RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/87  
 
26 September  2017 
(17-5104) Page: 1/29 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETI NG OF 13-14 JULY  2017  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
2   ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  ................................ ................................ ................  4 
3   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
3.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  4 
3.1.1    Senegal - Implementation of sanitary and phytosanitary monitoring plans for the 
food chain  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  4 
3.1.2    Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  ................................ ................................ ......................  4 
3.1.3    European Union - New EU legislation on official controls (G/SPS/GEN/1551)  ....................  4 
3.1.4    Russian Federation - Results of the international conference on "Food Safety and 
Risk Analysis"  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  5 
3.1.5    Russian Federation - Possible scenario on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
3.2   Information from CODEX , IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ...........  5 
3.2.1    Codex (G/SPS/GEN/1559)  ................................ ................................ .........................  5 
3.2.2    IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/1565)  ................................ ................................ ............................  6 
3.2.3    OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1553)  ................................ ................................ .............................  6 
4   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS ................................ ................................ .......................  6 
4.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  6 
4.1.1    Brazil's measures on bananas - Concerns of Ecuador  ................................ .....................  6 
4.1.2    Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods – Concerns 
of the United States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  7 
4.1.3    Saudi Arabia's measures on shrimp – Concerns of Ecuador  ................................ ............  7 
4.1.4    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on wine - Concerns of Montenegro  ...............  7 
4.1.5    India's fumigation requirements for cashew nuts - Concerns of Senegal  ..........................  8 
4.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ...............................  8 
4.2.1    Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds – Concerns o f Chinese Taipei 
(No. 421) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  8 
4.2.2    Viet Nam's suspension of groundnut seed imports – Concerns of Senegal 
(No. 418) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  9 
                                                
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/87  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4.2.3    European Union's revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors – Concerns of Argentina, China and the Uni ted States (No. 382)  ................................  9 
4.2.4    France's dimethoate -related restrictions on imports - Concerns of the United 
States (No. 382)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 10 
4.2.5    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia and Latvia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  ................................ .............. 11 
4.2.6    Brazil's measures on shrimp – Concerns of Ecuador (No. 344)  ................................ .......12 
4.2.7    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  ................................ ........................... 12 
4.2.8    China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza – Concerns of 
the United States (No.  406) ................................ ................................ ................................ 12 
4.2.9    General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 13 
4.2.10    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 392)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 13 
4.2.11    Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European  Union (No. 393)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...13 
4.2.12    United States Seafood Import Monitoring Programme - Concerns of China 
(No. 415) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 
4.2.13    China's AQSIQ official certification requirements for food imports 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1209) – Concerns of Israel and the United States (No. 184)  .............................. 14 
4.3   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  ................................ ......... 15 
5   OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 16 
5.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 16 
5.2   Pest- and disease -free areas  ................................ ................................ ........................ 16 
5.2.1    Report on the Thematic Session on Regionalization  ................................ ...................... 16 
5.2.2    Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/48  ................................ ................................ 17 
5.2.3    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 17 
5.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ............ 19 
5.3.1    Preparations for Transparency Workshop (G/SPS/W/294/Rev.1, G/SPS/W/290, 
G/SPS/GEN/1568)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 19 
5.3.2    Nigeria – Update on Transparency  ................................ ................................ ............. 19 
5.3.3    Madagascar – Update on Transparency  ................................ ................................ .......19 
5.3.4    Chile – Request to Update Notification Authorities  ................................ ........................ 19 
5.4   Special and Differential Treatment  ................................ ................................ ................ 19 
5.5   Monitoring of the use of International Standards  ................................ ............................ 20 
5.5.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 20 
5.5.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 20 
5.5.3    Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/11/Rev.1  ................................ ....................... 21 
5.6   Fourth Review  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 21 
5.6.1    Catalogue of Instruments - Report of informal meeting  ................................ ................ 21 
5.6.2    Adoption of the Fourth Review – Report of informal meeting  ................................ ......... 22 
5.6.3    Adoption of the Report  ................................ ................................ ............................. 22 G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 3 - 
 
  6   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  23 
6.1   Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs): Possible next steps for 
consideration by the SPS Committee – Proposal by Kenya, Uganda and the United States 
(G/SPS/W/292)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 23 
6.1.1    Report of the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ .................. 23 
7   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  24 
7.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................. 24 
7.1.1    WTO SPS activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...24 
7.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1558)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 
7.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 
7.2.1    Senegal - Information on technical assistance and cooperation  ................................ ......25 
7.2.2    European Union – SPS-related technical assista nce provided in 2015 -2016 
(G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.4)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...25 
7.2.3    Japan – Technical assistance provided to developing countries 
(G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.5)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...25 
7.2.4    Nigeria - Technical assistance received  ................................ ................................ .......26 
7.2.5    Paraguay – Technical assistance received  ................................ ................................ ...26 
7.2.6   Zambia – Technical assistance received  ................................ ................................ ......26 
7.2.7    Madagascar – Technical assistance received  ................................ ................................ 26 
7.2.8    Burkina Faso – Technical assistance received  ................................ .............................. 26 
8   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  ................................ ...... 26 
9   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  27 
9.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ .......27 
9.1.1    OIRSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 27 
9.1.2    ISO ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 27 
9.1.3    IGAD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 27 
9.1.4    IICA ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 27 
9.1.5    CAHFSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 27 
9.1.6    OECD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 
9.1.7    African Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 27 
9.1.8    ECOWAS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 28 
9.2   Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  ................................ ....................... 28 
9.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 28 
9.2.2    Outstanding requests  ................................ ................................ ............................... 28 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 28 
10.1   Brazil – Animal products: recent measures implemented  ................................ ............... 28 
10.2   Brazil – Discussion paper on SPS measures (COA -SS RD/AG/57)  ................................ ....28 
10.3   Burkina Faso  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 28 
11   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS ................................ ................................  29 
 G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its 
69th regular meeting on 13 -14 July 2017. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with 
amendments (WTO/AIR/SPS/16).  
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
2.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Council for Trade in Goods had agreed to 
the election of Mr Marcial Espinola of Paraguay as the new Chairperson of the Committee on 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. The Chairperson recalled th at the election of the 
Chairperson had been conducted  by a fax sent on 16 May 2017. Since no comments had been  
received by 19 May 2017, Mr Marcial Espinola  was considered elected by acclamation . 
The Committee endorsed his election, and voiced its  appreciation for his efforts as Chairperson 
during the consultations on outstanding issues under discussion in the Committee.  
2.2.  The Chairperson  expressed his gratitude to Members of the SPS Committee and the 
Secretariat for their hard work. He thanked the S PS Committee for the opportunity to serve as 
Chairperson and acknowledged the work undertaken by Mr Felipe Hees, who served as interim 
chairperson in the March Committee meeting. The Chairperson  further signalled his willingness to 
engage in consultations with Members.  
3  INFORMATION SHARING  
3.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
3.1.1   Senegal - Implementation of sanitary and phytosanitary monitoring plans for the 
food chain  
3.1.  Senegal provided information on  the establishment of a National SPS Risk Assessment and 
Management System (DNER) involving several agencies and commodity conformity assessment 
bodies , with the aim of creating synergies between all stakeholders  of the food chain. Senegal also 
shared its authorities ' monitoring activities, in particular for arsenic in rice, on the level of 
aflatoxin s, on salmonella in poultry meat and veterinary drug residues, on E. Coli  STEC in raw 
milk; and of its National  Avian Influenza Plan . Senegal underscored its efforts in promoting 
consumer safety and hoped it would lead to a better positioning of its products . 
3.1.2   Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  
3.2.  Japan provided an update on the developments since the last Committee meeting, reporting 
on the most recent data from its food monitoring programme. The latest data showed that the rate 
of products exceeding the Japanese standard limits had decreased and all the test res ults, with the 
exception of fungi, wild plants and wild animals, were below t he Codex guideline level. 
Japan  expressed its appreciation to the Russian Federation, Qatar and Ukraine  for easing or lifting  
their import restrictions. Japan reported that 49 out  of the 54 Members who had introduced import 
restrictions on Japanese foods ha d either lift ed or eased these restrictions , and that only seven  of 
the 21 initial Members who had imposed an  import ban after the Fukushima accident still 
maintain ed it. Japan e xpressed its appreciation for the number of visits from governmental and 
private sector representatives  and remain ed open to further visits from Members to better assess 
the current food safety situation. Japan also acknowledged the work of FAO and IAEA fo r their 
efforts to ensure food safety.  
3.1.3   European Union - New EU legislation on official controls  (G/SPS/GEN/15 51) 
3.3.  The European Union drew attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1551 , which  provides a n 
overview of the new Regulation  (EU) No. 2017/625 on official controls and other activities 
performed to ensure the application of  the Food and Feed Law and the rules on animal health and 
welfare, plant health and plant protection products ("Official Controls Regulation"). The regulatio n 
had been  adopted in April 2017 , to apply from December  2019. The European Union explained that 
the regulation was part of a broader package of regulations for safer food , that the scope of the G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 5 - 
 
