RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/108  
 
16 December  2022 
(22-9391) Page: 1/59 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 9-11 NOVEMBER  2022 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  6 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  6 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  6 
2.1.1    United  States - Crop Grouping VI Expansion (G/SPS/N/USA/3302)  ................................ . 6 
2.1.2    Chinese  Taipei - APEC Work shop on the Application of Electronic Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Certificate (G/SPS/GEN/2066)  ................................ ................................ ..........  6 
2.1.3    Japan - Update on the import measures on Japanese food regarding radionuclides  ...........  6 
2.1.4    Ukraine – Information on Ukraine's SPS  situation  ................................ .........................  7 
2.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and WOAH on relevant activities  ................................ .........  8 
2.2.1    Codex (G/SPS/GEN/2064)  ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
2.2.2    WOAH (G/SPS/GEN/2075)  ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
2.2.3    IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/2073)  ................................ ................................ ............................  8 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  9 
3.1.1    EU regulation No 396/2005 setting pesticide MRLs in food and feed of plant and  
animal origin (ID 549) – Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ .............  9 
3.1.2    EU Commission proposal for reduction of the current MRL for "nicotine" for imported  
tea from India (G/SPS/N/EU/581) (ID  550) – Concerns of India  ................................ ............... 10 
3.1.3    EU Regulations 2021/405 and 2017/185 on vitamin D3 (ID  551) – Concerns of China  ......11 
3.1.4    EU increased sampling frequency for inspection of farmed shrimps and newly listed  
fishery establish ments not permitted to export aquaculture products (ID  552) –  
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 11 
3.1.5    India's Draft Food Safety and Standard s (Import) Amendment Regulation (ID  553) – 
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......................... 11 
3.1.6    India's Order related to requirement of health certificate accompanied with  
imported food consignment of milk, pork, fish and related products (ID  554) –  
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 
3.1.7    Namibia's approval procedures for beef and meat of small ruminants (ID  555) –  
Concerns of the Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................ ...................... 13 
3.1.8    Japan's approval procedures for poultry products (ID  556) – Concerns of the 
Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 
3.1.9    Korea's requirement of a health certificate with a declaration of aquatic disease  
status (ID  557) – Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ..................... 13 
 
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/108  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.1.10    EU import restrictions on ostrich meat (ID  558) – Concerns of South Africa  ................... 13 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ .............................  14 
3.2.1    EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos,  
chlorpyrifos -methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, 
mancozeb, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID  448 - See als o related  
STCs ID 453, 454, 457, 474, 475, 517) - Concerns of Paraguay, Ecuador, Costa  Rica  
and the United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 14 
3.2.2    EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea  
(ID 518) - Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ............................... 17 
3.2.3    EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID  382) - Concerns of Paraguay  ......................... 17 
3.2.4    EU import tolerances for certain pesticides to achieve environmental outcomes  
in third countries (ID  534) - Concerns of Australia and China  ................................ .................. 18 
3.2.5    EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application  
of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 amending  
Regulation (EC) No 188 1/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff  
(ID 503) - Concerns of Peru  ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 
3.2.6    EU regulatory approach to maximum levels for contaminants (ID  519) -  
Concerns of Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 21 
3.2.7    EU review of legislati on on veterinary medicinal products (ID  446) - Concerns  
of the United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 21 
3.2.8    China's actions related to COVID -19 that  affect trade in food and agricultural  
products (ID  487) - Concerns of the United  States, Canada, Australia, India  
and Chinese  Taipei  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 23 
3.2.9    China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of  
imported food (26 November 2019) (ID  485) - Concerns of Japan, the United  States,  
Australia, Canada and the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ............ 24 
3.2.10    Concerns with transparency, delays and due process associated with China's  
import requirements for agricultural goods (ID  524) - Concerns of Australia  .............................. 26 
3.2.11    China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID  516) - Concerns of Australia, Canada and the European  Union  ..................... 26 
3.2.12    Saudi  Arabia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting establishments 
(ID 486) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ............................... 27 
3.2.13    Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of fishery and  
livestock enterprises (ID  509) - Concerns of Peru and the European  Union  ................................ 28 
3.2.14    Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and fisheries products (ID  530) -  
Concerns of Peru ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 28 
3.2.15    General imp ort restrictions due to BSE (ID  193) - Concerns of the European  Union  ........ 28 
3.2.16    EU recognition of Mexico as a country with WOAH  negligible BSE risk (ID  543) -  
Concerns of Mexico  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 29 
3.2.17    Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorizatio n of beef imports  
(ID 490) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ........... 29 
3.2.18    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian  
influenza (ID  431) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ............................. 30 
3.2.19    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  406) -  
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 
3.2.20    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  392) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 30 
3.2.21    Peru's non -application of regionalization for African swine fever (ID  544) -  
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......................... 31 G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.2.22    Chinese  Taipei's new procedure for the recognition of infectious animal  
disease -free status of a foreign country (ID  538) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................... 31 
3.2.23    Mexico's import restrictions on pork (ID  489) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ 31 
3.2.24    Peru's import restrictions on pork (ID  482) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ...31 
3.2.25    Chinese  Taipei's import  restrictions on poultry and beef (ID  521) -  
Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 32 
3.2.26    The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID  466) -  
Concerns of the European  Union and the Russian  Federation  ................................ ................... 32 
3.2.27    Nigeria's import restrictions on meat, pork, poultry, milk and dairy products, genetic 
material and live cattle (ID  523) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ .............................. 33 
3.2.28    Qatar's new import rules for dairy products (ID  529) - Concerns of the  
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 33 
3.2.29    Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain  
other ruminants (ID  493) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................... 33 
3.2.30    Thailand's sanitary requirements on wet blue leather imports (ID  539) -  
Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 34 
3.2.31    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID  441) -  
Concerns of the European  Union and the Russian  Federation  ................................ ................... 34 
3.2.32    China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports (ID  506) -  
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 35 
3.2.33   EU regulation on animal health/official certificates for animal origin foods (ID  545) - 
Concerns of China  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 35 
3.2.34    India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID  501) - 
Concerns of the United  States and the European  Union  ................................ ........................... 35 
3.2.35    The Russian  Federation's classification of tea as "fruits and vegetables" (ID  525) - 
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 37 
3.2.36    Panama's restrictions and procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes  
and onions (ID  512) - Concerns of Peru  ................................ ................................ ................ 37 
3.2.37    Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions (ID  498) - Concerns of Peru  ............ 37 
3.2.38    China's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID  532) - Concerns of China  ......................... 38 
3.2.39    US impo rt restrictions on apples and pears (ID  439) - Concerns of the  
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 38 
3.2.40    US high cost of certification for mango  exports (ID  373) - Concerns of India  ................. 38 
3.2.41    US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European  Union for Asian  
longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID  471) - Concerns of the European  Union  .............. 39 
3.2.42    EU delays in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup)  
(ID 526) - Concerns of Korea  ................................ ................................ .............................. 39 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.22)  ................................ .........  39 
4   PROCEDURE TO ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE THE RESOLUTION OF SPECIFIC 
SPS ISSUES AMONG MEMBERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 12.2 (G/SPS/61)  ........  39 
5   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS  AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 40 
5.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  40 
5.1.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 40 
5.1.1.1    United  States – Addition of Lithuania to the list of countries  eligible to export  
egg products  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 40 
5.2   Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  ................................ ...............................  40 
5.2.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 40 G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 4 - 
 
  5.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ...........  40 
5.3.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 40 
5.3.2    Technical revision of G/SPS/7/Rev.4  ................................ ................................ .......... 40 
5.3.3    Official launch of the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform ................................ ....................... 41 
5.4   Control, inspection and approval procedures  ................................ ................................ . 41 
5.4.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 41 
5.4.2    Working Group on Approval Procedures (G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 and 
G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ 41 
5.5   Special and differential treatment  ................................ ................................ ................  41 
5.5.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 41 
5.6   Monitoring of the use of international standards  ................................ ............................  41 
5.6.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 41 
5.6.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 41 
5.6.2.1    Canada - Update on WOAH BSE negligible risk status  ................................ ................ 41 
5.6.2.2    European  Union - ASF restrictions not consistent with the WOAH  
international standard  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 42 
5.6.2.3    European  Union - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the WOAH  
international standard  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 42 
5.6.3    WOAH – Observatory project  ................................ ................................ ..................... 42 
5.7   Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation  and Implementation of the  
SPS Agreement (G/SPS/64 and G/SPS/64/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ . 42 
5.7.1    Report on the informal meeting  ................................ ................................ ................. 42 
5.7.2    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 42 
5.8   Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG  ................................ ................................ ............  42 
6   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  43 
6.1   SPS Declaration Work Programme (G/SPS/W/330, G/SPS/W/331 and WT/MIN(22)/27)  ..... 43 
6.1.1    Adoption of the proposed process (G/SPS/W/330 and G/SPS/W/331)  ............................. 43 
6.1.2   Update on thematic groups  ................................ ................................ ....................... 43 
6.2   Thematic Session on International Standards and Best Practices in Pest Risk  
Identificat ion, Assessment and Management  ................................ ................................ ........  43 
6.2.1    Report on the Thematic Session  ................................ ................................ ................ 43 
6.3   Trade facilitative approaches to pesticide MRLs  ................................ .............................  43 
6.3.1    Update from Members (G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev.3)  ................................ ......................... 43 
6.4   MC12 Implementation Matters (JOB/CTG/16)  ................................ ................................  44 
6.4.1    Information from the Chair  ................................ ................................ ....................... 44 
6.5   2023 Thematic Sessions  ................................ ................................ .............................  44 
6.5.1    Proposals from Members (G/SPS/GEN/2067)  ................................ ............................... 44 
7   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  44 
7.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................  44 
7.1.1    WTO SPS  Activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..44 
7.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/2065)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 45 
7.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .........................  45 G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 5 - 
 
  7.2.1    United  States – Technical assistance to developing countries  
(G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.15)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...45 
7.2.2    Canada – Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/2070)  ..................... 46 
8   CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  ................................ ...... 46 
9   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  46 
9.1   Information from Observer Organizations  ................................ ................................ ..... 46 
9.1.1    African Union (G/SPS/GEN/2077)  ................................ ................................ .............. 46 
9.1.2    World Bank – International Finance Corporation (G/SPS/GEN/2063)  .............................. 46 
9.1.3    ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/2059)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 46 
9.1.4    OECD (G/SPS/GEN/2060)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 46 
9.1.5    OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/2061)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 47 
9.1.6    IICA (G/SPS/GEN/2068)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 47 
9.1.7    GSO (G/SPS/GEN/2071)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 47 
9.1.8    CAHFSA (G/SPS/GEN/2072)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 47 
9.1.9    SADC (G/SPS/GEN/2074)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 47 
9.2   Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ .......................  47 
9.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 47 
9.2.2    Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....47 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 47 
11   DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .... 47 
ANNEX A  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  49 
ANNEX B  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  52 
 
  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee" ) held its 84th regular 
meeting on 9 -11 November 2022. The proposed agenda for the meeting (JOB/SPS/23 ) was adopted 
with amendments. In light of the COVID -19 pandemic, the meeting was held in hybrid form, with 
some delegates attending in -person and others joining via a virtual platform.  
1.2.  The Secretariat drew Members' attention to the annual report from the  SPS Chairperson to the 
Council for Trade in Goods (CTG), which would be updated with the current meeting and Members' 
comments ahead of submission for consideration by the CTG. Members were able to submit agenda 
items, support specific trade concerns (STCs), and upload statements through eAgenda. 
Members  could support items through eAgenda until they were discussed in the meeting, and upload 
statements for STCs and other agenda items until Friday, 11 Novemb er 2022. Only oral interventions 
by Members who took the floor during the meeting were reflected in the present report. In addition, 
longer statements could be shared through eAgenda or circulated as GEN documents. 
The Secretariat drew Members' attention t o an introductory presentation  on the  SPS Committee, 
available for delegates in the SPS Gateway  on the WTO website , and invited Members to inform the 
Secretariat of email address es to be added or removed from the delegates ' distribution list and 
eAgenda.  
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
2.1.1   United  States  - Crop Grouping VI Expansion (G/SPS/N/USA/3302 ) 
2.1.  The United  States  announced the publication of the final rule "Pesticides: Expansion of Crop 
Grouping Program VI", notified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in document 
G/SPS/N/USA/3550  (and previously as G/SPS/N/USA/3302 ). The US EPA had expanded  from 168  to 
248 the number of commodities in several crop groups,  including certain minor or specialty crops,  
covered by maximum residue limits (MRLs) for new crop groups.  This increased compatibility with 
international food safety standards  benefitted both US domestic producers  as well as food importers. 
Additional crop group updates were expected to be completed over the next few years . 
2.1.2   Chinese  Taipei  - APEC Workshop on the Application of Electronic Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Certificate (G/SPS/GEN/2066 ) 
2.2.  In October 2022, Chinese  Taipei  had hosted an APEC virtual Workshop on the Application of 
Electronic Veterinary and Phytosanitary Certificate s (eCertificates ), proposed under t he 
APEC Agricultural Technical Cooperation Working Group.  The conclusions of a pre -workshop 
questionnaire highlighted the desire for a multilateral veterinary eCertificate system; the urgency of 
expanding the IPPC ePhyto solution to include more types of p roducts and more economies; and the 
need to develop security measures to prevent repeated use of photocopy paper certificates. 
APEC economies would work together to build an open, fair, transparent, productive, sustainable 
and resilient APEC food system th rough capacity building and best practice sharing program mes. 
2.3.  Chile saw great interest in the initiative of electronic certification, given its potential to facilitate 
trade and the security of the issuance of sanitary and phytosanitary certificates . 
2.4.  New Zealand  thanked Chinese  Taipei  for outlining APEC's  work on electronic certification , which  
remained an important tool to ensure the safety and suitability of exported goods. Noting the 
disruption s to supply chains caused by the COVID -19 pandemic, New Zealand  announced that 
APEC Ministers had committed to accelerating digital processes. In view of the increased  efficien cy 
and expedite d clearance of goods  at its border , New Zealand  was investing to further improve the 
functioning of the eCertificate systems . New Zealand  reminded delegates of the OECD's report on 
digital opportunities for  SPS systems and the trade facilitation effect of  SPS eCertificates.  
2.1.3   Japan - Update on the import measures on Japanese food regarding radionuclides  
2.5.  Japan  expressed its appreciation to Indonesia for lifting its import measures on Japanese food. 
The annual report circ ulated as G/SPS/ GEN/1233/Rev.5  provided an update of the food monitoring G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 7 - 
 
  and study results proving safety of the Japanese public food supply. The lack of significant changes 
in the survey results since the previous meeting was an indication that the health risk of food 
produced in Japan was negligible. According to Japan, t he FAO/IAEA Center  assessments 
acknowledge d that the food supply chain was controlled effectively and  that the public food supply 
was safe , evidencing that  there was no need to maintain the import measur es. 
2.6.  Noting that 43 out of 55 countries and regions had totally lifted the import restrictions and/or 
measures introduced after the accident, and that 90% of WTO Members accepted Japanese products 
with no additional conditions, Japan regretted that 12 count ries and regions still maintained them 
without providing satisfactory explanations.  Japan reiterated that the discharge of the Advanced 
Liquid Processing System (ALPS) treated water would be implemented in accordance with the 
international practice and strictly comply with regulatory standards regarding safety, under 
IAEA review . Therefore, the discharge could not be a reason for restricting imports of Japanese food.  
In Japan's view, the import measures were inconsistent with the  SPS Agreement and were 
maintained without justifiable scientific evidence. Japan invited Members to review the restrictions 
in place and underlined its availability to assist Members concerned i n conducting risk assessment 
and risk communication. Japan requested Members to lift the remaining measures shortly.  
2.7.  Korea  pointed to  the high level of caesium detected in fishery products in Japan, and was of 
the view that concerns over  the safety of Japa nese products should be addressed before talking 
about  import measures. Korea reiterated the importance of holding consultations and sharing 
information on the potential environmental impact of the post-accident measures  to address the 
concerns of neighbou ring countries.  
2.8.  Praising its well -functioning monitoring and control system , Japan  replied that the government 
had suspended the shipment s of the marine fish species caught in the Fukushima prefecture , which 
were neither distributed nor exported. Japan had held regular briefing sessions with Korea's relevant 
authorities on the planned controlled discharge of treated water , and looked forward to an early 
response from Korea to the request to hold bilateral meetings on its import restrictions o n 
Japanese  food. 
2.9.  Reiterating its concerns on the measures taken after the accident, Korea  asked Japan to  deliver 
a detailed request through diplomatic channel s. 
2.10.   Referring to the statement uploaded in eAgenda, Japan  clarified that a request had already 
been made through the diplomatic channel.  
2.1.4   Ukraine – Information on Ukraine's  SPS situation  
2.11.   Ukraine  reminded  the Committee  that it had been granted candidate status by the 
European  Council in June 2022.  Ukraine had been  implementing a national food quality and safety 
control system equivalent to that of the European  Union , and Ukrainian legislation was increasingly 
aligned with EU regulations, as reflected in the notifications submitted to WTO.  In the de -occupied 
territo ries of Ukraine , the State Food and Consumer Service carried out timely and quality work on 
the prevention of infectious diseases of animals. On territories under Ukrainian control, inspections 
were carried out in accordance with the current national legislation and the relevant international 
treaties . Twenty -one of the 24 phytosanitary laboratories continued to operate, and the competent  
SPS authorities continued to guarantee the compliance of Ukrainian products with the phytosanitary 
require ments of their trading partners.  
2.12.   Ukraine noted the resumption of s ea grain exports through the  grain corridor established by 
the Black Sea Grain Initiative , and thanked Türkiye for facilitating its further implementation . 
The Government had allowed the fum igation of grain in compliance with the requirements of the 
International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 43 to facilitate shipments under the 
Initiative . Additionally , six bulk carriers had been sent under the UN World Food Programme. 
Ukraine  underscored that  it remained a reliable partner and its readiness to continue to contribute 
to global food security , and thanked WTO Members for their  support . 
2.13.   Expressing their support, several Members  showed appreciation for Ukraine's  efforts to fulfil 
its SPS WTO obligations. The European  Union , the United  States , Switzerland , Canada, Australia , 
New Zealand , Korea , the United Kingdom  and Japan  strongly condemne d the Russian  Federation 's G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 8 - 
 
  military action in Ukraine, noting that it constituted a violation of international law and the 
UN Charter. Several Members stated  that the invasion was further exacerbating the current food 
security crisis, since Ukraine was una ble to export and inspect its grain, and called on the 
Russian  Federation  to withdraw its forces and cease military operations in Ukraine.  Türkiye noted it 
would continue  diplomatic efforts to ensure food security and to stabilize food supply in internatio nal 
markets.  
2.14.   The Russian  Federation  underlined that the matter was not within the mandate of the WTO, 
and complain ed that the politically motivated trade restrictive actions against the Russian  Federation  
imposed by several WTO Members were behind the possible shortages in net food importing 
countries. With regards to the accusations on lack of  SPS control s in the mentioned areas , 
the Russian  Federation  explained that competent authorities in the areas whe re products originated 
were issuing  SPS certificates , and that  assistance was being provided to the competent authorities 
with regards to  the harmonization of  SPS legislation to ensure compliance with the  requirements of 
importing countries.  In Russia's vi ew, the global food crisis and hunger was part of a macroeconomic 
crisis that had evolved  over the years . The Russian  Federation  lamented  that some foodstuffs 
exported through the Grain Deal concluded in Istanbul  in July 2022 reached developed and not 
developing countries , as declared in the humanitarian goals. The parties were working on the 
extension of the Grain Deal, which would otherwise cease to operate in November 2022.  
2.2  Information from Codex, IPPC and WOAH on relevant activities  
2.2.1   Codex (G/SPS/GEN/2064 ) 
2.15.   Codex  presente d its report on relevant activities , contained  in document G/SPS/GEN/2064 . 
It first referred to the ongoing work on the application of the statement of principle  concerning the 
role of science,  aimed at developing  guidance towards a common understanding  and its homogenous 
application  for the adoption or the advancement of its standards.  Codex  invited Members to 
participate in the discussions of the Executive Committee on  emerging issues in food safety and 
trade and on standards development mechanisms, as well as on the activities celebrating the 
60th anniversary of the Commission. Regarding the work of the Committee on Pesticide Residues 
(CCPR ), Codex also noted the ongoing process of  adoption of MRLs; the finalization of the Guidelines 
on biopesticides ; the coordination with the Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods to 
harmonize definitions; the agreement to consider environmental inhibitors  in agriculture  to mitigate 
trade impacts  arising from the use of t hese substances ; and the management initiatives to enhance 
the work of the  Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues, namely to increase the establishment 
and harmonization of MRLs  for international trade . 
2.2.2   WOAH (G/SPS/GEN/2075 ) 
2.16.   WOAH  referred to its submission  on relevant activities contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2075 , and drew Members'  attention to  the reports of the meetings of  the four Specialist 
Commissions to advance work on standards in the terrestrial and aquatic codes and manuals . 
Regarding terrestrial animal standards, WOAH ment ioned the circulation of a proposed revision of 
numerous chapters of the manual for several diseases relevant to international trade ; in relation to  
aquatic animals, WOAH highlighted the continuous evaluation of susceptibility of species , the update 
of num erous chapters of the manual and the update of the work plan of the Aquatic Animals 
Commission. WOAH also noted the continuous work of the Working Group on Antimicrobial 
Resistance  (AMR), the new WOAH database on antimicrobials  to be used in animals  and the 
development of online training modules for  veterinary services . A more detailed intervention on the 
Observatory project would be provided under the agenda item on monitoring the use of international 
standards . 
2.2.3   IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/2073 ) 
2.17.   The IPPC presented its report on relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/2073 . 
Besides  referring to the meetings of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) Bureau , 
the IPPC informed the Committee that its Observatory was transitioning to a more sustainable 
approach on the monitori ng of the implementation of the IPPC standards, and that the three sisters 
were involved in a working group created to improve collaboration and experience sharing on their 
respective monitoring activities. The  main agenda item of the upcoming meeting of t he G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 9 - 
 
