RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/99  
 
11 August  2020 
(20-5501) Page: 1/71 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 25 -26 JUNE 2020  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ .....................  5 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .........................  5 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities ................................ ...........................  5 
2.1.1   Japan – Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the TEPCO Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
2.1.2   Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Panama, Pa raguay, and 
South Africa - Request for the suspension of the processes and entry into force of reduction of 
MRLs for plant protection products in light of the COVID -19 pandemic (G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2)  .. 6 
2.1.3   United States – The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's SECURE rule on 
Biotechnology (G/SPS/N/USA/3082/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ ..........  9 
2.1.4   Canada, the Philippines and the United States – International Statement on Agricultural 
Applications of Precision Biotechnology (G/SPS/GEN/1658/Rev.4)  ................................ ..........  10 
2.1.5   European Union - A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly 
food system (G/SPS/GEN/1797)  ................................ ................................ .......................  12 
2.1.6   European Union - Additional information about the new Official Controls Regulation 
(G/SPS/GEN/1763)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  12 
2.1.7   European Union - New rules on composite products (G/SPS/GEN/1786)  ........................  12 
2.1.8   United Kingdom – Implementation and administration of the Agreement on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures during the transition period (G/SPS/GEN/1767)  ................................ . 13 
2.1.9   Peru – APEC initiative on promoting transparency through an improved presentation of 
information in SPS notifications (G/SPS/GEN/1791)  ................................ .............................  14 
2.1.10    Senegal - Implementation of EU Directive 2019/523 on exports of agricultural products  . 14 
2.1.11    Chile - Statement regarding the use of SPS related scientific evidence and science based 
principles in order to avoid unn ecessary restrictions on international trade as a result of the COVID -
19 pandemic  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  15 
2.1.12    Ecuador - Online platform for electroni c certification  ................................ ................  15 
2.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities ................................ .........  15 
2.2.1   Codex (G/SPS/GEN/1790)  ................................ ................................ .....................  15 
2.2.2   IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/1787)  ................................ ................................ .......................  16 
2.2.3   OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1789)  ................................ ................................ ........................  16 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.20)  ................................ ......... 17 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  17 
 
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/99  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.1.1   Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on imports of fresh citrus fruits due to sweet orange 
scab – Concerns of Japan  ................................ ................................ ................................  17 
3.1.2   US non -recognition of the pest free status in the European Union for Asian longhorn beetle  
and citrus longhorn beetle – Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................  19 
3.1.3   India's fumigation requirements for grain and other products  – Concerns of the Russian 
Federation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  19 
3.1.4   Nepal's import ban on energy drinks – Concerns of Thailand  ................................ ....... 20 
3.1.5   Modification of EU MRLs for plant protection products: Chlorpyrifos and Chlorpyrifos -methyl 
– Concerns of Colombia and Ecuador  ................................ ................................ ................  22 
3.1.6   Modification of EU MRLs for plant protection products: Mancozeb – Concerns of Colombia, 
Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador and Paraguay  ................................ ................................ . 25 
3.1.7   Thailand's draft notification of Ministry of Industry's List of Hazardous Substances and 
Ministry of Public Heal th Re: on Food Containing Pesticide Residues (No.3) – Concerns of the United 
States ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  28 
3.1.8   General import restrictions on chocola te and cocoa products due to maximum levels of 
cadmium – Concerns of Peru  ................................ ................................ ............................  30 
3.1.9   Viet Nam's National Technical Regulation on Anim al Feeds - Maximum Allowable Limits of 
Safety Indicators in Animal Feeds and Ingredients for Production of Aquatic Feeds (Circular No. 
04/2020/TT -BNNPTNT) and Decree 13/2020 Detailing the Law on Animal Husbandry – Concerns of 
Argentina and the United State s ................................ ................................ .......................  30 
3.1.10    India's new requirements for animal feed in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 
(dated 27 January 2020) – Concerns of the United States ................................ .....................  31 
3.1.11    Guatemala's import restrictions on bovine and swine meat – Concerns of Mexico  ..........  32 
3.1.12    Costa Rica's import restrictions on swine meat products – Concerns of Mexico  ..............  32 
3.1.13    Peru's import restrictions on pork – Concerns of Brazil ................................ ..............  33 
3.1.14    Costa Rica's import restriction on dairy and dairy products – Concerns of Mexico  ..........  33 
3.1.15    India's appro val procedures for animal products – Concerns of the Russian Federation  ... 34 
3.1.16    China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of imported 
food (26 November 2019) – Concerns of the United States  ................................ ...................  35 
3.1.17    Saudi Arabia' s temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting establishments – 
Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  36 
3.2   Issues previously raised ................................ ................................ ..........................  37 G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.2.1   EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, 
ioxynil, iprodione, molinate, picoxy strobin and tepraloxydim – Concerns of Colombia, Costa Rica, 
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Panama, Paraguay and the United States (No. 448)  ...................  37 
3.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors – Concerns of Paraguay (No. 382)  ......................  43 
3.2.3   New EU MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin – Concerns of China (No. 459)  ............................  47 
3.2.4   New EU definition of the fungicide folpet – Concerns of China (No. 447)  ........................  47 
3.2.5   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products – Concerns  of the United States 
(No. 446)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  48 
3.2.6   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union (No.  193) ....... 49 
3.2.7   Ukraine's restrictions on swine products – Concerns of Brazil (No. 463) .........................  50 
3.2.8   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (No. 466) – Concerns of the European 
Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  51 
3.2.9   Guatemala's restrictions on egg products – Concerns of Mexico (No. 413)  .....................  52 
3.2.10    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 441)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  53 
3.2.11    US import restrictions on apples and pears – Concerns of the European Union (No.  439) 54 
3.2.12   EU Regulation on high risk plants (Regulation (EU) 2016/2031) – Concerns of Israel (No. 
469) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  55 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.20  ................................ ...... 56 
4   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ .56 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  56 
4.2   Pest- and disease -free areas (Regionalization)  ................................ ............................  56 
4.2.1   Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/48 ( G/SPS/GEN/1777 ) ................................ ... 56 
4.2.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................  57 
4.2.2.1    Colombia – Recovery of its status as an FMD -free country with vaccination 
(G/SPS/GEN/1768)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  57 
4.2.2.2    Mexico - Declaration of an area free from fruit flies of the quarantine -significant genus 
Anastrepha and species Rhagoletis pomonella (G/SPS/GEN/1780)  ................................ .........  57 
4.2.2.3    Mexico - Declaration of area free from large avocado seed weevils ( Heilipus lauri ), small 
avocado seed weevils ( Conotrachelus aguacatae  and C. perseae ) and avocado seed moths 
(Stenoma catenifer ) (G/SPS/GEN/1782)  ................................ ................................ ............  57 
4.2.2.4    Peru - Self-declarations as a country free from diseases c aused by the yellow head virus 
(genotype 1) and the infectious myonecrosis virus (G/SPS/GEN/1793)  ................................ ... 57 
4.2.2.5    Chinese Taipei - OIE o fficial recognition of foot and mouth disease -free zone  ..............  57 
4.2.2.6    Russian Federation - OIE official recognition of zones free from  certain animal diseases  58 
4.2.2.7    Ukraine - Update on its avian influenza -free status  ................................ .................  58 
4.3   Operation of transparency  provisions  ................................ ................................ ........  58 
4.4   Special and Differential  Treatment  ................................ ................................ ............  58 
4.5   Monitoring of the use of International Sta ndards  ................................ .........................  59 
4.5.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  59 
4.5.1.1    United States of America - Codex Maximum Residue Limits and Risk Management 
Recommendations for Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CX/MRL 2-2018)  ........................  59 
4.5.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................  59 
4.5.2.1    European Union – ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  ... 59 
4.5.2.2    European Union – HPAI restrictions not consistent with OIE international standards  ...... 59 G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 4 - 
 
  4.5.2.3    Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/11/Rev.1 ( G/SPS/GEN/1776)  .......................  60 
4.6   Fifth Review of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS /W/313/Rev.3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 60 
4.6.1   Report on the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ ..............  60 
4.7   Revised Draft Report of the Fifth Review (G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3 and 
G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  62 
5   CROSS -CUTTING  ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ........................ 63 
5.1   Report on the COVID -19 information -sharing session  ................................ ..................  63 
5.2   Canada and the United States - SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference 
(G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  63 
5.3   Canada - Working group on approval procedures (G/SPS/W/328)  ................................ .. 67 
5.4   Brazil - Draft working procedures to strengthen the consultative function of the SPS 
Committee (G/SPS/W/319/Rev.2)  ................................ ................................ ...................  68 
6   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ......................... 68 
6.1   Information  from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ..............  68 
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities (G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.10/Add.1; G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.15 and 
G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.15/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ .......................  68 
6.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1785)  ................................ ................................ ......................  68 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  69 
6.2.1   European Union – SPS-related technical assistance provided in 2017 -2018 
(G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.5)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  69 
6.2.2   United States – Technical Assistance to Bt Eggplant (Brinjal) Project in Bangladesh .........  69 
7   CONCERNS WITH  PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  ................................ .....69 
8   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 69 
8.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ ... 69 
8.1.1   ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/1784)  ................................ ................................ .................  69 
8.2   Requests for observer  status  ................................ ................................ ...................  69 
8.2.1   New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 69 
8.2.1.1    Request from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.18)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  69 
8.2.1.2    Request from the Arab Organization for Agricultural Development (AOAD) 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.19)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  69 
8.2.2   Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 69 
9   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON ................................ ................................ ............ 69 
10   OTHER  BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .70 
11   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ 70 
 
  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1   ADOPTION  OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee  on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  (the "Committee") held its 77th regular 
meeting on 25 -26 June 2020. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with amendments  
(JOB/SPS/8 ). The meeting was held at the Centre William Rappard. In light of the COVID -19 
pandemic, delegates were also able to participate via a virtual platform, and through a written 
procedu re. The procedure s for the meeting are described in documents JOB/SPS/7  and 
JOB/SPS/8/Add.1 .  
1.2.  Members were able to submit agenda items and statements through the eAgenda platform for 
the first time . The Chairperson  announced that  the Secretariat would circulate a report on the use 
of eAgenda after the meeting, and thanked Members for the ir use of the platform.  
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members  on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Japan – Update on the situation surrounding  Japanese food after the TEPCO 
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  
2.1.  Japan  provided the following statement: Japan would like to express deep sympathy for the 
difficulties which Members and the people have encountered under the COVID -19 pandemic. Japan 
also expresses gratitude to the Secretariat for organizing this virtual meeti ng and giving us 
opportunity to make this statement again.  
2.2.  Here, we would like to draw attention of the Members to refer to the communication 
G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.2 . It updates the food monitoring and study results which justify the 
effectiveness of our food safety control and our request for lifting import control measures on 
Japanese food, provisionally adopted since 2011. It also provides updates on the treated water 
stored at the nuclear power station and the monitoring results of the sea area, based on the close 
collabo ration and assessments made by the IAEA.  
2.3.  Unfortunately, we often encounter misinterpretation regarding the issue of treated water. 
Therefore, we would like to clarify that regardless of the disposal methods, the water currently stored 
in tanks and with the  concentrations above the regulatory standards for discharge is to be re -purified 
and diluted to meet the standards before discharge. This is not releasing contaminated water to the 
environment. Accordingly, the disposal has no relevance to the safety of J apanese food. Japan 
continues to be transparent on relevant information and requests Members to make decisions based 
on the scientific evidences.  
2.4.  Since the last meeting in November 2019, we have made improvements in the lifting of import 
measures, especial ly from a few ASEAN members. We would like to express appreciation to the 
decisions made by Singapore and Indonesia, and notably the Philippines that completely lifted the 
measures early this year. In the past nine years, most countries and regions have li fted their import 
measures and those that maintain them have reduced to 20.  
2.5.  Under the COVID -19 pandemic, we understand the difficulties which Members may have in 
making decisions, while we are determined to make every effort to assist Members' decisions to  lift 
existing import control measures.  
2.6.  Korea  provided the following statement: As we are aware, the COVID -19 pandemic has been 
an unprecedented challenge to the WTO. International trade is adversely affected and Members are 
struggling to address the issue s posed by COVID -19. In this regard, I would like to express my 
sincere gratitude to the WTO Secretariat in supporting Members and coordinating their response.  
2.7.  In a time of crisis, it is imperative to keep open and predictable trade in agriculture, agri -food 
products and to ensure the food safety control within the framework of the SPS Agreement, which 
is why transparent process of information sharing between Members is ever more essential. Against 
this backdrop, we appreciate Japan's efforts for providing us with updates on the situation 
surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima nuclear accident. As we all know, the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear disaster, which occurred in March 2011, is considered to be one of the greatest G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 6 - 
 
  disasters of the 21st century. An d due to this accident, large swaths of land were contaminated by 
radiation, which led to radioactive contamination of the marine environment.  
2.8.  On February 10, 2020, the Subcommittee on Handling of Advanced Liquid Processing System 
Treated Water (ALPS - treated water) under the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy of Japan 
published a report recommending an evaporation and/or a release of the ALPS -treated water into 
the Pacific Ocean as feasible methods for the Japanese government. As the geographically closest 
neighbour of Japan, Koreans are taking a huge interest in the disposition of contaminated water, 
which is currently stored at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Releasing contaminated 
water into the ocean, a method recommended by the Subcom mittee, would have a negative impact 
on the global environment. Therefore, such decision should be considered as a major global issue, 
not a mere domestic issue of Japan. We are asking the Japanese government to keep transparency 
in the process of making d ecisions on the disposition of contaminated water while allowing the 
participation of stakeholders.  
2.9.  In addition, the whole process of disposition and accurate information on radioactive materials 
should be disclosed. And we hope you seek empathy and unders tanding from neighbouring countries 
such as Korea and China by providing us with chances to participate in the decision -making process. 
We also hope that the final decision on the disposition, and further detailed procedures and 
schedules, as well as radia tion safety information, will be disclosed in a transparent way.  
2.10.  Japan  responded to the statement delivered by Korea regarding the treated water stored in 
tanks at the Fukushima Dai ichi Nuclear Power Station  (FDNPS) . Japan emphasi zed the importance 
of havi ng a discussion based on scientific evidence, and noted that the Japanese expert committee's  
report, published in February 2020, indicated  that the radiation impact to the public was estimated 
to be no more than one thousandth of the natural exposure in Ja pan (2.1mSv/year) . Japan added 
that if the treated water stored in tanks were to be discharged, it would be further purified and 
diluted in advance, to meet regulatory standards in line with international practice. Japan assured 
the international community  that it would continue to provide information in a transparent manner 
and based on scientific evidence.  
2.1.2    Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Panama, 
Paraguay, and South Africa - Request for the suspension of the processes an d entry into 
force of reduction of MRLs for plant protection products in light of the COVID -19 pandemic 
(G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2 ) 
2.11.  Colombia  took the f loor, on behalf of the 33 co -sponsors, to introduce the communication 
they addressed to the European Union, in document G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2  and 
G/TBT/GEN/296/Rev.2 .2 
2.12.  Panama  recalled that the document had been first circulated on 12 May 2020 to the TBT and 
SPS Committees and had been discussed at the June meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods. 
Panama emphasized key points from the document, in particular regarding the pri nciple of 
harmonization, as reflected in Article 3 of the SPS Agreement.  
2.13.  Costa Rica  provided the following statement: Costa Rica shares the objectives of protection 
of the environment and human health with the European Union. However, we note with concern that 
the European Union has decided to adopt a regulatory approach with a major impact on its trading 
partners' production systems, without taking account of their climatic and geographical 
circumstances or the impact that this could have on food security at the global level or on the most 
vulnerable population groups of developing countries. The urgency and vulnerability of the situation 
is made worse by the current economic situation. Our countries were already facing an intensification 
of the effects of climate change, on top of which there is now the pandemic and its socio -economic 
consequences. Agricultural producers, especially the smallest ones, and MSMEs would be greatly 
affected by new measures and requirements that are more restrictive with regard to exports at a 
time when all efforts are being directed towards health -related containment measures and economic 
recovery.  
 
2 Some Members made reference in their statements to previous versions of doc ument 
G/SPS/GEN/ 1778/Rev.2  of 25 June 2020. This report will refer to the last version of the document, at the time 
of the SPS Committee meeting.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.14.  In awareness of this crucial historical moment, we have presented, together with 32 other 
Members, a communication to the European U nion requesting it, in consideration of the present 
exceptional circumstances, to interrupt its regulatory process and suspend the implementation of 
maximum residue levels (MRLs) in relation to critical substances for agricultural production.  
2.15.  We urge the E U once again to establish a mechanism with interested Members for dialogue 
and evaluation of its policies on MRLs which takes into consideration and effectively addresses our 
systemic and trade related concerns; which ensures that implementation of the obj ectives outlined 
in communication G/SPS/GEN/1797 , does not further aggravate the problems that we are already 
facing and repeatedly discussing in this Committee; and which ensures that the costs of the 
adjustment that it is proposing do not fall on the producers, exporters and most v ulnerable 
population groups of developing countries. We are sure that, through more and better dialogue, we 
can find solutions together, which will enable us to progress towards mutually beneficial trade.  
2.16.  Argentina  submitted the following statement: We wo uld like to thank Colombia, Costa Rica, 
Côte d'Ivoire, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Panama, Paraguay and South Africa for placing on 
the agenda the item on the request for the suspension of the processes for entry into force of 
maximum residue levels ( document G/SPS/G EN/1778/Rev.2 , also co -sponsored by Argentina). 
The COVID -19 pandemic has created a challenge, especially for developing countries, regarding the 
distribution of financial resources, with the need to focus efforts on guaranteeing public health. In 
these ci rcumstances, some sanitary and phytosanitary measures may create restrictions to 
international trade, which means that international cooperation is essential for tackling this crisis 
and contributing to a speedy economic recovery.  
2.17.  The document concerned, t he latest version of which has been co -sponsored by 33  Members, 
requests the European Union to suspend for a 12 -month period all modifications to maximum residue 
levels (MRLs) currently in force and the entry into force of all reductions planned for 2020. We extend 
this request to all Members that are in the process of reviewing or modifying MRLs with a view to 
setting more restrictive levels, so that they can consider this request and base their MRLs on 
international standards and commitments made.  
2.18.  Cuba highlighted the challenges faced by developing countries due to the COVID -19 
pandemic. Cuba emphasised the importance of international cooperation to face the crisis and noted 
its contribution towards the protection of human life. It added that trade -facilitating measures could 
contribute to reducing the economic consequences of the pandemic. Cuba was therefore 
cosponsoring the request, aimed mainly at the European Union, but also at other Members. Cuba 
concluded that these were times for solidarity and colla boration.  
2.19.  El Salvador  provided the following statement: We would like to indicate that El Salvador is a 
co-sponsor, together with 30 other Members, of the communication circulated in document 
G/TBT/GEN/296/Rev.2 , which is supported by a number of delegations including El Sa lvador, 
requesting the European Union to suspend for a period of 12  months the review processes under 
way for maximum residue levels (MRLs) and the entry into force of all MRL reductions planned for 
2020.  
2.20.  The economic impact of the COVID -19 crisis on our country presents an enormous challenge 
for our authorities, which are currently focusing their efforts on addressing the health situation and 
on economic recovery. We know that all Members are going through the same situation, some with 
greater capacities and resources than others for tackling it. This is why we reiterate the request 
made in the document in order to give the necessary attention to processes of interest to our 
country.  
2.21.  In general, we would like to express our concern regarding the various pr oposed EU technical 
regulations on MRLs. We insist that these be based on technical evidence and do not cause 
unjustifiable restrictions on trade. Specifically in the case of MRLs for the use of chlorothalonil, 
El Salvador shares the concerns voiced by oth er delegations, which will be referred to in agenda 
item 3, regarding the negative impact that this measure will have on exports of agricultural products 
from El Salvador and many developing countries to the European market.  
2.22.  Paraguay  provided the followin g statement. With regard to the Request for the suspension of 
the processes and entry into force of reductions of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for plant G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 8 - 
 
  protection products in light of the COVID -19 pandemic, we would like to thank the delegation of 
Colomb ia for introducing document G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2 . Today we are facing a complex health 
and economic situation as a result of the COVID -19 pandemic. The economic crisis that we will have 
to tackle in the coming years will be even more difficult to overcome if aggravated by  major 
commercial losses caused by the ongoing implementation of these policies that eliminate key tools 
for integrated pest management in relation to food production. Furthermore, in the current 
circumstances these policies cannot be reviewed and evaluate d exhaustively, especially in 
developing countries, where all government efforts are focused on combating the pandemic.  
2.23.  As we mentioned previously, despite the best efforts of the Secretariat and the Chairpersons 
of the Committees, the WTO meetings in whic h technical exchanges to address these policies occur 
are unable to be held in the usual way. The TBT Committee meeting was suspended and limited in 
May to an exchange by written procedure, and the SPS Committee meeting, which will take place 
using a hybri d system with virtual media, has been substantially reduced in terms of time, affecting 
Members' rights and the scrutiny of these policies.  
2.24.  In light of the above, we have presented, together with 32 other delegations, document 
G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2  - G/TBT/GEN/296/Rev.2  in the TBT and SPS C ommittees. In this document 
we request the European Union to take these elements into consideration and to suspend the 
processes for the review and implementation of MRL reductions for a 12 -month period. We hope 
that this request will receive favourable co nsideration from the EU and that we will receive a reply 
as soon as possible, since we note with concern that the review processes are continuing despite 
the fact that dialogue is affected.  
2.25.  We once again request the European Union to take account of the im plications that these 
policies will have for the economy and development of Paraguay and for the employment of  hundreds 
of thousands of Paraguayans who depend on the trade in agricultural goods for a decent living and, 
with this in mind, to ensure that imp ort tolerances are based on conclusive scientific criteria and risk 
analysis.  
2.26.  Côte d'Ivoire  supported the request to the European Union. It noted that the implementation 
of phytosanitary measures that restrict international trade presented a challenge tha t hindered the 
efforts of global economic recovery, in particular those of developing countries and LDCs. It added 
that smaller producers and MSMEs would be the most affected by new measures and more restrictive 
requirements, particularly because the Europ ean Union was the largest importer of fruits and 
vegetables. C ôte d'Ivoire concluded with a request to all Members currently reviewing their MRLs to 
base them on international standards.  
2.27.   Peru provided the following statement: Peru as a co -proponent would like to stress the need 
to focus available resources on economic recovery further to the COVID -19 pandemic. In this regard, 
the postponement of certain regulatory changes, such as those relating to pesticide MRLs, especially 
those that depart substantially  from the limits established by the Codex Alimentarius, would have a 
positive impact on the food trade. In this regard, Peru would like to appeal to the European Union 
to take account of this request as soon as possible.  
2.28.  Senegal  provided the following stat ement: The delegation of Senegal strongly supports this 
request, which is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2 , especially in the context of 
COVID -19, where businesses are being adversely affected and supply chains disrupted. Given that 
millions of people rely on in ternational trade for their food security and livelihoods, measures that 
facilitate trade will have a significant impact in the fight against the pandemic and its consequences. 
We therefore request the EU to suspend the MRL reduction processes for plant pr otection products 
and to postpone the entry into force of the MRL reductions planned for 2020.  
2.29.  Ecuador  provided the following statement: We thank Colombia for the submission of 
document G/SPS/GEN/1778 , which has continued to attract co -sponsors since its first submission 
this May and  is confirmation of how much of a concern this issue is for much of the membership of 
this Organization. The impact of the COVID -19 pandemic on the global economy is extremely 
serious, and unfortunately Ecuador has been no exception. Our national economic situation is critical. 
It is estimated that in the agriculture export sector, losses in early March alone amounted to 
USD 300 million.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.30.  Against this backdrop, well -functioning global supply chains for agri -food products are crucial 
for world economic recove ry, and especially for developing countries.  It is for this reason that 
Ecuador is co -sponsoring document G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2 , through which 33 developing Members 
are calling for the suspension of the processes to modify MRLs aimed at establishing more restrictive 
levels , and of their entry into force, during the current pandemic situation.  
2.31.  The protection of human, animal or plant life and health are legitimate objectives, but we 
request that Members who are in the process of reducing MRLs take into consideration the cur rent 
situation of developing country Members, which are suffering the economic and social impact of the 
health crisis.  For countries like Ecuador, where our agricultural and agri -food exports are to a large 
extent the mainstay of our economy, import restrictions could compound the devastation caused by 
the pandemic.  
2.32.   South Africa  supported this request and recalled concerns regarding the EU MRL process, 
making reference to the impact it would have on its wine industry. South Africa added that the 
lockdown had delayed South Africa's analysis and assessment of EU MRLs, and that an additional 
period of 12  months would give its regulatory authorities and the industry time to prepare for new 
MRLs.  
2.33.  Guatemala  provided the following statement: Guatemala wishe s to add itself to the list of 
Members requesting to include this item on the agenda. We thank Colombia for introducing 
document G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.2 . Guatemala is sponsoring this document, as the COVID -19 
pandemic has forced us to prioritize health measures over other is sues in order to keep the virus 
under control. This situation has prevented the competent authority and the domestic production 
sector from making the necessary adjustments and testing alternative substances. Small and 
medium sized producers, in particular , will be the most affected.  
2.34.  While the health crisis is in its final stages in the European Union, with measures and lockdown 
being lifted, it is peaking in Latin American countries. Guatemala is reaching its first peak while the 
health system is collapsi ng throughout the country. With 700 cases confirmed per day, restrictions 
on movement have been implemented nationwide and the entire public transport system has been 
temporarily suspended. We urge the establishment of a mechanism for dialogue and consider ation 
of our trade concerns. We therefore ask the European Union to consider the request of 33 Members 
to suspend, for 12 months, any measures entering into force in 2020 and under review, and would 
welcome a clear and flexible response to this request.  
2.35.   Israel provided the following statement. As cosponsor to this paper, Israel would like to note 
that although this paper is directed specifically to the European Union it should also be considered 
as a request to all large trade markets and especially for pe sticides in wide use. At the best of times 
the removal or the reduction in MRLs for a pesticide heavily in use causes a huge disruption to 
agricultural production and it is often replaced by less effective control measures that usually require 
multiple app lications and may even increase the overall risk to health.  
2.36.  As the COVID -19 pandemic is raging and does not seem close to any near solution, the ability 
for farmers to work with extension officers and pesticide companies in order to find effective 
substit utes is even more challenging than in normal times. If alternative safe and effective pesticides 
cannot be found, global agricultural and food supply chains are likely to be disrupted. Therefore, we 
fully support this initiative and urge Members, in partic ular the European Union, to lengthen the 
periods before the entry into force of new MRLs during this period of uncertainty in global food supply 
and trade.  
2.37.  The European Union  took note of the request and subsequently presented its response in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1814 .  
2.1.3    United States  – The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's SECURE 
rule on Biotechnology ( G/SPS/N/USA/3082/Add.1 ) 
2.38.  The United States  read the statement  contained in document  G/SPS/GEN/1806 . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.1.4   Canada, the Philippines and the United States – International Statement on 
Agricultural Applications of Precision Biotechnology  (G/SPS/GEN/1658/Re v.4) 
2.39.   Canada  provided the following statement: Canada would like to note the International 
Statement on Agricultural Applications of Precision Biotechnology. As one of the original signatories 
to this Statement, Canada commends the Philippines' decision to  co-sponsor this Statement and 
encourages other Members to consider doing so as well.  
2.40.  Precision biotechnology, including gene editing, has the potential to provide agriculture 
producers with new, more flexible tools. These innovative tools could not only improve productivity 
across all sectors, but could also improve plant and animal health, as well as environmental 
sustainability and food security.  Given its broad range of potential applications, precision 
biotechnology also offers the possibility of prov iding solutions to global challenges in food 
production  - including pest pressures, the spread of animal disease, and animal health and welfare 
issues.  
2.41.  Canada encourages Members to establish science - and risk -based regulatory frameworks that 
protect food safety, animal health, and plant health, while also facilitating trade of these products. 
Canada would like to stress the importance of continued multilateral collaboration and dialogue 
among trading partners and agriculture stakeholders to mi nimize the potential trade impacts related 
to the regulatory oversight of precision biotechnology products and maximize their potential positive 
contributions to global agriculture.  
2.42.  Canada encourages interested Members to support the Statement and join coo perative and 
collaborative multilateral efforts to support open and fair trade for products of precision 
biotechnology.  Canada also expressed appreciation to Paraguay and the Philippines for their support 
and co -sponsorship of the Statement.  
2.43.  The United St ates read the statement contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1800 . 
2.44.  Argentina  provided the following statement : With regard to the agenda item on the 
International statement on agricultural applications of precision biotechnology, Argentina wishes to 
welcome the Philippines as a new co -sponsor. As previously indicated, Argentina presented this 
statement at the November 2018 meeting of the Committee, with the co -sponsorship of Australia, 
Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, the United States and 
Uruguay.  
2.45.  The statement seeks to guarantee appropriate regulatory approaches that are science and 
risk based, transparent, predictable, timely and consistent with relevant international trade 
obligations.  Given the differences internationally in approaches used to ass ess agricultural 
biotechnology, due consideration should be exercised by governments to avoid arbitrary and 
unjustifiable distinctions between end products derived from precision biotechnology and similar end 
products obtained through other production meth ods. 
2.46.  The Philippines  submitted the following statement : The Philippines joins other Members in 
affirming support for the promotion of science -based regulatory approaches and international 
regulatory cooperation for agricultural applications of precision bi otechnology. Global challenges 
posed by growing human population at exponential rates, emerging pests and diseases, exacerbated 
by negative impacts of extreme weather conditions put immense pressure on agriculture. It is for 
these difficulties that agricul tural innovations are of paramount importance and their rational use 
helps enhance agricultural productivity in a sustainable manner. Being a country that is vulnerable 
to a wide range of challenges to food security, the Philippines considers biotechnology  as one of 
technology options. With precision biotechnology, also known as new breeding techniques, we are 
presented with a new set of molecular, genomics and cellular tools that enable the targeted and 
efficient development of new varieties of crops with beneficial traits in a way that is faster and more 
precise than conventional plant breeding techniques.  
2.47.  We share the same sentiment that consistent policies among governments for products of 
precision biotechnology are rudimentary to facilitate the develop ment and uptake of these 
innovations. Disproportionate regulatory hurdles translate to higher costs and limited access, G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 11 - 
 
  especially for small and medium -sized enterprises (SMEs) and public institutions, to the latest 
breeding innovation tools.  
2.48.  We join the c all for promoting regulatory cooperation among countries. However, where there 
are unavoidable differences, scientific evidence should support any discrepancies. We believe that 
the cornerstone of decision -making must be founded on scientific evidence and risk assessment. 
It is by having a functional, risk -based regulatory system that the Philippines was able to realize the 
benefits of biotechnology. It is our view that regulations should be reasonably stringent but should 
not cripple agricultural innovatio ns. We are one with countries calling for science -based and 
risk-based, transparent, predictable, and timely regulatory approaches to help ensure safety in 
respect of products derived from precision biotechnology.  
2.49.  We appreciate cooperation among Members on  public communication efforts to build trust in 
regulatory frameworks and improve the acceptability of future innovations that will help modernize 
and enhance sustainability of agriculture for the present and future generation.  
2.50.  Paraguay  provided the follow ing statement : My delegation would like to be included as a 
co proponent of this agenda item in the record of the meeting and we would also like to welcome 
the Philippines as a co -sponsor of the statement. Precision biotechnology products can potentially 
play a role in responding to many of the challenges that agricultural production has to face 
nowadays. The approaches promoted by governments for the approval and use of this technology 
must therefore be based on conclusive science and risk analysis, and mu st be in harmony with the 
protection of human, animal, plant and environmental health. We firmly believe in the need for a 
harmonized approach that minimizes unnecessary obstacles to trade relating to the use of these 
tools that have the potential to respo nd to many of the challenges faced by agricultural 
production  today.  
2.51.  Brazil  provided the following statement : As stated in previous opportunities, Brazil believes 
that, in this hour of multiple crises caused by the COVID -19 pandemic, international agricultural 
trade has proven to be a central pillar not only to keep the world economy afloat, but to guarantee 
the w orld's food security. The SPS Agreement and the principles enshrined therein are at the core 
of this system, built at the outset of the WTO, and are ever more important now, to make sure that 
the application of SPS measures related to food safety must be b ased on scientific principles, in 
order to guarantee that they are not applied in a manner which would constitute arbitrary or 
unjustifiable barriers to trade.  
2.52.  We believe that innovative advancements in science and technology applied to agricultural 
practices are essential allies in the promotion of sustainable agriculture and food security. It is, 
therefore, of paramount importance that the regulatory frameworks on matters such as precision 
biotechnology products, as well as plant protection products, are  based on sound scientific evidence 
and proper risk analysis, through transparent procedures. We reiterate the view that technology, 
investment, innovation and research on plant protection products are crucial for the development of 
a resilient, stable and  sustainable agriculture in tropical regions. Safe and modern plant protection 
products can be of the utmost importance for the protection of plants while promoting agricultural 
yield and productivity. In this sense, we welcome initiatives in the Committee  that address some 
pressing issues such as pesticide MRL policies that take into consideration neither international 
standards established by Codex Alimentarius, nor rigorous risk analysis based on sound scientific 
evidence.  
2.53.  We also recall the importance of the International Statement on Agricultural Applications of 
Precision Biotechnology (document  G/SPS/GEN/1658/Rev.4 ), which brings to the attention of 
Members the key role that precision biotechnology techniques, such as gene editing, play towards 
the promotion of sus tainable crop systems and food security. The establishment of science -based 
regulatory frameworks for these new technologies will increase the participation of different actors 
in the process of developing varieties with high technological value and enhanc e technical 
cooperation and collaboration. It is important to ensure predictability for the stakeholders of an 
innovation system.  
2.54.  Colombia  provided the following statement: We hereby express our support in this meeting 
for the International statement on ag ricultural applications of precision biotechnology G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 12 - 
 
