RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/92  
 
14 September 2018  
(18-5695) Page: 1/45 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETI NG OF 12-13 JULY  2018  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
2   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ... 5 
3   INFORMATION SHAR ING ................................ ................................ ................  5 
3.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ ................  5 
3.1.1    Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  ................................ ................................ .........  5 
3.1.2    European Union – New phytosanitary rules for importing plants, plant products 
and other regulated objects  ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
3.1.3    European Union – Legislative measures on veterinary medicinal products  ...........  6 
3.1.4    Senegal – Establishment of a national pest risk analysis system; management of 
fruit fly interceptions in mangoes; launch of a trade information portal  .........................  7 
3.1.5    The Russian Federation – Information on voluntary labelling  .............................  7 
3.1.6    Canada - Update on the final publication of the Safe Food for Canadians 
Regulation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  8 
3.1.7    Belize Electronic Licenc e and Permit System (BELAPS)  ................................ ..... 8 
3.2   Information from CODEX, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ..............................  8 
3.2.1    IPPC ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  8 
3.2.2    Codex  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  9 
3.2.3    OIE ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  9 
4   SPECIFIC TRADE C ONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/2 04/REV.18)  .............................  10 
4.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 10 
4.1.1    New Zealand's draft import health standard for vehicles, machinery and 
equipment - Concerns of Japan  ................................ ................................ ..............  10 
4.1.2    Lack of transparency a nd undue delays in Indonesia's approval procedures for 
animal products – Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ..................  10 
4.1.3    EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on animal products – Concerns of China  11 
4.1.4    EU restrictions on poultry meat and poultry meat preparation (Regulation (EU) 
No. 2018/700) – Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ........  12 
4.1.5    Panama's restrictions on beef and poultry meat – Conce rns of Brazil  ................  12 
4.1.6    The Russian Federation's restrictions on beef and swine meat (G/SPS/N/RUS/145) 
– 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/92  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4.1.7    EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products – Concerns of Argentina 
and the United States  ................................ ................................ ...........................  13 
4.1.8    Private application of Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014 on maximum levels of 
cadmium in foodstuffs – Concerns of Ecuador  ................................ ..........................  16 
4.1.9    New EU definition of the fungicide folpet – Concerns of China  ..........................  16 
4.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ................  17 
4.2.1    US import rest rictions on apples and pears - Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 439) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  17 
4.2.2    Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds - Concerns of Chinese Taipei 
(No. 421) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  17 
4.2.3    India's fumigation requirements for cashew nuts - Concerns of Madagascar and 
Senegal (No. 427)  ................................ ................................ ................................  17 
4.2.4    Viet Nam's suspension of groundnut seed imports – Concerns of Senegal 
(No. 418) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  18 
4.2.5    General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  19 
4.2.6    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza – Concerns of the European Union (No. 431)  ................................ .............  19 
4.2.7    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza – Concerns of 
the United States (No. 406)  ................................ ................................ ..................  19 
4.2.8    Mexico's restrictions on imports of swine meat - Concerns of Brazil (No. 271)  ... 19 
4.2.9    EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmonella detection - Concerns of Brazil 
(No. 432)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  20 
4.2.10    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  ................................ ................  20 
4.2.11    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  ................................ .............  21 
4.2.12    China's AQSIQ official certification requirements for food imports 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1209) – Concerns of the United States (No. 184)  ...............................  21 
4.2.13    EU maximum level of cadmium in foodstuffs – Concerns of Colombia, 
Madagascar and Peru (G/SPS/GEN/1624) (No. 430)  ................................ .................  22 
4.2.14    EU revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors – 
Concerns of Argentina, China, India and the United States (No. 382)  .........................  24 
4.2.15    France's dimethoate -related restrictions on imported cherries - Concerns of the 
United States (No. 422)  ................................ ................................ ........................  26 
4.2.16    China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOs – Concerns of the United States (No. 395)  ...............  27 
4.2.17    US seafood import monitoring programme - Concerns of China (No.  415) ....... 27 
4.3   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  ...........................  27 
4.3.1    Ukraine's import restrictions on poultry and poultry products – Information from 
Mexico (No. 315)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 27 
5   OPERATION AND IM PLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  .....................  28 
5.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 28 
5.2   Pest-and disease -free areas  ................................ ................................ ...........  28 
5.2.1    Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/48 (G/SPS/GEN/1618)  ......................  28 
5.2.2    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .........  28 G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 3 - 
 
  5.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ..............................  30 
5.3.1    Nigeria – Update on SPS notifications (G/SPS/GEN/1614)  ...............................  30 
5.3.2    Madagascar  – Emergency notification on imports of breeding poultry from avian 
influenza free zones  ................................ ................................ .............................  30 
5.4   Special and Differential Treatment  ................................ ................................ .. 30 
5.5   Monitoring of the use of International Standards  ................................ ..............  30 
5.5.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................  30 
5.5.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ .............  30 
5.5.3    Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/11/Rev.1 (G/SPS/GEN/1617)  .............  32 
5.6   Fifth Review  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 33 
5.6.1    Report of the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ .... 33 
6   CROSS -CUTTING IS SUES  ................................ ................................ ..............  35 
7   TECHNICAL ASSIST ANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ..............  36 
7.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .... 36 
7.1.1    Report on the Workshop on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedure s 
(Annex  C) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  36 
7.1.2    WTO SPS activities  ................................ ................................ .....................  37 
7.1.3    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1627)  ................................ ................................ ............  38 
7.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ............  39 
7.2.1    Nigeria – Technical assistance received  ................................ ........................  39 
7.2.2    Japan – Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.6)  39 
7.2.3    Senegal – Technical assistance requested from the European Union for 
implementation of the new phytosanitary legislation, in particular Directive 2017 /1279 
and Implementing Decision 2018/638 on Spodoptera frugiperda  ................................  39 
7.2.4    Senegal – Cooperation with Malaysia on a phytosanita ry protocol  ....................  40 
7.2.5    Madagascar – Support for the use of the PIMA tool to set priorities for SPS 
activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  40 
7.2.6    Madagascar – Technical assistance received from the European Union and the 
United States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 40 
7.2.7    Belize – Workshop on regional pest risk analysis for khapra beetle (Trogoderma 
granarium) (G/SPS/GEN/1636)  ................................ ................................ ..............  41 
8   CONCERNS WITH PR IVATE AND COMMERCIAL  STANDARDS  .........................  41 
9   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 42 
9.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ .........................  42 
9.1.1    ECOWAS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 42 
9.1.2    OIRSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 42 
9.1.3    IGAD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  42 
9.1.4    IICA ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  42 
9.1.5    ITC ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  43 
9.1.6    The African Union  ................................ ................................ ......................  43 
9.1.7    CAHFSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 43 
9.1.8    ISO ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  43 G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 4 - 
 
  9.2   Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  ................................ .........  44 
9.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ............................  44 
9.2.2    Outstanding requests  ................................ ................................ .................  44 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ .......................  44 
11   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEX T MEETINGS ................................ ...................  44 
 G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF  THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es (the "Committee") held its 
72nd regular meeting on 12-13 July  2018. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with 
amendments (WTO/AIR/SPS/ 22). 
1.2.  The Secretariat reminded the Committee that, for the second time, the agenda had been 
circulated with the convening airgram, one week earlier than previous practice , as agreed by the 
Committee. The Secretariat thanked Members for the early submission of documents and requested 
them to provide speaking notes in advance for interpretation. Document G/SPS/GEN/1619 included 
planned dates for mee tings for the following year. Members were asked to inform of conflicts with  
other major engagements of SPS officials. Likewise, new delegates were invited to approach the 
Secretariat to be included in the  relevant  mailing lists. Finally, the Secretariat p resented the new 
compilation of all the major decisions and documents, updated after the adoption of the Catalogue 
of Instruments available to WTO Members to manage SPS issues (G/SPS/63) and the Fourth R eview  
of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/62) , available in the three 
official languages as well as electronically on the WTO website . 
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
2.1.  Recalling the Committee's Rules of Procedure, the Chai rperson noted  that the term of office of 
the Chairpers on of the SPS Committee finished  with the conclusion of the fi rst meeting of each year. 
At the time of the regular SPS Committee meeting held in March 2018 , the Chairperson of the Council 
for Trade in Goods had not yet  concluded the consultations on chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies 
of the Council for Trade in Goods in accordance with the Guidelines for  Appointment of Officers to 
WTO bodies (WT/L/31) . 
2.2.  At its meeting of 23 March 2018 , the Council for Trade in Goods had agreed to the election of 
Ms Noncedo Vutula of South Africa as the new Chairperson of the SPS Committee . The Committee 
endorse d the election of Ms Vutula by acclamation , and voiced its appreciated to Mr  Espinola for his 
work during the past year . Mr Es pinola thanked all delegates for their constructive engagement that 
allowed fo r the adoption of two documents,  revitalising the work of the Committee. He highlighted 
the number of proposals received for the Fifth Review, and encouraged Members to continue their 
important work, which had a real impact on producers, consumers and other stakeholders . He finally 
thanked Members and the WTO Secretariat for their support and assistance during his  period as 
Chairperson of this Co mmittee , and welcomed the new Chairperson . He was particularly pleased 
about the gender balance of the Committee's chairmanship. Ms Vutula commended Mr Espinola for 
his work and looked forward to working with all Members of the Committee.  
3  INFORMATION SHARI NG 
3.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
3.1.1   Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant acciden t 
3.1.  Japan thanked the Russia n Federation , the United Arab Emirates and the United States of 
America for relaxing their import restrictions. Japan also provided an update on the most recent 
data from its food monitoring programme and highlighted that Japanese standard limits had been 
set very conservatively  taking into consideration the accident and  the food intake of Japanese 
citizens, and foods exceeding the limits were not allowed  to enter the food supply chain . The data 
showed that the rate of products exceeding the Japanese standard limits had decreased and all the 
test results, with the excepti on of wild edible fungi, wild plants and game meats, had been within 
the Codex guideline s levels for more than five years.  Notably, the annual effective doses of 
radiocesium in foods had been estimated as far below the Codex intervention exemption level. 
Japan also recalled that the FAO and IAEA had acknowledged and evaluated the efforts made by 
Japan to ensure food safety. Japan reported that 51 out of the 54 Members who had introduced 
import restrictions on Japanese foods had either lifted or eased import  restrictions. However, out of 
27 Members  who kept import restrictions, some  continued to impose import bans at prefectural level 
and some required additional test certificates. Japan urged Members with import restrictions on 
Japanese food to base their measures on scientific principles . G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.1.2   European Union – New phytosanitary rules for importing plants, plant products and 
other regulated objects  
3.2.  The European Union  provided an update on the new Plant Health Regulation (E U) 
No 2016/2031, applicable as of December  2019. The European Union had  previously reported to the 
Committee about this Regulation in March  2017 and circulated document G/SPS/GEN/1541  with 
further information . The European Union informed the Committee of the on -going development s of 
implementing m easures in two areas: high -risk plants and phytosanitary certificates. Import s into 
the European Union of plants which showed an unacceptable level of risk following  a preliminary risk 
assessment  would require a full risk assessment . Countries interested i n exporting high -risk plants 
to the European Union would have to submit a dossier following the guidance that w as being 
developed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Regulation established that all plants 
imported into the E uropean Union had to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate  and provided 
for possible derogations for low -risk commodities . The list of high -risk plants and low -risk 
commodities would  be included  in a single legal act. The deadline for the adoption of implementing 
acts was 14 December 2018 , and w hile discussions with EU member State s continued, the European 
Union would undertake a four -week public consultation. After this consultation, the single act would 
be notified to the SPS Committee with a comment period. Finally, the European Union would conduct 
a meeting open to all interested trading partners in autumn in Brussels. The European Union invited 
Member s to visit the EU website on Better Regulation.  
3.3.  Nigeria raised a question on the extent to which feedback and co mments would be taken into 
consideration in the review process of the legal acts , as well as on the time -frame of the notification . 
3.4.  The European Union explained that the feedback mechanis m and public consultation was part 
of EU good regulatory practice and  that comments wou ld be duly considered by the regulators. 
In terms of sequencing, the public consultation would take place first and, once the comments ha d 
been considered, there would be a second opportunity for comments in the context  of the notificatio n 
under the SPS Agreement . 
3.1.3   European Union – Legislative measures on veterinary medicinal products  
3.5.  The European Union informed the Committee  that EU co-legislators had agreed on the text of 
the new Regulation on Veterinary Medicinal Products , a new legal framework for the authorisation 
and use of veterinary drugs in the European Union. The European Union explained that the European 
Commission had issued a proposal for the Regulation in September 2 014, which had been  notified 
under the  TBT Agree ment in April 2015 as document G/TBT/N/EU/279 . The Regulation would enter 
into force in November 2018, and would take effect at the end of 2021, three years after its entry 
into force. The European Union explained that one of the key objective s of the new Regulation wa s 
to address the public health risk of antimicrobial resistance  (AMR) , following the One H ealth 
approach. The European Union elaborated  that the Regulation laid down several actions to fight 
AMR, including: strengthening the principles behind the prudent use of antimicrobials, for example 
by avoiding the routine prophylactic and metaphylactic use; reserving certain antimicrobials for 
treatment of infections in humans only; and banning the use of antimicrobial s in animals for growth 
promotion or yield increase. The European Union noted  that the new Regulation was part of a 
package which includ ed a new regulation on medicated feed , which contained measures aimed at 
fighting the misuse of antimicrobials, includ ing a ban on their use in medicated feed for prophylaxis, 
and limiting treatment duration.  
3.6.  The European Union recalled that in 1999 the EU Scientific Steering Committee  had 
recommended phasing -out and ultimately abolishing  the use of  antimicrobial s as growth  promoter s, 
and in 2006, a general ban on the use of antibiotics as feed additives for growth promotion had been  
introd uced. The  new Regulation would refuse the marketing authori zation for antimicrobial products 
presented as growth promoter s or to increase yield, regardle ss of the route of administration, and 
prohibited the use of such antimicrobial medicinal products in animals. The European Union added 
that the new Regulation would also envisage the possibility of reserving the use of certain 
antimicrobials for use on humans only, based on scientific risk assessment s. To date , no 
antimicrobial ha d been so reserved in the European Union . 
3.7.  The European Union  stressed the concern that AMR organisms and resistance determinants  
could spread to humans and animals through food and feed originat ing within or outside the G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 7 - 
 
