RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/73  
 
15 January 2014  
(14-0201)  Page: 1/30  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 16-17 OCTOBER 2013  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Table of Contents 
1   ADOPTION OF  THE AGENDA ........................................................................................ 4  
2   INFORMATION ON RE LEVANT ACTI VITIES .................................................................. 4  
2.1   Information from Members ......................................................................................... 4  
2.1.1   United States – Update on FDA Food Safety Moderniz ation Act (FSMA) ........................... 4  
2.1.2   Indonesia - Eliminating use of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary treatment 
(G/SPS/GEN /1271) ........................................................................................................... 4  
2.1.3   New Zealand - Whey protein co ncentrate contaminat ion incident ................................... 4  
2.1.4   Japan - Information on measures against the contaminated water issues at 
TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station .................................................................. 4  
2.1.5   Canada - New regulatory fr amework for federal food inspection ..................................... 5  
2.1.6   Canada – Change in reporting struct ure for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ............ 5  
2.1.7   Mali - Anniversary of the Food Safety  Institute ............................................................ 5  
2.2   Information from the relevant  SPS standard-setting bodies ............................................. 5  
2.2.1   OIE ....................................................................................................................... 5  
2.2.2   IPPC .................................................................................................................. ... 5 
2.2.3   Codex ................................................................................................................. .. 6 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.13) ............................................ 6  
3.1   New issues .............................................................................................................. . 6 
3.1.1   Accreditation of third-party bodies to conduct food safety audits and to issue 
certifications (G/SPS/N/USA/2570) - Concerns of China .......................................................... 6  
3.1.2   India's import conditions for pork and pork products – Concerns of the European 
Union ......................................................................................................................... ..... 6 
3.1.3   Korea's import restrictions on fishery products with regard to radionuclides - 
Concerns of Japan ............................................................................................................. 7  
3.1.4   China's import policy on sw allow nests – Concerns of Indonesia ..................................... 7  
3.1.5   Russia's non-recognition of testing laboratories for meat products - Concerns of 
India ...............................................................................................................................  8 
3.1.6   Import restrictions by China, Japan and South Africa on beef due to BSE – 
Concerns of  Brazil ............................................................................................................ . 8 
3.1.7   Saudi Arabia's import conditions on poultry - Concerns of the European Union ................. 8  
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.1.8   Japan's new quarantine requirement for blueberries and delays in responding to 
proposed quarantine treatments - Concerns of Argentina ........................................................ 9  
3.2   Issues prev iously raised ............................................................................................. 9  
3.2.1   EU maximum residue levels of pest icides - Concerns of  India (No.  306) .......................... 9  
3.2.2   Indonesia's port closure (G/SPS/N/IDN/53, G/SPS/N/IDN/54 and 
G/SPS/N/IDN/54/Corr.1) – Conc erns of Chin a (No. 330)......................................................... 9  
3.2.3   Japan's restrictions related to foot and mouth disease – Concerns of Argentina 
(No. 332) ..................................................................................................................... .. 10 
3.2.4   Viet Nam's ban on offals – Concerns of the European Union and the United States 
(No. 314) ..................................................................................................................... .. 10 
3.2.5   Turkey's requirements for importation of sheep meat - Concerns of Australia 
(No. 340) ..................................................................................................................... .. 11 
3.2.6   Malaysia's import restrictions on pork and pork products – Concerns of the 
European Union (No. 323) ................................................................................................. 11 
3.2.7   Japan's restriction on shrimp due to anti-oxidant residues - Concerns of India 
(No.  342) .................................................................................................................... .. 11 
3.2.8   China's quarantine and testing procedures for salmon – Concerns of Norway 
(No. 319) ..................................................................................................................... .. 11 
3.2.9   Import restrictions due to BSE - Concerns of the Europe an Union (N o. 193) ................... 12 
3.2.10   Indonesia's import restrictions on po ultry meat - Concerns of Brazil (No. 286) .............. 12 
3.2.11   Japan's MRLs applied to sesame - Concerns of Paraguay (No. 321) 
(G/SPS/GEN /1272 ) .......................................................................................................... 13 
3.2.12   Application and modification of the EU Regulation on Novel Foods - Concerns of 
Peru (No.  238) ................................................................................................................  13 
3.3   Consideration of specif ic notification s received .............................................................. 14 
3.3.1   Turkey's prohibition of certain food additives in traditional foods 
(G/SPS/N/TUR/31) - Co ncerns of  Japan .............................................................................. 14 
3.4   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.13 ........................................ 15 
4   OPERATION OF TRANSP ARENCY PROVISIONS .......................................................... 15  
4.1   Annual Report on Implementation of the Transparency Provisions 
(G/SPS/GEN/ 804/REV. 6) .................................................................................................. 15 
5   IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT .............................. 16  
6   EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE 4 ........................................................................................ 16  
6.1   Information from Memb ers on their experiences ........................................................... 16 
6.2   Information from releva nt observer or ganizati ons ......................................................... 16 
7   PEST- AND DISEASE-FR EE AREAS - AR TICLE 6 .......................................................... 16  
7.1   Information from Members on  their pest or disease status .............................................. 16 
7.1.1   Mexico - Information on several pest-free areas (G/SPS/GEN/1265, 
G/SPS/GEN/1266, G/SPS/GEN/ 1267, G/SPS/ GEN/1268 ) ....................................................... 16 
7.1.2   Paraguay - Information on Huan glongbing in citrus (G/SPS/GEN /1273) ......................... 16 
7.1.3   Guatemala – Information on areas free of Mediterranean fruit fly 
(G/SPS/GEN /1274 ) .......................................................................................................... 17 
7.1.4   Peru - Freedom from foot-and -mouth disease (FMD ) (G/SPS/G EN/1281) ....................... 17 
7.1.5   Philippines - Area free from mango pulp weevil and mango seed weevil 
(G/SPS/GEN /1278 ) .......................................................................................................... 17 G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 3 - 
 
  7.1.6   Costa Rica - Sanitary status of  bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) 
(G/SPS/GEN /1263 ) .......................................................................................................... 18 
7.2   Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas .................................................................................................................... ... 18 
7.3   Information from releva nt observer or ganizati ons ......................................................... 18 
8   TECHNICAL ASSISTAN CE AND COOP ERATION ........................................................... 18  
8.1   Information fr om the Secr etariat ................................................................................ 18 
8.1.1   WTO SPS activities ................................................................................................. 18 
8.1.2   Report of the Work shop on Mark et Access ................................................................. 19 
8.1.3   STDF (G /SPS/GEN /1279 ) ........................................................................................ 20 
8.2   Informatio n from Members ........................................................................................ 20 
8.3   Information from Observers ....................................................................................... 21 
9   REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................... 2 2 
9.1   Issues arising fr om the Second  Review ........................................................................ 22 
9.1.1   Adoption of procedure relating to implementation of Article 12.2 
(G/SPS/W/259 /Rev.7) ...................................................................................................... 22 
9.2   Fourth Review .......................................................................................................... 24 
9.2.1   Proposed process fo r the review (G /SPS/W/270) ........................................................ 24 
9.2.2   Proposal from Canada on a catalogue of instruments available to WTO Members to 
manage SPS issues (G/SPS/W/271) .................................................................................... 24 
10   MONITORING OF THE USE OF  INTERNATIONAL STANDARD S .................................. 25  
10.1   New issues ............................................................................................................ 25 
10.2   Issues previously raised ........................................................................................... 25 
11   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS .................................... 25  
11.1   Report on informal meeting ...................................................................................... 25 
12   OBSE RVERS ............................................................................................................. 28  
12.1   Information from observer orga nizations .................................................................... 28 
12.2   Requests for observer status .................................................................................... 28 
13   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 28  
13.1   The ban on import of Ukrainia n confectionary prod ucts to Russia ................................... 28 
14   DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING .................................................................... 29  
 G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanit ary Measures (the "Committee") held its fifty-
eighth regular meeting on 16-17 October 2013. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with amendments (WTO/AIR/4202 and WTO/AIR/4202/Add.1). 
2  INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
2.1  Information from Members 2.1.1  United States – Update on FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) 
2.1.  The United States drew attention to two recently notified FSMA-related proposed rules, titled 
"Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals" (G/SPS/N/USA/2569) and "Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors/Certification Bodies to Conduct Food Safety Audits and to Issue Certifications" (G/SPS/N/USA/2570), both of which were open for 
public comment until 26 November 2013. The United  States also recalled that proposed rules on 
"Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for 
Human Food" and "Standards for the Growing, Ha rvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for 
Human Consumption" were open for public comment until 15 November 2013. Members must 
submit their comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov ) to 
ensure that comments can be considered by the F ood and Drug Administration (FDA) in finalizing 
the rules. 
2.1.2  Indonesia - Eliminating use of meth yl bromide as a phytosanitary treatment 
(G/SPS/GEN/1271) 
2.2.  Indonesia encouraged Members to eliminate the use of non-eco-friendly methyl bromide in 
phytosanitary treatments (G/SPS/GEN/1271), referri ng to a Memorandum of Understanding on the 
use of methyl bromide concluded by the parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 2011, and to a recommendation by the Commission on Phytosanitary 
Measures (CPM) in 2008 on the replacement or reduction in the use of methyl bromide as a 
phytosanitary treatment. The European Union echo ed Indonesia's concerns regarding the negative 
environmental effects of methyl bromide, and also noted that the requirement to use this 
substance blocked trade in several of its plant products. 
2.1.3  New Zealand - Whey protein concentrate contamination incident 
2.3.  New Zealand provided information on a pres umed contamination of whey protein concentrate 
by Clostridium botulinum  in early August 2013. The New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries 
had immediately alerted the competent authorities of trading partners and the WHO/FAO 
International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN), restricted the sale or export of all products known or suspected to contain whey protein concentrate, and implemented a tracing 
system. The companies involved had recalled all potentially affected products. The amount of 
potentially contaminated whey protein concentr ate would have represented less than 0.002% of 
New Zealand's total dairy output. However, subseque nt validation testing in the United States had 
confirmed that there was no Clostridium botulinum  present in the products concerned. Clostridium 
sporogenes  was present, but this bacterium presents no health risks to consumers. New Zealand 
stressed that there was no longer a basis for regarding any of its dairy products as being at risk of Clostridium botulinum  contamination, and urged trading partners to lift any remaining import or 
sale restrictions. 
2.1.4  Japan - Information on measures ag ainst the contaminated water issues at 
TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station 
2.4.  Japan reported that a leakage of contamin ated water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power 
station had been discovered on 19 June 2013. Increased radioactivity had been observed in an area smaller than 0.3 square kilometres within the port, but radiation levels outside the port and 
in the open sea remained within the WHO's guideline limits for drinking water. Japan had 
implemented measures to remove the sources of contamination and prevent further leakages, and isolate ground water from contamination sources. As regards food safety, Japan had established G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 5 - 
 
