RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
25 February 2020  
(20-1445) Page: 1/29 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETI NG OF 7-8 NOVEMBER  2019 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
Revision  
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGE NDA ................................ ................................ .........................  4 
2  INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ ..............................  4 
2.1.1   Japan – Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima Daiichi 
nuclear power station accident  ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
2.1.2   Argentina – Actions undertaken with respect to antimicrobial resistance  ...........................  4 
2.1.3   Russian Federation – Information on the International Conference on Food Safety  Risk 
Analysis and Antimicrobial Resistance, to be held in Moscow on 17 -18 December  2019 ...............  4 
2.1.4   Australia – APEC import MRL guideline for pesticides: A guideline on possible  
approaches  to achieve alignment of international MRLs  ................................ ............................  5 
2.1.5   Senegal – Ongoing initiatives for the implementation of EU Directive 2019/523 in the  
mango and pepper sectors, and the monitoring and management system for notifications of  
non-conformity  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
2.1.6   Mexico – Update on the regulatory framework  ................................ ...............................  5 
2.1.7   Belize – Simulation for Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense  ................................ .............  6 
2.2  Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ .............  6 
2.2.1   Codex  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  6 
2.2.2   IPPC ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  6 
2.2.3   OIE ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  7 
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONC ERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/ REV.19)  ................................ .............  7 
3.1  New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  7 
3.1.1   Thailand's approval procedures for imports of pork and other animal products –  
Concerns of Brazil and the European Union  ................................ ................................ ............  7 
3.1.2   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat – Concerns of  
the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  8 
3.1.3   EU sanitary requirement for importation of hoof and horn – Concerns of Indonesia  ............  8 
3.1.4   The Russian Federation's maximum limit of 3 -monochloropropanediol (3MCPD) and  
glycidyl ester (GE) in palm oil products – Concerns of Indonesia  ................................ ...............  9 
3.1.5   EU Regulation on high risk plants (Regulation (EU) 2016/2031) – Concerns of Israel ..........  9 
3.2  Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ..............................  10 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2.1   EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate,  
imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxyd im – Concerns of Colombia, 
Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Panama and Paraguay (No. 448,  
see also related STCs Nos. 453, 454, 457)  ................................ ................................ ............ 10 
3.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors – Concerns of Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama,  
Paraguay and the United States (No. 382)  ................................ ................................ ............ 12 
3.2.3   New EU MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin – Concerns of China (No. 459) ............................... 14 
3.2.4   New EU definition of the fungicide folpet – Concerns of China (No. 447)  .......................... 14 
3.2.5   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza – 
Concerns of the European Union (No. 431)  ................................ ................................ ............ 14 
3.2.6   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza – Concerns of the 
European Union (No. 406)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...15 
3.2.7   Turkey's FMD -related import restrictions on live cattle – Concerns of  
Argentina (No.  461) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 15 
3.2.8   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union (No.  193) ......... 15 
3.2.9   Ukraine's restrictions on swine products – Concerns of Brazil (No. 463)  ........................... 16 
3.2.10   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products – Concerns of the  
European Union (No. 441)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...16 
3.2.11   US import restrictions on apples and pears – Concerns of  
the European Union (No.  439) ................................ ................................ ............................. 16 
3.2.12   Mexico's measures on imports of hibiscus flowers – Concerns of Senegal (No. 386)  ........ 17 
3.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  ................................ .........  17 
3.3.1   Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds – Concerns of Chinese Taipei (No.  421) ......17 
3.4  Report on the e -Agenda Project  ................................ ................................ ....................  17 
4  OPERATION AND IMPLE MENTATION OF THE SPS  AGREEMENT  ................................ ... 18 
4.1  Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  18 
4.1.1   Senegal – Malaysia's inspection and control system for agricultural  
products (peanuts)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 18 
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas (Regiona lization)  ................................ ...............................  18 
4.2.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ........................ 18 
4.2.1.1   Mexico – OIE recognized self -declarations  ................................ ................................ .18 
4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ............  18 
4.3.1   Annual report on Transparency (G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12)  ................................ ............. 18 
4.4  Special and Differential Treatment  ................................ ................................ ................  19 
4.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  ................................ ............................  19 
4.5.1   New issues ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 19 
4.5.1.1   United States – Codex task force on antimicrobial resistance  ................................ .......19 
4.5.2   Issues previously raise d ................................ ................................ ............................ 20 
4.5.2.1   European Union – ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE  
international standard  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 20 
4.5.2.2   European Union – Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) restrictions not  
consistent with the OIE international standard  ................................ ................................ .......20 
4.5.2.3   United States – Codex MRLs for glyphosate  ................................ ............................... 21 
4.6  Fifth Review of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 21 G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4.6.1   Report on the thematic session on approval procedures (G/SPS/GEN/1704/Rev.1)  ........... 21 
4.6.2   Report on the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ .................. 22 
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUE S ................................ ................................ ............................  23 
5.1  Brazil's proposal on the functioning of the SPS Committee (G/SPS/W/319/Rev.1)  ...............  23 
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANC E AND COOPERATION  ................................ ............................  24 
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ..................  24 
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....24 
6.1.2   STDF  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 25 
6.2  Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ..........................  26 
6.2.1   Australia – Technical assistance to developing countries  ................................ ................ 26 
6.2.2   Senegal – Support for the implementation of EU phytosanitary regulation (2016/2031)  
for post harvest activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....26 
6.2.3   Senegal – Authorization of access for agricultural products into the Malaysian market  
on the basis of a pest risk assessment (phytosanitary protocol)  ................................ ............... 26 
6.2.4   Canada – Technical assistance to developing countries  ................................ .................. 26 
6.2.5. Burkina Faso – Technical assistance received and certain SPS activities  
in Burkina  Faso ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 27 
7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVA TE AND COMMERCIAL ST ANDARDS  ................................ ....... 27 
8  OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  27 
8.1  Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ ....... 27 
8.1.1   ECOWAS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 27 
8.1.2   IICA ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 27 
8.1.3   COMESA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 28 
8.2  Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ ........................  28 
8.2.1   New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 28 
8.2.1.1   Request from UNIDO (G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.18) ................................ ......................... 28 
8.2.2   Outstanding requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ 28 
9  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 29 
10  DATE AND AGENDA FOR  NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .. 29 
 
