G/SPS/GEN/2009   
6 April 2022  
(22-2754) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: Spanish  
 
  
RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY BOLIVIA ON  PERUVIAN  
AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS (STC N O. 530) 
COMMUNICATION FROM PERU  
The following communication, received on 4 April 2022, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Peru. 
 
___________ ____  
 
 
1.  Peru would like to express before WTO Members its trade concern regarding various restrictive 
measures  that the Government of Bolivia  has applied on Peruvian agricultural exports over the past 
three years . These measures have established (de facto ) blockade s on the entry into the Bolivian 
market of the main products originating in Peru, such as potatoes and onions. Measures restricting 
the exportation of whole trout , which have no technical basis , are also in place . 
2.  In this connection, it should be m entioned that on 21 July 2021 the Bolivian government 
authorities, represented by the Ministry of Rural Development and Lands, the Vice -Ministry  for 
Anti-Smuggling , the Directorate -General  for Anti -Smuggling , the National Directorate of the National 
Service for Agricultural Health and Food Safety (SENASAG ), and the Cochabamba Regional Customs 
Office , in conjunction with the Federation of Agricultural Producers of Valle Bajo and the Federation 
of Horticultur al Farmers  of the Paria and Soracach i Municipality in the Oruro Department, signed a 
memorandum  of understanding, as part of which they made  short-, medium -, and long -term 
commitments to, inter alia , control  and restric t access to the Bolivian market for agricultural products 
by increasing t ariffs and imposing restrictive non -tariff measures such as the operation  of quotas.  
3.  The commitments laid down in the above -mentioned memorandum  of understanding are in 
contravention of the provisions of Article XI of the GATT 1994 on the general eliminati on of 
quantitative restrictions, given that  no prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other 
charges, whether made effective through quotas, licences or other measures, shall be instituted or 
maintained by any Member on the importation of any product of the territory of any other Member.1 
4.  The sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions imposed by the Government of Bolivia  consist of the 
following : 
a. The fact that SENASAG  has not grant ed any phytosanitary permit s for the importation of 
Peruvian agricultural products such as potatoes and onions  since July 2021 ; 
 
b. The fact that SENASAG  has not been conducting  phytosanitary inspection s on perishable 
agricultural products originating in Peru at the Binational Border Se rvice Centre (CEBAF) 
at Desaguadero2; 
 
1 Communications sent to the Bolivian Vice -Ministry of Foreign Trade and Integration:  
Official Note No. 239 - 2021 - MINCETUR/VMCE, dated 27 July 2021;  
Official Note No. 221 - 2021 - MINCETUR/VMCE, dated 12 July 2021.  
2 The CEBAF at Desaguadero is an enclosed set of facilities located in the Republic of Peru, which 
includes access routes, enclosures, facilities, equipment, furniture and areas necessary for the provision of the 
integrat ed control service for the flow of people, luggage, goods and means of transport, where basic and 
complementary services are provided to facilitate guidance, service and control in a fast and simplified manner 
for the user at the border entry and exit (Art icle 1(a) of the "Specific Agreement between the Republic of Peru 
and the Plurinational State of Bolivia for the Binational Border Service Centre (CEBAF) at Desaguadero").  G/SPS/GEN/2009  
 