  regulation was extended to include plant health and animal by -products  and that t he risk -based 
approach was maintained and reinforced. The European Union further explained that implementing 
measures of the regulation w ould be completed by the end of 2019 , and would be notified  as 
relevant . The European Union invited  Members to visit the website of the European Commission  for 
further details : http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/official_controls/legislation_en . 
3.1.4   Russian Federation - Results of  the i nternational conference  on "Food Safety and 
Risk Analysis"  
3.4.  The Russian Federation reported on the international conference held on 18 -19 May 2017 in 
Sochi, Russia, jointly organized by the Russian Federation and the FAO. The meeting was attended 
by 250 representatives from 23 countries , several o rganizations  and representatives of FAO, WHO , 
WTO and Codex . Leading scientists and experts  had presented on the current status and trends in 
research on food safety . The conference  had covered  risk assessment, risk management and risk 
communication, food safety, food conta mination and capacity building.  
3.1.5   Russian Federation - Possible scenario on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region  
3.5.  The Russian Federation reiterated the i mportance of paying close attention to the spread of 
African swine fever (ASF). The Russian Federation expressed appreciation for the thematic session 
organized at the margin s of the SPS Committee meeting on animal diseases regionalization and 
acknowledged  the efforts of international organizations like OIE, IPPC, FAO and WTO in this area . 
The Russian Federation noted that since the previous SPS Committee , ASF had been  introduced 
into the Czech Republic , and reiterated its warning on said risk . The Russian Federation noted the 
number of outbreaks in the Slovak Republic  and the possible introduction of the virus from third 
countries.  The Russian Federation invited Members  to consider compartmentalization  and 
cooperation between competent surveillance service s. The Russian Federation thanked the 
European Union for their bilateral meeting and looked forward to fur ther discussions in the future.  
3.6.  The Chairperson reminded Members that information provided under agenda item 3 was 
aimed at sharing national experiences and information on re levant national SPS activities.  
3.7.  The European Union again expressed its objection to  the use of this agenda item for purposes 
other than providing information to Members on relevant activities. The European Union stated 
that the Russian Federation's repeated references to EU member States and speculations on ASF 
spread in EU countries were neither pertinent nor appropriate. Furthermore, the European Union 
reported  that a limited number of ASF cases and in a limited area had b een detected in the Czech 
Republic and that all necessary measures  had been  taken . As stated in the past, the European 
Union was confident in the effectiveness of its ASF -related measures as well as in its participation 
and leadership in international coop eration and in the response against ASF.  
3.2  Information from CODEX, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
3.2.1   Codex  (G/SPS/GEN/1559)  
3.8.  Codex provided an overview of the recent activities on contaminants in food, food additives 
and pesticide resi dues as contained in d ocument G /SPS/GEN/1559. Codex highlighted its work on 
the alignment of the food additives provisions of commodity standards and relevant provision s of 
the General Standards for Food Additives ( GSFA ). Codex reported  on the conclu sion of the Code o f 
Practice  for the Prevention and Reduction of Arsenic Contamination in Rice  and provided 
information  on its continuing work on the revision of maximum levels of contaminants in food and 
its new work including the development of a Code of Practice for the reduction of 3 - MCPD and 
Glycidyl Esters in Refined Oils and Product s made with Refined Oils, especially in infant formula. 
Codex had finalized a number of new and revised MRLs for different combinations of pesticide and 
commodities. Codex  also reported  on the recent conclusion of its Executive Committee's latest 
session, and that its recommendations w ould be considered at the forthcoming session of the 
Codex Alimentari us Commission. The repor t of the Executive Committee and other relevant  
document s were available on the Codex webs ite. G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.2.2   IPPC  (G/SPS/GEN/1565)  
3.9.  The IPPC provided an outline of its activities, as contained in G/SPS/GEN/1565. IPPC was 
celebrat ing its 65th anniversary  in 2017 . Its annual theme was "Plant Health and Trade 
Facilitation", which had been  reflected at CPM 12 in Korea  with a special session on e -commerce 
and a side event on IPPC ePhyto. Also at CPM 12 , fifteen International Standards for Phytosanitary 
Measures (ISPMs) had been adopted, and ten Phytosanitary Diagnostic Protocols approved by the 
Standards Committee  were noted.  The IPPC highlighted this record number of adopted standards 
for a single year in IPPC history and noted that most of these standards were trade or co mmodity -
related. The IPPC also provided an update on the implementation of the STDF pilot project  on 
ePhyto  and on  the promotion of the development of the International Year of Plant Health (IYPH)  
2020, inviting all Members to support this initiative.  
3.2.3   OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1553)  
3.10.   The OIE outlined its report, as contained in G/SPS/GEN/1553. The OIE drew attention to its 
85th General Session held in May, the final report of which was  available on the OIE website. 
The OIE also indicated  that the updated edition s of the Terrestrial Code  and of the Aquatic Code 
would be available on the OIE website by the end of July 2017 . The OIE  highlighted  the Terrestrial 
Code Commission's revision of the  generic chapters , including those relating to animal welfare , and 
on ASF a nd lumpy skin disease. Finally, t he OIE encouraged the nomination of experts to the 
specialist commissions.  
3.11.   The United States thanked  the OIE for its updates to the OIE 's Terrestrial Animal Health 
Code and its Aquatic Animal Health Code  and welcomed the re cent adoption of the new OIE 
chapter on porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome  (PRRS ). The United States encouraged 
all Members to implement the OIE's  science -based  import health recommendations  for PRRS . 
3.12.   The European Union expressed its appreciatio n to Codex, IPPC and the OIE, highlighting the 
work carried out by IPPC. The European Union invited all Members to support the adoption and 
implementation of the International Year of Plant Health 2020. IPPC thanked the European Union 
for its continuous support.  
3.13.   Chile drew attention to the presentation of the OIE at the Thematic Session on 
Regionalization and requested clarification on the plan on monitoring international regulations . 
The OIE explained that it was still in the early stages of its work wit h the OECD to  develop  a 
framework  to monitor  the national implementation of OIE standard s. 
4  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS 
4.1  New issues  
4.1.1   Brazil's measures on bananas - Concerns of Ecuador  
4.1.  Ecuador informed that Brazil had suspended its imports of banana s from Ecuador  since 1997,  
due to alleged phytosanitary reasons. Ecuador reported on the measures taken to resolve the 
issue, including visits of experts from Brazil to its banana plantation s, the signing of agreement s, 
the provision of technical reports and finally a wo rk plan  for the export of Ecuadorian banana s to 
Brazil , stress ing the safety of the product. Ecuador affirmed that Brazil's de jure  and de facto  
restrictions were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement. Ecuador remained 
positive on the implementation of the bilateral agreements on this issue and Brazil's 2014 
Normative Instruction No. 3 . 
4.2.  Brazil responded that the Department of Plant Health of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock 
and Food Supply (MAPA) had set up a working group to finaliz e the risk analysis  process  regarding 
diseases that affect ed bananas originating in Ecuador. Brazil also reported  that Ecuador  had 
requested a modification of the applicable  Normative Instruction No. 3/2014, upon which Brazil 
had submitted new text to Ecuador.  If this text was agreed upon, Brazil would proceed with the 
corresponding regulatory process.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.1.2   Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Food s – Concerns of 
the United States  
4.3.  The United States expressed concerns on the propose d Guide for Control on Imported Foods 
(Guide), developed by the Gulf Cooperation Council ( notified as G/SPS/N/BHR/164, 
G/SPS/N/QAT/22/Add.3 , G/SPS/N/OMN/44/Rev.1 and G/SPS/N/SAU/14/Add.2). The United States 
expressed appreciation to GCC members for the ext ensive bilateral engagement and to Kuwait and 
the Kingdom of Bahrain  for their June notifications  on their  non-implement ation of  the Guide until 
further notice (G/SPS/N/KWT/4/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/BHR/164/Add.1, respectively). The United 
States urged all GCC members to follow th at example to prevent any confusion as to the status of 
the proposed food safety requirements.  
4.4.  Brazil shared the concern of the United States and also welcomed  Kuwait and Bahr ain's 
notifications , as well as the  continu ed engagement with the GCC . 
4.5.  Bahrain, on behalf of the G CC, thanked the United States and Brazil for their interest and 
engagement , and informed that the rest of the  GCC members would be notifying their suspension 
of the implementation of the Guide . 
4.1.3   Saudi Arabia's measures on shrimp – Concerns of Ecuador  
4.6.  Ecuador raised concerns over  Saudi Arabia's  ban on shrimp s from Ecuador  based on a n OIE  
registry indicating  the presence of infectious  hypodermic necrosis and infectious hematopoietic 
necrosis in shrimp in some zones of Ecua dor, and the lack of information about diseases such as 
infectious m yonecrosis (IMNV) , white tail disease and Taura syndrome (TSV).  Ecuador noted that 
infectious hypodermic necrosis and infectious hematopoietic necrosis were globally present, 
including in  Saudi Arabia. Ecuador explained that IMNV and white tail disease  had been monitored 
but had not been reported in Ecuador, and that TSV has not bee n reported in laboratory analyse s 
for the past seven years.  Ecuador further stressed its national control plan, which included a 
periodic analysis of shrimp , the results of which were notified to the OIE every six months . 
Finally,  Ecuador argued that Saudi Arabia's measure was inconsistent with various provisions of 
the SPS  Agreement.  
4.7.  Saudi Arabia thanked Ecuador  for raising this concern and reaffirm ed its commitment to 
remove any unnecessary barrier s to trade. Saudi Arabia explained that according to the OIE, 
Ecuador was not yet free from the infectious hypodermal and haematopoietic necrosis, and that its 
shrimps ' health status was not yet defined with respect to the infectious yellow head virus 
genotype 1, myonecrosis, Taura syndrome and white tail disease. Saudi Arabia clarified that the 
import suspension of frozen and chilled shrimps from Ecuador  was temporary , until the issue was 
resolved , and that certain shrimp products from Ecuador were exempt from said measure. 
Saudi  Arabia welcomed the continu ed cooperation with Ecuador and encouraged further bilateral 
discussions.  
4.1.4   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on wine - Concerns of Montenegro  
4.8.  Montenegro raised a concern over the Russian Federation's measures on import s of wine 
products. Montenegro stressed that there had been  no prior record of non -compliance of its wine 
products with the Russian Fe deration's required standards. Montenegro indicated that  the import 
restrictions  had been  introduced on 26 April without advance and/or official notification . 
The reason provided for said restriction, according to the official website  of the Rospotrebnadzo r 
(the Russian Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human 
Wellbeing)  was related to an increased content of pesticides (Metalaxyl) and phthalate plasticizer 
particles. Montenegro regretted that despite bilateral meetings and t he exchange of information, 
the restrictive measures continued . Finally, Montenegro requested  a joint testing procedure of the 
confiscated wine , within a reasonable time frame, to clarify the disputed facts.  
4.9.  The Republic of Moldova support ed Montenegro's concern and its propos ed joint control, 
adding that a similar approach could also be of use in addressing its ongoing trade concerns with 
the Russian Federation . G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.10.   The Russian Federation thanked Montenegro for the ir bilateral meeting , and clarified that its 
competent authority, Rospotrebnadzor, had detected an incompliance of the affected Montenegrin 
wine producer with its sanitary and epidemiological legislation and hygienic norms . The Russian 
Federation  recalled that the Rospotrebnadzor  had informed the company but that no information 
had been provided by it or the competent Montenegr in authorities , following which  the temporary 
import restriction had been  imposed . The Russian Federation remained open to bilateral 
discussions with the competent authorities of Montenegro . 
4.1.5   India's fumigation requirements for cashew nuts - Concerns of Senegal  
4.11.   Senegal reported  that since January 2017 , India mandated the use of methyl bromide  
fumigation . However, Senegal noted that methyl bromide  use had been discontinued by several 
countries because of its  high toxicity and its negative effects on the ozone layer , as reflected in the 
Montreal Protocol. Senegal explained that it had abandoned the use of methyl bromide  in 2002 
and stressed that no cases of non -conformity with s anitary requirements had been detected. 
Senegal noted  that in practice the restriction was not being enforced  on products from Senegal, 
and thanked India for its cooperation , but underlined that the measure was still in force and its 
need for certainty for  future shipments.  
4.12.   Burkina Faso, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria and Togo reported  that they were also affected 
by the measure . Togo further indicated that India had also notified of the required use of the 
fumigant for its timber  exports . These Members invited  India to apply the principle of equivalence  
and stress ed th e negative effects of the use of methyl bromide . The Russian Federation also 
expressed its interest in this concern and in the implementation  of the measure.  
4.13.   India replied  that relaxation of the measure had been  extended up to 31 December 2017 to 
allow fumigation  on arrival . India also directed Members to additional information available on the 
website http://www.agricoop.nic.in/ . India requested Senegal to provide bio efficacy data to NPPO 
India regarding the  effectiveness of alternative fumiga nts. 
4.2  Issues previously raised  
4.2.1   Thailand 's import restriction  on papaya seeds  – Concerns of Chinese Taipei 
(No. 421) 
4.14.   Chinese Taipei referred to Thailand's imp ort restrictions on papaya seeds. Although a risk  
assessment had been conducted nine  years ago, and despite repeated requests, no proper 
response had been received from Thailand. Prior to 2008, papaya seeds had been exported to 
Thailand. Chinese Taipei obs erved that Thailand itself did not attribute the ban on papaya seeds to 
any pest issue in Chinese Taipei;  it was the  result of a regulat ory amendment in 2007. 
Thailand  had requested detailed information for conducting a risk assessment prior to reopening i ts 
market , but Chinese Taipei argued that this approach was inconsistent with IPPC ISPM No.  2 
Framework for Pest Risk Analysis . Chinese Taipei had provided detailed historical records of trade, 
as well as a pest list, in response to Thailand's request in April 2008. Additional data on papaya 
seed varieties had also been requested in June 2010 and promptly provided. Since then, Chin ese 
Taipei had sought an update on the progress of the risk assessment on multiple occasions, without 
substantive response.  
4.15.   Chinese Taipei also indicated  that, after introducing the  concern under the agenda item 
"Other Business" at the March 2017 SPS Commi ttee meeting , Thailand had said  that papaya seed s 
risked the spread of the pests  Candidatus phytoplasma solani  and Tobacco ringspot virus  (TRSV) . 
In July 2017 , Thailand had  indicated  that it would remove Candidatus phytoplasma solani  from its 
quarantine pe st list and that it would further discuss its proposed risk mitigation measures for 
TRSV. Finally, Chinese Taipei urged Thailand to promulgate the import protocol for its papaya 
seeds, and insisted that the current import restriction was inconsistent with several provisions of 
the SPS Agreement  and the IPPC . 
4.16.   Thailand drew attention to notification G/SPS/N/THA/158 of 2007 , according to which 
prohibited products could only be imported after the completion of  their pest risk analysis , 
provid ing an exemption  to allow existing commodities' trade to continue until the ir pest risk 
analysis was completed. For the exemption to apply, however, the NPPO of the exporting country G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 9 - 
 
