RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/104  
 
17 December 2021  
(21-9454) Page: 1/51 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 3-5 NOVEMBER  2021  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  5 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ ............................  5 
2.1.1   Japan – Update on the situation surrou nding Japanese food after the TEPCO Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power station accident  ................................ ................................ ..................  5 
2.1.2   United  States – US Food and Drug Admin istration low -cost or no -cost tech -enabled 
traceability challenge results (G/SPS/GEN/1967)  ................................ ................................ ... 6 
2.1.3   European  Union and Norway – Global transition towards sustainable food systems 
(G/SPS/GEN/1934 and G/SPS/GEN/1969)  ................................ ................................ ............  6 
2.1.4   European  Union – Increased official cont rols and emergency measures governing the  
entry into the European  Union of certain food and feed of non -animal origin from certain  
third countries (G/SPS/GEN/1968)  ................................ ................................ ......................  8 
2.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ...........  8 
2.2.1   IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/1957)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  8 
2.2.2   OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1963)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  8 
2.2.3   Codex (G/SPS/GEN/1964)  ................................ ................................ ........................  9 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  9 
3.1.1   EU delays in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup) –  
Concerns of the Republic of Korea  ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
3.1.2   Delays in Thailand's approval procedures for animal products - Concerns of the 
Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  9 
3.1.3   Peru's undue delays in the authorization of dairy product enterprises – Concerns of  
Panama  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  10 
3.1.4   Qatar's new import rules for dairy products – Concerns of the European  Union  ...............  10 
3.1.5   Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and livestock products – Concerns of Peru  ...... 10 
3.1.6   China's import restrictions on fishery products – Concerns of Mexico  .............................  10 
3.1.7   China's import suspension of fresh fruits – Concerns of Chinese  Taipei  ..........................  11 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ...........................  11 
 
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 a nd obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2.1   EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos,  
chlorpyrifos -methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, 
mancozeb, molinate, pi coxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID 448) - Concerns of Colombia,  
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay and the United  States  ................................ ...........  11 
3.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID 382) - Concerns of Guatemala and Paraguay  ... 14 
3.2.3   EU regulatory approach to maximum levels for contaminants (ID 519) - Concerns  
of Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  15 
3.2.4   EU restrictions on expor ts of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application  
of the Commission Regulation (EU) N° 488/2014 of 12  May 2014 amending Regulation (EC)  
N° 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID 503) - Concerns of  
Peru ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  16 
3.2.5   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (ID 446) - Concerns of the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  16 
3.2.6   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural products  
(ID 487) - Concerns of Australia, Canada, the Russian  Federation and the United  States  ............  18 
3.2.7   Concerns with transparency, delays and due process associated with China's import 
requirements for agricultural goods (ID 524) - Concerns of Australia  ................................ ....... 19 
3.2.8   China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of  
imported food (26  November  2019) (ID 485) - Concerns of Australia, Canada, the  
European  Union, Japan and the United  States  ................................ ................................ ...... 20 
3.2.9   China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID 516) - Concerns of Australia and Canada  ................................ ..................  21 
3.2.10    Panama's undue delays  in the renewal of authorizations for plants of Peruvian  
fishery and livestock enterprises (ID 509) - Concerns of Peru  ................................ .................  22 
3.2.11    Panama's authorization of Federal Inspection Type establishments (ID 515) -  
Concerns of Mexico  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  23 
3.2.12    Saudi  Arabia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting establishments  
(ID 486) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ .............................  23 
3.2.13   General import restrictions due to BSE (ID 193) - Concerns of the European  Union  ........  23 
3.2.14    China's import restrictions due t o African swine fever (ID 392) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  24 
3.2.15    Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID 393) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  24 
3.2.16    Mexico's import restrictions on pork (ID 489) - Concerns of Brazil  ...............................  24 
3.2.17    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID 406) -  
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ........................  25 
3.2.18    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza  
(ID 431) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .........  25 
3.2.19    Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza  
(ID 456) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .........  25 
3.2.20    Chinese  Taipei's import restrictions on poultry and beef (ID 521) - Concerns of Brazil  .... 26 
3.2.21   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID 466) - Concerns of the 
European  Union and the Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................ .........  26 
3.2.22    South Africa's import restrictions on bovine meat, pet food and other by -products of 
animal origin (ID 522) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ..........  27 
3.2.23    Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other  
ruminants (ID 493) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ..........................  27 
3.2.24    Guatemala's restrictions on egg products (ID 413) - Concerns of Mexico  ......................  27 G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.2.25    The Russian  Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from  
Estonia and Latvia (ID 390) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ...............  28 
3.2.26    India's new requirements for animal feed in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 
(dated 27  January  2020) (ID 479) - Concerns of the United  States  ................................ .........  28 
3.2.27    India's approval procedures for animal products (ID 484) - Concerns of the 
Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  28 
3.2.28    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID 441) - Concerns  
of the European  Union and the Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................  28 
3.2.29    Proposed new EU rules on composite products (ID 504) - Concerns of Australia, the 
Russian  Federation and Chinese  Taipei  ................................ ................................ ................  29 
3.2.30    US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European  Union for Asian longhorn  
beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID 471) - Concerns of the European  Union  ...........................  30 
3.2.31    US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID 439) - Concerns of the European  Union  .. 30 
3.2.32    Chinese  Taipei's phytosanitary risk assessment procedure on imports of fresh  
vegetables and fruits (ID 496) - Concerns o f Ukraine  ................................ ............................  31 
3.2.33    Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions (ID 498) - Concerns of Peru  ............  31 
3.2.34    Panama's restrictions and procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes and  
onions (ID 512) - Concerns of Peru  ................................ ................................ ....................  31 
3.2.35    India's import requirements for pulses (ID 497) - Concerns of Canada  .........................  32 
3.2.36    India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID 501) - 
Concerns of the United  States  ................................ ................................ ............................  32 
3.2.37    Request for information on the EU Farm to Fork Strategy (ID 499) - Concerns of 
Guatemala  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  33 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21 and 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21/Corr.1)  ................................ ................................ .......................  34 
3.3.1   Panama's authorization of Federal Inspection Type establishments (ID 515) –  
Concerns of Mexico  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  34 
4   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS  AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 34 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  34 
4.2   Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  ................................ ..............................  34 
4.2.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  34 
4.2.1.1    Ukraine – Self-declaration of Ukraine on freedom from avian influenza  .......................  34 
4.2.1.2    United  States – African swine fever protection zones  ................................ ................  34 
4.3   Operation of t ransparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ..........  34 
4.4   Control, inspection and approval procedures  ................................ ................................  35 
4.4.1   Working Group on Approval Procedures (G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1)  ................................ ..... 35 
4.5   Special and differential treatment  ................................ ................................ ..............  35 
4.6   Monitoring of the use of international standards  ................................ ...........................  35 
4.6.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  35 
4.6.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ..........................  35 
4.6.2.1    European  Union – ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  ... 35 
4.6.2.2    European  Union – HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  .. 36 G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 4 - 
 
  4.6.3   New Zealand – Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization  .............  36 
4.6.4   Report on the Thematic Session on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of  
International Harmonization  ................................ ................................ ..............................  36 
4.7   Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the  
SPS Agreement (G/SPS/64 and G/SPS/64/Add.1)  ................................ ................................  37 
4.7.1   Report on the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ ...............  37 
4.8   Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG  ................................ ................................ ...........  37 
5   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  37 
5.1   Canada and the United  States – SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference 
(G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.8 and G/SPS/GEN/1960)  ................................ ................................ . 37 
5.2   COVID -19 and SPS issues  ................................ ................................ .........................  39 
6   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  40 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ...............  40 
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 40 
6.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1959)  ................................ ................................ ........................  40 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................  40 
6.2.1   United  States – Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.14)  ... 40 
6.2.2   Canada – Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1962)  ....................  41 
6.2.3   Belize – Technical assistance received by Belize  ................................ .........................  41 
7   CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  ................................ ...... 41 
8   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  41 
8.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ ..... 41 
8.1.1   ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/1952)  ................................ ................................ ...................  41 
8.1.2   GSO (G/SPS/GEN/1953)  ................................ ................................ .........................  41 
8.1.3   OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/1955)  ................................ ................................ ......................  41 
8.1.4   IGAD (G/SPS/GEN/1956)  ................................ ................................ ........................  41 
8.1.5   ITC (G/SPS/GEN/1958)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  41 
8.1.6   SADC (G/SPS/GEN/1961)  ................................ ................................ .......................  42 
8.1.7   IICA (G/SPS/GEN/1965)  ................................ ................................ .........................  42 
8.2   Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ .....................  42 
8.2.1   Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 42 
9   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 42 
10   DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .... 42 
ANNEX A  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  44 
ANNEX B  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  50 
 
  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its 81st regular 
meeting on 3 -5 November  2021. The proposed agenda for the meeting ( JOB/SPS/17 ) was adopted 
with amendments. In light of the COVID -19 pandemic, the meeting was held in hybrid form, with 
some delegates attending in-person and others joining  via a virtual platform.  
1.2.  Members were able to su bmit agenda items, support specific trade concerns (STCs), and upload 
statements through eAgenda. Members could support items through eAgenda until they were 
discussed in the meeting, and upload statements for STCs and other agenda items until Friday, 
5 November. Only oral interventions by Members who took the floor during the meeting were 
reflected in the present report. Some Members also circulated their interventions as GEN documents.  
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Japan – Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the TEPCO 
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident  
2.1.  Japan  thanked the United  States  for lifting its import measures on Japanese food, and 
encouraged other Members to remove the remaining measures . Japan reported  that the situation 
regarding the safety of the food supply, fisheries and agricultural production remained stable. 
In October 2021, the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture had 
assessed the appropriat eness of measures to monitor and respond to issues regarding radionuclide 
contamination of food . No reports of non -compliance in food imported from Japan had been received 
from destination countries . 
2.2.  Regarding the water management at the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, 
Japan  clarified that it had not announced nor planned the discharge of contaminated water in the 
sea, and requested related claims in previous Committee meetings to be ret racted. Japan indicated 
that the IAEA review for the discharge of Advanced Liquid Processing Systems (ALPS) treated water 
in 2023 had started in September 2021, with a first mission to be conducted in December 2021. 
Japan highlighted the information availa ble on the MAFF one -stop website  
(https://www.maff.go.jp/e/export/reference.html ), and the updated link to the IAEA report on the 
results of interlaboratory comparisons on marine samples near F ukushima. Japan looked forward to 
receiving updates from its counte rparts on the lifting of the remaining import measures.  
2.3.  Korea  urged Japan to halt the implementation of its decision to release contaminated water 
into the sea until tangible progress was m ade, including through enhanced transparency and 
consultation with stakeholders. Korea indicated that about 70% of ALPS treated water exceeded the 
regulatory standards for discharge and radionuclides such as radioactive isotope Carbon -14. 
Korea  emphasized that the discharge of contaminated water was a global marine environment issue, 
and urged Japan to handle the issue based on practical consultations with neighbouring countries 
and transparent information sharing.  
2.4.  The United  States  indicated that in Septem ber 2021 its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
had deactivated its import alert for food products from Japan, after finding  no evidence of 
radionuclides from the Fukushima incident present in the US food supply at levels that posed a public 
health concern . Japan 's control measures and FDA 's surveillance and sampling measures would 
ensure that imported food from Japan did not pose food safety risks due to  radionuclide 
contamination. The United  States  would continue communication and collaboration with Japan  to 
monitor and ensure the safety of food products  exported to the United States . 
2.5.  In response  to Korea , Japan  clarified that the discharge of the ALPS treated water would comply 
with regulatory standards based on the recommendations of the International Commission for 
Radiological Protection, as well as international standards and practices. The IAEA would review  the 
safety of the ALPS treated water. Japan indicated that about 70% of the water stored at the 
Fukushima Daiichi power station contained radionuclides exceeding the regulatory standards for 
discharge in the environment due to purification capability limi tations in the early period of 
ALPS operation. TEPCO had conducted a re -purification capability test in 2020, whose results showed G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 6 - 
 
  that ALPS had the capability to decrease the concentration of radionuclides, other than tritium, below 
regulatory standards f or discharge. Japan noted it would continue its transparency and 
communication efforts with the international community.  
2.1.2   United  States  – US Food and Drug Administration low -cost or no -cost tech -enabled 
traceability challenge results  (G/SPS/GEN/196 7) 
2.6.  The United  States  informed Members of its "New Era of Smarter Food Safety Low -Cost or 
No-Cost Tech -Enabled Trac eability Challenge" . The main goals of the challenge were to develop 
tech-enabled food traceability solutions that were low -cost or no -cost to the users, and to promote 
innovation through the creation of financial models that provided solutions proportiona l to benefits. 
The results of the challenge had been announced on 13  September  2021, and included  12 winning 
teams representing the United  States , Canada, and New Zealand. The United  States  submitted its 
statement  in document G/SPS/GEN/1967 . 
2.1.3   European  Union  and Norway  – Global transition towards sustainable food systems 
(G/SPS/GEN/1934  and G/SPS/GEN/ 1969 ) 
2.7.  The European  Union  thanked Norway for joining the follow -up communication to document 
G/SPS/GEN/1934 , and thanked Switzerland for confirming its support to the initiative. 
The European  Union highlighted the role of the UN Food Systems Summit  (UNFSS) , held in 
September 2021, in identifying necessary actions to feed a growing population while protecting the 
planet. The European  Union  noted the need for actions to be tailored to the local, n ational or regional 
context , and highlighted the role of the WTO in supporting sustainability objectives related to trade 
in agricultural and fishery products while preventing disguised restrictions to trade. In the EU view, 
the SPS Committee should become  a forum to reflect on how to make trade a major contributor to 
sustainable food systems and a sustainable future. The European  Union  invited Members to support 
the initiative, and to assist in formulating a work programme to address issues pertaining to the 
transition to sustainable food systems in relation to trade. A starting point for discussion could be to 
identify a list of policy  objectives that could be legitimately pursued, considering the need to 
mainstream sustainability aspects in all relevant fora. Key findings and actions could be reported to 
the Thirteenth  Ministerial Conference (MC1 3), with recommendations, as appropriate . 
More information was provided in document G/SPS/GEN/1969 . 
2.8.  Norway  co-sponsored communication G/SPS/GEN/1969  on the global transition towards 
sustainable food systems, and shared the view that international trade and trade policy should 
reinforce the global multilateral efforts towards achieving sustainable dev elopment. For Norway, 
the primary trade policy priority was to preserve and strengthen the rules -based multilateral trading 
system. Norway had launched an action plan on sustainable food systems, and stressed the need 
for the WTO to take climate change and  environmental considerations into account. 
Norway  suggested to investigate how the SPS Committee and the WTO could support Members in 
achieving their international commitments regarding environmental sustainability, in relation to 
trade. Norway expressed its readiness to engage with Members in discussions on this subject 
towards MC13.  
2.9.  Switzerland  stressed that the WTO should play an important role in supporting sustainability 
objectives in relation to trade in agricultural and fishery products, and that th e relevant 
WTO committees should address the contribution of trade to promote sustainable food systems in 
all three dimensions of sustainability. Switzerland expressed its readiness to contribute to drafting 
a work programme and supported the suggestion ma de by the European  Union  and Norway to report 
on key findings and actions to MC13 with recommendations.  
2.10.  Turkey  considered that discussions on the relations between sustainable food systems and 
international trade were urgent. Increasing the use of renewabl e energy in agriculture, improving 
waste management, and climate change and biodiversity strategies were global concerns affecting 
food systems. At the national level, Turkey had involved all stakeholders to transform its food 
systems to deal with all thes e concerns, further highlight ing the need for regional and global 
cooperation mechanisms. Turkey reiterated its commitment towards sustainable food systems while 
fighting disguised trade restrictions.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.11.  While recognizing the potential role of the WTO in ensuring the sustainability of globa l food 
systems, Australia  noted that the SPS  Agreement  lacked the mandate to discuss all facets of 
sustainable food systems. Australia recalled that the SPS Declaration for the Twelfth Ministerial 
Conference (MC12) proposed a work programme to explore thes e relevant issues. Furthermore, 
Australia referred to the document contained in G/SPS/GEN/1960 , which offered a detailed 
explanation on how the proposed work programme would address these issues. Australia encouraged 
the European  Union  and all Members to consider co -sponsoring the SP S Declaration, and to 
participate in the subsequent work programme.  
2.12.  Argentina  called on the European  Union  and co -proponents of the initiative for the transition 
towards sustainable food systems to join the SPS Declaration for MC12. Argentina emphasized th at 
the WTO had been a pioneer in the search for solutions to sustainable development. In Argentina's 
view, the communication distributed by the European  Union  and Norway reflected their willingness 
to actively engage in agricultural reforms, including thro ugh the reduction of domestic support. 
Argentina highlighted the dire effects of agricultural subsidies on habitat loss, overexploitation and 
climate change, and emphasized that these should be dismantled. Argentina considered that the 
Continuation of the Reform Process contained in Article  20 of the Agreement on Agriculture already 
reflected elements of a work programme towards sustainable food systems.  
2.13.  Paraguay  highlighted the similarities in the objectives of the communication distributed by 
the European  Union , Norway  and Switzerland , and the SPS Declaration for MC12 , and called on the m 
to join the Declaration. Paraguay echoed Argentina's remarks on the agricultural reform process and 
its contribution to the objectives of the WTO. Paraguay highlighted the  findings of organizations such 
as the OECD, FAO, UNDP and UNEP on the effects on the environment of the protection and distortion 
of agricultural markets. Paraguay stressed the role to be played by the European  Union , Norway and 
Switzerland in the Committ ee on Agriculture negotiations on the reduction of agricultural distorting 
subsidies, as well as the intended work programmes on domestic support and market access.  
2.14.  The United  States  highlighted that the SPS  Agreement  was suited to support Members in 
working towards addressing global challenges . It agreed that the SPS Committee should continue to 
be a forum to discuss SPS agricultural trade issues related to sustainable food systems, and that a 
work programme would hel p the Committee manage these issues. Noting the work with other  
Members to develop a work programme contained within the SPS Declaration for MC12 
(G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.8 ), the United  States  called on the Eu ropean  Union , Norway, Switzerland 
and other Members to join the SPS Declaration. The United  States  indicated that i ncreasing the 
productivity of existing natural resources was the most viable option forward  and that,  through 
sustainable productivity growth , the world 's growing food security and nutrition needs  could  be met  
in a manner that was economically and environmentally sustainable.  
2.15.  New Zealand  considered that any exploratory discussions on sustainable food systems should 
be focused on SPS -related iss ues rather than broader environmental issues that went beyond the 
scope of the SPS  Agreement . New Zealand highlighted that the post-Summit process was looking 
into how to support food system transition , and that any SPS work on food systems should be aligned 
with the post -Summit process.  
2.16.  Recognizing the importance of sustainable food systems, Japan  emphasized  the need for 
SPS measures to be based on scientific evidence. Japan sought clarification from the European  Union  
on the specific topics to be fur ther discussed in the work programme, and on whether the proposal 
fell within the scope of the SPS Committee. In Japan's view, the SPS Declaration for MC12 covered 
major objectives of the EU proposal.  
2.17.  Uruguay  was of the view that governments  could contribu te to ensuring sustainable food 
systems , taking into account the complex relation ship that existed between the environmental, 
economic and social pillars o f sustainability. There was not a single model of production and 
sustainable development, and differe nt conditions and  realities, as well as trade -distorting policies, 
should be taken into account. To achieve sustainable food systems, actions should be taken on 
subsidies , tariffs and non-tariff barriers that continued to distort trade in agricultural prod ucts and 
negatively affected the environment. Uruguay highlighted that the proposed SPS Declaration for 
MC12 considered the challenges and opportunities related to the production and global trade of food 
products in the 21st century, and did not seem to co ntradict the statements made by the 
European  Union , Norway and Switzerland. Uruguay invited the se and other Members to work with 
the co -sponsors to achieve positive results in the upcoming Ministerial Conference.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.18.  Canada  underscored its commitment to improv ing the environmental, economic and social 
sustainability of food systems. At the UNFSS, the WTO Director -General had noted the increased 
reliance on international trade for food security, and the importance of addressing trade distortions 
and the sustainability of food systems. Agreeing that the SPS Committee should be prepared to 
respond to global challenges that fit within its m andate , Canada believed that the work programme 
proposed by  the SPS Declaration for MC12  was an ideal approach to operationalize this vision. 
In Canada 's view, other WTO bodies should  discuss elements of sustainable food systems falling  
within the ir mandat es, so that the necessary linkages were made. Canada welcomed further 
discussions on these matters . 
2.19.  Colombia  echoed Argentina 's and Paraguay's statements. Colombia considered that the WTO 
should play a prominent role in supporting sustainability objectives  related to trade  in agricultural 
and fishery products , and underlined the environmental, social and economic pillars of sustainability. 
The SPS Committee should also be prepared to respond to global challenges, such as issues related 
to distorting agricul tural subsidies which were harmful to the environment.  
2.20.  The European  Union  thanked Members for their interest in the initiative  and indicated it would 
report back for internal discussions.  
2.1.4   European  Union  – Increased official controls and emergency measures governing 
the entry into the European  Union  of certain food and feed of non -animal origin from 
certain third countries  (G/SPS/GEN/ 1968) 
2.21.  The European  Union  informed Members that Commission Implement ing Regulation  (EU) 
No 2019/1793  provided for a harmonized approach to increased official controls on certain products  
entering the European  Union, with the aim of protecting EU consumers from a known or emerging 
risk. The Regulation listed food and feed of non -animal origin subject to checks upon entry (Annex  I), 
food and feed subject to special conditions governing entry (Annex II), and  food and feed of 
non-animal origin for which import was suspended  (Annex IIa) . These  lists were to be reviewed on 
a regular basis, not exceeding a period of six months. Safeguard measures could be imposed in the 
case of emerging risks or serious non -compliance with  the EU agri -food chain legislation. 
More information was provided in document G/SPS/GEN/1968 . 
2.2  Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
2.2.1   IPPC ( G/SPS/GEN/1957 ) 
2.22.  IPPC presented its report on relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/1957 . A virtual 
meeting of the  Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) was planned for 5 and 7  April 2022. 
IPPC was revising its dispute settlement procedures , and a new procedure would be presented to 
CPM for adoption in 2022. Several Focus Groups were currently working on issues related to climate 
change, communication, implementation of the Strategic Framework 2020-2030, and pest outbreak 
alert and response systems. The formation of two additional Focus Groups on ePhyto and sea 
containers was under consideration. Four standards were going forward for adoption, and 
amendments to IPPC's glossary had been made. Further information would be provided in upcoming 
webinars on the n ew guides and training materials under preparation . IPPC had also undertaken 
work on its website for the development of a phytosanitary systems page,  and had embarked on the 
revamping of the p hytosanitary capacity evaluation tool. Regarding ePhyto, 46 countries were now 
actively exchanging electronic phytosanitary certificates. Work was also ongoing on emerging pests 
such as the banana fusarium wilt (TR4), fall armyworm and red palm weevil.  
2.2.2   OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1963 ) 
2.23.  The OIE referred to its report on relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/1963 . The 2022 
OIE General Session would be held in a hybrid format. The official reports of the four Specialist 
Commission meetings held for the review of existing and development of new OIE standards would 
become  available  on OIE's public website. Regarding the Terrestrial Code, e xtensive reviews had 
been undertaken on chapter 11.4 on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) (namely on the 
categorization of official BSE risk status and BSE risk assessment  and surveillance ) and on chapter 
8.16 on infection with rinderpest virus . These  revised chapter s would be proposed for adoption 
in 2022. The chapter on foot -and-mouth (FMD) disease had been revised and  circulated for G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 9 - 
 
