RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/110  
 
13 September 2023  
(23-6098) Page: 1/57 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 12 -14 JULY 2023  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  6 
2   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ................  6 
3   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  6 
3.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  6 
3.1.1    Japan - Update on the import measures on Japanese food regarding radionuclides 
(G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6 
3.1.2    European  Union – European Commission proposal on plants obtained by certain new 
genomic techniques and their food and feed (G/SPS/GEN/2142)  ................................ ...............  7 
3.1.3    European  Union – EU Council recommendation on stepping up EU actions to combat 
antimicrobial resistance in a One Health approach (G/SPS/GEN/2143)  ................................ ....... 7 
3.1.4    Ukraine – Report on SPS activities in Ukraine  ................................ ...............................  7 
3.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and WOAH on relevant activities  ................................ .........  8 
3.2.1    Codex (G/SPS/GEN/2138)  ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
3.2.2    IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/2137)  ................................ ................................ ............................  8 
3.2.3    WOAH (G/SPS/GEN/2133)  ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
4   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ .......................  8 
4.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  8 
4.1.1    Canada's restrictions on Brazilian pork from internationally recognized FMD free zones 
without vaccination (ID  568) – Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ... 8 
4.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ...............................  9 
4.2.1    EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos -
methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufo sinate, imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, mancozeb, 
molinate, picoxystrobin, tepraloxydim and tricyclazole (ID  448 – See also related STCs ID 453, 
454, 457, 474, 475, 517) – Concerns of Paraguay, Colombia, Costa  Rica and the United  States  ... 9 
4.2.2    EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID  382) – Concerns of Paraguay  ......................... 11 
4.2.3    EU import tolerances for certain pesticides to achieve environmental outcomes in thir d 
countries (ID  534) – Concerns of Australia, India and the United  States  ................................ ...12 
4.2.4    EU regulati on No 396/2005 setting pesticide MRLs in food and feed of plant and animal 
origin (ID  549) – Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ...................... 14 
4.2.5    EU Commission proposal for reduction of the current MRL for "nicotine" for imported tea 
from India (G/SPS/N/EU/581) (ID  550) – Concerns of India  ................................ .................... 15 
4.2.6    EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea (ID  518) – 
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 15 
 
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 obl igations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4.2.7    EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application of the 
Commission Regulation (EU) N o 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 
1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID  503) – Concerns of Peru  ......16 
4.2.8    EU restrictions on spice imports and other food products due to European Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2246 of 15 December 2021 (ID  533) – Concerns of India  ....16 
4.2.9    EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (ID  446) – Concerns of the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 17 
4.2.10    India's Draft Food Safety and Standards (Import) Amendment Regulation (ID  553) – 
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......................... 18 
4.2.11    India's Order related to requirement of health certificate accompa nied with imported food 
consignment of milk, pork, fish and related products (ID  554) – Concerns of the European  Union  19 
4.2.12    China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural products 
(ID 487) – Concerns of Australia and Japan  ................................ ................................ ........... 20 
4.2.13    China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of imported 
food (26 November 2019) (ID  485) – Concerns of Australia, Japan, the United  States and th e 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 21 
4.2.14    China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID  516) – Concerns of Australia and Canada  ................................ .................. 22 
4.2.15    Russian Federation – Procedures for authorizing units eligible for export of fish and fish 
products to Eurasian Customs Union (ID  508) – Concerns of India  ................................ ........... 23 
4.2.16    Japan's approval procedures to import plant products (ID  567) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 23 
4.2.17    India's undue delay in importing twelve species of fresh mushrooms (ID  566) - Concerns 
of Korea  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 24 
4.2.18    India's approval procedures to import plants, animals and their products (ID  565) – 
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 
4.2.19    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID  441) – Concerns of  the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 24 
4.2.20    Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plant s of fishery and livestock 
enterprises (ID  509) – Concerns of the Peru and European  Union  ................................ ............ 25 
4.2.21   Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports (ID  490) 
– Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ....................... 25 
4.2.22    Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and fisheries products (ID  530) – Concerns of 
Peru ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .26 
4.2.23    EU delays in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup) (ID  526) - 
Concerns of Korea  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 26 
4.2.24    EU increased sampling frequency for inspection of farmed shrimps and newly listed fi shery 
establishments not permitted to export aquaculture products (ID  552) - Concerns of India  ......... 26 
4.2.25    General import restrictions due to BSE (ID  193) - Concerns of the European  Union  ........ 27 
4.2.26    China's suspension of beef imports due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) 
restrictions (ID  561) - Concerns of Canada ................................ ................................ ............ 27 
4.2.27    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(ID 431) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ........... 28 
4.2.28    Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  456) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......................... 28 
4.2.29    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  406) - Concerns of 
the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 28 
4.2.30    China's import restrictions on heat -treated pet food containing poultry ingredients due to 
highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  562) - Concerns of Canada  ................................ ............ 29 G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4.2.31    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  392) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 29 
4.2.32    Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  393) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 29 
4.2.33    Peru's non -application of regionalization for African swine fever (ID  544) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 30 
4.2.34    Mexico's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  563) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 30 
4.2.35    The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID  466) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 30 
4.2.36    Nigeria's import restrictions on meat, pork, poultry, milk and dairy products, genetic 
material and live  cattle (ID  523) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ .............................. 30 
4.2.37    Qatar's new import rules for dairy products (I D 529) – Concerns of the European  Union  .31 
4.2.38    Thailand's sanitary requirements on wet blue leather imports (ID  539) – Concerns of Brazil
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......31 
4.2.39    Korea's requirement of a health ce rtificate with a declaration of aquatic disease status 
(ID 557) – Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ............................... 31 
4.2.40    China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports (ID  506) - Concerns of 
India ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 32 
4.2.41    India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID  501) – 
Concerns of the European  Union and the United  States  ................................ ........................... 32 
4.2.42    China's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID  532) – Concerns of Chinese  Taipei  ............ 33 
4.2.43    US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID  439) – Concerns of the European  Union  ..33 
4.2.44    US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European  Union for Asian longhorn beetle 
and citrus longhorn beetl e (ID 471) – Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ .....34 
4.2.45    Morocco's import ban on ornamental plant s (ID 548) – Concerns of the European  Union  .34 
4.3   Information on resolution of issues (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23)  ................................ .........  34 
5   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS  AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 35 
5.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  35 
5.1.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 
5.2   Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  ................................ ...............................  35 
5.2.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 
5.2.1.1    Türkiye – Declaration of freedom from Xylella fastidiosa  ................................ ............ 35 
5.2.2    Annual Report in accordance with the Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of 
Article 6 in G/SPS/48 (G/SPS/GEN/2127)  ................................ ................................ .............. 35 
5.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ...........  35 
5.3.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 
5.4   Control, inspection and approval procedures  ................................ ................................ . 35 
5.4.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 
5.5   Special and differential treatment  ................................ ................................ ................  35 
5.5.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 
5.5.2    Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ............... 35 
5.6   Monitoring of the use of international standards  ................................ ............................  36 
5.6.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 36 
5.6.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 36 G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 4 - 
 
  5.6.2.1   European  Union - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international standard
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......36 
5.6.2.2    European  Union - ASF restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international standard  36 
5.6.2.3    Canada - Update on WOAH BSE negligible risk status  ................................ ................ 36 
5.6.3   Annual Report in accordance with the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization in G/SPS/11/Rev.1 (G/SPS/GEN/2126)  ................................ ............................ 37 
6   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  37 
6.1   SPS Declaration Work Programme (G/SPS/W/344, G/SPS/GEN/2134, WT/MIN(22)/27 and 
G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  37 
6.1.1    Update on thematic groups  ................................ ................................ ....................... 37 
6.2   MC12 implementa tion matters (G/C/W/824/Rev.1, JOB/CTG/28, JOB/SPS/25/Rev.3 and 
JOB/CTG/26/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  38 
6.2.1    Report on the informal meeting  ................................ ................................ ................. 38 
6.3   November 2023 Thematic Session  ................................ ................................ ...............  38 
6.3.1    Proposal from the United  States (G/SPS/GEN/2067/Rev.1)  ................................ ........... 38 
6.4   Preparation for 2024, including the Sixth Review of the SPS  Agreement and Topics for 
Thematic Sessions/Workshops  ................................ ................................ ............................  38 
6.4.1    Report on the informal meeting  ................................ ................................ ................. 38 
7   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  38 
7.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................  38 
7.1.1    WTO SPS Activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..38 
7.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/2135)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 39 
7.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .........................  40 
7.2.1    Argentina – International technical cooperation on global food security provided in 2012 -
2022 (G/SPS/GEN/2125)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....40 
7.2.2    Senegal – Technical assistance received by Senegal  ................................ ..................... 40 
8   CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  ................................ ...... 40 
9   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  40 
9.1   Information from Observer Organizations  ................................ ................................ ..... 40 
9.1.1    OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/2123)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 40 
9.1.2    ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/2124)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 40 
9.1.3    SADC (G/SPS/GEN/2128)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 40 
9.1.4    IGAD (G/SPS/GEN/2129)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 40 
9.1.5    GSO (G/SPS/GEN/2130)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 41 
9.1.6    OECD (G/SPS/GEN/2131)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 41 
9.1.7    ITC (G/SPS/GEN/2132)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 41 
9.1.8    IICA (G/SPS/GEN/2136)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 41 
9.1.9    African Union (G/SPS/GEN/2141)  ................................ ................................ .............. 41 
9.2   Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ .......................  41 
9.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 41 
9.2.2    Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....41 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 41 G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 5 - 
 
  11   DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .... 41 
ANNEX A  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  43 
ANNEX B  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  47 
ANNEX C  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  53 
  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the Committee) held its 86th regular 
meeting on 12 -14 July 2023. The meeting was held in hybrid form, with some delegates attending 
in-person and others joining via a virtual platform.  
1.2.  The proposed agenda for the meeting ( JOB/SPS/29 ) was adopted with amendments.  
1.3.   The Secretariat reminded Me mbers that they were able to submit agenda items, support STCs, 
and upload statements through eAgenda. Members could support items through eAgenda until they 
were discussed in the meeting, and upload statements until Friday, 14 July 2023. Only oral 
interve ntions by Members who took the floor during the meeting were reflected in this report. 
In addition, longer statements could be shared through eAgenda or circulated as GEN documents. 
The Secretariat invited Members to inform the Secretariat of email address es to be added or removed 
from the delegates' distribution list and eAgenda. The Secretariat also drew Members' attention to 
an STDF Side Event on Facilitating safe trade: Why does gender matter for SPS compliance?  taking 
place on 13 July 2023.  
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
2.1.  The Chairperson  reminded Members that, according to the Rules of Procedure, the term of 
office of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee  ended with the conclusion of the first meeting of 
each year. On 5 June 2023, the Council for Trade in Goo ds (CTG) had adopted the slate of names 
for the appointment of chairpersons of its subsidiary bodies in accordance with the Guidelines for 
Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies (contained in document WT/L/31 ). Mr Tayutic Mena of 
Costa  Rica had been nominated as th e new Chairperson of the SPS Committee . The Committee 
endorsed this decision by acclamation. The out going  Chairperson, Mr Tang -Kai Wang of 
Chinese  Taipei, thanked delegates for their support and assistance during his Chairmanship.  
2.2.  The newly elected Chairpe rson thanked Mr Tang -Kai Wang for his work during his Presidency 
and continuing work on the MC12 Declaration Work Programme and expressed his commitment to 
continuing to maintain and improve the high working standards of the Committee.  
3  INFORMATION SHARING  
3.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
3.1.1   Japan - Update on the import measures on Japanese food regarding radionuclides 
(G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6 ) 
3.1.  Japan  drew Members' attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.6 . Japan emphasized that 
the health risk of food produced in Japan was negligible and that no reports of non -compliance in 
food imported from Japan had been received for around a decade. In its view, the assessment by 
the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre of Nuclear Techniq ues in Food and Agriculture of Japan's status regarding 
radionuclides acknowledged the effective control of the food supply chain and the safety of public 
food supply. As such, noting that the majority of Members had lifted measures imposed following 
the F ukushima nuclear accident, Japan called on those Members that continued to maintain 
measures to lift them. Japan considered such measures to be maintained without scientific evidence 
and to be inconsistent with the SPS Agreement . Japan reiterated that it w ould implement 
the discharge of the ALPS treated water (water treated by the Advanced Liquid Processing System) , 
in accordance with international practice , and strictly comply with regulatory standards regarding 
safety, under the review of the IAEA. Theref ore, the discharge of water could not justify imposing 
import measures on Japanese food. Japan further noted that it had provided relevant scientific 
updates to the IAEA, and reminded Members of its updates to the Committee, annual reports, 
one-stop websit e for information sharing, and bilateral consultations. Japan asked relevant Members 
to conduct risk assessments, and risk communication efforts with their citizens.  
3.2.  Korea  indicated that the protection of health and safety of people was its top priority, n oting 
that radionuclides were human carcinogens and that contaminants continued to be detected in food 
products from Japan. Korea reiterated its concerns that contaminated water should be safe from a 
scientific point of view and disposed  of in a manner con sistent with international laws and standards.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.3.  China  noted that it had closely followed the relevant measures taken by Japanese authorities 
regarding the problem of radioactive contamination of food products and continued to assess those 
measures with a vi ew to protecting Chinese consumers. China also indicated that, in its view, 
the assessment report issued by the IAEA did not fully reflect the views of all experts , and legitimate 
concerns regarding the discharge of contaminated water remained.  
3.4.  Japan  thank ed Members for their comments and reminded Members that Japan had measures 
in place to detect and monitor non -compliance cases, and that its framework prevented food 
exceeding Japanese maximum levels from entering the food chain or being exported. Japan al so 
reiterated that its water discharge plans were compliant with international safety standards, and 
that the IAEA conducted a comprehensive report  that concluded that Japan's approach to 
the discharge of the treated water into the sea , and associated acti vities, were consistent with 
relevant international safety standards.  
3.1.2   European  Union – European Commission proposal on plants obtained by certain 
new genomic techniques and their food and feed ( G/SPS/GEN/2142 ) 
3.5.  The European  Union  informed Members about an EU proposal for a regulation on plants 
obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed, which was part of a package 
of proposals to ensure resilient and sustainable use of E U natural resources. The proposal set out 
rules for the deliberate release into the environment for any other purpose than placing on 
the market of plants obtained by targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis and for the placing on the 
market of food and feed co ntaining, consisting of, or produced from such plants, and of products, 
other than food or feed, containing or consisting of such plants. The  European  Union submitted 
its statement with additional information in document G/SPS/GEN/2142 . 
3.6.  The United  States  expressed interest in the proposal, which it considered to be of global 
significance, and in how the proposal would move through the EU legislative process.  
3.1.3   European  Union – EU Council recommendation on stepping up EU actions to combat 
antimicrobial  resistance in a One Health approach (G/SPS/GEN/2143 ) 
3.7.  The European  Union  provided information on a recently adopted recommendation on stepping 
up EU actions to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in a One Health approach, complementing 
the 2017 EU O ne Health Action Plan against AMR. The recommendation employed a One Health 
approach to AMR based on the link between the health of humans, animals, and the environment. 
One of the main objectives of the recommendation was to foster a prudent use of antimi crobials 
through a series of voluntary measures, with the aim of reducing the risk that microorganisms would 
become resistant to medical intervention. The  European  Union submitted its statement with 
additional information in document G/SPS/GEN/2143 . 
3.1.4   Ukraine – Report on SPS activities in Ukraine  
3.8.  Ukraine  updated Members on SPS capacity and infrastructure building activities and thanked 
Members for their support on a number of recent projects. Ukraine noted that it had continued to 
carry out SPS -related  activities despite loss of critical infrastructure, environmental disasters, and 
sustained conflict, where their SPS authorities continued to ensure compliance. Ukraine also brought 
Members' attention to their national quality control system and efforts t o introduce electronic 
sanitary certificates. In addition, Ukraine highlighted specific barriers to export related to 
the prolonged conflict.  
3.9.  The European  Union,  the United  States , Canada , the United Kingdom , New Zealand , Moldova , 
Australia , Japan , and Switzerland  expressed their appreciation for Ukraine's efforts to fulfil its WTO  
SPS obligations, maintain food safety standards, and deliver food to international markets. 
They condemned the Russian  Federation's military action in Ukraine, noting that it constituted a 
violation of international law. Several  Members stated that the invasion was exacerbating the current 
food security crisis, had inflated prices, and increased global hunger since Ukraine was unable to 
export and inspect grain. Members called on the Russian  Federation to renew the Black Sea Grain 
Initiative and cease military operations in Ukraine.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.10.   The Russian  Federation  indicated that it continued to participate in global efforts to prevent 
food insecurity and hunger in developing countries an d least developed countries ( LDCs). 
In the Russian  Federation's view, allegations that it contributed to the global food crisis were 
ridiculous given other systemic factors. The Russian  Federation noted the Black Sea Grain Initiative 
had been prolonged und er the condition of achieving tangible normalization of agricultural exports, 
but there had been no progress. Finally, the  Russian  Federation took the view that the Committee 
should refrain from discussing issues not within the scope of the WTO. Referring to attempts to 
politicise the Committee, the  Russian  Federation requested the Chairperson to moderate 
the discussions in accordance with the agenda and working procedures of the Committee.  
3.2  Information from Codex, IPPC and WOAH on relevant activities  
3.2.1   Codex (G/SPS/GEN/2138 ) 
3.11.   Codex  highlighted key elements of information from its summary in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2138 . Codex brought Members' attention to the finalization of maximum levels for food 
additives in food, upcoming work on risk management guidanc e relating to toxins in seafood, 
guidelines on recognition and maintenance of equivalence of national food control systems, principles 
and guidelines on the use of remote audits and inspection in regulatory frameworks, and upcoming 
work to update the princ iples for traceability/product tracing as a tool within a food inspection and 
certification system.  
3.2.2   IPPC ( G/SPS/GEN/2137 ) 
3.12.   The IPPC presented its report on relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/2137  which 
covered activities from March to June 2023. The IPPC brought Members' attention to the recently 
completed 17th session of the Commission on Phytos anitary Measures (CPM -17), where 
four international standards had been adopted, two new focus groups on global research 
coordination and laboratory diagnostic networking had been established, and sustainable funding for 
electronic sanitary certificates had  been discussed. The IPPC also referred to its adjustments to its 
dispute settlement procedures, future AMR work and associated survey, coordination activities 
related to Banana Fusarium , two planned questionnaires related to all IPPC standards and 
e-comme rce, and the approval of 10 draft ISPMs.  
3.2.3   WOAH ( G/SPS/GEN/2133 ) 
3.13.   WOAH  provided a brief summary of document G/SPS/GEN/2133 , which included an overview 
of its 90th General Session. Some of the topics discussed were avian influenza, new and revised 
standards for the Terrestrial Animal Health Code and Aquatic Animal Health Code, updated manuals, 
revisions to the  chapter on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, adopted standards on 
recommendations for dog vaccination for rabies, recommendations for diseases related to horses, 
and a horizontal review of the structure of chapters dealing with mollusc diseases. WOAH also  
provided updates on new official health statuses, an adopted resolution dealing with strategic 
changes and global control of avian influenza, and a revised approach to global reporting on 
the animal health situation.  
4  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
4.1.  Before the ado ption of the agenda, Brazil  withdrew STC ID 521 , Chinese  Taipei's import 
restrictions on poultry and beef; India removed STC ID 525 , The Russian  Federation's classification 
of tea as "fruits and vegetables"; and the Russian  Federation  withdrew STC ID 527 , Delays in 
Thailand's approval procedures for animal products.  
4.1  New issues  
4.1.1   Canada's restrictions on Brazilian pork from internationally recognized FMD free 
zones without vaccination (ID  568) – Concerns of Brazil  
4.2.  Brazil  expressed its concern that Canada did not recognize new areas free from foot and mouth 
disease (FMD) without vaccination, which had been recognized by WOAH in May 2021. Canada had 
recognized Santa  Catarina as FMD free without vaccination for pork based on its procedure to G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 9 - 
 
  recognize FMD free zones. In Brazil's view, the lack of recognition of its updated status for new zones 
was contrary to Articles 3, 5, and 6 of the SPS Agreement  as well as the pr inciple of harmonization 
and the concept of appropriate level of protection. Acknowledging ongoing bilateral efforts, 
Brazil  asked Canada to review its decision of carrying out a new evaluation only when the entire 
Brazilian territory would be free of FMD without vaccination.  
4.3.  Canada  noted that, while it had granted access for pork from Santa Catarina, it would need to 
complete a similar evaluation to extend access to other states, which was a complex and resource 
intensive process. Canada noted that its pro cess for review of disease status was consistent with its 
WTO obligations and suggested that Brazil begin another review once FMD free status was obtained 
for the entire country.  
4.4.  Brazil  clarified that, while at the time that Santa Catarina was evaluated, i t was the only state 
that had been recognized by WOAH as FMD free, this status had now been expanded to six other 
states by WOAH. Brazil had circulated additional information under document G/SPS/GEN/1932 . 
4.2  Issues previously raised  
4.2.1   EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, 
chlorpyrifos -methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, 
iprodione, mancozeb, molinate, picoxystrobin, tepraloxydim and tricyclazole (ID  448 – 
See also related STCs ID  453, 454, 457, 474, 475, 517) – Concerns of Paraguay, Colombia, 
Costa  Rica and the United  States  
4.5.  Paraguay  expressed concerns regarding the answers provided by the European  Union in 
document G/SPS/GEN/2139  to the questions that had been submitted by Paraguay and other 
Members in document G/SPS/GEN/2076 . These answers did not include information at an 
EU member States level. Regarding document G/SPS/GEN/2140 , Paraguay reiterated its request for 
more information on the emergency authorization granted by the Czech Republic after the ruling of 
the Court of Justice of the European  Union (CJEU) on emergency author izations for substances other 
than treated seeds and products other than neonicotinoids. Paraguay sought clarification on the 
actions implemented by the European  Union in order to obtain additional information needed for an 
objective risk assessment and to  review the measure in a reasonable period of time in accordance 
with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement . 
4.6.  Paraguay also referred to STCs ID 382  and ID 534 . Paraguay considered that the 
European  Union was giving a differentiated treatment to the EU member States as it was not 
granting import tolerances for third countries, even in cases which the European Food Safet y 
Authority (EFSA) had demonstrated that the substance was safe for consumers. Paraguay read out 
its statement included in document G/SPS/GEN/2140 . 
4.7.  Colombia  regretted the lack of progress regarding the revision and changes in EU Maximum 
Residue Levels  (MRLs), such as for tricyclazole in rice. Colombia urged the European  Union to 
consider the potential impact of its measures on trade and sought clarification about the differences 
between annexes II and III of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, as well as its practical implications. 
Colombia questioned the alignment of the granting of import tolerances with the obligations in the 
SPS Agreement . Colombia further indicated that, in some instances, emergency authorizations had 
been granted to crops treated with ba nned substances. Colombia drew the European  Union's 
attention to the questions contained in document  G/SPS/GEN/2076 . 
4.8.  Costa  Rica reiterated its concern relating to the impact that the reduction of MRLs to the level 
of detection could have on its production system. No alternatives were available for the relevant 
substances, which were necessary for production in tropical climates. C osta Rica highlighted the lack 
of conclusive scientific evidence and the divergence from the conclusions reached in other 
international fora, namely Codex. Costa  Rica asked the European  Union to reconsider its regulatory 
approach and incorporate measures t hat reduced impact on global food security.  
4.9.  The United  States  recalled Members' obligation to apply the least restrictive measures that 
accomplished the appropriate level of protection and invited the European  Union to consider the 
concerns raised by many Members. The United  States was of the view that the continued use of 
emergency authorizations for active substances no longer approved demonstrated the importance G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 10 - 
 
