RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/30
4 September 2003
(03-4612)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24-25 JUNE 2003
Note by the Secretariat1
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its twenty-
seventh meeting on 24-25 June 2003.  The Chairman of the Committee Mr Paul Martin (Canada)
opened the meeting.  The agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/2119 was adopted with amendments.
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
(a) Information from Members
(i) Activities of Members
Avian influenza situation in the European Communities2. The representative of the European Communities announced that with regard to the avian
influenza epidemic in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands 18 holdings had been infected inBelgium, one in Germany and 255 in the Netherlands.  Eighty-eight people had been infected and one
had died.  Since the beginning of May 2003, no new outbreaks had been recorded and the European
Communities therefore considered the epidemic to be under control.  Accordingly, the Standing
Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health had agreed to re-authorize exports of live poultry
and hatching eggs from Dutch provinces which had not experienced any outbreaks.  For Belgium, the
ban had been lifted, with the established surveillance zones as the only exception.  In Germany, all
safeguard measures had been lifted.
EC import procedures for live animals and animals products
3. The representative of the European Commun ities provided information about the on-line
availability of a manual called "General Guidance to Third Country National Authorities on the
Procedures to be Followed on the Import of Animals and Animal Products from Third Countries".The guidelines were aimed at providing increased transparency and would lead to a facilitation of
export conditions, particularly for developing countries.  Special procedures could,  however, be used
where veterinary agreements existed.
On-line availability of the EC rapid alert system
4. The representative of the European Communities reported that a network of EC authorities
would provide weekly reports concerning potential he alth risks, including information on the type of
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice
to the positions of members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.G/SPS/R/30
Page 2
products involved, what kind of problem had occurr ed and which EC member States were affected.
This process would increase consumer safety and facilitate notifying third countries of the problem.
5. In response to a concern raised by Chile, the representative of the European Communities
stressed that the procedures for collecting information were the same for both domestically produced
products as for imported products, but that the procedures were not the same in all EC member States.He noted that modifications were being prepared to address some weaknesses in the system.
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada
6. The representative of Canada reported that his country had announced a confirmed case of
BSE in a single Canadian cow on 20 May 2003.  The subsequent investigation suggested that it was
an isolated case.  Canada had made the investigation as transparent as possible and had conducted a
trace back to where the cow had been in its life and a trace forward for its offspring, as well as aninvestigation of what feed the cow had been consuming and the feed sources the cow may have been
exposed to during its life.  Over 2000 animal samples had been tested and they were all negative.
Canada was therefore convinced that its food supply remained safe.  An international expert review
team had praised the effectiveness of the investigation and validated Canada's findings.  Canada
hoped to soon identify the source of the BSE.  Th e Office International des Epizooties (OIE) had not
formed a view concerning Canada's BSE-status .  Canada requested Members who had suspended
import of Canadian products in a manner which was not in accordance with OIE guidelines to lift
these measures, and particularly those on low-risk products.
7. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the high level of transparency of
the Canadian investigation.  The European Communities regarded its current measures as adequateand no ban would be imposed on imports from Canada.  The European Communities also offered its
assistance and encouraged the OIE to revise its classification system.
FMD situation in Argentina
8. The representative of Argentina reported that progress had been made since the launch of a
series of vaccination campaigns against foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in 2002.  The fifth campaign
ended on 30 May 2003.  70,000 samples had been taken that confirmed that FMD was clinically
absent in Argentina.  Argentina had presented an annual report to the OIE, with all necessary
information.  The part of the country lying north of the 42
nd parallel had been granted FMD-free status
without vaccination as long as Argentina continued to provide documentation.
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen  and Matsu (Chinese Taipei) FMD-free status
with vaccination
9. The representative of Chinese Taipei indicated that no further cases of FMD had been
reported since 2001, and therefore on 20 May 2003, the OIE had granted Chinese Taipei the status of
FMD-free with vaccination.  Chinese Taipei, however, recognized the need to continue coordinated
efforts in the region to combat FMD.
FMD-free status of the Ch iquitania Region, Bolivia
10. The representative of Bolivia reported that  the OIE recognized the Chiquitania Region as
FMD-free with vaccination during its meeting of May 2003.G/SPS/R/30
Page 3
FMD situation in Peru
11. The representative of Peru stated that his country had been recognised as FMD-free after its
implementation of an eradication plan and a revision of its detection system.  Over 93 per cent of the
area of the country, which contained 83 per cent of the bovine population, was now FMD-free withoutvaccination.
US import requirements for solid wood packing material
12. The representative of the United States indica ted that his country would adopt the standard on
wood packaging approved by the International Pl ant Protection Convention (IPPC).  Accordingly,
wood packing would have to undergo 30 minutes he at treatment at a temperature of at least 56C
(G/SPS/N/USA/705).  Comments on the implementation scheme could be submitted until 21 July2003.  The new requirements would apply to wood packing material in all shipments, including
shipments of non-agricultural products.  The propos al had been developed in close cooperation with
Canada and Mexico, through the North Amer ican Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO).
13. The representative of the European Communities announced that the European Communities
was committed to apply the IPPC standard, which he hoped would facilitate trade.  The representativeof Canada announced that her country would also im plement the IPPC standard as soon as possible.
The date for implementation had been postponed from 1 June 2003 until 2 January 2004, as notified
to the WTO (G/SPS/N/CAN/163).
14. The representative of China indicated that his country would submit comments to the United
States questioning the appropriateness of the chosen requirements because of some technicalproblems.  The representative of Guyana noted that her government was in consultations with the
private sector regarding the implementation of the proposed Canadian measure.
15. In response to a question raised by the representative of Jamaica, the representative of the
IPPC stated that the mark to be put on the wood ma terial after it had been treated had been approved
by the IPPC and would circulated to all IPPC cont act points.  Due to concerns about the phasing out
of methyl bromide as a result of the Montreal Protocol, the standard allowed for other treatments such
as heat treatment.  The IPPC was in the process of considering other alternatives.  Concerning the
standard's significance for combating certain pests,  this issue had been referred to the scientific
committee for a response before the end of the year.
US Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Act ("The Bioterrorism Act")
16. The representative of the United States recalled that, with the exception of farms and
restaurants, the Bioterrorism Act would effect  commercial entities who manufactured, processed,
packed, transported, distributed, received, held or imported foodstuffs.  Four regulations on
registration, prior notice, establishment and maintenance of records, and administrative detention
were about to be finalized.  The closing date for comments on the draft regulations on registration and
prior notice was 4 April 2003.  For the two other draft regulations, the closing date for comments was8 July 2003.
17. The representative of China expressed understanding for the objectives of the Bioterrorism
Act but emphasized that it should not lead to a restriction of trade.  China had already expressed its
concerns in submissions to the US Food and Drug  Administration (FDA) before the April deadline.
However, China had not received a response to its submissions and hoped that its concerns would betaken seriously.  China also submit comments on the two new draft regulations before the deadline.G/SPS/R/30
Page 4
18. The representative of Ecuador expressed concern for the implications of the Bioterrorism Act
on developing countries and its compatibility with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement.  The law
imposed considerable restrictions on trade, and the definition of foodstuff was unclear.  Ecuador also
sought a prolongation of the time-period for registration and notification.  There were furthermore
some exceptional cases, such as air transport, which were not considered in the Bioterrorism Act.
19. The representative of Venezuela stated that the Bioterrorism Act did not provide a solution
for the intended objective, but would rather have adverse effects.  Venezuela called for more flexible
procedures, especially for Latin American countries.
20. The representatives of Peru and of Chile requested the results of any risk assessments that had
been done, and whether the Bioterrorism Act was justified by the risk assessments.  Peru also
expressed concern whether the Bioterrorism Act was compatible with other legislation and if not,
whether it would take precedence.  She also asked who would be economically responsible in case ofadministrative errors.  Concerning the 8 July 2003 deadline for comments, she doubted that this would
allow sufficient time to consult the private sector.
21. The representative of Bolivia expressed great concern about the implications of the
Bioterrorism Act and stated that it would have substantial effects on Bolivia's exports to the United
States.  The representative of Brazil asked how the United States would implement the concept of"credible evidence" in its risk assessment.
22. The representative of the European Communitie s expressed appreciation for the information
received from the United States and indicated that the European Communities had submitted
considerable comments to the Bioterrorism Act itself as well as to the draft regulations.  The
European Communities welcomed the United States commitment to respond to the submissions.  The
European Communities was willing to cooperate closely with the United States on this issue, in order
to minimize the distortive effects on trade.
23. The representative of Mexico stated that his country had already submitted comments on the
draft regulations.  He questioned why the Bioterrorism Act itself was not notified in the SPS or the
TBT Committee, and why the implementing regulati ons were not notified to the TBT Committee.