  comments , but would not be proposed for adoption in 2022. Regarding the Aquatic  Code, revisions 
were undertaken on aquatic animal health surveillance and on certain disease specific chapter s; the 
proposed amendments had been circulated and would be proposed for ado ption in 2022. Finally, the 
OIE drew attention to the launch of a joint initiative for the Global Control of African Swine Fever 
(ASF) in collaboration with FAO, for which an annual report had been published. Following  the recent 
outbreaks of ASF in the Am ericas, the OIE had organized emergency meetings for the exchange of 
information and capacity building activities with veterinary authorities, partner organizations and 
the Global Framework for the Progressive Control of Transboundary Animal Diseases (GF -TADs).  
2.2.3   Codex ( G/SPS/GEN/1964 ) 
2.24.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report presented by Codex  on its 
relevant activities, contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1964 . 
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
2.25. Before the adoption of the agenda, China withdrew a new STC regarding Japan's pesticide 
maximum residue limits  (MRLs)  for honey. Guatemala removed the previously raised STC  474 
(Modification of EU MRLs for plant protection products: Chlorpyrifos and Chlorp yrifos -methyl) and 
STC 475 (Modification of EU MRLs for plant protection products: Mancozeb), and raised its concerns 
on these pesticides under STC 448. Japan withdrew STC 470 on Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions 
on imports of fresh citrus fruits due t o sweet orange scab. All the STCs removed had been included 
in the draft annotated agenda circulated as JOB/SPS/17 . 
3.1  New issues  
3.1.1   EU delays in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup) – 
Concerns of the Republic of Korea  
3.1.  Korea  expressed concerns on import approval delays i mposed by the European  Union  regarding 
Korean chicken soup Samgyetang. According to Korea, the European  Union  had conducted an onsite 
inspection and had subsequently received all the data requested  on the National Residue Programme 
report . Despite the indi cations by the European  Union  that it would proceed with the next steps for 
granting  market access for Samgyetang , and the listing of  eight Korean establishments as third 
country establishments , no information had been provided on timeframes of the EU member States ' 
voting procedure . In Korea's views, the EU delays in import approvals were a violation of Article  8 
and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . Korea urged the European  Union  to complete the procedure 
and to provide information on the timeframes.  
3.2.  The European  Union  clarified that the import conditions for Samgyetang soup had been 
extensively discussed with Korea bilaterally and reiterated its commitment to continue the 
cooperation on this matter.  
3.1.2   Delays in Thailand's approval procedures for animal prod ucts - Concerns of the 
Russian  Federation  
3.3.  The Russian  Federation  expressed  its concerns regarding the  exportation  of Russian beef and 
pork products to Thailand. Following the inspections of Russian establishments in 2019, Thailand  had 
not finalize d the app roval procedures and had not confirmed whether the information on BSE 
provided in 2017 had been taken into consideration. The  Russian  Federation  urged Thailand to 
complete its approval procedures without undue delay , in accordance with Article  8 and Annex C of 
the SPS  Agreement . 
3.4.  Thailand  recalled that procedures for the importation of live animals and animal products to 
Thailand, notified as G/SPS/N/THA/243 , had entered into force on 5  November  2018. 
Thailand  underscored  that the importation of livestock products to Thailand w as based on risk 
analysis for animal health and was in conformity with the SPS  Agreement  and OIE standards. 
Thailand would inform the Russian  Federation  of the results of the review of  the additional 
information received in May 2021.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.1.3   Peru's undue delays in  the authorization of dairy product enterprises – Concerns of 
Panama  
3.5.  Panama  considered that Peru's undue delays in the authorization of dairy product enterprises 
constituted a violation of Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . Panama regretted the la ck of 
response from  Peruvian competent authorities to the requests on procedures and documents related 
to the import approval from three Panamanian enterprises. Panama reiterated its willingness to 
maintain open communications.  
3.6.  Peru recalled that the procedures for the importation of dairy products were established in the 
guidelines for the importation of industrially processed food of animal origin . Peru noted that the 
information submitted by Panama was incomplete  and that no  respon se had been received  to the 
request to hold a bilateral technical meeting. Noting the conformity of its procedures with Article  8 
and Annex C of the SPS Agreement , Peru reiterated its call for Panama to hold a technical meeting 
to achieve consensus on pend ing health issues. Peru submitted its statement in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1977 . 
3.1.4   Qatar's new import rules for dairy products – Concerns of the European  Union  
3.7.  The European  Union  expressed  its concerns regarding Qatar's new trade -restrictive import 
rules for dairy products , previously  raised in the TBT Committee. Qatar 's Ministry of Public Health 
Circular establish ed new import requirements for UHT milk and white cheese , and the instructions 
issued by  Qatar 's Council of Ministers expanded the range  of dairy products covered under the 
Circular , creating  additional barriers to EU products. The European  Union  noted  that none of  the 
measures had been notified  under  SPS nor the  TBT Agreement s. In particular, t he European  Union  
was concerned by the string ent restrictions on the shelf -life, as well as about certain product 
characteristics for milk products and cheeses, which it considered to be  more trade -restrictive than 
necessary, not based on science , not in line with Codex international standards  and no t required to 
guarantee the safety of imported products . In the EU view, Qatar's  measures violated several 
provisions in Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement . The European  Union  urged Qatar to suspend 
the application of both measures and to comply with its WTO notification obligations. 
The European  Union  thanked Qatar for the bilateral exchanges and expressed intention to continue 
the constructive dialogue.  
3.8.  Qatar  subsequently submitted  its replies in document G/SPS/GEN/ 1987. 
3.1.5   Bolivia's impo rt restrictions on agricultural and livestock products – Concerns of 
Peru  
3.9.  Peru expressed concerns  over various restrictive measures applied by Bolivia on Peruvian 
exports of agricultural products , such as potatoes and onions . These restrictions persisted despite 
the recent bilateral agreements signed to improve trade aspects and to streamline SPS procedures. 
Peru hoped that the bimonthly meetings scheduled would enable a free trade flow and lead to a 
mutually satisfactory sol ution. Peru submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1971 . 
3.10.  Bolivia  took note of the comments and would transmit Peru's concerns to capital. 
Both countries  had reaffirmed their commitments in  bilateral technical meetings and in the Binational 
Cabinet held on this matter . Bolivia reiterated its willingness to continue an open and  transparent 
communication with Peru.  
3.1.6   China's import restrictions on fishery products – Concerns of Mexico  
3.11.  Mexico  expressed its concern regarding on the  export ation of live and processed fishery 
products to China. Mexico  highlighted  the barriers to authorization faced by Mexican establishments 
since 2019  due to the excessive requirements for information of the General Administration of 
Customs of the People's Republic of China (GACC). Mexico regretted  the uncertainty, the loss of 
employments and the impacts on production resulting from China's suspension of Mexican 
establishments ; the short -notice requirements to undertake remote inspections ; and the lack of 
response by Ch ina, despite having provided all the requested  information on establishments 
interested in exporting  to China . In Mexico's view, China was incurring in  undue and unjustified 
delays, and was breaching  Articles 2.2, 2.3 and 5.4 of the SPS  Agreement . Mexico asked China: G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 11 - 
 
  1) to share the procedures for  the registration of Mexican establishments , as well any additional 
requirement by the GACC; 2) to provide a n updated record of Mexican establishments authorized to 
export to China; 3) to authorize species captured  in Mexico without unjustified restrictions; and 
4) to open communication with the GACC in order to establish the equivalence of sanitary legislation 
between both countries. Mexico reiterated its willingness to continue the dialogue with China.  
3.12.  China  argued  that its measures did not restrict the import s of Mexican fishery products. During 
the relevant inspection, China had noticed that the fishing vessels listed in the Mexican Aquatic 
Product Certificate lacked  the registration status in China. The Chinese Food Bureau of GACC had 
not received information in response to the letter sent to Mexico in November 2020 listing China's  
new health certificate requirements for fishery products.  
3.1.7   China 's import suspension of fresh fruits – Concerns of Chinese  Taipei  
3.13.  Chinese  Taipei  raised concerns about China 's suspension of the importation of pineapples, 
sugar apples and wax apples , and requested China to resume imports without delay . Following 
notifications of non -compliance from China , Chinese  Taipei  had adopted measures to strengthen 
pest-control and prevention. Although no additional notifications had been  received, the GACC had 
suspended imports  of these fruits,  arguing interception of scale insects  (Planococcus minor ). 
Chinese  Taipei  emphasized th at the low rate of non -compliance , below 1% , proved the effectiveness 
of the pest -control management measure in place. Chinese  Taipei  noted that scale insects were also 
detected in some Chinese regions  and that quarantine and fumigation of consignments wer e 
accepted international practices, less restrictive than import suspension. Chinese  Taipei  urged China 
to bring its measures in conformity with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement , to conduct bilateral 
scientific and technical dialogue, and to share the relevant risk assessment and supporting scientific 
evidence.  
3.14.  China  clarified that since January 2020, it had repeatedly found quarantine pests such as 
Planococcus minor , Albonectria rigidiuscula  and Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  on fresh fruits imported 
from Chinese  Taipei , involving 33 batches of pineapples, 35 batches of cherimoyas and 6 batches of 
wax apples respectively . These quarantine pests, once introduced, would  pose a serious threat to 
China 's agricultural and forestry p roduction and ecological security . China regretted that the 
situation had not improved, despite  the timely notifications to Chinese  Taipei  about these unqualified 
products  each time . Based on a risk assessment and sufficient scientific evidence, in accorda nce 
with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement  and with the national legislation, China had temporarily 
suspended the  importation of sugar apples and wax apples  since 20 September this year . These 
Chinese measures were necessary to prevent risks to agricul ture and forestry production and to 
protect ecological security and human health.  China urged  Chinese Taipei to actively take effective 
quarantine measures, reducing the occurrence, spread and damage of these quarantine pests, so 
that stable and sustainabl e development of agricultural production and trade could  be preserved.  
3.15.  In response,  Chinese  Taipei  highlighted that China had provided no scientific evidence to 
support  the import suspension , and underscored  that pest rates in consignments detected from 2020 
to 2021 were extremely low  (0.29% rate of inconsistency  for pineapple, 0.23% for sugar apple  and 
0.16% for wax apple ). Chinese  Taipei  reiterated that no  additional  notification of non -compliance 
had been  received after the enhancement of the two-stage pest control mechanism . 
3.16.  China  reiterated the harmfulness of these  quarantine pests and emphasized that 
the temporary import suspension was based on sufficient scientific evidence and  fully consistent with 
the WTO rules.  
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.2.1   EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, 
chlorpyrifos -methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, 
iprodione, mancozeb, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID 448) - Concerns of 
Colombia , Costa Rica , Ecuador , Guatemala , Paraguay  and the  United  States  
3.17.  Paraguay  recalled its intervention at the Committee meeting in July 2021, requesting written 
answers to the questions in document G/SPS/GEN/1926 . G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.18.  Costa Rica  reiterated its concern regarding the impact on its production systems of the 
reduction to the minimum level of detection of MRLs for several of the substances at issue. Referring 
to its interventions in previous meetings, Costa Rica noted the support received for this concern in 
the SPS and TBT Committees and in the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG). Costa Rica supported the 
questions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1926 , with particular inter est in the questions related 
to emergency authorizations by the European  Union. Costa Rica urged the European  Union to 
reconsider its  regulatory approach, to establish an effective dialogue with affected Members, and to 
consider measures to limit the impac t that these new regulations would have globally.  
3.19.  Colombia  regretted the lack of progress in this matter and noted that no responses had been 
received to questions contained in G/SPS/GEN/1926 . In Colombia's view, the implementation of 
MRLs by the European  Union  was discriminatory  and restricted trade more than necessary. 
Colombia  requested that emergency authorizations be granted under similar conditions for domestic 
producers and for countries exporting to t he European  Union . Colombia argued that the 
European  Union 's capacity to subsi dize producers so they could  adapt to standards was much higher 
than that of other Members. Colombia question ed the scientific justification of the measures and the 
precautionary  implementation of the MRL s, and called for a co mprehensive plurilateral technical 
dialogue,  an extension of transition period s and a joint review of the authorization process for a 
substance  to ensure the effective participation of the affected countries . Colombia urged the 
European  Union  to maintain  Codex MRLs in cases where the scientific evidence was not conclusive  
and, in cases where Codex ha d not established an MRL, to impose a default fixed MRL s not more 
trade-restrictive than necessary.  
3.20.  Guatemala  reiterated its concern regarding the negative effects of the reduction of MRLs for 
several substances such as chlorothalonil, imazalil, mancozeb and others, which were crucial for 
pest control in Guatemala.  Stressing that there were cu rrently no effective substitutes for these 
substances, and that t he banana industry was currently testing pyriproxyfen, a molecule approved 
by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as a substitute to chlorpyrifos,  Guatemala had 
requested a delay in  the implementation  of this measure. Guatemala reiterated its request for  the 
European  Union to share the relevant scientific information on the harmful effects to human health 
from the consumption of agricultural products from third countries, to consider climatic differences 
between countries and to provide answers to  the questions in document G/SPS/GEN /1926 . 
3.21.  Ecuador  shared the concern and  highlighted that the reduction or substitution of these 
substances  required innovation and development of new technologies; an additional transition period 
for implementation; and financial and technical resources that  were difficult to achieve for developing 
countries. Ecuador specifically referred to changes in pesticides such as chlorothalonil, mancozeb, 
metiram, chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos -methyl. Ecuador reminded on the economic and social impact 
of these measure s in the banana sector and reiterated its request for the suspension of the entry 
into force of the reduction of MRLs , considering the efforts made by the productive sectors for the 
economic recovery following the COVID -19 crisis. Ecuador urged the Europea n Union to take into 
account available scientific information, such as information provided by Codex, and provide at least 
36 months for producers in developing countries to adapt to the reduction in MRLs. Ecuador further 
requested to grant similar conditi ons for emergency authorizations to producers in the 
European  Union  and in third countries. Ecuador thanked the European  Union for the continued 
dialogue and recalled the concerns contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1926  regarding the g ranting 
of emergency authorizations by the European  Union.  
3.22.  The United  States  reiterated its concern that the European  Union continued to lower many 
pesticide MRLs to trade -restrictive levels without clear scientific justification or measurable benefit 
to plant and human health. The United  States also reiterated its concerns regarding the EU hazard -
based approach to pesticide regulation and the application  of the precautionary principle which  
threatened global food security and created trade barriers. The Un ited States  requested the 
European  Union  to clarify the justification for its intention to factor global environmental impacts 
into EU decisions on import tolerances. Similarly, it requested the European  Union  to afford 
producers in third countries equal a ccess to crop protection tools based on emergency 
authorizations. The United  States called on the European  Union to apply MRLs at the point of 
production for imported products, to extend the transition period for all MRLs to at least 24 months , 
and to cont inue to facilitate dialogue with third countries on this matter. The United  States  submitted 
its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1978 . G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.23.  Panama  supported the concern regarding the non -renewal of mancozeb. While supporting a 
global transition to sustainable agri -food systems, Panama bel ieved this objective should be based 
on science and on solutions designed and implemented through international cooperation. 
Panama  invited the European  Union  to reconsider its regulatory approach and to respond to the 
questions contained in document  G/SPS/GEN/1926 . 
3.24.  Uruguay  recalled its intervention at the Committee meeting in July 2021, requesting written 
answers to the questions in document  G/SPS/GEN/1926 . 
3.25.  Argentina  supported this concern and reiterated the need to ensure that Members applied 
risk-based SPS  measures taking into account the techn iques developed by the relevant international 
organizations. Argentina urged the European  Union to use a risk -based approach and determine the 
different aspects that could affect human health and the environment on the basis of conclusive 
scientific studie s. Argentina urged the European  Union  to provide answers to the questions 
submitted, including on the issues relative to emergency authorizations.  
3.26.  Brazil  reiterated its  concern regarding the EU approach  to pesticide MRLs. In Brazil's view,  
certain EU MRLs were more trade -restrictive than necessary , lacked scientific justification  and 
violated the harmonization principle of the SPS  Agreement . The establishment of low MRLs for 
mancozeb, together  with the ban in the EU market of s ubstances of similar use such as chlorothalonil, 
limiting the availability of alternative substances in the short to medium term , would have major 
consequences in international trade . Brazil underscored  that risk assessment techniques should 
consider the relevant guida nce of international standard -setting bodies  (ISSBs) and that the risk 
management options adopted should be the least trade-restrictive.  
3.27.  Canada  reiterated the need to base decision -making processes on risk assessment techniques 
developed by relevant intern ational organizations. Canada was particularly concerned by the impact 
of the EU approach to setting import tolerances and to the transition periods implemented.  
Canada  requested the European  Union to maintain MRLs for substances that did not pose 
unaccept able dietary risks, thus eliminating the need for import tolerance requests . Canada  invited  
the European  Union to notify any anticipated changes in its MRLs, to take Members' comments into 
account and to allow for transition periods for producers to adapt to new requirements. 
Canada  requested the European  Union  to avoid discrimination between do mestic producers and 
foreign exporters  regarding the authorization of emergency derogations.  
3.28.  Reiterating its support, Peru expressed its concern regarding the EU hazard -based approach, 
which Peru considered to be inconsistent with the SPS  Agreement and to result in unnecessary 
barriers to trade.  
3.29.  Honduras  requested the European  Union  to address the issue in a constructive manner and  
to ensure that its measures did not restrict trade more than necessary.  
3.30.  Chile supported this concern, specifically in relation to the decision not to renew the 
authorization for mancozeb , which  Chile considered a violation of Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement . 
3.31.  The European  Union  reminded  delegates  that most questions had previously been answered, 
including  the recent responses  to G/SPS/GEN/1926  circulated in document  G/SPS /GEN/1970 , or in 
the communication on the ongoing review of MRLs contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.2 . 
Regarding emergency authorizations, the European  Union  clarified that EU m ember States were 
allowed, in special circumstances, to authorize the placing on the mark et of plant protection 
products, including products containing active substances that were not approved ; emergency 
authorizations  were limited in time . Import tolerances could also be established to facilitate trade , 
and were not limited in time. The Europ ean Union  summarized the updates on  chlorothalonil, 
mancozeb , alpha -cypermethrin, chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos -methyl, as well as clethodim, phosmet 
and abamectin.  The European  Union  reiterated its availability to cooperate with all Members 
interested in the subject.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID 382) - Concerns of Guatemala  and 
Paraguay  
3.32.  Paraguay  looked forward to the circulation of responses by the European  Union  to the 
questions in G/SPS/GEN/1926 . Paraguay sough t further information on several aspects, such as the 
consideration of environmental factors in the process of defining import tolerances,  or whether the 
European  Union  would maintain emergency authorizations for non -renewed substances. 
Paraguay  referred t o examples of emergency authorizations granted to EU member States  and 
questioned the different stringency of criteria used to grant these authorizations for domestic and 
foreign producers.  
3.33.  Guatemala  reiterated its request for the European  Union  to reconsi der its hazard -based 
approach and to base its measures on technical and scientific evidence , in accordance with Article  5 
of the SPS  Agreement , taking into account international standards and the work of Codex  to avoid 
unnecessary trade barriers . Guatemala  looked forward to receiving answers to the questions raised 
in G/SPS/GEN/1926 . 
3.34.  Uruguay  reiterated its trade and systemic concern relating to the EU adoption and 
implementation of a hazard -based approach in its regulatory determinations concerning products 
with endocrine -disrupting properties. Uruguay  insisted on the need to base such determ inations on 
conclusive scientific evidence to avoid the withdrawal of certain  important components of pest 
management systems despite their safe use. Uruguay stressed that a hazard -based approach could 
have negative and disproportionate impact on sustainab le agricultural production, food security and 
international trade in food products. Uruguay supported the multilateral work undertaken by Codex 
to develop a harmonized, risk -based approach, and requested the  European  Union to reconsider its 
regulatory appr oach to avoid unjustified barriers to international trade and their socio -economic 
consequences.  
3.35.  Chile was particularly concerned by the negative impact of the gradual reduction of effective 
and safe phytosanitary products due to the hazard -based cut -off criteria applied in the assessment 
of active substances in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. These criteria deviated from the principles 
of risk analysis internationally agreed, unnecessarily lowering MRLs for substances commonly used 
in agriculture.  
3.36.  Peru suppo rted the concern and considered that the EU hazard -based regulations were 
inconsistent with Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement , leading to measures that were more 
trade-restrictive than necessary.  
3.37.  Colombia  regretted the lack of progress on this concern  and rei terated its systemic concern 
on the precautionary approach of the measure.  
3.38.  Costa Rica  reiterated its concern regarding the EU approach for the implementation of 
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Costa Rica urged the European  Union to ensure that the  regulation  
of endocrine disruptors was based on risk assessments, using criteria supported by sufficient 
scientific evidence, in line with the SPS  Agreement.  
3.39.  Brazil  recalled that the criteria for the determination of endocrine -disrupting substances had 
to be based o n science and be established in accordance with Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement  to 
avoid unnecessary trade restrictions. Brazil highlighted the importance of conducting risk 
assessments appropriate to the circumstances and the need to obtain the additional information 
necessary for an objective assessment of risk.  
3.40.  Canada  reiterated i ts request for the European  Union  to amend its hazard -based approach 
and conside r both hazards and risks in its regulatory decision -making. Canada asked the 
European  Union  to explain how it would establish the restrictions to be applied in exporting countr ies 
with respect to environmental impacts. Canada encouraged the European  Union  to notify all 
proposed regulations arising from the Farm to Fork Strategy  and to allow sufficient time for 
comments.  
3.41.  The European  Union  affirmed that the scientific criteria in  place in the European  Union to 
identify endocrine disruptors were based on the WHO definition. The criteria to identify pesticides G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 15 - 
 
