RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/SPS/R/7
29April 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-1849)
Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OFTHE MEETING HELD ON
19-20 MARCH 1997
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheCommittee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures ("the Committee") helditsseventh
meeting on19-20 March 1997, under thechairmanship ofAmbassador KariBergholm (Finland). The
agenda, proposed inWTO/AIR/550 withaddendum, wasadopted withamendments.
2. TheSecretariat reported onsome problems encountered inthepreparation oftheagenda for
meetings. Ashadbeenagreed intheWorking Procedures (andproposed Rules ofProcedure), the
agenda wastobecirculated atleasttendaysinadvance ofeachmeeting. Members were urged to
make every effort tonotify issues theyintended toraiseatforthcoming meetings asfarinadvance
aspossible, preferably nolessthantwelve daysprior tothemeeting. Indoing so,Members were
requested toindicate thedesired agenda item(s) under which theproposed issues would beraised.
Thiswould permit theSecretariat tocirculate acomplete agenda attheappropriate time.
Observers
3. TheCommittee agreed thatregular observer status begranted totheJointFAO/WHO Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), theFAO International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), the
Office international desépizooties (OIE), theFood andAgriculture Organization oftheUnited Nations
(FAO),theWorldHealthOrganization(WHO),theInternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO),
theInternational Trade Centre (ITC) andtheUnited Nations Conference onTrade andDevelopment
(UNCTAD). Theobserver status conferred upontheWorld BankandtheInternational Monetary Fund
(IMF) through separate agreements taken bytheGeneral Council inNovember 1996, wasnoted. It
wasfurthermore agreed thattheChairman would undertake informal consultations withinterested
Members regarding fivefurther requests forobservership.
Rules ofProcedure
4. Theproposed Rules ofProcedure, aspreviously amended (G/SPS/W/48/Rev.1), wereadopted.
TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee would continue tooperate onthebasis ofitsWorking
Procedures (G/SPS/1) untiltheRules ofProcedure hadbeenendorsed bytheCouncil forTrade in
Goods.G/SPS/R/7
Page2
Implementation oftheAgreement -Information from Members
BSEandtheSPSAgreement
5. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland introduced apaper onbovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) inrelation totheSPSAgreement (G/SPS/W/79). Switzerland, acountry of"lowincidence"
ofBSE, hadbeensubject toanumber oftrade restrictions notallofwhich, according totheSwiss
representative, could bejustified under WTO rules. While herecognized thatscientific uncertainties
remained, andthatsanitary authorities could adopt measures toprotect thehealth oftheircountries '
bovine cattle herds andtheirpopulations, distinctions hadtobemade between legitimate protection
andunjustifiable discrimination between WTO Members. About 30countries hadadopted trade
restrictions relating toBSEwhich affected Switzerland. Apparent violations ofWTO obligations fell
primarily, butnotexclusively, within thescope oftheSPSAgreement. TheSwiss representative
requested theChairman toorganize informal consultations withMembers concerned, andsuggested
thattheCommittee givepriority totheissue.
6. Several delegations welcomed theSwiss paper, agreeing thatthiswasacurrent issueofwide
interest andwithsignificant repercussions oninternational trade ofmeat andmeat products. Most
memberssupportedthesuggestionthattheChairmanconductinformalmultilateralconsultations,although
several noted thattheCommittee didnothavethecapacity tojudge thelegality ofborder measures
inthisregard. Itwasagreed thattheChairman holdinformal consultation on21March 1997, open
toallinterested Members. Swiss government experts would make amore detailed presentation and
provide documentation fortheoccasion. Theconsultations would berestricted tothescope ofthe
SPSAgreement andparticipation ofobserver organizations would beconsidered atalaterstage.
French certification requirements forpetfood
7. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed concerned withregard totheimplementation
ofFrench certification requirements onpetfoodinSeptember 1996. Themeasures inquestion, adopted
under French national legislation, hadblocked USexports ofpetfoodtothatmarket andhadnotbeen
notified totheWTO. Subsequent bilateral exchanges withFrance hadproduced noprogress towards
theresolution oftheissue.
8. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities regretted thattheirinternal procedures with
regard tonotification ofnational measures haddelayed notification oftheFrench measure inquestion.
According tothisprocedure, national regulations hadtobecleared attheEClevelbefore being notified
totheWTO; there wasotherwise theriskthatanational notification wasmade andthenwithdrawn
because ofnon-conformity attheEClevel. Referring totheindividual measure inquestion, theEC
representative noted thatitwasofa"safe-guard" type, and,assuch, would onlyhavebeensubject
tocomments subsequent toentry intoforce. Themeasure required thatspecified riskmaterial be
excluded fromentering intotherendering system where itmight beusedfortheproduction of,among
other products, petfood. Themeasure hadbeentaken onthebasisofdiscussions andrecommendations
attheECCommission level, recommendations bytheWHO, aswellasparallel scientific discussions
inboththeUnited Kingdom andFrance.
Israeli sanitary measures affecting imports ofbovine meat
9. Therepresentative ofUruguay informed theCommittee thatIsrael haddecided toadopt, as
of1April 1997, measures which would restrict trade inmeatbecause ofBSE-related concerns. The
measures included therequirement thatbovine meatexported toIsrael come fromcattle withamaximumG/SPS/R/7
Page3
ageof36months. Furthermore, themeasure wasapparently tobeapplied irrespective ofthesanitary
conditions inthecountry oforigin. Theeffect onbilateral trade waspotentially serious.
