RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/88  
 
20 December 2017 
(17-7125) Page: 1/38 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETI NG OF 2-3 NOVEMBER  2017  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  4 
2.1.1    Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  ................................ ................................ ......................  4 
2.1.2    Senegal - Agricultural health monitoring plan  ................................ ...............................  4 
2.1.3    Senegal - Antimicrobial monitoring plan  ................................ ................................ ...... 4 
2.1.4    Burkina Faso - Update on the fall armyworm ( Spodoptera frugiperda ) situation  ................  4 
2.1.5    Belize – Update on Food Safety Preventative Controls Alliance  ................................ ....... 5 
2.1.6    Ukraine – Update on legislation on state control in Ukraine  ................................ ............  5 
2.1.7    European Union – Information on the change in phytosanitary import 
requirements  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  5 
2.2   Information from CODEX, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ...........  5 
2.2.1    Codex (G/SPS/GEN/1577)  ................................ ................................ .........................  5 
2.2.2    IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/1579)  ................................ ................................ ............................  5 
2.2.3    OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1583)  ................................ ................................ .............................  6 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERN S ................................ ................................ .......................  6 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  6 
3.1.1    EU maximum residue levels for acrinathrin, metalaxyl and thiabendazole - 
Concerns of Peru ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  6 
3.1.2    United Arab Emirates measures on plant protection products - Concerns of Turkey  ...........  7 
3.1.3    EU maximum level of cadmium in foodstuffs - Concerns of Peru  ................................ ..... 7 
3.1.4    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to Highly Pathogenic Avian 
Influenza - Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ...........  8 
3.1.5    EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmonella  detection - Concerns of Brazil  ..............  8 
3.1.6    Turkey's restrictions on rough  rice imports - Concerns of the United States ......................  8 
3.1.7    India's fumigation requirements for teak tree wood (G/SPS/N/IND/149) - 
Concerns of Colombia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  8 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ...............................  9 
3.2.1    India's fumigation requirements for cashew nuts - Concerns of Senegal (No.  427) ............  9 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2.2    Viet Nam's suspension of groundnut seed imports – Concerns of Senegal 
(No. 418) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 10 
3.2.3    Brazil's measures on bananas - Concerns of Ecuador (No.  423) ................................ .....10 
3.2.4    China's import ban on fresh ma ngosteen – Concerns of Indonesia (No.  416) ................... 10 
3.2.5    Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds – Concerns of Chinese Taipei 
(No. 421) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 10 
3.2.6    General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 11 
3.2.7    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 392)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 11 
3.2.8    Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European  Union (No. 393)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...11 
3.2.9    China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza – Concerns of 
the United States (No.  406) ................................ ................................ ................................ 12 
3.2.10    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  ................................ ........................... 12 
3.2.11    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia and Latvia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 39 0) ................................ .............. 12 
3.2.12    European Union's revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors – Concerns of Argentina, China and the United States (No. 382)  ............................... 13 
3.2.13    France's dimethoate -related restrictions on imports - Concerns of the United 
States (No. 422)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 14 
3.2.14    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on wine - Concerns of Montenegro 
(No. 426)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 
3.2.15    China's AQSIQ official certification requirements for food imports 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1209) – Concerns of Israel and the Un ited States (No. 184)  .............................. 15 
3.2.16    US seafood import monitoring programme - Concerns of China (No.  415) ..................... 15 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  ................................ ......... 16 
3.4   Annual report on the use of the procedure to encourage and facilitate the resolution 
of specific SPS issues (G/SPS/61)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 16 
4   OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 16 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 16 
4.2   Pest- and disease -free areas  ................................ ................................ ........................ 16 
4.2.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 16 
4.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ............ 17 
4.3.1    Report on Workshop on Transparency  ................................ ................................ ........ 17 
4.3.2    Report of the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ .................. 19 
4.3.3    Madagascar – Update on notifications  ................................ ................................ ......... 19 
4.4   Special and Differential Treatment  ................................ ................................ ................ 19 
4.5   Monitoring of the use of International Standards  ................................ ............................ 20 
4.5.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 20 
4.5.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 21 
4.6   Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG  ................................ ................................ ............. 24 
4.7   Procedure for the Fifth Review  ................................ ................................ ..................... 24 G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 3 - 
 
  5   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  25 
5.1   Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs): Recommendations for 
Endorsement by the SPS Committee – Proposal by Kenya, Uganda and the United Sta tes 
(G/SPS/W/292/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 25 
5.1.1    Report of the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ .................. 25 
5.2   Catalogue of Instruments available to manage SPS issues – Proposal by Canada and 
Kenya (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2, RD/SPS/16)  ................................ ................................ ............. 28 
5.2.1    Report of the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ .................. 28 
6   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  30 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................. 30 
6.1.1    WTO SPS activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...30 
6.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1581)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 31 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................... 31 
6.2.1    Senegal - Technical assistance request for control of fall armyworm and other 
pests; i mprovement of monitoring infrastructure; and risk analysis capacity  ............................. 31 
6.2.2    Senegal - Cooperation on phytosanitary protocol wi th Malaysia  ................................ .....32 
6.2.3    Burkina Faso – Technical assistance received  ................................ .............................. 32 
6.2.4    United States – Report on technical assistance (G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.12)  ....................... 32 
6.2.5    Canada – Report on technical assistance to developing country Members  ....................... 32 
6.2.6    Madagascar – Report on technical assistance received  ................................ .................. 33 
6.2.7    Nigeria – Report on technical assistance received  ................................ ........................ 33 
7   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  ................................ ...... 33 
8   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  34 
8.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ .......34 
8.1.1    ECOWAS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 34 
8.1.2    CAHFSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 34 
8.1.3    IGAD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 34 
8.1.4    OIRSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 34 
8.1.5    IICA ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 
8.1.6    OECD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 35 
8.2   Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  ................................ ....................... 35 
8.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 35 
8.2.2    Outstanding  requests  ................................ ................................ ............................... 35 
9   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 36 
10   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS ................................ ................................  36 
 G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es (the "Committee") held its 
70th regular meeting on 2 -3 November  2017. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted 
with amendments (WTO/AIR/SPS/1 8). 
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  
2.1.  Japan provided an update on the developments since the last Committee meeting, reporting 
on the most recent data from it s food monitoring programme. The data showed that the rate of 
products exceeding the Japanese standard limits had decreased and all the test results, with the 
exception of edible fungi, wild plants and game meats, were below the Codex guideline level. 
Japan highlighted the comprehensive measures taken by its relevant ministries to achieving these 
results. Japan thanked  the United States an d Pakistan for lifting t heir import restrictions. 
Japan  reported that 50 out of the 54 Members who had introduced import restrictions on Japanese 
foods had either lifted or eased these restrictions. Japan expressed its appreciation for the visits 
from gove rnmental and private sector representatives and for the invitations extended to Japan ese 
officials for bilateral discussions. Japan signalled openness for  further visits from Members to 
better assess the current food safety situation. Japan also acknowledg ed the work of FAO and IAEA 
for their efforts to ensure food safety.  
2.1.2   Senegal - Agricultural health monitoring plan  
2.2.  Senegal provided information on the Senegalese national SPS measures committee  and the 
outcome of a study to monitor MRLs . The  study covered random samples from  the horticultura l 
gardening sector, including local and imported products, using Codex reference levels. 
Senegal  pointed out significant improvements in consumer products and consumer safety 
compar ed with 2008 and 2012. Senegal undersco red its efforts to promot e consumer safety and 
indicated that with  the support of the Senegalese Associ ation for Standardization (ASN), 
the available scientific data could be used to propose draft national standards for MRLs of pesticide  
active ingredients  for minor use s. 
2.1.3   Senegal - Antimicrobial monitoring plan  
2.3.  Senegal provided information on the antimicrobial monitoring plan for food products  of 
animal origin to  identify sources of contamination , including salmonella,  in sheep meat, poultry, 
pork, beef and meat preparations ; and for the detection of antibiotic residue s in meat samples. 
Senegal emphasized that its national risk assessment system was able to address all food safety  
issues and the data served to guid e its authorities on these matters . 
2.1.4   Burki na Faso  - Update on the fall armyworm ( Spodoptera frugiperda ) situation  
2.4.  Burkina Faso provided an update on the fall armyworm situation , which had spread to almost 
every African countr y, and affected more than 900,000 hectares of cultivated land , threatening 
almost 200 million people due to its attack on a variety of crops, particularly grains,  the staple 
crops of most African countries . In Burkina Faso in particular, all regions had been affected. 
Burkina Faso highlighted the research efforts to  develop an effective monitoring system  of 
outbreaks  and informed that its farmers had received high quality pesticides  and treatment 
devices , and benefitted from research , anti-pest squads  and coordinated actions . Burkina Faso 
reported had participated in  information meetings in African capitals and had worked with FAO, 
the World Bank and AGRHYMET Regional Centre (ARC)  to ensure the safety and security of its 
staple grain crops. Expressing gratitude for the support  received , Burkina Faso highlighted a need  
for further support  for integrated pest management, research on highly pest -resistant varieties , 
strengthening of phytosanitary controls and capacity building in African research institutions and 
all stakeholders. Burkina Faso called upon FAO and IPPC to continue their coordinating role in 
combatting pests , in particular the fall armyworm . G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.5.  The United States highlighted that the fall armyworm was spreading rapidly since its first 
detection in 2016, with a confirmed presence in twenty -eight countries and suspected in nine 
more. The United States noted the integrated management approach needed to address pest 
challenge s including physical, chemical and biological tools , adding that genetically engineered 
corn, bt -maize and other pest managemen t approaches  could be  used. The regional management 
plan for fall armyworm in Africa, drafted by  FAO and partner organizations, included biotechnology 
options. Access to these technologies  required  regulatory frameworks conducive to commercial 
release. The  United States strong ly support ed giving farmers access to genetically engineered 
technology as part of an integrated strategy and adopting regional biosafety frameworks , such as 
those already being implement ed in WAEMU, ECOWAS and COMESA.  The United State s recognized 
the leadership of Burkina Faso in developing the WAEMU  and ECOWAS frameworks. The United 
States was providing  funding for (i) regulatory capacity building across Sub-Saharan Africa;  
(ii) research  and development of g enetically engineered  varieties ; and (iii) confined field trials . 
2.1.5   Belize – Update on Food Safety Prevent ative Controls Alliance  
2.6.  Belize informed of the Food Safety Preventative Controls Alliance Qualifying Individuals 
Training held at Belize City in collaboration with IICA and USDA , partially funded by OIRSA. Belize 
also thanked IICA and OIRSA for their support  towards ISO accreditation for Belize's Food 
Microbiology Laboratory and Veterinary Services Laboratory in Belize. Belize also highlighted the 
ongoing project to develop a  food safety policy for Belize, funded by IADB , expected to be 
completed by the end of 2017.  
2.1.6   Ukraine – Update on legislat ion on state control in Ukraine  
2.7.  Ukraine provided an update on its new law on state control measures over the content of 
food and feed s afety, animal by -products, animal health and welfare . The new law would be 
notified to the WTO in November 2017  and enter  into force in April 2018 . Ukraine explained that 
the transition period for certain provisions would be five years , and that work was o ngoing on 
legislative drafts relating to, inter alia , the establishment of designated border inspection points, 
border check procedure s and common veterinary documents. Ukraine indicated its willingness to 
engage with its trading partners on these matters . 
2.1.7   European Union – Information on the change in phytosanitary import 
requirements  
2.8.  The European Union drew attention to notification  G/SPS/N/EU/196 regarding  a revision in 
the E uropean Union legal framework on protective measures against the introduction of organisms 
harmful to plants and plant products , based on new scientific information . The latest revision to 
Directive 2009/29/EC containing this legal framework had been  adopted in July  2017, as 
Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2017/1279. On th at basis, the European Union invited its 
trading partners to provide information on  freedom from certain harmful organisms in their 
respective territories before 1 January 2018 , without which  import s of certain commodities into the 
European Union could be affect ed. 
2.2  Information from CODEX, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
2.2.1   Codex  (G/SPS/GEN/ 1577 ) 
2.9.  The Chairperson noted  that Codex report s had been circulated as G/SPS/GEN /1577 and 
G/SPS/GEN /1577/Add.1 . 
2.2.2   IPPC  (G/SPS/GEN/1579 ) 
2.10.   The IPPC provided an outline of its activities, as contained in G/SPS/GEN/1579. The IPPC 
drew attention to the 2017 IPPC Regional Workshop and the FAO China South -South Cooperation 
Programme, which serve d as forums to develop capacity for contracting parti es for the 
implementation of the Convention on International Standards for Phyto sanitary Measures (ISPM), 
for sharing experience and knowledge on the regional level , and to discuss draft ISPMs . The IPPC 
also highlighted  the ongoing development of the ePhyt o system and the Global Symposium on G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 6 - 
 
  ePhyto , scheduled for 22-26 January 2018 in Malaysia . Finally, IPPC anticipated the approval of 
the International Year of Plant Health by the UN General Assembly in 2018.  
2.11.   The United States appreciat ed IPPC's work in the  development of the ePhyto hub  and 
requested updates  on other elements of an ePhyto system , such as how the ePhyto hub would 
communicate with the concept of a single window . The United States also welcomed a discussion 
in the SPS C ommittee on the implement ation of the concept of electronic certification.  
2.2.3   OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1583 ) 
2.12.   The OIE outlined its report,  as contained in G/SPS/GEN/1583 . The OIE shared  its Scientific 
Enquiry Commission propos al regarding emergency, preventive and temporary zoning in response 
to increased disease threat s, avoidin g unjustified barriers to trade . The OIE added that an ad hoc 
group  had been established to undertake a review of Chapter 10.4 of the Code on Infection with 
avian influenza viruses . The OIE also provided information on the Performance of Veterinary 
Services (PVS) Pathway "Think Tank" Forum . Finally, the OIE highlighted  its new Observatory 
project to develop , which aimed to develop  a framework to monitor  the progress and constraints 
faced in the implementation of OIE stan dards.  
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS 
3.1  New issues  
3.1.  Before the adoption of the agenda, Brazil withdrew a specific trade concern regarding Chile's 
restrictions on chicken products from Rio Grande do Sul . The Russian Federation withdrew a 
specific trade concern regarding  India's fumigation  requirements for grain imports.  Both of these 
items  had been included i n the  proposed agenda for the meeting , and were withdrawn because 
progress had been made in bilateral meetings held prior to the SPS Committee meeting . 
3.1.1   EU maximum residue levels for acrinathrin, metalaxyl and thiabendazole - 
Concerns of Peru  
3.2.  Peru raised a concern over the European Union's lowering  of MRLs for three pesticides , 
acrinathrin, metalaxyl and thiabendazole , under Regulation (EU) 2017/1164 , which wo uld enter 
into force on 21 January 2018 . Peru stressed that  imports of fruits and vegetables  into the 
European Union  would be affected , and  highlighted the impact this already had  on its mango  
production, as 62% of its  exports  were destined to the European  Union . Peru requested a scientific 
justification for  the measure , which  would  lower the MRL s for thiabendazole from 5  to 0.01mg/kg,  
a level  more restrictive than the relevant Codex  standard of 5mg/kg . Peru explained  that the 
pesticides were used to protec t fruits against diseases caused by fungi, in particular anthracnosis , 
and guarantee their  shelf life. Peru presented document G/SPS/GEN/1586, which contained 
information about  the measure's impact on Peruvian exports . Peru finally argued  that the measure  
might  be inconsist ent with Article s 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement . 
3.3.  Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica,  the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nigeria, 
and t he United States shared  the concern  raised by Peru. The United States indicated a particular 
interest because for  sweet potato  the thiabendazole MRL would be lowered from 15mg/kg to the 
default level of 0.01mg/kg, due to  a lack of residue trial data  on sweet potato . The data was being 
generated and would be  submit ted at the earliest  possible . The United States explained that no 
risk to consumers had been identified, and that thiabendazole  was used as an emergency crop 
protection tool to manage black rot for which no viable alternative  existed. Without an adequate 
MRL to support exports to the E uropean Union, sweet potato growers would either lose market 
access or risk a black  rot outbreak , which could be devastating to  the industry and result in 
unnecessary food waste . The United States planned to  submit an  import tolerance application and 
requested an expedited review.  
3.4.  Colombia emphasized the effect the measure would have on its  banana and melon export s. 
The Dominican Republic requested an explanation  of the measure  under Article 5.8 of the 
SPS Agreement because of the measure's impact on mango trade. Costa Rica urged the European 
Union to consider the Codex MRL for thiabendazole. Members underlined the importance of basing G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 7 - 
 
