RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/83  
 
9 August  2016 
(16-4254) Page: 1/35 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETI NG OF 30 JUNE – 1 JULY  2016  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
2   ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  ................................ ................................ ................  5 
3   INFORMATION ON RELEV ANT ACTIVITIES  ................................ ................................ .. 5 
3.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .........................  5 
3.1.1   Ukraine – Information on the Food Safety and Consumer Protection Service  ....................  5 
3.1.2   Russian Federation – National online resource on consumer rights protection  ..................  5 
3.1.3   United States – Update on implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act  .............  5 
3.1.4   Peru - Sanitary requirements for imports of  processed foods  ................................ .........  6 
3.1.5   European Union - Ongoing review of Maximum Residue Levels for pesticides in the 
European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  6 
3.1.6   European Union - EU proposals for scientific criteria to identify endocrine 
disruptors in the field of plant protection products and biocides  ................................ ...............  7 
3.1.7   Japan – Update on the situation surr ounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  ................................ ................................ ....................  7 
3.1.8   European Union – New animal health law (G/SPS/GEN/1492)  ................................ ........  8 
3.1.9   Russian Federation – Possible scenario on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  8 
3.1.10    Turkey – Recent developments in the field of plant health  ................................ ...........  9 
3.2   Information from the relevant SPS standard -setting bodies  ................................ .............  9 
3.2.1   CODEX  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  9 
3.2.2   OIE ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
3.2.3   IPPC ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  9 
4   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS ................................ ................................ .....................  10 
4.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  10 
4.1.1   Russian Federation import measures - Concerns of Ukraine  ................................ ..........  10 
4.1.2   Costa Rica's regulat ion on registration, use and control of pesticides and related 
substances (G/SPS/N/CRI/48/Add.1) - Concerns of Israel  ................................ ......................  10 
4.1.3   Russian Federation import restrictions on certain animal produc ts from Germany – 
Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ........................  11 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members o r to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ............................  12 
4.2.1   China's import restrictions due to  Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza – Concerns of 
the European Union (No. 406)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  12 
4.2.2   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  12 
4.2.3   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 392)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  13 
4.2.4   Korea's import restrictions d ue to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European  Union (No. 393)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 13 
4.2.5   EU restrictions on exports of pork from the State of Santa Catarina – Concerns of 
Brazil (No. 407)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  14 
4.2.6   US high cost of certification for mango exports – Concerns of India (No. 373) .................  14 
4.2.7   Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of  phytosanitary import certificates for 
avocados (G/SPS/N/CRI/160, G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/CRI/162)  – 
Concerns of Mexico (No. 394)  ................................ ................................ ............................  15 
4.2.8   EU ban on certain vegetables from India – Concerns of India (No. 374)  .........................  15 
4.2.9   Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on Japanese foods in response to the nuclear 
power plant accident – Concerns of Japan (No. 387)  ................................ .............................  16 
4.2.10    China's import restrictions on Japanese foods in response to the nuclear power 
plant accident – Concerns of Japan (No. 354)  ................................ ................................ ...... 16 
4.2.11    EU revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors – 
Concerns of Argentina, China and the United States (No. 382)  ................................ ...............  16 
4.2.12    US measures on catfish – Concerns of Chi na and Viet Nam (No. 289)  ..........................  18 
4.2.13    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia and Latvia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  ................................ .............  18 
4.2.14    EU agricultural biotechnology approval process – Concerns of the United States 
(No. 110)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  19 
4.2.15    China's proposed amendments  to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOs (G/SPS/N/CHN/881) – Concerns of the United States 
(No. 395) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  20 
4.2.16    EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic products – Concerns of India 
(No. 378)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  20 
4.2.17    China's lack of transparency for certain SPS measures – Concerns of the United 
States (No. 184)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  20 
4.3   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16  ................................ ........  21 
4.3.1   China's import conditions related to phthalates - Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 345) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  21 
5   OPERATION OF TRANSPA RENCY PROVISIONS  ................................ ..........................  21 
5.1   Indonesia – Update on Transparency  ................................ ................................ ...........  22 
5.2   European Union – Transparency Provision of the SPS Agreement  ................................ ..... 22 
6   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  23 
6.1   India's submission on pesticide MRLS (G/SPS/W/284)  ................................ ....................  23 
6.2   Workshop on MRLS (G/SPS/GEN/1498)  ................................ ................................ ....... 23 
6.3   Raising awarenes s on IPPC and OIE dispute settlement/avoidance mechanisms  .................  24 
6.4   Creation of a Working Group on Implementation of the SPS Agreement - Proposal 
from Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  25 
7   IMPLEMENTATION OF SP ECIAL AND DIFFERENTI AL TREATMENT  ..............................  26 G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 3 - 
 
  8   EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4  ................................ ................................ .......................  26 
8.1   Information from Members on their experiences  ................................ ...........................  26 
8.2   Information from relevant observer organizations  ................................ .........................  26 
9   PEST - AND DISEAS E-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6  ................................ .........................  26 
9.1   Information from Members on their pest or disease status  ................................ ..............  26 
9.1.1   United States - Freedom fr om Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza  ................................ .. 26 
9.1.2   Russian Federation – Foot and mouth disease free zone  ................................ ..............  26 
9.2   Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest - or disease -
free areas  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  26 
9.2.1   Brazil – OIE recognition of an additional 14 states and the Federal District as free 
of Classical Swine Fe ver ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 26 
9.2.2   Costa Rica – OIE recognition as negligible risk for BSE  ................................ ................  27 
9.3   Information from relevant observer organizations  ................................ .........................  27 
9.3.1   OIE ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  27 
9.4   Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/48  ................................ ................................ .. 27 
10   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  ................................ .........................  27 
10.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ...............  27 
10.1.1    WTO SPS activities  ................................ ................................ ...............................  27 
10.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1497)  ................................ ................................ ......................  28 
10.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................  28 
10.2.1    Technical assistance to developing countries provided by Japan 
(G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.4)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 28 
10.2.2    Jamaica – Technical assistance received  ................................ ................................ .. 29 
10.3   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ .... 29 
10.3.1    OIE ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  29 
10.3.2    OIRSA – Relevant activities ( G/SPS/GEN/1495)  ................................ ........................  29 
10.3.3    IICA ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  29 
10.3.4    IGAD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  29 
10.3.5    ITC ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  30 
10.3.6    ISO ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  30 
11   REVIEW OF THE OPERAT ION AND IMPLEMENTATI ON OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  30 
11.1   Report of the informal meeting  ................................ ................................ .................  30 
11.2   Adoption of the report of the Fourth Review (G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2) and Adoption of 
the Catalogue of Instruments (G/SPS /W/279/Rev.2)  ................................ .............................  31 
12   MONITORING OF THE US E OF INTERNATIONAL S TANDARDS  ................................ .. 31 
12.1   New Issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  31 
12.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ...........................  31 
12.2.1    United States – IPPC Phytosanitary Certificate Requirements for Processed Food 
Products  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  31 
12.2.2    United States – Use of the Codex International Standard on Glyphosate  .......................  32 G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 4 - 
 
  12.3   Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/11/REV.1  ................................ ......................  32 
13   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  ................................ .... 32 
14   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  33 
14.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ .... 33 
14.2   Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.13) ................................ .....................  34 
14.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 34 
14.2.2    Outstanding requests  ................................ ................................ ...........................  34 
15   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 34 
16   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NE XT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .. 34 
 G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its 66th 
regular meeting on 30 June - 1 July 2016.  The Committee agreed to include Brazil 's proposal to 
create a working group on the implementation of the SPS Agreement under the agenda item titled 
"Cross -Cutting Issues". The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with amendments 
(WTO/AIR/SPS/10).  
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
2.1.  The Chairper son informed the Committee that the Council for Trade in Goods had agreed to 
the election of Ms Marcela Otero of Chile as the new Chairperson of the Committee on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures. The Committee endorsed the election of Ms Otero by acclam ation, and 
voiced its appreciation to Mr Hees for his efforts as ch airperson during the past year.  
2.2.  Mr Hees expressed his gratitude to Members of the SPS Committee and the Secretariat for 
their hard work. Ms Otero thanked the SPS Committee for the opportuni ty to serve as Chairperson 
and acknowledged the arduous work undertaken by Mr Hees, as well as the support received from 
the Secretariat. Ms Otero further signalled her willingness to engage in consultations with 
Members.  
3  INFORMATION ON RELEV ANT ACTIVITIES  
3.1  Information from Members  
3.1.1   Ukraine – Information on the Food Safety and Consumer Protection Service  
3.1.  Ukraine provided information on progress made in the restructuring of previously 
independent agencies into a single competent authority, the Food Safety and Consumer Protection 
Service. The Service's organization structure had been finalized, but the restructuring process had 
not yet been fully completed. Ukraine indicated that information on the Service was being made 
available on its primary website ( http://www.consumer.gov.ua ) as quickly as possible. To date, 
the information was only available in Ukrainian;  however, the most critical trade -related 
information would subsequently be posted in English. Ukraine undersc ored its efforts to strengthen 
its SPS regulatory system and to facilitate transparency in trade. Ukraine further expressed its 
appreciation for the continued interest shown by Members in the development of this State Service 
on Food Safety and Consumer Pr otection, highlighting the number of questions raised on this issue 
in the April Trade Policy Review. Ukraine informed the Committee that a more detailed, written 
communication on the Service would be provided in the near future . 
3.1.2   Russian Federation – Natio nal online resource on consumer rights protection  
3.2.  The Russian Federation provided information on its national online resource on consumer 
rights protection , which had been developed by the Russian Federal Service Rospotrebnadzor 
under its mandate to carry out federal sanitary and epidemiological surveillance, and federal 
monitoring in the field of consumer rights protection. The online resource sought to fully 
implement the right of consumers to protect their legal interests, as well as to ensure their righ t to 
life and health. The resource was available for use by any interested person and contained 
information on legal frameworks for consumer protection, such as international and regional legal 
acts. Special attention would also be given to providing infor mation on cases where the 
requirements of sanitary legislation had been violated, as well as specific evidence on product non -
compliance with mandatory requirements. The Russian Federation highlighted its efforts to actively 
improve and implement its nutri tion policy and underscored that relevant information and tutorial 
videos on healthy nutrition were also available via the online resource.  
3.1.3   United States – Update on implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act  
3.3.  The United States provided an update o n the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food 
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), highlighting that the FDA had now finalized its seven risk -based 
foundational rules to implement FSMA. Two of these rules had been finalized after the last 
SPS Committee meeting  in March 2016: (i) sanitary transportation, notified as G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 6 - 
 
