RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/94  
 
27 June 2019  
(19-4377) Page: 1/36 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETI NG OF 21-22 MARCH  2019 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
2   INFORMATION SHAR ING ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  4 
2.1.1    Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukush ima Daiichi 
nuclear power plant accident  ................................ ................................ ................................  4 
2.1.2    Russian Federation – Update on food safety  ................................ ................................ . 4 
2.1.3    Canada - Entry into force of the safe food for Canadians regulation  ................................ . 4 
2.1.4    Canada - Information on the global low -level presence initiative (G/SPS/GEN/1685)  .........  5 
2.1.5    Ukraine - Update on import regulations for live animals and related products  ...................  5 
2.1.6    European Union - Implementation of the EU Animal Health Law  
(Regulation (EU)  2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases)  ................................ ..................  5 
2.1.7    European Union - New phytosanitary rules for importing plants, plant products and other 
regulated objects – Implementation of the EU Plant Health Law (Reg ulation (EU)  2016/2031)  ...... 6 
2.1.8    European Union - Implementation of the new EU official controls regulation (Regulation 
(EU) 2017/6 25) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  6 
2.1.9    Argentina - Ministerial Declaration of the Southern Agricultural Council (CAS) on gene 
editing techniques  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  6 
2.1.10    Peru - Recognition of Peru as a country free of foot and mouth disease without 
vaccination  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  7 
2.1.11    China – Information on African Swine Fever  ................................ ...............................  8 
2.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ............  8 
2.2.1    Codex  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  8 
2.2.2    IPPC ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
2.2.3    OIE ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  9 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE C ONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/2 04/REV.19)  ................................ ............  9 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  9 
3.1.1    EU restrictions on the use of chlorothalonil (pesticide active substance)  
(G/TBT/N/EU/625)  – Concerns of Colombia  ................................ ................................ ............  9 
3.1.2    EU transitional periods for MRLs and international consultations – 
Concerns of Colombia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  11 
3.1.3    Indonesia's undue delay in authorization procedures for beef – Concerns of Brazil  ..........  13 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.1.4    Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza – 
Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ .........................  13 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ .............................  13 
3.2.1    EU MRLs for buprofezin, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, 
iprodione, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (G/SPS/N/EU/264) – Concerns of  
Colombia, Costa Rica, India and the United States (No. 448)  ................................ ..................  14 
3.2.2    EU legislation on endocrine disruptors – Concerns of China, India and the United States 
(No. 382)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  16 
3.2.3    New EU definition of the fungicide folpet – Concerns of China (No. 447)  ........................  18 
3.2.4    EU review of legislation on veterinary medical products – Concerns of the United States 
(No. 446)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  18 
3.2.5    Viet Nam's import restrictions in the draft Law of Animal Production – Concerns of the 
United States (No. 450)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 20 
3.2.6    The Russian Federation's bluetongue -related import restriction on ruminants – 
Concerns of the European Union (No. 449)  ................................ ................................ ...........  20 
3.2.7    EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on animal products – Concerns of  
China (No.  442) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  21 
3.2.8    Viet Nam's market access requirements for ''white'' offals and other products – 
Concerns of the United States (No. 438)  ................................ ................................ ..............  21 
3.2.9    EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmonella  detection – Concerns of  
Brazil (No. 432)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  22 
3.2.10    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza – 
Concerns of the European Union (No. 431)  ................................ ................................ ...........  22 
3.2.11    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza – Concerns of the 
European Union (No. 406)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 23 
3.2.12    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from  
Estonia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  ................................ .............................  23 
3.2.13    General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union (No.  193) ..... 23 
3.2.14    Guatemala's restrictions on egg products – Concerns of Mexico (No. 413)  ....................  23 
3.2.15    US import restrictions on apples and pears - Concerns of the  
European Union (No.  439) ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24 
3.2.16    New Zealand's draft import health standard for vehicles, machinery and equipment - 
Concerns of Japan (No. 440)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  24 
3.2.17    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal products – Concerns of the  
European Union (No. 441)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 25 
3.2.18    Indonesia's food safety measures affecting horticultural products and  
animal products – Concerns of the Philippines (No. 414)  ................................ ........................  25 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  ................................ ........  25 
4   OPERATION AND IM PLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 26 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  26 
4.2   Pest-and d isease -free areas (Regionalization)  ................................ ...............................  26 
4.2.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  26 
4.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ...........  27 
4.4   Special and Differential Treatment  ................................ ................................ ...............  27 
4.5   Monitoring of the use of International Standards  ................................ ...........................  27 
4.5.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  27 G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4.5.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ..........................  28 
4.6   Fifth Review  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  28 
4.6.1    Report  on the Thematic Session on Equivalence (Part 2)  ................................ ..............  28 
4.6.2    Report on the Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm  ................................ .....................  29 
4.6.3    Report of the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ .................  30 
5   CROSS -CUTTING IS SUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  31 
6   TECHNICAL ASSIST ANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  31 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................  31 
6.1.1    WTO SPS technical assistance activities (G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.9,  
G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.14)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 31 
6.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1683)  ................................ ................................ .........................  32 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .........................  32 
6.2.1    Senegal – Technical assistance and cooperation  ................................ .........................  32 
7   CONCERNS WITH PR IVATE AN D COMMERCIAL STANDAR DS ................................ ...... 32 
8   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  33 
8.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ ...... 33 
8.1.1    ECOWAS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  33 
8.1.2    OIRSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  33 
8.1.3    OECD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  33 
8.1.4    IGAD  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  33 
8.1.5    COMESA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  33 
8.1.6    IICA ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  33 
8.1.7    African Union Commission ................................ ................................ ........................  34 
8.1.8    ACP Group  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  34 
8.1.9    ITC ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  34 
8.2   Requests for obs erver status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  ................................ ......................  35 
8.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  35 
8.2.2    Outstanding requests  ................................ ................................ ..............................  35 
9   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ..............  35 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 35 
11   DATE AND AGENDA  FOR NEXT MEETINGS ................................ ................................  36 
 G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es (the "Committee") held its 7 4th regular 
meeting on 21-22 March  2019. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with amendments 
(WTO/AIR/SPS/ 26). 
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant acciden t 
2.1.  Japan thanked Russia and Singapore for relaxing their import restrictions, and Oman for lifting 
all import restrictions. Japan also provided an update on the most recent data from its food 
monitoring programme, highlight ing that Japanese standard limits had been set very conservatively , 
taking into cons ideration the accident and the food intake of Japanese citizens. Foods  exceeding the 
limits were not allowed to enter the food supply chain. The ir data showed that the situation regarding 
the safety of food, fishery and agricultural products continued to r emain stable. All the test results 
of farm and fishery products, as well as harvests of wild plants and edible fungi (consumed in small 
quantities), had been within the Codex guideline levels for almost six years, except those of specific 
game meat, which still exceeded the level by very low rates. Notably, the annual effective dose of 
radioactive caesium in food products had been estimated to be far below the Codex intervention 
exemption level. Japan also recalled that FAO and IAEA had acknowledged that  the Japanese food 
supply chain was controlled effectively by the relevant authorities. Japan reported that 30 out of the 
54 countries and regions who had introduced import restrictions on Japanese foods had completely 
lifted these restrictions. Japan urged Members who maintain ed import measures to review whether  
these measures were sufficiently based on scientific principles , did not restrict trade more than 
required, and did not unjustifiably discriminate between Members . 
2.1.2   Russian Federation  – Update on food safety  
2.2.  The Russian Federation informed the Committee of ongoing work to improve the regulatory 
framework for healthy nutri tion and the conduct of a full and detailed assessment of the state of 
food safety in its regions. The policy aimed  to reduce health risks associated with the consumption 
of unsafe foods , including an information campaign on healthy nutrition to reduce lev els of 
consumption of sugar, salt and fat. The Russian Federation recognised the importance of 
international standards, guidelines and principles for food products. In addition, the Russian 
Federation reported  that members of the Eurasian Economic Union we re in the process of amend ing 
their food safety technical regulations based on international requirements and scientific data.  
2.1.3   Canada - Entry into force of the safe food for Canadians regulation  
2.3.  Canada announced that the Safe Food for Canadians Regulation had entered into force on 15 
January 2019, following  its publication  on 13 June 2018. Some of its requirements required 
immediate compliance , while others were being phased  in over 12 to 30 months based on food 
commodity, type of activity and business size . Canada reminded Members that  it had been working 
since 2012 to modernize its food safety framework , and had kept Members updated through 
notifications  G/SPS/N/CAN/700 , G/SPS/N/CAN/700/Rev.1 , G/SPS/N/CAN/700/Rev.1/Add.1 , 
G/SPS/N/CAN/700/Rev.2 , G/SPS/N/CAN/700/Rev.2/Add.1 , and G/SPS/N/CAN/938. Canada noted 
that throughout this process it had consulted with domestic and foreign stakeholders, which included 
two information sessions on the margins of two SPS Committee meeting s, in July 2014 and in March 
2017. The new regulatory framework consolidated 14 existing regulations into a single, more 
outcome -based regulation, structured around three key food safety elements: licensing, traceability 
and preventative controls related t o the preparation of food. These  elements applied to all food  
products , whether  imported, prepared for exports , or traded between  Canadian provinces. Canada 
encouraged Members to visit http://www.inspect ion.gc.ca/safefood  for more information.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.1.4   Canada - Information on the global low -level presence initiative 
(G/SPS/GEN/1685)  
2.4.  Canada informed the Committee of the work led by the international group Global Low Level 
Presence Initiative (GLI), which had held s ix meetings among member and non -member countries 
and international organizations. In 2012, Canada hosted an international meeting which gave rise 
to the International Statement on Low Level Presence (LLP). Consistent with Codex Alimentarius 
Commission (CA C) guidance, the International Statement define s LLP as the unintentional presence 
in grain shipments, at low levels, of a genetically modified (GM) crop that had been approved for 
food use following CAC/GL 45 -2003 guidelines  in at least one country , but n ot yet in the importing 
country. The Statement further defined common strategic directions, objectives and intentions on 
LLP, had been endorsed by the 15 GLI member s. The Statement had been circulated as  document  
G/SPS/GEN/1685. Canada explained that LLP s ituations could occur where there was a time gap in 
the authorization of GM  crops between the importing and exporting countries, or, less frequently, 
when developers did not seek authorizations in all importing countries. GLI members were of the 
view that LLP was an inevitable reality of the bulk grain handling and transportation systems and 
the adoption of GM crops . GLI members  have identified reducin g time gaps in approvals of GM crops 
as the most effective way to tackle LLP and is one of the long term objectives of the GLI. However,  
the GLI recognizes trade risk remains and is also committed to developing practical, science -based 
and trade -facilitati ng solutions for the management of LLP. Canada encouraged Members to contact 
the GLI secretariat if they wished to learn more about the work undertaken by the group.  
2.5.  Argentina , the United States and Brazil  thanked Canada for bringing to the attention of the 
Committee the International Statement on LLP , which they supported together with  the work of the 
GLI. Argentina highlighted the importance of the preventive work undertaken on low-level presence 
of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which  they considered to be a trade  issue, and not a 
biosecurity one . Argentina stressed the need to find a solution to avoid the current trade disruptions 
that could compromise global food safety and was thus seeking solutions in different fora such as 
MERCOSUR, the free trade agreements they negotiate d, and the Global Low Level Presence 
Initiative.  
2.6.  The United States r ecalled that LLP was a significant trade issue which affected exporting and 
importing countries, and that economic studies showed that the impacts from asynchronous 
approvals and LLP fell more heavily on the latter. According to the United States , Members could 
best address the risks through the development and implementation of practical approaches that 
were science -based, predictable and transparent, and the recognition that by definition a review of 
the products in question had been conducted in accordan ce with Codex guidelines in the country of 
export.  
2.1.5   Ukraine - Update on import regulations for live animals  and related products  
2.7.  Ukraine update d the Committee  on the status of its new import regulation  for live animals , 
reproductive material, food products  of animal origin, feed, hay, straw, as well as by -products of 
animal origin and processed products , notified as G/SPS/N/UKR/111. The  regulation was  necessary 
to implement the State Control Law which had entered into force in April 2018. Ukraine explained 
the new requirements followed a risk -oriented approach based on international standards , and 
following the trade-facilitating principles of regionalization, compartmentalization and equivalence. 
The new regulation covered  the relationship between food business operators, relevant regulatory 
authorities, exporting countries and state veterinary inspectors. Following adoption, the former  
import requirements would cease to apply and there would be a  six-month transitional period after 
official publication for purposes of  develop ing a unified template for import certificates. 
Ukraine  added that its competent authori ties would  contact trading partners ' counterparts during 
the transitional period regarding  previously agreed bilateral certificate s. 
2.1.6   European Union - Implementation of the EU Animal Health Law (Regulation 
(EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases)  
2.8.  The European Union provided an update on the implementation of the new EU Animal Health 
Law, which would apply as of April 2021. Document G/SPS/GEN/1689 had been circulated on 
6 March 2019. A set of regulatory acts would  be adopted in the course of 2019,  including on animal 
health requirements for imports into the European Union, with notification to be provided  in due G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 6 - 
 
