RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/107  
 
26 September  2022 
(22-7225) Page: 1/59 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF  22-24 JUNE  2022 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  6 
2   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ................  6 
3   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  6 
3.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  6 
3.1.1    Adoption of the SPS  Declaration for MC12  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
3.1.2    Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Ja panese food after the TEPCO Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power station accident  ................................ ................................ ...................  7 
3.1.3    Ukraine - Information on Ukraine's SPS sit uation  ................................ ..........................  7 
3.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ............  8 
3.2.1    Codex (G/SPS/GEN/2027)  ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
3.2.2    IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/2030)  ................................ ................................ ............................  8 
3.2.3    OIE (G/SPS/GEN/2032)  ................................ ................................ .............................  8 
4   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
4.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  9 
4.1.1    EU recognition of Mexico as a country with WOAH negligible BSE risk (ID  543) – Concerns  
of Mexico  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  9 
4.1.2    Peru's non -application o f regionalization for African swine fever (ID  544) – Concerns of  
the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  9 
4.1.3    EU regulation on animal health/official certificates for animal origin foods (ID  545) – 
Concerns of China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  9 
4.1.4    EU notifications of matrine and oxymat rine in honey (ID  546) – Concerns of China  .......... 10 
4.1.5    Egypt's Customs Circular Decision No. 4060: Radioactivity checks on imported  food 
(ID 547) – Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......... 10 
4.1.6    Morocco's import ban on ornamental plants (ID  548) – Concerns of the E uropean  Union  ..10 
4.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ .............................  11 
4.2.1    EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos -
methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, i oxynil, iprodione, mancozeb, 
molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID  448) – Concerns of Colombia, Paraguay,  
Guatemala, the United  States, Ecuador and Costa Rica  ................................ ........................... 11 
4.2.2    EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea  
(ID 518) – Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ............................... 13 
4.2.3    EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID  382) – Concerns of Paraguay  ......................... 13 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4.2.4    EU impor t tolerances for certain pesticides to achieve environmental outcomes in third 
countries (ID  534) – Concerns of Australia  ................................ ................................ ............ 14 
4.2.5    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  ....16 
4.2.6    EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application of the 
Commiss ion Regulation (EU) N° 488/2014 of 12  May 2014 amending Regulation (EC) N° 
1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID  503) – Concerns of Peru  ......17 
4.2.7    EU regulatory approach to maximum levels for contaminants (ID  519) – Concerns of 
Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 17 
4.2.8    Indonesia's draft regulation on heavy metals contaminants in processed food (ID  537) – 
Concerns of China  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 18 
4.2.9    EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (ID  446) – Concerns of the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 18 
4.2.10    EU restrictions on the importation of collagen for human consumption (ID  535) –  
Concerns of China  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 20 
4.2.11    China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural products 
(ID 487) – Concerns of Australia, Canada, the United  States and India  ................................ .....20 
4.2.12    China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of  
imported food (26  November  2019) (ID  485) – Concerns of Australia, Japan, Canada, the 
United  States and the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .................. 22 
4.2.13    Concerns with transparency, delays and due process associated with China's import 
requirements for agricultural goods (ID 524) – Concerns of Australia  ................................ .......23 
4.2.14    China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
estab lishments (ID  516) – Concerns of Canada, Australia and the European  Union  ..................... 24 
4.2.15    Saudi  Arabia's temporary suspension of Braz ilian poultry exporting establishments 
(ID 486) – Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ .............................. 24 
4.2.16    Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authoriza tions for plants of Peruvian fishery  
and livestock enterprises (ID  509) – Concerns of Peru  ................................ ............................ 25 
4.2.17    Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and fisheries products (ID  530) – Concerns  
of Peru  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 25 
4.2.18    General import restrictions due to BSE (ID  193) – Concerns of the European  Union  .......26 
4.2.19    Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports  
(ID 490) – Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......... 26 
4.2.20    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(ID 431) – Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......... 27 
4.2.21    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  406) –  
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......................... 27 
4.2.22    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  392) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 27 
4.2.23    Chinese  Taipei's new procedure for the recognition of infectious animal disease -free  
status of a foreign country (ID  538) – Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ....28 
4.2.24    Mexico's import restrictions on pork (ID  489) – Concerns of Brazil  ............................... 28 
4.2.25    Chinese  Taipei's import restrictions on poultry and beef (ID  521) – Concerns of Brazil  ....28 
4.2.26    The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID  466) – Concerns of the 
European  Union and the Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................ .......... 29 
4.2.27    Nigeria's import restrictions on meat, pork, poultry, milk and dairy products, genetic 
material and live cattle (ID  523) – Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ............................. 29 
4.2.28    Qatar's new import rules for dairy products (ID  529) – Concerns of the European  Union  .30 G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4.2.29    Guatemala's restrictions on egg products (ID  413) – Concerns of Mexico  ...................... 30 
4.2.30    Non-publication of US final rule on i mportation of sheep, goats and certain other  
ruminants (ID  493) – Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ........................... 30 
4.2.31    India's approval pr ocedures for animal products (ID  484) – Concerns of the 
Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 31 
4.2.32    Thailand's sanitary requirements on "wet bl ue" leather imports (ID  539) – Concerns of 
Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 31 
4.2.33    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID  441) – Concerns of  
the European  Union and the Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................ ....31 
4.2.34    China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports (ID  506) – Concerns  
of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 32 
4.2.35    India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID  501) – 
Concerns of the United  States  ................................ ................................ ............................. 32 
4.2.36    The Russian  Federation's classification of tea as "fruits and vegetables" (ID  525) – 
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 34 
4.2.37    Proposed new EU rules on composite products (ID  504) – Concerns of Australia and 
Chinese  Taipei  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 34 
4.2.38    India's import requirements for pulses (ID  497) – Concerns of Canada  ......................... 35 
4.2.39    Panama's restrictions and procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes and onions 
(ID 512) – Concerns of Peru  ................................ ................................ ................................ 35 
4.2.40    Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions (ID  498) – Concerns of Peru  ............ 36 
4.2.41    China's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID  532) – Concerns of Chinese  Taipei  ............ 36 
4.2.42    US undue delays in opening its citrus market (ID  542) – Concerns of Brazil  .................. 36 
4.2.43    US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID  439) – Concerns of the European  Union  ..37 
4.2.44    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 
4.2.45    EU delays in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup)  
(ID 526) – Concerns of Korea  ................................ ................................ .............................. 37 
4.3   Information on resolution of issues (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.22)  ................................ .........  37 
5   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 37 
5.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  37 
5.2   Pest- and disease -free areas  ................................ ................................ .......................  38 
5.2.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 38 
5.2.2    Annual report in accordance with the Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation  
of Article  6 in G/SPS/48 (G/SPS/GEN/2021)  ................................ ................................ .......... 38 
5.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ...........  38 
5.3.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 38 
5.3.2    Report on the Workshop on Transparency  ................................ ................................ ...38 
5.4   Control, inspection and approval procedures  ................................ ................................ . 38 
5.4.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 38 
5.4.2    Report on the Thematic Session on the Use of Remote (Virtual) Audit and Verification in 
Regulatory Frameworks  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......38 
5.4.3   Working Group on Approval Procedures (G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 and 
G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ 39 
5.5   Special and differential treatment  ................................ ................................ ................  39 G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 4 - 
 
  5.5.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 39 
5.6   Monitoring of the use of international standards  ................................ ............................  39 
5.6.1    New is sues ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 39 
5.6.1.1    Canada - Update on response to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI): Importance  
of WOAH guidelines  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 39 
5.6.1.2    Canada - Update on WOAH BSE negligible risk status  ................................ ................ 39 
5.6.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 
5.6.2.1    European  Union - ASF restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international  
standard  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 
5.6.2.2    European  Union - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international  
standard  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 
5.6.3    Procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization  ................................ ...40 
5.6.4    Annual report in accordance with the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization in G/SPS/11/Rev.1 (G/SPS/GEN/2022)  ................................ ............................ 40 
5.7   Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the S PS Agreement 
(G/SPS/64 and G/SPS/64/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ ........................  41 
5.7.1    Report on the informal meeting  ................................ ................................ ................. 41 
5.7.2    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 41 
5.7.2.1    United  States - Summary of March 2022 Seminar on Responding to Fall Armyworm: 
Integrated Pest Management and Policy Approaches  ................................ .............................. 41 
6   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  41 
6.1   SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference (WT/MIN(22)/27 and 
G/SPS/GEN/1960)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  41 
6.1.1    Canada - A Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure -related Declaration at the 12th WTO 
Ministerial Conference (MC12 Declaration)  ................................ ................................ ............ 41 
6.2   Australia, the United  States, Uruguay and Canada – Trade  Facilitative Approaches to 
Pesticide MRLs (G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ .............  42 
6.3   COVID -19 and SPS issues  ................................ ................................ ...........................  43 
7   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  43 
7.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................  43 
7.1.1    WTO SPS Activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..43 
7.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/2031)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 44 
7.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .........................  44 
8   CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  ................................ ...... 44 
9   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  44 
9.1   Information from Observer Organizations  ................................ ................................ ..... 44 
9.1.1    IICA (G/SPS/GEN/2033)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 44 
9.1.2    ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/2019)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 45 
9.1.3    OECD (G/SPS/GEN/2017)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 45 
9.1.4    IGAD (G/SPS/GEN/2020)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 45 
9.1.5    GSO (G/SPS/GEN/2023)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 45 
9.1.6    OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/2024)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 45 
9.1.7    SADC (G/SPS/GEN/2025)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 45 G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 5 - 
 
  9.1.8    ITC (G/SPS/GEN/2028)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 45 
9.1.9    CAHFSA (G/SPS/GEN/2029)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 45 
9.2   Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ .......................  45 
9.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 45 
9.2.1.1    International Olive Council (IOC) (G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.20)  ................................ .......45 
9.2.2    Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....46 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 46 
11   DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .... 46 
ANNEX A  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  47 
ANNEX B  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  49 
ANNEX C  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  53 
 
  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its 83rd regular 
meeting on 22 -24 June 2022. The proposed agenda for the meeting (JOB/SPS/21) was adopted with 
amendments. In light of the COVID -19 pand emic, the meeting was held in hybr id form, with some 
delegates attending in  person and others joining via a virtual platform.  
1.2.  The Secretariat announced that Members were able to submit agenda items, support specific 
trade concerns (STCs), and upload statem ents through eAgenda. Members could support items 
through eAgenda until they were discussed in the meeting, and upload statements for STCs and 
other agenda items until Friday, 24  June 2022. Only oral interventions by Members who took the 
floor during the m eeting were reflected in the present report. In addition, longer statements could 
be shared through eAgenda or circulated as GEN documents. The Secretariat drew Members' 
attention to an introductory presentation on the SPS Committee , available for delegates in the 
SPS Gateway . The Secretariat also referred to WTO's single sign -on for its various online platforms 
and tools and invited delegates to register always using the same e mail address . Finally, 
the Secretariat  informed Members that it will manually remove from eAgenda emails addresses that 
systematically bounced back . 
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
2.1.  The Chairperson  reminded Members that, according to the Rules of Procedure, the term of 
office of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee  ended with the conclusion of the first meeting of 
each year. On 23  May 2022, the Council for  Trade in Goods (CTG) had adopted the slate of names 
for the appointment of chairpersons of its subsidiary bodies in accordance with the established 
Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies (contained in document WT/L/31 ). On that 
basis, Mr Tang -Kai Wang of Chinese  Taipei  had been nominated as  the new Chairperson of the 
SPS Comm ittee. The Committee endorse d this decision by acclamation.  The outcoming Chairperson 
thanked delegates for their support and assistance during his Chairmanship.  
3  INFORMATION SHARING  
3.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
3.1.1   Adoption of the SPS Declar ation  for MC12  
3.1.  Brazil , one of the initial proponents, welcomed the  adoption of the SPS Declaration  as an 
effective response to challenges affecting the agricultural landscape. The Declaration contributed to 
strengthening the multilateral trading system and would support the regular work of the Committee. 
Brazil stood ready to collaborate to ensure the implementation of the work programme towards 
Thirteenth Ministerial Conference (MC13 ). 
3.2.  The United  States  was pleased with the multilateral adoption of the SPS Declaration . This was 
a recognition by Ministers of the principles of the SPS  Agreement  and of th e relevance of the 
SPS Committee  as the body to address emerging challenges and opportunities in agricultural trade. 
The Declaration was an opportunity to look ahead at how the SPS  Agreement  could help Members 
facilitate safe trade. Noting the inclusive an d collaborative approach leading to adoption, 
the United  States  said that the work programme reflected the shared goals of all WTO Members  and 
looked forward to exploring with other Members the topics in the Declaration.  
3.3.  Colombia  appreciated the work of th e SPS Committee  and celebrated the achievement of the 
adoption of the SPS Declaration . The modern challenges had to be explored through sound technical 
and scientific discussions in order to achieve food safety and protection of human health. 
The Declarati on instructed the Committee to continue to promote the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement  through a work programme examining available mechanisms to address the se 
challenges. Colombia invited Members to continue to work to promote the work plan.  
3.4.  Canada  reiterated the importance of the multilateral adoption of the SPS Declaration , which 
constituted a significant achievement . Members had united their voices to proclaim the importance 
of the SPS  Agreement  and the impacts of emerging pressures in international trade. Noting that the 
world had changed since the establishment of the SPS  Agreement , its principles and obligations G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 7 - 
 
  remained as relevant, as had been recognized by Ministers. The Declaration called on the 
SPS Committee  to examine how the implementation of SPS  Agreement  could respond to new and 
emerging challenges. Canada congratulated Members for their unity and for the v aluable feedback 
provided to make a robust and representative Declaration. Canada believed that the Member -driven , 
transparent and inclusive  process leading to consensus was commendable and that if could be used 
as a template for work in other areas. Canad a would continue to play an active role to advance the 
work of the Committee, in the same spirit that led to the adoption of the Declaration.  
3.5.  The European  Union  appreciated the work of the SPS Committee  towards  the unanimous 
support to the forward -looking SPS Declaration . The European  Union  had co -sponsored the 
document following the inclusion in the text of sustainable food systems.  
3.6.  As one of the co -sponsors, Japan  appreciated the adoption of the SPS Declaration  and thanked 
Members who had coordinated the work. Japan expected the work programme to contribute to the 
identification of challenges in the implementation of the SPS  Agreement . 
3.1.2   Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the TEPCO 
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident  
3.7.  Japan  expressed its appreciation to the United Kingdom for the expected lift ing of import 
measures on Japanese food. The latest updates on the food monitoring and study results , the marine 
environment around the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, and the planned discharge 
of ALPS (Advanced Liqu id Processing System) treated water  were circulated in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev .5. Based  on the available data, the FAO/IAEA Center had acknowledge d the 
safety of the public food supply . Noting that 41 out of 55 countries and regions had  totally lifted the 
import restrictions and/or measures introduced after the accident , and that 90 % of WTO Members 
accepted Japanese products with no additional conditions, Japan encourage d other Members  to 
revise and  to remove their remaining import measures . 
3.8.  Regarding the controlled discharge of ALPS treated water in 2023, the IAEA had conducted 
reviews early in 2022 , which were available in IAEA website, and further reviews were to be 
conducted  to ensure safety and enhance transparency . The TEPCO 's implementation plan for the 
discharge  had been revised , and the discharge would  not start until final approval of the pre -service 
inspection was granted.  Having explained the process to international community through different 
channels, Japan expected their counterpart authorities to communicate risk based on science and 
facts and t o engage in bilateral meetings.  
3.9.  Korea  was monitoring the safety of fishery products originating from the prefectures subject to 
the import ban.  Noting concerns due to the detection of fish with high level of c aesium, 
Korea  reiterated the importance of holding consultations and  sharing information on the potential 
environmental impact of the release of contaminated wa ter into the ocean.  
3.10.   In response to Korea, Japan  reiterated it  continuously monitor ed the sea area around the 
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station and report ed the updates to the IAEA . Assessments by the 
IAEA indicated that n o significant changes had been  observed in the marine environment , and that 
the radioactivity levels were low and stable.  Reiterating its transparent and science -based 
engagement , Japan underscored  that the ALPS treated water met regulatory standards.  
3.1.3   Ukraine  - Information on Ukraine's SPS situation  
3.11.   Ukraine  reported that it had simplified SPS measures and procedures in the plant health area . 
To date, all ph ytosanitary procedures were carried out by information systems that reduced the time 
required to process and issue phytosanitary certificates, to allow for exports of Ukrainian grain and 
inspections of imported plant products since February 2022.  Monitorin g and surveys also continued. 
Low quality seeds and planting material had been withdrawn from the market and destroyed  in order 
to prevent their spread . 
3.12.   Concerning animal health, the State Food and Consumer Service of Ukraine and its territorial 
bodies ha d been carrying out  routine vaccinations , and necessary actions and follow -up measures 
had been taken to eliminate animal diseases . Ukraine thanked several Members and all of their 
partners for their assistance to the livestock industry. Ukraine was undergoing supply difficulties  in G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 8 - 
 
  livestock and household farms , food and veterinary care were restricted, and numerous animals had 
been found dead and wounded.  Ukraine noted that urgent assistance  was needed to restore the full 
functioning of several institutions of the State Food and Consumer Service.  Ukraine ha d established 
a legal framework to ensure a stable epizootic situation and to create appropriate conditions for 
exports and imports of livestock products . Ukraine  had notified the WTO  of the Resolutions of the 
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted  and the rules of state  veterinary and sanitary control 
approved  for this purpose . Ukraine was grateful for the trust in their exported agricultural products 
and measures taken to resume Ukraine 's ability to produce, trade and export agricultural products , 
and would welcome further liberalization of the SPS measures in trade with Ukraine.  
3.13.   Regarding food,  Ukraine apprised WTO Members of possible risks of transactions of Ukrainian 
grain with illegal phytosanitary certificates, which might not be in compliance with current 
phytosanitary requirement s. Ukrain e submitted its statement in document  G/SPS/GEN/2040 . 
3.14.   The European  Union , the United  States , Canada , the United Kingdom , Australia , Japan , 
Switzerland , Korea  and Norway  strongly condemned the Russian  Federation 's military action in 
Ukraine, noting that it constituted a violation of international law and the UN Ch arter. 
Several  Members noted that the invasion was further exacerbating the current food security crisis, 
since Ukraine was unable to export and inspect its grain , and called on the Russian  Federation  to 
withdraw its forces and cease military operations in  Ukraine.  
3.15.   The Russian  Federation  underlined that the matter was not within the scope of the WTO, and 
highlighted that politically motivated trade restrictive actions against the Russian  Federation  
imposed by several WTO Members had led to serious global ec onomic damage  including rising of 
world food and fertiliser prices and disruptions in global food supply chains . 
3.2  Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
3.2.1   Codex ( G/SPS/GEN/2027 ) 
3.16.   The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report presented by Codex  on its 
relevant activities, contained in document  G/SPS/GEN/2027 . 
3.2.2   IPPC ( G/SPS/GEN/2030 ) 
3.17.   The IPPC presented its report on relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/2030 , mainly 
focusing on the outcomes of the 16th session of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures 
(CPM-16). New standards were adopted, which included new phytosanitary trea tments and diagnose 
protocols. Concerning the monitoring of the implementation of standards, the IPPC was moving 
towards an IPPC Observatory  in order to have a more sustainable mechanism.  On 12  May, the IPPC 
had celebrated the first International Day of Pl ant Health Celebration, an opportunity to advocate 
for the importance of plant health. The IPPC informed the Committee of the  ongoing calls for experts, 
and invited Members to share the information with their respective national plant protection 
organizati ons (NPPOs) . 
3.2.3   OIE ( G/SPS/GEN/2 032) 
3.18.   The OIE referred to its report on relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/203 2 and 
reported on  the outcomes of  the 89th Annual General Session held in May 2022 in hybr id forma t. 
The OIE drew Members' attentions to changes in 11 chapters of the Terrestrial Code.  In the 
Terrestrial Manual, t wo new chapters were adopted and 17 chapters were revised. Regarding the 
Aquatic Code, 30 chapters were revised and a new chapter was adopted , infection with tilapia lake 
virus was added as a new dise ase, and associated changes were made to articles in disease -specific 
chapters relevant for recommendations for self -declaration of freedom of aquatic diseases. 
Five revised chapters were adopted in the Aquatic Manual. In the 89th General Session, s ix countries 
or zones had received official recognition of their status for the six officially recognized diseases. 
A techn ical item and an analysis of events and trends of the current global animal health situation 
had also been presented . All the relevant information was available on the refreshed  website of the 
Organization, that was now referred to with the acronym WOAH.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 9 - 
 
  4  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
4.1  New issues  
4.1.1   EU recognition of Mexico as a country with WOAH  negligible BSE risk  (ID 543)  – 
Concerns of Mexico  
4.1.  Mexico  complaint that the European  Union  had not accommodated its repeated request to 
recognize the n egligible risk status with regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy  (BSE), granted 
by WOAH  in 2016. Mexico had failed to obtain an official response from the European  Union  regarding 
this issue, despite the frequent discussions in the context of the Mexico - European  Union  Free Trade 
Agreement  (FTA) . Mexico noted it accepted the sanitary status granted by WOAH  to EU member 
States , and objected there was no scientific justification for this delay, which was restringing trade 
in products of interest. Mexico requested to be inclu ded in EU Decision 2007/453/EC and asked for 
an official response to the communications sent since 2017.  
4.2.  Taking the opportunity to reaffirm support the principle of regionalization,  Brazil  stated  that 
some Members, including Mexico, frequently imposed unjustified measures related to the 
non-recognition of the sanitary status of the Brazilian territory according to WOAH . 
Brazil  encouraged Members to follow international guidance developed by the international standard 
setting bodies (ISSBs) and invited Members to comply with Articles 3 and 6 of the SPS  Agreement . 
4.3.  Noting the ongoing technical discussions, t he European  Union  informed the Committee that it 
had taken note of Mexico's status and that i t was considering the request. The European  Union  would 
shortly provide an answer to the letter sent by Mexico's competent authorities in March 2022.  
The European  Union  looked forward to continu ing the discussion with Mexico.  
4.1.2   Peru 's non -application of regi onalization for African swine fever  (ID 544)  – 
Concerns of the European  Union  
4.4.  The European  Union  expressed concerns on Peru's country -wide import bans imposed on 
EU pork products from member States that reported outbreaks of African swine fever (ASF). 
The European  Union  urged Peru to respect its international obligations and allow trade from 
disease -free areas, and to engage in solution -oriented exchanges.  
4.5.  Brazil  believed that strengthening and promoting the work of the ISSBs strengthen ed the 
SPS Agreement , in particular regarding harmonization, and invited Members to recognize 
disease -free areas as established by WOAH . 
4.6.  Peru took note of the information provided b y the European  Union , but indicated that it had 
not received a specific request from the European  Union  nor its member States in this respect. 
As such, Pero invited the European  Union  to start the process of regionalization in accordance with 
Article  6 and  paragraph 1b of Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . 
4.1.3   EU regulation on animal health/official certificates for animal origin foods  (ID 545)  
– Concerns of China  
4.7.  China  complaint  that some EU member States had declared that, from 1  May 2022, they would 
no longer acc ept only the English version of the health certificates for food products of animal origin 
exported to the E uropean  Union , as had been the practice for a long time  in accordance with the 
Regulation (EU) No 2020/2235 and other relevant regulations. C ertificates in the member States ' 
languages, or English and member States ' languages together , would now be required . China was 
not aware of the notification of those requirements to the WTO  which, in China's view, d id not comply 
with WTO rules and restric ted food trade . Regretting the  lack of official response to the letter sent 
on 10  May, China asked the European  Union  to clarify the relevant requirements, to formally notify 
the WTO and to give a six -month transition period. China hoped to reach an agreem ent on this issue 
to avo id disruptions of China's food trade.  
4.8.  The European  Union  informed the Committee that, in January 2022, it had provided all trading 
partners with all the linguistic versions of the three amendments to the "New certification package".  
China had not received the information due to a technical problem that now seemed to be solved. G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 10 - 
 
