RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/111  
 
18 December 2023  
(23-8652) Page: 1/66 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 15 -17 NOVEMBER 2023  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  6 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  6 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ ............................  6 
2.1.1   Côte d'Ivoire - Information on the issuance of electronic phytosanitary certificates 
(G/SPS/GEN/2175)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
2.1.2   European  Union - Empowering learning and impact: Better Training for Safer Food in your 
language (G/S PS/GEN/2157)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 
2.1.3   United  States - Summary of the two -part APEC Food Safety Cooperation Foru m Workshop 
on "Risk Communication Related to Maximum Residue Limits"  ................................ .................  6 
2.1.4   United  States - Enhancing food security: The WTO's role in supporting innovation and 
sustainable growth in agricultural productivity (G/SPS/GEN/2168)  ................................ ...........  7 
2.1.5   Brazil - Enhancing food security through the reform in agriculture and the use of current 
flexibilities (JOB/SPS/31)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7 
2.1.6   Japan - Safe discharge of the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) treated water into 
the sea and update on the safety an d the import restrictions on Japanese food products regarding 
radioactive materials (G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6, 
G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6/Add.1,  G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6/Add.2, G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6/Add.3 
and G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6/Add.4)  ................................ ................................ ....................  7 
2.1.7   Ukraine - Report on SPS activities  ................................ ................................ .............  9 
2.1.8   Brazil - Request for the Good Offices of the Chair  ................................ ........................  9 
2.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and WOAH on relevant activities  ................................ ....... 10 
2.2.1   Codex (G/SPS/GEN/2173)  ................................ ................................ .......................  10 
2.2.2   IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/2169)  ................................ ................................ .........................  10 
2.2.3   WOAH (G/SPS/GEN/2161)  ................................ ................................ ......................  10 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ .....................  11 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  11 
3.1.1   US delays in the authorization of sweet citrus fruits (ID  569) - Concerns of Argentina  ...... 11 
3.1.2   US undue delays in the publication of import requirements for table grapes under a 
systems approach (ID  570) - Concerns of Chile  ................................ ................................ .... 11 
3.1.3   EU Xylella fastidiosa  surveillance requirements for third countries (ID  571) - Concerns of 
South  Africa  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  11 
3.1.4   India's suspension of imports of apples, pears and marigold seeds (ID  572) - Concerns of 
China  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  12 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their righ ts and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.1.5   Thailand's HPAI restrictions on live poul try and poultry meat (ID  573) – Concerns   
of Brazil ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  12 
3.1.6   Import restrictions on aquatic pr oducts after the discharge of ALPS treated water (ID  574) - 
Concerns of Japan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  12 
3.1.7   Viet Nam's undue delays in the authorization of beef imports (ID  575) - Concerns of 
Mexico   ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  13 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ............................  14 
3.2.1   EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos -
methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, mancozeb, 
molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID  448 - See also related STCs ID 453, 454, 457, 474, 
475, 517) - Concerns of Colombia, Costa Rica, United  States and Paraguay  ..............................  14 
3.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID  382) - Concerns of Paraguay  .........................  16 
3.2.3   EU import tolerances for certain pesticides to achieve environmental outcomes in third 
countries (ID  534) - Concerns of Colombia, Australia, the United  States and India  ....................  17 
3.2.4   EU regulation No 396/2005 setting pesticide MRLs in food and feed of plant and animal 
origin (ID  549) - Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ .....................  19 
3.2.5   EU Commission proposal for reduction of the current MRL for "nicotine" for imported tea 
from India (G/SPS/N/EU/58 1) (ID  550) - Concerns of India  ................................ ...................  19 
3.2.6   EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea (ID  518) - 
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  20 
3.2.7   EU restrictions o n exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application of the 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 amending Regulation (EC) 
No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID  503) - Concerns of Peru  . 20 
3.2.8   EU restrictions on spice imports and other food products due to European Commission 
Implementing Re gulation (EU) 2021/2246 of 15 December 2021 (ID  533) - Concerns of India  .... 20 
3.2.9   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (ID  446) - Concerns of the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  21 
3.2.10    India's Draft Food Safety and Standards (Import) Amendment Regulation (ID  553) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ........................  22 
3.2.11    India's Order related to requirement of health certificate accompanied with imported food 
consignment of milk, pork, fish and related products (ID  554) - Concerns of the Europe an Union  23 
3.2.12    China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultur al products 
(ID 487) - Concerns of Australia  ................................ ................................ ........................  24 
3.2.13    China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of imported 
food (26 November 2019) (ID  485) - Concerns of Australia  ................................ ....................  24 
3.2.14    China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID  516) - Concerns of Australia, Canada, Japan and the United  States  ..............  25 
3.2.15    Russian Federation - Procedures for authorizing units eligible for export of fish and fish 
products to Eurasian Customs Union (ID  508) - Concerns of Ind ia ................................ ...........  26 
3.2.16    India's undue delay in importing twelve species of fresh mushrooms (ID 566) - Concerns 
of Korea  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  26 
3.2.17    India's approval procedures to import plants, animals and their products (ID  565) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ........................  26 
3.2.18    Indonesia's appr oval procedures for animal and plant products (ID  441) - Concerns of 
the Russian Federation and the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ... 27 
3.2.19    Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of fishery and livestock 
enterprises (ID  509) - Concerns of Peru  ................................ ................................ ..............  27 
3.2.20    Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports (ID  490) 
- Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ......................  28 G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.2.21    Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and fisheries products (ID  530) - Concerns of 
Peru ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  28 
3.2.22    EU delays in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup) (ID  526) - 
Concerns of Kore a ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  28 
3.2.23    EU increased sampling frequency for inspection of farmed shrimps and newly listed fishery 
establishments not permitted to export aquaculture products (ID  552) - Concerns of India  .........  29 
3.2.24    General import restrictions due to BSE (ID  193) - Concerns of the European  Union  ........  29 
3.2.25    China's suspension of beef imports due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) 
restrictions (ID  561) - Concerns of Canada  ................................ ................................ ..........  29 
3.2.26    EU recognition of Mexico as a country with WOAH negligible BSE risk (ID  543) - Concerns 
of Mexico  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  30 
3.2.27    South  Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(ID 431) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .........  30 
3.2.28    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  406) - Concerns of 
the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  30 
3.2.29    China's import restrictions on heat -treated pet food containing poultry ingredients due to  
highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  562) - Concerns of Canada  ................................ ...........  31 
3.2.30    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  392) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  31 
3.2.31    Peru's non -application of regionalization for African swine fever (ID  544) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  31 
3.2.32    Mexico's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  563) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  32 
3.2.33    Canada's restrictions on Brazilian pork from internationally recognized FMD free zones 
without vaccination (ID  568) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ . 32 
3.2.34    Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on poultry and beef (ID  521) - Concerns of Brazil  .... 32 
3.2.35    The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID  466) - Concerns of the 
European  Union and the Russian Fed eration  ................................ ................................ .........  33 
3.2.36    EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on animal products (ID  442) - Concerns of  China  33 
3.2.37    EU import restrictions on ostrich meat (ID  558) - Concerns of South  Africa  ...................  34 
3.2.38    Qatar's new import rules for dairy products (ID  529) - Concerns of the E uropean  Union  . 34 
3.2.39    EU notifications of matrine and oxymatrine in honey (ID  546) - Concern s of China  ........  34 
3.2.40    Thailand's sanitary requirements on wet blue leather imports (ID  539) - Concerns of  
Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  35 
3.2.41    Korea's requirement of a health certificate with a declaration of aquatic disease status 
(ID 557) - Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ..............................  35 
3.2.42    India's requiremen t for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID  501) - 
Concerns of the United  States  ................................ ................................ ............................  35 
3.2.43    China's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID  532) - Concerns of Chinese Taipei  ............  36 
3.2.44    US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID  439) - Concerns of the European  Union  .. 37 
3.2.45    US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European  Union for Asian longhorn 
beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID  471) - Concerns of the European  Union  ...........................  37 
3.2.46    Morocco's import ban on ornamental plants (ID  548) - Concerns of the European  Union  . 37 
3.2.47    European  Union - EU phytosanitary measures on citrus black spot (ID  356) - Concerns of 
South  Africa  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  38 
3.2.48    US undue delays in opening its citrus market (ID  542) - Concerns of Brazil  ..................  38 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues  ................................ ................................ .............  38 G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 4 - 
 
  4   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS  AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 39 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  39 
4.1.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  39 
4.2   Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  ................................ ...............................  39 
4.2.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  39 
4.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ...........  39 
4.3.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  39 
4.4   Control, inspection and approval procedures  ................................ ................................ . 39 
4.4.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  39 
4.5   Special and differential treatment (S&D)  ................................ ................................ ...... 40 
4.5.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  40 
4.5.2   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ..............  40 
4.6   Monitoring of the use of international standards  ................................ ............................  40 
4.6.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  40 
4.6.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ..........................  40 
4.7   Procedure for the Sixth Review (G/SPS/W/346)  ................................ ............................  41 
4.8   Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG (G/L/1508 -G/SPS/69)  ................................ .............  41 
5   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  41 
5.1   SPS Declaration Work Programme (G/SPS/W/344/Rev.3, G/SPS/GEN/2134/Rev.3, 
WT/MIN(22)/27 and G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1) ................................ ................................ ...........  41 
5.1.1   Factual summary and draft report to the 13th Ministerial Conference  .............................  41 
5.2   MC12 implementation matters (G/C/W/824/Rev.1, JOB/CTG/37, JOB/SPS/25/Rev.3, 
JOB/CTG/26/Rev.1, WT/GC/W/874 and G/L/1508 -G/SPS/69)  ................................ .................  42 
5.2.1   Update from the Chairperson  ................................ ................................ ...................  42 
5.3   Thematic Session on Risk Communication, Misinformation and Disinformation  ...................  42 
5.3.1   Report on the Thematic Session  ................................ ................................ ...............  42 
5.4   Topics for 2024 thematic sessions/workshop  ................................ ................................  42 
6   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  43 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ................  43 
6.1.1   WTO SPS Activities  ................................ ................................ ................................  43 
6.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/2158)  ................................ ................................ ........................  43 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ........................  44 
6.2.1   Russian Federation - Technical support in the area of AMR  ................................ ...........  44 
6.2.2   United  States - Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.16)  ... 44 
6.2.3   Canada - Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/2159)  .....................  44 
6.2.4   Japan - Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.9)  ..............  44 
7   CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  ................................ ...... 44 
8   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  44 
8.1   Information from Observer Organizations  ................................ ................................ ..... 44 
8.1.1   OECD (G/SPS/GEN/2156)  ................................ ................................ .......................  44 
8.1.2   ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/2160)  ................................ ................................ ...................  45 G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 5 - 
 
  8.1.3   OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/2164)  ................................ ................................ ......................  45 
8.1.4   CAHFSA (G/SPS/GEN/2165)  ................................ ................................ ....................  45 
8.1.5   IICA (G/SPS/GEN/2166)  ................................ ................................ .........................  45 
8.1.6   IGAD (G/SPS/GEN/2167)  ................................ ................................ ........................  45 
8.1.7   ITC (G/SPS/GEN/2170)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  45 
8.1.8   GSO (G/SPS/GEN/2172)  ................................ ................................ .........................  45 
8.1.9   SADC (G/SPS/GEN/2174)  ................................ ................................ .......................  45 
8.2   Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ ......................  45 
8.2.1   New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  45 
8.2.2   Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 45 
9   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 46 
10   DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .... 46 
ANNEX A  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  47 
ANNEX B  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  51 
ANNEX C  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  54 
ANNEX D  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  61 
  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the Committee ) held its 87th regular 
meeting on 15 -17 November 2023. The meeting was held in hybrid form, with some delegates 
attending in -person and others joining via a virtual platform.  
1.2.  The proposed agenda for the meeting (JOB/SPS/32 ) was adopted with amendments.  
1.3.  The Secretariat  introduced Members to the eDelegate platform , a "one -stop shop" which would 
help delegates manage their access to different WTO systems, including access to platforms and 
online tools, and also to sign up to receive emails concerning particular WTO c ommittees. 
An information session had been held on  6 November 2023 and the platform had  already  been made 
available to delegation coordinators only for testing  and feedback. The platform would subsequently 
be made available for all Geneva - and capital -based delegates that already had access to 
eRegistrati on. Noting that in the future , SPS Committee  communications would be distributed to 
those who had registered through the eDelegate  system , the Secretariat requested Members to sign 
up through the platform, indicating which Committee s they followed. Before switching over to the 
new system, there would be a transition period and the Secretariat would notify those subscribed to 
the current mailing list before discontinuing it.  
1.4.  The Secretariat also reminded Members that they were able to submit agenda items, support 
STCs, and upload statements through eAgenda. Members could support items through eAgenda until 
they were discussed in the meeting, and upload statements until Friday, 17 November 2023. 
Only oral interventions by Members who too k the floor during the meeting would be  reflected in the 
summary  report. In addition, longer statements could be shared through eAgenda or circulated as 
GEN-documents.  
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Côte d'Ivoire - Information on the issuance of electronic phytosanitary certificates 
(G/SPS/GEN/2175 ) 
2.1.  Since May 2023, Côte d'Ivoire  was officially delivering electronic phytosanitary certificates for 
plants and plant products, using the model certificates provided by IPP C. ePhyto had been 
implemented through the Single Window for Foreign Trade platform, which had contributed to 
facilitate safe and sustainable trade, to reduce fraud, and to improve transparency, reliability and 
traceability, as well as to improve recording  of phytosanitary issues. The platform also included a 
module to coordinate visits to reduce the number of inspections. Noting some pending challenges in 
the deployment of the ePhyto system, Côte d'Ivoire informed the Committee of the plan to develop 
an eq uivalent module for animal health certificates.  
2.1.2   European  Union  - Empowering learning and impact: Better Training for Safer Food 
in your language (G/SPS/GEN/2157 ) 
2.2.  The European  Union  informed the Committee about the side event held on 1 4 November 2023 
and drew Members' attention to the information contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2157 . 
The European  Union  reported that, since the start of the programme 18 years earlier , BTSF ha d held 
over 3,000 events, trained over  92,000 in-person participants, and 20% of its activities  were 
dedicated to non -EU experts . The European  Union  thanked participants for contributing to the good 
discussion and looked fo rward to working with Members interested in this matter.  
2.1.3   United  States  - Summary of the two -part APEC Food Safety Cooperation Forum 
Workshop on "Risk Communication Related to Maximum Residue Limits " 
2.3.  The United  States  informed the Committee of the workshop titled "Risk Communication Related 
to Maximum Residue Limits " held for APEC member economies, aimed at strengthening their 
capacity to conduct risk communication. The workshops, co -sponsored by Australia and Canada and 
held as part of the Food Safety Cooperation Forum (FSCF), laid the groundwork for future 
cooperati on and collaboration among APEC economies on this matter. Noting the importance of the G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 7 - 
 
  subject for the SPS Committee , the United  States  invited Members to consider the possible relevance 
of the resulting materials for future Committee discussions. The United States  provided its statement 
in document G/SPS/GEN/2176 . 
2.1.4   United  States  - Enhancing food security: The WTO 's role in supporting innovation 
and sustainable growth in agricultural productivity (G/SPS/GEN/2168 ) 
2.4.  The United  States  drew Members' a ttention to its document G/SPS /GEN/2168 . A prior 
US submission to the Council for Trade and Goods (CTG) (JOB/SPS/28 ) identified two ways in which 
WTO and its Members could play a role in addressing global food security challenges: the promotion 
of trad e and open markets, and the promotion of policies that encourage more sustainable and 
efficient agricultural production. Noting the need to consider the intricate relationship between 
sustainable agricultural productivity growth and climate change, the United States  was of the view 
that farmers needed access to innovative tools and technologies as well as policies empowering 
them to transition to more sustainable production practices, in order to achieve the respective food 
security goals. The United  States  expressed appreciation for Brazil's submission in JOB/SPS/31  and 
called on Members to reflect on possible areas of common interests.  
2.5.  Referring to this and  the next agenda item, Canada  supported the idea that the WTO played a 
critical role in enhancing food security. Acknowledging the global challenges, Canada was dedicated 
to working with other Members to contribute to resilient and sustainable agrifood systems, and would 
discuss new innovations and technologies to continue regulating the safety of food and agricultural 
products. C anada strongly believed in a rules -based trading system underpinned by science and 
evidence.  
2.1.5   Brazil  - Enhancing food security through the reform in agriculture and the use of 
current flexibilities (JOB/SPS/31 ) 
2.6.  Brazil  drew Members' attention to document JOB/SPS/31  and recalled that  Members had 
recognized the vital role trade, along with domestic production, play ed in improving global food 
security in all its dimensions and enhancing nutrition. Brazil noted that WTO solutions to enhance 
global food security had to  be trade -related and require d a holistic approach within the trade scope, 
particularly focusing on dome stic support and market access. Brazil stated that the agricultural 
reform process was a driver to increase domestic production and to achieve Sustainable 
Development Goals. Brazil also referred to its experience in fighting food insecurity and increasing 
productivity and explained  Brazilian policies that integrate d social protection with agriculture. 
Brazil  invited Members to take a look at the document for more information.  
2.7.  Referring to the communications on food security from the United  States  and Brazil , 
Singapore  shared the view that food insecurity issues were multifaceted and should be addressed  in 
a comprehensive manner. Singapore echoed the US view and remain ed open to discussions on food 
security , particularly  in the context of the upcoming Ministerial Conference.  
2.1.6   Japan - Safe discharge of the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS ) treated 
water into the sea and update on the safety and the import restrictions on Japanese food 
products regarding radioactive m aterials (G/SPS/GE N/1233/Rev.6 , 
G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6/Add.1 , G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6/Add.2 , 
G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6/Add.3  and G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6/Add.4 ) 
2.8.  Japan  updated Members on the safety of Japanese food products and the import restrictions 
regarding radioactive materials. Noting its robust food monitoring and control system, 
Japan  acknowledged the assessment by the FAO/IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Center 
that the food supply chain was controlled effectively and the public food supply was safe. 
Japan  welcomed the Members who had lifted their import restrictions in August 2023, on the basis 
of scientific evidence. Underscoring that the restrictions still in place were  without scientific basis 
and inconsistent with the SPS Agreement , Japan reiterated its request for Members that continued 
to maintain measures to lift them immediately . 
2.9.  Japan also provided detailed inf ormation on the safety of the discharge of ALPS treated water 
regarding tritium and radioactive materials other than tritium. Japan highlighted  that the IAEA had 
concluded that the discharge of ALPS treated water would have neglig ible radiological impact o n G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 8 - 
 
  people and the environment . All possible measure s to ensure safety had been taken since the 
beginning of the discharge in August 2023, and both Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings 
(TEPCO ) and IAEA conducted analys es to ensure that treated water met reg ulatory standards. 
Japan  was committed to continue providing the international community with explanations based on 
scientific evidence in a transparent manner. Japan explained that it would address import restrictions 
introduced after the discharge in mor e detail in the agenda item on specific trade concerns.  
2.10.  Canada  welcomed the information provided and reminded the Committee that it had 
previously shared its assessment of the available scientific evidence, which had led to the lifting of 
import measures related to the accident. Acknowledging the conclusions of the IAEA report, 
Canada  was of the view that the rele ase of the treated water by Japan did not constitute a food 
safety concern.  
2.11.  Korea  had previously explained the legitimacy of its safety control measures for radioactive 
materials in foods imported from Japan. Referring to the contamination caused by the re lease of 
radioactive material at the beginning of the accident, Korea feared that the risk for further potential 
contamination still existed. Korea noted that, as of May 2023, the release and consumption of some 
agriculture and fishery products were still restricted in Japan due to radioactive contamination. 
Korea  urged Japan to comply with scientific standards and to provide information in a transparent 
manner during the release process.  
2.12.  Since the announcement of the discharge plan, China  had raised its co ncerns about the risks 
imposed to environmental, food and public safety. China had adopted emergency measures against 
aquatic products from Japan, and drew Members' attention to its submission in G/SPS/GEN/2153 . 
Emphasizing the lack of precedent for such discharge, China stated that there were no internationally 
recognized disposal standards , that Japan lacked risk assessment s for biological life or health , and 
that it had not compared the risks of different disposal options. China urged  Japan to submit a risk 
assessment report on the possible disposal options, to allow stakeholders to conduct independent 
sample analysis of the water, and to handle the discharge in a responsible manner.  
2.13.  The United  States  urged Members to immediate ly repea l the restrictive measures applied due 
to the release of ALPS treated water. The United  States  agreed with IAEA that the discharge did not 
pose a concern for public safety and would have a negligible impact on any concentrations of 
elements in internationa l waters. The United  States  provided its statement in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2177 . 
2.14.  The United  Kingdom  reiterated its support for Japan's decision to discharge ALPS treated 
water and welcomed its ongoing commitment to transparency. Voicing its satisfactio n with the IAEA's 
monitoring and judgement that the release was safe, the United  Kingdom  urged Members to adopt 
measures consistent with the obligations in the SPS Agreement . 
2.15.  Australia  acknowledged Japan's concerns regarding restrictions imposed by some Me mbers 
on imports of aquatic products, and highlighted the need to base SPS measures on evidence and 
scientific risk assessments.  
2.16.  The Russian Federation  had imposed emergency enhanced sanitary controls on fish products 
from Japan following the announcement of the water release. The Russian Federation called upon 
Japan to be more transparent and to provide neighbouring countries with access to the information 
necessary to confirm the safety of fish and fish products.  
2.17.  Underlining the importance of science -based analyses, the European  Union  stated that the 
IAEA report confirmed  that Japan's  approach was consistent with the highest nuclear international 
safety and radioactivity standards. The European  Union  supported IAEA's effort to provide technical 
assistance in reviewing the safety of the discharge and to provide continued independent monitoring, 
and further indicated that its involvement was key to ensure credibility and transparency in 
monitoring the process. The European  Union  invited Japan to continue prov iding regular updates in 
a timely and transparent manner.  
2.18.  Japan  thanked those Members who expressed support for the information shared  by Japan . 
In response to China, Korea and the Russian Federation, Japan indicated that the water was not 
radioactive nor contaminated, and it would only be released after sufficient purification and dilution. G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Japan reiterated that the assessment of environmental i mpacts had been carefully conducted in line 
with international standards and guidelines, having considered the effect of bioaccumulation and 
long-term accumulation, and that TEPCO and IAEA had concluded that impacts on human s and on 
the environment would b e negligible . Appropriate measures would be taken should any anomalies 
be found during the monitoring in place since the beginning of the discharge in August. IAEA would 
continue to review the monitoring activities and Japan would continue to disseminate m onitoring 
data that could be used by the international community. In addition, IAEA and third -country 
analytical and research institutes had conducted interlaboratory comparison regarding 
environmental monitoring of ALPS treated water. Japan further clarif ied that its regulatory 
framework ensured that  food items exceeding the Japanese maximum levels, as we ll as the same 
lot containing the items in question  were to be recalled and disposed of, thus neither distributed 
domestically nor exported.  
2.1.7   Ukraine - Report on SPS activities  
2.19.  Ukraine  thanked Members for their support and provided an update on its SPS policy and 
activities related to the implementation of SPS measures. Ukraine continued to ensure compliance 
with the requirements from importing countries and  international treaties. Regarding animal health, 
its competent authority implemented all necessary measures to ensure a stable epizootic situation 
in the territory under its control. In partnership with international organizations, Ukraine was 
implementin g measures to strengthen the public health system based on the One Health approach. 
Regarding plant quarantine and plant protection, Ukraine was taking measures to ensure compliance 
with International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs ) and with t he requirements of its 
trading partners. Ukraine ensured food security as part of its national security and was working on 
the digitalization of the related procedures. The implementation of the "Vetcontrol system" to 
address veterinary control tasks in a unified platform and the introduction of the Trade Control and 
Expert System (TRACES ) were currently ongoing. Ukraine emphasized that its competent authorities 
continued to fulfil its transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement  and to ensure the effec tive 
functioning of its SPS system, despite the loss of critical infrastructure.  
2.20.  The European  Union , the United  States , the United  Kingdom , Canada , Australia , New Zealand , 
Japan  and Switzerland  expressed their appreciation for Ukraine's efforts to fulfil i ts WTO 
SPS obligations, maintain food safety standards, and deliver food to international markets. 
They condemned the Russian Federation's military action in Ukraine, noting that it constituted a 
violation of international law. Several Members stated that the invasion was exacerbating the current 
food security crisis, had inflated prices and increased global hunger since Ukraine was unable to 
inspect and export grain. Members called on the Russian Federation to cease military operations in 
Ukraine.  
2.21.  The Russian Federation  indicated that it continued to participate in global efforts to prevent 
food insecurity and hunger in developing countries and least developed countries (LDCs). In its view, 
allegations that it contributed to the global food crisis were ridiculous given other systemic factors. 
The Russian Federation noted that the Black Sea Grain Initiative could only be revived once all the 
requirements were met. The Russian Federation took the view that the Committee should refrain 
from discussing issue s not within the scope of the WTO. Referring to attempts to politicize the 
Committee, the Russian Federation requested the Chairperson to moderate the discussions in 
accordance with the agenda and working procedures of the Committee.  
2.1.8   Brazil - Request for t he Good Offices of the Chair  
2.22.  Brazil  informed the Committee of its request for the Good Offices of the Chair under 
Article  12.2 of the SPS Agreement , as a means to constructively engage with Nigeria in solving the 
issues discussed under the STC titled " Nigeria's Import Restrictions on Meat, Pork, Poultry, Milk, and 
Dairy Products" ( ID 523 ). Brazil invited Nigeria to engage in this exercise.  
2.23.  Nigeria  took the opportunity to respond to questions raised in document G/SPS/GEN/2116 , 
and maintained that it had no SPS measures in place restricting imports from Brazil. Nigeria was of 
the view that Brazil had not indicated the SPS measure at issue  and that the SPS Committee  was 
not the appropriate forum for discussion. In the Committee o n Agriculture and the Council for Trade 
in Goods, Nigeria had indicated that the restrictions on agricultural products were imposed to address 
economic development,  balance of payment and national security issues. Nigeria asked Brazil to G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 10 - 
 
