RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/29
17 June 2003
(03-3224)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 2-3 APRIL 2003
Note by the Secretariat1
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its twenty-
sixth meeting on 2-3 April 2003.  The Chairman of the Committee, Mrs. Maria Fe Alberto-Chau Huu(Philippines), opened the meeting.  The agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/2059 was adopted with
amendments.
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
(a) Information from Members
(i) Activities of Members
Information from Bolivia on the National Service for Agricultural Health and Food Safety
(SENASAG)
2. The representative of Bolivia informed the Committee that Government Decree 2081, of
March 2002, had created SENASAG as a decentralized public agency with responsibility forestablishing standards and regulations in the areas of animal and plant health and food safety.  IICA
recommendations on institutional modernization advocated consolidated control in a single agency for
animal and plant health and food safety throughout the entire food chain.  SENASAG was the official
agency responsible for certification of imports and exports.
Information on Bolivia's OIE request for FMD freedom for the Chiquitania zone
3. The representative of Bolivia stated that one of the first achievements of Bolivia's national
FMD eradication programme, jointly designed by government and private industry, had been the
eradication, with vaccination, of FMD from the Chiquitania region in the department of Santa Cruz.
In addition to strategically-located control posts, the region had natural barriers which controlled
access to Chiquitania.  In February 2003, Bolivia applied to the OIE for recognition of FMD free
status for this region and the representative of Bolivia requested the co-operation of Members in thisregard.
Update on the FMD disease situation in Argentina
4. The representative of Argentina recalled that Argentina's FMD control and eradication efforts
had begun in 2001 with a national plan to immunize the national cattle herd (G/SPS/GEN/377).  Thelast case of FMD was recorded in February 2002.  Serological samples of cattle and other species
                                                     
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/29
Page 2
taken in 2002 showed an important reduction in FMD incidence overtime, a very good level of
immunity among target populations and an absence of viral activity in FMD areas of the country.  The
FMD situation in Argentina was under control and stable, and Argentina was in strict compliance with
the OIE Code in this regard, in particular chapters 2.1.1.24 concerning bovine meat.
Statement by Canada on BSE risk  assessment in Canadian cattle
5. The representative of Canada informed the Committee that the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency had carried out a risk assessment of BSE in cattle in Canada.  Patterned on the OIE Animal
Health Code, the risk assessment was presented in three sections:  an evaluation of risk factors for
BSE in Canada, BSE surveillance in Canada and a quantitative analysis of the risk estimation for
Canada.  The assessment had concluded that the likelihood of establishment of BSE in cattle in
Canada prior to the Canadian 1997 feed ban through primary modes of transmission was negligible.The introduction of additional preventative measures, such as the feed ban in 1997 and a revision of
the BSE import policies in 2000, had further diminished the risk of BSE being introduced, propagated
or amplified.  Canada's policies to prevent BSE en try would continue to evolve in line with the
scientific evidence and international standards.  The report would soon be available on-line at
www.inspection.gc.ca.
Update on Avian Influenza situation in the European Communities
6. The representative of the European Communities reported on the avian influenza outbreaks in
the Netherlands (G/SPS/GEN/390).  By 31 March, 146 poultry farms had had confirmed outbreaks
and there were serious suspicions that an outbreak had occurred on another 36 holdings.  These farmswere all in one area of the Netherlands and earlier suspicions of outbreaks in other regions of the
Netherlands, and in Belgium close to the Dutch border, proved to be incorrect.
7. Since the start of the epidemic, the Dutch authorities immediately put in place stringent
protective measures, which had been legally re-inforced by the European Communities on the basis of
Directive 92/40/EEC.  These measures included a nation-wide standstill for the transport of livepoultry or hatching eggs from the whole territory of  the Netherlands to other EC member States and
third countries, and the culling of poultry from infected and suspected farms, as well from farms
situated in a 1-km zone around these farms.  Two buffer zones had been established in vulnerable
areas north and south of the infected area in which all poultry and hobby birds had been
preventatively culled.  No fresh poultry meat from the two buffer zones or the infected regions could
be dispatched to other EC member States or third countries.  These measures would be reviewed at
the 8-9 April 2003 meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.
8. The representative of the European Communities stressed that avian influenza was present in
only one region of one EC member State, repr esenting a very small part of the European
Communities.  Moreover, all necessary steps had been taken by the Dutch authorities to control the
spread of the disease and to keep WTO Members informed of the progress of the disease and control
measures taken.  Nevertheless, some trading partners had taken measures against non-affected ECmember States and also banned the import of poultry meat, table eggs and other poultry products.
The representative of the European Communities urged Members to apply measures which were
consistent with the SPS Agreement, specifically Ar ticles 2 and 6 thereof, and which were limited to
the items relevant for disease transmission (live poultry and hatching eggs).
Update on US bio-terrorism regulations
9. The representative of the United States recalled that at the November 2002 SPS Committee
meeting, it had informed Members of activities pertaining to the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorim Preparedness Act  ("The Bioterrorism  Act").  The US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) was responsible for developing regulations to implement these provisions.  The legislationG/SPS/R/29
Page 3
contained several provisions that would affect commercial entities that manufactured, processed,
packed or held food intended for export to the United States.  The four principal provisions of the
Bioterrorism Act were:  (1) registration of most food manufacturing and handling facilities;  (2) prior
notice to FDA of all food consignments intended for import into the United States;  (3) establishment
and maintenance of certain records pertaining to the receipt and distribution of foods;  and (4)administrative detention of any food when there was credible evidence or information that it presented
a threat of adverse health consequences to humans and animals.
10. On 3 February 2003, FDA had published proposed regulations intended to implement the
registration and prior notice provisions of the law.  These proposals were notified to the WTO on
6 February with a 60-day comment period that ended on 4 April 2003.  The comments submitted to
FDA would be considered when developing the final regulations that were expected to be published
no later than October 2003.  Two additional proposed regulations dealing with the record keeping and
administrative detention provisions of the Bioterrorism Act were expected to be published soon and
notified to the WTO.  Members were encouraged to study the proposals and to submit comments to
FDA to assist with the development of the final regulations.  To this end, the US delegation had
prepared an information packet which it distributed to the Committee.
11. Speaking on behalf of Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, the representative of Indonesia
recognized that the measures being taken by the United States were in response to the tragedy of 11
September 2001.  Although Members could take meas ures to counter threats to human, animal or
plant life or health according to their own appropriate level of protection, the measures should be
applied in the least trade restrictive manner to fulfil l the legitimate objective.  In this regard, there
were concerns that the Bioterrorism Act could have a negative impact on trade liberalization efforts,on trading partners and on market access.  He hoped that the Act would be implemented in a
transparent, straightforward, inexpensive way and in the least trade restrictive manner possible.
Registration should be automatic and no facility should be a priori excluded.  In addition, sufficient
time needed to be provided for registration, partic ularly for small and medium-sized enterprises in
developing countries, and the operation of these provisions reviewed at least during the first sixmonths after the proposed regulation was adopted.  Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia would provide
detailed comments directly to the FDA.  The representative of the Philippines expressed support for
the concerns raised by Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia.
12. The representative of Switzerland stated that her country would also be providing comments
to the FDA.  She noted that Switzerland had serious concerns that the proposed legislation would
unnecessarily impede international food trade.  Although instruments such as registration and
documentation could facilitate product withdrawal and investigation of food safety events, it wasimportant that these instruments be applied in a non-discriminatory manner.  Information obtained
through the Bioterrorism Act should not also be used for other purposes, nor be disclosed to the
public.  Of particular concern to Switzerland were th e provisions related to "prior to shipment notice"
(section 307), which duplicated other measures, such as the US Container Security Initiative, and
which did not seem to enhance public safety from threats arising from bioterrorism.  Furthermore, themeasures involved additional costs and an immense administrative burden for food facilities exporting
to the United States.  In this context, Switzerland  also noted that the requirements applied only to
foreign food shipments.
13. The representative of Egypt requested further information on the logic behind the
discriminatory nature of the proposed measures, since they exempted national food producers.
14. The representative of China noted that hi s country had concerns  with how FDA would
distinguish regular food safety issues from bioterrorism.  The requirement to submit a registration
form to FDA which specified the US importing agent would restrict the rights of exporters to select
the trading partner of their choice, and was unnecessary as the information could be submittedG/SPS/R/29
Page 4
through the prior notice procedure.  China noted that it would be submitting comments to the FDA by
the 4 April deadline.
15. The representative of Singapore shared the concerns expressed by other Members over the
potentially wide scope of legislation and the high compliance costs for small and medium sized
exporters and re-exporters.  She noted that re-exporters did not appear on the exemption list andhighlighted that these operators would have particular difficulty in meeting the registration,
documentation and record-keeping obligations as they sourced food from the open market and did not
have control over manufacturing activities.  Singapore shared Switzerland's concerns that the
information obtained should be used strictly for the purposes of the Act.  The representative of
Singapore urged the United States to consider the high compliance costs and requested that
procedures be as simple, least burdensome and least trade restrictive as possible.
16. The representatives of Australia, Chile, Japan, Mexico and New Zealand also noted that they
would be submitting comments to the United States on the Bioterrorism Act.  The representative of
Australia shared the concerns of others over the trade restrictiveness of the proposed measures and
their duplication of existing systems.  The representative of Chile highlighted a number of concerns,
notably as to why information kept by companies ha d to be collected for a 12-year period and how a
distinction would be drawn between inadvertent an d deliberate acts of food contamination.  The
representative of Mexico stressed his support for the comments made by other delegations.
17. The representative of the European Communities noted that while he fully understood why
the Bioterorism Act had been put in place, the European Communities generally agreed with the
comments made by other Members and had doubts about the actual method used to achieve these
objectives.  He shared the concerns of other delegations over the impact on small and medium sizedenterprises and that the measures were applied in a discriminatory manner only to imports and not to
national food producers.  The Bioterrorism Act had been introduced without any prior notice or
notification to the Committee and it was apparently not based on a risk assessment.  The European
Communities had made comments in August 2002, but had not received any response to these
comments as yet, other than an assurance th at the comments would be taken into account.
18. The representative of Canada noted that his country shared the objective of the regulations
and appreciated the extensive outreach efforts of FDA with respect to the Bioterrorism Act.  Canada
would submit written comments and requested flexibility to ensure the least trade restrictive approach
was taken, such as by differentiating between different modes of transport (e.g. just-in-time inventory
movements).
19. The representative of Bolivia expressed the hope that the measures would not pose
unnecessary obstacles to trade or lead to discrimination.
20. The representative of the United States requested that Members send their comments in
writing to the FDA.  All comments would be review ed, evaluated and responded to in the final rule.
The United States was working to ensure that its SPS obligations were met and that there was no
discrimination between domestic and foreign food facilities.  The registration requirement applied
equally to all facilities in the United States, although there was no prior notice requirement as the foodfrom domestic facilities was already within its territ ory.  Focus was also being given to ensuring that
the final rule was not more trade restrictive than necessary.  A risk assessment would be conducted by
the time of entry into force of these measures.
21. In response to Indonesia's concern, the representative of the United States stated that no food
facilities would be excluded a priori  from registration.  He encouraged Indonesia to submit the idea of
a periodic review to the FDA as part of its comme nts.  Information collected by the registration and
prior notice requirements would be used by the FDA to allocate its resources to inspect food
shipments coming into the United States and compared with other security information collected byG/SPS/R/29
Page 5
government agencies on potential threats.  In re ply to the European Communities, he stated that
earlier comments had been solicited as part of an information sharing exercise and needed to be
resubmitted during this official comment period.  He underlined the importance of trading partners
making comments by the 4 April 2003 deadline since the Administrative Procedures Act precluded
government agencies from considering comments made after the specified comment period.
Statement by Chile on Avian Influenza
22. The Director of the Chile's Veterinary Services provided an update on the avian influenza
situation (G/SPS/GEN/383).  He informed the Committee that Chile had been declared free of avian
influenza in accordance with the OIE code on 19 December 2002.  Chile had brought the disease
under control in record time and was grateful for the assistance provided by the OIE and Italian
government in this regard.  Chile hoped that those countries which still maintained restrictions wouldsoon recognize Chile as free from avian influenza.
Information on citrus diseases in Peru
23. The representative of Peru stated that since 1997 it had begun inspections of citrus orchards
for three diseases, citrus black spot, sweet orange scab and citrus canker (G/SPS/GEN/386).  Thework plan included sampling and diagnosis in all citrus areas of Peru.  After seven years of work, the
absence of these three diseases from Peru was confirmed in March 2003, when the Andean
Community recognized Peru as free of these quarantine diseases through Resolution 703.
(b) Specific Trade Concerns
(i) New Issues
Australian import requirements for Netherlands Truss Tomatoes – Concerns of the European
Communities
24. The representative of the European Communities noted that while the European Communities
accepted that Australia had a high health status and recognized the right of Australia to set its ownlevel of protection, the resulting applied rules had the effect of blocking trade for years on end without
any scientific justification.  Therefore, the European Communities would be seeking consultations
under the Dispute Settlement Understanding in respect of the import risk assessment policy applied by
Australia to determine whether this was in accordance with WTO rules and the SPS Agreement
(G/SPS/GEN/384).