  European Union . Therefore, the  new Regulation would require, in a non -discriminatory and 
proportional manner , that operators in non -EU countries  refrain from using  antimicrobials for growth 
promotion or antimicrobials designated in the European Union as reserved for human use only , 
in respect of animals or products of animal origin exported to the European Union . The European 
Union further explained that detailed rul es on how to implement these provisions would be available 
in implementing acts , which  would respect international agreements,  including WTO obligations, 
and would be legally sound, proportionate, non -discriminatory and based on scientific evidence. 
The European Union expressed it s intention to  keep the Committee duly informed o f new 
developments on its antimicrobial measures, in particular on delegated acts on measures concerning 
non-EU countries , and that d raft acts would be notified in due course to the WTO. Finally, the 
European Union reinforced its commitment to engage with its trading partners and to promote and 
support effective strategies to prevent and contain the global threat of AMR . 
3.8.  Japan expressed its appreciation on  the overview provided by the  European Union , and looked 
forward to receiv ing more information on  the implementation of the new R egulation in  delegated 
and implementing acts .  
3.9.  The United States requested clarif ication on the rationale for the notification as a TBT measure 
in 2015 . In addition, the United States requested assurances that the measures in delegated and 
implementing acts  would be  notified to the SPS  Committee . 
3.10.   The Eu ropean Union explained that the original 2014  proposal  had been notified under the 
TBT Agreement because , at that time, no SPS provisions had been regarded as potentially affecting  
international trade . The European Union  clarified th at the original proposal  had changed , and assured 
the Committee that the new implementing measures would be notified to the WTO, and would be 
notified to the SPS Committee if it were concluded that they were SPS measures . In any case, t he 
SPS Committee would be duly informed . 
3.1.4   Senegal – Establishment of a national pest risk analysis system; management of 
fruit fly interceptions in mangoes; launch of a trade information portal  
3.11.   Senegal reported on the establish ment of a national system for phytosanitary risk analysis, 
which grouped  its NPPO, research institutes, universities and other related organisms. Skilled centres 
had been identi fied and priority sectors had been targeted to carry out detailed risk assessments to 
respond to market requirements and to bring the country into line with new legislation in the 
European Union, Senegal's  main produce market. Senegal further shared that the European Union 
had requested ECOWAS countries to implement corrective measures  in the mango sector , given fruit 
fly infestations and the non -conformity notifications received from EU markets. Senegal had 
therefore introduced  new provisions and revis ed its inspection and certification procedure manual, 
which would be available on its new  trade information portal , in accordance with obligations arising 
from the Trade Facilitation Agreement. All relevant information, in particular with regard to 
regulatory texts and import and export procedures as well as procedures for the transit of goods, 
could be found in https://senegalcommerce.gouv.sn/ . 
3.12.   Nigeria queried whether the new trade information portal provided a single window platform  
which connected all border agencies and whether it also served as an Enquiry Point for specific 
requests.  
3.13.   Senegal confirmed that the new platform captured all the regulations, standards and 
procedures that were required for investmen t in any area of activity ; and connected a ll domestic 
stakeholders . 
3.1.5   The Russian Federation – Information on voluntary labelling  
3.14.   The Russian Federation informed the Committe e of the new food  labelling system , intended 
to provide detailed information to cons umers on contents of salt, sugar and fat in the most accessible 
way. The labelling did not reflect lack of safety  of the products for human health or life.  The voluntary 
labelling  had been launched on 1 June 2018  and involved a colour indication (green, yellow or red) 
on the food package . It did not have a time -limit; manufacturers could join at any time. The Russian 
Federation added that f urther information on the system , as well as the list of products that were 
not covered by the voluntary labelling, were publicly available on the official website of the G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Rospotrebnadzor  (the Russian Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and 
Human Wellbeing) . 
3.1.6   Canada - Update on the final publication of the Sa fe Food for Canadians Regulation  
3.15.   Canada announced  to the Committee that the  Safe Food for Canadians Regulation had been 
published on 13 June 2018. The new regul atory framework incorporate d 14 existing regulations int o 
a single, more outcome -based R egulatio n. Canada reminded Members that since 2012 it had been 
undertaking  activities to modernize its food safety framework, which  had been notified to the WTO 
through five notifications: G/SPS/N/CAN/700; G/SPS/N/CAN/700/Rev.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 through out this process 
it had consulted with domestic and foreign stakeholders, which included two information sessions 
on the margin s of two SPS Committee meetings, in July 2014 and in March 2017.  Canada explained 
that the new R egulation incorporated key changes that had been the result of comments received 
during the pre -publication period. The Regulation established three key food safety elements: 
licensing, traceability and safety requirements r elated to the preparation of food and preventive 
control plants ; elements that applied to all food imported or prepared for exports or entrepreneurial 
trade. Canada  also stated that Canadian and international stakeholders would hav e a period of 
approximate ly six months to prepare and meet the new requirements before t hey would come into 
force on 15  January  2019. Canada encouraged Members to visit 
http://www. inspection.gc.ca/safefood  for more information . 
3.1.7   Beliz e Electronic Licence and Permit System (BELAPS)  
3.16.   Belize provided inform ation to the Committee regarding the assistance it had received from 
Chinese Taipei through the International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF) , to transition 
from a physical paper -based system to a fully electronic system for the issuance of import and export 
licences and permits , the Belize Electronic Licence and Permit System (BELAPS). Belize explained 
that t he project had completed the electronic process for the issuance of  import and export licences 
for the Bureau of Standards and the Fisheries Department  between November 2010 and November 
2014; the component for the Forestry Department in October 2017 ; and had been fully completed 
in June 2018 . Belize noted that t he system  included s pecific  components  for the Ministry of 
Agriculture and incorporat ed the Belize Agricultural Health Authority  and an interface with ASYCUDA 
World (Customs and Exercise Department) ; and that the project had been developed by a Chinese 
Taipei compa ny and had been coordinated by the Central Information Technology Office (CITO), 
under the Belize Ministry of Finance. Finally,  Belize took the opportunity to thank Chinese Taipei for 
funding this phase of the project and looked forward to additional assis tance for a second phase to 
cover the remaining  commodities . 
3.17.   Chinese Taipei thanked Belize for the presentation provided during the Workshop on Control, 
Inspection and Approval Procedures (Annex C) and expressed its willingness to continue to cooperate 
with Belize in agricultural, sanitary and phytosanitary matters . 
3.2  Information from CODEX, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
3.2.1   IPPC  
3.18.   The IPPC provided an outline of its activities organized around five main areas of work, as 
detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1623. The IPPC highlighted that five new international standards had been 
adopted and two diagnostic protocols had been noted, raising the number of phytosanitary standards 
to over 100.  The IPPC also shared with the Committee the preparation s for the IPPC Region al 
Workshop s to be held  in 2018, the implementation of a phytosanitary capacity evaluation project, 
and the development of IPPC guidance on pest -free areas and risk communication. The ePhyto Hub 
was now functioning ; the IPPC Generic National System (GeNS) was being improve d; and the entire 
ePhyto Solution would be functioning  by early 2019 . The IPPC also reported  on its collaboration with 
the World Customs Organization (WCO)  on e-commerce and a possible dedicated project ; and on 
the work of the Sea Containe rs Task Force. Finally, on international cooperation, the IPPC referred 
to an agreement signed with WCO to promote cooperation on border control s and single window in 
the areas of ePhyto, eCommer ce and Sea Containers.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.19.   The United States thanked the IPPC for  its update and expressed interest and support for the 
ePhyto project on electronic p hytosanitary certification. The United States highlighted that the 
system had the potential to bring enormous benefits to all IPPC members through faster and cheaper 
issuance of phytosanitary certificates, reduced potential for fraud, smoother clearance of shipments 
upon arrival at port of import and greater international harmonization. The United States further 
explained its financial  and technical contribution s to the project and  reported  that it had participated 
with other IPPC Member countries in a pilot project established in October 2017 to test  the operation 
of the  ePhyto Hub. Finally, th e United States encouraged IPPC m embers to  support the ePhyto 
project . 
3.20.   Ecuador,  one of the pilot countries involved in the establishments of the ePhyto system , 
thanked the IPPC for being includ ed in the project and the donors for supporting the initiative . 
3.21.   Nigeria expressed its appreciation for  the update  and queried whether African countries had 
been involved in the pilot project and how the pilot project would be replicated in the rest of the 
world . 
3.22.   The IPPC thanked the United States for its continuou s generous support in  human resources  
and fund s. Likewise, the IPPC thanked Ecuador for its active participation in the pilot project. 
The IPPC also shared with the Committee  that regional workshops on ePhyto would be held in 2018 
in Latin America as well as in Africa and in the Near East  region . 
3.2.2   Codex  
3.23.   Codex provided an outline of its activities, as detailed  in G/SPS/GEN/1631 , highlight ing 
meetings  held since the last SPS Committee meeting . Codex referred specifically to discussions on 
the establishment of MRL s related  to a change in the way  in whic h Codex members could  opt out of 
a Codex standard without blocking its adoption.  Codex also informed the Committee of ongoing work 
on AMR; the adopted guidelines of histamine control in fish; values for cadmium in chocolate; 
methylmercury in fish; food add itives; pesticide residues; a risk management recommendation for 
gentian violet ; and a proposal on endocrine disruptors with regards to pesticides. Finally, it noted 
that t he UN General Assembly would discuss a proposal by Costa Rica to create a World Food  Safety 
Day to raise awareness o f food safety . 
3.2.3   OIE 
3.24.   The OIE outlined its report, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1633. The OIE announced that Saint 
Lucia had become its 182nd member country and that Dr Mark Schipp, OIE Delegate for Australia, 
had been elected as the new OIE president. The OIE also highlighted the n ew procedures for self -
declarations of disease freedom by countries  and that OIE m ember countries could also apply for 
official OIE endorsement of their national control programmes for certain  diseases. Regarding AMR, 
new and revised definitions of "veterinary medical use", "non -veterinary medical use" of 
antimicrobials, as well as "growth promotion" had been introduced into the Terrestrial Code, to clarify 
the way countries should report on th eir use of antimicrobial agents in animals and thereby 
contribute to the global effort to contain AMR. The OIE added that t hese definitions emphasize d 
the essential role of the veterinary prescription , which should be mandatory for any veterinary use.  
The OIE also informed the Committee that the second OIE Global Conference would be held in 
Morocco on 29 -31 October 2018 aiming at better implementation of OIE standards on AMR . 
A Memorandum of Understanding had been signed between OIE, FAO and WHO on joint ac tion to 
combat health threats associated with interactions between humans, animals and the environment . 
3.25.   Nigeria requested further clarification on capacity building , the challenges related to the 
implementation of the OIE requirements , and on the results o f the OIE survey on the implementation 
of international standards . 
3.26.   The OIE welcomed Nigeria's interest and  invited them to attend the side event on the 
Observatory Project and the results of the OIE survey . G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.1 8) 
4.1  New issues  
4.1.1   New Zealand's draft import health standard for vehicles, machinery and equipment 
- Concerns of Japan  
4.1.  Japan  raised a concern regarding  New Zealand's  Import Health Standard for Vehicles, 
Machinery and Equipment from Japan , notified in document G/S PS/N/NZL/570/Add.1 on 30 May 
2018.  Japan noted that only nine days had been granted to provide comment s and 93 days between  
the notification and its entry into force . Approximately 300, 000 new and used vehicles and 
machinery were exported to New Zealand ev ery year . Satisfy ing the new requirements  implied 
extensive  costs and efforts and , thus, also sufficient time to prepare . Japan expressed appreciation 
to New Zealand's efforts to extend the deadline for comments (up to 33 days) . However, Japan 
regretted that its request for the extension up to six months of the entry into force had not been 
accepted. Japan argued that New Zealand's mea sures should  be based on scientific principles in 
accordance with the SPS Agreement, and assumed that the basis of the new measures proposed by 
New Zealand referred to  the report "Risk analysis of Halyomorpha  halys (brown marmorated stink 
bug) on all pathways" issued by New Zealand in November 2012. However, Japan noted that the 
mentioned report did not provid e any  explicit scientific evidence to justify  the new measures on new 
vehicle s and machinery imported  from Japan. In addition, Japan  recalled that SPS measures should 
not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate among Members. Whereas f umigation or heat t reatments 
on used vehicles and machinery from Japan would be mandatory from 1 September to 30 April every 
year; they would not be mandatory  for products from the United States or Italy . Finally, Japan 
requested that New Zealand provide  at least 60 days  for comments, and to ensure at least 
six months between the notification a nd the entry into force of the measure . 
4.2.  New Zealand  noted that the notification mentioned by Japan was an addendum to the previous 
notification which had been notified in December 2017 , providing 60 days for comments . 
New Zealand acknowledge d Japan 's comments and emphasised  the significant risk to New Zealand,  
which led to measures being  taken  to ensure safe trade , while adhering to all SPS Agreement 
obligations . New  Zealand  added that a technical meeting  in Tokyo as well as bilateral meetings on 
the margins of the current meeting  had been held on this issue . 
4.1.2   Lack of transparency and undue delays in Indonesia's approval procedures for 
animal products – Concerns of the European Union  
4.3.  The European Union raised a concern  over the lack of transparency and undue delays in 
Indonesia's approval procedures for animal products , reporting  that, for many years , European 
member States had not received feedback from Indonesia on their export application s, some of them 
filed in 201 3. The European Union noted that members States which  had applied for market access 
to export several products of animal origin , such as beef , dairy  and poultry products, had not 
receive d any reply from Indonesia to s imple questions, such as applicable questionnaire s, next steps 
in the approval process, timeline for audits  and whether additional information was required . 
4.4.  According to the European Union, as  Indonesia n import  approval  procedures and standards 
processing  periods were unknown , they were inconsistent with Article 8 and Annex C . The European 
Union stressed that WTO Members should ensure that approval procedures were undertaken without 
undue delays  and in no less favourable manner  for import ed than for  domesti c products. Further, 
the European Union added that WTO Members should promptly examine the completeness of 
application s and provide the necessary fee dback in case of any decision o n the application and, upon 
request,  provide inform ation on the standard processing periods . 
4.5.   The E uropean Union expressed appreciation for t he preliminary feedback received  from 
Indonesia on market access application s for plant products. However,  the European Union  regretted 
that it had  so far been unable to make progress on some of the delays faced by EU members States 
on market access applications . The European Union was particular ly concerned by the lack of 
feedback on market access application s for animal products  and regarding restriction s related to 
outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza and requested clarification on  the procedures to lift 
these restrictions . The European Union regretted the lack of answers to  EU comments on notification 
G/SPS /N/IDN/121, as well as  the lack of feedback  on the rationale behind the new Indonesian fees G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 11 - 
 