  IPPC Standards Committee would be the revision and potential approval of specifications that would 
become international standards , including  commodity -specific standards.  The IPPC also summarized 
some of the activities of the  Implementation and Capacity Development Committee , that was 
accepting nominations  at that time . The IPPC also highlighted progress and the further potential of 
the ePhyto Solution , and the  holding  of the first Plant Health Conference , in parallel with mee tings 
of the ePhyto Industry Advisory Group and the Focus Group on Sea Containers.  
2.18.   Senegal  queried how many of the 112 countries registered in ePhyto had an operational 
system in place. Senegal asked  the IPPC  about any future charges envisaged to ensure th e 
sustainability of ePhyto. Acknowledging the usefulness of tools developed by the IPPC, 
Senegal  invited the IPPC to expand its capacity  building programmes.  
2.19.   Indonesia  appreciated the IPPC for its capacity building on ePhyto  and emphasiz ed its positive 
effects on trade  facilitation . 
2.20.   Aware  that not all 112 registered countries were active in ePhyto , the IPPC was working to 
maximize its use.  Sustainable funding for ePhyto was one of the main topics discussed by the 
CPM Bureau and the IPPC Str ategic Planning Group, and it was expected that some concrete 
proposals would be presented for approval at the upcoming CPM.  Work on capacity development 
was also being undertaken , and the IPPC took notice of the need to strengthen capacities on ePhyto.  
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
3.1.  Before the adoption of the agenda, India withdrew two new specific trade concerns (STCs): 
Japan's compulsory inspection of farmed shrimps; and Canada's  SPS notification 
(G/SPS/N/CAN/1366/Rev.1 ) pertaining to aquatic animals requirement of zoosani tary certificate. 
Regarding previously raised STC s, Brazil withdrew the concern  "US undue delays in opening its citrus 
market (ID 542)" and  China did not raise the concern "EU regulatory approach to maximum levels 
for contaminants  (ID 519)", which  was only raised by Canada.  
3.1  New issues  
3.1.1   EU regulation No 396/2005 setting pesticide MRLs in food and feed of plant and 
animal origin  (ID 549) – Concerns of India  
3.2.  India expressed its concern regarding the reduction to the level of determination of MRLs for 
the ne onicotinoids clothianidin and thiamethoxam for imported agricultural products , notified in 
document G/TBT/N/EU/908 . India requested t he European  Union  to share the risk assessment used 
as a basis for this decision, as well as to indicate the alternative measures that had been conside red. 
Given the widespread use and the large -scale applications of neonicotinoids, the EU decision would 
severely impact the choice of available plant protection measures. India urged the European  Union  
to postpone the implementation of the proposed regulat ion; to justify the link between the new MRLs 
and the objective to be achieved; and to notify the measure to the  SPS Committee.  
3.3.  Israel  shared the  concerns regarding the justification, the lack of notification to the  
SPS Committee, the equivalence of measures, the transition periods and the usage in greenhouses. 
More generally, Israel feared that the EU policy of reducing MRLs to the level of determination based 
on concerns not covered by the  SPS Agreement could threaten t he WTO rules -based trading system. 
Israel looked forward to receiving answers to its concerns.  
3.4.  Colombi a referred to its full statement in eAgenda, which applied to both this concern and to 
STC ID 534. Colombia state d that the EU Draft Commission Regulation amending Annexes II and V 
to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 reduced MRLs on the basis of environmental, and not on sanitary 
criteria. Noting that the above -mentioned Regulation aimed at ensuring a high level of protec tion 
for consumers and animals and at avoiding trade barriers within the EU market and facilitate 
international trade, Colombia was of the view that the environmental aspects were beyond  the scope 
of the Regulation and were , therefore , inconsistent with EU internal legislation.  Unlike Regulation 
(EC) No 1107/2009, which allowed for the non -approval or renewal of an active substance on the 
basis of the precautionary principle, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 required a risk assessment based 
on the dietary exposure  of the active substances whose MRLs were being reviewed. Colombia invited G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 10 - 
 
  the European  Union  to review its Draft Commission Regulation in light of WTO rules and 
Codex  recommendations, and the take into account the available scientif ic evidence.  
3.5.  Noting the EU MRL legislation gave raise to numerous concerns, Paraguay  supported this STC 
and referred to its intervention under  STC ID 534. 
3.6.  Costa  Rica echoed previous interventions and provide d a deta iled intervention under  STC 
ID 534. 
3.7.  Uruguay  shared the concern and provide d further details on the establishment of MRLs for 
certain pesticides to reach environmental goals in third countries  under  STC ID 534. 
3.8.  Noting the similarities, Brazil  supported this concern on that same basis and develop ed further 
its response under  STC ID 534. 
3.9.  Guatemala  expressed a global concern rega rding the modification by the European  Union  of 
MRLs for environmental reasons, without taking into account the recommendations by Codex. 
Guatemala shared other Members ' concerns and provide d its intervention under  STC ID 534. 
3.10.   Making an intervention relative to both this STC and STC ID 534, China  appreciate d the 
opportunity to comment on the notification  G/TBT/N/EU/908 . Acknowledging the importance of 
protecting  pollinators , China was of the view  that the proposed EU regulation would create 
unneces sary barrier to trade and encourage d the European  Union  to consider Members concerns . 
China invite d the European  Union  to notify the proposed MRL amendments to the  SPS Committee  
and to provide more time for comments.  Given the lack of scientific agreement on the real reason 
for the decline in honeybee colonies, China recommended that the European  Union  provide the 
relevant data in order to confirm the completeness of the risk assessment of neonicotinoid pesticides 
on bees . Referring to Article 5.1 of the  SPS Agreement, China invited the European  Union  to 
formulate MRL s reasonably, or in line with Codex,  while effectively safeguarding the safety of bees 
and other non -target organisms.  
3.11.   Argentina  echoed India's request for the full risk ass essment. Argentina noted the increasing 
global concern on the departure from scientific criteria in the adoption of sanitary measures and 
provide d further  arguments supporting its concern under STC ID 534. 
3.12.   Canada  delivered its statement under STC ID 534. 
3.13.   Acknowledging the similarities with STC ID 534, the European  Union  provided a complete 
answer under that concern . 
3.1.2   EU Commissi on proposal for reduction of the current MRL for "nicotine" for 
imported tea from India (G/SPS/N/EU/581 ) (ID 550) – Concerns of India  
3.14.   India thanked the European  Union  for its reply in the context of notification G/SPS/N/EU/581  
and raised  its concerns on the reduction of the MRL for nicotine in tea from 0.6 mg/kg to 0.5 mg/kg. 
India was of the view  that the study on which the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had based 
the lowering of th is MRL was not representative of the EU population. Noting that  SPS measures 
should be based on scientific principles, as established in Article 2.2 of the Agreement, 
India requested  the European  Union  to share its scientific risk assessment. India  further explained 
that some plants naturally produced nicotin e, and that recent studies had shown that the content of 
endogenous nicotine present in tea plant s remained constant during manufacturing of green, oolong 
and black teas. India urged the European  Union  to maintain the current limit of nicotine in tea in th e 
absence of scientific data and a proper risk assessment.  
3.15.   The European  Union  clarified that Commission Regulation (EU) No. 812/2011 had temporarily 
set an MRL for nicotine in tea at 0.6 mg/kg, pending the evaluation of new data. However, EFSA's  risk 
assessment had confirmed an acute  consumer risk for the existing MRL. A new MRL of 0.5 mg/kg 
had been temporarily proposed, and  would be automatically lowered to 0.4 mg/kg three years 
following the publication of the  notified  Commission Regulation , unless data justifying the necessity 
to retain it were provided by 30 June 2025. A six-month transition period would be provided following 
the publication of the Commission Regulation , expected in the first half of 2023 , and no further G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 11 - 
 
  transition periods wou ld be granted . The European  Union  expressed its willingness to provide any 
additional information regarding this matter.  
3.1.3   EU Regulations 2021/405 and 2017/185 on vitamin D3  (ID 551) – Concerns of 
China  
3.16.   China  noted  that the Netherlands had banned the entry of exports of vitamin D3 on grounds 
of its classification as a product of animal origin, and therefore subject to approval for market access. 
The bans had taken  effect in 2021, after the expiry of the established transitional periods.  
China  regretted that the bans had been applied prior to the entry into force of the EU Regulations, 
and reminde d Members of the obligations to seek additional information and to review provisional 
measures in accordance with Article 5. 7 of the  SPS Agreement . China appreciated the EU suggestion 
to put vitamin D3 on the list of highly refined products , and requested  the European  Union  to restore 
the import s from China.  
3.17.   The European  Union  would look into the particular concerns raised by C hina and looked 
forward to continue the discussion bilaterally.  
3.1.4   EU increased sampling frequency for inspection of farmed shrimps and newly listed 
fishery establishments not permitted to export aquaculture products  (ID 552) – Concerns 
of India  
3.18.   In India's view, the EU increase d sampling frequency for antibiotic residues in farmed shrimp 
from 10% to 50% imposed a non -tariff barrier to trade. India requested the European  Union  to 
revert to the previous sampling frequency as a r esult of the corrective actions taken and the 
reduction in the number of rejections due to antibiotic detection . Expressing gratitude for the 
enlisting of new units to export sea -caught items , India further requested that newly enlisted units 
be permitted to export aquaculture products. Regretting that only five of the 14 aquaculture units 
delisted in 2016 and 2017 had been relisted for export of wild -caught items, India urged the 
European  Union  to relist the remaining units to export both wild -caught and a quaculture products.  
3.19.   Acknowledging significant progress  since the previous audit , the European  Union  informed the 
Committee that a high level of non-compliant results for  prohibited  antimicrobials  were still detected 
both in the Indian -initiated pre -harvest testing programme in hatcheries and in the  mandatory 
pre-export testing programme . An audit carried out in 2022 had also concluded that follow -up 
investigations and measures  to dissuade illegal use , as well as the testing regim es operating in India , 
were still necessary . The European  Union  awaited India's response on the audits' findings and a 
proposed plan of action to deal with the audit recommendations. Expressing its willingness to 
continue bilateral discussions, the Europea n Union  would review the situation regarding the 
pre-listing of aquaculture establishments in due course.  
3.1.5   India's Draft Food Safety and Standards (Import ) Amendment Regulation  (ID 553) 
– Concerns of the European  Union  
3.20.   The European  Union  regretted that  the Indian Order requiring  the registration of foreign 
facilities manufacturing  five product categories, issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority 
of India (FSSAI ) and notified as G/TBT/N/IND/180 , had been  adopted without a response to 
EU comments . The European  Union  reque sted India to clarify the scope of products subject to 
registration; to postpone the entry into force of new requirements for 12 months; to provide 
four-digit level H S codes for products subject to registration , with the indication of associated risks; 
to make Indian import sanitary measures easily accessible; to clarify the facility inspection 
modalities; to notify the measure at issue to the  SPS Committee ; and to respond to the comments 
submitted by the European  Union . The European  Union  would welcome the  opportunity to engage 
in bilateral discussions with Indian authorities.  
3.21.   Having raised the concern at the TBT Committee, Canada  stressed  that India's  measure  also 
contained  SPS elements  and could create  unnecessary barriers to trade . The criteria used to 
determine  the level of risk for imported food products and the circumstances that would instigate an 
audit remained unclear. Canada urged India to respond to its request for information submitted to 
the enquiry point , and to notify this measure to the  SPS Committee.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.22.   Thanking India for the information provided on its requirements, New Zealand  emphasized 
that the registration and auditing of foreign manufacturing facilities should have been managed by 
the competent authorities of the exporting country. New Zealand  was also concerned about the level 
of detail required for registration . New Zealand  expressed interest in receiving detailed written 
guidance on this requirement prior to its entry into force.  
3.23.   India informed the Committee that, in pursuance to the 2006 Food Safety and Standards Act,  
FSSAI regulated safety of imported food . The  2021 Draft Food Safety and Standards (Import ) 
Amendment Regulations  provided the legal framework for the registration and in spection of foreign 
food manufacturing facilities on  the basis  of risk of food categories. The FSSAI had addressed the 
comments  by notifying  the need for the competent authorities of the exporting countries to provide 
information to register food manufacturing facilities falling under certain categories of  food products , 
as well as information on manufacturers willing to export such articles t o India.  India emphasized 
that the practice of listing and registration of foreign establishment , also prevalent in other Members,  
reduced inspection and clearance times and ensured the quality and safety of food products.  
3.1.6   India's Order related to requirem ent of health certificate accompanied with 
imported food consignment of milk, pork, fish and related products  (ID 554) – Concerns 
of the European  Union   
3.24.   The European  Union  raised its concerns regarding  an FSSAI Order introduc ing three new 
health certificates for milk, pork , fish and related  products. While appreciating the two -month delay 
in the implementation of th e Order notified to the TBT Committee, the European  Union  remained 
concerned that exporters and competent authoritie s would require extra time to prepare for its 
implementation. The European  Union  pointed to the duplication of sanitary requirements and 
approval procedures between different competent authorities in India, and requested India to 
postpone the Order's entry  into force for one year; to provide clarifications on certificates modalities; 
to consider duplication avoidance  in the different certificates ; to notify this measure to the  
SPS Committee; and to provide written replies to EU comments. The European  Union  welcomed 
bilateral discussions on this matter.  
3.25.   Japan  shared this concern stating that the Order implementation schedule had been 
insufficient to consider Members ' comments, and pointing to the importance o f announc ing 
extensions in advance to avoid negativ e trade impacts. Japan thanked India for its openness to 
bilateral discussions and urged India to ensure enough time  for Members  to adjust to the new health 
certificate forms, to provide answers to its comments, and to notify the Order to the  SPS Committee . 
3.26.   Norway  supported the concern , specially concerning fish and fish products. 
Norway  highlight ed the  substantial equivalency undertakings required for the fulfilment of India 's 
Order, the duplication of some requirements, and the additional costs and burdensome bureaucracy  
imposed by the Order . Norway requested India to delay the implementation of the Order and to 
revise existing certificates to avoid trade disruption.  
3.27.   Chile shared the concern regarding India's Order notified as G/TBT/N/IND/233 . According to 
Chile, the measure' s scope and product coverage were unclear and the implementation schedule for 
new certifications was unfeasible. Underscoring the  sanitary objectives of the Order, Chile requested 
India to notify th e measure to the  SPS Committee , to respond to the comments  submitted on the 
TBT notification and to provide a period of at least one year prior for implementation of the Order . 
3.28.   Canada  voiced concerns on the duplication of health certificate requirements and the 
regulatory burden and costs imposed for the covered commodities. W elcoming India's decision to 
integrate new FSSAI requirements  into existing certificates, Canada remained concerned about its 
implementation and demanded further explanations regarding the implications of this measure on 
certificates currentl y under negotiation. Canada requested India to provide repl ies to its comments, 
to further delay implementation until the finalization of revised single certificates and to notify 
this measure to the  SPS Committee.  
3.29.   Concerned with the new requirements, New Zealand  sought confirmation that Indian 
authorities would accept a single health certificate for the covered  commodities. New Zealand  
encouraged India to recognize exporting countries' food safety regulatory systems  in accordance 
with the  SPS Agreement principle  for recognition of equivalence. Noting the 1 January 2023 deadline G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 13 - 
 
  established for export certifications, New Zealand  urged India to offer a transition period for the 
implementation of any revised certificati on and to accept existing  certificates during th at time. 
3.30.   India informed the Committee that the health certificate requirement for milk, pork and fish 
products was introduced to ensure products' compliance with FSSAI safety requirements. 
Following  the notif ication of the requirement to the TBT Committee, India had addressed Members' 
comments related to the number of certificates and the delay of  implementation by issuing a 
clarification on certificates format and postponing  the enforcement date until 1 January 2023.  
3.1.7   Namibia's approval procedures for beef and meat of small ruminants  (ID 555) – 
Concerns of the Russian  Federation  
3.31.   The Russian  Federation  raised its concern on the lack of progress in Namibia 's approval of 
veterinar y certificates for imports of Russian beef and meat of small ruminants. Although the 
Russian  Federation  had been recognized by WOAH as a country with zones free from foot and mouth 
disease (FMD) with or without vaccination, and all relevant documentation had been shared with 
Namibia, the risk assessment of the Russian FMD control system had been ongoing for more than 
five years without any response.  The Russian  Federation  also regretted the postpo nement, without 
further confirmation, of an invitation for Namibian expert s to review and visit the Russian veterinary 
supervision system and exporting enterprises. Emphasizing the pending approval of proposed drafts 
of certificates for the import of dairy  products, honey, finished meat products, fish and seafood 
products, the Russian  Federation  urged Namibia to  respect its obligations under Articles 5 and 8 of 
the SPS Agreement and to allow imports of beef, meat of cattle and small ruminants.  
3.32.   Namibia  took note of the concerns and  planned to  respond through appropriate channels 
following consultation with capital -based officials.  
3.1.8   Japan's approval procedures for poultry products  (ID 556) – Concerns of the 
Russian  Federation  
3.33.   The Russian  Federation  expressed its concerns with delays in Japan's approval of veterinary 
certificates for Russian poultry. Referring to Article 6.2 of the  SPS Agreement, the 
Russian  Federation  informed the Committee  that it had submitted all appropriate mat erials 
confirming  the regionalization of Russian territory in terms of  highly pathogenic avian influenza  
(HPAI). The Russian  Federation  was disappointed that , despite Japan's visit in 2017 and  the positive 
consideration of Russian poultry products in 2019,  no market access had been granted. 
The Russian  Federation  also noted the lack of progress in the approval of veterinary certificates, 
regretted it had not received the questionnaires for Russian poultry meat exporters, and that 
Japan  had not responded to the invitations to conduct video inspections. The Russian  Federation  
welcomed bilateral discussions and urged Japan to prevent undue delay in its approval procedures.  
3.1.9   Korea's requirement of a health certificate with a declaration of aquatic disease 
status  (ID 557) – Concerns of India  
3.34.   India raised its concerns regarding Korea 's requirement for a health certification and disease 
status declaration for aquatic animal exports. Highlighting the duplication and the burden of testing 
exported frozen shrimp for fo ur diseases in accredited laboratories, India encouraged Korea to limit 
certification requirements  to those considered necessary and to prevent trade disruption of safe 
products . 
3.35.   Korea  stated that its quarantine requirements for imported aquatic animals were reasonable,  
in line with WOAH standards , and a common measure across the world . Emphasizing the industrial 
importance of shrimps, Korea had pre -emptively implemented disease control actions since 2008. 
Korea informed the Committee that India had consent ed in 2017 to perform quarantine on chilled 
and frozen shrimp and to issue health certificates guaranteeing the absence of five diseases.  
3.1.10   EU import restrictions on ostrich meat  (ID 558) – Concerns of South Africa  
3.36.   Despite the bilateral agreement in place that allowed for the exports of fresh ostrich meat 
even during HPAI outbreaks, South Africa  expressed concern s over the implementation of 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/692, which de facto banned  the importation of G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 14 - 
 
  terrestrial animals and animal products  from third countries' compartments . While  Regulation 
(EU) 2016/429 (Animal Health Law ) and Commission Delegated Regulations (EU) 2020/689 and 
2020/687 recognized the disease -free status of terrest rial animal compartments for trade within and 
between EU member States, Regulation (EU) 2020/692 did not grant this possibility to third 
countries , violating  the SPS Agreement and the WOAH Terrestrial Code.  South Africa regretted the 
lack of information by  the European  Union  on its intention to terminate the bilateral agreements . 
3.37.   The European  Union  explained that its Animal Health Law , in force since 2021  following its 
notification  as G/SPS/N/EU/45  and addenda, la id down the requirements for imports of animal and 
germinal products and products of animal origin . Supplementing the Animal Health Law , 
Regulation  (EU) 2020/692 repealed the possibility to import  meat of farmed ratites from  registered 
closed ratite holding s approved by the third country 's competent authority in case of HPAI. 
Highlighting its compliance with the regionalization principle,  the European  Union  looked forward to 
continuing  bilateral discussions and was about to provid e technical assistance to inform South Africa 
about  the procedures to apply for regionalization recognition.  
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.2.1   EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, 
chlorpyrifos -methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron , glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, 
iprodione, mancozeb, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID 448 - See also related 
STCs  ID 453, 454, 457, 474, 475, 517 ) - Concerns of Paraguay, Ecuador, Costa  Rica and 
the United  States  
3.38.   Paraguay  drew the Committee's  attention to document  G/SPS /GEN/2076 , submitted as a 
follow -up to the responses provided by the European  Union  in document G/SPS/GEN/2038 . 
Besides  the ni ne questions included in the document, Paraguay sought further clarification on how 
the European  Union  balanced the existence of efficient , alternative, non -chemical methods and 
EFSA's consideration that the emergency authorization s might be justified. Par aguay specifically 
referred to the emergency authorization for the active substances thiametoxham, clothianidin and 
imidaclorprid to control Tanymecus dilaticollis  in maize,  which had been granted in 2022 despite 
having been considered as unjustified by EF SA in 2018.  Paraguay reiterated its request for the 
European  Union  and its 27 members States to respond in writing to the questions raised.  
3.39.   Reiterating its concerns on EU MRL policies, Ecuador  reiterated  the need for certain active 
substances to combat pes ts in tropical climates,  that differed from those in the European  Union , and 
to avoid the economic and social negative effects of crop losses. Without substances such as imazalil, 
chlorot halonil, mancozeb and metiram, farmers lacked viable alternatives to combat black sigatoka, 
banana fusarium wilt (TR4) and other fungal diseases.  Regarding mancozeb, recent research had 
confirmed that it did not  cause adverse  effects on humans nor on wild a nd laboratory animals at 
concentrations lower than those expected as a result of systemic toxicity.  The ban of 
alpha -cypermethrin,  chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos -methyl posed greater challenges in minor crops 
that were making themselves known in the Europea n market . Ecuador called upon the 
European  Union  to conform with Codex standards when possible , to take into account the challenges 
faced by its trading partners to adapt their production methods and to find alternatives. 
Ecuador  expressed a particular con cern regarding the granting o f emergency authorizations . 
3.40.   Costa  Rica's concern s related to the impact that the reduction of MRLs to the level of detection 
could have on its production system. No alternatives were available for t he substances  included in 
this STC, which were necessary for production in tropical climates. Costa  Rica had also raised  
concern s about  the lack of conclusive scientific evidence and the divergence with conclusions reached 
in other international fora in the TBT Committ ee and in the CTG. Costa  Rica supported  the questions 
raised by several Members on the emergency authorizations granted by EU member States. 
Underscoring its willingness to cooperate towards trade facilitating solutions in line with the  
SPS Agreement, Costa Rica asked the European  Union  to reconsider its regulatory approach and to 
incorporate measure s that reduced the impact of the regulations on global food security.  
3.41.   Concerned by the impact on global agricultural supply chains, t he United  States  was of the 
view that the EU pesticide policies of reduction of MRLs for plant protection products were a burden 
both for trading partners and for EU members States . Noting the continued use of emergency 
authorizations for EU farmers and the a bsence of effective alternatives available, the United  States  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 15 - 
 
  requested that the European  Union  afford producers in third countries equal access to important and 
efficacious crop protection tools available to farmers in EU member States.  The United  States  was 
also concerned that the EU approach to reducing MRLs  was not based on adequate scientific evidence 
and technical information , which  could result in the adoption of MRLs that were more restrictive than 
necessary . Reminding Members of the obligation to a pply least restrictive measures that 
accomplished their stated level of protection , the United  States  believed that the EU approach 
introduced uncertainty for farmers and trading partners  and did not advance shared efforts towards 
global food security and strengthening the global food supply chain.  The United  States  submitted its 
statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2080 . 
3.42.   Supporting the  concern, Peru regretted  that no changes had been introduced in EU MRLs, 
which  were more restrictive than necessary.  
3.43.   Colombia  referred to its full statement uploaded on eAgenda and to its previous interventions 
on this concern. Together with other Members,  Colombia had raised questions to individual 
EU member States to seek clarity on the flexibilities in Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. 
In Colombia's view, imposing default MRLs  on the basis of precaution without a risk assessment 
violated the  SPS Agreement and the GATT, was more restrictive than necessary and was 
discriminatory in light of the flexibilities established in Regulations (EC) No 1107/2009 and 
(EC) No 396/2005.  
3.44.   Guatemala  emphasized the challenges faced by farmers due to the non-approval  of some of 
the pesticides included in this STC. In Guatemala's view, the European  Union  disregarded the fact 
that c limate -related factors altered interactions between pests, natural enemies  and hosts , which  
was a major issue for producers.  Botanical fungicides, copper - and sulphur -based products and 
synthetic fungicides had been evaluated as substitutes to mancozeb with unsatisfactory results. 
Guatemala insisted on the need of longer transit ion periods to undertake practical analysis in the 
field since,  up to date, there were no molecules as effective as chlorothalonil  to control fungal 
diseases . As its exported products had been rejected and destroyed at EU borders, Guatemala asked 
the Europ ean Union  to explain how these measures would not restrict trade from tropical developing 
countries. The questions to EU member States contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2076  aimed at 
furthe r understanding challenges faced by European producers with respect to emergency 
authorizations, which were an exception that was not granted to producers in third countries.  
3.45.   Reiterating its support for this concern, Chile specifically indicated that the n on-renewal of 
mancozeb affected national production of stone fruits and apples. Chile requested the 
European  Union  to reconsider its measures in order to generate a regulatory framework appropriate 
to maintain the flow of international trade.  
3.46.   The Dominican  Republic  was of the view that EU measures should be elaborated in line with 
Article s 2.2, 5.2 and 5.3 of the  SPS Agreement , taking into account scientific evidence generated in 
experimental and epidemiological studies , and eliminating the presumption of a dverse effects. 
Specifically, the Dominican Republic was of the view  that the EU MR L for imazalil, set at 0.01 mg/kg 
in banana s, departed from the Codex MRL without being based on scientific evidence and restricted 
trade more than necessary. Concerned by the systemic and trade impact of these measures on 
exports and their socioeconomic impact in the region, the Dominican Republic invited the 
European  Union  to adhere to Codex standar ds and to reconsider the implementation of its measures.  
3.47.   Uruguay  reiterated its concerns on the EU approach to MRL reduction for an increasing number 
of substances, specifically mancozeb, imazalil, iprodione and buprofezin, to limits lower than those 
estab lished by Codex without a scientific risk assessment. Uruguay agreed with other Members that 
the emergency authorizations granted by EU member States to domestic producers could be in 
conflict with EU health protection policies and with trading conditions with third countries.  
Uruguay  looked forward to receiving answer s from the European  Union  and its member States to 
questions asked by several WTO Members.  Highlighting that pesticide regulations should be 
non-discriminatory and based in scientific principl es and risk assessments, Uruguay pointed out that 
sufficient transition periods should be granted  for producers to adapt to the modified MRLs . 
Uruguay  requested the European  Union  to reconsider its regulatory approach to avoid adverse 
effects on other Members, and hoped that the EU openness to participate in a dialogue would lead  
to a solution to this concern.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 16 - 
 
