RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/98  
 
10 August  2020 
(20-5490) Page: 1/7 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
COVID -19 INFORMATION SHARING SESSION – 24 JUNE 2020  
WRITTEN SUMMARY - DRAFT  
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  The SPS Committee held an information -sharing session on COVID -19 on 24 June 2020, 
preceding its informal and formal meetings. Requested by Members in May 2020, the session 
brought together Members, the Secretariat, the three standard -setting bodies Codex, IPPC and OIE, 
the WHO and other observers to share relevant information regarding the COVID -19 situation, 
including on SPS measures and rel ated activities.1  
1.2.  The session was held at the WTO headquarters, with most participants connecting through an 
online platform. Over 20 delegations took the floor to share their experiences in tackling the 
pandemic. The following bullet points summarize a few key points, while sections two to four below 
provide a more detailed account on the information.  
• The WTO Secretariat has put in place a dedicated webpage2 to facilitate access to information 
and analysis in relation to COVID -19, including a compilati on of trade measures relating to 
goods, services and intellectual property adopted in the context of the pandemic . Out of the 
175 notifications related to COVID -19, 40% had been submitted under the WTO's Agreement 
on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and 2 5% under the SPS Agreement.  
• The SPS notifications received reveal that temporary restrictions on terrestrial and aquatic 
animals and animal products from affected areas were the most common initial reaction at 
the outset of the health crisis. Some of thes e restrictions were subsequently lifted as more 
information about virus transmission has become available. Since April 2020, most 
notifications have related to measures taken to facilitate trade, representing almost half of 
the total.  
• A large segment of th ese trade facilitating measures concern streamlining certification and 
related procedure s through electronic aids and other flexibilities, as also reported by several 
delegations during the session. S ome Members have notified a permanent move to  electronic  
phytosanitary certification based on  the IPPC's e-Phyto Solution3, supported by the 
Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF).  Speakers from the IPPC and OIE 
encouraged the acceptance of electronic certification to minimise the pandemic's impact on  
the procedural aspects of trade, without compromising safety considerations.  
• Codex, IPPC and OIE have adapted their standard -setting work to the situation, postponing 
meetings and/or moving to virtual or hybrid meetings, as necessary. The OIE has 
commence d work on risk -based standards and guidance on wildlife trade and recommends 
that COVID -related SPS measures be introduced only where necessary  to protect human or 
animal health, based on  risk analysis, and in line with relevant international standards .4 
Speakers stressed that adherence to international standards and effective participation in 
 
1 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1795 . 
2 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/covid19_e.htm . 
3 https://www.ippc.int/en/ephyto/ . 
4 https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Our_scientific_expertise/docs/pdf/COV -19/A_COVID -
19_Considerations_OIE_Sanitary_Measures.pdf . G/SPS/R/98  
 