  All the acts had been notified to the SPS Committee  after their publication, under documents 
G/SPS/N/EU/537 , G/SPS/N/EU/540  and G/SPS/N/EU/541 . The European  Union  looked forward to 
continuing bilateral cooperation with China.  
4.1.4   EU notifications of matrine and oxymatrine in honey  (ID 546)  – Concerns of China  
4.9.  China  raised questions regarding the tests conducted by the European  Union  on honey 
imported from China  with a residue limit of 0.01  mg/kg according to the Regulation (EC) 
No 396/2005. China explained that Chinese honey was mainly acacia honey and that the matrine 
and oxymatrine were derived from the nectar of Sephora vicifolia i 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. 
China  questioned  the scope and limit of application , the notification procedure and the scientific 
rationality of the measure, and hope d that the European  Union  took into account the clarifications 
provided.  
4.10.   Thanking China for sharing the relevant data, t he European  Union  highlighted the following 
points from the bilateral discussions held in November: matrine and oxymatrine , used as pest icides 
China , were  not approved for use in the E uropean  Union ; a recent evaluation by the German Federal 
Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) indicate d that the genotoxic potential of the substances could 
not be excluded  and, therefore, no health -based guid ance value c ould be derived for them; 
the default maximum residue limit ( MRL) of 0.01  mg/kg was applie d in accordance to of Regulation 
(EC) No 396/2005.  The European  Union  invited China to submit a request for an import tolerance 
for matrine and oxymatrine in honey , which would be granted if it received a favourable assessment 
by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The European  Union  expressed its willingness to 
continue bilateral discussion s. 
4.1.5   Egypt's Customs Circular Decision No. 4060: Radioactivity checks on imported food  
(ID 547)  – Concerns of the European  Union  
4.11.   The European  Union  raised its concerns regarding Egypt's Customs Circular Decision 
No. 4060, which introduced radioactivit y checks on imported products based on  radioactivity limits 
set by the 2014 Board Decision No. 2 of the Egyptian Nuclear and Radioactive Regulatory Authority 
(ENRRA).  The European  Union  noted that, despite the absence of a zero -radioactivity requirement 
in its Board Decision, Egypt  claimed  that non -listed products could not contain any level of 
radioactivity . The European  Union  stressed  that this requirement  resulted in import blockages  of 
EU shipments  in Egypt and was more trade restrictive than necessary, not in accordance with the 
relevant international standards , and not based on a risk assessment. The European  Union  urged 
Egypt to provide information on setting radioactivity requirem ents for food products, to notify this 
measure and to suspend the zero -radioactivity requirement until notifying its measure . 
4.12.   Egypt  informed the European  Union  that it would  inquire with the capital over this issue. 
4.1.6   Morocco 's import ban on ornamental plant s (ID 548)  – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.13.   The European  Union  raised its concerns on Morocco 's measures against the spreading of 
Xylella fastidiosa  disease  in plants , as notified in document G/SPS/N/MAR/67/Add .1. 
The European  Union  regretted that its comments on this measure had not been taken into account , 
and emphasized that imports from EU pest -free zones should not be contingent on the prior condition 
of listing of plant nurseries . The European  Union  reques ted that Morocco considered remov ing the 
phytosanitary certificate requirement, taking into account  that the  information on Xylella -free zones 
was provided by its NPPOs . The European  Union  emphasized that the phytosanitary risk analysis 
requirements for or namental plants which were not host of  X. fastidiosa  and the total import ban of 
ornamental plants host of  X. fastidiosa from countries infected by this bacteria  were disproportionate 
and unjustified under the SPS  Agreement . 
4.14.   Morocco  clarified that it had responded to the EU comments in June 2022 and emphasized 
that it had not received any written notifications from the E uropean  Union  regarding this matter. 
Morocco stated  that it was free of X. fastidiosa  and had temporarily banned the  import of ornamental 
plants and plant parts from countries infested with X. fastidiosa  in accordance with Article  5.7 of the G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 11 - 
 
  SPS Agreement . Morocco informed the Committee that  its Law 76 -17 on plant protection 
strengthened the national system of surveilla nce and phytosanitary control from harmful organisms. 
Morocco expressed its willingness to engage in bilateral negotiations with the European  Union  on 
this matter.  
4.2  Issues previously raised  
4.2.1   EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpy rifos, 
chlorpyrifos -methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, 
iprodione, mancozeb, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID 448)  – Concerns of 
Colombia, Paraguay, Guatemala, the United  States , Ecuador and Costa Rica  
4.15.   Colombia  regretted the lack of progress on the topic  and reiterated its concerns on the 
EU hazard -based approach that could lead to pesticide regulations more restrictive than necessary. 
Colombia invited Members to read the questions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2002 , answers 
to which could indicate a possible discrimination of imported like products that required import 
tolerances. While sharing the European Union's  legitimate objectives, Colombia asked several 
questions regarding the establishment of MRLs.  
4.16.   Paraguay  was disappointed about the delay and quality of the EU responses to questions 
raised by Paraguay and other delegations. Noting that the European  Union  stated that it could not 
respond on behalf of EU member States regarding emergency authorizations , Parag uay mentioned 
the possibility of consulting them directly, since they were Members of the WTO in their own right . 
Finally, Paraguay regretted that the European  Union  could not confirm whether it would continue to 
grant emergency authorizations to plant protection products that it considered of general concern 
for which it d id not grant import tolerances, and urged the European  Union  to take a decision on this 
matter a nd inform the Committee as soon as possible.  
4.17.   Guatemala  reiterated its concerns regarding EU M RLs, namely chlorot halonil, chlorpyrifos and 
mancozeb, and the expected negative effects on tropical agricultural production for 
European  markets. Guatemala highli ghted that alternative pesticides, as efficient to those currently 
available in the market, were required to combat pest and diseases that were present throughout 
the year in tropical climates. Guatemala urged the European  Union  to present a proposal on th e 
active substances that would be available to replace those currently used.  
4.18.   The United  States  noted  that the European  Union created trade barriers by apply ing the 
precautionary principle in its pesticide decision -making processes , and  regretted that the 
EU responses d id not address the resulting urgent problems facing agricultural producers and 
exporters.  According to the United  States , EFSA's  technical reports  published in November 2021 , 
containing  justifications for emergency authorizations for the use o f pesticides  in several EU member 
States , acknowledge d the lack of effective alternatives or the risk of insect resistance to alternative 
products. Noting the importance of science -based measures, the United  States  called for  the 
European  Union  to afford  producers in third countries the same access to crop protection tools , to 
take the least restrictive trade actions and to apply its MRLs for both imported and domestic goods 
at the time of production . The United  States  submitt ed its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2041 . 
4.19.   Ecuador  reiterated its concern on EU measures on MRL reduction of pesticides and considered 
that departing from Codex standards question ed the value of the work of the ISSBs. 
New technologies and innovation , as well as time and resources,  were required to replace most of 
the restricted substances and for the implementation of the MRLs. Pointing to the conditions and the 
behaviour of pests and insects in the tropics, Ecuador stated that limiting the use of some fungicides 
and insecticides th at were widely used on a rotational basis would affect producers' economy. 
Ecuador noted that, although EU producers were also affected by these bans, they could obtain 
emergency authorizations for the use of restricted substances, and hoped that this coul d be extended 
to countries outside the European  Union . Ecuador would examine the answers provided by the 
European  Union  to the questions raised.  
4.20.   Costa Rica  reiterated its concerns regarding the impacts on MRL reduction on their production 
system, in partic ular on the lack of conclusive scientific evidence to justify the changes and the 
departure of EU conclusions from findings agreed in Codex. These concerns had been supported by 
numerous Members  in several fora. Costa Rica supported the questions raised by  other Members G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 12 - 
 
  and would examine the EU answers. Emphasizing that its concern referred to the overall regulatory 
approach taken by the European  Union , and not to specific substances, Costa Rica urged the 
European  Union  to reconsider its regulatory approach , to establish an effective dialogue with affected 
Members, and  to explore measure that would limit them global impact of these regulations.  
4.21.   Uruguay  reiterated its concern on the EU approach to MRL  reduction for an increasing number 
of substances, specifically mancozeb, imazalil, iprodione and buprofezin, to limits lower than those 
established by Codex without a scientific risk assessment. Uruguay agreed with other Members that 
the emergency authori zations granted by EU member States to domestic producers could be in 
conflict with EU health protection policies  and with trading conditions with third countries.  
Uruguay  was reviewing the answers provided by the European  Union  in document G/SPS/GEN/2038 . 
Highlighting that pesticide  regulations should be based in scientific principles and risk assessments 
and applied in a non -discriminatory manner, Uruguay pointed out that sufficient periods of two years 
or two harvest seasons should be granted. Uruguay requested to European  Union  to give due 
consideration to these concerns, to respond to calls for dialogue and to reconsider its regulatory 
approach.  
4.22.   Emphasizing the nee d to base decisions on relevant risk assessment techniques , Canada  was 
concerned with the trade implications of the EU approach to the regulation of active substances in 
plant protection products , specifically given the  current international supply chain disruptions  and 
the global food security cris is. Canada reques ted the E uropean  Union  to maintain MRLs  for 
substances that d id not pose unacceptable dietary risks. Underlining  the importance of providing 
significant advance notice between the adoption of MRLs and their entry into force,  Canada asked  
the E uropean  Union  to notify anticipated changes to MRLs to the SPS Committee  earlier than the 
currently required 60 -day notice period, clearly  indicating  the scientific basis of the decision and 
applicable transition periods , to allow Members the opportunity to provide feedback.  Referring to the 
emergency autho rizations granted to EU member States , which seemingly contradict ed the 
EU approach , Canada  requested the European  Union  to ensure  that it did not discriminate between 
domestic producers and foreign exporters.  
4.23.   Argentina  reiterated its concern, which referr ed to technical and structural aspects affecting 
all Members. Argentina insisted that the European  Union  should base its regulatory changes in risk 
assessments and on conclusive scientific evidence . Argentina insisted that the lack of solution s made 
trade more difficult, undermined trust and reduced developing Members options to achieve 
sustainable development through international trade. Argentina invited the European  Union  to 
commit to dialogue with affected Members.  
4.24.   Chile reiterated its conce rn, which mainly  referred to  mancozeb, and requested the 
European  Union  to reconsider its measure to maintain international trade of agricultural products.  
4.25.   Stating that the  EU regulatory policies on MRLs disregarded  Codex standards  and violated the  
princip le of harmonization , Brazil  insisted on the importance of adopting measures based on scientific 
evidence and  on risk assessment grounded in science.  Brazil noted that the number of Members 
concerned was a clear sign of the impact of  EU policies on global t rade. 
4.26.   Peru regretted the lack of improvement regarding this concern.  
4.27.   Panama  was particularly concerned  by the reduction of MRLs for mancozeb, for which there 
was no substitute to control black sigatoka in tropical cultures. Thanking the European  Union  for the 
responses provided to questions raised by several Members, Panama regretted that answers referred 
to other documents and d id not address the questions raised. Panama asked the European  Union  to 
work with other Members in a constructive manne r. 
4.28.   The European  Union  pointed out to the questions that had  already been answered , includ ing 
in document G/SPS/GEN/2038  and in the communication explaining  the ongoing review of EU MRLs 
of pesticides ( G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.2 ). Stressing that  its food safety system was based on a high 
level of consumer health protection, the European  Union  stated that MRLs should be set at the lowest 
achievable level consistent with good agricultural practice for each pesticide. The European  Union  
remained  among the largest importers of agricultural commodities . G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 13 - 
 
  4.29.   The Euro pean Union  elaborated on the in formation available in document G/SPS/GEN/1970 , 
and referred  to additional guidance available in document SANCO/10087/2013 rev.1 . In particular, 
the European  Union  detailed the conditions f or EU members States to authoriz e the placing on the 
market of plant protection products , estab lished in Article  53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 , 
which required  notify ing the other member States and the European Commission through the Plant 
Protection Products Application Management System (PPPAMS) . Approximately 90% of emergency 
authori zations were granted  for plant protection products  containing active substances approved in 
the E uropean  Union  and many of the specific uses were already authori zed in another EU member 
State , and hence  EU MRLs applied . In cases where an emergency authori zation was granted for a 
use that would result in residues above the established EU MRL, a national temporary MRL might  be 
needed . Consumer safety had to  be ensured and specific control measures had to  be put in place. 
This was only possible in exceptional c ircumstances  and within the member State's territory . 
According to Article  18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 , such food or feed was not foreseen for 
trade . In rare cases, an EU -wide temporary MRL could also  be established . Emergency authorization s 
for plant protection products  could be granted for a particular crop/pest combination, usually in 
minor crops or for new and emerging phytosanitary risks and other phytosanitary issues in major 
crops , that were eventually replaced by a regular extension of an existing authori zation or a new 
authorization. Emergency authori zations might also be granted for non -agricultural situations as 
stipulated in Recital 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009  to overcome dangers o r threa ts, and not 
to facilitate trade . The European  Union  reiterat ed the availability to cooperate with all Members 
interested.  
4.2.2   EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea 
(ID 518)  – Concerns of India  
4.30.   India stated that anthraquinone was a naturally oc curring hydrocarbon. Reiterating  its 
concerns regarding the classification of anthraquinone as a pestici de, India believed that the MRL of 
0.02 mg/kg for tea was too low and affected Indian tea exports to the European  Union . India referred 
to the results of recent studies confirming that atmospheric deposits were the major source of 
contamination of teas with anthraquinone. The study also concluded that these deposits on tea 
leaves were likely to cause a residue value higher than the EU MRL in certain tea -producing areas.  
India request ed the European  Union  to postpone the proposed revision of the MR L for a nthraquinone 
in tea.  
4.31.   Noting the lack of new elements on this issue, t he European  Union  indicated that the 
authorization of plant protection products  containing anthraquinone had been  withdrawn in 2009 
pursuant to Commission Decision 2008/986/EC , and that  MRLs ha d been set at the  limit of 
quantification  (0.02  mg/kg for tea and 0.01  mg/kg for other commodities) . EFSA's 2012 reas oned 
opinion according to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 had not provided new elements to consider the 
need for further measures.  Given the recent classification of anthraquinone by the European 
Chemicals Agency as carcinogenic category 1B, and the need to apply good practices during food 
production, the European  Union  expressed its availability to provide technical assistance to In dia 
and other non -EU countries interested on laboratory methods , if requested. The European  Union  
remain ed open to provide India with additional  information.  
4.2.3   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID 382)  – Concerns of Paraguay  
4.32.   Paraguay  regretted having t o reiterate  this concern  that had remained unresolved since it was 
first raised in 2014. In Paraguay's perspective, the series of measures adopted by the 
European  Union  lacked a scientific basis and favoured producer protection over consumer protection. 
Paraguay urged the European  Union  to find means of resolving the underlying causes of this trade 
concern.  
4.33.   Ecuador  supported this  concern, recalling the provisions of Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement 
and noting that a risk -based scientific approach was required to avo id unnecessary barriers to trade. 
Ecuador noted that EU reports which supported the non -approval of certain molecules , such as 
dimethoate or mancozeb , included the alleged endocrine disruption effects among the reasons for 
the withdrawal of authorizations.  
4.34.   Costa  Rica reiterated its concern regarding the EU approach for the implementation of 
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Costa Rica urged the European  Union to ensure that the G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 14 - 
 
  identification and  the regulation of endocrine disruptors was based on risk assessments, using 
criteria supported by sufficient scientific evidence, in line with the SPS  Agreement.  
4.35.   Uruguay  reiterated its concerns regarding the EU adoption and implementation of a 
hazard -based approach for products with potential endocrine -disrupting properties. Urugu ay insisted 
on the need to base such determinations on conclusive scientific evidence in order to avo id removing 
important components of pest management systems which were considered safe for use. 
Uruguay  stressed that a hazard -based approach could have a negative and disproportionate impact 
on sustainable agricultural production, food security and international trade in food products. 
Uruguay supported the multilateral work undertaken by Codex to develop a harmonized, risk -based 
approach, and requested the  European  Union to reconsider its regulatory approach.  
4.36.   Brazil  recalled that the criteria for the determination of endocrine -disrupting substances had 
to be established in accordance with Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement, in line with scientific principles 
and available scientific evidence and data , to avo id unnecessary trade restrictions . Brazil highlighted 
the importance of conducting risk assessments that were appropriate to the circumstances, and the 
need to obtain the additional information necessary for an objective assessment  of risk . 
4.37.   Peru considered that the EU regulations were inconsistent with Article  5 of the 
SPS Agreement , and that maintaining a hazard -based approach could lead to measures that 
restricted trade of food products more than necessary . 
4.38.   Chile expressed its concerns with the hazard -based cut -off criteria used for the assessment 
of active substances in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, and referred to the gradual reduction of safe 
and effective phytosanitary products. In Chile's view, the criteria deviated from the internationally 
agreed principles of risk analysis , and unnecessarily lowered MRLs for commonly used substances . 
4.39.   Canada  reiterated its request for the European  Union  to amend its hazard -based approach for 
the regulation of active  substances in plant protection products, and to consider both hazards and 
risks in its regulatory decision -making. According to Canada, this would align the EU regulatory 
framework with internationally recognized approaches for risk management.  
4.40.   Guatemala  considered the issue of endocrine disruptors to be linked to the implementation  of 
restrictive MRLs affecting agricultural production in tropical countries.  Guatemala urged the 
European  Union  to reconsider its restrictive approach and to base its measures on a risk assessment 
specific to tropical regions.  
4.41.   The European  Union  affirmed that the scientific criteria in place in the European  Union  to 
identify endocrine disruptors were based on the WHO definition. The criteria to identify pesticides 
had been appli cable since November 2018, and also applied to ongoing procedures for the approval 
or renewal of active substances. The European  Union  reiterated that, to date, there had been no 
cases of non -approval of a substance solely based on endocrine disruptor crit eria that had been 
followed by the lowering of MRLs. For all substances for which MRLs had been lowered following the 
non-approval under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, other intake concerns, in addition to their 
classification as endocrine disruptors, had b een identified. The European  Union  noted that exports 
of the commodities potentially affected by these measures had grown since the STC was first raised 
in 2015, despite Members' concerns at that time on the potential socioeconomic effects of the 
measure a nd that, therefore, the alleged trade barriers ha d not materiali zed. The European  Union  
reiterated its commitment to keep Members informed of further developments.  
4.2.4   EU import tolerances for certain pesticides to achieve environmental outcomes in 
third countries (ID 534)  – Concerns of Australia  
4.42.   Australia  considered that decisions regarding import MRLs should only be assessed in light of 
food safety risks, and that taki ng into account environmental impacts in exporting countries poses 
a threat to third countries’ ability to apply their own environmental policies, in contradiction with 
WTO rules . Australia considered that third country national authorities are the best de cision maker 
to ensure that pesticide application is undertaken in a responsible and sustainable manner in each 
country, and  in accordance with their unique environment. Australia  asked the European  Union  to 
clarify to which WTO Committee it would notify t he draft regulation and looked forward to continued 
engagement  on the matter . G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 15 - 
 
  4.43.   Paraguay  regretted the lack of information on the implementation of some of the objectives 
of the EU strategies  and re quest ed clarification on the notification of the draft measu re. 
Paraguay  was of the view that the EU approach d id not take into account Members' shared 
responsibilities, the differences in climatic conditions and production systems , and the financial 
support received by European producers. In addition, EU member St ates frequently granted 
emergency authorizations for the use of prohibited substances for which import tolerances were not 
granted. Paraguay hoped to receive clarification on EU policies.  
4.44.   Brazil  shared the concern, as it considered that EU policies disregard ed international efforts 
under the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues  and violated Article  3 of the 
SPS Agreement . 
4.45.   While sharing the European Commission's goals for food systems transformation, 
the United  States  was of the view that appro aches to strengthen sustainability  should focus on all 
three economic, social, and environmental dimensions. The United  States  noted that, in order to 
meet the world's growing demands, different locations and scales needed a combination of 
approaches, tool s and technologies, and was concerned that the proposed application of 
EU standards would not recognize their trading partners' regulatory frameworks and competence 
and unnecessarily restrict trade. The United  States  urged the European  Union  to address the  
concerns expressed in a letter sent in April 2022, together with other Members. The United  States  
submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2042 . 
4.46.   Japan  noted than any reduction of EU MRLs  for the neonicotino id pesticides clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam should be made in a manner c onsistent with WTO rules . Regulations for 
environmental protection  should be set by each Member , reflecting its particular environment , and 
should be harmonized with international standards .  Japan request ed the E uropean  Union  to notify 
the draft of new regulations at an early stage and to provide other Members ample opportunity to 
comment on the new regulations prior to the introduction.   
4.47.  Ecuador  shared the concern the European Union's  extraterritorial objectives, which d id not 
seem to follow WTO rules. The legislation, production systems, climatic conditions and development 
status of trading partners were not taken into account. Ecuador invited the European  Union  to 
continue the dialogue on these measures , in order to protect human health and avo id unnecessary 
trade restrictions . 
4.48.   Colombia  stated that this was part of its systemic concerns over EU policies. While Colombia 
was a pioneer in the region of environmental protection and of the three pillars of sustainability, 
it lacked subsidizing capacity. Colombia was of the view that climatic, soil, social and economic 
conditions, as well as biodiversity in third countries , should be taken into account when talking about 
import tolerance s for certain pesticides in third countries. Concerning the protection of animal and 
plant health, r egional conditions had to be taken into account to avo id inconsistencies with WTO  rules 
and to ensure that measures d id not result in practical ban of imports  from developing countries . 
Talking about  neonicotinoi ds, Colombia expressed concerns  and a sked the EU to scrutini ze 
justifications, p articular ly about territorial scope of its protection  and the protection of pollinizers.  
4.49.   While s haring the concerns over e nvironmental challenges facing the international 
community,  Argentina  was concerned about the European Union's  unilateral and extraterritorial 
approach to environmental issues. Argentina highlighted the methodological weaknesses of the 
approach, which also  disregarded the principle s of permanent sovereignty over natural resources  
and of common but differentiated responsibilities.  Argentina hoped to receive an answer to the 
communications sent to the Commission.  
4.50.   Uruguay  was of the view that issues related to  import tolerances were under the realm of the 
SPS Committee , and recalled that SPS measures adopted or implemented by WTO Members should 
be in line with the objectives states in Annex A and other substantive obligations of the 
SPS Agreement . Uruguay reite rated its willingness to cooperate towards reaching the shared 
objective of protecting the environment and pollinizers, while recognizing the full capacity of 
authorities of third countries to adopt measures to balance the objective of food production with  
other legitimate objectives such as protection of the environment and human, animal and plant 
health. Uruguay urged the European  Union  to fulfil its WTO obligations when adopting measures 
with trade effects.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 16 - 
 