  G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its 7 6th regular 
meeting on 7-8 November  2019. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with 
amendments (WTO/AIR/SPS/ 30). Ms Deborah Cumes (Guatemala), former Chairperson of the 
Committee on Agriculture, served as the interim Chairperson for the meeting.  
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Japan – Upda te on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power station accident  
2.1.  Japan  thanked the United Arab Emirates; the United States; Macau, China; the 
European  Union; and Singapore for relaxing their import measures; and Brun ei Darussalam for lifting 
them. Japan provided an update on the most recent data and status of its food safety control 
measures, as well as on its water management at the nuclear power station and the marine 
environmental impact. Japan highlighted that on September 2019, the Joint FAO -IAEA Division 
stated that its measures to monitor and respond to issues regarding radionuclide contamination of 
food were appropriate, and that the food supply chain was controlled effectively by the relevant 
authorities. Japa n reassured the Members that it had a strict control system in place to ensure safety 
of food products. Japan reported that 32 out of the 54 countries and regions which had introduced 
import restrictive measures on Japanese food products had completely lif ted them. Japan urged the 
Members maintaining these measures to remove them based on scientific principles. It referred to 
a website referenced in communication G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev .1 where Members could obtain further 
information on the matter.  
2.2.  Canada thanked Japan for the update and recalled its statement from the meeting held in 
July 2019. Canada noted that its inspections and testing on food imports supported Japan's 
statement th at the evidence show ed that Japan's food products ha d been safe for the public for 
many years.  
2.1.2   Argentina – Actions undertaken with respect to antimicrobial resistance  
2.3.  Argentina informed the Members about its National Programme for Antimicrobial Resistance 
(AMR) Surveillance in animals for human consumption and referred to document G/SPS/GEN/1742 , 
containing detailed information of the current initiatives carried out by its National Agriculture and 
Food Quality and Health Servic e (SENASA) for the surveillance and control of AMR in relation to 
animal health.  
2.1.3   Russian Federation – Information on the International Conference on Food 
Safety  Risk Analysis and Antimicrobial Resistance, to be held in Moscow on 
17-18 December  2019  
2.4.  The Ru ssian Federation  announced that it would be jointly organizing with FAO, an international 
conference on "Food Safety Risk Analysis and Antimicrobial Resistance " in Moscow on 
17-18 December 2019 , to enhance multinational cooperation on food safety . The conference would 
be a follow -up of the conference on food safety risk analysis,  which had been organized in the 
Russian Federation in May 2017 and  would also be based on the First FAO /WHO/African Union 
International Food Safety Conference , held in Eth iopia in February 2019.  The upcoming conference 
would be aimed at gathering representatives in animal health, public health and food safety sector s 
to facilitate exchange in experiences and best practices relating to reduction of AMR, assess 
multifaceted f ood safety risks, enhance multilateral dialogue and promote partnerships between 
different stakeholders.  The Russian Federation invited all Members and Observers to participate in 
the event.  G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.1.4   Australia – APEC import MRL guideline for pesticides: A guideline  on possible 
approaches to achieve alignment of international MRLs  
2.5.  Australia  drew attention to the APEC Import MRL Guidelines, intended to facilitate a greater 
degree of clarity and alignment around the application of assessment methodologies involved in 
considering import MRL requests, from the perspective of consumer protection, across the APEC 
region.  Australia highlighted that the guideline was meant to be used on a voluntary basis, as an aid 
for APEC economies when considering the alignment of domestic  pesticide MRLs of plant protection 
products, with relevant international or regional standards or with an exporting country's MRLs. The 
overall objective was to provide a coherent framework within which APEC economies c ould identify 
the minimum dataset, t o the extent necessary, upon which to assess a request for pesticide import 
MRLs where health -based guidance values, authorised use patterns and MRLs ha d been established, 
either internationally or in the exporting economy.  Australia has submitted more information in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1746 . 
2.6.  The United States thanked Australia for bringing th e APEC Import MRL Guideline to the 
Committee 's attention . The US statement is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1747 . 
2.7.  Canada thanked Australia and the United States for proving the background in formation and 
welcomed the APEC Import MRL guidance document , which encouraged greater alignment around 
the application of assessment methodologies for import MRLs, greater regulatory convergence of 
MRLs, and improved alignment with international standards , while considering human health, 
reducing regulatory burden s and facilitating global trade.  
2.1.5   Senegal – Ongoing initiatives for the implementation of EU Directive 2019/523 in 
the mango and pepper sectors, and the monitoring and management s ystem for 
notific ations of non -conformity  
2.8.  Senegal provided information on the ongoing initiatives to bring its mango and pepper  sectors , 
especially in the post -harvest phase, into conformity the new SPS regulation of the European Union. 
Senegal noted that, out of the four options in EU Directive 2019/523 on the control of fruit flies, only 
the option focusing on a systemic approach for phytosanitary risk management was applicable to its 
condition. This was notified to DG Health and Food Safety of the European Union in August 2019. 
Senegal  informed that the production and post -harvest mandatory good practices of the  National 
Plant Protection Organization  were now part of the approval criteria for exporters and that the 
monitoring and control mechanism had been reinforced through operative p rocedures, such as 
registration, categorization, traceability and notification tracking. Regarding the Directive's 
requirement of additional post-harvest quarantine treatments, hot water treatment was the most 
suitable due to costs and adaptability, but it  require d suitable installations that were not available 
for all operators; rigorous monitoring of the activities, in line with ISMP 14 and 35, w ould be 
performed instead. Senegal indicated that the notification system of pest interceptions ( ISPM 13 ) 
had resulted in higher compliance levels of mangoes.  
2.9.  Senegal highlighted that the mango industry represent ed more than 55% of its annual 
production of fruits , employ ed more than 35 ,000 persons and had an important impact on poverty 
reduction. Export s of fresh mangos represent ed more than 20 million FCFA, of which an important 
part was distributed to the rural households that own ed the orchards providing the fruit to exporters.  
2.10.   The European Union thanked Senegal for the information provided and congratulated it  for its 
efforts. The European Union noted that technical assistance was being provided under the Fit for 
Market Program me and that hopefully  it was helping the authorities in Senegal to achieve their 
objectives. Finally, the European Union indicated that its delegation in Dakar was available  to 
determine if there were other ways to assist  Senegal.  
2.1.6   Mexico – Update on the regulatory framework  
2.11.   Mexico referred to the information provided in  its communication G/SPS/GEN/1737 , 
concerning the  modification to the animal health export certificate , which  had entered into force on 
1 November 2019. Mexico noted that the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER) , 
through the National Agriculture and Food Health, Safety and Quality Servic e (SENASICA) , was the G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  entity in -charge of its implementation. Mexico also referred to the information on the transition 
process for the implementation of the Mexican Digital Window for Foreign Trade.  
2.1.7   Belize – Simulation for Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubens e 
2.12.   Belize  provided  inform ation on the simulation for Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense tropical 
race 4, the strain that causes fusarium wilt or Panama disease in Cavendish cultivars . This simulation  
would  be conducted by the Plant Health Department of the B elize Agricultural Health Authority 
(BAHA) , with the Regional International Organisation for Agricultural Health (OIRSA), the Ministry 
of Agriculture, the Banana Industry and other relevant stakeholders later in 2019 . The simulation 
would respond to OIRSA countries' efforts to exclude the disease from the region, to prepar e 
contingency measures in case  the disease was detected, as a follow -up to the regional pest risk 
analysis conducted in 2018. Belize mentioned other ongoing efforts to prevent the entry of  the 
disease, such as screening of incoming passengers at the points of entry, public awareness efforts, 
and appropriate phytosanitary measures for the importation of potential pathways. Belize underlined 
that the disease ha d spread to most banana -producin g countries in Asia, had been  reported in Africa , 
and reached South America in 2019 . Estimated  losses amounted to USD 121 million in Indonesia, 
USD 253.3 million in Taiwan and USD 14.1 million in Malaysia. Belize indicated that the banana 
industry was an association of 22 farms that gr ew and export ed fresh quality bananas and comprise d 
of 6500 acres (or 2630.5 ha), contributing approximately USD  40 million in turnover and 20% of 
total agricultural exports, employing over 35 ,000 people.  
2.2  Information from C odex , IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
2.2.1   Codex  
2.13.   Codex  provided a summary of its activities, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1734 . Codex reported 
that the Codex Alimentarius Commission had adopted several  standards and other texts, including 
MRLs for 32 different pesticides in various foods and feeds and 154 food additives pro visions in the 
General Standard for Food Additives . Codex also indicated that the Codex Committee on Food 
Hygiene would proceed with its work on re vision of the General Principles of Food Hygiene and its 
HACCP Annex.  The Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance would discuss 
the revision of the Code of Good Practice to Minimize and Contain Antimicrobial Resistance and on 
develo pment of guidelines on integrated surveillance of antimicrobial resistance.  
2.14.   Codex highlighted that  the Codex Strategic Plan 2020 -2025, adopted by the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission , included an additional goal to increase impact through recognition and 
use of Codex standards.  An implementation work plan was under development and there w ould be 
outreach to both Members and Observers requesting input to the work plan before CAC43. 
The Codex Secretariat had recently developed a paper on the history and implications of the 
Statements of Principle, following concerns of some Members regarding their application. To address 
these concerns, work was now underway to develop guidance on the  operationalization of the se 
standards.  
2.2.2   IPPC  
2.15.   The IPPC highlighted several points from its report , contained in document  G/SPS/GEN/1741 . 
The IPPC highlighted the  eight development agenda items on which it would be concentrating over 
the next ten years , which included  harmonization of electronic data exchange and strengthening 
pest outbreak alert and response systems.  The IPPC Strategic Framework (2020 -2030) had been 
endorsed at  the 14th Commission on Phytosanitary Measures ( CPM-14), held  in 2019.  The IPPC 
secretariat ha d developed a Theory of Change to help contracting parties understand their 
contributions to the Strategic Objectives in the S trategic Framework , the FAO Strategic Objectives 
and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals.  The IPPC also referred to its work on the Phytosanitary 
Capacity Evaluation  tool, and updated Members on the completion of its work on ePhyto , with STDF 
support . 
2.16.   The IPPC reported that its e-commerce action plan would include establishment of an inter -
agency network and development of a joint inter -agency toolkit for regulation and screening of 
e-commerce.  The IPPC reiterated that  2020 is the  International  Year of Plant Health  (IYPH) . In 
preparation, IPPC , in collaboration with  the IYPH Steering Committee, would be organizing  events G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  in Rome and New York City, at FAO and UN Headquarters respectively, during the month of 
December.  The IPPC also highlighted that t he thi rd meeting of the IPPC Sea Containers Task Force 
had taken place in the United States in September 2019 , where an IPPC best practice guideline  on 
measures to minimize pest contamination had been developed and would be soon made available 
to the stakeholders.  
2.2.3   OIE 
2.17.   The OIE outlined its report, contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1735 . It highlight ed the 
discussions of the four specialized commissions which had met in September 2019 . The revised draft 
BSE Chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Code update d the provisions on official BSE ri sk category, 
reflecting the latest scientific evidence . The revision of the avian influenza chapter considered  the 
differences between Members when responding to HPAI and LPAI outbreaks . The Code Commission 
had also developed a new Chapter on "Official Control of Listed Diseases and Emerging Diseases ", 
which w ould be proposed for adoption at the OIE General Session in May 2020.  The OIE also shared 
information on the World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS). Since 2016, the OIE had 
initiate d a ten -year process of modernization of WAHIS , which will incorporate transdisciplinary and 
holistic data collection , not only aimed at animal diseases, but also public health , and would 
progressively add environmental data.  The OIE also highlighted the process for evaluating 
Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS)  to achieve sustainable improvement s of national 
veterinary services . In 2018, a reflection forum had been convened wherein new commitment 
options for the PVS process had been designed to increa se country ownership, positive impacts and 
sustainable change.  Finally,  the OIE shared information on regional seminars which had been 
organized in 2018 -2019, aimed at providing participants with an understanding of OIE standards  
and their association with  the WTO framework.  
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/R ev.19) 
3.1  New issues  
3.1.  Before the adoption of the agenda, Peru withdrew a specific trade concern regarding Colombia's 
restrictions on coffee imports.  
3.1.1   Thailand's approval procedures for imports of pork and other animal products – 
Concerns of Brazil and the European Uni on 
3.2.  Brazil  raised a concern regarding Thailand's approval procedures for imports of pork and other 
animal products. Brazil ha d tried to access the Thai markets for pork and live cattle and genetic 
material since 2016. Brazil explained that usually, exporting countries had to provide answers to a 
questionnaire to initiate the risk analysis procedures , but Brazil  had not received the questions 
because, according to Thai authorities, the questionnaires were under review. Brazil a cknowledged 
the right of importing countries to update their questionnaires but  stated that this procedure  had to  
be undertaken and completed without undue delay.  
3.3.  The European Union expressed its concern that the approval procedures for imports of pork in 
Thailand were performed with unjustified delays, leading to 11 EU member States with pending 
applications, some since 2011. The European Union explained that Thailand's approval procedures 
had been repeatedly revised and re -organized over the past years an d that the agreed timelines for 
intermediate steps in the were not respected, which delayed the final approval. Each application was 
analysed separately . In the EU view, the overall approval process could be accelerated if the 
applications were bundled , because all the EU member States produce d pork under fully harmonized 
rules of animal health and process hygiene. The European Union  urged Thailand to comply with its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement , apply transparent and swift approval procedures , and to grant 
market access for EU pork.  
3.4.  Thailand referred to notification G/SPS/N/THA/243  and G/SPS/N/THA/244 , whereby it 
circulated the drafts of the approval procedures for import of live animals and animal products and 
the procedure for import of animal feed derived from animals. Thailand mentioned that the 
procedures entered into force on 5 November 2018 and 28 January 2019, after the drafts were 
circulated to the Members, a 60 -day comment period was allowed, and response to the comments 
was given [and noted that its market access procedure was based on a ris k analysis, as required].  G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.5.  Thailand explained that it received many requests for importation of livestock products from 
several countries and that there were currently at least 23 countries and more than 20 livestock 
products undergoing market access proces ses. Thailand indicated that livestock products such as 
pork and swine offal, beef and bovine offal, breeding swine and their genetics, breeding bovine s and 
their genetics, day -old-chick and hatching eggs, and processed animal proteins derived from swine, 
bovine s and poultry, as well as blood meals and plasma powder from several countries, including EU 
member States, ha d been approved for importation. Thailand also reported that it  had completed 
the inspection of beef establishments in Brazil and had provid ed the questionnaire for the evaluation 
of importation of day -old chicks and hatching eggs and was waiting for the requested information.  
3.1.2   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.6.  The European Union  raised a concern regarding the Philippines ' country -wide bans on import s 
of meat products from nine EU member States on grounds of ASF, which were not based on OIE 
standards or on regionalization principle s. The European Union remarked that one of the EU member 
State affected by the ban , Germany , had never had an outbreak of ASF on its territory, and another , 
the Czech Republic , had been  free from ASF since more than a year and a half. The Philippine 's 
suspension of import of all meat products f rom Germany was a disproportionate and unjustified 
reaction; and bans of import s of pork meat from the other EU member States lack ed scientific 
justification and went against the principle of regionalization . Hence, the measures were  inconsistent 
with Article 2.2 as well as Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. The E uropean Union regretted that the 
said measures imposing bans continued despite the transparency of regionalization measures put in 
place by EU member States, in compliance with OIE recommendations,  and provision of all necessary 
evidence to the Philippines to demonstrate that the EU measures would guarantee continuation of 
safe trade.  
3.7.  The Philippines  replied that its measures were based on OIE guidelines for regionalization.  
The Philippines explained that the measure to restrict import s of meat from countries with ASF 
outbreak s was a provisional precautionary measure based on available pertinent information , 
consistent with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.  The Philippines ha d been receptive to technical 
information provided by the E uropean Union  and had continuously been seeking to obtain additional 
information that was necessary to review the provisional measure.  In determining areas free of the 
disease , as stipulated under Arti cle 6.1 of the SPS Agreement, it consider ed the effectiveness of 
controls. The effectiveness of the interventions must be supported by convincing evidence of disease 
contraction or elimination, which w ould build the confidence of the Philippines in EU control 
measures. However, the validated reports from the European Union show ed alarming dispersion.  
In 2018-2019, four of nine inspection missions relevant to approval procedures had been  for EU 
member States. Comparing the January -September period for 2018 -2019, Philippine  meat import s 
had decreased slightly.  Finally, the Philippines welcomed continued consultations with the 
European  Union to further discuss the matter.  
3.1.3   EU sanitary requirement for importation  of hoof and horn – Concerns of Indonesia2 
3.8.  Indonesia  expressed its concern regarding sanitary requirements of Germany for importation 
of hoof and horn. Indonesia highlighted that processed hoof and horn from Indonesia had secured 
a credible trading partner  in Germany.  Indonesia explained that it had requested market access by 
submitting a communication through the Directorate General of Health and Food Safety of the 
Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture of Germany. Indonesia had also followed up the said  request 
in a bilateral meeting in March 2019, during a previous SPS Committee meeting. Indonesia called 
upon the relevant authorities to clarify the sanitary requirements for imports of processed hoof and 
horn and expressed willingness to work closely on this issue with the European Union and with 
Germany.  
3.9.  The European Union began by clarifying that the requirements in question were harmonized 
within the European Union. Import requirements were the same across all EU member States. 
The European Union drew Members' attention to specific Regulation 1069/2009 which laid down the 
requirements and conditions of production of animal by -products. The requirements stated that the 
 