  of certain crop protection tools and the lack of effective and economical alternatives, and t hat the 
implemented transition periods were insufficient. Imported products appeared to be treated 
differently than domestic products. It was also important to use a risk -based process and have 
access to the full range of tools and technologies available f or agricultural production. 
The United  States submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2144 . 
4.10.   Recognizing the European  Union's right to take SPS measures, the Dominican Republic  
recalled that SPS measures needed to be based on science and not main tained without scientific 
evidence. The Dominican Republic underscored the importance of imazalil in post -harvest treatments 
for crops, such as banana, mango, and avocado. These represented about 20% of its total annual 
food exports and were mainly destine d to the EU market. Noting the lack of substitutes, 
the Dominican Republic lamented that the reduction of the MRL for imazalil would negatively affect 
the agricultural sector and urged the European  Union to find alternative solutions without 
unnecessarily impairing trade, establish MRLs for the affected molecules based on solid and 
conclusive scientific evidence, or remove the measures. The Dominican Republic stated that 
the reduction of MRLs to the level of quantification violated Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement . 
4.11.   Noting the challenges facing tropical countries, Guatemala  reiterated its concern regarding 
EU import tolerances, which affected exports of developing countries. Guatemala regretted that the 
European  Union disregarded other Members' climate -related factors. In Guatemala's view, 
import  tolerances were not an alternative to the reduction of MRLs to the level of detection since 
most developing countries did not have the capacity to present complete data on the substances. 
Acknowledging the EU ans wers provided in document G/SPS/GEN/2139 , Guatemala expressed 
its interest in further exchanges of information on this issue and asked the European  Union to 
provide detailed answers to the questions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2140 . 
4.12.   Canada  expressed concerns with the trade implications of the EU approach to the regulation 
of active substances in plant protection products and its impact on setting import tolerances and on 
the transition periods provided for MRLs. Canada reiterated the need for risk-based decision making 
and requested the European  Union to harmonize MRLs with Codex limits or to maintain MRLs for 
substances that did not pose unacceptable dietary risks, where there was no evidence of health risks 
to consumers and where a full risk assessment could not be completed.  
4.13.   Brazil  highlighted concerns related to the EU MRL regulatory policies that were excessively 
restrictive and not consistent with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement . Brazil noted that the emergency 
authorizations granted to E U member States were of great concern and invited the European  Union 
to consider trade facilitative approaches in line with the SPS Agreement , with longer transitional 
periods and early and effective engagement in the process.  
4.14.   Ecuador  invited the European  Union to adhere to Codex standards and not to base 
its measures on inconclusive risk assessments. Noting its tropical weather conditions, 
Ecuador  detailed the long and costly process to find alternative substances. According to Ecuador, 
trading partners ne eded at least five years to adapt agricultural practices. Ecuador regretted that 
the reduction of MRLs for nine substances established in Regulation (EU) 2021/155 
(G/SPS/N/EU/394/Add.1 ) affected market access and contradicted good agricultural practices. 
Ecuador highlighted that this measure affected its production of banana as there were not substitutes 
for the regu lated substances and the similar alternatives were also questioned by the 
European  Union. Regarding the non -renewal of the authorization for mancozeb, Ecuador reported 
that this substance was used according to Codex guidelines and asked the European  Union to 
consider the recent studies showing that mancozeb was safe for consumers and environment. 
Regarding the STC ID 474, Ecuador explained the relevance of those substances in its production of 
banana, exports of which represented 2,7% of its total GDP. As E U producers had access to 
emergency authorizations and on the basis of the SPS Agreement , Ecuador urged the 
European  Union to grant similar conditions to producers from third countries. Ecuador requested 
answers to the questions in document G/SPS/GEN/2076 . 
4.15.   Uruguay  reiterated its concerns regarding the EU approach to MRL reduction for an increasing 
number of substances (mancozeb, imazalil, iprodione, and buprofezin) to limits lower than those of 
Codex without a scientific risk assessment. A cknowledging the information provided by the 
European  Union, Uruguay expressed its interest in obtaining answers to its questions submitted in 
document G/SPS/GEN/2140 . Uruguay concurred with other Members that emergency authorizations 
granted by EU me mber States to domestic producers could conflict with EU health protection policies G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 11 - 
 
  and trading conditions with third countries. Uruguay sought clarification on how the CJEU ruling 
would affect considerations for emergency authorizations. Highlighting that  pesticide regulations 
should be non -discriminatory and based on scientific principles and risk assessments, 
Uruguay  pointed out that sufficient transition periods should be granted for producers to adapt to 
modified MRLs. Uruguay requested the European  Union to reconsider its regulatory approach to 
avoid adverse effects on Members and hoped that the EU openness to participate in a dialogue would 
lead to a solution.  
4.16.   Chile indicated that the non -renewal of mancozeb affected national production of stone fruit s 
and apples. Noting the lack of substitutes for this product, Chile requested the European  Union to 
reconsider its measures to maintain international trade flows.  
4.17.   Argentina  reiterated its concern regarding the technical and structural aspects that affecte d 
Members from all regions. Recalling the importance of science -based SPS measures, Argentina urged 
the European  Union to apply a risk -based approach to its regulatory changes, aligned with 
the relevant international organizations, such as Codex. Highlight ing the importance of having 
measures based on conclusive scientific studies, Argentina invited the European  Union to review its 
regulatory approach considering the local circumstances of production, the lack of substitutes, and 
the agreements reached by t he international standardization bodies.  
4.18.   Reiterating its support to the concern, El Salvador  insisted that measures should be based on 
conclusive scientific evidence to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions which mainly affected small 
producers from developing countries. El Salvador required the European  Union to provide 
appropriate transition per iods. 
4.19.   Panama  reiterated its concern regarding the non -renewal of the substances, particularly 
mancozeb, also raised in the TBT Committee and the CTG. Referring to its statements submitted in 
previous Committee meetings, Panama urged the European  Union to r econsider its regulatory 
approach to maintain international trade flows.  
4.20.   The European  Union  referred to the numerous answers already provided during past 
communications, which included the replies circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1989/Rev.1 . 
The European  Union highlighted its presentation on the EU risk assessment process and its bilateral 
engagement, which participants considered to be useful. Highlighting its trusted, transparent, and 
predictable food safety approach, the European  Union e mphasized that its policies had never 
impeded imports of agricultural commodities. Members had a shared interest in ensuring pesticide 
residues were not present at levels presenting an unacceptable risk to human health and set at 
the lowest achievable leve l, consistent with good agricultural practices . The European  Union 
indicated that decisions on the approval of active substances and on MRLs had been based on risk 
assessments carried out by EFSA and EU member States. In full transparency, the relevant sci entific 
data was available on the EFSA website and in the rationale of each EU decision.  
4.21.   The European  Union clarified that the purpose of emergency authorizations was to deal with 
serious dangers for plant health in emergency situations where there were no  better alternatives. 
The European  Union stated that the CJEU ruling forbade the granting of emergency authorizations 
for outdoor uses of thiamethoxam or clothianidin and for the sowing of seeds that had already been 
coated with either of these substances.  The Commission was considering  the implications of the 
ruling for the granting of other emergency authorizations. Recalling that it had already answered 
many of the questions raised in the Committee, the European  Union informed the Committee it 
would repl y to questions asked by Members in the most recent informal meeting and would provide 
additional information as requested. The European  Union noted that its written statement would be 
uploaded in eAgenda. The European  Union also circulated written response s to questions raised by 
Members in document G/SPS/GEN/2139 . 
4.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID  382) – Concerns of Paraguay  
4.22.   Paraguay  provided its statement under STC ID 448 , and referred to document 
G/SPS/GEN/2140  and its statement uploaded in eAgenda.  
4.23.   Uruguay reiterated its commercial and systemic concerns regarding the EU adoption and 
implementation of a hazard -based approach for products with potential endocrine -disrupting G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 12 - 
 
  properties. Uruguay underscored the need to base such determinations on conclusive scientific 
evidence to avoid removing from the market safe active substances without contributing to the 
stated objective of public health. Uruguay continued to supp ort multilateral work undertaken at 
Codex to develop a harmonized, risk -based approach that ensured health protection while facilitating 
international trade. Uruguay called on the European  Union to address Members' concerns and 
reconsider its regulatory ap proach to avoid discrimination and unjustified trade restrictions.  
4.24.   Brazil  reaffirmed that the criteria for determining endocrine -disrupting substances had to be 
established in accordance with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement , in line with available scientifi c 
evidence to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions. Brazil highlighted the importance of conducting 
risk assessments appropriate to the circumstances and the need to obtain additional information 
necessary for an objective assessment of risk.  
4.25.   Highlighting that scientific evidence should be the basis for the risk assessment, 
Guatemala  expressed its concern regarding the negative impact of the EU measure on international 
trade. Guatemala took the view that the EU approach for endocrine disruptors on the estab lishment 
of new MRLs of key substances were, in effect, a zero import tolerance that affected developing 
countries. Guatemala urged the European  Union to recognize the importance of harmonization of 
measures at a global level and the work in Codex.  
4.26.   Costa  Rica referred to its intervention in the previous Committee meeting.  
4.27.   Chile reiterated its concern about the EU approach to pesticide regulation, which was 
generating a loss of safe phytosanitary resources. In Chile's view, the hazard -based cut -off criteria 
in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 deviated from the internationally agreed principles of risk analysis 
and unnecessarily lowered MRLs for commonly used substances.  
4.28.   Ecuador  underlined the importance of having measures based on a scientific risk assessment 
to avoid unnecessary obstacles to trade. Highlighting Article 5 of the SPS Agreement , 
Ecuador  illustrated its disagreement with the European  Union indicating that, in its view, substances 
had been banned based on alleged endocrine -disrupting effects.  
4.29.   The European Union  noted that no new information had become available since the previous 
SPS Committee  meeting and reiterated its commitment to transparency and keeping Members 
informed of further developments. They also informed Members that their full statement which would 
be uploaded to eAgenda ( G/SPS/GEN/1448 ). 
4.2.3   EU import to lerances for certain pesticides to achieve environmental outcomes in 
third countries (ID  534) – Concerns of Australia, India and the United  States  
4.30.   Australia  questioned the design of the EU regulation on the neonicotinoid insecticides 
clothianidin and thiam ethoxam  and lack of response from the E uropean Union to reconsider its 
approach despite the widespread concerns expressed by third countries within the SPS Committee  
and other forums . Australia was of the view that only food safety risks should drive decis ions 
regarding import MRLs  and that MRLs were not an appropriate nor an efficient tool to pursue 
environmental outcomes . Australia considered that using food MRLs as a proxy to pursue 
environmental standards outside EU borders was incompatible with interna tional standards and 
guidelines and threatened Members' ability to apply their own environmental policies, 
in contradiction with WTO  rules. Australia called on the E uropean Union to find a less restrictive 
alternative that would meet its objective while preserving trade and third countries ' sovereignty. 
Australia also requested the European  Union to provide robust scientific evidence in support of the 
link between the lowering of MRLs to the limit of determination and pollinator health.  
4.31.   India  shared the concerns regarding the extraterritorial application of domestic laws and  
reiterated its request that the European  Union delay the implementation of the regulation's 
amendments and e ngage with Members to find a viable solution.  
4.32.   The United  States  recalled that Members' actions to pursue shared sustainability goals should 
be consistent with WTO rules, and echoed concerns regarding the extraterritorial application of 
EU environmental dom estic policies. The United  States reinforced the need for diverse approaches 
in different regions and noted the unclear link between the stated objective of protecting global G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 13 - 
 
  pollinator health and the EU requirement that imported food and agricultural prod ucts meet the 
reduced MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam. In the US view, pesticide MRLs were not the 
appropriate tool to address environmental health objectives and the EU measure restricted trade 
more than necessary, given a shared scientific underst anding that pollinator health was affected by 
complex interactions among multiple factors.  The United  States submitted its statement in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2146 . 
4.33.   Japan  appreciated the EU responses on this issue but regretted that the measures had been  
adopted without taking due account of Members' concerns. Japan was of the view that the adopted 
measures were a deviation from current MRL setting principles and the trend towards harmonization 
of MRLs. Japan also noted that, given the effect on Members, the adopted policy should be 
thoroughly discussed in the relevant international fora. Japan sought clarification on the kind of 
scientific evidence to be provided in the application for import tolerances and on the criteria to 
measure the unacceptable risk  to pollinators. Japan asked if a standard value established for a 
specific crop as a result of the application for an import tolerance by a Member would also apply to 
products imported into the European  Union from other Members.  
4.34.   Paraguay  provided its stat ement under STC ID 448 . Paraguay also referred to document 
G/SPS/GEN/2140 . 
4.35.   Brazil  emphasized that trade liberalization and environmental protection were complementary 
when countries resp ected both the WTO trade principles and environmental agreements. However, 
measures with environmental purposes were outside the scope of the SPS Agreement . 
Brazil  emphasized that Members should not adopt SPS measures with extraterritorial effects, 
according to the definition established in the SPS Agreement , and invited the European  Union to 
respect the SPS Agreement  when establishing MRLs.  
4.36.   Costa  Rica referred to its intervention in the previous Committee meeting.  
4.37.   New Zealand  referred to its statements in previous Committee meetings on this issue and 
reiterated its concerns related to the EU approach to reviewing and setting MRLs and proposed 
mechanisms of i mplementation. New Zealand was of the view that imposing unilateral import 
measures might not achieve the intended goal, and would create unjustified barriers. 
New Zealand  encouraged all WTO Members to address global environmental issues multilaterally.  
4.38.   Uruguay  regretted that Regulation (EU) 2023/334 modifying MLRs for clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam had been approved without substantive changes, despite Members' comments. 
Uruguay referred to the definition of MRLs in food and feed contained in Regulation (EC ) No 396/2005 
and noted that MRLs were a tool to ensure food safety. As such, Codex was the relevant international 
organization adopting MRLs based on health issues, not environmental aspects. Uruguay questioned 
the relevance of and the legal basis for the  reduction of MRLs to the level of determination due to 
global environmental concerns or issues other than human health. Regarding the environmental 
concerns, in its view, the establishment of MRLs by each Member should be underpinned by a risk 
assessment,  taking into consideration its production and regulatory system. Uruguay reported that 
the products under the scope of the EU measure were already regulated by its competent authority 
to ensure their safe use according to good agricultural practices. Urugu ay expressed its willingness 
to cooperate with other Members to find mechanisms towards the protection of pollinators, 
ensuring  the preservation of the environment and the protection of human health, without 
compromising food security nor restricting trade . Highlighting that SPS measures should be in line 
with the SPS Agreement , Uruguay reiterated its interest in following further considerations of the 
use of emergency authorizations.  
4.39.   Guatemala  stressed that each Member had the right to choose its measures to address global 
concerns regarding protection of pollinators. Guatemala stated that clothianidin and thiamethoxam 
were used according to good agricultural practices and international certification in order to ensure 
food safety. Guatemala urged the Europ ean Union to base its measure on science and critical risk 
assessments and requested cooperation to find a solution to this concern.  
4.40.   Colombia  stated that the EU measure should be evaluated based on Members' obligations 
under the SPS Agreement  and consideri ng Codex work on MLRs. Recalling Members' obligations to 
base measures on science and adopt the least trade restrictive measures, Colombia complained that G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 14 - 
 
  the reduction of MRLs would negatively affect exports to the European  Union and the livelihoods of 
rural producers. Colombia invited the European  Union to consider comments provided by Members, 
conduct comprehensive risk assessments before establishing new MRLs, and provide sufficient 
transition periods.  
4.41.   Chile shared the concern on the EU approach to the adoption of MRLs for clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam in Regulation (EU) 2023/334. Noting that MRLs were not an appropriate tool to 
achieve environmental objectives, Chile noted that setting MRLs for agricultural products on the 
basis of extraterritorial envi ronmental considerations constituted an unnecessary restriction to trade.  
4.42.   Argentina  questioned the unilateral and extraterritorial nature of the EU approach and related 
trade measures, which seemed to be inconsistent with WTO rules and principles of intern ational law. 
Argentina also referred to its intervention in the previous Committee meeting.  
4.43.   Canada  was concerned that the European  Union was integrating considerations of global 
environmental impacts in its MRL and import tolerance setting processes, which  were not effective 
to address non SPS -objectives and conflicted with international trade rules. Canada  requested 
the European  Union to stop implementing measures based on perceived environmental concerns for 
the global pollinator population, and noted the  EU measures did not take into account domestic 
standards or the unique environmental and market realities of Members. Canada expressed its 
willingness to cooperate with Members in other multilateral fora more appropriate to address global 
environmental ch allenges.  
4.44.   Israel  thanked the European  Union for its previous update and expressed its hope that 
the European  Union would allow new technologies in the future. Israel noted that while 
the European  Union had a transparent system, when it came to MRLs of pesticides with no health 
issues, notifications of non -compliance were problematic. Israel stated that due to the dual internal 
and external systems for non -compliance, Members were not made aware of any increased testing 
regimes or bans implemented by the European  Union in its internal system. Israel requested that 
the European  Union change its internal system to allow for transparency similar to its external 
system.  
4.45.   Ecuador  shared its conce rn regarding the EU extraterritorial objectives, which seemed to 
deviate from Members' obligations in the SPS Agreement . Taking the view that the European  Union 
had established the lowest MRLs for tropical fruits, coffee and cacao without having a conclusi ve risk 
assessment, Ecuador provided information about the negative effects of this measure on its exports 
of these products. Regarding the MRLs for neonicotinoids, Ecuador enquired about the international 
standard on which the European  Union had based its  measure. Ecuador invited the European  Union 
to notify the measure to the SPS Committee  and continue the dialogue to avoid unnecessary trade 
barriers.  
4.46.   Senegal  supported Members that had raised this concern and noted that import tolerance 
measures had disru pted international trade. Senegal drew Members' attention to work done by other 
institutions on protecting pollinators, such as FAO, and suggested that environmental issues be dealt 
with in a different forum.  
4.47.   The European  Union  provided its response under STC ID 549 . 
4.2.4   EU regulation No 396/2005 setting pesticide MRLs in food and feed of plant and 
animal origin (ID  549) – Concerns of India  
4.48.   India  drew Members' attention to its statement uploaded in eAgenda.  
4.49.   The European  Union  noted that the continued discussion of these measures reflected the 
importance of the Committee in the transformation to sustainable food systems. The European  Union 
took into consideration environmental as pects when setting MRLs for substances no longer approved 
in its territory due to global environmental concerns and reviewed active substances on a 
case-by-case basis. The European  Union affirmed that, based on current knowledge, reducing the 
use of neonic otinoids was an effective action to tackle the decline of pollinators. Comments received 
in response to documents G/TBT/N/EU/908  and G/SPS/GEN/2054  had been reviewed and shared 
with EU member States. Regulation (EU)  2023/334 had been adopted in F ebruary 2023 and G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 15 - 
 
  the application date had been deferred to 36  months after entry into force, until early 2026. 
The European  Union also recalled that Members had been regularly updated on any progress since 
the circulation of G/SPS/GEN/1868 . 
4.50.   The Europ ean Union clarified that the Regulation would not prohibit the use of neonicotinoids 
by third countries, but products destined to the EU market would have to comply with the MRLs. 
The European  Union considered that it was acting in compliance with its WTO obligations since there 
was not an equally effective and less trade restrictive alternative to protect pollinators. 
Acknowledging  the difficulties third countries might face, import tolerances could be granted for 
active substances not authorized in the Eu ropean  Union. The European  Union would look into new 
issues raised by different Members and remained available for further discussion.  
4.2.5   EU Commission proposal for reduction of the current MRL for "nicotine" for 
imported tea from India ( G/SPS/N/EU/581 ) (ID  550) – Concerns of India  
4.51.   Reiterating its concern regarding the EU proposed reduction of the MRL for nicotine for 
imported tea, India noted that the nicotine present in tea plants was not derived from exogenous 
sources and that its content varied thr oughout the seasons and among different cultivars and 
tea-growing regions. India further indicated that nicotine was not a pesticide and that it was not 
addictive given its natural, slow absorption and the low level in tea. India requested the 
European  Union to withdraw its MRL revision and to ensure compliance with the principles of the 
SPS Agreement . 
4.52.   Noting that it would upload its full statement in eAgenda, the European  Union  explained that 
it had received new information regarding the consumption data used to identify the unacceptable 
risk to consumers, which may not accurately reflect the exposure of the population and lead to 
overestimation of risk. As a result, the existin g MRL for nicotine in teas of 0.6 mg/kg had been 
reassessed and it had been concluded that the current MRL for nicotine in teas was safe for 
consumers. The Commission had prepared a new regulation, which allowed for a transitional 
arrangement for teas prod uced before the lowered MRLs had become applicable and normal 
marketing, processing and consumption of products. The European  Union recalled that it would 
continue to monitor the levels of nicotine in teas and would further review the temporary MRLs based 
on monitoring data.  
4.2.6   EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea 
(ID 518) – Concerns of India  
4.53.   India reiterated its concern regarding the classification of anthraquinone as a pesticide and 
the setting of the EU MRL at 0.0 2 mg/kg for tea. Anthraquinone was not registered in India and 
there was neither a standard as per the Food Safety and Standards Act 2011, nor a Codex MRL for 
anthraquinone in tea. Noting studies indicating that natural deposits of anthraquinone could lead  to 
residues higher than the EU MRLs in certain areas as well as the seasonal variation, India was 
concerned that the 0.02 mg/kg limit would affect India's tea exports to the European  Union. 
India requested the European  Union to remove the classification o f anthraquinone as a pesticide and 
avoid unnecessary trade disruptions.  
4.54.   The European  Union  noted there had been no new elements related to the active substance 
since it had first been discussed, and reiterated that authorizations for plant protection produ cts 
containing this substance had been withdrawn in 2009 pursuant to Commission Decision 
2008/986/EC. MRLs had been set at the level of quantification for teas at 0.02 mg/kg by EFSA 
in 2012, and there were no Codex MRLs or EU import tolerances in place. Th e European  Union further 
expanded by clarifying that MRLs applied regardless of the source, which included residues resulting 
from the atmospheric deposits, and that anthraquinone had been classified by the 
European  Chemicals Agency as category 1B carcinog en. The European  Union reiterated its openness 
to provide technical assistance to Members interested in laboratory methods.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 16 - 
 