25. The European Communities considered truss to matoes as an example of where unnecessary
delays took place.  In March 1997, Australia commenced a risk assessment for truss tomatoesfollowing a request from an Australian import co mpany.  Some six years later, no import risk
assessment had been completed and imports were still prohibited.  The Australian authorities had
failed to respect the deadlines for progress on this issue, including a pledge to issue a technical issues
paper in September 2002.  Since 1997, the Dutch authorities had provided information to Biosecurity
Australia on 21 occasions and hosted a senior officer from that agency in 1999.  Also in 1999, anAustralian delegation  had visited the Netherlands and presented a draft risk assessment on tomatoes
without green parts.  However, Australia indica ted that the risk assessment would need to be
reconsidered if the Netherlands wished to export tomatoes on the truss, despite the fact that, it had
been made explicit in 1998 that the exported commodity would be a piece of vine with 6-10 tomatoes
and stalks intact.  In each succeeding year, the risk analysis had been postponed for reasons other thantechnical issues.  For example, in September 2000 a delay was encountered due to a "shift in
resources" and in November 2001 the issues paper could not be released due to an election in
Australia.  Furthermore, in 1999 the Australian authorities stated that it was necessary to undertake an
economic impact assessment of Dutch imports on the Australian tomato industry.  However in theG/SPS/R/29
Page 6
intervening period, truss tomatoes had been approved from New Zealand – after New Zealand had
approved Australian imports of the same product.  Unexpectedly, on 26 March 2003, Biosecurity
Australia indicated that there was no longer a need for a risk assessment on truss tomatoes.  However,
import conditions were still pending as a draft review of the quarantine requirements for the import of
Dutch tomatoes needed to be circulated to stakeholders for comment.  The European Communitiesconsidered that the time period necessary for Australia to conduct its import risk analysis was
disproportionate to the risk and apparently discriminated unjustifiably between WTO Members.  The
European Communities looked forward to notification of the import conditions for Dutch truss
tomatoes and suggested that the conditions governing imports of the said product from New Zealand
would be a good starting point.
26. Speaking on behalf of both Thailand and the Philippines, the representative of the Philippines
indicated his country's interest in the EC decision to seek consultations with respect to Australia'squarantine system.
27. The representative of Australia reported that a detailed communication had been provided to
the Netherlands and the European Commission in the week preceding the Committee meeting.  On
26 March, Biosecurity Australia announced that imports of truss tomatoes would be assessed as an
extension of the technical policy recently developed for truss tomatoes from New Zealand.  A reviewof policy, rather than a full risk assessment, woul d shorten the time required.  Much of the work had
already been completed and the draft review wo uld include draft import conditions and would be
released to stakeholders with a 30-day comment period.  The finalized review document should be
available before the end of May 2003.  Differences existed between the health status of Netherlands
tomatoes and New Zealand tomatoes which needed to be considered in the draft review.  Therepresentative of Australia stated that her country had a world class quarantine system which was
science based and transparent.
Mexican restrictions on the importation of dry beans – Concern of the United States
28. The representative of the United States indicated that Mexico had temporarily suspended the
importation of dried beans from the United Stat es on 21 January 2003 (G/SPS/GEN/379).  Mexico
continued to suspend imports under its plant health regulations and laws, with no evidence of a plant
health risk.  The import ban had been notified to WTO Members. The United States requested that
Mexico immediately revoke the import ban.
29. The representatives of Canada and Nicaragua stated that they shared the concerns of the
United States.  Canada noted that no provision had been made in the Mexican measure for shipments
en route.  Nicaragua indicated that access for its black beans to the Mexican market had been blockedfor what it considered arbitrary reasons.  Of particular concern to the Nicaraguan representative was
the administration set in place by Mexican rule 007 phyto 95, Standard NOM-028-FYTO-1995,
notified as G/SPS/N/MEX/68.  Over  9,000 hectares of black beans were grown in Nicaragua for
export to the Mexican market.
30. The representative of Mexico replied that high level discussions had taken place between the
Mexican authorities and the United States and Canada.  Mexico would communicate in the next few
days what steps it would take to resolve this phyto sanitary risk.  In response to the comments raised
by Nicaragua, the Mexican representative reserved the right to reply at a later date.
Japan's fumigation standards – Concerns of the United States
31. The representative of the United States reported that a newly adopted measure by Japan's
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food prohibi ted the re-fumigation of fruit or rice which had
previously undergone fumigation in the United States.  Japan had not notified this measure to the SPS
Committee and requested clarification from Japan as to the objective of the measure, its scope,G/SPS/R/29
Page 7
implementation, enforcement and projected trade effects.  Due to the lack of notification of the
measure, the United States requested a delay in its  implementation so as to allow sufficient time for
WTO Members to comment on the proposal.
32. The representative of Japan stated that he would transmit the US concern to his authorities
and respond in due course.
China quarantine measures for the entry and exit of aquatic products – Concerns of the European
Communities
33. The representative of the European Communities noted that, after being suspended since its
adoption last year, Decree No. 31 was due to enter into force in June 2003.  The measure had not been
notified to the WTO, so the European Communities had not been able to assess the decree and had a
large number of questions with regard to its implementation.  He requested the Chinese authorities tonotify the measure to the WTO and to suspend its entry into force for four additional months to allow
Members a chance to comment on a notification and for permits to be issued to exporters.  The
European Communities noted additional concerns over labeling, registration provisions and which
ports were authorized for imports.
34. The representative of the United States echoed the concerns of the European Communities
with regard to the non-notification of China's measure.
35. The representative of China stated that Decree 31 had been developed within the framework
of current Chinese laws and regulations. It had been notified to the WTO as part of a notification
covering the laws on animal and plant quarantine and on sanitation, inspection and certification of
imports and exports of food products.  The purpose of the Decree was to standardize the standards ofquarantine for aquatic animals and to improve the transparency of procedures in line with WTO
obligations on transparency and consistency.  The regulation did not contain any new technical
requirements and thus did not need to be notified  to WTO.  Nonetheless, China would consider any
comments from Members.  In line with the Doha Decision on Implementation Issues, China had
decided to delay the date of entry into force from 10 December 2002 until 13 June 2003, so as tominimize any trade impact.  On 23 December 2002, AQSIQ sent a notice to all foreign embassies in
Beijing and requested them to identify which governmental authorities had responsibility for issuing
certificates for export to China, and to submit a model certificate so that China could verify the
certificates.  The representative of China encouraged the European Communities and the United
States to submit comments to AQSIQ so these could be taken into account.
Mexican restrictions on Austrian products – Concerns of the European Communities
36. The representative of the European Communities stated that France, Ireland, the Netherlands
and the United Kingdom had officially regained their OIE FMD free status without vaccination after
the 2001 outbreak.  However, Mexico continued trade restrictions due to FMD, and in particular
against Austrian animal products despite the fact  that Austria had not had an FMD outbreak since
1981.  In July 2001, the Mexican authorities agreed to submit a questionnaire to the Austrianauthorities and stated that import permits could be judged on a case-by-case basis.  In May 2002, the
Austrian authorities answered the questionnaire in detail, but the Mexican authorities had responded
with a second questionnaire requesting further details.  A number of the questions did not seem
relevant to the Austrian situation where FMD had not occurred for 22 years.  The representative of the
European Communities hoped that Austria would be recognized as FMD free by the Mexicanauthorities in the near future.
37. The representative of Mexico informed the Committee that Austria failed to meet certain
requirements to be recognized as FMD free.  He en couraged the Austrian authorities to complete theG/SPS/R/29
Page 8
questionnaire.  On the basis of discussions betwee n the Mexican, Austrian and EC authorities, a work
programme would be established to resolve this issue.
EC Directive 2001/661/EC re garding Foot and Mouth Disease – Concerns of South Africa
38. The representative of South Africa stated that national experts had not been able to attend the
Committee meeting, however, his country's c oncerns were explai ned in G/SPS/GEN/373.
39. The representative of the European Communities explained that Council Directive 72/462
differentiated between the various types of FMD.  Regionalization was a current practice applied by
the Community where possible.  The Directive provided that the import of fresh meat from regions
which were FMD free without vaccination but where vaccination against SAT or Asiat 1 viruses was
practiced in another region of the country could only be authorized under certain conditions.  One of
the conditions was that the meat be mature, deboned, with lymph nodes removed and that importationtake place only three weeks after slaughter.  These conditions applied to South Africa due to the
presence of SAT in a part of South Africa even though certain areas were officially FMD-free without
legislation.  The European Communities recognized that this legislation, dating from 1972, had to be
updated now that SAT was no longer considered differently from other virus strains.  This was the
reason behind the adoption of Council Directive 99/2002, which would enter into force on1 January 2005.  On the basis of information and guarantees supplied by South Africa, the situation
could be reassessed.  However, the European Communities was concerned that there had been four
outbreaks of FMD in Namibia originating from Zimbabwe, where there were hundreds of cases.  In
these circumstances, it was prudent to authorize only the importation of deboned, mature meat.  Once
the new Directive was in force, the European Communities would review its measure in light of theFMD situation in South Africa and its neighboring countries.
EC proposal regarding animal by-products – Concerns of the United States
40. The representative of the United States stated that EC regulation 1774/2002 would severely
restrict or prohibit a range of animal by-products intended for use in feed, industrial or other non-foodpurposes.  He was concerned with the lack of transparency of this regulation given its excessively
broad scope, the lack of sufficient time and information given for exporters to comply and the EC
failure to adequately address the concerns of third countries like the United States.  The European
Communities had not provided for a reasonable time interval between the publication of the
regulation and its entry into force.  While the regulation was published in October 2001, the United
States had still not received the full information necessary to comply even through the implementation
date was 1 May 2003.  The United States had requested a delay in the implementation of theregulation, but had not received a clear response.  In February 2001, the United States submitted
significant comments in response to the EC notification of its initial proposals.  However, the final EC
regulation had not addressed its concerns and had also raised other concerns by significantly
expanding the scope and opaqueness of the regulation.  The United States was also concerned about
reports of derogations for certain EC member States without the same derogations being made forthird countries, the lack of scientific justification for the regulation and the lack of a risk assessment
for the proposed inter-species feed ban.  Certain provisions of the regulation exceeded the OIE's
recommendation, did not seem to be based on a risk assessment and went beyond a reasonable level
of protection, such as the pressure treatment requirement for all mammalian material regardless of
species or a country's BSE status.
41. The representative of Brazil shared the concerns raised by the United States.  He noted that
some of the by-products affected came from sanitary facilities not inspected by EC authorities as part
of Brazil's bilateral agreement on meat exports.
42. The representative of China indicated that the EC market was one of the largest for China's
animal by-products – worth some US$440 million in 2002.  EC regulation 1771/2002 had beenG/SPS/R/29
Page 9
notified to the WTO while China was still in the process of accession and as such it had not had a
chance to comment on the notification.  In March 2003, China had finished translation of the
regulation, but interested exporters and AQSIQ were still not familiar with the regulation.  Therefore,
China requested the European Communities to delay the regulation's implementation for two years, to
allow China to provide comments by 31 May 2003, and not to reject or destroy any shipment ofChinese animal by-products which did not comply with the regulation's requirements before
1 May 2005.
43. The representative of Australia noted that a useful technical meeting had taken place with the
European Communities on 14 March.  Article 30 of the regulation allowed for the recognition of
equivalence of certain health measures, and Australia might seek recognition of equivalence based on
its favorable animal health situation, in particular regard to animal TSEs and the derogation given
Australia with respect to the removal of specified risk materials.  Without clarifications andequivalence determinations, Australia would have difficulty in complying with this regulation by
1 May and might seek a delay in the full implementation of this regulation.
44. The representative of Canada stated that it did not see how practical implementation of this
regulation would be possible by 1 May 2003.  In addition to the many requests for clarification from
third countries still being received by the European Communities, many EC member States wereseeking temporary derogations.  A patchwork of exemptions and derogations for specific countries
seemed to be emerging.  A single set of clear rules for all was needed.  An additional requirement for
third countries was the need for certification from competent authorities for implicated products,
which required a complete understanding of the regulation.  Canada was of the view that a delay in
the implementation of the regulation was warranted and required.
45. The representative of the European Communities recalled that a number of food crises had
occurred in the European Union in the past ten years and as such protection measures needed to be
strengthened to avoid new crises.  In this context, the draft regulations aimed to ban the recycling of
dead animals, to offer alternatives to denaturati on, to take account of environmental requirements, to
control traceability of sub-products and to simplify the patchwork of existing legislation.  In responseto comments received, the European Communities had organized information meetings on
13 November 2002 and 28 March 2003, and had produced  an explanatory document.  Third countries
had had sufficient time to comment on the 24 November 2002 notification.  The measures were based
on solid science, even though no formal risk assessment had been conducted for each chapter of the
text, and the European Communities was willing to ma ke all relevant information available to trading
partners.  The  economic impact of the measure was up to each country to judge.  Certain EC member
States and third countries had expressed concern over the date of entry into force of the regulation.As a result, the EC Commission was studying transitional arrangements which would enable
temporary flexibility on certain provisions.  Any temporary flexibility or new measures on
certification of third country products would be decided on and notified to WTO Members with a new
deadline for comment.
(ii) Issues Previously Raised
46. The Chairperson noted that the Secretaria t had updated document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
which listed all specific trade concerns that had been raised in the Committee.  The Secretariat stated
the document was unrestricted and now included a summary section showing the annual number of
specific trade concerns raised in the Committee, tables and graphs on developing country concerns,the breakdown between food safety, animal and plant health, issues etc.  The Secretariat encouraged
Members to report back to the Committee when solutions had been found to trade concerns.  At the
present time, in only 28 cases out of a total of 154 had Members reported that they had fully resolved
an issue;  an additional 14 partial solutions had also been reported.  Furthermore, the document had
been re-structured and specific trade concerns were now listed by Member.  First, issues raised aboutG/SPS/R/29
Page 10
measures maintained by that Member were included, and then the issues raised by that Member about
other Member's measures were identified.
47. The representative of Chile suggested that countries send in written comment about how their
concerns had been resolved so that at the subsequent meeting comments would only be made on
pending issues.
Australia's restrictions on the import of fresh durian – Concerns of Thailand
48. The representative of Thailand stated that since his country had first raised concerns over
Australia's import restrictions on fresh durian fruits in 2000, along with issues related to prawn
products and chicken meat, there had been little progress.  Neither fresh durian nor chicken meat
could be exported to Australia.  Furthermore, the interim measures taken on prawn products had
remained in place since December 2000.  Bilateral consultations had taken place , but as yet sosubstantial progress could be reported.  Thailand requested that Australia, in accordance with its SPS
obligations, reply in a favorable manner to Thailand's concerns.  Thailand was unable to accept the
Australian import risk analysis of 1999 on fresh durian, since the measures it proposed were too
expensive and stringent to be commercially viable.  These conditions allowed the import of fresh
durian only with destructive sampling techniques and seasonal limitations.  Thailand urged Australiato adopt a more practical and commercially feasible measure for inspection.