  clarify what was the measure at issue and whether it fell within the scope of Annex A of the 
SPS Agreement , and to demonstrate how the restrictions were inconsistent with Articles 2,  5, 7 and 
8 and Annex C of the Agreement, as claimed by Brazil in June 2022. Nigeria encouraged Brazil to 
take the issue off the agenda.  
2.24.  The Chairperson  clarified that the underlying STC had not been raised in the agenda of the 
current meeting and that, un der this item, Brazil was providing information on its request for the 
good offices of the Chair. The Chairperson invited both delegations to continue bilateral engagement 
and expressed his availability to intervene upon request.  
2.25.  Brazil  thanked the Chairpe rson for the clarification provided and Nigeria for the information 
facilitated, and reiterated its willingness to continue bilateral dialogue.  
2.26.  Nigeria  indicated that it would engage bilaterally with Brazil.  
2.2  Information from Codex, IPPC  and WOAH on relevant activities  
2.2.1   Codex (G/SPS/GEN/2173 ) 
2.27.  Codex  highlighted some key elements of the information contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2173 . Codex brought Member's attention to the finalization of the revision of the General 
Guidelines on  Sampling (CXG 50 -2004) and the Classification of Foods and Animal Feed 
(CXA 4-1989). In particular, Codex provided information on the ongoing work on the revision of 
MRLs for the group peppers to include okra, martynia and roselle that necessitate d MRLs t o facilitate 
international trade. Codex also reported on the work on new food sources and production systems 
and on the development of international standards aimed at protecting consumer health and 
ensuring fair practices in the food trade. Codex encourag ed Members and observers to fully engage 
in the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and to share 
information on their plans and activities.  
2.28.  Looking forward to fruitful discussions in CAC46, Brazil indicated that it had hosted an event 
to celebrate the 60th anniversary  of Codex , with the participation of government officials and the 
private sector.  
2.2.2   IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/2169 ) 
2.29.  The IPPC summarized some of the  relevant activities  detailed  in document G/SPS/GEN/2169 . 
The IPPC reported on several topics that were to be discussed and agreed by the Commission on 
Phytosanitary Measures (CPM): adoption of international standards for phytosanitary measures, 
adjustments to the IPPC Standard Setting Procedur e, CPM Recommendations for Sea Containers, 
and the update from other CPM Focus Groups on the Safe Provision of Food and Other Humanitarian 
Aid. The IPPC also provided an update on their work including standard setting, implementation and 
facilitation, inte gration and support, as well as some internal management initiatives such as 
the global phytosanitary programme, the global trade support team, and the IPPC centre of 
excellence. The IPPC referred to the discussions around sustainable funding  for ePhyto , One Health 
and antimicrobial resistance, and coordination activities related to Banana Fusarium  oxysporium TR4 
global coordination . The IPPC also reported on the activities by the IPPC Observatory and on the 
new guides published in 2023.  
2.2.3   WOAH (G/SPS/GEN/2161 ) 
2.30.  The report of WOAH 's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2161 . 
2.31.  The United  States  highlighted the importance of having the three sisters  attending  the 
SPS Committee  meeting s, preferably in person,  given the relevance  of their work for  the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement . 
2.32.  The European  Union  echoed the US intervention.  
2.33.  The Chairperson  suggested that Members continue this discussion in the context of the 
informal meetings on the improvement of the functioning of the Committee.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
3.1.  Before the adoption of the agenda, the United  States  withdrew the support it had initially 
indicated in eAgenda for  STC ID 431, South  Africa 's import restrictions on poultry due to highly 
pathogenic avian influenza.  
3.1  New issues  
3.1.1   US delays in the authorizatio n of sweet citrus fruits (ID 569) - Concerns of 
Argentina  
3.2.  Argentina  raised its concerns about the lack of progress towards the opening of the US market 
to its sweet citrus fruits. In 2019, the US Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS ) 
had a udited Argentina's citrus production and control system to undertake a pest risk analysis (PRA) 
and in 2020, it had submitted a draft document with proposals of risk mitigation measures for the 
pests identified. Argentina regretted that the United  States  had not yet published the PRA for public 
comments, which was a necessary step to finalize the process of opening markets. Noting  that 
exports of sweet citrus fruits constituted a priority in their bilateral SPS negotiations, and 
underscoring the numerous at tempts to place this topic on the agenda for bilateral discussions, 
Argentina noted that the United  States  had not indicated a possible timeline for the resolution of the 
process. In Argentina's view, this delay was a violation of Articles 2.2, 5 and 8, as  well as Annex C 
of the SPS Agreement . Argentina urged the United  States  to publish without delay the PRA for public 
comments and to promptly conclude the market opening for sweet citrus fruits. Argentina reiterated 
its availability for bilateral collabora tion towards a prompt resolution of this issue.  
3.3.  The United  States  informed the Committee that APHIS was proceeding through its standard 
regulatory process for this request, and would release a draft PRA for stakeholder review. 
The United  States  would continue to work on  Argentina's market access request according to the  
priorities  indicated by Argentina . 
3.1.2   US undue delays in the publication of import requirements for table grapes under a 
systems approach (ID 570) - Concerns of Chile  
3.4.  Chile raised its concerns regarding the US undue delays in the publication of import 
requir ements for table grapes under a systems approach, as an alternative to fumigation with methyl 
bromide. The  delay was affecting the national production and export chain in the three main 
producing regions. In Chile's view, the United  States  was violating Ar ticles 4, 5 and 8 and Annex C 
of the SPS Agreement . Following the confirmation received in May 2023 that the analysis for the 
authorization of the system s approach for table grapes had been finalized and that the measure was 
ready for publication, Chile re quested its prompt publication in the Federal Register and reiterated 
its availability for an open communication towards the resolution of the issue.  
3.5.  The United  States  informed the Committee that the final notice for the import ation of  grapes 
from Chile un der a systems approach was currently under review by the US Department of 
Agriculture (USDA ). 
3.1.3   EU Xylella fastidiosa  surveillance requirements for third countries (ID 571) - 
Concerns of South  Africa  
3.6.  South  Africa  raised its concern over Commission Implementi ng Regulation (EU) 2020/1201 
regard ing measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the European  Union  of 
Xylella  fastidiosa . South  Africa  questioned the need for X. fastidiosa -free countries to undertake 
risk-based surveys to trade with the European  Union , where the pest had been recorded. Noting the 
high cost and resources involved in the surveys, South  Africa  was of the view that third countries 
should have the option to simply declare their pest freedom on a  phytosanitary certificate. 
South  Africa  had strict import requirements against X. fastidiosa , which was a quarantine pest in the 
country.  
3.7.  Regretting the lack of prior information on this concern, the European  Union  confirmed that 
Regulation (EU) 2020/1201  was published in August 2020 following a consultation period, as notified 
in G/SPS/N/EU/390 . X. fastidiosa  was a priority pest in the European  Union  and, as such, subject to G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 12 - 
 
  high level of protection regarding imports of host plants as well as movemen ts between and within 
EU member States. To avoid trade disruptions by the entry into force of the requirements on 
1 January 2023, reminders had been sent to third countries who had communicated their pest 
freedom status, to which South  Africa  had responded  providing the necessary details indicating 
compliance. The European  Union  emphasized that the Commission had applied flexibility and 
accepted the old declarations until 31 January 2023 and, as a result, no trade disruption had 
occurred.  
3.1.4   India's suspension  of imports of apples, pears and marigold seeds (ID 572) - 
Concerns of China  
3.8.  China  indicated that, in 2017, India had suspended imports of apples, pears and marigold seeds 
from China in response to the identification of certain pests. China regretted the lack of feedback 
received after the bilateral technical consultations held, the provision of t he requested technical 
materials and the field assessment undertaken in 2019. China looked forward to India's feedback in 
order to continue the negotiations to resume the exports.  
3.9.  Having taken note of China's statement, India indicated  that it was not in a  position to provide 
any response, since no information had been provided beforehand.  
3.1.5   Thailand's HPAI restrictions on live poultry and poultry meat (ID 573) - Concerns 
of Brazil  
3.10.  Brazil  raised its concerns about the suspensions of transit of its poultry thr ough Thailand's 
territory, which it considered to be a violation of Article 3 of the SPS Agreement  and of WOAH 
guidelines. Brazil stated that there was no proper justification to extend the initial 90 -day 
suspension. Underscoring that cases of highly patho genic avian influenza (HPAI) in Brazil did not 
occur in commercial poultry, which should thus not change the recognition of the country as a 
HPAI-free, Brazil hoped  that Thailand would lift the suspension to be in line with the SPS Agreement  
and the releva nt international references.  
3.11.  Thailand  stated that its notification G/SPS/N/THA/666  regarding the temporary suspension of 
importation of live poultry and poultry carcasses from Brazil was in conformity with its 
Animal  Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015). Highlighting the need to prevent the entry of HPAI into the 
country, Thailand  would review the temporary suspension of importation and transit every 90 days. 
Thailand  expressed its willingness to engage in bilateral technical consultations with the relevan t 
competent authorities.  
3.1.6   Import restrictions on aquatic products after the discharge of ALPS treated water 
(ID 574) - Concerns of Japan  
3.12.  Japan  regretted that China; Hong Kong, China; Macao, China and the Russian Federation had 
taken measures to restrict imp orts of Japanese fishery products and other products in response to 
the discharge of ALPS treated water. With the involvement of the IAEA, Japan had been monitoring 
the concentration of radionuclides  including tritium  since the beginning of the discharge in 
August  2023. Japan insisted that ALPS treated water  was sufficiently purified until the concentration 
of radionuclides other than tritium was below the regulatory standard and it was diluted by seawater 
before being  discharged. As for tritium, after the dilution, the concentration level would be less than 
1,500 Bq/L, that was 1/7 of the WHO drinking water standard . All monitoring results were publicly 
available  and clearly showed that the tritium concentration level at various monitoring points in the 
sea area wa s substantially lower than the operational standards , and Japan was committed to taking 
the appropriate measures if radionuclides exceeding the discharge suspension level were detected. 
Arguing that the restri ctions were not based on scientific principles nor substantiated by scientific 
evidence , and were thus inconsistent with the SPS Agreement , Japan urged China; 
Hong Kong,  China; Macao, China and the Russian Federation to immediately repeal their restriction s. 
Japan had submitted comments to the corresponding notifications of the measures requesting them 
to hold discussions with Japan in accordance with paragraph 6c of Annex B of the SPS Agreement, 
and called on those Members to respond to the request of hold ing bilateral discussions.  
3.13.  China  shared its concern about the radioactive pollution risks posed to imports, agricultural 
products, the marine environment and food safety as a result of the discharge. China had notified G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 13 - 
 
  emergency precautionary trade measure s against aquatic products from Japan, taken in accordance 
with China's national legislation and the SPS Agreement  to prevent these risks. In its position paper 
circulated as G/SPS/GEN/2153 , China had pointed out that, after the discharge, Japanese a quatic 
products would pose threats to human life and health and risks to food safety. In a letter submitted 
to Japan, China had insisted on the emergency and preventive character of the measures , and had 
asked for comprehensive monitoring data and reports.  China was of the view that data released by 
Japan contained gaps and was insufficient to support relevant assessments to eliminate 
Chinese  concerns. China urged Japan to scientifically assess the potential risks posed to global food 
safety by the discharg e and to provide reports for China to make  a decision on next steps. 
China  underscored the differences between nuclear contaminated water discharged from nuclear 
power plants in normal operation and the water from Fukushima.  
3.14.  Noting the difference between cooling water generated during normal operation of  nuclear 
plants and nuclear -contaminated water, Hong Kong, China  stated that such a discharge was 
unprecedented and that no international standards or practices had been established. 
Hong Kong,  China was of the view that there was no guarantee that the discharge plan would not 
pose any potential risks to food safety and marine ecology in the long term, and that the impact 
could only be more accurately assessed once more surveillance data were available, somet ime after 
the commencement of the discharge. Imports of aquatic products, sea salt, and seaweeds originating 
from Fukushima and nearby prefectures had been suspended, as a precautionary measure to 
mitigate possible dangers to public health. Hong Kong, Chin a was engaging bilaterally with Japan, 
and would continue to monitor the situation regarding the import of food and the discharge plan to 
safeguard food safety and public health.  
3.15.  The Russian Federation  had imposed precautionary emergency measures in accordance with 
Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement  to protect its population against the risks arising from introduction 
of radioactively contaminated food to the market. The Russian Federation was of the view  that the 
release of water could pose risks to environmental, food and public safety, and complained that 
Japan had not provided any evidence o n the safety of fish and seafood caught in the area where 
water was being discharged. The Russian Federation urge d Japan to be more transparent and to 
provide comprehensive scientific information to confirm the safety of aquatic products.  
3.16.  Regarding the discharged ALPS treated water into the sea, Japan  noted it would not repeat 
the explanations which had already been provided in the previous agenda item and yet added that 
it had provided explanations on its efforts to ensure safety, including the conclusions of the IAEA's 
comprehensive report that the di scharge was consistent with relevant international standards. As a 
result of Japan's outreach activities to ensure transparency, a wide range of countries and regions 
had expressed their support for the efforts undertaken. Japan insisted that ALPS could re move such 
radionuclides which the accident reactor contained to levels below the regulatory standards , that in 
the IAEA safety standards, the method for evaluating the safety of wastewater was the same for 
both accident reactors or not, and that the safety  of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station was 
also evaluated based on the international concepts . Japan sought further clarification on the 
emergency precautionary character of Chin a's measures, since it believed that sufficient scientific 
evidence had b een provided on the matter and, as such, Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement  was not 
relevant. Japan further clarified that it had provided the Russian Federation with the additional 
information it had requested in their bilateral dialogue . 
3.1.7   Viet Nam's undue d elays in the authorization of beef imports (ID 575) - Concerns 
of Mexico  
3.17.  Mexico  raised its concern regarding lack of progress on the establishment of sanitary 
requirements for the authorization of its beef imports into Viet Nam. Mexico had provided all the  
information requested by Viet Nam's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD ), and 
had requested the results of the risk analysis with a view to organizing in situ  inspections to the 
Federal Inspection Type establishments wishing to export to V iet Nam. Stating that these delays 
were a violation of Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement , Mexico asked Viet Nam to provide 
information on the status of the risk analysis and to move forward in programming the in situ  
inspections. Mexico  reiterated  its willingness to maintain the open bilateral communication to 
progress towards the opening of the market for beef.  
3.18.  Noting the ongoing bilateral exchanges, Viet Nam  informed the Committee that the MARD 
had requested Mexico to provide further information,  including on the monitoring programme for G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 14 - 
 
  veterinary drug residues and on contamination with microorganisms, as well as a sample of health 
certificates used to export beef to other trading partners. The MARD would review the information 
once submitted and  would finalize certificates accordingly.  
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.2.1   EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, 
chlorpyrifos -methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, 
iprodione, mancozeb, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID 448 - See also related 
STCs ID 453, 454, 457, 474, 475, 517 ) - Concerns of Colombia, Costa Rica, United  States  
and Paraguay  
3.19.  Colombia  expressed its concern regarding the approval process for the review of the MRLs of 
certain substances as established in the Regulations (EC) No 396/2005 and (EC) 1107/2009. 
Colombia questioned the alignment of the granting of import tolerances with the obligations in the 
SPS Agreement , and indicated that these measures should  be based on solid scientific evidence 
considering the effects on trade and competitivity. Colombia also added that, in some instances, 
emergency authorizations had been granted to crops treated with banned substances. 
Colombia  looked forward for a constru ctive response from the European  Union . 
3.20.  Costa Rica  reiterated its concern relating to the impact that the reduction of MRLs to the level 
of detection could have on its production system, as these substances were necessary in tropical 
climates and did not h ave substitutes in the short term. Costa Rica highlighted the lack of conclusive 
scientific evidence and the divergence from the conclusions reached in other international fora, 
namely Codex. Costa Rica asked the European  Union  to reconsider its regulatory  approach and to 
incorporate measures that reduced impact on global food security.  
3.21.  The United  States  recalled Members' obligation to ensure that SPS measures were based on 
science, imposed when necessary to achieve the appropriate level of protection, and applied in the 
least trade restrictive manner. The United  States  stated that the recent EU MRL reductions appeared 
to be more trade restrictive than necessary to meet the EU 's level of protection and that imported 
products appeared to be treated differentl y than domestic products. Regarding the continued use of 
emergency authorizations for active substances no longer approved, the  United  States  highlighted 
the importance of certain crop protection tools and the lack of effective and economical alternatives,  
and reiterated that the implemented transition periods were insufficient. The United  States  provided 
its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2178 . 
3.22.  Paraguay  acknowledged the responses provided by the European  Union  and reiterated its 
request for updates on the follow -up actions after the ruling of the Court of Justice of the 
European  Union  (CJEU) on emergency authorizations. Regarding the reduction of MRLs, 
Paraguay  expressed its concern about  the import tolerances for tricyclazole in rice and the 
non-renewal of glyphosate despite the scientific evidence available. Noting the importance of 
establishing measures consistent with the SPS Agreement , Paraguay requested the European  Union  
to inform Members about the result  of the voting procedures for the renewal of glyphosate and 
import tolerance for tricyclazole. In a subsequent intervention, Paraguay provided an update on the 
voting that has just occurred and reported  that the EU member States had not reach ed a majority 
to reject the renewal of glyphosate. Paraguay requested the European  Union  to confirm that the 
Commission was going to approve the use of the substance for a period of ten years and to provide 
information  about the associated requirements.  
3.23.  Regretting the l ack of changes in the EU MRLs, Peru was of the view that the  measures were 
more trade restrictive than necessary, contrary to the SPS Agreement  and international standards. 
Peru asked the European  Union  to provide answers to the questions raised in the SPS  subcommittee 
held in the context of their Multiparty Agreement.  
3.24.  Uruguay  expressed its concerns regarding the EU approach to MRL reduction for an increasing 
number of substances to limits lower than those of Codex without a scientific risk assessment, 
which could affect its exports of apples, pears and citrus. Uruguay concurred with other Members 
that emergency authorizations granted by EU member States to domestic producers could conflict 
with EU health protection policies and trading conditions with third  countries, and sought clarification 
on how the CJEU ruling would affect considerations for emergency authorizations. Highlighting that G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 15 - 
 
  pesticide regulations should be non -discriminatory and based on scientific principles and 
risk assessments, Uruguay poin ted out that sufficient transition periods should be granted for 
producers to adapt to modified MRLs. Uruguay requested the European  Union  to reconsider its 
regulatory approach and expressed its openness to participate in a dialogue to avoid adverse effect s 
on Members.  
3.25.  Argentina  reiterated its concern regarding the technical and structural aspects of the issue 
that affected Members from all regions. Recalling the importance of science -based SPS measures, 
Argentina urged the European  Union  to apply a risk -based approach to its regulatory changes, 
in alignment with the relevant international organizations, such as Codex. Highlighting the 
importance of having measures based on conclusive scientific studies, Argentina invited the 
European  Union  to review its reg ulatory approach considering the local circumstances of production, 
the lack of substitutes, and the agreements reached by the international standard setting bodies.  
3.26.  Reiterating its concerns on the trade implications of the EU approach to the regulation of 
active substances in plant protection products, Canada  emphasized the need for decision -making 
based on risk assessment techniques developed by relevant internationa l organizations. 
Canada  indicated its interventions at previous Committee meetings remain ed valid.  
3.27.  Brazil  highlighted concerns related to the EU MRL regulatory policies, which it considered to 
be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the EU's ap propriate level of protection and not 
aligned with Codex, thus violating Articles 3 and 5.6 of the Agreement. Brazil was also concerned at 
the emergency authorizations granted to EU member States. Brazil urged the European  Union  to 
base its SPS measures on  scientific evidence and realistic exposure scenarios, and to consider trade 
facilitative approaches while establishing MRLs, with longer transitional periods and early and 
effective engagement in the process.  
3.28.  Ecuador  invited the European  Union  to adhere t o Codex standards and not to base its 
measures on inconclusive risk assessments. Noting its tropical weather conditions, Ecuador detailed 
the long and costly process needed to find alternative substances. Ecuador highlighted that the 
EU measures affected i ts production of banana, as there were no substitutes for the regulated 
substances and similar alternative  product s were also questioned by the European  Union . 
Regarding  STC ID 475 on the non -renewal of the authorization for mancozeb, Ecuador reported that 
this substance was used according to Codex guidelines and asked the European  Union  to consider 
the recent studies showing that mancozeb was safe for consumers and environment. 
Regarding  STC ID 474, Ecuador explained the economic relevance of those substances in its 
product ion of banana. Ecuador referred to the emergency authorization granted to 
European  producers and urged the European  Union  to grant similar conditions to producers from 
third countries. Thanking the European  Union  for its answers to the questions in documen t 
G/SPS/GEN/2171 , Ecuador expressed its openness to continue with the technical dialogue.  
3.29.  Reiterating its concerns, Guatemala  stated that import tolerances were not an alternative to 
the reduction of MRLs to the level of detection, since most developing countries did not have the 
technical capacity to present these procedures. Guatemala recognized that emergency 
authorizations w ere granted as an exception for EU producers, but not for producers from third 
countries. Noting the ongoing review of the answers contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2171 , 
Guatemala requested the European  Union  to update Members on the result of the vot ing procedures 
for the renewal of certain substances.  
3.30.  Panama  referred to its intervention made in the previous Committee meeting.  
3.31.  China  urged the European  Union  to consider Members' concerns and to submit a 
comprehensive risk assessment report. Noting that  Codex MRLs for pesticides were established to 
safeguard consumers while ensuring safe trade, China indicated that EU MRLs were inconsistent with 
international norms and guidelines, and represented a concern for third countries that did not have 
the same e nvironmental conditions. China suggested to the European  Union  to establish the least 
trade restrictive measures until conclusive scientific evidence became available.  
3.32.  The European  Union  referred to the numerous answers already provided during past 
communi cations  and to its previous statements . The European  Union  had engaged , organizing 
information sessions and providing information through various communications on the on -going G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 16 - 
 
  review of MRLs for pesticides, in particular on how non -EU countries c ould actively contribute to it. 
The European  Union  highlighted  the recent answers contained in G/SPS/GEN/2139  and in 
G/SPS/GEN/2171 , as a reply to G/SPS/GEN/2076  and to G/SPS/GEN/2140 , respectively. 
The European  Union  referred to its presentation on the EU risk assessment process and the 
harmonization with Codex MRLs provided during the Thematic Session on  Trade Facilitative 
Approaches to Pesticide MRLs held in March 2022. The European  Union  remained open to discussions 
on how to facilitate trade of agricultural products treated  with plan t protection products.  
The European  Union  praised its trusted, transpa rent, and predictable food safety approach, and 
underscored Members ' shared interest in ensuring  that pesticide residues were not present at levels 
presenting an unacceptable risk to human health and set at the lowest achievable level, consistent 
with good agricultural practices. The European  Union  also recalled  that it continue d to provide 
technical assi stance to developing countries and LDCs in improving SPS capacity and market access.  
3.33.  The European  Union  confirmed that  EU m ember States had not reach ed the required qualified 
majority to renew or reject the approval of glyphosate during a vote at the Appea l Committee. In  line 
with EU legislation , and in the absence of the required majority in either direction, the Commission 
was now obliged to adopt a decision before 15 December 2023 , when the current approval period 
expire d. The Commission, based on compre hensive safety assessments , would  proceed with the 
renewal of the approval of glyphosate for a period of 10 years, subject to certain new conditions and 
restrictions.  
3.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID 382) - Concerns of Paraguay  
3.34.  Paraguay  acknowled ged the responses submitted by the European  Union  regarding the 
questions on the EU approach for the assessment of plant products protection. Paraguay was of the 
view that EU member States were not basing their decisions on the recommendation by EFSA nor 
on the MRLs established by Codex. Paraguay recalled Members' obligation to establish measures 
consistent with the SPS Agreement . 
3.35.  Peru was of the view that the EU regulation was inconsistent with Article 5 of the 
SPS Agreement . Peru noted that a hazard -based approach could lead to the establishment of trade 
measures more restrictive than necessary and have a negative impact on food trade. Peru would 
submit its previous questions to the European  Union . 
3.36.  Ecuador  underlined the imp ortance of basin g measures  on a scientific risk assessment , in line 
with Article 5 of the Agreement,  to avoid unnecessary obstacles to trade. Ecuador illustrated its 
disagreement with the European  Union  indicating that, in its view, substances had been ban ned 
based on alleged endocrine -disrupting effects.  
3.37.  Recalling  that scientific evidence should be the basis for the risk assessment, 
Guatemala  expressed its concern regarding the negative impact of the EU measure on international 
trade. Guatemala took the vi ew that the EU approach for endocrine disruptors on the establishment 
of new MRLs of key substances were, de facto , a zero import tolerance that affected developing 
countries. Guatemala urged the European  Union  to recognize the importance of harmonization of 
measures at a global level and the work in Codex.  
3.38.  Uruguay  reiterated its commercial and systemic concerns regarding the EU adoption and 
implementation of a hazard -based approach for products with potential endocrine -disrupting 
properties. Uruguay unders cored the need to base such determinations on conclusive scientific 
evidence to avoid removing from the market safe active substances without contributing to the 
stated objective of public health. Uruguay continued to support multilateral work undertaken a t 
Codex to develop a harmonized, risk -based approach that ensured health protection while facilitating 
international trade of food and agricultural products. Uruguay called on the European  Union  to 
address Members' concerns and to reconsider its regulatory  approach to avoid discrimination and 
unjustified trade restrictions.  
3.39.  Brazil  reaffirmed that the criteria for determining endocrine -disrupting substances had to be 
established in accordance with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement , in line with available scientific 
evidence to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions, instead of being base d solely on the perception of 
hazard. Brazil  highlighted the importance of conducting risk assessments appropriate to the G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 17 - 
 
  circumstances and the need to obtain additional information necessary for an objective assessment 
of risk.  
3.40.  The European  Union  was of t he view that its transparent approach led to Members ' knowledge  
of the EU decision making process , and emphasized that the European  Union  represent ed 
EU member States in the SPS Committee . The European  Union  affirmed that scientific criteria to 
identify endocrine disruptors were based on the WHO definition and had been applicable since 
November 2018. T he European  Union  reiterated that so far there had not been any cases of 
substances that ha d not been approve d at EU level solely because they met the endocrine disruptor  
criteria, and which had then been followed by the lowering of MRLs. The European  Union  noted that 
no new information had become available since the November 2022  SPS Committee  meeting and 
reiter ated its commitment to transparency and keeping Members informed of further developments.  
3.2.3   EU import tolerances for certain pesticides to achieve environmental outcomes in 
third countries (ID 534) - Concerns of Colombia, Australia , the United  States  and Ind ia 
3.41.  Noting the importance of protecting the environment, Colombia  stated that risk assessments 
should be based on conclusive analysis and a scientifically validated methodology. Colombia was of 
the view that the EU measure should be re -evaluated based on Members' obligations under the 
SPS Agreement  and considering Codex  work on MLRs. In Colombia 's view  the measures constituted 
an unnecessary and unjustified barrier to trade that would negatively affect exports to the 
European  Union  and the livelihoods of rural producers.  
3.42.  Australia  reiterated its concerns regarding the EU regulation on the neonicotinoid insecticides 
clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and the lack of response from the European  Union  regarding the 
reconsider ation of  its approach despite the widespread concerns expressed by third countries. 
Australia reinforced t he objective of the MRL setting design in ensuring food safety and facilitating 
trade, and that MRLs were not an appropriate nor an efficient tool to pursue environmental 
outcomes. Australia considered that using food MRLs as a proxy to pursue environmenta l standards 
outside EU  borders was incompatible with international standards and guidelines and threatened 
Members' ability to apply their own environmental policies  consistent with their unique 
environmental circumstances , in contradiction with WTO rules.  Australia called on the 
European  Union  to find a less restrictive alternative that would meet its objective while preserving 
trade and third countries' sovereignty  to conduct their own unique risk assessments . Australia also 
considered there was a lack of  scientific evidence in support of the link between the lowering of MRLs 
to the limit of determination and pollinator health. Australia referred to the recent statement by 
Cairns Group members on the contribution of the multilateral trading system to suppo rt sustainable 
and resilient agriculture and food systems , contained in document  G/AG/GEN/222/Rev.1 . 
3.43.  The United  States  reiterated its concern with the application of EU domestic environmental 
policies to food and agricultural products importe d from third countries. The United  States  reinforced 
the need for diverse approaches in different regions, and noted the unclear link between the stated 
objective of protecting global pollinator health and the EU requirement for imported food and 
agricultu ral products to meet the reduced MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam. In the US view, 
pesticide MRLs were not the appropriate tool to address environmental health objectives, and the 
EU measure restricted trade more than necessary, given a shared scient ific understanding that 
pollinator health was affected by complex interactions among multiple factors. The United  States  
provided its stateme nt in document G/SPS/GEN/2179 . 
3.44.  India shared the concerns regarding the extraterritorial application of domestic laws and 
urged the European  Union  to collaborate with other Members to find a viable solution.  
3.45.  Paraguay  reiterated its concern regarding EU MRLs for clothia nidin and thiamethoxam as a 
tool to regulate the use of neonicotinoids in the processes and methods of production in third 
countries. Paraguay sought clarification on how the European  Union  consider ed Members' comments 
for the modifications of MRLs and ask ed for an  update on Regulation (EU) 2023/334. 
Regarding  emergency authorizations, Paraguay was still waiting for EU responses to the questions 
about the CJEU ruling. Regarding the zero import tolerance, Paraguay referred to its statement under 
STC ID 448. Noting the extraterritorial nature of the EU measure, Paraguay reminded the 
European  Union  about its obligations under the SPS Agreement . G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 18 - 
 