  G/SPS/N/USA/2631/Add.2; and (ii) intentional adulteration, notified as G/SPS/N/USA/2610/Add.2.  
Firstly, on 5 April 2016, the FDA had finalized the Sanitary Transportation rule which built  on 
current food transport ation best practices and focused  on ensuring that the individuals 
transporting food, which was at the greatest risk for contamination during transportation, follow ed 
appropriate sanitary transportation practices. The rule only applied to firm s engaged in the 
transportation of food by motor and rail vehicle, i.e., shippers, carr iers, loaders and receivers. 
In addition, the rule applies  to exporters in other countries shipping food and arranging for 
transportation of the food within the United S tates directly by motor or rail vehicle (from Canada 
or Mexico), or by ship or air, and for the transfer of the intact container into a motor or rail vehicle 
for transportation within the United States  for consumption or distribution in the United States. 
Secondly, on 27 May 2016, the FDA had finalized the Intentional Adulteration rule which required 
covered food facilities to complete and maintain a written food defence plan that assessed  
vulnerabilities to intentional adulteration with intent to cause wid e scale public health harm. The 
United States explained the key aspects of the rule, highlighting the requirements embodied in the 
food defence  plan, as well as the ove rall objective of the rule. The  United States highlighted that 
the rule also included a number of exceptions, of which the exception based on business size 
would have the most impact.  
3.4.  Lastly, the United States indicated that the FDA was providing longer timeline s for smaller 
facilities and businesses to comply with these two rules. Specific i nformation on compliance dates 
and exemptions could be found on the FDA website ( http://www.fda.gov/fsma ). The FDA had also 
established an electronic technical assistance network, where all FSMA -related questions co uld be 
submitted ( http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm459719.htm ). The United 
States further emphasized that FSMA only applied to food products under the regulato ry 
jurisdiction of the FDA and that the rules had been shaped by extensive outreach with the general 
public, trading partners and foreign producers.  
3.1.4   Peru - Sanitary requirements for imports of processed foods  
3.5.  Peru informed Members of the recent revision of  its sanitary requirements governing the 
importation of processed foods, other than fishery and aquaculture products. These new 
requirements sought to facilitate trade in processed products and improve transparency in this 
area. Information on these requir ements could be found on the website: 
http://www.digesa.sld.pe/Orientacion/Requisitos_Sanitarios.asp . Peru further requested that 
Members address general and specific queries r elated to the import of processed foods directly to 
the Directorate -General of Environmental Health and Food Safety (DIGESA): foodsafety -
peru@digesa.minsa.gob.pe . More information  is available in G/SPS/GEN/1496 . 
3.1.5   European Union - Ongoing  review of Maximum Residue Levels f or pesticides in the 
European Union  
3.6.  The European Union informed the Committee of its ongoing  process to review the current 
MRLs for pesticides, including how countries outside the E uropean Union could  contribute to the 
process. The European Union referred to its document (G/SPS/GEN/1494 ) highlighting  the specific 
stages of the process at which non -EU countries could  intervene if they wish ed to support sp ecific 
uses of pesticides that  were no longer approved in the European Union,  and the steps to be taken. 
The document also included a list of active substances subject to the review 
(http://www.efsa.europ a.eu/sites/default/files/event/140619ax1.pdf ). The European Union invited 
non-EU countries to consult these lists to identi fy substances for which they might  have a 
particular interest. Further information could be found on several EU websites indicated i n the 
document,  including: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/index_en.htm . 
3.7.  The United States thanked the European Union for providing information on its ongoing  
review of pesti cide MRLs and underscored the importance of th is process to US producers. 
The United States noted that G/SPS/GEN/1494 urged non -EU countries to consult at an early stage 
of the process, with respect to submitting contributions to the evaluation dossiers of  EU member 
States. In this regard, the United States requested further clarification on the mechanism by which 
the United States and other WTO Members could be informed of when and which EU member State 
would be undertaking those evaluations of dossiers.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.8.  The European Union referred to the tables included in document G/SPS/GEN/1494 , which 
provided a listing of all of the substances to be reviewed under the process, as well as the 
designat ed rapporteur member State  responsible for undertaking the first evalua tion of the file. 
The European Union further clarified that countries should establish contact with the member State 
identified as a rapporteur for the particular substance. Any Member interested in a particular 
substance could also contact the European Co mmission in order to be put in contact with the 
relevant authorities of the member State responsible for the assessment.  
3.1.6   European Union - EU proposals for scientific criteria to identify endocrine 
disruptors in the field of plant protection products and bi ocides  
3.9.  The European Union provided an update on the scientific criteria to identify endocrine 
disruptors in the context of the implementation of the EU legislation on pesticides  and biocides. 
The European Union recalled  that in response to a judgement of t he EU General Court in 
December  2015, the European Commission had committed to present scientific criteria before the 
summer of 2016. As such, on 15 June 2016, the Commission had endorsed two draft legal acts 
containing the scientific criteria to identify endocrine disruptors  in relation to the : (i) the Plant 
Protection Products Regulation; and (ii)  the Biocidal Products Regulation. The  Commission had also 
adopted a communication on endocrine disruptors, accompanied by a thorough impact 
assessment. All of t hese documents could be accessed from the Commission's website. The 
European Union further indicated that the proposal on plant protection products had been notified 
under the SPS and TBT  Agreements, and the proposal on biocides under the TBT Agreement.  
3.10.  The European Union explained that the scientific criteria put forward by the Commission 
were based on the widely agreed WHO definition of an endocrine disruptor. The scientific criteria 
also specified how the identification of an endocrine disruptor should b e carried out, including 
steps such as making use of all relevant scientific evidence, using a "weight of evidence approach" 
and applying a robust systematic review. In addition, the Commission had proposed to adjust the 
plant protection product  derogation s so that they would be based on science and make best use of 
available scientific evidence, including information on hazard, exposure and risk. The European 
Union indicated that this would allow for appropriate and proportionate decisions on endocrine 
disruptors, while complying with international obligations.  
3.11.  The European Union informed the Committee that the two draft measures would need to be 
adopted under the relevant regulatory procedures. In particular, the measures falling under the 
pesticides legis lation would be first discussed and then voted in the Standing Committee by 
EU member States delegations, but not before having considered the comments received in 
response to the SPS and TBT notifications. The European Union further explained that after t he 
vote, the draft measure would be subject to scrutiny in the European Parliament and the Council 
before its adoption by the Commission. Detailed information on the substance and procedure of 
the proposals could be found on the European Commission webpage . 
3.1.7   Japan – Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  
3.12.  Japan provided an update on the developments since the last SPS Committee, highlighting 
the most recent data from its food monitoring exerc ise, its ongoing efforts to ensure food safety , 
and the latest assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) , which indicated that 
the situation remained stable. Japan informed the Committee that products exceeding the 
regulatory limits had d ecreased from 0.85% in 2012 to 0.09% in 2015, and that all of the test 
results in 2015 had been beneath  the Codex guideline level, with the exception of wild animal 
products. Japan indicated that it had established a legal framework which made it possible to 
restrict the distribution of pr oducts in the market according to areas , based on the test results. The 
current legal f ramework also included measures  such as penalties to prevent distribution of foods 
exceeding the Japanese standard limits. In addition,  the assessment by the IAEA had confirmed 
that Japan's  food supply chain was under effective control of the relevant authorities. Japan 
expressed its appreciation to Brunei, Kuwait and the United States for either lifting or easing 
import restrictions. Las tly, Japan emphasized its commitment to comply with WTO rules and with 
the SPS  Agreement, and referred to the relevant sections of the declaration of the G7 Agriculture 
Minister s' Meeting, held in April 2016.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.1.8   European Union – New animal health law (G/SPS/G EN/1492)  
3.13.  The European Union provided an overview of its new Animal Health Law which had been 
adopted on 9 March 2016 as Regulation 2016/429, and notified under  the SPS Agreement as 
G/SPS/N/EU/45/Add.2. The European Union explained  that this Regulation repr esented  a single 
legal framework for animal health , providing comprehensive, simple and clear rules for the 
prevention and control of transmissible animal diseases . It would apply from 21 April 2021. 
The Regulation will apply  to kept and wild terrestrial, aquatic and other animals, germinal products 
and products of animal origin and contained various rules for the prevention, control and 
eradication of transmissible animal diseases for intra-EU trade and trade into the European Union. 
The European Union hig hlighted that with respect to the conditions for entry of animals, germinal 
products and products of animal origin into the European Union, the current system remained 
largely unchanged. However, the Regulation established more transparent international tr ade 
requirements aligned with the international standards set out by the OIE. The framework 
Regulation would be complemented by a series of implementing measures which would be notified 
to the SPS Committee in due course. The European Union further outline d the steps for the 
systematic review of the list of animal diseases by the European Commission, explaining that 
appropriate measures would be defined for each of the listed diseases according to the new 
Regulation. The deadline to develop the priority imp lementing measures and to list animal diseases 
was set for 2019, in order to make the new rules fully applicable by 2021. Additional information 
on the animal health law was available  in G/SPS/GEN/1492.  
3.1.9   Russian Federation – Possible scenario on African swi ne fever spread in the 
Eurasian region  
3.14.  The Russian Federation provided an update on the spread of African swine fever (ASF) in 
the Eurasian region, noting the number of outbreaks that had occurred in domestic pigs and wild 
boars in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuan ia and Poland since 2014 . The Russian Federation observed that 
ASF had spread towards southern  Ukraine, highlighting the potential threats of the introduction of 
the transboundary agent to neighbouring countries such as Moldova and Romania. The Russian 
Federation noted that the large proportion of small -scale pig production with low biosecurity levels 
in these countries would be potential contributing factors. The Russian Federation also indicated its 
concerns related to wild boar surveillance, and the incr eased risk of the disease further spreading 
to Eastern, Southern and Central Europe and becoming a pan -European problem, posing a threat 
to Bulgaria and Balkan countries. The Russian Federation noted that the only way to combat this 
threat was to coordinat e the efforts of the concerned countries and international organizations. 
The standing group of ASF Experts  which had been established to discuss disease control was still 
expanding and now included the competent authorities of Hungary, Moldova, Romania an d the 
Slovak Republic . The Russian Federation noted the last outbreak in Poland and queried the 
effectiveness of the control measures for domestic pigs and wild boars. The Russian Federation 
further encouraged all concerned Members to combine their efforts  in order to control the disease.  
3.15.  The Chairperson reminded Members that information provided under agenda item 3 was 
aimed at sharing national experiences and information on  relevant national SPS activities.  
3.16.  Ukraine indicated its concerns regarding the con clusions drawn by the Russian Federation 
on the general spread of ASF in the Eurasian region and more specifically in Ukraine. Ukraine 
queried the reliability of the data and subsequent analysis, and further stated that the relevant 
countries should have b een consulted in order to ensure the accuracy of the data.  
3.17.  The European Union reiterated its view that the use of this agenda item for purposes other 
than providing information on relevant activities was inappropriate and stated that, because of the 
ongoin g dispute settlement case, it would not respond to the Russia n Federation's allegations. 
The European Union recalled some of the information previously presented to the Committee, 
highlighting that the European Union had applied regionalization in accordan ce with OIE principles. 
Moreover, the European Union stated that the effectiveness of its measures had been 
demonstrated by the limited geographical spread of the disease, in terms of location of the 
outbreaks and by the occurrence of all new findings of t he disease within the restricted areas 
covered by regionalization measures. The European Union further highlighted the homology 
between th e strain  detected  in the European Union and the virus strains that had circulated in 
Belarus and the Russian Federatio n in the previous years. The European Union informed the 
Committee that the EFSA report of July 2015 had also confirmed the appropriateness of the G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 9 - 
 
  EU measures. The European Union indicated that it had taken a number of measures to promote 
the effective pre vention, early detection and appropriate reaction in ASF -free territories that were 
at risk of introduction of ASF via the borders with infected countries. Since 2015, financial support 
for ASF surveillance programmes had been provided to the affected , as well as three other  
EU member States. All relevant information was available on the website of the Commission 
Services. Finally, the Eu ropean Union urged other Members to demonstrate the same level of 
transparency and reiterated its commitment to work coll aboratively with all affected Members and 
trading partners.  
3.1.10   Turkey – Recent developments in the field of plant health  
3.18.  Turkey informed the Committee of its integrated pest management programmes which were 
being implemented for various plant products. Turkey  highlighted that it had published more than 
500 plant protection technical instructions, over 400 standard and non -standard test methods of 
plant protection products, all of which had been distributed to its stakeholders. Priority had been 
placed on the u se of alternative methods for chemical control, such as biological control, 
biotechnical methods, as well as mechanical and physical controls. As a result, Turkey had 
significantly reduced its use of pesticides, through this environment -friendly approach, and had 
experienced successful results with respect to controlling certain pests and diseases. Finally, 
Turkey expressed its commitment to continue the balanced use of all control techniques, in order 
to protect biological diversity, human health and the e nvironment.  
3.2  Information from the relevant SPS standard -setting bodies  
3.2.1   CODEX  
3.19.  The Chairperson drew attention to a written report submitted by Codex (G/SPS/GEN/1501).  
3.2.2   OIE 
3.20.  The OIE outlined its report, as contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1499. The OIE updated 
the Committee on recent developments in its OIE standard -setting work. Several revisions to the 
text of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code had been adopted, including: the amendment of the 
user guide to clarify that zoning and compartmentalization should be considered as tools to control 
diseases and to facilitate s afe trade; and the addition of " reptiles " to the definition of " animal " in 
the glossary. In relation to the Aquatic Code, Chapter 4.3 on "Disinfection of aquaculture 
establishments and equipment " had been comprehensively revised. The online versions of the 
2016 edition s of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Code s were available from the OIE public website  at: 
http://www.oie.int/en/international -standard -setting/terrestrial -code/access -online/  and 
http://www.oie.int/en/international -standard -setting/aquatic -code/ access -online/  respectively. 
The OIE also informed the Committee that several diseases had been specifically highlighted in the 
discussions at the General Session, such as: highly pathogenic avian influenza; bluetongue and 
lumpy skin disease; and peste de s petits ruminants virus (PPR). In addition, the OIE highlighted 
two technical items which had been discussed at the General Session: "The Economics of Animal 
Health: Direct and Indirect Costs of Animal Disease Outbreaks"; and "Combatting Antimicrobial 
Resistance through a One Health Approach". The OIE further noted that the Assembly had adopted 
a resolution endorsing the basic principles of the OIE global strategy against antimicrobial 
resistance.  
3.21.  Kenya requested clarification on OIE's work on private stan dards, particularly with reference 
to India's specific tra de concern regarding the US non acceptance  of OIE categorization of India as 
a "ne gligible risk country" for BSE.  
3.22.  The OIE indicated that the implementation of OIE standards was the responsibility of  
member countries, while noting that the OIE encouraged its membe rs to follow OIE standards. 
The OIE further indicated that while it was not in a position to comment on particular issues raised 
between countries, it was willing to address other queries fro m Kenya.  
3.2.3   IPPC  
3.23.  The Chairperson drew attention to a written report submitted by IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/1504).  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS 
4.1  New issues  
4.1.  Before the adoption of the agenda, Brazil withdrew a new specific trade concern  on Mexico's 
non-recognition of regional conditions including disease -free areas which had been included on the 
proposed agenda for the meeting.  
4.1.1   Russian Federation import measures - Concerns of Ukraine  
4.2.  Ukraine expressed its concerns regarding two specific import measures of t he Russian 
Federation  affecting  (i) confectionary products; and (ii) edible salt. First, Ukraine recalled that it 
had previously voiced its concerns regarding the Russian Federation's introduction of Resolution 
No. 01/8612 -13-23 on 29  July 2013, which prohibited imports of Ukrainian confectionary products. 
Despite the requests by Ukrainian producers for relevant documentation from the 
Rospotrebnadzor, no official evidence concerning the alleged presence of benzopyrene in milk 
chocolate had been submitted to Ukraine. Ukraine fur ther noted that the Russian Federation's 
claim regarding toxic impurities in the confectionary products was subsequently replaced by 
allegations of violations related to confectionary labelling. Ukraine considered that the unfounded 
claims could arbitraril y block the imports of Ukrainian products into the Russian Federation and 
further highlighted that no substantive evidence had been submitted to support the labelling claim. 
Ukraine noted the impact of the measure on its confectionary exports and also high lighted the 
changing nature of the types of restrictions placed on various confectionary producers, as well as 
the rules applied to Ukrainian confectionary products in transit through the Russian Federation to 
third countries. Despite bilateral consultatio ns, the import restrictions were still in place. Ukraine 
underscored its various efforts to find a positive solution which had included interventions in the 
SPS and Agriculture Committees, and the General Council.  
4.3.  Secondly, Ukraine raised its concerns reg arding the Russian Federation's prohibition of 
imports of edible salt, which had been introduced on 26 January 2015 , which Ukraine has also 
raised in the TBT Committee. This measure had directly impacted major Ukrainian edible salt 
producers and had result ed in a drastic decrease in exports. Ukraine further emphasized that its 
producers were well established suppliers of high quality edible salt, exporting to the Russian 
Federation as a primary supplier for many decades and to more than 30 markets, includin g other 
countries of the Eurasian Economic Union such as Belarus and Kazakhstan. No similar concerns 
from these export destinations had been raised. Ukraine noted that no official evidence concerning 
the alleged breach of import requirements regarding the additive iodine or unacceptable 
organoleptic indices had been submitted. Ukraine further observed that its examination of Russian 
import requirements for edible salt and its repeated testing of the targeted product had 
demonstrated full conformity with the  Russian Federation 's requirements. These conformity 
assessment results had been provided to the competent Russian authorities. Ukraine queried the 
basis for the import restrictions and sought clarification of the perceived non -compliance. Finally, 
Ukraine  requested the Russian Federation to respond, within a reasonable period of time, to the 
list of detailed questions that it had submitted.  
4.4.  The Russian Federation stated that the legal nature of its imposed measure had been 
misunderstood and explained that  the temporary suspension of the imports of certain Ukrainian 
products was outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. The measures were related to the long -
term detection of labelling violations in certain goods, such as confectionary products, and the 
fight against deceptive trade practices which violated the Eurasian Economic Union technical 
regulation requirements on the labelling of food products adopted on 9 December 2011. 
The Russian Federation indicated that it had responded to Ukraine's concerns in a t ransparent 
manner and had informed the competent authorities of the relevant necessary steps. The Russian 
Federation signalled its willingness to further discuss this issue.  
4.1.2   Costa Rica's regulation on registration, use and control of pesticides and related  
substances (G/SPS/N/CRI/48/Add.1) - Concerns of Israel  
4.5.  Israel raised its concern on Costa Rica's regulation on registration, use and control of 
pesticides, which had been notified to the SPS Committe e as G/SPS/N/CRI/48/Add.1. 
This regulation implemented n ew requirements for the re -registration of pesticides in current use G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 11 - 
 