24. The representative of the United States urged Members who had expressed concerns to
submit their comments before the 8 July 2003 deadline.  He restated the commitment of the United
States to respond to the submissions received and announced that the responses would be provided
when the regulations had been finalized.  One change which had been made as a consequence of the
submissions received before the 4 April 2003 deadline was that the FDA and the Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection would cooperate in a way which would make it possible in most cases to
submit the required information through the alread y existing customs system.  The risk assessments
would be made available when the regulations had been finalized and made public.  The primary
purpose of the Bioterrorism Act was to protect the food supply chain and for that reason it had been
natural for the United States to notify the draft regulations on prior notice, records maintenance and
administrative detention to the SPS Committee.  The draft regulation on registration was, however,
notified to the TBT Committee.  The final regulations would be made public 60 days before theBioterrorism Act entered into force on 12 December 2003.G/SPS/R/30
Page 5
(b) Specific Trade Concerns
(i) New issues
EC restrictions on honey imports
25. The representative of the United States indicated that EC Directive 96-23 required exporting
countries to submit a residue plan and if the residue plan did not contain sufficient guarantees of
compliance with EC residue limits, the country w ould not be authorized to export honey to the
European Communities.  On 22 May 2003, the European Communities had initiated administrative
steps to prohibit imports of honey from the United States.  The United States considered the EC
regime to be far more trade restricted than necessary, especially since the United States had
comprehensive control mechanisms, although it did not have identical rules.  Furthermore, honey wasconsumed in very small quantities and should be considered a "low risk" food.  The existing rules in
the United States were more than adequate to avoid harm to human health.
26. The representatives of China and of Mexico supported the concerns raised by the United
States.
27. The representative of the European Communitie s replied that the European Communities was
a net importer of honey and that the measures were not put in place to protect the domestic market but
to protect consumers.  The request for a residue surveillance plan was a general rule which applied to
all products, and a high level of surveillance was needed for honey because it tended to be consumed
by children.  He noted that the United States had been reminded, in a letter dated February 2003, that
the absence of a residue plan would lead to their removal from the list of countries approved forimport of honey to the European Communities.  The European Communities was, however, willing to
examine any residue plan provided by the United States.
Croatia's import measures on live animals and meat products
28. The representative of Hungary expressed serious  concern with measures taken by Croatia to
ban imports of live animals and meat products.  The ban, which was supposedly to provide protection
against BSE, had entered into force with immediat e effect and was never notified.  The ban, however,
applied to all meat products, including fish and poultry, as well as live animals.  These could only be
imported if the exporting country certified that no animal protein had been used as feed.  Hungary
considered that the ban was a disguised restriction on international trade, in violation of the SPS
Agreement, since there was no scientific justification for the measures and since it did not apply to
domestic producers.  Hungary requested the immediate lifting of the measure.
29. The representative of the European Communities expressed support for Hungary's concerns
and characterized the ban as scientifically unfounded and out of proportion.  The European
Communities had requested information from Croatia, but no reply had been received.  The European
Communities also requested the immediate lifting of the ban.
30. The representative of Croatia expressed regret about the position of Hungary and the
European Communities.  Croatia had imposed the measure in order to keep its present status as a
BSE-free area and in order to protect its exports of meat products.  The measures taken were in
accordance with established international rules and with the measures taken by the European
Communities.  Countries which had provided the necessary information had been exempted from the
ban (e.g., Bulgaria and Romania).  Croatian authorities had undertaken telephone consultations withthe Hungarian authorities and had requested Hungary to submit the necessary information.G/SPS/R/30
Page 6
31. The representative of Hungary took note of Croatia's statement but indicated that bilateral
contacts did not replace a notification.
EC maximum levels for aflatoxins in maize
32. The representative of Argentina reported that consultations between his authorities and the
European Communities had taken place on 2 July 2003 concerning EC Regulation 257/0,2 which
imposed new maximum levels for aflatoxins in maiz e.  Argentina considered the new measures to be
scientifically unfounded and requested the European Communities to consider less trade restrictive
measures and the possibility of special and differential treatment.  Argentina also requested that the
existing level to be maintained until scientific evidence had been provided.
33. The representative of the European Communities noted that there were considerable health
problems with aflatoxins and that it was difficult to establish an appropriate limit.  The new regulationwould be notified to the Committee before it was applied and interested trading partners would
therefore get the possibility to present their concerns and objections.  In reply to a question from
Egypt, he clarified that the new measure would apply only to maize.
Japan's restrictions on  imports of mangoes
34. The representative of Brazil indicated that Brazil had been seeking approval to export
mangoes to Japan for 18 years.  Japan demanded steam treatment in spite of the satisfactory level of
the measures taken by Brazil, Chile and other potential exporters to avoid fruit fly.  Japan had,
furthermore, continuously demanded more information and had not taken previous scientific studies
into account.  Although Japan had offered technical assistance, this had not facilitated the process.Brazil considered that Japan's measures were inconsistent with the provisions of the SPS Agreement
on equivalence, regionalization and technical cooperation.
35. The representative of Japan stated that Brazil had requested technical assistance in 1986 in
order to fulfil Japan's requirements.  However, Brazil had stopped the technical assistance in 1990
because it wished to develop its own technique based on hot-water treatment.  This design waslaunched in 1998.  Both countries agreed on this and the final data were submitted in 2001.
Supplementary information was needed, however, before Japan could approve the measures and the
necessary technical studies could be concluded quickly if the data were available.
(ii) Issues previously raised
Venezuela's restrictions on import of potatoes, garlic and onions
36. The representative of Argentina recalled that at the last meeting, he had informed Members
that Venezuela had carried out a mission to Argentina.  Argentina still had not received the final
rapport and urged Venezuela to inform Argentina about the results of the visit so that trade could be
initiated.
37. The representative of the United States shared Argentina's concerns that Venezuela required
sanitary import permits without any scientific just ification or risk assessment.  Consultations on
Venezuela's import licence measures had been held on 26 November 2002, in the context of
Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement.  The  United States had now received a reply on its concerns from
Venezuela.  The representative of Canada associated her country with the concerns raised by the
United States.  The problems concerning delays or denial of import permits did not have anylegitimate justification.G/SPS/R/30
Page 7
38. The representative of Venezuela explained that the situation concerning Argentina differed
from that concerning the United States and Canada.  The United States had sent a questionnaire
regarding its concerns to Venezuela, and he suggested that Canada do the same.  With respect to
Argentina, the representative of Venezuela stated that imports from Argentina were not prohibited but
subject to certain requirements.  Venezuela was free of the diseases which had occurred in Argentinain 1997, and the entry of these diseases would result in serious economic injury to Venezuela.
Venezuela had, furthermore, undertaken a risk assessment which provided the necessary
justifications.  The results of this assessment would be communicated to the Argentine health services
as a part of the mutually agreed work plan.
China's restrictions on products of EC origin
39. The representative of the European Communities provided information on a number of
restrictions which he had raised at previous meetings.  The Chinese embargo on products from the
Netherlands had been lifted, and the European Communities believed this issue was now resolved.
China had also notified its Decree 31 on aquatic products, and had provided a comment period.  The
European Communities had also been actively trying to establish the exact content of the Chinese
requirements for obtaining import certifications for animal products – a requirement related to FMDand BSE.  China also required monitoring of residues and copies of reports.  Regarding wood packing
material, the European Communities had now adopted the IPPC standard and China had promised to
do the same.  On cosmetics, China had presented a list of prohibited products and that was considered
a progress by the European Communities.  The European Communities, however, emphasized that the
new rules would have to be made part of the legislation.  Furthermore, China had decided to ban allimports of poultry from Germany even though only one case of avian influenza was reported in
Germany.  This was not in accordance with the measures recommended by the OIE against avian
influenza.  A joint European Communities – China technical working group had been established, and
the European Communities expected good results from the group.
40. The representative of China reaffirmed that the ban on Dutch products had been lifted after an
inspection visit and the conclusion of a risk assessment.  Concerning UK meat products, China was
considering bilateral meetings with UK officials.  China had earlier commented regard wood packing
materials, and was committed to follow the IPPC standard if this standard were finally approved.
Regarding cosmetics, China was willing to review its regulations and welcomed continued dialogue.
On the avian influenza issue, China was awaiting a revised position by the OIE.
41. The representative of the OIE indicated that the current code contained recommendations for
import restrictions relating to avian influenza, but this chapter was under revision.  The reviseddocument would address all types of avian influenza and infections, on the basis of experience.
