WORLD TRADE G/SPS/GEN/21
9July1997
ORGANIZATION(97-2878)
Original: Spanish Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures
STATEMENT BYTHE DELEGATION OFARGENTINA ON
NOTIFICATION G/SPS/N/EEC/47
Meeting of1-2July1997
1. Ourdelegation would liketocommunicate thathaving analysed:
(a) Thebiology ofthedisease;
(b) itspersistence andpotential forinfection;
(c) theextent oftheareaactually endangered (about 0.16percentoftheterritory ofthe
European Union);
(d) theprior existence ofregulations within theCommunity which, onthebasis ofthe
extensive trade andphytosanitary experience accumulated bothinthegeneral areas
andintherestricted areas without asingle caseofpersistence orspread ofcanker,
would already appear tobeeffective inproviding adequate riskprotection;
thePhytosanitary Protection Service ofArgentina, which ispartoftheNational Health andFoodstuff
Quality Service (SENASA), considers themeasure proposed innotification G/SPS/N/EEC/47 of
9June1997 concerning thecertification offruitfrom areas affected bythedisease known as"citrus
canker" (Xanthomonasaxonopodis pv.citri,ex-Xanthomonas campestris pv.citri)tobemorerestrictive
tointernational trade thanwould seem necessary.
2. Inshort, thisanalysis hasledtotheconclusion that:
(a) Citrus canker isnottransmitted through citrus fruit.
(b) Thebacterium doesnotsurvive asanepiphyte onthesurface ofthefruitandtherisk
ofitsintroduction asacontaminant isvirtually zero.
(c) According totheEuropean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), thefruitcannot be
considered asapathway fortransmitting thedisease.
(d) Anareaofmore than3,000,000 km2istobeisolated toprotect whatinreality amounts
toonly5,300 km2(barely 0.16percentofthetotalarea).
(e) Theplanned riskreduction system constitutes anagglomeration ofprotection measures
which aresuperimposed ononeanother andtherefore appear tobeunnecessary:
production unitsfreeofsymptoms ofthedisease, fruitfreeofsymptoms andexternal
disinfecting ofthefruitwithrecognized bactericides.G/SPS/GEN/21
Page2
(f) Theprinciple ofproportionality ofthelevelofprotection hasnotbeenobserved. What
hasbeenapplied isnottheconcept ofminimum trade risk,butzerorisk. Inthis
connection, wewelcome, andindeed share theviews expressed indocument
COM(97)183 Final dated 30April 1997, which wasjustdistributed tothismeeting
oftheCommittee bythedelegation oftheEuropean Union. Page20ofthatdocument
contains thefollowing remark: "Here itisuseful torecall thatsince there isnotsuch
athing as"zero risk"-information onthelevelofriskisessential fortheconsumer.
TheCommission willbeguided initsriskanalysis bytheprecautionary principle, in
cases where thescientific basis isinsufficient orsome uncertainty exists." The
Community accepts thatthereisnosuchthing aszerorisk,butatthesame timeseems
tobetrying toapply itdefacto through theprovisions ofthisdraftregulation.
(g) Thegoods imported intotheterritory oftheCommunity areintended forthelarge
consumer centres andareunlikely tobesenttotheproduction areas.
(h) Before thefinalversion ofthedraftregulation inquestion hadbeenprepared, Argentina
provided theauthorities oftheCommission withvarious elements ofanalysis suchas
ariskanalysis ofthecaseunder discussion, thebasic scientific documents andthe
recorded precedents, without thusfarreceiving anofficial reply astotheirvalidity.
Wewould liketotakeadvantage, inthisconnection, ofthecomments made bythe
representative oftheEuropean Union delegation regarding theSwiss statement onBSE
inwhich heinvited Switzerland tohold"anopenandfrank discussion": wewould
welcome suchanopportunity.
(i) While werecognize theEuropean Union 'srighttofreezones, wethink thatinthis
caseitshould takeallthenecessary steps toapply themeasures intheareaactually
atriskandwithin theframework oftheprovisions oftheSPSAgreement.
3. OurGovernment hasnotseentheresults ofanypestriskanalysis thattheEuropean Union
authorities mayhaveconducted before theCommunity reached theconclusion thattheneedtoraise
thelevelofphytosanitary protection could bejustified, norindeed doweknow thatsuchananalysis
wasconducted atall.Inprinciple, therefore, itappears possible thatthemeasures proposed bythe
European Union might bemore restrictive thannecessary, inwhich casetheywould beinconsistent,
atleast, withtheprovisions ofArticles 2:1and2:2; 3:2; 4:1and4:2;5:2,5:3,5:4,5:6and5:8;
and6:1and6:2oftheWTO Agreement onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures.
4. TheGovernment ofArgentina considers theresolution ofthisquestion through consultations
withtheEuropean Union, within theframework ofthisCommittee, tobeofhighpriority andurgent,
andrequests theChairman toorganize suchconsultations onthebasis ofthisstatement assoonas
possible. Inviewoftheimportance offinding amutually satisfactory solution tothiscasewithout
affecting thesignificant trade flows thathavetraditionally existed, wewould asktheEuropean Union
tomake aspecial effort tothatend.
5. Tosummarize, ourdelegation requests:
(a) Theholding oftechnical consultations withtheauthorities andexperts oftheEuropean
UnionwithaviewtoexaminingtogethertheriskanalysisconductedbytheCommission,
comparing itwithourinterpretations andourownriskanalysis, andconsidering the
scientific evidence usedforthepurpose.
(b) That during thesaidconsultations, theadministrative processing oftheproposed
regulation should besuspended inorder toallow timetoincorporate suchchanges orG/SPS/GEN/21
Page3
adjustments asmight avoid unnecessary problems fornon-Community suppliers that
could possibly affect significant traditional trade flows.
(c) Thatasystematic examination becarried outofthepresent andfuture contractual impact
oninternational trade inagricultural goods oftheapplication ofrestrictive measures
toaneconomic blocwithout justification from thepoint ofview oftheecology or
biology ofthepestsandfortheapparent purpose ofprotecting asmall production area.
Inparticular, thepossible extension oftheEuropean Union could mean anincrease
inthenumber ofspecial cases which theCommunity would betempted tosolve in
asimilar way, i.e.bysimply extending itstoentire territory conditions which
presumably apply toaspecific problem only.
Intheviewofourdelegation, thiswould result, intheshort term, inanunjustified diversion oftrade
totheadvantage ofthemembers ofaregional agreement andtothedetriment notonlyofmany WTO
Members, thatwould beautomatically excluded, butofthesystem asawhole.