  3.46.  Canada  anticipated that the EU approach to integrat ing environmental objectives into their 
MRL and import tolerance setting processes would likely impact trade. The EU's extraterritorial 
application of its domestic standards to trading partners was not an effect ive way to pursue 
non-SPS objectives. In Canada's view,  global environmental challenges would be more appropriately 
addressed in other multilateral fora. Canada  indicated its willingness to collaborate with the 
European  Union  and other WTO Members.  
3.47.  Uruguay  regretted that Regulation (EU) 2023/334 had been approved without substantive 
changes, despite Members' comments. Referring  to the definition of MRLs in food and feed contained 
in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 , Uruguay  recalled  that MRLs were a tool to ensu re food safety  and, 
as such, Codex was the relevant international organization adopting MRLs based on health issues, 
not environmental aspects. Uruguay questioned the relevance of and the legal basis for the reduction 
of MRLs to the level of determination due to global environmental concerns or issues other than 
human health. Uruguay reported that the products under the scope of the EU measure were already 
regulated by its competent authority to ensure their safe use in accordance with  good agricultural 
practices. Uruguay expressed its willingness to cooperate with other Members to find mechanisms 
towards the protection of pollinators, ensuring the preservation of the environment and the 
protection of human health, without compromising food security nor rest ricting trade. 
Highlighting  that SPS measures should be in line with the SPS Agreement , Uruguay reiterated its 
interest in following further considerations o n the use of emergency authorizations.  
3.48.  Argentina  questioned the unilateral and extraterritorial nature of the EU approach and related 
trade measures, which seemed to be inconsistent with WTO rules and principles of international law. 
Argentina also referred to its intervention in the previous Committee meeting.  
3.49.  Japan  reiterated its concerns about the reduction of the MRLs of clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam in or on certain products. Japan was of the view that the adopted measures were a 
deviation from current MRL setting principles and the trend towards ha rmonization of MRLs. 
Japan  also noted that, given the effect on Members, the adopted policy should be thoroughly 
discussed in the relevant international fora. Underlining  the extraterritorial approach of the 
EU measure, Japan sought clarification on the ki nd of scientific evidence to be provided in the 
application for import tolerances and on the criteria to measure the unacceptable risk to pollinators.  
3.50.  Chile echoed the concern on the EU approach to the adoption of MRLs for clothianidin in crops 
and thiame thoxam in fruit trees  in Regulation (EU) 2023/334. Chile stated that MRLs were not an 
appropriate tool to achieve environmental objectives in exporting countries.  
3.51.  Guatemala  stressed that each Member had the right to choose its measures to address global 
concerns regarding protection of pollinators. Guatemala stated that clothianidin and thiamethoxam 
were used in accordance  with good agricultural practices and with international certification in order 
to ensure food safety. Guatemala urged the European  Union  to base its measure on science and 
critical risk assessments and requested cooperation to find a solution to this concern.  
3.52.  Ecuador  shared its concern regarding the EU extraterritorial objectives, which seemed to 
deviate from Members' obligations under the  SPS Agreement . Taking the view  that the 
European  Union  had established the lowest MRLs for tropical fruits, coffee and cacao without having 
a conclusive risk assessment, Ecuador provided information about the negative effects of this 
measure on its export s of these products. Regarding the MRLs for neonicotinoids, Ecuador enquired 
about the international standard on which the European  Union  had based its measure. 
Ecuador  invited the European  Union  to notify the measure to the SPS Committee  and to continue 
the dialogue to avoid unnecessary trade barriers.  
3.53.  Brazil  emphasized that trade liberalization and environmental protection were complementary 
when countries respected both the WTO trade principles and environmental agreements. However, 
measures with environmental purposes were outside the scope of the SPS Agree ment. 
Brazil  underscored that Members should not adopt SPS measures with extraterritorial effects, 
according to the definition established in the SPS Agreement , and invited the European  Union  to 
respect the SPS Agreement  when establishing MRLs.  
3.54.  Costa Rica  reiterated its concern regarding the systemic implications of the establishment of 
MRLs by the European  Union  as a tool to achieve environmental objectives in third countries. G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 19 - 
 
  While  recognizing the importance of the protection of the environment, Costa Ric a noted that this 
objective could not  be justified under the scope of the SPS Agreement  and that the establishment 
of MRLs was directly related to the objective of food safety. Costa Rica urged the European  Union  to 
reconsider its regulatory approach, to address Members ' concerns , and to review its measures 
related to MRLs in the light of the principles of the SPS Agreement . 
3.55.  The European  Union  provided a joint response under STC  ID 549. 
3.2.4   EU regulation No 396/2005 setting pesticide MRLs in food and feed of pl ant and 
animal origin (ID 549) - Concerns of India  
3.56.  India reiterated its concerns about  the EU MRL approach as a tool to pursue environmental 
outcomes in third countries. India observed that the European  Union  had not shared information 
about the risk assessment and scientific studies that support the establishment of EU MRLs for 
clothianidin an d thiamethoxam and the correlation of this measure with the risk to pollinators. 
India requested the European  Union  to engage with Members towards  a harmonized solution and to 
delay the implementation of the amendments to the regulation.  
3.57.  The European  Union  was of the view  that these ongoing discussions reflected the importance 
of the SPS Committee  in the transformation to sustainable food systems. The European  Union  took 
into consideration environmental aspects when setting MRLs for substances no longer app roved in 
its territory due to global environmental concerns , and reviewed active substances on a case -by-case 
basis. The European  Union  affirmed that, based on current knowledge, reducing the use of 
neonicotinoids was an effective action to tackle the decl ine of pollinators. Noting that no new 
information was available, the European  Union  reiterated that c omments received had been taken 
into account and responses had been provided to third countries. Regulation (EU) 2023/334 , adopted 
in February 2023 , deferred the application date to 36 months after entry into force. 
The European  Union  also recalled that Members had been regularly updated on any progress since 
the circulation of G/SPS/GEN/1868 . 
3.58.  The European  Union  clarifie d that the Regulation would not prohibit the use of neonicotinoids 
by third countries, but products destined to the EU market would have to comply with the EU MRLs. 
The European  Union  considered that it was acting in compliance with its WTO obligations sin ce there 
was not an equally effective and less trade restrictive alternative to protect pollinators. 
Acknowledging the difficulties third countries might face, import tolerances could be granted for 
active substances not authorized in the European  Union . Regarding emergency authorisations, the 
European  Union  referred to document G/SPS/GEN/2171 , mentioned under  STC ID 448. 
Clarifying  that in the SPS Committee  it spoke on behalf of its member States, the European  Union  
remained available  to further discuss this matte r, and invited Members  to make use of bilateral 
channels.  
3.2.5   EU Commission pr oposal for reduction of the current MRL for "nicotine" for 
imported tea from India (G/SPS/N/EU/581 ) (ID 550) - Concerns of India  
3.59.  India expressed its concerns about the EU proposal to reduce the MRL for nicotine for tea 
from 0.6 mg/kg to 0.5 mg/kg. India stated that the nicotine present in tea plants was not derived 
from exogenous sources and that it was absorbed differently tha n nicotine in cigarettes, posed little 
risk to human health and was not addictive given its slow absorption and the l ow level in tea. 
In India's view, nicotine was not a pesticide, and the fact that there was no Codex MRL established 
for nicotine proved that it was not harmful to food. India requested the European  Union  to withdraw 
its MRL revision and to ensure complian ce with the principles of the SPS Agreement . 
3.60.  The European  Union  informed Members that EFSA had performed a new acute dietary risk 
assessment for nicotine in teas, excluding some controversial consumption data, and had concluded 
that the current MRL for nic otine in tea was safe for consumers. The new Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2023/1536 had been published in July 2023 and was already applicable. This Regulation allowed 
for a transitional arrangement for teas produced before the lowered MRLs had become applic able, 
permitting the normal marketing, processing and consumption of products. The Commission would 
continue monitoring the levels of nicotine in teas and reviewing this temporary MRL accordingly. 
The European  Union  remained available to provide informatio n to India, including EFSA's relevant 
reasoned opinion.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 20 - 
 
  3.2.6   EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea 
(ID 518) - Concerns of India  
3.61.  India reiterated its concern regarding the classification of anthraquinone as a pesticide and 
the setting of the EU MRL at 0.02 mg/kg for tea. Anthraquinone was not registered in India and 
there was neither a standard as per the Food Safety and Standards Act 2011, nor a Codex MRL for 
anthraquinone in tea. Noting studies indicating that natural deposits of anthraquinone could lead to 
residues higher than the EU MRLs in certain areas, as well as the seasonal variation, India was 
concerned that the 0.02 mg/kg limit would affect India's tea exports to the European  Union . 
India requested the European  Union  to remove the classification of anthraquinone as a pesticide and 
to avoid unnecessary trade disruptions.  
3.62.  The European  Union  noted there had been no new elements related to the active substance 
since it had first been discussed and referred to its statement in eAgenda. The European  Union  
reiterated its openness to provide technical assistance to Members interested in laboratory  methods 
and expressed its availability to provide India with any information required.  
3.2.7   EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application 
of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 amending Regulation 
(EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID 503) - 
Concerns of Peru  
3.63.  Peru reiterated its concerns regarding Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 establishing maximum 
levels (MLs) for cadmium in chocolate and other cocoa products that, in practice, had an impact on 
trade in cocoa beans and cocoa powder. Citing Article 3 of the SPS Agreement , Peru stated that the 
EU levels were more trade restrictive than necessary to protect human health and did not take into 
consideration the relevant international standard by Codex. Peru asked the European  Union  whether 
it had considered the request to review its legislation  and to implement the Codex standards and 
conclusions . Peru provided its s tatement in document G/SPS/GEN/ 2187. 
3.64.  Ecuador  expressed its concern regarding the negative impact of EU MLs for cadmium on the 
trade of cocoa beans and cocoa powder. Ecuador was of the view that the EU measure violated  
Article  3 of the SPS Agreement  by not considering the Codex standard for cadmium in cocoa and 
establishing MLs for cadmium more that were trade restrictive than necessary to protect public 
health. Ecuador  urged the European  Union  to review its regulation and to provide support to mitigate 
cadmium in the production of cocoa beans and other related products.  
3.65.  Colombia  echoed the concern and requested the European  Union  to review its Regulation (EU) 
No 488/2014 taking into account JECFA's scientific opinion, which did not consider cadm ium in cocoa 
and cocoa products as a risk to public health. Colombia stated that the regulation was also affecting 
other products such as avocado and asparagus. Colombia underscored the importance of cocoa and 
chocolate for small -scale producers and for th e substitution of illicit crops, and called on EU support 
to Andean countries to mitigate cadmium in the production of cocoa and other products.  
3.66.  Noting the lack of new elements since the last discussion, the European  Union  emphasized 
the significant effort s undertaken during the preparation of the relevant regulation to alleviate the 
difficulties of its trading partners in complying with the legal requirements. In particular, 
the European  Union  had granted an exceptionally long transitional period for cocoa  and chocolate 
products by deferring implementation to January 2019 , and had established MLs for finished 
products, which did not apply to cocoa beans or other intermediary cocoa products. Reinforcing its 
right to establish measures to address public healt h concerns in line with the SPS Agreement , 
the European  Union  also referred the dedicated project Clima -LoCa and reiterated its commitment 
to work constructively with Members to address outstanding issues without prejudice to consumer 
safety. The European  Union  referred to its statement uploaded in eAgenda.  
3.2.8   EU restrictions on spice imports and other food products due to European 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2246 of 15 December 2021 (ID 533) - 
Concerns of India  
3.67.  India was of the view that the MRLs of 0.02 mg/kg for chilli and ginger and 0.1 mg/kg for 
other spices, fixed for ethylene oxide (EtO) and its metabolite 2 -chloroethanol or ethylene G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 21 - 
 
  chlorhydrin (ECH) together , were set on a hazard basis, lacked sufficient scientific basis , and were 
more stringent than the limits in other countries. Noting that the consumption patterns of chilli and 
ginger were not different from other spices, India urged the European  Union  to provide the risk 
assessment and scientific evidence for fixing higher MRLs for EtO for chilli and ginger or to harmonize 
MRLs for all spices at 0.1 mg/kg. India also observed that Regulation (EU) 2017/625 provide d for 
re-dispatch of a non-compliant consignment outside the European  Union , and for destruction of the 
consignment if it present ed a risk to human, animal or plant health, and animal welfare  which, in 
India's view, let to non -uniform interpretations of a non -compliance with the EtO MRL . 
India requested the European  Union  to permit the re -dispatch of the non -compliant cons ignments 
and consignments which were deemed to possess a risk as per the EU regulation.  
3.68.  The European  Union  reported that results of official controls at the border control posts during 
the second semester of 2023 and other relevant information would be ana lysed as of January 2024 
for the next periodical review of Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 , as a basis for a possible adjustment. 
Regarding the re -dispatch of the rejected consignment, the European  Union  informed the Committee 
that the entry of a consignment was rejected when a non -compliance was established . Subsequently, 
competent authorities assessed, on a case -by-case basis, whether the consignments presented a 
health risk, based on the definition of risk provided in Regulation (EU) 2017/625 , prior to deciding 
further steps on the consignments . Noting that the harmonized application of these rules was 
currently under discussion with EU member States, t he European  Union  stated that India ha d been 
kept regularly informed about the non -compliances and that bilateral meetings were regularly 
organized to check the implementation of the EU requirements. The European  Union  expressed its 
willingness to continue the technical discussion at bilateral level.  
3.69.  In response to the European  Union , India remained  concern ed about the destruction of 
consignments , which prevented re -dispatching to other markets,  and urged the European  Union  to 
review its measure in this regard . 
3.2.9   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (ID 446) - Concerns of 
the Unite d States  
3.70.  The United  States  reiterated its concerns regarding the implementation of Article 118 of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/6, and requested the European  Union  to consider alternative regulatory 
approaches by third country systems that achieved the EU level of protection. The United  States  
observed that the measure would unnecessarily limit access to animal production practices that were 
necessary and appropriat e for farmers and producers within their own countries and that posed no 
food safety risks. The United  States  also requested scientific evidence demonstrating that the 
EU measure would significantly and effectively reduce the occurrence of foodborne antimi crobial 
resistance  (AMR) , and sought clarification on the date upon which the contemplated 30 -month 
transition period would begin. The United  States  provided its statement in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2180 . 
3.71.  Japan  acknowledged the information provided by the European  Union , and sought clarification 
regarding the process and timeline for third countries to comply with the new regulation. 
Japan  asked the European  Union  to provide at least a three -year transition period before the 
application of the delegated act  to third countries. Japan expressed its willingness to continue 
bilateral discussions on these issues on the basis of scientific evidence.  
3.72.  Acknowledging that AMR represented a serious public health concern, Canada  encouraged the 
European  Union  to continue  engaging third countries in the process of developing the remaining 
implementing acts of the EU 's revamped Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulation. Canada asked 
for the granting of appropriate transition periods prior to the implementation of the regulat ion, and 
expressed its commitment to provide comments on all remaining implementing legislation affecting 
third countries notified for consultation.  
3.73.  Australia  reiterated its concerns regarding the proposed 24 -month transition time for the 
implementation ac ts to be adopted, which would not provide third countries with sufficient time to 
implement the new rules , particularly for animal products originating from animals whose production 
cycle was more than two years . Australia continued to request that the pro posed certification 
requirements not be retroactively applied to animals or products derived from animals. Australia  also 
requested clarification on the steps taken by the European  Union  to minimize additional certification G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 22 - 
 
  costs, and questioned the need for consignment -based certification if countries had already met the 
requirements to be listed and approved to export animal products with appropriate controls.  
Australia urged the Europe an Union to consider third country views as it designed the 
implementation settings of this measure.  
3.74.  Brazil  reiterated its concern with Regulation (EU) 2019/6 on veterinary medicinal products. 
In Brazil's view, the legislation and its implementation impose d a heavy burden on producers in third 
countries, by limiting the use of currently available veterinary drugs and introducing sanitary 
requirements that were more trade restrictive than necessary to protect  human, animal and plant 
life and health. Indicati ng the need to support the work of the ISSBs, Brazil urged the 
European  Union  to take into consideration the ongoing global effort to set  international standards 
and guidelines for AMR.  
3.75.  Referring to its interventions in previous meetings , Paraguay  asked th e European  Union  to 
provide responses to the questions raised in their most recent bilateral meeting regarding  the list of 
authorized third countries, certification, and timeline of implementation of the measure , among other 
issues . Paraguay insisted that these answers were necessary to avoid trade frictions during the 
approaching implementation of the regulation.  
3.76.  The European  Union  provided an update on the legal act  for the amendment of the model 
export certificates , which included a new attestation that was pending adoption by the 
European  Commission before its publication in the Official Journal. Regarding t he legal act for the 
listing of third countries authorized  to export to the European  Union , a list was being drafted on the 
basis of written guarantees provided by third countries as requested by the Commission since 
May 2023. The European  Union  assured Members that additional information meetings would be 
organi zed to address pending questions, and invited them to make use of bilateral channels. 
The European  Union  remained committed to  collaborating at the international level and bilaterally 
to promote and support effective strategies against AMR.  
3.2.10   India's Draft F ood Safety and Standards (Import ) Amendment Regulation 
(ID 553) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.77.  The European  Union  reiterated its concern about the possible disruption to trade associated 
with delays in listing registered foreign food manufacturing facili ties. The European  Union  sought 
clarification on the risk assessment performed to establish the requirements for the registration of 
facilities; how to maintain the list of facilities updated; and the modalities related to audits to the 
exporting countries, inspections of facilities, border checks and health certificates.  
The European  Union  further requested India to consider a longer transition period before restricting 
imports based on the registration of facilities ; to avoid suspending facilitie s that had yet been unable 
to register; and to avoid duplication in the signing of certificates . The European  Union  invited India 
to notify the measure to both the SPS and TBT Committees.  
3.78.  Japan  indicated that it had submitted lists of food manufacturing fa cilities, but India had not 
yet registered some of the facilities on the list. Japan requested India to specify the HS codes for 
the designated food categories subject to the Order ; to clarify the details on how to apply for the 
registration of foreign foo d manufacturing facilities  and the procedures following the submission of 
the answers to the food safety assessment questionnaire for the evaluation of regulatory food control 
systems over milk and milk products ; to respond to Japan's questions ; and to not ify the Order under 
the SPS Agreement . 
3.79.  Canada  reiterated its concerns regarding India 's Food Safety Standards (Import ) Amendment 
Regulation. Canada regretted the lack of clarity on the  criteria used to determine the level of risk for 
imported food products and of the circumstances that would instigate an  audit, which  could create 
unnecessary trade barriers. Acknowledging the prompt r egistration of its food manufacturing 
facilities and the publication of a list of establishments, Canada regretted the pending questions 
regarding the requirements and invited India to respond to its comments submitted earlier in 2023 
and to notify the amendments to the SPS Committee . 
3.80.  India explained that, si nce 1 February 2023, manufacturers willing  to export food products 
covered by the Regulation had to  register with the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India 
(FSSAI) before exporting to India. Exporting countries were required  to provide the list of e xisting G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 23 - 
 
  manufacturers and of those who intend ed to export milk and milk products to India , based on which 
FSSAI would register the facilities  on its ReFoM portal. Information on the ongoing registration of 
facilities was available on FSSAI's website. Regar ding the 2017 Food Safety and Standards (Import ) 
Regulation, India clarified that the inspection of foreign food manufacturing facilities was not 
mandatory for all facilities , and Members would be informed accordingly.  
3.2.11   India's Order related to requirement of health certificate  accompanied with 
imported food consignment of milk, pork, fish and related products (ID 554) - Concerns 
of the European  Union  
3.81.  The European  Union  thanked India for postponing until 1 January 2024 the entry into force of 
the certificate for the import ation milk and milk products , and for putting on hold until further notice 
the two certificates for imports of pork, fish, and their products. The European Union  asked India to 
remove the requirements that were not covered by Codex for import s of milk and milk products or 
provide a scientific justification  for maintaining them.  In addition, the European  Union  sought 
confirmation on the state of play and on the required certificates for pork and fishery products, and 
asked India to remove from all certificates the non -animal health and non -food safety elements and 
requirements. The European  Union  also requested India to clarify and notify to the SPS and TB T 
Committees the modalities relating to  audits of exporting countries as well as future certificates  well 
in advance.  The European  Union  expressed its availability to cooperate towards an enhanced mutual 
understanding.  
3.82.  Australia  also thanked India for prov iding clarification on the requirements of the certification 
order, for extending the deadline for dairy certificate negotiations until 31 December 2023 , and for 
providing a formal response to Australia 's proposed dairy health certificate. Australia encouraged 
India to minimi ze requirements that duplicate d commercial information provided and to consider 
recogni zing equivalent food safety outcomes in certification. Referring to its previous statements, 
Australia requested  India to confirm that the existing health certification for milk and milk products, 
previously bilaterally agreed, would  continue should negotiations extend beyond 31 December 2023 . 
3.83.  Japan  reiterated its concerns regarding India 's Order related to requirement s of health 
certificates accompan ying imported food consignment s of milk, pork, fish and related products. 
Japan  appreciated India 's decision to extend the implementation  date, but nonetheless opined that 
India should set a sufficient transition period before the implementa tion of the Order to allow time 
for exporting Members to adapt to the new health certificate forms. Noting that the Order pursued 
the safety of imported food products, Japan invited India to notify it to the SPS Committee . 
3.84.  Acknowledging the interactions that had led to the approval of its certificates, New Zealand  
requested India to grant at least six months, but preferably a twelve -month implementation  period 
for any future change to India's certification requirements. This  would provide time for FSSAI to 
consider Members' submissions and for Members to make the necessary assessments and changes.  
3.85.  Canada  welcomed India's recent decision to delay the implementation of the new certificate 
requirements until further notice , but reiterated its concerns with a number of new FSSAI 
requirements. Canada requested India to streamline certification requirements, to base its 
requirements on international standards , and to notify its certification requirements  to the 
SPS Committee . 
3.86.  Apprec iating  the delay in the implementation of the certificate requirements, 
Norway  reiterated its concern and requested that India continue to delay implementation of any new 
certificates and take Members ' comments into account prior to finalizing this and oth er possible 
measures.  
3.87.  Switzerland  thanked India for the bilateral discussions held and expressed its willingness to 
work with the Indian authorities to find a solution for an amended Swiss health certificate , 
in particular for dairy products . Switzerland asked India to postpone the introduction of new health 
certification requirements u ntil there was more clarity on the content , and suggested coordination 
of the competent authorities ' procedures in order to avoid duplication  and unnecessary obstacles . 
3.88.  India informed  the Committee that FSSAI and the Department of Animal Husbandry and 
Dairying (DAHD) had agreed on an integrated veterinary health certificate (VHC) for milk and milk G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 24 - 
 
  products, covering both foo d safety and sanitary -related provisions, that FSSAI and DAHD required 
to facilitate trade. The transition time for implementing the in tegrated VHC had been extended till 
31 December 2023, and imported consignments for which the  bill of lading  or the date of issuance 
of VHC was later than 31 December 2023 would  only be considered for post -import clearance. 
FSSAI  had examined the proposed integrated VHC received from various countries  and had 
communicated the deficiencies observed.  
3.2.12   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural 
products (ID 487) - Concerns of Australia  
3.89.  Noting that China had rescinded the requirements to test imported product and its packaging 
for COVID -19 genetic material, Australia  sought clarification from China on the removal of the 
outstanding COVID -19 suspensions in place . Australia expressed concern on the significant duration 
of these suspensions , which it considered inappropriate. Australia requested similar consideration  as 
granted to other trading partners and requested the lifting of the COVID -19 related suspensions so 
that trade could recommence.  
3.90.  China  clarified that since 8 January 2023, the General Administration of Customs of China 
(GACC ) had already cancelled the preventi on measures related to COVID -19 on cold -chain food and 
agricultural products at the border . Noting its strengthened cooperation with overseas authorities, 
China also reported  that it ha d nearly resumed all import s of products from the suspended foreign 
companies. Chin ese experts had evaluated the rectification information received from Australia, and 
exports from compliant companies would be restored in a timely manner.  
3.2.13   China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of 
imported food (26 November 2019 ) (ID 485) - Concerns of Australia  
3.91.  Australia  acknowledged the adjustments made to address the difficulties experienced on the 
implementation of the  China Imported Enterprise Registration (CIFER) system. Australia appreciated 
the cooperation of GACC officials to mitigate the risk of trade disruption throughout the process of 
establishment registration. Australia reiterated its concerns about timeframe s, lack of advice from 
the GACC, and delays in registration of new and existing food businesses. Australia encouraged 
China to provide reasonable timeframes for assessing, re -evaluating and adjusting  application s in 
the CIFER system  and to notify competent  authorities of updates to the system . Australia further 
encouraged China  to provide clear and timely advice on evidence required to support applications 
and on any changes to HS codes,  and to provide appropriate guidance on meeting the registration. 
Austr alia appreciated the increased bilateral interaction and looked forward to continuing recent 
constructive dialogue to resolve these issues.  
3.92.  Chinese Taipei  noted that  the uncertainties and lack of transparency of China's measures 
remained an issue. Chinese Taipei asked China to regularly update and publish relevant guidance 
for registration of facilities and to disclose the timelines for the review and approval procedures, 
the individual stages of the application process and the re asons for rejections by the GACC to address 
the lack of sufficient information . Chinese Taipei urged China to comply with its obligations under 
the SPS Agreement  and to ensure the efficiency and transparency of its review and approval 
procedures.  
3.93.  The Europ ean Union  reiterated its concern regarding implementation of China's Decree 248 
which it considered to be burdensome  and time consuming . The European  Union  requested China to 
guarantee the continuity of trade while the Decree was being implemented , not to implement new 
requirements without providing advance notice, and to regularly publish updated guidance on the 
implementation of Decree 248.  
3.94.  China  recalled  that the revision of Decree 248 had entered into force on 1 January 2022 , 
after accepting  reasonable comments and providing transitional periods in line with SPS and TBT 
requirements. China stated that the registration of more than 80,000 overseas manufactures from 
165 economies and the increase in food imports in 2022 were pro ofs of the effect iveness of the 
import registration in ensuring safety and promoting food trade. China indicated that it had regularly 
issued guidelines and information regarding the registrations and had held regulatory briefings and 
training sessions with Members, includ ing on the margins of the June 2023 TBT Committee meeting. G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 25 - 
 