  course. The European Union invited all interested Members to attend the information session 
organised on the margins of the Committee meeting . 
2.1.7   European Union - New phytosanitary rules for importing plants, plant products and 
other regulated objects – Implementation of the EU Plant Health Law (Regulation 
(EU)  2016/2031)  
2.9.  The European Union provided an update on the implementation of the new EU Plan t Health 
Law, which had been notified to the Committee and would apply as of August 2019. An overview of 
the state of play had been circulated as document G/SPS/ GEN/1690. The document also touched 
specifically on the issue of high -risk plants , as covered by the Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2018/2019 (notified to the Committee in September 2018 and adopted in December 2018). 
The European Union recalled that it had held an information session on the EU plant health import 
regime in Sep tember 2018 which had been well attended by Members . In addition , the European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had adopted in October 2018 a technical report (notified as well) on 
the information to be provided in dossiers submitted for the import  of high-risk plants in to the 
European Union . Similarly, the details of the risk assessment procedures adopted under Regulation 
2018/2019 had been notified to the Committee.  Information had also been shared with Members on 
the webinar run by EFSA in February 2019. The  European Union encouraged all Members to submit 
their dossiers as soon as possible so as to be in a position  to comply with the Regulation by the end 
of 2019.  
2.10.   Senegal expressed its concern that the new EU Regulation might have an impact on market 
access f or certain agricultural and horticultural products from African countries. Senegal enquired 
whether certain plant varieties such as radish, green bean and sweet potato could qualify for an 
exemption from phytosanitary certificates under annex 6 of Regulati on (EU) 2016/2031, and asked 
the European Union  if there was time left to consider the request in light of the increasing inspection 
and certification workload involved for those products. Senegal also referred to the draft Directive 
for implementation fro m October 2018 which would subject the authori zation  of mango imports into 
the European Union to a 100% conformity rate on the absence of non -European Tephritidae . Senegal 
asked the European Union which treatments and infrastructure could ensure such a lev el of 
compliance, and if the costs involved would be affordable for small -scale producers.  
2.11.   The European Union thanked Senegal for raising detailed concerns and committed to 
conveying them to its plant health experts, with a view to engag e with Senegal on a  bilateral basis. 
The European Union also recall ed it had been transparent throughout the process and that 
consultations had been  held in Brussels, during which Senegal 's concerns had most likely been 
acknowledged.  
2.1.8   European Union - Implementation of the ne w EU official controls regulation 
(Regulation (EU) 2017/625)  
2.12.   The European Union referred to document G/SPS/ GEN/1692 which provided an update on the 
implementation of the new EU official controls regulation, which would apply from December 2019. 
The approach and basic principles of the previous regulation were maintained. As listed in  the 
document , several regulatory acts would be adopted in the course of 2019 and all those relevant for 
trade would be duly notified. Further information was available o n the European Commission 's 
website.  
2.1.9   Argentina - Ministerial Declaration of the Southern Agricultural Council (CAS) on 
gene editing techniques  
2.13.   Argentina informed Members of the Ministerial Declaration issued by the Agriculture Ministers 
of the Southern Agr icultural Council (CAS) (comp rising Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and 
Uruguay) on gene editing techniques, dated September 2018 and circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1699. 
The Declaration highlighted the role of gene editing techniques in addressing challenges arising from 
the need to increase agricultural production in a sustainable manner. The non -binding text of the 
Declaration aimed at coordinating efforts to ensure that the regulatory approaches for these 
techniques were scien ce-based and internationally ha rmonized; sought to prevent regulatory 
asymmetries and, in turn, potential trade disruption s; and highlighted the importance of these 
techniques for national agricultural research institutes.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.14.   Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Paraguay, the United States  and Urugua y support ed the Ministerial 
Declaration , noting that precision biotechnology including  genome editing was critical to addressing 
agriculture's most difficult production and environmental challenges. They  stressed the need to avoid 
arbitrary and unjustifiab le regulatory discrimination between products developed through gene -
editing techniques and others. They further encourage d Members to work together to establish 
transparent, adaptable  and science - and risk -based regulatory approaches that would enable 
agricultural innovation and facilitat e trade, while also protect ing food safety  and animal and plant 
health.  
2.15.   Brazil  emphasized  that h armoni zing regulatory  frameworks applicable to gene editing could  
foster research, development , innovation and a transfer of technologies to national  agricultural  
research institutes  and biotech SMEs.  
2.16.   Paraguay added that gene editing techniques could improve specific characteristics of 
cultivated species, namely resistance to certain diseases, adaptation to special environments and 
nutritional quality of food. Paraguay also recalled CAS Ministers  had agreed to work to gether to seek 
opportunities for the harmonization of regional and international regulations.  
2.17.   The United States explained  that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had provided in 
March 2018 greater clarity to stakeholders regarding its oversight of pla nts produced using plant - 
breeding innovations. Specifically, USDA did not regulate ( nor had any plans to do so) plants that 
could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques. The United States 
viewed the Ministerial Declaration a s directly aligned with the "International Statement on 
Agricultural Applications of Precision Biotechnology" presented by Argentina at the November 2018 
Committee meeting, and supported the promotion of constructive dialogues with trading partners 
on the topic.  
2.18.   South Africa thanked CAS countries for their initiative to share information on the 
development of gene -edited products and the existing applicable regulatory frameworks. South 
Africa stated that its regulatory authorities had been , and would contin ue to, assess how  to regulate  
gene editing techniques. South Africa recognised the potential role they could play , especially in 
contributing towards sustainable agricultural production, and had accordingly initiated a consultative 
process to determine whi ch of them could fall within the scope of its existing legislation on genetic 
modifications. South Africa had undertaken to follow a science -based decision -making approach.  
2.19.   Honduras underscored the importance of open communication in order to share reliabl e data 
towards a better understanding of regulatory frameworks and product development. Honduras 
informed  the Committee  of a simple procedure they had created to approve applications related to 
gene editing.  
2.20.   Argentina appreciated  the support, reiterated its commitment to keep Members updated and 
recalled its intervention in the Committee meeting in November 2018, on behalf of several Members, 
on the International Statement on Agricultural Applications of Precision Biotechnology 
(G/SPS/GEN/1658/Rev.3).  
2.1.10   Peru - Recognition of Peru as a country free of foot and mouth disease without 
vaccination  
2.21.   Peru referred to document  G/SPS/GEN/1698 .  In May 2005, the OIE had recognised ten 
regions as FMD -free without vaccination , which allowed  export s of animals and animal products and 
by-products from the regions of Ica, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Huancavelica, Apurímac, Cuzco, Puno, 
Moquegua, Madre de Dios and Tacna. In May 2007, the OIE had recogni zed seven additional regions 
(Amazonas, Loreto, San Martín , Huánuco, Ucayali, Pasco and Junín) as FMD -free without vaccination. 
In 2008, the OIE had recognised Peru as a n FMD-free country, over 97.6% of the territory without 
vaccination and 2.4% (Piura, Tumbes, San Ignacio province -Cajamarca - and Lima) with vacc ination. 
In order to maintain this status, the National Agrarian Health Service (SENASA) had strengthened 
its quarantine and animal health surveillance systems and, through the Directorate for Animal Health 
and the National Food and Mouth Disease  Programme , had established a sanitary protection area in 
Piura, Tumbes, San Ignacio province , and  Cajamarca, where strategic vaccination was applied, 
among other measures. Following the recognition of the whole country as FMD -free without G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 8 - 
 
  vaccination by the OIE in May 2018, Peru had been saving USD  10 million per year in FMD -related 
costs.  
2.1.11   China – Information on African Swine Fever  
2.22.   China emphasized its commitment to OIE standards and its efforts to manage epidemic animal 
diseases — such as low-pathogenic avian influ enza, foot -and-mouth disease and bluetongue disease 
— in accordance with OIE criteria such as the regionalization principle. China underlined that African 
swine fever, in particular, was an infectious disease with many possible transmission routes, which  
severely threatened swine herds , and which was affecting a n increasing number of countries. In the 
absence of an  effective vaccine to date , it was difficult to prevent and control it. When the  disease 
had surfaced in China for the first time in Augus t 2018 , the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs 
and the General Administration of Customs of China had carried out full -scale prevention and control 
procedures. The African swine fever  epidem ic in China was now under control , with  the epidemic 
status  of areas in 18  provinces having  been lifted. China  concluded by informing Members that in 
accordance with the SPS Agreement and its own level of protection, it had had to temporarily prohibit 
imports of pigs and related products from countries where African swine fever  had been reported.  
2.2  Information from C odex , IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
2.2.1   Codex  
2.23.   Codex provided an outline of its activities, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1677, highlighting 
meetings held since the last SPS Committee meeting. Codex reported on the recent meeting of the 
Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS), which 
continued the discussion on the subject of food integrity and food authenticity. The full report was 
available on the Codex website.  Codex also drew the Committee 's attention to the 50th meeting of 
the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, which was held in Panama in November 2018 and had 
concluded the work on alignment of the Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery products. The Ad hoc 
Codex  Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (TFAMR) had also met recently 
and agreed to return the proposed revised draft Code of Practice to Minimize and Contain 
Antimicrobial Resistance (CXC 61 -2005) for re -drafting. The Task Force had also  decided to continue 
working on the development of the Guidelines on Integrated Surveillance of Antimicrobial 
Resistance.  
2.24.   Looking to forthcoming events, Codex highlighted the respective meetings of the Codex 
Committee on Food Additives in March 2019, the C odex Committee on Pesticides Residues in 
April 2019, and the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food in April -May 2019. Codex also 
pointed to its participation at the International Forum on Food Safety and Trade,  to be held at the 
WTO on 23 -24 April. Codex  finally shared with the Committee that the United Nations General 
Assembly had approved  7 June as the annual date for a Food Safety Day to be celebrated worldwide 
every year. Codex encouraged Members to engage in preparatory activities for this event . 
2.2.2   IPPC  
2.25.   The IPPC reported on  its activities , as detailed in  document  G/SPS/GEN/1693, highlighting 
preparations for its Commission meeting on April  1. The IPPC looked forward to the endorsement of 
the IPPC Strategic Framework for 2020 -2030, before its official adoption at the Ministerial 
Commission meeting to be held in the  2020 International Year of Plant Health. The IPPC noted that 
some of the issues discussed at the Commission meeting would be of interest to the SPS Committee, 
namely emerging pests, projects for surveillance, how to deal with e -commerce, pest movement in 
sea containers, and issues related  to e-Phyto. The IPPC also wished to dr aw Members ' attention to 
the issue of third -party accreditation, which had just come up for consideration in one of the IPPC 
standards going through consultation with IPPC members. The IPPC reported that two new guide s - 
on pest -free areas and on pest risk communication - were in the final stages of publication, and of 
an upcoming  international symposium on pest -free areas in Japan. In  addition, the IPPC continued 
its preparations for the 2020 International Year of Pla nt Health, devoting particular resources to the  
organi zation of  national and regional events during that year.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.26.   The European Union express ed support for the organi zation of the 2020 International Year of 
Plant Health  and pledged to  engage in the activities associated with this year -long event , inviting 
Members to do likewise.  
2.2.3   OIE 
2.27.   The OIE outlined its report, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1682. The OIE recalled that 
transparency regarding situations of animal disease around the world were at the core of its 
mandat e, and that it had initiated in 2016 a 10 -year process of moderni zation  of its World  Animal 
Health Information System (WAHIS). More specifically, WAHIS was being redesigned in a 
technologically advanced and user -friendly manner. The new system would include extended data 
analytics, customisable data queries and enhanced data mapping and visualisation capabilities . Its 
launch was scheduled for  the second semester of 2019.  
2.28.   Regarding  the standard -setting process, the OIE reported that its four specialist  commissions 
had met in February 2019 to review existing international standards and develop new ones , and the 
agreed text s would be proposed for adoption at the OIE General Session in May 2019. More details 
were available in the February report s of the OI E's specialist commissions on the OIE website. The 
OIE also informed Members it was designing an Observatory to monitor the implementation of its 
standards , with the objective of collect ing information at a global level in order to understand if 
standards were being used and if not, to understand why. The OECD was providing analytical support 
to the OIE . The OIE had also established a reference group to provide technological support to the 
project, composed of experts from six OIE member countries, three re gional economic communities 
and six international organi zations (including the WTO , Codex and the IPPC ). 
2.29.   The OIE further reported that the second OIE Global Conference on Antimicrobial Resistance 
held in Morocco in October 2018 had been well attended, with  more than 500 participants from 136 
countries. In addition, the OIE had published in February 2019 its Third Annual Report on 
Antimicrobial Agents Intended for Use in Animals, available on its website. The OIE also wished to 
draw attention to two upcoming  events : the first OIE Global Conference on Aquatic Animal Health 
on 2-4 April, and the 87th OIE General Session on 26 -31 May ; which  would include specific points 
for discussion on African swine fever, and a presentation of the OIE Observatory Project in a side 
event.  
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV. 19) 
3.1  New issues  
3.1.1   EU restrictions on the use of chlorothalonil (pesticide active substance) 
(G/TBT/N/EU/625) – Concerns of Colombia  
3.1.  Colombia raised a concern regarding the non -renewal of the approval of the active substance 
chlorothalonil and the potential effects on the maximum residue limits (MRLs) of the pesticides  
containing chlorothalonil, notified by the European Union in document G/TBT/N/EU/625 on 
4 December 2018. Colombia had previously circulated this information as G/SPS/GEN/1695 and had 
raised it in the TBT Committee on 6 March 2019. Colombia explained that chlorothalonil was used 
for the control of black sigatoka and that the non -renewal of chlorothalonil would especially affect 
banana exports. Colombia 's total production amounted to 1.87 million tonnes, with exports worth 
USD 850 million, and 80% of exports  going to the European Union . In the main producing regions 
of Urabá, Magdalena and Guajira, the banana industry accounted for 35,000 direct and 
100,000  indirect jobs.  
3.2.  Colombia was of the view  that the EU's measure was based on the precautionary principle and 
that no risk had been determined for the metabolites concerned, and invited the European Union  to 
request further information and complete a risk assessment based on data, not uncertainty. 
Colombia also held that the classification decision should be t aken by the European Chemicals 
Agency (ECHA) and that ECHA 's opinion should be made available before member States were asked 
to take a decision on the renewal of the approval of chlorothalonil. Colombia questioned the 
measure 's consistency with Article 2. 2 of the SPS Agreement.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.3.  Colombia added that the regulatory change would also adversely impact  other crops exported 
to the European Union  (such as plantains, cape gooseberries and cocoa), which  would have a major 
social and economic impact in the producing regions, and highlighted the wide biodiversity of pests, 
diseases and weeds in tropical agriculture. Colombia requested the European Union  to maintain the 
registration of chlorothalonil and hi ghlighted that their national banana industry required a period of 
at least six months to seek an alternative to this active ingredient, given the lack of equally effective 
alternative compounds.  
3.4.  Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Pana ma, Paraguay, Turkey and the 
United States  echoed the concern of Colombia. Honduras expressed a commercial interest in the 
matter. Several of the supporting Members stressed that chlorothalonil was an effective tool for pest 
control , especially against bla ck sigatoka in bananas , whose ban would constitute a challenge for 
farmers . Many  asked the European Union to reconsider its course of action  and undertake a full risk 
assessment , allowing  for a transition period and providing alternatives to protect crops.  
3.5.  The United States  recalled that an earlier instance of removal in 2014 -2015 had already 
negatively impacted US cranberry production and exports to the European Union , without any 
apparent or measurable benefit to consumer health. The United States noted that EFSA had not 
completed a consumer risk assessment to inform future EU action on MRLs, and cited uncertainty 
around genotoxicity as the basis for the ban. Besides, t he lack of clarity regarding the timing of 
future EU action on MRLs was already creatin g a burden for US growers , who were presently making 
crop protection decisions for their 2019 crops.  Further , EU MRL transition policies were insufficient 
for producers of commodities with long shelf lives and distribution cycles. The United States invited  
the European Union to explain how its frequent changes in approval procedures had been limited to 
what was reasonable and necessary , and how it had sought to minimize negative trade impacts.  
3.6.  Paraguay reported  that it had classified chlorothalonil as a low -risk pesticide used for rotation 
in corn, wheat, rice and soya. EFSA 's carcinogenicity classification was based on inconclusive 
arguments , did not follow international standards, and would create unnecessary trade restrictions.  
3.7.  Costa Rica explained that it was the second largest banana exporter and half of  its production 
was exported to the European Union . The industry generated 40 ,000 direct jobs and 100 ,000 indirect 
ones, mostly  in less -developed rural areas. Following the application of good agricultural practices, 
the Analytical Laboratory for the Analysis of Agrochemical Residues of Costa Rica's  State 
Phytosanitary Service had established  the absence  of chlorothalonil residues in banana  production , 
thus confirming the absence of risk for public health and the environment. Costa Rica highlighted 
that the non -renewal and subsequent reduction of MRLs would create  serious problems for its 
production sector, given the lack of alternative pesticides with a better environmental and 
toxicological pro file. Costa Rica underscored  that such public health debates should take place at the 
multilateral level , including within  Codex . 
3.8.  Brazil  agreed with Colombia that the concern had to be brought to the SPS Committee even 
though it had already been raised in the TBT Committee, since the draft EU regulation in question  
was based on a scientific opinion on risk to human , animal or plant life. Brazil was concerned  that 
the non-renewal might only  be the prelude  to the establishment of new  EU MRLs for chlorothalonil,  
which could be grounded in  a hazard -based approach ag ainst scientific evidence presented by the 
relevant int ernationa l organi zations. A ban on c hlorothalonil could lead to undesirable consequences 
such as an increase in food waste , a rise in the use of other substances , and unnecessary restrictions 
to trade.  
3.9.  Ecuador was not currently affected by the European Union's measures , but was nonetheless 
concerned that any subsequent steps aimed at modifying the MRLs c ould seriously affect its 
EU-bound banana exports. Ecuador was the world's  largest banana exporter. The sector  generated 
around two  million jobs along the value chain in Ecuador  and represented 35% of its agricultural 
GPD. Most exporters were small -scale producers. Many of the plantation s had international 
certificates attesting to the  quality of production . Under  Andean legislation governing  the registration 
and control of chemical pesticides for agricultural use, the criteria for approving  pesticides in Ecuador 
had to be scientifically based and developed in accordance with  international standards before being  
further evaluated by the relevant technical national authorities. Ecuador asked the European Union  
to take into account all availabl e data and observations . G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.10.   The European Union  explained that the measure at issue had not led to trade disruption since 
it had not amend ed the MRLs for chlorothalonil , and provided a grace period for product s containing 
the substance. The European Union also  confirmed that transitional measures would be considered 
when proposing changes to existing MRLs, but this would not occur before the expiry of the grace 
periods. Any decision to reduce MRLs in the future would also be notified separately to the SPS 
Commi ttee.  
3.11.   The European Union disagreed that it was following a hazard -based approach , stressing that  
it had conducted a risk assessment which had resulted in the conclusion that the EU level of 
protection could not be met , consistent with the SPS Agreement. Import tolerance requests 
nonetheless remained possible, although  they would have to be supported by substantial new data 
addressing the concerns identified in the EFSA opinion ; and would be assessed on a case -by-case 
basis.  
3.1.2   EU transitional periods for MRLs  and international consultations – Concerns of 
Colombia  
3.12.   Colombia raised a concern regarding EU transitional periods for MRLs and international 
consultations, addressed in document  G/SPS/ GEN/1697. As already raised in the TBT Committee on 
6 March 2019, Colo mbia stated that, in practice, European regulations tended to include shorter 
transition periods for standards amending MRLs. Colombia explained that a six-month period was 
not enough to comply with new MRLs, given the harvesting periods and the stage at which 
agrochemicals were applied. For processed and/or frozen products, the situation could be even more 
problematic. Colombia explained  that the development of a new phytosanitary pest -control product 
took 36 months  on average and therefore  transition periods should exceed the general rule of a 
reasonable interval of six months under Annex B.2 of the SPS  Agreement  and Ministerial Decision 
WT/MIN(01)/17. Colombia referred to Article 10.2 of the SPS  Agreement , as it provided for longer 
time frames for the compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary measures for products of interest to 
developing country Members, with a view to maintaining trade opportunities for their exports. 
Colombia presented the example of the transi tion period for reducing MRLs for buprofezin to a 
minimum detection limit (0.01 mg/kg) (Commission Regulation (EU)  2019/91 of 18 January 2019 , 
addressed in  STC N o. 448) and its effects on the marketing of bananas. Colombia insisted that the 
deferred implem entation date did not allow time to find effective alternatives for pest control that 
met the high-quality  standards required by the European market. Colombia suggested creating a 
forum at the WTO for technical discussion s to prevent  MRL changes from restr icting trade more than 
necessary.  
3.13.   Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, 
Turkey and the United States  supported Colombia's concern , emphasizing that the EU transition 
periods granted to implement modified MR Ls were insufficient to adapt to the new requirements  and 
prepare dossiers for import tolerance requests . 
3.14.   Paraguay added  that concerns and observations raised in international consultations did not 
seem to have been taken into account by EU authorities . An example of this was  the non -renewal 
of picoxystrobin  and the subsequent modification of the MRL by the European Union  in January 2019 
(notification G/SPS/N/EU/264/Add.1), despite prior concerns raised in the SPS and TBT Committees.  
3.15.   Turkey  called on  the European Union to take into consideration international standards on 
MRL levels in the type of circumstances at issue , as they were facing trade disruptions as a result of 
the ongoing  situation . Turkey asked  the European Union  to implement lo nger transitional periods  for 
products with a longer shelf life.  
3.16.   The United States  recalled that m any US growers had to make final crop decisions a year in 
advance of the final product reaching a foreign market's border, which meant that the inconsistent 
timing of EU MRL review and the short transition periods created significant challenges for them. 
The problem was particularly acute for commodities with longer storage and distribution cycles 
(e.g. dried fruits, dried nuts, canned products, frozen products , juices wines and spirits), which had 
been produced in accordance with the EU standards in effect at the time of production , but were no 
longer eligible for entry into the European Union upon shipment. In addition, t he United States 
wished to know why  EU domestic producers had been granted grace periods of up to 15 months to 
continue using the substances  in question  when products of other Members had not , and why the G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 12 - 
 