- 2 - 
 
  c. The fact that , following the detection of a larva in a tuber , the importation of potato 
consignments  certified by the Peruvian National Agrarian Health Service (SENASA ) was 
refused  in November 2021 without any evidence that the larva  was a quarantine or exotic 
pest for Bolivia , in which case  the ban would be justified as an emergency measure.  
5.  With regard to the failure to grant phytosanitary import permit s, SENASAG stopped  granting 
these permit s for the importation of potatoes and onions in July 2021 , without  explain ing the reasons 
for doing so  or adhering to  the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and the  
WTO SPS Agreement, under which  such a measure  could be justified . Instead , it simply state d that 
the systems were not set up  to record the process or that they were not authorized to perform  this 
function, which prevented the importation of  Peruvian perishable products. Bolivia has been  
periodically suspending the issuance of phytosanitary import permits since 2018, in contravention 
of the provisions of the SPS Agreement and even of its own national regulations, particularly  
Administrative Resolution No. 085/2016 of 6 June 2016 a pproving  the "Phytosanitary Import 
Procedure Manual", in which it is indicated  that paper and electronic phytosanitary permits are issued 
in two working days and one working day respectively.  
6.  As regards the  phytosanitary inspections, SENASAG is required to conduct  these inspections prior 
to the clearance of the product , and to undertake any relevant verification tests, in accordance with 
the requirements of the corresponding procedure. Depending on the results, SENASAG may 
authorize the clearance of the product where it is subject to  fulfilment of the requirements set forth  
in the corresponding phytosanitary import permit.  
7.  However, SENASAG has not been conducting  phytosanitary inspection s on imports of perishable 
products from Peru (potatoes, onions and fruit, among others) on the premises of the CEBAF at 
Desaguadero . Instead , it has  simply indicat ed that  the inspectors are not authorized to perform this 
task, or that its systems are not set up to record the inspection of these products. This prevents 
small business o wners from exporting perishable products. Moreover, when inspections are 
permitted , Bolivia creates delays and unjustified barriers to trade.  
8.  The failure to grant  phytosanitary import permits and to conduct  phytosanitary inspection s 
constitutes a breach of  the provisions of Articles 2 and 8 of, and Annex C to , the SPS Agreement, 
because  SPS measures should not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised 
restriction on international trade. Moreover, inspection and control procedures should be u ndertaken 
and completed without undue delay and in no less favourable  manner for imported products than 
for like domestic products.  
9.  Furthermore , with respect to  the re fusal to  import potato consignments  due to the detection of 
a larva in a tuber , Peru has not received from Bolivia  any notification of non -compliance justify ing 
such a measure, which would enable the relevant corrective measures to  be taken and trade in this 
product  to be continue d. In this connection , Peru has asked to be informed  of the taxonomic 
identification and condition  in Bolivia of the pest  intercepted , as well as of the official laboratory 
report , with no response received to date . 
10.  Bolivia's action s are contrary to the International Plant Protection Convention 's (IPPC)  basic 
principle s of "necessity" and "technical justification" for the protection of plants and the application 
of phytosanitary measures in international trade, which indicate  that the parties may apply 
phytosanitary measures only whe re such measures  are neces sary to prevent the introduction and/or 
spread of quarantine pests and that they sh all technically justify phytosanitary measures on the 
basis of conclusions reached by using an appropriate pest risk analysis or, where applicable, another 
comparable examin ation and evaluation of available scientific information. In addition, Bolivia, as 
the importing country, has failed  to transmit to Peru the corresponding notifications identifying the 
pest intercepted in the potato consignments  so that Peru, as the export ing country, may investigate 
and make the necessary corrections . This is contrary to  ISPM No. 13  of the IPPC, which  contain s 
guidelines for  the notification of non -compliance  and emergency action.  
11.  In this re spect , we consider that Article 3 of the SPS Agreement on harmonization has been 
violated, in which it is indicated that Members shall base their measures on international standards, 
guidelines, or recommendations. Articles 2 and 5  would also be contravened , since phytosanitary 
measures must be appli ed where necessary, inter alia , to protect plant life or health , and be based 
on scientific principles, taking into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects.  G/SPS/GEN/2009  
 