49. Speaking on behalf of ASEAN, the representative of the Philippines noted systemic concerns
related to this issue and ASEAN's interest in following any progress.
50. The representative of Australia stated that a number of substantive technical meetings had
taken place on quarantine matters between Australia and Thailand since the last meeting of theCommittee.  A joint Ministerial declaration between Thai and Australian trade ministers had been
issued on 21 November 2002, which called for enhanced consultation on SPS issues.  On durian, the
import protocol permitted imports between April and September.  Australia would consider imports
from all growing areas subject to the conditions set out in the import risk analysis.  The issue of
durian was discussed at a meeting of the joint Thai-Australian working group on agriculture, held on3-7 March 2003, in Changmai.  Although Australia had legitimate quarantine concerns with respect to
durian seed borer, several alternative risk mitigation options had been discussed at Changmai
including pest free areas of production, pest free production sites and reproscan inspection methods
(in lieu of fruit cutting).  The Thai authorities were considering the pest free alternatives and had
agreed to a joint collaborative trial of the reproscan inspection methods this fruiting season in late
April and June.  A longer term solution might be  irradiation and Australia understood that Thailand
could be interested in conducting trials as no efficacy data was currently available.  The representativeof Australia stated that her authorities understood the Thailand's concerns and were keen to work
towards a mutually agreeable solution.
EC levels of aflatoxins in Brazil nuts – Concerns of Bolivia
51. The representative of Bolivia stated that a proposal had been submitted to the European
Communities to strengthen the Bolivian system of certification for the export of Brazil nuts.  He
hoped that a technical exchange would take place on this proposal in the near future.  He requested
that paragraph 174 of G/SPS/R/28 be amended, as a mutually agreeable solution had not occurred but
rather information had been exchanged and consultations had taken place.
52. The representative of the European Communitie s noted that his authorities would need some
time to examine the Bolivian proposal.  He recalled that at previous meetings he had quoted import
statistics which showed that flows of Brazil nuts into the European Communities had grown from
4,400 tons in 2000, to 5,900 tons in 2001 and to more than 6,000 tons in 2002 without any detection
of aflatoxin above permissible levels.  Hence the problem was one of costly and cumbersomeG/SPS/R/29
Page 11
sampling at the point of entry in the European  Communities.  The European Communities favored
certification at the point of departure by accredited laboratories and commended the Bolivian
authorities for their proposal.
Venezuela's restrictions on the importation of potatoes, garlic and onions – Concerns of Argentina
53. The representative of Argentina informed the Committee that Venezuelan technical experts
had visited Argentina to verify Argentina's claims of freedom from onion smut ( Urocystis cepulae ).
Discussions had entered the final phase and the Argentine authorities awaited the publication of the
Venezuelan expert report which should allow the resolution of this question.
54. The representative of Venezuela reported that bilateral consultations with Argentina had taken
place prior to the Committee meeting and that the expert report should be available soon.
Japan's official control restrictions – Concerns of New Zealand
55. The representative of New Zealand noted her authorities' disappointment at having to raise
again the issue of Japan's policy of fumigation of non-quarantine pests.  This policy was not
consistent with the relevant international defi nition in ISPM-5 of the IPPC and Supplement No.1.
Japan's plant protection restrictions were a significant issue for a number of Members.  Bilateraldiscussions between New Zealand and Japan had co ntinued since 1983.  New Zealand had requested a
policy statement from Japan by 1 January 2003, to confirm that Japan would not take any action (e.g.
fumigation) on any pest intercepted at the border on imported produce if that pest was already present
and not under official control as defined by the IPPC.  To date, no such statement had been
forthcoming.  Although the IPPC definition and guidelines were adopted in April 2001, Japan had stillnot brought its phytosanitary measures into line with these guidelines, nor provided any evidence that
it had a proactive programme to do so.  The representative of New Zealand indicated that further
bilateral consultations would take place during the ICPM meeting the following week, however, she
requested a reply from Japan as to when and how it intended to rectify this situation.
56. The representative of the United States stated that it shared many of the same concerns and
frustrations as New Zealand.  The United States continued to experience trade disruptions due to
Japan's phytosanitary legislation and unjustified quarantine actions.  One example was the methyl
bromide fumigation of a significant percentage of US citrus fruit due to detections of Fuller Rose
(Curculionidae ) beetle even though the beetle occurred in several Japanese prefectures and no
domestic quarantine actions were being taken to control it.  One third of US lettuce exports were
subjected to fumigation on arrival in 2001 and 2002.  The policy of requiring quarantine treatment for
pests which were commonly found domestically did not reflect the actual risks from the pest inquestion for the importing country.  Besides lacking a scientific basis, Japan's policy was inconsistent
with IPPC standards and highly disruptive of trade.   The result was an arbitrary and unpredictable
system facing US horticultural exports into Japan.  US experts had requested information on which
pests were considered quarantine risks, but without reply.  The representative of the United States
requested that Japan give the issue prompt attention.  The representatives of Australia and theEuropean Communities shared the concerns of the New Zealand and the United States.
57. The representative of Japan replied that his authorities did not consider they had any
obligation to make a policy statement regarding non-quarantine pests.  Nevertheless, for the sake of
transparency, Japan was ready to make a statement.  Japan respected international rules, including the
IPPC guidelines, and took appropriate measures where necessary on the basis of its national plantprotection laws.  Japan was fully aware of other Members' concerns that it was not consistent with
international standards to apply fumigation measures on pests which were not subject to official
control.  Japan was of the view that further examination was necessary to see if Japan's current
measures were consistent with international standards.  In order to conduct this examination in a
thorough and transparent manner, Japan intended to invite representatives from outside government toG/SPS/R/29
Page 12
review the situation, considering the present situation of agricultural imports and pest restrictions.
Furthermore, Japan was also ready to discuss what should be the most appropriate system of plant
protection taking into account the need to maintain Japan's appropriate level of protection.
Australia's restrictions on prawn imports – Concerns of Thailand
58. The representative of Thailand recalled that interim measures against the import of uncooked
prawn and prawn products from ASEAN countries ha d been in place for over two years.  Thailand
believed that there was no legitimate reason for the continuation of these emergency measures.
59. The representative of Australia replied that the interim measures would remain in place until
the completion of the import risk analysis or until other scientific information which countered
existing information became available.  She stressed that the measures were science-based, applied to
all countries and only to high risk products – uncooked prawns – that accounted for only 5% of theprawn products exported to Australia from Thailand.  Tests had indicated the positive presence of
white spot virus in Thai uncooked prawn products sh ipped to Australia.  As the disease was exotic to
Australia, it was entirely appropriate that Australia manage the risk of its introduction.  Biosecurity
Australia had commissioned a study on bait use (to be published soon) which provided clear support
for the measures taken.  The import risk analysis was complex and covered a number of end uses.Although it had taken longer than originally envisaged, Australia was committed to finalizing the IRA
as soon as possible.  Australia was also working on technical assistance projects for alternative
biosecurity measures for prawns, including aquatic disease zoning methodologies.
Australia's restrictions on infectious bursal disease (IBD) in chicken products – Concerns of Thailand
60. The representative of Thailand recalled that this issue had been raised several times since
September 1998.  Australia's unconventional and impractical import requirements for heat treatment
of chicken meat to inactivate the IBD virus made exports commercially unviable.  Australia's import
risk analysis process was very complicated, unduly long and conducted without a specific timeframe.
Thailand strongly urged Australia to hasten the risk analysis process which could otherwise beregarded as a trade barrier.
61. The representative of the European Communities stated it shared Thailand's concerns on heat
treatment for IBD.
62. The representative of Australia recalled that the current arrangements were established in
August 1998 following a science–based risk assessment.  The key quarantine concern was IBD virus.
Tests conducted at an independent laboratory in Weybridge, UK established the time and temperature
cooking parameters for the inactivation of this virus which formed part of the current import protocol.That science had not been formally challenged.  Biosecurity Australia was studying Thailand's risk
analysis on cooked chicken meat, received in May 2002, along with additional information provided
in January 2003.  Australia aimed to complete the current risk analysis on chicken meat as soon as
possible.
Honduras' restrictions on chicken meat  imports – Concerns of Costa Rica
63. The representative of Costa Rica noted that bilateral consultations were progressing between
the Costa Rican and Honduran health authorities and that he would keep the Committee informed of
progress in this regard (G/SPS/GEN/347/Add.1).
64. The representative of Honduras reported that after the November 2002 meeting of the SPS
Committee, an agreement was reached on progress towards re-establishing trade of poultry meat and
allied products from Costa Rica.G/SPS/R/29
Page 13
Trinidad and Tobago's restrictions on imports of pork sausages and other pork products fresh, cured
or salted – Concerns of Argentina
65. The representative of Argentina recalled that the health authorities of Trinidad and Tobago
did not allow any importation of pork sausages and other fresh, cured or salted pork products.Argentina requested that Trinidad and Tobago apply the standards provided for in the OIE Animal
Health Code.  Despite the willingness of Trinidad and Tobago to engage in bilateral consultations on
this issue, no progress had yet been achieved at th e technical level.  A bilateral meeting had taken
place just prior to the SPS Committee and it was hoped that this would provide the basis for a
resolution of this issue.
66. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago recalled that as a member of CARICOM, it
adhered to a regional policy for the importation of all meat products.  The re-opening of the market toa country affected by FMD was contingent on that country achieving FMD freedom without
vaccination.  The OIE Code stated that animals from which the aforementioned products were derived
should not have been vaccinated.  Re-opening of  markets was based on consensus among CARICOM
members.  Accordingly, Argentina had been advise d that the matter should be pursued through the
CARICOM Secretariat, and Argentina had done this.  CARICOM was committed to finding amutually agreeable solution and had convened a meeting of the region's chief veterinary officers to
discuss the matter on 7-8 April 2003.  It was expected that the matter would be fully resolved at that
time.  With reference to G/SPS/R/28, Trinidad and Tobago clarified that it had provided only one
response to the statement made by Argentina.
Australian import restrictions on pigmeat from Denmark – Concerns of the European Communities
67. The representative of the European Communities reported that Denmark had first requested
access for pigmeat into Australia in 1980.  Another 17 years passed before some access for processed
meat was provided.  Biosecurity Australia began a general import risk analysis for pigmeat in May
1998.  Although due to be released in February 2000, the risk assessment had not yet published andno date was given for its publication.  A related draft methods paper was published on
1 October 2002.  The representative of the European Communities questioned why there was still a
debate as to the methodology to be used for conducting the risk assessment four-and-a-half years after
the risk assessment was begun.  With the exception of Denmark (which had been assessed before the
general review took place), no imports from the European Communities were permitted until the risk
assessment was completed.  However, the imports from Denmark were themselves subject to very
stringent restrictions – such as deboning and heat treatment – which created unnecessary  barriers totrade.  Proposals for other equivalent measures and a request for pre-export processing in Denmark
had not been accepted by Australia.  The European Communities considered that the time necessary
for completion of the import risk analysis was excessive and the requirements for Danish imports
were disproportionate to the risk.  The representative of the European Communities called on
Australia to publish the import risk analysis without further delay and to give positive consideration toalternative or time-temperature combinations as equivalent measures.  He noted that there was a list of
over 20 products on which import risk analyses were outstanding and most had been under
consideration for over five years or considerably longer.  The European Communities considered
these delays unacceptable and urged Australia to considerably shorten the time necessary to conduct
these import risk analyses.
68. The representative of Canada stated that he shared the EC frustration with the delays in
Australia's import risk analyses procedures.
69. The representative of Australia contended that it was erroneous to claim that it had taken
17 years to assess Denmark's request to export pigmeat.  The presence of Aujetsky's disease in
Denmark had ruled out exports of fresh pigmeat unt il the disease was eradicated in 1992.  However,
another disease porcine reproductive and resp iratory syndrome (PRRS) emerged and had to beG/SPS/R/29
Page 14
considered in the import risk analysis which was commenced in 1994.  A decision to permit the
import of uncooked pigmeat from Denmark, if cook ed post-arrival, was taken in November 1997.  A
generic import risk analysis on pigmeat was assessing import requests from a wide range of countries.
Various updates had been provided – including a written update to the European Commission in the
week before the Committee.  A range of pig diseases were being considered, none of which occurredin Australia.  Comments on the methodology paper were welcome and a draft of the risk assessment
would be available as soon as possible.  The representative of Australia stressed that the process was
transparent and science based.  Biosecurity Australia had commissioned independent research on
PRRS which had demonstrated oral transmission of th e virus via pigmeat.  Given the lack of scientific
information on its transmission via meat, it was appropriate for Australia to seek the information
needed for an informed quarantine policy decision.
Philippines requirement for third party certif ication for HACCP plants – Concerns of Canada
70. The representative of Canada reported that on 24 February 2003, the Minister of Agriculture
of the Philippines had announced that implementation of Memorandum Order 7 requiring third party
certification for HACCP plants had been postponed.  Canada was pleased that the Philippines hadwithdrawn this measure.  The representatives of the European Communities, New Zealand and the
United States supported the statement made by Canada.
71. The representative of the Philippines thanked delegations for their comments and confirmed
that MO7 had been deferred indefinitely.
Indonesia ‘s FMD restrictions on imports of  dairy products – Concerns of Argentina
72. The representative of Argentina reiterated his country's concerns about unjustified restrictions
by Indonesia on the importation of dairy products (G/SPS/GEN/324).  He recalled that the Indonesian
representative had stated that dairy products were allowed entry with the exception of liquid milk.  In
addition, for liquid milk and other products an inspection visit had to take place prior to exportcommencing.  Despite an Argentine invitation for such a visit and the receipt of a questionnaire on
other non-FMD diseases from the Indonesian authorities,  the restrictions remained in place.  As such,
the Argentine representative requested clarification from Indonesia.
73. The representative of Indonesia recalled that following their bilateral meeting in
November 2002, Argentina had agreed to complete a questionnaire related to the requirements for
dairy exports to Indonesia.  The one page questionnaire had been sent to Argentina on
27 January 2003.  The Indonesian authorities stated that out of five plants in Argentina, only one had
the necessary controls.  In addition, it would be useful if Argentina could provide information on its
control programmes.  It was agreed that once this feedback was received an investigating officer
would be sent to conduct an on-site review of the necessary plants in Argentina.  The representative of
Indonesia was confident that further bilateral efforts would resolve this issue.
