RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/31
23 December 2003
(03-6753)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29-30 OCTOBER 2003
Note by the Secretariat1
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its twenty-
eighth meeting on 29-30 October 2003.  The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Paul Martin (Canada),opened the meeting.  The agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/2197 was adopted with amendments.
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
(a) Information from Members
(i) Activities of Members
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada
2. The representative of Canada reported on developments related to its one case of BSE.
Canadian authorities had identified the herd of origin and the date of birth of the case animal, which
was prior to Canada's feed ban. The most likely source of infection was contaminated feed associated
with a very small number of animals imported from the United Kingdom between 1982 and 1989,which introduced infectivity into the animal feed chain after they were slaughtered.  Canada was
implementing the recommendations made by an inte rnational team of BSE experts, including the
removal of Specified Risk Material (SRM) in food for human consumption, and drew Members'
attention to a recent paper by Canadian scientists (available at www.inspection.gc.ca) that concluded
Canada was a minimal risk country as defined by the OIE's Terrestrial Animal Health Code.
3. Canada reminded countries of the OIE recommendations regarding certain products that
should be exempt from any BSE-related measues, regardless of a country's BSE status:  semen,embryos, milk and milk products, and protein-free tallow.  Canada also requested Members to allow
market access for non-risk meat and meat produc ts, including lamb, goat, caribou and muskox,
consistent with the OIE standards, as well as to agree on conditions that would allow for trade in
certain categories of pet food and live animals.  The OIE's Ad Hoc Group for Evaluation of Country
Status for BSE had met in Paris on 22-26 September 2003, and the OIE would continue to review theBSE Chapter based on new scientific information and consider the means to simplify the
categorization of a country.  Further details on the Canadian situation are available in
G/SPS/GEN/448, and from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency website www.inspection.gc.ca.
4. The representative of the OIE reported that proposed changes to the BSE chapter resulting
from the meetings held in September would be circulated to the Codex Committee and to OIEmembers in May 2004.  The Ad Hoc Group for Ev aluation of Country Status was evaluating a
"provisional freedom from BSE" status, also to be discussed in May 2004.
                                                     
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/31
Page 2
FMD situation in Argentina
5. The representative of Argentina reported that there had been an outbreak of foot-and-mouth
disease (FMD) on 29 August 2003.  The suspected case had been in the north of the country, where
37 pigs were affected although FMD was not yet confirmed.  Measures taken included the non-introduction of animals from infected areas;  restrictions on exports from the area (although animals in
the area were produced strictly for local consumption);  all susceptible species within a 3 km zone
vaccinated;  and a 10 km surveillance zone declared late August.
Australian Handbook on Risk Assessment and the Quarantine and Market Access Conference
6. The representative of Australia informed the Committee of Australia's recently published a
revised Import Risk Analysis Handbook, replacing the 1998 version.  The Handbook, available on the
Australian Government Department of Agri culture, Fisheries and Forestry website
(www.daff.gov.au/biosecurityaustralia), as a CD Rom or in hardcopy, explained Australia's risk
assessment procedures.
7. The representative of Australia also reported on the third Quarantine and Market Access
Conference held in September 2003, in conjunction with the Australian Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry and the Quarantine Expo rt Advisory Council.  The Conference drew 250
delegates from around the world.  Proceedings from the Conference are available on the website and
in hardcopy (e-mail:  bde@daff.gov.au).  The representatives of Brazil and China noted that their
experts had participated in the Conference and found it extremely helpful.
Venezuela's Agricultural Health Service (SASA)
8. The representative of Venezuela provided information regarding the structure and operation
of it SASA, which executed SPS-related programmes in Venezuela (G/SPS/GEN/442).
US Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Regulation
9. The representative of the United States inv ited Committee participants to an information
session to be held 29 October 2003, on the status and implementation of the two new US bioterrorism
regulations.  On 10 October 2003, the FDA published two regulations in the form of interim final
regulations, which will take effect as of 12 December 2003.  The United States would continue to
accept comments on specific issues until 24 December 2003, and would reopen the comment period
for an additional 30 days beginning in March 2004, after countries had some experience with the
working of the regulations.  In the initial months of implementation, the United States would exercise
its discretion in the enforcement of the interim fi nal rules, recognizing that a number of affected
parties might require assistance in understanding the rule's requirements in order to comply.  The
United States was undertaking outreach and educational activities to assist countries understand the
new regulations.
10. The representative of the European Communities expressed disappointment that the European
Communities had not received direct replies to comments it made in August 2002 and April 2003
regarding the different information requirements of different US agencies which it hoped could be
harmonized and less trade restrictive.  He also questioned the requirement of an agent in the United
States, who appeared to have no legal liabilities, to act as a contact point.G/SPS/R/31
Page 3
(b) Specific Trade Concerns
(i) New issues
Korea's guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing
11. The representative of the United States expressed concern that Korea's changed import
regulation was onerous and not supported by science.  Under the new import inspection programme,
imported grains, fruits and vegetables would be subjected to an annual MRL test for the presence of
196 agricultural chemicals.  Importers would have to bear the US$1,800 cost of such tests, whereas
domestic producers were exempt from the mandatory testing requirements.  Domestic producers were
subject to random tests, for which the Korean Government bore the costs.
12. The representatives of Australia, the European Communities and New Zealand also requested
Korea to amend the measure, which they described as contrary to Annex C of the SPS Agreement.
13. The representative of Korea responded that Korea had amended the regulations to meet its
appropriate level of protection and noted that there were no comments on this issue when Korea
circulated its SPS notification at the beginning of this year.  He stated that Korea planned to
considerably reduce the testing fee as a result of a decrease in the cost of testing due to technical
developments.
14. The representative of the United States replied that on 10 March 2003, the United States
submitted comments on Korea's notification (G/SPS/N/KOR/123), and there had been two meetings
in September between US and Korean officials regarding this issue.
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei) import
restrictions on potatoes
15. The representative of New Zealand reported that her country had been experiencing delays
with its request for market access for potato exports to Chinese Taipei despite fulfilling all the
requirements.  New Zealand has also responded to requests by Chinese Taipei for additional
information which concerned pests not found in  New Zealand and pests not found on the potato
commodity exported, but only on the potato plant.  Chinese Taipei had now agreed to use ISPM 10,
which provided guidance on the Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Places of Production
and Pest Free Production Sites, to consider New Zealand's request.
16. The representative of Chinese Taipei recalled that New Zealand had first requested access on
20 September 1995, although New Zealand did not provide an assurance that its potatoes were free
from nematodes until April 2001.  In February 2002, New Zealand had withdrawn its initial request,
asking that its proposal be considered under ISPM 10.  In July 2002, a new pest risk assessment wascompleted.  After a visit by officials from Chinese Taipei, New Zealand was asked to provide an
updated pest list.  This was received on 31 April 2003.  Chinese Taipei had then requested further
information on the status of pests on 23 September 2003, but had yet to receive New Zealand's
response which it needed before it could prepare an import quarantine regulation.