  3.48.   Argentina 's concern comprised technical and structural aspects affecting  Members from all 
regions. Recalling that the European  Union  considered its policy as part of the One Health approach, 
Argentina clarified that these considerations were beyond trade and that the implementation of th is 
approach did not justify a departure from agreed multilateral rules. In Argentina's opinion, 
this concern was to be considered as part of a proliferation of unilateral, extraterritorial measures 
that aimed at protecting EU producers. Argentina appreciated  the European  Union 's positive 
respons e agreeing  to discuss the issue.  
3.49.   El Salvador  echoed the concerns expressed by other Members about the consequences of MRL 
reduction on food insecurity and global supply chains.  
3.50.   Reiterating its concern on the non -renewal of these substances, Panama  invited the 
EU member States to respond to the questions raised in G/SPS/GEN/2076 . The lack of al ternatives 
for substance s such as mancozeb  severely affected Panama's exports to the European  Union . 
Panama reque sted the European  Union  to reconsider its measure.  
3.51.   Brazil  was of the view that the EU regulatory policies disregarded Codex standards , violatin g 
the principle of harmonization of the  SPS Agreement , and negatively affected  Members who 
complied with them.  Reiterating the importance of science - and risk -based measures, based on 
realistic exposure scenarios, Brazil looked forward to the EU responses to questions raised by several 
Members on emergency authorizations.  
3.52.   Canada  reiterated the need for risk -based decision making and requested the European  Union  
to harmonize MRL s with Codex limits or to maintain MRLs for substances that did not pose 
unaccept able dietary risks, unless a full risk assessment had been completed.  Canada insisted on  
the importance of providing sufficient transition time for businesses to adapt to new requirements.  
In Canada's view, the number  and frequency  of emergency authorizations by EU member States  
unjustifiably discriminated third country producers  and contradi cted the EU approach to the 
non-renewal of plant protection products. Canada asked the European  Union  to explain the criteria  
applied  by EU member States to justify an emergency , and the circumstances for rejection of the 
authorizations. Canada also sought  clarification on  whether  farmers' needs were determined from 
data on emergency authorizations , and whether re -instating certain active substances with no or 
low dietary risks would be considered. Canada requested the European  Union  to avoid discrimination  
between domestic producers and foreign exporters and to ensure that emergency authorizations 
were not extended to substances that were not registered for use in the European  Union . 
3.53.   In Kenya , mancozeb was used to control tropical fungal diseases in numerou s products, 
namely in the flower industry and in vegetable crops. Mancozeb's multisite contact activity was key 
for management of resistance. Given the lack of alternative effective pesticides, 
the European  Union 's restrictive measures were impacting livel ihoods and leading to high annual 
yield losses in Kenya.  
3.54.   The European  Union  referred to  the numerous answers already provided, the information 
sessions organized , the detail s on the ongoing revisions of MRLs  circulated as 
G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev .2 and its presentation on the EU risk assessment process and the 
harmonization with Codex MRLs delivered in the Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches 
to Pesticide MRLs . The European  Union  emphasized that its policies had never impeded imports of 
agricultural commodities. Decisions on the approval of active substances and on MRLs were based 
on risk assessments carried out by EFSA and EU member States, and the scientific data justifying 
the lowering of MRLs was available on the EFSA website and i n the rational e of each EU decision.  
The European  Union  also noted that EU MRLs were aligned with more than 70% of Codex MRLs 
established between 2012 and 2019 , and  that the science -based deviation from international 
standards was justified for the protect ion of public health , in conformity with Article 3 of the  
SPS Agreement.  Reiterating its openness to engage in discussions and the shared interest of human 
health protection, the European  Union  would analyze  the questions regarding emergency 
authorizations circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/2076 . G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 17 - 
 
  3.2.2   EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea 
(ID 518) - Concerns of India  
3.55.   India reiterated its concern regarding the classification of anthraquinone as a pesticide  and 
the setting of the EU MRL at 0.02 mg/kg for tea. Anthraquinone  was not registered in India and 
there was neither a standard as per the Food Safety and Standards Act 2011, nor a Codex MRL for 
anthraquinone in tea. Noting that the sources of exposure we re both natural and environmental , 
India referred to recent studies confirming  the natural occurrence of anthraquinone in tea 
plantations . India requested the European  Union  to remove the classification of anthraquinone as a 
pesticide and to avoid unnecessary trade disruption s due to MRL  checks for anthraquinone in tea.  
3.56.   Noting the lack of new elements on this issue, the European  Union  indicated that the 
authorization of plant protection products containing anthraquinone had been withdrawn in 2009 
pursuant to Commission Decision 2008/986/EC, and that MRLs had been set at the limit of 
quantification (0.02 mg/kg for tea and 0.01 mg/kg for  other commodities ). The European  Union  
further clarified that EFSA's successive  reasoned opinion s had not provided new elements to consider 
the need for further measures  and that, ac cording to its legislation, MRLs appl ied regardless of the 
source, includ ing atmospheric deposits. Given the classification of anthraquinone as carcinogenic 
category 1B and the importance of applying good practices during production  processes , 
the European  Union  expressed its readiness  to provide further clarifications as well as technical 
assistance on laboratory methods  upon request . 
3.2.3   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID 382) - Concerns of Paraguay  
3.57.   Referring to its previous interventions, Paraguay  reiterate d its systemic trade concern on 
the EU hazard -based approach . In Paraguay's perspective, the series of measures adopted by 
the European  Union  were not based on conclusive risk analyses and considered  factors outside of 
the scope of the SPS Agreement.  
3.58.   Costa  Rica underscored that this was part of a larger set  of concerns around the same issue, 
and referred to the arguments raised in previous meetings and uploaded in eAgenda.  
3.59.   Chile reiterated  its concern with the EU approach to pesticide regulation , which negative ly 
impact ed agricultural production. In Chile's view, the hazard -based cut -off criteria in 
Regulation  (EC) No 1107/2009 deviated from the internationally agreed principles of risk analysis, 
and unnecessarily lowered MRLs for commonly used substances.  
3.60.   Ecuador  supported th e concern  and reiterated its comm ents on inconclusive risk assessments, 
on the justification for banning substances such as mancozeb on the basis of alleged endocrine 
disruption effects , and on the non -dietary exposure estimates exceeding the reference values . 
3.61.   Brazil  reaffirmed that the criteria for the determination of endocrine -disrupting substances 
had to be established in accordance with Article 5 of the  SPS Agreement, in line with scientific 
principles and available scientific evidence and data to avoid unnecessa ry trade restrictions. 
Brazil  highlighted the importance of conducting risk assessments appropriate to the circumstances, 
and the need to obtain the additional information necessary for an objective assessment of risk.  
3.62.   Peru considered that the EU legislati on was inconsistent with Article 5 of the  SPS Agreement, 
and that maintaining a hazard -based approach could lead to measures that negatively impacted and 
restricted trade in food products more than necessary.  
3.63.   Referring to its detailed information uploaded in eAgenda, Uruguay  reiterated its trade and 
systemic concerns regarding the EU adoption and implementation of a hazard -based approach for 
products with potential endocrine -disrupting properties.  
3.64.   Canada  referred to its past interventions on this concern , which remained valid , and reiterated 
its request for the European  Union  to amend its hazard -based approach for the regulation of active 
substances in plant protection products and to consider both hazards and risks in its regulatory 
decision -making. Acco rding to Canada, this would align the EU regulatory framework with 
internationally recognized approaches to risk management.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 18 - 
 
  3.65.   Referring to its detailed information uploaded in eAgenda , Guatemala  considered  that the 
issue of endocrine disruptors was linked t o the implementation of new MRLs affecting agricultural 
production in tropical countries. Guatemala reiterated its concern regarding the European  Union 's 
hazard -based , rather than risk -based  measures , as stipulated in the SPS Agreement.  
3.66.   Noting that no new information had become available since the previous  SPS Committee 
meeting, t he European  Union  affirmed that the scientific criteria in place to identify endocrine 
disruptors were based on the WHO definition  and had been applicable since November 2018 . 
The European  Union  reiterated that, to date, there had been no cases of non -approval of a substance 
solely based on endocrine disruptor criteria that had been followed by the lowering of MRLs. 
For all substances for which MRLs had been lowered following the no n-approval under Regulation 
(EC) No 1107/2009, other intake concerns, in addition to their classification as endocrine disruptors, 
had been identified. The European  Union  noted that imports  of the potentially affected commodi ties 
had grown since 2018 and, therefore,  the alleged trade barriers ha d not materialized. 
The European  Union  reiterated its commitment to keep Members informed of further developments . 
3.2.4   EU import tolerances for certain p esticides to achieve environmental outcomes in 
third countries (ID 534) - Concerns of Australia and China  
3.67.   Referring to the new STC raised by India (ID 549 ), Australia  questioned the design of the 
EU draft regulation on the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam. Australia had 
submitted comments following  the TBT notification and had raised an STC in the TBT Committee.  
Australia was of the view that decisions regarding import MRLs should only be assessed in light of 
food safety risks, and that taking into account environmental impacts in exporting countries when 
setting import MRLs and assessing requests for import tole rances threat ened third countries ' ability 
to apply their own environmental policies, in contradiction with WTO rules. Australia considered MRLs 
as an inappropriate tool to achieve environmental outcomes and highlighted that third country 
national authorit ies were the best decision maker s for the responsible and sustainable  application of 
pesticides in each country, in accordance with their unique environment. Australia requested  the 
European  Union  to provide robust scientific evidence in support of the lin k between the lowering of 
MRLs to the limit of determination and pollinator health, and  looked forward to continued 
engagement on the matter.  
3.68.   China  referred to its statement under STC ID 549 . China had also raised this  concern in the 
TBT Committee and looked forward to bilateral engagement.  
3.69.   Uruguay  hoped to receive answers to the concerns raised i n the SPS, TBT and Market A ccess 
Committees  and to the comments submitted bilaterally on the EU draft Regulation notified in 
G/TBT/N/EU/908 . Citing the definition of MRLs in Regulation (EU) No 396/2005, Uruguay clarified 
that MRLs were measures aimed at protecting human health and were thus under the realm of the  
SPS Committee. Additionally, Uruguay reminded Members t hat Codex was the international 
reference body in this respect and that  SPS measures adopted or implemented by WTO Members 
should be in line with the objectives states in Annex A and other substantive obligations of the  
SPS Agreement. Uruguay reiterated it s willingness to cooperate towards reaching the shared 
objective of protecting the environment , pollinizers  and human, animal and plant health , without 
unnecessar ily restricting trade, and questioned the legal basis for reducing MRLs to the level of 
determ ination for reasons other than human health . 
3.70.   Ecuador  shared the concern regarding the European  Union 's extraterritorial objectives, which 
did not seem to follow WTO rules. The European  Union  had provided information on  its Farm to Fork 
Strategy in document G/SPS/GEN/1868 , but the measures had not been notified to the  
SPS Committee. The EU proposal to use non -tariff trade barriers for environmental protection 
disqualified t he legislation, production systems, climatic conditions and development stat us of 
trading partners. Ecuador observed  that the lowering of MRLs without conclusive risk analyses 
regarding the effects of neonicotinoids o n human health and on pollinators was de facto leading to 
a closure of markets . 
3.71.   Paraguay  insisted on its position t hat environmental objectives were outside the scope of the  
SPS Agreement and that MRLs had to be  established to protect human health, and thus dealt with 
in Codex. If the European  Union  was of the view that the presence of clothianidin and thiamethoxam  
within the limits established by Codex negatively affected health, Paraguay asked for  the relevant G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 19 - 
 
  risk assessment  and for the notification of the measure to the  SPS Committee. While awaiting 
responses to the comments submitted through the TBT channels, Paraguay had also raised the 
concern in the TBT and Market Access  Committees. Paraguay stated that EU methods eroded 
multilateral rules, international law and Members' trust and spirit of cooperation, and urged the 
European  Union  to pursue its shared legitimate objectives within the multilateral fora . 
3.72.   Noting  the importance of considering all three dimensions of sustainability, t he United  States  
was of the view that diver se approaches were required to meet the shared objectives of more 
sustainable food systems. The United State s was concerned about  the proposed extraterritorial 
application of EU domestic environmental policies  to imported agricultural products from third 
countries . Further to the comments to notification G/TBT/N/EU/908  and the concern raised in the 
TBT Committee, the United  States  noted that numerous factors affect ed pollinator  health  and 
questioned the scientific evidence provided by the European  Union  and the link with the stated 
objectives.  As such , the United  States  considered that using pesticide MRLs as an environmental 
safety metric might unintentionally  undermine the use of int ernational standards for food safety . 
Since  EFSA had granted emergency authorizations for the use of clothianidin and thiamethoxam in 
the European  Union , the United  States  request ed the additional scientific evidence to support the 
reduction of the MRLs. Concerned at the short period of time  between the due date for comments 
on the notification of the draft regulation and the decision taken by the EU Standing Committee on 
Plant, Animal, Food and Feed, the United  States  wondered how comments by stakeholders had been 
taken into consideration. Emphasizing the required collaboration across the global community, the 
United  States  expressed its willingness to contribute to a collaborative, international approach to 
protecting pollinators. The United  States  submitt ed its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2081 . 
3.73.   Indicating its  intervention could equally apply to STC ID 549, Canada  echoed concerns about  
the EU approach to integrate  global environmental impacts in decisions on  MRLs and import 
tolerance s. Recalling the European  Union 's own definition that MRLs existed to protect vulnerable 
consumers, Canada noted that MRLs should be maintained or harmonized with Codex MRLs if 
residues posed no risk to consumers . Canada further stressed that reducing MRLs to default value s 
when no dietary risks of concern ha d been identified was incompatible with the WTO obligations and 
an inappropriate and ineffective way to pursue non -SPS objectives . Canada defended the robustness 
of its regulatory system to protect consumers and the env ironment through appropriate mechanisms 
and reminded the Committee that other multilateral fora existed for Members to develop effective 
global approaches to environmental challenges.  
3.74.   Although worried  about the environmental challenges facing the internati onal community, 
Argentina  was concerned with the European  Union 's extraterritorial approach to environmental 
issues. Argentina highlighted the methodological weaknesses of the EU approach, which disregarded 
the principles of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and of common but differentiated 
responsibilities, as well as  the obligation to grant special and differentiated treatment.  Argentina 
also intended to monitor  the gr anting of emergency authorizations for banned substances to 
EU producers.  
3.75.   Japan  was of the view  that any reduction of EU MRLs for the neonicotinoid pesticides 
clothianidin and thiamethoxam should be discussed with third countries  and that r egulations for 
environmental protection should be set by each Member, reflecting its particular environment. 
Noting  that the proposed measure would unnecessar ily restrict trade, Japan requested the 
European  Union  to consider its comments on the TBT notification and  to ens ure measures consistent 
with WTO rules . 
3.76.   Committed to environmental discussions in multilateral fora, Brazil  emphasized that Members 
should not adopt  SPS measures with extraterritorial effects, according to the definition established 
in the  SPS Agreement.  
3.77.   Sharing the systemic concerns expressed by Members, Costa  Rica affirmed  that the shared 
objectives of biodiversity and environmental protection should be pursued in line with the obligations 
under the multilateral trade system.  MRLs were established to ensure food safety and, as such, 
Costa  Rica questioned the EU justification to reduce MRLs on the basis of global environmental 
concern s, as stated in G/TBT/N/EU/908 . This justification was not within the scope of the  
SPS Agreement and was neither a legitimate objective under the TBT Agreement for the introduction 
of a technical requirement. Costa  Rica urged the European  Union  to notify the measure to the  
SPS Committee; to look for mechanisms of multilatera l cooperation to reach global environmental G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 20 - 
 
  objectives; to reconsider its regulatory approach; to listen to concerns expressed by Members; and 
to review its measures in light of the  SPS Agreement and Codex standards.  
3.78.   Noting the similarities with other Memb ers' concerns, Kenya  informed the Committee it would 
make its submission in the TBT Committee.  
3.79.   New Zealand  sought clarification on the rationale and justification for using an  SPS tool with 
the stated aim of addressing a global environmental concern. While  supporting the EU goal of 
mitigating climate and environmental challenges , New Zealand  feared the failure of measure s that 
did not consider various geographic and climatic contexts. New Zealand  encourage d all 
WTO Members to address global environmental issues multilateral ly and to use evidence -based, 
least trade restrictive measures appropriate to the desired outcome . 
3.80.   Guatemala  affirmed that each country had the right to choose its measures to address global 
concerns regarding  protection of  pollinators.  MRLs were a tool to ensure food safety , and the 
EU proposal seemed to deviate from the objective to protect human health. Expressing concern on 
the extraterritoriality of the measures that did not reflect environmental realities, Guatemala 
requested the European  Union  to establish its measures in conformity with the  SPS Agreement and 
to respect the sovereignty of third countries' sanitary authorities.  
3.81.   Colombia  delivered its statement under STC ID 549. 
3.82.   The European  Union  explained that it took into consideration e nvironmental aspects when 
setting MRLs  for substances no longer approved in its territory  due to global environmental concerns, 
and reviewed active  substance s on a case -by-case basis.  The European  Union  affirmed that, based 
on current knowledge, reducing the use of neonicotinoids was an effective action to tackle the decline  
of pollinators , and had therefore decided to lower MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethox am. 
The European  Union  had reviewed comments received o n its notification G/TBT/N/EU/908  and in 
document  G/SPS/GEN/2054 . EU member States had endorsed the proposal, which would be adopted 
by the European Commission in earl y 2023 if no objections were raised.  
3.83.   The European  Union  clarified that the Regulation would not prohibit the use of neonicotinoids 
by third countries , but products destined t o the EU market would  have to comply with the MRLs in 
place.  The European  Union  considered that it was acting in compliance with its WTO obligations  since 
there  was no equally effective and  less trade restrictive alternative to protect  pollinators. 
Acknowledging the difficulties third countries might face, import tolerances could be granted for 
active substances not authori zed in the European  Union . The draft Regulation also included trade 
facilitating provisions , deferring the implementation  date to 36 months after entry into force , and 
allowing products placed on the market before the implementation date to remain on the market 
until the end of their  shelf life.  Noting that its statement was also applicable for STC ID 549, 
the European  Union  remained available for further discuss ion. 
3.2.5   EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application 
of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 amending Regulation 
(EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID 503) - 
Concerns of Peru 
3.84.   Peru raised its concerns  regarding Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 establishing 
maximum levels (MLs) of cadmium in chocolate and other cocoa products that, in practice, had a n 
impact on trade in cocoa beans and cocoa powder. Peru was of the view that the EU regulation 
violated Article 2 of the  SPS Agreement. Considering  that the European  Union  had not taken into 
account several  opinion s of the joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives , Peru called 
upon the European  Union  to review the new information shared in the context of this concern and 
to revise  its legislation in the light of the conclusions of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in 
Foods . 
3.85.   Noting the lack of new el ements since the June 2022 Committee meeting, t he European  Union  
referred to its written statement  submitted in eAgenda . The European  Union  emphasized the 
significant efforts undertaken during the preparation of the relevant regulation to alleviate the 
difficulties of its trade partners in complying  with the legal requirements , namely  1) the granting of  
an exceptionally long transitional period for cocoa and chocolate products by deferring the G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 21 - 
 
  implementation  date to 1 January 2019; and 2 ) the establishment of MLs on finished products, that 
did not apply to cocoa beans or other intermediary cocoa products. The European  Union  reiterated 
its commitment to work constructively with Members to address outstanding issue s without prejudice 
to consumer safety aspects.  
3.2.6   EU regulatory approach to maximum levels for contaminants (ID 519) - Concerns 
of Canada  
3.86.   Canada  considered that the lowering of MLs for contaminants in food products was a result of 
the EU implementation of the  precautionary -based regulatory decision -making requirements under 
Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Canada reiterated that the MLs did not align with international 
standards and would negatively impact trade for many products exported to the European  Union . 
In particular, Canada was concerned with the negative trade implications of the EU approach to the 
regulation of MLs of cadmium in cereals, pulses and oilseeds; ergot and ergot alkaloids in cereals; 
ochratoxin A in cereals; and cyanogenic glycosides in lins eed. Canada hoped for a continuation of 
the productive dialogue with the European  Union , and requested  that transition periods  for changes 
to MLs be extended to a minimum of two years ; that measures not inadvertently restrict trade ; and 
that Canada's comme nts be taken into account to facilitate the trade of goods.  
3.87.   Ecuador  shared the concern with respect to cadmium in chocolate and regretted that the 
EU measures that negatively affected exports of cocoa were maintained despite the scientific 
evidence available and the work undertaken by Codex.  
3.88.   Brazil  was of the view that EU policies for ML s of contaminants disregarded Codex standards. 
Brazil reiterated that  SPS measures should be based on scientific evidence and on realistic exposure 
scenarios, rather than on a presumption of hazard, and that potential trade impacts should be taken 
into account, in line with Article 5.4 of the  SPS Agreement.  
3.89.   The European  Union  explained that the measures in question were based on a risk assessment 
and took into consider ation relevant consumption patterns and levels of dietary risk. According to 
the European  Union , the population's exposure to cadmium should be reduced in view of its toxicity 
and possible health risks. The MLs for cadmium had been established at levels as  low as reasonably 
achievable, considering the occurrence data for cadmium in the specific foodstuffs from various 
origins, in order to ensure a rejection rate of 5% or lower. The expected effect on trade was thus 
limited. There were no particular new deve lopments concerning ergot sclerotia and ergot alkaloids 
in cereals and cereal products. The issue of hydrocyanic acid in linseed had been approached  in the 
well-established EU -Canada  framework , where an agreement had been reached to hold a follow -up 
technical meeting.  Finally, the European  Union  hoped that the recent reply to Canada's comments 
on EU notification G/SPS/N/EU/547  clarifie d the issue of ochratoxin A in cereals. The European  Union  
referred to its written statement submitted in eAgenda for further details.  
3.2.7   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (ID 446) - Concerns of 
the United  States  
3.90.   The United  States  reiterated its concerns regarding the implementation of article 118 of 
Regulation (EU) No 2019/6, and pointed to its previous intervention contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2046 . Emphasizing that conditions var ied between regions, the United  States  
considered that the European  Union  should allow trading partners to use tools appropriate to the 
exporting countries' own d omestic context to meet the EU level of protection. The United  States  
sought clarification on the process to amend and update the list of antimicrobials reserved for human 
use, which could impact livelihoods of livestock producers and negatively affect the  achievement of 
food security.  Regretting that the meeting proposed by DG SANTE to provide updates to third 
countries had not taken place, the United  States  reiterated its request for the Commission to share 
a new timeline for the implementation of these m easures , which would take into account the recent 
experience on the renegotiation of certificates for animals and animal product s. The United  States  
requested the European  Union  to work with its trading partners to develop science -based measures, 
consisten t with the relevant international standards, and  to be mindful of the impact of its  
SPS measures on global animal health, food security, international trade and agricultural 
sustainability. The United  States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2082 . G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 22 - 
 
  3.91.   Paraguay  reiterated its systemic concern about  the European  Union 's extraterritorial 
application of Regulation (EU) No 2019/6, without considering  the conditions of its trading partners.  
Paraguay requested the European  Union  to apply a more inclusive approach in the implementation 
of its measures.  
3.92.   Referring to its previous interventions, Uruguay  requested information on the next steps of 
the EU  regulatory process. Uruguay asked when the delegated act would be notified to the  
SPS Committee, and when the final rules would enter into force. Uruguay reiterated the need to 
communicate draft measures, to allow sufficient time for comments, and to take Members' 
comments into account. Uruguay was of the view  that, in case of significa nt regulatory changes, 
transition periods should take account of the realities of affected sectors and products . 
3.93.   Australia  had no current registrations of veterinary products containing the antimicrobials 
listed , and had  no objections to the European  Union 's proposed reserved list. Australia sought 
assurance that any future revisions to the list would follow a science -based, consultative, and 
inclusive process. Australia called on the European  Union  not to apply retrospectively any prohibition 
on the  use of  antimicrobial agents or antimicrobial classes included in the EU reserved list that were 
previously authorized for use in animals.  Australia also requested the European Union to provide 
further clarification on the implementation of its Regulation and to answer the questions uploaded 
to the eAgenda.  
3.94.   Japan  regretted that the European  Union  had not provided information , including the timeline 
for the implementation  of article 118 of Regulation (EU) No 2019/6. Japan asked the European  Union  
to take into account comments by third countries;  to provide  at least a three -year transitional period 
before the implementation of the delegated act to third countries; and to avoid discrimination in the 
implementation of the  delegated act.  
3.95.   Canada  expressed its support for the coordinated international efforts to address AMR. 
Acknowledging that the list of antimicrobials reserved for human use notified to the  SPS Committee 
was founded on scientific evidence and appeared not to be more trade restric tive than necessary, 
Canada requested the European  Union  to provide clarification on the potential impacts of  the 
regulation on trade . Canada also requested the European  Union  to share and notify the import rules 
for third countries related to veterinary m edicinal products, and to allow and take comments into 
account when finalizing the measure. Canada urged the European  Union  to provide a transition 
period of five years or more, based on the realities of production systems and product storage.  
3.96.   Brazil  echoed other Members' concerns and noted the potential burden caused  by the 
introduction of trade restrictive sanitary requirements. Expressing its support for  the international 
efforts to develop multilateral guidelines on AMR, Brazil urged the European  Union  to consider the 
ongoing global efforts by the WHO, WOAH and FAO, as well as the work of the Codex Taskforce on 
Antimicrobial Resistance. Brazil reiterated the importance of a safe, harmonized, and science -based 
framework for trade in animal products for the promotion of food safety and food security.  
3.97.   The European  Union  reiterated that Regulation (EU) No 2019/6, which applied from 
28 January 2022, would strengthen EU action to fight AMR, following the European One Health Action 
Plan against AMR. A dedi cated webpage had been made available to provide stakeholders with the 
status of each of the delegated or implementing acts from the Regulation. The European  Union  
provided a detailed state -of-play regarding the preparation of the draft legal acts . Regardi ng the 
implementing act under article 37 (5) on the list of antimicrobials reserved for human use, 
the European  Union  had considered Members' comments prior to the adoption of  the draft 
implementing regulation . The adopted Commission Implementing Regulatio n (EU) 2022/1255 
designated a list of antimicrobials or groups of antimicrobials reserved for treatment of certain 
infections in humans , which would be under continue d review in light of new scientific evidence , and 
future updates would be notified to the SPS Committee.  Regarding the delegated act under article 
118 on the rules on imports from third countries, the European Commission had finalised technical 
discussions with EU  member States on the requirements and conditions relative to prohibiting the 
use of antimicrobials for growth promotion and yield increase, as well as the use of antimicrobials 
reserved for treatment of infections in humans.  The draft had taken into account the operators' 
needs, and was expected to be submitted for public feedback and notified to the WTO in the coming 
weeks.  The European  Union  would organize a meeting with third countries and keep Members 
informed of future developments. Underscoring the importance of international collaboration , 
the European  Union  stressed  its cont inued engagement with trading partners and other G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 23 - 
 