- 2 - 
 
  standard -setting work is important to avoid – as one speaker put it – measures taken 
"because of action bias and not based on science".   
• WHO and FAO have produced joint guidance for food businesses and food safety authorities 
on COVID -19 and food safety: " Guidance for Food Businesses"5 recommends additional 
measures to maintain the integrity of the food chain while protecting workers from 
contracting COVID -19, and "Guidance for competent authorities responsible for national food 
safety control systems "6 suggests how authorities can ope rate amid the pandemic in a way 
that will minimise disruptions to national food safety programmes and support producers 
and processors to keep safe food supply lines open. The WHO's International Health 
Regulations also play a central role, including in mo nitoring and disseminating information 
on domestic public health responses to the pandemic.   
• Speakers emphasised consistently  that maintaining and facilitating safe agr icultural and food 
trade is key to  mitigat ing the pandemic's n egative effects on food se curity and livelihoods . 
In this context, many voiced a strong call for WTO Members to adhere to the core principles 
of the SPS Agreement – including transparency and scientific basis – in the design and 
implementation of their COVID response measures.   
• Several developing country Members emphasised the challenges that the pandemic had 
brought,  having to stretch limited resources to  protect people's lives, ensure public health 
and guarantee food security. They urged Members t o ensure the smooth functioning of  
agricultural and food supply chains and stressed a communication7 from over 30 Members 
from Latin America, Africa, the Caribbean and Asia, requesting in particular the European 
Union to suspend its pesticide MRL review processes for a period of 12 months .  
2  INFORMATION FROM WTO AND STDF  
2.1.  The session was opened by a presentation by the WTO Secretariat, outlining numbers and 
trends in COVID -19 related SPS notifications and other communications. At the beginning of the 
pandemic, the WTO created a dedicated web  page8 compiling COVID -19 related information and 
analysis, including on measures on goods, services and intellectual property. The Secretariat 
reported that Members had submitted 175 COVID -related notifications and that 40% of these were 
on TBT measures and 25% on SPS measures. All SPS notifications can be retrieved from the SPS 
Information Management System (SPS IMS) using the COVID -19 SPS keywords filter  or through the 
ePing  e-mail alert system's COVID option.   
2.2.  The WTO Secretariat reported that in the f irst stages of the pandemic, Members had mainly 
notified emergency trade restrictions and increased certification requirements on the imports and 
transit of terrestrial or aquatic animals and animal products from affected areas to limit the spread 
of the v irus. Subsequently, some of these restrictions had been lifted, which had been notified 
through addenda to the original notifications. The Secretariat explained that since April, most 
notifications from Members had related to measures taken to facilitate t rade, which now represented 
almost half of the total. Often, these referred to the acceptance of photocopies or scanned versions 
of certificates. Some Members had also notified a permanent move to electronic phytosanitary 
certification based on the IPPC's ePhyto solution, supported by the STDF. The Secretariat's 
presentation is available in document  RD/SPS/112 .9  
2.3.  The STDF explained that work was progressing through virtual practitioner groups and 
meetings, including the STDF Working Group, which had approved several new projects and project 
preparation grants in a virtual meeting in April. Knowledge sharing work on cross -cutting topics such 
as electronic certification and prioritization of SPS investments was on -going as planned. 
The pandemic's biggest impact had been felt in the STDF  project portfolio, through cancelled 
capacity building activities and challenges to maintain governments' in -kind contributions at planned 
 
5 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/covid -19-and-food-safety -guidance -for-food-businesses .  
6 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/covid -19-and-food-safety -guidance -for-competent -
authorities -responsible -for-national -food-safety -control -systems .  
7 G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.1 . A second revision was circulated in G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2  on 25 June 2020. 
Reference is made to Rev.2 throughout this report.  
8 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid 19_e/covid19_e.htm . 
9 Restricted room document.  G/SPS/R/98  
 