  European Union  had determined  that immediate action on MRLs was not needed until these domestic 
grace periods end ed. Finally, t he United States wished to remind the European Union of its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement  to take into account the technical and economic feasibility for 
producers of complying with the timeframes provided in EU MRL measures , and to avoid arbitrarily 
or unjustifiably discriminat ing between the EU territory and that of other Members.  
3.17.   Ecuador felt the  absence  of alternative molecules  meant the EU measures would in practice  
hinder  access to its main export market . Ecuador lacked  the resources required to support farmers 
wishing to submit to EU authorities  scientific dossiers in support of import tolerance s or molecule 
replacement requests . Ecuador supported Colombia 's proposal to discuss with in the Committee t he 
establish ment of a  possible minimum transition period for exporting developing countries seeking to  
adapt to modification of EU MRLs. 
3.18.   Costa Rica explained that the six-month period was insufficient for agricultural production to 
adapt to MRL adjustments , because regist ration of new molecules in itself already required a longer 
evaluation process. On buprofezin specifically, Costa Rica requested  the European Union  to extend 
the deadline for compliance with the new tolerance  level, given its effect on Costa Rica's EU -bound  
banana exports . In addition, Costa Rica u rged the European Union  to dialogue with countries 
exporting agricultural products  that were  affected by MRL amendments  and singled out  the CAC as 
the appropriate multilateral framework for these  decisions.  
3.19.   China stated that  the concern on MRL amendments should be directed at other Members 
beside the E uropean Union. China considered  that MRL t ransition measures had to  go beyond the 
basic rules of the SPS Agreement, since  different plants had different growth periods. Some plants  
for instance  needed a year or more to reach the harvest stage, which meant that certain MRL 
transition periods were i nsufficient ly long  for farmers to adjust even if they had been enacted in 
compliance with the SPS Agreement. China therefore suggested that Members includ e actual data 
on plant growth periods when  setting MRL transition measures in future.  
3.20.   Brazil  recalled that it had on many occasions expressed its concerns on the European Union 's 
hazard -based approach to approving pesticides , which it viewed as  incompatible  with Article s 2 and 
5 of the SPS Agreement. Brazil also pointed t o the draft EU amendments, which seemingly  
introduced the possibility that the cut -off date for compliance might be that of production for EU 
products but that of import for imported products ; and requested clarification .  
3.21.   Peru announced it had submitted several alternatives , which  were being discussed in Geneva 
and Brussels.  
3.22.   The European Union  welcomed China's reference  to the MRL measures of other Members  in 
the discussion. The European Union stressed  that it fulfilled all its obligations under both the T BT 
and SPS Agreements , in particular the ir transparency and notification provisions. Information and 
comments received in response to notifications were always taken into account before taking a final 
decision, while detailed replies were regularly sent to those trading partners that submitt ed 
comments. Regarding possible  transitional periods, the European Union wished to inform the 
Committee about two key provisions. First, a deferred date of application wa s established after entry 
into force of an act lowering MRLs. In most cases, this deferred application date was set six months 
after entry into force, which allowed third countries and food business operators to make necessary 
arrangements to meet the new MRLs. Secondly, products produced or imported into the European 
Union before the application date could  continue benefitting from the former MRL levels and thus 
remain on the market , provided that there was information show ing that  a high level of consumer  
protection was maintained.  
3.23.   Concerning Colombia's specific comment  on buprofezin, the European Union responded that 
the Commission Regulation had been notified to the SPS Committee in July 2018 and would only 
enter into force in August 2019, hence more tha n a year after notification. The  European Union also 
emphasized that it had conducted a risk assessment which had identif ied aniline as a carcinogen. 
The European Union also clarified that it was not the intention of its MRL measures to discriminate. 
Finally, the European Union wished to recall th e constant dialogue taking place with Members in 
Brussels.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.1.3   Indonesia 's undue delay in authorization procedures for beef – Conc erns of Brazil  
3.24.   Brazil  raised its concern regarding undue delays in the approval process of Brazilian beef 
establishments for exports to Indonesia. Brazil had received in April 2018 a n Indonesian  technical 
mission to inspect ten Brazilian establishments, wh ich represented a small sample of interested 
Brazilian beef exporters . Almost a year after the visit, the Indonesian authorities had yet to present 
a preliminary inspection report on the sanitary aspects of the mission, nor had they indicated an y 
expected date for a response. This was despite numerous consultation s held in Jakarta, Brasilia and 
on the margins of the SPS Committee. Brazil was further concerned that new steps which had not 
been mentioned during the Indonesian sanitary visit could eventually b e added to the approval 
procedures for exports from Brazilian establishments. At Brazil's  request  for additional information, 
Indonesia had explained  that they were conducting a risk analysis. In Brazil's view, there had been 
significant, unjustified and u ndue delays in the process of risk analysis, approval and inspection of 
exporting bovine meat establishments, resulting in a possible lack of compliance with Article 8 and 
Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Brazil wished to recall that there had already been a Panel 
established to review Indonesian restrictions (including approval procedures) on imports of poultry 
meat from Brazil, which had found against Indonesia on undue delays in approv ing veterinary health 
certificates for Brazilian poultry meat.  
3.25.   The Philip pines thanked Brazil for raising the concern, as the Philippines  was also facing undue 
delays in market access requests to  Indonesia  for meats and meat products.  
3.26.   Indonesia  informed the Committee that it had conducted a risk analysis regarding imports of 
Brazilian beef, and that its sanitary authorities would share their overall results with Brazil.  
3.1.4   Korea 's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influe nza – 
Concerns of the European Union  
3.27.   The European Union  raised a concern about country -wide bans maintained by Korea on 
poultry imports from certain EU member States due to avian influenza. The European Union reported 
that bans were only lifted following lengthy procedures, even though it notified the disease status 
of its member States to the OIE and published veterinary reports on the European Commission's 
website. Although Korean law recogni zed the principle of regionali zation, it did not seem to be 
implemented, leading to  unpredictab ility and a restrictive effect on trade in poultry products. The 
European Union highlighted that it had on numerous occasions provided information to Korea on its 
sanitary controls in place  to demonstrate that the disease wa s under control in its territory and that 
disease -free areas were likely to remain as such. Furthermore , outbreaks of avian influenza were 
the result of movements of migratory birds rather than international trade in poultry products. The 
European Union also argued that Korean restrictions were discriminatory in nature, since Korean 
authorities applied the regionali zation principle to their own market following local outbreaks of avian 
influenza. The European Union therefore requested  Korea to de tail the information its authorities 
required and to allow for a productive regulatory dialogue towards the recognition of regionali zation 
measures.  
3.28.   The Russian Federation expressed support for the EU concern, since it also faced a n issue of  
regionali zation with Korea related to  avian influenza.  
3.29.   Korea replied that it would continue consultations with EU member States. Korea's  procedure 
was to conduct an import risk assessment to determine whether a country's animal health system 
(including surveillance and movement restrictions) was adequate. This process would be carried out 
for EU member States that had requested a regionali zation decision from Korea, p rovided they 
supplied the necessary evidence to show that they maintained disease -free areas or areas of low 
disease prevalence.  
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.30.   Before the adoption of the agenda, Brazil  withdrew a specific trade concern regarding 
Panama's restric tions on beef and poultry meat (STC No. 444) ; and  Chinese Taipei withdrew a 
specific trade  concern regarding Thailand's import restrictions on papaya seeds (STC No. 421).  Both 
items had been included in the proposed agenda for the meeting, and w ere withdra wn because 
progress had been made in bilateral meetings held prior to the SPS Committee meeting.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.2.1   EU MRLs for buprofezin, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, 
ioxynil, iprodione, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (G/SPS/N/EU/264) – 
Concerns of Colombia, Costa Rica, India and the United States (No. 448)  
3.31.   The United States  raised concern s about  various EU MRL measures that appeared to be more 
trade -restrictive than necessary to protect against human health risks and for which scientific 
justifications were pending. The United States dr ew attention to the pesticide glufosinate , a critical 
herbicid e, and imazalil , an important post -harvest protection tool for the US citrus industry . 
The United States was concerned that the European Union  could lower its MRL for glufosinate  to the 
default level of 0.01  mg/kg in view of the European Union's hazard -based cut -off criteria and the 
expiration of the gluconate authorisation in 2018. The United States stressed that the identification 
of hazard should not override the obligation to base measures on a risk assessment and asked the 
European Union to refrain fro m implementing modifications until this had been fulfilled. Regarding 
imazalil, EFSA had proposed removing MRLS without completing a risk assessment. This would result 
in closing the EU market to California citrus without sufficient scientific evidence. Th e United States 
recalled that the 2018 Joint FAO/WHO meeting on Pesticides Residues (JMPR) had reviewed and 
confirmed the safety of imazalil MRLs and had recommended increasing them.  
3.32.   The United States also drew attention to the E uropean Union's finalized M RL regulations for 
buprofezin, picoxystrobin, diflubenzuron and iprodione, published in January 2019. The United 
States regretted  that the European Union had finali zed the regulations as originally proposed despite 
the concerns expressed by Members.  Numero us scientific authorities and standard -setting bodies 
(including JMPR and the Codex Committee on Pesticides Residues  (CCPR) ) had reviewed the same 
substances and found there was enough acceptable scientific data available  for purposes of 
establishing MRLs. In addition, the United States requested that import tolerance requests be 
addressed within a reasonable period of time , particularly in instances where the European Union 
had not  maintain ed temporary MRLs during the per iod when dossiers were under evaluation. US 
fruit, nut and sweet potato producers were reporting increased crop damage and post -harvest losses 
due to the removal of MRLs.  
3.33.   Colombia expressed concern that  amendments  for buprofezin  would  affect the 
commercial ization of banana s. The transition period for reducing the MRL for buprofezin to the 
minimum  detection limit (0 .01 mg/kg) was too short for producers to find alternatives. Colombia  
questioned the European Union 's reasoning based  on the potential presence o f aniline (classified as 
a carcinogen  in the European Union)  in food products treated with buprofezin and subject to high 
temperatures  during processing. Colombia argued that  there was no conclusive evidence of the non-
threshold carcinogenicity  of aniline.  Colombia therefore urged the European Union  to conduct  a risk 
assessment and either maintain the current MRL of 0.5 ppm for buprofezin or adopt  the CAC 
reference value; and to postpone the entry into force of the new MRLs for buprofezin.  
3.34.   Colombia also expressed concerns  regarding an amendment to the EU MRL for imazalil to the 
limit of quantification which  would  affect its trade of banana and citrus. Colo mbia noted  that EFSA 
had found  no scientific evidence demonstrating  the genotoxicity of the three metabolites of imazalil. 
Colombia added that the EU measure would contradict the 2016 Codex MRLs, which were above the 
limit of quantification. Colombia stressed the importance of an appropriate  risk analysis.  
3.35.   Costa Rica emphasised the urgency of the concern , since the reduction of the MRL for 
buprofezin to 0 .01 mg/kg would apply as of  13 August 2019. The European Union 's decision seemed 
to be based on the pote ntial presence  of aniline (which had been classified as a carcinogen by a 
2004 ECHA report ). Costa Rica wished to clarify that the chemical  only occur red under specific 
circumstances , including  very high processing temperatures and acidic conditions , not present  in 
banana crops .  
3.36.   Costa Rica further argued that analyses  were required to detect aniline residues in the pulp, 
protected by the non -edible skin. The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had 
not classified the carc inogenicity of aniline and the US Environmental Protection Agency  and the 
Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limit (SCOEL) had not found  conclusive evidence on 
the non -threshold carcinogenicity  of aniline. Reducing the MRL for buprofezin would s eriously impact  
banana exports from Costa Rica, where the substance  was used to effectively control pests. There 
were currently no alternatives to control quarantine pests in the field that fulfilled EU requirements . 
The chemical characteristics of buprofe zin allowed for its application in a safe manner for the user 
and the environment. Costa Rica did not think it possible  to comply with the transition period G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 15 - 
 
