RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/109  
 
5 May 2023 
(23-3213) Page: 1/56 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 22-24 MARCH  2023 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  6 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  6 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ ............................  6 
2.1.1   Japan - Update on the import measu res on Japanese food regarding radionuclides 
(G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.5)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6 
2.1.2   Russian  Federation - Results of the International Co nference on Food Safety and AMR  ...... 7 
2.1.3   United  States - Voices from the Field: Digital Solutions and Innovations for Sustainable  
Agriculture; event organized by Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Paraguay, and the United  States 
(G/SPS/GEN/2092)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  7 
2.1.4   Ukraine - Information on SPS situation  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
2.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and WOAH on relevant activities  ................................ ........  8 
2.2.1   Codex (G/SPS/GEN/2109)  ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
2.2.2   IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/2104)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  8 
2.2.3   WOAH (G/SPS/GEN/2106)  ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  9 
3.1.1   Australia's MRLs stricter than Codex standards in products of interest to India - request to 
share risk assessments (G/SPS/N/AUS/555) (ID  559) - Concerns of India  ................................ . 9 
3.1.2   New Zealand's amendment of MRLs for cyantraniliprole, tetracyclines and trichlorfon 
(G/SPS/N/NZL/695) (ID  560) - Concerns of I ndia ................................ ................................ . 10 
3.1.3   China's suspension of beef imports due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) 
restrictions (ID  561) - Concerns of Canada  ................................ ................................ ..........  10 
3.1.4   China's import restrictions on heat -treated pet food containing poultry ingredients due to 
highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  562) - Concerns of Canada  ................................ ...........  10 
3.1.5   Mexico's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  563) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  11 
3.1.6   South Africa's delays in granting SPS access for poultry, beef, pork, fish and sea food 
(ID 564) - Concerns of the Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................ ..... 11 
3.1.7   India's approval procedures to import plants, animals and their prod ucts (ID  565) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ........................  11 
3.1.8   India's undue delay in importing twelve species of fresh mushrooms (ID  566) - Concerns 
of Korea  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  11 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.1.9   Japan's approval procedures to import plant products (ID  567) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  12 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ...........................  12 
3.2.1   EU MRLs for al pha-cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos -
methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, mancozeb, 
molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID  448 - See also related STCs ID 453, 454, 457, 474, 
475, 517) - Concerns of Paraguay, the United  States, Ecuador and Costa  Rica ..........................  12 
3.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors  (ID 382) - Concerns of Paraguay  .........................  15 
3.2.3   EU import tolerances for certain pesticides to achieve environmental outcomes in third  
countries (ID  534) - Concerns of Australia, Ecuador and China  ................................ ...............  16 
3.2.4   EU regulation No 396/2005 setting pesticide MRLs in food and feed of plant and animal 
origin (ID  549) - Concerns of China and India  ................................ ................................ ...... 19 
3.2.5   EU Commission proposal for reduction o f the current MRL for "nicotine" for imported tea 
from India (G/SPS/N/EU/581) (ID  550) - Concerns of India  ................................ ...................  19 
3.2.6   EU restricti ons on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application of the 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 
1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for cadmium in foodstuff (ID  503) - Concerns of Peru  ..... 20 
3.2.7   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (ID  446) - Concerns of the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  20 
3.2.8   India's Draft Food Safety and Standards (Import) Amendment Regulation (ID  553) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ........................  22 
3.2.9   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural products 
(ID 487) - Concerns of Australia, Japan and the European  Union  ................................ ............  23 
3.2.10    China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of imported 
food (26 Novembe r 2019) (ID  485) - Concerns of Australia, the European  Union, the United  States 
and Japan  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  23 
3.2.11    China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID  516) - Concerns of Australia and Canada  ................................ ..................  25 
3.2.12    Saudi  Arabia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting establishments 
(ID 486) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ .............................  26 
3.2.13    Panama's un due delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of fishery and 
livestock  enterprises (ID  509) - Concerns of Peru  ................................ ................................ . 26 
3.2.14    Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and fisheries products (ID  530) - Concerns 
of Peru ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  26 
3.2.15    India's Order related to requirement of health certificate accompanied with imported food 
consignment of milk, pork, fish and related products (ID  554) - Concerns of the  European  Union  27 
3.2.16    EU delays in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup) (ID  526) - 
Concerns of K orea ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  28 
3.2.17    EU Regulations 2021/405 and 2017/185 on vitamin D3 (ID  551) - Concerns of China  .... 28 
3.2.18    EU increased sampling frequency for inspection of farmed shrimps and newly listed fishery 
establishments not permitted to export aquaculture products (ID  552) - Concerns of India  .........  28 
3.2.19    General import restrictions due to BSE (ID  193) - Concerns of the European  Union ........  28 
3.2.20    EU recognition of Mexico as a country with WOAH negligible BSE risk (ID  543) - Concerns 
of Mexico  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  29 
3.2.21    Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports (ID  490) 
- Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ......................  29 
3.2.22    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(ID 431) - Concerns of the European  Union ................................ ................................ .........  30 G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.2.23    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  406) - Concerns 
of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 30 
3.2.24    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  392) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  30 
3.2.25    Peru's non -application of regionalization for African swine fever (ID  544) - Concerns of 
the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  31 
3.2.26    Chinese  Taipei's import restrictions on poultry and beef (ID  521) - Concerns of Brazil  .... 31 
3.2.27    The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID  466) - Concerns of the 
European  Union and the Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................ .........  31 
3.2.28    Nigeria's import restrictions on meat, pork, poultry, milk and dairy products, genetic 
material and live cattle (ID  523) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ............................  32 
3.2.29    Qatar's new import rules for dairy products (ID  529) - Concerns of the European  Union  . 32 
3.2.30    Thailand's sanitary requirements on wet blue leather imports (ID  539) – 
Concerns  of Brazil   ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  32 
3.2.31    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID  441) - Concerns of 
the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  33 
3.2.32    Korea's requirement of a health certificate with a declaration of aquatic disease status 
(ID 557) - Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ..............................  33 
3.2.33    India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID  501) - 
Concerns of the United  States  ................................ ................................ ............................  34 
3.2.34    Panama's restrictions and procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes and onions 
(ID 512) - Concerns of Peru  ................................ ................................ ..............................  35 
3.2.35    Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions (ID  498) - Concerns of Peru  ............  35 
3.2.36    China's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID  532) - Concerns of Chinese  Taipei  ............  35 
3.2.37    US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID  439) - Concerns of the European  Union  .. 36 
3.2.38   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  ...........................  36 
3.2.39    The Morocco's import ban on ornamental plants (ID  548) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  36 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23)  ................................ ........  37 
4   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 37 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  37 
4.1.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  37 
4.2   Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  ................................ ..............................  37 
4.2.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  37 
4.2.1.1    Chile - Declaration regarding quarantine pests (G/SPS/GEN/2107)  .............................  37 
4.2.1.2    Argentina - Current avian influenza status  ................................ ..............................  37 
4.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ..........  38 
4.3.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  38 
4.3.1.1    Brazil - Implementation of transparency provisions  ................................ ..................  38 
4.3.2   Annual Report on Transparency and Specific Trade Concerns (G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 
and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23)  ................................ ................................ ............................  38 
4.4   Control, inspection and approval procedures  ................................ ................................  38 
4.4.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  38 G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 4 - 
 
  4.4.2   Working Group on Approval Procedures (G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1, G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1, 
G/SPS/GEN/2097, G/SPS/GEN/2098 and G/SPS/GEN/2099)  ................................ ..................  39 
4.5   Special and differential treatment  ................................ ................................ ..............  39 
4.5.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  39 
4.5.2   Presentation from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .............  39 
4.6   Monitoring of the use of international standards  ................................ ...........................  40 
4.6.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  40 
4.6.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ..........................  40 
4.6.2.1    European  Union - ASF restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international standard  40 
4.6.2.2    European  Union - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international standard
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 40 
4.6.2.3    Canada - Update on WOAH BSE negligible risk status  ................................ ...............  40 
4.6.3   WOAH - Joint side event on monitoring and the Observatory project  .............................  40 
4.7   Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS  Agreement 
(G/SPS/64 and G/SPS/64/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ ......................  41 
4.7.1   Report on the informal meeting  ................................ ................................ ...............  41 
4.7.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  41 
5   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  41 
5.1   SPS Declaration Work Programme (WT/MIN(22)/27 and G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1)  .................  41 
5.1.1   Update on thematic groups  ................................ ................................ .....................  41 
5.2   MC12 implementation matters (JOB/CTG/19/Rev.2, G/C/W/824/Rev.1 and 
JOB/SPS/25/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  42 
5.2.1   Information from the Chair  ................................ ................................ ......................  42 
5.2.2   Submission from Members (JOB/SPS/25/Rev.1)  ................................ .........................  42 
5.3   November 2023 Thematic Session  ................................ ................................ .............  43 
5.3.1   Proposal from the United  States (G/SPS/GEN/2067)  ................................ ...................  43 
6   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  43 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ...............  43 
6.1.1   WTO SPS Activities (G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.13 and G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.18)  ....................  44 
6.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/2102)  ................................ ................................ ........................  44 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................  44 
6.2.1   European  Union - SPS-related technical assistance provided in 2019 -2020 
(G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.6)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 44 
7   CONCERNS WITH PRIV ATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  ................................ ...... 44 
8   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  44 
8.1   Information from Observer Organizations  ................................ ................................ .... 44 
8.1.1   OECD (G/SPS/GEN/2091)  ................................ ................................ .......................  44 
8.1.2   OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/2093)  ................................ ................................ ......................  45 
8.1.3   GSO (G/SPS/GEN/2094)  ................................ ................................ .........................  45 
8.1.4   IGAD (G/SPS/GEN/2095)  ................................ ................................ ........................  45 
8.1.5   ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/2096)  ................................ ................................ ...................  45 
8.1.6   ITC (G/SPS/GEN/2101)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  45 G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 5 - 
 
  8.1.7   IICA (G/SPS/GEN/2103)  ................................ ................................ .........................  45 
8.1.8   AOAD (G/SPS/GEN/2108)  ................................ ................................ .......................  45 
8.2   Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ .....................  45 
8.2.1   New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  45 
8.2.2   Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 45 
9   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ..............  45 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 46 
11   DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .... 46 
ANNEX A  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  47 
ANNEX B  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  52 
 
  G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its 8 5th regular 
meeting on 22 -24 March 2023. The proposed agenda for the meeting ( JOB/SPS/26 ) was adopted 
with amendments. In light of the COVID -19 pandemic, the meeting was held in hybrid form, 
with some delegates attending in -person and others joining via a virtual platform.  
1.2.  Members were able to su bmit agenda items, support specific trade concerns (STCs), and upload 
statements through eAgenda. Members could support items through eAgenda until they were 
discussed in the meeting, and upload statements until Friday, 24 March 2023. Only oral interventio ns 
by Members who took the floor during the meeting were reflected in this report. In addition, 
longer  statements could be shared through eAgenda or circulated as GEN documents. 
The Secretariat invited Members to inform the Secretariat of email addresses t o be added or 
removed from the delegates' distribution list and eAgenda . The Secretariat also drew Members' 
attention to the  briefing session for new delegates  that had taken place the week prior to the 
Committee (RD/SPS/225 ), as well as  to a flyer for new delegates  and an introductory presentation 
on the Committee  available  in the dedicated Committee webpage . 
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Japan - Update on the import measures on Japanese food regarding radionuclides 
(G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.5 ) 
2.1.  Noting that the majority of Members had lifted measures imposed fo llowing the Fukushima 
nuclear accident, Japan  called on those  Members that continued to maintain  measur es to lift the m. 
Japan considered such measures to be maintained without scientific evidence and to be inconsistent 
with the SPS Agreement . Japan reiterated that it would implement the discharge of the ALPS treated 
water (water treated by the Advanced Liquid Processing System ) in accordance wi th the international 
practice and strictly comply with regulatory standards regarding safety, under the review  of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). T herefore, the discharge of water could not justify  
imposing import measures on Japanese food. Japan further noted that it had provided relevant 
scientific updates  to the IAEA , and reminded of its  updates to the Committee, annual  reports , 
one-stop website for information sharing, and bilateral consultations.  Japan asked  relevant Members 
to conduct r isk assessment s, and risk communication efforts with their citizens . 
2.2.  Korea  indicated  that the protection of health and safety of people was its top priority, noting  
the continued detection of a high level of c aesium in fishery products in Japan. Korea reiterated the 
importance of consultations with interested part ies and of providing transparent and thorough 
information on the potential environmental impacts of Japan's post -accident measures . 
2.3.  China  called on Jap an to fully consider the impact of discharging contaminated water on the 
environment  and human, animal , and plant safety and health and to carefully choose a method in 
line with the principles of global sustainable development. China considered that Japan had not 
provided sufficient scientific and factual evidence to address the concerns of the international 
community regarding the legitimacy, data reliability, effectiveness of purification devices, and 
environmental impacts of its contaminated water discha rge plan. China requested that Japan submit 
its risk assessment report regarding  the discharge of contaminated water to the Committee.  
2.4.  Japan  responded that the release of  the ALPS treated water would be conducted in line with 
international law and practice , fully taking into account the impact on the public and the 
environment. S afety would be insured based on scientific evidence , and the radiological impact on 
the public and marine environment would  be small compared to natural radiation exposure . 
Japan  reiterated that import measures needed  to be based on science , and the discharge of the 
ALPS water could not be a reason to maintain current restrictive measure s. 
2.5.  In a subsequent intervention,  Korea  highlighted the importance of lifting food safety concerns 
and restoring Korean people 's confidence in Japanese food products , and looked forward to a 
continued communication with Japan through a bilateral channel . Japan  recalled that its maximum G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 7 - 
 
  radionuc lide levels were the same as that of Korea, and assured that the health of Japanese and 
Korean people was  a key consideration . Japan looked forward to continuing bilateral communication.  
2.6.  China  further sought  clarification about the IAEA assessment report, as China understood  that 
the report indicated that inconsistencies remained  between Japan's water discharge plan and 
existing standards . Japan  responded that IAEA review was ongoing,  and that the  IAEA's 
comprehensive report would  be published before the st art of the discharge  of ALPS water . Finally,  
Japan requested China to engage in bilateral communication . 
2.1.2   Russian  Federation  - Results of the International Conference on Food Safety and 
AMR 
2.7.  The Russian  Federation  provided an overview of the r esults of the International Conference on 
Food Safety and Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) held in Moscow in December 2022. The conference 
was attended by leading scientists in the field of food safety and AMR from several CIS countries 
and experts from FAO,  UN Environment Programme and WOAH. The conference had highlighted f ood 
safety as one of the key characteristics  of the quality of food and the need for the international 
community to address  the challenges associated with  AMR and contaminants in food. The  conference 
had shown  the importance  of ensur ing monitoring  of antibiotics maximum residue limits (MRLs ) and 
the need to focus on f orecasting antibacterial agent resistance  development . The Russian  Federation  
informed  of a next  event on food safety and AMR  in 2024.  
2.1.3   United  States  - Voices from the Field: Digital Solutions and Innovations for 
Sustainable Agriculture; event organized by Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Paraguay, 
and the United  States  (G/SPS/GEN/2092 ) 
2.8.  The United  States  provided information on a session on Digital Solutions and Innovations for 
Sustainable Agriculture, organized  in November 2022  by Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Paraguay, 
and the United  States  in coordination with the Digital Agriculture Association. The event  had 
underlined technological opportunities  allowing farmers to mak e better management decisions. 
Yet, farmers depend ed on governments for enabling regulatory environments supporting  access to 
these new technologies. Noting that  digitally enabled farming  tools increasingly help ed farmers 
improve  resilience, sustainability , and profitability  of their farming operations , and strengthen food 
system s, the United  States  highlighted the importance of the ongoing discussions in the thematic 
groups in the context of the MC12 SPS Declaration. A  summary  of the event and  the link to the 
recordings  were available in document G/SPS/GEN/2092 . 
2.9.  Several co -sponsors of the event took the floor , emphasizing the timeliness or relevance of th e 
event in light of  ongoing discussions in the context of the MC12 SPS Declaration thematic groups.  
Paraguay  noted that the event had illustrated  how to adapt digital and technical tools  to agriculture , 
including precision agriculture, to provide comprehensive solutions to c hallenges faced by farmers . 
Similarly,  to Canada , the event had provided important i nsight on the  use of digital tools to address 
modern challenges facing  famers.  Argentina  added  that, as the event had made clear , the private 
and public sector  together , could generate many new tools to improve trade in agriculture products.  
Brazil  recalled  that producers had discuss ed digital farming tools, productivity, good agricultural 
practices , and science and technology. According to Brazil, it  was imperative  that Members 
understand the tools being used  and how they could support farmers to increase productivity  without 
the need for trade restrictive policies . 
2.1.4   Ukraine  - Information on SPS situation  
2.10.  Ukraine  provided information  on the current functioning of its SPS infrastructure and other 
SPS aspects related to the food security situation. Ukraine informed  that, in 2022,  avian influenza  
(AI) tests had been  conducted with no detection of the disease , and the number of African swine 
fever (ASF) outbreaks had been reduced. Ukraine further informed that rebuilding of SPS facilities 
in de -occupied territories was a high priority. Ukraine highlighted that the State Service on 
Food Safety and Consumer Protection had ensured uninterrupt ed and efficient implementation of 
official food safety control measures , referring to inspections and checks at the border . 
Significant  efforts had also been made to prevent food poisoning  and ensure proper storage and 
selling conditions for food products . Twenty -one of the 24 phytosanitary laboratories continued to 
operate, and the competent  SPS authorities continued to guarantee compliance of G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Ukrainian  products with SPS requirements of trading partners.  Ukraine was also working on access 
to more than 27 new international markets for Ukrainian agricultural products.  Finally, 
Ukraine  referred to  the "grain corridor " established by the Black Sea Grain Initiative , which had 
allowed the exports of grains  through the Black Sea with 55 per cent of exports  going to developing 
countries. The continuation of the Black Sea Grain Initiative was crucial for global food security.  
2.11.  Expressing their support, several Members  showed appreciation for Ukraine's efforts to fulfi l 
its WTO SPS obligations , maintain food safety  standards , and deliver food to international markets . 
The European  Union , Canada, the United  States , the United Kingdom, New Zealand , Australia, 
Japan, Switzerland, and Chinese  Taipei  strongly condemned the Russian  Federation 's military action 
in Ukraine, noting that it constituted a violation of international law and the UN  Charte r. 
Several  Members stated that the invasion was exacerbating the current food security crisis , had 
inflated prices , and increased global hunger  since Ukraine was unable t o export and inspect its grain . 
Members  called on the Russian  Federation  to withdraw its forces and cease military operations in 
Ukraine. Türkiye indicated  it would continue diplomatic efforts to ensure food security . 
2.12.  The Russian  Federation  indicated that it continued to participate in global efforts to prevent  
food insecurity and hunger in developing countries and least developed countries ( LDCs). 
In the Russian  Federation 's view, allegations that it contributed to the global food crisis were 
preposterous , in particular given other systemic factors , such as economic sanctions, rising interest 
rates and commodity prices, COVID -19 economic challenges, bad weather conditions , and the 
introduction of biofuel technologies . Referring to the Grain Deal Initiative, which had been prolonged 
under the condition of achieving tangible progress in accordance with the Russia -UN memorandum 
on the normalization of domestic agricultural expo rts, the Russian  Federation  lamented that the 
main destination of Ukrain ian food shipments  remained  high-income countries. Finally, 
the Russian  Federation  took the view  that the Committee should refrain  from discussing  issues not 
within  the scope  of the WT O. Referring to attempts to politicise the Committee , 
the Russian  Federation  request ed the Chairperson to moderate the discussion s in accordance with 
the agenda  and working procedures of the Committee.  
2.2  Information from Codex, IPPC  and WOAH on relevant activities  
2.2.1   Codex ( G/SPS/GEN/2109 ) 
2.13.  Codex  presented its report on relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/2109 , highlighting  
key outcomes of the last Codex Alimentarius Commission session  and work on c ross-cutting issues  
at executive committee leve l. Codex referred to ongoing discussions on  emerging food safety issues 
as well as discussions on the future of Codex  and available mechanism s to improve its work on 
normative issues . The latter would also focus  on conceptual issues , such as  how Codex could best 
contribute  to resilient and sustainable food systems through the development of food safety 
standards . Codex further drew the Committee's attention to  the draft  guidance  on the application  of 
the statements of principle concerning the role of science in the Codex dec ision-making process, and 
committee work on food hygiene and veterinary drugs. In addition, r eferring to comments made in 
the context of the  MC12 SPS Declaration thematic groups2, Codex indicated that  it would try to focus 
on key elements of discussion  and provide forward -looking  insight in upcoming reports . 
2.14.  The European  Union  congratulated  Codex on its  60th anniversary  and reminded the Committee 
of the world  food day and its motto "food standards save li ves". Building on  this intervention, 
Codex  invite d Members  to contribute to its various anniversary  activities . 
2.2.2   IPPC ( G/SPS/GEN/2104 ) 
2.15.  The IPPC presented its report on relevant activities in document  G/SPS/GEN/2104 . 
Acknowledging  Members' remarks  in the context of the  MC12 SPS Declaration thematic groups3, 
the IPPC commented  on the upcoming 17th Session of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures 
(CPM-17). The following items were on the agenda: fo ur draft International Standards for 
Phytosanitary Measures  recommended  for adoption , adjustments  to the IPPC standard se tting 
 