  regulation, and asked for  clarification on the procedures.  The European Union urged Indonesia to 
engage in discussion s with the European Union and to finalize pending market access appl ications 
from EU membe rs States.  
4.6.  Brazil expressed its interest on th is concern , from a systemic point of view . 
4.7.  Indonesia stated that this specific trade concern demonstrated the close trade ties between 
the European Union and Indonesia, and thanked the European Union for the re gular bilateral 
consultations , including the last bilateral meeting that had recently been conducted in Jakarta . 
Indonesia reaffirmed its commitment to implementing the SPS Agreement  and to respect the 
reciprocal treatment between Indonesia and EU members States . Indonesia explained that its 
procedures to import animal products were based on legal instruments formulated in response to 
the increasing need for risk analys es due to the global move ment of animal products, aimed at 
consumer health protecti on. Indonesia added that the risk analyses on the health status of imported 
animal products  took into consideration the status of communicable disease s in the products' country 
of origin, in line with Article s 2 and  5 of the SPS Agreement ; and that the risk anal yses, including 
the arrangement for payment of  related  fees, was in conformity with Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
Moreover, Indonesia clarified that its licensing scheme was applied to all importing entities , following 
the MFN principle . Addressing the EU concern on transparency in Indonesia's approval procedure s, 
Indonesia drew Members ' attention to its efforts to raise its capacity in this area; including regular  
monitoring of its import approval procedures, inter alia on animal products . Indonesia had al so 
invited various WTO Members to a forum on the implementation of SPS measures in Indonesia, 
underl ining that inputs from Members would be essential to further develop its import approval 
procedures.  
4.1.3   EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on animal products – Concerns of China  
4.8.  China  raised a concern over EU Commission Decision  2002/994/EC , explaining that each 
consignment of aquaculture fish, shrimp, crayfish, rabbit meat, poultry meat products, eggs and 
eggs products, bee products and casings from China had t o be tested by Chinese competent 
authorities for chloramphenicol and nitrofurans before  being export ed to the EU market. In  addition, 
China explained that testing and certificates for malachite green  and crystal violet were also requ ired 
by the European Un ion for imports of aquaculture products . China informed the Committee that a 
formal letter had been sent to the EU delegation on 14 October 2016, requesting the withdraw al of 
these requirements. Likewise, China had also provided a report on the quality of products of animal 
origin, including poultry meat and casings, exported from China to the European Union. However, 
China regretted that no comments on the submitted document had been received. China conducted 
strict inspections on a round 40,000 batches of the products mentioned . In 2017, only one batch of 
products had been positive to one residue, and since 2010, the maximum number of relevant Rapid 
Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) notifications per year had been eight, which represented 
0.02% of the total number of all exported batches. China urged the European Union to amend 
Decision 2002/994/EC  and to withdraw the unreasonable restrictions . 
4.9.  The European Union recalled that the measures contained in Decision 2002/994/EC had been 
introduced due to the detection of forbidden substances in animal products from China. 
The European Union clarified that the exports of the products were still allowed, with additional 
requirements, for safety reasons. The measure had been implemented as a n instrument to protect 
EU consumers . Since 2002 , it had been repeatedly reviewed on the basis of Chinese requests and 
the progress made in residue controls, leading to a reduction in the number of products to which the 
measure applied. The European Union argued that the repeated amendments were the expression 
of the EU commitment to adapt  the measure based on information and guarantees provided by 
China; and  considered data on RASFF notifications an important element in the risk assessment. 
This issue had also been discussed in a recent meeting between the EU Agriculture Commissioner 
and the Minister of General Administration of Customs of China. The European Union expressed its 
willingness to adapt the measure at the request of the Chinese authorities and supported by  related 
information on control inspections.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 12 - 
 