  China welcomed further questions from Members and expressed its willingness to provide technical 
support.  
3.2.14   China 's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishme nts (ID 516) - Concerns of Australia, Canada, Japan and the United  States  
3.95.  Recalling that under the SPS Agreement, SPS control, inspection and approval activities 
should be timely and no less favourable than those undertaken for domestic circumstances, 
Australia requested China to provide timeframes and pathways for the removal of restrictions and 
suspensions of Australian establishments and products,  and assess and approve establishments and 
other lists as well as  eligible product lists for non -viable seafo od in timely  manner . 
Australia  welcomed bilateral engagement with China to resolve these issues.  
3.96.  Referring to its interventions at previous Committee meetings, Canada  stated that it continued 
to experience undue delays in China's approval procedures for market access requests and 
establishments seeking to export to China and for the reinstating of suspended Canadian 
establishments. While appreciating China's efforts to  facilitate the registration and renewal process 
in the CIFER system, Canada reiterated its request for greater consistency and a reduced 
administrative burden to avoid delays. Canada underscored that the approval of Canadian food 
products and establishmen ts would contribute to China's food security objectives.  
3.97.  Whereas Japan  appreciated China 's flexibility to address the difficulties faced by  
manufacturers in the renewal of registrations, Japan remained concerned that the procedures were 
not based on scient ific principles and lack ed predictability and transparency. Japan requested China 
to improve the operation of the CIFER system and to ensure that the procedures related to 
Decree  248 were undertaken without undue delay and in a transparent manner. Japan asked China  
to establish a standard processing period for applications made through the CIFER system  and make 
that processing period known to Members and foreign manufacturers , to provide sufficient 
explanation s in case of rejections , to promptly notify any changes in the operation of the regulations 
or in the CIFER system, to correct any defects in the CIFER system as soon as possible, to proceed 
in a timely manner with review of additional information submitted by registered manufacturers , 
and to respond to  unanswered questions within a reasonable time. Japan expressed its desire to 
communicate closely with China to address concerns in a co operative manner.  
3.98.  The United  States  requested China to publish the list of dairy and seafood establishments 
provided by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The United  States  expressed its 
disappointment that GACC ha d not relisted meat facilities nor had outlined a process for relisti ng 
suspended facilities in general. In addition, the United  States  was concerned that GACC was testing 
for animal diseases in products that were deemed "safe to trade " by WOAH  and suspending 
establishments on the basis of such animal diseases . The United  States requested China to accept 
the provided corrective actions and preventive measures taken by all affected establishments,  to 
relist the suspended establishments, and to outline a process for relisting suspended facilities in the 
future. T he United  States provided its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2181 . 
3.99.  Thanking  China for lifting a number of suspensions of UK export establishments, 
the United  Kingdom  expressed its concern that two pork establishments remained suspended. 
The United  Kingdom  requested China to prioritize the review  of this matter and to provide a timeline 
for resolution , and expressed its willingness to cooperate  bilateral ly on this issu e. 
3.100.   Reiterating the importance of the Chinese market for its seafood industry, Norway  regretted 
that the new process to register establishments was cumbersome. Acknowledging the recent 
approval of several establishments, Norway requested China to process th e remaining 
45 applications to avoid hampering trade. Norway thanked China's GACC for their cooperation and 
assistance.  
3.101.   China  noted that the new listing and reinstatement of export establishments from Members 
were proceeding normally, and provided detailed  information on the status of applications from 
Australia, Canada and the United  States . G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 26 - 
 
  3.2.15   Russian Federation - Procedures for authorizing units eligible for export of fish 
and fish products to Eurasian Customs Union (ID 508) - Concerns of India  
3.102.   India was of the view that the non -listing of processing establishments by the 
Federal  Services of Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (FSVPS ) were a trade barrier to export 
fish and fish products to the Russian Federation.  Despite the Memorandum of Understanding signed 
in 200 9, FSVPS insisted on inspecting the establishments included in India's list of approved fish and 
fishery products processing establishments intended to export to the Customs Union. India informed 
the Committee that 51 new fishery establishments were still pending for listing by the FSVPS, and 
12 fishery establishments ha d been delisted  earlier in 2023 . India stated that this situation violate d 
Articles 2.3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement  and urged the Russian Federation to share the risk 
assessment in support of the inspections.  
3.103.   The Russian Federation  confirmed that authorizations of exports of fish and fish products 
were subject to inspections of the foreign enterprises, in accordance with Eurasian Economic 
Commission Council Decision No 94. In letters sent to India in May 2023, the Russian Federation 
had explained to India that the issue of attestation of Indian fish processing plants and aquaculture 
feed plants  could be considered after mutual inspections, and requested India to share a list of 
enterprises that could be included in the inspection prog ram. In a recent bilateral  meeting,  both 
Members had agreed that India would provide answers to the pre -inspection questionnaire on fish 
and seafood sent in 2021. The Russian Federation expressed its readiness to include new Indian 
enterprises in the register of enterprises of third countries after the implementation of existing 
requirements and agreements.  
3.2.16   India's undue delay in importing twelve species of fresh mushrooms (ID 566) - 
Concerns of Korea  
3.104.   Korea  shared its  concern that seven years had passed sin ce the agreement reached on the 
import requirements for 12 fresh mushrooms, yet India had not allowed imports of these products. 
Korea regretted the lack of explanations regarding the delay in import approval , and noted that 
India had proposed to re -initiate a PRA for three types of Korean mushrooms, instead of publishing 
a notice of the import approval for 12 types of Korean mushrooms for which the risk assessment 
was completed. Korea urged India to allow the import ation of the 12 fresh mushrooms without u ndue 
delay in accordance with Article 8 and Annex C to the SPS Agreement . 
3.105.   India considered that Korea's concern was a market access issue, not an SPS issue, and that 
the SPS Committee  was not the right forum to raise this matter. India expressed its commit ment to 
further dialogue and cooperation through bilateral channels.  
3.2.17   India's approval procedures to import plants, animals and their products (ID 565) 
- Concerns of the European  Union  
3.106.   The European  Union  regretted that India's approval procedures were unclear and slow and 
that the processing periods had not been communicated. The European  Union  noted that India had 
not provided details  on the missing information to complete the assessment procedure for th e 
approval of new exports  and had not indicated the specific non -conformities for existing exports, 
which prevented the implementation of corrective actions. Despite some recent progress, 
the European  Union  regretted that there were a number of pending market applications, some for 
many years. The European  Union  urged India to comply with its WTO SPS obligations by ensuring 
transparency of its import legislation and approval procedures, and provide the requested 
clarifications to allow the finalization of t he pending applications without undue delay. 
The European  Union  looked forward to discussions with India on this issue.  
3.107.   Referring to its intervention in the previous meeting, India considered that the EU concern 
was a market access issue, not an SPS issue,  and that the SPS Committee  was not the right forum 
to raise this matter. Expressing its commitment to further dialogue and cooperation through bilateral 
channels, India informed the Committee of a successful technical meeting on plant health held in 
Septe mber 2023 to discuss SPS and market access issues. In the meeting, all pending phytosanitary 
issues had been discussed and India was awaiting the EU response to the information provided on 
the status of the plant health status issues.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 27 - 
 
  3.2.18   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID 441) - 
Concerns of the Russian Federation and the European  Union  
3.108.   The Russian Federation  reiterated its concerns regarding the lack of progress in Indonesia's 
approval of export certificates for several products.  The Russian Federation expected to receive a 
response regarding questionnaires on poultry and beef establishments and regretted that 
Indonesia  had not provided an answer regarding a proposal for veterinary inspections. Expressing  its 
readiness for bilater al cooperation, the Russian Federation urged Indonesia to comply with Article  8 
and Annex  C of the SPS Agreement  and to complete its approval procedures without undue delay.  
3.109.   The European  Union  shared  the concerns regarding the undue delays of Indonesia's approval 
procedures for imports of plant products and animal products. The European  Union  acknowledged 
the bilateral exchanges and not ed some progress on certain EU member State applications  at the 
level of establishments, b ut regretted that many applications had remained pending for years, 
lacking the final approval of export applications.  The European  Union  explained that its system of 
pre-listing, that was applied in the region, could be tailor -made to ease the burden and facilitate the 
approval of facilities. The European  Union  urged Indonesia to comply with its SPS obligations, by 
ensuring transparency of its procedures and finalizing the long -standing EU market access 
applications without undue delay, and looked forward to continue the technical exchanges.  
3.110.   Indonesia  updated the Committee on the progress of approval procedures for animal and 
plant products from several EU member States, which  was communicated through EU member 
States competent authorities and embassies. In donesia had received three applications for market 
access of beef and poultry from  the Russian Federation, which would be reviewed in 2024. 
Indonesia  invited the Russia Federation to resubmit the application for processed meat, dairy 
products, and egg prod ucts for initial assessment. Despite its limited resources, Indonesia had tried 
to accelerate each step of the approval procedure assessment of the numerous market access 
applications from EU and Russian establishments. Indonesia considered that its measur es were 
implemented in accordance with Articles 5, 7 and 8 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement , and 
remained committed to further bilateral dialogue to resolve the issue.  
3.2.19   Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of fishery and 
livesto ck enterprises (ID 509) - Concerns of Peru  
3.111.   Peru reiterated its concerns that Panama's undue delays and requests for additional 
information violated Article 8 of and Annex C o f the SPS Agreement , and regretted the lack of 
information regarding the anticipat ed processing period and timeline for the renewal of 
authorizations of Peruvian enterprises. Peru noted that Panama had not indicated the sanitary 
reasons for not renewing the authorizations or granting new authorizations to Peruvian enterprises. 
Peru aske d Panama to renew the authorizations of Peruvian export plants and to avoid further 
delays.  Peru provided its stateme nt in document G/SPS/GEN/2186 . 
3.112.   Chile expressed concerns regarding a number of Chilean beef, pork and poultry meat 
establishments whose export authorizations to Panama had expired, with no possibilities to export 
from that date. Despite repeated requests and advance co nsultations, no solution had been found 
to avoid what Chile considered an unjustified interruption to trade. Chile provided details on the 
number of affected establishments and asked Panama to renew the authorizations of affected 
establishments and to re-establish as soon as possible the possibility  to obtain  new authorizations.  
3.113.   The European  Union  indicated that Panamanian authorities blocked requests from 
EU member States to obtain market access for agricultural and livestock products and to update the 
lists of plants authorized to export. Acknowledging some progress on the pre -listing of EU member 
States establishments, the European  Union  noted that agreement had been reached to avoid 
delisting EU establishments that had been historically trading with Pana ma, and  invited Panama to 
list the establishments of the remaining EU member States. The European  Union  also called on 
Panama to establish transparent, predictable , and swift procedures for the approval of products and 
the listing or re -listing of establis hments in line with agreed international standards.  
3.114.   Costa Rica  considered that Panama's regulatory practices for authorizing establishments 
seemed to be aimed at restricting trade and affected a wide range of Costa Rican agricultural 
products. Costa Rica noted that this was a long -standing practice for which Panama had not provide d G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 28 - 
 
  justification under the SPS Agreement . Costa Rica called on Panama to address these concerns which  
warned of an improper application of SPS measures and non -compliance with the SPS Agreement . 
3.115.   Panama  indicated that it was looking for dates to schedule a meeting of the Peru -Panama 
Free Trade Agreement Administrative Commission and to meet bilaterally with the European  Union  
in December 2023. Panama reiterated its respect for commitments under the SPS Agreement  and 
would continue to work with trading partners in search of mutually satisfactory solutions.  
3.2.20   Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports 
(ID 490) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.116.   The European  Union  reiterat ed its concerns regarding delays in market access for bovine 
products. While welcoming the reopening of Korea's markets for two EU member States in 2019, 
the European  Union  emphasized that harmonized food safety and animal health control conditions 
prevail ed in all EU member States and that the time needed for the remaining approval procedures 
should be reduced. Recalling that several EU member States had market access applications 
pending, some of which for more than 15 years, the European  Union  viewed Kor ea's assessment 
procedure as overly lengthy and burdensome, and hoped that Korea would solve this issue. 
The European  Union  expressed its willingness to work constructively with Korea on this matter.  
3.117.   Korea  indicated that it allowed imports without discrimi nation based on risk and sanitary 
assessments in line with the SPS Agreement , WOAH and Codex standards. Korea recalled that beef 
imports from the Netherlands and Denmark had been approved and the procedure to recognize 
regionalization for African swine fev er (ASF) and avian influenza  in the European  Union  had been 
finalized in September 2022. In accordance with Korean domestic law, deliberation by the national 
assembly was inevitable for first -time beef imports originating from countries with bovine spongif orm 
encephalopathy . Korea was ready to enhance bilateral cooperation to achieve progress in the 
approval process for EU beef.  
3.2.21   Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and fisheries products (ID 530) - 
Concerns of Peru  
3.118.   Peru stated that Bolivia's measur es blocked market access for Peruvian exports of whole 
trout. Despite the approval of the health certificate in 2017, Bolivia had not yet complied with the 
corresponding commitments to allow imports. Peru also indicated that Bolivia had not notified its 
national legislation. Peru asked Bolivia to lift its restrictions.  Peru provided its stateme nt in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2185 . 
3.119.   Bolivia  indicated that its sanitary legislation establishing import requirements for fish was in 
line with Codex and with the legislation of the Andean Community. Chilling or quick freezing of fish 
was essential to control pathogens and biotoxins. According to the evaluation undertaken by the 
National Agricultural Health and Food Safety Service, trout under Peru's export conditions was 
considered of high risk, according to the classification  established by the FAO. Bolivia reiterated that  
it was not imposing arbitrary restriction s on any WTO Members and expressed its willingness to 
engage in bilateral dialogue.  
3.2.22   EU delays in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup ) 
(ID 526) - Concerns of Korea  
3.120.   Korea  reiterated concern s with the import authorization procedure of Korean chicken soup 
Samgyetang to the European  Union , which had been stalled for 27 years. Korea asked the 
European  Union  to provide information on the remaining steps and to swiftly proceed with the 
remaining i mport approval procedures. Korea would enhance cooperation with the European  Union  
to achieve progress in the EU approval process for Samgyetang.  
3.121.   The European  Union  indicated that it would inform Korea as soon as the procedure for 
granting market access for Samgyetang soup was finalized.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 29 - 
 
  3.2.23   EU increased sampling frequency for inspection of farmed shrimps and newly 
listed fishery establishments not permitted to export a quaculture products (ID 552) - 
Concerns of India  
3.122.   India reiterated its concerns about the increased level of sampling and testing on farmed 
shrimps exported to the European  Union , despite the reduction of antibiotic rejections  and the 
fulfilment of the two recommendations raised following an EU mission to audit the control of residues 
and contaminants in live animals and animal products. India requested the European  Union  to 
provide equivalence in sampling with other supplying countries; to list all the 36 new aquaculture 
establishments and to re -list the eight delisted establishments for which application s had been 
submitted in TRACES; and to lower the sampling frequency of aquaculture consignments.  
3.123.   The European  Union  confirmed the publication of the final report of the last audit, along with 
India's action plan to address the four recommendations made in the draft report. India had provided 
the additional evidence requested by the Commission on the proposed actions. The review of the 
information had led to the closure of the first recommendation, on the scope of substances, for 
actions taken. The assessment of the information provided on the three remaining recommendations 
had been communicated to India. The situation regarding pre -listing of aquaculture est ablishments 
would be reviewed in due course. The European  Union  looked forward to continuing the discussion 
with India on this matter.  
3.2.24   General import restrictions due to BSE (ID 193) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.124.   The European  Union  reiterated its concer ns that some Members continued to maintain 
import bans and delays in their approval procedures to lift BSE restrictions. In its view, the delays 
by some Members including Australia, China, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, South  Africa , Chinese Taipei 
and the United States , were at odds with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement . 
The European  Union  noted that some Members had burdensome and lengthy procedures in place to 
assess market access applications without providing indicative timelines which, in practica l terms, 
translated to the market remaining closed even when a ban due to BSE was lifted. 
The European  Union  urged all Members to comply with their obligations under the SPS Agreement , 
apply international standards, lift remaining BSE -related restrictions,  engage with the 
European  Union  to finalize the assessment of pending market access requests, and conclude 
administrative steps to lift the ban without further delay. The European  Union  expressed its 
willingness to engage with trading partners on this issu e. 
3.125.   Switzerland  supported this concern and reminded Members that it had been recognized by 
WOAH as having negligible BSE risk for more than a decade. Switzerland urged trading partners to 
lift remaining import restrictions due to BSE and allow imports of be ef products from Switzerland. 
Switzerland referred to its statement in eAgenda.  
3.126.   The United  States  considered that the current concerns were related to its equivalence 
administrative process and not animal health. The United  States  noted differences among 
EU member States in the implementation of the overarching EU measures for food safety. To  resume 
exporting bovine meat products for human consumption, each EU member State needed to obtain 
an equivalence determination by the US Department of Agriculture Foo d Safety and Inspection 
Service (FSIS). FSIS was working through its equivalence process, had engaged with several 
EU member States at a technical level, and remained available for additional technical engagements.  
3.127.   China  responded that it was highly cautious about BSE and that the ban imposed on 
EU member States was in accordance with its regulations. Recently , 19 EU member States had 
reported BSE outbreaks. Among them, 14 countries had applied for China to lift the ban o n BSE after 
the outbreak had been effectively controlled. China was stepping up the risk assessment of related 
documents provided by five other EU member States. China would inform the relevant countries of 
the results of the assessment in a timely manner.  
3.2.25   China's suspension of beef imports due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy 
(BSE) restrictions (ID 561) - Concerns of Canada  
3.128.   Referring to its interventions at previous Committee meetings, Canada  raised concerns 
regarding China's suspension of Canadian beef  imports based on a single case of atypical BSE, G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 30 - 
 
  which  Canada stated did not affect its WOAH BSE negligible risk status. Canada informed the 
Committee that it had continuously tried to engage with and responded to all requests from China, 
but was still wai ting for trade to be restored after two years. Canada indicated that no import 
prohibitions were introduced following the detection of atypical BSE in other Members supplying beef 
to China which, in Canada's view, was a violation of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement . Recalling the 
importance of basing SPS measures on international standards, Canada urged China to remove its 
trade prohibition and restore market access for Canadian beef without further delays.  
3.129.   The European  Union  echoed the concern, in particul ar regarding restrictions imposed after 
detections of atypical BSE, and urged China to lift the restrictions and follow international standards.  
3.130.   China  confirmed that beef imports from Canada were temporarily suspended due to the BSE 
outbreak. Consultations  on the control of atypical BSE and Canada's risk status were ongoing, and 
China expressed its willingness to resume trade after the completion of the procedure and the 
determination that Canada's negligible risk status of BSE had not changed.  
3.2.26   EU recogniti on of Mexico as a country with WOAH negligible BSE risk (ID 543) - 
Concerns of Mexico  
3.131.   Mexico  regretted that the European  Union  had not accommodated its repeated request to 
recognize its negligible BSE risk status, granted by WOAH in 2016. Mexico noted that  other Members 
who had obtained the recognition from WOAH subsequent to Mexico had already been included in 
EU Decision 2007/453/CE. Mexico detailed that the delay in this recognition affected the marketing 
of medical devi ces derived from bovine animals, a ffecting the public health and employment sectors. 
Referring to Articles 2 and 6 and to Annex C of the SPS Agreement , Mexico objected that there was 
no scientific justification for the EU delay, and requested to be included in EU Decision 2007/453/EC 
and to receive the scientific justification for the non -recognition of the status granted by WOAH.  
3.132.   The European  Union  had taken note of Mexico's status and was considering the request. 
The European  Union  had provided an answer to Mexico's communications, and the issue was being 
discussed bilaterally in the framework of the EU -Mexico Economic Partnership, Political Coordination 
and Cooperation Agreement. The European  Union  looked forward to continuing the technical 
discussions and exchanging detailed information on the respective BSE import conditions.  
3.2.27   South  Africa 's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (ID 431) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.133.   The European  Union  regretted  that South  Africa  maintained country -wide bans on poultry 
products from 14 EU member States following HPAI outbreaks. The European  Union  indicated that 
the restrictions remained in place even though WOAH stamping out requirements were strictly 
applied, se veral EU member States had been free from HPAI for many months, and many tons of 
poultry meat and by -products crossed intra -EU borders every day with no records of HPAI outbreaks. 
Acknowledging the recognition by South  Africa  of the HPAI -free status of thr ee EU member States, 
the European  Union  considered the measures to be at odds with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement . 
3.134.   The United  Kingdom  informed the Committee that the import restrictions maintained by 
South  Africa  since 2017 on the grounds of HPAI significa ntly restricted UK poultry meat access. 
Highlighting its strong HPAI-related control system, the United  Kingdom  indicated its willingness to 
reach an agreement on regionalization with South  Africa , in accordance with WOAH Terrestrial Code 
and the SPS Agree ment, to resume exports of safe poultry meat.  
3.135.   South  Africa  noted it applied all of the WOAH guidelines for safe trade of animals and 
animals. South  Africa  hoped that the ongoing workshop on regionalization would bring both parties 
to a mutual understanding  on the application of zoning/regionalization for HPAI as defined in the 
WOAH Terrestrial Code.  
3.2.28   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID 406) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  
3.136.   The European  Union  informed the Committee that Ch ina continued to maintain country -wide 
bans on several EU member States on account of HPAI. The European  Union  had repeatedly G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 31 - 
 
  requested China to lift these import restrictions in accordance with WOAH standards to allow trade 
from unaffected areas. The European Union  welcomed the technical exchanges with China and 
looked forward to the next discussion, progress and resolution of this concern.  
3.137.   Acknowledging China's recent actions to lift restrictions from seven US States, 
the United  States  remained concerned that China had not lifted restrictions on US States that had 
been declared HPAI -free in accordance with WOAH guidance and existing bilateral animal health 
agreements. The  United  States  requested China to lift the remaining restrictions to allow resumption 
of exports of US poultry meat and expressed its willingness to continue bilateral discussions. 
The United  States  provided its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2184 . 
3.138.   China  responded  that HPAI continued to occur in the European  Union , with cross -species 
transmissions in mink farms. China had suspended imports of live poultry and related products from 
EU member States with HPAI outbreaks in accordance with relevant regulations and inte rnational 
rules. Acknowledging positive results on prevention and control in EU member States, China had 
begun its assessment to lift restrictions in some countries and launched technical exchanges with 
the European  Union  with regard to zoning. China expre ssed its willingness to negotiate with relevant 
EU member States on poultry meat exports to China once those who had effectively controlled the 
epidemic carried out the procedures for lifting the ban.  
3.2.29   China's import restrictions on heat -treated pet food co ntaining poultry ingredients 
due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID 562) - Concerns of Canada  
3.139.   Referring to its interventions at previous Committee meetings, Canada  reiterated concerns 
with China's arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of Canadian pe t food exports, and questioned 
the scientific basis for China's prohibition on Canadian heat -treated pet food containing poultry 
ingredients. Canada further indicated that pet food products were processed and heat -treated at a 
temperature exceeding WOAH re commendations, which inactivated HPAI pathogens, and that it 
strictly followed the import requirements bilaterally agreed in 2013. Referring to Articles 2.3 and 3 
of the SPS Agreement , Canada urged China to respect WOAH guidelines, to remove its HPAI -related 
prohibitions, and to allow exports to resume without further delays.  
3.140.   Referring to its relevant laws and regulations, China  clarified that Canadian poultry -derived 
commercial processed canned pet food was not affected by HPAI and could be exported to Chi na. 
However, China considered that dried pet food still had a risk of transmitting HPAI due to the simple 
processing. Noting ongoing bilateral consultations, China would conduct a risk assessment on the 
basis on the responses to the questionnaire provided by Canada. China stated that it would step up 
technical exchanges with Canada and resolve relevant issues through amending the protocol.  
3.2.30   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID 392) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.141.   The European  Union  expressed concerns regarding China's ASF -related country -wide import 
bans on pork products, including from EU member States that had long eradicated the disease in 
livestock and wildlife. Since 2015, when the concern had first been raised, C hina had expanded the 
trade bans, despite China having the same sanitary status. The European  Union  called on China to 
respect the SPS Agreement  and WOAH standards and to allow trade from disease -free areas. 
Noting  three recent technical exchanges on regio nalization, the European  Union  looked forward to 
the next discussion and to concrete progress towards the recognition of EU regionalization measures.  
3.142.   China  indicated that it prohibited exports of pig products from countries with ASF epidemics, 
in accordanc e with its domestic legislation and the SPS Agreement . China conducted assessments 
to lift country -wide ASF bans on countries that regained free status and was also exploring technical 
exchanges and cooperation related to zoning management in EU member Sta tes. China had initiated 
the assessment to lift the ASF ban for Belgium.  
3.2.31   Peru 's non -application of regionalization for African swine fever (ID 544) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  
3.143.   The European  Union  expressed concerns regarding Peru's country -wide import bans imposed 
on EU pork products from EU member States that reported outbreaks of ASF. Despite repeated G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 32 - 
 