2 More informa tion on the MC12 SPS Declaration work programme is available in the dedicated 
webpage: WTO | SPS Declaration at MC12 . 
3 More information on the MC12 SPS Declaration work programme is available in the dedicated 
webpage: WTO | SPS Declaration at MC12 . G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 9 - 
 
  procedure,  a new draft CPM recommendation  on sea containers , a report on current IPPC focus 
group s, and emerging topics. CPM-17 would be complemented by side sessions , including on the 
African phytosanitary programme initiative  and sea containers. The IPPC also updated  on ePhyto 
progress , indicating  that 115 count ries had registered  to the ePhyto solution  as of Feb ruary 2023 . 
2.2.3   WOAH ( G/SPS/GEN/2106 ) 
2.16.  WOAH  highlighted a few points from its report  in document  G/SPS/GEN/2106 . WOAH provided 
information on the programme for its 90th Annual General  Session of its World Assembly of 
Delegates . In addition to standard setting activities, the programme included an innovative 
Animal  Health Forum with a focus on AI, as well as side events and exhibition stands to allow 
delegations to interact with experts on a number of  initiatives . WOAH Specialist Commissions had 
continued work to review existing, and develop new, standards,  with many revisions to be put 
forward for adoption , such as  revised chapter s on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE ) and foot 
and mouth disease (FMD)  in the Terrestrial Code . WOAH further pointed to updates  on the joint 
initiative for the Global Control of ASF , an upcoming  Global Conference on Emergency Management  
as well as its  Observator y, PVS pathway , and training platform.  
2.17.  Following the interventions from Codex, the IPPC, and WOAH, the United  States  took the floor 
to welcome the International Standard Setting Bodies' (ISSBs) in-person attendance at the 
Committee . The United  States  invited ISSB representatives to share  with their respective leadership s 
that in-person attendance  was viewe d as important to maintain and strengthen the connection 
between the Committee  and the ISSBs. The United  States  equally  suggested that the 
WTO SPS Secretariat and the STDF were previously invited to participate in person at  relevant  ISSB 
meeting s and that practice should be encouraged and reinstated . 
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
3.1.  Before the adoption of the agenda, India withdrew four new STCs: Brazil's MRLs for 
prothioconazole ( G/SPS/N/BRA/2054 ); Brazil's modifications of MRLs and pre -harvest intervals (PHI) 
inconsistent with established risk assessment guidelines by FAO ( G/SPS/N/BRA/2029/Add.2 ); 
Brazil's modifications of MRLs and pre -harvest intervals (PHI) inconsistent with established risk 
assessment guidelines by FAO ( G/SPS/N/BRA/2029/Add.2 ); and South Africa's MRLs for abamectin, 
pyraclostrobin and chlorpyrifos ( G/SPS/N/ZAF/78 ). The STCs removed had been included in the draft 
annotated agenda circulated as  JOB/SPS/26 . Reg arding previously raised STCs, Chinese  Taipei  did 
not raise the STC "China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural 
products (ID 487)", which was only raised by  Australia , Japan, a nd the European  Union . 
3.1  New issues  
3.1.1   Australia's MRLs stricter than Codex standards in products of interest to India - 
request to share risk assessments ( G/SPS/N/AUS/555 ) (ID 559)  - Concerns of India  
3.2.  India expressed concern s regarding Australia's  reduction of the level of MRLs to stricter than 
Codex standards for glufosinate and glufosinate -ammonium and glyphosate. India was the largest 
producer of non-genetically modified (GM)  soybeans and ha d export potential to Australia. 
According  to India,  the MRLs would  act as a barrier to trade for Indian non-GM soybean crops. 
India also requested responses to a number of inquiries , which include d clarification on the 
appropriate level of pro tection  (ALOP) , scientific evidence used for the modification of MRLs, 
harmonization obligations under the SPS Agreement , sharing of risk assessment results, 
other  legitimate factors taken into account when establishing and granting import tolerances, the  list 
of the substances and MRLs that ha d already been updated , and a list of substances and MRLs 
currently in the evaluation phase.  
3.3.  Australia  clarified that the Food Standards Australia New Zealand  and the Australian Pesticides 
and Veterinary Medicines Authority work ed together to assess the safety of chemicals used in 
food production and any residues of these chemicals in food  using sound scientific methods and 
according to good agricultural and ve terinary practices.  Australia clarified that the notification 
included proposed amendments for oilseeds, mustard oil seeds , and oilseed except rape seed, 
but there were no proposed variations to the existing soybean MRLs. Australia noted that the existing 
soybean MRLs for glyphosate and glufosinate -ammonium aligned with Codex MRLs and were both G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 10 - 
 
  higher than the domestic limits imposed on Australian farmers. Australia would welcome  requests 
to align with Codex or Indian MRLs when such MRLs were required to fa cilitate imports of foods 
treated with pesticides or veterinary medicines into Australia. Australia also noted the availability of 
an online  guide for submitt ing such requests and advised Members that  a call for requests would  be 
published online around  May 2023.  
3.1.2   New Zealand 's amendment of MRLs for cyantraniliprole, tetracyclines and 
trichlorfon ( G/SPS/N/NZL/695 ) (ID 560) - Concerns of India  
3.4.  Taking note of notification G/SPS/N/NZL/695  and referring to Discussion Paper No. 2022/05 of 
August 2022 , India requested that New Zealand  share the relevant scientific basis and rationale 
justifying the specification of the MRL for cyantranil iprole for tomatoes as 0.1 mg/kg . 
3.5.  New Zealand  clarified  that notification G/SPS/N/NZL/695  did not change the MRL for 
cyantraniliprole in tomatoes . The New Zealand  MRL for cyantraniliprole in tomatoes was set lower 
than Codex levels as it reflected the low residue levels obtained during the MRL setting process , 
which were most likely associated with lower domestic application rates of the pesticide or 
insecticide. While domestic producers we re required to meet the New Zealand  MRL, imported 
tomatoes were permitted to use either the Codex MRL or the New Zealand  MRL in recognition  of the 
variation in food production conditions around the world . 
3.1.3   China's suspension of beef imports due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) 
restrictions (ID 561) - Concerns of Canada  
3.6.  Canada  noted its concerns with China' s complete and long -term suspension of beef imports 
from Canada based on a single case of atypi cal BSE , which did not affect Canada's WOAH BSE 
negligible risk status. Canada  had continuously engaged with  and responded to all requests from 
China , but were still waiting for  restoration of trade  for over a year now . China ha d previously allowed 
the res umption of beef exports from trading partners that ha d reported atypical BSE cases  quickly,  
and Canada requested similar treatment.  Canada urge d China to work collaboratively to resolve this 
issue and to achieve  their common objective of avoiding unnecessa ry barriers to trade and 
contributing to food security.  
3.7.  The European  Union  echoed the concerns expressed by Canada,  noting that it had experienced 
a similar blockage of exports due to an atypical case of BSE in one of the EU m ember States. 
The European  Union  welcomed bilateral discussions with China.  
3.8.  China  noted that it took a highly cautious approach with respect to  BSE as China had a 
WOAH  BSE negligible risk status , with no case s of BSE previously reported . China indicated it was  
organizing ex perts to conduct a  risk assessment on atypical BSE cases submitted by Canada and 
would provide an  update to Canada on the results.  China indicated  that it would make its response 
to the European  Union  under another STC . 
3.1.4   China's import restrictions on heat -treated pet food containing poultry ingredients 
due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID 562) - Concerns of Canada  
3.9.  Canada  raised  its concerns regarding China' s trade restrictions on exports of 
Canadian  heat-treated pet food containing poultry ingredients. Following confirmation of highly 
pathogenic avian influenza  (HPAI) in Canada, China had halted Canadian exports of heat -treated pet 
food containing poultry ingredients while accepting the se products from oth er HPAI affected 
Members. Canada reminded that WOAH had identified extruded dry pet food as safe regardless of 
HPAI status because the product was heat-treated sufficiently to inactivate HPAI pathogens, and 
Canadian pet food products were treated at a temp erature that exceeded WOAH recommendations. 
Canada noted that SPS measures should be based on international standards, guidelines, or 
recommendations, and not discriminate between Members . Canada urged China to remove its 
restrictions as per WOAH  guideline s. 
3.10.  China  clarified that canned pet food from Canada were not affected by the AI outbreaks and 
could still be exported. China indicated that there were still risks of  AI spreading for heat -fried pet 
food, as the virus might  not be inactivated due to the ins ufficiency of heating temperature and time 
during the relatively simple drying process. China would like to keep  technical bilateral exchanges.  G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.1.5   Mexico's import restrictions due to African swine fever  (ID 563)  - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.11.  The European  Union expressed concerns regarding  country -wide import suspensions imposed 
by Mexico on pork products from EU member States that had reported  ASF outbreaks. 
The European  Union  regretted the lack of progress despite repeated requests for Mexico to respect 
its obligations, apply regionalization to pork meat imported from the European  Union , and allow 
trade from disease -free areas, most recently raised at a EU-Mexico SPS subcommittee meeting i n 
October 2022. The  Europea n Union  reiterated its availability to engage bilaterally to solve this 
matter.  
3.12.  Mexico  confirmed  that, following outbreaks of ASF, the European  Union  had requested 
regionalization for the territories of Germany, Italy, and Poland. Mexico had respon ded to the 
communications by the European  Union  at a bilateral Free Trade Agreement  Committee meeting  and 
reiterated its willingness to continue to share technical information on relevant  import conditions.  
3.1.6   South Africa's delays in granting SPS access for poultry, beef, pork, fish and seafood 
(ID 564) - Concerns of the Russian  Federation  
3.13.  The Russian  Federation  raised concerns regarding South Africa's delays in granting market 
access for Russian livestock products. The Russian competent authority had requested South Africa 
to accelerate the process of reviewing answers on questionnaires regarding risk analysis for imports 
of beef, poultry and pork, as well as a questionna ire on BSE . The Russian  Federation  reminded of its  
WOAH status as a country with zones free from FMD and country free from BSE. 
The Russian  Federation  invited South Africa to inspect Russian livestock enterprises  and to develop 
bilateral scientific and tec hnical cooperation in the field of food and biological safety. Expressing its 
readiness for bilateral cooperation, t he Russian  Federation  reiterated that approval procedures 
needed to be undertaken and completed without undue delay.  
3.14.  South Africa  appreciate d the interest shown by the Russian  Federation  in gaining market 
access for certain products. South Africa indicated that it continued to engage with Russia, it had 
sent the procedure to be followed to open a new market , and was await ing a response from 
Russia's  Veterinary Authorities.  
3.1.7   India's approval procedures to import plants, animals and their products (ID 565) 
- Concerns of the European  Union  
3.15.  The European  Union  regretted that  India's  approval procedures were unclear and slow  and 
that the standard  and anticipated  processing period s had not been communicated . India had not 
provided information  on the stage s of the assessment procedure and what information might  be 
missing or deficiencie s might  have been found for the approval of new exports. India had also not 
provided information on the specific non conformities  for existing exports,  which  prevented the 
European  Union  from implementing corrective actions. The European  Union  reminded tha t there  
were a number of pending applications . Some of them had been pending  for almost  10 years  with 
no progress  being  achieved  so far. The European  Union  urged  India to comply  with its WTO SPS 
obligations  by ensuring  transparency  of its import  legislatio n and approval  procedures,  and to 
provide  requested  clarification s to allow the finalization of the pending  market  applications  without  
undue  delay . 
3.16.  In the absence of a statement  provided  in advance of the Committee meeting, India did not 
have inputs from capital to respond to the EU comments. India took note of the EU comments and 
requested that the statement be provided to enable a response.  
3.1.8   India's undue delay in importing twelve species of fresh mushrooms (ID 566) - 
Concerns of  Korea  
3.17.  Korea  raised concerns that six years had passed since an agreement  had been reached on 
the import requirements for 12 Korean fresh mushrooms (G/SPS/N/IND/131 ), but yet  India ha d not 
allowed the import of these 12 Korean fresh mushrooms.  In the context of  a Korea -India 
Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement SPS Joint Working Group Meeting of 
November  2022, India had  proposed to re -initiate a pest risk assessment  for three species of G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Korean  fresh mushrooms , although a pest risk assessment had been previously completed for all 
12 species . Korea considered that India's proposal was not consistent with IPPC standards (ISPMs 2 
and 11). Korea  urged India to allow the impo rt of all 12 species of Korean fresh mushrooms . 
3.18.  India indicated that th e issue raised by Korea was a market access issue , not an SPS issue. 
India noted that the SPS Committee  was not the right forum to raise this matter . 
3.1.9   Japan's approval procedures to import plant products (ID 567) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.19.  The European  Union  expressed concern s regarding Japan's lengthy, burdensome , and 
unpredictable approval procedures  for plant products. The European  Union  noted t hat, despite  many 
meetings and  the provision of all the necessary information, EU plant producers faced difficulties to 
gain market access, there were unjustifiable delays (some dating more than 20 years) , and there  
were new requirements introduced during  the approval process. The European  Union  also expressed 
concern s about Japan's choice of a single plant product per country for assessment while suspending 
any other plant product application from that country. The European  Union  considered 
Japan's  approac h not to be  in line with the EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement  or the SPS Agreement  
as it artificially limited the possibility of progressing multiple applications , lacked  transparency and 
result ed in undue delays . The European  Union  looked forward to continuing cooperation with Japan 
on these issues.  
3.20.  Japan  regretted  that the European  Union  raised the issue  as an  STC given  ongoing bilateral 
discussions . Japan indicated that approval procedures took time because  of delays in submission  of 
scientific information from the requesting country . Japan suggested  that the European  Union  get a 
better understanding of the state of play concerning each EU member State application. 
Japan  further indicated it had received a large number of requests for market access for plant 
products from many countries and regions, but that its resources to conduct the risk assessments 
were limited . As such, Japan  used a one item approach to carry out assessments. While noting that  
procedures for lifting the import  ban of a plant product s in Japan were established and made publicly 
available as "Standard Evaluation Procedure for the Request for Lifting a ban on plant import under 
Plant Quarantine ", Japan was willing to engage in bilateral  discussion s. 
3.21.  The European  Union noted  it was aware  of the state of play of all the pending  applications . 
Some  delays  that Japan  attribut ed to an EU member  State  were due to the burdensome  
requirements,  which  discourage d EU member  States  from completing  the procedure.  
3.22.  Japan  indicated that it had explained its standard evaluation procedure  many times, including 
at Japan -EU Economic Partnership Agreement SPS sub -committee meetings , but would be  happy to 
provide the information again.  
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.2.1   EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, 
chlorpyrifos -methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, 
iprodione, mancozeb, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID 448 - See also related 
STCs ID 4 53, 454, 457, 474, 475, 517) - Concerns of Paraguay, the United  States , Ecuador 
and Costa  Rica 
3.23.  Paraguay  reiterated its commercial and systemic concern regarding  the EU reduction of MRLs 
for phytosanitary products to the limit of detection on the basis of s cientific uncertainty, which 
violated Articles 5.1 and 5.7 of the SPS Agreement . Paraguay considered that the routine  use of 
emergency authorizations by EU member States was discriminatory and could conflict with the level 
of protection that  the European  Union stated it established for its consumers . Paraguay's  rice exports 
were being affected by the MRL of 0.01 mg/kg established for tricyclazole in Regulation (EU) 
No 2017/983, for which the import tolerance requested in 2018 had only been recommended for 
approval by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in December 2022. To Paraguay, 
these  negative effects could have been avoided had its request for longer transition periods been 
taken into account.  Paraguay requested the European  Union , when dealing with scientific 
uncertainty, to: (i) grant transition periods to maintain trade while ensuring its consumer health  
ALOP; (ii) allow for early intervention of trading partners in EFSA assessment processes; and G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 13 - 
 
  (iii) take risk -based, not hazar d-based , decisions. Paraguay sought clarification on the ruling of the 
Court of Justice of the European  Union  (CJEU) on emergency authorizations for substances other 
than treated seeds and products other than neonicotinoids. The European Commission and 
EU member States were asked to respond to the questions in document G/SPS/GEN/2080 . 
3.24.  The United  States  recalled Members' obligation to apply least restrictive measures that 
accomplished their stated level of protection, and invited the European  Union  to consider the 
concerns raised by many WTO Members. The United  States  was of the view that the continued use 
of emergency authorizations for active substances no longer approved demonstrated the importance 
of certain crop protection tools and the lack of  effective and economical alternatives, and that the 
implemented transition periods were insufficient and imported products appeared to be treated 
differently than domestic products . It was also important to use  a risk -based process and have 
access to the full range of tools and technologies available for agricultural production. 
The United  States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2111 . 
3.25.  Ecuador  invited the European  Union  to adhere to Codex standards and not to base its 
decisions on the precautionary principle. Underscoring  investment needed, Ecuador detailed the long 
process to find alternative substances and indicated trading partners needed at least five years to 
adapt their agricultural practices. Ecuador regretted that the reduction of MRLs for nine substances 
establish ed in Regulation (EU) No 2021/155  (G/SPS/N/EU/394/Add.1 ) affected market access and 
contradicted good agricultural practices. Ecuador complain ed that EU trading partners did not have 
access to the emergency authorizations granted to EU producers, which  could be ren ewed. 
Ecuador  request ed EU member States to provide answers to the questions in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2076 . 
3.26.  Costa  Rica's concerns related to the impact that the reduction of MRLs to the level of detection 
could have on its production system. No alternatives were available for the relevant substances, 
which were necessary for production in tropical climates. Costa  Rica reiterated its concerns about 
the lack of conclusive scientific evidence and the divergence from the  conclusions reached in other 
international fora, namely with Codex  MRLs, as had also been expressed in the TBT Committee and 
the Council for Trade in Goods (C TG). Expressing  willingness to cooperate towards trade facilitating 
solutions in line with the SPS Agreement , Costa  Rica asked the European  Union  to reconsider its 
regulatory approach and incorporate  measures that reduced  impact on global food security.  
3.27.  Reiterating its support to the concern, El Salvador  insisted that measures should be based on 
conclusive scientific evidence to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions  (which mainly affected small 
producers ) and should provide appropriate transition periods.  
3.28.  Recognizing the EU's right to take SPS measures, t he Dominican Republic  recalled that 
SPS measures  should be based on science and not maintained without scientific evidence. 
The Dominican Republic underscored the importance of imazalil in post-harvest treatments for crops , 
such as banana, mango , and avocado . These  represented about 20% of its total annual food exports 
and were mainly destined to the EU market . Noting the lack of substitutes, the Dominican Republic 
lamented that the reductio n of the MRL for imazalil would negatively affect the agricultural sector 
and urged the European  Union  to find alternative solutions without unnecessarily impairing trade, 
establish MRLs for the affected molecules based on scientific evidence, or remove th e measures. 
The Dominican Republic stated that the reduction of MRLs to the level of quantification did not 
contribute to the protection of consumer health and violated Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement . 
3.29.  Argentina 's concern comprised technical and stru ctural aspects affecting Members from all 
regions. Recalling the importance of science -based SPS measures, Argentin a urged 
the European  Union  to apply a risk -based approach to its regulatory changes. In Argentina's view, 
this concern was to be considered a s part of a proliferation of unilateral, extraterritorial measures  
aimed at protecting EU producers , without considering  local circumstances , lack of available 
alternatives , and ISSB standards . Finally, Argentina reiterated its concerns about  the lack of 
solutions to these measures that hindered trade, undermined trust, and reduced the possibilities for 
sustainable development through international trade.  
3.30.  Uruguay  reiterated its concerns regarding  the EU approach to MRL reduction for an increasing 
number of substances  (mancozeb, imazalil, iprodione , and buprofezin ) to limits lower than those of 
Codex without a scientific risk assessment.  Uruguay concurred  with other Members that emergency G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 14 - 
 
  authorizations granted by EU member States to domestic producers could conflict  with EU health 
protection policies and trading conditions with third countries. Uruguay sought clarification on how 
the CJEU ruling would affect considerations for emergency authorizations. Highlighting that pesticide 
regulations should be non -discriminatory and based in scientific principles and risk assessments, 
Uruguay pointed out that sufficient transition periods should be granted for producers to adapt to 
modified MRLs.  Uruguay requested the European  Union  to reconsider its regulatory approac h to 
avoid adverse effects on other Members and hoped that the EU openness to participate in a dialogue 
would lead to a solution to this concern.  
3.31.  Canada  reiterated the need for risk -based decision making and requested the European  Union  
to harmonize MRLs with Codex limits or to maintain MRLs for substances that did not pose 
unacceptable dietary risks  unless a full risk assessment had been completed. Despite recent 
constructive engagement , Canada was of the view that the granting of emerg ency use authorizations 
to access banned pesticides to address pest pressures, which were not granted to foreign producers, 
discriminated third country producers. In Canada, products or uses with unacceptable health or 
environmental risks could not be cons idered for emergency use authorizations . Canada asked 
the European  Union  to explain the circumstances for rejection of emergency use authorization 
requests , how many requests had been rejected each year , if the data on the use of  emergency 
authorization s was used to determine the substances that farmers required to produce food , and 
whether it would consider reinstating certain active substances that posed little or no dietary risks . 
The European  Union  had stated that food from an EU member State that  contain ed above EU MRL  
of substances  authorized under emergency authori zations could not be traded . Canada sought 
clarification on how the European  Union  enforced this policy.  
3.32.  Noting the challenges facing tropical countries, Guatemala  reiterated its conce rn regarding  
EU departure from Codex standards, which  affected exports of developing countries . 
Guatemala  regretted that the European  Union  disregarded other Members'  climate -related factors , 
and insisted on the need of longer transition periods to underta ke field analysis . Guatemala clarified 
that trade effects were calculated in export volumes, not in food prices, and anticipated increased 
trade impacts as well as  social and economic effects in rural areas as of 2024. In Guatemala's view, 
import tolerance s were not an alternative to the reduction of MRLs to the level of detection, 
since most developing countries did not have the capacity to present complete data and evaluations 
on the substances. Guatemala asked the European  Union  to provide responses to t he questions in 
document G/SPS/GEN/2076 , which aimed at further understanding challenges faced by 
EU producers with respect to emergency authorizations, an exception not granted to producers in 
third countries.  
3.33.  Regretting th e lack of changes in EU MRLs, Peru was of the view that t he measures were more 
trade restrictive than necessary, contrary to  the SPS Agreement  and international standards.  
3.34.  In Brazil 's view, the EU MRLs policy increasingly deviated from the SPS Agreement  and did 
not provide a level play ing field for foreign  and domestic producers. Brazil recalled that setting  MRLs 
should be based on realistic exposure scenarios and take into account potential  trade impact. 
Brazil  invited the European  Union  to consider trade facilitative approaches in line with the 
SPS Agreement , with longer transitional periods and early and effective engagement in the process.  
3.35.  Panama  reiterated its concern regarding  the non -renewal of the substances, also raised in the 
TBT Committee and the CTG. The lack of alternatives for substances  such as mancozeb severely 
affected Panama's exports to the European  Union . While sharing the EU objective and recognizing 
Members' rights to determine their ALOP, Panama recalled that SPS measures should  be based on 
science and Codex standards and comply with the SPS Agreement . Panama requested 
the European  Union  to reconsider its regulatory approach and respond to the questions in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2076 . 
3.36.  Colombia  referred to articles 18(4) and 53 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and  article 4.7 of 
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 . Noting that its producers faced similar challenges than those of the 
European  Union , Colombia  indicated that flexibilities granted to domestic producers could be 
discriminating against producers from other WTO Members. Colombia requested the European  Union  
to review its measures on MRLs and provide a fair and equitable treatment to other Members.  G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 15 - 
 
