RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/101  
 
19 May 2021  
(21-4235) Page: 1/51 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 25-26 MARCH 2021  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  5 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  5 
2.1.1    Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the TEPCO Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power station accident  ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
2.1.2    Colombia, Paraguay - Request for the suspension of the processes and entry  into force of 
reductions of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for plant protection products in light of the COVID -19 
pandemic (G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.5)  ................................ ................................ ......................  5 
2.1.3    United States - "Global Economic Impact of Missing and Low Pesticide Maximum Residue 
Levels (MRLs), Vol. 2" Report by the United States International Trade Commission 
(G/SPS/GEN/1883)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  6 
2.1.4    Canada, Colombia - Updates from Seminar on Farmers' Perspective on SPS Challenges for 
Sustainable Food Production and Trade (G/SPS/GEN/1890)  ................................ ......................  7 
2.1.5    Canada - International initiatives undertaken by Canada to support the development of 
standards, guidance or recommendations within the International Standard -Setting Bodies  .........  7 
2.1.6    Malaysia - 27th Session of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils  ................................ ... 8 
2.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ............  8 
2.2.1    IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/1882)  ................................ ................................ ............................  8 
2.2.2    OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1887)  ................................ ................................ .............................  8 
2.2.3    Codex (G/SPS/GEN/1892)  ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ .......................  8 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  8 
3.1.1    China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports - Concerns of India  ...... 8 
3.1.2    Mexico's resumption of frozen shrimp imports - Concerns of China  ................................ . 9 
3.1.3    Russian Federation - Procedures for authorizing units eligible for exports of fish and fish 
products to the Eurasian Customs Union - Concerns of India  ................................ ....................  9 
3.1.4    Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of Peruvian fishery and 
livestock enterprises - Concerns of Peru  ................................ ................................ ................ 10 
3.1.5    China's restrictions on bovine meat imports - Concerns of India  ................................ ....10 
3.1.6    Saudi Arabia's import restrictions on animal and plant products - Concerns of Turkey  ......10 
3.1.7    Panama's restrictions and procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes and onions - 
Concerns of Peru ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 11 
3.1.8    Korea's mandatory HACCP certification for imported kimchi - Concerns of China  .............. 11 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.1.9    Mexico's restrictions on chili imports - Concerns of India ................................ ............... 12 
3.1.10    Panama's authorization of Federal Inspection Type establishments - Concerns of Mexico  12 
3.1.11    China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement  of export 
establishments - Concerns of Australia  ................................ ................................ ................. 12 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ .............................  13 
3.2.1    EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, 
ioxynil, iprodione, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (STC  448) - Concerns of Colombia, 
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay and the United States  ................................ ............................. 13 
3.2.2    Modification of EU MRLs for plant protection products: Mancozeb (STC  475) - Concerns of 
Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay  ................................ ................................ 15 
3.2.3    European Union leg islation on endocrine disruptors (STC  382) - Concerns of Paraguay  .....16 
3.2.4    EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa produc ts due to the application of the 
Commission Regulation (EU)  N° 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 amending Regulation 
(EC) N° 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (STC  503) - Concerns of 
Peru ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .18 
3.2.5    EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (STC  446) - Concerns of the 
United States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 19 
3.2.6    EU proposal requiring residue testing of casings (STC  500) - Concerns of Australia  .......... 20 
3.2.7    China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural products 
(STC 487) - Concerns of Australia, Canada, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the 
United States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 21 
3.2.8    China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of imported 
food (26 November 2019) (STC  485) - Concerns of Australia  and the United  States  ................... 22 
3.2.9    India's new requirements for animal feed in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 
(dated 27 Janu ary 2020) (STC  479) - Concerns of the United States  ................................ ........ 23 
3.2.10    General import restrictions due to BSE (STC  193) - Concerns of the Eu ropean Union  ......23 
3.2.11    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC  392) - Concerns of the 
European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 23 
3.2.12    Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC  393) - Concerns of the 
European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 24 
3.2.13    Peru's import restrictions on pork (STC  482) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ .24 
3.2.14    Mexico's import restrictions on pork (STC  489) - Concerns of Brazil  ............................. 24 
3.2.15   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (STC  406) - Concerns 
of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 25 
3.2.16    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(STC 431) - Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ......... 25 
3.2.17    Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (STC  456) - 
Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 
3.2.18    Saudi Arabia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting establishments 
(STC 486) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ............................ 26 
3.2.19    Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports 
(STC 490) - Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ......... 26 
3.2.20    Delays in Malaysia's approval procedures for meat and dairy imports (STC  491) - Concerns 
of the Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....26 
3.2.21    India's approval procedures for animal products (STC  484) - Concerns of the Russian 
Federation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 27 
3.2.22    Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other ruminants 
(STC 493) - Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ......... 27 G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.2.23    The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (STC  466) - Concerns of the 
European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 27 
3.2.24    Guatemala's restrictions on egg products (STC  413) - Concerns of Mexico  .................... 28 
3.2.25    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (STC  441) - Concerns of 
the European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 28 
3.2.26    Indonesia's food safety measures affecting horticultural products and animal products 
(STC 414) - Concerns of the Philippines  ................................ ................................ ................ 29 
3.2.27    Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on imports of fresh citrus fruits due to sweet orange 
scab (STC  470) - Concerns of Japan  ................................ ................................ ..................... 29 
3.2.28    US import restrictions on apples and pears (STC  439) - Concerns of the European Union  30 
3.2.29    Chinese Taipei's phytosanitary risk assessment procedure on imports of fresh vegetables 
and fruits (STC  496) - Concerns of Ukraine  ................................ ................................ ........... 30 
3.2.30    Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions (STC  498) - Concerns of Peru  .......... 30 
3.2.31    India's import requir ements for pulses (STC  497) - Concerns of Canada  ....................... 31 
3.2.32    US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European Union for As ian longhorn beetle 
and citrus longhorn beetle (STC  471) - Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ...31 
3.2.33    Proposed new EU rules on compos ite products (STC  504) - Concerns of Australia, China, 
the Russian Federation and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......32 
3.2.34    EU restriction on highly refined products imported from China (STC  502) - Concerns of 
China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 33 
3.2.35    India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (STC  501) - 
Concerns of China and the United States  ................................ ................................ .............. 34 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues  ................................ ................................ ..............  35 
4   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 35 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  35 
4.2   Pest- and disease -free areas  ................................ ................................ .......................  35 
4.2.1    Mexico - Declaration of an area free from fruit flies of the quarantine -significant genus 
Anastrepha  (G/SPS/GEN/1875)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 35 
4.2.2   Mexico - Declaration of areas free from large avocado seed weevils, small avocado seed 
weevils and avocado seed moths (G/SPS/GEN/1869)  ................................ ............................. 36 
4.2.3    Colombia – Declaration of foot -and-mouth disease -free status (G/SPS/GEN/1768)  .......... 36 
4.3   Operatio n of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ...........  36 
4.4   Control, inspection and approval procedures  ................................ ................................ . 36 
4.4.1    Working Group on Approval Procedures  ................................ ................................ ......36 
4.5   Special and differential treatment  ................................ ................................ ................  36 
4.6   Monitoring the use of international standards  ................................ ................................  36 
4.6.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 36 
4.6.2    Issues previ ously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 36 
4.6.2.1    European Union - ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  ....36 
4.6.2.2    European Union - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  ...37 
4.6.3    New Zealand – Procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization 
(G/SPS/GEN/1851, G/SPS/GEN/1877)  ................................ ................................ .................. 37 
4.7   Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS  Agreement  . 37 
4.7.1    Report on the Thematic Session on African Swine Fever  ................................ ............... 37 G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 4 - 
 
  4.7.2    Report on the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ ................. 38 
5   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  38 
5.1   COVID -19 and SPS issues  ................................ ................................ ...........................  38 
5.2   United States, Canada - SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference 
(G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.5)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 38 
6   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  38 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................  38 
6.1.1    WTO SPS activities (G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.16, G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.11)  .......................... 38 
6.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GE N/1881)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 39 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .........................  39 
6.2.1    Canada, United States - APEC Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) Harmonization Workshop 
Summary (G/SPS/GEN/1884/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ .................... 39 
7   CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  ................................ ...... 39 
8   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  39 
8.1   Information from Observer Organizations  ................................ ................................ ..... 39 
8.1.1    ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/1876)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 39 
8.1.2    IICA (G/SPS/GEN/1878)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 
8.1.3    OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/1879)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 40 
8.1.4    OECD (G/SPS/GEN/1880)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 40 
8.1.5    ITC (G/SPS/GEN/1888)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 40 
8.1.6   SADC ( G/SPS/GEN/1889 ) ................................ ................................ ......................... 40 
8.1.7    GSO (G/SPS/GEN/1891)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 
8.1.8    IGAD (G/SPS/GEN/1893)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 40 
8.2   Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ .......................  40 
9   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ..............  40 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 40 
11   DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .... 41 
ANNEX A  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  42 
ANNEX B  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  50 
  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee ") held its 7 9th regular 
meeting on 25-26 March 2021 . The proposed agenda for the meeting (JOB/SPS/13 ) was adopted 
with amendments . In light of the COVID -19 pandemic, delegates participate d in the meeting  via a 
virtual platform.  
1.2.  Members were able to submit agenda items , support specific trade concerns (STCs),  and upload 
statements through eAg enda. Members  could support  items  through eAgenda until they were  
discussed in the meeting, and to upload statements for STCs and other agenda items that had been 
raised by other Members before the distribution of the annotated draft agenda  until Friday, 2 6 March . 
Only oral interventions by Members that took the floor during the meeting were reflected in the 
present report.  Some  Members also circulat ed their interventions as GEN documents . 
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the TEPCO 
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident  
2.1.  Japan  thanked the United Arab Emirates, the Lebanese Republic and Israel for lifting  their 
remaining import measures on Ja panese food products , and called on the 15 countries and regions 
still maintaining import measures  to remove them . Japan explained  that its control system prevented  
the distribution of food products that exceeded the Japanese maximum levels  of radio -caesiu m, 
which had been set conservatively  on the safe side . Japan emphasized the steady recovery of the 
agricultural and fisheries sector in the 10 years after the earthquake and the improved perception 
of consumers , and complain ed that discriminatory import me asures damaged the reputation of 
products from the affected areas . Updated information on the safety of Japanese food was available 
on the site https://www.maff.go.jp/e/export/reference.html . 
2.2.  Korea expressed its appreciation for the updates provided by Japan  and reiterated concerns 
about the possible  release into the sea of contaminated water currently stored in tanks . This release 
would  damage sea water and sediment, affecting marine biota and potentially developing a food 
hazard factor if moving up the food chain . Korea asked Japan to provide accurate information and 
to implement a more transparent and inclusive process of decision on the disposal method.  
In response, Japan indicated that t he decision about the disposal of the treated water had not been 
taken and that it would only be allowed if it met international standards. Japan underlined 
its transparent approach to information sharing and invited Korea to hold bilateral discussion s. 
2.1.2   Colombia , Paraguay  - Request for the suspension of the processes and entry into 
force of reductions of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for plant protection products in 
light of the COVID -19 pandemic ( G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.5 ) 
2.3.  Colombia  reported that 40 Members were now sponsoring this request to the European Union. 
While understanding the complexities of the internal EU process, Colombia regretted that no 
alternative  solutions  had been proposed . Colombia urged all Members that were currently in the 
process of re viewing or modifying maximum residue limits (MRLs) to also consider th is request and 
base their MRLs on international standards, guidelines and recommendations.  
2.4.  Peru reiterated  the need to focus available resources on economic recovery further to the 
COVID -19 pandemic  and called on the European Union to take into consideration this request.  
2.5.  Costa Rica underscored that multilateralis m should guide countries ' efforts to provide the best 
conditions for the post-pandemic recovery of global food trade , namely th rough the use of 
science -based, harmonized international standards . In Costa Rica's view , the reduction of MRLs  
implemented by the European Union could potentially cause difficulties to farmers around the world . 
Costa Rica requested the European Union to interrupt its regulatory process and suspend the 
implementation of MRLs more restrictive tha n those adopted by Codex for critical substances for 
agricultural production , as requested by numerous Members in the SPS and TBT Committees and in 
the Council  for Trade in Goods  (CTG) . While supporting the EU objective of a global transition to G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 6 - 
 
  sustainable agri -food systems, Costa Rica believed that  this should be reached through dialogue and 
multilateral cooperation.  
2.6.  Paraguay indicated interest in co -sponsoring this agenda item and reiterated the request made 
by 40 Members for the European Union  to avoid the adoption of measures more trade -restrictive 
than necessary that would affect the post -pandemic economic recovery.  
2.7.  The European Union  indicated that it had examined the revised document contained in  
G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.5  and G/TBT/GEN/296/Rev.5 , noting the inclusion of Morocco as a 
co-sponsor. The European Union reiterated its position expressed in G/SPS/GEN/1814/Rev.1 . 
Amidst  the challenges imposed by the COVID -19 pandemic, the European Union ha d strived to keep 
its markets open, taken actions to facilitate the continuation of trade, and launched a number of 
financial and technical assistance packages to support its partner countries. The European Union 
remained open to having a meaningful and con structive dialogue.  
2.1.3   United States - "Global Economic Impact of Missing and Low Pesticide Maximum 
Residue Levels (MRLs), Vol. 2 " Report by the United States International Trade 
Commission ( G/SPS/GEN/1883 ) 
2.8.  The United States  called attention to the second volume of the US International Trade 
Commission (USITC) report entitled "Global Economic Impact of Missing and Low Pesticide Maximum 
Residue Levels" , requested by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) . 
Details  on the first volume of the report  were available in doc ument G/SPS/GEN/1842 . The second 
volume  indicated  that costs and effects of missing and low MRLs could var y widely . The models and 
analysis presented showed some effects on bilateral trade, such as lower imports associated with 
stricter MRLs  or modest production impacts due to MRL ch anges in export markets alone.  
The United  States view ed the USITC report as an important contribution to the Committee's ongoing 
discussions around MRLs and welcome d comments from Members.  The US statement is contained 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1883 . 
2.9.  Costa Rica urged all Members to take into consideration the conclusions of the report, 
in particular Members implementing or planning to implement regulations reducing or eliminating 
MRLs for substances critical for production in tropical countries.  
2.10.   Paraguay acknowledged the important work undertaken  in the report  to analy ze the problems 
associat ed with very low or missing  MRLs and their potential to affect and distort trade . The study 
showed how the heterogeneity and the stringency  in the adoption of MRLs had negative effects on 
global trade, and implications for agricultural production.  Policies  on MRLs could have negative 
consequences on prices, both for producers and end consumer s, and could affect food security in 
the future. According to the study, producing countries could balance trade losses by looking for new 
destination markets , although  this would be  difficult. Paraguay urged its trade partners to maintain 
measures based on conclusive scientific evidence that d id not restrict trade more than necessary to 
achieve legitimate objectives for the protection of health.  
2.11.   The European Union noted  that the report indicated its focus on challenges and costs that 
missing and low MRLs created, and on the magnitude of those costs, but it did not look  at all 
US major markets.  The European Union pointed out that the report did not acknowledge the growing  
and important role of organic and soil regenerative production methods, which were not affected by  
missing and low MRLs, nor the consumers' increasing preference for production systems that used 
less xenobiotic pesticides, such as organic production.  The report did not examin e nor acknowledge 
the benefits of scientifically -based low MRLs on the protection of consumer health from exposure to 
harmful pesticide residues in food , nor the economic losses due to health impacts and environmental 
degradation from the use of certain  molecules.  The European Union questioned the modelling 
contained in the report and argued that the  hypothetical assumptions led to  debat able results.  
The European Union noted that the report contained factual inaccuracies  in the description of the 
EU system for setting MRLs and urged the USITC to review them. In concluding, the European Union 
welcomed the statements in the report indicating that, for tropical fruits, EU MRLs were more closely 
aligned with Codex values than  those of any other country.  The European Union reiterated its 
commitment  to further engage with  the U nited States and any WTO Member.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.12.   Brazil stated that the report , although based on the realities of US producers,  shed light on 
the impacts of low and miss ing MR Ls on agricultural  trade and  the livelihood of farmers in many 
countries, including Brazil. In Brazil's opinion, impacts on livelihoods and on the health of crops and 
that of consumers were  major . 
2.13.   Peru indicated that it  had participated in  the elaboration of the study through case studies 
included  in the first volume of the report. Peru recalled that Members  should  take into account 
economic factors in assessing risks, and that the implementation of measures should  minimize 
negative trade e ffects, in accordance with Articles 5.4 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.  
2.1.4   Canada, Colombia - Updates from Seminar on Farmers' Perspective on 
SPS Challenges for Sustainable Food Production and Trade  (G/SPS/GEN/1890 ) 
2.14.   Colombia  recalled that the  objective  of the seminar  had been  to provide a  forum to discuss 
real-world SPS  challenges that farmers around the globe face to safely and sustainably produce and 
trade food. Colombia pointed to  the written report circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/1890  
(co-sponsored by Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay an d the 
United  States), containing  the weblinks for the recordings available in English, Spanish , and French , 
and to its more comprehensive statement on e Agenda.  
2.15.   Canada thanked the organizers  of and participants in the seminar. Canada understood the 
producers to have shared a common message on the need to use science and risk -based 
decision -making processes, and on Codex standards as a means for further harmonization. 
To Canada,  the seminar  had highlighted the importance of bette r communication with consumers 
and of having a more inclusive approach with farmers in the decision -making process on the tools 
available that affect ed their ability to produce crops.  Canada added that it had repeatedly raised the 
importance of mitigating trade risks pertaining to missing and low MRLs and reducing the uncertainty 
for the trade of safe and nutritious food. Canada strongly encouraged Members to establish 
transparent and predictable measures based on science and risk analysis, taking  into acco unt the 
standards, guidelines and recommendations developed by the international standard -setting bodies 
(ISSBs ). 
2.16.   Peru indicated  that it  encountered  challenges and identified opportunities similar to those that 
had been presented  in the seminar . Peru highl ighted the importance of relevant international 
standards, guidelines and recommendations, in particular those of Codex, and of  harmonization as 
a means to generate a predictable trade environment and facilitate trade.  
2.17.   The European Union stated  that it had  followed the seminar  with great  interest. While  different  
perspectives from a number of segments of the food chain had been  presented, an  important 
stakeholder  had been missing:  the consumer s. While appreciating  some of the MRL-related 
challenges  listed in the report , the European Union stressed the importance that only factual 
science -based information be circulated by Members. The European Union reiterated its commitment 
to engage and provide technical assistance to achieve high food s afety standards via responsible 
and sustainable production methods.  
2.18.   Brazil observed that the seminar had been very useful in bringing to the attention of the 
Committee  the realit ies that  farmers and producers  faced. 
2.1.5   Canada - International initiatives under taken by Canada to support the 
development of standards, guidance or recommendations within the International 
Standard -Setting Bodies  
2.19.   Canada expressed  its commitment  to the work of the ISSBs  in establishing international 
standards, guidelines and recommend ations based on strong and independent scientific advice.  
Canada indicated that it was providing fun ding and in -kind technical expertise to support  ISSB work 
on standards, guidelines and recommendations . In the past year, Canada had provided 
approximately CAN $ 1,7 m in funding to support initiatives, including OIE work on guidance on 
African swine fev er (ASF);  FAO development of risk assessment guidance for antimicrobial use in 
the horticulture sector; FAO scientific advice on food allergens to support the development of 
Codex  international standards and guidelines; and IPPC to support a number of projects, includi ng G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 8 - 
 
  the development  of guidance to assess the risk of introduction of pests with seeds. Canada 
encouraged other Members to contribute to the ISSBs.  
2.1.6   Malaysia  - 27th Session of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils  
2.20.   Malaysia informed the Committee that it would be virtually hosting the 27th Session of the 
Codex Committee on Fats and Oils , tentatively scheduled on 18 -25 October 2021.  
2.2  Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
2.2.1   IPPC ( G/SPS/GEN/1882 ) 
2.21.   The IPPC presented its report on  relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/1882 , indicating 
that the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures  had since then held its 15th meeting virtually 
(CPM-15) and that the corresponding report would be up for adoption on 1 April. At CPM -15, 
standards, CPM  recommendations, and the IPPC strategic framework for 2020-2030 had been  
adopted, three  focus groups established (on climate change and plant health, the implementation of 
the IPPC  strategic framework, and communications), and discussions held on a number of topics, 
in particular on sea containers. IPPC invited any one interested to join the virtual closing ceremony 
for the International Year of Plant Health to be held on 1  July 2021.  
2.2.2   OIE ( G/SPS/GEN/1887 ) 
2.22.   The OIE highlighted the main points of its report contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1887 , 
referring  to its COVID -19 related activities, work on ASF, the OIE O bservatory to  monitor the 
implementation of standards, and work on antimicrobial resistance (AMR).  The OIE also referred to 
its upcoming virtual annual General Session, which would  include the adoption of administrative and 
technical resolutions , the election of the OI E Director General and members of governing bodies and 
specialist commissions, as well as the first request s for endorsement of official control programme s 
for dog -mediate d rabies. Finally, the OIE  informed Members of the upcoming launch of  its renovated  
website  and that its new World Animal Health Information System (OIE -WAHIS) was now available.  
2.2.3   Codex  (G/SPS/GEN/1892 ) 
2.23.   Codex presented its report on relevant activities contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1892 . 
Codex referred to (i) the last session of its Ex ecutive Committee, with discussions on, inter alia , 
how Codex could move ahead with its work virtually in the COVID -19 context; (ii) the last session 
of its  Committee on General Principles , with discussions on the monitoring of the use of 
Codex  standards ; (iii) recent Codex  events;  and (iv) forthcoming  meetings of  four Codex subsidiary 
bodies . 
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
3.1.  Before the adoption of the agenda , Viet Nam withdrew a specific trade concern (STC) regarding 
Brazil's regulation on the use of phosphates for fishery products, product registration before export 
and heat treatment regime for cooked shrimps , due to progress in bilateral consultations . Similarly , 
Brazil withdrew its STCs regarding  Viet Nam's restrictions on live cattle and Viet Nam' s restrictions 
on melon . These three STCs were included in the annotated draft agenda circulated as JOB/SPS/13 . 
3.1  New issues  
3.1.1   China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports  - Concerns of 
India  
3.2.  India raised its concern about China's proposed  new health certificate format for shrimp 
imports , requiring every shrimp consignment to be tested for OIE -listed pathogens, including the 
White Spot Syndrome (WSS) and the Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis (IHHN)  
viruses . India observed that (i) requiring health certificates in the revised  format would make most 
of India's shrimp consignments unfit for export to China; (ii) the  viruses were prevalent in China 
and the WSS virus was also present in other countries that export shrimps to China; and 
(iii) the presence of these viruses pose d no threat to human health. Referring to Article 2.3 of the G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 9 - 
 