  radionuclide concentration limits based on Codex standards, and reached close to full compliance 
with these standards. Japan provided a fact sheet to the Committee on the actions taken to tackle the problem. 
2.5.  China expressed deep concern at the high radiation levels detected in sea water. According to 
recent news reports, the registered radiation level had hit a 2-year high. China urged Japan to 
ensure the safety of its food and aquaculture products, and to continue to keep the Committee abreast of any new developments. 
2.1.5  Canada - New regulatory framework for federal food inspection 
2.6.  Canada described its proposed new regulatory framework for federal food inspection, based 
on the Safe Food for Canadians Act of October 2012. The proposed regulatory framework was described in G/SPS/GEN/1282 and notified in G/SPS/N/CAN/700 (8 July 2013) and 
G/TBT/N/CAN/394 (19 July 2013). Members had until 30 November 2013 to comment on the 
proposed framework. Draft regulations would be no tified for consultations in the spring of 2014. 
The final regulations were anticipated to come into force, together with the Safe Food for 
Canadians Act, in January 2015. Canada committed to provide an update and advise Members of 
next steps at the March 2014 WTO SPS Committee. 
2.1.6  Canada – Change in reporting structur e for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency 
2.7.  Canada explained that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) had moved to reporting 
to the Ministry of Health as of 9 October 2013. This administrative change had brought all three 
federal authorities responsible for food safety (CFI A, Health Canada, and the Public Health Agency 
of Canada) under one ministry. The alignment would ensure coordinated federal food safety action 
and improved collaboration, but the work of thes e agencies would not change. The Ministry of 
Agriculture and Agri-food, to which the CFIA had previously reported, would remain responsible for agricultural activities other than those related to food safety. 
2.1.7  Mali - Anniversary of the Food Safety Institute 
2.8.  Mali informed the Committee that the Food Safety Institute of Mali, which is a Codex focal 
point, celebrated its tenth birthday and, on that occasion, it had produced a document which 
described the activities carried out by the agency in  the last ten years, as well as, the prospect and 
challenges for the next ten years. Mali made available copies of the brochure. 
2.2  Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies 2.2.1  OIE 
2.9.  The OIE provided an update on its standard-setting work (G/SPS/GEN/1277). The Terrestrial 
Animal Health Standards Commission had proposed to remove vesicular stomatitis and swine vesicular disease from the list of OIE-notifiable diseases at its meeting in September 2013. The 
Terrestrial Code chapter on antimicrobial resistan ce had been updated, and the OIE would endorse 
national control programmes on contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) to support national efforts to eradicate the disease. The OIE had also developed draft standards for establishing a 
horse subpopulation with high health status to facilitate the temporary international movement of 
competition horses. 
2.2.2  IPPC 2.10.  The IPPC reported that it had transiti oned to being directly under the FAO Assistant 
Director-General for Agriculture as of 1 October 2013 (G/SPS/GEN/1283). With regard to 
standard-setting, the IPPC highlighted some key recommendations stemming from a meeting of its Framework for Standards Task Force, including the need to conduct gap analysis for existing 
standards. The IPPC also drew the Committee's a ttention to national reporting obligations under 
the IPPC, referencing a study which showed that  less than 5% of the plant-health related 
information reported to the WTO was reported to the IPPC, despite the obligation to do so under 
the Convention. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.2.3  Codex 
2.11.  Codex provided information on its standard-setting work (G/SPS/GEN/1288). The 36th 
session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, held  in July 2013, had adopted a strategic plan for 
2014-2019 as well as 25 new or revised standards. The Codex Committee on Residues of 
Veterinary Drugs had developed texts for adop tion, among others, on risk management for 
veterinary drugs for which no ADI and/or MR L has been recommended by the Joint Expert 
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Regarding forthcoming work, Codex highlighted meetings of 
the Committee on Food Hygiene, which would consid er proposed draft guidelines for control of 
specific zoonotic parasites in meat, and of the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products. 
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.13) 3.1  New issues 
3.1.1  Accreditation of third-party bodies to  conduct food safety audits and to issue 
certifications (G/SPS/N/USA/2570) - Concerns of China 
3.1.  China raised concerns regarding the US proposed FSMA-related rule allowing for accreditation 
of third-party auditors/certification bodies to cond uct food safety audits of foreign entities and to 
issue food and facility certifications (G/SPS/N/U SA/2570). China noted that the statistics provided 
by the United States had demonstrated a genera lly safer level of imported foods than foods 
domestically produced in the United States. China requested the United States to provide scientific 
justification for proposing this overly burdensome and costly rule on imported foods. China considered that the proposed rule discriminat ed unjustifiably between foreign and domestic 
sources of supply and went beyond international standards without scientific justification. China 
urged the United States to accept the results of  internationally accredited certification/audit 
bodies, and queried how the United States would recognize the equivalence of foreign food safety programmes, systems and standards. Referencin g Article 13 of the SPS Agreement, China 
enquired what measures the United States would take to ensure that third-party 
auditors/certification bodies were WTO-compliant, and recalled that under Article 10 of the SPS Agreement, Members are to take into account the special needs of developing country Members in 
the preparation of SPS measures. China urged the United States to seriously fulfil its WTO 
obligations, take concrete steps to base its rule  on the disciplines of the SPS Agreement and the 
relevant international standards, to ensure that the final rule would not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. 
3.2.  Belize, Brazil and Korea shared China's concerns. Brazil noted in particular the role of private 
third-party auditors and certification bodies, and, with reference to Article 13 of the SPS Agreement, queried how the United States wo uld ensure that such bodies complied with the 
relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement. Brazil also requested more information on how the 
United States would recognize the equivalence of foreign systems. 
3.3.  The United States recalled that it had provided information on the proposed rule in the 
Committee and elsewhere, including in China, and invited Members to submit their comments 
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov ) by 26 November 2013. The 
comment period had been extended to 120 days, to ensure that Members had enough time to 
provide their comments. 
3.1.2  India's import conditions for pork an d pork products – Concerns of the European 
Union 
3.4.  The European Union noted that it had for several years been urging India to align its import 
conditions on pork and pork products with inte rnational standards. Currently, (a) India requested 
that the exporting country certify freedom from a number of diseases for which the OIE had not set an international standard, yet India had not provided a science-based justification for the these 
import conditions; (b) India required exporting countries to have country freedom without 
contemplating the possibility of trade from estab lished disease-free regions; (c) specifically with 
regard to import conditions for processed meat of  pork origin, India required that the exporting 
country certify that meat was processed so as to achieve an internal temperature of not less than 
70°C for 30 minutes, without allowing any alternat ive treatments. These re quirements by India G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 7 - 
 
  were not based on the relevant OIE and CODEX standards. The European Union further noted that 
under the SPS Agreement, import conditions should  not be stricter than the measures applicable 
to the domestic market, and Indian legislation al lowed non-heat treated processed pig meat within 
its domestic market. 
3.5.  The European Union urged India to bring its measures in line with the international standards 
or, alternatively, to provide a science-based risk analysis for each of the diseases for which India applied import conditions stricter than the international standards and also for its requirement to 
import only heat-treated processed pork meat. The European Union also urged India to recognise 
the principle of regionalisation, which was effect ively applied in the European Union, instead of 
requiring country freedom for certain diseases. 
3.6.  India noted that a technical expert committee had been established within the Department of 
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. This committee reviewed all the technical aspects 
concerned in order to reach a decision on the rele vant veterinary certificates. One meeting of the 
committee had already been held and another was scheduled to take place. 
3.1.3  Korea's import restrictions on fisher y products with regard to radionuclides - 
Concerns of Japan 
3.7.  Japan expressed concerns regarding Korea's fishery import restrictions, including a ban on 
imports from eight prefectures and additional test ing and certification requirements in all cases 
where radioactive Cesium was detected, even in quantities below the Korean limit of 100 Bq/kg. This requirement applied exclusively to Japanese  products; Korean and other trading partners' 
products could be distributed as long as the radioactive Cesium level remained below 100 Bq/kg. 
3.8.  Japan reiterated that contaminated water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station had 
been detected only within an area of 0.3 square kilometres inside the port, and that the problem of 
contaminated water should not be equated with the safety of Japanese fishery products. Japan's 
central and local governments had taken measures to prevent the distribution of fishery products 
where required, and the amount of samples ex ceeding the limit of 100 Bq/kg had drastically 
decreased both in the Fukushima prefecture (from 53% in March/June 2011 to 2.2% in 
July/September 2013) and elsewhere (from 6.5% to 0.4% during the same periods). Japan 
recalled that SPS measures must not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between trading partners and urged Korea to provide a scientific basis for its measures or explain concretely how the available scientific evidence was insufficient to carry out a risk assessment. 
3.9.  Korea indicated that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, 
as a result of insufficient scientific evidence and the potentially far-reaching cumulative effects of radioactive contamination on human health. Korea was reviewing the information provided by 
Japan but needed more time to come to a final determination. 
3.1.4  China's import policy on swallow nests – Concerns of Indonesia 3.10.  Indonesia raised concerns regarding the effects that China's registration requirements for 
foreign food-producing enterprises, notified in August 2011 (G/SPS/N/CHN/472), had on its 
exports of edible bird nests. Indonesia, the world's largest bird nest producer, had signed a protocol with China on the inspection, quarantine  and hygiene requirements for the importation of 
bird nest products in April 2012. Since then, Indonesia had striven to comply with the Chinese 
requirements, among others on traceability. The Indonesian Agricultural Quarantine Agency had 
conducted feasibility assessments in eight bird nest processing plants, and invited the Chinese authorities to conduct a verification visit. No response had been received from China. Indonesia 
characterized China's registration requirements as complicated and burdensome, and urged China 
to bring its measures in line with WTO rules. 
3.11.  China noted that since the conclusion of the protocol, it had actively engaged with 
Indonesia, urging it to comply with the protocol and to inform China accordingly. China invited 
Indonesia to provide a veterinary and sanitary certificate model, certificates of origin, and documents on its control systems in order to resolve the problem as soon as possible. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.1.5  Russia's non-recognition of testing labo ratories for meat products - Concerns of 
India 
3.12.  India raised its concern regarding the inability to export bovine meat and agricultural 
products to Russia. It had requested Russian veterinary experts to inspect Indian units and 
laboratories, and a delegation from the Customs Union Authorities of Kazakhstan (SVPSGO) had 
conducted site visits, including to meat-processing units, in October 2011. India had compiled with all of the requirements identified in the report issued as a result of such visits and sent all the 
relevant information to the SVPSGO in January 2012. However, Russia had still not recognised the 
units and laboratories. Consequently, the export of bovine meat and egg powder to Russia had not resumed, although India's track record in the expo rt of boneless bovine meat to over 16 countries 
worldwide was unblemished. India appreciated Russia's willingness to hold bilateral consultations 
and expert-level discussions. 
3.13.  Russia stated that the inspections identified a number of inconsistencies with respect to 
sanitary and veterinary requirements. Given such inconsistencies and the epizootic situation in 
India, it was premature to schedule expert consultations. Russia was ready to engage in further 
bilateral consultations to find a mutually beneficial resolution. 
3.1.6  Import restrictions by China, Japa n and South Africa on beef due to BSE – 
Concerns of Brazil 
3.14.  Brazil raised concerns regarding import re strictions by China, Japan and South Africa on 
beef, stemming from a notification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) by Brazil in 
December 2012. Brazil had provided detailed info rmation on the unique case and the implemented 
risk mitigation procedures to the OIE and all concerned WTO Members, including China, Japan, and 
South Africa. The case had affected only one nati ve cow which had not entered the food or feed 
chain, and the OIE had maintained Brazil's classifica tion as a country with negligible risk for BSE. 
Brazil believed the import restrictions infringed Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement, and urged China, Japan and So uth Africa to withdraw their restrictions. 
3.15.  China noted that the BSE case had occurred in 2010 but that Brazil had failed to notify 
China in accordance with a bilateral protocol signed by the two countries, which required 
immediate notification of any animal disease of quarantine significance, including BSE, and subsequent suspension of exports. According to China, there was no accurate pathogenesis of 
atypical BSE and the risks associated with the outbreak were unclear. China expected further 
information from Brazil in order to complete a risk analysis. 
3.16.  Japan noted that its Food Safety Commissi on had conducted a risk assessment based on the 
BSE-related scientific information submitted by Br azil, but would need additional information on 
BSE measures in Brazil. Japan would move forward as expeditiously as possible once provided with 
the requested information. 
3.17.  South Africa explained that it had forwarded a proposed health certificate for consideration 
by the Brazilian authorities in October 2013. 
3.18.  Brazil noted that it had provided and woul d continue providing all the information requested 
by China, especially as regards the bilateral protocol between the two countries. Brazil thanked South Africa, and hoped for a prompt lifting of the restrictions. 
3.1.7  Saudi Arabia's import conditions on poultry - Concerns of the European Union 
3.19.  The European Union raised concerns regarding a poultry import ban and general unjustified 
delays and unclear import conditions in Saudi Arabia. The poultry ban had been maintained for 
more than ten years without scientific justification, despite positive steps towards a solution. 
Saudi Arabia referred to national and Gulf C ooperation Council (GCC) standards, but did not 
specify which rules applied to the import of specific products, including poultry or poultry meat. 
The "GCC Guide for Food Import Control" referenced by Saudi Arabia had only been notified to the 
WTO in draft form, in 2011. The European Union also  considered that Saudi Arabia's approval fees 
exceeded the related costs, noting that Saudi Arabia required EU member States to cover all the costs of inspection visits, and also to pay a fee of EUR 20,000 per establishment. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.20.  Saudi Arabia expressed its willingness to wo rk with the European Union towards a solution, 
and noted that lifting the ban was a matter of priority. 
3.1.8  Japan's new quarantine requirement fo r blueberries and delays in responding to 
proposed quarantine treatments - Concerns of Argentina 
3.21.  Argentina raised concerns regarding the interruption of its fresh blueberry exports to Japan 
in November 2010, when the Japanese Ministry of  Agriculture had imposed the requirement of a 
negotiated quarantine treatment for fruit flies. Argentina had submitted technical information in 
April 2011, and in October 2012 it had proposed methyl bromide as a quarantine treatment for 
fruit fly. In January 2013, Japan had indicated that it would carry out a pest risk analysis on the basis of the information provided and would evalua te the proposal of methyl bromide quarantine 
treatment for fruit fly and inform Argentina of its results. In June 2013, Argentina requested to 
know the state of progress of the evaluation of said quarantine treatment, expecting a prompt 
answer. Noting the importance of blueberry farmin g in domestic employment, income and value of 
Argentine fruit exports, Argentina asked Japan to  give priority to the proposed quarantine 
treatment. 
3.22.  Japan explained that it had imposed an import ban on blueberries based on a pest risk 
analysis, and that its competent authorities were in the process of examining Argentina's proposed 
quarantine treatment. Japan had 138 outstanding requests with regard to plant quarantine, and 
sought understanding for its current situation. 
3.2  Issues previously raised 3.2.1  EU maximum residue levels of pe sticides - Concerns of India (No. 306) 
3.23.  India reiterated its concern over EU maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticides claiming 
that the EU MRLs for imported foods and agricultural products did not follow international standards and had no scientific basis, and were th erefore in contravention of the SPS Agreement. 
India requested that the European Union provide scientific justification for its MRLs and that it 
adjust those levels that were not scientifically justified. India also requested an update with regard to tricyclazole. 
3.24.  Argentina shared India's concerns and highlighted the work undertaken by Codex on 
pesticides. There was a need to base new MRLs on Codex standards. Establishment of MRLs of pesticides without a scientific basic was in contradiction to the SPS Agreement and has become an unnecessary restriction on trade damaging agricult ural exporting countries, such as Argentina. 
3.25.  The European Union stated that its policy  regarding pesticides was to provide a maximum 
level of safety for European consumers while remaining open towards its trading partners. The EU system was transparent and had proved to be effective as the European Union remained the 
world's largest importer of agri-food products. India's allegations were evidently unfounded and 
incorrect as could be seen by virtue of the increase in rice exports from India to the European Union, which had doubled in tonnage in the past year. The European Union was open to continue 
cooperating closely with India and to consider any specific requests to modify the MRLs for 
pesticides used in India, insofar as those pesticid es had been proven to be safe on the basis of 
adequate scientific data. 
3.2.2  Indonesia's port closure (G/SPS/N/IDN/53, G/SPS/N/IDN/54 and 
G/SPS/N/IDN/54/Corr.1) – Concerns of China (No. 330) 
3.26.  China noted that since December 2011, Indonesia's Department of Agriculture had issued 
successive ministerial orders (G/SPS/N/I DN/48, G/SPS/N/IDN/49, G/SPS/N/IDN/53, 
G/SPS/N/IDN/54) amending the inspection and quarantine requirements for imported fresh fruits 
and vegetables. China asserted that these orders, requiring accreditation of control systems, limiting the number of import licences, requiring that exports come from zones free from fruit fly, 
and limiting the point of entry to specific ports excluding Jakarta's main port Tanjung Priok, 
seriously affected its fruit and vegetable exports.  The two countries had traded for years on the 
basis of established inspection and supervision systems, and Indonesia had never informed China 
about any pest- or food safety- related problems. China had proposed a mutual recognition G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 10 - 
 
