RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/14
7 May 1999
(99-1881)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10-11 MARCH 1999
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its
fourteenth meeting on 10-11 March 1999, under the chairmanship of Dr. Alejandro Thiermann
(United States).  The agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/1034 was adopted with amendments.
I. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
(a) Information from Members
(i) United States – Measures related to solid wood packing material and other unmanufactured
wood (G/SPS/N/USA/145)
2. The representative of the United States recalled that at the November 1998 meeting he had
provided information about US measures regarding exotic pests associated with solid wood packing
material from China, including Hong Kong, China.  He recognized that the risk of entry was notlimited to China, although this had been identified as the highest risk pathway.  On 20 January 1999,
the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv ice had published an advance notice of proposed
rule making in the Federal Register to gather input from interested parties on how to amend current
US legislation on the importation of unmanufactured wood articles to reduce the risk of solid wood
packing materials introducing exotic plant pests into the United States.  Apart from seeking the least
trade restrictive way to protect itself from these pests, the United States also wished to respond to
environmental concerns regarding the use of methyl  bromide for fumigation of wood products.  The
deadline for comments was 22 March 1999.
3. The representative of the European Communitie s indicated that they had been monitoring
similar problems, but were not yet in a position to provide precise information.  He indicated that his
delegation would keep the Committee informed.
(ii) Argentina – Foot-and-Mouth Di sease eradication programme
4. The representative of Argentina informed the Committee that Argentina's status as a country
free from Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) with vaccination had not changed.  As of 30 April 1999,
FMD vaccination would be prohibited in all of Argentina, as would the importation of vaccinated
animals.  The representative of Argentina encouraged Members to recognize Argentina's sanitary
status once it was recognized by the OIE.
(iii) South Africa – Recognition as country free of Foot-and-Mouth Disease
5. The representative of South Africa asked the Committee to take note that, after lengthy
negotiations, the United States had recognized South Africa as a country free of Foot-and-MouthG/SPS/R/14
Page 2
Disease.  This followed a decision by the OIE to recognize South Africa's FMD-free status in
May 1996.
(iv) Chile – Status as zone free of Mediterranean fruit fly
6. The representative of Chile thanked the Philippines for its official recognition of Chile as a
zone free from fruit flies, and informed the Committee that negotiations with Japan on the same topicwere almost concluded.
(v) Chile – Status as country free of Classic Swine Fever
7. The representative of Chile recalled his country's freedom from classic swine fever, as well as
from all diseases on List A of the OIE.  Unfortunately, many countries had yet to recognize Chile's
status.
(vi) Chile – Import restrictions on bovine semen
8. The representative of Chile also recalled that at the meeting of September 1998, Switzerland
had raised concerns regarding Chile's import restrictions on bovine semen.  He indicated that the
measure in question had been modified, and notified as G/SPS/N/CHL/31.
(b) Specific trade concerns
(i) Australia/New Zealand – Import restrictions on raw milk cheeses (G/SPS/GEN/116)
9. The representative of Switzerland brought again to the attention of the Committee the
Australian import restrictions on Swiss hard and semi-hard cheeses made from raw milk.  He stated
that these cheeses had been imported into Australia for decades.  However, in 1994, the Australia
New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) implemented new measures requiring cheeses to be made
with thermized or pasteurized milk.  Australia accepted Swiss documentation on the equivalence of
Swiss production methods to the Food Standards Co de, and imports of Swiss cheese continued.  In
mid-1997, AQIS stopped, without prior notice, Swiss cheese imports with the argument that they did
not meet Australian standards.  Switzerland regarded the import prohibition as unjustified since there
was no new relevant scientific evidence.  In early 1998, Switzerland had made a formal application
for amendment of the Australian Food Standards Code.  Switzerland had also requested readmission
of cheese imports based on the fact that in 1994 Australian authorities had recognized that Swisscheese production methods resulted in health protection equivalent to that required by the Food
Standards Code.  Switzerland asked about the progress of Australia's internal procedures and the time-
frame for their completion, and urged Australia to bring its measures into conformity with SPS
obligations.
10. The representative of the European Communities indicated that they faced similar difficulties
with respect to raw milk cheeses, including Roquefort.