  WTO Members to promote and support effective strategies to prevent and contain the global threat 
of AMR.  
3.2.8   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural 
products (ID 487) - Concerns of the United  States , Canada , Australia, India and 
Chinese  Taipei  
3.98.   Disappointed with  China's  lack of engagement , the United  States  reiterated its concern on the 
measures implemented purportedly to mitigate the transmission of COVID -19. Referring to the 
WHO/FAO guidance on COVID -19 stating that SARS -CoV-2 was not a direct food safety concern, 
the United  States  considered China's measures provide d an unfair advantage to domestic producers 
and further challenge d global food security. The United States  urged  China to withdraw its measures 
and to support the guidance of international organizations on COVID -19. The United  States  
submitted its statement in document  G/SPS/GEN/2083 . 
3.99.   Referring to its statements in previous meetings, Canada  reiterated its concern regarding 
China's actions  related to COVID -19, which negatively impact ed trade in food and agricultural 
products. Canada highlighted that the WHO/FAO guidance indicated no risk of transmission of 
COVID -19 through food, food packaging or food handling. Canada questioned  the scientific basis for 
China's measures and expressed concerns on the lack of clarity, transparency and predictability. 
Canada sought clarification on why only two meat establishments had been reinstated while others 
remained suspended , and asked China to reinstate all Canadian establishments without undue delay. 
Noting that the measures appear ed inconsistent with the  SPS Agreement, Canada called on China 
to provide the relevant risk assessment,  to remove the measures and to work collaboratively to 
avoid unnecessary trade barriers  and contribute to food security.  
3.100.   Australia  encouraged China to continue with the reassessment of the processes at the port 
of entry regarding COVID -19 in the cold chain . Noting that certain export establishments had been 
suspended for almost  two years  following a self -declaration of COVID -19 infections , 
Australia  requested China to provide guidance on the lifting of these suspensions . 
Australia  reiterated its commitment to work bilaterally with China to ensure science - and risk -based 
measures.  
3.101.   Referring to its interventions in previous meetings, India expressed its disappointment with 
the lack of progress on this concern.  In its view, the suspension by the General Adminis tration of 
Customs of China (GACC ) of Indian seafood export units on account of the detection of COVID -19 
nucleic acid on the packaging material lacked scientific grounds. India noted  that GACC had not 
specified the legal basis for demanding a virtual inspection or the indefinite suspension of units. 
India considered the measures to be inconsistent with Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of the  SPS Agreement , 
and requested China to share the relevant  reports that had led to the export restrictions as well as 
the sampling procedure and the testing protocols adopted in this regard, and to allow exports from 
Indian establishments that had implemented corrective measures . 
3.102.   Chinese  Taipei  regretted the lack  of scientific evidence for the suspension of imports of fresh 
or chilled silverfish and frozen Japanese jack mackerel, and urged China to resume imports in 
accordance with the  SPS Agreement and international guidance. Chinese  Taipei  called on  China to 
review its measures on the basis of scientific principles , to adopt the least trade  restrictive measures 
and to engage in a scientific and technical dialogue . 
3.103.   The United Kingdom  echoed other Members'  concern regarding China's import controls  
related to COVID -19 on cold food chain commodities. Citing Article 2.2 of the  SPS Agreement, 
the United Kingdom maintained its position that available scientific evidence on the transmission of 
SARS -CoV-2 did not support the continuation of China's testin g requirements, nor its policy of 
point-of-entry rejections and establishment suspensions. The United Kingdom invited  China to 
review  its COVID -19 related import measures . 
3.104.   Japan  reiterated its concerns regarding the COVID -19 related emergency measures 
implemented by China since July 2020 which, in Japan's view, lacked a scientific basis. Noting the 
potential negative impact on trade of those measures, Japan requested China to clarify the risk 
assessments and to share scientific evidence supporting the measu res. G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 24 - 
 
  3.105.   The European  Union  considered that Chinese  import  policies for agri -food products were not 
proportionate nor based on science. Referring to the guidelines by FAO and WOAH , 
the European  Union  asked China to lift its COVID -19 related import measures and refrain from 
adopting new and unjustified measures on COVID -19 grounds . The European  Union  stated that 
unnecessary verification measures were harmful to food security, food prices and global tra de. 
3.106.   Since July 2020, China  had taken preventive measures , on the premise of complying with 
international rules  to ensure the safety of imported cold chain aquatic products and the health of 
people, as notified to the WTO and to its trading partners. China noted that  these measures were 
reasonable and in line with the  SPS Agreement. Since  July 2022, GACC Announcement No.  103 of 
2020 was repealed and China had no longer taken emergency preventive measures to suspend 
import declaration for goods with positive nucleic acid of C OVID -19 virus. Instead  China investigated 
the preventive measures of exporters to ensure that the security management system and security 
status of the trading partners met its import requirements.  China  indicated  that it would further 
strengthen cooperation with overseas competent authorities , and acknowledged the measures taken 
by some exporting enterprises to protect their worke rs and voluntarily suspend exports to China 
following cluster infections. The imports woul d be resumed once effective actions had been taken to 
eliminate the associated  risks.  China's statistics showed that, between January and October 2022, 
imports of cold chain food had remained unchanged compared to 2021.  
3.2.9   China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of 
imported food (26 November 2019 ) (ID 485) - Concerns of Japan, the United  States , 
Australia, Canada and the European  Union  
3.107.   Recalling the obligations established in the  SPS Agreement, Japan  expressed concerns 
regarding  China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers, in force since 
January 2022, which lacked transparency, w ere burdensome, and restricted trade more than 
necessary. Japan requested China to provide a scientific justification of its new measures; to notify 
any change in the operation of China Import Food Enterprise Registration (CIFER ) system ; to allow 
registered facilities to export any items regardless of the registered product codes until 1 July 2023 ; 
to add all missing product codes to the system before the end of 2022; to establish an enquiry point 
for interested parties; and to respond to unanswered questions within a reasonable time.  
3.108.   The United  States  reiterated  its concern regarding China's lack of response to requests for 
scientific justification and sought clarification on how the measures established in Decrees 248 and 
249 would address food safety and public health concerns. The United  States  urged China to provide 
the risk assessments that ju stified the  identif ication of  high-risk products and the application of the 
measures to low -risk products. The United  States  stressed  the confusion and trade -disruption caused 
by the lack of guidance and the inconsisten t implementation of measures. Noting that all facilit ies 
should be able to self -register, the United  States  noted  that GACC was transferring to foreign 
competent authorit ies certain  responsibilities of the importing country, and that the additional 
information requested as part of the pre -market registration process was unnecessar ily burdensome. 
The United  States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2084 . 
3.109.   Australia  noted the duplication of e fforts imposed by Decree 248, the disruptions experienced 
in the implementation of CIFER , and the adjustments to the programme made by GACC during the 
intervening period. Listing some of the issues experienced by food business es, Australia requested 
China to advise the time  needed for the approval of new registrations and the inspection 
requirements for new registrations to take effect. Regretting the absence  of response on previous 
concerns raised and the inability to meet China's deadlines due to the lack  of instructions, 
Australia  sought assurance on the cooperation with GACC to address these ongoing issues.  
3.110.   Referring to its previous statements on this issue , Canada  reiterated its concern regarding 
China's administrative measures and the implementation of the CIFER system that were negatively 
impacting trade . Noting  China's lack of engagement and guidance, Canada stressed  that the 
registration process in CIFER system  was confusing  and experienced technical challenges. 
Canada  called for  transparency in the communication of decisions on the approval process in  the 
CIFER  system  and for the development of clear guidance to address concerns of trading partners.  
Canada requ ested China to establish a contact  point or to work directly with establishments for the 
completion of registration s; to provide clarifications and flexibilities on the requirements under 
Decrees 248 and 249 and the CIFER system ; and to prevent unnecessary  trade disruptions . G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 25 - 
 
  3.111.   While sharing the wish to ensure that imported food products c ame from legitimate sources, 
the European  Union  raised concerns on the difficulties in registering business in the CIFER system. 
The European  Union  noted  that GACC had not clearly identified the product categories previously 
subject to registration under Decree 248 that were to be exempt  from the procedure . 
The European  Union  urged China to  provide clear guidance on the implementation of Decree 248; 
to simplify data entry an d solve technical problems in the CIFER system; to facilitate amendments 
and follow -up of ongoing registrations; and to extend the June 2023 deadline for registration . 
3.112.   While acknowledging the legitimate objective of China's regulations, Kenya  regretted tha t 
some of the provisions were more restrictive than necessary. The registration requirements made it 
difficult for small and medium enterprises to integrate into the global value chain , as they  imposed 
new obligations on foreign governments , and  were cumbe rsome and like ly to cause major trade 
disruptions. Kenya urged China to review these regulations  to make them less stringent to comply  
with, and to provide clarity on the scope of the ir application.  
3.113.   Norway  considered that Chinese Decrees 248 and 249 were more trade restrictive than 
necessary to ensure the safety of imported food products. Norway underscored  the significant 
burden facing their national seafood industry and the Norwegian Food Safety Authority  as a result 
of the  insufficient information provided by Chinese authorities, the uncertainties regarding the 
implementation of the Decrees , and the changes and technical problems  of the CIFER system . 
No new producers had been able to register in the CIFER system since its entry into force in 
January  2022. Regarding approved companies already exporting to China, the short timelines and 
the limited information received from GACC had created confusion on the renewal process. In order 
to facilitate trade and re duce disruptions , Norway asked China to review its measures  and to apply 
them in a manner that was not more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve its appropriate level 
of protection  (ALOP). Norway urged China to engage in  an open dialogue , to make ne cessary updates 
to the CIFER system in a transparent manner , and to provide clear information  to ensure more 
predic table conditions for trade.  
3.114.   Acknowledging  the recent discussions, t he United Kingdom  reiterated its concerns and 
invited China to minimize the adverse impacts  of its administrative measures . The United Kingdom 
was of the view  that the measures w ere not proportionate to the risk posed by food products , and 
that the additional audit require ments added unnecessary administrative burden s to authorities and 
business.  The United Kingdom requested China to apply its measures in a risk -proportionate manner , 
considering the rigorous  UK food safety processes and controls . 
3.115.   Referring to its interventi ons in previous meetings, Chinese  Taipei  stressed that the lack of 
information on registration requirements, operational guidance and updates on the stages of the 
procedures complicated  in the implementation of the measures. Chinese  Taipei  questioned the 
alignment of the measures with the relevant provisions of the  SPS Agreement , and regretted t he 
lack of responses to the request for the scientific justification of the measures . Chinese  Taipei  urged 
China to designate an enquiry point to address concerns su rrounding the measures ; to provide a 
grace period for their implementation ; to temporarily allow entry of all products from registered 
facilities ; and to hold an information session on the implementation of the measures.  
3.116.   Senegal  echoed the arguments raised by other Members , and  underscored the difficulties 
facing enterprises exporting agricultural and fishery products to China , despite the bilateral protocol 
in place . Regretting  the lack of responses and the delays in the procedu res, Senegal  requested 
China  to improve the situation to avoid trade restrictions.  
3.117.   Switzerland  shared  the concern s and regretted the persistent problems and uncertainties 
around the CIFER system. Switzerland  urged China to extend the deadline  of June 2023  for renewals 
and the validity of existing approvals by one year, and to create contact points for the industry and 
the competent authorities.  
3.118.   Reiterating its concerns, Korea  noted  that certain aspects  of the regulation, such as those 
related to low -risk products , the lengthy registration procedures and the lack of explanations for 
rejections , were unnecessarily burdensome. Korea requested China to increase efficiency by allowing 
facilities of the low -risk food product categories to register their respective establishments on the 
GACC website themselves and by using previously reviewed data for facilities already registered to 
export all products regardless of the registered product codes of the establis hments. Korea reminded G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 26 - 
 
  China of the obligation to adopt  SPS measures based on science and in a transparent manner , and 
invited China to reply to its request and suggestions.  
3.119.   China  indicated that the revision of the draft Administrative Measures for Registr ation of 
Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Foods was based on Chin ese law , and was compliant with 
international rules and common practices. China explained that the measure s strengthened the 
supervision of food safety while taking trade facilitation princ iples into account. Before the 
implementation of the regulations, GACC had issued the interpretation of the regulation s and  the 
guide and supporting documents for registration application s, had launched the online registration 
system for overseas enterpris es, and had formally notified exporting Members through various 
channels. As of 27 October 2022, more than 100 Members had provided the list of enterprises 
recommended for registration, and a total of 79,000 overseas producers had been registered. 
China  underlined the effectiveness of the implementation of its measure and invited Members to 
contact GACC for registration queries and technical support.  
3.2.10   Concerns with transparency, delays and due process associated with China's 
import requirements for agricultu ral goods (ID 524) - Concerns of Australia  
3.120.   Australia  remained concerned with China's increased intervention on imported products at 
the border, which appeared to lack science -based consideration of the associated  SPS risks and had 
led to trade constraints across a range of agricultural products. Australia requested China to ensure 
that agricultural imports continued in a  predictable and  transparent manner and without undue 
delays , and to apply measures in a manner proportio nate to the risk. Australia would welcome 
bilateral engagement on these matters,  and stood ready to collaborate with China towards 
resumption of trade . 
3.121.   China  stated that it always notified  SPS measures to the WTO and to relevant Members in a 
transparent an d timely manner. Referring to the detection of quarantine pests in Australian products, 
China called on Australia to strengthen its supervision of export enterprises in accordance with 
bilateral agreements to ensure the safety of products . 
3.122.   In response to C hina, Australia  underlined its strong food safety and biosecurity systems 
and clarified it was awaiting an answer from China on investigations following non -compliance 
reports. Australia was looking forward to continuing bilateral dialogue and regretted  the absence of 
feedback from China.  
3.2.11   China 's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID 516) - Concerns of Australia, Canada and the European  Union  
3.123.   Noting the complexity of implementing  the CIFER system, Australia  underscored that control, 
inspection and approval activities should be undertaken in a timely manner that was no less 
favourable than those undertaken for domestic products.  Australia requested China to provide 
information rega rding the assessment and approval of products and establishments, the updating of 
administrative lists and the lifting of restrictions on suspended establishments.  Australia regretted 
that the failure to update the list of businesses that had been provided  to China violated the agreed 
terms of the protocol of phytosanitary requirements for exports of these products, and sought 
clarification on the issue. Australia would welcome bilateral engagement with China to ensure that 
the registration requirements did  not unnecessarily disrupt trade.  
3.124.   Referring to its statements at previous meetings, Canada  explained it c ontinued to 
experience undue delays in China's approval procedures for the import ation of food products and 
foreign establishments, and was awaiting up dated information on  the lists of Canadian products and 
facilities eligible to export. Canada lamented  the trade disruptions created by the approval 
procedures for foreign establishments, including the registration through  the CIFER system , and 
noted that t he undue  delays and the lack of transparency and of rationale in the procedures led to 
unjustified barriers to trade and administrative burdens.  Canada urged China to update and publish 
the lists of Canadian products and establishments awaiting regis tration or approval ; to provide 
timelines for approval of food products and establishments ; to share  the result of the approval 
procedures ; and to respect its obligations under the  SPS Agreement . G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 27 - 
 
  3.125.   The European  Union  called for transparent, predictable and s wift approval procedures and 
for the listing or re -listing of establishments in line with agreed international standards. 
The European  Union  was concerned about the short notice of the announcement of establishment 
audits , and noted  that operators and the competent authority had not always received the results 
of the audit . The European  Union  requested China to ensure the application of  SPS measures in a 
non-discriminatory, transparent and predictable manner.  
3.126.   The United Kingdom  noted that its trade continued to be affected by undue delays and lack 
of transparency in China's approval procedures. The United Kingdom was waiting for  a response on 
the re -listing of several establishments following China's technical requests and the fac ilitation of 
video inspections, and on the export approval for over 20 fisheries establishments.  In its view, 
China's requirement to seek re -approval of establishments imposed  an additional burden on both 
the exporters and GACC.  Appreciative of  the discuss ions held to date, t he United Kingdom requested 
China to apply its approval procedures in a timely and predictable manner in accordance with the  
SPS Agreement.  
3.127.   China  noted that it handled market access and enterprise registration in accordance with its 
domestic laws and regulations, and that its measures were in line with bilateral agreements and the  
SPS Agreement. China stated that it had reported non -compliance issues of Australian and Canadian 
companies to the competent authorities  in a timely  manner , and urged the Members concerned to 
conduct investigations on the violations, to make relevant corrections , and to inform China of the 
results.  
3.128.   In response to China, Canada  clarified that all federally  licenced establishments adhered to 
rigorous and internationally accepted standards. Canada verified that facilities complied with the 
food safety requirements, and would immediately take appropriate actions if it became aware of any 
potential food safety risks. Noting the successful implementation of bi lateral arrangements in recent 
years that ha d provided food safety assurances and consumer protection, Canada regretted the lack 
of a timely response s to approve and publish export eligibility list s for Canadian establishments . 
3.129.   In response to China, Austra lia underscored the high standards of its food system and the 
safety and quality of its agricultural products. Australia regretted that China had not honoured its 
WTO commitments, the lack of progress on market access requests, and the unresponsiveness to 
the requests for engagement. Australia highlighted that it had responded to all requests for 
information from China and had undertaken corrective actions in a timely and transparent manner. 
Noting that other trading partners had also raised concerns on del ays and lack of transparency, 
Australia looked forward to a resolution of the issue in a timely and transparen t manner.  
3.2.12   Saudi  Arabia 's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting 
establishments (ID 486) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.130.   Brazil  regretted that Saudi  Arabia  had not provided supporting documentation regarding the 
ongoing suspension of Brazilian exports , alleging sanitary problems. In Brazil's view, Saudi  Arabia  
was not respecting Articles 2 and 5 of the  SPS Agreement. In 2022, Saudi  Arabia  had aut horized the 
resumption of imports from the suspended establishments without the withdrawal of the suspension, 
and Brazilian establishments were considered to be "partially suspended" . Brazil sought an 
explanation o f the sanitary reason for suspending the e stablishments while allowing exports, entry 
and consumption of Brazilian poultry meat.  Brazil also requested a clarification o f the definition of a 
"partial suspension" and fn its legal basis , and asked Saudi  Arabia  to remove the restrictions if no 
sanitar y problems were identified . 
3.131.   Assuring it spared no efforts in removing trade barriers with WTO Members, Saudi  Arabia  
indicated that the temporary measures had been adopted in compliance with the provisions of the  
SPS Agreement. As communicated to Brazil, th e Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA ) had lifted 
suspension o n a number of Brazilian poultry establishments that had taken corrective actions. 
The SFDA was currently reviewing the information on the corrective actions taken by 
Brazilian  establishments whi ch were yet to resume exports. Saudi  Arabia  reaffirmed its commitment 
to transparency towards WTO Members.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 28 - 
 
  3.2.13   Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of fishery and 
livestock enterprises (ID 509) - Concerns of Peru and the European  Union  
3.132.   Peru was concerned that Panama's undue delays violated Article 8 and Annex C of the  
SPS Agreement , and regretted the lack of information regarding the anticipated processing period 
and timeline regarding the renewal of authoriza tions of Peruvian enterprises. While in bilateral 
meetings Panama had stated that it had the necessary information to renew the authorization of 
some of the pending companies, no information had been provided regarding the initiation of a 
"zoosanitary elig ibility process". Despite the decision reached in the high -level bilateral meeting held 
during the Twelfth Ministerial Conference (MC12 ) to organize a meeting on this topic of the 
administrative commission of the bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA), no re sponses had been 
received to the requests to convene the meeting. Peru also noted that Panama had not indicated 
the sanitary reasons for not renewing the authorizations or granting new authorizations to Peruvian 
enterprises, in violation of Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of the  SPS Agreement. Peru asked Panama to renew 
the authorizations of Peruvian export plants and to avoid further delays. Peru submitted its 
statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2086 . 
3.133.   The European  Union  regretted that, since 2019, Panama blocked the requests to obtai n 
market access for agricultural and livestock products and to update the list of authorized  exporting 
plants . The European  Union  invited Panama to establish transparent, predictable and swift 
procedures in line with agreed international standards, to remo ve unnecessary trade barriers, and 
to apply  SPS measures in a non -discriminatory and predictable manner.  
3.134.   Costa  Rica was of the view that Panama's regulatory practices totally restricted access of 
agricultural products to the Panamanian market, and regrette d the lack of information and of 
amendments to the measures. Costa  Rica asked Panama to take into consideration Members' 
concerns, which reflected an inadequate implementation of  SPS measures and a failure to comply 
with obligations established in the  SPS Agreement.  
3.135.   Chile shared the concern regarding difficulties to register or renew establishments of bovine 
meat, poultry meat and products and fisheries and aquaculture products. Regretting the lack of 
concrete progress, Chile looked forward to a prompt solu tion to the problem.  
3.136.   Noting it would convey the information to capital, Panama  indicated that it had been working 
bilaterally with Peru, including a high -level bilateral meeting during MC12 in which it was agreed to 
hold a technical meeting of the administrative commission of the FTA. Panama hoped to find a 
mutually satisfactory sol ution and expressed its willingness to work constructively with Peru.  
3.2.14   Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and fisheries products (ID 530) - 
Concerns of Peru  
3.137.   Peru stated that Bolivia's measures blocked market access for Peruvian exports of whole 
trout without scientific justification . Despite the approval of the  harmonized health certificate in 
2017, Bolivia ha d not yet complied with the corresponding commitments to allow the imports . 
In January 2022, Bolivia's National Agricultural Health and Food  Safety Service (SENASAG ) had 
indicated that its current regulations allowed for the marketing only of eviscerated animals . Peru was 
still awaiting a response to the requests for information submitted, as well as an official invitation 
for an in -person mee ting to resolve the issue.  In Peru's view, Bolivia's measures  contravene d the 
provisions of Article XI of the GATT 1994 , as well as Articles 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 and Annexes B and C 
of the  SPS Agreement . Peru asked Bolivia to rescind restrictions in place on P eruvian exports. 
Peru submitted its statement in document  G/SPS/GEN/2087 . 
3.138.   Bolivia  had ta ken note of Peru's intervention and would convey it to capital.  
3.2.15   General import restrictions due to BSE (ID 193) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.139.   The European  Union  recalled that 26 out of 27 EU member States had negligible bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk and the remaining one had controlled BSE risk status, 
in accordance with the  WOAH Terrestrial Code. In its view, the delays in the approval procedures of 
some Members, in particular Australia, Brazil, China, Ecuador, Egypt, Jordan, South Korea, Malaysia, 
Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Chinese  Taipei , and the United  States , were inconsistent with Article 8 G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 29 - 
 
  and Annex C of the  SPS Agreement. The European  Union  urged all Members to comply with their 
obligations under the  SPS Agreement ; to apply internat ional standards ; to lift remaining BSE -related 
restrictions ; and to engage for the finalization of  the assessment of pending market access requests.  
3.140.   Switzerland  supported this concern , noting that although it had been recognized by WOAH 
as having negligible BSE risk for more than a decade, it continued to be on China's "list of animals 
and their products prohibited from being imported from countries where animal diseases are 
endemic". S witzerland urged trading partners to lift remaining import restrictions due to BSE and to 
allow imports of beef products from Switzerland.  
3.141.   The United  States  considered that the current concerns related to the equivalence 
administrative process, and not to animal health. In order to resume exporting bovine meat products 
for human consumption, EU member States had to obtain an equivalence determination by the USDA 
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). FSIS was actively working through its equivalence 
process and remained available for technical engagements with EU member States.  
3.142.   China  had lifted some bans  on several  member State s and had completed the written 
assessment of several others. Since no cases of BSE had ever been detected in the country, 
China  was cautious about importing cattle and related products from countries or regions where BSE 
occurred. China noted that BSE cases had been reported in the European  Union  since 2021 , and 
believed that the risk of transmission on those countries could not be  ignored before undertaking a 
full assessment. If the BSE risk could be controlled, the European  Union  and its member States could 
apply for an export license through bilateral channels, and China would carry out a risk assessment 
based on the application.  
3.2.16   EU recognition of Mexico as a country with WOAH negligible BSE risk (ID 543) - 
Concerns of Mexico  
3.143.   Mexico  regretted  that the European  Union  had not accommodated its repeated request to 
recognize the negligible risk status with regard to BSE, granted by WOAH in 2016. Mexico noted  that 
other Members who had obtained the recognition from WOAH later than Mexico had already been 
included in EU Dec ision 2007/453/CE. Noting  that it accepted the sanitary status granted by WOAH 
to EU member States, Mexico  objected  that there was no scientific justification for th e EU delay, 
which was restringing trade in products of interest. Mexico requested to be inc luded in EU Decision 
2007/453/EC and asked for an official response to the communications sent since 2017.  
3.144.   Taking the opportunity to reaffirm support for the principle of regionalization, Brazil  stated 
that some Members frequently imposed unjustified measu res related to the non -recognition of the 
sanitary status of the Brazilian territory according to WOAH. Brazil encouraged Members to follow 
international guidance developed by the international standard setting bodies (ISSBs ) and invited 
Members to comply with Articles 3 and 6 of the  SPS Agreement.  
3.145.   The European  Union  informed the Committee that it had taken note of Mexico's status and 
that it was considering the request. The European  Union  had provide d an answer to Mexico's 
communications, and the issue was being discussed bilaterally in the framework of the  EU-Mexico 
Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement . The European  Union  
looked forward to continuing the discussion with Mexico.  
3.2.17   Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports 
(ID 490) - Concerns of the  European  Union  
3.146.   The European  Union  informed the Committee that Korea had re -opened its markets for 
imports of bovine products from two EU member States  in 2019. Noting that the EU policy on food 
safety and animal health was harmonized at EU level , the European Union  emphasized that  identical 
food safety and animal health control conditions prevailed in all EU member States. 
The European  Union  urged Korea to comply with Article 3.2 of the  SPS Agreement and to conclude 
the remaining steps  for the pending applications.  
3.147.   The Russian  Federation  regretted that Korea had not authorized beef imports from any 
Russian region, despite the fact that WOAH had restored Russia's FMD status as a country with a 
free zone without vaccination in 2019. No information  had been received on the response s to G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 30 - 
 