  requests, most recently at the EU -Andean Community SPS subcommittee, the European  Union  
regrett ed that Peru did not apply the principle of regionalization for pork meat nor accepted the 
WOAH ASF -free self -declarations, as in the case of Belgium. The European  Union  urged Peru to 
respect its international obligations and to allow trade from disease -free areas, to review its 
procedures, and to engage in solution -oriented exchanges.  
3.144.   Noting its respect for the regionalization principle, Peru indicated it had addressed 
EU requests for information and reiterated its willingness to continue consultations. Pe ru further 
elaborated that regionalization was not automatically granted and that the procedures were initiated 
upon request from the interested party. On that basis, a procedure was ongoing for an 
EU member  State and the relevant information had been duly  communicated.  
3.2.32   Mexico's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID 563) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.145.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns regarding country -wide import suspensions 
imposed by Mexico on pork products from EU member States t hat had reported ASF outbreaks. 
The European  Union  regretted the lack of progress despite repeated requests , most recently at an 
EU-Mexico SPS subcommittee meeting in October 2022,  for Mexico to respect its obligations, to 
apply regionalization to pork mea t imported from the European  Union , and to allow trade from 
disease -free areas. The European  Union  requested bilateral technical discussions to solve these 
concerns.  
3.146.   Mexico  indicated that it was considering the EU request for regionalization for the territ ories 
of Germany, Italy, and Poland and it was aware of the EU official ASF status. Noting that responses 
had been provided to EU communications, Mexico recalled that the issue was being discussed in the 
framework of the bilateral Economic Partnership, Pol itical Coordination and Co -operation Agreement. 
Mexico's National Health, Food Safety and Agri -food Quality Service and the European Commission 
DG TRADE had emphasized the mutual interest in resolving pending issues and strengthening 
communication, and Mex ico expressed its willingness to continue bilateral dialogues.  
3.2.33   Canada's restrictions on Brazilian pork from internationally recognized FMD free 
zones without vaccination (ID 568) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.147.   Brazil  expressed its concern that Canada did not recognize new areas free from foot and 
mouth disease (FMD) without vaccination, which had been recognized by WOAH in May 2021. 
Canada had recognized Santa Catarina as FMD free without vaccination for pork based on  its 
procedure to recognize FMD free zones. In Brazil's view, the lack of recognition of its updated status 
for new zones was contrary to Articles 3, 5, and 6 of the SPS Agreement . Acknowledging ongoing 
bilateral efforts, Brazil asked Canada to review its decision of carrying out a new evaluation only 
when the entire Brazilian territory would be free of FMD without vaccination, and express its 
willingness for further bilateral discussions.  
3.148.   Canada  noted that, in order to grant access to Brazilian pork from s tates considered free 
from FMD disease without vaccination, it needed to perform a comprehensive status evaluation 
including other animal diseases that affect swine. Canada further specified that the multi -disease 
assessment initiated by the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency (CFIA) in 2018 did not include 
areas other than Santa Catarina. Canada confirmed  that the CFIA would evaluate Brazil's FMD status 
after recognition by WOAH of the whole country as free from FMD without vaccination and the 
completion o f the scientific risk assessment and an on -site evaluation required to conduct a disease 
status evaluation. Canada reiterated its commitment to continue technical engagement to discuss 
Brazil 's request for expanded market access for pork.  
3.2.34   Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on poultry and beef (ID 521) - Concerns of 
Brazil  
3.149.   Acknowledging the ongoing bilateral dialogue, Brazil  reiterated its concern regarding the 
import restrictions on poultry and beef impose d by Chinese Taipei which, in its view, were in vi olation 
of Articles 5 and 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Brazil would submit any pending requested 
questionnaires. Brazil referred to the Working Group  on Approval Procedures, where the lack of 
predictability on the length of approval procedures and t he benefits of anticipated procedures had G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 33 - 
 
  been discussed. Specifically, Brazil asked Chinese Taipei to provide an expected timeframe both for 
review of the latest documentation submitted and the subsequent on -site audit, as a last step to 
complete the appr oval procedure to export poultry and beef.  
3.150.   Chinese Taipei  reminded the Committee that Brazil had not been recognized as being free 
from HPAI and Newcastle disease (ND). If Brazil had the intention to resume the application for 
HPAI-free and ND -free approva l, Chinese Taipei requested Brazil to conduct active surveillance and 
relevant measures in accordance with WOAH guidelines. Chinese Taipei requested Brazil to provide 
the requested necessary supplementary information on the food safety, animal health and B SE 
questionnaires. Following the completion of the review, an on -site audit would be set up. Finally, 
Chinese Taipei reiterated that its measures were transparent, based on scientific principles, and 
implemented without undue delay. Chinese Taipei expresse d its willingness to continue bilateral 
consultations with Brazil.  
3.2.35   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID 466) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  and the Russian Federation  
3.151.   The European  Union  reiterated concerns that the Philippines maintained country -wide bans 
on imports of meat and meat products from EU member States on grounds of ASF and HPAI. 
The European  Union  indicated that several EU member States remained subject to country -wide 
import  bans on pork meat or poultry meat , and considered that these measures were inconsistent 
with Articles 2.2 and 6 of the SPS Agreement . The European  Union  had provided the necessary 
evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of disease control measures and ho ped that the invitation 
to officials from the Philippines within a technical assistance programme would facilitate 
understanding of the EU control system.  
3.152.   The Russian Federation  expressed concern s regarding  the Philippines' restrictions on imports 
of Russi an beef and pork and the lack of progress in recognition of Russia's status on certain animal 
diseases. Noting that exports to the Philippines required WOAH recognition of disease free -status 
for FMD, ASF, HPAI, and lumpy skin disease, as well as negligibl e risk status for BSE, 
the Russian  Federation informed that it had provided the Philippines with information on its domestic 
epizootic situation, as well as on relevant control measures. The Russian Federation recalled  its 
WOAH status as a country with FMD -free zones where vaccination was not practiced and 
BSE-freedom. While waiting for a response to the invitation for a visit to become familiar with the 
national SPS control system and to Russian enterprises, the Russian Federation urged the Philippines 
to comply with Articles 6 and 8 as well as Annex C to the SPS Agreement , to recognize 
regionalization, and to accelerate the market access process.  
3.153.   The Philippines  indicated that it was still finalizing its replies, which would be made available 
through eAgen da in due course.  
3.2.36   EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on animal products (ID 442) - Concerns of 
China  
3.154.   China  explained that it strictly implemented residue monitoring plans on animal -derived 
products to meet the EU requirements, and that the implementation results and positive tracking 
materials were submitted to the European  Union  as requested. In view of the d iversification of the 
export trade mode, China requested the European  Union  to reassess the requirements established 
in Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on the basis of the current situation, and to cancel the 
requirement for each batch of animal -derived pr oducts for human consumption to be chemically 
tested in China and accompanied by an additional certificate before shipment.  
3.155.   Aware of the request to streamline import requirements for products covered by 
Decision  2002/994/EC, the European  Union  underlined t hat exports of the commodities concerned 
were allowed with additional guarantees to ensure safety. The group of affected products had been 
reduced since its adoption in 2002 in response to China's progress in residue controls. 
The European  Union  asked Chin a to address the recommendations of the recent audits on residues 
of veterinary drugs undertaken by the European  Union . Noting that progress was being made, 
the European  Union  looked forward to continuing the bilateral cooperation.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 34 - 
 
  3.2.37   EU import restrictions o n ostrich meat (ID 558) - Concerns of South  Africa  
3.156.   Despite the bilateral agreement in place that allowed for the exports of fresh ostrich meat 
from closed ratite holdings, South  Africa  expressed concerns over the implementation of Commission 
Delegated Regu lation (EU) 2020/692, which de facto  banned the importation of terrestrial animals 
and animal products from third countries' compartments. While Regulation (EU) 2016/429 
(Animal  Health Law ) and Commission Delegated Regulations (EU) 2020/689 and 2020/687 
recognized the disease -free status of terrestrial animal compartments for trade within and between 
EU member States, Regulation (EU) 2020/692 did not grant this possibility to third countries, 
violating the SPS Agreement  and the WOAH Terrestrial Code. South  Africa  regretted the lack of 
information by the European  Union  on its intention to terminate the bilateral agreements as well as 
the considerable expenditure incurred by establishments.  
3.157.   Indicating that it recognized and applied the principle of regionalization, the European  Union  
invited South  Africa  to consider the animal health requirements foreseen in Commission Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2020/692. A one -week training under the BSTF programme was currently ongoing 
to better inform South  Africa n competent authorities on the procedures to apply for regionalization 
recognition. The European  Union  looked forward to continuing bilateral discussions based on the 
results of the training. The European  Union  referred to its full statement uploaded in eAgenda.  
3.2.38   Qatar's new import rules for dairy products (ID 529) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.158.   Acknowledging the constructive engagement, the European  Union  remained concerned 
about the import restrictions imposed by Qatar. One of the main concerns was the short shelf -life 
imposed for several dairy products, which the European  Union stated was not based on science nor 
on international standards, and not in line with the SPS Agreement . The European  Union  argued 
that, in practice, this made it impossible for EU exporters to continue to ship some dairy products to 
Qatar and favoured Q atari producers. The European  Union  reiterated its request that Qatar withdraw 
its trade restrictions, adopt a permanent solution in line with WTO rules, and notify at a draft stage 
to the Committee.  
3.159.   The Chairperson invited the European  Union  to reach out to Qatar  to share its concerns.  
3.2.39   EU notifications of matrine and oxymatrine in honey (ID 546) - Concerns of China  
3.160.   Appreciating the ongoing technical consultation, China  maintained its concerns about the 
resumption of normal trade of robinia honey. China had shared with the European  Union  the report 
of a foodborne safety risk assessment of matrine and oxymatrine in robinia honey, which confirmed 
that the matrine and oxyma trine in Chinese honey were derived from the nectar of Sephora vicifolia  
Hence, a plant flowering at the same time as acacia, and not by artificial addition or contamination. 
China further indicated that there was no evidence that matrine and oxymatrine in  honey might 
cause food safety risks, and regretted that the European  Union  had not provided the scientific 
evidence for the established limits. China expressed its willingness to hold technical discussions on 
the scope of the application and on the limit value. Additionally, China recommended the 
establishment of a bilateral consistency evaluation mechanism for the test methods of matrine and 
oxymatrine in honey, and the resolution of the issues associated to long detention periods and 
significant increase s in trade costs caused by high sampling rates and long inspection times at the 
port of entry for the exported honey.  
3.161.   The European  Union  summarized the main elements of the discussions held with Chinese 
competent authorities: matrine and oxymatrine, used a s pesticides in China, were not approved in 
the European  Union ; EFSA had never assessed the substances and, as such, there was no 
health -based guidance value derived for them; in the absence of other relevant data, the default 
MRL of 0.01 mg/kg applied for  both active substances; and Regulation (EC) 396/2005 applied 
regardless of the origin of the occurrence of residues. The European  Union  clarified that China could 
request an import tolerance for matrine  and oxymatrine in honey, which would be granted subject 
to a favourable assessment by EFSA. The European  Union  was open to continue bilateral discussions.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 35 - 
 
  3.2.40   Thailand's sanitary requirements on wet blue leather imports (ID 539) - Concerns 
of Brazil  
3.162.   Brazil  stated that wet blue leather was not like raw, dried, or salted leather since the 
transformation of collagen into rot -proof fibres prevented the development and survival of etiologic 
agents of diseases affecting animals or humans. As such, a sanitary certifi cate was not required. 
Noting that Thai land's Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) should not comprise wet blue leather, 
Brazil requested Thailand to evoke the international reference to this product, namely Article 8.8.27 
of the WOAH Terrestrial Code. No ting that Thailand did not consider the requirement as a restriction 
to trade, Brazil explained that the certificate complicated the export process and constituted an 
unnecessary barrier. Brazil requested that Thailand remove the sanitary requirement impos ed on 
wet blue leather to comply with the SPS Agreement  and follow international guidelines. Brazil also 
sought specific clarifications for Thailand's requirement including the related sanitary problems and 
scientific basis.  
3.163.   Thailand  explained that the Ani mal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) required wet blue leather 
imports to be accompanied by a health certificate for the safeguard of animal and human health, as 
mutually agreed in 2018. Thailand expressed its availability to conduct bilateral technical 
consultations between competent authorities.  
3.2.41   Korea's requirement of a health certificate with a declaration of aquatic disease 
status (ID 557) - Concerns of India  
3.164.   India reiterated its concern regarding Korea's requirement for a health certificate and disease 
status declaration for aquatic animal exports for some pathogens prevailing in both countries and 
pathogens not reported in India, and urged Korea to consider relaxing the testing requirements. 
India informed the Committee of the initiation of phase II of i ts National Surveillance Programme on 
Aquatic Animal Diseases and of its periodical submission of the Quarterly Aquatic Animal Disease 
Report to WOAH. India requested Korea to consider the disease -free proof for the issuance of health 
certificates for some  diseases covered under India's active disease surveillance programme, based 
on national disease surveillance controls; and to furnish the Quarterly Aquatic Animal Disease Report 
to the WOAH Regional Representation (RR) Asia–Pacific. India also urged Korea  to limit the 
certification requirements to those considered necessary.  
3.165.   Korea  implemented import quarantine and domestic control measures for diseases 
designated by WOAH to all countries. In previous Committee meetings, Korea had suggested that 
India issue  disease -free certifications in accordance with WOAH regulations, and had indicated that 
WOAH was a more appropriate forum for these discussions. Korea requested India to provide a list 
of aquaculture facilities under target surveillance for export s, recor ds of inspections conducted, and 
relevant legal regulations for its review, as a step prior to the recognition of disease -free certificates 
based on national surveillance programme s. Korea had submitted the Aquatic Animal Disease Report 
to th WOAH since 20 05, but would also consider the submission of the non -mandatory report to the 
WOAH Regional Representation  for Asia-Pacific.  
3.2.42   India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID 501) 
- Concerns of the United  States  
3.166.   Acknowledging the right to regulate products for food safety, the United  States  reiterated its 
concern that India had not provided the scientific justification for requiring a GM -free certificate for 
the 24 agricultural products covered by the Order. The United States  requested India to revoke its 
measure, and to engage in further dialogue to find less restrictive alternatives that facilitate trade 
of safe food and feed. The United  States  provided its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2182 . 
3.167.   Japan  reitera ted the concern that India's measure was not based on scientific principles nor 
a proper risk assessment, was more trade restrictive than necessary, and could have a negative 
impact on agricultural trade. Under Japan's domestic laws, GM agricultural produc ts for human 
consumption were subject to safety evaluations, and agricultural products not approved by the 
evaluation process could not be imported nor distributed domestically. Noting India 's objectives 
could be addressed in a less trade -restrictive manne r if certain items were already under appropriate 
control in the country of origin , Japan requested the withdrawal of the requirement for a non -GM 
origin and GM -free certificate.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 36 - 
 
  3.168.   Referring to its interventions at previous Committee meetings, Paraguay  asked  India to 
provide answers to its questions, namely with regard to the link with notification G/SPS/N/IND/290  
on the 2022 Draft Food Safety and Standards (Genetically Modified Foods ) Regulations.  
3.169.   Reiterating concerns from previous SPS, TBT, and CTG m eetings, Canada  noted that it was 
still awaiting a response on comments submitted through India's TBT enquiry point, and sought 
clarification on how India 's non -GM certification requirement would contribute to its intended 
objective. Foods derived from GM sources had a long history of safety and nutrition as compared to 
non-GM foods and underwent rigorous risk assessment processes worldwide . Canada  would welcome 
the opportunity to share its experience regulating GM food safety while encouraging food innovat ion. 
Canada called on India to share the scientific and technical information for its approach and to 
consider alternat ive, less trade -restrictive approaches. Canada  referred to its full statement 
uploaded in eAgenda.  
3.170.   Uruguay  considered that there was no technical justification for the certification requirement, 
and noted the international consensus that GM products approved on the basis of Codex risk 
assessment recommendations were considered to be equivalent to their convent ional counterparts. 
Recognizing India's rights to adopt measures to ensure food safety and protect the health of its 
population, Uruguay insisted that SPS measures should be based on scientific principles and 
implemented in the least trade -restrictive mann er. Uruguay was of the view that this measure should 
be notified to the SPS Committee  and referred to questions raised in SPS, TBT and CTG meetings, 
available on eAgenda, on the link between this measure and the one notified in G/SPS/N/IND/290 . 
3.171.   Argentina  highlighted that SPS measures should be based on scientific principles and a risk 
assessment, as well as on international standards. Argentina asked for the scientific evidence 
underpinning India's order notified as G/TBT/N/IND/168  and for th e criteria used to deviate from 
the princip le of substantial equivalence.  
3.172.   The European  Union  highlighted  the substantial costs associated with the issuance of the 
required certificates, especially given that EU legislation did not allow for genetic modific ation of 
fruits or vegetables. The European  Union  requested explanations as to why India considered it 
necessary to impose such a burden on trading partners with a high prevalence of non -GM food on 
their domestic market and a robust regulatory regime cover ing the use of GM Os. 
The European  Union  asked India to waive its requirement for food items or to consider a less 
burdensome approach to meet the stated objectives.  
3.173.   Referring to its intervention at the previous meeting, India responded that the import of G M 
foods was not allowed in its territory . As such, the requirement that a non -GM certificate accompany 
imported food consignments was only an assurance provided by the exporting country that food 
crops which had not been approved by the Genetic Engineering  Approval Committee (GEAC ) were 
not imported to India. India further informed the Committee that GEAC had not yet approved any 
of the crop varieties of genetically modified/engineered origin listed on the Order. India noted that 
its full statement was avai lable in eAgenda.  
3.2.43   China 's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID 532) - Concerns of Chinese Taipei  
3.174.   Chinese Taipei  expressed its concern regarding China's import suspension of pineapples, 
wax apples, citrus and mangoes, and requested China to resume imports in accordance with the 
SPS Agreement  and international standards. Despite having implement ed enhanced strengthen ed 
measures leading to significant improvement s, Chinese Taipei had not received substantive 
responses from China regarding its requests for scientific and technical dialogues, detailed 
identification reports, the adopted ALOP nor the risk assessment repor ts. 
Chinese  Taipei  acknowledged that China  had announced and resumed the importation of its sugar 
apples in June 2023. However, the  list of approved orchards and packaging facilities in the 
announcement only covered a very small portion of its sugar apple production system. 
Chinese  Taipei reiterated its request for China to provide information on the regulations and 
quarantine requirements for sugar apple orchards and packing facilities. Chinese Taipei looked 
forward to China complying with Articles 2, 3 an d 5 of the SPS Agreement , providing the necessary 
scientific identification and risk assessment reports, and engaging in a bilateral scientific and 
technical dialogue to resolve this issue.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 37 - 
 
  3.175.   China  had suspended imports of pineapples, wax apples and citrus f rom Chinese Taipei in 
response to the repeated interception of quarantine pests on fruits since 2020. The import ation of 
sugar apple s had been resumed in June 2023 and the registration of exporting enterprises that met 
the requirements had been approved af ter the comprehensive assessment of the rectification 
measures taken by the Chinese Taipei. Since August 2023, imports of mangoes had been suspended 
following the detection of quarantine pests which, in China's view, indicated that Chinese Taipei's 
source control measures were not in place. China requested Chinese Taipei to further improve its 
quarantine supervision system to ensure the safety and health of fruits exported to China.  
3.176.   In response, Chinese Taipei  reiterated the great importance attached to thi s issue and its 
regret about  the lack of substantive  response to the requests for technical and scientific dialogue. 
Chinese Taipei insisted on the high quality of its products and urged China to resume imports.  
3.2.44   US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID 439) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.177.   The European  Union  regretted that the United  States  still imposed import restrictions on 
EU apples and pears and that the publication of the final rule was blocked with no scientific 
justification, as all the techni cal work had been concluded long ago. The European  Union  indicated 
that, while the US market was open under a preclearance condition, this was very costly and trade 
was nearly inexistent. The European  Union  looked forward to continuing collaboration, and urged 
the United  States  to base its import conditions on science and publish its final rule.  
3.178.   The United  States  informed the Committee that the USDA was working through its 
administrative procedures on the req uest for expanded market access of eight EU member States 
under a systems approach. The United  States  reminded the European  Union  of the existing 
preclearance programme and remained interested in additional discussions that would meaningfully 
enhance bilat eral trade.  
3.2.45   US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European  Union  for Asian 
longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID 471) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.179.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding the US failure to recognize the 
EU pest-free status for Asian longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle. Although it had 
satisfactorily finalized its risk assessment, the European  Union  indicated that the United  States  was 
delaying the remaining last administrative steps necessary to fo rmalize the recognition of pest -free 
status. This  undue delay also prevented further work on the recognition of pest -free areas of affected 
EU member States. Acknowledging the recent bilateral exchanges and the information provided on 
the ongoing administr ate procedures, the European  Union  urged the United  States  to formally accept 
the pest -free areas and to publish its final notice in line with its commitments under the 
SPS Agreement . 
3.180.   The United  States  assured the European  Union  that it was working through  its administrative 
procedures to process this  request. The United  States  noted the technical engagement on the matter 
and looked forward to continued cooperation.  
3.2.46   Morocco 's import ban on ornamental plants (ID 548) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.181.   The European  Union  acknowledged the ongoing bilateral meeting regarding Morocco's 
requirements and implementation of measures to fight against the spread of X. fastidiosa . 
Despite  having provided the information required, the EU member States where the disease was 
present had not received an official reply about the resumption of trade. In the view of the 
European  Union , instead of the current full ban, the regionalization requireme nts set out for fruit 
plants could be extended to ornamental plants. Moreover, as long as fruit and ornamental plants 
originated from a disease -free area, the y should be treated as safe and there should not be a reason 
to differentiate between them. The European  Union  expressed its willingness to continue technical 
exchanges.  
3.182.   Morocco  had taken note of the EU position regarding the temporary ban on imports of 
ornamental plants from EU member States where X. fastidiosa  was present. Morocco noted that it G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 38 - 
 
  was f ree from X. fastidiosa , which was considered a priority pest in the country; there was no 
effective or curative means of combating the bacteria; and the risk of introduction was higher 
through ornamental plants than through fruit plants. Unlike for ornamen tal plants, Morocco had the 
ability to manage the risks for fruit plants and, as such, these could be imported from EU infested 
member States applying the principle of regionalization. Highlighting that its measure was aligned 
with Articles 2.1 and 5.7 of the SPS Agreement  and Article 7 of the IPPC Convention text, 
Morocco  reiterated that the ban was necessary to preserve its status free from X. fastidiosa . 
Morocco  remained available to continue discussions on this topic.  
3.2.47   European  Union  - EU phytosanitary m easures on citrus black spot (ID 356) - 
Concerns of South  Africa  
3.183.   South  Africa  was of the view that the EU measures were technically unjustified, since it 
disagreed with the statement that viable spores of citrus blackspot (CBS) could follow the pathway 
and value chain processes of imported fresh citrus fruit and transmit the disease to a citrus plant. 
Recognizing that spores or DNA traces of spores could be present on fruit, South  Africa  clarified that 
spores were very unlikely to remain viable after the no rmal processing undergone by the products. 
South  Africa  insisted that no viable spores had been detected in the 48 notifications of 
non-compliance received from the European  Union , and that dead organisms posed no risk. 
South  Africa  regretted the high cost s its producers had to cover in the ongoing trade with the 
European  Union . 
3.184.   The European  Union  informed the Committee that CBS was considered a quarantine, priority 
pest of potential economic impact. Wanting to maintain its CBS -free status and concerned about  the 
high number of non -compliances detected, the European  Union  urged South  Africa  to take concrete 
measures to comply with the EU requirements for CBS. Even after reviewing the comments received 
from a public consultation on its scientific opinion o n CBS, EFSA maintained its conclusion that the 
pest could enter the European  Union  with citrus fruits and could be transferred to citrus trees from 
fruits. The European  Union  looked forward to continuing bilateral consultations on this matter.  
3.2.48   US undue del ays in opening its citrus market (ID 542) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.185.   Brazil  reiterated its concerns regarding the US undue delays in the opening of its citrus 
market. In 2019 Brazil had requested that the United  States  split the analysis for lime from other 
citrus genus, and the PRA and the results of the public consultations had been published in 
November  2022. Brazil requested an explanation for the lack of progress and a clear indication of 
the next steps and the timeframe for the conclusion of the process for  the export of limes.  
3.186.   The United  States  confirmed that no significant scientific changes had been made to the PRA 
for the importation of Tahiti limes after the revision of the public comments received. 
The development and bilateral concurrence on risk miti gation measures was the next of the 
subsequent steps that APHIS needed to undertake prior to the development and publication of the 
initial and final notices in the Federal Register.  
3.187.   The Chairperson  observed that  the 55 STCs discussed at the current Commit tee meeting 
represented  a historical record . Delegates had made more than 180 interventions, mostly in person; 
the use of eAgenda had been very successful, and the improvements made to the system could 
further streamline work . He invited the Committee to c onsider the possibility of rearranging the 
agenda, to discuss agenda items on the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement , and 
on Cross -cutting Issues, before discussing the item on STCs.  
3.3  Information on resolution of issues  
3.188.   No Member took the flo or under this agenda item.  
3.189.   The Secretariat  provided an update on the annual report on the use of the procedure to 
encourage and facilitate the resolution of specific sanitary or phytosanitary issues among Members 
in accordance with Article 12.2 (G/SPS/61 ), contained in document G/SPS/ GEN/2154 . The report 
contained information on a request submitted by Brazil for the good offices of the Chair to resolve a 
concern regarding exports of pork to Mexico. Following the publication of its import requirements,  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 39 - 
 
  Mexico had indicated that the consultations were no longer necessary. The underlying STC had been 
later report as resolved.  
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.1.1   Informatio n from Members  
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization ) 
4.2.1   Information from Members  
4.2.1.1   Brazil - Report on HPAI status according to WOAH standards  
4.2.  Brazil  underscored the importance of adapting measures to sanitary conditions, in accordance 
with the criteria  developed by the international organizations, to improve human, animal and plant 
health in their territories while avoiding unnecessary barriers to trade and the risk of food shortages. 
This was particularly relevant in the current HPAI outbreak. Recallin g that the disease was 
transmitted by migratory wild birds, Brazil explained that outbreaks had occurred far from production 
areas of poultry for exports and that there had been no occurrences in commercial poultry. 
Underscoring that its HPAI status in WOA H had not changed, Brazil invited Members to consider the 
principle of regionalization in Article 6 and G/SPS/48  to ensure animal and human health in their 
territory and to avoid unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
4.3.1   Information fr om Members  
4.3.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
4.4.  The Secretariat  drew Members attention to document G/SPS/GEN/2163 , explaining the 
different levels of access available to users of the ePing SPS&TBT Platform. The Secretariat also 
reminded M embers that nine video tutorials explaining various functions of the ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform had been uploaded under the "More info" tab.  
4.4  Control, inspection and approval procedures  
4.4.1   Information from Members  
4.4.1.1   Brazil - Actions to protect poultry production from HPAI  
4.5.  Noting the global challenges to tackle outbreaks of HPAI, Brazil  informed Members of its 
contingency plan providing for the diagnosis of any suspected case. When an outbreak was 
confirmed, Brazil strictly followed the protocol established by WOAH. The HPAI surveillance plan, 
targeting industrial and backyard poultry as  well as wild birds, also included Newcastle disease, and 
the rapid detection of cases of the diseases allowed for emergency response, control and eradication 
of the outbreak. Following WOAH guidelines and recommendations, Brazil had also developed a 
model  to minimize the risk of introduction and spread of the diseases. Brazil expressed its willingness 
to share information with trading partners to build confidence in its system and collaborate to jointly 
address the diseases.  
4.6.  Encouraging Members to make use  of this agenda item, the Chairperson  reminded Members of 
the discussions under the Fifth Review that had led to the addition of this item to the agenda , and 
of the work undertaken by the Working Group on Approval Procedures. The Committee agreed  to 
reques t the Trade Facilitation (TF) team to make a presentation on the synergies between the TF 
and the SPS Agreement s in the March 2024 Committee meeting.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 40 - 
 