  4.2.7   EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application 
of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 of 1 2 May 2014 amending Regulation 
(EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID  503) – 
Concerns of Peru  
4.55.   Peru reiterated its concerns regarding Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 establishing maximum 
levels (MLs) for cadmium in chocolate and  other cocoa products that, in practice, had an impact on 
trade in cocoa beans and cocoa powder. Peru was of the view that the EU regulation violated 
Articles  2 and 3 of the SPS Agreement . Considering that the European  Union had not taken into 
account seve ral opinions of the joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and 
the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food, Peru stated that the EU levels were more trade 
restrictive than necessary to protect human health. Peru called upon the European  Union to review 
its legislation, consider excluding chocolate and other cocoa products from the implementation of 
the regulation, and continue providing support to Peru to mitigate the presence of cadmium in the 
production of cocoa. Peru provided its statem ent in document G/SPS/GEN/2150 . 
4.56.   Noting the lack of new elements since the March 2023 Committee meeting, 
the European  Union  emphasized the significant efforts undertaken during the preparation of the 
relevant regulation to alleviate the difficulties of  its trading partners in complying with the legal 
requirements. In particular, the European  Union had granted an exceptionally long transitional 
period for cocoa and chocolate products by deferring implementation to January 2019 and had 
established MLs for  finished products, which did not apply to cocoa beans or other intermediary 
cocoa products. According to the  European  Union, the EU risk -based measure was necessary to 
protect the health of consumers and took into account the tolerable weekly intake estab lished by 
EFSA and EU consumption patterns. Reinforcing its right to establish measures to address public 
health concerns in line with the SPS Agreement , the European  Union further noted that the MLs for 
chocolate over 50% total dry cocoa solids were in li ne with Codex levels and that stricter limits had 
been introduced only to the extent necessary to protect human health. The European  Union referred 
to targeted projects supporting cocoa products sectors in Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, and 
reiterated its co mmitment to work constructively with Members to address outstanding issues 
without prejudice to consumer safety.  
4.2.8   EU restrictions on spice imports and other food products due to European 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2246 of 15 December 2021 (ID 533) – 
Concerns of India  
4.57.   Reiterating its concern regarding EU restrictions on spice imports and other food products, 
India indicated that the MRLs of 0.02 mg/kg for chilli and ginger and 0.1 mg/kg for other spices, 
fixed for ethylene oxide (EtO) and it s metabolite 2 -chloroethanol or ethylene chlorhydrin (ECH) 
together, lacked sufficient scientific basis and were more stringent than the limits in other countries. 
Given the possibility of the natural occurrence of EtO, establishing an MRL for EtO at the l evel of 
quantification constituted a trade barrier. India regretted that the notification had not provided the 
possibility for comments and complained that the lack of adequate transitional period had affected 
trade. India added that, although Regulation ( EU) 2021/2246 had been amended twice 
subsequently, its trade concern had remained unaddressed.  
4.58.   The European  Union  noted that EtO was classified as a category 1B carcinogen and a 
reproductive toxicant in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and was not approved as 
an active substance for use in plant protection products. The European  Union was aware that EtO 
was widely used in non -EU countries to treat certain foodstuffs before export. The European  Union 
reiterated that EtO was not allowed in food or  feed in the EU, and that no safe level of exposure for 
consumers could be defined. In accordance with Article 12 of the EU Regulation, the Commission 
would review the lists set out in the annexes to that regulation and adjust the control measures 
applying  to listed food and feed on a regular basis, not exceeding a period of six months. 
The European  Union added that, to allow for a better evaluation of the data from official controls 
performed by EU member States and to establish more targeted measures, it had implemented 
Regulation (EU) 2023/174. It was no longer necessary to provide that each consignment be 
accompanied by an official certificate stating that all results of sampling and analysis showed 
compliance with Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. The Europe an Union also noted that although the 
Indian authorities had been informed in a timely manner and had been asked to take follow -up 
actions, non -compliant consignments of a wide range of commodities had continued. 
The European  Union remained available for t echnical bilateral discussions.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 17 - 
 
  4.2.9   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (ID  446) – Concerns of 
the United  States  
4.59.   The United  States  reiterated its concerns regarding the implementation of Article 118 of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/6. The United  States considered that the European  Union should allow 
flexibility to trading partners to use official controls and techniques deemed necessary to achieve 
the same public health objectives. The United  States requested the European  Union to share its 
scienti fic evidence and sought clarification on the EU process for amending and updating its list of 
antimicrobials as well as on considerations for equivalent regulatory systems. The United  States 
expressed its appreciation for a second virtual meeting to keep M embers apprised of the draft 
regulations and reiterated its request that the EU Commission provide a new timeline for 
implementation of its measures and take action through bilateral consultations to ensure that trade 
disruptions were mitigated. The United  States submitted its statement in document  
G/SPS/GEN/2145 . 
4.60.   Japan  regretted that the European  Union had not provided the necessary information, 
including sufficient transition periods, for stakeholders to comply with the new regulations. 
Japan  asked the European  Union to provide details on the requirements to be include d in the list of 
approved third countries, provide at least a three -year transition period before the implementation 
of the delegated act to third countries, clarify timelines for implementation, exempt the use of 
Fosfomycin in fisheries products, and avoi d discrimination in the implementation of the delegated 
act. 
4.61.   Referring to a previous bilateral meeting, Paraguay  sought clarification on the questionnaire 
requested by the European  Union. In Paraguay's view, the European  Union had not taken into 
account th e recommendations made by Members, which would make the compilation of information 
difficult and therefore affect the list of authorized third countries. Regarding the certificates, 
Paraguay stated it was not clear if there were going to be new EU regulati ons or if the 
European  Union was going to modify existing regulations. Paraguay asked the European  Union to 
clarify this issue and to consider the concerns regarding the questionnaire.  
4.62.   Brazil  echoed the previous statements and reiterated its concern with R egulation (EU) 2019/6 
on veterinary medicinal products. In Brazil's view, the legislation and its implementation imposed a 
heavy burden on producers in third countries, by limiting the use of currently available veterinary 
drugs and introducing sanitary re quirements that were more trade restrictive than necessary for 
protecting human, animal, and plant life and health. Brazil urged the European  Union to take into 
consideration the ongoing global effort undertaken by WHO, WOAH, and FAO in setting internation al 
standards and guidelines for AMR.  
4.63.   Australia  thanked the European  Union for the briefing session with third countries but 
reiterated its concerns regarding the proposed 24 -month transition time for the implementation acts 
to be adopted. According to Aust ralia, it would not provide third countries with sufficient time to 
implement the new rules, especially for animals, like dairy cows, whose production cycle is more 
than two years. Australia  continued to request that the proposed certification requirements  not be 
retroactively applied to animals or products derived from animals. Australia also requested 
clarification on the steps taken by the European  Union to minimize additional certification costs and 
questioned the need for consignment -based certificatio n if countries had already met the 
requirements to be listed and approved to export animal products to the European  Union with 
appropriate controls.  
4.64.   Argentina  echoed other Members' concerns regarding the EU legislation on veterinary 
medicinal products and the potential trade restrictions its implementation could generate. 
Argentina  reiterated the need for science -based measures to avoid unnecessary trade barriers and 
facilitate trade of safe products and recommended the use of the AMR guidelines of Codex an d 
WOAH.  
4.65.   Referring to its statements in previous Committee meetings and its full statement in eAgenda, 
Canada  echoed the concerns expressed by other Members. Canada encouraged the European  Union 
to continue with its information sessions and to engage with t hird countries in the process of 
developing new legislation that had the potential to impact international trade to mitigate G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 18 - 
 
  unnecessary barriers to trade. Canada was committed to providing comments on the implementing 
legislation upon notification.  
4.66.   Referring to its previous statements in the Committee, Uruguay  indicated it had taken note 
of the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/905 on the requirements to be met by animals and products 
of animal origin intended for human consumption. Uruguay reported on a bilateral technical meeting 
with the European  Union and asked for more information on the development of the implementing 
act on criteria and procedures regarding the list of authorized third countries according to the 
Article  5 of the Delegated Regulati on. Uruguay also requested information on the procedures for the 
review of the list of restricted antimicrobials according to Regulation (EU) 2019/6 on veterinary 
medicines. Uruguay reiterated that measures should be applied in a transparent manner and in 
coordination with third countries in order to avoid the establishment of requirements that are not 
science -based and restrict trade more than necessary. Uruguay invited the European  Union to 
continue technical information exchange and requested an adequate  period of time to provide 
comments on new regulations.  
4.67.   The European  Union  recalled that Regulation (EU) 2019/66 on veterinary medicines had 
entered into force in January 2019 and had begun applying in January 2022. The Regulation laid 
down a wide range of  concrete measures to fight AMR and promote the responsible use of 
antimicrobials, following the approach of the EU One Health Action Plan against AMR. 
The European  Union stressed that it imposed much stricter rules on domestic operators. A dedicated 
webpa ge had been made available to provide stakeholders with the status of each of the delegated 
or implementing acts and provided a detailed state of play regarding the preparation of the draft 
legal acts.  The European  Union added that Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1255 designated a 
list of antimicrobials or groups of antimicrobials reserved for treatment of certain infections 
in humans. It had entered into force in February 2023 and would be under continued review, with 
future updates to be notified to the  Committee. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/905 detailed rules 
for the application of the ban of the use of antimicrobials for growth promotion and yield increase, 
as well as the use of certain antimicrobials reserved for treatment of infections in humans, 
for animals and products of animal origin exported from third countries to the Union. Two additional 
legal acts still needed to be in place to fully implement these requirements regarding export 
certificates and listing of third countries authorized to exp ort. The European  Union assured Members 
that meetings would be organized with third countries and that it was committed to working on a 
framework that delivered on the objective of addressing AMR while minimizing impacts on trade.  
4.2.10   India's Draft Food Safety  and Standards (Import) Amendment Regulation 
(ID 553) – Concerns of the European  Union  
4.68.   Referring to its statements in previous Committee meetings regarding India's import 
requirements related to the registration of foreign food manufacturing facilities, th e European  Union  
thanked India for responding to its questions regarding the Order of October 2022 of the Food Safety 
and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and postponing the entry into force of the new 
requirements to February 2023. However, several fo od manufacturing facilities had not been 
registered in the online system, with no written reply from India to inquiries. The European  Union 
expressed concerns regarding the listing or delisting of facilities and different authorities regulating 
imports of the same products. Among others, the European  Union requested India to clarify the 
modalities related to audits and inspections of facilities, border checks and health certificates, 
provide written and updated guidance to the exporting countries and compan ies on how they should 
register facilities, and avoid duplication of certificates. The European  Union also reiterated its request 
for this measure to be notified to both the SPS and TBT Committees.  
4.69.   Japan  noted that the final date for comments on India's TB T notification had been set to 
mid-January 2023, with an entry into force on 1 February 2023. This would not have allowed for 
sufficient time to consider any comments put forward before implementation. Japan indicated it had 
submitted lists of food manufac turing facilities, but India had not yet registered some of the facilities 
on the list. Japan requested India to suspend the implementation of its order to allow time for 
adaptation while allowing imports of designated food products without registration of  the facilities, 
specify the HS codes for the designated food categories subject to the order, clarify the details on 
how to apply for the registration of foreign food manufacturing facilities, and respond to 
Japan's  questions within a reasonable time.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 19 - 
 
  4.70.   The United  States  expressed its support for the concerns of other Members regarding 
the measure, notified as G/TBT/N/IND/180 , and the implementing measure for facility registration, 
notified as  G/TBT/N/IND/237.  The United  States was concerned that these measures placed undue 
burdens on foreign competent authorities to maint ain lists, rather than accepting information directly 
from facilities. The United  States noted that a list of HS codes of products or types of facilities subject 
to registration had not been provided and that the scope of the regulation remained unclear. 
In addition, the United  States requested India to provide scientific evidence used to determine the 
risks associated with the facilities and information on the auditing process. The United  States urged 
India to consider different approaches for registration . 
4.71.   Referring to its full statement in eAgenda, Canada  was of the view that the criteria used to 
determine the level of risk for imported food products and the circumstances that would instigate an 
audit remained unclear. Thanking FSSAI for the registration of Canada's food manufacturing facilities 
and publication of a list of establishments and for taking into consideration Canada's comments, 
Canada invited India to respond to its questions submitted earlier in 2023 and notify this measure 
to the SPS Committ ee.  
4.72.   Referring to its full statement in eAgenda, India explained that its 2021 Food Safety and 
Standards Amendment Regulations provided the legal framework for the registration and inspection 
of foreign food manufacturing facilities. The registration and i nspection of such facilities were to be 
based on the risk of food categories as specified by FSSAI and was intended to ensure traceability 
of an overseas facility manufacturing high -risk foods to verify implementation of the appropriate 
measures at the sou rce facility. FSSAI had addressed comments by notifying the need for the 
competent authorities of the exporting countries to provide information to register food 
manufacturing facilities falling under certain categories of food products, as well as informa tion on 
manufacturers willing to export such products to India. India emphasized that the practice of listing 
and registration of foreign establishments, also prevalent in other Members, reduced inspection and 
clearance times and ensured the quality and sa fety of food products. India further indicated that the 
safety measures taken to ensure food safety for the listed products had already been notified in the 
SPS and TBT  Committees. Since this was a certificate with no additional safety measures related to 
the products, it had not been notified to the SPS Committee . 
4.73.   Responding to discrete enquiries, India clarified that per its 2017 Food Safety and Standards 
Regulation, inspections of foreign food manufacturing facilities were not mandatory for all facilities 
and were to be conducted as deemed necessary where there were no requirements of audits of 
facilities in exporting countries. India further noted that registration of facilities was a more feasible 
method of verification at the preliminary stage s, there was an integrated health certificate available 
with a suitable transition period for compliance, and more than 2400 facilities had been registered.  
4.2.11   India's Order related to requirement of health certificate accompanied with 
imported food consignme nt of milk, pork, fish and related products (ID  554) – Concerns 
of the European  Union  
4.74.   The European  Union  raised its concerns regarding India's health certificates for imported milk, 
pork, fish, and related products, which had been notified to the TBT Commi ttee. The European  Union 
thanked India for a recent information session and the postponement of the entry into force of the 
health certificates until further notice. The European  Union requested India to avoid the duplication 
of SPS measures and take into consideration comments provided, namely, on the differences 
between the Indian import conditions and international standards and to ensure that consignments 
with the correct model certificate were not blocked. The European  Union also requested India to 
notify any modalities relating to the application of the health certificates to the SPS Committee  well 
in advance.  
4.75.   Japan  noted that, as per India's TBT notification, the date of entry into force of FSSAI's Order 
containing new health certificates had been in itially set as 1 November 2022. While appreciating 
India's decision to extend the order's implementation date, Japan stressed the need for India to set 
a sufficient transition period for exporting Members to adapt their systems to the new health 
certificat es. Japan further noted that, if one of the objectives of FSSAI's Order was to ensure food 
safety, India needed to notify it under the SPS Agreement . G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.76.   Referring to its full statement in eAgenda, Norway  thanked India for postponing the entry into 
force of th e three health certificates. Norway emphasized the importance for competent authorities 
of having sufficient time to adapt to new measures and, in this context, requested India to notify 
further new health certificates to the SPS Committee . Norway also req uested India to avoid 
duplication of SPS measures. Norway expressed concerns about the effect of potential new 
requirements on its export of fish and seafood to India and asked India to allow trading partners to 
revise existing certificates for fish and se afood to incorporate the consolidated import requirements.  
4.77.   While appreciating that FSSAI's Order for pork, dairy, and seafood products, notified 
as G/TBT/N/IND/233 , had been put on hold, the United  States  remained concerned regarding the 
health certificates, especially given a recent Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying ( DAHD) 
memorandum on "Veterinary Health Certificate for Import of Milk and Milk Products into India" made 
available on the web.  The United  States requested that  India postpone implementation of any new 
certificates and take all Member comments into account prior to finalizing this and other measures.  
4.78.   New Zealand  thanked India for the extension to the new certification requirement and 
reiterated that DAHD and FSSAI should ensure all certification requirements and processes were 
well coordinated prior to notif ying this requirement again.  New Zealand also supported the provision 
of sufficient time to provide comments on any updated requirements as well as to implement these 
new requirements. New Zealand further requested clarity on time frames and procedures for  new 
certificates.  
4.79.   Canada  welcomed India's recent decision to delay the implementation of the new certificate 
requirements until further notice but reiterated its concerns with a number of new FSSAI 
requirements. Canada requested India to streamline its ce rtification requirements, base them on 
international standards, and notify them to the SPS Committee . 
4.80.   India indicated that the export certificate requirement for categories of food products was 
mandatory as per domestic regulation. The requirement of a hea lth certificate was a pre -import 
requirement in the form of an assurance provided by the competent authorities of exporting 
countries that the food products complied with safety requirements. India further informed that, 
following notification in the TBT C ommittee, it had received comments and concerns regarding the 
number of certificates and extension for implementation. Considering these comments, India  had 
deferred the requirement until further order.  
4.2.12   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade  in food and agricultural 
products (ID  487) – Concerns of Australia and Japan  
4.81.   Australia  noted China's removal of the requirements to test imported products and packaging 
for COVID -19 genetic material and sought clarification on when China would remove outs tanding 
COVID -19 related suspensions. Australia sought clarification regarding three Australian meat 
establishments that remained suspended. Australia requested these suspensions be lifted, similar to 
other Members who had had their meat establishments rei nstated, and timely feedback on 
Australia's corrective actions.  
4.82.   Japan  raised concerns on continued suspensions, despite China's lifting of some measures 
earlier in 2023. Japan indicated that the two facilities whose imports had been suspended due to 
online  audits in 2020 had immediately undertaken corrective actions but import suspensions had 
continued for two and a half years without scientific or risk -based justification. Given that the 
measures had been lifted, Japan urged China to reinstate these facili ties and requested clarification 
on China's food safety concerns to justify the continued import suspensions.  
4.83.   China  thanks Members for their concerns and noted that after the adjustment of requirements 
related to COVID -19, China had successfully resumed im ports from more than 100 enterprises, 
including in India, the United Kingdom, Chinese  Taipei, Poland, the Netherlands, and other Members. 
China indicated that it would lift suspensions once enterprises that remained suspended took 
corrective actions.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 21 - 
 
  4.2.13   China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of 
imported food (26 November 2019) (ID  485) – Concerns of Australia, Japan, the 
United  States and the European  Union  
4.84.   Australia  welcomed the recent information session in Geneva and ame ndments to the China 
Imported Food Enterprise Registration (CIFER) system and hoped these changes would deliver the 
desired outcome. In Australia's view, changes that allowed for suspended establishments to retain 
their registration and for the ability to change details such as their address and legal representatives 
would result in a more efficient system. Australia also acknowledged the difficulties China had in the 
implementation of its CIFER system and appreciated cooperation with the General Administra tion of 
Customs China (GACC) to mitigate the risk of trade disruption throughout the process of 
establishment registration extensions. However, Australia remained concerned about timeframes, 
lack of clear and timely advice from the GACC, and delays in regi stration of new and existing food 
businesses. Australia encouraged China to allow for reasonable timeframes for application 
submission and adjustment in the CIFER system, notify competent authorities of updates to the 
system, provide clear and timely advic e on any changes to HS codes, provide appropriate guidance 
to all affected entities on meeting requirements, ensure continuity of trade until CIFER system issues 
were resolved, and allow for modifications of applications submitted in the CIFER system.  
4.85.   Japan thanked China for its bilateral engagement and information on documents submitted 
by 30 June, but remained concerned that regulations lacked transparency and imposed a significant 
burden on foreign authorities and manufacturers . Japan requested China to establish a standard 
processing period for applications made through the CIFER system and clarify the processing period, 
notify changes in the operation of its regulations or the CIFER system with a reasonable transition 
period if changes were introduced, correct defects in the CIFER system as soon as possible, respond 
to unanswered questions within a reasonable time, provide explanations when an application was 
rejected through the CIFER system, and ensure consistency.  
4.86.   The United  States  reiterated its conc ern regarding China's lack of response to requests for 
scientific justification and sought clarification on how the measures established in Decrees 248 and 
249 would address food safety and public health concerns. The United  States urged China to provide 
the risk assessments that informed the development of these decrees. The United  States stressed 
the large administrative burden on competent authorities and requested that all facilities should be 
able to self -register. The  United  States noted that the new requirements that came into effect after 
30 June 203 had caused confusion due to lack of guidance and highlighted the importance of 
meaningful outreach ahead of implementation of these decrees. The  United  States submitted its 
statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2147 . 
4.87.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding the process of implementation of 
China's  Decree 248, which it considered to be burdensome and not transparent. The  European  Union 
noted applicants faced many issues du ring the registration process and was concerned with the 
upcoming deadline of June 2023 for existing registrations. The European  Union recalled a joint letter 
to China which had called for a pragmatic approach to implementation of Decree 248 and called for  
an extension of the deadline. While the 30 June deadline did not cause major trade disruptions, 
the European  Union requested China to simplify and facilitate the process to apply for new 
registrations and to amend existing ones.  
4.88.   Korea  expressed appreciat ion for China's information sessions and bilateral meetings but 
remained concerned measures under Decree 248 created burdens to exporting countries by including 
medium -risk food products as provided in the Decree. In accordance with Article 5 of the 
SPS Agreement , Korea requested that China provide the scientific justification or rationale behind 
selecting the product categories. While respecting China's efforts to protect the health of its people, 
Korea stressed the need for harmonization with the internat ional standards.  
4.89.   Referring to its interventions in previous Committee meetings, Chinese  Taipei  stressed that 
transparency remained an issue. The lack of sufficient information on registration requirements, 
operational guidance, and updates on the stages of  the procedures complicated the implementation 
of the measures. While China had referred to technical guidelines, regulatory interpretations and 
supporting documents, Chinese  Taipei requested that this information be placed on a publicly 
accessible website . Chinese  Taipei also noted the burdens imposed on competent authorities and 
requested that China consider eliminating the requirements for medium -risk products. 
Chinese  Taipei further stressed that the ambiguity of HS codes, categorization, and scope of p roducts G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 22 - 
 