  4.51.   Canada  was concerned by the implications of the EU announcement of the consideration of 
global environmental impacts in the import tolerance decisions. Noting the robustness of its 
regulatory system, Canada believed that the E uropean Union was applying its domestic legislation 
extraterritorially, thus breaching its WTO obligations, by reducing neonicotino id MRLs to default 
values in the absence of an identified dietary risk. Canada as ked how the European  Union  planned 
to apply environmental considerations in the dietary risk assessment for active substances.  
4.52.   The European  Union  recalled the submission of document G/SPS/GEN/1868  on this topic 
solely for transparency purposes, and reiterated that the issue fell outs ide of the scope of the 
SPS Agreement . The European  Union  stated that it would take into account environmental aspects  
when  setting MRL for substances no longer approved in the European Union due to environmental 
concerns of global nature , while respecting  WTO and international obligations . The European  Union  
intended to address this matter on an incremental basis, founded on best available scientific 
evidence, ensur ing its measures were not more trade restrictive than necessary to  achieve their 
objective. While t he new EU approach would  not prohibit the use of pesticides in other countries , 
crops destinated to  the EU market would need to comply with EU MRLs. 
4.53.   On the differences in geoclimatic co nditions, the European  Union  acknowledged  that 
non-EU countries face d production conditions and pest pressures different to those in Europe . 
Article  6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 included the provision on import tolerances. In line with 
the commitments in the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strateg y, envir onmental issues of global 
concern would be taken into account in the process of setting MR Ls. The E uropean Union remained 
available for further discussions on the issue. 
4.2.5   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  
4.54.   India was of the view that the MRL 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 chlorhydrin 
(ECH) together , lacked sufficient scientific basis . India stated that, given the possibility of the natural 
occurrence of EtO, establishing an MRL for EtO at the level of quantification constituted a trade  
barrier. India regretted that the notification G/SPS/N/EU/538  had not provided the possibility for 
comments and that the information circulated by the European  Union  in document G/SPS/GEN/1968  
provided only the process from a broad perspective, without specific information about the increase 
of official contro ls. Likewise, the transitional period provided by the European  Union  was inadequate 
and was subject to the condition of 100% testing of such consignments at EU ports, which ha d 
caused the significant additional cost to the exporters . 
4.55.   India also noted that the EU MRL for EtO residues was more stringent that the limits in other 
countries, and considered that MRLs for all spices, including chilli and ginger  (which presented similar 
consumption patterns as other species) , might  be unified at 0.1  mg/kg.  Finally, India noted that 
many of the spice items subject to increased official control s did not have any notification in the 
Rapid Alert System for Food and F eed (RASFF) showing contamination with EtO during the financial 
year 2021 -22. 
4.56.   The European  Union  reported  that several incidents related to foodstuffs contaminated with 
EtO had occurred since September 2020 . EtO was classified as a mutagen, category 1B, 
a carcinogen, category 1B, and a reproductive toxicant, category 1B, in accordance with Regulation 
(EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council , and  was not approved as an 
active substance in plant protection products in the European  Union , which had led to a high number 
of RASFF notifications , also concerning India . Despite having provided  regular information to the 
Indian authorities, the European  Union  indicated that non -compliant consignments from India had 
continued to arrive. The Euro pean Union  referred to the relevant legislation in  Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 , amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2246 , and clarified 
that the measures under discussion had been notified in G/SPS/N/EU/538  and that the pr ocess of 
increased controls had been circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1968 . The EU member States had 
reached an agreement for the continuation of safe trade in response to requests for smooth transition 
periods . Where appropriate, control measures would be adjusted following the revi sion of the list of 
commodities included in relevant regulation and the information on results of official controls at the 
border control posts. The European  Union  remained available to continue technical discussions.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 17 - 
 
  4.2.6   EU restrictions on exports of chocolat e and cocoa products due to the application 
of the Commission Regulation (EU) N° 488/2014 of 12  May 2014 amending Regulation 
(EC) N° 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID 503)  – 
Concerns of Peru  
4.57.   Peru raised its concerns regarding Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 establishing 
maximum levels (MLs) for cadmium in chocolate and other cocoa products that, in practice, had a 
negative impact on trade in cocoa beans and cocoa. Peru was of the view that the EU regulation 
violated Arti cle 2 of the SPS  Agreement  and created unnecessary barriers to trade. Peru considered 
that the European  Union  had not taken into account the opinion of the joint FAO/WHO Expert 
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in document JECFA/91/SC, dated 5  March  2021, nor the 
endorsement of the JECFA position at the 15th meeting of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in 
Foods (CCCF) in May 2022 . Peru called upon the European  Union  to rescind Commission Regulation 
(EU) No 488/2014 with respect to chocolate and other co coa products. Peru submitted its statement 
in document G/SPS/GEN/2052 . 
4.58.   The European  Union noted that no new elements had become available since the March  2022 
SPS Committee  meeting.  The European  Union  emphasized that it had granted a transition period of 
five years to comply with the legal requirements of the measure concerning cocoa and c hocolate 
products , and added that the MLs were established on finished products and d id not apply to 
intermediate cocoa products . Noting the toxicity of cadmium, the European  Union  stressed that the 
exceedance of the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of cadmiu m by EU consumers justified setting limits 
for chocolate and cocoa products and other commodities . On the basis of the most recently updated 
JECFA assessment , the European  Union  considered it necessary to maintain the existing MLs to limit 
the exposure of consumers to cadmium from cocoa products. The European  Union  also noted that 
the EU ML for chocolate over 50% total dry cocoa solids was in line with the recently agreed 
Codex  levels, and stricter limits had only been introduced to the extent necessary to protect human 
health. The European  Union  was aware that  other  Members ' competent authorities had set stricter 
MLs for cadmium in cocoa beans , in addition to those set for final product s. While the European  Union  
was aware that some private ope rators applied strict limits for cadmium in imported cocoa beans 
instead of finished products, it argued that WTO Members d id not have jurisdiction over contractual 
arrangements between private parties . 
4.59.   The European  Union  was providing targeted technical a ssistance on low cadmium and climate 
relevant innovation to promote sustainable cocoa production in Peru. The European  Union  noted that 
it was also providing funding for the development, implementation and scaling of low cadmium and 
climate  relevant produc tion practices and technologies in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru within the 
framework of the Clima -LoCa initiative. The  European  Union  reiterated its commitment to work 
constructively with Members to address outstanding issues.  
4.2.7   EU regulatory approach to maxim um levels for contaminants (ID 519)  – Concerns 
of Canada  
4.60.   Canada  considered that the EU implementation of the precautionary -based regulatory 
decision -making requirements under Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 was leading to the lowering of 
MLs for contaminants in many food products. Canada reiterated that the MLs d id not align with 
international standards and would negatively impact trade for many products  exported to the 
European  Union . In particular, Canada was concerned with the negative trade im plications of the 
EU approach to the regulation of MLs of cadmium in cereals, pulses and oilseeds; ergot and ergot 
alkaloids in cereals; ochratoxin A in cereals; and cyanogenic glycosides in linseed. Canada indicated 
that it had provided comments  and a sci entific review  on a draft EU regulation notified to the WTO 
that cited new and lower MLs for hydrocyanic ac id for certain food stuffs.  Canada had requested the 
delay  of the entry into force of the EU  measure, and was optimistic that the European  Union  would 
consider adjusting or removing the MLs for hydrocyanic ac id in food grade linseed until further 
evidence was available. Canada stressed that the transition periods for changes to MLs should be of 
a minimum of two years, to allow sufficient time for adapt ation and reduce uncertainty amongst 
exporters. Canada welcomed further technical discussions with the European  Union  on this matter.  
4.61.   Brazil expressed its concerns with the EU approach to MLs in food products under Regulation 
(EC) No 1881/2006, noting that  it disregarded Codex standards. Brazil stated that SPS measures 
should be based on scientific evidence and MLs should be defined on the basis of realistic exposure G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 18 - 
 
  scenarios rather than on a presumption of hazard. Brazil further noted that the potential t rade impact 
should be taken into account, in accordance with Article  5.4 of the SPS  Agreement . 
4.62.   Ecuador  noted that MLs for contaminants in food were determined using a risk analysis in 
different Codex technical committees, including the CCCF , in order to av oid health impacts and 
unnecessary barriers to trade. For some contaminants such as cadmium, Ecuador noted that JECFA 
had conducted toxicity studies which demonstrated that the determination of a ML should be 
primarily concerned with avoiding trade barrier s, as there was no proven adverse effect on human 
health.  
4.63.   The European  Union  explained that the measures in question were based on a risk assessment 
and considered relevant consumption patterns and levels of dietary risk. According to the 
European  Union , the population's exposure to cadmium should be reduced in view of its toxicity  and 
possible health risks. The MLs for cadmium had been established at levels as low as reasonably 
achievable, considering the occurrence data for cadmium in the specific foodstuffs from various 
origins, in order to ensure a rejection rate of 5% or lower.  The expected effect on trade was thus 
limited.  
4.64.   The European  Union  confirmed that the new ML established for ergot sclerotia in wheat and 
durum wheat (0.2  g/kg, established on safety considerations) was lower than the one established in 
CXS 199/1995 (0.5  g/kg, established as a quality factor). Taking into account EFSA's scientific 
opinion and JECFA's assessment in its 91st meeting, it was necessary to establish MLs for ergot 
alkaloids in cereals and cereal products to ensure a high level of human health pro tection. 
The European  Union  stated that  the established level was readily achievable by applying good 
practices , and confirmed that the proposed ML for ergot alkaloids d id not apply to bulk raw grain, 
but to cereals placed on the market for the final consumer. As such, the European  Union  was of the 
view that these concerns d id not justify a further deferral of the application of the MLs for ergot 
alkaloids. Concerning the MLs for hydrocyanic ac id in linseed, the European  Union  noted that the 
draft regu lation had been notified in document G/SPS/N/EU/546 , and that Canada's comments had 
been considered  in the process. The European  Union  reiterated its commitment to discuss the issue 
bilaterally with Canada.  
4.2.8   Indonesia's draft regulation on heavy metals contaminants in processed food 
(ID 537)  – Concerns of China  
4.65.   China  reiterated its concerns regarding Indonesia's draft regulation on heavy metals 
contaminants in processed food. China underlined that the arsenic limit of 0.15  mg/kg  in yeast was 
too strict, substantially different from int ernational common practice, and that no different arsenic 
limit was set for different yeast types. China requested Indonesia to clarify the reason for not 
specifying arsenic limits for different yeast types, and suggested that the draft regulation be 
formu lated for different yeast types and in line with international standards or common practice.  
4.66.   Indonesia  thanked China for the interest in its draft regulation notified in document 
G/SPS/N/IDN/142 , and clarifi ed that the draft regulation replaced Regulations No 23 and No 5 of 
the Indonesian Food and Drug Authority, which had also been notified to the WTO. 
Indonesia  underlined that the regulation was published taking into account regulations from relevant 
minist ries, Codex standards, and public consultations. Regulations No 23 and No 5 had set the limit 
of arsenic in yeast at 0.15 mg/kg , which was maintained in the draft regulation. The limit of arsenic 
was set for each food category including yeast, and referred  to the Codex General Standard for Food 
Additives (Codex STAN 192 -1995). Indon esia indicated that the risk assessment was in accordance 
with Article  5 of the Agreement, and that the determination of food safety standards was applied 
domestically, in line w ith WTO's national treatment principle.  
4.2.9   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (ID 446)  – Concerns of 
the United  States  
4.67.   Referring to its previous statements, the United  States  reiterated its concerns regarding the 
implementation of article 118 of Regulation (EU) No 2019/6, and pointed to notification 
G/SPS/N/EU/557  listing antimicrobials reserved for human use.  The United  States  remained 
concerned with the application of health standards by the European  Union  to imported agriculture 
and agri -food products from third countries, which the United  States  considered would undermine G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 19 - 
 
  the competency of national authorities to establish measures necessary for the protection of animals 
within their territory. The United  States  requested the scientific justification for the restrictions on 
antimicrobial drugs for growth promotion that were not medically important for humans, and 
encouraged the European  Union  to harmonize its approach with relevant international standards.  
The United  States  also urged the European  Union  to be mindful of the impact of its SPS measures 
on global animal health, food security, international trade and agricultural sustainability. 
The United  States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2046 . 
4.68.   Brazil  noted the potenti al burden of the EU regulation on producers due to the introduction of 
sanitary requirements that were more trade -restrictive than necessary. Expressing its support for 
international efforts to develop multilateral harmonized guidelines on antimicrobial re sistance ( AMR), 
Brazil urged the European  Union  to consider the ongoing global efforts by the WHO, WOAH  and FAO, 
as well as the work of the Codex Taskforce on Antimicrobial Resistance. Brazil reiterated the 
importance of a safe, harmonized, and science -based framework for trade in animal products for the 
promotion of food safety and food security . 
4.69.   Canada  expressed its support for the coordinated international efforts to address AMR. 
Acknowledging that the list of antimicrobials reserved for human use notifi ed to the WTO was 
founded on scientific evidence and appeared to be not more trade restrictive than necessary, 
Canada  requested the European  Union  to provide clarification on the process of future modifications 
to the list. Canada also requested the Europe an Union  to share and notify the import rules for third 
countries related to veterinary medicinal products, to allow comments, and to take these comments 
into account when finalizing the measure. Canada urged the European  Union  to provide a sufficient 
transition period of five years or more, based on the realities of production systems and product 
storage.  
4.70.   Noting that  the EU regulation applied to livestock and marine products imported under 
article  118, Japan  underlined that the European  Union  had not provided information  on the delegated 
regulation for import procedures, and had not clarified the information needed by Members to adapt. 
In particular, Japan  was concerned about the listing of phosphonic ac id derivatives in the 
implementing regul ation, while no alternative antimicrobials existed to prevent infections from 
Edwardsiellosis  in fish. Japan  requested the European  Union  to provide a sufficient transitional period 
of three years, taking into account the preparation needed by the relevant  sectors , to share the draft 
regulation on the import procedure of animals and animal -derived products , and to clarify the 
procedures for certifying the non -use of antimicrobials.  
4.71.   Paraguay  requested the European  Union  to provide an update on the status of the third 
delegated act establishing new requirements for third countries. Paraguay recalled that measures 
should not be more trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, and expressed 
its concern regarding the list of antimicrobials reserved for human use in light of recent 
developments in the European Parliament.  
4.72.   Noting that it had no veterinary products containing the antimicrobials  listed, Australia  had 
no objections to the proposed reserved list by the European  Union . Reiterating the work of 
international organizations on AMR, Australia sought assurance that revisions to the list would follow 
a science -based, consultative, and inclusive process. Australia requested the European  Union  to 
provide third countries with suff icient transition periods if it implemented antimicrobial controls on 
imported products which differed from international standards. Australia reiterated its concern 
regarding the potential future classification of antimicrobials for treatment, control and  prevention 
of infections or diseases in animals in the proposed regulation , noting that these needed to be 
retained in order to support animal welfare and health, and food security . 
4.73.   Uruguay  thanked the European  Union  for its notification G/SPS/N /EU/557  containing the draft 
regulation designating the antimicrobial groups reserved for human use and its corresponding list, 
and requested information on the next steps in the regulatory process. Uruguay asked when the 
delegated act under article 118 wo uld be notified to the SPS Committee , and when the final rules 
would enter into force, in particular for third parties. Uruguay reiterated the need to communicate 
measures and draft measures, to allow sufficient time for comments, and to take Members' 
comm ents into account. Uruguay also explained that , in case of significant regulatory changes, 
transition periods should take account of the realities of affected sectors and products . G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.74.   The European  Union  reiterated that Regulation (EU) No 2019/6 , which applied  from 
28 January  2022,  would strengthen EU action to fight AMR, following the European One Health Action 
Plan against AMR.  Noting that the EU regulations on veterinary medicines and medicated feed 
imposed stricter rules on EU operators than on those in non -EU countries, the European  Union  
considered that the import provisions should not be seen as a trade barrier but as part of the overall 
fight against AMR.  A dedicated webpage had been made available to provide stakeholders with the 
status of each of the d elegated or implementing acts from Regulation (EU) No 2019/6. 
The European  Union  provided a detailed state -of-play regarding the preparation of the draft legal 
acts, and committed to keep Members informed of any future developments to address AMR while 
minimi zing trade impacts.  Regarding the implementing act under article 37 (5) on th e list of 
antimicrobials reserved for human use, the European  Union  thanked those Members which had 
provided comments to the draft implementing regulation, and indicated that it would request the 
opinion of EU member States on the final draft text. The Eur opean  Union  clarified that the list of 
antimicrobials or groups of antimicrobials would be kept under review in light of emerging scientific 
evidence or information. The European  Union  noted that the delegated act under article 118 on 
imports from third co untries would be notified to the SPS Committee . The European  Union  
underscored the importance of international collaboration and expressed its continued engagement 
with trading partners and other WTO Members in the fight against AMR to promote and support 
effective strategies to prevent and contain the global threat of AMR.  
4.2.10   EU restrictions on the importation of collagen for human consumption (ID 535)  – 
Concerns of China  
4.75.   China  reiterated its concern regarding EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC restricting 
imports of collagen and other products of animal origin into the European  Union . The Commission 
Decision had been revised and successive regulations had been issued. The European  Union  had 
approved the registration of Chinese collagen production enterprises in 2016, with an official website 
listing the registered Chinese enterprises and export products. China underlined that the 
European  Union  had blocked Chinese collagen from customs clearance, and that the official website 
displayed a warning of Chinese col lagen not being listed in the Annex to Commission Decision 
2002/994/EC. China asked the European  Union  to add Chinese collage n to the Annex of its Decision 
to ensure the ir consistency with subsequent amendments . 
4.76.   The European  Union  clarified that Commission Decision 2002/994/EC, as amended by 
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1068, included a list of food and feed products that 
were authorized for importation into the European  Union  from China. According to article 1 of this 
Decision, it a pplied to all products of animal origin imported from China which were intended for 
human consumption or animal feed use. The European  Union  emphasized that, while articles 2 and 
3 of this Decision indicated possible derogations from article 1, collagen wa s not included in the list 
of possible exceptions in parts I and II of the Annex, and was therefore not authorized for import 
from China.  The Commission Decision prevailed on other existing EU legislation related to collagen 
proceeding from China.  
4.2.11   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural 
products (ID 487)  – Concerns of Australia, Canada, the United  States  and India  
4.77.   Australia  reiterated its concerns that China's COVID -19 emergency measures were not based 
on scientific ev idence , unnecessarily restricted trade, lacked clear timeframes for their review, and 
did not follow a clear process for the reinstatement of suspended establishments. Noting that certain 
export establishments had been suspended for close to two years, Aus tralia requested China to 
provide guidance on lifting these suspensions including through remote inspection or other means. 
Australia indicated its willingness to work with China and other Members to ensure that measures 
to prevent the spread of COVID -19 were science - and risk -based, took account of the latest available 
pertinent information , and minimized unnecessary impacts on trade . 
4.78.   Referring to its statements in previous meetings, Canada  reiterated its concern  regarding 
China's measures related to COVID -19, which it considered to negatively impact trade in food and 
agricultural products. Canada highlighted that the WHO/FAO guidance on COVID -19 indicated no 
risk of transm ission of COVID -19 through food, food packaging or food handling. Canada questioned 
the scientific basis for China's measures relating to COVID -19 as notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/1173  and 
expressed concerns on the lack of clarity, transparency and predictability of the measures, 
in particular regarding the reinstatement process for suspended establi shments. Canada noted that G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 21 - 
 
  multiple reinstatement packages had been submitted to China, and urged China to respond to its 
requests without undue delays. Canada called on China to work collaboratively with its trading 
partners to avo id unnecessary trade bar riers. 
4.79.   Reiterating its concern regarding  China's measure s, the United  States  referred to recent FAO 
guidance, and encouraged China to withdraw its measures and to support the guidance of 
international organizations on COVID -19. The United  States  considered  China's measures to be 
discriminatory, and underlined that SPS measures should not constitute a barrier to trade to the 
advantage of Members domestic producers. The  United  States  submitted its statement in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2043 . 
4.80.   India reiterated its concern regarding the suspensio n of exports from over 101 fish and fishery 
product establishments on the basis of presence of COVID -19 nucleic ac id on the packaging of frozen 
products.  China had not shared the relevant test reports, hindering detailed investigations in India. 
India considered China's measures to be inconsistent with Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of the SPS  Agreement . 
Following the WHO/FAO guidance, Indian exporters had implemented stringent preventive controls , 
and staff of fishery establishments were vaccinated against COVID -19. India noted that corrective 
measures had been taken by 44 of the 77 fishery establishments  subject to video inspections by 
General Administration of Customs of  China  (GACC ) in June 2022 , but 41 of these establishments 
continued to be suspended. India requested China to share the relevant reports that had led to the 
export restrictions, and to allow exports from Indian establishments that had implemented corrective 
measures . 
4.81.   The United Kingdom  expressed its concern regarding China's measures related to COVID -19 
on cold food chain commodities. The United Kingdom referred to FAO guidance indicating that 
SARS -CoV-2 and other respiratory illness -causing virus es were not a direct food safety hazard, and 
were not transmitted by food or food packaging. The Unit ed Kingdom considered that available 
scientific evidence d id not support the continuation of China's testing requirements, nor its policy of 
point-of-entry rejections and establishment suspensions. Citing Article  2.1 of the SPS  Agreement , 
the United Kingdo m requested China to lift its COVID -19 related import measures, and invited China 
to share the findings of any relevant risk assessment with Members . 
4.82.   Expressing its concern regarding the consistency of China's measures with international 
guidance , Chinese  Taipei  urged China to base its measures on scientific principles and to clarify the 
risk assessment and scientific evidence supporting its measures.  
4.83.   Japan  reiterated its concerns regarding the COVID -19 related measures implemented by 
China since Ju ly 2020 which, in Japan's view, lacked scientific basis. Noting the potential negative 
impact on trade of those measures, Japan request ed China to clarify the risk assessments and  to 
share scientific evidence supporting their measures .  
4.84.   Referring to the FA O guidance , the European  Union  considered that Chinese policies for 
agri-food products were not proportionate , based on science , nor in line with China's WTO 
obligations . Express ing concern s regarding China's public statements on the alleged risk of 
contam ination with COVID -19 from imported products , the European  Union  asked China to lift its 
COVID -19 related import measures on cold -chain food in light of the recent scientific evidence and 
international guidance. The  European  Union  stated that unnecessary v erification measures were 
harmful to food security, food prices and global trade and may undermine public trust . 
4.85.   Switzerland  expressed concern s regarding the additional requirements on imported food 
products linked to COVID -19 established by China without having shared the risk assessment or the 
scientific justification. Switzerland considered that the measures, as well as related pu blic 
statemen ts, undermined consumer trust towards imported food products. Switzerland stressed the 
importance of transparency and noted that Members should respect WTO obligations . 
4.86.   China  responded that international guidance highlighted the importance of regulating th e food 
industry to protect workers proportionately to the expected level of exposure to SARS -CoV-2, and 
the need for international guidance to be read in conjunction with national public health guidelines. 
Referring to data as of May 2022, China noted that  it had detected 302 positive COVID -19 specimens 
from consignments from India. Certain exporting Members had taken protective measures, such as 
strengthening their monitoring systems and environmental disinfection. China added that imports G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 22 - 
 
  from a particula r company would resume once the company had taken effective actions to eliminate 
the relevant risk. China underlined the effectiveness of its prevention and control measures, which 
had been taken following international standards, guidelines and recommenda tions.  
4.2.12   China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of 
imported food (26  November  2019) (ID 485)  – Concerns of Australia, Japan , Canada, the 
United  States  and the European  Union  
4.87.   Australia  reiterated its concerns regarding dela ys and requirements  in the registration 
processes of China's Regulation on Registration and Administration of Overseas Manufacturers of 
Imported Foods  (Decree 248), in particular for low -risk processed food products. Australia remind ed 
China of its transparency obligation s to notify all future regulation changes , and highlighted a 
number of current challenges relating to the registration of food producers in China Import Food 
Enterprise Registration (CIFER ) system , including the uncertainty in the length and requirements of 
new registrations approvals. Australia expressed its willingness to work collaboratively with China to 
ensure food safety while facilitating undisrupted trade.  
4.88.   Japan  reported problems with the registration  of its facilities for whi ch information had been 
filed at the time of application.  Recalling the obligations established in the SPS  Agreement , 
Japan  highlighted that China had not provided scientific justification or risk assessment for its new 
regulation, which lacked transparen cy, was burdensome, and restricted trade more  than necessary. 
Japan requested China to allow registered facilities to export any items regardless of the registered 
product codes until 1 July 2023; to facilitate the registration of new facilities and the correction 
process; to ensure that registration of facilities or product codes was completed without undue delay ; 
to provide appropriate explanations, time frames, and detailed guidelines about the operation of the 
regulation ; and to establish an enquiry poi nt for interested parties.  
4.89.   Canada  reiterated its concern regarding China's administrative measures that , in its view , 
were overly burdensome and went beyond the extent necessary to protect against food safety risks. 
China had not  notified the implementation of the online CIFER system, which  would create further 
barriers to trade. Stressing that the registration process i n the CIFER system was overly detailed 
and confusing, Canada requested China to establish a  single  enquiry point or to work directly with 
establishments  for the completion of their registration. Canada urged China to add to the 
CIFER  system all Canadian pr oducts and establishments previously approved by China without 
undue delay, and to provide further information and clarifications on the implementation of 
Decrees  248 and 249 and on the CIFER  system . 
4.90.   The United  States  reiterated its concern regarding China 's lack of response to requests for 
scientific justification and clarification on how the measures established in Decrees 248 and 249 
would address food safety and public health concerns. The United  States  urged China to provide the 
risk assessments used i n the development of the Decrees. The United  States  requested China to use 
existing government -to-government facility registration processes, to allow entry of products from 
registered facilities until 1  July 2023, to provide a contact point at China's cus toms authority to 
address concerns regarding the online registration system, and to hold an information session in 
Geneva on the implementation of the Decrees. The United  States  submitted its statement in 
document G/SPS/GEN/2044 . 
4.91.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns and stressed that  China had set the lengthy and 
burdensome mechanism to register exporting businesses . The European  Union  emphasized the lack 
of clarity regarding the expansion of product coverage , and  the frequent changes introduced in  the 
CIFER  system . The European  Union  urged China to maintain an open dialogue to solve 
implementation issues , to provide guidelines on registration in English  and on the verification of 
establishments registered under the fast -track procedure , and to facilitate amendments to ex isting 
registrations and the management of changes to existing registrations  in order to solve this issue 
before 1  July 2023.  
4.92.   The United  Kingdom  regretted  that China had not considered the requests to delay  the 
implementation of the measures, and believed that certain aspects of China's measures, such as the 
requirement to audit establishments exporting low -risk products, were overly burdensome.  
The United Kingdom requested China to appl y its measures in a risk-proportionate  way, considering 
the UK's rigorous  food safety  processes and controls . G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 23 - 
 
