SIXTH Review of the Operation and
Implementation of the Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
compilation
of comments submitted by members on
THE draft recommendations of the sixth
review
Note by the Secretariat[1]
Members have submitted the following comments
on the revised draft recommendations prepared by the Secretariat (_G/SPS/W/371/Rev.1).
1 Addressing modern challenges and emerging risks
|
Proposed recommendations (_G/SPS/W/371/Rev.1, para. 2.6.):
·_
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 improving the sustainability of food and
agricultural systems across WTO Members, WTO Members will continue discussions
regarding the importance of differences in local and regional conditions.
·_
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.
·_
The Committee will continue
to review the use of Codex, WOAH, and IPPC standards, guidelines, and
recommendations addressing scientific uncertainty in risk analysis, including
the recommendation that the approach and method taken by Members to address
uncertainty be clearly documented and communicated in a transparent manner.
·_
Committee work in this area
should take into account the needs and concerns expressed by developing and
LDC Members.
|
1.1 Canada, the European Union, and India submitted written comments.
1.2 With respect to the first proposed recommendation:
a._
The European
Union welcomed the intention to continue the discussion on this very topical
and complex subject and proposed more targeted exchanges on the most relevant
issues, such as fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR) while facilitating
safe trade in the form of a thematic session.
b._
India proposed
the following edits:
Further to the recommendation in the MC12 SPS Declaration Report, tThe Committee will continue its targeted discussions and
reflections on the implementation of the SPS Agreement in light of emerging
challenges and opportunities, especially those of the developing and LDC
Members, including in specific thematic sessions and events, as
appropriate, while reaffirming the existing rights and obligations of Members
established by the SPS Agreement.
1.3 With respect to the second and third proposed recommendations:
a._
Canada suggested combining
these recommendations to add clarification, and suggested the following
text:
Noting the importance of sustainable and resilient food systems and
recognizing that there is "no one size fits all" approach"
to improving the sustainability of food and agricultural systems across WTO
Members, WTO Members will continue discussions regarding the importance of
differences in local and regional conditions, while taking into consideration local and regional conditions, the
Committee will continue to explore approaches to the development and
application of agriculture technology to address SPS risks.
Canada also
noted it did not have an issue with retaining the sustainability language,
which was directly quoted from the SPS Declaration Report approved by the Committee.
b._
India proposed
the following changes:
Noting the importance of sustainable and
resilient food systems and recognizing that there is "no one size fits
all" approach to improving the sustainability of food and agricultural
systems across WTO Members, WTO Members will continue discussions regarding the
importance of differences in (i) local and regional conditions and
(ii) capacities, sensitivities and food systems of the WTO Members.
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 and access to agriculture-related
technology to address emerging risks.
1.4 With respect to the fourth proposed recommendation:
a._
The European
Union suggested moving it to section 1.2 on "Cooperation with ISSBs",
where it would fit better according to its assessment and Canada agreed with
this proposal.
b._
India proposed
the following changes:
The Committee will continue to review encourage the
use of Codex, WOAH, and IPPC standards, guidelines, and recommendations addressing
in case of scientific uncertainty in risk analysis, including
the recommendation. The Committee recommends that the approach and
method taken by Members to address uncertainty be clearly documented and
communicated in a transparent manner in order to provide Members an
opportunity to review and comment on any such approach and method.
2 Cooperation with ISSBs
2.1. Canada, the European Union, India, Japan, and the United States submitted
written comments.
2.2. Regarding the title of this section, Canada and Japan agreed with
removing the reference to observer organizations because there was no
recommendation regarding or linkages to observer organizations (a change
already implemented in a previous version of the draft recommendations).
2.3. With respect to the first proposed recommendation:
a._
Canada suggested
removing the last part of the first bullet ", and possible ways to address them" as Codex did
not have a mechanism to address challenges.
b._
The European
Union supported the continuation of the cooperation with ISSBs as formulated in
that recommendation.
c._
India proposed
the following edits:
The Committee invites Codex, WOAH, and the
IPPC to continue to share information at Committee meetings about their efforts
to monitor the implementation of international standards, including in the
context of their observatory projects, with a focus on identify,
including through information shared by Members, challenges and impediments
faced by Members, in particular developing and LDC Members, and possible ways
to address them.