11. The representative of Australia explained that imported cheese had to meet the Australian
Food Standards Code with regard to public health issues, and the requirements of the Quarantine Act
with regard to animal health.  He reported that af ter having completed a risk assessment with respect
to animal health, Australia was now finalizing a proposal for amendment of the relevant quarantine
legislation.  The representative of Australia noted that Australia's measure regarding raw milk cheeses
was non-discriminatory, as the same requirements applied domestically.  Australia had not arbitrarilychanged its regulation in 1997 but realized at that time that not all of its existing legal requirements
were being implemented.  However, Australia was reviewing alternative methods to reach its
appropriate level of protection.  With respect to public health requirements, ANZFA had undertaken aG/SPS/R/14
Page 3
risk assessment based on independent scientific advice from Food Science Australia.  The
documentation would be published on 17 March 1999 for public comment.  After a 3-week comment
period, final recommendations would be presented to the ANZFA Board for approval, which would
then make a recommendation to the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council.  Swiss officials
in Canberra would be briefed on 16 March 1999.
12. In relation to French Roquefort cheese, the representative of Australia said that this cheese did
not comply with Australian requirements.  ANZFA had initiated a risk assessment, which it was
currently finalizing.  French officials in Canberra would be briefed in the near future.
13. The representative of New Zealand observed that New Zealand had not previously imported
Swiss raw milk cheeses and would await the conc lusions of ANZFA before it reconsidered its
position.
(ii) Slovak Republic – Import ban on dairy products and the transit ban in relation to BSE 
(G/SPS/GEN/71)
14. The representative of Switzerland informed the Committee that a mutually satisfactory
solution regarding Slovak importation of Swiss milk and milk products had been found.
(iii) Mexico – Import prohibition of Thai mi lled rice (G/SPS/GEN/82, G/SPS/GEN/105)
15. The representative of Thailand reported that although this item had been on the agenda for
more than a year, Thailand still had not received all the information about the Mexican regulation that
it had requested.  Although it had no obligation to do so, Thailand was providing the information
requested by Mexico.  The representative of Mexico noted that the measures in question had been
notified (G/SPS/N/MEX/44, G/SPS/N/MEX/45), and that the text of the relevant measures had been
provided to Thailand.  Mexico would review the latest information received from Thailand and actaccordingly.
(iv) Czech Republic - Import prohibition of Thai poultry meat
16. The representative of Thailand reported that bilateral consultations on this matter were
progressing.  The problem might be resolved after a visit of Czech experts to Thailand, planned for
April 1999.  The representative of the Czech Republic confirmed that consultations were advancing.
(v) Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine semen
17. The representative of the European Communities raised concerns regarding Argentina's health
requirements for the importation of bovine semen.  He indicated that the European Commission had
not been able to obtain the text of the measure (G/SPS/GEN/114 refers).
18. The representative of Argentina indicated that the measure, which re-categorised bovine
semen as a low risk product, had been notified (G/SPS/N/ARG/37).  It took into account scientific
advances as well as OIE recommendations.  Argent ina had also sent questionnaires to Members, and
was taking their answers into account in its risk analysis.  Argentina had not received a request from
the European Commission for the full text of the measure, although several European member States
had requested the text.  Nonetheless, the representative of Argentina confirmed that he would send the
document to the European Commission.G/SPS/R/14
Page 4
(vi) India – Import restrictions on bovine semen
19. The representative of the European Communities re ported that its bilateral contacts with India
regarding import restrictions on bovine semen had not been successful.  He presented a number of
specific questions for transmission to the Indian authorities which were related to a lack of
information about the application of international standards by India (G/SPS/GEN/113 refers).
(vii) India – Restrictions on imports of horses
20. The representative of the European Communitie s expressed concern about the interruption of
trade in horses with India, which had been regular in the past.  Bilateral contacts had failed to identify
the health guarantees necessary to export horses to India.  In particular, import restrictions were based
on the presence of contagious equine metritis (CEM).  The European Communities questioned the
justification of India going beyond the requirements established in the relevant OIE Code, and asked
India to respond to a number of specific qu estions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/112.
(viii) Slovak Republic – Import restrictions on Polish  potatoes
21. The representative of Poland indicated that although an earlier import ban on Polish ware
potatoes had been lifted by the Slovak Republic on 1 March 1999 following bilateral consultations, it
had been replaced by testing requirements for po tato spindle tuber viroid (PSTV) (G/SPS/GEN/115
refers).  The Slovak Republic had not provided a comment period for this new measure.  Since warepotatoes imported into The Slovak Republic had to be treated to suppress the faculty of germination,
they were unlikely to introduce diseases to crop plants.  Thus, Poland believed that the testing
requirements for ware potatoes represented an unjustified obstacle to trade.  Since Slovak specialists
had confirmed that the Polish system of phytosanitary supervision guaranteed proper health
conditions of exports, Poland encouraged The Slovak Republic to withdraw the new measure whichled to considerable economic losses.  The Slovak representative indicated that he had taken note of the
Polish comments and would transmit them to his authorities.