Chinese Taipei requirements for heat treatment for meat and bone meal in poultry
17. The representative of the United States indicated that the heat treatment requirements of
Chinese Taipei for dried pet food produced in areas affected by Exotic Newcastle Disease exceeded
the relevant OIE guidelines and were not supported by scientific evidence.  Chinese Taipei required
that poultry ingredients containing bone meal or poul try meat from affected areas be processed at 133
degrees Celsius for 20 minutes at 3 bar pressure (maximum particle size 50 mm), compared to OIE
guidelines for heat treatment so that the interior of the bone was heated to 60 degrees Celsius forG/SPS/R/31
Page 4
30 minutes.  Chinese Taipei's heat treatment requ irements also applied to poultry originating in
disease-free areas.
18. The representative of Chinese Taipei stated that the regulation for pet food was under review
and amendments had been proposed.
(ii) Issues previously raised
Japan's official restrictions
19. The representative of New Zealand recalled that New Zealand had raised its concern about
Japan's plant fumigation policy consistently over the last year.  Under its Plant Protection
Enforcement Regulations, Japan fumigated for pests which were already present in Japan and were
not quarantine pests.  She argued that Japan's regime was not scientifically justified and was
inconsistent with the relevant IPPC standard.  Fo llowing bilateral contacts between New Zealand and
Japan in April and June, New Zealand had received no response from Japan addressing its concerns.
New Zealand requested Japan to substantially expand its non-quarantine pest list.  The representatives
of Australia and the United States supported New Zealand's intervention.
20. The representative of Japan noted that his authorities were seeking to resolve this issue
through technical discussions between relevant nationa l experts.  A bilateral meeting would be held in
November to discuss orchard controls and pre-clearance inspection systems.  In June, Japan had
established a consultative group consisting of representatives from academia, industry, producers and
consumer groups to examine whether its measures were consistent with international standards.  The
group had already had three meetings and intended to consult with other interested parties, including
trading partners.
Brazil's import requirements for seed potatoes
21. The representative of the European Communities explained that Brazil, which was the main
market for EC seed potatoes, had notified its measure on 13 November 2001.  Following discussions
in the Committee and with Brazil in October 2002, the European Communities had presented aproposal for a possible solution which Brazil had agreed to study.  However, the European
Community had received no reaction or technical objections to the proposal.  The representative of
Canada explained his country had also raised the issue with Brazil in Committee and, most recently,
bilaterally in February 2003, but there had been no resolution.
22. The representative of Brazil explained that his country was still considering the requirements
and was in the process of discussing new regulations.  However, he hoped this issue would be
resolved shortly.
Venezuela's restrictions on imports of garlic and onions
23. The representative of Argentina noted that this was the seventh time that Argentina had raised
this issue in the SPS Committee.  He reported that Venezuelan officials had visited Argentina in
December 2002 to confirm the absence of Urocystis cepulae  (smut of onion).  Argentina had received
a report from Venezuela just the previous week which it hoped meant the issue had been resolved.
The representative of the United States shared the concerns raised by Argentina.
24. The representative of Venezuela noted that the report had been sent to Argentina in March,
and an import protocol could now be completed.G/SPS/R/31
Page 5
Japan's restrictions on mangoes
25. The representative of Brazil stated that Japan's restrictions on imports of mangoes were
unjustified as mangoes were produced in an area 2000 km away from the area where the fruit fly was
found.  Brazil waiting for completion of the public consultation process in Japan and requested Japanto act swiftly to allow the importation of mangoes.
26. The representative of Japan stated his authorities had recently received data from Brazil on
the trapping of fruit flies and were in the process of reviewing the information.  Brazil had submitted
technical information in October 2001, and the technical studies by Japan were progressing well.
EC animal by-products requirements
27. The representative of the United States stated that despite bilateral technical discussions on
the EC animal by-products regulation, disruption of US  exports of pet food was likely.  He urged the
European Communities not to implement certain measures contained in the regulation until scientific
risk assessments had been performed.
28. The representative of Canada welcomed the decision to postpone implementation of the
animal by-products regulation for third parties beyond 1 May 2003.  The regulation necessitatedmajor adjustments in processing procedures for countries who exported to the European
Communities.  EC member States benefited from 16 transitional measures to allow them to adjust to
the new regulations, and Canada asked to also benefit from such transitional measures.
29. The representative of China requested a transitional review of the regulation and continued
bilateral discussions.
30. The representative of the European Communities explained that transitional measures had
been adopted for EC members States and additiona l time for compliance for all third parties allowed
until 31 December 2003 (EC 1812/2003).  Certificati on of imports had been reviewed and notified.
The European Communities had decided to offer targeted transitional measures to third countries on a
case-by-case basis.  A technical agreement, based on comments received from Australia, Canada,China and the United States, would be notified shortly.  The European Communities was awaiting the
conclusions of a scientific review to produce the ri sk assessment, that would be available in February
2004.
Trinidad and Tobago's import restrictions on pork sausages and other pork products
31. The representative of Argentina reported that since the last meeting, his authorities had
provided information to Trinidad and Tobago on the foot-and-mouth disease status of Argentina.
However, a visit by three veterinarians from the CARICOM to dairy factories and sausage production
plants had been cancelled because of a new outbreak of FMD.
32. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago clarified that Argentina had postponed the trip,
scheduled for 8-12 September, due to the appearance of an isolated case of FMD.  CARICOM has yet
to be advised by Argentina of new dates for the visit.  Trinidad and Tobago stated that its restrictionwould not be removed until it had completed a risk assessment.
US policy on regionalization with regard to classical swine fever
33. The representative of the European Communities stated that it had raised this issue at the
March 2002 Committee meeting, regarding the delay in the recognition of EC member States as freeof classical swine fever.  The European Communities had provided the necessary information, andG/SPS/R/31
Page 6
renewed its request to the United States to adhere  to commitments made in the bilateral agreement
between the United States and the European Communities in 1998 relating to animal health.
34. The representative of the United States explained that his authorities had been working
closely with the European Communities and interested EC member States on this regionalization
request.  In April 2003, the United States published a final rule recognizing certain areas of theEuropean Communities as disease free.  On 16 October 2003, APHIS ruled that East Anglia, in the
United Kingdom, was disease free and APHIS was continuing its evaluation of the status of other EC
member States.  Outbreaks of both classical sw ine fever and FMD in France, Spain and Luxembourg
had complicated and delayed the response to the regionalization request.
Indonesia's restrictions on importation of agricultural products
35. The representative of Argentina stated that Indonesia applied restrictions on imports of
products from Argentina that went beyond the OI E recommendations (G/SPS /GEN/240) and included
products not affected by FMD, i.e. cereals.  He requested Indonesia to provide scientific evidence to
justify the measures, or else to lift the measures.  Argentina had provided documentation in an
informal bilateral meeting with Indonesia and prop osed a visit of experts to resolve the issue.
36. The representative of Indonesia stated that FMD posed a serious risk because Indonesia was
free of the disease.  The ban was periodically evaluated and could be temporary, and a visit by
Indonesia's experts was being considered.  Progress on this issue was being made in consultations
with Argentina, and Indonesia would keep the Committee informed.
Colombia's import restrictions on bovine meat due to foot-and-mouth disease
37. The representative of Argentina reported that this issue had been resolved at the end of
September 2003, and that Colombia had eliminated its restrictions.  The representative of Colombia
confirmed that this issue had been resolved, and that exports of flowers from Colombia to Argentina
had also been discussed during this meeting.
Update of G/SPS/GEN/204
38. The Secretariat reminded the Committee that the document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3 on
Specific Trade Concerns would be updated at the end of the year and requested Members to inform
the Committee of issues that had been resolved.