Colombian FMD restrictions on bovine meat – Concerns of Argentina
74. The representative of Argentina recalled that during 2001 the sanitary service of Colombia
restricted access of Argentine bovine products due to FMD.  Colombia had reviewed information
provided by the Argentine authorities and in mid-2002 sent a questionnaire to Argentina concerning
chilled products.  However, no reply had been received on the completed questionnaire.  Argentinawas concerned that no in situ inspections had taken place which would lead to a lifting of these
restrictions.  The representative of Argentina noted that he had reported to the SPS Committee on the
FMD disease situation, and had not received any requests for further information.  Noting Colombia's
concern about cut flowers, he stated that the Argentine sanitary service did not maintain any
restriction on the import of flowers from Colombia.G/SPS/R/29
Page 15
75. The representative of Colombia stated that his country enjoyed a favourable FMD situation.
Colombia allowed the importation of low risk products, but had banned the importation of high risk
materials from Argentina and notified this action to the WTO.  Establishments of origin had to be
authorized by the Colombian sanitary service and a programme of visits to Argentina had been
planned by the Colombian authorities.  However the Argentine decision to suspend the phytosanitaryauthorization for the import of cut flowers fr om Colombia in November 2001, without a WTO
notification, was taken without justification.  Information from the Argentine authorities was required
with regard to the serological an d epidemiological assessment of FMD;  vaccination coverage;  and
the dates on which the status of disease freedom both with or without vaccination were achieved.
India's import requirements for bovine semen – Concern of Canada
76. The representative of Canada reported that although a successful conclusion had been
reported to the Committee in July 2002, a further problem had been encountered and an import license
request had been rejected by the Indian authorities due to some apparent connection between BSE and
bovine semen.  He questioned the scientific basis for the action and recalled that the OIE's
recommendations supported Canada's view.  He requested that India remove this restriction.
77. The representative of India agreed to convey Canada's concerns to the appropriate authorities
in capital.
Argentina's BSE-related measures – Concerns of Canada
78. The representative of Canada recalled the concerns he had previously expressed with respect
to the use by both Argentina and Uruguay of the European Communities' BSE risk assessment as thebasis for their BSE-related measures and classification of countries.  He reported that the authorities
of both countries had revisited their earlier deci sions and agreed they would undertake their own BSE
risk assessments.
79. The representative of the United States echoed the positive statement by Canada, but noted
that although Argentina's resolution allowed for the re-categorization of the BSE status of the UnitedStates, significant scientific evidence had been provided to Argentina which exceeded the OIE criteria
for recognition as a BSE-free country.  Consequently any restrictions were wholly unjustified.  In this
respect the United States requested Argentina to lift its restrictions on the importation of sweet breads.
80. The representative of Argentina reported that substantive progress had been made on this
issue and he was confident that further bilateral consultations would result in its resolution.
Uruguay's BSE related measures – Concerns of Canada
81. Responding to the points raised in paragraph 78, the representative of Uruguay recalled that
Uruguay was dependent on meat related products for 8 per cent of its GDP.  Entry of BSE would be a
complete disaster for the Uruguayan economy and public health authorities.  Starting in 1996, a
number of emergency measures had been taken to ensure that BSE did not enter the country.  In 2001,
a decree was promulgated which would restri ct food products on the basis of their BSE-
categorization.  At the present time, this decree was suspended and bilateral discussions were
ongoing.  Information from both Canada and the United States was being reviewed and a final
categorization of both country's BSE-status shou ld be concluded within a short period of time.
China's ban on products of Dutch origin – Concerns of the European Communities
82. The representative of the European Communities recalled that in April 2002, China imposed
an import ban on all products of animal origin from the Netherlands on the basis of a supposed single
finding of chloromphenecol in casings of Dutch origin.  China had lifted restrictions on certainG/SPS/R/29
Page 16
products of no real trade significance, and it appeared that as the European Communities lifted its ban
on certain Chinese products the Chinese authorities would reciprocate by lifting their ban on certain
EC products.  A satisfactory solution had not yet been found for a large number of animal products of
Dutch origin, in particular dairy products.  The European Communities had responded to requests for
information from China in December 2002.  However, these had been followed by additionalquestions in March 2003 and an indication that an inspection mission would be necessary before
anything further could be done.  The representative of the European Communities questioned why this
inspection visit had not been proposed sooner.  He stated that China's restrictions were not in
conformity with Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.6 of SPS Agreement, and he urged China to withdraw its
measures as soon as possible.
83. The representative of China recalled that his authorities had lifted the ban on certain products
on 25 December 2002, after receipt of information from the appropriate national authorities at thebeginning of December.  For other products, China had been waiting for almost one year for
information on the Netherlands' residue monitoring and assessment controls.  Based on the
information provided to date, China had identified  significant defects with respect to sampling and
conformity with the relevant EC directives, including sampling of dairy products or casings.  An
inspection visit was necessary to address these outstanding issues.  The receipt of additionalinformation from the Dutch authorities on 21 March 2003 would enable the visit of China's inspection
team in the near future.  China hoped to be able to report a positive outcome of this matter to the
Committee before the end of the year.
EC biotechnology policies – Concerns of the United States
84. The representative of the United States recalled his previous criticisms that the European
Communities' biotechnology policies breached both EC laws and WTO rules.  By blocking imports
on an unscientific basis, the European Communities was interfering with the use of safe food products
that could stem global hunger, improve nutrition and benefit the environment.  The United States was
of the view that the European Communities should lift its moratorium on biotech products and it wasconsulting with others to determine the most expeditious way to achieve this goal.
85. The representative of Canada echoed the concerns of the United States and urged the
European Union to restart its biotechnology approval process.  The representative of Australia stated
that although Australia was not a major GM producer and was not directly affected by the EC
moratorium, it shared many of the concerns raised by the United States and Canada with regard to the
lack of science based decision-making.  The representative of Argentina also shared the concerns
expressed by the United States.
86. The representative of the European Comm unities informed the Committee on the state of
progress on biotechnology approval, labeling and  traceability (G/SPS/N/EEC/149 and 150).  On 17
March 2003, the Council of Ministers adopted a common position on each of these proposals and the
legislative proposals had now returned to the Euro pean Parliament for a second reading under the co-
decision procedure.  The second reading should be concluded at the beginning of July 2003, whichimplied that the proposals should be adopted before the end of 2003.  Once approved, the labeling and
traceability proposals should make it possible for the moratorium on biotechnology approvals to be
lifted since EC member States had imposed the moratorium in the absence of a clear regulation on
traceability and labeling.  In the interests of transparency, the European Commission could provide
the common position of the Council to the SPS Committee, although this was not yet the final text.The biotechnology approval procedure envisaged in Directive 2001/18 was now operational and the
EU Scientific Committee had given its opinion as to the procedure necessary to conduct a risk
assessment.  The opinion was available on the internet.  Nineteen new or revised submissions had
been received since the start of 2003 and the assessments had begun in accordance with the provisions
of the Directive.  The European Commission was awaiting comments from the Scientific Committee(a panel of independent scientists) on the risk assessments.  The outcome of the risk assessmentsG/SPS/R/29
Page 17
would of course depend on the quality and conformity of the scientific data being submitted to
determine the effects of GMOs on human health and the environment.  As such, the representative of
the European Union was hopeful that a solution to the issues raised by the United States and other
delegations would be quickly found.
87. The representative of Chile, referring to the Secretariat paper on Specific Trade Concerns,
suggested that countries send in written comment a bout how their concerns had been resolved so that
at the subsequent meeting comments would only be made on pending issues.
(c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received
G/SPS/N/EEC/149 and 150 - EC notifications on l abeling and traceability of GMOs – Concerns of
Argentina
88. The representative of Argentina recalled that at the last Committee he had submitted specific
questions to the European Communities with regard to the labeling and traceability proposed
regulations.  He enquired as to whether the European Communities was in a position to be able to
answer these questions.
89. The representative of the United States th anked the European Communities for the comments
made in paragraph (b)86 above and stated that he looked forward to receiving the Council position onthese two proposals.
90. The representative of the European Communities confirmed that the additional questions
submitted by Argentina were being studied and that replies would be given on the basis of the new
version of these two legislative proposals and not on the original versions.  As such, the European
Communities was in the process of finalizing its replies.  He further recalled that detailed answers hadalready been given to many questions raised by Argentina in documents G/SPS/GEN/337 and 338.
G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and 75 - BSE-related measures of Brazil – Concerns of Canada
91. The representative of Canada expressed concerns over the way in which Brazil applied the
European Communities' geographical BSE risk (GBR) system as the basis for classifying countriesaccording to their BSE risk.  He had previously described Canada's concerns with respect to the GBR
rating system.  Canada requested that Brazil conducts its own BSE risk analysis and classification of
Canada.  To that end, Canada had sent a copy of its BSE risk assessment to the  Brazilian authorities
for their consideration.
92. The representative of the United States noted that it shared the concerns of Canada.  He drew
the attention of Brazil to Chapter 2.3.13 of the OIE International Health Code which established
criteria for the determination of BSE risk of a country or region.  The United States met the OIEcriteria for a country free of BSE and had completed a risk assessment on all the factors for BSE
occurrence.  Active surveillance for BSE continued at levels far exceeding those of the international
standard and a strong BSE awareness programme had been developed for veterinarians, farmers and
others working with ruminants.  The OIE Code recognized that certain tissues could be traded if they
originated in countries, such as the United States, which were free of BSE.  The United States alsoquestioned Brazil's use of the EC risk assessment classifications and noted that the European
Communities had stated that its risk assessment classification system was not meant to serve as an
international standard.  On this basis, the United States believed that any measures against its exports
of cattle, beef or any other products because of BSE were unjustified and not consistent with WTO
obligations.G/SPS/R/29
Page 18
93. The representative of Brazil noted that human health concerns were at the root of the
measures which referred to international standards from OIE and the EC classification system.  Thus
far, Brazil had not been able to conduct a risk assessment for all countries and the provision of
Canada's risk assessment would assist the Brazilian authorities in this regard.  Brazil would take into
consideration decisions reached at the OIE International Committee meeting in May 2003 when
reviewing its measures.
G/SPS/N/EEC/131 - EC Notific ation on plant and plant pr oducts – Concerns of Israel
94. The representative of Israel noted that EC notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 concerned an
amendment to EC regulation 2000/29/EC which came into force on 1 April 2003, and might have
significant effects on the export of plant products to the European Communities from a number of
Members.  In the case of Israel, the export of flowers represented 25 per cent of total exports of freshagricultural products.  Some exporting countries, notably developing countries, would have to go
through major structural changes, scientific adjustments and financial expenditures as a result of these
measures.  Israel would have to introduce change s to its inspection procedures while producers would
have to undertake major investment in new infr astructure.  These changes involved a shift in
production from open field sites to greenhouses, and this could not be achieved in the time currentlyenvisaged before the entry into force of the amended EC regulations – even after extension by the EC
authorities.  On 11 March 2003, Israel held bila teral consultations with the European Communities
regarding the implementation of the new measures.  At that meeting Israel expressed concerns
regarding differentiation between European and non-European varieties of Bemisia tabaci  and the
existence of the non-European variety in some EC countries.  Israel was in the process of analyzingtwo pest risk analyses produced by the European Communities and noted that it shared the EC's
concerns with respect to the list of pests and viruses covered therein.
95. The representative of Kenya noted that it shared Israel's concerns with regard to unnecessary
delays and adverse effects on cut flowers exports.  Bilateral consultations with the European
Communities on technical assistance on capacity building had not progressed as desired.Consultations would continue and Kenya was hopeful an amicable solution could be found.
96. The representative of the European Communities recalled that the measures had been enacted
after constant interceptions on products such as fresh cut flowers led EC member States to review
their protective measures.  The proposed measure had been notified to the WTO on 19 July 2001.
The date of entry into force of these measures had been envisaged for 1 January 2002, however
because of comments received, the European Communities agreed to postpone entry into force of
these measures until a later stage.  The amended rules were finally published on 3 May 2002, and inorder to take into account the comments made, the entry into force was postponed until 1 April 2003 –
16 months after the initial date for the entry into fo rce.  This delay in the entry into force clearly
indicated that the European Communities had taken into consideration the difficulties of certain
exporting countries.  Nevertheless, the European Communities had a responsibility to maintain its
appropriate level of protection and could not indefinitely postpone the implementation of thesemeasures.  Market access of cut flowers into Europe was not being called into question and the
European Communities had already taken all necessary measures to avoid any breakdown in trade.
The representative of the European Communities stated that, if so desired, further bilateral
consultations could take place on this matter.
G/SPS/N/EEC/192 - EC notification on transitional BSE measures – Concerns of the United States
97. The representative of the United States thanked the European Communities for notifying the
transitional measures for implementing Regulation 999/2001 concerning transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSEs).  This regulation stated that a decision regarding the risk categorization of
countries would be made within six months of submission of the information.  However, the newlynotified measure extended the transitional measures currently in force until 30 June 2005, whichG/SPS/R/29
Page 19
raised the US concern of whether or not the European Communities would have completed the
classifications by that time.  In the past, the United States had expressed concerns with the EC
legislation on TSEs and the effects that the transitional legislation had on exports of animals and
animal products.  Restrictive trade measures had been applied since July 2001 and the United States
questioned the justification for their maintenance.  In particular, there was no scientific justificationfor applying BSE-related restrictions on products from the United States.  The United States was free
of BSE and had an extensive surveillance system in place for the disease.  A risk assessment had been
undertaken which amply supported the US BSE status.  The representative of the United States was
also concerned by the discriminatory application of  the transitional measures as US products should
be treated the same as any other BSE-free country.