  had been applicable since November 2018. The criteria also applied to ongoing procedures for the 
approval or renewal of acti ve substances. The European  Union reiterated that, to date, there had 
been no cases of non -approval of a substance solely based on endocrine disruptor criteria that had 
been followed by the lowering of MRLs. For all substances for which MRLs had been lower ed following 
the non -approval under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, other intake concerns, in addition to their 
classification as endocrine disruptors, had been identified.  
3.42.  The European  Union  confirmed that it would follow the procedure in Regulation (EC) 
No 396/2005 for import tolerance requests concerning active substances falling under the cut -off 
criteria. The procedure included a risk assessment by an evaluating EU member State  and a scientific 
opinion by EFSA . The European  Union  referred to article 49 o f Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 
regarding transitional measures. The European  Union  was reflecting on how to improve the 
notification procedures to ensure that WTO Members were informed well in advance of any changes 
in the EU legislation. The European  Union  reiterated its commitment to keep Members informed of 
further developments.  
3.2.3   EU regulatory approach to maximum levels for contaminants (ID 519) - Concerns 
of Canada  
3.43.  Canada  stated that the EU implementation of hazard -based regulatory decision -making 
requirements under Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 was leading to the lowering of maximum levels 
(MLs) for contaminants in many food products. In Canada's view, the EU approach did n ot take into 
account consumption patterns and levels of dietary risk. Canada was particularly concerned with the 
negative trade implications of the EU approach to the regulation of ML s of cadmium in  cereals, pulses 
and oilseeds ; ergot and ergot alkaloids i n cereals ; and cyanogenic glycosides in linseed (flaxseed). 
Canada indicated  that it was pursuing this matter bilaterally, with questions related to compliance 
tests in the food  supply chain, risk assessment, definitions  of key terms , sampling methods and 
implicated HS Codes. Canada requested further details from the European  Union  on the scientific 
basis and risk assessmen ts underlying  these measures. Canada underlined the importance of 
providing significant advance notice between the adoption of regulatio ns and their entry into force, 
to give industries sufficient time to adapt.  
3.44.  The United  States  shared the concern on the EU MLs for contaminants in foodstuffs under 
Regulation (EU) No 2021/1399. The MLs for ergot appeared to be unnecessarily trade -restricti ve 
and to lack a scientific justification.  The United  States  asked  which sampling and testing provisions 
would be used , and urged the European  Union  to delay the adoption of this measure and undertake 
a more robust risk assessment based on science. The United  States  submitted its statement in 
document  G/SPS/GEN/1980 . 
3.45.   The European  Union  noted  the answers provided to comments submitted by Canada on 
notifications G/SPS/N/EU/466  and G/SPS/N/EU/479 . The European  Union  stated that the measures 
in question were based on a risk assessment and considered relevant consumption patterns and 
levels of dietary risk. According to the European  Union , the population 's exposure to cadmium should 
be reduced in view of  its toxicity and possible health risks. The MLs for cadmium had been  established 
at levels as low as reasonably achievable, considering the occurrence data for cadmium in the specific 
foodstuffs from various origins , in order to ensure a rejection rate of 5% o r lower . The expected 
effect on trade was thus limited.  
3.46.  The European  Union  confirmed that the new ML established for ergot sclerotia in wheat and 
durum wheat (0.2  g/kg, established on safety considerations) was lower than the one established 
in CXS 199/199 5 (0.5  g/kg, established as a quality factor). Taking into account EFSA's scientific 
opinion and JECFA's assessment in its 91st meeting, it was necessary to establish MLs for ergot 
alkaloids in cereals and cereal products to ensure a high level of human he alth protection. According 
to the European  Union , the established level was readily achievable by applying good practices. 
The European  Union  further confirmed that the proposed ML for ergot alkaloids did not apply to bulk 
raw grain , but to cereals placed on the market for the final consumer. As such, the European  Union  
was of the view that  these concerns did not justify a further deferral of the application of the MLs 
for ergot alkaloids. Concerning the ongoing discussion on possible MLs for hydrocyanic ac id in certain 
foods, including linseed, Canada's comments were being considered, and the outcome of the 
technical discussions would be notified as a draft for Members ' comment s. The European  Union  
reiterated its commitment to discuss  the issue  bilaterally with Canada.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 16 - 
 
  3.2.4   EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application 
of the Commission Regulation (EU) N° 488/2014 of 12  May 2014 amending Regulation 
(EC) N° 1881/2006 as regards maximum  levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID 503)  - 
Concerns of Peru  
3.47.  Peru raised concerns regarding Commission Regulation (EU)  No 488/2014, establishing 
maximum levels ( MLs) for cadmium in chocolate and other cocoa products that, in practice, had a 
negative impact on trade in cocoa  beans and cocoa. Peru hig hlighted the trade performance and the 
social importance of the cocoa production chain , and was of the view that the EU regulation violated 
Article  2 of the SPS  Agreement  and created unnecessary barriers to trade . Making reference to 
JECFA/91/SC, dated 5  March 2021, Peru noted that the contribution of cadmium from cocoa -derived 
products remained insignificant, including in high -consumption countries , and that the application of 
MLs of cadmium in chocolate and cocoa derivatives would  not significantly reduce  dietary exposure 
to cadmium. Peru called upon the European  Union to rescind Commission Regulation  (EU) 
No 488/2014 with respect to chocolate and other cocoa products. Peru submitted its statement in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1973 . 
3.48.  Being an important exporter of cocoa and cocoa powder, Colombia supported this concern  
and highlighted difficulties in mitigating the presence of contaminants , given their natural 
occurrence , within the timeframe of the regulation. Colombia questioned the consistency of setting 
restrictive MLs for cadmium in cocoa and cocoa powder, and not for  other products also considered 
to contain high levels of cadmium , such as potato, wheat, fine bakery  wares and leafy vegetables . 
Colombia called on the European  Union  for flexibility.  
3.49.  The European  Union  recalled that it had granted a transition period of 5 years to comply with 
the legal requirements of the measure concerning cocoa and chocolate products.  
The European  Union  added that the MLs were established on finished products , and did not apply to 
intermediate cocoa products. Noting the toxicity of cadmium, t he European  Union  stressed that the 
exceedance of the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of cadmium by EU consumers justified setting limits 
for chocolate and cocoa products and other commodities. On the basis of the  most recently updated 
JECFA  assessment, issued on 5  March  2021, the European  Union considered it necessary to maintain 
the existing MLs to limit the exposure of consumers to cadmium from cocoa products. 
The European  Union  also noted that the EU ML for chocolate over 50% total dry cocoa solids was in 
line with the recently agreed Codex levels, and stricter limits had only been introduced to th e extent 
necessary to protect human health. While the European  Union was aware that some private 
operators applied strict limits for cadmium in imported cocoa beans instead of finished products, 
it argued that WTO Members did not have jurisdiction over contractual arrangements between 
private parties.  
3.50.  The European  Union  was providing targeted technical assistance in Peru and neighbouring 
countries within the framework of a Standard s and Trade Development Facility (STDF) project 
preparat ion grant to develop a regional strategy and a proposal to establish mitigation and 
remediation measures for cadmium contamination in cocoa beans in Latin America and the 
Caribbean region. The European  Union  was also providing technical assistance in the c ontext of a 
specific development programme under the Development Smart Innovation through Research in 
Agriculture Initiative (DeSIRA) to put more science in  development with a view to foster innovation 
for increased impact . The European  Union reiterated it s commitment to work constructively with 
Members to address outstanding issues.  
3.2.5   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (ID 446) - Concerns of 
the United  States  
3.51.  Referring to its statements in previous SPS Committee meetings, t he United  States  reiterated 
its concern s regarding the implementation of the EU legislation on veterinary medicinal products 
(Regulation (EU) No 2019/6). In September 2021, the European Parliament had allowed for the 
science -based criteria to be used to deter mine the EU list of antimicrobials reserved for human use. 
The United  States  requested further information on how the list of antimicrobials reserved for human 
use would be maintained to ensure fair, transparent, and science -based risk  assessment. 
The United States  asked  for the scientific justification for restricting  the use of antimicrobial drugs 
for growth promotion that were not medically important for humans, appropriate transition periods 
for justified SPS measures, the recognition of the levels of protection provided by national regulatory G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 17 - 
 
  systems, and flexibility for national authorities to implement their own effective  SPS systems. 
The United  States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1979 . 
3.52.  Paraguay  referred to G/SPS/N/EU/478/A dd.1 regarding the criteria for the designation of 
antimicrobials reserved for the treatment of certain infections in humans. Paraguay expressed 
concerns on the implementation sta tus of the regulation and requested further information on the 
timeline for its adoption, in order to avoid disruptions to trade.  
3.53.  Brazil  noted the potential burden of the EU regulation on producers due to the introduction of 
sanitary requirements  that were  more trade -restrictive than necessary. Expressing its support for 
the work of the international organizations in the development of multilateral harmonized guidelines 
on antimicrobial resistance (AMR), Brazil urged the European  Union to consider the ongoi ng global 
efforts by the WHO, the OIE and FAO, as well as  the work of the Codex Taskforce on Antimicrobial 
Resistance . Brazil also requested the E uropean  Union  to provide sufficient transitional period s to 
implement and adapt to its measures.  
3.54.  Canada  expressed its support for the coordinated international efforts to promote the prudent 
use of antimicrobials in animal and public health. In Canada's view, the European  Union should take 
into account global d isease prevalence, the One Health approach and antimicrobial usage in different 
countries while developing its legislation. Acknowledging  the notification of the  criteria for the 
designation of antimicrobials reserved for human use adopted by the European Commission , 
Canada  asked that the  list of antimicrobials reserved for human use  be notified, as well as  the import 
control requirements related to veterinary medical products.  Canada requested  the European  Union 
to grant  sufficient transitional periods , to respond to the  joint letter sent by Ambassadors of several 
WTO Members in June 2021 , and to provide further details on upcoming third country information 
sessions by the Commission on the relevant legislation . Canada expressed its commitment to provid e 
comments on the remaining implementing legislation affecting third countries.  
3.55.  Japan  requested the European  Union to  explain the  necessity and the scientific rationale of 
the measures . Acknowledg ing the adoption of the  draft legislation on the criteria for designation of 
antimicrobials for human use , Japan urged the European  Union to announce the implementing 
regulations  concerning imported products; to notify the list of antimicrobials exclusive for human 
use; to provide sufficient time for Members to submit comments and take into account these 
comments; and to set a sufficient transitional period.  
3.56.  Reiterating its low rates of AMR, Australia  recalled  the ongoing  implementation of its national 
AMR strategy  and expressed support for the international efforts to set standards for AMR. 
Australia  requested the European  Union to consider the different conditions,  the availability of 
antimicrobials and the disease prevalence in third countries before releasing a risk - and 
science-based  list of antimicrobials reserved for the treatment of human infections, and to recognize 
third countries' AMR management programmes. Australia asked for  an extension of the 
implementation deadline , as well as for information on the expected release  date for consultation, 
on how it would implement the measures and  on the  transition  periods offered . 
3.57.  Uruguay  referred to its intervention in the July Committee meeting and expressed its concern 
caused by  the uncertainty regarding the approach and implementation of the EU  regulation on 
veterinary medicinal products. In light of the recent adoption  of Commission Delegated Regulation 
(EU) No 2021/176 establishing the criteria for the designation of antimicrobials  to be reserved for 
the treatment of certain infections in humans, notified in G/SPS/N/EU/478/Add.1 , Uruguay 
questioned whether the implementation deadline, initially scheduled for January 2022, would be 
maintained. Uruguay noted that the conditions, AMR regulatory framew ork and disease prevalence 
in third countries should be considered when establishing sanitary measures, and stressed the need 
to allow sufficient time for third countries to review the proposed regulation and to provide adequate 
transitional periods for im plementation.  
3.58.  Argentina  expressed appreciation for the dialogue with the European  Union  on this subject 
and reiterated its concerns regarding the list of antimicrobials reserved for human use and the 
implementation of article 118 of Regulation (EU) No 2019/6, which require d third countries to 
demonstrate the non -use of those antimicrobials. Argentina  considered it necessary to have early 
access to the evaluations used to create the list and information on transition periods. G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Argentina  reiterated the importa nce of  basing  regulations on science to avoid unnecessary barriers 
to trade.  
3.59.  The European  Union  reiterated that Regulation (EU) No 2019/6 would strengthen EU action 
to fight AMR , following  the European One Health Action Plan against AMR . Implementing measu res 
were under preparation for the implementation of t he new regulation  as of 28  January  2022, which 
would  impose stricter rules on EU operators than on those in non -EU countries . The European  Union  
provided a detailed state -of-play regarding the preparation of the draft legal acts, and committed to 
keep Members informed of any future developments to avoid trade disruptions. The European  Union  
underscored the importance of international collaboration  and expressed its continued engagement 
with trading partners and other WTO Members in the fight against AMR to promote and support 
effective strategies to prevent and contain the global threat of AMR.  
3.2.6   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural 
products (ID 487) - Concerns of Australia , Canada , the  Russian  Federation  and the  
United  States  
3.60.  Australia  requested an update on steps that China was taking to obtain additional information 
and review the emergency COVID -19 measure s notified in G/SPS/N/CH N/1173  and outlined in GACC 
Announcement No. 103 of 2020. Australia enquired  how China would take account of the revised 
WHO/ FAO guidance,  which considered unlikely the transmission via food or food packaging of viruses 
that cause respiratory illnesses , including SARS -CoV-2. In Australia's view, China's current 
suspensions were contrary to FAO and other international guidance . Australia also requested that 
China notify its additional measures to prevent COVID -19, including widespread testing and 
disinfection of import ed products and packaging.  Australia called on China to provide details of its 
consideration process of the information  provided in support of lifting the suspensions of Australian 
export establishments, and to share an indicative tim eframe for lifting these suspensions.  
3.61.  Canada  emphasized  the importance of basing COVID -19 related measures on sound scientific 
principles and risk assessments , and drew  the Committee's  attention to the recently updated 
WHO/FAO guidance on COVID -19 and Food  Safety. Canada questioned  the scientific basis for China's  
measures relating to COVID -19 as notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/1173 . Canada urged China to remove 
these measures, since the scientific evidence was insufficient to support their adoption or their 
maintenance. Canada expressed concerns as well on the  lack of clarity , transparency and 
predictability of these measures taken, in particular, for the reinstatement of suspended 
establ ishments.  Canada  reques ted their reinstatement without undue delays and called on China to 
maintain the ongoing technical dialogue to resolve the concerns at issue.  
3.62.  Reiterating its concern on China's measures, t he United  States  explained that China had not 
provided science -based  justification or test results in support of maintaining  the provisional 
measures notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/1173 . The Unit ed States  referred to the updated WHO/FAO  
guidance , and  encouraged China to withdraw its measures and to support the guidance of 
international organizations by building the body of scientific evidence on COVID -19. 
The United  States  also encouraged China to  share the process to reinstate establishments as eligible 
for export to China and to resume the exports from  two poultry production facilities suspended on 
the basis of  COVID -19 related concerns. The United  States  submitted its statement in document  
G/SPS/GEN/1982 . 
3.63.  The Russian  Feder ation expressed its concern regarding China's emergency measures on 
imported frozen foods to prevent the risk of introduction of COVID -19, which, in its view, were not 
transparent. The se restrictions  had mainly affected Russian  fish exports , on the basis of several 
cases of COVID -19 detected on product packaging. Regretting the lack of scientific justification 
provided by China confirming the risk of cross -border spread of COVID -19, the Russian  Federation  
urged China to withdraw its COVID -19 measures and expressed its willingness to cooperate 
bilaterally  to ensure food safety and resume previous trade volumes.  
3.64.  Stressing the  need to base SPS measures on scientific principles  and the importance of 
international cooperation,  Japan  requested China  to clarify the risk assessments and scientific 
evidence that supported its measures.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 19 - 
 