  had to submit an  import request with evidence of previous import s, which in the case of C hinese 
Taipei did not include papaya seeds . Thailand added that it had conducted a pest risk analysis for 
papaya seed s as a new commodity and had finalized its quarantine pest list , as communicated  to 
Chinese Taipei 's Department of Agriculture. Thailand announced  that it was in the process of 
drafting the import protocol for papaya seeds, to be sent for approval  by its Quarantine Technical 
Subcommittee. Thailand finally expressed its willingness to work closely on this matter with 
Chinese Taipei.  
4.2.2   Viet Nam's  suspension of groundnut seed imports – Concerns of Senegal 
(No. 418)  
4.17.   Senegal reported  that after raising the concern in the March 2017 SPS Committee meeting, 
Viet Nam had requested a more detailed report of the phytosanitary risk analysis applied to the 
groundnut industry , which had been  provided in June 2017. Viet Nam had acknowledged receipt 
and requested an official translation into English. Senegal noted that no notification of non -
conformity had been issued and expressed appreciation for Viet Nam's collaboration on this issue.  
4.18.   Viet Nam explained that in 2015 it had issued a new list of commodit ies subject to pest risk 
analysis before importation. Viet Nam appreciated  Senegal's effort to provide  information in 
English and looked forward to deliver  a final response to this issue at the ir next bilateral meeting.  
4.2.3   European Union's revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors – Concerns of Argentina, China  and the United States (No. 382)  
4.19.   Argentina reiterated its concern over the European Union's  policy on pesticides which 
establishe d criteria to identify substances with endocrine disrupt ing properties , emphasizing the 
policy's hazard -based rather than risk -based approach and its potential trade impact. Argentina 
added that the European Union Standing Committee on Plants , Animal, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) 
had approved the proposed criteria  in July 2017 , and that without  a veto from  the European 
Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers, the proposal would enter into force in Octob er 2017, to 
be implemented six months later. Argentina observed that substances currently authorized  after 
having gone through  a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)  risk assessment , could later be 
banned , including  substances with an insignificant risk o f endocrine disruption  - even in 
contradiction with Codex  standards. Argentina also  questioned the division of the original proposal 
into two texts.  Argentina further echoed the questions posed by the United States in the past  and 
urged  the European Union to provide practical information on the procedure it w ould follow for th e 
withdrawal of authorizations.  
4.20.   China reiterated its concern regarding the European Union proposal and questioned the 
hazard -based  approach of the EU proposal . China argued that the pr oposal would have a severe 
impact on trade while marginally improving human or environmental health , and expressed a 
special concern on the division of the proposal. China  underscored the market uncertainty created  
by the reduction of allowed substances . 
4.21.   The United States reiterated its concern that the pesticide policy in the E uropean Union was 
insufficiently grounded in science and risk , and could potentially disrupt  international trade without 
providing a meaningful  benefit to public health. The United States expressed particular concern 
over the lack of transparency and predictability in the implementation of the hazard provisions of 
Regulation  (EC) No. 1107/2009 and queried about MRLs  that would be  set at  trade -restrictive  
default levels. The United St ates noted cases where the decisions of  the European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) failed to take all available data into consideration and differed substantially from 
the findings of other national and international authorities , resulting in the proposed withdraw al of 
authorizations for use of these substances for a wide range of food crops.  The United States was 
additionally concerned that measures to withdraw authorizations of pesticides and prohibit crops 
treated with those pesticides were being notified  to the TBT  Committee and  the decision to 
withdraw the corresponding MRL would only be notified to the SPS Committee after the decisions 
to withdraw authorizations had been finalized. The United States requested that the se measures 
be notified to the SPS Committee  when comments and additional data could still be taken into 
consideration  and queried about  the procedures for setting MRLs and import tolerances unde r 
Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4.22.   The United States remained concerned with  the division of the draft legal text into two 
stand -alone components, one proposal to establish criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors and 
another  to amend the derogation criteria . The United States thanked the European Union for 
engaging in bilateral consultation s, looked forward to receiving responses to the questions 
submitted to the European Union following the March 2017 SPS Committee Meeting , and remained 
open to shar ing those questions with other interested Members.  
4.23.   Australia, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican 
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador , The Gambia , Guatemala, India, Israel, Kenya, Madagascar, Mexico, 
Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, South Africa, Chinese  Taipei, Thailand, Togo, Uruguay, and 
Zambia  indicated that they s hared  this concern and called upon the European Union to adopt a  
risk-based approach in complia nce with the SPS Agreement. Members  underlined, inter alia , their 
special concerns over the hazard -based approach ; the split of the proposal between criteria to 
identify endocrine disruptors  and the criteria for derogations ; the approval of the proposal on the  
reduction in allowed pesticide s and its potential negative trade impact. Australia encouraged the 
European Union to provide updates on the work of the European Food Safety Authority and 
European Chemicals Agency in reviewing and prioritizing chemicals as endocrine disruptors . 
4.24.   Canada exp ressed concern over the language introduced in the Revised Plant Protection 
Products Draft criteria, presented on 30 May, referring to "known" and "presumed" endocrine 
disruptors . Canada request ed the European Union to clarify that these terms  would  not re sult in a 
wider scope of endocrine disruptors . Canada also enquired  whether  the decisions for setting MRLs 
and import tolerance levels  would  continue to be made on the basis of risk assessment s, as set out 
in Regulation (EC) No.  396/2005. Canada appreciate d the European Union 's efforts  in developing 
this proposal as well as the intense consultation s that had taken place around the SPS Committee 
meetings . 
4.25.   India emphasised that the "hazard based cut -off criteria" approach of the regulation would 
disrupt inter national trade without providing a meaningful benefit to public health. Further, this 
approach would not include a risk assessment, and has left open the scope for the interpretation of 
"negligible risk" and other terms, which would result in lack of clari ty in its implementation.   
4.26.   The European Union reiterated its commitment to transparency, recalling that it had duly 
notified  its draft acts , received and responded to Members' comments. The European Union 
recalled the information session of October 2016 an d document G/SPS/GEN/1494 /Rev.1 about the 
ongoing review of pesticides MRLs . The proposed criteria had been endorsed by its member States 
and, barring any  objection by the European Council and Parliament , the criteria would be adopted 
by the European Commission in three months . They would then enter  into force 20 days after their 
publication , and become applicable six month s after that date.  Regarding concerns raised on the 
criteria, the European Union recalled that in the absence of these criteria, its legislation would 
require the application of the so -called interim criteria , leading to more stringent  conditions . 
Finally, t he European Union had taken note of  specific questions  received , in particular th ose 
submitted by the United States, and confirm ed it would provide responses. With respect to the 
concerns raised regarding a possible change in the European Union policy on pesticide s in general  
and their  MRLs, the European Union confirmed that there had been no such change. The European 
Union reiterated its commit ment to keep ing the SPS Committee informed  about any future 
developments.  
4.2.4   France's dimethoate -related restrictions on imports - Concerns of the United 
States (No. 382)  
4.27.   The Chairperson noted that this concern was first raised in June 20 16 as part of  the concern 
regarding the European Union's revised proposal for the categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors. It was now being raised as a separate specific trade concern,  and would thus be so 
reflected in the IMS.  
4.28.   The United State s reiterated its concern over actions taken by France to ban the importation 
of fresh cherries from countries that ha d approved the use of the pesticide dimethoate on cherries. 
The United States noted that the ban  had not been based on a risk assessment of  the safety of 
residues and that the measure  had been  renewed despite being inconsistent with the November 
2016 EFSA decision and the regulation approved in February 2017 by SCoPAFF  on MRLs for G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 11 - 
 
  dimethoate (and its metabolite omethoate). The United States r ecalled that the Europea n 
Commission and a majority of m ember States deemed France 's requests for a European 
emergency measure to be unjustified and highlighted that the measure had a significant impact on 
trade without achieving a significant public health benefit. The United States further added that the 
measure  had only been  notified after its implementation and after the US request . It had then 
been notified as an emergency  measure , with out a specified  comment period. Finally, th e United 
States questioned the scientific basis for applying the measure only to fresh cherries  when other 
commodities could also contain dimethoate residues . The United States expressed its willingness 
to exchange scientific information with France on the  safety of dimethoate and its metabolites, as 
well as to explore less trade -restrictive measures.  
4.29.   Argentina endorsed the statement of the United States , highlight ing the measure's lack of 
scientific justification and that it was more trade-restrictive than  necessary , noting alternative 
measures such as the use of MRLs and the monitoring of residues during import controls. 
Argentina urged France and other Members imposing  pesticide -related restrictions, to act in 
accordance with the SPS Agreement.  
4.30.   Canada ech oed the United States and remained concerned about the renewal of a 
temporary restriction as a national emergency measure. Canada recalled that in October 2016 and 
July 2017  it had asked France for evidence that the current MRL of 0.2 mg/kg was insufficien t to 
protect human health and for alternative appropriate level s of MRL for dimethoate. Canada 
highlighted the lack of scientific evidence of the measures imposed by France and expressed its 
general concern regarding bans based on substance  authorization s, regardless of residue  levels. 
Canada urged France to conduct a risk assessment to justify the application of  a more restrictive 
MRL than the one applied by the European Union.  
4.31.   The European Union recalled that on 28  April 2017, France had introduced a protective 
measure suspending the importation of fresh cherries for consumption from member States and 
non-EU countries that ha d approved the use of the pesticide dimethoate on cherry trees . 
France  had justified the measure because of unaccept able toxicological risk s posed by the 
consumption  of certain dimethoate metabolites.  The European Union clarified that France was 
particularly concerned by the identification of a possible acute risk by EFSA, leading to France's 
request to the European Commission for  emergency measures to ban the use of dimethoate for 
cherry trees . In the absence  of EU measures , France  had introduce d a national emergency 
measure.  The European Union finally  indicated  that new studies had been submitted to EFSA  for 
evaluation , expecting a conclusion in spring 2018.  
4.32.   The United States thanked the European Union and looked forward to further bilateral 
discussions. The United States added that plant metabolism studies and toxicological data on 
relevant dimethoate metabolites had b een previously submitted to and reviewed by the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and that omethoate, the only metabolite that was 
found to be toxicologically relevant by the EPA for risk assessment purposes (as well as 
enforcement), had also been evaluated by EFSA, with separate protective MRLs voted and 
approved by EU m ember States in February 2017.  
4.2.5   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia and Latvia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 39 0) 
4.33.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian Federation's restrictions 
on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The European Union reiterated that the 
restrictions were inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and d id not respect Russia's WTO accession 
commitments. The European Union underlined that Latvia and Estonia had acted without delay in 
response to the findings of the Russian Federation in 2015, and had put in place corrective 
measures within the timeframes set  by the Russian Federation. Those actions had been brought to 
the attention of the Russian Federation, which carried out subsequent audits in 2016 to verify the 
corrective actions , but the results of their audits had not been communicated and the bans 
remained in place. The European Union reiterated its call to the Russian Federation to repeal the 
ban while expressing its readiness to work with the Russian Federation in a constructive and 
cooperative manner.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 12 - 
 