  SPS Agreement, India considered the conditions in China and India to  be similar regarding  the 
prevalen ce of the WSS and IHHN  viruses  and requested China to share the objective behind enforcing 
the new health certificate.  India also pointed to Article  3 of the SPS Agreement and section 5. 1.2.2 
of the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code , which did not allow  requirements for the exclusion of  certain 
pathogens or animal diseases that were present in the importing territory and were not subject to 
any official control programme. India requested  China to share the details of its official control 
programme s on WSS and IHHN  or, in the absence thereof, to share its  risk assessment and indicate 
the less trade -restrictive measures it had considered . 
3.3.  China responded that the  new certificate format  detailed information of overseas fishing 
vessels, transport vessels, processin g vessels, refrigerators and processing enterprises , and added 
the requirements of implementing  FAO/WHO guidelines. In December 2020,  China had informed 
India that Indian certificate s were missing  important information  on fishing boats and refrigerators. 
China stressed that  the information at issue was not a new requirement, but was listed as a special 
item in the certificate  to avoid omissions . China added that from November 2020 to March 2021, 
China had detected COVID -19 five times on the packaging of  aquatic products from India, indicating  
problems in the implementation of FAO/WHO guidelines in the Indian food safety management 
system. China hoped that India would adopt  the new certificate format as soon as possible.  
3.1.2   Mexico's resumption of frozen shrimp imports  - Concerns of China  
3.4.  China  expressed its concern regarding Mexico's suspension of import s of shrimp products from 
China on the grounds of preventing the introduction of the Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis disease 
(AHPND). China referred to Chapter 2 .2.1, Article 2.1.3 of the  OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests for 
Aquatic Animals , according to which the source of AHPND was not transmitted by frozen shrimp. 
In light of Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement, China considered  Mexico's measure  to be inconsistent 
with the SPS Agreement and the GATT 1994. China also pointed to Article 9.1.12 of the OIE Aquatic 
Animal Health Code , pursuant to which au thorities should not add any conditions related to AHPND  
when authorizing the importation or transit of peeled frozen shrimp that were prepared and 
packaged for retail trade and compl ied with Article 5.4.2. Considering Article  5.6 of the 
SPS Agreement, China believed that Mexico put forward an excessively high l evel of protection. 
China hoped that Mexico would resume importing frozen shrimp from China as soon as possible.  
3.5.  Mexico  responded  that it was ready to work with China and that it had recently requested 
a bilateral meeting. Mexico highlighted that its SPS  measures systematically recogni zed the 
principles in the SPS Agreement and OIE guidance . Mexico added that it was seeking a mutually 
satisfactory solution to address the risk raised in line with OIE standards and that it had been looking 
at a risk mitigatio n strategy  to facilitate trade in shrimp from China. Mexico also added that it wished 
to continue advancing in the process of enabling export s of fresh pork and bovine products to China  
and that it was waiting for feedback from China with regard to the analytical methodology used to 
detect  SARS -CoV-2 on foodstuff s. In that regard, Mexico stated  that it applied FAO and 
WHO guidelines regarding COVID -19 and food safety . 
3.1.3   Russian Federation - Procedures for authorizing units eligible for export s of fish and 
fish products to the Eurasian Customs Union  - Concerns of India  
3.6.  India raised its concern regarding measures imposed in respect of fish and fish product exports 
to the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU). India stated that it had been sharing a list o f approved Indian 
processing establishments  in accordance with a  Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)  between  
India and Russia to facilitate trade in fish and fish products . However, the register of approved 
enterprises  had not been updated by the  Russian  Federation, and newly approved enterprises  had 
not been able to export to the ECU. India considered that, b y not including  new facilities  in its register 
and requiring verifications by Russian authorities, the Russian Federation  seem ed to have imposed  
a non -tariff barrier  and to be in violation of  the MoU and Article s 2.3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, 
in particular the obligation to adopt the least -trade restrictive measure . India also referred to t he 
equivalence principle in the SPS Agreement.  India requested the Russian Federation to share its risk 
assessment in support  of insisting on inspections by Russian authorities.  
3.7.  The Russian Federation responded  that there were no quantitative restrictions on Indian fish 
products . The ECU requirements f or conducting inspections prior to expanding the list of exporting 
enterprises that could supply fish and seafood aimed to ensure the safety of imported products and G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 10 - 
 
  were applied to all Members. The Russian Federation pointed to Eurasian Economic Council 
Commission Decision No. 94 as support ing its inspection of  foreign  enterprises. 
The Russian  Federation also stated that, i n February 2020, it had proposed inspections , but no 
response had been received thus far . In addition, t he Russian Federation took issu e with delays in 
India in the process of approving export certificates for Russian products. In conclusion, 
the Russian  Federation expressed its readiness to include  new Indian exporting fish and fish products 
enterprises in its register after the implemen tation of existing requirements and agreements.  
3.1.4   Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of Peruvian 
fishery and livestock enterprises  - Concerns of Peru  
3.8.  Peru expressed its concern regarding Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations 
for plants of fishery and livestock enterprises. Peru considered Panama's actions to be inconsistent 
with Articles 2.2, 5.1  and 8, and Annex C .1(a)-(c) of the SPS Agreement, as no response had been 
provided by Panama concerning the pending request for authorization of fishery and livestock 
enterprises. In addition, Peru emphasized that Panama had failed to communicate the foreseen 
processing period, and that the timeframe t hat would be given to Peruvian enterprises i n case of 
renewal of authorizations  was uncertain . Peru requested Panama to renew the authorizations for 
Peruvian export plants and avoid barriers to trade.  
3.9.  Costa Rica supported this concern regarding the practices implemented by Panama which 
restricted trade through measures lacking a scientific basis and risk analysis. Costa Rica called upon 
Panama to address Members' concerns , which were indicative of an inadequate application of 
SPS measures and a non -observance of the obligations in the SP S Agreement.  
3.10.   Panama indicated that the information  received  would be reported to capital. Panama reported 
on the recent establishment of a bilateral technical commission that would review all pending issues, 
including Peru's STC. Panama  hoped to move forwa rd in the search of solutions in this matter.  
3.1.5   China's restrictions on bovine meat imports  - Concerns of India  
3.11.   India raised its concern regarding China's import restrictions on bovine meat based on 
India's  foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) status. India noted that China continued to impose 
restrictions despite previously raised STCs, a MoU signed between the two countries in 2013, 
the clearing by China in 2017 of 14 centres for the export of bovine meat from India, and 
China's  FMD status. India  recalled that the OIE did not prohibit exports of meat from FMD -affected 
countries to FMD -free countries , provided there was compliance with Article 8.8.22 of the 
OIE Terrestrial Code . India  highlighted  that it had a recognized official FMD control programme 
similar to Namibia, from which China allow ed bovine meat imports . India considered 
China's  measures to be inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement. 
India requested China to share its scientific justification and the risk assessment undertaken to 
impose a higher standard of disease -free status than that required by the OIE.  
3.12.   China explained that it had imposed a ban on Indian beef imports in accordance with the 
principles of regional management of FMD and with OIE standards. China indi cated it classified 
FMD as a first -class infectious disease , which required the adoption of strict measures, such as 
prohibiting flows of products from epidemic areas. China noted that it had conducted inspections 
and assessments on the control of FMD in I ndia, concluding that FMD had not been effectively 
controlled in the country. China highlighted its plan to initiate the relevant procedures for lifting the 
ban and conducting technical consultations once FMD was effectively controlled in India and the 
country was recognized as a disease -free area by the OIE.  
3.1.6   Saudi Arabia's import restrictions on animal and plant products  - Concerns of 
Turkey  
3.13.   Turkey expressed concern s regarding Saudi Arabia's import restrictions on agricultural 
products. Turkey indicated th at it had been informed by Saudi Arabia on November 2020 of the 
temporary suspension of imports of beef and its products, sheep meat and its products, white meat 
and its products, fisheries and aquaculture products, foods alternative to milk and breast mil k, eggs 
and egg products and honey and honey products. In a communication to Turkey, Saudi Arabia had 
stated that the request to conduct on -site inspection s and questions submitted to Turkey in G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 11 - 
 
  November 2018 had not been answered. Turkey clarified that the se questions had been answered 
in 2019 and that no reply had been received from Saudi Arabia. Turkey stressed  that it had submitted 
additional information to Saudi Arabia concerning these agricultural products through official letters 
in 2018, 2019 and 202 0. Turkey considered Saudi Arabia's measure to be inconsistent with 
Articles  2.2 and 5.4 of the SPS Agreement and invited Saudi Arabia to lift the import restrictions. 
Turkey  expressed its willingness to work in close collaboration with Saudi Arabia on thi s matter.  
3.14.   Saudi Arabia stated that its legislation imposed a series of requirements to ensure that 
imported food of animal origin met standards that were at least equivalent to those required for 
production in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia noted it had notifi ed the "Procedures for inspecting and 
approving foreign meat establishments " and the "Requirements and Conditions of Importing Food 
Products to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia " in 2014 and 2018 , respectively, which had not been fulfilled 
by Turkey. In addition, Saudi Arabia indicated it had not imposed any restrictions with respect to 
plant products. Saudi Arabia reaffirmed its commitment to facilitate trade between Members.  
3.1.7   Panama's restrictions  and procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes and 
onions - Concerns of Peru  
3.15.   Peru raised concern s regarding Panama's import restrictions for Peruvian onions and potatoes 
and undue delays in the phytosanitary procedures to regain market access. Peru noted that Panama 
had suspended onion imports from Peru in 2016  following  a pest risk analysis (PRA) undertaken  to 
update its phytosanitary import requirements. Concerning trade in potatoes, Peru  indicated imports 
had been suspended by Panama since 2009 du e to the detection of a pest. Peru had shared in 2010 
a phytosanitary protocol proposal with Panama , on which no response had been provided. 
Peru considered Panama's measures to be inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 5, 5.4  and 8, and Annex C 
of the SPS Agreem ent. Peru emphasized that Panama had continuously requested information which 
had been previously sent by Peru in a timely manner, causing unnecessary delays. Peru requested 
Panama to reopen the market for Peruvian onion and potato exports and avoid unjust ified barriers 
to trade.  
3.16.   Costa Rica supported this concern regarding the practices implemented by Panama which 
restricted trade through measures lacking a scientific basis and risk analysis. Costa Rica called upon 
Panama to address Members' concerns , which  were indicative of an inadequate application of 
SPS measures and a non -observance of the obligations in the SPS Agreement.  
3.17.   Panama explained that these  trade concerns were being addressed bilaterally through a 
technical commission . 
3.1.8   Korea's mandatory HACCP certification for imported kimchi  - Concerns of China  
3.18.   China raised its concern regarding Korea's mandatory Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 
Point ( HACCP ) certification for imported kimchi. While appreciating Korea's fulfilment of its 
transparency oblig ations, China stated that the implementation of the measure would constitute a 
restriction for Chinese kimchi exports. China  noted it had signed a cooperation agreement on 
November 2015 with the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), which recognized the China-HACCP 
accreditation system. In addition, China indicated that most of its kimchi manufacturers had obtained 
China -HACCP  certification , complying with  the "Korea Kimchi Manufacture HACCP Management 
Standard Guideline" and  the "Korea Kimchi Manufacture Prerequisite Management Standard". 
Notwithstanding, China noted that , under Korea's notification , manufacturers needed to obtain a 
Korean certification. China  urged Korea to withdraw the measure designating kimchi as a product 
under mandatory HACCP application or recognize the equivalence of the Chinese food safety 
supervision system.  
3.19.   Korea appreciated China's cooperation in a recent  bilateral meeting. As a tra ditional 
Korean  food, Korea noted kimchi required strict safety controls in its manufacturing process. 
Korea  indicated that it had adopted a mandatory HACCP certification for domestically manufactured 
kimchi and planned to apply the same measure to importe d kimchi to ensure the same level of food 
safety. Korea  highlighted its consultation meetings with China since 2019, which had been 
postponed due to technical difficulties and COVID -19. Korea expressed its willingness to further 
discuss with China on this matter.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.1.9   Mexico's restrictions on chili imports - Concerns of India  
3.20.   India raised concern s on the measures adopted by Mexico regarding imports of dried chil i 
from India. India noted that Mexico had suspended imports of dried chil i in 2017 citing the 
intercep tion of the khapra beetle, following which a standard operating procedure for the export of 
pest-free dried chil i had been formulated and shared with Mexico. India remarked that Mexico had 
insisted on sending Mexican inspectors to verify warehouses and tre atment facilities , which had 
added delays and cost s for chili exports. Recalling Article s 5 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, 
India requested Mexico to respond why it considered a one -time joint inspection, or monitoring and 
inspections performed by Indian aut horities, to be insufficient to meet its appropriate level of 
protection (ALOP); share the risk assessment for arriving at the present regime of inspection ; and 
share other less trade -restrictive measures that had been  considered.  
3.21.   Mexico replied that  it favoured the dialogue between the competent authorities and was 
respectful of the rights and obligations of Members under the SPS Agreement. Mexico noted that  
in February 2018, it had proposed a workplan for the export ation of dried chili from India to Mexico, 
with phytosanitary treatment and verification at origin. In addition, Mexico had adopted 
an alternative phytosanitary measure establishing specific condi tions and requirements  for importing 
and exporting enterprises, which had allowed the first imports of dried chili from India. 
Qualified  Mexican personnel verif ied at origin the procedures followed by India , to maintain 
an adequate level of phytosanitary p rotection. Mexico remarked that India had not issued a response 
for the acceptance of the workplan proposed in 2018 and reiterated its willingness to continue with 
the bilateral work required.  
3.1.10   Panama's authorization of Federal Inspection Type establishment s - Concerns of 
Mexico  
3.22.   Mexico expressed concern s regarding delays in Panama's procedures for the renewal of 
authorizations for establishments that exported bovine products and by -products. Mexico noted that 
the delays in responses to the correspondence sen t to Panama had prompted the expiration of 
authorizations in several establishments. Mexico mentioned  a bilateral meeting held in 
February  2021 in which Panama had explained  that, for the renewal of authorizations and in addition 
to the evaluations of vete rinary services, a procedure needed to be developed for the eligibility of 
countries wishing to export bovine products and by -products. Mexico recalled the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement to base measures on science and highlighted the provisions of Annex C. 
3.23.   Peru and Costa Rica supported this concern . Peru considered Panama's policies to be 
inconsistent with Annex  C and Articles 2, 5, and 8 of the SPS Agreement. Peru urged Panama to 
avoid unnecessary and unjustified barriers to trade.  Costa Rica referred to  the practices implemented 
by Panama which restricted trade through measures lacking a scientific basis and risk analysis. 
Costa  Rica called upon Panama to address Members' concerns , which were indicative of an 
inadequate application of SPS meas ures and a non -observance of the obligations established in the 
SPS Agreement.  
3.24.   Panama indicated that the information would be reported to capital. Panama reported that  it 
had recently communicated with Mexico's Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade and had agreed to 
convene an administrative commission of their Free Trade Agreement  (FTA)  to address this trade 
concern.  
3.1.11   China 's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments  - Concerns of Australia  
3.25.   Australia raised its conc ern regarding undue delays and lack of transparency in 
China's  approval procedure s for a range of products and establishments. Australia urged China to 
apply consistent criteria and transparent timeframes on a non -discriminatory basis for approval 
procedur es including the procedures for approval of commodity registrations, establishment listing 
and lifting of restrictions on suspended establishments. Australia requested China to apply a 
risk-based approach when implementing measures on imported food. In add ition, 
Australia  considered China's approach to be inconsistent with Annex es B and C of the 
SPS Agreement. Australia welcomed bilateral engagement on the matter.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.26.   Canada supported the concern , noting undue delays and lack of transparency and 
predictability faced by Canadian companies in securing the necessary approvals to export to China. 
Canada indicated it had longstanding market access requests that had not progressed , and also 
noted undue delays and lack of clarity in the reinstatement of suspended estab lishments. Canada 
urged China to base its approval procedures for imported food products and establishments on 
international standards, guidelines, and recommendations, scientific principles and assessment of 
risks. Canada recalled the need to publish the standard processing period of each approval 
procedure; examine the completeness of the documentation and communicate any deficiencies in a 
precise and complete manner; transmit the result of the approval procedures as soon as possible in 
a precise and comp lete manner; process applications that have deficiencies as far as practicable; 
and provide information on the stage of the approval and an explanation for any delays. 
Canada  welcomed close cooperation with China.  
3.27.   The European Union supported the concern a nd called for  more transparent and predictable 
approval procedures in China for a range of products.  
3.28.   China indicated that the concern raised would be forwarded to the competent authorities. 
China noted that food safety incidents regarding meat and other products from Australia had 
occurred continuously since 2019, causing adverse effects on China's assess ment of Australia's 
recommended registered companies. China urged Australia and other Members to strengthen the 
supervision on their exporting establishments and ensure the safety and quality of their exported 
products to China.  
3.29.   Australia clarified that its concern preceded the incidents China referred to. Australia indicated 
it had provided all requested information and undertaken corrective actions following  audits and 
inspections in a timely and transparent manner. In addition,  Australia noted  that it had attempted 
to engage in bilateral consultations with China to address this matter and remained concerned by 
the lack of engagement.  
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.2.1   EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, 
imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim ( STC 448) - 
Concerns of Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay and the United States  
3.30.   Paraguay requested the European Union to provide written answers to the questions cont ained 
in document G/SPS/GEN/ 1886, raised together with Colombia, Ecuador and Guatemala. 
Paraguay  noted that the se questions follow ed-up on the responses received from the 
European  Union after the last SPS Committee meeting2 and aim ed to obtain further clarification on 
various concep ts presented in the EU responses and additional information on some of the elements 
incorporated in its policies.  
3.31.   Colombia clarified that its intervention referred to both this STC and STC 475 concerning 
mancozeb. Colombia expressed concerns regarding the application by the European Union of 
restrictive pesticide -related measures and MRLs. Colombia asked the European Union to clarify why 
some of the science - and risk -based MRLs adopted by consensus by Codex were not considered to 
meet the EU's ALOP. Colombi a noted that the European Union continued to apply short transition 
periods which prevented countries from making  the necessary adjustments to their production 
systems. Colombia requested the European Union to provide written answers to the questions 
conta ined in document G/SPS/GEN/1 886. 
3.32.   Ecuador clarified that its intervention referred to both this STC and STC 475 concerning 
mancozeb. Ecuador  reiterated its request for the suspension of the entry into force of the reduction 
of MRLs considering the efforts made by the productive sectors for the economic recovery following 
the COVID -19 crisis. Ecuador indicated that certain products currently un der evaluation for the 
reduction of MRLs were crucial to manage pests in tropical climates. Ecuador expressed its concern 
regarding the non -renewal of the authorization for the use of chlorothalonil and the establishment 
of its MRL at 0.01 ppm ( G/SPS/N/EU/394/Add.1 ), which would high ly impact production costs. 
Ecuador stated there were currently no alternative phytosanitary products with a similar 
 
2 The EU's responses are contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1872 . G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 14 - 
 
  environmental or toxicological profile as chlorothalonil , since the European Union had also 
questioned the environmental and sanitary effects of alternatives such as mancozeb and metiram. 
Ecuador  requested the European Union to reconsider the non -renewal of mancozeb and maintain 
its MRL within the parameters established by Codex. In addition, Ecuador expressed concern 
regarding the modification of Annexes II and V of Regulation (EC) 396/2005 on the MRLs for 
chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos -methyl ( G/SPS/N/EU/360 ). Ecuador urged the European Union to take 
into account available scientific information, such as information provided by Codex, and provide at 
least 36 months for producers in developing countries to adapt whe n reducing  MRLs.  
3.33.   Costa Rica reiterated its concern regarding the impact on its production systems of the 
reduction by the European Union of MRLs to the minimum level of detection for several of the 
substances at issue . In previous meetings, Costa Rica had specifically highlighted concerns on 
chlorothalonil, imazalil, buprofezin, and mancozeb, all of which were substances used to control 
pests that affect ed the production and transportation of bananas. In addition, Costa Rica reiterated 
its concern regarding  the lack of scientific evidence and the divergence with findings of other 
international institutions such as Codex. Costa Rica urged the European Union to reconsider 
its regulatory approach, establish an effective dialogue with affected Members, and consi der 
measures to limit the impact that these new regulations would have globally.  
3.34.   The United States reiterated its concern that the EU continues to lower many MRLs to trade -
restrictive levels without clear scientific justification or measurable benefit to h uman health. The 
United States also reiterated its concerns regarding the EU hazard -based approach to pesticide 
regulation and the implementation of its precautionary principle, which the United States considered 
would lead to trade barriers. The United St ates called on the European Union to continue to facilitate 
dialogues with third countries on this matter. The United States submitted its statement in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1897 . 
3.35.   Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Panama, Argentina, Urugua y, Peru and Canada  supported 
this concern.  Chile expressed concern regarding the situation surrounding the pesticides phosmet 
and thiacloprid. Given that the expiration of the approval for phosmet was scheduled for 
31 July 2021, Chile was concerned about the  possible reduction of the current MRLs, which would 
cause serious harm to its national production due to the lack of alternative products. 
Concerning  thiacloprid, Chile also expressed concern s about the possible reduction of the MRL as 
a result of the non -renewal of the approval by the European Union.  
3.36.   Guatemala reiterated its concern regarding the EU policies on pesticides , which it considered 
to unnecessarily restrict  trade . Guatemala requested the European Union to share the relevant 
information on the analysis regarding the use of certain subs tances such as chlorothalonil and 
imazalil.  
3.37.   Honduras supported this concern and requested the European Union to ensure that its 
measures did not restrict trade more than necessary and follow Codex international standards.  
3.38.   Brazil supported this concern and recalled its previous comments in the SPS and 
TBT Committees regarding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/360. Brazil  considered 
certain MRLs to be more trade -restrictive than necessary and to lack scientific justification. 
For instance, Brazil c onsidered the evaluations carried out by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 
and the European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA) to be inconclusive regarding the genotoxic quality 
of buprofezin and noted that the establishment of low MRL s for this substance woul d have major 
consequences on international trade.  
3.39.   Panama supported this concern and highlighted that the non -renewal of certain substances 
would be inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and detrimental to the livelihoods of small producers 
in developing coun tries. Panama noted that chlorothalonil, for instance, was an important substance 
to control black sigatoka in tropical climates for which there was no alternative product. 
Panama  urged the European Union to reconsider its measures until conclusive scienti fic evidence 
was available, and harmonize them with Codex international standards as established in Article 3 of  
the SPS Agreement.  
3.40.   Argentina supported this concern and extended its support and intervention to STC  475 
concerning mancozeb. Argentina reitera ted the need to ensure  that Members appl ied risk-based G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 15 - 
 