- 3 - 
 
  levels, among others. In May 2020, the STDF had organized a webinar on COVID -19, featuring all 
STDF partners (FAO, O IE, WHO, World Bank and WTO) and the Codex and IPPC Secretariats, to hear 
about different responses to the pandemic, both from a health and trade facilitation perspective. 
The STDF had also created a COVID -19 webpage with links to relevant activities by it s partners.10 
3  UPDATES FROM CODEX, IPPC AND OIE  
3.1.  Codex outlined how it had adapted its work to the situation, holding meetings in virtual or 
hybrid mode, as necessary. These included plans to hold a virtual Codex Alimentarius Commission 
meeting in September/ October 2020 in order to take decisions based on the outcomes from 
committees from 2019. Codex already had several texts that were important in times of COVID -19, 
especially related to food hygiene but also on facilitating trade through import and export i nspection 
and certification guidance. Progress was also being made on other topics of relevance to the current 
situation, including on internet sale of foods. Codex emphasised the importance of broad -based 
participation in standard -setting work and adheren ce to science -based international standards, even 
more so in a crisis such as the present one. All COVID -19 related information was available from a 
dedicated section accessible through the Codex website.11 More information about Codex' 
COVID -related and o ther activities is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1790 .  
3.2.  The OIE had worked on COVID -19 since January , when the link between the virus and animals 
had been  established ; in close cooperation with the WHO and FAO . It had initiated an informal 
advisory group that regularly shared infor mation on the latest science and provided technical 
information to members, disseminated through a dedicated COVID questions and answers section 
on the OIE website.12 Since February, members had filed reports to the OIE of animals infected with 
SARS -CoV-2, as the virus falls under the organization' s reporting obligations as an emerging disease.  
The virus had been found among others on dogs and cats and was spreading on mink  farms, but no 
food producing animals had yet been shown susceptible to it.  
3.3.  An OIE ex pert group focusing on the interface of COVID and safe trade in animals and animal 
products had been operational since February. As per its recommendations issued in May, OIE 
members should not introduce COVID -19 related sanitary measures unless these have  been shown 
necessary to protect human or animal health, are scientifically justified by risk analysis, and in line 
with international standards.13 As such, implementation of OIE standards under the principles of the 
SPS Agreement was fully expected also a mid the crisis, although the expert group had encouraged 
administrative flexibility on certain procedural aspects of trade such as acceptance of electronic 
certification. The OIE's wildlife working group14 had made a statement on wildlife trade and emergin g 
zoonotic diseases, calling for actions to better regulate trade in wild animals given their prominent 
role in risk emergence. The OIE was also engaging with the WHO, FAO, UNEP, CITES and other 
stakeholders to develop a longer -term work programme aiming t o better understand the dynamics 
and risks around wildlife trade and consumption. More information about the OIE's COVID -related 
and other activities is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1789 , and the OIE's presentation at the 
session is available in document RD/SPS/113 .15  
3.4.  The IPPC stressed the importance of guaranteein g food security amid the crisis. Facilitating 
safe trade in plants and plant products played an essential role in this respect, given that 80% of 
food is plant based. The IPPC had continued its activities in virtual mode where possible, using online 
commen ting tools which had facilitated work on draft standards. More information about the IPPC's 
activities is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1787 .  
 
10 https://www.standardsfacility.org/stdf -partnership -updates -covid-19. 
11 www.codexalimentarius.com .  
12https://www.oie.int/en/scientific -expertise/specific -information -and-recommendati ons/questions -and-
answers -on-2019novel -coronavirus .   
13 https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Our_scientific_expertise/docs/pdf/COV -19/A_COVID -
19_Considerations_OIE_ Sanitary_Measures.pdf .  
14 https://www.oie.int/?id=440#2812 . 
15 Restricted room document . G/SPS/R/98  
 