  4.93.   Norway  considered that Chinese Decrees 248 and 249 were more trade restrictive than 
necessary to ensure the safety of imported food products. Regardless of the efforts to meet China's 
administrative requirements , Norway stressed that insufficient information from Chinese authorities, 
lack of information in English, uncertainties regarding the implementation of the Decrees and the 
work of CIFER system imposed a significant burden on both industry and competent aut hority. 
Norway asked China to review its measures and the CIFER system, and to engage in an open 
dialogue.  
4.94.   Korea  reiterated its concern  regarding China's measures  and was of the view that certain 
provisions of the regulation, such as those related to low -risk products, were unnecessarily 
burdensome . Korea requested China to provide the scientific evidence underpinning the selection of  
product categories in Decree 248 . Korea stressed that th e registration requirements of its 
establishments on  the GACC website were imposing additional  burden on the relevant authorities 
and negatively affecting bilateral trade. To avo id repeating the entire registration process to add a 
new product, Korea sugge sted China to consider a streamlined process for establishments already  
registered.  
4.95.   Chinese  Taipei  stressed that the lack of information on registration requirements and 
operational guidance posed difficulties in the implementation of the measures. Chinese  Taipei  
questioned the alignment of the measures with the relevant provisions of the SPS  Agreement , 
such as those related to risk assessment and scientific justification. Chinese  Taipei  urged China to 
designate a n enquiry  point to address concerns surrounding the measures, to provide a grace period 
for its implementation, to temporarily allow entry of all products from registered facilities, and to 
hold an information session to provide further information on the implementation of the measures.  
4.96.   Switzerland  regretted that the measure included all food categories irrespective of their risk 
profile and see med to be more trade -restrictive than necessary. Switzerland urged China to allow 
entry of products from registered facilities until 1  July 2023.  
4.97.   China  indicated that the revision of the draft Administrative Measures for Registration of 
Overseas Manufactur ers of Imported Foods was based on the law of China,  and was compliant with 
international rules and common practices . China explained that the measure strengthened the 
supervision of food safety while taking trade facilitation principles into account . Before the 
implementation of the regulations, GACC  had issued the interpretation of the regulations, the guide 
and supporting documents for registration application, launched the registration information system  
for overseas enterprises , and formally notified e xporting Members through various channels. 
Specifically, China had held video conferences , conducted training , resolved urgent registration 
issues and answer ed questions from a number of Members through various means. As of 13 June 
2022, more than 100 memb ers ha d provided the list of enterprises recommended for registration, 
a total of 73 ,027 overseas producers in 32 food categories ha d registered.  China underlined the 
effectiveness of the implementation of its measure and invited Members to contact GACC for 
registration queries.  
4.2.13   Concerns with transparency, delays and due process associated with China's 
import requirements for agricultural goods (ID 524)  – Concerns of Australia  
4.98.   Australia  remained concerned with China's increased interventio n on imported products at the 
border without prior notice, which did not appear to be based on scientific evidence and had led to 
trade constraints across a range of agricultural products. Australia requested China to ensure that 
agricultural imports continued in a transparent manner and without undue delays in inspection 
procedure s and to notify changes to its measures , which  should be applied in a manner proportionate 
to the risk. Australia would welcome bilateral engagement on these matters, and urged Ch ina to 
respond to its requests for information, to provide details of its inspection and testing measure , and 
to engage with Australia on its proposals.  
4.99.   China  stated that it always  notified the SPS measures to the WTO and to relevant Members 
in a transpare nt and timely manner , prior to implementation. Referring to the detection of live 
quarantine pests and heavy metals in Australian products, China called on Australia to strengthen 
its supervision of export enterprises in accordance with bilateral agreement s to ensure the safety of 
products.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 24 - 
 
  4.100.   In response to China,  Australia  clarified  it was awaiting a n answer  from China on 
investigations following non -compliance reports. Australia was looking forward to continuing bilateral 
dialogue and emphasized the absence of feedback from China.  
4.2.14   China 's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID 516)  – Concerns of Canada, Australia and the European  Union  
4.101.   Canada  continued to experience undue delays in China's approval p rocedures for the import 
of food products and foreign establishments, and was awaiting updated information on over 10 lists 
of Canadian products and facilities eligible to export. The delays  and the  lack of transparency and of 
rationale in the approval pro cedures for foreign establishments led to unjustified barriers to trade 
and administrative burdens. Emphasizing the lack of progress on market access requests for several 
commodities since 2018, Canada urged China to update and publish the lists of Canadia n products 
and establishments awaiting registration or approval , to provide timelines for approval of Canadian 
food products and establishments , to transmit the result of the approval procedures , to limit 
information requirements to what was necessary , and to ensure transparent and predictable 
approval procedures.  
4.102.   Australia  reiterated its concerns with the long delays and lack of transparency in China's 
approval and administrative process for Australian agriculture and fisheries exports. Australia noted 
that it was waiting for China to approve, update or publish the listing of audited Australian food 
businesses . Australia requested China to provide information , including timeframes,  on the 
assessment and approval of products as well as the lifting of restrictions on suspended 
establishments , and reiterated that it welcomed discussions on these issues.  
4.103.   The European  Union  supported the concern and called for transparent, predictable an d swift 
approval procedures and for the listing or re -listing of establishments in line with agreed international 
standards, including the management of non -compliances. The European  Union  was concerned 
about the focus on COVID -19 control measures in estab lishment audits, as well as the short notice 
of the announcement of these audits. The European  Union  requested China to ensure the application 
of SPS measures in a non -discriminatory, transparent and predictable manner, and to remove 
unnecessary barriers t o trade.  
4.104.   The United Kingdom  noted that its trade continued to be affected by undue delays and lack 
of transparency in China's approval procedures. The United Kingdom waited for China's response on 
the re -listing of several  establishments following China's technical requests and the facilitation of 
video  inspections , and stressed that over 20 fisheries establishments were awaiting export approval 
from China. The United Kingdom requested China to apply its approval procedures in a timely and 
predictable manne r in accordance with the SPS  Agreement.  
4.105.   China  noted that it handled market access and enterprise registration in accordance with its 
domestic laws and regulations , and that its measures were in line with the bilateral agreements and 
the SPS  Agreement . China stated that it had timely reported non-compliance issues of Australian 
and Canadian companies to the competent authorities , and urged the Members concerned to conduct 
investigations on the violations, to make relevant corrections and to inform China of the results, 
in order to carry out evaluations to adjust the relevant actions.  
4.106.   In response to China, Australia  underscored the high  standards of its food system and the 
quality of its agricultural products. Australia regretted that China had not honoured its 
WTO commitments, the lack of progress on market access requests, and the unresponsiveness to 
the requests for engagement. Austra lia highlighted that it had responded to all requests for 
information from China and had undertaken corrective actions in a timely and transparent manner. 
Noting that other trading partners had also raised concerns on delays and lack of transparency, 
Austr alia believed that China's actions were inconsistent with WTO obligations.  
4.2.15   Saudi  Arabia 's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting 
establishments (ID 486)  – Concerns of Brazil  
4.107.   Brazil  regretted that Saudi  Arabia  had not provided supporting docume ntations regarding 
the ongoing suspension of Brazilian exports alleging sanitary problems. In Brazil's view, Saudi  Arabia  
was not respecting Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement . In 2022, Saudi  Arabia 's had authorized G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 25 - 
 
  the resumption of imports from the su spended establishments, without the withdrawal of the 
suspension. Brazil asked Saudi  Arabia  to explain the sanitary reason for suspending the 
establishments while allowing exports, entry and consumption of Brazilian's poultry meat in the 
country. Brazil ki ndly requested Saudi  Arabia  to remove the restrictions if no sanitary problems were 
identified.  
4.108.   Assuring i t spared no efforts in removing trade barriers with WTO Members, Saudi  Arabia  
indicated that the temporary measures had been adopted in compliance wit h the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement . The Saudi Food and Drug Authority  had provided Brazil with details of the detected 
violations  in Brazilian consignments of poultry meat and its products , and looked forward to receiving 
the requested  corrective actions to review the lifting of the temporary suspension.  Furthermore, 
imports of poultry meat and poultry  products from some suspended Brazilian establishments  were 
allowed under specific conditi ons. 
4.109.   In response to Saudi  Arabia , Brazil  reiterated its questions regarding  the sanitary reason for 
suspending the establishments while allowing exports, entry and consumption of Brazilian's poultry 
meat in the country. In Brazil's view, the letter sent by  Saudi  Arabia  with certificates of analysis of 
Brazilian products contained inconsistencies in the data presented, suggesting that there was no 
evidence to maintain the suspension for some of the Brazilian establishments.  
4.2.16   Panama's undue delays in the renew al of authorizations for plants of Peruvian 
fishery and livestock enterprises (ID 509)  – Concerns of Peru  
4.110.   Peru was concerned that Panama's undue delays violated Annex C and Article  8 of the 
SPS Agreement  and regretted the lack of information regarding the anticipated processing period 
and timeline regarding the renewal of authorizations  of Peruvian enterprises . While i n bilateral 
meetings Panama had stated that it had the necessary information to renew the authorization of 
some of the pending companies , no information had been provided regarding the initiation of a 
"zoosanitary eligibility process" . Peru also noted that Panama had not indicated the sanitary reasons 
for not renewing the authorizations or granting new authorizations to Peruvian e nterprises, in 
violation of Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of the SPS  Agreement . Peru asked Panama to renew the 
authorizations of Peruvian export plants and to avo id further delays that, in practice, constituted  
unnecessary barriers to trade. Peru submitted its stat ement in document G/SPS/GEN/ 2050. 
4.111.   Costa Rica  was of the view that Panama's practices totally restricted access of agricultural 
products to the Panamanian market, and regretted the lack of information and of amendment s to 
the measures. Costa Rica asked Panama to take into consideratio n Members' concerns, which 
reflected an inadequate implementation of SPS measures and a failure to comply with obligations 
established in the SPS  Agreement . 
4.112.   Chile reiterated that it was not possible to register Chilean establishments in Panama and 
emphasiz ed the lack of a clear and expedite d procedure to renew expired authorizations.  
Regretting  the lack of response, Chile urged Panama to provide an answer to the communication 
requesting a bilateral meeting with the Panamanian Food Agency to reach a solution.  
4.113.   The European  Union  regretted that, since 2019, Panama blocked the requests to obtain 
market access for agricultural and livestock products to Panama and to update the list of plants 
authorized to export. The European  Union  invited Panama to estab lish transparent, predictable and 
swift procedures in  line with agreed international standards , to remove unnecessary trade  barriers , 
and to apply  SPS measures in a non -discriminatory and predictable manner.  
4.114.   Noting it would convey the information to capita l, Panama  indicated that it had been working 
bilaterally with Peru, including a high -level bilateral meeting during MC12  in which it was agreed to 
hold a technical meeting of the administrative commission of the FTA. Panama hoped to find a 
mutually satisfa ctory solution and expressed its willingness to work constructively with Peru.  
4.2.17   Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and fisheries products (ID 530)  – 
Concerns of Peru  
4.115.   Peru stated that Bolivia's measures blocked access to the Bolivian  market for Peruvian 
exports  such as potatoes, onions  and black trout.  Peru requested Bolivia to comply with the G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 26 - 
 
  provisions of Resolution No 2264  on the investigation procedure presented by Peru to Bolivia, issued 
by the General Secretariat of the Andean Community . Peru also noted that, despite the approval of 
the harmonized health certificate in 2017, Bolivia  had not complied with the correspondin g 
commitments  for the exportation of trout. Peru considered that Bolivia was b reaching provisions of 
Article  XI of the GATT  1994, as well as Articles 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, as well as Annexes B and C of the 
SPS Agreement , and asked Bolivia to rescind restrictio ns in place on Peruvian  exports. 
Peru submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2048 . 
4.116.   Taking note of the information provided, Bolivia  indicated that Peru had activated the 
regional dispute settlement mechanism within the frame of the Andean Community. Since an opinion 
had alread y been placed, Bolivia was of the view that a reasonable time should be granted to allow 
for compliance with the decision . 
4.2.18   General import restrictions due to BSE (ID 193)  – Concerns of the European  Union  
4.117.   The European  Union  recalled that there had been no cases of classical BSE in the territory 
of the European  Union  since 2019, and reiterated its concerns regarding the unjustified and long 
delays in certain Member's approval of beef imports from the European  Union  in light o f BSE . 
In its view, the delays in the approval procedures of some Members, in particular  Argentina , 
Australia , Brazil , China , Egypt, Jordan , South Korea, Malaysia , Mexico, South Africa , Chinese  Taipei , 
and the United  States  were inconsistent with Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . 
The European  Union  urged all Members to comply with their obligations under the SPS  Agreement , 
to apply international standards , to lift remaining BSE -related restrictions , and to engage with the 
European  Union  to finalize the assessment of pending market access requests.  
4.118.   Switzerland  supported this concern, noting that , although  it had been recognized by  WOAH  
as having negligible BSE risk for more than a decade, it continued to be on China's "list of animals 
and their products prohibited from being imported from countries where animal diseases are 
endemic". Switzerland urged trading partners to lift remaining import restrictions due to BSE and to 
allow imports of beef products from Switzerland.  
4.119.   The United  States  considered  that the current concerns related to the equivalence 
administrative process , and not animal health . The United  States  explained that, in order t o resume 
exporting bovine meat products for human consumption, EU member States had to  obtain an 
equivalence determination by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service  (FSIS). FSIS  was 
actively working through its equivalence process  and remain ed available for technical engagements 
with EU member States.  
4.120.   China  was cautious about importing cattle and rel ated products from countries or regions 
where BSE occurred, s ince no cases of BSE had ever been detected in  the country. China indicated 
that, if the risk of BSE could be controlled, the European  Union  and its member States could apply 
for an export license through bilateral channels, and China would carry out a risk assessment based 
on the application.  
4.121.   Argenti na recalled the long bilateral cooperation with the European  Union  on this topic and 
that it was respectful of the status recognized by WOAH  for each member State, which had been the 
basis for establishing requirements for many products. Argentina invited the European  Union  to 
continue bilateral dialogue to resolve this issue.  
4.2.19   Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports 
(ID 490)  – Concerns of the European  Union  
4.122.   Referring to the re-opening by Korea in 2019 for imports o f bovine products from two 
EU member States , the European  Union  noted that the  EU policy on food safety and animal health 
was harmonized at EU level  and, therefore, identical food safety and animal health control conditions 
prevail ed in all EU member State s. The European  Union  urged Korea to conclude the approval 
procedure s for the pending applications.  
4.123.   The Russian  Federation  regretted that Korea ha d not authorized beef imports from any 
Russian region , despite the fact that WOAH  had restored Russia's foot and mouth disease (FMD) G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 27 - 
 
  status as a country with a free zone without vaccination  in 2019.  Russia urge d Korea to finalize the 
market access procedures without undue delay  and express ed its readiness for bilateral cooperation.  
4.124.   Korea stated that it carried out risk assessment s in accordance with  the SPS  Agreement  and 
WOAH  and Codex standards, and approve d the imports without any discrimination . Korea had 
approved  import s of Dutch and Danish beef in 2019  and, although it had completed the procedures 
for French and Irish beef , the National Assembly was still deliberating on the import health 
requirements . Regarding market access of beef from Russia, Korea would provide a re sponse as 
soon as it concluded the review of the information received.  
4.2.20   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (ID 431)  – Concerns of the European  Union  
4.125.   The European  Union  regretted that South Africa maintaine d country -wide bans on poultry 
products from 14 EU member States following highly pathogenic avian influenza ( HPAI) outbreaks, 
and had not lifted the trade restrictions in line with WOAH  recommendations. The  European  Union  
considered the measure to be at o dds with Article  6 of the SPS  Agreement . South Africa had carried 
out inspections in certain EU member States, and was familiar with EU  veterinary services and the 
EU policy and regionalization system. The European  Union  called for South Africa to respect its 
obligations.  
4.126.   South Africa  clarified that it had received reports from Denmark and Spain, but that no other 
EU member States had submitted reports as required and communicated.  
4.2.21   China's import restrictions due to highl y pathogenic avian influenza (ID 406)  – 
Concerns of the European  Union  
4.127.   The European  Union  raised its concern regarding China's imposition, since 2015, of country -
wide bans on several EU member States on account of HPAI. The European  Union  explained that 
there were no records that HPAI outbreaks were attributable to trade in poultry meat and 
by-products, which took place regularly among disease -free areas of EU member States as well as 
between the European  Union  and third countries. The European  Union  had re peatedly requested 
China to lift country -wide import restrictions in accordance with WOAH  Terrestrial Code and to 
recognize the principle of regionalization. The European  Union  regretted the lack of progress towards 
the resolution of this longstanding issu e. 
4.128.   China  highlighted that HPAI continued to occur in some EU member States, including in 
poultry farms. China had suspended imports of live poultry from the European  Union  to protect the 
safety of its poultry industry , which are in accordance with the SPS Agreement . China recognized  
progress by EU member States in the prevention and control of HPAI , and noted that it would 
evaluate the effectiveness of the measures. China indicated its willingness to cooperate with the 
European  Union  to resolve the technical issues in question.  
4.2.22   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever  (ID 392)  – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.129.   The European  Union  expressed its concerns regarding China's ASF -related country -wide 
import bans on pork products  from EU member States, including from those that had successfully 
eradicated the disease in livestock and wildlife and regained a disease -free status in accordance with 
WOAH  rules. The European  Union  explained that , since 2015, China had expanded rather t han lifted 
the unjustified trade bans, despite having the same sanitary profile as the European  Union . 
The European  Union  requested clarification on the difference in the risk profile between imported 
and domestically -produced pork products. The European  Union called on China to respect its 
obligations under the SPS  Agreement  and WOAH  standards, to allow trade from disease -free areas, 
and to engage in meaningful, solution -oriented exchanges.  
4.130.   China  considered that there were different levels of prevention an d control of ASF in 
EU member States. China reported that it had  signed a  cooperation agreement on the regionalized 
management of ASF with  France, and  had been  conducting technical exchanges on the 
regionalization of ASF with Germany . China encouraged bila teral applications from EU member G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 28 - 
 
  States for export licenses on the premise that the risk could be controlled, adding that it would 
consider whether trade could be conducted on the basis of an on site risk assessment.  
4.2.23   Chinese  Taipei 's new procedure for the recognition of infectious animal disease -
free status of a foreign country (ID 538)  – Concerns of the European  Union  
4.131.   The European  Union  expressed its concerns with Chinese  Taipei 's new procedure  for the 
recognition of infectious ani mal disease -free status of a foreign country , notified  in document 
G/SPS/N/TPKM/543 , which required third countries to submit detailed dossiers on animal disease 
status, to allow for a subsequent risk assessment to be conducted by Chinese  Taipei . 
The European  Union  stated that th e animal disease status of its relevant products was verified by 
the European Commission and notified to WOAH . The European  Union  expressed regret that, despite 
its comments, the new procedure had entered into force in December 2021. In the view of the 
European  Union , the procedure was burdensome and inconsistent with Article  5.6 of the 
SPS Agreement . 
4.132.   Chinese  Taipei  explained that the procedure was established in 1992 and was most recently 
amended in 2021, in order to comply with WOAH  recommendations and take account of the current 
context of international animal diseases. Chinese  Taipei  emphasized that the procedure d id not 
arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members, and was consistent with the practices of 
other Members. To avo id disruptions to bilateral trade, a two -year grace period had been provided 
to applicant countr ies. Chinese  Taipei  would welcome further discussion with Members through 
bilateral channels.  
4.2.24   Mexico's import restrictions on pork (ID 489)  – Concerns of Brazil  
4.133.   Brazil  noted that Mexico  did not recognize  its FMD status despite  having received  the 
guarantee s necessary for the achievement of its  appropriate level of protection  (ALOP) . In particular, 
Brazil regretted that it could not export animal products from Santa Catarina, despite WOAH  
recognition as FMD-free. Brazil further highlighted that Mexico only a ccepted pork destined 
exclusively for industrial thermoprocessing in Mexico. In Brazil's view, Mexico had continuously 
disregarded Articles 2, 5  and 6 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement , and  did not accept the 
equivalence of  Brazil 's system for FMD vigilance . In response to Mexico's indication of the need to 
further analyze Brazilian legislation, based on the allegation that  conflicts therein  could create risk 
for products , Brazil reiterated that there was no conflict in its legislation . Brazil also noted  that 
Mexico was still evaluat ing its request for a  reassessment of epidemiological data , which had been 
carried out by Mexico  following  a methodology that differ ed from the one  recommended by 
international guidelines . 
4.134.   Mexico  continued to have concerns with the guarantees offered by Brazil to demonstrate the 
safety of Brazilian exports on the basis of the principle of regionalization. Mexico emphasized  the 
difference in the sanitary status of both countries, noting that vaccination against FMD was still 
applied in some regions of Brazil  while Mexico was FMD -free without vaccination. Mexico explained  
that its evaluation took into consideration  the recognition of animal health status in accordance with 
WOAH  recommendations as well as its national legislation , in particular the Federal Law on Animal 
Health . Mexico clarified that Brazil  had request ed to export pork " in natura " to Mexico, only from the 
state of Santa Catarina , and that it had not received an official request to recognize any other region 
nor to consider any other type of product.  
4.135.   Reiterating its guarantees to export the product in question, Brazil  emphasiz ed that it had 
the capacity to inspect and trac e animals born and raised in Santa Catarina , which  was the first 
FMD-free state of Brazil . Brazil considered that some additional guarantees requested by Mexico 
were not justified under the SPS  Agreement . 
4.2.25   Chinese  Taipei 's import restrictions on poultry and  beef (ID 521)  – Concerns of 
Brazil  
4.136.   Brazil  believe d that Chinese  Taipei 's restrictions on poultry and beef violated Article s 5 and 
8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . Acknowledging their bilateral exchanges, Brazil noted  that 
Chinese  Taipei  was requesting information already provided , as well as additional questionnaires . 
Brazil asked for clarification on the time estimate for the final analysis of the latest documents and G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 29 - 
 