(c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received
G/SPS/NEEC/191 and Add.1 – EC notification on food and feed controls
39. The representative of the United States stated the notified measure would establish an
extensive series of official controls on feed and food to be implemented by 1 January 2005.  EC
member States' control systems would be harmonized, integrating specific controls at all stages of
production in all food and feed sectors.  The European Communities would audit control systems and
"control plans" from exporting countries would have to be submitted annually to the EuropeanCommunities.  The United States believed that the proposal would require that all exporting countries
demonstrate compliance or equivalence to the EC food safety measures for all products to be exported
to the European Communities as a precondition for market access.  Control plans required information
on all related legislation, organization of competent authorities, training of staff, resources available
and assurance of equivalence of domestic safety measures.  While the United States agreed thisapproach was appropriate for high risk products such as meat and poultry, it believed that this level of
risk management was not appropriate for all types of food for which any identified risks were
generally quite low.G/SPS/R/31
Page 7
40. The representative of Canada shared the concerns raised by the United States and noted that
Canada had recently submitted comments to the European Communities.  Canada sought more
information regarding the requirements for non- EC countries and suggested that the European
Communities provide third country information sessions.
41. The representative of the European Communities explained that the regulation should
facilitate conformity of imported food with EC health standards and principles for checking food
stuffs.  He noted that written comments had been received by the 27 July 2003 deadline and these
would be considered by the EC Enquiry Point and Council of Ministers.  Regarding control plans,
much of the requested information was already available on internet sites i.e., USDA and FDA, and
US fears of increased bureaucracy were groundless.  The regulation, which was based on Codex
recommendations, would facilitate trade through more transparency and the exchange of information
on controls or checks for third countries.  The European Communities agreed to consider Canada's
suggestion to hold an information session.
G/SPS/N/EEC/208 – EC's sanitary conditions for the importation of live material for apiculture
42. The representative of Argentina recognized the need to minimize the risks of introducing
pests of apiculture and noted that Argentina had its own measures (G/SPS/N/ARG/71).  However, he
argued that the EC measure, which restricted importation of queen bees with accompanying worker
bees from third countries, was unjustified.  The EC measure required exporting countries prove that
they were free of the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) and of the Tropilaelaps mite.  Argentina was
free from the pests and considered the EC response to its comments unsatisfactory.  Argentina hoped
that its concerns had been addressed in the latest EC notification (G/SPS/N/EEC/208/Add.1).
Argentina requested the European Communitie s to defer implementation of the measure.
43. The representative of the United States expected that the new regulations would take into
account disease free areas, for example Hawaii was free from the two pests.  The representative of
Australia supported the US position and stated that the EC proposed requirement was unreasonable
and needed to take into account disease free status.  New Zealand supported the comments made byArgentina, the United States and Australia.
44. The representative of the European Communities stated that the first notification was of a
draft decision to restrict the importation of queen bees and their escorts to stop the introduction of the
two parasites.  These two parasites, although not included on the OIE list, posed a serious risk as they
damaged hives and caused economic losses.  Comments from Members had been taken into account
and amendments to the measure had been notified.  Disease free zones and health certificates covering
these two pests would enable the safe import of bees into the European Communities.
G/SPS/N/JPN/104 – Japan's revisi on of the standards and specifications for foods and additives
45. The representative of China expressed concerns about Japan's maximum residue levels
(MRLs) for several pesticide residues, in particular MRLs for chlorpyrifos.  The limits for
chlorpyrifos in spinach and other products were not science based.  China had provided comments toJapan on 16 September 2003 regarding this issue, but had yet to receive a response.
46. The representative of Japan noted that answers to the questions from China had been provided
through the Japanese embassy in China.  Regarding the MRL for spinach, this product was not
included in this notification.  The MRLs for the 15 pesticides were based on toxicological risk
assessments including residue data and were no more stringent than Codex standards.G/SPS/R/31
Page 8
G/SPS/N/DEU/9 and Add.1 and G/ SPS/GEN434 – Germany's maximum tolerance levels for
ocratoxin A in coffee
47. The representative of Colombia stated that on 17 June 2003, Germany had notified a draft
regulation for MRLs for ocratoxin in products including soluble and roasted coffee.  InSeptember 2003, the application of the measure had been postponed until December 2003.  Colombia
had already provided comments on the measure, and had submitted questions to Germany
(G/SPS/GEN/434).  It believed that the MRL was disproportionate and that the scientific evidence
regarding risks to human health was not conclusive.  The economic losses could be significant for
Colombia as it exported 1.7 million bags of coffee to Germany, which was equivalent to 17 per cent
of its total coffee exports.  The testing could result in six per cent of all coffee entering Germany from
Colombia being rejected.  Colombia questioned the relationship between this measure and the ECregulations.
48. The representatives of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru
shared the concerns expressed by Colombia.  Brazil noted that the higher MRL for the soluble product
than for the roasted coffee was unusual, as normally products for direct consumption had lower levels
of MRLs.
49. The representative of the European Communities explained that each EC member State
retained the right to adopt national legislation for the protection of human health when no EC standard
existed.  Since there was no MRL for coffee in th e European Communities, Germany could establish
its own MRLs.  The measure was based on new scientific evidence.  The EC Commission had
organized a meeting between Colombian and German toxicologist experts, and replies to Colombia'squestions would be circulated to all Members shortly.
G/SPS/N/USA/705 - US implementation of the inte rnational standard for phytosanitary measures on
wood packaging (ISPM 15)
50. The representative of Argentina agreed that wood packaging could spread pests.  However,
the US measures could have a negative impact on Argentina's exports.  The US notification did not
provide sufficient time for implementing the measur es need for compliance.  For instance, Argentina
needed sufficient resources and time to establish the required treatment centres for wood packaging
materials.  Chile supported the statement made by Argentina.
51. The representative of the United States stated that it had received 54 comments from seven
other Members on its proposed measure and that APHIS was in the process of evaluating these
comments to determine how to take them into account.  The 1st January 2004 implementation datewould be postponed and the measure would be phased in over time.  The United States encouraged
other Members to adopt ISPM 15 as a means of controlling the spread of raw wood pests.
G/SPS/N/EEC/209 and G/SP S/N/EEC210 – EC maximum levels of aflatoxins in corn and sampling
contaminants in food
52. The representative of Argentina noted that the EC's MRL for aflatoxin levels depended on the
intended use of products and the levels were not consistent with international recommendations nor
based on scientific evidence.  However, the new regulation modified the MRL for corn and was less
restrictive.  Argentina's comments on G/SPS/N/EEC/210 on the sampling of food were being
prepared.  Argentina requested a review of the sampling levels along with the scientific justification tosupport the measure.
53. The representative of the European Communities stated it would continue its dialogue with
Argentina.  The European Communities had conducted scientific research to support the MRLsG/SPS/R/31
Page 9
adopted for corn and it considered that the levels were not too strict and could be met through good
agriculture practice.  The MRL for corn was established to protect consumer health.
(d) Any Other Matters Related to the Operation of the Transparency Provisions
54. The representative of the European Communities indicated that the purpose of document
G/SPS/GEN/426 and Corr.1 was to inform Members that the ten candidate members joining theEuropean Communities would be including in their legislation all EC SPS related legalisation or
Acquis Communautaire.  They would not be notifying these changes in regulations individually.