  SPS measures taking into account the risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant 
international organizations. Argentina was particularly concerned by the increasing number of 
substances banned  by the European Union and the consequences for developing countries which 
were highly dependent on agricultural exports. Argentina urged the European Union to use 
a risk-based approach  and determine the different aspects that could affect human health and the 
environment on the basis of conclusive scientific studies.  
3.41.   Uruguay reiterated its concern about the EU approach to reduce MRLs for an increasing 
number of active substances without a complete risk assessment. Uruguay recalled  that it had 
requested the European Union, as part of its last Trade Policy Review, to present a complete list of 
active substances whose authorization or MRLs would be subject to review in the following five yea rs. 
Uruguay considered six months to be an insufficient transition period to adapt the production and 
ensure compliance with the modified MRLs. Uruguay called upon the European Union to take into 
consideration the concerns expressed by Members, respond to the questions raised and reconsider 
its regulatory approach to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.  
3.42.   Reiterating its support, Peru expressed its concern regarding the increasing number of MRLs 
deviating from Codex international standards, which resulted in negative economic effects on its 
agricultural exports and in measures more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
3.43.   Canada supported this concern and reiterated the need to base decision -making processes on 
risk assessment techniques developed by relevant interna tional organizations. Canada requested 
the European Union to notify  the SPS Committee of any anticipated changes in its MRLs while taking 
Members' comments into account. In addition, Canada requested the European Union to allow for 
transition periods for p roducers to adapt to new requirements , and avoid discrimination between 
domestic producers and foreign exporters.  
3.44.   The European Union reminded that most questions had previously been answered. 
The European Union reiterated that MRLs should be set at the low est achievable level consistent 
with good agricultural practices to protect consumers. Concerning chlorothalonil, the European Union 
indicated that , following the non -approval decision o f 29 April 2019, it had adopted a regulation 
lowering the MRLs which had been notified under G/SPS /N/EU/394 . The regulation had entered into 
force on 2 March 2021 and would become applicable on 2 September 2021, allowing a six-month 
period for EU member States and non -EU countries to prepare to meet the new requirements. 
Regarding imazalil, the Europea n Union noted that in January 2021, the applicant for an ongoing 
import tolerance for imazalil on bananas  had formally withdr awn the application. 
The European  Union announced that it would provide written responses to the questions received 
from Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Paraguay . The EU responses were subsequently circulated 
as G/SPS/GEN/1896 . 
3.2.2   Modification o f EU MRLs for plant protection products: Mancozeb ( STC 475) - 
Concerns of Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Paraguay  
3.45.   Paraguay reiterated its concerns on the EU non-renewal of approval and modification of MRL s 
for mancozeb. The exclusion of mancozeb,  as well as chlorothalonil, from the rotation of substances 
during the productive cycle would cause problems for producers in Paraguay, who faced different 
pests and diseases than EU producers . Paraguay urged the European Union to reconsider its 
regulatory  approach and ensure import tolerances based on science and procedures established by 
Codex.  
3.46.   Chile stressed that  mancozeb was practically the only dithiocarbamate being used in Chile 
and there was currently no product to replace it. Chile was of the view t hat the non -renewal of the 
approval of mancozeb, notified in G/SPS/N/EU/384 , was more trade -restrictive than necessary and 
did not minimize  trade impacts, as required in Article 5.4  of the  SPS Agreement . Chile insisted that 
no adverse effects on health attributable to the use of mancozeb  had ever been reported and that 
the burden to prove associated risks to human health  was on the E uropean Union. Likewise, there 
were no documented cases of the potential reproductive toxicity of  the fungicide , as claimed by the 
European Union. Chile reiterated that, according to Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, measures should 
be risk -based, not hazard -based , and  respectfully requested the E uropean Union to reconsider its 
measure.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 16 - 
 
  3.47.   Costa Rica  recalled that mancozeb was  used in Costa Rica to produce more than 20 crops , 
including to combat black sigatoka  in bananas, which were exported to the European Union. 
There  was currently no alternative substance in regard to effectiveness, costs , and the p rotection of 
environment and workers' health.  Mancozeb was effective in a wide range of doses, making it 
possible to streamline its use, cost and impact, and was also stable in a tropical environment 
(high precipitation and temperatures).  Should the decisi on to reduce the MRL for mancozeb in 
banana s be taken, Costa Rica strongly urged the European Union to provide a transition period of at 
least 24 months.  
3.48.   Guatemala supported the previous interventions and noted that it had communicated its 
concerns directly to the European Union , highlighting the negative effects on producers in Guatemala  
and the crucial role of the fungicide in strategic crops , including fruits and vegetables such as banana 
and plantain exported to the European Union.  The EU measure  would affect exports from 
Latin American countries, which were more prone to pests  than the European Union . 
3.49.   Brazil shared the concern  regarding the non -renewal of the approval of mancozeb, notified in 
G/SPS/N/EU/384  and G/SPS/N/EU/384/Add .1. In Brazil, mancozeb was used against plant diseases 
damag ing several crops exported to the European Union. Substances of similar use  as mancozeb,  
such as chlorothalonil, had also been banned in the  EU market, limiting the availability of alternative 
substances  in the short to medium term.  Brazil reiterated its concerns on the EU general approach 
to pesticide MRLs and urged the E uropean Union to revise its regulation and base its decision -making 
process on a risk assessment grounded in scientific evidenc e, in line with Codex  standards.  
3.50.   Panama reiterated its concern on the modification of MRLs for mancozeb and urged the 
European Union to reconsider its measures and wait until it had conclusive scientific evidence . 
3.51.   Colombia , Ecuador and Argentina referred t o their statements delivered under the preceding  
agenda item on STC 448. 
3.52.   The European Union recalled that existing authori zations of plant protection products 
containing mancozeb would be withdrawn and such products would not be allowed to be placed on 
the market on the basis of a scientific assessment conducted under Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 by 
experts from EU member States and EFSA. Mancozeb could not be approved  since it did not meet 
to criteria  outlined in Article 4, and further detailed in Annex II  of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 . 
The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 concerning the non -renewal of the 
approva l of the active substance mancozeb had been  adopted  on 14 December 2020 . 
Existing  authori zations  had to be withdraw n by 4 July 2021 , at the latest . The grace period in line 
with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009  would expire by 4 January 2022 , at the  latest.  
Further  action on MRLs was likely to be taken and would be notified in accordance with the relevant 
procedure under the SPS Agreement.  
3.2.3   European Union legislation on endocrine disruptors  (STC 382) - Concerns of 
Paraguay  
3.53.   Paraguay had submitted a new set of questions to the European Union in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1885 , as a follow -up to answers received from the European Union .3 Paraguay sought 
further information on several aspects  such as  the application of the precautionary principle in  the 
EU risk management  decisions ; the definition of sufficient  scientific certainty ; the consideration of 
environmental factors  and the technical criteria taken into account when granting emergency 
authorizations for the  use of substances prohibited within the European Union ; and the list of all 
requested import tolerances from November  2017 to date,  including the reason s for rejecting 
requests . Paraguay looked forward to receiving replies in due course.  
3.54.   Guatemala thanked the European Union for the answers provided to Paraguay's questions  
and regretted that the EU restrictions would have serious consequences on exports to the European 
Union . Guatemala strongly reiterated its request for the  European Union to reconsider its 
hazard-based approach and base its measures on technical and scientific evidence, taking 
international standards into account.  
 
3 The EU's responses are contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1871 . G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 17 - 
 
  3.55.   Costa Rica  reiterated its concern on the STC and on the EU approach for the implementation 
of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 . Costa Rica u rged the European Union to ensure that the regulation 
of endocrine disruptors was based on risk assessments, using criteria supported by sufficient 
scientific evidence, in line with the commitments in the SPS Agreement.  
3.56.   Uruguay reiterated its trade and sys temic concern relating to the EU adoption and 
implementation of a hazard -based approach in its regulatory determinations concerning products 
with endocrine -disrupting properties . This approach could have negative and disproportionate impact 
on sustainable agricultural production, food security and international trade in food products. 
Uruguay  insisted on the need to base such determinations on conclusive scientific evidence to avoid 
some of these important components of pest management systems being withdra wn despite their 
safe use.  Uruguay support ed the multilateral work undertaken by Codex to develop a harmonized, 
risk-based approach  and requested the European Union  to reconsider its regulatory approach to 
avoid unjustified barriers to international trade and their socio-economic consequences.  
3.57.   Peru support ed the concern  and considered that the EU regulations were hazard -based, and 
not risk -based as required  in Article  5 of the SPS Agreement , leading to measures that were more  
restrictive than necessary with direct effects on trade.  
3.58.   Chile shared this concern, which had been raised several times in the Committee without 
receiving a satisfactory reply. Chile was particula rly concerned by the negative impact of the gradual 
reduction of effective and safe phytosanitary tools due to the hazard -based cut -off criteria applied 
in the assessment of active substances in Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 . These criteria deviated from 
the p rinciples on risk analysis internationally agreed, unnecessarily lowering MRLs for substances 
commonly used in agriculture.  
3.59.   Canada  was concerned with the trade implications of the EU approach for active substances 
in plant protection products and its impac t on setting import tolerances. Canada  reiterated its 
request for the E uropean Union to consider both hazards and risks in its regulatory decision -making.  
Canada thanked the European Union for the information provided on the process for establishing 
import  tolerances, the intention to conduct risk assessments for all import tolerance requests and 
for hosting a seminar on the topic.  Canada requested the European Union to consider maintaining 
MRLs for substances that did not pose unacceptable dietary risks  and to explain  the scientific 
justification for inclusion of environmental considerations as part of the assessment of import 
tolerances for pesticides.  Canada encouraged the European Union to notify all proposed regulations 
arising from the Farm to Fork Strategy and allow sufficient time for comments . Canada also  
highlighted the importance of providing sufficient time for the industry to adapt to legislative and 
regulatory changes.  
3.60.   Honduras  invited the European Union to establish risk -based criteria and h armonize its MRLs 
with those established by Codex, in accordance with the SPS Agreement.  
3.61.   Brazil recalled that the criteria for the determination of endocrine -disrupting substance s 
needed to be established under Article 5 of the SPS Agreement  to avoid unnec essary trade 
restrictions . Brazil requested the European Union to provide more clarity on the implementation of 
the cut -off criteria set out in Regulation (EU) 528/2012 and Annex II to Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 
for the establishment of effective and scienc e-based import tolerances, as well as on transition 
periods.  
3.62.   The European Union affirmed that the scientific criteria in place in the European Union to 
identify endocrine disruptors were based on the WHO definition of endocrine disruptors. The criteria 
to identify pesticides had been applicable since November 2018. The criteria also applied to ongoing 
procedures for the approval or renewal of approval of active substances.  The European Union 
announced that it would provide written responses to questions sub mitted in document  
G/SPS/GEN /1885 . The EU responses were subsequently circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1894 . G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 18 - 
 
  3.2.4   EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application 
of the Commission Regulation (EU)  N° 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 amending Regulation 
(EC) N° 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff ( STC 503) - 
Concerns of Peru  
3.63.   Peru raised its concern regarding  Commission Regulation (EU) 488/2014, establishing 
maximum levels  for cadmium in chocolate and other cocoa products that, in practice, had a negative 
impact on trade in cocoa beans and cocoa.  First, Peru highlighted the trade performance and the 
social importance of the cocoa production chain, showing comparative advantages for cocoa beans, 
cocoa butter, cocoa paste and cocoa powder. While  exports had decreased by 5.6% in 202 0 
compared to 2019 , Peru was the 9th largest producer  of the world, cocoa being the second main 
alternative product to illicit crops.  Secondly, Peru was of the  view that the EU regulation  violated 
Article 2 of the SPS Agreement. Thirdly, Peru highlighted the negative consequences of the  
EU regulation, which had led to a reduction of exports of cocoa and cocoa products to the 
European  Union  and a shift to Asian markets, with a lower purchase value.  Peru also complain ed 
that EU importers establis hed requirements for cocoa beans and cocoa powder that were not set in 
the EU regulation . Fourthly, Peru presented the case of a reduction in the exports of a company as 
a result of requirements established by EU importers. In light of the above, Peru called upon the 
European Union to rescind Commission Regulation (EU) 488/2014, with respect to chocolate and 
other cocoa products, since it was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and created unnecessary 
barriers to trade.4 
3.64.   Ecuador noted that cocoa was one of  its main traditional export products, the basis of the 
household economy for small producers  and one of the main alternatives to illicit crops. 
Ecuador  insisted that measures be taken so that Commission Regulation (EU) 488/2014  would  not 
become a trade restriction due to the  erroneous interpretation of some European importers. 
Ecuador  agreed with  the statement delivered by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food 
Additives (JECFA) in the 42nd session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission indicatin g that dietary 
exposure to cadmium in cocoa was insignificant compared to other sources of dietary exposure and 
did not amount to a public health concern.  
3.65.   Malaysia expressed its support for the concern  and stated that the  maximum level  for 
cadmium of 0.6 m g/kg set in Commission Regulation (EU) 488/2014 f or cocoa powder or as an 
ingredient in sweetened cocoa powder , sold to the final consumer , was very stringent and not 
proportional to the level set for other product categor ies. As such, Malaysia requested 
the European  Union to reconsider the imposition of the new maximum level of cadmium in 
foodstuffs.  
3.66.   Colombia shared Peru's concerns , as well as it s views on the importance of cocoa on 
employment and on the substitution of illicit crops . Colombia urged the E uropean Union to take as 
a reference the maximum level for cadmium recommended by Codex . 
3.67.   The European Union explained that the measure was necess ary to protect the health of 
consumers and was based on a risk assessment , which took into account the tolerabl e weekly intake 
(TWI)  established by EFSA and  the EU consumption patterns  of children. The European Union 
stressed that the exceedance of the TWI  for EU consumers for cadmium was a sufficient justification 
to set limits for chocolate and cocoa products and other commodities.  On the basis of the most 
recent updated JECFA assessment, issued on 5 March 2021,  the European Union confirmed the need 
to keep at current levels the exposure of consumers to cadmium from cocoa products.  
3.68.   The European Union noted the 4 -year transitional period granted for chocolate and chocolate 
products since the entry into force of the regulation on 1 Ja nuary 2015 to take into account concerns 
of producing countries . The EU maximum level for chocolate over 50% total dry cocoa solids was in 
line with the recently agreed Codex levels and stricter limits had only been introduced to the extent 
necessary to pr otect human health . Maximum levels had been set for final products, not for cocoa 
beans, to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions . While the European Union was aware that some 
private operators applied strict limits for cadmium in imported cocoa beans inste ad of finished 
products, it did not have jurisdiction over contractual arrangements between private parties.  
 
4 Peru submit ted more information in document G/SPS/GEN/1870 . G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 19 - 
 
  3.69.   The European Union was providing targeted technical assistance  in the framework of the 
Standard and Trade Development Facility (STDF),  through the development of a regional strategy 
and a proposal to establish mitigation and remediation measures for cadmium contamination in 
cocoa beans in Latin America and the Caribbean  region ; and in the framework of the European 
Commission (DEVCO) initiative, in the context of a specific development programme under the 
Development -Smart Innovation through Research in Agriculture Initiative (DeSIRA ) to put more 
science in development with a view to foster innovation for increased impact . 
3.2.5   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products ( STC 446) - Concerns of 
the United States  
3.70.   The United States reiterated its concern regarding the implementation of EU legislation  on 
veterinary medicinal products  (Regulation (EU) 2019/06) . Concerning the list o f antimicrobials 
reserved for human use, the United States noted that the European Union had not yet published the 
relevant EU implementing  act, which it understood needed to be adopted no later than January  2022. 
The United States further noted  that the European Union had not provided the scientific justification 
and risk assessments that would inform this list. The United States urged the European Union to 
consider the needs of agricultural producers and to recognize the level of protection provided  by 
national regulatory systems. The United States provided its statement in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1895 . 
3.71.   Paraguay, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Japan, and Brazil supported this concern.  
3.72.   Paraguay requested the European Union to provide an update on the status of the legislation , 
given that it was foreseen for the beginning of 2022.  
3.73.   Australia requested the European Union to consider the conditions, availability of 
antimicrobials and disease prevalence  in third countries before releasing its list of antimicrobials 
reserved for the treatmen t of human infections. Australia highlighted this list should be based on 
science and encouraged the European Union to hold early consultations with third countries.  
3.74.   Canada looked forward to the response of the European Union regarding its technical 
questi ons on the veterinary medicinal products and the EU secondary legislation. Canada urged the 
European Union to provide to trading partners the basis to be considered during the preparation of 
the list of antimicrobials reserved for human use and to share th is list with third countries. 
Canada  expressed its interest in working collaboratively with the European Union as it develop ed 
this secondary legislation to minimize any potential negative trade impacts.  
3.75.   Argentina expressed its concern regarding the final list of antimicrobials reserved for human 
use and the implementation by the European Union of Article 118 of Regulation 2019/06 , following 
which third countries would have to demonstrate the non -use of those antimicrobials. 
Argentina  urged the European Uni on to base its regulations on science and avoid unnecessary 
barriers to trade.  
3.76.   Japan urged the European Union to provide Members the opportunity to comment on the 
implement ing rules, taking into account the potential burden on producers and exporters. 
Japan requested that  (i) antimicrobials prohibited for use in animals and kept for human use only 
should be limited to antimicrobials that truly needed to be prohibited considering international 
consensus ; (ii) since management systems for antimicrobials diffe red from country to country, 
the details of the verification be limited as necessary, and the method of certification should be 
flexible ; and  (iii) appropriate grace periods should be established considering the production period 
for each type of animal and the preparation period of the producers.  
3.77.   Brazil noted that the EU regulation had the potential to impose a heavy burden on producers 
by limiting the use of currently available veterinary drugs and introducing sanitary requirements that 
were more  trade -restrictive than necessary. Brazil considered that the unilateral ban of the use of 
several veterinary drugs and the prohibition of imports from countries where their use was 
authorized was inconsistent with the provisions of the SPS Agreement. Braz il urged the 
European  Union to consider the ongoing global efforts undertaken by the WHO, OIE, FAO in setting 
international standards and guidelines for AMR, as well as the work of the Codex Taskforce on 
Antimicrobial Resistance.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 20 - 
 