98. The representative of the European Communities explained that the notification concerned an
amendment to Article 23 of EC Regulation 999/2001 establishing rules for the eradication, preventionand control of certain TSEs.  It aimed not just at BSE, but all TSEs.  The amendment extended
transitional measures established under Article 23 of this regulation.  The regulation provided rules to
determine the BSE status of particular countries which conditioned the application of measures
covering the import of certain animals and animal products.  Until the status determination was made,
transitional measures were applied and were to remain in force until 30 June 2003.  An assessment ofcases began at the end of 2001.  However it was quickly obvious that modification of the
categorization criteria was necessary to obtain a status reflecting actual risk.  These criteria were taken
from the international code of the OIE.  Regrettably, it appeared that the OIE was not ready to
propose a list of BSE-free countries.  Likewise in the European Communities, scientific risk
assessments for all countries were not yet finished, and the  EC Scientific Committee had adoptedopinions for only around one-third of countries asking for a determination of their status.  Therefore
the transitional measures were being prolonged by two years until 1 July 2005.  The European
Commission would use this period to advance the work in the OIE on determining the BSE and TSE
status of countries and to complete the scientific risk assessments.  The European Communities
appreciated the substantial documentation submitted by the United States in January 2003, and wouldreport to the United States on the results of the risk assessment as soon as possible.
(d) Matters relating to the operation of the transparency provisions
99. The Chairperson noted that this agenda item pr ovided the opportunity for delegates to raise
any other matters regarding transparency.  These could be, among others, related to notification
procedures in general or to problems encountered in the operation of Enquiry Points or to difficulties
in obtaining requested information from other Enquiry Points.  The notifications received since the
last Committee meeting were summarized, on a monthly basis, in documents G/SPS/GEN/365,
G/SPS/GEN/368, G/SPS/GEN/370, and G/SPS/GEN/374.  The most recent list of National
Notification Authorities was contained in G/SPS/NNA/4 and Add. 1, and the most recent list of
National Enquiry Points in G/SPS/ENQ/14 and Add. 1.  An update on Members' implementation of
the transparency provisions was provided in G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.10.
100. The representative of China recalled that his delegation had offered to analyze the
implementation of notification obligations under the SPS Agreement by WTO Members during 2002.
The Report of the Analysis on SPS Notifications in 2002  by China was contained in document
G/SPS/GEN/378.  The analysis showed that in 2002, 47 Members had submitted a total of 663 SPS
notifications, including 374 Routine Notifications (55.6 per cent) and 96 Notifications of Emergency
Measures (14.3 per cent).  Only 79 out of 374 routine notifications, accounting for 21.1 per cent, hadallowed at least 60 days for comments, meaning that the remaining 78.9 per cent had either allowed a
comment period of less than 60 days or not specified a final date for comments.  Only 14 notifications
(3.7 per cent of routine notifications) provided Members at least six months for compliance with the
new SPS measures, while 96.3 per cent either provided an adapting period of less than 6 months or
did not state the date of adoption and/or the date of entry into force.G/SPS/R/29
Page 20
101.  Based on this analysis, China had submitted a proposal for amending the SPS notification
procedures with a view to strengthening the implementation of the transparency obligations
(G/SPS/W/131 and Corr.1).  China suggested a revision of the last sentence in paragraph 8 of the
"Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement
(Article 7)"  (G/SPS/7/Rev.2), so that the 60-da y comment period would be calculated from the date
of circulation of the notification by the WTO Secretariat.  Item 12 of the table under paragraph 36 of
the Recommended Notification Procedures would be revised accordingly.
102. Many delegations commended the Chinese delegation for their important and enlightening
work and requested the opportunity to revert to the matter at the subsequent SPS Committee meeting.
103. The representative of the European Communities su ggested that, in cases where the text of the
notified measure was requested from the notifying Member, the comment period should start once the
text had been communicated and not upon circulation of the notification.  This arrangement wouldallow for sufficient time for review of and comments on the measure, which was often a problem due
to late receipt of the text and/or translation requirements.  The representatives of Egypt and Argentina
expressed their delegation's interest in the proposal.  However, the representative Argentina wondered
how the 60-day period would be calculated, particularly when there were requests from various
countries for the text of the measure.  It was not clear whether there would be a single deadline formaking comments or different ones depending on the request.
104. The representative of the United States stated that his delegation had some concerns about
adopting too quickly changes to notification procedures.  In line with the US regulatory structure,  all
SPS measures notified to the SPS Committee allowed for a 60-day comment period.  There was
pressure domestically as well as from trading partners to expedite the process related to thesemeasures, some of which introduced trade restrictio ns while others facilitated trade.  Therefore, a
number of factors had to be taken into account before reaching any decision to extend the comment
period.  The representative of New Zealand also emphasized the importance of being able to benefit
immediately from trade facilitating notifications without necessarily waiting for a 60-day comment
period.
105. The representative of Malaysia, noting the proposals by China and the European
Communities, referred in particular to paragraph 10 of document China's report which stated that
11 out of more than 300 notifications in 2002 had final dates for comments which were earlier than
the corresponding dates of notification, meaning that, contrary to agreed procedures, there was no
comment period.  The question was whether the procedures needed to be modified or whether the
onus would fall on Members to provide longer comment periods to take into account the time-lags
involved.
106. The representative of Canada stated that while they had some sympathy for the views
expressed by the European Communities, they also agreed with United States that modifications
should not be rushed.  He gave the example of an emergency notification from Brazil, which had
come out on 23 January 2003, after having been in effect for two months.  The Canadian embassy in
Brasilia had immediately requested and received a c opy of the actual document, which had then been
translated from Portuguese for study in Ottawa.  In the meantime one week was lost due to the
Carnival.  In the end, Canada had not been able to provide its comments within 60 days.  Developing
countries probably had even more difficulties meeting the comment period deadlines.  It would be
much better to introduce some flexibility to th e comment period and get comments in before a
measure came into effect. He suggested that the Committee have informal discussions on possiblesolutions. The delegations of Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, India, Japan and New Zealand also
expressed their interest in informal consultations.
107. The representative of Japan expressed his delegation's concern that delays due to the
Secretariat's workload could affect timely implementation of measures by Members.G/SPS/R/29
Page 21
108. The Secretariat explained that many of the issues regarding the transparency procedures had
been previously discussed in the Committee but not agreed upon for different reasons.  While it had
been suggested earlier to start the comment period with the date of circulation to Members, some
Members had been concerned that their own domestic procedures required that they publish the
closing date for such comments, which would not be possible if it depended on circulation by theSecretariat.  While the Secretariat tried to turn around notifications in two to three days, there were
sometimes delays, for example when they arrived during holiday periods, during preparations for a
Ministerial Conference or when staff were engaged in work-to-rule actions.  Another problem was the
quality of information provided on the notifications.  This had improved over the years, but the
Secretariat still received notifications that were  incomplete or incorrect and was faced with the
decision of whether to circulate the notification as received or to seek correction or clarification from
the submitting Member.  The decision depended on whether the comment period was relatively long,or already expired.  Sometimes Members responded within a day or two to queries from the
Secretariat but other times there were long delays in getting clarification from the notifying Member,
leading to further delays in circulation.  Regarding the actual texts of measures notified, a new and
useful practice by some Members was to include in the notifications a direct link to the internet site
where the draft document could be downloaded.  It would be useful if all Members which placed theirdraft regulations on a website could indicate the relevant internet address in their notifications.
Concerns about translation of notified measures had also been discussed in the past and could be dealt
with more successfully as technology improved.
109. The Secretariat recalled that the SPS Committee regularly reviewed notification procedures
and adopted modifications, including in the previous year.  Although letters were sent out to allnational notification authorities and  enquiry points to inform them of format changes and new
procedures adopted by the Committee, the Secretariat continued to receive notifications in the old
format for months after changes had been adopted.  The Secretariat had also produced documents
regarding Members' implementation of transparen cy provisions (G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.10).  Eight
years after the entry into force of the SPS Agreement, 17 Members still had not identified an enquirypoint while 27 Members had not yet notified a national notification authority.  These were basic and
not very onerous obligations.  The report by China had noted that out of 145 Members, 47 had
submitted notifications during 2002, meaning that 98 Members had either made no changes to their
legislation and regulation during that year, or had failed to notify changes.  Of greater concern was the
fact that many Members had never notified a single SPS measure since the entry into force of the
Agreement.  It was  rather difficult to conceive of any government that had not made any
modifications to their SPS measures in that period.  In light of these facts, notification-relatedproblems went beyond the respect of comment periods in the past year.
110. The representative of China stated that his country had also failed to provide the
recommended 60-day period in several notifications during 2002 due to technical problems.  Their
domestic agency would notify a measure to his offi ce calculating the comment period from the date
they sent it off.  But then his office needed some time before sending the notification to MOFTEC,which then forwarded it to the permanent mission, wh ich then forwarded it to the Secretariat, which
also needed some time for processing.  In the end, the time period for comments ended up being less
than 60 days and that was the reason behind their suggestion to modify the recommended procedures
to start the comment period with the circulation of the notification to Members.  Members would have
the right to enforce certain measures with immediate effect but the recommended period forcomments needed to be at least 60 days, even more if so wished.
111. The Committee agreed to further consider the analysis by China and the implementation of
the transparency provisions at an informal  meeting prior to its next regular meeting.G/SPS/R/29
Page 22
III. THE SPS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
112. The Chairperson recalled that both Egypt and Canada had made specific proposals related to
the transparency of special and differential treatm ent (S&D).  Egypt had proposed to add a box to the
notification formats to indicate whether S&D had been provided.  Canada had proposed that special
and differential treatment provided in the context of the adoption of a new SPS measure be notifiedex-post through an addendum to the original notification (G/SPS/W/127).  Subsequently, Egypt had
circulated its comments on the Canadian proposal in document G/SPS/GEN/358.  At the SPS
Committee meeting in November 2002, Canada had suggested that the Committee adopt its proposal
at this meeting as an early harvest in implementing the S&D provisions of the SPS Agreement.
113. Reporting on the informal meeting on special and differential treatment held on 1 April 2003,
the Chairperson stated that Members had continued the discussion of proposals by Egypt and Canada
initiated in the Committee's review of the recommended transparency procedures the previous year.The representative of Egypt had welcomed the Canadian proposal as a step in the right direction, but
had reiterated that it did not fully address its concern to operationalize Article 10 of the SPS
Agreement.  Many developing countries had major problems in dealing with the flood of notifications
submitted by their trade partners, thus losing the opportunity to comment on the notifications in the
allowed time-period.  Furthermore, Canada's proposal had not specified the desirable result of thebilateral consultations to be held and contained best endeavour language.  One practical alternative
could be a sort of "pre-notification" mechanism according to which developed countries would give
advance notice of a draft notification following which consultations could be held with interested
developing countries.  The final notification would include changes agreed in the consultations.
Egypt believed that more could be done to meet developing countries' difficulties and welcomed theSecretariat's information on its own efforts in this regard.  Several developing country Members had
supported Egypt's views.
114. Canada had recognized that the application of the S&D provisions of the SPS Agreement had
been disappointing, but had noted that discussions had dealt with only one aspect of S&D.  An ex ante
approach as proposed by Egypt would be difficult to implement.  An importing country couldprobably not identify possibilities for S&D in advance, but it could try to find a solution to a problem
identified by a developing country.  The main objective should be to find helpful and practical
solutions;  it made no difference whether the outcome was S&D or technical assistance as long as the
problem of the developing country was solved.  The idea of a "pre-notification" mechanism was
interesting and needed to be explored further, but Canada suggested that, as a first and practical step,
the Committee agree to the Canadian proposal while continuing discussions of possible additional
actions.
115. The European Communities had highlighted its efforts with regard to notifications and
explained the mechanisms used to give expeditious responses to questions raised by Members, in
particular access to the text of its draft regulations through its Internet site.  The European
Communities had done a simulation exercise covering the past 24 months.  During this period, the
European Communities had submitted 126 notifications, but received comments on only 29 of these.About 25 percent of the comments were from deve loping country Members and related to S&D.  In
these cases, the European Communities had tried to meet the developing countries' needs, including
through technical assistance to improve market access.  The European Communities considered that
longer periods of time for comments might facilitate developing countries requests for S&D.
However, if Enquiry Points did not work properly, any efforts in this regard could be useless and abetter solution could be technical assistance aimed at reinforcing the functioning of Enquiry Points.
With regard to the "pre-notification" mechanism suggested by Egypt, the European Communities had
indicated that it issued "white papers" and "green papers" which contained the general guidelines for
future measures.  Several Members had agreed with the technical assistance approach suggested by
the European Communities.G/SPS/R/29
Page 23
116. The representative of the Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, stated that there had
been a considerable amount of discussion in the WTO on the importance of S&D treatment to
developing countries, particularly in the context of the SPS Agreement and the technical and scientific
aspects associated with SPS measures.  They found Egypt's proposal for an S&D box in notifications
very useful as it could enhance transparency in re spect of the operationalization of Article 10.1 of the
SPS Agreement.  In particular, the elements listed in point 7 of the Egyptian response
(G/SPS/GEN/358) was information which could possibly be identified ex-ante.  ASEAN noted that
the Canadian proposal using an ex-post approach towards identifying S&D measures could be a more
practical method than an ex-ante approach, as specific S&D needs could be identified.  They noted
that Canada had suggested that bilateral consultations based on S&D requests could take place after
the notification was made.  In this case, depending on the number of requests, plurilateral
consultations could also be undertaken. However, this should not replace the full implementation ofthe obligations under Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement, which stated that the preparation and
application of SPS measures shall take into account the special needs of developing countries.  Hence,
ASEAN countries were of the view that relevant actions such as consultations during the preparatory
phase prior to the application of the SPS measure might be necessary.  They also observed that the
timeframe for undertaking consultations during the comment period could be limited as the measurenormally came into force after that.  They were not sure, therefore, whether the normal comment
period of 60 days would be sufficient in this regard.
117. The United States had indicated that it would develop a proposal for a "pilot project" for
consideration at the subsequent Committee meeting.  The aim would be to determine how an
importing Member could identify which developing countries could be affected by a proposed SPSmeasure, so that the notification could be brought to their attention.  The United States had also
indicated that it extended the period of time for comments upon request, when the measure allowed,
and the extension applied to all countries.  Several Members had welcomed the US proposal.