55. The representative of Canada noted that in certain sectors such as fishery products, accession
country measures have become clearer and less trade restrictive.  Canada, however, was concerned
with the impact in other sectors, particularly meat, as the new EC member States would be adopting
the EC hormone ban which had been found to be inconsistent with the WTO SPS Agreement.  Canada
noted that the transition periods of three to four years meant that the new EC member States would beprohibited from exporting meat to other EC member States until their meat establishments met EC
standards.  However, meat establishments in the new EC member States could still sell their meat
domestically.  Canada considered it discriminatory that imports of meat to these new EC member
States could only come from facilities that had been EC approved.  In Canada's view, the new EC
member States should be permitted to import from an y third countries that met their existing national
requirements until their own facilities were EC approved.
56. The representative of the United States shared the concerns raised by Canada, stating that new
EC member States should be permitted to import meat from both Canada and the United States.  The
United States and Mexico argued that accession to the European Communities did not mean that
Members should not fulfil their existing transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement and notifychanges to current SPS measures to allow time for other Members to comment.  The harmonization of
legalisation of the ten new EC member States should be notified to allow for comments by Members,
as these measures would have trade impacts.
57. The representative of the European Communities replied that the legislation being adopted by
the ten new EC member States already existed and had already been notified to the SPS Committee,so there was no reason to discuss it again.  Regarding the EC hormones ban, he noted that this issue
was being dealt with in other bodies of the WTO.  In response to a query from Chile, the
representative of the European Communities noted that the internal borders would disappear and the
external borders would encompass the new members.  The new members would apply the EC's
sanitary levels and standards.
58. The representative of Mexico presented a paper on transparency describing its concerns
regarding compliance with the transparency requirements of paragraph 5 of Annex B (G/SPS/W/136).Mexico proposed publishing a pre-notification describing new SPS measures being developed.  The
pre-notification would describe the objective of the measure, the products to be covered, and allow
reasonable time for Members to make comments.
59. The representative of Argentina commented that transparency was an important right of
Members and that incorrect or incomplete notifica tions impacted on a Member's ability to comment.
He suggested the Committee begin discussions on how to better implement the transparency
requirements.  Most Members were not notifying early enough, although some, such as Mexico
notified in advance, often before the draft regulations existed.  China's analysis of notifications made
during 2002 identified four main problems:  absence of a deadline for submitting comments;  no date
of adoption and entry into force;  non-compliance with the minimum 60-day deadline for submittingcomments;   and adoption prior to circulation of the notification (G/SPS/GEN/378).G/SPS/R/31
Page 10
60. The representative of Hong Kong, China poin ted out that enhanced transparency was an
option under paragraph 5 of Annex B, and not a legal requirement.  The representative of Canada
pointed out that only 87 members had ever notified.  Of these, 47 members had made less than ten
notifications and 40 members had made more than ten notifications.
61. The representative of Egypt stated that it was important to improve the transparency
obligations and quality of notifications as well as the number of countries notifying.  For Egypt this
was also important in terms of special and differential treatment requirements (G/SPS/GEN/358).
62. The Committee agreed to hold an informal meeting on transparency prior to the next regular
meeting to discuss ideas raised, inter alia , in the submissions by China, Egypt and Mexico.
63. The Secretariat drew attention to the updated contact lists for National Notification
Authorities and Enquiry Points (G/SPS/NNA/5 and G/SPS/ENQ/15) and to its concern that many of
the contact details were incorrect, i.e. incorrect fax numbers, phone numbers and e-mail addresses.The Secretariat emphasized the importance of being informed of changes to contact details.  The
Secretariat also reminded Members that notifications are to be submitted directly to the Central
Register of Notifications (CRN), preferably in electronic version, and that there was no need to send
duplicates of notifications.  All SPS notifications were summarized in the monthly lists circulated to
Members and notifications were distributed twice a week to addressees of the self subscribing e-maillist.  All documents for the Committee meetings were accessible through the SPS web page and could
be downloaded at the unrestricted and restricted Members' sites.
III. THE SPS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
(a) Implementation of the Provisions for Special and Differential Treatment
Chairman's report on the informal meeting
64. The Chairman recalled that the special and differential treatment proposals referred by the
General Council, the elaboration of the Canadian proposal and other special and differential treatment
proposals had been discussed at an informal meeting of the Committee held on Monday,
27 October 2004.  There had been little substantive discussion of the proposals referred to theCommittee by the General Council.  However, several delegations had stressed that the problems that
Members sought to address through these proposals merited continued scrutiny.  Japan drew attention
to the comments they had made in advance of the Committee meeting
 and the European Communities
recalled the comments they had made within the context of the consideration of these proposals by the
Committee on Trade and Development.2  Although the informal and formal meetings during the week
completed the work programme envisaged in document G/SPS/26, the issue of special and differential
treatment remained a standing agenda item for the Committee.  As provided in the agreed work plan,
the Chairman would submit a report to the General Council regarding the work of the SPS Committee
on these issues and on other special and differential and implementation issues.
65. With regard to the Canadian proposal, as elaborated by the Secretariat in document
G/SPS/W/132/Rev.1, the United States had explained the modifications it had proposed to the text
(G/SPS/W/141).  These changes were to take account of US administrative procedures andregulations.  Document G/SPS/W/141 was the outcome of considered deliberations at national level
between all relevant US agencies responsible for SPS issues.
66. A number of delegations noted that this document had only been issued on the day of the
meeting and they would need more time to give the proposal due consideration.  However, several
delegations had expressed concern with the suggestion that Members requesting an extension to a
                                                     
2 Job (03)/194 and TN/CTD/W/26, respectively.G/SPS/R/31
Page 11
comment period should be required to provide a justification for said request.  One Member had
questioned the US proposal that written comments received on a particular notification be made
public at Step 4, when that was already provided for at Step 7.  Another Member had suggested that
the exporting Member making comments should decide if its comments should be made public, so as
to avoid potential intellectual property concerns.  Concern had also been raised that the US proposaloverlooked the obligation under the SPS Agreement to take the results of discussions between
Members into account, in addition to the comments submitted by Members on a specific notification.
67. The Committee agreed to further consider the US proposal at an informal meeting
immediately preceding the first regular meeting of the Committee in 2004.  To assist the Committee
in its deliberations, the Chairman requested the Secretariat to prepare a comparison of the US
proposal with document G/SPS/W/132/Rev.1.  This comparison was translated and made available to
all Members during the meeting.
68. With regard to other proposals on special and differential treatment, it was recalled that the
proposal made by Egypt (G/SPS/GEN/358) was still on the table for consideration and that other
specific proposals would be welcome.  In reply, one Member stated that in accordance with
paragraph 5(a) of Annex B to the SPS Agreement, Members might consider submitting "pre-
notification" to the SPS Committee of proposed measures.  Such pre-notification would have severaladvantages, not least that concerned Members would have further advance warning and be able to
make best use of any subsequent notice period for comments.  Mexico indicated that this proposal
reflected the approach that it had suggested be considered by the Committee in document
G/SPS/W/136.