  3.37.  Reiterating its support for this concern, Chile indicated that the non -renewal of mancozeb 
affected national producti on of stone fruits and apples. Chile requested the European  Union  to 
reconsider its measures to maintain the flow of international trade.  
3.38.  The European  Union  referred to the numerous answers already provided, information 
sessions, details on the ongoing rev isions of MRLs circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.2 , and its 
presentation on the EU risk assessment process and harmonization with Codex MRLs delivered in 
the context of the Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs . Praising its 
trusted, transparent and predictable food safety  approach , the European  Union  emphasized that its 
policies had never impeded imports of agricultural commodities. On emergency authorizations, 
the European  Union  referred to documents  G/SPS/GEN/1970  and G/SPS/GEN/2038 , guidance 
document SANCO/10087/2013/Rev.1 and article 5 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 . 
The European  Union  clarified that the purpose  of emergency authorizations was to deal with serious 
dangers for plant health in emergency situations where there were no better alternatives. 
The European  Union  explained that the CJEU ruling forb ade the granting of emergency 
authori zations for outdoor u ses of thiamethoxam or clothianidin and for the sowing of seeds that 
had already been coated with either of these substances . The Commission had not yet established 
a position on the implications of the ruling  for the granting of other emergency authorizat ions. 
3.39.  The European  Union  indicated  that decisions on the approval of active substances and on 
MRLs were based on risk assessments carried out by EFSA and EU member States . The relevant 
scientific data was available on the EFSA website and in the rationale of each EU decision. 
The European  Union  worked with the ISSBs to  reach  a framework of internationally agreed 
standards, that were generally the basis of EU's health measures. In accordance with Regulation 
(EC) No  395/2005, EU MRLs were regularly and systematically aligned with Codex MRLs, and the 
science -based deviation from international standards was justified for the protection of public health, 
in line with Article 3 of the SPS Agreement . Recalling the dialogue on pesticide MRLs organized with  
interested Members, the European  Union  informed the Committee it was working on replies to 
questions asked by Members. The European  Union  reiterated its openness to engage in discussions.  
3.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID 382) - Concerns of Parag uay 
3.40.  Paraguay  reiterated its commercial and systemic concern regarding  the EU reduction of MRLs 
on the basis of hazard and scientific uncertainty. Paraguay stated that Members' right to determine 
their ALOP could not be inconsistent with their international  obligation to base measures on risk 
analyses. Paraguay was of the view that the EU approach had led to a de facto ban of the use of 
phytosanitary products in food products destined to the European  Union . Referring to the discussions 
held in the context of  the MC12 SPS Declaration, Paraguay regretted that the removal of tools and 
inputs for production of safe food products without scientific basis was contrary to the shared 
objectives of transforming food systems to ensure sustainability and global food sec urity. 
Paraguay  urged the European  Union  to review its measures to ensure consistency with the 
SPS Agreement  and positively contribute to collective challenges.  
3.41.  Brazil  reaffirmed that the criteria for determining  endocrine -disrupting substances had to be 
established in accordance with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement , in line with available scientific 
evidence to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions. Brazil highlighted the importance of conducting 
risk assessments a ppropriate to the circumstances and the need to obtain additional information 
necessary for an objective assessment of risk.  
3.42.  Its position remaining un changed since  the last Committee  meetings, Ecuador  referred to its 
statement in eAgenda . Ecuador illustrat ed its disagreement with the European  Union  indicating that, 
in its view, mancozeb had been banned due to alleged endocrine -disrupting effects.  
3.43.  Referring to its previous interventions in support of this concern, Guatemala  underscored the 
negative consequen ces on trading partners of the EU hazard -based approach for endocrine 
disruptors on the establishments of new MRLs of key substances used in agriculture in tropical 
countries.  Guatemala urged the European  Union  to consider the importance of harmonization o f 
measures at a global level.  
3.44.  Costa  Rica reiterated its concern regarding  the EU approach for the implementation of 
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, which led to the adoption of hazard -based decision criteria. G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Costa  Rica urged the European  Union  to ensure a r isk-based implementation of its regulation, with 
criteria based on sufficient scientific evidence, in line with the SPS Agreement . 
3.45.  Peru was of the view that the EU regulation violated the SPS Agreement , namely , its Article  5. 
A hazard -based approach could lead to measures more trade -restrictive than necessary and have a 
negative effect on trade in food.  
3.46.  Uruguay  reiterated its commercial and systemic concerns regarding the EU adoption and 
implementation of a hazard -based approach for products with potential endocrine -disrupting 
properties. Uruguay underscored the need to base such determinations on conclusive sci entific 
evidence to avoid removing from the market safe active substances without contributing to the 
stated objective of public health. Uruguay continued to support multilateral work undertaken at 
Codex to develop a harmonized, risk -based approach that en sured health protection while facilitating 
international trade. Uruguay called on the European  Union  to address Members' concerns and 
reconsider its regulatory approach to avoid discrimination and unjustified trade restrictions.  
3.47.  Chile reiterated its concer n about  the EU approach to pesticide regulation, which was 
generating a progressive  loss of safe phytosanitary resources. In Chile's view, the hazard -based 
cut-off criteria in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 deviated from the internationally agreed principles  
of risk analysis and unnecessarily lowered MRLs for commonly used substances.  
3.48.  Noting that no new information had become available since the previous SPS Committee  
meeting, t he European  Union  affirmed that scientific criteria to identify endocrine disrupto rs were 
based on the WHO definition and had been applicable since November 2018.  The European  Union  
reiterated that, to date, there had been no cases of non -approval of substance s solely based on 
endocrine disruptor criteria that had been followed by the l owering of MRLs.  For all substances , 
classified as  endocrine disruptors, for which MRLs had been lowered following the non -approval 
under Regulation (EC) No  1107/2009, other intake concerns had been identified.  
The European  Union  noted that imports of the potentially affected commodities had grown since 
2018 and, therefore, the alleged trade barriers had not materialized. The European  Union  noted the 
numerous responses already provided and reiterated its commitment to keep Members informed of 
further develo pments.  
3.2.3   EU import tolerances for certain pesticides to achieve environmental outcomes in 
third countries (ID 534) - Concerns of Australia, Ecuador  and China  
3.49.  Australia  questioned the design of the EU regulation on the neonicotinoid insecticides 
clothianidin and thiamethoxam, notified to the TBT Committee. Australia was of the view that only 
food safety risks should drive decisions regarding import MRLs . Australia consid ered that using food 
MRLs as a proxy to pursue environmental standards outside EU’s borders was incompatible with 
international standards and guidelines and  threatened third countries' ability to apply their own 
environmental policies , in contradict ion wit h WTO rules. Australia considered MRLs as an 
inappropriate tool to achieve environmental outcomes and highlighted that third country national 
authorities were the best decision makers for the responsible and sustainable application of 
pesticides in their o wn unique environment. Australia requested the European  Union  to provide 
robust scientific  evidence in support of the link between the lowering of MRLs to the limit of 
determination and pollinator health . 
3.50.  Ecuador  shared the concern regarding the EU's extra territorial objectives, which did not seem 
to follow WTO rules. The EU proposal to use non -tariff trade barriers for environmental protection 
disqualified the legislation of trading partners. Asking about the regulatory basis for the decision, 
Ecuador obse rved that the non -renewal of a substance or the lowering of MRLs without conclusive 
risk analyses regarding the effects of neonicotinoids on human health and pollinators was leading to 
a de facto  market closure, affecting  small producers. Ecuador invited t he European  Union  to notify 
the measure to the SPS Committee  and continue the dialogue to avoid unnecessary trade barriers.  
3.51.  China  appreciated the opportunity to comment on the notification  G/TBT/N/EU/908  and 
invited the European  Union  to notify the proposed MRL developments to the SPS Committee . 
China  was of the view that  the scientific basis underpinning the revoking and lowering of MRLs for 
clothianidin and thiamethoxam due to the risk to bees was not sufficient . China noted the lack of 
scientific consensus  on the reason for the decline in honeybee colonies , while the co mbination of G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 17 - 
 
  parasites, pesticides, pollen deficiency, and climate change might be  the reason for the decline in 
honey bee colonies . China recommended that the European  Union  provide the relevant data  and risk 
assessment report  in order to  confirm the validity and completeness of the risk assessment of 
neonicotinoid pesticides on bees.  
3.52.  Paraguay  reiterated its concern regarding  the EU intention to use MRLs for clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam as a means to regulate the use of neonicotinoids in third countries, and consistency 
with WTO obligations. While sharing the EU's environmental objectives, Paraguay underscored the 
specific needs and challenges each country faced to ensure and maintain a sustainable agriculture . 
Paraguay regretted that the comments submitted by trading partners to notification  
G/TBT/N/EU/908  had not been taken into account. Paraguay complain ed that Regulation (EU) 
No 2023/334 made incorrect reference s to its country and requested an update on the concerns that 
had been raised in Brussels. Referring to the CJEU ruling on the banning of emergency authorizations 
for neonicotinoids, Paraguay invited the European  Union  to review its policies.  
3.53.  Sharing the systemic concerns expressed by Members, Costa  Rica affirmed that the common 
objectives of environmental protection should be pursued in line with the obligations under the 
multilateral trade system. MRLs were established to ensure food safety and, as such, Costa  Rica 
questioned the EU justification to red uce MRLs on the basis of global environmental concerns. 
This justification was not within the scope of the SPS Agreement , nor was it  a legitimate objective 
under the TBT Agreement for the introduction of a technical requirement. Costa  Rica urged the 
Europe an Union  to reconsider its regulatory approach , listen to concerns expressed by Members , 
and review its measures in light of the SPS Agreement . 
3.54.  The United  States  recalled that Members' actions to pursue shared sustainability goals should 
be consistent with  WTO rules, and echoed concerns regarding  the extraterritorial application of 
EU environmental domestic policies. The United States reinforc ed the need for diverse approaches 
in different regions  and noted the unclear link between the stated objective of p rotecting global 
pollinator health and  the EU requirement that imported food and agricultural products meet the 
reduced MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam. In its view , pesticide MRLs were not the 
appropriate tool to address environmental health  object ives and the EU measure restricted trade 
more than necessary, given  a shared scientific understanding that pollinator health was affected by 
complex interactions among multiple factors.  The United  States  submitted its statement in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2112 . 
3.55.  Canada  was concerned that the European  Union  was integrating consideration s of global 
environmental impacts in its MRL and import tolerance setting processes , which were not effective 
to address non SPS -objectives and conflicted wi th international trade rules. Stating that the EU policy 
agenda of the Farm to Fork Strategy should not have extraterritorial implications, 
Canada  complain ed the EU measures were undermining Members' initiatives to reach their own 
sustainability objectives . Canada expressed its willingness to cooperate with other Members in other 
multilateral fora that were more appropriate to address global environmental challenges. 
Underscoring the robustness of its regulatory system, Canada urged the European  Union  to ma intain 
its MRLs or harmonize with Codex MRLs if a pesticide residue did not pose dietary risks to 
EU consumers.  
3.56.  Acknowledging the responses provided by the European  Union , Uruguay  was concerned that 
Regulation (EU) No 2023/334 had been approved without sub stantive changes, despite Members' 
comments. Uruguay referred to the definition of MRLs in food and feed contained in Regulation ( EC) 
No 396/2005 , and noted that MRLs were a tool to ensure food safety . As such, Codex was the 
relevant international organiza tion, which adopted MRLs contemplating health issues and not 
environmental aspects. In its view, the establishment of MRLs by each Member should be 
underpinned by a risk assessment, taking into consideration its production and regulatory system. 
Uruguay ex pressed its willingness to cooperate with other Members to find mechanisms towards the 
protection of pollinators, ensuring the preservation of the environment and the protection of human 
health, without compromising food security nor restricting trade. Non etheless, Uruguay questioned 
the relevance and the legal basis of the reduction of MRLs to the level of determination due to global 
environmental concerns or issues other than human health. Highlighting that SPS measures should 
be in line with the SPS Agreement , Uruguay reiterated its interest in following further considerations 
of the use of emergency authorizations in light of the CJEU ruling.  G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 18 - 
 
  3.57.  Argentina  questioned the unilateral  and extraterritorial  nature  of the EU approach and related 
trade meas ures, which seemed to be inconsistent with WTO rules and principles of international law. 
Argentina highlighted methodological weaknesses in the EU approach, which disregarded the 
principles of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and of common but  differentiated 
responsibilities, as well as the obligation to grant special and differentia l treatment.  
3.58.  Japan  regretted that the European  Union  had adopted the measures without taking due 
account of Members' concerns at the TBT Committee . Japan was of the  view that any reduction of 
EU MRLs for the neonicotinoid pesticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam should be discussed with 
third countries and that regulations for environmental protection should be set by each Member, 
reflecting its particular environmen t. Japan sought clarification on the kind of scientific evidence to 
be provided in the application for import tolerances and on the criteria to measure the unacceptable 
risk to pollinators. Japan asked if a standard value established for a specific crop as  a result of the 
application for an import tolerance by a third country would also apply to the product imported into 
the European  Union  from other third countries.  
3.59.  New Zealand  shared the concern on pollinators decline and noted the diversity of potential 
causes. Emphasizing that national authorities were the best decision makers on the sustainable use 
of pesticides at the domestic level, the import measures imposed unilaterally  by the European  Union  
were of concern to New Zealand . New Zealand  encouraged all WTO Members to address global 
environmental issues multilaterally and use least trade restrictive measures for desired outcome s. 
3.60.  Israel  was of the view that the EU SPS measur e pursued a TBT-related objective  and sought 
clarification on the reason for the application of the measure to food and feed only , the establishment 
of a limit of quantification for products produced in greenhouses , and the granting of emergency 
authorizat ions with the stated objective of allowing member States to address serious damages for 
plant health, not to facilitate trade. Israel urged the European  Union  to reconsider its legislation and 
continue the debate in other fora.  
3.61.  Guatemala  affirmed that each  country had the right to choose its measures to address global 
concerns regarding protection of pollinators. MRLs were a tool to ensure food safety , and the 
EU proposal seemed to deviate from the objective to protect human health. Guatemala requested 
the European  Union  to base its measures on science; to share technical information underpinning 
the reduction of MRLs; to continue the dialogue to find solutions; an d to notify the measure to the 
SPS Committee . 
3.62.  Recallin g Members' obligations to base measures on science and to adopt the least trade 
restrictive measures, Colombia  complain ed that the reduction of MRLs would negatively affect 
exports to the European  Union  and the livelihoods of rural producers. Underscoring the importance 
of pollination, Colombia recalled it was part of the Convention on Biological Diversity and had adopted 
strict domestic measures. Colombia was of the view that the objective of the EU mea sure was not 
proportionate to its trade -disruptive effect s.  
3.63.  The Dominican Republic  noted the challenges faced by Members , namely , small and 
vulnerable economies, as triggered by EU policies, and highlighted the need for a gradual adaptation 
of productive activities. Referring to the EU 2021-2027 cooperation agenda for third country 
Members, the Dominican Republic complain ed about  the constant changes introduced in the 
EU regulations, which affected their national legislation. In its view, Members needed to  base their 
measures on risk assessments, in line with the SPS Agreement , to be able to fulfil the mandate of 
the MC12 SPS Declaration. The Dominican Republic expressed its willingness for an effective 
cooperation with the European  Union  to improve sustain ability and health in a cost -efficient manner.  
3.64.  Noting the number and variety of Members supporting this concern, Brazil  shared the view 
that environmental purposes were outside the scope of the SPS Agreement . Brazil emphasized that 
Members should not adopt  SPS measures with extraterritorial effects, according to the definition 
established in the SPS Agreement , and invited the European  Union  to respect the SPS Agreement  
when establishing MRLs.  
3.65.  India shared the concerns regarding  the extraterritorial application of domestic laws and 
would continue to monitor the issue closely.  G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 19 - 
 
  3.66.  The European  Union  delivered its statement under STC ID 549 . 
3.2.4   EU regulation No 396/2005 setting pesticide MRLs in food and fe ed of plant and 
animal origin (ID 549) - Concerns of China  and India  
3.67.  China  considered that the proposed EU regulation would create an unnecessary de facto  
barrier to international trade with major consequences on WTO Members, especially  developing 
countrie s exporting food  to the European  Union . Referring to  Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement , 
China  indicated that a full risk assessment should be considered , taking into account differences in 
pesticide products, application periods, and treated crops . China  complain ed the measure expanded 
beyond the scope of protecting bees and suggested adopting  MRLs in line with Codex.  
3.68.  India requested the European  Union  to delay the implementation of the regulation 's 
amendments . Specifically, India asked the European  Union  to reconsider its approach to setting 
MRLs, review the regulation taking into account  WTO rules and Codex recommendations, share the 
detailed risk assessment and the alternative measures considered, and grant an opportunity to 
Members to examine the  risk assessment and share their comments.  
3.69.  The European  Union  provided a common reply to STC ID 534  and ID 549 . The European  Union  
explained that it took into consideration envir onmental aspects when setting MRLs for substances 
no longer approved in its territory due to global environmental concerns and reviewed active 
substances on a case -by-case basis. The European  Union  affirmed that, based on current knowledge, 
reducing the us e of neonicotinoids was an effective action to tackle the decline of pollinators. 
Comments received to documents G/TBT/N/EU/908  and G/SPS/GEN/2054  had been reviewed and 
shared with EU member States, who had endorsed the proposal in September 2022. Regulation (EU) 
No 2023/334 had been adopted in February 2023 and the application date had been deferred to 
36 months after entry into force, until early 2026.  
3.70.  The European  Union  clarified that the regulation would not prohibit the use of neonicotinoids 
by third countries, but products destined to the EU market would have to comply with the MRLs. 
The European  Union  considered that it was acting in compliance with its WTO obligation s since there 
was no equally effective and less trade restrictive alternative to protect pollinators. 
Acknowledging  the difficulties third countries might face, import tolerances could be granted for 
active substances not authorized in the European  Union . Referring to the EU intervention under 
STC ID 448 , the European  Union  clarified it would also look into specific issues raised by different 
Members, including the incorrect reference to Paraguay  in the regulation . The Europe an Union  
remained available for further discussion.  
3.2.5   EU Commission proposal for reduction of the current MRL for "nicotine" for 
imported tea from India ( G/SPS/N/EU/581 ) (ID 550) - Concerns of India  
3.71.  India requested the European  Union  to reconsider its acute risk exposure calculations given  
that the methodology used had wrongly assumed nicotine to be  a pesticide. India noted that the 
sample selections for calculating exposure risks for unprocessed tea (dried tea leaves)  and processed 
tea (tea infusions) did not seem to be sufficiently representative, and requested the European  Union  
to share the detailed methodology for determining  the threshold residual concentration level of 
0.52 mg/kg for nicotine in tea. India further explained that the risk exposure calculations had 
assumed a 100% transfer of nicotine residues from dry tea leaves to their infusion as a default, 
which might  be erroneous due to insufficiency of supporting data. India requested the 
European  Union  to withdraw its MRL re vision and comply  with the SPS Agreement . 
3.72.  The European  Union  recalled that the temporary nicotine MRLs for teas had been  initially set 
by Regulation (EU) No 812/2011  at 0.6 mg/kg , pending the submission and evaluation of new data 
and information on the nat ural occurrence or formation of nicotine in tea products. Th e temporary 
MRL had been  lowered by Regulation (EU) No 2023/377 to 0.5 mg/kg based on monitoring data , 
which had demonstrated that such lower levels were achievable as the vast majority of samples  
were below that level. The European  Union  followed the principle that MRLs should be set as low as 
reasonably achievable . Regulation (EU) No 2023/377 had been  published in February 2023 , with  
6-month delay prior to  its application to give food business operators  the possibility to adapt to the 
new MRLs.  G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 20 - 
 
  3.73.  The European  Union  noted  that t he lower ed temporary MRL would have been planned even 
in the absence of potential health concerns , as monitoring data clearly showed t hat lower levels were 
achievable . The European  Union  noted that EFSA had performed a new acute dietary risk assessment 
for nicotine in teas, excluding controversial consumption data, and had concluded that the current 
MRL for nicotine in teas was safe for consumers. The  European  Commission was therefore in the 
process of drafting a new regulation allowing for a transitional arrangement for teas produced before 
the lowered MRLs become applicable in September 2023 , as consumer protection was not 
undermined. T he European  Union  indicated it would continue to review the temporary MRL based on 
monitoring data and  remain ed open to further contacts with India to provide any information 
require d to clarify this issue . 
3.2.6   EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application 
of the Commission Regulation (EU) N o 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 amending Regulation 
(EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for cadmium in foodstuff (ID 503) - 
Concerns of P eru 
3.74.  Peru reiterated its concerns regarding Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 establishing maximum 
levels (MLs) for cadmium in chocolate and other cocoa products that, in practice, had an impact on 
trade in cocoa beans and cocoa powder. Peru was of the view that the EU regulation violated 
Articles  2-3 of the SPS Agreement . Considering that the European  Union  had not taken into account 
several opinions of the joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the 
Codex  Committee on Contaminants in Food, P eru stated the EU levels were more trade restrictive 
than necessary to protect human health. Peru called upon the European  Union  to review its 
legislation, apply international standards and the conclusions reached by JECFA, consider excluding 
chocolate and  other cocoa products from the implementation of the regulation, and continue 
providing support to Peru to mitigate the presence of cadmium in the production of cocoa.  
Peru submitted its statement in document  G/SPS/GEN/2 122. 
3.75.  Ecuador  echoed the previous intervention and i nvited the European  Union  to consider the 
work undertaken in specialized international organizations . 
3.76.  Noting the lack of new elements since the November 2022 Committee meeting, 
the European  Union  emphasized the significant ef forts undertaken during the preparation of the 
relevant regulation to alleviate the difficulties of its trad ing partners in complying with the legal 
requirements, namely , (i) the granting of an exceptionally long transitional period for cocoa and 
chocolate  products by deferring the implementation date to 1 January 2019; and 
(ii) the establishment of MLs on finished products, that did not apply to cocoa beans or other 
intermediary cocoa products. The  European  Union  explained that the EU risk -based measure wa s 
necessary to protect the health of European consumers, and that it took into account the tolerable 
weekly intake established by EFSA and EU consumption patterns. Reinforcing its right to establish 
measures to address public health concerns, in line with the SPS Agreement , the European  Union  
further noted that the MLs for chocolate over 50% total dry cocoa solids w ere in line with the Codex 
levels agreed in 2018 and that stricter limits had been introduced only to the extent necessary to 
protect human heal th. The European  Union  referred  to the targeted projects supporting cocoa 
products sector s in Colombia, Ecuador,  and Peru , and reiterated its commitment to work 
constructively with Members to address outstanding issues without prejudice to consumer safety.  
3.2.7   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (ID 446) - Concerns of 
the United  States  
3.77.  The United  States  reiterated its concerns regarding the  implementation of Article 118 of 
Regulation  (EU) No  2019/6. The United  States  considered the European  Union  should allow flexibility 
to trading partners to use official controls and techniques deemed necessary to achieve the same 
public health objectives. The United  States  request ed the European  Union  to share its scientific 
eviden ce and sought clarification on the  EU process for amending and updating its list of 
antimicrobials  as well as on considerations for  equivalent regulatory systems. The United  States  also 
reiterate d its request that the European Commission provide a new time line for implementation of 
its measures . The United  States  submitted its statement in document  G/SPS/GEN/2110 . 
3.78.  Reiterating its systemic concern, Paraguay  requested the European  Union  to provide : 
(i) an update on the state -of-art of the delegated acts and the transition periods established for the G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 21 - 
 
  full implementation of Article 118 of Regulation  (EU) No  2019/6 ; (ii) actions envisaged in case of 
detection of traces of medicinal products  reserved  for human use  in imp orted meat products; 
(iii) information on the measuring of medicinal products in meat and the traceability system that 
would be used; and (iv) the methodology that would be considered and the expected frequency of 
potential updates to the list of medicinal  products.  
3.79.  Japan  regretted that the European  Union  had not provided information, including the timeline 
for the implementation of Article 118 of Regulation  (EU) No  2019/6 . Japan asked the European  Union  
to elaborate the necessary process to be included in the list of approved third countries , provide at 
least a three -year transitional period before the implementation of the delegated act to third 
countries , clarify timeline s for implementation so third countries can prepare, provide sufficient 
scientific ev idence for the regulation , and avoid discrimination in the implementation of the delegated 
act. 
3.80.  Canada  expressed its support for the coordinated international efforts to address AMR and 
appreciation for the information session organized by the European  Union. Canada encouraged the 
European  Union  to offer additional information sessions prior to finalizing subsequent legislative 
elements in relation to official certificates and list of pre -approved third countries among others. 
This would permit third countr ies to seek clarification and provide time to determine what measures 
and mechanisms might  be required to meet the new requirements. Canada noted its commitment 
to providing comments on implementing legislation upon notification for consultations . 
3.81.  Australia  thanked the European  Union  for the briefing session  to third countries , confirming  
that feed additives would not be in the scope of the draft regulations, and clarifying that the draft 
regulation would  not impose new requirements f or residue  testing of animal products  exported to 
the European Union . Australia reiterated  its concerns regarding the proposed 24 -month transition 
time for the implementation acts to be adopted , as it would not provide third countries in such 
sectors with sufficient time to implement the new rules , especially for animals (like dairy cows) 
whose production cycle is more than two years . Australia  continue d to request that the proposed 
certification requirements not be retroactively  applied to animals or produ ct derived from animals  
and requested clarification on the steps taken by the European  Union  to minimize additional 
certification costs on Members.  
3.82.  Brazil  echoed other Members' concerns and noted the potential burden caused by the 
introduction of trade res trictive requirements. Expressing its support for the international efforts to 
develop multilateral guidelines on AMR, Brazil urged the European  Union  to consider ongoing global 
efforts by the WHO, WOAH , and FAO, as well as the work of the Codex AMR taskfo rce. 
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.  
3.83.  Referring to its previous statements in the Committee, Uruguay  indicated it had taken note 
of the draft delegate regulation ( G/SPS/N/EU/605 ) on the requirements to be met by animals and 
products of animal origin intended for human consumption. Uruguay was interested in obtaining 
details on the implementing acts referred to in the draft regulation and called on the European  Union  
to avoid too complex or expensive requirements that could restrict trade more than necessary. 
Uruguay sought clarification on the extension of the temporary frameworks mentioned in the draft 
regulation and requested that draft regulations be made available with suffici ent advanced notice to 
provide time to analyse and comment and for these comments to be duly considered.  
3.84.  The European  Union  explained that the Regulation on Veterinary Medicines (Regulation (EU) 
No 2019/6) had entered into force in January 2019 and had begun applying in January 2022. It laid 
down a wide range of concrete measures to fight AMR and promote the responsible use of 
antimicrobials, following the approach of the EU One Health Action Plan against AMR. 
The European  Union  stressed that its regulation s imposed much stricter rules on domestic operators 
and should not be seen as a barrier to trade.  The European  Union  noted a dedicated webpage had 
been made available to provide stakeholders with the status of each of the delegated or 
implementing acts and  provided a detailed state  of play regarding the preparation of the draft legal 
acts. 
3.85.  The European  Union  explained that Implementing  Regulation (EU)  No 2022/1255 designated 
a list of antimicrobials or groups of antimicrobials reserved for treatment of cert ain infections in G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 22 - 
 