  and the registration of new pesticides. Israel was concerned that the registration process had 
become inefficient and prohibitive to trade, as the prescribed timeframes for  the processing  of 
registration requests indicated in the regulation  were not being respected by the relevant Costa 
Rican authorities. According to the regulation, the requests were first processed by the Ministry of 
Agriculture and then the Ministry of Health and Enviro nment, which each had up to 60 working 
days to analyse, evaluate and resolve requests. However, no response or feedback on the 
assessment and progress of requests had been received in relation to numerous outstanding 
requests from Israel since 2011. Israel  reminded Costa Rica of it s obligation to ensure that 
SPS measures were not applied in a manner which could constitute a disguised restriction on 
international trade and that procedures were undertaken and completed without undue delay, 
including the trans mission of relevant information to applicants in a timely manner. 
Israel  recognized Costa Rica's right to regulate and to take into account environmental 
considerations, but observed that Israeli companies had not been able to register their products 
since the implementation of the new regulation. Israel requested that Costa Rica adhere to the 
timeframes mandated in its regulation and provide the necessary feedback to applicants.  
4.6.  Costa Rica explained that it had faced a number of difficulties related to the  registration of 
pesticides, which had led to a significant delay in the processing of applications. In order to resolve 
these difficulties, the government of Costa Rica had been given the task of proposing reforms to 
the applicable rules of the registrati on process. This process was in its final stages and the 
resulting proposal would be notified in the coming weeks to both the SPS and TBT Committees in 
order to provide Members with an opportunity to submit comments within an identified deadline. 
Costa Ric a expressed its willingness to engage with Israel and other  interested  Member s. 
4.1.3   Russian Federation import restrictions on certain animal products from Germany – 
Concerns of the European Union  
4.7.  The European Union stated that since February 2013, the Russian Federation had introduced 
a complete ban on imports of fresh and chilled pig meat, beef and poultry meat from the entire 
territory of Germany, followed by a ban on imports of finished meat and milk products from three 
German federal states: Bavaria, Lower Saxony and North Rhine Westphalia. These import 
restrictions had been implemented due to claims by the Russian Federation that German 
veterinary services had not undertaken proper controls on th e exports of such products. 
The European Union noted that the restrictions were not based on scientific evidence or a risk 
assessment and were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement. The European 
Union further indicated that in 2013 it had communicated its concerns with respect to these 
restriction s in its officially submitted comments on the notified Russian Federation measure, as 
well as in document G/SPS/GEN/1216. Continuous efforts had been made by German authorities 
to ad dress the issue, including  conducting supervisory controls of the official  veterinarians 
responsible for establish ments listed for Russian export,  and establishing an export coordination 
unit as a contact point for the Russian authorities and the private sector. Inspection visits had also 
been carried out by Russian authorities.  Despite all efforts, the restrictions still remained in place. 
The European Union argued that there was no justification for the restrictions and requested the 
Russian Federation to promptly repeal these measures. The European Union indicated its 
willingn ess to engage in discussions with the Russian authorities.  
4.8.  The Russian Federation stated that more than 600 German processing plants producing 
animal products were authorized to export to the Russian Federation under the guarantees of the 
German competent authorities. However, more than 90% had never been inspected by Russian 
authorities. The Russian Federation observed that due to several factors, such as unfavourable 
laboratory monitoring results, border control violations, and errors in the certification  of animal 
products, the Russian authorities had arranged several audits of the processing plants and 
elements of the system, in order to ensure the safety of animal products exported from Germany. 
Inspections had been carried out between 2012 and 2015, du ring which time several restrictions 
were imposed on imports to the Russian market from individual firms and some regions due to 
non-compliance with Russian SPS requirements. The Russian Federation noted that it subsequently 
implemented a ban, following th e failure of all German states to  meet its SPS requirements. 
The Russian Federation indicated that although it had informed the German authorities of the 
recorded violations and requested appropriate measures be taken to prevent export of unsafe 
products t o the Russian market, no proper response had been received from the German 
veterinarian authorities. The Russian Federation further expressed concerns with the reliability of 
the guarantees of the German authorities, based on subsequent Russian inspections . Cooperation G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 12 - 
 
  efforts between the Russian Federation and Germany had resulted in an update of the list of 
German exporting establishments , delisting more than 300 non -compliant plants. In parallel, 
measures had been taken to resume imports from establishme nts which had addressed identified 
deficiencies and from plants previously subject to restrictions due to laboratory monitoring results. 
The Rospotrebnadzor had been involved in the drafting of guidelines concerning inspection of 
German plants, in order to  facilitate compliance with the Russian requirements. The Russian 
Federation further noted that consideration of the removal of the ban would be dependent on the 
implementation of the guidelines by the German Veterinary Services, submission of a document 
confirming the removal of deficiencies, and re -inspection by officials from the Rospotrebnadzor, 
taking into account other ongoing inspections. The Russian Federation emphasized that the 
upcoming work would heavily rely on collaboration between German and R ussian authorities.  
4.2  Issues previously raised  
4.9.  Before the adoption of the agenda, India withdrew two previously raised specific trade 
concern s regarding: (i) US non acceptance of OIE categorization of India as "negligible risk 
country" for BSE; and (ii) Chin a's measures on bovine meat.  
4.2.1   China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza – Concerns of 
the European Union (No. 406)  
4.10.  The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding China's import restrictions on HPAI, 
highlighting that China s till maintained a country -wide ban on several EU member States, despite 
the European Union's regionalization efforts. Recalling China's intervention in the March  2016 
SPS Committee reaffirming  that its measures were consistent with international practice a nd the 
SPS Agreement, the European requested China and other Members to lift their country -wide bans 
and to recognize EU regionalization measures. The European Union reminded the Committee that 
the OIE standard stated that HPAI measures could be lifted aft er the application of a stamping out 
policy. This policy was strictly implemented in the European Union whenever an outbreak occurred. 
The European Union considered China's policy as overly trade restrictive as it did not recognize the 
concept of pest - or disease -free areas. Trading partners, including China had been kept informed 
of the measures implemented to ensure safe trade, as well as other information on latest 
developments. The European Union requested China to clarify its scientific basis for the c ountry -
wide bans and its procedures to recognize regionalization, especially given that China faced 
domestic HPAI outbreaks and that it also implemented its own regionalization policies. 
The European Union further urged China to review its import policy in  order to comply with its 
transparency and regionalization obligations under the SPS Agreement. The European Union 
remained open to continuing discussions with China in order to find a timely solution.  
4.11.  China explained that the measure had been taken in 20 15 after several EU member States 
had reported HPAI outbreaks. China noted that the outbreak of HPAI in the European Union had 
still not ended, as an outbreak of HPAI had been reported in France in early 2016. Two of the HPAI 
strains (H5N8 and H5N9), previ ously reported in outbre aks in EU member States in 2015  had 
never been detected in China. China indicated that it had started the process to remove the ban 
and in particular, the HPAI ban for Spain had been lifted on the basis of the results of a risk 
assessment. China noted that its experts would shortly conduct an on -site risk assessment in the 
Netherlands and further invited EU member States to submit an official note to Chinese authorities 
indicating their intention to export poultry products to China, following which the ban release 
procedure would commence, taking into account the risk control measures.  
4.2.2   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193)  
4.12.  The European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing co ncern. A few 
countries still kept BSE -related bans in place on im ports of beef and beef products  even though 
the scientific evidence had proven that safe trade of beef could take place regardless of BSE 
country risk status. The European Union reminded the Committee that the OIE had issued 
international standards that guarantee d safe trade. The European Union regretted the fact that 
many countries never provided a risk assessment justifying their deviations from the international 
standards and further observ ed that some of the bans had been in place for more than 15 years. 
The European Union urged those Members to respect their obligations under the SPS Agreement, G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 13 - 
 
  including those related to transparency in the approval procedures. The European Union called on  
Members to stop the discrimination of exports from various EU member States as a harmonized 
SPS framework had been strictly implemented in all EU member States and was supervised by an 
independent audit system. The European Union welcomed the recent lifti ng of the ban by Japan for 
two further EU member States, making a total of seven EU member States that could now export 
beef to Japan. In relation to China and the United States, the European Union welcomed the start 
of exports from some EU member States a nd further urged China and the United States to 
expedite the completion of the procedures that would allow beef exports from other EU member 
States. Finally, the European Union encouraged all Members, such as Australia, Korea and Ukraine, 
to proceed in a s wift manner to ensure that beef from the European Union could be exported and 
hoped that the backlog of applications submitted by EU membe r States would soon disappear.  
4.2.3   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union  (No. 392)  
4.13.  The European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide ban on Poland 
due to the outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) in early 2014. Firstly, the European Union noted 
that the ban must be in line with the SPS Agreement which required Members to recognize the 
concept of pest - or disease -free areas in their legislation, as confirmed by the panel report in India 
– Agricultural Products  (DS430). Secondly, the European Union argued that China had not 
provided information on its pro cedures, including its processing period, to recognize regionalization 
and further urged China to provide this information. Thirdly, the European Union requested China 
to provide a risk assessment justifying the country -wide ban and non -recognition of the EU zoning 
measures. The European Union further underscored the effectiveness of its regionalization 
measures and highlighted its efforts to provide all the necessary evidence to China in order to 
demonstrate that safe trade could take place. The European U nion urged China to respect its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of all safe products from disease -free 
zones without further delay.  
4.14.  China replied that its measures were entirely based on science and safety considerations, 
highlightin g that before the ASF outbreaks, the trade of pig and pig products between China and 
the European Union had been smooth. China noted that it was the largest pig producer in the 
world and as such subject to great losses in case the disease entered the count ry. Therefore, the 
ban had been imposed in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations, as well as the 
SPS Agreement. China clarified that its measures prohibited the import of relevant animals and 
animal products from all ASF -infected Member s, and wer e not targeted at any individual Member . 
In 2016, ASF outbreaks in domestic and wild pigs had been reported in Poland, and as such, China 
had found it necessary to conduct a further evaluation of the measures taken by the European 
Union to control the dise ase, including its inspection range a nd sampling distribution. 
China  indicated its willingness to continue discussions at a technical level.  
4.2.4   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European  Union (No. 393)  
4.15.  The European Unio n stressed the importance of the recognition of regionalization measures 
by trading partners, and in that context reiterated its concern regarding Korea's import restrictions 
on pork and pork products due to ASF. The European Union stated that despite havi ng raised this 
concern at previous SPS Committee meetings and having had several bilateral discussions, import 
restrictions still remained. Korea had informed the European Union in October 2015 that, as result 
of a preliminary risk assessment, it had decid ed to proceed to the next step of its process and 
assess the possibility of applying regionalization. The European Union explained that in practice 
this represented the second step in an eight step process which, based on its understanding, 
would need to b e satisfactorily concluded before Poland would be able to export pork meat to 
Korea from disease -free zones. The European Union emphasized that it regularly provided Korea 
with detailed information regarding its stringent control, surveillance, and monitor ing measures. 
After two and a half years of deliberation and information sharing, including on -site inspection, 
Korea had not provided the timeline for concluding the final import risk analysis. The European 
Union requested Korea to limit its numerous info rmation requests to what was necessary to 
complete the risk assessment and to allow trade of safe products from disease -free areas in 
Poland, or provide clarification on the scientific basis for the maintenance of the ban.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.16.  The Russian Federation drew Membe r's attention to the epidemic ASF situation and called 
for bilateral cooperation on this issue.  
4.17.  Korea stated that it was reviewing Poland's responses to the questionnaire which had been 
submitted in May 2016. Korea noted the highly contagious nature of the  disease and the lack of a 
preventive vaccine to halt ASF spread, while underscoring that it remained ASF -free. Since the 
March 2016 SPS Committee  meeting , Korea and the European Commission had held a bilateral 
meeting, on the margins of the 84th OIE Gener al Session, to discuss progress in the risk 
assessment process and the way forward. Korea further indicated that on 24 June, the European 
Commission had notified the fourth ASF outbreak in pigs in Poland. A comprehensive review of the 
situation, including this recent information, was currently being undertaken. Korea requested that 
the European Union cooperate fully in order to expedite the risk assessment process.  
4.2.5   EU restrictions on exports of pork from the State of Santa Catarina – Concerns of 
Brazil  (No. 407)  
4.18.  Brazil reiterated its concerns about  the restrictions on pork exports from the State of Santa 
Catarina. Brazil had been requesting access to the EU market for over a decade, and had 
implemented a ractopamine -free segregated production (RFP) sc heme in  order to comply with 
EU regulations. However, this scheme was not recognized by the European Union. Based on 
available scientific evidence and the implementation of effective control measures, Brazil had been 
able to ensure that its pork exports to the European Union were free from ractopamine residues. 
Brazil urged the European Union to lift its restrictions and to allow Brazilian pork exports under t he 
RFP scheme.  
4.19.  The European Union recalled that the split system for pig production in the State of Santa 
Catarina had been assessed by the audit services of the European Commission in 2011 and 2013. 
These audits had concluded that Brazil could not provide the necessary guarantees that pig meat 
produced in Santa Catarina would comply with EU requirements. The European Union informed the 
Committee of the bilateral exchanges between the European Commission and Brazilian authorities, 
including a March 2016 written request for Brazil to provide more information on its residue 
monitoring plan on porcine animals, par ticularly on any new developments in its split system. The 
European Commission was currently awaiting a reply to this letter or any additional information on 
the monitoring plan. The European Union indicated that it had also informed Brazil that an on -site 
audit of the implementation of the residue monitoring plan would be necessary to re -assess the 
split system. The European Union remained open for further bilateral discussions on the basis of 
any new information provided by Brazil.  
4.2.6   US high cost of certifi cation for mango exports – Concerns of India (No. 373)  
4.20.  India provided an update on the recent developments regarding its previously raised 
concern on the high cost of US certification for mango exports. India reported that a USDA APHIS 
inspector had visite d India in April 2016 in order to approve two additional irradiation facilities. 
One irradiation facility had been approved by USDA APHIS on 7 April 2016, following which exports 
of irradiated mangos from the facility to the United States had commenced. Th e certification of the 
second facility had been approved on 22 June 2016, and the first consignment of irradiated 
mangoes had been exported to the United States on 23 June 2016. India recognized the 
substantial progress made on the issue and thanked the Un ited States for approving the two 
facilities for mango exports. India further stated that a meeting had been held between the United 
States and Indian technical authorities in February 2016, where it had been agreed to develop a 
proposed work plan for irra diating mangoes upon arrival in the United States. India noted that it 
was currently in the process of putting together the technical details requested by the 
US authorities and further requested the United States to continue its cooperation on this issue.  
4.21.  The United States recalled that Indian mangoes had been exported to the United States 
since April 2007, and that this trade had been facilitated through a bilateral arrangement for 
pre-clearance based on irradiation in India. The United States also noted that the USDA was in the 
process of certifying two new irradiation facilities, which would be fully up and running by the end 
of 2016. The United States highlighted that its requirements for inspection and irradiation of 
mangoes from India were fully consi stent with its obligations under the SPS agreement, and that 
its experts had closely worked with India on this trade facilita ting bilateral arrangement. G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 15 - 
 