  3.78.   The European Union reitera ted that its Regulation (EU) 2019/6 would strengthen EU action to 
fight AMR. The European Union indicated that the legislation had entered into force in January 2019 
and would apply as of 28 January 2022. The  European Union stressed that the new EU regulat ion 
would impose stricter rules on operators in the European Union than on those of non -EU countries, 
and should therefore not be seen as a trade barrier. The European Union provided information on 
the adoption timeline for its legislations: (i) the delega ted act establishing the criteria to designate 
the antimicrobials to be reserved for human use  was to be adopted by 27 September 2021; 
(ii) the implementing act establishing the list of antimicrobials reserved for human use  was to be 
adopted by 27 January 2022; and (iii) the delegated act detailing the rules for the import ation for 
animals and products of animal origin  was to be adopted by 27 January 2022.  
3.79.   Referring to the delegated act establishing criteria to designate the antimicrobials to be 
reserved fo r human use , the European Union stated the draft had been discussed with member 
States and would soon be open for public consultation under the EU feedback mechanism, 
and notified for comments to the SPS Committee. Concerning the implementing act establish ing the 
list of antimicrobials reserved for human use , the European Union noted that the European Medicines 
Agency  had set up an expert group in 2019 to prepare the scientific advice, which would be finalized 
once sufficient certainty on the criteria to designate antimicrobials reserved for human use would be 
available. Regarding the last d elegated act detailing the ru les on imports from third countries , 
the European Union indicated that information on the current discussion concerning its preparation 
had been provided to third countries in December 2020, and that the EU Commission had adopted 
on 9 March 2021 a proposal  notified in  G/SPS/N/EU/464  to amend the Official Controls Regulation 
to allow the official control system for imports of animals and products of animal origin to apply t o 
verification of compliance with Article 118(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/6.  
3.80.   The European Union highlighted the regulation had been notified under the TBT and 
SPS Agreements, and that implementing measures would be notified for comments under the 
SPS Agreement. The proposal to amend the Official Controls Regulation was notified under the 
SPS Agreement ( G/SPS/N/EU/464 ) and the draft delegated act on the criteria to designate 
antimicrobials reserved for human use  would soon be notified. The  European Union reassured 
Members that non-EU countries would have the opportunity to provide inputs during the EU feedback 
mechanism, and after the notification of the draft acts to the SPS Committee. The  European Union 
reiterated its commitment to fight AMR and  to engage with Members.  
3.2.6   EU proposal requiring residue testing of casings ( STC 500) - Concerns of Australia  
3.81.   Australia reiterated its concerns  regarding changes to the model health certificate for casings 
set out in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2235 , referenced in notification 
G/SPS/N/EU/401 . Australia considered the measures to be arbitrary, unjustified and more 
trade -restrictive than necessary , and that they would set a precedent for similar trade -limiting 
actions on other processed animal products.  The EU concerns  over the possible use of antimicrobial 
substances during the production of animal casings did not justify the imposition of a separate 
residues testing system for casings for countries such as Australia , where controls were in place to 
prevent establishments from using antimicrobials in the production of casings. The measures did not 
include any provision for coun tries with EU -approved residues monitoring plans for each species of 
animal from which the casings may be derived.  Australia encourage d the European Union to notify 
the requirements, provide an opportunity for comments and take them into account before 
implementing the measure.  
3.82.   The European Union said that the new requirements had been presented to trading partners 
through an SPS notification  (G/SPS/N/EU/401 ) and by letter . The Europea n Union  clarified  that 
import s of casin gs were subject to the animal health rules , and were authorized from the 
establishments listed in the TRACES system. The risks of residues of veterinary medicinal products 
following treatment of animals were very low in casings, the main risk being linked to treatment 
to avoid spoilage by bacteria.  Guarantees on the residues status of casings were being required  
to mitigate the risk posed by the presence of antimicrobial residues in casings, with a focus on 
antimicrobi al substances prohibited from use in food -producing animals in the European  Union . As of 
21 April 2021, the animal health requirements in place would change, and requirements to mitigate 
the risk posed by the presence of residues in casings during producti on and new requirements on 
residue testing of casings intended for import ation into the European Union would apply . 
Regulation  (EU) 2016/429 established that  the entry of products of animal origin into the European 
Union was subject to listing of the third countries, territories or zones of origin. G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Regulation  (EU) 2017/625 required that products of animal origin entered the European Union only 
from listed third countries.  A specific import certificate including attestation s on animal health, public 
health and residues would have to accompany the batches of casings destined to the 
European  Union . The European Union remained open to continuing the dialogue with Australia.  
3.2.7   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural 
products ( STC 487) - Concerns of Australia, Canada, the European Union, the Russian 
Federation and the United States  
3.83.   The United States  reiterated its concerns on COVID -19 related measures imposed by China . 
Several Members had reque sted China to withdraw these restrictions , which , according to 
G/SPS/N/CHN/1173 , were implemented on an emergency basis. While the  United States had 
continued to underscore the lack of evidence of viral transmission through food or food packaging, 
China had not provided  any scien ce-based justification or testing results in support of its measures. 
In the context of COVID -19, unjustified trade restrictions threatened the integrity of global food 
supply chains. The  United States encouraged China to withdraw its measures and work to support 
the guidance of international organizations  by building the body of scientific evidence on COVID -19. 
The US statement is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/ 1900. 
3.84.   The European Union recalled that, according to se veral international, regional and national 
bodies , there was no evidence of transmission of COVID -19 through food and packaging. 
The European Union regretted that the restrictions imposed by China , without providing scientific 
evidence , caused  uncertainty,  delays and increased costs of exports to China.  The European Union 
invited China to share its risk assessment or any scientific evidence which justified its measures and 
to explain why these measures were considered necessary and proportionate.  The Europe an Union 
would continue to work with trading partners to support global trade on the basis of internationally 
agreed standards and recommendations.  
3.85.   The Russian Federation was concerned by the reduction of Russian food and agricultural cargo 
traffic to Chin a as a result of the imposed COVID -19 measures, which , in its view, were not 
transparent and applied exclusively to foreign companies.  The Russian Federation noted th e lack of 
scientific consensus on the transmission of COVID -19 through contaminated surfaces. 
The Russian  competent authorities had informed China about the measures taken to prevent the 
spread of the virus, and had not received any scientific justification  confirming the risk of 
cross-border spread of COVID -19. The Russian Federation expressed its readiness to cooperate with 
China to ensure food safety and resume previous trade volumes.  
3.86.   Canada emphasized  the need for cooperation to meet the challenges that COVID -19 pose d to 
health and economies, avoid unnecessary barriers to trade , and contribute to food security. 
Canada  also emphasized the importance of basing COVID -19 related measures on sound scientific 
principles and a  risk assessment . Canada sought furt her information from China regarding the 
scientific basis for its recent measures relating to COVID -19, notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/1173 . 
Canada  noted that, according to available scientific evidence , food, food  packaging and food handling 
were not transmission route s. Canada referre d to the International Commission on Microbiological 
Specifications for Foods opinion on SARS -CoV-2 of 3 September 2020 , as well as to the 
FAO/WHO document  "COVID -19 and Food Safety:  Guidance for Food Businesses ". Canada  requested  
China to share the  scientific evidence it might have suggesting  transmission of COVID -19 through 
food, food packaging , or food handling . Canada encourage d China to maintain ongoing  dialogue 
towards  reinstat ing suspended meat establishments . 
3.87.   Australia stated that China's implementation of additional measures to prevent the risk of 
introducing COVID -19 had yet to be notified to the WTO. Australia expressed its concern regarding 
COVID -19 measures implemented by China without sufficient scientific evidence, as  required under 
the SPS Agreement, and requested China to reconsider the measures and base future COVID -19 
related SPS measures on agreed scientific principles.  
3.88.   Paraguay, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and New Zealand supported the concern. 
Paraguay  expressed  its systemic interest in this concern and urged Members to base SPS measures 
on scientific evidence . The United Kingdom provided information on the qualitative risk assessment 
carried out by its Food Standards Agency , which had noted that available global evidence had so far 
not identified food or its packaging as a source of COVID -19 infection. The United Kingdom G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 22 - 
 
  encouraged China to share with Members the scientific evidence upon which these measures had 
been applied. Switzerlan d noted that China had not shared the risk assessment or scientific proof 
for the additional requirements. While recognizing Members ' right to set their ALOP and adopt 
emergency measures to protect against entry and establishment of COVID -19, New Zealand 
requested greater transparency and a timely and consistent process for the relisting of an 
establishment once the causes for suspension were deemed resolved by the exporting country.  
3.89.   China considered its prevention and control measures to be consistent with  the 
SPS Agreement. China pointed to research proving that the virus could  survive for a long time under 
low-temperature conditions. In China's view, the COVID -19 clusters in food businesses experienced 
by many countries showed the risk of SARS -CoV-2 conta minating food and/or food packaging. 
After the detection of the COVID -19 virus on the packaging and containers of imported products, 
China had strengthened the supervision of cold chain food s and taken prevention and control actions. 
China considered these  measures to be consistent with the FAO/WHO guidance in the document 
"COVID -19 and Food Safety: Guidance for Food Businesses". China indicated that its measures to 
fight against the COVID -19 pandemic treated domestic and foreign enterprises equally. Reiter ating 
that the objective of its COVID -19 related measures was to protect people's lives, China  stressed 
the need for global cooperation to be strengthened to battle COVID -19. 
3.2.8   China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of 
imported food (26 November 2019) ( STC 485) - Concerns of Australia and the 
United  States  
3.90.   The United States reiterated its concern regarding China's draft "Administrative Measures for 
Registration of Overseas Manufacturers  of Imported Foods"  (notified to the T BT Committee  as 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1522 ) and its draft "Administrative Measures on Import and Export Food Safety"  
(G/SPS/N/CHN/1191 ). The United States indicated that the draft measures appeared to apply to all 
food products, regardless of risk or whether foods were already subject to additional certification 
requirements. In addition, the United States considered that China's draft me asures would mandate 
additional certification, audit and inspection documents and procedures, and would likely create 
trade disruptions. The US statement is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1899 . 
3.91.   Australia expressed its concern on certain aspects of the draft "Administrative Measures for 
Registration of Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Foods"  which it considered to be more 
trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil China 's food safety objectives. Australia  requested China to 
provide information on the risk analysis and the technical information used to develop the draft 
regulation. Emphasizing the importance of compliance with WTO  obligations, in particular those 
related to the adoption and recognition of international standards, Australia urged China to 
reconsider the draft regulatio n and revise it accordingly.  
3.92.   Japan, the European Union, Canada, Korea and Switzerland supported the concern. 
Japan  considered the proposed "Administrative Measures for Registration of Overseas Manufacturers 
of Imported Foods"  would create unnecessary barriers to trade and have negative impacts on food 
trade. Japan requested China to notify these measure s in the SPS Committee , reconsider the content 
of the draft regulation to account for Members' comments and concerns and provi de an adequate 
transition period. Regarding these same draft measures, the European Union remarked that 
the trade registration and control procedures should be proportionate to risk and should avoid 
unnecessary requirements. Canada considered the new measu res proposed by China in 
G/SPS/N/CHN/1191  to be more trade -restrictive than necessary, and not to be based on a risk 
assessment. Canada requested China to notify the draft measures proposed in G/TBT/N/CHN/1522  
to the SPS Committee for Members' comments and review. In  addition, Canada called on China to 
provide an explanation on the se latter  proposed measures as it  considered the additional licensing, 
inspections, and approvals to be unjustified, overly burdensome and beyond what was required to 
ensure food safety. Korea indicated the draft "Administrativ e Measures for Registration of Overseas 
Manufacturers of Imported Foods" would apply to a broad spectrum of products leading to an 
increase in cost, time, and administrative effort, resulting in unnecessary barriers to trade. 
Korea  requested China to recon sider the draft measures and notify them to the SPS Committee. 
Regarding these same proposed measures, Switzerland noted they included all food categories 
irrespective of their risk profile and seemed more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
3.93.   China indicated the purpose of the revised administrative measure s (Administrative Measures 
for Registration of Overseas Manufacturers of Imp orted Food ) was to optimize the registration G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 23 - 
 
  procedures, clarify responsibilities and facilitate trade. China noted it was in the process of replying 
to Members' comments and that it would study Members' suggestions and promote the 
implementation of the re vised version. China clarified that the newly revised version would not affect 
the implementation of the agreements already signed between relevant Members and China.  
3.2.9   India's new requirements for animal feed in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 
2006 (date d 27 January 2020) ( STC 479) - Concerns of the United States  
3.94.   The United States indicated that it remained concerned with India's new directive on animal 
feed, which it anticipated to have a significant impact on trade in feed ingredients and possibly on 
meat and dairy products from livestock. The United States commented on the requirements imposed 
by the directive, including India's notification obligations, as detailed in the US statement contained 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1898 , and requested India to provide further clarification and t he scientific 
basis for certain requirements.  
3.95.   India indicated that the draft notification for amendment in the Food Safety and Standards 
Regulations had been notified to the WTO in November and December 2020, under 
G/TBT/N/IND/174  and G/SPS/N/IND/258 . India invited the United State s to provide specific inpu ts 
on the additional feed ingredients for the consideration of the Bureau of Indian Standards.  
3.2.10   General import restrictions due to BSE ( STC 193) - Concerns of the European Union  
3.96.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding unjustified and long delay s in approving 
imports of beef from the European Union in light of bovine spongiform encephalopathy ( BSE) 
concerns of certain Members. The  European Union took the view that the delays in the approval 
procedures of some Members, in particular China, Colombi a, Chinese Taipei, and the United States, 
were inconsistent with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. The European Union urged all 
Members to comply with their obligations under the WTO agreement s, apply international standards, 
lift remaining BSE -related restrictions for all EU member States and finalize the remaining pending 
approval procedures without further delay. The European Union remained open to continue to work 
constructively with all trading partners.  
3.97.   China highlighted great  caution had been taken when importing beef and related products 
from countries where BSE was reported, to ensure public health and the safety of the industry. 
China  noted it had carried out technical exchanges with the European Union and  had advised 
EU member States to submit bilateral export applications. China assured it would continue to carry 
out risk assessments and improve the relevant measures according to the assessment results.  
3.2.11   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever  (STC 392) - Concerns of the 
European Union  
3.98.   The European Union again raised concerns over China's ASF -related country -wide import bans 
on pork products, encompassing  EU member States that  had successfully eradicated the disease 
in livestock and wildlife and had regained a  disease -free status in accordance with OIE rules. 
The European Union recalled that the issue had first been raised in July 2015 and regretted that 
China had since then expanded the bans, despite having the same sanitary profile as 
the European  Union. The  European Union requested China to respect its obligations under the 
SPS Agreement and OIE standards and allow trade from disease -free areas. While appreciating the 
dialogue between several EU member States and China, the European Union urged China to ident ify 
its procedures, counterparts, and information requirements to engage in meaningful exchanges.  
3.99.   China stressed the challenges in the control of ASF and considered the latest OIE data on 
ASF outbreaks to be indicative  of an ineffective control of the dise ase by EU member States. 
China  indicated it had taken strict measures for the prevention and control of ASF which had 
achieved phased results. China advised EU member States to submit bilateral export applications 
and assured it would continue to carry out risk assessments and improve the relevant measures 
according to the assessment results. In addition, China expressed its willingness to cooperate with 
the European Union at a technical level.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 24 - 
 
  3.2.12   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever  (STC 393) - Concerns of the 
European Union  
3.100.   The European Union reiterated its concern regarding  Korea's ASF -related ban on pork and 
pork products from several EU member States since February 2014, which did not take into account 
EU regionalization measures . The European Union considered the measure to be more 
trade -restrictive than necessary. In addition, the European Union indicated that Korea had continued 
to receive detailed information on all outbreaks in full transparency and had received all necessary  
evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of the EU regionalization measures. The European Union 
urged Korea to lift the bans and to recognize the EU harmonized regionalization measures.  
3.101.   The Russian Federation supported the concern. Since 2014, the Russian  Federation had 
requested Korea to grant market access for its products on numerous occasions and had provided 
all relevant information regarding ASF control measures and regionalization. According to the 
OIE Terrestrial Code, imports of pig products from a country with cases of ASF were possible under 
certain conditions. Korea's position, however, had remained unchanged. The Russian Federation 
requested Korea to comply with its obligations under Articles 3 and 6 of the SPS Agreement and 
urged Korea to appr ove its pending application for market access for pork products.  
3.102.   Korea noted it had imposed import bans on ASF -affected countries according to the import 
health requirements mutually agreed upon with an exporting country. Korea indicated it had 
engaged in consultations  with the European Union to explain its procedures for the recognition of 
ASF regionalization. Korea noted that verifiable evidence was needed to recognize 
ASF regionalization from ASF -affected countries. In addition, Korea indicated that the same 
procedures were applied to the Russian Federation and the European Union concerning ASF 
regionalization.  
3.2.13   Peru's import restrictions on pork ( STC 482) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.103.   Brazil reiterated its concern regarding Peru's undue delays in finalizing the ri sk analysis 
process for Brazilian pork exports. Brazil considered Peru's actions to be inconsistent with Article 5 
and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Despite exchanges between its authorities, Brazil indicated that 
Peru had not presented technical or scient ific reasons for not having concluded the process. 
Following  a commitment by Peru to send a technical mission to Brazil in 2019, Brazil had withdrawn 
its request for inclusion of this STC in a previous SPS Committee meeting. Notwithstanding, 
Brazil  noted there had since been a lack of progress. In addition, Brazil stated that Peru had refused 
its proposal to conduct  an audit through videoconference. Brazil requested Peru to conclude the 
process without further delays.  
3.104.   Peru hig hlighted that it was respectful of the obligations established in the SPS  Agreement 
and was currently working on the opening of its market to pork meat from Brazil, according to 
national regulations. Peru hoped to reach a mutual understanding in favour of bilateral trade.  
3.2.14   Mexico's import restrictions on pork ( STC 489) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.105.   Brazil noted that, in April 2019, its authorities had been informed of the negative result of 
the risk analysis concerning market access to Mexico of Brazilian pork produc ed in the state of 
Santa  Catarina. Despite the OIE recognition of the state of Santa Catarina as free from FMD without 
vaccination, Mexico had continued to question the efficiency of its risk mitigation strategies. 
Brazil  considered this position to be inc onsistent with Article 6 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement. 
Brazil reiterated that pork meat exported to Mexico presented no risk as it came from a zone free 
from classic swine fever (CSF) and FMD, as recognized by  the OIE, and that pork imports were to 
be processed by Mexico's food industry. In July 2019, Brazil had proposed an international sanitary 
certificate model for pork meat for industrial processing , and was waiting for Mexico's  response.  
3.106.   Mexico considered the two Brazilian  normative instruments for  the mobilization of animals 
to be conflicting , and had notified Brazil that, in addition to the review of the technical information 
provided on the control of FMD in the state of Santa Catarina, a legal analysis of these normative 
instruments would be car ried out in accordance with the SPS Agreement and the relevant 
international standards. Mexico reiterated its willingness to continue working with 
Brazilian  authorities and encouraged a continued technical dialogue to deal with this concern.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 25 - 
 
  3.2.15   China's import  restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza ( STC 406) - 
Concerns of the European Union  
3.107.   The European Union raised its continued concern with China's imposition, since 2015, of 
country -wide bans on several EU member States on account of highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(HPAI) . The European Union had  repeatedly requested China to recognize the principle of 
regionalization, lift country -wide import restrictions, and take more targeted measures. 
The European Union regretted that there was not much progress to report on the resolution of 
this issue. The European Union considered that China continued to disrespect the concept of 
regionalization and the OIE Terrestrial Code . The European Union reiterated its continued interest to 
work constructively with China on this issue.  
3.108.   China highlighted the importance  of its poultry industry and the challenges  in the prevention 
and control of HPAI. China considered the latest OIE data on HPAI outbreaks to be indicative of 
an ineffective control of the disease by EU member States , and noted it had suspended the 
importat ion of live poultry from the European Union to protect the safety of its poultry industry. 
China welcomed the exchanges and technical discussions with the European Union to resolve the 
issue.  
3.2.16   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly path ogenic avian 
influenza ( STC 431) - Concerns of the European Union  
3.109.   The European Union regretted that South Africa maintained country -wide bans on poultry 
products from six EU member States and did not apply the regionalization  principle . 
The European  Union considered the measure to be at odds with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. 
The European Union noted that South Africa had carried out inspections in certain EU member States 
and was aware of the structure and capacity of EU veterinary services. The European  Union called 
for South Africa to respect its obligations and reiterated its interest to resolve the issue in a 
constructive and mutually satisfactory manner.  
3.110.   South Africa considered the EU measures for the control of HPAI to be non -compliant with 
Chapters  4.4 and 4.5 of the OIE Terrestrial Code. South Africa encouraged Members to make use of 
the principle of regionalization and to explore the possibilities brought about by it in ensuring 
continuous trade. South Africa reminded the European Union that the e nvisaged engagements could 
not take place due to the COVID -19 global impact and associated travel restrictions.  
3.2.17   Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza  
(STC 456) - Concerns of the European Union  
3.111.   The European Union reiterated its concern regarding Korea's country -wide bans on poultry 
imports from certain EU member States due to HPAI. The European Union had , on numerous 
occasions,  provided information on the sanitary control systems in place to demonstrate that avian 
influenza was reliably controlled, and disease -free areas were likely to remain free. 
The European  Union indicated that Korea had not offered, thus far, any dialogue to implement the 
regionalization concept. The European Union urged Korea to lift the  country -wide bans and recognize 
its harmonized regionalization measures.  
3.112.   The Russian Federation supported the concern. The Russian Federation stated that, 
according to Korea, market access for Russian poultry would only be granted when the entire 
territor y of the Russian Federation was recognized as HPAI -free. In this regard, 
the Russian  Federation recalled that the OIE Terrestrial Code allowed imports of poultry products 
from HPAI infected countries under certain conditions. The Russian Federation urged K orea to comply 
with Articles 3 and 6 of the SPS Agreement.  
3.113.   Korea indicated that it had imposed import bans on HPAI -affected countries according to the 
import health requirements for poultry and poultry products mutually agreed upon with an exporting 
country. Korea highlighted that, based on OIE standards, if HPAI -free status was recovered in an 
exporting country, it would quickly evaluate the status and lift the import ban. Korea reported that 
it would engage in bilateral consultations with EU member States concerning the request for HPAI 
regionalization.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 26 - 
 
