RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/22
5 October 2001
(01-4837)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON  10-11 JULY 2001
Note by the Secretariat
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its twenty-
first meeting on 10-11 July 2001.  The meeting was chaired by Mr. William Ehlers (Uruguay).  The
agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/1588 was adopted with amendments.
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
(a) Information from Members
Foot-and-mouth disease status – Info rmation from Paraguay (G/SPS/GEN/254)
2. The representative of Paraguay informed the Committee that the OIE had recognized
Paraguay as free of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) with vaccination.  Vaccination for FMD had been
stopped in 1999, with the objective of being recognized as free of FMD without vaccination, and a
national commission for animal health emergencies established.  When in August 2000 FMD-relatedproblems were detected in neighbouring countries, mandatory vaccination had been reintroduced, but
no FMD cases had been found, resulting in the OIE recognition.  In addition, the European
Communities had accepted that there was no geographical risk of BSE in Paraguay, since cattle were
fed exclusively with grass.
Foot-and-mouth disease status – Information from Colombia
3. The representative of Colombia reported that the OIE had recognized the northern area of
Colombia as free of FMD with vaccination.  Approximately one fourth of the Colombian cattle herdwas in the FMD-free area.  This recognition was the result of joint actions by the Colombian
Government and cattle producers, who had the aim of achieving FMD-free status for the entire
country by 2007.  Colombia hoped that Members would revise their sanitary measures on meat and
milk from the FMD-free areas.
Update on BSE-TSE legislative measures in the European Communities4. The representative of the European Communities reported that on 1 July 2001, EC regulation
999/2001 had entered into force, which targeted all animal and public health risks resulting from
animal TSEs.  This regulation covered the entire chain of production and placing on the market of
products of animal origin.  It consolidated much of the existing BSE and TSE legislation, including
prohibitions concerning feeding of animal proteins , and introduced new legislation to areas not yet
covered by EC rules.  It also provided for the clas sification of countries according to their BSE status.
Much of the regulation was based on the categorization of countries into one of five categories of TSE
risk.  The rules on importation of ruminant animals, fresh meat and products of bovine origin, bovineG/SPS/R/22
Page 2
embryos and ova laid down in the regulation followed OIE classification criteria and guidelines.  In
cases where the regulation appeared to go beyond international standards, for example by imposing
conditions on imports of rendered fat, it did so on the basis of the most recent scientific advice,
bearing in mind the paramount importance of protecting public health.
5. The representative of the European Communities explained that pending the new risk
classification, transitional rules would apply.  During the transitional period, imports of live bovine
animals, embryos and ova would be subject to certain minimum requirements.  Starting on
1 October 2001, imports of ruminant products would have to be certified free of specified risk
materials, except those coming from countries in  the lowest risk category.  Until the European
Communities was satisfied that an adequate ruminant feed ban could be ensured, the total feed ban
would continue.  Within the European Communities, testing would be stepped up in July 2001 to
include all animals over 30 months going for normal slaughter, except in some low-risk memberStates, and all risk animals over 24 months.  Once a decision on the TSE-classification of a member
State or a third country had entered into force, the rules of the new regulation would apply to that
country.
Update of the foot-and-mouth disease situation in the European Communities
6. The representative of the European Communities recalled that when he informed the March
2001 Committee meeting on the FMD outbreak on EC territory, the  disease had been restricted to the
United Kingdom, and the first case had appeared in France.  Later, outbreaks had followed in Ireland
and the Netherlands.  To date, more than 1800 FMD outbreaks had been reported in Great Britain,
predominantly in sheep and cattle in contact with sheep, but the number of daily new outbreaks had
dropped sharply since the end of April 2001.  The protective measures originally introduced inFebruary 2001 were still applicable for Great Britain.  The European Communities had established
conditions for emergency vaccinations in the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom had not used
these.  In Northern Ireland, four outbreaks had occurred in March and April 2001.  All EC protective
measures had been lifted in June, following a thorough clinical and serological survey with
satisfactory results.  Nevertheless, the Northern Ir ish authorities had undertaken not to certify sheep
for intra-Community trade before July 2001.
7. The representative of the European Communities noted that the first continental outbreak had
been reported in the north-west of France in March 2001 and was related to contacts of bovines with
incubating sheep imported from the United Kingdom.  The second and last outbreak had been
reported in France on 23 March.  The European Communities had adopted safeguard measures
applicable until April 2001, followed by the release of the surveillance zone at least 30 days after the
preliminary cleansing and disinfection of the premises, and after a clinical and serological survey withsatisfactory results.  In March 2001, Ireland had reported its first and only outbreak, which could be
traced to the one in Northern Ireland.  Protective m easures had ceased in April, again followed by the
release of the surveillance zone in accordance with EC law.  Both Ireland and France had submitted to
the OIE applications for re-establishment of their status as countries free of FMD without vaccination.
8. The Netherlands had experienced its first case in March 2001, and had a total of 26 cases, the
last in April.  This had been the only country to carry out suppressive emergency vaccination in a
restricted area around the outbreaks.  All vaccinated animals had been killed and destroyed by May
2001.  The protective measures had ceased in June, when the 30-day surveillance period was
completed.  The European Communities had reinforced the measures taken by non-affected member
States and introduced measures for the control of movement of susceptible animals both within andbetween member States.  These were still in force with regard to intra-community trade in small
ruminants.G/SPS/R/22
Page 3
9. From the beginning, the European Communities had taken very strict measures, although this
had not always been recognized by its trading partners.  In close cooperation with member State
authorities, the European Communities pursued disease eradication primarily by stamping out and
movement control.  Moreover, the European Communities made every effort to display full
transparency regarding eradication and control measures, and countries outside the EuropeanCommunities were informed promptly on the epidemiological situation.  In order to provide for
proper follow up, the European Communities carried out veterinary inspections in all affected
countries to ascertain that EC law was fully applied.  The European Communities, in collaboration
with the affected member States, wanted to draw lessons from this experience and identify areas for
improvement, both in legislation and implementation, in  order to avoid such an epidemic in the future.
The EC representative concluded that the measures taken had been useful, since spread of the disease
on the continent had been limited to two member Stat es.  Due to the vastness of the outbreak in the
United Kingdom, it had not been fully eradicated, but the situation was under control.  He reminded
Members to modify their import measures in response to this information.
10. The representative of the OIE confirmed that France and Ireland had recently applied to
recover their status as free from FMD without vaccination.  Once the Commission on FMD and other
Epizootics reviewed the cases at its meeting in September 2001, the relevant countries couldimmediately be included on the list of FMD-free countries.  The OIE was considering the
development of a harmonized questionnaire to accelerate the review of files from countries that had
been recognized as free of FMD in the past.
3-MCPD in soy sauce from the Far East – Statement from the European Communities
11. The representative of the European Communities noted that 3-MCPD had been subject to
several rapid alerts in the past.  Production processes could be modified to significantly reduce the
presence of 3-MCPD, but the presence of this su bstance could not be fully excluded yet.  The EU
Scientific Committee on Food had advised until recently that 3-MCPD was a possible genotoxic
carcinogen in humans, and consequently no detectable residues in food products were acceptable.
The Scientific Committee on Food had recently revised its opinion in the light of new toxicologicalinformation, concluding that 3-MCPD was not genotoxic in humans.  A threshold approach had been
adopted, setting a tolerable daily intake level at 2 µg per kg of body weight.  As announced at the
March SPS Committee meeting, maximum residue levels had been set on 3-MCPD to take effect in
April 2002.  In both hydrolysed vegetable protein a nd soy sauce, the maximum level for 3-MCPD was
0.02 mg/kg.  Sampling methods were also determined in a Commission Directive. However, in lightof the new scientific opinion, the European Communities would consider whether the current
maximum level remained appropriate, or whether the provisions would need to be revised before they
took effect.  The levels of 3-MCPD detected in imported products, as reported in the rapid alert
system, were sometimes up to several mg/kg, ex ceeding the maximum level.  Because of the public
health risk, the European Communities would continue to monitor this compound and urged theexporting countries to tackle the issue with great caution.
12. The representative of the United States added that the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on
Food Additives (JECFA), had re-evaluated of the sa fety of chlorinated propanols.  New data had
become available since the first evaluation years before.  This re-evaluation, requested by the Codex
Committee on Additives and Contaminants, showed that a person should not consume more than 120mg/day of these contaminants.  The United States urged Members to give full consideration to this
new information.
13. The representative of Codex confirmed that chloropropanols had been re-evaluated by
JECFA.  The Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants would discuss the need to establish
maximum levels for these contaminants at its next session in March 2002.  A summary of the
evaluation was available on the JECFA website.G/SPS/R/22
Page 4
14. The representative of Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, expressed appreciation for the
information provided and that the European Communities would review its maximum levels for 3-
MCPD based on new scientific evidence.  He requested to be kept informed of any further
developments.
Classical Swine Fever - Current situation in the European Communities15. The representative of the European Communities provided information on two unrelated
outbreaks of classical swine fever.  The first case regarded Spain, where in June an outbreak had been
reported in the province of Lerida, Catalonia.  Disease control measures provided by EC legislation
had been applied immediately, including slaughtering and destruction of all infected animals, as well
as safeguard actions concerning the movement of pigs from all of Catalonia.  A total of ten outbreaks
of classical swine fever had been reported in Spain.  Ongoing research seemed to indicate that the
virus type responsible for the outbreak came from outside the European Communities.
16. The second outbreak had also occurred in June, in Lower Saxony, Germany.  A disease
eradication plan was being implemented in accordan ce with EC legislation. The first results of the
epidemiological investigations suggested that the cl assical swine fever virus entered the pig holding in
question due to indirect contact with infected wild boars.  German authorities were slaughtering and
destroying all animals on infected farms and farms located in the surrounding areas.  Results ofclinical and laboratory tests indicated that the virus had not spread any farther.  The European
Communities was providing this information with the aim of preventing measures that would
unnecessarily distort trade.  Members could receive more information on request on a daily basis.
(b) Specific trade concerns
(i) New issues
EC restrictions on the use of fishmeal - Concerns of Peru and Chile
17. The representative of Peru expressed concern about Decisions 2000/766/EC and 2001/9/EC,
which extended the prohibition of the use of fishmeal in the elaboration of ruminant feed
(G/SPS/GEN/256 refers).  According to Peru, this prohibition had no scientific basis, and was thus
contrary to Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  The Decision also violated Article 5 since it was notbased on a risk assessment, and was more trade-restrictive than required.  The competent authorities
in Peru had shown that the fishmeal and fish oil industry of Peru fulfilled all requirements necessary
to guarantee safety to human and animal health, at high nutritional value.  Fishmeal plants processed
only the catch of the fishing fleet along the Peruvian coast, and were far from any source of
contamination.  The prohibition had a very serious impact on the Peruvian fishing industry, the second
most important sector of the economy.  Unemployment had risen, and export earnings had fallen by
approximately 50 percent during the first semester of 2001.  Peru had presented questions to theEuropean Communities and hoped to receive answers either at the meeting or in writing.  Peru asked
the European Communities to lift this restriction as soon as possible, and to exclude fishmeal from the
prohibition.
