G/SPS/GEN/1975   
9 November 2021  
(21-8496) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: Spanish  
 
  
IMPORT RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY ECUADOR ON GRAPES AND ONIONS  
(STC NO. 498) 
COMMUNICATION FROM PERU  
The following communication, received on 8 November 2021, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegation of Peru. 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  Peru would once again like to present to WTO Members its trade concern with respect to the 
restrictive measures applied by Ecuador on the reopening of access for grapes and onions from 
Peru.1 
2.  First, Ecuador states that it has suspended imports of onions and  grapes under Technical 
Resolution DAJ -20133EC -0201.0096 (2013) on the National Plan for the Monitoring and Control of 
Contaminants in Primary Production. Subparagraph 4 of paragraph 14.4.3, on border control 
samples, stipulates that the consequences range  from suspending the approval of the packing plant 
for the crop to suspending the approval of the supplier country.2 Paragraph 14.4.3 of the Resolution 
also established preliminary measures prior to the suspension of a supplier country that were not 
applied to Peru in this case.3 
3.  While Peru recognizes the legitimate objective of protecting health, it considers the actions taken 
by Ecuador to be disproportionate, as corrective actions were not followed up and the most stringent 
sampling was not carried out, in order to safeguard public health, when Ecuador closed its market 
to Peruvian grapes and onions, which violates even its own domestic legis lation.4 Ecuador is 
therefore in violation of Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement, given that no attempt has been made to 
minimize negative trade effects.  
 
1 Concerns previously presented in documents G/SPS/GEN/1937 and G/SPS/GEN/1907, and to the WTO 
SPS Committee on 5, 6 and 13 November 2020.  
2 Statement by Ecuador available in paragraph 3.140 of document G/SPS/R/101 and in Official Circular 
MPCEIP -VCE-2021-0377-O of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, Investment and Fisheries, 
dated 31 August 2021.  
3 Paragraph 14.4.3 cited by Ecuador provided for the gradual application of stricter measures, as 
follows:  
"At the border, a (targeted) control s ample is always taken, which may vary in the form of reduced 
sampling or strict sampling.  
A control with reduced sampling is based on the assumption that there is no negative history or 
suspicions surrounding the type of crop, origin (country and/or packer ) or importer.  
Therefore, all border checks begin with reduced sampling and without product retention.  
If a lot contains a pesticide exceeding the established maximum residue limit (MRL) , it is 
reported through the Inter -American Rapid Alerts System ( SIAR) and the origin (company and country) 
and importers for that product go from reduced sampling to strict sampling for five 
consecutive shipments , with retention of goods. If all five consecutive shipments are below the 
MRL, reduced sampling resumes. If  any shipment exceeds the MRL, then the product is 
rejected (destruction) , SIAR is informed, and another five strict samplings will follow.  If another 
sample exceeds the MRL, SIAR is informed, and a decision on whether to continue to authorize the 
imports is taken.  
Consequences range from suspending the approval of the packing plant for the crop  to 
suspending the approval of the supplier country. " 
4 Resolution DAJ -20133EC -0201.0096.  G/SPS/GEN/1975  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4.  It should be noted  that the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Foods including concessional 
and food aid transactions (CAC/RCP/20 -1979) does not limit rights and obligations under WTO 
Agreements, as set forth in footnote 2 of Article 4.2 of the Code. Moreover, Article 3 of the Code 
does not provide technical grounds for closing the market to grapes a nd onions from Peru, without 
considering the rest of the document 's contents , the provisions of the SPS Agreement, particularly 
Article 5, and even Ecuadorian legislation.5 
5.  It is worth point ing out that the first notification received from the Agency for Phytosanitary and 
Animal Health Regulation and Control (AGROCALIDAD) regarding onions was through an official 
circular dated 25 June 20146, more than seven months after the samples were taken on 1 October 
2013. Moreover, AGROCALIDAD failed to inform Peru whether it was a health alert report or a 
notification and to inform it of the actions taken with the food that had entered Ecuador. The case 
of grapes is similar, insofar as an official circular was sent on 5 June 20157, even though the sample 
was taken on 23 February 2015. Peru repeatedly asked AGROCALIDAD for a response regarding the 
notifications of maximum residue levels being exceeded and the action taken with the product. 
However, no response was received.8 Furthermore, after the market was closed, Ecuador sent 
another two notifications two months later. We therefore consider that the information was not sent 
in a timely manner, as set out in the Guidelines for the Exchange of Information between Countries 
on Rejections of Imported Food9, approved by  the Codex Alimentarius, particularly with regard to 
the identification of the food concerned, the importation details and details of the rejection decision, 
and the measures adopted.  
6.  Similarly, with respect to E cuador's statements at the SPS Committee meeting of 25 and 
26 March 2021, Ecuador confirmed that it requested an action plan, but the resolution in force when 
the market was closed did not establish such a requirement. Furthermore, as there was no action 
plan model, one was repeatedly proposed by Peru, but no response was received until AGROCALIDAD 
Resolution No. 0064 entered into force.  
7.  In this context, the fact that Ecuador claimed that Peru had responded regarding the required 
action plan in June  2018 is  cause for concern, since, as stated above, Peru acceded to the Ecuadorian 
authorities' request in a timely manner, and did not receive a response.10 
8.  Unlike Ecuador's Resolution of 201311, which was notified to this Committee in document 
G/SPS/N/ECU/132, A GROCALIDAD Resolution No. 0064 of 2017 was not notified in accordance with 
Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, despite the fact that this measure establishes additional 
requirements that have an impact on the trade of other Members. Peru therefore regrets that 
Ecuador has not provided a reasonable interval for Members of this Committee to submit their 
comments and to ensure predictability in trade. Moreover, Ecuador has failed to comply with the 
provisions of paragraph 6 of Annex B and Article 7 of the SPS Agreement, as the closure of the 
market should also have been notified to this Committee as an emergency measure, as it was 
provisional.  
9.  In addition, this situation would contravene Article 3 on harmonization of the SPS Agreement, 
since principle 3  on transparency of the Codex's Principles and Guidelines for National Food Control 
Systems12, which states that all aspects of a national food control system should be transparent and 
open to scrutiny by all stakeholders , was not considered . It should be noted that these guidelines 
are also part of the Ecuadorian Code of Practice.13 
 
