RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/74  
 
6 June 2014  
(14-3319)  Page: 1/27  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 25-26 MARCH 2014 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Table of Contents 
1   ADOPTION OF  THE AGENDA ........................................................................................ 4  
2   INFORMATION ON RE LEVANT ACTI VITIES .................................................................. 4  
2.1   Information from Members ......................................................................................... 4  
2.1.1   United States of America – Final Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) 
Comprehensive Rule .......................................................................................................... 4  
2.1.2   United States of America - Update on  FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) ............ 4  
2.1.3   Canada - Update on new Regulatory  Framework for Federal Food Inspec tion ................... 4  
2.1.4   Canada - Changes to  Canada's NNA  and NEP .............................................................. 4  
2.1.5   Japan - Lifting ban on fresh fruits from Argentina, Australia, Chile, Italy and 
Turkey ........................................................................................................................ .... 4 
2.1.6   Japan - Update on situation of Japanese food after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear 
power plant accident and latest IAEA report .......................................................................... 5  
2.1.7   European Union - Recent detection of African swine fever virus in Lithuania and 
Poland ............................................................................................................................. 5  
2.1.8   Pakistan - Update on National Notifi cation Authority and Nati onal Enquiry Point ............... 5  
2.1.9   Burundi - Information on the Standardization and Quality Control Bureau and on 
the National Coordinating and Monitoring  Committee ............................................................. 5  
2.2   Information from the relevant  SPS standard-setting bodies ............................................. 5  
2.2.1   CODEX ................................................................................................................. . 5 
2.2.2   IPPC .................................................................................................................. ... 6 
2.2.3   OIE ....................................................................................................................... 6  
2.3   Information from  the Secret ariat ................................................................................. 6  
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.14) ............................................ 7  
3.1   New issues .............................................................................................................. . 7 
3.1.1   Russia's measures on live pigs and pork products due to African swine fever - 
Concerns of the Eu ropean Union ......................................................................................... 7  
3.1.2   US imports of meat from Brazil - Concerns of Nicara gua ............................................... 7  
3.2   Issues prev iously raised ............................................................................................. 8  
3.2.1   Brazil's risk assessment for shri mp - Concerns of Ec uador (No.  344) .............................. 8  
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2.2   China's import restrictions in response to the nuclear power plant accident – 
Concerns of Japa n (No. 354) .............................................................................................. 8  
3.2.3   Russia's import restrictions on confectionary products – Concerns of Ukraine 
(No. 368) ..................................................................................................................... ... 9 
3.2.4   Application and modification of the European Union Regulation on Novel Foods - 
Concerns of Peru  (No. 238) ................................................................................................ 9  
3.2.5   Korea's strengthened import restri ctions on food and feeds with regard to 
radionuclides – Concerns of Japan (No. 359) ........................................................................ 10 
3.2.6   European Union temperature treatment requirements for imports of processed 
meat products – Concerns  of Russia (No. 351) ..................................................................... 10 
3.2.7   India's import conditions for pork and pork products – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 358) ............................................................................................................... 10 
3.2.8   Turkey's requirements for importation of sheep meat – Concerns of Australia 
(No. 340) ..................................................................................................................... .. 11 
3.2.9   Import restrictions due to BSE - Concerns of the Europe an Union (N o. 193) ................... 11 
3.2.10   European Union phytosanitary measures on citrus black spot – Concerns of 
South Africa (No. 356) ...................................................................................................... 12 
3.3   Consideration of specif ic notification s received .............................................................. 12 
3.4   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.14 ........................................ 12 
4   OPERATION OF TRANSP ARENCY PROVISIONS .......................................................... 12  
4.1   European Union revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors – Concerns of  the United States .......................................................................... 13 
4.2   Information from the European Union .......................................................................... 13 
5   IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT .............................. 13  
6   EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE 4 ........................................................................................ 13  
6.1   Information from Memb ers on their experiences ........................................................... 13 
6.2   Information from releva nt observer or ganizati ons ......................................................... 13 
7   PEST- AND DISEASE-FR EE AREAS - AR TICLE 6 .......................................................... 14  
7.1   Information from Members on  their pest or disease status .............................................. 14 
7.1.1   Australia – Information on freedom from highly pathogen ic avian influenza .................... 14 
7.1.2   South Africa – Information on foot and mouth disease (FMD) status .............................. 14 
7.1.3   Paraguay – Information on  foot and mouth disease st atus ........................................... 14 
7.1.4   Honduras – Information on declaration of a pest free area ........................................... 14 
7.1.5   Guatemala – Response to query raised by Senegal regarding areas free of 
Mediterranean fruit fly ...................................................................................................... 15 
7.2   Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas .................................................................................................................... ... 15 
7.3   Information from releva nt Observer Or ganizati ons ........................................................ 15 
8   TECHNICAL ASSISTAN CE AND COOP ERATION ........................................................... 16  
8.1   Information fr om the Secr etariat ................................................................................ 16 
8.1.1   WTO SPS activities ................................................................................................. 16 
8.1.2   STDF .................................................................................................................. . 16 
8.2   Informatio n from Members ........................................................................................ 17 
8.3   Information from observers ....................................................................................... 18 G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 3 - 
 
  9   REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................... 1 9 
9.1   Issues arising fr om the Second  Review ........................................................................ 19 
9.1.1   Adoption of procedure relating to implementation of Article 12.2 
(G/SPS/W/259 /Rev.7) ...................................................................................................... 19 
9.2   Fourth Review .......................................................................................................... 19 
10   MONITORING OF THE USE OF  INTERNATIONAL STANDARD S .................................. 21  
10.1   New Issues ............................................................................................................ 21 
10.2   Issues previously raised ........................................................................................... 21 
11   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS .................................... 21  
11.1   Report on th e informal meeting ................................................................................ 21 
12   OBSE RVERS ............................................................................................................. 24  
12.1   Information from observer orga nizations .................................................................... 24 
12.2   Requests for observer status .................................................................................... 24 
13   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON ............................................................................ 25  
14   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 25  
15   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS ................................................................ 25  
 G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its fifty-ninth 
regular meeting on 25-26 March 2014. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with amendments (WTO/AIR/4262/REV.1). 
2  INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
2.1  Information from Members 2.1.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the documents G/SPS/GEN/1309 and 
G/SPS/GEN/1310, circulated by Armenia under this agenda item, providing information on animal 
health risk assessment and zoning reports, and plant health risk assessment reports respectively. 
2.1.1  United States of America – Final Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) 
Comprehensive Rule 
2.2.  The United States stated that its amended BSE import regulations had been published by 
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv ice (APHIS). The new "BSE Comprehensive Rule" 
brings US regulations in line with OIE criteria for classifying regions as negligible, controlled and undetermined risk for BSE. A Small Ruminant TSE rule, addressing BSE-related issues for sheep 
and goats, would be proposed for public comment within the year. The United States urged its 
trading partners to remove all import restrictions on US-origin bovines in accordance with its OIE-recognized BSE negligible risk status. 
2.1.2  United States of America - Update on  FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) 
2.3.  The United States reported on the progress of the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 
implementation of the Food Safety Modernizat ion Act (FSMA). Three proposed rules had been 
published: i) Current Good Manufacturing Practice  and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive 
Controls for Food for Animals; ii) Focused Mi tigation Strategies to Protect Food Against 
International Adulteration; and iii) Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food. The three 
proposed rules had been notified as G/SPS/N/USA/2593, G/SPS/N/USA/2610 and G/SPS/N/USA/2631, respectively, and provided a timeframe for Members to submit comments. 
2.1.3  Canada - Update on new Regulatory Framework for Federal Food Inspection 
2.4.  Canada provided an update on its new Re gulatory Framework for Federal Food Inspection 
(G/SPS/GEN/1282). Passage of the Safe Food for Canadians Act (SFCA) provides a basis for consistent regulatory requirements and inspection  approaches across all fields. The Canadian Food 
Inspection Agency (CFIA) was specifically proposing to replace 13 federal food inspection 
regulations with one set of regulations. A noti ce of regulatory intent, containing supporting 
framework, would be notified in May 2014 and the complete set of draft regulations was anticipated to be notified for consultation during Fall 2014. The SFCA and associated regulations 
were anticipated to come into force in June 2015. 
2.1.4  Canada - Changes to Canada's NNA and NEP 
2.5.  Canada announced that as of April 2014, the SPS National Notification Authority (NNA) and 
Enquiry Point (NEP) would be managed directly by  Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada. 
Canada committed to provide the new NNA and NEP contact information to the Secretariat, and 
indicated that it was making every effort to ensure a smooth transition with little impact upon Members. 
2.1.5  Japan - Lifting ban on fresh fruits from Argentina, Australia, Chile, Italy and 
Turkey 
2.6.  Japan indicated that it had lifted a ban on imports of fresh fruits from Argentina, Australia, 
Chile, Italy and Turkey, following agreements with these trading partners on certain conditions to prevent the introduction of fruit flies and codling moth into its territory. Thanks to data and 
information provided for pest risk analysis by its trading partners, this phytosanitary issue was 
resolved bilaterally. G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.1.6  Japan - Update on situation of Japane se food after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear 
power plant accident and latest IAEA report 
2.7.  Japan reported a contaminated water leakage within the facility of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear 
power station, but stressed that it was extremely unlikely that any of the leaked contaminated 
water would affect the Japanese food chain. Japa n noted that the IAEA's assessment indicated that 
the leak posed no danger to the public and concentration levels around the nuclear power station had been relatively stable. IAEA thus concluded that the food supply chain in Japan was safely 
under control. 
2.1.7  European Union - Recent detection of  African swine fever virus in Lithuania and 
Poland 
2.8.  The European Union announced the detection of African swine fever (ASF) in two of its 
member States: Lithuania and Poland. Stringent measures had been immediately taken by the 
affected member States in accordance with inte rnational standards. Furthermore, the European 
Union not only has had surveillance and detection measures in place for a number of years now, 
but was also providing technical assistance to its neighbouring countries, which had ASF on their 
territory and had thus far, been unable to control its spread. The European Union urged its trading partners not to take more trade restrictive measures than necessary given the measures the 
European Union had taken that were fully in line with the principle of regionalization. 
2.1.8  Pakistan - Update on National Notifi cation Authority and National Enquiry Point 
2.9.  Pakistan stated that a new Ministry of Nati onal Food Security and Research had been created 
as a result of the adoption of the 18
th amendment of its Constitution. The resulting changes to its 
SPS NNA and NEP had been notified to the Se cretariat and the new contact information was 
available in the IMS database. 
2.10.  The Secretariat stressed the importance of being told of any changes to Members' NNAs or 
NEPs in order to keep trading partners informed. 
2.1.9  Burundi - Information on the Standardization and Quality Control Bureau and on 
the National Coordinating and Monitoring Committee 
2.11.  Burundi reported on the adoption of a decree relevant to the status of its Standardization 
and Quality Control Bureau and of a law on the national standardization, metrology, quality assurance and testing system (G/SPS/GEN/1308). Bu rundi also reported the adoption of a decree 
concerning the National Committee for the Coordination and Monitoring of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures, which was chaired on an annual rotation basis by the national focal points 
for CODEX, IPPC and OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1306/Rev.1). Burundi highlighted its need for technical assistance to develop the necessary capacities of these bodies in terms of transparency and 
international trade. 
2.2  Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies 2.2.1  CODEX 
2.12.  Codex provided information on the Codex Sessions held since the last meeting of the SPS 
Committee (G/SPS/GEN/1322). Codex reported that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene had finalized Guidelines for the Control of Trichinella an d the revision of the Code of Hygienic Practice 
for Spices and Dried Aromatic Herbs. The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene also agreed to start 
new work on guidelines for the control of nontyphoidal Salmonella  ssp. in beef and pork meat, as 
well as for the application of general principles  of food hygiene to the control of foodborne 
parasites. All these texts would be submitted to the Commission in July 2014 for adoption. The 
Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products had concluded work on the Standard for Fresh and 
Quick Frozen Raw Scallop Products and on performance criteria for methods for determination of marine bio toxins in bivalve molluscs. The Codex Committee on Food Additives revised the 
Guidelines for the simple evaluation of food addi tive intake and referred for adoption more than 
550 additive provisions in the context of its work on the General Standard for Food Additives G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 6 - 
 