  agreement on the inspection and quarantine of fruits and vegetables to Indonesia on 
25 April 2013, and urged Indonesia to study it as soon as possible. China also requested Indonesia to remove quota limitations on Chinese fruits and vegetables, and to provide scientific justification for its measures. 
3.27.  Chile noted that it had engaged in bilateral negotiations with Indonesia, and hoped that this 
issue would be resolved before the next meeting of the Committee. 
3.28.  The European Union shared the concerns ra ised by China, noting that trade in certain 
horticultural products continued to be unnecessarily hampered because of the closure of several 
entry points, including Tanjung Priok. The opening of that port to some countries based on receipt of information on their food safety and plant health conditions, but not to others, appeared 
discriminatory. The European Union had provided all the requested information on the EU food 
safety and plant protection systems as requested,  but Indonesia continued to maintain the entry 
restriction. 
3.29.  Indonesia recalled several pest outbreaks it had suffered in the past, including papaya 
infestation by Paracoccus sp.  and spread of Globodera rostochiensis  in potato, and noted that in 
addition to pests, some imported fresh produce posed a food safety threat, exceeding permitted mycotoxin and chemical limits. Indonesia's quarantine facilities were limited and the workload too 
great for plant quarantine officers. Tanjung Priok port was undergoing necessary facility 
improvements in an effort to mitigate SPS risks. This risk mitigation, Indonesia stressed, was carried out in accordance with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. Indonesia was not closing the port completely, but opening it under certain conditions. It had also amended its horticultural and 
animal product regulations, eliminating certain verification requirements in the country of origin, 
and requiring that registered importers should impo rt at least 80% of the volume of their import 
permit to maintain their status as a registered importer. 
3.2.3  Japan's restrictions related to foot  and mouth disease – Concerns of Argentina 
(No. 332) 
3.30.  Argentina recalled that it had first raised this concern at the 54
th session of the Committee 
in July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67). It referred to the position taken at that session, and reiterated its call 
for a prompt solution to the matter. 
3.31.  Japan explained that it was completing an import risk analysis in accordance with the 
standard approval procedures, consisting of 12 steps. Argentina's beef was at step three and 
Japan was waiting for additional inputs from Argentina. 
3.2.4  Viet Nam's ban on offals – Concerns of the European Union and the United States 
(No. 314) 
3.32.  The European Union welcomed the lifting of Viet Nam's ban on red offal, and appreciated 
information from Viet Nam indicating that the ban on white offal had also been lifted. However, Viet Nam had imposed several new import conditions on white offal, including additional 
registration requirements and a restriction to us e only three points of entry into the country. 
Viet Nam had not notified trading partners about this change in import conditions, which the European Union considers overly burdensome and lengthy. 
3.33.  The United States also thanked Viet Nam for its announcement on removing trade 
restrictions on offal, but expressed concern at possible additional conditions and attestations 
required by Viet Nam for specific products. The United States requested a complete list of the 
Vietnamese import requirements and the scientifi c justification to support those requirements. 
3.34.  Australia and Chile shared the concerns expressed by the European Union and the United 
States, and urged Viet Nam to work with trading partners to establish import conditions based on scientific principles. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.2.5  Turkey's requirements for importatio n of sheep meat - Concerns of Australia 
(No. 340) 
3.35.  Australia reiterated its concerns regarding Turkey's requirements for the import of sheep 
meat. Australia had been seeking information from Turkey regarding its import measures since 
April 2011, but despite raising this concern at the past three SPS Committee meetings, it had yet 
to receive a response. Australia was a safe and reliable supplier of sheep meat to some 
100 countries and had consistently met all relevant international SPS measures for such trade. 
Turkey's measures appeared to contravene its obligations under the SPS Agreement, including 
Articles 2 and 7 and Annex B. Australia looked forward to a resolution of this issue. 
3.36.  Turkey responded that it was in the process of aligning its food safety legislation with that of 
the European Union. In this context Turkey had so far prepared certificates for beef, bovine meat, 
livestock and fishery products, while a uniform model certificate for other animal-origin products, 
including sheep- and goat-meat, was under process. 
3.2.6  Malaysia's import restrictions on pork and pork products – Concerns of the 
European Union (No. 323) 
3.37.  The European Union continued to be confro nted with trade restrictions on pork and pork 
products in Malaysia despite having raised its concern at prior meetings of the Committee. 
Malaysia imposed animal health related conditions for several animal diseases which deviated from 
OIE standards and were not based on a risk assessment. The process of approval for foreign abattoirs was unnecessarily lengthy and burdensome, and applications for approval were often not 
addressed by the Malaysian Department of Veterinary Service. In addition, EU exporters were 
confronted with a non-automatic import permit system which was unnecessarily lengthy and 
burdensome, and not transparent. The European Union was pleased to report that Malaysia had expressed its commitment to find a solution to the matter during a bilateral meeting held earlier 
during the week. 
3.38.  Malaysia noted that there had been bilate ral discussions and positive developments on both 
sides, and hoped to find a rapid solution to the issue. 
3.2.7  Japan's restriction on shrimp due to anti-oxidant residues - Concerns of India 
(No.  342) 
3.39.  India noted that Japan had been examining consignments of shrimp for ethoxyquin levels 
since August 2012. India asserted that the ethoxyquin levels in these consignments was extremely 
low, ranging from 0.02 ppm to 0.05 ppm, according to the information provided by the relevant 
Japanese authority. India noted that Japan had fixed a provisional MRL of 0.01 ppm on finfish claiming that they did not have sufficient data to fix a final MRL on fish. India suggested that a 
provisional MRL be fixed also for shrimps based on preliminary study results, until reliable data 
could be obtained. India urged Japan to expedite their consideration and to indicate the timeframe 
for a final decision on this issue. 
3.40.  Japan stated that it had been conducting risk assessments and, in the process, the concern 
about genotoxicity of ethoxyquin had been raised. Japan had prepared a draft assessment report which it had made available to the public, and it was in the process of evaluating the comments submitted. Japan had proposed a draft MRL of 0.02 ppm based on the assessment report. Japan 
was willing to continue working with India on this issue through bilateral channels. 
3.41.  Codex informed the Committee that ethoxyquin had been placed on Codex's priority list for 
evaluation and thus would be considered at the international level. 
3.2.8  China's quarantine and testing proc edures for salmon – Concerns of Norway 
(No. 319) 
3.42.  Norway recalled that it had raised this  concern several times in the past, however, the 
quarantine and testing measures introduced by China in 2010 were still applied to Norwegian 
salmon. Norway repeated the need for technical consultations and hoped to see a prompt positive resolution to this issue. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.43.  China explained that its entry-exit insp ection and quarantine services had detected 
pathogenic microorganisms and excessive veterinary drug residues in salmon, including frozen salmon. Upon risk analysis, experts had consider ed that the pathogenic bacteria found in the 
ready-to-eat frozen salmon posed a substantial threat to consumer health. As such, since 2011, 
the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) had 
enhanced inspection and quarantine measures on imported salmon from all countries and areas. 
China expressed concern about infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) that had intensively occurred in 
Norwegian salmon since 2012, and feared that Norw egian salmon could be the source of Listeria 
monocytogenes. China stated its willingness to continue communications with the Norwegian authorities. 
3.2.9  Import restrictions due to BSE - Concerns of the European Union (No. 193) 
3.44.  The European Union highlighted the importance of this concern as it related to one of the 
basic requirements under the SPS Agreement: that SPS measures adopted by Members be based on the relevant international standards. The European Union appreciated Singapore's relaxation of 
its BSE-related import measures and encouraged Singapore to bring these conditions further in 
line with the OIE standards and to notify these changes so that trading partners could provide comments. Unjustifiable trade restrictions were still in place in a number of other countries and the 
European Union urged China to base its measures on the OIE standards and lift the ban on 
EU beef. The European Union welcomed the on-going work in Korea and urged Korea to deal swiftly with all EU applications. The US and Australia's on-going process to align their BSE import conditions with OIE standards was appreciated and closely followed by the European Union. The 
European Union called on the United States and on Australia not to delay these processes further 
and repeated its request that trade should now star t. The European Union also noted in this regard 
that it had been three years since it had submitted its application to Australia and that Australia 
had not provided any scientific justification for the delay in finalizing its risk assessment. The 
European Union called upon Australia to finalize the process, which should lead to effective market access without undue delays. 
3.45.  China noted that the latent period of BSE wa s long and as there were no cases in China, an 
import prohibition of bovine cattle and related products was in place as a safety measure. According to Chinese legislation, it could conduct inspection and quarantine activities only after the BSE ban on certain EU member States had been lifted. Since 2010, OIE had released reports that 
a number of EU member States (France, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, etc.) still suffered 
from BSE and China noted that these had not applied for the ban to be lifted in China. Technical exchanges, including a seminar on BSE jointly held with the European Union, and the assignment 
of a technical person to participate in BSE prevention training had taken place. In March 2012, 
EU beef exports had been discussed at the 7
th China-EU Summit. Although the experts on both 
sides had not reached consensus, a joint expert team had been established with relevant members 
in order to overcome technical issues. 
3.46.  Korea acknowledged the European Union's concern and emphasized that its government 
h a d  b e e n  c o n d u c t i n g  i m p o r t  r i s k  a n a l y s i s  o n  s o m e  E U  m e m b e r  S t a t e s '  b e e f .  R e s p o n s e s  t o  questionnaires were awaited so as to proceed with the IRA process in a timely manner while 
conducting a close dialogue with Members in this regard. 
3.2.10  Indonesia's import restrictions on poultry meat - Concerns of Brazil (No. 286) 
3.47.  Brazil reiterated its concerns over Indonesi a's restriction on Brazilian poultry meat exports. 
Brazil exported poultry products to more than 170 countries and met all the relevant OIE 
requirements. In May 2009, Brazil had expressed its interest in exporting poultry meat to Indonesia and had since held bilateral consultations with Indonesian sanitary authorities. 
In October 2009, Brazil had had raised a concern about this prohibition, which did not seem to 
have scientific basis, and had reiterated that concern in 2011. Despite several bilateral meetings since then, import restrictions on poultry meat remained. Brazil submitted specific questions on Indonesia's recently enacted regulations in the context of the difficulties faced by Brazil's poultry 
meat exporters in general, and chicken meat exporters in particular, and requested that Indonesia 
confirm that the new regulations did not provide for legal restrictions to poultry imports. Furthermore, Brazil requested Indonesia to provide an exhaustive list of regulations applicable to 
imports of poultry, and explain the reasons for delays in the approval procedures of health 
certificates for poultry meat. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.48.  Indonesia reiterated that, in principle, it  did not prohibit poultry meat imports provided 
safety and halal food requirements were met. Re vised regulations setting out the requirements for 
poultry meat imports rules had been approved in  2013. Under the revised legislation, exporting 
countries must be free from highly pathogenic av ian influenza (HPAI), Newcastle disease, and duck 
viral hepatitis, for a period of at least 90 days. The exporting poultry establishments must also 
implement a halal food system, which meant that the establishment exclusively produced halal products. The halal requirement applied to all slaughterhouses in the country of origin and imports 
of poultry products must pass the document inspection and field certification on the 
implementation of animal health systems and safety assurance for animal products, both at the level of establishments and country of origin. Indonesia assured that it would continue to work closely with Members to overcome this issue. 
3.2.11  Japan's MRLs applied to sesame  - Concerns of Paraguay (No. 321) 
(G/SPS/GEN/1272) 
3.49.  Paraguay reiterated its concerns over Japa n's application of MRLs to sesame and maintained 
that uniform limits were inconsistent with th e SPS Agreement since they were not based on 
scientific principles and were maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. Carbaryl and Imidacloprid were not included in the MRL table for sesame prepared by the Japan Food Chemical 
Research Foundation. Paraguay understood that und er Japanese regulations, the uniform tolerance 
limit for pesticides not listed in such table was of 0.01 mg/kg, however, Japan allowed higher tolerance limits for other imports, such as sunflower seed, rapeseed, and other oilseeds. Paraguay believed that the limits were arbitrary and inconsistent with the concept of appropriate level of 
protection, as higher limits existed for routinely consumed products such as rice and spinach. 
Codex has not established MRLs for sesame, but has established limits for Carbaryl and Imidacloprid in food products consumed by humans, including several products classified in the 
oilseed group together with sesame. Some demand ing markets, such as the European Union, had 
set tolerance limits at 0.05 mg/kg. Paraguay had taken steps to ensure the quality and safety of sesame, by ensuring that exports were accompanied by the relevant laboratory reports indicating 
that they complied with Japanese regulations. Paraguay appreciated the bilateral meeting with 
Japan and hoped that a satisfactory solution would soon be found. 
3.50.  Ecuador shared Paraguay's concern. When international standards did not exist, the 
relevant SPS measures must be based on scientific evidence. The approach of applying MRLs to 
positive lists was not in line with the SPS Agreement and had negative consequences for exports of 
cocoa from Ecuador. The burden should not be on the exporter to verify that MRL limits were safe as this directly contravened the SPS Agreement. Ecuador expressed its willingness to continue 
consultations on this issue. 
3.51.  Japan reiterated that it set individual MRLs  for substances in food based on scientific data. 
A scientific justification was provided by the Food Safety Commission on each occasion, before any 
MRL was fixed, and Japan notified Members promptly before doing so. MRLs were set based on 
scientific data, such as residue trial data, using Good Agricultural Practices; meaning that even if the same pesticide were used, the MRL varied depending on commodities and environments. Japan claimed that this practice followed the internatio nal standard. However, the system prescribed that 
when there was no use of a substance in Japan, and no request had been submitted by a Member 
for an import tolerance to be set, and there was no relevant international standard, the MRL was set at the uniform level of 0.01 ppm. Japan did not use these pesticides for sesame, thus it was 
not familiar with the international standards on  Carbaryl and Imidacloprid. Japan had requested 
Paraguay to submit scientific data, including residue trial data, so that the necessary scientific assessments could be carried out. Japan was able to detect Carbaryl and Imidacloprid at 
0.01 mg/kg. Japan further expressed its availability  to expand on any additional information such 
as method of analysis or sampling plans used in import checks. 
3.2.12  Application and modification of the EU  Regulation on Novel Foods - Concerns of 
Peru (No. 238) 
3.52.  Peru reiterated its concern over the EU Regulation on Novel Foods, as it restricted the 
access of traditional biodiversity-based products into the European market. Peru had previously shown the negative effects of this measure on ex porters. The proposed amendment of Regulation 
No. 258/97 would exclude from its scope traditional biodiversity-based products which had 
previously been safely consumed in their country of origin. The aim of this was to facilitate the G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 14 - 
 