118. Chile had indicated it would submit a paper on notifications and S&D for the upcoming
meeting.
119. Supporting the Canadian proposal, Brazil had stressed that there was a "missing link" in the
notification process and S&D, noting the "waves of notifications" reflecting, inter alia , new detection
methods and had stressed the need to address this problem.  But it was not enough for developing
countries to realize that they could be affected by a measure;  they needed to be able to address the
effect.  Technical assistance could well be the answer.
120. Uruguay had stressed the need for prompt and concrete results from the discussions.  A lot of
time had already been devoted to this important issue in the context of the Doha Declaration invarious WTO bodies.  Proposals needed to be addressed urgently, if necessary through additional
informal meetings.
121. Jamaica was of the view that the practical application of Egypt's proposal might be somewhat
cumbersome.  Canada's proposal, along with technical assistance aimed at the reinforcement of
Enquiry Points, and longer comment periods, could be a more practical approach.
122. The Secretariat had suggested that it could be helpful if some Members provided information
on how they managed the screening of notifications, the solicitation of information from their
exporters, and the submission of comments to importing Members.  It could be possible to identify
some best practices in this regard which would be helpful for developing countries to consider.
123. Several Members had suggested that an inform al meeting be scheduled prior to the June
Committee meeting to continue discussions of additional possible actions.G/SPS/R/29
Page 24
124. Following the Chairperson's report, the representative of  China stated that as the biggest
developing country and a new Member facing difficulties in compliance with the SPS Agreement,
China wished to see Article 10 as operational as possible.  Despite the fact that 20 staff were working
in their SPS enquiry point on tr anslations and information dissemination, their resources were
stretched.
125. The representative of Cuba stated that her delegation considered the useful proposals by
Canada and Egypt constituted part of a solution addressing the concerns of developing countries
regarding the SPS Agreement.  The representative of Honduras suggested an informal meeting to
reach agreement on the proposal by next meeting.  The representative of Argentina said that the
Committee should not lose the opportunity to advance on the matter.
126. The representative of Malaysia noted that the Canadian proposal with its ex-post approach
provided an opportunity for Members to provide information on any S&D request received pursuantto a notification and had practical value in terms of transparency, although the actual value of the
procedure would depend on the proactivity of developing countries in requesting consultations.
While they supported the proposal, it was only one way of operationalizing S&D provisions stipulated
in Article 10 of the SPS Agreement and further work needed to be done to address other relevant
issues.  As noted by China, there were more than 600 notifications in 2002 alone and those fromdeveloped countries were two thirds of all notifications.  It was difficult for developing countries to
respond to these notifications.  Malaysia welcomed an opportunity to discuss various proposals by
Members.
127. The representative of Belize suggested that the Committee also consider the paper by the
FAO on a "Conceptual Framework for Capacity Buildi ng in the Aspects of Food Safety, Animal and
Plant Health" during its next informal meeting.  Belize also wondered whether the new STDF would
work in coordination with the FAO initiative, and how the responses to the SPS questionnaire on
technical assistance would be taken into consideration.
128. The representative of India stated that the ex-post approach as opposed to the ex-ante
approach towards identifying S&D measures was addressing only one problem among many thatdeveloping countries faced, in this case in responding to SPS notifications.  The proposal for greater
transparency should not replace obligations contained in Article 10 of the Agreement.
129. The representative of the United States indicated that in the context of S&D discussions,
specific problems needed to identified so that pragmatic ways to address them could be found.  The
last two meetings had brought some specificity to the nature of the problem.  The United States
accepted in principle the Canadian proposal, however, a more precise elaboration was needed of the
procedures to be followed.  With respect to the flood of notifications and the challenge of assessing
which measures affected developing countries most directly, there was in fact an entry in the
notification format for indicating which Members might be affected by a specific notification.
However, the monthly summary of the latest notifications in document G/SPS/GEN/374 showed that
this information was not always as useful as it could be.  The United States would submit information
before the June meeting on how it could provide more specific information on the potential effects ofa notified SPS measure on the export products of developing countries.  It would then seek comments
on the usefulness of this approach in dealing with the flood of notifications.
130. The representative of Japan considered the Canadian paper as a good step forward. His
delegation was  also ready to discuss specific ideas from the United States and others.
131. The representative of Canada stated that their proposal was a part of the solution to improve
the operationalization of S&D issues and Canada was prepared to continue discussions on the matter.
Egypt's comments had provided further ideas..  He proposed that the Committee adopt the proposal,
and the Secretariat could provide a more detailed description of the procedures.G/SPS/R/29
Page 25
132. The representative of Brazil suggested adoption of the proposal as an early harvest without
prejudice to the continuation of work on S&D matters.
133. The representative of Egypt agreed that the Canadian proposal of an addendum could
constitute part of the solution by enhancing transparency, but Egypt's comments on the Canadian
proposal contained other issues of equal value for consideration in future meetings.
134. The representative of Australia expressed support for moves to improve transparency with
respect to S&D, but suggested reverting to the prop osal at the subsequent meeting in order to allow
time for a better assessment of whether it could deliver the expected results.
135. The representative of the European Communities was of the view that the Canadian proposal
would serve a useful purpose, especially if there was an interactive process between notifying
Members and those requesting consultations, as Egypt had underscored.  His delegation had some
concerns about the practical manner in which the box in the notification sheet would be filled in.  Itwas important to consider the consequences for those working on a daily basis with notifications and
he would appreciate a continuation of discussions.  The cornerstone of the system which needed
improvement was the functioning of enquiry points and national notification authorities.  Further
efforts were needed to develop the necessary infrastructure.
136. The representative of the Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, suggested that the
Chair's concluding remarks clarify that the transparency proposal by Canada represented only one
approach towards fulfilling SPS obligations under Article 10.1.  His delegation was willing to
consider other proposals.
137. The representative of Canada supported Brazil's statement and clarified that no new aspect
would be introduced to the initial notification procedures.  The Secretariat was urged to redouble itsefforts to draw notifications to the attention of the developing countries concerned.  If a Member
indicated interest in a measure notified by Canada, it would mean that Canada would have to respond
constructively to the expression of interest by another Member.  The only new aspect was that Canada
would need to inform the Committee of the results of the discussion, which might have led to no
particular action by Canada or to a solution.  This was a simple but powerful way of enhancingtransparency.  His delegation also looked forward to further elaborations, for example from the United
States regarding the beginning stage of a notification.
138. The Committee agreed to accept in principle the Canadian proposal as one step for immediate
implementation by Members to subject to the elaboration of the related procedures to be followed.
The Committee also agreed to consider other proposals and possible actions which had been
identified, including the proposals put forward by Egypt, at its subsequent meeting.  The Committee
recognized that the issue was not fully resolved, but that one step had been taken in addressing theproblem of implementation of the S&D provisions of the SPS Agreement.
IV. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4
139. The Chairperson stated that the programme for further work on equivalence as laid out in
document G/SPS/20 specifically identified a number of actions which needed to be undertaken at the
meeting:
• Information from Members on their experiences regarding implementation of Article 4.
• Consideration of information from the Code x, OIE and IPPC regarding their work on
the issue of equivalence.G/SPS/R/29
Page 26
• Consideration of any notifications received regarding agreements recognizing
equivalence.
• Consideration and, if possible, adoption of guidance for accelerated procedures for the
recognition of equivalence of products historically traded.
• Consideration and, if possible, adoption of text clarifying the provisions of paragraph 6.
• Consideration of a draft text clarifying the provisions of paragraph 7.
(a) Report of Informal Meeting on Equivalence
140. The Chairperson said that since the Committee had already agreed on clarifications for
paragraph 6 (contained in G/SPS/19/Add.1), it could concentrate on paragraph 7 of the Decision onEquivalence.  Paragraph 7 read: "When considering a request for recognition of equivalence, the
importing Member should analyze the science-based and technical information provided by the
exporting Member on its sanitary or phytosanitary measures with a view to determining whether these
measures achieve the level of protection provided by its own relevant sanitary or phytosanitary
measures".  Based on written submissions by Argen tina and Australia, and on discussions at previous
meetings, the Secretariat had prepared a note on the clarification of paragraph 7 of the Decision on
equivalence (G/SPS/W/128).  In addition, Argentina had submitted comments on the Secretariat note
regarding paragraph 7 (G/SPS/W/130).  These documents had been discussed during the informal
meeting on equivalence, on which the Chairperson reported:
141. Argentina had suggested modifying the draft r ecommendations to include part of the Codex
Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification System (CCFICS) draft
Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspectionand Certification Systems, which had been forwarded to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for
final adoption in June/July 2003.  Argentina had indicated that its aim was to create more balance
between the obligations of exporting Members and those of importing Members when determining
equivalence.  In Argentina's view, the Codex Guidelines regarding the use of an objective basis for
comparison that were cited in the Secretariat paper were applicable not only to food safety, but also toanimal and plant health, and should therefore form part of the general guidance to be provided by the
SPS Committee.  The concept of an objective basis for comparison should effectively take care of the
difficulties that the concept of appropriate level of protection (ALOP) generated in determining
equivalence, establishing clear and concrete parameters for exporting countries.
142. Some Members had expressed doubts as to whether part of the draft CCFICS guidelines
should be adopted by the SPS Committee before being formally adopted by the Codex Alimentarius
Commission.  Although they considered that these guidelines were useful, CCFICS had developed
these guidelines only for application in the area of food inspection and certification systems.  The
CCFICS guidelines might not be the most appropriate in the animal or plant health contexts, and
might not even apply to all equivalence determinations in the food safety area.  These Members hadnot agreed that the SPS Committee should instruct the standard-setting organizations how to proceed
with their work on equivalence, but leave each organization free to determine the best approach to
equivalence in its area of work.  Some Members had suggested changes to the wording of the draft
recommendations to address these concerns.
143. Several Members had also indicated that they  considered the Guidelines to Further the
Practical Implementation of Article 5.5 in document G/SPS/15 to be relevant in this context.  A
number of Members had suggested that the draft re commendations should not refer to only one of the
Article 5.5 guidelines but to the Guidelines in general, since they were to be read as a whole.  Some
Members had noted that the Committee had no information regarding the effective implementation of
the Guidelines on Article 5.5.G/SPS/R/29
Page 27
144. Argentina  had expressed the view that the Committee had not yet completed its work on the
clarification of paragraph 5 of the Decision on Equivalence.  They had suggested that the Committee,
or at least interested Members, hold additional info rmal meetings before June to ensure that the
substantive work on both paragraphs 5 and 7 could be finished before the Cancún Ministerial
Conference.  This Member had also suggested that it would be appropriate for the Chairman of theSPS Committee to report to the General Council on the progress made regarding the clarification of
the provisions on equivalence.
145. The Committee had informally agreed to request the Secretariat to revise its document to
reflect the changes suggested by various Members, and had suggested that it would be useful to
continue the discussions at an informal meeting prior to the next formal meeting of the Committee.
(b) Consideration of specific provisions of the Decision – Paragraph 7
146. The representative of the European Communities stated that the text from the draft Codex
Guidelines should not be totally isolated from the rest of the proposal but be considered in its proper
context since Codex had already adopted guidelines in order to judge the equivalence of systems
before proposing guidelines to judge the equivalence of measures.
147. The representative of Malaysia stated that his delegation had systemic concerns about
referencing the draft Codex guidelines in the clarification of Paragraph 7 of the Decision onEquivalence and needed more time for consideration.  The representative of China stated that
translating Committee documents took time and that China would have comments by the next
meeting.
148. The representative of Chile remarked that the Codex document was dealing with guidelines
regarding equivalence agreements while the Committee was considering issues related to the SPSAgreement.  Referring to paragraph 10 of the submi ssion by Argentina, he observed that at least 4 of
the 5 parameters emanating from the draft Codex guid elines could be horizontally applicable to other
areas of animal and plant health.
149. The representative of Egypt sought clarification as to whether it would be possible to
conclude work on the question of equivalence, which was an implementation issue, before the CancúnMinisterial Conference.  He also wondered about the Committee's level of progress vis-à-vis the
Programme of Further Work agreed upon the previous year.
150. The Secretariat replied that whether the Committee could complete its work before Cancún
depended on what was perceived to be outstanding.  According to the work programme, the
Committee was to clarify paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of  the Decision on Equivalence.  At the previous
meeting, agreement had been reached on the clarification of  paragraphs 5 and 6, but Argentina now
was seeking further clarification of paragraph 5.  In terms of paragraph 7, the Committee was onschedule and should try to reach agreement at the subsequent meeting.
151. The Committee agreed to hold an informal m eeting before the subsequent Committee meeting
to discuss pending issues on equivalence.  The Secretariat was requested to prepare a revised draft on
the clarification of paragraph 7 of the Decision on Equivalence, taking into account the comments
made.
(c) Information from Members on their experience
152. Under this agenda item, Members were invited to recount their experience in applying the
concept of equivalence.  No written submissions were received ahead of the Committee meeting.G/SPS/R/29
Page 28
153. The representative of Guatemala pointed out that significant progress had been made in
consultations with Mexico regarding a requirement by Mexico that fresh fruits and vegetables,
including raspberries and other berries, imported from certain countries be washed with chlorine
water.  The phytosanitary measure had come into effect following the cholera pandemic in the
American continent.  Within the framework of the free trade agreement among the Northern Trianglecountries (El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala) and Mexico, a Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Committee had been set up in September 2001.  During a meeting of the technical committee on 10-
11 February in Guatemala City, Guatemala had repeated its request for equivalence.  Mexico had
announced that as part of a five-year revision of the appropriate regulation, it was considering
replacing the condition for treatment with chloride water by a label of good practice for berries
coming from Guatemala.  They hoped to be able to report the final outcome at the subsequent
meeting.
(d) Information from Relevant Observer Organizations
154. The representative of Codex reported that the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export
Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) had finalized draft Guidelines for the Judgement of
Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems, which
would be subject to final adoption during the 26
th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in
June/July.  He confirmed that related guidelines concerning the development of equivalence
agreements had been adopted by the Commission in 1999.  A discussion paper on the judgement of
equivalence of technical regulations associated with food inspection and certification systems was
also being considered, although it did not deal with sanitary measures.  While focusing on consumer
safety and health issues, the Codex Commission collaborated with the OIE and the IPPC in areas ofanimal and plant health.