2 The title of this STC as reflected in the airgram was "Germany's sanitary re quirement for Importation 
of hood and horn". However, the European Union clarified that the requirements in question were contained in 
an EU regulation, as explained below.  G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  exporting country had to be included on a list of authorized countries, the establishm ents of origin 
had to be approved by competent authorities and the product must be accompanied by a health 
certificate. The authorisation requests received in this regard were processed by the EU institutions, 
not by individual EU member States. Indonesia' s request for authorization to export hoof and horn 
to the European Union was under examination and the internal consultation process had yet not 
been completed. The outcome of the assessment would be shared at the earliest. 
The European  Union looked forwa rd to bilateral discussions to reach a solution.   
3.1.4   The Russian Federation's maximum limit of 3 -monochloropropanediol ( 3MCPD ) and 
glycidyl ester ( GE) in palm oil products – Concerns of Indonesia  
3.10.   Indonesia  expressed its concern regarding the maximum limit of 3MCPD in isolates, 
concentrates, hydrolysates, and texturates of vegetable protein; food meal and flour with different 
fat cont ent from seeds of legumes, oil seeds, and non -traditional crops; and of GE in oils from 
vegetables, including palm oil . Indonesia referred to document G/SPS/N/RUS/152 , containing the 
notification of the Russian Federation of the decision of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) 
Collegium on amendments to the common sanitary , epidemiological and hygienic requirements for 
products subject to sanitary  and epidemiological supervision, introducing a n MRL in food products 
for 3MCPD, glycidol, and glycidol esters.  
3.11.   Indonesia explained that the MRL of 3MCPD was set at 0.02 mg/kg for several products; 
whereas the MRL for GE varied for food products for infan ts and was set to 1mg/kg for vegetable 
oils. Indonesia noted that Codex ha d not set any standard for 3MCPD and GE and it was not clear 
whether the measures were in line with the FAO/WHO evaluation. Indonesia invited the 
Russian  Federation to provide its re asoning and scientific justification . 
3.12.   Malaysia and Colombia thanked Indonesia for raising the concern and expressed their interest 
to continue monitoring the development of the issue. They thanked the Russian Federation for the 
information it could provide  on the said matter.  
3.13.   The Russian Federation highlighted that harmoniz ing its SPS measures with international 
standards, guidelines, and recommendations was one of its legislative priorities, shared by  the 
Eurasian Economic Commission. The Russian announced  that it ha d not applied new regulatory 
measures for vegetable oils. It explained that the issue under discussion at the Eurasian Economic 
Commission concern ed vegetable oils for human consumption and food raw materials. This decision 
to set MRLs for some products was based on the FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and 
other scientific evidence. The Russian Federation announced that these amendments had not 
entered into force, pending consecutive amendments to the MRLs for GE and 3MCPD . Once the dra ft 
amendments to the technical regulation were finalized, it would provide transitional periods to allow 
stakeholders to conform with the new requirements  and would  be available to Members for 
comments.  
3.1.5   EU Regulation on high risk plants (Regulation (EU) 20 16/2031) – Concerns of Israel  
3.14.   Israel  raised a concern regarding EU Regulation 2016/2031  notified in G/SPS/N/EU/272 , 
dealing with i mportation of high -risk plants , which w ould enter into force on 14  December 2019.  
The European Union had sent a clarification letter to all IPPC contact points in May 2019, which 
stated that introduction of plants listed as high -risk plants from non -EU cou ntries would be allowed 
only if (1) that country ha d submitted a demand for the import ation together with the technical 
dossie r; (2) t he dossier ha d been assessed ; and (3) the E uropean Union had decided whether and 
under which conditions the prohibition would be lifted . 
3.15.   Israel remarked that  listing of the specific plant genera  lacked scientific justification  and 
imposition of the ban was disproportionate to actual risk , rendering the EU measure  inconsistent 
with Articles 2.2, 5.4 and 5.8 of the SPS Agreement.  Israel further regretted that the European Union 
was unable to carry out the risk analysis in an expedient manner . EFSA's information requirements 
increased the  burden and necessitated mult iple additional submissions of information, some of which 
did not appear relevant  to assessment of risk emanating from Israel , in contradiction with 
Annex  C(1)(c) of the SPS Agreement.  Israel was exporting 12 of the plants on the high -risk plant 
list to th e European Union , and information dossiers on five plant genera ha d been submitted , but 
the assessment ha d not been completed on any of the dossiers.  The uncertainty imposed by the G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  prospective ban had severely affected Israel 's producers and disrupted ongo ing trade.  Israel urged 
the European Union to reconsider the letter sent to IPPC contact points  and perform risk assessment s 
on plants while continuing ongoing trade.  
3.16.    Canada expressed its concern about the approaching deadline of 14 December , when the EU 
Regulation would come into force. Canada had been working with the European Union to seek 
clarification on the process of continuing trade beyond the deadline, as well as information required 
by the European Union for development of a comprehensive dossier . Canada called  for additional 
time to be allotted for further bilateral consultations with other Members before any trade -restrictive 
measures would be  put into place. Canada suggested that the 14 December deadline be maintained 
only for submission of information; then  a transition period of at least six months should allow for 
trade to continue, during which  the European Union would undertake comprehens ive dossier 
review s, complete risk assessment s and a collaborative consultation process.  
3.17.   The United States shared the concern. The US statement i s contained in G/SPS/GEN/1748 . 
3.18.   Kenya also invited the European Union to consider granting a longer t ransition  period  to 
complete pest risk  analys es under the said EU measure , particularly in the case of developing 
countries . 
3.19.   The European Union remarked that Regulation 2016/2031 was necessary to ensure the 
appropriate level of protection in the European Union. The measure had been adopted aft er a 
preliminary assessment had revealed that some plant species posed high risks. The European Union 
highlighted the efforts made to disseminate information on the new plant health regime and 
minimize trade disruption. EFSA had published guidance in Octob er 2018 and organised two 
webinars in 2019 to assist national authorities in preparation of dossiers. In response to Israel, the 
European Union clarified that the first two dossiers that had been submitted, in relation to 
Albizia  julibrissin  and Robinia pseudoacacia , were still under review.  
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.20.   Before the adoption of the agenda, Peru withdrew STC 430 regarding the EU's maximum level 
of cadmium in foodstuffs, and China withdrew STC 442 regarding EU Commission decision 
2002/994 /EC on animal products.  
3.2.1   EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, 
imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim – Concerns of 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Guatemala, India,  Panama and Paraguay 
(No. 448 , see also related STCs No s. 453, 454, 457 ) 
3.21.   Colombia  referred to document G/SPS/GEN/1740/Rev.1  which contained  questions by 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, and Guatemala in relation to the EU MRLs and, 
specifically, to imazalil. Colombia requested the European Union to provide written responses  to 
those questions , if possible . Costa Rica reiterated its concern on the EU measures. Regarding 
chlorothalonil, Costa Rica underscored its use for the control  of black sigatoka in banana s and the 
acknowledgement by the European Union of the lack of conclusive evidence on dietary dosage, MRLs 
in plants, and exposure in animals. Costa Rica again invited the European Union to apply Codex 
MRLs or to provide conclusive scientific evidence to sup port lower levels; to perform a substance - 
and product -specific risk assessment, based on the provisions of the SPS Agreement, to identify less 
trade restrictive measure s; and to grant a minimum transition period of 24 months.  
3.22.   Côte d'Ivoire reiterated its statement from the last Committee meeting, emphasizing the 
socioeconomic impact of the measure due to the importance of the banana industry and its exports 
to the European Union. Côte d'Ivoire called the European Union to abide by the principles of the SPS  
Agreement , and requested a change in the transition period, taking into consideration the interests 
of the developing countries, as there was no product that c ould replace imazalil.  
3.23.   Ecuador reiterated its concern, particularly for substances used in Ecuad or: buprofezin, 
chlorothalonil, and imazalil. Ecuador highlighted that, due to its tropical climate, the spread of pests 
and diseases follow ed different patterns from those in European countries. Ecuador also referred to 
document G/SPS/GEN/1740/Rev.1  and requested that the European Union provide written answers. G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Ecuador emphasized that the SPS Agreement require d that Members' measures not restrict trade 
more th an necessary to achieve the appropriate level of protection, considering technical and 
economic viability. The European Union was adopting a policy of suspension of approvals of several 
active substances and the reduction of the MRLs to the minimum detecti on level, without sound 
scientific evidence. The European Union was depart ing from Codex  standards. Ecuador invited the 
European Union to keep its MRLs only on a provisional basis until it ha d the necessary information 
to establish safe, science -based MRLs  that offer ed adequate protection and avoid ed unnecessary 
barriers to trade.  
3.24.   Guatemala shared the concern, underscoring that these measures could have a negative 
impact on exports  of agricultural products, affecting food safety and rural development ; key 
cooperation topics with the European Union. Guatemala requested the European Union to grant an 
implementation period of at least 24 months to allow studies to identify alternative substances, 
which would be less trade  restrictive. The current 6 -month transi tion period was not enough  to adapt 
production and  comply with existing exportation contracts. Guatemala also referred to document 
G/SPS/GEN/1740/Rev.1  and added two questions. First, whether there was enough scientific 
evidence to characterize imazalil  as a carcinogen an d, if so, if the information could be shared. 
Second, whether there were clinic al trials that demonstrate d the carcinogenic potential of imazalil.  
3.25.   India reiterated its concern and considered that regulations must be grounded in sound 
science and based on determinations of actual risk that consider ed realistic exposure scenarios, 
rather than the presumption of hazard. India noted that, in addition to setting MRLs at trade 
restrictive default levels, the EU measures d id not provide adequate transition times.  
3.26.   Panama emphasized that the European Union was its main export market for banana s and 
pineapples,  and that the main producers were vulnerable populations. Panama noted that these 
measures would affect their socio -economic welfare, as several substances, such as buprofezin, 
chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, and picoxystrobin , were key to protect their crops. Panama requested 
that all Mem bers abide by international standards to ensure rule s-based, safe, and fair trade and 
called on the European Union to provide the risk analysis underlying the  measures, as well as to 
consider the climatic and environmental differences between the regions.  
3.27.   Paraguay reiterated its concern, particularly on diflubenzuron, chlorothalonil, glufosinate, and 
picoxystrobin , used to produce key export products such as corn, sesame, soy, and wheat. Paraguay 
requested that the European Union provide sound scientific ev idence justifying the measures and 
abide by the international standards set by Codex, to ensure that trade was not restricted more than 
necessary.  
3.28.   Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, the 
United  States and Uruguay  also shared this concern. Several Members highlighted the need for 
sound scientific evidence and the importance of basing the measures on risk assessments , as 
opposed to the use of a hazard -based or precautionary approach. They called upon the 
European  Union to abide by the international standards set by Codex to ensure public health and 
avoid unnecessary barriers to trade. Several Members also referred to the transitional periods and 
requested that the European  Union notify the SPS Committee well in advan ce about changes in its 
measures , to allow for comments from other  Members and to consider the need of exporters to 
adapt their products and methods of production to the requirements.  
3.29.   The United States statement can be found in document G/SPS/GEN/1749 . 
3.30.   The Dominican Republic reiterat ed the intervention made during the last Committee meeting 
and mentioned that the EU measures would affect its exports, particularly of bananas, mango s, and 
avocado s, that represent around 20% of the total annual exportations of food products, whose main 
market is the European Union.  
3.31.   Canada recognized that Members have the right to apply food safety measures necessary to 
protect human health while not unjustifiably restricting international trade. Canada invited the 
European Union to ensure that the require ments d id not unjustifiably discriminate between domestic 
producers and foreign exporters.  G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.32.   Uruguay referred to the recent adoption, during the 20th Ordinary Meeting of the 
Inter-American Board of Agriculture held in Costa Rica, of a resolution emphasizing the need to 
promote agricultural regulations based on science and risk analysis to facilitate international trade 
in safe food and agricultural products . The objective was to avoid  the proliferation of non -tariff 
barriers such as MRLs that lack ed scientific and technical justification and generate d a negative 
impact on production, productivity, and trade. Uruguay urged the European Union to reflect on the 
concerns expressed by an important number of Members and to reconsider its regulatory approac h 
to avoid serious socioeconomical consequences this entail ed for other Members, particularly for 
developing countries and LDCs.  
3.33.   Brazil thanked the United States for the update on JMPR activities . Brazil explained that some 
of the substances were commonly used in a variety of crops; for instance, buprofezin was used in 
the integrated pest management control of the white fly in soybean crops and of the Asian citrus 
psyllid in citrus. Brazil highlighted that the evaluations by EMA and EFSA were not conclusive  
regarding the genotoxic and carcinogenic qualities of buprofezin and related it to the production of 
aniline, a substance present naturally in plant products in higher concentrations. Brazil referred to 
the EU procedures adopted to establish the measures and, specifically , to the notification of 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/360, with the objective of protecting human and 
animal health, characterized by the attention provided to "operators' and workers' safety" and the 
"risk to aquatic organ isms" , submitted to the TBT Committee.  
3.34.   The European Union recalled its previous statements, highlighting that its decisions were 
based on a thorough risk assessment and followed rigorous procedures, as stated in publicly 
available EU legislation. The Europ ean Union noted that, despite its high levels of protection, it was 
one of the largest importers of agri -food products, with increasing import volumes from several 
Members since 2008, when the systematic review process of MRLs had started. Regarding specif ic 
substances, the European Union referred to its statements in previous meetings. The European Union 
indicated that the longest possible transition periods had already been provided, without 
compromising on its level of protection, since health concerns p revailed over other considerations. 
Finally, the European Union announced its intention to notify the approval or non -renewal of 
substances under the TBT and the SPS Agreements in parallel, to further improve transparency and 
predictability.3 
3.2.2   EU legislatio n on endocrine disruptors – Concerns of Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, 
Paraguay and the United States (No. 382)  
3.35.   Ecuador reiterated its  concern and requested  that the European Union base its measures on 
the SPS Agreement , without  disguised restriction s on trad e. Ecuador considered that the 
classification criteria for endocrine disruptors c ould be a good starting point to characterize the 
toxicity of a chemical substance, especially for pesticides, but that it was important to consider in 
vivo, in vitro and in s ilico trials. Ecuador noted that these criteria would also need to  consider 
scientific evidence based on animal testing and epidemiological analyses of exposed populations to 
avoid assuming the existence of adverse effects. The EU Regulation did not consid er the definition 
of MRLs to ensure minimum risk under specific exposure conditions and whereby appropriate levels 
of protection were established. Ecuador highlighted the importance of using the three pillars of risk 
analysis - namely risk assessment, mana gement, and communication -for decision -making. 
Finally,  Ecuador invited the European Union to revise its criteria using the risk analysis principle , and 
to develop a methodological tool that allow ed to determine the actual adverse effects on human 
health based on real scenarios.  
3.36.   Guatemala expressed the concern that the EU measure was hazard -based as opposed to 
risk-based . Guatemala  invited the European Union to adopt a risk assessment approach to det ermine 
and regulate endocrine disruptors, applying criteria supported by adequate scientific data, according 
to its commitments under the SPS Agreement.  
3.37.   Panama recalled that this concern ha d been on the agenda for more than two years and that, 
the measures  could  carry serious consequences, especially for the farmers, who were the most 
 