18. The representative of Chile was surprised that fishmeal, which was one of the main export
products of Chile, was involved in EC measures related to BSE (G/SPS/GEN/264 refers).  Chile
recognized that the European Communities had to take measures to deal with the BSE situation, but
maintained that these measures had to based on science and risk assessments.  Fishmeal had no
r e l a t i o n  t o  B S E ,  a s  r e c o g n i z e d  i n  O I E  s t a n d a r d s .   Chile recalled that it was not the first time that
fishmeal had been affected by discriminatory EC measures.  Since March, Chile and Peru together
had held bilateral meetings with different EC member States and with the EC Commission.  Theexplanation given by European representatives was related to cross-contamination of fishmeal andG/SPS/R/22
Page 5
other animal meals found internally in the European Communities. Although Decision 2001/999
would have lifted the restriction, the transitional measure remained in force.  Chile requested the
European Communities to accelerate the implementation of the regulation which would exclude
fishmeal from the prohibition.  In the meantime, the EC should make more flexible the standards
applied to processing plants, allowing a cleansing between the different feed mixes produced, andallow fishmeal to be distributed as non-ruminant feed.  Chile had been classified by the European
Communities to have minimal BSE risk.  Chile had furthermore offered to provide quality and
traceability certificates.  Chile was very surprised that there were no restrictions on vegetable meals,
which could also be mixed with meat and bone meal (MBM) in feed.  In addition, MBM continued
circulating as pet food in the European Communities.  Chile stressed that fishmeal should be excluded
from the measures since the risk it represented was minimal compared to other factors.
19. The representative of Ecuador shared Peru's and Chile's concerns, as Ecuador also exported
fishmeal.  The representative of the United States noted that the concerns raised by Chile and Peru
with regard to EC restrictions on fishmeal were similar to concerns other countries had expressed
regarding BSE measures affecting trade in products that did not pose a risk of BSE transmission, such
as pork, bovine semen and milk products.  The United States shared the concerns of Chile and Peru
that such restrictions were not justified and could result in serious disruptions of trade.  At the March2001 SPS Committee meeting, the OIE had presented a document explaining guidelines and
recommendations regarding trade in bovines and bovine products (G/SPS/GEN/230 refers).  The
United States urged Members to reacquaint themselves with the relevant OIE guidelines in order to
prevent unnecessary disruptions of trade.
20. The representative of the OIE drew attention to the WHO/FAO/OIE conference held in June
2001 on BSE, public health, animal health and trad e (G/SPS/GEN/260 refers).   This conference had
brought together a large number of BSE experts to discuss several subjects including animal meals.
The experts had concluded that the basis of the EC ban on feeding rendered animal protein to farm
animals was to avoid risk of cross contamination of the animal feed system at any level.  This was an
emergency measure and the primary goal was to protect ruminants.  The experts recommended that incountries where avoidance of cross contamination of ruminant rations with feed for non-ruminant
species, including ruminant MBM, could not be gu aranteed, MBM from any species should not be fed
to ruminants and should not be traded internationally .  In order to ensure compliance, it might also be
necessary to ban inclusion of almost all mammalian proteins into ruminant feed, or even into all
animal feed.  Discussions had highlighted the lack of technical means to verify the absence of banned
products in meals at very low levels.  An appeal was made for improvement of the methods to detect
banned proteins in animal feed.  The problems several European countries had experienced with BSEwere due to the difficulty of implementing the regulations, particularly regulations on MBM.
21. The representative of the European Communities confirmed that the ban on the use of
fishmeal in ruminant feed was a safeguard measure reflecting failures in the implementation of rules
on animal feed.  Any MBM ban had to ensure that cross contamination was eliminated.  After the
most recent BSE developments outside the European Communities, equivalent standards for importsfrom third countries were considered necessary to avoid the risk of re-introduction into the European
Communities of contaminated feed material.  Imports of fishmeal had not been prohibited, but its use
was subject to strict conditions.  For example, member States were allowed to authorize the use of
fishmeal to feed animals other than ruminants on ly if the fishmeal had been produced in dedicated
processing plants and was transported directly to the establishments manufacturing animal feed bymeans of dedicated vehicles.  There was a derogation for fishmeal used in feed for non-ruminant
animals provided inter alia  that it was produced and handled under strict conditions in dedicated
plants and was not used or stored on farms where ruminant animals were kept, except where
satisfactory measures were in place to avoid cross contamination.  These measures might be adapted
in light of the efficacy of control measures on animal by-products put in place by member States.  TheEuropean Communities was working on this issue in a continuing effort to minimize trade effects.G/SPS/R/22
Page 6
The European Communities was ready to evaluate  with Chile, Peru and other countries the
consequences, if any, on their exports.  Fishmeal had become the only animal protein that could be
fed to pigs and poultry, and as such had gained a virtual monopoly position in a highly profitable
industry.
EC geographical BSE risk assessment22. The representative of Canada requested an update on the development, application and future
evolution of the EC geographical BSE risk assess ment (GBR) process.  In Canada's understanding,
the GBR rating system had initially been designed  as an internal mechanism, then evolved into
something that had application to third countries.  Canada asked how the system ensured consistency
in the application of the risk assessment process, and how a particular assessment could be reviewed
as time passed and risks diminished.  Canada also asked for an explanation of the process, and how
information on internal situations was combined with assessments of external risks. The GBR systemseemed to focus disproportionately on risks from the United Kingdom.  In light of the information
presented by the European Communities on its new TSE regime, Canada wondered how these two
mechanisms fit together.  Canada also noted that the OIE was developing a system to verify countries'
own assessments of their BSE status, and wonder ed how that would relate to the EC system.
23. The representative of the United States echoed many of Canada's concerns.  The United States
had undertaken numerous actions to prevent the introduction of BSE, including an extensive
surveillance programme, a ban on feeding MBM to ruminants, and restrictions on imports of certain
products from countries affected by BSE or posing an unacceptable risk.  After more than ten years of
active surveillance at levels above the international standard, the United States had found no evidence
of BSE or other TSEs in cattle.  The United States was concerned that the European Communities wasapplying similarly stringent measures to countries that were not affected by the disease or which had
significantly different risk factors.  This practice lacked scientific justification and ran counter to the
existing international standards.  The minimum numb er of neurohistological investigations called for
in the EC legislation was far greater than that recommended under the international standard.  It was
not entirely transparent how country classifications would be determined nor what requirementswould be applied in the meantime.  The United States was worried that the classification would be
based on the EC geographical BSE risk assessments.  The United States had submitted detailed
comments on the risk assessment methodology and on the draft GBR of the United States, identifying
a number of problems with the methodology and with the information related to the United States.  In
addition, the United States was concerned that many countries might regard the GBR as equivalent to
an international standard, although it had no more standing than any other WTO Member's legislation.
The United States urged all countries to take the OIE standard into account when developing theirown BSE measures.
24. The representative of the OIE clarified that the OIE would deal only with recognition of BSE
freedom, not with the other four categories contained in the BSE chapter of the International Animal
Health Code (G/SPS/G EN/266).  The WHO/FAO/OIE conf erence on BSE had concluded that
potentially BSE-infected materials had been distributed throughout the world through trade, and thatall countries should evaluate their potential exposure in order to protect public health and prevent
further dissemination of infectivity.  When assessing th eir internal and external risk factors, countries
should take full account of the existing international recommendations, particularly those of the OIE
Code.  The aim should be to enable reliable categorization into one of the five different BSE statuses
specified in the Code.  The conference had strongly supported OIE plans to incorporate a risk-basedcomponent into the Code Articles on BSE categori zation, instead of defining categories based only on
incidence of the disease.  To help member countries carry out their risk assessment, the Commission
on FMD and other Epizootics of the OIE had received the mandate to develop guidelines, taking into
account the experience from the GBR assessments.  Countries were encouraged to utilise these OIE
guidelines for their own internal assessments, bilateral negotiations and third party assessments.G/SPS/R/22
Page 7
25. The representative of the European Communities indicated that GBR analyses were based on
information provided by interested trading partners to a 1998 questionnaire.  The methodology for the
GBR had been established by the EC Scientific Steering Committee which was formed by scientists
selected by a public tender every four years and was open to nationals of non-European countries.
The new BSE-TSE measure was in conformity with the OIE Code, but the GBR pre-dated the current
OIE Code.  The GBR had been designed to assess the BSE risk of any country and to identify its risk
category.  The method applied was based on sound scientific criteria that had been widely published.
Moreover, the Scientific Steering Committee relied on an evaluation of the files by external experts.
This procedure allowed independent and consistent assessments of all files.  Any new relevant
scientific evidence could be submitted to the Commission and a re-evaluation could be considered
once the additional stability measures had been put in place in a country, after a time span of three to
five years to take into account the incubation period of BSE.   Since stability factors were not thesame for all countries, these had to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
26. An unstable system implied that recycling or propagation of the BSE agent might occur in the
country.  Three main stability factors were taken into consideration: (a) whether mammalian proteins
had been fed to cattle; (b) what types of rendering was used in the country; and (c) removal of
specified risk material.  Additionally, other factors such as surveillance and training were considered.In certain cases, although there had been imports of cattle or MBM from affected countries, it had
been verifiably demonstrated that these had not entered the feed chain, and the risk remained
negligible.  However, in countries that had an unstable system, if the BSE agent entered the feed
chain, it would be recycled and might be propagated.  Therefore, sufficient evidence was needed that
no potentially infected animals were rendered.  The European Communities considered that the GBR
reflected the international standard.  The link between the consequences of the new TSE regulation
and the experiences from the GBR would be discussed on 18 July (paragraph 4 refers).  The European
Communities would contribute to work in the OIE framework and remained ready to cooperate with
Members and provide information. Knowledge about this disease should be shared to minimize trade
effects where possible.  All GBRs were available athttp://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/outcome_en.html.
Japan's import measures on fire blight
27. The representative of the United States maintained that Japan's extensive requirements for
imported apples, including numerous orchard inspec tions, treatment of apples and restrictions on
orchards eligible to export, which Japan claimed were necessary to prevent the introduction of the
bacterial disease fire blight, were unduly restrictive.  The United States and Japan had agreed on joint
scientific research on apples and fire blight.  This research had been completed, and had confirmedthat the risk of transmission of fire blight by symptomless commercial fruit was negligible.  The
United States was disappointed that Japan had not consequently relaxed its import restrictions for the
2001 crop.  Japan's maintenance of restrictive measures despite scientific evidence that they were
unnecessary raised concerns regarding its commitment to the SPS Agreement.  At a bilateral meeting
prior to the Committee meeting, Japan had agreed to review additional information and provide the
results of this review in late July 2001.  The United States looked forward to discussing this review in
August.