  3.2.18   Saudi Ara bia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting 
establishments ( STC 486) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.114.   Brazil expressed its concern regarding the suspension of imports by Saudi Arabia affecting 
two major Brazilian poultry -producing plants in February 2020 , without providing technical reasons. 
Brazil noted Saudi Arabia's reference to media reports on an investigation conducted in Brazil 
regarding an alleged fraud scheme in the production of animal feed. Brazil indicated that neither of 
the plants affected b y the suspension of imports had been involved in the investigation. Brazil urged 
Saudi Arabia to reconsider the measure as soon as possible.  
3.115.   Saudi Arabia indicated that the temporary import suspension affecting two Brazilian poultry 
establishments was due to risks associated with potential food fraud in Brazil 's poultry industry. 
Saudi Arabia reported it had officially communicated with Brazil in February to request a technical 
visit to the two establishments. Saudi Arabia stressed that it welcomed cooperat ion to resolve the 
matter at a bilateral level.  
3.2.19   Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports 
(STC 490) - Concerns of the European Union  
3.116.   The European Union  reiterated its STC regarding import bans for bovine products ma intained 
by Korea due to BSE concerns. The European Union welcomed the re -opening of Korea's market in 
2019 for imports from two EU member States, stressing that identical food safety and animal health 
control conditions prevailed in all its member States.  The European Union reminded Korea to limit 
the information requirements to what was necessary under the SPS Agreement. In  addition, 
Korea  had been more diligent in re -opening its market to other Members with similar BSE status, 
and thus seemed to discrimi nate against EU applications. The  European Union considered that delays 
in approval procedures were not justified and that Korea was not complying with its commitments, 
in particular under Article s 2.3 and  8, and Annex C .1 of the SPS Agreement. While open to continue 
working with Korea, the  European  Union urged Korea to grant market access to EU member States 
without further delay.  
3.117.   The Russian Federation supported this STC. The Russian Federation noted that the 
Korean  authorities had been informed in May 20 19 of its restored OIE status as a country with an 
FMD-free zone without vaccination. Additional information requested by Korea had been provided. 
While Korea had announced, in 2019, the start of a risk assessment process for beef imports from 
three region s of the Russian Federation, Korea had not yet authorized Russian beef imports. 
The Russian  Federation requested Korea to comply with Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement 
and approve its pending application for market access of Russian beef.  
3.118.   Korea re sponded it applied risk assessment procedures for beef in full compliance with 
WTO rules, to all trading countries in a non -discriminatory manner.  In this context, Korea noted that 
risk assessment procedures were underway for France and Ireland , and that import approval 
procedures for the remaining EU member States were carried out in consecutive manner. 
Korea  added that it would continue to discuss this matter with the European Union.  
3.2.20   Delays in Malaysia's approval procedures for meat and dairy i mports ( STC 491) - 
Concerns of the Russian Federation  
3.119.   The Russian Federation  reiterated its concern about the lack of transparency and 
unmotivated delays in  Malaysia's approval procedures for meat and dairy imports. 
The Russian  Federation had been waiting,  since October 2019, for veterinary certificate approval s 
for products of animal origin (pork, poultry, beef, and dairy products), and since March 2020, for 
veterinary and sanitary requirements on import of dairy products. In December 2020, it had 
submitte d materials on measures undertaken for the control of avian influenza and export of safe 
Russian poultry meat to South Asian countries. Despite repeated attempts to organize  bilateral 
negotiations and reminders of requests and materials sent, no responses had been received from 
Malaysia thus far. The  Russian  Federation considered Malaysia's lack of reaction to be a deliberate 
delay and a violation of Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. The Russian Federation urged 
Malaysia to comply with its WTO obl igations regarding the application of transparent and timely 
approval procedures, accelerate the provision of responses, and resume effective cooperation.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 27 - 
 
  3.120.   Malaysia took note of the concerns expressed and indicated that it would work bilaterally 
with the  Russian Federation to find an amicable solution.  
3.2.21   India's approval procedures for animal products ( STC 484) - Concerns of the 
Russian Federation  
3.121.   The Russian Federation acknowledged  progress in the cooperation with India regarding the 
approval procedures for i mports of Russian feed and non -food raw materials of animal origin.  
The Russian Federation nonetheless reiterated  its STC, indicating that, thus  far, it had not had  an 
opportunity to supply any food products of animal origin to the Indian market . In additi on, India had 
not shared its view regarding the  issue of  regionalization for avian influenza  and access of safe 
Russian poultry products to the Indian market . The Russian Federation further considered India to 
unreasonably delay the approval of veterinary certificates for poultry meat and poultry products 
(offal) and veterinary certificates for fish products.  The Russian Federation urge d India to comply 
with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement  and requested India to undertake and complete 
its approval procedures properly and without undue delay.  
3.122.   India responded that it was engaging with Russia in discussions on sanitary protocols. 
In January 2021, it had requested the Russian Federation to provide copies of certain  original 
veterinary certificates for necessary internal approvals.  India had also conveyed information 
regarding  the draft Veterinary Health Certificate for supplies from  the Russian Federation with 
respect to the following  categories: f eed additives for cats and dogs as well as heat -treated 
ready -to-eat feeds for cats and dogs ; animal feed of plant origin , feed and feed additives of animal 
origin , sheep wool washed and no t washed and goat fine hair , and poultry . India referred to its 
statement uploaded on eAgenda for more information.  
3.2.22   Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other 
ruminants ( STC 493) - Concerns of the European Union  
3.123.   The European Union reiterated its concerns about the unjustified and long delay in the 
publication of the US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other ruminants. 
The European Union noted that this would be only the starting point for EU member  States and other 
WTO Members to start the relevant procedure to get approval for export s of small ruminant meat. 
It would also complete the protracted process of aligning US animal health rules with international 
standards for BSE  and transmissible spongi form encephalopath ies (TSE). Considering that necessary 
technical and administrative work had been completed in 2017, the European Union considered the 
accumulated delays to constitute a violation of Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement . 
The European  Union urged the United States to comply with its WTO obligations and apply 
international standards to lift remaining TSE related restrictions for all EU member States and not 
to delay further the publication of the final rule.  
3.124.   The United States  responded that it continued to work through its administrative procedure 
to process this request . The United States noted  the bilateral engagement on this matter and looked 
forward to continuing cooperati on with the European Union.  
3.2.23   The Philippines' trade restriction s on imports of meat ( STC 466) - Concerns of the 
European Union  
3.125.   The European Union reiterated that the Philippines did not adhere to OIE international 
standards , did not apply the regionalization principles to the European Union,  and maintained a 
policy of  imposing scientifically unjustified country -wide bans on imports of meat and meat products 
from EU member States on grounds of ASF or HPAI. The European Union recalled that nine 
EU member States  were subject to country -wide import bans imposed by the Phil ippines on 
pork meat or poultry meat and relevant product s. To the European Union, the Philippines' measures 
lacked scientific justification , were against the principle of regionalization , and were thus inconsistent 
with Articles 2.2 and 6 of the SPS Agree ment. The European Union indicated that it remained ready 
to engage further with the Philippines with the objective to minimize the disruption of trade, calling 
on the Philippines to respect its international obligations and to allow trade of pork and poul try from 
disease -free EU member States and zones.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 28 - 
 
  3.126.   Recognizing the principle of regionali zation, the Philippines responded that it had initially 
imposed import restrictions  on specific areas or regions of eight EU member States  due to HPAI 
outbreaks and had then imposed  provisional measures on five of these EU member States . 
The Philippines emphasized the possibility under the SPS Agreement to maintain measures at levels 
higher than those of the OIE . The Philippines also emphasized the provisional nature of its measures 
restricting imports from countries with ASF or HPAI outbreaks based on available pertinent 
information consistent with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. In re viewing its measure pursuant to 
Articles 5 and 6 of the SPS  Agreement, the Philippines viewed as imperative the consideration of 
prevalence of the diseases, the effectiveness of controls to be supported by convincing evidence of 
disease contraction or elim ination, as well as the SPS characteristics of the area to which the product 
was destined . The Philippines indicated that it continued to monitor the disease situation and sought 
to obtain additional information for the review of its provisional measures . The Philippines concluded 
that it would welcome further discussion with the European Union.  
3.2.24   Guatemala's restrictions on egg products ( STC 413) - Concerns of Mexico  
3.127.   Mexico  reiterated its concern  regarding  the import restrictions imposed by Guatemala on 
thermally processed egg products , which could be a violation of fundamental principles of the 
SPS Agreement and of the FTA between Mexico an d Central America. The National Health, 
Food Safety and Agrifood Quality Service ( SENASICA ) had repeatedly requested the procedure and 
requirements to export thermally processed liquid and dried egg products , and had provided  
technical information on these products to Guatemala.  In its response, Guatemala had referred to 
Ministerial Agreements No . 105-2012 and No. 228 -2013, which stated  that import restrictions would 
be based on  OIE guidelines . However, Mexico believed that import restrictions imposed on thermally 
processed poultry and poultry products that did not pose a health  risk restricted tr ade without 
scientific evidence. Guatemala did not allow imports of the se products, despite the objective 
evidence provided by Mexico of the exist ence of HPAI -free zones and compartments. Mexico asked 
Guatemala to provide import requirements for thermally processed egg products in accordance with 
OIE guidelines.  Mexico remained open to dialogue  and looked forward to Guatemala's comments.  
3.128.   Disagreeing with some of the points made  by Mexico, Guatemala considered that the 
requirements in place protect ed poultry health  and were compatible with OIE recommendations. 
The issue should be addressed at a technical level, and the  Ministr ies of Economy in Mexico and 
Guatemala had agreed to discuss bilate rally within the framework s of the SPS Committee and the 
FTA between Mexico and Central America . 
3.2.25   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products ( STC 441) - 
Concerns of the European Union  
3.129.   The European Union reiterated its concerns about the lack of transparency of and undue 
delays in Indonesia's approval procedures for imports of plant and animal products. 
The European  Union regretted the limited feedback received from Indonesia following a  request for 
information on its  market access approval procedures for agri -food products from EU member States 
pending export applications. Specifically, the European Union expressed concerns about the lack of 
progress on export applications for beef, dair y, poultry, pork, and plant products, which in some 
instances had been submitted more than seven years ago. The European Union requested Indonesia 
to be transparent about its approval procedures and finalize pending market access applications 
without undue  delay , in line with the SPS Agreement.  
3.130.   Indonesia indicated that it had communicated with EU member States on a regular basis 
regarding the progress of their applications. Indonesia added that it had been carrying out necessary 
measures to accelerate  the approval procedure process for EU member States, as a result of which, 
some of the applications had been approved and some were at the final stage. Indonesia noted, 
however, that some EU member States still needed to complete their documents and fulfill the ir 
audit fee obligation. While encouraging trade facilitation, Indonesia considered, in reference to 
Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement , that document  and fee requirements needed to be 
fulfilled. Indonesia expressed its appreciation for the bilater al consultations and hoped that its 
response would address the European Union's concern.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 29 - 
 
  3.2.26   Indonesia's food safety measures affecting horticultural products and animal 
products ( STC 414) - Concerns of the Philippines  
3.131.   The Philippines reiterated its concern ab out Indonesia's food safety measures affecting 
horticultural and animal products , without regard to the objective of minimizing negative trade 
effects in Article 5.4, the requirement in Article 5.6 not to introduce SPS measures that are more 
trade -restrictive than necessary, transparency obligations under Article 7 and Annex B, and the 
obligation to undertake approval procedures without undue delay in Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement. Indonesia noted that additional requirements, such as a GAP certificate,  and a  
license to operate prior to the issuance of permits to importers of shallots, had not been notified to 
the WTO  and that, currently , no permits had been issued to allow the Philippines to export shallots 
to Indonesia. The Philippines  added that undue delays, lack of transparency, the piecemeal and 
unpredictable approach, and discriminatory requirements without scientific justification were also 
issues with respect to Indonesia's approval measures for the import of meat and meat produc ts. 
The Philippines urged Indonesia to be transparent and timely in its approval measures, and refrain 
from its piecemeal approach of introducing requirements that were cumbersome, costly, and 
restrictive of trade. The Philippines hoped that bilateral cons ultations would lead to the resolution of 
this concern.  
3.132.   Indonesia recalled that the issue had been discussed through bilateral channels and that 
it had addressed some of the  Philippines ' concerns regarding pest-free area  recognition for banana s, 
shallots , and pineapple s, as well as the importation requirement s for animal product s. 
Indonesia  confirm ed that the Philippines ha d obtained pest-free area  recognition for shallots and 
banana s and invited the Philippines to take advantage of this to  export their pro ducts according to 
the demand of the Indonesian market.  Indonesia encouraged the Philippines to complete 
the application document  to obtain pest-free area  recognition for pineapple s and sought  clarification 
regarding the  animal product s at issue, asking for the HS codes concerned . Indonesia emphasize d 
that risk assessment procedures regarding the importation of animal and animal products would  be 
applied in line with Art icles 5, 6, and 8 of the SPS Agreement , noting that compliance to int ernational 
standards, guidelines and recommendations (OIE) needed to  be uph eld by all Members . 
3.2.27   Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on imports of fresh citrus fruits due to sweet 
orange scab ( STC 470) - Concerns of Japan  
3.133.   Japan reiterated its concern regar ding Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on imports of 
fresh citrus fruits due to sweet orange scab . Japan regretted that Thailand had not accepted its 
proposal for an alternative measure , nor had  entered into consultations on recognition of equivalence 
of phytosanitary measures. Thailand had also not provided a PRA report for its measure . 
Japan  considered that Thailand did  not conform to Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement. Japan requested 
Thailand to provide a PRA report conducted in accordance with IPPC international standards 
(ISPM  11), in case of non -acceptance of the equivalence of Japan's proposed measure. In addition, 
Japan noted  that at a recent  bilateral meeting, Thailand had not provided any scientifically convincing 
response . Japan therefore requested Thailand to give answers to the concerns it had raised at this 
bilateral meeting, enter into consultations on recogni tion of the equivalence of the alternative 
phytosanitary measure, and provide a PRA report.  
3.134.   Thailand responded that there was a scientific rationale for its measures, which were 
necessary to eliminate the risk of quarantine pest s and address insufficient i nformation regarding 
Japan's proposed alternative measure . Thailand pointed to a  document from the US Department of 
Agricultur e (USDA) involv ing a five -step procedure for packinghouse s and added that it was also 
complying with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreem ent. Thailand and Japan had  mutually agreed on the 
requirement of this 5-step procedure , after which Japan had  requested Thailand to consider an 
alternative measure in September 2020. Thailand ha d engaged with Japan through several technical 
consultations , but Japan had not provide d sufficient technical information, scientific evidence and 
detailed procedures and/or measures . Thailand expressed its readiness to engage should further 
discussions be required.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 30 - 
 
  3.2.28   US import restrictions on apples and pears  (STC 439) - Concerns of the European 
Union  
3.135.   The European Union regretted that the United States continued to refuse imports of apples 
and pears from the European Union under a systems approach , instead of the existing preclearance 
approach . The European Unio n recalled that the United States had concluded, several years ago, 
that imports of apples and pears could take place under a systems approach , but had not undertaken 
the final administrative step of publishing a final notice  to allow trade to start . 
To the European  Union, there was no justification on scientific grounds to continue to block imports 
into the United  States of apples and pears from the EU under the agreed systems approach.  
The European Union indicated that it continued  to work constructively with the United States, 
but also urged  the United States to solve this matter without any further delay.  
3.136.   The United States responded that it continued to work through its administrative procedure s 
to process this request . While  noting that the European Union was able to export apples and pears 
under the existing preclearance programme and appeared to misrepresent these aspects of the 
issue, the United States expressed its appreciation for the bilateral engagement.  
3.2.29   Chinese Taipei's phytosanitary risk assessment procedure on imports of fresh 
vegetables and fruits ( STC 496) - Concerns of Ukraine  
3.137.   Ukraine remained concerned by Chinese Taipei's lack of progress in conducting PRAs 
regarding imports of fresh vegetables and fruits from Ukraine. Ukraine th anked Chinese Taipei for 
its communication following the November 2020 Committee meeting , but noted the lack of practical 
results as Ukraine was still awaiting substantial information on the PRAs for imports of onions and 
apples. Ukraine considered that fu rther delays in the finalization of risk assessment procedures 
created unjustified barriers to trade and could not be justified from a scientific point of view. 
Ukraine  urged Chinese Taipei to follow its obligations under Article 8 and Annex C.1(a) -(b) of the 
SPS Agreement and finalize with no undue delay Ukraine's applications. Ukraine added that it 
remained open to continue working with Chinese Taipei on th is issue.  
3.138.   Chinese Taipei noted that Ukraine had confirmed onions as its priority in December 2019, 
following which  experts  had initiated the PRA . Chinese Taipei explained that experts were now 
evaluating information on crop production, pest management, and disease status provided by 
Ukraine. Chinese Taipei acknowledge d Ukraine's concern and stated that i t looked forward to 
continuing  its dialogue and cooperation with Ukraine.  
3.2.30   Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions ( STC 498) - Concerns of Peru  
3.139.   Peru reiterated its concerns regarding Ecuador's restrictive measures on Peruvian grapes 
and onions. E cuador had closed its market to grapes in 2015 and to onions in 2016 , requesting Peru 
to develop an action plan to mitigate contamination risks . Peru was of the view that Ecuador's actions 
constituted  a violation of the legislation in place in Ecuador , of Articles  5.4, 7 and 8 , and Annex es B 
and C of the SPS Agreement , and of Code x Guidelines for the Exchange of Information Between 
Countries on Rejections of Imported Food  (CAC/GL 25 -1997). While the Technical Resolu tion 
DAJ-20133EC -0201.0096  had been notified in document  G/SPS/N/ECU/132 , Resolu tion 0064 , from 
2017, had not been notified and Members had not been able to submit comments, despite the impact 
of the regulation on trade.  Peru regretted that, despite having answered all of Ecuador's request s, 
restrictions were still in place without a technical justificati on, contravening Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of 
the SPS Agreement, as well as the principle of non -discrimination. Given the resulting economic 
losses , Peru requested Ecuador to avoid imposing measures that were against the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement and the  basic principles of the WTO, not to disregard technical agreements 
previously developed, to notify its measures and provide opportunities for comments, and to reopen 
the market for grapes and onions.  
3.140.   Ecuador  informed the Committee that imports of onions a nd grapes from Peru had been  
suspended on the basis of the Technical Resolution DAJ -20133EC -0201.0096, National Plan for 
Surveillance and Control of Pollutants in Primary Sector Production, of 2013.  Its regulations  were 
consistent with Article 2 of the SPS Agreement  and the Codex Code of Ethics for International Trade 
in Food including Concessional and Food Aid Transactions ( CAC/RCP 20 -1979) , and  MRLs were 
consistent with Codex  guidance  and Article 3 of the SPS Agreement . Ecuador pointed out that G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 31 - 
 
  sampling of onions from Peru had evidenced residues of endosulfan and dimethoate above 
established MRLs. Likewise, sampling of grapes had evidenced residues of dimethoate, procymidone 
and pyriproxyfen above allowed MRLs. Ecuador had subsequently requested Peru to develop action 
plans to mitigate contamination risks.  Following new detections of difenoconazole and tebuconazole 
in grapes, Ecuador had suspended imports to protect consumers ' health.  In the ongoing exchanges 
aiming at f inding solutions, Peru's comments on grapes were being taken into account. On onions, 
Ecuador was awaiting confirmation of Peru's interest to maintain market access. Ecuador reiterated 
its will ingness  to continue working with Peru to reopen trade flows for  grape and onion.  
3.2.31   India's import requirements for pulses ( STC 497) - Concerns of Canada  
3.141.   Canada reiterated its concern regarding India's trade -restrictive measures on pulses, 
including mandatory fumigation requirements and measures on weed seeds. Canada recalled that  
India had committed , at the November 2020 Committee meeting , to continue engaging  on the issue 
of alternatives to India's fumigatio n requirements . However, there had been a lack of engagement 
since then and India had not yet responded to Canada's overtures of November 2020. Turning to 
India's measures on weed seeds, Canada noted that India had added 26 new weed seeds species to 
its List of Quarantine Weed Seeds in October 2019. In Canada's view, these actions were inconsistent 
with the principles of transparent and predicable international rules -based trade . Canada was  
troubled by the lack of transparency, predictability and scientific  basis for these measures, as well 
as their non -conformity with relevant international standards. Canada urged India to continue 
engage with the aim of finding an early resolution of these issues.  
3.142.   The Russian Federation supported this concern. India's fumi gation requirements based on 
methyl bromide created unjustified trade barrier and did not have a sufficient scientific justification. 
In this light and given the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 
limiting the use of methyl b romide, the Russian Federation called upon to India accept the use of 
alternative fumigants based on phosphine in accordance with prevailing international practice.  
3.143.   Reaffirming its  commitment  to finding a mutually acceptable solution , India responded tha t 
it was currently in the process of examining information provided by Canada. India  pointed to 
information provided following a visit to Canada to review its systems approach  and information  
provided in the context of Canada's request for a review of the li st of quarantine seeds. India also 
indicated that it was still awaiting a response from Canada in relation to India's review of the PRA 
for pulses following the  interception of quarantine pests in consignments in October 2019. 
Responding  to the Russian Fed eration, India referred to a visit to study the Russian  fumigation 
procedure and requests for additional information. India also pointed to a series of communications 
in 2018 -2020 as detailed in its statement uploaded on eAgenda. India stated that it was  now of the 
view that in -transit fumigation of grains from the Russian Federation with phosphine could be 
considered, but that the importer would have to ensure proper degassing and removal of fumigant 
residues and submit a certificate from accredited fumiga tion agencies.  India added that, 
in March  2021, it had proposed a bilateral meeting  to the Russian Federation  but had not received 
a response.  
3.2.32   US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European Union for Asian 
longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle ( STC 471) - Concerns of the European Union  
3.144.   The European Union reiterated its concern concerning unjustified and long delays in the 
United States' recognition of the pest -free status in the European Union for Asian longhorn beetle 
and citrus  longhorn beetle. The  European Union regretted the absence of progress on this topic, 
indicating that the United States had satisfactorily finalized its scientific assessment several years 
ago on the country pest freedom recognition of the EU member States  concerned , but had yet to 
publish a final Federal Order in this respect. The European Union added that there was no scientific 
basis for the United States to block this last administrative step and that the United States was 
therefore not complying with t he SPS Agreement. Having expressed its  openness to continue 
working with the United States , the European Union urged the United States to publish without 
further delay the notice at issue and accept the EU pest -free areas.  
3.145.   The United States assured the Eur opean Union that it was working through its administrative 
procedures to process  this request. The United States noted the bilateral technical engagement on 
the matter and looked forward to continued cooperation.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 32 - 
 