  on the number of stages in the approval procedures for animal products of animal original. 
Brazil  hoped to see significant progress on this topic.  
4.137.   Chinese  Taipei  explained that  countries had to be recognized as free from HPAI and 
Newcastle disease (ND)  to export poultry meat products, and free from HPAI to export heat-treated 
poultry meat products . Brazil was recognized as HPAI -free, but not as ND -free, based on the results 
of a risk assessment. Regarding poultry meat, Chinese  Taipei  invited Brazil to c onduct active 
surveillance and apply other measures in accordance with WOAH  guidelines, and to submit 
supplementary information for review. Chinese  Taipei  would inform Brazil upon completion of the 
review of the information regarding  heat-treated poultry m eat. Regarding beef, Brazil needed to 
submit a food safety questionnaire ; as a BSE -occurring country, a BSE questionnaire was also 
requested. Chinese  Taipei  acknowledged reception of the supplemental documents of the food safety 
and BSE questionnaires, whi ch would be reviewed in the order of applications. Chinese  Taipei  
explained that the progress of review depended on the completeness of documents and that an 
on-site audit would normally follow the completion of the review.  
4.2.26   The Philippines' trade restricti ons on imports of meat (ID 466)  – Concerns of the 
European  Union  and the Russian  Federation  
4.138.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern that the Philippines d id not adhere to WOAH  
international standards and 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 
17 EU member States were subject to country -wide import bans imposed by the P hilippines on pork 
meat or poultry meat and relevant products, and considered that these measures were inconsistent 
with Articles 2.2 and 6 of the SPS  Agreement . The European  Union  indicated that it had provided 
the necessary evidence demonstrating the eff ectiveness of disease control measures, and called on 
the Philippines to respect its international obligations and to allow trade from disease -free areas.  
4.139.   The Russian  Federation  expressed concerns regarding the Philippines' restrictions on imports 
of Russi an beef and pork. Exports of pork and beef to the Philippines would only be allowed after 
receiving recognition from WOAH  for FMD, ASF  and lumpy skin disease -free status, as well as 
low-risk status for BSE. The Russian  Federation  had submitted information on the domestic epizootic 
situation to the Philippines for the diseases at issue, and had not yet received a response. 
The Russian  Federation  urged the Philippines to comply with obligations under Articles 6 and 8 and 
Annex C of the SPS  Agreement , to recog nize the regionalization on dangerous animal diseases in 
the Russian territory, and to accelerate the process of gaining market access.  
4.140.   The Philippines  reported that it regularly reviewed the ASF and HPAI status on the basis of 
information  from WOAH . In order for it to consider lifting the ban, an official request had to be 
submitted , which  would need to undergo a validation procedure. The Philippines further noted that 
the Russian  Federation  continued not to be  accredited to export pork and beef due to A SF and lumpy 
skin disease, and emphasized that its decisions had been explained bilaterally.  
4.2.27   Nigeria's import restrictions on meat, pork, poultry, milk and dairy products, 
genetic material and live cattle (ID 523)  – Concerns of Brazil  
4.141.   Brazil  regrett ed the lack of responses and information by Nigeria  regarding this STC affect ing 
many different products , which had been raised in several WTO fora . Brazil disagreed with Nigeria's 
previous indications that the issue was not within the scope of the SPS Committee  and that it would 
have no obligation to negotiate sanitary certificate proposals sent by a WTO Member, since 
it believed this was an obligation set forth on the principle of non -discrimination.  In Brazil's view, 
Nigeria's lack of response disregard ed Articles 2, 5, 7 and 8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . 
Brazil hoped to receive responses from Nigeria  regarding pending proposals for sanitary certificates, 
as well as information on health requirements for the export of dry bovine skin.  
4.142.   Nigeria  responded that the import restrictions of several products from Brazil were not 
SPS related and, therefore , the SPS Committee  might not be the appropriate forum for discussion . 
Nigeria noted that it had discussed this issue bilaterally with Brazil in  March 2021.  The import 
restrictions were temporary measures applied to address Nigeria's economic difficulties . 
Nigeria  further noted that several questions had been raised on this issue in the Committee on G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Agriculture and that it had been providing responses.  Nigeria ac knowledged receipt of a  proposal 
from Brazil  regarding certification procedures, which was being reviewed in its capital.  
4.143.   Brazil  considered that the SPS Committee  was the appropriate forum to address Nigeria's 
lack of response on its proposals for buffalo,  live cattle, genetic material, beef, pork, poultry meat, 
hatching eggs and day -old chickens . Brazil would continue to try to engage bilaterally with Nigeria 
and would continue raising this concern  with a view to finding a solution on this issue . 
4.2.28   Qatar's n ew import rules for dairy products (ID 529)  – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.144.   The European  Union  referred to the Qatar 's Ministry of Public Health Circular of 30  May 2019, 
which established new import requirements for milk and white cheese that had entered into force in 
2019. In the EU view, Qatar 's Council of Ministers instructions issued in August 2021 further 
expanded the scope of the measures, affecting several dairy pr oducts exported to Qatar. 
The European  Union  expressed its concerns with the lack of predictability on the rules that operators 
had to follow, as well as the lack of sufficient time to adapt to regulatory changes. Highlighting the 
need to notify proposed m easures at a draft stage, t he European  Union  requested clarification on 
any currently applicable exceptions for the exports of dairy products , and  urged Qatar to adopt a 
permanent solution to avo id trade disruptions.  
4.145.   Qatar  subsequently submitted its replie s in document  G/SPS/GEN/2047 . 
4.2.29   Guatemala's restrictions on egg products (ID 413)  – Concerns of Mexico  
4.146.   Mexico  reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by Guatemala on 
thermally processed egg  products . While all the necessary technical information demonstrating the 
safety of the products had been submitted , the delay in responses had hindered the progress of 
negotiations.  High-level discussions held the previous year had instructed both Ministr ies of Economy 
to settle the situation promptly, but no technical solution had been reached yet.  In October 2021, 
Guatemala had informed Mexico that the questionnaire submitted was considered not compliant due 
to changes in the name of the responsible institution. Mexico had clarified that the changes only 
affected the name and that they had been notified to the WTO and published in the Official Journal 
of the Federation.  In Mexico's view, Guatemala's restrictions could be a violation of fundamental 
principles of the SPS  Agreement  and of the FTA between Mexico a nd Central America.  Mexico also 
highlighted concerns regarding the negotiations on an animal health certificate for export, 
emphasizing that the sanitary requirements that had been established for Mexico were inconsistent 
with Resolution 338 -2014 of the Ce ntral American Customs Union.  Mexico considered that the 
additional information requested by Guatemala on the technical reports for the declaration of several 
Mexican regions as free from avian influenza and ND generated undue delays.  Mexico further noted 
that WOAH indicated that these commodities were safe for trade, regardless of the sanitary status 
of the country of origin. Mexico requested Guatemala to consider its questionnaire as compliant, to 
prioritize the resolution of this concern and continue bil ateral discussions, and to allow imports of 
the products in question. Mexico looked forward to resolving this trade concern as soon as possible, 
through technical dialogue between both countries.  
4.147.   Guatemala  had taken note of Mexico's intervention and would convey it to capital. Guatemala 
was waiting for a response from the health authority before it could provide an answer to Mexico. 
Guatemala expressed its willingness  to continue bilateral discussions on this issue.  
4.2.30   Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other 
ruminants (ID 493)  – Concerns of the European  Union  
4.148.   The European  Union  acknowledged the  recent publication by the United  States  of the final 
rule regarding the "Importation o f Sheep, Goats, and Certain Other Ruminants ", noting that this 
would allow Members to start the relevant procedure with the US competent authority , to obtain 
approval for the export of small ruminant meat. The European  Union  looked  forward to a prompt 
assessment of applications from EU member States and hoped that market access for meat from 
small ruminants would be  granted as soon as possible.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 31 - 
 
  4.149.   The United  States  reported  that it was working through its equivalence process to ensure an 
appropriate level of s anitary protection was achieved for small ruminant meat products intended for 
human consumption.  Recognizing that this was a  priority issue for the European  Union , 
the United  States  reported  that it was  working through the technical review process for current 
requests.  The United  States  looked forward to  continued cooperation with the European  Union  and 
encourage d engagement by other EU member States interested in exporting  small ruminant meat 
product s to the United  States . 
4.2.31   India's approval procedures for animal products (ID 484)  – Concerns of the 
Russian  Federation  
4.150.   The Russian  Federation  reiterated concerns regarding its inability to supply food products of 
animal origin to the Indian market, despite repeated requests and submission of  materials on 
dangerous animal diseases. The Russian  Federation  regretted that India had not shared its vi ew 
regarding regionalization for avian influenza and the access of Russian poultry products to the Indian 
market, and considered that there were unreasonable delays in the approval of veterinary certificates 
for poultry meat, fish products, feed and feed a dditives and sheep wool. The Russian  Federation  
urged India to comply with Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement  and requested India to 
complete its approval procedures without undue delay.  
4.151.   India was reviewing the information provided by the Russian  Federation  and noted that the 
examination was at an advanced stage.  
4.2.32   Thailand's sanitary requirements on "wet blue" leather imports (ID 539)  – 
Concerns of Brazil  
4.152.   Brazil  acknowledged Thailand's indication in the March 2022 Committee meeting that it w as 
considering  amending its Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015),  which restricted imports  of wet 
blue leather , to correct the requirement of an international health certificate for allowing imports of 
this category of products. Brazil referred to article  8.8.27 of WOAH  Terrestrial Code regarding the 
authorization, without requiring additional certification, of imports of wet blue leather , and stated 
that the Thai legislation provided no obstacle to consider WOAH  guidelines for wet blue. Brazil asked 
wheth er the Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) was based on any international standard or 
guideline, and about  the scientific justification used by the Department of Livestock Development 
(DLD) for the definition of "carcass " and for the inclusion of "finish ed artificial items made from 
carcasses as prescribed in the Notifications by the Minister "? Brazil also asked which official 
publication stated that wet blue leather should be considered as carcass, and requested clarification 
regarding the notification o f the legislation. Brazil expected Thailand to provide answers to these 
questions and to withdraw the measure without undue delay.  
4.153.   Referring to article 8.8.27 of the WOAH Terrestrial Code, Thailand  reported  that it would 
revise the relevant procedures of i ts sanitary requirements on wet blue leather.  
4.2.33   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID 441)  – 
Concerns of the European  Union  and the Russian  Federation  
4.154.   The European  Union  acknowledged the progress in some market access applications from 
EU member States , but noted that many had remained pending for years, and considered that 
Indonesia had not clarified the rationale for the lack of progress and the delays. Specifically, the  
European  Union  expressed concerns with the lack of progress on export applications for dairy, beef, 
poultry, pork, and plant products, which in some instances had been submitted more than eight 
years ago. The European  Union  requested Indonesia to be trans parent about its approval procedures 
and to finalize pending applications.  
4.155.   The Russian  Federation  expressed concerns regarding the lack of progress in Indonesia's 
approval of export certificates, including for poultry, cattle and goat meat, milk and dairy products 
obtained from cattle and small cattle, canned food, sausages, table eggs and egg products. 
The Russian  Federation  had sent several reminders about  the pending approvals , and had also 
submitted questionnaires on poultry and beef establishments . The  Russian  Federation  also noted 
that Indonesia had not responded to its proposal to conduct veterinary inspections nor to its requests G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 32 - 
 
  for a bilateral meeting. 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.  
4.156.   Indonesia  responded that its Ministerial Decree No 15 of 2021 , notified in G/SPS/N/ID N/143, 
regulated business licenses in the agricultur al sector . Indonesia explained that  information on its  
approval procedures had been  communicated to the EU SPS enquiry point in November 2021 , and 
considered that its procedures were consistent with Articles 5 and 6 of the SPS  Agreement . 
Indonesia  also provided updates on the  progress o f EU member States ' applications , and noted  that 
it would provide information  on the progress of  applications from the Russian  Federation  through 
diplomatic channels. Indonesia considered that the EU concerns with regard to undue delays were 
no longer relevant and referred to its responsiveness regarding th e applications of each EU member 
State, in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of the SPS  Agreement . 
4.2.34   China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports (ID 506)  – 
Concerns of India  
4.157.   India raised its concerns with the new health certificate  format  proposed by China for shrimp 
imports from India , which required every consignment to be tested for WOAH -listed pathogens, 
including White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) and Infectious Hypodermal and He matopoietic 
Necrosis Virus  (IHHNV ). India explained that this would lead to  delays and  significant costs for  
exporters. India was of the view that  the prevalence of WSSV and IHHNV was similar in India and 
China, and asked China to  share the scientific obje ctive of the proposed  certificate. India regretted 
having to reiterate its concern on China's actions on this respect, which had affected the export of 
its fish and fishery products.  
4.158.   China  had adopted  temporary emergency measures suspending  the import of shrimp -related 
products  to prevent the introduction of WSSV and IHHNV from India.  In China's view, the measures 
were consistent with the  SPS Agreement  and WOAH  standards , and were common practice in other 
countries  and regions . The measures are scientific, reasonable and no excessive protection 
requirements.  
4.2.35   India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID 501)  
– Concerns of the United  States  
4.159.   The United  States  regretted that , despite its numerous requests, India had provided neither 
scientific justification nor a risk assessment  in support of this measure. In the view of 
the United  States , India's assertion that the Order was not trade -restrictive was not justified. 
The United  States  reiterated its willingness for bilat eral technical cooperation and urged India to 
withdraw this temporary measure and apply an alternative , less trade -restrictive approach . 
The United  States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2045 . 
4.160.   Paraguay  supported this concern and referred to its previous interventions un der this STC. 
Paraguay reiterated that it looked forward to a response to the requests  that it had submitted to 
India together with  other Members.  
4.161.   New Zealand  supported this concern, referred to its  previous interventions under this STC  
and requested India to provide the scientific and risk -based justification for this measure.  
4.162.   Japan  shared 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. Japan regr etted that the measure had been enacted in March without 
responses to comments and concerns raised by WTO Members.  Japan explained that,  under their 
domestic laws , genetically modified (GM) agricultural products for human consumption were subject 
to safety evaluations, and agricultural products that were not approved could not be imported nor 
distributed domestically.  In Japan's view , requiring  a non-GM origin and GM -free certificate  for items  
under appropriate control in the origin country  restricted trade more than necessary  and, therefore, 
urged India not to continue to require certificates for such items.  
4.163.   Canada  welcomed India's recent decision to accept Canada's non -GM attestation for  bean 
exports , but remained concerned that the Order would impact exports of GM -producing Members to 
India and unnecessarily restrict international trade . Canada recalled its request for India to notify G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 33 - 
 
  the non -GM Order to the SPS Committee ; to suspend the  implementation of this measure ; and to 
consider the robust, science -based regulatory frameworks developed in other countries. 
Canada  looked forward to further bilateral discussion on this issue.  
4.164.   Acknowledging the ongoing cooperation, Australia  noted that  it was common international 
practice to maintain regulatory oversight and controls on agricultural crops subject to genetic 
modification, and considered that the requirement for GM assurances on each consignment d id not 
improve regulatory outcomes. To avo id unnecessary costs and additional regulatory burdens for 
both exporters and importers, Australia asked India to recognize the regulatory systems other 
countries had put in place to control GM exports. Australia indicated its willingness to work towards 
a mutually agreeable solution, referring to the principles of the recently signed Australia -India 
Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement.  
4.165.   Brazil  reiterated its concern regarding India's Order notified as  G/TBT/N/IND/168 , which 
applied to 24 crops and required official certificatio n to attest that imported products were not 
genetically modified. Brazil urged India to notify any new developments on this regulation to the 
SPS Committee . 
4.166.   Uruguay  considered that there was no technical justification for the certification requirement 
and noted that GM products approved on the basis of Codex risk assessment recommendations were 
considered to be equivalent to their conventional counterparts. Referring to the objective to ensure 
the safety of imported food, Uruguay enquired as to why the meas ure had still not been notified to 
the SPS Committee . Uruguay stressed that measures should be based on science and not more 
trade -restrictive than necessary , and looked forward to India's response to its concerns, including 
those submitted in a joint note  by several countries in January 2021.  
4.167.   Argentina  reiterated its concerns on this measure, highlighting that the measure  should be 
based on science and a risk analysis, as well as  on international standards. Argentina sought 
clarification on the  scientific evidence underpinning the measure  and the criteria used by India to 
deviate from the principle of substantial equivalence.  
4.168.   The European  Union  reported that it was still awaiting a response to comments it had 
provided on the TBT notification of this measure . The European  Union  highlighted that the measure 
was costly and burdensome for trading partners who were already subject to robust regulatory 
regimes governing the use of GMOs and had a high prevalence of non -GM foods in their domestic 
market. The Europea n Union  also expressed concerns with the limited number of food crops 
authorized to contain GMOs under the measure , as well as the strict traceability and labelling 
requirements which would apply to food containing GMOs. In closing, the European  Union  asked 
India to waive the certificate requirement.  
4.169.   India referred to its previous responses on this STC, reiterating that the  requirement to 
regulate imports of GM food had been notified to the WTO as the Environment Protection Act 1986. 
In India's view, the Or der was not trade -restrictive as consignments of the identified commodities, 
accompanied by the requested certificate, were being imported in India. So far, the Genetic 
Engineering Appraisal Committee had not approved any of the crop varieties of GM or G E origin 
listed in the Order.  India reported  that trad ing partners , including the E uropean  Union , 
United  States , Japan, Canada, Thailand  and Germany , had been complying with th e requirement to 
issue a n on-GMO certificate and that trade continued without  hindrance.  
4.170.   In response, Canada  welcome d India's recent decision to accept Canada 's non -GM 
attestation for exports of beans , but noted this was only  one of the 24 commodities impacted by the 
Order. Canada continued to  have concerns with the potential trade impa ct on the other crops covered 
by the Order.  
4.171.   In response to India, t he United  States  argued  that trade ha d been affected , and reiterated 
its willingness to engage in technical dialogue on this issue.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 34 - 
 
  4.2.36   The Russian  Federation 's classification of tea as "fruits and vegetables" (ID 525)  
– Concerns of India  
4.172.   India indicated that it had received documents in Russian, which were under examination in 
its capital.  
4.173.   The Russian  Federation  expressed its willingness to provide India with an official translation 
of the documentation. The Russian  Federation  reiterated that the Eurasian Economic Union ( EAEU ) 
did not classify tea as fruits and vegetables. The safety requirements for food products, including 
tea, were set out in the technical r egulations of the EAEU with the ML of mould in tea set at 
1,000  colony forming units per gram as defined in Appendix 2 of Regulation 021/2011. 
Highlighting  the health risk s of mould and noting the absence of a Codex standard for mould in tea, 
the Russian  Federation  highlighted that these measures were taken to protect human health from 
potential risks and were based on available scientific data and an assessment of risk, in accordance 
with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement . The Russian  Federation  noted that if India would like to 
revise the section on SPS requirements for tea in Regulation 021/201 1, it should submit a proposal 
to the Eurasian Economic Commission for consideration . The Russian  Federation  indicated its 
willingness for bilateral cooperation with India on this issue.  
4.174.   India looked forward to receiving the English version of the documents.  
4.2.37   Proposed new EU rules on composite products (ID 504)  – Concerns of Australia 
and Chinese  Taipei  
4.175.   Australia  reiterated its concerns ab out the  new EU rules for shelf -stable composite products 
in Regulations (EU) No 2019/625 and (EU) No 2020/223 5. Specifically, Australia considered that the 
private attestation requirements for shelf -stable composite products not containing meat added cost 
and complexity for traders , particularly for  SMEs, was a disincentive to trade , and was not 
commensurate with the risk of the product. In Australia's view, the requirement to source animal 
origin ingredients from EU -listed establishments for all composite products, irrespective of the 
percentage of animal ingredient in the product, was unjustified and unnecessarily trade -restrictive.  
Australia urged the European  Union  to reconsider the private attestation requirements and to expand 
the list of low -risk shel f-stable foods which would not require checks at borders.  
4.176.   Chinese  Taipei  was of the view that recent amendments to the EU regulation  did not address 
its concerns. Chinese  Taipei  considered that the 2012 EFSA research  underpinning the decision to 
treat all composite products with processed products of animal origin on the same level of risk d id 
not take account of advances in food processing technology. In particular, Chinese  Taipei  had 
concerns with the  requirements that each processed product of animal origin with only trace amounts 
had to come from EU -approved establishment s, and requested practical illustration of the related 
hazards . Chinese  Taipei  also sought clarification on the use of i nternational standards for risk 
assessment s of composite products with processed products of animal origin , and whether there was 
any recent scientific evidence supporting  the measure.  
4.177.   China  sought clarification on the definition of composite  food, and highlighted complexities 
in the regulations related to the use of raw materials. In China 's view, compound  foods contain ing 
a small proportion of animal -derived ingredients  were not harmful to human health, and 
recommended that the European  Union  determined its  risk management measures using the  content 
ratio and simplif ied requirements or provide d guidance for countries that were EU -approved and had 
residue monitoring plans . China also reported  that, although  it had resumed gelatine  trade with the 
European  Union , it experienced  customs clearance delays , which it considered to be  linked to the 
misinterpretation of information related to residue monitoring plan s. 
4.178.   The Russian  Federation  shared its concerns about  the uncertainty, complexity of 
administration, lack of  scientific evidence and apparent redundancy of this EU measure . In particular, 
the Russian  Federation  considered that the  requirements on low -risk composite products suitable 
for long -term storage were excessive and more trade -restrictive than necessary t o achieve the ALOP . 
The Russian  Federation  reported  that the European Commission's lack of progress on inspections 
and auditing in its milk and dairy sector had limited exports of Russian confectionery products  to the 
European  Union . The Russian  Federation  additionally noted that the  EU definition and classification 
of composite products were not internationally recognized , and that the lack of an internationally G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 35 - 
 
  harmonized regulatory framework for exports of composite products created unc ertainty for those 
wishing to comply with the new EU regulation . The Russian  Federation  called on Members to 
establish an international SPS standard on composite products which d id not pose a  serious risk to 
human health.  
4.179.   The European  Union  reiterated that  the import conditions la id down in the new composite 
product legislation were all risk -based. While most of the rules remained unchanged, some of the 
changes related to the three -tier approach to categorizing composite products depending on their 
level of  risk. The European  Union  highlighted that more flexibility was now offered, making it easier 
to source ingredients from other countries, with a longer list of composite products being exempted 
from controls at the border due to their lower risk, and throu gh the replacement of official certificates 
by a private attestation for certain categories of products.   Additional information explaining the new 
rules on composite products had been submitted in  documents  G/SPS/GEN/1763  
and G/SPS/GEN/1786 , and was published in the special website on the import conditions of 
composite products ( https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_affairs/trade/special -eu-
import -conditions -composite -products_en ). The European  Union  noted that it had notified all the 
draft measures and responded to all the  comments. The European  Union  specified that the Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2020/692, which was notified to the SPS Committee  in 2019 , laid down the animal 
health requi rements for the entry of shelf -stable composite products (without colostrum -based 
products or meat products other than gelatine, collagen and highly refined products ), which  were 
subject to a derogation from the basic certification requirement , thus facilitating their  entry into the 
European  Union . 
4.2.38   India's import requirements for pulses (ID 497)  – Concerns of Canada  
4.180.   Recognizing some progress, Canada  welcomed  India's recent longer -term announcements 
on fumigation options for pulse shipments and looked forwar d to having continued bilateral 
engage ment on import requirements for Canadian pulses.  Canada still had concerns with India's 
measures on weed seeds and noted  that India had added 26 new weed seed species to its List of 
Quarantine Weed Seeds in October 2019.  In Canada's view, these actions were inconsistent with the 
principles of transparent , science -based  and predicable international rules -based trade. 
Canada  looked forward to working collaboratively with India on both matters.  
4.181.   India referred to the interception of quarantine weed seeds in pulse consignments from 
Canada . India informed the Committee that Canada had agreed to revise its systems approach and 
to submit a revised pilot programme proposal . Canada  had also been asked to share its mitigation 
measures for the pests identified by India through the revised pest risk ana lysis (PRA) conducted on 
nine pulses , following which  India would consider the proposed  pilot programme.  In India's view,  
Canada's  concerns regarding the  import of pulses requiring fumigation with methyl bromide had 
been addressed  and, once the ongoing processing of the " import of pulses through systems approach 
from Canada " was finalized, i t would permanently address Canada's concerns.  
4.182.   In response to India, Canada  clarified that it had provided detailed  information  regarding 
the measures in place as part of its system -based pest management approach.  Canada further noted 
that it had promptly provided the information requested by India, including a  revised proposal for 
the pilot pest management systems approach for puls es. Canada look ed forward to working 
collaboratively with India this issue.  
4.2.39   Panama's restrictions and procedure to reg ain access for Peruvian potatoes and 
onions (ID 512)  – Concerns of Peru  
4.183.   Peru expressed its concerns regarding Panama's suspension of imports of onions and 
potatoes from Peru, and the related undue delays to restore trade. Highlighting the negative impact 
of the measures on its onion and potato exports,  Peru requested Panama to allow market access for 
these products to prevent violation of Articles 2, 5  and 8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement , as well 
as unnecessary and unjustified barriers to trade.  Peru's f ull statement was circulated in  
G/SPS/GEN/2051 . 
4.184.   Panama  maintained that it considered the TBT Committee to be the appropriate forum to 
address this concern.  Panama also noted that this issue had been discussed as part of a high -level 
bilateral discussion, during which it was decided t hat another technical meeting in the context of the G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 36 - 
 