  4.5  Special and differential treatment (S&D) 
4.5.1   Information from Members  
4.7.  No Member took the floor under this agen da item.  
4.5.2   Information from the Secretariat  
4.8.  The Secretariat  drew Members' attention to the proposals on the SPS and TBT Agreements 
introduced by the G -90 at the Special Session o f the Committee on Trade and Development 
(CTD-SS) held in June 2023, contained i n document s JOB/TN/CTD/3  and JOB/TN/CTD/3/Corr.1 . 
A thematic session on the proposal had been held in October to discuss the S&D treatment in the 
SPS and TBT Agreements, and the developing Members ' related challenges. Speakers from the WTO  
Secretariat, the STDF, Members and international organizations had discussed the SPS and TBT S&D 
provisions and Committee -related work; the transparency provisions, including the ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform; and technical assistance activities, including the n ew Transparency Champions Course. 
Some delegates indicated that the information provided could facilitate further discussions o f the 
G-90 proposals. Presentations had been circulate d to the SPS delegates list and a report of the 
thematic session would be provided at the November 2023 CTD -SS meeting.  
4.9.  The United  States  drew Members' attention  to document G/SPS/GEN/2162 , which highlighted 
activities on better integration of develop ing countries in the SPS an d TBT Agreements and explored 
challenges and opportunities of using digital tools, the collaborative role of enquiry points , and the 
progr ess made by developing countries towards compliance with the Agreements. The  United  States  
referred to its experiences with the application of both Agreements shared during the workshop, and 
expressed its support for a culture of mutual learning regarding efforts to better integrate developing 
countries into both Agreements. The United  States  indicated its willingness to build on the ideas in 
its submission and hoped to generate productive discussions.  
4.10.  Underscoring its interest and contributions to the ongoing work in the CTD -SS, 
the European  Union  noted the importance of enhanced coordination an d exchanges of information 
in the future and regretted the lack of joint reflections during the discussions under the MC12 SPS 
Declaration Work Programme.  
4.6  Monitoring of the use of international standards  
4.6.1   New issues  
4.11.  No Member took the floor under this agen da item.  
4.6.2   Issues previously raised  
4.6.2.1   European  Union  - ASF restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international 
standard  
4.12.  The European  Union  pointed out inconsistencies in the application of WOAH standards related 
to ASF. The European  Union  considered that m any Members did not follow the WOAH Terrestrial 
Code guidance for identification, treatment and certification of tradable products and zoning. 
The European  Union  highlighted that ASF could be managed effectively to ensure that legitimate 
trade was not the cause of any outbreak, as presented in the 2021 Thematic Session  on ASF . 
ASF was a disease affecting several Members and that it was a shared interest to maintain free and 
safe trade of pork and pork products. The European  Union  invited Members to address the issue of 
country -wide bans and implement science -based, rational, and pro portionate import policies.  
4.6.2.2   European  Union  - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international 
standard  
4.13.  The European  Union  regretted that some Members disregarded their obligations under 
Article  6 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement  and implemented  country -wide bans after a local 
AI outbreak. The European  Union  indicated that these bans were not scientifically justified if effective 
movement controls were in place, and there was no justification to wait one year or more to restore G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 41 - 
 
  disease -free statu s. The European  Union  asked Members to respect their obligations on 
regionalization, to follow WOAH recommendations, and to allow trade from non -affected zones.  
4.6.2.3   Canada - Update on WOAH BSE negligible risk status  
4.14.  Referring to its interventions at previous C ommittee meetings, Canada  reiterated that it had 
been recognized by WOAH a negligible risk country for BSE since May 2021. Canada requested 
Members who had not yet done so to remove the remaining BSE -related restrictions on Canadian 
cattle, beef and beef p roducts, based on its WOAH's status. Canada recalled the importance of basing 
SPS measures on international standards, including those established by WOAH.  
4.7  Procedure for the Sixth Review (G/SPS/W/346 ) 
4.15.  The Chairperson  reported on the discussions at the info rmal meeting on 15 March, and drew 
Members' attention to his draft report on the discussions. The Committee adopted  the proposed 
process for the Sixth Review as outlined in G/SPS/W/346 . The final report on the informal meeting 
is included in Annex  C. 
4.8  Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG (G/L/1508 -G/SPS/69 ) 
4.16.  The Chairperson  reminded delegates that he would submit a factual report, on his own 
responsibility, on the activities of the Committee for consideration by the CTG at its meeting on 
30 November and 1 December 2023. The Chairperson also noted that a first version of the report 
had been made available to Members for comments. The report wou ld be revised to reflect the 
Committee's work at the present meeting. The final report was subsequently circulated as G/L/1519 . 
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1  SPS Declaration Work Programme (G/SPS/W/344/Rev.3 , G/SPS/GEN/2134/Rev.3 , 
WT/MIN (22)/27 and G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1 ) 
5.1.1   Factual summary and draft report to the 13th Ministerial Conference  
5.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to his draft report on the dedicated informal 
meeting th e Committee had held on 13 November, circulated by email for comments from Members. 
The final report is included in Annex A . A third revision of both documents had been circulated earlier 
in the week.  
5.2.  Türkiye  expressed its support for both outcome documents.  
5.3.  The Committee  took note of the factual summary (G/SPS/GEN/2134/Rev.3 ), that was 
subsequently circulated as G/SPS/70 . 
5.4.  The Chairperson  recalled that, according to the proposed proc ess for the Work Programme, 
the Committee had to adopt the draft report  to MC13  at the present meeting.  
5.5.  India and Egypt  were still waiting instructions from capital and could not agree to the adoption 
of the report  at the present meeting . 
5.6.  Paraguay  expresse d its regret that the report could not be adopted, despite Members' flexibility 
to accommodate the requests made. Noting the importance of exercising consensus in a responsible 
manner, Paraguay asked about the way forward.  
5.7.  The Chairperson  took note of the request for additional time for internal consultations, and 
proposed the adoption of the report on an ad referendum  basis.  
5.8.  India was not in a position to agree to the adopt ion of  the report on an ad referendum  basis.  
5.9.  Without prejudice to Members' internal  processes, Canada  enquired about a process that would 
recognize the lack of objection to the content of the text, reflecting that all the concerns had been G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 42 - 
 
  accommodated. Praising the achievements made on the substance, the European  Union  supported 
the proposal to secure th e texts and urged Members to finalize their internal procedures as soon as 
possible.  
5.10.  India thanked Members for their constructive approach and flexibility. Recalling that the 
SPS Declaration had been adopted directly at MC12, India reiterated it was still waiting for formal 
clearance from capital.  
5.11.  The Chairperson  invited Members to provide constructive, solution -oriented  suggestions . 
5.12.  Brazil  supported the proposal to secure the consensus  on the  substance of the report and try 
to find a procedural way to move  forward . Brazil highlighted  that, unlike the Declaration, this was a 
report on work already undertaken by the Committee.  
5.13.  The Chairperson  noted the requests for more time, on one hand, and the desire to ensure 
that the consensus on the text was reflected, on the other. The Chairperson proposed a hybrid 
approach , providing two weeks for Members to finalize internal consultations , followed by a n email, 
to be sent on 1 December , allowing for two additional weeks . If no objections were received  by 
15 December 2 023, the Committee would be considered to have adopted the report on  
G/SPS/W/344/Rev.3  by consensus . The Committee agreed  to the proposed hybrid approach.  
5.2  MC12 implementation matters (G/C/W/824/Rev.1 , JOB/CTG/37 , 
JOB/SPS/25/Rev.3 , JOB/CTG/26/Rev.1 , WT/GC/W/874  and G/L/1508 -G/SPS/69 ) 
5.2.1   Update from the Chairperson  
5.14.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that he had submitted his report on MC12 
implementation matters to the CTG.  
5.15.  Paraguay  drew Members' atten tion to the document jointly submitted with the 
United  Kingdom , JOB/CTG/43 , on enhancing clarity and accessibility of information. 
Following  discussions in the CTG, some proposals m ight be presented to the SPS Committee  with 
the aim of harmonizing practices, namely regarding a Committee page as an information hub.  
5.3  Thematic Session on Risk Communication, Misinformation and Disinformation  
5.3.1   Report on the Thematic Session  
5.16.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to his draft report on the Thematic Session 
on 14 November, circulated by email for comments from Members. The final report is included in 
Annex B . 
5.17.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.4  Topics for 2024 thematic sessions/workshop  
5.18.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.19.  The Secretariat  noted that Members would not have the opportunity to discuss proposals for 
a thematic session in March 2024 if they were submitted by the deadline of 19  January  that had 
been mentioned in the informal meeting . The Committee would have to explore a n alternative  way 
to reach consensus or, alternatively, not hold a thematic session in March.  
5.20.  Canada  enquired whether it would be possible to hold a transparency workshop in 
March  2024, should there not be other proposals.  
5.21.  The Chairperson  confirmed that could be the approach to follow in case no topic was proposed 
by Members.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 43 - 
 
  5.22.  The Secretariat  recalled tha t a transparency workshop was normally held every two or three 
years, and the last one had been held on 2022. Noting the challenges of organiz ing a workshop in 
March 2024  at such short notice , the Secretariat indicated several topics that could be explored , 
such as eTools to enhance transparency, the needs of developing and least developed countries , and 
the use of ePing to improve national coordination. Reiterating the possibility to set a deadline for 
Members to submit further ideas for this workshop, the  Secretariat confirmed its availability to 
organize the event.  
5.23.  The Chairperson  invited Members to submit  ideas for the transparency workshop and  possible 
topics  for thematic sessions to be held in 2024  by 19 January 2024.  
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS Activities  
6.1.  The Secretariat  provided an overview of relevant technical assistance activities held since the 
last Committee meeting. These activities included national seminars in the Philippines, the Gam bia, 
and India; a joint national SPS and TBT seminar for Bahrain; a regional SPS workshop for CEECAC 
countries, co -organized with the Joint Vienna Institute; three WTO Regional Trade Policy Courses for 
the Caribbean, for English -speaking Africa and for Fre nch-speaking Africa; and an Advanced Trade 
Policy Course organized by the WTO in English. The Secretariat had also participated in a workshop 
jointly hosted by FAO on Advancing Food Standards and Codex Participation in Europe and Central 
Asia; a Nordic Sem inar for Market Access held in Norway; and a workshop co -organized by the STDF 
in Ghana on Using Good Regulatory Practice to Facilitate Safe Trade in Africa. The Secretariat had 
also organized a briefing session for new SPS delegates on the work and functi oning of the 
SPS Committee ; and delivered two other sessions on the work and functioning of the SPS Committee  
for officials from Sri Lanka and Ukraine respectively, to facilitate their preparation for the November 
SPS Committee  meeting. The 26 participants  from 26 WTO Members and Observers who had 
attended the two -week Advanced SPS Course in October 2023 were rolling out action plans in their 
home countries with a view to improving implementation of the SPS Agreement . Coaches from 
Uganda, the STDF and the S PS Section would monitor the implementation of the action plans by 
participants, who would share the results of the actions taken in their countries in a follow -up session 
of the course to be held in 2024. Upcoming activities included national SPS seminars  for 
Chinese  Taipei and for Sri Lanka  and national SPS and TBT seminars for Guyana and for Namibia. 
Requests had also been received from Ecuador and Cambodia. General training would be provided 
for Turkmenistan, for a group of Kazakh students, for Korean o fficials visiting WTO and for acceding 
countries. More information was available on the SPS Gateway under events, workshops and 
training . The Secretari at also reminded the Committee that the e -Learning Course on the 
SPS Agreement  was available in English, French and Spanish on the WTO's e -Learning Platform.  
6.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/2158 ) 
6.2.  The STDF secretariat  reported on activities detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/2158 . It first drew 
Members' attention to a new briefing note on climate change, that was available on the STDF 
website. The STDF secretariat would soon start an external evaluation to analyze the integration of 
the environment, biodiversity and c limate change across STDF's work and the SPS capacity 
development work led by other organizations. Secondly, the STDF announced that its programme 
was currently undergoing an external evaluation to objectively assess the results and impact 
achieved by the Facility and to capture key lessons learned. The process was expected to be 
completed by the first quarter of 2024. Finally, the STDF presented its work aimed at facilitating 
regional trade in Africa, and referred to a two -day learning event for SPS regula tors held in Ghana 
to promote the use of Good Regulatory Practices (GRP) in Africa. The STDF also reported on a 
webinar, organized together with the Food Trade Coalition for Africa, to disseminate the conclusions 
of a joint policy brief on regional food trade in Africa, which was also available on the STDF's website. 
The STDF thanked its donors for their contributions to the trust fund.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 44 - 
 
  6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   Russian Federation - Technical support in the area of AMR  
6.3.  The Russian Federation  reported on its technical assistance activities to countries of the 
Eurasian region aime d at the development and implementation of national strategies and action 
plans to address the risks of AMR, and expected to train about 900 specialists by 2026. 
The Russian  Federation also provided capacity building on monitoring of antimicrobial resistan t 
pathogens, control of the efficient use of antibiotics and research on residues of antibiotics in food, 
as well as training and methodological support for food safety services. The Russian Federation 
invited Members to contact the Russian competent autho rity for additional information.  
6.2.2   United  States  - Technical assistance to developing countries 
(G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.16 ) 
6.4.  The United  States  brought the Committee's attention to document G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.16  on 
the technical a ssistance provided between October 2020 and September 2021 to support Members 
in the implementation of the SPS Agreement , adding up to USD 14 million. The United  States  
underscored that its activities had been adapted in light of the COVID -19 pandemic, and  also referred 
to its distance learning courses available at www.SPScourses.com . The United  States  detailed its 
partnership with the STDF and other collaborators on biopesticides, the ePhyto solution and the 
P-IMA tool. Noting the timeliness of the topic in light of the upcoming Sixth Review, the United  States  
welcomed the continued collaboration on how to facilitate impactful capacity building activities, and 
looked forward to cont inuing cooperation with  the STDF, the ISSBs and intergovernmental 
organizations. The United  States  provided its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2183 . 
6.5.  Ukraine  highlighted the importance of participation of technical experts in the SPS Committee  
and the opportunity it provided for bilateral negotiations with trading partners. Ukraine thanked the 
US Commercial Law Development Program for  the support and advice provided for face -to-face 
participation, and the WTO Secretariat for the training session on the margins of the Committee.  
6.2.3   Canada - Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/2159 ) 
6.6.  Canada  updated the Committee on t he SPS -related technical assistance to developing countries 
delivered in 2022, for which it had committed approximately CDN $1.3 million. Canada had delivered 
or initiated a total of 43 SPS -related technical assistance projects, which supported Members in 
Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Central Asia and the Asia -Pacific region. 
Canada's  assistance addressed information, training, and soft infrastructure development, and 
covered most of the typical areas of competence listed in G/SPS/GEN/206 . 
6.2.4   Japan - Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.9 ) 
6.7.  Japan reported on its technical assistance activities to developing countries from April 2022 to 
March 2023, which amounted to a total value of approximately 291 mil lion Japanese yen. 
These  activities, aimed at facilitating the implementation of SPS measures based on science, 
supported more than 50 countries and regions in Asia, the Pacific, Central America, South America, 
Central Asia and Africa. Japan invited Member s interested in SPS projects to contact its enquiry point 
and looked forward to cooperating with developing countries and international organizations.  
7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
7.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from Observer Organizations  
8.1.1   OECD (G/SPS/GEN/2156 ) 
8.1.  The report of the OECD's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2156 . G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 45 - 
 
  8.1.2   ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/2160 ) 
8.2.  The report of ECOWAS' activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2160 . 
8.1.3   OIRSA (G/SP S/GEN/2164 ) 
8.3.  The report of OIRSA's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2164 . 
8.1.4   CAHFSA (G/SPS/GEN/2165 ) 
8.4.  The report of CAHFSA's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2165 . 
8.1.5   IICA (G/SPS/GEN/2166 ) 
8.5.  IICA drew Members' attention to the report of its past activities contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2166 . Looking ahead, IICA and USDA would fund the physical participation of Latin 
America and Caribbean delegates in the March 2024 SPS Committee  meeting. The selection criteria 
would be published in January 2024, and IICA invited interested countries to apply to receive the 
support. In addition to the virtual coordination sessions on SPS Committee  matters, IICA would also 
host physical  meetings to address some complex and conceptual matters related to the application 
of the SPS Agreement  to promote stronger coordination and partnership bonds in the Western 
Hemisphere.  
8.1.6   IGAD (G/SPS/GEN/2167 ) 
8.6.  The report of IGAD's activities is contai ned in document G/SPS/GEN/2167 . 
8.1.7   ITC (G/SPS/GEN/2170 ) 
8.7.  The report of ITC's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2170 . 
8.1.8   GSO (G/SPS/GEN/2172 ) 
8.8.  The report of GSO's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2172 . 
8.1.9   SADC (G/SPS/GEN/2174 ) 
8.9.  The report of SADC's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2174 . 
8.2  Requests for observer status  
8.2.1   New requests  
8.10.  No Member t ook the floor under this agenda item.  
8.11.  The Committee  agreed  to invite organizations with ad hoc  observer status in the Committee 
to participate in all Committee meetings in 2024 - with the exception of any closed meeting - unless 
any Member raised an object ion in advance of a meeting.  
8.2.2   Pending requests  
8.12.  The Chairperson  referred to document G/SPS/W/78/Rev.15 , listing outstanding requests for 
observer status. The Chairperson indicated that, absent any intervention, he would assume that the 
positions of Members had not changed.  
8.13.  The Committee  agreed  to request the Secretariat t o send a letter, on behalf of the 
Chairperson, to these organizations indicating that the Committee had been unable to reach a 
consensus on their requests, which had been pending for several years, and asking them to renew 
their interest if they still wish ed these requests to be considered.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 46 - 
 
  9  OTHER BUSINESS  
9.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
10  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  
10.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the next regular meeting of the Committee was tentatively 
scheduled for the 20 -22 March 2024. The proposed calendar of Committee meetings for 2024 had 
been circulated as G/SPS/GEN/2117 . 
10.2.  The Secretariat  indicated that it would prepare a summary report based on oral interventions 
in the meeting, complemented by Members' ability to download complete statements via eAgenda.  
10.3.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee of the following deadlines, also circulated b y email:  
a) For submitting statements: Friday, 17 November 2023;  
b) For submitting comments on the Chairperson's draft annual report to CTG: Wednesday, 
22 November 2023;  
c) For submitting comments on the Chairperson's draft reports on the informal Committee 
meeting s: Friday, 24 November 2023;  
d) For submitting comments on the Chairperson's draft report on the Thematic Session on Risk 
Communication, Misinformation and Disinformation: Friday, 24 November 2023;  
e) For submitting specific transparency -related topics/themes to  be covered during the March 
Committee Workshop : Friday, 19 January 2024 ; 
f) For submitting proposals for 2024 thematic sessions  (June and November 2024) : Friday, 
19 January 2024;  
g) For submitting issues to be considered during the Sixth Review and submission of 
papers/proposals on issues for consideration (G/SPS/W/346 ): Friday, 19 January 2024;  
h) For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure, AND for 
reques ting that items be put on the agenda: Wednesday, 28 February 2024; and  
i) For the distribution of the annotated draft agenda: Friday, 1 March 2024.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 47 - 
 
  ANNEX A  
INFORMAL MEETING – 13 NOVEMBER 2023  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1  OUTCOME DOCUMENTS OF THE MC12 SPS DECLARATION WORK PROGRAMME  
1.  At the informal meeting on 13 November 2023, Members discussed the two outcome documents 
of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme, in order to finalize the text prior to the formal 
meeting, the last scheduled meeting ahead of the Thirteenth Ministerial Conference (MC13). 
These  documents were the factual summary, prepared by the Secretariat, and the draft report to be 
presented to Ministers in MC13, prepared by former Chairpers on of the Committee. I recalled that a 
first version of both documents, circulated on 21  June, had been discussed in a dedicated informal 
meeting in July. A subsequent revision of both documents, circulated on 14  September, had been 
further discussed in an  intersessional consultation held on 29 September to pave the path towards 
the adoption of the report at the November Committee meeting. A second revision of both 
documents had been circulated on 27 October, followed by a room document circulated on 
10 November. I recalled that Members had provided comments on the first revisions at the 
intersessional consultations held on 29 September.  
2.  No Member had provided comments on the Chairperson's draft report of those intersessional 
consultations, of which fina l version had been circulated on 27 October. I also reminded Members 
that the Committee had requested that the former Chairperson, Mr. Tang -Kai Wang, continued to 
act as a facilitator of the process. I reiterated that the current informal meeting was speci fically 
dedicated to the MC12 outcome documents, since an additional informal meeting would take place 
on Wednesday morning to discuss other topics.  
3.  Before giving the floor to the Facilitator, I reminded the Committee that the texts put forward 
were th e result of several rounds of consultations where all Members' interests and concerns had 
had space for discussion and consideration by the Committee, and that the proposed texts reflected 
in a fair manner the many compromises that had to be made. I praise d the collaborative, pragmatic 
and constructive approach taken by Members to find common ground in sensitive areas. I thanked 
the Facilitator for the work done, highlighting the inclusivity, transparency and neutrality in 
its interactions with all Members and in the drafting process. Finally, I underscored that the current 
meeting required a different dynamic, as we were moving towards the finalization of this process. 
I suggested the Committee to engage on the basis of positive silence if Members could acc ept 
the current proposal and could join consensus.  
4.  The Facilitator reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to review the second revision of 
the two outcome documents of the Work Programme with a view to adopting the report in the formal 
meeting.  Given the different views on certain parts of the text expressed by some Members at the 
intersessional consultations held in September, the Facilitator had again invited them to consult each 
other. The Secretariat and the Facilitator had also held bilater al consultations with several Members 
who had made comments, to try and find a balance among the views expressed and to reach 
consensus on the documents.  
5.  Following the circulation of the second revision, the Facilitator had held consultations with some  
Members who had expressed concerns on very specific parts of the documents. Those Members had 
reached out to others who had expressed contradictory views and had proposed a compromise 
language, that had been circulated to all Members in RD/SPS/228 . The Facil itator reiterated that 
the documents put forward for discussion were the result of the consideration of all comments 
received.  
2  FACTUAL SUMMARY OF THE WORK PROGRAMME OF THE MC12 SPS DECLARATION 
(G/SPS/GEN/2134/REV.2 ) 
6.  The Facilitator first conside red the second revision of the factual summary 
(G/SPS/GEN/2134/Rev.2 ), prepared by the Secretariat on the basis of stewards' reports about 
the activities of the five Thematic Groups, with the small change to the text proposed in RD/SPS/228 . G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 48 - 
 
  7.  The first version of the document had been circulated in Ju ne 2023. A first revision of the 
document had been circulated on 14  September, after consideration of the oral comments received 
at the July informal meeting and the written comments subsequently provided by two Members. 
In the intersessional consultations  held in September, Members had expressed their appreciation for 
the balance included in the document and had also expressed interest in exploring the possibility to 
include in the factual summary some elements discussed in the Work Programme, but that wer e 
unlikely to reach consensus in the report to Ministers. A second revision of the document had been 
circulated on 27 October, following consultations with the Members who had submitted oral 
comments in the intersessional consultations and with a Member wh o had subsequently submitted 
written comments. The Facilitator specified that a factual reference had been added to reflect 
discussions and experiences shared by Members or presenters, specifically an inclusion in 
paragraph  4.6 of a reference to the human -animal -environment interface.  
8.  Following the circulation of the second revision, one Member had initiated consultations with 
two interested Members on the inclusion of a reference to maximum residue limits (MRLs). 
The Facilitator had facilitated a dialo gue between those Members, who had converged on the 
language contained in the room document RD/SPS/228 , which would be inserted in paragraph 4.6. 
of the factual summary. The proposed language factually reflected the concerns expressed by 
some  Members on the i ssue of establishing pesticide MRLs, particularly in the cases where they 
considered these to be based on uncertainty.  
3  DRAFT REPORT TO THE THIRTEENTH MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE 
(G/SPS/W/344/REV.2 ) 
9.  The Facilitator then considered the second revision of the draft report to MC13 
(G/SPS/W/344/Rev.2 ), with the proposed small change to the text included in RD/SPS/228 . 
The zero draft of the report had been discussed at the July 2023 meeting, and Members had 
submitted written comments, which had been incorporated in the first revision circulated in 
September. At  the Committee's intersessional consultation held on 29 September, many Members 
had expressed their  satisfaction with the document, and some had offered suggestions. 
The Facilitator reiterated that the second revision of the document, circulated on 27 October, was 
the result of the consideration of the oral and written suggestions received from Members,  and of 
the consultations held with those who proposed comments. Although comments on some parts of 
the document had gone in very different directions, the compromise language provided by Members 
in other cases had contributed to the very careful balance i n the second version of the document.  
10.  The Facilitator briefly highlighted the few changes that had been incorporated in the second 
revision of the report:  
• The finding in paragraph 3a  had been amended to further clarify that the SPS Agreement  
is only  one of the elements contributing  to food security, to address a concern about 
the reference to food security and the emerging challenges and opportunities.  
• The Facilitator had held extensive consultations with the various Members who had 
expressed views  on paragraph 3b , and had tried to accommodate all the concerns raised. 
He thanked those Members who had provided compromise language and hoped that 
Members perceived the careful balance which aimed to address  all concerns.  
• Although no changes had been m ade to paragraph 3c  in the second revision, the first 
sentence had been subsequently modified to address a concern raised by one Member. 
Concerned Members had consulted among themselves and had proposed compromise 
language indicating that "The Committee re cognizes that scientific evidence and 
risk assessment are the basis of SPS measures". The Facilitator trusted that this new 
language would be acceptable to other Members as well.  
• The word "including" had been added to paragraph 3d  to reflect a concern ra ised by 
several Members. This had improved the drafting by approaching it to the text of 
the Agreement.  
• Finally, paragraph 3g  now included two suggestions presented in the September 
intersessional consultations that had enjoyed a broad convergence. These  were the 
inclusion of a reference to emerging challenges and opportunities in relation to the work 
of the STDF, and the involvement of developing and least developed country Members in 
the design of technical assistance and cooperation programmes . 
• Regar ding the recommendation in paragraph 4, after consulting different textual 
proposals, an edit had been included  to address one comment received in the September G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 49 - 
 
  intersessional consultations, to anchor the future discussions more clearly to the 
SPS Agreemen t. 
• Finally, a paragraph 5 had been added to reflect a suggestion made by one Member in the 
intersessional consultations to include additional language to recommend that Ministers 
accept the report and endorse the findings and recommendations.  
11.  The Fa cilitator hoped that these versions could be acceptable for everyone and underscored 
that the texts were an attempt to address the remaining concerns, proposed after several rounds of 
consultations with Members who had expressed concerns and many conversat ions among interested 
Members themselves. The Facilitator summarized his intervention by indicating that the documents 
being put forward for Members' consideration were the second revisions of the factual summary and 
the report to MC13, together with a one  small proposed change to each document, as circulated in 
RD/SPS/228 . 
12.  I reiterated my request for Members to engage on the basis of positive silence if they could 
agree with the proposed texts and could join consensus. I requested Members wishing to take  the 
floor on either of the documents to provide as much detailed information as possible and called for 
restraint, flexibility, pragmatism and constructive spirit.  
13.  One Member indicated that the change introduced in the factual summary reflected its c oncerns 
on MRLs. That Member indicated it had concerns on paragraphs 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d and 4 of the draft 
report, but noted that if its concerns on paragraph 3a could be addressed, the remaining concerns 
would not be raised. Specifically, the Member reiterate d its position raised in previous meetings that 
the SPS Agreement  was about food safety and not about food security, and requested the reference 
to food security in paragraph 3a to be removed.  
14.  The Facilitator recalled that prior discussions on food se curity had been held in the Committee 
intersessional consultations and in consultations between Members. The Member presented 
alternative text suggestions to delete the reference to food security, and also proposed removing 
the reference of emerging challe nges and opportunities at the end of the paragraph.  
15.  Referring to the addition of MRLs to paragraph 4.6 of the factual summary, another Member 
suggested clarifying that the MRLs in question were those that were not consistent with international 
standar ds. That same Member was of the view that paragraph 3c of the report was not in line with 
Article 2 of the SPS Agreement , and that the wording from the Agreement could be used.  
16.  Another Member praised the solution proposed by the first Member to a conc ern raised in the 
past and indicated its agreement with the modification to paragraph 3a suggested, in the spirit of 
reaching consensus. That Member also indicated that, while it agreed with the additional 
modifications requested, it was necessary to restr ict changes to the minimum to avoid potentially 
controversial edits, in the spirit of reaching consensus and keeping in mind the delicate balance in 
the documents.  
17.  Two Members sought clarification on the language previously proposed on paragraph 3a, 
regretting having to engage in a drafting exercise at this stage of the process. The Member who had 
suggested the modification in paragraph 3a clarified its intention with the proposed text and 
expressed willingness to look at the drafting of the paragraph.  
18.  The Facilitator reiterated the invitation for Members to consult each other to bridge any 
outstanding concerns, and proposed a small group meeting following the informal meeting. He 
reiterated that the current text tried to address all the concerns r aised, and invited Members to 
reach out to him if they had pending editorial changes. I highlighted the constructive spirit shown 
by Members and the need to reach consensus on the text, and reiterated the call for a small group 
meeting to reach convergence  on paragraph 3a.  
4  NEXT STEPS  
19.  Before closing the meeting, I summarized the next steps. I indicated that I had taken note of 
all the comments made, and that I might invite the Facilitator to provide an update in the informal 
meeting on Wednesday. Subsequent steps would depend on the outcome of the conversations that 
were still to be held.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 50 - 
 