Further consideration of the proposed elaboration of Canada's proposal
69. The representative of Canada said that the aim of its proposal was to provide advice on how
the Committee might proceed.  Canada's paper, presented in March 2003 and then elaborated by the
Secretariat in June, had gained broad support at that time.  Only a few countries had problems with a
few words contained within the paper.  Canada noted that the US delegation's attempt to address theirconcerns had led to numerous changes to the Secretariat's elaboration.  Canada observed that this
elaboration would be discussed in March 2004, one year after the Committee agreed to adopt, in
principle, the recommendations included in Canada's proposal.  Canada did not want to change the
procedures already agreed by the Committee in G/SPS/7/Rev.2, and believed that its paper already
captured the concerns raised by the United States.
Further consideration of the proposals referred by the General Council
70. Canada, the European Communities and the United States supported the comments made by
Japan (Job(03)/100).  A suggestion that the Committee consider each of the proposals individually at
informal meetings was not supported by other delegates.  The Chairman noted, however, that if any
comments on Job(03)/100 were submitted in advance of the next Committee, an informal special
meeting would be scheduled to consider these.
71. The Chairman indicated he would submit a brie f report to the General Council regarding the
activities of the Committee on the elaboration of Canada's proposal and the status of work referred to
the Committee by the General Council (subsequently circulated as G/SPS/30).G/SPS/R/31
Page 12
IV. EQUIVALENCE
(a) Report on Informal Meeting on Equivalence
72. The Chairman noted that the Committee had concentrated its informal discussions on further
clarification of the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Decision, as proposed by Argentina, and on the
review of the Decision on Equivalence.
73. Following the June meeting, Argentina had revised its proposal for further clarification of the
provisions of paragraph 5, to take into account comments made by Members.  At the informal
meeting, the Committee had discussed Argentina's revised proposal, circulated as
G/SPS/W/123/Add.2.  This proposal contained guidelines for accelerated procedures for products
historically traded.
74. A number of Members had indicated that they could accept clarification proposed by
Argentina.  Others had highlighted practical problems that might be associated with the proposal.Some Members had noted that it would be difficult to establish a specific time schedule for the
process of determining equivalence, given that the schedule of such a procedure depended upon the
quality and timeliness of information provided by the exporting country.  However, several Members
had maintained that it would be useful to agree on a sequence of steps and estimated time schedule for
the procedures to be followed.
75. One Member had suggested adding experience as a variable for the simplification of the
equivalence procedure, and to be consistent with the Decision itself, using the word "should"
throughout the document rather than "shall".  Some Members had expressed concern regarding the
way in which past experiences, in particular negative ones, might affect the determination of
equivalence in practical terms.
76. One Member had questioned the usefulness of agreeing on three different procedures to be
followed for the recognition of equivalence based on the amount of information provided, as
described in the document, especially since these different procedures were not detailed.  This
Member had suggested instead that the Committee state that the procedure for recognition of
equivalence should be faster to the extent that relevant information was available to the importingMember.
77. Several Members had noted that the three standard-setting organizations were the appropriate
fora to develop detailed procedures for equivalence, not the SPS Committee, and that the work of
these organizations should not be compromised nor obstructed by the adoption of detailed procedures
by the SPS Committee.  Furthermore, the Committee and two of the standard-setting organizations
had only recently completed guidance on a general procedure to be followed, and it would be
confusing to now suggest that some steps of the ag reed procedure could be skipped.  This sentiment
was shared by the OIE, which had adopted a standard on equivalence only in May 2003.  This
standard described a series of steps to be followed and it would be difficult for the OIE to now
consider accelerated procedures which skipped some of the steps that had just been adopted.  Other
Members had suggested that it was not a matter of dropping some of the steps that had been agreed
for the recognition of equivalence but of going through them in an accelerated manner, as was alreadyoccurring in some cases.
78. In conclusion, the Chairman noted that some Members had questioned whether further
clarification of paragraph 5 was helpful at this stage and whether further guidance by the standard
setting organizations was needed on this issue.  On the other hand, a number of Members were
prepared to adopt the revised version of Argentina's document with some modifications.  TheChairman had requested the Secretariat to compile the amendments proposed to facilitate a decision
by the Committee.G/SPS/R/31
Page 13
79. Regarding the review of the Decision on Equivalence, several Members had indicated that
they believed the Committee had now completed its agreed work programme, and that no further
review of the Decision was necessary at this time.
80. One Member had suggested that the Committee should first complete the clarification of
paragraph 5 before commencing the review of the Decision on equivalence.  This Member hadsuggested that the Committee include this item as a regular agenda item and agree to review the
Decision after a certain period of time in light of the experience of Members, any notifications
regarding agreements recognizing equivalence, as well as information from the Codex, OIE and IPPC
regarding their work on equivalence.
81. In this regard, the Chairman had noted that the Committee had already agreed upon
clarification of paragraph 5, and that it was now considering whether further clarification was needed,
as foreseen in the work programme.
(b) Further Consideration of Paragraph 5
82. At the regular meeting, many Members indicated that they were prepared to agree on further
clarification of paragraph 5 of the Decision on Equivalence.  Most Members could accept a statement
that the greater the amount of information already available between Members due to historical trade,
the more recognition of equivalence should be facilitated.  They could not, however, agree to anartificially detailed categorization of simplified procedures.
83. The representative of Malaysia stated that historically traded products were already dealt with
in G/SPS/19, and that the description of equivale nce was very clear, i.e. equivalence was about
accepting a measure as equivalent based on information provided by the exporting Member,
inspection and testing.  Malaysia was not ready to agree on further clarification of historic trade.
84. The Chairman observed that although a large number of Members were in agreement, the
Committee was not in a position to reach agreement on the further clarification of paragraph 5.  He
asked the Secretariat to produce a text reflecting the changes suggested during the course of the
discussion, and proposed that the Committee seek to approve this text at its next meeting
(G/SPS/W/142).
(c) Information from Members on their Experience
85. No Member provided specific information regarding its experience with the recognition of
equivalence.
(d) Information from Relevant Observer Organizations
86. 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.  The Guidelines were
being circulated for comments by experts and would be discussed in May 2004 at the General Sessionwith the objective of agreeing on processes and facilitating the resolution of claims.
87. The representative of the IPPC reported that in September 2003, an Expert Working Group
was convened to draft a standard on equivalence (G/SPS/GEN/439).  The report from this meeting
would be presented to the Standards Committee for review in May 2004.  The representative of the
IPPC noted that as the last of the three reference organizations to develop a standard on equivalence,it had benefited greatly from the work done in the other organizations.
88. The representative of Codex stated that at the 26
th Session of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, 59 new Codex Standards had been adopted, including Guidelines for the Judgement ofG/SPS/R/31
Page 14
Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems
(G/SPS/GEN/447).
(e) Report to the General Council
89. The Chairman stated that he would submit a report to the General Council factually
describing the work of the Committee on equivalence, indicating that further clarification ofparagraph 5 was still outstanding and that equivalence was a subject of ongoing review by the
Committee.  The report was subsequently circulated as G/SPS/30.
V. DISEASE-FREE AREAS (ARTICLE 6)
90. The Chairman welcomed the submissions by Mexico (G/SPS/GEN/388, G/SPS/GEN/440),
Peru (G/SPS/GEN/417, G/SPS/GEN/418, G/SPS/GEN/445) Argentina (G/SPS/GEN/433) and Chile
(G/SPS/W/129, G/SPS/W/140, G/SPS/GEN/381) but noted that these had arrived too late to permit
the Secretariat to organize an informal meeting on Article 6.