Mexico's restrictions on Austrian products
42. The representative of the European Communitie s referred to the Mexican ban on Austrian
products due to FMD.  Austria was recognized as FMD free and no outbreaks had been reported since1981.  Bilateral consultations had been made and both parties had agreed that accelerated dialogue
was necessary.  The representative of Mexico confirmed that his country had been able to identify the
problems and expected that the issue would soon be resolved.
Indonesia's restrictions on imports of dairy products because of FMD
43. The representative of Argentina recalled that he had raised a question on Indonesia's
restrictions on Argentine dairy products at the last meeting, and reported that good progress had been
made toward the resolution of the problem.  The representative of Indonesia confirmed that the
bilateral consultations had led to an agreement to send Indonesian inspectors to Argentina.G/SPS/R/30
Page 8
Colombia's restrictions on imports of bovine meat because of FMD
44. The representative of Argentina reported that progress had been made and that inspections of
Argentine meat plants by Colombian officials were being planned.  The representative of Colombia
noted that once the necessary information was provided by Argentina, his authorities would carry outthe necessary missions.  The good progress in the case of bovine exports from Argentina to Colombia
was similar to the progress made on the issue of flower exports from Colombia to Argentina.
Trinidad and Tobago's restriction on imports of pork sausages and other pork products
45. The representative of Argentina indicated that her authorities had provided to Trinidad and
Tobago the information agreed upon after the last Committee meeting.  CARICOM had committed
itself to send a technical mission to Argentina with the aim of accepting Argentine exports.
46. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago noted that following consideration of the
information submitted by Argentina, CARICOM had decided to send a risk assessment mission to
Argentina.  Argentina had accepted this proposal and the mission was expected to take place within
the next two months.
EC regulation on animal by-products
47. The representative of China stated that China had submitted comments on a new EC
regulation on animal by-products, but had not received any reply from the European Communities.
He observed that China had not had the possibility to comment on the EC regulation when it was first
notified, since China had not been a Member of the WTO in 2002.  He also noted that most Chineseexporters were small and medium enterprises, and that they would need a transitional period of two
years to adjust to the new EC regulation.
48. The representative of the United States said that the concerns he had raised at the last SPS-
Committee meeting regarding the EC regulation were still valid.
49. The representative of the European Communities reported that this issue had been discussed
by the EC Trade Commissioner in China.  He confirmed that the comments made by China would be
carefully examined and that China would receive a response.  The European Communities would take
a flexible view on transitional measures for third countries.
Australia's restrictions on durian imports
50. The representative of Thailand recalled that he had raised the issue of Australian restrictions
on durian fruit for the first time in 2000.  Thailand was concerned with Australia's use of destructivesampling methods, notified in G/SPS/N/AUS/83, and believed that there were other ways to meet
Australia's appropriate level of protection.  Thailand furthermore believed that the Australian
requirements were not consistent with the obligations of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.  The
representative of the Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, expressed support for the statement
made by Thailand.
51. The representative of Australia replied that Australia had stipulated the feasibility of using
internationally accepted measures in the final import risk analysis  Destructive fruit cutting was one
such internationally accepted phytosanitary measure which was used by many countries.  Australia
had already indicated that it was prepared to consider alternative ways to address the quarantine risks
associated with Thai durian fruit.G/SPS/R/30
Page 9
Australia's restrictions on prawn imports
52. The representative of Thailand noted that the issue of Australia's import restriction on prawn
products had been raised for the first time in March 2001.  The interim measure was still in place and
it appeared unlikely that the import risk analysis would be concluded within a short period of time.Thailand appreciated the bilateral efforts to improve trading conditions, but urged that the interim
measure be lifted.  The representative of the Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, supported for
the statement made by Thailand.  The representative of the European Communities indicated that his
authorities also shared the concerns presented by Thailand.
53. The representative of Australia reported that her country was making good progress in its
import risk analysis, and a revised draft report was underway.  The analysis had been very complex
and had been characterized by a lack of information, since Thailand had failed to provide newinformation on white spot syndrome virus.  The interim measures had been necessary to protect
Australia and was only targeted at uncooked prawns.
Australia's restrictions on infectious bursal disease (IBD) in chicken products
54. The representative of Thailand recalled that the issue of Australian import restrictions on
chicken meat had been raised the first time in September 1998.  Thailand had submitted scientific
information to Australia, but this had not resulted in any apparent progress, and Thailand requested
Australia to lift the requirements of heat treatment for IBD virus.
55. The representative of Australia noted that cooked chicken meat from Thailand was allowed
into Australia if requirements were fulfilled.  She maintained that Australia's measures wereappropriate and in accordance with scientific findings.
56. The representative of the OIE indicated that they had considered the issue in January 2002
and that OIE had requested more and new scientific information, but no new information had yet been
submitted to OIE.
Japan's restrictions on importation of sugar cane top because of FMD
57. The representative of Indonesia complained that Japan continued to ban imports of sugar cane
top from Indonesia, and the Indonesian industry ha d collapsed because of the ban.  Japan had not
acknowledged that Indonesia was free from FMD, despite the fact that Indonesia's FMD-free status
had been regularly confirmed by the OIE.   A lthough Indonesia welcomed further Japanese missions
to Indonesia, Japan needed to specify more clearly the issues of their concern.
58. The representative of Japan replied that technical consultations had been held and that more
experts had been dispatched in June 2002 in order to provide Japan with additional scientific
information.  Further scientific assessments woul d now be carried out.  Japan looked forward to
continued consultations.
China's certification requirements for aquatic products
59. The representative of the United States stated th at China had failed to notify its certification
requirements for aquatic products entering into China.  He expressed serious concerns about the
consequences of the 30 June 2003 entry into force of the proposed certification, and requested China
to postpone further action until the measure had been notified to the WTO and a 60-day comment
period had been provided.  US authorities were not aware of any scientific rationale for the measures.The United States had presented its concerns to the Chinese authorities but had not received a reply.G/SPS/R/30
Page 10
60. The representative of China replied that the measures would unify the content and format of
existing certificates.  His authorities had decided to notify the measures and to provide a 60-day
comment period.  China did not believe that this measure would pose difficulties for US exports after
1 July 2003.
Japan's official control restrictions
61. The representative of New Zealand recalled that her country had expressed considerable
concern with Japan's current "Official Control Restrictions" on plant products, and was pleased to
learn that Japan was reviewing its system in order to change it.  The representative of the European
Communities observed that they had raised similar concerns and hoped that Japan would continue to
address these concerns.
62. The representative of the United States indicated that he had been raising similar concerns
since 1998.  The United States was very disappointed with the discriminatory character of the
measures and with Japan's failure to notify its internal regulation, as well as with the general lack of
transparency in the Japanese system.  The representative of Australia described the measures as being
unjustified and unnecessary and expressed support for the statements made by other Members.
63. The representative of Japan replied that bilateral consultations had been conducted and that a
meeting group had been established and had held its first meeting.  Further examination would,
however, be necessary before conclusions could be drawn.
Australia's draft import policy for truss tomatoes from the Netherlands
64. The representative of Australia reported that the draft import policy for truss tomatoes from
the Netherlands had been issued a few weeks previously and the documents were now publicly
available.  She noted that this was a draft measure and that Australia had a responsibility to allow
stakeholders to comment.  A response to the Netherlands request for market access would follow
soon.
65. The representative of the European Communities expressed disappointment with the
information provided by Australia, since the draft policy was still open for comments from
stakeholders and therefore far from being finalized.  The representative of the Philippines, speaking
also on behalf of Indonesia and Thailand, supported the views of the European Communities.
EC aflatoxin levels for Brazil nuts
66. The representative of Bolivia informed Members that a bilateral meeting had been held
regarding EC aflatoxin levels for Brazil nuts.  Th e meeting had resulted in a favourable outcome and
Bolivia should soon receive the required permission.  The representative of the European
Communities indicated that the procedures for technical assistance were now in place, and he
therefore hoped that the issue soon could be regarded as solved.
Turkey's ban on Hungarian live cattle and beef
67. The representative of Turkey said that cattle and beef imports from some EC member States
and from Hungary had been temporarily suspended since cattle from these countries had not been
vaccinated or achieved immunity against FMD and rinderpest, which existed in Turkey at that time.
In the light of new assessments, the ban had been lifted in 1999.  However, due to BSE concerns, the
import of livestock had again been partly banned.G/SPS/R/30
Page 11
(c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received
G/SPS/N/EEC/190 - EC notification on live animals and animal products
68. The representative of Australia stated that the notified measure would affect  Australia's alpaca
exports to EC member States.  Australia had been free from blue tongue for more than a decade, as
was recognized by many countries including the United States, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and
Japan.  Australia had submitted scientific evidence to the European Communities on several
occasions, and requested an update on this issue.