  questions for conducting a risk assessment of beef imports from three regions into Korea. Expressing 
its readiness for bilateral cooperation, Russia urged Korea to comply with its obligations under 
Articles 6  and 8 of the Agreement and to finalize the market access procedures without undue delay . 
3.148.   Korea  stated that it carried out risk assessments in accordance with the  SPS Agreement and 
WOAH and Codex standards, and approved the imports without any discriminati on. Korea had 
approved imports of Dutch and Danish beef in 2019 and, although it had completed the procedures 
for French and Irish beef, the National Assembly was still deliberating on the import health 
requirements. Kore a had informed the European  Union  that import permit procedures for beef from 
other EU member States were underway. Regarding market access to beef from Russia, Korea would 
provide a response as soon as it concluded the review of the information received.  
3.2.18   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (ID 431) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.149.   The European  Union  regretted that South Africa maintained country -wide bans on poultry 
products from 14 EU member States following HPAI outbreaks. The European  Union  considered the 
measure to be at odds with Article 6 of the  SPS Agreement. South Africa had carried out inspections 
in certain EU member States, and was familiar with EU veterinary services and the EU policy and 
regionalization system. The European  Union  called for South Africa to respect its obligations and to 
allow trade from disease -free areas.  
3.150.   South Africa  explained that it would communicate to Denmark the issues identified on the 
submitted report and that it was still evaluatin g the  information provided by Spain. No other 
EU member States had submitted reports as required.  
3.2.19   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID 406) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  
3.151.   The European  Union  raised its concern regarding China's im position, since 2015, of 
country -wide bans on several EU member States on account s of HPAI. The European  Union  had 
repeatedly requested China to lift these  import restrictions in accordance with the WOAH Terrestrial 
Code and to recognize the principle of r egionalization. The European  Union  regretted the lack of 
progress towards the resolution of this longstanding issue.  
3.152.   China  highlighted that HPAI continued to occur in most EU member States in 2022, according 
to WOAH. In order to protect the safety of its p oultry industry, China had applied measures to 
suspend  imports of live poultry and other goods, which were in accordance with the  SPS Agreement. 
At the same time, China had also lifted bans imposed on the grounds of avian influenza in other 
EU member State s. China would conduct risk assessments relevant to the applications submitted to 
export poultry and improve the applied measures on the basis of the results.  
3.2.20   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID 392) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.153.   The European  Union  expressed its concerns regarding China's ASF -related country -wide 
import bans on pork products from EU member States, including from those that had successfully 
eradicated the disease in livestock and wi ldlife and regained a disease -free status in accordance with 
WOAH rules. The European  Union  explained that, since 2015, China had expanded rather than lifted 
the unjustified trade bans, despite having the same sanitary profile , and requested clarification on 
the difference in the risk profile between imported and domestically -produced pork products. 
The European  Union  called on China to respect its obligations under the  SPS Agreement and WOAH 
standards, to allow trade from disease -free areas, and to engage in meaningful, solution -oriented 
exchanges.  
3.154.   Highlighting its commitment to develop trade in healthy pork products, China  noted that 
some EU member States would continue to suffer from ASF in 2022, according to WOAH. The ban 
on imports of pigs and related p roducts after outbreaks of ASF  was based on safety and scientific 
considerations and was in accordance with the  SPS Agreement . China hope d to establish stable and 
sustainable trade relations with the EU and its member States, and expressed its willingness to 
maintain communication and cooperation in the prevention and control of ASF.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 31 - 
 
  3.2.21   Peru 's non -application of regionalization for African swine fever (ID 544) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  
3.155.   The European  Union  expressed concerns about  Peru's country -wide import bans imposed on 
EU pork products from member States that reported outbreaks of African swine fever (ASF). 
The European  Union  urged Peru to respect its international obligations and allow trade from 
disease -free areas, and to enga ge in solution -oriented exchanges.  
3.156.   Brazil  believed that promoting the work of the ISSBs strengthened the  SPS Agreement, 
in particular regarding harmonization, and invited Members to recognize disease -free areas as 
established by WOAH.  
3.157.   Emphasizing that it was respectful of the principle of regionalization of the  SPS Agreement, 
Peru took note of the concerns raised  by the European  Union . Peru had informed Italy of the 
legislation in place following the ASF outbreaks at the beginning of 2022, and was waiting for a 
response to initiate the corresponding process.  
3.2.22   Chinese  Taipei 's new procedure for the recognition of infectious animal disease -
free status of a foreign country (ID 538) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.158.   The European  Union  was of the view  that the procedure applied by Chinese  Taipei  to 
recognize  the infectious animal disease -free status of foreign countries, notified in 
G/SPS/N/TPKM/543 , was unnecessarily burdensome and redundant. The European  Union  regretted 
that the regulation had entered into force in December 2021  without taking into account the 
EU concerns. The European  Union  was of the view that the procedure was not in line with Article 5.6 
of the  SPS Agreement , and requested Chinese  Taipei  to resolve this issue by relying on the animal 
disease status verified b y the European Commission and notified to WOAH.  
3.159.   Chinese  Taipei  clarified that the procedure had been amended in 2021 in response to the 
international animal disease  situation . Specifically, rinderpest had been deleted and classical swine 
fever, peste des p etits ruminants and African horse sickness had been added to the procedure, based 
on WOAH's recommendations in the Terrestrial Code.  The request for applicant countries to provide 
scientific evidence for review was in line with the  SPS Agreement, and Chinese  Taipei  had granted a 
two-year grace period to facilitate completion of the necessary procedures. Reiterating its availability 
for bilateral discussions, Chinese  Taipei  would reply to the applicant countries upon revi ew of the 
dossier s received.  
3.2.23   Mexico's import restrictions on pork (ID 489) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.160.   Brazil  announced that , following the publication in October 2022 of the requirements for 
imports of pork produced in Santa Catarina to be thermically processed by Mexico's food industry,  
Mexico had agreed to the sanitary certificate proposed by Brazil. It was Brazil's understanding that 
the effective opening of the market would take place after the publication of the list of Brazilian 
exporting establishments. Brazil expected the  concern to be concluded in the coming days.  
3.161.   Mexico  informed the Committee that the National Agri -Food Health, Safety and Quality 
Service (SENASICA ) had published the requirements to be met for the importation of swine meat 
from Santa Catarina  in the Module for Consultation of Animal Health Requirements for Imports , and 
that the market was thus open under the conditions indicated therein.  The official communication of 
the technical details and the meeting with Brazil's Ambassador proved Mexico' s will for a cordial 
technical dialogue.  
3.2.24   Peru's import restrictions on pork (ID 482) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.162.   Brazil  reiterated its concern regarding Peru's undue delays in finalizing the risk analysis  
process  for Brazilian pork exports , which  was inconsistent with Article 5 and Annex C of the  
SPS Agreement. Complaining  that Peru had cancelled or postponed audit dates without justification, 
Brazil sought assurance that the audit scheduled between 14 and 17 November 2022 would take 
place as agreed and hoped that significant progress could be reached to resolve this issue.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 32 - 
 
  3.163.   Peru highlighted that it was respectful of the obligations established  in the  SPS Agreement 
and confirmed that the audit to inspect establi shments interested in exporting pork meat  would take 
place on the dates agreed . 
3.2.25   Chinese  Taipei 's import restrictions on poultry and beef (ID 521) - Concerns of 
Brazil  
3.164.    Acknowledging their bilateral exchanges, Brazil  believed that Chinese  Taipei 's restricti ons 
on poultry and beef violated Articles 5 and 8 and Annex C of the  SPS Agreement and that the 
information requested had already been provided. Brazil clarified that it intended to export 
thermoprocessed meat and, therefore, there would be no need to answ er the additional 
questionnaire. Brazil asked for clarification on the time estimate for the final analysis of the latest 
documents, on the stages in the approval procedures  for thermoprocessed poultry and beef , and on 
the estimated date for an audit to evaluate Brazilian inspection and certifications systems, as the 
last step to conclude the current approval procedure.  
3.165.   Regarding poultry, Chinese  Taipei  explained that countries had to be recognized as free from 
HPAI and Newcastle disease (ND) to export poultry meat products, and free from HPAI to export 
heat-treated poultry meat products. Brazil was recognized as HPAI -free, but not as ND -free. 
Following an official communication of non -recognition of ND -free statu s, Chinese  Taipei  invited 
Brazil to conduct active surveillance and apply other measures in accordance with WOAH guidelines, 
and to submit supplementary information for review  if it intended  to resume the application for 
ND-free approval.  Chinese  Taipei  would inform Brazil upon completion of the review of the 
information regarding heat -treated poultry meat. Regarding beef, Brazil needed to submit a food 
safety questionnaire  and an animal health questionnaire to apply for a risk assessment and systemic 
inspe ction; as a BSE country  where BSE occurred , Brazil was also requested to fill in a BSE 
questionnaire. After the review of  the questionnaires, Brazil had been requested to provide additional 
documents , and an on -site audit would normally follow the completi on of the review.  Chinese  Taipei  
confirmed its willingness to continue discussions with Brazil and look ed forward to further progress.  
3.2.26   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID 466) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  and the Russian  Federation  
3.166.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern that the Philippines maintained country -wide bans 
on imports of meat and meat products from EU member States on grounds of ASF and HPAI. 
The European  Union  indicated that 17 EU member States were  subject to country -wide import bans 
on pork meat or poultry meat and relevant products, and considered that these measures were 
inconsistent with Articles 2.2 and 6 of the  SPS Agreement. The European  Union  had provided the 
necessary evidence demonstrating  the effectiveness of disease control measures, and called on the 
Philippines to respect its international obligations and to allow trade from disease -free areas.  
3.167.   The Russian  Federation  expressed concerns regarding the Philippines' restrictions on imports 
of Russian beef , pork and poultry . Exports to the Philippines would only be allowed after receiving 
recognition from WOAH for FMD, ASF and lumpy skin disease -free status, as well as low -risk status 
for BSE. The Russian  Federation  had submitted information on the domestic epizootic situation to 
the Philippines for the diseases at issue , as well as on the measures taken against them.  
The Russian  Federation  had informed the Philippines that WOAH had restored its status as a country 
with FMD -free regions and zo nes with and without vaccination and with controlled BSE risk status, 
and that an outbreak of HPAI had been eliminated.  The Russian  Federation  urged the Philippines to 
comply with obligations under Articles 6 and 8 and Annex C of the  SPS Agreement, to recognize the 
regionalization for dangerous animal diseases in the Russian territory, and to accelerate the process 
of gaining market access.  The Russian  Federation  expressed its readiness for comprehensive 
bilateral cooperation with  the Philippines.  
3.168.   Regarding the EU concern, t he Philippines  noted that the measures imposed were provisional 
and precautionary, subject to regular review  on the basis of  available scientific and verifiable 
technical information , in accordance with Article 5 of the  SPS Agreement. The Philippines would 
continue to monitor the disease situation since, a ccording to the WOAH  notifications and validated 
reports, ASF cases were on the rise and d etections and rapid spread of HPAI virus had also been 
reported in several EU member  States. Regarding the Russian  Federation 's concern, the Philippines 
had explained bilaterally that it continued not to be accredit ed to export pork and b eef due to the G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 33 - 
 
  status of ASF, FMD -free areas with vaccination  and lumpy skin disease . The Philippines remai ned 
committed to addressing these matters in the appropriate forum.  
3.2.27   Nigeria's import restrictions on meat, pork, poultry, milk and dairy products, 
genetic material and live cattle (ID 523) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.169.   Brazil  regretted the lack of responses and information from Nigeria regarding the proposed 
sanitary certifications for buffaloes and live cattle; genetic material for cattle and buffaloes; 
beef, pork, and poultry; hatching eggs and day -old chickens; milk and dairy products; and dry 
bovine skin. Aware of Nigeria's statement on its economic restrictions for the importation of goods, 
Brazil  focused its concern on the procedural issues around sanitary  certificates and health 
requirements, and regretted the lack of progress despite its attempts to obtain responses to Brazil's 
proposals. Brazil thanked Nigeria for the bilateral dialogue and looked forward to further progress in 
this matter.  
3.170.   Nigeria  respo nded that the import restrictions of several products from Brazil were not  
SPS related and, therefore, the  SPS Committee might not be the appropriate forum for discussion. 
The import restrictions were temporary measures applied to address Nigeria's economic difficulties 
and national security challenges. Nigeria further noted that this issue was being discussed in t he 
Committee on Agriculture and the CTG. Nigeria acknowledged receipt of a draft sanitary certificate 
that was being reviewed in its capital. Noting its capacity constraints, Nigeria would share its position 
bilaterally with Brazil once the revision was fi nalized . 
3.171.   In response, Brazil  thanked Nigeria for acknowledging that the proposed sanitary certificates 
were being analysed in capital and that the revision would take time. Brazil was of the view that  this 
confirmed that the issue was under the scope of th e SPS Committee and that Nigeria's lack of 
response constituted an undue delay and , therefore , a violation of Annex C of the  SPS Agreement.  
3.2.28   Qatar's new import rules for dairy products (ID 529) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.172.   The European  Union  remained co ncerned at Qatar's Ministry of Public Health Circular 
establishing new import requirements for dairy products, which had entered into force in 2019 and 
had been further expanded in 2021 and 2022, without being notified to the WTO. 
The European  Union 's main concern related to the short shelf  life imposed for several dai ry products, 
which were not based on science no r on international standards. These requirements hindered 
exports to Qatar and favoured domestic producers who did not have to ship their products. 
Grateful  for the constructive bilateral dialogue, the European  Union  urged Qatar to withdraw the 
current trad e restrictions and to adopt a permanent solution, which would be notified at a draft stage 
to the  SPS Committee.  
3.173.   Considering  that the current  requirements for imported cheese and other dairy commodities 
were trade restrictive, New Zealand  recommended Qatar  to use Codex standards for setting shelf -life 
requirements.  
3.174.   Qatar  informed the Committee that the measures aimed a t ensuring the quality of products 
available in Qatar , and that many issues in this respect had been clarified in the ongoing dialogue 
with t he European  Union . Qatar underscored that the relevant measures were no t discriminatory, 
since they applied equally to domestic and imported products, and that they would not impact trade 
more than necessary to contribute to the fulfilment of the legitimat e objective of protecting 
consumers. Although the requirements did not prevent the importation and sale of any products that 
met its quality standards, Qatar would share the EU concerns with capital and remained available to 
continue the constructive discu ssion with Members.  
3.2.29   Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other 
ruminants (ID 493) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.175.   The European  Union  acknowledged the recent publication by the United  States  of the final 
rule regarding the "Importation of Sheep, Goats, and Certain Other Ruminants",  as well as the 
opening of market access for small ruminants from one EU member State.  Recalling the obligat ion 
to avoid arbitrary or unjustified discrimination, the European  Union  regretted that other applications G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 34 - 
 
  were still pending even though all EU member States implemented the harmonized EU legislation on 
food safety and animal health. The European  Union  looked forward to a prompt assessment of 
applications from its member States , and hoped that market access for meat from small ruminants 
would be granted as soon as possible.  The European  Union  invited the United  States  to work 
constructively together to sol ve the pending application for all EU member States.  
3.176.   The United  States  reiterated that the current concern related to the food safety equivalence  
and not to animal health or to the publication of the final rule, and  reported that it was working 
through its  equivalence process to ensure its ALOP was achieved for small ruminant meat products 
intended for human consumption. Recognizing that this was a priority issue for the European  Union , 
the United  States  reported that it was working through the technical re view process for current 
requests. The United  States  looked forward to continued cooperation with the European  Union  and 
encouraged engagement by other EU member States interested in exporting to the United  States . 
3.2.30   Thailand's sanitary requirements on wet b lue leather imports (ID 539) - Concerns 
of Brazil  
3.177.   Brazil  was of the view that an international health certificate should not be required for 
allowing exports of we t blue leather, as established  by WOAH. Brazil a cknowledged Thailand's 
recognition that Article 8.8.27 of the WOAH Terrestrial Code was the basis for allowing wet blue 
export without restrictions, and the confirmation  that it would amend its Animal Epidemics Act 
BE 2558 (2015) to correct this requiremen t. Hoping for further progress towards trade liberalization, 
Brazil asked Thailand which were the measures that would be taken to remove the requirement of 
a health certificate for wet blue exports from Brazil; the expected delay to conclude the procedure;  
and a clarification o f the discrepancies between the information provided during the June  
SPS meeting and by the authorities in Bangkok.  
3.178.    Thailand  replied that, f ollowing the indication in the June 2022 Committee meeting that the 
Department  of Livestock D evelopment (DLD) would revise the relevant procedures, an official letter 
had been submitted to Brazil  to inform of the updated process related to the importation of wet blue 
leather. Thailand noted  that it required time to revise the procedures and expressed its willingness 
to hold bilateral consultation s to solve Brazil 's concerns.  
3.2.31   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID 441) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  and the Russian  Federation  
3.179.   The European  Union  acknowledged the progress in some market access applications from 
EU member States, but noted that many ha d remained pending for years. Specifically, 
the European  Union  considered that Indonesia had not clarified the rationale for the lack of progress 
and the long delays regarding export applications for dairy, beef, poultry, pork, and plant products, 
which in  some instances had been submitted more than eight years ago. Looking forward to bilateral 
discussions on these issues, the European  Union  requested Indonesia to be transparent about its 
approval procedures and to finalize pending applications.  
3.180.   The Russian  Federation  expressed concerns regarding the lack of progress in Indonesia's 
approval of export certificates for several animal products. The Russian  Federation  had not received 
a response to several reminders of the pending approvals, to the questionnaire s on poultry and beef 
establishments , nor to its proposal to conduct veterinary inspections. Expressing its readiness for 
comprehensive bilateral cooperation on this issue, the Russian  Federation  urged Indonesia to comply 
with Article 8 and Annex C of the  SPS Agreement and to complete its approval procedures without 
undue delay.  
3.181.   Indonesia  considered that its procedures and its responsiveness regarding the applications 
of EU member State s were compliant with Articles 5 , 6, 7 and 8 of the  SPS Agreement . 
Indonesia  provided detailed updates on the progress of EU member States' submissions for listing 
establishments and o n approval procedures of the plant products , and hoped that this information 
proved its commitment to move forward on the issue. Likewise, Indonesia had responded to the two 
applications submitted by the Russian  Federation , and indicated that it could accept the importation 
of processed bovine meat and frozen boneless beef without lymphoglandula based on its  national 
legislation an d on Russia's status as FMD-free without vaccination and controlled BSE  risk. 
Indonesia  also provided an update on the approval procedure for Russia's plant products and noted G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 35 - 
 
  that further updates would be communicated through diplomatic channels.  Indonesi a hoped that the 
details provided addressed the concerns raised and requested pending issues to be resolved 
bilaterally.  
3.2.32   China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports (ID 506) - 
Concerns of India  
3.182.    Referring to its previous interventions , India expressed its disappointment with the lack of 
progress on this matter. India reiterated its concerns with the new health certificate format proposed 
by China for shrimp imports, which required every consignment to be tested for WOAH -listed 
pathogen s, including White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV ) and Infectious Hypodermal and 
Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHHNV ), and for which the commencement had not been notified in 
advance. India regretted that, despite having shared with GACC the outcomes of the investigations 
of 12 out of 15 complaints, the establishments could still not export aquaculture products to China. 
India noted that WSSV was also present in China, and asked China to share the scientific objective 
of the proposed certificate.  
3.183.    China  had a dopted temporary preventive emergency measures suspending the import of 
shrimp -related products to prevent the introduction of WSSV and IHHNV from India. In China's view, 
the measures were consistent with the  SPS Agreement and WOAH standards, and were comm on 
practice in other countries and regions. The measures were scientific, reasonable and did not impose 
excessive requirements.  
3.2.33   EU regulation on animal health/official certificates for animal origin foods 
(ID 545) - Concerns of China  
3.184.   China  noted  the impact  of the requirements in Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on 
exporting businesses, namely regarding the additional statement on veterinary drug residues in the 
exported products of animal origin that had to accompany the veterinary health certificate. 
China  emphasized that its food system had under gone great changes since the issuance of the 
Commission Decision and informed the Committee that, since 2022, GACC implemented the new 
version of the measures for the Administration of Import and Export Food Safety incorporating the 
requirement to test for veterinary drug residues according to the country of destination. 
China  requested the European  Union  to remove the requirement to issue an additional statement 
accompanying the veterinary health certificate.  
3.185.   The European  Union  considered that the concern raised at the previous  SPS Committee 
meetings had been resolved, since China's statement referred to a different issue. 
The European  Union  had taken note on this concern and looked forward to cooperation with China 
on the matter.  
3.2.34   India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID 501) 
- Concerns of the United  States  and the European  Union  
3.186.   The United  States  regretted that, despite its numerous requests, India had not provided a 
scientific justification nor a risk assessment in support of the non -GM certificate requirement on a 
consignment basis for the 24 crops listed in the Order. The United  States  affirmed  that the 
requirements had first been ordered in 2020 and that, contrary to India's assertion, the Order had 
disrupted US exports. Requesting that the Order be notified to the  SPS Committee, the United  States  
reiterated its willingness for bilateral techni cal cooperation and urged India to withdraw this 
measure. The United  States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2085 . 
3.187.   The European  Union  reported that it was still awaiting a response to comments it had 
provided on the TBT notification of this measure. The European  Union  highlighted that the measure 
was costly and burdensome for trading partners who had a high prevalence of non -GM foods in their 
domestic market. The European  Union  also expressed concerns with the limited number of food 
crops authorized to contain GMOs under the measure, as well as the strict traceability and labelling 
requirements which would apply to food containing GMOs. In closing, the European  Union  asked 
India to waive the certificate requirement for food items.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 36 - 
 