  4.1.4   EU restrictions on poultry meat and poultry meat preparation (Regulation (EU) 
No. 2018/700)  – Concerns of Brazil  
4.10.   Brazil reported that since the adoption of Regulation  (EU) No. 2018/700 , shipments 
from 21 Brazilian establishments, with sanitary certificates issued after 16 May 2018, had been 
denied access to the E uropean Union. Regulation (EU) No. 2018/700  had justified the delisting of 
Brazilian establishments based on on -going investigations and on r ecent actions of the judiciary in 
Brazil, arguing that the establishments affected by those measures wo uld not comply with relevant 
EU requirements . This Regulation had then led to the EU suspen sion of imports from specific 
establishments due to alleged cases of non -compliance due to the presence of salmonella  in poultry 
meat and poultry meat preparations originating from Brazilian establishments , which was the subject 
of a separate specific trade concern , STC  No. 432 , presented by Brazil. In this concern , 
Brazil  address ed the decision to suspend exports from specific establishments, due to  an alleged 
lack of guarantees related to ju dicial investigations . 
4.11.   Brazil stated  that EU restrictions  in Regulation (EU) No. 2018/700  targeted  specific private 
companies , leading to 12 exporting establishments  being  delisted . Between January 2017 and 
March  2018, two of the  delisted  establishments had not exported to the E uropean Union. 
The remaining ten establishments had 8,417 sanitary certificates issued for  export s to the European 
Union, and 41 RASFF notifications throughout the whole period, representing a 0.5% rate of non -
conformities in total shipments and  a 1.35% rate in inspected shipments. Brazil therefore questioned  
the scientific principle and the sanitary basis of the EU Regulation (EU) No. 2018/700 . 
Brazil  emphasised that it had adopted a strict stan ce in the prevention and punishment of crime 
against food safety, adding that through regular inspections the Federa l Police and the Ministry of 
Agriculture had punished individuals and companies not complying w ith sanitary measures. 
Finally,  Brazil requested the European Union to withdraw Regulation  (EU) No. 2018/700 . 
4.12.   The European Union drew the Committee's attention to the EU prelisting system based on a 
systems audit approach that relied on guarantees provided by the competent authorities of the 
exporting country that the exports met the level of sanitary protection set by the European Union. 
On that basis, the Europe an Union accepted the list of the exporting establishments proposed by the 
authorities of the exporting country without prior audits or inspections, and the system was applied 
to all EU trading partners. The European Union believed that its approach facili tated trade flows by 
avoiding undue delays , burdensome procedures  and unnecessary costs. However, the European 
Union clarified that w hen an exporting country failed to deliver on the guarantees provided, 
the European Union needed to take actions to ensure that the level of protection was maintained . 
The decision to withdraw the authorisation of certain Brazilian establishments to export specified 
products of animal origin to the European Union had been taken on the basis of serious concerns, 
and after caref ul consideration of recurrent salmonella  findings at EU borders, despite pre -export 
testing and certification ; the failure of the competent authorities to take effective corrective 
measures ; and cases of fraud both involving Brazilian authorities and concerning laboratory results 
supporting certification of meat and meat products exported to the European Union. As a result , the 
confidence of the European Union on the reliability of the Brazilian official control system had been 
seriously affected. In t his regard, the European Union considered that products from the concerned 
establishments could constitute a health risk and, therefore, could not continue to be authorised to 
enter the EU market. The measures had been proportionate  and least trade restric tive as instead of 
banning the imports of the concerned products from Brazil, protective measures had been applied 
only to those establishments that had been either involved in fraud cases, or had shown serious and 
repeated salmonella -positive results. In this respect, the European Union believed that the adopted 
measures were consistent with the provisions of the SPS Agreement. The measures would be 
reviewed in light of new inform ation and further developments.  
4.1.5   Panama's restrictions on beef and poultry mea t – Concerns of Brazil  
4.13.   Brazil  informed the Committee that following a 2016 inspection mission carried out by Panama 
to audit Brazilian thermo -processed beef and poultry , seven audited establishments had been 
cleared for export. However, shortly after wards,  Panama had published  seven resolutions 
suspend ing the previous approvals. Brazil regretted that, despite its requests,  Panama had not 
presented technical justifications  for these resolutions . Brazil pointed to a statement made by the 
Panamanian Authority for Food Safety, explaining that one of the objectives of the suspensions was 
the promote the strengthening of the national agricultural sector. Brazil argued that the restrictions 
did not have a scientific basis, and did not take into account human, an imal and plant health. G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Finally,  Brazil urged Panama to re-evaluate the decision to suspend the authorizations of Brazilian 
establishments based on their 2016 approval . 
4.14.   Panama regretted that this item had been included in the agenda , and noted the prelimina ry 
nature of its response as it had only recently been informed  of this concern. In a bilateral meeting  
held, Panama had expressed its openness to dialogue . The relevant process es and evaluation s were 
being examined to grant export permits to business, pro vided the corresponding sanitary measures 
had been met. After visiting the facilities  of the company whose permit had been withdrawn because 
the appropriate sanitary conditions had not been in place, Panamanian authorities were assessing 
the renewal of the  authorisation.  
4.15.   Brazil thanked Panama for engaging in constructive dialogue and for the reply to its specific 
trade concern. Brazil recalled that its authorities had requested bilaterally clarifications on this issue 
and had also requested bilateral meetin gs with Panama on the margin s of the SPS Committee . 
4.1.6   The Russian Federation's restrictions on beef and swine meat (G/SPS/N/RUS/145) 
– Concerns of Brazil  
Brazil raised concerns  on the Russia n Federation's rest rictions on beef and swine meat  notified 
in G/SPS /N/RUS/145 . Brazilian exports of swine and bovine meat to the Russian Federation had 
been suspended from  60 establishments  since 1 December 2017 , due to the alleged detection of 
ractopamine in shipments from four establishments. After the measure had been notified in 
20 November 2017, Brazil opened an investigation and despite not identifying any non -conformity, 
it had increased its controls on the four establishments. Brazil had further sent the Russian 
Federation the reports with negative results for ract opamine from the four investigated 
establishments ; evaluations of the segregation process in swine production ; and reports on 
increased official and private controls and laboratory tests. Brazil added that Russian authorities had 
been invited to Brazil to visit local producers , and that it had radically revised its legislation on the 
use of hormones as growth promoters. The use of ractopamine in breeding cattle was prohibited. 
Therefore, Brazil argued that there was no basis to restrict the import of bovine  meat by the Russian 
Federation . Regarding the production of swine meat, Brazil noted that the segregation system had 
been implemented, and had been provid ing ractopamine -free meat export s to the Russia n 
Federation  since 2013.  Brazil regretted that despite  dialogue with the Russian Federation, it had 
been impossible  to establish effective measures to return to a normal trade flow. Brazil reaffirm ed 
its commitment to establishing control systems and processes that guaranteed the compliance and 
fulfilment of sanitary requirements of Brazilian meat products exported to the Russian Federation 
and all other markets . 
4.17.   The Russian Federation expressed its willingness to reso lve this issue with Brazil. The Russian 
Federation explained that the food and safety regulat ions of the Russian Federation and the Eurasia n 
Economic Union allowed no residues of ractopamine in meat or meat products. In this context, an 
arrangement had been made between the Russian Federation and Brazil, establishing that the 
Brazilian Secretariat  of Animal and Plant Health would check each batch of meat products to ensure 
that no ractopamine residues were present in products for expor t to the Russian Federation. 
In November 2017, the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveil lance 
informed the Brazilian Secretariat for Animal and Plant Health that ractopamine had been detected 
in meat products originating from Brazil, and due to a lack of remed ial actions by Brazil, the Russian 
Federation had suspended imports of meat products from Brazil. The Russian Federation had not 
received sufficient assurances that  the causes of this situation had been investigated and further 
recurrences ruled out , and i n particular, the source of ractopamine in meat products destined fo r 
the Russian Fede ration had been not identified.  
4.1.7   EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products – Concerns of Argentina 
and t he United States  
4.18.   Argentina raised concern s regarding the European Union's proposed regulation on veterinary 
medicinal p roducts, stating  that the adoption of provisions regarding the use of antimicrobials in the 
veterinary sector would have a significant impact on international trade. Argentina reiterated its 
commitment to the fight against AMR ; its active participation in Codex Alimentarius  and OIE work ; 
and its conviction that an appropriate solution should be reached by consensus within a multilateral 
setting  in a manner compatible  to the WTO SPS Agreement.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.19.   Argentina was concerned that the proposed text , which was to be f ormally adopted by the 
European Parliament and the Council of Europe, would require exporters of animals and animal 
products to meet EU standards concerning the use of certain antimicrobial medicinal products, as 
well as specific usage provisions, as a con dition for maintaining access to the EU market , despite 
the differences in the prevailing sanitary conditions. Argentina further added that r ecommendations 
from international organi zations such as Codex Alimentarius , did not suggest that measure s of this 
type should be taken with regard to antimicrobials, which impl ied a lack of certainty as to the results 
that could be achieved  through these measures, a lack of scientific basis and a disproportionate 
reaction to the risk . 
4.20.   Argentina contended that t he provi sions that the European Union deemed appropriate to 
resolve sanitary matters, specific to the European Union and its regions, could not be applied on an 
extraterritorial basis to countries that did not share the sa me sanitary conditions. Further, 
through  this new regulation, the European Union would be applying a reciprocity approach that 
lacked scientific basis , prevent ing access to the EU  market for  animal products from third countries 
where antimicrobial medicinal products were subject to different usag e authori zation standards . 
4.21.   Argentina request ed the European Union to  consider the equivalence of third country 
regulations on the use of antimicrobial medicines in the veterinary sector based on rigorous scientific 
assessment vis-à-vis the level of sanitar y protection set by the European Union; clarif y the criteria 
used to list antimicrobial medicinal products to which this reciprocity policy would apply; and take 
appropriate steps to avoid undue restrictions on international trade of animals and foods of a nimal 
origin as a consequence of the application of new provisions on the use of antimicrobial medicinal 
products in the veterinary sector.  
4.22.   The United States shared  this concern , emphasising that  the measure would require foreign 
producers to abide by EU p roduction methodology requirements related to antibiotic use restrictions 
in livestock, and would not target residues of concern, or the presence of resistance genes. 
The United States also informed the Committee that it had joined several WTO Members in 
addressing concerns over this measure in a joint letter to EU Commission President Jun cker. 
The EU restrictions would require other Members to adopt essentially the same comprehensive 
EU regulatory program me, without taking into consideration different conditions present  in their 
territories . Applied extraterritorially , these restrictions  would undermine multilateral efforts to 
combat AMR, such as those undertaken through the Codex Task Force on Antimicrobial  Resistance , 
established  to develop science -based guidelines on the management of foodborne AMR and to 
consider development of guidance on integrated surveillance of AMR , among others . In light of the 
ongoing multilateral effort s to develop standards on AMR, the United States urged the E uropean 
Union to delay the adoption of new legislat ion until the guidelines were made available by Codex.  
4.23.   Colombia shared the concern and thanked the European Union for the information provided 
under item 3(a)(iii) . 
4.24.   Chile also expressed interest in this topic, given its potential consequences for international 
trade. Chile trusted that, through the comments from Members in this Committee, the European 
Union would take into consideration the work  of the OIE and Codex Alimentar ius in line with Article  3 
of the SPS Agreement on harmonization , as well as science -based risk assessments , as per Article 5 
of the SPS Agreement . 
4.25.   Canada expressed concern s that the EU proposed approach would likely have  an unnecessary 
restrictive impact  on international trade and that it would undermine the ongoing multilateral efforts 
to combat this problem.  Canada was of the view that AMR was a complex global issue  and that 
tackling AMR requires a coordinated international approach . Canada recognis ed the coordinat ed 
efforts taken by several international bodies, and supported the collaborative  leadership  of the WHO, 
OIE, the FAO and Codex to promote a prudent use of antimicrobial s in animals and public health  to 
address AMR . Canada was concerned that de spite the significant potential  impact on trade , the draft 
regulation had not been notified to the SPS Committee . Canada  urged  the European Union  to notify 
this measure to allow Members the opport unity to provide comments and  to take these comments 
into account. Different conditions and disease prevalence in third countries  could result in approved 
usages of drugs that differed from those in the European Union.  Canada requested  that the European 
Union  provide the rationale  and scientific justification for prohibit ing certain veterinary antimicrobial 
drugs in the European Union  and imports from third  countries ; the considerations  that would be 
taken into account when preparing the list  of medically important antimicrobial s to be pr ohibited for G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 15 - 
 