5 Statement by Ecuador on the Code of Ethics available in paragraph 3.140 of document G/SPS/R/101 
and in Official Circular MPCEIP -VCE-2021-0377-O of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, 
Investment and Fisheries, dated 31 August 2021.  
6 Official Circular MAGAP -DE/AGROCALIDAD -2014-000600 -OF. 
7 Official Circular MAGAP -CIA-AGROCALIDAD -2015-002045 -OF. 
8 Memorandum -0024-2014-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA -SIAG, OFICIO -0095-2014-MINAGRI -SENASA -
DIAIA, OFICIO -0096-2014-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, OFICIO -0079-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, OFICIO -
0149-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, OFICIO -0151-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, OFICIO -0152-2015-
MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA.  
9 CAC/GL 25 -1997.  
10 Official Circular AGR -AGROCALIDAD/DE -2020-001220 -OF. 
11 DAJ-20133EC -0201.0096.  
12 CAC/GL 82 -2013.  
13 CPE INEN -CODEX CAC/GL 82.  G/SPS/GEN/1975  
 
- 3 - 
 
  10.  Furthermore, Peru points out that, in accordance with Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement, sanitary and phytosanitary procedures must be undertaken and completed without  
undue delay, with information being provided to the interested party and with requirements that are 
limited to what is reasonable and necessary. Meetings have been held and communications have 
repeatedly been sent with the corrective measures requested by  Ecuador from August 2014 to date. 
The responses received seem to delay opening longer than is necessary, for example:  
a. Ecuador submitted an unscheduled request for an inspection visit for grapes, which was 
conducted in February 2020, and the inspection rep ort was sent to Peru after seven months;  
b. Ecuador unilaterally changed the action plan proposed by Peru to reopen the market for 
grapes;  
c. It was proposed, without any technical justification and disregarding the fact that, 
historically, trade is conducted by  land, that grapes should enter by ship only via Guayaquil 
seaport ; 
d. The use of refrigerated transport for grape shipments was proposed, despite this bearing no 
relation to the risk of the presence of pesticides ; 
e. Ecuador indicated that it would respond to t he proposed action plan for onions by December 
202014, but no response has been given to date.  
11.  Peru regrets that, despite having fulfilled all the requirements imposed by Ecuador in order to 
re-establish access, the restrictions on access to the Ecuadorian  market for Peruvian grapes and 
onions remain in force, with no technical justification provided, thus violating Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of 
the SPS Agreement.  
12.  The measures applied by Ecuador have caused damage to exports of Peruvian grapes amounting 
to around USD 6.6 million, and USD 500 million for exports of Peruvian onions. It is important to 
underscore that trade in Peruvian grapes with the world totalled USD 1.02 billion in 2020 with an 
average annual growth of 16.27% in the past five years. Trade i n Peruvian onions with the world 
amounts to USD 96 million, with entry to 27 markets at present, and with an average annual growth 
of 7.8% in the past five years.  
13.  Considering that the measures applied by Ecuador are discriminatory and violate Articles  2, 3, 
5, 7 and 8 and Annex es B and C of the SPS Agreement, we request Ecuador to:  
a. avoid proposing measures that violate the provisions of the SPS Agreement and the basic 
principles of the WTO;  
b. ensure that it does not disregard the technical agreements previous ly established;  
c. notify its measure and give the other WTO Members the opportunity to submit comments; 
and 
d. reopen access to the Ecuadorian market for grapes and onions from Peru.  
 
__________  
 
14 Official Circular AGR -AGROCALIDAD/DE2020 -001260 -OF.