69. The representative of the European Communities clarified that the new notification was not
due to a new regulation but merely a result of a simplification exercise, and Australia was not dealt
with in this consolidation.  He confirmed that the European Communities had received the Australian
requests and would respond directly.
G/SPS/N/EEC/198 -  EC notification on animal health conditions and certification requirements for
live fish
70. The representative of Australia indicated that this new measure could affect Australian carp
exports to EC member States.  The United Kingdom had rejected live fish from Australia due toconcerns about the existence of an unknown carrier state.  Australia had suggested prior disinfection
as a possible solution and had, furthermore, requested the risk assessment on which the measure was
based, but this had not been provided.  The representative of Australia noted that this requirement was
not in line with OIE standards.
71. The representative of the European Communities replied that the time period for replying to
comments had not yet been reached.  The European Communities believed that the measures could be
considered standard measures and that no risk assessment was necessary.  However, EC authorities
were ready to discuss this issue bilate rally with interested trading partners.
G/SPS/N/JPN/9 - Japan's notification on uses of living modified organisms and  G/SPS/N/KOR/49 -
Korea's notification on transboundary movement of living modified organisms
72. The representative of Australia indicated that Japan's notification regarding its proposed draft
law on the conservation and sustainable use of living modified organisms and Korea's notification on
the transboundary movement of living modified organisms raised a number of concerns.  Australia
was a major grain exporter and was especially interested in the documents which should accompany
shipments.  Although Korea had responded to Australia's query, no answer had yet been received
from Japan.  The representative of the United States said his country was also concerned with howJapan and Korea intended to implement the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and in particular the
documentation requirements.
73. The representative of Japan replied that Japan had ratified the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol
on 10 June 2003, and its measures were consistent with agreement.  Japan would shortly provide
responses to the questions it had received from Australia.
74. The representative of Korea stated that Korea was acting in line with the transparency
requirements and they would continue to do so.
G/SPS/N/EEC/196 - EC notification on maximum residue levels in plant and animal products
75. The representative of China indicated that his country was highly concerned with the
approach taken by the European Communities on maximum residue levels in plant and animalG/SPS/R/30
Page 12
products, and had consequently submitted comments on the notification.  His country did not believe
the new rules where in compliance with the SPS Agreement and requested information on the risk
assessment undertaken by the European Communities.
76. The representative of Brazil noted that his country had previously raised similar concerns and
arguments.  Brazil requested a three-year postponement of the measure.  The representative of Chileexpressed support for the position taken by China and Brazil and also requested information on the
risk analysis and the scientific basis for the maximum residue levels.  He also queried whether, for
those pesticides where there was no scientific evidence, a precautionary approach would be used.
77. The representative of the European Communities replied that the draft rule replaced and
simplified four existing directives.  The new rule was scheduled to enter into force on 1 January 2005
and would lead to an harmonization of maximum residue levels in the Community.  He noted that the
transitional process would be very long and that additional comments could still be made.  TheEuropean Communities had identified 325 active substances needing re-examination.  The objective
was to examine these 325 substances in order to update the available information and to set maximum
residue level limits since zero level was difficult to achieve.  The new rule would not lead to a
withdrawal of given authorizations except within the Community territory.  Imports from third
countries would not be automatically banned, but could be accepted on the basis of maximum residuelimits when it could be shown that these limits were sufficient to protect health.  The European
Communities had a positive list of products for which the industry had to provide information
concerning animal, plant and human health.  Members and the Codex Alimentarius were invited to
submit comments on which levels of residues might be considered as acceptable.
(d) Any Other Matters Related to the Operation of the Transparency Provisions
78. The Chairman reported that at the informal meeting on transparency, Members had discussed
China's analysis of SPS notifications in 2002 (G/SPS/GEN/378) and its proposal for amending the
SPS notification procedures (G/SPS/W/131 and Corr.1).  The representative of China had indicated
that many developing countries had major problems in dealing with the flood of notificationssubmitted by their trade partners, thus losing the opportunity to comment on the notifications within
the allowed 60-day time period.  China recalled that their analysis indicated that the comment periods
for most of the notifications were less than 60 days.  Their proposal to have the 60-day comment
period commence from the date of circulation of a notification by the Secretariat would allow for an
effective implementation of paragraph 8 of the Recommended Transparency Procedures
(G/SPS/7/Rev. 2).
79. The representative of Mexico had indicated that it had also undertaken an analysis of the
transparency obligations under the Agreement.  Mexico noted that even when a comment period was
allowed, Members were often unable to benefit from their rights under the transparency obligations,
including:  (i) their right to submit the relevant co mments;  (ii)  that the comments be discussed and
taken into consideration, and (iii) that the relevant modifications to the proposed regulation be made.
Mexico had proposed to continue discussing possible modifications to the recommended transparencyprocedures and suggested that the evidence from thei r analysis be taken into consideration in these
discussions.
80. A number of Members had indicated that China's proposal would be difficult to implement in
practice because of their domestic regulatory procedures.  The United States and Australia needed to
specify the date of the comment period according to their procedures.  In the United States, commentsmade before or after the specified comment period could not be taken into consideration; however, the
United States had the flexibility to increase the comment period , for example to 65 days from the date
of notification.G/SPS/R/30
Page 13
81. The representative of New Zealand had consider ed that it would not be appropriate for the
Secretariat to determine when the comment period begins or ends, as this was a sovereign right of
Members.  The representative of Japan had suggested that it was inappropriate to consider China's
proposal given that the date of circulation of the notification was not a predictable one.  The
representative of Canada had indicated that their domestic regulatory procedures required a pre-publication and comment period of 75 days which provided the time necessary to submit the
notification to the WTO, and that they were not in a position to support the Chinese proposal.
82. Several Members supported the idea of guaranteeing an effective implementation of the 60-
day comment period as proposed by China.  The representatives of Argentina and Chile had noted that
there were other problems with the recommended notification procedures that needed to be further
discussed including:  (i) procedures to be followed in the case of trade facilitating regulations; (ii) the
provision of clear explanations on the deviation from international standards;  and (iii) the lack ofclarity with respect to the competent standard-setting organizations.
83. The representative of China had also drawn attention to the problems they encountered from
having to translate the proposed regulations and suggested that Members notify the proposed draft
regulation along with the notification to the Secretariat.  The representative of the European
Communities had observed that the translation issue was a recurrent problem and that they could offertext in the three official WTO languages but not in Chinese.  The Secretariat had noted that this
suggestion by China would put an unmanageable translation burden on the Secretariat of what were
only draft regulations and not final texts.  The Secretariat recalled that when the Committee  revised
its recommended notification procedures it urged Members possessing an "unofficial" translation to
share it with other Members that might be interested.  It might be useful to discuss how to create amechanism to facilitate a Member making an "unofficial" translation of a proposed regulation
available to other interested Members.
84. At the informal meeting, the Secretariat had indicated that one important step to reduce delays
in the circulation of notifications was to ensure that Members' notification authorities followed the
Transparency Handbook.  Often the Secretariat received notifications containing incomplete orinaccurate information, i.e., regarding the indication of  existence of international standards.
Regarding notifications of trade liberalizing measures, the recommended procedures indicated that the
comment period may be reduced or eliminated.  Furthermore, the Secretariat had noted that it had
been about five years since the Committee had last held a special meeting on the operation of national
enquiry points.  The TBT Committee held these regularly every three years.  The Committee might
consider holding such a special meeting at the time of the next regular meeting of the SPS Committee
for Members to provide information on how they managed the screening of notifications, thesolicitation of information from their exporters, and the submission of comments to importing
Members.  It might be possible to identify some best practices in this regard to assist Members in
reinforcing the functioning of their enquiry points.
85. In discussions of the Chairman's report on the informal meeting, the representative of
Malaysia suggested that the 60-day comment period could begin one week after the notification hadbeen submitted to the Secretariat, in order to give  the Secretariat time to prepare the document without
reducing the actual comment period.  Notifying Members should made texts of relevant documents
available on their websites.  Unofficial translations should also be made available on the website.
86. The representative of Canada clarified that Canada provided a 75-day pre-publication period
to receive comments, after which time comments were taken into consideration.
87. The representatives of Mexico and Egypt indicated that China's paper raised important issues,
and suggested that the Committee continue to pursue this matter.  They also found the proposal from
Malaysia to merit further consideration.  The representative of Antigua and Barbuda stated that theG/SPS/R/30
Page 14
Chinese paper was useful since it addressed many problems which smaller developing countries with
scarce resources were facing.  The representative of China noted that, as a new Member, they had
special difficulties to comply with the existing system and that an extension of the comment period
would be very helpful in this respect.