  4.34.   The Russian Federation responded that the tempora ry restriction imposed on supplies of fish 
products in Latvia and Estonia was due to violations in the process of ensuring the safety of fishery 
products , as confirmed by  experts' inspections . The Russian Federation explained that it was 
working in coordin ating with other Eurasian Economic Union member countries and that it was 
open to further cooperation and discussion s. 
4.2.6   Brazil's measures on shrimp – Concerns of Ecuador (No. 344)  
4.35.   Ecuador referred to its previously raised concern regarding Brazil's suspensi on of shrimp 
imports from Ecuador , and recalled that it had provided Brazil with all the requested evidence but 
that after almost 20 years there was still no  risk assessment. Ecuador also noted that SPS 
requirements for shrimps had been established in Febr uary 2017 and that in May 2017 Brazil had 
informed Ecuador of its equivalency for the inspection system for shellfish , and that enabled plants 
were authorized to export. However, a group of Brazilian producers presented a court action which 
led to the susp ension of  the authorization to import shrimps from Ecuador.  Ecuador highlighted the 
importance of export s for its economy and regretted the barriers imposed by Brazil on its most 
exported products, shrimp and bananas.  Ecuador contended that Brazil's  measure s were not in 
conformity with various provisions of the SPS Agreement and Article XI of the GATT.  
4.36.   Brazil underlined its  open market for imports of shrimp s from Ecuador, as reflected in its  
letter No . 926/2017 sent on 9 May informing Ecuador's sanit ary authorities of the recognition of 
equivalence of their  fish inspection system. Brazil  indicated  that the plants previously qualified 
were allowed to export , prior approval of the labelling, while plants that had not yet been 
authorized to expor t had to  request authorization.  Finally, Brazil dr ew attention to its document 
"Animal Health Requirements of Brazil for the importation of non -viable crustaceans and 
derivatives derived from extractive fisheries or aquaculture", of January 2017.  
4.2.7   The Russian Feder ation's import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  
4.37.   The European Union recalled that since 2013, the Russian Federation had maintained a ban 
on imports of pig, beef and poultry meat from Germany, a nd a ban on imports of meat and milk 
products from three German federal states. The European Union (i)  reiterated that the restrictions  
were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement ; (ii) regretted that despite the 
efforts made by the Germ an authorities , the ban remain ed in place ; and (iii)  urged the Russian 
Federation to repeal these  restrictions . The European Union  welcomed further discussions with the 
Russian Federation to find a solution in a timely manner.  
4.38.   The Russian Federation recalled that the restrictions had been imposed following the  
detection of unsafe products through  laboratory monitoring , border controls and inspections 
carried out in 2013 and 2015 , highlighting systemic non -compliance . Following t he discuss ions in 
the SPS Committee and bilateral consultations, the partie s agreed to introduce guidelines for the 
inspection of German establishments by the national competent authority , in order to compl y with 
the regulations of the Eurasian Economic Un ion (EAEU) and of the Russian Federation . The Russian 
Federation reported on  technical consultations held on 4 April 2017 in Moscow between the 
Rospotrebnadzor and the competent German authority. The Russian Federation remained 
convinced that th ese consult ations would facilitate a harmonized approach to ensure the safety of 
the concerned products.  
4.2.8   China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza – Concerns of 
the United States (No.  406)  
4.39.   The United States reiterated its concern s regarding  China' s highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (HPAI) -related restrictions on its poultry products , last raised in October 2016 . 
The United States reiterated its request for recognition of  pest-free areas and autho rization to 
import heat -treated poultry produc ts, which could not  transmit the virus . The United States 
highlighted its rigorous and effective monitoring system for avian influenza, and its compliance 
with the transparency obligations, consistent with OIE guidelines.  The United States expressed 
apprec iation to Chinese officials for agreeing to participate in an avian influenza workshop in the 
United States in July 2017 and for conducting an avian influenza system audit in the United States . G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 13 - 
 
  4.40.   The European Union echoed the United States concern regarding the country bans , which 
also affect ed European Union members . The European Union recalled the Thematic Session on 
Regionalization and expressed its willingness to continue to engage with China on the matter . 
4.41.   China highlighted the global challenge  posed  by avian influenza. China underlined its special 
attention to prevention and control of the a vian influenza virus risks, especially on HPAIV , as a 
major producer and consumer of poultry products . China dr ew attention to the outbreaks notified 
by the United States in March and April 2017  and to  the consensus reached with the United States 
that due to the specific epidemic pattern of HPAI, it was necessary to apply compartmentalization. 
Finally, China indicated  that an exp ert mission of China had been in the United States to conduct 
an on -site review  on the  effectiveness of prevention and control measures , and the animal health 
status . Future  steps were to be determined based on the evaluation of the expert group. 
China  remained positive on finding a mutually satisfactory solution . 
4.2.9   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193)  
4.42.   The European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing concern, recalling its 
conviction that BSE -related science was solid and that the European Union fully guaranteed safe 
trade of beef. However, it noted that some WTO Members had kept BSE-related bans in place, 
arguing the need for further assessments , which could amount to undue delays in the approval 
procedures, contrary to Article  8 of the SPS Agreement. The European Union also stressed that it 
had a harmonized SPS framework which was stri ctly implemented in all its member States, and 
therefore urged Members not to discri minate among its member States.  The European Union 
appreciated the progress made by Australia, the United States and China and encouraged them to 
finalize all pending applications submitted by EU member States. The European Union also urged 
other Members , including  Malaysia, South Africa and South Korea,  to proceed in a speedy manner 
on pending  applications submitted by EU member States. Finally, the European Union reiterated its 
openness to continue work ing with all trading partners.  
4.2.10   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European Union (No. 392)  
4.43.   The European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide ban on pork 
products from Poland due to the outbreak of African swine  fever (ASF) in early 2014. 
The European Union thanked China for the ir bilateral discussions and hope d this would lead to 
further engagement. The European Union reiterated that China's legislation  appeared  not to allow 
for recognition of  disease -free areas, despite OIE standards ; urged China to provide information on 
its procedure and the anticipated processing time to recognize the E uropean Union's zoning 
measures ; and requested China to provide its scientific risk assessment for maintaining a country -
wide ban instead of accepting importation from disease -free areas in Pola nd. The European Union 
stated that they had provided China with all the necessary evidence to demonstrat e that there 
were disease -free areas in Poland and that they were likely to remain disease -free. 
4.44.   China fully understood the concern of the European Union, but emphasized the acute, 
virulent and highly contagious insect -borne infectious nature of ASF , with China's pig population 
account ing for over 50% of the world 's pig population . China not ed that ASF had become endemic 
in Poland, according to data that Poland had notified to OIE. Despite Poland's implement ation of 
control measures , including regionalization, it had not effectively block ed ASF from spreading. 
China was therefore still unable to recognize regionalization and other measures ado pted by 
Poland. China remained open  to bilateral technical cooperation and emphasized the ir joint 
technical expert group.  
4.2.11   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European  Union (No. 393)  
4.45.   The European Union reiterated its co ncern over Korea's ban on pork and pork products from 
Poland since early 2014, w ithout taking into account the E uropean Union's regionalization 
measures. The European Union regretted that despite bilateral meetings , the ban remained in 
place. The European Union recalled that  Korea had performed a preliminary risk assessment and 
an on -site inspection in December 2014 , and had received response s to its questions. G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 14 - 
 
  The European Union reminded Korea of its obligation to limit the information requested to what 
was necessary to complete the recognition of regionalization, and to take into account the 
information it already had; and urged Korea to continue with the risk analysis and the recognition 
of regionalization without further undue delays. The European Unio n remained open to continue 
working with Korea.  
4.46.   Korea replied that the  import risk analysis  had temporarily been suspended  due to the 
unstable outbreak situation in Poland in 2016 , including the continuous ASF outbreaks in domestic 
pigs in August 2016 and the expansion of contaminated areas . In order to resume its  import risk 
analysis, Korea had requested Poland and the E uropean Union to notify the list of ASF -free areas 
that satisfied OIE standards . These had been specified in May 2017 , and Korea had resum ed the 
relevant procedures. However, Korea  remained  concerned with the increasing outbreaks of ASF in 
domestic pigs on small -scale farms in Poland. Korea believed that this showed that Poland' s ASF 
control measure s still needed to go further in order to co ntain ASF. Korea was still holding bilateral 
consultations with the European Union on this matter.  
4.2.12   United States Seafood Import Monitoring Programme - Concerns of China 
(No. 415)  
4.47.   China appreciated that the United States had revised some of the provisions r egarding the 
United States Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), published by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in early 2016. However, China still had some concerns  related 
to transparency, national treatment, scientific justification and lea st trade -restrictiveness. 
China  highlighted that the traceability requirements and catch -certification for at -risk species 
applied only to imported fish and fish products, and not to domest ic products , and that the 
measure was not based on science as it would apply to all imported aquatic products, regardless of 
risk levels and without distinction between aquaculture products and wild capture fisheries. 
The regulation required more informati on than necessary and overlapped with other rules, 
including the International Trade Data System (ITDS), which increased costs and generated 
unnecessary market access delays. China urged the United States to notify the SIMP to the WTO 
for comments by Membe rs. 
4.48.   The United States re iterated that the final rule was not an SPS measure and therefore fell 
outside the scope of the SPS Agreement.  The United States explained that t he objective of the 
final rule was to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud.  
It thus require d domestic importers to report certain information upon entry into the United States 
and to retain other information that would allow shipment s to be traced back to the point of catch 
or harvest in order to prevent  its market from being used to sell fraudulently marketed seafood or 
seafood products  produced from IUU fishing. The United States look ed forward to continuing 
engagement with China on the implementation of the  rule, but did not believe the SPS Committee 
was the appropriate for um for this engagement.  
4.2.13   China's AQSIQ official certification requirements for food imports 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1209) – Concerns of Israel and the United States (No. 184) 
4.49.   The United States reiterated its  concerns over the official certificate  requirement for 
imported foods, originally issued by China 's General Administration of Quality Supervision, 
Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) in April 2016 , recall ing its transparency concerns regarding the 
lack of notification of this measure.  The United  States appreciated China 's notification as 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1209 on 19 June 2017, which  indicated  under description and objective  of the 
measure , the protection of human health and food safety. Therefore, the United States reiterated 
the request that China not ify its measure to the SPS Committee as well. The measure – entitled 
AQSIQ Food Bureau 's Correspondence [2017] No.  83 in the TBT notification – would require a 
range of imported food products,  including low -risk processed, shelf -stable foods , to be 
accompa nied by official certificates.  The United States noted that AQSIQ Correspondence No.  83 
would apply only to imports and would require official certification of low -risk foods on a shipment -
by-shipment basis. Correspondence No. 83 indicated that the officia l certificate would need to 
include product and shipment details which were outside the purview of the U nited States  Food 
and Drug Administration , a requirement which would go into effect on 1 October 2017.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 15 - 
 