28. The representative of New Zealand supported the technical positions presented by the United
States; all reputable scientific evidence upheld this view.  On the basis of this research, Japan's
phytosanitary measures with respect to fire blight were not technically justifiable and should bemodified accordingly.  New Zealand intended to engage Japan in further bilateral discussions on this
issue.  The representative of Chile requested that the follow-up to this situation be reported, since it
was interested in the full impl ementation of the SPS Agreement.G/SPS/R/22
Page 8
29. The representative of Japan confirmed that the joint research had been completed.  Japan was
currently conducting a risk analysis based on the resulting scientific information.  There were some
difficulties in finalizing the evaluation only based on these results, and Japan desired to continue the
technical discussion between the plant health authorities of both countries.
US import restrictions on potted plants from the European Communities30. The representative of the European Communities indicated that exports of plants in growing
medium had been impeded for over 20 years because the United States conducted a pest risk
assessment for each type of plant in growing medi um before allowing imports, and each assessment
took several years to complete.  In addition, the requirements for the species that had been accepted
were very rigid and not proportional to the potential risk.  The European Communities requested the
United States to conduct a horizontal assessment and to allocate the necessary resources to conduct
individual pest risk assessments quickly.  This issue had been raised repeatedly over the years, but nosignificant progress had been made.  The lack of action on the part of the United States was not
acceptable, and the European Communities requested the United States to adjust its import
requirements and administrative procedures to allow for market access for potted plants.
31. The representative of the United States replied that US regulatory requirements reflected the
need to avoid introduction of pests and diseases that could seriously undermine native ecosystems aswell as cultivated plants.  The potential risks associated with imports of plants in growing medium
needed to be evaluated, taking into account available mitigation measures.  The roots of potted plants,
even in an approved medium, could not be examined for signs of disease.  Other mitigation measures,
such as greenhouse growing requirements, were necessary.  The United States was preparing a
technical proposal for review by the Commission and EC member States, and  had proposed theformation of a US-European technical working group to  address issues related to imports of plants in
growing medium, including comparisons of risk evaluations and risk management approaches.
USDA was willing to review any systems certification proposal submitted by the Commission or its
member States, with the understanding that any m odifications to existing US regulations would have
to be scientifically justified and, for transparency purposes, be subject to the US rulemaking process.
Japan's restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia
32. The representative of Indonesia raised concerns with Japanese restrictions on the importation
of sugar cane top for fear of contamination with FMD.  This measure that had been applied since
April 2000, despite the fact that Indonesia was recognized as free of FMD by the OIE.  Indonesia had
cooperated with Japan's own assessment of the FMD situation of Indonesia, and had hoped that this
issue could have been resolved sooner.  In January 2001 the Indonesian Government had invited
officials and experts from Japan to appraise the Indonesian sugar cane top production units.  Thisinvitation was renewed in February 2001.  Following this invitation, Japan had requested that
Indonesia complete a questionnaire, which was done.  Receipt of the questionnaires was
acknowledged in May 2001.  Indonesia had sent a letter reiterating that the country was FMD-free and
that the measure had a detrimental effect on the Indonesian economy.  In June, Japanese officials had
stated that the information in the questionnaire was not sufficient, and that Japan would not dispatchthe verification team to Indonesia before this requirement had been fulfilled.  Indonesia intended to
provide this information, but requested a clear schedule from Japan to be assured that a speedy
solution could be found.  Indonesia requested the OIE to assure Japan of Indonesia's FMD-free status.
33. The representative of Argentina requested the OIE representative to explain whether BSE-
related restrictions on sugar cane could be justified.
34. The representative of Japan responded that it had sent a questionnaire in December 2000 and
had received an answer in March 2001.  A careful study had been carried out, and comments had beenG/SPS/R/22
Page 9
given to the Indonesian embassy in Tokyo.  Japan had notified the animal health authorities of
additional information needed for the analysis and was now waiting for Indonesia's response.
35. The representative of the OIE confirmed that Indonesia had been recognized as free from
FMD without vaccination (G/SPS/GEN/266, Annex 1).  Chapter 2.1.1 of the International Animal
Health Code contained a precise list of products  which could transmit the disease (G/SPS/GEN/240).
This list did not contain sugar cane.  The Code considered that other products, such as cereals, fruits,
vegetables and roots did not present a risk.  The OIE explained that the OIE itself could not carry out
a risk analysis on sugar cane used as feed.  However, the risk assessment could be carried out by the
parties, taking into consideration the harvesting method for sugar cane, which in his opinion was
comparable to harvesting methods for cereals, and would thus lead to similar conclusions.
(ii) Issues previously raised
Certain measures applied by Turkey on imports of bananas (G/SPS/GEN/249)36. The representative of Ecuador raised serious concerns about phytosanitary certificates for
banana imports to Turkey.  Ecuador had posed several questions to Turkey regarding the granting of
certificates called "Kontrol Belgesi" (G/SPS/GEN/249).  Ecuador had just received responses to these
questions, and had not yet had time to evaluate Turkey's replies.  However, it appeared that the replies
did not correspond to the information provided by Ecuadorian banana exporters and Turkish bananaimporters.  For example, obtaining the certificates had taken up to three times as long as claimed by
Turkey.  The responses from Turkey contained some inconsistencies regarding the duration and
validity of the certificates.  In the case of bananas, the expiration dates regularly coincided with the
dates when banana harvests commenced in Turkey.  In fact, between October and December imports
decreased significantly because the phytosanitary certificates expired in October, and new certificateswere not granted during this period.  Another concern related to the function of the certificates as a
quantitative restriction, because each certificate was granted for a maximum one thousand tons.
Turkish authorities claimed that one could obtain as many certificates as desired.  However, exporters
indicated that one of the prerequisites for obtaining a new certificate was to demonstrate that the
previous certificate had been used.  Ecuador was disappointed that the responses to its questions didnot clarify the situation.
37. The representative of Turkey confirmed that replies had been provided to Ecuador
(G/SPS/GEN/275).  The Kontrol Belgesi certificate was a reference document used in customs
proceedings and food safety analysis during the importation process.  It also certified the declaration
of importers concerning full conformity of their foods with the relevant Turkish food regulations,
which were in compliance with the SPS Agreement and with Codex Alimentarius.  All importers were
required by law to obtain this certificate to import any food.  The system was described in the OfficialGazette, and existed purely for safety reasons;  it was not used to limit quantities.  Import data for
2000 showed that Turkey imported bananas from different countries, but around 75 percent came
from Ecuador.  Importers could apply for certificates in advance, before a consignment arrived at the
port.  After the issuance of the certificate, the consignment could be imported during the validation
period, which was between four and twelve months.  The validity of the document could not beextended, but importers could make a new application.  They could apply for as many documents as
they wished.  Issuance of Kontrol Belgesi certificates took between three and seven working days if
the information was complete and varied according to the intensity of requests for other foodstuffs.
Turkey was ready to further discuss the issue with Ecuador.
38. The representatives of Chile and Colombia requested to be informed of future development of
this issue.  As a fruit exporter, Chile was concerned that the problem might also affect other products
such as kiwis and apples.  The European Communities requested to see the responses from Turkey to
Ecuador's questions.G/SPS/R/22
Page 10
EC maximum levels of aflatoxins and consequences for Brazil nut exports from Bolivia
39. The representative of Bolivia recalled that in September 1998, Bolivia had presented a
document expressing its concern with the EC aflatoxin levels that had been applied since 1999
(G/SPS/GEN/93).  The maximum aflatoxin levels, which were not backed by multilaterally accepted
scientific criteria, remained in force and continued to affect exports of one of Bolivia's principalagricultural products.  Bilateral consultations ha d not led to satisfactory results.  The European
Communities was not applying the SPS Agreement, especially Article 5 on risk assessment and
determination of the appropriate level of protection, and Articles 10.1 and 10.2 on special and
differential treatment.
40. The representative of Brazil supported Bolivia, and as a producer of Brazil nuts was
concerned that it was taking so long to resolve this issue.  The representative of Chile asked Bolivia
whether technical assistance had been raised at the bilateral consultations.  Argentina indicated itsconcern both because of the technical problem and because it concerned special and differential
treatment.  The representative of India indicated that as a peanut exporter it shared Bolivia's concerns.
41. The representative of the European Communities noted that Bolivia was on a high priority list
for EC cooperation activities.  Bolivian authorities had emphasized the importance of sustainable
Brazil nut production, both for safeguarding Amazon forests and for social and economic reasons.  Tosupport this goal, the European Communities had carried out an expert mission in May 2000 to the
production area in the Pando region, to consider financing a laboratory to test aflatoxin levels in
Brazil nuts.  The experts had concluded that Bolivian products had been meeting EC aflatoxin levels
for a number of years, as no rapid alerts due to excessive levels of aflatoxin had been reported.  At
least three private laboratories were physically and professionally equipped to carry out accurateaflatoxin tests, and at least two had been doing so at exporters' requests.  Consequently, the concerned
private sector and Government authorities had agreed there was no need to equip a new laboratory.
Bolivia had proposed certification of exported goods.  However, the industry was vulnerable because
of fragile production practices in a remote region of  the country.  In October 2000, the final report of
the mission had been sent to the Bolivian authorities, but the European Communities had not receivedany comments or reply to this report.
42. The European Communities signalled its willingn ess to discuss all technical difficulties in
detail and to agree on practical solutions in accordance with EC legislation.  The European
Communities was promoting a project to improve production and storage processes and the livelihood
of nut collectors to be executed in 2002.  The representative of the European Communities strongly
objected to the Bolivian statement that the European Communities only made promises instead of
solid commitments.  In fact, the Pando prefect had ten projects financed in the framework of the foodsafety programme for a total amount of 1.70 billion dollars.  Two recent follow-up missions by the EC
delegation concluded that progress had been made on the technical level, but that the Bolivian
authorities had difficulties in designing and managing the projects.  At a meeting the previous week,
participants had agreed on a modus operandi  that could be implemented immediately.  The European
Communities had proposed a certification procedure and hoped that Bolivia recognized the efforts itwas making to help improve Brazil nut production in the region concerned.
43. The representative of Bolivia confirmed that bilateral meetings had taken place, including
discussion on possible technical cooperation programmes.  While the desire to solve the problem had
been expressed, so far no practical measures had been taken to reduce the negative effects on trade.
He requested that the European Communities provide its intervention in writing.G/SPS/R/22
Page 11
Argentina's import restriction on dairy products due to BSE
44. The representative of the European Communities recalled that at the March 2001 Committee
meeting, OIE and WHO had circulated information on internationally agreed standards regarding BSE
(G/SPS/GEN/221, 222 and 230).  The OIE in particular had concluded that there was no evidence of
BSE transmission via milk collected from healthy animals.  Moreover, the EC Scientific SteeringCommittee had published a report on the safety of milk with regard to TSE whose conclusions
confirmed the OIE and WHO opinions.  Notwithstanding the clear scientific evidence provided by
these international organizations, Argentina was still imposing import restrictions on dairy products
from the European Communities, and in particular from the United Kingdom.  The European
Communities had replied to Argentina's extensive questionnaire on the measures taken with regard to
BSE.  Despite repeated requests, Argentina had failed to provide a risk assessment to justify the
measures, thus acting against Article 5 of the SPS Agreement.  The European Communities,supported by South Africa, urged Argentina either to underpin its position with scientific justification,
or to lift the unjustified trade restrictions.  If Argentina failed to do so, the European Communities
would have to consider an eventual recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.