91. The representative of Mexico stated that the concept of regionalization was of great
importance to his country.  He reported on Mexico's successful experience regarding the recognition
of fruit fly-free areas at the national level and by the United States, as described in G/SPS/GEN/440.
He also presented his country's proposal on r ecommended procedures and guidelines for the
recognition of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, detailed inG/SPS/GEN/388.
92. The representative of Peru described two plans that his country had been implementing to
control and eradicate fruit fly and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), with a view to improving plant,
animal and agrarian health.  The experiences were described in G/SPS/GEN/417 and
G/SPS/GEN/418, respectively.  In the first case, Peru's objective had been to eradicate pests fromthese areas and maintain its pest-free status and, in the second case, to gain and maintain its status as a
country free from FMD.  Peru acknowledged that in many cases the recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas took a long time and involved substantial financial efforts.  He noted that great efforts had
been made by the public and private sector in his country in this regard.  Furthermore, Peru
recognized that the sustainability of pest- or disease-free areas depended on the benefits that theprivate sector could derive.  In this regard, Peru considered that clear and predictable procedures were
key to ensure the commitment and interest from both the public and private sector.
93. The representative of Argentina presented her country's experiences, both positive and
negative, regarding the recognition of areas free of citrus canker (Xanthomonas axonopodis) as
described in G/SPS/GEN/433.  The procedures for regionalization of an identical plant pest had led, in
the first case, to recognition of the region's pest-f ree status without causing any disruption of trade.
With another trading partner, however, the region had not been able to commence trade under theconditions applying to a pest-free area.  Argentina considered that the effective implementation of the
regionalization principle was a vital tool in achieving flexibility in international trade and in
preventing the discretionary adoption and implementation of sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
94. The representative of Chile presented his country's proposal to develop guidelines and
procedures to make operational the provisions of Ar ticle 6 on the recognition of pest- or disease-free
areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence (G/SPS/W/140).  Chile suggested that the
Committee consider developing a specific programme  to further the implementation of Article 6, with
particular attention to the problems encountered by developing country Members.
95. The representative of the European Communities noted the European Communities'
willingness to recognize and apply the principle of regionalization as illustrated by the access alloweddespite Newcastle Disease in the United States, blue tongue in Canada, and FMD in Botswana,G/SPS/R/31
Page 15
Paraguay and Argentina, among others.  The European Communities would submit a communication
on regionalization for discussion at the next Committee meeting (subsequently circulated as
G/SPS/GEN/461).
96. The representative of Brazil stated that there were two aspects that had to be considered by
the Committee regarding the principle of regionalization. The first one concerned the application ofthis principle according to the guidelines and recommendations established by the OIE and the IPPC
for the definition of pest- or disease-free areas. The second one referred to the recognition of pest- and
disease-free areas by trading partners.  Brazil recognized that regionalization had proven to be an
important tool for obtaining market access, as well as the control and eradication of pests and diseases
and therefore, ensured the safety of the agricultural products exported by Brazil to its trading partners.
Brazil noted that Brazil had regionalized the country for diseases that had a significant effect on trade
of agricultural products.  For example, nine states had been recently declared free from NewcastleDisease and Avian Influenza, and fifteen states had been recognized as being free from FMD and
allowed to export beef based on international standards.
97. The representative of Japan stated that his country would examine the proposals and
communications submitted by Members on Article 6 and provide comments at the next meeting. The
representative of India noted the importance of the concepts presented and welcomed furtherdiscussions.
98. The representative of Mauritius recognized the importance of the concept of pest- or disease-
free areas for his country and noted the efforts that had been undertaken by the Southern African
Region in this regard.  He acknowledged his country's adherence to international standards over
regional standards.  Mauritius noted that the OIE had developed a mechanism for recognition,verification and declaration of pest- or disease-free areas and suggested that the Committee
recommend that the ICPM develop a similar mechanism.
99. The representative of the OIE stated that the OIE considered zoning and regionalization as
being vital for the conduct of safe international tr ade.  The OIE recognized that there were clear
distinctions between the technical aspects of zoning and regionalization and recalled that zoning andregionalization had been part of OIE's work since its inception.  These concepts had continued to be
addressed and had been reflected in various OIE standards, both generic standards and specific
disease standards.  The most recent work undertaken  with regard to this concept had dealt with non-
geographic zones referred to as compartments .  This new concept of compartmentalization  had been
defined as the non-geographic equivalent of a zone, such as an entity with a distinct animal health
status defined on the basis of management-based delineation at the enterprise level.  This concept was
of particular importance for the poultry and intensive pig industries.
100. The OIE was working on the two concepts for zoning the one based on geography and the
other one based on management, in parallel.  The OIE considered that these concepts could be applied
whenever the epidemiology of the pest or diseases  allowed it.  For example, the possibility would
exist of having in some chapters a zone called disease-free without vaccination, disease-free with
vaccination, a minimal risk zone or an infected zone, as well as surveillance zones, buffer zones, freezones etc.  Similar definitions would be developed for compartments. This would allow the OIE to
recommend some measures which could be applied by the importing countries to allow safe trade.
101. The OIE currently did not distinguish between zones and countries but considered zones as
being important because it would allow for countries, in particular developing countries, to focus their
resources on a particular area or population and address the disease issue on a smaller scale.  Thiscould be more cost effective and could result in a quicker return to a better animal health status and
participation in international trade.G/SPS/R/31
Page 16
102. The OIE had been applying zoning to FMD, Classical Swine Fever, Newcastle Disease,
Avian Influenza, etc.  The representative of the OIE noted that the application of this principle had
been very important to OIE members.  The OIE's new work on compartments had begun with Avian
Influenza, although this chapter had not been adopted at the General Session in 2003 because member
countries had felt it was premature.  However, the concept as a generic issue had been accepted byOIE member countries, as well as the mandate to continue working on more specific chapters in
coming years.
103. The representative of IPPC indicated that the IPPC recognized regional plant protection
organizations (RPPOs) and convened a technical  consultation meeting among RPPOs on an annual
basis.  Most regions in the world had a RPPO or were in the process of developing them.  He
indicated that the IPPC left the regionalization issues up to the RPPOs to deal with.  In addition, the
IPPC had several international standards, such as guidelines for defining a pest-free area, guidelines
on surveillance and guidelines on determining pest status that were available for Members to assist
them with these issues.
VI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION
(a) Information from the Secretariat
104. The Secretariat reported that a total of eight scheduled technical assistance missions had been
undertaken since the last meeting of the Committee.  National seminars had taken place in Georgia
and the Kyrgyz Republic in July, Lebanon and the Gambia in September, and Bahrain and Nigeria in
October.  A national seminar had been planned for the Maldives in early December.  No national
activities had been planned for 2004.  However, requests for national technical assistance and training
activities could be made to the Secretariat directly or through the respective WTO Bodies. 
105. Two regional activities had also been held, the first one in Uruguay for five Latin American
countries in July and the second in St Kitts and Nevis for English speaking Caribbean countries in
August.  Due to logistical problems, a planned regional activity in Nigeria for English-speaking West
African countries had been cancelled and a national seminar was held instead. In this regard, the
Secretariat urged Members to ensure that participants were nominated with sufficient anticipation soas to allow the necessary travel arrangements to be undertaken.  A regional activity was planned in
Uganda for selected English speaking African countries in November and in Sri Lanka for selected
South Asian countries in December.  Nine regional workshops were scheduled to take place in 2004
in the SPS area.
