   
  
G/SPS/W/313/Corr.1  
 
21 June 2019 
(19-4253) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
REVIEW OF T HE OPERATION AND IMP LEMENTATION  
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMIT TEE 
Note by the Secretariat1 
Corrigendum  
The list of co -sponsors listed in the following paragraphs has been corrected : 
5.1.  Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay proposed using fall 
armyworm as a case study to discuss the application of the principles in the SPS Agreement to 
enable greater access to tools and technologies.24 The proposal recommended forming a working 
group to undertake several activities.  
5.3.  The Committee decided to hold a thematic session on fall armyworm in March 2019, and Brazil, 
Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay circulated a proposed agenda for this 
session.25 The Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm was held on 19 March 201926, to discuss the role 
of the WTO SPS Agreement in enabling access to tools and technologies and facilitating international 
trade, using fall a rmyworm as a case study. The session provided information on the nature and the 
impact of the spread of fall armyworm across the globe, the challenges for smallholders, and the 
tools and technologies available. Global, regional and domestic approaches to e nable regulatory 
frameworks to facilitate access to safe and effective tools and technologies were presented. Members 
shared their experiences in dealing with fall armyworm, highlighting their successes and 
challenges.27 
6.1.  Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi,  The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Nigeria, the 
United States and Zambia presented a joint proposal on strengthening national SPS committees, 
suggesting the organization of a thematic session or workshop in late 2018 or early 2019.28 Several 
Members supported the proposal, highlighting the importance of sharing experiences with national 
SPS committees. Some Members emphasized that national committees were not the only way to 
coordinate and suggested enlarging the scope to include othe r national coordination mechanisms in 
the event. While the Trade Facilitation Agreement contained an obligation to establish a national 
committee, the SPS Agreement did not. What mattered was the existence of a functioning national 
coordination mechanism. The Secretariat reminded Members that the SPS Committee had held a 
Workshop on Coordination at National and Regional Levels in 2011, and invited Members to consult 
the materials available on the WTO website.29 
                                                
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.  
24 G/SPS/W/305 . 
25 G/SPS/W/309 and G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1.  
26 The programme for this thematic session is contained in G/SPS/GEN/1676/Rev.1. Presentations from 
the session are also available  at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop19032019_e.htm.  
27 See the summary report of the March 2019 SPS Committee meeting for an overview of the thematic 
session (G/SPS/R/94, forthcoming).  
28 G/SPS/W/297.  
29 Information on this workshop is available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/sps_17oct11_e.htm . 
36 G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4.  Previous revisions of this proposal were discussed prior to the launch of the 
Fifth Review.  G/SPS/W/313/Corr.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  8.1.  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ch ile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Japan, 
Kenya, Madagascar, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uganda, the United States and Uruguay 
presented a revised joint proposal on addressing the trade effects of pesticide MRLs.36 The proposal 
contain ed several recommendations to advance work in the Committee on trade -related MRLs, for 
inclusion in the R eport of the Fifth Review.  The recommendations aim to enable the Joint FAO/WHO 
Meeting on Pesticide Residues ( JMPR) to better respond to increased dema nd and monitor progress 
on new Codex MRLs; strengthen notification practices of Members for greater transparency and 
predictability of MRLs; invite reports to the SPS Committee on international and regional activities 
on MRLs; enhance collaboration on solu tions for MRLs for minor use and specialty crops; and note 
the role of the Committee in increasing coordination and harmonization.  
 
__________  