  veterinary uses in the European Union and third countries exporting to the European Union ; and 
that the list be shared with third countries at the earliest opportunity.  
4.26.   Brazil shared the concern, underli ning that the proposed amendments to the  EU legislation 
could significantly impact trade. Brazil had previously shared its concerns with the European Union, 
in coordination with other WTO Members . Brazil  regretted that the European Union had moved  
forward with  a proposal that might  prohibit exporting companies to engage in trade with the 
European Union if their national governments authorized the use of certain veterinary antimicrobial 
drugs under different conditions than those permitted by t he European Union,  or if the exporters d id 
not comply with certain EU  requirements. The adoption of these  measures could  undermine the on -
going work of international standard -setting organizations develop ing multilateral harmonized 
guidelines to deal  with AMR. It was unclear how the EU  proposed legislation would converge with 
the international criteria for maximum residue levels (MRLs) already established in accordance with 
a scientific  risk assessment. Finally, Brazil requested the European Union to take into considerat ion 
the multilateral effor ts on AMR regulation , particularly the  on-going work of international  standard -
setting organizations to establish international standards on the use of  veterinary medicinal 
products.  
4.27.   Australia expressed its support  to the joint work of WHO, OIE and FAO in setting international 
standards for AMR. The application of  risk measure s to prevent and reduce AMR should be base d on 
international ly agreed  standards , and supported by scientific data. Australia also stressed the 
importance of retaining  access to effe ctive antimicrobial s to protect animal health and to avoid  
adverse animal welfare  outcomes. Australia strongly discouraged regional and individual countries ' 
efforts  to introduce  AMR-related  risk management  measures  inconsistent  with agreed standards and 
not supported by science that could distort  trade . Australia encouraged  all countries to adhere to 
their international obligations , stressing that unilateral procedures related to AMR  trade policies 
outside the international standard -setting organizations had the potential  to undermine collaborative 
global efforts . Australia emphasi zed its commit ment to an effective and robust  system for the 
prevention and containment of AMR , and explained that it had adopted one of the most conservative 
approaches to the use o f antimicrobials in livestock production  in the world. However, Australia 
stressed that antimicrobial s were important for animal health  and welfare , biosecurity and 
production , and that it was critical for the Australia n livestock sector to retain acc ess to these 
antimicrobial s to treat, prevent and control diseases . Australia underlined its low rate of AMR in food 
animals  due to its favourable animal health status , extensive  farming system s, stringent border  
controls , good biosecurity measures to prev ent the introduction, establishment  and spread of 
endemic and exotic diseases, and strong regulation s governing the registration and the use of 
antimicrobial s. Finally, Australia expressed its concern that a ny measure s to restrict access  to the 
prophylactic use of antimicrobial s in food animals would have significant adverse impact  on exports  
of Australian and other livestock anima l products.  
4.28.   The European Union recalled the information provided  under agenda item 3 (a)(iii), and 
expressed apprecia tion for Members ' shared recogni tion of the importance of AMR for global health . 
The European Union stressed that it promoted prudent and respons ible use of antimicrobials 
worldwide  and highlighted the growing international consensus  on the need  to phase  out the use of 
antimicrobial s as growth promoters. The European Union reiterated that the original proposal  had 
been notified under the TBT Agreement because at that time it did not include SPS elements  relevant 
to international trade. In addition, the European Union explained that it had not had the opportunity  
to notify the current version of the Regulation under any W TO Agreements because the 
EU co-legislators had introduced import -related AMR measures  in the draft R egulation at the latest 
stage of the legislative process. The European Union emphasized that the measure would be notified. 
Concerning the criteria for antimicrobial s reserved  for human s, the European Union observed that 
no decision had been  taken yet . However, the European Union emphasised that any implementation 
would be based on risk assessment s provided by the European Medicine Agency, the European Food 
Safety Authority  and other relevant EU agencies, taking into account relevant recommen dations 
from international organizations.  
4.29.   Regarding the impact and the consistency with WTO  requirements , the European Union 
reiterated that detailed rules on how to apply these measures would be available in delegate d acts 
meeting all the relevant require ments , compatible with all the international agreements , including 
WTO obligations , and would be  legally  sound, proportionate, non -discriminatory and based on 
science. The European Union expressed its willingness to continue its engage ment with Codex, WHO, 
FAO and OIE on the development of a consistent international framework and standards related to G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 16 - 
 
  AMR. Finally, t he European Union stated that this Regulation would contribute to the fight against 
the global spread of AMR . 
4.1.8   Private applicati on of Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014 on maximum levels of 
cadmium in foodstuffs – Concerns of Ecuador  
4.30.   Ecuador raised a concern on the private application of Regulation  (EU) No. 488/2014, 
modifying a previous regulation on maximum levels of cadmium in foodstu ffs (including chocolate 
and certain cocoa based products). Although the implement ation of the measure had been  scheduled 
to take place as of 1 January 2019, Ecuadorian exporters had been  reporting tha t EU importers 
seemed to be applying it  already and incorrectly, that is, not to the finished products (chocolates 
and certain cocoa -based products) as  provided in the measure, but to the input material (cocoa 
beans). Ecuador explained that while this was not a private standard, it referred to the incorrect 
application by private entities of Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014 . Therefore, Ecuador requested the 
European Union to offer the necessary monitoring guarantees to ensure the proper application of 
this Regulation, to avoid an unnecessary barrier to trade, much more burdensome that what the 
Regulation provided for, even prior to its official implementation. Finally, Ecuador expressed its 
willing ness to  the share the reports from its exporters  with the European Union . 
4.31.   Colombia expressed its interest in the topic and provide d further details under STC No. 430, 
with which this concern was related . Guatemala also shared the concern . 
4.32.   The European Union underlined its understanding and sympathy towards  Ecuador's concern . 
EU Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014  established  maximum level s of cadmium for finished products 
directly sold to consumers, and  did not apply  to cocoa beans or intermediate cocoa products , which 
were the products exported from Latin America to the European Union. The European Union 
reminded Members of the exceptionally long transitional period of five years exclusively granted for 
cocoa and chocolate products , until 1 January 2019. Private operators applied  cadmium limits to 
imported cocoa beans instead o f to finished products , without respecting the transitional period of 
five years granted by the Regulation , which was incorrect and not in line with the Regulatio n. 
However, the European Union considered  that this concern  went beyond the scope SPS Agreement . 
In this regard, the European Union pointed out that the concern focused on actions of commercial 
operators, over whom official authorities from the European Un ion did not have jurisdiction. 
The European Union believed that this concern should be raised in other fora, such as the 
International Cocoa Organization. In the area of technical assistance,  there was an on -going STDF 
project preparation grant to  develop regional strategies and a project p roposal to establish mitigation 
and remediation methods for cadmium contamination in cocoa beans  in Latin America and the 
Caribbean , specifically targeted to assist in complying with EU requirements . In addition, the recently 
launched  EU initiative Development -Smart Innovation through Research in Agriculture  (DeSIRA) 
includ ed two proposals on climate -relevant  innovation for sustainable cocoa production , with 
activities related  to cadmium. The European Union explained t hat these two projects were scheduled 
to start during 2019 and would  focus on Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire , Ecuador and Peru. 
4.1.9   New EU definition of the fungicide folpet – Concerns of China  
4.33.   China raised a concern on the new definition and MRL for folpet contained in Regulation (E U) 
No. 2016/156. China explained that the Regulation  defined  the residue  of folpet as the sum of folpet 
and phthalimide , whereas China stated that p hthalimid e was not only the metabolite of fo lpet, and 
that folpet was not only the  result of phthalimide , which meant that the presence of phthalimide  
might be irrelevant to folpet. Further , China argued that the Regulation's residue definition for folpet 
did not comply with the Codex definition. China noted that EFSA had published on i ts website a 
notification on the period for  public consultation on folpet  and that its evaluation report 
recommended a revision of the residue definition  for monitoring purposes . China encouraged the 
European Union to  issue relevant regulations to review the definition  and MRLs contained in the 
Regulation.  
4.34.   The European Union replied that the current EU definition of the fungicide folpet wa s "the sum 
of folpet and phthalimide, expressed as folpet equivalents" . The European Union explained that the 
definition was so formulated because folpet was known to be extensively metabolised in plants to 
phthalimide  as the only relevant metabolite , and that phthalimide was formed by the degradation of 
folpet. However, the European Union indicated that inter nal discussions had  been taking place to G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 17 - 
 