88. Several Members, including China, Mexico and Chile, supported the suggestion of holding a
special meeting on enquiry points.  Concerning the proposal to make draft regulations available on the
website, the representative of Chile suggested that this could be initiated by the Secretariat.
89. The Committee requested the Secretariat to organize a special meeting on transparency for
national enquiry points in conjunction with the next regular meeting of the Committee.
III. THE SPS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
(a) Implementation of the Provisions for Special and Differential Treatment
Chairman's report on the informal meeting
90. The Chairman reported that three issues had been discussed during the informal meeting on
23 June:  (i) the Canadian proposal on enhancing transparency on the basis of further elaboration
suggested by the Secretariat;  (ii) other proposals and suggestions which had been raised in the
Committee;  and (iii) specific proposals referred to the SPS Committee by the Chairman of theGeneral Council.
91. First, the Committee had considered document G/SPS/W/132 which was a further elaboration
of the Canadian proposal (G/SPS/W/127) for enhancing the transparency of special and differential
treatment (S&D) within the SPS Agreement.  As the Committee had already adopted the Canadian
proposal in principle, the discussion mainly focuse d on some specific amendments to the elaboration
of the proposal.  A number of delegations had suggest ed that the Elaboration, particularly in Step 5,
should specify that the "notifying Member" referred to a developed Member and the "exporting
Member" to a developing Member.  However, other delegations were of the view that the delineation
as it stood was appropriate and recognized that developing countries should offer special and
differential treatment to each other.  It was also suggested that Step 6 include a broader reference topossible solutions to concerns raised by the exporting Member, and in particular to technical
assistance.
92. Some delegations had also expressed concern that the exporting Member might realize
difficulties with a measure only after its entry into force.  Therefore, they had emphasized the
importance of  the applicability of the elaborated steps after the end of the comment period and even
after a measure entered into force.  A number of delegations had also underlined the importance of
having well-functioning enquiry points to be able to identify potential difficulties with notifiedmeasures.
93. The Committee had asked the Secretariat to revise the elaboration of the Canadian proposal
for further consideration during its regular meeting.
94. With regard to other proposals and suggestions related to implementation difficulties and
special and differential treatment, Egypt had reiterated its proposal for a "pre-notification" mechanismaccording to which developed countries would give advance notice of a draft notification, following
which consultations could be held with interested developed countries.  Egypt had noted that this
would be in line with the suggestions to exte nd the comment period following a notification.G/SPS/R/30
Page 15
95. In considering the specific proposals relating to special and differential treatment referred to
the SPS Committee by the Chairman of the General Council (Job(03)100), the Committee had first
discussed the work plan proposed by the Chairman in document G/SPS/W/135.  Several delegations
had suggested that the work programme be finalized by the end of the year, instead of being carried
over to 2004, considering that the proposals were already familiar to Members from earlierdiscussions.  The Committee had informally agreed to consider a revised work plan with a view to
adopting it during its regular meeting.
96. The specific proposals, which were presented in the Attachment to the proposed work plan,
had been considered under three groupings: those relating to technical assistance (proposals A-E), to
Article 10.1 (proposals F-H) and to Article 10.4 (I-K ).  India, on behalf of a group of developing
countries, had introduced proposals A, F, and K, which had the objective of making the S&D
provisions more operational and of helping developing countries comply with importing countries'SPS measures.  The representative of the European Communities had stated that their comments to
the General Council in November 2002 regarding these proposals remained valid and he had also
indicated the European Communities' readiness to accept Proposal F despite some reservations.  A
number of delegations had stressed that legitimate SPS measures necessary for health protection
should not be withdrawn simply because they might be difficult for some trading partners to meet.
97. While recognizing the importance of needs-based technical assistance, some delegations had
disagreed with the suggested language to make technical assistance mandatory.  In addition, a number
of delegations had suggested that S&D and technical assistance could be provided by some
developing countries to other developing countries.  One delegation was concerned that the provision
of S&D might result in discrimination among developing countries.
98. Members had been asked to submit their comments on these proposals as well as other S&D
proposals under consideration by the Committee to the Secretariat, in writing, before the end of
September 2003.  The Chairman requested, in particular, suggestions on how to address differences in
views on the various proposals.  The written comments would be considered by the Committee at an
informal meeting.
Further consideration of the proposed elaboration of Canada's proposal
99. On the basis of comments and suggestions made  during the informal meeting, the Secretariat
prepared a revision of the proposed elaboration of Canada's proposal, which was further discussed by
the Committee at its regular session.
100. In commenting on the revised proposal, the representative of Malaysia stressed that S&D
should not replace a full implementation of obligations under Article 10, according to which the
special needs of developing countries should be taken into account during the preparation of SPSmeasures, as well as during their application.  If Article 10 were fully respected, and information on
S&D provided ex ante, developing countries would have less need to subsequently seek S&D.  She
suggested that the elaboration of the Canadian pr oposal should therefore indicate that the adoption of
the notification procedure on transparency of S&D measures was without prejudice to the overall
rights and obligations in Article 10 of the SPS Agreement.
101. The representative of Egypt believed that Canada's proposal should only be considered as a
one small step and that the proposal should not contradict the obligation of taking the special needs of
developing countries into account.  He and the representative of India supported Malaysia concerning
Article 10 of the SPS Agreement.
102. The representative of Canada indicated that her country could agree to the revised proposal if
the inconsistency with Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement were removed.  Article 10.1 stated thatG/SPS/R/30
Page 16
Members should take account of the special needs of developing and least-developed country
Members.  This obligation applied to all Members and not only to developed country Members.  The
revised proposal placed this responsibility only on importing developed countries and was thus
inconsistent and unacceptable.  The representatives of the European Communities and the United
States expressed support for the position taken by Canada, although the representative of the UnitedStates, supported by Japan, suggested that the Committee revert to this matter at its next meeting.  The
representatives of Guyana and of Antigua and Barbuda also supported the position of Canada,
indicating that a growing volume of trade was between developing countries, and these should also be
giving assistance to each other.
103. The representatives of Indonesia, Pakistan and Colombia expressed support for the Malaysia's
suggestions.  The representative of Pakistan indicated that he could accept the revised proposal but
could not accept Canada's modification without consultation with his capital.  The representatives ofIndia and Mexico stated that they would need to consult with their authorities regarding the
modification proposed by Canada.  The representative of Colombia sought clarification whether under
the Canadian proposal on S&D would be extended to third countries or solely provided to the
Members involved in a given consultation.
104. The representatives of Brazil, Uruguay, Arge ntina, Honduras and Jamaica expressed concern
that the Committee would not reach agreement on the elaboration of the Canadian proposal, although
the proposal itself had already been accepted in principle by the Committee.  The representative of
Uruguay suggested that the title of the revised proposal be amended so as to specify that it addressed
S&D in favour of developing countries.  The representative of Argentina noted that the original
proposal from Egypt was rather ambitious, and that Canada's proposal could be considered as apractical first step in ensuring transparency of S&D.
105. The representative of Egypt stated they would like the proposal to be adopted during the
ongoing meeting and could support Uruguay's proposal to modify the title.  Egypt could also accept
that reference to only developed countries providing S&D be removed, if a footnote could be added
which indicated that some developing countries might not be able to notify the granting of S&D.
106. The Chairman proposed that the Committee adopt, on an ad referendum basis, the draft
elaboration with the deletion of the qualifier of the Member providing S&D, but with inclusion of a
clarification in the title that S&D was to be provided in favour of developing countries.  He further
proposed the inclusion of text regarding the rights and obligations under Article 10, and indication in
a footnote that some developing country Members might face difficulties in reporting on their
provision of S&D (G/SPS/W/132/Rev.1).  The representatives of Malaysia and of the United States
indicated that they could not accept the suggested procedure at this time, and requested that the
Committee revert to this item at its next meeting.
(b) Issues Referred by the General Council
107. The Committee adopted the proposed work plan for the consideration of the proposals on
S&D which had been referred to it by the General Council, with modifications resulting from the
discussions held in the informal meeting.  The agreed work plan was subsequently circulated asG/SPS/26.
108. The representative of Malaysia expressed regret that the Committee would not be able to hold
further consultations on S&D prior to the Cancun Ministerial Conference.  The Chairman indicated
his intention to submit a brief report to the General Council about the activities of the Committee and
provided Members the opportunity to submit comment s on his draft report to the Secretariat.  The
report of the Chairman was subsequently circulated as G/SPS/27 and Corr.1.G/SPS/R/30
Page 17
IV. EQUIVALENCE (G/SPS/19 AND ADD.1, G/SPS/20)
(a) Report of Informal Meeting on Equivalence
109. The Chairman reported that since the last regular meeting of the Committee, two informal
meetings on equivalence had been held, the first on 23 May and the second on 23 June 2003.  The
Committee had concentrated its informal discussions at both meetings on a clarifying text forparagraph 7, and on further clarification of paragraph 5.