  export of these products from developing countries. Peru requested information on the status of 
the proposed amendment to Regulation No. 258/97 , which would be an important step to access 
the European market. 
3.53.  Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba and El Salvador expressed their support for Peru's 
concerns. 
3.54.  The European Union confirmed that the Eu ropean Commission intended to present a new 
Novel Food proposal by the end of 2013. This wo uld take into account the overarching agreement 
reached by the EU co-legislators on future measures applicable to Novel Foods, including those 
which were traditional in third countries. The proposal would streamline the approval process and provide specific measures for traditional foods from third countries, intended to ease their access to EU markets for the benefit of consumers whilst ensuring their safety. The draft proposal would 
be circulated to all Members through notifications under the SPS and TBT Agreements to allow for 
any comments and concerns to be well taken into account. 
3.3  Consideration of specific notifications received 
3.3.1  Turkey's prohibition of certai n food additives in traditional foods 
(G/SPS/N/TUR/31) - Concerns of Japan 
3.55.  Japan expressed concerns regarding Turkey's new measures which prohibit the use of 
several additives in some of its traditional foods. Recognizing the importance of traditional foods, 
Japan noted that Turkey's regulations do not prov ide a description of kofte. Japan requested that 
Turkey provide a scientific justification, in terms of food safety, for the prohibition of the use of glutamic acid which is listed in table 3 of the Codex General Standard for Food Additives. If the 
objective of the prohibition was to preserve traditional culture, then Turkey should bring this 
matter to the attention of the TBT Committee. 
3.56.  The European Union also indicated its serious concerns with respect to Turkey's new 
m e a s u r e s  o n  f o o d  a d d i t i v e s ,  h i g h l i g h t i n g  procedural and content-related shortcomings. 
Furthermore, Turkey did not provide a meaningful  opportunity for trading partners to comment, 
since the measures were notified after their entry into force. The European Union urged Turkey to 
notify its measure under the TBT Agreement and to clearly define which products fell within the 
category of traditional products. The European Unio n also questioned Turkey's claims that its new 
requirements on food additives complied with EU legislation and that they were in line with the CODEX General Standards. 
3.57.  The United States expressed its support for the statements made by the European Union 
and Japan. Chile also shared Japan's concern and underscored the importance of following international standards and of providing 60 days to comment on notifications. 
3.58.  Turkey recalled that it had notified its new regulations under G/SPS/N/TUR/31. As a 
candidate country to the European Union, Turk ey had aligned its animal and plant health 
legislation so as to comply with the EU regula tions on food additives. However, additional 
provisions covering traditional Turkish products ha d also been introduced. This was done in order 
to protect the originality of these products, taking into consideration consumption habits and traditional ingredients. Some of the additives prohibited for use in these traditional products were listed in annex 6 of the Codex General Standard  for Food Additives. The traditional products 
themselves contained glutamic acid as part of their own substances and did not require glutamic 
acid as an additive. The products were specific to Turkey and should not differ from the familiar taste nor cause a consumer reaction in the domest ic market. Additionally, Turkey reported that 
monosodium glutamate was prohibited in fermented Turkey sausages and pastrami. With regard 
to bread, any food additive other than ascorbic acid was prohibited in products. Additives would be permitted for products which were subject to international trade in order to protect their 
specialties. Turkey's regulation generally complied with the EU regulation, with the following 
exceptions: (i) some food additives were banned in some traditional foods; (ii) no food additives could be used in non-pre-packaged breads; (iii) pig origin additives could not be used in foods, food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings in  consideration of religious sensitivities (iv) the 
origin of the food additives must be stated on th e labels to take into account the preferences of G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 15 - 
 
  vegetarians; and (v) if the additive was of animal origin, the animal name must be stated on the 
labels. 
3.4  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.13 3.59.  The European Union reported that nine STCs had been resolved given that the measures in 
question were no longer considered by the European Union as barriers to trade. These were 
detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1269. The European Union encouraged all Members to regularly update the list of STCs previously raised in the Committee so that updated information would be reflected in 
the Annual Report. 
3.60.  Argentina reported that STC No. 187 regarding restrictions related to foot and mouth 
disease had been settled with Panama. 
3.61.  Following the June meeting, the Secretariat had contacted all Members who had raised STCs 
since 1995 but for which no resolution had been reported. 38 Members had been contacted, of 
which 14 had responded and provided information on  the status of these trade concerns. Members 
had identified 25 trade concerns that they considered to be resolved and 10 that were partially 
resolved. A partially resolved issue was one that had been raised by more than one Member, but 
where not all Members reported the issue to be resolved. Or the issue related to a number of measures or products and the Member which rais ed the concern reported that a resolution had 
been found for only some of the measures or products concerned. The Secretariat provided an 
updated list of all STCs that had been resolved, which would be reflected in the SPS Information System (IMS). 
4  OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS 
4.1.  The Secretariat recalled that it no longer produced paper copies of the contact lists of 
National Notification Authorities and National Enquiry Points, but the lists were constantly updated and available through the SPS Information Management System (IMS) ( http://spsims.wto.org ). 
Members could also generate a monthly summary li st of notifications through the SPS IMS. The 
listing of all documents and notifications issued in 2012 by Members, Observers and the Secretariat had been circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1241 and G/SPS/GEN/1241/Corr.1. 
4.2.  Interested delegates could subscribe to any one of three e-mail lists to receive SPS-related 
information and documentation from the Secretariat. A publically available list received all unrestricted SPS documents, whereas a second list  received all unrestricted documents other than 
notifications. The third list was for SPS delegates only, for the transmission of restricted 
documents, communications from the Chair, faxes, room documents and other non-public 
documentation. Documents were provided through the various e-mail lists in the original language in which they were submitted by Members, and translations of these documents were accessible 
through the SPS IMS or WTO's Docs-on-line. Memb ers interested in receiving documentation via 
e-mail from the Secretariat should ensure the e-mail addresses provided remained correct. 
4.1  Annual Report on Implementation  of the Transparency Provisions 
(G/SPS/GEN/804/REV.6) 
4.3.  The Secretariat noted that the number of notifications had increased in 2013 rebounding 
from the dip in 2010. Developing country Members had submitted an increasing number of notifications which accounted for approximately 63%  of total notifications in 2013. LDCs had also 
submitted more notifications, which accounted for 2.8% of the total. The overall ranking of the 
Members which had submitted the highest number of  regular notifications had remained stable 
since 1995. As regards emergency notifications, the Philippines had taken the lead, followed by 
Russia and Albania. More Members were submitting notifications to inform trading partners when 
they are applying measures in line with international standards, in line with the Committee's recommendations. The number of notifications in the past year pertaining to measures in 
conformity with international standards had incr eased to 81%, compared to 28% on average in 
the previous four years. For emergency notifications, those indicating conformity with international standards had increased from 60% to close to 97%. The Secretariat also noted that a growing 
number of Members were using the SPS on-line system for submitting notifications and 
encouraged all Members to use this mechanism. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 16 - 
 