  The United States further noted that subsequent discussions on this matter  in the Committee  
would not b e appropriate given the fruitful progress.  
4.2.7   Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of phytosanitary import certificates for 
avocados (G/SPS/N/CRI/160, G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1  and G/SPS/N/CRI/162)  – 
Concerns of Mexico (No. 394)  
4.22.  Mexico reiterated its concern re garding Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of 
phytosanitary certificates for avocado imports originating from Mexico. Mexico considered the 
measure to be in violation of fundamental principles of technical and scientific justification based 
on internat ional standards, most -favoured nation, proportionality and transparency principles as 
enshrined in the SPS Agreement and the SPS Chapter of NAFTA. Mexico noted its preference to 
promote dialogue between authorities in various consultative formats;  however,  these efforts had 
not been successful as no response had been received from Costa Rican authorities in regard to 
the issue. Mexico indicated that its avocado exports continued to be significantly affected by the 
restrictions imposed by Costa Rica and furt her reiterated its request for Costa Rica to immediately 
withdraw its measure in order to resume avocado trade between the two countries.  
4.23.  The United States shared Mexico's concerns and urged Costa Rica to take steps to 
recommence issuing phytosanitary impo rt permits, since the suspension was not consistent with 
international standards and guidelines, nor scientifically justified. The United States also expressed 
concerns regarding other agricultural trade issues with Costa Rica, including those affecting ri ce, 
onions and potatoes. While recent progress had been made with respect to potatoes, some 
importers continued to be denied import permits for onions, despite the absence of phytosanitary 
restrictions.  
4.24.  Guatemala supported Mexico's concerns and expressed a systemic interest , given the 
measure's  lack of consistency with international rules, as well as lack of clarity regarding the 
scientific justification of the measure.  
4.25.  Costa Rica explained that its state phytosanit ary service (SFE) had proposed the measure  in 
order to minimize the risk of introduction of the avocado sunblotch viroid. SFE had continued its 
analysis of collected scientific evidence with the aim of prop osing measures that guaranteed its 
appropriate level of protection, while at the same time b eing least trade restrictive. Costa Rica 
reiterated its willingness and interest to continue technical discussions on a bilateral level in order 
to clarify any doubts regarding the applied measure.  
4.2.8   EU ban on certain vegetables from India – Concerns of Indi a (No. 374)  
4.26.  India recalled its concern regarding the EU ban on four types of vegetables, highlighting 
that this ban had been extended to December 2016. During th e period of March 2015 to 
March  2016, the number of interceptions by the European Union on expo rted fruits and veget ables 
had decreased from 33 to nine . India emphasized that its implementation of various control 
measures had led to the decrease in the number of interceptions, which further warranted the 
European Union's consideration of removing th e ban on the four vegetable exports. India also 
indicated that there had been an improvement in the exporter certification system implemented by 
its NPPO, which had adopted the sampling procedures as per international SPS standards ISPM 7, 
ISPM 23 and ISPM  31. With reference to these developments, India requested the European Union 
to revisit the issue and to review the ban imposed on the four vegetables.  
4.27.  The European Union confirmed that its measures had been put in place due to significant 
shortcomings id entified in the control systems in India during previous audits conducted by the 
European Commission. The European Union indicated that it maintained regular information 
exchanges with the Indian authorities which had been supported by technical assistance  activities 
to improve the effectiveness of India's control systems. The European Union further acknowledged 
the recent decrease in the number of interceptions and reassured India that the situation would be 
reassessed after the summer  of 2016 , following w hich a decision would be taken on the possible 
revision of the current emergency measures. The European Union remained open to work 
cooperatively with India to find a solution to this concern.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 16 - 
 
  4.2.9   Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on Japanese foods in respo nse to the nuclear 
power plant accident – Concerns of Japan (No. 387)  
4.28.  Japan reiterated its concerns regarding the import ban imposed by Chinese Taipei on food 
from five Japanese prefectures in response to the nuclear power plant accident. Japan noted that 
the ban was not scientifically justifiable as radioactive residues exceeding the regulatory limits 
were only found in certain types of food. In addition, no residues exceeding the regulatory limits 
had been found at Chinese Taipei's border, out of the more  than 80,000 samples tested to date. 
Japan further observed that a press release from the authorities of Chinese Taipei had indicated 
that there was neither a plan nor a timetable to relax the import restrictions on food products from 
Japan. Japan undersco red that import restrictions should be consistent with the SPS Agreement 
and encouraged further cooperation in addressing this issue.  
4.29.  Chinese Taipei reiterated that its temporary import ban and radioactive pre -test certificate 
requirements were necessary t o protect public health, especially given the fact that contaminated 
water and materials had not been entirely cleaned as yet. Chinese Taipei indicated that since the 
nuclear power plant incident, it had requested further information from Japan, including on its 
surveillance results and control measures, in order to undertake an evaluation. As a result of the 
credible control measures implemented by the competent authority of Chinese Taipei, consumers 
were regaining confidence in the safety of Japanese food  products, as demonstrated by increased 
trade figures. Chinese Taipei indicated its commitment to monitor the effectiveness of Japan's 
radionuclide management system and ensure a comprehensive evaluation of its relevant control 
measures. Chinese Taipei loo ked forward to further cooperating with Japan on this issue.  
4.2.10   China's import restrictions on Japanese foods in response to the nuclear power 
plant accident – Concerns of Japan (No. 354)  
4.30.  Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by China on Japanese 
food exports in response to the nuclear power plant accident. Japan recalled that in the March 
2016 SPS Committee meeting, China had reported that the risk assessment was still ongoing. 
Japan queried the timeframe for the completion of  the risk. Japan observed that it would be able 
to cooperate with China to conduct the r isk assessment more efficiently  if it received more 
information on the process. Japan highlighted that there had been no easing of China's import 
restrictions since Jun e 2011, although an increasing number of WTO Members had already lifted or 
eased their import restrictions on Japanese foods. China 's import ban was still stringently imposed 
on all types of foods and alcoholic beverages from ten Japanese prefectures. Many  types of foods 
were still substantially unauthorized to be imported due to China's requirement that the test 
results of radioactive strontium 90 and radioactive caesium be included in the export certificates of 
these products. Japan expressed its concern that, given the current level of technology, 
approximately one month was required to acquire the test results of radioactive strontium 90, and 
as such the requirement of this test result made it impossible to export fresh foods such as 
vegetables and dairy  products to China. Japan had sent several letters to Beijing on this issue. 
Japan emphasized the need for import restrictions to be consistent with the SPS Agreement and 
further requested China to provide information on the current stage of the risk asses sment process 
and the scientific justification for requiring the submission of test r esults of radioactive 
strontium  90. 
4.31.  China replied that it had provided the Committee with a detailed explanation and 
clarification in previous SPS Committee meetings, part icularly with regard to the rationale, scope 
and adjustment of this measure. Currently, China was undertaking a study on the updated 
information supplied by Japan and  would adjust its measures on the basis of the risk assessment 
results.  
4.2.11   EU revised proposa l for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors – 
Concerns of Argentina, China and the United States (No. 382)  
4.32.  Argentina reiterated its concern with the EU's revised proposal for categorization of 
compounds as endocrine disruptors, notified in G/ SPS/N/EU/166. The hazard -based approach 
would modify  MRLs of previously approved phytosanitary products to default levels that lacked 
scientific justification, leading to disproportionate and unnecessar y trade restrictions. 
Argentina  requested that these l evels be based on risk assessments and the possibility to establish G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 17 - 
 
  MRLs above default levels for substances posing an insignificant  exposure  risk. Finally, Argentina 
regretted that the draft regulation setting out scientific criteria for the determination  of endocrine -
disrupting properties for biocidal products pursuant to EU Regulation No. 528/2012 had been 
notified to the TBT Committee (G/TBT/N/EU/384), and not to the SPS Committee.  
4.33.  The United States raised its concern with three EU policies related to t he approval and use 
of plant protection products. First, the United States joined Argentina in concern  that the 
EU's proposed approach to endocrine disruptors (EDs) would impose unnecessary trade 
restrictions, and asked the European Union to provide the sc ientific evidence used to justify the 
establish ment of  definitive criteria to identify EDs. The United States regretted that the impact 
assessment  on the EU proposal had been p ublished with no opportunity for public comment. 
The United States formulated qu estions on (i) the meaning of "negligible risk" as used in the 
proposal, including a specific clarification as to whether the E uropean Union would use the current 
standard to set MRLs under Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 for substances that did not trigger " cut-
off" criteria; (i i) whether all ED substances designated by the E uropean Union under the W orld 
Health Organization /International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS)  definition would be 
eligible for the derogation allowing for an evaluation "in ligh t of current scientific knowledge", 
provided that they met the negligible risk standard; (iii) the possibility to file an application for an 
import tolerance, based on a risk assessment, for a substance designated as an ED and not 
authorized under EU regul ation; (iv) whether the registration and MRL -setting of carcinogenic, 
mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction (CMR) substances would remain hazard -based, and the 
possible application for an import tolerance of a product ineligible for registration because of the 
hazard -based "cut off" criteria; and (v) the list of substances the European Union expect s to be 
identified as E Ds, and the role of potency and exposure in the identification process . In these 
questions, the United States highlighted the potential abse nce of a risk -based approach and use of 
exposure information. The  United States also invited the European Union to organize an 
informa tion session, in light of Members interest in this topic.  
4.34.  Second, the United States again expressed its concern with the h azard -based approach set 
out by Regulation No. 1107/2009, and asked the European Union to clarify how the hazard -based 
"cut off" criteria would be applied to substances approved before 2009 for which the renewal 
process was expected to begin in 2016. The U nited States again requested that the European 
Union place scientifically -justified risk assessments at the heart of the establishment of tolerances 
for pesticide residues in food.  Third, the United States expressed a special concern with the French 
ban on  fresh cherries imported from countries that had appr oved the use of dimethoate. 
The United States urged France to notify the ban to the WTO, and to provide scientific justification 
for it. The United States especially questioned the fact that the ban was based on the pesticide's 
authorization by the Member  rather than on pesticide residues in the cherries. The United States 
asked France to use less trade -restrictive alternatives such as residue monitoring during import 
checks, and reaffirmed its commitment  to work with both the European Union and other trading 
partners on these concerns.  
4.35.  China shared the concerns of Argentina and the United States, and again urged the 
European Union to incorporate assessment of actual exposure in its regulations, to apply e xisting 
Codex standards to minimize trade impacts, and to notify its measures at an early stage to take 
into account comments from Members.  
4.36.  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Kenya, 
Malaysia, Mexico, Paraguay, Ch inese Taipei, Uruguay and Viet  Nam shared the concern expressed 
by Argentina, China and the United States. They highlighted, inter alia , the importance of this 
issue and its potential negative trade impacts, and the necessary support of scientific justific ation 
and risk assessment in establishing such regulation. They encouraged the European Union to 
adhere to relevant international standards and to continue informing the Committee of any 
relevant developments. Many of them joined in the request for  an info rmati on session. Australia 
echoed Argentina's concern regarding notification of  the proposed biocide regulations through an 
SPS notification.  
4.37.  The European Union recognized the international dimension of this issue and fully 
appreciated the concerns express ed by Members. The European Union again highlighted that the 
European Commission had proposed to adjust the plant protection products' derogations to base 
them on scientific evidence, including information on hazard, exposure and risk, to take 
appropriate decisions on endocrine disruptors in compliance with  international obligations. G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 18 - 
 