  3.65.  India informed the Committee that GACC  had indefinitely suspended  exports from  over 50 fish 
and fishery product establishments on the basis of presence of COVID -19 nuclei c acid on the 
packaging of frozen products. China had not shared the relevant test reports , hindering detailed 
investigations  in India. Following the WHO/FAO guidance, Indian exporters had implemented 
stringent preventive controls . India requested China to  share the relevant reports that had  led to 
the export restrictions.  
3.66.  The United Kingdom  also referred to the WHO/FAO guidance, and further specified  that the 
detection of virus or viral ribonucleic acid remnants on foods and food packaging did not confirm the 
transmission of  SARS -CoV-2 to people touching the  contaminated products. Citing  Article  2.2 of the 
SPS Agreement , the United Kingdom asked wheth er China would review its import measures in light 
of the updated international guidance , and requested China to share any relevant scientific evidence 
available . 
3.67.  Norway  highlighted concerns regarding the lack of scientific justification for China's 
SPS measures and the lack of transparency and written information regarding positive nucleic acid 
test results on imported consignments , which had led  to uncertainty for exporters of seafood and 
other food products. Referring to the updated WHO/ FAO guidance, Nor way requested China to 
withdraw its emergency measures unless it could  share the evidence suggesting that cold -chain 
foods w ere a likely transmission route for coronavirus to humans . Norway expressed its willingness 
to work further with China on this issue . 
3.68.  Referring to WHO/FAO guidance, t he European  Union  considered that  Chinese policies for 
agri-food products were not proportionate  and caused uncertainty, delays and increased costs. 
The European  Union invited China to share its risk assessment, scientific evidence and data which 
justified its measures and to review them in light of the recent international guidance . 
The European  Union  stated  that unnecessary verification measures were harmful to food security, 
food prices and global trade and may undermine public trust.  
3.69.  Switzerland  expressed its  concern regarding the additional requirements on imported food 
products linked to COVID -19 established by China without having shared  the risk assessment or the 
scientific justification . Switzerland highlighted the importance of transparency and noted that 
Members should respect the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
3.70.  China  responded that i t had conducted a comprehensive analysis of surveillance data on food 
products and their packaging , which concluded  that cold -chain foods and their packaging could 
become carriers of the virus if in  contact with infected people. China  had notified the  several 
prevention and control measures implemented with a view to ensuring the safety of people  and of 
imported food , which it considered to be effective. China considered its measures to be in line with 
the SPS Agreement. China explained that it applied diff erent measures on cold -chain food products 
according to  different categories of risk, in an effort to minimi ze the impact on the cold -chain food  
trade.  
3.2.7   Concerns with transparency , delays and due process associated with China's import 
requirement s for agric ultural goods ( ID 524) - Concerns of Australia  
3.71.  Australia  stated that China's increased inspections and testing measures at the border had 
constrained trade of several agricultural commodities including rock lobster, wine, wheat, barley, 
oats, canola, logs and table grapes. Australia stressed that the measures had been initiated without 
prior notice , were arbitrary  and did not appear to be based on scientific evidence. China had not 
provided detailed information on detections of non -compliances in Australian products and had not 
engaged with Australia on proposed corrective approaches to ensure compliance. Australia would 
welcome bilateral engagement on these matters , and  asked China to respond to its requests for 
information, to provide details for its inspection and testing measures, and to engage with Australia 
on its proposals.  
3.72.  China  stated it had responded to Australia's concern, and called on Australia to strengthen its 
supervision of export enterprises in accordance with bilateral agreement s to ensure the safety of 
products.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 20 - 
 
  3.73.  Australia  clarified it had provided information outlining its food safety and biosecurity system 
and was awaiting a response from China on investigations following non -compliance reports.  
3.2.8   China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of 
imported food (26  November  2019) (ID 485) - Concerns of Australia , Canada , the  
European  Union , Japan  and the  United  States  
3.74.  Australia  expressed its concern that China's Regulation on Registration and Administrat ion of 
Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Food  (G/TBT/N/CHN/1522 ), promulgated as Decree 248, would 
unnecessarily restrict trade , and complain ed that China's timeframes to respond to the requirements 
were too short . Australia reiterated its request for China to provide the risk analysis, scientific data 
and technical information, and to notify to the Committee the implementation guidance for 
the regulation. Australia believed that the regulation would lead to delays and would increase  
the regulatory and administrative burden . Australia expressed its appreciation to China for providing 
the implementation guidance, but sought clarity on issues related to the relevant HS Codes for 
specific foods, the timeframes and process for the approval of applications received after 
1 Novemb er 2021, the issuance of registration numbers, and the transitional arrangements. 
Understanding that the Regulation would come into effect on 1  January  2022, Australia requested 
China to delay the implementation to allow for a transition period of at least  18 months. 
Australia  welcomed the opportunity for further discussions with China.  
3.75.  Noting the many successful bilateral arrangements between both countrie s, Canada  was 
concerned that China's administrative measures were overly burdensome; did not appear to  be 
based on risk assessment; would create confusion for competent authorities and industry due to the 
lack of details and transparency regarding its implementation; went beyond the extent necessary to 
protect against food safety risks; and would create se rious barriers to trade, including significant 
financial impacts. Canada urged China to delay for 18 months the implementation of Decrees  248 
and 249, in order to provide further information and clarifications  on these measures to Members in 
a timely manne r and give sufficient time for trading partners to comply . 
3.76.  The United  States  reiterated its concern regarding China's Decrees 248 and 249 (notified in 
G/TBT/ N/CHN/1522  and G/SPS/N/CHN/1191 ). The Unit ed States  considered that the additional 
certification, audit and inspection procedures would create major trade disruptions. 
The United  States  remained concerned regarding China's lack of response to previous requests for 
scientific justification  and clar ification on how to implement these measures . The United  States  
requested China to postpone for at least 18 months the proposed implementation date of 
1 January  2022, and to engage with foreign food manufacturers and government regulators. The 
United  State s submitted its statement in document  G/SPS/GEN/1983 . 
3.77.  Japan  remained disappointed with the lack of detailed information provided by China ; 
specifically regarding the ambiguity of the regulation's scope for food items and the new labelling 
requirements. Japan suggested clarifying the scope of the regulation by includ ing information on the 
corresponding HS Codes. Concerned that China's regulation would create unnecessary barriers to 
trade, Japan requested China to take into consideration the comments from WTO Members, to 
reconsider the implementation date of the measures, and to provide a sufficient transition period of 
18 months to avoid negative impacts on trade.  
3.78.  The European  Union  expres sed its concern regarding the implementation of Decree 248 by 
GACC . Taking into account the high volumes of products and beverages traded between China and 
the European  Union , and in order to minimize disruptions to economic relationships, the 
European  Union urged China to postpone the implementation of the Decree until guidelines, template 
forms and functioning websites were available; to indicate the HS Codes of product categories that 
must be registered under the 'registration with recommendation' proced ure; to provide transition 
periods of at least 18 months for the self -registration of businesses; to provide adequate transition 
periods for implementing provisions related to labelling; and to organize information sessions on the 
new registration requirem ents. 
3.79.  The Philippines  shared the concern and indicated that the registration requirements and 
duplicative processes would add cost s to trade and regulatory burden to competent authorities, and 
cause undue trade disruptions. The Philippines called on China to reconsider the measures, to 
provide a longer transition period, and to extend to the end of the year the deadline for submission G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 21 - 
 
  of information on competent authorities and food enterprises exporting products covered by 
Decree  248. The Philippines expressed its willingness to continue to engage with China.  
3.80.  Sharing the concern, Norway  considered the measures to be more trade -restrictive than 
necessary  and inconsistent with China's WTO obligations, and  noted  that they would impose an 
increased burden on the industry and foreign competent authorities. Norway requested China to 
provide additional information and to postpone the implementation date by at least 18 months, so 
that exporting countries would have sufficient time to prepare for the new regulat ions. 
3.81.  The United Kingdom  argued that application of China's measures to all food products 
regardless of the risk would negatively impact food trade and create unnecessary barriers. 
The United Kingdom requested China to postpone the implementation of the me asures, and to 
provide further clarity on the risk assessments and scientific evidence , as well as the scope and 
application of the measures.  
3.82.  Chinese  Taipei  sought additional information from China regarding the implementation of the 
measure notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/1191 , such as the scope of products and facilities covered; the 
registration requirements and guidelines; the procedures and timelines for audits, re -evaluation and 
renewal of registration ; and the establishment of the risk categories for products . Chinese  Taipei  
urged China to explain the justification for the measures, and to provide  sufficient transition periods 
and detail ed guidance on implementation.  
3.83.  Highlighting the provisions of Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement , Korea  considered 
China's  measures  to be more trade-restrictive than necessary , and requested China to provide the 
scientific evidence underpinning the requirements. Korea noted  that China had not provided detailed 
guidelines for complying with the request to provide a  list of manufacturers subject to  government 
registration. Korea urged China to provide a sufficient transition period prior to implementation. 
Korea also called on China to provide  detailed guidelines for export items requiring registration 
through competent authorities of exporting coun tries, as well as  the items subject to registration by 
private businesses.  
3.84.  Switzerland  regretted that the measure included all food categories irrespective of their risk 
profile and seemed to be more trade -restrictive than necessary. Switzerland requested  further 
clarification regarding product categories (by HS Codes), labelling, and the types of operations that 
would need to be registered. Switzerland urged China to brief Members on the detailed guidelines, 
implementing rules and template forms , and  to extend the implementation and transition periods 
for at least 18 months.  
3.85.  China  indicated that the revised version of the Administrative Measures for Registration of 
Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Foods had been notified to the WTO as Decree 248, taking into 
consideration Members' comments and recommendations, and provided  a trans ition period before 
implementation. China clarified that this Decree would not affect the implementation of relevant 
agreements previously signed  with China . China's GACC  had informed  the relevant Members about 
the application for registration of overseas food production enterprises of different categories and 
the requirements of the materials to be submitted. Interpretation and implementation guidance of 
Decree 248 would be issued promptly.  
3.2.9   China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatem ent of export 
establishments (ID 516) - Concerns of Australia  and Canada  
3.86.  Australia  remained concerned with the long delays and lack of transparency in 
China's  approval and administrative update process  for agricultural and seafood establishments and 
produc ts. Noting a lack of improvement since first raising the concern, Australia waited for  China to 
approve  establishment registrations and to update  administrative listing changes. 
Australia  requested China to fulfil its obligation under Article  2.3 and Annex  C of the SPS  Agreement , 
and to provide details regarding the  assessment and approval of products and establishments, 
updating administrative lists and lifting restrictions on suspended establishments.  
3.87.  Canada  continued to experience undue delays in China's approval procedures for the import 
of food products and of foreign establishments , and was waiting  for China to provide updated 
information over 10 lists of approved Canadian products and facilities eligible  to export. These delays G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 22 - 
 
  and the lack of transparency and of a rationale of approval procedures for foreign establishments 
had resulted in unjustified barriers to trade, administrative burdens, and trade disruptions. 
Recalling  the obligations in Annex C of  the SPS  Agreement , Canada urged China to update and 
publish the lists of Canadian products and establishments awaiting registration; to provide timelines 
for acceptance; to transmit the result of the approval procedures; to provide the reason why 
Canadian  products and establishments had not been approved; to explain any delays; to limit 
information requirements to what was necessary; and to ensure transparent and predictable 
approval procedures.  
3.88.  The United Kingdom  noted that its trade continued to be affec ted by undue delays and lack 
of transparency in China's approval procedures  for products and establishments . 
The United  Kingdom had not received a response to two approval applications submitted in June 
2020, nor to  a request to relist UK fish establishmen ts submitted in August 2021. 
The United  Kingdom asked China to ensure the application of SPS measures in a non -discriminatory 
and predictable manner.  
3.89.  The European  Union  supported the concern and called for transparent, predictable and swift 
approval proced ures and for the listing or re -listing of establishments in line with agreed international 
standards.  
3.90.  Highlighting its strict implementation of the products' access and enterprise registration, 
China  noted the recurring incidents in recent years involving Australian and Canadian products, 
including detection of the COVID -19 virus on Canadian aquatic produc ts and chloramphenicol 
residues in imported Australian beef products. China urged Canada and Australia to strengthen the 
supervision of their export establishments. China had undertaken  risk assessments of the 
agricultural and food product quarantine acces s applications to prevent the introduction of pests and 
pandemics and to ensure the facilitation and sustainability of trade under controllable risks.  
3.91.  Australia  responded to China by underscoring the high standards of its food system and the 
quality of its  agricultural products. Australia regretted that China had not honoured their bilateral 
commitments, the lack of progress  on market access requests, and the unresponsiveness  to the 
requests for engagement. Australia highlighted that it had responded to all  requests for information 
from China and had undertaken corrective actions in a timely and transparent manner. Noting that 
other trading partners had also raised concerns on delays and lack of transparency, 
Australia  believed that China's actions were inco nsistent with WTO obligations.  
3.92.  In response to China, Canada  emphasized the adherence of all Canadian federally licensed 
establishments to internationally accepted standards and food safety requirements. In case of  any 
potential food safety risks, appropria te actions were taken immediately by Canada to prevent 
contaminat ed foods from entering the domestic and international food supply . Despite the fulfilment 
of all the requests, including audits on Canadian establishments , China had not responded to approve 
and publish the eligibility for exporting establishments . 
3.2.10   Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for  plants of Peruvian 
fishery and livestock enterprises (ID 509) - Concerns of Peru  
3.93.  Peru expressed its concern regarding Panama's undue delays in renewing  authorizations for 
fishery and livestock enterprises. Peru considered Panama's actions to be inconsistent with 
Articles  2.2, 5.1 and 8, and Annex C  of the SPS  Agreement , as no response had b een provided by 
Panama concerning the pending request s for authorization. Peru emphasized that Panama had failed 
to communicate the anticipated  processing period, and that the timeframe that would be granted  to 
Peruvian enterprises in case of renewal of au thorizations was uncertain. Peru requested Panama to 
renew the authorizations for Peruvian export plants, to provide new authorizations and to avoid 
undue delays. Peru  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1974 . 
3.94.  Costa Rica  supported this concern regarding Panama's trade -restrictive practices. 
Costa  Rica called upon Panama to address Members' concerns, which were indicative of an 
inadequate application of SPS measures and a non -observance of the obligations in the 
SPS Agreement . G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 23 - 
 
  3.95.  Panama  indicated it would report the information provided to capital  and that the STCs were 
being addressed bilaterally . Panama hoped to move forward in the search for solutions in this matter.  
3.96.  Disappointed by Panama's response, Peru urged Panama to provide answers to its 
communications a nd to hold a meeting as soon as possible.  
3.2.11   Panama's authorization of Federal Inspection Type establishments (ID 515) - 
Concerns of Mexico  
3.97.  Mexico  reported the resolution of this  STC after receiving information from Panama regarding 
the authorization of Federal Inspection Type establishments for meat export s. Mexico thanked 
Panama for its efforts and reiterated its willingness to maintain an open communication betwe en 
authorities.  
3.98.  Panama  confirmed  the temporary authorization of a list of Federal Inspection 
Type establishments for exports of bovine products and by -products. Panama reiterated its 
willingness to continue to work constructively with Mexico and its trad ing partners.  
3.2.12   Saudi  Arabia 's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting 
establishments (ID 486) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.99.  Brazil  drew Members' attention to the tariff and non -tariff measures imposed by Saudi  Arabia  
restricting market access of poultry without scientific evidence. Brazil considered Saudi  Arabia 's 
policies to be at odds with the SPS  Agreement . In 2020, Brazil had become  aware , through Letter 
No. 19672/E , that the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) had temporarily suspended imports of 
products manufactured in two establishments without providing technical reasons. Brazil noted 
Saudi  Arabia's reference to media reports on an investigation conducted in Brazil regarding an 
alleged fraud scheme in the production of animal feed , and clarified that neither of the plants affected 
by the suspension of imports had been involved in the investigat ion. Referring to its statement in 
previous meetings, Brazil recalled that another 11 plants had been suspended, without the possibility 
to provide technical clarifications. Brazil considered the restrictions to violate Articles 2, 5 and 8 and 
Annex C of t he SPS  Agreement , and urged Saudi  Arabia  to reconsider its restrictive measures as 
soon as possible.  
3.100.   Referring to its statements in previous meetings, Saudi  Arabia  stressed that the measures 
imposed on Brazilian establishments were intended to ensure food safety and the protection of 
human health and compliant with the provisions of the SPS  Agreement . Brazil and Saudi  Arabia  had 
agreed to exchange information regarding the reasoning behind the temporary measures during a 
high-level official meeting in Augus t. Saudi  Arabia  noted that measures were subject to review in 
light of any new information, and reaffirmed its commitment to transparency by notifying any new 
proposed changes to its SPS measures.  
3.2.13   General import restrictions due to BSE (ID 193) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.101.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns regarding unjustified and long delays in certain 
Member's approv al of beef  imports from the European  Union  in light of BSE. In its view,  the delays 
in the approval procedures of some Members, in particular Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, 
Jordan, South Korea, Malaysia, South Africa , Chinese  Taipei  and the United  States , were inconsistent 
with Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . The European  Union  urged all Members to comply 
with their obligations under the Agreement ; to apply international standards ; to lift remaining 
BSE-related restrictions for all EU member States ; and to finalize the remaining pending approval 
procedu res without further delay. The European  Union  remained open to continue to work 
constructively with all trading partners.  
3.102.    Switzerland  supported the concern, highlighting that it was recognized by the OIE as having 
negligible BSE risk. Two cases of BSE in 2012 and 2020 had been reported in a transparent manner 
to the OIE. Switzerland urged trading partners  to lift remaining import restrictions due to BSE, and 
to allow imports of beef products from Switzerland.  
3.103.   Referring to statements in previous meetings, China highlight ed that great caution was taken 
when importing cattle and related products from countries where BSE was reported, to ensure public G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 24 - 
 
  health and the safety of the industry. China noted it had carried out technical exchanges with the 
European  Union  to solve rele vant technical issues. Based on the premise that BSE risk could be 
controlled, EU member States could apply for export licenses through bilateral channels. 
China  assured it would carry out risk assessments and improve the relevant measures according to 
the assessment results.  
3.2.14   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID 392) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.104.   The European  Union  expressed concerns regarding China's  ASF-related country -wide import 
bans on pork products from EU member States , including from those that had successfully eradicated 
the disease in livestock and wildlife and regained a disease -free status in accordance with OIE rules. 
The European  Union  explained that since 2015, China had expanded rather than lifted the unjustified 
trade bans , despite having the same sanitary profile as the European  Union . The European  Union  
requested clarification on the difference in the risk profile between imported and 
domestically -produced pork products. The European  Union  called upon China to respe ct its 
obligations under the SPS  Agreement  and OIE standards, to allow trade from disease -free areas, 
and to engage in meaningful, solution -oriented exchanges.  
3.105.    China  noted the success of the strict measures adopted to prevent and control ASF since 
the dis ease was introduced in 2018 . According to OIE data, ASF had been reported in Poland, Latvia, 
Romania, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, and other countries in 2021 . Noting the ongoing trade with 
some EU member States and the regional technical exchanges on ASF with France and Germany, 
China encouraged bilateral applications from EU member  States  for export licenses on the premise 
that the risk could  be controlled. China expr essed its willingness to carry out technical exchanges 
and to cooperate  with the European  Union . 
3.2.15   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID 393) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.106.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding Korea's AS F-related ban on pork and 
pork products from several E U member States since 2014, which did not take into account 
EU regionalization measures. The European  Union considered the measure to be more 
trade-restrictive than necessary. In addition, the European  Union indicated that Korea had continued 
to receive detailed information on all outbreaks in full transparency and had received all necessary 
evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of the EU regionalization measures. The European  Union  
regretted that Kor ea had not recognized the regionali zation policy despite the detailed evidence 
provided. The European  Union  welcomed recent bilateral exchanges and encouraged continued 
constructive engagement with a view to finding a solution on this important matter.  
3.107.   Korea pointed out that the import ban on pork products from the ASF -affected countries was 
in accordance with the import health requirements agreed by the two parties. Consultations for the 
evaluation of the regionalization of ASF for EU member States were on going, and imports of pork 
meat from Belgium had resumed following the recent recovery of the country's ASF -free status. 
Korea reported  that it had changed its internal regionalization recognition process to facilitate 
harmonization with international standards , and expressed its willingness to continue dialogue with 
the European  Union  to resolve the matter.  
3.2.16   Mexico's import restrictions on pork (ID 489) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.108.   Brazil  reiterated concerns regarding Mexico's restrictions on pork imports from 
Santa  Catarina. According to Brazil, Santa Catarina had been  recognized by the OIE as free from 
FMD without vaccination for the past 13 years , and FMD had last occurred  28 years ago.  
Underscoring  the effectiveness of  its National Program on Swine  Health, Brazil considered that 
exports of pig meat to Mexico presented no risk since they came from a zone free from classic swine 
fever and FMD, as recognized by the OIE, and because pork im ports would be thermo processed in 
Mexico before reaching households. Brazil was waiting for a response from Mexico on a proposed 
model international sanitary certificat e for pig meat for industrial processing.  Brazil argued  that 
Mexico's restrictions were  inconsist ent with the principles of non -discrimination, harmonization and 
regionalization, and with Decision G/SPS/48 . G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 25 - 
 