  5  IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
5.1.  No Member provided information under this agenda item. 5.2.  The Secretariat drew Member's attention to events linked to special and differential 
treatment. The Committee on Trade and Development was organizing a workshop on the effects of 
non-tariff measures on the exports of small and vulnerable economies on 23 October 2013. 
A background document for this workshop was made available as WT/COMTD/SE/W/28 and the agenda for the meeting was contained in WTO/AIR/4203. The Secretariat further noted the TBT 
Committee' practice of holding themed informal meetings as part of their regular meetings, 
including a meeting on special and differential treatment to be held on 29 October 2013. 
6  EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE 4 6.1  Information from Members on their experiences 
6.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
6.2  Information from releva nt observer organizations 
6.2.  No Observer provided any information under this agenda item. 
7  PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS - ARTICLE 6 
7.1.  The Secretariat noted that some Member s had submitted documents providing information 
on the pest and disease status in their territo ries. These documents had been circulated and 
Members could access them online. In this regard, the Secretariat recalled that the IPPC and the 
OIE had recently reminded Members to ensure that this information was also reported to the IPPC or the OIE directly, as there was no mechanism in place to automatically transmit the submitted documents from the WTO Secretariat to the IPPC and the OIE, or vice-versa. 
7.1  Information from Members on  their pest or disease status 
7.1.1  Mexico - Information on seve ral pest-free areas (G/SPS/GEN/1265, 
G/SPS/GEN/1266, G/SPS/GEN/1267, G/SPS/GEN/1268) 
7.2.  Mexico informed Members of the various communications that had been circulated. These 
included the declaration of a municipality in Michoacán as an area free from the large avocado seed weevil ( Heilipus lauri ), the small avocado seed weevil ( Conotrachelus aguacatae and 
C. persea ) and the avocado seed moth ( Stenoma catenifer ), following the introduction of 
phytosanitary measures to determine the absence of these pests based on phytosanitary status assessments. Various municipalities in the State of Aguascalientes were declared as areas free from fruit flies of the genus Anastrepha  of quarantine significance, as the absence of this pest had 
been determined based on phytosanitary status  assessments. A number of communities of the 
State of Michoacán had been determined to be areas with a low prevalence of fruit flies of the genus Anastrepha  of quarantine significance. 
7.1.2  Paraguay - Information on Huanglongbing in citrus (G/SPS/GEN/1273) 
7.3.  Paraguay reported that, pursuant to Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, and in connection with 
the framework for declaration of a phytosanitary emergency, citrus greening disease (HLB), 
Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus,  had been declared a quarantine pest subject to official control 
throughout the national territory in accordance with ISPM No. 8 "Determination of Pest Status in an Area" and ISPM No. 5 "Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms". The phytosanitary emergency had been notified in document G/SPS/N/PRY/24. Details of the phytosanitary measures introduced to 
contain the spread of the pest were available at: http://www.senave.gov.py/hlb.html . G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 17 - 
 
  7.1.3  Guatemala – Information on ar eas free of Mediterranean fruit fly 
(G/SPS/GEN/1274) 
7.4.  Guatemala reported that, in the context of its obligations under Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement, two Ministerial decisions had been enacted declaring several municipalities free of 
Mediterranean fruit fly ( Ceratitis capitata Wied ) and other fruit flies of the genera Anastrepha spp. , 
Dacus spp . and Bactrocera spp . Activities to eradicate these pests had started three decades ago 
to enable Guatemala to develop fruit for export ma rkets, especially papaya. In order to maintain 
freedom, Guatemala had established regulations and procedures for various sites and locations 
which were either free from or had a low prevalence of Mediterranean fruit flies. In this manner, regulations were established to ensure internal quarantine to contain the movement of the Mediterranean fly host fruits and the monitoring of trade of food within Guatemalan territory. 
In 2011, Guatemala had succeeded in declaring a fruit fly free region, in line with the international 
standards, which was significant in the production of various types of fruits. Similarly, activities had been developed in the centre of the country, where an area free from the fruit fly had also 
been declared. Guatemala was working towards creating another fly free area in the south coast. 
Guatemala underscored the efforts taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food and the commitment by Guatemala to improve its phytosanitary system. 
7.1.4  Peru - Freedom from foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) (G/SPS/GEN/1281) 
7.5.  Peru reported that there had been no case s of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in its territory 
since July 2004. In 1998, Peru's National Agrarian Health Service (SENASA) had initiated the eradication process by launching the National Foot-and-Mouth Disease Programme (PRONAFA) 
under a project financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). An emergency health 
plan had been formulated and border conventi ons in northern and southern Peru had been 
strengthened. In order to carry out the programme, the country was divided into three zones, and 
each zone had been set targets to permit recognition by the OIE. 
7.6.  In May 2005, the OIE had granted FMD-free without vaccination status to ten regions in Peru. 
In May 2007, the OIE had granted FMD-free without vaccination status to a further seven regions 
in the country, which meant that 88.4% of the national territory was internationally recognized as 
FMD-free without vaccination. In May 2013, the OI E had granted FMD-free without vaccination 
status to another six regions and FMD-free with vacc ination status to three regions. Therefore, all 
of Peru was now recognized as FMD-free, 98.4% without vaccination and 1.6% as with 
vaccination. 
7.1.5  Philippines - Area free from mango pulp weevil and mango seed weevil 
(G/SPS/GEN/1278) 
7.7.  The Philippines noted that two AUSAID-ACIAR  funded projects dealing with the Mango Pulp 
Weevil (MPW) and Mango Seed Weevil (MSW) had been conducted from February 2006 to February 2007 and from March 2007 to February 2008. The detection surveys under these two 
projects had confirmed the absence of the two pests in Davao del Sur, Saranggani and Samal 
Island in Mindanao. Quarantine checkpoints had b een established in the entry and exit points of 
these areas to maintain area freedom from these pests and continuous low monitoring surveys were conducted. Both Davao del Sur and Samal Island had been recognized by Australian DAFF as 
areas free from MPW and MSW in December 2011, and had commenced commercial export of 
mangoes to Australia in June 2013. Guimaras Island was already established as a source of mangoes for export to Australia. 
7.8.  A US-funded project to enhance the expo rt competitiveness of Philippine mangoes was 
conducted from 2006 to 2009. One of the components  of the project was the conduct of detection 
surveys which confirmed the absence of MPW in th e Philippines, except Palawan, and the absence 
of MSW in the whole Philippines. Monitoring su rveys for these two pests were continuously 
conducted. In February 2013, USDA-APHIS had informed the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) that the request for Area Freedom Certification for MPW (except Palawan) and MSW for the whole Philippines would be processed using the streamli ned system for rule making. Once the United 
States issued the final rule, mangoes for export to  the United States could be sourced from all the 
Philippines except Palawan. The Philippines was ne gotiating with Australia to recognize the whole 
of Philippines, except for Palawan, as MPW and MSW free. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 18 - 
 
  7.1.6  Costa Rica - Sanitary status of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) 
(G/SPS/GEN/1263) 
7.9.  Costa Rica recalled that in May 1999, the OIE had established a procedure for annually 
categorizing member countries according to their BSE risk based on the provisions of the 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code. In May 2012, the OIE had updated the procedure for member 
countries to follow to achieve official recognition and maintenance of status for certain animal diseases. Costa Rica had followed the procedures established by the OIE in order to achieve official 
recognition with respect to BSE. 
7.10.  During the 81
st General Session of the OIE in May 2013, the Assembly had recognized 
Costa Rica as having a controlled BSE risk in acco rdance with Chapter 11.5 of the Terrestrial Code. 
In order to benefit from hard-won achievement by  the public and private sector, it was important 
that this status be recognized, and for this reason, Costa Rica requested that Members implement 
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement and the guidelines in G/SPS/48. 
7.2  Information from Members on their expe riences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas 
7.11.  Chile reported that it had recently recognized some municipalities of Brazil as areas free 
from South American fruit fly, and had also recognized the Patagonia region of Argentina as an 
area free from South American fruit fly. 
7.12.  Chile further declared its whole territory free from ovine and goat scrapie (Scrapie o Prurigo 
lumbar) pursuant to resolution No. 4321/2013 of the Agriculture and Livestock Service. Chile had been evaluating the country's disease status for se veral years, and during this time, no outbreaks 
had been established. 
7.13.  Indonesia noted that it had finished a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of the fruit 
fly Ceratitis capitata  in Sargodha District of the Punjab province, Pakistan , and that the territory 
had been declared pest free in kinnow citrus, under Ministerial Decree No. 27-21 of 2013. 
7.14.  Pakistan highlighted that this recognition by Indonesia would further strengthen the 
excellent trade relations between the two countries. 
7.3  Information from releva nt observer organizations 
7.15.  The IPPC stressed the importance of WTO Members also adhering to their reporting 
obligations under the IPPC and the OIE. 
8  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 
8.1  Information from the Secretariat 
8.1.1  WTO SPS activities 8.1.  The Secretariat indicated that since the last Committee meeting, technical assistance on the 
SPS Agreement had been provided in the following activities: (a) National SPS Seminars in Chile 
and the Philippines; (b) Workshop on SPS-rela ted Market Access Challenges and Opportunities, 
held in Geneva; and (c) Regional SPS Workshop for French-speaking African Countries, held in 
Gabon. The Secretariat thanked Gabon for hosting and collaborating with the regional workshop, 
and the African Union who funded the participation of several government officials in the workshop. 
8.2.  The Secretariat indicated that since the last Committee meeting, general training on the 
SPS Agreement had been provided in the following  activities: (a) Introduction Course on LDCs 
(in French), held in Geneva; (b) Regional Trade Policy Course for Asia-Pacific Countries, held in India; (c) Regional Trade Policy Course for English-speaking African Countries, held in Botswana; 
(d) Regional Agricultural Workshop, held in Barbados; (e) International Conference on "Trade in 
Agriculture and Latin America", held in Argentina; (f) SADC Workshop, held in South Africa; (g) American University Washington College of Law Summer Programme on WTO Law, held in G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Geneva; (h) Duke University Global Health Prog ramme, held in Geneva; (i) ITC Workshop on the 
WTO SPS Agreement, held in Bosnia and Herzegov ina; (j) a training program organized by the 
Swedish Development Cooperation Agency, held in  Sweden; and (k) a seminar on Codex organized 
by the Ministry of Rural Affairs in Sweden. 
8.3.  Upcoming Geneva-based SPS training activities by the WTO Secretariat included: (a) a 
Regional SPS Workshop for Arab Countries, in Ab u Dhabi (4-7 November 2013); (b) SPS national 
seminars, in Azerbaijan, China, Costa Rica, El Sa lvador, Haiti, Honduras, and Zimbabwe. National 
seminars were also being scheduled for Laos and Tunisia, and the Secretariat was considering 
other requests. More general training on the SPS Agreement would also be provided in an AU-organized SPS Workshop, to be held in Zimbabwe (25-27 November 2013). 
8.4.  The Secretariat drew Members' attention to the 2013 Advanced Course on the SPS 
Agreement (7-25 October 2013), held in English in Geneva. This was the ninth consecutive year 
that the course was offered, and 24 officials from developing and least developed countries were participating. The selection process was based on candidate's qualifications and working 
experience, with consideration given to candidates from countries which had not been represented 
in previous editions. The Secretariat thanked th e Chair and the delegates who had shared their 
knowledge and experiences with the Advanced Cour se, as well as the participating organizations 
(Codex, IPPC, OIE, ACWL, ITC), and the external consultants, Mr João Magalhães and Mr Kevin 
Walker. The Secretariat further recognized and thanked those former participants of the Advanced Course who had attended the workshop and had shared their experiences with the current course participants. Many of the former participants had also agreed to act as mentors to continue to 
provide insights on how they had addressed va rious SPS implementation related challenges. 
8.5.  The Secretariat recalled that the e-learning course on the SPS Agreement was available year-
round in the three WTO official languages. Furthe r information on SPS-related technical assistance 
can be obtained on the WTO website (under trade- related technical assistance), or by contacting 
the Secretariat for additional clarification and assistance. 
8.1.2  Report of the Workshop on Market Access 
8.6.  The Secretariat noted that for the Workshop on SPS-related Market Access Challenges and 
Opportunities, the 46 funded participants were all former participants in the Advanced SPS Course. 
A number of the speakers and moderators were former participants, sharing their experiences The Workshop had also been attended by this year's participants of the Advanced Course as well as 
other interested delegates. 
8.7.  The primary objective of the Workshop was to share different experiences in gaining and 
maintaining market access, among all participants. The sessions focused on the different roles of 
governments in relation to market access. The Secretariat recalled that eleven. 
8.8.  Another objective was to obtain feedback from former participants regarding the longer-term 
impact of the advanced course. One of the special features of this course was that participants 
developed action plans to work on one aspect of SPS implementation on their countries and shared 
their report within eight months. While many action plans related to development of national level coordination, transparency, or awareness, some ac tion plans addressed challenges of gaining or 
maintaining market access. As the previous two workshops focused on the topics of coordination 
and transparency, the timing was opportune to focus on market access. 
8.9.  "You make the difference" is the motto of the advanced SPS courses, which encouraged 
participants to take initiatives, be pro-active and play a leadership role. Almost all speakers 
highlighted this as one of the key factors in resolving market access issues - someone had to take 
the initiative and try to make it work. 
8.10.  Session 1 of the workshop had focused on the roles of officials within their governments to 
enhance market access. Session 2 had dealt with collaboration between the public and private 
sectors in enhancing SPS-related market access, and session 3 focused on the role of technical cooperation. A summary report of the workshop was subsequently circulated as G/SPS/R/72, and 
all the presentations were posted on the SPS gateway page 
(http://www.wto.org/english/ tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm ). G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 20 - 
 