  3.188.   Paraguay  supported this concern and referr ed to its previous interventions under this STC. 
Paraguay pointed out that GMOs were as safe as conventional counterparts and did not pose 
additional health risks, and was thus of the view that the regulation lacked scientific justification. 
Paraguay urged  India to provide answers to th e Committee as well as through bilateral channels, 
and to consider reviewing its legislation.  
3.189.   Acknowledging the ongoing cooperation, Australia  noted that it was common international 
practice to maintain regulatory oversight a nd controls on agricultural crops subject to genetic 
modification, and considered that the requirement for GM assurances on a consignment -by-
consignment basis  did not improve regulatory outcomes. Australia asked India to recognize the 
regulatory systems other countries had put in place to control GM exports. Australia noted that India 
was seeking a similar certificate for the export of vegan food products, whic h would come into effect 
in January 2023.  
3.190.   Canada  remained concerned that the Order would impact exports of GM -producing Members 
to India and unnecessarily restrict international trade. Canada recalled its request for India to notify 
the non -GM Order to the  SPS Committee; to base its approach on scientific and technical evidence 
in line with  SPS commitments; to consider the robust, science -based regulatory frameworks 
developed in other countries; and to suspend the implementation of this measure. Canada expr essed 
its willingness to share its experience regarding alternate, less trade -restrictive approaches that 
would meet India's objectives, and looked forward to further bilateral discussion on this issue.  
3.191.   Brazil  reiterated its concern regarding India's Order  notified as G/TBT/N/IND/1 68, which 
applied to 24 crops and required official certification to attest that imported products were not 
genetically modified. Brazil urged India to notify any new developments on this regulation to the  
SPS Committee.  
3.192.   Reiterating its concern , Argentina  highlight ed that measure s should be based on science and 
a risk analysis, as well as on international standards. Argentina sought clarification on the scientific 
evidence underpinning the Order  and the criteria used by India to deviate from the principle o f 
substantial equivalence.  
3.193.   Japan  shared the concern that India's measure was not based on scientific principles nor a 
proper risk assessment, was more trade -restrictive than necessary, and could have a negative 
impact on agricultural trade. Under Japan's d omestic laws, GM agricultural products for human 
consumption were subject to safety evaluations, and agricultural products that were not approved 
could not be imported nor distributed domestically. In Japan's view, requiring a non -GM origin and 
GM-free cer tificate for items under appropriate control in the origin country restricted trade more 
than necessary and, therefore, urged India not to continue to require certificates for such items.  
3.194.   Uruguay  considered that there was no technical justification for the  certification requirement , 
and noted the international consensus that GM products approved on the basis of Codex risk 
assessment recommendations were considered to be equivalent to their conventional counterparts. 
Referring to the objective of ensuring  the safety of imported food, Uruguay enquired as to why the 
measure had still not been notified to the  SPS Committee. Uruguay stressed that measures should 
be based on science and not more trade -restrictive than necessary, and looked forward to India's 
respo nse to its concerns, including those submitted in a joint note by several delegations.  
3.195.   India reiterated that the requirement to accompany 24 identified commodities by a non -GM 
origin cum GM -free certificate had been notified to the WTO as the Environment P rotection Act 1986. 
The Export Inspection Council, the national agency issuing non -GMO certificate s for India's export 
consignments to other countries, had issued more than 9,000 certificates for primary food crops and 
processed food products. India report ed that trading partners had been complying with the 
requirement to issue a non -GMO certificate and that, so far, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal 
Committee had not approved any of the crop varieties of genetically modified or genetically 
engineered origi n listed in the Order. India remained open to discussions to facilitate trade.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 37 - 
 
  3.2.35   The Russian  Federation 's classification of tea as "fruits and vegetables" (ID 525) 
- Concerns of India  
3.196.   Thanking Russia for sharing the translated version of the documentation requested, 
India observed that the sample size used in the study was too small to allow for scientific conclusions. 
Since tea was brewed in hot water, the contamination in the end prod uct would apparently be lower 
than in products consumed directly. India noted  that the classification of tea as fruits and vegetables, 
with the application of higher levels of mould parameters, led to stricter controls on mycotoxins, 
namely aflatoxin B1, t hat resulted in increased export costs. India asked Russia to remove tea from 
the classification as fruits and vegetables , and consequentially prevent the application of higher 
levels of mould parameters.  
3.197.   Referring to the information provided in the March 2022 Committee meeting, 
the Russian  Federation  clarified that the food safety requirements for all types of food products, 
including tea, were laid down in the technical regulations of the Customs Union and the Eurasian 
Economic Union (EAEU ), with the ML for mould in tea set at 1,000 colony forming units (CFU)/g, as 
defined in Appendix 2 of Regulation 021/2011.  The requirement for aflatoxin B1  was established in 
Appendix 3 at no more than 5 µg/Kg. Russia had shared with India a scientific article stating th at 
aflatoxins, that could appear when mould was present in tea, were heat -resistant and could lead to 
negative health effects.  Noting the absence of a Codex standard for mould in tea, 
the Russian  Federation  highlighted that the measures were in line with A rticles 2.2 and 5.1 of the  
SPS Agreement and were taken to protect human life and health and to ensure the ALOP of the 
population. The Russian  Federation  insisted that the EAEU did not classify tea as fruits and 
vegetables , and that the  SPS requirements fo r tea were historically placed in the plants 
section.  Expressing readiness for bilateral cooperation, t he Russian  Federation  invited India to 
propose changes to the section o n SPS requirements for tea in the technical regulation  to the 
Eurasian Economic Commission . 
3.2.36   Panama's restrictions and procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes and 
onions (ID 512) - Concerns of Peru  
3.198.    Peru expressed its concerns regarding Panama's suspension of imports of onions and 
potatoes from Peru, and the related u ndue delays in restor ing trade. Peru recalled  that Panama had 
suspended imports of Peruvian onions in 2016 based on an updated pest risk analysis (PRA), which 
was contrary to the  SPS Agreement and the principle of "technical justification" under the 
International Plant Protection Convention. Peru also reported on the lack of response to the proposed 
phytosanitary protocol for the exportation of potatoes to Panama, following an exchange  of 
comments in 2010. Peru requested Panama to allow market access for these products to prevent 
violation s of Articles 2, 5 and 8 and Annex C of the  SPS Agreement  and to avoid unnecessary and 
unjustified barriers to trade. Peru submitted its statement in G/SPS/GEN/2088 . 
3.199.   Costa  Rica shared the concern and was of the view that Panama's practices totally restricted 
access of agricultural products to the Panamanian market. Costa  Rica asked Panama to take into 
consideration Members' concerns, which reflected an inadequate implementation of  SPS measures 
and a failure to comply with obligations established in the  SPS Agreement.  
3.200.   Panama  maintained that it considered the TBT Committee to be the appropriate forum to 
address this concern. Panama also noted that this issue had been discussed as part of a high -level 
discussion  during MC12 , during which it was decided that another technical me eting in the context 
of the FTA between both countries would be held. Against that background, Panama looked forward 
to mutually satisfactory solutions.  
3.2.37   Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions (ID 498) - Concerns of Peru  
3.201.    Peru expressed its conc erns regarding Ecuador's trade restrictive measures on Peruvian 
grapes and onions . Ecuador had not responded to the request for the establishment of the 
phytosanitary requirements for the opening of the onion market, despite having indicated it would 
reopen its market in July 2022 . Peru also noted  that Ecuador still required the refrigerated transport 
of grapes and  that, despite its compliance with Ecuador's sanitary requirements, the restrictions on 
Peruvian grapes remained in force. Peru was of the v iew that Ecuador's actions constituted a violation 
of Articles 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, as well as Annexes B and C of the  SPS Agreement. Peru requested G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 38 - 
 
  Ecuador to avoid proposing measures inconsistent with the  SPS Agreement and the basic principles 
of the WTO, to  respect previously developed technical agreements, and to reopen the market for 
Peruvian grapes and onions. Peru submitted its statement in G/SPS/GEN/2089 . 
3.202.   Ecuador  responded that Peru's concern in the context of the Andean Community had 
concluded and, as a result, Ecuador was elabor ating the PRA to establish the phytosanitary 
requirements for onion imports from Peru. Regarding grapes, Ecuador noted that the safety 
requirements for the import ation of grapes had been addressed in the Andean context, and looked 
forward to receiving the acceptance of the requirements sent to Peru. Ecuador reiterated its 
willingness to continue dialogue with Peru to resolve this concern.  
3.2.38   China 's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID 532) - Concerns of China  
3.203.    Chinese  Taipei  reiterated its concerns about China's import suspension of pineapples, sugar 
apples , wax apples  and citrus , and requested China to resume imports in accordance with the  
SPS Agreement and the relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations . 
Noting  the effective risk -preventing measures adopted to facilitate the export ation of these fruits, 
Chinese  Taipei  regretted that it had not received substantive responses from China regarding its 
requests for scientific and technical dialogue , nor for detailed identification reports, the adopted 
ALOP or the risk assessment reports. Chinese  Taipei  urged China to bring its measures in to 
conformity with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the  SPS Agreement, to provide the necessary scientific 
identification and risk as sessment reports, and to engage in  a bilateral scientific and technical 
dialogue to resolve this issue.  
3.204.   China  explained that, since 2020, quarantine pests had been repeatedly found on pineapples, 
sugar apples , wax apples and citrus imported from Chinese  Taipei. Although China had 
communicated this information to Chinese Taipei several times, the situation had not  improved , and 
imports of these fruits had been temporarily suspended on the basis of a risk assessment. China 
noted that the measures were consist ent with the transparency provisions of the  SPS Agreement, 
the principles of risk assessment of the IPPC, and requirements related to control, inspection and 
approval procedures. China urged Chinese  Taipei  to take effective measures to improve the situation 
and reduce the quarantine risk affecting the fruits at issue.  
3.2.39   US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID 439) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.205.   Referring to previous statements on this concern, t he European  Union  regretted that the 
United  States  had still not published its final rule to give market access to  apples and pears under a 
systems approach. The European  Union  indicated that trade of apples and pears was hindered by 
the high costs associated w ith the current  preclearance requirements , and urged the United  States  
to conclude the final steps and publish the final rule.  
3.206.   The United  States  reminded the European Union of  the existing preclearance programme , 
and noted that the EU request was being add ressed  through the US  administrative process . The 
United States noted its availability for further discussion . 
3.2.40   US high cost of certification for mango exports (ID 373) - Concerns of India  
3.207.   India informed the Committee that export s of mangos to the United  States  required an  
irradiation treatment plus an in person inspection, which resulted in high costs. India regretted the 
interruption of exports in 2020 and 2021 due to the inability of US inspec tor to travel in light of the 
pandemic. Acknowledging the bilateral engagement, India requested the United State to expedite 
its response on the comments submitted on the operational phytosanitary framework plan for the 
three different mechanisms for expor t of mango and p omegranate fruits.  
3.208.   The United  States  indicated that its requirements  for the inspection and irradiation of mango 
had been regularly reviewed and updated , and were consistent with obligations under the  
SPS Agreement. Noting the bilateral tec hnical exchanges on the  trade  facilitative arrangements , 
the United  States  noted the continued  work through its regulatory process to address the request 
to establish an offshore program me for Indian quarantine officials to conduct the inspections and 
irradiation treatments of mango.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 39 - 
 
  3.2.41   US non -recognition of the pest -free status in t he European  Union  for Asian 
longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID 471) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.209.   Recognizing recent constructive bilateral engagement, t he European  Union  reiterated its 
concern regarding the US failure to recognize the EU pest -free status for Asian longhorn beetle and 
citrus longhorn beetle. Although it had satisfactorily finalized its sci entific risk assessment, 
the European  Union  indicated that the United  States  had yet to formalize the recognition of pest -free 
status in 21 EU member States. The European  Union  urged the United  States  to formally accept the 
pest-free areas and to publish t he Final Order in line with its commitments under the  SPS Agreement . 
3.210.   The United  States  assured the European  Union  that it was working through its administrative 
procedures to process this request. The United  States  noted the bilateral technical engagement on 
the matter, including through discussions during the October 2022 Plant Health Working Group 
meeting, and looked forward to continued cooperation.  
3.2.42   EU delays in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng c hicken soup ) 
(ID 526) - Concerns of Korea  
3.211.   Korea  expressed concerns about  import approval delays imposed by the European  Union  on 
Korean chicken soup Samgyetang. Despite the numerous actions taken to comply with EU requests, 
Korea had still not received app roval for imports. In its view, the EU delays in import approvals were 
a violation of Article 8 and Annex C of the  SPS Agreement. Korea urged the European  Union  to 
complete the procedure and to provide information on the timeframes.  
3.212.   The European  Union  explained that Korea had addressed the shortcomings identified in the 
audit conducted in 2018. Korea had  also submitted an action plan to address the deficiencies 
identified in a remote audit related to poultry animal health issues conducted in 2022, which was  
being evaluated by the Commission. The European  Union  reiterated its commitment to continue the 
cooperation on this matter.  
3.3  Information on resolution of issues (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.22 ) 
3.213.   The Secretariat  informed the Committee that it had contacted 37 Members to seek 
information regarding the status (resolved, partially resolved or not reported as resolved ) of STCs 
that had not been discussed since November 2020. As a follow -up to the exercise, 31 of thes e STCs 
had been  reported as resolved and 14 STCs as partially resolved. For transparency purposes, the 
information provided by Members  to the Secretariat  was circulated in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2062/Rev.1 , which also included the results of similar exercises undertaken in 20 13, 
2017 and 2020. More than 57% of the STCs discussed in the Committee were now considered as 
resolved or partially resolved.  
4  PROCEDURE TO ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE THE RESOLUTION OF SPECIFIC  
SPS ISSUES AMONG MEMBERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 12.2 (G/SPS/61 ) 
4.1.  The Secretariat  drew the Committee's  attention to the annual report on the use of the 
Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate the Resolution of Specific  SPS Issues among Members in 
Accordance with Article 12.2 (G/SPS/61 ) circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/2057 . A request had 
been received since the circulation of the annual report.  
4.2.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee of a new request for ad hoc  consultations under this 
procedure and the corresponding response to that request. On 6 October 2022, Brazil had requested 
the Good  Offices of the Chair under Article 12.2 of the  SPS Agreement and the ad hoc  consultations 
procedure regarding issues pertaining to the export ation of swine meat to Mexico, which were related 
to three previously discussed STCs (ID 263, 271, and 489 ). On 27  October 2022, Mexico had 
provided a response in accordance with paragraph 2.3 of the ad hoc  consultations procedure. 
Mexico  had rejected the request because it had published the requirements to be met for the 
importation of pork from Brazil to Mexico and thus was of the view that it was not necessary to 
continue with the Good Offices of the Chair. In accordance with paragraphs 2.2 and 2.5 of the ad hoc 
consultations procedure  (G/SPS/61 ), Brazil's request and Mexico's response to the request had been 
circulated on the same day in documents G/SPS/GEN/2078  and G/SPS/GEN/2079 .  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 40 - 
 
  4.3.  Brazil thanke d the Chairperson for accepting the proposal of providing good offices for the 
ad hoc consultations with Mexico , as well as the Secretariat for the guidance provided. In particular, 
Brazil thanked Mexico for the two developments following the request: the publication of the 
requirements and the acceptance of the certificates. In Brazil's view, markets would be opened once 
the list of establishments  was published , which it expected would happen soon.  
4.4.  Mexico  confirmed that the requirements to be met for the i mportation of swine meat from 
Brazil to Mexico had been  published in the Module for Consultation of Animal Health Requirements 
for Imports on 25 October 2022. Therefore, the Mexican market would be open to swine meat from 
Brazil under the conditions indica ted in the requirements.  In Mexico's view, the concern  at issue was 
resolved and it was not necessary to continue with the procedure under Article  12.2 of the  
SPS Agreement.  Mexico thanked the Secretariat and the Chairperson for their support in this issue.  
5  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE  SPS AGREEMENT  
5.1  Equivalence  
5.1.1   Information from Members  
5.1.1.1   United  States  – Addition of Lithuania to the list of countries eligible to export egg 
products  
5.1.  The United  States  Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) had determined that  Lithuania's 
egg products inspection system achieved an equivalent level of sanitary protection  and, in 
September 2022, it had recognized Lithuania's system as equivalent to export egg products to the 
United  States . Appreciating the technical coordination, the United  States  would continue to 
communicate with Lithuania to ensure the safety of exporte d egg products.  The US notification of 
the determination of the recognition of equivalence of  SPS measures had been  circulated in 
document G/SPS/N/EQV/USA/8 . 
5.2  Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization ) 
5.2.1   Information from Members  
5.2.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
5.3.1   Information from Members  
5.3.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.3.2   Technical revision of G/SPS/7/Rev.4  
5.4.  In June 2022, t he Secretariat  had proposed to prepare a technical revision of the current 
Recommended Transparency Procedures contained in  document G/SPS/7/Rev.4  to reflect the new 
ePing SPS&TBT Platform , the possibility to submit notifications online,  to provide  explanations on  
the specific access rights available , and to introduce some editorial changes . No substantive changes 
had been made  to the recommended procedure s in the suggested revision circulated to Members . 
Given the short time  to consider this document since the circulation of the proposed revision, 
Members were invited to provide comments by Friday, 9 December. If no substantive comments 
were received, the updated Recommended Transparency Procedures would be circulated as 
document G/SPS/7/Rev.5 . A similar approach had been followed in 2018 for the circulation of the  
transparency procedures contained in document G/SPS/7/Rev.4 , which were a tech nical revision of 
G/SPS/7/Rev. 3. The Secretariat would also update  the Practical manual for  SPS national notification 
authorities (NNAs ) and SPS national enquiry points (NEPs) to reflect the new ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform and G/SPS/7/Rev.5  when adopted.  
5.5.  The Chairperson  invited the Secretariat to circulate the revision after the deadline if no 
substantive comments were received.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 41 - 
 
  5.3.3   Official launch of the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform  
5.6.  The Chairperson noted that document G/SPS/GEN/2058  contained infor mation on the official 
launch of the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform, held on July 2022.  
5.7.  The Secretariat  drew the Committee's attention to the fact that the ePing SPS&TBT Platform 
had gone  live in March 2022 and had been officially launched in July 2013. T he ne w ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform merged into a single Platform the previous version of ePing, and the old  SPS and TBT 
notification submission systems and information management systems.  Senior officials from the 
three partner agencies (UN Department of Economic an d Social Affairs -UNDESA -, the International 
Trade Center -ITC- and the WTO ) had provided statements during the launch.  The SPS and TBT 
Committees had been  represented by their respective Chairpersons, Mr Tang -Kai Wang 
(Chinese  Taipei)  and Mr Anwar Hussain Shaik (India). Subsequently, several  SPS and TBT delegates 
had taken the floor to praise the new Platform. A summary of the event had been  circulated in 
document G/SPS/GEN/2058  (G/TBT/GEN336 ), and m ore information was available in the news event 
of the official launch.2 
5.4  Control, inspection and approval procedures  
5.4.1   Information from Members  
5.8.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.4.2   Working Group on Approval Procedures (G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1  and 
G/SP S/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1 ) 
5.9.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the meeting of the 
Working Group (WG) on Approval Procedures, which had been held on 7 November 2022. The draft 
report had been circulated to Members with an opportu nity to provide comments by Friday, 
18 November 2022. The final report is included in Annex B. 
5.10.   The Chairperson also drew the Committee's attention to the discussions held in  the informal 
meeting regarding the proposal for an ext ension of the WG's timeline. The  SPS Committee agreed  
to extend the timeline of the WG until March 2023.  
5.5  Special and differential treatment  
5.5.1   Information from Members  
5.11.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.6  Monitoring of the use of international standards  
5.6.1   New issues  
5.12.   No new issues were raised under this agenda item.  
5.6.2   Issues previously raised  
5.6.2.1   Canada - Update on WOAH BSE negligible risk status  
5.13.   Canada  reported that several Members had remove d the remaining BSE restrictions on 
Canadian cattle, beef and beef products based on Canada's WOAH BSE negligible risk status. 
Canada  urged Members who had not yet done so to remove the remaining restrictions  on 
Canadian  exports . Canada recalled the importa nce of basing  SPS measures on international 
standards, as established in Article 3 of the  SPS Agreement . 
 
2 The news item is available on the WTO website : 
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news22_e/igo_13jul22_e.htm . G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 42 - 
 
  5.6.2.2   European  Union  - ASF restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international 
standard  
5.14.   The European  Union  pointed out  inconsistencies in the application  of WOAH international 
standards related to ASF. The European  Union  considered that many Members did not follow the 
WOAH Terrestrial Code guidance for identification, treatment, and certification of tradable products 
and zoning. The European  Union  highligh ted that ASF could be managed effectively to ensure that 
legitimate trade was not the cause of any outbreak, as presented in the Thematic Session held in 
March 2021. The European  Union  added that ASF was a disease affecting several WTO Members, 
and conside red that it was a shared interest to maintain free and safe trade of pork and pork 
products. Members were invited to address the tasks identified in the MC12  Declaration  and 
implement  science -based, rational and proportionate import policies . 
5.6.2.3   European  Union  - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the WOAH international 
standard  
5.15.   The European  Union  regretted that some Members disregarded their obligations under 
Article  6 and Annex C of t he SPS Agreement. Country -wide bans after a disease outbreak were not 
scientifically justified if effective movement controls were in place, and there was no justification to 
wait one year or more to restore disease -free status. The European  Union  asked WTO Members to 
respect their obligations on regionalization under the  SPS Agreement, to follow ISSB 
recommendations and to allow trade from non -affected zones. The European  Union  was committed 
to address the tasks identified in the MC12  Declaration , together  with other Members, to strengthen 
science -based, rational and proportionate import policies.  
5.6.3   WOAH – Observatory project  
5.16.   WOAH  explained  that international standards w ere approved  by the General Assembly held in 
May each year  and, after adoption,  were incorporated  to the respective Codes and Manuals. 
Acknowledging  that the imple mentation at country level could  involve challenges , WOAH clarified 
that the Observatory project was a programme created to have an overview of members' uptake of 
international standards. Members were invited to read the first annual report on the Observatory  
project,  to be published in December. WOAH reiterated that, once the standards had been adopted, 
it was members' responsibility to translate them to their national legislati on and ensure they were 
properly implemented.  
5.7  Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the  
SPS Agreement (G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1 ) 
5.7.1   Report on the informal meeting  
5.17.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to his draft report on the informal meeting 
of the Committee of 9 November 2022, specifically referring to the summaries of the discussions on 
the follow -up to the Fifth Review, the  SPS Declaration Work Programme, trade facilitative 
approaches to pesticide MRLs, MC12 implementation matters, and 2023 thematic sessions. Th e final 
report is included in Annex B . 
5.7.2   Information from Members  
5.18.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.8  Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG  
5.19.   The Chairperson  reminded delegates that he would submit a factual report , on his  own 
responsibility,  on the activities of the Committee for consideration by the CTG at its meeting on 
24-25 November 2022. The Chairperson also noted that a first version of the report had been made 
available to Members for comments. The report would be r evised to reflect the Committee's work at 
the present meeting. The final report was subsequently circulated as G/L/1443. G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 43 - 
 
  6  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
6.1  SPS Declaration Work Programme (G/SPS/W/330 , G/SPS/W/331  and 
WT/MIN (22)/27) 
6.1.1   Adoption of the proposed process (G/SPS/W/330  and G/SPS/W/331 ) 
6.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the propose d process foresaw its adoption by the Committee in 
the November meeting . Based on discussions in the informal meeting , the proposed process had 
been revised and circulated as G/SPS/W/330/ Rev.1 . 
6.2.  The United  States  was of the view that the document r eflected Members'  comments , and 
further suggested harmonizing due dates for Members to provide written inputs . 
6.3.  The Secretariat  indicated that it would contact stewards after the meeting, agree on a deadline 
for submission o f inputs and put forward dates for following  meeting s.3 
6.4.  The Committee  adopted  document G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1 , which include d comments submitted 
in G/SPS/W/331 . 
6.1.2   Update on thematic g roups  
6.5.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the updates on thematic 
groups provided by the (co)stewards in the informal meeting . The final report is included in Annex  B. 
6.2  Thematic Session on International Standards and Best Practices in Pest Risk 
Identification, Assessment and Management  
6.2.1   Report on the Thematic Session  
6.6.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's  attention to his draft report on the Thematic Session 
on International Standards and Best Practices in Pest Risk Identification, Assessment and 
Management, which had been held on 8 November 2022.4 The draft report had been circulated to 
Members with an o pportunity to provide comments by Friday, 18 November 2022. The final report 
is included in Annex A . 
6.7.  Chile appreciated  the organization of the thematic session and the experience sharing by 
Members, the IPPC, FAO and the private sector.  The recognition and the implementation of good 
practices, with access to the available sources of information, was essential for plant health 
protection, food production and the r eduction of the impact of phytosanitary protection on 
international trade. Chile reiterated its availability to continue cooperation on this topic both in this 
forum and bilaterally.  
6.3  Trade facilitative approaches to pesticide MRLs  
6.3.1   Update from Members (G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev. 3) 
6.8.  The Chairperson  reminded the Committee of the Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative 
Approaches to Pesticide MRLs held in March 2022. A follow -up proposal had been  circulated by 
Australia, Canada, Colombia, Paraguay and the United  States , later co-sponso red by Japan and 
Uruguay.  
6.9.  Australia  reiterated  that, given  the significant work associated  to the MC12  SPS Declaration 
work programme, the  co-sponsors proposed to  take up  this topic later in 2023.  
 