10. Therepresentative ofUruguay stressed thatnocases ofBSEhadbeendiscovered inUruguay,
andthattherelevant international recommendations werefollowed rigorously. Uruguay hadprovided
Israel withallinformation required. Supported bybothBrazil andArgentina, Uruguay expressed the
viewthatIsrael, inthisrespect, wasnotinconformity withtheSPSAgreement, primarily because
ofanunclear scientific basis fortheproposed measures. Inaddition, WTO Members hadnotbeen
notified inlinewiththeSPSAgreement.
11. Therepresentative ofIsrael informed theCommittee thatIsrael hadnotified exporting countries
oftheplanned measure andthattheiraction hadbeenbased onaquestionnaire sentfrom Israel's
veterinary services (Ministry ofAgriculture) totheir counterparts inbeefexporting countries.
Nevertheless,therepresentativetooknoteoftheconcernsexpressedandaffirmedthatanofficialresponse
would beprovided upon consultation withhisgovernment.
Phytosanitary issues ingeneral
12. Therepresentative oftheUnited States drewtheCommittee 'sattention toanumber ofgeneric
issues ofconcern withregard tophytosanitary trade restrictions. Henoted thatthemere existence
ofaplantdisease orpestintraded agricultural goods didnotnecessarily constitute arisktotheimporting
country. Ifacertain pestordisease, because ofscientific reasons, could notestablish itselfinthearea
intowhich itwasbeing imported, traderestrictions wereunlikely toprovide significant additional health
protection. Likewise, where theplant disease orpestwasalready prevalent inthecountry towhich
itwasbeing exported, import controls were unlikely toserve anysignificant health objective. The
USrepresentative urged Members toensure compliance withtheprinciple ofnational treatment as
wellasother keyprovisions oftheWTO andtheSPSAgreement, inparticular Article 6thereof.
Polish restrictions onwheat andoilseeds
13. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted thatPoland hadalonghistory ofimporting US
wheat andoilseeds andquestioned thephytosanitary health purpose forPoland 'scurrent restrictions.
Many oftheweed seeds currently subject totherestrictions inquestion existed onaworld-wide
basis; some ofthemwereevenknown tobeestablished inPoland. TheUSrepresentative urged Poland
toreview itspolicy inorder toensure thatitwasconsistent withWTO requirements.
14. Therepresentative ofPoland replied thatthemeasure inquestion didnot,inpractice, affect
trade between thetwocountries. Noshipment ofUSgrain oroilseeds hadbeenrejected because of
quarantine riskoccurrence. Poland assured theUnited States thatitwould provide adetailed explanation
ofitsmeasures.
Panama 'srequirements forcertification ofconsumer rice
15. Onasimilar issue, theUSrepresentative informed theCommittee thatPanama required imports
ofconsumer ricetobecertified freefromthefungus tilletia barclayana (Kernel smut). Given scientific
evidence thatthisfungus already existed inPanama, theUnited States questioned thebasis forsuch
arequirement. Furthermore, theUnited States maintained thatscientists agreed thefungus inquestion
could notbetransmitted through milled rice, which wastheproduct affected bytherestriction.
Moreover, Panamanian officials hadallegedly suggested thatcurrent domestic supply conditions hadG/SPS/R/7
Page4
influenced theirdecisions. Therepresentative ofPanama replied thatshewasawaiting areport from
hercapital andwould forward ittotheUSDepartment ofAgriculture (USDA).
Brazilian restrictions onimported wheat
16. According totherepresentative oftheUnited States, Brazil hadimplemented restrictions on
imports ofwheat intended toprevent theestablishment inBrazil ofthefungus tilletia controversa (TCK
buntorDwarf bunt). However, a1996 bilateral agreement between thetwocountries wasbased on
theunderstanding thatthefungus inquestion could notbeestablished inBrazil, andtheUnited States
wasnotaware ofscientific evidence thatmight alterthisconclusion. Therepresentative oftheUnited
States stressed thatalthough hisauthorities could comply withtheBrazilian requirements assuch, they
were concerned withthenature andsubstance ofthose requirements.
17. Therepresentative ofBrazil noted thatasaresult ofharmonization efforts being carried out
byMercosur, Brazil hadimplemented newlegislation onriskassessment andriskmanagement for
several products. Asanintegral partofthenewlegislation onpestcontrol, acertificate oforigin was
currently required forwheat, inorder toassert thattheproduct originated inapest-free zone. The
representative ofBrazil noted thatextensive bilateral negotiations hadbeenheldwiththeUnited States
since 1995, andthatderogations fromtheBrazilian lawhadbeengranted onmore thanoneoccasion,
buthadrecently notbeenextended. Shestressed thattheBrazilian planthealth regulation wasinfull
compliancewiththerelevantWTOAgreements.Furthermore,scientificconsultationsbetweenBrazilian
andUSexperts hadyettoproduce afinalreport ontheriskposed bytilletia controversa andtilletia
indica (Karnal bunt). Neither didthebilateral protocol preclude Brazil from applying itsinternal
legislation andrequiring theaforementioned certificate oforigin.
Chile'srestrictions onimports ofwheat andfruit
18. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed concern withregard torestrictions onexports
ofwheat andfruitdestined toChile fromUSportsinareasfreeofpests. TheUSrepresentative stressed
thatthiswasanexample ofafailure torecognize regional conditions inlinewiththeSPSAgreement,
aswellasIPPC guidelines relating topest-free areas.