  The European Union reminded that the new criteria -setting proposals had been notified via the 
SPS and TBT channels for full transparency. The European Union further noted that although the 
regulation concerning biocides had been notified under the TBT Agreement  and not SPS, the 
European Union was not dogmatic about this choice and was prepared to revise it if necessary. 
The European Union informed the Committee that the issue of  the French ban due to dimethoate 
concerns was currently under internal discussion. The European Union expressed interest in 
holding an information session as suggested, and would consider it in due time. The European 
Union invited all Members to promptly submit their comments in writing.  
4.2.12   US measures on catfish – Concerns of China and Viet Nam (No. 289)  
4.38.  China again raised its concern regarding the US regulation on mandatory inspection of 
catfish and catfish p roducts, which transferred the regulatory food sa fety oversight of catfish from 
FDA to the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA. The regulation had taken effect on 
1 March 2016 and applied terrestrial animal meat inspection procedures to aquatic products, which 
was without precedent worldwid e. China insisted that this inspection program me was inconsistent 
with certain requirements of GATT 1994 and the SPS Agreement. China stated that the regulation 
was not based on scientific principles or on a scientific risk assessment, and constituted a 
disguised restriction on trade. China queried the rationale for changing the regulatory 
responsibility from FDA to USDA only for Siluriformes fish instead of all aquatic products, and 
observed that this constituted an arbitrary and unjustifiable distinction.  China requested that the 
United States provide a written explanation on the US Senate vote on 25 May 2016 against the 
regulation, and the steps following this vote. China urged the United States to remove its 
mandatory inspection for Siluriformes fish and  maintain the FDA inspection program.  
4.39.  Viet Nam shared the concerns expressed by China and echoed that the measure was not 
based on scientific evidence, and constituted a disguised restriction on trade. Viet Nam indicated 
that it felt encouraged by the US S enate vote of 25 May 2016, and expressed its expectation that 
the program me be removed following action by the US House of Representatives and 
US Administrati on. Viet Nam reminded that the p rogram me, if maintained, would fail to comply 
with the SPS Agreeme nt, and thus urged for its repeal.  
4.40.  Thailand also shared the concerns expressed by China and Viet Nam, and urged the United 
States to align its measure with international standards and to comply them with the 
SPS Agreement.  
4.41.  The United States replied that th e FSIS had been conducting outreach events such as 
bilateral meetings and a regional seminar to the potentially affected trading partners, in order to 
ensure a smooth transition and avoid disrupting imports following the new rule. The United States 
indicat ed that any Member interested in hosting an educational outreach meeting for their national 
inspection team could contact FSIS. The United States maintained that the final rule at play was 
consistent with the SPS Agreement, and declared that if the FSIS ha d not finished its equivalence 
determination after 1 September 2017, the United States would take steps to ensure that trade 
continue smoothly for all countries that had previously submitted their equivalence documentation. 
The United States had  no informa tion on whether or not the House of Representatives would 
consider a resolution similar to that of the Senate, and in the meantime would continue to 
implement the rule.  
4.2.13   The Russian Federation's  import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia  and Latvia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  
4.42.  The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian Federation's restrictions 
on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The European Union recalled that in 
June 2015, the  Russian Federation had introduced a ban on all f ishery products from the two 
EU member States. The European Union considered that the measures were not based on scientific 
evidence or a risk assessment, were applied beyond the extent necessary to protect human health, 
and were more trade restrictive than necessary. The European Union stated that the measures did 
not meet the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments, which included not to take 
temporary suspension measures of imports from a group of e stablishments before the expiry of 
the time -frame provided for the adoption of corrective measures. In response to a statement made 
by the Russian Federation at the previous Committee meeting, the European Union argued that G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 19 - 
 
  the EU rapid alert system for fo od and feed (RASFF) was timely, and that following actions taken 
by Estonia and Latvia, all concerned products had been withdrawn from the market, contrary to 
the Russian Federation's claim. The European Union also insisted that the RASFF was a transparent  
system which made available, not only to the authorities in the European Union but also to non -EU 
countries, information on the detection of incompliant products. The European Union noted that it 
had not received any request for clarification from the Rus sian Federation on the issue at hand, 
despite the possibility to do so. The European Union regretted to see the RASFF information being 
misused by some trading partners for imposing disproportionate trade bans, particularly when 
those partners did not appl y the same level of transparency to their own products. The European 
Union requested the Russian Federation to immediately lift the ban and respect its WTO obligations 
while expressing its readiness to discuss the matter with the Russian authorities.  
4.43.  The R ussian Federation stated that it was ready for close cooperation with the Estonian and 
Latvian regulatory authorities; however, the import requirements of the Russian Federation and 
the Eurasian Economic Union needed to be followed. The Russian Federation reiterated that the 
restrictions were temporary and would be reconsidered as soon as the detected violations to the 
import requirements, of which the competent authorities in Estonia and Latvia were informed, 
were removed. The Russian Federation noted that  relative progress had been made between the 
Russian Federation and the competent authorities, but this progress was still insufficient as the 
Russian Federation was unable to obtain information concerning the detection of certain harmful 
sea contaminants,  as well as certain measures expected to prevent the access of dangerous 
products to the market. The Russian Federation explained that the Estonian and Latvian veterinary 
services had provided them with an updated list of the establishments authorized to e xport their 
products to the Eurasian Union (EAU); however, when specialists were sent from the EAU to 
inspect these fish processing plants, two out of the three Latvian plants and one out of the ten 
Estonian plants spontaneously refused to be inspected. Th e Russian Federation considered this to 
be evidence that the competent authorities could not guarantee compliance of their products with 
EAU import requirements.  
4.2.14   EU agricultural biotechnology approval process – Concerns of the United States 
(No. 110)  
4.44.  The U nited States shared its ongoing concerns with the delays in the European Union to 
approve products of biotechnology, hindering the ability of producers to bring new products to the 
market. As an example, the United States mentioned three soybean products t hat had been 
approved by the EU  scientific body in June and July 2015, but were still awaiting the final approval 
by the Commission. The three applications for soybean products  had been  reviewed by member 
States in January 2016  and awaited  action by the Co mmission. The United States express ed 
concern  that their adoption by the Commission would be kept on hold until action was taken by the 
European Union to reauthorize glyphosate. The United States urged the European Union to 
approve these biotech products i n a timely manner, regardless of unrelated matters, in order to 
comply with their obligations under the SPS Agreement.  
4.45.  Canada shared the concern expressed by the United States with undue delays in 
EU authoriz ations of  the commercialization of biotech produ cts. Canada urged the European Union 
to rectify the situation and adopt the authorizations in a timelier manner. As an illustration of the 
delays, Canada stated that the average authorization by the European Union for a biotech product 
took over six years,  and that the college of commissioners took on average three and a half 
months after the vote in the appeal committee to make a decision on a biotech product. Canada 
expressed regret th at such unjustified delays had recently  impeded Canadian producers from  
commercializing certain soybean products from the 2016 season to the European Union.  
4.46.  The European Union responded that applications for GMOs approvals continued to be duly 
processed in line with the current EU legal framework  and that as of 2015, 19 food and feed 
authorizations had been adopted. With regards to the three pending soybean applications, their 
authorization process by the Commission was in its final stages.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.2.15   China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of a gricultural GMOs (G/SPS/N/CHN/881) – Concerns of the United States 
(No. 395)  
4.47.  The United States again raised its concern with the approval delay for products of 
agricultural biotechnology in China, and sought an update from China on its revised regulation o n 
safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. The United States expressed appreciation for the bilateral 
dialogue that had taken place between Chinese and US officials, and based on this engagement, 
looked forward to the implementation of concrete action by Ch ina to ensure greater transparency, 
timeliness, and predictability in its approval process of biotech products. The United States 
requested with some urgency that action be taken regarding the eight products that were poised 
for final adoption in March 201 6. 
4.48.  China reminded the Committee that a comprehensive system of regulations and technical 
protocols, all of which could be found on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, had been put in 
place in accordance with the importance it attached to the safety  management of agricultural 
GMOs. China declared that this GMO safety management was based on science and law, and that 
the procedure was clear and transparent. China indicated that the Implementation Regulations on 
Safety Assessment of Agricultural Geneti cally Modified Organisms was still under revision, that 
comments from Members were welcome and would be given full consideration, and that further 
feedback would be given to Members through proper channels.  
4.2.16   EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organi c products – Concerns of India 
(No. 378)  
4.49.  India recalled the concern raised at  previous SPS Committee meetings and reported that in  
April 2015, a mission had taken place to inspect the control systems but the report had not been 
received until February 2016 . The new issue at hand was the EU demand for reciprocity and 
mutual benefits. India requested that the European Union communicate in writing its precondition 
to grant only reciprocal equivalence for organic products, in order to pave the way forward for t his 
issue to be resolved.  
4.50.  The European Union reiterated its view that this issue did not fall under the SPS Agreement. 
The European Union was unprepared to provide any response in the SPS Committee but remained 
open to continue discussions with India on th is matter in the appropriate forum.  
4.2.17   China's lack of transparency for certain SPS measures – Concerns of the United 
States  (No. 184)  
4.51.  The United States reiterated its concern, first raised in March 2004, with China's lack of 
transparency for certain SPS meas ures. The United States recognized that China had been actively 
notifying the SPS measures of many of its agencies, and expressed appreciation for these efforts. 
However, recently many measures issued by some of China's principal regulatory agencies in 
relation to  the implementation of China's 2015 Food Safety Law had not been notified. The United 
States indicated as an example a recent Chinese measure implementing the new official certificate 
requirement for i mported foods, of which the United States had b ecome acquainted through a 
letter sent by the Chinese General Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and 
Quarantine (AQSIQ) to the United States embassy in Beijing on 9 May 2016. The United States 
urged China to notify this measure, as well as all SPS measures that could impact international 
trade, in order to allow its trading partners to comment on them, and to take these comments into 
account upon finalizing the measures. The United States again expressed appreciation to China for 
the substan tive bilateral dialogue on transparency, and looked forward to further cooperation with 
China to improve food safety.  
4.52.  Australia reminded all Members that they should notify in accordance with their WTO  
obligations. While appreciating that it was sometimes difficult to determine whether a measure 
required notification or not, Australia encouraged Members, when in doubt, to notify.  
4.53.  The European Union supported  the points made by the United States and Australia, and 
underlined its particular concern about  the new Chinese certification regime. The European Union 
feared that this specific measure would not be justified by any risk assessment, as the products G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 21 - 
 
  concerned – pasta, confectionary or baked products – were inherently safe, and would impose a 
disproportio nate and unnecessary burden on the importing countries. The European Union looked 
forward to seeing the Chinese notification for this measure, and to work with China on this issue.  
4.54.  New Zealand shared  the concerns of Australia, the European Union and the Un ited States 
regarding China's lack of transparency, and especially highlighted Australia's more generic 
reminder to encourage all Members to notify their SPS measures. New Zealand insisted on the 
values of the notification system in allowing Members to com ment and clarify measures, as well as 
exchange experiences. New Zealand wondered whether a lack of transparency in notifying SPS 
measures could be associated with a lack of experience with the notification system, and recalled 
the value of the mentoring sy stem put in place some years ago, wherein developed Members  
helped developing Members to manoeuvre the notification system.  
4.55.  China responded that, from 2013 to 2015, it had submitted  494 regular SPS notifications , 
providing  the 60 -day comment period  for all  the notified measures . China explained that the 
example provided by the United States on the Official Certificate Requirements for Imported Food 
did not correspond to non -compliance with the notification requirement, as the Official Certificate 
Requiremen ts had not been implemented, and the purpose of diplomatic letters was to inform 
trading partners and collect their comments in advance. China stated that the measure would be 
notified to the WTO, with the transitional comment period, after further evaluat ion. China 
additionally argued that many of its SPS measures criticized for not having been notified were in 
line with international standards, or did not have a significant effect on international trade, and 
thus in conformity with Annex B, paragraph 5 of  the SPS Agreement. China further explained that 
according to its administrative legislation procedure, the notification to the WTO came after the 
online public comment period and first revision of a measure rather than at the same time, in 
order to provid e the WTO with the measure in a more advanced stage. China reminded the United 
States of its lack of transparency, providing as an example the Seafood Import Monitoring Program 
published on the Federal Register on 5 February 2016 and which had not been not ified to the 
WTO. China referred to data from the WTO SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS)  
indicating that the United States had submitted  317 regular SPS notifications  between 2013 to 
2015, among which only 15 provided for a 60 -day comment period . A large number of the 
measures  were notified, sometimes unjustifiably, as trade -facilitating, and therefore did not 
provide any comment period. China added that the United States seldom notified sub -federal laws 
or regulations, and thus violated transparen cy rules.  
4.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16  
4.3.1   China's import conditions related to phthalates - Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 345)  
4.56.  The European Union reported that the testing requirements for phthalates in spirits and 
wine im posed by China since 2013 had been lifted, following extensive cooperation between China 
and the European Union. The European Union remained convinced that this temporary measure 
had been  unjustified, disruptive  and unnecessarily long to remove, but was gr ateful for its repeal 
by the Chinese government. The European Union expressed hopes that this experience would pave 
way for faster resolution of similar issues in the future . The European Union would continue 
monitoring trade to ensure it f lowed  without fu rther obstacles.  
5  OPERATION OF TRANSPA RENCY PROVISIONS   
5.1.  The Secretariat provided an update on two IT projects: (i) the enhancement of the SPS tools; 
and (ii) the ePing SPS/TBT notifications alert system.  
5.2.  Regarding the SPS tools, the Secretariat reminded th e Committee that an update had been 
provided during the October 2015 t ransparency workshop on the two -phase IT project launched in 
2015, aimed at enhancing the SPS IMS and SPS NSS tools. In phase I, the new SPS NSS had been 
developed and tested by a group of Members. Phase II aimed to enhance the SPS IMS.  
5.3.  The Secretariat noted that delays in the internal testing phase, mainly due to IT resource 
constraints, would require postponing  the pilot group testing. The Secretariat hoped that volunteer 
Members would be able to test the platform and provide their comments in August. It was G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 22 - 
 