  established by the European Union and the date of entry into force of the new tolerance  level.  Costa 
Rica therefore u rged the European Union  to extend the transition period by at least 24 months in 
order to adapt its banana production systems to the new EU requirements.  
3.37.   India had concern s that the EU measures, which particularly affected its rice and gra pe crops, 
were more trade -restrictive than necessary to protect human health. India requested that the 
measures be based on scientific evidence and realistic exposure scenarios rather than a presumption 
of hazard, tak ing the potential impact on trade into account  as well . India further  enquired on the 
rationale for deviating  from international  standards  set by the CAC  and from MRLs  set by other 
countries . India stressed that EU measures did not provide adequate time for commodities trade to 
adjust , quoting buprofezin as a specific instance of this.  
3.38.   Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Honduras, Japan, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay and 
Turkey shared  the concern.  Many called on the European U nion to undertake an appropriate risk 
assessment, underlin ing that the evaluations that had been carried out by EU  agencies themselves 
had not been conclusive about genotoxicity. Additionally, Members urged the European Union to 
avoid departing from intern ational standards  and criteria in setting its MRLs , and insisted on the 
need for feasible transitional periods for exporters.  
3.39.   Japan requested the European Union to defer the implementation of its MRLs, since Japanese 
manufacturers had submitted to Italy the results of new studies on the scientific rationale for 
establishing an import tolerance for buprofezin , in November 2018 and February 2019 . 
3.40.   Panama  echoed conce rns with regard s to EU MRLs  for ethoxysulfuron, picoxystrobin, 
diflubenzuron and buprofezin , arguing they were more trade -restrictive than necessary and that the 
EU market  was the main destination for Panamanian agricultural exports.  Panama emphasized that  
there were  geographical differences  with the European Union , which was  why the substances were 
key to  protect Panamanian  crops. Producers had  estimated a loss of 40 % of production. Buprofezin 
was used in banana plantations, the country's main agricultural  export. The level of buprofezin 
present in banana  production  was controlled by national authorities in accord ance with  Codex 
standards and recommendations of 0.3 ppm, which was lower than current EU levels. The  product 
was not sprayed directly on the fruit but on the bags covering the crops , and studies had shown  that 
residues were located  in the banana skin as opposed to the pulp. There was currently no alternative 
to buprofezin for pest control , and t he substan ce anilin e could only be detected at extreme 
temperatures.  
3.41.   Chile supported the concern regarding  the proposed reduc tion of MRLs for citrus. Chile noted  
that EFSA had not released a  categorical opinion in its recommendations to reduce the MRL, which 
meant additional studies  were required . Chile also recalled  that JMPR had issued an MRL 
recommend ation for imazalil in September 2018.  
3.42.   Paraguay requested the United Kin gdom to refrain from applying  measures deviating from 
international standards before  completion of a  risk assessment.  
3.43.   Brazil  regretted the European Union's  hazard -based approach and its measures  in 
contradiction with findings of the JMPR and the CCPR.  
3.44.   Ecuador shared  the concern with regard to  the MRL  reduction for buprofezin from 0.5  ppm to 
0.01 ppm, as it would affect its banana trade. Buprofezin was needed to control quarantine pests in 
banan as and was used through impregnated plastic bags to a void damaging the fruit and reduce its 
exposure, unlike sprayed insecticides. Ecuador requested the European Union  to maintain  its current 
0.5 ppm MLR for buprofezin or  to adopt  the Codex reference limit of 0.3 ppm . 
3.45.   Canada  expressed concern with the European Union's decision to lower the MRL for 
picoxystrobin to the limit of analytical detection as from  13 August 2019, without conclusive evidence  
of the risk to human health. Canada queried on the EU process to obtain the inf ormation it considered 
necessary to complete a scientifically valid risk assessment on which to subsequently base its 
regulatory decision. Canada had itself conducted such a risk assessment for picoxystrobin , 
determining in the process th at the active subs tance was not a danger  to human health when used 
according to label directions. The product was registered and marketed in 65 countries. Finally, G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Canada  requested the European Union to only set import tolerances after a full risk assessment as 
per Regulati on (EC) No 396/2005  in order to  minimize the impact on international trade.  
3.46.   Honduras explained that  its banana plantations commonly used  buprofezin for pest control. 
The MRL reduction to the limit of detection (Article 18 (b) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 ), with 
shorter transition periods, posed a challen ge for producers who had few alternatives to control pests 
and diseases . With the entry into force of the MRL in August  2019, Honduran exports to the European 
Union would be affected. Current  banana exports exceeded 9,000  tonnes , generated 12 million 
dollars in revenue and creat ed a high number of jobs.  Honduras recalled that e xperts from JMPR and 
the CCPR — bodies in  which the European Union  took part — had evaluated buprofezin in 2013  
(molec ule N° 173 in the Codex  list of pesticides) and recommended  an MRL of 0.3 mg/kg in banana s. 
Honduras therefore urged the European Union to either follow this recommendation or maintain the 
current MLR of 0.5 ppm . Finally, based on Article 10 of the SPS Agreement , Honduras requested an 
extension of at least 36 months before the entry into force of the new MRL.  
3.47.   Uruguay  expressed concerns on the MRL reduction for imazalil, which would affect its citrus 
production, a third of which was exported to the European Union . Imazalil  was used to control 
Penicillum digitatum  in packaging plants. Uruguay noted that JMPR report ed no evidence of 
genotoxicity of imazalil metabolites R014821, FK -772 y FK -284 in in vitro  tests, and that further 
data was needed before reaching  decisions on MRL s. In the meantime, Uruguay called on the 
European Union  to adhere to  the current MLR of 5 kg/ mg in citrus established by Codex.  
3.48.   Nicaragua shared  the concern with regard to the MRL modification for buprofezin given the 
possible effects on its banana  trade .  
3.49.   Turkey requested an update on the EU Codex initiative on buprofezin, which had been 
discusse d during the previous Committee meeting.  
3.50.   The European Union  referred Members to its detailed statement at the  November 2018  
Committee meeting . The European Union highlight ed that its measures were based on science and 
had involved  a risk assessment  procedure , consistent with the SPS Agreement. EU scientific 
authorities had identified enough  health concerns during the risk assessment to conclude that the 
use of the substances at issue did not meet the European  Union's appropriate le vel of protection 
(ALOP). The European Union added that the burden of proof in a pre -market approval system did 
not necessarily fall on the country receiving import authorization requests. The European Union 
noted it had met its t ransparency obligations . All of its regulatory amendments had been duly notified 
and replies had been sent to  all comments received. The European Union  had also informed  the 
Codex Committee of EFSA's evaluation to raise international awareness.  Finally, the European Union 
informed the Committee that current and future import tolerance requests would be decided on the 
basis of a risk assessment, in line with the SPS Agreement.  
3.2.2   EU legislation on  endocrine disruptors – Concerns of  China, India and the United 
States (No. 382)  
3.51.   The United  States  reiterated its concern on the EU pesticide regulation , arguing that it was 
hazard -based , and that the criteria to define  endocrine disruptor s were more stringent tha n those 
initially notified to the WTO . The United States considered that the level of protection sought by the 
European Union was not adequately articulated , and that the EU regulatory approach was already 
proving to be more trade restrictive than necessary. The United States requested the  European 
Union to carry out a transparent, timely, and risk -based process for evaluating and setting MRLs and 
import tolerances . The United States referred to a lack of evidence of the use of the import tolerance 
process , and was concerned that import toleranc es would only be granted on a case -by-case basis, 
factoring in "legitimate factors " and based on a precautionary principle.  
3.52.   The United States queried on the "legitimate factors", other than risk, that the European Union 
would consider when evaluating impo rt tolerance requests  and whether the list of factors  would be 
available. Further, the United States  asked the European Union to explain how these factors and the 
precautionary principle  would achiev e an appropriate level of protection. Lastly, the United States  
invited Members maintain ing policies of national alignment or harmonization with EU legislation, 
including implementation of EU regulations , to notify all changes to their national measures on 
pesticide MRLs and import tolerances, as these m ight also have a significant impact on trade.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 17 - 
 
  3.53.   India echoed the concern and urged the European Union to consider the available scientific 
data and adopt existing Codex standards. India noted that the final not ified criteria included several 
changes and sought clarification on how the relevance of data would be determined , among other 
issues.  
3.54.   China  shared the concern and suggested that the European Union seek the establish ment of  
standards for pesticides with en docrine disrupting properties in Codex . China also called on the 
European Union to adopt Codex  MRLs as much as possible to minimize impact s on international 
trade , and to take into account available scientific evidence in the assessment of risks . 
3.55.   Argentina , Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Kenya, Korea, Malaysia, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and Uruguay  
shared the concern.  They called on the European Union to amend its hazard -based regulation, which 
threatened to restrict trade unnecessarily, and reintroduce complete risk assessments based on 
scientific techniques developed by the relevant international organizations. Sever al Members also 
urged the European Union to follow Codex recommendations on MRLs , while others called for  more 
clarity on relevant factors that the European Union would take into consideration when undertaking 
risk assessments for the establishment of impo rt tolerances.  
3.56.   Colombia reiterated the need to consider scientific evidence, production processes and 
methods, international recommendations on MRLs by Codex and ecological and environmental 
conditions in countries that could be affected by the measure , to avoid unnecessarily restricting 
trade.  
3.57.   Canada noted  that the E uropean Union's approach  could  impact the use of internationally 
accepted pesticides , preventing producers from accessing important plant protection tools . Canada 
added that the EU process to allow for the consideration of import tolerances  remain ed unclear and  
feared it would be lengthy and unpredictable. A case-by-case approach d id not provide the certainty 
required for international trade. Canada  insisted on the need for  a transparent, predi ctable and 
commercially viable import tolerance process for plant protection products which ha d not been re -
approved and requested the European Union  to maintain, until such a process was implemented, 
the import tolerances for active substances at prior le vels to allow trade to continue.  
3.58.   Thailand requested the European Union  to expedite the drafting process  of the  criteria for 
derogation s by determining the meaning and criteria of "neglectable risk " and to notify them for 
comments.  
3.59.   Panama and Guatemala recalled Ministerial Declaration WT/MIN(17)/50 , signed by seventeen 
WTO Members  to increase predictability and transparency on MRL s in the SPS Committee. Panama 
and Guatemala urged the European Union  and other WTO Members to work towards global S PS 
standards instead of unilateral measures.  
3.60.   Brazil  referred to its previous statements . Brazil highlighted that the u se of plant protection 
products i n agriculture in the tropic al regions  promot ed technology, investment, innovation and 
research , important  drivers for the  development of resilient, stable and sustainable agricultur al 
practices , which in turn promoted growth and trade in ag ricultural  products.  
3.61.   Korea  regretted the European Union's hazard -based criteria for categorization of compounds 
as endocr ine disruptors  that had been in place since November 2018 in spite of the concerns 
expressed by  Members. Korea requested the European Union  to consider maintaining import 
tolerances with MRLs above default level s, in accordance with Regulation (EC) 396/2005.  
3.62.   Kenya  referred to its tropical location and to the consequences of the removal of currently 
used chemicals on food security for an ever-increasing  population. While acknowledg ing that the 
European Union  had been provid ing update s, Kenya  asked that the length of the  process required  
to authori ze new molecules  be taken into consideration , among other issues . 
3.63.   The European Union  responded that it  had kept the Committee regularly updated on relevant  
developments. In previous meetings, the European Union  had provided information  on the 
discussion s about possible derogation s where there was  negligible risk of exposure , and, following 
the agreement on the criteria, about the possible adoption of that derogation. In November 2018, G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 18 - 
 
  the European Union  had reported on the lack of internal agreement. The European Union  now had 
to report that  no further discussions would be held , since the qualified majority of EU member States 
to support such a clause could not be reached.  
3.64.   The European Union highlighted the following developments : First, o n import tolerances, the 
procedures laid down in Regulation 396/2005 for the management of import tolerance request s 
would be applied also for active substances falling under the cut -off criteria.  The procedure included 
a risk assessment by an evaluating EU member State and EFSA. Import tolerance s would be granted 
in line with risk analysis principles on a case -by-case basis. For transparency pu rposes, t he approach 
would be published on EU website s as part of the Guidance on the MRL Setting Procedures.  In 
relation to the references to the precautionary principle and the legitimate factors, the European 
Union  reminded Members that the standard cla use had been in force since 2005.  
3.65.   Second, o n transitional arrangements, Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 provided 
for the possibility of transitional measures for the implementation of certain MRLs, while ensuring  a 
high level of consumer protection.  As a general rule, transition al measures are consistently applied  
allowing products already on the EU market before the date of entry into for ce of a Regulation to 
remain on the market until the end of their shelf life. Nevertheless, when a health concern was 
identified, transition measures were not provided and the new MRLs applied usually six months after 
the entry into force of the Regulation . The European Union  reiterate d its commitment to  fulfilling its  
transparency  obligations  and reminded Members that draft measures are regularly notified under 
the relevant WTO agreements.  
3.2.3   New EU definition of the fungicide folpet – Concerns of China (No. 447)  
3.66.   China  reiterated its concern about  the new EU residue definition for the fungicide folpet. China 
explained that p hthalimide was not only a metabolite of folpet , as it could also metabolize from 
phosmet or bentazone insecticides ; and therefore,  the pre sence of phthalimide could  be irrelevant 
to folpet. China indicated  that the EU residue definition for folpet did not comply with the Codex  
definition nor with China's definition. At the November 2018 Committee meeting , the European 
Union  had referred to internal discussion s on revisi ng the residue definition for folpet. China queried 
about the progress of the revision process at EFSA, and requested that the EU residue definition for 
folpet be made consistent with Codex's so as  to minimize the impact on trade.  
3.67.   The European Union  confirmed that the  residue  definition of the fungicide folpet was currently 
under consideration as part of the on -going renewal procedure of the approval of this active 
substance .  The European Union informed the Committ ee that EFSA was currently carrying out a 
peer review and committed to provide further updates . 
3.2.4   EU review of legislation on veterinary medical products – Concerns of the United 
States (No. 446)  
3.68.   The United States  reiterated its concern over Regulation (EU) 2019/6, in particular Article 118 
requiring producers of animals and animal products intend ing to ship to the European Union  to 
comply with EU production standards. The United States appreciated the continuous bilateral 
engagement  with the European Union . The United States recalled that regulatory approaches needed 
to be appropriate to the circumstances. The United States  referred to the EU statement in November 
2018 indicating  that its legislation was aimed at implementing the global consensus on addressing 
the global health risk of AMR by preventing the use of medically important antimicrobials for growth 
promotion purposes. The United States supported the international consensus on AMR , as reflected 
in the WHO Global Action Plan, the OIE Strategy on AMR and the Codex guidelines. According to the 
United States , the EU legislation ran contrary to the international consensus on the key point that 
countries had to adapt policies to their na tional priorities as well as to regional and local conditions.  
Further, the United States noted the successful implement ation by FDA of the WHO Global Action 
Plan through a programme of voluntary label changes aiming to  phase out the use of medically 
impor tant antimicrobial drugs for growth promotion. The United States asked the European Union  
to explain how the adopt ion of  EU standards by its trading partners was consistent with the global 
consensus and how its legislation would be implemented in the least trade-restrictive manner.  
3.69.   Australia, Brazil, Canada , Chile, Colombia and  Paraguay shared  the concern , reiterat ing their 
support for the joint work of WHO, OIE and FAO in setting international standards and guidelines for G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 19 - 
 