  3.109.   Mexico  responded that its measures systematically recognized the principles of the 
SPS Agreement and remained concerned with the guarantees offered by the Brazilian authorities to 
demonstrate export safety with respect to  regionalization. Mexico considered the t wo Brazilian 
normative instruments for the mobilization of animals to be conflicting, and noted that, in addition 
to the review of the technical information provided on the control of FMD in the state of 
Santa  Catarina, a legal analysis of these normative instruments was ongoing in accordance with the 
SPS Agreement and the relevant international standards. Mexico highlighted differences in risk 
assessment calculations and invited Brazil to recalculate the data provided. Mexico  indicated its 
willingness to c ontinue working with Brazilian  authorities and encouraged a continued technical 
dialogue to deal with this concern. In response to Brazil's queries, Mexico noted that it took  into 
account  the sanitary status in accordance with OIE recommendations, while also applying  the 
national legislation. Mexico noted that it continued to import from countries with which it had 
established import protocols and agreed to specific risk mitigation measures.  
3.110.   Brazil  appreciated the information provided by  Mexico on the consideration of OIE 
recognition, and referred to G/SPS/GEN/1932  outlining  states and zones recognized by the OIE  as 
FMD-free without vaccination . Regarding epidemiological calculations, Brazil argued that Mexico's 
approach was neither supported  by the OIE Terrestrial Code nor by the avai lable and relevant 
scientific evidence on the issue , and urged Mexico to revise its methods accordingly.  
3.2.17   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID 406)  - 
Concerns of the  European  Union  
3.111.   The European  Union  raised its concern regarding China's imposition, since 2015, of 
country -wide bans on several EU member States on account of highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(HPAI). The European  Union  had repeatedly requested China to lift country -wide import suspensions  
in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code and to recogni ze the principle of regionali zation. 
The European  Union  regretted the lack of  progress towards the resolution of this long standing  issue.  
3.112.   China  highlighted that HPAI was a serious infectious diseas e affecting the poultry industry 
which  continued to occur in some EU member States , affecting both wild and domestic poultry. 
China  had suspended imports of live poultry from the European  Union to protect the safety of its 
poultry industry. China welcomed extensive technical exchanges  with the European  Union  and its 
member States through bilateral and multilateral channels , and expressed its willingness to maintain 
discussions and resolve this issue.  
3.2.18   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (ID 431) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.113.   The European  Union  regretted that South Africa maintained country -wide bans on poultry 
products from six EU member States follo wing HPAI outbreaks , and had not lift ed the trade 
restrictions in line with OIE recommendations. The  European  Union considered the measure to be at 
odds with Article  6 of the SPS  Agreement. South Africa had carried out inspections in certain 
EU member Stat es, and was familiar with EU veterinary services  and the EU policy  and 
regionalization system. The Europ ean Union called for South Africa to respect its obligations.  
3.114.   Noting the mutual commitment to continue engagement, South Africa  encouraged the use 
of the principle of compartmentalization to avoid disruptions to trade. In South Africa's view, 
EU control measures were not in conformity with chapters 4.4 and 4.5 of the OIE Terrestrial Code. 
The process followed by South Africa for approval of trading partne rs in order  to ensure an 
appropriate level of health protection for its poultry population  had been extensively discussed with 
the European  Union . South Africa remained committed to further constructive bilateral engagement.  
3.2.19   Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(ID 456) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.115.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding Korea's country -wide bans on poultry 
imports from certain EU member States due to HPAI. The European  Union had provided information 
on the sanitary control systems in place to demonstrate that avian influenza  was reliably controlled, 
and that disease -free areas were likely to remain free. A recent update of the OIE Code on HPAI had 
reduced the waiting period to regain freedom from three months to 28 days . The European  Union G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 26 - 
 
  urged Korea to lift the country -wide bans and reco gnize its harmonized regionalization measures. 
The European  Union welcomed the recent exchanges with Korea and expressed its willingness to 
find a solution.  
3.116.   Korea  indicated that it had imposed import bans on HPAI -affected countries according to the 
import health requirements mutually agreed upon by the two sides, and that ban s on poultry meat 
imports from EU member States had been lifted upon recovery of the HPAI free -status . Noting the 
bilateral dialogue on ASF/HPAI regionalization procedures, Korea inform ed the Committee that it 
had notified the European  Union  of its decision to proceed  with the ASF regionalization process for 
EU member States eligible for poultry export. Korea expressed its willingness to resolve the issue 
through technical consultations.  
3.2.20   Chinese  Taipei 's import restrictions on poultry and beef ( ID 521) - Concerns of 
Brazil  
3.117.   Brazil  considered restrictions on poultry and beef imports to  Chinese  Taipei  to be at  odds 
with Article 5 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . Brazil lamented  of undue delays in the risk analysis 
process for poultry, despite having provided the necessary information. In its view, beef exports 
were also facing undue delays and market access restrictions, without scientific justification. 
Brazil  urged Chinese  Taipei to be more transparent and predictable in its approval procedures and 
indicated its openness to providing any information scientifically necessary to accelerate the risk 
analysis process.  
3.118.   Chinese  Taipei  explained  that, regarding  poultry meat products , exporting countries  had to  
be recognized as free from HPAI and Newcastle disease (ND), and approved by a systematic 
inspection process. Brazil was recognized as HPAI -free, but not as ND-free, based on the results of 
a risk assessment. Chinese  Taipei  invited  Brazil to conduct active surveillance and apply other 
measures in accordance with OIE guidelines , and to submit supplementary information for review, 
before resuming  its application for recognition of ND freedom. Chinese  Taipei  would notify Brazil of 
the results of the review  of the responses provided to the questionnaire o f food safety on poultry. 
Regarding beef, Brazil was listed as a country where BSE occurr ed by the OIE. Chinese  Taipei  
acknowledged reception of  two questionnaires : a first questionnaire  on BSE control , following which 
additional information, epidemiological investigation reports  and an animal health questionnaire had 
been requested;  and a second questionnaire on food safety , which  would be reviewed in the order 
of applicatio ns. 
3.2.21   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID 466) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  and the  Russian  Federation  
3.119.   The Russian  Federation  expressed concerns  regarding the Philippines' restrictions on imports 
of Russian beef and pork. Exports of pork and beef to the Philippines would only be allowed after 
receiving recognition from the OIE for FMD-, ASF - and lumpy skin disease -free status, as well as 
low-risk status for BSE-. The Russian  Federation  had submitted information on the domest ic 
epizootic situation to the Philippines for the diseases at issue, and had not yet received a response. 
Noting the proposals made to hold bilateral meetings between competent authorities, the 
Russian  Federation  urged the Philippines to comply with obliga tions under Articles 6 and 8, and 
Annex C of the SPS  Agreement, and to provid e responses to its requests . 
3.120.   The European  Union  reiterated that the Philippines did not adhere to OIE international 
standards and maintained country -wide bans on imports of meat a nd meat products from 
EU member States on grounds of ASF or HPAI.  The European  Union  recalled that nine EU member 
States  were subject to country -wide import bans imposed by the Philippines on pork  meat or poultry 
meat and relevant products , and considered that these measures were inconsistent with Article s 2.2 
and 6 of the SPS  Agreement. The European  Union indicated that it  had provided the necessary 
evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of disease control measures, and called on the Phil ippines 
to respect its international obligations and to allow trade from disease -free areas . 
3.121.   The Philippines  maintained a temporary suspension of imports from seven EU member States 
and selected areas in two EU member States due to HPAI, and had lifted the  suspension for four 
EU member States , based on its assessment of available technical information on disease situations 
and the effectiveness of controls implemented. Regarding ASF, the Philippines considered that the G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 27 - 
 
  technical information available was no t sufficient to ease ASF import restrictions.  The Philippines 
indicated that measures were regularly reviewed and updated in light of the available scientific 
information . In response to the Russian  Federation , the Philippines indicated that it maintained 
import suspensions on poultry meat due to HPAI, and noted that the Russian  Federation  remained 
not accredited to export pork and beef due to its ASF, lumpy  skin disease, and FMD status.  
3.2.22   South Africa's import restrictions on bovine meat, pet food and other by-products 
of animal origin ( ID 522) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.122.   Brazil  raised concerns with South Africa's import restrictions on several products , and 
regretted the lack of response to several requests . Regarding bovine meat with bone and offal, 
Brazil  had requested South Africa to lift the restrictions and had provided the information requested 
to perform a risk assessment on FMD. Regarding by -products of animal origin, Brazil was still waiting 
for a response to the model international sanitary certific ates that it had proposed in 2017 and 2019, 
respectively . Regarding pet food, South Africa had requested changes to the proposed model 
sanitary certificate. In Brazil's view, South Africa's restrictions were at odds with Articles 2, 5, 8 and 
Annex C of the  SPS Agreement . 
3.123.   South Africa  responded that it currently allowed imports of deboned anatomically 
recogni zable beef cuts from Brazil, excluding some products  due to outstanding information on 
Brazil 's FMD control and surveillance. Some information submitted  by Brazil was considered 
incomplete and other was still under evaluation. South Africa was also awaiting a response on a 
proposed health certificate for pet food recently communicated to Brazil. Engagement between both 
countries was ongoing on bovine and porcine processed protein.  
3.2.23   Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other 
ruminants (ID 493) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.124.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns about the unjustified and long delay in the 
publication of the US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other ruminants. 
The European  Union noted that this would only be the starting point for EU member States and o ther 
WTO Members to start the relevant approval procedure for exports of small ruminant meat. 
Considering that necessary technical and administrative work had been completed in 2017, 
the European  Union  considered the accumulated delays to constitute a viol ation of Article  8 and 
Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . The European  Union  urged the United  States  to comply with its 
obligations under the SPS  Agreement , to apply international standards, to lift remaining TSE -related 
restrictions for all EU member States, n ot to further delay the publication of the final rule  and to 
provide precise indications on the necessary remaining steps prior to the publication of the final rule. 
The European  Union  indicated it openness to continue working constructively with the Unite d States . 
3.125.   The United  States  indicated that it continued to work through its administrative procedure s 
regarding the status of the final rule t o change BSE -related restrictions for non -bovine ruminant 
species and most sheep and goat products. Noting their bilateral engagement, the United  States  
looked forward to continuing cooperation with the European  Union. While a timeline for publication 
of the final rule could not be provided, the United  States  encouraged EU member States interested 
in exporting sheep and goat meat products to the United  States  to submit an equivalence request 
to the  US Depart ment of Agriculture  Food Safety and Inspection Service ( USDA FSIS) . 
3.2.24   Guatemala's restrictions on egg prod ucts (ID 413) - Concerns of Mexico  
3.126.   Mexico  reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by Guatemala on 
thermally processed egg products , which could be a violation of fundamental principles of the 
SPS Agreement  and of the FTA between Me xico and Central America . While all the necessary 
technical information demonstrating the  safety of  the product s had been submitted , the delay in the 
responses had hindered the progress of negotiations. Mexico had been informed by Guatemala that 
the questionnaire submitted for the evaluation of the veterinary services was not compliant. 
Mexico  requested Guatemala to consider its questionnaire as complia nt, to prioritize the resolution 
of this concern  and continue bilateral discussions, and to allow imports of the products in question. 
Mexico looked forward to resolving this trade concern as soon as possible, through technical dialogue 
between both countr ies. G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 28 - 
 
  3.127.   Guatemala  informed  the Committee  that this issue had been  addressed in a bilateral meeting 
between the relevant authorities of both countries. Guatemala indicated that it was awaiting a 
response on one of the official  communication s on the legal and t echnical follow -up on the matter . 
3.2.25   The Russian  Federation 's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia and Latvia (ID 390) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.128.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns regarding import bans on fishery products from 
Estonia, and considered  that these measures were inconsistent with the SPS  Agreement. Estonia  had 
held several bilateral discussions with the Russian  Federation  and had conducted follow -up actions 
towards the lifting of trade restrictions , without satisfactory progress. The European  Union hoped 
that all Estonian fishery establishments compliant with the requirements of the Russian  Federation  
would regain access to the Russian market in t he near future , and called on the Russian  Federation  
to repeal its measures. The European  Union  indicated the availability to continue cooperation with 
the Russian  Federation  to resolving the matter.  
3.129.    The Russian  Federation  recalled that the temporary rest rictions imposed on imports of fish 
products from Latvia and Estonia were due to violations in the fish product safety control system, 
as detected  by inspections in 2015 and 2016. Follow -up inspections carried out in Latvia and Estonia 
in 2016 and 2019 , respectively , led to the lifting of  certain restrictions. No additional requests to lift 
the restrictions nor letters with information confirming the elimination of violations in the food safety 
control system had been received.  
3.2.26   India's new requirements for animal feed in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 
2006 (dated 27  January  2020) (ID 479) - Concerns of the United  States  
3.130.   The United  States  reiterated its concern regarding India's directive on animal feed, which 
omitted certain commonly used feed ingredients. The United  States requested India to postpone  the 
implementation of the measure until a specific written process was available and not ified, and 
comments by Members on the proposed measure had been  taken into consideration. 
The United  States  submitted its statement in document  G/SPS/GEN/1984 . 
3.131.   India responded that Indian Standard 2052 -2009 listed the ingredients for use in 
compounded cattle feed, and proposal s for inclusion of more ingredients in the list could  be 
submitted for the consideration of the relevant technical committee. India noted that the directive 
in question  had entered into force as of 1  July 2021, following a period of 18 months for compliance. 
Taking into account the difficulties faced in obtaining  Bureau of Indian Standards  (BIS) certification 
and licensing during the COVID -19 pandemic, the deadline for businesses whose applications were 
still being processed  had been extended to 1  January  2022. 
3.2.27   India's approval procedures for animal products (ID 484) - Concerns of the 
Russian  Federation  
3.132.   Acknowledging progress in the cooperation, t he Russian  Federation  reiterated  concerns 
regarding its  inability to supply food products of animal orig in to the Indian market , despite the 
repeated requests and the submission of relevant , scientifically based materials to the competent 
veterinary authorities of India . The Russian  Federation  regretted that India had not shared its view 
regarding regionaliz ation for avian influenza and the access of Russian poultry products to the Indian 
market , and considered that India had incurred in  unreasonab le delay s in the approval of veterinary 
certificates for poultry meat and poultry products (offal) and for fish products. 
The Russian  Federation  urged India to comply with Article  8 and Annex  C of the SPS  Agreement and 
requested India to complete its approval procedur es without undue delay.  
3.133.   India was currently reviewing the responses provided by the Russian  Federation . 
3.2.28   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID 441) - 
Concerns of the European  Union  and the  Russian  Federation  
3.134.   The Russian  Federatio n expressed concerns regarding the  lack of progress in Indonesia's 
approval of export certificates for poultry and cattle meat, milk and dairy products obtained from 
cattle and small cattle, canned food, sausages, table egg s and egg products. The Russian  Federation  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 29 - 
 
  had sent several reminders on the pending approvals and had submitted  questionnaires on poultry 
and beef establishments , but had received no  response to its proposal to conduct veterinary 
inspections. The Russian  Federation  urged Indonesia to com ply with Article  8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement  and to complete its approval procedures without undue delay.  
3.135.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns about the lack of transparency , the limited 
feedback on requests for information  on pending export applications , and the undue delays in 
Indonesia's approval procedures for imports of plant and animal products. Specifically, 
the European  Union expressed concerns with the lack of progress on export applications for beef, 
dairy, poultry, pork, and plant products , and acknowledged the  information provided by Indonesia 
on requirements and procedures related to imports of cereals. The European  Union requested 
Indonesia to be transparent about its approval procedures and to finalize pending market acces s 
applications without undue delay.  
3.136.   Indonesia  recalled the national regulations relevant to the importation of animal and plant 
products,  and provided details on the timeline for the approval procedures for animal products, 
indicating that approval of esta blishment units  could take up to three  years. Indonesia noted its 
responsive ness in report ing on the application s of each EU member State, in accordance with 
Articles  7 and 8 of the SPS  Agreement . Indonesia explained  that some applications were pending 
due to outstanding documents or audit fee payments. Regarding plant products, Indonesia provided 
updates on recognitions and approvals granted to some EU member States. Indonesia  concluded 
that most of the applications h ad been processed and invited  EU member  States  to report on the 
progress to the EU representative in Geneva.  
3.2.29   Proposed new EU rules on composite products (ID 504) - Concerns of Australia , 
the Russian  Federation  and Chinese  Taipei  
3.137.   Australia  was still concern ed about the new EU rules for shelf -stable composite products 
under Regulations (EU) No 2019/625 and (EU)  No 2020/2235. For Australia, these new rules were 
not commensurate with risk and had already restricted trade in shelf -stable composite products. 
The requirement that animal origin ingredients be sourced from EU -listed establishments for all 
composite products was unjustified. Australia considered that the private attestation requirement, 
which added transaction costs and brought no food safety benefits , could be eliminated without any 
impact on food safety. Referring to Articles 4 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement , Australia requested the 
European  Union  to recognize equivalence of third countries and t o establish measures 
commensurate with the level of risk , and asked for information on the process for consideration 
of alternative equivalent measures . Australia asked  the European  Union  to reconsider the 
implementation of this regulation . 
3.138.   The Russian  Federation  considered that new EU rules for composite products were excessive 
and more trade -restrictive than necessary. Russian confectioner y exporters, as well as other 
international companies, could not comply with the EU requirements for composite products. 
The Russian  Federation  was unclear on when audit s on such Russian enterprises could take place.  
3.139.   Chinese  Taipei  reiterated its concern and noted the lack of strong correlation between 
the requirement for ingredients of processed products of animal origin in shelf -stable composite 
products to be produced by EU -approved establishments, and food safety risks to public or animal 
health. Chinese  Taipei  considered that there was insufficient scie ntific evidence to support the 
requirement for ingredients of processed products of animal origin used in trace amounts to be 
produced by EU -approved establishments. Chinese  Taipei  urged the European  Union  to review the 
requirement and to set a threshold l evel for ingredients of animal origin to be sourced from 
EU approved establishments based on risks to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade. Chinese  Taipei  
looked forward to a response by the European  Union  on this matter.  
3.140.   The United  States  expressed concern s on the negative impact of the proposed model 
certificates notified under G/SPS/N/EU/401 , G/SPS/N/EU/402  and G/SPS/N/EU/403  on supply 
chains and trade. The Unit ed States  expressed appreciation for  the extension of the deadline to 
15 January  2022 but considered that  insufficient for trading partners to adapt to the requirements  
and to ensure that certificates accounted for regulatory oversight achieving a level of  protection 
equivalent to that of the European  Union . The United  States  submitted its statement in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1981 . G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 30 - 
 
  3.141.   Supporting the concern, Japan  noted that businesses continued to enquir e about  the 
categorization of items as composite product  even after the entry into force of the regulation . 
Japan  requested the European  Union  to provide clarification of affected  products, and to respond to 
requests for information.  
3.142.   Referring to its previous statements, t he European  Union  reiterated  that the import 
conditions laid down in the new composite product legislation were all risk -based. While most of the 
rules remained unchanged, some of the changes related  to the three -tier approach to categorizing 
composite products depending on their lev el of risk. The European  Union  highlighted that more 
flexibility was now offered , making it easier to source ingredients from other countries, with a longer 
list of composite products being exempted from controls at the border due to their lower risk, and 
through the replacement of official certificates by a private attestation for certain categories of 
shelf-stable and meatless composite products. Additional information explaining the new rules on 
composite products had been submitted in documents G/SPS/GEN/1763  and G/SPS/GEN/1786 ; 
all draft measure had been no tified and all comments had been answered. A special website provide d 
up to date information on the import conditions for composite products 
(https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_affairs/trade/special -eu-import -conditions -
composite -products_en ). 
3.143.   The European  Union  noted that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/2235 
provided for transitional provisions for the use of certificates issued in accordance with Regulation 
(EU) No 28/2012 for consignments of composite products. The transitional period had been further 
extended until 15  March  2022, as provided for i n Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/1329, 
provided the relevant certificate was signed before 15  January  2022. Animal health requirements 
for the entry into the Union of shelf -stable composite products were laid down in Delegated 
Regulation (EU) No 2020/692. This was amended by Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2021/1703, 
which modified the requirements for shelf -stable products containing gelatine and collagen  and 
simplified the treatment required for shelf -stable composite products containing dairy. 
The European  Union  clarified that the principle of equivalence was included in Regulation  (EU) 
No 2017/625. The European  Union  remained open to continue the dialogue with interested Members.  
3.2.30   US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European  Union  for Asi an 
longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID 471) - Concerns of the European  Union  
3.144.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding the US failure to recogni ze the 
EU pest-free status for Asian longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle. Although it had 
satisfactorily finalized its scientific assessment, the European  Union  indicated that the United  States  
had yet to publish a final Federal Order in this respect and to finalize the  administrative procedure 
needed to formalize the recognitio n of pest -free status in 21 EU member States. The European  Union  
urged the United  States  to formally accept the pest -free areas and to resolve this longstanding issue.  
3.145.   The United  States  assured the European  Union  that it was working through its administrat ive 
procedures to process this request. The United  States  noted the bilateral technical engagement on 
the matter, including through discussions during the October 2021 Plant Health Working Group 
meeting, and looked forward to continued cooperation.  
3.2.31   US impo rt restrictions on apples and pears (ID 439) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.146.   The European  Union  regretted that the United  States  had not finalized  the approval of 
imports of apples and pears under a systems approach  and had not yet published the final not ice to 
allow trade to star t, despite having concluded its assessment several years ago. The European  Union  
indicated  that trade of apples and pears was hindered by the high costs associated with the existing 
preclearance approach , and urged  the United  States  to solve this matter without further delay.  
3.147.   The United  States  responded that it continued to work through its administrative procedures 
to process this request. Noting that the European  Union  was able to export apples and pears under 
the existing preclearance programme, the United  States  expressed its appreciation for the bilateral 
engagement on this issue, including during the October 2021 Plant Health Working Group meeting.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 31 - 
 