3 The European Union subsequently submitted written responses to the questions rais ed in 
G/SPS/GEN/ 1740/Rev.1  regarding STC 448. These responses are contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1753 . G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
  vulnerable populations in developing countries. Panama invited the European Union to provide 
conclusive risk analyses and not to take hazard -based decisions.  
3.38.   Paraguay reitera ted its concern that the EU measure could affect a high volume of its exports, 
with the economic implications that this entail ed for a developing country. Paraguay requested that 
the European Union adopt levels of protection that d id not restrict trade mor e than necessary , to 
adopt  the Codex  standards and, where this was not possible, to provide conclusive scientific 
evidence, as well as to ensure tolerance to importations. Paraguay urged the European Union to 
send its full statements and answers in written  to the Committee.  
3.39.   The United States reiterated its concern on this matter. The statement can be found in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1750 . 
3.40.   Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, 
Malaysia, Uruguay, and Peru also supported this STC and called upon  the European Union to set 
criteria based on risk assessments  and sound scientific evidence , and to reconsider its hazard -based 
approach to regulating active substances in plant protection products. Some Members requested 
that the European Union harmonize its MRLs with Codex  standards , as required by the 
SPS Agreement, and to avoid the removal of plant protection chemicals from the market, despite 
their previously established safety, which could lead to future trade concerns. They invited the 
European Union  to take Members ' concerns and comments into consideration and avoid imposing 
trade -restrictive measures when setting import tolerances.  
3.41.   Canada reiterated its concern with the trade implications of the EU approach to the regulation 
of active substances in plant protection products, and, specifically, to setting import tolerances. 
The current case -by-case approach did not provide clarity or predictability to producers and did not 
address timing and transition measures. Canada emphasized that the European Union should clarify 
its approach and urged it to consider both hazards and risks for all active substances in its regulatory 
decision -making. Finally, Canada welcomed the EU offer to hold seminars to address concerns and 
answer questions on the hazard -based approach and hoped that they would provide detailed 
information on the process to set an import tolerance for an active substance falling under the cut -off 
criteria.  
3.42.   Chinese  Taipei supported enhancing public health and environmental protection by properly 
regulating endocrine disrupting substances but emphasized that the precautionary principle could 
cause trade uncertainty.  
3.43.   Australia highlighted that the EU legislation for p lant protection products provide d that active 
substances which were endocrine disruptors should not be approved unless there was negligible 
exposure, in which case they could be approved under restricted conditions.  
3.44.   Argentina noted that the EU's hazard -based approach did not consider essential elements in 
hazard  characterization, such as potential, severity, and reversibility of the effects. Argentina 
recalled the existence of less trade restrictive options in the original EU proposal, which granted the 
same level of protection as the criteria finally adopted.  
3.45.   Uruguay reiterated its commercial and systemic concern and evoked the statement of India 
during the past Codex committee on pesticides residues regarding the need to implement a 
risk-based approach to  allow the use of pesticides whose withdrawal could affect sustainable 
agricultural production, food safety and international trade of food products. Uruguay supported the 
work of Codex for the development of a harmonized risk -based approach.  
3.46.   Brazil reiter ated its concern and mentioned that an analysis carried out in a precautionary 
manner could result in the identification of endocrine active compounds of no relevance to health. 
Although Members had the  right to establish a higher level of protection Brazi l was of the view that 
a Member deviat ing from a well -established international standard  had to gather the necessary 
information when studies were inconclusive. Brazil was also concerned that the European Union 
reaffirmed its position and announced more re strictive measures in the future.  
3.47.   The European Union explained that there had been no significant changes since the last 
meeting. The European Union recognized that endocrine disruptors were one category of the cut off G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
  criteria substances it had identified  and that there was no detailed guidance for related requests, as 
there was not a single instance where MRLs were reduced due to cut off criteria. The European Union 
further noted that the current criteria for endocrine disruptors had been in place for a l ong time, 
were based on WHO criteria, and that there was no plan to revisit them. Regarding the hazard -based 
approach, the European Union noted that it was limited to a few categories of hazards.  
Substances  for which the regulators decided that it was not possible to establish safe levels of 
exposure could not be approved. The European Union reminded Members that import tolerance 
requests underwent the risk assessment process established in its regulation on residues.  
3.48.   Regarding the precautionary principle,  the European Union explained that the level of 
tolerance to risk from residues of pesticides in the EU was low and, therefore, its levels of protection 
were high. Regarding "other factors ", the European Union stated that relevant legislation referred to 
legitimate factors, although they had not been codified. The European Union reiterated its intention 
to remain transparent. All decisions had been and would be in the public domain, with an opportunity 
to comment. In response to Brazil's comments, the Europ ean Union noted that, in the context of a 
pre-market approval system, the applicant needed to demonstrate that it reached the importer's 
level of protection, even when the latter had set a higher one. The European Union reiterated that 
it would continue en gaging in discussions with Members. Finally, the European Union announced an 
international conference on pesticides, where its policies would be discussed.  The relevant 
information would be circulated once the date had been set.  
3.2.3   New EU MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin – Concerns of China (No. 4 59) 
3.49.   China reiterated its concern that the amended EU MRLs were not based on risk assessments, 
but rather on the lack of relevant data, which was not in compliance with the SPS Agreement. China 
again requested that the European Union provide a transition period of at least one year for tea 
producers.  
3.50.   Paraguay was concerned that the EU MRLs had been lowered to 0.01 mg/kg for this and other 
substances, even though Codex had established appropriate le vels, and invited the European Union 
to follow international standards to avoid unnecessary restrictions to trade. Paraguay noted that this 
substance was used in corn and wheat production, two key export products.  
3.51.   The European Union recalled its previous s tatements on this topic and mentioned that 
although the Codex MRLs were considered, the European Union had concluded that there were no 
safe levels for these commodities, which was why the limit of quantification was applied. Transitional 
measures had been  applied until January 2019. The European Union invited China and Paraguay to 
request import tolerances and to submit information to revise the MRLs, if deemed appropriate.   
3.2.4   New EU definition of the fungicide folpet – Concerns of China (No. 447)  
3.52.   China reit erated its concern on the new EU definition for the fungicide folpet and invited the 
European Union to align its measures with the Codex residue definition of folpet.  
3.53.   The European Union replied that there was not much progress to be reported on this issue.  
The residue definition was still under consideration and the peer review was still in process. 
The European Union assured China that it would report on any developments in due course.   
3.2.5   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic  avian 
influenza – Concerns of the European Union (No. 431)  
3.54.   The European Union reiterated its ongoing concern  with South Africa 's approach to regulating 
HPAI.  The European Union regretted that South Africa maintained country -wide bans on poultry 
products from six EU member States , even though the se States had been free from HPAI for many 
months.  The European Union had been in discussions with South Africa to explain its regionalization 
system , which was implemented in line with the OIE standards.  South Africa had also carried out 
inspections in three  EU member States . The European Union called for South Africa to respect its 
obligations and allow trade of all safe poultry products from the diseas e-free EU member States and 
expressed its willingness to engage in further discussions to minimize disruptions in case of future 
outbreaks.  G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
  3.55.   South Africa  responded that it had previously  expressed  concerns in the SPS Committee about 
control  of HPAI  within t he European Union, specifically , on application  of regionalization as per the 
OIE guidelines.  In a bilateral meeting with the European Union  on 28 October 2019 , South Africa  
had discussed the issue of regionalization  and provided feedback on the progress with the evaluation 
of information provided by EU member States . South Africa remarked that both parties had agreed 
to continue to engage constructively  on this matter.  
3.2.6   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic  avian influenza – Concerns of 
the European Union (No. 406)  
3.56.   The European Union raised its continued concern with China's imposition, since 2015, of 
country -wide bans on several EU member States on account of HPAI. The European Union welcomed 
recent progres s that had been made towards resolution of this issue, as some EU member States 
such as Poland, Spain and the Slovak Republic had regained disease -free status. The European Union 
urged China to recognize the principles of regionalization and reiterated its  interest in constructively 
engaging with China in dealing with this issue.  
3.57.   China reiterated that China has a large animal husbandry sector with the largest poultry 
population in the world. Poultry meat is the main source of protein for consumers. Once a m ajor 
poultry disease is introduced, it will not only have a significant impact on the relevant poultry raising 
industry, but also affect the food supply. Some major animal epidemic diseases are hard to prevent 
and control, such as highly pathogenic avian i nfluenza, which is an acute infectious disease and is 
mainly transmitted by wild birds. Consumers and the industry are highly concerned about such 
diseases, and the Chinese government maintains a highly cautious attitude toward them.  
3.58.   China expressed its wi llingness to adopt technological means such as regionalization or 
bio-safety compartmentalization to solve the avian influenza problem in accordance with the relevant 
OIE standards China had completed avian influenza assessments for the United Kingdom, Spa in and 
Slovakia, and was negotiating technical standards or bio -safety compartmentalization for 
regionalization with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Additionally, China had signed 
memorandums of cooperation with Russia and the United Kingdom on avi an influenza regionalization 
or bio -safety compartmentalization. China called for bi -directional application of technical standards 
for avian influenza regionalization or bio -safety compartmentalization with the aim to solve both 
Members' safety concerns i n relation to avian influenza and to realize two -way trade.  
3.2.7   Turkey's FMD -related import restrictions on live cattle – Concerns of Argentina 
(No. 461) 
3.59.   Argentina  reiterated its concern regarding the FMD -related restrictions  maintained  despite the 
technical i nformation sent to Turkey. Argentina reported that the private sectors of both countries 
had had some exchanges with the competent authorities, but that there ha d been no positive result 
so far. Argentina urged Turkey to abide by the provisions in the SPS Agreement.  
3.60.   Turkey mentioned that its legislation on the matter was still in force. Turkey referred to its 
EU membership negotiation process and the alignment to EU regulation s and restated that the details 
of the new legislation had been given in the previ ous Committee meeting.  
3.2.8   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union (No.  193)  
3.61.   The European Union reiterated its concern about unjustified and prolonged delay s in 
approving import s of beef by several WTO Members on account of concerns in relation to BSE.  Such 
unjustified delays in approval procedures were in contradiction of Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS 
Agreement.  The European Union welcomed the progress made by Japan and the Re public of Korea 
in approving imports from several EU member States and hoped that the remaining applications 
would also be finalized shortly.  The European Union urged WTO Members to lift remaining restrictions 
on for all EU member States, in furtherance of  international standards and obligations under the SPS 
Agreement.  G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 16 - 
 