  20.  Regarding the rest of this week, I reminded Members that, according to the airgram that the 
Secretariat had circulated the previous week with symb ol WTO/AIR/SPS/42 , a Thematic Session on 
Risk Communication, Disinformation and Miscommunication would be held on Tuesday, 
14 November. On Wednesday, 15 November, a separate informal would be held to discuss the 
procedure for the Sixth Review and topic s for the 2024 thematic sessions/workshop, followed by 
time for bilateral consultations among Members. The formal session of the SPS Committee  would 
start on the afternoon of Wednesday, 15 November, and hopefully the Committee would be in a 
position to ado pt the report to MC13 at that meeting.  
21.  Before adjourning the meeting, I reminded Members that there would be time available to hold 
bilateral consultations following the informal meeting on Wednesday morning, and that the Facilitator 
and myself would offer some refreshments at that time. I encouraged Members to try and organize 
bilateral meetings with trading partners, as a very effective approach to addressing trade concerns, 
and to report on the results of these consultations in the Committee meeting . I also informed the 
Committee that the United  States  and Australia had offered to sponsor a coffee break on Thursday 
morning during the formal Committee meeting, and invited other delegations who might be in a 
position to contribute to future social even ts to approach me or the Secretariat.  
22.  Before closing the meeting, I indicated that a factual summary of the meeting would be 
circulated for comments, and included in the summary report of the November meeting.  
 G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 51 - 
 
  ANNEX B  
THEMATIC SESSION ON RISK COMMUNICATION, MISINFORMATION AND 
DISINFORMATION – 14 NOVEMBER 2023  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1.  A Thematic Session on Risk Communication, Misinformation and Disinformation was held on 
14 November 2023, as discussed by the SPS Committee  in November 2022. The  final programme, 
circulated on 6 November 2023 as document G/SPS/GEN/2155/Rev.1 , built on proposals submitted 
by the United  States  in documents G/SPS/GEN/2067  and G/SPS/GEN/2067/Rev.1 . The thematic 
session was held in hybrid format, with Members and Observers invited to attend in person or 
virtually via Zoom. It was also livestreamed on the WTO YouTube cha nnel and the links to the 
recording in English, French and Spanish are available on the WTO website.  
2.  The thematic session aimed to explore the concepts surrounding information manipulation and 
their relevance within the context and implementation of th e SPS Agreement . Speakers were invited 
to focus on the evolution of misinformation and disinformation, including its possible effect on policy 
decisions, how it is being deployed around agricultural food safety issues, and how Members can 
identify and addr ess it at early stages. The thematic session included perspectives and experiences 
from representatives of Members, industry, consumer organizations, and academia.  
3.  In the first session on "what is disinformation/misinformation?", a speaker from the 
European  Union  presented on challenges in times of disinformation and the EU's measures to 
tackle  it. He noted that disinformation was an important issue for European citizens and shared how 
the European  Union  was addressing the challenges around disinformation through legislation, 
external action, and communication. The second speaker, from the Alternative Proteins Council, 
shared a case study on plant -based meat alternatives, discussing industry needs and the consumer 
experience . She shared data demonstrati ng significant growth in plant -based meat alternative 
products in Australia and New Zealand, explained the importance of consumer perception of a 
product including clear communication and labelling, and highlighted how collaboration was key for 
strong food  safety outcomes. The third speaker, from the DISARM Foundation, introduced 
disinformation and the DISARM framework . He presente d some historical background of information 
sharing and the differences brought by the internet and social media. He also explained that 
agriculture was emotional, complex, and highly regulated, making it a target for disinformation. He 
shared how the DISA RM frameworks can help to counter disinformation. In the Q&A session, there 
was discussion on the contexts in which the DISARM frameworks had been used.  
4.  Session 2 focused on the relevance to SPS. The first speaker from the United  Kingdom  presented 
on trustworthiness . She discussed public worries vis -à-vis the complexity of the food system and 
the importance of building trustwo rthiness as a regulator in the food system, and she shared 
seven  principles for communicating risk: context, purpose, control, transparency, presentation, 
delivery, and evaluation. Following this, a speaker from The Gambia shared his country's experience 
on misinformation/disinformation related to food safety issues . He presented cases of issues related 
to the presence of plastic rice and misinformation about expired foods, and the steps taken to engage 
with consumers, establish facts and debunk claims. In the next presentation, a speaker from 
FoodDrinkEurope present ed its actions in food safety and the role of communication . He noted that 
food and drink industries needed regulatory consisten cy and predictability for healthier and more 
sustainable food systems. He also highlighted the importance of communicating benefits as well as 
risks and provided examples of FoodDrinkEurope's engagement with various stakeholders.  
5.  Session 2 continued wi th a speaker from the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre of Nuclear Techniques in 
Food and Agriculture, who presented on irradiated food . He described the different processes to 
irradiate food and highlighted some misunderstandings and confusion around how irradiation affects 
the safety of food. He also referred to international standards and codes of practices from Codex 
and IPPC, and provided  some examples of concerns on irradiation in specific sectors. The last speaker 
in session 2, from Rutgers University, presented on the psychology of risk percepti on, 
misinformation, disinformation, and SPS risk management . He explained that most risks and benefits 
associated with food were invisible and that risk communication was about "making the invisible 
visible". He describe d ways in which food was connected to emotion and noted that a key mistake 
in addressing mis/disinformation was the tendency to stick to facts or try to address emotional G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 52 - 
 
  content with cognitive content. In the Q&A session, there was discussion on a number of issues such 
as sustainable food systems, the susceptibility of low -income populations, gaps in knowledge of 
irradiation, the importance of standards for consumers, working with third party trusted amplifiers 
to deliver more accurate information, market segmentation, social trust and risk perceptions.  
6.  Session 3 looked at "how did we get here and what do we do now?". The first speaker, from 
Indonesia, presented her country's experience on risk communication: misinformation and 
disinformation . She referred to definitions of risk communication, misinformation and disinformation 
and provided examples of how effective risk communic ation can encourage changes in behaviours 
between importing and exporting countries. The next speaker, from the European  Union , presented 
on the use of societal in sights in risk communication, discussing an evidence based approach by the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) . His presentation included an example of how coverage of 
EFSA's assessments on edible insect foods generated  media attention around the globe. 
He highlighted three main ingredients to minimize the risk of misinformation, including the use of 
societal insights, being proactive with communications, and investing in research and tools that help 
to detect and addres s sources of false information. In the following presentation, a speaker from 
Canada presented on a public trust case study on communicating about maximum residue limits . 
She shared how Health Canada took a multifaceted approach to addressing misinformation. She also 
explained that audiences have distinct information needs and required different levels of information, 
and provided examples of how different types of multimedia products were used to engage with 
different audiences. Session 3 continued with a speaker from Chile who presented on communication 
as the key to the outcome of an emergency . She shared the plan of action, communication strategies 
and tools that were used in Chile to raise the awareness of different public groups on avian influenza, 
for example, to encourage reporting, and how proactive and transparent communication helped to 
build trust in the efforts of the authorities. I opened the floor for questions, and there was a 
conversation on risk assessment and risk management in the European  Union , EFSA's approach to 
gathering information and its engagement with other authorities, and the possibility of using models 
shared by the EFSA speaker in other organizations.  
7.  The following presentation in session 3 on the perspective of EU consumer organizations on 
misinformation and disinformation around food  was delivered jointly by speakers from the European 
Consumer Organisation and the Federation of German Consumer Organisations. The speaker from 
the European Consumer Organisation explained how disinformation around food can come from 
unexpected sources an d noted that food safety incidents making headlines were often linked to lack 
of compliance with or enforcement of existing rules rather than inadequate legislation. The speaker 
from the Federation of German Consumer Organisations presented examples of how  
it communicated to consumers and contributed to countering misinformation and disinformation. 
Following this, a speaker from Red Flag presented examples of misinf ormation/disinformation 
undermining good regulation and science from a public relations and risk communication 
perspective . She discussed the changing landscape of news and shifting audiences but noted that 
news continued  to matter. She also drew attention to specific examples of communication challenges 
in relation to scientific information such as health risks related to cancer. The final speaker, from the 
United  States , delivered a presentation on navigating misinformation and disinformation in food 
safety communications , which included a number of examples of misinformation and disinformation 
over time. He also highlighted increases in the weaponization of information and presented 
short-term responses and long -term strategies to try to address the challenges. I opened the floor 
for questions, and there was a discussion related to communication  with consumers such as the 
messaging around food safety risks, and how regulators can be clearer and better respond to 
consumer dissatisfaction.  
8.  In session 4, I opened the floor to see if there were any views on the presentations or possible 
next step s. The United  States  thanked Members for agreeing to its proposal for a thematic session 
focused on risk communication. The US representative noted that the presentations highlighted that 
we were all affected by misinformation and disinformation, and he en couraged the Committee to 
keep seeking ways to further analyze the implications of misinformation and disinformation on 
SPS issues. He also encouraged Members to think about how to strengthen efforts to identify and 
combat misinformation and disinformation  particularly when developing SPS measures. He also 
suggested keeping the topic in mind in the deliberations under the 6th Review of the SPS Agreement . 
Three other Members took the floor in this session, thanking speakers for their contributions and 
recogn izing the diverse set of perspectives, examples, tools or solutions presented. The importance 
of this type of discussion for regulators was also highlighted. All three Members expressed their 
openness to further discuss the topic.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 53 - 
 
  9.  In session 5, I provi ded a few closing remarks. I noted that the presentations had been 
interesting and informative and also provided various perspectives on the topic including from 
Members, industry, academia, and consumer organizations. I thanked the speakers for the 
inform ation provided and all participants for the discussion. I also recalled that presentations from 
the thematic session would be made available on the SPS Events, W orkshops and Training  webpage.  
 G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 54 - 
 
  ANNEX C  
INFORMAL MEETING – 15 NOVEMBER 2023  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1  OUTCOME DOCUMENTS OF THE MC12 SPS DECLARATION WORK PROGRAMME 
(G/SPS/W/344/REV.3  AND G/SPS/GEN/2134/REV .3) 
1.  At the beginning of the meeting, I explained that we had added an agenda item on the MC12 
SPS Declaration Work Programme to allow for an update before the start of the formal meeting. 
The Facilitator informed the Committee that he had engaged in dialogue with some Members to 
address some concerns on paragraphs 3a and 3c raised in the informal meeting held on Monday, 
13 November. He announced that a third revision of the draft report to Ministers 
(G/SPS/W/344/Rev.3 ) and the factual summary ( G/SPS/GEN/2134/Rev.3 ) had been circulated on 
Tuesday, 14 November, on the basis of the second revision, the text contained in RD/SPS/228  and 
the compromise text on both paragraphs reached in consultations in the past couple of days.  
2.  The Fa cilitator explained the amendments introduced in the third revision of the draft report: 
(i) footnote 1 had been amended to refer to the third revision of the factual summary (instead of 
the second revision); (ii) in paragraph 3a, the phrase ", and is ther efore one of the elements 
contributing to food security" had been deleted to address one Member's concern; and 
(iii) in paragraph 3c, the words "scientific principles" had been added to the first sentence, and the 
word "scientific" had been added before "u ncertainty" in the second sentence to address another 
Member's concern.  
3.  The Facilitator emphasized the thorough discussions the two documents had undergone and 
the periodic reports on the process and outcomes he had provided. The Facilitator expressed hope 
that the text would be adopted in the formal meeting.  
4.  I noted that the Committee was very close to the objective of adopting the report, which 
contained a consensual text, and proposed adopting the text in the formal meeting.  
5.  Two Members indicated that they had not received instructions from capital and that they would 
need more time before being able to join the consensus. One of those Members specifically indicated 
its conformity with the text, but it indicated it might n ot be in a position to agree to its adoption 
before the end of the week.  
6.  Two other Members expressed appreciation for the Committee's constructive spirit to reach 
compromises, but regretted that some Members' internal procedures might not allow for ado ption 
of the report in the timeline stipulated at the beginning of the Work Programme. These two Members 
urged those with pending internal procedures to try and resolve them by the end of the week, and 
also enquired about the possibilities to secure the ac ceptance of the text for a potential subsequent 
adoption without modifications to the content. One of those Members clarified that the Committee 
was adopting a technical report that included a non -binding recommendation to be put forward to 
Ministers, and that it should not be linked to the procedures related to the MC13.  
7.  I noted the need to balance some Members' request for more time with the desire by other 
Members to finalize the process at the current meeting. I invited the Secretariat to explain th e 
ad referendum  adoption procedure mentioned by one Member, should it be necessary for this report. 
Noting that this approach had frequently been used, the Secretariat explained that an ad referendum  
adoption implied that the Committee would agree that the  text was final and set a deadline. 
If no objections were received by the deadline, the report would be considered to have been 
adopted. If objections or questions were raised before the deadline, the report would not have been 
adopted. The Committee would  normally revert to the topic in the upcoming meeting, which was not 
possible in this case, since the upcoming Committee meeting would take place after MC13.  
8.  I suggested that Members try to finalize the process in the formal meeting. I also announced 
that I would reflect and consult Members on the way forward.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 55 - 
 
  2  PROCEDURE FOR THE SIXTH REVIEW ( G/SPS/W/346 ) 
9.  I recalled that at the July meeting, the Committee had begun reflecting on the preparations for 
the Sixth Review. I further reminded Members of the SPS Committee 's mandate to review the 
operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement  at least once every four years, pursuant to the 
provisions of Article 12.7 of the Agreement and the Doha Ministerial Decision on Implementation -
Related Issues and Concerns ( WT/MIN(01)/17 ). For the last Review, the process had started in 
March 2018, and had ended with the adoption of the Fifth Review Report in 2020.  
10.  I also recalled that at the last meeting, the Secretariat had outlined the review process and that 
the Committee had requested the Secretariat to prepare a draft timeline for consideration and 
discussion at this meeting, and subsequent adoption.  
11.  I then drew attention to the draft procedure prepared by the Secretariat in document 
G/SPS/W/346 . I reminded Members that in the July discussions, some Members had indicated the ir 
preference to have a shorter review than the last time, and that since the Review process normally 
took one year, this could be the benchmark for the Sixth Review. I noted that in order to meet this 
one-year timeline, the proposed procedure envisioned t hat Members would already submit topics 
and papers/proposals in January 2024. However, there would be a second opportunity in April to 
make submissions. I then invited the Secretariat to present the proposed procedure.  
12.  The Secretariat outlined the pro posed procedure, highlighting that the Sixth Review timeline 
was shorter than that of the Fifth Review, as had been discussed in the July meeting, and that the 
Review report could set out actions to be undertaken in the future. The Secretariat explained th e 
proposed steps of the procedure, which started with the submission of topics and proposals for 
discussion, and also drew attention to the various deadlines in the document.  
13.  The Secretariat recalled that in the last Review, 22 proposals had been subm itted by 
29 Members covering 10 topics. The Committee had considered proposals and suggestions 
submitted by Members on the following topics: appropriate level of protection, risk assessment and 
science; control, inspection and approval procedures (Annex C) ; equivalence; fall armyworm; 
national SPS coordination mechanisms; notification procedures and transparency; MRLs for plant 
protection products; regionalization; role of Codex, WOAH and IPPC with respect to specific trade 
concerns; and voluntary third -party assurance schemes.  
14.  The Secretariat also noted that, for the current Review, thematic sessions could be organized 
on identified topics, if of interest to Members. The Secretariat further explained that the Review 
would end with the adoption of the R eview Report, which under the Fifth Review had two parts: 
(i) a descriptive part, based on a background document prepared by the Secretariat; and 
(ii) a summary of the discussion of the submitted proposals, and also recommendations. In addition, 
as part of  the process, the Committee would also need to review the existing Committee decisions 
and procedures, such as the procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization, 
regionalization, etc. The Secretariat could prepare a list of these decision s for the March 2024 
meeting, if requested by Members.  
15.  I then invited Members to raise any questions or comments regarding the information provided 
by the Secretariat on document G/SPS/W/346 . One Member took the floor to indicate that the 
January deadli ne for Members' submissions seemed ambitious in light of the December holidays. In 
the spirit of starting the process on a positive note, the Member suggested pushing the deadline 
back to February. The Secretariat explained that the timeline in G/SPS/W/346  had been proposed 
in order to fit the process within the one -year timeframe, as suggested by Members. However, the 
Committee could decide to push back the January deadline to February or postpone the start of the 
overall process to March.  
16.  Another Memb er indicated that while it supported the one -year timeline for the process, it noted 
that its resources had been absorbed by the Declaration Work Programme, so it had not been able 
to fully examine the proposed timeline and suggested that there could be fu rther reflection on 
starting the process later. The Member also identified potential areas that could be examined during 
the Sixth Review, such as: the emerging challenges from the MC12 SPS Declaration 
Work Programme; IT -related improvements to eTools; and  transparency, specifically taking into G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 56 - 
 
  account the special needs of developing countries in the sharing of information. The Member also 
identified one minor edit in G/SPS/W/346 . 
17.  I then suggested that we keep the timeline as indicated in G/SPS/W/346  as a reference point, 
since there were two opportunities for Members to submit topics/proposals, first in January 2024 
and then in April 2024. I expressed my concern that if the deadline was pushed back to February, 
there would not be sufficient ti me for Members to review the documents ahead of the March meeting. 
By retaining the deadline of 19 January 2024, the Committee could already consider at its 
March  meeting any submissions received, with the understanding that Members could still make 
submis sions after that deadline, which could also be considered at the March meeting, depending 
on the time of submission. I again highlighted the second deadline of 19 April, which would provide 
another opportunity for submissions, following which all of the pr oposals could be discussed in the 
June 2024 Committee meeting.  
18.  I queried whether this approach was acceptable to the Committee. No Member took the floor. 
On this basis, I indicated my intention to put document G/SPS/W/346  up for adoption at the formal 
meeting.  
3  MC12 IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS ( G/C/W/824/REV.1 , JOB/CTG/37 , 
JOB/SPS/25/REV.3 , JOB/CTG/26/REV.1 , WT/GC/W/874  AND G/L/1508; G/SPS/69 ) 
19.  On the topic of MC12 implementation matters, I first recalled that all CTG subsidiary bodies had 
been requested to submit a written report to CTG describing the discussions held and improvements 
introduced. On that  basis, I had prepared a report under my responsibility, with the assistance of 
the Secretariat. A first draft had been shared with Members for their comments by the deadline of 
25 October. No specific comments had been raised on the report itself, and the  final report had 
subsequently been circulated in document G/L/1508; G/SPS/69 . I also noted that one Member had 
submitted some written suggestions on the functioning of the SPS Committee , which would be 
addressed later in the meeting.  
20.  I then provided an opportunity for Members to continue discussions on improving the 
functioning of the SPS Committee  and also invited Members to make any additional suggestions. 
No Member took the floor.  
21.  I then provided a few updates and revisited  some observations and suggestions on how the 
Committee could improve its functioning, which I had previously highlighted in the September 
intersessional consultations for further consideration and discussion in this meeting.  
(i) In -person participation at  Committee meetings and bilateral consultations  
22.  I reinforced the importance of in -person attendance at Committee meetings, and highlighted 
the advantage of delegates being in Geneva to hold bilateral consultations, as this could be a very 
effective ap proach to addressing trade concerns. I indicated that I had been reflecting on and 
discussing with the Secretariat how to provide more structured space for bilateral discussions among 
Members during the Committee week, and I invited Members to communicate any suggestions they 
might have in this regard. I also encouraged Members to conduct bilateral consultations after the 
informal meeting, and also during the coffee break.  
23.  I invited Members to provide any comments on this topic. Some Members took the f loor to 
support the idea of in -person participation at SPS Committee  meetings. One Member noted the 
number of bilateral consultations it had organized during the Committee week, underscoring the 
importance of this type of engagement, and emphasizing that t he start times for the morning and 
afternoon sessions of Committee meetings were designed to encourage these types of interactions 
on the margins of meetings. The Member also highlighted the special nature of the SPS Committee , 
and the importance of having  the presence of technical persons to engage in discussions.  
24.  Another Member further underscored the importance of allotting time for the informal sharing 
of perspectives and engaging in bilateral consultations, which was facilitated by in -person 
participation. In its view, in -person participation at meetings was valuable, and the option to also 
have remote participation was useful. Another Member supported the approach and noted that while G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 57 - 
 
  in-person participation was very demanding, given the number of  meetings and bilateral 
consultations, the time spent in these meetings represented a good use of professional time.  
25.  I welcomed the positive feedback from Members and noted the objective of further improving 
the ambiance of the Committee.  
(ii) Specifi c trade concerns and order of agenda items  
26.  I highlighted that Members had various options when presenting their specific trade concerns 
in Committee meetings. In addition to the oral intervention, Members could provide extra 
information in detailed st atements which could be uploaded to eAgenda, and submit GEN documents. 
I encouraged Members to use these options to provide more detailed information on trade concerns, 
and make shorter oral interventions in the Committee meeting.  
27.  I also indicated tha t I had been reflecting on some additional tools already available to this 
Committee regarding STCs, and in particular on agenda item "3(c) – Information on Resolution of 
Issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23 ". Under this agenda item, Members we re encouraged to inform 
the Committee of the resolution of specific trade concerns which had been raised in earlier meetings. 
This allowed the Committee to have a better overview of the status of specific trade concerns raised, 
and helped the Secretariat k eep document GEN/204 and the Trade Concerns Database up to date. 
I further underscored that this was an important reminder that the Committee was keeping track of 
unresolved STCs, even when not recently raised, and that there were databases and reference 
documents that reflected their current situation. These were another set of tools that could be 
particularly useful for certain STCs, whether recent or much older.  
28.  I further indicated that I might revisit this point at the next Committee meeting in March 2024 
with more concrete ideas, and encouraged Members to continue reflecting on this topic in the 
interim. I invited Members to provide any comments on this top ic. No Member took the floor.  
29.  I also recalled that there had been a suggestion in the July meeting for the Committee to 
consider restructuring the order of agenda items for formal meetings. Specifically, the idea was to 
have discussions on substantive  items before STCs, similar to the approach in CTG meetings. 
In the July meeting, the Secretariat had indicated that the order of the agenda could be examined 
and suggested that the Committee could experiment with changes in the agenda for one meeting, 
if Members were in agreement.  
30.  I invited Members to provide any comments on this suggestion. One Member took the floor to 
express support for restructuring the order of the agenda items in the formal meetings, noting the 
extensive discussions that would n ormally take place on STCs, which meant that substantive items 
were only discussed on Friday of the Committee week when some delegates might have already left 
due to travel arrangements. In its view, STCs were only relevant to the Members in question, 
while substantive topics were relevant to all Members as they allowed a focus on overarching 
SPS issues and facilitated a more in -depth discussion. The Member proposed changing the placement 
of STCs for the March 2024 formal meeting to assess the implications before making a final decision. 
Another Member indicated its support for the suggestion which would facilitate the participation of 
capital - and Geneva -based delegates, given the challenges in keeping track of STC discussions, and 
knowing when substantive issues would be discussed.  
31.  Some Members observed that the ideal situation would be for delegates to attend the entire 
week of Committee meetings, but  recognized that for various reasons some delegates might have 
to prioritize and return to capital before the end of the meeting. In addition, some Members queried 
the distinction made between substantive and non -substantive parts of the agenda.  
32.  One M ember underscored that, for its stakeholders, STCs were the entire reason for its presence 
in the meeting and that it would be important for the Committee to cover STCs when most delegates 
were present. The Member also observed that if STCs were placed at the end of the agenda and 
the Committee went over time, it would cause a problem for those Members whose STCs were not 
heard. While the process was not perfect, it worked and the Member preferred to maintain the 
current focus of the agenda. The Member furt her recalled that there had been some instances in the 
past when the Committee had immediately started its formal meeting after an early conclusion of 
the informal meeting, and proposed that this could be a suggestion for reflection, with a 15 minute G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 58 - 
 