  (GSFA). That Committee had also progressed its work on aligning food additive provisions of 
commodities with those in the GSFA. 
2.13.  Codex also announced the forthcoming Codex committee meetings: i) Contaminants in 
Foods in the Hague; ii) General Principles in Paris; and iii) Pesticide Residues in Nanjing. Chile 
highlighted the importance of coordination not only between all these committees but between the 
Three Sisters as well. The Secretariat recalled that the next meeting of the Codex Commission would be held in Geneva in July 2014, back-to-back with the next SPS Committee meeting, which 
should facilitate the participation of Members in both SPS and Codex meetings. 
2.2.2  IPPC 2.14.  The IPPC reported on its recent activiti es and noted that it had 181 members as of the 
beginning of the year (G/SPS/GEN/1321). The Ni nth Session of the Commission on Phytosanitary 
Measures (CPM) would take place from 31 March to 4 April 2014. The new process for standard-
setting permitted formal objections to standard s proposed for adoption, and seven of these had 
been returned to the Standards Committee for furt her evaluation. A recently completed feasibility 
study on electronic phytosanitary certification had led to some proposals to improve trade 
facilitation through the use of the aforementioned certification. The IPPC had also improved its communication activities, not only with its members but with the general public as well. The IPPC 
had developed several manuals related to capacity development as well as a more user-friendly 
phytosanitary information web page. The IPPC stress ed the need for sustained support in order to 
continue its work. Finally, the IPPC announced its interest in participating in the WTO Preparatory Committee on Trade Facilitation. 
2.2.3  OIE 
2.15.  The OIE provided an update on developments in standards for terrestrial and aquatic 
animals (G/SPS/GEN/1317). A revision of the Terrestrial Code User's Guide would be proposed for 
adoption by the World Assembly of Delegates in May 2014, and the Guide to the Use of the 
Aquatic Animal Health Code would subsequently be revised. New OIE disease listing criteria were now being applied and the proposed revision of the OIE Terrestrial Code standard on risk 
assessment for antimicrobial resistance was proposed for adoption in May 2014. The OIE reported 
that the development of a new "high health, hi gh performance horse" standard, drawing on 
existing OIE standards and fundamental principles, was underway. In January 2014, the OIE had launched a new web application named WAHIS-Wild Interface, which provided more public 
information about reporting on wild animal diseases. 
2.3  Information from the Secretariat 2.16.  The Secretariat provided information on recent activities related to invasive alien species 
and the Trade Facilitation (TF) Agreement. The Se cretariat recalled that it had been participating 
for a number of years in the interagency liaison group on invasive alien species. This liaison group had developed an overview of the different guid ance documents available from the IPPC, the OIE 
and other organizations that were relevant for the control of invasive alien species 
(G/SPS/GEN/1320). 
2.17.  The Secretariat also drew attention to th e Trade Facilitation Agreement concluded at the 
WTO's 9
th Ministerial Conference in December 2013. In response to various queries, the 
Secretariat had prepared a brief informal paper describing the relationship between the SPS and 
the TF Agreement (RD/SPS/3/Rev.1). While any possible conflicts between the TF and SPS Agreements were addressed in paragraph 6 of th e Final Provisions of the TF Agreement, the 
TF Agreement would create some requirements that  went beyond those of the SPS Agreement, for 
example, the obligation to publish a wide range of information related to importation and exportation requirements and procedures. 
2.18.  An STDF thematic session would be held on 26 March 2014, to present the preliminary 
results of STDF work on the implementation of SP S measures in the context of trade facilitation. 
The background note, agenda and report of th e session are available at the STDF website: 
http://www.standardsfacility.org /en/TATradeFacilitation.htm . G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 7 - 
 
  3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.14) 
3.1.  The Secretariat reported that the annual compilation of Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) had 
been issued as G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 on 4 March 2014. As in recent years, this compilation contained information only on issues which were raised in the Committee during the previous year. 
In 2013, a total of 79 STCs were discussed in the Committee, of which 24 were new issues, 
15 were previously raised and 40 were reported  as resolved. Information on issues discussed 
before 2013 was available from the SPS Information Management System: http://spsims.wto.org . 
3.1  New issues 
3.2.  Seven new Specific Trade Concerns which had been included on the proposed agenda for the 
meeting were withdrawn following bilateral consultations. These were: (1) China's concerns regarding EU protective measures on products of animal origin (2002/994/EC); (2) China's 
concerns regarding Korea's requirements of BSE-free certification on compound feed; (3) Chinese 
Taipei's concerns regarding Indonesia's import restrictions on commercial feathers and down; (4) Ecuador's concerns regarding EU requirements on imports of raw milk and dairy products 
(EU 605/2010); (5) China's concerns on US limits of procymidone in onions; (6) Ecuador's 
concerns regarding Brazil's pest risk assessment for bananas; and (7) China's concerns regarding Australia's fumigation requirements on wooden furniture. 
3.1.1  Russia's measures on live pigs and po rk products due to African swine fever - 
Concerns of the European Union 
3.3.  The European Union raised concerns regarding measures taken by Russia in response to the 
finding of African swine fever (ASF) virus in four wild boar in two EU member States: Lithuania and 
Poland (G/SPS/GEN/1305 and G/SPS/GEN/1313). The European Union had immediately delimited 
the affected areas and imposed stringent control measures. However, Russia had banned imports of live pigs, pork and certain other products from the entire EU territory, not just from the affected 
regions. Russia's claim that it was concerned about the spread of the disease into its own territory 
was unfounded as ASF was widespread in Russia. The disease was present in both wild boar and domestic pig populations in Russia, as Russia had taken insufficient measures to prevent the 
spread of the ASF virus. Scientific studies showed that the virus found in Lithuania and Poland 
originated in Russia. The European Union thus contended that Russia's measure was 
disproportionate, more trade restrictive than necessary and discriminatory, and urged Russia to bring its measures in line with its WTO obligations and with international standards. 
3.4.  Russia noted that ASF had inflicted significant damage on the Russian economy since the first 
outbreak was confirmed in 2008. After this outbreak and much mortality among susceptible animals, a special commission was established in 2013 for the prevention and eradication of ASF. 
During this period, Russia had kept all trading partners fully informed on possible vectors of 
spread, and had requested that the European Union consolidate its efforts for ASF control. Apparently the European Union had underestimated  the degree of the threat. Russia stressed that 
it imposed temporary restrictions on the importatio n of live pigs and pig products not subjected to 
adequate heat treatment only from those countries that had made relevant notifications to the OIE 
(Poland and Lithuania), not other EU member Stat es. However, Russia insisted on EU compliance 
with the requirements of the veterinary certificates agreed in December 2012. These required 
certification that no cases of ASF had been found during the last 36 months within the territory of 
an EU member State (excluding Sardinia). There were currently insufficient guarantees that a zone or compartment had been effectively established and that the movement of goods within the EU 
territory was fully controlled. Furthermore, this was not a matter that could only be resolved 
without the involvement of the other members of the Eurasian Economic Community: Belarus and Kazakhstan. See also G/SPS/GEN/1315. 
3.1.2  US imports of meat from Brazil - Concerns of Nicaragua 
3.5.  Nicaragua raised concerns regarding a proposed new US rule for the entry of beef from 
Brazil, which Nicaragua indicated would increase  the risk of foot and mouth disease (FMD) 
spreading to Central America. A lot of effort had gone into ensuring that Central America was free 
of FMD and to prevent the spread of FMD into the region. Currently, the United States allowed 
importation of beef only from FMD-free countries, with or without vaccination. While the OIE G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 8 - 
 