  3.2.9   Ukraine's restrictions on swine products – Concerns of Brazil  (No. 463) 
3.62.   Brazil expressed its concern  about Ukraine 's continued embargo  on Brazilian pork and other 
swine products.  Brazil expl ained that it had a zone free from Classical Swine Fever (CSF) , which had 
been recognized by  the OIE in 2015.  This free zone concentrated over 95% of swine production and 
100% of export s of pigs and pig products.  Brazil had notified an occurrence of CSF to the OIE in 
2018, which had occurred 500 kilometres away from the border of its disease -free zone.  
These  outbreaks did not alter the international recognition granted to the disease -free zone.  
Brazil  had been providing all technical clarifications that had been requested by Ukraine  and had 
also held a bilateral meeting in March 2019.   
3.63.   Brazil underscored that  the notification of the CSF outbreak had been submitted to the OIE in 
due observance of the OIE Guid elines  on Immediate Notifica tion of a Disease , within 24 hours of 
receiving confirmation via laboratory analysis.  Brazil followed strict surveillance and risk -mitigation 
procedures to prevent introduction of the disease into the disease -free zone . Brazil remarked that 
Ukraine was the  only Member to impose restrictions on importation and transit of Brazilian swine 
products . This was in non -compliance with  Resolution No. 29 of 25 May 2018  containing the model 
health certificate that was bilaterally agreed, and Decree No. 71 of the Cabin et of Ministers of Ukraine  
of 2004 , which specified that Brazil should be divided into regions  with respect to trade restrictions  
imposed due to incidence of CSF.  Brazil, therefore, called upon Ukraine to recognize the principles 
of regionalization and rec onsider its restrictive measures.  
3.64.   Ukraine thanked Brazil for its cooperation on the raised concern  by submitting enough  
information to undertake an evaluation of the situation.  Ukraine appreciated the various control 
measures undertaken by Brazil  to prevent introduction of the disease agent in neighbouring zones  
and welcome d Brazil 's engage ment in continued consultations to find an appropriate solution based 
on international sta ndards.  
3.2.10   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products – Concerns of the 
European Union (No. 441)  
3.65.   The European Union regretted that it had not received the requested clarification from 
Indonesia  on market access approval procedures for agri-food products , including the timeframes 
for completing such procedures.  The European Union expressed concern in view of the lack of 
progress on its export application for beef, dairy, poultry and pork products , which  had been 
submitted six years ago  in som e cases.  Specifically,  in relation to dairy products, the European Union 
was facing certain  difficulties  due to delay s in approval procedures, postponement of audits  and 
restrictions on issuance of import license approvals  for already approved EU member St ates and 
establishments.  This constituted a violation of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a ) and (b) of the 
SPS Agreement.  The European Union called upon Indonesia to respect its obligations  by ensuring 
transparency in approval procedures and finalization of pending market access applications without 
further delays.  It further urged Indonesia to issue import licenses for dairy products which ha d 
already been approved for export to Indonesia.  The European Union looked forward to receiving the 
requested information  on import procedures and to engaging in continued dialogue on this issue.  
3.66.   Indonesia  stressed that it had provided information on  the legal basis for its import policy for 
animal s and plant products  and appreciated the European Union 's willingness to engage in bilateral 
consultations to make progress.  Indonesia shared its advancements in harmonization of its internal 
regulatio ns, namely, Regulation No. 42 of 2019 concerning importation of carcass es, meat and edible 
offal; and Regulation No. 39 of 2019 concerning import recommendation s for horticulture products.  
These regulations spelt out the timelines for the auditing process , the mechanism of approval 
procedures for registration of ani mal products processing plant s as well as the mechanism for 
receiving import recommendation s for horticulture products . They also aimed to address the 
concerns of the European Union over the amount of fee s to be paid by EU exporters . 
3.2.11   US import restrictions  on apples and pears – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 439)  
3.67.   The European Union regretted that although the United States had concluded the necessary 
risk assessment for the import ation of apples and pears from the European Union several years ago, 
trade had not been allowed to resume. The final administrative step of publishing the relevant rule G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 17 - 
 
  had been blocked.  The European Union acknowledged that import s of apples and pears were 
permitted from some EU member States using the pre -clearance approach . However, trade statistics 
demonstrated that only very small quantities were being exported due to high costs and complex 
procedure s. The European Union thanked the United States for the exc hanges that had  clarified that 
there was no scientific or technical reason for not permitting imports of apples and pears under the 
systems approach. Finally, the European Union called upon the United States to explain the basis 
for delaying the publicatio n of the final notice allowing for import of apples and pears from 
EU member States.  
3.68.   The United States  thanked the European Union for its continued interest in this issue  and for 
the recent bilateral engagements in Brussels  in October 2019 . The United Sta tes clarified that  the 
final step in the process was the publication of a final notice by the USDA Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service  (APHIS ). 
3.2.12   Mexico's measures on imports of hibiscus flowers  – Concerns of Senegal  (No. 386) 
3.69.   Senegal  raised concern s regarding the provisional suspension of hibiscus flowers due to 
quarantine measures taken after the detection of live larvae of Trogoderma granarium  in some 
shipments during 2018. Senegal reported that, after investigating relevant actors, a report with 
corrective measures had been elaborated and sent to the phytosanitary authorities of Mexico. 
Senegal highlighted that, since then, a completely new cleaning and fumigation protocol for the 
exportation of hibiscus to Mexico was required. Senegal referred to the proposal made earlier this 
year to  receive a Mexican mission in Senegal, in view of reaching a bilateral agreement, but indicated 
that so far there had been no developments. Senegal invited Mexico to explain how progress c ould 
be made in this matter. Finally, Senegal announced that it was in the process of consolidating the 
phytosanitary framework in the hibiscus industry.  
3.70.   Burkina Faso expressed shared the concern and reported that a note requesting information 
on the measu res for importation of hibiscus flower had been sent to Mexico, but that it ha d received 
no response.  
3.71.   Mexico explai ned that, since Senegal had been notified of this measure, both governments  
had engaged in discussions regarding the corrective measures that  the later would take based on 
the investigations performed, but that there was not enough information to establish a working plan 
that ensure d the control of the pest in exports to Mexico. Mexico reiterated its willingness to continue  
working with Senegal  to address its concern, while at the same time ensuring  that the appropriate 
level of protection was met. Regarding the concern of Burkina Faso, Mexico stated that it could not 
give a detailed response and invited Burkina Faso to forward its communication  to its 
Permanent  Mission  in Geneva.  
3.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
3.3.1   Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds  – Concerns of Chinese Taipei 
(No. 421) 
3.72.   Chinese Taipei  reported that STC No. 421 had been resolved  through cooperation among both 
sides and  appreciated Thailand's efforts to restore market access for its papaya seeds , based on 
scientific evidence , for the benefit of papaya producers, consumers, and exporters in both Members . 
3.73.   Thailand thanked Chinese Taipei for its report and hoped to  maintain a good working 
relationship  in the future.  
3.4  Report on the e -Agenda Project  
3.74.   The Secretariat reported on  a presenta tion to Members on 6 November 2019 , giving an update 
on the e -Agenda platform currently under development.  Members would be able to us e the 
collaborative agenda to add interventions under any agenda item  and to access the whole agenda . 
The objective of the platform would be  to simplify the submission by Members of agenda items, 
including STCs , for inclusion in the convening airgram  or the annotated draft agenda . The Secretariat 
highlighted that access to  the e-Agenda  system  would be restricted and would be opened in advance 
of a Committee meeting . For STCs, Members would be able to raise, support or leave an STC for the G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 18 - 
 
  forthcoming meetin g. The Secretariat also highlighted that it was planning pilot testing of the 
e-Agenda portal for the March 2020 Committee meeting and invited Members to contact the 
Secretariat by 29 November 2019 if they were interested in participating in the pilot test. 
3.75.   The Secretariat underlined  that the e -Agenda  system  could produce the agenda for the 
Committee, which could either be in the form of an airgram or an annotated agenda and  proposed 
that the e -Agenda platform could be used to prepare an annotated agenda, replacing the traditionally 
used convening airgram.  The Secretariat invited Members' comments on the proposal to produc e an 
annotated agenda  instead of a convening airgram in the future . No Member raised any concerns.  
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.1   Senegal – Malaysia's inspectio n and control system for agricultural products 
(peanuts)  
4.1.  Senegal informed Members that its bilateral consultations with Malaysian Phytosanitary 
Authorities, initiated in June 2018, had resulted in the signature of a bilateral phytosanitary 
agreement granti ng authorization for groundnut access. Senegal highlighted seven procedures which 
had been reviewed by Malaysian authorities, namely, (1) the organizational framework for producers 
and management of phytosanitary problems in the groundnut industry, (2) the  approach taken by 
control services to supervise groundnut exports, such as registration, inspection and monitoring of 
operations, (3) post -harvest quarantine inspection and quarantine techniques, (4) fumigation 
company approval procedures and laboratory a ccreditation for SPS analysis, (5) sampling 
procedures, (6) conditions for issuing a phytosanitary certificate along with additional declarations, 
such as inspection sheets, and (7) results of the PRA in the same sector carried out in Senegal by 
other part ner countries such as China. Senegal remarked that this agreement was a good example 
of recognition of their sanitary and phytosanitary inspection system by a trading partner.  
4.2.  Malaysia remarked that the agreement demonstrated Malaysia's observance of inter national 
standards such as ISPM No. 2 (Framework for pest risk analysis) and ISPM No. 11 (Pest risk analysis 
for quarantine pests, including pest risk analysis for living modified organisms, given that the pest 
risk analysis was carried out prior to the es tablishment of the requirements. Malaysia was happy to 
inform Senegal that Malaysia's required level of protection had been met and Senegal had been 
granted market access.  
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas (Regionalization)  
4.2.1   Information from Members  
4.2.1.1   Mexico – OIE recognized self -declarations  
4.3.  Mexico provided information  on recent communications circulated to Members, including  
G/SPS/GEN/1721  in relation to the Self -declaration by Mexico as a pullorum disease - and fowl 
typhoid -free country in poultry ; G/SPS/GEN/1723  regarding the Self -declaration by Mexico as a as 
a coun try historically free from Glanders ; G/SPS/GEN/1724  on the Self -declaration by Mexico as a 
country historically free from dourine ; and  G/SPS/GEN/1725 , concerning the Self -declaration by 
Mexico as a country historically free from myiasis caused by new world screwworm ( Cochliomyia 
hominivorax ) and old -world screwworm ( Chrysomya bezziana ). Mexico indic ated that the Ministry 
of Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER) through the National Agriculture and Food Health, 
Safety and Quality Service (SENASICA) was the entity in charge of the afore mentioned 
self-declarations.  
4.3  Operation of transparency provisi ons 
4.3.1   Annual report on Transparency ( G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12 ) 
4.4.  The Secr etariat drew Members' attention to its annual report on transparency 
(G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12). In preparing this document, the Secretariat had largely relied on the SPS 
Information Management System (SPS IMS). The report provided information on Members' G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 19 - 
 