(ix) Chairman's report on consultations
22. The Chairman informed the Committee that neither he nor the Secretariat had received any
requests for bilateral consultations since the previous Committee meeting.  He encouraged Membersto seek his or the Secretariat's assistance as needed.
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
23. The Chairman reported that for the first time no points had been raised under this agenda
item.
24. The representative of the European Communities commented that many of the questions
raised under "specific trade concerns" and under "consideration of specific notifications received"
were not brought up again at subsequent meetings although they were not resolved.  Since often theseitems were requests for information, the EC delega te indicated that he would begin to raise pending
issues at future SPS Committee meetings.  The representative of Chile noted that he was also
concerned about the lack of follow-up on some of the issues raised.  He reminded other delegations
that issues raised under "Specific trade concerns" and "Consideration of specific notifications
received" should be brought to the attention of the Secretariat and of the Members concerned at least10 days before the meeting to allow countries sufficient time to prepare a response to any questions or
concerns.G/SPS/R/14
Page 5
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
25. The Chairman noted that a list of notifications received since November 1998 could be found
under G/SPS/GEN/111.  The most recent list of Enquiry Points had been circulated as
G/SPS/ENQ/7/Add.2, and the latest list of National Notification Authorities could be found as
G/SPS/GEN/91/Add.2.  He encouraged Members which had not yet identified the NationalNotification Authority or the Enquiry Point to do so as soon as possible.  The Secretariat indicated
that it would periodically contact notification authorities directly to point out how  notifications could
be clarified or made more complete, without delaying the notification process.
26. The Secretariat set out the difficulties it was facing in carrying out its task to bring, in
accordance with Annex B, to the attention of developing countries any notifications relating to
products of particular interest to them.  The Secretariat proposed to meet informally with interested
Members before the next meeting to discuss how this task could be better carried out.
(e) SPS Agreement and developing countries
27. The Secretariat presented a paper on this subject, which had been prepared at the request of
Members and circulated before the November 1998 meeting (G/SPS/W/93).  As general awareness of
the Agreement was increasing among developing countries, technical assistance needs had become
more specific.  Identified difficulties include internal coordination of SPS-related activities,participation in standard setting, and financial constraints.
28. The representative of Thailand, speaking on behalf of ASEAN countries, shared the
Secretariat's concerns and urged the Secretariat, the three relevant standard-setting organizations, and
Members to cooperate closely in alleviating these problems.  He expressed particular concern about
the gaps in scientific knowledge required to justify measures where international standards did notexist, and to meet other country's import requirements.  He encouraged Members to implement
Article 9.2 to promote trade between develo ping country exporters and other Members.
29. The representative of the Philippines suggested that it might be useful if the Secretariat
prepared a questionnaire for Members to identify whether any technical assistance had been provided
under Article 9.2, or under other special and differential treatment provisions.  Such a questionnairehad been proposed by Egypt in the General Council (WT/GC/W/109 refers).  The representative of
Egypt reserved the right to return to this paper at a later stage to determine how the issues raised could
be incorporated into the work of the SPS Committee.  The representative of Mexico noted it would
also be useful to examine the implementation of Article 10.
30. The representative of South Africa noted that capital-based specialists were increasingly
attending the Committee meetings.  He indicated that as the Agreement was increasingly applied by
developing countries, there were, in addition to financial and scientific constraints, also legal capacityconstraints.
31. The representative of Canada expressed his concern that not all Members were equally
participating in the increasingly sophisticated trad ing system, especially in the SPS area.  While the
solution was not entirely in the hands of the SPS Committee, he emphasized the need for Members to
report on their activities in the area of technical assistance.  He proposed a session during whichproviders and receivers of technical assistance could discuss their experience and possible
improvements.
32. The representative of Malaysia emphasized that other issues besides technical assistance were
important for developing countries, for example a clear expression of the appropriate level of
protection in notifications, and monitoring the use of international standards.G/SPS/R/14
Page 6
II. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
33. The representative of the European Communities drew attention to the EC paper on bovine
semen that had been introduced at the previous meeting (G/SPS/W/96 refers).1  Although there was an
international standard, he noted that the frequency of controls on bulls in collection centers was a
source of concern.