  3.2.32   Chinese  Taipei 's phytosanitary risk assessment procedure on imp orts of fresh 
vegetables and fruits (ID 496) - Concerns of Ukraine  
3.148.   Ukraine  regretted the l ack of progress in the  completion of p est risk assessme nts (PRAs) for 
imports of fresh vegetables and fruits from Ukraine. Following the bilateral meetings held and the 
provision of the priority ranking of products, Ukraine had received a new request for information. 
Ukraine lamented the  undue delays in the procedures t o conduct PRAs for onions and apples  and 
considered Chinese  Taipei 's actions to be inconsistent with Article  8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement . Ukraine  urged Chinese  Taipei  to conduct  transparent PRAs , to finalize Ukraine's 
application s and to transmit the results in a precise and complete manner.  
3.149.   Chinese  Taipei  noted that  its experts had initiated the PRA following the confirmation by 
Ukraine of onions as its priority. Based on th is review , Ukraine had been recently informed of the 
need to provide additio nal information . Chinese  Taipei  would continue the assessment upon receipt 
of the updated information . 
3.2.33   Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions (ID 498) - Concerns of Peru  
3.150.   Peru reiterated its concern regarding Ecuador's restrictive measures on Peruvian grapes and 
onions. Peru was of the view that Ecuador's actions constituted a violation of the legislation in place 
in Ecuador, of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, as well as Annexes B and C of the SPS  Agreement , and of 
Codex Guidelines fo r the Exchange of Information Between Countries on Rejections of Imported 
Food. While the Technical Resolution DAJ -20133EC -0201.0096 had been notified in document 
G/SPS/N/ECU/132 , Resolution 0064, from 2017, had not been notified and Members had not been 
able to submit comments, de spite the impact of the regulation on trade. Despite the exchanges held 
since 2014, Peru regretted that the answers received from Ecuador seemed to unnecessarily delay 
market access. Peru requested Ecuador to avoid proposing measures that violate the provi sions of 
the SPS  Agreement  and the basic principles of the WTO; not  to disregard the technical agreements 
previously developed ; to notify its measure and provide  opportunit ies for comments; and to reopen 
the market for grapes and onions. Peru submitted its  statement in document G/SPS /GEN/1975 . 
3.151.   Ecuador  thanked Peru for raising this concern and referred to its statement uploaded on 
eAgenda. In Ecuador's view, the mitigation measures established by Peru, following detection of 
dimethoate, procymidone and pyriproxyfen in grapes above allo wed MRLs, were not effective in 
reducing contamination. Residues of difenoconazole and tebuconazole had also been detected. 
Ecuador was waiting for a response from Peru regarding the phytosanitary requirements and 
technical criteria sent to Peru's National Agrarian Health Service (SENASA) following the field visit 
undertaken after the document review of Peru's action  plan. 
3.152.   Ecuador  pointed out that sampling of onions from Peru had evidenced residues of endosulfan 
and dimethoate above established Codex MRLs. Ecuador had subsequently requested Peru to 
develop an action plan to mitigate contamination risks, and was curren tly reviewing the proposal 
received . Ecuador reiterated its willingness to continue working with Peru to reopen trade flows for 
grape s and onion s. 
3.2.34   Panama's restrictions and procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes and 
onions (ID 512) - Concerns of Peru  
3.153.   Peru raised concerns regarding Panama's restrictions and undue delays in granting market 
access to Peruvian onions and potatoes. Peru considered Panama's measures to be inconsistent with 
Articles 2, 5 and 8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . Panama had  suspended the importation of 
onions in 2016 on the basis of an updated PRA. Trade in potatoes had been suspended in 2009 
following the interception of a pest in a consignment at destination.  In this respect,  Peru regretted 
the lack of response on the phyt osanitary protocol for the exportation of potato proposed in 2010. 
Peru requested Panama to reopen the market to Peruvian potato and onion exports and to avoid 
unnecessary barriers to trade. Peru submitted  its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1976 . 
3.154.   Costa Rica  reiterated its concerns r egarding Panama's practice of implementation of 
SPS measures which, in some cases, led to total restrictions of trade of a wide range of agricultural 
products. Costa Rica asked Panama to take into account Members' concerns, which were indicative G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 32 - 
 
  of an inadequate implementation of SPS measures, and a non -compliance of the obligations 
established in the Agreement.  
3.155.    While taking note of Members' comments, Panama  considered the TBT Committee to be the 
appropriate forum to address this concern. Panama informed the Committee that it had nonetheless 
been addressing  Members' concerns and expressed its willingness to continue to work constructively 
with its trade partners.  
3.2.35   India's import requirements for pulses (ID 497) - Concerns of Canada  
3.156.   Canada  reiterated its concern regarding India's trade -restrictive measures on pulses, 
including mandatory fumigation requirements and measures on weed seeds. Canada indicated that , 
in the Plant Health Technical Working Group between both countries,  India had committed to respond 
on the fumigation issue by the end of 2021. Turning to  India's measures on weed seeds, 
Canada  noted that India had added 26 new weed seed species to its List of Quarantine Weed Seeds 
in October 2019. In Canada's view, these actions were inconsistent with the principles of transparent 
and predicable internatio nal rules -based trade. Canada continued to seek an early resolution to these 
outstanding issues.  
3.157.   India stated that the pulse export pilot programme submitted by Canada was currently under 
examination and that it would convey its decision to Canada.  
3.2.36   India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID 501)  
- Concerns of the United  States  
3.158.   The United  States  reiterated its concerns with India's measure mandating non -GM 
(genetically modified) origin and GM -free certificates for certain agricultural imports into India, 
notified as G/TBT/N/IND/168 . Noting that no scientific justification nor risk assessment for the 
measures had been provi ded, t he United  States  continue d to seek  technical cooperation with the 
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, for which it had not received a response to date. 
The United  States  requested India to consider withdrawing its measure, or to develop alt ernative 
approaches that were less trade -restrictive. The United  States  submitted its statement in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1985 . 
3.159.   Acknowledging the ongoing cooperation, Australia  remained concerned that India's  
regulation created unnecessary costs and additional regulatory burden on Austra lian exporters and 
Indian importers  of products such as  apples, canola, plums, and wheat. Australia requested India to 
notify its measure to the SPS Committee and to consider adopting a less trade -restrictive alternative 
arrangement. Australia looked forwa rd to further engagement with India.  
3.160.   Japan  shared the concern and considered that the proposed requirements would create 
unnecessary trade barriers and have negative impacts on agricultural trade. Japan controlled the 
import, distribution and cultivation , in order to ensure the safety of GM food . Regretting the entry 
into effect of the Order without taking Members' comments into account , Japan requested India to 
waive the certification requirement for Members managing GM food appropriately.  
3.161.   Argentina  supported the concern regarding India's measure notified as G/TBT/N/IND/168 , 
and highlighted that measures should be based on science and a risk analysis, as well as on 
international standards. Argentina sough t further information on the scientific evidence underpinning 
the measure and on  how the measure contributed to food security.  
3.162.   Canada  reiterated its concern about the implementation of India's Order , that would impact 
exports of GM -producing Members to India and unnecessarily restrict international trade. 
Canada  recalled its request for India to notify the Order to the SPS Committee, to suspend the 
implementation of this measure and to consider the scientific and technical information in its 
approach to support a transparent, predictable, risk - and science -based tradin g environment. 
Canada looked forward to a response to the comments submitted through India's TBT Enquiry Point, 
and remained available for further bilateral discussion.  
3.163.   Uruguay  noted the international consensus on the equivalence between GM products 
approv ed by exporting countries based on Codex recommendations and their equivalent G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 33 - 
 
  conventional counterparts. As such, Uruguay considered that there was no technical justification for 
India's measure to achieve the legitimate objective of food safety, and that the Order should be 
notified to the SPS Committee. Highlighting the need for science -based measures, Uruguay looked 
forward to India's response to the concerns submitted, including through a joint communication by 
several Members in January 2021.  
3.164.   Paraguay  recalled their intervention at the July meeting of the Committee . 
3.165.   Brazil  expressed its concern regarding India's Order notified as G/TBT/N/IND/16 8. Brazil was 
not aware of the publication by India of a regulatory impact assessment, a risk analysis nor a 
technical document linking the regulation and its objectives , which  raised  concerns about 
transparency in India's regulatory process. India's regulation was expe cted to harm Brazilian 
exporters of apples, cowpea beans, tobacco and corn. In Brazil's view, GM exemption guarantees 
for these crops would only add unnecessary costs and regulatory burdens to food value chains, 
without scientific justification and with no  additional benefits to food safety. Recalling the provisions 
of Article  5.5 of the SPS Agreement , Brazil requested India to indicate whether alternative measures 
had been considered and whether the measure had been the result of a risk assessment. 
Brazil  remained open to engage with India to find appropriate solutions to this matter.  
3.166.   New Zealand  considered that India's requirements unnecessarily increased costs of existing 
trade, and asked for a scientific and risk -based justification for this measure that  also applied to 
countries free of the specified GMOs, such as New Zealand. New Zealand requested India to consider 
less trade -restrictive options based on risk to consumers, as relevant to the trade between the two 
countries concerned. The solution propos ed by New Zealand , to accept a country -wide assurance as 
an alternative to consignment -to-consignment certification for a specified period of time , would 
reduce the burden and costs associated with existing certification without reducing any level of 
prote ction.  
3.167.    India reiterated  that the requirement to regulate imports of GM food had already been 
notified to the WTO as the Environment Protection Act 1986. In India's view, the Order was not 
trade-restrictive as consignments of the identified commodities, ac companied by the requested 
certificate, were being imported to India. So far, t he Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee had 
not approved any of the crop varieties of GM - or GE -origin listed in the Order.  
3.2.37   Request for information on the EU Farm to Fork Strategy (ID 499) - Concerns of 
Guatemala  
3.168.   Guatemala  expressed its concern regarding the impact of the EU Farm to Fork Strategy on 
third countr y agricultural exporters  as of 2022 . In Guatemala's view, the internal EU objective to 
transform 25% of agricultur al production land into organic by 2030 should not create negative 
impacts on third countries. Guatemala was concerned by the disadvantages that the reform of the 
EU Common Agricultural Policy to transit to organic production could have on developing count ries, 
and by the indirect demand for tropical countries to convert to organic production of export s to the 
European  Union . Guatemala deplored  of the differential treatment granted to European producers 
concerning emergency authorizations for thiamethoxam , despite the environmental concerns 
indicated in  G/SPS/GEN/1868 . Finally, Guate mala stated that the negotiation of  equivalence  
agreements , proposed as an  alternative solution , would  require at least two years before approval.  
3.169.   Expressing its appreciation for the information provided on  the Farm to Fork Strategy, 
Paraguay  continued to have questions on the S trategy , including  on the lack of impact assessment 
for the numerical targets established by the European  Union  and the intention to implement its 
domestic Strategy extraterritorially. Concerned by the information that no import tole rances for 
certain substances would be granted for environmental reasons, Paraguay sought confirmation that 
emergency authorizations would not be granted for those same reasons.  
3.170.   Pointing out the difference between Guatemala's statement and the information provided in 
eAgenda, t he European  Union  recalled the objective of the Farm to Fork Strategy in relation to  food 
security and safety  and questioned whether this point could be raised as a trade concern . The Farm 
to Fork Strategy was a policy paper with no legal effect. It envisaged a mix of regulatory and non -
regulatory measures  that would be taken forward in line with good regulatory principles. The G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 34 - 
 
  European  Union  indicated it had organized information activities and was engaging with trade 
partners to accompany the transition towards more sustainable use of pesticides.  
3.171.   Acknowledging an error in the statement uploaded in eAgenda, Guate mala reiterated the 
outstanding  concern regarding the Strategy and its potential impact on trade, in spite of a virtual 
seminar that had taken plac e in October . 
3.3  Information on resolution of issues ( G/SPS/ GEN/204/Rev.21  and 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21/Corr.1 ) 
3.3.1   Panama's authorization of Federal Inspection Type establishments  (ID 515)  – 
Concerns of Mexico  
3.172.   The Chairperson  recalled that Mexico's  concern regarding Panama's authorization of Federal 
Inspection Type establishments (ID 515) had been reported as resolved  under agenda item 3.b. 
The Chairperson encouraged Members to work together to find solutions to existing concerns to 
facilitate trade  and implementation of the SPS  Agreement  and indicated his willingness to assist in 
this process.  
4  OPERATION  AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS  AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  
4.2.1   Information from Members  
4.2.1.1   Ukraine – Self-declaration of Ukraine on freedom from avian influenza  
4.2.  Ukraine  announced its freedom from avian influenza to the SPS Committee . A program me of 
active and passive monitoring of avian influenza had be en introduced since 2004, in accordance with 
the OIE Terrestrial Code. Ukraine had informed its trading partners that, as of 28 May 2021, it met 
all the OIE requirements as a "country free from infection with HPAI viruses in poultry" , as published 
on the O IE's website. Ukraine stated  that Members should not impose bans on poultry commodities 
in response to notifications  of infection of birds other than poultry or infections of domestic or captive 
wild birds with low pathogenicity avian influenza viruses , nor to other information on the presence 
of any non -notifiable influenza A virus in birds.  
4.2.1.2   United  States  – African swine fever protection zones  
4.3.  The United  States  informed the C ommittee that it had temporarily suspended the interstate 
movement of all live swine, swine germplasm, swine products, and swine by -products from 
Puerto  Rico and the US Virgin Islands to the mainland United  States , to prevent introduction of ASF 
following outbreaks in Dominican Republic and Haiti . The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS ) had submitted  to the OIE  its self -declaration of establishment of a protection zone for 
Puerto  Rico and the US Virgin Islands. The establishment of this protection zone w ould facilitate 
disease protection, limiting the overall spread of ASF, and allow for international trade to continue. 
This action would also provide additional safety beyond the controls in place to safeguard the 
US swine herd and protect  US pork producers.  
4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
4.4.  The Secretariat  provided an update on ongoing efforts to enhance, streamline and integrate 
SPS and TBT online tools. An information session had been held on 20  October  2021, including a 
demo of the n ew platform. The Secretariat reminded Members that the first part of the project had 
been the development of the SPS and TBT Trade Concerns Database  (TCD) , which was currently 
available in beta version and had been presented to Members in March 2021.  A new centralized 
platform integrating the SPS and TBT IMS, SPS and TBT NSS, and the ePing SPS and TBT notification 
alert system was currently being developed. The new platform would  allow users to search SPS and G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 35 - 
 
  TBT notifications, receive alerts, and exchange comments. Users would  also be able to search STCs 
on the new platform , but w ould be redirected to the TCD for additional  data and filters on STCs. 
From the new platform , authorized users would be able to access eAgenda, which remained a 
standalone platform . A search for other types of documents would be added in a later phase. 
The Secretariat would also provide a new url to Members using the XML feed. It was expected that 
the pilot testing phase would begin before the end of the year and Members would be invited to test 
the platform and provide feedback to the Secretariat. Following this, the platform would be launched 
during the first quarter of 2022.  
4.4  Control, inspection and approval procedures  
4.5. No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
4.4.1   Working  Group on Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 ) 
4.5.  The Chairperson  noted that further to the informal meeting of the Committee, a draft report 
on the work on the Working Group (WG) on Approval Procedures had been circulated with an 
opportunity for Members to provide comments by Wednesday, 10  November  2021. The final version 
of the report is included in Annex A . 
4.6.  Paraguay  recalled that the report of the Fifth Review did not provide information on the timeline 
for the WG on Approval Procedures . Paraguay a dded that , in document G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 , it wa s 
noted that the Working Group would conclude in November 2021, unless the WG and the 
SPS Committee agreed to extend the timeframe. The co -stewards proposed to extend the work of 
the WG for another year. Paraguay highlighted the WG's valuable exchanges on approval procedures, 
its development of a common understanding on approval procedures for purposes of its work, and 
its collection of existing tools and best practices. Canada  looked forward to extending the timeframe 
to allow participants to undertake dis cussion on the key challenges and principles of approval 
procedures , and the role of the SPS Committee in these areas. Canada thanked the WG's participants 
for their continued engagement.  
4.7.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the discussions at  the informal meeting 
regarding the proposal for an extension of the WG's timeline for one year. The SPS Committee 
agreed  to extend the WG for another year , until November 2022.  
4.5  Special and differential treatment  
5.1.  No Member provided any information under th is agenda item.  
4.6  Monitoring of the use of international standards  
4.6.1   New issues  
5.2.  No new issues were raised under this agenda item.  
4.6.2   Issues previously raised  
4.6.2.1   European  Union  – ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
4.8.  The European  Union  drew the Committee's attention to inconsistencies in the application of 
OIE international standards related to ASF. The European  Union  considered that many Members did 
not follow the OIE Terrestrial Code guidance for identification, treatment,  and certifi cation of tradable 
products and zoning. The European  Union  highlighted that ASF could be managed effectively to 
ensure that legitimate trade was not the cause of any outbreak, as presented in the Thematic Session 
held in March 2021. The European  Union  added that ASF was a disease affecting WTO Members that 
were connected by longstanding trade relations , and considered that it was a shared interest to 
maintain free and safe trade of pork and its products. Members  were invited  to work with the 
European  Union  on the substitution of country -wide trade bans by science -based, rational and 
proportionate measures.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 36 - 
 
  4.6.2.2   European  Union  – HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
4.9.  The European  Union  regretted that some Members disregarded their obl igations under Article  6 
and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . Country -wide bans after a disease outbreak were not 
scientifically justified where effective movement controls were in place, and there was no justification 
to wait one year or more to restore dise ase-free status. Noting the revisions regarding avian 
influenza in the Terrestrial Code adopted in the 88th OIE General Session of May 2021, 
the European  Union  asked Members to lift trade restrictions 28 days after eradication of HPAI and 
disinfection and reinstate trade conditions applicable to disease -free countries; to refrain from trade 
restrictions after reported cases of HPAI in wild birds  and from trade restrictions after reported cases 
of low pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) ; to respect their obligations on regionalization under the 
WTO SPS  Agreement ; to follow the recommendations of ISSBs ; and to allow trade from non -affected 
zones.  
4.10.  The OIE informed the Committee of the adoption of revisions of two chapters of the OIE 
Terres trial Code: chapter 10.4, on infection with HPAI viruses, and chapter 1.3, regarding the names 
of relevant diseases. Key amendments included a focus on infection with HPAI viruses in line with 
the changes to the OIE listed disease. It included new articles  listing safe commodities, defining a 
compartment free from HPAI and recommendations for its establishment. It also included new and 
revised recommendations on surveillance, including for demonstrating freedom from HPAI and 
revised provisions related to re covery of freedom. Modifications to the list of relevant disease names 
in chapter 1.3 were also adopted. In addition, a revised Terrestrial Manual chapter 3.3.4 on avian 
influenza was adopted in May 2021 and included amendments to reflect current knowledge  of the 
disease, and ensure alignment with changes adopted in the Terrestrial Code chapter . 
4.6.3   New Zealand – Procedure to  Monitor the Process of International Harmonization  
4.11.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to New Zealand's submissions on the 
Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization ( G/SPS/GEN/1851 , 
G/SPS/GEN/1877  and G/SPS/GEN/1915 ) and recalled that Members had had an opportunity to 
discuss these submissions at the informal meeting. A draft report on the discussions had been 
circula ted to Members  with an opportunity to provide comments by Wednesday, 10  November . 
The final report of the discussions held in the informal meeting is included in Annex A .  
4.12.  Codex  recalled that an overview of its project to desig n a monitoring framework for Codex 
standards had been presented at the Thematic Session on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization,  held on 2  November  2021. Codex indicated that it expect ed initial 
results from the project towar ds the end of 2021 and intended to provide an update at the 
March  2022 Committee m eeting. Codex also drew Members' attention to  upcoming elections of 
officers  for the Codex Alimentarius Commission  and invited  SPS delegates to ensure that they were 
registered to vote  and to address  questions to codex@fao.org . 
4.13.  South Africa  encouraged the WTO Secretariat to collaborate with ISSBs to advocate for the 
allocation of adequate tech nical and financial resources to th e initiatives to monitor the 
implementation of standards . South Africa also encouraged ISSBs to report to the SPS Committee 
on the status of the se initiatives.  
4.14.  The Chairperson  recalled that Members had a further opportuni ty to submit comments on 
New Zealand's proposals by Friday , 3 December.  
4.6.4   Report on the Thematic Session on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization  
4.15.  The Chairperson  recalled that a Thematic Session on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization was held on Tuesday, 2 November  2021. The Chairperson reminded 
Members that a draft report had been circulated to Members with an opportunity to provid e 
comments by Wednesday, 10  November. The final report is included in Annex  B. G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 37 - 
 