  subject to these measures was another issue. Chinese  Taipei urged China to establish an enquiry 
point to address questions surrounding the measures, provide a longer grace period for 
implementation, temporarily allowing entry of products from regis tered facilities.  
4.90.   Referring to its statement in eAgenda, Norway  remained concerned that the mentioned 
regulations were more trade restrictive than necessary to ensure the safety of imported food 
products. Norway noted that there were many challenges for its seafood industry when it came to 
the vast amount of documenta tion required to register establishments and change conference 
company information in the CIFER system. Norway indicated that the numerous changes to the 
CIFER system after its implementation, lack of guidance, and significant technical errors had caused 
further problems in registering companies and requested that these issues be solved with aim to 
reduce disruptions to trade.  
4.91.   The United Kingdom  thanked China  for the constructive dialogue and pragmatism regarding 
the CIFER system. The United Kingdom noted i t had completed registration for all establishments 
for high -risk products ahead of the June deadline, though it was a significant undertaking for all 
competent authorities. The United Kingdom remained concerned that the classification and 
application of a ssociated measures for medium and low -risk products was disproportionate to the 
risks posed. The United Kingdom requested China to consider removing the need for a checklist for 
modification and extension applications for medium -risk commodities in light o f the UK rigorous 
controls and processes.  
4.92.   China  indicated that the revision of the draft Administrative Measures for Registration of 
Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Foods had entered into force on 1 January 2022, and with the 
cooperation of the food saf ety authorities of Members, more than 80,000 overseas manufacturers 
from 165 economies had been registered in the CIFER system  and the implementation of the 
provision ha d gradually passed into a stable period . China noted that guidelines, documentation, 
and videos had provided to support implementation, as well as regulatory briefings and training with 
more than 100 Members. China also noted that enterprises who had not registered by the deadline 
would not have their trade disrupted. China emphasized its ef forts to strengthen communication 
with Members, and noted some questions raised had already been solved through bilateral channels. 
China brought  Members' attention to an information session on 19 June 2023 where it had reiterated 
the legitimacy and transp arency of the regulation, explained the regulation based on science and 
risk assessments, shared implementation information, and introduced the registration system. 
China  welcomed further questions from Members.  
4.2.14   China 's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID  516) – Concerns of Australia and Canada  
4.93.   Recalling that SPS control, inspection, and approval activities should be timely and no less 
favourable than those undertaken for domestic circumstances, Austral ia requested China to provide 
timeframes and pathways for the assessment and approval of establishment registrations and their 
products, the updating of administrative listings, and the removal of restrictions and suspensions on 
establishments and products . Australia welcomed China's recent amendments to the CIFER system 
and the publication of and additions to registration lists, as well as the recent update to the grain 
and plant products and horticulture listings. Australia pointed out China's non -adheren ce to the 
SPS Agreement , referring to a lack of response from China on the assessment and removal of 
suspensions for a number of Australian meat establishments and registration for Australian 
germplasm collection centres. Australia also expressed concerns with China's process to update 
eligible product lists for non -viable seafood.  Australia welcomed bilateral engagement with China to 
resolve these issues.  
4.94.   Referring to its statements at previous Committee meetings, Canada  stated that it continued 
to experience undue delays in China's approval procedures for the importation of food products and 
foreign establishments. Canada was awaiting updated information o n lists of Canadian 
establishments eligible to export and approval of new market access requests for several products.  
Referring to recent changes to the CIFER system, Canada appreciated China's efforts to facilitate 
the registration and renewal process an d discuss functionality issues with trading partners. 
Canada  requested China to provide flexibilities to ensure that the CIFER system did not become a 
trade barrier.  Canada also called on China to provide timelines and results of approvals for all 
Canadian  food establishments, approve all new market access requests and update establishment 
registration lists to allow Canadian exports to China.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 23 - 
 
  4.95.   The United Kingdom  informed the Committee that two UK pork establishments remained 
subject to suspensions by China.  The United Kingdom underlined that, as a number of Members had 
highlighted in the context of STC ID 487, the grounds for suspensions had been removed from 
China's import requirements. In the United Kingdom's view, China's technical requirements and 
reques ts had been met and it was unclear why the suspensions were still in place. 
The United  Kingdom requested China to review this matter as a priority and hoped to build on its 
productive bilateral dialogue with China to deliver a timely and constructive solut ion to this matter.  
4.96.   The United  States  indicated its interest and availability to continue working bilaterally with 
China to respond to US concerns regarding China's unaddressed requests for the reinstatement of 
various export establishments.  
4.97.   China  responde d that it handled market access and risk assessment for meat and aquatic 
products and enterprise registration in accordance with its domestic laws and regulations. At present, 
the new listing and reinstatement of exporting establishments from Australia and  Canada were 
progressing normally. China  informed the Committee that a total of 145  renewal applications from 
Australian dairy enterprises had been approved normally, and among the 15 applications from new 
registered dairy enterprises, eight had been rejec ted and seven were still undergoing approval 
procedures. China also noted that all registration applications from Canadian dairy enterprises had 
been processed normally.  
4.2.15   Russian  Federation – Procedures for authorizing units eligible for export of fish 
and fish products to Eurasian Customs Union (ID  508) – Concerns of India  
4.98.   India indicated that its seafood exporters could not export to the Russian  Federation due to 
the non-listing of Indian processing units by the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosani tary 
Supervision (FSVPS). India informed the Committee that 96 establishments were listed on the 
FSVPS' website and that the request for the listing of 44 fishery establishments were still pending 
and urged the Russian  Federation to list the units urgently . India reiterated its request to the 
Russian  Federation to share the risk assessment in support of the inspections.  
4.99.   The Russian  Federation  indicated that, in accordance with Eurasian Economic Commission 
Council Decision No. 94, the authorization of export s of fish and fish products from foreign 
enterprises to Eurasian Economic Union territory was preceded by inspection of these enterprises. 
In letters sent to India in May 2023, the Russian  Federation had provided an explanation regarding 
the issue of attes tation of Indian fish processing plants and aquaculture feed plants. 
The Russian  Federation also noted that most of the registered Indian fish enterprises had never 
supplied products to its territory, and asked India to update the current lists. The Russia n Federation 
expressed its readiness to include new Indian enterprises in the Register of Enterprises of third 
countries after the implementation of existing requirements and agreements.  
4.2.16   Japan's approval procedures to import plant products (ID  567) – Conce rns of the 
European  Union  
4.100.   The European  Union  thanked Japan for the recent bilateral engagement and the explanation 
provided on the revised Standard Procedure for Lifting a Ban on Importation of Plants into Japan 
(G/SPS/N/JPN/1201 ). The European  Union expressed concerns regarding Japan's lengthy and 
burdensome approval procedures for plant products and noted the difficulties faced by EU plant 
producers to gain market access. The European  Union also expressed concerns about Japan's choice 
of a sin gle plant product per country for assessment while suspending any other plant product 
application from that country. The European  Union looked forward to continuing cooperation with 
Japan on these issues to find solutions in line with the SPS Agreement  and the EU -Japan Economic 
Partnership Agreement.  
4.101.   Japan  regretted that the European  Union raised the issue as an STC given ongoing bilateral 
discussions. Japan indicated that approval procedures took time due to delays in submission of 
scientific information f rom the requesting country. Japan further indicated it had received a large 
number of requests for market access from many countries and regions, and risk assessments were 
conducted on a per item basis to ensure fairness and efficiency. Japan noted that pr ocedures for 
lifting the import ban of plant products had been made publicly available and had been revised taking G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 24 - 
 
  into account relevant international standards. Japan expressed its willingness to continue discussing 
this matter with the European  Union.  
4.2.17   India's undue delay in importing twelve species of fresh mushrooms (ID  566) - 
Concerns of Korea  
4.102.   Korea  raised concerns that seven years had passed since an agreement had been reached 
on the import requirements for 12 fresh mushrooms, yet India had not allowed imports of these 
products. Korea regretted the lack of explanations regarding the delay in import a pproval and 
complained that India had proposed to re -initiate a pest risk assessment for three types of 
Korean  mushrooms, instead of publishing a notice of the import approval for 12 types of 
Korean  mushrooms, for which the risk assessment was completed. K orea urged India to allow the 
import of the 12 fresh mushrooms without undue delay in accordance with Article 8 of and Annex C 
to the SPS Agreement . 
4.103.   India considered that Korea's concern was a market access issue, not an SPS issue, and that 
the SPS Committ ee was not the right forum to raise this matter.  
4.2.18   India's approval procedures to import plants, animals and their products (ID  565) 
– Concerns of the European  Union  
4.104.   The European  Union  regretted that India's approval procedures were unclear and slow, and 
that the standard and anticipated processing periods had not been communicated. 
The European  Union noted that India had not provided information on the stage of the assessment 
procedure for the approval of new exports, nor the specific non -conformities for ex isting exports, 
and this prevented the implementation of corrective actions. The European  Union recalled that there 
were a number of pending applications, and some of them had been pending for almost 10 years. 
The European  Union urged India to comply with its WTO SPS obligations by ensuring transparency 
of its import legislation and approval procedures and provide requested clarifications to allow the 
finalization of the pending market applications without undue delay.  
4.105.   India responded that it understood the  importance of timely and transparent processing of 
approval procedures as well as the need for clear communication regarding non -conformities. 
India emphasized that it diligently examined market access applications, ensuring compliance with 
relevant inter national guidelines. India added that non -compliances were promptly communicated 
and invited the European  Union to provide specific cases of pending approvals.  India took the view 
that the EU concern pertained specifically to market access, and the SPS Committee  was not the 
appropriate forum to address this matter. India remained committed to further bilateral dialogue 
and cooperation to resolve any outstanding issues.  
4.2.19   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID  441) – 
Concerns of the European  Union  
4.106.   The European  Union  expressed concerns with  the undue delays of Indonesia's approval 
procedures for imports of plant products and animal products. Noting some  progress on certain 
EU member State applications, the European  Union regretted that  many applications had remained 
pending for years, without new market access being granted. The European  Union indicated that 
Indonesia had registered progress at the level of establishments and continued to be concerned with 
the lack of progress relating to applications from EU member States. The European  Union noted that 
animal health experts from the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture had visited its territory in 
March  2023 and agreed to regular technical exchanges. The European  Union urged Indonesia to 
comply with its WTO SPS obligations, by ensuring transparency of its approval procedures and 
finalizing the long -standing EU market access applications without undue delay.  
4.107.   Indonesia  updated the Committee on the progress of approval procedures for animal 
products in several EU member States and urged the remaining countries to complete relevant 
processes. Indonesia also shared updates on the  progress of approval procedures for plant p roducts 
for a number of EU member States.  Indonesia had received many applications from 
EU establishments and had tried to accelerate each step of the approval procedure assessment. 
Indonesia considered that  it provided transparent updates on developments  in accordance with G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Articles 7 and 8 of the SPS Agreement  and noted that progress on approval procedures was 
communicated through each EU member States' competent authorities and embassies . 
4.2.20   Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of fishery and 
livestock enterprises (ID  509) – Concerns of the Peru and European  Union  
4.108.   Peru reiterated its concerns that Panama's requests for additional information and undue 
delays violated Article 8 of and Annex C to the SPS Agreement  and regretted the  lack of information 
regarding the anticipated processing period and timeline for the renewal of authorizations of 
Peruvian  enterprises. Peru also noted the lack of responses to the communications submitted, 
including a request for a meeting of the Peru -Panama Free Trade Agreement Administrative 
Commission. Peru noted that Panama had not indicated the sanitary reasons for not renewing the 
authorizations or granting new authorizations to Peruvian enterprises, in violation of Articles 2.2 and 
5.1 of the SPS Agreement . Peru asked Panama to renew the authorizations of Peruvian export plants 
and avoid further delays. Peru provided its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2151 . 
4.109.   The European  Union  indicated that Panamanian authorities blocked requests from 
EU membe r States to obtain market access for agricultural and livestock products and to update the 
lists of plants authorized to export. Although an agreement had been reached to avoid delisting 
EU establishments that had been historically trading with Panama, the re had been no progress on 
the approval of new products or new exporting plants. The European  Union invited Panama to 
establish transparent, predictable, and swift procedures in line with agreed international standards, 
to remove these unnecessary addition al barriers to trade and to ensure the application of 
SPS measures in a non -discriminatory and predictable manner.  
4.110.   Costa  Rica considered that Panama's regulatory practices for authorizing establishments 
seemed to be aimed at restricting trade and affected a wide range of Costa  Rican agricultural 
products. Costa  Rica complained that this was a long -standing practice for which Panama did not 
provide justification under the SPS Agreement . Costa  Rica called on Panama to address these 
concerns, which it noted, w arned of an improper application of SPS measures and non -compliance 
with the SPS Agreement . 
4.111.   Chile expressed concerns regarding a number of Chilean establishments of fishing and 
aquaculture products, beef and dairy products whose export authorizations to Pa nama had expired 
since 30 June 2023, with no possibilities to export from that date. Despite Chile's repeated requests 
and advance consultations, no solution or alternatives had been found to avoid what Chile considered 
an unjustified interruption to trade . Chile provided further details on the number of affected 
establishments and requested that Panama renew the authorizations of affected establishments and 
re-establish the possibility for new authorizations as soon as possible.  
4.112.   Panama  expressed its willingness to hold a meeting of the Peru -Panama Free Trade 
Agreement Administrative Commission and continue the bilateral dialogue with Peru. 
Panama  regretted that the European  Union raised this concern since the European  Union had 
acknowle dged that some establishments had been approved following bilateral discussions. 
Panama  also stated that on 30 May 2023, it held a technical meeting with representatives of 
EU member States within the framework of the EU -Central America Association Agreeme nt, during 
which Panama reported that it was working on the authorization of approximately 70 plants and 
would discuss pending issues at the next meeting in December 2023. Panama reiterated its respect 
for commitments under the SPS Agreement  and would continue to work with trading partners in 
search of mutually satisfactory solutions.  
4.2.21   Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports 
(ID 490) – Concerns of the European  Union  
4.113.   The European  Union  reiterated its c oncerns regarding delays in market access for bovine 
products. While welcoming the reopening of Korea's markets for bovine products from two 
EU member States in 2019, the European  Union emphasized that identical food safety and animal 
health control condit ions prevailed in all EU member States and that the time needed for the 
remaining approval procedures should be reduced. Recalling that several EU member States had 
market access applications pending, some of which for more than 15 years, the European  Union G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 26 - 
 
  viewed Korea's assessment procedure as overly lengthy and burdensome, and hoped that 
Korea  would solve this issue.  
4.114.   Korea  indicated that it allowed imports without discrimination based on risk and sanitary 
assessments in line with the SPS Agreement , WOAH,  and Codex standards. Korea recalled that beef 
imports from the Netherlands and Denmark had been approved and the procedure to recognize 
regionalization for African swine fever (ASF) and AI in the European  Union had been finalized in 
September 2022. Korea stated that in accordance with domestic law, deliberation by the 
Korean  national assembly was inevitable for  beef imports originating from countries with bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).  Korea was ready to enhance cooperation with 
the European  Union  to achieve progress in the import approval process for EU beef.  
4.2.22   Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and fisheries products (ID  530) – 
Concerns of Peru  
4.115.   Peru stated that Bolivia's measures blocked market access for Peruvian exports of whole 
trout.  Despite the approval of the health certificate in 2017, Bolivia had not yet complied with the 
corresponding commitments to allow imports. Peru also complained that Bolivia had not notified its 
national legislation. Peru was still awaiting a response to th e requests for the technical justification 
and the risk assessment carried out for the inclusion of fresh chilled or frozen (eviscerated) fish in 
health risk category 1 of Annex 1 to Administrative Resolution SENASAG No. 078/2022. Peru asked 
Bolivia to lif t its restrictions.  Peru provided its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2152 . 
4.116.   Bolivia  took note of Peru's comments and indicated that it would report to capital. 
Bolivia  stated that its health requirements for imports of trout were in line with the guid elines 
established by Codex and FAO to ensure safety. Referring to Andean Community Resolution 
No. 2067, Bolivia  noted its concerns regarding aquatic animal health. Affirming its measures did not 
establish arbitrary discriminations, Bolivia indicated that the technical problems faced had been 
addressed in bilateral meetings and that, if needed, they would continue to be addressed by the 
sanitary authorities. Bolivia reiterated its willingness to maintain an open and transparent dialogue 
with Peru.  
4.2.23   EU delays  in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup) 
(ID 526) - Concerns of Korea  
4.117.   Korea  reiterated concerns with the import authorization procedure of Korean chicken soup 
Samgyetang to the European  Union, which had been stalled for 27 years.  Korea asked 
the European  Union to provide information on the remaining steps and swiftly proceed with the 
remaining import approval procedures. Korea would enhance cooperation with the European  Union to 
achieve progress on the EU's approval process for Samgyetang.  
4.118.   The European  Union  indicated that it would inform Korea as soon as the procedure for 
granting market access for Samgyetang soup was finalized.  
4.2.24   EU increased sampling frequency for inspection of farmed shrimps and newly 
listed fishery establishments not permitted to export aquaculture products (ID  552) - 
Concerns of India  
4.119.   India reiterated its concerns about the increased level of sampling and testing on imports 
for farmed shrimps despite India's remarkable reduction in antibiotic reject ions in farmed shrimps 
exported to the European  Union. India requested that the European  Union provide equivalence in 
sampling with other supplying countries, to list all the delisted units and to permit newly listed units 
to export farmed shrimps to the E uropean  Union.  
4.120.   Acknowledging significant progress since the previous audit, the European  Union  noted that 
a high level of non -compliant results for prohibited antimicrobials was still detected in the 
Indian -initiated pre -harvest testing programme in hatche ries and in the mandatory pre -export 
testing programme. (94 consignments had been tested as non -compliant and destroyed in India 
since January 2020). An audit had also concluded that follow -up investigations and measures to 
dissuade illegal use had scope f or improvement and that the testing regimes operating in India 
remained necessary. The final report of the audit was published along with India's action plan to G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 27 - 
 
  address four recommendations. The European  Union reported that it had requested India to provid e 
further evidence of the proposed actions to address these recommendations. The European  Union 
noted that the pre -listing of aquaculture establishments would be reviewed in due course, and looked 
forward to continued discussion with India.  
4.2.25   General import restrictions due to BSE (ID  193) - Concerns of the European  Union  
4.121.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns that some Members continued to maintain 
import bans and delays in their approval procedures to lift BSE restrictions. In its view, the delays 
by so me Members including Australia, Brazil, China, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa, 
Chinese  Taipei, and the United  States, were at odds with Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement . The European  Union welcomed China's lifting of certain BSE -based rest rictions from 
Poland and Belgium and invited China to lift the restrictions on beef from the remaining member 
States. The  European  Union also noted that the procedure for the recognition of equivalence with 
the United  States had been ongoing for several ye ars and regretted that exports had only resumed 
for four EU  member States. The European  Union requested that the United  States swiftly conclude 
the procedure for the 10 remaining EU member States. The European  Union urged all Members to 
comply with their o bligations under the SPS Agreement , apply international standards, lift remaining 
BSE-related restrictions, engage with the European  Union to finalize the assessment of pending 
market access requests, and conclude administrative steps to lift the ban witho ut further delay.  
4.122.   Switzerland  supported this concern. Although Switzerland had been recognized by WOAH as 
having negligible BSE risk for more than a decade, it continued to be on China's list of countries 
from which imports of animals and their products we re prohibited. Switzerland urged trading 
partners to lift remaining import restrictions due to BSE and allow imports of beef products from 
Switzerland.  
4.123.   The United  States  considered that the current concerns were related to its equivalence 
administrative pr ocess and not animal health. To resume exporting bovine meat products for human 
consumption, EU member States needed to obtain an equivalence determination by the 
US Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Several EU member Sta tes 
had successfully navigated that process as indicated by the European  Union. FSIS was working 
through its equivalence process, had engaged with several EU member States at a technical level, 
and remained available for additional technical engagements.  
4.124.   China responded that it was highly cautious about BSE, and the ban imposed on 
EU member  States was in accordance with its regulations. Recently 19 EU member States ha d 
reported BSE  outbreaks . Among them, 14 countries ha d applied to China to lift the ban on BSE after 
the epidemic ha d been effectively controlled . China had lifted the ban on eight countries and was 
stepping up the risk assessment of related documents provided by six other countries. China would 
inform the re levant countries of the results of the assessment in a timely manner.  
4.2.26   China's suspension of beef imports due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy 
(BSE) restrictions (ID  561) - Concerns of Canada  
4.125.   Canada  raised concerns regarding China's suspension of Canadia n beef imports based on a 
single case of atypical BSE, which Canada stated did not affect its WOAH BSE negligible risk status. 
Canada informed the Committee that it had continuously tried to engage with and responded to all 
requests from China but was stil l waiting for trade to be restored for a year and a half. 
Canada  indicated that China had previously allowed beef exports from trading partners that had 
reported atypical BSE cases to resume quickly and in other instances, no import prohibitions were 
introduced following the detection of atypical BSE in other Members supplying beef to China. 
Canada  also noted that no scientific justification had been provided for the atypical BSE -related trade 
prohibition on Canadian beef and urged China to work collaborati vely to resolve this issue. 
Canada  indicated that its full intervention would be uploaded to eAgenda.  
4.126.   China  responded that Canada had voluntarily suspended beef exports to China in December 
2021, after Canada reported an atypical case of BSE; this was in a ccordance with a bilateral 
agreement, and Canada had provided the relevant documents requested by China. China was 
stepping up the risk assessment of relevant documents received and would provide information on G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 28 - 
 
  results in a timely manner. China would condu ct technical consultations with Canada regarding the 
reinstatement of beef exports after confirming that the BSE risk was under effective control.  
4.2.27   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (ID  431) - Concerns of  the European  Union  
4.127.   The European  Union  regretted that South Africa maintained country -wide bans on poultry 
products from 15 EU member States following historic HPAI outbreaks. The European  Union 
indicated that the measures remained in place even though WOA H stamping out requirements were 
strictly applied, several EU member States had been free from HPAI for many months, and many 
tons of poultry meat and by -products crossed intra -EU borders every day with no records of HPAI 
outbreaks. The European  Union cons idered the measures to be at odds with Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement  and called on South Africa to apply the regionalization principle and allow trade from 
disease -free areas.  
4.128.   Argentina  indicated that, following an HPAI outbreak in February 2023, it had r epeatedly 
asked South African authorities to analyse a regionalization proposal to resume trade in poultry 
products in accordance with WOAH guidelines. Argentina also referred to two unsuccessful requests 
to South African authorities to hold technical meet ings. Argentina called on South Africa to resume 
technical exchanges and apply the principle of regionalization, noting that the disease was present 
in both countries.  
4.129.   The United  States  expressed its concerns that South Africa had not lifted restrictions o n 
poultry exports from US states declared HPAI -free in a manner consistent with WOAH as well as 
existing bilateral animal health agreements. The United  States requested that South Africa lift 
restrictions on US states that were HPAI -free based on WOAH guid ance, to ensure that the export 
of safe poultry meat could resume as soon as possible.  
4.130.   South Africa  continued to impose bans on poultry and unprocessed poultry products following 
confirmation of HPAI outbreaks. South Africa had been engaging with the Europ ean Union in relation 
to regionalization and was open to discussion with Argentina and the United  States to understand 
their practices regarding regionalization.  
4.2.28   Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(ID 456) - Concerns of the European  Union  
4.131.   The European  Union  thanked Korea for the recognition of the EU regionalization measures 
and welcomed the exports of poultry and poultry products that were taking place. Nonetheless, 
the European  Union complained that Korea reque sted burdensome information upon notification of 
an outbreak as well as before the removal of restrictions in an affected area. The European  Union 
welcomed the constructive exchanges with Korea and expressed its willingness to find a solution.  
4.132.   Korea  respon ded that it had recognized regionalization of HPAI in the European  Union in 
September 2022 and most follow -up procedures had been completed. Korea confirmed that imports 
of poultry and poultry meat products were underway. Korea expected a prompt resolution  of the 
issues regarding exchanges of information between quarantine agencies and would continue to 
strengthen its partnership with the European  Union.  
4.2.29   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  406) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  
4.133.   The European  Union  informed the Committee that China continued to maintain country -wide 
bans on several EU member States on account of HPAI. The European  Union had repeatedly 
requested China to lift these import restrictions in accordance wi th the SPS Agreement  and relevant 
WOAH standards to allow trade from unaffected areas. The European  Union welcomed the technical 
exchanges with China and looked forward to the next discussion, progress and resolution of this 
concern.  
4.134.   The United  States  indicated its interest and availability to work bilaterally with China to 
address its concerns.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 29 - 
 