34. The representative of the United States noted that some countries imposed quarantine actions
to avoid the introduction of pests that already occurred in the importing country.  This situation arose
from the IPPC Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms definition of a "quarantine pest", which contained the
phrase "officially controlled" (G/SPS/W/97).  He stressed the need to agree on the meaning of this
phrase to avoid further disruption of trade.  Although definitions existed both for the term "official"
and for the term "control" and a meaning for "officially controlled" could be constructed,
interpretations by Members varied considerably.  Japan, the European Communities, Hungary, andChile shared the US concern.  The representative of Thailand added cut flowers and ornamental plants
to the list of products identified in the US submission.  The representative of the IPPC informed the
Committee that the IPPC had just reviewed the Glossary, including a definition for the phrase "official
control".  If endorsed by the Committee of Experts on Phytosanitary Measures, the revised Glossary
would be submitted to the second Interim Comm ission on Phytosanitary Measures in October.
35. The representative of Thailand pointed out the need for an international standard for cooked
chicken meat (G/SPS/W/99).  The extreme heat treat ment currently required to control Infectious
Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV) rendered the product unacceptable.  The OIE International Animal
Health Code did not include recommendations for trade in poultry meat and poultry meat products.
The representative of Australia noted that Australia supported the development of an internationalstandard, although some new or supplementary scientific work might be required.  Australia would
make available to the OIE the scientific evidence upon which it had based its measure.  The
representatives of the European Communities, the United States, and Brazil were also interested in the
development of an international standard.  The representative of the OIE reported that the OIE had
received a letter from Thailand requesting dispute settlement under the OIE.  The OIE in turn had sentan official letter to Australia, which Australia was currently considering along with the possibility of
further bilateral consultations.  The International Zoosanitary Code Commission had not been able to
consider this issue at its last meeting but it would do so at its next meeting in September 1999.
36. At a request from the representative of Australia, the representative of the OIE explained the
OIE dispute settlement procedure.  He said that the procedure was simple, but since it had never been
used, there might be unexpected problems.  The International Zoosanitary Code provided four steps.
First, the complaining Member must approach the Director-General of the OIE and explain theproblem.  On this basis, the Director-General would ask the other concerned Member if it agreed to an
OIE dispute settlement.  Second, the concerned countries must agree to bear the costs involved in the
dispute settlement.  Third, the Director-General proposed the names of experts for agreement by the
parties.  Fourth, the experts examined the issue and sent their report to the parties.  In their
examination, the experts considered only the science, without taking into account any legalobligations under the SPS Agreement.
37. The Chairman observed that the interaction with the international organizations under this
agenda item had been very useful, and encouraged Members to submit their interventions early, so
that other Members and the international organizations could prepare any contributions they might
wish to make.  He remarked that the OIE dispute settlement procedure was similar to the informalWTO consultations, where the outcome was not binding on the parties.
                                                     
1 See G/SPS/R/13, paragraph 45.G/SPS/R/14
Page 7
38. The Secretariat explained that as a next step in the monitoring process it would compile a list
of all standardization issues identified by Members up to the present meeting and circulate this list,
with the request for Members to indicate whether they shared the concerns expressed.  On the basis of
Members' responses, the Secretariat would revise the draft annual report and circulate it in advance of
the July 1999 meeting.  If Members wished to raise new issues, they could do so in advance of theJuly meeting, but these new issues would not be included in the list or in the draft report.  The
Secretariat recalled that the Committee would also review the provisional procedures to monitor the
process of international harmonization at its next meeting in July 1999.
III. CONSISTENCY
39. The Chairman informed the Committee that info rmal consultations on draft guidelines to
further the practical implementation of Article 5.5 had been held prior to the formal meeting of the
Committee.  The Secretariat had prepared a new paper taking into account Members' comments,which had been discussed at the informal consultations.  Since some Members had submitted
suggestions at the last moment, Members who wish ed to comment on these late submissions could do
so until 14 April 1999.
40. The representatives of India and of Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN countries, stressed that the
guidelines were very important for decision makers, and that the Committee should attempt tocomplete them as soon as possible.  The representative of the European Communities noted that areas
of consensus were growing, and asked the Secretariat to highlight those areas in its next draft of the
guidelines.
IV. REVIEW OF THE SPS AGREEMENT
41. The Chairman recalled that in accordance with  the agreed procedure, informal consultations
had been held prior to the formal meeting.  The consultations were based on a revised draft prepared
by the Secretariat.  With some amendments, Members had informally agreed to the text.
42. The Committee adopted the report on the Review of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/12).
V. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION
43. The representative of the European Communities provided information on the SPS seminar
held in Chiang Mai, Thailand, on 3-6 February 1999, under the Asian/European Trade Facilitation
Action Plan.  The Netherlands and Thailand had acted as facilitators for the workshop, which covered
animal, plant and public health.  The workshop had been very successful and the representative
welcomed the offer made by China at the seminar to host the next workshop before the end of 1999.