  4.7   Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement ( G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1 ) 
4.7.1   Report on the Informal Meeting  
4.16.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report  on the informal meeting 
of the Committee of 3  November  2021, specifically referring to the summaries of the discussions on 
the follow -up to the Fifth Review and the upcoming thematic sessions for 2022. The draft report had 
been circulated to Members with an opportunity to provide comments by Wednesday, 10  November. 
The final report is included in Annex A . 
4.17.  The Committee agreed to the  following schedule for thematic sessions to be held in 2022 : 
• March 2022: a thematic session on trade facilitative approaches to pesticide MRLs, including 
substances not approved for use in an import market, as proposed by Australia, Colombia, 
Paraguay and the United  States  (G/SPS/GEN/1947 ); 
• June 2022: (i) a thematic session on the use of virtual audits and verification systems in 
regulatory frameworks, as proposed by Australia (G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1 ); and (ii) a 
session on transparency organized by the Secretariat, where Members would  learn about 
the new platform integrating SPS and technical barriers to trade (TBT) online tools ; 
• November 2022: a thematic session on international standards and best practices in pest 
risk identification, assessment and management, as proposed by the European  Union  
(G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ). 
4.18.  The Chairperson  invited Members to submit comments on the proposals for thematic sessions, 
including suggestions of speakers for the March 2022 thematic session by Friday, 3  December 2021.  
4.19.  The United  States  requested an extension of the deadline for comments and suggestions of 
speakers for the March 2022  thematic session . The Committee agreed to extend the deadline for 
comments to Monday, 13  December.  
4.8  Chairperson's Annual Repo rt to CTG  
4.20.  The Chairperson  reminded delegates that he would submit a factual report on the activities 
of the Committee for consideration by the CTG at its meeting on 1 -2 November  2021. 
The Chairperson also noted that a first version of the report had been made available to Members 
for comments. The report would be revised to reflect to Committee's work at the present meeting, 
following which Members would have another opportunity to review the report before it is submitted 
to General Council. The final report was circulated as G/L/1413/Rev.1 . 
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISS UES 
5.1  Canada and the United  States  – SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial 
Conference ( G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev. 8 and G/SPS/GEN/1960 ) 
5.1.  The United  States  acknowledged Panama and Ukraine as the most recent co -sponsors  of the 
SPS Declaration for MC12 . Many Members shared  concerns on similar global issues that would  affect 
agricultural production and trade , and were interested in addressing them in the SPS Committee. 
Referring to G/SPS/GEN/1960 , the United  States  highlighted the importance of science and 
innovation  for a sustainable and more productive agriculture. The co -sponsors had jointly 
constructed a work programme to explore  the critical SPS challenges facing 21st century agricultural 
production and trade, captured through discussions with Members and phrased in a neutral way to 
ensure a deeper engagement on the topics without presupposing any specific outcomes. It was the 
view of the co -sponsors that transparent, science and risk -based approaches would  be essential to 
meet the demands of improving sustainability, s afely feeding a growing population and responding 
effectively to emerging diseases and climatic pressures. The United  States  considered that the 
SPS Declaration acknowledged the resiliency of the principles of the SPS  Agreement  in supporting 
food and agric ulture trade and advanced the functioning of the WTO as the deliberative body. 
The United  States  clarified  that the proposed work programme did not launch negotiations of new 
obligations under  the SPS  Agreement . The United  States  thanked Members for their active 
engagement, and optimistically looked forward to an outcome at MC12.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 38 - 
 
  5.2.  Canada  recalled that the SPS Declaration  had been proposed  to underline the benefits of the 
SPS Agreement  to WTO Members and to reaffirm the continuing importance of adhering to it s 
obligations. Canada talked about the new opportunities and emerging pressures relating to 
international trade in food, animals and plants resulting from the evolution of the  global agricultural 
landscape since 1995 . Canada hoped that  document  G/SPS/GEN/1960  illustrated the  challenges 
facing WTO Members and provided greater confidence and context to the SPS Declaration. 
Having  observed openness towards the development of a multilateral SPS Declaration, 
Canada  thanked Members for their discussion and insights, including at th e informal meeting, which 
had helped to further refine the Declaration. Canada anticipated the Declaration to be placed on the 
agenda of the next General Council and encouraged Members to reach out to the co -sponsors for 
additional information  ahead of MC1 2. 
5.3.  Encouraged by the increasing support to the proposal, Brazil  considered the SPS Declaration  
to be a positive response to emerging challenges in the agricultural landscape. In Brazil's view, 
the work programme contained topics of importance to all Member s and  would  favour dialogue on 
new challenges related to sustainability, climate change, food security, access and use of innovative 
tools and technologies, rural development and employment. Emphasiz ing the importance of 
transparency and science and risk -based approaches, Brazil considered that improving Members ' 
adherence to the SPS  Agreement  was essential to reach the goal of safe, affordable, and sustainably 
produced food for all. The co -sponsors had taken into account the legitimate concerns and 
reserva tions expressed by  some Members , and Brazil expressed its willingness to engage further to  
overcome different views. Brazil concluded that MC12 was an opportune moment to further reflect 
on the challenges ahead in the implementation of the SPS  Agreement . 
5.4.  Belize  thanked the United  States  and Canada for spearheading the development of a 
background paper contained in G/SPS/GEN/1960 , highlighting critical elements of the 
SPS Decla ration . Belize considered that it  identified a range of topics of interest to all Members and 
sought to elevate the importance of the SPS  Agreement  to the highest decision -making level. 
Belize  reiterated its full support for the SPS Declaration, welcomed P anama and Ukraine as the 
newest co -sponsors, and encouraged other Members to become co -sponsors.  
5.5.  Panama  considered that the SPS Declaration was an opportunity to reflect on the achievements 
of the SPS  Agreement  and noted the importance of  a forward -looking  work programme to facilitate 
work on emerging issues in international agricultural trade. In Panama's view, it was essential to 
recognize the challenges and pressures on the global agri -food system, which  would  be increasingly 
common . Panama  invited Members to support the Declaration to strengthen the multilateral trading 
system and the SPS  Agreement . 
5.6.  Peru stressed that the SPS Declaration highlighted the advantages and existing sanitary 
challenges, and was an opportunity to advance future wo rk of the SPS Committee on emerging trade 
issues. Peru emphasized the need to correctly implement the SPS  Agreement , in particular the use 
of science -based SPS measures.  
5.7.  Appreciating the efforts by co -sponsors towards establishing the SPS Declaration, 
Indonesia consid ered that the draft proposal should take into account special and differential 
treatment and the acceleration of market access for developing countries and least -developed 
countries (LDCs).  
5.8.  Japan  co-sponsored  the Declaration and the background paper  and hoped these documents 
gained wider support . In Japan's view, the Declaration addressed  common challenges in the 
implementation of the SPS  Agreement  and contained available mechanisms to address such 
challenges , and proposed to undertake a work pr ogramme to identify new opportunities and 
challenges . 
5.9.  Noting the wide support among Members, Australia  stated  that the Declaration reflect ed the 
various views of different co -sponsors. Australia emphasized the importance of sustainable food 
systems and the crucial role of the SPS  Agreement  in underpinning international rules -based trade 
in agriculture . 
5.10.  Underscoring the good functioning of the SPS Committee, t he European  Union  confirmed its 
reservation  with respect to the draft Declaration . The European  Union considered that the G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 39 - 
 
  Declaration lacked references to the current and future environmental and climat ic challenges for 
trade in foods. The European  Union  stated that the proposal did not correspond to the features of a 
Ministerial Declaration . 
5.11.  Singapor e encouraged more Members to join the SPS Declaration. Singapore highlighted the 
importance of issues contained in the Declaration to sustainable, safe and secure food supply chains.  
Singapore was of the view that the forward -looking nature of the work pro gramme would enhance 
international cooperation on these issues.  
5.12.  Emphasizing the impact of SPS measures in the country, Colombia  highlighted the importance 
of the Declaration , which referred to the analysis of  trade challenges related to population growth, 
the increase in technological innovation, climate change and its impact  on food production, 
sustainable agricultural practices, the spread of pests and diseases, and the application of 
SPS measures that const ituted a disguised restriction on trade.  
5.13.  Mexico  noted the wide diversity of co -sponsors to the Declaration . Mexico stressed that the 
Declaration reaffirmed the principles of the SPS  Agreement  while recognizing the evolution in the 
global agricultur al lands cape, and established a work plan to face the SPS challenges of the 
21st century. Mexico clarified that the Declaration did not entail a renegotiation of the 
SPS Agreement , and invited Members who had not done so to join the Declaration.  
5.14.  Paraguay  thanked M embers for the contributions and exchanges , namely in the informal 
meeting of the Committee, and invited Members who had not done so to join the Declaration.  
5.15.  Honduras  expressed its support to the Declaration and highlighted the need to continue to 
strength en the implementation  of the SPS  Agreement . Honduras indicated that the Declaration 
offered an opportunity to develop a forward -looking work plan to face the SPS challenges of the 
21st century.  
5.16.  Switzerland  flagged its reservations on the current draft Declaration and noted that the 
proposal did not correspond to the style of a Ministerial Declaration . Switzerland regretted that the 
draft proposal did not reflect the acceleration of climate change, biodivers ity loss and environmental 
degradation. In order to consider withdrawing its reservations, Switzerland suggested the inclusion 
of a reference to sustainable and innovative agricultural production systems in the list of 
opportunities and emerging pressures for international trade in food, animals and plants ; and to 
specify the facilitation of sustainable and innovative agricultural production in the themes for 
exploration in the work programme.  
5.17.  Expressing its general support for the initiative, t he Russian  Federation  considered  the format 
of the SPS Declaration not to correlate with Ministerial Declarations . The Russian  Federation  had 
developed specific proposals on the wording for the draft document that it had transmitted to the 
co-sponsors . 
5.18.  Ukraine  expressed its willingness to join the Declaration as a new co -sponsor.  The Declaration 
reflected Ukraine 's priorities to develop an effective system of agricultural production as well as to 
build global confidence in food safety standards. Ukraine was con vinced that Members ' efforts to 
enhance the implementation of the SPS  Agreement  would contribute to positive results.  
5.2  COVID -19 and SPS  issues  
5.19.  The Chairperson  recalled that the informal Committee meeting of 3  November 2021 had 
included discussions on COVID -19 and SPS issues. These discussions had been summarized in his 
draft report on the informal meeting. The final report is included in Annex A . G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 40 - 
 
  6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities  
6.1.  The Secretariat  provided Members with an overview of the technical assistance activities held 
since July 2021. These activities included the new SPS In -depth Virtual Course , held from 
20 September to 8  October  2021. This course had been  delivered virtually, in English, over a series 
of sessions of approximately 1.5 -2 hours , dedicated to a comprehensive analysis of aspects related 
to the implementation of the SPS  Agreement , and topical SPS issues to enable the ef fective 
participation of capital -based delegates in the SPS Committee. Other core components of the course  
included participants' self -study, inter -sessional assignments, group work and simulation of the 
SPS Committee. In addition, the course benefitted fr om the participation of current and former 
Chairpersons and several delegates, Codex, OIE, IPPC, other SPS experts and the STDF and 
WTO Secretariat. Participants had been encouraged to attend the thematic session held that week 
and the Committee meeting, i n agreement with their respective Missions.  
6.2.  In terms of other activities, a national seminar had been  held in virtual format for Ecuador, in 
October. The following more general training on the SPS  Agreement  had been provided: an UNCTAD 
session on Trade Fac ilitation and the SPS  Agreement  for Peru, in August; a WTO Virtual Regional 
Trade Policy Course for Latin America, including a SPS and TBT sessions, in September; an FAO 
virtual training on market access and PRA for Ethiopia, in October; a Short Virtual Co urse on Trade 
Policy for members of the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI), in October. 
The Secretariat highlighted upcoming activities that would include a virtual national SPS seminar, 
for Thailand; and a Virtual Regional SPS Workshop for Ara b Countries , to be held  on 
22-25 November.  
6.3.  Further information on SPS technical assistance activities was available on the SPS gateway of 
the WTO website (under Events, workshops and training), or by contacting the Secretariat. Finally, 
the Secretariat not ed that the E -Learning Course on the SPS  Agreement  was available all year long, 
in the three official languages of the WTO.  
6.1.2   STDF ( G/SPS/GEN/1959 ) 
6.4.  The STDF Secretariat  reported on its recent activities detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1959 . The STDF 
Annual Report for 2020 , published in July 2021 , and a practical guide on good regulatory practices 
to improve SPS measures , presented on 3  November , were available on the STDF website. The STDF 
highlighted that i t was implementing several projects related to the topics proposed for thematic 
sessions to be held in 2022, discussed in the  informal meeting of the SPS Committee. These included 
the use of remote inspection in the food safety area, the use of biopesticid es to mitigate the risk of 
residues and the use of systemic approaches to control phytosanitary pests. The STDF noted that 
the deadline to apply for funding had been postponed to 18  February  2022.  Finally, the STDF 
Secretariat announced a  survey  (https://w ww.surveymonkey.com/r/STDFSPS2021en ) to measure 
STDF's contribution to a sustainable increase of SPS capacity in developing countries. The STDF 
thanked its donors for their contributions.  
6.2  Information  from Members  
6.2.1   United  States  – Technical assistance to developing countries  
(G/SPS/GEN/ 181/Add.14 ) 
6.5.  The United  States  informed the Committee  that technical assistance amounting to more than 
40 million USD had been  provided to Members to support their implementation of the SPS  Agreement  
between Octo ber 2018 and September 2019 ( G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.14 ). The United States reiterated 
its commitment to provide technical assistance to developing countries on SPS issues, to support 
Members in meeting their international obligations, and to facilitate safe trade in agricultural 
products.  
6.6.  The Philippines  appreciated the work of t he United  States  in various technical assistance 
projects and activities. The Philippines' participation in the International Symposium on Biocontrol G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 41 - 
 
  and Integrated Pest Management for Crop Protection had contributed to expand farmer 's toolbox in 
protectin g crops yields against threats posed by pests and diseases. The Philippines was also grateful 
to be a recipient of the US Food for Progress Programme through the Building Safe Agricultural and 
Food Enterprises (B -SAFE Project) , which it considered  a vital springboard in transforming 
agriculture and reinforcing the farm  to fork food safety regulatory system.  
6.2.2   Canada – Technical assistance to developing countries ( G/SPS/GEN/1962 ) 
6.7.  Canada  updated the Committee on the SPS -related technical assistance to developing co untries 
delivered in 2020, for which it had committe d approximately CDN $17 million . Canada had delivered 
or initiated a total of 26 SPS -related technical assistance projects, which supported Thailand, Kenya, 
India, Mexico, Guatemala, Botswana, China, Nige ria, Ghana, Morocco, and Senegal. Canada 's 
assistance addressed information, training, and soft infrastructure development, and covered most 
of the typical areas of competence listed in G/SPS/GEN/206 . More information was provided in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1962 . 
6.2.3   Belize – Technical assistance  received by Belize  
6.8.  Belize  informed Members of its participation in a regional training  sponsored by OIRSA entitled  
"Regional Identification and Diagnostic Training for Molluscs of Quarantine and Economic Importance 
with emphasis on Giant African Snail". T he training touched upon various topics on molluscs , in 
particular  the giant African snail ( Lissachatina fulica ), which could be a vector of diseases to humans 
and was a quarantine pest in many countries of the region . Belize thanked OIRSA for the organiza tion 
of the training . 
7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
7.1.  No Member provided information under this agenda item.  
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from observer organizations  
8.1.1   ECOWAS ( G/SPS/GEN/1952 ) 
8.1.  The Chairperson drew t he Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by ECOWAS  
in document G/SPS/GEN/1952 . 
8.1.2   GSO ( G/SPS/GEN/1953 ) 
8.2.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by GSO in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1953 . 
8.1.3   OIRSA ( G/SPS/GEN/1955 ) 
8.3.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by OIRSA  
in document G/SPS/GEN/1955 . 
8.1.4   IGAD ( G/SPS/GEN/1956 ) 
8.4.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's att ention to the report of activities provided by IGAD  
in document G/SPS/GEN/1956 . 
8.1.5   ITC ( G/SPS/GEN/1958 ) 
8.5.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by ITC in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1958 . G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 42 - 
 
  8.1.6   SADC ( G/SPS/GEN/1961 ) 
8.6.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by SADC  
in document G/SPS/GEN/1961 . 
8.1.7   IICA ( G/SPS/GEN/1965 ) 
8.7.  IICA reported on its activities, detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1965 . IICA had concluded its 
second coordination session on WTO SPS Committee matters, addressing discussions on the WG on 
Approval Procedures, the SPS Declaration for MC12, STCs and proposals for 2022 thematic sessions. 
Concerning the support for SPS multilateral fora, in collaboration with the USDA and the African 
Union's Inter -African Bureau for Animal Resources  (AU-IBAR), IICA had hosted a series of 
interregional virtual colloqui a addressing several Codex Committees . These events provided an 
opportunity for participants  to analyse issues of common inte rest and to develop regional 
participation strategies.  Regarding animal health international standards, IICA and USDA had 
organized an OIE strategy session  to discuss  regional positions on various Code chapt ers. Under the 
umbrella of the GF -TADs, IICA was leading the inter -agency effort towards  the implementation of 
capacity building initiative s for the ASF emergency response and control in the western hemisphere , 
with the objective of strengthening the technical capacities  of the veterinary services.  
8.2  Requests for observer status  
8.8. The Committee decided to invite organizations with ad hoc  observer status in the Committee to 
participate in all Committee meetings in 2022 – with the exception of any closed meeting – unless 
any Member raised an objection in advance of a meeting.  
8.2.1   Pending requests  
8.8.  The Chairperson  referred to document G/SPS/W/78/Rev.15 , listing the outstanding requests 
for observer status. The Chairperson indicated that, absent any intervention, he would assume that 
the posi tions of Members had not changed. No Member took the floor.  
9  OTHER BUSINESS  
6.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
10  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  
6.2.  The Chairperson  recalled that the next regular meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 
23-25 March  2022 and that the proposed calendar of meetings for 2022 was contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1910 /Rev.1 . 
10.1.  The Secretariat informed the Committee that it would prepare a summary report based on 
oral interventions at the meeting, complemented by Members' ability to download complete 
statements via eAgenda.  
10.2.  The Chairperson also reminded of the following deadlines:  
a. eAgenda closes for the uploading of statements: Friday, 5  November  2021 (midnight 
Genev a time) ;  
b. For submitting comments on the Chairperson's draft report on the Thematic Session on 
the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization and the informal 
Committee meeting: Wednesday , 10 November 2021 ; 
c. For submitting comments on New Zealand's submissions on the procedure to monitor the 
process of international harmonization (G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877  and 
G/SPS/GEN/1915 ): Monday, 13  December 2021 ; 
d. For submission of  comments on the proposals for thematic sessions ( G/SPS/GEN/1947 , 
G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1  and G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ), including suggestions of speakers G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 43 - 
 
  for the March 2022 Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs: 
Monday, 13  December 2021 ; 
e. For requesting that items, including STCs, be put on the agenda, AND for i dentifying new 
issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure: Wednesday, 2  March  2022 ; 
and 
f. For the distribution of the annotated draft agenda: Friday, 4  March  2022 . 
 G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 44 - 
 
  ANNEX A  
INFORMAL MEETING – 3 NOVEMBER  2021  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
 
1  FOLLOW -UP TO THE FIFTH REVIEW  
1.  At the informal meeting on 3 November 2021, the Committee discussed how to take forward 
some of the recommendations in the Fifth Review Report, as well as ongoing work in various area s. 
SPS Committee Working Group on Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 ) 
2.  The c o-stewards for the Working Group, Canada and Paraguay, provided an update on the 
activities of the Working Group.1 
3.  In the first round of work (November 2020 to March 2021), participants had identified four main 
themes for the Working Group: (1) common und erstanding of "approval procedures"; (2) key 
challenges of approval procedures; (3) principles of approval procedures that facilitate international 
trade while meeting the importing Member's ALOP; and (4) tools available and best practices to 
enhance the i mplementation of the obligations of the SPS  Agreement  as they apply to approval 
procedures.  
4.  In the second round of work (March to July 2021) , the discussions had focused on developing a 
common understanding of the term "approval procedures" and assembling a collection of available 
tools and best practices.  
5.  In the third round of work (July to November 2021), the Working Group concluded its discussions 
on a common understanding of approval procedures. This common understanding of approval 
procedures was devel oped for the purposes of the Working Group and to facilitate the discussions in 
the Working Group. The common understanding recalls that "approval procedures" are any 
procedure to check and ensure the fulfilment of SPS measures. The common understanding al so 
refers to the 2019 Thematic Session on Approval Procedures, which had highlighted a number of 
types of approval procedures  that Working Group participants may want to take into consideration . 
This common understanding does not represent a legal interpre tation of the rights and obligations 
of the SPS  Agreement and does not in any way constitute a legal definition.  
6.  Having concluded the discussions on the common understanding, the Working Group addressed 
key challenges of approval procedures that affect int ernational trade and that the Committee should 
seek to address. A number of challenges had emerged from previous discussions, namely: (1) timing 
and undue delays; (2) transparency; (3) communication or information exchange; (4) justification 
and discrimina tion of approval procedures; (5)  harmonization with international standards; and 
(6) other challenges such as COVID -19. To facilitate exchanges, the Working Group decided to 
address a few of these challenges at a time. At its meeting of 1  November  2021, th e Working Group 
proceeded to discuss challenges associated with transparency and  communication or information 
exchange.  
7.  Finally, at its meeting of 1 November 2021, the Working Group agreed that it would like to 
continue its work and extend its timeline for  another year to allow the Working Group to continue 
its in -depth discussions on key challenges and address principles of approval procedures.  
 