  break  added in between the informal and formal meeting. Another Member supported this idea of 
exploring other ways to maximize the use of the Committee's time, while cautioning experimental 
changes with STCs, which in its view needed to be the centre of the Com mittee's discussions.  
33.  Other Members highlighted the importance of STCs in explaining trade issues and the value of 
having these conversations with Members present. One Member also indicated its willingness to try 
switching the order of agenda items, b ut not necessarily moving STCs to the end. Another Member 
further encouraged Members to make full use of all agenda items, noting that STCs were a particular 
feature of the Committee which worked well, and that it was useful to hear about STCs, not only 
those with a direct impact. In its view, the STC mechanism allowed Members to be held accountable 
in front of peers, and provided another forum for discussions different from that of bilateral 
consultations. The Member encouraged the Committee not to turn th e exercise into an administrative 
one with written exchanges, but to keep the dynamics of having discussions in the Committee 
meeting.  
34.  One Member further clarified that it recognized the importance of STCs, but underscored the 
difficulties faced by sm aller delegations in participating in various WTO Committee meetings at the 
same time. It noted that there were several SPS agenda items that did not really involve discussions 
and that its suggestion was not to move STCs to the end of the agenda, but to p lace it right before 
agenda items which were for the purpose of being noted by the Committee. In bringing forward the 
substantive discussions, the Member suggested that this would provide an opportunity for the 
Chairperson to have some informal discussions  on sensitive topics before reaching a conclusion at 
the end of the meeting, similar to the CMA approach. The Member again reiterated its support to try 
a different order of agenda items in March and indicated its willingness to engage in bilateral 
discuss ions with other Members on this suggestion.  
35.  Another Member noted that time could be saved in SPS Committee  meetings, if discussions 
were not politicized.  
36.  I observed that the Committee was working very well and that it was important to identify ar eas 
for improvement without touching areas that were already functioning well, which represented a 
delicate balance. I underscored the importance of having these types of conversations and invited 
the Committee to further continue this discussion to see wh ether there was more space for improving 
the use of the Committee's time.  
(iii) eAgenda improvements  
37.  I drew attention to eAgenda and more specifically the work that had been undertaken by the 
Secretariat to improve the platform, including the developm ent of a new practical guide which was 
one of the recent suggestions made by Members this year. I also emphasized that tools, such as 
eAgenda, were only effective if actually used by Members. I further encouraged Members to make 
full use of this platform, while the Secretariat worked in parallel to improve and implement additional 
features to further enhance the efficacy of the platform.  
38.  I then invited the Secretariat to present some updates on a number of improvements that had 
been implemented in eAge nda. The Secretariat recalled that eAgenda had continuously been 
improved, since its first use in 2020, and noted that there were currently almost 400 users. 
There  had also been an increasing number of requests for other Committees to adopt the platform, 
as well as a request by Members for the increased harmonization of the platform among the different 
bodies. The Secretariat indicated that it was trying to harmonize the features and functioning of the 
platform as much as possible, while maintaining the uni queness of each Committee, and given 
available resources.  
39.  The Secretariat also highlighted several ongoing improvements to the platform, such as the 
three options for the uploading of statements, which reflected the preferred practice of delegations 
and also facilitated the Secretariat's work. All three options allowed statements to be automatically 
made available to the Secretariat and interpreters. However, with the first (default) option, 
statements were not immediately made available to Members, an d only became derestricted after 
the deadline to submit statements (i.e. Friday midnight of the Committee week). The second option 
made statements immediately visible to all other Members, increasing transparency before the 
intervention was actually made, while with the third option statements were not made available to G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 59 - 
 
  other Members, not even after the Committee meeting. Members had the possibility to update 
the text of their statements or change the chosen option up to the Friday of the Committee week. 
As per the usual practice, the summary report only reflected the oral intervention during the 
meeting. The Secretariat encouraged Members to upload their statements at an early stage, before 
taking the floor, so that their statements would be available to in terpreters.  
40.  A second improvement was the option to reflect in eAgenda, decisions made by the Committee 
on an agenda item (e.g. the adoption of a document) or conclusions by the Chairperson, which would 
facilitate reporting to capital. Future improveme nts would also include the possibility to receive alerts 
when agenda items other than STCs were added to eAgenda.  
41.  Lastly, the Secretariat drew attention to a new practical guide available on the platform which 
had been prepared in response to Members'  request. This guide would be updated as new features 
became available. Members were invited to submit their comments on the practical guide and, 
more generally, on the functioning of the platform. No Member took the floor. I again reminded 
Members to make  good use of the platform.  
(iv) Issuance of summary reports  
42.  I informed the Committee that one of the topics mentioned by a Member in its general 
comments on the functioning of the SPS Committee  dealt with the expedited issuance of summary 
reports. I n oted that the Committee had discussed this topic on several occasions, and so far had 
preferred the Secretariat to prepare shorter, more summarized reports, which took more time to 
prepare than longer, verbatim versions. In addition, I highlighted one of t he features of eAgenda 
which allowed Members to generate a compilation of submitted statements. This allowed quick 
access to full statements which supported Members' need to submit reports to their capitals, ahead 
of the Secretariat's preparation of the sh orter version of the summary reports. I took the opportunity 
to encourage Members to upload more of their interventions to eAgenda, so that a more complete 
report could be immediately generated via eAgenda after each meeting.  
43.  I invited Members to prov ide any comments on this topic. No Member took the floor.  
(v) Availability of presentations during Committee events  
44.  I also referred to the written suggestion submitted by one Member that speakers' presentations 
should be made available during Committe e meetings, similar to other meeting documents. I 
highlighted that this suggestion was discussed in the May intersessional consultations and that the 
Secretariat had noted that many presentations were submitted at the last minute, but that those 
received i n time could be circulated. I also indicated that presentations made at thematic sessions 
and workshops were normally made available on a dedicated webpage and were circulated as 
RD/SPS  documents for easy tracking by Members.  
45.  I invited Members to provide any co mments on this topic. No Member took the floor.  
(vi) Communication with organizations with pending requests  
46.  I explained that the Committee had had a number of outstanding requests for observer status 
for some years and that a list was provided in docu ment G/SPS/W/78/Rev.15 . I recalled the 
suggestion that I had made at the September intersessional consultations, that a communication be 
sent to those organizations indicating that their requests had been pending for several years without 
consen sus on granting them observer status, and that the Committee would consider it important 
for them to renew their interest if they still wished to be considered. I further proposed that the 
Secretariat send a letter to the organizations with pending request s, on behalf of the Chairperson, 
establishing a timeline for this process. In the absence of a response, organizations would be 
removed from the list of pending requests.  
47.  I then invited Members to provide comments on this proposed approach. No Member took the 
floor. G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 60 - 
 
  48.  Before moving to the next agenda item, I also provided an opportunity for Members to raise 
any other issues/areas on the functioning of the SPS Committee . However, no Member took the 
floor. 
(vii) Feedback on introductory session for ne w delegates and communications to Members  
49.  I again invited delegates to provide feedback on the introductory session for new SPS delegates 
that was held in September, specifically on how this type of training could be further enhanced to 
speak to the n eeds of new delegates. No Member took the floor.  
50.  In addition, I indicated that it would be useful for the Secretariat to receive feedback on the 
various communications sent to delegates before and after Committee meetings, specifically as it 
related t o the clarity of the communications, length and level of detail, as well as the information 
provided on accessing Committee documents. I further noted that the Secretariat had been seeing 
how best to shorten these messages, while still including all the re levant details.  
51.  I invited Members to provide feedback either in this meeting or to send comments to the 
Secretariat. No Member took the floor.  
4  TOPICS FOR 2024 THEMATIC SESSIONS/WORKSHOP  
52.  I then moved on to discuss the scheduling of SPS Committee  thematic sessions and/or a 
workshop for 2024, recalling that this topic had been discussed at the July meeting, and Members 
invited to submit proposals for topics by the deadline of 31 August 2023. I informed the Committee 
that no submissions were made by the deadline and gave the floor to the Secretariat to provide 
some information on the tentative planning of meetings for 2024.  
53.  The Secretariat drew the Committee's attention to the propos ed calendar of meetings for 2024 
in document G/SPS/GEN/2117 , which foresaw either: (i) three SPS Committee  thematic sessions in 
March, June and November 2024; or (ii) two SPS Committee  thematic sessions in March and 
November, and one SPS Committee  workshop in June 2024. The Secretariat explained that a 
thematic session lasted one day or less while a workshop normally lasted two days and allowed the 
Committee to take a more in -depth look at a topic. In the past, there used to be a budget for the 
in-person participation of a number of governmental officials from developing country Members and 
Observers in the workshop.  
54.  The Secretariat invited Members to submit themes for the thematic sessions and/or workshop, 
which could also be organized on some of  the topics to be undertaken during the Sixth Review. 
In addition, it was useful to bear in mind that every two years, the Committee normally organized a 
workshop on transparency, which could be an option, since the last workshop on transparency and 
coordi nation was held in June 2022.  
55.  No proposals were made at the meeting. I reminded Members that suggestions on thematic 
sessions and/or workshops could be submitted by Friday, 19 January 2024 . 
5  OTHER SPS ISSUES  
56.  I provided an opportunity for Member s to raise any other SPS issues. However, no Member took 
the floor.  
57.  Before closing the meeting, I indicated that a factual summary of this meeting would be 
circulated for comments, and a final version would be included in the summary report of the 
November Committee meeting. I also encouraged Members to make use of the additional time after 
the informal meeting for their bilateral discussions, and invited them to report on the results of these 
consultations in the formal meeting.  
 G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 61 - 
 
  ANNE X D 
INTERSESSIONAL SPS COMMITTEE  CONSULTATIONS  
MC12 SPS DECLARATION WORK PROGRAMME – 29 SEPTEMBER 2023  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1  INTRODUCTORY POINTS  
1.  At the informal meeting on 29 September 2023, I recalled that the Committee had held a 
dedicated informal meeting in July 2023 to discuss the two draft documents of the MC12 SPS 
Declaration Work Programme ( G/SPS/GEN/2134  and G/SPS/W/344 ). At that meeting, Members had 
requested to hold an additional intersessional consultation to further discuss a revised version of the 
documents with a view to paving  the path towards the adoption of the report in November.  
2.  I also recalled that the Committee had requested that the former Chairperson, Mr. Tang -Kai 
Wang, continue to act as a facilitator of the process. I then invited the Facilitator to guide the 
discussions on the two draft documents.  
3.  The Facilitator explained that the aim of the intersessional meeting was to discuss the revised 
version of the factual summary of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme and the draft report 
to be presented to Minist ers in MC13. The Facilitator recalled that a first draft of both documents 
had been circulated on 21 June 2023. Subsequently, Members had a first opportunity to discuss the 
documents at the SPS Committee  meetings held in July 2023. The Facilitator also rec alled that he 
had invited Members to consult each other and submit written comments that would help to reach 
consensus, by the deadline of 31 July 2023.  
2  FACTUAL SUMMARY BY THE SECRETARIAT OF THE WORK PROGRAMME OF THE MC12 
SPS DECLARATION ( G/SPS/GEN/2134/REV.1 ) 
4.  The Facilitator recalled that the Secretariat had prepared a draft factual summary of the MC12 
SPS Declaration Work Programme building on the stewards' reports about the activities of the five 
Thematic Groups, following the request made by  Members at the intersessional consultations held 
in May. After an initial round of discussions at the July informal meeting, the Secretariat had received 
written comments from two Members and had prepared a revision of the factual summary that had 
been ci rculated as G/SPS/GEN/2134/Rev. 1 on 14 September 2023 for Members' consideration.  
5.  The Secretariat recalled that the factual summary contained two parts: a first part which 
described the process of the Work Programme; and a second part which summar ized the work of 
the Thematic Groups, based on the reports of the stewards on the work of their respective groups 
and with some harmonization of the level of detail included for each of the groups. The second part 
of the factual summary referred to the inf ormation available on the dedicated website  and the 
information contained in the two reports that each of the stewards had circulated in  March 
(G/SPS/W/332 to 3361) and in May (G/SPS/W/339 to 3432). 
6.  The Secretariat highlighted that, in addition to the oral comments received at the July meeting, 
written comments had been received from two Members. After holding consultations with both 
Members, the Secretariat had prepared a revised version of the d ocument that had been circulated 
as G/SPS/GEN/2134/Rev.1 . The Secretariat noted that a few references had been included in the 
document to reflect some themes that had been discussed in the Thematic Groups.  
7.  Some Members agreed that the factual sum mary was a balanced document that aimed to reflect 
the discussed topics in an objective manner with the overall purpose to achieve consensus. 
In addition, some Members highlighted that some areas of the document could be improved. 
One Member drew attention  to the last sentence of paragraph 4.2, which referred to the topics of 
 
1 G/SPS/W/332  (Group 1); G/SPS/W/333  (Group 2); G/SPS/W/336  (Group 3); G/SPS/W/334  (Group 4) 
and G/SPS/W/335  (Group 5).  
2 G/SPS/W/339  (Group 1); G/SPS/W/340  (Group 2); G/SPS/W/341  (Group 3); G/SPS/W/3 42 (Group 4) 
and G/SPS/W/343  (Group 5).  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 62 - 
 
  "food security" and "sustainable food systems", noting that it would make additional comments 
under the following agenda point. The Facilitator indicated that the Secretariat would tak e the 
suggestions into consideration.  
3  DRAFT REPORT TO THE THIRTEENTH MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE 
(G/SPS/W/344/Rev.1 ) 
8.  The Facilitator informed the Committee that, in addition to the oral comments shared at the 
July 2023 informal meeting, wri tten comments from three Members and a joint submission by 
several other Members had been received. The Facilitator recalled that, despite his request for 
Members to consult and provide suggestions that could reach consensus, some of the comments 
received were divergent. He had consulted with all the Members who had submitted comments to 
seek clarification on the proposals received and to explain some of the conflicting suggestions made 
by different Members, with a view to only incorporating modifications t hat could reach consensus.  
9.  Based on these consultations, the Facilitator had prepared a revised version of the document 
that had been circulated as G/SPS/W/344/Rev.1  on 14 September 2023 for Members' consideration. 
The Facilitator highlig hted the importance of making progress in this meeting towards the adoption 
of the document in November.  
(i) Paragraph 1  
10.  The Facilitator recalled that the first paragraph was mostly taken from the text of the Declaration 
agreed by all Members in June 2022. One minor editorial change had been suggested by one Member 
and incorporated in the document to harmonize the tense of the text.  
11.  One Member, speaking on behalf of the African Group, noted an error in the French translation 
in the introductory pa ragraph of the document.  
12.  The Facilitator indicated that the Secretariat had taken note of this and would take it into 
consideration.  
(ii) Paragraph 2  
13.  The Facilitator explained that despite the comments received, paragraph 2 had not been 
modified  based on his understanding that Members did not want to redraft the agreed text from the 
Declaration.  
14.  Several Members expressed their support for the current text as they understood that the 
document intended to reflect the process of discussions related to opportunities and emerging 
challenges for international trade in food, animals, and plants. However, one Member indicated that 
its proposed edit on pest - and disease -free areas had not been included in this paragraph. 
The Member indi cated that it would resubmit its comments. The Facilitator explained that the 
comment on the inclusion of pest or disease -free areas had been captured in paragraph 3 d).  
15.  In response to the Member's request to have its comments shown on screen, several  Members 
noted that the discussions should focus on the current version of the draft report. Members also 
requested the use of self -constraint and compromise to achieve consensus on the text, and the 
Facilitator reiterated the importance of reaching consen sus. 
(iii) Paragraph 3 a)  
16.  The Facilitator noted that he had made edits to the first part of finding 3 a). The Facilitator also 
indicated that conflicting edits on the reference to food security and the emerging challenges and 
opportunities had been re ceived. Since these elements were at the core of the SPS Declaration, 
those suggestions had not been reflected in the revised version.  
17.  One Member referred to the scope of the SPS Agreement , which in its view is about food safety 
and not food security.  However, other Members recalled that the Declaration mentioned food 
security. In addition, Members asked not to continue the discussion on a topic that was already 
agreed and reflected in the Declaration.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 63 - 
 
  (iv) Paragraph 3 b)  
18.  The Facilitator indicated  that this paragraph seemed to be of key importance to many of the 
Members who had submitted comments, and further noted that opposite views on how to refer to 
sustainable and resilient food systems had been received. The Facilitator also highlighted his e fforts 
to record, in a balanced manner, the elements that had been most discussed during the 
Work Programme. He drew attention to one theme where Members seemed to be in agreement, 
which was around the concept of "no one -size-fits-all", where the language had been adapted to 
reflect the general understanding around this concept.  
19.  Members also expressed opposite views on other parts of this paragraph. Some Members 
agreed on the text and indicated that they would not accept any further changes as it alrea dy 
reflected the balance of different perspectives among Members. Other Members expressed their 
concerns with the lack of reference to SDGs, the cross -reference to paragraph 2, and the way that 
the "relevance of science" and "sustainable and resilient food  systems" were addressed. 
Some  Members suggested using the original language of the first draft.  
(v) Paragraph 3 c)  
20.  The Facilitator informed the Committee that there had been different approaches to this finding. 
He noted that several Members had requ ested a reference to compliance with the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement  even in situations of uncertainty, which had been included in the document to 
provide context to the finding. Additionally, he highlighted that Members had agreed on the need 
for a tr ansparent approach in the documentation and communication of uncertainty, which had also 
been reflected in the text.  
21.  Some Members expressed concerns regarding the addition of the two first sentences, which in 
their view did not add value to the subst ance of the finding, might be repetitive and potentially cause 
inconsistencies in the interpretation of the paragraph. One Member instead suggested the inclusion 
of a reference to Article 2.2 of the Agreement, while another Member indicated that the text c ould 
be further improved without a complete removal of the new sentences. Another Member had 
suggested the inclusion of the topic of MRLs, which had not been included in the revised version, 
and which another Member indicated would not warrant consensus in  such a succinct document.  
(vi) Paragraph 3 d)  
22.  The Facilitator recalled that Members had agreed that the guidance and guidelines developed 
by the Three Sisters and the SPS Committee  could be beneficial to avoid trade restrictions. He drew 
attention to  a written suggestion to include specific references to the recognition of pest - and 
disease -free areas which had been inserted, as well as a clarification of the usefulness of these 
elements to facilitate safe trade.  
23.  One Member questioned the inclusi on of the new text, which in its view was repetitive, and it 
also raised a concern regarding the selective inclusion of IPPC regionalization concepts in the text. 
In addition, one Member proposed a specific edit related to the wording in the SPS Agreement , 
another Member indicated that it would submit its comments on the paragraph, and one other 
acknowledged and agreed with the revised text in the paragraph.  
24.  The Facilitator reminded Members that the language used in this paragraph reflected the text 
of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement . 
(vii) Paragraph 3 e)  
25.  The Facilitator indicated that, other than an editorial change, one addition had been made to 
reflect the extensive discussions held on the importance of observers to report on forthcoming, and 
not only past actions.  
26.  One Member regretted that there were not enough changes in the text to reflect its submitted 
comments, such as the proposed inclusion of the "One Health approach" in this paragraph. 
The Member further suggested that the factual summary could be an option for the inclusion of 
themes, such as this, which would not enjoy consensus in the report.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 64 - 
 
  (viii) Paragraph 3 f)  
27.  The Facilitator indicated that some clarifications suggested by Members had been included. 
There were no interventions from Members.  
(ix) Paragraph 3 g)  
28.  The Facilitator explained that the suggestions received on this paragraph were aligned with 
comments made in previous discussions in July. The Facilitator noted a broad convergence in 
Members' submissions and expressed his gratitude for the consultations held on this point. He also 
indicated that some clarifications had been received and reflected at the end of this finding.  
29.  One Member proposed to include the text "including when dealing wi th emerging challenges 
and opportunities" at the end of this paragraph. Another Member expressed its support for this 
proposal as it was aligned with paragraph 3 a).  
30.  Another Member suggested adding a reference to the need for developing countries to b e 
actively involved in the design of these technical assistance and cooperation programs, and further 
stated that technical assistance was broader than the work of STDF. This comment was supported 
by another Member that highlighted the importance of taking  into consideration the countries 
involved in technical assistance. One Member also suggested reviewing specific parts of the proposed 
language to ensure consistency with the rest of the document.  
(x) Paragraph 4  
31.  The Facilitator reported that no writt en comments had been received on the recommendation 
put forward in the document.  
32.  One Member clarified that the future discussions should be limited to the scope of the 
SPS Agreement . While two other Members expressed their support for this suggestion,  some 
Members disagreed and stated that the proposal was redundant and might generate a clash on the 
scope of the SPS Agreement  and the interpretation of the document. One Member proposed the 
following addition to the recommendation in this paragraph: "The  SPS Committee  recommends that 
Ministers accept this report and endorse these findings…"  
33.  The Facilitator reminded Members that they had discussed the relationship between both 
outcome documents in May, and suggested that it might be important to revie w this again in 
November.  
4  NEXT STEPS  
34.  I reminded Members that, according to the airgram that the Secretariat had circulated the 
previous week with symbol WTO/AIR/SPS/42 , an informal meeting dedicated to the discussion of 
the outcome documents had been scheduled for the afternoon of Monday, 13 November. 
The meeting would take place in hybrid format. On Tuesday, 14 November there would be a thematic 
sessio n. Then, a separate informal on other topics would be held on the morning of 15 November, 
followed by time for bilateral consultations among Members. The formal session of the 
SPS Committee  would start on the afternoon of Wednesday, 15 November, and hopefu lly the 
Committee would be in a position to adopt the report to MC13 at that meeting.  
35.  Before closing the meeting, I provided a summary of the next steps:  
a. The Secretariat had taken note of the comments provided by Members.  
b. I invited Members to co ntinue having informal consultations with each other and with the 
Facilitator to provide common language that would be acceptable for all of them. I invited 
the Facilitator to decide the next steps, which would be communicated with all Members.  
c. I remind ed Members that an informal meeting, prior to the adoption of the document in 
November, would be held on Monday, 13 November 2023 at 15 h . G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 65 - 
 
  36.  One Member asked when to expect the next draft. I informed that the agenda for the 
SPS Committee  would be circul ated on 27 October, so Members should expect a revised version of 
the draft before that date. In addition, another Member asked to coordinate with the Secretariat of 
the Working Group of Food Security of the Committee on Agriculture. The Secretariat took n ote of 
this suggestion.  
5  OTHER BUSINESS  
(i) Introductory session for new delegates  
37.  I reported on the introductory session for new SPS delegates, held by the Secretariat on 
Monday, 18 September 2023. More than 65 delegates had participated either in the room or online 
to hear some practical aspects on how to prepare for Committee meetings. The Secretariat had 
introduced the SPS team and explained its functions, and detailed the why, who, when, where and 
what regarding participation and discussions in the Committee. In addition, the Secretariat had made 
a live demo of the new functions of the WTO calendar for meetings, as well as of the SPS eAgenda. 
The Secretariat had also mentioned the opportunity to hold bilateral discussions on the margins of 
SPS Committee  meetings that could contribute to solving trade issues, and also the options to upload 
detailed statements in eAgenda, as well as the submission of GEN documents. The presentation had 
been shared with all the participants after the session.  
38.  I invited new delegates to provide feedback on the introductory session and to indicate how this 
type of training could be further enhanced to speak to the needs of new delegates. I also drew the 
attention of delegates to the flyer that appeared in the signa ture of the SPS Committee  emails, that 
contains relevant information for new delegates.  
(ii) Improvements to the functioning of the Committee  
• Report to CTG  
39.  I indicated that the written report to the CTG, describing the discussions held and improvements 
introduced in this Committee, was currently in progress. I informed that the Secretariat expected to 
be able to circulate a first draft soon.  
• In person participation at Committee meetings and bilateral consultations  
40.  I highlighted the im portance of delegates attending Committee meetings in person, and the 
advantage of delegates being in Geneva to hold bilateral consultations, as this could be a very 
effective approach to addressing trade concerns. I indicated that during the week of the C ommittee, 
there would be some space to organize bilateral consultations. Thus, I encouraged Members to take 
advantage of this and to report on the results of these consultations in the Committee meeting.  
41.  I reminded Members that the November SPS Commit tee week would start with an informal 
meeting on the SPS Declaration Work Programme on the afternoon of Monday, 13 November. Then, 
a Thematic Session on Risk Communication, Misinformation and Disinformation would be held on 
Tuesday, 14 November. A second i nformal meeting to discuss the procedure for the Sixth Review 
and topics for the 2024 thematic sessions/workshop would take place on the morning of Wednesday, 
15 November. Specifically, Members would have time after this meeting for bilateral discussions. 
Lastly, the formal meeting would start on the afternoon of Wednesday, 15 November and continue 
until Friday, 17 November.  
• Specific trade concerns and order of agenda items  
42.  I highlighted that Members had various options when presenting their specific trade concerns 
in a Committee meeting. In addition to the oral intervention, Members could provide extra 
information in detailed statements which could be uploaded to eAgend a, and submit GEN documents. 
I encouraged Members to use these options to provide more detailed information on trade concerns, 
and make shorter oral interventions in the Committee meeting that could provide balance between 
quality and quantity.  G/SPS/R/111  
 
- 66 - 
 
  43.  I reca lled that there had been a suggestion for the Committee to consider restructuring the 
order of agenda items for formal meetings. Specifically, the idea was to have discussions on 
substantive items before STCs, similar to the approach in CTG meetings. The S ecretariat had 
indicated that the order of the agenda could be examined and suggested that the Committee could 
experiment with changes in the agenda for one meeting, if Members were in agreement. I invited 
Members' views on this topic at the Committee meet ing in November.  
• Communication with observer organizations with pending requests  
44.  I explained that the Committee had had a number of outstanding requests for observer status 
for some years and that a list was provided in document G/SPS/W/78/Rev.15 . 
45.  I suggested that a communication be sent to these observer  organizations indicating that the 
request had been pending for several years and this Committee would consider important for them 
to renew their interest if they still wished to be considered. A letter would be sent to the observer 
organizations with pend ing requests on behalf of the Chairperson. A pertinent timeline would be 
established for this process.  
• eAgenda improvements  
46.  I reported that following Members' request for harmonization of eAgenda, and in order to 
improve the functioning of the meeti ngs, the Secretariat had implemented a new option for 
statements in eAgenda. Due to the lack of time, I asked the Secretariat to provide information on 
this item by email.  
47.  Before closing the meeting, I indicated that a factual summary of this meeting would be 
circulated for comments, and included in the summary report of the November meeting.  
 
__________