  FTA between both countries would be held. Against that background, Panama looked forward to 
mutually satisfactory solutions.  
4.2.40   Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions (ID 498)  – Concerns of Peru  
4.185.   Peru expressed its concerns regarding Ecuador's trade restrictive  measures  on Peruvian 
grapes and onions. Regarding onions, Peru reported  that a technical meeting had been  held in 
April 2022 during which Ecuador had indicated that it wo uld reopen its market for Peruvian onions 
in July 2022. Concerning grapes, Peru regretted that , despite its compliance with Ecuador's  sanitary 
requirements, the restrictions on Peruvian grapes remained in force . Peru was of the view that 
Ecuador's actions constituted a violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, as well as Annexes B and C of 
the SPS  Agreement . Peru requested Ecuador to avo id proposing measures which were inconsistent 
with the SPS  Agreement  and the basic principles of the WTO , to respect previou sly developed 
technical agreements , and to reopen the market for Peruvian grapes and onions. Peru submitted its 
statement in  G/SPS/GEN/2049 . 
4.186.   Ecuador  responded that Peru's concern in the context of the Andean Community had 
concluded and resulted in Ecuador maintaining its decision to lift its  measures on onion imports  from 
Peru. Ecuador asked Peru to initiate the process of establishing phytosanitary requirements in 
accordance with international standards and phytosanitary regulations.  Regarding grapes, 
Ecuador  noted that the safety requirements for the import of grapes had been addressed in the 
Andean context, and Ecuador looked forward to coming to an agreement with Peru. 
Ecuador  reiterated its willingness to continue dialogue with Pe ru to resolve this concern.  
4.2.41   China 's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID 532)  – Concerns of Chinese  Taipei  
4.187.   Chinese  Taipei  reiterated its concerns about China's import suspension of pineapples, sugar 
apples and wax apples, and requested China to resume imp orts in accordance with the 
SPS Agreement  and the relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendation s. 
Noting  the effective risk -preventing measures adopted to facilitate the export of these fruits , 
Chinese  Taipei  regretted that it had not rec eived substanti ve responses from China regarding its 
requests for scientific and technical dialogue nor for  detailed identification reports, the adopted ALOP 
and the risk assessment reports. Chinese  Taipei  urged China to bring its measures in conformity 
with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement , to provide the necessary scientific identification and 
risk assessment reports, and to conduct bilateral scientific and technical dialogue to resolve this 
issue.  
4.188.   China  explained  that, since January 2020, quarantine pests such as Planococcus minor  had 
been repeatedly found on pineapples, sugar apples and wax apples imported from Chinese  Taipei , 
and that imports of these fruits had been temporarily suspended on the basis of a risk assess ment. 
In China's view, its measures were consistent with the  transparency provisions of  the 
SPS Agreement , the principles of risk assessment of the IPPC, and requirements related to control, 
inspection and approval procedures. China urged Chinese  Taipei  to take effective measures  to 
improve the situation and  reduce the quarantine risk affecting the fruits at issue.  
4.2.42   US undue delays in opening its citrus market (ID 542)  – Concerns of Brazil  
4.189.   Acknowledging their bilateral exchanges, Brazil  pointed out that the US Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had not opened the public consultation prescribed in the PRA 
process , despite the procedural details provided in August 2020. In June 2021, APHIS  had reported  
that the PRA was complete , and Brazil consi dered that the lack of publication constituted an undue 
delay. Noting that, in the meantime, the US market had been open for other products in the Citrus  
genus, Brazil queried what were the steps needed before publishing the PRA for Brazilian lime and 
what was preventing progress on this issue. Finally, Brazil regretted the failure to obtain a response 
from APHIS to their requests for technical meetings and hoped to hear from the United  States  to 
progress towards the resolution of the issue.  
4.190.   The United  States  clarified that it ha d sought technical engagement with Brazil on this issue , 
including as part of plant health meetings between US and Brazilian authorities. The United  States  
reiterated that the publication of the PRA involved several steps,  and the United  States  was working G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 37 - 
 
  through its administrative procedures on this request. The United  States  encouraged Brazil to remain 
engaged with APHIS on this issue.  
4.2.43   US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID 439)  – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.191.   The European  Union  regretted that the United  States  had not finalized the approval of 
imports of apples and pears under a systems approach and had not yet published the final notice to 
allow trade to start, despite having concluded its assessment several y ears ago. The European  Union  
indicated that trade of apples and pears was hindered by the high costs associated with the existing 
preclearance approach, and urged the United  States  to base its import conditions on science and to 
solve this matter without f urther delay.  
4.192.   The United  States  responded that it continued to work through its administrative procedures 
to process this request. Noting that the European  Union  was able to export apples and pears under 
the existing preclearance programme, the United  States expressed its appreciation for the bilateral 
engagement on this issue, including during the May 2022 Plant Health Working Group meeting . 
4.2.44   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  
4.193.   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. The European  Union  
indicated that, a lthough the United Stated had concluded  its scientific assessment, it had yet to 
finalize the administrative procedure needed to formalize the recognition of pest -free status in 
21 EU member States and publish the Final No tice. The European  Union  urged the United  States  to 
formally accept the pest -free areas and to proceed with the immediate publication of the Final Notice.  
4.194.   The United  States  assured the European  Union  that it was working through its administrative 
procedure s to process this request. The United  States  noted the bilateral technical engagement on 
the matter, including through discussions during the May 2022  Plant Health Working Group meeting, 
and looked forward to continued cooperation.  
4.2.45   EU delays in authorizing  imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup) 
(ID 526)  – Concerns of Korea  
4.195.   Korea  expressed concerns on import approval delays imposed by the European  Union  on 
Korean chicken soup Samgyetang. Korea regretted that , despite  the numerous actions it had taken 
to comply with EU requests, it had still not received approval for imports. In Korea's views, 
the EU delays in import approvals were a violation of Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . 
Korea urged the European  Union  to complete the procedure and to provide information on the 
timeframes.  
4.196.   The European  Union  clarified that the import conditions for Samgyetang soup had been 
extensively discussed with Korea bilaterally,  and reiterated its commitment to continue the 
cooperati on on this matter.  
4.3  Information on resolution of issues  (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.22 ) 
4.197.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
4.198.   The Secretariat  announced its intention to contact  Members who had outstanding STCs  that 
had not been discussed in several years to find out if the concern had been resolved. The  results of 
this exercise would be reported in the November SPS Committee  meeting . 
5  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
5.1  Equivalence  
5.1.  No Member provid ed any information under this agenda item . G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 38 - 
 
  5.2  Pest- and disease -free areas  
5.2.1   Information from Members  
5.2.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.2.2   Annual report in accordance with the Guidelines to Further the Practical 
Implementation of Article  6 in G/SPS/48  (G/SPS/GEN/2021 ) 
5.3.  The annual report covering the period from 1  April 2021 until 31  March  2022 was cir culated as 
document G/SPS/GE N/2021 . The Secretariat explained that the annual report summarized 
information on Members' requests for recognition of pest or disease -free areas or areas of low pest 
or disease prevalence, their determinations on whether to recognize such areas, and Memb ers' 
experiences in the implementation of Article  6, based on information provided in notifications and at 
Committee meetings under this and other agenda items.  
5.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
5.3.1   Information from Members  
5.4.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.3.2   Report on the Workshop on Transparency  
5.5.  The Chairp erson  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the Workshop on 
Transparency, which had been held on 20  June 2022.2 The draft report had been circulated to 
Members with a n opportunity to provide comments by Friday , 1 July 2022. The final report is 
included in Annex A. 
5.6.  The Secretariat  thanked Members for their participation in the Workshop on Transparency, 
as well as the comments and feedback rec eived during the "Notifications Clinic". The Secretariat also 
provided updates on the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform , which had gone  live on 28  March  2022. 
An official launch  would take place on 13  July 2022 with officials from the WTO, UNDESA, and ITC. 
Following the replacement of the SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS), and the  
SPS Notification Submission System (SPS NSS), the Secretariat would prepare a technical revision 
of document G/SPS/7/Rev.4  to update outdated information related to online tools. The proposed 
technical changes would be circulated ahead of the November SPS Committee  meeting for discuss ion 
and possible adoption. The Practical manual for SPS national notification authorities and national 
enquiry points would also be updated. The Secretariat drew Member's attention to the upcoming 
SPS Transparency Champions Course beginning in October 2022 , and invited interest ed Members to 
volunteer to provide mentorship to participants on the implementation of the transparency 
provisions of the SPS  Agreement . Additional details on the role of mentors would be circulated in 
due course . 
5.4  Control, inspection and approval procedures  
5.4.1   Information from Members  
5.7.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.4.2   Report on the Thematic Session on the Use of Remote (Virtual) Audit and 
Verification in Regulatory Frameworks  
5.8.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the Thematic Session 
on the Use of Remote (Virtual) Audit and Verification in Regulatory Frameworks, which had been 
 
2 The dedicated webpage for the Workshop can be accessed here: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop_transparency_20jun2 2_e.htm . The report of the 
Workshop was circulated as G/SPS/R/106 on 2 September 2022.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 39 - 
 
  held on 21  June 2022.3 The draft report had been circulated to Members with an oppor tunity to 
provide comments by Friday, 1  July 2022. The final report is included in Annex B. 
5.9.  Australia  thanked participants, speakers and panellists of the Thematic Session for the insights 
and experiences shared. Highlighting the extent to which participants agreed with the benefits and 
challenges of remote audits, Australia expected this to translate int o successful policy outcomes in 
the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS), 
and elsewhere. Australia underlined the relevance of the topic of remote audit to the current work 
of the Committee, including the Working Group (WG) on Approval Procedures and the work 
programme of the SPS Declaration . 
5.10.   Thanking Australia, the speakers and the Secretariat for their work, Chile noted that remote 
audits had been successfully implemented on several occasions as alternati ve and complementary 
options to on site audits. The experiences shared highlighted the need for harmonization of 
procedures, and for greater availability of international guidelines and recommendations. 
Chile underlined the work undertaken by the CCFICS reg arding the use of remote audits and 
verifications in regulatory frameworks.  
5.4.3   Working Group on Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1  and 
G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1 ) 
5.11.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the informal meeting 
of the WG on Approval Procedures, which had been held on 20  June 2022. The draft report had been 
circulated to Members with an opportunity to provide comments by Friday, 1  July 2022. The final 
report is included in Annex C. 
5.5  Special and differential treatment  
5.5.1   Information from Members  
5.12.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
5.6  Monitoring of the use of international standards  
5.6.1   New issues  
5.6.1.1   Canada  - Update on response to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI): 
Importance of WOAH  guidelines  
5.13.   Noting the challenges associated to the global spread of H5N1 HPAI in farmed birds, 
Canada  highlighted the importance of working collaboratively and  basing tra de measures on WOAH 's 
guidelines. Following detections, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) implemented control 
measures including establishing appropriate control zones, and reported findings to WOAH  and key 
trading partners  directly and  through missions abroad . Up-to-date information was available on the 
CFIA website.  Canada requested  its trading partners to limit trade restrictions to the established 
controlled zones, based on WOAH  guidelines, and remained available to resp ond to questions from 
Members on Canada's HPAI situation.  
5.6.1.2   Canada - Update on WOAH  BSE negligible risk status  
5.14.   Canada  thanked Members who had approved Canadian cattle, beef and beef products based 
on Canada's previous controlled risk status, f ollowin g its of ficial recognition by WOAH  as having 
negligible risk for  BSE in May 2021. Canada noted that, in May 2022 , WOAH  had reaffirmed Canada's 
status, what demonstrated the appropriateness and effectiveness of its BSE response.  
Canada  requested other Members to li ft remaining restrictions, in accordance with the Terrestrial 
Code.  
 
3 The dedicated webpage for the Thematic Session can be accessed here: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/thematic_session_21jun22_e.htm . G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 40 - 
 
  5.6.2   Issues pre viously raised  
5.6.2.1   European  Union  - ASF restrictions not consistent with the WOAH  international 
standard  
5.15.   The European  Union  drew the Committee's attention to inconsistencies in the application of 
WOAH  international standards related to ASF. The European  Union  considered that many Members 
did not follow WOAH  Terrestrial Code guidance for identification, treatment, and certificat ion 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 
Thematic Session held in March 2021. The European  Union  added t hat ASF was a disease affecting 
several WTO Members, and considered that it was a shared interest to maintain free and safe trade 
of pork and its products. Members were invited to work with the European  Union  on the substitution 
of country -wide trade bans by science -based, rational and proportionate measures . 
5.6.2.2   European  Union  - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the WOAH  international 
standard  
5.16.   The European  Union  regretted that some Members disregarded their obligations under 
Article  6 and Annex C of the SP S Agreement . The European  Union  referred to Canada's comments 
regarding  the need to apply and respect international standards on zoning. Country -wide bans after 
a disease outbreak were not scientifically justified where effective movement controls were in place, 
and there was no justification to wait one year or more to restore disease -free status.  Noting the 
revisions regarding avian influenza in the Terrestrial Code adopted at the 88th WOAH General Session 
of May 2021, the European  Union  asked Members to respect their obligations on regionalization 
under the SPS  Agreement , and to follow WOAH recommendations . 
5.6.3   Procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization  
5.17.   Referring to the discussions in the informal Committee meeting , New Zealand  thanked 
Members and the ISSBs for their inputs. While Members and the ISSBs had acknowledged the 
importance of the procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization, 
New Zealan d noted that the topic was currently not seen as a priority for Me mbers. 
New Zealand  invited the Secretariat to encourage the ISSBs to provide brief reports under the 
agenda item on harmonization in future SPS Committee  meetings. New Zealand indicated that it d id 
not inten d to make further proposals on this matter.  
5.18.   Notin g that the Committee was to  address matters of key importance linked to the work plan 
of the SPS Declaration , Chile recognized that addressing issues related to the procedure to monitor 
the process of international harmonization could be complex and counte rproductive. 
Notwithstanding, Chile recalled that the procedure to monitor the process of international 
harmoniza tion was a commitment established in the Agreement, which it considered could be 
addressed as part of the work plan of the SPS Declaration , or as part of the Sixth Review of the 
Operation and Implementation of the SPS  Agreement . 
5.19.   The Chairperson  invited the Secretariat to consult with the ISSBs  on this matter, and 
suggested deleting this agenda item for the next informal SPS Committee  meeting.  
5.20.   The Chairperson  also drew the Committee's attention to the draft report of the informal 
meeting held on 23  June 2022. The draft report had been circulated to Members with an opportunity 
to provide comments by Friday, 1  July 2022. The final report is included in Annex C . 
5.6.4   Annual report in accordance with the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization in G/SPS/11/Rev.1  (G/SPS/GEN/2022 ) 
5.21.   The annual report on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization had 
been circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/ 2022. The Secretariat explained that the report 
summarized the discussions under this agenda item over the past year. In accordance with the 
monitoring p rocedure, the Secretariat would bring these issues to the attention of the international 
standard setting bodies  and also remind them of the Committee's suggestion to provide a report o n 
their efforts to monitor the use of the international standards  at its next meeting . G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 41 - 
 
  5.7  Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement  (G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1 ) 
5.7.1   Report on the informal meeting  
5.22.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the informal meeting 
of the Committee of 22  June 2022, specifically referring to the summ aries of the discussions on the 
follow -up to the Fifth Review and the upcoming Thematic Session on International Standards and 
Best Practices in Pest Risk Identification, Assessment and Management , the draft SPS Ministerial 
Declaration, trade facilitative approaches to pesticide MRLs, and COVID -19 and SPS issues . The final 
report is included in Annex C . 
5.7.2   Information from Members  
5.7.2.1   United  States  - Summary of March 2022 Seminar on Responding to Fall 
Armyworm: Integrated Pest Management and Policy Approaches  
5.23.   The United  States  drew Members' attention to document G/SPS/GEN/2039 , submitted jointly 
with Paraguay, which summarized the March 2022 seminar titled "Responding to Fall Armyworm: 
Integrated Pest Management and Policy Approaches" . The United  States  thanked participants and 
speakers of the event, as well as Uganda for co -hosting the seminar. Speakers had identified that 
the availability, affordability, adaptability and time ly approval processes and technologies were 
common challenges to address pest outbreaks and develop robust integrated pest management 
programmes. Speakers had shared methods and technologies to respond to fall armyworm 
outbreaks including effective risk co mmunication strategies, responsible pesticide use, and 
genetically improved varieties of crops. Speakers had also suggested further aspects to explore, 
including sharing of information and best practices in international platforms, developing and 
strengthe ning rap id alert systems for plant pests and diseases, as well as developing robust and 
affordable integrated pest management programmes . Recognizing the importance and challenges 
associated with the access  to and approval of technologies, the United  State s encouraged Members 
to engage in the discussions of the WG on Approval Procedures to develop outcomes that would 
assist Members in addressing current and emerging issues.  
6  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
6.1  SPS Declaration  for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference ( WT/MIN(22)/27  and 
G/SPS/GEN/1960 ) 
6.1.1   Canada - A San itary and Phytosanitary Measure -related Declaration at the 12th WTO 
Ministerial Conference (MC12 Declaration)  
6.1.  Canada  congratulated the Committee for the ministerial support received by 
the SPS Declaration . The adoption of the Declaration at the Ministerial  Conference provided 
an opportunity to work collaboratively in implementing the work programme set forth in the 
Declaration, while recognizing the proposed timeline. Canada thanked the Secretariat for the 
proposed timeline, and indicated it looked forward to would provide comments if needed . 
Referring  to document RD/SPS/210 , Canada  further noted that it was essential for Members wishing 
to be stewards of the proposed groups to take part in the structuring of these groups beyond the 
Secretariats' proposal, given the capacity constraints of Mem bers and the Secretariat.  
6.2.  The Secretariat  provided an overview of document RD/SPS/210  containing an initial timeline 
for the work programme of the SPS Declaration . The proposed timeline  took into account 
the suggestion of creating small groups for the specific  themes identified in paragraph 8 of 
the Declaration. Members had until 22  July 2022 to express interest in participating in the work or 
act as a steward of these groups . The Secretariat also welcomed suggestions on the term used to 
refer to the groups. Fe edback on the timeline and organization of the work programme would also 
be possible after the November 2022 Committee meeting. The Secretariat indicated that the groups 
would be encouraged to put forward initial ideas  based  on their discussions in Septemb er, which 
would be compiled and circulated for information purposes. Informal consultations in hybr id format 
could also take place in September, where Members would discuss the work programme going G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 42 - 
 
  forward. The  Secretariat suggested October as the deadline  for groups to present formal proposals, 
which would be discussed at the informal November Committee meeting.  
6.3.  Referring to document RD/SPS/210 , Brazil  suggested employing the term "informal working 
groups" to refer to the groups identified in the document, and expressed their willingness to 
contribute to the achievement of the proposed timelines. Brazil underlined that these groups should 
be open and inclusive for Members to join at any point in time.  
6.4.  The European  Union  expressed its appreciation for the successful SPS Declaration , highlighti ng 
that the work programme provided an opportunity to reflect and reach a common understanding on 
important issues. The European  Union  thanked the Secretariat for the initial timeline for the work 
programme, and indicated it would provide comments and sugg estions in due course.  
6.5.  Uruguay  welcomed the adoption o f the SPS Declaration  at MC12 and expressed its willingness 
to commence the implementation of the work programme, taking into account the ideas presented 
by Members in the Committee.  
6.6.  The United  States  acknowledged the Committee's support in delivering the SPS Declaration  as 
a ministerial outcome. The Declaration reaffirmed the role of the Committee as a relevant body to 
address emerging challenges and opportunities in agricultural trade, and the United  States  looked 
forward to working with Members to address these timely questions. The United  States  indicated it 
would submit suggestions  to document RD/SPS/210 . The United  States  highlighted that the groups 
were expected to be open to all Members at any point in time, and expressed its flexi bility regarding 
the term to be used to refer to the groups. The United  States  recalled that the results of the 
discussions in the groups would be agreed by consensus by the Committee, and encouraged 
Members leading the work to constantly follow up via int ersessional or informal meeting s, and to 
keep to the membership inform ed. 
6.7.  Switzerland  expressed its gratification over the adoption of the SPS Declaration  at MC12 and 
looked forward to contributing to the work programme and the identified the mes. 
Switzerla nd thanked the Secretariat for the initial timeline contained in document RD/SPS/210  and 
supported the establishment of thematic working groups . 
6.8.  Australia  welcomed the SPS Declaration  and looked forward to work alongside Members to 
explore the issues identified in the work programme. Austral ia thanked the Secretariat for the 
proposed timeline, and agreed with Members' comments regarding the need for groups to be open 
for participation at any point in time, working towards a consensus -based report at the MC13 . 
6.9.  Norway  welcomed the adoption of t he SPS Declaration  at MC12 and looked forward to working 
alongside Members in the deliberations of the  work programme in the context of the SPS Committee . 
Norway considered the proposed timeline circulated by the Secretariat to be a good starting point . 
6.10.   Noting that Members could encounter capacity constraints to participate in the group 
discussions of the work programme, India suggested assembling several themes identified in 
paragraph 8 of the Declaration under one group, or having all themes under a single group. 
India would provide additional comments on the proposed timeline in due course . 
6.11.   Türkiye  welcomed the successful SPS Declaration  and thanked the Secretariat for the 
proposed timeline contained in document RD/SPS/210 . 
6.2  Australia, the United  States , Uruguay and  Canada  – Trade  Facil itative Approaches to 
Pesticide MRLs ( G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev.1 ) 
6.12.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to the proposal  contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev.1 , submitted by Australia, Canada, Colombia, Paraguay and the United  States  
following the Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs  held in 
March  2022.  
6.13.   Australia  thanked Members for the feedback provided during  the informal SPS Committee  
meeting. Noting Members' interest in the topic, Australia recognized the different  views regarding  
the creation of a working group as an appropriate mechanism to pursue the issue. Australia indicated G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 43 - 
 
  that the co -sponsors would hold consultations on the best mechanism to carry  the work, and would 
update the SPS Committee  at its next meet ing. 
6.14.   The United  States  drew Members' attention to document G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev .1, submitted 
jointly with Australia, Canada, Colombia, and Paraguay following the Thematic Session on Trade 
Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs. The United  States  highlighted that MRLs remained an 
important topic for the SPS Committee , and that Memb ers should pursue constructive ways of 
dialogue for the resolution of related issues. The d ocument offered suggestions to foster trade 
facilitative approaches to pesticide MRLs for the consideration of the SPS Committee , as well as the 
creation of a workin g group to address these considerations. Acknowledging the limitations of the 
Committee to undertake another working group, the United  States  encouraged Members to work 
together to identify and apply appropriate mechanisms to address longstanding issues.  
6.15.   Recognizing the importance of the matter at issue, t he European  Union  noted that the 
increasing number of initiatives by the Committee, including the working programme following the 
SPS Declaration , raised questions regarding the availability of resources a nd potential duplication of 
efforts. The European  Union  considered that there were relevant ongoing procedures in the 
Committee where Members should focus their efforts prior to engaging in new initiatives, and invited 
Members to reflect on possible ways t o optimi ze limited resource availability.  
6.16.   Uruguay  thanked Australia, Canada, Colombia, Paraguay and the United  States  for the 
proposal containe d in document G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev .1. Highlighting the importance of the topic, 
Uruguay supported exploring the elements contained in the proposal, in particular those specified in 
paragraph 8. Uruguay expressed its availability to work on the matters at issue through the 
mechanisms to be established . 
6.17.   Canada  highlighted the need to address the matter, while n oting the  resource  constraints of 
the Committee  to undertake a working group. Canada expressed its willingness to engage in 
discussions with Members to identify mechanisms to facilitate  progress on the topic.  
6.18.   The Chairperson  invited the proponents to  work informally with interested Members and 
report back to the Committee at the next meeting. Members would have an opportunity to provide 
comments  on the proposal by Friday, 22 July 2022. 
6.3  COVID -19 and SPS issues  
6.19.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
6.20.   The Chairperson  noted that there had not been interventions  under this agenda item in recent 
Committee meetings. The Committee agreed to delete this agenda item for the next SPS Committee  
meeting.  
7  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
7.1  Information from the Secretariat  
7.1.1   WTO SPS Activities  
7.1.  The Secretariat  provided Members with an overview of the technical assistance activities held 
since March 2022. These activities included a nati onal SPS seminar held in Nairobi, Kenya on 
10-12 May 2022. The following more general training on the SPS  Agreement  had been provided  in: 
a Southern African Customs Union (SACU) training on SPS, TBT, and Non -Tariff Barriers held on 
29 March  2022; a study t our to Geneva  from Azerbaijan in the context of its accession to the 
WTO held on 28  April; and an UNCTAD Virtual Session on Trade Facilitation and the SPS  Agreement  
held for Equatorial Guinea on 17  May 2022.  The Secretariat highlighted upcoming activities that 
would include a National Seminar on SPS and TBT, to be held in person for Mongolia in Septe mber;  
a WTO Regional Trade Policy Course to be held virtually for Asia -Pacific from 27  June to 1 July; and 
a WTO Advanced Trade Policy Course to be held in person at the WTO on 7 -8 July. 
7.2.  Regarding the WTO technical assistance activities outlined in document 
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.12 , the scheduled activities were: the Workshop on Transparency, held on G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 44 - 
 