1 The Working Group on Approval Procedures was established in November 2020. Twenty -five Members 
are participating in the Working Group: Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 
the European  Union , Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, the 
Russian  Federation , Singapore, South  Africa, Switzerland, Chinese  Taipei , Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the 
United  States , and Uruguay. The  OECD is also a participant.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 45 - 
 
  The co-stewards, on behalf of the Working Group, therefore proposed to extend the Working Group's 
timeline until November 2022.2 
8.  Following the co -stewards' update, I provided an opportunity for Members to raise any questions 
or comments on the activities of the Working Group. In particular, I invited Members to provide 
comments on the Working Group's proposal to ext end the timeline for its work to November 2022. 
No Member took the floor. I noted that no objection had been made. I further indicated that I would 
revisit this point in the formal meeting of the Committee.  
Exchange of experiences or continued discussions on various topics  
9.  We then discussed the recommendations that encourage Members to continue to exchange 
experiences or have continued discussions. I highlighted that these recommendations were found in 
various sections of the Fifth Review Report, such as: a ppropriate level of protection, risk assessment 
and science (para.  2.15); equivalence (para.  4.11); fall armyworm (para.  5.16); national 
SPS coordination mechanisms (para.  6.7); MRLs for plant protection products (para.  8.6); and 
regionalization (para.  9.15).  
10.  Similar to the July 2021 meeting, I again sought Members' views on the best way to move 
forward with these recommendations. I recalled that in the September 2020 consultations, 
one Member had observed that the proposed work plan for the MC12 SPS Dec laration, also currently 
being discussed by the Committee, was consistent with these recommendations and could provide 
a pathway to continue exploring these topics.  I also noted that in the November 2020 informal 
Committee meeting, another Member had remin ded the Committee of its previously raised concerns 
regarding some of the topics covered by the recommendations. No comments had been received 
from Members in the July meeting.  
11.  In this week's meeting, I again invited Members to provide any further comments  or suggestions 
on the identified recommendations. No Member provided additional inputs.  
2 SPS DECLARATION FOR THE 12TH WTO MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE 
(G/SPS/GEN/1758/REV.8  AND G/SPS/G EN/1960 ) 
12.  The Committee also discussed the SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference. 
I first reminded Members that this proposal had previously  been discussed in informal Committee 
meetings held this year and last year. I also drew attention to the proposal in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.83, as well as a recently circulated background document ( G/SPS/GEN/1960 ). 
13.  I then invited the proponents to provide an update. Th e United  States  first introduced the 
Declaration highlighting Members' deep concerns about the global issues that would affect 
agricultural trade and production in the future, while underscoring that the Declaration provided a 
forward -looking approach to t hese issues in the Committee. In this regard, the work programme 
had been constructed as an open -ended exploration of critical SPS challenges facing 21st century 
agricultural production and trade, informed by debates in the Committee over the years. 
Austra lia then explained the rationale for the Declaration, noting that it provided an opportunity to 
demonstrate to Ministers and the global community, the ongoing relevance and importance of the 
SPS Agreement , and the Committee's work to support rural liveliho ods and sustainable growth.  
14.  In its overview of the work programme, Brazil highlighted that the Declaration aimed to 
strengthen the SPS  Agreement , but not to launch negotiations on new obligations. The work 
programme had been formulated to capture elements of the 21st challenges in a neutral way, without 
prejudging the outcome of the discussions. Brazil also provided clarification on the proposed process 
for the implementation of the work programme, and noted the distinction between the Declaration 
 
2 In recommending, in the Report of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement  (G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1 ), that a working group be created to examine the topic of 
approval procedures, the Committee did not foresee a particular timeline for this w orking group. Canada's 
proposal for the Working Group contained in document G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 , however, indicated that the 
Working Group would conclude at the November 2021 SPS Committee meeting, unless the Working Group and 
Committee agreed to extend the timeframe.  
3 G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.9  was circulated on 11 November 2021, also submitted to the General Council 
as WT/GC/W/835 . G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 46 - 
 
  (oriented  towards the future) and the Review process (a retrospective, stock -taking exercise). 
The United  States  addressed specific aspects of the work programme, such as the focus on 
innovation, underscoring that the Declaration did not presuppose any specific out comes or prejudge 
any of these new tools or technologies, but instead acknowledged the important role these tools 
would play in agricultural production and trade, which warranted further discussion in the 
Committee. Discussions were being held with several  Members on the articulation of this point in 
the Declaration, and also in relation to capturing the visibility of developing countries.  
15.  Canada addressed issues related to sustainability and scope, noting that the Committee seemed 
to widely agree with the importance of sustainable food systems and the sustainable development 
goals from the UN Food Safety Summit, but that at the same time some Members were concerned 
that the work programme should only be used to examine issues within the Committee's mandate.  
In this regard, the co -sponsors were cognizant of not overlapping with ongoing work on sustainability 
in other WTO bodies, while aligning the proposed work with the mandate of the Committee. 
Canada  provided clarification on the legality of the Declaration , referring to the scope of the 
Committee's work as set out in Article  12.1, and highlighting the Committee's previous work 
programme on equivalence. The text of the Declaration was also not meant to represent a legally 
binding document nor to reflect all aspects of the SPS  Agreement , but to be a political statement 
without impact on Members' rights and obligations under the SPS  Agreement . For that reason, 
the co-sponsors had specifically attempted to avoid inclusion of direct references to specific article s 
in the Agreement.  
16.  In terms of next steps, Members were requested to identify any remaining concerns which could 
be clarified in the meeting or to signal their support for the Declaration. The co -sponsor's intention 
was to place the SPS Declaration on the  agenda for the November General Council meeting and to 
be able to confirm that the initiative had broad support and could achieve consensus as an important 
deliverable at MC12. Further to adoption at MC12, a work programme would be developed by the 
SPS Co mmittee and collective consultations held on how the work programme could be 
implemented.  
17.  The United  States  presented the background paper ( G/SPS/GEN/1960 ) entitled 
"New Opportunities and Emerging Challenges in International Trade in Food, Animals and Plants". 
This background paper, submitted by 17 Members, outlines scientific evidence and global trends 
behind some of the critical topics listed in the SPS Declaration: population growth and distribution; 
changing climatic conditions and associated stresses on food production; shifting pressures due to 
pests and diseases; and innovation in tools and technologies.  
18.  Fifteen co -sponsors took the floor to share their perspecti ves, voice support for the Declaration, 
and echo several of the previous points presented by other co -sponsors. In addition, 
Ukraine  indicated its intent to join as a new co -sponsor and expressed its willingness to work with 
other co -sponsors in the future . Panama and Ukraine were also welcomed as new co -sponsors.  
19.  Some Members welcomed the Declaration, underscored the importance of the work programme 
and expressed appreciation for the clarification provided in the background document. 
Several  Members sugges ted textual revisions to the SPS Declaration, which included inserting a 
reference to Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement ; considering the specific situation of developing 
countries and LDCs in the proposed work programme, as well as including a specific refere nce to 
developing countries. In addition, other Members expressed concerns regarding the unprecise 
emphasis on innovative tools/ technologies, and the capacity of developing countries and LDCs to 
access such tools. One  Member also referred to its concerns regarding paragraph 8 of the 
Declaration. Another Member suggested that the Declaration should follow the legal wording of the 
SPS Agreement , and indicated concerns with the use of the terms "innovative" and "innovation" in 
the background document.  
20.  Some Me mbers also expressed concerns in relation to the format of the proposed Declaration 
in view of the usual style of Ministerial Declarations. In particular, one Member referred to the length 
and level of detail of the proposal, and indicated that the text sh ould seek to achieve a balance, 
avoiding the impression of prioritizing the enhanced implementation of the SPS  Agreement  over 
other agreements, while improving the text to take into account concerns such as climate change, 
biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, sustainable food systems, sustainable use of pesticides 
and animal welfare.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 47 - 
 
  21.  The European  Union  noted that the Declaration and the background paper focused on how 
climate change and related global challenges and emerging issues affect agri -food systems, and not 
on how agri -food systems could positively affect climate change. The European  Union  also made 
reference to its  previous comments, noting the need to include more robust references in the 
Declaration to current and future environmental and  climate challenges for trade in food. 
European  Union  confirmed its commitment to the relevance and good functioning of the SPS 
Committee, however expressed its reservations with the Declaration.  
22.  Finally, Canada noted the large and diverse group of co -sponsors, underscoring their 
commitment to ensure that the Declaration continued to reflect the diverse perspectives of Members. 
In this regard, Canada welcomed further discussions to ensure that developing countries' 
perspectives were properly reflected in th e text, and also reminded Members that the Declaration 
sought to prompt discussion without prejudice to its results. Canada referred to several Members' 
comments on the Declaration text and indicated openness to make improvements to clarify these 
points. C anada looked forward to finalizing the Declaration in collaboration with any interested 
Members, and co -sponsors.  
23.  I commended the sincere and constructive engagement of Members and noted more 
convergence than divergence points in the said proposal. Therefo re, I strongly encouraged Members 
to reach out to each other and take due note of all remarks and concerns, and endeavour to take 
into account, to the exten t possible, those elements in order to build consensus. I finally called on 
Members to show flexibil ity in their engagements.  
3 PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION 
(G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877  AND G/SPS/GEN/1915 ) 
24.  I recalled t hat New Zealand had presented its first proposal G/SPS/GEN/1851  in the November 
2020 Committee meeting, following which Members and ISSBs had been invited to propose ideas 
and suggestions on how the Committee could proactively explore this topic. Subsequently, 
New Zealand submitted d ocument G/SPS/GEN/1877  which  presented some specific ideas for 
consideration by the Committee. Three Members had submitted comments, and these were shared 
with New Zealand who subsequently circulated document G/SPS/GEN/1915 . This document 
proposed several areas of focus, which provided the basis for yesterday's  thematic session on 
international harmonization.  
25.  I also reminded the Committee that several Members had previously underscored the 
importance of having in -depth discussions in the thematic session as a first step, and as such, 
I provided another opportuni ty in the informal meeting for further discussions on New Zealand's 
submitted proposals, taking into account our discussions at the thematic session held on 2 
November. I also informed Members that a brief summary of the thematic session would be provided 
during the  formal meeting of the Committee.  
26.  New Zealand thanked all those who had participated in the Thematic Session on the Procedure 
to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization. New Zealand also indicated that it looked 
forward to the final re port and to continuing discussions on this topic. No other Member took the 
floor. 
4 UPCOMING THEMATIC SESSIONS (G/SPS/GEN/1947 , G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1 , 
G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ) 
27.  I recalled that after the July 2021 meeting, Members had been invited to submit propo sals for 
thematic sessions by the deadline of Friday, 13  August  2021. On this basis, I informed the 
Committee that three proposals for thematic sessions had been put forward: (i) Trade facilitative 
approaches to pesticide MRLs, including substances not approved for use in an import market – 
submission by Australia, Col ombia, Paraguay and the United  States  of America ( G/SPS/GEN/1947 ); 
(ii) Use of remote (virtual) audit and verification in regulatory frameworks – submission by Australia 
(G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1 ); and (iii) Internationa l standards and best practices in pest risk 
identification, assessment and management – submission by the European  Union  
(G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ). G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 48 - 
 
  28.  Overall, based on the discussions in the meeting, there was no objection to  the Committee 
holding thematic sessions on the three above -mentioned proposals. In relation to the first proposal 
(G/SPS/GEN/1947 ), the proponents reiterated the importance of the topic of pesticide MRLs, and 
expressed interest in sharing best practices and identifying areas for collaboration with a view to 
facilitating safe trade. Several Members expressed support for this proposal and were interested in 
the session being held in 2022.  
29.  Regarding the second proposal ( G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1 ), several Members took the floor to 
express their support, noting the relevance of remote auditing and verification, particularly in the 
context of the COVID -19 pandemic. Members expressed interest in hearing about the experiences 
and challenges of other Members in this area. The OIE also expressed interest in this session and 
considered that it could help with planning future work. Australia indicated its interest in having a 
full day session on the topic.  
30.  In relation to the third pro posal ( G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ), the European  Union  thanked 
Members for their interest in the proposal and reiterated its interest in sharing  experiences regarding 
the application of ISPMs. The European  Union  added that the  outcome of the session could 
potentially feed into the work of the IPPC in the coming years. Some Members took the floor to 
express support. The importance of this discussion on international standards in the plant health 
area was highlighted, and there w as interest in taking it forward.  
31.  In terms of scheduling, two options were examined. The first option consiste d of the following:  
▪ A thematic session on  trade facilitative approaches to pesticide MRLs, including substances 
not approved for use in an import market ( G/SPS/GEN/1947 ) would be held in March 2022;  
▪ A thematic session on the use of remote (virtual) audit and ve rification in regulatory 
frameworks ( G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1 ) would be held in November 2022; and  
▪ A session on international standards and best practices in pest risk identification, assessment 
and management ( G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ) would be held in March 202 3. 
32.  As a second option, I proposed the possibility to hold two back -to-back thematic sessions in 
November 2022, which should be explored.  
33.  In addition, Members were in agreement with the Secretariat's suggestion to hold a 
transparency workshop in July 2022. I further noted that there were a number of new transparency 
tools, in particular ongoing work on a new SPS/TBT online platform, which could be presented in this 
workshop, and hands -on training provided.  
34.  I invited Members to provide further comments on the  proposals and/or suggestions of speakers 
for the thematic session that would take place in March 2022, by Friday, 3  December.4 
5 COVID -19 AND SPS ISSUES  
35.  I recalled that COVID -19 and SPS issues had been discussed at the dedicated 
information -sharing sessi on of June 2020, and in the informal meetings of the Committee since 
November 2020. Out of all WTO COVID -19 related notifications, 27% related to SPS. There had been 
112 SPS notifications and other communications related to COVID -19 submitted by Members. 
These could be extracted from the SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS) and ePing using 
the "COVID -19 SPS" keyword. Furthermore, a video explaining how to sign up for electronic alerts 
on COVID -19 was available on the ePing welcome page. Finally, the Secretariat recalled that SPS, 
as well as all other WTO COVID -19 related documents were available on the COVID -19 gateway of 
the WTO website.  
36.  The European  Union  expressed concern regarding certain Members' restrictive measures, which 
caused uncertainty, undue delays, and had no scientific basis. The European  Union  recalled the 
 
4 The deadline was subsequently extended to 13  December.  At its formal meeting, the Committee 
modified the proposed schedule of thematic sessions. The final agreed schedule can be found in 
paragraph  4.18 above.  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 49 - 
 
  assessments of WHO and EFSA, which found no evidence that food could be a source of COV ID-19 
transmission, and requested Members maintaining such measures to share their risk assessment 
that would explain these measures as necessary and proportionate.G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 50 - 
 
  ANNEX B  
SPS COMMITTEE THEMATIC SESSION ON INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION  
2 NOVEMBER  2021  
REPOR T BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1. A thematic session on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization was 
held on 2 November 2021, as agreed by the SPS Committee in July 2021. The programme was 
circulated in October 2021 as document G/SPS/GEN/1966 , which built on proposal s submitted by 
New Zealand in documents G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877 , and G/SPS/GE N/1915 . The session 
was held in hybrid format with Members invited to attend in -person or virtually through the 
Interprefy platform.  
2. The purpose of the thematic session was to provide an opportunity for WTO Members to exchange 
views and review progress on international harmonization, and to learn about the efforts by the 
relevant international standard -setting bodies (ISSBs), namely, the Codex, OIE and IPPC, to better 
understand how their standards and related texts are used. An opportunity was also give n to some 
regional and national bodies to share their experiences.  
3. In Session 1, the Secretariat provided an overview of the relevant provisions of the 
SPS Agreement  on international harmonization, including the Preamble, Articles 3 and 12, and 
Annex  A, the work of the SPS Committee in monitoring international harmonization, and 
transparency -related matters. The Secretariat explained that the SPS  Agreement  promotes 
harmonization by strongly encouraging WTO Members to use international standards, guidelin es and 
recommendations developed by Codex, OIE and IPPC as a basis for SPS measures. Alternatively, 
Members can justify measures resulting in higher levels of protection if these are based on a risk 
assessment appropriate to the circumstances. It further r eviewed selected take -aways from relevant 
WTO disputes, such as on the distinction between measures "based on" and those that "conform to" 
a relevant international standard, and the lack of distinction in the SPS  Agreement  between 
"standards", "guidelines" , and "recommendations". The Secretariat described the Committee's 
Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization ( G/SPS/11/Rev.1 ), and how its 
application had evolved over time. On transparency, it was recalled that in 2008, the Recommended 
Transparency Procedures ( G/SPS/7/Rev.4 ) had been revised to identify measures that conform with 
international standards.  
4. In Session 2, the relevant ISSBs presented on their initiatives t o monitor the implementation of 
their standards, which were at various stages of development. Codex planned to finalize by 
January  2022 the development of a monitoring and evaluation framework to measure the use and 
impact of Codex standards, aimed at prot ecting consumer health and facilitating international food 
trade. The OIE presented on the OIE Observatory, expected to be fully implemented by  2025. 
Data quality was key to developing a robust evidence -based system to enhance the standard -setting 
process and design of capacity  building activities. The IPPC was planning to develop a monitoring 
and evaluation framework for the implementation of the new IPPC Strategic Framework 2020 -2030. 
It further reviewed existing tools, i.e. the Implementation Review and Support System  (IRSS) and 
ePhyto, which had proven useful to monitor selected standards. This session generated discussion 
on the financial sustainability of the various monitoring mechanisms being developed, 
the "relevance" of standards leading to varying  levels of implementation across countries, data 
accessibility and reliability, non -duplication of initiatives to better manage resources, and whether 
the use of automated machine learning systems could help monitoring alignment of domestic 
legislation wit h international standards.  
5. In Session 3, OIRSA shared its experiences in developing a harmonized regional guide to good 
risk-based agricultural practices, collaborating with other countries in the Latin America and 
Caribbean region, as well as with FAO,  IICA and OIE. The guide, which covered chemical, physical 
and biological risks, targeted small, medium and large producers.  
6. Session 4 provided some insight into national initiatives to promote international harmonization  
and challenges that Members fac ed when harmonizing SPS measures. First, New Zealand promoted  G/SPS/R/104  
 
- 51 - 
 
  international harmonization through explicit references to the SPS  Agreement  in domestic legislation  
and active participation in the work of the ISSBs. It highlighted challenges of non -recogniti on of 
international standards and areas which could benefit from better alignment with such standards. 
Second, the United Kingdom used a case study to illustrate benefits of IPPC standards, such as 
contributing to building trust with trading partners and f acilitating negotiations on plant protection 
requirements. Next, Peru and Canada illustrated how their respective food safety regulations 
incorporated Codex standards. Peru also provided examples on how national requirements could 
complement Codex standard s. Canada noted the issue of resource constraints when a risk 
assessment was needed. It also referred to the notification formats, and challenges of completing 
and reviewing information on international standards contained in notifications, encouraging 
reflection in this area.  
7. In concluding, I remarked that the thematic session had proven to be informative and interesting,  
and that it had provided a useful opportunity to increase Members' understanding of international  
harmonization, including the relevant provisions, initiatives of the ISSBs, and national and regional  
perspectives.  
8. Presentations from all session of the thematic session would be made available 
on the SPS Gateway . 
 
 
__________