  4.50.   Given the impact  these  requirements could have, the United States enquired  about  
(i) the scope of products covered by this measure , noting the importance of using the Harmonized 
Commodity Description and Coding System developed by the World Customs Organization , and to 
clarify  that duplicate official cer tificates  would not be required ; (ii) the scientific justification of the 
requirements, including data documenting food -borne hazards associated with imported shelf -
stable processed foods; how such documented hazards would pose a human health risk to 
consu mers, and evidence showing that shipment -by-shipment official certification was appropriate 
and proportionate to address the risk ; (iii)  consider ing replacing the official certification 
requirement with a less trade restrictive measure that recognized the primary responsibility of food 
business operators for compliance , which  would be consistent with domestic Chinese requirements, 
as well as with Code x principles and guidelines; and (iv)  the measures that would require the 
domestic certification of foods manufactured, processed, stored, transported and exported under 
the supervision of its domestic competent authority.  The United States urged China to delay the 
implementation of this measure to allow for the discussion and resolution of these trade concerns. 
Finally, the United States appreciated China's willingness to cooperate and they looked forward to 
a continued engagement.  
4.51.   Israel shared the concer ns of the U nited States, mainly  the significant and unnecessary 
barriers to trade  the measure would cause . Israel hoped that, in addition to the notification to the 
TBT Committee, China would follow with a notification to the SPS Committee ; and requested C hina 
to elaborate on the scientific justification and international standards their work was based  on and  
the proportionate level of risk presented by the targeted products. Israel thanked China for its 
willingness to engage bilaterally . 
4.52.   Australia, Canada,  Chile, Costa Rica, European Union , Japan , Mexico , Norway,  Singapore, 
and Switzerland shared the concerns expressed by the United States and Israel. They underlined,  
inter alia , their concerns over the lack of a notification to the SPS Committee, the scope  of the 
products affected by this measure (including low-risk products), the inconsistency with Codex 
standards, the possible duplication of certification, and the unrealistic  implementation date of 
1 October 2017. In particular, the European Union underli ned the ambiguity of some of the 
provisions and the difficulties this would pose for custom authorities. Several Members expressed 
appreciation of China's constructive bilateral meetings and clarifications.  
4.53.   China  explained that in recent years  it had observed a sustained and fast growth of 
imported food, becoming the largest importer of food and agricultural products . Imported food and 
agricultural products accounted for around 7.5%  of its domestic food consumption , imported dairy 
products for 17.1% an d edible oil for 29.3% of domestic food consumption. China underlined the 
importance of strengthening cooperation  on food safet y and therefore  drafted the measure at 
issue. China also  noted that the requirement of official certificates did not go against i nternational 
conventions , and clarified that certificates were not required to demonstrate that the imported 
food completely met Chinese regulations, but only to prove that the production, processing, 
storage, transportation and export processes of the foo d had been under the effective supervision 
of the competent authorities of exporting countries. In addition, China explained that the 
certificates could be issued by the competent authorities of exporting countries  or regions, or  their 
authorized instituti ons. China stated  that the notified measure had included Members' suggestions 
and comments and welcomed further feedback on the notification to the TBT Committee 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1209). China explained that the certificates mentioned in the notification includ ed 
the bilateral sanitary certificate and phytosanitary certificate, which mean t that  the imported food 
already covered by these certificates did not require a new certificate. China looked forward to a 
strengthen ed communication and cooperation with Membe rs. 
4.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1 7 
4.54.   Chile provided an update  on the development of STC 399 on Viet Nam's restrictions on fruits 
including apple,  kiwi and grapes  from Chile. Chile noted that  the restrictions for grapes  had been 
lifted and that work was ongoing on the restrictions applied to the importation of apples.  
4.55.   Viet Nam confirmed this information . G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 16 - 
 
  5  OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
5.1  Equivalence  
5.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda ite m. 
5.2  Pest- and disease -free areas  
5.2.1   Report on the Thematic Session on Regionalization  
5.2.  The Chairperson reported that a  thematic session on regionalization had been  held on 11  July 
2017 as agreed by the SPS Committee in March 2017,  based on a proposal submitted by the 
European Union  (G/SPS/W/293) . The purpose  of the thematic session  had been to provide an 
opportunity for Members to increase their awareness of regionalization principles, and to learn 
from each other by sharing experiences about the challenges, as well as the benefits, of 
implementing regionalization in practice from the perspec tive of an importing, as well as an 
exporting party. This, in turn, would contribute to building confidence among trading partners 
when recognizing or seeking recognition of their regionalization measures. In particular, the 
thematic session had focused on  animal diseases.  
5.3.  The programme for the thematic session had been  circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1567 . 
It had been  prepared on the basis of contributions received from Members , and had been  divided 
in three sessions.  
5.4.  In Session 1, the Secretariat  had provided an overvi ew of the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement on regionalization (Article 6) and relevant guidelines (G/SPS/48), as well as 
relevant jurisprudence from recent disputes. Dr Matthew Stone, Deputy -Director General of the 
OIE, had provided an overvi ew of the OIE standards on zoning and compartmentalization, and 
their implementation. In addition, he  had also presented the implementation challenges and 
opportunities in applying the regionalization approach. Discussions had covered the use of the 
SPS Committee Guidelines in disputes, the differences in terminology related to regionalization, 
the use of special and differential treatment in recognizing free areas and the process for OIE 
recognition, among others.  
5.5.  In Session 2, Members had shared their exp eriences on the practical implementation of 
regionalization from both an exporting perspective, as well as from an importing perspective. 
Presentations covered the use of regionalization in dealing with diseases such as highly pathogenic 
avian influenza, B SE, classical swine fever, as well as more general experiences in applying the 
regionalization principle. Discussions had highlighted the importance of 'peace -time' agreements, 
building trust among trading partners and creating regional frameworks for  cooperation. 
In addition, several common weaknesses had been  identified in the recognition process from the 
importing Members' perspective, such as the submission of insufficient data by the exporting 
Member. In addition, the OIE  had underscored that reports o f avian influenza outbreaks in wild 
birds should not change a country's disease status and , as such, should not result in trade 
restrictions.  
5.6.  In Session 3, Members had been  provided with the opportunity to have general discussions 
on regionalization.  
5.7.  Concl uding, t he Chairperson had underscored that the thematic session had proven to be  
informative and interesting, and that it had provided a useful opportunity to increase Members' 
awareness of regionalization, from the perspective of existing international r ules and guidelines, as 
well as its  practical implementation by importing and exporting Members.  
5.8.  The Chairperson indicated that the presentations from the Thematic Session would be made 
available on the SPS Gateway page.  
5.9.  Finally, the Chairperson thanked th e presenters for their insightful and interesting 
presentations. In particular, he expressed appreciation to the Deputy -Director General of the OIE 
for participating in the thematic session. He also acknowledged the willingness of Members to 
share their ex periences, as indicated by the number of speakers on the programme.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 17 - 
 
  5.10.   Chile thanked the European Union for their proposal to organize a thematic session on 
regionalization and suggested that another session on regionalization should be organized with a 
specific focus on plant health.  
5.11.   The European Union appreciat ed how the session had developed , and stated that the 
suggestion by Chile should be reflected upon. 
5.12.   The United States expressed appreciation for the diversity of perspectives in the 
presentations in Session 2, in particular by Guatemala, Ukraine and South Africa. The United 
States  suggested developing a deeper exchange with the OIE on a regular basis, as the OIE's 
information was so valuable.  
5.13.   Guatemala and Japan appreciated  the initiative by the E uropean Union. Also, Guatemala 
supported Chile's  proposal  to hold a thematic session on regionalization and plant health.  
5.14.   The OIE recognised the high level of engagement by Members and the opportunity provided 
to learn about country perspectives. The OIE looke d forward to a continued engagement.  
5.15.    The Chairperson indicated  that although there already was a lengthy agen da for the 
October meeting, he and the Secretariat were always open to explore other issues, such as the 
proposal presented by Chile.  
5.2.2   Annual repor t in accordance with G/SPS/48  
5.16.   The Secretariat introduced the annual report prepared in accordance with the Committee's 
Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/48). 
The report covered the period from 1 Apr il 2016 until 31 March 2017, and was based on 
information provided by Members through notifications and reports provided during the Committee 
meetings (G/SPS/GEN/1552).  
5.2.3   Information from Members  
5.2.3.1   Kazakhstan – Information on FMD -free areas  
5.17.   Kazakhstan provided  the Committee with a brief history of the country's partnership with 
the OIE and its process of becoming a Member of the WTO. Kazakhstan informed the Committee 
that in 2017 Kazakhstan had been  awarded the status of FMD -free zone where vaccination was 
practiced only in five regions. Kazakhstan emphasized the significant impact  this had on its exports 
and on the number of investors showing interest in producing and processing meat in Kazakhstan. 
In addition, Kazakhstan was currently working to obtain other d isease -free statuses as well. In 
concluding, Kazakhstan emphasized the increasing role of agricultur e in the development of 
Central Asia and other emerging regions.  
5.2.3.2   Paraguay – Recent recognition of health status by OIE  
5.18.   Paraguay provided updated information  on recent resolutions from the OIE World Assembly 
of Delegates on the health status of the country with regard to classical swine fever and foo t-and-
mouth disease  (FMD) . Paraguay informed the Committee that for the first time it had been  
recognized as a c ountry free of classical swine fever  and that two disease -free zones had been 
merged , leading to recognition of  the country as free of FMD  with vaccination. In addition, 
Paraguay noted that the country maintained its health status for the following diseases: 
insignificant risk for BSE, free of African horse sickness, and free of peste des petits ruminants 
(PPR). Paraguay emphasized the impor tance of the OIE resolutions to obtain access to new 
markets.  
5.2.3.3   Costa Rica – Declaration of freedom from Velogenic Newcastle disease 
(G/SPS/GEN/1560)  
5.19.   Costa Rica provided information on the outbreak of Velog enic Newcastle disease of 
April 2015. After the impl ementation of control  measures  and epidemiological surveillance , G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 18 - 
 