45. The representative of the OIE reported that the WHO/FAO/OIE conference BSE had
concluded that there was no reason to modify the list of bovine products for which no traderestrictions were recommended.
46. The representative of Argentina replied that in January 2001 its animal health service,
SENASA, had adopted resolution 42/2001, which imposed restrictions on dairy products.  A new
sanitary certificate would be notified to WTO soon; this certificate was less restrictive and took all
developments into account.  Regarding human health, dairy products had been reclassified frommedium risk to low risk, and the relevant decree eliminated the restrictions.  This reclassification of
dairy products had not yet been completed; a certain category of milk remained under the restriction.
The United Kingdom was considered a high risk country, but the situation was under analysis.
BSE -  import restrictions by certain Members on EC products
47. The representative of the European Communities recalled that at the March 2001 Committee
meeting he had raised concern regarding many countries' restrictions on EC exports, presumably
because of BSE considerations.  In recent months, these restrictions had been overshadowed by
restrictions taken due to the FMD outbreak in some EC member States.  Some FMD-related
restrictions had been lifted, but BSE-related restrictions remained in place.  EC measures on BSE
were science-based and took account of OIE recommendations.  The European Communities expected
other countries to do the same, especially with respect to restrictions on products such as pig and
poultry meat, milk and dairy products.  The European Communities considered import restrictions onthese commodities to be in breach of Article 2.2.  The representative of the European Communities
stressed that measures should be transparent, a nd communicated through agreed procedures.   Some
emergency measures that had not been notified had been in place for years, and the European
Communities intended to intensify its efforts through bi lateral discussions, and to start raising specific
issues in the Committee.
48. The representative of Bulgaria recalled that at the previous Committee meeting, Bulgaria,
together with other countries, had raised the issue of import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries.
Bulgaria would continue to monitor the situation.  According to Article 5.7, Members were obliged to
seek additional information when temporary measures were implemented.
49. The representative of New Zealand reported that since January 2001, New Zealand had an
emergency food standard to manage variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), following the
increased incidence of BSE in Europe, notified as G/SPS/N/NZL/77 plus addendum.  This provisionalG/SPS/R/22
Page 12
measure would continue until development of a targeted, robust, permanent and transparent measure.
The normal 60 days would be allowed for interested WTO Members to comment on the permanent
measure before its implementation.  New Zealand had made every effort to ensure that the measure
would be applied only to the extent necessary to protect public health, would not discriminate
between countries where identical or similar conditions prevailed, and would be based on scientificprinciples and international standards.
50. The representative of Australia informed delegates that Australia was in a similar position to
New Zealand.  The increased surveillance and test ing on BSE had shown that it was more widespread
than previously thought.  In January 2001, in response to those concerns, Australia had introduced
temporary measures to protect public health from vCJD.  Since that time, Australia had been
undertaking a risk assessment to develop a permanent measure for the importation of beef and beef
products, which would be duly notified.  Australia had responded in writing to the statement made byRomania at the March 2001 Committee meeting.  The permanent measure would be based on science
and contain a detailed certification requirement.
India's ban on bovine semen imports from Canada
51. The representative of Canada reported that Canada was engaged in consultations under the
SPS Agreement with the delegation of India regarding bovine semen imports.  Certain positivedevelopments had occurred and Canada hoped to resolve the issue very quickly.  The representative
of India indicated that the relevant regulations had been changed, and that these changed would soon
be notified.
EC restrictions on gelatin imports
52. The representative of the United States raised concern with European Commission Directive
92/118/EC and Decisions 99/724/EC and 2000/20/EC establishing certain safety and certification
requirements for gelatin intended for human consumption.  Since May 2000, the United States had
been engaged in extensive discussions with the European Commission to enable US gelatin shipments
to continue, based on the equivalence of US and EC safety systems related to gelatin.  Additionally,
the US gelatin industry had worked with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as thecompetent authority to satisfy other EC requirements pertaining to raw materials, manufacturing
processes and end-product specifications.  Nevertheless, US shipments of gelatin had been
discontinued in June 2000 because the Commission had not agreed to accept equivalence-based
export certificates issued by US regulatory authorities.  The United States had demonstrated that US
gelatin safety systems pertaining to food-use gelatin met the EC appropriate level of protection.
Food-use gelatin manufactured in EC member States continued to be exported to the United States
regularly without comparable restrictions.  US gelatin producers were being severely affected by thisloss of trade that was unjustifiable from a public health standpoint.
53. The representative of the European Communities clarified that US gelatin exports were not
prohibited, but that negotiations were underway on a specific certificate for the United States different
from the general certificate being used by many countries.  In 2000, the United States had requested
that the US production system for gelatin be reco gnized as equivalent to the EC system.  The
European Communities had examined US legislation, and equivalence of the US production system
had been established on all but two points, where compliance with additional requirements must be
certified.  The United States had not disputed the justification of the additional requirements; one
related to raw materials to be used in gelatin, the other related to maximum levels for chemicals and
bacteriological substances for treatment of the raw materials.  Since December 2000, the only pendingquestion had been that FDA, as a matter of policy, did not certify compliance with foreign rules, while
the European Communities required certification by a competent authority.  Both sides had made
considerable efforts to find an acceptable wording fo r the health certificate.  The issue was not aboutG/SPS/R/22
Page 13
trade or equivalence, but about certification practices.  The European Communities was willing to
accept certification from any competent authority appointed by the United States.  It was a basic
principle in international trade that the exporting party certified that the exported product met the
standards of the importing party where full equivalence had not been established.  This was also the
case for EC member States exporting to the United States.
Indonesia – Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit from New Zealand
54. The representative of New Zealand reported that following a successful technical visit to New
Zealand by scientists from the Indonesian centre for agricultural quarantine, in May 2001 Indonesian
officials had informed New Zealand that the impor t restrictions on New Zealand fresh fruit had been
lifted with immediate effect.  New Zealand looked forward to the full implementation of this intent,
and to supplying fruit to Indonesian consumers.  With good will and constructive engagement, SPS
issues could be resolved amicably.
55. The representative of Indonesia confirmed that bilateral consultations had taken place and that
his country had dispatched a team to New Zealand to verify that fruit flies had been eradicated.  The
conclusion had been that current requirements such  as cold treatment were no longer necessary.
Indonesia would immediately lift the existing restrictions on the importation of fresh fruit from New
Zealand.  Should Indonesia find evidence of fruit flies in imported fruit from any country, therestrictions would be reintroduced.
FMD-related import restrictions by certain Memb ers – Concerns of the European Communities and
Argentina
56. The representative of the European Communities observed that many Members had imposed
restrictions on imports of FMD-susceptible animals and animal products from both affected andunaffected EC member States.  Often the measures had not been notified.  It was understandable that
Members take provisional safeguard measures in the initial phase of such an epizootic.  However, the
restrictions applied to products that had been trea ted in accordance with the international standard to
destroy the virus, such as heat treatment or acidification; concerned products that were without risk;
and were kept in place past the recognized waiting period of three months.  The principles ofproportionality, justification of measures and regionalization in accordance with the OIE Code and
Article 6 had not been followed.  The European Communities had been transparent and had notified
the OIE on the evolution of the disease, and the decisions taken.
57. The representative of the European Communities stated that although the creation of the
single market in the European Communities meant that  border controls had been eliminated, they had
been replaced with other control instruments.  Controls at origin had been strengthened, and random
checks of animals at arrival had been introduced.  The use of certificates for trade in animals hadcontinued, and a sophisticated system for identification and registration of animals had been
established, which included a computerized data base and an animal passport for cattle.
58. The representative of Argentina informed the Committee that there had been a change in the
responsible authorities in Argentina, and that the new authorities had developed a plan to eradicate
FMD by 2005 (G/SPS/GEN/269 refers).  Argentina was concluding the first vaccination campaign in
the affected areas.  Restrictions on the internal movement of animals had been imposed.  Many
products from Argentina were facing scientifically unjustified restrictions that violated Articles 2.1,
3.1 and 5.1, and the OIE Code.  Plant products should normally not be affected by FMD-related
measures, except straw and forage.  These restrictions were damaging Argentina's economy.
Members should base measures on scientific evidence and make all possible efforts to comply withthe SPS Agreement, with the transparency that was imperative in these cases.G/SPS/R/22
Page 14
59. The representative of Uruguay supported the statement made by Argentina.  FMD-measures
had to be based on scientific risk assessment, especially if they went beyond OIE recommendations.
Uruguay was also facing restrictions on products which did not present FMD risks such as UHT milk
and hard cheeses.  The trade restrictions had a negative impact on the economy.
60. The representative of Australia clarified that his country was asking for reasonable
information to allow a scientific judgement in the face of a different type of clinical presentation in
sheep.  Recently, additional restrictions on Denmark and Austria and on race horses from the
European Communities had been lifted, and further information had been presented by France.  The
principles of regionalization were very important in this regard, but they were often difficult to apply
in practice for contagious diseases and for diseases transmitted by insect vectors.  Australia would re-
examine the restrictions as requested information was received.
61. The representative of the United States explained that its existing measures regarding FMD in
EC countries affected only the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands and France.  On the basis of
information from the Commission on the movement of animals from the affected to the unaffected
areas as well as on measures being taken to control the spread of this disease, the United States had
lifted the restrictions on all EC member States that had not had FMD cases, in May 2001.  The United
States was currently evaluating the disease situ ation in France and Ireland and would lift import
restrictions as appropriate.  A visit to the Netherlands was planned, and once the disease had been
stamped out in the United Kingdom a similar visit would occur.  The history of this particular
outbreak had shown that the disease was difficult to identify in sheep and therefore its spread was
difficult to predict and control.  Large numbers of sheep were known to have moved throughout the
European Communities around the time the disease was introduced in Great Britain.  A certain periodof time was necessary to determine how far the disease had spread before the safeguard measures
could be adjusted.  The United States commended the European Communities and its member States
for the swift and aggressive actions taken to contain the spread of this outbreak, bringing it under
control and beginning to eradicate it.  The United States had sent 58 veterinarians to assist Great
Britain during the height of the epidemic.
62. The representative of the OIE drew the attention of the Committee to G/SPS/GEN/266, which
in Annex 1 contained a list of the countries that had been confirmed free of FMD without vaccination,
including several EC member States.  G/SPS/GEN/ 240 contained the relevant Code chapter on FMD,
which had been thoroughly reviewed between 1990 and 1997 and should be taken into account by
WTO Members.
63. The representative of the European Communities noted its long tradition of good trade
relations in meat with Uruguay and Argentina, and hoped the situation was soon resolved.  TheEuropean Communities indicated that the questionnaire from Australia was out of proportion with the
problem to be addressed.  It was not acceptable that non-affected countries received a questionnaire
corresponding to an affected country wanting to be declared free of FMD.  The European
Communities appreciated the US reaction regarding many of the unaffected EC countries, and asked
the United States to follow the example of Canada and New Zealand in handling this crisis.  TheEuropean Communities had assisted Korea, Japan, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco and many others to
control and eradicate this disease.