  (G/SPS/GEN/1658/Rev.4 ) and we thank the Members who have provide d information on activities 
relating to the implementation of the SPS Agreement.  
2.55.  Uruguay  provided the following statement: We welcome the placing on the agenda of the item 
regarding the International statement on precision biotechnology, and wish to join t hose who have 
welcomed the Philippines as co -sponsor of the document.  Precision biotechnology, which includes 
techniques such as gene editing, has an important role to play in global food security, enabling 
increases in production and productivity and thus  in the supply of healthy, quality food , at affordable 
prices, in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner.  In this regard, we consider it 
appropriate to reiterate, in the current context, the importance of adopting fair regulatory 
approaches  that are science - and risk -based and, as far as possible, harmonized internationally, with 
regard to the treatment of precision biotechnology.  
2.1.5   European Union - A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally 
friendly food system  (G/SPS/GEN/1797 ) 
2.56.  The European Union  summarised  the statement contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1797 . 
2.57.  Paraguay  provided the following statement: My delegation would like to thank the 
EU delegation for presenting this document, the content of which is being analysed by our 
government and to which we will return with detailed comments and observations at the next 
meeting of this Committee. However, we would like to mention that our attention has been drawn 
in particular to the "promote a global transition" aspect and we wonder how this objective would be 
consistent with granting import tolerances.  
2.58.  Peru provided the followi ng statement: Peru welcomes the information provided by the 
European Union regarding its Farm to Fork Strategy. Peru also shares the vision of encouraging 
trade in products free from substances that are harmful to health. In this regard, implementing risk 
analysis in accordance with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement is of fundamental importance, not only 
for fulfilling the legitimate objective of protecting public health but also for facilitating trade.  
2.59.  Guatemala  provided the following statement. We thank the European Union for presenting 
document G/SPS/GEN/1797 . As it is still being analysed in our capital, we will comment at a later 
date. We are struck by the fact that it refers to a more sustainable food system for the trading 
partners of the European Union, which will accompany develo ping countries' transition towards a 
more sustainable use of pesticides. We would welcome clarification as to how this support will help 
agricultural producers who export products that take between three and four weeks to reach 
European ports, as well as f urther information on the alternative plant protection methods mentioned 
in the document.  
2.60.  Uruguay  provided the following statement: We would like to thank the EU delegation for the 
presentation of an informative document on the Farm to Fork Strategy, which  forms part of the 
European Green Deal. We trust that, in line with this document, the European Commission will move 
ahead with a robust, significant and transparent discussion process with all Members concerned in 
different spheres, including the WTO, and  we already express Uruguay's interest in participating in 
such discussions.  
2.1.6   European Union - Additional information  about the new Official Controls Regulation 
(G/SPS/GEN/1763 )  
2.61.  The European Union  made reference to document G/SPS/GEN/1763  and to its intervention 
under agenda item 2(a)(vii).  
2.62.  Chinese Taipei  submi tted a written statement regarding the European Union's new rules, 
which was introduced under agenda item 2(a)(vii).  
2.1.7   European Union - New rules on composite products ( G/SPS/GEN/1786 ) 
2.63.  The European Union  provided information in document G/SPS/GEN/1786  to explain the new 
rules on animal health and public health requirements that would apply from 22 April 2020. G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 13 - 
 
  The European Union also noted the ir willingness to provide  further explanations  to interested 
Members .  
2.64.  Chinese Taipei  submitted the following statemen t: We woul d like to thank the European Union 
for sharing with us its new rules about composite products in documents G/SPS/GEN/1763  and 
G/SPS/GEN/1786 . However, we st ill have some questions about the scientific justification for some 
of these new regulations. EFSA first published its scientific opinions in its Journal 2012:10(5):2662, 
which mentions that composite products such as soup stocks, flavourings, meat extract , meat 
concentration and sterilized heat -treated foods are considered as low risk. But the European Union's 
new rules seem to regulate that all composite products with ingredients of animal origin shall be 
produced in establishments authorized to export th ose processed products to the European Union, 
regardless of the proportion used in the final composite product, and even within the final composite 
product, and even with ingredients which are de -natured or highly processed.  
2.65.  Therefore, we would like to ask  the European Union to provide us with the relevant scientific 
information that justifies the reason why all ingredients of animal origin in composite products, 
regardless of risk status, shall be produced from EU listed establishments. We would also ask t he 
European Union to kindly provide further information on whether these measures are implemented 
in practice by any other WTO Member. In conclusion, while the world we live in has to face such 
serious situations as the COVID -19 pandemic, we urge all Membe rs to remain committed to 
supporting the multilateral trading system and avoiding unnecessary trade barriers in accordance 
with the SPS Agreement.  
2.66.  Japan  provided the following written statement: Japan would like to thank the European Union 
for the updated  information regarding new rules applicable to the entry of composite products into 
the European Union market. The range of the composite products covered by the new rules seems 
to be quite wide. Depending on the content of the new rules, it may impose an additional burden at 
the border control, attachment of official certificate s or private attestations, to many varieties of low 
risk composite products from non -European Union countries, which are currently in European Union 
market without any problem. Thus , sufficient lead time to prepare for the implementation of the new 
rules would be necessary for business operators of non -EU countries. Japan expects the European 
Union to keep transparency in further detailed procedures and schedules of the new rules and  to 
provide non -EU countries with opportunities to participate in decision making process.  
2.1.8   United Kingdom – Implementation and administration of the Agreement on Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures during  the transition period ( G/SPS/GEN/1767 ) 
2.67.  The United Kingdom  provided the following statement: As set out in document number 
WT/GC/206 , dated 1 February 2020, the United Kingdom ceased to be a Member State of the 
European Union at 11:00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. The United Kingdom and the European Union 
have agreed a With drawal Agreement which provides for a time -limited transition period during 
which European Union law, as implemented through the Withdrawal Agreement, will continue to 
apply, with a few limited exceptions, to and in the United Kingdom. This transition peri od will end 
on 31 December of this year. The Withdrawal Agreement retains existing EU standards on animal 
health and welfare, plant health and food safety in UK domestic law. Our high standards, including 
import requirements, continue to apply following wi thdrawal from the European Union and there 
have been no immediate changes to our import requirements on animal health, plant health and 
food safety for our third country trading partners.  
2.68.  In the interests of transparency, the United Kingdom submitted docum ent G/SPS/GEN/1767 , 
dated 18  March 2020, informing Members of SPS regulations and standards that will apply during 
the transition period. In this document, we describe the United Kingdom's SPS import requirements, 
UK SPS regulatory system and information for traders as well as the de tails of our National 
Notification Authority and Enquiry Point. The United Kingdom is committed to maintaining high 
standards for animal health and welfare, plant health and food and feed safety. Through these 
standards, we maintain our biosecurity and pub lic health goals while facilitating trade and minimising 
impacts on businesses. In this way, the United Kingdom's agri -food regulatory system continues to 
provide high levels of assurance to consumers and trading partners alike following our withdrawal 
from the European Union. We would be happy to answer any questions related to our SPS regime 
via our SPS Enquiry Point, details of which can be found in the GEN document.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 14 - 
 
  2.69.  The United Kingdom would also like to take this opportunity to recognise the important work 
that the WTO is doing to monitor specific trade measures in response to COVID -19. COVID -19 is a 
global challenge and requires a coordinated global response. In support of the WTO's effort, the UK 
has provided relevant information, including regularly contributing to the COVID -19 specific 
surveillance platform hosted on the WTO webpage and has also submitted a return to the Director 
General for the Trade Monitoring Report. The United Kingdom also spoke recently at an STDF seminar 
on safe trade, underlin ing again that collaboration and partnerships will be vital to keeping supply 
chains moving and overcoming this crisis.  
2.70.  The United Kingdom looks forward to engaging with all World Trade Organization Members to 
take forward the important work of the SPS Co mmittee, in our collective efforts towards a more 
integrated multilateral framework of rules and disciplines to guide the development, adoption and 
enforcement of SPS measures in order to minimize their negative effects on trade.  
2.71.  Peru provided the followin g statement: Peru also welcomes the information provided by the 
United Kingdom on the implementation and administration of the SPS Agreement during the 
transition period ( G/SPS/GEN/1767 ) and points out that it is ready to intensify  bilateral work on SPS 
matters related to trade. Peru also emphasizes that this work must focus on maintaining 
SPS measures that are based on risk analysis and also facilitate trade between both parties.  
2.1.9   Peru – APEC initiative on promoting transparency th rough an improved 
presentation of information in SPS notifications  (G/SPS/GEN/1791 )  
2.72.  Peru submitted document G/SPS/GEN/1791  and provided the following statement : Peru would 
like to share with WTO Members the results achieved in relation to the APEC initiative on promoting 
transparency through an improved presentation of information in SPS notifications. In this regard, 
the aim has been to conduct an evaluation of t he notifications made by economies that form part of 
this forum, in order to identify ongoing challenges in this area that need to be tackled in the short 
term to facilitate trade. Peru invites Members to revisit document G/SPS/GEN/1791  for more details.  
2.1.10   Senegal - Implementation  of EU Directive  2019/523 on exports of agricultural 
products  
2.73.   Senegal  provided the following statement. The delegation of Senegal would like to share 
some information on measures taken to secure the EU's approval of Senegal's mango dossier. 
The continuity of mango exports is also contingent on these measures, in accordance with 
Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/523 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 of 
28 November  2019, establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation 
(EU) 2016/2031.  
2.74.  These new phytosanitary requirements apply to countries exporting fruit and vegetables to 
the EU market. To facilitate product access, measures taken to ensure the absence of quarantine 
pests targeted by the regulations have been described in this dossier . The country has in fact been 
breaking mango export records for the past three years. We should remind you that the mango 
subsector provides more than 15,000 jobs for an annual export income of more than CFAF  16 billion. 
All of this was made possible than ks to the establishment of a public -private dialogue platform, 
which mobilized the various stakeholders involved in order to determine the short  - and 
medium  - term steps to be taken to implement the agreed action plan, including each stakeholder's 
roles a nd responsibilities. Concrete risk management measures were presented, discussed, validated 
and implemented by professionals in the horticultural subsector. Moreover, in order to guarantee 
safety at work and ensure the continuity of activities in the COVID -19 pandemic situation, both in 
the production area and packing houses, a guide to good hygiene practices to prevent the spread of 
coronavirus in agricultural subsectors has been developed, validated by health authorities and widely 
disseminated in agricul tural value chains. Furthermore, the implementation of protection measures 
is a mandatory requirement for the deployment of inspection missions to horticultural 
packing  houses.  
2.75.  This is a good opportunity for us to thank all our partners, in particular the  International 
Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group, USAID, the Enhanced Integrated Framework 
and the Europe -Africa -Caribbean -Pacific Liaison Committee (COLEACP).  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 15 - 
 
  2.1.11   Chile - Statement regarding the use of SPS related scientific evidence and scie nce 
based principles in order to avoid unnecessary restrictions on international trade as a 
result of the COVID -19 pandemic  
2.76.  Chile provided the following statement: Chile would like to take this opportunity to underline 
that the SPS Agreement and its provi sions establish an international framework for an appropriate 
balance between legitimate protection measures and a predictable environment within which to 
facilitate international trade. The proper implementation of the SPS Agreement by Members means 
compl iance with the rights and obligations set out in Article 2. Although within those rights it is 
provided that Members can take the sanitary and phytosanitary measures necessary to protect 
human, animal or plant life or health, it is also an obligation to en sure that these are implemented 
only to the extent necessary to meet the objectives. Furthermore, in order to apply the principle of 
transparency properly, through the provisions of Annex B, Members are urged to give immediate 
notification of any measures that may have an impact on trade, and to provide, upon request, copies 
of the regulation to other Members so that they have an opportunity to make comments.  
2.77.  As there is no scientific evidence that SARS -CoV-2 is transmitted through food, we call on 
WTO Memb ers not to implement measures that are more trade -restrictive than necessary, so as to 
keep international trade flowing and not exacerbate the current threat to food security and economic 
stability in these times of crisis due to COVID -19. 
2.78.  Mexico  supported  Chile's concern regarding a Member's decision to establish measures that 
would unnecessarily obstruct trade in food products, generate costs for exporters, and be 
detrimental to people in the context of this health emergency situation. Mexico considered t hat 
justifying these measures in the terms proposed by the Member adopting them could violate the 
principles set out in the WTO SPS Agreements. In this regard, it should be recalled, as well as other 
principles in the SPS Agreement, that sanitary and phyto sanitary measures should comply with the 
principles of transparency and be based on international standards and scientific evidence.  
2.1.12    Ecuador - Online platform for electronic certification  
2.79.  Ecuador  provided the following statement : We wish to draw Members'  attention to document 
G/SPS/GEN/1771 , through which we inform the Committee that the Ecuadorian Agency for Plant 
and Animal Health Regulation and Control (AGROCALIDAD) has developed an online platform for 
viewing and verifying phytosanitary export certificates issued by Ecuador . Members' national 
authoritie s will be able to access this platform and enter the certificate number. When doing so, a 
digital copy of the certificate issued by AGROCALIDAD can then be viewed on screen, which proves 
its authenticity. The platform is available in Spanish and English . We reiterate our thanks to Members 
for accepting electronic certificates, which will help to prevent the spread of the virus through people 
gathering in public spaces .  
2.2  Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
2.2.1   Codex  (G/SPS/GEN/1790 ) 
2.80.  Codex  provided a summary of its a ctivities, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1790 , and highlighted 
a few key points. Since the last SPS Committee meeting, the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene 
and the 7th session of the Ad hoc Codex Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance 
had taken place, both of which had fo rwarded texts to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for 
adoption. The Codex Alimentarius Commission was scheduled to be held between mid -September 
and October 2020, with the main objective of adopting these texts. Codex also announced that the 
Executive Com mittee (CCEXEC) would hold a virtual meeting from 13 to 20 July 2020, as endorsed 
by FAO and WHO.  
2.81.  Regarding World Food Safety Day, it had taken place completely online with a high level of 
success. Its goal was to highlight that food safety was a matter o f concern to everyone. Finally, 
Codex explained that the COVID -19 pandemic had led to the development of papers on food safety 
by WHO and FAO, available from the Codex webpage on COVID -19.3 
 
3 www.fao.org/fao -who-codexalimentar ius/thematic -areas/COVID -19/en/ . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.2.2   IPPC  (G/SPS/GEN/1787 ) 
2.82.  The IPPC Secre tariat  highlighted several points from its report, contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1787 . In particular, the International Year of Plant Health  (IYPH) was mentioned , 
although the Ministerial session of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) to mark the 
occasion and many other events ha ve been cancelled or postponed  but some activities are still taking 
place and SPS members were encouraged to plan further activities to raise awareness o f the 
importance of plant health.   IYPH flagship event, the International Plant Health Conference (IPHC) 
which  had been scheduled for October 2020 in Helsinki  had also been postponed   to 28 June to 1 
July 2021. In addition, efforts were being made to esta blish an International Day of Plant Health on 
12 May.  
2.83.  In November 2019, the IPPC Standards Committee had reviewed and recommended  a number 
of draft standards to the CPM for adoption, which were since on hold due to the cancellation of the 
Commission meetin g. The Standards Committee, has continued its work via the online comment 
system, and ha ve approved three draft  ISPM for consultations: amendments to the Glossary on 
phytosanitary terms, a focused revision of ISPM 12 in relation to re -export and audit  in the 
phytosanitary context . They had also received approval to circulate a draft standard on the concept 
of commodity and pathway standards, which will also  be available for comments from July 1. The 
Implementation Committee had met in November 2019 and had  held several virtual meetings since . 
The draft guide on Pest Status is being finalized but is pending the adoption of the draft ISPM on 
Pest Standards.  
2.84.  The suspension of travels due to the COVID -19 pandemic had led to a suspension of in -person 
technical assistance and capacity development activities, and has led to the development of  some 
eLearning  tools. The IPPC Secretariat  also noted that a study on the state of Monitoring and 
Evaluation had been commissioned and published on the activities of the thr ee sisters, the STDF and 
the WTO.4  
2.85.  With regards to ePhyto, in order to mitigate the impact of COVID -19 restrictions more 
countries have stated to exchange phytosanitary certificates electronically . The IPPC Secretariat  
invited Members to visit their webs ite to find out more information  on the ePhyto Solution .5 There 
were 80 countries registered to exchange ePhyto, with 12,000 certificates being issues and 
processed daily, with capacity to exchange  100,000. The IPPC Secretariat also highlighted its work 
with STDF and the three sisters on electronic certificates; as well as its work on e -commerce.  
2.86.  Finally, IP PC's offices had been closed for the past three months, and had opened in June with 
a limited capacity.  
2.2.3   OIE ( G/SPS/GEN/1789 )  
2.87.  The OIE presented its report, contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1789 , and emphasised its 
work on the potential role of wildlife in the COVID -19 pandemic. The OIE had put in place an Incid ent 
Coordination System, which had been reported on at the COVID -19 information sharing session of 
the SPS Committee. Out of this work, the OIE recommended that OIE Members continue work 
cooperatively and facilitate the international movement of live anima ls and animal products, in 
accordance with the provisions on the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. In addition, their 
recommendation was not to introduce any COVID -19 related sanitary measures, unless and until 
they were shown to be necessary to protect huma n or animal health, scientifically justified with a 
risk analysis and fully aligned with international standards. The OIE was regularly monitoring new 
information, and updating these recommendations, which were available on the OIE website.6  
2.88.  The planned General Session, scheduled for May 2020, had been cancelled and would be held 
in May 2021. For some decisions that needed to take place this year, delegates had supported an 
adapted procedure to adopt some resolutions electronically, including resolutions about countries or 
members that received official recognition for disease status or disease control programmes. It was 
important to note that as a consequence of the postponement, no new or amended chapters to 
international standards were adopted, so they were undergoing another round of comments, and 
 
4 https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/88447/  
5 https://www.ippc.int/en/ephyto/ . 
6 https://www.oie.int/ . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 17 - 
 
  would be proposed for adoption next year. The Presidents of the OIE commissions provided some 
representations which are available on the OIE website.  
2.89.  A technical item that was planned  for the OIE General Sess ion on the required competency of 
veterinary services in the context of international trade had been completed despite the 
postponement of the General Session,  and would be published and disseminated on the OIE website 
and through webinars and videos. The OIE invited Members to look out for this information.  
2.90.   The OIE headquarters and regional offices had been closed for three months, and similar to 
IPPC and Codex, OIE staff had learnt to work in a different  modality. The office had reopened 
two weeks earlie r with limited capacity and still in a different modality.  
3  SPECIFIC TRADE  CONCERNS ( G/SPS/GEN/204/R ev.20)  
3.1  New issues  
3.1.   Before the adoption of the agenda, during phase 2 of the procedure specified in JOB/SPS/7 , 
the European Union withdrew a specific trade concern regarding Malaysia's import restrictions due 
to African swine fever, and the Russian Federation withdrew its support to the specific trade concern 
raised by the United States on China's administrative measures for registration of overseas 
manufacturers of imported food (26 November 2019).  
3.2.  The Chairperson reminded Members of the procedure for this point of the agenda, as detailed 
in document JOB/SPS/8 . 
3.1.1   Thailand's phytosanitary  restrictions o n imports of fresh citrus fruits due to sweet 
orange scab – Concerns of Japan  
3.3.  Japan  provided the following statement: Japan would like to raise a specific trade concern 
regarding Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on imports of fresh citrus fruits from Japan. 
Thailand  claims that sweet orange scab (SOS) is the target pest, for which the measure aims at 
preventing the introduction. SOS is a plant disease that infects citrus fruits by the fungus and causes 
scab symptoms on the fruit surface. There has been  no detection of SOS from Japanese citrus fruit 
throughout historical records of trade even under the agreed phytosanitary measures prior to the 
additional treatment introduction. This fact clearly demonstrates that plant health was secured 
without the add ition. 
3.4.  In August 2018, Thailand unilaterally added wax treatment to the phytosanitary requirement 
without bilateral consultation, in addition to already agreed phytosanitary measures including field 
inspection during growing season, visual inspection, wash ing, brushing, surface disinfection and 
fungicide treatment. After the sudden introduction of the new treatment, Japan generously proposed 
in February 2019, an alternative measure by systems approach, including visual inspection for all 
fruits. The propose d alternative is equivalent based on the scientific report Thailand admits. It is 
regrettable, however, that Thailand has not accepted Japan's proposal.  
3.5.  According to the scientific report, citrus fruits are susceptible to SOS infection only within the 
limited growth period, that is, up to eight weeks after the fall of petal. The report also describes that 
the period between spore infection and symptom expression can be no longer than fourteen days 
(two weeks). In Japan, petals of citrus fruits fall in May a nd the fruits are harvested from November. 
In this situation, if infected, the fruits will surely show the symptom well before they are harvested. 
In other words, the mature fruits with no scab symptom at the time of harvest should not be infected, 
and the refore, there is no possibility of the fruit being a source of inoculum for spreading SOS and 
will not be infected thereafter. Japan is confident that the proposed alternative by systems approach 
which encompasses visual inspection for all fruits at the ti me of harvest, washing, brushing and 
surface disinfestation can effectively identify and remove the fruits showing symptom in 
Japanese  side. 
3.6.  Japan points out three problems in this excessive phytosanitary measure: Firstly, against 
Japan's request, the Pest  Risk Analysis report has not been provided by Thailand, although IPPC 
ISPM 11 stipulates that "[t]he whole process from initiation to pest risk management should be 
sufficiently documented so that when a review or a dispute arises, the sources of informat ion and G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 18 - 
 
  rationale used in reaching the management decision can be clearly demonstrated." Secondly, despite 
the fact that systems approach proposed by Japan meets Thailand's regulatory objective of 
preventing SOS introduction, requirement of wax treatment i s more trade -restrictive than required 
to achieve the regulatory objective. As a result of Thailand's decision to add wax treatment, exports 
from the main production area dropped to 15.6 ton, a 35% decrease from the previous year, in the 
2019 export season . Thirdly, Thailand claims that only the mix of fungicide treatment and wax 
treatment is effective, without a reasonable response and has not accepted Japan's proposal, which 
is equivalent. The SPS Agreement notes that "Members shall accept the SPS measure s of other 
Members as equivalent", "if the exporting Member objectively demonstrates to the importing 
Member that its measures achieve the importing Member's appropriate level of SPS protection."  
3.7.  Japan hopes that Thailand will provide positive responses to  advance discussions on the 
proposed equivalent measures.  
3.8.  Chile supported  this concern and provided the following statement: Chile is keen to follow up 
this issue because of undue delays in Thailand's risk analysis of Chilean pears . 
3.9.  Thailand  submitted the following response: Sweet orange scab (SOS) is a citrus disease caused 
by the fungus Elsinoë australis . It is considered a quarantine pest of concern to Thailand for the 
importation of citrus fruits from Japan and other countries where it is  known to be present. 
Importation of citrus fruits could be an important pathway. The risk associated with this fungus on 
citrus fruits imported from Japan is non -negligible and phytosanitary measures can be justified. 
In this regard, Thailand has establis hed the 5 -step-packinghouse procedures including washing, 
brushing, surface disinfestation, chemical treatment and wax, to manage the risk posed by SOS on 
imported citrus fruits from Japan. These procedures are based on the documents prepared by 
experts fr om APHIS, USDA. It is recommended that the surface treatment with a fungicide -wax will 
destroy fruiting bodies on symptomatic fruit and inhibit further sporulation. However, MAFF proposed 
an alternative option against SOS by conducting only visual inspecti on instead of chemical treatment 
and wax. We considered that this measure is inefficient to eradicating the risk of introduction and 
spread of SOS in Thailand.  
3.10.  Although the symptom of SOS can be observed with the naked eye, the symptoms of some 
citrus dise ases are very much similar to that of SOS. Only well -trained inspectors or experts  have 
the pre -requisites to perform such inspection in both countries. Thailand as an importing country, 
which has limited resources available, could not withstand the risks of SOS associated with the 
imported consignments. In addition, visual inspection on every single fruit in commercial 
consignments is impractical. There is a high probability that SOS infected fruits could elude either 
export inspection or import insp ection. Therefore, inspection could not provide adequate safeguard 
to prevent the introduction of SOS. Thailand considers that the 5 -step-packinghouse procedures can 
provide more assurance on risk mitigation measures of SOS than fruit inspection proposed b y MAFF.  
3.11.  Visual inspection is considered not be the effective measure to prevent the risk of introduction 
and spread of SOS in Thailand. On the other hand, chemical treatment and wax could effectively 
eliminate the fungus on citrus fruits as mentioned above . Moreover, it could facilitate the import 
clearance of consignments at the port of entry after arrival to Thailand while the alternative measure 
proposed by MAFF might lead to long delay on import clearance. If suspicious symptoms are found 
on the consign ments, they must be held at the port of entry waiting for the results of laboratory 
confirmation. It is a fact that diagnosis of SOS is complicated and time -consuming, as well as 
requires particular experts. These might adversely affect fruit quality to be  unmarketable and 
eventually disrupt the trade of citrus fruits from Japan.  
3.12.  According to Japan 's claim, the volume of citrus fruits exported to Thailand decreased due to 
the application of the requirement on wax treatment. Thailand would like to provide fu rther 
clarification that Thailand imposes the 5 -step-packinghouse procedures to manage the risk of SOS 
on imported citrus fruits not only from Japan but also from other countries. This measure has been 
applied to all countries without discrimination. We be lieve that this measure is the effective risk 
mitigation measure and is not trade -restrictive phytosanitary measures.  
3.13.  Finally, Thailand, as a Member of the WTO, takes into account the principles under the WTO 
SPS Agreement when establishing phytosanitary i mport requirements. Based on all G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 19 - 
 