  20 June; the SPS Transparency Champions Course ; and the Virtual Course on Essentials for 
SPS Committee  Participation. The SPS Transparency Champions Course would be held in English, 
and was targeted at government officials from SPS national notification authorities and/or 
SPS national enquiry points from English -speaking African countries. The course would be held from 
October 2022 to March/May 2023, with the first week taking place from  3-7 October  in Geneva . 
The Virtual Course on Essentials for SPS Committee  Participation would be held in French in 
November 2022, and would consist of several sessions held over two weeks on 15 -24 November. 
The application deadline for the SPS Transparency  Champions Course and the Course on Essentials 
for SPS Committee  Participation had closed on 3 June. The Secretariat would undertake the selection 
process for these courses and inform the respective Missions of the proposed selection of candidates 
from the ir government before the final selection . 
7.3.  Further information on SPS technical assistance activities was available on the SPS gateway of 
the WTO website (under Events, workshops and training ), or by contacting the Secretariat. Finally, 
the Secretariat noted that the E -Learning Course on the SPS  Agreement  was available throughout 
the year, in th e three official languages of the WTO.  
7.1.2   STDF ( G/SPS/GEN/2031 ) 
7.4.  The STDF secretaria t reported on  its recent activities detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/2031 . 
At its June meeting, the STDF working group approved several project preparation grants (PPGs) 
and project proposals. The STDF noted that the deadline for new p roject applications was 
12 August  2022. A series of webinars exploring the challenges of climate change and emerging 
SPS risks had been  organized in May in collaboration with STDF's partners. Additional information 
on these webinars, as well as presentatio ns and recordings , were available on the STDF website . 
Presentations on a gender assessment across STDF's workstream, a new standards compliance 
analytics platform, and a new APEC food safety risk communication framework were also shared at 
the last STDF working group meeting. The STDF referred to its Annual Report for 2021  outlining the 
results achieved and lessons learned during the year. Finally, the STDF conducted an online survey 
with SPS delegates to help improve STDF's work programme. The STDF thanked its donors for their 
contributions . 
7.2  Information from Members  
7.5.  No Member provided information under this agenda item.  
8  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
8.1.  No Member provided information under this agenda item.  
9  OBSERVERS  
9.1  Information from Observer Organizations  
9.1.1   IICA ( G/SPS/GEN/2033 ) 
9.1.  IICA reported on its activities, detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/2033 . IICA had concluded its 
fourth virtual coordination session on WTO SPS Committee  matters , addressing discussions on the 
WG on Approval Procedures, STCs and the SPS Declaration  for MC 12. IICA had hosted a series of 
coordination colloquia addressing several Codex C ommittees in collaboration with the United  States  
Codex office and the African Union's Inter -African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU -IBAR). 
Recent  coordination colloquia had taken place in preparation for the Codex Committee on Food 
Hygiene ( CCFH ), in March, and in preparation for the CCCF, in April.  Regarding animal health, 
IICA and USDA had organized the 10th edition of the WOAH strategy session to discuss matters 
related to the WOAH General Session, AMR, animal welfare and fish diseases. Under the umbrella of 
the GF -TADs, IICA  had led capacity building  activities for the prevention of ASF in the Americas and 
Caribbean, hosting eight thematic webinars on ASF preparedness.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 45 - 
 
  9.1.2   ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/2019 ) 
9.2.  ECOWAS  reported on its activities, detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/2019 . ECOWAS had 
conducted training in Senegal, Niger, and Guinea -Bissau on the harmonized phytosanit ary inspection 
and decision -making guide, to improve member's inspection processes. An online training on 
inspection procedures had also been conducted, benefiting 46 plant quarantine inspectors and 
technicians from ECOWAS member states. The West Africa NP POs and partners' taskforce annual 
meeting had taken place in preparation for the meeting of the CPM -16. Discussion included 
ECOWAS's request for recognition by the IPPC as a regional plant protection organization. A national 
training of technicians in the  establishment and monitoring of fruit fly surveillance system had been 
held in Liberia, in line with the project of the regional innovative fruit fly control system in West  Africa 
(SyRIMAO). ECOWAS thanked the European  Union  for its support on this matter . A regional and 
continental meeting was also organized to discuss and agree on a common position for the draft 
guidelines for developing harmonized food safety legislation for the CCAFRICA region. 
Regarding  animal health, ECOWAS had organized a regional t raining on GIS and risk assessment for 
the optimization of surveillance and control systems for transboundary animal diseases. 
ECOWAS  thanked its partners for their support, and called for additional collaboration and resources.  
9.1.3   OECD ( G/SPS/GEN/2017 ) 
9.3.  The report of OECD's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2017 . 
9.1.4   IGAD ( G/SPS/GEN/2020 ) 
9.4.  The report of IGAD's activities is contained in document  G/SPS/GEN/2020 . 
9.1.5   GSO ( G/SPS/GEN/2023 ) 
9.5.  The report of GSO's activities is contained in document  G/SPS/GEN/2023 . 
9.1.6   OIRSA ( G/SPS/GEN/2024 ) 
9.6.  The report of OIRSA's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2024 . 
9.1.7   SADC ( G/SPS/GEN/2025 ) 
9.7.  The report of SACD's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2025 . 
9.1.8   ITC ( G/SPS/GEN/2028 ) 
9.8.  The report of ITC's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2028 . 
9.1.9   CAHFSA ( G/SPS/GEN/2029 ) 
9.9.  The report of CAHFSA's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2029 . 
9.2  Requests for observer status  
9.2.1   New requests  
9.2.1.1   International Olive Council (IOC) ( G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.20 ) 
9.10.   The Chairperson  indicated that the Secretariat had received a new request  for observer status  
from the IOC, as contained in document G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.20 . 
9.11.   Welcoming the request for observer status, Tunisia  highlight ed IOC's role as the only 
intergovernmental organization in the field res ponsible for administering the 2015 International 
Agreement on Olive Oil and Table Olive Oil. The IOC was the global forum where members discussed 
technical issues, and addressed current and future challenges in the sector. Tunisia invited Members G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 46 - 
 
  to consi der IOC's request, underlining IOC's role in safeguarding product authenticity, safe trade, 
and the harmonization of national and international legislation with standards for olive oil.  
9.12.   The Chairperson  indicated that he had been informed that it would not be possible to reach 
consensus status on IOC's request.  The Secretariat would inform the IOC of that there had been no 
consensus to accept their request . 
9.2.2   Pending requests  
9.13.   The Chairperson referred to document G/SPS/W/78/Rev.15 , listing the outstanding requests 
for observer status. The Chairperson indicated that, absent any intervention, he would assume that 
the positions of Members had not changed. No Member took the floor.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
11  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETI NG 
11.1.   The Chairperson recalled that the next regular meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 
the week of 7  November  2022. The proposed calendar of SPS Committee  meetings for 2022 was 
contained in G/SPS/GEN/ 1910/Rev.1 . The Chairperson invited Members to inform the Secretar iat on 
conflicts between the calendar of meetings proposed for 20234 and other related SPS -events.  
11.2.   The Secretariat informed the Committee that it would prepare a summary report based on 
oral interventions at the meeting, complemented by Members' ability to download complete 
statements via eAgenda. In addition, statements could be circulated as GEN docum ents, as usual.  
11.3.   The Chairperson also reminded the Committee of the following deadlines , circulated by email : 
a. For submitting statements : Friday, 24  June  2022 ; 
b. For submitting comments on the draft summaries of the Workshop on Transparency, 
the Thematic Session on the Use of Remote (Virtual) Audit and Verification in Regulatory 
Frameworks;  and the informal Committee meeting: Friday, 1  July 2022 ; 
c. For submitting com ments on the draft initial timeline for the Work Programme of the 
SPS Declaration  (RD/SPS/210 , later circulated a s G/SPS/W/329 ): Friday, 
1 July 2022 ; 
d. For submitting comments on the organization of the work programme of the 
SPS Declaration  until MC13: Friday, 22  July 2022 ;5 
e. For submitting comments on the proposal  for the upcoming Thematic Session on 
International Standards and Best Practices in Pest Risk Identification, Assessment and 
Management ( G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ), including suggestions of speakers: Friday, 
22 July 2022 ; 
f. For submitting comments on the joint submission  on trade facilitative approaches to 
MRLs ( G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev.1 ): Friday, 22  July 2022 ; 
g. For requesting that items, including STCs, be put on the agenda, and for identifying 
new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure: Wednesday, 
19 October  2022 ; and  
h. For the distribution of the annotated draft agenda: Friday, 21  October  2022 . 
 
4 The proposed calendar is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2036 . 
5 The Secretariat subsequently circulated a Proposed Pro cess for the Work Programme on 1 August 
2022 in G/SPS/W/330 , and invited Members to submit comments by 16 September 2022.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 47 - 
 
  ANNEX A  
WORKSHOP ON TRANSPARENCY  
20 JUNE  2022  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
 
1.  A workshop on transparency was held on 20  June 2022, as agreed by the SPS  Committee in 
November 2021. A dedicated webpage for the workshop  had been made available ahead of the 
event, with relevant information, including the programme, circulated on 15  June 2022 as document 
G/SPS/GEN/2015/Rev.1 . The workshop was held in hybr id format, with around 30 participants 
attending in person and over 200 connections on Zoom.  
2.  The purpose of the workshop was to provide training on the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform , that 
went live on 28  March  2022. It also presented relevant work on tran sparency in the TBT Committee, 
as well as experiences from an ITC project on the use of the ePing alert system. In addition, 
a "notifications clinic" was held in the afternoon, on Zoom only, providing SPS notification authorities 
and enquiry points with an  opportunity to address any concerns on the notification submission 
functionalities of the Platform.  
3.  The workshop began with an overview of the transparency provisions in the SPS  Agreement, 
the recommended transparency procedures, and relevant discussi ons in the SPS  Committee. 
Session  2 provided a snapshot of the transparency recommendations resulting from the triennial 
reviews of the TBT  Agreement. Half of the recommendations adopted in the 9th Triennial Review 
related to transparency, including on dev eloping new formats and guidelines, improving coordination 
through the ePing Platform, and exploring the use of IT tools for translation purposes. On this last 
point, it  was clarified that any initiative that could benefit the SPS  Committee would be shared . 
4.  In Session 3, the WTO Secretariat presented relevant sources of SPS -related information, 
including: (i) Documents Online , repository of all WTO documents, including SPS; (ii) Trade Concerns 
Database , which provides information on trade concerns; (iii) eAgenda , for authorized users to 
submit online agenda items ahead of SPS Committee  meetings; and (iv) the new ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform , which integrates all SPS and TBT transparency tools, as well as the ePing alert system, 
into a single platform. The next session presented in detail, through a live demo, the main functions 
of the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform, including: (i) searching of information on notifications and 
specific trade concerns; (ii) submission of notifications; and (iii) communication/outreach functions. 
In addition, registered users be nefit from additional features, and can receive email alerts on 
notifications on products and/or markets of interest, as well as reach out to notification authorities 
and enquiry points. Certain functions, such as the submission of notifications, are passw ord 
protected. Some of the benefits highlighted included: extracting data from a single source, reducing 
errors and maintenance costs; searching information across the SPS and TBT committees; and using 
the WTO single sign -on authentication system. As next steps, it was highlighted that the official 
launch of the Platform, with senior officials from the three partner organizations, WTO, UNDESA and 
ITC, was tentatively planned for 13 July 2022. 
5.  In the last session, the International Trade Centre shared it s experiences on a project 
implemented in Viet Nam to help traders comply with SPS and TBT requirements by receiving alerts 
on regulatory changes in foreign markets, using the ePing alert system.  
6.  In concluding, the Chairperson remarked that the workshop had proven to be informative and 
interesting, and that it had provided important updates on the work of the WTO Secretariat to 
facilitate the implementation of transparency provisions, through the n ew ePing SPS&TBT Platform. 
The Secretariat would welcome Members' feedback and comments on the use of this new SPS&TBT 
Platform.  
7.  All presentations, as well as the video recordings in English, French and Spanish, would be made 
available on the WTO | Thematic SPS workshop on transparency . G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 48 - 
 
  8.  In addition to the workshop, a "notifications clinic" targeted to SPS notification authorities and 
enquiry points was hel d virtually via Zoom on 20 June 2022 afternoon. The WTO Secretariat provided 
a brief overview of the main functions of the ePing SPS&TBT Platform, and presented through a live 
demo the notifications submission and outreach functions. Many questions were di scussed, including 
on the different notification access rights, email alerts, advanced search filters, multiple notification 
administrators, domestic coordination, and the development of a mobile app lication  to facilitate 
private sector use of the Platform . There were over 150 connections to the "notifications clinic".  
 G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 49 - 
 
  ANNEX B  
SPS COMMITTEE  THEMATIC SESSION ON THE USE OF REMOTE (VIRTUAL) AUDIT  
AND VERIFICATION IN REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS  
21 JUNE  2022  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
 
1.  A Thematic Session on the Use of Remote (Virtual) Audit and Verification in Regulatory 
Frameworks was held on 21  June 2022, as agreed by the SPS Committee  in November 2021. 
The final programme was circulated on 15  June 2022 as document G/SPS/GEN/2016/Rev.1 , 
which  built on th e proposal submitted by Australia in document G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1  and 
incorporated comments from Members. The session was held in hybr id format , with Members invited 
to attend in person or virtually through the Interprefy platform. The thematic session was also 
webcast l ive on the WTO website.  
2.  The purpose of the thematic session was to provide an opportunity to share experiences on the 
use of remote assessment methods, discuss how such approaches may assist Members with their 
obligations under Annex C of the SPS  Agree ment, and take a closer look at the relevance and scope 
for future use. It also sought to provide insight on ongoing initiatives including guidance being 
developed by Codex under its Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification 
Systems (CCFICS) , and allow  Members and industry represent atives  to discuss the  benefits  and 
challenges  of remote audit, drawing from their experiences . 
3.  In Session 1, the Secretariat provided an overview of the provisions of the SPS  Agreement  which 
could be relevant in the context of remote audit and inspection, namely the provisions of Article  8 
and Annex C  related to control, inspection and approval procedures to check and ensure the 
fulfilment of SPS measures . It also provided examples of SPS notifications referring to remote  
inspection  and virtual verification , and of specific trade concerns (STCs) discussed in the 
SPS Committee  which made reference to remote inspection or virtual audit.  
4.  Session 2  shed light on the  forms of remote asses sment , including those used during the 
COVID -19 pandemic, and the link with  regulatory frameworks. A speaker from Brazil explained that 
in 2021, all international audits in the animal food origin industry were conducted remotely, 
but onsite audits were res uming in 2022. He provided insight s on the steps and forms of remote 
assessment s; highlighted the importance of preparation, training, auditor/auditee competence;  
and informed that a  regulatory framework was under review. A speaker from Singapore1 then sh ared 
that it used  various forms of remote audits  for imports before the COVID -19 pandemic, such as 
questionnaires and videos as a supplement to onsite visits. Since the pandemic, Singapore was 
conducting  remote audits virtually for both imports and exports , as new tools and technology had 
become available . The speaker highlighted  several benefits of remote audit such as reduced travel 
costs but also referred to challenges such as  connection  issues , inability to use all senses and read 
body language . In the third presentation, a speaker from the European  Union  shared that 154 fully 
remote SPS audits had been conducted between March 2020 and December 2021. The speaker 
discussed some of the commonalities and differences with onsite audits, underlining t hat the 
principles of audit had not changed. In the EU experience,  connectivity , interpretation,  and ensuring 
that the right persons were present , were some of the main challenges  to conducting remote audits, 
and some topics were considered more suitable f or remote audits than others. In the final 
presentation of this session, a speaker from UNIDO presented p reliminary findings from an 
STDF/UNIDO survey on remote inspection and audit practices. It was noted that  for 90 per cent of 
the survey respondents, re mote practices began in the past two years due to the  COVID -19 
pandemic , but several barriers persisted such as the absence of harmonized protocols and 
guidelines , and terminology issues . 
 
1 There was a change in the speaker from Singapore. The name of the speaker who delivered the 
presentation is provided on the webpage of the thematic session: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/thematic_session_21jun22_e.htm . G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 50 - 
 
  5.  Session 3 provided an update on relevant international standards , guidelines and 
recommendations, as well as other ongoing work related to remote audit and other forms of remote 
assessment. As the current Chair of CCFICS, a speaker from Australia offered insights on 
the development of guidance by CCFICS on the use of r emote audit and verification in regulatory 
frameworks , which would take into account  existing Codex guidance and the use of information and 
communication (ICT)  technologies with a view to facilitat ing trade. At its 25th meeting, CCFICS had 
agreed to develo p a discussion paper on guidance on remote audit and verification in regulatory 
frameworks, for discussion at the November 2022 CCFICS meeting.  Session  3 continued with a 
presentation from the O rganization for Economic Co -operation and Development (OECD) on its 
ongoing work on remote audit, which offered preliminary insights from  interviews held with some 
OECD member States. In particular, remote audit had enabled trade to continue during the COVID -
19 pandemic , and reduced some of the  costs associated with onsite audits.  Several challenges were 
noted such as limitations in terms of language, technology and skills.  This was followed by a 
presentation from t he Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) on the use of ICTs in the food safety 
supply chain for third -party audits.  The speakers from GFSI noted that 73 per  cent of the food 
business operators  it had surveyed  considered that  using ICTs  in audits was important, and over 40 
percent considered that ICTs positively impacted the food safety outcomes of certified food business 
operators. GFSI found that  blended audits were effective for the  purposes of documentation review, 
while onsite audits were particularly useful for the verification of activities related to food safety . 
6.  Session 4 was a roundtable discussi on, moderated by the speaker from  Australia, in which 
Members and an industry representative discussed their experiences and the benefits of using 
remote assessment methods to facilitate international trade, as well as the associated challenges, 
such as pr ivacy and security issues . The discussion started with a speaker from New Zealand 
explaining that issues surrounding  security and privacy went beyond intellectual property (IP) 
concerns, and  a pre -determined protocol with provisions on the use of  ICT images, for example in 
sensitive IP areas  and to protect worker identities  was important. He also discussed the differences 
between domestic and international audits, noting the availability of Codex guidance for international 
audits. In  view of the d ifferences between remote and onsite audit, the speaker considered that 
complementary guidance was needed for privacy/IP issues and the process and use of ICT . Speakers 
from Canada  then noted that preplanning, prior documentary review and  knowledge of a country's 
compliance history could contribute to successful remote audits.  They also referred to  livestreaming  
limitations , explaining that virtual audits d id not allow for "stumble upon" situations as in onsite 
audits. To  further enhance its use, the speake rs from Canada considered that there was a need to 
improve regulatory capacity and technology, increase trust by various stakeholders, and  show 
flexibility . The speakers  also emphasized that  virtual audits or inspections were not always 
appropriate, highli ghting that it would be important to consider if technology was fit for use, 
connectivity was reliable, and privacy concerns were respected . 
7.  Session 4 continued with a speaker from Tesco PLC providing insights on the use of a new 
technology to increase  supply chain auditing capabilities. She explained that the technology had 
allowed Tesco to continue its  audit programme  when it was unable to do so physically , and offered 
benefits such as  secure cloud services, livestreaming, interpretation in over 20 languages, and 
GPS localization  to ensure that the audit was being conducted in the right location. While physical 
verification of compliance remained  the priority, Tesco PLC considered that technology was part of 
the future of au diting , was needed in  some regions where  pandemic restrictions were still in place, 
and would be helpful in  case of potential future pandemics.  A speaker from  Türkiye then shared its 
experiences on the use of remote audit. She explained that  remote audits offered several advantages 
such as reduced travel costs,  and greater scheduling flexibility . In her view, it  was important to 
consider whether a virtual audit was the best approach , as in some cases a hybr id approach would 
be more appropriate . The speaker  highlighted the importance of having a detailed audit plan, sending 
documents for advance review, sharing information on technology requirements,  and scheduling test 
sessions to ensure good connectivity , among others . 
8.  In Session 5, Members and an indus try representative presented case studies on the use of 
remote audit, highlighting the associated benefits and challenges. Speakers from Chile presented on 
its experience with using  remote audits in animal and plant products processing establishments. The 
process of conducting remote audits included documentation  review , information  analysis , meetings 
with parties involved, and the sharing of results and observations. In Chile 's experience, remote 
audits enabled access to remote locations , thereby reaching a larger number of audited 
establishments. However, challenges related to the technological aspects of the process, such as 
those linked to connectivity, audio and video issues, could affect the use of remote audits . G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 51 - 
 