110. Based on comments received at the last regular meeting of the Committee in April, the
Secretariat had revised the proposed clarification of paragraph 7 (G/SPS/W/128) for the May meeting,
and again for this meeting.  At the informal m eeting held in May, there had been a suggestion to
include a reference to a second Codex document in paragraph 9(b), the Codex Guidelines for the
Development of Equivalence Agreements Regarding Food Import and Export Certification Systems.
There had been some discussion whether the Codex Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence ofSanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems were relevant only to
food safety, or whether they were also relevant for animal and plant health.  Some Members had
suggested redrafting the second sentence of paragraph 9(b) accordingly.  In May, the Committee had
also debated whether paragraph 9(d) should be reph rased to ensure that where the exporting Member's
measure achieved the same level of protection as the importing Member's measure, it should berecognized as equivalent, regardless of whether it met the importing Member's ALOP.  Other
Members had suggested that the difference in levels of protection should be resolved independently of
the equivalence procedure.
111. The Chairman further reported that at the informal meeting on 23 June, the Committee had
discussed the second revision of the Secretariat paper (G/SPS/W/128/Rev.2).  Starting withrecommendation 9(b), some Members had felt strongly that the Codex approach of establishing an
objective basis for comparison should not be generalized to cover also animal and plant health, to
respect the mandates and independence of the three standard-setting organizations.  Other Members
had held the opposite view, insisting that they considered it useful to generalize the Codex approach.
The OIE representative had indicated that the OIE guidelines, while not using the same terms,contained a very similar approach regarding comparison of measures.  One Member had suggested
that using more neutral wording might facilitate consensus on the issue.
112. Regarding paragraph 9(d), Argentina had suggested adding a sentence to ensure that if the
objective basis for comparison demonstrated that the exporting Member's measure had the same effect
as the importing Member's measure, the importing Member should recognize both measures as
equivalent.  Argentina explained that this was to avoid problems in cases where the importing
Member had not stated its ALOP, or had not stated it clearly.  Other Members had indicated that theypreferred to keep the paragraph as it was in the Secretariat paper.  One Member had expressed
concern that paragraph 9(d) addressed an issue related more to discrimination than to equivalence.
113. The Secretariat had been requested to revise the proposed clarification for consideration at the
regular meeting.
114. Regarding paragraph 5 on historically traded products, Argentina had submitted a new
proposal concerning additional clarification, wh ich was circulated as G/SPS/W/123/Add.1.  This
proposal contains guidelines for accelerated procedures for products historically traded.  At the May
meeting, some Members had supported the Argentine proposal, while others expressed doubt whether
a timetable for the determination of equivalence could be set at the beginning of the process.  Others
highlighted practical problems that might be associated with the proposal, for example with the needto categorize countries depending on the level of historical trade that had taken place.  Still others hadG/SPS/R/30
Page 18
expressed the view that the three standard-setting organizations were the appropriate fora to develop
detailed procedures for equivalence, not the SPS Committee.
115. Prior to the June informal meeting of the Committee, the European Communities had
provided comments on Argentina's proposal including drafting suggestions to clarify the types of
information that were necessary to allow an acceler ation of the equivalence procedure, and to ensure
that the guidelines referred only to the specific situation of historically traded products (Job(03)110).
Chinese Taipei had also provided specific comments on the guidelines proposed by Argentina,
addressing the right of the importing country to seek information (Job(03)114).  One Member had
suggested that the acceleration of the equivalence pr ocedure depended not only on the level of historic
trade, but also on the importance of the differences between the exporting and importing Members'
measures.  If such a difference was small, the procedure should normally be easier to accelerate.
116. At the informal meeting, there had been disc ussion of the EC suggestions on paragraph 8(a)
of the Argentine draft guidelines.  One Member had been concerned that information about the
inspection and certification systems of the exporting country was only necessary with respect to the
product at hand, not all products, to allow the equivalence determination to be accelerated.  This
Member had also expressed concern that a histor y of rejected products should not necessarily
preclude an accelerated equivalence procedure.  Another Member had expressed concern thatinformation about the exporting country's system might not be considered sufficient in cases where
the exporter was a developing country Member.  The European Communities had explained that in
practice it had such information about many developing country exporters from whom it imported.
117. Several exporting Members had insisted that it would be extremely useful to agree on a
sequence of steps and estimated timeframes for the procedure to be followed.  This would allow theexporting country to evaluate the costs of the equivalence procedure and whether it was worth
pursuing.  Chinese Taipei, supported by several other Members, had indicated that it would be very
difficult to establish a detailed time schedule for the equivalence determination process, since the
schedule of such a procedure depended in part on the timeliness and quality of information provided
by the exporting country.  One Member had expressed concern that some Members might experiencedifficulties in providing the information required according to a strict timetable.  The representative of
Argentina had offered to revise its proposal in light of the comments received.
(b) Consideration of Specific Provisions of the Decision on Equivalence:  Paragraphs 5 and 7
118. At the regular meeting, a number of delegations made further specific suggestions for
modifying the proposed clarification of paragraph 7 of the Decision on Equivalence.  These suggested
inclusion of more information regarding the recently adopted OIE guidelines for equivalence,
clarification of references to the objective basis for comparison as used by Codex or similar approachestablished by the other relevant international organization;  and specification that if the exporting
Member demonstrated by way of an objective basis for comparison or similar approach established by
a relevant international organization that its measures achieved the same objective as the importing
Members measure, the importing Member should recognize the measures as equivalent.
119. The representative of Argentina stressed the importance of the Committee reaching agreement
on a clarification of its decision on equivalence.  The Committee had already agreed on a clarification
on Paragraph 6 of the Decision on Equivalence and a partial clarification of Paragraph 5.  Without
agreed clarification of Paragraph 7, Argentina considered that the most important problem with the
implementation of Article 4 could not be solved.  This meant that it was impossible to implement
Article 4.  Argentina considered it necessary that the SPS Committee develop a generalrecommendation to the international standard-setting bodies, so that they could incorporate anG/SPS/R/30
Page 19
objective basis for comparison or similar approach into their guidelines for the recognition of
equivalence.
120. The Committee adopted the proposed clarification of Paragraph 7 on an ad referendum basis
(G/SPS/19/Add.2).
(c) Information from Members on their Experience
121. No Member provided specific information regarding its experience with recognition of
equivalence.
(d) Information from Relevant Observer Organizations
122. The representative of the OIE reported that the OIE General Session had adopted "Guidelines
for Reaching a Judgement on Equivalence of Sanitary Measures" in May 2003.
123. The representative of the IPPC indicated that draft specifications for a standard on
equivalence were being prepared.  The drafting group would meet in early September 2003 and theresult would be presented to the Standard Committee in the beginning of 2004, and thereafter be
submitted for country consultation with the aim of potential adoption in 2005.
124. The representative of Codex noted that the "D raft Guidelines for Judgement of Equivalence
of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems" would be
considered by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at the end of June for final adoption.  Commentsreceived to date were of a minor editorial nature, so adoption was likely.
(e) Report to the General Council
125. The Chairman recalled that Argentina had su ggested that the Committee should inform the
General Council of progress on its work on equivalence.  The Chairman intended to submit a single
report to the General Council factually describing the work of the Committee on all matters relating tospecial and differential treatment and implementatio n, including equivalence.  Copies of the draft
report had been made available to delegates, and Members could submit comments and suggestions to
the Secretariat.  The representative of India indicated that his country would prefer a separate report
regarding special and differential treatment.  The report of the Chairman was subsequently circulated
as G/SPS/27.
V. DISEASE-FREE AREAS (ARTICLE 6)
126. The Chairman reported that at the informal meeting on the clarification of Article 6, the
Committee's discussions had benefited from presentations by the representatives of the OIE and the
IPPC, as well as from written submissions by  Chile (G/SPS/W/129, G/SPS/GEN/381) and Mexico
(G/SPS/GEN/388).
127. The IPPC representative had introduced the tw o most relevant IPPC standards, one on
requirements for the establishment of pest-free areas and another for the establishment of pest-freeplaces of production and production sites.  The general approach in the standards involved a system to
establish pest freedom, phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom and checks to verify that freedom
has been maintained.  There were also a number of supporting standards such as guidelines for
surveillance or one under development on low pest prevalence.
