 
  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/157 
12 October 2004 
 (04-4278) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
 
THE SECOND REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION  
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Further elaboration of issues for consideration by New Zealand
 
 
  The following communication, received on 11 Octo ber 2004, is being circulated at the request 
the Delegation of New Zealand.  
_______________ 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. New Zealand considers that Members have b een served well by the SPS Agreement.  We 
believe that the SPS Agreement contains the right ba lance between maintaining the sovereign right of 
any government to determine its ow n appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection while 
ensuring that this protection is science-based and does not create unnecessary barriers to international 
trade.  New Zealand believes that this bala nce in the Agreement must be preserved.  
2. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (hereinafter referred to as the 
"Committee") agreed to a process (G /SPS/32) for the review at its J une 2004 meeting and noted that 
the report of the review should be prepared for the Sixth Ministerial Conference.  At that meeting, 
New Zealand noted the short period for consideration of  issues under the review and stated that issues 
submitted for consideration should therefore be  achievable within the given timeframe.  
3. New Zealand identified and submitted four i ssues for consideration (G/SPS/W/150).  They 
are: 
(a) Transparency
1 
(i) the development of a more user-friendly SPS database as distinct from the 
WTO documents online facility (DDF+);  
(ii) notification of all new measures that are based on international standards; 
(b) Administration 
(i) discussion on the use of the SPS Committee to facilitate ad hoc  consultations 
to progress trade concerns; and 
                                                      
1 Both these issues were discussed at the June 2004 SPS Committee;  see paragraphs 64 and 66 of 
G/SPS/R34 regarding notification of all measures ev en when based on international standards.   G/SPS/W/157 
Page 2  
 
 (ii) discussion on how to avoid unnecessary duplication of work of the SPS 
Committee and the relevant standard-setting bodies. 
4. Further elaboration of New Zealand’ s suggestions is provided below. 
II. ISSUES 
A. T
RANSPARENCY  
1. The development of a user-friendly search able database of SPS notifications 
5. In addition to the WTO documents online facility (DDF+), New Zealand supports the 
development of a searchable database as was suggested by the Secretariat at the Committee meeting in June 2004.  New Zealand proposes that a databa se be developed that summarizes the content of 
notifications and can be used by Members to assist them in fulfilling their SPS transparency 
obligations and operating their National Notifica tion Authorities and National Enquiry Points.   
6. We consider that it would be useful to be able  to use such a database to assist Members in 
identifying SPS measures of interest to them and to be able to ascertain the current status of those 
measures.  It could also be useful to be able to search on the basis of products covered; regions 
affected;  objectives e.g. food safety, animal health, plant protection, protect humans from 
animal/plant pest or disease, protect territory fro m other damages from pests; international standards 
that the measure is based on and any variation from the international standard; whether the measure is 
trade facilitating or not; and the deadline for comment s.  The summaries of notifications would be up-
dated regularly based on information contained in the often numerous corrigenda, addenda and 
revisions of the same notification.  The relevant  notifications would be attached for Members to 
download and view, and links for information we bpages containing the full text for measures and 
unofficial translations would be provided. 
7. The database would enhance transparency and assist developing countries.  It could assist the 
Secretariat to meaningfully implement the obligatio n in paragraph 9 of Annex B which requires it to 
draw the attention of developing country Member s to any notifications relating to products of 
particular interest to them.  Exporters could refer directly to the database to ascertain what measures 
importing Members apply to products of interest to them, policy makers could easily establish the 
number of notifications Members have made, th e areas covered by and the objectives of those 
notifications.  Moreover, the inte rnational standard setting bodies c ould use the database to evaluate 
which countries are deviating from international st andards and the reasons for these deviations.  
Additionally, Enquiry Points and National Notifica tion Authorities could use the database rather than 
spend scarce resources duplicating efforts to develop databases of their own. 
2. Notification of all new measures that are based on international standards 
8. New Zealand considers the notification of all new measures that are based on international 
standards as discussed in the June Committee m eeting would further enhance transparency and 
facilitate the monitoring of harmonisation of intern ational standards provided for in Articles 3.5 and 
12.4 of the SPS Agreement.  In accordance with those obligations under the SPS Agreement, the 
Committee has developed a mechanism for monito ring international harmonisation (G/SPS/11).  
However, monitoring is at present limited to inst ances where either existing international standards 
are not being used, are considered inappropriate or  do not exist.  Currently Members are not required 
to notify when their regulations are based on intern ational standards.  This makes it difficult for the 
Committee to fully monitor harmonisati on and the use of such standards.  G/SPS/W/157 
 Page 3 
 
