G/SPS/GEN/2013  
6 April 2022 
(22-2762) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original:  Spanish  
 
  
PANAMA'S RESTRICTIONS REGARDING THE PROCEDURE TO REGAIN  MARKET  
ACCESS  FOR PERUVIAN POTATOES AND ONIONS (STC NO. 512) 
COMMUNICATION FROM PERU  
The following communication, received on 4 April 2022, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Peru. 
 
___________ ____  
 
 
1.  Peru would like to express before WTO Members its trade concern regarding the suspension by 
Panama of imports of onions and potatoes for consumption from Peru and the undue delays in the 
phytosanitary efforts to restore trade in these products.  
2.  Peru wishes to point out that Articles 2.2 and 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement state that Members 
shall establish sanitary and phytosanitary measures only where they are applied, inter alia , to protect 
plants, and that such measures must be based on a risk assessme nt. Likewise, Article 5.4 states 
that Members should take into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects . However, 
we find it regrettable that Panama has not considered these provisions and that it has instead applied 
restrictive and unjus tified measures to trade in potatoes and onions.  
3.  With regard to trade in Peruvian onions, Panama failed to consider that this trade has amounted 
to over 19,000 metric tonnes since 2003, without any reports of pest interceptions since that date . 
In this res pect, Panama suspended imports of this product in 2016 without having detected any 
quarantine pest in the shipments that would justify the suspension of imports as an emergency 
measure (section 5.1.6.4, ISPM No. 20, Guidelines for a phytosanitary import re gulatory system) . 
This suspension was based solely on an updated pest risk analysis (PRA), without there being any 
technical reason - as required under Article 5 of the SPS Agreement - for interrupting trade between 
the two parties . It should be noted that  the PRA makes it possible to establish phytosanitary 
requirements for the importation of new products into our countries and/or update existing import 
requirements without paralysing the existing trade flow . Such requirements may have the same 
results or be stricter or less strict, and may even result in the repeal of existing rules . This step is 
also contrary to the principle of "technical justification" under the International Plant Protection 
Convention (IPPC), which states that the parties should techn ically justify phytosanitary measures 
on the basis of conclusions reached by using an appropriate pest risk analysis or, where applicable, 
another comparable examination and evaluation of available scientific information.  
4.  Turning to trade in potatoes for c onsumption, the importation of this product was suspended by 
Panama in 2009 following the interception of a pest in a consignment at destination . In May 2010, 
following an exchange of comments with its counterpart, Peru's phytosanitary authority sent Panama 
a proposed phytosanitary protocol for the exportation of potatoes, to which no response has been 
received to date . In this context, there is no technical justification for not reopening the 
Panamanian  market.  G/SPS/GEN/2013  
- 2 - 
  5.  In accordance with Article 8 and Annex C , sanitary and phytosanitary procedures, inter alia , must 
be undertaken and completed without undue delay, with information being provided to the interested 
party and requirements limited to what is reasonable and necessary . In this light, Peru has 
consist ently provided technical information relating to the PRA in order to secure the reopening of 
the Panamanian market for potatoes and onions, without receiving any response from 
Panama's  health authority concerning the results of its risk analysis, and has c ontinually been asked 
for the same information that was sent in good time by the Peruvian health authority, which has led 
to the process being unnecessarily and unjustifiably prolonged.  
6.  Furthermore, despite the constant trade concerns raised in this Committee, Panama has so far 
kept its market closed for potatoes and onions, and has not responded to Peru's communications.  
7.  In light of the foregoing, Peru believes that Panama is continuing to cause undue delays in the 
establishment of the phytosanitary import requirements that would enable the importation of 
Peruvian potatoes and onions to resume.  
8.  The measures applied by Panama have caused damage to exports of Peruvian potatoes and 
onions . The last year for which export figures for potatoes to Panama wer e recorded, both in terms 
of volume and value, was 2009 . The best year for the exportation of Peruvian potatoes to Panama 
was 2008, owing to the fact that over 604 tonnes were sent, with a value of USD 249,000. However, 
exports of Peruvian potatoes to Pana ma decreased by around 69 % in 2009.  
9.  Furthermore, in 2017, Peruvian fresh onion exports to Panama fell substantially both in terms of 
value and volume . By the end of that year, exports of this product had fallen by around 98.04 % in 
relation to 2016 and, as a result, the annual average growth for the period 2012 -17 decreased by 
53.17 %, despite the fact that the export potential of this sector is USD 2.3 million .1 
10.  In light of the foregoing, and in order to prevent a violation of Articles 2, 5 and 8, and Annex  C 
of the SPS Agreement, Peru requests Panama to reopen the market to Peruvian potato and onion 
exports and to avoid any other action that may unnecessarily prolong this process, thereby creating 
unnecessary and unjustified barriers to trade.  
11.  Lastly, Peru reiterates the following queries that were raised during the Trade Policy Review of 
Panama held in February of this year . It would be appreciated if Panama could provide written 
answers to these questions.  
a. Considering that Annex C(1)(b) of the SPS Agreemen t establishes that, upon request, the 
anticipated processing period shall be communicated to the applicant and the applicant 
shall be informed of the stage of the procedure, with any delay being explained:  
− At what stage of the PRA is Panama in relation to reopening the market for Peruvian  
onions?  
− What are the reasons that Panama has found for not providing market access for 
Peruvian onions since 2016?  
− What is Panama's time frame for providing access to its market for Peruvian onions?  
− Why has Panama not resp onded to the proposed phytosanitary protocol sent by Peru 
in May 2010 for the reopening of the market for Peruvian potatoes?  
− What is Panama's time frame for providing access to its market for Peruvian  potatoes?  
b. Based on Articles 2 and 5 of the WTO SPS Agre ement and section 1.1.3 of ISPM No. 2, 
which establishes that, for existing trade, no new measures should be applied until the 
revision or new PRA has been completed, unless this is warranted by new or unexpected 
phytosanitary situations that may necessita te emergency measures, what are the 
technical reasons why Panama suspended imports of Peruvian onions ? How does Panama 
consider that, by suspending imports of Peruvian onions, it has complied with the 
above -mentioned provisions?  
c. If Panama suspended Peruvia n potato imports because of the interception of a pest at 
destination, what are the technical reasons for not considering any measure less restrictive 
than suspension under Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement?  
 
1 According to the ITC's Export Potential Map for tariff heading 070310.  G/SPS/GEN/2013  
- 3 - 
  d. If Panama considered closing its market by applyi ng an emergency measure owing to the 
presence of a pest in a consignment of Peruvian potatoes, why did Panama not notify the 
WTO SPS Committee of the suspension in accordance with Annex B(6) of the 
SPS Agreement?  
e. Considering paragraph 3.155 of document G/S PS/R/104, what are the technical reasons 
why Panama considers that this concern should be discussed in the WTO Committee on 
Technical Barriers to Trade?  
__________