- 3 - 
 
  12.  We also consider that the provisions of Article 7 of, and Annex B to , the SPS Ag reement have 
been violated,  which  establish, inter alia , that where urgent problems of phytosanitary  protection 
arise or threaten to arise for a Member, this Member must immediately notify other Members , 
through the Secretariat , of the particular regulatio n and the products covered , with a brief indication 
of the objective and the rationale of the regulation , including the nature of the urgent problem(s); 
and allow other Members to make comments and discuss the urgent measure. However, Bolivia has 
not submi tted any emergency notifications  to the WTO SPS Committee  concerning the measures 
applied on Peruvian potatoes.  
13.  Moreover, on 10 September 2021, Peruvian and Bolivian health, trade and customs authorities 
met on the premises of the CEBAF at Desaguadero, whe re the Deputy Ministers of Foreign Trade for 
both countries signed an agreement in which they made various commitments, such as addressing 
any type of issue relating to bilateral trade in agricultural products from that date, as well as ensuring 
the issuan ce of phytosanitary permits and conducting of phytosanitary inspections at the border. 
These  commitments have also been ignored  by Bolivia, which continues to maintain  the blockade on 
the above -mentioned agricultural exports.  
14.  Potatoes and onions are the mo st important  cases, w ith problems still occurring to date in 
relation to their entry because the Bolivian authority is not granting phytosanitary import permits or 
conducting  the inspection s required for  the Bolivian importer to complete the clearance process for  
these products. This can be  seen in the trends  for vegetable  exports, as, among Peru's Andean 
partners, Bolivia is the second largest destination for these exports . Peru's potato exports to Bolivia 
for the period from January  to June 2021 amounted to  USD 263,000 or 2,381 tonnes, while there 
were no Peruvian exports between June and December 2021. A similar trend was observed for 
onions, with Peruvian exports to Bolivia for the period  from January  to July 2021 amounting to  
USD 1.034 million or 9,067 tonnes, while there were no exports from August 2021 . 
15.  As regards trout, SENASAG gave formal notice of  the approval of the harmonized  health  
certificate for the export ation of fresh  or chilled /whole  or loose  trout in 2017.3 
16.  Against this backdrop , in order to implement binational commitments,  the Peruvian National 
Fisheries Health Service (SANIPES)  carried out activities  at the border  throughout 2019, 2020 and 
2021 so that  trout could  be marketed and a safe and healthy product  guaranteed .4 Likewise, in 
July 2020 and March 2021, meetings were held between senior manage ment staff  from SANIPES 
and SENASAG, at which both health  authorities made  commitments that would contribute to  
formalizing the export ation of whole or loose /fresh  or chille d trout to Bolivia.  
17.  In spite of the agreements between the two parties, SENASAG has failed to comply with, 
inter alia, the following commitments  that would enable  whole trout to be exported to Bolivia:  
a. It is not known if Bolivia has established mechanisms to improve transport, the cold chain 
and evisceration practices.  
b. SENASAG did not attend  the technical field visit focused on  aquacultur e establishments;5 
c. As of December 2021, SENASAG ha d failed to incorporate 20 businesses or authorized 
persons in its register of importers.  
18.  It is even more concerning that , in January 2022, SENASAG indicated that its regulations only 
allowed for the marketing of eviscerated animals and that other types of products could not be 
 
3 CITE/SENASAG/DN No. 1232/2017.  
4 Activities undertaken:  
− Training at the border for Bolivian aquaculture professionals;  
− Meeting at the CEBAF at Desaguadero for the sharing  of experiences between SANIPES and 
SENASAG;  
− Approval of the document "Implementation of the document for the health  certification at the 
Peru-Bolivia border of fresh/ chilled  hydrobiological products";  
− Running of seminars aimed at Bolivian importers  and marketers;  
− Running of a pilot test for the  issuance  of the health  certificate at the border, with the 
participation of representatives from SANIPES and SENASAG . This  involved simulati ng trade in 
hydrobiological products, with a view to showing Bolivian  counterparts  how to use the integrated 
health system in the health  certificate  issuance process . 
5 Commitment  made  at the follow-up meeting between the directors of SANIPES and SENASAG on 
18 March 2021 - Official Note No. 111 -2021-SANIPES/PE.  G/SPS/GEN/2009  
 
- 4 - 
 
  accepted  under its regulatory framework . In other words, five years after approving a  health  
certificate for the exportation of whole trout, SENASAG is unjustifiably restricting access  for this 
product . 
19.  The review of the Bolivian regu lation, which was not  notified beforehand to the WTO SPS 
Committee in accordance with  Article  7 of, and Annex B to , the SPS Agreement, reveals  no technical 
or legal reason preventing Peruvian exports of whole trout.  
20.  This ban would not only be un founded  under the SPS Agreement, but it would also contravene 
the provisions of Article XI of the GATT 1994 on the general elimination of quantitative restrictions.  
21.  Based on  the foregoing, Bolivia would be in breach of  the provisions of Article XI of the 
GATT  1994, as well as  Articles 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of, and Annexes B and C to, the SPS Agreement. In 
this connection, we ask Bolivia to  rescind  any de jure  or de facto restrictions in place on  Peruvian 
exports of perishable  goods and whole trout.  
__________