  AMR as well as th e work of the Cod ex Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (TFAMR) . They 
underlined that u nilateral initiatives related to AMR trade policies outside the international standard -
setting organizations had the potential to undermine collaborative global efforts and the integr ity 
and relevance of these organizations. Canada, with the support of Paraguay and Chile, asked the 
European Union to share the list it was preparing of antimicrobials reserved for human use ; and the 
basis and considerations being taken into account in the preparation of the list.  
3.70.   Canada  thanked the European Union  for the ongoing dialogue. Canada underlined the 
unnecessarily restrictive impact on international trade that the application of the EU veterinary 
medicinal products regulation could  have. It also requested the European Union to  notify the 
implementing and delegated acts supporting Regulation (EU) 2019/6 , to provide Members an 
opportunity to submit comments.  
3.71.   Brazil noted  that a safe, harm onized, and scientifically -based framework for trade in animal 
products was the best possible scenario for promot ing food safety and food security. A unilateral 
ban of several veterinary drugs was not compatible with that goal , and could impose a burden on  
producers.  
3.72.   Australia wished to discourage regional and individual countries' efforts to introduce AMR -
related risk management measures that were inconsistent with agreed standards  and not supported 
by science, as they could distort trade. Australia emphasized its commitment to an effective and 
robust system for the prevention and containment of AMR and explained that it had adopted a very 
conservative approach to the use of antimicrobials in livestock production. Howev er, Australia 
stressed that antimicrobials were important for animal health, welfare , biosecurity , and production. 
Australia underlined its low rate of AMR in food production animals due to its favourable animal 
health status, extensive farming systems, st ringent border controls, efficient biosecurity measures 
to prevent the introduction of endemic and exotic diseases, and strong regulations governing the 
registration and use of antimicrobials. Finally, Australia expressed its concern that any measures to 
restrict access to the prophylactic use of antimicrobials in food animals would have significant 
adverse impact on exports of Australian and other animal products.   
3.73.   Chile asked the European Union whether  its determination had followed a  risk-based  or a 
hazard-based  approach .  
3.74.   Norway stated that AMR was a priority for its government and it actively supported work by 
FAO, WHO, OIE and UNEP. A One Health approach including cooperation of all relevant sectors 
(health, agriculture, aquaculture and environment) wa s required to combat AMR. Norway noted that 
trade might contribute to the spread of AMR. In Norway, the us e of antibiotics in fish and animals 
was low compared to most countries , and Norway insisted that veterinary drugs should mainly be 
restricted to trea tment of diseases affecting animal health and welfare. Routine prophylaxis and the 
use of antibiotics as growth promotors was not allowed in Norway. Norway underscore d the goal to 
promote prudent and responsible use to minimize the spread  of AMR and highli ghted that important 
antibiotics should be reserved for human  use and not be allowed for animals.  
3.75.   The European Union  referred to its statements made in the Committee meetings in July and 
November 2018 explaining the rational e and background of Regulation ( EU) 2019/6, as accurately 
reflected in the respective summary report s. The European Union  explained that its regulation was 
a tool to fight AMR rather than a barrier to it. The regulation impose d stricter rules on operators 
within the European Union  concerning  prophylaxis  and meta phylaxis. Implementing measure s would 
be based on scientific evidence , would take into account inter national  stand ards and 
recommend ations, and would be consistent with international obligations. Regulation  (EU) 2019/6  
had b een adopted on 11 December  2018, publish ed on 7 January 2019, and would start to apply on 
28 January 2022. While the proposal had initially been notified under the TBT Agreement  only, the 
final Regulation had been notified under the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/N/EU/312 ). The European Union  
had held bilateral and  plurilateral  meetings with trade partners. Concerning deadlines, t he 
implementing measures would be prepared and discussed within the European Union first. The 
Regulation specified timelines for adop tion of criteria to designate antimicrobials reserved in the 
European Union  for human use ( by 28 September 2021) and the list of antimicrobials concerned by  
import rules (by 28 January 2022). All relevant implementing measures would be notified  under the 
SPS Agreement . Finally, the European Union  agreed on the importance of i nternational cooperation, 
signalling  its commitment  to continue working as a driving force in the global fight against AMR. 
It would keep engag ing with trading partners and WT O Members  within m ultilateral organizations  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 20 - 
 
  and through bilateral channels  to promote and support effective strategies to prevent and contain 
the global threat  of AMR . 
3.2.5   Viet Nam 's import restrictions in the draft Law of Animal Production – Concerns of 
the United States  (No. 450)  
3.76.   The United States  thanked Viet Nam for their bilateral meeting s. The United States reiterated 
its concern raised in October 2018 about Viet Nam 's Livestock  Production  Law and its potential 
adverse impact on trade . In particular, the United States drew attention to article 12 .7 of the 
Livestock Production Law, which would ban the import of livestock products produced using 
chemicals prohibited for domestic production in Viet Nam, despite assurances from Vie t Nam that it 
would harmonize its MRLs for imported goods to Codex standards. The United States sought 
information on when Viet Nam intend ed to notify a draft of the new implementing regulations of the 
Livestock Production Law to the WTO . The United States look ed forward to continued engagement 
with Viet  Nam on this issue.  
3.77.   Canada  shared the concern regarding the final version of th e Law of Animal Production , passed 
by the Viet  Nam National Assembly on 20 November 2018 . Canada was particularly concerned by 
article 12.7 (Strictly Prohibited Acts ) which  banned imports of products containing residues of 
veterinary drugs prohibited domestically in Viet Nam. Canada not ed that this provision was 
essentially the same proposed ban that the Vietnamese Ministry of Health had notified in September 
2016. On 4 November 2016, Canada had submitted detailed comments to that propos ed ban , 
including a request that Viet Nam maintain MRLs for ractopamine and other veterinary drugs based 
on Codex MRLs and provide the rationale and scientific justification for taking a zero -tolerance 
approach. To date Viet Nam had not responded to Canada's comments. Canada regretted the passing 
of the la w, but noted that Viet Nam had assured Members that they would have an opportunity to 
provide comment s when Viet Nam proceeds with drafting implementing regulations . Canada 
requested an update on when Viet Nam intended to notify the Law's implementing regu lations and 
looked forward to its bilateral meeting with Viet Nam.  
3.78.   Australia  shared  the concern, noting that the period for comments on the Law of Animal 
Production  , as notified , was still open;  which could indicate that the comments had not been taken 
into account. Australia encouraged Viet Nam to notify Members in a timely manner so that comments 
and concerns could be adequately addressed before the laws were adopted . Australia would provide 
complete comments when an SPS notification  was made.  
3.79.   Viet Nam  recalled that the Draft Livestock Law had been notified in G/SPS/N/VNM/95 on 
12 March 2018, and the 6th Draft had been notified as G/SPS/N/VNM/95/Add.2 on 30 October 2018. 
Viet Nam welcome d comments and feedback of Members. At the end o f 2018, Viet Nam 's National 
Assembly had passed the Livestock Production Law, with effect from 1 January 2020; replacing the 
2004 Law. The Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development highlighted the adoption of the Law 
on Livestock Production  as one of the outstanding agricultural events of 2018, with the ambition of  
fostering  the development of Viet Nam 's livestock industry . Viet Nam explained  that it planned to 
amend the current list of prohibited substance s and maint ain Codex MRLs for several  agrochem icals 
used in imp orted  product s. A number of legislat ive acts  would guide the implementation of the 
Livestock Law. The Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development wa s working closely with the 
Ministry of Health on the establishment of MRL s for agricultural chemicals in food so as to ensure 
that the regulation of residue s of veterinary drugs in Viet Nam  would be in line with international 
standards  and practice s for food safety . Viet Nam would  notify the WTO of any update s and change s 
in the status of the Law and welcomed comments  from WTO Members . Viet Nam reiterated that its 
regulations were based on guidelines from international standard setting organizations . 
3.2.6   The Russian Federation 's bluetongue -related import restriction on ruminants – 
Concerns of the European Union (No. 449)  
3.80.   The European Union  briefly referred to STC No. 411, which had not been raised  at the current  
meeting , to acknowledge the Russian Federation 's consideration of EU concerns on im port 
restrictions targeting  certain animal products from Germany. The European Union  thanked the 
Russian Federation for its cooperation on th at matter and  announced that it  would report formally 
on the resolution of that STC at the following Committee meet ing. With regards to STC No 4 49, the 
European Union referred to its previous statement and reported a lack of  progress. The European G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Union argued that the measures taken were inconsistent  with OIE standards and with the export 
certificates agreed between the European Union  and the Russia n Federation . The European Union  
regretted  that, in February, the Russian Federation had notified further restrictions affecting three 
Federal States in Germany . The  European Union  called upon the Russian Federation to bring the 
measures on bluetongue in line with international standards and resume the trade of safe animals 
and genetic material.  
3.81.   The Russian Federation  explained that bluetongue was an emerging transboundary viral 
disease of small ruminants and cattle in Europe that could cause significant los ses among ruminants. 
Bluetongue had become established in Western Europe and f ive Mediterranean countries had 
declared themselves as endemic. The disease had been reported in Germany in late 2018, when  no 
bluetongue vectors were active , and that the  three Federal States  in Germany had been af fected . 
The territory of the Russian Federation had remained f ree fr om bluetongue due to a combination of 
strict control measures and a ris k-oriented approach , helping to maintain trade in livestock at a 
rather high level with the European Union  while protecting the Russian territory from an outbreak  of 
the disease. The Russian Federation acknowledged the differences between its current  legislation 
and international standards , which a new draft Order by the Ministry of Agriculture  was intended to 
address.  The Russian Federation reported on the status of the draft Order and the new vet erinary  
rules, and on the time required  to complete  internal legislative process es.  
3.2.7   EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on animal products – Concerns of China 
(No. 442)  
3.82.   China  reiterated its concerns over EU Commission Decision s 2002/994/EC, 2004/621/EC and 
2008/463/EC , which require d that each consignment of poultry meat, casings, aquaculture fishery 
products and crayfish be tested for chloramphenicol, nitrofuran, malachite green, crystal violet and 
their metabolites before being exported from China to the EU market . China stated that it had been 
implement ing strict inspection and quarantine procedures for animal products exported to the 
EU market for more than 17 years , and that  the European Union had recognized China's food safety 
and residue regulatory systems  when  revising Directive 2002/994/EC. China further explained  that 
the European Union had committed  to expedit ing the cancellation of the additional certificate for the 
food of animal origin exported from China to Europe . In this context, an EU  report on China 's food 
safety and residue regulatory systems had been  submitted to the European Union for comments , 
and China had provided feedback to the European Union  in January 2019. China urge d the European 
Union to apply the principle of equivalence and remove additional tes ting requirements for the 
products  at issue . 
3.83.   The European Union  referred to previous statements explaining the reasons for the measures 
and provided an update . The European Union  was current ly examining the response of the Chinese 
authorities  to the audit carried out in 2018 , and it  would be discussed on a bilateral basis. The 
European Union  was pleased with the progress achieved and look ed forward to a prompt resolution 
of the concern.  
3.2.8   Viet Nam 's market access requirements for ''white '' offals and other products – 
Concerns of the United States (No. 438)  
3.84.   The United States  appreciated the bilateral engagement with Viet Nam on its concerns 
regarding its Decree No. 15, but nonetheless regretted that they had not been fully addressed.  
The United States noted Viet Nam's addendum dated 16 May 2018  notifying the invalidation of 
Circular No. 25 of 2010, and the entry into force on 2 February 2018  of Decree No. 15 of 2018 
regulating imports of food products  derived from animals. The United States was concerned that 
Viet Nam had not notified Decree No. 15 — which  overhauled previous import  rules, including  
Circular  No. 25 — and allowed  Members to provide comments before  setting  the new requirements. 
The United States  request ed Viet Nam to issue guidance on the implementation of the requirements 
of Decree No. 15; to clarify the definition of processed products, registration and certification 
requirements for those seeking to expor t animal food products to Viet Nam; and to issue a frequently 
asked questions guide for the registration of facilities. The United States  requested clarification  on 
Viet Nam's  intention to issue such guidance  and the expected timeframe.  
3.85.   Australia shared  the concern  and referred  to the total trade ban for "white" offals implemented 
by Viet Nam a few years ago . Australia  asked Viet Nam to elaborate on its SPS concerns with regard G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 22 - 
 
  to the importation of these products,  and to outline the process that Members  needed to follow to 
restart trade , with a focus on the registration of export facilities.  
3.86.   Viet Nam  explained  that Decree No. 15 ha d been notified as G/SPS /N/VNM /86 in 201 6. The 
Decree  had been issued after introducing changes and modifications in response to comments 
received from trading partners . The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development had also 
organized an information  session on the implementation of Decree No. 15  for all relevant parties to 
attend and present comments . It had also  invited countr ies with concerns to send comment s to Viet 
Nam's SPS Office. Viet Nam reported on  the bilateral meeting held with the United States and  
referred to the inspection mission carried out  by a Vietnamese technical team in the United States  
in 2015 . Viet Nam noted that  cases of non -compliance in some US establishme nts had been 
detected , resulting in  the temporar y suspension  of new import registration s. Viet Nam indicated  that 
its Department of Animal Health was currently completing a revision of the information provided by 
the US Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regarding the organization of an on -site visit later 
in 2019 . Viet Nam concluded by expressing its  willingness to work closely with trading partners.  
3.2.9   EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmonella  detection – Concerns of Brazil 
(No. 432)   
3.87.   Brazil  reiterated its concern regarding reinforced EU  control s on Brazilian  poultry meat  
shipments due to the alleged detecti on of several Salmonella  serotypes. Brazil regretted that the 
European Union had maintained  intensified microbiological inspection procedures.  In 2002 , Brazil 
had been granted the right to export salted poultry meat, classified as meat preparation, which h ad 
the same microbiological characteristics as fresh poultry meat. Brazil explained that Regulation 
(EU) 1086/2011 only required testing for two serotypes of Salmonella  — S. enteritidis  and 
S. typhimurium  — as the least trade restrictive measure available to ensure the EU  ALOP was met . 
However, Brazil regretted that the EU legislation did not apply the same reasoning to fresh poultry 
meat with added 1.2% salt , which  had to be tested for all serotypes of Salmo nella. Brazil recalled  
that data had been submitted at the July 2018 Committee meeting on sample s that had been 
collected and analy zed by the European Union  at the EU border for the detection of Salmonella  since 
the reinforced control s of March 2017. Brazi l argued that the EU measures lacked evidence and were 
more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
3.88.   The European Union  referred to previous statements made at the  July 2018 Committee 
meeting and to the criteria on Salmonella  contained in the April 2003 O pinion of the Scientific 
Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health on Salmonellae in Foodstuffs , which 
took into account c onsumption patterns and behaviour as well as cross -contamination risks. The 
criteria , which  applied to both domestic and import ed products, had initially been adopted in 2005 , 
before being revised in 2011  for fresh poultry meat . Concerning the level of testing, a r einforced 
testing regime had been in place since March 2017, consisting of 20% of microbiological  tests in 
addition to the pre -export certification system. The  European Union  further reported  that an audit 
was planned for 2019, and that it remained o pen to continu ing bilateral discussions . 
3.2.10   South Africa 's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic av ian 
influenza – Concerns of the European Union (No. 431)  
3.89.   The European Union  regretted that South Africa maintained  country -wide bans  on poultry 
products from six EU member States due to HPAI , even though all affected EU members  had been  
free from avian influenza for many months. Explanations on control measures and the 
EU regionalization system had been provided  to South African authorities. In addition, a joint 
seminar and a study visit from South Africa had taken place in January 2019,  while three EU member 
States had been inspected and had held bilateral discussions. The European Union  remained ready 
to further engage with South Africa.  
3.90.   South Africa  restated  its concerns regarding  avian influenza controls in the European Union . 
Some pa rts of the  EU legislation that governed HPAI situations in the European Union did not seem 
to provide equivalence with OIE guidelines , which South African  authorities  relied on  to ensure 
smooth trade while protecting the population. South Africa would nonetheless continue to engage 
constructively on this issue.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 23 - 
 