3 The meeting dates and times were made available in the ded icated webpage: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_declaration_mc12_e.htm . 
4 The dedicated webpage for the Thematic Session can be accessed here: 
https:/ /www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/thematic_session_nov22_e.htm . G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 44 - 
 
  6.4  MC12 Implementation Matters (JOB/CTG/16 ) 
6.4.1   Information from the Chair  
6.10.   The Chairperson  invited Members to further consider MC12 implementation matters 
(JOB/CTG/16 ), including the CTG request for submission of two reports , on the topics of  the current 
functioning of the Committees, under the umbrella of  WTO reform ; and COVID -19 (JOB/CTG/18 ). 
The two reports would  take stock of the work and activi ties undertaken by the  SPS Committee in 
the past. The Secretariat would assist in the preparation of the reports, which would be sent to 
Members, with a possibility to comment, before being submitted to the CTG under the Chairperson's 
responsibility.  
6.11.   No Me mber provided comments on the two reports nor on the approach proposed by the 
Chairperson in the informal meeting.  
6.5  2023 Thematic Sessions  
6.5.1   Proposals from Members (G/SPS/GEN/2067 ) 
6.12.   No Member took  the floor under this agenda item.  
6.13.   The Chairperson  indicated that, based on the discussions held in the informal meeting, 
it appeared that Members had a preference to systematically webcast all of the Committee's 
thematic sessions. Members were invited to submit comments on this topic, as well as any additional 
proposals for 2023 thematic sessions , and comments on submitted proposals , by Friday, 
9 December.  
7  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
7.1  Information from the Secretariat  
7.1.1   WTO  SPS Activities  
7.1.  The Secretar iat provided Members with an overview of the technical assistance activities held 
since June 2022. These activities included a Course on Transparency and the ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform, held virtually for Mexico on 4 -5 July; and a national seminar on  SPS and T BT, held in 
person for Mongolia from 19 to 21 September. More general training on the  SPS Agreement had 
been provided as part of the following WTO technical assistance activities: a WTO Regional Trade 
Policy Course held virtually for Asia -Pacific in June; WTO National Workshop held virtually for Haiti 
in July;  an Introductory Trade Policy Course held at the WTO for LDCs in September;  a WTO 
accession session held at the WTO for Timor Lest in September;  and two WTO Advanced Trade Policy 
Courses held at the WTO in English and Spanish, in July and November respectively . General training 
on the  SPS Agreement had also been provided through in person or virtual participation in the 
following outreach activities:  in August, a regional capacity building workshop on food safety and 
cross-border trade in East Africa , facilitated by FAO and the Northern Corridor Transit and Transport 
Coordination Authority; i n September, a WTO Public Forum info session on the ePing SPS&TBT  
Platform , the first International Plant Health Conference organized by the IPPC Secretariat and the 
United Kingdom , a seminar on the 2022 Africa Agriculture Trade Monitor Report organized by the 
International Food Policy Research Institute and Akademiya20 63, and a USDA and University of 
Minnesota program me on risk -based management for plant and animal products for Viet Nam ; 
in October, we participated in a meeting of the International Alliance for Biological Standardization 
on Vaccination Strategies to pre vent and control HPAI , a Friends of Multilateralism Online 
Brainstorming on  SPS measures , and an APEC eCert Webinar . 
7.2.  The Secretariat highlighted upcoming activities , includ ing national  SPS seminars  to be held in 
person for Peru (22-24 November ); Togo (29 November  - 1 December ); Tanzania (29 November  – 
1 December ); and Chile (week of 10 April 2023 ). A n ational seminar on SPS, TBT, and trade 
facilitation would  be held in person for El Salvador during the week of 6 February 2023 . 
Requests  were pending for Burkina Faso, Morocco, and Nigeria.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 45 - 
 
  7.3.  The Secretariat provided information regarding the WTO technical assistance activities outlined 
in document G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.12 . Firstly, the SPS Transparency Champions Course  had been 
officially launched by the Director General of the WTO. This course aim ed to equip par ticipants with 
the comprehensive knowledge and practical skills to implement and benefit from the WTO's  
SPS transparency framework. Eighteen officials from  SPS national notification authorities and/or 
enquiry points from 13 English -speaking African countri es attended t he first week of the course at 
the WTO from 3  to 7 October 2022. The second virtual segment of the course was taking place from 
19 October to 23 November 2022. The Course was expected to conclude with a face -to-face activity 
in March/May of 20 23. The Secretariat thanked  the speakers and experts, as well as the government 
officials from Ghana, Indonesia, New Zealand , and the United  States  for their participation as 
mentors in the course . Secondly, the Course on Essentials for  SPS Committee Parti cipation would  
be held virtually from 15-24 November 2022, with the participation of 16 government officials from 
French -speaking African countries. Participants had previously attended an introductory session 
(1 November ). The Course aim ed to enhance the participation of French -speaking African countries 
in the  SPS Committee. Additional details had been  circulated to Missions and via the  SPS Committee 
mailing list. Participants of both Courses had been invited to attend the November 2022 meetings 
of the  SPS Committee in coordination with their respective Missions.  
7.4.  The Secretariat noted that the E -Learning Course on the  SPS Agreement was available 
throughout the year, in the three official languages of the WTO. Further information on  SPS technical 
assista nce activities was available on the  SPS gateway of the WTO website (under Events, workshops 
and training ), or by contacting the Secretariat.  
7.5.  Chile appreciated  support received for the organization of the  SPS national seminar to be held 
in April in Santiago de Chile.  Aimed at the public and private sector, the activity would strengthen 
the knowledge and the implementation of the  SPS Agreement, namely the principle of transparency, 
and pr omote the use of the ePing SPS&TBT Platform.  
7.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/2065 ) 
7.6.  The STDF  secretariat  reported on its recent activities detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/2065 . 
The STDF had c onducted a gender assessment, the Vienna Food Safety Forum in collaboration with 
UNIDO and Australia, work on good regulatory practices, over 50 ongoing projects and PPGs in 
developing and least developed countries , and an external evaluation of the STDF -funded ePhyto 
project. The STDF emphasized the importance of the work for developing country Members facing  
SPS challenges, and highlighted  the attention their work had received in the thematic groups of the 
work programme of the MC12  SPS Declaration, namel y in group 5. Noting that  SPS delegates were 
key partners and beneficiaries of this work, the STDF was keen to engage and support the work in 
the groups in a useful and valuable way. The STDF emphasized their availability to improve various  
SPS capacity de velopment efforts to facilitate safe trade. Members were invited to share information 
on the STDF, to sign up to their newsletter , and to get in touch to let STDF know  how they could 
support them to better deliver and strengthen  SPS capacity building on th e ground.  
7.7.  Acknowledging the STDF's work and experience on capacity building , Ecuador  encouraged  
Members to check the report and the projects undertaken, and to get in touch with the STDF.  
7.2  Information from Members  
7.2.1   United  States  – Technical assistance to developing countries 
(G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.15 ) 
7.8.  The United  States  brought the Committee's attention to document G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.15  on 
the over 40 technical assistance projects undertaken between October 2019 and September 2020  
to support Members in the implementation of the  SPS Agreement , adding  up to USD 90 million . 
Noting  the timeliness of the topic in light of the ongoing discussions under the MC12  SPS Declaration, 
the United  States  welcomed the continued collaboration on how to facilitate impactful capacity 
building activit ies. The United  States  looked forward to continuing cooperation with STDF and 
international intergovernmental organizations , and reiterated its commitment to providing technical 
assistance on  SPS issues . G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 46 - 
 
  7.9.  Bangladesh  informed the Committee of a five -year project, funded by USDA, aimed at 
simplifying, modernizing and harmonizing the process for the export ation, import ation and transit 
of agricultural goods , and at improving compliance with the  SPS Agreement. The activi ties of the 
project had been  designed based on category C notifications under the Trade Facilitation Agreement. 
Bangladesh highlighted two of the projects related to  SPS activities  aimed at 1 ) improving 
laboratories and testing procedures ; and 2) enhancing  cold storage infrastructure for high value 
perishable goods. Bangladesh requested support from  other donors to integrate Bangladesh in the 
international trading system.  
7.2.2   Canada – Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/2070 ) 
7.10.   Canada  updated the Committee on the SPS -related technical assistance to developing 
countries delivered in 2021, for which it had committed approximately CDN $1.4 million. Canada  had 
delivered or initiated a total of 48 SPS -related technical assistance projects, which supported 
Members  in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Central Asia and the Asia -Pacific region. 
Canada's assistance addressed information, training, and soft infrastructure development, and 
covered most of the typical areas of competence list ed in G/SPS/GEN/206 . 
8  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
8.1.  No Member provided information under this agenda item.  
9  OBSERVERS  
9.1  Information from Observer Organizations  
9.1.1   African  Union (G/SPS/GEN/2077 ) 
9.1.  The African Union  (AU) reported on its activities, detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/2077 . 
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA ) SPS Sub-Committee had met to finalize the work 
programme on  SPS issues, for approval by the AfCFTA Committee on Trade in Goods. 
The AU Commission encouraged its partners to interact with the developed Food Safety Strategy for 
Africa and the Plant Health S trategy for Africa as they delivered technical assistance to AU member 
states. The AU Commission had also led the development of an Africa  SPS Index to monitor the 
progress in the implementation of the  SPS Agreement in Africa and to identify gaps for targe ted 
support. The AU  SPS Coordination Forum had met to coordinate and mainstream  SPS issues within 
the broader continental initiatives. The AU Commission continued to support its member states to 
participate in the work of the ISSBs. Thanking partners for t heir continued support to build capacity, 
it looked forward to further cooperation to advance the implementation of the  SPS Agreement in 
Africa.  
9.1.2   World Bank – International Finance Corporation (G/SPS/GEN/2063 ) 
9.2.  The World Bank  – International Finance Corporation (IFC) reported on its ac tivities, detailed in 
document G/SPS/GEN/2063 . The IFC Scan Guide was a new tool developed by IFC's Food Safety 
Advisory group to support the analysis of the policy and regulatory dimensions of four aspects of a 
country's national food system: food safety, food fortification, food lo ss and waste, and livestock 
production (in relation animal welfare and use of antibiotics ). The IFC Food Safety Handbook was a 
practical guide for building a robust food safety management system, designed to help food 
companies establish, professionally ma intain, and enhance food safety system. The document would 
be useful both to the private sector as well as to public authorities. The recording of the side event 
held during the November  SPS Committee meeting week would be available on  the IFC Food Safety 
Global Platform.  
9.1.3   ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/2059 ) 
9.3.  The report o n ECOWAS activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2059 . 
9.1.4   OECD (G/SPS/GEN/2060 ) 
9.4.  The report o n OECD a ctivities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2060 . G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 47 - 
 
  9.1.5   OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/2061 ) 
9.5.  The report o n OIRSA activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2061 . 
9.1.6   IICA (G/SPS/GEN/2068 ) 
9.6.  The report o n IICA activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2068 . 
9.1.7   GSO (G/SPS/GEN/2071 ) 
9.7.  The report o n GSO activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2071 . 
9.1.8   CAHFSA (G/SPS/GEN/2072 ) 
9.8.  The report o n CAHF SA activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2072 . 
9.1.9   SADC (G/SPS/GEN/2074 ) 
9.9.  The report o n SADC activities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2074 . 
9.2  Requests for observer status  
9.2.1   New requests  
9.10.   There were no new requests for observer status.  
9.11.   The Committee agreed  to invite organizations with ad hoc  observer status in the Committee 
to participa te in all Committee meetings in 2023 - with the exception of any closed meeting - unless 
any Member raised an objection in advance of a meeting.  
9.2.2   Pending requests  
9.12.   The Chairperson  referred to document G/SPS/W/78/Rev.15 , listing the outstanding requests 
for observer status. The Chairperson indicated that, absent any intervention, he would assume that 
the positions of Members had not changed.  
9.13.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1.   No Member took the flo or under this agenda item.  
11  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  
11.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that the next regular meeting of the Committee was tentatively 
scheduled for the week of 20 March 2023. The proposed calendar of  SPS Committee meetings for 
2023 had been  circulated as  G/SPS/GEN/2036 , and the document would be further revised to reflect 
the schedule of thematic sessions.  
11.2.   The Secretariat  proposed to hold the summer meeting in the week of 10 July  2023, and would 
update the document with the meeting dates accordingly. The Secretariat  would  prepare a summary 
report based on oral interventions at the present meeting, complemented by Members' ability to 
download complete statements via eAgenda. In addition, statements could be circulated as 
GEN documents, as usual.  
11.3.   The Secretariat  reminded the Committee of the following deadlines, also circulated by email:  
a. For submitting statements: Friday, 11 November 2022 ;  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 48 - 
 
  b. For submitting comments on the Chairperson's draft annual report to CTG: Wednesday, 
16 November 2022 ; 
c. For submitting comment s on the informal Committee meeting and on the Chairperson's draft 
report on the Thematic Session on International Standards and Best Practices in Pest Risk 
Identification, Assessment, and Management: Friday, 18 November 2022 ; 
d. For submitting additional proposals for 2023 thematic sessions and the June 2023 workshop; 
and any comments on submitted proposals: Friday, 9 December 2022 ; 
e. For submitting comments on the systematic webcasting of thematic sessions: Friday, 
9 December 2022 ; 
f. For submitting comments on the proposed technical revision of G/SPS/7/Rev.4:  Friday, 
9 December 2022 ; 
g. For submitting comments on the joint submission on trade facilitative approaches t o pesticide 
MRLs (G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev.3 ): Friday, 9 December 2022 ; 
h. For requesting that items, including STCs, be put on the agenda, AND for identifying new 
issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure: Wednesday, 1 March 2023 ; and  
i. For the distribution of the annotated draft agenda: Friday, 3 March 2023 . 
 G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 49 - 
 
  ANNEX A  
SPS COMMITTEE THEMATIC SESSION ON INTERNATIONAL  STANDARDS AND  
BEST PRACTICES IN PEST RISK IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, AND MANAGEMENT  
8 NOVEMBER 2022  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1.  A Thematic Session on International Standards and Best Practices in Pest Risk Identification, 
Assessment, and Management was held on 8 November 2022, as agreed by  the SPS Committee in 
November 2021. The final programme, circulated on 3 November 2022 as document 
G/SPS/GEN/2069/Rev.1 , built on proposals submitted by the European  Union  in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1951  and revisions, and incorporated comments from Members. The session was held 
in hybrid format, with M embers and Observers invited to attend in person or virtually through Zoom. 
The thematic session was also webcast live on the WTO website.  
2.  The purpose of the thematic session was to increase awareness about the relevant IPPC 
International Standards for  Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs ) and share experiences in pest risk 
identification, assessment, and management. Drawing from experiences of Members and industry 
representatives, and reference databases developed by international intergovernmental 
organizati ons, the thematic session also sought to identify best practices and challenges associated 
with issues such as: (i) identification of pests of phytosanitary concern; (ii) performance of pest risk 
analyses; (iii) risk mitigation measures; (iv) phytosanitary certification and/or import conditions; 
and (v) IPPC standards on risk management.  
3.  In Session 1, the Secretariat provided an overview of the relevant provisions of the  
SPS Agreement, the work of the  SPS Committee and transparency -related matters, from the 
perspective of plant health. While recalling that all  SPS provisions applied to plant health, the 
presentation focused on the requirement to base phytosanitary measures on science. Article 3 of 
the SPS Agreement strongly encourages the use of international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations developed by IPPC. Alternatively, Members can justify phytosanitary measures 
resulting in higher levels of protection if these are based on a risk assessment, as f oreseen in 
Article  5. The Secretariat also shared examples of  SPS Agreement provisions which are relevant to 
risk management, including Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Annex C.  SPS Committee decisions and 
guidelines, which have been developed to facilitate the implementation of specific  SPS provisions, 
such as equivalence, regionalization and transparency, were also relevant for plant health. On 
transparency, about 20 per cent of  SPS notifications submitted to the WTO and 24 per cent of specific 
trade concerns d iscussed in the  SPS Committee related to plant health. The session also provided 
an overview of WTO disputes related to plant health. In closing, the Secretariat noted that discussion 
of new challenges affecting plant health was currently ongoing as part o f the MC12  SPS Declaration 
work programme. In response to a question, the Secretariat clarified that in the context of past 
disputes, it had been noted that the precautionary principle finds reflection in Article 5.7.  
4.  In Session 2, speakers shared insi ghts on the relevant standards developed by the IPPC and 
explored the use of pest risk analysis (PRA) as a tool to enable trade whilst ensuring plant health 
protection. The session also highlighted the importance of plant health and trade in supporting foo d 
security. The first presentation by the IPPC Standards Committee Chairperson (Australia ) and the 
IPPC Implementation and Capacity Development Committee Chairperson (Canada ), provided an 
overview of the development and implementation of ISPMs. As of today , over 104 ISPMs had been 
adopted, including general and commodity -specific standards, phytosanitary treatments and 
diagnostic protocols. Implementation of ISPMs helped countries achieve the IPPC's objective of 
promoting safe trade. It was also noted that the IPPC Implementation and Capacity Development 
Committee, established in 2017, worked towards supporting IPPC standards implementation and 
strengthening of phytosanitary capacities of IPPC contracting parties. Session 2 continued with a 
presentation by F AO on plant health and trade in support of food security and nutrition, from a food 
systems perspective. The FAO speaker provided examples of the links between plant health and food 
security and nutrition, and explained that addressing plant health hazards  in different parts of the 
food system could contribute to food safety and security. She noted that collaboration and common 
strategies were necessary when working from a food systems perspective, and referred to the G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Af rica as an example of cross -sectoral coordination in the area 
of aflatoxin mitigation.  
5.  Session 3 speakers shared insights from case studies regarding best practices in pest risk 
identification, assessment, and management. In the first presentation, a s peaker from Indonesia 
shared the country's experience with PRA. The speaker discussed the stages and application of PRA, 
and pointed to some of the constraints, which included the lack of updated scientific data to support 
the risk assessment and risk mana gement processes. In the second presentation, a speaker from 
the European  Union  presented on EU requirements and procedures for the management of plant 
health risks in trade. He referred to the EU plant health policy to prevent the entry of regulated 
pests , adding that the EU market was generally an "open system", allowing imports upon fulfilment 
of phytosanitary certificates and other requirements. The speaker highlighted that information on 
the list of regulated pests and import requirements was available  online. He added that the EU 
market access was closed for certain commodities and special authorization was required for certain 
high-risk plants. In the third presentation, two speakers from China outlined the research and 
practice of risk assessment met hods in China. The speakers presented a computer -assisted PRA 
model which, based on ISPMs, could be used to provide scientific information to support decision -
making during pest risk assessments. In the Q&A segment, the EU speaker noted that quarantine 
treatments as a standard procedure at the point of entry into the European  Union  were not accepted, 
that a short list of prohibited commodities was provided in the EU legislation, and that procedures 
are in place to avoid that EU member States would apply dif ferent import requirements and 
approaches.  
6.  Session 3 continued with a presentation on the identification of pests of phytosanitary concern 
in the United Kingdom. The speaker presented the United Kingdom's horizon scanning approach to 
identify emerging phytosanitary threats, which could be participatory or non -participatory. She 
underlined that participatory horizon scanning included the review of articles of interest and the use 
of social media, while non -participatory approaches involved automated syst ems to scan information 
using certain keywords. Considering the high amount of pest information and limited human 
resources, the United Kingdom had developed a protocol for ranking and prioritizing pests, which 
was known as the UK Plant Health Risk Registe rs. A speaker from Chile then presented on the 
identification of best practices in pest risk assessment and management in the country, noting the 
importance of several factors such as human resource capability, access to and quality of 
information, plannin g, using PRA guidelines and standardized criteria, and the identification of 
emerging pests. She noted that one way that Chile was able to identify emerging pests was through 
the review of  SPS notifications from WTO Members. She highlighted the need for th e information 
employed in the risk assessment process to be associated to the corresponding bibliographic 
references. This was followed by a presentation from a speaker from Australia on the assessments 
and practices in keeping Australia free from the brow n marmorated stink bug (BMSB ). He noted that 
Australia's PRA for BMSB had been finalized in 2019 and shared examples of Australia's efforts to 
identify and detect the pest through various means, including human inspections, detector dogs, as 
well as the de velopment of a new mobile application which was currently in field trials. In the 
discussion segment, the UK speaker clarified that Twitter was used for horizon scanning, with further 
research and follow -up to ensure that the information was correct. The s peaker from Australia also 
noted that the mobile application which had been developed could potentially be used for other pests 
in the future.  
7.  Session 4 offered an opportunity for Members and industry representatives to exchange practical 
experiences a nd case studies in the application of pest risk management in trade, and explored the 
use of reference databases and tools developed by international intergovernmental organizations. 
In the first presentation, a speaker from Freshfel Europe highlighted som e of the practical issues 
with phytosanitary trade conditions affecting EU exporters. This included human resources 
constraints; lack of information for smaller export markets; excessive delays; the non -recognition 
of the European  Union  as a single entity,  which hindered the ability to bundle protocol negotiations 
for similar pests; and the lack of applicable standards. As a way forward, the speaker highlighted 
the benefits of boosting digitalization for control and phytosanitary certificates, agreeing on s pecific 
timelines for procedures, and developing science -based international standards. In the second 
presentation, a speaker from Thailand presented experiences with pest risk management to facilitate 
trade. He emphasized that pest risk management was at the heart of PRA. The speaker noted that 
Thailand's Plant Quarantine Act included export procedures, import requirements, and contained 
categories for prohibited, restricted, and unprohibited import articles. From an importer perspective, 
he referred to ch allenges around the limited databases on the biology and distribution of pests of G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 51 - 
 
  concern, and from an exporter perspective, he explained that importing Members had different 
requirements for the treatment of the same pest and commodity. In the third prese ntation, a speaker 
from the United  States  presented the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ( APHIS ) Plant 
Protection and Quarantine risk management process, providing an overview of the market access 
process, and sharing the various tools used to mi tigate pest risks. These tools included phytosanitary 
inspection and certification, inspections at the port of entry, post -entry quarantine, and prohibition. 
He also discussed the use of systems approaches referring to ISPMs 5 and 14, and provided insights  
on the risk management document developed after completion of a PRA. In the Q&A segment, 
challenges associated with market access, electronic phytosanitary certification, and interceptions 
were highlighted, and the differences in human resources allocated  and timelines for conducting pest 
risk assessment were also discussed.  
8.  Session 4 continued with a presentation from Senegal on best practices on the identification, 
evaluation, and management of phytosanitary risks in the mango supply chain in Africa.  The speaker 
explained efforts undertaken in Senegal to implement a systems approach for the pest risk 
management of fruit flies. Despite all mitigation measures applied at the time of preharvest, harvest, 
post-harvest, transport, packing and shipment, int erceptions of Senegalese consignments to the 
European  Union  had significantly increased in 2022, possibly due to climate change. The speaker 
underscored the importance of training and stakeholders' collaboration in fruit fly identification and 
management, as well as taking into consideration climate change in pest risk management. The final 
speaker in this session, from CABI, presented on databases and decision support tools for pest 
identification and development of domestic PRAs. She referred to CABI's cr op protection 
compendium, horizon scanning tool, and PRA tool and training programme. An increase in 
surveillance activities and PRAs undertaken could be observed in countries which had received 
training on these tools, many in Africa. CABI was looking int o translating the tools, conducting 
regional risk assessments, and integrating climate change in its tools. In the Q&A segment, attention 
was drawn to regional PRA technical assistance activities, including with the support of the Standards 
and Trade Devel opment Facility (STDF). 
9.  Session 5 was a panel discussion moderated by the IPPC secretary, which allowed for an 
exchange of experiences, challenges, opportunities, and best practices related to pest risk 
identification, assessment, and management. Overall, the panel discussion hig hlighted the 
importance of access to and quality of information, improving databases, communication between 
the importing and exporting countries, clear timeframes for PRA procedures, and planning. Increased 
communication with the private sector on potenti al risks could help address challenges faced, such 
as climate change, pest movement in trade, or reducing pesticide use. It was also considered 
important that the private sector be trained on the PRA process, properly informed on import and 
export conditio ns, and involved in the decision -making process. The panellists were also invited to 
reflect on how the WTO and IPPC could help improve the process of pest risk identification, 
assessment, and management. The discussion referred to the importance of inform ation exchange 
between the WTO and the IPPC. As possible areas for future work, the IPPC could provide guidance 
on risk assessment based on proposed use; develop standardized criteria for the assessment of 
pests of global concern; promote scientific resear ch on topics related to pest risk identification, 
assessment, and management to support national plant protection organizations (NPPOs ); and set 
up an alert system for emerging viruses.  
10.  In concluding, I remarked that the discussions and presentations of the thematic session had 
proven to be interesting and informative, and had provided insights on the relevant international 
standards, as well as the challenges, opportunities and best practices in pest risk identification, 
assessment, and management.  
11.  Presentations from the thematic session, as well as the recording, would be made available on 
the SPS TA Gateway.  
 G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 52 - 
 
