G/SPS/GEN/19 37  
16 July  2021 
(21-5644) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: Spanish  
 
  
IMPORT RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY ECUADOR ON GRAPES AND ONIONS  
(NO. 498) 
COMMUNICATION FROM PERU 
The following communication, received on 13 July 2021, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Peru. 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  Peru would like to present to WTO Members its trade concern with respect to the restrictive 
measures applied by Ecuador on the reopening of access for grapes and onions from Peru.  
2.  While Peru recognizes the  legitimate objective of protecting health establis hed in Article 5 of the 
SPS Agreement, it considers that the actions taken by Ecuador  were disproportionate, as corrective 
actions were not followed up and the most stringent sampling was not carried out , in order to 
safeguard public health, when Ecuador c losed its market to Peruvians grapes and onions, which 
violates even its own domestic  legislation.1 
3.  In paragraph 14.4.3 of Resolution DAJ -20133E -0201.009622, Ecuadorian legislation established 
preliminary measures prior to the suspension of a supplier c ountry that were not applied to Peru in 
this case. Ecuador is therefore in violation of  Article 5 .4 of the SPS Agreement, given that no attempt 
has been made to minimize negative trade effects . 
4.  Regarding Ecuador's statements at the SPS Committee meeting o f 25 and 26 March 2021, it 
should be noted that the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Foods including concessional and 
food aid t ransactions (CAC/RCP/20 -1979) does not limit rights and obligations under  WTO 
Agreements, as set forth in footnote 2 of Article 4.2 of the aforementioned document. Moreover , 
Article 3 of document CAC/RCP/20 -1979 does no t provide technical grounds  for closing the market 
to grapes and onions  from Peru , without considering the rest of the content in document  
CAC/RCP/20 -1979, the provisions of the SPS Agreement, particularly  Article 5, and even Ecuadorian 
legislation.  
 
1 Resolution DAJ-20133EC -0201.0096 . 
2 Paragraph 14.4.3 cited by Ecuador provided for  the gradual application of  stricter measures, as 
follows:  
"At the border, a (targeted) control sample is always taken, which may vary in the form of  reduced 
sampling or strict sampling.  
A control with reduced sampling is based on the assumption that there is no negative history or 
suspicions surrounding the type of crop, origin (country and/or packer), or importer.  
Therefore, all border checks begin with reduced sampling and without product retention.  
If a lot contains  a pesticide exceeding  the established MRL , it is reported through SIAR and the 
origin (company a nd country) and importer for that product go from reduced sampling to strict 
sampling for five consecutive shipments , with retention of goods. If all five consecutive shipments are 
below the MRL , reduced sampling resumes. If any shipment exceeds the MRL, then the product is 
rejected (destruction) , SIAR is informed, and another five strict samplings  will follow . If another 
sample exceeds the MRL, SIAR is informed, and a decision on whether to cont inue to authorize  the imports is 
taken.  
Consequences range from suspending the approval of the packing plant for t he crop to suspending the 
approval of the supplier country."  
 G/SPS/GEN/19 37 
 
- 2 - 
 
  5.  It should be noted  that the first notification received by AGROCALIDAD regarding onions  was 
through  Official  Circular  MAGAP -DE/AGROCALIDAD -2014-000600 -OF. This document was sent on 
25 June 2014, more than seven months after the samples were taken , on 1 October 2013 . Moreover, 
AGROCALIDAD failed to  inform Peru  whether it was a  health alert report or notification, or to inform 
of it of the actions taken with the food that had entered  Ecuador.  The case of grapes is similar , 
insofar as Official Circular  MAGA P-CIA-AGROCALIDAD -2015-002045 -OF was sent on  5 June 2015, 
even though  the sample was taken on 23 February 2015 . Furthermore,  after the marke t was closed , 
Ecuador sent, two months later , another two notifications . We therefore consider  that the 
information was not sent  in a timely manner, as set out in  the Guidelines for the Exchange of 
Information Between Countries on Rejections of Imported Food3, approved by Codex Alimentarius, 
particularly with regard to the identification of the food concerned, importat ion details, and details 
of the rejection decision and of the measures adopted.  
6.  Similarly, with respect to Ecuador's statements at the SPS Committee meeting  of 25 and 
26 March 2021 , Ecuador confirmed that it requested an action  plan, but  Resolution DAJ-20133EC -
0201.0096 did not establish such a  requirement.  Furthermore, as there was no action  plan model  in 
Resolution DAJ -20133EC -0201.0096, such a plan  was repeatedly proposed by Peru , but no response  
received until AGROCALIDAD Resolution No. 0064 entered into force . 
7.  Unlike Resolution DAJ-20133EC -0201.0096 , which was notified to this Committee in document  
G/SPS/N/ECU/132 , AGROCALIDAD Resolution  No. 0064 of 2017 was not notified  in accordance with  
Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, despite the fact that this measure establishes additional 
requirements that have an impact on t he trade of other Members. Peru therefore  regret s that 
Ecuador has not provided a reasonable period of time for Members of this Committee to submit their 
comments and to ensure predictability in trade . Moreover, Ecuador has failed to comply with the 
provisions of paragraph 6 of Annex B and Article 7 of the SPS Agreement, as the closure of the 
market should have  also been notified to this Committee, as an emergency measure, as  it was 
provisional . 
8.  Peru points out  that, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Annex C and Article 8 of the 
SPS Agreement, sanitary and phytosanitary procedures must be addressed and concluded without 
undue delay , with the provision of information to the interested Party and with requirements that  
are limited to what is reasonable and necessary. In this regard, meetings were held and repeated 
communications were submitted  with the corrective measures requested  by Ecuador  between August 
2014 and November 2019.4 Yet no re sponse was recei ved regarding  the actions that we took as a 
country to find a technical solution . In this context, the fact that Ecuador stated that it was in 
June 2018 that Peru responded regarding the required action plan  is cause for concern , since, as 
stated above , Peru addressed the request by the Ecuadorian authorities  in a timely manner , and did 
not receive  a response .5 
 