  measures on risk assessment and scientific evidence  and emphasized  that Codex was the 
reference as the  relevant int ernational standard.  
3.5.  The European Union explained that the proposed MRLs were based on the European Food 
Safety Authority 's (EFSA) identification of dietary intake concerns and data gap s in their 
assess ment of MRLs for thiabendazole in mangoes. The Europea n Union reported  that comments 
received from Members in response to notification G/SPS/N/EU/174 had not present ed specific 
new data for re -evaluation  and invited Members to apply for import tolerance s for affected 
products accompanied  by substantial new data addressing EFSA's concerns . The European Union 
noted that some mango producing  countries had replaced thiabendazole with alternative 
substances. F inally the European Union reminded Members that it had provided an information 
note in June 2016 on the o n-going  review of EU MRLs, which had been updated in June 2017 . 
It was available on the European Commission webpage on pesticides , and had been  circulated as 
document G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1 . 
3.1.2   United Arab Emirates measures on plant protection products - Concer ns of Turkey  
3.6.  Turkey raised a concern regarding the  United Arab Emirates Ministerial Decree No. 799 of 
2005 as amended by Ministerial Decree No. 2364 of 2014, which required , for the  registration of a 
pesticide , a certificate of registration from the countr y of origin , a certificate of registration in an 
OECD member State , and a trading certificate of the pesticide from an OECD member State . 
Turkey asked for the scientific reason s behind these requirements , highlight ing that fulfilling these 
conditions was not always possible  and created unjustifi able discrimination between 
WTO Members . Turkey reported  that bilateral meetings with the U nited Arab Emirates  had not led 
to progress . 
3.7.  The Chairperson  noted that United Arab Emirates w ere not present at the meeting.  
3.1.3   EU maximum level of cadmium in foodstuffs - Concerns of Peru  
3.8.  Peru raised a concern over the maximum levels of cadmium in chocolates and other cocoa 
products proposed by the European Union Commission Regulation (EU) No . 488/2014 , which 
would come into forc e in January  2019. Peru highlighted that it was the second largest exporter of 
cocoa after Ecuador, and emphasized the importance of cocoa and c hocolate exports to its 
economy . Peru queried whether  the measure was based on "as low as reasonably achievable " 
(ALARA) principles . The risk analysis for substances of this kind should be conducted using the 
margin of exposure (MOE) approach . Peru reported  that the Codex Committee on Contaminants in 
Food was developing a Codex standard on max imum  levels of cadmium in chocolate and other 
cocoa products , and was expected to publish it in 2019.  Peru submitted further details in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1587.  
3.9.  Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, 
Madagascar, and Nigeria shared  Peru's c oncerns and requested that the E uropean Union consider 
delaying the implementation of this measure until Codex ha d developed relevant international 
standards , or to exclude chocolates from the scope of application of th e measure.  Colombia also 
requested assistance to mitigate the trade impact of this measure along with a longer transition 
period , taking into account the needs of developing country Members. Costa Rica a dded that 
intrinsic difficulties in controlling the level of cadmium in cocoa production  be taken into account 
when setting these levels.  The ECOWAS representative indicated that ECOWAS members also 
shared the conce rn. 
3.10.   The European Union highlighted its efforts to alleviate the difficulties of trading partners in 
complying with this measure,  such as  agreei ng to a transitional period of five  years in October 
2012, which  had deferred the application date to January 2019 , and setting maximum limit s for 
blended products instead of cocoa beans to facilitate trade. The European Union further elabor ated 
that these limits were based on EFSA recommendations that exposure to cadmium should be 
reduced  and that in the light of available science, excluding chocolate and cocoa products from this 
measure w ould not achieve t he desired level of protection.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.1.4   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to Highly Pathogenic Avian 
Influenza - Concerns of the European Union  
3.11.   The European Union raised concerns over  country -wide ban s on imports  of poultry products 
from several EU member States due to HPAI , despite  most of them have been  recognized as  free 
from HPAI for months. The European Union explained  that South Africa's decision not to accept 
HPAI zoning even after it ha d received relevant evidence disregard ed the regi onaliz ation obligation 
under the SPS Agree ment. The European Union noted  that this situation has significant impacts on 
EU trade of poultry to South Africa. The European Union highlighted  its bilateral engagement with 
South Africa, including a study visit to the European Union in 2016 . 
3.12.   South Africa acknowledged past discussions with the European Union and the visit to 
understand the EU regionali zation mechanism  that took place in 2016 . South Africa however 
expressed concerns regarding the effectiveness of the control and preventive measu res in the 
European Union , and noted it would have another visit to assess these controls . 
3.1.5   EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmonella  detection - Concerns of Brazil  
3.13.   Brazil raised concerns over the reinforced border testing controls in the European U nion, 
which  had result ed in increased reports of salmonella detections  in poultry . Additionally, Brazil 
pointed  out that distinct microbiological criteria for fresh me at products and poultry meat 
preparations were unjustified , as the two products were simi lar. Brazil argued there was incorrect 
risk management and communication, contrary to the principles of the SPS Agreement, and asked 
the European Union to provide scientific justification for these measures.  
3.14.   The European Union acknowledged the difference in microbiological criteria for  Salmonella  
for the two product  categorie s as pointed out by Brazil, indicating that the scientific considerations 
were based on the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public 
Health on Salmonella  in Foodstuffs. The European Union stated that there was no justification to 
revise the criteria. The European Union added that a ll shipments from Brazil were subject to pre-
export testing as a reaction to the meat fraud scandal , and on the basis  of the results of an audit 
carried out in April 2017 . However, despite the pre -export tests, the prevalence of Salmonella  
found in poultry meat consignments from Brazil at the EU border was close to 8% and this was a 
matter of concern. The European Union noted its willing ness to continue bilateral discussions on 
this issue.  
3.1.6   Turkey's restrictions on rough rice imports - Concerns of the United States  
3.15.   The United States raised concerns over Turkey's continued restrictions on rough rice imports 
due to Aphelench oides besseyi , a nematode that was widespread in Turkey. The United States 
referred to IPPC standard ISPM No. 5 , according to which a plant disease or pest could not be 
considered a quarantine pest if it was widespread within a given territory and not unde r official 
control , and to Article 2.3 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures . The United States highlighted its efforts to receive market access for rough rice under 
the same conditions  that Turkey applie d to its domestic industry . The United States regretted that 
Turkey had failed to provide scientific justification for the restriction s and requested that Turkey 
ensure that its rough rice import standards were consistent with its WTO obligations  and aligned 
with i nternational standards . 
3.16.   Turkey noted that the relevant regulation had been notified as G/SPS/N/TUR/203  and 
argued that it was in line with Article 7 of  the IPPC, which granted countries the right to regulat e in 
order to  prevent the introduction and spread of pest s in their territories. Turkey stressed its 
domestic quarantine measures and the  limited existence  of the organism in Turkey . 
3.1.7   India's fumigation requirements for teak tree wood (G/SPS/N/IND/149) - 
Concerns of Colombia  
3.17.   Colombia raised a concern over India's requirement  that teakwood be fumigated with 
methyl bromide  at the port of export , as notified in G/SPS/N/IND/149 , with  a transition period 
ending  on 31 December 2017 . Colombia  noted that , as other WTO Members, it did not approve the 
use of the substance , following the Montreal  Protocol to the Vienna Convention for the P rotection G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 9 - 
 
  of the Ozone Layer recommend ation to  gradual ly eliminat e this substance. Colombia elaborated 
that it ha d requested that India accept the use of alternatives such as  phosphine for teakwood  
treatment , as it had accepted it for teakwood exports from other trading partners. Colombia 
argued this would meet the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection , while also complying 
with the aforementioned international convention . 
3.18.   Belize, Costa Rica and Liberia shared  the concern . Costa Rica  mentioned other  possible 
alternatives  to methyl bromide  fumigation, including  the use of  sunlight to increase the 
temperature , crop rotation , the use of other  herbicides , and using microorganisms to  control 
weeds and other pests.  
3.19.   India noted that it had relaxed methyl bromide fumigation requirements until  31 December 
2017 and agricultural imports from countries whose products could not be fumigated with methyl 
bromide at t he port of export could be fumigated upon arrival in India. The Montreal Protocol 
allowed for the use of methyl bromide for quarantine purposes . Additional  information was 
available on the website of India's  Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmer s Welfare,  
http://www.agricoop.nic.in . India also  reported  that it s NPPO had formally requested Colombia for 
information to consider its request to use an  alternative fumigant.  
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.2.1   India's fumigation requirements for cashew nuts - Conc erns of Senegal (No. 427) 
3.20.   Senegal reiterated its concern over India's methyl bromide fumigation requirements for 
cashew nuts . Senegal noted that methyl bromide use had been discontinued by several countries 
due to its high toxicity and negative effect s on the ozone layer. Senegal reported on the exchange 
of documents with India and scientific publications regarding the effectiveness of aluminium 
phosphate as an alternative fumigant , and urged India to accept its use.  
3.21.   The United States associated itself wit h the concern expressed by Senegal on the fumigation 
of imported products with methyl bromide , particularly as it affected peas and pulses. The United 
States expressed its commitment to continue to find alternative s to methyl bromide fumigation as 
a pest m itigation measure , and encouraged India to consider that methyl bromide was not 
necessary in cases of  negligible pest risk . 
3.22.   Burkina Faso, Colombia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, Togo, and Ukraine  shared  
Senegal's concern . Madagascar  reported  that it had  held bilateral discussions with India on the 
fumigation requirement for agricultural products. Burkina Faso referred  to its cashew nuts  exports , 
urging India to accept the principle of equivalence in order to facilitate trade of agricultural 
products.  Ukraine shared th e concern as it prohibited the use of methyl bromide for fumigation  
and had therefore submitted alternative s to India. Togo urged India to accept aluminium 
phosphate as an  alternative fumigant.  Colombia support ed the systemic concern on India's 
fumigation requirement  and its  environmental and trade implications.  
3.23.   India responded that its phytosanitary requirements were consistent with its WTO 
obligations . India reiterated that until 31 December 2017 , agricultural import s from countries 
whose product s could not be fumigated with methyl bromide  at the port of export could be 
fumigated upon arrival in India. Finally, India had also made a  formal request to Senegal for 
information to consider its request for alternative fumiga nts. 
3.24.   The United S tates commented that India had only responded to Senegal  without providing a 
response to the concerns raised by other Members , and requested that India circulate a document 
with the fumigation requirement applicable to other Members , in particular to the U nited States.  
3.25.   India reiterated that its phytosanitary requirements were consistent with its WTO obligations 
and that the information was available on its official website http://www.agricoopnic.in.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.2.2   Viet Nam's suspension of groundnut seed imports – Concerns  of Senegal 
(No. 418)  
3.26.   Senegal reiterated its concern on Viet Nam's  provisional suspension on groundnut import s 
from Senegal  and reported on the provisions taken to ensure compliance with the phytosanitary 
requirements , including an audit by a Chinese quarantine service mission . 
3.27.   Viet Nam re iterated that there had been  detection s of groundnut s infested with live insect 
quarantine pests . Viet Nam reported that Senegal had been notified, and that its temporary  
suspension  was in line with IPPC guideline s. Viet Nam also reported  that it was currently review ing 
the technical information received from Senegal's  National Plant Protection Agency.  
3.2.3   Brazil's measures on bananas - Concerns of Ecuador (No. 423) 
3.28.   Ecuador reiterated its concern over the import suspension of Ecuadorian banana s to Brazil. 
Ecuador urged Brazil to comply with its Normative Instruction No. 3 of 21 March 2014, wh ich laid 
down sanitary and phytosanitary standards for banana s, based on which Ecuador submitted a 
working plan to Brazil. Ecuador regretted that the import ban had already lasted  for more than 
20 years.  
3.29.   Brazil emphasiz ed its bilateral engage ment with Ecuador, noting that Ecuador's concern on 
the ban on shrimps had been resolved. Regarding bananas, Brazil explained that its Ministry of 
Agriculture was reviewing Ecuador's working plan. Brazil aim ed to streamline its standards with its 
normative instruction on technical standards for banana import s. Brazil also referred to its working 
meeting with Ecuadorian plant safety au thorit ies and remained positive about swift progress in 
resolving Ecuador's concern.  
3.2.4   China's import ban on fresh mangosteen – Concerns of Indonesia (No. 416) 
3.30.   Indonesia reiterated its concern regarding China's import ban on fresh mangosteen fruit. 
Indonesia  reported on its  corrective actions to resolve the contamination detected on its  
mangosteen fruit , which had  been verified by China's General Administration of Quality 
Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) , result ing in a draft protocol for mangos teen 
export s. However, Indonesia regretted the protocol had not been signed . Indonesia added that it 
had engaged in bilateral neg otiations with China and had opened  its market to garlic and other 
product s from China,  aiming at balancing bilateral trade. Indonesia finally requested that China 
compl y with its obligations under the SPS Agreement . 
3.31.   China responded that in 2013 , quarantine pests had been detected on fresh mangosteen 
from Indonesia , which resulted in an import suspension . China added that  following bilateral 
consultations  and an onsite investigation , both parties agreed on a protocol for plant quarantine 
requirement s in September 2016. China urged Indonesia to complete the pending follow -up work 
and promote the healthy development of trade  of agricultural products between China and 
Indonesia.  
3.2.5   Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds – Concerns of Chinese Taipei 
(No. 421)  
3.32.   Chinese Taipei reiterated its concern o n Thailand's  import restriction on  papaya seed s 
imposed since 2008. Chinese T aipei reported  that it was currently reviewing Thailand's  draft 
quarantine requirement s for its papaya seed s. Chinese Taipei confirmed that the exported papaya 
seed was free from tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV)  and urged Thailand to lift the import restricti on 
and comply with its WTO obligations . 
3.33.   Thailand explained that the reason for the initial ban on the import of papaya seed s from 
Chinese Taipei was due to a regulatory amendment . An exemption was granted to existing traded 
commodities, but Chinese Taipei's request to include papaya seeds in the exemption was received 
only after the  time-frame . Therefore, it faced a delay in its market access . Thailand added that the 
draft import protocol for papaya seed s had been  approved by its Quarantine Technical 
Subcommittee . If it was accepted by Chinese Taipei, it would be submitted to Thailand's Pest 
Quarantine Committee for final approval to resume import s of papaya seed s from Chinese Taip ei. G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.2.6   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193)  
3.34.   The European Union reiterated the importance of this concern , recalling BSE -related science 
on the safe  trade of beef regardless of the BSE country risk status , as stated  by the OIE. 
The European Union regretted that after fifteen years , some countries maintained  their BSE -
related  bans, which contradict ed their obligations under the SPS Agreement . The European Union 
also underlined the lack of transparency o f some Members ' import procedure s, noting that  
South  Korea had not respond ed to the market  access  application submitted by EU member States 
since 2006, urging for an expedient resolution on this issue . The European Union also urged other 
Members , including Malaysia,  to promptly  allow imports  of safe beef from the European Union . 
The European Union also urged the United States and China to continue lifting the ir import bans 
for all pending EU m ember States. The European Union also appreciated positive development s in 
Chinese Taipei and  Japan.  
3.2.7   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 392)  
3.35.   The European Union again raised concern s over China's country -wide ban on pork products 
from several EU member States due to the outbrea k of African swine fever  (ASF) . The European 
Union recalled  that the issue had first been raised in July 2015 , without a  positive response from 
China to date . The European Union stressed its regionalisation measures and the evidence  
presented  to guarantee safe trade , urging China to recognize the concept of disease -free areas 
and respect its regionalization obligations in compliance with the  SPS Agreement and OIE 
standards. The European Union also requested  that China  provide information on its procedure to 
recognize disease -free areas and on its standard processing period , and that China  ensure that 
these procedures were undertaken and completed without undue delay. The European Union was 
encouraged by recent developm ents including the organiz ation of a seminar in China with the 
relevant authorities to discuss a possible way forward and hope that this dialogue will deliver 
concrete results in the coming months . 
3.36.   China explained  that it had implemented regionalization ma nagement measures , but 
remained cautious regarding  major animal epidemic diseases that ha d never occurred in China , 
such as ASF, considering its stock density and limited epidemic disease control ability. Recently, 
African swine fever wa s still spreading i n Europe. According to the rules of the SPS Agreement and 
China 's current protection ability, China ha d to strictly prohibit import s of animals and animal 
products with a high risk . 
3.2.8   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European  Union (No. 393)  
3.37.   The European Union reiterated its concern over Korea's ban on pork and pork products from 
Poland since February 2014, which did not take  into account the European Union regionalization 
measures. The European Union regret ted that des pite bilateral meetings the import restriction 
remain ed. Korea had performed a preliminary risk assessment and an on -site inspection in 
December 2014, and had received responses to its questions. Korea had indicated that  as a result 
of the preliminary risk  assessment, it w ould proceed with a risk analysis. Finally, the European 
Union urged Korea to comply with its WTO obligations  by putting in place measures that were not 
more trade restrictive than necessary , applying regionalization , only request ing necessary 
information to complete the recognition of regionalization , and taking  into account information  
already available . 
3.38.   Korea drew attention to the increasing number of ASF cases in in Poland, with 87 cases 
recorded in domestic pigs from  January to S eptember  2017, a number four times larger than 
recorded between 2014 and 2016. Korea also reported  that the European Animal Health 
Regulatory Committee had stated that lack of biosecurity measures and illegal transaction s in pigs 
and pork meat were the mai n cause s of ASF in Polish domestic pig farms . Korea expressed its 
concern that the ASF -free zone in Poland was not effectively managed, and request ed pertinent 
information on the spread of ASF on domestic pig farms , according to OIE standards.  Korea hoped 
the epidemiological situation in Poland w ould be  under control in order to resolve this issue.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.2.9   China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza – Concerns of 
the United States (No.  406)  
3.39.   The United States reiterated its concern over Chin a's Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 
(HPAI) -related restrictions on poultry products  and requested that China  follow OIE standards , 
particularly on regionalization. Th e United States regretted that despite being  HPAI-free according 
to OIE guideline s, China still maintain ed the restriction. The United States urged China to remove 
all HPAI -related import restrictions and promised to continue to maintain its rigorous and effective 
surveillance for HPAI.  
3.40.   The European Union echoed the United States concer n and the  desire to have it resolved , as 
it faced the same issue. 
3.41.   China replied that it had found certain problems with the  prevention and control system of 
avian influenza in the United States in July 2017 , based on its preliminary risk assessment . 
China  had informed the United States of the problems detected , but had not yet received a 
response . China urged the United States to provide feedback in writing , as well as the 
supplementary information requested. China explained that there had been  bilateral discussions on 
biosafety compartmentalization and regionalization methods , and kept an open mind on both 
methods . China added  that it would submit its standards on biosafety compartmentalization in 
writing to the United States  again. Finally , China suggested  that both parties coordinat e their  
standards on regionalization and biosafety compartmentalization under the OIE guidelines.  
3.42.   The United States appreciated China's compartmentalization proposal . However, it noted 
that each country should be evaluated for r ecognition of regionalization or compartmentalization 
separately , following the procedure establish ed by the importing country. The United States added 
that since both countries were in different stages of the process , it requested that China remove all 
HPAI-related  restrictions on import s from the United States in line with its HPAI -free status , 
according to OIE standards.  
3.2.10   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  
3.43.   The Eur opean Union reiterated its concern regarding the Russian Federation's  import ban on 
fresh and chilled pig meat, beef and poultry meat from the entire territory of Germany  imposed in 
early 2013 , and the subsequent ban on  finished  meat and milk product s from three German 
Federal State s. The European Union re peated  its earlier statements  on the inconsiste ncy of the 
measure with the SPS  Agreement  and expressed its disappointment that the ban remained in force 
despite efforts made by Germany and the European Uni on. The European Union urged the Russian 
Federation to repeal its measures without further delay . 
3.44.   The Russian Federation recalled that  the temporary import restriction stemmed from the 
detection of unsafe products and multiple mistakes in animal products certificate s found during 
2013 and 2015 inspection s, and their systemic nature . The Russian Federation also noted the 
agree ment that Ge rmany would  implement guidelines to verify its compliance with the 
requirement s of the Eurasian Economic Union and of the Russian Federation, and that draft 
guidelines were under review  by both parties . 
3.2.11   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on proce ssed fishery products from 
Estonia and Latvia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  
3.45.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian Federation's  import 
restrictions on all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, which followed an  audit of a few  
establishments by the Russian Federation in 2015 . The European Union argued that these 
measures were inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, unjustifiable on sanitary grounds , and not in 
compliance with the Russian Federation's  WTO accession comm itment s. The European Union 
added that Latvia and Estonia reacted without delay to the findings and had put in place corrective 
measures within the requested time -frame , and had been subsequently audited by the Russian 
Federation in June 2016. The European  Union regretted that it only rece ived the report  of these 
audits the day before the Committee meeting . Estonia and Latvia had held bilateral discussions G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 13 - 
 