- 4 - 
 
  4  UPDATES FROM MEMBERS AND OBSERVERS  
4.1.  The WHO provided an update on guidance that it had developed together with FAO on food 
safety. Guidance document " COVID -19 and Food Safety: Guidance for Food Businesses "16 aimed to 
keep the virus out of the food supply chain and protect workers from COVID -19 infection. According 
to this guidance, it was highly unlikely that people contract COVID -19 from food or food packaging, 
as the primary transmission route was through person -to-person contact. WHO and FAO had also 
developed guidance  on COVID -19 and food safety for competent authorities responsible for national 
food safety control systems17 to add ress e.g. a need for support in the reorganisation of food control 
activities during changing situations such as shifting consumption patterns and increased risk of food 
fraud. WHO had also issued new communications material as a result of a recent increas e in 
COVID -19 outbreaks in and around packing houses and other food production sites and was finalising 
guidance on how to manage the risk of animal -carried diseases in 'wet' markets or other traditional 
markets.  
4.2.  The WHO also explained the role of the Inte rnational Health Regulations (IHR) in monitoring 
and disseminating information on COVID -related measures. The IHR aim to prevent uncontrolled 
public health responses to crises and under them, countries are required to report within 48 hours 
any measures ad opted on public health grounds, to be shared with all state parties of the 
organization. Notified measures had included among others travel bans, visa restrictions and 
quarantine of incoming travellers, and as specifically related to trade, import bans of food products 
and export bans and restrictions on medical equipment. The Emergency Committee convened by 
the WHO Director -General under the International Health Regulations , which had declared COVID -19 
a public health emergency of international concern in January, had recommended at its last meeting 
in April that countries impose measures restricting international trade and traffic only in accordance 
with the relevant international agreements.  
4.3.  Senegal  explained how its food systems had adapted to the COVID -19 crisis, the main aim 
being the protection of workers within the production chain. The value of the country's main 
exports -the horticultural sector, groundnuts and cashews - had stood at 230 billio n francs in 2019 
but this upward trend risked falling as a result of the pandemic. Especially the cashew sector had 
experienced challenges because of work and movement restrictions and lesser import/export 
activity. Senegal reported that a handbook of good  hygiene practices was being prepared by health 
authorities, to prevent further spread of COVID -19 in the country. This and other positive actions 
had shown a certain resilience of the phytosanitary control systems, benefiting especially the mango 
sector a s compared to the previous year.  
4.4.  The European Union  outlined its response to the crisis and explained that it would accept 
scanned copies of SPS certificates on a temporary basis until August 2020. It also welcomed other 
Members' trade facilitating measure s to maintain an open trade of agri -food products. The European 
Union expressed concerns regarding additional COVID -19 related tests, inspections and other 
requirements imposed on imported food products, and recalled that according to the WHO and the 
Europ ean Food Safety Authority, there was no evidence that food could be a source of virus 
transmission. The European Union's full statement is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1799 .18  
4.5.  Colombia  explained that it would accept scanned copies of SPS certificates for the duration of 
the pande mic to facilitate open trade of food and agricultural products and thanked other Members 
that had done the same. It echoed a group of more than 30 Members from Latin America, Africa, 
the Caribbean and Asia who had requested the European Union to suspend it s ongoing pesticide MRL 
review processes on account of the pandemic in communication G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.219. Colombia 
explained that COVID -19 infections had risen to over 70,000 in June and that national resources 
were largely harnessed to combat the disease. Colombia's full statement is available in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1817/Rev.1 . 
 
