 
  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/151 
29 September 2004 
 (04-4096) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
  
MONITORING OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION:  REGIONALIZATION 
 
Submission by New Zealand
 
 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
1. In New Zealand’s view the Co mmittee currently has a number  of proposals on regionalization1 
before it and no clear way forward on this issue.  Recalling Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement 
and taking into account the provisional procedure to monitor the use of international standards 
adopted by the Committee2 and the Committee's decisions3 to extend this provisional procedure, New 
Zealand is submitting the following issue in accordan ce with paragraph 6 of the provisional procedure 
for consideration by the Committee. 
2. By seeking advice for the consideration of regionalization by the Committee under the 
procedure for monitoring international harmonizati on, New Zealand hopes to progress this issue by 
seeking the best available scientific and technical advice for our deliberations and thereby avoiding 
unnecessary duplication of effort. 
3. Within this paper we have identified and ou tlined the concerns that other Members have 
raised in the Committee.  We recognize the concer ns of Members, which in New Zealand’s view 
require further consideration, but feel these concerns  will be better addressed if  we define the specific 
problems then move on to develop a ppropriate solutions or outcomes. 
4. New Zealand also sees that there are wider i ssues that need consideration such as the 
appropriateness of developing prescriptive, admini strative type procedures which may be the 
responsibility of Members rather than that of the standard-setting bodies. 
A. ISSUE  
5. During discussions4 on Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, Members have informed the 
Committee of trade problems that they are experienci ng which they consider to be the result of one or 
more of the following: 
                                                      
1 Chile (G/SPS/W/140/Rev.2), Canada (G /SPS/W/145) and Peru (G/SPS/W/148). 
2 Decision of the Committee on the provisional procedure to monitor the use of international standards 
- adopted at its meeting on 15- 16 October 1997 (G/SPS/11). 
3 July 1999 (G/SPS/14), July 2001 (G/SPS/17) and July 2003 (G/SPS/25). 
4 See in particular Argentina: G/SPS/GEN/433; Canada: G/SPS/W/145; Chile :  G/SPS/W/129, 
G/SPS/W/140/Rev.2, G/SPS/GEN/381;  European Communities:  G/SPS/GEN/461, G/SPS/W/144;  Mexico :  
G/SPS/GEN/388;  Peru:  G/SPS/W/148;  South Africa :  G/SPS/GEN/139;  United States:  G/SPS/GEN/477. 
Meeting reports :  October 2003 – G/SPS/R/31, paras 90-103;  March 2004 – G/SPS/R/33, paras 108-119;  
June 2004 - G/SPS/R/34, paras 83-97. G/SPS/W/151 
Page 2  
 
 (a) non-existence of administrative procedures (in the form of an international standard, 
recommendation or guideline) for recognition of pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence (including the lack of defined time-limits for response);  or 
(b) official recognition for pest- or disease-fr ee areas or areas of low pest or disease 
prevalence by the IPPC and by the OIE: 
(i) limited provision of official recognition by the OIE and none by the IPPC:  
At the request of countries, the OIE carries out evaluations and grants 
recognition of sanitary status in respect of four animal diseases.
5  The IPPC 
does not currently carry out or grant re cognition of pest-free areas or areas of 
low pest prevalence but has develope d standards for Members to use to 
determine pest-free areas; 
(ii) acceptance by WTO Members of OIE recognition:  Some WTO Members 
have expressed concerns that importing Members do not automatically or speedily accept such OIE recognition;  
(c) uncertainty in the procedure to obtain r ecognition of pest- or disease-free areas for 
access to markets puts at risk the sustainability of such areas.  This is a result of a 
number of reasons.  For example, 
(i) administrative procedures required by importing Members can lack 
transparency, be complex, expensive, slow and in some cases are not clearly defined; 
(ii) no clearly defined time-limits for any response exist; 
(iii) the time taken to recognize an area fre e from a certain pest or disease can 
vary from a few months to several years; 
(iv) administrative procedures between Members for accepting regionalization 
lack consistency.  Some Members ha ve no established guidelines;  other 
Members have procedures with a number of stages. 
B. 
TRADE EFFECTS  
6. Members have indicated the following trade effects: 
(a) the entry, establishment or spread of pest s or diseases causes considerable direct or 
indirect losses to their economies; 
(b) the entry, establishment or spread of pest s results in the adoption of SPS measures by 
importing Members which can have a signifi cant effect on the exports of Members 
(in particularl developing or least developed countries);  and 
(c) to establish and maintain pest- or disease -free areas requires significant investments.  
Maintenance mainly depends on the comme rcial gains that producers can achieve 
                                                      
5 Foot and mouth disease, rinderpest, BSE and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia. OIE Members can 
also declare themselves free of diseas es for which there is, as yet, no speci fic procedure for obtaining official 
OIE recognition of country status.  G/SPS/W/151 
 Page 3 
 
 
 from trade resulting from that status.  Theref ore, market access is the main objective 
for investing in the establishment and ma intenance of pest- or disease-free areas. 
II. REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 12. 6 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
7. In accordance with Article 12.6 of the SPS Agreement, New Zealand requests that the 
Committee invite the secretariats of the OIE and I PPC to examine the specifi c matters raised with 
respect to the relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations. 
8. Further, the Committee should, in particular, inv ite the secretariats of the OIE and IPPC to 
examine inter alia : 
(a) whether it would be appropriate for them  to develop and include administrative 
procedures on the recognition of pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest 
prevalence within their international st andards, recommendations or guidelines; 
(b) the technical feasibility of ascribing define d time-limits to the consideration of 
regionalization requests under existing inte rnational standards, recommendations or 
guidelines;  
(c) the issue of recognizing pest- or disease-free status by the relevant international 
standard-setting bodies:  
(i) the process for Member acceptance of OIE recognition of disease-free status; 
(ii) whether OIE recognition constitutes de termination in the context of 
Article 6.2 of the SPS Agreement;  and  
(iii) whether under the IPPC, it is feasible to provide recognition of pest or 
disease free status for a limited number of pests or diseases which have a 
significant impact on international trade of Members. 
A. EXISTING WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE OIE AND IPPC  
9. New Zealand notes that following discussions at the last SPS Committee meeting regarding 
the need for guidelines, the OIE Bureau of th e Code Commission has requested OIE member 
countries to submit guidelines with practical examples on zoning/regionalization and 
compartmentalization to aid implementation by Member s.  The Director-General of the OIE may then 
convene an ad hoc Group to draft proposals for the Code Commission.  New Zealand welcomes the 
initiative from the OIE and encourag es Members to submit examples. 
10. New Zealand notes that the IPPC has had sta ndards for pest-free areas (ISPM No. 4), pest-
free places of production and pest-free production sites (I SPM No. 9) for some years and that it is now 
developing a standard for areas of low pest preval ence.  Members can use these standards as a basis 
for their recognition of pest-free areas. 
__________ 
 