  8.1.3  STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1279) 
8.11.  The STDF Secretariat reported on its working group meeting, where funding had been 
approved for four project preparation grants equalling roughly $200,000 USD and for one project 
grant of $1,000,000 USD. In addition, approval was obtained to start work on new SPS-themed 
case stories and good practices; so as to feature them on a new STDF film. 
8.12.  The STDF Secretariat highlighted that STDF had supported the development of a decision-
support tool, based on Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), to help developing countries 
prioritize options to strengthen SPS capacity for market access. On 24-25 June 2013, the STDF 
had organized a workshop on the use of this tool. The workshop was attended by 44 participants, representing STDF partners, donors, developing country experts, observer organizations, and beneficiaries who had applied the tool. 
8.13.  The STDF Secretariat noted that STDF had initiated research work to analyse the 
implementation of SPS measures in the context of trade facilitation (defined as the simplification, harmonisation, standardisation and modernisation of trade procedures). This work encompasses 
regional research in selected countries and sub-re gions in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The aim 
was to identify, analyse and foster dialogue on ex periences, lessons and good practices to improve 
the implementation of SPS controls in a way that facilitated safe trade. The work was being carried 
out in collaboration with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), TradeMark Southern Africa, 
and the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) Secretariat. Reports for all three regions were expected to be finalized by mid-2014. 
8.14.  On the margins of the June 2013 SPS Commi ttee meeting, the STDF, in conjunction with 
the IPPC and OIE, had presented the finalized STDF study on International Trade and Invasive 
Alien Species. A first draft of the study had been prepared for the 2012 STDF Global Seminar on this topic and later revised based on the discussions and conclusions of the seminar. The study 
reviewed and analysed key concepts and principles relevant to IAS and international trade in the 
context of the SPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and in relation to 
the relevant work of the IPPC and the OIE. It also considered various initiatives to enhance 
capacities for managing the entry and spread of IAS (including plant pests and animal diseases), 
reviewed common challenges and good prac tices, and made a number of targeted 
recommendations. 
8.15.  Among the various recommendations in the study, one in particular was directed to the SPS 
Committee:  
"The SPS Committee should consider developing guidance regarding the relationship 
between IAS and the SPS Agreement, for th e purpose of providing legal clarity and 
firmly embedding IAS into the global trad e regulatory framework. Such guidance 
should seek to clarify, inter alia , notification requirements for SPS measures taken by 
national environment/ biodiversity institutions to prevent the introduction of IAS other 
than animal and plant pests or diseases." 
8.16.  Other information on the seminar, including the presentations, a short two-page STDF 
briefing note and other relevant documentation, was available on the STDF website (http://www.standardsfacility.org/en/TAIAS.htm ). 
8.2  Information from Members 
8.17.  Chile reported on national SPS training activities provided by the WTO to the public and 
private sectors. The public sector activity entailed participation of seasoned regulators and 
negotiators on the subject, who had also complete d the SPS on-line course. This workshop allowed 
for an in-depth discussion of issues and possible re solutions. Another activity has been offered to 
industry participants, particularly exporters in the food and fruit sectors. Chile thanked the 
Secretariat for delivering these two national workshops in September. 
8.18.  The Philippines thanked the Secretariat for pr oviding a seminar in Quezon City, in July 2013, 
that was a follow up to a national SPS worksh op held in 2012. A national SPS workshop for 
regional regulatory officials had also been held  i n  C e b u ,  f r o m  3 1  J u l y  t o  2  A u g u s t .  T h e s e  S P S  G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 21 - 
 
  events were designed to support the Philippines' efforts to develop a coherent rules-based national 
SPS regulatory process. The Philippines offered to share its experience and assist Members in 
establishing and strengthening capacity in the SPS area (G/SPS/GEN/1275). 
8.19.  Benin reported on two workshops that successfully trained their own officials on SPS 
measures, as part of the implementation of the Ac tion Plan elaborated by a former participant in 
the SPS Advanced Course. 
8.20.  Burkina Faso indicated that the technical assistance it had received in November 2012, 
which targeted both public and private sectors,  proved to be extremely beneficial for those 
involved in the SPS activities. A workshop had been scheduled for 12-13 November 2013 to allow 
members of the national SPS committee to continue discussing SPS matters. 
8.21.  Madagascar reported on the extremely positive effects of the capacity-building programmes 
(at national and regional levels) in raising awareness of various stakeholders involved in SPS 
matters. This also helped in making progress in the SPS negotiations within the framework of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the East  African group and the European Union. As a 
result, the embargo on animal products had be en lifted and Madagascar could benefit from a 
capacity-building programme funded by the Europe an Union for people involved in food safety 
systems. 
8.22.  Senegal reported on a two-day national work shop in October 2013, financed by the Ministry 
of Trade, to train public and private actors on  the Agriculture and SPS Agreements. A draft text 
with regard to the good functioning of the SP S Agreement was in preparation and should be 
adopted on the occasion of a workshop to be held in Dakar, 11 to 13 December 2013, funded by 
the African Union. 
8.23.  Togo announced that it would host a workshop, financed by the African Union, on the 
implementation of the national plan, pursuant to  which a programme would be adopted to manage 
SPS issues. Togo was also planning to request WTO assistance in 2014 to train the members of the 
national SPS Committee. 
8.24.  El Salvador and Honduras conveyed their gratitude to the Secretariat for its continuous 
support in relation to the implementation of technical cooperation and assistance. Two national 
workshops were planned, as follows: (i) one in Honduras at the beginning of November 2013; and (ii) one in El Salvador. 
8.25.  The Secretariat reminded Members that al though the current policy of WTO was to provide 
national workshops on request to developing an d LDC Members, this was subject to resources 
available in the Global Trust Funds and to sta ff resources. The earlier Members submitted their 
requests, the easier it was for the Secretariat to find a mutually convenient date to provide the 
training. The reported examples of internal national  training, or training provided through regional 
bodies, were a very encouraging development. Copies of the materials, publications, and booklets developed by the Secretariat could be made available to Members for their national training 
events. 
8.3  Information from Observers  8.26.  The IPPC reported that its phytosanitary information webpage contained a substantial 
number of free resources, including a manual on ph ytosanitary market access. The IPPC Capacity-
Development Committee had held a series of meetings to discuss, inter alia , the possibility to 
become an official subsidiary body of the IPPC. 
8.27.  The OIE presented a document on the progre ss of its global initiative under the framework 
of the Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) Pa thway and indicated that the sixth edition of the 
revised PVS tools was now available on its website. Also available was a new tool for the evaluation of aquatic animal health services (G/SPS/GEN/1277/Rev.1). 
8.28.  The Codex referred to a paper prepared for the CAC which identified all the activities of the 
FAO and WHO relating to training in the food safety area and available tools. The Codex was 
proceeding with the final evaluation of its trust fund, which would normally come to an end in G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 22 - 
 
  2015. Codex had started to reflect on a successor initiative. A workshop was organized in Poland 
on Codex participation and how to improve cooperation in the region with the Regional Office for Europe of FAO and WHO. The workshop, held on 16 September 2013, was intended for countries from the European region including all countries in transition. WHO was planning to hold a 
workshop in New Delhi from 23 to 25 October 2013 for the Asian region, in cooperation with the 
government of India, on participating facilita tion of the region in Codex (G/SPS/GEN/1288). 
8.29.  IICA reported on the activities held in the framework of the Programme to Promote 
Participation of the Americas in the Codex Alimentarius. The IICA thanked the United States and 
Canada for their continued financial support for the SPS capacity-building activities, particularly those in connection with participation in the CA C. IICA also thanked the European Union for the 
recent agreement under the European Developm ent Fund Framework, under which the overall 
objective of its SPS component was to help CARIFORUM States gain improved market access by 
complying with Europe's SPS measures, and to better develop their own regionally harmonised SPS measures. This project would be implemented in collaboration with the Secretariat of the 
CARICOM, the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism and the SPS Committee of the Dominican 
Republic (G/SPS/GEN/1276). 
8.30.  OIRSA indicated that from 29 July to 10 October 2013 it had sponsored and developed 
17 different technical assistance activities on trade-related issues on plant and animal health, with 
the objective to disseminate the norms elaborated  by the three sisters. This was intended for 
public and private sectors, international organizati ons, universities etc. A workshop on veterinary 
legislation would be held with the participation of OIE and FAO, with a view to harmonize all the 
veterinary legislations in OIRSA member countries (G/SPS/GEN/1285). 
8.31.  ITC reported on its activities from June to October 2013, as well as those conducted jointly 
with various partners, including the EIF and the STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1292). 
8.32.  New Zealand noted that it was very useful if observers would circulate their presentations in 
advance of the Committee meetings. The Secretariat recalled that documents for meetings were supposed to be provided at least 10-days in advance of the meeting. 
9  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
9.1  Issues arising from the Second Review 9.1.1  Adoption of procedure relating  to implementation of Article 12.2 
(G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7) 
9.1.  The Chairperson recalled that at the previo us meeting she had reported on the progress that 
had been made in developing a procedure relating to implementation of Article 12.2 and the use of the Good Offices of the SPS Chairperson. She had made clear that her intention was to table a 
final proposal for a procedure for adoption at this meeting. The proposed procedure was contained 
in document G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7, which had been circulated to Members on 9 September 2013. All Members had thus had enough time to carefully read this final version of the proposal, and 
should be prepared to make a decision at this meeting. 
9.2.  The Chairperson stressed that although this  proposal was not anyone's "preferred" text, it 
provided a reasonable compromise in addressing everyone's primary concerns and should be acceptable to all. It would create a procedure that would add some clarity and predictability when 
Members request that the Chair facilitate their efforts to find solutions to very specific trade 
problems. At the same time, the procedure would provide for a lot of flexibility, to address the particular preferences of the Members involved each time. It was clear that this procedure was not 
a legally binding agreement, and that it was with out prejudice to Members' rights and obligations 
under the WTO. Finally, the procedure was to be reviewed and modified as the Committee deemed necessary, within a set period of time. 
9.3.   The Chairperson reported that at least two delegations had indicated that their consultations 
with their capitals were still on-going, and that they were not in a position to agree to an outright adoption of this procedure at this meeting. The Chairperson asked these delegations and all 
Members to show the greatest possible flexibility and to agree to the adoption of this procedure on G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 23 - 
 