128. The OIE representative had referred to the Terrestrial Code which included the concept,
principles, and practice of zoning.  The requirements for obtaining disease free status for a zone alsoG/SPS/R/30
Page 20
included a system of surveillance and monitoring.   Apart from the traditional concept of zoning based
on geography, a new concept of management-based delineation at the enterprise level had been agreed
by OIE members.  Some diseases of birds and pigs were amenable to management-based bio-security,
avian influenza being the first disease to be considered under this new concept.  Consideration for
areas of low prevalence was not as common as in the plant protection area.
129. The representative of the OIE had further noted, with respect to the requirement in Article 6.1
that Members adapt their measures to the characteristics of not only the exporting but also the
importing area, that the OIE concept of recognition assumed that the importer had a disease-free
status.  However, it included references to SPS obligations, including national treatment, in the
introductory section of the Code.  At the IPPC, it was recognized that regions within a country with
different characteristics could apply different measures.
130. The OIE currently provided verification of disease-free status relating to four diseases.  The
IPPC was not involved in the verification of pest or disease status.  Representatives of both
organizations explained that their mandate in the area of verification could be extended by their
members but that the resource implications would be significant.
131. The Chairman further reported that, drawing on the submissions by Mexico and Chile, a
number of delegations had raised concerns about the procedural and legal difficulties, delays and coststhey faced in achieving recognition from importing Members for their pest- or disease-free areas, at
times despite a recognition granted by the relevant international organization.  Some delegations had
also drawn linkages to the difficulties faced in achieving recognition of equivalence under Article 4.
132. A number of delegations had proposed that the Committee develop clear procedures with
timelines for the recognition of pest- or disease-free areas, while others were of the view that OIE andthe IPPC should have the primary responsibility in this regard.  Referring to Mexico's submission on
proposed procedures for expediting recognition, a number of delegations observed that developing
country exporters might not be able to finance inspection visits.
133. One delegation had underlined the importance of transparency in the work of the IPPC as not
all WTO Members were parties to it.  Another delegation had  pointed to possible difficulties inincluding timelines in the procedures due to the varying quality of information provided. The IPPC
representative had indicated that biological factors might also pose difficulties in sticking to a
timeline.  Both the OIE and the IPPC representatives had again noted the resource implications of
pursuing additional work in this area.
134. Several delegations had highlighted the importance of bilateral/plurilateral agreements in
facilitating recognition of pest- or disease-free areas.  The representative of the IPPC had also
emphasized the important role played by regional plant protection organizations.
135. At the informal meeting, Members of the Committee had agreed to share the experiences they
had had in seeking or granting recognition of disease- or pest free status by providing written
submissions to the Secretariat by the end of September.  Depending on submissions, another informal
meeting might be held drawing on experiences of Members, followed by a discussion at the next
regular meeting.
136. In response to a query from the representative of Chile, the representative of the OIE
explained that the general, introductory chapters of the OIE Codes contained information regarding
the rights and obligations of WTO Members to impose import measures.  A Member could impose
restrictions on imports if it had zones which were disease free, but only for those zones.  If theG/SPS/R/30
Page 21
importing Member had control or eradication programmes underway for diseases, it could also set
requirements on imports related to those diseases.
137. The representatives of Mexico and Honduras requested that the Committee continue to deal
with this issue, since it was of central importan ce for developing countries.  The Chairman invited
Members to submit their experiences on regionalization to the Secretariat by the end of September, inorder to permit a more focussed discussion at the next meeting.
VI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION
(a) Information from Members on the Technical Assistance Questionnaire
138. The Secretariat reported that responses to the questionnaire on technical assistance needs had
been received from the Dominican Republic and Cameron.
139. The representative of the Dominican Republic asked that Members give immediate attention
to its request for assistance in setting up of a technical unit to coordinate and disseminate informationon the SPS Agreement prior to the next Committee meeting.
(b) Technical Assistance Activities
140. The Secretariat reported on technical assistance activities that had taken place since the last
meeting of the Committee and on those planned to take place before the next meeting.  A national
SPS seminar had been held in Bolivia in May 2003 with 30 participating officials.  Before the nextmeeting, three national SPS seminars were scheduled:  in Moldova in early June, in the Maldives on
23-24 September, and in Bahrain at the end of October.  Four national seminars on both the SPS and
the TBT Agreements were also scheduled:  in Georgia on 17-19 July, in the Kyrgyz Republic on
28 July-1 August, in Lebanon on 4-5 September and in the Gambia in early September.
141. Three regional workshops had been carried out since the last meeting:  in Ecuador on 28-30
April, with 40 Spanish-speaking participants also from Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru;
in Benin on 14-16 May, with 50 French-speaking participants also from Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire,
Mali, Mauritania, Senegal and Togo;  and in Cyprus on 2-4 June, with English-speaking participants
also from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey.  A regional workshop was scheduled to take
place on 21-23 July in Uruguay, with participants from Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile andParaguay.  Other regional workshops were scheduled for Nigeria and Sri Lanka in October 2003, and
in Uganda and the Philippines in November 2003.  A joint regional TBT/SPS seminar was scheduled
for 22-24 July in St. Kitts, with participants also from Antigua, Barbuda, Dominica, Granada,
St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines.  SPS technical assistance had also been part of the WTO
trade policy course for African English-speaking countries in Nairobi.  The Secretariat expressed
gratitude to the bilateral donors and organizations that had cooperated in the provision of SPS related
technical assistance.
142. The representative of the United States drew attention to the updated information on their
SPS-related technical assistance (G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.3).
143. The representative of Canada announced that the Canadian International Agency would
contribute 24 million dollars for trade-related technical assistance in capacity building in the
Americas.  Six million dollars would be allocated to new projects with the Canadian Customs andRevenue Agency on customs administration and reform and with the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency in the areas of food safety and animal and plant health measures.  Requests for funding
should be made through the National Trade Capacity Building Strategies through the Free-trade Area
of the Americas Cooperation Programme.G/SPS/R/30
Page 22
144. The representative of Japan announced that his country was involved in a seminar on SPS
measures which would take place in August in the Philippines.
VII. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
(a) New Issues
145. No new issues were reported.
(b) Fifth Annual Report
146. The representative of Thailand drew attention to problems in trade arising from the non
existence of Codex-determined Acceptable Daily Intake levels (ADI) or Maximum Residue Levels
(MRLs) for certain veterinary drug substances.  He urged Codex to convene an expert consultation in
order to provide a science-based recommendation for risk management options for compounds with
no ADIs and/or MRLs.  The representative of Codex noted that, subject to the availability of
resources, internal seminars or consultations would be convened.  Codex believed that a large part ofthe problem stemmed from changes in the analytical methods now being used.
147. The representative of Thailand also raised concerns regarding the non-existence of OIE
standards relating to poultry meat.  The representative of the OIE noted that the OIE chapter on
Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD) lacked recommendations with regard to poultry meat.  Several
countries had informed OIE that they would soon provide information that would permit the
recommendation to be updated.
148. The Committee adopted the fifth annual repo rt as modified (G/SPS/28 and Corr.1).
(c) Review of the Provisional Procedure
149. The Committee considered the review of the provisional procedure and the draft decision for
its extension (G/SPS/W/134).  The Secretariat sugge sted that a change in the procedure, to permit
Members to identify new issues up to ten days before a Committee meeting, might increase the
number of issues raised by Members.  Several Members supported this proposed modification,
however the representative of Korea questioned whether the change of the deadlines would increase
efficiency.
150. The Committee agreed to extend the provisional monitoring procedure, without modification,
for a further three years  (G/SPS/25).
VIII.  MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER
ORGANIZATIONS
151. The representative of the OIE informed the Committee of the principal decisions taken at the
May annual session of the OIE (G/SPS/GEN/406).  Members of the OIE specialist commissions had
been elected for three-year terms.  The OIE would organize a global animal welfare conference in
February 2004 in Paris.  The existing approach of identifying List A and List B categories of diseaseswould be replaced by a single list for terrestrial animal diseases and a single list for aquatic animal
diseases.  The list of countries free from foot-a nd-mouth disease and from rinderpest were available
on the OIE website.  The full report of the General Session was available on the OIE website
(www.oie.int).G/SPS/R/30
Page 23
152. The representative of the IPPC reported that the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary
Measures had met on the 7-11 April 2003, and the report of its meeting was available on the website
(www.ippc.int).  One major concern of the Commission had been the speed of development of new
standards, since it normally required 3-4 years on average.  A "fast-track" procedure was being
considered.
153. The representative of OIRSA indicated that OI RSA had held hearings on its procedures for
control inspection and approval.  The report on the issue could be found at its website
(www.oirsa.org.sv).  A project on trade in agriculture concerning harmonization of SPS measures in
Latin America was being developed in cooperation w ith the Inter American Development Bank.  The
full report on the activities of OIRSA is  contained in document (G/SPS/GEN/408).
