WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/303
15 March 2002
(02-1343)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  Spanish
BOLIVIA – RESTRICTIONS ON ARGENTINE EXPORTS
DUE TO FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
Submission by Argentina
I. INTRODUCTION
1. As a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the Argentine Republic in 2001,
unjustified sanitary measures have led to foreign market access restrictions on a number of Argentine
products.
2. This particular case is an exceptional situatio n in that the restriction on access for Argentine
products is prompted by the "suspected" existence of a focus of foot-and-mouth disease in the north of
Argentina, which was duly eliminated by the Argentine National Agriculture and Food Quality and
Health Service (SENASA).  In other words, rest rictions are being imposed on our exports although
there is no occurrence of the disease in our country.
3. Without prejudice to the above, even if the presence of the disease had been confirmed on our
territory the measure imposed by Bolivia would have  been inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 3.3, 5.1, 5.6,
7 and related Articles of the SPS Agreement.
II. RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO THE BOLIVIAN MARKET
4. On 4 January 2002, the Bolivian National Service for Agricultural Health and Food Safety
(SENASAG) adopted Administrative Resolution No. 003/2002, providing for the temporary
suspension, for a period of 90 days, of importation from the Argentine Republic of ruminants and live
swine, semen and embryos of ruminants or pigs, fresh, chilled or frozen meat, entrails and offal,untanned hides and skins, unwashed or greasy wool , and products of these species used in animal
feed, organic products, fodder and feed.  This Reso lution was prompted by the "suspected" occurrence
of foot-and-mouth disease in Argentina's Salta Province.
III. MEASURES TAKEN BY ARGENTINA ON ACCOUNT OF SUSPECTED FDM
5. On 22 November 2001, the headquarters of the Argentine National Agriculture and Food
Quality and Health Service (SENASA) was notified of the presence, in the district of Aguas Blancas
(Orán Department), of animals presenting symptoms consistent with foot-and-mouth disease.  In view
of the suspicion, five serum samples were taken, which gave negative results to serological testing
(using ELISA 3ABC as a filter and EITB as a corroborative test).  Although none of the animals
showed visible signs of foot-and-mouth disease, all prohibition measures provided for in the event ofsuspicion of disease were taken, pursuant to SENASA's Manual of Procedures for the Handling of
Foci.
6. Further clinical inspections were carried out on 23 and 26 November, with no new health
developments.G/SPS/GEN/303
Page 2
7. On 28 November, the necessary steps were taken to carry out inspection controls of all
livestock.  The animals were clinically inspected;  31 serum samples and one epithelium sample, in
the case of an animal showing an oral lesion, were taken.  The latter resulted negative.
8. On 4 December, the animals were inspected once again. No developments were registered.
9. Another clinical inspection was carried out on 9 January.  No new health developments were
observed.  For the final elimination of all suspicion, the local veterinary was asked to collect probang
samples of oesophageal-pharyngeal fluid.  The 18 samples taken all resulted negative.
10. It should be emphasized that both the suspected FMD and the evolution of the
epidemiological situation were handled in an entirely transparent manner.
IV. ABSENCE OF FMD FOCI
11. The principal reason for this submission is – as explained above – that suspicion of an FMD
focus in the district of Aguas Blancas (Orán Depart ment) was definitively eliminated and notified in a
timely fashion to the SENASAG authorities.  Accordingly, there are no health grounds for the
adoption of Administrative Resolution No. 003/2002 or  for subjecting Argentine exports to any other
conditionalities on account of foot-and-mouth disease.
V. DISCIPLINES DERIVING FROM THE AGREEMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF
SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES (SPS AGREEMENT)
12. What follows is a brief description of the disciplines deriving from the SPS Agreement that
might be related to the case at issue, had the presence of FMD foci been confirmed.
A. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE – ASSESSMENT OF RISK
13. One of the fundamental principles of the SPS Agreement is that sanitary and phytosanitary
measures must be based on sufficient scientific evidence (as stipulated in Article 2.2 of theAgreement), in order to ensure that they are not used  as unjustified restrictions on trade.  Accordingly,
on the grounds of the objectivity offered by science, application of this type of measure is disciplined
in order to avoid discretionary application by Members that unjustifiably restricts international trade.
14. This basic principle is intrinsically related to the obligation to base sanitary and phytosanitary
measures on an assessment of risks (as required by Article 5.1).  It should be stressed that therelationship between the two concepts (scientific evidence and assessment of risks) has been widely
recognized in WTO jurisprudence.