  humans , entered into force in February 2023 and  would be under continued review . Future updates 
would be notified to the SPS Committee . The European  Union  also drew Members' attention to a 
draft delegated  act under Article 118 (rules on imports from third countries), which  had been notified 
with a  final date for comments in February 2023 . Several Members had made  comments , which had 
been replied to and a subsequent information session had been  held. The draft regulation had been  
adopted and was expected to be published in the Official Journal before summer. 
The European  Union  assured Members that meetings would be organized with third countries, and 
that it was committed to work ing on a framework that deliver ed on the objective o f addressing AMR 
while minimising impacts on trade.  
3.2.8   India's Draft Food Safety and Standards (Import) Amendment Regulation (ID 553) 
- Concerns of the European  Union  
3.86.  Referring to its previous statements regarding  India's import requirements related to the 
registration of foreign food manufacturing facilities , the European  Union  thanked  India for clarifying 
its questions regarding the Order of October 2022 of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of 
India (FSSAI)  and for postponing the entry  into force of the new requirements to February 2023. 
However, the European  Union  noted that several food manufacturing facilities ha d not been 
registered in the online system, with no written reply from India to inquiries . The European  Union  
expressed concern s regarding the listing or delisting of facilities  and different authorities regulating 
imports of the same products . Among others, the European  Union  requested India to clarify the 
modalities related to audits and inspecti ons of facilities, border checks and health certificates, 
provide written and update guidance to the exporting countries and companies on how they should 
register facilities, and avoid a duplication of certificates for the same product. The European  Union  
also repeated its request for this measure to be notified in both the SPS and TBT Committees.  
3.87.  Japan  noted that the final date for comments for India's TBT notification was set to the middle 
of January 2023, with the date of adoption and entry into force as  1 February 2023. This would not 
have allowed for sufficient time to consider any comments put forward before implementation. 
Japan  submitted lists of food manufacturing facilities, but India had not yet registered some of the 
facilities on the list. Japan  requested India to  suspend the implementation of the Order to allow time 
for adaptation while allowing imports of designated food products without registration of the 
facilities, specify the HS codes for the designated food categories subject to the Order , clarify the 
details on how to apply for the registration of foreign food manufacturing facilities, and  respond to 
the unanswered questions from Japan within a reasonable time.  
3.88.  Having raised the concern at the TBT Committee, Canada  stressed that India's measure also 
contained SPS  elements and could create  unnecessary barriers to trade . The criteria used to 
determine the level of risk for imported food products and the circumstances that would instigate an 
audit remained unclear. Can ada urged India to respond to its request for information submitted to 
the enquiry point, and to notify this measure to the SPS Committee . While it was still awaiting India's 
response to written questions and comments, Canada thanked India for the  prompt r egistration of 
Canada 's food manufacturing facilities and the publication of the list of establishments. 
Canada  remain ed concerned with the measure 's criteria to determine risk, auditing protocols,  target 
commodities, source -countries, implementation plan,  audit rates, compliance actions , and appeals . 
3.89.  India explained that the FSSAI  was the statutory body responsible for regulating all aspects 
of the food industry. The 2021 Food Safety and Standards (Import) Amendment Regulations 
provided the legal framework  for the registration and inspection of foreign food manufacturing 
facilities. The FSSAI had addressed the comments by notifying the need for the competent 
authorities of the exporting countries to provide information to register food manufacturing facilit ies 
falling under certain categories of food products, as well as information on manufacturers willing to 
export such products  to India. India emphasized that the practice of listing and registration of foreign 
establishment s, also prevalent in other Membe rs, reduced inspection and clearance times and 
ensured the quality and safety of food products. India further indicated that the safety measures 
taken to ensure food safety for the listed products had already been notified in the SPS and 
TBT Committees, an d since this  was a certificate with no additional safety measures related to the 
products, it ha d not been notified in WTO SPS platform . G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 23 - 
 
  3.2.9   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural 
products (ID 487) - Concerns of  Australia, Japan and  the European  Union  
3.90.  Australia  indicated that it was grateful to have received advice from the General 
Administration of Custo ms China (GACC) in February 2023, acknowledging the need to strengthen 
communication and cooperation around food safety and reaffirming  that China' s COVID -19 related 
measures had been removed . Australia welcomed China's removal of the requirements to test 
imported products and packaging for COVID -19 genetic material and sought clarification on when 
China would remove outstanding COVID -19 related suspensions. While Australia appreciated China's 
removal of the suspension imposed on an Australian dairy establi shment, three Australian meat 
establishments remained suspended. Australia requested that these suspensions be lifted.  
3.91.  Japan  welcome d that measures had been lifted in January, but raised concerns on continued 
suspensions. Japan indicated that, in 2020, two  facilities had their imports suspended due to online 
audits unrelated to the detection of COVID -19 in export cargoes. T hese two facilities had immediately 
undertaken corrective actions,  but import suspension s had continued for two years without scientific  
or risk -based justification. Given that the measures had been lifted , Japan urge d China to  reinstate 
these facilities and requested clarification on the food safety concerns that justified the continued 
import suspensions.  
3.92.  The European  Union  welcomed the announcement made in December 2022 , which  had led to 
the lifting of China 's COVID -19 related measures on food imports as of February  2023, but noted 
that there were still export establishments that could not export to China  due to COVID -19 related 
ongoing suspensions. The European  Union  urged China to lift all suspensions immediately, and to 
clarify whether future audits to EU export establishments would  contain COVID -19 requirements . 
3.93.  China  noted that, since July 2022, GACC Announce ment No  103 of 2020 had been repealed 
and it had no longer taken emergency preventive measures to suspend import declaration for goods 
with the positive nucleic acid of COVID -19 virus for 1 -4 weeks. As of January 2023, the GACC had 
cancelled the preventive  measures related to COVID -19 on cold -chain food and agricultural products 
at the port , and  China had resumed the import declarations from more than 100 companies, 
including from India, the United Kingdom, and other Members.  In 2022, China had imported 
1.57 trillion yuan of agricultural products, an increase of 10.8% year -on-year; imported food 
reached 1.39 trillion yuan, up 10.4% year -on-year, effectively maintaining the overall stability of 
trade.  
3.2.10   China's administrative measures for registration of overse as manufacturers of 
imported food (26 November 2019) (ID 485) - Concerns of  Australia,  the European  Union , 
the United  States  and Japan  
3.94.  Australia  acknowledge d the difficulties China had in the implementation of its CIFER system  
in the context of the implementation of China's Decree 248  and appreciated cooperation with the 
GACC to mitigate the risk of trade disruption throughout the process of establishment registration 
extensions . However, Australia remain ed concerned about time frames, lack of clear  and timely  
advice from the GACC, and delays in registration of new and existing Australian food businesses. 
Australia encouraged China to allow for reasonable timeframes for application submission and 
adjustment in the CIFER system , notify competent authorities of updates to the system , provide 
clear and timely advice on  any changes to HS codes , provide  appropriate guidance  to all affected 
entities on meeting requirements, ensure continuity of trade until CIFER IT system issues are 
resolved , and provide e qual opportunity for all food businesses registered in CIFER to access their 
accounts in CIFER and apply for modifications and registration extensions . 
3.95.  The European  Union  expressed its continued concern  regarding the process of implemen tation 
of China's Decree 248 , which it considered to be burdensome and not transparent.  
The European  Union  noted applicants faced many issues during the registration process, and was 
concerned with the upcoming deadline of June 2023 for existing registrati ons. The European  Union  
indicated that it was unlikely registrations would be completed for all establishments given technical 
issues and given recent issues faced regarding renewals, modification, and extension procedures. 
The European  Union  requested Chi na to resolve these technical issues, facilitate 
amendment/correction of existing registrations, extend the June 2023 deadline for existing 
registrations, and simplify the renewal process.  G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 24 - 
 
  3.96.  The United  States  reiterated its concern regarding China's lack of response to requests for 
scientific justification and sought 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 that informed the development of these Decrees . The United  States  stressed 
the confusion and trade  disruption caused by the lack of guidance and the inconsisten t 
implementation of measures  and indicated that all facilities should be able to self -register . 
The United  States  considered the GACC's deadline of June 2023 for registration of all firms to be 
unrealistic, and requested suspension of this deadline until concerns were addressed. 
The United  States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2113 . 
3.97.  Japan  echoed t he concerns expressed by other Members  on China 's implementation of 
Decree  248 and its obligations under the SPS Agreement . Japan remained concerned regarding 
issues associated with  the CIFER  system, including the  lack transparency, burdensome  
requirements , uncertain procedures, and lack of predictability . Japan requested China to provide a 
scientific justification of its new measures  including  the results of  risk assessments, notify any 
change in the operation of  the CIFER  system  with a reasonable transiti on period, allow previously 
registered facilities to export any items regardless of the registered product codes until 30 June  
2023, add all missing product codes to the system , provide clear explanations as to when an 
application would be rejected; establ ish an enquiry point for interested parties , hold an information 
session in Geneva, and respond to unanswered questions within a reasonable time.  
3.98.  Norway  shared concerns expressed by other Members and considered that Chinese Decrees 
248 and 249 were more trade restrictive than necessary to ensure the safety of imported food 
products. Norway underscored the significant burden facing its national seafood industry and the 
Norwegian Food Safety Authority  as a result of  the amount of information and documentation 
required to register establishments  in CIFER, changes to the system after implementation, lack of 
guidance, and technical errors that caused delays in registration . In order to facilitate trade and 
reduce disruptions , Norway asked China to review its measures and apply them in a manner that 
was not more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve its ALOP.  
3.99.  Uganda  express ed concern  regarding  the process  for submission , delayed approval 
procedures , and lack of communication from the GACC. Uganda indicated that t he lack of support 
to register food operators and businesses  was burdensome and not transparent, and the approval 
procedures were uncertain . Uganda requested  a dedicated channel  for competent auth orities to 
address their concerns and to provide technical assistance dealing with challenges associated with 
the system.  
3.100.   Referring to its interventions in previous Committee meetings, Chinese  Taipei  stressed that 
the lack of information on registration re quirements, operational guidance , and updates on the 
stages of the procedures complicated the implementation of the measures. Chinese  Taipei  
questioned the alignment of the measures with the SPS Agreement , and noted the significant 
burdens placed on facili ties and competent authorities. Chinese  Taipei  also noted the  lack of 
responses to the request for the scientific justification of the measures  and the additional burden to 
facilities related to ambiguity in HS codes and customs clearance suspensions. Chinese  Taipei  urged 
China to designate an enquiry point to address concerns surrounding the measures , provide a grace 
period for their implementat ion, temporarily allow entry of all products from registered facilities , and 
hold an information session on the implementation of the measures.  
3.101.   Acknowledging the recent discussions  and past interventions , the United Kingdom  reiterated  
that the requirements  imposed by the GACC that all overseas establishments producing medium -risk 
and low -risk products be registered in the CIFER system was unduly burdensome and did not seem 
to be supported by appropriate scientific justification. While welcoming  China 's deci sion to remove 
the requirement for submission of a checklist for modification and extension applications of overseas 
meat, fish and dairy establishments producing high -risk products , the United Kingdom  requested 
China to apply its measures in a risk -propor tionate manner, considering the rigorous  UK food safety 
processes and controls.  
3.102.   Reiterating its concerns, Korea  noted  that certain aspects  of China's  regulation, such as 
those related to low -risk products , the lengthy registration procedures , and the lack of explanations 
for rejections, were unnecessarily burdensome. Korea requested China to change  the registration 
requirements to facilities, not product categories, and approv e the export of all products for facilities 
that were already registered based on previously reviewed data . Korea reminded China of the G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 25 - 
 
  obligation to adopt  SPS measures based on science and in a transparent manner  and invited China 
to reply to its request a nd suggestions.  
3.103.   Peru expressed concern regarding  China's D ecree 248 owing to the complexity of the 
registration  process  in the CIFER system . Peru ha d requests from last year  that had not been 
addressed by the health authorities of China. Peru noted there w ere delays in the procedure and 
that sufficient information was not provided when an application was rejected. Peru requested 
transparency in exchanges and clear information from the Chinese authorities.  
3.104.   China  indicated that the revision of the draft Admin istrative Measures for Registration of 
Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Foods was based on domestic  law and was compliant with 
international rules and common practices. China explained that the measures strengthened the 
supervision of food safety while t aking trade facilitation principles into account. Before the 
implementation of the regulations,  the GACC had issued the interpretation of the regulations and 
the guide and supporting documents for registration applications, had launched the online 
registra tion system for overseas enterprises, and had formally notified exporting Members through 
various channels. As of 17 February  2023, more than 100 Members had provided the list of 
enterprises recommended for registration, and a total of 82,000 overseas prod ucers had been 
registered. China  underlined the effectiveness of the implementation of its measure and invited 
Members to contact  the GACC for registration queries and technical support.  
3.2.11   China 's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID 516) - Concerns of Australia  and Canada  
3.105.   Recalling that SPS control, inspection and approval activities should be timely and no less 
favourable than those undertake n for domestic circumstances , Australia  requested China to provide 
timeframes and pathways for the assessment and approval of establishment registrations and their 
products , the updating of administrative listings , and the removal of restrictions and suspe nsions on 
establishments and products. Australia noted the absence of justification provided by China for not 
having updated those lists, notably regarding a number of Australian meat establishments and 
seafood exporters. Australia also pointed out  China 's non-adherence to the SPS Agreement , referring 
to the non-timely updating of administrative listing and finali zation of establishment approval . 
Australia indicated that it would welcome engagement with China to ensure that registration 
requirements did not  unnecessarily disrupt trade  and that the registration of businesses and products 
were not delayed . 
3.106.   Referring to its statements at previous Committee meetings, Canada  explained it continued 
to experience undue delays in China's approval procedures for the import ation of food products and 
foreign establishments . Canada was awaiting updated information on  the lists of Canadian products 
and facilities eligible to export. Canada was pleased  that a number of dairy, fish , and seafood and 
other medium -risk commodity establishments had been recently approved in China 's Import Food 
Enterprise Registration (CIFER ) system , but noted that this was not the case for a number of other  
market access requests. Canada lamented  that undue delays and lack of transparency and of 
rationale in the procedures le d to unjustified barriers to trade and administrative burdens.  
Canada  urged China to update and publish the lists of Canadian products and establishments 
awaiting registration or approval , provide timelines for approval s, share  the result s of approval 
procedures , and respect its obligations under the  SPS Agreement . 
3.107.   The United Kingdom  welcome d China 's recent decision to lift its suspension  against four 
UK fish exporters and a dairy establishment , but reiterate d its request that China prioritise the 
review of the suspension of three UK pork establishments  and confirm additional requirements  for 
reinstatement . The United Kingdom remained unclear on criteria and timeframes to facilitate a 
resolution. Noting the issues faced by 20 pork, 47  fisheries, and 94 dairy establishments regarding 
modification and extension applications (all with approaching deadlines), the United Kingdom urged 
China to apply its approval procedures in a timely, predictable, and transparent manner  and limit 
requests to what was reasonable and necessary, in accordance with the SPS Agreement . 
3.108.   China  clarified that it handled market access for meat and aquatic pro ducts and enterprise 
registration in accordance with domestic laws and regulations, and only products that met the 
requirements upon evaluation could be exported to China. China 's measures were in line with 
bilateral agreements and the SPS Agreement , and China had informed the competent authorities of G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 26 - 
 
  the exporting Members of the non -compliance problems it had found in their export enterprises. 
China indicated that when these issues were corrected and notified, Chinese experts would carry out 
the evaluation , on the basis of which China  would decide whether to adjust related actions.  
3.2.12   Saudi  Arabia 's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting 
establishments (ID 486) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.109.   Brazil  regretted that Saudi  Arabia  had not provided supporting doc umentation regarding the 
ongoing suspension of Brazilian exports. In Brazil's view, Saudi  Arabia  was not respecting Articles 2 
and 5 of the SPS Agreement . In 2022, Saudi  Arabia  had authorized the resumption of imports from 
6 of 13 suspended establishments,  but the suspensions had not  been formally withdraw n. 
These Brazilian establishments remained  "partially suspended"  and other  establishments formally 
suspended . Brazil requested Saudi  Arabia  to clarify  what type of sanitary issue could motivate the 
suspens ion of establishment s while allowing imports and consumption of Brazilian poultry in 
Saudi  Arabia . Brazil further enquired what was  the legal basis  for and meaning of partial  
suspensions . 
3.110.   Assuring it spared no efforts in removing trade barriers, Saudi  Arabia indicated that the 
temporary measures at issue had been adopted in compliance with the SPS Agreement  to ensure 
food safety and the protection of human health . Following bilateral engagement , the Saudi Food and 
Drug Authority (SFDA) had lifted suspension  on a number of Brazilian poultry establishments that 
had taken certain measures to ensure food safety . The SFDA was currently reviewing corrective 
actions taken by other Brazilian establishments  and looked forward to receiving information on other 
corrective actions . Saudi  Arabia  reaffirmed its commitment to transparency towards WTO Members . 
3.2.13   Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of fishery and 
livestock enterprises (ID 509) - Concerns of Peru  
3.111.   Temporarily putting aside poultry plants, Peru reiterated its concerns that Panama's requests 
for additional information and undue delays violated Article 8 and Annex C to the SPS Agreement , 
and regretted the lack of information re garding the anticipated processing period and timeline for 
the renewal of authorizations of Peruvian enterprises. Peru also complain ed about  the lack of 
responses to the communications submitted, including a request for a meeting  of the Peru -Panama 
Free Tr ade Agreement Administrative Commission. Peru noted that Panama had not indicated the 
sanitary reasons for not renewing the authorizations or granting new authorizations to 
Peruvian  enterprises, 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 avoid further delays.  Peru submitted its 
statement in document  G/SPS/GEN/2118 . 
3.112.   Costa  Rica was of the view that Panama's regulatory practices totally restricted access of 
agricultural products to the Panamanian market and regretted the lack of information and  lack of 
amendments to the measures. Costa  Rica asked Panama to take into consideration  Members' 
concerns  regarding  inadequate implementation of SPS measures and failure to comply with the 
SPS Agreement . 
3.113.   The European  Union  reported that exchanges with Panama had resulted in the approval of 
some  establishments and that clarifications on the p rocedures to follow for the approval of 
establishments had been provided. The European  Union  continued to follow the issue with interest 
and hoped to continue bilateral consultations.  
3.114.   Panama  continued to review the documents provided by Peru and recalled t hat the concern 
was being addressed bilaterally through a technical commission. Panama reiterated its willingness 
to mutually satisfactory solutions.  
3.2.14   Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and fisheries products (ID 530) - 
Concerns of Peru  
3.115.   Peru stated that Bolivia's measures blocked market access for Peruvian exports of whole 
trout without scientific justification. Despite the approval of the health certificate in 2017, Bolivia  had 
not yet complied with the corresponding commitments to allow imports.  In January 2022, Bolivia  had 
indicated that its current regulations allowed for the marketing of eviscerated animals  only. Peru  was G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 27 - 
 
  still awaiting a response to the requests for information submitted  as well as an official invitation for 
an in -person meet ing to resolve the issue. In Peru's view, Bolivia's measures contravened the 
provisions of Article XI of the GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2 -3, 5, and 7-8 and Annexes B and C 
to the SPS Agreement . Peru asked Bolivia to lift its restrictions.  Peru submitted its statement in 
document  G/SPS/GEN /2119. 
3.116.   Bolivia  stated that its health requirements for imports of trout were in line with the guidelines 
established by Codex and FAO to ensure safety. Affirming its measures did not establish arbitrary 
discriminations, Bolivia indicated  that the technical problems faced had been addressed in bilateral 
meetings and that, if needed, they would  continue to be addressed by its sanitary authorities. 
Bolivia  reiterated its willingness to maintain an open and transparent dialogue with Peru.  
3.2.15   India' s Order related to requirement of health certificate accompanied with 
imported food consignment of milk, pork, fish and related products (ID 554) - Concerns 
of the European  Union  
3.117.   The European  Union  raised its concerns regarding an order issued by the Food Safety and 
Standards Authority of India ( FSSAI ) covering  health certificates for imported milk, pork, fish , and 
related products , notified to the TBT Committee . The European  Union  thanked India for a recent 
information session and for providing the  list of  HS codes associated with  the products covered by 
the health certificates . The European  Union  further  welcomed the recently announced postponement 
of the entry into force of  the health  certificates until further notice . While the new health certifi cates 
for milk and milk products had been merged  in March  2023, pork and fish products were still subject 
to two certificates issued by different authorities. The European  Union  requested India to avoid the 
duplication of  SPS measures  and notify any modali ties relating to the application of the health 
certificates  to the SPS and TBT Committees . 
3.118.   Japan  noted  that, as per  India's TBT notification , the date of adoption and entry into force 
of FSSAI's  order had been initially set merely two weeks after the  deadline  to submit  comments . 
While a ppreciat ing India's decision to extend the  order 's implementation date , Japan highlighted the 
need for  India to provide a proper transition period for exporting Members  to adapt their systems to 
the new health certificat es. Japan further noted that , if one of the objectives of FSSAI's  order was 
to ensure food safety , India needed to notify the order under the SPS Agreement . 
3.119.   Canada  welcomed India's recent decision to delay  the implementation of the new certification 
requirements  until further notice  but reiterated  its concerns with  a number of  new FSSAI 
requirements . Canada  encourage d India to streamline its certification requirements , have a single 
integrated certificate  incorporating food safety relate d requirements and attestations accepted by 
FSSAI , and base requirements on international standards. In addition, Canada recalled the need to 
provide  sufficient time for trading partners  to adapt  and requested India to notify t hese new 
requirements to the SPS Committee . 
3.120.   Norway  thanked  India for postponing the entry into force  of the  three  health certificates for 
fish, pork , and dairy . Soon thereafter, Norway had however received  a notice of a new certificate for 
dairy products . Norway emphasi zed the importance  for competent authorities  of having  sufficient 
time to adapt to new measures  and, in this context,  requested India to notify further new health 
certificates to the SPS Committee . Norway also requested  India to avoid duplication of 
SPS measures . Norway expressed concerns about  importing countries requir ing fulfilment of national 
legislation  which would  require extensive equivalence comparison , duplication of requirements, and 
additional cost and bureaucracy. Norway requested  India to delay further the implementation to 
allow trading partners to revise existing certificates in order to incorporate the consolidated import 
requirements.  
3.121.   India indicated  that the export certificate requirement for categories of food products was 
mandatory as per domes tic regulation. The requirement of a health certificate was a pre -import 
requirement  in the form of an assurance provided by the competent authorities of exporting 
countries that the food products complied  with safety requirements. India further informed t hat, 
following notification  in the TBT Committee, it had received comments  and concerns regarding the 
number of certificates and the extension for implementation . Considering these comments , India had 
deferred  the requirement until  further order.  G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 28 - 
 