19. With regard towheat, therepresentative ofChile noted thattheUnited States hadnotasked
Chile torecognize areas freeoftilletia indica (Karnal bunt). InMarch 1996, when theUnited States
informed Chile about thepresence oftilletia indica ,Chile didnotsuspend USimports, butmodified
theconditions governing entry andrequested theUSDA toprovide certification ofareas freefrom
infestation ofthefungus asacondition forentry. According totherepresentative ofChile, theUnited
States didnotaccept thisapproach andfurther bilateral consultations hadsince beenheld. Regarding
fruits, therepresentative ofChile stressed thathiscountry hadrecognized areas freeofthefruitflies
anastrepha fraterculus andceratitis capitata (Mediterranean fruitfly)inthestateofCalifornia and
thatthiswould facilitate theconditions ofentry forUSexports. Thefullstatement oftherepresentative
ofChile iscontained indocument G/SPS/GN/14.
Korean shelf-life requirements forUHT milk
20. Therepresentative ofAustralia recalled theon-going bilateral discussions between Australia
andKorea regarding shelf-life requirements forUltra HeatTreated (UHT) milk. Although theissue
hadfirstbeenraisedattheCommittee'sMay1996meeting,Koreahadyettoimplementamanufacturers'
determined shelf-life forUHT milk. Hereiterated thatthecurrent government-mandated shelf-lifeG/SPS/R/7
Page5
period ofseven weeks wastooshort andnotbased onsound scientific evidence. InNovember 1996,
theAustralian government hadprovided afurther submission ofscientific nature totheKorean
authorities, which hadnotbeenaccepted. Subsequently, upon request, another submission hadbeen
provided andheurged Korea toprocess therecent submission inanexpedient manner.
21. Therepresentative ofKorea informed theCommittee thathisauthorities werereviewing the
information provided byAustralia. Henoted thatKorea 'snewsystem forshelf-life determination,
which hadbeeninitiated in1995, setatimeframe fortheimplementation ofmanufacturers 'determined
shelf-life period forUHT milk.
Consideration ofSpecific Notifications Received
22. Therepresentatives ofAustralia andtheUnited States sought clarification withregard tothe
scope oftheIndonesian regulation onfreshfruitandvegetables notified inG/SPS/N/IDN/2 .Inbilateral
discussions withAustralia, Indonesian authorities hadraised aparticular problem arising fromnational
practice which apparently precluded thecirculation ofdraftregulations. BoththeUnited States and
AustraliaurgedIndonesiatoconsiderlegislativeadjustmentsthatwouldenableWTOMemberstoreceive
information onproposed measures sufficiently intimetobeassessed. Therepresentative ofAustralia
expressed hisappreciation thatIndonesian authorities hadmade substantial efforts tomeet requests
foradditional information. Therepresentative ofIndonesia regretted thatthedraftregulation hadnot
yetbeenfinalized, butassured theCommittee thatadocument containing detailed information about
theproposed regulations would beprovided induecourse.
23. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesbroughttheCommittee'sattentiontoaBrazilian
notification regarding procedures tobeobserved byexporters ofwinetoBrazil, contained innotification
G/SPS/N/BRA/13/Rev.1.ItremaineduncleartotheEuropeanCommunitieswhatrequirementsexporters
faced. Thescientific rationale behind therequirement thatindividual establishments endeavouring
toexportwinetoBrazilhadtobeinspectedwasquestioned.Likewise,therepresentativeoftheEuropean
Communities expressed concern overcertification requirements forindividual consignments rather
thangeneral, generic typeofcertification. Thenature ofrequirements asked ofBrazilian producers
themselves wasquestioned. Therepresentative ofBrazil noted that,inaccordance withWTO rules,
theproposed legislation would notbeadopted before 16May1997, andthatthefulltextoftheproposed
legislation wasavailable attheBrazilian Enquiry Point. Shemaintained thattheproposed legislation
wasinconformity withtheSPSAgreement andwasfurthermore notsubstantially different from
legislation inplace inseveral European countries. Brazil remained openforbilateral discussions on
thesubject.
24. Intheopinion totheEuropean Communities, thepolicy setoutintheCanadian notification
onProposed Zoosanitary Import Policies Pertaining toBSE, contained inG/SPS/N/CAN/18 ,went
beyond whatcould bescientifically justified andwasfurthermore notinconformity withtheOIECode.
Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities noted that: i)nodistinction wasmade between high
andlowincidence countries; ii)therewereprovisions forwhole-herd slaughter andslaughter ofmother
aswellasofprogeny despite BSEnotbeing considered asaherddisease andunfinalized investigations
onmaternal transmission; and,iii)theCanadian policy required BSEtohavebeennotifiable forsix
years under anactive surveillance programme andthatimports would beallowed onlyaftersixyears
ofabsence ofthedisease. Also, theproposed policy implied thatCanada would notaccept meatfrom
anycountry which hadimported meatandbonemealfromacountry which hadacaseofBSE. Under
these conditions onlyoneECmember State would qualify toexport meattoCanada.
25. Therepresentative ofCanada regretted theconfusion which theapparently conflicting dates
setoutinthenotification might havecaused. Heexplained thatwhile theBSEpolicy wasalreadyG/SPS/R/7
Page6
inforce, some changes were proposed anditwasonthese draftchanges thatcomments were being
sought. Therepresentative ofCanada stressed thatduring thecomment period, nonewborder measures
hadbeenputintoplace. Furthermore, considering thecontinuing substantial discussion between the
twocountries, theclosing dateforcomments (1March 1997) would bedelayed.
26. Therepresentative oftheUnited States informed theCommittee thattheyhadheldbilateral
discussions with Japan regarding proposed plant quarantine regulations setoutinnotification
G/SPS/N/JPN/19 .BothMembers agreed thatthecommunication process between thetwocountries
hadflowed smoothly andthatthiswasagoodexample ofhowthetransparency provisions oftheSPS
Agreement could enhance theunderstanding between Members onpoints ofconcern. Therepresentative
ofJapan maintained thattheirproposed regulation wasbased onthepest-risk analysis guidelines of
theIPPC.