64. The representative of Brazil, supported by Bolivia, expressed concern that Members were
departing from the principles of the SPS Agreement.  When it was not possible to follow an
international standard, Members should not forget that the SPS Agreement required scientificjustification.  It seemed that some Members' measures were departing from science by asking for
proof of safety before opening their markets for certain products.  According to the SPS Agreement,
measures should be applied only when there was a scientific basis for restricting trade.G/SPS/R/22
Page 15
Australia's import risk assessment on table grapes
65. The representative of the United States raised concern regarding unreasonable barriers to
access to the Australian market for fresh fruits, particularly table grapes from California.  The United
States was disappointed at Australia's apparent abandonment of its commitment to a transparent,
science-based risk assessment system.  The import risk analysis (IRA) process did not seem to havean end.  The IRA had been completed in January 2000 and had concluded that table grapes from
California could be safely imported into Australia under specified conditions.  Rather than modifying
its import conditions in line with its own scientific evaluation, Australia had initiated a new study,
completely separate from the IRA process, to examine issues that the IRA had already addressed.
When this study was made public in February 2001, it appeared that its chief purpose was to delay
lifting the import prohibition on California table grapes.  Australia had pointed to the relatively recent
introduction of a leaf-hopping insect, the glassy-winged sharpshooter, into some parts of California inorder to justify its delay in permitting market access to table grapes.  Although its own risk
assessment noted that the risks associated with the glassy-winged sharpshooter would be negligible,
Australia had decided that additional research on risk mitigation measures for glassy-winged
sharpshooters would be necessary.  Table grapes in California were subject to numerous mitigations,
including universally accepted and proven quarantine treatments.  The United States was willing toaddress legitimate scientific concerns.  However, additional research on a pest not found in shipments
of table grapes was completely without scientific merit and was a delaying tactic.
66. The representative of the European Communities indicated interest in the evolution of this
issue.  The representative of the Philippines reiterated that ASEAN countries shared the US concern
with regard to Australia's phytosanitary regulatory  process.  The lengthy risk assessment procedure
prescribed by Australia made it difficult for ASEAN exports of fresh fruits to enter the Australian
market.  ASEAN countries urged Australia to undertake its risk assessments within a reasonable time-
frame, as well as in a transparent and predictable manner.
67. The representative of Australia indicated that the change in risk profile associated with the
spread of Pierce's disease, and of its vector, the glassy-winged sharpshooter, in California, requiredadditional scientific information to ensure the Australian industry and environment was protected
from quarantine risk.  The glassy-winged sharpshooter and the spread of Pierce's disease were a major
agricultural issue for California, involving signif icant action and expenditure by government agencies
and industry.
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
G/SPS/N/NZL/142 – Proposed import prohibition of  commodity-country combinations of fresh cut
flowers and foliage
68. The representative of the European Communities indicated that the proposed measure raised
concerns because plants not traded for two years might be subject to a prohibition, pending a new risk
assessment.  This practice was not in accordance with international standards, and was unnecessary
and unjustified.
69. The representative of Colombia noted that his country was among those mentioned in the
notification, and was interested in participating in exchanges between the European Communities and
New Zealand and in receiving any relevant information.
70. The representative of New Zealand explained that it had commenced a review of import
requirements for cut flowers in 1997 as imports were steadily growing but a robust risk analyses had
not been carried out.  The review was undertaken in phases, during which the New Zealand Ministryof Agriculture and Forestry consulted widely with affected parties.  The process culminated in newG/SPS/R/22
Page 16
draft standards incorporating the proposed interim phytosanitary measures approved in May 1998
(notified as G/SPS/N/ NZL/24).   Those standards were being reviewed in light of the most up to date
scientific data (G/SPS/N/NZL/142).  At an initial step the review included the suspension of historic
phytosanitary requirements for some countries.  The notification was of New Zealand's plan to further
consolidate the approved country-commodity schedu les to include only those commodities that had
actually been exported to New Zealand in the past tw o years.  New Zealand would continue to address
the EC concerns on a bilateral basis.
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
71. The Chairman pointed out that notifications received since the last Committee meeting were
summarized, on a monthly basis, in G/SPS/GEN/241, G/SPS/GEN/248, G/SPS/GEN/252 and
G/SPS/GEN/258.  The most recent list of Enquiry Points had been circulated as G/SPS/ENQ/12.  The
latest list of National Notification Authorities had been circulated as G/SPS/NNA/2.  The Chairmanencouraged any Members which had not yet identified a National Notification Authority and/or an
Enquiry Point to do so as quickly as possible.
III. THE SPS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
(a) Implementation of the provisions for special and differential treatment
72. The Chairman recalled that the Secretariat had organized a special workshop on the
participation of developing countries in the releva nt standard-setting organizations prior to the March
2001 Committee meeting.  Each of the relevant standard-setting bodies had made presentations
regarding its procedure for the development of standards and the participation of developing countries
in the process.  The report of this special work shop had been circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/250.
Implementation proposal by Brazil (G/SPS/W/108)73. The representative of Brazil explained that following recent events it appeared there were
different interpretations among Members of the obligations regarding the notification of SPS
measures.  In Brazil's opinion, Members should notify every single SPS measure imposed, even if the
measure derived from legislation or policies previously notified.  Brazil proposed that the Committee
review the recommended notification procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.1) at the next Committee meetingunder the agenda item on transparency, since it was not a special and differential treatment issue.
74. Many delegations supported Brazil's proposal to discuss the notification procedures.  The
European Communities noted that the number of notifications had increased substantially, and no
delegation was able to read and analyse all notifications within the agreed time.  Many questions
needed to be examined, including language problems.  Chile suggested that the recommended
notification procedures should also deal with notifications of equivalence.
75. The representative of Bolivia indicated that Brazil's proposal regarding Article 10.2 of the
SPS Agreement was extremely important to ensure that, where possible, developing countries be
granted a reasonable period of time to implement new measures.  Egypt, the European Communities
and Malaysia (on behalf of ASEAN) suggested that this proposal be discussed in another forum.  The
representative of Canada noted that Brazil's proposal regarding Article 10.2 entailed fundamental
changes to the existing Agreement.  Article 10.2 referred to products "of interest to" developingcountries, and therefore was an MFN provision, whic h would not be the case if the language was
changed to "products from" developing countries.  It was very difficult for the country taking a
measure, whether developed or developing, to allow a grace period during which imports would be
allowed to continue, thereby putting at risk human, animal or plant health.  Canada found Brazil's
second proposal for consultations, presumably after the measure was in effect, more promising.G/SPS/R/22
Page 17
76. The Chairman recalled that discussions on implementation of Article 10.2 continued in the
General Council.  He proposed that the SPS Committee re-examine G/SPS/7/Rev.1 under the
transparency agenda item.  An informal meeting on this subject would be organized prior to the next
regular meeting of the Committee, and all interest ed delegations were encouraged to submit their
suggestions in writing before the meeting to permit delegations to study them.
(b) Equivalence – Article 4
77. The Chairman recalled that equivalence had been raised in the General Council in the context
of the discussions on implementation.  The General Council had requested the SPS Committee "…to
examine the concerns of developing countries regarding the equivalence of SPS measures, and to
come up with concrete options as to how to deal with them…".  On 9 July 2001, the Committee had
discussed equivalence at an informal meeting, and the Chairman expressed appreciation for
documents prepared by Japan (G/SPS/GEN/261) and Argentina (G/SPS/GEN/268).  The Chairman'sreport on the discussions is contained in G/L/455.
78. The Secretariat introduced G/SPS/W/111, which listed the major concerns of developing
countries with regard to equivalence, and put forward possible approaches to address these concerns.
The document also contained a summary of the discussion and submissions regarding equivalence to
date.  The representative of the European Communities indicated that the Secretariat document wasuseful for reflections and discussion.  He suggested that at the next meeting the Committee
concentrate on the examination of the proposed alternatives, but separately from the examination of
the recommended notification procedures.
79. The Chairman recalled that the General Council had requested specific recommendations
from the SPS Committee and indicated that it might be necessary to organize a special meeting todevelop such recommendations, possibly in September.
1
IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION
(a) Identification of technical assistance needs
80. The Chairman indicated that at the November 2000 meeting, Members had begun to examine
a typology for technical assistance prepared by the Secretariat (G/SPS/GEN/206).  This document hadbeen considered at an informal meeting on 9 Ju ly 2001.  The Chairman's report on this meeting is
contained in G/SPS/GEN/267.
Request from Gabon (G/SPS/GEN/257)
81. The representative of Gabon indicated that his country exported 5-6 million tons of fish
products per year, mainly to the European Communities.  In order to guarantee the safety of these
products, in 1999 the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture had established the Sanitary Quality and
Inspection Service.  The Service carried out surveillance and control of the production, processing andtransportation of all products, participated in standard-setting, and carried out laboratory analyses of
the products.  As indicated in G/SPS/GEN/257, support was needed for a national fishery laboratory,
which would be extremely important to allow Gabon to comply with safety requirements in its export
markets.
                                                     
1 A special meeting on equivalence was scheduled for 18-19 September 2001.G/SPS/R/22
Page 18
82. The representative of the United States said that it was important that Members take
advantage of the Committee to identify their technical assistance needs.  The United States would
consider the information provided by Gabon.
83. The representative of Mauritius supported favourable consideration of Gabon's proposal,
since it drew the attention of Members in similar situations to the kinds of technical assistance theycould be seeking.  It was also useful that Gabon showed initiative, and was prepared to supply part of
the financing.  The representative of Congo indicated that it was the first time that his county had
participated in the Committee.  The meeting had b een very informative, and Congo was thankful for
the technical assistance provided by the Secretariat.   In the future, Congo would also request technical
assistance relevant to the work of the Committee.
84. The representative of the European Communities recalled that EC technical assistance had
been explained and summarized in document G/SPS/GEN/244.  Concerning Gabon's request, the
European Communities suggested contacting the EC representation in Gabon.  The European
Communities had set up a project with the Gove rnment of Jordan following their requests
(G/SPS/GEN/199 and 208).  A lot of the requests for technical assistance submitted to the Committee
were very specific and corresponded to precise projects, not programmes.  While projects dealt with
concrete present needs, programmes could address more long-term needs.  The EC representativesuggested that the Committee should also receive requests for broader programmes, not just specific
projects, because this would enable developing countries to meet standards in their export markets.
85. The Chairman encouraged Members to contribute to these interesting discussions, and to
present their technical assistance needs.
(b) Information on technical assistance programmes
Technical assistance to developing countries prov ided by the United States (G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.1)
86. The representative of the United States recalled that document G/SPS/GEN/181 described the
functions and responsibilities of several agencies of the US Government supporting the
implementation of the SPS Agreement.  The second part of this document contained a chart of
specific technical assistance activities that various agencies had provided from 1995 through early2000.  The addendum provided an update and contained additional information on two agencies of the
US Government that also had responsibilities related to the implementation of the SPS Agreement:
the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Admi nistration (GIPSA) and the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).  The addendum also co ntained a chart of technical assistance provided
between June 2000 and June 2001, and a few issues that had been omitted from the earlier
submission.