  anticipated that the new SPS IMS and NSS would be released in September and presented during 
the October meeting  of the SPS Committee . The Secretariat was also considering organizing  
hands -on training sessions in the margins of the meeting.  
5.4.  The Secretariat recalled that the UN DESA ePing Toolkit project for accessing SPS and TBT 
notifications and alerts had been presented during the October transparency workshop. The WTO 
Secretariat w as collaborating with UN DESA and ITC to build on the existing SPS/TBT notification 
alert system, and would soon sign a tripartite MOU. The objective of this collaboration was to offer 
a publicly available, reliable, timely and sustainable service that would provide access to 
SPS/TBT  notifications and that would facilitate dialogue amongst the public and private sector in 
addressing potential trade problems at an early stage. The Secretariat encouraged delegations to 
try out the pilot version at http:// www.epingalert.org , and send their feedback. The alert system 
would be formally launched in November during the TBT Committee  meeting , in the margins of 
which hands -on training sessions would be organized.  
5.5.  In response  to a query from Chile, the Secretariat confirmed that it would be able to  provide 
training on the different  tools to capital -based  officials through videoconference after the October 
meeting  of the SPS Committee . 
5.1  Indonesia – Update on Transparency  
5.6.  Indones ia reported that its Ministry of Agriculture had published a national regulation on 
Transparency, Regulation No. 11 of 2016. This regulation provided guidelines for the various 
technical agencies in order to enhance transparency, notably by stipulating the  notification 
procedure and the role of the NNA and NEP. Indonesia further indicated  that the NNA and NEP 
would establish an Indonesian SPS website this year. Among other things, such a platform would 
provide all stakeholders with SPS -related information, in particular on notifications from Members 
and on Indonesia's technical regulations.  
5.2  European Union – Transparency Provision of the SPS Agreement  
5.7.  The European Union thanked the Secretariat for its work on improving the SPS tools, and 
reiterated its intere st in other topics from the October  2015 transparency workshop such as: 
(i) facilitating access to Members' SPS import requirements v ia dedicated websites; (ii)  conducting 
a discussion on trade facilitating measures; and (iii)  sharing unofficial translatio ns of notified 
regulations . On the first and second topics, the European Union indicated that it might submit  
proposals in the future. On the second one, the European Union  supported  posting  unofficial 
translations of notified documents, with a disclaimer,  on the WTO SPS webpage. The European 
Union underlined that these translations should be unofficial, unless otherwise agreed by the 
notifying Member, and that their access should be restricted to Members only. The European Union 
sought clarification on whe ther this new procedure would run in parallel with the current one, i.e. 
sharing of unofficial translations through the notification of supplements, or not.  
5.8.  The Secretariat thanked the European Union for following -up on these topics. The Secretariat 
querie d whether  Members were likely to make use of such a  platform for sharing translations  of 
notified regulations , considering that documents would be unofficial, contain a disclaimer and be 
posted on a restricted website, while recognizing that some resources  would still be needed to 
develop and maintain it. The Secretariat further suggested that the European Union and other 
interested Members submit comments and suggestions in writing . 
5.9.  Chile thanked the European Union for raising this issue, and highlighted t he importance of 
translation s to developing countries  dealing with  limited human and financial resources. Chile 
expressed its support for the creation of a repository for translated regulations  and looked forward 
discussing further actions in the future.  
5.10.  China also suggested that the Committee discuss the notification of trade facilitating 
measures, in particular their identification and definition.  
5.11.  The Secretariat suggested  that trade facilitating measures as well as other transparency -
related issues  could be discussed in an informal session in 2017.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 23 - 
 
  6  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
6.1  India's submission on pesticide MRLS (G/SPS/W/ 284) 
6.1.  India recalled the four suggestions in paragraph 3.2 of document G/SPS/W/284, circulated in 
April 2015. These suggestions attempted to re solve the persistent problem faced by exporters 
from developing countries due to importing countries' application of limits of detection (LoDs) for 
residues of pesticide s that were  not registered. India welcomed future discussions on each of its 
suggestion s to resolve MRLs at LoDs and indicated that it was ready to table further proposals to 
take the work forward.  
6.2  Workshop  on MRLS ( G/SPS /GEN/149 8) 
6.2.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that a workshop on MRLs would take place 
immediately preceding the Octob er meeting, and indicated that the revised draft programme had 
been circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1498. The current version of the programme included 
both MRLs for pesticides and for veterinary drug residues , with Codex presentations on both 
subjects . The Chairperson noted that no Member had suggested speakers on MRLs for veterinary 
drug residues, and thus invited Members to comment on whether to maintain the broader scope of 
the workshop, or  whether  to focus the programme on pesticides MRLs only, and po ssibly 
organizing another event on veterinary drug residues at a later date . 
6.3.  The Secretariat recalled that , following a suggestion from Canada during the March meeting, 
the scope of the agenda had been  expanded to include MRLs for veterinary drugs. While n o 
Member had objected at the time , two Members had subsequently expressed concerns in relation 
to this extension and suggested instead that a separate session on MRLs for veterinary drug 
residues be organized at a future date.  
6.4.  The Secretariat informed the Committee that at least 25 government officials from 
developing country Members and Observers would be sponsored to participate in the workshop, 
with financial assistance from the Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund. The Secretariat 
indicated that it  was awaiting confirmation from the WTO Institute for Training and Technical 
Cooperation (ITTC) on whether additional participants could be funded, as up to 50 participants 
had been funded for such event s in the past. Likewise, the Secretariat was waiting for the ITTC to 
decide whether  participants could be funded for the entire week to attend the Committee 
meetings, as also done in the past.  
6.5.  The United States expressed a preference for limiting the scope of the workshop to MRLs for 
pesticide residues, but indicated flexibility . Both topics were complex and relevant to the 
Committee, and thus Members would benefit from focusing on each topic. In this regard, the 
United States supported the idea of covering MRLs for veterinary drug residues in a separate 
activity. The United States announced that it had reached out to experts from its IR -4 US 
government -funded research project to participate in the workshop, and offered to hold a working 
session in the margins of the workshop or Committee meetings. These exper ts would share their 
experience in identifying MRL needs for developing country exports, generating data packages and 
supporting international harmonization  for minor use crops . The work of IR -4 focused on the 
registration of reduced -risk pesticides, condu ct of residue trials and support of the establishment 
of Codex MRLs, all the while engaging with a variety of stakeholders such as governments, 
agencies, academia and relevant international partners. The United States invited interested 
Members to the side  meeting to discuss priority crops, pesticides and MRLs. The United States 
explained that, because funding for the workshop was limited to 25 officials from developing 
countries, it would prefer that these be pesticide or plant experts, to benefit from the  IR-4 working 
session. The United States would send an announcement on this working session through the 
Secretariat once the logistical details were confirmed. Finally, the United States welcomed the 
inclusion of a session on the role of the private sector  in the establishment of MRLs in the 
programme, and would look into putting forward expert speakers in that area.  
6.6.  Kenya commented that considering the uniqueness of veterinary medicine and products, it 
would be wise to consider the two topics separately. H aving said that, Kenya noted that pest -
control products were used both on plants and animals, and thus constituted a convergence 
between the two MRL scopes that could be addressed in the October workshop. Kenya strongly G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 24 - 
 
  supported a discussion on critical i ssues related to MRLs, such as antimicrobial resistance due to 
uncontrolled use of pesticides, and small residue levels at a global scale, and recalled that OIE had 
done relevant work on these topics.  
6.7.  Canada appreciated  having a two -day long workshop, and the inclusion of  a session on the 
relevant international work on pesticide residues. As an example, Canada noted that it was 
actively involved in the OECD Global Joint Reviews and the NAFTA technical working group on 
pesticides, the work of which Canada co nsidered valuable to enhance greater alignment in the 
development of national MRLs between trading partners. Canada took note of the views expressed 
by Members to limit the scope of the workshop to MRLs for pesticide residues and would follow the 
consensus . Canada looked forward to engaging in this workshop that would pave the way towards 
future constructive discussions on MRLs.  
6.8.  Japan shared its view that the revised programme was well balanced and covered the major 
topics it wished to see in the agenda. Ja pan offered to give a presentation on the Japanese MRL -
setting system for import tolerances in Part 1 of Session 4. Japan was flexible about the scope of 
the workshop, and could address MRLs for veterinary drug residues in its presentation if Members 
so wished. Japan suggested moving Session 7 to the first item of the second day, in order to first 
review Members' concerns on MRLs before discussing ways to address them.  
6.9.  Ecuador thanked Japan for offering to present on its national experience, and encouraged 
other developed country Members to do the same under session 4, in order to discuss the 
regulatory and scientific aspects of their MRL establishments.  
6.10.  New Zealand regretted  the absence of the Codex representative, who could have shared 
information  on a Cod ex working paper on contaminants considered safe and for which Codex was 
working on establishing contaminant levels. New Zealand would follow -up with capital on this issue 
and to possibly  offer an intervention on this topic.  
6.11.  The Chairperson reminded the Co mmittee that the deadline for submitting comments, 
suggestions, and speakers was 29 July 2016. The Chairperson concluded from the discussion that 
flexibility had been expressed with regards to limiting the scope of the Workshop, and therefore 
suggested tha t the Secretariat work on the basis of MRLs f or pesticide residues only. 
The Chairperson also noted  with great concern the possibly  reduced number of funded participants 
of only 25 - as opposed to  the usual  50 - for this valuable workshop, and hoped that I TTC would 
be able to provide funding for more participants, as had been done in the past.  
6.3  Raising awareness on IPPC and OIE dispute settlement/a voidance mechanisms   
6.12.  Israel took the floor to raise awareness on IPPC and OIE dispute avoidance and settlement 
mechanisms  (G/SPS/GEN/1502) . Israel noted that Members could work on resolving STCs through 
alternative mechanisms. IPPC and OIE dispute avoidance/settlement mechanisms constituted such 
potential alternatives by providing a middle ground where issues could be discussed with agreed 
specialists, at a scientific and technical level, and in a voluntary and non -binding man ner. 
Israel  encouraged Members to consider these mechanisms before raising STCs in the Committee, 
and invited IPPC and OIE to improve their mec hanisms so as to make them more attractive to 
Members.  
6.13.  The United States supported Israel's statement , highlighting the value of dispute avoidance 
promoted by these mechanisms, and encouraged Members to consider them when searching for 
technical clarifica tions on SPS measures. The United States stressed  the importance of 
implementation activities, and supported the specific efforts made by the IPPC in this regard.  
6.14.  South Africa welcomed Israel's intervention, and shared its experience  of using IPPC's 
disput e settlement mechanism on EU measures on citrus black spot. South Africa had regrettably 
found that this mechanism was not as helpful as initially expected and therefore encouraged IPPC 
to further improve it.  
6.15.  The Chairperson suggested that in case of inter est, the Secretariat could consult with IPPC 
and OIE on the possibility of providing further information on their respective dispute G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 25 - 
 
  avoidance/settlement mechanisms in an information session to be held in the margins of one of 
the Committee meeting next ye ar.  
6.16.  The OIE thanked Members for raising this issue, and elaborated on the voluntary 
mechanisms available to resolve technical SPS differences. The OIE particularly encouraged 
Members to use its mediation process when a country failed to respect OIE standa rds, given that it 
emphasized science and the use of OIE standards to facilitate safe trade. The mechanisms were 
incorporated into the terrestrial and aquatic codes, and were referred to in article 8 of chapter 5.3. 
OIE explained that both parties must agr ee to initiate the process, decide on a time schedule and 
work programme, and meet all costs associated with the mechanism. Technical discussions were 
facilitated by the OIE Director -General and experts from relevant reference laboratories. The OIE 
further  indicated that the outcomes of the mediation process were not legally binding except if 
agreed otherwise by both parties in advance. OIE recalled the successful experiences of this 
mechanism reported to the October 2006 SPS Committee meeting, but acknowle dged that its 
usage could be improved. Finally, OIE encouraged Members to communicate their comments to 
the relevant national authorities to be reflected in its future work agenda.  
6.4  Creation of a Working Group on Implementation of the SPS Agreement - Propos al 
from Brazil  
6.17.  Brazil presented a proposal for the creation of a working group on the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement in the spirit of Paragraph 29 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declarati on 
(WT/MIN(15)/DEC), which called  for reinvigoration of the regular work of committees. 
Brazil  considered that the SPS Committee could benefit from a more focused and interactive 
discussion on how Members implement ed the provisions of the SPS Agreement. Brazil pointed out 
that it had already introduced si milar proposals in  the area of R ules, in particular  the creation of 
working groups on Safeguards and Countervailing Measures, as well as in the Council for Trade in 
Services. Brazil stressed that the overall objective would be to increase knowledge on how 
Members implement the SPS Agreement, which would have an added benefit in helping to avoid 
potential conflicts. The proposal would build on the existing practice of information sharing without  
overstep ping any obligation outlined in Article 12 of the SPS Agreement. Brazil r emained open to 
suggestions on the potential group's format and on the types of issues to discuss. As a start, 
Brazil  proposed the format of  a moderated discussion , in which a specific topic would be presented 
and followed by commentary. Brazil proposed th e Trade Facilitation Agreement ( TFA) and its links 
to the SPS Agreement as a potential first topic and recalled the background note  prepared by the 
Secretariat after the Bali Ministerial Conference  (RD/SPS/3/Rev.1) as a starting point for future 
discussion s.  
6.18.  Paraguay and the Russian Federation welcomed and supported Brazil's proposal.  
6.19.  Chile stated this topic was important and highlighted that it considered the main work of the 
Committee in recent years to have been implementation of the SPS Agreement. Bein g able to 
establish working groups when needed was important, but in this case, Chile was concerned that it 
may establish a new bureaucracy within the Committee. Ch ile highlighted that in the 
TBT Committee, thematic sessions we re held on certain topics. Ch ile again stressed that it 
appreciated Brazil's idea, but considered that another approach, such as thematic sessions or 
informal discussions, would be better suited to the Committee's needs.  
6.20.  Canada echoed Chile's sentiment and suggested that the Committee  explore other 
mechanisms, such as thematic sessions or workshops, to address the need identified by Brazil.  
6.21.  The European Union appreciated Brazil's proposal and indicated that while it could agree on 
the objectives and would have no reservations about som e of the topics that had been mentioned, 
it questioned if a working group would be the best operational option to improv e the work of the 
Committee. The European Union was not in a position to support the proposal.  
6.22.  The United States thanked Brazil and agre ed that the topics merited additional discussions. 
The United States supported the overall objectives but questioned the necessity of a working 
group. The United States urged Brazil to submit its proposal in writing to allow others to consult 
domestically  and come prepared to move forward with concrete ideas.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 26 - 
 