  above -mentioned clarifications, Thailand confirms that the current requirements of SOS comply with 
the WTO SPS Agreement . 
3.1.2   US non -recognition of the pest free status in the European Union for Asian longhorn 
beetle and citrus  longhorn beetle  – Concerns of the European Union  
3.14.  The European Union  provided the following statement: The European Union would like to raise 
its concerns about the unjustified and long delays of the United States to recognise the pest free 
status in the E uropean Union for Asian and Citrus longhorn beetles.  
3.15.  Since 2013, the United States and Canada classified the whole European Union as being 
affected with Asian and citrus longhorn beetles, while these pests are absent in many EU member 
States. The European  Union is strictly controlling and monitoring Asian and citrus longhorn beetles 
in the European Union. During more than seven years, the European Union has provided all 
information needed to allow the United States and Canada to recognise the country pest -free status 
of 21 European Union Member States and the pest -free area status of the remaining EU 
member  States.  
3.16.  After all the scientific work was finally assessed satisfactorily by the United States and Canada, 
the United States subsequently issued, durin g the summer of 2019, a WTO SPS notification 
(G/SPS/N/USA/3089 ) with a draft proposal to recognise the country freedom of these pests for the 
EU member States concerned. In addition, the United States informed that it would  issue the final 
Federal Order by the end of 2019 on the recognition of this country pest -free status of these EU 
member States, at the same time when Canada would recognise the pest -free status of these EU 
member States.  
3.17.  The European Union would like to t hank Canada for having confirmed this recognition on 
2 December  2019. The European Union regrets to note that the Unites States did not issue its 
Federal Order at the same moment for this country -freedom recognition, despite its earlier 
commitment. The Uni ted States could also not provide to the European Union a justification based 
on science for not issuing its Federal Order on the recognition of the pest -free country status for the 
Asian and Citrus longhorn beetles for 21 EU member States. Neither did the  United States provide 
a response to the European Union request to provide a date for the publication of this Federal Order.  
3.18.  The European Union would like to refer to the constructive technical work on this topic during 
the past years with the United State s. The European Union would urge the United States to respect 
their international obligations by (i) promptly taking the final administrative step to recognise the 
pest free status of the 21 EU member States and (ii) by finalising without any delay the wor k to 
recognise the pest free areas for the Asian and citrus longhorn beetles for the remaining EU member 
States. In particular, the European Union would like to ask the United States to inform of the date 
for the publication of the Federal Order on the cou ntry pest freedom of Asian and citrus 
longhorn  beetles.  
3.19.  The United States  provided the following response: The United States appreciates the interest 
of the European Union in the status of our work to grant pest -free status from Asian longhorn beetle 
and citrus longhorn beetle to the European Union. We would like to assure our European colleagues 
that the US Department of Agriculture is working through its administrative procedures to process 
this request. We note our bilateral technical engagement on the matter and look forward to continued 
cooperation with the European Union going forward.  
3.1.3   India's fumigation  requirements for grain and other products – Concerns of the 
Russian Federation  
3.20.  The Russian Federation  provided the following statement: The Russian F ederation is 
concerned that India has placed a mandatory use of methyl bromide for cereal fumigation. 
Since  2017 the Republic of India introduced the obligatory phytosanitary requirement for exporting 
countries to use methyl bromide for fumigation of grain  crops imported into India. The Montreal 
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, dated 16  September  1987, limits the use of 
methyl bromide. The Russian Federation has proposed several times to India to lift the ban and use 
alternative preparat ions based on hydrogen phosphorus (phosphine) along with methyl bromide 
preparations according to prevailing world practice. In 2017 and 2018, many countries (Senegal, G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Kenya, etc.) expressed the same concern. India, for its part, eases requirements every s ix months 
and allows the import of agricultural products processed by alternative fumigants with further 
treatment with methyl bromide in the Indian port. However, this practice of easing requirements' 
prolongation reduces predictability and is inconsisten t with the principles of SPS transparency.  
3.21.  Russia has repeatedly sent India an analysis of the validity and feasibility of using phosphines 
against grain pests, as well as the comparative effectiveness of fumigation with using of methyl 
bromide and phosphi ne. Unfortunately, no response has been received to date from India to resolve 
the issue. Russia invites India to consider recognizing the effectiveness of alternative preparations 
for processing grain supplied to India by exporting countries on an ongoing  basis.  
3.22.  Canada  supported this concern and provided the following statement: Pulses have long been 
an important element of Canada's bilateral trade relationship with India. Canada is therefore 
concerned about India's mandatory fumigation requirements and th e impact these requirements are 
having on that trade. Canada has raised these concerns on numerous occasions with India, including 
on the margins of previous meetings of this Committee. Unfortunately, we have yet to find a solution, 
despite strong Canadian  efforts to do so. We hope to reach a satisfactory solution prior to the 
November WTO SPS Committee.  
3.23.  India provided the following statement in response to the Russian Federation: Our authorities 
are in receipt of a letter dated 29 May 2020 from the Russian  Federation regarding the fumigation 
of grains using the chemical phosphine. They are processing this request and will soon send an 
official reply to the Russian Federation. We remain available to consult bilaterally with the 
Russian  Federation, with a vie w to resolving this issue.  
3.24.  India provided the following statement in response to Canada:  India and Canada have been 
engaging on this issue since 2018. Canada has suggested the systems approach as an alternative 
to India 's mandatory fumigation requirements.  A team of technical experts from India had visited 
Canada to review their systems approach. Following this visit the Indian technical agencies had 
sought some additional information from Canada. The information provided by Canada on 
19 July 2019 was being  examined by our agencies. This process was set back on account of the 
interception of quarantine pests in consignments of pulses imported from Canada into India in 
October 2019. Although the detection of such quarantine pests was in violation of India 's Plant 
Quarantine Order of 2003, a one -time exception was made and the consignments from Canada were 
released after ensuring that the quarantine pests had been sieved out. Following this incident, the 
Indian technical agencies had conducted a review of the P est Risk analysis for pulses imported from 
Canada. Information about this review was shared with the Canadian agencies and we are yet to 
receive a response from them on this review.  
3.25.  Canada had also submitted a request to review the list of quarantine seeds  regulated under 
India's Plant Quarantine Order of 2003. The information provided by Canada in this regard is being 
examined by our technical experts. We are committed to continue engaging with Canada on this 
issue, with a view to finding a mutually accept able solution at the earliest.  
3.1.4   Nepal's import ban on energy drinks – Concerns  of Thailand  
3.26.  Thailand  provided the following statement: The Thai Government has been informed by our 
private sector about their concern on the Nepali Government's Order of 17 June  2019 which imposes 
an import ban on caffeinated energy drinks, flavoured synthetic drinks and other similar drinks. 
Since the regulation entered into force on 17 June 2019, our private sector has been unable to 
export energy drinks to Nepal. The exporter was severely affected because their products were 
already produced with model and label designed specifically for Nepali market only, hence, cannot 
export such products to other countries. We appreciate the opportunity to have a bilateral 
consultation with  your high -level authority in Kathmandu. However, the issue has not been resolved 
as the concerned products of our exporter are still banned for import to Nepal.  
3.27.  Furthermore, Thailand is concerned that Nepal has not submitted complete notifications 
related  to those measures to the WTO. In this regard, Thailand would like to request further 
information from Nepal regarding the measures as follows: What objective does Nepal pursue by 
banning the importation of energy drinks and how does it comply with the WTO 's commitments? G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Please clarify whether Nepal's import ban based on any scientific evidence concerning the effects of 
energy drinks?  
3.28.  Thailand stands ready to engage bilaterally with Nepal with a view to settling this issue 
amicably in the near future.  
3.29.  Nepal referred to its statement made at the meeting of the Committee on Market Access held 
on 8 June 2020 and provided the following response:  To begin with, Nepal joined the WTO in 2004 
through the accession process and became the first acceding least develop ed country (LDC) and 
147th Member of the WTO. Despite being an LDC Member, Nepal's level of commitment at the WTO 
is mostly similar to some developed members and its situation may be the same as that of other 
Members joining the WTO through the accession p rocess. For instance, our binding coverage is 
99.4%, simple average bound tariff is 26.3%, and simple average MFN applied tariff is around 12%. 
The MFN applied tariff being less than half of the bound tariff indicates our further liberalized 
implementation .  
3.30.  Since Nepal joined the WTO, it has been playing its level best to honour its obligations. It has 
taken several policy measures to fulfil commitments made during the accession process and has 
been expediting its market -friendly policy reforms through var ious initiatives. All the domestic legal 
and other measures have been complied with the WTO at the maximum possible level. 
WTO membership was simply a beginning of the process to integrate Nepal into the global economy 
in a meaningful way. Nepal understands that the journey to the WTO means a balance between 
rights and obligations and we are fully committed to it. Nepal has conduc ted its first and second 
Trade Policy Reviews in 2012 and 2018, respectively in a timely manner.  
3.31.  While assessing the trade performance of the country since joining the WTO in 2004, Nepal 
could not benefit much from the membership as expected, particularly  in export performance, it 
rather faced a huge import surge. The export -import ratio of trade in goods reached to 1:15.3 in 
2017/2018 from 1:2.5 in 2004/2005 (TEPC, Nepal). World's merchandise export increased from 
about 9 trillion US$ in 2004 to about 19 trillion US dollars in 2018 but Nepal's export mostly remained 
stagnant with just a nominal growth from 730,5 million US dollars in 2004 to 783,5 million US dollars 
in 2018. However, Nepal's merchandise imports significantly increased from 1.85 billion US dollars 
in 2004 to 12.9 billion US dollars in 2018 (World Bank). The situation of a mostly stagnant export 
but skyrocketing import surge resulted in a huge trade gap and posed severe challenges to the entire 
economic development process of the country. In view of this difficult situation, the Government of 
Nepal assessed the causes of such trade imbalance and accordingly took measures of import and 
export regulation while focusing on trade regulation, on an MFN basis, to be applied to all 
WTO Members equall y in accordance with the WTO laws.  
3.32.  Nepal has taken this temporary measure because of the country's unique situation as an LDC 
and LLDC facing various constraints and challenges of export performance. The regulation is not 
only focused on trade restriction  of few products but concentrated on trade regulation and 
facilitation, covering broad aspects of Nepal's international trade to make it standard and smooth. 
Furthermore, it also includes provisions to comply with the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The objective of this measure is not to restrict trade 
but to regulate and facilitate Nepal's international trade and safeguard the country from the severe 
challenge of trade imbalance, and the threat to its balan ce of payments caused by this development, 
so as to make Nepal's international trade well -regulated and well facilitated.  
3.33.  In the context of COVID -19 pandemic and its impacts, the government of Nepal is in 
consultation with agencies concerned regarding pot ential health implication of energy drinks and 
some other non -essential products which are being imported in large scale in recent years. I would 
like to underline that it is a temporary measure taken by the government and the country is further 
assessing this regulation and the entire trade performance from time to time through a detailed 
study and this may be reviewed periodically and revised based on the study findings.  
3.34.  We have sent an official note and notification to the WTO Secretariat on 21  January  2020 in 
this regard. When we received concerns from our friendly Thailand, we requested to resolve the 
issue through bilateral consultation. In this regard, a bilateral mee ting was held in Kathmandu and 
the matter was discussed at length. The discussion would further be expedited, and the matter could 
be settled once the COVID -19 outbreak is normalized. However, Thailand raised this concern at this G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 22 - 
 
  meeting without keeping in  view the bilateral discussion held in Kathmandu and the current 
challenging time of fight against COVID -19 pandemic, despite our repeated emphasis on and 
requests for addressing this issue through bilateral consultation.  
3.35.  Let me share with this meeting th at in our bilateral consultation held in Kathmandu and also 
in the statement made by Thailand today, Thailand is stressing that their products were already 
produced with model and label designed specifically for Nepali market only; hence, it cannot sell 
such products in other countries. In this regard, Nepal would like to request our friendly Member 
country Thailand to share its explanation as to why those products have been specially designed and 
labelled only for Nepali market? What the quality standards of those products is? Why such products 
cannot be sold even in its domestic market? We underline that there is a need to make a study 
whether those products targeted to Nepali markets are in line with set quality standards. Nepal will 
certainly look into t his matter and take necessary initiatives, as needed, based on the study findings. 
We have conveyed all the concerns raised by Thailand to the Ministries concerned (Ministry of 
Industry, Commerce and Supplies, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs) in Kathmandu.  We will certainly 
share detailed information in this matter as and when we receive from our capital.  
3.36.  Finally, it is our humble submission to all WTO Members including Thailand to positively 
consider the unique situation of Nepal as an LDC and LLDC Member , facing a huge trade gap with 
an export -import ratio of 1:15.3 (meaning that imports being more than fifteen times of exports) 
and with having several constraints and challenges in international trade.  
3.1.5   Modification of EU MRLs for plant protection  product s: Chlorpyrifos and 
Chlorpyrifos -methyl – Concerns of Colombia and Ecuador  
3.37.  Colombia  thanked Ecuador for co -sponsoring this specific trade concern, and to the Dominican 
Republic, Egypt, Paraguay, Guatemala, Peru, Chile and Indonesia for supporting it. Colom bia noted 
that the support was evidence that this and other STCs related to changes in MRLs were not a 
bilateral or regional concern, but that they affected countries of different regions and products. 
Colombia referred Members to document G/SPS/GEN/1761 .  
3.38.  Ecuador  introduced document  G/SPS/GEN/1807  and submitte d the following statement: 
Ecuador shares this concern regarding the ban on the use of more plant protection tools that are 
key to pest eradication and food quality. Such measures can seriously hamper the entry of many 
agricultural products into the market  of our main trading partner .  
3.39.  Guatemala  provided the following statement: We thank Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and 
Paraguay for including this item on the Committee's agenda.  
3.40.  The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has reduced the maximum residue lev els (MRLs) 
for chlorpyrifos, which is applied manually in Guatemala to control pests in banana production, by 
placing ties on each banana and plantain bunch and using protective sleeves for the fruit, instead of 
using the spray method. The banana sector ha s repeatedly said that, domestically, there are no 
alternatives proven to be effective as chlorpyrifos available for immediate use. In the Latin American 
banana sector, tests are being carried out using other substances, including an EFSA approved 
molecule  called pyriproxifen that might be similarly effective to chlorpyrifos. However, it is still being 
trialled and farmers are looking for lower risk alternatives. Although farmers have considered using 
pyriproxifen, obtaining and introducing it in the countr y at this crucial time has been hampered by 
quarantine measures in several countries due to COVID -19, and by domestic requirements for 
registration, including field tests, which obviously cannot be conducted at this time.  
3.41.  In addition to the challenges to o btaining substitutes for the above -mentioned agricultural 
chemical, the global health emergency caused by COVID -19 is having a serious impact on domestic 
farmers, due to the isolation of technical and field staff, interruptions in supply processes and 
shortages in production inputs. This may lead to an increase in pests and diseases that will have an 
adverse effect on banana and plantain production. If this is compounded by the current transition 
periods for the use of chlorpyrifos, they will pose an additi onal challenge to existing difficulties 
caused by the coronavirus, which would fall on producers and exporters, putting at even greater risk 
their ability to maintain levels of production, comply with delivery programmes as per contracts, 
guarantee the sup ply of fruit in the various markets and ensure employment in the sector.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 23 - 
 
  3.42.  It should be noted that, in such a health situation and with no immediate alternative to replace 
chlorpyrifos, farmers will see 10  to 15% of their fruit go to waste due to the damage  done to the 
banana skins by the increase in sucking/eating insects, lowering the commercial value of the 
bananas. In addition to the loss of produce and the immobility of staff due to the health emergency, 
the cost of production will increase and producti vity will decrease, making banana production riskier 
due to direct economic losses and even creating a negative social effect.  
3.43.  In light of the above, Guatemala has sent communications to the European Union asking it to 
postpone the application of this meas ure and to provide scientific evidence of the damage to 
European consumers' health caused by eating bananas and other agricultural products from third 
countries. We reiterate the request made and previously discussed in document in G/SPS/GEN/1778 . 
3.44.  Indonesia  provided the following sta tement: Indonesia would like to thank Colombia for 
placing this important issue into the STC agenda. While we are still examining the potential impact 
of the European Union's proposed MRLs, Indonesia supports this STC and registers its interest to 
followin g this STC's discussions. We fully noted the statements delivered by Colombia and other 
proponents to this STC on its potential implication to specific agricultural products sourced mainly 
from developing and LDC Members; and lack of scientific evidence in  determining new MRLs. In this 
regard, Indonesia wishes to urge the European Union in preparing the level of MRLs, to carry it out 
in accordance with the SPS Agreement and international standards, as necessary, and that these 
MRLs do not create any unneces sary barriers to trade.  
3.45.  Paraguay  provided the following statement: My delegation shares the trade concern submitted 
by the delegations of Colombia and Ecuador and thanks these delegations for including it on today's 
agenda .  
3.46.  As well as  reiterating our sys temic concern regarding  the EU' s approach to establishing the  
MRLs in question, we would like to highlight  the im portance of these substances for  Paraguay. While 
chlorpyrifos is important for our agriculture, as a substance commonly used in  the rotation system 
practised by our farmers to prevent  the resistance of pests in corn, sesame, soya  bean and wheat 
crops, it is also vital  for human health  because  it is used a s a base substance for mosquito repellents, 
in a country where a dengue fever epidemic  strikes every year in summer, affecting  hundreds of 
thousands of people . In 202 0 alone, the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare reported more 
than 137 ,000 dengu e notifications and 135 deaths between January and March, just  in the Republic 
of Paraguay. To put this  in perspective, across the world approximately the same n umber of cases 
of COVID -19 were reported in the same period. The figures  for Paraguay reflect t he number  of cases 
of dengue even with the availability of repellent products and fumigation to eliminate  breeding sites;  
imagine how the nu mbers would look if these products were not available .  
3.47.  Climatic conditions in  Paraguay require the use of particula r products and , following  the EU's 
decision to suspend the use of this substance in its territory, one of the main com panies producing 
it has announced that it will discontinue its production, not because it deems the substance to be  
dangerous, but because  it is no longer commercially viable . This is the peril faced by the small 
countries using such compounds; we do not have the capacity to p roduce or develop alternatives. 
As for a lternatives to control  dengue, we have to raise our concern about cypermethrin and citronella 
oil, also key substances, being included on the list of the upcoming  EFSA review of substances and 
which in all likelihood will be removed .  
3.48.  We once again urge the European Union to base its measu res on conclusive scientific evidence 
and to take into consideration the unintended consequences and implications th at its policies will 
have for  third countries, which have different climatic conditions from those of Europe an countries  
and therefore have to deal with other pests and diseases affect ing not only agriculture but also 
people's health .  
3.49.  Peru provided the following statement: Peru wishes to point out that the standard applied by 
the EU for  chlorpyrifos will have an impact on Peruvian exports . Specifically, Peru wishes to state 
that, when making  this type of modification, Article 5.3 of the WTO  SPS Agreement  should be taken 
into consideration , to determine the po tential damage  that this regulation would cause, and 
Article 5.4, concerning the objec tive of minimizing negative trade effects . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 24 - 
 
  3.50.  The Dominican Republic  provided the following statement: The Dominican Republic wishes to 
express its support for this agenda item. We reiterate our concern that the EU continues to reduce 
its maximum residue leve ls (MRLs) to the minimum detection level and to reduce MRLs for active 
substances that remain approved under the Codex Alimentarius, without conducting the requisite 
scientific risk assessments, as stipulated in the SPS Agreement. As explained in the commu nication 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1761 , chlorpyrifos i s an essential compound for protecting crops against 
pests and diseases, which is used to maintain the quality and safety of products before their entry 
into the European market. Measures of this kind have a direct impact on our exports, not to mention 
a social and economic impact on the region. We therefore ask that any measure applied by the 
European Union be prepared in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement, based on scientific 
principles and risk assessment criteria . 
3.51.  The European Union  provided the foll owing response: The European Union has carefully 
studied all the information available and confirms that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that 
both substances pose serious concerns for human health. The available regulatory studies and 
scientific l iterature, including epidemiological data, provide evidence of developmental neurotoxicity, 
leading to adverse neurological outcomes in children. In addition, a genotoxic potential cannot be 
excluded for the two substances, in particular concerning the abi lity of the substances to damage 
DNA. It is therefore not possible to set safe levels of exposure for human health, which in turn makes 
it impossible to carry out a risk assessment for consumers. The identified issues are based on a 
consideration of all th e available information and concerns identified from that information, not due 
to missing data. The European Union legislation prescribes that it is the responsibility of the industry 
to demonstrate that substances and products they contain do not have any  harmful effects on human 
and animal health or unacceptable effects on the environment.  
3.52.  The Regulations concerning the non -renewal of approval received a favourable opinion at the 
Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, on 6 December 2019, af ter being duly 
notified under the WTO TBT procedure. The Regulations were adopted and published on 10 January 
2020. The Regulations required EU member States to withdraw authorisations for plant protection 
products containing chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos -methyl by 16 February 2020 and allowed member 
States to grant a short period of grace until 16 April 2020 for placing on the market, storage, disposal 
and use of plant protection products. On 18 February 2020, member States endorsed a Commission 
proposal t o lower the Maximum MRLs of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos -methyl in food and feed to the 
Level of Quantification, which was duly notified under the WTO SPS Agreement.  
3.53.  Notwithstanding the serious health concerns identified by EFSA, the Regulation includes a  
deferral period for the application of the lower MRLs - 3 months from the date of entry into force of 
the Regulation. Therefore, it does not lead to immediate trade disruptions as the new MRLs will not 
become applicable before November 2020.  
3.54.  It is importa nt to note that given the concerns identified by EFSA, it is not possible to 
determine MRLs based on a risk assessment and therefore all MRLs must be lowered to the limit of 
determination. For the same reason, no additional transitional measures can be pro vided for 
products that will have been produced in the European Union or imported into the European Union 
before the Regulation becomes applicable.  
3.55.  Some WTO Members consider that the European Union is moving away from Codex 
procedures and its international  norms and that the JMPR has rejected the European Union 
argumentations. The European Union has been supporting the work of the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission since its inception and strongly believes in the role the organisation plays in the 
protection of consumers' health and to facilitate trade. The European Union is the highest contributor 
to the Codex Trust Fund 2 and has also spearheaded an initiative supported by many other Codex 
members to ensure sustainable funding for Codex scientific advice.  
3.56.  In addition, EU law stipulates that MRLs set at the international level by the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission should be considered when Community MRLs are being set, taking into 
account corresponding good agricultural practice. When deciding on the setting, mod ification, or 
deletion of an MRL, the European Commission is therefore bound to take into account existing Codex 
MRLs (CXLs) – and this is what the European Union does. However, at times the European Union 
scientific bodies and experts consider that existi ng or proposed CXLs are not sufficient to protect EU 
consumers and recommend different MRLs.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 25 - 
 
  3.57.  Chlorpyrifos was originally evaluated by JMPR in 1972. It was evaluated for toxicology in 1982 
by JMPR and for residues in 1995, and it was reviewed for toxicolog y in 1999 and for residues in 
2000, 2004 and 2006. There is a 20 -year gap since chlorpyrifos was last reviewed by JMPR, as it is 
also indicated in the General Considerations (point 2.6) of the 2019 Report of the Extra Joint Meeting 
of the FAO Panel of Expe rts on Pesticide Residues in Food (JMPR) and the Environment and the WHO 
Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues. The European Union has submitted recently a concern 
form to the Codex Secretariat and the JMPR to raise awareness on its latest findings. The European 
Union considers that a re -evaluation for toxicology and residues of chlorpyrifos, and all the JMPR 
CXLs, is necessary and this task should be prioritised in the JMPR calendar.  
3.58.  The European Union hopes  that the replies conveyed address the conc erns of delegates.  
3.1.6   Modification of EU MRLs for plant protection  products: Mancozeb – Concerns of 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d 'Ivoire, Ecuador and Paraguay  
3.59.  Colombia  thanked Côte d'Ivoire, Paraguay, Costa Rica and Ecuador for co -sponsoring this 
STC, and to G uatemala, Brazil, Nicaragua, Mexico, Peru and Chile for supporting it. Colombia shared 
the concerns expressed by Côte d'Ivoire in document G/SPS/GEN/1796 , in particular regarding 
bananas.  
3.60.  Colombia  and Ecuador  jointly submitted document G/SPS/GEN/1808 , based on the 
observ ations sent to the European Union regarding notification G/SPS/N/EU/384 . 
3.61.   Côte d'Ivoire  submitted its observations in document G/SPS/GEN/1796 . 
3.62.   Costa Rica  provided the following statement: Costa Rica was deeply concerned upon receiving 
notificatio n G/TBT/N/EU/712 , through which the European Union proposes the non -renewal of 
approval for the active substance mancozeb  and informs the Committee that separate action will be 
taken to reduce maximum residue levels (MRLs) for this substance. These measures would enter 
into force in the last quarter of 2020. 
3.63.  Mancozeb is used in Costa  Rica in the production of more than  20 crops, including some of its  
main export products. This substance is especially important in banana cultivation , as it acts as a 
protector against black sigatoka, a pest of the highest economic importance. Unless  black sigatoka  
can be controlled , it would be impossib le to obtain a harvest with a sufficient number of leaves to 
ensure t he fruit is exportable . 
3.64.  Mancozeb has a number of advantages from the point of view of environmental conservation: 
it can be used and is effective in a wide range of doses, mak ing it possible to streamline  its use, cost 
and impact; it is compatible with mineral oil and is not phytotoxic; it is stable in a tropical 
environment  (high precipitation and temperature s); there is less need for chemical adjuvants  
(adherents and anti-drift); and it is compatible with all fungicides and many  foliar fertilizers and bio 
stimulants  used in banana crops and required to enhance quality and production . 
3.65.  The agrochemical industry worldwide has so far been unable t o develop another fungicide to  
match the characteri stics of mancozeb: highly effective , offering a broad spectrum, sa fe for crops , 
the environment and the health of workers, zero risk of resistance , excellent compatibility with other 
agrochemicals and low cost . Without the use of mancozeb, isolates of black sigatoka resistant to 
systemic fungicides would proliferate unc hecked  and control of the disease in plantations would be  
lost in the short term,  with serious economic and social consequences . 
3.66.  Before the pandemic, the banana industry in Costa Rica was the source of 40 ,000 direct jobs 
and 100,000 indirect jobs, equivalent to an employment rate of around 6.7%. T he industry is already 
struggling  with the loss of access to other critical substances, such as buprofezin, chlo rothalonil and 
imazalil, dramatically increasing  the vulnerability and viability of our agricultural p roduction system 
and reducing its capacity to absorb employment and act as a soci al and economic driver . 
3.67.  We underst and that the preliminary findings  of the most recent assessment  point to a safe 
use of mancozeb within  the European Union. However, should the European Union go  ahead with 
plans to modify  the MRL for mancozeb despite the question marks over the science and the social 
and economic challenges that such a modification  would create, it  is extremely important that the G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 26 - 
 
  European Union also take into account the exc eptional circumstances created  by the pandemic.  
Costa Rica therefore associates itself with  the earlier call, and especially by Côte d'Ivoire in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1796 , for the EU to suspend the processes for reducing MRLs for critical substances and 
to establish an effective dialogue with the trading  partners  affected . 
3.68.  Paraguay  provided the following statement: The Paraguayan delegation is concern ed about 
the non -renewal of approval for m ancozeb and the subsequent modification of MRLs for this 
substance. This concern has already been discussed through  the TBT Committee 's written exchange  
in May , and comments were submitted to the E uropean Union in Brussels  within the deadline set in 
the notification . We hope these comments  will be taken into account . Mancozeb is an active 
substance that has been in use for over 50 years and is sti ll considered to be an important tool for 
the control of fungal plant pathogens  worldwide, especially in anti -resistance program mes.  
3.69.  Mancozeb is a multisite, protective fungicide used on more than 70 crops such as vegetables, 
fruit trees, ornamentals, nut s, cereals, soya beans, maize, potatoes, bananas, citrus fruit, grapes 
and turf. The substance is used to treat more than 400 diseases, alone or blended with systemic 
fungicides, of species belonging to the four major fungi groups : phycom ycetes, ascomycet es, 
deuteromycet es and basidiomycet es: Phytophthora , Botrytis , Alternaria , Michosphaerella , Septoria , 
Peronospora , Phoma , Pseudoperonospora , Cercospora , Venturia , Plasmopara , Monilia , Anthracnose , 
Puccinias , Uromyces , Ascochyta , Helminthosporium , Sphaceloma , Uncinula , Diplocarpon . It has 
become a strategic fungicide used to control the 10 main diseases worldwide, with a usage rate of 
more than a 95%.  
3.70.  Paraguayan producers currently use mancozeb to control soybean rust which, due to 
resistance, canno t be tackled using other fungicides currently on the market. Given its multisite 
usage, mancozeb acts in various environments within the pathogenic organism that has become 
resistant to other fungicides. Consequently, withdrawing this product from circulat ion could 
potentially increase the use of other fungicides during the productive cycles, while simultaneously 
reducing their efficiency. This would hit the production output of a crop that is a mainstay of the 
Paraguayan economy.  There are very few multisi te products like mancozeb. One such product is 
chlorothalonil, which is the focus of another  trade conce rn since the European Union  is also phasing 
out its use. Mancozeb and chlorothalonil account for almost 90% of multisite use in Paraguay .  
3.71.  Besides soya bean crops, maize crops will be affected by this non -renewal, as mancozeb is 
used on maize to combat a disease caused by Phaeosphaeria maydis . This substance is currently 
the only widely  used and effective alternative, offering producers a good price -quality ratio . 
3.72.  Over the last decade , regulatory authorities in several regions have reassessed mancozeb as 
a current active ingredient. Based on extensive data, studies and regulatory guideli nes on health 
and the environment, mancozeb has successfully completed the regulatory reassessment. In the 
last few years, prod ucts containing it have been re -registered in a  number of countries, including in 
the European Union . When used in compliance wit h approved good agricultural practices , mancozeb 
does not endanger human health or the environment, since it  is a substance with low environmental 
persistence, low levels of acute toxicity in mammals and little or no phytotoxicity.   Any reduction in 
mancozeb's MRLs  could have a significant impact on world trade, adversely affecting third -country 
producers' market access .  
3.73.  As a landlocked developing country, the impact on Paraguay could be strong, affecting farmers 
and lessening or ending access to the Europ ean market. The negative impacts would be felt directly 
by agricultural producers and indirectly by those involved in the entire agricultural production and 
export chain, including in transport and logistics. Moreover, without an alternative product on the  
market to control the phytopathogen, food security could be affected given that Paraguay would be 
unable to continue using mancozeb if it wished to export to one of its main trading partners . 
3.74.  For the above reasons , we urge the E uropean Union to: (1) Set measures supported by 
conclusive risk assessments based on criteria e stablished by international standards  and 
recommendations, in accordance with the provisions of the SPS  and TBT Agreement s; (2) Maintain 
the E uropean Union's existing MRLs for mancozeb and  refrain from setting  more restrictive levels, 
particularly in the aftermath of COVID -19, in acknowledgement of the issues raised in 
communications G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev .2, G/TBT/GEN/29 6/Rev.2 . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 27 - 
 
  3.75.  In conclusion , we would like to remind the E uropean Union that, for Paraguay, agriculture is 
crucial , and a well -functioning agricultural sector is key to ensuring food security, agricultural 
producers being one of the main sources of domestic foo d and income, who rely on the availability 
of tools like mancozeb to deal effectively with pest attacks . 
3.76.  Ecuador  made reference to the three specific trade concerns that it co -sponsored, which 
referred to the EU policy of reduction of MRLs for various subs tances of great importance to the 
phytosanitary protection in food production. Ecuador highlighted a specific concern regarding the 
substances buprofezin, chlorothalonil, imazalil, and the more recent chlorpyrifos and mancozeb. 
Finally , Ecuador introduced the joint document with Colombia contained in  G/SPS/GEN/1808 . 
3.77.  Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru supported this 
concern.  
3.78.  Chile provided the following statement: Chile shares the concern, mainly because of the future 
impact on MRLs for fruit exports . Mancozeb is used in the production of fruit for export , primarily for 
pome fruits (apples and pears ) and, as there is currently no product to replace it, non-renewal of 
approval could lead to complications in the control of some diseases and produ ction losses, resulting 
in a negative impact on national fruit production and trade. Chile is a leading exporter of apples , 
with over 700,000 tonnes a year. It has a planted area of 30,000 hectare s. 
3.79.   Guatemala  provided the following statement: We thank Col ombia and Ecuador for including 
this item on the Committee's agenda. We are concerned at the European Union's decision not to 
renew its approval of mancozeb. We would like to reiterate that we are not producers of this 
substance, but that it is used by agr icultural producers. We are concerned at the non -renewal of 
approval and the expiration of all grace periods for stocks of products containing this substance.  
3.80.  As a result of this notification, the European Union has announced that in the future it will 
review the MRLs currently permitted, as it has done in the past for other substances, which will 
directly affect domestic production and exports to the European Union. This decision will have a 
negative impact on Guatemalan agricultural producers, as they us e mancozeb to control fungi on 
agricultural products. This substance is essential for strategic crops that are exported to the 
European Union, such as fruit and vegetables like bananas and plantains. This measure will likewise 
affect exports from other Lat in American countries that are also agricultural producers and exporters. 
Member countries are reminded that the vast majority of Latin American countries that export fruit 
to Europe are tropical countries that are more prone to pests that are not present in Europe.  
3.81.  In banana and plantain production, mancozeb is used to control a disease called black 
sigatoka, caused by the fungus Mycosphaerella fijiensis . This disease invades and necrotizes the leaf 
tissue, causing leaf death in perennial banana and plant ain crops, and thus has a significant 
economic impact on banana and plantain crops worldwide. Moreover, there are no chemicals or 
organic substances on the market that efficiently control black sigatoka.  
3.82.  The European Union mentioned in notification G/SPS/N/EU/384  that it has identif ied 
potentially negative health effects, but has failed to provide the countries affected with information 
on the contamination of products that have been assessed with the scientific information available. 
Moreover, the EU has not presented any scientific  evidence of the supposed danger and harmful 
nature of mancozeb in the fruit and vegetables exported to the European market from Latin America. 
Guatemala sent comments during the public consultation and awaits a response to its proposals.  
3.83.  Mexico  provided the following statement: Mexico is sharing this statement to support the 
specific trade concern raised by Colombia, Costa  Rica, Ecuador and  Paraguay  regarding the proposed 
modifications to the European Union's regulations to ban the use and marketing of the fungicide 
mancozeb.  We emphasize the importance, when  adopti ng sanitary or phytosanitary measures with 
a significant impact on trade, of basing such measures on an assessment of the risks to human, 
animal or plant life or health, in accordanc e with the p rinciple set out  in Article 5 of the WTO 
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  Accordingly, like  other 
delegations, we request the European Union to re consider changing the approach of this measure , 
making it risk-based rather than hazard -based, so as to  ensur e that risk assessments based on 
scientific evidence determine the condi tions for the establishment of maximum residue levels , as 
provided in Article 5 of the SPS Agreement . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 28 - 
 