16 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/covid -19-and-food-safety -guidance -for-food-businesses .  
17 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/covid -19-and-food-safety -guidance -for-competent -
authorities -responsible -for-national -food-safety -control -systems . 
18 The European Union subsequently submitted document G/SPS/GEN/1814 , providing responses to the 
requests in communication  G/SPS/GEN/1778 . 
19 Some spea kers referred to previous versions of this document.  G/SPS/R/98  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.6.  Chile outlined measures that it had adopted to minimise the pandemic's negative effects on 
trade flows. By instructions of the Chilean Ministry for Health, regional authorities were accepting 
customs  documents and SPS certificates in electronic format; in addition, the Agriculture and 
Livestock Service had waived physical inspections of consignments presenting low phytosanitary 
risk, and physical inspections of vessels at maritime ports had been reduc ed. Chile had provided a 
new tool which allowed exporters to upload SPS certificates in PDF format rather than presenting 
them on paper, and all export authorizations valid as at March 2020 that were about to expire would 
be renewed for a year.  
4.7.  Chile also  briefed the Committee about joint work on electronic SPS certification with Argentina, 
Peru, Colombia and the United States, based on the IPPC's ePhyto solution. In the field of fisheries 
and aquaculture, Chile had been working towards online verification  of certificates as well as 
innovations towards remote inspection and automatization. Lastly, Chile recalled that at present, 
there was no scientific evidence that the SARS -CoV-2 virus spread through food products and 
cautioned Members against adopting SPS  measures that were more trade restrictive than necessary. 
More information about Chile's COVID -related activities is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1770 . 
4.8.  Canada  explained that it had led the development of the joint statement "Responding to the 
COVID -19 pandemic with open and predi ctable trade in agricultural and food products" of 22 April 
with 29 WTO Members20, underlining their commitment to a coordinated global response to combat 
the crisis. Canada was confident that the measures it had taken provided assurances that food and 
food products consumed domestically and exported from Canada were safe and fully met all 
importing countries' requirements. In this respect, Canada recalled that according to FAO/WHO 
guidance, there was no evidence that food or food packaging transmitted the virus. Canada urged 
all Members to base their COVID -related measures on science and international guidance, including 
that issued by FAO/WHO and the OIE. Canada's full statement is available in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1809 . 
4.9.  Paraguay  was implementing certain trade -facilitating measures in the form of e -certificates of 
origin and other procedures, and as a landlocked developing country, noted the importance of such 
measures to guarantee food security during the crisis. COVID -19 had presented major human and 
economic challenges that were felt  especially in developing countries whose resources were largely 
needed to combat the disease. Paraguay drew the Committee's attention to communication 
G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2  in which it had, together with 30 Members from Latin America, Africa, the 
Caribbean and Asia, reque sted the European Union to suspend its on -going MRL review processes 
for a period of 12 months. Paraguay hoped to receive a positive reply from the European Union on 
this matter.  
4.10.  Argentina  drew attention to communication G/SPS/GEN/1772 , where it had described 
measures and tools put i n place to facilitate the submission and acceptance of phytosanitary 
certificates. Concerning exports from Argentina, relevant operators could check the validity of 
phytosanitary certificates through an electronic validation code, through the IPPC's ePhyto  system, 
as well as through a blockchain -enabled system. Regarding  imports to Argentina, the requirement 
to submit an original paper -based phytosanitary certificate could be waived, provided that a digital 
version of the certificate with a mechanism to ver ify its validity was subm itted. 
4.11.  Australia  thanked Members for accepting alternative SPS certification and allowing remote 
auditing in order to facilitate trade. It recalled that all measures, including those applied to the 
importation of food, must be evid ence-based and supported by science, also stressing that according 
to the WHO, there was no evidence that COVID -19 was transmitted by food or food packaging.  
4.12.  Korea  explained that it had decided with trading partners, including Australia, the European 
Union and New Zealand, to accept electronic copies of export certificates while waiting for the original 
versions. This had not caused issues in customs clearance and m ovement of agricultural and food 
products, and Korea hoped to engage with WTO Members to jointly address COVID -19 related 
challenges.  
4.13.  China  thanked WTO Members and the international community at large for their support 
during the fight against COVID -19. Th e spread of the pandemic had been blocked effectively and 
normal life and production restored, but China was also facing the risk of a rebound of the virus in 
 