  3.2.11   China 's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza – Concerns of 
the European Union (No. 406)  
3.91.   The European Union  reiterated its concern  that China maintained country -wide bans on six 
EU member States due to outbreaks of avian influenza that had occurred in 2015. The European 
Union  had requested China to lift the restrictions and enact  more targeted measure s in line with  the 
regionalizatio n principle. However, o nly Poland had seen a lifting of restrictions . 
3.92.   China  explained that the measures it had taken to manage and control the animal epidemics  
were based on the relevant  principles of the SPS Agreement and OIE standards. The OIE principles  
of regional management in avian influenza control measures  had been applied  in the regions where 
such technical standards were applicable, including for LPAI, Newcastle disease and FMD. China 
added that HPAI was mainly carried by wild birds, which made th e prevention and control work more 
difficult . China was positively communicating with exporting Members who complied with the 
relevant  OIE standards , namely those who had been recognised free of HPAI presence  for 12 
consecutive months and complied  with oth er relevant technical OIE requirements. In the previous 
year, HPAI-related bans had been lifted for Germany, Hungary, Ukraine and Chile , while  evaluations 
for the United Kingdom, Netherlands and France were ongoing.  
3.2.12   The Russian Federation 's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  
3.93.   The European Union  reiterated its  concern , given that only one fishery  plant from Estonia had 
been authorized  to export to the Russian Federation . The Europe an Union argued that this was  
inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement and  with the Russia n Federation 's WTO 
accession commitments.  The European Union  regretted that the ban remained in place despite the 
intent expressed by the Russian Fed eration to solve the matter. A date for a third round of audit s 
had nonetheless been agreed.  
3.94.   The Russian Federation  updated Members on the progress achieved regarding the temporary 
restrictions on fishery products from Estonia's processing plants , which ha d been  put in place after 
inspections by Russian authorities in 2016. In July 2018, the Estonian veterinary service  had agreed 
to re-inspection  visits in late April 2019 , to determine whether corrective measures had been taken 
and that SPS requirements were being fully implemented and fulfilled.  
3.2.13   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union (No.  193)  
3.95.   The European Union  reiterated its concern on the unjustified approva l delays its beef exports  
faced due to BSE  concerns . The European Union  considered that those restrictions did not take into 
account existing science  and were inconsistent with A rticle 8  and Annex C  of the SPS  Agreement. 
The European Union welcomed positiv e developments in Japan  and hoped that remaining 
applications could be finalized shortly. Meanwhile, it reported slow progress with Chinese Taipei and 
Korea. The European Union  urged Members  to lift remaining restrictions on all EU member States 
and apply international standards for the trade in beef products, as contained in  the OIE Code.  
3.2.14   Guatemala 's restrictions on egg products – Concerns of Mexico (No. 413)  
3.96.   Mexico  reiterated its concern over Guatemala's restrictions on thermally processed egg 
products. Mexico recalled that it had been requesting the lifting of the measure since 2007, arguing 
its inconsistency with the SPS Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Central 
America, as it did not provide a  technical and scientific justification based on international standards 
nor a risk assessment. Mexico referred to  the recommendations contained in articl e 10.4.15 of the 
OIE's Terrestrial Code to ensure the elimination of the avian influenza virus  in imports of processed 
egg products , regardless of the country of origin's avian influenza status. Mexico added that  
Guatemala's restrictions were also in contradiction with  its own legislation , which confirmed 
compliance with OIE guidelines and recommendations and the  fundamental principles of the SPS 
Agreement. Mexico regretted  the lack of progress, despite prov ing the existence of HPAI-free zones 
and compartme nts. Mexico highlighted the impact of Guatemala's total ban  on its  egg products.  
3.97.   Guatemala  provided information on the technical meetings  held and the written responses to 
Mexico's request , the latest dated 12 February 2019. Based on OIE information, Mexic o had reported G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 24 - 
 
  outbreaks of HPAI H7N3 in February 2018 and of Newcastle disease in January and February 2019, 
including outbreaks in Mexican States bordering  Guatemala. Guatemala n national legislation did not 
allow trade in poultry, poultry products and by -products with countries affected  by HPAI (Ministerial 
Agreements No. 105 -2012 and No. 228 -2013) or the highly virulent form of Newcastle disease 
(Ministerial Agreement No. 1029 -99). Guatemala concluded that th ose viruses threatened its poultry 
farming, wh ich remained  free of these diseases as scientifically established  by the National Poultry 
Health Programme of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food.  
3.98.   Mexico responded to Guatemala explaining that the velogenic Newcastle disease outbreaks 
had been duly notified to OIE but that  they did not pose a risk in the case of  exports  of thermally 
processed egg products. Mexico asked Guatemala to take into account the recommendations  in 
articles 10.9.11 and 10 .9.20 of the OIE's Terrestrial Code.  
3.99.   Guatemala  reiterated that its sanitary measures for trade of poultry and poultry products from 
countries affected by  HPAI and the highly virulent form of Newcastle disease were based on OIE 
standards. Guatemala detailed  the outbreaks notified by Mexico to the OIE since 2014, as well as 
the affected types of poultry and the States concerned ; and reporting on non -conformity cases 
encountered  by Guatemalan authorities in July 2016. Following a lack of corrective measures,  and 
in light of the sanitary risks, Guatemala could not resume trade. Guatemala further added that its 
Ministerial Agreements No. 105 -2012 and No. 1029 -99 were based on the OIE Terrestrial Code .  
3.2.15   US import restrictions on apples and pears - Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 439)  
3.100.   The European Union  reiterated its concern regarding US import restrictions on apples and 
pears under the systems approach . The European Union explained that  technical work had been 
finalized several years ago in a mutually satisfac tory manner , but  the administrative step of  
publication of the final rule  had been pending for over two years. 
3.101.   The United States  updated the Committee on the work of APHIS with the E uropean 
Commission and member States  authorities  to implement the regulatory changes in the proposed 
rule. The United States hoped it would soon be in a position to complete the publication of  the final 
rule. It reiterated its commitment to transparency and would thus continue to share relevant 
informat ion through bilateral channels. The United States noted that the European Union  had been 
exporting apples and pears to the United States  since 2013.  
3.2.16   New Zealand 's draft import health standard for vehicles, machinery and 
equipment - Concerns of Japan (No. 4 40) 
3.102.   Japan  reiterated  its concern on New Zealand's import health standard for vehicles, 
machinery and equipment . In May 2018, New Zealand had notified  new measures against brown 
marmorated stink bug  (BMSB ), which applied to used and new vehicles. Japan argued that  a 
complete pest risk analysis was necessary to identify the pathway of BMSB and to prioritize SPS 
measures. Japan explained that  its auto industry suffered from New Zealand's measures requir ing a 
pre-approval on the transportation route of bran d-new car s and heat treatment or fumigation for 
used car s, in advance of their export. Japan appreciated the bilateral consultations with New Zealand 
since the refusal of entry of vessel s carrying Japanese cars in February 2018 , and reiterated its 
request for New Zealand to review its measure . Japan  queried the scientific basis of its measure and 
the detection of BMSB, and sought clarification on the conditions for the potential establishment and 
spread  of BMSB.  
3.103.   New Zealand  underlined the cooperative exchan ge with Japan on this issue and further noted 
that the ir trade was mutually beneficial . New Zealand highlighted that the BMSB was a significant 
regulated pest that would result in substantial negative effects if it was established in New Zealand. 
New Zeala nd had provided Japan with the scientific references on the ability and likelihood of survival 
of BMSB under the temperate environmental conditions in New Zealand.  BMSB had been found on 
multiple types of new and used vehicle consignments, which were not s egregated in the hold. New 
Zealand would notify  a revised  import health standard by early April for consultation, which it 
anticipated would  be finalized in July and come into effect in early September  2019.   G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 25 - 
 
  3.2.17   Indonesia 's approval procedures for animal products – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 441)  
3.104.   The European Union  thanked Indonesia for its feedback on market access applications from  
EU member States during a bilateral meeting in Brussels in early 2019.   However, some EU member 
States  were still awaiting  specific comments , such as guidelines for audits or the type of additional  
information  required . Some exports applications submitted in 2013 were awaiting feedback. The 
European Union further regretted that inspections expected in 2018 had not taken place and that 
submitted applications had been lost. In the EU view,  Indonesian import approval procedures and 
standard processing periods were inconsistent with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement  
since they remained unknown .  
3.105.   The European Union nonetheless appreciated the recent discussion with Indonesia and its 
commitment to share information on EU  member States' market access applications .  
3.106.   Indonesia updated the Committee on its bilateral engagement with the European Union , 
including responses to questions on market access applications . Indonesia highlighted its efforts to 
finalize the approval for import s of animal products submitted by EU member States  and referred to 
the legal basis for the implementation of its import policy for animal products , explained in previous 
SPS Committee meetings. There were cases where EU member States were await ing responses from 
Indonesian authorit ies and cases where Indonesian authorit ies were await ing responses from EU 
member States. Indonesia ha d also explained to the European Union the details of the recognition 
mechanisms in place, including the related technical and fee -related mechanism s.  
3.2.18   Indonesia 's food safety measures affecting horticultural p roducts and animal 
products – Concerns of the Philippines (No. 414) 
3.107.   The Philippines  reiterated its concern on Indonesia's SPS -related requirements on 
horticultural products , which  had led to the disruption of Philippine exports since 2013  and regretted 
the lack of progress  on this issue, which  had been previously raised in 2016. The Philippines updated 
the Committee on the Minister of Agriculture Decree No. 2315  issued by Indonesia  in late 2018, 
which only recogniz ed a limited number of testing laboratories for horticultural produc ts. Further  
import  requirements  had followed , including MRLs fo r banana s and shallots, and a new requirement 
that fresh bananas had to  be sourced from a recognized pest -free area in the Philippines. Although 
Indonesia h ad identified and recognized pest -free production areas and accredited laboratories  in 
the Philippines , there was a  lack of clarity on the resumption of  imports of bananas, pineapples and 
shallots. While appreciat ing progress made, the Philippines remained  concerned about Indonesia 's 
measures and referred to undue delays  in their applications , unpredictable timeframes and other 
requirements  which  had led to the disruption of Philippine exports to Indonesia without scientific 
justification , with a decline of almost 70% since 2013, reaching zero exports in 2016.  
3.108.   Regarding Indonesia 's approval measures for imported meat and meat products, the 
Philippines were also concerned with its undue delays, lack of transparency, and piecemeal and 
unpredictable approach in  its handling of market access requests.  The Philippines appreciate d 
Indonesia 's decision to begin processing their request for a processed meat product  but regretted 
the prescription of standards higher than the OIE  without  a scientific risk assessment.   
3.109.   Indonesia responded that the Ministerial Decree concerning pest free area for bananas and 
shallots was still under internal procedures ; this was  Ministerial Decree No. 2315 of 2018, concerning 
the registration of food safety laborator ies for fresh food of plant origin. Regarding  animal products, 
Indonesia required the importation of meat and meat products be based on the 2016 Ministerial 
Decree concerning the importation of carcass, meat, edible offal and its product s, including that  the 
origin country should be free from FMD, Rift Valley Fever, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia and 
BSE. 
3.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1 9  
3.110.   Senegal informed  the Committee  that, with regards to STC No. 427  on India's fumigation 
requir ement for cashew nuts, the technical consultations on alternatives to methyl bromide for post -
harvest treatment had allowed  agricultural product  exports to the Indian market to continue without 
restrictions. Senegal and India envisaged a protocol to avoid  non-compliance with phytosanitary G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 26 - 
 
  requirements due to deficiencies in the procedures for quarantine treatments. Senegal  highlighted 
that compliance with all provisions in pre -fumigation and fumigation of containers,  using  phosphine 
could be a n alternative to methyl bromide.  
3.111.   The Secretariat drew Members ' attention to the 19th revision of the annual compilation of 
STCs (G/SPS/ GEN/204/Rev.19 ), generated through the SPS IMS and issued  on 14 March 2019. 
Since the 12th revision, the structure of th e compilation ha d been modified to reduce its size. Section 
2 of the document contain ed information only on issues raised in the Committee in 2018  (including 
new and previously -raised  issues ). Table 2.3 include d STCs reported as resolved, partially resolved  
or where substantive action on the issue occurred in another WTO body during 2018. In 2018, a 
total of 41 STCs had been  discussed in the Committee of which 18 were new issues, and 23 were 
previously raised and discussed again. Section 1 of the report incl uded a general overview of STCs 
raised in the Committee since 1995. A total of 452 STCs ha d been raised between 1995 and 2018. 
Section 1 also contain ed a summary  of statistics and graphs on the number of new issues raised per 
year, the distribution of the issues by subject, and the participation of Members according to their 
level of development. The 452 STCs were listed in table 1.1. The Secretariat recalled that in formation 
on issues discussed before 2018 was available in the former revisions of G/SPS/ GEN/204. All STCs 
discussed in 2010 and before were included in the 11th revision  and addenda 1 to 3 . 
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  The Chairperson recalled that 
the topic was under discussion as part of the Fifth Review and recalled  the Thematic Session held at 
the beginning of the week.  It would be discussed as part of the agend a item on the Fifth Review 
(section 4.6).  
4.2  Pest-and disease -free areas  (Regionalization)  
4.2.1   Information from Members  
4.2.1.1   Mexico – Declaration of areas free from pink bollworm ( Pectinophora gossypiella ) 
(G/SPS/GEN/1662, G/SPS/GEN/1662/ Corr.1 and G/SPS/GEN/1673)   
4.2.  Mexico brought to the attention of the  Committee the declar ation that  the territories of 
Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California and the municipality of Sierra Mojada in Coahuila, as well as the 
federative entities of Coahuila de Zaragoza and Durango, were free from pink bollworm 
(Pectinophora gossypiella ), as explained  in documents G/SPS/GEN/1662 and G/SPS/GEN/1673, 
respectively. This was consistent  with the procedures established in Mexican Official Standard NOM -
026-SAG/FITO -2014. The Decision  would remain in  force for 24 months.  
4.2.1.2   Mexico – Declaration of an area free from boll weevil ( Anthonomus grandis  
Boheman ) (G/SPS/GEN/1672)  
4.3.  Mexico informed the Committee of the Decision declaring of the State of Chihuahua as an area 
free from boll weevil ( Anthonomus grandis  Boheman), as described  in document G/SPS/GEN/1672, 
in accordance  with the procedures established in Mexican Official Standards NOM -026-SAG/FITO -
2014 and NOM -069-FITO-1995. The Decision had entered into force on 21 December 2018 and 
would  remain in force for 24 months.  
4.2.1.3   Mexico – Declaration of areas free from large avocado seed weevils, small 
avocado seed weevils and avocado seed moths (G/SPS/GEN/1674)  
4.4.  Mexico brought to the attention of the Committee its Decision declaring the municipalities of 
Jala and Sant a María del Oro in the state of Nayarit as free from large avocado seed weevils ( Heilipus 
lauri), small avocado seed weevils ( Conotrachelus aguacatae  and C. perseae ) and avocado seed 
moths ( Stenoma catenifer ), as described  in document G/SPS/GEN/1674. The Decision was 
consistent  with the procedures established in Mexican Official Standards NOM -066-FITO-2002 and 
NOM-069-FITO-1995. The Decision had entered into force on 21 December 2018 and w ould remain 
in force for 24 months.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 27 - 
 