  with the Russian Federation to show their readiness to resolve this concern . The European Union  
called  for an immediate repeal of the measure.  
3.46.   The Russian Federation recalled that the temporary restriction had been the result  of onsite 
inspections that found systemic deficienc ies in fish processing . More recent inspections noted the  
progress made in compl ying with requirement s of the Eurasian Economic Union , but did not fully 
address  the safety concerns . Finally, t he Russian Federation awaited response s from Latvia and 
Estonia to the preliminary report of its inspection . 
3.2.12   European Union's revised proposal f or categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors – Concerns of Argentina, China and the United States (No. 382)  
3.47.   Argentina reiterated its concern over the European Union's process to define criteria to 
identif y endocrine di srupting properties. Argenti na noted the European Parliament's recent 
rejection of the draft implementing regulation that would have amend ed Regulation (EU) 
No. 1107/2009 Annex 2 , which establish ed definitive and specific scientific criteria for the 
determination of endocrine disrupt ive properties , as adopted by the European Union Standing 
Committee on Plants, Animal, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) in July 2017. Argentina requested an 
update of the following steps. Argentina was concern ed about  current discussion s in the European 
Union about restrict ing import s of substances on the basis of hazard  identification  rather than of a 
comprehensive risk assessment. Argentina reiterated its request that the European Union maintain 
import tolerances with MRLs above default values , in acco rdance with its Regulation 
(EC) 396/2005 . 
3.48.   China echoed the Argentina's concern and recommended that the E uropean Union adopt the 
Codex standards , in accordance with the SPS Agreement . 
3.49.   The United States reiterated its concerns on the EU pesticide s policy. The Unit ed States 
argued that the EU hazard -based pesticide regulations were insufficiently grounded on science and 
risk, and would harm global agriculture production, food security and international trade , without 
making a  meaningful contribution to public health . The United States reaffirm ed its stance against 
the hazard -based criteria of the European Union to ban substances identified as endocrine 
disruptors , and its concern over the effects  that the prolonged uncertainty on the matter was 
having on  producers . The United States recalled that the European Union would apply interim 
criteria in the absence of adoption of the proposed criteria, and therefore asked about  the 
difference between the list of substances that would fall under the interim criteria and those  that 
would fall under the criteria rejected by the European Parliament . The United States emphasised 
the existence of  other approaches that could provide the high level of human health and 
environmental protection sought by the European Union without disrupting international trade  and 
asked  the European Union  how it w ould ensure consistency with the SPS Agreement if it withdr ew 
MRLS without conducting risk assessment s or considering  import tolerances or relevant Codex 
MRLs. Finally, t he United States l ooked forward to receiving responses to the written question 
submitted to the European Union after the March 2017 SPS Committee meeting.  
3.50.   Canada stated its concern over the EU approach to the categorization of compound s as 
endocrine disruptors. Canada expre ssed its disappointment that a regulatory amendment for 
derogation based on negligible risk had not been introduced in the European Parliament , and the 
delay and uncertainty this created . Canada sought assurances from the European Union that 
decisions on s etting MRLs would continue to be made on the basis of risk assessments, as set o ut 
in Regulation (EC) 396/2005.  
3.51.   Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India, Israel, Madagascar, Mozambique, 
New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Senegal, Thailand, Togo, and Uruguay indicated that they shared this 
concern and called upon  the European Union to base its measures on adequate scientific risk 
assessment s and to consider Codex  MRLs. They also requested the European Union to keep 
Members abreast of their next ste ps on this issue . 
3.52.   The European Union reiterated its commitment to transparen cy, noting that all  the 
information regarding this matter was  available on the European Commission 's website. 
The proposal on defining  the criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for plant protection products 
had been recently rejected by the European Parliament and the European  Commission was G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 14 - 
 
  considering the next steps.  Import  tolerance request s for substances falling under the cut -off 
criteria wou ld be carefully evaluated on a case -by-case basis , considering the objective s of 
consumer protection as well as the European Union's obligations under the SPS Agreement. Due to 
transitional measures of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 and the delays in the re newal 
programmes of the approved active substances, the European Union did not yet have experience 
on MRL and import tolerance setting for substances falling under the cut -off criteria. The European 
Union reiterated  that its measures were neither  discrimin atory nor a  disguise d restriction to trade,  
but would be applied d omestically and internationally . Finally, the European Union undertook  to 
keep Members duly informed abouth further developments . 
3.2.13   France's dimethoate -related restrictions on imports - Conc erns of the United 
States (No. 42 2) 
3.53.   The United States reiterated its concern over actions taken by France to ban the importation 
of fresh cherries from the United States and other countries that had approved the use of the 
pesticide dimethoate  on cherries. The United States expressed concern over the decision to restrict 
import s of commodities based on the authorization of a pesticide in the country of origin rather 
than based on a scientific assessment of risk , and regardless of whether or not  residues of the 
pesticide were present in the imported commodities. The United States noted that publicly 
available evaluation s from other regulatory authorities had determined that dimethoate 
metabolites were not toxicologically relevant , as did the draft Rapporteur Assessment Report of 
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) . The United States informed it had received from 
France a response to its comments, but regretted that it  referred to data gaps when the United 
States argued the data was available . Finally, the United States requested France not to renew its 
ban for a third consecutive year . 
3.54.   Canada echoed the US concern , requested information about the measures that would apply 
from 1 January  2018, and encouraged  France to adopt measures in line wi th those of the European 
Commission , which were  scientifically justified and not discriminatory against products from 
countries where dimethoate was authorised  for use . Canada  urged France to conduct a risk 
assessment to determine if the current MRL establ ished by the European Union was insufficient 
before enacting more trade restrictive measures.  
3.55.   The European Union referred to the response provided in the July 2017 SPS Committee 
meeting. To the question on the rationale behind the application of the measur e only to fresh 
cherries when other commodities could also contain dimethoate residues, the European Union 
stated that it was based on consumption pattern s, which were higher for cherries than for other 
commodities which could contain dimethoate residue s. The European Union finally indicated that 
new studies had been submitted for evaluation to EFSA , with a conclusion expected in spring of 
2018.  
3.2.14   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on wine - Concerns of Montenegro 
(No. 426 ) 
3.56.   Montenegro reiterated i ts concern on the Russian Federation's restrictive measures applied 
to import s of wine from Montenegro, and provided an update on the efforts and actions taken by 
Montenegro since the previous SPS  Committee  meeting. Montenegro recalled that the import 
restriction s had been introduced in 2016 without advance or official notification to the authorities 
in Montenegro and the companies involved. Montenegro reported  that it had submitted two official 
letters to the Russian Federation authorities requesting addit ional information and clarification on 
the scientific evidence and nature of the imposed restriction , had offered bilateral consultations 
and indicated that join t control of the wine would offer the best course to resolve the issue . 
Montenegro pledged its full cooperation to the Russian Federation and its willingness to have the 
Russian Federation carry out a verification of its wine production compliance with the Russian 
Federation standards . Montenegro expressed its deep regret for the lack of response on  the part of 
the Russian Federation to its correspondence and the lacking intention to engage in bilateral 
consultation or undertake corrective measures to lift the existing restriction. Montenegro urged the 
Russian Federation to lift the restriction and to find a mutually agreed solution including the review 
of the SPS conformity of Montenegrin wine to facilitate the full return of the export ed confiscated 
wine. G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 15 - 
 
  3.57.   Moldova referred to its statement made in the July 2017 SPS Committee meeting and 
reiterated it s support to Montenegro's proposal of a joint control of the confiscated Montenegrin 
wine to ensure a better understanding of the Russian Federation food safety standards and 
procedures in order to t ake corrective actions. Moldova  urged the Russian Federation to 
constructively engage in bilateral consultations to find a mutually acceptable so lution in line with 
WTO rules.  
3.58.   The Russian Federation stated that the temporary import restriction was imposed due to the 
detection that Monten egrin wines failed to  meet the E urasian Economic Union's  and the Russian 
Federation's  requirements . The Russian Federation indicated that Montenegro's communications 
were currently under consideration, but that they did not provide  information about the ac tions 
taken by Montenegro to identify cases of contaminat ion of wines imported to the Russian 
Federation. The Russian Federation expect ed constructive cooperation with Montenegro  in this 
area. 
3.2.15   China's AQSIQ official certification requirements for food impo rts 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1209) – Concerns of Israel and the United States (No. 184)  
3.59.   The United States reiterated its concern on China's proposed official certification 
requirement s for imported food . The United States thanked China for its bilateral engagement and  
for its notification to the WTO of the two -year transitional period for the implementation  of the 
official certification requirement , delaying  its entry into force to 30 September 2019 . The United 
States noted that though the notification had been made to  the TBT Committee, it indicat ed the 
protection of human health and food safety in the description an d objective of the measure. 
The United States therefore requested China to keep the SPS Committee abreast of the measure's 
development s. The United States also requested a clarification of the scope of the measure , given 
that AQSIQ Food Bureau's Correspondence No. 83 appeared to require a wide range of imported 
food products to be accompanied by official certificate s on a shipment -by-shipment basis , includin g 
processed , shelf-stable  food, which would pose little to no risk to food safety and human health. 
The United States argued that China's proposed requirement was inconsistent with Codex 
guidelines and principles . Finally, t he United States welcomed the clarifications provided by China 
and the opportunity to work with China on the matter.  
3.60.   Singapore supported the concern and added that it looked forward to receiving responses to 
the question s posed to AQSIQ . 
3.61.   Japan, the European Union, Guatemala , and Thailand  also shared the concern of the United 
State s and urged China to provide timely and appropriate information on the rev ised draft and its 
implementation , noting that the measure would be disproportionate , go beyond international 
standards , and be  trade disr upting.  
3.62.   China responded that it had carefully considered the comments submitted by Members and 
had decided to provide a unified transitional period of two years  until 30 September 2019 , as 
notified to the WTO . China explained that the  measure had been drafted taking into account  the 
practical situation of other Members , and hoped that Members would provide a sample of 
certificate s attached to food exporte d to China as soon as possible . The comments  received w ould 
be delivered back to the capital for con sideration.  
3.2.16   US seafood import monitoring programme - Concerns of China (No.  415)  
3.63.   China reiterated its concern on the US seafo od import monitoring programme.  China 
highlighted the differences between the US bills related to the trade of aquatic products , namely 
the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) and the Fish and Fish Product Import Regulations, 
and the Marine Mammal Protection Act . China urged the United States to consider remov ing 
aquaculture  products from the bills  to promote the healthy devel opment of bilateral t rade in these 
products. China requested updates on the relevant bills under the regional fishery management 
organization s and the relevant interna tional management organiz ations. 
3.64.   The Russian Federation shared China's  concern, noting that trade -related measures should 
be adopted and implemented in  a fair and transparent manner , and only after prior consultation 
with interested Members . G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 16 - 
 
