 
  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/165 
26 October 2004 
 (04-4538) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:   Spanish 
 
   
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
WTO SPS COMMITTEE CONCERNING REGIONALIZATION  
 
Communication by Chile
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 25 October 2004, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegation of Chile. 
 
_______________ 
 
Roles and responsibilities 
 1. Roles and responsibilities in the implementation of Article 6 
(a) The SPS Committee 
 The Committee is responsible for overseeing the application of the principle in such a way as 
to ensure that international standards are observe d or that there is just cause for any departure 
therefrom, while preventing delays from becoming unjus tified barriers to trade. 
(b) The relevant international organizations 
 The relevant international organizations are responsible for drawing up technical and 
scientific guidelines or recommendations regardin g sanitary status, whether for attaining a given 
status with respect to a pest or a disease or for maintaining that status.  They are mandated by the 
SPS Agreement to develop and periodically review  standards, guidelines  and recommendations 
relating to all aspects of sanita ry and phytosanitary measures. 
(c) Members 
 Pursuant to the guidelines of the relevant international scientific  organizations, Members 
which attain a given sanitary status are required to declare that status, and Members which grant recognition of that status – also in accordance wi th international recommendations – may verify the 
situation on the basis of documentary evidence or by carrying out on-the-spot checks. 
2. Regarding distinctions in the roles and responsibilities of the above three groups, do 
Members consider that such differences exist in particular with respect to Article 6, or can 
such differentiations apply more broadly?  
 It is our understanding that the roles and responsibilities of the Members, the Committee and 
the scientific reference organizations are clearly es tablished and differentiated in the Agreement and 
that they apply to all the principles contained in th e latter, inasmuch as the scientific organizations are 
those which recommend science-based international standards, the Members implement measures by G/SPS/W/165 
Page 2  
 
 adopting the relevant international standard or ju stifying any departure therefrom, and the Committee 
supervises and facilitates impl ementation of the principles. 
3. Assuming that certain duplication in roles and responsibilities exists between Members and 
international organizations, please indicate what are these overlaps, whether they can be 
reduced or eliminated, and, if so, how.  In particul ar for the application of Article 6, or more 
broadly? 
 In our view, there should be no duplication in the roles and responsibilities of the Members 
and the reference organizations, although the risk analysis process may differ among some Members 
with regard to the same recognition of sanitary st atus.  Moreover, several Members have requirements 
in excess of those recommended by the organizations, for example in dealing with a given disease;  
where an outbreak is eradicated by slaughter, the OIE recommendation is that the territory concerned 
may be declared to be disease-free six months afte r the most recent outbreak, if no further outbreaks 
have occurred.  However, some countries establish a 12-month period following the elimination of the 
most recent focus as a basis for granting recognition.   We believe that in such situations the country 
should provide its own technical grounds for amendment of the standard within the international organization, failing which it should abide by that international standard. 
 Insofar as there are international guidelines on regionalization, the international organizations 
could recommend that Members follow these guidelines and refrain from initiating a complex process 
of risk analysis, considering that they are ab le to take an active part in such meetings. 
4. Recognizing the OIE's official verification fo r four specific diseases, what significance do 
Members assign to this in the implementation of Article 6?  What is the Members’ valuation 
of such official verification, and to what ex tent does an importing Member use the OIE's 
verification as a basis for evaluating an expor ting Member's request for regionalization? 
 There are wide disparities when it comes to Memb ers' recognition of OIE verifications.  Many 
conduct a full risk analysis and regard such veri fications merely as further confirmation, whereas 
others attach particular importance to them and he nce simplify their recognition process.  This is one 
of the reasons why we believe that it is necessary to generate greater commitment among Members to 
recognize this verification process.  It has accordingl y been proposed to provide, in such cases, for a 
fast-track or expedited process for the recognition of sanitary status by Members. 
Questions relating to time-limits or time frames 
5. With respect to the guidelines of international  organizations, please indicate what types of 
recommended time frames generally or specific ally exist, if any, for exporting or importing 
Members’ actions when establishing market access requirements.  To the extent that they exist, do Members discern differences in  the recommended tim e frames in these 
recommendations or guidelines, and how coul d some of these recommended time frames 
relate to the implementation of the Article?  
 As regards time frames, it should be clarified from the outset that the periods established by 
the international referen ce organizations for determining when an area is free of a given pest or 
disease should not be subject to discussion, since this involves a scientific determination by the 
organizations best suited for issuing specific recomm endations on the pest or disease in question;  it 
should also be recalled that each of the members of such organizations can voice an opinion in such 
meetings. 
 What should be addressed are the administrative time frames for recognition of a given 
sanitary status.  In this case the problem lies in their application by the Members, and with the SPS  G/SPS/W/165 
 Page 3 
 