He encouraged further action in the areas of transparency, regionalization, risk assessment, and
practical technical assistance.
44. The representative of Australia highlighted some of the recent activities in which Australia
had been involved, and announced that an updated paper would be available at the next meeting.  In
general, Australia tried to assist regional and sub-regional initiatives to build quarantine infrastructure
and capacity in risk analysis, and to improve awareness of SPS issues in general.  Australia had
provided in-house training for quarantine officials from Fiji, Samoa, Myanmar, Malaysia, Korea and
China.  AQIS Training Services had undertaken a series of training programmes for quarantineofficers from Pacific island countries.  Australia also provided training and technical assistance to
countries such as Ethiopia, Iran, Israel and New Caledonia.  Through the Northern Australia
Quarantine Strategy, Australia had provided assistance in the training of quarantine personnel, the
development of diagnostic facilities, and pest and disease surveillance in Indonesia and in Papua New
Guinea.  A series of training modules on blue tongue diagnostic techniques had been funded forG/SPS/R/14
Page 8
quarantine officials in China.  Australia had also been involved in APEC animal and plant quarantine
activities, particularly as a new member of the Network of Agriculture Centers in Asia/Pacific
(NACA).  Some of these activities included developing technical guidelines on quarantine
certification and the establishment of information systems for movement of live aquatic animals
throughout Asia.  Thailand and the Philippines had received technical assistance related to marketaccess for fruit exports to Australia.  Australia had conducted workshops on import risk analysis in
China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.  The Australia New Zealand Food
Authority was assisting Vietnam in the development of its food law, and of an appropriate
government infrastructure to underpin this law.
45. The representative of New Zealand reported that his country assisted mainly the Pacific island
countries in increasing their understanding of the SPS Agreement, and in enhancing their participation
in the international standard-setting bodies.  New Zealand, in cooperation with the sub-regional FAOoffice, organized a workshop in the Kingdom of Tonga, mainly focussing on food safety and exports,
and was planning further projects for the future.
46. The representative of Canada welcomed the reports on technical assistance activities.  He
indicated that Canada would prepare a paper on its technical assistance programmes and encouraged
other Members to do the same.  A collection of such papers could provide a basis for discussionsabout possible improvements in the area of technical assistance.
47. The Secretariat reported on technical assistance activities it had undertaken since the
November 1998 meeting.  The Secretariat had participated in the seminar held in Chiang Mai,
Thailand, already referred to by the European Communities.  Furthermore, the Secretariat, in
coordination with IICA, had organized a regional seminar in San Jose, Costa Rica.  The objective ofthe seminar was to enhance the understanding of the SPS Agreement, to assess its implementation by
the nine participating countries, and to identify problem areas.  Apart from presentations by the
Secretariat, individual countries had presented their experiences based on a questionnaire prepared by
the Secretariat.  Representatives of the IICA Secretariat and of Mexico presented models for national
SPS systems.  Apart from the continuing need for enhancing the understanding of the Agreement ingeneral aside, specific problem areas identified by  participating countries were the management and
application of the principle of equivalence, including international standards for the recognition of
equivalence.  Countries also had difficulties with the concept of consistency and the need for
guidelines for its application.  Furthermore, there were difficulties with the recognition of pest-free
areas, which related to risk analysis and surveillance measures.  Technical cooperation needs for the
future included training in the organization of food safety services, epidemiological surveillance
systems, legislation systems, risk analysis and certification procedures.  Participants called forincreased coordination of technical assistance.  IICA presented a regional internet project to provide
information on national SPS systems, which might eventually be expanded to global coverage.
Countries in the region welcomed the fact that the SPS Agreement had led to a redirecting of
government investment to national SPS systems.  The Secretariat also organized a workshop on the
SPS Agreement in Melbourne, taking advantage of the presence of many developing countries at themeeting of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems.
48. Looking ahead, the Secretariat was planning a regional SPS seminar in Windhoek, Namibia
from 29 March-1 April 1999, with the participation of Codex, OIE, IPPC and the USDA/FAS.  Three
further seminars were planned for francophone African countries in September 1999.  The
International Trade Center had requested the Secret ariat to participate in seminars regarding the
implementation of the SPS Agreement in Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and the Philippines in August 1999.