  the entire  national territory had been declared free of this disease. Costa Rica referred Members to 
document G/SPS/GEN/1560  which described the measures applied by their national services . 
5.2.3.4   Australia – Update on East West regional freedom for Mediterranean fruit fly 
(Ceratitis Capitata ) 
5.20.   Australia announced that the Eastern states of Australia and the Ord River irrigation area of 
Western Australia were pest-free areas for Mediterranean fruit f ly. In addition the Mediterranean 
fruit fly had a limited distribution in Western Australia. These pest -free areas were maintained 
through the regulatory control of host material from infested areas. The pest -free status of these 
areas was verified through  absence records collected from Australia's national fruit fly trapping 
grid. 
5.2.3.5   Indonesia – Recognition of Mediterranean fruit fly free region in Chile  
5.21.   Indonesia extended its appreciation to Chile's NPPO  for providing transparent technical data 
and for their  support during the field verification process carried out by Indonesian experts on the 
status of the Mediterranean fruit fly. In  compliance with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, Indonesia 
had finalized a comprehensive assessment of Ceratitis capitat a in the  grape -growing areas in the 
Atacama Region, in Chile, after which it  recognized the region as a pest-free production area for 
grapes. 
5.22.   Chile thanked Indonesia for recognizing the Atacama Region as free of Mediterranean fruit 
fly and stressed that the  whole country was free of the fruit fly , as recognized by the relevant 
international bodies . Chile  therefore called upon other countries to also recognize Chile as a 
country free from the Mediterranean fruit fly . 
5.2.3.6   South Africa – Update on recent cases of a nimal diseases  
5.23.   South Africa provided information on two recent cases of animal diseases:  (i) the detection 
and confirmation of African swine fever in free roaming pigs of smallholder farmers in two 
provinces in June and October 2016 , and then in February a nd May 2017 in neighbouring 
provinces , on which i nvestigations were ongoing and the outbreaks had not been closed ; and 
(ii) the occurrence of outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N8) in four commercial 
poultry farms and in wild birds , which  were not epidemiologically linked. Control measures were 
being implemented ; compartments free of Avian Influenza had been established and maintained. 
South Africa informed the Committee that it had received a Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia 
(CBPP) freedom status as well as  freedom of FMD and PPR.  
5.2.3.7   Chile – Update on outbreak of Avian Influenza  
5.24.   Chile reiterated that the avian influenza outbreak that had occurred towards the end of 
2016 had been of low pathogenicity, not of high pathogenicity , and that it was in compliance with 
the OIE Terrestrial Code. Further, it had been declared free from avian influenza in June 2017. 
Self-defined export -restricted areas had been lifted, placing Chile in a position to export according 
to agreements currently in force  with their trading partners.  
5.2.3.8   Dominican Republic – Update on the Mediterranean fruit fly situation  
5.25.   The Dominican Republic informed the Committee that it had  dealt with the outbreak of 
Mediterranean fruit fly , first detected in March 2015 , and that it had b een eradicated through 
declaration of  a phytosanitary emergency, a control and eradication programme and a monitoring 
and surveillance system , in compliance  with international norms. The Ministry of Agriculture 
announced that the Dominican Republic was fre e from the Mediterranean fruit fly. The Dominican 
Republic thanked USDA, FAO, OIE, IICA, IAEA, and the Guatemalan and Mexican agencies for their 
help in eradicating this pest.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 19 - 
 
  5.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
5.3.1   Preparations for Transparency Workshop (G/S PS/W/294/Rev.1, G/SPS/W/290, 
G/SPS/GEN/1568)  
5.26.   The Secretariat reported on the advancement of the  preparations for the  workshop on the 
transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement to be held in Geneva on 30  and 31 October 2017. 
The draft programme c ould be found in document G/SPS/GEN/1568. The Secretariat requested 
Members to present their views  on the structure and content of this programme. The Secretariat 
indicated that comments could be submitted in writing until 10 August , after which a revised 
program me would be issued . 
5.27.   Benin welcomed the initiative and emphasized the importance of transparency for 
international trade, in particular for LDCs. Benin encouraged the Secretariat to do everything 
possible to ensure that African delegations could participate i n this training.  
5.28.   Nigeria commended the initiative and expressed its support to the content and structure of 
the workshop.  
5.29.   Chinese Taipei suggested that the presenter in Session 5 of the workshop ("Implementation 
of the Transparency Provisions") could also present on transparency provisions of  the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement . 
5.30.   Togo welcomed the organization of this workshop, in particular with respect to enhancing 
the effective use of the IMS, NSS and ePing. Togo argued that public consultations remained a 
shortcoming when drafting  SPS regulations , and suggested including a session on the  exchange of 
experience s and best practices on public consultations. Togo also supported Benin's statement that 
African countries should  take part in this workshop.  
5.31.   The Gamb ia echoed Togo and Benin's statements.  
5.3.2   Nigeria – Update on Transparency  
5.32.   Nigeria acknowledged a concern regarding its  lack of regular SPS notifications, as stated  
during its 5th WTO Trade Policy Review. Nigeria noted that it had submitted notifications  of 
regulations issued  until 2015, and was committed to updat ing all outstandin g SPS notifications 
until 2017.  
5.3.3   Madagascar – Update on Transparency  
5.33.   Madagascar reported  on its efforts to comply with SPS-related transparency provisions in 
2017, submitt ing six notifications  as well as emergency notifications regarding the fall armyworm , 
and its new phyt osanitary certification models.  
5.3.4   Chile – Request to Update Notification Authorities  
5.34.   Chile reported  on the  difficulties experienced in contact ing some Members' agen cies for  
animal or plant health. Chile requested Members to update the contact information of their 
notification authorities and information services.  
5.4  Special and Differential Treatment  
5.35.   Nigeria requested Members to improve their efforts to ensure the full implementation of 
special and differential treatment  provisions to help Members  with low capacity to implement the 
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  
5.36.   The Dominican Republic echoed Nigeria's concern and urged Members to take th is principle 
into account when applying new legislation.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 20 - 
 
  5.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  
5.5.1   New issues  
5.5.1.1   United States – Codex Guidelines and Principles for Official Certification 
Requirements  
5.37.   The United States raised concerns regarding the impact on trade caused by official import 
and export certification requirements that were not based on Codex guidance developed  over more 
than two decades, and also not based on scientific justification and risk. The United States 
regretted the proliferation of new proposed requirements for official certificates – particularly for 
low-risk products. These requirements increased the burden on exporters and regulatory agencies 
in the exporting country, and importers and officials in the importing country , with no i dentifiable 
public health or food safety benefit. The United States called upon Members to reflect on this 
concern, to consult with their exporters and consider whether and how the Committee might 
support the work of Codex by advancing the understanding an d use of the relevant Codex 
principles and guidelines in this area.  
5.38.   Canada shared  the concerns of the United States and encouraged Members to follow the  
Codex Guidelines for Design, Production, Issuance and Use of Generic Official Certificates 
(CAC/GL/38 -2001) when establishing their official certification requirements . According to these 
guidelines, official certificates should be required only where attestation and essential information 
were necessary to ensure food safety and fair practices in food trade ; and that importing countries 
should consider alternative means  to achieve this objective . 
5.5.2   Issues previously raised  
5.5.2.1   Senegal – Application of ISPM 13 on notifications of non -compliance  
5.39.   Senegal referred to the non -notification of non-compliance of products in international 
markets,  contrary to ISPM 13 . Senegal welcomed the efforts of some Members , particularly the 
European Union  in notifying non -conformities, allowing Senegal to follow -up and rectify where 
required . 
5.40.   Madagascar supported Senegal 's request that all Members respect the non -compliance 
notification principle.  
5.41.   Burkina Faso associated itself with Madagascar and highlighted that in general such 
notifications were not sent to public services, but to exporters directly , and therefore compet ent 
authorities were unable to react accordingly.  
5.5.2.2   Argentina – Use of the Codex International Standard on Glyphosate  
5.42.   Argentina reiterated its concern regarding the debates in the European Union on the 
renewal of authorising the use of glyphosate , a commonly  used pesticide . Argentina re called the 
extension of the authorization until the end of 2017, urging for  its renewal. Argentina expressed 
concern by the trade impact that a non-renewal of the authorization would have. 
Argentina  emphasized that glyphosate h ad already been assessed by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting 
on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), which was the basis for  the MRL s adopted by Codex. 
Argentina  therefore urged the European Union to comply with its multilateral obligations and base 
its decision on Codex r ules and on the  scientific reports published by the European authorities 
EFSA and ECHA.  
5.43.   The United States, Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic and Australia associated 
themselves with Argentina and stressed the importance of scientific assessment and co nsistency 
with international standards , recalling the JMPR re -evaluation of glyphosate and other risk 
assessments ; as well as the negative trade impact that a non-renewal of the authorization of 
glyphosate would have on producers.  
5.44.   The European Union clarified that the Risk Assessment Committee of ECHA had concluded 
that the "available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 21 - 
 
  carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction". The Eur opean Union r ecalled that on 
16 May the European Commission had restarted discussions with Member states about the possible 
renewal of approval for ten years.  The deadline to decide on the renewal was 15 December 2017, 
six months after the reception by the Commission o f ECHA's formal opinion. The European Union 
restated its commitment to adopt a science -based decision that ensured the protection of human 
health and the environment . 
5.5.3   Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/11/Rev.1  
5.45.   The Secretariat introduced the Annual Rep ort on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization, as contained in G/SPS/GEN/1550. The report reflected the issues that 
had been discussed  over the past year . No new issues had been raised under this procedure since 
the 2016 Annual  Report.  
5.6  Fourth Review  
5.6.1   Catalogue of Instruments - Report of informal meeting  
5.46.   The Chairperson indicated that at the beginning of the informal meeting, he had recalled  
that at the end of the March meeting, the Secretariat had circulated different proposals for 
disclaimer language  for the Catalogue of Instruments . At the consultations held in June there had 
been no sign of convergence, although every one had agreed that the Catalogue was a very useful 
document.  
5.47.   At the informal meeting, several Members had reaffirmed the usefulness of the Catalogue. 
Regarding the need for a disclaimer, some Members had supported language to clarify that the 
Catalogue was a reference document only, with no binding value. Some  had highlighted that in 
their view, the disclaimer was not necessary, but indicated flexibility towards a 'soft' disclaimer to 
help achieve a consensus. Other Members had indicated that they were prepared to continue 
discussions based on language circulated b y previous Chairpersons, or by the European Union. 
Despite the constructive comments shared during the meeting, the well -known divisions  had 
persisted.  
5.48.   In concluding, the Chairperson indicated that he would continue consulting after the 
meeting with the proponents and a few Members with concerns to see if a solution could be found.  
5.49.   After presenting the report of the informal meeting, the Chairperson added that one 
Member ha d expressed concern with regard to a sentence in the last disclaimer that had been  
circulated. Members seemed to be  in agreement that a "soft" disclaimer clause could be the 
appropriate solution, with the exception of one Member that requested a more far-reaching  
disclaimer.  
5.50.   The Chairperson further noted that a suggestion had been  made t o explore new language, 
which would allow Members to go back to their capital s for consultations . This new language could 
describe what the Catalogue  mean t instead of setting out what it did not mean . This suggestion 
could also address the Catalogue's curr ent lack of an introduction. The Chairperson had  discussed 
this option with  certain Members with concerns . 
5.51.   The Chairperson explained that the current proposal , contained in document RD/SPS/16,  
included an introductory paragraph explaining what the Catalogu e sought to achieve and its 
objectives. In addition, a soft disclaimer was proposed which sought to cover common elements of 
prior proposals. The Chairperson requested Members to consult this proposal with their respective 
capitals  and provide comments until 15 September 2017 . If no comments were received, the 
Catalogue of Instruments , with the proposed introductory language , would  be proposed for 
adoption at the next Committee meeting in October 2017.  
5.52.   Canada  stated that the inclusi on of an introductory paragraph was a good suggestion , to 
add clarity to  the purpose of the Catalogue.  
5.53.   Nigeria reiterated its interest in including a disclaimer , and indicated no objection to 
consider it again in October for final adoption.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 22 - 
 