  3.84.  The ban on the use of mancozeb on fo od products and its  marketing  in the European Union 
would also have a significant impact on Mexico's exports . 
3.85.  Mexico urges the European  Union to take into account the comments made by countries 
regarding the notifications submitted  to the SPS and TBT Commi ttees.  We welcome and reiterate 
the importance of promoting transparency throughout the process under way in the European Union 
and request that the Members of this Committee be kept informed of progress in this matter . 
3.86.  Peru provided the following statemen t: Peru continues to monitor notification s 
G/TBT/N/EU/712 , G/SPS/N/EU/384  and G/SPS/N/EU/384/Add.1  regarding the European Union's 
non-renewal of approval for the use of m ancozeb . In this connection , Peru would be grateful if the 
European Union would take into consideration the comments made through the TBT Enquiry Point 
and bilateral consultations, to ensure that the final measure is risk -based, in accordance with Article 
5 of the WTO SPS Agreement . 
3.87.  The European Union  provided the following res ponse: The European Union thanks 
WTO Members for raising this issue and would like to take this opportunity for clarifying the rationale 
behind the decision taken. On 17 April 2020, the European Union notified to the TBT Committee a 
draft Commission Implem enting Regulation concerning the non -renewal of the approval of the active 
substance mancozeb, in accordance with Regulation (E C) No. 1107/2009 on the placing of plant 
protection products on the market. Existing authorisations of plant protection products containing 
mancozeb will be withdrawn and such products cannot be placed on the market.  
3.88.  The non -renewal of the approval is based on a scientific assessment conducted under 
Regulation (EC) No . 1107/2009 by experts from the Member States of the European Uni on and the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In order for an active substance to be approved in 
accordance with Regulation (EC) No  1107/2009, it must be demonstrated that the substance is not 
harmful to human health, animal health or the environment. Specific criteria, listed in Article 4 of 
the Regulation (and further detailed in Annex II), must be met to enable approval. During the 
evaluation and peer -review of mancozeb, the following concerns were identified by EFSA: (a) a 
reprotoxic potential of ma ncozeb, classified as toxic for reproduction category 1B in accordance with 
the criteria set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No . 1272/2008; (b) the non -dietary exposure 
estimates exceed the reference values for tomatoes, potatoes, cereals and grapevines;  
(c) moreover, endocrine disruptors criteria are met for humans and likely for non -target species.  
3.89.  In light of the above, mancozeb does not meet the approval criteria as outlined in Article 4 of 
Regulation (EC) No . 1107/2009 and cannot be currently approved. EU member States must withdraw 
existing authorisations for plant protection products containing mancozeb at the latest by 3 months 
from the date of entry into force of the Commission Implementing Regulation. The  grace period in 
line with Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No . 1107/2009 shall expire, at the latest, after 6 months from 
the entry into force of the Implementing Regulation. This decision only concerns the placing on the 
market of mancozeb and plant protect ion products containing it. Following non -approval and the 
expiry of all grace periods for stocks of products containing this substance, separate action will likely 
be taken on maximum residue levels and a separate notification will be made in accordance w ith 
SPS procedures.  
3.1.7   Thailand's draft notification of Ministry of Industry's List of Hazardous Substances 
and Ministry of Public Health Re: on Food Containing Pesticide Residues (No.3) – Concerns 
of the United States  
3.90.  The United States  provided the following  statement: We thank Thailand for our bilateral 
engagement to date regarding the Thai government's withdrawal of maximum residue limits (MRLs) 
for chlorpyrifos and paraquat. The United States remains concerned about the bans as announced 
in Draft Notificat ion of Ministry of Industry on the List of Hazardous Substances and Ministry of Public 
Health Re: Food Containing Pesticide Residues (No.3), G/TBT/N/THA/567  and G/SPS/N/THA/313 , 
on 1 April and 20 May 2020, respectively. Thailand initially issued these bans in October 2019 and 
delayed implementation until 1  June 2020. We understand that implementation is now set for 
18 July 2020. These bans will be applied to the import, sale, use, and possession of chlorpyrifos and 
paraquat. Additionally, these bans will apply to residues in food, effectively withdrawing all  MRLs for 
these pesticides. The withdrawal of these MRLs will disrupt exports of soybeans, wheat, tree nuts, 
ground nuts, fresh fruits, and additional agricultural products from many of Thailand's trading G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 29 - 
 
  partners. Yet, Thailand has not conducted risk asse ssments for chlorpyrifos or paraquat, nor cited 
any assessments of risk from trading partners or international organizations as the basis for 
withdrawing these MRLs.  
3.91.  We request that Thailand conduct a risk assessment, taking into account risk assessment 
techniques developed by the relevant international organizations, as the basis for to its MRLs. We  ask 
that Thailand also consider the objective of minimizing negative trade effects. We note that the 
Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues has established chlo rpyrifos and paraquat MRLs for many 
agricultural products. These MRLs are designed to protect human health while facilitating 
international trade. We also request that Thailand defer to Codex MRLs for chlorpyrifos and paraquat 
to harmonize with internation al standards.  
3.92.  Canada , Colombia  and Japan  supported the concern.  
3.93.  Canada  provided the following statement: Canada understands the importance of 
implementing measures to protect the environment and workers' safety. However, Canada notes 
that when subsequent measures to revoke MRLs or to adopt zero -tolerance approaches are 
imple mented, that they can have a significant impact on international trade, especially when they 
are applied in regard of Members with differing production and environmental conditions.  
3.94.  In recent years, Canada has seen a trend in the implementation of domestic  measures to ban, 
restrict or further control the use of crop protection products to address local environmental or 
occupational concerns, and then the extension of those measures to apply to different circumstances 
including imported food containing resid ues of those products. Canada submitted a comment letter 
for the TBT notification G/TBT/N/THA/567  on 26  May 2020, expressing our concerns with the 
anticipated impact of Thailand's decision on the maximum residue limits (MRLs).  
3.95.  Canada raised our concerns that once the proposed ban has been confirmed and 
implemented, Thailand would adopt a zero -tolerance approach on agri -food imports, even though 
Codex MRLs are currently in place. Indeed, Thailand's SPS notification G/SPS/N/THA/313  confirms 
that Thailand is deleting the MRLs for chlorpyrifos and paraquat in f ood. Canada will send a comment 
letter to Thailand for the SPS notification G/SPS/N/THA/313  requesting information on the scientific 
evidence and Thailand's assessment of risks taking into account risk assessment techniques 
developed by the relevant international organizations, tha t would support the deletion of the MRLs 
for chlorpyrifos and paraquat in food.  
3.96.  Canada is also concerned with the lack of clarity regarding the implementation of the notified 
measure as it provides additional uncertainty for exporters. We would appreciate confirmation from 
Thailand of our understanding that the MRLs for residue of chlorpyrifos and paraquat in imported 
agricultural products will remain those specified in annex 2 of the MOPH Notification, No.387 or 
Codex MRLs, for 30 days after the notified m easure G/SPS/N/THA/313  is published in the 
Government Gazette.  
3.97.  Colombia  provided the following statement: Colombia thanks the United States for raising this 
concern in the Committee. We support this concern, given our systemic concern regarding regulatory 
changes to MRLs in agricul tural products that fail to follow the international standards of the 
Codex  Alimentarius, and especially the principle of risk assessment without sufficient scientific 
evidence, creating unnecessary barriers to trade. We would be grateful to Thailand if it  could 
provide  a response.  
3.98.  Japan  provided the following statement: Japan shares the concerns on Thailand's draft 
notification of the maximum residue limits for five pesticides including chlorpyrifos and paraquat in 
foods. Since the proposed regulation in t he notification by the Ministry of Public Health of Thailand 
specifies that the pesticide residue level for five pesticides shall be "non -detectable", which is a 
higher level of protection than that established by Codex standards, the assessment of risks s hould 
be made available to WTO Members. Without a risk assessment based on sound science, Japan 
expresses its concern on the new regulation that would create negative trade barriers. The MRLs 
that are allowed, based on scientific evidence, should be stated  in the regulation, rather than stating 
"non-detectable", in order to avoid unnecessary trade barriers.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 30 - 
 
  3.99.  Thailand  provided the following response: Thailand thanks the United States for raising the 
concern regarding Thailand's draft Notification of the Minis try of Industry's List of Hazardous 
Substances and the draft notification of the Ministry of Public Health regarding Food Containing 
Pesticide Residues (No.3). According to the resolution of the National Hazardous Substance 
Committee (NHSC), the Committee decided to ban paraquat and chlo rpyrifos based on the 
information concerning the impact of these substances on human health and the environment. 
In order to protect human and environment, the draft Notification was notified as G/TBT/N/THA/567 . 
Later, the Ministry of Public Health p roposed the draft Notification of the Ministry of Public Health 
regarding Food Containing Pesticide Residues (Pesticide Residues in Food) (No. 3), which was 
circulated to WTO members as G/SPS/N/THA/313  on 20 May 2020.  
3.100.   To comply with WTO transparency obligations, the 60 -day comment  period has been 
provided for WTO Members to make their comments on the draft notifications. Currently, the draft 
Notification of the Ministry of Public Health regarding Food Containing Pesticide Residues (No.3) is 
made available for comment until 18 July 2020 and has not yet entered into force. We welcome all 
comments from WTO Members and the relevant agency will gather all comments. The received 
comments will be proposed to the Food Committee for further consideration.  
3.1.8   General import restrictions on choco late and cocoa products due to maximum levels 
of cadmium – Concerns of Peru  
3.101.   Peru thanked Members supporting this specific trade concern and referred to document 
G/SPS/GEN/1792 .  
3.102.   Colombia and Ecuador supported the concern.  
3.103.   Colombia  provided the following statement: Colombia thanks Peru  for raising this concern in 
the Committee. We agree with the statements made by Ecuador and Peru in this regard. 
We therefore fully support the call to ensure that the preparation of Codex standards is based on 
science and country -representative data, tak ing into account actual levels of risk and exposure, in 
order to guarantee safety and avoid unjustified barriers to trade. We also urge WTO  Members with 
already established maximum levels for cadmium in chocolate and cocoa products to review and 
adjust the ir regulations, under the principle of harmonization, taking into account the 
recommendations on maximum levels of cadmium in cocoa products of the Codex Committee on 
Contaminants in Foods.  
3.104.   Ecuador  provided the following statement: Ecuador chairs the Electronic Working Group on 
Maximum Levels for Cadmium in Chocolate and Cocoa Products , with discussions on the matter 
taking place in the Committee on Food Contaminants under the auspices of the Codex Alimentarius . 
My delegation therefore supports Peru's statement and calls for decision -making in this process to 
be conducted in strict adherence to the Procedural Manual of the Codex Alimentarius Commission 
and the Statement of Principle Concerning the Ro le of Science in the Codex Decision -Making Process , 
so as to ensure that discussions are transparent , with a view to reaching a consensus that will lead 
to the adoption of international standards promoting consumer health and the establishment of fair 
practices in global food trade . In this connection , we agree with Peru on the need to have Members' 
support in setting maximum levels for the remaining categories . 
3.1.9   Viet Nam's National Technical Regulation on Animal Feeds - Maximum Allowable 
Limits of Safety In dicators in Animal Feeds  and Ingredients for Production of Aquatic 
Feeds (Circular No. 04/2020/TT -BNNPTNT) and Decree 13/2020 Detailing the Law on 
Animal Husbandry – Concerns of Argentina and the United States  
3.105.   The United States  submitted document G/SPS/GEN/1788/Rev.1  and requested that 
Viet Nam delay implementation of the NTR Circular until 2021, to allow sufficient time for an 
exchange of technical information regarding sampling, testing, and corrective procedures, as well as 
time to discuss an assessment of risk and  health concern for each Maximum Allowable Limit (ML).  
3.106.   Argentina  provided the following statement: Argentina would like to express its concern 
regarding Viet Nam's Circular No.  04/2020/TT -BNNPTNT " National Technical Regulation  on Animal 
Feeds and Ingredien ts for production of Aquatic Feeds".  The implementation of this circular could 
have a negative impact for our country on exports of grains (maize, wheat and  soya beans ) and G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 31 - 
 
  by-products  (soya flour). The main concern relates to provisions on s almonella , both the technical 
justification for the requirement and the specific implementation of such a control . 
3.107.   Although we have embarked on bilateral efforts that have been constructive so far, Argentina 
wishes to request Viet Nam to: postpone the entry into force o f the standard, scheduled for 1 July 
2020, for a period of at least four months; notify the draft standard to the WTO , in line with 
transparency commitments under the SPS Agreement, giving Members an opportunity to submit 
comments where necessary . 
3.108.   Brazil  supported this concern.  
3.109.   Viet Nam  provided the following response: At the outset Viet Nam would like to thank the 
United States and Argentina for the interest in document G/SPS/GEN/1788  of 12 June 2020 
regarding the requirements contained in Viet Nam's Circular 4/2020 promulgating Nati onal Technical 
Regulation (NTR) 190:2020 – Maximum Allowable Levels (MLs) of Safety Indicators in Animal Feed 
and Feed Ingredients and Viet Nam's Decree 13/2020, detailing the Animal Husbandry Law and 
Certificate of Free Sale (CFS) requirement for feed and  feed ingredients. We would like also to thank 
the United States for the bilateral engagement to date on the issue. We agree with the first sentence 
of point 1.4 of the document G/SPS/GEN/1788  that Viet  Nam issued these measures in January and 
March 2020, respectively. However, we wo uld like to confirm that Viet Nam has notified these 
measures to the WTO. More specifically, regarding Decree 13/2020, Viet Nam's notification is 
contained in document G/SPS/N/VNM/106  of 15 May 20 19 with the following links: 
http://www.spsvietnam.gov.vn/en/gspsnvnm106 ; 
http://www.spsvietnam.gov.vn/en/gspsnvnm106.add1 . At pres ent, Decree 13/2020 has been under 
review for further consideration of revisions (if required). Until the new revised Decree comes into 
effect, provisions in point c), item  3, Article 18 and item 2, Article 29 of Decree 13/2020 are 
temporarily put on hold.   
3.110.   Regarding Circular 4/2020, our Notification is contained in document G/SPS/N/VNM/113  of 
23 June 2020 with the following link: http://www.spsvietnam.gov.vn/en/gspsnvnm113 -1. Viet Nam 
has decided to delay the implementat ion of some indicators on salmonella and heavy metals in plant 
origin feed stipulated in Item III, Annex I of the Circular for one year starting 1 July 2020 for further 
review and impact assessment (please refer the Circular 08/2020/TT -BNNPTNT of 30 June 2 020 for 
information, which was also notified to WTO with the following link:  
http://sps.mard.gov.vn/en/gspsnvnm113.add1 . 
3.1.10   India's new requirements  for animal feed in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 
2006 (dated 27 January 2020) – Concerns of the United States  
3.111.   The United States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1804 . 
3.112.   India submitted the following response: India had notified the measure amending the 
Food Safety an d Standards Act to WTO Members through notification number G/SPS/N/IND/249  
dated 26  February 2020 and notification number G/TBT/N/IND/145  dated 27 February 2020. 
A transition period of 6  months has been provided to all WTO Members to comply with the 
amendment. We take note of the concern expressed by the Un ited States, and we are willing to 
consider a further extension of the transition period in view of the current COVID -19 pandemic and 
its impact on the preparedness of all stakeholders. The new measure is the fourth revision of a 
standard that was original ly published in 2009. The standard is reviewed periodically. It was 
amended in 2010, 2016 and was last reaffirmed in 2019. We are open to considering suggestions 
regarding additional feed ingredients. The United States may provide us specific inputs on add itional 
feed ingredients with justifications as to why they should be included in India 's list of feed 
ingredients, for the consideration of Indian authorities.   
3.113.   We would like to clarify that the new regulation is applicable to all types of commercial feed 
for cattle, whether manufactured domestically or imported into India. We also wish to confirm that 
the Indian technical agencies conduct stakeholder discussions at the time of formulating standards 
as well as issuing regulations.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 32 - 
 
  3.114.   We have taken note of the concerns raised by the United States, and we are open to 
continuing constructive bilateral engagement to resolve outstanding SPS concerns between India 
and the United States.  
3.1.11   Guatemala's import  restrictions on bovine and swine meat – Concerns of Mexico  
3.115.   Mexico  provided the following statement: Mexico wishes to express its concern regarding 
the delays on the part of the health authority of Guatemala with regard to Mexico's interest in 
exporting bovine and swine meat products to that country. Since 2016, Mexico has met the 
requirements imposed by Guatemala for undertaking the corresponding risk analysis. This involves 
a questionnaire issued by the Guatemalan health a uthority and a proposal was sent to Mexico for a 
visit to guarantee the health conditions that Mexico provides for the exportation of the products in 
question.  
3.116.   Mexico has expressed this concern in the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
establ ished under the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Central America. Since 2017, 
Guatemala has pledged to ensure progress on the risk analysis but so far this has not occurred. In 
this regard, Mexico considers that Guatemala is infringing the principle s laid down in Article 8 and 
Annex C of the SPS Agreement. In 2018, Mexico held a videoconference with Guatemala to reiterate 
the importance of making progress with these arrangements and asked Guatemala to confirm 
specific dates for the visit to Mexican e stablishments interested in exporting to Guatemala, but so 
far these dates have not been confirmed by Guatemala.  
3.117.   Mexico has sent various communications to the trade authorities in Guatemala with a view 
to ensuring further progress on this matter, but no re plies have been received. The Government of 
Mexico urges the Guatemalan authorities to publish the outcome of the risk analysis carried out by 
the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Foodstuffs in Guatemala and also to propose a date for the 
visit to th e establishments interested in exporting; otherwise, it asks to be informed of procedures 
for the authorization of such establishments.  
3.118.   Guatemala  provided the following response: Guatemala , through its VISAR/MAGA Animal 
Health Directorate, noted  the commen ts made by Mexico, and stated that the country eligibility 
questionnaire had indeed been received and that they will respond directly to the Director of Animal 
Health at SAGARPA/SENASICA, so that they can  provide more details on certain points . 
3.119.   Provision i s made in Guatemalan legislation for the completion of the questionnaire, and for 
subsequent possible on -site inspections, in order to complete the risk analysis and issue sanitary 
requirements.  I can also report that the Guatemalan veterinary services, wi thin VISAR 'S Food Safety 
Directorate, are in charge of approving unprocessed meat product facilities. Similarly, the Food 
Regulation and Control Department of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare is responsible 
for approving processed products of animal origin , on condition that i t is satisfied with the sanitary 
conditions of the exporting country . 
3.1.12   Costa Rica's import restrictions on swine meat products – Concerns of Mexico  
3.120.   Mexico  provided the following statement: Mexico wishes to express its co ncern at the delays 
caused by the health authority of Costa Rica concerning arrangements to allow exports of swine 
meat products from Mexico. Since January 2018, Mexico has sent replies to the Questionnaire for 
the preliminary evaluation of competent autho rities in countries interested in exporting products 
from establishments for the slaughter, deboning, packaging, storage and transportation of bovine, 
goat, horse, sheep and swine meat for human consumption to Costa Rica, as requested by the 
National Anima l Health Service of Costa Rica (SENASA). By means of various official communications 
sent during 2018 and 2019 to the government of Costa Rica, a reply has been requested regarding 
progress in relation to the questionnaire completed by Mexico, but no reply  has been received so 
far. In Mexico's view, these delays infringe the principles laid down in Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement.  
3.121.   Mexico has focused on dialogue between the health authorities of both countries to address 
the concerns of Costa Rica  with regard to this matter, and has shared the necessary information to 
ensure the health guarantees required by Costa Rica. In light of the above, Mexico urges Costa Rica 
to share the outcome of its analysis of the information sent by the Mexican health authority, and G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 33 - 
 
  also the procedures to be followed for the authorization of establishments interested in exporting 
swine meat products to Costa Rica.  
3.122.   Costa Rica  provided the following response: In response to Mexico 's request concerning the 
outcome of the analysis and the procedures to be followed, Costa Rica is pleased to report that , on 
18 June , official communication SENASA -DG-736-2020 was sent to SENASICA, informing it that the 
document inspection had been completed and found to be satisfactory.  In order to move forward 
with the authorization process, the Costa Rican health authorities ask that their Mexican counterparts 
submit a formal request, indicating the list of establishments interested in exporting swine meat 
products to Costa Rica, the identification number or code, the products or by -products for each 
establishment , and geographical location.  Once the information requested has been received, the 
Costa Rican health authorities will send the questionnaire to be completed by each establishment 
concerned in order to continue with the respective procedure . 
3.1.13   Peru's import restrictions on pork – Concerns of Brazil  
3.123.   Brazil  provided the following statement: Brazil understands there has been undue delay by 
Peru on finalizing the risk analysis process con cerning Brazilian pork exports. We believe this goes 
against the provisions of Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, as well as its Annex C. Since last 
November's Committee Meeting, there have been several exchanges between our capital -based 
authorities as well as talks on the margins of previous editions of the SPS Committee. Despite that, 
Peru has not presented technical or scientific reasons for not concluding the process. Even before 
the spread of the pandemic, neither did Peru commit to send inspection missi ons to Brazil, nor have 
Peruvian authorities accepted our proposal for plant  authorization through official document 
exchanges between the countries' sanitary authorities.  
3.124.   Brazil had requested the inclusion of an STC on the issue at last November's SPS Co mmittee 
Regular Meeting. However, Brazil decided to withdraw the STC after high -level bilateral talks, upon 
a commitment by Peru to send a technical mission to Brazil before the end of 2019. In December 
2019, Brazil sent to Peruvian authorities two itinera ry proposals for a Peruvian audit to take place 
in early 2020. However, Peruvian authorities failed to confirm the mission. In February 2020, an 
understanding was reached regarding the Sanitary Certificate models to support Brazilian exports of 
meat and po rk products to Peru. Subsequently, Peru's SENASA authorities conveyed to Brazil the 
willingness to conclude the process, which unfortunately is still pending. Brazil respectfully asks to 
conclude the process without further delay.  
3.125.   Peru responded that it wa s respectful of the obligations established in the WTO SPS 
Agreement and was currently working on the opening of its market to pork meat from Brazil, 
according to national and multilateral regulations.  
3.1.14    Costa Rica's import restriction on dairy  and dairy p roducts – Concerns of Mexico  
3.126.   Mexico  provided the following statement: Mexico expresses its concern at the measures 
taken by the authorities of Costa Rica with regard to authorizing Mexican exports of dairy products 
to that country. Mexico has maintained an  ongoing dialogue on this matter since 2015, with both 
the National Animal Health Service of Costa Rica (SENASA) and the Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign 
Trade. However, each time arrangements show positive progress,  dilatory responses are perceived 
on the authorization process . In Mexico's view, the Costa Rican health authorities have caused undue 
delays in the risk analysis process relating to the granting and renewal of authorizations of Mexican 
establishments interested in export ing to Costa Rica. In thi s regard, Mexico considers that Costa 
Rica is infringing the principles laid down in Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement.  
3.127.   Up to May 2019, after various information exchanges, confirmation had been given by 
SENASA to undertake visits to Mexican estab lishments interested in exports, with a view to auditing 
them and streamlining pending procedures. However, in June 2019, Costa Rica suspended the visits 
and so far there has been no reply from that country with regard to rescheduling them.  
3.128.   Mexico has prov ided Costa Rica with details of the efforts made to comply with the 
requirements of the Costa Rican authority, within the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures established under the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Central America and 
also in bilateral meetings with Costa Rica in the context of the SPS Committee of the WTO, but this G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 34 - 
 
  dialogue has not yielded any positive results. Mexico has fostered cordial and open communication 
with Costa Rica. It therefore urges Costa Rica to grant recip rocal treatment to Mexican exports of 
dairy products, as Mexico does with exports of dairy products from Costa Rica, considering the level 
of protection to be appropriate to the circumstances. Mexico would be grateful if the delegation of 
Costa Rica would take account of this statement and for any comments it may wish to make in this 
regard . 
3.129.   Costa Rica  provided the following response: In response to Mexico 's request concerning the 
status of procedures for the authorization of establishments for the export of dairy and dairy 
products, Costa Rica wishes to report the following: On 14 February , official communication SENASA -
DG-184-2020 was sent to SENASICA, informing it of the findings of the evaluation of the content of 
the National Programme for the Control and Monitoring of Toxic Residues in Goods of Animal Origin 
and Aquaculture and Fishery Resources  (PNCMRT) , proposed  by Mexico. In this connection, the Costa 
Rican authorities thank Mexico for the information provided, and draw attention to the need to 
submit further information on the following  aspects : (1) Inclusion of chloramphenicol, stilbene, 
clenbuterol and growth promoter analyses in the milk residue monitoring plan : although Mexico did 
state that those compounds would be included for monitorin g in the PNCMRT 2020, SENASICA has 
still not submitted the results of those analyses ; (2) Inclusion of fipronil, carbamates, amitraz and 
pyrethroids in the PNCMRT 2019 : given that the Mexican authorities did not include these compounds 
in the documents sub mitted in September  2019 and therefore the results of the analyses for the last 
six months have not been receive d; (3) Details on the adjustments that the Mexican authorities will 
make to ensure that the criteria established by Costa Rica for compliance wi th respect to 
organochlorines are standardized in the PNCMRT 2020 ; (4) Documentation on the adjustments that 
SENASICA will make to ensure that MRLs for organochlorines comply with the international 
requirements established by the Codex Alimentarius, as req uested in official communication 
SENASA -DG-1288-2019 of October 2019 . 
3.130.   Costa Rica is waiting for the information requested in official communication SENASA -DG-
184-2020 of February 2020 so it can continue with the respective procedure.  
3.1.15   India's approval proce dures  for animal products – Concerns of the Russian 
Federation  
3.131.   The Russian Federation  provided the following statement: For several years the Federal 
Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor) has been expecting to 
receive the  information about animal health requirements for imports of animal products to India 
(in particular for pork, beef, lamb and poultry since 2013, inedible animal raw products since 2015, 
feedstuffs since 2017 and wool since 2017).  
3.132.   So far, there is still no position of the Indian party concerning the recognition of the Russian 
Federation's regionalization with respect to avian influenza and potential export of poultry. Data 
about the freedom of the Russian Federation from avian influenza were sent in  September 2016 
(22 September 2016) by a letter; veterinary and sanitary requirements and relevant certificate 
models were also requested (additional request, dated 16 December 2016). The completed 
questionnaire on veterinary surveillance system and poultr y production was sent in December 2017 
and re -sent in January 2020. To date, no comments of the Indian party concerning this questionnaire 
have been received. The Indian party also impedes the harmonization procedure of the veterinary 
certificate for poult ry, poultry products (offal) and hides and skins, exported from Russia. 
Another  request of the Rosselkhoznadzor for the abovementioned veterinary requirements and 
harmonization of the veterinary certificate was vocalized at the bilateral meeting on the mar gins of 
the 76th SPS Committee meeting in November 2019.  
3.133.   Lack of responses from the Indian party in relation to the abovementioned matters is a delay 
of appropriate procedures and inconsistent with Article 8 and Annex C of the WTO Agreement on the 
Applicat ion of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Based on their obligations, WTO Members shall 
ensure that procedures are undertaken and completed without undue delay and the other countries 
are promptly informed of the duration of the procedure, its stage and results of the request 
examination with any delay being explained. The Russian Federation urges India to comply with its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement, and to apply transparent and expeditious approval 
procedures, and to grant SPS access for Russian livestock products.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 35 - 
 