  recognized Santa Catarina, Brazil, as an FMD-free area, the north of Brazil was not FMD-free and 
there was no guarantee that the disease would not spread to neighbouring areas. Nicaragua also highlighted the importance of traceability progra mmes for the identification of affected animals. 
The cattle traceability programme in Brazil was voluntary and only applied to cattle whose meat 
was destined for countries that required traceabi lity of the beef from birth. This lack of a 
mandatory traceability system could affect Brazil's capacity to monitor, detect and respond to emergency events. Nicaragua stressed that the FMD virus was difficult to eradicate with 
vaccination as it was a disease susceptible to variation. An outbreak of FMD in Nicaragua would 
have a devastating effect on the country's economy, given that the beef and livestock industry was the main pillar of its national economy. See also G/SPS/GEN/1330. 
3.6.  El Salvador outlined that FMD was an exotic illness and joint efforts of countries were 
necessary to maintain Central America's FMD-free status without vaccination. It supported 
Nicaragua's concerns as the country depended mainly on exports of agricultural goods and a possible outbreak of FMD could bring about sign ificant economic consequences. Guatemala also 
supported the concern since imports of agriculture products of cattle origin from FMD-free 
countries without vaccination could put the country at great risk. 
3.7.  Brazil described Nicaragua's concern as based on purely commercial grounds, which were 
outside the scope of the Committee. Furthermore, Brazil exported meat to more than 
100 countries, and was clearly a trustworthy partner. The United States had concluded a thorough risk analysis of Brazil's sanitary system, in accordance with OIE recommendations and the provisions of the SPS Agreement, which confirmed th e high sanitary and food safety conditions of 
Brazilian beef products. 
3.8.  The United States responded highlighting its efforts to prevent the entry and spread of FMD. 
APHIS was proposing changes to its regulations to allow the importation of fresh beef from 
14 states in Brazil. After a careful analysis and several site visits to Brazil, APHIS had determined 
that Brazil could detect, control and report FMD in case of an outbreak. The United States recalled 
that the planned change in US regulations was a proposed rule and urged Nicaragua to submit its 
comments on the rule. 
3.2  Issues previously raised 3.2.1  Brazil's risk assessment for shri mp - Concerns of Ecuador (No. 344) 
3.9.  Ecuador raised concerns regarding Brazil's risk assessment for shrimp. The National Fisheries 
Institute of Ecuador had an agreement with the Brazilian authorities regarding the list of 
establishments permitted to export to Brazil. Ho wever, Brazil had suspended imports since 2009, 
without any official explanation, indicating that it was undertaking a risk assessment on white spot 
disease. There was scientific evidence that white spot disease had existed in Brazil since 2004. 
Recent publications reported that the virus caused high mortality rates in Brazil, which was not the case in Ecuador where the virus was only present at a low level. Ecuador urged Brazil to complete 
the risk assessment within a reasonable time and stressed that Ecuador had quarantine 
mechanisms in place to detect white spot disease in its fisheries. Ecuador offered to provide information and enable inspections from the Brazilian authorities in order to ensure compliance with Brazil's requirements and accelerate the process of risk assessment. 
3.10.  Brazil noted that the risk assessment was a complex task, but the process was moving 
forward and Brazil had concluded its public consulta tions. It was prepared to send an inspection 
delegation to Ecuador in June, as a follow-up to a questionnaire sent in March. 
3.2.2  China's import restrictions in resp onse to the nuclear power plant accident – 
Concerns of Japan (No. 354) 
3.11.  Japan reiterated its concern over import restrictions by China on Japanese food exports, 
mainly food and feed, following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. China maintained the ban 
on all types of food and feed fr om 10 prefectures in Japan and requested the submission of an 
official pre-test certificate for fruits, vegetables, milk products, medicinal plants and fishery products from all other prefectures. Japan considered that these measures were more trade 
restrictive than necessary and not based on the relevant international standard. Furthermore, G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 9 - 
 
  China had not yet approved the form for the requested certificate. Japan requested that China 
expeditiously finalize its analysis of the proposed certificate, and either accept or specify amendments, if any, to the proposed form. 
3.12.  China explained that since the nuclear leak incident, serious contamination threats existed 
to Japan's maritime products. Several adjustments had been made to inspection and quarantine 
measures since then. China had requested information from Japan in order to conduct a risk assessment. In addition, due to the risk of radi oactive contamination of alcoholic beverages, a 
prohibition had been imposed in accordance with the enhanced inspection and quarantine 
measures of Japan. Based on the conclusions of its risk analyses, China had permitted a number of imports from two prefectures. 
3.2.3  Russia's import restrictions on conf ectionary products – Concerns of Ukraine 
(No. 368) 
3.13.  Ukraine reiterated its concerns regarding the non-transparent manner in which Russia had 
banned imports of confectionary products as of 29 July 2013. This measure, based on the 
Resolution of the Federal Service on Customers' Rights Protection and Human Well-being 
Surveillance of Russia (No. 01/8612-13-23), had not been notified. Furthermore, Russia's SPS Enquiry Point had not provided the information requested by Ukraine in August 2013. Ukraine 
appreciated the site visit conducted by Russia in October 2013 and the answers provided in 
March 2014, but despite the bilateral consultations, the import ban was still in place. Ukraine believed that the measure was applied beyond the extent necessary to protect human health, in a 
discriminatory manner and maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, and was contrary to 
Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Ukraine reques ted Russia to provide an official detailed 
justification of its measure or promptly lift the ban and bring its measure in line with the SPS Agreement. 
3.14.  Russia explained that suspension of imports of Ukrainian confectionaries was related to false 
labelling information and not SPS issues. Inform ation requested from Ukraine had not yet been 
provided. Russia hoped to receive the relevant information soon in order to resume trade of these 
products with improved consumer information.  
3.2.4  Application and modification of the European Union Regulation on Novel Foods - 
Concerns of Peru (No. 238) 
3.15.  Peru reiterated its concern over the EU Regulation on Novel Foods, as it restricted the 
access of traditional biodiversity-based products into the European market, with negative effects 
on exporters. The proposed amendment of Regu lation No. 258/97 would exclude from its scope 
traditional biodiversity-based products which had previously been safely consumed in their country 
of origin. The aim of this amendment was to fa cilitate the export of these products from 
developing countries. Peru requested information on the status of the proposed amendment to Regulation No. 258/97, which would be an important step to access the European market. See also 
G/SPS/GEN/1329. 
3.16.  Ecuador noted that the revised legislation, 2013/894, still posed barriers to products of 
biodiversity and sought assurances that it was compliant with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. The regulation created a di sadvantage to small producers because the 
EU regulations required that the marketing history of traditional biodiversity-based products be 
disclosed, and this information was rarely available in developing countries. Ecuador suggested that the European Union: (i) replace the existing process with a simplified risk-based authorization 
procedure; (ii) define clearly the factors to be used to evaluate safety; and (iii) clarify the 
international standards and procedures on which EFSA would base its decisions and carry out the risk assessments. 
3.17.  Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua also expressed support for Peru's concerns. 
3.18.  The European Union announced that in December 2013, the Commission adopted a proposal 
for a new regulation on novel foods, accompanied by a further proposal on cloning. The proposed new regulation for novel foods focused on easing  market access for traditional foods, including 
those produced by small producers. The object ive was to simplify and streamline approval G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 10 - 
 
  procedures while ensuring food safety. The proposal was notified to WTO in December 2013 
(G/SPS/N/EU/64) and an exceptionally long comment period (120 days) had been given. No comments had been received to date and interested Members were encouraged to submit their comments by the 20 April 2014 deadline. The European Union encouraged Ecuador to submit their 
comments in writing so that they could be considered as part of the notification process. 
3.2.5  Korea's strengthened import restrict ions on food and feeds with regard to 
radionuclides – Concerns of Japan (No. 359) 
3.19.  Japan reiterated its concerns regarding Korea's food, fisheries and feed import restrictions. 
These included a ban on imports from eight pref ectures and additional testing and certification 
requirements in all cases where radioactive Cesi um was detected, even in quantities below the 
Korean limit of 100 Bq/kg. This requirement applied exclusively to Japanese products; Korean and 
other trading partners' products could be distributed as long as the radioactive Cesium level 
remained below 100 Bq/kg. Japan noted that Korea also required inspection certificates on feed exported from certain areas in Japan. 
3.20.  Korea explained that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS 
Agreement, as a result of insufficient scienti fic evidence and the potentially far-reaching 
cumulative effects of radioactive contamination on  food safety and human health. Korea was in the 
process of reviewing requested information provided by Japan in January 2014, but given the 
complexity of the issue, needed more time to come to a final determination. Korea was willing to engage with Japanese experts and discuss bilaterally  in order to finalize this process promptly. 
3.2.6  European Union temperature treatmen t requirements for imports of processed 
meat products – Concerns of Russia (No. 351) 
3.21.  Russia reiterated its concerns regarding the EU heat treatment regimen for meat products, 
treated stomachs, bladders and intestines obtained from domestic cattle and farmed wild cloven-
hoofed animals (except pigs), as well as domest ic sheep and goats. Although the European Union 
recognized Kaliningrad as a separate region in terms of veterinary concerns, it authorized imports from this region only of products subject to a he at treatment of at least 80°C. Products from the 
rest of Russia were prohibited, other than to tran sit through the European Union. In response to a 
Russian request in March 2013 that the European Union establish the minimum core temperature of 70°C for heat treatment of such products and re store the right to export from the mainland of 
Russia, the European Union only agreed to the 70°C treatment for products from the Kaliningrad 
region, but required a longer exposure time than  that requested. In response to a March 2014 
request for the scientific justification of the EU requirements, the European Commission had explained that the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code did not establish special procedures for the 
destruction of the ASF virus in meat. Consequently, the European Commission decided to apply 
the procedures in EU legislation for classical swine fever and other viral diseases, i.e. 80°C. Russia noted that this contradicted the provisions of the OIE Code that defined a minimum core 
temperature of 70°C (regimen D) as sufficient to inactivate classical swine fever virus. See also 
G/SPS/GEN/1328. 
3.22.  The European Union highlighted that the issue had been subject to intensive bilateral 
exchanges during recent years. Imports of meat products from pigs and ruminants used to be 
permitted from Russia since 1997 if they had been heat-treated to a minimum of 80°C. The animal 
health situation had deteriorated in Russia, wi th classical swine fever and African swine fever 
spreading due to inadequate controls. Russia did not apply regionalization within its territory and 
did not have an OIE officially recognized Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) status. The European 
Union encouraged Russia to set in motion the process to regionalize major animal diseases in their territory and to seek FMD recognition from the OIE. 
3.2.7  India's import conditions for pork an d pork products – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 358) 
3.23.  The European Union recalled its concerns on India's import requirements for pork and pork 
products and reiterated its request that such measures be brought in line with international 
standards. Currently, India required that the exporting country certify freedom from a number of 
diseases for which there were no OIE standards, yet India had not provided a science-based G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 11 - 
 