  5.6.2   Adoption of the  Fourth Review – Report of informal meeting  
5.54.   Regarding the Fourth Review, t he Chairperson noted  that the draft report of the Fourth 
Review (G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2) had been waiting to be adopted for nearly three years. He recalled 
that the United States had pres ented a proposal with three options on how to move forward with 
the issue of the Fourth Review Report. The Chairperson indicated  that several consultations had 
been held in June 2017 to discuss the descriptive text to replace the second bullet of paragraph  
14.20. During those consultations Members reviewed proposals that had been submitted, as well 
as the common elements of these proposals. In this regard, a compilation of proposed language 
for descriptive text for paragraph 14.20 of the Fourth Review Repor t (RD/SPS/14) had been 
circulated ahead of the Committee meeting. The Chairperson noted  that this document had been 
discussed at the informal meeting.  
5.55.   The Chairperson reported that at the informal meeting he had recalled the  history of the 
Committee's discussion on the Report of the Fourth Review, in particular of the second 
recommendation under the SPS -related private standards -section, in paragraph 14.20. In addition, 
the Chairperson recalled that in March 2015 the Committe e had accepted the first two of the 
suggestions that Egypt presented for additions to the report,  contained in document 
G/SPS/W/282.  
5.56.   The Chairperson also reported on his consultations with a group of African Members prior to 
the informal meeting . These  African Members had emphasized that the subject of private 
standards and their effect on market access was very important to them. They had wished to 
retain the possibility of discussing this issue in the SPS Committee, and he had reassured them 
that this wou ld be possible , given the inclusion in the report of the first and third recommendations 
in paragraph  14.20. This group of Members had also signalled their flexibility to accept the 
common elements identified in RD/SPS/14, provided that a phrase was added to the second 
sentence.  
5.57.   One Member had proposed a couple of edits to the common elements, taking into account 
that this text would now be placed before the recommendations. This Member had also indicated 
the need to consult their capital before being able to accept the proposed changes. Certain 
Members had reaffirmed their commitment to achieving consensus.  
5.58.   The Chairperson had emphasized the need for a constructive approach and noted that a 
convergence seemed to be close. The Chairperson requested that the Secretariat circulate the 
proposed language as modified, which was done after the meeting in room document RD/SPS/15.  
5.6.3   Adoption of the Report  
5.59.   The Chairperson noted that the language of document RD/SPS/15 seemed acceptable to 
Members and therefore proposed a dopting the report contained in document G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2 
with the agreed changes.  
5.60.   The Committee adopted  the Report of the Fourth Review.  
5.61.   The Secretariat explained  that the agreed changes  would be included in the Report , and that 
it would be circulated with the new document symbol . The Secretariat also explained that the 
report would include a footnote to indicate  that it reflected  the sta ge of the discussions  at the time  
when it was first presented for adoption . The period after this  point in time  would be covered by 
the next review . 
5.62.   The United States reiterated its view that private standards were not within the scope of the 
SPS Agreement . The US decision to join the consensus should not be interpreted as a deviation 
from this view. The United Sta tes further  noted that  nothing about  paragraph  14.20 suggest ed a 
continued implementation of actions 1  to 5 of G/SPS/55 beyond the time necessary for th ose 
actions to be completed or determined to be impossible to complete. Completion of the Fourth 
Review was an important achievement and the United States  congratulated the Members and the 
Chair.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 23 - 
 
  5.63.   Nigeria congratulated the Chairperson for the adoption of the report , and appreciated the 
recognition and inclusion of their position  in the adoption of the Report.  
6  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
6.1  Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs): Possible next steps for 
consideration by the SPS Committee – Proposal by Kenya, Uganda and the United States 
(G/SPS/W/292)  
6.1.1   Report of the Informal Meeting  
6.1.  At the informal meeting, t he Chairperson had reminded Members  that Kenya, Uganda and 
the United States had submitted a proposal for follow -up steps to the Workshop on Pesticide MRLs 
held in October 2016 (G/SPS/W/292, circulated in March this year ). The Chairperson also noted 
that at the March 2017 meeting, Members had been invited to submit comments on this proposal 
by the end of May. A compilation of the comments received from Members had then been 
circulated by email, and the proposal had been  discussed in the consulta tions held on 16 June 
2017.  
6.2.  The United States had expressed appreciation for the comments and feedback received from 
Members regarding the joint proposal. The proponents were planning to incorporate the comments 
received into a revised proposal to be circu lated before the next Committee meeting in October. 
Some Members  had reaffirmed their support for this initiative. One Member had recalled that 
elements of a previous document submitted by India (G/SPS/W/284) should be taken into 
consideration.  
6.3.  The Chairpe rson noted the broad support for this proposal. In concluding his report of the 
informal meeting, h e indicated his availability to continue consulting on the basis of the revised 
proposal to be submitted by Kenya, Uganda and the United States, including on  ways to address 
the concerns addressed in India's proposal.  
6.4.  The United States thanked the Chairperson  for the report and indicated that the submitted 
comments would  be incorporated  in their revised proposal , and that t he revision of the paper 
would  be sub mitted in advance of the next Committee meeting. The United States also indicated 
that the revision would  contain details on the vehicle that proponents believe d would  be best 
suited to take forward a consensus on these matters.  As outlined in the joint pa per, the United 
States believed the Committee should play a constructive role in advancing solutions to the trade -
related problems identified by experts in the workshop. The United States invited Members to take 
an ambitious view of what might be achievabl e through greater collaboration and a sustained 
follow -up to the workshop.  
6.5.  Kenya reported that there were many  useful submissions and that th ose issues would be 
incorporated.  
6.6.  India considered that some of the proposed suggestions  contained  in G/SPS/W/292 were part 
of the ongoing process and strategy to handle trade issues with relation to pesticides matters. 
Although India  supported the approach of crop grouping for extrapolation of MRLs  to crops of the 
same group, India had concerns with the suggestions  under paragraph 4.1. India also recalled the  
trade concerns related to default MRL s at LOD levels  imposed by importing countries, primarily 
developed countries. India had presented a pape r (G/SPS/W/284) in this regard , and was of the 
view that th ose concerns remain ed unaddressed in the current proposal. India urged importing 
countries to consider the available data instead of applying default MRLs. India urged the inclusion 
of these  concer ns in the proposal of Kenya, Uganda and the United States.  
6.7.  The United States appreciated India' s efforts in providing its views on "levels of detection of 
pesticide residues " contained in G/SPS/W/2 84. In the United States' view, however, th ose issues 
must be set in the context of both the rights and obligations of the SPS Agreement , including 
Members ' right to protect human health through science and risk -based evaluations of pesticide 
residues. In addition, the United States believed th ose issues to be considerably more complex 
than described by India in its submission and that those complexities must be accounted for in 
considering potential solutions. Indeed, the presentations and discussions at the workshop G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 24 - 
 
  highlighted the depth and complexity of the iss ues, as well as many efforts underway in 
international and regional fora to address them.  In the view of the United States, the information 
provided by experts at the Workshop provided a firmer basis for the resolution of trade -related 
MRL issues , based on  which the  joint paper recognize d a wide range of legitimate MRL -related 
trade concerns that Members could collectively work to resolve.  The United States recognized that 
the LOD issue was complex, as  they had a pre-market authorization approval system that was 
consistent with their rights under the SPS Agreement. The United States indicated openness  for 
discussions with India and other Member s on their perspective s. 
6.8.  Chile appreciated the proposal and emphasized t hat the original document that had given rise 
to this discussion had been document G/SPS/W/284 from India. Chile stressed that with 
implementation, measures were often taken to the detriment of countrie s, setting a harmful 
precedent.  
6.9.  The Dominican Republic  remained concerned by the trade -effect s on a product if a pesticide 
was not in the official register of the importing c ountry.  
6.10.   The United States regret ted that the points presented had not been introduced in writing 
prior to the meeting. The United States  requested other Members to respect the process laid out 
by the Chairperson.  
6.11.   Chile indicated that the comments made were complementary  to the discussion and  
reemphasized that the original document from India ( G/SPS/W/284)  was clear . India supported 
Chile's  statement.  
6.12.   The Chairperson indicated his availab ility for further consultations . 
7  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  
7.1  Information from the Secretariat  
7.1.1   WTO SPS activities  
7.1.  The Secretariat provided Members with an overview of the technical assistance activit ies, 
held since the last SPS Committee meeting in March 2017. These activities had included four 
national seminars held in Kazakhstan, Liberia, Pakistan and Paraguay ; and one regional workshop 
held in Costa Rica  focused on good regulatory practice. The Sec retariat thanked IICA for their 
assistance in coordinating the regional workshop, as well as Costa Rica for hosting this activity, 
and for all their collaborative efforts in this regard.  
7.2.  More general training on the SPS Agreement had also been provided in the following 
activities: the WTO Advanced Trade Policy Course (in French) and the Introduction to LDC s Course 
(in French); two Regional Trade Policy Courses held for Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia 
and the Caucus in Kazakhstan and for the Caribbe an in Barbados; the IICA Virtual Forum in Risk 
Assessment; the FAO Workshop on Resolving Agricultural Trade Issues through the WTO held in 
Ukraine; the Conference on Food Safety and Risk Analysis held in the Russian Federation; 
the SIDA Workshops held in S tockholm in February and April; and several training sessions held in 
Geneva with students from Duke University and American University Washington College of Law. 
The Secretariat also indicated that document G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.7 provided information on the 
planned technical assistance activities scheduled to take place later in 2017.  The activities included 
the Advanced Course on the SPS Agreement (to be held in English) in October, and a Thematic 
Workshop on Transparency to be held on the margins of the Oct ober SPS Committee meeting. 
The Secretariat noted that they had received almost 400 applications for the planned technical 
assistance activities: 174 applications for the Advanced SP S Course; and approximately 
200 applications for the Thematic Workshop. Th e Secretariat informed Members about the 
selection process and indicated that they were finalizing the selection of c andidates for these 
activities.  
7.3.  In addition to the planned activities, the Secretariat announce d that a Follow -up Regional 
SPS Workshop for  Arab countries w ould be organized. This workshop w ould be co -organized with 
the IMF -Middle East Centre for Economics and Finance, and w ould be held in Kuwait, during the G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 25 - 
 