49. The representative of Codex announced that FAO was preparing an Uruguay Round umbrella
training programme aimed at enhancing national capacities on WTO matters so that countries would
be in a stronger position to meet their obligations, to benefit from existing agreements, and toG/SPS/R/14
Page 9
participate in the next round of multilateral negotiations.  The programme would address the current
Agreements' implications for agriculture, emerging issues relevant to future negotiations, special
issues of regional concern, as well as sources  of information on WTO agreements.  The umbrella
programme would include 15 sub-regional training cour ses in Africa, Asia, the Near East, Europe and
Latin America.  FAO also continued to provide technical advice and assistance to strengthen the
participation of developing countries in Codex as well as training in food hygiene and HACCP, risk
analyses, and other food control capacity building activities.  Together with WHO and WTO, FAO
was organizing an intergovernmental conference on International Food Trade Beyond 2000 on 11-
15 October 1999, in Melbourne, Australia.  This conference would address how food quality and
safety issues affect trade, health and development at both domestic and international levels.  It would
include an analysis of current SPS, TBT and Codex procedures, and of the prospects for future
changes, and develop recommendations on scientific ally-based approaches to promoting food quality
and safety in trade.  The representative of Codex also reported on the third joint FAO/WAHO/UNEP
conference on mycotoxins held in Tunis on 3-6 March 1999, and on the third international FAO food
database conference  to be held in Rome on 3-5 July 1999.
50. The representative of the WHO informed the Committee that WHO was preparing a paper
describing its activities in the area of food safety and public health, including technical assistanceprogrammes.
51. The representative of the IPPC reported that the IPPC was involved in a significant number of
technical assistance programmes both for specific countries and at a regional level.  Much of this was
legal assistance, reviewing new or modified legislation.  In addition to programmes already
mentioned, a seminar had been organized in North Africa on SPS and IPPC standards, which wouldcontinue in the form of annual meetings.  The IPPC secretariat encouraged better coordination of
technical assistance.
52. The representative of the OIE reported that a conference with Middle Eastern and East
African countries on regional trade and animal health problems had taken place in December 1998 in
the framework of an FAO programme.  In January 1999, a seminar on risk analysis was held in Japanwith the participation of several Asian countries.  In cooperation with FAO, the OIE was planning a
seminar on animal disease surveillance for southern Africa.  Furthermore, technical assistance
seminars on the quality of veterinary services were planned for the Americas.
VI. MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER
ORGANIZATIONS
(a) Codex
53. The representative of Codex informed the Committee that 11 Codex Committee sessions were
scheduled for 1999, including the Codex Alimentarius Commission scheduled for 28 June–
3 July 1999 in Rome.  The seventh session of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export
Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICs) had met on 22-26 February 1999 in Melbourne,
Australia.  The committee had (i) submitted guidelines for the development of equivalence
agreements regarding food import and export inspection and certification systems to the 23
rd Session
of the Codex Alimentarius for final adoption, (ii)  requested the approval of new work on guidelines
for the assessment of equivalence of sanitary measures associated with food inspection and
certification systems, and (iii) requested the approval of guidelines for the utilisation and promotion of
quality assurance systems.  CCFICs was also requesting advice on how to proceed on the matter of
equivalence of technical regulations other than sanitary measures.  It had agreed that the proposeddraft guidelines/recommendations for food import control systems should be revised before being
circulated for comments.  CCFICs had also agreed that the proposed draft guidelines and criteria for
official certificate formats and rules relating to the production and issuance of certificates be revised.G/SPS/R/14
Page 10
In this regard, it requested the advice of legal counsel as to whether the activities proposed in the
discussion paper on guidelines for the establishment of a database on importing country legislation
fell within the mandate of Codex and the terms of reference of the committee.
(b) WHO
54. The representative of the WHO announced that WHO and FAO would convene a joint expert
consultation on risk assessment of microbiological hazards in food at WHO headquarters in Geneva
on 15-19 March 1999.  With regard to the revision of the International Health Regulations (IHR),
comments made by SPS Members had been very helpful to WHO.  A document had been drafted
highlighting the different functions of WTO, WHO, IHR and Codex, and would be forwarded to the
WTO Secretariat and Codex for comments.  The intention was to have the document ready for
distribution in April 1999.  There had also been proposals for joint WTO SPS and WHO health trade
focus groups for 1999, with the purpose of raising awareness of the functions of each organization,identifying and addressing priority issues, and identifying possible areas for synergy.