  justification for these import conditions. India also required exporting countries to have country 
freedom without recognizing the possibility of trade from disease-free regions.  Further, with regard 
to import conditions for processed meat of pork origin, India required that the exporting country certify that meat was processed so as to achieve an internal temperature of not less than 70°C for 
30 minutes, without allowing any alternative treatments. These requirements were not based on 
the relevant OIE and CODEX standards. Under the SPS Agreement, import conditions should not be stricter than the measures applicable to the domestic market, yet Indian legislation allowed 
domestic non-heat treated processed pig meat to  be sold. The European Union urged India to 
bring its measures into line with the OIE standard s or, alternatively, provide a science-based risk 
analysis for each of the diseases for which India applied import conditions stricter than the international standards, and also for its requirement to only allow imports of heat-treated 
processed pork meat. The European Union also  urged India to recognize the principle of 
regionalization, which was effectively applied in the European Union, instead of requiring country freedom for certain diseases. 
3.24.  Canada shared many of the concerns rais ed by the European Union. Canada's exports of 
pork and pork products to India had been bloc ked due to India's onerous import requirements. 
Canada's concern was with respect to India's requirements for countries to certify freedom from 
diseases for which the OIE had not set a standard. Canada looked forward to an update from India 
on the process and timeline anticipated to comple te India's review of its import requirements. 
3.25.  India explained that its import requirements required freedom from certain diseases which 
were exotic to India. With a strengthened bo rder surveillance system now in place, as 
communicated via bilateral channels, a technical expert committee was in the process of reviewing 
the import health certificate requirements, in ligh t of the OIE standards, but without compromising 
domestic health requirements. 
3.2.8  Turkey's requirements for importatio n of sheep meat – Concerns of Australia 
(No. 340) 
3.26.  Australia reiterated its concerns over Turk ey's requirements for the import of sheep meat, 
which it had raised at each Committee meeting since October 2012. In February 2012, Australia 
had provided Turkey with a draft bilingual sheep  meat certificate based on EU requirements. 
Turkey had not acknowledged receipt of the draft certificate nor provided advice on its acceptability. Turkey's lack of response was no t consistent with its obligations under the SPS 
Agreement. 
3.27.  Turkey responded that it was in the process of aligning its food safety legislation with that of 
the European Union. In this context, Turkey had prepared certificates for beef, bovine meat, 
livestock and fishery products. Development of a uniform model certificate for other products of 
animal origin, including sheep- and goat-meat, was underway. 
3.2.9  Import restrictions due to BSE - Concerns of the European Union (No. 193) 
3.28.  The European Union highlighted the importance of this concern as it related to one of the 
basic requirements under the SPS Agreement: that SPS measures adopted by Members be based on the relevant international standards. Unjustifiable trade restrictions relating to BSE were still in place in a number of Members, although OIE standards for safe trade had existed for more than 
10 years. The European Union urged China to base its measures on the OIE standards and lift the 
ban on EU beef. The European Union welcomed th e on-going work in Korea and urged Korea to 
deal swiftly with all EU applications. Australia's and the US on-going processes to align their BSE 
import conditions with OIE standards was appreciated, but should be completed without delay so 
as to now permit trade to occur. Australia should move from the eligibility already granted to some EU member States into real trade by setting ou t all the necessary subsequent steps, including 
health certificates. The European Union looked forward to tangible results in the near future. 
3.29.  China noted that the latency period of BSE was long and as there were no cases in China, 
an import prohibition of bovine cattle and related products was in place as a safety measure. According to Chinese legislation, China could conduct inspection and quarantine activities only 
after the BSE ban on certain EU member States had been lifted. Since 2010, the OIE had released 
reports that a number of EU member States (France, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, etc.) G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 12 - 
 
  still suffered from BSE and these countries had not applied for the ban to be lifted in China. 
Technical exchanges, including a seminar on BSE jointly held with the European Union, and the assignment of a technical person to participate in BSE prevention training, had taken place. In 
March 2012, EU beef exports were discussed at the 7
th China-EU Summit, and a joint expert team 
had been established to pursue the technical issues. 
3.30.  Korea indicated that its authorities had been  conducting import risk analysis on beef from 
some EU member States. Responses to questionnaires were awaited so as to proceed with the risk 
analysis in a timely manner. Korea maintained a close dialogue with the concerned Members in 
this regard. 
3.2.10  European Union phytosanitary measures on citrus black spot – Concerns of South 
Africa (No. 356) 
3.31.  South Africa reiterated its concerns over the restrictive requirements regarding citrus fruit 
imports by the European Union. In December 201 3, the European Union published an emergency 
measure on further restrictions to prevent the introduction of the citrus black spot pathogen into 
EU territory. The pest risk analysis of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on citrus black 
spot was made available in February 2014. South Africa reviewed its risk management practices related to citrus black spot on an annual basi s and significant improvements had been made, as 
documented to the European Union. South Africa  maintained that the EU measures were more 
stringent than technically justified, and disproportionate in light of the area of the European Union that could possibly be endangered by citrus black spot. 
3.32.  The European Union confirmed that EFSA carried out a pest risk analysis on citrus black spot 
in February 2014. As part of the process, a public  consultation with scientific experts was held and 
all the resulting comments were made public. EFSA's assessment confirmed that citrus black spot presented a high risk to the European Union as environmental conditions in some parts of the 
European Union were favourable for the introducti on, establishment and spread of the disease via 
the import of citrus fruit. It was also underlined that while EU prevention measures were sufficient, they should be reinforced in some cases. Since the process of revising its general import 
requirements in respect of citrus black spot would take time, the European Union was considering 
interim measures for the import of citrus fruit from South Africa due to the number of non-compliant consignments during the previous seas on. The European Union acknowledged the efforts 
being made by South Africa to ensure a safer trade in citrus fruits. 
3.3  Consideration of specific notifications received 
3.33.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 3.4  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.14 
3.34.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
4  OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS 4.1.  The Secretariat recalled that it no longer produced paper copies of the contact lists of 
National Notification Authorities and National Enquiry Points, but the lists were constantly updated 
and available through the SPS Information Management System (IMS) ( http://spsims.wto.org ). 
Members could also generate a monthly summary li st of notifications through the SPS IMS. The 
Secretariat noted that it had not prepared an annual list of all documents circulated by Members, 
Secretariat and Observers, as this information was readily available using the SPS IMS. 
4.2.  Interested delegates can subscribe to any one of three e-mail lists to receive SPS-related 
information and documentation from the Secretariat. One publicly available list receives all 
unrestricted SPS documents, whereas a second list receives all unrestricted documents other than 
notifications. The third list was for SPS delegates only, for the transmission of restricted documents, communications from the Chair, faxes, room documents and other non-public 
documentation. Documents were provided through the various e-mail lists in the original language 
in which they were submitted by Members, and translations of these documents were accessible G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 13 - 
 
  through the SPS IMS or WTO's Docs-on-line. Memb ers interested in receiving documentation via 
e-mail from the Secretariat should ensure the addresses they provided remained correct. 
4.1  European Union revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors – Concerns of the United States 
4.3.  The United States noted that the European  Union planned to publish a road map outlining 
different options and a preliminary impact assessment in its process to assess, classify and regulate endocrine disruptors. The United States urged the European Union to swiftly notify the 
roadmap, any future proposals and the draft impact assessment, and to take into account 
comments from Members. The United States requested that the European Union explain its endocrine disruptor assessment program, particularly the timing for public consultations, as well as the timeframe for notifications and the manner in which Members' comments would be taken into 
consideration. 
4.4.  The European Union highlighted that several segments of its legislation contained provisions 
on endocrine disruptors; however, scientific criter ia for the identification of endocrine disruptor 
substances were not yet available. The European Union noted that it had planned to propose 
scientific criteria to identify endocrine disruptors in its biocidal products regulation and plant protection products regulation by December 2013. In light of the potential impacts of a choice of 
criteria, however, the European Commission decided to carry out a comprehensive impact 
assessment – to analyze the different policy options available to define criteria for the identification of endocrine disruptors – before making a revised proposal. This process was underway and the next step would be publication of  a roadmap, within the coming weeks, outlining 
the various policy options for the criteria to be  assessed. The impact assessment would follow 
standard EU guidelines, take into account existing scientific studies and reports, relevant international on-going work on this subject, and the impact on international trade. The European 
Union further clarified that a public consultation would be launched as part of the process in the 
course of 2014, enabling all stakeholders and trading partners to provide their input. 
4.2  Information from the European Union 
4.5.  The European Union drew Members' attentio n to two proposals on animal cloning, notified 
under the TBT Agreement in March 2014. The first proposed directive (G/TBT/N/EU/197) prohibited animal cloning for farming purposes an d the placing on the EU market of animal and 
embryo clones. The prohibition applied to animals "kept and reproduced for the production of food, 
wool, skin or fur or other farming purposes". It did not apply to animals kept and reproduced 
"exclusively for other purposes such as research, production of medicinal products and medical devices, preservation of rare breeds or endang ered species, sporting and cultural events". 
4.6.  The second proposed directive (G/TBT/N/EU/ 198) prohibited the placing of food obtained 
from animal clones on the EU market, including fo od from third countries where such prohibitions 
might not exist. Although the proposed measures on cloning were not sanitary measures according 
to Annex A of the SPS Agreement, the European Union wanted to ensure that Members were 
aware of these proposals. The final date to submit comments was 90 days from 12 March 2014. 
5  IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 5.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
6  EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE 4 
6.1  Information from Members on their experiences 6.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
6.2  Information from releva nt observer organizations 
6.2.  No Observer provided any information under this agenda item. G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 14 - 
 