AnyOther Matter related totheOperation oftheTransparency Provisions
27. TheChairman informed theCommittee thatthemostrecent listofEnquiry Points andNational
Notification Authorities hadbeencirculated asG/SPS/ENQ/5 andG/SPS/9, withaddenda, respectively.
Itwasnoted thatsome Members hadyettonotify theSecretariat oftheirEnquiry Points andagreater
number hadnotnotified theirNational Notification Authority. Members wereurged tocomply with
these obligations assoonaspossible. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stressed theimportance
ofusingthetransparencyprovisionsoftheSPSAgreementandexpressedconcernthatlessthattwo-thirds
ofWTO Members hadnotified SPSmeasures.
28. TheSecretariat reminded delegates thatasof1January 1997, allnotifications weretobesent
directly totheCentral Registry ofNotifications (CRN). Anumber ofproblems remained withregard
tothehandling ofnotifications. Delegations continued tosendtheWTO thefulltextsofthenotified
regulations, rather thansimply thecompleted notification format, asexplained inG/SPS/7. Also,
notifications weresubmitted under theSPSAgreement when theymore appropriately should havebeen
notified under theTechnical Barriers toTrade Agreement (TBT Agreement), andvice-versa. The
general practice insuchcases wastocontact thedelegation concerned andsuggest thechange. There
werealsocases where thesamejointstandard orequivalency agreement between countries wasnotified
byoneMember under theSPSAgreement andbytheotherunder theTBTAgreement. When requested,
theSecretariat could provide assistance incompleting draftnotifications, butattimes there hadbeen
significant delays before thedelegation concerned confirmed thatthenotification could becirculated.
Moreover, Members were reminded thattheSecretariat continued thepractice ofcirculating SPS
notifications within twotothree daysofreceipt inthelanguage itwasreceived toallMembers. The
translation intheappropriate language followed onceavailable. TheSecretariat alsoinformed Members
about theWTO Internat pageandthepossibility ofelectronically accessing unrestricted documents,
including notifications, listsofEnquiry Points andNational Notification Authorities.
Monitoring theUseofInternational Standards
29. TheCommittee continued itsdiscussion onthedevelopment ofaprocedure tomonitor theuse
ofinternational standards, guidelines andrecommendations, asspecifically mandated inArticle 12:4
oftheSPSAgreement. Thediscussion wasprimarily based onasecond submission bytheUnited
States (G/SPS/W/81) andontheMarch 1996proposal fromtheEuropean Communities (G/SPS/W/51).
Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted thathiscountry 'ssubmission wasbuiltonprevious
Committee documents anddiscussions, andwasintended toprovide thebasis forfurther progress in
satisfying theCommittee 'smandate. Hestressed theimportance offocusing theCommittee 'sefforts
onareas which hadamajor impact ontrade. Effectiveness would depend onMembers 'activeG/SPS/R/7
Page7
participation inbringing theCommittee 'sattention tospecific issues suchastrade problems having
todowith thenonuse,theinappropriateness, ortheabsence ofinternational standards. The
representative oftheUnited States underlined thattheprocedure could notbeseenasaneffort bythe
SPSCommittee toimpose priorities ontherelevant international organizations, butrather asavehicle
ofcommunicating withthose organizations inaconstructive way.
30. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities, noting thathisdelegation 'sproposal
(G/SPS/W/51) toinitiate themonitoring process bysetting upapilotproject hadreceived general
support, maintained thatthisapproach beretained andthatMembers reflect onways toproceed from
thatpoint. Although herequested more timetoadequately assess theUSproposal, hedidnotbelieve
thatthetwoproposals were mutually exclusive.
31. Several delegations expressed support fortheUSproposal (G/SPS/W/81), although many
indicated thatmore timewasneeded toassess it.Itwasnoted thatalthough itdidnotgoasfarin
meeting theCommittee 'sobligations astheECproposal (G/SPS/W/51), itwould overtimeenable
theCommittee todischarge itsobligations inastructured wayaswellasenable theCommittee toreview
thiswork onaregular basis. Several delegations stressed thattheUSproposal 'sstrong point wasits
practical approach. Itwould beimportant thattheCommittee beflexible inorder tomake adjustments
andcorrections onthebasisofexperience. Anumber ofdelegations noted thatthetwoproposals were
notmutually exclusive. Inorder tofurther thiswork, itwasagreed thattheChairman undertake
informal consultations tofurther refine, andperhaps combine, thetwoproposals soastoenable the
Committee tomove forwards atitsnextmeeting.
Consistency
32. Inintroducing abackground paper on"Risk Analysis" (G/SPS/W/80), theSecretariat noted
thatsubstantial progress hadbeenmade inthisregard inthethreerelevant international standard-setting
organizations sincetheSPSAgreement hadcome intoforce. Theworkoftheseorganizations addressed
notonlyriskassessment, butalsoriskmanagement and,toalesser extent, riskcommunication. The
purpose ofthepaper wastodescribe thiswork inasummary manner, especially regarding the
terminology used, inorder toprovide background information thatmight assist delegations tobetter
understand howthework ofthese organizations related torequirements under theSPSAgreement.
TheSecretariat stressed thatthere wasnointention tointerpret theprovisions oftheAgreement.
33. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities maintained thatArticle 5:5oftheSPS
Agreement solely concerned thedetermination oftheappropriate levelofprotection byeachcountry 's
political decision makers. Hestressed thatitwasnotascientific process, butapolitical process. There
wasfurthermore noobligation thatsuchadecision hadtobebased onariskassessment. Hence, it
wastheviewoftheEuropean Communities thattheSecretariat 'spaper was,byintroducing concepts
notrelevant toArticle 5:5,interpreting theagreement. Theprovision ofArticle 5:5setoutanobjective,
andwasassuchlimited initscontribution totheAgreement itself.
34. TherepresentativeofAustraliaexpressedtheviewthatthepaperhelpedbuildthebridgesbetween
whatwashappening intheWTO andwhatwasgoing onintherelevant international organizations.
Thiswasdeemed important astheconcepts andterminology putforward intheSecretariat 'spaper
hadinrecent years become more widely understood andmore clearly articulated inthework ofthese
organizations. Therepresentative ofAustralia suggested thatparagraph 7oftheSecretariat 'sdocument
needed tobeclarified totheextent thattheconcept ofriskinvolved notonlyanestimation ofthesize
ofpotential damage, butalsotheprobability, orlikelihood, ofsuchdamage occurring.G/SPS/R/7
Page8
35. TherepresentativesofAustraliaandArgentinamaintainedthatthedisciplinesonriskmanagement
decisions within theSPSAgreement werecrucial toensuring theeffectiveness oftheAgreement. While
theconcept oftheacceptable levelofprotection wasonewhich wasamatter ofnational sovereignty
andappropriatelyappliedatthenationallevelonabroadbasis,therepresentativeofAustraliamaintained
thattheconcept could notbeapplied toindividual decisions onindividual sanitary orphytosanitary
measures onanarbitrary, unjustifiable, discriminatory, ortrade restrictive way. Inthisregard, the
representative ofArgentina rejected theideathatacountry could, bymeans ofsubjective political
decisions, ignore science. Inaccepting theWTO Agreement, Members hadinfactgiven upapart
oftheirsovereignty inorder torespect certain commonly agreed disciplines, andavoid theundue
influences ofsectorial interests. Bothdelegations strongly endorsed thecontinued endeavours ofthe
Committee todevelop guidelines fortheimplementation ofArticle 5:5.
36. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities contended thatdifferent views onArticle
5:5didnotinanywaynullify theeffectiveness oftheAgreement. Hereasoned thatconsistency in
thesetting ofthelevel ofprotection would leadtoanoverall increase inthatlevel andmore trade
difficulties,asMemberswerenotlikelytoendeavourtobeconsistentbyloweringtheirlevelofprotection
across theboard. TheECrepresentative agreed thattheChairman should continue histaskofdeveloping
theguidelines onconsistency butwarned theCommittee nottodevote toomuch importance toArticle
5:5relative toother parts oftheAgreement. Inthissense theSecretariat 'spaper hadbeenhelpful
inclarifying thefundamental differences inthewayMembers understood Article 5:5.
37. TheChairman reported thathehadmetonanumber ofoccasions withinterested delegations
toconsider draftguidelines tofurther thepractical implementation oftheprovision regarding consistency
indecisions ontheappropriate levelofprotection, asrequired byArticle 5:5.Henoted thatconsiderable
progress hadbeenmade onthestructure oftheguidelines andonthesubstance ofanumber ofguidelines.
There remained, however, different views ontheroleofriskassessment andthat,ifanyatall,ofrisk
management. Also, there were diverging opinions onhowtounderstand therelationship between
internationalharmonizationandnationalconsistency.TheworkwasmademorecomplicatedasMembers
learned more about thesubject andconsequently changed theirviews. TheCommittee tooknoteof
theChairman 'sreport andagreed tocontinue informal consultations withaview tofurthering the
development ofguidelines.
Technical Assistance andCooperation
38. TheSecretariat reported onitstechnical cooperation activities undertaken sincethelastmeeting
oftheCommittee. Incooperation withtheCodex Alimentarius Commission, theOIEandtheWHO,
twofurther regional Seminars hadbeenheld-oneintheGulfregion (Dab) andanother intheNorth
African region (Cairo), inDecember 1996. Thepurpose oftheseminars, aswithearlier ones, was
toinform governments ofthebasic rights andobligations setoutintheSPSAgreement andexplain
theroleoftherelevant international organizations inthiscontext. TheSecretariat thanked theUS
Government forproviding funds andresources fortheorganization ofthetwoseminars. AWTO
Seminar ontheSPSAgreement hadalsobeenheldinconnection withthemeeting oftheCodex Co-
ordinating Committee forAfrica, inHairier, inNovember 1996, atwhich 21African countries had
participated. InGeneva, theSecretariat hadorganized three Informal Information Sessions (inthe
respective official WTO languages) forinterested delegates. Aside fromother adhocmeetings with
groups andindividual delegations inGeneva, theSecretariat waswilling toparticipate ininternational
orregional activities where itwasthought thattheirinput might beuseful. However, itwasstressed,
availability wassubject tothework loadintheDivision. Itwasfurthermore noted thatthere would
besome information forthcoming ontheProgramme ofTechnical Assistance for1997 from the
Committee onTrade andDevelopment.G/SPS/R/7
Page9
39. Therepresentative oftheCodex Alimenatrius Commission noted thatFAO wasactive in
providing awiderange oftechnical assistance atcountry level, including thetraining offood-control
officials. Inaddition toarange ofseminars andworkshops thathadbeen organized withother
internationalorganizations,theFAOwascurrentlycarryingout19projectsonstrengtheningfood-control
activities andhadcarried outmore than100similar projects inthepastyears tohelpcountries improve
theirfoodquality andsafety activities. Within thelimits oftheirresources, theFAO waswilling to
provide further technical assistance andwelcomed theclose cooperation withtheWTO, theOIEand
theIPPC.