  3.134.   The Russian Federation added that detailed information of the concerns had been provided 
to India in communications before the March and June 2020 SPS Committee meetings. The Russian 
Federation added that they had received a request fro m India for bilateral communications with a 
list of issues for discussion. The Russian Federation looked forward to a fruitful discussion and the 
resolution of pending issues.  
3.135.   India provided the following response : In response to the Russian Federation 's request for 
information regarding India's veterinary requirements for the import of different livestock products, 
we'd like to state that the Indian requirements for the import of various livestock products are 
available at the following web -link: http://dadf.gov.in/Trade/Sanitary -requirement -veterinary -
health -certificate -import -various -livestock-products . 
3.136.   Regarding Russia 's request for an update on the status of their veterinary certificates for 
harmonization, we have received the following information from our technical agencies: 
(a) the certificates for fish and fish products are being exami ned by our Department of Fisheries; 
(b) the veterinary certificates for leather raw materials and poultry and poultry products were 
received by our technical agencies in July 2019, and are under active consideration; (c) and with 
respect to the import of p oultry meat and poultry meat products from the Russian Federation to 
India, the Indian Department of Animal Husbandry had sought some additional information from the 
Russian Federation as a follow -up to the Russian Federation 's response to the Indian quest ionnaire 
regarding the import of poultry and poultry products. This additional information was sought through 
a letter dated 29  November 2018. We have not yet received this additional information from the 
Russian Federation.  
3.137.   India is ready and willing to e ngage in constructive bilateral discussions with the Russian 
Federation on all these issues. We also have a number of concerns with respect to the Russian 
Federation's SPS measures. These concerns have been previously raised bilaterally with the Russian 
Federation and also shared with the Russian Federation through an email dated 25 June 2020. 
We look forward to continuing engaging with the Russian Federation with a view to resolving all 
outstanding bilateral SPS issues.  
3.1.16   China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of 
imported food (26 November 2019) – Concerns  of the United States  
3.138.   The United States  submitted document G/SPS/GEN/1803 .  
3.139.   Japan, the European Union, Switzerland and Thailand  supported this concern.  
3.140.   Japan  provided the provided the following state ment: Japan shares the concerns raised by 
the United States, regarding China's draft administrative measures for registration of overseas 
producers of imported food. China's proposed measures would create unnecessary barriers to trade 
and have negative imp acts on food trade between China and other WTO Members. As far as Japan 
understands, the proposed measures would require foreign competent authorities to inspect and 
supervise manufacturing companies in accordance with Chinese laws and regulations, and to confirm 
their compliance with Chinese laws and regulations, covering all food products imported into China.  
3.141.   Japan is concerned that the proposed system would expand the range of the products subject 
to the measures without scientific risk assessment, altho ugh the current system covers only food 
products of animal origin such as meat and seafood. In addition, there would be considerable 
negative impacts on foreign products due to increase in relevant cost, labour and time, possibly with 
arbitrary operations under insufficient transparency.  
3.142.   Therefore, Japan requests China to suspend the proposed measures. SPS measures should 
be taken to the extent necessary and sufficient according to the risks of each product, and the 
coverage of the measures should not be ex panded indefinitely without a prerequisite scientific risk 
assessment. Japan would like to request China to make timely WTO notifications, provide relevant 
information along with the details of the system on this matter as appropriate, and address the 
concerns of WTO Members.  
3.143.   The European Union  provided the following statement: The European Union is also very 
concerned about this measure as this will have a serious impact on imports into China. Our concern G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 36 - 
 
  is that the measure will have a serious impact on t ransaction cost of our trade, but it will have very 
little impact, if any, on its safety. In other words, this measure appears highly disproportionate for 
low-risk products that are currently traded under a self -registration regime.  
3.144.   The European Union kind ly requests China to explain the objective of this proposal and 
stands willing to discuss any legitimate concerns in order to find consensus solutions. The first step 
towards such a dialogue would be an official notification by China through WTO channels i n order to 
frame our discussions.  
3.145.   Switzerland  provided the following statement: Switzerland shares the concerns raised by the 
United States regarding China's draft Administrative Measure for registration of overseas producers 
of imported food. Switzerland  understands and supports China's objective to ensure that only safe 
food is imported. However, the draft Administrative Measure appears to expand the registration of 
overseas manufacturers to include all food categories, irrespective of their risk -profile . The measure 
therefore seems more trade restrictive than necessary.  
3.146.   Switzerland is also concerned about the possible implications for foreign competent 
authorities, who are obliged to confirm that manufacturers are in continuous compliance with 
Chinese re gulations. Furthermore, implementing the Administrative Measure may cause disruption 
in trade and delays in the evaluation procedure, thereby negatively affecting the access of businesses 
to the Chinese market and the availability of imported products in C hina. China issued the draft 
Administrative Measure for domestic consultations in November  2019, to which Switzerland already 
provided its comments and questions. Switzerland would like to request China to notify the draft 
Administrative Measure to the WTO , and on to seek mutually acceptable solutions with Members on 
that basis.  
3.147.   Thailand  provided the following statement: Thailand shares the concerns raised by the 
United States regarding China's draft Administrative Measure for registration of overseas produ cers 
of imported food. We would like to express our concerns on this measure as follows: First, the scope 
of the products covered by this measure has not been clearly identified. We are concerned that this 
measure would be applied to all food products incl uding low -risk food products, which would create 
unnecessary barriers to trade. Therefore, we would like to request China to provide the list of 
commodities covered under this measure and to implement this measure as necessary only for 
high-risk food produ cts. Second, since this measure may have a significant effect on international 
trade. In order to comply with WTO transparency obligations, we request China to notify this draft 
measure to WTO Members and provide the 60 -day comment period. Lastly, to compl y with this draft 
measure, our exporters and authorities need a reasonable period of time to adapt to such draft 
measure. We therefore would like to seek clarification on the expected date of entry into force and 
the transitional period provided for tradin g partners. We hope that China will take our concerns 
into account.  
3.148.   China  provided the following response: The application of a registration system of overseas 
producers of imported foods is a requirement in China's Food Safety Law. In recent years, China' s 
food imports and number of registered overseas food production enterprises have grown rapidly. 
The current administration measure for registration of producers does not meet the requirements of 
a new situation anymore. The objective of revising the Admin istrative Measures for Registration of 
Overseas Producers of Imported Foods is to implement the Food Safety Law and improve the existing 
registration system, which will optimize the registration procedure and clarify the responsibilities of 
all the relevan t stakeholders based on risk management. Currently, this administrative measure is 
still in the process of drafting. Once the draft is ready, China will notify it to the WTO and welcomes 
Members to share their reasonable comments or suggestions with us at that time.  
3.1.17    Saudi Arabia's  temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting 
establishments – Concerns of Brazil  
3.149.   Brazil  provided the following statement: Last February, Saudi authorities suddenly 
suspended imports from two Brazilian major poultry -produci ng plants. In that month, Brazil became 
aware of Letter  No. 19672/E, through which the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) informs 
about its decision to temporarily suspend imports from plants SIF 1985 and SIF 2518 (both from 
same company, BRF S/A). One o f them was responsible for over 20% of our poultry exports to Saudi 
Arabia. No clear technical grounds  were provided by Saudi authorities, except for media reports on G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 37 - 
 
  an investigation conducted by Brazil's federal police that, in 2018, targeted an  alleged fraud scheme 
in the production of animal feed. However, neither of the plants suspended last February were 
involved in said investigation. Brazil's Agriculture and Foreign Affairs authorities provided 
Saudi  Arabia all the technical information  necessary, b ut the issue remains open. As Members will 
recall, at the WTO SPS Committee 77th Regular Meeting, Saudi Arabia informed it would disclose 
said technical reasons, but failed to do so.  
3.150.   It goes without saying that SPS measures without any scientific substance goes against the 
very core of SPS  Agreement. We therefore urge Saudi Arabia to reconsider its restrictive measures 
as soon as possible.  
3.151.   Saudi Arabia  provided the following response: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would like to 
thank t he Republic of Brazil for raising their specific trade concern on the measures taken by Saudi 
Arabia to temporary suspend imports of poultry products from two Brazilian establishments. 
Firstly,  we would like to assure that Saudi Arabia, without prejudice t o the WTO Agreements, spares 
no efforts in removing any barriers to trade with WTO Members. Saudi Arabia welcomes the efforts 
of the SPS Committee to resolve issues affecting the human health and safety.  
3.152.   Referring to the STC raised by Brazil, Saudi Arabia  would like to state the following: 
The suspension of poultry meat imports from Brazil to Saudi Arabia is limited to two establishments 
due to potential food fraud in the poultry industry. Given that these practices affect human health 
and safety, Saudi Ar abia took measures to temporarily suspend the imports of poultry meat from 
these establishments in light of Article 2.1 of the SPS Agreement. Accordingly, Saudi Arabia 
communicated these concerns to the Brazilian side and requested clarification on the iss ue at hand 
with the provision of supporting documents.  
3.153.   Finally, Saudi Arabia would like to stress that we welcome cooperation with Brazil to resolve 
this issue at a bilateral level, and we take this opportunity to renew our previous request to the 
Brazilia n side to provide us with the documents needed in order to allow us to review the measures 
in light of new information and further developments.  
3.2  Issues previously  raised  
3.2.1   EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, 
imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione , molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim – Concerns of 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Panama, Paraguay and the United 
States (No. 448)  
3.154.   Panama  recalled that it had raised this STC several times in different WT O Committees, and 
reiterated that Members should try to harmonise their measures, that measures should not be 
unnecessarily strict so as to affect trade; and that they should be based on conclusive scientific 
evidence. Panama expressed concern over EU stud ies that had mostly remained inconclusive, but 
had led to blocking the use of active elements, the use of which was regulated by international 
organizations, and which were essential to produce food in the rest of the world.  
3.155.   Panama made reference to parag raph 7.3 of the notification of non -renewal of chlorothalonil, 
key substance against black sigatoka in Panama. Panama added that it was facing a similar situation 
with substances alternative to chlorothalonil, such as mancozeb, for which the European Union  had 
also announced its non -renewal. Panama emphasized that EU studies mentioned tomatoes, 
potatoes, cereals and grapes, all of which with a thinner pulp than bananas, and which was not 
consumed. Panama suggested that specific studies should be carried to obtain proper scientific 
evidence. Panama stressed that in its packaging plants, bananas were washed and cleaned following 
strict safety procedures.  
3.156.   Panama requested that the European Union review its position and, if it were to block a 
substance, to base the decision on conclusive scientific evidence for each product.  
3.157.   Paraguay  provided the following statement: My delegation, together with the delegations of 
Colombia, Costa Rica and  Ecuador, have submitted written questions to the E uropea n Union 
regarding this trade concern, which are contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1760 . The questions 
refer to:  the ap propriate level of protection the E uropean Union is seeking through the modification G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 38 - 
 
  of the MRLs ; whether the E uropean Union consider s that there is enough scientific e vidence to 
support such  modification s; how such measures are consistent with Article 3.1 of the SPS 
Agreement ; how the limit of quantification provides legal certainty to the operators ; how, in practice, 
a distinction can be made between an MRL of 0.01 mg/kg and zero tolerance ; justification for setting 
differing MRLs for the same substance depending on the product ; how the E uropean Union can 
consider that Article 5.3 is not relevant in the case of this measure, given that it applies to animal 
feed; which safe alternatives the European Union has consider ed in establishing MRL s; a definition 
and comprehens ive list of what it regards as other legitimate factors  to be taken into account in the 
establishment and granting of import tolerances ; a comprehensive and complete list of all 
substances that have been, and will be, reviewed ; when the E uropean Union might begin to 
implement the TBT  and SPS system of dual notification for measures that hold implications for both 
committees . With regard to the last questio n, we note with satisfaction that the E uropean Union 
began the process of dual notification days after we submitted this document for circulation . 
3.158.   We look forward to receiving a full response from the E uropean Union to all these questions, 
so that we can m ove forward in a process of dialogue and towards a better understanding of its 
policies and th eir scope . In this connection , and in the interests of transparency, it is crucial to have 
a complete list of all substances. We have already asked the E uropean Union for this on previous 
occasions, including in the E uropean Union's Trade Policy Review, a response to which we received 
at the end of May, and this is still being analysed . 
3.159.   We urge the E uropean Union to establish a mechanism for ongoing dialogue with all 
interested delegations to seek a  mutually beneficial solution for all parties to this trade concern . 
3.160.   Colombia  reminded Members of the questions posed on 2 March 2020 in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1760 , for which it had not received a re sponse. Colombia also supported the statements 
by Panama, Dominican Republic, Paraguay, United States, Costa Rica and Ecuador.  
3.161.   The United States  submitted document G/SPS/GEN/1802 . 
3.162.   Costa Rica  provided the following statement: In recent years, Costa Rica has noted with 
concern the way  in which the E uropean Union has reduced MRLs for a number  of plant protection 
products that are fundamental in  agricultural production and in the handling  of major quarantine 
pests  in countries with tropical climates. These reductions often deviate from the tolerances 
established by the international community in the Codex Alimentarius, and thus run counter to  the 
objective of trade facilitation and harmonization that governs international trade commitments 
agreed at the multilateral level . 
3.163.   At a specif ic level, we have shared our concerns with the European Union on many occasions 
regarding  the impact that reducing MRLs to minimum detection levels for a number of the substances 
listed in this concern would have on our production system. Costa Rica has sent comments through 
the processes  created for this purpose, at the bilateral, regional  and multilateral  levels , and against 
the backdrop of a growing number of concerns  raised by an equally growing number of Members , 
both in this Committee and in the Com mittee on Technical Barriers to Trade, and more recently in 
the Council for Trade in Goods. However, to date , Costa Rica has not  received a satisfactory re ply 
from the European Union, whi ch has decided to pursue its current approach despite the impact that 
it would have on food security and on the most vulnerable populations  in our country . 
3.164.   We have a lready discussed the case s of chlorothalonil, imazalil and b uprofezine in previous 
meetings , and now mancozeb has  been added  to the list . These are all substanc es that are used in 
Costa Rica to control quarantine pests that affect banana production and transportation. In all these 
cases we have repeatedly express ed our concern about the lack  of conclusive scientific ev idence to 
justify the changes to MRLs, and ab out the divergence between the findings of the European Union 
and the conclusions and findings of other important international institutio ns. We have also 
submitted  questions, the latest of which can be found in document  G/SPS/GEN/1760 . 
3.165.   Aside from the hazard -based approach taken by t he European Union, we have emphasized  
the importance of also taking into consider ation the impact that these new regulations would have 
on the production systems of its trading partners. The fact is that the re is limited availability on the 
market of substances  that would enable an  appropriate rotation for pest control in  tropical production 
conditions, and the few that do exist are crucial for  reduc ing the possibility of develop ing cross G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 39 - 
 
  resistance. That is why  the non -renewal and reduction of the max imum residue limits for buprofezin , 
chlorothalonil and imazalil to the levels being established by the European Union in practice means 
removing these rotation tools from programmes for the control of pests in banana s that are always 
present in the humid t ropics such as scale, mealybug or the dreaded black sigatoka . 
3.166.   Our concerns and requests have been supported by dozens of Members in documents 
G/C/W/767  and G/SPS/GEN/1778  (and their revisions), so we will not repeat them today. On this 
occasion , we take the floor to urge the European Union to reconsider the direction of its regulatory 
approach and to establish an effective and comprehensive dialogue with the Members affecte d, and 
to consider measures to  limit the impact that the se new regulations would have on  global food 
security. This call is even more urgent in the fac e of the tragic consequences of the COVID -19 
pandemic for the  most vulnerable populations in developing and least developed countries . 
3.167.   The Dominican Republic  provided the following statement : The Dominican  Republic once 
again associates itself with this concern and wishes to reiterate its statement made at the SPS 
Committee's previous meeting.  The Dominican Republic is seriously concerned about the 
amendment to this regulation, particularly concerning the s ubstances diflubenzuron , chlorothalonil  
and iprodione , which will have an impact on the marketing of agricultural food products exported 
from the Dominican Republic to the EU. Chlorothalonil  and iprodione  are two fungicides used on 
plants to control powder y mildew, mildew, rust and Botrytis disease, and iprodione  is used on 
mangoes to control Phytophthora damage at the flowering stage, so a reduction in MRLs without 
technical or scientific justification would affect fruit and vegetable production in the 
Dominican  Republic . 
3.168.   In view of the  withholding periods established for these molecules , it is difficult  for treated 
products to comply with  the maximum detection limits. As noted by other delegations, it is virtually 
impossible for farmers to be able to find control measures that are reliable enough to replace the  
molecules, owing to the long  process required to obtain substitutes. These measures will cause 
serious problems for our exports, mainly for banana, mango and avocado exports, which represent 
around 2 0% of total annual food exports, with the European Union member States being their main 
market .  
3.169.   Imazalil , which is a key post -harvest f ungicide, is a molecule of significant  economic and 
agricultural importance, widely used in the cultivation of fruit  such as bananas, mangoes and 
avocados because it is an essential tool in post -harvest treatment  for the foods in question , as they 
are prone to various diseases  caused by fungal pathogens that can only be prevented by using 
imazalil  as part of an effective co ntrol program me. Reducing MRLs for imazalil  would create  serious 
problems for our sector because  there is currently no effective substitute among plant protection 
products with the efficacy of imazalil , especially when it comes to controlling fungal pathogens .  
3.170.   The European Union has failed to  demonstrate sound  scientific evidence to justify 
implement ation of these MRLs . Implementing them will therefore lead to the creation of  unnecessary 
barriers to trade for agricultural products exported from the Dominican  Republic . 
3.171.   The Joint Statement  on Trade in Food and A gricultural Products at the Eleventh  Session of 
the WTO Minis terial Conference in Buenos Aires in December 2017 and the Declaration of the G20 
Meeting of Agr iculture Ministers in July 2018  reinforce the European Union's commitment as a 
Member State to  the SPS Agreement and to refrain ing from adopting unnecessary obstacles to 
international trade . 
3.172.   We therefore request the E uropean Union to maintain the previously established MRLs  or 
establish the reference level in line with the Codex Alimentarius, until there is scientific justification .  
3.173.   Ecuador  provided the followin g statement: Ecuador wishes to register its concern regarding 
the provision in the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures that 
Members will ensure that such measures are not more trade -restrictive than required to achieve 
their appropriate level of protection, taking into account technical and economic feasibility. 
However,  in recent years the European Union has been adopting a policy of suspending the approval 
of many active substances and subsequently reducing the MRLs for  these substances to the minimum 
detection level. It is also reducing MRLs for substances that remain approved, without any sound G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 40 - 
 
  scientific evidence to show that such measures are the least trade -restrictive means of achieving an 
appropriate level of prot ection for consumers.  
3.174.   In Ecuador, the use of certain active compounds is vital for agricultural production. 
Such compounds constitute an essential tool for the protection of crops against pests and diseases, 
and for maintaining the quality and safety of pr oducts during storage, transport and the period when 
they are available for sale before reaching consumers on the European market. It is important to 
bear in mind that, due to Ecuador's tropical climate, the spread of pests and diseases follows very 
different patterns from those in European countries, making it vitally important to be able to identify 
phytosanitary alternatives, comparable in quality and effectiveness and approved in the European 
Union, that can be used in agricultural crops to protect the health of plants and plant products.  
3.175.   A review of the Codex Alimentarius reveals that recommended MRLs are sometimes higher 
than those set in the European Union, meaning the European Union is departing from the 
international standard recommended under the W TO SPS Agreement without scientific justification. 
In this connection, Ecuador recommends that, provisionally, the European Unipn keep its MRLs in 
accordance with the provisions of the Codex Alimentarius, until it has the information needed to 
enable it to  set safe MRLs based on a scientific risk analysis, which provide real health protection 
and do not constitute a disguised barrier to trade.  
3.176.   Brazil, Canada, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru and Uruguay  supported the concern.  
3.177.   Brazil  provided the followi ng statement7: Brazil would like to thank Colombia,  Panama,  the 
Dominican Republic,  Paraguay,  the United States,  Costa Rica and  Ecuador for maintaining this 
important trade concern on the agenda. Brazil shares the concerns and refers to its  statements 
delivered at the four previous meetings  when this STC was discussed.  
3.178.   Canada  provided the following statement: Canada recognizes and supports all Members' 
rights to apply food safety measures deemed necessary to protect human health while at the same 
time not unjustifiably restricting international trade. Canada continues to emphasize the need for 
decision -making on plant protection products and maximum residue limits to be based on risk 
assessment techniques developed by relevant international or ganizations.  
3.179.   If the European Union anticipates changes to its maximum residue limits, Canada requests 
that the European Union notify the SPS Committee well in advance, including clear indication of the 
scientific basis and transition periods, in order to provide Members with the opportunity to comment 
and have those comments taken into account.  
3.180.   Finally, it is essential that the European Union's transition periods for maximum residue 
limits take into account the need for exporters to adapt to new requireme nts and ensure that the 
conditions and requirements do not unjustifiably discriminate between domestic producers and 
foreign exporters.  
3.181.   Guatemala  provided the following statement: We thank Colombia and its co -sponsors for 
including this item in the agenda.  We share the concerns expressed about the change to MRLs in 
the European Union. The Members that have already taken the floor have argued, fully informed of 
the issue, that such measures have a negative impact on trade, economic and social conditions in 
developing countries.  
3.182.   Guatemala is an important agricultural exporter and is situated in the tropics, where certain 
products are used out of a phytosanitary need, something that does not apply to the members of 
the European Union. We would be grateful if t he European Union, based on its studies and analyses, 
could explain how this measure will not impede tropical countries' trade. We have raised our 
concerns in this forum, as well as bilaterally, without an alternative solution.  
 
7 This statement was submitted through the eAgenda platform,  after the deadline indicated  in document 
JOB/SPS/7 .  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 41 - 
 
  3.183.   We once again reiterate the importance of basing this measure on a risk analysis so that it 
does not become more restrictive than necessary. The Codex Alimentarius develops harmonized 
standards that allow developing countries to work with international standards.  
3.184.   We wou ld be grateful if the European Union could share information on its analyses and the 
damage found in products imported from third countries, particularly tropical ones, that use these 
substances for pest and disease control. Moreover, post -harvest use is i mportant, given the distance 
between Latin America and Europe, for the marketing of the product. Some substances need to be 
used so that the fruit arrives at the European port in good condition.  
3.185.   Peru provided the following statement: Peru supports this con cern because the levels of 
buprofezin set by the E uropean Union for grapes are significantly lower than those established by 
the Codex Alimentarius.  In this connection, Peru  consider s that this situation would run counter to 
Article 5.6 of the WTO  SPS Agreement,  as the measure would be more trade -restrictive than 
required to achieve an appropriate level of sanitary protection . 
3.186.   Uruguay  provided the following statement: Uruguay thanks Colombia, Costa Rica, the 
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Panama, Paraguay and  the United States for placing this specific trade 
concern on the Committee's agenda. Uruguay continues to be concerned at the approach followed 
by the European Union to reduce the maximum residue limits for a growing list of active substances, 
used at dif ferent stages of the production process of various agricultural products, to levels lower 
than those agreed in the Codex Alimentarius, and even to the detection level, without a full risk 
assessment being carried out to justify such a departure based on su fficient scientific evidence. 
Regulations on plant protection products must be based on science and a full risk analysis, carried 
out in accordance with the recommendations of the international organizations relevant in that area, 
to avoid becoming unjusti fied barriers to international trade in food and other agricultural products. 
Furthermore, when changes are implemented that comply with the conditions outlined in the points 
mentioned above, sufficient transition periods should be provided to make the nec essary 
adjustments to production and ensure that the products concerned comply with the modified 
maximum residue limits, taking into account harvesting periods and the stages at which plant 
protection products are applied, and the time required for the dev elopment and registration of 
alternative substances.  
3.187.   We would therefore like to call upon the European Union to give due consideration to the 
concerns expressed, to respond to the questions raised by several Members in regard to this concern, 
and to recons ider its regulatory approach with a view to avoiding the unjustified proliferation of 
barriers to international trade in food and other agricultural products, together with the serious social 
and economic consequences that this approach might have on other  Members, in particular 
developing and least developed countries.  
3.188.   The European Union  provided the following response: The European Union would like to 
remind delegates that most of the questions have already been answered previously within this 
Committee a nd bilaterally. Nonetheless, in an attempt to bring additional clarity to the issue, 
the European Union has provided the answers below to the questions raised by Members:  
3.189.   1) Level of Protection: it is necessary to ensure that pesticide residues are not pr esent at 
levels presenting an unacceptable risk to humans. MRLs should be set at the lowest achievable level 
consistent with good agricultural practice for each pesticide with a view to protecting vulnerable 
groups such as children and the unborn.  
3.190.   2) Scien tific Evidence: Decisions to approve or to revoke the approval of active substances 
and decisions on MRLs are taken after a rigorous risk assessment carried out jointly by European 
Union member states and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) with the first and foremost 
objective to protect consumers' health. The European Union considers that the assessment of 
scientific data made available by the applicants justified lowering previous MRLs of some of the 
above -mentioned substances to achieve the desire d level of public health protection. Detailed 
information on the scientific opinions underpinning the European Union decisions can be found on 
the EFSA website and in the rationale of each European Union decision.  
3.191.   3) Consistency with Article 3: The Europea n Union fully supports the activities of relevant 
international standard setting bodies and works assiduously with the three sisters to help reaching G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 42 - 
 
  a comprehensive framework internationally -agreed standards. European Union public, animal and 
plant health  measures are generally based on those relevant international standards.  The European 
Union fully supports the activities of relevant international standard setting bodies, and works 
assiduously with the three sisters to help reaching a comprehensive frame work internationally 
agreed standards. EU public, animal and plant health measures are generally based on those 
relevant international standards.  
3.192.   Relevant EU legislation requires that where international standards exist, they are to be 
taken into considera tion in the development or adaptation of food law. More specifically, Regulation 
(EC) 396/2005 stipulates that pesticide MRLs set at international level by the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission should be considered when EU MRLs are being set, taking into accou nt corresponding 
good agricultural practice. As a consequence, EU maximum residue levels (MRLs) are regularly and 
systematically aligned with Codex MRLs (CXLs), provided that these CXLs are higher than existing 
EU MRLs, are related to commodities for which  the European Union sets MRLs, and are acceptable 
in terms of consumer protection, supporting data and extrapolation rules.  
3.193.   For instance, between 2012 and 2019, a total of 2,567 CXLs for food commodities were 
adopted by Codex. In that period, the European  Union has taken on board 1,833 MRLs out of these 
2,567 CXLs. Taking into account that EU MRLs that are set at the same or higher level than the CXLs 
for the same food products, the European Union is aligned with more than 70% of the CXLs 
established in th is period. However, at times, the European Union deviates from international 
standards when justified for the protection of public health and on the basis of EFSA's scientific 
advice. In doing so, the European Union acts in conformity with Article 3 of the  SPS Agreement.  
3.194.   4) and 5) Limit of  Quantification (LOQ): The limit of 0.01 mg/kg, also applicable as a default 
limit for pesticides for which no explicit MRLs are set in the EU legislation, is meant to facilitate the 
control of pesticide residues and to p rotect consumers from exposure to unauthorised or excessive 
levels of residues. Practical experience shows that 0.01 mg/kg is an appropriate default value, as it 
is the limit of quantification reached by official control laboratories for the majority of su bstances, 
without requiring unnecessary efforts. The European Union sets MRLs at higher levels than 0.01 
mg/kg where it has information that a lower value may not be attainable for certain substance/matrix 
combinations. The European Union sets MRLs at lowe r levels than 0.01 mg/kg only for very toxic 
substances, where a level of 0.01 mg/kg is not sufficient to protect consumers.  
3.195.   The European Union considers that applying a default value is preferable to a zero -tolerance 
policy. A zero -tolerance may not be ne cessary for consumer protection and is more trade -restrictive 
than necessary, as acceptance in the importing country cannot be reliably predicted in the exporting 
country, due for example to different performance levels of the analysing laboratories, or du e to 
differences in the product tested where the commodity is concentrated for shipment.  
3.196.   6) Relevance of Article 5.3: See second sentence of paragraph 4 in Annex A of the 
SPS Agreement.  
3.197.   7) Consideration of alternatives: Two good agricultural practices on banana and supporting 
data were assessed by the European Food Safety Authority in its review of the existing MRLs for 
imazalil: a post -harvest use authorised in Greece, and the good agricultural practice underlying the 
Codex MRL of 2 mg/kg at the time, eva luated by JMPR in 1977. However, the risk assessment 
indicated an unacceptable risk to European consumers, with exceedances of the Acute Reference 
Dose of 157% and 184%, respectively.  
3.198.   8) Other Legitimate Factors: Current European Union legislation does not  provide for an 
exhaustive list of legitimate factors to be taken into account when managers decide on the most 
appropriate measure to attain a chosen level of protection. So far, the European Union has not 
resorted to the use of "other legitimate factors"  in the setting of pesticide MRLs, including decisions 
on import tolerances requests.  
3.199.   9) Comments from Members: The European Union has consistently taken into account 
comments on the revocation of authorisation on specific substances or on MRLs received by  WTO 
members on measures notified under either the TBT Agreement and/or the SPS Agreement. 
The European Union strives to reply in writing to all comments received within the given deadline.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 43 - 
 
  3.200.   10) Substances under review: The approval of active substances in the European Union is 
time-limited. Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 provides that the first approval of an active 
substance shall be for a period not exceeding 10 years. Article 14(2) provides that the renewal of 
approval shall be for a period n ot exceeding 15  years. Other maximum approval periods apply for 
certain categories of active substances, most importantly for Candidates for Substitution 
(maximum  7 years; Article 24(1)). The approval of an active substance may be renewed if an 
applicant s ubmits an application for renewal of approval, supported by a dossier with the required 
data. Such an application must be submitted at the latest 3 years before expiry of the approval 
period, followed by the dossier at the latest 2.5 years before expiry. R elevant information can be 
found in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the EU Pesticides database. We will be 
happy to provide the links to interested delegations. The EFSA website indicates clearly the state of 
the review of existing MRLs. Again, we will be happy to provide the link to interested delegations.  
3.201.   11) Dual Notification: The European Union has started to inform the SPS Committee of 
measures concerning plant protection products notified under the TBT Agreement . We would like to 
remind delegates that Comments to those TBT measures should be submitted  only to the TBT 
Enquiry Point ,  even when these are notified for information under the SPS Agreement.  
3.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine  disruptors – Concerns of Paraguay (No. 382)  
3.202.   Paraguay  provided  the following statement: As in the previous trade concern , my delegation 
has submitted written questions to the E uropean Union, which were circulated in document  
G/SPS/GEN/1762 . In those questions we asked the E uropean Union for information on : how it 
distinguishes between relevant scientific evidence and non -relevant scientific evidence;  which 
protocols form the basis for studies that are not based on internationally agreed study protocols;  
how Commission Regulation (EU) No. 2018/605 is in conformity with Article 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS 
Agreement;  how risk assessments carried out by the E uropean Union take account of strength, 
severity and reversibility of effects;  whether presumed endocrine disrupting substances are covere d 
under Article 5.7 of the SPS  Agreement;  whether it considers that the prohibition of substances to 
which exposure represents a negligible risk of endocrine disruption is scientifically justified;  how 
import tolerance mechanisms will function;  how it can reconcile analysing import tolerances on a 
case-by-case basis if they are to be based on a risk analysis; and, lastly , applications for import 
tolerances that have been received and the number that have been approved to date.  We would 
appreciate receiving a full response to our questions from the E uropean Union. We would specifically 
request further information on the functioning of  the mechanisms of  import tolerances , in light of 
the recently published Farm to Fork Strategy . 
3.203.   Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Panama, Peru, Chinese Taipei, the United States and Uruguay supported the concern.  
3.204.   Brazil  provided the following statement8: Brazil would like to thank Paraguay for mainta ining 
this important trade concern on the agenda. Brazil shares the concerns and refers to its statements 
delivered at the four previous meetings which discussed this STC. Brazil urges the European Union 
to take into consideration the concerns of a large n umber of WTO Members regarding the scientific 
criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties, highlighting the importance of 
conducting assessments appropriate to the circumstances and the need to obtain the additional 
information necess ary for a more objective assessment of risk that does not create measures more 
trade-restrictive than required.  
3.205.   Canada  provided the following statement: Canada continues to ask the European Union to 
amend its hazard -based regulation for active substances i n plant protection products, and to consider 
both hazards and risks for all active substances in its regulatory decision -making. As a major 
agricultural producing nation, Canada is concerned with the trade implications of the European 
Union's approach to t he regulation of active substances in plant protection products, and in particular 
the impact of this approach on setting import tolerances. While the European Union has indicated 
that a process for establishing import tolerances for actives which have tri ggered the hazard -based 
cut-off criteria exists, we remain keen to understand how it will be implemented.  
 