  notifications under the SPS Agreement and included general remarks on the information tools, as 
well other issues such as the Workshop on Transparency and Coordination organized in the context 
of the Fifth Review and the STDF -financed projects on transparency.  
4.5.  The Secretariat noted that, although the data from previous years was maintained, the content 
and structure had changed . It also highlighted the significant modifications in the graphs and the 
inclusion of more detailed temporary analyses , pointing to a f ew examples. From these new graphics, 
it was evident that, since 2008, developing countries submitted a higher share of notifications than 
developed countries. Regarding the objective of the notifications  circulated  between 1 January and 
15 September 2019,  the Secretariat observed that the objective cited most often in ordinary 
notifications  was food safety , while  for emergency measures, it was  animal health.  
4.6.  The Secretariat  also presented a new brochure4 on the SPS transparency tools, including the 
SPS IMS, ePing, Documents Online, e -subscription, and the SPS NSS, explaining their use and where 
to find the information. The information had been extracted from the " Practical Manual for SPS 
National Notificat ion Authorities and SPS National Enquiry Points ".5 The Secretariat hoped this 
resource would aid Members understand the relationship between the different tools and promote 
their use.  
4.4  Special and Differential Treatment  
4.7.  No Member provided any information un der this agenda item.  
4.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  
4.5.1   New issues  
4.5.1.1   United States – Codex task force on antimicrobial resistance  
4.8.  The United States expressed its commitment to addressing AMR through sound science and 
collaboration in Codex . The US statement has been circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/1751 . 
4.9.  Argentina highlighted its interest in this topic and referred to its intervention in item 2(a) of 
the agenda of th e present  meeting. Argentina shared the concerns related to the developments in 
the Codex task for ce on antimicrobial resistance, since the impact of antimicrobials on the 
environment was not clear , and more  research on the topic  was necessary . Argentina also agreed 
with the United States on the need to have a national risk surveillance and mitigation system for 
human, animal, and plant life and health . No action should be taken before enough scientific 
evidence was available.  
4.10.   Australia supported the joint work of WHO, the OIE, and FAO in setting international standards 
for AMR. Australia highlighted th e need of retaining access to effective antimicrobials to protect 
animal health and of basing measures to prevent and reduce AMR on international standards 
supported by scientific data, since doing the opposite could distort trade. Australia reiterated its  
commitment to an effective and robust system for the prevention and containment of AMR, evident 
in its adoption of one of the most conservative approaches to the use of antimicrobials in livestock 
production in the world . Nevertheless,  Australia recognize d the importance for its livestock sector of 
retain ing access to antimicrobials to treat, prevent and control diseases because of their significance 
for animal health and welfare, biosecurity and production. Australia was concern ed that any 
measures to res trict access to the prophylactic use of antimicrobials in food animals would have 
significant adverse impact s on exports of livestock animal products. Australia encouraged Members 
to adhere to their international obligations , since  unilateral procedures ha d the potential to 
undermine collaborative global efforts. Finally, Australia confirmed its participation in the seventh 
meeting of the intergovernmental task force on AMR to discuss, and potentially finalize, the revised 
 
4 
http://workingserver/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_practical_manual_for_sps_national_notification_flyer_bat.pdf  
(currently available in English).  
5 
http://workingserver/english/tratop_e/sps_e/practical_manual_for_sps_national_notification_authorities_and_
sps_national_enquiry_points_7531_18_e.pdf . G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Codex Cod e of Practice to Minimise and Contain AMR and draft Guidelines on Integrated Monitoring 
and Surveillance of Foodborne AMR.  
4.11.   Codex recalled its prior intervention regarding the circulation of the Guidelines on Surveillance 
and the Code of Practice for commen ts from Codex members and observers and  underscored their 
importance for progress in the upcoming session.  
4.12.   The European Union expressed concern s regarding the  discussi on of the work of the Codex 
task force in the Committee and questioned the relationship of this issue with the current item of 
the agenda, the monitoring of the use of international standards. The European Union recalled talks 
on the lack of a hierarchical relationship between the Committee and ISSBs . 
4.13.   The United States called Members'  attenti on to the Committee 's mandate  in Article 12 .4 of 
the SPS Agreement, as well as the direction given in G/SPS/11/Rev.1 , that the Committee should 
help identify, for the benefit of relevant international organizations, where standards, guidelines  or 
recommendation s were needed , or where  existing ones were  not appropriate. The United States 
welcomed further engagement about the potential trade impact of Codex standards and guidelines 
under development and considered that the Committee's mandate was clear.  
4.5.2   Issues previously raised  
4.5.2.1   European  Union – ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
4.14.   The European Union drew Members'  attention to inconsistencies in the application of 
OIE international standards , in this case regarding ASF . The European Union  noted that s everal 
WTO Members did not follow the OIE Terrestrial Code recommendations  that had been developed  
and adopted with the support of th ose same Members . The European Union had demonstrated 
through its regionali zation policy, that the disease had not been transmitted via commercial trade. 
In addition, the European Union was transparent on its disease control measures and provided 
information through the websites of the EU Commission, of the EU member States and of  the OIE, 
and through bilateral contacts with trade partners. The European Union strongly urged  
WTO Members to align their import measures with the SPS Agreement and with international 
standards  and stood ready to work with Members to remove country -wide b ans. 
4.5.2.2   European Union  – Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza  (HPAI ) restrictions not 
consistent with the OIE international standard  
4.15.   The European Union praised those  Members that had recogni zed EU regionali zation measures , 
trusting the European Union's effective  and transparent system of control and eradication of animal 
diseases such as  AI. Regarding regionali zation for HPAI, the European Union highlighted the 
inconsistency in some WTO Members ' application  of the OIE international standards and their 
obligations  under the SPS Agreement's Article 6 and Annex C. Country -wide bans after a disease 
outbreak were not scientifically justified, and there was no justification to wait one year or more to 
restore the disease -free status, instead of the three months defined by the OIE Code. The veterinary 
services of all EU member States worked in a transparent manner and the trading partners of the 
European Union could be assured that they would be fully aware of the animal health situation in all 
EU member States . The Europ ean Union reiterated its call to all Members to respect their 
regionali zation obligations; allow trade of all safe products from non -affected zones; lift all bans 
after regaining freedom three months after the application of stamping -out, clean ing and disi nfecting 
affected premises; refrain from imposing trade restriction in case of HPAI in wild birds; and refrain 
from imposing trade restriction s in case of detected LPAI. 
4.16.   The United States underscored the importance of OIE guidelines related to HPAI  and of 
Members respecting the application of regionalization in case of HPAI and  reaffirmed  its strong 
cooperation with the European Union in this area .  G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 21 - 
 
  4.5.2.3   United States – Codex MRLs for  glyphosate  
4.17.   The United States raised concern over actions by Members to  restrict the use of glyphosate 
or withdraw glyphosate MRLs without clear scientific justification . The US statement has been 
circulated in document  G/SPS/GEN/1752 . 
4.18.   Brazil noted that plant protection products were essential technological tools in agriculture for 
the maintenance of a sustainable level of production, contribut ing to food safety, food security and 
environmental sustainability , although  there were concerns about the use of chemicals in food. 
Brazil  considered that some decisions  lacked a scientific basis and were implemen ted with a hazard -
based approach. Brazil emphasized the importance of harmonization and of basing phytosanitary 
policies and measures on Codex  work.  When Codex standards were not compatible with Members'  
levels of protection, they should define MRLs based on scientific evidence and appropriate risk 
assessment. Brazil underscored that no evidence justifying the non -authorization of glyphosate or 
lower MRLs than those suggested by Codex had been identified. Therefore, Brazil was  concern ed 
about Thailand's decision to ban the use of glyphosate and the potential impact on 95% of Brazil's 
exports to Thailand. Brazil explained that this tool  enable d sustainable agricultural production, such 
as no -tillage agriculture, prevent ed soil erosion, reduc ed water loss by evaporation, increase d the 
level of organic matter in the soil, reduce d the use of fossil fuels, reduce d the cost of production, 
allowed better microbiological balance in soils, decrease d greenhouse gas emissions, and enable d 
better pest a nd disease control . There was  no relationship between banning glyphosate and 
increasing sustainability or production safety.  
4.19.   Australia, Canada, Paraguay, and Uruguay reiterated their statements from the previous 
meeting.  Paraguay also stressed that Codex s tandards enabled developing countries  that lacked  
resources to carry out their own risk analysis to meet safety  requirements.  Uruguay supported the 
work of JMPR and Codex and their commitment to providing scientific evidence derived from 
adequate risk assessments . 
4.20.   Argentina underscored the importance of respecting the principles of the SPS Agreement that 
require d basing measures on a risk analysis and scientific evidence . Argentina referred to the risk 
analysis undertaken by Codex to ensure safe MRLs for gl yphosate in different crops.  
4.21.   Canada expressed its concern that several Members were proposing or considering bans on 
glyphosate seemingly without a  scientific basis, inconsistent with the established Codex MRLs. 
Canada noted that the work undertaken by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and 
JMPR provide d scientifically sound guidance to support national regulatory measures.  
4.6  Fifth Review  of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS/W/3 13/Rev.1 ) 
4.6.1   Report on the thematic session on approval procedures ( G/SPS/GEN/1704/Rev.1 ) 
4.22.   The Chairperson  reported on the thematic session on approval procedures held on 
5 November 2019, as agreed by the SPS Committee in March 2019. The programme had circulated 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1704/Rev.1 , based on the proposal submitted by Canada in document 
G/SPS/W/310 . 
4.23.   Building upon the July 2018 Workshop on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures, the 
purpose of the thematic session was to ex plore concepts within Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement, as they relate d to approval procedures, including undue delays, transparency and 
information requirements. The session had focussed on a broad array of themes, including 
pre-market approvals , approval of biotech products, domestic regulations and work of international 
standard -setting bodies. Various perspectives from Members, international standard -setting bodies 
and the private -sector had been  presented and possible opportunities for cooper ation amongst these 
players had been  explored.  
4.24.   In Session 1, the Secretariat  had provided a comprehensive overview of Article 8 and Annex  C 
and relevant WTO disputes, underlining  the importance of approval procedures by looking at an 
estimated number of r elated STCs and examples of discussions in the SPS Committee.  G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 22 - 
 
  4.25.   In Session 2, Codex had presented on relevant guidance on import and export requirements 
including safety assessments of food derived from biotechnology, mainly discussed in the Codex 
Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems. Codex ' mandate 
include d establishment of standards on pesticide maximum residue levels, but not recommendations 
on how to establish legal frameworks for authori zation or registration. Codex ha d established 
horizontal guidance and principles relating to food control systems, and approval procedures.  
4.26.   In Session 3 several speakers had shared experiences of importing and exporting Members 
in relation to approval procedures. From the importing side,  one speaker had proposed that approval 
procedures should be risk -based, timely, and non -discriminatory, and had called for increased 
regulatory cooperation amongst trading partners. Another speaker had also underscored the 
importance of mutual trust and e quivalence by placing greater reliance on inspections conducted by 
exporting Members, and the requirements of third -country listing to grant imports authori zations. 
From an export perspective, speakers had called for greater cooperation among Members, and 
increased participation and reliance on international standards, among others.  
4.27.   The last part of Session 3 had involved discussions on costs and challenges related to 
asynchronous global approval processes. Especially in case of biotech approvals, the long period of 
time elapsed between submission of application and granting of approval in various countries 
resulted in economic and societal costs, including forgone productivity gains, delayed innovation and 
trade disruptions. It had also  been noted that tran sparency was key to ensure predictability, and 
that applicants were responsible for providing all required information in a timely manner.  
4.28.   Session 4  had begun with an interesting insight into the inter -relation of the WTO Trade 
Facilitation Agreement and t he disciplines on approval procedures. Recent implementation of trade 
facilitating measures, including risk -based inspections, had resulted in more effective and efficient 
inspections. Some key takeaways included the need for increased cooperation and capa city building 
for strengthening the implementation of cost -effective approval procedures.  
4.29.   Session 4  had proceeded with discussions of the private -sector perspective, with 
presentations by the International Grain Trade Coalition and MAIZALL. There had been  a pronounced 
call for synchronization of biotech approvals, highlighting the possible contribution of least trade 
restrictive approval procedures towards transfer of food and agricultural technologies amongst 
Members.  
4.30.   Session 5 had been  a roundtable discussion, which had concluded the thematic session by 
posing overarching questions to stimulate an exchange of ideas on possible ways to address some 
of the challenges identified and  explore possible future work. Interventions had also been taken from 
the floor, and overall, participants  had recognized the need to avoid duplication, implement 
procedures consistent with the WTO Trade Facilitation and SPS Agreements, and the benefits of 
mutual trust and reliance on international standards in f acilitating efficient and faster approval 
procedures. There had also been a discussion on the balance between regulatory harmonization and 
heterogeneity, highlighting the importance of preserving Member's right to determine their 
appropriate level of prote ction. In closing the roundtable, several Members had indicated their 
interest in further reflecting on possible next steps.  
4.31.   In concluding, the Chairperson  remarked that the thematic session had proven to be 
informative and interesting, and that it had pr ovided a useful opportunity to increase Members' 
understanding of the governing disciplines and challenges relating to approval procedures. 
Presentations from all sessions of the thematic session as well as the videos would  be made available 
on the SPS Gat eway.6 
4.6.2   Report o n the Informal Meeting  
4.32.   The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report of the informal meeting held 
on 6 November 2019  and invited Members comment  on the draft report during the meeting , or to 
send them to the Secretariat by  15 November 2019.7 
 