40. Therepresentative oftheITCinformed theCommittee thatithadbeenactive indisseminating
information about theSPSandTBTAgreements asafollow-up totheUruguay Round. Thiswasdone
through one-day seminars thatmainly aimed atinforming business communities about theimplications
oftheAgreements. These seminars hadbeenconducted inmore than20countries inAfrica, Latin
America andAsiain1996; asimilar number ofcountries were expected tobecovered in1997.
41. TherepresentativeoftheIPPCremindedtheCommitteethatrequirementstojustifyphytosanitary
restrictions onscience were increasing theneedfortechnical assistance, especially withregard to
certification andimport inspection services. Improvements wereveryslowandresources forassistance
were limited. Therepresentative ofPakistan supported thestatement oftheIPPC.
42. Therepresentative oftheWHO reported onanumber ofseminars conducted forEastern Europe
onfoodsecurity andpolicy. Theseminars haddisseminated information onriskassessment andthe
establishment ofnational foodstandards.
43. Therepresentative oftheOIElikewise informed theCommittee onitstechnical cooperation
activities. Henoted thatOIE'sassistance addressed twoaspects; first,thediagnosis ofanimal disease
andsecond, assistance andadvice incombating these diseases. Substantial progress hadrecently been
made intheestablishment ofacoordination unitinthefightagainst FootandMouth Disease inSouth
EastAsia.
44. Inthanking theinternational organizations andtheSecretariat forthetechnical cooperation
provided, therepresentatives ofEgypt, India andPakistan drew theCommittee 'sattention tospecial
difficulties encountered bydeveloping countries withrespect tothepreparation, development and
application ofSPSmeasures, bothwithregard toimports andexports. Theymaintained thatawareness
wasnotsufficiently highdespite thefactthatthetransition period fordeveloping countries hadexpired
on1January 1997. TheSecretariat wasrequested toprepare abriefpaper identifying theissues that
hadbeenraised atseminars withregard tothedifficulties encountered intheimplementation ofthe
SPSAgreement indeveloping countries. Such apaper might helpidentify areas forfuture technical
assistance andbeameans ofdetermining ways toaddress thedifficulties observed. TheSecretariat
indicated thatitwould consider thepossibility ofpreparing apaper which, onafactual basis, addressed
thekindofissues brought toitsattention inthecontext ofseminars andtechnical assistance. The
representative ofColombia requested assistance andcooperation from theSecretariat withregard to
theimplementation oftheSPSAgreement.
45. While appreciating theneeddeveloping countries hadfortechnical assistance, therepresentative
oftheUnited States expressed concern thattheissue beassociated withtheprovisions ontransition
periods intheAgreement. Thefactthatprocedures inallMember countries were constantly being
improved anddeveloped didnotinanywayremove Member 'sobligations under theSPSAgreement.G/SPS/R/7
Page10
Matters ofInterest Arising from theWork ofObserver Organizations
Revision ofIPPC
46. TheChairman reminded theCommittee thatanumber ofdocuments hadbeencirculated with
regard totheRevision oftheIPPC (G/SPS/W/65, W/69, W/70 andW/77). Therepresentative of
theIPPC, reporting ontheJanuary 1997 inter-governmental technical consultation ontherevision of
theIPPC, noted thatalthough substantial progress hadbeenmade, many issues remained insufficiently
discussed andnotfullyconsidered. Ageneral understanding hadbeenreached ontheinclusion of
regulated non-quarantine pestsinthescope ofthenewConvention. Theestablishment ofaCommission
onphytosanitary measures wassupported bymostcountries, although some expressed concern about
thefinancial resources needed tooperate suchacommission. Differences remained onthewording
ofthePhytosanitary Certificate. Lastly, thetechnical consultation haddecided thataworking group,
charged withthenegotiation ofthefinaltextoftherevised IPPC, would beestablished atthemeeting
oftheFAO Committee onAgriculture inApril 1997. TheWorking Group would report backtothe
Committee onAgriculture before theendofitsmeeting, andthatbodywould decide whether thetext
could berecommended foradoption bytheFAO Conference inNovember 1997.
47. TheChairman oftheSPSCommittee, whohadparticipated intheJanuary 1997 technical
consultation, feltthatthere hadbeenalackofunderstanding ontherelationship between theSPS
Agreement andtheIPPC. Thiscould, atleastinpart,havebeenduetoinsufficient national coordination.
TheChairman stressed theimportance thatthedefinitions setoutintherevised IPPC enabled thescope
oftheConvention tobeatleastaswideasthatoftheSPSAgreement. Furthermore, theroleofthe
standards hadtobeclarified andtheestablishment ofaCommission wasneeded inorder fortheIPPC
tobecome operative andenhance theimplementation oftheSPSAgreement. Members were urged
tocoordinate atnational level inorder toensure thattheirappropriate officials were aware ofthe
importance oftheoutstanding issues. Therepresentative ofJapan reaffirmed theimportance ofenhanced
coordination between government representatives thatwereworking withtheamendment oftheIPPC
andthose involved withWTO matters.
Draft Agreement between theWTO andtheOIE
48. TheChairman recalled thatinMay1996, theCommittee hadconsidered adraftAgreement
between theWTO andtheOIE(G/SPS/W/61). Atthatpoint there hadbeennospecific, substantive
concerns raised byMembers. However, asadecision toadopt theAgreement intheOIEhadbeen
postponed toallow sufficient timetoconsider it,theSPSCommittee hadnotbrought theprocess any
further atthattime. Itwasnoted thattheOIEwould propose thetextforadoption inMay1997, at
itsannual session inParis. TheSPSCommittee raised noobjections ontheproposed agreement,
however, therepresentative ofArgentina reserved therightofhisgovernment toidentify anyobjections
within 20daysfollowing themeeting. Aformal decision onthedraftAgreement would betaken at
thenextmeeting oftheSPSCommittee.