  4.135.   China  responded that HPAI continued to occur in the European  Union, with cross -species 
transmissions in mink farms. China had suspended imports of live poultry and related products from 
EU member States with HPAI outbreaks in accordance with relevant regulations and international 
rules. Acknowledging positive results on prevention and control in EU member States, China had 
begun its assessment to lift restrictions in  some countries and launched technical exchanges with 
the European  Union with regard to zoning. China noted that it would continue to resolve the issue 
and carry out technical exchanges with the European  Union.  
4.2.30   China's import restrictions on heat -treated p et food containing poultry ingredients 
due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  562) - Concerns of Canada  
4.136.   Canada  reiterated concerns with China's arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of 
Canadian  pet food exports. Canada took the view that China's mea sures were at odds with the 
SPS Agreement  and the WTO. Canada questioned the scientific basis for China's prohibition on 
Canadian heat -treated pet food containing poultry ingredients and urged China to remove the HPAI 
prohibitions as per WOAH guidelines an d allow exports to resume without further delays. 
Canada  called on China to work collaboratively with trading partners to avoid unnecessary barriers 
to trade. Canada noted that its full statement would be uploaded in eAgenda.  
4.137.   Referring to its relevant laws  and regulations, China  clarified that Canadian poultry -derived 
commercial aseptic processed canned pet food was not affected by HPAI and could be exported to 
China. China considered that dried pet food still had a risk of transmitting HPAI and noted that it 
was consulting with Canada bilaterally on this issue. China stated that it would step up technical 
exchanges with Canada and resolve relevant issues  through amending the protocol . 
4.2.31   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  392) - Concern s of the 
European  Union  
4.138.   The European  Union  expressed concerns regarding China's ASF -related country -wide import 
bans on pork products, including from EU member States that had long eradicated the disease in 
livestock and wildlife. Since 2015, when the conc ern had first been raised, China had expanded the 
trade bans, despite China having the same sanitary status. The European  Union called on China to 
respect the SPS Agreement  and WOAH standards and allow trade from disease -free areas. 
Noting  recent technical exchanges on zoning, the European  Union looked forward to the next 
discussion.  
4.139.   China  indicated that in accordance with WOAH guidelines, it had conducted assessments to 
lift ASF bans on countries that regained free status and was also exploring technical exchanges and 
cooperation related to zoning management in EU member States. China had initiated the assessment 
to lift the ASF ban for Belgium and had begun bilateral consul tations on zoning management 
cooperation with Germany.  
4.2.32   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  393) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.140.   The European  Union  thanked Korea for recognizing the EU regionalization measures applied 
for ASF and for  amending its import conditions of pork and its products from the European  Union 
from disease -free areas from affected EU member States. A  number of establishments had 
concluded the relevant administrative procedures and were eligible to export. The Europe an Union 
remained concerned  with delays in the finalization of the procedure for some other 
EU member  States and considered Korea's request for information burdensome, disproportionate, 
and duplicative, resulting in unnecessary delays.  The European  Union w elcomed the constructive 
exchanges and looked forward to solving the pending issues.  
4.141.   Korea  informed the Committee that it had recognized regionalization of ASF in 
the European  Union in September 2022 and most follow -up procedures had been completed. 
Korea  expected that issues related to the approval of pork meat establishments of some 
EU member  States would be finalized soon and noted that it would cooperate with the 
European  Union on ASF regionalization.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 30 - 
 
  4.2.33   Peru's non -application of regionalization for Africa n swine fever (ID  544) – 
Concerns of the European  Union  
4.142.   The European  Union  expressed concerns regarding Peru's country -wide import bans imposed 
on EU pork products from EU member States that reported outbreaks of ASF. The European  Union 
urged Peru to respe ct its international obligations and allow trade from disease -free areas, review 
its procedures, and engage in solution -oriented exchanges.  
4.143.   Noting its respect for the regionalization principle of the SPS Agreement , Peru indicated 
it had duly provided info rmation on the legislation applicable to a country that was experiencing or 
had experienced outbreaks of diseases not recognized in its territory. Peru reiterated its willingness 
to continue the ongoing bilateral work with the European  Union.  
4.2.34   Mexico's impo rt restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  563) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.144.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns regarding country -wide import suspensions 
imposed by Mexico on pork products from EU member States that had reported ASF outbrea ks. 
The European  Union regretted the lack of progress despite repeated requests for Mexico to respect 
its obligations, apply regionalization to pork meat imported from the European  Union, and allow 
trade from disease -free areas, most recently raised at an EU-Mexico SPS subcommittee meeting in 
October 2022. The European  Union requested bilateral technical discussions to solve these concerns.  
4.145.   Mexico  indicated that it was considering the EU request for regionalization for the territories 
of Germany, Italy, and  Poland and it was aware of the EU official ASF status according to WOAH.  
Noting that responses had been provided to EU communications, Mexico recalled that the issue was 
being discussed at a bilateral Free Trade Agreement Committee meeting. Mexico informe d the 
Committee that the National Health, Food Safety and Agri -food Quality Service was planning a visit 
to the EU Commission to establish an agenda to work towards the resolution of this issue.  
4.2.35   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID  466) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.146.   The European  Union  reiterated concerns that the Philippines maintained country -wide bans 
on imports of meat and meat products from EU member States on grounds of ASF and HPAI. 
The European  Union indicated that several EU  member States remained subject to country -wide 
import bans on pork meat or poultry meat and considered that these measures were inconsistent 
with Articles 2.2 and 6 of the SPS Agreement . The European  Union had provided the necessary 
evidence demonstrating  the effectiveness of disease control measures. The European  Union called 
on the Philippines to respect its international obligations and allow trade from disease -free zones.  
4.147.   The Philippines  responded that it was working with various EU member States bilat erally in 
relation to HPAI regionalization and had received HPAI regionalization requests from 
six EU member  States, namely, Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, and Poland. 
The Philippines indicated that it had reached an agreement with Poland and had been in contact with 
relevant authorities in the other five EU member States on the documents needed to evaluate their 
requests.  
4.2.36   Nigeria's import restrictions on meat, pork, poultry, milk and dairy products, 
genetic material and live cattle (ID 523) - Concerns of Brazil  
4.148.   Brazil  regretted the lack of responses from Nigeria regarding proposals for sanitary 
certifications for certain products and the lack of information regarding requirements for exporting 
dry bovine skin. Brazil was of the view that Nigeria's requirements were in violation of Articles 2, 5, 
7, and 8, as well as Annexes B and C to the SPS Agreement , and sought clarification on 
Nigeria's  statement in a previous Committee meeting. Brazil asked Nigeria to provide answers 
regarding th e pending proposals as well as information on sanitary requirements for the export of 
dry bovine skin. Brazil remained open to bilateral discussions with Nigeria.  
4.149.   Having noted that Nigeria was not present, the Chairperson  suggested that Brazil contact 
Nigeria directly and provide an update at the next meeting.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 31 - 
 
  4.2.37   Qatar's new import rules for dairy products (ID  529) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.150.   Acknowledging the constructive engagement, the European  Union  remained concerned 
about the import restrictions imp osed by Qatar, which affected several dairy products. One of the 
main concerns was the short shelf -life imposed for several dairy products, which the European  Union 
stated was not based on science nor international standards, and not in line with the SPS Agreement . 
The European  Union argued that, in practice, this made it impossible for EU exporters to continue to 
ship some dairy products to Qatar and favoured Qatari producers. The European  Union reiterated its 
request that Qatar withdraw its trade restrict ions, adopt a permanent solution in line with WTO rules, 
and notify at a draft stage to the Committee.  
4.151.   Qatar  responded that the relevant measures were not discriminatory since they applied 
equally to domestic and imported products. Referring to constructiv e discussions with 
the European  Union, Qatar looked forward to exploring how trade relations could be enhanced. 
Qatar  remained available to continue the constructive discussion with Members.  
4.2.38   Thailand's sanitary requirements on wet blue leather imports (ID  539) – Concerns 
of Brazil  
4.152.   Reiterating concerns regarding the export of wet blue leather to Thailand, Brazil  indicated 
that it was trying to avoid unnecessary sanitary requirements while maintaining compliance with 
Thai domestic legislation and the SPS Agreement . Brazil stated that wet blue leather was not like 
raw, dried, or salted leather since the transformat ion of collagen into rot -proof fibres prevented the 
development and survival of etiologic agents of diseases affecting animals or humans. Brazil was of 
the view that Thailand's requirement for a sanitary certification for this kind of product violated 
Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement . Brazil suggested that Thailand rely on Article 8.8.27 of the 
WOAH Terrestrial Code to remove its requirement. Brazil also pointed out that Thailand could accept 
wet blue leather without sanitary certification by making re source to Section 4(3) of the Animal 
Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015). Brazil had engaged bilaterally with Thailand in June 2023 but was 
not able to resolve the matter. Brazil requested that Thailand remove the sanitary requirement 
imposed on wet blue leathe r to comply with the SPS Agreement  and follow international guidelines. 
Brazil also sought specific clarifications for Thailand's requirement including the related sanitary 
problems and scientific basis.  
4.153.   Equally referring to the technical meeting of June 2 023, Thailand  indicated it had clarified 
that wet blue leather was classified as a "carcass" in the Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015), 
and imports of wet blue leather in Thailand would require an export health certificate. Thailand had 
also indicated t hat its procedure was based on the SPS Agreement  and Article 8.8.27 of the WOAH 
Terrestrial Code, and that it was closely monitoring the review of Chapter 8.8 on Infection with Foot 
and Mouth Disease Virus. Thailand had agreed to a technical consultation w ith Brazil to look into 
revising the import requirements. Noting that the health certificate was required for all animal 
products and carcasses in accordance with its regulation, Thailand had suggested that Brazil consider 
reducing its internal processes t o ease the burden on Brazilian exporters. Thailand indicated its 
interest in exploring the possibility to resolve the issue and welcomed further discussion.  
4.2.39   Korea's requirement of a health certificate with a declaration of aquatic disease 
status (ID  557) – Concerns of India  
4.154.   India informed the Committee of the initiation of phase II of its National Surveillance 
Programme on Aquatic Animal Diseases in March 2023 and of the capacity building on biosecurity 
protocols and implementation of biosecurity at the fie ld level to prevent cross -contamination, as well 
as of the checks and controls in place through the Aquatic Quarantine Facility.  India found that the 
certification requirement was cumbersome and burdensome especially for pathogens not reported 
in India and  urged Korea to limit the certification requirements to those considered necessary.  
4.155.   Referring to its aquatic animal diseases control programme, Korea  required certificates from 
exporting countries for diseases subject to active surveillance in Korea in acc ordance with 
Article  5.1.2.2 of the WOAH Aquatic Animal Health Code. If India considered a pre -export laboratory 
test for each consignment for pathogens not reported in India to be burdensome, Korea suggested G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 32 - 
 
  that India issue certificates through targeted surveillance in accordance with Article 1.4.13 of the 
WOAH Aquatic Animal Health Code.  
4.2.40   China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports (ID  506) - 
Concerns of India  
4.156.   India reiterated concerns with the new health certificate format proposed by China for shrimp 
imports, which required every consignment to be tested for WOAH -listed pathogens, including 
White  Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) and Infectious Hypodermal and Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus 
(IHHNV), and for which the commencement had not been  notified in advance. India informed the 
Committee of the initiation of phase II of the National Surveillance Programme on Aquatic Animal 
Diseases in March 2023 and of the capacity building on biosecurity protocols and implementation of 
biosecurity at the field level to prevent cross -contamination, as well as of the checks and controls in 
place through the Aquatic Quarantine Facility.  India requested China to revoke the temporary 
suspension of 14 establishments due to the detection of WSSV and IHHNV.  India noted that WSSV 
was also present in China, and asked China to share the scientific objective of the proposed 
certificate . 
4.157.   China  noted that in accordance with its laws and regulations, aquatic products exported to 
China needed to be accompanied by a veterinary  certificate. China stated that  exporting Members 
should provide information on the establishments involved in the whole process of farming, 
processing, packing, storage, transportation, transhipment, and export of the products. 
China  suggested t hat India provide the veterinary certificate as required and took note of updated 
information in India's statement which would be further considered.  
4.2.41   India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID  501) 
– Concerns of the Europe an Union and the United  States  
4.158.   The European  Union  considered India's requirement to go beyond what was necessary to 
achieve its stated objective and to put an additional burden on and substantial costs for EU exporters. 
The European  Union requested explana tions as to why India considered it necessary to impose such 
a burden on trading partners with a high prevalence of non -GM food and have a robust regulatory 
regime covering the use of GM products. The European  Union asked India to waive its requirement 
for food items.  
4.159.   The United  States  noted that India had not provided the scientific justification for its non -GM 
certificate requirement for the 24 crops listed in its order. To the United  States, India appeared to 
ignore decades of risk assessments demonstrat ing that approved foods and feeds derived from 
modern biotechnology were safe for consumption. The United  States requested India to revoke its 
measure and engage to find alternatives that would address India's legitimate SPS concerns and 
facilitate safe tr ade. The United  States submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/ 2148. 
4.160.   Uruguay  considered that there was no technical justification for the certification requirement 
and noted the international consensus that GM products approved on the basis of Codex risk 
assessment recommendations were considered to be equivalent to their conventional counterparts. 
Uruguay referred to questions raised in SPS, TBT, and CTG meetings on the link between 
notifications  G/TBT/N/IND/240  and G/SPS/N/IND/290 . Uruguay noted that its questions had been 
uploaded to eAgenda.  
4.161.   Japan  reiterated the concern that India's measure was not based on scientific principles nor 
a proper risk assessment, was more trade restrictive than necessary, and could have a negative 
impact on agricultural trade. Under Japan's domestic laws, GM agricultura l products for human 
consumption were subject to safety evaluations, and agricultural products not approved by the 
evaluation process could not be imported nor distributed domestically. In Japan's view, requiring a 
non-GM origin and GM -free certificate for  items under appropriate control in the country of origin 
was not scientifically justified, and Japan requested India to withdraw its requirement for such items.  
4.162.   Paraguay  referred to its previous concerns and regretted the lack of new developments on 
this matter since the last SPS, TBT, and CTG meetings. Paraguay hoped that India could report on 
the actions taken to address the concerns raised and  respond to questions raised in previous SPS, G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 33 - 
 
  TBT, and CTG meetings on the link between the draft regulation not ified in 
G/TBT/N/IND/240  and G/SPS/N/IND/290  as well as the  certification requireme nt. 
4.163.   Canada  reiterated concerns from previous SPS, TBT, and CTG meetings and noted that it 
was still awaiting a response on comments submitted through India's TBT enquiry point. 
Canada  indicated that foods derived from GM sources had a long history of safet y and nutrition as 
compared to non -GM foods and underwent rigorous risk assessment processes worldwide. 
Canada  called on India to share the scientific and technical information for its approach, suspend 
the implementation of the measure, and notify its non -GM order to the SPS Committee . 
Canada  noted that its full statement would be uploaded in eAgenda.  
4.164.   Argentina  highlighted that SPS measures should be based on scientific principles and a risk 
assessment, as well as international standards. Argentina asked f or the scientific evidence 
underpinning India's order notified as G/TBT/N/IND/168  and for the criteria used to deviate from 
the principal of substantial equivalence.  
4.165.   In Australia 's view, India's requirements were not science -based, were unnecessari ly trade 
disruptive, and failed to consider Members' regulatory systems to control GM exports. 
Australia  highlighted the significant costs and complexity for Australian exporters already subject to 
strict controls under Australia's GM regulatory system and  noted that India had agreed to a pathway 
forward on the matter in 2022 in accordance with the SPS Agreement  as well as the Australia -India 
Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement . Australia called on India to consider less trade 
restrictive approaches th at would meet India 's objective while ensuring compliance with its 
international obligations . Australia also noted that its full statement had been uploaded in eAgenda.  
4.166.   India responded that the import of GM foods was not allowed in its territory and the 
requirement that a non -GM certificate accompany imported food consignments was only an 
assurance provided by the exporting country that food crops which had not been approved b y the 
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee were not imported in India. India was similarly issuing 
such certificates for its own exports. India considered that its measure was taken in accordance with 
Article 5 of the SPS Agreement . India noted that its full statement was available in eAgenda.  
4.2.42   China's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID  532) – Concerns of Chinese  Taipei  
4.167.   Chinese  Taipei  reiterated its concern regarding China's suspension of importation of 
pineapples, wax apples, and citrus and requested C hina to resume imports in accordance with the 
SPS Agreement  and international standards. Chinese  Taipei regretted that it had not received 
substantive responses from China regarding its requests for scientific and technical dialogues, nor 
for detailed iden tification reports, the adopted ALOP or the risk assessment reports. 
Chinese  Taipei  acknowledged that China had announced and resumed the importation of its sugar 
apples in June  2023. However, the list of approved orchards and packaging facilities in the 
announcement only covered a very small portion of its sugar apple production system. 
Chinese  Taipei urged China to provide information on the regulations and quarantine requirements 
for sugar apple orchards and packing facilities. Chinese  Taipei looked forw ard to China complying 
with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement , providing the necessary scientific identification and 
risk assessment reports, and engaging in a bilateral scientific and technical dialogue to resolve this 
issue.  
4.168.   China  recalled that, s ince 2020, quarantine pests had been repeatedly found on sugar apples 
and other fruits imported from Chinese  Taipei. The imports of those fruits had thus been temporarily 
suspended in line with the SPS Agreement  and the principles of risk assessment of the  IPPC. 
Based  on a comprehensive assessment of the relevant measures to improve the situation taken by 
Chinese  Taipei, China informed that it had resumed the import of sugar apples from June 2023, 
as had been notified to Chinese  Taipei.  
4.2.43   US import restrictio ns on apples and pears (ID  439) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.169.   The European  Union  regretted that the United  States had still not published its final rule to 
give market access to apples and pears under a systems approach. The European  Union reiterated 
that the US scientific assessment had concluded that apples and pears from the European  Union G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 34 - 
 
  were safe for imports. Yet, this final administrative step was blocked by the United  States and there 
was no scientific justification for this delay. The European  Union indicated that, while the US market 
was open under a preclearance condition, this was very costly, and trade was nearly inexistent. 
The European  Union urged the United  States to base its import conditions on science and publish its 
final rule. The Eur opean  Union looked forward to continuing working together to solve this issue.  
4.170.   The United  States  reminded the European  Union of the existing preclearance programme 
and noted that the EU request was being addressed through its administrative process. 
The United States remained interested in additional discussions that would meaningfully enhance 
bilateral trade.  
4.2.44   US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European  Union for Asian 
longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID  471) – Concerns of the Euro pean  Union  
4.171.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding the US failure to recognize the 
EU pest-free status for Asian longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle. Although it had 
satisfactorily finalized its scientific risk assessment, the European  Union indicated that 
the United  States was delaying the remaining last administrative steps necessary to formalize the 
recognition of pest -free status. This undue delay also prevented further work on the recognition of 
pest-free areas of affected EU member States. The European  Union urged the United  States to 
formally accept the pest -free areas and to publish its final notice in line with its commitments under 
the SPS Agreement . 
4.172.   The United  States  assured the European  Union that it was working through its adm inistrative 
procedures to process this request. The United  States noted the technical engagement on the matter 
and looked forward to continued cooperation.  
4.2.45   Morocco's import ban on ornamental plants (ID  548) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.173.   The European  Union reported on a bilateral technical meeting with Morocco held in July 2023 
regarding Morocco's measure to fight against the spread of Xylella fastidiosa . The European  Union 
appreciated the clarification that the measure did not restrict the import of plan ts and plant products 
from EU member States which were free from the disease. For imports from member States where 
the disease was present, fruit plants could be imported according to the requirements set out in the 
measure. In the view of the European  Union, instead of the current full ban, these requirements 
could be extended to ornamental plants. Moreover, as long as fruit and ornamental plants originated 
from a disease -free area, there should not be a reason to differentiate between them. 
The European  Union expressed it is willingness to continue technical exchanges.  
4.174.   Morocco  explained that it had sent an official response to the EU SPS Enquiry Point in 
June 2023 and a fruitful bilateral meeting was held in July 2023. Morocco provided its justifications 
for the import ban on plant products and plants from ornamental species fr om countries that are 
infested with this bacterium, which was an extremely dangerous pathogen capable of affecting crops 
of high economic importance for Morocco. Highlighting that its measure was aligned with Article 5 
of the SPS Agreement  and Article 7 of  the IPPC Convention text, Morocco reiterated that the ban 
was necessary to guarantee the phytosanitary status of plants in Morocco and preserve its status 
free from X. fastidiosa . Morocco remained available to continue bilateral discussions on this topic.  
4.3  Information on resolution of issues ( G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23 ) 
4.175.   Brazil  provided information about the resolution of STC ID 489, Mexico's import restrictions 
on pork, and ID 482, Peru's import restrictions on pork.  
4.176.   To balance the efficiency  and quality of the interactions on the STC discussions, 
the Chairperson  invited the Secretariat to remind Members about the available tools to improve 
the added value of the discussions. The Secretariat  clarified that Members' oral interventions in 
the Committee meeting would be reflected in the summary report in a summarized  version. 
Where  Members mentioned previous statements or a statement in eAgenda in their oral 
interventions, this mention would also be included in the summary report. Members also had the G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 35 - 
 