106. SPS technical assistance had also been provided through a US funded regional SPS workshop
for Balkan countries in Albania, a Swedish International Development Agency training course in
Stockholm and some training activities organized by a number of developed country members fortheir regulatory officials.  The Secretariat expressed gratitude to the bilateral donors and organizations
that had cooperated in the provision of SPS related technical assistance.
107. Regarding the status of the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), the Secretariat
recalled that a document had been issued in late August which outlined the progress that had been
made since the meeting of the STDF Working Group in May 2003 (G/SPS/GEN/423).  A number ofproject preparation grants and project proposals had been approved for funding, two of them having
been submitted by the WTO. The objective of the first project proposal had been to develop a "best
practice model" for transparency of SPS measures at a national level, not just with respect to Article 7
of the SPS Agreement, but also with respect to Codex, OIE, IPPC and in liaison with the private
sector.  The second proposal which had been developed was for a planning framework for SPScapacity building at the national level, making use of various needs assessment tools, and integrating
the perspectives of the public and private sectors.  These proposals would be discussed by the STDF
working group at its next meeting on 12 and 13 November 2003.G/SPS/R/31
Page 17
108. A further project preparation grant had been submitted by the OIE on developing a sanitary
chapter to the ALIVE programme under development by the World Bank for African countries.
Finally, with respect to ongoing projects, the STDF working group had also decided to fund an
OIE project to develop a tool for assessing and evaluating national veterinary services' capacity to
benefit from the SPS Agreement.  The evaluation tool would be applicable to veterinary servicesworldwide.  In terms of the response from Member s, to date the STDF had received two proposals
from Uganda and one from Lithuania.  These proposals would be discussed at the November meeting
of the STDF.  With regard to the funding situation of the STDF, the Secretariat noted the need to
attract more funds and indicated that Members would be kept informed of any developments in this
regard. Members were encouraged to consult the website:  www.standardsfacility.org  where they
would find not only information on the Fund and its application but also training materials developed
by the five partner organizations in the STDF.
109. The representative of Bahrain thanked the Secretariat for the national SPS seminar held in
Bahrain and enquired about the possibility of benefiting from technical assistance activities in the SPS
area in 2004. The representative of Georgia requested technical assistance to assist the national
notification authority in his country. The representa tive of St. Kitts and Nevis expressed his country's
gratitude to the Secretariat, the USDA, IICA and the European Communities for the technical
assistance activities undertaken in his country and the support that had been provided in the SPS area.
(b) Information from Members
110. The representative of Australia provided information on the Master Class in Agricultural
Biosecurity that had been held in Australia in September 2003.  The objective of the master class had
been to develop increased understanding of SPS issues and to share experiences among seniorofficials.  A total of 23 senior officials from 12 count ries had participated in this two-week course that
had been organized jointly by the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry and the ATSE Crawford Fund.
(c) Information from Observers
111. The representative of IICA presented IICA's experience in the development of capabilities in
IICA member countries in support of active participation in the SPS Committee, detailed in
G/SPS/GEN/427.  The programme had been jointly undertaken by the USDA and IICA and its
objective had been to strengthen the capabilities of the countries to enhance their effective
participation in the SPS Committee based on the exchange of experiences.
VII. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
(a) New Issues
112. No new issues were reported.
(b) Issues Previously Raised
113. The representative of the OIE presented a communication that addressed apparent
misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of the OIE international standards, their
implementation and interpretation (G/SPS/GEN/437).  The representative of the OIE also discussed
how OIE standards should be referred to in Member's SPS notifications.G/SPS/R/31
Page 18
VIII.  TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF
ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
114. The Chairman recalled that at the June 2003 meeting of the Committee, Members had been
invited to submit any questions to China well in advance of the October Committee meeting.  The
European Committees, Chinese Taipei and the United States had submitted questions (G/SPS/W/137,138 and 139, respectively).
115. The representative of China made a statement on China's SPS-related activities addressing
questions that Members had posed in relation to the following issues:  transparency, harmonization
with international standards, the scientific basis of SPS measures, consistency of measures with the
principle of non-discrimination, inspection and approval procedures, regionalization, BSE and
measures contained in its notification G/SPS/N/CHN/5.  China assured Members of its compliance
with the SPS Agreement and explained how it was fulfilling its requirements.  China's statement iscontained in document G/SPS/GEN/452.
116. The representative of the European Communities encouraged China to notify all measures in
advance to allow for other Members' comments.  The representative of Chinese Taipei commended
China on its efforts to meet its accession commitments.
117. The Chairman stated that he would make a sh ort factual report on the transitional review to
the Council for Trade in Goods (subsequently circulated as G/SPS/29).
IX. MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER
ORGANIZATIONS
118. The representative of IICA informed the SPS Committee of its actions aimed at the
implementation of the SPS Agreement, as described in document G/SPS/GEN/431.  He noted thatIICA's contact details were included in the document for delegates interested in more details.
119. The representative of the OIE noted that information was contained in its report on
implementing OIE standards (G/SPS/GEN/437), and that he would be pleased to provide further
details on request.
120. The representative of Codex highlighted four points described in greater detail in document
G/SPS/GEN/447.  The Codex recently adopted amendments to the rules of procedure and now
permitted the membership of regional economic integration organizations as full members of the
Codex.  The accession process for these organizations was rapid.  The Codex had adopted principles
for food safety risk analysis to be used in the Codex framework, as well as 59 new or revised Codex
standards.  Decisions to implement the recomme ndations of the Joint FAO/WHO evaluation of Codex
had been taken to improve the working of the Codex.  The FAO/WHO Trust Fund to enable the
participation of developing countries in Codex standard setting procedures would soon be operational,and participants would be funded to attend the next meeting of the Codex Commission.
121. The representative of the IPPC stated that the Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance
group had met in October and made recommendations on the future direction of IPPC activities, to be
considered by the ICPM.  Four regional technical workshops on draft standards had been held for
Asian-Pacific, Franco-African, Latin American and Caribbean, and Near East countries.  Theseworkshops helped build national capacity and provided an opportunity for countries to submit their
comments on the draft standards.  Expert working groups had met to discuss draft standards on
equivalence and on the use of integrated measures in pest management of citrus fruit for citrus canker.
ISPMs 11, 15, 18, 19 had been published.  A workshop on Invasive Alien Species was held in
September in Germany, in which phytosanitary experts, environmentalists and regulators met andexchanged ideas.  Fifty participants from least developed countries participated in this workshop.  AG/SPS/R/31
Page 19
Memorandum of Cooperation between the Secretariats of the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) and the IPPC would be si gned shortly (G/SPS/GEN/449).
122. The Chairman of the ICPM stated that in 2002/03, ICPM members had identified 143
standards which they wanted to be developed.  Next year, due to resource constraints, the IPPC
planned to develop only three standards.  The Chairman of the ICPM implored Members to ask formore resources for the IPPC at the FAO Conference, to be held 27 November to 12 December, which
would discuss the budget for the IPPC for 2004-2005.