2.4. Canada, the European Union, Japan, and the United States proposed to
delete the second recommendation. Japan noted it was inconsistent with the
rights and obligations as set forth in Article 3 of the SPS Agreement and the
European Union that it did not contain any targeted message relevant for this
review process. The United States indicated it could not support this language,
as it appeared to diminish specific obligations of the WTO SPS Agreement. Canada
equally could not support this proposed recommendation, noting that the recommendations
of the Sixth Review should avoid restating the SPS Agreement, especially when
they softened the obligation in the Agreement.
2.5. Regarding the third recommendation, India proposed the following
addition:
·_
The Committee will act as a Member-driven hub
for information exchange and collaboration with the ISSBs on monitoring
activities.
2.6. The European Union suggested to move, in this section, the
recommendation on ISSBs' standards and scientific uncertainty from the section
on "emerging risks" and Canada agreed.
3.1. Canada, the European Union, India, and the United States submitted
written comments. The European Union agreed with the proposed
recommendations.
3.2. With respect to the first proposed recommendation, India suggested
the following addition:
·_
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 harmonization of regional conditions to ensure
trust and confidence among Members on variations of regional conditions.
3.3. With respect to the third proposed recommendation, Canada, India,
and the United States suggested adding the concept of "zoning", with
some language variations in their proposals (reflected in square brackets):
·_
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 / compartmentalization
zone and compartment].
3.4. Canada agreed with the suggestions of the United States and Australia
to hold thematic sessions and events to increase awareness of approaches to
regionalization (e.g. zoning and compartmentalization).
4 Technical assistance / S&DT
|
Proposed recommendations (_G/SPS/W/371/Rev.1, para. 2.22.):
·_
As reflected in other
recommendations, the Committee will take into account 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 continue
to engage on existing flexibilities in the SPS Agreement by considering, as
appropriate, Member proposals for possible improvements in technical
assistance and new avenues to support the participation of developing and LDC
Members and the implementation of the SPS Agreement to improve market access
opportunities.
·_
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.
|
4.1. Canada, the European Union, India, and the United States submitted written
comments.
4.2. With respect to the first proposed recommendation, the European
Union proposed to add references to the work carried out under the work
programme outlined by the MC12 SPS Declaration and the findings that had
emerged from that work as well as to the importance of coordination and
cooperation with the CTD-SS.
4.3. With respect to the second proposed recommendation:
a._
Canada proposed
the following changes: The Committee will
continue to engage on existing flexibilities in the SPS Agreement by
considering, as appropriate, such as: Member proposals for
possible improvements in technical assistance and new avenues to support the
participation of developing and LDC Members and the implementation of the SPS
Agreement to improve market access opportunities.
b._
India proposed
the following changes: The Committee will
continue to engage on existing flexibilities in the SPS Agreement by
considering, as appropriate, Member proposals for possible improvements
in technical assistance, including by sharing information and technical
know-how and new avenues to support the participation of developing and LDC
Members and the implementation of the SPS Agreement to improve market access
opportunities.
c._
The United States
preferred to keep the term "as
appropriate" to ensure that proposals did not seek to change or
otherwise undermine Member rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement.
4.4. The European Union suggested merging the second and the third proposed
recommendations and streamlining the text. The European Union considered that
the wording could be improved to avoid repetitions and give a clearer message
while remaining in the scope of the SPS Agreement.
|
Proposed recommendations (_G/SPS/W/371/Rev.1, para. 2.27.):
·_
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, including
digital tools to facilitate safe trade, and address challenges preventing
their uptake, such as those relating to existing legal frameworks, coordination
between border agencies, and the cost of developing and maintaining technical
infrastructures, especially in developing and LDC Members.
·_
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 into account the needs and concerns expressed by developing and
LDC Members.
|
5.1. Canada, the European Union, and India submitted written comments. Canada
did not have concerns with the recommendations as drafted. The European Union
welcomed these recommendations and would like to explore further the different
digital tools and IT solutions used by Members.
5.2. In relation to the first proposed recommendation, as a follow-up to
the previous thematic session, the European Union proposed for consideration an
additional session on the use of digital tools, AI, and IT solutions, to carry
out efficient import controls while facilitating safe trade.