3 CAC/GL 25 -1997.  
4 Communications submitted:  
1. OFICIO -0095-2014-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 27 August 2014;  
2. OFICIO -0096-2014-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 27 August 2014;  
3. OFICIO -0030-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 16 March 2015;  
4. OFICIO -0029-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 16 March 2015;  
5. OFICIO -0079-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 11 June 2015;  
6. OFICIO -0149-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 24 November 2015 ;  
7. OFICIO -0151-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 11 December 2015;  
8. OFICIO -0152-2015-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 11 December 2015;  
9. OFICIO -0029-2016-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 24 February 2016;  
10. OFICIO -0253-2016-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 3 October 2016;  
11. OFICIO -0337-2016-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 20 December 2016;  
12. OFICIO -0025-2017-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 11 January 2017;  
13. OFICIO -0076-2017-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 7 February 2017;  
14. OFICIO -0378-2018-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 18 June 2018;  
15. OFICIO -0389-2018-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 2 July 2018;  
16. OFICIO -0499-2018-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 19 September 2018;  
17. OFICIO -0319-2019-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 16 April 2019;  
18. OFICIO -0320-2019-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 22 April 2019;  
19. OFICIO -0446-2019-MINAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA, 30 October 2019.  
5 Official Circular AGR -AGROCALIDAD/DE -2020-001220 -OF. G/SPS/GEN/19 37 
 
- 3 - 
 
  9.  As indicated in  the trade concern presented in document G/SPS/GEN/1907 , Peru noted that it is 
concerni ng that Ecuador systematically disregards technical agreements that were previously 
established between health authorities. Thus, during the meeting of 9 March 2021, it was agreed 
that Ecuador would send to a response to the action plan on onions on 23 Mar ch 2021; however, 
this has not yet been done. Likewise, by means of CARTA -0090-2021-MIDAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA of 
30 April 2021, CARTA -0111-2021-MIDAGRI -SENASA -DIAIA of 24 May 2021, and Note RE(DPE) 
No. 6-12/42  of 10 June 2021, and Official Circular  068-2021-MINCETUR/VMCE/DGPDCE/DRTCE  of 
11 June 2021, it has been reiterated to AGROCALIDAD, the Ecuadorian Ministry of Production, 
Foreign Trade, Investment and Fisheries , and the Embassy of Ecuador in Peru, that Ecuador should 
inform Peru of its requirements and the date for the resumption of  grape  exports . However, there  
has been no response  to date . 
10.  Peru regrets that, despite having fulfilled all the requirements imposed  by Ecuador in order to 
re-establish access, the restrictions on access to the Ecuadorian market for Peruvian grapes and 
onions remain in force, with no technical justification provided, th us violating Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of 
the SPS Agreement.  
11.  Peru must emphasize that the concerns previously  presented  in document G/SPS/GEN/1907  
and to the  WTO SPS Committee on 5, 6 and 13 November 2020 are coordinated  at a mult isectoral 
level, highlighting Peru's interest  in resuming exports of onions and grapes. The measures applied 
by Ecuador have caused damage to exports of Peruvian grapes amounting to around USD 6.6 million, 
and USD 500 million for exports of Peruvian onions.  It is importa nt to underscore that trade in 
Peruvian grapes with the world totals USD 1.03 billion, with entry  to 96 markets  at present , and 
with an average an nual growth of 12.86 % in the past five years. Trade in Peruvian onions with the 
world amount s to USD 96 millio n, with entry to 2 7 markets at present, and with an average annual 
growth of 7.8% in the past five years.  
12.  Considering that the measures applied by Ecuador are discriminatory and violate Articles  2, 5, 
7, 8, An nex B and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, we requ est Ecuador to:  
a. avoid proposing measures that violate the provisions of the SPS Agreement and the basic 
principles of the WTO;  
b. ensure that it does  not disregard the technical agreements previously established;  
c. notify its measure and give the other WTO Members the opportunity to submit comments; 
and 
d. reopen access to the Ecuadorian market for grapes and onions from Peru.  
__________