20 WT/GC/208  - G/AG/30 . G/SPS/R/98  
 
- 6 - 
 
  the country. China called all WTO Members to work together to combat the virus and made three 
suggestions in this respect. First, China urged Members to adhere to WTO rules and guidance by the 
WHO and FAO to facilitate the flow of safe trade and to ensure an open, stable and secure supply 
chain. Second, China wished to see solid cooperation in the pro vision of anti -pandemic materials 
and daily necessities, and third, made a general call for an open environment for international trade. 
China had adopted many trade -facilitating measures and notified them to the WTO.  
4.14.  Brazil  highlighted the importance of the SPS Agreement in times of crisis, urging Members to 
base their SPS measures on science in order to avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable trade barriers. It 
recalled the importance of guaranteeing food security by ensuring a reliable supply of agri -food 
products and explained that it had implemented electronic signatures on phytosanitary certificates 
to decrease physical contact and make the process more efficient. This measure had been notified 
to the WTO under symbol G/SPS/N/BRA/1642 . 
4.15.  Indonesia  outlined measures that it had taken in response to COVID -19. These included: 
validation of digital SPS certificates as notified in document G/SPS/N/IDN/134 , measures on the 
importation of live animals as notified in document G/SPS/N/IDN/133 , and certain measures 
concerning fishery products for food safety reasons. Indonesia thanked Members an d observer 
organizations for their updates and highlighted the importance of information sharing in tackling the 
pandemic.  
4.16.  Peru reported on the issuance of digital SPS certificates on fisheries and aquaculture products 
in response to COVID -19, as detailed  in document G/SPS/GEN/1783 . For Peruvian imports, the 
submission of paper certificates could be exempted provided that a validation mechanism was used. 
Peru urged Members to apply reciprocal measures for the acceptance of SPS certificates with digital 
signature. It also had in place  a single window for certificates for processed food.  
4.17.  Ecuador  referenced the WHO/FAO guidance document on food safety, noting that it was very 
unlikely for COVID -19 to spread by food, given that the virus needed an animal or human host to 
multiply. Ecuador  further recalled that the SPS Agreement requires Members to take into account 
the special needs of developing countries when designing and implementing SPS measures. Ecuador 
restated its support for the joint communication G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2 , requesting the European 
Union to suspend its ongoing pesticide MRL review processes for a period of 12 months. Ecuador 
also drew Members' attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1771 , where it had invited Members to 
accept digital copies of phytosanitary export certificates when exporters are unable to send physical 
copies to importers. The Ecuadorian Agency for Plant and Animal Health Regulation had launched an 
online platform to facilitate the process of viewing and verifying electronic certificates.  
4.18.  The United States  reiterated its commitment to protecting public h ealth and complying with 
its obligations under the SPS Agreement. The US regulatory agencies were working with their 
counterparts to share scientific evidence about the virus and information about the approaches taken 
to protect consumers and maintain trad e. The United States called attention to the introduction of 
certain food safety measures which had created escalating confusion and consternation across food 
supply chains. The United States asked that all Members base their actions to protect public heal th 
and safety amid the COVID -19 pandemic on scientific principles and evidence of risk, and to avoid 
unnecessary barriers to food trade vital to global food security . The United States' full statement is 
available in document G/SPS/GEN/1798 . New Zealand aligned itself with the US sta tement.  
4.19.  The Russian Federation  explained that it had established a crisis centre to support 
coordination and develop a coherent approach to preventing the spread of the virus. Its Federal 
Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance was fully eng aged to analyse the disease 
transmission routes and guarantee a safe supply of animal and plant products. The Russian research 
centre for animal health had developed a technique of isolating  SARS -CoV-2 in biological samples, 
paving the way for diagnostic t esting of COVID -19 in animals and at present, samples from close to 
60 animals had been tested. Laboratory experiments performed by Russian researchers had also 
independently confirmed the conclusion made by Chinese and American researchers related to 
airborne virus transmission in certain situations. The development of a coronavirus test kit had 
allowed the removal of temporary restrictions on exotic and ornamental animals from China, and 
work on  experimental COVID vaccines was underway.   G/SPS/R/98  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.20.  Mexico  thanked Me mbers for adopting trade facilitating measures in the context of the public 
health emergency, essential for the circulation of foodstuffs and medical equipment. It echoed 
Australia, Chile, Ecuador, the European Union and the United States in expressing con cerns 
regarding certain restrictions on foodstuffs that generate unnecessary costs to exporters and 
consumers. Mexico considered that these measures could violate the SPS Agreement, recalling that 
SPS measures must be transparent and backed by science and international standards.  
4.21.  Chinese Taipei  explained that due to COVID -19 related delays and cancellations in airfreight 
and courier mail services, it had adopted temporary alternative arrangements for the presentation 
of SPS certificates, as notified in documents G/SPS/N/TPKM/526  and G/SPS/N/TPKM/530 . 
These  measures would remain in force at le ast until 30 June 2020, when the custom territory's 
competent authorities would reassess the situation. Chinese Taipei noted that the pandemic was 
sustained by human -to-human transmission and therefore urged Members to base any trade bans 
and restrictions on animals and animal products on international guidance and science. Chinese 
Taipei had adopted measures to deter COVID -19 already before its first confirmed case and had 
been successful in limiting the total number of local infections to 446 in a period of over 66 days.  
4.22.  Guatemala  urged Members to avoid any SPS measures not backed by science in line with the 
SPS Agreement in the fight against the pandemic, noting the negative effect of unduly restrictive 
measures on rural development and livelihoods. Echo ing several previous delegations, Guatemala 
referenced document G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2  and requested the European Union to suspend all its 
ongoing MRL review processes for a period of 12 months. Guatemala was witnessing approximately 
700 positive COVID cases per day and had  adopted movement restrictions, including a temporary 
suspension of all public transport.   
 
__________