  7  PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS - ARTICLE 6 
7.1.  The Secretariat noted that several Members had submitted documents providing information 
on the pest and disease status in their territo ries. These documents had been circulated and 
Members could access them online. The Secretariat reminded Members to ensure that this 
information was also reported to the IPPC or the OIE directly, as the provision of such information 
to the WTO did not fulfil Members' obligations to the IPPC and the OIE. 
7.1  Information from Members on  their pest or disease status 
7.1.1  Australia – Information on freedom from highly pathogenic avian influenza 
7.2.  In October 2013, Australia had advised the OIE and trading partners of the finding of an 
H7N2 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in layer hens. Immediate surveillance and tracing had led to the detection of second infected premises, which was also reported to the OIE. Since 
then, Australia had provided regular updates on de velopments to the OIE, in accordance with OIE 
requirements. Australia reported to the OIE in November 2013 that stamping out operations - including humane destruction, disposal, cleansing and disinfection - had been completed on both 
infected premises. Following surveillance for residual infection and absence of further reports of 
highly pathogenic avian influenza, there had been no further occurrences of the disease in domestic poultry. Australia thus again met OIE re quirements of freedom from highly pathogenic 
avian influenza. 
7.3.  Australia thanked trading partners who had either not applied additional measures or had 
applied only measures that caused minimal disrupti on to trade of avian products in response to 
this incident, and those who had lifted measures put in place in response to this incident. Australia 
requested those trading partners who continued to apply trade restrictive measures on the 
importation of Australian birds and avian products in response to this incident, to remove such measures and to again recognize Australia as a country free from highly pathogenic avian 
influenza. 
7.1.2  South Africa – Information on foot and mouth disease (FMD) status 
7.4.  South Africa reported that the outbreak of FMD in its free zone in February 2011 had resulted 
in the suspension of its FMD free zone status and in a number of trade restrictions by Members on 
cloven hoofed animals and products from South Africa. Following intensive efforts to eradicate FMD from the free zone and ensure the necessary monitoring and control measures, the OIE officially reinstated this zone as an "FMD free zone where vaccination is not practised" with effect from 
14 February 2014. South Africa urged all trading partners to immediately remove any restrictions 
imposed following the February 2011 outbreak so as  to allow trade of cloven hoofed animals and 
products originating from the recognized free zone into their markets.  
7.1.3  Paraguay – Information on  foot and mouth disease status 
7.5.  Paraguay indicated that it had recovered its OIE FMD-free with vaccination status as of 
1 November 2013. Paraguay thanked the veterinary  services of all members of the Standing 
Veterinary Committee and the Pan American FMD Centre for the collaboration they provided 
throughout the process.  
7.6.  Paraguay also noted that  the "Better training for safer food" initiative, funded by the 
European Union (DG SANCO) had organized a workshop on FMD in Paraguay, 18-21 March. 
Paraguay thanked the European Union for its support to veterinary services in the region. This 
support undoubtedly contributed towards the object ives of improving the technical capacity of 
staff, guaranteeing the safety of products and improving development prospects.  
7.1.4  Honduras – Information on declaration of a pest free area 
7.7.  Honduras reported that the Finca Santa Rosa  in the municipality of Nacaome, department of 
Valle, was a pest free area for Ceratitis Capitata  Wied., in accordance with Section 3.3 of 
ISPM No. 10 (Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Places of Production and Pest Free G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 15 - 
 
  Production Sites). This communication was made for transparency, without prejudice to the 
country's rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement. See also G/SPS/GEN/1300. 
7.1.5  Guatemala – Response to query raised by Senegal regarding areas free of 
Mediterranean fruit fly 
7.8.  Guatemala recalled that Senegal had requested further information regarding the areas 
declared free of Mediterranean fruit fly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food (G/SPS/GEN/1326). These areas met the FAO definition of a pest-free zone, as demonstrated 
through a surveillance system using trapping and sampling carried out through the MOSCAMED 
programme. This status was maintained by the application of phytosanitary measures in line with international standards NAPPO and IPPC. Guatemala had implemented an integrated management system for pest control using the latest technology, and the principal component was the sterile fly 
technique (TIE) applied "area-wide". 
7.9.  MOSCAMED had been established as a training centre for professionals working in the area of 
Mediterranean fruit fly control in the various pr ogrammes worldwide. It had provided capacity 
building for over 170 professionals from 35 countries, through the integrated management 
system. The MOSCAMED strategy to control and eradicate Mediterranean fruit fly comprised the 
following: (a) information and public relations; (b) detection of the pest – including detection 
through sampling and/or trapping; (c) presence or absence of the pest corresponding to an 
information analysis; (d) pest control, including land and air spraying, mechanical control, sterile insect technique and biological control; (e) suppression and eradication; (f) protection of working place, with legal control; (g) creation and maintenance of free zones; and (h) production of 
healthy fruit for local consumption as well as exports. Additional information on the programme 
can be found online: http://www.moscamed-g uatemala.org.gt . 
7.2  Information from Members on their expe riences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas 
7.10.  Ecuador reported on its progress towards recognition as an FMD-free country. Since August 
2011, the Livestock Ministry and sanitary authorities, alongside the private livestock sector, had 
undertaken a project to eradicate FMD. In this context, Ecuador had been able to confirm the 
absence of FMD for 33 months. Bi-yearly campai gns enabled Ecuador to enhance monitoring and 
implement a notification system, linked with the progressive control of beef through electronic 
follow-ups. As a result of this work and of the confidence of the international community in the 
sanitary services of Ecuador, the OIE had officially recognized Ecuador's FMD official control 
programme. This was an important basis for the recognition and declaration of Ecuador as an 
FMD-free country with vaccination, expected for 2015.  
7.11.  Indonesia provided information on its National Plant Protection Organization. The 
Indonesian Agriculture Quarantine Agency had been facilitating access for Members' consignments into Indonesia. Pest quarantine protection measures were listed in the Ministerial Decree of 
Agriculture No. 93 2011. Based on this list, Indonesia applied quarantine measures at pre-border, 
border, and post-border stages. During the period of 2013-2014, the Indonesian Minister of Agriculture had endorsed requests of recognitio n of pest-free areas from several Members. In 
order to obtain recognition of pest- or disease-free areas, Members should submit completed 
technical data to facilitate the conduct of a pest risk analysis by an Indonesian expert team. 
7.12.  The Secretariat reminded Members that according to the Committee's decision on 
recognition of pest- or disease-free areas (G/SPS/48), Members are encouraged to provide 
information on their experiences in requesting the recognition of such areas. Some of the 
information reported under earlier agenda items referred to receiving such recognition, and it would be helpful if the Members who had recognized pest- or disease-free areas would confirm 
that this was the case. 
7.3  Information from releva nt Observer Organizations 
7.13.  No Observer provided any information under this agenda item. G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 16 - 
 
  8  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 
8.1  Information from the Secretariat 8.1.1  WTO SPS activities 8.1.  The Secretariat provided information rega rding G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.9, which identified all 
SPS-specific technical assistance activities und ertaken by the WTO Secretariat from 1 September 
1994 to 31 December 2013. The document presented information on the number and type of activities delivered in each year, regions covered, languages used, participation of the international 
standards setting organizations and additional items. 
8.2.  The Secretariat had provided a total of 288 SPS-specific TA activities, with an overall 
participation of more than 11,000 persons since 1994. In 2013, 20 SPS training activities were undertaken. Three of them were regional worksh ops, seven national SPS seminars, one advanced 
SPS course, one thematic Workshop on SPS-rela ted Market Access Challenges and Opportunities 
and eight courses organized by other organizations. 
8.3.  Document G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.4 provided an  overview of the planned technical assistance 
activities for 2014. The scheduled activities included three regional SPS workshops for: (a) Central 
and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus; (b) Latin America; and (c) the Pacific region. An advanced course on the SPS Agreement woul d be held in October, and an SPS thematic 
workshop on risk analysis would be held on the margins of the October SPS Committee meeting. 
8.4.  The Secretariat highlighted that funding wa s available to assist the participation of some 
relevant officials from least-developed and develo ping countries to attend these activities. The 
application deadline for the Geneva-based activities was 6 June 2014. More detailed information on 
the dates of the activities, eligibility criteria, pre-requisites, deadlines and application processes 
was available in G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.4 and G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.4/Add.1. The application form was available online and the web link to access this form was included in G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.4. 
8.5.  The report of the Workshop on SPS-related Market Access Challenges and Opportunities, held 
in October 2013, was contained in G/SPS/R/72. 
8.6.  Since the last Committee meeting, technical assistance on the SPS Agreement had been 
provided through the following activities: (a) seven national seminars held in Azerbaijan, China, 
Costa Rica, Guinea, Haiti, Lao People's Democratic Republic and Zimbabwe; (b) SPS training workshops held in Mexico and Japan; as well as (c) a Regional SPS Workshop in the United Arab Emirates. The Secretariat thanked the Arab Monetary Fund and the United Arab Emirates for 
hosting and organizing the regional workshop, and for all their collaborative efforts in this regard. 
8.7.  More general training on the SPS Agreem ent had been provided as follows: (a) Advanced 
Trade Policy Course in Geneva; (b) Intermediate Thematic Courses for LDCs (29-30 January 2014, 
25 February and 6 March 2014) in Geneva; (c) FAO Regional Training Workshop for CIS countries 
(12-13 November 2013) in Ukraine; (d) phytosanitary symposium organized by the Moroccan Association for Plant Protection (4 December 2013) in Morocco; and (e) SPS Training Programme 
organized by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (12-14 March 2014) in 
Sweden. 
8.8.  Upcoming national activities included nati onal seminars for Angola, Comoros, El Salvador, 
Jordan, Saint Vincent and the Gren adines, Seychelles and Tanzania. 
8.9.  The Secretariat recalled that the e-learning course on the SPS Agreement was available year-
round in the three WTO official languages. Furthe r information on SPS-related technical assistance 
can be obtained on the WTO website (under trade- related technical assistance), or by contacting 
the Secretariat for additional clarification and assistance. 
8.1.2  STDF 8.10.  The STDF Secretariat reported on the most recent activities of the STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1311). 
Four issues were highlighted for the attention of the Committee. G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 17 - 
 