  3.65.   The United States reiterated that the final rule was not an SPS measure and therefore f ell 
outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. The United States also reiterated that the objective of 
the final rule was to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU ) fishing and seafood fraud , 
and thus required the US importer s to report certain informati on upon entry into the United States 
and retain other information that would allow the shipments to be traced back to the point of catch 
or harvest in order to protect its market from being used to sell fraudulently marketed seafood or 
seafood prod ucts pro duced from IUU fishing.  
3.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1 7 
3.66.   The Secretariat informed that in September 2017 it had contacted all Members who had 
raised specific trade concerns ( STCs) that had not been discussed in the previous year,  to request 
an update on their status. Eleven Members had responded and had indicated that 15 STCs had 
been resolved , and 13  STCs had been partially resolved. The Secretariat also explained that an 
STC was reported as partially resolved when (i) it was only reported as resolved by some of the  
Members that had raised the STC;  (ii) trade ha d resumed for some , but not all,  of the products  
covered by the STC ; or (iii)  trade had  resumed with one of the Members maintaining the measure  
subject to the STC . The Secretariat indicated that the information  received  had been circulated in  
document  RD/SPS/28 of 31 October 2017 , and that the SPS IMS would be updated  on this basis , 
using the dat e of the present SPS Committee m eeting as the date of resolution  of the relevant 
STCs. 
3.67.   No Member provided any further information under this agenda item.  
3.4  Annual report on the use of the procedure to encourage and facilitate the resolution 
of specific SPS issues (G/SPS/61 ) 
3.68.   The Secretariat informed Members that the  annual report  on the use of this procedure had 
been circulated in G/SPS/GEN/1573, and that the  procedure ha d not been used  to date . 
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.2  Pest- and diseas e-free areas  
4.2.1   Information from Members  
4.2.1.1   Botswana – Information on FMD in Ngamiland  
4.2.  Botswana provided an update on the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the Sehithwa 
area of Ngamiland District , which had been detected in September 2017 an d notified to the WTO 
on 26  September 2017 through document G/SPS/GEN/1572. Botswana enumerated the measures  
it had taken to control the spread of the disease: (i)  district wide clinical surveillance to determine 
the extent of the outbreak ; (ii) primo vaccination fol lowed by booster vaccination ; (iii)  FMD 
vaccination coupled with surveillance ; (iv)  a total livestock movement ban and other movement 
restriction s; (v) slaughter of cattle under certain conditions. Botswana emphasised that the  
outbreak was contained and di d not affect beef trade in the OIE -recogni zed FMD -free zones of 
Botswana.  
4.2.1.2   Ecuador – Update of list of quarantine pests  
4.3.  Ecuador informed that the Ecuadorian Agency for Agricultural Safety and Quality, 
AGROCALIDAD, had  recently published Resolution No. 0 122 through which it updated the list of 
quarantine pests not p resent in Ecuador . The annex of the aforementioned resolution  contained 
the details of all pests that were not present in Ecuadorian territory . Ecuador committed to making 
the upd ated list available to Members.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 17 - 
 
  4.2.1.3   Dominican Republic – Freedom from Mediterranean f ruit fly 
4.4.  The Dominican Republic informed that through resolution RS/MA/2017/11 of the Ministry of 
Agriculture  it had been declared free of Mediterranean fruit fly . The Dominican Republi c explained 
that this was based on the ISPM wi th regard to the requirement s for establish ing areas free of fruit 
fly, which required  a minimum of three life cycle s without any capture in the area  to consider the 
pest eradicated.  
4.2.1.4   South Africa – HPAI situation  
4.5.  South Africa provided an update on the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N8)  outbreak  
reported in chickens in South Africa on 22 June 2017 , indicating that as of 18 October, 
92 locations had been identified to be infected and reported to the O IE. South Africa informed 
Members of the measures that had been depl oyed to control  the outbreak.  
4.2.1.5   Committee work  on regionalization  
4.6.  The United States thanked the European Union for proposing the thematic session on 
regionalization held on 11 July 2017 , which had allowed the exchange of experiences and best 
practices between a diverse set of Members , and further deepened the understanding of the 
SPS Agreement  as it relates to regionalization . The United States encouraged Members to actively 
use the agenda on  regionalization to share experiences on challenges encountered and successes 
achieved in applying the principles of regionalization to facilitate safe trade. It further encouraged 
Members to strengthen the implementation of regionalization in a manner con sistent with Article 6 
of the SPS  Agreement. The United States proposed (i) the upcoming Fifth Review of the SPS 
Agreement as a possible avenue to focus on regionalization ; (ii) to further the discussion within 
the Committee by holding future thematic sessions or workshops to explore aspect s of 
regionalization in greater detail, perhaps with a focus on develop ing of guid ance on best practices ; 
(iii) a thematic session on pest -free areas in February 2018; and (iv) that Members report on 
cases where they had successfully applied the concept of regionalization in resolvin g a specific 
trade concern. The  United States concluded by calling on other Members to provide possible ideas 
on how to build on the discussion h eld in July 2017 on regionalization.  The Uni ted States offered to 
present a short proposal for the next thematic session on pest -free areas for Members' comments, 
if there was interest.  
4.7.  The European Union welcomed the United States proposal and highlighted the importan ce of 
continuous work on region alization , possibly within the framework of the Fifth R eview . 
The European Union considered favourably the proposal to hold a thematic session  on pest -free 
areas in February 2018 . The European Union was also interested in observing cases where 
regionalizat ion had been useful and where it had failed to address a trade concern s. With regards 
to the suggestion on guidance or best practices , the European Union  pointed to the existing 
guidelines on the implementation of Article 6 and enquired about the added val ue in elaborating on 
this. Finally, the European Union emphasised the contribution of the relevant international 
organization s, the  OIE and IPPC , on this matter.  
4.8.  Chile reiterated its support for the US suggestions.  
4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
4.3.1   Report on Workshop on Transparency  
4.9.  The Chairperson reported on the Workshop on Transparency held on 30 -31 October 2017 
(programme in document G/SPS/GEN/1568/Rev.2).2 The WTO Global Trust Fund had sponsored 
34 participants selected from developing and leas t developed countries for the two -day workshop 
only. In addition, the African Union had made it possible for seven participants from French - and 
English -speaking Africa to participate in the workshop and the meetings of the Committee.  
                                                
2 A more detailed summary report of the workshop will be circulated.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 18 - 
 
  4.10.   The main objective of  the workshop had been to bring together officials from Members' SPS 
Enquiry Points, National Notification Authorities and other relevant authorities for an exchange of 
experiences and for hands -on training on the improved SPS tools, the SPS Information 
Management System (SPS IMS), the SPS Notification Submission System (SPS NSS) and the ePing 
notification alert system. In addition, the workshop had focused on the sharing of national 
experiences and best practices in conducting public consultations when dev eloping SPS 
regulations.  
4.11.   The first session of the workshop had included an overview of the transparency provisions in 
the SPS Agreement and the Recommended Transparency Procedures. The second session had 
focused on sources of SPS -related information, inclu ding: the SPS Gateway on the WTO website; 
WTO Documents Online and the new e -Subscription service for delegates to receive official WTO 
documents; the WTO Integrated Trade Intelligence Portal (I -TIP); the improved SPS IMS ; and an 
overview of the ePing aler t system for SPS and TBT notifications. Then, participants had broken 
into language groups for hands -on training on the use of the improved SPS IMS and the ePing 
alert system, respectively.  
4.12.   The National Board of Trade of Sweden had presented on a study, wh ich analyzed the 
relationship and complementarity between the SPS obligations arising out of the new WTO 
Agreement on Trade Facilitation and the provisions contained in the SPS Agreement.  
4.13.   The Secretariat had presented an overview of Members' level of imple mentation of the SPS 
transparency provisions based on the latest revision of its annual transparency report contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10. At the end of day one, the Secretariat had provided an overview of the 
improved SPS NSS, followed by a hands -on exercise on how to use the system to draft and submit 
notifications online.  
4.14.   The second day had begun with a session on national experiences and best practices in 
public consultations. This session had highlighted relevant international work on models and 
mechanisms for public consultation in SPS rulemaking, with speakers from the OECD, the World 
Bank and Malaysia, which had provided both a national and a n APEC perspective. One key 
recommendation had been to find ways to align domestic consultation processes with those 
required by the WTO in order to maximize the benefits of commen ts received from abroad. 
Having  a single, unified website or portal had also been highlighted as being useful in conducting 
and managing a consultative process.  
4.15.   The session on domest ic experiences had been conducted in a round table format , where 
representatives from four Members shared their experiences in conducting public consultations 
when developing SPS regulations. Speaker s had outlined their national processes, stakeholder 
engagement, what worked well, and how to evaluate whether their systems had been working. 
While the systems outlined had differences, there had been some common elements, including 
single access points for managing comments, unified processes, and sharing info rmation in 
multiple formats (single website, press releases, public hearings, symposiums, etc.).  
4.16.   Next, participants had heard overview presentations on three specific topics related to the 
implementation and benefits of the SPS transparency provisions. The  specific topics had been: 
decision criteria for deciding what and when to notify; how to manage the volume of notifications 
on which to comment; and consultations with government and non -governm ent stakeholders on 
foreign SPS notifications. Participants h ad broken into smaller groups to further discuss the topics 
presented. The results of the discussion groups had then been rep orted back to the plenary. 
Some  recurring themes across the groups included, inter alia , the importance of national 
coordination, h ow to strengthen engagement with relevant stakeholders, the use of ePing to filter 
the increasing number of notifications, and encouraging Members to make efforts to share 
unofficial translations of notified regulations.  
4.17.   In concluding his report, the Chair person indicated that presentations from all sessions of 
the workshop would be made available on the SPS Gateway.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 19 - 
 
  4.3.2   Report of the Informal Meeting  
4.18.   The Chairperson also reported on the transparency -related discussions that had taken place 
in the informal meet ing held on 1 November 2017.  
4.19.   The Chairperson recalled that  at the informal meeting,  the Secretariat had provided an 
update on transparency -related issues. The first such issue had been a "technical revision" of the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures; docu ment G/SPS/7/Rev.3. The current version of the 
document contained outdated references to the online tools (SPS NSS, SPS IMS), other websites 
and outdated notification templates which were longer been in use since the WTO had updated its 
document formats in  2013. It also contained references to outdated practices for submitting 
notifications, for example by regular mail, or by fax. The revised version of the document would be 
circulated after the SPS Committee meeting for comments by Members. No substantive changes to 
the Recommended Procedures would be made. The Secretariat had proposed 31 January 2018 as 
the deadline for comments. Then, a clean version of the document in the three languages would 
be circulated in early February, presented  at the February SP S Committee m eeting, and a final 
version would be circulated afterwards.  
4.20.   The Secretariat had further explained that a second document, the 2011 edition of the 
Procedural Manual for NNAs and NEPs, was being revised to incorporate the improved SPS NSS 
and IM S platforms and the new ePing alert system, as well as other general updates.  An advanced 
draft had been made available in all three official languages. This draft would be shared with 
Members after the SPS Committee meeting, with a 15 December 2017 deadli ne for comments.3 
The Secretariat would then produce a finalized version incorporating any feedback early next year. 
The Secretariat had thanked Ms Sally Jennings from New Zealand, the original author of the 
manual, for her assistance in the new revision. The Secretariat had also thanked Burkina Faso, 
Chile, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Jordan, Madagascar and New Zealand for preparing case 
stories. The Secretariat was considering how best to include these case stories in the Manual.  
4.21.   The Secretariat had  also reported that a detailed user guide for the SPS NSS had been 
completed. This guide would be shared with Members, then incorporated in the SPS NSS and 
subsequently published on the transparency toolkit link of the SPS Webpage after the SPS 
Committee m eeting. The user guide for the SPS IMS had nearly been completed and was expected 
to be shared with Members by the end of 2017.  
4.22.   In concluding his report, the Chairperson also recalled that the Secretariat had noted that 
besides the SPS delegates emailing l ist, the SPS team also managed two documents emailing lists, 
one for notifications and another for unrestricted documents. These lists would be discontinued at 
the end of November. Members could continue to receive SPS documents through the new 
e-Subscript ions service. Access to this new service was restricted to delegates, who needed to 
contact the delegation coordinator at the ir Geneva mission to request credentials. Alternatively, 
SPS documents and notifications were available through WTO Docs Online or the SPS IMS. 
Additionally, it was possible to receive alerts on new SPS and TBT notifications through the ePing 
alert system.  
4.3.3   Madagascar – Update on notifications  
4.23.   Madagascar provided an overview of the notifications it had submitted during the period 
from July to October 2017. In total, eight draft regulatory texts had been notified to the WTO , 
which included an emergency measure; a memorandum adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Livestock in order to address and lift certain measures to prevent the entry of foot and mouth 
disease from Mauritius; and several draft regulatory texts adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture 
and Livestock related to harmonization of its animal health regulations with the re quirements of 
trading partners.  
4.4  Special and Differential Treatment  
4.24.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
                                                