Innovations in technical assistance – Submission by IICA (G/SPS/GEN/255)
87. The representative of IICA indicated that a primary objective of technical assistance was to
promote the improvement of agriculture, health and food safety systems, thereby enabling countries to
comply and, more importantly, to benefit from the SPS Agreement.  Assistance was therefore given to
provide information, training, soft infrastructure and hard infrastructure development, as outlined in
the typology developed by the Secretariat (G/SPS/GEN /206).  IICA observed that it was often easier
to secure financial aid or technical assistance for risk analysis, laboratories, the purchase of equipment
and vehicles than for assistance or guidance to deal with equally important issues such as technical
independence, financial sustainability, or managing professional turnover.  Document
G/SPS/GEN/255 looked at a group of countries which had secured large funding for the improvement
of their services, and tried to put forward certain successes and innovations.  It was evident that theG/SPS/R/22
Page 19
private sector played an important role, that the availability of money was not necessarily tied to the
success of the initiative, and that political will throughout the food chain was important.
Secretariat
88. The Secretariat reported on recent technical assistance activities.  It had participated in a
regional workshop on SPS and plant protection with the South Pacific Forum Secretariat in Fiji.  Inresponse to a request from the Government of Pakistan, three national seminars had been held on the
Agriculture and SPS Agreements.  The Secretariat had participated in an SPS workshop and
consultations in China, and in a regional workshop in Senegal.  A regional seminar for Central
African countries had been organized in Cameroon.  In addition, the Secretariat had spoken to groups
from developing countries in Geneva.  Limiting factors in the implementation of the SPS Agreement
continued to include lack of infrastructure and equipment, lack of political commitment, poor
coordination at the national level and the need to develop pertinent legislation.
Observer organizations
89. The representative of Codex informed the Committee of the recommendations and
conclusions of the recent Codex Alimentarius  Commission (CAC) meeting concerning technical
assistance, participation of developing countries and capacity building.  The CAC had accepted the
Chairman's proposal to establish a trust fund to facilitate participation of developing countries inCodex, and for capacity building.  In addition, FAO was establishing a global facility on food safety
and quality for least-developed countries intended to strengthen their food regulatory systems and
their capacity to participate in international food tr ade, and to improve their capacity for participation
in Codex.  Since the last SPS Committee meeting, Codex had been working with the Government of
Cameroon to improve the Codex structure.
90. The representative of the OIE reported that its International Committee had decided to reduce
by 50 percent the financial contributions of least-developed countries to facilitate their participation in
the work of OIE.  The International Committee had also approved a draft agreement on cooperation
between the World Bank and the OIE, aiming to better coordinate the activities of the two
organizations with regard to animal health.
91. The representative of the WHO reported that WHO provided technical assistance to help
member countries to supply their populations with safe and nutritious food.  A major part of this
technical assistance was provided by the six WHO regional offices, which were being strengthened
following the food safety resolution of the 53
rd World Health Assembly.  Examples of technical
assistance programmes included training in the basics of food sanitation and the healthy marketplaces
initiative;  application of risk analysis;  HACCP;  food inspection;  and the development of
information systems that allowed countries to monitor food contamination and conduct surveillance offood-borne diseases.  Another WHO activity included advice on the implementation of food
legislation.  The WHO representative noted FAO/WHO consultations on guidelines for strengthening
food control systems held in June 2001.  Regarding support for developing countries to participate in
Codex, WHO was considering a trust fund for increasi ng developing country participation in Codex
work.
92. The representative of the IPPC mentioned that the last workshop under FAO's Umbrella
Programme for technical assistance was being held during the present week in Tonga.  The Umbrella
Programme had been developed to help developing countries prepare for the agriculture negotiations
prior to the Seattle meeting, but had continued because of strong demand, and because a number of
donors were interested in promoting these workshops.  There had been 18 workshops altogether andFAO was considering whether the Umbrella Progra mme should be extended.  This was an opportune
time for governments to express their interest in how FAO might continue the Programme.G/SPS/R/22
Page 20
93. The representative of the ITC reported on a regional workshop on TBT and SPS for five
African countries under the World Trade Net; and for four anglophone countries participating in the
Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Programme (JITAP).  The countries had discussed the
implementation of the Agreements, problems, possible solutions and shared experiences.  A seminar
was organized in Kuwait in June 2001, funded by the Gulf Organization for Standardization and
Metrology, with the participation of six Gulf C ooperation Council (GCC) countries.  This seminar
covered the TBT and SPS Agreements and their implications for the business community.
V. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
(a) Draft Third Annual Report (G/SPS/W/109)
94. The Chairman noted that according to agreed procedures (G/SPS/11, paragraph 10), the
Secretariat had prepared an annual report on the list of standards, guidelines or recommendations
which had been identified by Members and considered by the Committee.  As no new issues had beenraised since the adoption of the First and Second Annual Reports, the Draft Third Annual Report
contained only an update of the information provided by the standard-setting organizations in
response to the issues previously identified.
95. The representative of Thailand requested that the draft report be amended to include the
entirety of the OIE expert's opinion on infe ctious bursal diseas e (G/SPS/GEN /145/Add.3).
96. The representatives of the United States, New Zealand and the European Communities
acknowledged the efforts of the IPPC in develo ping a definition of "official control".  The
representative of the United States recalled that the SPS Committee had discussed this issue at some
length in 1999, and agreed that it was a source of trade difficulties that warranted the attention of the
IPPC.  The IPPC had acted on this issue by developing and adopting a standard.  The United Statesand New Zealand hoped that this standard would help to resolve some of the practical trade problems
that had occurred as a result of the various interpretations of the application of the concept of official
control.
97. The representatives of New Zealand and Australia were pleased to have been associated with
the extensive and intensive IPPC work programme.  New Zealand and Australia believed that therewas a strong case for increased funding to be provided in order to allow the Interim Commission on
Phytosanitary Measures to have a full-time secretary and more permanent scientific staff.  New
Zealand also supported the development of a trust fund to extend IPPC work, ensuring that
developing countries could participate in the development of standards and assisting in their
implementation.
98. The Chairman announced that the Secretariat would make the requested changes to the Draft
Third Annual Report and then circulate the document for ad referendum approval.  If no newcomments were received by 14 September 2001, the report would be considered as adopted and
circulated as G/SPS/18.
(b) New issues
99. The Chairman recalled that Members were invited to submit, at least 30 days in advance of
each regular meeting, examples of what they consider ed to be trade-significant problems related to the
use or non-use of relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations.  No Member had
submitted new examples for consideration at this meeting.G/SPS/R/22
Page 21
(c) Review of the operation of the provisional procedure (G/SPS/W/110)
100. The Chairman recalled that in July 1999 the Committee had agreed to extend the provisional
procedure to monitor the use of international standards (G/SPS/11) for 24 months, and to decide by
July 2001 whether to continue with the same procedure, amend it, or develop another one (the
decision is contained in G/SPS/14).  The Secretariat had prepared a review of the provisionalprocedure and, in light of the non-use of the procedure during the past two years, had proposed a
slight modification.
101. The Secretariat explained that the proposed changes attempted to address the non-use of the
procedure.  The procedure had initially worked effectively, but suddenly Members had stopped using
it.  To encourage the use of the procedure, the Secretariat was proposing to reduce the period for
advance notice before SPS Committee meetings.  Currently, Members had to notify the Secretariat 30
days before the SPS Committee meeting of their intention to raise a new issue.  This time-periodcould be shortened to 10 days, as for other items on the agenda.
102. The representative of the European Communities suggested that although the proximity of the
SPS Committee meeting served as a reminder, if new issues were presented shortly before the
meeting, the quality of the discussion would dimini sh, since most delegations would not have had the
time to study the issues.  A provisional solution might be for the Secretariat to analyse notificationsthat indicated that no international standard existed, and then to evaluate whether it was necessary to
develop standards in those areas.
103. The representative of Chile thought that the non-use of the procedure was related to the
problem of coordination between different areas of government.  Issues arising within the food safety,
animal and plant health areas were pursued in the relevant international organizations, but not alwaysbrought to the attention of the representatives in the SPS Committee.  The proposed extension of the
time-period might be helpful.
104. The representative of the United States thought it would be helpful to have a shorter
timeframe.  Thirty days in advance of the Committee meeting was often outside of the planning
horizon, and a ten-day period might facilitate bringing new issues for discussion.
105. The representative of South Africa noted that often Members raised the need for change in
international standards directly in the international standard-setting bodies.  A linkage should be
created between issues being raised at the standard-setting bodies applicable to the work of the SPS
Committee and vice versa.
106. The Secretariat explained that an analysis of notifications would be time consuming,
especially considering the small number of staff.  It was also not up to the Secretariat to decide where
international standards were lacking and should be  developed.  Furthermore, the link between the SPS
Committee and the standard-setting organizations already existed, and the organizations regularly
informed the Committee of their work.  As an example, the Codex had already provided a list of
standards adopted at the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting the previous week.
107. The Chairman concluded that the discussion of the subject had alerted Members to the
problem, and that the procedure should continue to be used since it had given good results in the past.The Secretariat would send a reminder to signal to Members the deadlines for raising issues.  He
proposed extending the monitoring procedure wit hout amendments (G/SPS/17), and to keep the
subject on the agenda for the next meeting.  The Chairman agreed that the standard-setting work took
place in the relevant organizations, and that th e objective in the Committee was to discuss trade
problems arising from the existence or lack of international standards, and to alert the organizationsand delegates to the need to address these issues.G/SPS/R/22
Page 22
VI. MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER
ORGANIZATIONS
(a) OIE
108. The representative of the OIE presented document G/SPS/GEN/266, containing the decisions
relevant to the SPS Agreement taken by the OIE International Committee at its 69th general session in
June 2001. The work programme aimed at implementing the recommendations of the OIE Third
Strategic Plan  for the period 2001 to 2005 had been adopted.  Apart from reinforcing the traditional
priority tasks of the OIE, the work plan included activities aimed at the control of zoonoses and food-
borne diseases, the development of new standards on animal welfare and the organization of
international solidarity and regional coordination missions.  Several chapters of the International
Animal Health Code had been amended, and the link to the SPS Agreement had been made more
explicit.  Regarding BSE, a revised annex on surveillance systems had been adopted, and the CodeCommission was examining a revision of the country classification system.  On the subject of bovine
semen, one of the issues identified by the monitoring procedure, a new annex had been adopted.
Further work needed to be done to ensure that the testing requirements in this annex were consistent
with those specified in other disease chapters.  The Aquatic Animal Health Code had been amended,
and a new edition would be produced in 2001.  The lists of countries free of FMD, rinderpest andcontagious bovine pleuropneumonia had been updat ed.  The Chairman of the Code Commission had
reminded members to comment on texts that had not yet been submitted for adoption, but that were
currently at a draft stage.  Two texts, regarding equivalence and infectious bursal disease, were of
particular interest to the SPS Committee.