  review the definition of the residue folpet in light of the findings that pht halimide might  originate 
from several sources other than folpet . This would be considered during the on -going renewal 
procedure of the app roval of the active substance folpet.  The European Union also added that EFSA 
expected to  finalize by 2019 a peer review procedure based on the  draft renewal report prepared by 
the rapporteur member State.  Finally, the European Union expressed its commitme nt to keep China 
updated on further developments on this issue.  
4.2  Issues previously raised  
4.2.1   US import restrictions on apples and pears  - Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 439)  
4.35.   The European Union reiterated its concern regarding  the US import re strictions on apples and 
pears , and regretted that it had not  received  confirmation  on the final phase of the applications of 
eight EU member States to export apples and pears to the United States under a systems approach , 
despite many years of joint techn ical work . The European Union added that in practice the US pre-
clearance system  hindered EU exports , as demonstrated by the limited volumes exported from the 
European Union to the United States . As an alternative, in 2008 the European Union had applied to  
export apples and pears to the United States under a system s approach , to replac e the pre -clearance 
system . The last administrative step towards  the adoption of  the final rule  by the US Administration  
had been pending for over one year  without scientific justification, which was  inconsistent with the 
SPS Agreement, particularly in relation to avoiding undue delays in approval procedures. The 
European Union requested the United States to respect its obligations and to allow trade of apples 
and pears  to start immediately under the agreed systems approach conditions , to immediately 
publish the final rule , and to communicate to the European Union the plan ned date  for adoption.  
4.36.   The United States highlighted the  considerable progress  made  on several reque sts by the 
European Union to establish and expand access for EU apple  and pear export s to the US market.  
The United States explained that the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had 
published a proposed rule in 2016 to authorize imports  of apples and pears from eight EU member 
States  (Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and Poland)  under a systems 
approach that minimized pest risk ; and that in 2017, it had conducted a site visit  to several of the 
EU m embers Stat es included in the proposed rule. The United States had  worked with the European 
Commission and interested members States to finalize the work plan to implement the regulatory 
changes in the proposed rule , and hoped that USDA APHIS would publis h the final rule soon. 
Finally,  the United States highlighted that EU export s of apples and pears to the United States had 
exhibited a rising trend since 2012 . 
4.2.2   Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds  - Concerns o f Chinese Taipei 
(No. 421)  
4.37.   Chinese Taipei reiterated its concern regarding Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds  
imposed since 2008 . Chinese Taipei expressed appreciation to Thailand for the on -site visit by an 
expert delegation in May 2018. However, Chinese Taipei regretted  that the issue ha d not been 
resolved, and urged Thailand  to comply with Art icles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement and Article  7.2 
of the International Plant Protection Convention  and to finalise the legislative  process to grant access 
to its papaya seeds a s soon as possible.  
4.38.   Thailand repo rted on the progress made to resolve this issue, including a  draft import protocol  
that had been agreed to by both sides  and an on-site inspection in Chinese Taipei. Thailand added 
that it would propose the draft import protocol to the Committee on Plant Quarantine for approval, 
after which it would notify the measure to allow the importation of papaya seeds from Chinese 
Taipei.  
4.2.3   India's fumigation requirements for ca shew nuts  - Concerns of M adagascar and 
Senegal (No. 427)  
4.39.   Madagascar informed the Committee of its bilateral discussions with India regarding the 
fumigation of plant products exports and of the 26 June 2018 Memorandum of the Indian 
Under secretary on the relaxation of fumigation reg ulations for import s of agricultural commodities. 
Madagascar reiterated its request that India  officially recognise aluminium phosphide (phospine ) as G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 18 - 
 
  an equivalent product to methyl bromide  for the fumigation of vegetable products for importation, 
in accor dance with the IPPC's 2017 recommendations; grant African countries (including 
Madagascar) the same rights conferred to other Members to use phospine to fumigate  their products 
exported to the Indian market; and finalise a Memorandum of Understating (MoU) with each African 
partner on the phytosanitary conditions applicable to exports of plant  products, as it had with other 
trading partners (Mauritius and Russia) . The current practice of the Indian Ministry of Agriculture to 
extend the export authori zation for plant products  every six months  reduced  predictability  and did 
not comply with the SPS principle of transparency . Madagascar finally expressed its willingness to 
continue dialogue and trade with India,  and its hope to sign a M emorandum of Underst anding  with 
India before the end of September 2018 . 
4.40.   Senegal expressed appreciation to India for its collaboration on this issue, and hoped that, 
following positive bilateral consultations with India, the specific trade concern  would be resolved . 
4.41.   Ukraine sh ared the concerns and thanked India for its efforts to reflect on alternative methods 
and for allowing  a temporary extension. However, Ukraine expressed wished  to find a permanent 
solution . Ukraine had provided scientific information  regarding  the effic acy of alternative fumiga nts 
to the Indian NPPO in December 2016 and during bilateral meetings on  the margin s of the 
SPS Committee  meeting  in July 2017 . Ukraine requested clarification from India regarding 
exceptions granted to some countries  and urged Ind ia to recognise alternative phytosanitary 
measures . 
4.42.   Kenya observed that India represented an important market for many countries , and 
expressed its willingness to find a pragmatic , global  solution on this matter. Kenya also requested 
India to allow an alte rnative to methyl bromide.  
4.43.   Mali echoed the concern s expressed  and invited India to review its measure . 
4.44.   Ghana requested India to provide further information regarding the agreement reached with 
Senegal and to extend it to other African countries.  
4.45.   India informed the Committee that c ashew nuts had been sh ifted to Schedule VII  of the P lant 
Quarantine (Regulation of Import  into India)  Order of 2003, by which pest -free consignments wi th 
a phytosanitary certificate could  be ensured through  various me ans by exp orting countries . 
Methyl bromide fumigation was not the only means to do so , but if pest concerns were found in 
consignments upon arrival to India, methyl b romide fumigation was required. This was a general 
order, applicable to all trading partners . Regard ing other agricultur al products, India recalled that 
until 31 December 20 18, agricultural  imports from other countries, wh ose products  had not been 
fumigated with m ethyl bromide  at the port of export , could be fu migate d upon arrival in India. 
India added that the Montreal P rotocol allowed for the  use of methyl bromide for quarantine 
purposes ; and indicated that  more information could be found on the website http://agricoop.nic.in/ . 
4.46.   Regarding Madagascar's request, India regretted that Madagascar had provide d generic 
information instead of scientific data to prove other fumigation molecule s as effective against various  
stages of  insects in import ed consignments , soil nematodes  and plant pathogens. India further 
reported that an Indian delegation  had visited M adagascar in February 2018  and the issue had been 
further discussed with Madagascar's NPPO.  
4.2.4   Viet Nam's suspens ion of groundnut seed imports – Concerns of  Senegal (N o. 418)  
4.47.   Senegal reiterated its concerns regarding Viet Nam's temporary suspension of groundnut seed 
imports for quarantine purposes since 2016. Senegal reported on the documentation it had 
submitted and requested Viet Nam to follow -up on this issue to ensure that its operators receive d 
the appropriate information . 
4.48.   Viet Nam informed the Committee that it had recently received a technical information 
package on pest risk analysis in French  from Senegal's NPPO , after translation, was under 
assessment  by the Plant Protection D epartment . G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 19 - 
 
  4.2.5   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union (No.  193)  
4.49.   The European Union reiterated the impor tance of this concern, noting  that th ere was no longer 
an BSE-related crisis , and that science had proven that safe trade of  beef could take place  regardless 
of the BSE country r isk status . The European Union requested WTO Members to lift BSE -related 
import bans, not to require overly burdensome information , nor to treat safe commodities, as defined 
by OIE, as non -safe commodit ies. The European Union urged Members to observe international 
standards , or to provide a risk assessment  to justify deviation s, and not to discriminate between 
countries with the same BSE status . The European Union regretted the undue delays faced regardi ng 
approval procedures in many countries , and urged countries to lift remaining BSE-related restrictions 
on imports for all EU m embers States and to apply international standards . The European Union 
appreciated the positive developments in China, Chinese T aipei and Japan regarding  EU m ember  
States' application s for beef , and hoped that they would proceed with other pending market access 
applications.  The European Union also urged Korea to  finalize EU member S tates applications  which 
have been pending for a very long time . 
4.2.6   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza – Concerns of the European Union (No. 431)  
4.50.   The European Union regretted to report that South Africa still did not appl y regionalization, 
and maintained country -wide bans on imports of poultry products from several EU members States 
due to HPAI . The European Union stressed that  all but one of the EU member States concerned  had 
been recognized as free from HPAI for months ; that OIE standards stated that HPAI -related trade 
restrictive measures could be lifted three months after the whole country, o r part of it, regained 
freedom  of HPAI , following the application of a stamping -out policy ; and that OIE requirements had 
been strictly applied by the European Union . The European Union further reported that South Africa 
had audited three EU member States : Spain, Poland and Hungary. The European Union also stressed 
that the  HPAI outbreak in the European Union had been the result of the movement of migratory 
birds, and not the result of international trade in poultry products. Finally, the European Union urged 
South Africa to l ift the remaining country -wide bans to EU member States . 
4.51.   South Africa repeated its concerns on the effecti veness of HPAI -related control s and 
preventive measures in the European Union. Preliminary inspections  had been conducted in Hungary, 
Poland and Spain, and reports had been sent to each country , requesting factual corrections and 
additional information . The inspections had shown differences in the implementation of OIE 
standards by EU members States.  Finally, South  Africa informed the Committee that it was  
considering ways to progress with the remaining  EU member c ountries still affected by trade ba ns. 
4.2.7   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza – Concerns of 
the United States (No. 406)  
4.52.   The United States reiterated its concerns over China's  HPAI-related restrictions on US poultry 
products and requested China to follow OIE standards, particularly on regionalization . The United 
States regretted that despite being HPAI -free according to OIE guidelines, China still maintained the 
restriction. China had not requested any additional information  to lift the restrictions , after its audit 
in 2017. The United States urged China to remove all HPAI -related import restrictions and indicated 
its commitment to maintain its rigorous and effective surveillance for HPAI.  
4.53.   China informed the Committee of the technical communications held with the United S tates, 
and explained that , in September 2017, the United States had been informed of problems found 
during the field inspection conducted in July 2017. China expressed its hope that both sides continue 
to facilitate technical communication on the issue.  
4.2.8   Mexico's restrictions on imports of swine meat - Concerns of Brazil (No. 271)  
4.54.   Brazil informed the Committee  of the continuous bilateral dialogue with Mexico since 2007  on 
its sanitary requirements to export swine meat , following the OIE recognition of  the St ate of Santa 
Catarina as free of foot and mouth disease  without vaccination . Brazil also added that it had 
unsuccessfully suggested the use of the good offices of the SPS Committee Chair  under Article 12.2 
of the SPS Agreement and paragraph 6  of the SPS Committee's working procedures, with the 
presence of an OIE specialist . Brazil acknowledged the steps taken by Mexico, including inspections G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 20 - 
 