154. The representative of Codex informed Members that its main activity in the near future would
be the Codex Alimentarius Commission session from 30 June to 7 July 2003 in Rome.  All relateddocuments could be found on the Codex website (www.codexalimentarius.net).
155. The representative of WHO reported that since 2001 the WHO had carried out a major study
on the implications of biotechnology on human health and development.  WHO had also hosted the
World Health Assembly in Geneva on 19-28 May 2003.  Concerning the SARS virus, WHO had
carried out intensive studies but saw the need for continued studies, especially concerning thepossibility for transmission via ingestion.  WHO, FAO and OIE had convened a meeting in Madrid in
early May 2003 to define a research agenda in relation to possible SARS transmission through food
and water.  No evidence existed that SARS could be transmitted via food or water, but the
organizations wished to examine all potential connections.  A report from the meeting was available
on the SARS website of the WHO.  Products and goods from SARS-infected areas should not beconsidered to pose a risk to public health.  The representative of WHO further reported on the
publication of the joint FAO/WHO microbiological risk assessment for salmonella in poultry and
eggs, which provided the detailed technical studies that had been undertaken in this first major
international microbiological risk assessment.
156. On behalf of the World Bank, the Secretariat announced that the World Bank had released a
study on standards in global trade, with a focus on Africa.  The World Bank would present this study
on 1 July 2003 at the WTO.
IX. OBSERVERS - REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
157. The Committee agreed to invite the organizations with ad hoc observer status to participate in
the next meeting of the Committee (ACP Group, EFTA, IICA, OECD, OIRSA and SELA).  The
Committee also invited all interested observer organiza tions to participate in the informal meetings to
be held in connection with the next Committee meeting.
158. The Committee took no decision regarding the requests for observer status from the Office
International de la Vigne du Vin (OIV), the Asia n and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC), and the
Convention on Biodiversity (CBD).
X. OTHER BUSINESS
Update on SARS situation and impact on Chinese exports
159. The representative of China provided an update  on its SARS situation stating that SARS had
first occurred in November 2002.  As of 24 June 2003, 3,026 cases of SARS had been reported in
mainland China, including 347 fatalities.  Nine hundred and one cases had been discharged from
hospitals.  China had adopted measures to ensure the early detection, early reporting, early isolationG/SPS/R/30
Page 24
and advanced treatment of SARS cases.  On 1 June 2003, China and ASEAN had agreed on a
common action plan to combat the epidemic.  The representative of China noted that WHO had
withdrawn its travel warnings for Beijing on 24 June 2003.  China requested that Members follow the
suggestions and guidelines issued by WHO, FAO and OIE on 11 April 2003 and not impose any
restrictions on imports of Chinese agricultural products and foodstuffs.  Only restrictions on themovement of people had been recommended, as no evidence had so far suggested that SARS was
spread through agricultural products or foodstuffs .  A few Members had imposed restrictions which
were not scientifically justified and China considered such measures as a violation of the SPS
Agreement.
Annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods
160. The Chairman indicated that he had been asked to provide an update of the report on the
Committee's activities since 2002 to the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, which he woulddo through a brief, factual letter.
Japan's MRLs of chlorpyrifos in frozen spinach
161. The representative of China noted that his country used to be the largest exporter of frozen
spinach to Japan, but that exports had ceased due to the introduction of new maximum residue limits
for chlorpyrifos by Japan.  China did not consider  this requirement to be consistent with the SPS
Agreement since it was not scientifically justified.  Furthermore, Japan's limits were considerably
below the level recommended by the relevant international organizations as well as below those
established by the European Communities and the United States.  China had requested Japan to
provide evidence for its new measure and to provide a copy of its risk assessment before the end of
July 2003.
162. The representative of Japan observed that Codex had not developed a standard for
chlorpyrifos  in spinach.  The level established by Japan (0.01 ppm), was the same as required by
Australia and Korea, and was also the same as the detection level applied by the United States and the
European Communities.  This level was based on estimated daily dietary exposure data.
BSE-related measures – Follow-up to Canada163. The representative of Brazil reported that it had now notified six regulations relating to BSE.
Canada expressed appreciation for Brazil's notifications of its measures.
EC restrictions on fruit and fruit juices
164. The representative of Brazil indicated that EC restrictions on pesticide residues in fruit and
fruit juice continued to pose problems for Brazil's exports.  A shipment of Brazilian apples had been
rejected in Sweden because the residue level slight ly exceeded the detection level, although the levels
set by Codex were almost 50-times higher.  He noted  that this was an example of how Brazil would
be affected by the new MRLs being established by the European Communities.  It would require
about three years for Brazilian producers to adjust to the new EC measures.  Brazil considered that the
burden of proof for the justification of the new measures were on the European Communities and that
the present approach of the European Communities was not in accordance with the principles for
special and differential treatment.  China supported the concerns raised by Brazil.
165. The representative of the European Communities noted that very productive bilateral
consultations had recently taken place, which he hoped would soon lead to a resolution of the
problem.  He observed, however, that the underlying problem was that many pesticides and chemicalG/SPS/R/30
Page 25
products which were in use had never been properly evaluated.  Where no toxicological data existed,
the European Communities would use the level of detection.  For products for which data was
provided, the European Communities would proceed to establish an appropriate maximum residue
level.
Aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbures in pomace olive oil166. The representative of the European Communities reported on the final results of the
investigation concerning the problem with olive oil contamination in Spain in 2002.  The
contamination had occurred due to a manufacturing error, but this problem had since been resolved.
The restrictions which some Members continued to impose on Spanish olive oil were therefore no
longer justified.
Paraguay's FMD status
167. The representative of Paraguay recalled that in November 2002, he had informed the
Committee about the detection of FMD in two animals in an area of Paraguay that bordered on Brazil
(G//SPS/GEN/360).  This had resulted in a closur e of export markets.  Consequently Paraguay had
introduced a new sanitary policy in cooperation with neighbouring countries, which included
vaccination.  No other cases of FMD had been detected and Paraguay expected to soon be declared
FMD-free with vaccination.
Consultations with the European Communities on biotechnology
168. The representative of the United States informed Members that they and other interested
parties had had consultations with the European Communities on biotechnology under the dispute
settlement procedures on 19 June 2003.  The consultations had not been particularly productive and
the United States was now considering its next step.  Canada indicated that they had participated as athird party in the US consultations, and had as well requested its own consultations with the European
Communities.  These consultations had been held on 25 June 2003, and Canada was also considering
its next step.  Argentina noted that it has also requested consultations with the European
Communities, and had as well participated in the US consultations.
XI. CALENDAR OF MEETINGS IN 2004
169. The Committee adopted the provisional schedule for regular meetings during 2004, with
meetings tentatively scheduled for 16-18 March, 22-24 June and 12-14 October 2004.
XII. DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
170. The next regular meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 29-30 October 2003, with
informal meetings scheduled for 28 October.  The special meeting with enquiry points was scheduled
for 27 October 2003 (subsequently moved to 31 October 2003).  The Committee agreed on the
following tentative agenda for its next meeting:
1. Proposed agenda
2. Implementation of the Agreement
(a) Information from Members
• Activities of Members
(b) Specific trade concerns
(i) New issuesG/SPS/R/30
Page 26
(ii) Issues previously raised
• Information on resolution of issues in
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
3. SPS Agreement and developing countries
(a) Consideration of proposals for implementation of the provisions for specialand differential treatment
4. Equivalence – Article 4
(a) Consideration of specific provisions of the Decision(b) Information from Members on their experiences
(c) Information from relevant observer organizations
(d) Notifications of equivalence agreements(e) Review of Decision
5. Disease-free areas – Article 66. Technical assistance and cooperation7. Monitoring of the use of international standards
(a) New issues(b) Issues previously raised
8. Transitional review under paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's
Republic of China
9. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations10. Observers - Requests for observer status11. Chairman's annual report to the CTG12. Other business13. Date and agenda of next meeting
171. With regard to the transitional review of Chinas' accession implementation, Members were
invited to submit questions to the Secretariat and to the Chinese delegations before the end ofSeptember 2003.
172. The following deadlines are relevant for the next meeting:
• 29 September 2003  for identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring
procedure.
• 30 September 2003  for submitting specific comments on the S&D proposals, including
specific suggestions on how to address any differences of views regarding the proposals.
• 30 September  2003  for submitting questions to China regarding the transitional reviewG/SPS/R/30
Page 27
• 30 September  2003  for submitting information regarding Member's experiences on
regionalization
• 16 October 2003  for requesting items to be put on the Agenda.
• 17 October 2003  for the distribution of the airgram.
__________