123. The representatives of Kenya, Mauritius, Canada, the United States and the European
Communities supported the appeal of the Chairman of the ICPM.
124. The representative of the WHO recalled that in 2001, the Codex had requested the WHO and
FAO to review the procedure for providing scientific advice.  The FAO/WHO evaluation of Codex
had identified a review of the provision of scientific advice as a matter of urgency.  It recommendedthat consultations be organized to improve processes to ensure efficiency, transparency and
timeliness.  A consultative process was now underway  and involved three main steps:  an electronic
discussion forum, an international workshop and an expert consultation.  The electronic discussion
forum ran from 1 October to 14 November 2003.  Over 200 participants from more than 50 countries
joined the forum to comment on ten discussion papers.  An international workshop will take place atthe WHO on 27-29 January 2004, with experts and representatives from the stakeholder organizations
attending.  The workshop would consider the ten discussion papers (amended to include comments
from the electronic discussion) and prepare proposed measures for the improvement of the provision
of scientific advice.  Expert consultations would be organized for May or June 2004, at the FAO, to
consider the conclusions of the workshop and to develop final recommendations for submission toCodex, FAO and WHO.
125. The representative of WHO also drew attention to:  the Fourth Joint FAO/WHO Consultation
on food derived from biotechnology, safety assessmen ts of foods derived from genetically modified
animals including fish, to be held in Rome on 17-21 November;  the First Joint FAO/OIE/WHO
Expert Workshop on non-human antimicrobial usage and antimicrobial resistance:  scientificassessment, to be held in Geneva on 1-5 December;  and the FAO/WHO Workshop on capacity
building in developing countries to by held in New Delhi in the first half 2004.  He also highlighted a
new publication on guidelines for strengthening national food control systems.
126. The Chairman noted that although OIRSA could not participate in this meeting, it had
provided a report on its activities in document G/SPS/GEN/443.
X. OBSERVERS – REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
127. 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.
128. 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).
XI. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL OF TRADE IN GOODS
129. The Chairman announced his intention to make a brief, factual annual report on the activities
of the SPS Committee in 2003 for consideration by the Council for Trade in Goods.  The report would
provide information on the main work undertaken at the meetings held in 2003.  He indicated that heG/SPS/R/31
Page 20
would draw attention to the progress made on equiva lence.  In addition, the report would mention the
large number of specific trade concerns discussed, and provide an overview of discussions under other
agenda items.  The annual report to the Council on Trade in Goods was subsequently circulated as
G/L/661.
XII. OTHER BUSINESS
Paraguay - Information concerning FMD
130. The representative of Paraguay gave a short report on an outbreak of FMD in 12 July 2003, in
Pozo Hondo (G/SPS/GEN/454).  Actions had been ta ken in accordance with OIE recommendations to
control the outbreak.  After a 90-day period, indigenous farmers were given a number of stock
equivalent to the number culled.  Paraguay had established a nation-wide programme of vaccination
to recover its previous FMD free status and requested Members to refrain from taking unjustifiedmeasures against its exports
131. The representatives of Brazil and Argentina noted that they were working with veterinary
authorities in Paraguay and commended Paraguay on its efforts.
Hungary – Unjustified ban on live animal imports by Croatia
132. The representative of Hungary expressed serious  concern with measures taken by Croatia to
ban imports of live animals and meat product.  The ban had been in place since 24 June 2003,
supposedly as a protection against BSE.  The ban was applied to all meat products, including fish and
poultry, as well as live animals.  Hungary requested the prompt removal of the ban.
133. The representative of Croatia took note of the statement by Hungary and stated that there had
been meetings between veterinarians from Hungary and Croatia at which steps had been agreed to try
and resolve the issue.
134. The representative of the European Communities supported the comments made by Hungary.
He noted that the statement made by Croatia at the June meeting and circulated in the document
G/SPS/GEN/416, in which Croatia claimed its measure was consistent with EC legislation, wasinaccurate.  EC legislation did not prohibit imports.
Chile - Implementation of ISPM 15:  Guidel ines for regulating wood packaging material in
international trade
135. The representative of Chile stated that although Chile agreed with the ISPM 15, as a wood
exporter it was concerned that adoption of the measure by Members should take into consideration the
zone of production of the wood and allow sufficient time for countries to adapt their treatmentmethods to meet the standard.  Most Members adopting ISPM 15 had specified January to
March 2004 as the time of entry into force of the standard, but several issues had to be resolved prior
to implementing the standard.  Chile's concerns were that:  the private sector must make large scale
investment to comply with the standard;  the cert ification process to register the mark on packaging
was yet to be decided;  there needed to be established an accreditation system for wood treatmentcompanies certifying the process;  and supervisory and audit system needed to be set up.  Chile
detailed its concerns in document G/SPS/GEN/435.
136. The representative of Uruguay stated that the problem with ISPM 15 was not the standard
itself, but the implementation of the standard.  There were two significant provisions of the standard:
the basis for regionalization, i.e. the technical justification for application of the standard;  and thepossibility of accepting alternative methods for treating wood packaging. The representative of
Argentina supported the comments made by Chile and Uruguay.  The representative of Mexico statedG/SPS/R/31
Page 21
that problems could arise with implementing this standard and that discussions on this issue should
continue in the context of the SPS Committee.  Paraguay and Colombia supported the comments
made by others.
137. The representative of Canada commented that this standard was not new, as it had been
adopted by the IPPC in June 2002.  Canada had planned to implement the standard in June 2003, andhad notified this in March 2003, but had delayed its implementation until 1 January 2004 to give
Members sufficient time to adapt wood treatment processes.  Canada would provide a transition
period so that non-compliance with the standard initially would not be penalised.  Canada
recommended that this issue be discussed under Agenda item 7(a) grading the use of international
standards.
Peru – Integrated pest management on asparagus
138. The representative of Peru reported on an integrated pest management project targeting
Copitarsia incommoda  to improve the export competitiveness of its fresh asparagus.  Peru currently
faced US$2 million per year in costs associated with quarantine treatment to eradicate the pest, which
was not found in the United States.  A detailed description of the project was provided in
G/SPS/GEN/444.
Peru – Monitoring and control of poultry diseases
139. The representative of Peru highlighted a national programme to begin in 2004 to control and
eradicate poultry quarantine diseases.  Peru aimed to achieve avian influenza free status for the whole
of the country, and areas free from Newcastle disease by the end of 2005.  A detailed description ofthe programme is contained in G/SPS/GEN/446.
XIII.  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING
140. The next regular meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 17-18 March 2004, with informal
meetings scheduled for 15 and 16 March.  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 issues
(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 countriesG/SPS/R/31
Page 22
(a) Consideration of proposals for implementation of the provisions for special
and differential treatment
4. Equivalence – Article 4
(a) Decision on further clarification of paragraph 5 of the Decision
(b) Information from Members on their experiences
(c) Information from relevant observer organizations
5. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 66. Technical assistance and cooperation7. Monitoring of the use of international standards
(a) New issues(b) Issues previously raised
8. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations9. Observers - Requests for observer status
10. Election of Chairperson
11. Other business12. Date and agenda of next meeting
141. The following deadlines are relevant for the next meeting:
• 17 February 2004 for identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring
procedure;
• 4 March 2004 for requesting that items be put on the agenda ;
• 5 March 2004 for the distribution of the airgram.
__________