  In the second presentation, a speaker f rom Korea shared its experience on alternative approaches 
to sanitary controls via a two -tier process of document and video inspections , and highlighted that 
the legal framework on food safety control had been amended to include relevant provisions on 
remote inspection in special circumstances. Korea's  standard operating procedure to remote 
inspection comprised four steps, covering the selection of facilities, the assessment of relevant 
documents, the conducting of video inspections, followed by results. Remote inspection was 
considered an additional assessment tool, and not a substitute to onsite inspections , and c hallenges 
associated with disruptions in digital communication were also highlighted.  Following this, a speaker 
from Red  Tractor presented on th e use of remote audit by a UK voluntary third -party assurance 
scheme, elaborating on two-part approach to remote audits, namely an online cabinet to enable the 
pre-assessment of documents and records, a nd live streaming on -farm or in factory. He highlighte d 
the importance for assessors and businesses to agree on the technologies to be used, and the issues 
associated with connectivity. Challenges arose from  limited visibility and difficulties in interpretation 
of body language. While physical assessments rem ained the preferred audit approach, remote audits 
remained part of the available tools, and a blended approach of both onsite and remote audit  would  
most likely be used in the future.  
9.  Session 6 was a panel discussion , moderated by the speaker from Australia,  which focused on 
the opportunities and challenges related to the future use of remote audit. The speaker from Brazil 
elaborated on how remote audits could improve the standardization of procedures, given the 
increased number of auditors, special ists and teams participating in the process. Looking ahead, 
he added that audits could also be  recorded and therefore  be used to review and improve 
procedures . The speaker from  European  Union  discussed some of the challenges in auditing 
non-EU member States which were mainly related to technology and interpretation, and similar to 
challenges experienced in conventional audits . In terms of new market access applications, 
the European  Union  did not solely rely on  remote techniques . Going forwar d, the  speaker  
emphasized that aspects of remote auditing would be maintained , but this would be supplementary  
to physical audit.  The speakers from Chile considered that remote audit could help improve  
regulatory alignment with the inspections conducted by  different institutions for different products.  
It was also noted that  remote audits supplemented physical audits, and that Members should 
determine under which circumstances  remote audits should be conducted, for example, for  first time 
certification or r evalidation.  
10.  Session 6 continued with the OECD speaker discussing how differences in approaches taken by 
different economies may cause challenges for others if they were to be widely adopted. As part of 
its ongoing research, the OECD found  that some c ountries ha d prescriptive approaches to 
remote  audit while others ha d risk-based or outcome -focused approaches . A second issue related to 
definitions, as some countries used  the term hybrid for audits undertaken partly online partly onsite, 
while others us ed the term for audits conducted  either entirely virtual ly or entirely in person. 
The OECD speaker added that situations where remote audits and subsequent in  person audits  were 
conducted to verify the same information, increased the compliance burden,  especially for 
developing countries and smaller businesses. From its interviews with government officials and 
regulators so far , the OECD also learned that the use of  innovative technologies  was limited, and 
that data security  was not among the respondents' m ain concerns . Referring to the findings from 
the STDF/UNIDO survey, the OECD speaker also noted that the use of remote audit  before the  
COVID pandemic was modest, and noted that there was  a clear preference for a hybr id form of 
remote audit  in the future . 
11.  There was also discussion in the Q&A session on data breaches and documentation review, with 
speakers highlighting that documents could be reviewed virtually or in person, that the principles of 
audit remained the same, and that upstream docum entation review helped auditors better prepare 
for virtual audits. At the end of the  panel discussion, a speaker from Australia highlighted some of 
its key takeaways from the thematic session, such as the  importance of  planning, logistics, training, 
connec tivity, clear communication, and understanding the  circumstances under which remote audit 
could be used.  The speaker from  Australia also refer red to the ongoing work of CCFICS, STDF/UNIDO 
and the OECD , and took note of comments on  scientific robustness to further support the case for 
remote audit.  
12.  In concluding, I remarked that the  discussions and presentations of the  thematic session had 
proven to be interesting and informative , and had provided insight on the various forms of remote 
assessment, ongoi ng initiatives and experiences related to the use of remote assessment methods,  
as well as the benefits and challenges.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 52 - 
 
  13.  Presentations from the thematic session would be made available on the SPS TA Gateway . 
 G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 53 - 
 
  ANNEX C 
INFORMAL MEETING – 22 JUNE  2022  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
 
1  FOLLOW -UP ON THE ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE FIFTH REVIEW OF THE 
OPERATION AND  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT ( G/SPS/6 4 AND 
G/SPS/64/ADD.1 ) 
1.  At the informal meeting on 22  June 2022, the Committee discussed how to take forward some 
of the recommendations in the Fifth Review Report, as well as ongoing work in various areas.  
Exchange of experiences and continued discussions on various topics  
2.  We first addressed  the recommendations that encourage Members to continue to  discuss or  
exchange experiences. I highlighted that these recommendations were found in various sections of 
the Fifth Review Report, such as: appropriate level of protection, risk as sessment and science 
(para.  2.15); equivalence (para.  4.11); fall armyworm (para.  5.16); national SPS  coordination 
mechanisms (para.  6.7); MRLs for plant protection products (para.  8.6); and regionalization 
(para.  9.15).  
3.  Similar to the March 2022 meeti ng, I again sought Members' views on the best way to move 
forward with these recommendations. I recalled that in the September 2020 consultations, 
one Member had observed that the proposed work plan for the MC12 SPS Declaration , also currently 
being discus sed by the Committee, was consistent with these recommendations and could provide 
a pathway to continue exploring these topics.  I also noted that in the November 2020 informal 
Committee meeting, another Member had reminded the Committee of its previously r aised concerns 
regarding some of the topics covered by the recommendations. I further recalled  that no comments 
had been received from Members in subsequent informal meetings.  
4.  At this week's  informal  meeting, I again invited Members to provide any furt her comments or 
suggestions on the identified recommendations. One Member provided comments on the 
Committee's progress with regard to the recommendations la id out in the Fifth Review, highlighting 
the hard work undertaken by the Committee during the Revie w process, and also that it had 
benefitted from the inputs of many Members. He noted that all Members were responsible for helping 
the Committee make progress on its recommendations, and further provided an overview of the 
follow -up work to be undertaken.  
5.  In relation to the appropriate level of protection, risk assessment and science, the Member 
highlighted that although the Committee had addressed some issues in its regular meetings and 
discussions, one of the recommendations invited the international standard  setting bodies (ISSBs) 
to share guidance documents, international standards, guidelines and recommendations pertaining 
to the consideration of scientific uncertainty and/or insufficiency of scientific evidence in risk 
analysis. This information sh aring could be useful to Members. He also encouraged the ISSBs to 
consider how they could address this recommendation.  
6.  With respect to fall armyworm, the Member referred to the March 2022 side event co -sponsored 
by Uganda and the United  States , and the themes covered in that event, including recognition of 
the importance of access to tools and technologies. In addition, Members had also been encouraged 
to engage in the Working Group on Approval Procedures to a id Members in addressing current and 
emerging issues, such as simplification and streamlining of regulatory assessments.  
7.  In relation to MRLs for plant protection products, the Member indicated  that the Committee had 
been active in this area, highlighting the successful Thematic Session on Tra de Facilitative 
Approaches to MRLs held in March 2022. Subsequently, a group of Members has circulated a joint 
follow-up paper ( G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev.1 ) aimed at  advanc ing several suggestions, including one to 
support the Review's recommendations to encourage Members to e ngage in national discussions of 
options that could enable a more productive Codex MRL system.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 54 - 
 
  8.  Regarding regionalization, which was of particular relevance since some Members were dealing 
with animal disease outbreaks, one of the recommendations indica ted that the Committee should 
further discuss issues related to Article  6, including the Committee Guidelines , through future 
thematic sessions . The Member noted that the  last thematic session on this topic had been held in 
2017.  
9.  Finally, the Member underscored that t he Committee ha d made progress on the Fifth Review, 
but that there continued to be  opportunities to support the recommendations, such as through the 
recent SPS Declaration . He encouraged Members  to contemplate their possible contri butions  towards 
this task.  
10.  In concluding, I drew attention to the summary document  submitted by a couple of Members 
on the March 2022 Seminar on Responding to Fall Armyworm, which had been circulated in 
document G/SPS/GEN/2039 . 
11.  Another Member reiterated that much work had been put into the Fifth Review and thanked the 
previous Member for drawing attention to the several follow -up items remaining under the 
Fifth Review, apart from the Working Group on Approval Procedures.  
SPS Committee  Working Group on Approval Procedure s (G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1  and 
G/SPS/W /328/Rev.1/Add.1 ) 
12.  The co -stewards for the Working Group, Canada and Paraguay, provided an update on the 
activities of the Working Group.  
13.  In the first round of work (November 2020 to March 2021), participants had identified four main 
themes for th e Working Group: (1) a common understanding of the term "approval procedures"; 
(2) key challenges of approval procedures; (3) principles of approval procedures that facilitate 
international trade while meeting the importing Member's appropriate level of sa nitary or 
phytosanitary protection (ALOP); and (4) available tools and best practices in relation to approval 
procedures.  
14.  In the second, third and fourth rounds of work (March to July 2021, July to November 2021, 
and November 2021 to March 2022), the  discussions had focused on developing a common 
understanding of the term "approval procedures" for the purposes of the Working Group's 
discussions, assembling a collection of available tools and best practices, and discussing certain key 
challen ges of approval procedures.  
15.  The Working Group had scheduled to meet on 21  March  2022 as part of its fourth round of 
work. However, due to the inability of some delegations to participate in the meeting, the 
co-stewards had decided to postpone this mee ting. Following consultations with participants and the 
Secretariat, the May 2022 intersessional meeting had been  held to continue the  Working  Group's 
momentum, although some participants had indicated that they d id not see the meeting as "business 
as usua l". 
16.  In its fifth round of work (March to June 2022), the Working Group  had concluded the discussion 
on key challenges of approval procedures that affect international trade and that the Committee 
should seek to address. Specifically, at its intersessi onal meeting of 20  May 2022, 
the Working  Group discussed challenges associated with: (1) timing and undue delays; and (2) other 
challenges not previously discussed, such as COVID -19. 
17.  The Working Group had also held preliminary discussions on possible outcomes of the 
Working  Group. Based on Working Group meetings and discussions, it was noted that potential 
outcomes of the Working Group included the collection of available tools and best practices, a factual 
report of the work of the Working Group to th e SPS Committee , and the recommendation to develop 
SPS Committee  recommendations or guidelines around the themes of transparency, information 
sharing, communication and e -tools.  
18.  At its June 2022 meeting, the Working Group had commenced the discussion on the principles 
of approval procedures that facilitate interna tional trade while meeting the importing Member's 
appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection and the Committee's role in highlighting G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 55 - 
 
  these principles. Participants had highlighted the need for approval procedures to be conducted 
without und ue delays and in a timely manner, to have information on process and timelines in 
advance, the need for requirements to be limited  to the extent necessary, and the importance of 
approval procedures to be harmonized with international standards or be based on a risk 
assessment. The Working Group had also continued the discussions on possible outcomes. 
In addition to the collection of available tools and best practices, participants had explored the 
development of SPS Committee  guidelines as a possible outcom e of the Working Group.  
19.  Following the co -stewards' update, I provided an opportunity for Members to raise any questions 
or comments on the activities of the Working Group. No Member took the floor.  
2  SPS DECLARATION FOR THE 12TH WTO MINISTERIAL CONFE RENCE (WT/MIN(22)/27 ) 
20.  The Committee also discussed the SPS Declaration  for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference , 
adopted by Ministers at the Ministerial Conference held the previous week. The final version of the 
Declaration had been circulated with a new symbol in document WT/MIN(22)/27 . I congratulated 
the co-sponsors and all Members on this achievement.  
21.  I underscored that the Declaration recognized the work of th e SPS Committee  as being 
instrumental in advancing the implementation of the SPS  Agreement , particularly as it related to 
improving transparency. Looking ahead, the Declaration affirm ed that the SPS Committee  would 
continue to undertake valuable work, and that Members re mained committed to the continued 
enhancement of the implementation of the SPS  Agreement . 
22.  I further recalled that Ministers had given us  homework. They had instructed the 
SPS Committee  to undertake a work programme consisting of new efforts to identif y: (1) challenges 
in the implementation of the SPS  Agreement  and the mechanisms available to address them; and 
(2) the impacts of emerging challenges on the application of the SPS  Agreement . In particular, 
I highlighted that paragraph  6 of the Declaration listed a number of these challenges , as well as new 
opportunities.  
23.  The Declaration also contain ed a list of themes  in paragraph 8  and envision ed that the 
SPS Committee  should explore how the implementation of the SPS  Agreement  could be of support 
in these areas. The Declaration clarif ied that the work programme d id not launch the negotiation of 
new obligations, nor re -opened or amend ed the SPS  Agreement . It also  stated that the Committee 
would address the outcomes of this work programme  and report on key findings and actions 
undertaken as a result of this work to MC13 with recommendations, as appropriate.  
24.  Several Members express ed their appreciation for the successful outcome of the Declaration  
and its significance , noting that it r eaffirmed the commitment to strengthen the SPS  Agreement , 
and a constructive approach to addressing numerous challenges  and opportunities  to the modern 
agriculture landscape. Members also noted the excellent cooperation with the proponents throughout 
the e ntire process in shaping the text, which allowed additional Members to become co -sponsors. 
In addition, the tireless work of Members and collaborative efforts to reach consensus were 
underscored.  
25.  Some Members  noted that the overall number of co -sponso rs was rare and impressive, and that 
with the adoption of the Declaration it now repres ented an endorsement by all 164 WTO Members.  
26.  In relation to the process, the one Member shared some ideas on how to move forward with 
the work programme, recognizin g that there was much work to be done. The work programme was 
intended to reflect the interest and priorities of Members, and the idea was that Members should 
drive the completion of this work on this basis. In WT/MIN(22)/27 , Ministers had directed the 
Committee to address the outcomes  of the work programme and report to MC13 with 
recommendations, as appropriate, which would be a considerable task within a short timeline. 
The Member indicated that the Committee would need to agree on an effective manner to conduct 
its work, suggesting t hat either Members or ideally groups of Members could develop perspectives 
and recommendations which could be presented to the Committee, perhaps in informal sessions on 
the margins of the Committee. Stewards and co -stewards could be appointed to assist in  facilitating 
this work. Throughout the process, Members would receive updates and provide feedback.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 56 - 
 
  27.  Given the limited time and resources, this approach would require Members to focus on one or 
two issues, but all Members could provide feedback on all  the proposals throughout its development. 
This approach would allow the Committee to work on several proposals simultaneously, in order to 
meet the ambitious timeline. If Members agreed, they could indicate the topics of interest in the 
work programme to the Secretariat after the current meeting. Further to the establishment of a 
deadline, the Secretariat could communicate which Members had indicated interest in various parts 
of the work programme. The Member further encouraged the Committee to have these discussions 
and address some of these questions during the present Committee week, in order to ensure that 
progress was made before the November 2022 Committee meeting.  
28.  The Member further suggested that intersessional work would likely be required out side of the 
Committee meetings and that Members or group of Members could explore the questions in the work 
programme and develop their views to share with the Committee, including any recommendations. 
In terms of timing, the Committee could then discuss p rogress on the work programme on the 
margins of the November 2022 and March 2023 SPS Committee  meetings with the goal of presenting 
a first draft of the report to MC13 at the June 2023 SPS Committee  meeting.  
29.  Another Member supported starting the proce ss before the next Committee meeting and before 
the summer break, proposing that the Chairperson initiate consultations with Members on this issue.  
30.  Various Members indicated that they looked forward to moving ahead in modelling the next 
steps, and to working with other Members and the Secretariat in implementing this important work 
programme, whether via a working group (s) or other  mechanisms . 
31.  I then underscored that the SPS text was the only text at MC12 that had been adopted with 
unanimity without discussion in any of the thematic sessions, which demonstrated the merit of the 
Committee's work. I lauded this great achievement, congratulated the C ommittee and invited 
Members to share in a round of applause.  
32.  I then invited the Secretariat to provide some preliminary considerations on organizing the work 
in moving ahead. The Secretariat recalled that the SPS Committee  had been instructed to carr y out 
the work programme, and to report back to MC13 , which could be considered as the working 
deadline . According to current plans, MC13 would be held between December 2023 and March 2024, 
which d id not provide a lengthy period of time to undertake the wo rk. In terms of timing, the 
Secretariat suggested that the Committee could aim to have a draft report with recommendations 
ready by November 2023, and further encouraged Members to take a closer look at timelines starting 
with MC13 as the target.  
33.  In addition, the Secretariat noted that the themes and topics in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the 
Declaration would presumably define the area of work, but that it would be important to decide on 
which ones to undertake, given time and resource constraints. With resp ect to the format of 
the meetings, various options could be considered by Members, such as holding discussions during 
the Committee week or intersessional meetings with smaller groups or with the whole Committee. 
The Secretariat also drew attention to the Sixth Review, which would be due in 2024, given that 
the last Review had been concluded in 2020. In this regard, it would also be important to consider 
the relationship and possible linkages with the Sixth Review when planning the topics/proposals to 
be un dertaken as part of the work programme for the Declaration.  
34.  In closing the discussions on this topic, I encouraged Members to submit their suggestions in 
writing  to the Secretariat . 
3  TRADE FACILITATIVE APPROACHES TO PESTICIDE MRLS (G/SPS/GEN/2034/R EV.1) 
35.  I reminded Members of the Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs 
held in March 2022, based on a proposal submitted by Australia, Colombia, Paraguay, and the 
United  States . Further to this thematic session, Austral ia, Canada, Colombia, Paraguay and the 
United  States  had submitted a follow -up proposal in document G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev.1 . 
36.  Australia indicated that the aim for submitting the paper was to highlight the importance of the 
topic. Noting that 20% of notifications submitte d by Members and 8% of specific trade concerns G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 57 - 
 
  (STCs) discussed in the Committee referred to MRLs, Australia explained that the paper proposed 
four actions for the Committee to explore, possibly through a dedicated working group.  
37.  Canada noted the impo rtance of the topic, as shown by the amount of time allocated to 
MRL-related issues. The discussions set up in the paper were a useful way of speaking at a more 
general level and to explore ways to move forward with regards to trade impacts of MRL -related 
processes. Canada noted the ongoing work of the W orking Group on Approval Procedures and 
recognized the priority of the work programme of the MC12 Declaration. While some elements of 
the proposed work might be captured in those fora, there were important e lements that could only 
be carried out in a dedicated discussion.  
38.  The United  States  noted  that issues on pesticides were the most commonly raised in the 
Committee, and the increasing number of STCs in the agenda, the United  States  was of the view 
that there needed to be a rational e between the issues Members face and the items in the agenda. 
The work programme could be a way to address topics under a different lens. Acknowledging the 
limitation on resources, the United  States  was open to alternative solutions that could be more 
effective than a working group . 
39.  Several Members recognized the  importance of the matter, as confirmed by the extensive 
discussions in formal meetings. However, t he ongoing Working Group (WG) on Approval Procedures, 
the upcoming Sixth Review, and the work programme on the MC12 SPS Declaration  raised concerns 
in terms of resources, potential duplication and overlaps. A couple of Members  highlighted  the need 
to evaluate  the added value of this new work in light of the current work by Codex and other relevant 
institutions, and highlighted the need to seek a balanced appro ach to target the whole spectrum of 
SPS issues . Should all Members agree to launch this new work, the Member was of the view that 
agreement should also be reached to allocate less time to these matters in formal sessions.  
40.  Several Members called for fu rther reflection on the best way  optimize  the use of  limited 
resources ; one Member suggested extending this reflection to the  suggested working group  to 
monitor the process of international harmonization.  
41.  One Member  proposed to hold an informal meetin g in July to give the Secretariat time to consult 
Members and circulate a paper with general elements. This would allow for a clear er view to start 
the process before the November Committee meeting.  
42.  Another Member  supported the proposal to further dee pen work on some elements , such as 
those identified in paragraph 8 on harmonization, transition periods and channels of trade. 
Another  Member asked proponents for clarification on paragraph 8 regarding the proposal to develop 
guidance on transition periods  for changed import MRLs, given the existing provisions in document 
WT/MIN(01)/17  on the reasonable interval between the publication of SPS regulations and their 
entry into force.  
43.  Two Members  sought a clarification on a previous Member's  suggestion to spend  less time in 
discussions o f these topics in the formal sessions. Noting that the extensive discussions on this topic  
in the Committee was the reason for putting forward this proposal, one of these Members  asked 
which agenda items in the formal should be a llocated less time.  
44.  In concluding, I  noted the general  interest in this topic, but concluded that there d id not seem 
to be agreement at this point on establishing a working group . I called on proponents to reach out 
to other Members for further consul tations, and offered the Chairperson's assistance as necessary. 
I invited Members to submit comments on the joint submission by 22 July.  
4  PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION 
(G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877 , G/SPS/GEN/1915  AND G/SPS/GEN/1998 ) 
45.  I reminded Members about the N ew Zealand 's submissions on the procedure to monitor the 
process of international harmonization in documents G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877 , 
G/SPS/GEN/1915  and G/SPS/GEN/1998 . I noted that some of the themes contained in these 
documents had been explored in the November 2021 thematic session.  G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 58 - 
 
  46.  New Zealand provided an overview of its various proposals, highlighti ng the Thematic Session 
on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization held in November 2021. 
While noting the initial overall support for its proposal, New Zealand reported  that, based on the 
comments received , Members and the ISSB s had acknowledged the importance of the procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization,  but d id not consider  its review to be a priority 
at this time.  
47.  New Zealand underscored that the purpose of its proposal was to highlight the issues faced by 
ISSBs in the implementation of their standards  by Members,  and that this goal has been achieved. 
New Zealand suggested that the Secretariat encourage the ISSBs to  provide brief reports during the 
agenda item on harmonization in future SPS Committee  meetings. New Zealand further indicated 
that it d id not intend to make any subsequent proposals on this topic, and thanked the ISSBs and 
Members for their inputs on the process to date.  
48.  One Member indicated its general support for the proposed ideas in G/SPS/GEN/1998 , which 
dealt with the work indicated in Article  12.4 and the 3 ISSBs. The Member suggested that the current 
IT tools used for the Committee could further the implementation of Arti cle 12.4 in a meaningful 
way, and recalled the mandate  in Article  12.4 for the Committee to develop a procedure to monitor 
the process of international harmonization and the use of international standards, guidelines or 
recommendations. Article  12.4 indica ted that the Committee should, in conjunction with the relevant 
international organizations, establish a list of international standards, guidelines or 
recommendations relating to SPS measures which the Committee determine d to have a major trade 
impact.  
49.  The Member reminded the Committee that  a provisional mechanism had been developed and 
reviewed  each year, but noted that this mechanism d id not meet the requirements of Article  12.4, 
since the mechanism was only a forum for Members to express their diff iculties with a particular 
standard . The Member further indicated that there could be  other ways to move forward, relying on 
information  technology to collect and process data. In addition, the advances made by the ISSBs in 
relation to the general oversigh t of the implementation of standards could be useful, both in relation 
to notifications and STCs.  
50.  In drawing attention to the work being undertaken by the ISSBs, the Member also underscored 
the possibility of coordinating certain areas of work with th e WTO, such as the sharing of information 
in notifications – for example, information provided in item 8 of the notification template which refers 
to whether there is a relevant international standard and if the proposed regulation conforms to the 
relevant  international standard. The Member reiterated its support for Ne Zealand's  proposal, 
while recognizing the need to further assess its viability and engage in additional discussions, and 
also further indicated that if it were not possible to discuss a work  programme for the moment, then 
other alternatives could be discussed. In addition, the Member noted that whether a working group 
or some other mechanism was used, there was need to complete the mandate  in Article  12.4 using 
all available WTO tools and mec hanisms to avo id duplication, and with coordination between the 
Secretariat and the ISSBs.  
51.  Regarding the proposal to create a working group to monitor the process of international 
harmonization, another Member indicated that considering the limited time and resources, and 
potential overlap, that the Committee should further reflect before committing to additional working 
groups.  
52.  I thanked Members for their inputs on the proposals and acknowledged New Zealand's 
statement. I encouraged Mem bers and ISSBs to provide regular updates on this item.  
5  upcoming thematic session ( G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ) 
53.  Regarding  the upcoming Thematic Session on International Standards and Best Practices in Pest 
Risk Identification, Assessment and Management, based on the s ubmission by the European  Union  
(G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ), I noted that comments received from Members had been  shared with the 
European  Union . 
54.  The European  Union  indicated that the aim of the proposal was to further explore views and 
best practices on this important topic, also in view of the increasing number of STCs on plant health. G/SPS/R/107  
 
- 59 - 
 
  The European  Union  thanked Canada, Chile, Egypt, Indonesia and the United  States  for having 
provided comments and offered to share experiences. The European  Union  had also exchanged 
preliminary ideas with the IPPC. The European  Union  invited  Members to provide further suggestions 
to the planned programme and looked forward to starting  concrete work with other Members, 
the Secretariat and the IPPC.  
55.  One Member  thanked the European  Union  for the proposal and confirmed its support for 
the initiative and its participation.  
56.  I invited Members to submit comments on the proposal and/o r suggestions of speakers by 
22 July. 
6  COVID -19 AND SPS ISSUES  
57.  I recalled that COVID -19 and SPS issues had been discussed at the dedicated information 
sharing session of June 2020, and at every meeting since then. I noted that only one COVID -related 
notification had been submitted since the previous SPS Committee  meeting in March. No Member or 
observer organization provided updates on this topic.  
 
__________