5.3. Regarding the second proposed recommendation, India suggested the
following changes:
·_
The Committee will continue discussions on how to
facilitate the adoption of novel approaches and technologies, including
digital tools to facilitate safe trade, and address challenges preventing their
uptake, such as those relating to existing legal frameworks, coordination
between border agencies, and the cost of developing and maintaining technical
infrastructures, especially in developing and LDC Members.
5.4. Regarding the fourth proposed recommendation, India suggested the
following changes:
·_
Committee work in this area should
will take into account the needs, sensitivities, interests and
concerns expressed by of developing and LDC Members.
6 Transparency / notification procedures
|
Proposed recommendations (_G/SPS/W/371/Rev.1, para. 2.32.):
·_
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;
_
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._
work with the Secretariat
to implement 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.
|
6.1. Canada, the European Union, and India submitted written comments. Canada
did not have concerns with the recommendations as drafted.
6.2. The European Union agreed with the recommendations, including the
establishment of a working group. To the European Union, it was important to
ensure that the work foreseen was building on the previous discussions and
achievements and did not repeat or duplicate them. Accordingly, the European
Union proposed that the working group take stock of the work already completed
and identify the most relevant areas for future improvements. Consequently, the
European Union preferred to keep the mandate of the working group more general.
6.3. India made the following suggestions regarding the working group's
mandate:
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;
iv. work with the Secretariat to implement
explore ways to promote 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 principles of Good
Practice Guide on Commenting on a TBT notification (_G/TBT/GEN/386) to the needs of the SPS Committee.
|
Proposed recommendation (_G/SPS/W/371/Rev.1, para. 2.35.):
·_
The Committee will continue
discussions on Members' proposals on the topic of MRLs and, based on the
outcomes of the discussions, decide how best to approach the topic to ensure
added value, building on earlier activities without duplicating efforts and respecting
Members' rights under the SPS Agreement and the remit of Codex. The Committee
will hold a thematic session on this topic, building on previous work,
including the 2022 thematic session on trade facilitative approaches to
pesticide MRLs.
·_
The Committee invites
Members to implement MRLs in a manner that preserves export opportunities for
developing and LDC Members while ensuring food safety.
|
7.1. Canada, the European Union, India, Japan, Paraguay, the United
Kingdom, and the United States submitted written comments.
7.2. As a general comment, Japan believed that matters related to MRLs
should be addressed within the Codex Committee, based on scientific evidence
and with full respect for Members' rights under the SPS Agreement.
7.3. With respect to the first proposed recommendation, first sentence:
a._
Paraguay proposed
to modify the first sentence as follows:
The Committee will continue discussions on Members' proposals on the topic of MRLs and, based on
the outcomes of the discussions, decide how best to approach the topic to
ensure added value, building on earlier activities without duplicating efforts
and respecting Members' rights under the SPS Agreement and the remit of Codex. the subject of MRLs with a
view to, inter alia, sharing best practices about the determination of default
MRLs based on science and risk assessment in the absence of international MRL
standards, in collaboration with Codex. The
Committee will hold a thematic session on this topic, building on previous
work, including the 2022 thematic
session on trade facilitative approaches to pesticide MRLs.
b._
The United
Kingdom noted the comment made previously that the text "respecting Members' rights under the SPS Agreement
and the remit of Codex" was redundant and unnecessary as it has
been agreed that this was the expectation for all elements of the report. While
it could be argued that it had been agreed that this was the expectation, the
United Kingdom took the view that this was not as clear cut as if it was
actually stated in the text.
c._
The United States
considered the text "and respecting
Members' rights under the SPS Agreement and the remit of Codex"
as unnecessary because all actions undertaken by the Committee should respect
Members' rights under the SPS Agreement and it was unclear how the remit of the
Codex Alimentarius was particularly relevant to this recommendation.
7.4. With respect to the first proposed recommendation, second sentence:
a._
Canada recommended
the topic be part of the March 2025 thematic session.
b._
India proposed to
delete the sentence "The Committee
will hold a thematic session on this topic, building on previous work,
including the 2022 thematic session on trade facilitative approaches to
pesticide MRLs."
c._
Japan and the European
Union considered more information was needed before the Committee could decide
on a thematic session on the topic of MRLs. The European Union noted it could
agree to consider holding a thematic session on the topic of MRLs, only if it
would have an added value and build on the work that had been already carried
out.
d._
Japan echoed a
textual suggestion made in the November 2024 informal meeting that "the Committee will consider holding a thematic
session".