6 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop05112019_e.htm . 
7 The final report of the informal meeting was subsequently circulated as JOB/SPS/2/Rev.4 . G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 23 - 
 
  4.33.   The Secretariat highlighted the changes that had been made in the fourth revision of the 
report of the informal meeting. The order of the topics had been changed to align them with the 
draft report of the Fifth Review and topics now appe ared in alphabetical order. The most recent 
round of discussions appeared at the end of each topic.  There was also an addition of a section at 
the end of the report to reflect the discussion on various proposals for the thematic session and 
workshop in 2020. 
4.34.   Paraguay took the floor to indicate that it would share its comments with the Secretariat by 
e-mail. 
4.35.   India thanked the Secretariat for the  draft report . It highlighted that the latest discussion on 
FAW was not indicated in the draft report  and indicated that it would submit its comments to the 
Secretariat in writing . 
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1  Brazil's proposal on the functioning of the SPS Committee ( G/SPS/W/319/Rev.1 ) 
5.1.  The Chairperson reported on the relevant parts of the informal meeting. At the informal 
meeting on 6 November, Members had had an active discussion on Brazil's proposal. Brazil had 
explained the background of the proposal. Brazil had coordinated the joint efforts of Members, 
initiated in the context of the Ottawa Group, to work on the deliberative function of the 
SPS Committee. Brazil had t hanked Members for their participation in the discussions and for their 
comments; which had been considered in preparing the revised proposal. Brazil had emphasized 
that improving communication among Members when addressing STCs could avoid recourse to the  
dispute settlement mechanism.  
5.2.  Many Members had welcomed the initiative of discussing ways in which the work of the 
Committee could be improved to make it more efficient and transparent.  
5.3.  One Member had proposed an addition, to make it possible to share com ments on draft notified 
measures and receive replies through an online system that would be publicly available. This would 
encourage transparency and better coordination. Several Members had supported this suggestion.  
5.4.  A few Members had highlighted similari ties and differences with the General Council proposal 
circulated by the European Union and others (WT/GC/W/777/Rev.4). Although this proposal had a 
more general scope beyond the SPS Committee, it shared similar objectives. Some Members had 
suggested that the proponents should attempt to find common ground, and Brazil and the 
European  Union had both indicated that they were open to discussions in this regard.  
5.5.  Several Members had emphasized that the proposed changes should not affect the interactive 
nature o f the discussions in the Committee or make it more difficult to raise STCs. Other Members 
had questioned whether the proposed changes needed to be agreed in a formal decision. 
They wished to allow the Committee to try new mechanisms and procedures without losing flexibility 
to make further changes in the future. They were concerned that implementing certain provisions 
could impose additional burdens on constrained delegations.  
5.6.  Finally, Brazil had mentioned that the consultative process was still ongoing. Br azil had 
indicated that it welcomed further comments and would reflect them in the proposal. In concluding 
the report on discussions at the informal meeting, the Chairperson noted that Brazil had said that, 
if others considered it necessary or relevant, Br azil was willing to chair further open -ended 
consultations.  
5.7.  At the formal meeting, Brazil reiterated that consultations were ongoing and that it was open 
to receiving comments and suggestions. Brazil proposed a deadline for the second round of 
comments for  24 January 2020. Brazil indicated that it might take advantage of a possible informal 
meeting in February to seek more clarity and consensus on how to push this work forward.  
5.8.  Chinese Taipei referred to the discussion of the proposal during the informal me eting and asked 
whether it would be reflected in the report of the informal meeting on the Fifth Review. G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 24 - 
 
  The Secretariat explained Chinese Taipei that the Chairperson's report would be included as part of 
the summary report of the meeting.  
5.9.  China appreciate d Brazil's efforts and noted that the SPS Committee was one of the 
best-performing committees in the WTO, but that there was always room for improvement. China 
posed some questions to Brazil regarding its proposal, on the difference between the "deliberati ve" 
and "consultative" functions of the SPS Committee, and on meaning of the term "fully address" used 
in the proposal.  
5.10.   Brazil replied that deliberation and consultation were, indeed, different processes. Brazil 
explained that at the Ottawa Group discussio ns where this work had been initiated, some Members 
had volunteered to coordinate work on three pillars: negotiation, dispute settlement, and the 
deliberative function of the WTO. However, Brazil noted that, although the initial name of the 
proposal had em erged in that context, the proposals were on the consultative functions of the 
committee. On the second question, regarding the term "fully address", Brazil explained that it would 
be a requirement to have a substantive answer and not merely an interlocuto ry one.  
5.11.   The United States asked whether the Chairperson's report would also be circulated for 
comments prior to finalization, like the report on the informal discussions on the Fifth Review. 
The Chairperson confirmed that all documents would be circulated,  and that Members would be 
invited to comment in writing.  
5.12.   The Secretariat invited the Members to consider decision G/TBT/43  of the TBT Committee, 
adopted in June 2019, on procedures for the inclusion of specific trade concerns in the annotated 
draft agenda. The Secretariat noted the difference b etween the deadlines in that document and 
those under discussion in the framework of the Brazilian proposal, inviting Members to reflect on the 
advantages of harmonizing the deadlines for submission of STCs.  
5.13.   The Chairperson reminded Members of the deadlin e of 24 January 2020 to submit comments 
on Brazil's proposal.  
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities  
6.1.  The Secretariat provided Members with an overview of the technical assistance activities held 
since the l ast SPS Committee meeting in July. These activities included national seminars held in 
Guatemala in August and in China in September, and the thematic session on Approval Procedures 
held on 5 November. More general training was provided in the context of t he WTO Regional Trade 
Policy Course; two Regional Trade Policy Courses held for Latin America and Central and Eastern 
Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus; two Training Sessions for India and Paraguay; and at the 
IPPC Symposium on Pest Free Areas and Surv eillance.  
6.2.  The Secretariat also announced that national seminars would be held in Peru in November and 
Nepal and Angola in December, and that general training would be provided in the upcoming 
WTO Regional Trade Policy Courses to be held in January 2020 in Geneva for the Arab and Middle 
Eastern Region and in February 2020 in Abidjan for French -speaking Africa.  
6.3.  The Secretariat announced that the Regional SPS Workshop for Central and Eastern Europe, 
Central Asia and the Caucasus had been postponed to the week of 27 April 2020 and that the online 
application link was still open. The Secretariat planned to send more information to the relevant 
Missions.  
6.4.  The Secretariat thanked the delegates who had attended an information session for new 
delegates on the procedur es and work of the SPS Committee, held in September.  
6.5.  The Secretariat drew Members' attention on the Advanced Course on the SPS Agreement that 
had started on 29 October and would finish on 15 November 2019 and whose participants were 
present in the room. Af ter a rigorous selection process based on candidates' qualifications and G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 25 - 
 
  working experience and with consideration to those from Members that had not been represented 
in prior editions, 24 government officials from developing and least developed Members an d acceding 
countries had been selected to attend the course in Geneva.  
6.6.  The Course had the objective to enhance the level of understanding of the rights and obligations 
arising from the SPS Agreement and the functioning of the SPS Committee, as well as ide ntifying 
actions to address specific implementation challenges and opportunities at the national level. 
The Secretariat further explained that during the course, each participant would develop an action 
plan, which would address implementation problems ide ntified in their countries. Three coaches were 
assisting participants in developing their action plans. Participants would return after nine months 
to present on their experiences in implementing their action plans.  
6.7.  The Secretariat mentioned that this yea r the course had benefitted from reinforced support of 
the STDF, which had been collaborating regularly with the course. The Secretariat also thanked the 
WTO Director General, the Chair of the Committee, and the delegates that participated in the course 
as speakers and shared their experience with participants; Codex; IPPC; OIE; the Advisory Centre 
on WTO Law; ITC and UNIDO.  
6.8.  The Secretariat highlighted that the Course, currently held in English, celebrated its 
15th anniversary and, to mark the occasion, the WTO Director General had recorded a video. This 
video was shown to the Committee and a flyer reflecting the Course's main achievements was 
available in the room. The Secretariat thanked the Information and External Relations Division, and 
the Graphic and Event Design, Print and Distribution Section from the Languages, Documentation, 
and Information Management Division for their work.  
6.9.  The Secretariat reminded Members that the e -learning course on the SPS Agreement was 
available throughout the y ear in the three official languages of the WTO, and that it was working on 
a new, more interactive version of the electronic course, which should be online in 2020. Finally, 
more information on SPS -related technical assistance activities could be found on the WTO website 
(under trade -related technical assistance or in the section dedicated to the SPS Agreement).  
6.10.   Paraguay thanked the Secretariat for the technical assistance provided through 
videoconference and their flexibility to organize a national worksho p, which they expected to hold in 
2020.  
6.11.   China thanked the Secretariat for the national workshop on the TBT and SPS Agreements held 
in September and noted that the comprehensive and detailed lectures had been successful, which 
was reflected in the positive feedback provided by the participants from different Ministries, 
associations, research centres, and other organizations.  
6.1.2   STDF  
6.12.   The STDF secretariat provided a brief overview of its most recent activities, as detailed in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1733 . The fourth e valuation of the S TDF had concluded  in July , with a focus 
on the impact and results achieved by the STDF during the period 2014 -2018.  The evaluation had 
been positive  and underlined the continued relevance of SPS-related capacity building. It  also set 
out recommendations for the future direction of the STDF , to meet emerging challenges.  The STDF  
secretariat  also referred to the thematic session organized on 4 July 2019 at the WTO/OECD Aid for 
Trade Global Review 2019 entitled "Investing in SPS capacity for safe trade and sus tainable 
development ", which had brought together public and private sector experts from the cinnamon 
sector in Sri Lanka, the flower industry in Uganda and the shrimp sector in Guatemala.  
The importance of communicat ing the need to invest in SPS capacity  with high -level decision makers  
and the value of these investments for the domestic agend a, were discussed.  On 7 November 2019, 
the STDF had organized a session to present the findings and recommendations of an independe nt 
evaluation of three  STDF projects in ASEAN (STDF/PG/337) , Africa (STDF/PG/359) and Latin America 
(STDF/PG /436) , in which government authorities had partnered with  multinational pesticide 
manufacturers, industry associations, farmers and international pa rtners to carry out coordinated 
pesticide residue studies.  The STDF also shared information on  grants for projects that identify, 
develop and disseminate good practice in SPS -related technical cooperation, including the 
development and application of innov ative and replicable approaches . A total of 93 projects had 
been approved for STDF funding since its inception, of which 49% had gone to Africa, 24% to G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Asia-Pacific, 15%  to Latin America -Caribbean, and 2% to other regions (Middle East and Europe) . 
Finally,  the STDF invited applications from Members to receive funding, to be submitted by 
10 January 2020.  
6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   Australia – Technical assistance to developing countries  
6.13.   Australia  drew Members ' attention to document G/SPS/GEN/717/A dd.6, which detailed 
Australia 's SPS -related technical assistance from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2017, in accordance with 
Article 9 of the SPS Agreement . This assistance  aimed at helping developing countries to adjust to, 
and comply with, SPS measures based on sci ence and international standards. For the reporting 
period, assistance was provided through 78 projects and given to a total of 58 individual Members, 
Observers and non -Member countries, mainly in the Asia -Pacific region, but also in Africa and the 
Middle East. Some of the assistance was also directed to group s of countries or regional organizations 
such as the Pacific Island Forum countries, the APEC forum and ASEAN. The aggregate value of the 
technical assistance in the period amounted to 46 million Austr alian dollars , and in many cases, 
Australia also provided substantial in -kind contributions .  
6.2.2   Senegal – Support for the implementation of EU phytosanitary regulation 
(2016/2031) for post harvest activities  
6.14.   Senegal  thanked the assistance of the European Uni on to implement the post -harvest 
infrastructure to comply with the new regulation , recall ing Article 9 .2 of the SPS Agreement on 
technical assistance for developing Members. Senegal highlighted that these activities have 
improved its ability to manage phyt osanitary risks. Senegal expressed its belief that these efforts 
would help control the risks of entry of pests through trade . 
6.15.   The European Union recalled its statement under a previous agenda item , regarding its 
suggestion to contact the EU  delegation in Dakar to determine whether additional assistance could 
be provided , and regarding ongoing technical assistance. The European Union highlighted that the 
objective was to provide support to Senegal to meet the requirements of the new regulatio ns. 
The European  Union had taken good note of Senegal's comments.  
6.2.3   Senegal – Authorization of access for agricultural products into the Malaysian 
market on the basis of a pest risk assessment (phytosanitary protocol)  
6.16.   Senegal  referred to its statement under the agenda  item on equivalence. Senegal's agreement 
with Malaysia was already effective. Senegal thanked several entities that  had provided capacity 
building activities, such as ECOWAS, the African Union, and the African Office on Animal Resources. 
Senegal  also thanked the STDF for the successful implementation of the project on pesticides 
residues and highlighted its relevance to generate data for food safety. Finally, it thanked the 
Secretariat and all its trading partners.  
6.2.4   Canada – Technical assistance t o developing countries  
6.17.   Canada  updated the Committee on its SPS -related technical assistance to developing 
countries during 2018. Canada reported that it had  delivered or initiated a total of 19 SPS -related 
technical assistance projects supporting Members i ncluding Peru, Chinese Taipei, Philippines, 
Costa  Rica, Guatemala, India, Mexico, Kenya, Niger, Senegal, Argentina, Benin, Burkina Faso, 
Morocco, Ukraine, and, on a regional basis, in Sub -Saharan Africa. Canada referred to document 
G/SPS/GEN/206  and highlighted that its assistance addr essed three of the four broad categories 
identified therein (information, training, and "soft" infrastructure development) and that it covered 
most of the "typical areas of competence " listed under food safety, animal health, and plant 
protection in the annex. Finally, Canada noted  that it had committed approximately USD  10.6 million 
and that additional information on these activities could  be found in G/SPS/GEN/1738 . G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 27 - 
 