155. The representative of the OIE reported that the draft OIE guidelines on the judgement of
equivalence of sanitary measures relating to international trade in animals and animal products had
been circulated in July for comments and had then been considered by the Code Commission during
its December meeting.  The OIE guidelines had been further revised taking into account the CCFICsdraft guidelines and would be presented for discussion and possible adoption at the General Session in
May.
156. The representative of Argentina suggested that the Committee inform the General Council of
the work undertaken on equivalence.  He also welcomed the update on the progress made in the OIE.
As the implementation of Article 4 depended on the activities of the three sister organizations, it was
important to establish some general principles in the SPS Committee which could guide the activities
of these organization, where the degree of progress on equivalence issues varied.  It was in the IPPCwhere efforts needed to be multiplied.
V. DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6
157. The representative of Chile highlighted problems in the implementation of Article 6
(G/SPS/W/129 and G/SPS/GEN/38).  Even when Member s reached a certain sanitary status following
guidelines from international organizations, such as the OIE or the IPPC, after great cost and effort,they still faced problems with transparency, disparities in the recognition process and sometimes
delays of several years.  The issue had been previously raised by the European Communities
(G/SPS/GEN/101) and by South Africa (G/SPS/GEN/139);  however the implementation problems
remained.  Members regularly informed the Committee of progress achieved in declaring an area pest-
or disease-free, but many specific trade concerns, dealt with failure to recognize this status, forexample, measures related to the foot and mouth disease.  He suggested that Members present
practical problems based on their experiences regarding recognition of their plant and animal health
status possibly in an informal meeting.G/SPS/R/29
Page 29
158. The representative of Argentina shared the concerns expressed by Chile regarding
implementation problems and costs related to regionalization and recognition, which could become a
useful tool for trade facilitation.  The representative of Peru agreed that implementation and
administration problems related to regionalization was a major problem that needed to be further
analyzed.  Peru had at great cost achieved the status for  being free of certain pests or diseases andcould not afford to wait for importers to conclude their own risk assessments before recognition.
159. The representative of Brazil announced that his country would shortly notify the classification
of the northeast region of Brazil as being free of Anastrepha grandis  and also the lists of pests either
not present or under control in Brazil, based on IPPC standards.
160. The representative of the United States underlined the importance of having representatives of
OIE and IPPC participate in the informal discussions on regionalization.  The representative of
Canada stated that his country had put in place regionalization measures for a number of productsimported from other countries, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, France, and the United States.  He
invited Members to reflect on the significant role of international standard setting organizations as
well as of the Committee in addressing issues raised by Chile and others.  The representative of
Australia suggested that OIE and IPPC be invited to make presentations at the start of the informal
meeting.
161. The representative of Mexico said that Article 6 was one key element in facilitating trade in
foodstuffs between Members.  Mexico proposed that the Committee consider developing guidance on
procedures for the recognition of zones free of pest or disease (G/SPS/GEN/388).
162. The representative of China noted that the fact that China was neither a member of IPPC nor a
full member of the OIE created difficulties in achieving recognition of their sanitary status.  Therepresentative of Jamaica registered interest in the matter of declaration of countries free of exotic
diseases.  Jamaica would  present a paper on progress made in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis
and brucellosis in Jamaica.
163. The representative of Egypt welcomed the opportunity for Members to share national
experiences, particularly relating to the two problems identified by Chile: importing countries notgiving effect to the recognition by an international organization and administrative and procedural
disparities and problems.
164. The representative of the OIE said that regionalization work was going on in the OIE, in
particular with regard to introducing a managerial basis for delineating disease free areas, in addition
to the geographical one, whereby assessments of recognition could be made at the enterprise level.
165. The Committee agreed to hold an informal m eeting with respect to Article 6 immediately
prior to the next regular meeting.
VI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION
(a) Information from Members on the technical assistance questionnaire
166. Since the previous meeting, Costa Rica, Barbados, Peru, Cyprus, and the Dominican Republic
had either replied to the questionnaire for the first time, or provided an update or revision of their
reply in the document series SPS/GEN/295 and its Addenda.
167. The representative of Tunisia and of Barbados requested information regarding any follow up
to the technical assistance questionnaire, and proposed that this be reported to the Committee for
transparency purposes.G/SPS/R/29
Page 30
168. The representative of Australia indicated that they took into account the need identified by
developing countries in the development of their bilateral programmes of assistance.  A list of
Australia's SPS-related technical assistance activities would be submitted for the next meeting.
169. The representative of China stated that they had not received any reply to their submission of
the questionnaire.  China had proposed to send 102 senior officials to the WTO for a 10-monthtraining programme, following two months domes tic training, but the Secretariat was unable to
receive officials for on-the-job training.  Bilateral discussions on the training of Chinese officials in
the United States, European Communities, Canada, and Australia were underway.  China was also
seeking to send officials to the three sister organizations.
170. The Secretariat clarified that the statutes of the Secretariat did not allow the employment of
any staff who received payments from other sources.  Given the role of the Secretariat in negotiations
and dispute settlement, the requirement of neutrality of the Secretariat staff was fundamental.
171. The representative of New Zealand requested an update on an earlier proposal for more
targeted questionnaires to better understand developing country's priorities.  She suggestion that a list
of SPS experts be established for developing countries to call upon.
172. The representative of Egypt underscored the im portance of the questionnaire in identifying
needs in the SPS, and the need of a mechanism to enhance delivery of technical assistance.  He drewattention to the work of the TBT Committee in this area, where the first component was the
questionnaire and the second the organization of a symposium to demonstrate experiences of
developing countries.  He proposed that the Committee invite the secretary of the TBT Committee to
make a presentation on this at the next meeting.
(b) Technical assistance activities173. A representative of the Secretariat reported on the technical assistance activities held since the
Committee's meeting in November.  A regional seminar had been held in December in Angola and
was addressed to the Portuguese speaking African countries of Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau,
Mozambique, and Sao Tome and Principe.  They were all LDCs and the lack of awareness of SPS-
issues was significant.  An across-the-board approach to technical assistance was necessary, fromsimple establishment of legal and administrative frameworks, such as establishment of enquiry points,
to more hands-on training with special emphasis on market access aspects for the commodities that
the countries had the potential to export.
174. The second seminar had been for certain Asian countries including Cambodia, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.  With respect to these countries, the SPS Agreement
was well understood particularly in the four WTO Member countries.  The legal framework,
administrative internal coordination and regional mechanisms were beginning to be put in place andthe national coordination mechanisms worked. The needs were of a different nature and related to
meeting requirements of importing countries, which were in some cases perceived to be very
demanding.
175. Another seminar had been held in the Dominican Republic for Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.  Areas requiring further work for this region were theregulatory frameworks and the transparency mechanisms.  Risk assessment was perceived to be the
most difficult issue in all regions due to lack of qualified personnel and infrastructure.
176. The Secretariat reported on the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF)
(G/SPS/GEN/371).  The objectives of the new facility included improved coordination among the
WHO, OIE, FAO, World Bank and the WTO for better delivery of development assistance in theSPS-area.  One purpose of the facility was to deal with issues arising from difficulties inG/SPS/R/29
Page 31
implementing the SPS Agreement.  Another objective was to enhance the capacity of developing
countries to enable them to effectively participate in the development of international standards and to
benefit from international trade by meeting international standards.  Yet another objective was to
improve the capacity of officials and scientists to implement the obligations and take advantage of
rights arising from the SPS Agreement.  The STDF would support information exchange,development of databases, toolkits and learning materials on trade-related SPS issues, facilitate
consultations and better coordination among the core organizations, and support projects in capacity
building in individual countries or through regional initiatives, where the role of both private and
public sectors was important.  Members would have to be involved in the functioning of the Facility.
A consultative mechanism would be established with developing country representatives, core
organizations, other relevant international and regional organizations, bilateral donors and the private
sector.  The partner institutions had agreed to establish an information exchange mechanism andidentify, select and plan some pilot projects to be funded by the STDF by the end of June.  The
webpage of the Facility would start functioning sh ortly and would be the main place for submitting
project applications or posting information on pilot projects.
177. The Secretariat indicated that the replies to the technical assistance questionnaires would
serve as one source of STDF project ideas.  The Secretariat was not aware of donor country responsesto the questionnaires submitted by developing countries.  The questionnaire had led to general but
good replies, however only 30 replies had been received in three years.  Sufficient material was
available for interested donor countries to pursue bilateral consultations.  The Secretariat was working
on a list of SPS experts and would also collaborat e with the sister organizations.  A technical
assistance seminar had been organized in Novemb er 2002, where tools for assessment of technical
assistance had been reported to Members.  A problem of coordination remained.
178. The representative of Cuba congratulated the Secretariat for the successful seminar held in
Cuba the previous year.  She suggested that a training session on drafting of notifications for officials
from developing countries be held following the subsequent Committee meeting.
179. The representative of the Dominican Republic said that the seminar in their country had been
very useful and timely, not only because of the capacity building benefits but also because it had
taken place as the presidential decree creating the national institute for the implementation SPS
measures and the enquiry point had entered into force. It was important to achieve internal
coordination among agencies.
180. The representative of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, commended the Secretariat's
efforts in technical assistance, including in the re cent seminar held in Jakarta.  ASEAN was facing
obstacles both in fulfilling the developed country requirements and in protecting domestic consumersagainst unsafe foreign products.  Technical cooperation was important to expand market access
opportunities for developing country products.  The regional seminar was valuable in furthering the
understanding of the SPS Agreement and establishing active networking between relevant authorities,
the Secretariat, the private sector and IGOs.
181. The representative of Mexico referred to thei r proposals for promoting the sustainability of
technical assistance (G/SPS/GEN/382).  Although developing countries received considerable amount
of technical assistance, this was mainly in the form of seminars and focused on training individuals
rather than building institutions.  This resulted in the loss of acquired knowledge due to high turnover
in personnel.  It was important that technical assistance activities had a follow-up component and a
multiplier effect, which would in the long-run cut down the need for technical assistance.
182. The representative of the European Communities reported on the Caribbean Agriculture and
Fisheries Programme, which had started in 1998 and  was to be completed in April 2004.  22.2 million
euros had been allocated to the project with nine sub-components, from which 15 CARIFORUM
countries benefited.  It aimed at strength ening the economies of CARIFORUM members byG/SPS/R/29
Page 32
consolidating and enhancing the contribution of the agriculture and fisheries sector through market-
led development of sustainable regional initiatives in areas such as diversification and sectorial
support services, with particular emphasis on the private sector.
183. The representative of Japan reported that Japan had held a seminar in Malaysia in
August 2002, on capacity building for agriculture and SPS, with a particular focus on risk analysis.  Asimilar seminar was planned for the current year in the Philippines.  Also a capacity building seminar
for ASEAN and APEC members was held in Tokyo in February.
184. The representative of the Codex Commission stated that in an effort to assist the participation
of developing countries and countries in transition to participate in Codex activities, the Commission
had launched a trust fund during the extraordinary 25
th session of the Commission held in Geneva in
February 2003. Work was underway to revise and complete the criteria for selection of beneficiaries,
which would be taken up at the 26th session of the Commission to be held in Rome in July.  The first
call for applications would then begin.
185. The representative of the OIE drew attention to the list of seminars and workshops organized
by the OIE in 2002 and planned for 2003 (G/SPS/GEN/380).  The OIE expected that the STDF would
lead to a more coherent presentation of activities by different organizations and help avoid
duplication.
186. The representative of OIRSA provided an update on the activities carried out by OIRSA on
behalf of its members in Central America (G/SPS/GEN/395).  These included mediation activities in a
dispute between Honduras and Costa Rica;  the completion of the second cycle of the Master's degree
in technology and sanitary and phytosanitary measures;  and a seminar in Nicaragua on the challenges
and opportunities for the regional agro-food sector in the framework of the free trade agreementamong Central American countries and the United States.
187. The representative of IICA reported that their actions aimed at implementing the SPS
Agreement focused on three areas: enhancing participation and effectiveness of countries of the
Americas in the SPS Committee and in the activities of the three sister organizations; strengthening
national agricultural health and food safety services; and providing technical workshops(G/SPS/GEN/376)  This was the second SPS Committee meeting where the participation of 61
experts from 31 capitals from the Americas was possible through a collaborative effort between IICA
and the USDA.  Other IICA activities in the Americas included (i) a proposal to create the Caribbean
Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency;  (ii) collaboration on the European Union funded
project on strengthening agricultural quarantine services in the Caribbean;  (iii) serving as the
Technical Secretariat at a meeting of the Inter-American Group for Coordination on Plant Protection
held in Bogota, Colombia;  (iv) assisting in preparation of national animal disease emergencypreparedness plans in the Caribbean;  and (v) workshops on the poultry sector in the Caribbean with
contributions from Canadian and US agencies and on HACCP, with the support of the World Bank's
Global Development Lear ning Network (GDLN).
188. The representatives of Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, Jamaica, Uruguay,  and Guatemala, on behalf of Central American
countries,  commended IICA's important WTO-related technical cooperation work and also expressed
their appreciation for IICA's assistance in the participation of representative from the Latin American
and Caribbean region in the SPS Committee meeting.
VII. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
189. The Chairperson said that in accordance with the agreed procedures in document G/SPS/11
on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, Members were to submit, at
least 30 days in advance of each regular meeting, examples of what they considered to be problemsG/SPS/R/29
Page 33
with significant trade impact which they believed  were related to the use or non-use of relevant
international standards, guidelines or recommendati ons.  These were to be compiled into a provisional
list and circulated by the Secretariat.  No Member had submitted new issues for consideration at this
meeting.  The Secretariat reminded the Committee that the Secretariat would draft a short annual
report on the monitoring procedure for the Committee's consideration at the subsequent meeting.
VIII. MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER
ORGANIZATIONS
190. Under this agenda item observer organizations were invited to briefly report on any activities
that were relevant to the work of the Committee.   The invitation extended as well to the ad hoc
observers participating in the meeting.