  ANNEX B  
INFORMAL MEETING – 9 NOVEMBER 2022  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1  SPS DECLARATION WORK PROGRAMME (G/SPS/ W/330 , G/SPS/W/331  AND 
WT/MIN (22)/27) 
(i)  Adoption of the proposed proce ss (G/SPS/W/330  and G/SPS/W/331 ) 
1.  I recalled that the  SPS Committee commenced its work to fulfil the mandate outlined in the  
SPS Declaration (WT/MIN (22)/27) adopted by Ministers i n June of this year. On 1 August, 
the Secretariat had circulated a proposed process for this work in document G/SPS/W/330 . 
I recalled  that Members had been invited to comment on the proposed process by 16 September. 
One Member submitted comments which are reflected in G/SPS/W/331 . 
2.  Several Members thanked the stewards f or their work in facilitating discussions in 
thematic  groups, as well as Members who submitted inputs. Members acknowledged that the 
availability of interpretation for thematic group meetings increased inclusiveness and participation, 
and highlighted the b enefits of hybrid meetings. All Members who took the floor underscored 
the challenges encountered in following discussions in all the thematic groups. Several Members 
proposed harmonizing timelines and deadlines for all groups. There was general support fo r 
clustering the meetings of all thematic groups, as well as the intersessional consultations, within one 
week (or a couple of days ), possibly in early February 2023. One Member further indicated that 
this would allow time for stewards to prepare their rep orts for the following Committee meetings. 
Another Member noted that this would facilitate analysing the information exchanged in different 
groups. Overall, it would make Members' participation easier and more efficient. Several Members 
emphasized that an increased level of participation in the work programme was desirable.  
3.  One Member invited stewards to engage directly with Members to stimulate the Member -driven 
discussions, and proposed developing a clear agenda for meetings that reflected the views o f 
Members. That Member also noted that, even if processes were harmonized, the outputs of groups 
did not necessarily have to follow a standard template.  
4.  I asked the Secretariat to amend the proposed process and circulate it to Members for 
consideration  at the formal meeting.  
(ii)  Update on the thematic groups  
5.  I recalled that the five thematic groups had met during the past few weeks to start discussions 
on the themes outlined in the Declaration. I underscored that these groups were not expected to 
make decisions, but to allow discussions leading to observations and possible proposals for further 
discussion in the  SPS Committee. The stewards for these groups had been acting as neutral 
facilitators of the discussions.  
6.  I further recalled that the t imeline circulated in G/SPS/W/330  proposed that the themat ic groups 
would regularly report to the full Membership on ongoing discussions, namely through oral reports 
at intersessional consultations and through written submissions for discussion at informal Committee 
meetings. The stewards were expected to report on the work in their thematic groups in a factual 
and balanced manner. Due to the tight schedule so far, all stewards were presenting oral reports 
this time.  
7.  Group 1 : Jonathas José Silva da Silveira (Brazil ) and Knut Berdal (Norway ) reported on the 
discussions on "How to facilitate global food security and more sustainable food systems". 
Group  1 had held its second meeting that morning, prior to the informal meeting. The five inputs 
received during a first round of written submissions had been circulate d to Members on 2 November. 
The Group had agreed that it was too early to narrow down inputs to structure the discussion, 
since it was expected that more oral inputs would be received. The second meeting of Group 1 had 
been structured in two rounds: a firs t round where Members could raise new issues, and a second G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 53 - 
 
  round focusing on the written inputs circulated. The five Members who had provided inputs had 
introduced their submissions, and other Members had the opportunity to provide comments. 
In the discuss ions, some Members had raised Article 10 on special needs of developing country and 
least developed country (LDC) Members.  
8. Looking forward, Members had been invited to provide further written reflections and ideas ahead 
of the next meeting. The co -stewa rds recommended and encouraged Members to focus on concrete 
ideas of actions of the  SPS Committee and Members. The co -stewards also asked Members to 
consider the need for workshops or thematic sessions or to accept the Secretariat's offer to provide 
resour ces, such as a report to elucidate certain topics. After collecting further inputs from the group, 
and prior to next meeting, the co -stewards would provide a summary list of the main ideas received 
to structure and focus further discussions.  
9.  Group 2 : Boitshoko Ntshabele (South Africa ) reported on the discussions on "How to support 
basing  SPS measures on scientific evidence and principles". Following an initial meeting in held in 
September, Members had submitted inputs that were considered at the two sub sequent hybrid 
meetings of Group 2, held on 31 October and that morning, prior to the informal meeting. 
Members'  inputs, consolidated into 18 themes, three questions submitted by one Member, and a 
proposal for a workshop, had been circulated on 26 October.  Some participants had raised concerns 
that some of the actions could be beyond the scope of the Agreement. Members were keen to discuss 
transparency and how to deal with uncertainty in the context of risk assessment. Looking ahead, 
Members would prioritiz e which of the 18 themes could be taken forward. Although there was no 
agreement on holding a workshop, Members were open to presentations on case studies and 
reflections on transparency and how to deal with uncertainty. The Secretariat had been asked to 
prepare and circulate a report compiling information from previous workshops and thematic sessions 
on both topics. Finally, Members had been encouraged to provide additional inputs and feedback on 
the process thus far.  
10.  Group 3 : Ambassador Sofia Boza (Chile) reported on the discussions on "How to enhance 
the safe international trade in food, animals and plants and products thereof through the adaptation 
of SPS measures to regional conditions". Group 3 had held three well -attended meetings so far. 
The first meeting had been structured around the topics: 1 ) establishing a process, which was a 
dialogue and not a decision -making process; 2 ) defining working procedures, including 
communication channels; and 3 ) reviewing specific topics of interest. At the last  meeting on 
20 October, participants had discussed the challenges faced by Members in the adequate 
implementation of the principle of regionalization. Written and oral inputs highlighted the lack of 
appropriate information; inadequate verification capacity ; inconsistency of criteria; administrative, 
legislative and technical delays; and lack of understanding of criteria and guidelines developed by 
the relevant international organizations. At the second meeting, several Members raised the 
importance of the p articipation of the relevant organizations and the need to foster broader 
participation. The third meeting had been held during Committee week, to allow for in -person 
participation. The discussion was launched by a presentation from Francisco D'Alessio, De puty Head 
of WOAH's Standards Department, titled "WTO  SPS regionalization principle: WOAH internal 
standards and mechanisms". Participants had raised some additional challenges to the 
implementation of regionalization, including infrastructure and resource s, particularly challenging 
diseases, problems in establishing public -private partnerships, difficulties in adapting principles to 
specific realities, and notification to WTO. Participants had also had a conversation on the 
regionalization recognition proc ess. Looking ahead, Members had expressed interest in experience -
sharing, in benefitting from the participation of the relevant international organizations, and in a 
review of documents and materials generated by the  SPS Committee.  
11.  Group 4 : Geoff Rich ards (United Kingdom ) reported on the discussions on "How to encourage 
cooperation with observer organizations that support the work of the  SPS Committee and the 
international standard -setting bodies". He noted that the quality of the discussions and the potential 
outcomes in this Member -led initiative depended on participation. Group 4 had held two virtual 
meetings, on 28 September and 26 October . Logistics and meeting arrangements had been 
discussed at the first meeting, together with some substantive issues such as whether the scope of 
discussions should include both the international standard setting bodies (ISSBs ) and other observer 
organizati ons. There was a general recognition that there was a well -defined engagement process 
for ISSBs, but other observers may lack the capacity, clarity or process to engage more 
constructively in the Committee. While discussions on both ISSBs and other organiz ations should be 
within the scope of Group 4, participants had agreed that their different roles in the Committee G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 54 - 
 
  called for separate discussions. There had been a suggestion to direct questions to ISSBs, 
other  observers, and potentially to Committee Membe rs, to enhance the understanding of their 
perspectives, their current activities, and possible improvements. The steward had invited Members 
to prepare specific questions. Discussions were also held on whether ISSBs could play a greater role 
in some specif ic Committee matters. The Secretariat had been requested to present on the history 
of engagement with different observers to ensure that lessons learned in the past were brought into 
the discussions. Noting that he had shared informal notes of both meeting s with participants, 
the steward invited interested Members to provide contributions.  
12.  One Member emphasized the importance of written reports of groups meetings to ensure that 
delegations unable to attend all meetings could follow and contribute to th e subjects discussed. 
The Member requested that all meeting reports be sent to all Committee Members. I recalled that, 
due to the tight schedule, all stewards were presenting oral report at the current meeting.  
13.  Group 5 : Joanna Grainger (Australia ) and Cecilia Gutierrez (Ecuador ) reported on the 
discussions on "How to increase participation of and support for the special needs of developing and 
least developed country Members in the development and application of  SPS measures". 
Group  5 had held two hybr id meetings, on 29 September and 21 October, where the implementation 
challenges experienced by developing and LDC Members were discussed, as well as possible 
solutions to increase participation, and support for the needs of developing and LDC Members in t he 
development and application of  SPS measures. The written submissions received suggested a 
participation package (including mentoring activities among developing countries, developed 
countries and LDCs ) and an expansion of the scope of action of the STDF . They also highlighted the 
importance of organizing specific workshops and seminars for the context of developing country 
Members and LDCs, and suggested setting up of a mechanism to review the functioning and 
implementation of the  SPS Agreement for these  Members. The need to hold hybrid meetings with 
interpretation was also emphasized. Members had emphasized difficulties not in complying with the  
SPS Agreement, but in meeting  SPS requirements imposed by importing Members, and in complying 
with control, in spection and approval procedures, which could be experienced as trade barriers by 
these countries, in particular when they varied among jurisdictions. Participants had identified key 
areas to support trade for all WTO Members, such as clear communication b etween trading partners, 
inclusiveness (in particular considering constraints relating to Article 10 ), transparency, using 
international standards, equivalence, and the principle of non -discrimination. Discussions evidenced 
the need for a workshop, to be h eld preferably face -to-face, close to the March Committee meeting, 
including topics for discussion or case studies proposed by Members, a presentation by the 
Secretariat on Committee discussions on the topic, and on the work of the STDF. Stewards would 
share meeting notes from the second meeting as well as inputs submitted by Members.  
14.  One Member indicated interest in participating in Group 5 and highlighted the importance of 
Article 10 in relation to: 1 ) the consideration of alternative measures in a p otential process of 
sanitary equivalence; 2 ) longer transition periods for the implementation of  SPS measures; 
3) the identification of new mechanisms and innovative options in the context of S&D for developing 
countries; and 4 ) the possibility of broadeni ng the scope of technical assistance and cooperation.  
15.  The Secretariat announced that it would circulate a revision of G/SPS/W/330 , as requested by 
the Chairperson, taking into account the proposal to condense group meetings and intersessional 
consultations within meeting clusters, for  consideration at the formal meeting. The Secretariat 
recalled that the restricted version of the webpage for the work programme (wto.org/spsdeclaration ) 
included the meeting times and links for the thematic groups, to facilitate tracking this information. 
The Secretariat asked whether Members would be in favor on having thematic group submissions 
posted on this dedicated, restricted website, in order to i ncrease transparency. Submissions would 
be compiled verbatim into a single document per Group, identifying the name of the Member. 
The Secretariat invited Members to indicate if they did not agree with this suggestion.  
16.  One Member appreciated the Secre tariat's innovative approach to increasing transparency, 
which would contribute to anticipating discussions and would reduce the stewards' reporting 
responsibility. The Member indicated a preference for not circulating submissions as GEN documents. 
While M embers could join and leave groups at any point in time, the Member expected that 
interested Members would continue to participate in meetings and not solely rely on written notes 
to keep track of discussions.  G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 55 - 
 
  2  FOLLOW -UP ON THE ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE FIFTH REVIEW OF THE 
OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE  SPS AGREEMENT (G/SPS/64  AND 
G/SPS/64/ADD.1 ) 
17.  At the informal meeting on 9 November 2022, the Committee discussed how to take forward 
some of the recommendations in the Fifth Review Report, as well as ongoing work in various areas.  
(i)  Exchange of experiences and continued discussions on various topics  
18.  We first addressed the recommendations that encourage Members to continue to discuss or 
exchange experiences. I highlighted that these recommendations were found in various sections of 
the Fifth Review Report, s uch as: appropriate level of protection, risk assessment and science 
(para. 2.15); equivalence (para. 4.11 ); fall armyworm (para. 5.16 ); national  SPS coordination 
mechanisms (para. 6.7 ); MRLs for plant protection products (para. 8.6 ); and regionalization 
(para. 9.15). 
19.  Similar to the June 2022 meeting, I again sought Members' views on the best way to move 
forward with these recommendations. I recalled that in the June meeting, a couple of delegations 
had commented on the Committee' progress with regard to the recommendations, highlighting the 
hard work undertaken during the Review process, and the inputs of many Members which had 
benefitted the process. One delegation had also reminded us that we are all responsible for helping 
the Committee make progres s on its recommendations, and had provided an overview of some of 
the topics where the Committee had been active and had also noted the pending follow -up work to 
be undertaken in other areas.  
20.  At this week's informal meeting, I again invited Members to  provide any further comments or 
suggestions on the identified recommendations. No Member took the floor.  
(ii)  SPS Committee Working Group on Approval Procedures (G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1  and 
G/SP S/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1 ) 
21.  The co -stewards for the Working Group, Canada and Paraguay, provided an update on the 
activities of the Working Group.  
22.  In the first round of work (November 2020 to March 2021 ), participants had identified four main 
themes for the Working Group: (1) a common understanding of the term "approval procedures"; 
(2) key challenges of approval procedures; (3) principles of approval procedures that facilitate 
international trade while m eeting the importing Member's appropriate level of sanitary or 
phytosanitary protection (ALOP); and (4) available tools and best practices in relation to approval 
procedures.  
23.  In the second, third, fourth, and fifth rounds of work (March to July 2021, July to 
November  2021, November 2021 to March 2022, and March to June 2022 ), the discussions had 
focused on developing a common understanding of the term "approval procedures" for the purposes 
of the Working Group's discussions, assembling a collection of available tools and resources, and 
discussing key challenges of approval procedures as well as certain principles of approval 
procedures.  
24.  In its sixth round of work (June to November 2022 ), the Working Group had concluded the 
discussions on principles  of approval procedures that facilitate international trade while meeting the 
importing Member's ALOP, and the Committee's role in highlighting these principles. 
Concluding  exchanges on this topic meant that the Working Group had now gone through the 
four main themes that had been identified at the outset of its work. The Working Group had also 
continued to explore possible outcomes for its work. Specifically, the Working Group had worked on: 
(i) its collection of available tools and resources that it had s tarted assembling in previous rounds of 
work; (ii) an overview of Working Group outcomes and recommendations; and (iii) a more 
comprehensive factual summary of the Working Group process and discussions. Drafts had been 
exchanged and discussed at the last W orking Group meeting, but this remained work in progress.  
25.  In their report at the informal meeting, the co -stewards further recalled that the Working Group 
had been scheduled to conclude its work in November 2022. On behalf of the Working Group, G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 56 - 
 
  the co-stewards proposed to extend the Working Group's timeline until March 2023. The co -stewards 
observed that there had been valuable exchanges of views on approval procedures and that the 
Working Group had worked on developing documents for circulation to the  Committee, including 
some recommendations. The Working Group considered that a short extension until March 2023 
would allow it to finalise these documents for circulation to the Committee and conclude its work.  
26.  Following the co -stewards' update, I pr ovided an opportunity for Members to raise any questions 
or comments on the activities of the Working Group. No Member took the floor.  
3  TRADE FACILITATIVE APPROACHES TO PESTICIDE MRLS (G/SPS/GEN/2034/ REV.3 ) 
27.  I reminded Members of the Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs 
held in March 2022, based on a proposal submitted by Australia, Colombia, Paraguay, and the 
United  States . Further to this thematic session, Australia , Canada, Colombia, Paraguay and the 
United  States  had submitted a follow -up proposal in document G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev.1  which had 
been introduced for discussion in the June informal meeting.  
28.  I also recalled that, in their interventions in June, the proponents had draw n attention to the 
increasing number of pesticide -related STCs in the Committee, and had outlined the four proposed 
actions in their submission for the Committee to explore, possibly through a dedicated working 
group. In response, several Members had recog nized the importance of the matter, however, 
the ongoing Working Group on Approval Procedures, the upcoming Sixth Review, and the work 
programme on the MC12  SPS Declaration had raised concerns in terms of resources, 
potential  duplication and overlaps, amon g other things. Although there had been general interest in 
this topic, the conclusion had been that there did not seem to be agreement on establishing 
a working group. The Chair encouraged the proponents to reach out to other Members for further 
consultat ions, and invited Members to submit comments on the joint submission. Several Members 
had submitted comments, which had been transmitted to the proponents.  
29.  At this week's informal meeting, I further noted that the proponents had recently circulated a 
revised version of the proposal in document G/SPS/GEN/2034/Rev.3 , which included additional 
co-sponsors, Japan and Uruguay.  
30.  The co -sponsors provided an update. They welcomed the two new co -sponsors, Japan and 
Uruguay. Canada also underscored the importance of interna tional harmonization of MRLs to 
Codex  standards for several sectors, noting that this particular issue had been discussed in various 
fora for several years, including the  SPS Committee, Codex and APEC. However, addressing 
this issue had become increasingly  difficult. Canada highlighted several global and domestic changes 
that would likely have an impact on its production and on the composition of its exports, and which 
would likely result in a shift from a buyer's market to a seller's market. This could als o influence 
harmonization with Codex MRLs. Canada looked forward to seeing progress towards harmonization.  
31.  Uruguay recalled that in previous meetings it had underscored the relevance of the topic and 
had supported reviewing the themes in paragraph 8 o f G/SPS/GEN/2034 /Rev.3  on international 
harmonization, transition periods and international channels of trade. Uruguay further noted that 
it had decided to join as a co -sponsor to ensure the review of pesticide MRLs and the use of a trade 
facilitative approach to this iss ue, and to find real solutions to the problems facing producers and 
exporters. Uruguay underscored the need to approach this issue in a more focused manner. 
Japan  also recognized the importance of transparent, science -based measures which take into 
account  Codex MRLs, and further expressed its support for the submission as a new co -sponsor.  
32.  The United  States  echoed the importance of the issue and highlighted some of the 
recommendations in the submission. Taking into account the MC12 Work Programme and the current 
workload of the Committee, the United  States  noted that the co -sponsors recognized that it was not 
the ideal time to propose the creation of a working group, and instead suggested that it might be 
more feasible to undertake this work later in 2023.  
33.  Australia reiterated the evolving nature of th e issue and further indicated that MRLs remained 
a significant barrier to trade, with 20% of  SPS Committee notifications submitted by Members over 
the last two decades referring to MRLs. Based on comments received, Australia also suggested G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 57 - 
 
  placing the init iative on hold and pursuing it late next year, when the Committee would have more 
time and capacity.  
34.  Other Members expressed appreciation to the proponents for their submission, highlighting the 
relevance of this work and the importance of finding a w ay for the Committee to tackle this issue. 
One Member also emphasized the need to ensure that the issue was addressed in the near future, 
while recognizing the Committee's current busy agenda. Another Member noted the major issues 
encountered with its expo rts to other countries, and suggested that the discussions should not be 
limited to pesticide MRLs, but also other types of substances and contaminants.  
35.  In concluding, I invited Members to submit comments on the joint submission by Friday, 
9 December.  
4  MC12 IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (JOB/CTG/16 ) AND (JOB/CTG/18 ) 
36.  I provided some background on MC12 implementation matters, first recalling that Members had 
agreed in the MC12 Outcome document (WT/MIN (22)/24) to undertake a comprehensive review of 
all of the WTO's functions, which would be carried out through the General Council and its subsidiary 
bodies. In addition, Members had adopted a Ministerial Declaration on the WTO Response to the 
COVID -19 Pandemic and Preparedness for Future Pandemics (WT/MIN (22)/31), which included a 
stocktaking exercise of the work by WTO bodies on this topic. In this context, I noted that the 
General Council Chair had held consultations to discuss several MC12 implementation matters. 
In parallel, the Chair of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) had convened a meeting with the 
Chairpersons and Secretaries of the 14 CTG subsidiary bodies on 20 October to discus s this topic.  
37.  I explained that as a first step, all Chairpersons of the CTG subsidiary bodies had been requested 
to prepare two reports, under their own responsibility, and with the assistance of the Secretariat 
(JOB/CTG/18 ). The first report concerned the WTO response to the pandemic, which would describe 
the activities that the Committee had undertaken in the context of the pandemic over the past two 
years. The second report concerned the current functioning of the Committees, including any 
improvements made, which was one of the issue s that Members would discuss under the umbrella 
of WTO reform.  
38.  I further underscored that these two reports were expected to be a stocktaking and information 
gathering exercise to allow for a fact -based discussion among Members. As such, the reports w ould 
not include recommendations or an assessment of what needed to be improved in the future. It was 
expected that these two reports would be submitted before the end of the year.  
39.  I proposed to use a similar approach to these two reports as had been done with the 
Chairperson's report to the CTG. This would entail the preparation of a report under my own 
responsibility, with the assistance of the Secretariat, which would then be shared with Members for 
their comments by a set deadline. Following which,  Members' comments would be taken into 
consideration in finalizing the reports ahead of submission to CTG.  
40.  I further reiterated that the two requested reports on MC 12 implementation matters would only 
provide information on the Committee's past work and activities, and not seek to propose 
new suggestions or improvements to the Committee process. It would be a stocktaking exercise of 
the activities already undertaken by the Committee, similar to the approach taken in preparing the 
annual report to the CTG. 
41.  I then invited Members to share their comments or questions on the two reports and also on 
the proposed approach for the preparation of the reports. No Member took the floor. I noted that 
Members appeared to support the proposed approach.  
42.  I then invited the Secretariat to highlight a few additional points on the two reports. 
The Secretariat indicated that, given the busy November period, it would aim to prepare a draft 
report on the current functioning of the  SPS Committee by early to mid -December, to allow time for 
Members to provide comments before the end -of-year break. The Secretariat further explained that 
the Committee had implemented a number of changes to its functioning during the past years and 
that sufficient time would be required to compile and accurately reflect the relevant aspects in a 
report. This would allow for the sharing of current  SPS Committee practices with the general G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 58 - 
 
  Membership. In relation to the report on COVID -19, which would be a shorter report, the Secretariat 
indicated that it would be able to circulate a first draft to Members in a relatively shorter time period.  
5  2023 THEMATIC SESSIONS  
43.  I recalled that Members had indicated the usefulness of planning in advance the schedule of 
thematic sessions for the upc oming year, and invited Members to propose topics for thematic 
sessions to be held in 2023. I first highlighted that the United  States  had submitted a proposal in 
document G/SPS/GEN/2067  for a thematic session on  SPS risk communication, with an emphasis 
on public perceptions of issue s concerning food, technology, health, and the environment.  
44.  The United  States  took the floor to introduce its proposal in G/SPS/GEN/2067 . 
Acknowledging  the work to be undertaken as part of the MC12 work programme, the United  States  
nevertheless expressed its interest in maintaining some continuity with the general work of the 
Committee. The United  States  explained that regulators around the world were inc reasingly exposed 
to information from a multitude of sources, some of which may not be science or risk -based and did 
not contribute to the development of justified  SPS measures. Referring to the evolution of 
misinformation and disinformation , which could h ave effects on policy decisions, the United  States  
was of the view that the theme of the proposed session was topical and relevant. The United  States  
looked forward to Members' feedback on the proposal and if agreed, Members' support with 
developing the ag enda. The United  States  did not anticipate that the thematic session would take 
place before November 2023.  
45.  I reminded Members that according to some reports of the thematic groups, some stewards 
had suggestions for workshops or thematic sessions, or different formats for events to share 
experiences and case studies.  
46.  Several Members then took the floor in response to the US proposal. One Member noted that 
it was still reflecting on possible ideas for thematic sessions in 2023, but considered that the topic 
proposed by the United  States  could be interesting to explore towards the end of 2023, and 
looked  forward to discussing the details. The Member was of the view that ensuring that the right 
information was available should avoid interfering with f reedom of expression, and that the main 
theme could be to ensure that objective and comprehensive information was available. 
Another  Member voiced its support for the US proposal, noting that it seemed to flow logically from 
the 2021 SPS Committee Workshop on Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Risk 
Communication , and looked forward to contributing to the development of the agenda. The Member 
recognized the importance of h aving comprehensive information available but also considered it 
important to help key actors distil what was useful and actionable out of that comprehensive 
information. Another Member took the floor noting that the proposal was interesting and did not 
duplicate other work in the Committee, but requested that the United  States  provide further details 
on the themes of the proposal at the next Committee meeting. Another Member sought clarification 
on the language in the title and more information to better u nderstand the topic. Referring to the 
possibility of labelling or branding other approaches, the Member suggested considering a change in 
the title of the proposed session.  
47.  No other proposals for thematic sessions were made at the meeting. I reminded Members that 
suggestions on thematic sessions could be submitted by Friday, 9 December. I then noted that the 
Committee was scheduled to have a workshop next summer, but no suggestions of topics for the 
workshop had been received.  
48.  The Secretariat expl ained that funds had been available for workshops in the past, which could 
be used for instance to bring officials from developing countries and speakers to Geneva. 
The Secretariat also highlighted that there had been some discussion on using the time norm ally 
used for thematic sessions, for meetings of the thematic groups (for example in March and possibly 
June/July 2023 ). One Member suggested dedicating time around the next two  SPS Committee 
meetings for the work of the thematic groups, and considered exp loring the possible use of resources 
to increase participation or bring experts. The suggestion to dedicate more time to thematic groups 
at the next two meetings was supported by two other Members, with one explaining that it would 
put Members in a better position to respond to Ministers at MC13. The Secretariat clarified that a 
funding request had been put forward for a workshop in 2023, but the funds could not be used to G/SPS/R/108  
 
- 59 - 
 
  fund the participation of capital -based delegates in Committee meetings and should be  used for 
WTO technical assistance activities.  
49.  I then raised the topic of webcasting thematic sessions, noting that the last few thematic 
sessions had been webcast on the WTO website, normally at the request of the proponents of the 
thematic session. In advance of each thematic session, Members had been given an opportunity to 
raise any objections. In moving forward, I invited Members to share their views on whether the 
Committee should systematically webcast all its thematic sessions, so that a decisi on would not need 
to be taken each time.  
50.  One Member took the floor to note that it would be comfortable with the decision to webcast 
the thematic sessions. I reminded Members that comments on the webcasting of thematic sessions 
could be submitted by F riday, 9 December.  
__________