  an ad referendum  basis. This would give Members a further opportunity to consult with their 
capitals, which given the busy schedule leading up  to the Bali Ministerial Conference, would be 
extended beyond the usual month. The Ch airperson stressed that an adoption ad referendum 
would only provide more time for Members to consult with their capitals and express an objection, 
not to propose modifications. That is, if no Member had informed the Secretariat that it objected to 
the adoption of the procedure by Friday 17 De cember, the procedure would be adopted as now 
presented. 
9.4.  The Chairperson proposed that the Committee adopt the procedure contained in document 
G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7, on an ad referendum  basis. 
9.5.   India commended the intensive work undertaken by the Committee during the past year to 
produce G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7. This issue was of great relevance to India because of the linkages 
with the NAMA negotiations. Although some compromises had been made, India continued to have 
reservations on many aspects of the text, which had been considerably weakened and no longer 
linked to the NAMA negotiations. India was not in a position to adopt Revision 7 even on an 
ad referendum basis, and believed that more discussions were needed in the Committee. More 
specifically, India did not understand the implications of the bracketed footnote 1 in the main text, and could not accept that an option was given to Members to accept or reject the request itself 
rather than the consultation procedure which was the second stage of these ad hoc  consultations. 
Regarding paragraph 2.5, India could not understand why a requesting Member would decline to circulate its request, or at least the non-confidential part of a request and had a similar concern with the "up front"  confidentiality in paragraph 2.12. Moreover, for India the red line was the need 
for a reference to the horizontal mechanism process. 
9.6.  The European Union indicated that despite Revision 7 of the document under discussion not 
fully reflecting its preferences, it was willing to accept the document in its present form as tabled 
by the Chair. The European Union did this with a view to moving the work of the Committee 
forward and in order to overcome the impasse that had been under way for a long time. Given the comments from the floor, the European Union could understand that some Members needed a little 
more time to consider this proposal however the European Union preferred the proposal on the 
table to be adopted on an ad referendum  basis to allow those Members more time for reflection. If 
however agreement was not possible, the European Union was of the opinion that prolonging the discussion, - particularly if that meant reopening the difficult compromise that had now been 
reached after eight years of discussion – would not lead to consensus. The European Union 
recalled that previously the Chairperson had indicated that she would take this issue off the table if it could not be adopted at this meeting, and requested further clarity on the next steps. 
9.7.  El Salvador supported adoption of the procedure as proposed, recognizing that Members 
could choose whether or not to use the mechanism, which basically elaborated application of what was already in the Agreement. 
9.8.  Argentina was prepared to adopt the text, although they would prefer the modification of 
paragraph 5.1, to read: "whether it is necessary to modify or terminate this procedure…". This modification was also supported by Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, although they could accept the text 
in Revision 7. These Members also noted that this mechanism already existed and that the 
objective was only to find how to better use it. 
9.9.  Switzerland indicated that it could agree to the adoption of Revision 7, but not to the 
reopening of the consultations, and asked the Chairperson to clarify the next steps. 
9.10.  The Chairperson expressed profound disappoin tment after that so many years of hard work 
there was still no consensus for adoption, even on an ad referendum  basis, of this procedure. The 
Chairperson recalled her earlier suggestion that if Members could not agree  to adopt this 
procedure  at this meeting, there was little value in keep ing this issue on the active agenda of the 
Committee. This process had started as part of the second Review in July 2005, and after all these rounds of discussions Members were familiar with ea ch other's views and sensitivities on the issue. 
All the points raised by India had been previous ly discussed at length. The Chairperson therefore 
proposed that the Committee include this item in the March 2014 meeting agenda only if those 
Members who were unable to accept this procedure came with a new proposal that would be acceptable to all Members. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 24 - 
 
  9.11.  A large number of Members expressed their disappointment at the failure to adopt the 
procedure at this meeting, and emphasized the need  for Members to show flexibility at this time. 
Belize agreed with Chile and El Salvador's statemen t that these guidelines were simply to facilitate 
the use of a provision that was already available to Members, and Members should make use of 
the procedure to test its effectiveness. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, El Salvador, the 
European Union, South Africa, Switzerland, and th e United States all urged Members to reflect and 
accept the procedure on an ad referendum  basis. Failing that, some Members urged the 
Committee to continue its efforts until Members were able to adopt this process since a lot of good 
work had already gone into this proposal. 
9.12.  In consideration of the discussions, the Chairperson asked again if there was still any 
objection to adopting the procedure on an ad referendum  basis  with the deadline of 17 December 
for any objections. 
9.13.  India indicated that it was still not in a position to adopt the document at this time . 
9.14.  The Chairperson requested any Member who could not accept the current proposal to 
submit their specific suggestions by 17 Decemb er 2013. The proposed modifications should be 
made with full consideration of other Members' positions and views, which were well known, as 
there was no point in proposing text that had already been discussed and rejected. Any specific 
proposals would then be discussed at the March 2014 meeting. If no specific proposals were 
received by 17 December 2013, Revision 7 would be put forward for adoption at the March Committee meeting. 
9.2  Fourth Review 
9.2.1  Proposed process for the review (G/SPS/W/270) 
9.15.  The Chairperson recalled that, in accordance with the Ministerial Decision of 2001, the 
SPS Committee should review the operation and im plementation of the SPS Agreement every four 
year. The previous review had been concluded in March 2010 (G/SPS/53), Fourth Review should 
be undertaken in 2014. 
9.16.  Based on previous practice, the Secretariat proposed a process for the review that provided 
a number of opportunities for Members to: (1) identify issues to be addressed as part of the 
Fourth Review; (2) submit specific proposals on the identified issues; and (3) comment on any suggestions from others (G/SPS/W/270). The Secr etariat would circulate a background document 
describing the Committee's work since the last Review (subsequently issued as G/SPS/W/273). 
At an informal meeting in March 2014, Memb ers could discuss the issues and proposals for 
consideration as well as comment on the background document. In the past, Members had identified a great number of issues but made few specific proposals for actions by the Committee. 
The Chairperson invited Members to identify any specific issues that they would like to be 
considered in the Fourth Review. 
9.2.2  Proposal from Canada on a catalogue of instruments available to WTO Members to 
manage SPS issues (G/SPS/W/271) 
9.17.  Canada proposed that the Committee develop a "Catalogue of Instruments Available to the 
WTO Members to manage SPS issues" (G/SPS/W/271). The proposed catalogue would include all mechanisms relevant to the SPS Agreement fr amework, for instance the right to provide 
"comments on notifications", in accordance with Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement. 
Although Canada commonly received these comments, it was rare for a Member submitting comments to request to discuss its comments. Another suggested tool was the targeted or 
strategic use of some SPS Committee agenda items to allow a Member to raise specific issues with 
another Member during meetings. Other tools within the WTO (such as the Trade Policy Review), outside the WTO (such as the IPPC dispute settlement or OIE informal mediations procedures) 
and, if adopted, the recommended procedure for ad hoc consultations in the context of Article 12.2 
of the SPS Agreement could be included in this catalogue. A considered and timely use of these 
tools could help Members avoid, manage, or escalate issues. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 25 - 
 
  9.18.  The European Union supported Canada's proposal and suggested that such a catalogue 
could describe in some detail what these instruments were in order to facilitate their use in practice. The European Union indicated that transp arency in the application of the SPS Agreement 
had improved thanks to the growing number of noti fications and to the early notification system. 
However it believed that there were still shortcomin gs that should be addressed in the context of 
the Fourth Review regarding the quality of the notifications. For example, although a 60-day 
comment period was recommended, more could be done regarding how to take comments 
received into account, integrate them into the legislative work, respond to comments, and provide 
an explanation in those cases where the comments were not accepted. Sometimes Members indicated that notified measures were trade-facilitating or in compliance with an international standard, when in fact they were not. More guidance was therefore needed on this matter. 
9.19.  The European Union was of the opinion th at in the Fourth Review the Committee should 
concentrate its efforts on a limited number of areas where real and practical progress could be achieved. 
9.20.  Argentina recalled its proposal for a revision of the procedure for monitoring the use of 
international standards (G/SPS/W/268), and suggested that this topic could be addressed in the context of the Fourth Review. The proposed catalo gue of tools by Canada could also include those 
under development, like the new proposed ad hoc consultations procedure, should it be adopted, 
or the procedure for the use of international standards. 
9.21.  Brazil and Chile recalled that Uruguay had raised concerns regarding the issue of undue 
delay in the previous review, which had received support from many Members, and indicated that 
they would endeavour to make a proposal on this matter in the context of the Fourth Review. 
9.22.  The Chairperson welcomed the proposals already identified by Members. The next steps 
were for the Secretariat to circulate a background document covering the period since the last 
Review, and for Members to comment on this docu ment and/or to request background information 
on other specific issues, no later than 17 December 2013  (n.b. subsequently changed to 
17 January 2014). This was also the deadline for Members to identify other issues for 
consideration during the Review. There would be one other opportunity for Members to identify 
issues for the review, i.e. 12 February 2014. 
10  MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
10.1  New issues 
10.1.  No Member raised any new issues under this agenda item. 
10.2  Issues previously raised 10.2.  The IPPC reported on the activities of  the Implementation Review and Support System 
(IRSS), including a general survey on the IPPC and 32 standards (G/SPS/GEN/1284). The IPPC 
requested contracting parties to complete a survey on pest reporting and regulated pest listing as 
soon as possible, as this information would help identify ways that the IPPC Secretariat and the 
IRSS program could better assist countries to fulfil related IPPC obligations. The IRSS website and 
help desk had been launched and IPPC was seeking donors for translation of existing IRSS analyses, tools and resources, and donors for the second 3-year cycle of the IRSS. 
11  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
11.1  Report on informal meeting 
11.1.  The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting on SPS-related private standards held on 
15 October 2013. At that meeting she had recalled that the Committee had agreed to develop a 
working definition of SPS-related private standards in order to set the framework within which it 
would discuss the issue. Agreed Action 1 (G/SPS/55) did not propose a legal definition, but merely sought a framework to limit the scope of issues considered by the Committee. G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 26 - 
 