3 The deadline was subsequently extended until 31 January 2018.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  
4.5.1   New issues  
4.5.1.1   United States – The relation of the World Health Organization and the Food and 
Agriculture Organization  to Codex A limentarius  
4.25.   The United States recalled the SPS Committee procedure to monitor the process of 
international harmonization (G/SPS/11 /Rev.1), highlighting that this procedure should help to 
identify, for the benefit of the relevant international organizations , where a standard or guideline 
was needed , or was not appropriate for its purpose and use. In this regard, the United States drew 
Members' attention to the recent discussions that had taken place at the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission in July 2017, regardin g the relation of the WHO and FAO to Codex. The United States 
acknowledged the critical importance of the institutional support provided to Codex by the WHO 
and FA O, such as through the scientific advisory bodies,  while also recognizing the unique role of 
Codex in the support of public health and trade, and the need for Codex to independently issue 
standards  with support from its members.  
4.26.   The United States noted that Codex effectively carried out its mandate, by maintaining an 
inclusive, open and transparen t standards development process and by relying on scientific and 
technical advice from a wide range of perspectives from the public and private sector, as well as 
international organizations. The United States further stated that while WHO and FAO routinel y 
provided inputs to Codex for further consideration by its membership, Codex ultimately made its 
determinations based on science , and consistent with the views of its members. The United States 
urged WHO and FAO to jointly reinforce the independence of Co dex, including its responsibility to 
make decisions that were both science -based and  consistent with the views of its members. Due to  
the differences in mandate and procedures of the WHO and FAO,  the United States noted that  any 
ambiguity regarding the ind ependence of Codex posed a concern , since  any undue influence could 
adversely impact the appropriateness of Codex standards in ensuring fair practices in the trade of 
food. 
4.27.   The United States  further underscored the need for Co dex to remain a member -driven,  
science -based, transparent and inclusive organization in order to ensure the appropriateness of its 
standards for their purpose and use in protecting public health and ensuring fair trade. The United 
States urged WHO and FAO to provide sustainable funding  to enable Codex  standards  to meet 
their health and trade objectives.  
4.28.   Canada recalled that Codex had been jointly established by the FAO and WHO with a 
specific mandate to develop food standards to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair 
practices in trade of food products. Canada recognized the different mandates  of each of the three 
organizations and indicated its support for their respective work, while highlighting the 
complementary and synergistic nature. Canada further underscored that any work undertaken by 
Codex should be with in the purview of its mandate, while also recognizing the importance of taking 
into account the policies of FAO and WHO in its work, and the need for Members to strengthen 
their national coordination structures on FAO, WHO and Codex.  
4.5.1.2   United States – OIE's new chapter on Porcine Reproduc tive and Respiratory 
Syndrome (PRRS)  
4.29.   The United States recalled that at the July 2017 SPS Committee meeting, it had thanked the 
OIE for its new chapter on PRRS which had been adopted at the May 2017 General Session of the 
World Assembly. The United States highlighted that this new PRRS chapter provided science -based 
guidelines to ensure safe trade in live swine and their products,  as well as clarity on the nature of 
actions to effectively manage risks associated with PRRS. The United States further observed  that 
several WTO Members continued to implement PRRS -related import restrictions which appeared 
not to reflect the new OIE guidelines and which were impacting US exporters. The United States 
indica ted that it was closely monitoring the implementation of t he new guidelines, as well as 
engaging in bilateral discussions with several Members. The United States urged Members to fully 
implement the OIE guidelines and to expeditiously remove PRRS -related restrictions that d id not 
reflect these guidelines.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 21 - 
 
  4.30.   Canada shared the concerns of the United States and underscored th e role of  science -based 
international standards  in contribut ing to a transparent and predictable trading environment for 
Members. Canada further noted that the recommendations in the chapter would help Members 
manage the risk of international transmission of PRRS and specifically highlighted the conclusion of 
the OIE Scientific Committee which found that meat is not a pathway for the transmission of PRRS 
virus and that the disease would not spread w ith the measures included in the new standards. 
Canada encouraged all Members to follow the recommendations included in the new chapter as a 
basis for their sanitary measures to address PRRS.  
4.31.   The European Union echoed the concerns of the United States and reiterated that the new 
OIE chapter on PRRS was based on science, while urging all OIE member countries to fully 
implement these guidelines. The European Union also  recalled that the OIE was currently in the 
process of setting up an observatory on the impl ementation of OIE standards by its member 
countries. The European Union indicated its support for this project and further encouraged the 
OIE to include the PRRS guidelines in its observatory work.  
4.5.2   Issues previously raised  
4.5.2.1   European Union and the United Sta tes– HPAI restrictions not consistent with the 
OIE international standard  
4.32.   The European Union shared its concerns regarding inconsistencies in the application of OIE 
international standards on regionalization in relation to HPAI outbreaks. The European Unio n 
highlighted its strict and transparent system of control, characterized by its effective early 
detection and eradication of avian influenza. The European Union explained that it applied the 
same policies and guarantees to its intra -European Union trade, as to its exports to non -European 
Union countries. In the event of an outbreak of a contagious animal disease, the potentially 
affected parties were immediately notified via several channels, including directly by the 
Commission and via the OIE's WAHIS. Th e European Union also noted that in the event of a 
prolonged disease outbreak, regular status reports were published on the European Commission – 
DG SANTE website. In addition, audit reports were published on the control systems in EU member 
States and non -EU countries importing to the European Union . The European Union assured 
trading partners of its transparent approach to sharing information on the animal health situation 
in EU member States  and further noted  that the information it had provided so far , objectively 
demonstrated the robustness of its measures , which guaranteed that safe trade could continue 
without the need for country wide bans. These measures, which were legally binding in the 
European Union and based on OIE international standards, were  aimed at containing the disease in 
the infected zone, while allowing trade of safe products from the rest of the European Union and 
exports to non -EU countries.  
4.33.   The European Union underscored that a country -wide ban was not required  whenever  there 
was an HPAI outbreak , as this type of measure was not science -based nor was it relevant in the 
context of the European Union' s single market. In addition, t he actions of some Members in 
targeting bans on wild birds only and on heat -treated products were disproportional to the level of 
risk and were not in line with OIE international standards. The European Union expressed its 
concerns regarding Members' classification of some bans as temporary, even though these  bans 
had not been lifted or had been kept i n place for extended periods. The European Union also noted 
that some Members did not provide information on the various steps of their recognition process 
for regionalization or did not inform Members of missing information required for the completion of 
the process and subsequent lifting of bans. The European Union called upon Members to comply 
with the regionalization obligations under the SPS Agreement and to follow OIE international 
standards, and allow trade of all safe products, especially from non -affected zones. The European 
Union further requested Members to immediately lift all bans, no later than three months after the 
application of stamping out procedures and disinfection of all affected premises, and to refrain 
from imposing trade restrictions  in cases where HPAI was detected in wild birds.  The European 
Union indicated its continued support for the Committee's thematic sessions on regionalization , 
which provided a forum to further discuss the proper implementation of OIE international 
standards . 
4.34.   The United States shared the concerns of the European Union, and informed Members that 
it had regained country -wide freedom from HPAI , consistent with the OIE guidelines , in August 
2017. The United States reminded Members of the importance of the HPAI gu idelines in facilitating G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 22 - 
 
  safe trade in life poultry and poultry meat . In particular, the United States highlighted that the OIE 
guidelines for avian influenza stated that free status could be regained quicker in a previously free 
country, if it applied a s tamping out policy that included disinfection of all affected establishments 
and provided that the appropriate surveillance had been undertaken. The United States noted that 
some AI -related restrictions on imports from the United States had been lifted, an d acknowle dged 
the European Union, Japan and South Africa for their actions in that regard . However, the United 
States observed  that not all Members were following the OIE guidelines, nor did they offer 
scientific justification for deviating  from the inter national standards. The United States reminded 
Members of their obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the SPS Agreement, and urged Members to 
swiftly lift HPAI -related restrictions on US exports.  
4.5.2.2   Burkina Faso – Application of ISPM 13 on notifications of no n-compliance  
4.35.   Burkina Faso reiterated it s concern s regarding the application of ISPM 13 , noting the delays 
in receiving notifications of SPS non -compliance from Members, including  from the European 
Union. Burkina Faso welcomed the COLEACP information note o n monitoring  RASFF and EUROPHYT 
notifications which provided transparency in the management of issues related to non -compliance 
with SPS measures. This would allow countries, especially those with notifications of non -
compliance through official inspection  structures, to better monitor SPS problems and propose 
solutions.  
4.36.   Canada indicated the importance of the IPPC guidelines with respect to the notification of 
non-compliance in emergency action, as set out in ISPM 1 3. Canada highlighted the requirements 
of the importing party to provide a notification to an exporting party in instances where 
consignments failed to comply with specified phytosanitary import requirements, and to report an 
emergency action taken upon the detection of a pest posing a potential t hreat. Canada 
underscored that such notifications were intended to help investigate the cause of non -compliance 
and to facilitate steps to avoid its recurrence, thereby helping exporting countries meet importing 
country requirements. Canada's approach to i ssuing and receiving such notices was set out in the 
Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Plant Health Directive D -01-06. Canada encouraged all 
Members to follow the international standard in order to prevent the spread of organisms that 
might pose a potentia l phytosanitary threat.  
4.37.   The European Union indicated its willingness to have bilateral discussions with Burkina Faso 
in order to understand its concerns  and find a solution.  
4.5.2.3   Argentina and the United States – Use of the Codex International Standard on 
Glyphosate  
4.38.   Argentina reiterated its concern that some Members were considering the possibility of 
rescinding the use of glyphosate and thereby no longer apply the Codex MRL. In particular, 
Argentina noted the ongoing debate within the European Union on the  renewal of the authorization 
of glyphosate use and the increasing uncertainty regarding the adoption of a decision to renew the 
licence for its use in the European Union, which would expire  on 15 December 2017. 
Argentina  referred to the scientific opinion s from EFSA and the European Chemicals Agency 
(ECHA), as well as risk analyses undertaken by several agencies from various countries, which all 
concluded that glyphosate could not  be classified as being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for 
reproduction. Ar gentina also noted that glyphosate had been the subject of various risk 
assessments carried out by JMPR, which provided the basis for establishing maximum residue 
limits, for subsequent adoption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Argentina acknowledged 
the concerns of various EU member States and other EU stakeholders, and echoed the need to 
ensure consumer and environmental protection, but further emphasized the fundamental 
importance of basing sanitary measures on a scientific risk assessment. In this regard, Argentina 
noted that glyphosate had been proven to be safe and effective when used correctly by farmers. 
Argentina further indicated its concern regarding the position of some EU member States to 
prohibit the use of glyphosate or to renew it for ve ry short periods, even when EU legislation 
indicated that approval for substances whose uses had been assessed to be safe, could be 
renewed up to a fifteen year period.  
4.39.   Argentina stated that a potential decision against the renewal of the approval of glyph osate, 
despite the conclusions of available scientific assessments which backed the renewal of G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 23 - 
 
  glyphosate, would lead to serious concerns about the science -based decision -making procedures in 
the European Union. In addition, Argentina highlighted the possi ble impact of the non -renewal of 
the authorization of glyphosate on the advancement of safe agricultural techniques, as well as the 
effects on international  trade and prices of grains , oilseeds  and by -products . While Argentina 
acknowledged the need to cont rol the indiscriminate use of toxic substances, it emphasized the 
importance of ensuring that SPS measures were based on scientific evidence and not more trade 
restrictive than necessary. As such, Argentina urged the European Union to comply with its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement to base decisions on scientific evidence, as set out in 
Article  3, and to swiftly proceed with the renewal of the authorization of glyphosate, in accordance 
with EU legislation. Finally, Argentina drew the Committee's attenti on to the E uropean Court of 
Justice ruling in Case C111/16 , which stated that neither  the European Commission nor 
EU member States could adopt emergency measures, such as the prohibition of genetically 
modified organisms, if it were not proven that such pr oducts may credibly present a grave risk for 
human, animal health or the environment.  
4.40.   The United States reiterated its concerns over the fact that some Members had already 
taken action, or were considering taking action, to  withdraw existing glyphosate MRL s or to  no 
longer apply the Codex MRL for glyphosate. The United States observed that some of these 
measures appeared to lack scientific justification, while noting that glyphosate had been one of the 
most rigorously studied and evaluated crop protection t ools. The United States recalled JMPR's 
conclusion that neither short -term nor long -term dietary exposure to glyphosate presented a risk 
to consumers or a public health concern. On this basis, all existing Codex MRLs had been 
reaffirmed. The United States expressed concern that actions to restrict the use of glyphosate and 
withdraw glyphosate MRLs would significantly harm international trade without any benefit to 
public health , and that such actions had the potential to underm ine Codex and its standards. 
In particular, the United States noted the ongoing delays in the European Union to renew the 
current authorization for glyphosate, and recalled that the E uropean Union had failed to reach a 
renewal decision last year, despite the conclusions by both EFSA an d JMPR that glyphosate was 
unlikely to be a human carcinogen. The United States explained that a short 18 -month extension 
had been provided, in lieu of a 15 -year renewal decision, in order to allow a third independent 
opinion by ECHA on glyphosate. In Marc h 2017, the ECHA had corroborated the findings of EFSA 
and JMPR . The United States recalled the European Union's subsequent statement in the March 
SPS Committee  meeting , where it had restated its commitment to adopt a science -based decision 
on glyphosate r enewal. However, the United States expressed concern that EU member States 
appeared to be ignoring the findings of international and European scientific authorities, as they 
had failed to reach a qualified majority at the October 2017 Standing Committee on Plants,  
Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF).  
4.41.   With the pending December 2017 expiration of the EU authorization, the United States 
reiterated its concern that EU member States had  yet to reach a decision on the renewal of 
glyphosate and that non -renewal could lead to the lowering of glyphosate MRLs to default levels in 
the European Union. The United States further noted the potential impact on crop production 
techniques, world trad e of grains and oilseeds, and the estimated net global losses to the sector, 
nearly US$7 billion dollars according to a third party impact assessment, if authorization for 
glyphosate use was withdrawn or MRLs lowered. The United States stated that separati ng 
production throughout the entire supply chain for exports to the European Union was unwarranted 
from a risk stand point, and also not feasible. In concluding, the United States observed that the 
European Union's decision had the potential to undermine r egulatory authorities around the world 
(EFSA, ECHA, JMPR), and could embolden those who reject ed the validity of independent and 
objective scientific evaluations as the basis of regulatory approvals. The United States urged the 
European Union to avoid furt her delay and to base its glyphosate renewal decision on the scientific 
findings published by European  and international authorities.  
4.42.   The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report submitted by Codex in 
G/SPS/GEN/1577/Add.1, which provided so me information on glyphosate.  
4.43.   The European Union thanked the United States and Argentina for the detailed information 
provided to the Committee, and confirmed that the current glyphosate approval was valid until the 
end of 2017. The European Union explaine d that there were ongoing discussions with EU member 
States on the renewal of the approval, on the basis of the positive opinions by EFSA and ECHA, 
and that all relevant information was available on the Europ ean Union's glyphosate webpage.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 24 - 
 