  of slaughter sites in 2010 and 2014, as well as new proposals for joint sanitary certification for swine 
meat since  2015. However, Brazil  regrette d that no slaughterhouses had since been certified for 
export s and that the Mexican market remained effectively closed . Mexico had recently  requested 
additional time to assess the documentation provided  and to schedule a new inspection mission . 
Brazil urged Mexico to address the technical obstacles  related to this issue without further delay , in 
compliance with Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . 
4.55.   Mexico informed the Committee of the bilateral meeting held with Bra zil prior to the 
SPS Committee meeting , where it had explained the status  of the request and the following steps . 
The sanitary authorities of both countries had held productive meetings since the last SPS Committee  
meeting.  
4.2.9   EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmonella  detection - Concerns of Brazil 
(No. 432)  
Brazil reiterated  its concerns over the reinforced border testing controls in the European Union 
due to alleged salmonella detections in poultry.  Brazil argued  that the European Union authorities 
had intensified microbiological inspection procedures for Brazilian poultry without technical or 
scientific justification. Brazil drew Members' attention to the changes in EU sanitary measures 
introduced after the WTO dispute on poultry meat in 2002. The European Union had  banned the 
same two types of  salmonella banned by Brazil with regards to fresh chicken, while for salted poultry  
it banned more than 2 .000 types  of salmonella , which were d eactivated by cooking processes. 
The European Union applied separate microbiological criteria for fresh chicken and processed chicken 
meat even though both were intended to be cooked before consumption and had identical intrinsic 
characteristics  with regards to food safety . Brazil had regular ly submitted inspection reports related 
to the detection of salmonella in shipments entering the European Union,  with investigations on the 
RASFF  notification system in cooperation with European authorities. According to r ecent data  from 
the European Union , only 326 of the 5,508 shipments of poultry meat and poultry meat preparation s 
that had been  sampled and analysed at EU border posts for salmonella  detection  were found to be 
affected by  salmonella . Less than 10% of th ose cases had been related to  the two  types of salmonella 
that justified the rejection of the product or its withdrawal from the market  according to Regulation 
(EC) No. 2073/2005 . Therefore, Brazil considered that risks to human health would not justify  the 
measure in place . 
4.57.   The European Union recalled the EU criteria based on the 2003 scientific opinion of the 
Scientific Committee on V eterinary Measures relating to public h ealth on salmonella  in foodstuffs  
published in 2003,  which took into account consumption patterns and be haviours and the risk of 
cross-contamination. The European Union stressed that t hese requirements were equally applied to 
domestic and imported products . Adding salt to poultry meat changed the tariff rate but also the 
legal status of the produc ts in the E uropean Union . Shipments from Brazil were subject to testing at 
20% frequency at EU borders , in addition to pre-export checks that had to be carried out by the 
Brazilian  authorities . The frequency of these controls had increased after the meat fraud scanda l in 
2017 and audits of the European Commission. According to EU findings, despite the attestation by 
Brazilian authorities certifying the absence of salmonella  accompanying the consignments, t he 
prevalence of salmonella  in poultry meat detected at the EU border was still close to 6% , which  was 
considered  a matter of concern . The European Union concluded that both the microbiological criteria 
and the reinforced controls were fully justified and consistent with the SPS Agreement.  
4.2.10   The Russian Federation's imp ort restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  
4.58.   The European Union reiterated its view that these measures were inconsistent with the 
SPS Agreement  and with WTO accession commitments of the Russian Fed eration.  Estonia had held 
several bilateral discussion s with the Russian Federation, without much  progress . The European 
Union welcomed the re -authorization for exports of one establishment, but regret ted the continuous 
ban on every other  establishment. Estonia had accepted Russia's proposal for a third round of 
inspections , without receiving a confirmation on the date of the audit from the Russian Federation. 
The European Union urged the Russian Federation to immediately repeal the measure.  
4.59.   The Russian Fed eration recalled that the measure had been put in place after inspection s 
conducted by  the competent Russian authority in 2016 . In February 2018 , the Russian Federation  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 21 - 
 
  had informed the Estonian Veterinary and Food Board of an inspection visit to evaluate the corrective 
actions  that had been taken . In July 2018 Estonia had agreed to receive the inspection visit. 
However, the Russian Federation explained that the visit had been postponed due to other 
commitments of inspectors, and had been tentatively resche duled for September 2018.  
4.60.   The European Union clarified that the inspections and the ban on Estonian fish processing 
plants had been in place since  2015, not 2 016, as indicated by the Russian Federation . 
4.2.11   The Russian Federation's import restrictio ns on certa in animal products  from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  
4.61.   The European Union reiterated  its views regarding  the inconsistency with the SPS Agreement 
of the restrictions imposed since 2013. The European Union expressed its appreciation for the 
Russian Federation's decision to lift the restrictions on three dairy plants  in two German Federal 
States , and three more which had been recently announced . The European Union however regretted 
that bans remained in force despite the efforts made by Ge rmany and the European Union, and 
further considered unreasonable the request by the Russian Federation for a fourth round of 
inspections. A systems audit approach following Codex guidelines would be more efficient and 
proportionate tha n the inspecti on of individual establishments. The European Union requested the 
Russian Federation to repeal its measures without further delay . 
4.62.   The Russian Federation observed that at the time the restriction had been put in place , there 
had been 66 dairy plants and  28 meat plants authorised to export products to the Russian 
Federation . Following  the inspections carried out by Germany,  aimed at check ing the conformity of 
those establishments with the relevant regulatory requirements  of the  Russian Federation and the 
Eurasian  Economic Union, Germany had requested the delisting of 20  dairy plants and 20 meat 
plants . Therefore, 28 dairy plants and eight meat plants had remained on the list. In order to lift the 
restrictions from th ose reaming establishments, the Russian authorit ies had requested that 
the violations identified in those establishments be  adequately addressed . Restrictions on three dairy 
plants had been lifted in January 2018 , and on three more in July 2018, following the reception of 
complete information on corrective actions  taken for those  establishments.  Of the remaining 22 dairy 
plants , some information had been provided regarding eight establishments , with some missing 
information, while no information had been provided for the remaining 14 . Concerning m eat 
processing plants, of the eight establishments on the list , partial  information had only been provided 
regarding two of them . The Russian Federation looked forward to receiving  the pending information 
from Germany on the re maining establishments . 
4.2.12   China 's AQSIQ official certification requirements for food imports 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1209) – Concerns of the United States (No. 184)  
4.63.   The United States appreciat ed China 's September 2017 announcement  of the two -year 
transitional period before enforce ment of  the official certification requirements . The United States 
understood that  China was planning further changes and clarifications to the measure and requested  
confirmation of China's intention to notify a revised measure to the WTO SPS and TBT Committee s 
concurrently. The revised notification should identify the risk to be mitigated by the certification 
requirement s, and clarify the scope of products subject to certification. The United States further 
reiterated its concern on several issues , including  the scope of the products covered by th e measure , 
which  appear ed to include processed, shelf -stable food that ordinarily pose d little o r no risk for food -
borne illness ; the lack of  scientific justification for th e requirement , or evidence that official 
certification would address an identified public health concern ; that the requirement appeared to 
deviate from the relevant Codex guidelines and principles on official certification requirements ; and 
that there appeared to be no requirement s for domestic produc tion corresponding to those imposed 
on imports.  Finally, the United States expressed its willingness to continue to cooperate with China 
to assess whether the requir ements we re consistent with legitimate food safety and health protection 
goals.  
4.64.   Guatemala expressed appreciation to  China for its  presentation in the SPS workshop on 
Annex  C and the explanation of their domestic restructuring process with regards to AQSIQ and 
Customs. Guatemala requested China to clarify whether the restructuring would cause cha nges in 
the regulations notified in 2017 and whether the new structure  would be notified to the WTO , as a 
notification would allow for a better understanding of the process es, stages and respective actions. G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Guatemala also requested China to consider reviewing the measure regarding low risk products such 
as processed products . 
4.65.   The European Union welcomed the objective of the new General Administration of Customs 
of China to simplify and accelerate procedures of custom clearance for import ed goods. In this 
context, the European Union  wonder ed if the new requirement would not create an administrative 
burden  which  would be disproportion ate to the risk.  Recalling its previous intervention , the European 
Union stressed that official certifications should be required only to manage real risks, and, therefore, 
should be limited to high-risk products.   
4.66.   Switzerland informed the Committee of the  productive meeting held with China and welcomed 
China's decision to delay the enforcement of the measure to 1 October 201 9, which  demonstrated 
its willingness to consider feedback from Members , to make the measure more effective and 
practical , and to minimi ze negative effects on trade . The measure was scheduled to enter in  force 
in approximately 14 months, providing  time for  Swiss competent authorities and  private operators 
exporting to China to prepare . Switzerland encouraged China to use this time to engage in 
discussion s to reply to questions and comments  received . 
4.67.   Japan  expressed concern s regarding th e measure 's scientifi c background and the avoidance 
of duplication of certificates . 
4.68.   Thailand pointed out that the measure covered a wide range of import ed foods, including 
processed and s helf-stable food s, which posed low or no risk to human health , thus going beyon d 
internati onal standards . Thailand also requested China to  align the measure  with Codex guidelines 
and principles  and to notify it to the SPS Committee . 
4.69.   Korea requested China to clarify the risk addressed by  the measure. Korea also considered  
that requiring certification for all food s, including low -risk processed, shelf -stable foo ds on a batch -
by-batch basis, as stated in China's notification of this measure to the WTO TBT Committee in 
June 2017, was inconsistent with Codex guidelines and pri nciples.  Korea request ed China  to revise 
the measure and notify it to the SPS Committee.  
4.70.   Singapore expressed its interest in this issue and looked  forward to furth er discussions with 
China to minimiz e any potential disruptions to trade.  
4.71.   China emphasised that food safety was  a current global challenge, and that only cooperation 
among countries could ensure safety of the global food supply chain . Regarding certification 
requirements, China highlighted that international organization s such as OIE , IPPC and Cod ex, had 
developed  relevant  certification requirements and guidelines, and that some Members had similar 
regulations . After taking full consider ation of Member's comments, China had decide d to postpone 
the enforcement of its measure to 1  October 2019. However, China noted  that some  Members 
believed that governments should not issue certificates for low -risk foods, while not being able to 
provide the legal basis to define low-risk foods . Further, China added that s ome Members did not 
supervise foods mean t for export . Thus, China wondered who would guarantee the safety of food  
imported into China . The certificate s under consideration  included veterinary health certificates and 
certain sanitary certificates which had been widely accepted to certify that the  production, 
processing, storage, transportation and export processes of food s had been  under the effective 
supervision of competent authorities of the exporting parties. This  way, China argued that the 
frequency of inspection s and sampling could be reduce d, allowing a quick clearance, facilitating trade 
and enhancing consumer confidence. China also informed the Committee that the institutional 
restructuring plan of the State Council had been reviewed and approved  in March 2018 , clarifying 
that the responsi bilities for the exit, entry, inspection and quarantine of the former AQSIQ would be 
integrated to the General Administration of Custo ms, pending formal  approv al, once the institutional 
restructuring had been completed . 
4.2.13   EU maximum level of cadmium in foods tuffs – Concerns of Colombia, Madagascar 
and Peru (G/SPS/GEN/1624) (No. 430)  
4.72.   Peru reiterated its concern over the maximum levels of cadmium in chocolates and other 
cocoa products proposed by Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014, highlighting the potential negative  
impact on trade of cocoa beans with the European Union and ot her international markets. G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 23 - 
 