191. The representative of the Codex Alimentarius Commission highlighted that most of the
information on their activities was available on the web.  The 25th Session of the Commission had
considered the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of Codex Alimentarius and Other FAO and WHO work on
Food Standards , and he invited Members to comment on Circular Letter (CL 2003/8-CAC), which
would be considered at the 26th Regular Session of the Commission in Rome.
192. The representative of Chile noted that the Extraordinary session of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission held in February had addressed two items of relevance to discussions in the Committee.The first was related to the Trust Fund for participation in Codex activities, which was linked to S&D
discussions in the Committee. He underlined the importance of information exchange between SPS
delegates and Codex Contact Points regarding increased participation in the Codex.  The other
relevant issue was the evaluation of Codex.  The Commission had not been able to examine in any
detail the 42 recommendations submitted by experts.  Given the important issues under discussion,such as the creation of a new standards committee, it was important to participate and to know that
comments could be submitted in writing.  He also drew attention to the meeting of the Codex
Committee on General Principles, which was addressing issues relevant to the work of the SPS
Committee such as  risk analysis, including the use of precaution, and traceability.
193. The representative of Thailand stated that his country faced serious problems in those areas
where international standards did not exist, and particularly for some on animal drug substances.
Thailand supported Codex efforts to provide as early as possible solid, science-based
recommendations on risk management options for compounds with no Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)
and/or Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs), in particular the operational definition of zero tolerance in
the Codex system, and the collaborative efforts among countries for additional testing and/or
development of methods of analysis which would be suitable for routine enforcement by Members.
194. The representative of Brazil shared the views expressed by Chile that many items of interest
to the WTO such as the reform of Codex, traceability and precaution would be considered by the
Codex Commission.  The Trust Fund to allow for incr eased participation of developing countries was
commendable.  With the proliferation of initiatives and meetings, it was difficult even for developed
countries to follow all developments.  He suggested  that the subject of how to best enhance internal
coordination within governments to enhance participation in meetings of standard settingorganizations be covered in a future SPS seminar.
195. The representative of the OIE reported that a coordination meeting of the Tripartite
Committee (OIE, FAO, WHO) had taken place in Pa ris in February.  The Committee was overseeing
several combined task forces including one on the Global Early Warning and Response System and
others on the progressive control of FMD and othe r transboundary animal diseases.  A working group
had also been set up to examine animal health information issues.  An agreement between the OIE
and the WHO had been finalised and should be endorsed by the OIE International Committee in May
and by the World Health Assembly in 2004.G/SPS/R/29
Page 34
196. Two new areas of work for the OIE were animal welfare and food safety.  On animal welfare,
the following areas of priority work were being addressed through ad hoc groups:  land and sea
animal transportation, humane slaughter and killing for disease control purposes.  The OIE was also
organising a global conference on animal welfare in Paris in February 2004.  On food safety, the OIE
was working with Codex to harmonize the two organisa tions' standards relating to food safety to the
extent possible, to avoid gaps and duplication.  Both organisations were also cooperating on a review
of OIE Code chapters on tuberculosis and brucellosis to ensure that food safety issues were correctly
addressed.
197. On request from developing countries, in February 2003, OIE had organized an ad hoc group
on the role of private veterinarians and para-professionals in the provision of animal health services
with representatives from Africa, Asia, South America and Europe and with the President of the
World Veterinary Association.  The meeting made recommendations on how the professional groups(with paraprofessionals working under the responsibility of veterinarians) might be incorporated into
the activities of veterinary services of Member Countries and for making improvements to the OIE
Animal Health Code.  This report would be submitt ed to the OIE Code Commission before circulation
for comment.  In 2003, the General Session of the OIE would discuss proposed revised standards for
the evaluation of veterinary services, notification of diseases, FMD (revised chapter to incorporateinfection as well as presence of disease, tests to distinguish between vaccinated and infected animals),
BSE and scrapie, classical swine fever and avian influenza.  The OIE was also developing a Code
chapter on the general principles of surveillance.  In the second half of the year, the OIE would
publish a handbook on import risk analysis that would cover both qualitative and quantitative risk
analysis and would be a valuable tool for all member countries.
198. The representative of Canada stated that it fully supported the remark by the United States
from the previous meeting about the need to increase the funding for the IPPC.  There had been
increased allocation to IPPC for the coming fiscal year, but a further increase would be necessary to
fulfil the medium term plan.  He sought support of other organizations in securing funding.  The
representatives of the European Communities, New Zealand, Australia, China and Brazil supportedCanada's statement.
IX. OBSERVERS – REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
199. The Committee decided to invite the ad hoc observers to participate in the subsequent
meeting of the Committee.
200. The Committee had outstanding requests for observe r status from the Office International de la
Vigne et du Vin (OIV), from the Asian and P acific Coconut Community (APCC), and from the
Convention on Biodiversity (CBD).  The representative of the European Communities supported allcandidatures.  The representative of Jordan stat ed their preference to postpone any decision until the
pending issue of Observer status was resolved at the General Council level.  No decision was taken on
the outstanding requests.
201. The representative of Canada suggested that the secretariat of the Cartagena Protocol be
invited to provide a briefing at an informal session of the SPS Committee on the scope, objectives,operation and prospects for implementation of the Protocol, which were relevant to the SPS
Agreement especially in the phytosanitary area and which several countries had either already ratified
or were in the midst of deciding.  The representa tive of New Zealand supported Canada's proposal but
hoped that the presentations could be extended to other areas covered by the CBD, such as alien
invasive species, which were also relevant for the SPS Committee.  The representatives of Australia,and the United States also supported the proposal, and the latter suggested that the presentation on the
Cartagena Protocol could be the first in a series of presentation sessions.  The secretariat recalled that
a similar briefing had taken place a few years earlier when the CBD secretariat had been invited toG/SPS/R/29
Page 35
make a presentation on the negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol.  The Committee accepted the
Canadian proposal ad referendum.
X. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON
202. The Chairperson stated that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had carried out
informal consultations on a slate of names for appointment as chairpersons to the subsidiary bodies ofthe Council for Trade in Goods in accordance wi th the established Guidelines for Appointment of
Officers to WTO bodies.  On the basis of the understandings reached, the Committee elected
Mr. Paul Martin (Canada) as Chairperson of the Committee by acclamation, to take over at the
conclusion of the session in progress.  A number of delegations congratulated the new Chairperson
and expressed their appreciation for the outgoing Chairperson, who also thanked the Members for
their cooperation and the Secretariat for their assistance and guidance.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS
Slovenia - Croatian restrictions on pork imports
203. The representative of Slovenia drew attention to the measure undertaken by the Croatian
authorities to limit the import of pork meat and products.  In the beginning of March, decrees had
been issued by the Veterinary Administration of the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture, shortening the
validity of veterinary import permits from six to three months.  In some of the cases, certificates hadbeen withdrawn with an immediate effect. The reason given for this measure was market disturbances
due to oversupply of meat on the Croatian market.  Slovenia had serious concern with regards to the
unusual protective measure.  The measure had not been notified through the WTO and was in breach
of the WTO Agreements on SPS, Agriculture and Import Licensing Procedures.  He asked that
Croatia provide an explanation of the measure.
204. The representative of Croatia asked for a written version of the statement for transmission to
his capital.  He was informed by his authorities that Croatia had not adopted or implemented any
measures to restrict imports of pork meat and products and was fully observing the SPS Agreement.
Croatia had begun to develop, as of January, a computerized integrated system for border crossing
veterinary control, that required adjustments to the procedures for application and issuance ofveterinary approvals, which now needed to contain the tariff line description of the product and other
necessary data.  An important element of the new simplified system was that the period for issuance
of approvals had been shortened from 30 or 60 days to only 15 days, which was a trade facilitation
measure through simplified administrative procedures.  He was certain that bilateral discussions
between competent SPS authorities would clarify the situation.
Hungary - Turkish ban on live cattle and beef
205. The representative of Hungary  referred to the on-going restriction on imports of live cattle
and beef maintained by Turkey since 1996.  The policy objective of the Turkish measure was to
prevent the spread of FMD and BSE disease, however, according to Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement
a Member needed to ensure that any sanitary measure be applied only to the extent necessary to
protect human and animal health and be based on scientific principles.  Turkey applied the measure to
countries, such as Hungary, known to be free of the FMD and BSE.  According to the OIE, Hungary
had been free from FMD for nearly 20 years and had pursued FMD control policies which had made
vaccination redundant.  Hungarian live cattle and beef was also free from BSE.  Hungary had
questioned this measure several times bilaterally and in the SPS Committee.  However, the Turkish
authorities had not provided any explanation or risk assessment regarding the ban on importation of
live cattle and beef from FMD and BSE free countries.G/SPS/R/29
Page 36
206. The representative of Turkey replied that many countries had imposed import restrictions or
bans on live animals and animal products originating from some European countries due to BSE and
FMD to protect their public health and livestock.  Turkey had simply taken the same measures based
on available information and to satisfy the widespread public concern over BSE.  His delegation
would bring the request by Hungary to the attenti on of the competent authorities for consideration.
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinm en and Matsu (Chinese Taipei) - Update on
FMD situation in Chinese Taipei
207. The representative of Chinese Taipei provided an update on their FMD eradication
programme (G/SPS/GEN/402).  Since the reporting of an FMD case in pigs in 1997 and recurrence in
1999 in ruminants, a three-stage eradication programme had been followed.  No FMD case had been
reported for more than two years, and Chinese Taipei hoped to soon reach FMD free status.
Mexico  - Cantaloupe exports to the United States208. The representative of Mexico stated that there was no scientific justification for the US ban on
cantaloupe imports from Mexico, and requested that the United States facilitate the FDA certification
process.
209. The representative of the United States stated that in October 2002, the FDA had invoked a
countrywide detention without physical examination import alert applicable to all cantaloupes fromMexico.  As reported in November, the measure was taken after a series of food-born illnesses in the
United States over the proceeding three years, were traced back to cantaloupes from several states in
Mexico.  Prior to the FDA countrywide ban, FDA sampling and analysis of Mexican cantaloupes had
confirmed the presence of salmonella in significant numbers of consignments.  In addition,
inspections in Mexican farms conducted by the FDA in cooperation with the Mexican authorities hadrevealed certain agricultural practices that had likely contributed to the salmonella problem.  Prior to
the countrywide detention, the agency had taken detention actions only against individual producers
found by FDA to have shipped contaminated products.  The FDA had also informed the Mexican
government of the emerging problem and had worked closely with Mexican authorities in an attempt
to eliminate the cause of the contamination.  The approach followed was consistent with FDA'snormal practice of taking initial enforcement actions only against individual producers rather than
taking action on a countrywide or product-wide basis.  However, despite the efforts of the Mexican
government and producers to address the problem and limit its impact, an effective long-lasting
solution to the contamination problem had not been developed by Mexico.  Noting the significant
public health risk as the cantaloupe season approached in autumn 2002, FDA had been compelled to
take the countrywide action to prevent all Mexican cantaloupes from entering the United States.
210. The United States was aware of the significant impact the countrywide action had on Mexican
cantaloupe producers and was anxious to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.  They were
prepared to rely upon preventive measures and processes established by the Mexican government in
the cantaloupe industry that were intended to guarantee the safety and sanitation of cantaloupes
produced in Mexico for exportation to the United States.  Once effective systems to prevent or
significantly mitigate the problem were developed and put into place, the FDA could considerrevising the countrywide detention status for Mexican cantaloupes.  As an interim arrangement, the
FDA had advised Mexican cantaloupe producers and US importers to work closely with Mexican
officials in order to develop appropriate information and data submissions that would facilitate the
removal of producers from detention on a case-by-case basis.  The FDA had also reviewed the
Mexican government's guidance to assist the cantaloupe industry in establishing compliance with USlaws and had offered comments so that submissions  contained appropriate information and could be
reviewed quickly.  In addition, FDA experts had travelled to Mexico over the preceding several
months and were planning to visit Mexico again in the near future to assist cantaloupe producers in
addressing the issue.  To date, FDA had received submissions from eight cantaloupe producers inG/SPS/R/29
Page 37
Mexico describing their on-farm practices intended to prevent product contamination.  FDA was
reviewing the submissions and working closely with Mexican authorities to identify and address any
remaining deficiencies in the on-farm practices with the aim of enabling cantaloupes from these
producers to enter the US market as quickly as possible.  Two producers had provided documentation
demonstrating their ability to satisfy safety and sanitation requirements for cantaloupes and those twofirms were eligible to export to the United States.  The previous week FDA and Mexican officials had
conducted a telephone conference with several producers to clarify remaining issues.  The United
States was committed to continue to work with the government of Mexico and cantaloupe producers
to resolve the problem as soon as possible.
Brazil - EC restrictions on fruit and fruit juices
211. The representative of Brazil reported that progress had been achieved on the matter during a
meeting held in Brussels and they looked forward to receiving studies from the EuropeanCommunities that served as the basis for the new European regulation setting up MRLs for
dimethoate.
XII. DATE  AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING
212. The next regular meeting of the SPS Committee was scheduled for 24-25 June 2003.  The
Committee agreed on the following tentative agenda for the 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
/g167 Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
3. SPS Agreement and developing countries
(a) Implementation of the provisions for special and differential treatment
4. Equivalence – Article 4
(a) Consideration of specific provisions of the Decision
(b) Information from Members on their experiences(c) Information from relevant observer organizations
5. Adaptation to regional conditions – Article 6
6. Technical assistance and cooperation
7. Monitoring of the use of international standards
(a) Annual report on the monitoring procedure
8. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
9. Observers - Requests for observer status
10. Other business
11. Date and agenda of next meeting
213. The following deadlines are relevant:
• for identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure:
23 May 2003
• for requesting that items be put on the agenda: 12 June 2003G/SPS/R/29
Page 38
• for the distribution of the airgram:  13 June  2003
214. The Secretariat said that the next session of the Committee had been scheduled to take place
immediately before the Codex Alimentarius Commissi on session in Rome with the hope that it would
make it easier for capital-based food safety experts to attend both session.
215. The Committee expressed its appreciation for the work of João Magalhães, who would no
longer work directly on SPS issues.
__________