Other issues
49. Therepresentative oftheIPPC noted thatthenextsession ontheFAOCommittee onAgriculture
would consider twonewstandards andmake arecommendation totheFAO Conference fortheir
adoption.Onedealtwithexportcertificationsystemsandthesecondprovidedguidelinesforcertification.
50. Therepresentative oftheOIEreported onthestandard-setting work tobediscussed atthe
upcoming General Session oftheOIEInternational Committee, 26-30 May1997. Among other issues,G/SPS/R/7
Page11
theCommittee oftheInternational Zoosanitary Code wasconsidering newproposals onsurveillance
systems withregard tocountries freeofBSE. TheThird Edition oftheManual ofStandards for
Diagnostic Tests andVaccines hadjustbeenpublished. Theequivalent withregard totheFishDiseases
Committee, theDiagnostic Manual forAquatic Animal Diseases, would besubmitted foradoption
attheMay1997 meeting.
51. Therepresentative oftheWHO reported onanumber ofactivities bytheFAO, theWHO and
theCodex. Henoted thatthereports fromseveral oftheseevents wereavailable attheFAO'sorWHO 's
Internat sites. Inrelation toBSE, theWHO hadheldtwoconsultations in1996(April andMay) and
afurther wasscheduled forlateMarch 1997, inGeneva. Inresponse toconcerns regarding aseries
offood-borne outbreaks ofenterohaemorrhagic E-coli, aconsultation aimed ataddressing itsprevention
andcontrol wasscheduled forApril 1997. Regarding Codex activities, therepresentative oftheWHO
noted thattheCodex Committee onFood Hygiene hadagreed torevise theCodex Guidelines onthe
Application oftheHACCP-system. Thisrevision would bediscussed atthenextmeeting oftheCodex
Alimentarius Commission (CAC). Work hadalsostarted ontheelaboration ofadocument addressing
theprinciples ofmicrobiological riskassessment. Theamendment ofCodex acceptance andnotification
procedures hadbeenconsidered attheCodex Committee onGeneral Principles inParis, November
1996, butnoconsensus wasreached. Lastly, theCodex Committee onFood Import andExport
Inspection andCertification Systems, which metinFebruary 1997 (Sydney), haddecided toforward
theCodex Guidelines fortheDesign andOperation ofFood Import andExport Inspection Systems
toStep8oftheCodex elaboration procedures. These wereexpected tobeadopted attheCAC inJune
1997, inGeneva.
Other Business
Salmonella
52. Therepresentative oftheUnited States reiterated theirconcern regarding measures adopted
byanumber oftheirtrading partners, among them Chile andtheCzech Republic, onthecontrol of
salmonella. Inparticular, Chile hadnotsubstantiated theirclaim thatsalmonella waslessprevalent
indomestic poultry stocks compared totheimported product, andtheCzech Republic continued to
maintain azero-tolerance policy onimported poultry. Furthermore, itwastheunderstanding ofthe
United States thattheCentral American Common Market hadagreed toharmonize sanitary requirements
forpoultry meatimports. TheUnited States wasinterested inknowing when suchlegislation would
bedrafted andimplemented.
53. Therepresentative ofChile recalled thedocument submitted attheprevious meeting ofthe
Committee onthesame subject (G/SPS/GN/3). Henoted thatwithregard toimports ofpoultry meat,
sampling methods wereused. Thepractice wasnotdiscriminatory asitapplied toallsuppliers and
had,forinstance, allowed Denmark toexport poultry meat toChile. With regard tothehealth of
domestic poultry stocks (national treatment), thecompetent authorities inChile maintained arigorous
epidemiological monitoring system withparticular focus onsalmonella. Thispolicy hadbeenfurther
strengthenedinapplyingtheHACCPriskanalysismethodforpoultryproduction.Thesehealthstandards
hadenabled Chilean poultry togainaccess toparticularly difficult markets suchastheEuropean
Communities, Japan andHong Kong. Chile remained opentofurther discussions withtheUnited States.G/SPS/R/7
Page12
Korean import clearance procedures
54. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted thatconsultations withKorea onimport clearance
procedures continued. Although encouraged bysome changes Korea hadimplemented, concerns
remained. Therepresentative ofKorea indicated thathiscountry 'sprogramme toimprove itsinspection
andquarantine procedures hadalready beenintroduced attheprevious meeting oftheCommittee
(G/SPS/GN/6). TheCommittee wasassured thatKorea would continue itsefforts tostreamline and
conform itssanitary andphytosanitary legislation totheSPSAgreement.
Honduras 'restrictions onimports ofrough rice
55. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed concern thatHonduras hadnotyetlifted its
restrictions onimports ofrough rice. Therepresentative ofHonduras assured theCommittee thathis
authorities would intensify efforts toreach arapid solution totheproblem.
Spanish regulations affecting imported squid
56. Recalling yetanother issueraised ataprevious meeting oftheCommittee, theUSrepresentative
indicated continued concern withregard totheapparently discriminatory nature ofSpanish regulations
affecting imported squid. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities maintained thatinaddition
toWHO recommendations onmaximum dailyintakes ofcadmium andcopper, ithadtobetaken into
account thatSpain hadaparticularly highconsumption oftheproducts inquestion. Thisconsideration
hadbeenthebasisfortheregulation introduced bytheSpanish authorities. Withregard tothealleged
discriminatory nature ofthemeasure, theECrepresentative noted thatalthough thenorm referred only
tothirdcountries, inpractice itwasrecognized byECmember States within theCommunities. In
addition, themajority ofsquid imported intoSpain came from outside theEuropean Communities.