  week of 19 November 2017. The Secretariat also informed Members of upcoming national 
seminars scheduled for Col ombia, Jordan, Papua New Guinea, Argentina, Bangladesh, Fiji and 
Tunisia. General SPS training was also included in  the WTO Regional Trade Policy Courses for Latin 
America (Ecuador) and for French -speaking Africa (Cote d'Ivoire);  SIDA Workshops to be held in 
Stockholm; and a regional SPS workshop that was planned with the Intergovernmental Authority 
on Development (IGAD), at the request of this organization.  
7.4.  Chad expressed appreciation for the technical assistance provided to LDCs and developing 
countries , and highlighted that it ensured a sustain ed strengthening of capacities to full y 
understand he rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement , as well as understanding how the 
SPS Committee work ed. Additionally, Chad expressed app reciation for improvement of the 
SPS quality of products through working with the STDF.  
7.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1558)  
7.5.  The STDF Secretariat provided an overview of its activities, as circulated in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1558.  In addition, the STDF highlighted  its work  on the topic of good regulatory 
practices to improve the development and implementation of SPS regulations. Following 
discussions in the STDF Working Group of March 2017, the STDF was preparing a short informal 
survey to find out how developing country Mem bers were using good regulatory practices to 
improve their SPS regulation s, also taking into account public consultations. The STDF announced 
that it would circulate the survey through the SPS electronic distribution list and emphasized that 
feedback was appreciated. The findings of the survey w ould be d shared with the STDF Working 
Group in October and w ould be used as a basis for the development of future STDF work in the 
area of good regulatory practices.  Additionally, the STDF recalled that the deadlin e for applications 
for the next round of funding considerations was 4 August 2017.  
7.2  Information from Members  
7.2.1   Senegal - Information on technical assistance and cooperation  
7.6.  Senegal provided an update on the technical assistance it had received. Senegal welcom ed 
the efforts made by USAID , USDA and ECOWAS to assist with emerging SPS issues through a 
regional approach to tackling pests. Senegal reported that during the workshop held in Accra, 
Ghana in June 2017 they dealt with issues related to the infestations o f the fall army worm in 
some countries in West Africa. Senegal also expressed appreciated for the  activities underway in 
its country  in the context of the project initiative for Trade Africa of the United States. Finally, 
Senegal thanked  Malaysia  for its c ollaboration on  SPS-related issues  and for  their bilateral 
protocol . 
7.2.2   European Union – SPS-related technical assistance provided in 2015 -2016 
(G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.4)  
7.7.  In accordance with article 9 of the SPS Agreement, the European Union continued to provide 
technical assistance to other Members, as part of the highly prioritized E uropean Union 
development  co-operation policy. The European Union had circulated document 
G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.4 that covered all the activities  it carried out during  the period 2015 -2016, 
containing a list of 400 projects which were fully, or partially, devoted to SPS technical assistance. 
The document also included contributions made through the three sisters and the STDF. 
The European Union invited  Members interested in technical ass istance to contact the European 
Union delegations in the ir capitals.  
7.2.3   Japan – Technical assistance provided to developing countries 
(G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.5)  
7.8.  Japan informed the Committee about its SPS-related technical assistance. Japan submitted 
document G/SP S/GEN/1160/Add.5 with details of Japan's SPS -related technical assistance from 
1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017. As described in the document, the total value of the assistance 
provided by Japan amounted to approximately 470 million Japanese yen ( US$4.3  million), with an  
accumulated amount of Japanese assistance since 1 April 2009 of approximately 5.5 billion 
Japanese yen ( US$50 million). Japan informed the Committee that it had provided 62 relevant G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 26 - 
 
  programs since 1 April 2009 to more than 50 countries in vari ous regions, including Asia, the 
Pacific Region, Central America, South America, Central Asia, and Africa. Japan  noted that most of 
the assistance  had been  carried out by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and 
that it was not only directed at individual countries, but also to groups of countries , regions and 
the world. Japan reemphasized its aim to continue providing technical assistance to developing 
members.  
7.2.4   Nigeria - Technical assistance received  
7.9.  Nigeria thanked the European Union, the United States Department for Agriculture (USDA) 
and AU -IBAR for  their assistance and support , and emphasized the importance of continuous 
support, especially to African countries with a  low level of capacity. Nigeria reiterated the need for 
international d onors to increase their funding to African regional implementing partners such as 
AU-IBAR and ECOWAS.  
7.2.5   Paraguay – Technical assistance received  
7.10.   Paraguay thanked the WTO for the national intermediate level workshop on the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement.  The workshop had been part of the Action Plan for 
Paraguay at the 2014 Advanced SPS Course and included 32 representatives of the government 
and the  private sector . 
7.2.6   Zambia – Technical assistance received  
7.11.   Zambia noted the  serious problem with the fall army  worm, which had infested all of its  ten 
provinces . It further informed that  it had carried out surveillance, training of farmers and 
integrated pest control management. Zambia emphasized  the need for more research and called 
upon other partners to support  capacity building , research and development.  
7.2.7   Madagascar – Technical assistance received  
7.12.   Madagascar thanked the WTO, the European Union, USAID, the African Union and FAO for 
supporting their SPS capacity building programs . 
7.2.8   Burkina Faso – Technical assistan ce received  
7.13.   Burkina Faso provided information on  the situation of the army worm in Burkina Faso , which 
had led to harvest reductions of up to 90%. Actions had been carried out from first detection until 
confirmation by research institutes, which involved commun ication and coordination of 
SPS measures. Burkina Faso stated that the pest was under strict monitoring, with support of the 
FAO. Additionally, Burkina Faso thanked the African Union, Japan, SADN, ECOWA S, the European 
Union and STDF.  
7.14.   Kenya also refer red to  the issue of the fall army worm , request ing Members to consider it  a 
pan-African pest. Over 80 species of Kenyan crops had been affected by th e pest, leading to food 
insecurity for over one fifth of the African population food, with  close to a milli on devastated 
hectares . Kenya requested help from institutions like IPPC to build their capacity to detect, 
manage, control, and eradicate pests.  
8  CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  
8.1.  No Members intervened under  this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 27 - 
 
  9  OBSERVERS  
9.1  Informa tion from observer organizations  
9.1.1   OIRSA  
9.1.  OIRSA reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, through document 
G/SPS/GEN/1554. OIRSA  provided an update of its pilot capacity building project  and highlighted 
the strengthening of disease detection in Panama ; the training of veterinarians in providing 
support and monitoring ; and the establish ment of a regional programme of climate effects  on 
aquaculture . 
9.1.2   ISO 
9.2.  ISO reported on recent activities of interest to the Comm ittee, through document 
G/SPS/GEN/1555. ISO h ighlight ed included their continued collaboration with Codex and the ir 
collaboration with the OIE for the development of technical specification s on animal welfare 
management.  
9.1.3   IGAD  
9.3.  IGAD reported on recent activi ties of interest to the Committee, through document 
G/SPS/GEN/1556. IGAD referred to the support it had provided on export quarantines ; the 
regional training organized with the African Union on standard operating procedures to comply 
with importing require ments of Middle Eastern North Africa ; and the  animal health network 
meeting organized with 11 countries which provided an opportunity to discuss  emerging issues and 
outbreaks.  
9.1.4   IICA  
9.4.  IICA reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, through do cument 
G/SPS/GEN/1557. IICA reiterated their continued support for the development of the capacity of 
their member states. In addition, IICA thanked the United States, Canada, the WTO and OIE.  
9.1.5   CAHFSA  
9.5.  The Chairperson drew attention to the report submitted by CAHFSA contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1561.  
9.1.6   OECD  
9.6.  The Chairperson drew attention to the report submitted by OECD contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1562.  
9.1.7   African Union  
9.7.  The African Union reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, through 
document G/SPS/GEN/1563. The African Union reported on  the second AU -EU Agriculture Ministers 
Conference; its meetings related to advancing the Continen tal Free Trade Are a (CFTA); 
the continued work of the Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA); the 9th Pan-African 
Chief Veterinary Officers meetings and three meetings of African animal health experts to analyze 
and comment on OIE proposed changes to the Terrest rial and A quatic Animal Health Codes; 
the 8th Pan-African National Codex Contact Point Officers meeting; the African Pesticide Residue 
Data Generation Project;  two workshops to improve the understanding of members of the Pan 
African Parliament (PAP) on SPS  issues; and the Inter African Phytosanitary Council 's (IAPSC) 
annual General Assembly.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 28 - 
 
  9.1.8   ECOWAS  
9.8.  ECOWAS reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, through document 
G/SPS/GEN/1570. ECOWAS referred to the establishment of an institutional SPS working group; 
the auditing and revitalizing of national SPS committees; a regional stakeholders meeting on plant 
health and plant protection; and a training session on food safety and capacity building focused on 
aflatoxin  issues . ECOWAS thanked USAID, US DA, USDA -APHIS and all their partners and donors, 
and also sought  more support for the implementation of their action plans.  
9.2  Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  
9.2.1   New requests  
9.9.   There were no new requests received by the  Secretariat.  
9.2.2   Outstanding requests  
9.10.   The Chairperson noted that there was still no consensus on the six outstanding requests for 
observer status from the Commission for Biological Diversity (CBD); CABI International; the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild  Fauna and Flora (CITES); the 
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV), the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community 
(APPC); and the International Cocoa Organisation (ICCO).  
9.11.   The Chairperson thanked the representatives of observer organizations fo r their 
contributions to the work of the Committee and for their assistance to Members.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1  Brazil – Animal products: recent measures implemented  
10.1.   Brazil provided an update on the actions taken regarding the irregular practices involving 
miscondu ct of some private and public agents. Brazil reported on  the actions taken by the Ministry 
of Agriculture in addition to those that were communicated to the SPS Committee at the March 
meeting (G/SPS/GEN/1545). First, the Sanitary Inspection Regulation (RII SPOA) was updated with 
the objective of fighting economic fraud and improv ing food safety , including  severe penalties for 
irregularities ranging from heavy fines to losing the federal inspection approval seal (SIF) in case 
of persisted non -compliance. Seco nd, the Ministry of Agriculture established a compliance 
program me, which would provide enrolled companies with a certification seal.  
10.2.   Brazil stressed that the identified irregularities were related to economic fraud and did not 
compromise the safety and qu ality of the products consumed in Brazil and exported to other 
markets. Brazil remained confident that their sanitary controls were robust and trustworthy , and 
thanked trade partners that expressed confidence in their system by keeping their markets  open 
to their animal products.  
10.2  Brazil – Discussion paper on SPS measures (COA -SS RD/AG/57)  
10.3.   Brazil informed the SPS Committee of its joint submission with Argentina to the Committee 
on Agriculture in Special Session of a discussion paper on SPS measures as room document 
RD/AG/57, with the objective to start a discussion on SPS issues that could be part of the 
deliverables for the next Ministerial Conference, in Buenos Aires. Brazil and Argentina had taken 
note of the com ments and expressions of interest conveyed to them in the COA -SS, and invited 
Members to present additional inputs.  
10.3  Burkina Faso  
10.4.   Burkina Faso expressed appreciation for the SPS -related support provided to African 
countries , and highlighted the opportunity  provided by SPS Committee meetings  to obtain 
information and ownership of SPS matters.  G/SPS/R/87  
 
- 29 - 
 
  11  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS  
11.1.   The next regular meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for 2 -3 November 
2017, with a Workshop on Transparency scheduled fo r 30-31 October . An informal meeting was 
planned on 1 November 2017.  
11.2.   The Committee agreed to the following tentative agenda for its upcoming regular meeting:  
1. Adoption of the agenda  
2. Information sharing  
a. Information from Members on relevant activities  
b. Information from OIE, Codex and IPPC on relevant activities  
3. Specific trade concerns  
a. New issues  
b. Issues previously raised  
c. Information on resolution of issues  
4. Operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement  
a. Equivalence  
b. Pest- or disease -free areas  
c. Operation of transparency provisions  
d. Special and differential treatment  
e. Monitoring the use of international standards  
i. New issues  
ii. Issues previously raised  
f. Fourth Review  
5. Cross -cutting issues  
6. Technical ass istance and cooperation  
a. Information from the Secretariat  
i. WTO SPS activities  
ii. STDF  
b. Information from Members  
7. Concerns with private and commercial standards  
8. Observers  
a. Information from Observer organizations  
b. Requests for observer status  
9. Other business  
10. Date and agenda of next meeting  
11.3.   Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines:  
• For submitting comments on the draft programme for the transparency workshop  and to 
suggest possible speakers : Thursday, 10 August 2017 ; 
• For submitting comments on the proposal for follow -up to the workshop on Pesticide 
MRLs submitted by Kenya, Uganda and United States: Thursday, 10 August 2017 ; 
• For submitting  comments on the Chairperson's proposed new language , contained  in 
RD/SPS/16: Friday, 15 September ; 
• For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that  those  items be put on the agenda: Thursday, 19 October 2017 ; 
• For the distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 20 October 2017 . 
 
 
__________