8 This statement was submitted through the eAgenda platform, after the deadline indicated in document 
JOB/SPS/7 . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 44 - 
 
  3.206.   Specifically, Canada continues to seek information on how the European Union will base the 
setting of an import tolerance for an active substance fal ling under the cut -off criteria on an 
assessment of risk, and on how the European Union will take into account risk assessment techniques 
developed by the relevant international organizations.  
3.207.   Canada takes this opportunity to ask the European Union whethe r it could provide an update 
on the timing of the third countries and stakeholder seminars. As mentioned in the last Committee, 
Canada hopes that these seminars will provide detailed information on the process that the European 
Union will follow when setti ng an import tolerance for an active substance falling under their cut -off 
criteria. Until such a clear and predictable process is implemented, Canada requests that import 
tolerances for active substances which are not re -authorized in the European Union b e maintained 
at existing levels to allow trade to continue.  
3.208.   Canada shares the objectives outlined in the EU Farm to Fork Strategy and looks forward to 
the announcement of specific policies that will be used to address these ambitious goals related to 
pesticides. It is important to Canada to see trade aspects includ ed in the impact assessments that 
will be developed throughout the progression of the Farm to Fork Strategy.  
3.209.   Canada encourages the European Union to notify to the WTO SPS Committee of all proposed 
regulations arising from legislative and regulatory change s stemming from the Farm to Fork 
Strategy, and to allow sufficient time for WTO Members to comment and have their comments taken 
into account in the finalization of the regulations. Canada would like to underline the importance of 
providing significant adv ance notice between the adoption of regulations and entry into force, to 
enable industry sufficient time to adapt to any legislative and regulatory changes.  
3.210.   Finally, we hope that any regulatory changes arising from new policies, including the Farm 
to Fork Strategy, will be commensurate with the risk involved, be established in a coherent and 
transparent way that will minimize negative and unnecessary trade effects that enable producers 
and exporters to make timely business decisions.  
3.211.   Costa Rica  provided th e following statement: As we have indicated  previously, we are 
concerned by  the approach taken by the European Union in the implementation of Regulation (EC) 
No. 1107/2009, which led to the adoption of a hazard -based decision criterion.  We once again urge 
the European Union to ensure that the implementation of its r egulation is based on the use of risk 
assessments for the identification and regulation of endocrine disruptors, using  criteria supported 
by sufficient scientific evidence, in line with the commi tments established in the  SPS Agreement . 
3.212.   The Dominican Republic  provided the following statement : The Dominican Republic would 
again like to confirm its support for this item , and to  reiterate its concern over  this EU regulation, 
which has been on this Committee 's agenda for over two years.  This measure assesses the 
substances concerned based on  a hazard -identification approach, rather than on the basis of a 
scientific risk assessment, as provided for in the WT O SPS Agreement. The European Union has 
therefore been unable to demonstrate a level of objective risk.  We are particularly concerned about 
the systemic and trade impact of these measures on our country's exports . 
3.213.   We urge the European Union to reduce the n egative effects  on international trade, taking 
Members ' concerns and comments into consideration to avoid imposing unnecessarily trade -
restrictive measures. We refer in particular to measures that affect agricultural products, so as to 
minimize  the social and economic consequences  for farmers in countries exporting commodities and 
special products, who are the most vulnerable populations in developing countries such as the 
Dominican Republic . 
3.214.   Guatemala  provided the following statement: We thank Paraguay for  including this item on 
the agenda. We reiterate our concern over the European Union's approach to regulating pesticides 
and MRLs. Despite the concerns repeatedly expressed by more than 40 Members at the 
SPS Committee, the European Union is pursuing its ac tions. We ask the European Union to 
reconsider its approach and to base its measures on a risk assessment.  
3.215.   Peru provided the following statement: Peru supports this concern , as the EU regulation 
would not be based on certain risk, in accordance with Articl e 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement, but 
rather on a hazard -based approach.  In taking such an approach, the E uropean Union would be G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 45 - 
 
  implementing measures that were more restrictive than necessary, causing unnecessary damage to 
trade. 
3.216.   Chinese Taipei  provided the following statement: The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu shares the concern raised by Paraguay regarding the E uropean Union's 
legislation on endocrine disruptors. At the present time, the main body of research u ndertaken by 
the international academic community into the endocrine -disrupting effects of most chemicals is still 
ongoing, and there are no clear conclusions yet in terms of assessment and differentiation. In June 
2018, the European Food Safety Agency (EF SA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of the 
European Union issued guidelines on the identification of endocrine -disrupting substances in 
chemicals (pesticides and fungicides), which suggests various methods of collecting and evaluating 
the relevant  research data, as well as analysing and applying the MoA (mode of action) to ensure 
that EU member States use the same standards in their evaluations.  
3.217.   The latest EU research report shows that endocrine -disrupting effects have the 
characteristics of non -monotonic dose responses (NMDRs). That is to say, they do not have the 
traditional dose -response relationship, but something more similar to the non -threshold concept of 
tumorigenesis. However, the European Union has not yet completed or disclosed its findin gs on how 
the key elements of risk characterization should be considered, such as the intensity, severity and 
reversibility of their influence on the endocrine system. In view of the widely differing 
endocrine -disrupting effects of the various compounds, N MDRs should not be the only model used 
to address the effect of the endocrine disrupting chemicals. For this reason alone, it is clear to us 
that more research is needed in order to properly distinguish between, and manage, the different 
varieties of endoc rine-disrupting compounds.  
3.218.   To conclude therefore, in line with Paraguay's concern, our recommendation is that the 
European Union be asked to submit more convincing scientific evidence regarding the effects of 
endocrine -disrupting compounds. We also look fo rward to the European Union taking greater 
consideration of WTO Members' concerns in the future, as well as implementing SPS measures that 
are consistent with its own WTO commitments.  
3.219.   Uruguay  provided the following statement: Uruguay thanks Paraguay for ke eping this 
concern on the Committee's agenda. We would like to reiterate our trade and systemic concern 
relating to the European Union's adoption and implementation of a hazard -based approach, instead 
of an approach based on full scientific risk assessment s, in its regulatory determinations concerning 
products with endocrine disrupting properties.  
3.220.   We reiterate the need to base such determinations on conclusive scientific evidence, 
gathered from an assessment of the actual risks associated with pesticides, t o avoid some of these 
products, which remain important components of pest management systems, being withdrawn 
despite their safe use. An approach based on hazard rather than on actual risk contributes little or 
nothing to the cited aim of effectively prote cting public health, while at the same time having a 
significantly negative impact on sustainable agricultural production, food security and international 
trade in food products.  
3.221.   Uruguay continues to support any multilateral work undertaken by the Codex Al imentarius 
to develop a harmonized, risk -based approach that ensures the protection of health while facilitating 
international trade in food and agricultural products. In the meantime, we once again urge the 
European Union to listen to and address the conc erns expressed by a number of Members, and to 
reconsider its regulatory approach with a view to preventing the unjustified proliferation of barriers 
to international trade in agricultural products and the serious social and economic consequences of 
such an  approach for other Members, in particular developing and least developed countries.  
3.222.   The European Union  provided the following response: The European Union has explained 
previously the principles behind the regulatory measures for substances having endocri ne disrupting 
properties and how the European Union intends to deal with import tolerance requests. Even though 
no new information is available at this stage, the European Union is pleased to address the latest 
questions received as follows :  
3.223.   1) Definition  of endocrine disruptors (ED): The European Union regulatory criteria as 
enshrined in Regulation (EU) 2018/605 are based on the WHO definition, which is the following: G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 46 - 
 
  "An endocrine disruptor is an exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s) of the 
endocrine system and consequently causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its 
progeny, or (sub)populations ". 
3.224.   2) Relevant scientific evidence: A Guidance Document published in 2018 and developed by 
EFSA, ECHA and JRC provides guidance to  how to interpret the ED -criteria. The relevance of data 
refers to whether data are pertinent and can be used to demonstrate or exclude one of the three 
elements of the ED -criteria: i.e. either adverse effect, mode of action, or a link among the two. 
Under  the European Union regulations, data requirements based on international study protocols 
need to be fulfilled. Some of those data need to allow to determine whether the substance is 
potentially an ED. However, scientific peer review literature could also be used, if relevant.  
3.225.   In particular, all available relevant scientific data (in vivo studies or adequately validated 
alternative test systems predictive of adverse effects in humans or animals; as well as in vivo, in 
vitro, or, if applicable, in silico st udies informing about endocrine modes of action): (a) scientific 
data generated in accordance with internationally agreed study protocols; in particular, those listed 
in the Commission Communications in the framework of setting out the data requirements fo r active 
substances and plant protection products, in accordance with this Regulation; (b) other scientific 
data selected applying a systematic review methodology, in particular following guidance on 
literature data listed in the Commission Communications in the framework of setting out the data 
requirements for active substances and plant protection products, in accordance with this Regulation.  
3.226.   3) Consistency with Article 5: When assessing a request for the authorisation of a plant 
protection product or fo r an import tolerance, the European Union carries out a rigorous product 
specific and step -by-step risk assessment taking into account all relevant data. As such, the 
European Union is in compliance with the relevant provisions of article 5 of the SPS Agre ement.  
3.227.   4) Risk assessments: A Guidance Document published in 2018 and developed by EFSA, ECHA 
and JRC provides guidance to how to interpret the ED -criteria.  
3.228.   5) Relationship with Article 5.7: The European Union does not see a direct link between 
recital 4 o f Regulation (EU) 2018/65 and Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. Where the European 
Union considers that the available pertinent information is not sufficient to implement definitive 
measures, the European Union may need to adopt and apply provisional measu res to protect 
consumers, animals and/or plant life or health. This decision -making process complies with the 
relevant SPS Agreement provisions  
3.229.   6) Negligible risk: Substances which are identified as endocrine disruptors under the 
EU legislation and for whi ch exposure is negligible can be placed on the market if negligible exposure 
is demonstrated.  
3.230.   7) Import tolerance mechanisms and 8) Import tolerance case by case: Import tolerance 
requests can be submitted for active substances approved in the European Un ion or for active 
substances that are not approved in the European Union. Interested parties may submit an "import 
tolerance" request according to Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005. This allows setting 
EU-MRLs based on Good Agricultural Practice s (GAPs) authorised in non -EU countries at a level 
sufficiently high to meet the needs of international trade, provided that a risk assessment 
demonstrates that the protection of European Union consumers is ensured. The data requirements 
and stringency of assessment (e.g. regarding the need to demonstrate safety for all European 
consumer groups) for import tolerance requests are identical to those for MRL applications based on 
authorisations in the European Union and its member States (EUMS). An MRL can be set only when 
there is sufficient information to support a risk assessment demonstrating that the MRL is sufficiently 
protective for consumers. The burden lies with the applicant to show that residues of the active 
substance from use in accordance with the  good agricultural practice under evaluation are safe. 
The European Union will assess each import tolerance request in its own merit and will carry out a 
thorough, product -specific, risk assessment, which will take into account the data submitted for each 
request.  
3.231.   9) Import tolerances, state of play: Since 2008, 94 applications for import tolerances have 
been submitted, among which 80 were assessed positively by EFSA and nine received a negative 
opinion. The remaining five applications are still under asse ssment.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 47 - 
 
  3.2.3   New EU MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin – Concerns of China (No. 459)  
3.232.   China  provided the following statement: We would like to express our concern regarding the 
EU amendment of MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin in tea from 1 mg/kg to 0.01 mg/kg. We consider 
that the MRL revision does not comply with paragraph 1, Article 5 of the SPS Agreement: "Members 
shall ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are based on assessment […] taking into 
account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organization", and 
paragraph 4, Article 5 "Members should, when determining the appropriate level of sanitary and 
phytosanitary protection, take into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects."  
3.233.   We recommend that the European Union should evaluate the health risk to consumers for 
the implementation of the original residue limit standard (1 mg/kg), and if there is no risk, the 
European Union should continue to implement the original limit standard. If the European Union 
implemen ts new limit standards, we recommend it consider the tea planting and tea production 
period and provide a transition period of at least one year for the producers.  
3.234.   The European Union provided the following response: The European Union has provided 
informa tion on the issue previously in this Committee and bilaterally. The European Union amended 
its legislation on maximum residue levels (MRLs) for lambda -cyhalothrin in 2018. The amendments 
to the MRLs of lambda -cyhalothrin are based on two risk assessments c arried out by the 
European  Food Safety Authority (EFSA), published on EFSA website on 2 December 20159 and 
26 July 201710, respectively.  
3.235.   EFSA performed risk assessments for the MRLs of the products on which trials and 
information were submitted by the EU member States, by non -EU countries or by stakeholders at 
the time of the finalization of the document. Available Codex maximum residue levels (CXLs) were 
also assessed. Notwithstanding EFSA had requested to submit necessary information on existing 
Good Agricultural Practices, the residue trials supporting these for all commodities, including herbal 
infusions, and the magnitude of the residue generated, no data were submitted to EFSA. EFSA 
reasoned opinion states clearly that the number of trials provided  on tea are insufficient to derive 
an MRL as well as risk assessment values and further information on the Good Agricultural Practice 
(number of applications) on which an old import tolerance was granted has not been provided. 
As a consequence, the legisla tion set the MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin in tea and herbal infusion at 
the LOQ of 0,01 mg/kg based on the EFSA reasoned opinion.  
3.236.   The European Union would like to remind China that an import tolerance request for 
lambda -cyhalothrin can still be submitted ac cording to Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No.  396/2005.  
3.2.4   New EU definition  of the fungicide folpet – Concerns of China (No. 447)  
3.237.   China  provided the following statement: China has raised this concern several times on the 
European Union's residue definition for folpet. Although the European Union has committed to 
process the revision in previous meetings, the definition of the residue used for monitoring folpet 
has not yet been revised and the definition for the sum of folpet and phthalimide are still perform ed. 
We hope that the European Union can update the progress of the revision and indicate the time 
when the revision will be finalized. We will pay attention to the progress continuously and request 
the European Union to ensure the current EU folpet residue  definition to comply with the definition 
of Codex Alimentarius Commission following the principle of harmonization in Article 3 of the 
SPS Agreement.  
3.238.   The European Union  provided the following response: The European Union would like to 
recall that the Chi nese concerns regarding this particular substance have been addressed in previous 
Committee meetings and also bilaterally. The European Union residue definition of the fungicide 
folpet is currently under consideration as part of the on -going renewal proced ure of the approval of 
 
9 European Food Safety Authority, 2015. Reasoned opinion on the revision of the review of the existing 
maximum residues levels for lambda -cyhalothrin. EFSA Journal 2015;13(12):4324.  
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4324  
10 European Food Safety Authority, 2017. Focussed review of the existing maximum residue levels for 
lambda -cyhalothrin in light of the unspeci fic residue definition and the existing good agricultural practices for 
the substance gamma -cyhalothrin. EFSA Journal 2017;15(7):4930.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 48 - 
 
  this active substance. This renewal procedure is still on -going. The European Union will keep China 
updated on further developments both here and bilaterally.  
3.2.5   EU review of legislation on veterinary  medicinal products – Concerns of th e United 
States (No. 446)  
3.239.   The United States  provided its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1811 . 
3.240.   Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Japan and Paraguay supported this concern.  
3.241.   Brazil  provided the following statement 11: Brazil would like to thank the United States for 
maintaining this important concern on the agenda. While reiterating our previous statements 
delivered in previous meetings, we would like to reinforce the request to the European Commission 
to hold consultations with stakeholders and third countries on the delegated act of  the criteria to 
designate antimicrobials to be reserved for human treatment.   
3.242.   Canada  provided the following statement: Canada agrees with the European Union and many 
other Members that anti -microbial resistance is a major global threat of increasing conce rn to 
human, animal and environmental health. Canada recognizes the important contributions of both 
global and country -led efforts in the fight against anti -microbial resistance. Canada appreciates the 
EU's commitment to ensure that trading partners can pa rticipate in the consultation process for the 
secondary legislation related to the Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulation which will come into 
force in January 2022. We look forward to contributing to this process for the remaining pieces of 
secondary le gislation, and particularly those that impact third countries, before the Regulation comes 
into force.  
3.243.   We hope that the European Union will provide sufficient time for trading partners to 
comment, and have those comments taken into consideration in the fin alization of 
secondary  legislation.  
3.244.   Japan  provided the following statement: Japan appreciates the European Union for holding 
the Briefing Session on the EU new regulations on Veterinary Medicinal Products in January 2020. 
However, Japan is still concerned that the European Union leaves critical points of the new regulation 
unclear, for instance, the list of antimicrobials to be banned for use in the European Union, regulated 
products, transition period and so on. Japan understands that the European Union wi ll finalize details 
of the regulations in the near future. Depending on the details, Japanese producers exporting to the 
European Union will be impacted significantly. Therefore, Japan requests the European Union to 
provide the information swiftly and the timing of a notification to this Committee.  
3.245.   Paraguay  provided the following statement: My delegation would like to thank the delegation 
of the United Sta tes for including this concern, which is shared by the Republic of Paraguay, i n 
today's agenda . We are  particularly concerned about the possible implications  that the delegated 
acts of Regulation (EU) 2019/06 could  have in third co untries, specifically under Article  118 of this 
basic legislation. We will be monitoring the criteria  that will be followed  for the allocation of medicines 
for human use  only, including the definition of risk analysis, provided for  in Article  37.4 of this 
legislation .  
3.246.   We understand that , although the EU had begun  a consult ation process in Brussels, this was  
suspended by the pandem ic, despite the fact that the legislative process is still ongoing. In this 
connection , we urge the EU to resume consultations as soon as possible and to address the concerns 
of its trading partne rs at this early stage,  to avoid further complications in th e future . 
3.247.   The European Union  provided the following response: The European Union would like to take 
this opportunity to recall explanations and information presented to WTO Members in previous 
Committee meetings and to provide an update on the state of play on the preparatory work fo r the 
implementation of the new legislation. The new Regulation on Veterinary Medicines (Regulation (EU) 
2019/6) will strengthen the European Union action in fighting antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which 
is a global threat to public health and animal heal th. It lays down a wide range of measures to fight 
 
11 This statement was submitted through the eAgenda platform, after the deadline indicated in 
document JOB/SPS/7 . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 49 - 
 
  AMR and to promote the prudent and responsible use of antimicrobials, following the approach of 
the European One Health Action Plan against AMR. The measures to fight AMR following the "One 
Health" approac h are internationally recognised as the only effective means to tackle AMR and as 
such endorsed by the WHO, the OIE and the FAO as well as by other international bodies.  
3.248.   The European Union published the new EU Regulation on Veterinary Medicinal products 
(VMP) in January 2019, together with a new regulation on Medicated Feed. The objectives of these 
combined measures are: provide for a modern, innovative and fit for purpose legal framework on 
VMPs; give incentives to stimulate innovation for VMPs; increase the availability of VMPs;  ensure 
economically viable production of safe medicated feed throughout the European Union; foster 
innovation in the oral routes of VMP administration, particularly medicated pet food; strengthen the 
European Union action to fight  antimicrobial resistance. The new Regulation on VMP will start to 
apply as of 28 January 2022. A number of implementing measures are currently under preparation 
as follows:  
3.249.   (a) Delegated Act under Article 37(4) (Criteria for the designation of antimicrobi als to be 
reserved for treatment of certain infections in humans): The European Commission received at the 
end of 2019 the scientific advice from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a basis for its 
preparatory work. It has consulted EU member States as well as targeted stakeholders. The scientific 
advice report is publicly available on the relevant European Commission webpage. The European 
Commission is currently working on the drafting of the delegated act. The deadline for its adoption 
is 27 September 2021.  
3.250.   (b) Implementing Act under Article 37(5) (List of antimicrobials reserved for human use): 
At the request of the European Commission, EMA set up an expert group at the end of 2019 to start 
preparing its scientific advice. The European Commission expec ts to receive it towards the end of 
the year. The deadline for adoption of the implementing act is 27 January 2022.  
3.251.   (c) Delegated Act under Article 118 (Rules on imports of animals and products of animal 
origin from third countries): The European Commissio n is moving forward in its reflections on the 
best approach for the application of Article 118. In this light, the questions raised by some of the 
Members in the context of the WTO SPS Committee are particularly relevant, as they highlight some 
of the spec ific elements of concern of other countries. It is extremely useful for the European 
Commission to be aware of such issues, as it draws its attention to those elements as it starts to 
shape the detailed rules of the delegated act under Article 118. The dea dline for adoption is 
27 January  2022 
3.252.   In terms of transparency, the European Union recalls that it regularly provides information 
to its trading partners not only at WTO SPS Committee meetings, but also through targeted 
information sessions and stakeholder  consultations. The European Commission intends to organise 
another information session in the autumn. In accordance with WTO obligations, the European Union 
will notify for comments all relevant implementing measures under the relevant WTO  Agreements.  
3.253.   Finally, the European Union would like to state, once again, that collaboration at the 
international level is of the utmost importance to address this major public health issue. The  
European Union remains determined to continue working as a driving force on t he fight against AMR 
and to engage with WTO Members, within multilateral international organisations and bilaterally, to 
promote and support effective strategies to prevent and contain the global threat of  AMR. 
3.2.6   General import restrictions due to BSE – Conc erns of the European Union (No.  193)  
3.254.   The European Union  provided the following statement: The European Union reiterates its 
concerns about the unjustified and long delays in approving imports of beef from the European Union 
due to unjustified, persistent c oncerns of several WTO Members related to BSE. In our opinion, these 
Members ignore existing and indisputable science. The long delays that have accumulated in their 
approval procedures constitute a violation of Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement.  
3.255.   On a positive note, we would like to welcome the progress made by Japan in approving 
several Member States and we hope that remaining applications can also be finalised shortly. 
We urge all WTO Members, in particular China, Korea, Chinese Taipei and the U nited States, to 
comply with their obligations under the WTO SPS Agreement and apply international standards to G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 50 - 
 
  lift remaining BSE related restrictions for all EU member States and not unjustifiably further delay 
pending approval procedures.  
3.256.   As always, th e European Union remains open to continue working constructively with all 
trading partners, but we are calling them to respect their international obligations.  
3.2.7   Ukraine's restrictions on swine products – Concerns of Brazil (No. 463)  
3.257.   Brazil  provided the following statement: Brazil raised this specific trade concern for the first 
time in the last SPS Committee (in July 2019), because Ukraine has been keeping an embargo on 
Brazilian pork and other swine products. The embargo began in 2018, aft er Brazil notified to the OIE 
an occurrence of classical swine fever.  
3.258.   Brazil has a zone free from classical swine fever, which was recognized by the OIE in 2015. 
This free zone concentrates over 95% of the Brazilian swine production and 100% of exports of  pigs 
and pig products. The case notified in 2018, which gave rise to the Ukrainian embargo, occurred 
over 500  km away from the border with Brazil's zone free of this disease. After this first case, others 
occurred. However, these outbreaks are restricted to some backyards in three states which are not 
part of the free zone. Neither the first case nor any of the following occurrences altered in any way 
the international recognition granted to the Brazilian free zone.  
3.259.   At the last SPS meeting (in July), Ukra ine argued that Brazil was lacking transparency. 
However, since the beginning of the Ukrainian embargo, Brazilian technical authorities, with the 
support of the Brazilian Embassy in Kiev, have been providing all the technical clarification that has 
been re quested by Ukraine. Besides, Brazil and Ukraine held a bilateral meeting in Geneva in 
March  2020. Ukraine also claimed that Brazil was late in observing its notification obligations to OIE. 
We were perplexed by Ukrainian allegations that "almost 2 months h ad passed between the initial 
occurrence of the disease and the disease confirmation". Brazil takes this opportunity to underscore 
that the notification was submitted in due observance of the deadlines set forth in the Terrestrial 
Code and in the OIE Guida nce on Immediate notifications under the OIE World Animal Health 
Information System.  
3.260.   The clinical and epidemiological investigation started immediately after the authorities were 
notified by the breeder. Samples were sent to laboratory analysis, and Brazi l had then confirmation 
of the outbreak once the laboratory report attested the presence of the pertinent virus in samples 
from pigs that had shown symptoms. This confirmation took place on 6 October 2018. 
The notification was duly submitted by Brazil on 7  October 2018, within the 24 -hour deadline from 
the confirmation. There was no delay neither in beginning investigation, nor in obtaining the 
confirmation, nor in communicating to the OIE once the outbreak was confirmed. Besides, since this 
first outbreak,  Brazil has submitted 13 follow -up reports with detailed information on the 
subsequent  outbreaks.  
3.261.   Brazil has a very strict National Program on Swine Health, which encompasses the whole 
national territory and ensures the containment of the disease and the p rotection of the sanitary 
condition of the classical swine fever free zone. In Brazil, free and non -free zones have clear 
boundaries, protected by both natural barriers and checkpoints. Movement and trade of animals and 
their by -products between the diseas e-free zone and the non -disease -free zone is prohibited. 
These  restrictions have been reinforced since the beginning of the outbreaks in 2018. Strict 
surveillance and risk mitigation procedures to prevent the introduction of the disease into the free 
zone are routinely followed. Brazilian authorities keep track of the animals and animal products 
considered susceptible.  
3.262.   Brazil takes this very seriously, as it currently exports pork to about 90 different countries. 
Ukraine is the only country in the world to  impose such restrictions on Brazilian pork. As the 
outbreaks do not interfere with the status of the Brazilian classical swine fever free zone, they cannot 
be used as justification for interruption in the trade of pigs and by -products.  
3.263.   Brazil considers t hat the restrictions imposed by Ukraine on the importation and transit in 
its territory of Brazilian swine products do not comply with Resolution No. 29 of 25 May 2018, which 
contains the model of health certificate that was bilaterally agreed, and with De cree No. 71 of the G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 51 - 
 
  Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 14 June 2004, which specifies that Brazil should be divided into 
states or regions, with respect to trade restrictions due to the incidence of classical swine fever.  
3.264.   In December 2019, communication No.  6142 / 22 -012-1089 from the State Service for Food 
Safety and Consumer Protection of Ukraine, which communicated the maintenance of the embargo 
on products of Brazilian origin, asked Brazil to send detailed information on controlling the movement 
of anima ls between the free zone and the non -free zone of classical swine fever, as well as data 
from the epizootic investigation and sources of contamination for the neighbouring region considered 
free from classical swine fever. According to the Ukrainian author ity, the removal of restrictions 
depends on Brazil eliminating the disease in the territory and sending a report to the OIE. 
This demand conflicts with the guidelines of the OIE itself in determining zoning with free and 
non-free areas of classical swine f ever within the same territory. In addition, the Ukrainian side 
indicated the possible arrival of an inspection mission to assess the Brazilian control system. In 
response, Brazil sent a formal response to Ukraine, with details about the free zoning carrie d out in 
Brazil and its controlling system, which complies with the guidelines provided by the OIE. Since then, 
Brazil has received no reaction from the Ukrainian side. We therefore urge Ukraine to reconsider its 
restrictive measures.  
3.265.   Ukraine  thanked Brazi l for their regular bilateral cooperation. Direct communication had been 
held through the Embassy of Brazil in Ukraine, and the latest correspondence from Ukraine had been 
sent on 18 June 2020. According to the final report on classical swine fever in Braz il, published on 
the OIE's website, the country was implementing systemic vaccination against classical swine fever, 
which had not been carried out before, indicating a change in national strategy for prevention and 
elimination of classical swine fever, ma tter that had not been raised in the latest information 
provided by Brazil. The State Service of Ukraine reiterated its proposal to start the coordination 
procedure between the competent authorities to evaluate the system of Brazil's control over pork. 
Ukraine was looking forward to receiving feedback from Brazil regarding evaluation on the spot.  
3.2.8   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (No. 466) – Concerns of the 
European Union  
3.266.   The European Union  provided the following statement: The Europea n Union regrets to report 
again that the Philippines does not adhere to agreed international standards of the World 
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). Indeed, the Philippines does not apply the regionalisation 
principles towards the European Union and m aintains a policy of imposing scientifically unjustified 
countrywide bans on imports of meat products from EU member States on grounds of African swine 
fever (ASF) as well as of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI).  
3.267.   Nine EU member States12 are today s ubject to import bans imposed by the Philippines on 
meat products. These bans even include a ban on import of pork meat from one EU Member State 
(Germany), which has never had any outbreak of ASF in its territory. The European Union believes 
that the bans on imports of pork meat as well as of poultry meat from the entire territories of 
EU member States lack scientific justification and go against the principle of regionalisation/zoning. 
The European Union considers these measures to be inconsistent with Art icle 2.2 and Article 6 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  
3.268.   The European Union has been very transparent on the regionalisation measures it has put 
in place in the European Union and provided all the necessary evidence to the Philippines 
demonstrating objectively th e robustness of EU measures to guarantee that safe trade can continue 
to take place. This safety guarantee for trade is important not only for the EU internal market but 
also for products exported from the EU. EU regionalisation measures fully comply with the OIE 
recommendations in this respect.  
3.269.   The European Union remains ready to further engage with the Philippines with the objective 
to minimize the disruption of trade. The European Union reiterates its call to the Philippines to respect 
its obligations an d to allow trade of all safe meat of pork and poultry products from European Union 
disease -free member States and disease -free zones. The European Union reiterates its concerns 
 