  4.44.   Australia, Brazi l, Canada, Colombia, Peru, New Zealand and Uruguay echoed the concerns of 
Argentina and the United States, and stressed the importance of scientific, risk -based decision -
making, as well as the importance of following the Codex standard. The potential impac t of the 
EU decision on world agricultural production and exports to the European Union, as well as the 
potential pest and disease issues that might arise, were also noted. Members encouraged the 
European Union to take into account the conclusions of the v arious scientific risk assessments, 
including by European authorities, in its decision -making process. Australia also raised several 
queries in relation to the likely timeline for the EU decision, the expected period of re -approval , 
how this information wo uld be communicated to trading partners , and whether a comment period 
would be provided if glyphosate approval was restricted or not renewed. Australia further 
requested the  views of the  EU Commission on its import tolerance setting process if glyphosate 
was not approved for EU use, bearing in mind the conclusions of the European Union's risk 
assessment of glyphosate and the cut -off criteria indicat ed in EU Regulation No. 11 07/2009.  
4.6  Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG  
4.45.   The Chairperson noted that he would make  a factual annual report, under his own 
responsibility, on the activities of the Committee for consideration by the Council for Trade in 
Goods (CTG) in mid -November. Members could provide comments by 7  November 2017.4 
4.7  Procedure for the Fifth Review  
4.46.   The Cha irperson invited the Secretariat to provide information on a possible process to 
launch the Fifth Review. The Secretariat recalled that the Fifth Review had been mentioned several 
times in Members' discussions, and provided background information on the Re view process in 
order to guide the Committee's consideration of the procedure for the Fifth Review. The Secretariat 
explained that Article 12.7 of the SPS Agreement manda ted the First Review of the SPS Agreement 
to be undertaken after three years. This Fir st Review had started in October 1997, with 
subsequent adoption of the report in March 1999. This had been the only Review specifically 
scheduled in the SPS Agreement, as the Agreement only indicated that subsequent reviews be 
undertaken as the need arises . However, at the 2001 Doha Ministerial Conference, a Ministerial 
Decision had been adopted which indicated that the SPS Committee review the Agreement every 
four years. As such, the Report of the Second Review had been adopted in July 2005 and the Third 
Review in March 2010. The Secretariat recalled that the process for the Fourth Review had started 
in 2013, with an expected completion date in 2014, but that the Committee had only been able to 
adopt the report at its July 2017 Committee meeting. The Secret ariat noted that this delay had 
impacted the timing of the Fifth Review , and requested the Comm ittee to indicate its views on 
returning to a four -year cycle, with the possibility  to start the Fifth Review in 2018. The Secretariat 
further explained that the  Review process normally started with the Committee requesting the 
Secretariat to prepare a procedure for the Review , indicating t imelines for various steps. 
The Secretariat highlight ed that the procedure for the last Review was available in G/SPS/W/270 
and also drew Members attention to the TBT Committee's launch of its 8th Triennial Review and 
adopted timeline in JOB/TBT/235.  
4.47.   The United States sought clarification on whether the Fifth Review process would start at 
the request of a Member , with consensus f rom the Committee. The Secretariat clarified the 
procedure and time -frame for past Reviews, highlighting that the Committee would normally 
request, by consensus, the preparation of a timeline, for subsequent agreement by the 
Committee. The United States fu rther suggested that Members could consider the information 
provided by the Secretariat, with a view to reviewing a proposed timeline  in the March 2018  
meeting of the  SPS Committee.  
4.48.   The European Union further requested clarification on the launch of the procedure for the 
Fifth Review and the submission of  specific proposals by Members.  
4.49.   The Chairperson requested the Committee to indicate whether it was in agreement with the 
preparation  of a draft timeline by the Secretariat for consideration and discussion at the March 
2018 Committee meeting. The Committee agreed  to this approach.5 
                                                
4 The report was circulated as document G/L/1202 on 8 November 2017.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 25 - 
 
  5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1  Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs): Recommendations for 
Endorsement by the SPS Committee – Proposal by Kenya, Uganda and the United States 
(G/SPS/W/292/Rev.1)  
5.1.1   Report of the Informal Meeting  
5.1.  The Chairperson reported  on the relevant discussions at informal meeting that had been held 
on 1 November 2017.  
5.2.  The Chairperson remind ed Members that Kenya, Uganda and the United States had first 
submitted their proposal for follow -up steps to the Workshop on Pesticide MRLs (G/SPS/W/292) in 
March of this year. The proposal had been discussed in informal consultations in June and at the 
formal and informal Committee meetings in July. A revised proposal  had been circulated on 
3 October, which addressed comments received from Members. It suggested that the 
SPS Committee include the recommendations contained in the proposal in the future Repo rt of the 
Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement. It also suggested that the 
Committee endorse a proposed Ministerial Decision annexed to the proposal for transmission to 
MC11.  
5.3.  The revised version had also been discussed at infor mal consultations held on 10 and 
18 October. At the consultations, a majority of Members had supported the proposal. Several 
Members had indicated that they were still studying it, and some had made specific comments. 
Several Members had asked about the pr oposed process for the possible adoption of the Ministerial 
Decision. The proponents had again revised the proposal. Revision 2 had subsequently been 
circulated on Monday  30 October 2017 , along with a compilation of comments that had been 
received, a track -changes version explaining how comments had been considered, and a separate 
response to India's comments.  
5.4.  Regarding the process, the Chairperson  had explained that, according to his understanding, 
the SPS Committee would agree to forward the proposed Mini sterial Decision to the Council for 
Trade in Goods, if there was consensus, from where it would subsequently go to the General 
Council, and then the Ministerial Conference.  
5.5.  The authors of the proposal had again emphasized the importance of the Committee's work 
on pesticide MRLs since the workshop in October 2016. They had stressed the trade disruptions 
caused by missing and misaligned MRLs, and the urgency of stepping up efforts to find solutions to 
these concerns. They had proposed taking  this work of the Committee to a higher level , which  
would give momentum to the important task of resolving MRL -related trade concerns, and would  
also contribute to reinvigorating the work of the Committee.  
5.6.  Many Members had taken the floor to react to the proposal. Virtuall y all of them had 
supported the recommendations contained in the proposal, and there had been broad s upport to 
include these in the r eport of the Fifth Review. Many had indicated that they also faced trade 
concerns related to pesticide MRLs. One Member had  indicated that the recommendations in the 
proposal did not fully address its concerns related to application of default MRLs at levels of 
detection; this Member could not support the adoption of the recommendations.  
5.7.  There had also been  a lot of support fo r the Ministerial Decision from most Members who had 
taken the floor. Four Members had indicated that they were not in a position to support it. 
Their concerns had related to the timing of the proposal, the merits of singling out a single topic 
for Ministe rs' attention, and the existence of a mandate. One Member had raised questions for 
clarification inter alia  on the title of the proposed Decision, its scope, some of the terminology 
used, and the desire to avoid duplication. A couple of Members had made te xtual suggestions, and 
had been invited to submit them in writing.  
                                                                                                                                                  
5 The Proposed Process for the Fifth Review was circulated in document G/SPS/W/296  on 19 December 
2017.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 26 - 
 
  5.8.  At the end of the exchanges, Members had expressed the desire to continue the discussion, 
and the Chairperson had convened an open -ended consultation in the afternoon to give a smaller 
group of Members the opportunity for a frank exchange of vie ws. At these consultations, 
the Chairperson had first invited Members to focus on the recommendations for inclusion in the  
report of the  Fifth Review, where consensus seemed close. The Chairperson  had noted that one 
Member indicated that the recommendations did not solve its concern related to application of 
limits of detection. Yet the authors of the proposal had indicated that in their view this concern, 
many aspects of which they shared, had bee n addressed. Although Members had engaged in the 
discussions and several had explained their views in more detail, it was not possible to bridge the 
gap. 
5.9.  In concluding his report of the informal meeting,  the Chairperson  recalled that he  had invited 
Members  to continue engaging with their capitals and with each other, with a view to finding a 
solution.  
5.10.   Kenya expressed its appreciation for the constructive engagement and support from the 
majority of Members, as well as the efforts of the Chairperson to facili tate discussions. However, 
Kenya also expressed its disappointment that, despite concerted efforts and flexibility on the part 
of several Members, the Committee was not able to reach a consensus to include the proposed 
recommendations in the report of the Fifth Review. Kenya recalled that the recommendations 
focused on voluntary cooperative actions by the SPS Committee to reduce MRL -related trade 
barriers identified in discussions during the Workshop on Pesticide MRLs. Kenya was of the opinion 
that the reco mmendations captured ways in which Members could, on a voluntary basis, support 
the critical efforts to address missing and misaligned MRLs that constrained the smooth flow of 
trade. Kenya also expressed disappointment that there was  no consensus on the pr oposed 
Ministerial Decision, despite the flexibility shown by certain Members. In Kenya's view, the 
endorsement of such a Decision would help to raise the profile of MRL -related issues in the work of 
the Committee and inject momentum towards resolving MRL -related trade problems which were of 
concern to many Members, particularly developing countries. Kenya further noted the lost 
opportunity to reinvigorate the work of the Committee, in line with paragraph 29 of the Nairobi 
Declaration. Kenya indicated its w illingness to further engage with Members and urged those with 
reservations, to show flexibility in order to reach consensus on the proposal.  
5.11.   Uganda echoed the statements made by Kenya and similarly voiced  its disappointment  that 
the Committee had been una ble to reach  consensus on the proposal, which would have had a 
direct and beneficial effect to all Members. Uganda explained that, at the E ast African Community  
level, it had been harmonizing its MRLs for horticultural products with that of Codex, and 
encouraged countries to similarly harmonize their MRLs, instead of using LODs or default levels. 
Uganda noted the challenges it faced in exporting horticultural products due to the MRL -setting 
practices of major trading partners, which ran counter to t he harmonization approach encouraged 
by the WTO SPS and TBT Agreements.  Uganda urged the SPS Committee to play a proactive role, 
in line with paragraph 29 of the Nairobi Ministerial decision, in energizing global efforts to address 
MRL concerns that result  in trade distortions and barriers to export. Uganda underscored that the 
task of addressing these MRL -related issues would immensely benefit from an indication of high -
level support, such as through a Ministerial endorsement . Uganda further indicated that  there was 
great interest by developing countries to gain access to lower risk pesticides, especially for minor 
crops, as well as to establish Codex MRLs for those older generic substances for which there were 
no health risks of concern. Finally, Uganda ur ged Members to include  the recommendations in 
the report of the  Fifth Review, and to endorse the Ministerial Decision for transmission to the 
Ministerial Conference in December 2017.  
5.12.   Argentina, Australia, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica , Liberia , 
Madagascar, Nigeria, Peru, Senegal, Turkey and Uruguay expressed their support for the proposal, 
both the draft Ministerial Decision, as well as the inclusion of the recommendations in the Fifth 
Review. Several of these Members indicated that th e proposal and its recommendations broadly 
captured the current MRL -related concerns and noted that the proposal would be beneficial to all 
Members. Several  Members also thanked the proponents for the transparent and consultative 
approach used throughout t he process, highlighting that these discussions had started a year ago, 
on the basis of deliberations in the Workshop on Pesticide MRLs, followed by informal discussions 
in several meetings. In addition, it was noted that the topic of pesticide MRLs merite d 
consideration at the Ministerial Conference.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 27 - 
 
  5.13.   Ukraine expressed its interest in the issue and thanked the proponents for their proposal, 
noting the importance of transparency in Members' regulatory approach for pesticide MRLs.  
5.14.   India thanked the proponent' s for their written response to its comments. India highlighted 
that Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement allowed Members to provisionally adopt SPS measures on 
the basis of available pertinent information, including that from the relevant international 
organi zations, as well as from SPS measures applied by other Members. However, Members could 
not arbitrarily apply MRLs at LOD, which had an adverse trade effect on developing country 
Members. India restated its concerns regarding default MRLs and LODs as contai ned in its earlier 
document  (G/SPS/W/284) , which remained unaddressed in the revised proposal by the 
proponents. India was of the view that the proposal  required further discussion and indicated that 
it would continue to work with the proponents to substan tively address its concerns. India noted 
that until the discussions in the SPS Committee were exhausted, it would be premature to submit 
recommendations for the Fifth Review or to the CTG.  
5.15.   The United States expressed regret for the lost opportunity to adva nce the propos ed 
Ministerial Decision , which would have been beneficial to all Members, particularly to developing 
and least developed countries. The United States observed that the lack of consensus was not 
based on the merit of the proposal , and further noted several arguments raised by opponents of 
the Ministerial Decision. With respect to the perceived lack of mandate for the Ministerial Decision, 
the United States noted that Article 12 of the SPS Agreement estab lished the authority of the 
SPS Committee  and that the mandate elaborated under the Doha Development Agenda, and 
assigned to negotiating groups, did not alter the authority given to the SPS Committee under the 
SPS Agreement. In relation to the perceived lack of authority of the SPS Committee and lack of 
precedence for this action, the United States reminded the Committee of the text of Article 12.1. 
In this regard, t he United States highlighted that the recommendations in the proposal sought to 
strengthen the implementation of several provisions o f the Agreement, such as Articles 3, 5, 7, 8 
and 12. The United States also recalled that it had requested the Committee to agree , by 
consensus, to include the recommendations in the  report of the  Fifth Review and to put forward a 
Ministerial Decision. The  United States further  noted that other standing bodies, such as the Trade 
Policy Review Mechanism and TRIPS Council, had transmitted decisions for adoption at pr evious 
Ministerial Conferences.  
5.16.   With respect to the perceived number of other issues under dis cussion at MC11, the United 
States expressed concern  whether this argument could provide sufficient justification for blocking a 
Ministerial Decision of merit to many Members, instead of constructively engaging in discussions 
on the proposal. On the percei ved late submission of the proposal on 3 October 2017 and 
insufficient  time for a Ministerial Decision, the United States noted that the issue had been under 
discussion for two years. In addition, the proponents of the proposal had conducted a transparent 
year-long process of consultations on the issue. With respect to the issue of LODs, the United 
States believed that the proponents had addressed  the issue  through a written response and 
during b ilateral discussions. However, the United States noted that the opposing Member had 
maintained that its concern had not been addressed, and as such, the United States was of the 
view that the burden was on th at Member to provide its reasoning, in order to facilitate 
understanding with a view to making the necessary adjustments. Finally, the United States 
expressed its deep appreciation for the collaborative efforts of many Members through the open, 
in-depth and transparent process of engagement in building consensus on the MRL proposal.  
5.17.   The Russian Federation noted that such a high -level political decision should not be rushed 
and that it was not appropriate to raise the issue at the upcoming 2017 Ministerial Conference, 
while Members still had additional qu estions on the wording  and scope of the Decision. 
The Russian Federation expressed its interest in engaging in further consultations with Members  to 
reach  a consensus,  as well as holding bilateral discussions with the proponents on the wording of 
the propo sal. 
5.18.   China acknowledged the scientific and representative basis of the proposal, and its benefit 
to Members. China expressed its intention to actively participate in discussions and hoped that its 
suggested amendments would be added to the revised proposal . China indicated that its capital 
was currently reviewing the proposed Ministerial Decision and that it would constructive ly 
participate in discussions.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 28 - 
 
  5.19.   The Chairperson noted the extensive support for the proposal and general  willingness by 
Members to con tinue exploring how to build consensus around this proposal, which appeared to be 
important for the majority  of Members . The Chair further indicated his availability, and that of the 
Secretariat, to continue providing a  forum for further discussions.  
5.2  Catal ogue of Instruments available to manage SPS issues – Proposal by Canada and 
Kenya (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2, RD/SPS/16)  
5.2.1   Report of the Informal Meeting  
5.20.   The Chairperson continued to report on the informal meeting that had been held on 
1 November 2017.  
5.21.   The Chairpers on had recalled the long history of discussions since the document had been 
first circulated in June 2014. He had stressed that everyone had agreed that the Catalogue was an 
extremely useful document; the only disagreement had been over the inclusion of di sclaimer 
langua ge to clarify its legal status.  
5.22.   In July, a large majority of Members had indicated that they could accept a "soft" 
disclaimer, although one Member had preferred a more far -reaching version. The Committee had 
decided to try a new approach, co mbining an introductory paragraph clarifying the intended use of 
the Catalogue with a soft disclaimer. The new language had been circulated in room document 
RD/SPS/16. The Chairperson had asked delegates to consult with their capitals, and to send 
comments  before 15 September. The Chairperson had also announced that if no comments were 
received, he would propose the Catalogue for adoption at the present meeting.  
5.23.   The Chairperson had further noted that on 15 September 2017, one Member had submitted 
comments i ndicating that systemic concerns regarding the inclusion of disclaimers in Committee 
documents persisted. The Chairperson had consulted with several delegations, and had asked 
Members for suggestions at the consultations held on 10 and 18 October. While th ere had been no 
new suggestions, it was clear that Members wished to continue working towards consensus.  
5.24.   At the informal meeting, the Chairperson had also indicated that the Committee had heard 
the arguments of both sides many times. He had reminded Member s of the creativity and flexibility 
they had shown in adopting the Report of the Fourth Review in July, and had asked them to use 
these qualities to also resolve this subject. This would allow the Committee to focus on the new 
topics it had embarked on, an d those it might include in the work programme of the Fifth Review.  
5.25.   One Member had explained its systemic concerns over the  inclusion of disclaimers. 
This Member had been concerned about setting a precedent with the inclusion of a disclaimer. 
Referring to jurisprudence, the Member had explained that Committee documents did not create 
new obligations. Panels had taken Committee decisions into account when interpreting the covered 
agreements, regardless of whether the decision in question cont ained a disclaim er or not. 
This Member had asked others to take a broader perspective, and requested those who were 
requesting a disclaimer for an explanation of their concerns to justify this request. In addition, 
this Member had suggested an exchange with legal experts from the Secretariat to explain the 
interpretation of Committee decisions and disclaimers. This suggestion had been supported by one 
of the authors of the document, who also thought it could be helpful.  
5.26.   Many Members had taken the floor to reiterate their s upport for the Catalogue, and their 
wish to see it adopted. They had stressed the usefulness of the document, especially for 
developing countries, and had been frustrated that the disclaimer issue was holding it up. 
Some  had indicated that they had shown f lexibility in their positions, and most had been willing to 
adopt the Catalogue with the introductory language proposed in July.  
5.27.   In summing up, the Chair person had indicated that in his view, if adding a disclaimer did 
not have a big influence on the inter pretation of a Committee document in a possible dispute, then 
it would be a pity to hold up the adoption of such a document in a situation where there was 
consensus on the substance. The Chairperson had asked the Secretariat to enquire about the 
possibilit y of arranging a conversation with legal experts to help Members understand the legal 
implications of disclaimers.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 29 - 
 