  4.2.1.4   Mexico – Self-declaration as a country historically free from rabbit haemorrhagic 
disease (G/SPS/GEN/1669)  
4.5.  Mexico informed the Committee of its  self-declaration as historically free from rabbit 
haemorrhagic disease, as explained  in document G/SPS/GEN/1669 .  
4.2.1.5   Mexico – Declaration of areas free from fruit flies of the quarantine -significant 
genus Anastrepha  (G/SPS/GEN/1686)  
4.6.  Mexico brought to the attention of  the Committee its Decision declaring certain areas free from 
fruit flies of the quarantine -significant  genus Anastrepha , as described in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1686. The Decision had entered into force on 6 October 2018 and w ould remain in force 
for 24 months.  
4.2.1.6   South Africa – Update on avian influenza and FMD   
4.7.  South Africa recalled that  in November 2017 it had shared with the Committee that the first 
outbreak of HPAI H5N8 had been reported in chickens in the country in June 2017. A total of 203 
outbreaks had been reported to the OIE, of which 98 had now been closed. No new cases had been 
reported since July 2018.  On FMD outbreaks in  the Limpopo pr ovince, South Africa informed that it 
periodically experience d outbreaks in its protection zone . A case had been reported  in May 2018 and 
control measures  had been implemented ; a further six cases had been reported between May  and 
November 2018  and possible cases in January 2019. As a result of the immediate report ing of the 
outbreak s to the OIE, South Africa had  lost its FMD-free zone without vaccination status.  
4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
4.8.  The Secretariat provided an update on the Practical Manual for SPS National Notification 
Authorities and SPS National Enquiry Points, which was a revision of the 2011 Procedural Step-by-
Step Manual for SPS NNAs and SPS NEPs . The Practical Manual was available in English, French and 
Spanish through the SPS gateway of the WTO website. The Practical Manual would be useful for 
WTO Members, and specially for developing countries and LDCs, as well as for acceding countries 
and countries establishing NNA s and NEPs. The Secre tariat invited Member s provide  update s on any 
changes in the contact information of NNAs and NEPs to keep the SPS IMS information updated.  
4.9.  The Chairperson reported that the draft programme for the July  Workshop on Transparency 
and SPS  Coordination Mechanisms in document G/SPS/GEN/1694  had been briefly introduced during 
the informal Committee meeting . Brazil had submitted inputs for the programme of the workshop, 
circulated as document G/SPS/ W/312.  
4.10.   The Secretariat reminded Members that the deadline for providing comments  on the draft 
programme and for suggesting speakers  was 3 May 2019.  The draft programme suggested a three -
day workshop  on SPS and TBT notifications , based on proposals by Brazil , and on coordination 
mechanisms , as propose d by several African countries and the United States . The first day of the 
workshop would be  mainly dedicated to transparency , while  the second would focus on coordination 
aspects. Th e third day  was tentatively included to allow  experts in transparency to have a hands -on 
training on available tools. The programme was still subject to approval for funding by the WTO's 
Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation (ITTC) . 
4.4  Special and Differentia l Treatment  
4.11.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  
4.5.1   New issues  
4.12.   No new issues were raised under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 28 - 
 
  4.5.2   Issues previously raised  
4.5.2.1   European Union – ASF restrictions not consistent w ith the OIE international 
standard  
4.13.   The European Union highlighted inconsistencies in the application of the OIE international 
standard for African swine fever (ASF). The OIE Terrestrial Code contained clear ASF guidelines for 
surveillance, designation of c ontainment zones, and for identification, treatment and certification of 
tradable products. The European Union was concerned that some Members ignored the OIE 
Terrestrial Code's recommendations , which had been adopted within the OIE with the support of 
those same Members. The  European Union explained that ASF remained a very serious disease , but 
that experiences in the European Union showed that it could be efficiently managed to make sure 
that trade in accordance with international standards did not cause any outbreaks.  The European 
Union highlighted its policies and tools to maintain trade safe, as well as its transparent approach to 
disease control. The European Union requested WTO Members to evaluate EU member States ' import 
request s in line with  the SPS Ag reement  and international standards. The European Union stressed 
that c ountry -wide bans were scientifically unjustified.  
4.5.2.2   European Union and the United States – HPAI restrictions not consistent with the 
OIE international standard  
4.14.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding inconsistencies in the use of OIE 
standards on regionalization in r elation to HPAI outbreaks. The European Union regret ted that some 
Members applied country -wide bans whenever there was an HPAI outbreak, without a scientific 
basis, contrary to OIE standards . The European Union acknowledged that many WTO Members 
recognized  the EU regionalization measures and trusted its effective and transparent system , while 
other Members did not comply with international standards and obligations under Article 6 and Annex 
C of the SPS Agreement . The European Union reiterated its call for Members to respect their 
regionalization obligations and to lift all existing unjustified bans, as well as to refrain from imposing 
trade restrictions in cases of HPAI detected in wild birds and of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) . 
4.15.   The United States  emphasised the contribution of OIE guidelines on HPAI to facilitat ing safe 
trade in live poultry and poultry products , and added that the  OIE provide d Members with incentive s 
to implement an effective stamping out policy and to conduct robust survei llance to provide clear 
evidence and guarantees of eradication of HPAI. The United States expressed concern that 
restrictions on poultry meat or products subjected to treatment  mitigating the HPAI virus appear ed 
to lack scientific justification . The United  States, based on  Articles 2 and 3 of the SPS Agreement , 
urged Members to lift HPAI -related restrictions on US poultry exports immediately , given the US 
HPAI-free status since August 201 7 as per OIE guidelines . 
4.5.2.3   United States  – BSE restrictions not consiste nt with the OIE international 
standard  
4.16.   The United States indicated that  measures restricting  ruminant meat and meat products from 
BSE-free countries were inconsistent with OIE guidelines . The OIE chapter on BSE  provided for  age- 
and product scope -related restrictions limited to specified risk materials , not on meat and meat 
products. Competent authorities were responsible for conducting the appropriate risk 
communication. The United States  urged Members to base regulatory ac tions relative to BSE on 
sound scientific risk -based principles , balancing  public health and Members ' WTO obligations.  
4.6  Fifth Review  
4.6.1   Report o n the Thematic Session on Equivalence (Part 2) 
4.17.   The Chairperson reported on  the second part of the Thematic Session on Equivalence , held 
on 18 March 2019, dedicated to Members' experiences in the implementation of equivalence. The 
WTO Global Trus t Fund had provided funding for several speakers to help ensure a balance of views .  
4.18.   The first session had focused on Members' experiences in the implementation of equivalence 
to specific SPS measures or groups of SPS measures. The United States and China had shared their 
approaches to equivalence in the area of food safety; Canada had ou tlined how it applied equivalence G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 29 - 
 
  to plant health; and Peru had explained how equivalence was reflected in its free trade agreements. 
The second session had focused on  systems -based equivalence, with presentations by New Zealand 
on how it applied equivalen ce in trad e; by Canada on its approach to food safety equivalence; and 
by Australia more generally on the challenges and benefits of equivalen ce recognition on a systems -
wide basis. The third and final session had explored other approaches to equivalence, with speakers 
from COMESA , Imperial College London  and Peru. The latter  had explained how equivalence ha d 
been addressed in APEC and in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans -Pacific 
Partnership ( CPTPP ). 
4.19.   The Chairperson highlighted a few points from the discussions. First, Members had agreed 
that equivalence was an important trade -facilitating tool, given the prominent role of food and 
agricultural trade in today's world. A mix of perspectives on equivalen ce from both the import and 
export angles had been presented. Also, information had been provided on how equivalence was 
applied at different levels, to individual measures, groups of measures, or entire control systems for 
particular commodities. Second,  there were  differences in the implementation of equivalence. Some 
speakers had highlighted that the principle of equivalence implied reaching a similar or comparable 
end-result, without requiring sameness of methods or procedures. The role of the appropria te level 
of protection had been highlighted several times as the relevant benchmark against which the health 
outcome of alternative processes or methods should be assessed.  Third, many Members had 
stressed that their processes for the recognition of equiva lence followed the legal obligation of 
Article  4 of the SPS Agreement, and the relevant guidance from the three standard -setting 
organizations, especially IPPC and Codex. Fourth, the Chairperson highlighted the insights on how 
Members proceeded with equiva lence determinations in practice: while there was a variety of 
approaches taken, sufficiently robust domestic regulatory frameworks had to be in place for 
equivalence recognitions to take place. During the session, the principles of transparency, true 
engagement and mutual trust had been highlighted as prerequisites for effective implementation of 
equivalence.  The Chairperson concluded that equivalence was part of a continuum , not to be applied 
independently from the other requirements of the SPS Agreement and  thus, all the measures 
considered had to be risk -based and applied only to the extent necessary.  The Members that had 
submitted proposals on equivalence had indicated tha t they intended to reflect on the outcomes of 
the session and consider possible next steps.  
4.6.2   Report on the Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm  
4.20.   The Chairperson reported on  the Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm (FAW) held on 19 March 
2019, as had been agreed by the SPS  Committee in November 2018. The Chairperson recalled that 
the thematic session had been the subject of a joint proposal submitted by Brazil, Kenya, 
Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States of America and Uruguay,  in document G/SPS/W/305.  The 
purpos e of the thematic session had been to discuss the role of the WTO SPS Agreement in enabling 
access to tools and technologies and facilitating international trade, using fall armyworm as a case 
study. The session had aimed to provide information on the natu re and the impact of the spread of 
fall armyworm across the globe, the challenges for smallholders, and the tools and technologies 
available. Global, regional and domestic approaches to enable regulatory frameworks to facilitate 
access to safe and effectiv e tools and technologies had been presented. Members had also shared 
their experiences in dealing with fall armyworm, highlighting their successes and challenges. The 
programme for the thematic session had been circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1676/Rev.1, 
based on the structure suggested by the co -sponsors of the proposal in document G/SPS/W/309. 
The WTO Global Trust Fund and the United States had provided funding for several speakers, which 
helped ensure a balance of views.  
4.21.   The Chairperson reported that the in the first session, the Secretariat had provided an 
overview of the provisions of the SPS Agreement and jurisprudence relevant to regulatory 
approaches that enabled access to safe tools and technologies. The presentation had emphasized 
the importanc e of scientific evidence and risk assessment, as well as non -discrimination, 
harmonization, transparency, Annex C  provisions,  technical assistance and special and differential 
treatment, among some of the basic provisions of the SPS  Agreement relevant to t he topic. 
Examples of panel and Appellate Body reports had been presented to illustrate some of the 
provisions.  The second session had provided comprehensive information on the problem of FAW and 
on the tools and technologies available. Experts from USAID,  the Centre for Agriculture and 
Bioscience International ( CABI) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center 
(CIMMYT ) had provided thorough information on the biology, history and spread of the pest, and 
had emphasized the importance of integra ted pest management as a key framework to approach G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 30 - 
 
  FAW. Estimates of the economic impact had been provided and several managing options, including 
natural methods and biotechnology, had been presented ; and detailed information on available 
transgenic lines  had been explained.  Questions had been raised about differences in strains 
according to preferred host plants, recommended pesticides for Asia and spraying protocols 
according to the type of pesticide used, among other topics.   
4.22.   The third session had dealt  with global, regional and domestic approaches. Global partnerships 
and development assistance efforts at different levels had been presented, providing a wide variety 
of perspectives of actions being taken to enable regulatory frameworks that facilitated access to safe 
and effective tools and technologies. Information had been presented by ECOWAS on the 
coordination role for phytosanitary issues played by the Inter -African Phytosanitary Council, as well 
as on regional approaches in West Africa ; and by the East African Community  in East Africa. USAID 
had presented on the use of principles of development to create a policy -enabling environment. The 
European Union had presented on some of their programmes and initiatives on technical assistance, 
as wel l as measures in place to avoid the introduction of fall armyworm. Chinese  Taipei had 
presented a case study in controlling a related pest.  In the subsequent discussion, China had 
presented the actions taken since the recent detection of FAW. Exchanges had addressed the need 
for cooperation to improve infrastructures, the importance of the link between internal monitoring 
systems and farmers and the efficacy trials on some of the technologies mentioned.   
4.23.   In the fourth and last session, Members had shared th eir experiences in dealing with fall 
armyworm. Approaches presented had ranged from strategies for biological control presented by 
Brazil to sustainable technologies adopted by small producers in Paraguay. South Africa and Kenya 
had presented on their expe riences , successes and challenges in supporting decision making, 
disseminating information and raising awareness. Australia, not currently affected by FAW, had 
presented on the regulation of genetically modified organisms as well as on the use of shared fo od 
safety assessments with Canada. In the subsequent discussion, Members had expressed interest in 
information sharing, cooperation and technical assistance. Suggestions had been made to build on 
the exchanges during the thematic session as a contribution to IPPC's 2020 International Year of 
Plant Health. The Chairperson concluded highlighting that the thematic session had provided a useful 
opportunity to increase Members' understanding of the fall armyworm problem, as well as the 
existing tools and technol ogies that are available to address FAW.  
4.24.   The IPPC asked countries to share with the IPPC secretariat cases of interventions of FAW in 
trade . The IPPC noted that FAO was involved in ways to address the FAW problem , while the IPPC 
in ways to prevent it. For countries without  FAW, the IPPC recommended to continue surveillance, 
take regulatory action to make FAW a quarantine pest, carry out  pest reporting to neighbours and 
trading partners and, if the pest was found, manage the outbreak and undergo eradication 
program mes following IPPC standards. The IPPC informed the Committee that a paper on how to 
deal with emerging pests would be presented at the CPM meeting . 
4.25.   The African Union emphasised  its coordinating role in manag ing this pest in Afric a through a 
common strategy.   
4.26.   The Chairperson invited Members to comment on the first open -ended meeting of the Working 
Group of FAW , which had been held after the informal meeting . Brazil proposed as possible next 
steps regarding sections 5 and 6 of docum ent G/SPS/ W/305, that the Working Group discuss 
examples of the effective use of the principles of the SPS Agreement to fight FAW , and to collect 
and compil e information and experiences resulting from collaboration towards a safer and more 
sustainable agri culture. Brazil suggested that the co -sponsors of the proposal for the thematic 
session could circulate examples building on the discussions that took place in the thematic session 
and in the informal meeting of the SPS Committee.  
4.6.3   Report of the Informal M eeting  
4.27.   The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the draft report of the informal meeting 
held on 20 March 2019.2 The Chairperson invited Members to make comments on the draft report 
during the meeting, or to send them to the Secretariat by 3 April 2019.  
                                                
2 Subsequently circulated as JOB/SPS/2 /Rev.2 . G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 31 - 
 
  4.28.   The Chairperson recalled the deadlines in the context of the Fifth Review : 
• Wednesday, 3 April 2019  for submitting of comments on the proposed structure for the 
draft report of the Fifth Review;  
• Friday, 3 May 2019  for submitting comments on the draft programme for the Workshop 
on Transparency and Coordination and on the draft programme and speakers for the 
Thematic Ses sion on Approval Procedures;  
• Friday 10 May 2019  for submitting comments on the questions raised in the latest 
regionalization proposal, G/SPS/ W/311.  
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1.  No issue was raised under this agenda item.  
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS technical assistance activities  (G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.9, 
G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.14)  
6.1.  The Secretariat drew the Committee's attention to G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.14, which provided an 
overview of all SPS -specific technica l assistance activities undertaken by the WTO  Secretariat from 
1 September 1994 to 31 December 2018. This document presented information on the number and 
type of activities delivered each year, including information such as the regions covered, languages 
used, participation of the international standard -setting bodies and much more. The document 
reported that since 1994 there had been 403 SPS -specific TA activities, with an overall participation 
of more than 15,411 persons , 682 persons only in 2018.  In 201 8, 17 SPS -related training activities 
had been undertaken: three regional or subregional workshops; 10 national seminars; an Advanced 
SPS Course; a Thematic Workshop on Transparency; and two courses organized by other 
organizations.  
6.2.  The Secretariat also drew attention to document G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.9 , which  provided 
information on the planned TA activities for 2019. The activities included the Advanced Course on 
the SPS  Agreement (to be held in English) in October; an SPS Thematic Workshop, focused on 
transp arency and coordination, to be held on the margins of the July SPS Committee meeting; and 
a Regional SPS Workshop for Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus, to be held 
at the Joint Vienna Institute. The Secretariat reminded Members that funding was available for 
officials from developing and least -developed Members and observers, as well as speakers, to 
participate in the Thematic Workshop. The deadline for applications for funding to participate in 
these activities was 5 April 2019 for the Thematic Workshop and 3  June 2019 for the Advanced 
Course and for the Regional SPS Workshop. Additional details on the dates of these planned 
activities, eligibility criteria, pre -requisites and application processes could be found in the document.  
6.3.  The Secretariat also reminded Members of its approach to deliver more effective and demand -
driven regional workshops, which entail ed working collaboratively with regional organizations to 
address SPS -related training needs identified within regions. On this b asis, one regional SPS 
workshop had been scheduled for Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus. This 
workshop would be co -organized with the Joint Vienna Institute and would be held in Vienna, during 
the week of 16 September 2019.  
6.4.  The Sec retariat provided an overview of the activities held since the last SPS Committee 
meeting in November 2018. These activities included five national seminars held in Chile, Costa Rica, 
Côte d'Ivoire, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Chinese Taipei. More general tr aining had also been 
provided: one WTO Advanced and one WTO Regional Trade Policy Course; a Trade Facilitation Border 
Agency Co -operation Workshop; an Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) Seminar; a 
Workshop on Trade and Public Health; and a UNIDO  Study Tour.  Requests for national activities had 
been received from China, Jamaica, Paraguay and Peru. The  E-Learning Course on the SPS 
Agreement was available all year long, in the three official languages of the WTO, and work was 
ongoing to update the C ourse.  Further information on SPS technical assistance activities could be 
found on the WTO website or by contacting the Secretariat.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 32 - 
 