12 Import restrictions in relation to ASF: Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, 
and Slovakia; import restrictions in relation to HPAI: Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 52 - 
 
  about the unjustified and long delays in approving imports of beef from the Eur opean Union due to 
unjustified, persistent concerns of several WTO Members related to BSE.  
3.270.   The Philippines  provided the following response: As we previously emphasized, the 
Philippines recognizes the principle of regionalization and remains mindful of its  obligations under 
the WTO SPS Agreement. In determining areas free of the disease, as stipulated under Article 6.1 
of the Agreement, it is imperative for us to consider the effectiveness of controls. The effectiveness 
of the interventions must be supporte d by convincing evidence of disease contraction or elimination, 
which will build the Philippines' confidence in EU control measures. The measures to restrict imports 
of meat from countries with African swine fever (ASF) and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenz a 
outbreaks are provisional precautionary measures on the basis of available pertinent information 
consistent with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.  
3.271.   We remain receptive of technical information relevant to controlling ASF as provided by the 
European Union,  and as we faithfully monitor the disease situation, we continue to seek to obtain 
additional information that is necessary to review our provisional measures. In spite of our limited 
manpower, we are continuously monitoring the animal health situation and  communicating with 
trading partners. Because of these efforts, we lifted the import ban which we imposed on one EU 
member State due to the ASF outbreak. We are continuously evaluating disease control measures 
carried out by other countries for possible li fting of the importat ban. In the case of Germany, the 
temporary ban imposed on their pork products was due to a serious violation of the import 
conditions. We have been in close coordination with Germany's authorities to resolve this concern.  
3.272.   As regards t he measures taken by the Philippines to safeguard our territory from outbreaks 
of HPAI, please be assured that we will constantly monitor the disease situation with regular updates 
received from the veterinary authorities of EU member States. The Philippin es strictly adheres to 
OIE's three -month policy after cleaning and disinfection of the last confirmed outbreak, as provided 
in Article 10.4.3 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Information relevant to this policy has been 
requested from EU member State s which have already resolved their HPAI outbreaks since May 
2020.  
3.273.   We welcome continued discussion with the European Union in bilateral arrangements, as we 
have always been, to discuss this matter further towards resolution.  
3.2.9   Guatemala's restrictions on egg products – Concerns of Mexico (No. 413)  
3.274.   Mexico  provided the following statement : Mexico once again expresses its concern regarding 
the import restrictions imposed by Guatemala since 2006 on thermally processed egg products from 
Mexico . As Mexico has point ed out on many occasions, in its view, the measure could be in viola tion 
of the fundamental principles of measures having technical and scientific justification and being 
based on international standards, as provided for in both the SPS Agreement and the free trade 
agreement signed between Mexico and Central America . 
3.275.   Mexico has repeatedly insisted on objectively demonstrating to the Guatemalan health 
authorities that thermally processed egg produ cts are not an import risk  and has asked Guatemala 
to acknowledge this, as provided for in  Article 10.4.15 , paragraph 2,  of the World Organization for 
Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code, which sets out the recommendations for the 
importatio n of egg  products  of poultry , regardless of the avian influenza status of the country of 
origin .  
3.276.   With regard to Newcastle disease, Mexico has been transparent, duly informing the OIE 
about infection outbreaks  detected in the country. In this regard , we re peat that Guatemala should  
follow  the recommendations of the OIE Terres trial Animal Health Code, Article 10.9.11, paragraph  
2, of which states  that, regardless of the Newcastle disease status of the country of origin, goods 
can be imported provided they un dergo thermal treatment to ensure the destruction of the virus,  in 
accordance w ith Article 10.9.20 of the instrument.  Guatemala has ar gued that its  trade restrictions 
on imports from Mexico are imposed in compliance with its domestic  regulations, referring  to 
Ministerial Decision  No. 228/2013, Article 4  of which also states that it should take the OIE guidelines  
into account, which, in M exico's view, is not happening . Guatemala's position represents  an alleged 
violation of the fundamental principles of the SPS  Agreement, particularly Article 2.2, by applying  a G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 53 - 
 
  trade-restrictive  measure, without scientific basis, to a product that has undergone thermal 
treatment to ensure it poses no health risk . 
3.277.   It should be noted that Mexico has been seeki ng to resolve this matter through political and 
technical dialogue with the relevant  authorities of Guatemala, within the framework of this 
Committee since 2016 when this concern was first raised, in various bilateral meetings , and th rough 
the SPS  Committe e provided for in the free trade agreement  between Mexico and Central America.  
However, these efforts have not been successful and Guatemala continues to maintain t he restriction 
on the Mexican products  in question, even though Mexico has demonstrated it h as zones and 
compartments f ree from highly pathogenic avian i nfluenza.  Mexico considers Guatemala's total 
restriction on exports of Mexican egg products to be a unilateral decision adversely affecting trade 
in these products between the two countries . 
3.278.   In light of the above , the Government of Mexico once again requests the Government of 
Guatemala to revoke its measure, so that trade in therma lly processed egg products from  Mexic o 
can begin , given that it has not been demonstrated that Guatemala has any techn ical or scientific 
evidence,  or any form of risk analysis appropriate to the circumstances, to justify more restrictive 
measure s than those recommended by the OIE . 
3.279.   Guatemala  provided the following response: Guatemala respond ed to Mexico's  request 
through Official Communication  DSA-BA-1309-2019 dated 2 October 2019, which outlined the 
sanitary requirements f or the importation of hen  eggs, not in shell, egg yolks, and dried pasteurized 
liquid egg album en into Guatemalan  territory. The sanita ry import requirements sent to Mexico are 
the sanitary requirements applicable to egg products that are in force in Guatemala . 
3.280.   Current r egulations in Guatemala are based on the OIE standards  established in the 
Terrestrial Animal Heal th Code currently in fo rce, with Article  10.4.15 relating to avian influenza 
virus and A rticle 10.9.11  referring to Newcastle disease virus .  
3.281.   Therefore,  the sanitary measures established for the importation of poultry and poultry 
products have their legal basis in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code s tandards, namely Volume 
I (General provisions ) and Volume II (Recommendations a pplicable to OIE L isted diseases and other 
diseases of importance to  international trade).  Given that the sanitary import require ments and 
measures applied by  Guatemala are based on the OIE recommendations, it follows that they are not 
in violat ion of  the fundamental principles o f the WTO  SPS Agreement . 
3.282.   It should be noted th at Guatemala is a country free from highly pathogenic avian influenza , 
as notified to the OIE on 14 January  2004, a status  that remains valid to date. In the case of the 
highly pathogenic Newcastle disease virus, Guatemala  declared itself disease -free on 1 December  
2017, through Ministerial Decision No.  335/2017, and we are in the process of notifying the OIE  of 
this status. T herefore , the sanitary requirements that are cur rently required for egg pro ducts  are 
applied  to safeguard the country's poultry health . 
3.283.   Guatemala requests a bilateral meeting with Mexico at permanent -mission  level, so that the 
Mexican  delegation can present the technical and scientific arguments on which its trade concern is 
based. Guatemala does not oppose the entry into its territory of egg products from Mexico , provid ed 
that compliance with domestic regulations  is guara nteed, which includes carrying out  on-site 
inspections and a risk analysis . 
3.2.10   Indonesia's approval procedures fo r animal and plant products – Concerns of the 
European Union ( No. 441)  
3.284.   The European Union  provided the following statement: The European Union is concerned by 
the lack of transparency and undue delays of Indonesia's approval procedures. As reported on 
previous occasions, the European Union asked Indonesia to provide detailed information related to 
its market access approval procedures for agri -food products, including indicative and average 
timeframes for completing such procedures. Indonesia committed to r eply, but the European Union 
has no so far received the requested clarifications. The European Union is in particular concerned by 
the lack of progress on its export applications on beef, dairy, poultry, pork and plant products, which 
in some instances wer e submitted more than six years ago.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 54 - 
 
  3.285.   Moreover the European Union is experiencing specific difficulties with its export of dairy 
products, namely delay in approval procedures, postponement of audits and restrictions on the 
issuance of import license approva ls for already approved member States and establishments. All 
this constitutes unjustified barriers to trade. These developments are very worrying and of great 
concern to the European Union and its member States.  
3.286.   The European Union believes that Indonesia is in breach of its obligations under the 
SPS Agreement, namely those of Article 8 and Annex C 1(a) and 1(b), by the lack of transparency 
on market access approval procedures. Against this background, the European Union would like to 
ask Indonesia to corre ct the situation with no further delay. In particular, the European Union calls 
Indonesia to respect its obligations by being transparent about its approval procedures and by 
finalizing pending market access applications from EU member States without undue  delays. 
Moreover, the European Union urges Indonesia to ensure that import licenses for dairy products that 
are already approved for export to Indonesia are swiftly issued.  
3.287.   The European Union looks forward to receiving the requested information from Indon esia 
about its import procedures, the state of works on pending applications and the assurance of respect 
of WTO SPS principles. For this, and as usual, the European Union remains open to continue working 
with Indonesia to make concrete progress on market access applications for export of animal 
products to Indonesia and to have a more effective and regular dialogue at the appropriate level.  
3.288.   Indonesia  provided the following response: Indonesia thanks the delegation of the European 
Union for conveying again the EU member States interests on the transparency aspect of our import 
procedures and the update on progress of export applications requested by certain EU member 
States related to the import of plant and animal products. Indonesia wishes to inform the Co mmittee 
that we have met with the delegations of the European Union several times to discuss this matter 
and we have provided the European Union necessary information to each of their point of interests.  
3.289.   Given the limited time to deliver our statement, Ind onesia wishes to respond directly to the 
EU interests: (1) In term of transparency, we would like to inform the Committee that our current 
regulations have been adjusted taking into account the inputs from all relevant stakeholders so as 
to simplify import  procedures, including by providing detailed timeframes with specific requirements 
to be followed, in relation with country approval processes for animal products. For the import of 
animal products, current regulations that should be referred to are the Mi nistry of Agriculture 
Regulations (MOA) No. 42/2019 and the Ministry of Trade Regulations (MOT) No. 29/2019 as 
amended by MOT No. 72/2019. (2) Then, for the importation of horticultural products, you can find 
detailed procedures in MOA No. 39/2019 as amend ed by MOA No. 02/2020 and MOT No. 44/2019 
as amended by MOT No. 27/2020. All of these regulations are publicly available on the official website 
of the Ministry of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture.  
3.290.   Now, we turn to address the European Union's interest  in the progress of export applications 
from certain EU member States. Indonesia wishes to provide an update as follows: (1) For plant 
products, the approval processes for Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the 
Netherlands, Poland, Portuga l and Spain have been completed. (2) For animal products, the approval 
processes for Austria, France, Ireland, Belgium, Italy and Spain have also been completed. (3) Other 
applications for approval processes from some EU member States are in the final stag e of 
assessment. We are committed to further process applications with some schedule adjustment due 
to the constraints faced because of the COVID -19 pandemic.  
3.291.   Indonesia believes our current regulations and practices on imports of agricultural products 
as we informed at this meeting are consistent with our WTO obligations. Yet, we are ready to have 
further bilateral discussions with the European Union if it has follow -up questions in this regard.  
3.2.11   US import restrictions on apples and pears – Concerns of the E uropean Union 
(No. 439)  
3.292.   The European Union  provided the following statement: It is with regret that the European 
Union has to repeat its concern about the United States refusal to allow imports of apples and pears 
from the European Union under a so -called systems approach – instead of the existing pre -clearance 
approach. Already in 2008, more than a decade ago, the European Union initiated an application to 
the United Sates to work towards the agreement of shipping apples and pears from the European G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Union t o the United States under a systems approach. Today's exports of apples and pears are 
allowed under a pre -clearance program. However, this system is not working as it is overly costly 
and therefore only very limited exports of apples and pears are taking p lace from the European 
Union to the United States.  
3.293.   The European Union is disappointed that the United States has failed so far to solve this 
issue where all scientific work has been carried out and as the United States finalised its assessment 
already sev eral years ago and concluded that safe imports of apples and pears from the European 
Union could start to take place under a bilaterally agreed systems approach.  
3.294.   The only missing element is a purely administrative step, namely the publication by the 
United States of a final notice to allow trade to start. There is no scientific basis for the United States 
to block this publication. The European Union thus considers that the United States is not complying 
with the WTO SPS Agreement. Therefore, the European Union calls the United States to respect its 
obligations under the WTO and to approve the imports of apples and pears from the European Union 
under the agreed systems approach without any further delay.  
3.295.   The United States  provided the following statement: The United States thanks the European 
Union for its continued interest in the status of the request from eight EU member States to export 
apples and pears under a systems approach to the United States. The United States Department of 
Agriculture continues to work through its administrative procedures on this request. We would again 
note that the European Union is able to export apples and pears to the United States under the 
existing preclearance program. We appreciate our bilateral engagement on this issue . 
3.2.12   EU Regulation on high risk plants  (Regulation (EU) 2016/2031) – Concerns of 
Israel (No. 469)  
3.296.   Israel  provided the following statement: In the previous SPS meeting in November, Israel 
raised its concerns as regards the EU regulation on so -called high -risk plants. This regulation, which 
has now come into force, has banned the import of 35 plant genera and two species into the 
European Union and has thus stopped on -going trade, without the European Union submitting any 
scientific evidence of the phytosanitary  risks behind the selection of this list of plants.  
3.297.   In September 2018, the European Union organized a meeting in Brussels with agricultural 
attachés during which Members were urged to submit dossiers on these high -risk plants as soon as 
possible (but not b efore January 2019). It was clear to all the delegates that if they acted accordingly 
and EFSA concluded their analysis on time, a ban would be avoided. Unfortunately, this has not been 
the case. Israel was the first country to submit two dossiers in Janua ry 2019. EFSA assessments of 
these two dossiers concluded in November 2019 and February 2020 respectively. Although in one 
case over half a year has passed since the conclusion of EFSA's risk assessment, the lifting of the 
ban imposed on 14 December 2019 h as yet to be raised.  
3.298.   On a positive note, the European Union just a week ago, provided Israel with a draft 
legislation for the re -opening of trade on two of these commodities. This we very much appreciate. 
Unfortunately, these draft measures do not appear to take into account EFSA findings on the level 
of risk identified. As this is a new process for both the European Union and its trading parties, we 
beseech the European Union to provide further guidance on its appropriate level of protection and 
how new i mport measures relate to the levels of risk identified by EFSA.  
3.299.   We would like to reiterate that trade of these plants with the European Union had been 
ongoing for many years without any phytosanitary problems. The ban, which is still in place, and 
the cont inued uncertainty of not knowing when trade may recommence and under what 
circumstances, severely affects our producers. It is also in direct conflict with Article 5.4 of the SPS 
Agreement which states that Members should, when determining the appropriate level of sanitary 
or phytosanitary protection, take into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects.  
3.300.   While we acknowledge the progress made, we continue to urge the European Union to 
reconsider its current policy with the aim of bringing i t in line with the SPS Agreement. We believe 
that ongoing trade should not be banned, even temporarily, unless there is specific justification to 
do so. Where this is not the case, risk assessments should be performed while having minimal effects 
on ongoin g trade i.e. by carrying out the risk assessments while trade continues and making G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 56 - 
 
  appropriate changes in import requirements per risks identified thereafter. Failing this, we continue 
to urge the European Union to conclude the process without any further delays.  
3.301.   The European Union  provided the following response: The European Union would like to take 
this opportunity to recall some previous statements in the WTO SPS Committee and provide 
Members with an update on the state of play of the implementation of  its regulatory measures 
concerning high -risk plants.  
3.302.   The new EU plant health regime, Regulation (EU) No. 2016/2031, which entered into force 
in December 2019, maintains a generally open system but increases the level of phytosanitary 
protection of the Eu ropean Union. A preliminary assessment conducted by the European Union 
authorities revealed that a limited number of plants and plant products, listed in Regulation (EU) 
No. 2018/2019, posed unacceptable risks. As a result, the introduction of these high-risk plants into 
the European Union can only take place following a risk assessment carried out by the European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) based on a technical dossier submitted by the interested exporting 
countries. Once the risk assessment is comp leted, the European Commission adopts an 
implementing measure detailing the relevant import requirements.  
3.303.   The European Union has made significant efforts to disseminate information on the new plant 
health regime and minimize trade disruption. The European Commission held meetings in Brussels 
with non -EU countries to provide explanations and address possible concerns. EFSA has published a 
technical report detailing the information necessary for technical dossiers and organised two 
webinars to assist national  authorities in the preparation of dossiers. In addition, the European Union 
has notified every draft regulatory measure and provided detailed responses to all the comments 
received. As of today, the European Union has received 53 applications and EFSA has  concluded six 
risk assessments. The system is now operational and processes all applications in accordance with 
the established rules and procedures.  
3.304.   As regards the specific case of Israel, out of five applications, EFSA has concluded the 
assessment of th e first two ( Albizia julibrissin  and Robinia pseudoacacia ) and the third one is for 
adoption in the plenary meeting of the EFSA Panel in July 2020. The European Union has also 
concluded its internal consultation procedures and sent draft legal acts to Isra el for a five -day 
consultation. The deadline for the consultation was 23 June 2020. The European Commission expects 
to adopt the corresponding legal acts very soon. Publication in the Official Journal of the European 
Union will take place a few days after adoption.  
3.305.   The European Union would like to reassure Israel and all the other WTO Members that it is 
making every effort to speed up the implementation of these regulatory measures, which are 
necessary to ensure the appropriate level of phytosanitary prote ction in its territory.  
3.3  Information  on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev. 20 
3.306.   No Member provided  any information under this agenda item.  
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.  No Member provided  any information under this agenda item.  
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas (Regionalization)   
4.2.1   Annual report in accordan ce with G/SPS/48  (G/SPS/GEN/1777 ) 
4.2.  The Chairperson  drew the attention of Members to the Annual Report on the Implementation 
of Article 6 of the Agreement of the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, which had 
been circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/1777 . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 57 - 
 
  4.2.2   Information  from Members  
4.2.2.1   Colombia – Recovery of its status as an FMD -free country with vaccination 
(G/SPS/GEN/1768 ) 
4.3.  Colombia  provided the following statement: We would like to briefly mention a communication 
that we had prepared for the March meeting, which was cancelled for well -known reasons.  We wish 
to inform WTO Members that the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) has restored the status 
of Colombia as a foot and mouth disease (FMD) free zone where vaccination is practised. 
Given  Colombia's new health status granted by the OIE in its capacity as an SPS Agreement 
reference body, we wish to invite WTO Members to inform their health authorities so that the 
restrictions imposed by some countries may be lifted, thus facilitating ongoing processes to ensure 
compliance with sanitary requirements. Detailed information can be found in communication 
G/SPS/GEN/1768  regarding the restoration of Colombia's health status as a foot and mouth disease 
(FMD) free zone where vaccination is practised.  
4.2.2.2   Mexico - Declaration of an area free from fruit fl ies of the quarantine -significant 
genus Anastrepha  and species Rhagoletis pomonella  (G/SPS/GEN/1780 ) 
4.4.  Mexico  provided the following statement : Mexico would like to share with Members 
communication G/SPS/GEN/1780  (19 May 2020), declaring the municipality of San Juan Atenco in 
the State of Puebla to be an area fre e from fruit flies of the quarantine -significant genus Anastrepha  
and species Rhagoletis pomonella . The authority responsible for these self -declarations is the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER), acting through the National Agriculture and 
Food Health, Safety and Quality Service (SENASICA). Mexico kindly requests that these 
self-declarations be used as reference in their commercial dealings.  
4.2.2.3   Mexico - Declaration of area free from  large avocado seed weevils ( Heilipus lauri ), 
small avocado seed weevils ( Conotrachelus aguacatae  and C. perseae ) and avocado seed 
moths ( Stenoma catenifer ) (G/SPS/GEN/1782 ) 
4.5.  Mexico  provided the following  statement: Mexico would like share with Members 
communication G/SPS/GEN/1782  (25 May 2020), declaring the municipality of Taxco de Alarcón in 
the State of Guerr ero to be an area free from the large avocado seed weevil ( Heilipus lauri ), the 
small avocado seed weevil ( Conotrachelus aguacatae  and C. perseae ) and the avocado seed moth 
(Stenoma catenifer ). The authority responsible for these self -declarations is the M inistry of 
Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER), acting through the National Agriculture and Food 
Health, Safety and Quality Service (SENASICA). Mexico kindly requests that these self -declarations 
be used as reference in their commercial dealings.  
4.2.2.4   Peru - Self-declarations as a country free from diseases caused by the yellow head 
virus (genotype 1) and the infectious myonecrosis virus ( G/SPS/GEN/1793 ) 
4.6.  Peru submitted document  G/SPS/GEN/1793  and provided th e following statement: Peru would 
like to highlight to WTO Members the ongoing work being done by its fisheries and aquiculture health 
authority, the National Fisheries Health Authority (SANIPES), with regard to improving health 
conditions in the country. This work has resulted in two self -declarations, also published by the OIE, 
regarding the yellow head virus (genotype 1) and the infectious myonecrosis virus . Peru wishes to 
invite Members to take account of these self -declarations in subsequent trade/heal th formalities. 
Members can find further details in document G/SPS/GEN/1793  and in notifications 
G/SPS/N/PER/873  and G/SPS/N/PER/874 . 
4.2.2.5   Chinese Taipei  - OIE official recognition of foot and mouth disease -free zone  
4.7.  Chinese Taipei  submitted document G/SPS/GEN/181313  and provided the following statement : 
We are pleased to inform Members of our recently gained foot and mouth disease -free status. On 
13 June 2020, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) officially recognized the health status 
of the Taiwan, Penghu and Matsu areas of our customs territo ry as a foot and mouth disease (FMD) 
free zone, where vaccination  is not practiced. Over the last 23 years, we have implemented a series 
 
13 Chinese Taipei submitted a corrigendum on 29 July 2020, document G/SPS/GEN/1813/Corr.1 . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 58 - 
 
  of measures to eradicate FMD. So, for us it is an important milestone on our journey since the first 
occurrence of the disease in 199 7. In the interest of transparency and in accordance with Article 6 
of the SPS Agreement, we would encourage all Members to kindly take note of this recognition . 
4.8.  We also invite Members to inform their health and veterinary authorities at the earliest 
opportunity so that restrictions previously imposed by some may now be lifted. We look forward to 
cooperating closely with our trading partners, and to discussing the resumption  of trade in relevant 
animals and animal products. This should be of s ome benefit to global food security during these 
difficult times of the COVID -19 pandemic and the severe outbreaks of African swine fever 
experienced around the world . 
4.2.2.6   Russian Federation - OIE official recognition  of zones free from certain animal 
diseases  
4.9.  The Russian Federation  announced that, following OIE procedures, it had gained official status 
of freedom from contagious bovine  pleuropneumonia. It expl ained that extensive studies, analysis 
and sampling had taken place in all its regions.  
4.2.2.7   Ukrain e - Update on its avian influenza -free status  
4.10.   Ukraine  provided the following statement: With regards to the WTO Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phyt osanitary Measures, animal health, welfare and veterinary public 
health must be improved worldwide to ensure safe international trade, Ukraine is pleased to support 
the fundamental principle of WTO of transparency in international trade. Ukraine would like  to 
provide a brief update to Members with regards of the status free of Ukraine on Avian Influenza (AI).  
4.11.  In Ukraine, Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) and Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza 
(LPAI) are diseases subject to mandatory  notifications in acc ordance with the Law of Ukraine on 
Veterinary Medicine. The system for AI surveillance in Ukraine is based on active and passive 
surveillance that is fully in compliance with OIE recommendations. Ukraine had notified to OIE on e 
single outbreak of highly pa thogenic avian influenza (HPAI) among domestic poultry that was 
registered on 19 January 2020. All measures were taken in a timely manner due to the current 
National Control Programme on avian influenza developed in accordance with provision of the OIE 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Control measures included a stamping out policy, monitoring, 
movement and certification restrictions in place, etc . All measures were effectively implemented by 
the competent authority  of Ukraine. This case has been localized a nd eradicated without further 
spreading of disease.  
4.12.  Ukraine has notified to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) the outbreak of HPAI 
and submitted a follow up; surveillance has been carried out in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code; and a three -month  period was applied following completion of the stamping 
out policy and cleansing and disinfection without any new outbreaks . The final report was submitted 
to the OIE on 12 May 2020 . Therefore , Ukraine declares that th e whole country is free from avian 
influenza as of 12  May 2020 in accordance with its national legislation  and Article 10.4.3 of the OIE 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Ukraine appreciates the adequate feedback from Members on this 
case.  
4.3  Operation of transparency  provisions  
4.13.  No Member provided  any information under this agenda item.  
4.4  Special and Differential  Treatment  
4.14.  No Member provided  any information under this agenda item . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 59 - 
 
  4.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  
4.5.1   New issues  
4.5.1.1   United  States of America - Codex Maximum Residue Limits and Risk Management 
Recommendations for Residues  of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CX/MRL 2 -2018)  
4.15.  The United States  submitted  its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1801/Rev.1 . 
4.16.  Canada  provided the following statement: Canada woul d like to thank the United States for 
raising the issue of the Codex Maximum Residue Limits and Risk Management Recommendations for 
Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods. Canada recalls the substantial effort to establish an 
international standard for ract opamine at Codex. The FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 
(JECFA) conducted comprehensive risk assessments considering its toxicology, residues in and 
intake from food animals in 1993, 2004, 2006 and in 2010, and concluded that the recommended 
MRLs were safe for the consumption of muscle, liver, kidney and fat. The Codex Alimentarius 
Commission adopted MRLs for ractopamine in 2012 after discussing the issue for the previous four 
sessions. Non -adoption by Members of the ractopamine MRL, as well as oth er standards, 
recommendations and guidance established by Codex may unnecessarily increase costs for 
producers, processors and exporters, which results in higher prices for consumers around the world.  
4.17.  Paraguay  provided the following statement: My delegatio n would like to thank the delegation 
of the United States for placing this item on the agenda. Paraguay has always supported and will 
continue to support the Codex work in this area. We urge all Members to follow the Codex 
recommendations to avoid the prol iferation of non -tariff barriers to trade in agricultural products 
and of standards with which compliance may be impossible for developing countries that depend on 
exports of these products to sustain their economy and the subsistence of hundreds of thousa nds of 
people.  
4.5.2   Issues previously  raised  
4.5.2.1   European Union – ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
4.18.  The European Union  submitted the following statement: Once again, the European Union must 
draw the attention of WTO Members to inco nsistencies in the application of OIE international 
standards related to African swine fever. The OIE Terrestrial Code contains clear guidance for the 
identification, treatment and certification of tradable products. Yet, several WTO Members chose to 
ignore these recommendations that were developed, consolidated and adopted in the OIE with the 
support of these same Members.  
4.19.  Through the European Union's strict regionalisation policy, the European Union demonstrates 
every day in its single market that Africa n swine fever can be managed effectively to make sure that 
legitimate and safe trade is not the cause of any outbreak. The European Union is highly transparent 
on its disease control measures and provides information through the websites of the EU 
Commissi on, of the member States, of the OIE and through bilateral contacts with trade partners. 
For example, weekly synthesis reports are published by the EU Commission.  
4.20.  The European Union would like to insist that WTO Members apply import measures that are 
consistent with the SPS Agreement  and with international standards. The European Union continues 
to give high priority to this issue and stands ready to work with WTO Members to remove 
country -wide and scientifically unjustified bans.  Given the large number of WTO Members affected 
by the disease, from EU member States to China, from Belarus to Malaysia, the European Union has 
suggested to organise a thematic session on the subject of African swine fever ( G/SPS/W/322 ). 
4.5.2.2   European Union – HPAI restrictions  not consistent with OIE international 
standard s 
4.21.  The European Union  submitted the following statement: The European Union appreciates the 
cooperation with those WTO Members that recognise the principle of zoning and accept the 
regionalis ation measures put in place in the European Union. Many Members trust the European G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 60 - 
 
  Union's effective and transparent system of control and eradication of animal diseases like Avian 
influenza for many years now (and vice versa) and we do not experience any incident that would 
put this trust in question. On the other hand, there is still a significant number of WTO Members 
that disregard their obligations under Article 6 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, in particular 
China, Korea and South Africa.  
4.22.  Country -wide bans after a disease outbreak are not scientifically justified. There is also no 
justification for WTO and OIE Members to await one year or more to restore the disease -free 
status  - instead of the three months defined by the OIE Code.  The European Union  successfully 
manages regionalisation measures in its entire territory, namely the single market of its member 
States. The veterinary services of all EU member States work in full transparency. Trade partners of 
the European Union can be reassured that it is at all times fully aware of the animal health situation 
in all member States.  
4.23.  The European Union reiterates its call to all WTO Members to respect their obligations on 
regionalisation under the WTO SPS Agreement; allow trade of all safe products from n on-affected 
zones; lift all bans after regaining freedom 3 months after the application of stamping -out, cleaning 
and disinfection of all affected premises; refrain from imposing trade restriction in case of HPAI in 
wild or captive birds; refrain from impo sing trade restriction in case of LPAI detected. The European 
Union has repeatedly explained the disease control and regionalisation measures taken in the event 
of an outbreak and offered bilateral structured dialogues to come to a solution with WTO Member s. 
Unfortunately, these offers have not yielded concrete results so far.  
4.24.  The European Union appeals to WTO Members to respect the recommendations of 
international standard setting bodies. These  recommendations were developed and adopted with 
their support .  
4.5.2.3   Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/11/Rev.1  (G/SP S/GEN/1776 )  
4.25.  The Chair person  drew the attention of Members to the Annual Report on the Procedure to 
Monitor the Process of International Harmonization , covering the period from 1 April 2019 until 
31 March 2020, circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/1776 . 
4.6  Fifth Review  of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3)  
4.6.1    Report on the Informal Meeting  
4.26.  The Chairperson reported on the discussions on the Revised Draft Report of the Fifth Review 
held at the informal meeting  on 25 June 2020.14 
4.27.  At the informal meeting on 25 June 2020, the Committee had discussed the revised draft 
Report of the Fifth Review circulated as document W/313/Rev.3  and its addendum , as well as the 
possibility of an ad referendum adoption of the Report. The Chairperson had explained that the 
Secretariat had prepared the latest version  of the Report on the basis of the discussions that had 
been held in the M ay consultations and Members' comments contained in document W/324/Rev.1 . 
The Chairperson had explained that w hile all comments had been given careful consideration, it had 
not always been possible for the Secretariat to take them all on board. The Chairperson had also 
highligh ted some small edits which the Secretariat had included in the Report . 
4.28.  The Committee had  first discussed the recommendations in the proposals section of the 
Report. No Member had expressed any reservations in relation to the recommendations on: 
(i) appropr iate level of protection, risk assessment  and science; (ii) equivalence; (iii) national SPS 
coordination mechanisms; (iv) notification procedures and transparency; (v) regionalization; and 
(vi) voluntary third -party assurance schemes.  
 