  option of circulating their statements as a GEN document. In this c ase, a hyperlink to that document 
would be added in the summary report in addition to a short summary of the oral intervention.  
5  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
5.1  Equivalence  
5.1.1   Information from Members  
5.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
5.2  Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  
5.2.1   Information from Members  
5.2.1.1   Türkiye – Declaration of freedom from Xylella fastidiosa  
5.2.  Türkiye  reported that it was free from  X. fastidiosa . Having carried out studies since 2014, 
X. fastidiosa  had not been detected in the samples taken within the scope of relevant projects. 
Considering its X. fastidiosa -free status, Türkiye invited trade partners to analyse this progress and 
facilitate trade.  
5.2.2   Annual Report in accordance with the Guidelines to Furt her the Practical 
Implementation of Article 6 in G/SPS/48  (G/SPS/GEN/2127 ) 
5.3.  The Secretariat explained that the annual report in document G/SPS/GEN/2127  covered the 
period from 1 April 2022 until 31 March 2023. The report summarized information on 
Membe rs' requests for recognition of pest or disease -free areas or areas of low pest or disease 
prevalence, their determinations on whether to recognize such areas, and Members' experiences in 
the implementation of Article 6, based on information provided throu gh notifications and at 
Committee meetings under this and other agenda items.  
5.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
5.3.1   Information from Members  
5.4.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.4  Control, inspection and approval procedures  
5.4.1   Information from Members  
5.5.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.5  Special and differential treatment  
5.5.1   Information from Members  
5.6.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.5.2   Information from the Secretariat  
5.7.  The Secretariat  recalled that, in March 2023, Members had  agreed on a process proposed by 
the G -90 for the work of the Special Session on the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD -SS). 
At the last meeting of the CTD -SS of 7 June, the G -90 had introduced specific proposals on the 
SPS and TBT Agreements in docum ents JOB/TN/CTD/3  and JOB/TNC/110 . The Chairperson of the 
CTD-SS had also announced that she had appointed a facilitator for technical discussions on these 
proposals. All Members taking the floor in this meeting had expressed their readiness to engage in  
the facilitator -led discussions and several Members had referred to the work of the SPS Committee , 
including that of thematic group 5 under the SPS Declaration Work Programme. The facilitator had G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 36 - 
 
  proposed to hold hybrid workshops in early October, includi ng an SPS workshop scheduled on 
2 October to review the S&D provisions, the relevant work of the Committee, and implementation 
challenges. The Secretariat remained available to provide support as needed and in coordination 
with the facilitator.  
5.8.  The United  States  informed that it was engaged in these discussions and expressed its 
willingness to ensure that there was no duplication. The United  States highlighted that the 
SPS Committee  was the appropriate forum to discuss issues related to its functioning and praised 
the opportunity for discussion provided by the SPS Declaration Work Programme.  
5.9.  The European  Union  echoed the United  States' comments. Expressing regret that 
G-90 Members had not brought these proposals to thematic group 5, the European  Union highli ghted 
the relevance of the SPS Declaration Work Programme as an opportunity to have discussions on this 
issue. The European  Union added that, given the nature of SPS measures, applying S&D treatment 
required a very careful case by case analysis.  
5.6  Monitoring  of the use of international standards  
5.6.1   New issues  
5.10.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
5.6.2   Issues previously raised  
5.6.2.1   European  Union - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international 
standard  
5.11.   The European  Union  regretted that some Members disregarded their obligations under 
Article  6 of and Annex C to the SPS Agreement  and implemented country -wide bans after a local 
AI outbreak. The European  Union indicated that these bans were not scientifically justified if ef fective 
movement controls were in place, and there was no justification to wait one year or more to restore 
disease -free status. The European  Union drew attention to the revised WOAH Terrestrial Code on 
AI, which recommended a reduced waiting period of 28 days instead of three  months. 
The European  Union asked Members to respect their obligations on regionalization, follow 
WOAH  recommendations, and allow trade from non -affected zones.  
5.6.2.2   European  Union - ASF restrictions not consistent with the WOAH internation al 
standard  
5.12.   The European  Union  pointed out inconsistencies in the application of WOAH standards related 
to ASF. The European  Union considered that many Members did not follow the WOAH Terrestrial 
Code guidance for identification, treatment, and certificati on of tradable products and zoning. 
The European  Union highlighted that ASF could be managed effectively to ensure that legitimate 
trade was not the cause of any outbreak, as presented in the 2021 Thematic Session. 
The European  Union added that ASF was a d isease affecting several Members and that it was a 
shared interest to maintain free and safe trade of pork and pork products. Members were invited to 
address the issue of country -wide bans and implement science -based, rational, and proportionate 
import pol icies. 
5.6.2.3   Canada - Update on WOAH BSE negligible risk status  
5.13.   Canada  reported that several Members had removed remaining BSE restrictions on 
Canadian  cattle, beef, and beef products based on Canada's WOAH BSE negligible risk status, and 
several other Members w ere actively taking steps to remove their remaining BSE -related restrictions. 
Canada urged Members who had not yet done so to remove the remaining restrictions on 
Canadian  exports. Canada recalled the importance of basing SPS measures on international 
standards, including those established by WOAH.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 37 - 
 
  5.6.3   Annual Report in accordance with the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization in G/SPS/11/Rev.1  (G/SPS/GEN/2126 ) 
5.14.   The Secretariat  explained that the annual report on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization in document G/SPS/GEN/2126  summarized discussions under this 
agenda item over the past year. In accordance with  the monitoring procedure, the Secretariat would 
bring these issues to the attention of the international standard setting bodies.  
6  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
6.1  SPS Declaration Work Programme ( G/SPS/W/344 , G/SPS/GEN/2134 , 
WT/MIN(22)/27  and G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1)  
6.1.1   Update on thematic groups2 
6.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed that the former Chairperson would 
continue to play a role in facilitating the discussions of the SPS Declaration Work Programme, 
including the preparation of the f actual summary of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme 
(a draft of which was contained in G/SPS/GEN/2134 ) and report to MC13 (a zero draft of which was 
contained in G/SPS/W/344 ). The Chairperson indicated that Members had received positively both 
drafts and had praised the overall approach as factual and balanced. There also seemed to be wide 
support for the proposed structure and main contents of both drafts as a bas is for further discussions. 
The Chairperson added that several Members had expressed interest in providing comments or 
drafting suggestions on the zero draft of the report for MC13.  
6.2.  The United  States  indicated that the factual summary captured the general discussions and 
clearly outlined the path forward. The United  States recalled that a key aspect of the discussion in 
thematic group 1 had been around the importance of access to safe tools and technology to 
sustainably increase production and address globa l food security. The United  States recalled that 
this message had been shared by all of the producers in the thematic group 1 meeting in March  2023 
and referred to information shared by the European  Union at the current meeting regarding its new 
proposal o n genomic techniques. The United Stated would consult with Members to develop text to 
capture this point.  
6.3.  The European  Union  stated that the zero draft report to MC13 was a precious document 
containing consensual elements presented at the right level of de tail. In point 3b, 
the European  Union proposed to reinforce the text on the importance of sustainability and resilient 
food systems, for instance, by referring to the 2030 agenda and SDGs. On point 3e, 
the European  Union invited the ISSBs to provide regula r updates on their work in particular related 
to emerging challenges and opportunities and suggested an explicit reference to the human -animal -
environment interface and to the concept of One Health. In the EU view, the current references to 
science, resear ch, and innovation in point 3b and scientific certainty in point 3c captured well the 
convergent conclusions reached in the discussion.  
6.4.  Australia  expressed its support to the zero draft report to MC13 and interest in the conversation 
on how to improve the draft. Australia proposed adding language on the regulatory enabling 
environment for farmers to access tools and technology to engage with farming sustainably.  
6.5.  Paraguay  informed that it would propose some comments on the format and language of the 
zero dra ft report to MC13, invited Members to exercise self -restraint in their comments, and sought 
clarification regarding the timeline for the work going forward.  
6.6.  India also expressed support to the zero draft report to MC13 but expressed concern regarding 
the lack of distinction between food security and food safety. Regarding paragraph 3b, India did not 
support a reference to sustainable agriculture nor to the One Health Approach. India indicated that 
it would provide comments by 31 July 2023.  
 
2 Annex A and Annex B reflect the report of the Chairperson on the informal meeting, where this topic 
was discussed. Annex C contains the report of the Chairperson on the Intersessional SPS Committee  
Consultations, where this topic was also addressed.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 38 - 
 
  6.7.  Switzerland  considered that the zero draft report to MC13 had the length and structure 
Members had agreed on in March 2023. Switzerland noted that the draft tried to reflect a balance 
between the interests of Members. Switzerland invited Members to exercise self -constraint  when 
suggesting changes and called on the drafters to make changes only where a consensus would 
appear to exist.  
6.8.  The former Chairperson  reminded the Committee that the deadline to submit comments, 
recommendations, or amendments was 31 July 2023, and encou raged Members to discuss any 
proposed changes among themselves before submitting them.  
6.9.  The Chairperson  equally encouraged Members to coordinate comments. If there was a need 
for an intersessional meeting, it would be held end of September or in early Octob er. 
6.10.   The United  States  reminded Members that the objective of the report was to accurately reflect 
the findings of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme.  
6.2  MC12 implementation matters ( G/C/W/824/Rev.1 , JOB/CTG/28 , 
JOB/SPS/25/Rev.3  and JOB/CTG/26/Rev.1 ) 
6.2.1   Report on the informal meeting  
6.11.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to his draft report on the informal meeting 
of the Committee on 11 -12 July 2023, circulated by email for comments from Members. The final 
report is included in Annex A . 
6.12.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
6.3  November 2023 Thematic Session  
6.3.1   Proposal from the United  States ( G/SPS/GEN/2067/Rev.1 ) 
6.13.   The Chairperson  informed that this topic had been discussed during the informal meeting of 
the Committee on 11 -12 July 2023. The final report of the informal meeting is included in Annex A. 
The Chairperson also reminded Members tha t the deadline to submit comments on the draft 
programme and propose speakers was 18 August 2023.  
6.14.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
6.4  Preparation for 2024, including the Sixth Review of the SPS Agreement  and Topics 
for Thematic Sessions/Worksh ops 
6.4.1   Report on the informal meeting  
6.15.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to his draft report on the informal meeting 
of the Committee on 11 -12 July 2023. The final report is included in Annex A . The Chairperson  also 
reminded Members that the deadline to submit topics for thematic sessions/workshops was 
31 August 2023.  
6.16.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
7  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
7.1  Information from the Secretariat  
7.1.1   WTO  SPS Activities  
7.1.  The Secretariat  provided an overview of relevant technical assistance activities held since the 
last Committee meeting. These activities included national seminars in Chile, 
the Dominican  Republic, El Salvador, Morocco, and Nigeria; a follo w-up session for the 
SPS Transparency Champions course; a national workshop on trade in agricultural products for G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 39 - 
 
  Uruguay, a trade facilitation workshop co -organized with ALADI, a regional trade policy course for 
Latin American Members, and an advanced tra de policy course in French. The Secretariat also 
participated in an FAO Food Safety and Trade Facilitation Workshop for the Near East and 
North  Africa region, a meeting of the Global Alliance of pet food associations, and a webinar on 
Codex and INFOSAN as part of the World Food Safety Day 2023. Upcoming activities included: a 
regional SPS  workshop for CCAC countries; national seminars for Bahrain, the Gambia, Guyana, 
India, the Philippines, and Chinese  Taipei; a regional trade policy course for the Caribbea n; and a 
revamped advanced SPS course in Geneva. More information was available on the SPS Gateway 
under events, workshops and training . 
7.2.  Chinese  Taipei  expressed its appreciation and excitement for the upcoming national seminar 
and looked forward to benefiting from the Secretariat's knowledge and experience.  
7.3.  Chile acknowledged the support provided by the Secretariat for the implementation o f the 
SPS Agreement  and stated that the national seminar would contribute to reinforcing the work of its 
SPS and TBT enquiry points.  
7.4.  The Dominican Republic  indicated that the knowledge that had been shared in the national 
seminar it had benefited from had been valuable and would improve its participation in the 
Committee.  
7.5.  Liberia  indicated that it had benefited from technical assistance through different SPS courses 
in 2019 and 2022. While these trainings had enhanced knowledge and skills and improved 
notifications, Liberia required additional technical assistance, in particular to improve its national 
SPS transparency framework.  
7.6.  Morocco  indicated that the national seminar it had benefited from had focused on strengthening 
the use of the ePing SPS&TBT platfo rm and deepening participants' understanding of the SPS and 
TBT Agreements. Morocco praised the Secretariat for this excellent activity.  
7.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/2135)  
7.7.  The STDF secretariat  reported on activities detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/2135 . The STDF 
secretariat drew Members' attention to the programme evaluation to be conducted in 2023 and key 
STDF events: a session on gender and SPS capacity development held in the margins of the 
July 2023 Committee meeting and upcoming events on electronic SPS certifi cation and good 
regulatory practices in Africa. The STDF secretariat informed Members of its annual report for 
2022 and newly approved projects and project preparation grants, which covered spices in Ghana, 
the P-IMA tool in the Gambia, the apiculture sect or in the Pacific Islands, harmonizing SPS legislation 
in Central Africa, digital accreditation in West Africa, and sesame in Nigeria. More information was 
available on the STDF website . 
7.8.  The European  Union  expressed support the STDF's intention for 2023 to carry out an 
assessment of STDF work on the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. This was a good 
opportunity to explore how to integrate a sustainable food systems a pproach and the One Health 
concept into STDF activities. The European  Union also expressed support for gender mainstreaming 
activities, which were in line with the European  Union's Gender Action Plan.  
7.9.  The United  States  drew Members' attention to the evalua tion of the STDF e -Phyto project, 
which had been one of the larger scale STDF projects and for which many Members had provided 
financial and technical support. The United  States praised the robust evaluation process for 
STDF  projects and welcomed the posit ive evaluation for this particular project.  
7.10.   The STDF secretariat  clarified that what had been mentioned by the European  Union would 
be considered in the STDF programme evaluation and explained that donors would be consulted 
throughout the evaluation proces s. G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 40 - 
 
  7.2  Information from Members  
7.2.1   Argentina – International technical cooperation on global food security provided in 
2012 -2022 ( G/SPS/GEN/2125 ) 
7.11.   Argentina  reported the results of Argentinian Cooperation from 2012 -2022 regarding 
agricultural matters. Argent ina highlighted that the main feature of its cooperation was the use of 
technology, scientific research and the development of innovative solutions as catalyst for each of 
the phases of the production chain. The scope of the cooperation included from the s eed to the stage 
of laboratory and certification with the purpose of ensuring that the consumer had access to safe, 
nutritious and healthy food. It contributed to achieve environmental objectives, reducing food waste 
and guaranteeing the income and livelih oods of agricultural producers. The cooperation had focused 
on the following sectors: agriculture, biotechnology and genetics, livestock, and nutrition. 
Regarding  the purpose of the initiatives, Argentina built capacities in developing countries on the 
matters of implementation of good practices, mechanization of production processes, development 
and adaptation of regulatory frameworks, food safety, risk assessment for new technologies, 
prevention of pests and diseases, development of new animal and plant v arieties, promotion of food 
safety in emergency situations, health certification, and food preservation. The cooperation had 
provided technical assistance to 65 countries, 38% LDCs and 62% developing countries. 
Thanking  developed countries and internationa l organizations that supported the cooperation, 
Argentina committed to continuing exploring cooperation activities with Members.  
7.2.2   Senegal – Technical assistance received by Senegal  
7.12.   Senegal  updated Members on its e -certification progress achieved with the he lp of the STDF 
and Germany. Senegal indicated that it would be making a request to the STDF related to 
strengthening its SPS capacity. Senegal thanked the African Union for facilitating its participation in 
the Committee.  
8  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
8.1.  No Member provided information under this agenda item.  
9  OBSERVERS  
9.1  Information from Observer Organizations  
9.1.1   OIRSA ( G/SPS/GEN/2123 ) 
9.1.  The report of OIRSA's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2123 . OIRSA informed 
Member s of its activities, including training workshops related to the prevention and management 
of Foc TR4, fruit flies and outbreaks of avian influenza, as well as training workshops on fumigation 
standards and use of pesticides.  
9.1.2   ECOWAS ( G/SPS/GEN/2124 ) 
9.2.  Referring to its report contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2124 , ECOWAS highlighted activities 
on national sensitization on principals of mutual recognition on SPS matters, phytosanitary 
certificates and facilitation of intra -regional trade in Burkina Fa so, regional disease outbreak control, 
and development and monitoring of risk -based, harmonized sanitary inspection guidelines. 
Future  activities included the development of a technical document on AMR, a data generation 
workshop related to Codex work and a vaccination campaign.  
9.1.3   SADC ( G/SPS/GEN/2128 ) 
9.3.  The report of SADC's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2128 . 
9.1.4   IGAD ( G/SPS/GEN/2129 ) 
9.4.  The report of IGAD's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2129 . G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 41 - 
 
  9.1.5   GSO ( G/SPS/GEN/2130 ) 
9.5.  The report of GSO's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2130 . 
9.1.6   OECD ( G/SPS/GEN/2131 ) 
9.6.  The report of the OECD's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2131 . 
9.1.7   ITC ( G/SPS/GEN/2132 ) 
9.7.  The report of ITC's act ivities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2132 . 
9.1.8   IICA ( G/SPS/GEN/2136 ) 
9.8.  The report of IICA's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2136 . IICA highlighted 
some upcoming activities, including a workshop on electronic SPS certification hosted in Costa  Rica, 
the Codex coordination colloquiums, and virtual coordination sessions on WTO SPS matters.  
9.1.9   African Union ( G/SPS/GEN/2141 ) 
9.9.  The report of the African Union's activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2141 . 
The African Union highlighted some past activities, such as the SPS Coordination Forum, 
the convening of the African Phytosanitary Council, the African Union and the Africa Bureau for 
Animal Resources in preparation for CPM -17, workshops conducted by the Afri can Continental Free 
Trade Area Secretariat on non -tariff barriers and data collection on the Africa SPS Index. 
The African  Union brought Members' attention to an upcoming SPS Coordination Forum and an 
upcoming learning event on good regulatory practices.  
9.2  Requests for observer status  
9.2.1   New requests  
9.10.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
9.2.2   Pending requests  
9.11.   The Chairperson  referred to document G/SPS/W/78/Rev.15 , listing outstanding requests for 
observer status. The Chairperson indicated tha t, absent any intervention, he would assume that the 
positions of Members had not changed.  
9.12.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
9.13.   The Chairperson  noted that some pending requests dated back more than 10 years and that 
he intended to consult with the Secretariat on the way to tackle the list.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
11  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  
11.1.   The Chairper son recalled that the next regular meeting of the Committee was tentatively 
scheduled for the 15 -17 November 2023, with the formal meeting starting in the afternoon of 
15 November, to be preceded by a thematic session on risk communication, misinformation,  and 
disinformation on 14 November, and an informal meeting on 15 November. The proposed calendar 
of Committee meetings for 2023 had been circulated as G/SPS/GEN/2117 . 
11.2.   The Secretariat  indicated that it would prepare a summary report based on oral inte rventions 
in the meeting, complemented by Members' ability to download complete statements via eAgenda. G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 42 - 
 
  The Secretariat drew Members' attention to the feature on eAgenda that allowed for all statements 
or those related to a particular STC to be downloaded.  
11.3.   The Chairperson  reminded the Committee of the following deadlines, also circulated by email:  
a. For submitting statements: Friday, 14 July 2023 ; 
b. For comments on the Chairperson's draft report on the informal SPS Committee  meeting: 
Friday, 21 July 2023 ; 
c. For submitting suggested language on the draft report to MC13 ( G/SPS/W/344 ) and the 
factual summary of the MC12 Declaration Work Programme ( G/SPS/GEN/2134 ): Monday, 
31 July 2023 ; 
d. For submitting of comments on the draft programme for the thematic session on risk 
communication, misinformation, and disinformation and suggestions of proposed speakers 
(G/SPS/GEN/2067 ): Thursday, 31  August 2023 ; 
e. For submitting of topics for 2024 thematic sessions and workshop: Thursday, 31  August 
2023 ; 
f. For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that items be put on the agenda: Wednesday, 25 October 2023 ; and  
g. For the distribution of the annotated draft agenda: Friday, 27 October 2023 . G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 43 - 
 