7.5. With respect to the second proposed recommendation:
a._
Canada, the
European Union, Japan, Paraguay, and the United States suggested to delete it.
Japan noted that it did not properly reflect the rights and obligations of
importing countries as set forth in Article 3 of the SPS Agreement. The United
States specified that science-based MRLs were implemented to protect human
health, not to preserve export markets.
b._
As an alternative
to deleting this proposed recommendation, the European Union requested that it
be reworded to be in line with the objectives and mandate of the SPS Agreement
and Canada proposed to amend it as follows: The
Committee invites Members to implement MRLs in a manner that preserves
export opportunities for developing and LDC Members that facilitates
trade, while ensuring food safety.
c._
The United
Kingdom shared the concerns raised by other Members regarding the second
proposed recommendation that the reference to "preserving export
opportunities" may not be appropriate as this potentially undermined the
food safety drivers for setting MRLs and the science and evidenced based
approach to determining their appropriate levels. The United Kingdom requested
the Committee to consider an alternative recommendation, acknowledging
obligations under Articles 9 and 10 of the Agreement relating to technical
assistance, and special and differential treatment for developing and LDC
Members, along the following lines:
The Committee invites Members to implement
MRLs in a manner that preserves export opportunities for takes into account the needs and concerns of developing and LDC Members while ensuring food safety.
7.6. India proposed to add the following recommendations:
·_
The Committee acknowledges the challenges faced by
Members, specifically developing and LDC Members due to an absence of Codex
MRLs. In this regard, the Committee will discuss ways to develop guidelines for
setting MRLs in collaboration with Codex, with a view to and to base their MRLs
on conclusive risk assessment and scientific evidence.
·_
The Committee will work towards developing a
mechanism for monitoring harmonization of Members' SPS measures with the
available Codex texts, and reporting to the Committee. Such mechanism will
promote adoption of Codex standards by all Members, thereby facilitating trade
in safe food products.
7.7. Paraguay proposed to add the following recommendations:
·_
The Secretariat shall include in its regular reports
on Specific Trade Concerns (STC) a list of those related to the use of
pesticides and MRLs.
·_
The Committee shall take into account the needs and
concerns of developing Members, including LDCs, related to the use of
pesticides and MRLs to enhance the implementation of S&DT as agreed in the
MC13 [Reference to _WT/MIN(24)/36 _WT/L/1191].
8 Facility registration
|
Proposed recommendation (_G/SPS/W/371/Rev.1, para. 2.37.):
·_
The Committee will hold
dedicated discussions on science- and risk-based approaches to facility
registrations.
|
8.1. Canada, the European Union,
and the United States submitted written comments, expressing support for the
proposed recommendation. The United States indicated it preferred to maintain
this recommendation without a specific mention of a thematic session.
9 Systems approach
|
Proposed recommendation (_G/SPS/W/371/Rev.1, para. 2.41.):
·_
The Committee will continue
the discussion on systems approaches to help minimize phytosanitary risk
through sharing of best practices and encouraging regional and international
collaboration with relevant stakeholders.
|
9.1. Canada, the European Union, and Indonesia submitted written
comments.
9.2. The European Union and Indonesia agreed with the proposed
recommendation. Canada was supportive of the first part of the recommendation
but sought clarification on the text "and encouraging regional and
international collaboration with relevant stakeholders", asking who the
relevant stakeholders would be.
9.3. Indonesia agreed with an earlier comment by the United States
regarding an earlier second proposed recommendation that was referring to the
concept of "Equivalence", but wished to retain the reference it had
previously suggested regarding the importance of the use of innovation or
emerging technologies in systems approaches that can further improve the
implementation of the SPS Agreement. Indonesia thus proposed to add the
following recommendation:
·_
The Committee will also continue discussions on the
use of innovation and emerging technologies in relevant fields to support
improvements on approaches used to implement the SPS Agreement, such as use of
system approach.
__________
[1] This document has been prepared
under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice to the
positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.