  8.11.  An independent mid-term review of the STDF had been completed in January 2014. It 
examined the STDF's performance against OECD evaluation criteria — relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. The exec utive summary of the evaluation, including the 
recommendations, was circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1304. The full report could be downloaded (in 
English only) on the STDF and WTO websites. 
8.12.  The mid-term evaluation had been very positive of the STDF partnership (FAO, OIE, WHO, 
WB and WTO), of the donors and the developing country SPS experts, which participated actively 
in STDF, as well as of the STDF Secretariat. Acco rding to the mid-term evaluation report, the STDF 
had successfully established itself as a coordination forum and had achieved impressive results. Projects were considered as "highly relevant to the needs of beneficiaries and to the policies of 
partners and donors". The Secretariat operated effi ciently and effectively. STDF's target to spend 
at least 40% of its resources on projects originating in least developed countries (LCDs) and other 
low income countries was fully met (currently stands at 50%). The evaluation report made recommendations on how to further strengthen the operation of the STDF, including by further 
improving its results-based management framework. These recommendations would be further 
discussed by the STDF Working Group. 
8.13.  STDF held a thematic session on 27 March 2014 for Working Group members, SPS 
delegates and other interested organizations. The increasing attention on trade facilitation as a 
means to stimulate economic growth and competitiveness was generating a renewed focus on SPS measures and their application to imports, ex ports and transit goods. The session was an 
opportunity to discuss and follow up the work by governments and the broader trade and 
development community, including the STDF. The ad option of the Trade Facilitation Agreement 
created a momentum and additional financial resources would be available for projects and programmes related to facilitating trade. Customs services had normally been the main 
beneficiaries of these programmes and the STDF encouraged greater participation by other border 
agencies, including SPS agencies. The need for greater participation by other agencies had also been acknowledged by the World Bank, which wa s leading many trade facilitation projects. 
8.14.  A study on International Trade and Invasive  Alien Species had been conducted by STDF in 
conjunction with the IPPC and OIE. A number of targeted recommendations had been made, 
including on the use of existing phytosanitary and veterinary controls, quarantine systems and procedures to prevent the introduction of invasive species. An STDF publication on this topic was 
available in English, French and Spanish. 
8.15.  STDF provided support for project preparat ion, and seed funding up to US$50,000, to help 
beneficiaries in developing countries prepare sustainable SPS projects. 60 projects had been 
developed through the STDF and the Mid-Term Review considered the STDF's work in this area as 
a "good investment". Currently, the STDF website was being redesigned. The next deadline for the submission of applications for STDF funding was 18 July 2014. Detailed information on STDF 
activities and how to apply for funding was available in G/SPS/GEN/1304 and from the STDF 
website: http://www.standardsfacility.org/en/index.htm . 
8.2  Information from Members 
8.16.  The United Stated provided an update on its technical assistance activities, reported in 
G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.10. Between October 2011 and September 2012, the United States 
sponsored 316 SPS technical assistance activities for 72 developing countries, which were worth more than US$45 million. These activities provided technical building blocks for strong animal 
health and plant systems. In 2012, the US Government had developed a partnership with the 
Government of Chile to provide SPS training to  El Salvador. In 2013 and 2014, this partnership 
expanded to provide training to Guatemala and Honduras. 
8.17.  Canada provided information on its technical assistance to developing countries in the 
calendar year 2012, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1318. In 2012, Canada delivered or initiated a total of 16 SPS-related technical assistance projects targeting various geographic regions. Of note, a second contribution of Can$1 million of a multi-year, multi-million dollar contribution was made by 
Canada to the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF). G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 18 - 
 
  8.18.  The European Union also provided informatio n on its technical assistance activities during 
2013 (G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.2). In the SPS area, the European Union provided approximately 
75 million Euros via 300 projects all over the world – preserving its commitment to provide technical assistance to third countries despite the global economic downturn. EU assistance took 
the form of both development assistance and aid directed at improving opportunities for trade, 
animal health, plant health and food safety. The European Union contributed not only at regional or national levels, but also at the international level to the work of the international standard 
setting bodies as well as to the STDF. The assistance provided was to secure new markets for 
developing countries and to find supplies of safe food for the European Union. The European Union was committed to strengthen technical assistance. Developing countries should address technical assistance requests to the EU delegation in their country or to the European Commission in 
Brussels, Belgium. 
8.19.  The Chairperson thanked Canada, the European Union and the United States for their 
continuous support in the field of technical assistance. 
8.3  Information from observers 
8.20.  The OIE referred to its activities reported in G/SPS/GEN/1317, and highlighted the 
veterinary education conference held in Brazil, on 4-6 December 2013. More than 1,000 
participants from 110 countries had addressed the need for better quality and harmonization of 
veterinary education worldwide, based on OIE guidelines. The conference had also focused on strengthening the role of veterinary statutory bodies in supporting better veterinary education. The OIE was planning to hold a training seminar in April 2014 for Performance of Veterinary 
Service (PVS) evaluators on recent revisions to the PVS pathway tools. 
8.21.  The IPPC reported on the restructuring of  the phytosanitary resources web page. The IPPC 
thanked the European Union for providing assistance for developing countries to participate in 
IPPC-related meetings, and Canada and the United States for their generous contributions to 
advance the work of the IPPC. 
8.22.  Codex announced the next sessions of its regional coordinating committees, which will be 
held between September 2014 and February 2015. In connection with the six meetings, the Codex 
Trust Fund was organizing capacity building workshops. 
8.23.  The ITC referred to its report in G/SPS/GEN/1324, providing information on its SPS-related 
assistance to help enterprises meet SPS requirements. ITC highlighted an Enhanced Integrated 
Framework project titled "Sector Competitiveness and Export Diversification in The Gambia" which 
technical barriers hindering market access of Ga mbian exports of groundnuts, cashew nuts, and 
sesame. Another project had the objective of expanding Nigeria's export of sesame seeds and 
sheanut and shea butter through improved SPS ca pacity building for the private and the public 
sector (STDF/PG/172). The project "Improving Safety and Quality of Sri Lankan Fruits and Vegetables" had the objective of analyzing SPS constraints along value chains, enhancing public 
and private sector stakeholders' capacity to meet international SPS requirements and improve 
public-private cooperation (STDF/PG/354). Another project aimed at the development of an SPS Strategy in Comoros. ITC had been contracted by UNDP as implementing agency for the project (STDF/PG/242). The project "Improving Key Services to Agriculture" in Fiji was an EU 
programme aimed at improving deliverables of key services to non-sugar agriculture. This project 
was implemented by ITC and the Secretariat of the Pacific Communities (SPC). An EU-funded 
project implemented by ITC on trade and privat e sector development in Zimbabwe focused on 
capacity building for testing laboratories of the Standards Association of Zimbabwe for pesticide 
residue testing and other testing for food products. The ITC informed the Committee that this year is ITC's 50
th anniversary, and a number of events would take place to build awareness about ITC's 
role in trade-related technical assistance. 
8.24.  IICA highlighted a project under which co nsultations had been held in eight Caribbean 
countries to identify priority needs for agricultur al health, food safety and fisheries. The project 
supported active participation at the multilateral level in SPS-related issues, including in Codex, 
IPPC and OIE meetings. A video conference on salmonella control in meat was held, with the 
participation of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Panama. The video conference was attended by over 80 participants. IICA also held events on G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 19 - 
 
  the US Food Safety Modernization Act. IICA also announced a twinning mechanism coordinated in 
partnership with the Codex Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean which aimed to promote skills development in the region . More details are available in G/SPS/GEN/1314. 
8.25.  OIRSA reported on its activities in support of the agricultural ministries in its nine member 
countries as of October 2013. The support related to animal health, plant health, food safety and 
quarantine and included various seminars and technical capacity building activities. Details are available in G/SPS/GEN/1319. 
9  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
9.1  Issues arising from the Second Review 9.1.1  Adoption of procedure relating  to implementation of Article 12.2 
(G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7) 
9.1.  The Chairperson recalled that Members had worked intensively to develop the procedure 
proposed in G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7. Although this might not be a perfect document and might not be considered ideal by all Members, it was a carefully crafted compromise. Following the Committee's 
failure to adopt the proposal in October 2013, no new text had been proposed by any delegation 
before the 17 December 2014 deadline. The Chairperson proposed therefore that the Committee adopt the procedure contained in G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7. 
9.2.  India stated that several clarifications were  needed before it could agree to the adoption of 
G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7. While paragraph 1.1 stated that participation in the procedure was voluntary, paragraph 2.3 indicated what information should be provided by a Member in responding to a request for consultations, and India questioned the relationship between these 
provisions, as well as the meaning of "shall not constitute a legally binding agreement" in 
paragraph 1.2. India also sought clarification of what was a "related technical issue", referred to in paragraph 1.3, in the context of the definition of  an SPS measure contained in Annex A of the SPS 
Agreement. Other points where India sought clarification was with regard to third party 
participation (paragraph 2.10), as well as whether the report of the facilitator would be confidential or could be used by a Member in a dispute settlement procedure (paragraph 2.14). Finally, India 
sought further clarification regarding the final paragraph of the proposal (paragraph 5.1) and 
whether the procedure would be continued following its review. 
9.3.  The Chairperson requested India to provide its requested clarifications in writing by 
24 April 2014. (These were subsequently circulated as RD/SPS/4.) 
9.4.  The European Union suggested that the stew ards and co-stewards of the electronic working 
group be asked to assist with the requested clarif ications. On this basis the Chairperson proposed 
that the stewards and co-stewards prepare a resp onse to the concerns raised by India, for 
discussion by the Committee at an informal meetin g just prior to the July SPS Committee meeting. 
These proposed clarifications would be circulated sufficiently in advance of the meeting to permit their consideration by India and other Members prior to the meeting. The Chairperson expressed 
the hope that this would permit the Committee to finally adopt this procedure at the July meeting. 
9.2  Fourth Review 9.5.  The Chairperson reported that at the info rmal meeting held on 24 March 2014, the following 
issues had been discussed: (i) issues and proposals for consideration received from Members; 
(ii) comments on the updated background document; and (iii) comments on any other related 
issues. 
9.6.  With regard to issues and proposals for consideration, Canada had presented its proposal on 
a catalogue of available instruments for the management of SPS issues (G/SPS/W/271), noting 
that the timely use of these tools could help Members avoid, manage or escalate issues. Some examples of what could be included in the ca talogue were the right to provide comments on 
notifications and to discuss them, the targeted or strategic use of the STC agenda item, and the 
use of the IPPC or OIE dispute settlement procedures. G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 20 - 
 