  5.28.   The Chairperson informed Members that the Secretary of the Committee had subsequently 
consulted with experts from the Legal Affairs Division who, although they could not attend the 
current Committee meeting, would be present  to provide information  at the March 2018 
Committee.  
5.29.   The Chairperson further informed the Committee that , by way of general background for 
Members, the Legal Affairs Divisio n had advised that there ha d been no attempt by panels or the 
Appellate Body to develop a general body of jurisprudence relating to "disclaimers" as such, or a 
general body of jurisprudence relating to the legal status of Comm ittee documents as such. 
Panels  and the Appellate Body ha d instead taken an ad hoc approach, and refrained from making 
any broad pronouncements on the legal status of disclaimers or Committee documents, on 
whether differences in the language used in different disclaimers or Commit tee documents impl ied 
different legal consequences, or on how Members should formulate disclaimers or Committee 
documents to achieve certain objectives.  
5.30.   Canada expressed its disappointment that, despite Members' broad support for the concept 
and substance of the catalogue of instruments, the issue of a disclaimer had stalled the adoption  
of the catalogue  for three years. Canada further noted that the disclaimer issue had been 
discussed more than the actual substance of the document. Canada expressed appreci ation to the 
Members who had shown significant flexibility and who had departed from their systemic concerns, 
in order to move forward in a positive and constructive manner. In preparing for the March 2018 
meeting, Canada noted that the impasse and continu ous debate on this issue was distracting the 
Committee from starting other valuable work, and queried whether the Committee would be able 
to agree on any guidance in the future. Canada appealed to opponents to reconsider their position, 
and indicated that it might have to change its approach towards this document, if it w as not 
adopted in the next meeting.  
5.31.   Kenya similarly echoed Canada's statements, noting its disappointment that the Committee 
could not reach consensus on the catalogue, which was a referenc e document to advance the work 
of the Committee. Kenya expressed appreciation to those Members who had supported the 
document and urged those Members with reservations to show flexibility in order for th e 
Committee to reach consensus.  
5.32.   Nigeria recalled the flexibility it had shown in its previous position, as well as other African 
countries, by supporting the soft language indicated in the Chairperson's proposed text 
(RD/SPS/16). Nigeria proposed that the Committee move forward with the adoption of the 
catalogue, on the basis of t he Chairperson's proposed text.  
5.33.   Mexico took the floor to reiterate its support for the catalogue of instruments  and for the 
Committee's continued work on this issue . Mexico  reiterated concerns about  the legal 
consequences of includin g a disclaimer in this document, as well as the implications for  previous 
and future documents. Mexico requested the proponents of the disclaimer to provide arguments 
for its inclusion , and also noted that the inclusion of the disclaimer could have legal a nd systemic 
consequences for the work of the SPS and other WTO Committees. Mexico further invited the 
Committee to analy ze the issue from a broader perspective , and further observed that certain 
language in the Dispute Settlement Understanding continued to  provide grounds for its concerns. 
Mexico indicated that its capital was still reviewing the  Chair's  proposed language and expressed 
its willingness to remain open to dialogue and to participate constructively on this issue.  
5.34.   The Chairperson reminded Member s that experts from the Legal Affairs Division would be 
present at the March 2018 SPS Committee  meeting . He expressed  disappointment with the lack of 
consensus among  Members  on the Catalogue of I nstruments , despite overwhe lming support for 
the document.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 30 - 
 
  6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE A ND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities  
6.1.  The WTO Secretariat provided an overview of the technical assistance activities  held since the 
last SPS Committee meeting in July 2017. These activities included two nat ional seminars held in 
Jordan and Montenegro, and the Workshop on Transparency held in Geneva. More general training 
on the SPS Agreement had also been provided in the following activities: a WTO Advanced Trade 
Policy Course in Geneva (in English); four WT O Regional Trade Policy Courses held for Latin 
America (in Ecuador), French -speaking Africa (in C ôte d'Ivoire), Arab Countries, and for Asia and 
the Pacific (in Thailand); a Workshop on Agriculture for LDCs held in Geneva (in English and 
French); and several workshops organized by the Swedish International Development Cooperation 
Agency held in Stockholm.  
6.2.  The Secretariat further announced that national seminars would be held for Argentina, 
Bangladesh, Colombia and Papua New Guinea before the end of the  year. National Seminars were 
also being scheduled for Belarus, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, S aint Kitts and Nevis, and Tunisia . 
The Secretariat also announced that the follow -up WTO Regional SPS Workshop for Arab countries, 
which had initially been schedule d to be held in November 2017, had been postponed until April 
2018. Additional information on this workshop would be provided at a later stage.  
6.3.  The Secretariat also drew Members' attention to the 2017 Advanced SPS Course that was 
currently under way, in En glish, and acknowledged the presence of the participants attending the 
Committee meetings. It was the thirteenth consecutive year that this course had been offered, and 
23 officials from developing and least developed countries had bee n selected to partici pate. 
This was a unique WTO training activity since it not only focused on tr ansmitting knowledge on the 
SPS Agreement and the SPS Committee, but also on identifying actions to address specific 
implementation challenges and opportunities at the national le vel. Throughout the course, each 
participant developed an action plan, to be implemented upon their return to their countries . 
This implementation was monitored by coaches, and thr ough a follow -up session about nine  
months after the course. The Secretariat  thanked the Chairperson and the delegates who had 
shared their knowledge and experiences during the Advanced Course, as well as the participating 
organizations (Codex, IPPC, OIE, ACWL, ITC, UNIDO), WTO and STDF colleagues, and the external 
consultants, Mr  João Magalhães and Mr Kevin Walker.  
6.4.  The Secretariat recalled that the E -Learning Course on the SPS Agreement was available 
year-round in the three WTO official languages. Further information on SPS Technical Assistance 
activities could be obtained on the WTO website (under trade -related technical assistance), or by 
contacting the Secretariat for additional clarification and assistance.  
6.5.  The Chairperson thanked the Advanced SPS Course participants for their engagement and 
active involvement throughout the co urse. 
6.6.  Montenegro expressed its appreciation to the WTO Secretariat for its assistance in organizing 
Montenegro's first national SPS seminar. This activity, which had been  held on 3 -5 October 2017 
with the participation of SPS resource persons, focused on t he operation and implementation of 
the SPS Agreement, the role of international standards and food safety, the work of the 
SPS Committee a nd the use of SPS online tools.  
6.7.  Pakistan thanked the Secretariat for the four -day national SPS seminar which had been held 
the previous  year. The objective of this seminar had been  to enhance  the SPS knowledge and 
expertise of stakeholders, policy makers and government officials in order to better understand 
and implement the SPS Agreement. The seminar had also sought to strengthen the capacity of 
officials to engage in the work of the SPS Committee. Pakistan commended the WTO's SPS 
technical assistance programme and encouraged developing country Members to make greater use 
of its training opportunities.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 31 - 
 
  6.8.  Belize expressed i ts appreciation to the WTO for funding the participation of one of its officials 
in the 2017 Advanced SPS Course. This course would greatly benefit Belize and would allow it, as 
well as other participating countries, to make positive contributions in the S PS arena.  
6.9.  Nigeria acknowledged the Secretariat's detailed report on SPS technical assistance activities 
and confirmed that Nigerian officials had benefitted from some of th e mentioned activities. 
Nigeria  further indicated that it had submitted a training r equest for a national seminar to be held 
the following  year. 
6.10.   Finally, the Secretariat indicated that it was currently in the process of reviewing and 
planning ahead for 2018 technical assistance activities. In this regard, the Secretariat recalled that 
every year a SPS Thematic Workshop was organized by the Secretariat with funding from ITTC. 
This workshop would normally be held in October, however, given the packed schedule of activities 
around the October meeting (i.e. STDF Working Group, Thematic Worksho p, formal and informal 
SPS Committee meetings , Advanced SPS Course ), the Secretariat proposed the idea of instead 
holding the next year's workshop in July. Members were asked to provide their views on this 
suggestion via e -mail to the Secretariat, and also  to submit any ideas on possible topics for the 
workshop. The Secretariat indicated that there would be another opportunity to discuss the topic 
of the workshop in th e March 2018 Committee meeting.  
6.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1581)  
6.11.   The STDF Secretariat provided an ove rview of its activities, as circulated in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1581. The STDF highlighted its information session on options, costs and the 
feasibility  of FMD control in the context of livestock trade, which was held on the margins of the 
SPS Committee, where the results of two STDF -funded studies, requested by Zimbabwe and 
Tanzania, were presented ( http://www.standardsfacility.org/costs -and-benefits -fmd-control -
context -livestock -trade ). On the margins of the 6th Global Aid for Trade Review in July 2017, the 
STDF had also held an information session on transitioning from paper based to automated SPS 
systems ( http://www.standardsfacility.org/A4T_Review_2017 ). The STDF further announced that 
it had recently approved a project in the Working Group to assess the state of play on electronic 
veterinary certification with OIE as the project lead, and the involvement of FAO and World Bank. 
The STDF  drew attention to its briefing note on SPS capacity evaluation tools 
(http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Briefing_14.pdf ). 
6.12.   The STDF provided information on the preliminary results of its survey on good regulatory 
practices, developed with inputs from FAO, WTO, OIE, United States and OECD, which  sought to 
gather information on how SPS agencies in developing countries apply good regulatory practices to 
strengthen the development, implementation and review of SPS measures. A preliminary report 
would be made available on the STDF website, to be foll owed by a detailed report and discussions 
in the Working Group. In terms of future activities, the STDF planned to  identify case stories on 
the use of good regulatory practice and suggested holding a thematic session on the margins of 
the SPS Committee mee ting, if Members were interested. The STDF further indicated that  the 
Working Group had approved two new project preparation grants and five new project grants . 
The STDF thanked all its donors – Australia, Canada, European Commission, France, Finland, 
Germ any, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Chinese Taipei and the United States – 
for their continued support. The STDF also recognized the  interest expressed by the EIF to co-fund 
some of these projects,  and further noted  that the demand for capaci ty building activities far 
outweighed the available resources  in the trust fund . This had resulted in the Working Group not 
being able to approve all new project applications for funding.  
6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   Senegal - Technical assistance request for control of fall armyworm and other 
pests; improvement of monitoring infrastructure; and risk analysis capacity  
6.13.   Senegal drew Members' attention to the fall armyworm threat in African countries, noting 
that this pest had been detected in Senegal in August 20 17. Senegal indicated that it had 
increased its surveillance and phytosanitary controls;  however, given the speed with which the 
pest was spreading, there was need for joint support  and a regional approach to undertake  
research and control methods to fight  this pest. Senegal recognized the support of partners, such G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 32 - 
 
  as USAID, and further highlighted the need for extra assistance in undertaking risk assessments, 
and improving technical facilities and surveillance structures f or monitoring products. 
Senegal  further expressed concern about the impact this pest would have on important export 
products which we re at risk, such as sweet corn.  
6.14.   Togo informed the Committee that the fall army worm had been detected in Togo in 2016, 
and that despite efforts to fight the pest using chemicals, the problem still persisted. As such, Togo 
echoed the calls made by Senegal to have greater regional support in order to fight this pest in a 
coordinated  manner.  
6.2.2   Senegal - Cooperation on phytosanitary protocol with Malaysia  
6.15.   Senegal sh ared information on the development of its cooperative efforts with Malaysia for 
the trade of agricultural products, such as mango, rice, peanuts and cattle cake. Senegal explained 
that with respect to peanuts, it had already finalized and submitted its re quest  for market access 
to the Malaysian market. Senegal further indicated that it had recently received an invitation from 
the Malaysian government to visit Malaysia, with a view to concluding a co -operation protocol.  
Senegal thanked Malaysia for the inte rest shown in trading agri cultural products with Senegal.  
6.16.   Malaysia acknowledged the market access request submitted by Senegal for several 
agricultural products, and indicated that the Malaysian Department of Agriculture had requested 
Senegal to provide technical documents for the pest risk analysis. Malaysia expressed its 
appreciation for Senegal's interest in exporting to Malaysia, and indicated its willingness to 
continue bilateral discussions with Senegal.  
6.2.3   Burkina Faso – Technical assistance received  
6.17.   Burkina Faso thanked the European Union, African Union and other partners for the 
technical and financial assistance provided to African countries, in order  to participat e in the 
SPS Committee meeting and the Workshop on Transparency. Burkina Faso also expressed 
appreciation to the United States, particularly USAID and APHIS, for facilitating its participation in 
a workshop held in October on practical tools for phytosanitary inspection, which had assisted in 
the identification of crop harming pests, and  allowed the drafting of a manual for best practices to 
deal with these issues.  
6.2.4   United States – Report on technical assistance (G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.12)  
6.18.   The United States reported on its sponsored technical assistance provided to developing and 
newly acceding  countries to support their implementation of the SPS Agreement, from October 
2014 to September 2016 (G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.12). The United States highlighted various 
bilateral and regional capacity building activities, such as: the workshop on "Better Food Sa fety 
Regulation through Increased Transparency and Public Consultation" held together with APEC 
experts and industry representatives in 2016; a recently concluded five -year animal health project 
with AU -IBAR on improved animal health,  trade relationships a nd communication in IGAD 
countries; ongoing technical assistance on integrated pest management and other good 
agricultural practices in Guatemala; and training programmes organized in collaboration with IICA 
and local partners aimed at helping Latin Americ an and Caribbean producers to understand FSMA 
requirements. The United States indicated its commitment to provide demand -driven, results -
oriented and sustainable programmes, and further welcomed input on the type of projects that 
would be of interest to Me mbers. The United States looked forward to continuing its capacity 
building efforts, and cooperating with the STDF on cross -cutting SPS programmes.  
6.2.5   Canada – Report on technical assistance to developing country Members  
6.19.   Canada provided an overview of its tec hnical assistance activities delivered to developing 
countries, as contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1584. Canada indicated that it had delivered or 
initiated 15 SPS -related technical assistance projects in 2016, targeting various geographic regions 
and amou nting to approximately US$15.83  million. This assistance addressed three of the four 
broad categories included in G/SPS/GEN/206, namely: information, training, and 'soft' 
infrastructural development.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 33 - 
 