  ANNEX A  
INFORMAL MEETING – 11 JULY 2023  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1  SPS DECLARATION WORK PROGRAMME ( G/SPS/W/330/REV.1  AND WT/MIN(22)/27 ) 
1.  At the informal meeting on 11 July 2023, I note d that this informal SPS Committee  meeting was 
dedicated to discussing the two output documents of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme , 
the factual summary of the MC12 SPS Declarati on Work Programme and the zero draft that would 
serve as a basis for the report to be presented to Ministers at MC13.  
2.  At the beginning of the meeting, India presented its submission of additional inputs to the 
Thematic Groups. All documents had been uploaded to the MC12 SPS Declaration  Work Programme 
Website  for Members to review, and India highlighted the key points from its submission.  
3.  One Member recalled that the Committee had agreed that the May round of Thematic Group 
discussions would be the  last call for substantial inputs and suggested that the issues identified could 
be discussed after MC13 as part of ongoing Committee work. Regarding India's comments, the 
Member proposed considering the One Health Approach from a broader perspective, in l ight of the 
modern challenges Members are facing.  
2  FACTUAL SUMMARY BY THE SECRETARIAT OF THE MC 12 SPS DECLARATION WORK 
PROGRAMME  
4.  The Secretariat provided an overview of the Factual Summary of the Work Programme, prepared 
as requested by the Committee  and circulated as G/SPS/GEN/2134 . The first part of the document 
described the process in detail, as outlined in G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1. The second part of the document 
summarized the work of the thematic groups, using the stewards' reports as a basis, harmo nizing 
the level of detail included for each of the Groups, and referring to the information available on the 
dedicated website and in the two reports that each of the stewards had circulated in March 
(G/SPS/W/332  to 336) and in May ( G/SPS/W/339  to 343).  
5.  Members thanked the Chair, stewards and the Secretariat for their work on drafting both 
documents. In general, Members preferred to not engage in re -drafting of the two documents, but 
rather to propose specific additions or editorial changes. Members f elt that overall, the factual 
summary was accurate, well written, and provided a good summary of all the work the Committee 
had done over the past year.  
6.  One Member proposed that all content in the zero draft be linked to the factual summary, which 
was already the case for most of the zero draft. Another Member noted that digitization and e -
commerce, which were important topics in general and to African countries, were not touched upon 
in the documents, and suggested discussing them before the document w as made final. Some 
Members indicated they might come back with further comments at a later stage.  
7.  Based on the discussion, I proposed that comments be submitted by 31 July, and reminded 
Members that comments submitted for the factual summary should ke ep in mind the purpose of the 
document focusing on facts and processes  during the discussions . 
3  ZERO DRAFT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE REPORT FOR THE THIRTEENTH 
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE (MC13)  
8.  I reminded Members that the SPS  Declaration ( WT/MIN(22)/27 ) mandated the Committee to 
report on key findings and actions undertaken as a result of this work to MC13, with 
recommendations, as appropriate. I recalled that at the intersessional consultations held in 
May 2023, the Committee had agreed that the Chair and  the stewards, with help from the 
Secretariat, would produce the initial zero draft of a shorter document for Ministers. In coordination G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 44 - 
 
  with the stewards and the Secretariat, I prepared a zero draft of the Committee's Report to MC13, 
circulated to Members  in document G/SPS/W/344 . The document provided initial context on the 
origin and scope of the MC12 SPS Declaration, presented some key findings emerging from the Work 
Programme, trying to reflect elements of the discussions on which there appeared to be co nsensus. 
I noted to Members that in preparing the document on the basis of the inputs provided by the 
stewards, we had made every effort to incorporate everyone's inputs and comments, and thus the 
document attempted to present the areas of convergence amon g Members.  
9.  I first invited Members to provide general comments on the document as a whole, and then 
discuss the document by paragraph section.  
10.  Members reiterated that, though they had editorial changes and suggestions, they felt that the 
zero draf t provided a solid foundation for the upcoming discussions and that the document accurately 
represented the convergences in discussions across the Thematic Groups. They broadly agreed with 
the recommendation in the draft.  
11.  Some Members reminded the Committee of the amount of time it had taken to get to this phase, 
and encouraged Members to show restraint in their amendments to the documents, put forward 
suggestions that could be realistically considered for consensus, and think about how far they wan ted 
to take the recommendations. Other Members echoed sentiments that the process for producing 
final drafts would involve striking a balance between detail and likelihood of reaching consensus.  
12.  In response to Member inquiries about the way forward, I  explained that the Secretariat and 
I would review comments on the draft and propose a new version including changes wherever there 
was convergence in Members' comments. I proposed that the revision of the zero draft could be 
discussed at an intersessional  meeting  if Members agreed . 
(i)  Paragraphs 1 and 2  
13.  I invited Members to comment on paragraphs 1 and 2 of the report, which set the context of 
the discussions. I reminded Members that these two paragraphs were taken from the text of the 
Declaration, w hich had been agreed by all Members in June 2022. I explained that they had been 
included mainly to ensure that the zero draft was a stand -alone document that could easily be read 
without referring to the Declaration.  
14.  In general, Members found these p aragraphs to be useful and supported not editing any text 
that had been taken directly from the MC12 Declaration, as this had already been agreed upon. 
Some Members proposed small changes, though they noted that they were not red -line issues.  
15.  In respo nse to Member inquiries on how to provide feedback and proceed with deliberations, 
I indicated that this exercise was to gauge first reactions to the text. I proposed 31 July as the 
deadline for written suggestions and amendments, and encouraged Members to  deliberate with each 
other to ensure their suggestions could be accepted by consensus. I noted that the Secretariat would 
be documenting all suggestions.  
(ii)  Paragraphs 3a and 3b  
16.  Next, I drew Members' attention to paragraphs 3a and 3b. I noted that  in para. 3a, several key 
elements and principles that had been extensively discussed across all of the Thematic Groups were 
incorporated. These elements and principles highlighted the interconnections among these five 
Groups and had been frequently mentio ned during the Committee's past discussions. I recalled that 
during the discussions on food security and sustainable production, Members had expressed various 
perspectives and concerns. One theme emphasized frequently by Members was the concept of "no 
one-size-fits-all", which was reflected in 3b.  
17.  Some Members disagreed with the language used in para. 3a with respect to the SPS Agreement  
being 'fit for purpose', and the term 'safe trade', and recommended amendments, and a Member 
suggested to include a reference to the SDGs in this paragraph, which the Secretariat noted. 
In general, Members agreed with the point that the SPS Agreement  remains important to facilitating 
trade.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 45 - 
 
  18.  Similarly for para. 3b, Members agreed with the general sentiment, but made  suggestions for 
wording regarding the use of the word 'regulation' specifically, as they felt that the 'no one -size-fits-
all' referenced sustainability goals more broadly and holistically as determined by each Member, 
rather than regulations. A Member exp ressed their support to keep the term "no-one-size-fits-all" 
and "science, research and innovation " and hoped these terms could be kept in the new revision.  
19.  Lastly, a Member noted that emerging challenges were not necessarily addressed, and many of 
the challenges discussed over the past year were not "emerging". Members made suggestions for 
reflecting this point.  
20.  Overall, Members supported initiatives to clarify the text without making significant changes to 
the substance.  
(iii)  Paragraphs 3c and 3d  
21.  I recalled that the findings from paragraphs 3c and 3d emerged from the discussions within 
Groups 2 and 3. Regarding para. 3c, the Committee had had the privilege of inviting the three sisters 
to present their guidance on risk assessments, part icularly in relation to scientific uncertainty. At 
that time, Members had noted the usefulness of this guidance. For the findings in paragraph 3d, 
Members had expressed agreement that the guidance developed by the three sisters and the 
SPS Committee  had pr oven beneficial in reducing trade barriers, and there was also support for 
capacity building efforts.  
22.  Members largely agreed with the substance of the paragraphs, but felt that the language could 
be strengthened around transparency, and the importance of measures being based on science even 
when uncertainty exists, and when provisional measures were adopted, while reflecting the sensitive 
nature of scientific uncertainty.  
23.  In response to a Member's question regarding the use of the word ' guidance', the Secretariat 
explained the terminology had been chosen to reflect the different official names of documents 
provided by the three sisters, including standards, guidelines and recommendations, but that the 
language could be adjusted.  
(iv)  Paragraphs 3e, 3f, and 3g  
24.  I provided background for the findings in paragraphs 3e, 3f, and 3g, which were derived from 
the discussions in Groups 4 and 5. Findings 3e and 3f highlighted the significance of the three sisters 
and other observers. During The matic Group discussions, Members had expressed their desire to 
enhance practices related to observers' reports and presentations. For finding 3g, which emerged 
from Group 5, Members recognized the importance of Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) and 
Technical Assistance (TA), and emphasized the significant role of South -South cooperation and the 
STDF.  
25.  Members once again broadly agreed with the substance of these paragraphs, but felt that a 
number of points could be better highlighted. Some Member s made suggestions regarding 
highlighting TA provided by all organizations, Members and the STDF, and specifically mentioning 
forward looking updates from the three sisters and their work on the human -plant-animal interface. 
Members also proposed changes t o emphasize Members engaging with observer organizations and 
strengthening connection between the work of these organizations and the Committee, and the 
Committee with other WTO Committees more broadly.  
(v)  Recommendation  
26.  Members supported the curren t recommendation with minor editorial changes. They felt it was 
consistent with the discussions in the Thematic Groups and was feasible for the Committee. 
Members  did request that the Committee remain open to the addition of other recommendations if 
they c ould be supported by consensus.  
27.  I thanked Members for all of their comments and reminded them that the Secretariat had taken 
note of all interventions. I reiterated that I was planning to prepare a revised version of the zero 
draft document. I invited  Members to consult with others and send the Secretariat their suggestions G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 46 - 
 
  in writing by 31 July, so that the wording on the topics of convergence discussed today could be 
taken into consideration.  
4  SCHEDULING OF INTERSESSIONAL CONSULTATIONS FOR SEPTEMBER/O CTOBER  
28.  Based on the past discussions, I solicited Members' views on the possibility of holding 
intersessional consultations at the end of September or the beginning of October to finalize the 
document, ahead of its adoption in the November 2023 meetin g. 
29.  Members supported holding intersessional consultations to fine tune the documents and consult 
with their capitals. They supported the current Chair, Mr. Tang -Kai Wang, taking a leading role in 
drafting the revision to the zero draft of the Report t o MC13 for Members' review.  
5  NEXT STEPS  
30.  I noted Members' concerns regarding having sufficient time to consult with their capitals on the 
revision. Given constraints over the summer, I indicated to Members that the earliest time for the 
intersessional meeting would most likely be the end of September. The Secretariat would provide 
the Committee with prospective dates.  
31.  I invited the Secretariat to summarize the next steps. The Secretariat reminded Members that 
they had taken note of a ll comments, which would be used to identify possible areas of convergence. 
The Secretariat requested that Members submit comments and edits, ideally those that could reach 
consensus, in writing by 31 July 2023.  
 G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 47 - 
 
  ANNEX B  
INFORMAL MEETING – 12 JULY 2023  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1  MC12 Implementation Matters ( G/C/W/824/Rev.1 , JOB/CTG/28 , JOB/SPS/25/Rev.3 , 
JOB/CTG/26/Rev.1 ) 
1.  At the informal meeting on 12 July 2023, I recalled that in the March SPS Committee  meeting, 
I had updated the Committee on the ongoing discussions in the CTG on MC12 implementation 
matters related to WTO reform and COVID -19. Two reports had been prepared and submitted on 
these topics in the context of the SPS Committee 's work. In additi on, all the reports on WTO reform 
prepared by CTG subsidiary bodies were contained in document G/C/W/824/Rev.1 , which also 
included a comparison matrix on the current functioning of the CTG and its subsidiary bodies.  
2.  I further recalled that, ahe ad of the March SPS Committee  meeting, a group of Members 
(Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay) had submitted some suggestions in 
document JOB/SPS/25/Rev.1 , highlighting that the SPS Committee  was already applying most of 
the sugges tions, while noting some areas for improvement. The identified areas for improvement 
included the use of digital tools and eRegistration, as well as the potential implementation of a style 
manual. Further revisions of the document had subsequently been cir culated with the addition of 
Brazil and Peru.  
3.  I then recalled the intersessional consultations held on 11 May and noted that the Secretariat 
had provided feedback on the suggestions in JOB/SPS/25/Rev.1 , in response to a request from a 
Member in the March meeting. The Secretariat had highlighted areas where the SPS Committee  was 
already implementing best practices and had also identified areas that could be improved or 
harmonized, such as the automatic alert system linked to the WTO calendar of  meetings, alignment 
of formal meeting practices, and e -registration, though some of these were subject to discussions 
at the CTG  level.  
4.  In addition, the Secretariat had noted some differences between the SPS Committee  and other 
WTO bodies, for example  in its use of summary reports instead of minutes, which had been discussed 
in the past. The Secretariat's presentation has been circulated as room document RD/SPS/227 . 
5.  In the intersessional consultations, Members had provided their positive feedback on the 
SPS Committee 's leadership in best practices, welcomed planned improvements on 
e-registration/eDelegate systems, and suggested harmonization of eAgenda practices as used by 
different WTO bodies. One Member had suggested the development of an eAgenda manual a nd 
integration of eAgenda deadlines into the annotated draft agenda. Another  Member had requested 
that presentations be circulated in advance of meetings for more efficient discussions. In response, 
the Secretariat had indicated that it would look into the  development of a manual for eAgenda, and 
would consult colleagues working on other WTO bodies to discuss the harmonization of eAgenda. 
The Secretariat had also noted that many presentations were submitted at the last minute, but  that 
those received in tim e could be circulated.  
6.  I reminded Members that they had been invited to submit their comments or proposals on 
improving the functioning of the SPS Committee  by Friday, 26 May 2023 for discussion at the 
July meeting of the Committee. However, no comments were received by that deadline.  
7.  Further to the intersessional consultations, the Secretariat had followed up to share via the 
SPS delegates email list, do cument JOB/CTG/26/Rev.1  entitled "Compilation of Input on the 
Functioning of Goods Bodies", at the request of the UK delegation. This document had been 
circulated in the Council for Trade in Goods. I also highlighted that additional discussions on the 
functioning of WTO bodies had taken place in the General Council, including a retreat on 16 June 
2023.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 48 - 
 
  8.  In this week's meeting, I underscored that Members had an opportunity to continue discussions 
on the functioning of the SPS Committee  and invited  their additional comments and suggestions.  
9.  Several Members took the floor to express their appreciation for being part of a Committee that 
embodied and disseminated best practices to other CTG subsidiary bodies. At the same time, 
some  Members noted th ere was still room for improvement and that being a model Committee was 
not a static position. Some Members also indicated their full support for the areas that had previously 
been identified and also proposed other suggestions.  
(i)  STC discussions  
10.  One Member made reference to the rigid structure of STC discussions , observing that Members 
presented their concerns via a formal statement and that written replies were prepared in advance 
by the responding Member. In particular, the Member expressed conce rns that details of new STCs 
or new elements in existing STCs were presented in statements without sufficient advance 
communication to responding Members, which meant that targeted specific replies could not be 
provided. The Member further noted that a mor e mutually beneficial discussion could take place with 
advance communication of information, since it was not always possible to provide spontaneous 
answers.  
11.  Some Members supported this suggestion, expressing interest in seeing how best to improve 
STC discussions through the provision of advance information on new STCs or new elements in 
previously raised STCs, and exploring minimum information requirements when proposing a new 
STC and timelines to update information before Committee meetings.  
12.  Another Member noted that, in its view, the advance submission of written questions to a 
responding Member did not have an impact on the lengthy delays experienced in receiving a reply. 
In response, one Member noted its practice of circulating responses to qu estions and clarified that 
its suggestion to provide advance information referred to new STCs and not to technical exchanges.  
13.  Some Members were of the view that while it would be useful, especially in the case of new 
STCs, to have advance information provided, the Committee should avoid being overly prescriptive, 
for example by using deadlines and criteria as a determinant of whether the responding Member 
would reply. This could become an excuse to avoid replying to an STC, if in the responding Member' s 
view, insufficient information had been provided. In addition, the suggested approach could impinge 
on the space for bilateral meetings or become a hindrance to maintaining discussions in the 
Committee and start a shift towards a written exchange of stat ements, thereby diminishing the role 
of the Committee as a forum to raise bilateral issues in a multilateral setting. One Member also 
noted that delegates sometimes received last minute instructions which would make it difficult to 
meet pre -established cri teria.  
14.  Another Member further observed that no rule stopped Members from having bilateral meetings 
and that by the time an issue was raised as an STC, all other options had been exhausted. 
The Member underscored that the provision of advance informati on, especially for new STCs, was 
important and allowed the STC process to be effective.  
15.  In relation to the provision of advance information on STCs, the Secretariat reminded Members 
that the previous deadline for closure of the agenda was ten days bef ore the Committee meeting, 
and it had subsequently been changed to 21 days, at the request of Members, to allow for the 
preparation of responses. Members raising a concern were asked to provide an outline of the issue 
to responding Members. In addition, eA genda had a tab titled "brief description of measure" where 
Members could provide information on the raised concern, however this feature had not really been 
used by Members.  
16.  One Member queried the procedure for raising STCs, requesting clarification on whether there 
was always an obligation to inform the responding Member of the concern or if raising the STC via 
eAgenda was sufficient. The Secretariat explained that while most STCs were raised via eAgenda, 
the best practice was still to inform the res ponding Member, noting that information on this practice 
was also included in the communication sent to delegates ahead of each Committee meeting. 
The Secretariat also responded to a query regarding the translation of documents, clarifying that 
the majorit y of documents submitted by Members were made available in the three official WTO G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 49 - 
 
  languages before the start of the meeting. In addition, the Secretariat circulated its documents three 
weeks in advance of Committee meetings to ensure their translation ahea d of Committee meetings.  
17.  One Member further underscored the importance of having productive engagement and 
interactions with other Members, noting that the SPS Committee  (and also the TBT Committee) 
differentiated itself from other committees by the l evel of engagement. Digital tools, such as 
eAgenda, could facilitate the work, however if Members were not constructively engaging with each 
other, then the tools would not be useful. The Member reminded the Committee of the Member -
driven nature of the org anization, observing that if sufficient information was not available on STCs, 
then each Member had the responsibility to seek clarification in the three weeks leading up to the 
Committee meeting.  
(ii)  eAgenda and other online tools  
18.  In relation to eAgenda , a Member proposed several suggestions noting the differences across 
various Committees and advocating for as much harmonization as possible. In particular, reference 
was made to the practice used by the Market Access Committee in uploading reports a nd statements 
by the Chair, highlighting that if delegates could have access in eAgenda to all of the information 
provided in a Committee meeting, then downloading this information could be comparable to having 
minutes of the meeting. The Member noted that  the SPS eAgenda facilitated many aspects and 
further invited the exploration of other elements.  
19.  One Member made reference to the navigation of STCs in the SPS eAgenda, as compared to 
the TBT eAgenda. Another Member suggested to have a sidebar feature  to allow for easy navigation 
in the SPS eAgenda to the STC section.  
20.  Some Members welcomed the suggested improvements if it would add value and make eAgenda 
more user -friendly, and supported the uploading of the Chairperson's report, and agreed that i t 
would be useful to copy the good practices of other committees and have the Chairperson's summary 
and Secretariat's interventions also available in eAgenda.  
21.  The Secretariat informed the Committee that a draft manual for eAgenda had been prepared 
and that the SPS team was in the process of coordinating with other committees that used eAgenda. 
The Secretariat also noted the varying practices and the different requests made by Members across 
Committees. However, it was expected that more Committees woul d start using eAgenda and that 
greater focus would be placed on making it user -friendly. The Secretariat further explained that the 
TBT eAgenda only included STCs and so its main page only included STCs, while the SPS eAgenda 
included all of the agenda ite ms for the Committee meeting. However, there had been a request for 
TBT to include additional agenda items on its eAgenda. The Secretariat indicated its willingness to 
consult directly with Members on any eAgenda queries. In addition, the Secretariat noted  that, 
with respect to the inclusion of other types of information in eAgenda, such as the Chair's report, 
it had started discussions and was seeing how best to decide on what to include.  
22.  The Secretariat provided an update on the eDelegate platform , noting that it had previously 
drawn attention to this platform in the May intersessional consultations. The eDelegate platform was 
a dedicated space on the WTO website which would allow Members to have an interface to manage 
their participation in WTO Commi ttees, both for Geneva - and capital -based delegates. In addition, 
it would facilitate the sharing of delegates' contact information, including their assignment to 
WTO Committees. The platform would first be rolled out as a simple web -based interface (compa tible 
with mobile phones) to be followed by a more elaborate format. An information -sharing session 
would be organized by the responsible Secretariat team in the future.  
(iii)  Order of agenda items  
23.  One Member proposed that the Committee consider rest ructuring the order of agenda items  
to have discussions on substantive items before STCs, similar to the approach in CTG meetings. 
The Member further noted that the TBT Committee had already moved the discussion on some of 
its substantive items before the agenda item on STCs. In response, the Secretariat indicated that 
the order of the agenda could be examined and suggested that an idea could be to experiment with 
changes in the agenda for one meeting, if Members were in agreement.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 50 - 
 