  9.7.  Many Members had welcomed the proposal and highlighted the usefulness of developing a 
compendium of all the actions available. It had b een proposed that the Secretariat collaborate with 
Canada on preparing a draft of the catalogue, for subsequent comments by other Members. 
9.8.  On transparency, the European Union ha d welcomed a discussion of its first proposal 
(G/SPS/W/274) and the subsequent joint proposal submitted with Chile, Morocco and Norway 
(G/SPS/W/277). The European Union had noted that with the rapidly growing number of SPS 
notifications, it was crucial that the information provided be clear, complete, reliable and timely. It 
was proposed that the recommended procedures be reviewed, with a view to improve such 
matters as: (i) the quality and completeness of the information provided in the notification; (ii) the timeliness of the publication of regular and emergenc y notifications; (iii) interactions with trading 
partners; and (iv) access to all measures adopted and proposed by a Member. 
9.9.  Many Members had recognized the importan ce of transparency and supported the proposal, 
and one Member had suggested that it was also important to identify the problems encountered by countries and further improve technical assistance in this area. 
9.10.  The Secretariat had recalled that the Committee had agreed to hold a transparency 
workshop every three years and that the next one would take place in 2015. This was an opportunity to ensure the participation of a large number of national notification authorities to 
discuss and agree on changes to notification fo rmats and templates. The Secretariat had also 
reported that a project to revise and modernize the SPS NSS and SPS IMS tools had been approved and would start this year. It had been suggested that Chile, the European Union, Morocco and Norway draft a proposal highlighting specific modifications to the recommended 
procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3), for further consideration by the Committee. 
9.11.  The Committee had next discussed the US proposed workshop on risk analysis 
(G/SPS/W/275). The United States had noted that  since the last workshop on this topic was 
in 2000, a significant amount of work must have been carried out, by Members and the Three 
Sisters. 
9.12.  Many Members had supported the propos al and proposed that a session on risk 
communication be included in the programme. It had also been suggested that the session related 
to dispute settlement be presented by WTO staff. Fu rthermore, given the amount of material to be 
covered, the possibility of splitting the work shop into two events had been discussed. 
9.13.  The Secretariat had noted that the topic of  the October thematic workshop had not yet been 
identified and that risk analysis could be an option. However, funding was available for a two-day 
workshop only. The Committee had suggested that risk analysis be the topic of the October 2014 workshop, and Members were invited to submit suggestions regarding the programme, based on 
that contained in the US proposal, to the Secretariat by 24 April 2014. A revised programme would 
then be presented for the next meeting. 
9.14.  Finally, the Committee had considered South Africa's proposal on risk assessment and the 
appropriate level of protection (G/SPS/GEN/1307). South Africa had suggested that its proposal, 
which consisted of two questions related with  the implementation of Article 5.4 of the 
SPS Agreement, could be addressed in the co ntext of the workshop on risk analysis. 
9.15.  Several Members supported South Africa's proposal and the suggestion to discuss the issue 
of minimizing negative trade effects in the ri sk assessment process. Furthermore, one Member 
proposed that the issue of special and differential treatment should also be taken into account when establishing the ALOP. 
9.16.  Following the timetable adopted by the Committee, the Secretariat had circulated a 
background document describing the Committee's wo rk since the last Review, and subsequently a 
revision based on comments and suggestions from Members, issued as G/SPS/GEN/1312. 
9.17.  The Secretariat had briefly introduced the main changes included in the updated 
background document, and had noted that a corrigendum had been circulated to include paragraph 8.2, which had inadvertently been omitte d in the English version. It had been further 
clarified that the categories of level of development used in the document relied on the WTO IDB G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 21 - 
 
  reference database. As compared to former Review exercises, a smaller number of issues with 
supporting documents had been put forward by Members, and the proposed work programme 
seemed achievable. 
9.18.  On other related issues, Switzerland had proposed that thematic sessions be held in the 
margins of the Committee, in order to discuss issues in an open and constructive manner. 
9.19.  In concluding, the Chairperson had recalled the agreed follow-up actions resulting from the 
meeting: (i) Canada to work with the Secretariat on the catalogue of instruments; (ii) the 
European Union, Chile, Morocco and Norway to su bmit specific modifications on the recommended 
transparency procedures by 8 May 2014; (iii) comme nts and suggestions by Members on the 
workshop on risk analysis to be submitted by  24 April 2014; and (iv) Switzerland to submit a 
paper on its thematic sessions proposal by 24 April 2014. 
9.20.  In addition, according to the agreed Review process, Members should provide any further 
comments or suggestions on the background document prepared by the Secretariat by 24 April 2014. A compilation of any new proposed actions would be circulated and Members would 
have the opportunity to comment on these proposed actions by 15 May 2014. Comments on the 
background document as well as proposed action s on issues under consideration and subsequent 
comments would be incorporated in the first draft report, to be circulated by 19 June 2014. This 
first draft report would provide the basis for di scussions at the next informal meeting on the 
Review, to be held prior to the July meeting. 
9.21.  In commenting on the Chairperson's oral report, Egypt suggested that it would be useful if 
the catalogue proposed by Canada could also contain a comparison between the different dispute 
settlements mechanisms available in IPPC and OIE. 
10  MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
10.1  New Issues 
10.1.  No Member raised any new issues under this agenda item. 
10.2  Issues previously raised 10.2.  No Members or observer organizations prov ided further information under this agenda item. 
11  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
11.1  Report on the informal meeting  11.1.  The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting on SPS-related private standards held on 
Monday, 24 March 2014. At the informal meeting, she had recalled that the Committee had agreed 
to develop a working definition of SPS-related private standards in order to set the framework 
within which it would discuss the issue. Agreed Action 1 (G/SPS/55) did not propose a legal definition, but merely sought a framework to limit the scope of issues considered by the 
Committee. 
11.2.  The Chairperson had also reminded the Committee that as stated in paragraph 4 of 
G/SPS/55, endorsement of the adopted actions wa s without prejudice to the views of Members 
regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
11.3.  The Chairperson had recalled that after no consensus had emerged on the working 
definition at the October 2013 meeting, the Committ ee had agreed to form an electronic working 
group (e-WG) and China and New Zealand had accepted to serve as "co-stewards". 
11.4.  It had been agreed that the e-WG would submit a proposed compromise text on a working 
definition of an SPS-related private standard by the end of February 2014, for consideration at the 
March meeting. G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 22 - 
 
  11.5.  The Chairperson had reported that the co-stewards had circulated a report on the work of 
the e-WG in document G/SPS/W/276, dated 18 March 2014. This report noted that no consensus had been reached by the e-WG on a working defi nition, thus the co-stewards had put forward a 
compromise working definition on their own responsibility. 
11.6.  The Chairperson had acknowledged the leadership and constructive approach shown by 
China and New Zealand on the issue. Xinhua, Carolyn and Richard had, in their personal capacity, invested considerable effort into collecting e-WG members' comments, and into coming up with 
compromise language for a working definition that in their view best bridged the differences 
between these positions. The Chairperson had al so thanked all of the members of the e-WG: 
Argentina, Australia, Belize, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Singapore and the United States, for their engagement and participation in the work of the 
e-Working Group. 
11.7.  China and New Zealand had introduced their report on the work of the e-WG and had 
presented the proposed working definition of an SPS-related private standard contained therein. 
Various Members had taken the floor to thank China and New Zealand on their joint effort as co-
stewards, and had either supported the proposed joint working definition, or flagged particular 
concerns with the suggested language. 
11.8.  Unfortunately, and despite the Chairperson's urging Members to show flexibility and fulfil 
this long standing action, no consensus had emerged on the working definition tabled by the co-stewards. 
11.9.  Belize had referred to IICA's report on the financial costs and legal implications of private 
food standards in the Southern Cone (G/SPS/GEN/1100), and had stressed the urgent need for the 
Committee to adopt a working definition on SPS-related private standards. 
11.10.  Following a suggestion by Canada, the Committee had agreed to request the Secretariat to 
research existing definitions of "private standa rds" from other international organizations and 
circulate these before the next meeting in July. The Committee would then decide whether to continue discussions in the Committee as a whole or  in the e-WG, with the objective of adding SPS 
elements to an existing definition of private standards. 
11.11.  Under Action 2, the OIE had noted that since the 2010 Resolution guiding OIE's relations 
with private standard-setting bodies, the OIE had continued to work with private standard-setting bodies to ensure that their standards were aligned with OIE standards. 
11.12.  Under Action 3, the Secretariat had reported on relevant developments on SPS-related 
private standards in other WTO fora, and had drawn attention to the thematic discussion on standards organized on the margins of the March 2014 TBT Committee. Document 
G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1 contained the list of the pres entations and details of the discussions during 
the session as well as references to other re levant work on standards by the TBT Committee. 
11.13.  Under Action 4, the Philippines had noted the importance of sensitizing private actors and 
had reported on recent regional and national brie fing sessions jointly organized by the Department 
of Agriculture and UNFSS. The regional briefing had discussed how ASEAN would manage voluntary sustainability standards in the light of the harmonization of SPS standards under the ASEAN Economic Community Integration by 2015. The national briefing had recommended that in 
implementing the Philippines GAP program, farms sh ould not be forced to comply with commercial 
GAP schemes and that compliance with the national GAP program should remain voluntary, as only food safety requirements sh ould be made mandatory. 
11.14.  Belize had drawn Members' attention to its recommendations regarding the 
implementation of Action 4 in document G/SPS/ GEN/1290, and had encouraged Members to give 
those recommendations due consideration. 
11.15.  China had referred to its submission G/SPS/GEN/1261 on Action 4, and had noted that 
some Members were already communicating with private entities in their territories involved in the development, application and certification of priv ate standards. China had encouraged Members to 
share their experiences in that regard. G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 23 - 
 