109. The International Committee had been requested to reflect on standards on animal welfare,
especially regarding international transport of animal s.  The International Animal Health Code already
contained several recommendations, and certain member countries felt that this aspect needed to be
reinforced.  The approach envisaged was to collect scientific information on the subject, and then to
ask an ad hoc group to define guidelines for further work by the OIE.  It had become clear that this
subject was of concern not only to developed, but also to developing countries.  The OIE work wouldtake into account the sensibilities that might exist regarding this complex subject.
110. The representative of the OIE explained that there were two types of disease-free declarations
at the OIE.  Any country could make a self-declarat ion by presenting a report explaining that it was
free from a certain disease, showing the scientific basis and the surveillance systems used to verify
this status.  The OIE then published the report or a summary.  In addition, for FMD, rinderpest,
contagious bovine pleuropneumonia and African horse sickness, the OIE had a specific procedure
through which the Commission on FMD and other Epizootics verified the requests for recognitionfrom member countries.  The procedure started with a request from a country, which then presented
information to be examined by the Commission on FMD and other Epizootics.  If the information was
considered incomplete, questions could be asked.  The request was presented to all member countries
with a 60-day period for technical or scientific objections.  Finally, a resolution was proposed to the
International Committee for adoption during the general session.  In the case of FMD, countriespreviously recognized as free of FMD without vacc ination could recover their status more quickly by
direct decision of the Commission of FMD and other Epizootics.
(b) Codex
111. The representative of the Codex noted that a list of standards adopted by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission the previous week had been made available to delegates(G/SPS/GEN/282).  Several codes of hygienic practice had been adopted, a number of maximum
residue levels for pesticides and veterinary drugs had been accepted, while others had been revoked.
A number of new additives and contaminants were  approved with maximum levels, including aG/SPS/R/22
Page 23
number of provisions for benzoates, which had been raised under the monitoring procedure.  A
maximum level for aflatoxin M 1 in milk had been adopted and the sampling plan for aflatoxins in
peanuts for further processing was revised.  Regarding equivalence, the recommended guidelines for
official certificate formats were adopted, and wo rk on the judgement of equivalence was ongoing.
The Commission had not had time to consider work proposed for provisional adoption at step 5.Guidelines for risk analysis and risk assessme nt of foods derived from biotechnology had been
adopted as draft guidelines.  The Commission reaffirmed that Codex committees working on food
safety should continue their work on risk analysis, and that principles for risk analysis should first be
developed for application within Codex to ensure consistency between different committees, and that
either subsequently or in parallel, guidance could be developed for governments.  The Commission
had also adopted a strategic framework, and would continue to work on the medium-term plan.  The
Committee on Food Hygiene, which normally met in the United States, would meet in Thailand inOctober 2001 to facilitate the participation of developing countries.  The Committee on Veterinary
Drug Residues in Food would be held in the United States in December 2001.
(c) IPPC
112. The representative of the IPPC reported that the third session of the Interim Commission on
Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM) had approved new standards on pest risk analysis for quarantinepests, guidelines for phytosanitary certificates, guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and
emergency actions and amendments to the glossary of phytosanitary terms.  These amendments
included a supplement to the glossary on the interpretation and application of the concept of official
control, as requested by the SPS Committee.  The Commission also agreed on the composition, terms
of reference and rules of procedure for a new Standards Committee, completed the elaboration of non-binding dispute settlement procedures, agreed in itiatives for information exchange, including the
establishment of an international phytosanitary portal, integrated with the clearing-house mechanism
of FAO, for information exchange on agriculture, health and food safety.  The Commission had
adopted statements on genetically modified organisms, biosecurity and invasive species as well as on
the relationship between the IPPC and the Convention on Biological Diversity.  In addition, the ICPMhad adopted criteria for the recognition of regional plant protection organizations, and a strategic plan
for the next five years. Priorities for new standards included risk analysis for environmental hazards
of plant pests, risk analysis for regulated non-quarantine pests, efficacy of measures, low pest
prevalence and irradiation as a phytosanitary treatment.  The Interim Standards Committee had
completed work on five new draft standards for the present work programme.  These included
amendments to the glossary of phytosanitary terms, and standards on integrated measures for pest risk
management, regulated non-quarantine pests, pest reporting, and guidelines for regulating woodpacking materials used in the transport of commodities.  All these standards had been sent to
governments and comments would be received until October 2001.  They would be proposed for
adoption in March 2002.  Further details on the relevant activities of the IPPC are contained in
G/SPS/GEN/271 and Corr.1.
(d) IICA
113. The representative of IICA informed the Committee that the first module of the Executive
Series on Leadership in Food Safety had been held in Costa Rica, with the attendance of the public
and private sectors of 20 countries of the Americas.  The next such meeting would be held in Canada
in October.  Together with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada, two workshops
had been held with CARICOM countries, one on strengthening of inspection systems and the secondon identifying areas of importance and increasing participation in Codex.  Two seminars had been
held; one in Costa Rica on the technical and commer cial implications of BSE and FMD; the other one
in Paraguay with Mercosur and surrounding coun tries on technical requirements for more active
surveillance systems for BSE.  A training course on HACCP had been held in Costa Rica.  Further
activities and more information were described in G/SPS/GEN/263.G/SPS/R/22
Page 24
(e) WHO
114. The representative of WHO drew the attention of the Committee to document
G/SPS/GEN/274, which described the recent activities of WHO in the area of food safety.  Following
the adoption of the food safety resolution by the World Health Assembly in May 2000, WHO
convened a strategic planning meeting in February 2001 to develop the draft Global WHO FoodSafety Strategy (annexed to G/SPS/GEN/274).  This draft strategy had been submitted to the WHO
Executive Board in May 2001, and would be finalized after further input from member states and
another strategic planning meeting towards the end of 2001.  The Global WHO Food Safety Strategy
comprised seven approaches, namely strengthening surveillance systems for food-borne disease,
improving risk assessments, establishing methods for assessing the safety and risks of new
technologies, enhancing the scientific and public health role of WHO in Codex, enhancing risk
communication and advocacy, and improving international and national cooperation and capacitybuilding in developing countries.
115. The WHO helped provide the scientific basis for Codex work through independent expert
meetings such as the Joint FAO WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Joint
Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR).  New expert meetings had been added on microbiological
hazards in foods, and the safety assessment of foods derived from biotechnology.  JECFA had met inJune, and a JMPR meeting was planned in Geneva in September.  Other upcoming expert meetings
included the third Joint FAO WHO Expert Consultation on Risk Assessments of Microbiological
Hazards in Food in July 2001 and a Consultation on the Safety of Foods Derived from Biotechnology
in September to consider genetically modified mi croorganisms.  WHO was planning a consultation on
methods and principles for the monitoring of antimicrobial usage in food animal production inSeptember 2001.  Regarding the revision of the Intern ational Health Regulations (IHR), subsequent to
the agreement in principle received at the WHO Executive Board in January, the delegates to the
World Health Assembly in May 2001 had provided support for the new directions proposed for the
IHR.  These changes would add a real-time procedure for identifying, assessing and responding to
urgent and international public health risks.  The revised date for submission of the final IHR draft tothe World Health Assembly was 2004.
(f) OIRSA
116. The representative of OIRSA presented their experiences with the operation of quarantine
systems through a regional competent authority (G/SPS/GEN/262).  During the last 40 years, OIRSA
services were responsible for inspection and control, document control and generation of import and
export statistics in a transparent manner.  The competent authorities of a government established an
agreement with OIRSA and OIRSA recruited qualified personnel and set performance requirements.Since the recruited staff had academic training and received good salaries, efficiency was increased.
Governments accredited inspectors, giving them the faculty to carry out legal procedures.  The
governments conserved the sovereignty over the design of their measures, development of standards
and quality control of the inspection and control services.  Short-term technical advantages included
the professionalization of the staff, development of methods and operation manuals and technologicalequipment, which allowed greater response capabilities.  Administrative advantages included
sustainable and self-sufficient financial operation, resource management and transparent and reliable
statistics and historical records.  These systems currently included quarantine systems in the animal
and plant health areas, but in the future might also be used for epidemiological surveillance including
control programmes for pests and diseases, input control and other activities.
117. The representative of El Salvador indicated that the support received from OIRSA had been
very effective especially with regard to agricultural protection systems and control procedures.
Advantages included compliance with WTO obligations, and coordination with the private sector in
the identification of sanitary problems.  The representative of Guatemala confirmed that theG/SPS/R/22
Page 25
delegation of these programmes to OIRSA had helped not only in 1998 in a moment of crisis, but that
stability in this field had been attained.  The training of human resources was an important asset for
the country.  Guatemala requested that OIRSA con tinue to report on practical cases and provide
guidance, especially for developing countries, on what could be achieved with the necessary internal
coordination and support by a regional organization.
VII. OBSERVERS – REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
(a) Role of observer organizations
118. The Secretariat introduced G/SPS/GEN/253, whic h summarized the information already put
forward in the General Council's guidelines on ob servers and in earlier discussions of the SPS
Committee.  In its past discussions the Committee had made clear that it distinguished between the
role played by the "three sister organizations" and the treatment of other observer organizations.
Some Members had suggested that the Secretariat could look at the issue of actual attendance of SPSCommittee meetings by observer organizations.  According to the General Council criteria, if an
observer organization did not participate in meetings  for twelve months, its observer status would be
withdrawn.  However, there were no regular and accurate records of participation in SPS Committee
meetings.
(b) Requests for observer status
119. The ad hoc observers of the ACP Group, EFTA, IICA, OECD, OIRSA and SELA were
invited to return to the next Committee meeting.
120. The Chairman indicated that in the case of the APCC, one delegation was not able to agree to
new observers because of more systemic problems in the General Council.  Another delegation was
concerned that the Committee would be flooded by requests for observer status from organizationsdedicated to a single product, which could pose problems to the development of meetings.  This
delegation had suggested the possibility of developing a procedure before granting observer status to
additional organizations.  There was also no consensus among Members regarding observer status for
the OIV.
121. The Secretariat noted that the observer organizations were more frequently providing their
reports in writing in advance of the meetings, and that this would be further encouraged.
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS
US notification on mango
122. The representative of the Philippines welc omed notification G/SPS /N/USA/387/Add.1 which
indicated that the US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had amended its
regulations to allow the importation of mangoes from Guimaras Island in the Philippines subject to
inspection and the completion of a prescribed vapour heat treatment.  APHIS believed that this actionwas warranted because there appeared to be no significant pest risk associated with the importation.
This market access opening in a major trading partner for this important export product would
certainly be a boost to the development of Philippine agriculture.
