacity development strategy, including with regard to the
issuance of phytosanitary certificates; (iii) identify challenges in meeting phytosanitary requirements of importing
Members as well as seek to explore the appropriate solutions to address such
challenges; and (iv) promote compliance with the Agreement and facilitate trade of pest- and
disease-free plant and plant products.
2.42. Members generally supported the proposal, with one Member noting
that this topic had not been subject to many Committee discussions. As another
Member recalled, the topic had been discussed under the prism of equivalence in
the context of the Fifth Review.[63]
2.43. In March 2025, as a follow up to the November 2024 Thematic Session on
Emerging Risks and New Agricultural Technologies to Address Them, a thematic session was dedicated to innovative regulatory
approaches to facilitate safe trade, which included discussions on systems approaches (see Section 2.1 above).
2.44. Recommendation:
·_
In light of the March 2025
thematic session on innovative regulatory approaches to facilitate safe trade, the Committee will continue the discussion on systems approaches to
help minimize phytosanitary risk, including the use of innovation and emerging
technologies.
3.1. In the Sixth Review, Members were invited to consider Committee decisions,
guidelines, and recommendations which are to be periodically reviewed
or updated.[64]
3.1 Procedure to Monitor the Process
of International Harmonization (_G/SPS/11/Rev.1 and _G/SPS/40)
|
Periodic Review:
•_
The Committee will
review the operation of the provisional procedure as an integral part of its
periodic Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement under
Article 12.7, with a view to deciding whether to continue with the same
procedure, amend it or develop another one.[65]
•_
The Committee should continue to
monitor the use of international standards at each of its regular meetings (_G/SPS/11/Rev.1). It
should continue to review the monitoring procedure as part of the periodic
reviews of the SPS Agreement, as foreseen in the Decision to Modify and
Extend the Provisional Procedure to Monitor the Process of International
Harmonization.[66]
|
3.2. Pursuant to Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement, the
Committee adopted a Provisional Procedure to Monitor the Process of
International Harmonization in 1997, and revised it in November 2004.[67] In June 2006, the
Committee extended this Procedure indefinitely, and planned to review its
operation as an integral part of periodic reviews under Article 12.7.[68]
In 2020, New Zealand presented a proposal regarding the Procedure to
Monitor the Process of International Harmonization. In June 2022,
New Zealand noted that the topic was not seen as a priority for
Members at that time and indicated that it did not intend to make further
proposals on this matter (see Section 1.1 in Part B). During the Sixth
Review, New Zealand submitted proposal _G/SPS/W/348, inter
alia, addressing the Procedure to Monitor the Process of
International Harmonization.
3.2 Consistency – Guidelines to
Further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5 (_G/SPS/15)
|
Periodic Review:
•_
The guidelines will be reviewed periodically
and revised as necessary by the SPS Committee in the light of experience
gained through the implementation of the SPS Agreement, the use of the guidelines
themselves and any pertinent work done by the relevant international
standard-setting organizations. The Committee should undertake a first review
of the guidelines within 36 months of their adoption by the Committee and
thereafter as the need arises.[69]
•_
As foreseen in the Guidelines to
further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5 and in the Third Review, the Committee should continue to
review these Guidelines as part of the periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement.[70]
|
3.3. In accordance with Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement, the Committee
adopted the Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5 in
July 2000, and subsequently agreed to review them as part of the periodic
review of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement. To date
no Member has suggested a need to modify these Guidelines.
3.3 Procedure
to Enhance Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment in Favour of
Developing Country Members (_G/SPS/33/Rev.1)
|
Periodic Review:
•_
The Committee shall
review the implementation of this procedure, in light of the experiences of
Members and relevant Addenda, as an integral part of its periodic Review of
the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement under Article 12.7. The
next such Review is to be completed in 2013, and every four years
subsequently.[71]
•_
As foreseen in the Procedure to Enhance
Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment in Favour of Developing
Country Members, the Committee should review its implementation as part of
the periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement.[72]
|
3.4. The Committee adopted the Procedure to Enhance Transparency of
Special and Differential Treatment
in Favour of Developing Country Members in 2004[73],
and subsequently extended it.[74]
In 2009, the Committee revised the procedure, and decided to review it as
part of the periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement. Discussion on S&DT were
held in the context of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme[75]
and of the MC13 S&DT Declaration.[76] No Member has submitted a proposal in
relation to this Procedure.
3.5. In 2014, the Committee adopted the Recommended
Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate the Resolution of Specific SPS Issues
among Members in Accordance with Article 12.2. During the Review period, the
procedure was used twice.[79]
No Member has submitted a proposal in relation to this Procedure.
3.5 Collection of Available Tools and Resources in relation to SPS
Approval Procedures (_G/SPS/67)
|
Periodic Review:
•_
The SPS Committee will keep this
Collection up to date with the assistance of the Secretariat.[80]
|
3.6. The Collection of Available Tools and Resources in Relation to
Approval Procedures was adopted by the Committee in March 2023, together with
the Recommendations in Relation to SPS Approval Procedures.[81]
These documents foresee that the Committee keep the Collection up to
date with the assistance of the Secretariat. No Member has requested the
inclusion of additional resources in the Collection of
Available Tools and Resources in relation to SPS Approval Procedures.
|
Periodic Review:
•_
In July 2021, the
Chair proposed that the Collection of Resources to Facilitate Implementation
of National SPS Coordination Mechanisms remain a "living document",
to be updated any time Members suggested additional resources. On this basis,
future discussions on this document would only be included in the agenda of
the informal meeting if a Member proposed additional resources to be
included.[82]
|
3.7. No Member has requested the inclusion of additional resources in the
Collection of Resources to Facilitate Implementation of National SPS Coordination
Mechanisms.
_______________