  6.2.6   Madagascar – Report on technical assistance received  
6.20.   Madagascar reported on the technical assistance received through various partners and 
initiatives, such as: a SADC project funded by Africa's Solidarity Trust Fund; FAO technical 
assistance to update its phytosanitary law , in line with IPPC standards;  and FAO technical 
assistance for drafting national prevention strategies and a contingency plan for three cross border 
diseases. Technical assistance had also been received in drafting a national bio -security strategy 
for aquatic species and a handbook on inspect ions of foodstuffs. The IPPC had also  provided 
technical support to the NPPO in the use of the PCE tool, which had led to the drafting of a 
phytosanitary strategic plan. Madagascar further requested technical assistance in implementing 
measures to prevent and fight against the main emerging cross border dis eases and pests, e.g. fall 
armyworm, avian influenza, FMD.  
6.2.7   Nigeria – Report on technical assistance received  
6.21.   Nigeria acknowledged the SPS -related capacity building activities provided by various 
organizat ions such as AU -IBAR and WTO Secretariat, to enhance its  effective participat ion in the 
SPS Committee. UNIDO, with funding from the European Union, had also supported its national 
quality infrastructure . In addition , Nigeria recognized USDA  assistance in t he review of Nigeria's 
Food Safety Policy and FAO  support in the preparation of Nigeria's Food Safety Bill . Nigeria 
highlighted that it would also benefit from two initiatives of the World Bank Group : Livestock 
Productivity and Resilience Support , and Live stock Micro -Reforms in Agri -Business. Nigeria called 
upon donors to provide additional funds, where possible, and to channel these funds through 
regional organizations like ECOWAS and AU -IBAR, which provide d more direct support to African 
countries.  
7  CONCER NS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
7.1.  Belize informed the Committee of its participation in a government to government meeting 
held in Texas, United States in February 2017, with the support of FAO. At this meeting, Belize 
delivered its intervention on "Existing models of collaboration between public and private sectors 
and the risk of obfuscating roles in the governance of food safety" , where it had shared its view 
that giving third party certification higher leverage than certification by competent aut horities, 
result ed in the marginalization of competent authorities and the c reation of parallel systems. 
In Belize's view, the private sector could play a complimentary role to that of the public sector, but 
it should be on the basis of good practices and with regulatory oversight. Belize indicated that the 
subsequent discussions during this meeting had highlighted some examples of the successful use 
of third party certification schemes to compl ement the work of governments in ensuring food 
safety. However,  it had not been clear whether regulatory oversight had been in place  or how this 
had been achieved.  
7.2.  Given the standing agenda item on "Private and Commercial Standards", Belize suggested 
that the Committee could benefit from similar discussions, either th rough a workshop or thematic 
session, where Members could volunteer to share their diverse perspectives and experiences. 
Belize observed that a better understanding of the subject matter would help to advance the 
Committee's work on that agenda item and fu rther encouraged Members to support such an event, 
and to volunteer to share their experiences on the topic.  
7.3.  Nigeria reiterated its view that the use of international standards should continue to be the 
basis for assessing the requirements of export produc ts. Nigeria further noted that any attempt to 
impose the use or consideration of private and commercial standards as a requirement for exports, 
would be an impediment to African countries, including Nigeria, in accessing export markets.  
7.4.  The European Union recalled its previously stated position that private standards do not fall 
within the scope of the SPS Agreement. The European Union  highlighted  that private standards  
was a standing agenda item and noted  its support for the idea of having discussions in t he context 
of a thematic session to clarify matters on private standards, while also stating that its support for 
a thematic session on the issue did not contradict its well -known position. In particular, the 
European Union saw merit in focusing discussion s on third party certification, and further observed 
that similar discussions were taking place in Codex and in other fora. The European Union 
suggested that it would be useful to hear Members' views on the implications and practical cases G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 34 - 
 
  of certification  practices, as well as views from private certification bodies or those setting 
standards in the private sector.  
7.5.  The United States echoed the European Union's caveat regarding the scope of the SPS 
Agreement in relation to private standards. The United Stat es indicated that several of its agencies 
had participated in the government to government meeting  held in Houston and that it had 
received constructive reports about the discussions. The United States welcomed the report from 
Belize and indicated its will ingness to relay the suggestion of a thematic session, and the other 
ideas by the European Union, back to ca pital for further consideration . 
7.6.  Canada and Brazil also expressed willingness to consider the suggestion of the thematic 
session, subjec t to views f rom their capitals.  
7.7.  The Chairperson noted that this was the first time that this idea had been raised and 
indicated that he looked forward to seeing how this suggesti on would evolve in the future.  
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from observer organizations  
8.1.1   ECOWAS  
8.1.  ECOWAS reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, through document 
G/SPS/GEN/1574. ECOWAS provided an update on its efforts to implement a number of 
agreements aimed at supporting the free movement of goods, services and people throughout th e 
ECOWAS region. The coordination role played by ECOWAS had enabled the adoption of 
harmonized regulations on the framework and operational rules related to human, animal and 
plant health and food safety; establishment  of a Regional Task Force for Surveill ance, Prevention 
and Control of Crop Pests with support from USDA -APHIS; capacity building on Codex -related 
activities for ECOWAS members; capacity building activities in Cote d'Ivoire with focus on border 
inspection; and ECOWAS' increased participation in SPS Committee meetings and various Codex 
meetings. ECOWAS thanked USAID, USDA and USDA -APHIS and all partners for their continued 
support,  and requested the extension of SPS support to 12 member States of ECOWAS under the 
US-Africa Trade initiative, as only three were currently being supported.  
8.1.2   CAHFSA  
8.2.  The Chairperson drew attention to the report submitted by CAHFSA contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/157 5. 
8.1.3   IGAD  
8.3.  IGAD reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, through document 
G/SPS/GEN/1576. IGAD shared information on the technical support provided to its member 
States from July to October 2017 . This  included: the development of a regional policy brief to 
enhance SPS compliance within IGAD member States , based on a validated regional SPS strategy ; 
development of an aligned national PPR strategy with continental, global and regional PPR control 
strateg y; and development of a regional animal health strategy, and regional contingency and 
emergency plan to roll out these strategies. IGAD also thanked USAID for supporting its member 
States on trade enhancement and transboundary disease control.  
8.1.4   OIRSA  
8.4.  OIRSA reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee , through document 
G/SPS/GEN/1578. OIRSA highlighted the celebration of Regional Da y for Agricultural Health on 
29 October 2017, where discussions on food safety and plant protection had been  held. 
In particular, OIRSA noted the regional activities carried out by its member States for the last 
74 years, particularly El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic and 
Guatemala , which had  result ed in a positive effect on the SPS situa tion in the region . OIRSA  also 
provided information on its first course on analyzing risk in food items  and its various activities to G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 35 - 
 
  support the understanding of the SPS Agreement , as well as acknowledged its  excellent  working 
relationship with the OIE, I PPC and Codex.  
8.1.5   IICA  
8.5.  IICA reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, through document 
G/SPS/GEN/1580. IICA drew the Committee's attention to the election of its 11th Director General , 
Manuel Otero from Argentina,  who would assume the post o n 15 January 2018. IICA provided an 
update on its upcoming activities which included working with USDA -FAS, USDA -APHIS and IICA 
member countries in Latin America and Caribbean to hold a strategic session  in March 2018  to 
review draft OIE standards and prep are for the OIE World Assembly of Delegates; and launching 
an SPS leadership programme for Latin America in February  2018, in collaboration with the United 
Nations -mandated University for Peace Centre  for Executive Education, with USDA -FAS funding . 
IICA thanked the United States and Canada for their continued support of agricultural health and 
food safety capacity building in the Americas.  
8.6.  Belize expressed appreciation for IICA's technical assistance in  the area of  animal health and 
food safety, particula rly in funding their participation in the 20th meeting of the Codex Committee 
on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables held in Kampala, Uganda in October 2017.  This had enabled Belize 
to contribute to the development of important Codex standards, as well as to learn  more about 
Codex work in this area.  
8.1.6   OECD  
8.7.  OECD reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, through document s 
G/SPS/GEN/1588 and G/SPS/GEN/1589. OECD drew Members' attention to the several areas of 
work being undertaken by various OECD Commi ttees on international regulatory cooperation, and 
invited Members to review the details of these activities in G/SPS/GEN/1588. OECD also provided 
an update on its pesticides programme (G/SPS/GEN/1589) which covered issues related to the 
registration of ch emical pesticides, illegal trade of pesticides and registration of alternative 
pesticides, such as biological pesticides and pesticides derive d from novel technologies. 
OECD  provided information on the work of its two expert groups , the Residue Chemistry E xpert 
Group (RCEG) and the Expert Group on Minor Uses. The former had developed the OECD MRL 
Calculator, nine OECD Test Guidelines and seven OECD Guidanc e Documents. In particular, 
the OECD highlighted the second edition of the 2011 Guidance Document on Cr op Field Trials 
published in 2016, which deal t with proportionality issues, clarifie d sampling procedures and t ook 
into account national/Codex information on recent changes in crop groups. The Expert Group on 
Minor Uses had published two Guidance Documents , two survey reports, as well as undertaken 
other projects aimed at identifying the reasons for differences in uses approved in different 
countries.  
8.2  Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  
8.2.1   New requests  
8.8.  There were no new requests received by the Se cretariat.  
8.2.2   Outstanding  requests  
8.9.  The Chairperson proposed that, as had been done the previous year, the SPS Committee 
would invite the organizations with ad hoc observer status to participate in all SPS Committee 
meetings in 2018 - with the exception of any  closed meeting - unless any Member objected to the 
participation of any of these obs ervers in advance of a meeting.  It was so agreed . 
8.10.   The Chairperson also reminded the Committee that in 2012, it had agreed that if for any 
one-year period an ad hoc observe r organization did not  attend any meetings of the 
SPS Committee, its observer status would lapse, but only after the Secretariat had contacted the 
observer organization and received confirmation that it was no longer interested in maintaining its 
observer status. The Chairperson requested that the Secretariat verify after the current meeting 
whether any ad hoc observer organizations had not attended a single Committee meeting in 2017. G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 36 - 
 
  He also requested that the Secretariat contact any such organization and seek information 
regarding their continuing interest to participate in the SPS Committee.  
8.11.   The Chairperson noted that there was still no consensus on the six outstanding requests for 
observer status from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); CABI In ternational; the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the 
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community 
(APPC); and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO).  
8.12.   The Chairperson thanked the representatives of observer organizations for their 
contributions to the work of the Committee and for their assistance to Members.  The Chairperson 
once again encouraged observer organizations to provide written reports on their relevant 
activities in advance of the March 2018 meeting.  
9  OTHER BUSINESS  
9.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
10  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS  
10.1.   The Secretariat indicated a slight shift in the dates for the March 2018 meeting, which would 
see the regular meeting of the Committee being moved back by o ne day to 1 -2 March 2018, 
in order to accommodate the TRIPS Council which would take place during the same week. 
The informal meeting of the Committee would take place on 28 February 2018.  The Secretariat 
reminded the Committee that experts from the Legal Affairs Division would provide background 
information on disclaimers at this informal meeting, and also that the Secretariat would circulate a 
draft document containing the procedure and t imeline for the Fifth Review for discussion at the 
informal meeting.  
10.2.   The Secretariat also recalled that the Committee had agreed to hold an informal thematic 
session on regionalization, with specific focus on pest -free areas for plants, which would take pl ace 
on 27 February 2018. In this regard, the Secretariat noted that the United States had offered to 
submit a document on the thematic session by early December 2017.  
10.3.   The European Union tabled two suggestions, firstly that the Secretariat circulate the 
convening airgram two weeks (i.e. ten working days) in advance of the Committee meeting, 
instead of the current practice of one week, in order to provide Members with additional time to 
adequately prepare for topics on the airgram. Secondly, the European Unio n queried the possibility 
of rescheduling the dates of the October/November  2018 Committee meeting, in order to avoid 
religious festivities which would take place on 1 -2 November 20 18 in several EU member States.  
10.4.   Swaziland supported the European Union's re quest for additional notice for the circulation of 
the convening a irgram.  
10.5.   The Secretariat recalled the current procedure and timeline for the circulation of the 
reminder and convening airgrams and further highlighted that the working procedures of the 
Comm ittee (G/SPS/1) indicated that "a draft agenda shall be issued at least 10 days prior to the 
date of the meeting." In this regard, the Committee could decide to circulate the airgram earlier;  
however, the Secretariat observed that many Members submit ted th eir agenda items late. 
In addition, the Secretariat noted that the 10 calendar day rule was consistently applied by all 
WTO Committees and that there could be some confusion among Members if the SPS Committee 
decided to use another timeline. The Secretaria t took the opportunity to remind Members to 
inform their respective trading partners when raising specific trade concerns. In relation to the 
request to change the dates of the third SPS Committee meeting in 2018, the Secretariat indicated 
that it would ch eck on the availability of meeting rooms for the week of 8 November 2018.6  
                                                
6 The Secretariat subsequently informed Members on 9 November 2017 (via the SPS delegates' list) that 
no suitable meeting rooms were available during the week of 8 November 2018. As such, the third meeting of 
2018 would take place during the week of 29 October – 2 November 2018, as originally planned.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 37 - 
 
  10.6.   Swaziland further noted that the working procedures of the SPS Committee did not prevent 
Members from revising the timeline for the circulation of the convening airgram, once it was 
circulated within a minim um of 10 days from the meeting.  
10.7.   The Committee agreed  to request that the Secretariat circulate the convening airgram one 
week earlier than the current practice. The Chairperson reminded Members of their responsibility 
to submit  their agenda items in a timely manner, as well as to inform trading partners when 
raising specific trade concerns.  
10.8.   The Committee agreed to the following tentative agenda for its upcoming regular meeting:  
1. Adoption of the agenda  
2. Information sharing  
a. Information from Members on relevant activities  
b. Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
3. Specific trade concerns  
a. New issues  
b. Issues previously raised  
c. Information on resolution of issues  
4. Operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement  
a. Equivalence  
b. Pest- or disease -free areas  
c. Operation of transparency provisions  
d. Special and differential treatment  
e. Monitoring the use of international standards  
i. New issues  
ii. Issues previously raised  
f. Catalogue of Instruments  
g. Proposed process for the Fifth Review  
5. Cross -cutting issues  
6. Technical assistance and cooperation  
a. Information from the Secretariat  
i. WTO SPS activities  
ii. STDF  
b. Information from Members  
7. Concerns with private and commercial stan dards  
8. Observers  
a. Information from Observer organizations  
b. Requests for observer status  
9. Election of the Chairperson  
10. Other business  
11. Date and agenda of next meeting  
10.9.   Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines:  
• For submitting comments on the Chairperson's draft annual report: Tuesday, 
7 November 2017 ; 
• For submitting comments on the draft Transparency Manual: Friday, 15 December 
2017 ;7 
• For submitting comments on the regionalization proposal (to be circulated by the United 
States  by early December 2017 ), and for suggest ed speakers for the thematic session on 
pest-free areas: Monday, 15 January 2018 ; 
• For submitting comments on the "techn ical revision" of the Recommended Transparency 
Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3): Wednesday, 31 January 2018 ; 
                                                
7 This deadline was subsequently extended until 31 January 2018.  G/SPS/R/88  
 
- 38 - 
 
  • For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that items be put on the agenda: Thursday, 8 February 20 18; 
• For the distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 9 February 2018 . 
 
 
__________