Japanese varietal testing requirements forfruits
57. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesrecalledJapan'sextensivetestingrequirementsondifferent
varieties ofthesamefruit. TheUnited States wascurrently intheprocess ofreviewing newinformation
provided byJapan onthematter. Therepresentative ofJapan noted thathisauthorities would continue
tomake bilateral efforts inorder toreach asolution.
Australia 'sbanonsalmon imports
58. Therepresentatives ofCanada andtheUnited States noted theirconcern thatAustralia had
decided tomaintain itsbanonimports offresh, chilled andfrozen salmon onthebasis ofasecond
riskassessment. USauthorities wereintheprocess ofreviewing theriskassessment, butremained
unconvinced. Canada hadformally requested theestablishment ofapanel intheDispute Settlement
Body (20March 1997), buttherequest hadnotbeenaccepted byAustralia. Therepresentative of
Australia reiterated thattheriskassessment undertaken wasoneofthelongest andmost intensive
scientific riskassessments everperformed byAustralia. Ithadbeenpublished andwasavailable for
those interested.G/SPS/R/7
Page13
RiskAnalysis andAnimal Health -International Training Course
59. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland announced thatitsFederal Veterinary Office, together with
theNewZealand Ministry ofAgriculture would organize, astheyhaddonelastsummer, aone-week
course onriskanalysis. Thecourse would beheldbetween 13-18 July1997, inDübendorf, Switzerland.
Information about thecourse could beobtained fromtheSecretariat ordirectly fromSwiss veterinary
authorities.
Protected zones andtheEuropean Communities
60. TherepresentativeofUruguay,supportedbyMexico,SouthAfricaandChile,expressedconcern
about anECdecision toeliminate thecriteria ofprotected zones orareaswithin theCommunity territory.
Theconsequence, itwasfeared, could bethestrengthening andextension ofphytosanitary requirements
tothewhole oftheCommunity. Chile wasconcerned about negative consequences onexports ofcitrus
fruits. Delegations requested theEuropean Communities toclarify thetechnicalities andscientific basis
fortheproposal andprovide information onwhen theplanwould benotified. Therepresentative of
theEuropean Communities noted thattheissuereflected current discussion intheStanding PlantHealth
Committee; hewould forward theconcerns totherelevant planthealth authorities. Heindicated that
thepolicy theEuropean Communities would pursue meant thataccess totheEuropean Communities
would depend ontheconditions attheorigin oftheexports.
Cosmetics andBSE
61. TherepresentativeofAustraliadrewtheCommittee'sattentiontoCommissionDirective97/1/EC
of10January 1997, notified under theSPSAgreement asG/SPS/N/EEC/43. Thedirective related
tocosmetic products andimplied thatECmember States would takeallnecessary measures toensure
thatasof30June1997, cosmetic products containing certain substances -i.e.bovine, ovine, andcaprine
tissues andfluids from thebrain, spinal cord, eyes, andingredients derived thereof -would notbe
placed onthemarket. Supported byBrazil, theAustralian representative expressed concern thatthe
directive apparently didnotrecognize thattheanimal health status ofsupplying countries might differ
fromthatwithin theEuropean Communities. Thelegislation seemed, therefore, nottobeinconformity
withArticle 6oftheSPSAgreement.
62. Inresponse,therepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesstressedthattherewasconsiderable
uncertainty surrounding theglobal prevalence ofBSE. Considering thatthedegree ofsurveillance
onaworld-wide basis wasstillunder development, andthatdetection wasmade difficult because of
itslongincubation period, there wasinfactnotmuch known about theexistence ofBSEoutside the
European Communities, orforthatmatter, within theCommunities. Itwasnoted thatallcomments,
aswellasfurther scientific evidence, would betaken intoaccount until18April 1997, andthatthe
regulation would enter intoforce on1July1997.
Canada 'snewGovernment agency
63. TherepresentativeofCanadainformedtheCommitteethatCanadawasintheprocessofbringing
together itsfoodandquarantine inspection activities intoasingle Government agency. Prior tothe
creation oftheagency, foodinspection inCanada hadbeendonebythreeseparate federal departments:
Agriculture, Fisheries andHealth. Theorganizational changes would shortly bebrought totheattention
ofCanada 'strading partners.G/SPS/R/7
Page14
Appointment ofChairperson
64. TheChairman drewtheCommittee 'sattention tothefactthathistermofoffice would terminate
attheendofthecurrent meeting. TheCouncil forTrade inGoods hadappointed Dr.AlexThiermann
(United States) asthenewChairperson oftheSPSCommittee. Delegations thanked Ambassador
Bergholm forhisexcellent contribution asChairman oftheSPSCommittee andwelcomed thenew
Chairman.
Date andAgenda ofNext Meeting
65. Thefollowing provisional agenda forthemeeting of1-2July1997(tentative date)wasagreed:
A. Adoption oftheagenda
B. Observers
C. Implementation oftheAgreement
(i) Information from Members
(ii) Specific trade concerns
D. Transparency Provisions:
(i) Consideration ofspecific notifications received
(ii) Anyother matters related totheoperation oftransparency provisions
E. Monitoring ofuseofinternational standards
F. Consistency
G. Technical assistance andcooperation
H. Matters ofinterest arising from thework ofobserver organizations
(i) Revision ofIPPC
(ii) Draft Agreement between theWTO andtheOIE
I. Other business
J. Dateandagenda ofnextmeeting