  11.2.  The Chairperson had also reminded the Committee that as stated in paragraph 4 of 
G/SPS/55, endorsement of the adopted actions wa s without prejudice to the views of Members 
regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
11.3.  The Chairperson had recalled that in March, no consensus had emerged on the definitions 
submitted by Members and that she had invited Members to submit revised or new proposals by 
19 April 2013. As only China and New Zealand had submitted proposals at this time, the Chairperson had taken the initiative of asking them to try to develop a joint proposal. 
11.4.  At the meeting in June, China and New Zealand had presented a first joint working 
definition and, as there was still no consensus on  the proposed definition, Members had agreed to 
give China and New Zealand more time to continue their work, taking into account the comments made during the meeting in June and comments submitted by 2 August 2013. There were three 
such submissions from Argentina, Australia and South Africa. 
11.5.  The Chairperson had reported that, thanks to their continuous leadership and constructive 
approach, China and New Zealand had tabled a revi sed joint working definition of an SPS-related 
private standard for discussion at the informal  meeting. The proposed working definition was 
contained in document G/SPS/W/272 circulated on 8 October 2013. 
11.6.  China and New Zealand had presented the proposed working definition and had explained 
their considerations in developing the definition. The Secretariat had reported that the WTO Legal 
Affairs Division had confirmed that the proposed working definition and its footnote did not entail 
any legal interpretation as to whether or not pr ivate standards were covered by the terms of the 
SPS Agreement. Several Members had taken the fl oor to support the joint effort by China and 
New Zealand, to support specific elements of the proposed joint working definition, and to flag 
particular concerns. 
11.7.  As no consensus had emerged on the working definition tabled by China and New Zealand, 
Members had agreed to move the process forward by forming an electronic working group. China 
and New Zealand would act as "co-stewards", and the e-working group would focus on Action 1, namely on developing a working definition of an SPS-related private standard. 
11.8.  The Chairperson had invited Members intere sted in being part of the working group to 
submit specific and concrete proposals or comments on the definition to the Secretariat. 
11.9.  It had also been agreed that the e-work ing group would submit to the Chair, through the 
Secretariat, a proposed compromise text on a working definition of an SPS-related private 
standard no later than: the end of February 2014 . The proposed definition would then be 
circulated to all Members for consideration at the March 2014 meeting of the Committee. 
11.10.  Under Action 2, Argentina had encouraged Codex, IPPC and OIE to contact the private 
schemes identified by Members in document G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 and promote the use of 
international standards. The Three Sisters could then report back to the SPS Committee on those 
contacts. 
11.11.  The representative of IPPC had reported that IPPC had requested that ISO clarify that 
there were no obligations to implement ISO standards in order to comply with IPPC standards. 
11.12.  Belize had noted the close linkages between the twelve actions identified by the ad hoc 
working group on private standards in G/SPS/W/256 (see G/SPS/GEN/1290). For instance, efforts 
under Action 4 could be enhanced if carried out jointly with Action 5. Belize had also suggested 
enhancing Action 4 by sensitizing private standard setting entities to (i) the Code of Good Practice of the TBT Agreement, as well as the "six prin ciples" adopted by the TBT Committee, and (ii) the 
list of concerns in paragraph 24 under Action 6 of document G/SPS/W/256. 
11.13.  The Philippines had noted the importance of sensitizing private actors and informed 
Members of upcoming regional and national briefi ng sessions jointly organized by the Department 
of Agriculture and UNFSS. The Regional Br iefing Session for ASEAN would address how 
governments and private sector could work togeth er to achieve sustainable development goals and 
facilitate market access. The national briefing would discuss national strategic approaches on how G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 27 - 
 
  the relevant stakeholders could coordinate to help achieve sustainable development goals and 
facilitate market access. 
11.14.  China had referred to its submission G/SPS/GEN/1261 on Action 4, and noted that it would 
be useful when communicating with non-government al entities for Members to make reference to 
the TBT Code of Good Practice and to the TBT Committee's Decision on the "Six Principles" for the 
preparation of international standards. Chin a had noted that some Members were already 
communicating with private entities in their terri tories involved in the development, application 
and certification of private standards and had en couraged Members to share their experiences in 
that regard. 
11.15.  Under Action 5, the Secretariat had noted that Codex had developed new materials on the 
role Codex standards could play in ensuring the trade of safe food. Members could use those new 
Codex materials as well as materials that already existed from the other sisters, and disseminate 
them to their private sector. 
11.16.  Under Action 5, Argentina had reiterated its suggestion that Codex, IPPC and OIE liaise 
directly with the various private schemes  identified by Members in document 
G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1. Such contact could then inform the three sisters' efforts to develop and/or disseminate materials underlying the importance of international standards. Burkina Faso had also 
suggested that Codex, IPPC and OIE set up a consultative framework with private standards 
setting bodies. 
11.17.  With regards to Action 10, Belize had encouraged Members to review the TBT Code of 
Good Practice and determine its applicability for the implementation of the action. On Action 11, 
Belize had encouraged Members liaising with entities involved in SPS-related private standards to 
share their experience with the Committee, as the approaches used could be considered in the implementation of Action 11. See G/SPS/GEN/1291. 
11.18.  It had also been suggested that the Committee explore ways to move forward on 
Actions 6-12 through a voluntary working group. However, some Members had noted that there was no consensus on Actions 6 12 and advised the Committee not to invest time on such actions. 
11.19.  In closing the discussions, the Chairp erson had encouraged all Members to share 
information on their experiences regarding th e implementation of the agreed Actions. 
11.20.  UNCTAD had provided an update on recent UNFSS activities since the launch of the 
platform in March 2013 and made a presentation addr essing: priority issues, its activities through 
a three-pillar approach, and recent collaboration s and meetings. The presentation had prompted 
interest and questions from the Committee. More information and contact details were available on 
the UNFSS website ( http://www.unfss.org ). 
11.21.  Some Members had questioned the rele vance of UNFSS' work with regards to the 
SPS Committee. It had been explained that issues related to pesticide residues were often addressed in sustainability standards. Reference had also been made more generally to UNCTAD's 
longstanding work on private standards and developing country concerns. China had also 
underlined the relevance of inviting the UNFSS to provide updates on its activities. The Secretariat 
had noted that it was also possible to organize information sessions on the margins of SPS Committee meetings, as had been done in the past. 
11.22.  Chile had noted the importance of increased awareness about the operations of private 
standard-setting bodies, and referred to the OIE Resolution guiding OIE's relations with private 
standard-setting bodies. The collaboration of both OIE and Codex with private standard-setting 
bodies was encouraged. This collaboration wa s important to encourage the development and 
implementation of science-based food safety and other standards, whether official or private. 
11.23.  Following her oral report on the informal  meeting, the Chairperson noted that to provide 
time for the e-working group to table a proposal  by end February given end of year holidays, 
Members who wanted to be part of the e-working group should submit specific proposals and/or 
comments on the definition by 8 November 2013 . Once the Secretariat received all comments G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 28 - 
 
  and proposals, these would be provided to New Zealand and China for their consideration when 
drafting a proposed definition for consultation with e-working group members. 
12  OBSERVERS 12.1  Information from observer organizations 
12.1.  No observer organization provided further information on their relevant activities. 
12.2  Requests for observer status 12.2.  The Chairperson proposed that as had b een done the previous year, the SPS Committee 
invite the organizations with ad hoc observer status to participate in all of the SPS Committee 
meetings for 2014 - with the exception, of cour se, of any closed meeting - unless any Member 
objected to the participation of any of these observers in advance of a meeting. It was so agreed. 
12.3.  The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had also agreed in 2012, that if for any one-
year period an ad hoc observer organization did not attend the meetings of the SPS Committee, 
the Committee might consider that its observer status had lapsed after the Secretariat had advised the observer organization and had received confirmation that it was no longer interested in 
maintaining its observer status. The Secretariat indi cated that eight out of the 16 ad hoc observer 
organizations had not attended a single meetin g of the SPS Committee during 2013. These were: 
ACP Group; AITIC; CEN-SAD; ECCAS; ECOWAS; OECD; SADC; and SELA. The Chairperson 
requested the Secretariat to contact these organizations and seek information regarding their 
continuing interest to participate as observers in the SPS Committee. 
12.4.  The Chairperson noted that there were still six outstanding requests for observer status in 
the SPS Committee: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); CABI International; the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered  Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the 
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC); and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO). She observed that Members' positions 
on these requests had not changed since the last meeting, and that there was not yet a consensus 
to grant ad hoc observer status to any of these organizations. 
12.5.  The Chairperson informed the observer organi zations that their contributions to the work of 
the SPS Committee and their assistance to Members were highly appreciated and that the 
Committee had agreed to invite them to participate in all unrestricted meetings during 2014. She once again encouraged them to provide written repo rts on their relevant activities in advance of 
the March meeting. 
13  OTHER BUSINESS 
13.1  The ban on import of Ukrainia n confectionary products to Russia 
13.1.  Ukraine raised concerns about the non-transparent manner in which Russia had banned 
imports of confectionary products on 29 July 2013.  This measure, based on the Resolution of the 
Federal Service on Customers' Rights Protecti on and Human Well-being Surveillance of Russia 
(No.01/8612-13-23), had not been notified and Russia's SPS Enquiry Point did not provide the 
relevant information requested by Ukraine on 8 Au gust 2013. No official evidence concerning the 
alleged presence of contaminants (such as benzop iren) had been officially submitted to Ukraine. 
Despite bilateral consultations the import ban was still in place. Ukraine believed that the measure was unnecessary and unjustifiably strict, maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, and 
applied in a discriminatory manner, contrary to Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Ukraine requested 
Russia to provide an official detailed justification of its measure, or to immediately lift the ban and to bring its measure into line with the SPS Agreement and with its accession commitments. 
13.2.  Russia indicated that the reason for susp ending Ukrainian confectionary product imports 
was largely outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. Not all imports of confectionary products had been suspended, but only of one particular bran d from Ukraine. The ban was related to the long-
term detection of labelling violations in these particular goods, and the fight against deceptive 
trade practices. The indication of the product categories did not correspond to the definitions in the G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Russian technical regulations. Russia had already held three rounds of consultations with the 
competent authorities of Ukraine, and an action plan developed to restart imports of confectionary products. Russia had provided an answer to Ukraine's request for notification but apparently this had not been satisfactory to Ukraine. A second se t of answers by the competent authority made it 
clear that the measure in place was the same as that applied to domestic products. Russia 
considered that this trade concern had been resolved. 
13.3.  The Secretariat once again drew Members' a ttention to the on-going work of the negotiating 
group on trade facilitation, as this text was evolving very rapidly and contained a number of 
provisions that could potentially be of relevance to border inspectors looking at a full range of SPS matters. To ensure that the new text would be complementary and avoid any potential conflict or reduction of what had been negotiated in the SPS area, the Secretariat urged delegates to 
coordinate with their colleagues involved in the negotiations. 
13.4.  The Secretariat indicated that the annual report (G/L/1039) of the SPS Committee to the 
Council for Trade in Goods had been circulated and would be revised to also reflect what had 
happened at this meeting. 
14  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING 14.1.  The next meeting of the Committee is tentatively scheduled for 25-26 March 2014. The 
Chairperson proposed to hold informal consultati ons regarding the Fourth Review and SPS-related 
private standards immediately prior to the next meeting. 
14.2.  The Committee agreed to the following tentative agenda for its March 2014 meeting: 
1. Adoption of the agenda 
2. Information on relevant activities 
a. Information from Members 
b. Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies 
3. Specific trade concerns 
c. New issues 
d. Issues previously raised 
[(i) Consideration of specific notifications received] 
(ii) Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
4. Operation of transparency provisions 
5. Implementation of special and differential treatment 
6. Equivalence – Article 4 
a. Information from Members on their experiences 
b. Information from relevant Observer organizations 
7. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
a. Information from Members on their pest or disease status 
b. Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or disease-free 
areas 
c. Information from relevant observer organizations 
8. Technical assistance and cooperation 
a. Information from the Secretariat 
(i) WTO SPS activities 
(ii) STDF G/SPS/R/73 
 
- 30 - 
 
  b. Information from Members 
c. Information from Observers 
9. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
[a. Issues arising from the Second Review] 
b. Fourth Review 
(i) Report of the informal meeting 
10. Monitoring of the use of international standards 
a. New issues 
b. Issues previously raised 
11. Concerns with private and commercial standards 
a. Report on informal meeting 
12. Observers 
a. Information from Observer organizations 
b. Request for observer status 
13. Election of the Chairperson 
14. Other business 
15. Date and agenda of next meeting 
 
14.3.  The Secretariat clarified that agenda item  3(c) - Consideration of Specific Notifications 
Received - would be included in the agenda only if Members identified specific issues to be considered under that agenda item by the deadlin e for doing so. The inclusion of agenda item 9 – 
Issues arising from the Second Review, would depend on what proposal, if any, would be made 
regarding the ad hoc consultations procedure by the deadline. 
14.4.  Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines:  
 Members who wanted to participate in the electronic working group to develop a revised 
proposed definition of SPS-related private standards should submit specific, concrete comments or suggestions to the Secretariat by 8 November 2013 ; 
 For specific proposals of a new consensus text on the procedure to facilitate ad hoc  
consultations: 17 December 2013 ; 
 For comments on the background document of the Fourth Review (G/SPS/W/273), as well 
as requests for additional background information on specific issues and identification of 
issues for consideration during the Fourth Review: 17 December 2013 (n.b. subsequently 
changed to 19 January 2014 ); 
 For submission of papers on issues proposed for consideration during the Fourth Review as 
well as for the identification of a dditional issues for consideration: 12 February 2014 ; 
 For identifying issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure, and for requesting 
that items be put on the agenda: Thursday, 13 March 2014 ; 
 For distribution of the Airgram, for the submission of papers on issues for consideration 
under the Fourth Review, and for circulation of documents to be considered at the March meeting: Friday, 14 March 2014 . 
 
__________