  11.16.  Pakistan had noted the usefulness of the recommendation under Action 5 and had 
encouraged the Three Sisters to report on their ac tivities to promote the effective dissemination of 
international standards, including through appropriate translation. The OIE had noted that all its publications were available in its three official languages and that any further translation, while 
encouraged, was at the discretion of the end-user. The OIE had also noted that it constantly 
emphasized the importance of adopting and adhe ring to international standards. The IPPC had 
noted that all IPPC communications, including its standards, were available in its six official 
languages. The IPPC continued to raise the awar eness of its members on the issue of private 
standards, and would address any future appearance  of private standards in the plant health area. 
11.17.  In closing the discussions on this point, the Chairperson had encouraged all Members to 
share information on their experiences regarding th e implementation of the agreed Actions 2 to 5 
at the July meeting of the Committee. 
11.18.  Belize had drawn Members' attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1291, which flagged the 
need to consider Actions 6 to 12 in parallel wi th those in document G/SPS/55, and which also 
provided specific recommendations for the implementation of Actions 10 and 11. Belize had also 
recalled its proposal to establish an ad hoc working group in order to advance work on Actions 6 to 12. Finally, Belize had noted that IICA's report on private food standards in the Southern Cone 
(G/SPS/GEN/1100) contained several recommended actions for the Committee and/or 
governments to address concerns associated with SPS-related private standards. 
11.19.  The ITC had presented the most recent iteration of its online "Standards Map", an 
interactive web-tool which provides information on over 130 private and public voluntary 
standards, across 700 different criteria of analysis. Standards Map data was quality checked by 
independent experts and then validated by each of  the participating standards' organizations. The 
ITC had developed the Standards Map as a tool for better linking product supply with market 
demand, and ultimately making market requirements and standards more transparent. Users 
could, for example, search for standards that had food safety-specific requirements. 
11.20.  The presentation by ITC had prompted interest and questions from the Committee. In 
relation to the concern expressed about the multiplication of testing and costs for producers, as 
well as the proliferation of private schemes, IT C had confirmed that it was being consulted by 
ISEAL and GIZ
2 regarding the development of a Sustainability Standards Comparison Tool. This 
tool would be based on ITC's Standards Map database and aimed to enable qualitative 
comparisons and assessments of standards. The t ool was being currently developed and should be 
piloted by the end of 2014. 
11.21.  The ITC had confirmed that the terminol ogy of "voluntary standards" and the 132 schemes 
identified in the Standards Map encompassed both government and private voluntary standards, 
but these could be separated through a dedicated search. On capacity building, ITC had explained 
that it provided training on its on-line tool through country visits, but also via guided tools and 
user videos. Finally, ITC had noted that it was in the process of developing an e-learning course. 
11.22.  The IPPC had noted its interest in the criteria ITC was using to define voluntary standards, 
and also in the application of standards on packaging materials. The ITC presentation would be made available on the SPS gateway page on the WTO website. More information and contact 
details were also available on the Standards Map website ( http://www.standardsmap.org ). 
11.23.  The European Union had welcomed the presentation by ITC and had requested that 
Members be informed ahead of time of the theme of presentations so they could prepare for the 
discussions. 
11.24.  In commenting on the Chairperson's oral report, China thanked the e-Working Group 
members and underlined the importance of the collaboration and constructive involvement of all 
Members in this work. 
                                               
2 International Social and Environmental Accreditat ion and Labelling Alliance  (ISEAL); and Deutsche 
Gesellschaft für Internationa le Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 24 - 
 
  11.25.  El Salvador endorsed the proposed working definition of private standards as presented by 
China and New Zealand, and voiced their appr eciation of the presentation by the ITC. 
11.26.  India and Ecuador expressed their wish to participate in any future working group. The 
Chairperson noted that the Committee would need to decide during its July meetings whether 
there would be further work by a working group. 
11.27.  Belize indicated that the Agricultural Health Authority had met with major papaya and 
citrus exporters whose products were being affected by private standards. The standards set by 
the private bodies in these cases went beyond the official requirements, thus limiting trade. 
12  OBSERVERS 12.1  Information from observer organizations 12.1.  New Zealand thanked those observer organizations that had submitted their reports in 
advance of the meeting, and encouraged others to do the same. 
12.2.  The African Union thanked WTO for its support and technical assistance to its member 
countries. In October 2013 and February 2014, the African Union had held meetings on food 
additives and on pesticide residue issues, to assist its member countries to prepare for Codex 
meetings. It had also held other meetings to help its members coordinate common positions for other international meetings, including those of IPPC and OIE. The African Union was proposing 
the creation of a common African-wide food safety body, to complement those already existing in 
the plant protection and animal health areas. 
12.3.  OIRSA submitted a written report on its activities under G/SPS/GEN/1319. OIRSA thanked 
the STDF for the project to support the application of international standards, which it was 
implementing in collaboration with OIE and FAO. OIRSA also reported on the seminar conducted 
with the OIE in the veterinary area and further thanked the OIE for its training of experts. 
12.4.  The OIE thanked OIRSA and the African Union for their support in coordinating Members' 
positions and in implementing their standards. 
12.5.  The IPPC appreciated the information provided by other observers regarding their 
phytosanitary related activities. The IPPC woul d welcome the opportunity to discuss technical 
materials being prepared by other observer organizations before these were published, to ensure 
consistency with the international standards. 
12.2  Requests for observer status 12.6.  The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had agreed in 2012 an ad hoc observer 
organization that did not attend any meetings of the SPS Committee during a one-year period, the 
Committee might consider that its observer status had lapsed, but only after the Secretariat had contacted the observer organization and had received confirmation that it was no longer interested 
in maintaining its observer status. 
12.7.  The Secretariat reported on having cont acted the ad hoc observer organizations who had 
not attended any meetings of the SPS Committee during 2013, to request confirmation of their 
continuing interest to participate in the meetings of the SPS Committee. None of the observers 
confirmed that they were no longer interested in the work of the Committee. Three of them 
confirmed their interest in maintaining ad hoc observer status in the Committee. The three Observers that did not respond are: AITIC, which had ceased to exist; SELA and CEN-SAD. 
However, in the case of CEN-SAD, the Secretariat had been in contact with the African Union, 
which had also been following-up on this issue. They pointed out some difficulties in communicating with CEN-SAD due to the political situation in Libya, where it was based. In light of 
these specific difficulties, and taking into cons ideration special and differential treatment, the 
Secretariat proposed, through the Chair, that ad hoc observer status be maintained for CEN-SAD. 
On the other hand, it was proposed to remove  AITIC and SELA from the list of observer 
organizations benefiting from ad hoc observer status in the Committee. G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 25 - 
 
  12.8.  Canada inquired as to how the situation of non-responsive observers would be managed. 
The Chairperson explained that they would be contacted again and in case no interest was 
expressed, they should be removed from the list. 
12.9.  The Chairperson noted that there were still six outstanding requests for observer status in 
the SPS Committee: the Convention on 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 
(APCC) and the International Cocoa Organization  (ICCO). The Chairperson noted that there was 
not yet a consensus to grant ad hoc observer status to any of these organizations. 
12.10.  The Chairperson informed observer organiza tions that their contributions to the work of 
the SPS Committee and their assistance to Members were highly appreciated and that the Committee had agreed to invite them to participate in all unrestricted meetings during 2014. The Chairperson once again encouraged the observers to provide written reports on their relevant activities in advance of the July meeting. 
13  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON 
13.1.  The Chairperson reported that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods had been 
carrying out informal consultations on a slate of names for appointment as chairpersons to the 
subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods in accordance with the established Guidelines 
for Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies (contained in document WT/L/31). At the time, however, these consultations had not yet reached a conclusion. As such, it was suggested that the election of the Chairperson of the Committee be postponed until the next Committee meeting in July. 
14  OTHER BUSINESS 
14.1.  Brazil referred to its submission (G/SPS/G EN/1323), highlighting that it was carrying out 
research for substitute solutions to reduce the use of methyl bromide on imported products, in line 
with IPPC recommendations. Brazil referred to Indonesia's document on the same subject 
(G/SPS/GEN/1271), and clarified that the highest dose it required was 64 gr/m
3, not 80 gr/m3. 
Brazil was considering reviewing the use of methyl bromide fumigation in its trade with Indonesia 
in favor of an equally effective alternative. Brazil also encouraged other WTO Members to 
collaborate in these efforts. 
14.2.  New Zealand requested more information on methyl bromide substitutes, and Brazil replied 
that its efforts were still in the research phase. Costa Rica drew attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1295, in which Costa Rica provided information on its ban on the use of methyl bromide, and on efforts to find substitutes for methyl bromide. 
14.3.  The IPPC also requested to be kept inform ed about any substitute treatments. The IPPC was 
pleased that Members were implementing IPPC recommendations on the use of methyl bromide. The IPPC also reported that there two additional  recommendations were proposed for adoption at 
the upcoming CPM, regarding internet trade and aquatic plants. 
15  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS 
15.1.  The next meeting of the Committee is tentatively scheduled for 9-10 July 2014. The 
Chairperson proposed to hold informal consultati ons regarding the Fourth Review and SPS-related 
private standards and ad hoc consultations immediately prior to the next meeting. 
15.2.  The Committee agreed to the following tentative agenda for its July 2014 meeting: 
1. Adoption of the agenda 
2. Election of the Chairperson 
3. Information on relevant activities 
a. Information from Members 
b. Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 26 - 
 
  4. Specific trade concerns 
a. New issues 
b. Issues previously raised 
[c. Consideration of specific notifications received] 
d. Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
5. Operation of transparency provisions 
6. Implementation of special and differential treatment 
7. Equivalence – Article 4 
a. Information from Members on their experiences 
b. Information from relevant Observer organizations 
8. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
a. Information from Members on their pest or disease status 
b. Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas 
c. Information from relevant observer organizations 
9. Technical assistance and cooperation 
a. Information from the Secretariat 
i. WTO SPS activities 
ii. STDF 
b. Information from Members 
c. Information from Observers 
10. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
a. Issues arising from the Second Review 
i. Report of the informal meeting 
[b. Issues arising from the Third Review] 
c. Fourth Review 
i. Report of the informal meeting 
11. Monitoring of the use of international standards 
a. New issues 
b. Issues previously raised 
c. Adoption of annual report 
12. Concerns with private and commercial standards 
a. Report on informal meeting 
13. Observers 
a. Information from Observer organizations 
b. Request for observer status 
i. New requests 
ii. Outstanding requests 
14. Other business 
15. Date and agenda of next meeting G/SPS/R/74 
 
- 27 - 
 
  15.3.  The Secretariat clarified that agenda item  10 (b) - Issues Arising from the Third Review – 
would only be included in the agenda if Members identified specific issues to be considered under this item. The Secretariat further clarified that agenda item 4(c) would similarly only be included if Members indicated they wished to raise specific issues. 
15.4.  Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines: 
 For comments on the background document of the Fourth Review (G/SPS/W/273), 
further proposals, comments on the proposed agenda of the risk analysis workshop, as 
well as requests for additional background information on specific issues under 
consideration: 24 April 2014 ; 
 For the proposals regarding revision of the transparency procedures from the European 
Union and other Members (G/SPS/W/277): 8 May 2014 ; 
 For comments by Members on the proposals under consideration in the context of the 
Fourth Review: 15 May 2014 ; 
 For identifying issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that specific trade concerns or other items be put on the agenda: 26 June 
2014 ; 
 For distribution of the Airgram and for circulation of documents for the July meeting: 
27 June 2014 . 
 
__________