B. 
HARMONIZATION
15. Another principle enshrined in the SPS Agreement is the harmonization, to the greatest extent
possible, of sanitary and phytosanitary measures on the basis of international standards, guidelines
and recommendations, where they exist.  To that end, the preamble and Articles 3.1, 3.4 et seq.  of the
SPS Agreement refer to harmonization as a trade facilitation instrument and encourage Members totake part in international technical fora (CODEX, OIE, IPPC) with a view to promoting the
development and review of standards.
16. Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement provides that sanitary and phytosanitary measures which
conform to international standards, guidelines and recommendations shall be deemed to be necessary
to protect, human, animal or plant life or health, and presumed to be consistent with the relevantG/SPS/GEN/303
Page 3
provisions of the SPS Agreement and the GATT 1994.  This presumption of consistency is a premium
granted by the SPS Agreement to Members that base their measures on international standards.
17. If Members should decide to depart from the standards provided by the international reference
rules for the establishment of a sanitary or phytosanitary measure, the presumption of consistency
disappears, and the Member in question must provide sufficient scientific evidence (including thecorresponding assessment of risks) to justify the measure that it wishes to introduce (in accordance
with Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement).
C. 
PROPORTIONALITY
18. Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement requires Members to adopt proportional measures.  This
principle is fulfilled, within the range of alternative measures suitable to achieve the appropriate level
of protection, when Members implement the measure which is least trade-restrictive.
VI. INTERNATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL OFFICE
OF EPIZOOTICS (OIE)
19. The International Office of Epizootics is the international reference body for animal health.
Chapter 2.1.1 of the International Animal Health Code adopted by the OIE establishes precautionary
measures applicable to foot-and-mouth disease.
20. First, Chapter 2.1.1 lays down the conditions  for classifying countries/zones according to
health status.  Second, it defines the products and byproducts considered to present a risk of
transmission of the FMD virus.  Third, it stip ulates the requirements that the Veterinary
Administrations of importing countries should impose in respect of FMD, having regard to two
variables, that is, the sanitary status of the country of origin of the product and the health risk
presented by the product to be exported.
VII.  ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL CONSISTENCY OF THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED
BY BOLIVIA
21. Without prejudice to Part IV above (crux of Argentina's argument), the Bolivian measure is
seriously inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, even if the presence of foot-and-mouth disease in
Argentina had been confirmed.
22. The following sections set forth the aspects of the Bolivian Resolution that would be
inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, had the presence of foot-and-mouth disease been confirmed.
A. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE – ASSESSMENT OF RISKS
23. As mentioned above, Chapter 2.1.1 of the OIE International Animal Health Code lays down
the requirements which the Veterinary Administrations of importing countries have to accept in
respect of the different products presenting a risk of transmission of the FMD virus, according to the
sanitary status of the country of origin.
24. The above notwithstanding, Resolution No. 003/2002 stipulates temporary closure to
Argentine exports without affording SENASA the po ssibility of attesting that the various risk
mitigation procedures provided for in the OIE Code have been observed.
25. As already stated, Members may depart from the international parameters where they can
provide sufficient scientific evidence to support the measure in question.  In this case, the Bolivianauthorities have not supplied any evidence to ju stify imposing stricter requirements than thoseG/SPS/GEN/303
Page 4
provided for in the OIE regulations, so that the rest riction imposed is inconsistent with Article 3.3 of
the SPS Agreement.
26. Similarly, the lack of scientific evidence is clearly inconsistent with the obligations deriving
from Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement.
B. PROPORTIONALITY
27. Argentina considers that the prohibition on imports notified by SENASAG is disproportionate
with the aims pursued, in that the Bolivian auth orities have an alternative for achieving their
appropriate level of protection at a lower level of trade restriction, and there has been no
demonstration to the contrary.  That alternative is  to accept the risk mitigation procedures laid down
in the OIE Code for the different products presenting a risk of transmission of the FMD virus.
Accordingly, the restriction on access notified by SENASAG is inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the
SPS Agreement.
VIII.  REQUEST BY ARGENTINA
28. In view of the above considerations, Argentina formally requests the Bolivian authorities to
put an end to the restriction imposed on Argentine exports, since the suspicion of foot-and-mouth
disease has been definitively eliminated in the Department of Orán.
__________