 
 Committee, which is required to supervise implemen tation of the principles covered by international 
guidelines.  It will be for the international scientif ic organizations to develop the guidelines relating to 
pests or diseases, to be agreed by their member s in the respective forums, and possibly to make 
further headway with verification procedures that could be implemented either directly or through 
expert groups or regional organizations. 
6. When applying Article 6, can Members differentia te elements or processes which are or may 
be more conducive to recommending time frames and, if so, which ones? 
 We believe that processes can have an impact on time frames, especially in the administrative 
sphere.  This can be achieved by clearly establis hing the parties' undertakings through Committee 
recommendations, as was the case for the recomme ndations on equivalence, with the added advantage 
that a great deal of work has already been done on  the recommendations of international organizations 
regarding regionalization and that they have existe d for much longer, which means that there is more 
experience and practical know-how available in these matters. 
7. Assuming in the implementation of Article 6 that time frames were to be established, how 
would such time frames compare with other existing time frames for the implementation of other SPS disciplines? 
 Our understanding is that the key concern regarding time frames relates to the stage in the 
recognition process involving verification – and main ly administrative – work, which in the case of 
regionalization commences once a Member has declared  a given sanitary status and seeks recognition 
of that status.  As regards the other principles, th ere is not always such a clear distinction between 
administrative and technical asp ects, although administrative delays are also considerable. 
 The Committee could draw attention to procedures and responsibilities, leaving the work on 
time frames to be agreed on a bilateral basis, und er the Committee's supervisio n if necessary.  Perhaps 
such processes should be notified to it with a view  to ascertaining the level of progress achieved and 
identifying any impediments. 
8. How could Members use the recommended time fram es in the application of Article 6 for:  
(a) Technical issues arising from different risk profiles 
 For technical aspects, it is necessary to follow the guidelines issued by the scientific reference 
organizations. 
(b) Different regulatory and control structures 
 Each country is required to adap t to international standards and to that end is at liberty to 
participate, with voting rights, in the scientific or ganizations in which these are developed.  Moreover, 
in the spheres of animal and plant health under discussion here, the official authorities are duly 
represented in these international organizations. 
(c) Competency regarding assessments 
 It will be up to the Member countries to inform each other bilaterally and in a transparent 
manner of their capacities to that effect. G/SPS/W/165 
Page 4  
 
 (d) Consideration of standing queues 
 Regarding this matter, Members can establish th eir time frames on a bilateral basis, but this 
should not be regarded as a justification for undue delays. 
Committee work 
9. Could the discussions regarding difficulties in the implementation of Article 6 take place 
under the agenda item concerning the monitoring of international standards? 
 This item of the agenda concerns aspects whic h are not covered by any international standard 
and for which a standard is needed, or any international standard that has become obsolete and 
requires updating.  In the case of regionalization,  however, there are international guidelines, which 
appear to be adequate and have been developed in  agreement with the Member countries present, but 
they are applied diversely by the Members, some using parallel procedures with time frames that may be arbitrary. 
 The discussions could take place under this age nda item in specific instances, but this would 
not obviate the need for the Committee to work on guidelines aimed at improving the application of 
the principle, so as to make its implementation more effective. 
10. Members appear to agree to share information and experiences with respect to the 
application of Article 6.  Could the Comm ittee develop any further mechanism for such 
information exchange?  
 It would be important to work in the Comm ittee on the development of mechanisms for the 
exchange of information on regionalization, so as to improve its implementation.  It would also be 
useful to have details regarding the initiation and conclusion of reco gnition processes and any 
obstacles that may have arisen in cases where there has been much delay, as proposed under section 7 in this document. 
 
 
__________ 
 
 