G/SPS/GEN/2087   
16 November  2022 
(22-8533) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: Spanish  
 
  
RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY BOLIVIA  ON PERUVIAN  
AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS  (STC NO. 530) 
COMMUNICATION FROM  PERU 
The following communication, received on 14 November 2022, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegation of Peru. 
 
_______ ________  
 
 
1.  Peru would like to express before WTO Members its specific trade concern regarding various 
restrictive measures that have been preventing the entry of Peruvian exports of whole trout to 
Bolivia since 2017, which have no technical basis.  
2.  In particular , it should be noted that, despite the fact that the Bolivian health authority officially 
communicated the approval of the harmonized health certificate for the exportation of fresh or 
chilled/whole or loose trout in 20171, to date it has not honoured  the corresponding commitments 
to allow the export of whole trout  to Bolivia . This is in spite of the fact that  the Peruvian health 
authority has been carrying out activities at the border that would allow  trout to be marketed , 
guarantee ing a safe an d healthy product.  
3.  In this regard, Peru wishes to reiterate its concern that, in January 2022, at a meeting between 
the National Fisheries Health Agency of Peru (SANIPES) and the National Agricultural Health and 
Food Safety Service of Bolivia (SENASAG), th e latter  indicated to us that its current regulations 
allowed for the marketing only of eviscerated animals and  that other types of products could thus 
not be accepted under its regulatory framework . 
4.  In other words, five years after approving a health cert ificate for the exportation of whole trout, 
Bolivia informed us that, under its domestic regulations, it is not possible to import this type of 
product, unjustifiably restricting access.  
5.  It should be noted that Peru received this regulatory information from Bolivia2 and carried out 
an exhaustive review of the standards , which showed that none of them prohibits the entry of whole 
trout. Therefore, this ban would contravene the provisions of Article XI of the GATT 1994 on the 
general elimination of quantitative restrictions.  
6.  Subsequently, in June 2022, Bolivia reported that the Bolivian standard according to which only 
eviscerated animals may be marketed entered into force in April 2022.3 
 
1 CITE/SENASAG/DN No. 1232/2017.  
2 Sanitary regulations sent by SENASAG:  
Administrative Resolution N o. 0143-2017;  
Administrative Resolution N o. 015-2018;  
Administrative Resolution No. 112 2006;  
Administrative Resolution N o. 012-2005;  
Administrative Resolution N o. 142-2017;  
Administrative R esolution N o. 07-2018.  
3 Administrative Resolution No. 078/2022 approving the second edition of the Procedural Manual for the 
Accreditation of Establishments that Produce or Process Livestock Products and By -products to be Exported to 
the Plurinational Sta te of Bolivia.  G/SPS/GEN/2087  
 
- 2 - 
 
  7.  For this reason, Peru wishes to reiterate its deep concern regarding Bolivia's lack of transparency 
on its domestic regulations, as none of the standards  submitted  in January or the one that entered 
into force in April 2022 were notified beforehand to the WTO SPS Committee in accordance with 
Article 7  of, and Annex B to, the SPS Agreement.  
8.  Furthermore , through  Official Note No. 332 -2022-SANIPES/PE, dated 9 September 2022, 
SANIPES requested SENASAG to provide the technical justification  and the risk assessment carried 
out for the inclusion of fresh, chi lled or frozen (eviscerated) fish in health risk category 1 of Annex  1 
of Administrative Resolution SENASAG No. 078/2022 . However, to date , we have received no 
response to that request . 
9.  Lastly , Peru wishes to highlight that, on 6 October 2022, a nother  bilateral technical meeting was 
held between the health authorities of both parties, at which Bolivia requested a face -to-face meeting 
to resolve the issue of the export ation of non-eviscerated trout and undertook to send the formal 
invitation so th at it could be held at the border.  
10.  It also undertook to send an email attaching its standards  and specifying the articles in which 
reference is made to the ban on imports of whole trout. To date, however, Peru has not received 
this information.  
11.  Based on th e foregoing, Bolivia would be in breach of the provisions of Article XI of the 
GATT  1994, as well as Articles 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of, and Annexes B and C to, the SPS Agreement. In 
this connection, we ask Bolivia to rescind any de jure  or de facto  restrictions  in place on Peruvian 
exports of whole trout.  
 
__________