  3.2.16   EU delays in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup) 
(ID 526) - Concerns of Korea  
3.122.   Korea  reiterated  concerns about import approval delays imposed by the European  Union  on 
Korean chicken soup Samgyetang. Korea indicate d that, since 1996, it had coordinated on -site 
inspections for the approval of its National Residue Program (NRP) and had submitted suppor ting 
documents , as requested . Despite the lack of  notable progress in the  authorization procedure , 
Korea  had continued  and would continue to submit NRP results. At the 11th EU-Korea Free Trade 
Agreement  Committee on SPS measures  of November  2022, the European  Union  had explained  that 
it was at the final reviewing stage , and Korea had request ed the European  Union  to swiftly proceed 
with the remaining import approval procedures . 
3.123.   The European  Union  explained  that it follow ed the usual steps of approval procedure s. 
The European  Union  would  inform Korea as soon as the procedure granting market access for  
Samgyetang  soup was finalized, including the last administrative steps.  
3.2.17   EU Regulations 2021/405 and 2017/185 on vitamin D3 (ID 551) - Concerns of 
China  
3.124.   China  reported  that, since 2002, shipments of lanolin -derived vitamin D3 for feed additives 
use exporte d to the European  Union  had been blocked at the border of Belgium and Germany on the 
ground that it was considered to be of animal origin , not compliant with Commission 
Decision  2002/994/EC.  Yet, in the last 20 years since the enactment of that Commission Decision , 
the European  Union  had imported  lanolin -derived vitamin D3 for feed use originating from China. 
China further referred to Regulation (EU) No 2022/887, which made clear that there was  no public 
health concern  related to the importation of such product.  China requested the European  Union  to 
take appropriate measures to resume trade  of vitamin D3  with China as soon as possible . 
3.125.   The European  Union  explained  that vitamin D  was considered to be a product of animal origin 
as it derive d from lanolin of sheep wool and that Vitamin D3 could be exported as  a food supplement. 
The European  Union  indicated that it would look into the particular complaint raised by China.  
3.2.18   EU increased sampling frequency for inspection of farmed shrimps and newly 
listed fishery establishments not permitted to export aquaculture products (ID 552) - 
Concerns of India  
3.126.   India reiterated its concerns  about the increased level of sampling and testing on imports  
for farm ed shrimps despite  India's remarkable reduction in antibiotic rejections in farmed shrimps 
exported to the European  Union  (one rejection in 2022  and no rejection in 2023 thus far) . 
India requested the European  Union  to bring down the sampling and testing frequency to the 
previous level of 10%  and to list all the delisted units and permit newly listed units to export farmed 
shrimps  to the European  Union . 
3.127.   Acknowledging significant progress since the previous audit, the European  Union  explained  
that a high level of non-compliant results for prohibited antimicrobials were still detected in the 
Indian -initiated pre -harvest testing programme in hatcheries and in the mandatory pre -export 
testing programme  (94 consignments had been  tested as no n-compliant and destroyed in India ). 
An audit had also concluded that follow -up investigations and measures to dissuade illegal use  had 
scope for improvement and that  the testing regimes operating in India remained  necessary. 
The European  Union  had recentl y received  India's response to the audit findings and  was assessing  
India's proposed action s to deal with the audit recommendations.  
3.2.19   General import restrictions due to BSE (ID 193) - Concerns  of the European  Union  
3.128.   The European  Union  recalled import bans and delays in the approval procedures of some 
Members, in particular Australia, Brazil, China, Ecuador, Egypt, Jordan, South Korea, Malaysia, 
Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Chinese  Taipei , and the United  States , which it considered to be  
inconsist ent with Article 8 and Annex C to  the SPS Agreement . The European  Union  urged those  
Members to comply with the SPS Agreement , apply international standards , lift remaining 
BSE-related restrictions , engage in the finalization of the risk assessment o n the  pending market 
access requests , and conclude the administrative steps to lift the bans.  G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 29 - 
 
  3.129.   The United  States  considered that the current concerns related to an equivalence 
administrative process, not animal health. To resume exporting bovine meat products for human 
consumption, EU member States needed  to obtain an equivalence determination by the 
US Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). FSIS was working through 
its equivalence process and  remained available for technical engagements with EU member States.  
3.130.   Switzerland  supported this concern. For example, a lthough Switzerland had been recognized 
by WOAH as having negligible BSE risk for more than one and a half decade s, 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 allow imports of beef products from Switzer land. 
3.131.   China  expressed concer ns about  BSE outbreaks in EU member States and reported  that 
it had been conducting technical exchanges and cooperation with the European  Union  to solve 
relevant technical issues. With varying BSE conditions and levels of animal  health prevention in 
EU member States, China need ed to conduct risk assessments on a case -by-case basis  based on the 
application . 
3.2.20   EU recognition of Mexico  as a country with WOAH negligible BSE risk (ID 543) - 
Concerns of Mexico  
3.132.   Mexico  regretted that the European  Union  had not accommodated its repeated request to 
recognize its BSE negligible risk status, granted by WOAH in 2016. Mexico noted that other Members 
who had obtained the recognition from WOAH subsequent to  Mexico had already be en included in 
EU Decision 2007/453/CE. Mexico expressed its disagreement with the request made by the 
European  Union  to undertake analysis of Mexico's specific requirements to import beef with regards 
to BSE, to be followed by a technical meeting  on the b asis that EU member States experienced 
difficulties to export such goods to Mexico. In Mexico 's view, this analysis implied that 
the European  Union  did not recognize the sanitary status granted by WOAH.  Noting that it accepted 
the sanitary status granted b y WOAH to EU member States, Mexico objected that there was no 
scientific justification for the EU delay, which was restricting  trade in products of interest. 
Mexico  requested to be included in EU Decision 2007/453/EC and asked for an official response to 
the communications sent since 2017.  
3.133.   The European  Union  informed the Committee that it had taken note of Mexico's status and 
that it was considering the request. The European  Union  had provided an answer to 
Mexico's  communications, and the issue was being di scussed bilaterally in the framework of the 
EU-Mexico Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement. 
The European  Union  looked forward to continuing the discussion with Mexico.  
3.2.21   Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for a uthorization of beef imports 
(ID 490) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.134.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern relating to unjustified delays in market access for 
bovine products. While welcom ing the reopening of Korea's  markets for imports of bovine products 
from two EU member States in 2019, the European  Union  emphasized that identical food safety and 
animal health control conditions prevailed in all EU member States. The European  Union  urged Korea 
to comply with the SPS Agreement , in particular its Article 3.2 , recalling  that several  
EU member  States had market access applications pending, some of which for more than  15 years. 
The European  Union  viewed Korea's assessment procedure as overly lengthy and burdensome , and 
hoped that  Korea would  solve this issue. 
3.135.   The Russian  Federation  regretted that Korea had not authorized beef imports from any 
Russian region, even though, in 2019,  the Russian  Federation  had provided the necessary 
information on the regions and zones recogn ized by WOAH as FMD free without vaccination. 
In May 2022, Korea  had also been informed of the Russian  Federation 's WOAH status as a country 
having a controlled BSE risk.  In October 2019, the beginning of the risk assessment process for  beef 
imports from the Russian  Federation  had been announced , and, in March 2022, additional 
information had been provided to Korea for three Russian regions. Yet , no answer had been received 
thus far  and Korea ha d not authorized beef imports from any Russ ian regio n. Expressing its readiness G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 30 - 
 
  for bilateral cooperation, Russia urged Korea to comply with its obligations under Articles 6 and 8 of 
the SPS Agreement  and finalize the market access procedures without undue delay.  
3.136.   Korea  indicated that it allowed imp orts without discrimination based on  risk and sanitary 
assessments  in line with the SPS Agreement , WOAH, and Codex standards . Korea recalled  that beef  
imports  from the Netherlands and Denmark had been approved and the procedure for the 
regionalization reco gnition for ASF and AI in the European  Union  had been finali zed in 
September  2022. Korea was ready  to enhance cooperation with the European  Union  to achieve 
progress in the import approval process for EU beef.  Korea further reported  that it was conducting 
a risk assessment for beef products from the three Russian regions declared as FMD free without 
vaccination. Korea's quarantine authority was reviewing answers submitted by 
the Russian  Federation  and would reply as soon as possible.  
3.2.22   South Africa's import r estrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (ID 431) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.137.   The European  Union  regretted that South Africa maintained country -wide bans on poultry 
products from 1 7 EU member States  following  historic  HPAI outbreaks.  These measures remained 
in place even though WOAH stamping out requirements were strictly applied, several 
EU member  States had been free from HPAI for many months, and many tons of poultry meat and 
by-products crossed intra -EU borders every day with no records of HPAI outbreaks. 
The European  Union  considered the measure s to be at odds with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement  and 
called on South  Africa to apply the regionalization principle  and allow trade from disease -free areas.  
3.138.   South Africa  responded that it had bans in place following several  HPAI outbreaks in the 
European  Union . South Africa continued to engage with the European  Union , referring to a meeting 
in November  2022 where they had agreed to the facilitation of a discussion on regionalization . 
South  Africa was a waiting an EU proposal to take these  discussions further.  
3.2.23   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID 406) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  
3.139.   The European  Union  informed the Committee that  China continued to maintain country -wide 
bans on several EU member States on account of HPAI. The European  Union  had repeatedly 
requested China to lift these import restrictions.  The European  Union  requested China to apply the 
SPS Agreement  and relevant  WHOA standards  to allow trade fro m disease -free areas . 
The European  Union  further noted that technic al exchanges on zoning and HPAI  had recently been 
initiated and urged China to further engage with the European  Union  to resolve this concern . 
3.140.   China  noted  that HPAI continued to occur in the European  Union , with  cross-species 
outbreaks in mink farms.  China  suspended the import ation of live poultry and related products from 
the EU member States with HPAI outbreaks in accordance with relevant regulations and international 
rules. Acknowledging positive results achieved by EU member States in prevention and control, 
China requested the European  Union  to keep it informed of further progress so that it could evaluate 
the effectiveness of the progress and adjust its measures.  
3.2.24   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID 392) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.141.   The European  Union  expressed concerns regarding China's ASF -related country -wide import 
bans on pork products, including from EU member States  that had  long eradicated the disease in 
livestock and wildlife. Since 2015 , when the concern had been f irst raised , China had expanded the 
trade bans , despite  China  having the same sanitary status . The European  Union  called on China to 
respect the SPS Agreement  and WOAH standards  and allow trade from disease -free areas . 
Noting  recent technical exchanges on zoning, the European  Union  hoped for a successful conclusion.  
3.142.   China  noted that , followi ng WOAH rules,  there had been good cooperation with 
EU member  States , such as France and Germany, on ASF regionalization. China expressed its  
willingness  to carry out exchanges and cooperation at the technical level with EU member States to 
explore how to improve ASF regional management.  G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 31 - 
 
  3.2.25   Peru 's non -application of regionalization for African swine fever (ID 544) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  
3.143.   The European  Union  expressed concerns about Peru's country -wide import bans imposed on 
EU pork products from member States that reported outbreaks of ASF. The European  Union  urged 
Peru to respect its international obligations  and allow trade from disease -free areas, a nd to engage 
in solution -oriented exchanges.  
3.144.   Emphasizing that it was respectful of the principle of regionalization of the SPS Agreement , 
Peru indicated it had duly provided information on the legislation applicable to a country that was 
experiencing or ha d experienced outbreaks of diseases not recognized in its territory. Peru reiterated 
its willingness to continue the ongoing bilateral work with the European  Union . 
3.2.26   Chinese  Taipei 's import restrictions on poultry and beef (ID 521) - Concerns of 
Brazil  
3.145.   Brazil  raised concerns regarding  export  restrictions on poultry and beef, which Brazil  believed  
failed to comply with Articles 5 and 8, as well as Annex C to  the SPS Agreement . To Brazil, this STC  
showcased an example of the  issues debated in the Working Group on Approval Procedures , namely,  
the lack of predictability regarding  the duration  of approval procedures and the benefits of 
anticipating processing periods. Brazil asked for  a time estimate for the analysis of  the latest  
documents  it had pro vided, the stages of relevant  approval procedures , and a date for an audit 
mission to Brazil . Brazil submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2115 . 
3.146.   Chinese  Taipei  reminded  the Committee  that it had recognized Brazil as being free from 
HPAI, but not Newcastle disease. If Brazil h ad the intention to resume the application for N ewcastle 
disease -free approval, Chinese  Taipei  requested Brazil to conduct active surveillance and relevant 
measures in accordance with WOAH guidelines and submit necessary supplementary information. 
Chinese  Taipei  further provided details about the status of market access applications and  informed  
that the latest set of  documents was being reviewed and results would be communicated upon 
completion  of that review . Chinese  Taipei  had also requested Brazil to su bmit supplemental 
documents . Following the completion of the review, an on -site audit would  be set up . Finally, 
Chinese  Taipei  reiterated that its  measures were transparent, based on scientific principles, and 
implemented without undue delay.  
3.2.27   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID 466) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  and the  Russian  Federation  
3.147.   The European  Union  reiterated that the Philippines maintained country -wide bans on imports 
of meat and meat products from EU member  States on grounds of ASF and HPAI. 
The European  Union  indicated that several  EU member States remained subject to country -wide 
import bans on pork meat or poultry meat inconsistently  with Articles 2.2 and 6 of the  
SPS Agreement . The European  Union  had prov ided the necessary evidence demonstrating the 
effectiveness of disease control measures . The European  Union  called on the Philippines to respect 
its international obligations and allow trade from disease -free zones.  
3.148.   The Russian  Federation  expressed concern  regarding the Philippines' restrictions on imports 
of Russian beef and pork. Noting that e xports to the Philippines required  WOAH recognition of a 
disease free-status for FMD, AS F, and lumpy skin disease, as well as low -risk status for BSE , 
the Russian  Federation  informed that it  had submitted information on the domestic epizootic 
situation for the diseases at issue, as well as on relevant  measures. The  Russian  Federation  
reminded o f its WHOA status of country with FMD  free zones and of BSE-free country . 
Expressing  its readiness for bilateral cooperation, t he Russian  Federation  urged the Philippines to 
comply with Articles 6 and 8 as well as  Annex C to the SPS Agreement , recognize re gionalization, 
and accelerate the  market access  process.  
3.149.   Regarding the EU concern, the Philippines  noted that the measures imposed were provisional  
and precautionary, subject to regular review  on the basis of  available scientific information in 
accordance with Article 5 of the  SPS Agreement . The Philippines was working with various 
EU member States bilaterally regarding the application for regionalization with respect to  HPAI. 
Regarding the Russian  Federation 's concern, the Philippines continue d to address  the market access G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 32 - 
 
  request bilaterally and was  working  with the Russian  Federation  regarding the application for 
regionalization with respect to  HPAI.  
3.2.28   Nigeria's import restrictions on meat, pork, poultry, milk  and dairy products, 
genetic material and live cattle (ID 523) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.150.   Brazil  regretted the lack of responses from Nigeria regarding proposals for  sanitary 
certifications for certain products  and lack of  information regarding requirements for exporting dry 
bovine skin. Noting  Nigeria's statement in a previous Committee meeting  that import restrictions 
were due to  economic  reasons , Brazil emphasized that  its request concern ed lack of responses to 
sanitary certificate p roposals  and, th erefore, f ell within the scope of the SPS Committee . 
Brazil  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2116 . 
3.151.   Nigeria  reiterated  that the import restrictions at issue were not  SPS related , but were to 
address Nigeria's economic difficulties , balance of payment s and national security difficulties . This is 
why the issue was being discussed in the Committee on Agriculture and the CTG , as the  appropriate 
fora. Nigeria requested Brazil to identify  the measure at issue and how this  measure f ell within 
the scope of SPS Agreement . In addition, g iven that  the import restrictions  were not based on issues 
related to SPS  certificate s, Nigeria queried how there could be a violation of Articles 2, 5, and 7-8, 
as well as  Annex C to  the SPS Agreement , as Brazil had stated in a previous Committee meeting.  
While maintaining that the SPS Agreement  was not the appropriate forum  for this concern, 
Nigeria  indicated  that its authorities were considering Brazil's proposal of a draft sanitary certificate.  
3.152.   Brazil  took note that Nigerian authorities were analysing its proposals for sanitary 
certificates, which  Brazil reiterated were issues within the scope of the SPS Committee . Brazil also 
emphasized that it was raising concerns  about transparency, avoiding undue delay s, and the timely 
analysis of proposals , all of which  related to SPS approval procedures . Brazil stood ready to  continue 
the bilateral dialogue  with Nigeria . 
3.2.29   Qatar's new import rules for dairy pr oducts (ID 529) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.153.   The European  Union  regretted that, d espite continued dialogue, Qatar continued to maintain  
import measures affecting several dairy products exported from the European  Union . One of the 
EU main concerns was the short shelf -life imposed for several dairy products , which 
the European  Union  considered not to be based on science or international standards . In practice, 
this made it impossible for  EU exporters to continue to ship some dairy products to Qatar and 
favoured Qatari  producers . The European  Union  reiterated its request to Qatar to withdraw its trade 
restrictions and adopt a permanent solution in line with WTO rules  to be notified at a draft stage to 
the Committee.  
3.154.   Qatar  informed the Committee of the  ongoing dialogue with the European  Union , referring 
in particular to an EU -Qatar workshop in February 2023 . Qatar underscored that the relevant 
measures were not discriminatory since they applied equally to domestic and imported products, did 
not impact trade  more than necessary to contribute to the fulfilment of the legitimate objective of 
protecting consumers , and did not prevent the importation and sale of any products that met its 
quality standards . Qatar remained available to continue the constructive dis cussion with Members.  
3.2.30   Thailand's sanitary requirements on wet blue leather imports (ID 539) - Concerns 
of Brazil  
3.155.   Reiterating its concern regarding the export of wet blue leather to Thailand, Brazil  indicated 
that it was putting forward a proposal to avoid the adoption of unnecessary requirements while 
respecting Thai domestic  legislation and the SPS Agreement . Wet blue leather was not like raw, 
dried, or salted leather since the transformation of co llagen into rot -proof fibres  prevented  the 
development and survival of etiologic agents of diseases affecting  animals or humans.  
Brazil  suggested that Thailand consider the possibility of relying on  Article 8.8.27 of the WOAH 
Terrestrial Code  to remove its requirement without the need of further amendments o f its domestic  
legislation . In this context, Brazil asked Thailand to consider if amending its legislation was necessary 
given that wet b lue leather was different from the types of leather addressed in its domestic  
regulation ; if it could be deemed that no sanitary certificate was in fact required  for this product , G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 33 - 
 
  and that there was an international standard,  as a means to authorize Brazilian exports ; and h ow 
much time would be needed  to conclude its app roval procedure . 
3.156.   Thailand  indicated that it took  into account the principles under the SPS Agreement  and 
relevant international standards. Thailand had  followed WOAH 's review of the Terrestrial Code to 
include wet blue leather in the list of safe commodities under Chapter 8.8  regarding FMD . However, 
its regulation was targeted at p revent ing and controlling various animal epidemic diseases, not only 
FMD. Therefore, Thailand took the view that to consider Brazil' s proposal, technical experts needed 
to discuss wet blue leather import requirements. Thailand invited  Brazil to hold technical 
consultation s before  the July 2023  SPS Committee  meeting . 
3.2.31   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID 441) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  
3.157.   The European  Union  remained concerned about  undue delays in Indonesia's approval 
procedures for imports of plant products and animal products. While there had been progress on 
some EU member State applications, many remained pending , without tangible progress.  
Information shared did not provide reasons for the lack of progress and long delays. 
The European  Union  urged Indonesia to comply with its WTO SPS obligations, by ensuring 
transparency of its approval procedures and finalizing the pending EU market access  applications 
without undue delay.  
3.158.   The Russian  Federation  reiterated its concerns regarding the lack of progress in Indonesia's 
approval of export certificates for several products. The Russian  Federation  expect ed to receive a 
response regarding questionnaires on poultry and beef establishments  and regretted that 
Indonesia  had not provided an answer regarding a  proposal for veterinary inspections. 
Expressing  its readiness for bilateral cooperation, t he Russian  Federation  urged Indonesia to comply 
with Article  8 and Annex C to  the SPS Agreement  and complete its approval procedures without 
undue delay.  
3.159.   Indonesia  provided updates on the progress of EU member States' submissions regarding  
approval procedure s for animal products and those for plant products. Indonesia took the view that 
it had continuously provided transparent updates on developments, changes , and progress of the 
application of each EU member States , and considered that its procedures and its responsivene ss 
were compliant with Articles 5 -8 of the  SPS Agreement . Furthermore , Indonesia had responded to 
the two applications submitted by the Russian  Federation  and indicated that it could accept the 
importation of processed bovine meat and frozen boneless beef without lymphoglandula based on 
its national legislation and on Russia's status as FMD  free without vaccination and controlled 
BSE risk. Indonesia  also provided an update on the approval procedure for Russia's plant products 
and noted that further updates would be communicated through diplomatic channels. 
Indonesia  hoped that the details provided addressed the concerns and requested  the issues to be 
resolved bilaterally.  
3.2.32   Korea's requirement of a health certificate with a declaration of aquatic disease 
status (ID 557) - Concerns of India  
3.160.   India urged Korea to provide an update for the purpose of the WOAH quarterly Aquatic 
Animal Disease Report publications for Asia and Pacif ic region , something Korea had failed to do 
since 2015.  Referring to  WOAH's  Aquatic Code,  India recalled that health certificate s should not 
include requirements for the exclusion of pathogenic agents or aquatic animal diseases  if they were 
present in the importing country and not subject to any official control programme. In addition, 
measures imposed on imports to manage the risks posed by a pathogenic agent or aquatic animal 
disease should not be more stringent than those  applied domestically . India requ ested Korea to limit 
the certification requirements to what was necessary, preventing disruption to trade  and ensuring 
compliance with the SPS Agreement . 
3.161.   Korea  informed the Committee that it had submitted Aquatic Animal Disease Report s to 
WOAH since 2005  and considered  WOAH to be a more appropriate forum to discuss this topic . 
In addition, Korea informed that it periodically conducted active surveillance for aquatic animal 
diseases in aquaculture facilities. When a disease was detected,  affected  aquatic ani mals were 
subject to an official control program me. Korea further indicated that it had chosen consignment G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 34 - 
 
  testing to reduce exporters' burden and facilitate trade , but zoning and compartmentalization 
through the surveillance for farms or production areas was a possible  option.  
3.2.33   India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID 501) 
- Concerns of the United  States  
3.162.   The United  States  acknowledged India's right to regulate products for food safety  reasons 
but noted  that India had not provided the scientific justification for its non -GM certificate requirement 
for the 24 crops listed in its order. The United  States  requested  India to immediately revoke its 
measure and to engage to find alternatives  that would address India' s legitimate SPS concerns and 
facilitate safe trade. The United  States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2114 . 
3.163.   Paraguay  pointed out that GMOs had been subject to strict scientific eva luations and were 
as safe as conventional counterparts, and noted their potential to contribute to global food security 
and more sustainably food systems. Paraguay referred to notifications G/TBT/N/IND/240  and 
G/SPS/N/IND/290  and asked India to clarify the link between the new drafts mentioned therein and 
the order subject to this concern.  
3.164.   Canada  remained concerned that India's  order unnecessarily restricted international trade 
and would disproportionately impact exports of GM -producing Members to India. To Canada, 
it remained unclear how India's non -GM certification requirement would fulfil its intended food safety 
objective, g iven the lack of available scientific information or justification to support its 
implementation. Canada called on India to share scientific and technical information , suspend the 
implementation of the measure , consider alternate, less trade -restrictive ap proaches , and notify its 
non-GM order to the SPS Committee . 
3.165.   Reiterating its concern, Argentina  highlighted that SPS measures should be based on 
scientific principles and a risk assessment, as well as international standards. Argentina asked for 
the scienti fic evidence underpinning India's order notified as G/TBT/N/IND/168  and for the criteria 
used to deviate from the principal of substantial equivalence.  
3.166.   Japan  reiterated the concern that India's measure was not based on scientific principles nor 
a proper risk assessment, was more trade -restrictive than necessary, and could have a negative 
impact on agricultural trade. Under Japan's domestic laws, GM agricultura l products for human 
consumption were subject to safety evaluations, and agricultural products not approved by the 
evaluation process 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 country of origin 
was not scientifically justified , and Japan requested India to withdraw its requirement  for such items.  
3.167.   Brazil  reiterated its concern s and referred to its previous statement  regarding the lack of 
scientific basis for India's non -GM requirement . Brazil asked  India to notify new developments to 
the SPS Committee  and to engage with Members to create trade facilitating solutions that would 
meet India's objective s. 
3.168.   Australia  noted that it was common international practice to maintain regulatory oversight 
and control on agricultural crops subject to genetic modification, and considered that requir ing GM 
assurances on a consignment -by-consignmen t basis did not improve regulatory outcomes. Australia 
further considered that  other Members' regulatory systems to control GM exports  should  be 
recognized , such as Australia's strong regulatory framework and controls on GM -crops . 
Australia  noted that Indi a had adopted  a similar certificate for the export of vegan food products, 
which c ame into effect in January 2023.  
3.169.   Uruguay  considered that there was no technical justification for the certification requirement, 
and noted the international consensus that GM  products approved on the basis of Codex risk 
assessment recommendations were considered to be equivalent to their conventional counterparts. 
Referring to the objective of ensuring food safety , Uruguay enquired why the measure had not been 
notified to the SPS Committee . Uruguay further sought clarification on the link between notifications 
G/TBT/N/IND/240  and G/SPS/N/IND/290 . 
3.170.   The European  Union  considered  India's  requirement to go  beyond what was necessary  to 
achieve its stated objective and to put an additional burden on and substantial costs for EU exporters. G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 35 - 
 