  3.2.33   Proposed new EU rules on composite products  (STC 504) - Concerns of Australia, 
China, the Russian Federation and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu  
3.146.   Australia expressed concerns about the potential negative impact that the EU proposed 
changes relating to shelf -stable composite products under Regulation (EU) 2019/625, notified in 
G/SPS/N/EU/401 , might have on trade in shelf -stable composite products. Products previously 
excluded from the original EU regulation of 2007 would now be captured in the proposed 
requirements for food manufacturers of she lf-stable composite products to attest the sourcing of 
animal origin ingredients (dairy, fishery, or egg origin) from EU -approved establishments either in 
EU member States or in authorized third countries. Australia considered that these requirements 
were not justified and would not lead to significant improvements in safety or a higher quality of 
products.  
3.147.   Australia requested the European Union to recognize equivalence of third countries already 
implementing a sufficient level of sanitary regulation for lo w-risk shelf -stable composite products, 
as established in Article 4 of the SPS Agreement. It also requested the European Union to indicate 
how the proposed changes corresponded with the level of risk posed by the presence of low levels 
of animal origin ing redients contained within shelf -stable composite products, as required under 
Article 5 of the SPS Agreement. Australia requested the European Union to reconsider 
the implementation of this regulation as currently drafted, including product coverage and 
thresholds , and looked forward to receiving the EU response on these issues . 
3.148.   Chinese Taipei  reiterated its concerns about the EU proposed new rules on composite 
products . Chinese Taipei urged the E uropean Union to reconsider the necessity of requiring minor 
or trace ingredients of animal origin in composite products to be produced in establishments 
approved by the European Union , which , in its view, imposed a disproportionate burden on business 
operators and was  likely to discriminate composite products of specific cultural characteristics.  
Chinese Taipei thanked the European Union for taking their concerns into account and looked forward 
to a written response by the European Union . 
3.149.   China was of the view that the  implementation of the new EU rules would have a great 
impact on the export ation of processed products, namely increases in the costs for manufacturers 
and of supervision. As such, China proposed the  formulation by the EU Commission of a list of 
low-risk p roducts to be exempted from the new rules, and the adoption of the principle of 
equivalence so that Members with a relatively well -established regulatory system be recognized to 
meet the requirements of the EU regulations, and the composite products under the supervision of 
their competent authorities be accepted by the European Union . 
3.150.   The Russian Federation considered that new EU rules  for composite products , entering into 
force on 21 April 2021, were excessive and more trade -restrict ive than necessary . The new rules 
now covered goods that did not previously fall under the requirements, such as raw materials that 
had undergone a deep heat treatment . The Russian Federation urge d the European Union to provide 
sufficient scientific evidence and a risk assessment supporting the requirements established , which 
were not feasible for a number of companies worldwide . The Russian Federation propose d the 
inclusion of  producers of raw materials for composite products in the registers of the European Union 
under the guarantees of the competent authorities of the exporting countries. 
The Russian  Federation was of the view that the EU requirements for mandatory certification of 
manufacturers of products of no or low veterinary risk were excessive and cou ld be eliminated. 
Finally, the Russian Federation requested the European Union to provide a transition period for the 
application of a new form of veterinary certificate for products of short -term storage containing less 
than 50% of animal origin, and a sp ecial certificate for non -perishable food products.  
3.151.   Japan  regretted that, despite the consultations held, the European Union had adopted 
without modifications the new EU rule on composite products. In Japan's view, the rule was 
disproportionate to the risk  posed by the referred  products and would impose a procedural burden  
on numerous kinds of low -risk seasonings that were important for the food culture of each country. 
Japan regretted that the European Union had not notified its  trading partners well ahead of adoption 
to allow for a thorough preparation before the departure of the relevant consignments.  
Japan  strongly requested the European Union to conduct flexible operation at the border after 
21 April 2021. G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 33 - 
 
  3.152.   The United States  highlighted concerns on the negative effect on supply chains of the 
proposed model certificates notified under G/SPS/N/EU/401 , G/SPS/N/EU/402  and 
G/SPS/N/EU/403 . Certification and verification requirements applied to a broad spectrum of 
products . The United States requested the European Union to delay the entry into force for composite 
product requirements until it had addressed how to accommodate overlapping regulatory jurisdiction 
in third country markets . The US statement is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/ 1902. 
3.153.   The Philippines  was concerned that the new EU composite products regu lation  would entail 
disproportionate costs and adjustments to the Philippine manufacturers and exporters. 
The Philippines was particularly concerned by the private attestation required for shelf -stable 
composite products containing less than 50% of animal origin , which they considered to lack 
scientific support . In its view, the lack of transition period for this requirement was discriminatory 
compared to the six -month transition period (until 20 October 2021) granted for other categories of 
composite produ cts requiring official certificates . The Philippines also questioned the requirement to 
use milk and eggs produced only in the European Union or EU -accredited third countries for 
shelf-stable composite products. The Philippines urge d the European Union to reconsider the revision 
of the regulation , or at least to postpone the implementation of the private attestation requirement 
for six months.  The Philippines look ed forward to bilateral discussions with the European Union . 
3.154.   While support ing the establishment of import SPS measures based on risk , New  Zealand 
considered that l ow-risk foods should not, in the absence of a risk analysis, be subject to increased 
requirements more appropriate for high risk food commodities.  
3.155.   The European Union  recalled that the science - and risk-based import conditions for 
composite products, modified in 2019 , were  due to apply from 21 April 2021. While most of the rules 
remained unchanged , some of the changes introduced referred to the three -tier approach to 
catego rising composite products depending on their level of risk . The European Union highlighted 
that more flexibility was now offered, making it easier to source ingredients from other countries, 
with a longer list of composite products being exempted from cont rols at the border due to their 
lower risk, and through the replacement of official certificate s by a private attestation for certain 
categories of shelf -stable meatless composite products.  Additional information explaining the new 
rules on composite produ cts had been submitted in documents G/SPS/GEN/1763  and 
G/SPS/GEN/1786 , all draft measure had been notified and all comments had been answered. 
The European Union had set up a special website to provide up -to date on the import conditions of 
composite products ( https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_affairs/trade/special -eu-
import -conditions -composite -products_en ). 
3.156.   The European Union noted that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2235 
provided for transitional provisions for the use of certificate s issued in accordance with Regulation 
(EU) No 28/2012 for consignments of composite products. Animal health requirements for the entry 
into the Union of shelf -stable composite products were laid down in Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2020/692, which had been  duly notified to the SPS Committee in 2019. 
The European  Commission might propose slight modifications to certain requirements after the 
assessment of comments received . The European Union remained open to continue the dialogue 
with interested Members.  
3.2.34   EU restriction on highly refined products imported from China ( STC 502) - 
Concerns of China  
3.157.   China  acknowledged that Decision 2002/994 /EC had been amended and updated  by a series 
of EU Decisions , including Decision 2015/1068 . China regretted that  the latest consolidated version 
of Decision 2002/994 only covered chondroitin regarded as feed material, and not for human 
consumption.  China suggested that the European Union amend  Decision 2002/994/EC to include 
chondroitin, hyaluronic acid and chitosan in the list of products of animal origin intended for human 
consumption.  China  also looked forward to the EU response on the harmonization and consistenc y 
of enforcement raised in t he previous Committee meeting.  
3.158.   The European Union  clarified that Decision 20 02/994 applied to all products of animal origin 
imported from China and intended for human consumption or animal feed use. It listed food and 
feed products authori zed to be importe d from China into the European Union . Chondroitin sulphate 
was authori zed to be imported from China for human consumption if it was to be used as or in food G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 34 - 
 
  supplements, as established in Part I of Annex to the Decision. The European Union had not been 
informed thus far of any discrepancy in the interpretation of this Decision amongst the EU Border 
Control Posts.  
3.2.35   India's requirement for certificate for non-GM origin and GM -free status ( STC 501) 
- Concerns of China and the United States  
3.159.   The United States reiterated its concerns  with India's  new measure mandating non-GM 
(genetically modified)  origin and GM -free certificates for certain agricultural imports into India, 
notified as G/TBT/N/ IND/168 , with a proposed entry into force date of 1 March 2021 . 
The United  States referred to the  concerns expressed in the November 2020 Committee meeting  
and in document G/SPS/GEN/1865 . The United States  was optimistic that  the Food Safety and 
Standards Authority of India ( FSSAI ) would  agree to the technical cooperation proposed by USDA to 
develop alternatives to the non-GM origin and GM -free certificate s. The United States requested 
India to withdraw its measure  or, alternativel y, to delay  its implementation  to January 2022 . 
The United  States  requested India to provide the scientific justification  and any relevant risk 
assessments or international standards  for establishing  a one percent tolerance for presence of  
genetically engi neered (GE) food  in imported consignments . The US statement is contained in 
document G/SPS/GEN/ 1901. 
3.160.   China raised i ts concerns  on the scope of the products which required a non-GMO (genetically 
modified organisms)  certificate.  The common bean exported to India from China was free of 
GM ingredients, as confirmed by the sampling conducted by the Chinese Customs, and shou ld not 
be included in the scope of the control of this measure. China requested India to publish the risk 
assessment and decision -making basis for implementing th ese requirements of non -GMO certificate s 
for 24 categories of agricultural products.  While acc ording to Article 5.4 of the SPS  Agreement, 
Members should take into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effect  when 
determining the ALOP, the measure had increased the compliance costs and burdens for enterprises 
in the food value chain.  The common bean from China accounted for about 50% of India 's imports 
and the implementation of the measures would  add costs, harming the interests of Indian consumers 
and Chinese farmers.  
3.161.   Paraguay supported the concern and requested further information on t he criteria used to 
identify the 24 crops to which the regulation was applicable. India had not provided an impact 
assessment, scientific evidence nor a risk analysis supporting the measure.  In Paraguay's view,  
the requirement for a certificate for each co nsignment was not technically justified and would result 
in additional costly obstacles. Paraguay was concerned that the measure could lead to the 
unsupported assumption that GM food products were less safe than non -GM, once evaluated and 
authorized throug h strict regulatory processes. While awaiting a response from India to the concerns 
submitted in January, Paraguay requested India to reconsider its measure.  
3.162.   New Zealand  considered that India's requirements  added unnecessary costs on existing 
trade of 24 horticultural food products.  New Zealand asked India to explain the science - and 
risk-based justification for introducing a certification requirement even from GMO-free countries.  
New Zealand requested India to consider less trade -restrictive options and n oted its proposal for 
India to accept a country -wide assurance as an alternative to consignment -by-consignment 
certification, for a specified period -of-time, thus reducing the burden and costs  without affecting  
India's ALOP.  
3.163.   Japan  shared the view that Indi a's proposed requirements  would create unnecessary trade 
barriers and negatively impact agricultural trade. Japan sought clarity on the scientific justification 
and the implementation of the measure, as well as the need for a non -GM certificate from export ing 
countries where production and importation of such GM crops was effectively prohibited. 
Japan  requested India to reconsider the implementation of the measure.  
3.164.   Australia  associated itself with this concern. Australia had indicated to the FSSAI that the 
requirements would create unnecessary obstacles to trade. Australia had  also join ed several 
Members  in a letter to the relevant Indian Ministers to request that the notification be withdrawn or 
nuanced . It had also supported the corresponding concern raise d in February 2021 in the 
TBT Committee. Australia looked forward to further comments from India.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 35 - 
 
  3.165.   Canada  remained concerned about the implementation of India's Order notified under  
G/TBT/N/IND/168 , and request ed India to confirm whether the measure had been notified to the 
SPS Committee.  Canada noted that GM food products  were only authorized for commercialization 
once they had received appropriate safety approvals under robust, science -based regulatory 
framewo rks. Canada found it unclear how India 's non -GM certification requirement would fulfil the 
objective  to ensure the health and safety of its population.  Canada was of the view that India's Order 
would  disproportionately impact exports of GM -producing Member s to India and  unnecessarily 
restrict international trade . Canada  requeste d India to suspend the implementation of the measure 
to ensure that Members ' comments and concerns were taken into account. Canada looked forward 
to a detailed response from India to  the comments submitted through  India's TBT Enquiry Point, and 
remained available for further bilateral discussion.  
3.166.   Argentina  supported the concern and highlighted that measures should be based on science 
and a risk analysis , as well as on  international standards . Argentina hoped that India modified the 
measures to avoid restrictions to international trade, and that the comments  sent to the TBT Enquiry 
Point would be  taken into account.  
3.167.   Brazil expressed its concerns on India's Order notified under G/TBT/N/IND/168 , which 
included a template for the certificate to be issued by the competent authority of each country . 
Brazil  was not aware of the publication by India of a regulatory impact assessment, a risk analysis 
nor a technical document linking the regulation and its objectiv es. India's regulation was expected 
to harm Brazilian exporters of apples, cowpea beans, tobacco and corn.  In Brazil's view, 
GM exemption guarantees for these crops would only add unnecessary costs and regulatory burden s 
to food value chains, without scien tific justification and with no additional benefits to food safety.  
3.168.   Uruguay  reiterated that the measure should be notified to the SPS Committee, since 
it mentioned food safety objectives.  Uruguay noted the international consensus that GM products  
approved by exporting countries based on Codex recommendations were as safe as their 
conventional counterparts.  Uruguay believed there was no technical justification for the 
implementation of the measure  and looked forward to receiving a reply from India . 
3.169.   Thaila nd was concerned by the potential adverse impacts of India's Order on agricultural 
trade.  Thailand requested India to specify the scope and definition of processed products and identify 
the HS codes of the food crops covered. Thailand also asked India to acc ept their certificate of 
non-GM plant s, since such crops were not allowed to be planted in Thailand. Thailand looked forward 
to receiving a response to the written comments submitted to India's TBT Enquiry Point.  
3.170.   India clarified that the measure had not be en notified to the SPS Committee.  
The Genetic  Engineering Appraisal Committee had so far not approved any of the crop varieties of 
GM- or GE-origin listed in the Order. In pursuance of the above, FSSAI was only seeking a certificate 
from exporting countr ies to ascertain the GM -free status of listed crops. FSSAI ha d also clarified the 
non-applicability of this requirement for the import of processed food.  
3.3  Information on resolution of issues  
3.171.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas  
4.2.1   Mexico - Declaration of an area free from fruit flies of the quarantine -significant 
genus Anastrepha  (G/SPS/GEN/1875 ) 
4.2.  Mexico  reported on document G/SPS/ GEN/1875  regarding the declaration of several areas 
located in the states of Guerrero, Aguascalientes, Durango and Tamaulipas  as areas free from fruit G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 36 - 
 
  flies of the quarantine -significant genus Anastrepha . Mexico  indicated that phytosanitary measures 
had be en taken to maintain and protect these areas.  
4.2.2   Mexico - Declaration of areas free from large avocado seed weevils, small avocado 
seed weevils and avocado seed moths ( G/SPS/GEN/1869 ) 
4.3.  Mexico reported on document G/SPS/GEN/1869  regarding the declaration of several areas 
located in the states of  Michoacán de Ocampo , Jalisco, Nayarit, Puebla, Guerrero and the State of 
Mexico  as areas free from the large avocado seed weevil ( Heilipus lauri ), the small avocado seed 
weevil ( Conotrachelus aguacatae  and C. perseae ) and the avocado seed moth ( Stenoma catenifer ). 
Mexico  indicated that phytosanitary measures had been taken to maintain and protect these areas.  
4.2.3   Colombia – Declaration of foot -and-mouth disease -free status ( G/SPS/GEN/1768 ) 
4.4.  Colombia  recalled that, in February 2020, the OIE had restored Colombia's health status as a 
FMD-free zone where vaccination was practiced , and referred to document G/SPS/GEN/1768 . 
Colombia thanked the Members that had recognized th is status and reiterated its invitation to 
Members to inform their  health authorities so that the restrictions imposed by some countries could 
be lifted, thus facilitating ongoing processes to ensure compliance with sanitary requirements.  
4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
4.5.  The Chairperson recalled that, as had been proposed in the informal SPS consultations on 
16 September  2020, the annual report on  the implementation of the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement ( G/SPS/GEN/804  and revisions ) was now to be  issued in March of every year along 
with the annual report on specific trade concerns  (G/SPS/GEN/204  and revisions ). 
Concomitant  issuance of both reports  was to  allow the reports to cover  the same reporting period 
and facilitate analyses and comparisons. The Secretariat pres ented the March 2021 reports in 
documents G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13  and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21 , and Corr.1 , highlighting the 
additional analysis undertaken,  and invited Members to submit comments to improve subsequent 
versions of the reports.  
4.4  Control, inspection and approval procedures  
4.6.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
4.4.1   Working Group on Approval Procedures  
4.7.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the summary of the work of th e 
Working  Group on Approval Procedures, which was contained in his  draft report on the informal 
Committee meeting held on 24 March 2021 . This draft report had  been shared with  Members to 
provide comments . The final version of the report is included in  Annex A . 
4.5  Special and differential treatment  
4.8.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.6  Monitoring the use of international standards  
4.6.1   New issues  
4.9.  No new issues were raised under this agenda item.  
4.6.2   Issues previously raised  
4.6.2.1   European Union - ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
4.10.   The European Union drew the Committee's  attention to inconsistencies in the application of 
OIE international standards related to ASF. The European Union considered  that many  Members did G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 37 - 
 
  not follow the OIE Terrestrial Code guidance for the identification, treatment and certification of 
tradable  products . The European Union  highlighted that it had , as well as other Members, 
demonstrated that ASF could be managed effectively to ensure that legitimate trade was not the 
cause of any outbreak . The European Union added  that ASF was a disease affecting  many EU and 
non-EU countries. The European Union invited Members to work on the removal of country -wide and 
scientifically unjustified trade bans.  
4.6.2.2   European Union - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
4.11.   The European Union praised those  Members trusting  the EU effective and transparent system 
of surveillance , regionalization  and eradication of animal diseases such as  avian influenza . 
The European  Union regretted , however,  that some Members disregarded their obligations under 
Article 6 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Country -wide bans after a disease outbreak were not 
scientifically justified  where effective movement controls were in place , and there was no justification 
to wait one year or more to restore the disease -free stat us, instead of the three months in the 
OIE Terrestrial Code. The European Union reiterated its call to Members to respect their 
regionalization obligations; allow trade from non -affected zones; lift bans three months after 
eradication and reinstate trade c onditions applicable to disease -free countries without delay ; 
refrain  from imposing trade restrictions in case of HPAI in wild birds; and refrain from imposing trade 
restrictions in case of detected low pathogenicity avian influenza  (LPAI) . The European Union called 
on Members to respect the recommendations of ISSBs , which had been developed and adopted with 
their support.  
4.12.   The OIE provided an  update regarding  the relevant chapter  of the  OIE Terrestrial Code 
(Chapter  10.4), which had undergo ne extensive revisions  to be proposed for adoption at  its 
May 2021 G eneral Session. The OIE highlighted  some  of the revisions , including a change to the title 
of the chapter (to refer to i nfection with HPAI viruses) , a modification to the list of disease name s in 
Chapter 1.3,  and impacts on notification and surveillance requirements  notably for LPAI, a new 
article on safe commodit ies, and a revision  of the definition of poultry. The OIE pointed to the 
Terrestrial Code Commission Report of F ebruary  2021 (Part A)  on its website , detailing the 
amendments . 
4.6.3    New Zealand – Procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization  
(G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877 ) 
4.13.   The Chairperson reminded the Committee that Members had  had an opportunity to discuss 
New Zealand's submission s in G/SPS/GEN/1851  and G/SPS/GEN /1877  regarding the procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization at the informal meeting of the Committee of 
24 March 2021. The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the summary of these 
discussions  in his  draft report on the inf ormal meeting, which had been shared with Members to 
provide comments. The  final report is included in  Annex A . 
4.7  Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement  
4.7.1   Report on the Thematic Sessio n on African Swine Fever  
4.14.   The Chairperson reminded Members  that the draft report on the Thematic Session on African 
Swine Fever,  which had been held on 23 March 2021, had been circulated for Members to provide 
comments. The final report is included in  Annex B .5 
4.15.   The European Union thanked the Secretariat for its support and all the Members and 
international organizations that had contribu ted actively to the success of the Thematic Session.  
 