  6.5.  Costa Rica, Chile, Côte d'Ivoire  and Chinese Taipei expressed their appreciation to the 
Secretariat for organizing the var ious technical assistance activities.  
6.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/16 83) 
6.6.  The STDF Secretariat provided a brief overview of its most recent activities, as detailed in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1683. The STDF recalled its role in helping developing countries meet 
international standards and facilitate trade. The STDF highlighted its work as a knowledge platform , 
a coordination mechanism and a funding mechanism. In its coordinating role, the STDF identified 
and disseminated good practice s in a number of thematic areas, and lesson s learnt were captured 
in short briefing notes. Some recent examples of its thematic work focused on how to implement 
SPS controls so that they facilitate d trade and minimize d transaction costs. Some activities had 
focused on projects around SPS electronic certification (together with IPPC and OIE), the 
organization of regional border agency collaboration workshops , and a dialogue in the STDF Working 
Group about the need for fu rther guidance on risk management at the border.  
6.7.  Public -private partnerships and the use of third-party  assurance programmes in official 
regulatory systems were other areas of continued focus. The STDF had also commissioned an on -
going study on good regula tory practices to improve the quality and effectiveness of SPS measures. 
The STDF would also participate in the Global Aid for Trade Review (3 -5 July  2019) and was hoping 
to launch a new short film to illustrate why it was important for governments to inve st in SPS 
capacity. The film would mainly be addressed to higher -level decision makers in developing 
countries, but it could also be used as a training tool.  
6.8.  As a funding mechanism , the STDF provided funding for the development and implementation 
of innova tive, collaborative and often regional SPS projects. So far, the STDF had funded about 
200 projects. Detailed information on all the projects was available on the STDF website. The STDF 
had organized an information session earlier that week on the results of an STDF project 
implemented by FAO in Cameroon on the control of certain transboundary animal diseases. 
Document G/SPS/GEN/ 1683 listed the steps to be followed by developing countries wishing to 
benefit from STDF support.  
6.9.  The STDF partnership was being evaluated , and partners and other members were also 
developing a new strategy for STDF from 2020  onwards . More information would be provided at the 
following SPS Committee meeting.  
6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   Senegal – Technical assistance and cooperation  
6.10.   Senegal reiterated its request to the European Union and interested partners for technical 
assistance regarding the new EU phytosanitary legislation (Regulation (E U) 2016/2031 and its 
implementing texts). Senegal also informed the Committee  of the successful  completion of a 
phytosanitary protocol for the access of certain Senegalese agricultural products to the Malaysian 
market. The  recognition of equivalence had been notified on 8 March 2019.  Finally, Senegal 
expressed its appreciation to  the African Union Inter -African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU -
IBAR) , the Inter-African Phytosanitary Council (IAPSC) , ECOWAS and other partners , for their 
support of Senegal's regular participation in the SPS Committee and towards managing invasive 
alien species and  other transbo undary  pests in Africa . 
6.11.   The European Union  took note of Senegal's request and reminded Members that the most 
effective way to ask for  technical assistance from the European Union  was through the EU  
delegation s present in  Members' respective  capitals, where tools, knowledge and expertise were 
available to handle and process  those requests.  
7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  
7.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 33 - 
 
  8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from observer organizations  
8.1.1   ECOWAS  
8.1.  ECOWAS reported on the recent activities of its member States, as detailed in document 
G/SPS/GEN/16 78. ECOWAS expressed its appreciation to  the United States for supporting its 
participation in the SPS Committee meeting. ECOWAS had participated in the Thematic Session on 
Fall Armyworm held on 19 March 2019. ECOWAS also informed the Committee that it was a joint 
organiz er of the Second West Africa National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPO) and Partners 
Taskforc e meeting , to be held on 1 -5 April 2019 aim ed at address ing regional priorities and review 
IPPC instruments. In preparation , ECOWAS had organized  on 18 -20 February 2019 a gathering  in 
Cotonou, Benin, for pre -preparation, functioning and harmonization of re gional priorities . A follow -
up meeting was scheduled for the second week of April to consolidate its position . 
8.2.  ECOWAS also referred to the Third States Consultation Meeting for The Establishment and 
Animation of the West African Pesticide Registration Comm ittee (WAPRC), held on 19-24 November 
2018 in Bamako, Mali.  Its objective had been to develop  a single pesticide registration system for 
the West African region. Finally, ECOWAS informed Members of a project for aflatoxin reduction in 
maize and maize products in Burkina Faso that would be supported by STDF (STDF/PG/566). The 
project had been approved in the October 2018 STDF meeting , with a total budget of US$ 845 ,862, 
and an STDF contribution of US$ 544 ,402. ECOWAS thanked the regional partners and te chnical 
agencies that supported SPS activities in the ECOWAS region.  
8.1.2   OIRSA   
8.3.  OIRSA submitted a  report on its main activities in  document  G/SPS/GEN/16 79. 
8.1.3   OECD  
8.4.  OECD submitted a report  on its main activities in document G/SPS/GEN/1680.  
8.1.4   IGAD  
8.5.  IGAD reported on technical support provided since October 2018, as contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/16 81. IGAD had provided support in enhancing cross -border coordination in animal 
health and trade between IGAD member States, namely between Ethiopia and Djibouti, Sudan and 
South Sudan and Ethiopia and Somalia . IGAD had also provided support to  enhance harmonized 
animal disease surveillance, vaccination and disease reporting.  In addition, IGAD had organized 
training of trainers (ToT) on transboundary emergency management, conti ngency planning and 
simulation exercises. Finally, IGAD had assisted Djibouti and Somalia  in developing national SPS 
strategies.  IGAD thanked the support  it had  received for the implementation of its activities.  
8.1.5   COMESA  
8.6.  COMESA informed Members  that it had s igned a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement 
with the United States, under which it had been receiving support to further consolidate the COMESA 
free trade area and harmonize national policies in key sectors. The United States had also supported 
the training of instructors on the new Food Safety Modernization Act, who then supported  exporters 
from Madagascar and Kenya. COMESA also expressed its appreciation to the European Union and 
the World Bank Office for their significant support of private sector development and SPS-focused 
trade facilitation projects. COMESA also thanked the STDF for its support in piloting evidence -based 
and risk -based approaches which had looked at the key trade corridors of certain commodit ies. 
Finally, COMESA thanked the FAO for their technical support in institutionalizing risk -based 
approaches in their national food control systems.  
8.1.6   IICA  
8.7.  ICCA reported on its recent activities aimed at the implementation of the SPS Agreement , as 
detailed i n document G/SPS/GEN/1684.  IICA had promoted the participation of CCLAC countries in G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 34 - 
 
  several Codex meetings, through the Programme to Promote Participation in Codex Alimentarius 
Meetings, financed by USDA. On OIE standards, a strategic session would be hos ted at IICA's 
headquarters the following month, with USDA funding, for the analysis of several proposals for the 
OIE Terrestrial Code to be submitted for adoption in the OIE's World Assembly in May. IICA also 
continued to support its member States in the d evelopment of integrated antimicrobial resistance 
surveillance plans, with ongoing processes in countries such as Belize, the Dominican Republic, 
Ecuador and Paraguay. On new developments, IICA also referred to the first-round  table meeting 
on SPS market a ccess negotiations, aimed at discussing the development of a tool to support 
countries in the process of establishing their priorities for negotiations on SPS market access. IICA, 
in partnership with Bayer, was training producers on good agricultural pract ices and was promoting 
horizontal cooperation through an exchange of experiences between Costa Rica and Trinidad and 
Tobago. On food safety, IICA and Canada had held an explanatory webinar on the Safe Food for 
Canadians Act. IICA also announced a large -scale training o n the FSMA Produce Safety Regulation, 
scheduled for  the summer of 2019 in San Jos é (Costa Rica) with USFDA fund ing. IICA finally informed 
the Committee of the upcoming edition of the SPS Leaders Programme for Latin American and 
Caribbean count ries to be held in August 2019, funded by USDA Foreign  Agricultural Service. IICA 
expressed gratitude to all those who supported the development of its activities.  
8.1.7   African Union  Comm ission  
8.8.  The A frican Union Commission reported on the first Inter -African Tr ade Fair, held in Egypt, 
Cairo, in December 2018, with the objective of enabling engagement with stakeholders in the African 
Continental Free Trade Area. The AU Commission had established the Continental SPS Committee 
to promote the mainstreaming of SPS is sues, with their implementation led by the Comprehensive 
Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) .  
8.9.  The First FAO/WHO/AU International Food Safety Conference had been hosted by the African 
Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in 12 -13 February 2019. It had aimed to identify key actions and 
strategies to address current and future challenges to food safety glo bally, and strengthen political 
commitment to food safety  issues  in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  
8.10.   The African Union had launched in November 2018 its Animal Health Strategy for Africa aimed 
at a more coordinated regional approach.  The African Union also updated the Committee on other 
workshops and meetings organised in the SPS area.  In addition, the A frican Union had been working 
with its member States to coordinate common positions on draft chapters of the OIE Terrestrial and 
Aquatic Codes and on food hygiene and antimicrobial resistance for the relevant Codex sessions . 
Finally, the AU highlighted its  efforts to support the management of FAW outbreaks in Africa with 
other developing partners . 
8.1.8   ACP Group  
8.11.   The ACP Group provided an update on the additional support by the European Union to 
strengthen national ACP SPS capacities  The ACP mentioned that Regula tion (EU) 1107/2009 was 
leading to the loss of authorized plant protection products, challeng ing ACP growers and exporters 
and resulting in a higher number of non-compliance s of pesticide residues. The ACP also referred to 
the technical assistance programm es funded by the European Union , including the Pesticides 
Initiative Programme (PIP) to support the  ACP food and vegetable industry to maintain market 
access and competitiveness faced with  EU regulatory changes ; followed by the "Fit For Market" 
programme and its complement to strengthen sanitary and phytosanitary systems of the ACP 
horticultural sector.  
8.12.   The ACP explained that d espite the progress, new SPS rules were putting pressure on ACP 
public authorities. Following on the comments by Senegal, ACP infor med that support was available 
to address new EU plant health rules.  
8.1.9   ITC 
8.13.   ITC provided an update on SPS -related activities, as detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1688.  
ITC had developed projects in Myanmar  with EU funding , as well as  an STDF -funded project . ITC 
also referred to an STDF -funded project to conduct a  feasibility study for value addition in the fruit 
and vegetable sector in Sri Lanka ; the Sudan WTO accession project , where ITC was helping with G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 35 - 
 
  the operationalization of the designated NNA and NEP ; and the EU -funded Burundi Market Access 
Upgrade Programme.  
8.14.   ITC had been support ing Afghanistan through the Advancing Afghan Trade - project , funded 
by the European Union,  to strengthen SPS and TBT NEPs and NNA s, and was working on improving 
Afgha nistan's food safety control capacity, in partnership with Food Safety and Standards Authority 
of India (FSSAI) . ITC also highlighted another STDF -funded project for enabling market access for 
agricultural products through improved food safety system s in Tajikistan.  Finally, ITC had started 
implementing the new EU -funded Systematic Mechanism for Safer Trade.  
8.2  Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  
8.2.1   New requests  
8.15.   There were no new reques ts for observer status . 
8.2.2   Outstanding requests  
8.16.   The Chairperson recalled that, in 2012, the Committee had agreed that if for any one -year 
period an ad hoc observer organization did not attend any meetings of the SPS Committee, the 
Committee might consider that its observer status had lapsed, but only after the Secretariat had 
advised the observer organization and received confirmation that it was no longer interested in 
maintaining its observer status. At the November meeting, the Committee had asked the Secretariat 
to verify if there were any ad hoc observe r organizations that had not attended a ny meeting s of the 
SPS Committee during 2018, and to contact these organizations and seek information regarding 
their continuing interest to participate as observers in this Committee.  
8.17.   The Secretariat reported  that it had contacted the ad hoc observer organizations that, 
according to the Secretariat records, had not attend any meetings of the SPS Committee during 
2018, to request confirmation of their continuing interest to participate as ad hoc observer in the 
meeting s of the SPS Committee. The Secretariat noted the difficulty of that process . The six 
contacted o bservers confirmed their interest in maintaining their ad hoc observer status, and 
therefore the Secretariat suggested that the current list of organizations b enefitting from ad hoc 
observer status in the Committee remain unchanged.  
8.18.   The Secretariat added that this procedure had been followed since 2012, but all observers 
always indicate d an interest in keeping their observer status. The Secretariat invited the C ommittee 
to reflect on whether this procedure should be less frequent , applied only  when the need arose.  
8.19.   The Chairperson noted that there was still no consensus on the six outstanding requests for 
observer status from the Convention on Biological Diversity  (CBD); CABI 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 Coco a Organization (ICCO).  
8.20.   The Chairperson thanked the representatives of observer organizations for their contributions 
to the work of the Committee and for their assistance to Members. The Chairperson further 
encouraged observer organizations to provide writ ten reports on their relevant activities in advance 
of the July 2019 meeting.  
9  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
9.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods 
had not concluded consultations on chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade 
in Goods, in accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies. 
The Committee agreed with the Chairperson's proposal to postpone the election of the Chairperson 
of the Committee until the following  Committee meeting in July 201 9. 
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/94  
 
- 36 - 
 
  11  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS  
11.1.   The Chairperson informed  Members  that the next SPS Committee meeting was tentatively 
scheduled for the week of 15 July 2019, with a workshop on transparency and coordination on 15 -
16 July and an informal meeting on 17 July, and the regular meeting on 18 -19 July. The Chairperson 
informed Members that a provisional agenda for the regular meeting would be circulated via e -mail. 
The Chairperson also noted that the Codex Commission would meet in Geneva the week prior to the 
meeting to help delegates wishing to attend both meetings.  
11.2.   The Secreta riat would circulate the following deadlines via e -mail: 
• For comments on the Chairperson 's draft report on the informal meeting: Wednesday,  
3 April 2019 ; 
• For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that items be included in the agenda: Thursday, 2 0 June  2019 ; 
• For distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 21 June  2019 .3 
11.3.   In the context of the Fifth Review, Members  were asked to take note of the following 
deadlines:  
• For submission of comments on the proposed structure for the Draft Report of the Fifth 
Review: Wednesday,  3 April 2019 ;  
• Circulation by the Secretariat of the draft report of the Fifth Review: Late April /Early May 
2019 ; 
• For submitting comments on the draft programme and speakers for the Workshop on 
Transparency and Coordination; and submitting comments on the draft programme for the 
Thematic Session on Approval Procedures: Friday, 3 May 2019 ; 
• For submitti ng comments on the questions raised in the latest regionalization proposal, 
G/SPS/W/311: Friday, 10 May 2019 ; 
• For submission of written comments by Members on the draft report of the Fifth Review: 
Tuesday, 11 June 2019 ; 
• Circulation by the Secretariat of a compilation of comments submitted by Members on the 
draft report of the Fifth Review: Tuesday, 18 June 2019 . 
11.4.   All other deadlines related to the Fifth Review could be found in document 
G/SPS/W/296/Rev.1.  
__________  
                                                
3 Please note that according to airgr am WTO/AIR/SPS/27, the deadline for submission of agenda items 
was modified to 27 June 2019 , with the convening airgram being issued on 28 June 2019.