  6.2.5. Burkina Faso – Technical assistance received and certain SPS activities in 
Burkina  Faso  
6.18.   Burkina Faso  reported that it had launched the Codex Trust Fund 2 project whose general 
objective was sensitization of political authorities in charge of food safety  and restructurin g of the 
National Codex Committee.  A regional workshop on "Capacity Building on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures for Francophone Member Countries of ECOWAS " was organized on 17 -20 September 2019 
in Burkina Faso. The objectives of this training workshop were to, (1) improve the understanding of 
SPS measures and the relationship between the three sisters  (2) improve and share knowledge on 
the standard  development process  of the three sisters (3) undertake a consultative discussion among 
stakeholders on the sustainability of activities undertaken by the three sisters  at the national level;  
and (4) share experiences among countries and create a network among focal points to improve the 
performance o f SPS activities.  
6.19.   Burkina Faso congratulated the Inter-African Bureau of Animal Resources of the African Union 
for the technical and financial assistance provided to African countries towards their participation in 
the SPS Committee meetings.  Burkina Faso thanked  the STDF for implementing project activities 
that reduce contamination of maize and maize by -products  with aflatoxins in Burkina Faso ; the 
Codex Alimentarius; ECOWAS for its consistent support in SPS activities; and the European Union 
through t he Europe -Africa -Caribbean -Pacific Liaison Committee in developing the mango dossier 
following the new EU Regulation 2016/2031.  
7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  
7.1.  No Member  took the floor under this agenda item.  
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from observer organizations  
8.1.1   ECOWAS  
8.1.  ECOWAS  reported on recent activities, as detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1728 . ECOWAS 
had provided training workshops on key tools and steps for development, implementation and 
management of ePhyto in West Africa; which capacitated NPPOs with the tools for ePhyto and 
allowed them to initiate processes leading to its application. It also held a regional conference on 
sustainable management of FAW in the Sahel and West Africa in September in Ouagadougou, 
Burkina Faso. ECOWAS also participated in the 2019 IPPC regiona l workshop in Nairobi, Kenya, as 
well as in the 23rd meeting of  the Codex Coordinating Committee for Africa, both held in 
September  2019. ECOWAS thanked donors and technical partners for their continuing support.  
8.1.2   IICA  
8.2.  IICA provided Members an overview of its main activities, as detailed in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1743 . IICA had hosted a Private Sector Virtual Codex colloquium on 18 October 2019 , 
with participation from the private sector , to improve understanding of issues to be discussed at the  
Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH)  in Australia. IICA also reported that it would provide 
support to Caribbean and Latin American countries through a competitive fund to facilitate 
participation in the meetings of the Codex Committees on Food Hygiene , Nutrit ion and Foods for 
Special Dietary Uses , and the meeting of the Ad Hoc Codex Intergovernmental Task Force on 
Antimicrobial Resistance.  In Costa Rica, IICA hosted a workshop on scientific justification issues 
arising from the application of the SPS Agreement . Representatives of nearly 20 cou ntries had 
attended the event  and had explored p ractical examples o f the application of the SPS  Agreement for 
the proper definition of MRLs of pesticides . IICA also shared its plan to  host the 4th edition of its 
Strategy S ession  in San Jose , from 13 -14 November 2019,  organized in partnership  with and 
sponsored by the USDA. All IICA member countries were i nvited to send representatives to the 
session . G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 28 - 
 
  8.1.3   COMESA  
8.3.  COMESA informed Members about its main activities, as detailed in document 
(G/SPS/GEN/ 1744). COMESA had launched , in collabor ation with the STDF and TradeMark 
East Africa, regional initiatives to strengthen the management of standards and the phytosanitary 
measures in the region through the programme "Prioritiz ing SPS Investments for Market Access ". 
COMESA had conducted a plant health capacity evaluation using the IPPC's phytosanitary capacity 
evaluation tool in Kenya and Zambia. The national plant health inspection service of Eswatini had 
received capacity building to implement a new strategy that was developed for its operation s, 
including the development of standard operating procedures to improve diagnostic service at its 
ports of entry. In Rwanda, several training activities on risk assessment and risk management, 
responsible use of veterinary products by farmers, and the imp lementation of national residue 
monitoring plants were conducted.  COMESA had also identified , and mapped , enterprises involved 
in live animal and meat trade in major exporting and importing countries to create trade linkages . 
Finally, COMESA thanked the as sistance provided by several institutions for the development of its 
activities.  
8.4.  The Chairman drew attention to the report s submitted by  IGAD, ( G/SPS/GEN/1730 ), ITC 
(G/SPS/GEN/1731 ), OIRSA ( G/SPS/GEN/1732 ), CAHFSA ( G/SPS/GEN/1736 ), and SADC 
(G/SPS /GEN/1739 ). 
8.2  Requests for observer status  
8.2.1   New requests  
8.2.1.1   Request from UNIDO ( G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.18 ) 
8.5.  The Chairperson drew attention to a new request for ad hoc observer status, from the 
United  Nations Industrial Development Organization  (UNIDO). The information  received from UNIDO  
was presented in document G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.18 . Since some delegations has requested more 
time to consider this request, the Committee agreed to return to it at its next Committee meeting . 
8.2.2   Outstanding requests  
8.6.  The Chairperson noted that there was still no consensus on the six outstanding requests for 
observer status from the Convention on Biological  Diversity (CBD); CABI International; the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the 
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community 
(APCC); and the Internat ional Cocoa Organization (ICCO).  
8.7.  The Committee agreed to invite the organizations with ad hoc observer status to participate in 
all its meetings in 2020, except for  any closed meeting, and unless any Member raised an objection 
to the participation of any o f these observers in advance of a meeting.  
8.8.  The Chairperson reminded Members that the Committee had agreed, in 2012, that if for any 
one-year period an ad hoc observer organization did not attend any meetings of the SPS Committee, 
the Committee would consid er that its observer status has lapsed, but only after the Secretariat had 
contacted the observer organization and received confirmation that it was no longer interested in 
maintaining its observer status. The Chairperson indicated that normally, she would  have requested 
the Secretariat to verify if there were any ad hoc observer organizations that had not attended a 
single meeting of the SPS Committee during 2019, and to contact them to confirm their continued 
interest in maintaining their observer status.  
8.9.  The Chairperson recalled that at the March 2019 SPS Committee meeting, the Secretariat had 
highlighted the inconvenience of this verification procedure, and that all contacted observers had 
always indicated an interest in keeping their observer status. Th e Committee had been invited to 
reflect on whether the verification procedure should be less frequent or applied only when the need 
arose. The Chairperson proposed applying the procedure less frequently in the future.  
8.10.   The Committee agreed  that the verifica tion procedure for observers who have not attended 
any meetings in one year should not be undertaken every year, but as the need arises, for example 
if it became apparent that an observer organization was no longer participating in the meetings.  G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1  
 
- 29 - 
 
  8.11.   The Chairp erson thanked the representatives of observer organizations for their contributions 
to the work of the Committee and for their assistance to Members. The Chairperson further 
encouraged observer organizations to provide written reports on their relevant act ivities in advance 
of the March 2020 meeting.  
9  OTHER BUSINESS  
9.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
10  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING  
10.1.   The Chairman  recalled  that the next regular meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 
19-20 March 2020, preceded by a Thematic Session on Voluntary Third -Party Assurance 
Programmes on 17 March , and an informal meeting on 18 March . 
10.2.   The WTO Secretariat reminded Members of the following deadline s: 
• For submitting comments on the Chairperson's draft report to the Council for Trade in Goods: 
Friday, 8 November 2019 ; 
• For submitting comments on the Chairperson's draft report of the informal meeting 
(JOB/SPS/2/Rev.4 ): Friday, 15 November 2019 ; 
• For submitting comments on the Chair summary of the Thematic Session on Approval 
Procedures: Friday, 15 November 2019 ; 
• For submitting comments on the Chair summary of the discussions on Brazil's revised 
proposal ( G/SPS/W/319/Rev.1 ): Friday, 15 November 2019 ; 
• For submitting comments on the draft programme and the proposal of speakers for the 
Thematic Session on Voluntary Third -Party Assurance Programmes to be held on 
17 March  2020: Friday, 29 Nov ember 2019 ; 
• For submitting suggestions on the topics and scheduling of the June 2020 Committee 
workshop, and a possible  thematic session for November 2020: Friday, 
29 November  2019 ; 
• For indicating interest to pilot test the e -Agenda system: Friday, 29 November 2019 ; 
• For submitting comments on the revised draft Report of the Fifth Review, i ncluding the 
recommendations ( G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 ): Friday, 29 Novembe r 2019 ; 
• Circulation by the Secretariat of a compilation of proposed recommendations and comments 
on the revised draft Report of the Fifth Review: beginning of December 2019 ; 
• For submitting additional comments on the revised draft Report of the Fifth Review : Friday, 
24 January 2020 (if necessary, the Chair may hold consultations at the beginning of 
February 2020) ; 
• For submitting comments on Brazil's revised proposal ( G/SPS/W/319/Rev.1 ): Friday,  
24 January 2020 ; 
• Circulation by the Secretariat of another version of the Report of the Fifth Review: end of 
February 2020 ; 
• For submitting agenda items for the March SPS Committee meeting, including STCs and 
items under the procedure to monitor the use of international sta ndards: Thursday , 
27 February  2020 ; and 
• For the distribution of the annotated agenda: Tuesday, 3 March 2020 . 
10.3.   The Secretariat sought Members' views on circulating  an annotated agenda  to replace the 
convening airgram, and confirmed that it would proceed on t his basis. The annotated agenda would  
contain all the agenda items raised by Members , similar to the annotated agenda for the present 
meeting circulated in JOB/SPS/3 . The deadlines would also be circulated to Members  by email.  
 
__________