5 The dedicated webpage for the Thematic Session can be accessed here: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_thematic_session_230321_ e.htm . G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 38 - 
 
  4.7.2   Report on the Informal Meeting  
4.16.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the informal meeting  
of the Committee  of 24 March 2021, specifically referring to the summar ies of the discussions on 
the follow -up to the Fifth Review , the upcoming Workshop on Risk ( G/SPS/GEN/1769/Rev.1 ), and 
the proposed Thematic Session on Pesticide MRLs. The Chairperson reminded  Members  that this 
draft report  had been shared with Members to give them an opportunity to provide comments. 
The final report is included in  Annex A . 
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1  COVID -19 and SPS issues  
5.1.  The Chairperson  reminded  the Committee  that the informal Commit tee meeting of 
24 March  2021 had included discussions on COVID -19 and SPS issues . These discussions had been 
summarized in his draft report o n the informal meeting . The final report is included in  Annex A . 
5.2  United States, Canada - SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference  
(G/SPS/ GEN/1758/Rev. 5) 
5.2.  The Chairperson  reminded  the Committee  that the informal Committee meeting of 
24 March  2021 had included discussions on the SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial 
Conference . These discussions  had been summarized in his draft report o n the informal meeting , 
which had been shared with  Members . The final report is included in  Annex A . 
5.3.  The United States appreciated Members' openness  and willingness to engage  on the  
Declaration . The United States acknowledged two new co -sponsors,  Mexico and Tajikistan, 
noting  that there were now  22 co -sponsors representing a diverse group of Members. 
The United  States reiterated that th e Declaration was an opportunity to establish a forward -looking 
programme of wor k for the Committee dealing with issues within the ambit of the SPS Agreement 
and mandate of the SPS Committee . The United States emphasized that it was ver y interested to 
work with Members to continue building co -sponsorship for the Declaration . 
5.4.  Canada supplemented the US intervention, underlying that the Declaration was an  important 
opportunity to celebrate  the success and value of  the SPS Agreement . Canada also considered the 
Declaration  equally  to be an important opportunity to note the changes  in the global ag ricultural  
landscape  since 1995 and initiate a work programme open to all Members and Observers to consider  
how to further enhance the implementation of the SPS Agreement  in light of the opportunities and 
pressures created by the evolution  of the global agricultural landscape . The Declaration would not 
indicate in any way the need to reopen  the negotiation of the SPS Agreement.  In light of the recently 
confirmed date for MC12, Canada invited  Members to continue to reflect on this important initiative 
and join as co -sponsor s. 
5.5.  Brazil thanked Mexico and Tajikistan for joining the Declaration as co -sponsors and  invite d 
other  Members to engage on the Declaration . Brazil stated that it was  very enthusiastic about the 
initiative  and that the recent ly set date for MC12 was an opportunity to b uild momentum.  
5.6.  El Salvador informed the Committee that it was joining  as a co-sponsor and that an official 
communication would  follow.  
5.7.  Chile took the floor to stress that the Declaration should be focusing on  what is within  the scope 
of the SPS Agreement . 
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities  (G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev. 16, G/SPS/GEN/ 997/Rev.11 ) 
6.1.  The Secretariat pointed to document G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.16 , describing technical assistance 
activities that had been undertaken , and document G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.11 , providing an annual G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 39 - 
 
  overview of planned activities  and detailing practical information, for instance  on how to req uest 
national seminars . 
6.2.  Chile thanked the Secretariat for its efforts  on technical assistance  activities . Chile drew the 
Committee's attention to the regional workshop  on good practices for national notification authorities 
that had taken place in  November -December 202 0. Chile highlighted the participation of  many 
countries in Latin America and the good outcome in terms of enhanc ing the  understanding of the 
transparency  obligations  and exchange of experiences . 
6.1.2   STDF ( G/SPS/GEN/1881 ) 
6.3.  The STDF Secretariat reported on its recent activities detailed in G/SPS /GEN/1881 , in particular  
its new short film "Shaping a safer world", which highlighted the importance of investing in 
SPS capacity for developing countries . The STDF Secretariat also referred to the webinar of 24 March 
2021 on investing in safe trade systems to protect health and market access , during which the 
importance of partnerships, technical capacity, technical training, and the need to prioritize 
resources  had been highlighted .6 Finally, the STDF Secretariat referred to STDF work on 
public -private partnerships, good regulatory practices, electronic SPS certification , and current STDF 
project s. The STDF indicated  that the deadline for new project applications was 23 July 2021.  
6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   Canada , United States - APEC Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) Harmonization 
Workshop Summary ( G/SPS/GEN/1884/Rev.1 ) 
6.4.  The United States read the summary of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 
workshop on MRLs contain ed in document G/SPS/GEN/1884/Rev .1, which was co-sponsored by 
Australia, Canada, Chile, Ne w Zealand and the Philippines. In particular, t he United States 
announced a second workshop to be held in June 2021 and indicated that  APEC economies would 
work to produce a best practice guide on M RL regulatory approaches.  
6.5.  Canada noted  that the APEC workshop had provided an opportunity to discuss best practices 
for the enforcement and risk  management of MRLs and had explored approaches to facilitate 
international trade. Canada stated that it was committed to continue its engagement in international 
cooperation  initiatives to discuss and develop best practices and trade facilitative approaches to MRL 
compliance and find inclusive and common solutions to address trade issues related to MRLs. 
Canada  encourage d Members to do the same. Canada equally  encourage d Members to establish 
transparent and predictable compliance measures based on science - and risk analysis, and take into 
account ISSBs standards, guidelines and recommendations.  
7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE  AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
7.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from Observer Organizations  
8.1.1   ECOWAS ( G/SPS/GEN/1876 ) 
8.1.  ECOWAS provided a summary of its SPS activities as detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1876 . 
Activities inc luded (i)  a continuation of a training workshop on the use of the Harmonized 
Phytosanitary Inspection and Decision -Making Guide  for plant quarantine inspectors in pilot 
countries ; (ii) a virtual meeting to validate the regional programme on plant pests and  diseases 
control with emphasis on fall armyworm in West Africa  and the Sahel; (i ii) the finalization of its 
SPS operation plan for 2021 -2024; and (iv) the participation in the continental SPS committee  
meeting organized by the African Union Commission . 
 
6 The recording of the webinar is available on the STDF website: https://www.standardsfacility.org/aid -
trade -investing -safe-trade-systems -protect -health -and-market -access . G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 40 - 
 
  8.1.2   IICA ( G/SPS/GEN/1878 ) 
8.2.  IICA r eported on its activities, detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1878 . IICA referred to a 
regional workshop on transparency and good practices  of national notification authorities  developed 
jointly with Chile and the WTO Secretariat. IICA also referred to i nterregional virtual colloqui a in 
preparation for the 32nd Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles, its 6th edition of its 
OIE Strategy Session, actions to support the alignment of national pesticide registration systems 
and harmonize MRLs to facilitate trade in C entral America and the Andean region, as well as past 
and upcoming seminars, courses, and training sessions.  
8.1.3   OIRSA ( G/SPS/GEN/1879 ) 
8.3.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by OIRSA  
in document G/SPS/GEN/1879 . 
8.1.4   OECD ( G/SPS/GEN/1880 ) 
8.4.  The OECD  had provided a written report, circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/1880 . 
8.1.5   ITC ( G/SPS/GEN/1888 ) 
8.5.  ITC had provided a wr itten report, circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/1888 . 
8.1.6   SADC ( G/SPS/GEN/1889 ) 
8.6.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by SADC 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1889 . 
8.1.7   GSO ( G/SPS/GEN/1891 ) 
8.7.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by GSO in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1891 . 
8.1.8   IGAD ( G/SPS/GEN/1893 ) 
8.8.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by IGAD  
in document G/SPS/GEN/1893 . 
8.2  Requests for observer status  
8.9.  The Chairperson referred to document G/SPS/W/78/Rev.15 , listing the outstanding requests 
for observer status. The Chairperson indicated that, absent any intervention, he would assume that 
the position s of Members had not changed. No Member took the floor.  
9  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
9.1.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that, according to the Rules of Procedure, the term 
of office of the SPS Committee Chairperson finishes with the conclusion of the first meeting of every 
year. However, the Chairperson of the CTG had not yet concluded  consultations on chairpersons for 
the CTG subsidiary bodies in accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers 
to WTO bodies ( WT/L/31 ). The Committee therefore agreed to postpone  the election of the 
Chairperson until the next Committee meeting in July 2021.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1.   Under this agenda item, the Chairperson noted that, at the beginning of the meeting, 
India had raised a question regarding timelines for uploading statements pertaining to STCs on 
eAgenda. On this issue and referring to the use of eAgenda in the TBT Commi ttee, India suggested 
setting a deadline for Members raising STCs to upload their statements on eAgenda in advance of 
the Committee meeting, so as to allow Members to respond effectively and efficiently and provide G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 41 - 
 
  updates. Responses could be provided oral ly at the meeting and corresponding statements uploaded 
later, for example by the end of the Committee meeting day.  
10.2.   The Secretariat recalled that several options had been explored in the SPS and 
TBT Committees and that Members in the SPS Committee had expr essed the  wish to maintain the 
flexibility to submit statements after taking the floor at a Committee meeting . The Secretariat stated 
that it  would be happy to revisit the use of eAgenda  and that it was in Members' hands on this issue.  
10.3.   Referring to previou s discussions in the Committee with respect to eAgenda, Paraguay and 
the United  States cautioned against setting prescriptive deadlines for uploading statements in 
advance of Committee meetings. Paraguay stressed that eAgenda should assist in the exchange 
between Members and facilitate technical detailed interventions but should not replace oral 
interactions. The United States stated  that different committees ha d different dynamics and that 
eAgenda should serve as a tool to support each Committee as appropriate. The United  States added 
that the Committee should continue to engage to ensure that eAgenda worked well. 
10.4.   India clarified that it did not intend to be prescriptive; its idea was a recommended timeline 
for statements by Members rais ing STCs to ensure that discussions are effective and efficient. 
India noted that, if a statement pertaining to a new STC or an update on a previously raised STC 
were to be made for the first time orally at the Committee meeting, the Member maintaining the  
measure would be unlikely to be in a position to respond or provide an update.  
11  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  
11.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that the next regular meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 
15-16 July 2021 and that the proposed calendar of meet ings for 2021 was contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1823 . 
11.2.   The Secretariat informed the Committee  that it would prepare a summary report based on 
oral interventions at the meeting, complemented by Members' ability to download  complete 
statements via eAgenda.  
11.3.   The Chairperson also reminded of the following deadlines:  
a. For submission of statements: Friday, 26 March 2021 ; 
b. For comments on the Chairperson's draft report on the informal meeting, and the Thematic 
Session on African Swine Fever : Wednesday, 31 March 2021 ; 
c. For comments on the draft programme for the Workshop on Risk Assessment, Risk 
Management and Risk Communication ( G/SPS/GEN/1769/Rev.1 ), including suggestions of 
speakers: Friday, 23 April 2021 ; 
d. For comments on the revised collection of resources for Members in implementing their 
national coordination mechanisms ( G/SPS/GEN/1850/Rev.1 ): Friday, 23 April 2021 ; 
e. For comments on New Zealand's submissions on the procedure to monitor the process of 
international harmonization ( G/SPS/GEN/1851  and G/SPS/GEN/1877 ): Friday , 
23 April  2021 ; 
f. For identifying  new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure, and for 
requesting that items be put on the agenda: Wednesday, 23 June 2021 ; 
g. For the distribution of the Annotated Draft Agenda : Friday, 25 June 2021 . 
 
 G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 42 - 
 
  ANNEX A  
INFORMAL MEETING – 24 MARCH  2021 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1 FOLLOW -UP TO THE FIFTH REVIEW  
1.  At the informal meeting on 24 March 2021, the Committee discussed how to take forward some 
of the recommendations in the Fifth Review Report, as well as discuss ongo ing work in various areas.  
SPS Committee Working Group on Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 ) 
2.  At the informal meeting, the co -stewards for the Working Group on Approval Procedures, Canada  
and Paraguay, provided an update on the activities of the Working Group.1 
3.  Since the co -stewards' last report to the SPS Committee in November 2020, participants 
exchanged on suggested themes to be explored by the Working Group. This included submissions 
on four themes: (1) common understanding of "approval procedures"; (2) key challenges of approval 
procedures; (3) principles of approval procedures that facilitate international trade while meeting 
the importing Member's appropriate level of protection; an d (4) tools available and best practices to 
enhance the implementation of the obligations of the SPS Agreement as they apply to approval 
procedures.  
4.  In these written exchanges, several participants suggested that the Working Group develop a 
common understa nding of "approval procedures" to enable the deliberations of the Working Group. 
It was noted that, based on a wide range of regulatory approaches among Members, there is a 
variety of approval procedures used by Members with unique characteristics and trad e impacts. 
Regarding challenges of approval procedures, written input from participants identified challenges 
relating to: timing and undue delays; transparency; communication or information exchange; 
justification and discrimination of approval procedures ; international standards; and other 
challenges, such as COVID -19. Regarding key principles of approval procedures, participants 
identified: transparency; necessity of science -based or risk -based SPS measures; timely or without 
undue delay; communication a nd publication; non -discrimination or consistent treatment of 
Members with the same SPS status; international standards; and equitable fees. Participants also 
shared a number of areas to explore tools and best practices to enhance the implementation of the  
obligations of the SPS Agreement as they apply to approval procedures.  
5.  The Working Group also held a meeting on Monday, 22 March 2021, during which the co -stewards 
gave an overview of Members' contributions thus far and walked through the co -steward propo sal 
for next steps and overarching process for the Working Group. The discussions focused on: 
(1) developing a common understanding of the term "approval procedures"; and (2) assembling a 
collection of available tools and best practices.  
6.  At the Working Gro up meeting, the co -stewards invited participants to identify the scope of the 
term "approval procedures", which could include, as appropriate, determining types or categories of 
approval procedures and their general characteristics. The co -stewards emphasi zed that this would 
be without prejudice to the rights and obligations of Members under the SPS Agreement, would not 
be used to develop an exhaustive list of approval procedures, nor would it constitute legal definitions.  
7.  A number of Working Group particip ants expressed support for developing a common 
understanding of "approval procedures" or otherwise clarifying the scope of work. Some participants 
considered the development of a common understanding to be an essential first step to have a 
 
1 The Working Group on Approval Procedures was established in November 2020. Twenty -four Members 
are participating in the Working Group: Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 
the European Union, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, 
Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, and 
Uruguay. The OECD is also a partic ipant.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 43 - 
 
  convergence disc ussion in the Working Group. It was highlighted that it would not amount to creating 
legal definitions; rather, the discussions would be on the implementation of the SPS Agreement as 
it relates to approval procedures. Other participants stressed that the f ocus of the work should be 
on the implementation challenges that Members face with approval procedures and on helping 
Members develop good practices or tools to help address these challenges. The co -stewards noted 
that, irrespective of what the Working Gro up may achieve in discussing a common understanding of 
approval procedures, it will work on challenges and principles of approval procedures.  
8.  Regarding the scope of work, the Working Group also discussed whether it might extend to 
discussing elements such as inspection, sampling, laboratory, or analytical capacity, based on 
Members' interest in these elements and provided there is consensus.  
9.  Finally, the Working Group discussed assembling a collection of existing tools and best practices 
to enhance the impl ementation of the obligations of the SPS Agreement as they apply to approval 
procedures. The co -stewards invited Working Group participants to submit any materials or 
resources readily available, including weblinks and copies of documents, and identify the  types or 
aspects of approval procedures these materials or resources relate to.  
10.  With its meeting of 22 March 2021, the Working Group concluded its first round of work. 
The Working Group will move to the second round of work with written exchanges and a ne xt 
meeting to take place on the margins of the July 2021 SPS Committee meeting.  
11.  Following the co -stewards update, I provided an opportunity for Members to raise any questions 
or comments on the activities of the Working Group. No Member took the floor.  
Exchange of experiences or continued discussions on various topics  
12.  We then discussed the recommendations that encourage Members to continue to exchange 
experiences or have continued discussions. I highlighted that these recommendations were found in 
variou s sections of the Fifth Review Report, such as: appropriate level of protection, risk assessment 
and science (para. 2.15); equivalence (para. 4.11); fall armyworm (para. 5.16); national 
SPS coordination mechanisms (para. 6.7); MRLs for plant protection pro ducts (para. 8.6); and 
regionalization (para. 9.15).  
13.  Similar to the November 2020 meeting, I again sought your views on the best way to move 
forward with these recommendations. I recalled that in the September 2020 consultation , 
one Member had observed tha t the proposed work plan for the MC -12 SPS Declaration, also currently 
being discussed by the Committee, was consistent with these recommendations and could provide 
a pathway to continue exploring these topics. I also noted that in the November 2020 inform al 
Committee meeting, another Member had reminded the Committee of its previously raised concerns 
regarding some of the topics covered by the recommendations.  
14.  I invited Members to provide any further comments or suggestions on the identified 
recommendation s. No Member provided additional inputs.  
Preparation of a collection of resources for Members in implementing their national 
coordination mechanisms ( G/SPS/GEN/1850/Rev.1 ) 
15.  Next, we discussed the recommendation in the Fifth Review R eport ( G/SPS/64 , para. 6.7) on 
the preparation of a collection of useful resources for Members in implementing their national 
coordination mechanisms. By way of background, I recalled that Members had requested that the 
Secretariat prepare such a compilation of resources, starting with those mentioned at the 2019 
Workshop on Transparency and Coordination, and including additional resources as suggested by 
Members. I also reminded the Committee that in the November 2020 meeting, the Secretariat had 
presented a draft compilation of these resources in document G/SPS/GEN/1850 . Members had also 
been invited to provide comments.  
16.  In the informal meeting, the Secretariat presented a revised version of the document, circulated 
as G/SPS/GEN/1850/Rev.1 . In particular, the Secretariat highlighted the cha nges to Section 3 of the 
document on useful tools and resources for national SPS coordination, noting that the table had 
been updated to include the annotated agenda for SPS Committee meetings, as suggested by Chile G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 44 - 
 
  in the November 2020 SPS Committee meeti ng. In addition, five new resources had been 
incorporated from the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), as well as an update of 
one of the STDF resources.  
17.  No Member provided additional inputs in the meeting. I further invited Members to submit 
comments and inputs on additional resources by the deadline of Friday, 23 April 2021 . 
2 SPS DECLARATION FOR THE 12TH WTO MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE  
(G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.5 ) 
18.  At the informal meeting on 24 March 2021, the Committee discussed the SPS Declaration for 
the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference ( G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.5 ). I first recalled that following the 
discussions on the proposal in th e November 2020 Committee meeting, a Chair -facilitated informal 
consultation had been held in mid -November to further discuss the proposal. The proponents had 
provided additional background information and responded to Members' queries in this consultation , 
which had been organized based on a suggestion from a Member.  
19.  In the informal meeting, I first invited the proponents to provide an update. The proponents 
expressed appreciation for Members' participation in the November 2020 consultation which had 
been productive and had provided another opportunity to explain the Declaration and respond to 
Members' queries. The United States explained that the Declaration provided an avenue for the 
SPS Committee to raise the profile of its work and establish a forward -looking and proactive agenda 
for the coming years. The United States also indicated that it had been further consulting with several 
Members and regions to build support and understanding of the Declaration, and reiterated 
its interest in engaging with Memb ers and receiving their feedback.  
20.  Canada acknowledged that, since the initial submission in 2020 by Brazil, Canada and the 
United  States, the number of co -sponsors had expanded to 22. Canada emphasized that it was 
timely for the Committee and WTO Members t o underline the benefits of the SPS Agreement and 
take stock of the evolving nature of the global agriculture landscape since 1995, in particular the  new 
opportunities and pressures relating to international trade in food, animals and plants.  
21.  Brazil expres sed its enthusiasm for the Declaration, noting its timely nature, and thanked all 
the co -sponsors, including recent ones: Mexico and Tajikistan. Brazil recalled the importance of the 
SPS Agreement, and the progress its implementation had brought to agricul ture trade, despite the 
challenges faced. Brazil underscored the need to look ahead, guided by a common understanding 
that enhanced implementation of the SPS Agreement would help to address the 21st century issues 
facing farmers, as captured in the proposal.  
22.  The proponents drew attention to the recently announced date for the 12th WTO Ministerial 
Conference (MC12). The United States noted that having a fixed date made the work easier, but  also 
signal led a time pressure. Given the confirmed date, Canada urged Members to engage with the 
co-sponsors to indicate whether it was necessary to have more discussion on the Declaration before 
the July 2021 SPS Committee meeting. Brazil noted that the document sh ould be dealt with urgently 
by Members, in order to move ahead with the building momentum. The proponents encouraged 
delegations (both capital - and Geneva -based) to participate in the conversation, as well as to reach 
out to co -sponsors to raise questions and/or continue the conversation.  
23.  Several Members indicated the need to emphasize the importance of the SPS Agreement. 
In particular, one  Member noted that MC12 represented an excellent opportunity to reinforce 
the message that trade in general – and particularly, trade in food – must take place in full 
consonance with sustainable development. In particular, reference was made to upcoming e vents 
such as the 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity 
and the UN Food Systems Summit, and their anticipated role in transforming food systems globally, 
as well as providing a strong response to current  health and environment challenges. The Member 
saw the need to include stronger references in the Declaration to current and future environmental, 
climate and ethical challenges for trade in food, such as protecting biodiversity and the ecosystems 
of the p lanet, global transformation towards sustainable food systems, animal welfare and 
establishment of best practices in risk management which respected legitimate consumer 
expectations, while avoiding disguised protectionism. The Declaration should avoid over laps and G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 45 - 
 
  duplication with the Fifth Review. The Member remained open to have discussions on the context, 
language, content and appropriateness of the work programme.  
24.  One Member noted that the current draft still emphasized the use of innovative tools, such  as 
new plant breeding techniques in support of food security objectives. However, the Member 
suggested that the Declaration should instead highlight the consistent use of relevant science or 
international standards to inform SPS measures and meet the appr opriate level of protection. 
Since  this would apply to any new and existing technological developments, the Member queried the 
need to specifically mention new technological developments in the proposal. The Member also noted 
the reference to developing co untry Members in Articles 9 and 10 of the SPS Agreement, 
while observing that since the Declaration's intention was not to change the text of the 
SPS Agreement, a reference to developing countries should similarly be included in bullet six of 
paragraph 8 o f the proposal.  
25.  Another Member supported the co -sponsors' views in relation to reaffirming the importance of 
science -based measures and improving transparency through timely notifications. In principle, 
the Member could support the draft Ministerial Declar ation if specific language was added to address 
the need for future SPS Committee discussions to contribute to ensuring that SPS measures be 
based on science; and be conducted in a productive and efficient manner. The Member observed 
that some SPS regulati ons were formally adopted before being notified, which later posed problems 
in seeking modifications. This situation contributed to the same STCs being raised in Committee 
meetings without any resolution - 27 out of the 49 STCs being raised in the current meeting were 
related to final measures – which made the process unproductive. The merit of having a mechanism 
for interested parties to exchange views at an early stage of the development of SPS measures 
was noted. The Member would work with the co -sponsor s to develop language reflecting its interest, 
with the hope that the next version would include it as a co -sponsor.  
26.  Australia indicated that the SPS Agreement was working very well, and highlighted that it had 
contributed to the Declaration. The Declarati on provided a good opportunity for Ministers to 
recognize the importance of the SPS Agreement and its continued relevance to international trade, 
as well as reaffirming the rights and obligations of the SPS Agreement. Australia also noted the call 
for Memb ers' strengthened adherence to support international trade while ensuring human, animal 
and plant life or health, which was especially relevant during COVID times.  
27.  Chile, while noting the considerable contribution by the SPS Agreement, also highlighted cer tain 
aspects of implementation for improvement, such as risk assessment; raising of the same STCs in 
Committee meetings; regionalization; and equivalence. In addition, several emerging issues were 
highlighted, such as climate change, scientific advances an d various areas of new focus.  
28.  The United States reiterated its availability and interest to engage in discussions, using the most 
relevant discussion format, and also invited Members to submit written comments. The United States 
underscored the forward -looking nature of the work plan, noting that many lessons had been learnt 
during the 25 years of the SPS Agreement and that the objective was not to rehash these. 
In responding to a Member's comments, the United States highlighted that the Declaration 
address ed a number of relevant issues for global trade and agricultural production, as well as 
the need to examine the role played by the SPS Agreement and Committee.  
29.  Another Member suggested the need to carefully consider whether the proposed 
SPS Declaration wou ld fit well with the usual style of Ministerial Declarations, particularly in relation 
to the length and level of detail of the proposal. The Member also highlighted the need to consider 
how the Declaration would fit into the landscape of possible Declarat ions on other WTO agreements 
celebrating 25 years of existence, while avoiding the impression of prioritizing the enhanced 
implementation of the SPS Agreement, over other agreements. The Member suggested that the text 
of the proposal be condensed and furth er improved to take into account other aspects mentioned 
by Members, such as sustainable food systems, considerations for animal welfare and consumer 
expectations, as well as to frame the text within the wider context of other WTO agreements. 
The Member in dicated its willingness to participate in the process and to contribute to revising 
the text ahead of MC12.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 46 - 
 