14 The full report on discussions held at the informal meeting was distributed to Members by email on 26 
June 2020. The deadl ine for providing comments was 6 July 2020. No Member submitted comments by that 
date. G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 61 - 
 
  4.29.  On control, inspectio n and approval procedures, one Member had initially expressed some 
reservations on the second recommendation, but had subsequently indicated its willingness to lift 
this reservation, noting the positive support expressed by several Members in moving ahead with 
the recommendation, and its spirit of collaboration to facilitate the adoption of the recommendations.  
4.30.  On fall armyworm, one Member had drawn attention to its previously raised questions, noting 
that it was reviewing the response which it had recentl y received from one of the proponents and 
that it reserved its right to submit further comments. One proponent of the recommendation had 
offered to respond to any follow -up questions.  
4.31.  On the topic of MRLs for plant protection products, one Member had indic ated that it still had 
reservations with the third recommendation and was consulting internally on the alternative 
language in the draft Report.  
4.32.  On the role of Codex, OIE and IPPC, one Member had noted its concerns with the wording in 
the third recommendat ion, indicating its preference to include the wording "should" instead of "may". 
Another Member had indicated its support for the analysis of STCs by Codex, OIE and IPPC. 
In response, one Member had recalled concerns raised in previous discussions on the i nvolvement 
of Codex, OIE and IPPC in discussions of STCs, noting that the current recommendations reflected 
a delicate balance of views across Members and that any change would prove difficult in moving 
towards an ad referendum adoption. Another Member had  suggested revising the title of the section 
in order to reflect the revised text of the recommendations. The new title would read as follows 
"Role of Codex, OIE and IPPC with respect to specific trade concerns". The Chairperson had 
requested the Secretari at to make this edit.  
4.33.  In concluding the discussions on the recommendations, one Member had highlighted that the 
proposed recommendations would not preclude continued discussions on MRLs or on the role of 
Codex, OIE and IPPC. Another Member had underscored the intense work that the Committee had 
undertaken during the period and the depth of the discussions, had also further highlighted that the 
recommendations outlined the future work of the Committee and had reflected on the importance 
of discussing element s central to the implementation of the SPS Agreement.  
4.34.  In relation to the factual section of the Report, no Member had made any comments.  
4.35.  Some Members had expressed the view that the Committee should move towards an ad 
referendum adoption  of the Report and encouraged flexibility among Members in this regard. 
The Chairperson had explained how an ad referendum adoption would work, highlighting that this 
approach would give delegations another opportunity to consult. The Chairperson had drawn  
Members' attention to document RD/SPS/111 , which include d several examples of previous 
instances where the SPS Committee has adopted documents on an ad referendum basis. In addition, 
The Chairperson had underscored that the Committee meeting was being held "in -person" with the 
additional op tion for Members to join via the virtual platform, which meant that the Committee could 
take substantive decisions.  
4.36.  The Chairperson had suggested that the Report could be proposed for ad referendum adoption 
in the formal meeting, if there were no further concerns with the text. In this case, the Chairperson 
would then set a deadline of 31 July 2020 and if no delegation raised a written objection by this 
date, the procedure would be considered adopted. However, in the event of an objection, the 
Committee wo uld consider and potentially adopt the report at its next meeting, in light of any 
changes.  
4.37.  The Chairperson had invited Members to reflect on the work undertaken by the Committee 
during the period of the Review and also to take into consideration the flexi bility shown by Members 
in the meeting. The Chairperson indicated that the Committee would continue its discussions in the 
formal meeting.  
4.38.   With respect to the r escheduling of 2020 thematic sessions/workshop s, the Chairperson 
reported that he had proposed to reschedule the se activities that had to be postponed due to the 
COVID -19 pandemic, taking them up in the same order in which they had originally been planned. 
The Thematic Session on Voluntary Third-Party Assurance Schemes ( G/SPS/GEN/1754/Rev.1 ), 
originally planned for March 2020, could be held in November 2020. The Workshop on Risk G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 62 - 
 
  Assessment, Risk Management and Risk Communication ( G/SPS/GEN/1769 ), planned for June 2020, 
could be held in  June 2021.  
4.39.  Two additional proposed thematic sessions had been proposed, on default pesticide MRLs and 
on African swine fever ( G/SPS/W/322 ). These could either be held in March 2021 or in November 
2021. Several Members  had been in favou r of the proposed calendar; one Member had proposed 
holding a thematic session on the locust situation that was affecting several Members. In general, 
Members had been  open to exploring the possibility of combining in -person and virtual activities, 
with th e objective of maximizing interactivity and broad participation. The Chairperson had 
suggested finalizing the scheduling of the proposed thematic sessions at the November meeting.  
4.7  Revised Draft Report of the Fifth Review ( G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3  and 
G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1)  
4.40.  Brazil  indicated that it would not oppose the Report on the 5th Review going forward to ad 
referendum adoption. Brazil also provided the following statement:  (1) On paragraph 7.1., und er 
Section 7 MRLs for Plant Protection Products, Brazil notes that SPS measures, including MRLs, are 
to be harmonized according to Article 3 of the SPS Agreement, which brings the International 
Standard Setting Bodies (ISSBs) to the core of the system. Mor eover, regarding the excerpt "to 
improve harmonization to Codex MRLs, as well as to regional MRLs where relevant", Brazil clarifies 
that in its view all MRLs, either Codex or regional, must be based on sound scientific justification 
and on a proper assessm ent of risk, as established by the SPS Agreement.  (2) On Section 9 Role of 
Codex, IPPC and OIE in Addressing Specific Trade Concerns, Brazil attributes the utmost importance 
to the inclusion of the ISSBs as technical brokers on STCs. ISSBs' participation s hall not be regarded 
as a political deviation of their scientific purpose, as it must circumscribe itself to the scientific, 
technical and methodological aspects of their own standards. Considering the spirit of the SPS 
Agreement and the role the text atta ches to the ISSBs, Brazil strongly feels that, from a technical 
standpoint, the Committee must consider the role of Codex, OIE and IPPC in the procedures of STCs.   
4.41.   India made reference to the questions it had raised at the  November 2019 SPS Committee 
meeti ng to the proponents of the propos al on fall armyworm, reflecting stakeholders' concerns about 
some of the concepts mentioned in the proposal. On 11 May 2020, India had reiterated the 
questions, asking the proponents for a written response. Written respons es from one of the 
proponents were received on 18 June 2020, which were under review by capital -based authorities 
and stakeholders. Despite the challenges posed by the COVID -19 pandemic, India emphasised that 
it was committed to share final comments with t he SPS Committee by the end of the following week, 
towards an ad referendum adoption of the Fifth Review by 31 July 2020. India requested to reserve 
its right to provide comments and objections on the proposal on fall armyworm.  
4.42.  The Chairperson responded by  clarifying the procedure for an ad referendum  adoption. He 
proposed that the Committee adopt th e Report on an ad referendum  basis, setting a date by which 
Members could raise objections to the adoption of the Report, which would allow Members a final  
chance for consult ations . If no delegation raised an objection by Friday, 31 July 2020, the report 
would be adopted. If any Member raised an objection before that date, discussion on the Report 
would continue at the following SPS Committee meeting.  
4.43.   Since no delegation presented  any substantive comment on the Report of the Review at that 
stage, the Chair person  proposed that the Committee adopt the Report of the Fifth Review contained 
in document G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3  and its Addendum, on an ad referendum basis.  
4.44.  The Committee adopt ed the Report of the Fifth Review on an ad referendum basis . If no 
Member inform s the Secretariat of an objection by 31 July 2020 , the Report will be considered to 
have been adopted . 
4.45.  The Chair person  expressed his appreciation to all Members, as well as to the previous 
Chairperson  Ms. Noncedo Vutula (South Africa) and to the WTO Secretariat.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 63 - 
 
  5  CROSS -CUTTING  ISSUES  
5.1  Report on the COVID -19 information -sharing session  
5.1.  The Chairperson reported on the discussions held at the COVID -19 information -sharing session 
held on 24 June 202015 and noted that a news item on the session was available on the WTO 
website.16 The Chairperson  also indicated that he had asked the Secretariat to prepare a more 
detailed report of the session, since a lot of valuable information had bee n shared.17 
5.2.  The Chairperson reported that the half -day information session had provided an opportunity 
for the Secretariat, STDF, Codex , IPPC, OIE (the three sisters), WHO, and Members, to give updates 
on their responses and reactions to the challenging si tuation that was being faced. The Chairperson 
had summarized some main points that had emerged from the discussions.  
5.3.  The Chairperson noted that many speakers had emphasized that maintaining and facilitating 
safe agri -food trade was more important than ever to mitigate eventual negative effects of the 
pandemic on food security and livelihoods. This was reflected  in the no tified measures; the last few 
months had seen an increase in electronic SPS certification and other flexibilities to facilitate trade, 
as had been reported by numerous delegations and the Secretariat. Several delegations had also 
made calls for further fle xibilities particularly with respect to MRL review and setting processes in 
line with communication G/SPS/GEN/1778  and revisions , requesting the European Union to suspend 
its ongoing review processes for 12 months, and urging all Members to ba se their MRLs on 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations.  
5.4.  The Chairperson also reported that the SPS Committee had heard how Codex, IPPC and OIE 
had been adapting their work to the situation, moving to virtual or hybrid meetings as necessar y. 
Adherence to international standards and effective participation in standard -setting work was crucial 
to avoid – as one speaker had put it – measures taken "because of action bias and not based on 
science". Several organizations had worked quickly to pr oduce guidance, for example on food safety, 
and were planning future work, for example on trade in wild animals. The Committee had also heard 
about the role of the International Health Regulations in facilitating information exchange about 
public health re sponses and ensuring that they were commensurate to the risk and avoided 
unnecessary interference with international trade and traffic.  
5.5.  Finally, the Chairperson had highlighted that numerous speakers had stressed the core 
principles of the SPS Agreement, i ncluding transparency, science and risk assessment. It had been 
clear that many Members considered that the SPS Agreement played a key role in addressing the 
COVID crisis. An effective response to the pandemic required coordinated action and so far, in 
general the agricultural and food production systems had proved resilient despite the considerable 
challenges that had been faced during the past months.  
5.6.  The European Union  expressed its concerns regarding measures adopted without scientific 
justification, an d submitted its statement delivered at the COVID -19 information sharing session in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1799 .  
5.7.  The United States  submitted its statement  delivered at the COVID -19 information sharing 
session in document G/SPS/GEN/1798 .  
5.2  Canada and th e United States - SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial 
Conference ( G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.1 ) 
5.8.  The Chairperson reported on the discussions on the SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial 
Conference  held at the informal meeting on 25 June 2020.  
5.9.  Proponents of the SPS Declaration for the 12th Ministerial Conference (G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.1 ) 
had noted that the COVID -19 pandemic had provided additional incentives to take stock of the 
 
15 The report as read was distributed to Members by email on 26 June 2020. The deadline for providing 
comments was 6 July 2020. No Member submitted comments by that date . 
16 https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news20_e/sps_24jun20_e.htm  
17 The Summary Report of the COVID -19 Information -Sharing Session was subsequently circulated as 
document G/SPS/R/ 98. G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 64 - 
 
  growing pressures faced by production and international trade in food, and how the SPS Agreement 
contribute d to meeting th ose challenges in a science -based manner. Despite the postponement of 
the 12th Ministerial Conference, the proponents  had continued to envisage a consensus process and 
had welcomed the opportunity for an exchange of views.  
5.10.  Co-sponsors had highlighted that the Declaration would initiate a work programme, open to 
all Members, which would complement the efforts of the SPS Committee and address the challenges 
faced by many countries in the implementation of the SPS Agreement. The Declaration would also 
help promote food security and international trade.  
5.11.  One Member had been keen to engage wi th the proponents to underline that cooperation with 
observer organizations should be more active, highlighting their expertise and institutional capacity.  
5.12.  To a question whether the items in the Declaration were not sufficiently covered in the 
5th Review and whether they could be covered in the current course of work of the SPS Committee, 
proponents had responded that the Declaration presented a broader view than implementation 
efforts included in the 5th Review. Proponents had also added that the SPS Comm ittee has access 
to a broad range of expertise in highly technical discussions, and an understanding on how they 
relate to trade issues. The work of the SPS Committee was fundamentally connected with issues 
being discussed at high political levels, such as  disease transmission, pest pressure, sustainability, 
and feeding a growing population. A Ministerial Declaration was an effort to make a connection 
between the technical work being done, those larger issues, and the effects on trade. Also, through 
a Minis terial Declaration, the deliberative function of the WTO would be strengthened, by including 
technical issues in the discussions.  
5.13.  Another Member had noted that this had been the first time the proposed Declaration had 
been presented and discussed in the c ontext of the SPS Committee, and while still considering its 
position, it had seen merit in celebrating the 25th anniversary of the SPS Agreement, underlining its 
connection to high level concerns. It had been open to engage on the Declaration, also taking  into 
account the amount of work the SPS Committee would be committing to undertake.  
5.14.  The Chairperson recalled that Members could present comments on the report of the informal 
meeting until 6 July 2020, and announced that a new revision of the document would be circulated, 
including Senegal and Singapore as cosponsors .18  
5.15.  The United States  welcomed the additional co -sponsors and the productive discussion that 
took place at the informal meeting of the SPS Committee. The United States also announc ed that a 
second revision would be issued shortly. The United States referred to document 
G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.1  and made the following statement:  
5.16.  The 25th anniversary of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures (SPS Agreement) is an opportune  point to recognize the important contribution of the 
SPS Agreement in supporting rural livelihoods, facilitating trade and supporting agriculture 
sustainability. The COVID -19 pandemic and the accompanying disruptions to agricultural production 
and trade p rovided additional incentives to take stock of the challenges ahead and to assess the 
potential impact of emerging pressures, and to explore how implementation of the SPS Agreement 
contributes to our collective ability to meet the challenges ahead.  
5.17.  We welc ome the interest of other Members in this initiative and look forward to working 
together with all Members to take it forward to MC12  
5.18.  Canada  delivered the following statement: Canada thanked Members for their interest in the 
proposed Ministerial Declaratio n during the informal meeting of the SPS Committee. The Ministerial 
Declaration on sanitary  and phytosanitary measures underlines the benefits of the SPS Agreement 
to all WTO Members since its adoption and reaffirms the continuing importance of adhering to  its 
obligations. The global agricultural landscape has evolved since the adoption of the SPS Agreement 
in 1995. There are a variety of new opportunities and emerging pressures relating to international 
 
18 Members made reference in their statements to document G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.1  of 11 May 2020. 
Later revisions were circulated on 25 June 2020 as document G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.2  and on 17 July 2020 as 
document G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.3 .  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 65 - 
 
  trade in food, animals and plants. Enhanced implement ation of the SPS Agreement will assist in 
addressing the challenges and opportunities created by the evolving global agricultural landscape.  
5.19.  The objective of this Declaration is to initiate a work programme, open to all Members and 
Observers, to consider h ow to further enhance the implementation of the SPS Agreement in light of 
the opportunities and pressures created by the evolution of the global agricultural landscape. It is 
important to note that the Declaration does not in any way indicate that there is  a need to launch 
the negotiation of SPS obligations or reopen the SPS Agreement.  
5.20.  Canada is enthusiastic that preliminary discussions with Members have thus far demonstrated 
an openness to developing a multilateral Declaration on sanitary and phytosanitar y measures. 
Canada is pleased that other Members have joined as co -sponsors and welcomed Senegal and 
Singapore to the Declaration, as well as other Members who were close to joining. We look forward 
to continued work with all Members on the development of this Declaration, as well as a work 
programme that could highlight opportunities for further enhancement of the Agreement.  
5.21.  In light of the postponement of the Ministerial Conference, we urge Members to continue to 
reflect on this important initiative and i nvite interested Members to join as a co -sponsor.  
5.22.  Brazil  provided the following statement: Based on what has been discussed throughout these 
sessions, we believe the moment  is ripe to bring to the Committee 's attention the efforts by several 
different del egations to bring together a proposal for an SPS Declaration, as available in 
G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.1 . Now that the Agreement has been into force for over a quarter -century, 
we believe it 's high time Members recognized the progress its implementation has brought to world 
agricultural trade, in spite of eventual setbacks we might have encountered on this journey. We 
must also look ahead and move forward, guided by our common understanding that enhancing 
implementation of the Agreement will help us, as we all face the challenge s the 21st century has 
brought to farmers worldwide. In the work program contained in G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.1 , the 
proponents have tried to capture the pressing issues that are already impacting agricultural 
production and trade. These issues must be dealt with urgently, wit h an unbiased and science -
oriented approach. We thank Members that already have shown support to this initiative and we 
invite all those who have not come on board yet to engage with us so that, together, we can find a 
common forward -looking way ahead. Enhancing the implementation of the SPS Agreement goes in 
tandem with strengthening the works of the SPS Committee.  
5.23.  Argentina  provided the following statement: With regard to document 
G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.1 , containing the proposal for a sanitary and phytosanitary declaration for the 
Twelfth WTO Ministerial Conference, Argentina wishes to underline the importance of the 
SPS Agreement, which, after 25 years, continues to protect the right of Members  to adopt the 
necessary measures to protect human, anim al and plant life and health.  In these 25 years, trade in 
agri-food products at the global level has evolved and we are facing new and complex challenges. 
Hence  positive progress is needed at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference on a proposal of this type, 
which includes a work plan open to all Members and observers to determine common issues, the 
mechanisms for tackling them and the effects of these challenges on the application of the 
SPS Agreement.  We encourage Members to support a declaration at MC12 prop osing this work plan 
so that it can be analysed by the SPS Committee.  
5.24.  Australia  provided the following statement: In these trying times Australia firstly extends our 
condolences to all those affected by the global pandemic. Australia  would like to take thi s opportunity 
to reiterate the importance of the rules-based trading system, and specifically the SPS Agreement, 
in supporting global food security by facilitating open trade of food and agricultural products while 
maintaining plant, animal and human healt h.  
5.25.  Through the SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference, Australia and a number 
of other Members, have reaffirmed the rights and obligations established by the SPS Agreement and 
call for Members' strengthened adherence to the SPS Agreement to support international trade while 
ensuring the protection of human, animal and plant life or health. We look forward to working with 
Members in the lead up to MC12 to ensure the importance of the SPS Agreement is recognised more 
broadly. It will be no s urprise to this Committee that Australia supports free and open trade that 
helps to facilitate the flow of goods, including essential food and agriproducts. At the same time, we 
take the issue of plant, animal and human health seriously.  G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 66 - 
 
  5.26.  As such, Australi a calls on all Members to ensure that measures applied to the importation of 
plants and animals and their products are evidence -based and have a scientific justification. We call 
on Members not to apply unjustified measures which are inconsistent with WTO rules as such actions 
can result in un -necessary barriers to trade, increased costs to exporters, importers and consumers 
and could threaten food security.  
5.27.  Australia also calls on all Members to adhere to all their SPS Agreement obligations including 
risk assessment, transparency, and control, inspection and approval procedures in order to ensure 
that all measures are developed and applied in a transparent and proportionate manner and do not 
create unnecessary barriers to trade or disrupt global supply cha ins. 
5.28.  Paraguay  provided the following statement: My delegation would simply like to thank the 
delegations of Brazil, Canada and the United States for their leadership in this initiative, which we 
joined as co -sponsors in March.  The Working Group that it is planned to establish with this initiative 
will be open to all Members and seeks to identify common challenges in the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement and the mechanisms for attempting to resolve them, as well as the impacts of issues 
emerging in relatio n to the application of the Agreement. This will enable us to carry out a diagnosis 
and prepare recommendations for the 12th Ministerial Conference with a view to strengthening the 
principles and implementation of the Agreement . We are fully confident that  this initiative, which 
already has 17 co -proponents, can be approved at the multilateral level and we invite all Members 
to support it.  
5.29.  Uruguay  provided the following statement: We welcome the inclusion of the SPS Declaration 
for the 12th Ministerial Conference under the "Cross cutting issues" item on the agenda of today's 
formal Committee meeting, and also welcome the constructive discussions that took place in 
yesterday's inform al meeting . The draft declaration, which is co -sponsored by Uruguay, recognizes 
the existence of various challenges for the production of, and international trade in, agricultural 
products and the effects of these challenges on the application of the SPS A greement. In this context, 
we reiterate the importance of abiding by the provisions and principles established in the Agreement 
and of the commitment to work more intensively to improve its implementation through an openly 
structured work programme that co mplements existing mechanisms.  
5.30.  We hope to work together with all Members to build a consensus around this important 
initiative to enable it to be launched on a multilateral basis during the 12th Ministerial Conference.   
5.31.  Senegal  provided the following stat ement : The delegation of Senegal commends the authors 
of the draft sanitary and phytosanitary declaration for the Twelfth Ministerial Conference . I would 
like to recall that, in its communication G/SPS/GEN/1659  of 26 October  2018, the African Union (AU) 
informed Members of the mandate received from the Ministers of Trade to assess the status of 
quality infrastructure in Africa in order to give a summarized picture of where African countries stood 
in terms of their capacity to i mplement standards/measures for safety, agricultural and industrial 
development and market access .  
5.32.  An initial phase of this task, structured around the notification authorities, food safety, animal 
health and plant health, led to an assessment of AU membe r States' level of preparedness to meet 
the requirements set out in the Annex on SPS measures to the AfCFTA Protocol on Trade in Goods . 
Preliminary results show that, although in most cases guiding principles such as an SPS legislative 
framework or a natio nal SPS Committee are available in member States, the documentation of 
specific trade concerns related to SPS measures and effective participation in the activities and work 
of the SPS Committee remain a challenge . The capacity to carry out audits or verif ications, or other 
alert and emergency procedures, should also be strengthened . These challenges become even more 
pronounced in the area of market access for agricultural and agro -industrial products, particularly 
for small producers faced with tougher req uirements set in sanitary and phytosanitary standards in 
developed and developing countries across the supply chain .  
5.33.  Senegal recognizes efforts made as part of SPS Committee activities, including the periodic 
review of implementation of the SPS Agreement,  the sharing of information and good practices, and 
technical assistance and capacity building, to promote the use of harmonized sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures among Members that are based on international standards, directives and 
recommendations dev eloped by the relevant international organizations . However, much remains to G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 67 - 
 
  be done, in particular in the area of facilitating exports for developing countries and LDCs and limiting 
the impact of sanitary and phytosanitary measures on LDC trade .  
5.34.  In this connection, Senegal believes that a Ministerial commitment at the 12th WTO 
Conference, with a view to identifying and responding to the problems and challenges faced by 
Members in implementing the SPS Agreement, in particular LDCs, would be a decisive step  forward . 
The resulting work programme  will complement the work already undertaken by the Committee, 
avoiding duplication of resources and Members' efforts. This is the main reason why Senegal 
supports the proposal contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.1  and joins the list of 
co-sponsors . Senegal therefore undertakes to work constructively with Members to achieve the 
objectives set . 
5.35.  Israel  provided the following statement: Israel would like to state its general support for this 
paper as a Ministerial statement, however,  in our view, it still requires some more work and fine 
tuning. For example, the paper describes a number of recommendations listed as bullet points.  One 
of these bullet points is: How to encourage cooperation with observer organizations that support the 
work of the SPS Committee and the international standard setting bodies through technical 
exchanges and assistance in the context of this work programme.  
5.36.  Indeed, we support the desire to strengthen cooperation with observer organizations that 
support the w ork of this Committee and we are of the view that more active cooperation should also 
be encouraged with the international  standard setting bodies themselves. The international standard 
setting bodies, as world experts in the areas of animal, plant and foo d safety, have the institutional 
and technical capacity to find science -based solutions for SPS trade -related disputes.  We believe 
that Members should investigate the reasons why the mechanisms offered by the three sisters are 
not being used and find ways to leverage the expertise that the WTO lacks, in order to settle SPS 
trade-related issues. We, therefore, look forward to working with the proponents and other 
cosponsors of this paper, in order to find ways to incorporate the above -mentioned proposal.  
5.3  Canada - Working group on approval  procedures ( G/SPS/W/328 ) 
5.37.  The Chairperson reported on the discussions on Canada's proposal for the Working Group on 
Approval Procedures held at the informal meeting on 25 June 2020.  
5.38.  At the informal meet ing of 25 June 2020, Canada had presented its proposal regarding the 
Working Group on Approval Procedures Process set out in G/SPS/W/328 . Canada had highlighted 
that, under its proposal, the Working Group would likely work electronically, possibly supplemented 
by in-person meetings. The Wo rking Group would conduct three rounds of deliberations under the 
oversight of one or more "stewards". Canada had noted its willingness to act as a steward and had 
invited other interested Members to come forward. Canada had recognized that its proposed pr ocess 
for the Working Group was ambitious but had hoped that it would trigger discussions among 
Members. One Member had taken the floor to welcome Canada's proposal.  
5.39.  The Chairperson recalled that, as stated on the draft Report of the Informal meeting, Cana da 
had proposed that the Working Group (WG) conducts rounds of deliberations under the review of 
one or more stewards. Canada had proposed themselves as a steward and had invited other 
Members to come forward. Since this was related to the Fifth Review, th e Chairperson suggested to 
continue the discussion and try to adopt recommendations on a possible informal meeting in 
September, together with all the other issues that Members might like to suggest.  
5.40.  Canada  provided the following statement: Canada is pleas ed with the fruitful discussions 
during the informal meeting on the Working Group on approval procedures. Today's discussion on 
STCs also illustrated that approval procedures are relevant to the trade concerns raised by Members 
in this Committee. A key obs ervation of the Secretariat's presentation at the November 2019 
thematic session was that approval procedures are at issue in a large number of the STCs brought 
to this Committee in the past.  
5.41.  Canada considers it timely to start this work following the disc ussion of the WG and the issue 
of approval procedures through the Fifth Review and the thematic session. Moreover, the Committee 
will be able to the advance work of the WG even with COVID ‑19 travel and meeting restrictions, 
since the deliberations of the W G would be in a primarily virtual format. Canada looks forward to G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 68 - 
 
  working with interested Members in finalizing the process for the WG. Canada proposes that the WG 
be launched at this Committee so the important deliberations can be commenced by the WG befo re 
the next meeting.  
5.4  Brazil - Draft working procedures  to strengthen the consultative function of the SPS 
Committee ( G/SPS/W/319/Rev.2 ) 
5.42.  Brazil  provided the following statement: As part of the collective broader initiative  launched 
by the Ottawa Group, Brazil has been engaged in coordinating a consultation exercise which resulted 
in document G/SPS/W/319/Rev.2 . Our aim is to try and capture Members perceptions and desires 
and bring them to the Committee. That's why we held many bilateral consulta tions. This is not a 
Brazilian document but by the Ottawa group, open to whoever wants to join.  
5.43.  Paraguay  provided the following statement : We would like to refer briefly to Brazil's proposal 
regarding Draft procedures for improving the functioning of the SPS Committee 
(G/SPS /W/319/Rev.2)  and point out that there are some elements of this initiative that can be 
improved with a view to its approval. In this regard, we emphasize that the need to provide a 
substantive description of the trade concern could have unwanted consequences at a time  of 
promoting dialogue between Members and we hope that this aspect can be reviewed in a forthcoming 
version of the document.  
5.44.  The United States  thanked Brazil for the ir continued efforts. The United States praised the 
arrangements for the current Committee , which underscored the desirability of consultation and 
flexibility among Members rather than binding  rules for setting Committee procedures. The United 
States  expressed concerns about the concept of setting down these procedures in a Committee 
document, because of the value it placed on discussions and exchanges in the Committee itself, and 
it did not want, at this point, to codify written exchanges as the universe of Committee procedures. 
Transparency and finding ways to support smaller delegations in pr oviding statements, such as the 
eAgenda platform , could  contribute , and the United States expressed continued commit ment to 
efforts to improve transparency. The  United States  did not support moving forward at this point with 
the proposed draft decision.  
5.45.  Canada thanked Brazil for their proposal  that brought together  comments from a large group 
of Members, in connection to the Ottawa group process. Having heard the expressed views, in their 
opinion there was a need to maintain a certain amount of flexibility,  which it believed was achieved 
with the current draft and it felt comfortable with the proposal. Canada agreed that the Committee 
had to maintain innovation and creativity but supported initiatives such as this. Canada looked 
forward to reflecting on thes e ideas, and how recent innovations in procedures might influence the 
next steps.  
5.46.  Brazil  thanked Canada for their support, welcomed engagement from Paraguay and all 
Members to try and get a document that reflect ed all interests. Brazil expressed  willingne ss to 
engage with the United States so that their concerns would be  reflected in the document.  
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information  from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities  (G/SPS/GEN/997 /Rev.10/Add.1 ; G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.15  and 
G/SP S/GEN/521/Rev.15/Add.1)  
6.1.  Updated reports  on technical assistance were circulated by the Secretariat in documents 
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.10/Add.1 ; G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.15  and G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.15/Add.1 . 
6.1.2   STDF  (G/SPS/GEN/1785 ) 
6.2.  The report of the STDF Secretariat on its most recent activities  was circulated in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1785 . G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 69 - 
 
  6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   European Union – SPS-related  technical assistance provided in 2017 -2018 
(G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.5 ) 
6.3.  The European Union  submitted document  G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.5 . 
6.2.2   United States – Technical  Assistance to Bt Eggplant (Brinjal) Project in Bangladesh  
6.4.  The United States  submitted  its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1805 .  
6.5.  Bangladesh  expressed appreciation to the United States for its study on the Bt brinjal 
programme and for selecting Bangladesh for this study. Bangladesh believed this kind of studies 
would positively impact public  health and international trade.  
7  CONCERNS WITH  PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
7.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from  observer organizations  
8.1.1   ECOWAS  (G/SPS/GEN/1784 ) 
8.1.  ECOWAS  submitted  document G/SPS/GEN/1784 .  
8.2  Requests for observer  status  
8.2.1   New requests  
8.2.1.1   Request from  the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.18 ) 
8.2.  The Chairperson reminded Members of the new request for observer status from the United 
Nations Industrial Organization (UNIDO) in document G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.18 .  
8.3.  The Chairperson explained  that Members had the opportunity to submit written comments on 
the request, for fur ther consideration in the November 2020 Committee meeting.  
8.2.1.2   Request from the Arab Organization  for Agricultural Development (AOAD) 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.19 ) 
8.4.  The Chairperson reminded Members  of the new request for observ er status from the Arab 
Organization for Agricultural Development (AOAD) in document G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.19 .  
8.5.  The Chairperson explained that Members had the opportunity to submit written comments on 
the request, for further consideration in the November 2020 Committee meeti ng.  
8.2.2   Pending  requests  
8.6.  The Chairperson noted that pending requests for observer status were contained in 
G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14 , and that further details could be found in document JOB/SPS/8 . 
9  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
9.1.  The Chairperson reminded Members that, according to the Rules of Procedure, the term of 
office of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee  ended with the conclusion of the first meeting of 
each year.  The Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) was still conducting consultations 
on chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies of the CTG in accordance with  the established Guidelines G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 70 - 
 
  for Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies (contained in document WT/L/31) . The Chair person 
therefore  proposed that the election of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee be  postponed and 
conducted through  a written procedure, as had been done in the past.  The Committee agreed  to 
elect its next Chairperson through a written procedure.  
10  OTHER  BUSINESS  
10.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda  item. 
11  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING  
11.1.  The Chairperson recalled that the following regular meeting of the Committee had been 
scheduled for 5 -6 November  2020 ( G/SPS/GEN/1712/Rev.1 ). Members would be informed if there 
were changes in the dates of meetings given the cur rent situation. He added that the Secretariat 
would send an email with the summaries and the upcoming deadlines, and would send a reminder 
one month before the following meeting.   
11.2.  The Chairperson added that an informal meeting would scheduled for September , to discuss 
the procedures used for the current meeting and the application of the eAgenda platform. He also  
invited new delegates to request an informal information session on the work of the Committee .  
11.3.  The Secretariat  requested Members' views about the  format of the summary report, given 
that the most statements were available through the written procedure, in order to avoid repetitions: 
either the Secretariat could produce  a long compilation of statements, with little editing (similar to 
the approach f ollowed by TBT  Committee on their written procedure on STCs); or a shorter summary 
report, that would be longer to produce. The Secretariat also reminded Members that, under phase 
3 of the procedure ( JOB/SPS/7 ), Members would be able to upload s tatements until Friday 3 July, 
for Members raising or supporting STCs, and until Friday 10 July for Members responding to STCs.  
11.4.  The Secretariat also noted that it would consult Members on the possibility of organising a 
symposium in November 2020, given t hat 2020 was the 25th anniversary of the SPS Agreement.  
11.5.  The United States  supported preparation of a summary report that eased the burden of the 
Secretariat in summarising statements and added that it would be submitting the majority of its 
statements as GEN documents.  
11.6.  Colombia  expressed appreciation to the Chairperson for his  work, given the fact that it would 
most likely be his last meeting. Canada joined in thanking the Chairperson for his leadership in 
guiding the advancement of the work of the SPS Committee.  
11.7.  The Chairperson thanked Members for their comprehension and thei r support.  
11.8.  The Secretariat reminded  Members of the following deadlines:  
• eAgenda closes for statements from Members raising or supporting STCs: Friday, 3 July 
2020 ; 
• For submitting comments on the Chairperson's oral reports on the discussions in the informal  
meeting on the Fifth Review, thematic sessions/workshop, SPS Declaration for the 12th 
Ministerial Conference and working group on approval procedures; and the Chairperson's oral 
report on the COVID -19 information -sharing session: Monday, 6 July 2020 ; 
• eAgenda closes for statements from Members responding to STCs: Friday, 10 July 2020 ; 
• eAgenda closes for statements on all other agenda items : Friday, 10 July 2020 ; 
• For objections to the ad referendum  adoption of the Report of the Fifth Review: Friday, 31 
July 2020 ; G/SPS/R/99  
 
- 71 - 
 
  • For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure, and for 
requesting that items (including STCs) be put on the agenda: Wednesday, 14 October 
2020 ; and 
• For the distribution of the annotated agenda: Friday, 16 October 20 20. 
 
__________