 
 9. Another consideration is that by notifying all new measures that are based on international 
standards, Members will have up-to-date informati on on the SPS measures that a Member is utilizing.  
This will enable exporting Members to be able to readily work towards meeting these measures and 
facilitate trade. 
10. Facilitation of this notification mechanism will mean more efficient monitoring of 
harmonization of international st andards and further enhanced transparency which New Zealand 
considers would have positive and pr oductive implications for Members.  We believe that as part of 
its review, the Committee should amend its Recommended Procedures for Implementing the 
Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7) (G/SPS/7/Rev.2) only, to encourage 
Members to notify all SPS regulations even when th ey are based on international standards.  This 
amendment would be similar to other amendments ma de to the transparency obligations such as those 
regarding equivalence2 and would encourage Members to be more transparent.  Members would not 
be expected to notify retrospectively all those SPS measures already harmonized. 
B. ADMINISTRATION  
1. Discussion on the use of the SPS Committee to facilitate ad hoc consultations to progress 
trade concerns 
11. In its paper G/SPS/GEN/74 (June 1998), the United States reminded the Committee of the 
usefulness of Article 12.2, which provides that " the Committee shall encourage and facilitate ad hoc 
consultations or negotiations  among Members on specific san itary and phytosanitary measures ", this 
is also known more colloquially as the "good offices of the Chair".  As noted by the United States, the 
mechanism of informal consultations between parties and the SPS Chair are not necessarily a 
prerequisite for the formal dispute system and could be used by Members to avoid disputes, which are 
costly and resource intensive.  
12. New Zealand considers that the Committee should note in its review that the "good offices of 
the Chair" are a useful option for the facilitation of  consultations on SPS issues such as specific trade 
concerns, and that the Committee remind Members that this is an option availa ble to them to progress 
or resolve specific trade concerns.  Further, in accordance with Article 12.2, we consider that the 
Committee should encourage Member s to avail themselves of this option where appropriate. 
2. Discussion on how to avoid unnecessary dup lication of work of the SPS Committee and 
the relevant standard-setting bodies 
13. We consider that the Committee and the releva nt international standard setting bodies (Codex, 
OIE, and the ICPM) have distinct, yet complementar y roles.  The Committee wo rks closely with these 
organizations to obtain the scientific and technical ad vice necessary for the practical application of the 
SPS Agreement.  This is recognition of the scientif ic and technical foundation of the SPS Agreement 
and clarifies the roles of the Committee in relatio n to the standard setting organisations i.e. the 
Committee does not develop international standards as this would lead to a duplication of effort 
between the Committee and the intern ational standard setting bodies. 
14. More specifically, Article 12.3 of the SPS Agre ement makes it clear that the Committee needs 
to maintain a close relationship with the intern ational standard setting bodies to secure the best 
available scientific and technical advice for administering the SPS Agreement and avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort.  The Committee needs to ensure that matters relating to scientific 
and technical aspects of the SPS Agreement (in pa rticular the development, implementation and 
                                                     
 
2 Notification of Determination of the Recognition of Equivalence of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures, Decision by the Committee, G/SPS/7/Rev.2/Add.1. G/SPS/W/157 
Page 4  
 
 harmonization with international standards, recommendations or guidelines) are referred to the 
relevant standard setting bodies, which have the necessary technical expertise and experience to 
consider and if necessary report back to the Comm ittee with appropriate advice, recommendations or 
further work required. 
15. One facet of the relationship between the Committee and the relevant international 
organisations is in the area of international harm onization.  In accordance with the obligations under 
the SPS Agreement, the Committee has develope d a mechanism for monitoring international 
harmonization and there is a standing item on the Committee's agenda, so that Members can indicate where there is a need for the development of an international standard or where Members are not 
using an international standard.  This agenda  item was created for the purpose of allowing the 
membership to discuss such c oncerns.  Discussions may result in the Committee formulating a 
recommendation inviting the relevant standards se tting organisations to consider whether it is 
necessary to develop a standard.  When utilised , the procedure for monitoring international 
harmonization can work effectively.   
16. An illustration of the successful use of this  procedure and the re lationship between the 
Committee and the international standard setting bodies is  the issue of "official control".  The issue of 
"official control" and the lack of a definition for this  term that was first brought to the attention of the 
Committee in a submission by the United Stat es (G/SPS/W/97) in February 1999, under the 
provisional procedure to monitor the process of inte rnational harmonization.  The matter was then 
referred by the Committee to the ICPM for its c onsideration.  The ICPM commenced work on a 
definition for the term "official control" as a resu lt of the request of the Committee, and a definition 
and guidelines for official control were adopted by  the ICPM at its third Session in April 2001. 
17. New Zealand considers that the Committee should note in its review that the Committee and 
the relevant international standard setting bodies have distinct, yet complementary roles.  Further, that 
in the review the Committee agrees it will refer matters relating to scientific and technical matters 
pertaining to the practical application of th e Agreement (in particul ar the development, 
implementation and harmonization w ith international standards, recommendations or guidelines) to 
the relevant standard setting bodi es, which have the necessary technical expertise and experience to 
consider them, in order to ensure that unnecessary dupli cation of effort is avoided.  The international 
standard setting bodies then can, if necessary, repor t back to the Committee with appropriate advice 
and/or recommendations of further work required. 
__________ 
 
 