  The European  Union  requested explanation s as to why India considered necessary to impose such a 
burden on trading partners  with a high prevalence of  non-GM food and have a robust regulatory 
regime covering the use of GM products . The European  Union  asked India to waive its requirement 
for food items.  
3.171.   India reiterated that  import of GM foods was not allowed in India, and that the requirement 
of non-GM certificate to be accompanied with imported food consignment  was only an assurance 
provided by the exporting country that the food crops which were not approved by the Genetic 
Engineering Approval Committee  were not imported in India.  Therefore, India reli ed on an assurance 
provided by the exporting country  and was similarly issuing such certificates for its own exports.  
India further noted that tolerance and traceability requirements for adventitious presence of GMOs  
as well as the threshold for the labelling of adventitious presence of approved GM material in non -GM 
grain varied among trading partners. India also recalled that  import s remained  permissible if the 
adventitious presence of GM content was less than the tolerance limit  specified in the FSSAI order. 
Noting that several trad ing partners were providing the requisite certificate, India indicated that 
it remained open to discussions to facilitate trade.  
3.2.34   Panama's restrictions and procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes  and 
onions (ID 512) - Concerns of Peru  
3.172.   Temporarily putting aside its  concerns regarding potatoes, Peru expressed its concerns 
regarding Panama's suspension of imports of onions from Peru and the related undue delays in 
restoring trade. Peru recalled that Panama had suspended imports of Peruvian onions in 2016 based 
on an updated pest risk analysis, which was contrary to the SPS Agreement  and the IPPC principle 
of "technical justification". Peru also reported on the lack of response regarding  the results of  
Panama's risk analysis and complain ed about  reiterated requests for information that had been 
previously submitted. Peru requested Panama to allow market access for Peruvian onions to prevent 
violations of Articles 2, 5 and 8 and Annex C to  the SPS Agreement  and to avoid unnecessary and 
unjustified barriers to trade. Peru submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2120 . 
3.173.   Costa  Rica shared the concern and was of the view that Panama's practices totally restricted 
access of agricultural products to the Panamanian market. Costa Rica asked Panama to take into 
consideration Members' concerns  regarding  inadequate implementation of SPS measures  and failure 
to comply with the SPS Agreement . 
3.174.   Panama  took note of the comments made and would transmit them to capital . Noting the 
bilater al engagement in a technical commission in the context of their Free Trade Agreement , 
Panama informed the Committee that it was reviewing the documents provided by Peru and 
reiterated its willingness to  find mutually satisfactory solutions.  
3.2.35   Ecuador's impor t restrictions on grapes and onions (ID 498) - Concerns of Peru  
3.175.   Hoping to make  progress bilaterally on onions, Peru raised concerns regarding  the measures 
applied by Ecuador to the reopening of access for grapes. Peru had provided responses on the 
requirement for the refrigerated transport of grapes and hoped to agree on the import requirements 
and to conclude this process following the revision and analysis of the information provided.  
Peru submitted its statement in document  G/SPS/GEN/2121 . 
3.176.   Ecuador  responded that Peru's conce rn in the context of the Andean Community had 
concluded. Ecuador hoped to reach an agreement on the transportation of grapes and reiterated its 
willingness to continue dialogue with Peru to resolve this concern.  
3.2.36   China 's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID 532) - Concerns of Chinese  Taipei  
3.177.   Chinese  Taipei  reiterated its concerns about China's import suspension of pineapples, sugar 
apples, wax apples , and citrus , and requested China to resume imports in accordance with the 
SPS Agreement  and relevant international standards. Noting  the effective risk -preventing measures 
adopted to improve  the exportation of these fruits, Chinese  Taipei  regretted that it had not rec eived 
substantive responses from China regarding its requests for scientific and technical dialogue s, nor 
for detailed identification reports, the adopted ALOP or the risk assessment reports. Chinese  Taipei  
looked forward to  China withdrawing  its measures to comply with  Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 36 - 
 
  SPS Agreement , to provide the necessary scientific identification and risk assessment reports, and 
to engage in a bilateral scientific and technical dialogue to resolve this issue.  
3.178.   China  recalled that , since 2020, quarantine pests had been repeatedly found on pineapples, 
sugar apples, wax apples , and citrus imported from Chinese  Taipei . Although China had 
communicated this information to Chinese  Taipei , the situation had not im proved , and imports of 
these fruits had  been temporarily suspended in line with the transparency rules and the IPPC 
principles of risk assessment  as well as with the requirements related to control, inspection and 
approval procedures. China urged Chinese  Taipei  to take effective measures to imp rove the situation 
and ensure the source management measures taken in orchards and packing houses could eliminate 
the quarantine risks  affecting the fruits at issue.  While pointing out the ineffectiveness of the 
measures previously taken by Chinese Taipei to reduce the risk of quarantine pests, China suggested 
Chinese Taipei reconsider the measures and take effective actions for China to make further 
assessments.  
3.2.37   US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID 439) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.179.   The European  Union  regretted that  the United  States  had still not published its final rule to 
give market access to apples and pears under a systems approach. The European  Union  reiterated 
that the US scientific assessment had concluded  that apples and pears from the European  Union  
were safe for imports . Yet, t his final  administrative  step was blocked by the United  States . 
The European  Union  indicated that , while the US market was open under a pre clearance  programme , 
trade was nearly inexiste nt due to the high costs associated with this approach . The European  Union  
urged the United  States  to base its import conditions on science and publish  its final rule.  
3.180.   The United  States  reminded the European  Union  of the existing preclearance programme 
and noted that the EU request was being addressed through its administrative  process. 
The United  States  informed of recent discussions in October 2022 and noted its availability for 
further discussion.  
3.2.38   US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European  Union  for Asian 
longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID 471) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.181.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding the US failure to recognize the 
EU pest-free status for Asian longhorn beetle and citrus longh orn beetle. Although it had 
satisfactorily finalized its scientific risk assessment, the European  Union  indicated that the 
United  States  was delay ing the remaining last administrative steps necessary to formalize the 
recognition of pest -free status in 21 E U member States. This undue delay also prevent ed further 
work on the recognition of pest -free areas of affected EU member States . The European  Union  urged 
the United  States  to formally accept the pest -free areas and to publish its final notice  in line with  its 
commitments under the SPS Agreement . 
3.182.   The United  States  assured the European  Union  that it was working through its administrative 
procedures to process this request. The United  States  noted the bilateral technical engagement on 
the matter, including di scussions during the October 2022 Plant Health Working Group meeting, and 
looked forward to continued cooperation . 
3.2.39   The Morocco 's import ban on ornamental plants (ID 548) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.183.   Referring to its full intervention in eAgenda, t he European  Union  reiterated its concern about 
Morocco's measures intended to fight against the spread of the Xylella fastidiosa  disease. 
The European  Union  noted that a  measure introducing major barriers for EU plant products had been 
notified b y Morocco in October 2021  (G/SPS/N/MAR/67/Add.1 ), and another adopted measure in 
March 2023  (G/SPS/N/MAR/67/Add.2 ). The European  Union  enquired whether the latter measure 
replace d the previously notified measure as well as  the (non-notified ) circular imposing  a general 
ban on ornamen tal plan ts. Should thi s be the case, the European  Union  requested  Morocco to 
renotify  its measure and allow for a period of time given the substantial  changes  that had been 
introduced . On substance , the European  Union  considered that the measure lacked proportionality , 
did not seem to fully take into account the principle of regionali zation, imposed  burdensome and G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 37 - 
 
  duplicative requirements , and was disproportionate and unjustified. The European  Union  urged  
Morocco to co mply with the SPS Agreement  and engage in bilateral discussions  in the very near 
future.  
3.184.   Morocco  recalled that it had notified its measure in 2020 ( G/SPS/N/MAR/67 ). Following 
comments from trading partners, Morocco had notified a modified measure 
(G/SPS/N/MAR/67/Add.1 ), and  again  in March 2023 ( G/SPS/N/MAR/67/Add.2 ) to implement several 
adjustments and provide a 6 -month flexibility to importers to conform to its X. fastidiosa  related 
requirements. Morocco highlighted that, as a country free from X. fastidiosa , it would make every 
effort for plant protection  in compliance with its international obligations. Morocco also emphasized 
that its measure  was taking into account the evolution of the bacteria in several counties, including 
EU member States. Finally, Morocco reiterated that it was in the process of upd ating its phytosanitary 
legal framework so as to strengthen its surveillance and control systems  for imports and domestic 
products . Morocco remained available for bilateral discussions.  
3.3  Information on resolution of issues ( G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23 ) 
3.185.   The European  Union  was p leased to announce the partial resolution of the STC 
"Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other ruminants 
(ID 493)". The United  States  had published its final rule on the importation of sheep, goats, and 
certain other ruminants , allowing it  to proceed with EU member State s market access applications 
for sheep and goat meat. One EU member State  had also received market access for small 
ruminants. The European  Union , however, noted that  other EU member State s still had applications 
pending. The European  Union  hoped  that the equivalence process could be finalized without further 
delays.  
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.1   Information from Members  
4.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  
4.2.1   Information from Members  
4.2.1.1   Chile - Declaration regarding quarantine pests ( G/SPS/GEN/2107 ) 
4.2.  Chile affirmed that its phytosanitary measures were adapted to the regional characteristics of 
the areas from which the product ori ginated and to which the product was destined. It also informed 
the Committee that the Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG) regularly established and updated  
its lists of quarantine pests, and confirmed that Xylella fastidiosa  was absent throughout its territory. 
Chile invited Members to consider the information provided when defining the import requirements 
for its vegetable products.  
4.2.1.2   Argentina - Current avian influenza status  
4.3.  Argentina  stated that, despite the strengthening o f prevention and surveillance actions in 
response to the spread of HPAI in the world since 2020, several cases had  been detected in 
South  America in 2022. Argentina's National Agriculture and Food Quality and Health Service 
(SENASA) had reinforced its acti vities for early  detection of cases in its territory. Following an initial 
detection of the AI virus in wild birds in February 2023 in Argentina, 49 cases had been detected in 
backyard birds, seven  in commercial birds and four in wild birds. Argentina expl ained the actions 
put in place following the detection of AI in poultry . Argentina also reminded that WOAH was  being 
kept informed when relevant  and that the updated information was available on SENASA's website. 
Argentina requested its trading partners  to maintain market access requirements for poultry 
products according to WOAH  recommendations , and to consider new proposals for certification , 
adapted to the sanitary situation.  G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 38 - 
 
  4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
4.3.1   Information from Members  
4.3.1.1   Brazil - Implemen tation of transparency provisions  
4.4.  Brazil  informed  the Committee that it had made  over 220 SPS notifications in 2022 , using  ISSB 
standards  and based on scientific evidence. Brazil had two inquiry points to maintain a consistent 
high number of notifications. Brazil also indicated that it had been able to raise awareness among 
its producers of the importance of notifying SPS measures, and encouraged Members to share 
experiences and provi de information on their transparency activities under this agenda item.  
4.3.2   Annual Report on Transparency and Specific Trade Concerns 
(G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15  and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23 ) 
4.5.  The Secretariat  recalled that the annual reports on transparency and on STCs had been merged 
into one docu ment circulated with the two document symbols. The document included three parts: 
Part A, providing an overview of the level of implementation of the transparency obligations; Part B, 
containing information on STCs; and Part C, covering other transparency -related aspects. 
Highlighting the improvements of the analysis and the graphic design, the Secretariat invited 
Members to check the key points included in the introduction of the document, and welcomed any 
comments or suggestions for upcoming revisions.  
4.6.  The Secretariat also reminded the Committee of the proposal made in June 2022 to prepare a 
"technical revision"  of the  Recommended Transparency Procedures in document G/SPS/7/Rev.4 , to 
reflect the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform and notification practices. N o comments had been  received 
and the updated Recommended Transparency Procedures had bee n circulated as document 
G/SPS/7/Rev.5 . The Secretariat a lso indicated that it would update the Practical Manual for 
SPS National Notification Authorities and SPS National Enquiry Points to reflect the new ePing 
SPS&TBT Platform and the update of the Recommended Transparency Procedures . 
4.7.  The new ePing SPS&TBT Platform  had been  officially launched in July 2022, with the 
participation of senior officials from ITC, UNDESA and WTO.  Improvements of the Platform included 
the integration of the "Other documents" search function  and a new design. The Platform interface 
had also  been modified to support other languages than the WTO working languages, with versions 
in other languages to be provided by ITC and UNDESA. More information on the SPS transparency 
tools was available  in the transparency annual report, G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 . 
4.8.  The Secretariat also shared a new beta function in the Trade Concerns Database , developed in 
collaboration with the TBT and CMA teams upon request by Members, cross -referenc ing potentially 
related  STCs discussed in the TBT, SPS or CMA Committees. These cross -references had been added 
by the Secretariat when Members had indicated they had raised a given trade concern in more than 
one Committee, or if other information related to the STCs, such as notifications cited, indicated that 
the STC was covering the same measure.  For the time being, s ince only three Committees used the 
Trade Concerns Database, the links had been created only for concerns raised in the CMA, SPS, 
and/or the TBT Committees, as appropriate.   These cross -references had been added in addition to 
the existing cross -references between related STCs in the SPS area.  Stressing that the feature was 
in development, the Secretariat invited Members to get in to uch should they find any errors or have 
any comments.  
4.4  Control, inspection and approval procedures  
4.4.1   Information from Members  
4.9.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 39 - 
 
  4.4.2   Working Group on Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 , 
G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1 , G/SPS/GEN/2097 , G/SPS/GEN/2098  and 
G/SPS/GEN/2099)  
4.10.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention  to his draft report on the informal meeting 
of the Committee of 22 March 2023. The final report is included in Annex A . 
4.11.  The Chairperson reminded that the Working Group on Approval Procedures had submitted the 
following document s: a summary of process and discussions ( G/SPS/GEN/2097 ), a collection o f 
available tools and resources ( G/SPS/GEN/2098 ) and a document summarizing o utcomes and 
recommendations ( G/SPS/GEN/2099 ). The Chairperson further reminded that the Secretariat had 
then circulated the Collection of Available Tools and Resources in Relation to Approval Procedures 
and the Recommendations in Relatio n to SPS Approval Procedures as W documents in the form of 
Committee decisions  (G/SPS/W/337  and G/SPS/W/338) , and that these two documents were being 
put forward for adoption  by the Committee . The Committee adopted  the Collection of Available Tools 
and Resources in Relation to SPS Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/337 ) and Recommendations in 
Relation to SPS Ap proval Procedures  (G/SPS/W/338 ).4 
4.12.  Following adoption, the European  Union , the United  States , Brazil , and Türkiye  took the floor 
to congratulate the Working Group  and co-stewards for their hard work and output during a 
challenging time period.  Members  noted the documents provided useful tools for Members on 
approval procedures.  The co -stewards , Canada  and Paraguay,  also took the floor to thank the 
Secretariat for enabling  the Working Group to carry out its tasks , and to thank participants  for their 
hard work and inputs.  
4.5  Special and differential treatment  
4.5.1   Information from Members  
4.13.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.5.2   Presentation from  the Secretariat  
4.14.  The Secretariat  presented  on the work undertaken by the Committee on Articles 9 and 10 of 
the SPS Agreement . The presentation was circulated as document RD/SPS/226 . 
4.15.  Colombia  underscored the importance of raising awareness about available mechanisms. 
Noting the need for an in creased participation of developing  Members and LDCs, Colombia was of 
the view that the main challenge in the implementation  of the SPS Agreement  related to the 
fulfilment of requirements of importing developed Members . SPS measures were increasingly stric t, 
and often deviated from international references, such as those of Codex. Colombia noted that 
Article  10 had never been used and regretted that the lack of clarity in the text made it difficult for 
developing countries and LDCs to fully benefit from the  provisions of the Agreement. 
Colombia  suggested that the debate should focus on some key elements of Article 10, and that 
Group 5 of the MC12 SPS Declaration could serve as a platform to assess the implementation and 
functioning of the SPS Agreement  for developing countries and LDCs.  
4.16.  Echoing the previous intervention, Ecuador  was of the view that the presentation contained 
relevant aspects on the developments of concerns of developing countries and discussions, and 
allowed for a refle ction on the reduction  of gaps in capacity and means for Members' implementation 
of the SPS Agreement . Ecuador noted that the tools available to improve regulatory dialogue had 
never been invoked, possibly due to the lack of awareness on their existence.  
4.17.  Paraguay  noted the impo rtance of the effective implementation of Articles 9 and 10, and 
hoped that the presentation would promote  more active exchanges under the corresponding agenda 
item. Paraguay considered the importance of operationalizing special and differential treatment in 
light of the increasing participation of developing Members  in the Committee, and that Group 5 of 
 
4 The Collection of Available Tools and Resources in Relation to SPS Approval Procedures and the 
Recommendations in Relation to SPS Approval Procedures were subsequently circulated as G/SPS/67  and 
G/SPS/68 , respectively.  G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 40 - 
 
  the MC12 SPS Declaration could contribute to promoting this task. Paraguay recognized the 
importance of technical assistance and cooperation, and reinforce d the idea that the recipients 
should be part of the design of technical assistance to ensure it contributed to the fulfilment of the 
requirements of importing markets.  
4.18.  The European  Union  stated that Group 5 provided a good opportunity to look in detail at 
special and differential treatment. The European  Union  suggested that the Committee focus its 
efforts on this topic in the context of Group 5  to come up with relevant findings and 
recommendations.  
4.6  Monitoring of the use of international standards  
4.6.1   New iss ues 
4.19.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.6.2   Issues previously raised  
4.6.2.1   European  Union  - ASF restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international 
standard  
4.20.  The European  Union  pointed out inconsistencies in the application of WOAH interna tional 
standards related to ASF. The European  Union  considered that many Members did not follow the 
WOAH Terrestrial Code guidance for identification, treatment, and certification of tradable products 
and zoning. The European  Union  highlighted that ASF cou ld be managed effectively to ensure that 
legitimate trade was not the cause of any outbreak, as presented in the Thematic Session held in 
November  2021. The European  Union  added that ASF was a disease affecting several WTO Members, 
and that it was a shared  interest to maintain free and safe trade of pork and pork products. 
Members  were invited to address the issue of country -wide bans and implement science -based, 
rational and proportionate import policies.  
4.6.2.2   European  Union  - HPAI restrictions not consistent w ith the WOAH international 
standard  
4.21.  The European  Union  regretted that some Members disregarded their obligations under 
Article  6 and Annex C to the SPS Agreement  and implemented c ountry -wide bans after a  local 
AI outbreak . The European  Union  indicated that  these bans  were not scientifically justified if effective 
movement controls were in place, and there was no justification to wait one year or more to restore 
disease -free status. The European drew attention to the revised WOAH Terrestrial Code on AI, which 
recommended a reduced waiting period of 28 days instead of 3 months. The European  Union  asked 
Members to respect their obligations on regionalization, follow WOAH  recommendations , and allow 
trade from non -affected zones.  
4.6.2.3   Canada - Update on WOAH BSE  negligible risk status  
4.22.  Canada  reported that several Members had removed the remaining BSE restrictions on 
Canadian cattle, beef , and beef products based on Canada's WOAH BSE negligible risk status, and 
several other Members were actively taking steps to r emove their remaining BSE related restrictions. 
Canada urged Members who had not yet done so to remove the remaining restrictions on 
Canadian  exports. Canada recalled the importance of basing SPS measures on international 
standards, as established in Artic le 3 of the SPS Agreement . 
4.6.3   WOAH - Joint side event on monitoring and the Observatory project  
4.23.  WOAH  reiterated its commitment to monitor the uptake of its international standards. 
WOAH  reminded Members that the Observatory programme had recently been set up and had 
produced its first annual report this year, available in English, French , and Spanish.5 The report 
provide d a global perspective of Members' implementation of standards. WOAH noted that the main 
 
5 More information is available in the dedica ted webpage: Observatory - WOAH - World Organisation for 
Animal Health . G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 41 - 
 
  limitation of the Observatory was the availability o f information both in quantity and quality, and 
encouraged Members to submit good quality information  to enable  meaningful analysis. 
WOAH  indicated its willingness to provide input  if and when the Committee decide d to revisit the 
SPS notification forms . 
4.7  Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement  (G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1 ) 
4.7.1   Report on the informal meeting  
4.24.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to his draft report on the informal meeting 
of the Committee of 22 March 2023, specifically referring to the summaries of the  discussions on 
the follow -up to the Fifth Review, the SPS Declaration Work Programme, the November 2023 
Thematic Session and the renewed expression of interest from the International Olive Council  (IOC) . 
The final report is included in Annex A. 
4.7.2   Information from Members  
4.25.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
4.26.  The Chairperson  proposed that th is agenda item be removed from the next meeting agenda, 
since the documents  that had emerged  from the work of  the Working Group on Approval Procedures 
had been  adopted  by the Committee . No Member took the floor.  
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1  SPS Declaration Work Programme ( WT/MIN(22)/27  and G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1 ) 
5.1.1   Update on thematic groups  
5.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the updates on themati c 
groups provided in the informal meeting. The proposals/summaries by co -stewards were circulated 
in documents G/SPS/W/332  (Group 1); G/SPS/W/333  (Group 2); G/SPS/W/336  (Group 3); 
G/SPS/W/334  (Group 4) and G/SPS/W/335  (Group 5).6 The final report is included in Annex A . 
The Chairperson's report o n the intersessional SPS Committee  consultations held in February 2023 
is available in Annex B . 
5.2.  Noting the nature of this work programme, the United  States  referred to the session  held in 
Group 1  on 20 March 2023 , where agricultural producers had presented on th eir approaches to 
sustainability, the tools and technologies used to sustainably increase their production, and the trade 
barriers they faced. Highlighting that there was no "one size fits all"  approach  to sustainability, 
reaching the shared goals required  flexibility to use approaches adapted to their contexts. 
SPS measures could facilitate or hinder the adoption and use of innovative tools to maximize 
productivity and sustainability. Looking  ahead, the United  States  invited Members to propose 
speakers for  the upcoming sessions to be held in May, and suggested under Group 3 discussing the 
importance of developing and implementing effective legislation and for authorities to adapt 
SPS measures to regional conditions and to establish and recognize pest - and d isease -free areas 
and areas of low pest - and disease prevalence to enhance safe international trade. Noting the 
progress in discussions for Group 4 on how to encourage cooperation with observer organizations 
supporting  the work of the Committee and ISSBs, the United  States  referred to some practical 
suggestions about the information to be shared. Finally, the United  States  acknowledged the work 
 