  6.23.  Colombia, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Mexico and Singapore als o took the floor and expressed 
interest in reviewing a written proposal, willingness to further discuss this important topic, and 
readiness to  work on commitments undertaken in Nairobi.  Egypt and Singapore supported Chile's 
view vis-à-vis thematic sessions.  
6.24.  Brazil thanked all Members that had expressed thei r views on the proposal. 
Brazil  acknowledged that the idea had been well -received in term s of its objectives , but recognized 
that there were concerns related to the format, as well as requests for a written proposal. 
Brazil  indicated that it would submit a written proposal and suggested that the Chairperson hold 
consultations p rior to the next  SPS Committee m eeting to continue the discussion.  
6.25.  The Chairperson reaffirmed that the objectives had been well -received and that it was 
important to submit a written proposal. The Chairperson stated that informal consultations could 
be held after circulat ion of the aforementioned proposal.  
7  IMPLEMENTATION OF SP ECIAL AND DIFFERENTI AL TREATMENT  
7.1.  No Member took  the floor under this agenda item.  
8  EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4  
8.1  Information from Members on their experiences  
8.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item . 
8.2  Information from relevant observer organizations  
8.2.  No observer took the floor under  this agenda item.  
9  PEST - AND DISEASE -FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6  
9.1  Information from Members on their pest or disease status  
9.1.1   United States - Freedom from Highly Pathogenic Avian Inf luenza  
9.1.  The United States reported that on 22 April 2016 it had regained country -wide freedom from 
HPAI, consistent with OIE guidelines. The United States noted that, despite efforts to inform 
Members of this status, some restrictions on import s of live pou ltry, poultry meat and poultry 
products from the United States currently remained in place. The United States reminded Members 
that any measures taken should be based on international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations or on a risk assessment , as re quired by  the SPS Agreement.  
9.1.2   Russian Federation – Foot and mouth disease free zone  
9.2.  The Russian Federation reported that the 84th OIE General Assembly had officially recognized 
one new zone as FMD free without  vaccination. The Russian Federation hoped that this acquired 
status would facilitate trade with other WTO Members.  
9.2  Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest - or disease -
free areas  
9.2.1   Brazil – OIE recognition of an additional 14 states and the Federal District as free 
of Classica l Swine Fever  
9.3.  Brazil reported that 14 additional states and the Federal District had been officially 
recognized as free of CSF at the 84th OIE General Assembly. Brazil noted that this made for a total 
of 16 CSF -free states and considered these developments  promising for future exports of animal 
products.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 27 - 
 
  9.2.2   Costa Rica – OIE recognition as negligible risk for BSE  
9.4.  Costa Rica reported that it had been classified as having a negligible risk for BSE at the 84th 
OIE General Assembly. Costa Rica invited Members to ta ke note of this recognition.  
9.5.  The Secretariat acknowledged that some interventions under the previous two agenda items 
were similar and requested Members to provide enough  detail when submitting points for the 
agenda to ensure they could be  placed under th e appropriate item.  
9.3  Information from relevant observer organizations  
9.3.1   OIE 
9.6.  The OIE drew attention to the section of its report (G/SPS/GEN/1499) that related to official 
disease free recognition status of member countries for six priority diseases: BSE, FMD, CBPP, 
African horse sickness, PPR and CSF. A detailed list of countries, including some who had provided 
reports at the current  Committee meeting, was contained in Annex 1  of its report , as well as on 
the OIE website. The OIE also highlighted its official endorsement of national disease control 
programmes currently provided with regard to FMD, PPR and CBPP, with more details available in 
the report.  
9.4  Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/48  
9.7.  The Secretariat introduced the annual report prepared in accordance  with the Committee's 
Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/48) . 
The report covered the period from 1 April 2015 until 31 March 2016, and was based on 
information provided by Members through notificatio ns and reports provided during the Committee 
meetings (G/SPS/GEN/1491).  
10  TECHNICA L ASSISTANCE AND COO PERATION  
10.1  Information from the Secretariat  
10.1.1   WTO SPS activities   
10.1.  The Secretariat recalled that document s G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.6 and 
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.6/Add.1 prov ided an overview of the technical assistance and training 
activities  planned  for 2016. Since the last Committee meeting, technical assistance on the SPS 
Agreement ha d been provided through three national seminars held in Madagascar, Panama and 
Iran. More g eneral training on the SPS Agreement had also been provided through the WTO 
Advanced Trade Policy Course (in English); the introductory  course  for LDCs  (in French); and three 
Regional Trade Policy Courses held for French -speaking Africa, in Tunisia;  Englis h-speaking Africa,  
in Botswana;  and fo r the Caribbean,  in Barbados.  
10.2.  The Secretariat also indicated that upcoming Geneva -based SPS training activities by the 
WTO Secretariat included  the Advanced SPS Course, which would be held in French, from 
17 October un til 4 November 2016; and the Workshop on MRLs on 24 -25 October 2016. 
The Secretariat informed Members that to date it had received over 500 applications for these 
planned technical assistance activities. The Advanced SPS Course had received 221 application s 
and the Workshop on MRLs had received 316. The Secretariat further added that it was currently 
in the process of finalizing the selection of candidates for these activities. The specific dates of the 
technical assistance activities, eligibility criteria,  prerequisites and application processes could be 
found in document G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.6 and Add.1. The Secretariat also indicated  that the 
SPS and TBT teams would be jointly holding a workshop on Regulatio ns, Standards and Health on 
11-15 July 2016.  
10.3.  The Se cretariat further announced that national seminars were scheduled to be held in: 
Egypt (week of 19 September); Guinea (18 -21 July – Ag & SPS); Pakistan (1st week of 
November); and Tajikistan (27 -28 September). National Seminars were also being scheduled fo r: 
Angola, Bangladesh, Comoros, Guatemala, Myanmar, Paraguay and Peru. The Secretariat was 
currently working out the details to carry out these seminars and also for other  requests received. G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 28 - 
 
  The following upcoming activities would also include general SPS training: the WTO Regional Trade 
Policy Course for Latin America in Ecuador; a SIDA workshop to be held in Stockholm in 
September; and several training sessions to be held in Geneva with students from Duke University 
and American University Washington Coll ege of Law. The Follow -up Session to the 2015 Advanced 
SPS Course was currently being held (29 June -7 July 2016) and was attended by 19 participants 
from LDCs and developing countries. The Secretariat recalled that the E -Learning course on the 
SPS Agreemen t was available year -round in the three WTO working  languag es. Further information 
on SPS technical a ssistance activities could be obta ined on the WTO website (under t rade-related 
technical assistance), or by contacting the Secretariat for additional clari fication and assistance.  
10.1.2   STDF  (G/SPS/GEN/14 97) 
10.4.  The STDF provided an overview of its activities , as described  in document G/SPS/GEN/1497. 
The STDF had published its 2015 Annual Report , which was available at 
http://standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Annual_Report_2015_FINAL.pdf . The report 
featured an increased focus on capturing and communicating the results and impacts of STDF 
work. The STDF than ked its partners, donors, and developing country experts for their valuable 
technical and financial contributions that made the STDF a successful partnership.  
10.5.  The STDF highlighted an information seminar on Electronic SPS Certification held on 28 July 
2016.  The seminar had looked at the benefits, the challenges and the opportunities for developing 
countries. This seminar was very well attended with close to 150 participants from the public and 
private sector. The IPPC had also organised a dialogue with indus try which had included 
presentations by the International Grain Trade Coalition and the International Flower Trade 
Association about the value of SPS e -Certification to their constituencies . The STDF highlighted 
that the benefits of e -certification were cl ear in terms of reducing  numbers of documents, time , 
and trade costs , which remained high in agricultural trade. This was  also an important focus of the 
WTO Aid for Trade work programme for 2016 and 2017. More information on the seminars, 
including podcast s of the sessions, was available here: http://standardsfacility.org/STDF -eCert -
Seminar . A background paper would be issued later in the year highlighting the key concepts and 
issues in SPS e -certification.  
10.6.  The STDF noted that information about ongoing projects and project preparation grants, 
how to apply for funding, and the eligibility criteria were available in G/SPS/GEN/1497 and on the 
STDF website. The STDF noted that there continued to be  a large demand for STDF services. 
However, the STDF Trust Fund currently showed a negative balance. This meant that the STDF 
would not be in a position to approve and finance any new projects at the next working group 
meeting in October 2016. The STDF rem ained positive and hoped that new donors would make 
contributions to the STDF Trust Fund between July and October 2016.  
10.7.  Finally, the STDF further announced that it had recently de veloped and issued a new short 
seven  minute film on the cocoa value chain. Th e film highlighted how in today's global value chain 
SPS capacity helped to make sure that cocoa plants were free from pest s and diseases and that 
chocolate was safe for consumers. The film was available on the STDF website in English, French 
and Spanish, and Members were encouraged to use it for awareness raising, training activities and 
other screenings: http://standardsfacility.org/video -gallery . The STDF welcomed Members to 
contact the STDF Sec retariat with any questions they may have.  
10.8.  The Chairperson congratulated the STDF and expressed her hope that new donors would 
come forth to allow it to  continue its excellent work.  
10.2  Information from Members  
10.2.1   Technical assistance to developing countries prov ided by Japan 
(G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.4)  
10.9.  Japan provided an update on SPS -related technical assist ance it had delivered between 
1 April 2015 and 31 March 2016 (G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.4). Since 2009, 58 technical assistance 
programmes had been provided, targeting mo re than 50 countries and amounting to a total of 
5.1 billion Japanese yen. The overseas aid programme was managed by the Japan International 
Co-operation Agency (JICA).  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 29 - 
 
  10.2.2   Jamaica – Technical assistance received  
10.10.   Jamaica thanked the European Union for support administered through the Planning 
Institute of Jamaica  under the Economic Partnership Agreement . This assistance, consisting of 
various training activities, site -visits and upgrading of laboratory facilities, has helped Jamaica 
remain competitive and curre nt across discipli nes in the international arena.  
10.3  Information from observer organizations  
10.3.1   OIE  
10.11.   The OIE noted its continued global initiative to support member countries to strengthen 
the veterinary and aquatic health services using the OIE PVS pathway. The OIE drew the 
Committee's attention to the summary of the PVS programme annexed to its report 
G/SPS/GEN/1499, highlighting the inclusion of information on the aquatic animal health service 
PVS and the PVS follow -up missions in this latest report. OIE also noted that more developed 
countries had indicated their interest in conducting PVS evaluations. Australia's report was now 
available on the OIE website. The OIE finally highlighted ongoing  seminars targeted to new OIE 
delegates and national focal points. A  list of seminars scheduled in 2016 was attached as Annex 3 
to the report.  
10.3.2   OIRSA – Relevant activities  (G/SPS/GEN/14 95) 
10.12.   OIRSA provided an update on its activities of interest to the Committee  described in more 
detail  in document G/SPS/GEN/1495. In addition  to the update provided in its written report, 
OIRSA provided a brief introduction to  the organization itself, including its history, structure and 
purpose. OIRSA reminded Members that its mission was to support the m inistries of agriculture 
and livestock of its member countries in their efforts to improve  plant health, animal health, 
quarantine services and food safety. OIRSA's 2015 -2025 strategic plan focused on the four areas 
above as well as on cross-cutting strategic objectives such as integrated risk management, climate 
change, plant and animal health, harmonization of regulations, plant and animal traceability, plant 
and animal health, and food safety laboratories. OIRSA finally stressed the importance of 
collaboration with relevant international orga nizations.  
10.3.3   IICA  
10.13.   IICA provided an update on its activities of interest to the Committee , described in more 
detail  in document G/SPS/GEN/1500. IICA highlighted two main areas  of activity, the first of which 
was the use of the multilateral trading system with  a focus on developing individual capacity, 
impact on decision -makers and regional and inter -regional strengthening. The second area related 
to institutional regulatory and technical strengthening, particularly to improve the understanding of 
FSMA in interested countries.  
10.14.   Jamaica thanked IICA for its work in the Caribbean region, most recently on advancing 
model plant and animal health and food safety legislation as well as coordination of the SPS 
systems at the national level. Jamaica further thanked IICA for its work in preparing Jamaica and 
other Caribbean countries for FSMA.  
10.3.4   IGAD  
10.15.   IGAD reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee. Highlights included the 
establishment of the IGAD Centre for Pastoral Livestock Development, which had supported  the 
preparation  and implementation of national, regional and global PPR strategies. IGAD also 
provided support through its Animal Health Network, which had various activities going on in the 
areas of disease control and surveillance. A similar network was  available for export quarantine in 
the region. To support harmonization, IGAD had established a standards working group on three 
key commodities: live animals, meat, and hide s and skin s. IGAD also reported that it had reviewed 
the SPS management capacity of IGAD member states and had developed a regional SPS strategy 
which would be validated in August 2016. Finally, the regional animal welfare and health strategies  
were in draft stages. IGAD thanked the African Union, the European Union and USAID for their  
continued support.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 30 - 
 
  10.3.5   ITC 
10.16.   ITC provided an update on its activities of interest to the Committee in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1505. Highlights included a project titled Supporting Indian Trade and Investment for 
Africa (SITA) , financed by DFID ; a new project in Zimb abwe aimed at strengthening its national 
SPS institutional framework ; a regio nal workshop in the Arab region;  and an EIF project in Lesotho 
on agricultural p roductivity and trade development. Finally, ITC highlighted that its 2015 annual 
report had just be en issued. The report and more information on the above projects were available 
on the ITC website: http://www.intracen.org . 
10.3.6   ISO 
10.17.   ISO provided an update on its activities of interest to the Committee in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1493 and highlighted, in relation to the action plan for developing countries, that it 
would be running a series of workshops on standardisation and public policy. The workshops, to be 
held in cooperation with Codex, WTO -TBT, and OECD, would look at clarifying the role and the 
relationship between public policy and voluntary standards. It would also look at the potential of 
standards to support public policy. The ISO also reported on  a stakeholder engagement workshop 
covering how member bodies engage d and maintain ed engagement in the standards development 
process.  
11  REVIEW OF THE OPERAT ION AND IMPLEMENTATI ON OF THE SPS AGREEM ENT 
11.1  Report of the informal meeting  
11.1.  The former  Chairperson reported that the Committee had held an informal meeting on the 
report of  the Fourth Review and on the structure of the agenda f or SPS Committee meetings on 
29 June 2016. Starting with the Fourth Review, the main purpose of the meeting had been to 
discuss the proposals on the second bullet of para. 14.20 of the Fourth Review Re port 
(G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2) submitted by Brazil and Norway on behalf of their groups (circulated 
through the SPS contact mailing list on 31 May).  
11.2.  The former Chairperson had recalled that according to the agreed process and timetable, 
the Fourth Review should have concluded in October 2014. Discussions on the Catalogue of 
Instruments (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2) had been stuck since July 2015, due to the divergence of views 
on the need to add a disclaimer to clarify its legal status. On the draft report of the Fourth Re view, 
two specific recommendations had remained unresolved: (i) the fourth recommendation under the 
transparency section; and (ii) the second recommendation under the SPS -related private 
standards section.  
11.3.  The former Chairperson had then invited Norway an d Brazil to present the proposals 
submitted on behalf of their groups. Both Norway and Brazil had recognized that they had been 
unable to develop common language on the second bullet of para. 14.20 of the draft report of the 
Fourth Review to close the gap.  
11.4.  In an effort to bridge the differences, China had proposed compromise language resulting 
from a combination of the first part of the text proposed by the Norway group in option 2 
("disclaimer element") and the text proposed by the Brazil group. While some  Members had 
expressed their willingness to move forward with the new compromise language, others had stated 
that they preferred removing the second bullet of para. 14.20. In concluding, the former 
Chairperson had recognized the lack of consensus on para. 14.20, and consequently the inability 
to proceed with the adoption of the draft report.  
11.5.  Regarding the structure of the agenda, many delegations had expressed support for the 
new structure, although one Member had indicated a lack of instructions on the is sue. Some 
Members had suggested creating specific sub -items for equivalence and pest -and disease -free 
areas under item 3 on the implementation of the Agreement, and the Committee had agreed to 
take these suggestions on board. There had been also a lot of s upport for the procedural 
recommendations, although some delegations had been uneasy about limiting statements on 
previously raised STCs to three minutes.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 31 - 
 