Foot-and-mouth disease status – Statement from South Africa
123. The representative of South Africa reminded the Committee that South Africa had been
declared free of FMD without vaccination in 1995.  Unfortunately, in September 2000 South Africa
had lost this status due to an outbreak caused by the illegal introduction of a type of virus foreign toG/SPS/R/22
Page 26
the country.  This outbreak was well-contained within a 50 km area.  Severe floods in 2000 in the
eastern part of the country bordering Mozambique had damaged the fence of Kruger National Park,
where buffalo were kept, resulting in two outbreaks in the FMD control area bordering the National
Park, and in an outbreak in a feedlot close to that area.  All outbreaks had been well-contained with no
further positive cases since February 2001.  The disease had not spread to other provinces, and SouthAfrica would present an application to the FMD and other Epizootics Commission of the OIE in
September 2001 to be reinstated as an FMD-free area without vaccination.  South Africa
acknowledged the countries that had already accepted the sanitary guarantees providing for the
resumption of trade, especially the European Commission.
Update on technical assistance in the SADC region
124. The representative of South Africa indicated that several initiatives had taken place within the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) to establish a better understanding andimplementation of the SPS Agreement.  South Africa acknowledged the involvement of the United
States and of international organizations includ ing the OIE, FAO and IPPC.  During November 2000,
a meeting had been held in Windhoek, Namibia, followed by a workshop in Botswana in March 2001.
The proceedings of the Windhoek meeting, including several important decisions, had been circulated
to Members (G/SPS/GEN/272).  During July 2001, a workshop had been held involving the Council
for Scientific Research in South Africa, the Depart ment of Agriculture and the Department of Trade
and Industry for members of SADC.  There had also been a meeting of the Ministerial Councils of
SADC in Swaziland, and a decision had been taken to focus on the understanding of the SPS
Agreement with the aim to move towards harmonization of SPS matters within the region.
EC measures on imports of Egyptian potatoes125. The representative of Egypt expressed concern regarding measures taken by the European
Communities against imports of Egyptian potatoes, allegedly as protection against the disease
Pseudomonas solanacearum.  These measures severely restricted imports of Egyptian potatoes.  The
European Commission had first authorized member States to take measures against the dissemination
of this bacterium in May 1996.  These measures were adopted in the form of a Commission Decisionthat was amended in January and August 1998.  The Decision prohibited the importation of Egyptian
potatoes into the Communities unless they originated from agreed pest-free areas.  Moreover, the
Decision allowed a complete import prohibition to be introduced if five interceptions of the bacterium
had occurred during the 2000-2001 import season.  The Egyptian delegation believed that these
measures might not be in conformity with the relevant provision of the SPS Agreement and the GATT
1994.  Egypt had prepared 13 questions for the European Communities; these were without prejudice
to Egypt's rights under other WTO Agreements.
126. The representative of the European Communities indicated that the questions would be
considered thoroughly and answered.  He clarified that the European Communities had a special
treatment for potatoes from Egypt, allowing imports until the fifth detection of brown rot, which was
a disease on the quarantine lists of IPPC and EPPO.  The normal EC standard prohibits imports after
one detection.  The special treatment had been granted in consideration of the special efforts of theEgyptian authorities to control production, determine pest-free areas and subject exports to control.
One month ago the European Communities had received a document from the Egyptian authorities
containing a contingency plan for brown rot potatoes which was under study at the European
Commission.  Egypt had requested determination of new free areas for export for the next season.
This request was also being considered and would be voted on by the Standing Plant HealthCommittee shortly.G/SPS/R/22
Page 27
US update on specific trade concerns (G/SPS/GEN/265)
127. The representative of the United States introduced an update to the Secretariat document on
specific trade concerns (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1).  The United States had examined the issues it had
raised in the Committee to determine whether the issues had been resolved.  This exercise had shown
that the SPS Committee was a useful forum to address and resolve trade issues.  The US documentpresented the US view on the status of the releva nt issues, and the United States was prepared to
discuss other Members' views on this status.
EC legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ)
128. The representative of Israel raised concern regarding legislation being considered by the
European Parliament that would ban fungicide residues in fruit juices.  Fungicides were routinely used
for spraying many fruits and vegetables as a post harvest treatment, and were considered safeaccording to Codex standards.  Israel saw no scientific justification for banning the use of these
fungicides, and believed this would create unnecessary trade barriers.  Israel had raised with the
European Communities and with Germany a problem regarding German law which allowed residues
of TBZ and Imazalil in citrus juices at such low levels that in effect this constituted a ban.  Israel
requested a clarification from the European Communities regarding its position on the EuropeanParliament initiative.
129. The representative of the European Communities explained that the European Parliament
could introduce amendments to Commission proposals, but it that he could not advance a position on
the matter before the end of the legislative procedur e.  He offered to keep Israel informed of the
situation in the European Parliament.
Slovenian notification of foot-and-m outh disease measures G/SPS/N/SVN/8
130. The representative of Argentina noted that this notification indicated that Slovenia's FMD-
related measure had been taken with the objectives of protecting animal health, and of protecting
humans against an animal/plant pest or disease.  Argentina considered that the second objective was
not justified since FMD did not affect human beings.
Argentina – Venezuela's phytosanitary requirements for garlic and potato imports
131. The representative of Argentina reported that bilateral meetings had been held on this issue,
and although the problem had not been completely resolved, Venezuela had demonstrated its will to
find a solution.
Chicken meat exports to Bolivia – Progress report by Chile
132. The representative of Chile informed the Co mmittee that the sanitary authorities of both
countries had agreed to work on a protocol, and Chile thanked Bolivia for the progress made.
US Foot-and-mouth disease measures against Hungarian products
133. The representative of Hungary expressed concern about the US restrictions on the importation
of meat and other animal products that were in force since May 2000 against a number of FMD-free
Members, including Hungary.  The representative of the United States explained that meat products of
Hungarian origin were not subject to the restrictions discussed.  His country supported the information
presented by the OIE in G/SPS/GEN/266, where Hung ary was listed as a country free of FMD and
rinderpest.  The United States would continue to work with the appropriate officials to explain the
restrictions.G/SPS/R/22
Page 28
Thailand's draft guidelines for the determination of the appropriate level of protection and draft
improved import quarantine procedures
134. The representative of Thailand informed the Committee about Thailand's draft guidelines for
the determination of the appropriate level of protection, which had the objective of achieving
consistency in accordance with Article 5.5.  They addressed levels of protection and applicablemeasures associated with the risk for food, plant and animal products.  Also under way were
improved import quarantine procedures that would coordinate the operation of all agencies concerned
in a network-like system.  This was the result of quarantine law reform, aimed at maximizing benefits
with regard to the sanitary and phytosanitary protection of the country, as well as facilitating trade.
Both drafts were at initial stages and available only in Thai.
Panama – Information requested by  another Member (G/SPS/GEN/270)
135. The representative of Panama informed the Committee that it had provided responses to the
questions of the European Communities regarding sanitary measures applied to powdered milk from
Denmark (G/SPS/GEN/220 refers).  In these responses, Panama reiterated that it applied the same
sanitary measures to domestic and imported products.  The representative of the European
Communities indicated that the Commission would study the answers and report back to Panama.
European Communities -  Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues
136. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire raised concern regarding EC Directive 2000/42 setting
new maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides in fruits and vegetables. Côte d'Ivoire's exports of
pineapples, mangoes, papayas, cashew nuts, passion fruits and green beans would be affected, and in
many cases the producers were small farmers who had found export niches as a source of revenue.The EC directive set the MRLs for several products at the detection threshold.  These levels were not
based on a pertinent risk analysis and did not appe ar consistent, for example for Ethephon.  Technical
questions posed in April 2001 through different channels had remained without answer.  The directive
mentioned concerns about the health of consumers, especially regarding acute or chronic exposure of
European consumers.  Côte d'Ivoire was also con cerned about the health of its consumers, especially
since they consumed much larger quantities of tropical fruits and vegetables.  EC technical assistance
was planned for pineapple production and for non-traditional products, but since these programmes
were not carried out before the entry into force of the directive, the damage to producers was done.
Côte d'Ivoire requested waivers from the EC directive.  Once the planned technical assistance
programmes had been carried out, and respecting good agricultural practices, adequate MRLs could
be set with the collaboration of Codex, taking into account the shared concern over public health.
According to Côte d'Ivoire, this EC measure was an application of Article 5.7 and of theprecautionary principle, and demonstrated the danger of using Article 5.7 measures against
developing countries if the measures were not preceded by targeted technical assistance programmes.
137. The representative of the European Communities regretted not having received the
information from Côte d'Ivoire in advance of the meeting.  One year ago, he had informed the
Committee of a decision taken by the European Communities in favour of ACP countries to delay forone year the application of a series of MRLs, which had been set at detection levels.  The year had
now passed, and the directive was being implemented.  Special and differential treatment, a delay in
the application of the directive, had not solved the problem.  There were different generations of
chemical substances for plant protection.  Many substances that were once approved had been
discontinued and forbidden, either because the industry was unable to or not interested in defendingthe product, or because research on safety showed that there were better substances.  In such cases,
the MRLs were lowered to detection levels.  Th is was an international practice.  The European
Communities would study Côte d'Ivoire's request and the letter it had sent previously and provide a
response.G/SPS/R/22
Page 29
Procedure at meetings
138. The representative of Chile, supported by Peru, indicated concern about the procedure
followed for specific trade concerns at this meetin g.  When the observer organizations intervened after
the reply of the Member whose measure was being discussed, only official conclusions of the
standard-setting organizations should be mentioned to avoid confusion.
Global forum on food safety requirements
139. The Chairman announced that WHO and FAO were organizing a Global Forum on Food
Safety Requirements on 22-24 October 2001 in Marrakesh, Morocco.  At this forum, members of the
two organizations would have the opportunity of exch anging experiences in the areas of regulations,
risk management, effective participation, and capacity building including technical assistance.
IX. CALENDAR OF MEETINGS IN 2002
140. The Committee provisionally agreed on the following dates for meetings in 2002:
20-21 March
19-20 June
23-24 October
The Chairman announced that the meetings would be scheduled to allow for two entire days, since
several delegations had expressed concerns about meetings running out of time.
141. The representative of Bolivia recalled previous concerns about meetings of several WTO
subsidiary bodies being scheduled at the same time.  This year, the situation had become worse, and
his delegation could not participate in the negotiations on trade in services that were taking place at
the same time as the present meeting of the SPS Committee.  Bolivia agreed to the proposed dates for
meetings in 2001, but only provisionally.  The meeting calendar should be discussed in the GeneralCouncil, taking into account the calendars of all Councils and Committees, and taking into account
that as a result of the Fourth Ministerial Conference, WTO activities might become more demanding.
X. DATE  AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
142. The next regular meeting of the Committee is scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday,
31 October–1 November 2001 .  These dates were suggested by several Members in order to
immediately precede the meeting of the FAO Council in Rome.
143. The Committee agreed on the following tentative agenda:
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
(c) Consideration of specific notifications receivedG/SPS/R/22
Page 30
(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
(b) Equivalence – Article 4
4. Technical assistance and cooperation5. Monitoring of the use of international standards
6. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
7. Observers - Requests for observer status
8. Other business
9. Date and agenda of next meeting
144. The Chairman reminded delegates of the following deadlines:
• for identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure:
Monday, 1 October 2001.
• for requesting that items be put on the agenda:  Thursday, 18 October 2001
• for the distribution of the airgram:  Friday, 19 October 2001
__________