(c) IPPC
55. The representative of the IPPC reported on the meeting with the Methyl Bromide Technical
Options Committee regarding definitions of terms.  He announced that agreement had been reached
on the revision of the Asian Pacific Plant Protection Commission.  The IPPC had also updated theGlossary of Phytosanitary Terms.  An informal working group on standard-setting procedures for the
IPPC in Montevideo, Uruguay in May 1999.  Also in May, Australia was sponsoring an open-ended
working group on pest risk analysis to be held in Bangkok, Thailand.  Furthermore, a working group
for an international standard on the notification of pest interceptions and non-compliance would meet
in April 1999 in Germany.  He informed the Committ ee that the IPPC had invited contracting parties
and regional plant protection organizations to identify topics and priorities in standard setting.  Input
from the SPS Committee was welcome; the deadline was 31 May 1999.  An informal working group
would meet in Rome to discuss dispute resoluti on, which under the IPPC was purely technical and not
legally binding.  He furthermore noted that the I PPC intended to invite the regional plant protection
organizations to attend SPS Committee meetings as part of the IPPC delegation.  This would allowincreased exposure and involvement of these organizations.  The IPPC website had recently been
updated, and now included reports of meetings, the provisional agenda for the next Interim
Commission meeting on phytosanitary measures, over 80 official contact points, and countries who
have ratified the 1997 IPPC text (eight countries so far).
(d) OIE
56. The representative of the OIE reported on the standard-setting activities taking place in the
OIE in preparation for the general session of the International OIE Committee in May 1999.  Theseactivities included the revision of the International Animal Health Code chapter on BSE, and
proposals for revision of the chapters on Aujeszky's disease  and blue tongue disease.  There would be
revisions of the chapter on import risk analysis and additions to the evaluation of veterinary services.
The Code Commission would be submitting to members a new chapter on sheep scrapie (a disease
similar to BSE, but which affects small ruminants).  In the future, the Code Commission would revisethe chapter on regionalization, adapt the principle of equivalence to the animal health area, and work
on classic swine fever and Newcastle disease.  The OIE Standards Commission had met in
February 1999 and revised the lists of reference laboratories and disease experts, and examined the
progress of the work on international standards on diagnostic tools and vaccination, concentrating on
Foot-and-Mouth Disease and contagious bovine pleu ropneumonia.  The Standards Commission also
reviewed the progress in preparing the next edition of the OIE Manual of Standards for Diagnostic
Tasks and Vaccines, which should appear at the end of the year 2000.  This handbook would contain a
new chapter on administrative and technical requirements for diagnosis of animal diseases.  The Foot-G/SPS/R/14
Page 11
and-Mouth Disease Committee would de velop a list of countries that were fully or partially Foot-and-
Mouth Disease free with or without vaccination.  There would probably be proposals to create a
procedure to recognize BSE-free countries.  FAO, the Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-
Pacific (NACA) and OIE were cooperating to collec t information on aquatic animal diseases in Asia.
57. The representative of Chile asked the three international standard-setting organizations to
provide papers for the next Committee meeting explaining the manner in which they monitored the
use of international standards, to facilitate an exchange of ideas on the matter.
VII. OBSERVERS
58. The Chairman reported that the Secretariat had prepared a paper which had served as a basis
for informal discussion prior to the meeting (G /SPS/W/98).  He reminded the Committee that the
long-term goal was to develop a set of criteria for permanent observer status.  To make progress in the
meantime, the Committee would establish preliminary criteria to be applied to interestedorganizations on a one-by-one basis.  Candidates would be limited to those who had replied to a
request for information which the Secretariat had sent out in June 1998.  In order to chose among the
candidates those who qualify, the Chairman proposed using the set of criteria identified in paragraph 7
of G/SPS/W/98.  These organizations would then be invited as ad hoc observers for one meeting at a
time, which implied going through the selection process at the end of each meeting.
59. The representative of Norway, speaking on behalf of EFTA countries, supported the criteria
identified in paragraph 7 and expressed his hope that the discussion could be concluded at the present
meeting.  He emphasized that in the consideration of observer status, whether an applicant
organization's work was SPS-related should be more important than whether the organization was
global or regional.
60. Although there was consensus on applying the criteria identified in paragraph 7, the
Committee decided to postpone application of these criteria to the next meeting.  In the meantime, the
Secretariat was requested to prepare a paper summarizing the information the candidates had
provided.
61. The representatives of Canada, the United States and the European Communities welcomed
the IPPC's decision to invite the regional plant pr otection organizations to participate in SPS meetings
as part of the IPPC delegation.
VIII.  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON
62. The Chairman announced that the Council for Trade in Goods had not yet decided on the
Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies.  Therefore, the election of the new Chairperson would have to
be postponed to the beginning of the July meeting of the Committee.