  3 PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION 
(G/SPS/GEN/1851  AND G/SPS/GEN/1877 ) 
30.  At the informal meeting on 24 March 2021, the Committee discussed New Zealand's 
submissions on the  procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization 
(G/SPS/GEN/1851  and G/SPS/GEN/1877 ). By way of background, I recalled that New Zealand had 
presented its first proposal ( G/SPS/GEN/1851 ) in the November 2020 Committee meeting, following 
which Members and the international standard -setting bodies (ISSBs) had been invited to propose 
ideas and suggestions on how the Committee could proactively explore this topic. Subsequently, 
New Zealand submitted document G/SPS/GEN/1877 , which presents some specific ideas for 
consideration by the Committee.  
31.  In the informal meeting, I first provided an opportunity for New Zealand to present its 
submissions. New Zealand provided the context for its proposal, noting that there had been renewed 
interest among ISSBs in recent years to monitor the use of their standards and related texts. New 
Zealand drew attention to it s first submission ( G/SPS/ GEN/1851 ) which highlighted some of the 
current initiatives being undertaken by OIE, IPPC and Codex to better understand the uptake and 
use of their standards and related texts. New Zealand further noted that a fresh approach to 
monitoring might be helpful  to: (i)  recognize the important role that the SPS Committee has in 
monitoring international harmonization; (ii)  raise awareness of ISSB standards, guidelines and 
recommendations; (iii)  support ISSB initiatives to promote understanding and implementation o f 
international standards; and (iv)  recognize and support efforts to enhance the impact of international 
standards consistent with the role and mandate of these organizations and taking into account the 
needs of their members.  
32.  New Zealand outlined the spec ific initiatives proposed in document G/SPS/GEN/1877  to improve 
the monitoring process, which include: (i ) organizing a thematic session on international 
harmonization; (ii) reviewing the format and content of the notification template; (iii) Members' 
voluntary statements to the Committee on the use of ISSB standards; and (iv) statements from 
ISSBs on their i nitiatives related to monitoring the use of standards and related texts. In summary, 
New Zealand reiterated the broad objectives of its paper and welcomed the views of other Members.  
33.  Several Members took the floor to support New Zealand's proposals, welcom ing the Committee's 
reinvigorated discussions on the topic and the timeliness of the Committee's review of its role in 
monitoring and promoting Members' use of international standards, and underscoring the 
significance of harmonization as an important requ irement of the SPS Agreement and the value of 
understanding the extent of Members' adoption of ISSB standards. One Member observed that the 
situation had changed since the drafting of the SPS Agreement, noting that not all of the ISSBs had 
been established  at that time and that technologies had since radically changed, which now 
facilitated information exchange. In addition, the notification formats had been revised and now 
contained solid, scientific data which could be conveyed to other scientific organiz ations.  
34.  Another Member noted its active participation in the ISSB's programmes to monitor 
implementation of international standards. Some Members  viewed the ongoing work of ISSBs as 
essential in supporting the monitoring of the implementation of internatio nal standards, which would 
help ISSBs to better understand the use of their standards. One Member suggested that initial focus 
be placed on the implementation of international  standards as an important first step to inform any 
future consideration of inter national harmonization approaches, while recognizing the challenging 
nature of this task. In addition, the Member encouraged continued efforts by ISSBs and their close 
cooperation  with the SPS Committee, should Members agree with the proposal.  
35.  Several Memb ers underscored the importance of hearing the ISSB's views on the proposals, 
given their ongoing work in the area, while noting that some of the ISSB's have projects which were 
still at an early stage. One Member emphasized that any work undertaken by the Committee should 
also complement and provide data for the parallel work being undertaken by the ISSBs, but avoid 
duplication of effort and burden in relation to data collection. This Member queried how the work on 
monitoring and implementation would be undertaken  with ISSBs, and the role that the 
SPS Committee would play relative to that of ISSBs.  
36.  The "Three Sisters" welcomed New Zealand's proposal, noting its timely and complementary 
nature to work being undertaken in their respective bodies. The OIE refer red to its Observatory G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 47 - 
 
  project, providing background information on the project's genesis, objectives and current status of 
work, noting the challenges with identifying data sources and accessing these sources to inform the 
project's work. The OIE highligh ted the importance of ensuring that the proposal was in line with 
the ISSB's work and that they could benefit from the initiative, noting that the SPS monitoring 
mechanisms are a useful data source for the Observatory project. Codex acknowledged the 
challe nges in collecting data on the use of standards, and that there was no one definition of "use". 
Given that Codex had integrated an ambitious new goal in its 2020 -2025 Strategic Plan to "Increase 
impact through the recognition and use of Codex Standards" an y elements of use that could be 
captured in the framework of the SPS Committee would be very welcome. The IPPC underscored 
that standards were only useful when implemented, and provided information on its Implementation 
Review and Support System, and other  monitoring/evaluation work such as the development of a 
Theory of Change, a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the IPPC community, and gathering 
case studies on good practices for monitoring  and evaluation of national phytosanitary systems, and 
its Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE) tool.  
37.  Some Members provided specific comments or questions on document G/SPS/GEN/1877 . 
In relation to the proposed thematic session on international harmonization , several Members 
expressed support for the organization of this event, indicated i nterest in contributing to the thematic 
session and also raised questions in relation to the timing, scope and a potential draft programme. 
In addition, some Members emphasized the need for the thematic session to be a starting point 
aimed at the sharing o f Members' experiences, ISSBs' perspectives, as well as reviewing Members' 
implementation of international standards and ISSBs' progress in this area, including any challenges.  
38.  In particular, one Member noted the importance of having in -depth discussions i n the thematic 
session on Members' expectations in relation to monitoring the use of international standards before 
deciding on the appropriate next steps . Without prejudice to the proposals, the Member noted that 
it would be premature at this point to hav e discussions on specific follow -up or secondary analysis 
and next steps, while underscoring  that the resource limitations of Members and the Secretariat 
should also be taken into consideration.  
39.  The "Three Sisters" expressed support for the thematic sessi on which would provide a good 
forum to present the state of play for their monitoring mechanisms developed or currently under 
development by the ISSBs and to highlight the value of obtaining more information from 
WTO Members. The session would also allow for discussion on how the ISSBs approach monitoring 
the implementation of standards.  
40.  With respect to reviewing the notification template (in consultation with the ISSBs) , 
some Members indicated support for this suggestion. One Member queried whether New Zea land 
had any initial thoughts on potential revisions/adjustments to the notification template and on 
potential inputs from ISSBs on the template. Another Member had a similar query on the envisioned 
improvements given that the current notification template  (and the SPS IMS) allows Members to 
indicate the alignment of their measures with international standards. One Member noted the 
amount of work that goes into notification and monitoring transparency requirements, further 
highlighting that it was premature  to engage in discussions of next steps without first having 
wholesome discussions in the thematic session. The OIE indicated that there was value in reviewing 
the notification template as it was important to be able to extract useful data for its monitori ng 
purposes. Codex also noted that it was always better  to build on existing mechanisms, and further 
indicated that it w ould need to have more discussions and look more closely at the template.  
41.  In relation to the review/analysis of specific trade concerns , one Member queried whether 
New Zealand envisioned the review being conducted by the Secretariat, and requested the 
Secretariat to provide its views on the feasibility and resource implications. Another Member viewed 
the contribution from Members and ISSBs as essential in undertaking this work, which could provide  
useful inputs for the thematic session. The OIE highlighted the importance of the review/a nalysis of 
STCs for its work, noting that it had already incorporated this type of analysis in so me of the 
preliminary prototypes of the OIE Observatory project. Some challenges had included lack of 
information or instances where the information could be viewed as subjective. Codex indicated that 
STC analysis could highlight where standards have value , the gaps that exist and where 
non-harmonization has led to issues . Codex further noted that  consideration could be given to 
incorporating this information into prioritization of its standard -setting work.  
42.  Regarding Members' voluntary statements to the Co mmittee on the use of ISSB 
standards , some Members expressed support for this suggestion and queries were raised in relation G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 48 - 
 
  to the types of exchanges envisioned through the discussion platform and how this platform would 
be operationalized. In addition, a  few Members queried whether these statements would fall under 
a new recurring agenda item during the formal or informal Committee meeting, an independent 
session on the margins of the regular meeting or via an upload of statements. One Member further 
suggested that r ather than exploring how measures are based on international standards, it would 
see additional value in statements, and particularly case studies, that focus on the impact of the use 
of ISSB standards on protecting consumers' health and facili tating fair practices in food trade. 
This Member noted that the development of a template could be useful to structure this information, 
bearing in mind the additional burden this would place on Members when drafting their case studies 
or statements. The O IE noted the relevance of New Zealand's suggestion to the Observatory project 
as it helped to identify and analyze the different national approaches to implementation of OIE 
standards and would also facilitate aggregated analysis. Codex  indicated the value  in hearing from 
Members, underscoring that such statements could provide  the basis for subsequent case studies.  
43.  With reference to statements from ISSBs on their initiatives, some Members requested 
clarification on whether the annual report was envisioned as separate from the current reports 
provided by the ISSBs under the existing agenda item on "Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE 
on relevant activities". If separate, one Member suggested that this report should coincide with the 
Secretariat's annual rep ort on monitoring the use of international standards. The Secretariat, along 
with Codex, OIE, and IPPC were requested to share their views on the feasibility of this request, 
as well as the resource implications – in light of potential duplication and addi tional burdens. The  OIE 
noted that it already provided this type of information as part of the Observatory project, so this 
information could also be presented to the SPS Committee. Codex noted that as capacity building 
for its food safety texts was mainly  taken care of by FAO and WHO, such a report would have to be 
developed jointly with these organizations as well as the Codex Trust Fund. Since a report was 
prepared for CAC each year, this could be an opportunity to consider how the paper could be adapted  
to also fulfill this additional role.  
44.  In relation to reviewing the list of international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations and using the data to inform  future proposals  on monitoring , 
one Member queried whether this review was envisioned to be con ducted by the Secretariat, what 
would the review entail and whether it would be a review of the issues raised under the agenda item 
on monitoring the use of international standards. The Member also requested the Secretariat's views 
on the feasibility of th is request and the resource implications. Another Member expressed support 
for having a list of standards with an impact on trade, as this would promote their adoption and aid 
in the context of international harmonization. The OIE indicated the usefulness of New Zealand's 
proposal, especially given its current focus on how to prioritize which standards to target. Codex 
noted that this proposal highlighted the ultimate goal for monitoring the implementation of 
standards, underscoring that the WTO would be be st placed to undertake this task since Members 
would feel more obliged to report.  
45.  Several Members indicated their willingness to continue the discussions and highlighted 
the need for the discussions to include Members, the Secretariat and the ISSBs. New Zealand 
indicated appreciation for the broad support received for the proposals, as well as the useful 
comments and questions. New Zealand looked forward to future discussions, and to further explore 
the various suggestions and ideas in moving forward.  
46.  I then invited Members and ISSBs to submit comments on the submissions by the deadline of 
Friday, 23 April 2021 . I also indicated that the Committee would need to consider the scheduling 
of the proposed thematic session on international harmonization, in ligh t of the other proposed 
thematic session on pesticide MRLs  which would be discussed in the subsequent agenda item.  
4 PLANNED WORKSHOP ON RISK ( G/SPS/GEN/1769/Rev. 1) AND PROPOSED THEMATIC 
SESSION ON PESTICIDE MRLS  
47.  Members discussed the Workshop on Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Risk 
Communication, which will be held in July 2021. Canada thanked Members for their inputs and 
presented a summary of the revised  programme in document G/SPS/GEN/1769/Rev.1 . 
Canada  suggested inviting the Secretariat and speakers from the international standard -setting 
bodies, academia, NGOs, the private sector, to explore the three components of risk analysis: risk 
assessment, risk management and r isk communication. Members would also be invited to share 
case studies of practical examples to examine their interlinkages and common challenges. G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 49 - 
 
  The programme would be adjusted to a virtual format, ensuring an interactive element to the 
workshop.  
48.  The Uni ted States requested information on the deadline for comments. Côte d'Ivoire expressed 
its support for a workshop on this topic.  
49.  Members also discussed the thematic session on default pesticide MRLs, proposed by China, 
and a thematic session on internation al harmonization, proposed by New Zealand in 
G/SPS/GEN/1877 . China explained that it was preparing a programme on the uniform limit approach 
in setting pesticide MRLs, inviting Members, international experts and the Secretariat to share their 
views and challenges faced in this area. China indicated it would welcome comments on the draft 
once it was shared.  
50.  The European Union expressed appreciation to the Secretariat, Members and the international 
standard -setting bodies for their participation in the Thematic Session on African Swine Fever.  
51.  The Chairman invited Members to submit comments on the proposed programme of the 
Workshop, and to suggest speakers, by Friday, 23 April 2021 . He also invited Members to submit 
their views on the timing of the proposed thematic sessions by the same d eadline.  
5 COVID -19 AND SPS ISSUES  
52.  As in the November 2020 informal meeting, the WTO Secretariat and the three standard -setting 
bodies provided updates on COVID -19 and SPS issues in their respective areas. The WTO Secretariat 
reported that there had been 8 6 SPS notifications and other communications related to COVID -19 
submitted by Members, and highlighted the revised Secretariat note "Standards, regulations and 
COVID -19 – what actions taken by WTO members?", available on the COVID -19 gateway of the WTO 
website. 
53.  The IPPC referred to the impact that COVID -19 had had on all its meetings. The IPPC highlighted 
the positive uptake the ePhyto system had seen and encouraged Members to be flexible in accepting 
electronic certificates and copies. It also continued to  encourage Members to follow international 
standards and risk assessments; and reminded Members about the dedicated COVID -19 gateway.  
54.  The OIE referred Members to the updated COVID -19 portal of the OIE website and invited 
Members to visit the renewed WAHIS platform on animal health data. The OIE has been working 
with WHO and FAO on the One Health Approach. It requested Members to provide updates on their 
investigations on SARS -CoV-2 on animals. The OIE reminded Members that measures on trade in 
animals and l ive animals would not be justified by COVID -19. OIE also shared its work on wildlife 
trade and the ad -hoc group convened to diminish the risk of disease transmission for animals.  
55.  Codex informed the Committee that all its meetings in 2021 would take place v irtually, and that 
the work programme would be adjusted accordingly. Codex was also organizing webinars to prepare 
Members for the discussions in formal committees.  
56.  Some Members provided updates. The European Union drew attention to document 
G/SPS/GEN/1799  and the extension of the ac ceptance of electronic certificates. It also referred to 
the assessments of WHO, FAO and other bodies, which found no evidence that food could be a source 
of COVID -19, and therefore expressed concern regarding Members requirements of tests and 
certificates  for imported food products. The European Union requested Members maintaining such 
measures to share their relevant data and studies that would explain these measures as valid and 
proportionate.  
57.  Indonesia explained that it had taken necessary measures to e nsure that fisheries products 
were safe for consumption through testing and asked Members to share their experience 
in preventing COVID -19 in fisheries products. Indonesia added that it had taken a risk -based 
approach, consistent with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, and also explained it was following the 
guidance of WHO and FAO.  
58.  Switzerland expressed concern regarding the additional requirements from certain Members for 
the importation of food products, including tests, inspections and certificates, withou t sharing the 
risk assessments on which these were based.  G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 50 - 
 
  ANNEX B  
SPS COMMITTEE THEMATIC SESSION ON AFRICAN SWINE FEVER  
23 MARCH  2021 
CHAIR PERSON'S  SUMMARY  
1.  A thematic session on African swine fever  (ASF) was held on 23 March 2021. The programme 
was circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1874/Rev.2 , based on the proposal submitted by the 
European Union in document G/SPS/W/322 . 
2.  The main objective of the thematic session was to provide WTO Members with an opportunity to 
increas e their awareness of regionalization principles, and to learn from each other by sharing 
experiences about the challenges, as well as the benefits, of defining safe trade conditions for pigs, 
pork and pork products. This, in turn, should contribute to buil ding confidence among trading 
partners.  
3.  In Session 1, the WTO Secretariat presented the main principles of the SPS Agreement relevant 
to the topic and the work of the SPS Committee, highlighting the importance of adaptation to regional 
conditions, includin g disease -free areas and areas of low disease prevalence, as established in 
Article  6. The Secretariat recalled the key elements of the Guidelines to further the practical 
implementation of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, adopted by the Committee in May 2008 and 
contained in document G/SPS/48 . The Secretariat also reported on notifications on ASF submitted 
by Members and on dis cussions held in the Committee.  
4.  In Session 2, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) presented an overview of the 
international standards relevant to the disease and the epidemiological situation worldwide, 
highlighting the global threat posed by t he continuous spread of ASF, and the OIE science -based 
recommendations for ensuring safe international trade, even from infected zones. Representatives 
from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and GIRA provided data on the economic impact 
of ASF on  global meat and feed markets and global pigmeat supply, highlighting the significant 
economic losses experienced by farmers. The impact of the disease on global markets had caused 
fluctuations in supply, demand and prices for substitute goods.  
5.  Members sha red their national experiences in Session 3. Representatives from Asia, Europe, 
Africa and the Americas, ranging from Members where the disease is endemic in wildlife to others 
where it is absent, shared their trade strategies. China described the epidemic  situation of ASF and 
its normalized prevention and control in the country, detailing the control policies in place such as 
sampling and testing in high -risk areas, daily report systems in slaughterhouses and the 
establishment of compartments free from ASF . 
6.  Representatives from the European Commission, Belgium and Germany presented on 
EU regionalization and special ASF control measures adopted to ensure safe trade. Preparedness, 
research, regionalization measures based on science and in line with internatio nal standards, public 
awareness, international cooperation, and the availability of transparent information to trading 
partners were underlined as vital to ensure safe trade. The successful eradication of ASF in Belgium 
was presented as an example of the e ffective implementation of the strategy in place. Germany 
provided the perspective of trade in pork from a Member where ASF is present in wildlife, explaining 
the steps taken to secure trading based on OIE specifications and emphasizing the importance of 
biosecurity measures to sustain compartmentalization efforts.  
7.  Canada, where the disease has never been detected, explained its preparation to prevent the 
introduction of ASF, including zoning as a key component of the strategy, and insisted on the need 
for the global community to work together. South Africa, where th e disease is endemic in wildlife, 
shared its strategy for trade in pork, recalling its national legislation and the relevance of zoning to 
maintain market access. Mexico presented its epidemiological surveillance programme applied in 
Manzanillo port, highl ighting the implementation of measures such as epidemiological surveillance G/SPS/R/101  
 
- 51 - 
 
  in properties near seaports, field research and farm visits, sampling, technical assistance to 
producers, and tracing.  
8.  Session 4 dealt with international and regional initiatives i n the context of ASF. FAO presented 
the Global Framework for the Progressive Control of Transboundary Animal Diseases (GF -TADs), a 
joint OIE -FAO global initiative that contributes to the development and support of ASF control 
strategies at the global and r egional levels. Part of its objective is to improve the capacity of 
veterinary services to control ASF using OIE standards and best practices, and to establish an 
effective coordination and cooperation framework for the global control of ASF. Under the GF -TADs 
umbrella, the Standing Group of Experts on African swine fever in Europe works to build up closer 
cooperation among countries affected by ASF and thereby address the disease in a more 
collaborative and harmoni zed manner. The regular exchange of inform ation on the ASF situation and 
the regular review of national control strategies are essential to fulfil l this role. The United States 
shared USDA's involvement in international collaboration around ASF, emphasizing that a global 
response to ASF can be ens ured by the exchange and cooperation with other regions and by the 
involvement of Members in international collaboration on ASF. Finally, a representative from the 
Global African Swine Fever Research Alliance (GARA) spoke about existing global research 
partnerships that are crucial to generate scientific knowledge, and the tools to contribute to the 
prevention, control and eradication of ASF.  
9.  The European Union highlighted the role of regionalization in providing guarantees for safe trade 
and the importance  of regional cooperation and exchanges to ensure a global response to ASF.  
10.  In concluding, I remarked that the thematic session had proven to be informative and 
interesting, and trusted it would help increase Members' understanding on the topic.  
11.  Presentatio ns from all sessions of the thematic session will be made available on the 
SPS Gateway .1 
__________  
 
1 The programme and the presentations of the Thematic Session are available in the website: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_thematic_session_ 230321_e.htm .