6 Group 1 focuses on how to facilitate global food security and more sustainable food systems; Group  2 
on how to support basing SPS measures on scientific evidence and principles ; Group 3 on how to enhance the 
safe international trade in food, animals and plants and products thereof through the adaptation of 
SPS measures to regional conditions; Group 4 on how to encourage cooperation with observer organizations 
that support the work of the SPS Committee  and the international standard setting bodies; and Group 5 on 
how to increase participation of and support for the special needs of developing and least develo ped country 
Members in the development and application of SPS measures . More information on the MC12 SPS Declaration 
work programme is available in the dedicated webpage: WTO | SPS Declaration at MC12 . G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 42 - 
 
  around the workshop organized with the STDF for Group 5 and looked forward to hearing about 
Members' complementary  efforts in this respect.  
5.3.  The United  States  suggested  that the Committee prepare a report consisting of a simple 
compilation of the objective and factual activities prepared  by the stewards, which would serve as 
the input for Members to determine outcomes of the work programme, including key findings and 
recommendations, if appropriate. Finally, the United  States  requested that thematic groups be 
referred to by their number or their them e, i.e. the complete text reflected in  the SPS Declaration . 
5.2  MC12 implementation matters ( JOB/CTG/19/Rev. 2, G/C/W/824 /Rev.1  and 
JOB/SPS/25/ Rev.1 ) 
5.2.1   Information from the Chair  
5.4.  The Chairperson  updated the Committee on the discussions in the CTG on MC12 
implementation matters related to WTO  reform and COVID -19. He recalled that document 
JOB/CTG/19/Rev.2  contained all the reports prepared in that context and that document  
G/C/W/824 /Rev.1  included a  comparison matrix on the current functioning of the CTG and its 
subsidiary bodies. As a follow -up to the presentation of the reports  of all subsidiary bodies in the 
informal CTG meeting in January, Chairpersons and Secretaries were requested to o rganize 
discussions concerning the functioning of their respective Committees, to allow Members to identify 
possible areas for improvement and, subsequently, submit a written report to the CTG describing 
the discussions held and improvements introduced. Document ICN/CTG/8/Suppl .1 outlin ed the next 
steps for the CTG.  
5.5.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that a group of Members had submitted a request to 
discuss the functioning of the SPS Committee , taking into account the comparison matrix on the 
current functioning of the CTG and its subsidiary bodies . 
5.2.2   Submission from Members ( JOB/SPS/25/Rev.1 ) 
5.6.  On behalf of the proponents, Paraguay  explained that the document identified challenges facing 
delegations and proposed specific actions to improve their preparation and participation in 
WTO Committees. The document was based on the report and the matrix on the functioning of the 
14 subsidiary bodies of the CTG, and on Members exchanges on the improvement of the regular 
work of Committees. While the SPS Committee  was already  applying most of t he suggestions, 
Paraguay noted that further improvements on the use of digital tools and eRegistration, as well as 
the potential implementation of a style manual could be incorporated. Paraguay expected the 
document to provide a guide for a structured dial ogue with other bodies undertaking a similar 
revision, and invited Members  to analyse the document with a constructive spirit to further improve 
the functioning of the SPS Committee . 
5.7.  The United Kingdom  referred to the ideas put forward by the LDC Group in document 
JOB/GC/223/Rev. 1. Acknowledging the innovative initiatives undertaken by the SPS Committee , the 
United Kingdom believed that the more inclusive the systems, the more benefits delegations could 
gather. Although each presented its own nuances, the United Kingdom encouraged  other 
WTO Committees to learn lessons from the SPS Committee  to facilitate participation and accessibility 
for all Members, and invited the SPS Chairperson and Secretariat to work with Members on taking 
forward any such ideas.  
5.8.  The Chairperson  suggested th e inclusion of the topic in the agenda of the informal July meeting 
and invited interested Members to submit comments or proposals ahead of the meeting.  
5.9.  Paraguay  proposed the organization of an informal meeting ahead of the July Committee 
meeting to explore with the Secretariat the feasibility of the ideas proposed  in JOB/SPS/25/Rev.1 . 
5.10.  Acknowledging the proactive functioning of the SPS Committee , Costa  Rica supported the 
suggestion to in formally discuss with the Secretariat the feasibility of the proposed improvements, 
namely , regarding the use of technology, for the Committee to assess a timeline for the way forward.  G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 43 - 
 
  5.11.  The United  States  agreed that the SPS Committee  was a gold standard, bu t noted that 
practices in this Committee might not be applicable to others. The United  States  indicated it would 
review information on discussions between the Secretariat and the Members on the feasibility of the 
proposals before it would be in a position to endorse or further discuss the proposals.  
5.12.  The Secretariat  noted that the Committee had often pioneered initiatives, had already 
implemented many of the ideas proposed, and had taken action to take on board other suggestions . 
These included organizing a briefing session on the functioning of the SPS Committee  targeted at 
new delegates  ahead of the Committee week  and using  the ICN symbol for the communication from 
the Chair person  on the informal meeting. The Secretariat look ed forward to receiving further ideas 
from Members and proposed to include the informal exchange in the agenda of the intersessional 
meetings planned for May to facilitate Members' participation.  
5.13.  The Chairperson  confirmed that the item would be included in the agenda of the intersessional 
meeting in May and of the informal July Committee meeting, and invited Members to submit 
proposals ahead of the meeting.  
5.14.  Switzerland  took the floor to indicate that it considere d the Committee to be a role model for 
other WTO C ommittees. Switzerland  noted the importance of in -person meetings , as many useful 
bilateral exchanges were conducted during Committee  week. Switzerland encouraged Members to 
send delegates to attend Committ ee meetings in person .  
5.15.  The United  States  and the European  Union  echoed  Switzerland's intervention  on the 
importance of attending Committee meetings in  person . The United  States  noted that technology 
allowed for greater participation, but also that SPS was  a technical topic which benefited from experts 
coming together to discuss complex issues.  
5.3  November 2023 Thematic Session  
5.3.1   Proposal from the United  States  (G/SPS/GEN/2067 ) 
5.16.  Referring to its proposal in G/SPS/GEN/2067  for a thematic session on Risk Communication, 
Misinformation, and Disinformation, th e United  States  indicated it would provide a more detailed 
agenda prior to the next Committee meeting and welcomed Members reaching out with suggestions.  
5.17.  Chile thanked the United  States  for the proposal and emphasized the aspect of  public 
perception. Chile noted the importance of communication in risk analysis and its influence on 
consumer preferences, as well as on Members'  regulatory approaches , and  undersc ored the 
relevance of the session for health protection and maintaining smooth trade flows. Chile suggested 
including in the agenda successful experiences or communication strategies of risk in emergency 
situations and other cases of public interest, and i nformed the Committee that it would provide 
speakers to share its domestic experience.  
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.  The Secretariat  provided an overview of technical assistance activities held in 2022. A total of 
16 SPS training activities had been  carried out, including  seven  national seminars and nine other 
activities, such as  the SPS Transparency Champions course  and the course on Essentials for 
SPS Committee  participation.  The Secretariat highlighted past activit ies held since the last 
Committee meeting, including national seminars in Peru (22 - 24 November), Tanzania 
(29 November -1 December), Togo (29 November -1 December), and general training on the 
SPS Agreement  provided in person or virtually. The Secretariat indicated that further information on 
SPS technical assistance activities could be obtained on the SPS Gateway of the WTO website unde r 
events, workshops and training . It was also noted that the e-learning course on the SPS Agreement  
was currently available in English on the WTO's new e -learning platform, while the French and 
Spanish versions were in the process of being added to the new  e-learning platform.  
6.2.  The Secretariat  also drew Members ' attention to  document  G/SPS/GEN/ 997/Rev.13 , which 
provided an overview of planned activities for 2023. Two new activities had been added:  a revamped G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 44 - 
 
  advanced course on the SPS Agreement  to be held in English during the weeks of 9 -16 October 
2023; and a regional SPS workshop for Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus 
countries to be held during the week of 17 July 2023 in Vienna. The Secretariat highlighted that the 
deadline to apply to participate in these activities was 19 May. Additional details on these activities, 
including the eligibility criteria and prerequisites, as well as the web link to the application form, 
were provided in document G/SPS/ GEN/997/Rev.13  and on the SPS Gateway of the WTO website 
under events, workshops and training . Upcoming activities  also included  national SPS seminars in  
Chile (18 -20 April) , El Salvador (25 -27 April) , Nigeria (25 -27 April) , Morocco  (22-24 May) , and the 
Dominican Republic (23 -25 May)  and there were pending requests for Guyana, the Philippines, and 
Uruguay. The Secretariat further  noted that the SPS Transparency Champions course, which had 
been launched in October 2022, would conclude in June 2023  with a follow -up session in Geneva for 
participants to report on the progress and implementation of their action plans.  
6.3.  Chile welcomed the support received for the organization of the national activity scheduled for 
18-20 April on the use of the ePing Pla tform for SPS and TBT notifications. The activity would 
contribute to improving transparency and national coordination among regulatory agencies and 
SPS and TBT enquiry points in Chile.  
6.1.1   WTO SPS Activities ( G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.13  and G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.18 ) 
6.1.2   STDF ( G/SPS/GEN/2102 ) 
6.4.  The STDF Secretariat  reported on its recent activities detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/2065 . 
The STDF Secretariat reminded of the workshop organi zed in the context of  Group 5 of the MC12 
SPS Declaration . Information on all past activities could be found on the STDF website . The STDF 
Secretariat reminded Members that its next Working Group meeting would  be held on 14 -15 June, 
with over 60 project grant applications submitted in the most recent round  of intake . The STDF  
Secretariat noted the deadline for the next round of applications was August 2023 in consideration 
for the November Working Group meeting  and encouraged developing country Members to visit their 
website to apply. The STDF Secretariat further  highlighted i ts recent external assessment o n gender, 
which included recommendations for improving gender mainstreaming in STDF projects. The STDF 
2022 annual report would be issued in June . 
6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   European  Union  - SPS-related technical assistance pro vided in 2019 -2020  
(G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.6 ) 
6.5.  The European  Union  reported on technical assistance activities for the 2019 -2020 period. 
Detailed information was circulated in  document  G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add .6. The European highlighted 
that it financed more than 275 projects with budgets ranging for €4000 -€40 million. Assistance was 
provided to more than 80 countries, group of countries, regional, regional organi zations, 
international organi zations. The proje cts were related to all major SPS areas, including animal 
health, plant health and food safety. The European  Union  also drew Members' attention to projects 
which aimed to help address the emerging challenges identified in the MC12 SPS Declaration by 
assist ing on sustainability  issues  and mitigating the effect of climate change. The  European  Union  
was also  proud to be among the top contributors to global development assistance, particularly in 
the SPS field, and invited interested countries to approach Europ ean Union  delegates.  
7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
7.1.  No Member provided information under this agenda item.  
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from Observer Organizations  
8.1.1   OECD ( G/SPS/GEN/2091 ) 
8.1.  The report on OECD  activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2091 . G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 45 - 
 
  8.1.2   OIRSA ( G/SPS/GEN/2093 ) 
8.2.  The report on OIRSA  activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2093 . 
8.1.3   GSO ( G/SPS/GEN/2094 ) 
8.3.  The report on GSO activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2094 . 
8.1.4   IGAD ( G/SPS/GEN/2095 ) 
8.4.  The report on IGAD  activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2095 . 
8.1.5   ECOWAS ( G/SPS/GEN/2096 ) 
8.5.  The report on ECOW AS activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2096 . 
8.1.6   ITC ( G/SPS/GEN/2101 ) 
8.6.  The report on ITC activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2101 . 
8.1.7   IICA ( G/SPS/GEN/2103 ) 
8.7.  IICA indicated  that a detailed report on their activities was contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2103 . Some of the hi ghlights were the 6th edition of their virtual coordination sessions 
on WTO SPS Committee  addressing matters related to the MC12 work programme, veterinary 
products and MRLs; the Codex coordination colloquiums ; and support for participation in Codex 
meetin gs. Future activities included a number of sessions related to animal diseases, including ASF, 
BSE, and HPAI.  
8.1.8   AOAD ( G/SPS/GEN/2108 ) 
8.8.  The report on AOAD  activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2108 . 
8.2  Requests for observer status  
8.2.1   New requests  
8.9.  The Chairperson  reminded the Committee of the renewed expression of  interest for observer 
status from the IOC, which had been  previously circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.20 . 
The Chairperson indicated that he had been informed that  Members positions had not changed and 
that it would therefore not be possible to reach consensus on the IOC's request. The Secretariat 
would inform the IOC that there had been no consensus  and that its request had therefore not been 
accepted . 
8.2.2   Pending requests  
8.10.  The Chairperson  referred to document G/SPS/W/78/Rev.15 , listing outstanding requests for 
observer status. The Chairper son indicated that, absent any intervention, he would assume that the 
positions of Members had not changed.  
8.11.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
9  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
9.1.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that, according to the Rules of  Procedure, the term 
of office of the SPS Committee  Chairperson finishe d with the conclusion of the first meeting of every 
year. However, the Chairperson of the CTG had not yet concluded consultations on chairpersons for 
the CTG subsidiary bodies in accord ance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers 
to WTO bodies ( WT/L/31 ). The Committee therefore agreed to postpone the election of the 
Chairperson until the Committee meeting in July 2023.  G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 46 - 
 
  10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
11  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  
11.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the next regular meeting of the Committee was tentatively 
scheduled for the week of 10 July 2023 , with the formal meeting start ing in  the afternoon of 12 July 
2023. The proposed calendar of Committee meetings for 2023 had been  circulated as 
G/SPS/GEN/2036/ Rev.1. 
11.2.  The Secretariat  indicated it would  prepare a summary report based on oral interventions in 
the meeting , complemented by Members' ability to download complete statements via eAgenda. 
The Secretariat drew Members' attention to the featur e on eAgenda which allow ed for either all 
statements or those related to a particular STC to be downloaded.  
11.3.  The Secretariat reminded the Committee of the following deadlines, also circulated by email:  
For submitting statements:  Friday, 24 March 2023 ; 
For comments on the Chairperson's draft report on the informal SPS Committee  meeting : Friday , 
31 March 202 3; 
For submitting names of speakers and written inputs for the May meetings of the Thematic Groups 
of the SPS Declaration Work Programme: Friday, 14 April 2023 ; 
For submitting comments on the proposed agenda for the November Thematic Session, based on 
the proposal from the United  States  (G/SPS/GEN/2067 ): Friday, 21  April 2023 ; 
For submitting proposals to improve the functioning of the SPS Committee : Friday, 26  May 2023 ; 
For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure, AND for requesting that 
items be put on the agenda: Wednesday, 21 June 2023 ; and  
For the distribution of the annotated draft annotated draft agenda: Friday, 23 June 2023 . 
 G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 47 - 
 
  ANNEX A  
INFORMAL MEETING – 22 MARCH 2023  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1  SPS DECLARATION WORK PROGRAMME ( G/SPS/W/330/REV.1  AND WT/MIN(22)/27 ) 
(i)  Update on thematic groups  
1.  At the informal meeting on 22 March 2023, I recalled that the SPS Committee  had bee n working 
to fulfil the mandate outlined in the SPS Declaration ( WT/MIN(22)/27 ) adopted by Ministers in 
June 2022 and that the five Thematic Groups had met since the last Committee meeting, 
including  during the ongoing Committee week, to discuss the themes outlined in the Declaration. 
As foreseen in G/SPS/W/3 30/Rev.1 , Thematic Groups had reported regularly to the full membership 
on ongoing discussions, in the intersessional consultations and in the informal Committee meetings. 
The summary of the intersessional consultations, held on 10 February, had been circu lated to 
delegates and would be annexed to the summary report of the March formal Committee meeting. 
I also reminded delegates of the summaries submitted by the co -stewards on the work of the 
Thematic Groups, which were contained in the following documents : G/SPS/W/332  (Group 1); 
G/SPS/W/333  (Group 2); G/SPS/W/336  (Group 3); G/SPS/W/334  (Group 4) and G/SPS/W/335  
(Group 5).  
2.  Group 1 : On behalf of the two co -stewards, Jonathas José Silva da Silveira (Brazil) and 
Knut Berdal (Norway), the latter reported on the status of Group 1. The Group had held meetings in 
September 2022, November 2022 and February 2023. Under their own responsibility , co-stewards 
had circulated a summary of written inputs received during the several rounds for 
Members'  comments, providing a non -exhaustive, illustrative review of the issues addressed in the 
Group. In  February 2023, the Group had agreed on a calendar of  events to get inputs on the following 
topics: 1) Producers' experiences - On Monday, 20 March, Group 1 had heard 12 producers' 
experiences, with broad regional representation, who had provided inputs on how the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement  may impa ct trade, food security and the sustainability of food 
systems. The co -stewards indicated that Members were satisfied by the presentations and 
the dialogue within each of the four sessions of the day. The presentations had been made available 
on the dedicated MC12 SPS webpage . 2) Relevant inputs from other international organizations and 
secretariats, that would be presented during the week of 8 May. And 3) Discussions on sustainability 
at WTO - The Secretariat had prepared and circulated a report compiling information on sustainability 
discussions in various WTO bodies, that was available on the dedicated webpage. The note provided 
an illustrative, non -exhaustive overview of recent sustainability discussions across the WTO, grouped 
by Council/Committee. Members' were invited to submit written inputs and proposals for presenters 
by the deadline of Friday, 14 April. A draft agenda would be circulated ahead of the meeting for 
Members' consideration.  
3.  I reminded Members that a producer had indicated that their most significant risk to their career 
was policy, which underscored the importance of our work in the SPS Committee . 
4.  Group 2 : Boitshoko Ntshabele (South Africa) not ed that the Group had not met on the margins 
of the March Committee meetings to accommodate the large expressions of interest to hear from 
producers in Group 1. The meeting had been deferred to the week of 8 May 2023. The steward 
recalled the agreement rea ched in February to hold a workshop inviting the international standard 
setting bodies (ISSBs) to present on their guidance on risk assessment and uncertainty, and also to 
reflect on how emerging challenges in point 6 of the MC12 SPS Declaration impact the  conduct of 
risk assessments. Three expressions of interest had been received from Members to present case 
studies and share experiences on dealing with uncertainty. FAO and WHO (on behalf of Codex), 
the IPPC, WOAH, and Members would have 10 -15 minutes for  their presentations. An additional 
written input had also been received and added to the compilation of inputs available on the 
dedicated webpage. Members were invited to suggest additional speakers and to provide further 
inputs on how to take forward the  work of Group 2. The steward also invited Members to start G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 48 - 
 
  considering recommendations that the Group could make for the report to the Thirteenth Ministerial 
Declaration (MC13).  
5.  Group 3 : Miguel Donatelli (Argentina), who had taken over from the previo us steward, 
Ambassador Sofía Boza (Chile), reminded delegates that the Group had met back -to-back with other 
Groups and that document G/SPS/W/336  summarized the work undertaken until February 2023. 
This included the work undertaken by Members on regionalization, a presentation provided by t he 
World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) on their recommendations on regionalization on 
animal health (November 2022) and a presentation by the Secretariat on the Committee's work in 
this area, namely Article 6, the subsequent guidelines and relevant  thematic sessions 
(February  2023). In the March Committee meeting, the IPPC had presented their standards on 
regionalization, a survey showing the relatively low uptake of the standards, and some examples of 
successful adoption of regionalization and safe  exchange of products. Three additional written inputs 
had been received from Members and had been presented in the March meeting. The steward noted 
that the inputs contained Members' perspectives on regionalization, which were important to obtain 
suggesti ons on how to improve the implementation of the principle of regionalization and to fulfil 
the mandate from MC12. Members' inputs and all other documents were available on the dedicated 
webpage in the three WTO languages. Following the exchange of views fo r the upcoming meeting 
during the week of 8 May, some Members had asked to hear positive and negative experiences with 
regionalization, from exporters' and importers' perspectives. Other Members had also suggested 
launching initiatives to see which areas c ould be worked on to start preparing recommendations to 
improve the implementation of the principle. One Member additionally suggested discussing the 
need for appropriate legislation and authorities to establish and recognize pest - and disease - free 
areas.  
6.  Group 4 : Geoff Richards (United Kingdom) reported on the 4th meeting of the Group, held in 
hybrid format the previous day, for which an agenda had been circulated in advance. Inputs had 
been received from one Member, who had presented them during the session. The steward noted 
the presentation provided by the Secretariat in February on the main guidance, requirements and 
decisions on Observer organizations, which was available on the dedicated webpage. He indicated 
that participants had expressed inter est to further discuss the following three areas: (i)  Maximizing 
the value from the ISSB and Observer organization agenda items at the SPS Committee  – 
Suggestions had been made to allocate, at each Committee meeting, a longer slot to an individual 
ISSB to inform on a topical highlight, its links to the Agreement, and activities relevant to the 
emerging challenges identified in the Declaration; and to provide additional guidance to ISSBs and 
Observers organizations regarding their updates to the Committee, i ncluding greater emphasis on 
current and new activities, rather than past activities. A number of observers had welcomed the 
feedback on their updates and noted the usefulness of receiving more guidance. (ii)  Enhancing 
coordination between Observer organiz ations through the Committee – Support had been expressed 
to further explore the idea of the SPS Committee  meetings acting as a focal point to aid greater 
coordination amongst Observer organizations, while remaining mindful of how the Observers 
provided su pport to the Committee and the implementation of the Agreement and considering the 
links to Thematic  Group 5. The Secretariat had reminded Members that technical support could be 
provided upon request from regional organizations, but that since the COVID p andemic no requests 
had been received. (iii)  Receiving presentations from Observer organizations to "increase Members' 
understanding on non -ISSB observers' remit and activity in the context of the 
SPS Committee /Agreement" – There was support for a series o f awareness -raising sessions to 
highlight their roles and connection to the SPS Agreement  and Declaration challenges. A suggestion 
was made to prioritize hearing from ad hoc  observers. The steward would further coordinate next 
steps with the Secretariat an d some initial options would be put forward for participants' 
consideration in advance of the Group's next meeting. The steward also summarized some of the 
answers provided by Observer organizations to the questions circulated in December. A note of the 
meeting would be circulated to participants. Participants were invited to provide written 
inputs/contributions in advance of the Group's next meeting in May.  
7.  Group 5 : On behalf of the two co -stewards, Cecilia Gutiérrez (Ecuador) and Joanna Grainger 
(Aust ralia), the latter reported on the activities of Group 5. She recalled the very valuable discussions 
held at the STDF workshop the previous day and thanked all those involved. In response to a 
question received on the link between the STDF and discussions in Group 5, the steward clarified 
that although the Group's discussions had noted that the support and capacity building offered to 
developing and LDCs via the STDF and broader bilateral support mechanisms was essential to the 
implementation of the Agreeme nt, there was not necessarily broad awareness among delegates of G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 49 - 
 
  the STDF and the tools and resources available. The steward indicated that technical cooperation 
and capacity building were based on collaboration and the development of synergies, sharing of  
information and discussions of lessons learned, which were fundamental to allow the better use of 
scarce resources. The Group planned to continue to explore the support to Members on capacity 
building outside of the STDF in the May meeting, and invited do nor and recipient countries to express 
interest to share their experience and learnings, including South -South support and experiences. 
The steward would also welcome feedback on the written report shared ahead of this meeting on 
the intersessional meeting  of Group 5 held in February.  
8.  As a follow -up, one Member reminded the Committee that the STDF had been created specifically 
to address the issues discussed in Group 5.  
9.  Two Members made general comments about the Thematic Groups and expressed their high 
satisfaction with the meetings held that week. The Members recalled that this was a Member -driven 
process and that the output would depend on the inputs Members put into the process. 
These  Members were of the view that the summaries provided by co -stewards were succinct but 
comprehensive and objective. Keeping time constraints in mind and considering it would be the last 
opportunity for discussion, the Members invited delegates to take advantage of the May meetings 
to bring to the table all the voices that needed to be heard as well as all aspects, concerns, and 
angles so that they could be considered. Following the May meeting, Members would have to start 
reflecting together on the ideas that could be reported as findings and recommendations. One of th e 
Members specifically indicated that streamlined, objective reports of facts by the co -stewards could 
be used as the input for the Secretariat to prepare the report, as a basis for the Committee to decide 
on what to report to MC13. The Member noted that t he July meetings could be an opportunity to 
discuss findings and possibly bracket recommendations.  
10.  Another Member noted that this was a good platform for Members to have deep and pragmatic 
discussions. The Member also noted that these discussions shou ld be within the scope of the 
SPS Agreement  and should focus on how to address difficulties and challenges facing Members in 
the implementation of the SPS Agreement , especially developing countries and LDCs, and help them 
improve capacity to further enhanc e implementation of the Agreement.  
11.  I also noted that some Members had requested to include on the agenda of the formal meeting, 
the presentation that had been delivered by the Secretariat on Articles 9 and 10 of the 
SPS Agreement  during the meeting of  Group 5 in February. Three Members supported the idea of 
sharing the presentation with the full Membership, as they considered that not all Members had the 
capacity to follow all Thematic Groups, that the presentation was factual and illustrative, and wou ld 
provide Geneva - and capital -based delegates with further inputs to continue working on this aspect 
of WTO rules. I indicated that I would suggest to include this item on the agenda of the formal 
meeting at the start of the meeting.  
12.  The Secretariat indicated it had initially reserved 8 -10 May for Thematic Group meetings, 
but might have to extend the meetings to Thursday, 11 May, depending on how many speakers 
were proposed for each Group. The Secretariat proposed to present the note prepared for Grou p 1 
on sustainability discussions in different WTO bodies at the May meeting to allow time for discussion 
if Members so wished, and noted that all the presentations of the meetings held over the previous 
two days had already been uploaded on the webpage.  
13.  I recalled that the deadline to submit inputs was Friday, 14 April.  
2  FOLLOW -UP ON THE ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE FIFTH REVIEW OF THE 
OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  (G/SPS/64  AND 
G/SPS/64/ADD.1 ) 
14.  The Committee also discussed how to take forward some of the recommendations in the Fifth 
Review Report, as well as ongoing work in various areas.  G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 50 - 
 