63. The representative of Australia, on behalf of the Committee, congratulated the Chairman on
his second anniversary and thanked him for his great contributions to the work of the Committee.  The
representatives of Malaysia, Bolivia, and the Philippines speaking on behalf of ASEAN countries,
added that they would be happy to see the Chairman continue for another year.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
64. Regarding the European Communities' maximu m levels for aflatoxins in nuts, the
representative of Bolivia reported that Bolivia had presented a plan to improve its chestnuts.  On this
basis, consultations with the European Communities were ongoing.  He indicated that this could be aG/SPS/R/14
Page 12
good case for the application of special and differential treatment.  As a small economy, Bolivia
counted on the application of the SPS Agreement to find a solution to the chestnut problem.
65. The representative of Peru informed the Comm ittee that several countries affected by the
European Communities' regulation on aflatoxins had brought their problems to the attention of the
European Communities through their missions in Brussels without having obtained a satisfactoryresponse.  She reported that the European Communities had failed to demonstrate the scientific basis
for the measure, and had not provided a risk analysis.  In particular, the European Communities had
not established a direct connection between the scientific principles they invoked and the maximum
aflatoxin levels set by the measure.  Thus, in Peru's view, the measure constituted an unjustified trade
barrier and a violation of the SPS Agreement.  Although the European Communities had modified
some aspects of the measure in response to Members' comments, the maximum aflatoxin levels for
chestnuts and dried fruit, among others, had not been changed.  Since the Member maintaining themeasure was required by the SPS Agreement to show that it was based on science, she considered it
unacceptable that the burden of proof be transferred to the exporting Members.  She again requested
the European Communities to provide the interested parties with a copy of its risk assessment.  The
representatives of Brazil, the Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN countries, Paraguay, the
United States and Argentina also expressed their concern about the matter and requested to see therisk assessment.
66. The representative of the European Communities stressed that this issue should not be raised
under "Other business".  He replied to Bolivia that the European Communities were committed to
continuing their common examination of the problem through a rapid procedure.  With regard to the
comments by other Members, he indicated that there were documents on file at the Secretariat whichprovided answers to all issues raised.  He reminded Members that the fact that aflatoxins were
carcinogens had been confirmed by several international organizations and was no longer under
discussion.  When the European Communities introd uced the measure, ample time for comment had
been given.  In response to these comments, there had been an important modification based on
Codex working documents.  The European Communities furthermore had agreed to meetings underArticle 12.2, which only Bolivia had attended.  The EC representative reiterated that the measure
increased transparency because it harmonized the aflatoxin levels allowed in EC member States.  He
also stressed that he was not aware of any trade effects from the measure in question, and that the
measure did not discriminate among suppliers.  The European Communities would accept comments
specifically on cereals until 1 July 1999, and modify the measure if there was scientific evidence to
that effect.  He recalled that the SPS Agreement did not require a quantitative risk analysis.
X. DATE AND AGENDA OF THE NEXT MEETING
67. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 7-8 July 1999.  The Committee agreed on
the following tentative agenda:
1. Adoption of the agenda
2. Implementation of the Agreement
(a) Information from Members(b) Specific trade concerns
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
(e) The SPS Agreement and developing countries (G/SPS/W/93)
3. Monitoring of the use of international standards
4. Consistency - report by the Chairman on consultationsG/SPS/R/14
Page 13
5. Technical assistance and cooperation
6. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
7. Observers – Requests for observer status
8. Other business
9. Chairmanship of the Committee10. Date and agenda of next meeting
68. The Chairman reminded delegates of the following deadlines:
(a) Article 5.5 guidelines
The deadline for comments on recent submissions was 14 April 1999 .  The Secretariat would
circulate a draft document by 31 May 1999 .  The deadline for comments on the new draft
would be three weeks after the circulation of the draft.
(b) Monitoring the use of international standards
The Secretariat would circulate a list of specific problems with international standards
identified by Members by  30 March 1999 .  The deadline for Members' responses to this list
was 17 May 1999 .  The Secretariat would circulate a revised draft annual report by
15 June 1999 .
(c) Informal meetings of the CommitteeOn 6 and 7 July 1999 , the Committee would hold informal meetings on Article 5.5
guidelines;  requests for observer status;  and monitoring the use of international standards.
69. Furthermore, the Chairman reminded delegates th at the deadlines for requesting the inclusion
of specific items on the agenda, or receiving submissions from Members under the respective agenda
items, were as follows:
Agenda item 2:  (b) Specific trade c oncerns and (c) notifications 24 June 1999
Agenda item 3:  Monitoring procedur e:  New specific examples 7 June 1999
70. The Secretariat reminded the Committee that the date for the next meeting had been
scheduled back to back with the meeting of th e Codex Alimentarius Commission, to facilitate the
participation of delegates in both meetings.
__________