  11.6.  In concluding, the former Chairperson had suggested that the procedural recommendations 
remain infor mal, to guide delegations in preparing for meetings. The former Chairperson had 
suggested that the Secretariat time interventions this week, e.g. under the agenda item on 
previously raised concerns, so that the Committee would have a better idea about the average 
length of interventions. Regarding the structure of the agenda, the former Chairperson had been 
of the view that it could be tried at one of the next meetings of the Committee, and adjusted 
based on experiences made. But of course the decision on t he next steps would be up to the 
Chairperson's successor.  
11.7.  India suggested that any comments from Members on the proposed agenda be compiled by 
the Secretariat and circulated to better inform subsequent decisions on the agenda. India stated 
that it was not in a position to agree to any new structure in this meeting as the proposal was still 
under review in capital.  
11.8.  New Zealand stressed the importance of submitting documents on time in order to be able 
to prepare for Committee meetings and liaise with releva nt colleagues in capital in advance. New 
Zealand urged Members to respect the 10 -day rule on document distribution.  
11.9.  The United States sought clarification on the way forward regarding the agenda as it had 
understood the proposed model would be a catalyst for future discussions and would not be agreed 
upon at the current meeting, but perhaps at a later stage after Members would have more time to 
reflect on the structure.  
11.10.   The Chairperson clarified that the discussion had been centred on a proposed structure for 
the agenda and not necessarily the official agenda for the next Committee meeting. The 
Chairperson stated that it seemed the new structure had been well received in principle , but there 
were some Members who required more time to reflect. The Chairpers on suggested that, in light of 
this, the Secretariat circulate the new structure for comments in order for Members to have 
sufficient time for reflection and proposed to hold informal consultations prior to the next 
Committee meeting to continue discussion s. 
11.2  Adoption of the report of the Fourth Review  (G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2)  and Adoption 
of the Catalogue of Instruments (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2)  
11.11.   The Chairperson acknowledged that the Committee remained at an impasse regarding the 
adoption of the report of the Forth Rev iew and the Catalogue of Instruments. The Chairperson 
encouraged Members to keep reflecting on the best way forward and to inform her of any 
suggestions . The Chairperson indicated she would reflect and might  consult before the October 
Committee meeting in the hope of finding a way forward.  
12  MONITORING OF THE US E OF INTERNATIONAL S TANDARDS  
12.1  New Issues  
12.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
12.2  Issues previously raised  
12.2.1   United States – IPPC Phytosanitary Certificate Requirements for Processed Food 
Products  
12.2.  The United States reiterated its concerns regarding Members' use of use of phytosanitary 
certificate requirements for processed products, addressed  in ISPM 32 on 'Categorization of 
Commodities according to their Pest Risk.' A key provision of ISPM 32 was 'intended use' , which 
was defined as the declared purpose for which pl ant products or other articles we re imported 
produced or used. The intended use of a commodity might  be for planting, processing or 
consumption and other uses such as decorative products  and cut flowers. The United States noted 
that som e intended uses of a commodity we re associated with higher probability of a regulated 
pest establishing than others. This might result in the application of different phytosanitary 
measures for a commodity based on its intended use. The USDA -APHIS was currently examining 
its miscellaneous and processed products manual to update and clarify its guidance on processed G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 32 - 
 
  foods and vegetable products covered by ISPM 32, Annex 1 to more closely reflect the intent of  
the standard. Additional work was underway on national - and regional -level guidelines by NAPPO . 
The United States would welcome an exchange of Members' expe riences in implementing of 
ISPM 32. Furthermore, the United States urged Members to employ a risk -based approach and to 
act in consistency  with the guidance of ISPM 32 , in that measures applied should be proportional 
to the pest risk identified for the intended use. In closing, the United States highlighted and 
applauded IPPC for a training session focu sed on better implementation of ISPM32 held on 3 April 
2016 in Rome, Italy.  
12.3.  Canada shared  the concerns of the United States and encouraged Members to use 
international standards when establishing phytosanitary measures, including IPPC standards where 
these  existed , and to support the principles as set out in ISPM 32. Canada encouraged Members to 
take into consideration factors such as the intended use of the commodity when establishing 
requirements.  
12.4.  New Zealand also shared the concerns raised and,  as a Memb er that recovered costs from 
its exporters, requested unjustified  activities and costs related to certification should be avoided so 
as not to penalise exporters.  
12.2.2   United States – Use of the Codex International Standard on Glyphosate  
12.5.  The United States reite rated its concern over the fact that some Members had already taken 
action, or were considering taking action, to no longer apply th e Codex MRL for glyphosate. 
The United States understood that the measures being considered did not appear to be based on 
international standards or risk of exposure. The United States highlighted a recent JMPR report 
from May 2016 that had concluded  that glyphosate was "unlikely to be genotoxic" and "unlikely to 
pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through diet." I t was therefore important to 
distinguish these findings from that of IARC, which were based on hazard and not risk. The US EPA 
was currently re -reviewing glyphosate using all available data  and would also seek external peer 
review of the US cancer assessme nt later in 2016. The United States stressed the importance of 
following international standards to minimize adverse impacts on trade, recalling Article 12 
paragraph 4 of the SPS Agreement and the direction given in G/SPS/11/Rev.2. The United States 
also e xpressed its concerns with recent developments in the European Union, in particular  not 
basing its import tolerance for glyphosate on Codex standards , and the 18 -month extension - as 
opposed to  the usual  15-year reauthorization - of glyphosate use. This could have a significant 
impact on trade flows. The United States welcomed any update from Codex on these 
developments, particularly information on the May 2016 JMPR report and the steps that WHO had 
taken to clarify the relation between the JMPR and IARC re ports.  
12.6.  Argentina, Canada and Brazil shared  the concern of the United States and stressed the 
importance of following the Codex standard. They also noted the findings of the recent JMPR report 
and encouraged Members to take the guidance provided by JMPR and  CCPR into consideration 
when developing, applying, re -evaluating or reauthorizing measures.  
12.3  Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/11/REV.1  
12.7.  The Secretariat introduced the Annual Report on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization , as contained in G/SPS/GEN/1490. The report reflected the issues 
raised over the past year, and included seven new issues that ha d been raised under this 
procedure on: (i) the use of the Codex international standard on glyphosate; (ii) the lack of a 
Codex  standard for imidacloprid in sesame; (iii) deviations from the use of international standards; 
(iv) BSE restrictions not consistent with the OIE International Standard; (v) phytosanitary 
certificate requirements for processed food products; (vi) measures on bovine semen and 
reproductive material more restrictive than the OIE Standard; and (vii) application of ISPM 13 on 
notifications of non -compliance.  
13  CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
13.1.  China recalled that the trade impacts of private standards  had been discussed in the 
Committee multiple times since 2005 and that, during the Third R eview of the SPS Agreement, 
some Members had proposed that the Committee develop guide lines for Article 13 of the G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 33 - 
 
  SPS Agreement , or a Code of Good Practice for priva te standards to enable Members to better 
implement SPS provisions and improve market access. China reported that it was in the process of 
drafting a pape r on 'Best Practice Guidelines r egarding Private Standards' and invited interested 
Members to contribut e. China assured Members that participation in this drafting exercise was 
without prejudice to the rights and obligations of Members under the WTO or the views of 
Members regarding the scope of the relevant WTO Agreements. China believed that application o f 
voluntary 'Best Practice Guidelines regarding Private Standards' by private standard -setters and 
Members hosting them would help private standards make positive contributions while avoiding 
the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade. China indicated t hat it would be happy to share more 
information and experiences with any interested Members.  
13.2.  Argentina, Cuba, Egypt, India and the Russian Federation we lcomed China's proposal, 
stressing  the importance of making progress and express ing a willingness to col laborate further on 
the issue. Additionally, Argentina acknowledged other ongoing  efforts around private standards 
within the Committee.  
13.3.  China appreciated the comments received and reiterated that the drafting exercise was 
without prejudice to the rights a nd obligations of members under the WTO or the views of 
Members regarding the scope of the relevant WTO Agreements. China noted that certain Members 
had already developed some laws and best practice guidelines regarding issues related to private 
standards which could be useful for the drafting exercise.  
13.4.  The European Union appreciated China's efforts, however, it stated that it was not in a 
position to support or endorse the proposal. The European Union questioned China's interpretation 
of Article 13 and als o sought clarification on whether or not this exercise would be conducted on 
the margins of the SPS Committee. Furthermore, the European Union stated that  it believed 
private standards we re not within the scope of the SPS Agreement.  
13.5.  The United States recal led previous reports from the Chair of the Committee indica ting that 
fundamental divergence s among  Members on private standards still remained. The United States 
further recalled Brazil's reminder to the Committee of the efforts to reinvigorate the Committ ee's 
work in the spirit of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration and stated that the focus of its efforts and 
engagement would be linked to this.  
13.6.  Canada thanked China for its efforts on the issue but stated that it was not prepared to 
support the initiative.  Canada questioned whether drafting a paper on best practices was the be st 
means of advancing work. I t was unclear to Canada how such a paper would narrow the gap 
between divergent views. Canada welcomed new ideas but urged Members to focus their efforts o n 
concluding the Fourth Review, including the Catalogue o f Instruments, rather than on making 
progress in other areas.  
13.7.  China thanked the European Union, the United States and Canada for their interventions. 
China took note of Members' differing views on  the legal status of private standards within the 
WTO. But according to China, though  no official determination had been made as  to whether 
private standards fe ll within the scope of the SPS Agreement , Article 1, paragraph 1 and Annex A, 
paragraph 1 of the SP S Agreement did not explicitly limit SPS measures to those taken by 
government authorities. China also drew Members' attention to a recent DFID report and its 
conclusions about the scope of non -governmental private standard -setting bodies under Article 13 
of the SPS Agreement. China encouraged Members to reflect on the issue in order to make the 
best use of the benefit s of private standards without increasing costs.  
14  OBSERVERS  
14.1  Information from observer organizations  
14.1.  No observer organization took the floor un der this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 34 - 
 
  14.2  Requests for observer status  (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.13)  
14.2.1   New requests  
14.2.1.1   Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA) 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.17)  
14.2.  The Secretariat reported that it had received a new request from the Caribbean Agricult ural 
Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA) and that the information received from CAHFSA had 
been presented in document (G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.17). The Chairperson indicated that some 
Members had req uested more time to consider this  request.  
14.3.  Jamaica and Saint  Lucia took the floor in support of CAHFSA's request for observer status.  
14.4.  The Chairperson suggested that the Committee return to this request at its next meeting.  
14.2.2   Outstanding requests  
14.5.  The Chairperson noted that there was still no consensus on the six outst anding requests for 
observer status from the Commission for Biological Diversity (CBD); CABI International; the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the 
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin ( OIV), the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community 
(APPC); and the International Cocoa Organisation (ICCO).  
14.6.  The Chairperson thanked the representatives of observer organizations for their 
contributions to the work of this Committee and for their assistance to M embers.  
15  OTHER BUSINESS  
15.1.  No Member provided information under this agenda item.  
16  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING  
16.1.  Regarding the dates for Committee meetings in 2017, t he European Union requested to 
move the October meeting to as late as possible in October or  November  to provide more time 
between the July and October meetings . 
16.2.  The United States noted that since many of the delegates to the SPS Committee also 
attended the Codex meetings it was unfortunate that both meetings were being held during the 
same week . The United States urged that in the future these meetings be held back -to-back. 
16.3.  The Secretariat confirmed that normally the July meetings of the SPS Committee were 
scheduled  back-to-back with the Codex  Alimentarius Commission, but that due to a change in 
schedule this had not been possible in 2016 . With respect to the European Union's request, the 
Secretariat proposed holding the meeting during the week beginning 30 October 2017, subject to 
Members' agreement. The Secretariat further noted that this propos al would mean the autumn 
meetings of the SPS and TBT Committees would take place back -to-back.  The 2017 meetings of 
the SPS Committee were subsequently circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1506.  
16.4.  The next meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for 2 7-28 October 2016 , with 
a Thematic Workshop on MRLs scheduled for 24 -25 October and an informal meeting on 
26 October . 
16.5.  The Committee agreed to discuss the agenda for its next meeting during informal 
consultations on the structure of the agenda.  G/SPS/R/83  
 
- 35 - 
 
  16.6.  Members wer e asked to take note of the following deadlines : 
• For submitting ideas for the programme for the Workshop on  Pesticide  MRLs: Friday, 
29 July 2016; 
• For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring  procedure and for 
request ing that item s be put on the agenda: Thursday, 13 October  2016 ; 
• For the distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 14 October  2016. 
 
__________