  (iv)  Proposal in documen t WT/GC/W/874  
24.  India drew attention to its proposal in document WT/GC/W/874 , circulated in May 2023 to 
the General Council, which listed 30 operational improvements to the WTO before the organization 
completes 30 years, using the approach of "reform by doing". The initiative, dubbed as "30 for 30", 
proposed incremental changes which were doable in an indicative timeframe, and was based on 
extensive consultations with many Members. The proposal was not geared towards content reform, 
but addressed the challenges experienced in delegates' daily work. The pr oposal had already been 
discussed in the General Council and was now being pitched to the SPS Committee . In particular, 
two points were mentioned: (i) the development of a mobile productivity application, which India  had 
offered to develop; and (ii) the co mmunication hashtag "30 for 30" to broadly communicate 
the initiative. India noted that many of the suggestions in the document had already been well 
executed in the SPS Committee , but there remained a few that could still be examined, and it looked 
forwar d to engaging with other Members to build consensus on those areas.  
(v)  Written report to CTG  
25.  I then explained that CTG subsidiary bodies had been requested to submit a written report to 
CTG describing the discussions held and improvements introduced  (reference document - 
JOB/CTG/29 ). To facilitate the preparation of this report, the CTG Chair had held a meeting on 
30 June where the Chairs of subsidiary bodies had been requested to submit their reports no later 
than the first week of November. Following which, the reports would be conso lidated and a draft 
report prepared for discussion at the CTG's last formal meeting of the year, scheduled to take place 
on 30 November 2023.  
26.  I proposed to use a similar approach in preparing this report as had been done for the previous 
two MC12 impl ementation reports submitted to CTG, through the use of a written procedure. Firstly, 
a draft report would be prepared under the Chair's responsibility, with the assistance of the 
Secretariat, and then shared with Members in advance of the scheduled inters essional consultations 
in September/October for discussion. Following which, we would then have a round of written 
comments and the document finalized for submission to CTG.  
27.  I then invited Members to provide comments on this proposed approach. No Memb er took the 
floor. 
28.  Before concluding the meeting, I also provided an opportunity for Members to raise any other 
issues/areas on the functioning of the SPS Committee . However, no Member took the floor.  
2  NOVEMBER 2023 THEMATIC SESSION ( G/SPS/GEN/2067/REV.1 ) 
29.  I reminded the Committee that the United  States had previously submitted a proposal for a 
thematic session on SPS risk communication, with an emphasis on public perceptions of issues 
concerning food, technology, health, and the  environment. I recalled that further to the discussions 
at the last Committee meeting, Members had been invited to submit any additional comments for 
consideration by 21  April 2023. I informed Members that a  further revisi on of the US proposal had 
been circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/2067/Rev.1 . 
30.  The United  States considered that there was interest in the thematic session as well as curiosity, 
adding that the agenda had been updated and restructure d based on feedback from Members. 
The thematic session would include discussion on misinformation and disinformation, 
the SPS Agreement  and SPS issues with contemporary examples from Members, industry and 
consumers, and next steps. Looking ahead, the Unite d States noted that the thematic session could 
generate additional opportunities for discussion during the 6th Review of the SPS Agreement . 
The United  States welcomed comments, as well as proposals of possible speakers and was of the 
view that the thematic  session would be most informative and interesting, with a diverse set of 
perspectives.  
31.  Several Members provided comments on the proposal. One Member indicated particular interest 
in discussing how to reach consumers and was looking into proposing a p otential speaker from 
industry or academia. Another Member expressed its appreciation for including the consumer 
perspective, and was considering possible speakers. A third Member took the floor and suggested G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 51 - 
 
  including a session on food irradiation, adding  that it could propose a speaker from the Joint 
FAO/IAEA Centre of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture on this topic. Two other Members 
took the floor, with one highlighting the timeliness of the US proposal in the context of social 
networks, public  opinion, the role of science and the WTO, while the other highlighted the importance 
of the topic in relation to risk analysis.  
32.  Following a request to extend the deadline, I informed the Committee that the deadline for 
further comments on the propos al, including on speakers would be Thursday,  31 August 2023 . 
3  PREPARATION FOR 2024, INCLUDING THE SIXTH REVIEW OF THE SPS AGREEMENT , 
TOPICS FOR THEMATIC SESSIONS/WORKSHOP  
33.  I then invited Members to start looking ahead to 2024 and reflecting on preparations for the 
upcoming Sixth Review of the SPS Agreement , and also the scheduling of thematic sessions and the 
June 2024 Committee workshop.  
(i)  Sixth Review of the SPS Agreement  
34.  I reminded Members that the SPS Committee  is mandated to review the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement  at least once every 4 years, pursuant to the provisions of 
Article 12.7 of the Agreement and the Doha Ministerial Decision on  Implementation -Related Issues 
and Concerns (WT/MIN(01)/17). For the last Review, the  process had started in March 2018, and 
ended with the adoption of the Fifth Review Report in 2020.  
35.  I further explained that the process normally started with the Com mittee instructing the 
Secretariat to prepare a procedure for subsequent adoption by the Committee. I then invited the 
Secretariat to provide some additional background information and context. The Secretariat outlined 
the Review process, highlighting that  upon the Committee's request, it would prepare a procedure 
indicating timelines for various steps. Following which, the  Committee would then consider this 
proposed procedure for agreement.  
36.  The Secretariat noted that the last Review had started in Mar ch 2018. Ahead of which, 
the Committee had requested in the October 2017 meeting that the Secretariat prepare a procedure 
for subsequent consideration and discussion at the March 2018 Committee meeting (document 
G/SPS/W/296  circulated in December 2017 and it s revision in February  2018). The procedure had 
subsequently been adopted in March  2018 and the Review launched.  
37.  The Secretariat underscored that the instructions from ministers were clear that the 
SPS Committee  needed to carry out a review at least o nce every four years, and that the Committee 
was free to decide the process. The Secretariat observed that while the reviews had normally been 
scheduled to last one year, the Committee had decided to take longer for the Fifth Review, which  had 
lasted two y ears. The topics of the review were also determined by Members' submissions – although 
the Committee had in the past agreed to review a number of its past decisions and guidelines as 
part of the regular reviews.  
38.  I then observed that, during the earlie r discussions in the informal meeting on the 
SPS Declaration Work Programme and more specifically on the draft report to MC13, Members had 
seemed to have positive reflections on the recommendation that the Committee continue its 
discussions and reflections  in the context of the upcoming Sixth Review. As such, I proposed that 
the Committee agree to request the Secretariat to prepare a draft timeline for consideration and 
discussion at the November 2023 meeting. This would allow for the timeline to be reviewe d ahead 
of the November meeting for possible adoption in the November 2023 or March 2024 meeting. 
This could mean starting the Review in March 2024, after MC13.  
39.  I then invited Members to provide their comments or questions on this proposed approach. 
One Member noted its support to use the Sixth Review to continue the SPS Declaration Work 
Programme, and referenced the similar conversations held in the informal meeting on that topic 
earlier in the week. In addition, the Member sought clarification on whe ther there would be an 
opportunity to broaden the discussion, apart from the SPS Declaration Work Programme, and submit 
other topics. In response, I explained that it would be possible to include other topics, based on G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 52 - 
 
  Members' expressed interest and I pro posed that additional discussions could take place in the 
November SPS Committee  meeting.  
40.  Another Member queried whether the timeline for the Sixth Review would be a 1 -year or 2 -year 
process, and further suggested that a shorter review could be consid ered, while ensuring that all the 
necessary aspects of the Review mandate were fulfilled. The Member also highlighted that the 
Sixth Review provided an excellent opportunity to continue looking at the challenges highlighted in 
the SPS Declaration and that the Review could be undertaken through the lens of the challenges 
identified in the SPS Declaration work.  
41.  The Secretariat further underscored that it would be useful to have an idea of Members' 
preferences on whether there was interest to continue the  MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme 
as such, or whether the idea was to continue discussing certain topics and challenges identified in 
the SPS Declaration. The Secretariat noted that it would be up to Members to make this decision.  
42.  The Secretariat f urther provided clarification on the steps of the Review process, indicating that 
the first step was normally the submission of topics, and that there were often more topics than 
time to discuss them, followed by the submission of proposals. The Review end ed with the adoption 
of the Review Report, which under the Fifth Review had two parts: (i) a descriptive part; and 
(ii) a summary of the submitted proposals, and also recommendations. The Secretariat observed 
that the Review was also a chance to set the ag enda for the future and that the Review timeline 
could be shorter, but the report could set out actions that would be undertaken in the future.  
43.  One Member further highlighted that since the process normally took one year, this could be 
the benchmark.  
44.  I noted that the Secretariat's explanation had provided a proposed approach for the Committee 
in moving forward. I reminded Members that the Committee would return to this topic in the formal 
meeting.  
(ii)  Scheduling of thematic sessions and the June  Committee workshop for 2024  
45.  I then moved on to discuss the scheduling of SPS Committee  thematic sessions and/or a 
workshop for 2024, recalling that the approach of discussing these activities in advance had proven 
useful for delegates in planning the ir participation in SPS Committee -related activities. I first gave 
the floor to the Secretariat to provide some information on the tentative planning of meetings for 
2024.  
46.  The Secretariat drew the Committee's attention to the proposed calendar of meet ings for 2024 
in document G/SPS /GEN/2117 , which foresaw either: (i) three SPS Committee  thematic sessions in 
March, June and November 2024; or (ii) two SPS Committee  thematic sessions in March and 
November, and one SPS Committee  workshop in June 2024.  The Secretariat explained that a 
thematic session lasts one day while a workshop normally lasts two days and allowed the Committee 
to take a more in -depth look at a topic. In the past, there used to be a budget for the participation 
of a number of develop ing country officials in workshops and the SPS Committee  meeting. 
The Secretariat encouraged Members to start thinking of topics and themes for the 2024 thematic 
sessions and workshop for further discussion at the November 2023 Committee meeting, adding 
that this would help facilitate the participation of experts in these activities.  
47.  No Member provided ideas or suggestions for potential topics for the 2024 SPS Committee  
thematic sessions or workshop. I requested Members to submit their proposed topics by the deadline 
of Thursday, 31 August 2023 . 
 G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 53 - 
 
  ANNEX C  
INTERSESSIONAL SPS COMMITTEE  CONSULTATIONS  
MC12 SPS DECLARATION WORK PROGRAMME – 11 MAY 2023  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1  WORK PROGRAMME OF THE MC12 SPS DECLARATION ( G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1  AND 
WT/MIN(22)/27 ) 
(i)  Introductory points  
1.  At the informa l meeting on 11 May 2023, I recalled that the SPS Committee  had been working 
to fulfil the mandate outlined in the SPS Declaration ( WT/MIN(22)/27) adopted by Ministers in 
June 2022. As  foreseen in the process outlined in document G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1 , the stewards had 
been regularly reporting to the Committee on the discussions in their groups, and they would again 
report on the discussions had in the past week at this intersessional meeting . I noted that Members 
had had the opportunity to submit written inputs throughout the process and that these inputs, as 
well as oral contributions in group meetings, had formed the basis for discussions held in each group. 
I reminded Members of the summar ies submitted in March by the stewards on the work of the 
Thematic Groups, contained in G/SPS/W/332  to 3361, which Members had had the opportunity to 
discuss in the informal March Committee meeting . 
2.  The Secretariat reminded Members that MC13 would be held in February 2024 in the 
United  Arab Emirates, and that according to the MC12 SPS Declaration, the Committee had to report 
to MC13 on key findings and actions undertaken, with recommendations, as appropriate. 
The Secretariat also reminded Members that stewards would submit their last written report at the 
end of May. According to the process in document G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1 , a draft report would be 
circulated to delegates for discussion at the informal Committee meeting in July, and it was expe cted 
that the final report would be adopted at the November 2023 meeting, as it would be the last meeting 
ahead of MC13.  
(ii)  Update on thematic groups  
3.  Group 1 : On behalf of the two co -stewards, Jonathas José Silva da Silveira (Brazil) and 
Knut Berdal  (Norway), the former reported on the status of Group 1. He recalled that after several 
rounds of discussions and written inputs from Members in Group 1, it had been decided at the 
February meeting to have a calendar of events to get inputs from different actors. In March, Group  1 
had a full day of inputs on producer experiences representing Members from different regions, 
sectors and levels of development. This past week, Group 1 had heard a full day of presentations 
from a wide range of relevant internati onal organizations. The discussions that these presentations 
provoked had been informative and helped the Group capture and develop ideas that would aid them 
in their work. The co -stewards of Group 1 reminded Members that they remained open to 
suggestions and guidance for the way forward.  
4.  Group 2 : Boitshoko Ntshabele (South Africa) recalled the agreement reached in February to hold 
a workshop inviting the international standard -setting bodies and Members to present on their 
guidance and experiences on r isk assessment and uncertainty, and also to reflect on how the 
emerging challenges in point 6 of the MC12 SPS Declaration impacted their conduct of risk 
assessments. Codex had informed Members that FAO and WHO would need to participate as 
they were the rel evant risk assessment bodies. Members received presentations from the IPPC, 
WOAH, FAO, WHO and Codex, which all shared their relevant guidance on risk assessment and 
uncertainty, and provided an update on new reference materials and capacity building activ ities. 
They also indicated that they were at various stages of work in assessing and reflecting on the 
impact that emerging challenges had on their standard -setting work, and that these processes were 
ongoing, with participation of Members, and led by thei r experts and expert bodies. The steward 
 
1 G/SPS/W/332  (Group 1); G/SPS/W/333  (Group 2); G/SPS/W/336  (Group 3); G/SPS/W/334  (Group 4) 
and G/SPS/W/335  (Group 5).  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 54 - 
 
  reminded Members of the importance of their national experts following these developments. 
The workshop also heard presentations from Members, including Japan (on their experience on 
Article  5.7 of the SPS Agreement ), China (on uncertainty in pest risk analysis - interrupted due to 
poor sound quality), the European  Union (on the future of risk assessments in food safety) and the 
United  States (on the consideration of uncertainty in risk assessments). The  presentation s were 
detailed and informative and also elicited lively discussions and questions from Members in the room 
and online. The presentations would be uploaded to the dedicated  MC12 SPS webpage . The steward 
noted that this was the last meeting of the thematic group, and that he remained available to 
Members for any further discussion on work moving forward.  
5.  Group 3 : Miguel Donatelli (Argen tina) recalled that Group 3 had enjoyed high Membership 
participation during their meetings over the past year. During the March meeting, WOAH had 
presented on their regionalization work and the Secretariat had presented a compilation of all the 
work condu cted on regionalization in the SPS Committee , both of which had been excellent inputs 
for the Group. There had been a request for Members to share their positive and negative 
experiences to understand the difficulties and successes in terms of implementing  regionalization. 
In the most recent meeting, at the request of one Member, WOAH had presented on different forms 
of regionalization, specifically official recognition and self -declaration. Lastly, as requested, 
Members  had presented on their experiences w ith implementing regionalization. South Africa 
presented on risk assessments and regionalization; the European  Union shared their work on 
African  swine fever, risk assessments and capacity building; the United  States presented on their 
experiences regardin g African swine fever, regionalization and their internal work; Argentina shared 
some of their difficulties and unsuccessful attempts at regionalization; and Chile presented a case 
study on regionalization for potato crops. The steward encouraged Members t o submit proposals for 
moving forward with the next steps of the process.  
6.  Group 4 : Geoff Richards (United Kingdom) reported on the 5th meeting of Group 4. The session 
included an introductory summary of the Group's previous discussions and Members' sug gestions; 
and a discussion on enhancing observer organization interactions with the work of the Committee. 
Suggestions included (1) the Committee serving as a focal point; (2) presentations from observer 
organizations on their remit and relevant activities ; and (3) how to maximize value from the ISSB 
and observer organization agenda items and (4) other business. Some Members indicated that the 
first suggestion was more of an outcome of actions and possibly linked to suggestions (2) and (3), 
but another Memb er felt the SPS Committee  was a natural focal point. On the second suggestion 
there remained enthusiasm for the presentations by observers, possibly in thematic sessions or side 
events at the Committee, but one Member noted that it might be more efficient for Members if the 
hyperlinks to the observer organizations on the SPS Committee  page were updated to include a 
description of the organization and how their work supported the SPS Committee . Regarding the 
third suggestion, a Member reiterated their propos al that each ISSB be allocated one of the three 
Committee meetings per year to give a more detailed update, which could be synchronized around 
the annual conventions of the ISSBs. One Member noted that if the Committee remain receptive to 
discussing modern  challenges over time, then this could potentially be a focus for the ISSBs and 
others if Members agreed. The Secretariat also made an intervention, noting that attendance of 
observer organizations in SPS Committee  meetings had tailed off around the pandem ic and not yet 
been restored, and that engagement could potentially be increased by providing updated guidance 
for observers on expectations of the Membership in the SPS Committee . This suggestion appeared 
to be supported by participants. The steward recal led that they would circulate a written note, and 
that they were not proposing a meeting of Group 4 at the July Committee meeting.  
7.  Group 5 : On behalf of the two co -stewards, Cecilia Gutiérrez (Ecuador) and Joanna Grainger 
(Australia), the latter report ed on the activities of Group 5. She recalled that Group 5 had had its 
last meeting to discuss how to increase participation and support for the special needs of developing 
and least developing country Members in the development and application of SPS meas ures. Building 
on lessons learned from the March workshop with the STDF, the Group received presentations on 
examples of SPS capacity assistance by Members and international organizations. Experts and 
representatives from USDA, the European  Union, Argentin a, the African Union Commission and the 
UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific shared their experiences, challenges 
and best practices in this domain. She noted that the discussion had showed the importance of 
SPS capacity building to i mprove food safety and security, and the importance of South -South 
cooperation as an efficient tool to facilitate exchange of knowledge and best practices. She also 
noted the importance of listening and of implementing tailored programmes specific to count ries' 
needs, resources and levels of development, and which were designed in a horizontal manner. G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Presenters emphasized best practices with respect to building resilient and responsive SPS systems,  
enhancing participation in the ISSBs, and building trust a mong all stakeholders when building 
successful SPS projects. The steward recognized the huge amount of work done by the Committee 
over time on this topic, in particular related to Articles 9 and 10, and reminded Members that they 
would be preparing a summa ry report of Group 5 discussions.  
(iii)  Scheduling of events for the July meeting  
8.  I recalled that in November 2022, the Committee had agreed that the space normally allocated 
to thematic sessions and/or workshops in the July meetings would be dedicated to discussions 
around the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme, and that the full Committee would discuss 
the draft report to MC13.  
9.  The Secretariat took the floor to discuss a potential structure for the July SPS week. As discussed 
before, acc ording to the agreed process a draft report for MC13 was scheduled to be circulated in 
June for discussion at the July meeting, where it could be discussed. According to the reports from 
the stewards, no thematic group was planning to meet again. To allow for sufficient time, 
the Secretariat proposed a dedicated informal meeting on the SPS Declaration Work Programme on 
Tuesday, 11 July.  
(iv)  Preparation of the report to MC13  
10.  I recalled that at the last Committee meeting in March, it had been suggested  that the written 
reports from the stewards could serve as a basis for the Secretariat to prepare a factual summary 
of the SPS Declaration Work Programme, with a draft being circulated in June for discussion at the 
July informal Committee meeting. I also r ecalled that there had been a suggestion that a shorter 
document also be prepared with some conclusions, recommendations, or findings, which would be 
presented to Ministers at MC13 and could potentially contain a reference to the more detailed factual 
summ ary. 
11.  Members expressed different views on whether both documents were needed, and how they 
should be drafted. Some Members indicated that the summary document should be a simple 
compilation of the stewards' reports, while others were of the view that the Secretariat should ensure 
that the level of detail and content was consistent across the reporting on the five groups. 
Some  Members voiced concerns that two documents were not necessarily mandated by the work 
programme, and that due to time and resourc e constraints, the Committee should focus on the 
shorter document. Others were of the view that the longer summary should attempt to capture the 
substantive points made in the discussions in the five groups. This would allow all Members to have 
an overview  of the work in all the groups, which would be particularly useful for small delegations.  
12.  There was some discussion on the status of the factual summary and whether it should be 
referenced in the shorter document going to Ministers. Some Members expre ssed concern that if the 
summary was referenced, it would lead to delays, as Members would then negotiate its content. 
Other Members suggested that the dedicated SPS Declaration Work Programme webpage  could be 
referenced in the short document, as it had served as a repository for all the work on the Declaration. 
Members agreed to postpone discussions on a possible reference in the shorter o utcome document 
to the longer factual summary.  
13.  Members indicated different options for the drafting of the documents. Regarding the longer 
summary, some Members were in favour of the Secretariat simply compiling the stewards' summary 
reports; others p referred the Secretariat to draft the report; and others preferred a joint approach 
for drafting between the Chair, stewards and the Secretariat. Similarly for the shorter document, 
some Members offered to prepare the initial draft with any interested part ies, but others expressed 
concern that such a drafting process would not be inclusive and lead to unnecessary delay. There  was 
a proposal that a select group of stewards draft the documents, but scepticism regarding the 
selection process was voiced.  
14.  Finally, Members agreed that there should be two documents: (1) a longer, factual summary 
building on the stewards' reports about the activities of the five groups; and (2) a shorter, two -page 
document for Ministers with findings, conclusions and/or recomme ndations.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 56 - 
 
  15.  The Committee agreed that the Secretariat would prepare the draft factual summary, based on 
the stewards' reports. The Chair and the stewards, with help from the Secretariat, would produce 
the initial "zero" draft of the shorter document for  Ministers. The current Chairperson, 
Tang-Kai Wang (Chinese  Taipei) was tasked with completing this assignment and was expected to 
consult with the incoming new Chairperson regarding the next steps for ongoing discussions.  
16.  The Secretariat highlighted the next steps, noting that the deadline for stewards to report on 
the work of the thematic groups was Friday, 26 May 2023 , and that an informal meeting on 
11 July 2023  would be allocated to the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme. The Secretariat 
brought to Members' attention that there could be another slot in the last two weeks of September 
for an intersessional meeting, if needed, but this could be revisited at the July meeting of the 
Committee.  
2  MC12 IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS: IMPROVING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE 
SPS COMMITTEE  (G/C/W/ 824/Rev.1 , JOB/CTG/28  AND JOB/SPS/25/Rev .2) 
17.  I recalled that at the March SPS meeting, I had updated the Committee on the ongoing CTG 
discussions on MC12 implementation matters related to WTO reform and COVID -19. I noted that all 
the reports prepared by CTG subsidiary bodies were contained in do cument G/C/W/824/Rev.1 , 
which  also included a comparison matrix on the current functioning of the CTG and its subsidiary 
bodies.  
18.  I brought Members' attention to document JOB/SPS/25/Rev.2 , submitted by a group of 
Members2, which highli ghted current practices and suggested areas of improvement for the 
SPS Committee . 
19.  I recalled that in March one Member requested that the Secretariat provide feedback on the 
feasibility of the suggestions.  
20.  In response to this request, the Secretar iat presented their response on current practices and 
the feasibility of suggestions. The Secretariat highlighted areas where the SPS Committee  was 
already implementing best practices, such as the use of annual planning, the existence of written 
guidance o n Committee functioning, introductory sessions for new delegates, timelines for release 
of documents, circulation of reports in advance of meetings, thematic sessions, online notifications, 
and the WTO Trade Concerns Database. Areas that could be improved or harmonized were identified, 
and included the automatic alert system linked to the WTO calendar of meetings, alignment of formal 
meeting practices, and e -registration, though some of these were subject to discussions at the 
CTG level. The Secretariat inv ited Members to provide further feedback on any of the issues covered 
in the presentation.  
21.  The Secretariat highlighted that the SPS Committee  was different from other WTO bodies in its 
use of summary reports instead of minutes, which had been discusse d in the past. While summary 
reports were easier to read, they were more labour -intensive to produce, and so could not be 
released as quickly, while the use of verbatim -style minutes cut down turn -around time considerably.  
22.  Members praised the SPS Committee  for being a leader in best practices, welcomed planned 
improvements on e -registration/eDelegate systems, and suggested harmonization on practices 
regarding eAgenda as used by different WTO bodies. One Member suggested the development of an 
eAgenda manual and integration of eAgenda deadlines into the annotated draft agenda. 
Another  Member requested that presentations be circulated in advance of meetings for more efficient 
discussions.  
23.  The Secretariat thanked Members for drawing their atten tion to divergences in eAgenda, 
the need for a manual, and the suggestion that presentations be circulated. They would look into 
the development of a manual for eAgenda, and consult colleagues working on other WTO bodies to 
discuss the harmonization of eAg enda. The Secretariat noted that many presentations were 
submitted at the last minute, but that those received in time could be circulated.  
 
2 Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay.  G/SPS/R/110  
 
- 57 - 
 
  24.  I invited Members to submit their comments or written proposals on improving the functioning 
of the SPS Committ ee by Friday, 26 May 2023  for discussion at the July meeting of the Committee. 
Lastly, I reminded Members that a factual summary of the intersessional consultations, including 
deadlines and next steps, would be circulated to Members by the Secretariat, and  would be included 
in an annex to the summary report of the July Committee meeting.  
 
__________