  (i)  Exchange of experiences and continued disc ussions on various topics  
15.  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.  
16.  I reminded  Members that at our last informal meeting in November, no Member had taken the 
floor to provide any further comments or suggestions. Since the Committee was currently focused 
on the MC12 Declaration work programme, and the next Review was supposed to take  place next 
year, I proposed that the Committee take a break from this agenda item on the exchange of 
experiences. I underscored that Members were still invited to share information at any point, 
if they should so wish.  
17.  I invited Members to provide an y comments or feedback on my suggestion, and also on the 
various recommendations in the Fifth Review Report. No Member objected to the suggestion to take 
a break from this agenda item on the exchange of experiences, and no Member provided any 
comments on t he recommendations in the Fifth Review Report.  
(ii)  SPS Committee  Working Group on Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 , 
G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1 , G/SPS/GEN/2097 , G/SPS/GEN/2098  and 
G/SPS/GEN/2099 ) 
18.  The co -stewards for the Working Group, Canada and Paraguay, provided an update on the 
activities of the Working Group, which had just concluded its work.1 
19.  Between November 2020 and March 2023, the Working Group had worked on four main themes: 
(i) a common understanding of "approval procedures"; (ii)  key challenges of approval procedures; 
(iii) principles of approval procedures that facilitate international trade while meeting the importing 
Member's appropriate level of protection; and (iv)  available tools and best practices in relation to 
approval procedures.  
20.  Based on these discussions, the Working Group had developed: (i) a comprehensive record of 
the Working Group's work ( G/SPS/GEN/2097 ); (ii) a collection of available tools and resources 
(G/SPS/GEN/2098 ), listing existing instruments that had been id entified by Working Group 
participants to enhance the implementation of the SPS Agreement ; and (iii) an overview of outcomes 
and recommendations ( G/SPS/GEN/2099 ). Recommendations included that:  
a. The collection of available tools and resources be kept up to date by the SPS Committee  
with the assistance of the Secretariat;  
b. Members consider the use of SPS Committee  mechanisms to facilitate discussions on 
approval procedures, and to explore the need for additional guidance or tools;  
c. Members be encouraged to further the implementati on of Annex C of the SPS Agreement ; 
d. Members be reminded of the importance of key principles of the SPS Agreement , including 
those reflected in Annex C, with specific recommendations in the context of the 
transparency principle;  
e. Members be encouraged to engage in regulatory cooperation to maximize capacity and 
resources, to facilitate approval procedures, and to address asynchronous approvals; and  
 
1 Twenty -five Members had participated in the Working Group: Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, New  Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, 
the Philippines, t he Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Chinese  Taipei, Ukraine, 
the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay. One Observer organization, the OECD had also 
participated.  G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 51 - 
 
  f. Members be encouraged to adopt approval procedures making use of modern technologies 
and practices, suc h as remote audits, and to work with relevant international organizations 
in this area.  
21.  The collection of available tools and resources in document G/SPS/GEN/2098  and the 
recommendations in part 5 of document G/SPS/GEN/2099  had been circulated for possible 
endorsement by the Committee.  
22.  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. I noted that 
it appeared that the Committee would be in a position to endorse the collection of ava ilable tools 
and resources as well as the recommendations and indicated that we would return to this topic in 
the formal meeting. I further requested the Secretariat to circulate the two documents with 
W symbols ( G/SPS/W/337  and G/SPS/W/338 ), following the informal meeting, for possible adoption 
by the Committee. I invited Members to provide any comments on thi s approach. No Member took 
the floor.  
3  NOVEMBER 2023 THEMATIC SESSION ( G/SPS/GEN/2067 ) 
23.  I then inv ited Members to discuss the November 2023 thematic session, recalling the proposal 
submitted by the United States in document G/SPS/GEN/2067  for a thematic session on SPS risk 
communication, with an emphasis on public perceptions of issues concerning food, technology, 
health, and the environment. I invited the United States to provide additional information on 
its proposal.  
24.  The United States informed Members that it would submit a draft programme ahead of the 
July SPS Committee  meeting, for discussion at that meeting. The United S tates also invited 
interested Members to reach out to the United States regarding the thematic session.  
25.  Two Members took the floor, welcoming the proposal and indicating their interest in 
collaborating. One of these Members also encouraged thinking ah ead about the agenda of 
thematic  sessions for 2024. I invited Members to submit further comments on the US proposal by 
the deadline of Friday, 21 April.  
4  RENEWED EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FROM THE INTERNATIONAL OLIVE COUNCIL 
(IOC)  
26.  I provided informatio n on a renewed expression of interest for observer status from the 
International Olive Council (IOC). I reminded Members that the initial expression of interest had 
been submitted by IOC ahead of last year's June meeting in document G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.20 . 
27.  During the June meeting, I had indicated to the Committee  that I had been informed that it 
would not be possible to reach consensus on IOC's request and requested the Secretariat to 
accordingly inform the IOC that there had been no consensus to accept its request.  
28.  At this week's informal meeting, I drew att ention to a communication received from the IOC 
in February of this year, renewing their interest in being granted observer status to the 
SPS Committee . I noted that this information was being provided to inform the Committee of this 
recent development. I invited Members to provide any comments or suggestions. No Member took 
the floor.  
29.  I indicated to Members that my understanding was that the situation had not changed, and that 
there was still no consensus to grant observer status to the IOC. As such, I requested the Secretariat 
to write to the IOC indicating that the Committee was not in a position to grant its renewed request 
for observer status.  
 G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 52 - 
 
  ANNEX B  
INTERSESSIONAL SPS COMMITTEE  CONSULTATIONS  
MC12 SPS DECLARATION WORK PROGRAMME – 10 FEBRUARY 2023  
DRAFT REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1.  I recalled that the SPS Committee  had commenced its work in June 2022, to fulfil the mandate 
outlined in the SPS Declaration ( WT/MIN(22)/27 ) adopted by Ministers at the Twelfth Ministerial 
Conference (MC12). For that purpose, five Thematic Groups had been created and were led by 
co-stewards. These co -stewards were charged with reporting on the discussions of their Groups for 
the purpose of informing all Members of the ongoing discussions. I noted that in November 2022, 
the Comm ittee had agreed to the proposed process circulated in document G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1 , 
and that Members had been invited to submit written inputs by 20 January 2023, all of which were 
subsequently made available on the dedicated webpage for the MC12 SPS Declaration 
(wto.org/spsdeclaration ) in the three WTO languages.  
2.  By way of background, the Secretariat noted that Thematic Groups were not expected to make 
decisions, but to facilitate discussio ns leading to observations or actions, and possible proposals for 
further discussions in the SPS Committee . These groups were led by co -stewards acting as neutral 
facilitators of the discussions. The Secretariat further underscored that the Thematic Groups  would 
continue to regularly report to the full Membership on ongoing discussions, namely through oral 
reports at intersessional consultations and through written submissions. Stewards were expected to 
report on the work in their Thematic Groups in a factu al and balanced manner.  
(i)  Brief reports from co -stewards and proposals/summaries to be submitted by 
co-stewards ahead of the March SPS Committee  meeting  
3.  I recalled that the proposed process in G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1  establ ished a deadline of 1 March 
2023 for co -stewards to submit proposals/summaries based on discussions held in the 
Thematic  Groups, and would be further discussed in the informal meeting in March.  
4.  The Secretariat reminded Members that the Thirteenth Minis terial Conference (MC13) would be 
held in February 2024 in the United Arab Emirates, and that according to the MC12 SPS Declaration, 
the Committee had to report to MC13 on its key findings and actions with recommendations, 
as appropriate. The Secretariat o utlined the steps involved in the preparation of the report, noting 
the tight timeline and the key milestones in the process.  
5.  I informed Members that Ambassador Sofía Boza (Chile), the steward of Group 3, had announced 
that she would step down from her  role, and that Miguel Donatelli (Argentina) would be taking over 
this role.  
6.  Group 1: Jonathas José Silva da Silveira (Brazil) and Knut Berdal (Norway) reported on the 
Group's discussions on theme 1 of paragraph 8 of the Declaration. The Group had held  its third 
meeting on 8 February, and inputs received had been made available to all Members in advance of 
the meeting on the dedicated webpage. The first part of the meeting had focused on soliciting and 
organizing relevant inputs from other international  organizations and Members' experiences, and 
how the Group could develop a schedule of presentations for the following meeting. Members had 
discussed the relevance of various external sources and noted that inputs should be concrete, 
directed and focused t owards addressing challenges in the implementation of the SPS Agreement  
and the mechanisms available to address them; and the impacts of emerging challenges on the 
application of the SPS Agreement . 
7.  The next steps included organizing a schedule of prese ntations focusing on Members' experiences 
and presentations from producers, followed by inputs from relevant organizations and secretariats. 
In addition, a request had been made for the Secretariat to provide information on relevant activities 
and processe s relating to sustainability at the WTO. The co -stewards encouraged Members to think G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 53 - 
 
  of proposals relevant to the SPS Agreement  and its challenges, notably those listed in paragraph 6 
of the Declaration.  
8.  The co -stewards would prepare a written summary of the meeting findings to be distributed 
among all Members with no specific proposals included, considering all oral and written proposals. 
They reminded Members of the 1 March deadline, noting that Members could submit inputs at any 
time. The co -stewards  would also develop a schedule based on submitted inputs.  
9.  Members emphasized their support for hearing from outside voices, which seemed to have been 
echoed in the Group discussions. Noting tight timelines to organize the event, a Member underscored 
the need to make this aspect more explicit in the instructions to Members to ensure that they could 
plan for the event and have their perspectives represented. The co -stewards reassured Members 
that an email would be circulated to solicit presenters, and tha t this would be included in the 
circulated next steps, with a set deadline of 1 March for proposals. The call for presentations would 
be circulated to Members and relevant regional groups to ensure that the presentations could be 
organized within the tight  deadline.  
10.  Group 2: Boitshoko Ntshabele (South Africa) reported on the Group's discussions on theme 2 
of paragraph 8 of the Declaration. The steward noted the high levels of participation and reiterated 
the importance of the role of Members' inputs in  moving the Group forward. In the prior meeting, 
Members had been asked for inputs, the Group had requested that the Secretariat present on 
scientific evidence, risk assessment, uncertainty and transparency, and Members were asked to 
share how they deal wi th scientific uncertainty. All inputs had been made available online on the 
dedicated webpage. The presentation from the Secretariat had showed that the Committee had 
discussed uncertainty in the past.  
11.  One Member indicated that despite raising the iss ue multiple times, their suggestion had not 
been included in summary, and further requested guidance on how the Three Sisters can deal with 
emerging challenges. Members also asked for clarity on how to deal with scientific uncertainty in 
their regulations going forward.  
12.  In terms of next steps, the steward indicated that the Group would request a presentation from 
international standard setting bodies (ISSBs) for March on their guidance on risk assessment and 
uncertainty, where they would also be invite d to reflect on how emerging challenges in point 6 of 
the MC12 SPS Declaration impact the conduct of risk assessments. Members were encouraged to 
express interest to present on their own experiences dealing with uncertainty before 1 March to the 
Secretaria t (copying the steward), after which an agenda would be created and circulated.  
13.  One Member noted it was pleased with the attention paid to the issue of emerging challenges 
regarding risk assessments and scientific uncertainty, highlighting that during  the Group meeting, 
the representative from Codex had indicated that risk assessments were conducted by FAO/WHO. 
The Member was looking forward to seeing how the Group deals with emerging challenges, as the 
discussion was currently focused on implementatio n, rather than emerging challenges and 
implementation.  
14.  Group 3: Ambassador Sofía Boza (Chile) reported on the Group's discussions on theme 3 of 
paragraph 8 of the Declaration. Since the last report in November 2022, the Group had held an 
additional me eting with over one hundred delegates in person and online. This meeting had included 
a review of the written inputs received up to 20 January, a presentation by the Secretariat on the 
"Work carried out in the SPS Committee  on adaptation to regional condit ions", and a period of open 
discussion among participants. She recalled that for the last meeting, four written contributions had 
been received and made available to all participants online. Those submissions had focused on a 
diverse set of issues, which r anged from the importance of being able to review the previous work 
of the SPS Committee  on regionalization issues, notably the work of international organizations and 
specifically WOAH, to proposed special topics for the Group's consideration. These topic s included: 
i) technical and administrative capacities of least developed and developing Members; ii) importers' 
acceptance of the recognition of regional conditions; and iii) importers' acceptance of the 
classification of disease status. The steward also provided an overview of the Secretariat's 
presentation which included an analysis of the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement , the 
Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 6 ( G/SPS/48 ), trends in notifications 
and specific trade concerns, and the recommendations from the Revi ews of the Operation and G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 54 - 
 
  Implementation of the SPS Agreement , with emphasis on the Fifth Review adopted in June 2020 
(G/SPS/64 ). In addition, she gave a summary of the discussions that followed the presentations, 
where Members had asked for clarification, shared successful practical experiences, and emphasized 
some of the issues discussed. Lastly, she also informed Members that she would be leaving the 
position of steward, and expressed support for the new steward (Miguel Donatelli, Argentina), while 
thanking the Secretariat and Members for their supp ort and participation in the Group.  
15.  One Member thanked Ambassador Boza for her work, congratulated the new steward, and 
voiced its appreciation for the comprehensive report, which included a pragmatic approach and 
overview of the work that would be do ne for MC13.  
16.  Miguel Donatelli (Argentina), the new steward of Group 3, expressed his thanks to the former 
steward, Members and the Secretariat for their work in Group 3 and indicated he would be working 
with the Secretariat to ensure a smooth and succ essful transition.  
17.  Group 4: Geoff Richards (United Kingdom) reported on the Group's discussions on theme 4 of 
paragraph 8 of the Declaration. The meeting had followed the agenda circulated in advance, which 
had captured suggestions from the previous m eeting. It had included a presentation by the 
Secretariat on the history and governance of observer organizations, followed by Members' 
comments on the presentation; a discussion of written and oral meeting inputs by Members; and a 
discussion on observer o rganization responses to questions posed to them by email in advance. 
Three written submissions from Members had been received: a proposal for ad hoc observers to 
present how their work supported the Committee and ISSBs, including an indication of how best  to 
engage them; a suggestion that the Committee was not fully using observers during the Committee 
meetings and that possible improvements could be explored seeking more targeted reflections from 
these organizations; and an observation that it was importa nt to identify all relevant international 
organizations and ISSBs working on the emerging challenges identified in the SPS Ministerial 
Declaration to allow the SPS Committee  to be informed on their relevant activities. There were also 
suggestions to explor e how observer organizations could better contribute to discussions in the 
SPS Committee , including as it relates to their support to developing and least developed Members; 
that the Group consider which of the specific challenges from the Declaration shou ld be focused on 
in more detail; and that better use could be made of the Committee agenda item covering relevant 
activities of the Three Sisters, encouraging updates that shared their expertise and experience with 
the challenges identified in the Declarat ion. 
18.  There had been a reminder that the majority of Members of the Committee were also members 
of the Three Sisters, and that better and more active use should be made of their domestic networks 
and representatives. UNCTAD highlighted its work on non -tariff barriers to trade, and was interested 
in hearing whether they could provide other information that would be relevant to the Committee. 
There was another brief discussion on the scope of the Group and the distinction between the role 
and expectations  of ISSBs and other observers. It was noted that ISSBs have a specific role to play 
in the Committee, and the importance of remaining within the scope of their mandate.  
19.  The steward noted that key actions and observations would be circulated in an inf ormal note to 
Members in the following week, including the presentation made by the Secretariat and the steward's 
initial observations on the responses from observer organizations. He suggested that Members email 
their headline observations and emerging th emes and any other inputs by 1 March to aid in more 
in-depth discussions at the following meeting, which was proposed to take place on 21 March. The 
proposed agenda items would cover the following areas: developing specific suggestions on how to 
get the mo st value from observer organizations' agenda item at the SPS Committee  (including 
ISSBs); exploring any broader opportunities the Committee can offer to act as focal point for 
enhanced coordination between ISSBs and other observers; providing specific sugg estions on how 
the ISSBs may further support the Committee; and refining specific proposals for a round of 
presentations from non -ISSBs observer organizations outlining their roles and support to the 
Committee.  
20.  Group 5: Joanna Grainger (Australia) an d Cecilia Gutierrez (Ecuador) reported on the Group's 
discussions on theme 5 of paragraph 8 of the Declaration. The co -stewards thanked Members for 
their submissions, which had been made available on the dedicated webpage, and the Secretariat 
for its prese ntation on Articles 9 and 10. This issue had been explored by the Committee many times 
in the past, and the presentation had prompted discussion led by developing and least developed 
Members. There was a proposal that the presentation made by the Secretari at be presented again G/SPS/R/109  
 
- 55 - 
 
  at the upcoming Committee meeting. During the discussion, it was noted that Article 10 had not 
been used to date, and that discussions were had on different aspects of special and differential 
treatment (S&DT) and what it means for di fferent Members. There was also a proposal to make 
S&DT a more active topic in the Committee, either using the current standing agenda item or as 
part of the periodic reviews of the Agreement. One Member also made reference to the positive 
impact of techni cal assistance on their trade, describing the support received.  
21.  The co -stewards reminded Members of the three -hour workshop planned for the March meeting, 
and briefly discussed the agenda. Some Members indicated that in addition to STDF, it was impor tant 
to highlight the capacity building provided directly between Members and by other organizations. 
Other Members noted the need to continue the conversation on S&DT, and to understand the 
perspective of both donors and beneficiaries involved in technica l assistance activities. 
The co-stewards indicated that they would hold another session in May to further explore these 
areas. An informal note summarizing the discussions and next steps would be circulated, along with 
the presentation from the Secretariat . 
22.  One Member referred to its intervention during the Thematic Group meeting, where it had 
highlighted that S&DT involved more than funding and technical assistance, and that there was also 
need to further examine transition periods and how to better u tilize them. In response, 
the co-steward agreed that this topic had been discussed in the meeting and would be reflected in 
the written summary to the Membership.  
23.  I invited the co -stewards to submit proposals/summaries of work in the Thematic Groups, based 
on discussions held, by 1 March 2023 for further discussion in the March Committee meeting.  
(ii)  Coordination and scheduling of information sessions discussed in Thematic Groups  
24.  I recalled that, in November 2022, an initial discussion had been held on the 2023 thematic 
sessions and/or workshops. The Committee had agreed that the November 2023 thematic session 
would be on risk communication, misinformation and disinformation, based on a proposal by the 
United States in G/SPS/GEN/2067 . Members had also agreed that the space normally allocated to 
thematic sessions and/or workshops in the March and July meetings would be dedicated to 
discussions around the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme.  
25.  In the inp uts provided by Members by the deadline of 20 January, there were several ideas for 
presentations from international organizations, producers, etc. These ideas had been discussed in 
the Group meetings held over the past two days, and were included in the i ntersessional agenda to 
allow for coordination among the plans of the different Groups.  
26.  I then invited the Secretariat to provide an overview of a potential structure for the March 
SPS Committee  week. The Secretariat indicated that given the increased  number of STCs discussed 
in formal meetings, it would revert to the usual practice of starting the informal meeting on 
Wednesday morning and the formal meeting on that afternoon. As such, there would be two full 
days at the start of the week for the Work Programme. Based on the earlier discussions in the 
Thematic Group meetings, the Secretariat proposed a tentative calendar of sessions focused on the 
Declaration Work Programme.  
27.  I reminded Members of the fast -approaching March meeting, and indicated th at if Members 
agreed with the tentative planning, they would be invited to indicate their interest in putting forward 
presentations from producers in Group 1, and I would also request the Secretariat to contact the 
ISSBs and their parent bodies to present in Group 2. With respect to Group 2, I also invited Members 
to put forward speakers to present case studies on their experiences dealing with uncertainty, and 
indicated that they should contact stewards and/or the Secretariat before the 1 March deadline to  
allow sufficient preparation time. I noted that the process foresaw another time slot for meetings 
and intersessional consultations in May to continue discussions.  
28.  Members agreed to the proposed structure for the MC12 SPS Declaration -related discussi ons 
on the margins of the March Committee meeting.  G/SPS/ R/109  
 
- 56 - 
 
  (iii)  Next steps  
29.  The Secretariat again recalled the deadline of 1 March 2023 for co -stewards to submit 
proposals/summaries of the work in Thematic Groups, which would be circulated to allow Members 
to prepare for the March Committee meeting. The Secretariat reiterated the schedule of 
Thematic  Group meetings during the March Committee week, and  invited Members to propose 
speakers for the meetings of Groups 1 and 2 by contacting co -stewards or the Secretariat no later 
than 1 March.  
30.  The Secretariat also noted that it had been requested to prepare a written document on 
discussions on the topic  of sustainability in other fora at WTO, which would be made available before 
the March meeting. In addition, the Secretariat would contact the Three Sisters and their parent 
organizations to request them to present on risk assessment and uncertainty durin g the meeting of 
Group 2. The Secretariat also reminded Members that the co -stewards would circulate draft agendas 
to their focal points ahead of the upcoming meetings, and that all agendas would be compiled by 
the Secretariat and circulated to the SPS dis tribution list ahead of the March meeting, and posted 
on the dedicated webpage.  
31.  The Secretariat reiterated that Members were welcome to submit inputs at any time. If inputs 
were submitted before 1 March, the Secretariat would aim to have all the docum ents translated 
ahead of the March meeting. Written inputs submitted at a later date would also be made available 
in the three languages, but likely not before the meeting. As requested, all meetings would be held 
in hybrid mode with interpretation, with t he Zoom links circulated in due course. According to the 
proposed process, another slot could be available in May for Members to gather and discuss the 
Work Programme. The Secretariat tentatively proposed the second week of May for these meetings. 
In addit ion, the margins of the July SPS meeting would provide an additional opportunity for 
discussion.  
32.  The Secretariat reminded Members that, at the beginning of the Work Programme, co -stewards 
had requested Members to provide a focal point to facilitate co mmunication. The Secretariat 
continued to communicate all the relevant information through the SPS distribution list, in order to 
ensure that the full Membership is informed of all developments in the Work Programme. However, 
more detailed information on t he work of each Group was shared by the co -stewards with the focal 
points. The Secretariat invited Members to contact the Secretariat or co -stewards to indicate their 
focal points, following which the contact lists of each Group would be updated accordingl y. 
33.  In closing, I reminded Members that a factual summary on the discussions held during the 
intersessional consultations, prepared on my own responsibility, would be circulated by the 
Secretariat to the delegates' mailing list for Members' comments. D eadlines and next steps would 
be included.  
 
__________