  Peru highlighted that JECFA, at its 77th meeting, had not consider ed the contribution of products 
containing cocoa or cocoa products to total cadmium  dietary exposure for high consumers of such 
products to be of concern. The EU Regulation, which was based on a hazard approach, had set a 
very low maximum level of cadmium in chocolate and other cocoa products. Peru observed that the 
entry into force of th e regulation on 1 January 2019 would harm Peruvian cocoa producers and 
exporters, and many other WTO Members, as well as undermine alternative development farming 
programmes being implemented with the help of international partners, such as the European Un ion. 
Peru reiterated its request for the European Union to exclude chocolate and other cocoa products 
from the scope of its regulation until there was updated scientific information regarding the level of 
risk to human health from cadmium. If the considera tion of this  request was not possible, 
Peru further urged the European Union to extend the entry into force of the regulation to 1 January 
2022, pending the adoption of Codex maximum levels of cadmium.  
4.73.   Colombia echoed Peru's concerns on this issue, also hi ghlighting the significant economic and 
social impact to its cocoa sector . Colombia  outlined its national agricultural policy for cocoa 
cultivation that sought to replace illegal products by incentivizing producers to change their crops, 
which was supporte d by the European Union and other WTO Members. Colombia remained concerned 
that the results of these efforts could be undermined due to the regulation. Colombia further 
highlighted other national and international initiatives to address the issue of cadmiu m, including an 
STDF -funded project for Latin America and the Caribbean. In accordance with Article 10 of the 
SPS Agreement, Colombia requested a longer transition time -frame for the implementation of the 
regulation and urged the European Union to consider  excluding chocolate from the scope of its 
regulation, bearing in mind that there were no Codex maximum levels for cadmium in chocolate. 
Colombia also requested the European Union to provide additional resources to continue their 
research on cadmium in coc oa and to implement the  necessary mitigation measures.  
4.74.   Madagascar supported the concerns raised and requested the European Union to consider a 
new transitional period for the implementation of Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014. This would give 
Codex the time to  finalize and publish their ongoing work on the definition of maximum levels of 
cadmium in chocolate and cocoa products. In addition, it would allow countries exporting to the 
European Union time to adjust to the new regulatory standards. Madagascar furthe r emphasized 
that the current date for adoption of the regulation (i.e. 1 January 2019), would have a significant 
economic impact on its producers.  
4.75.   Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, and Trinidad and 
Tobago shared th e concerns, and requested that the European Union exclude chocolate and cocoa 
products from its regulation and/or postpone the implementation of the regulation until the 
development of Codex standards on maximum levels of cadmium. Indonesia and the United States 
also echoed the concerns and urged the European Union to set its maximum levels in accordance 
with scientific evidence. Trinidad and Tobago further noted the research conducted on the mitigation 
of cadmium bioaccumulation in cocoa beans, which had s howed encouraging results with respect to 
the use of genetic and soil enhancement strategies. However, Trinidad and Tobago also highlighted 
that mitigation methods were constrained by their costs and the timing of the results, which further 
underscored the  negative impact that the proposed regulation would have on the international 
market price for cocoa bean s and overall cocoa bean trade.  
4.76.   Codex informed the Committee that two maximum levels for cadmium2 had already been 
adopted at the Commission's meeting held the previous week, one had been discontinued3 due to 
lack of data , and that Codex would continue work on two other maximum levels. Codex also informed 
the Committee that Peru had noted its reservation on the adoption of the two maximum levels as it 
considered the levels too strict.  
4.77.   The European Union recalled its previous interventions, highlighting that the limits in 
Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014 were based on risk assessments and scientific opinions  from EFSA, 
which clearly concluded that cadmium expo sure should be reduced and that certain population 
subgroups already exceeded the tolerable weekly intake. The European Union thanked Codex for 
the information provided and noted that the EU limits for chocolate containing a high amount of 
cocoa (>50%) wer e consistent with the adopted Codex maximum levels. The European Union 
                                                
2 Maximum levels for cadmium in: chocolate containing or declaring ≥50% to <70% total cocoa solids 
on a dry -matter basis; and chocolate containing or declaring  ≥70% total cocoa solids on a dry -matter basis.  
3 Maximum levels for cadmium in dry mixtures of cocoa and sugars sold for final consumption.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 24 - 
 
  reminded Members of its efforts to alleviate the difficulties of trading partners in complying with this 
measure, such as agreeing to a transitional period of five years, which had defe rred the application 
date to January 2019, and setting maximum levels for blended products instead of cocoa beans to 
facilitate trade. The European Union further explained that this health protection measure could not 
be delayed any longer. In relation to technical assistance, the European Union recalled the STDF 
project, among other initiatives, to mitigate the impact of the measure. Regarding problems with 
importers, the European Union referred to its previous statements. The European Union remained 
open to bilateral discussions with Members.  
4.2.14   EU revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors – 
Concerns of Argentina, China, India and the United States (No. 382)  
4.78.   The United States reiterated its concern on the European Union's hazard -based approach to 
regulating substances identified as endocrine disruptors, and noted that on 20 April 2018 the 
European Commission had formally adopted criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors in plant 
protection products, that would be implemented as of 10 November 2018. The United States 
requested clarification on how the interim criteria would be applied between now and November 
2018, in light of the EU Commissioner's 2017 statement which called into question whether the 
interim criteria were fit for purpose. The United States also dr ew Members' attention to the 
EU notification (G/TBT/N/EU/554) of a proposal to withdraw authorization for the active substance 
pymetrozine, which was considered to have endocrine disrupting properties in accordance wit h 
Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, despite not having a final EFSA assessment on the potential for 
endocrine disruption. The United States requested clarification on the appropriate level of protection 
that these actions would achieve, underscoring that the identification of hazards without identifying 
potential risks would likely be more tr ade-restrictive than necessary.  
4.79.   The United States noted the European Union's efforts to clarify its policy for managing import 
tolerances for substances that trigger ed the hazard -based cut -offs. However, the case -by-case 
approach to consider import tolerances, while factoring in legitimate factors and the precautionary 
principle, would not address Members' concerns, and would cause considerable uncertainty for 
applicants an d producers. The United States requested clarification on the "legitimate factors", other 
than risk, that would be considered by the European Union in establishing import tolerances and 
how these other factors related to achieving an appropriate level of p rotection. The United States 
recalled the Dispute Settlement Body rulings which indicated that precaution did not override 
Members' risk assessment obligations arising from Articles 5.1 and 5.2. The United States also 
queried how the European Union's relia nce on the precautionary principle would conform with the 
requirement in Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 to conduct risk assessments in establishing import 
tolerances. The United States further highlighted that many of th e substances impacted by the 
EU regula tion were effectively and transparently managed under risk -based systems in other 
countries, thus querying the European approach to manage these substances through a ban or by 
establishing limited case -by-case import tolerances.  
4.80.   The United States also expr essed concerns regarding the newly proposed revisions to the 
European Union's transitional arrangements for products that had been produced prior to the 
modification of MRLs.4 According to this proposal, domestic products could still be placed on the 
EU market under previous MRLs, even after new MRLs had been implemented, unlike imported 
products which would not be able to benefit from previous MRLs. The United States explained that 
this revision  would particularly affect products with long production and d istribution cycles, since the 
proposed transition periods were insufficient for these products to clear the channels of trade. 
In particular, this would create cases where third -country products, legally  produced in accordance 
with EU  standards, would no longer be eligible for import into the European Union. The United States 
emphasized the existence of other approaches that could provide the high level of human health and 
environmental protection being sought by the European Union, without posing unnecess ary barriers 
to trade. Finally, the United States noted that it remained unclear how the European Union would 
ensure consistency of its r egulatory approach with the SPS Agreement.  
4.81.   China echoed the concerns of the United States, noting that the criteria in Regulation (EU) 
No. 2018/605 appeared to be based on a hazard assessment. EFSA had published the Guidance for 
the Identification of Endocrine Disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No. 528/2012 and (EC) 
No. 1107/2009 on 7 June 2018, in collaboration  with the European  Chemicals Agency (ECHA). 
                                                
4 G/SPS/N/EU/247 and G/SPS/N/EU/248.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 25 - 
 
  China  urged the European Union to notify the EFSA Guidance to WTO Members with a comment 
period, and to adopt Codex MRLs to minimize the impact on international trade.  
4.82.   India shared the concerns raised, and reques ted the European Union to adopt a risk 
assessment approach for regulating pesticides and establishing import tolerances, without creating 
unnecessary barriers to trade. India also reminded Members that Codex followed a risk assessment 
approach for the safe ty evaluation of pesticides, and that approach ensured health protection of 
consumers. Finally, India emphasized that a hazard -based approach was unjustified and would 
create unnecessary barriers to trade.  
4.83.   Argentina reiterated its concern over the European  Union's policy on pesticides and the  
adoption of a hazard -based approach for identifying substances with endocrine disrupting properties. 
Argentina noted the adoption of Regulation (EU) No. 2018/605, modifying Annex II to Regulation 
(EC) No. 1107/2009, wh ich would come into force as of 10 November 2018. Argentina expressed 
concern about the systemic and trade impact of the measure, which violated core provisions of the 
SPS Agreement, such as the obligation to undertake a risk assessment and to apply the le ast trade 
restrictive measure. Argentina indicated that following the discussion s in the June meeting of the 
EU Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, the procedures for granting import 
tolerances under Regulation (EC) No.  396/2005 would con tinue to be applied, including the 
undertaking of risk assessments by the relevant member State and EFSA, on a case-by-case basis. 
Argentina urged the European Union to comply with this requirement. Argentina argued that  import 
tolerances should be maintai ned both for substances that would ultimately be covered by the criteria 
for determining endocrine disrupting properties, and for any other substance banned by the 
European Union on the basis of the hazard identification criteria set forth in Regulation (E C) 
No. 1107/2009. Argentina asked the European Union to provide information on the approach that 
would finally be applied, and to examine the proposal on waivers in order to at least exempt the 
substances that represented a minimal risk to public health, d ue to low exposure levels. In this 
regard, Argentina reminded the European Union of its statements at previous SPS Committee 
meetings.  
4.84.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ghan a, Guatemala, Kenya, Korea, 
New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Per u, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and Uruguay indicated that they 
shared this concern and called upon the European Union to reconsider the measure considering the 
significant negative impact that it would have on trade. They also called upon the European Union 
to base its measures on adequate scientific risk assessments and  to consider Codex MRLs. 
Brazil  reminded the Committee that the WHO International Programme on Chemical Safety's 
definition of endocrine disruptors could serve as a basis for discussions. Austr alia, New Zealand and 
Thailand also sought additional information on the Commission's plans for the derogation. 
In particular, Thailand requested the European Union to develop draft criteria  for derogation by 
defining the meaning of negligible risk and est ablishing negligible risk criteria. Ghana and Kenya 
stressed that the EU policy would lead to the withdrawal of many important pesticides currently used 
in commodity -producing countries. As a result, farmers would have to use expensive alternatives 
which w ere not readily available in developing countries. Ghana underscored that this would have 
far-reaching consequences on the pest management gains made over the years and also negatively 
impact food security, distort trade in agriculture and lead to soci o-economic losses, which would be 
in contradiction with the UN Millennium Development Goals, aimed at reducing poverty and 
eliminating hunger.  
4.85.   Canada reiterated its disappointment that the technical amendment for derogation based on 
negligible risk had not been included in the final regulatory amend ment of Regulation (EU) 
No. 2018/605. Canada explained that without the inclusion of this technical amendment, default 
MRLs for food and feeds would be required once a substance was identified as an endocrine 
disrupting chemical, regardless of the actual risk under real world exposure scenario. Canada sought 
assurances from the European Union that once a substance was identified as an endocrine disruptor, 
import tolerances would continue to be based on complete ris k assessments, as set out in Regulation 
(EC) No. 396/2005. Canada  expressed its appreciation for EU efforts to inform the Committee on 
developments in this area, but also sought information on how the European Union planned to work 
with its trading partner s to implement the measure in a manner consistent with its international 
obligations and without unnecessary disruptions to market access.  
4.86.   The European Union explained that the adoption of the criteria for plant protection products 
had been notified in G/S PS/N/EU/166/Add.2 and would apply as of 10 November 2018 , also  to G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 26 - 
 
  ongoing approvals or renewals of active substances. The European Union also confirmed that the 
guidance  document for the implementation of the adopted criteria had been published by EFSA and  
ECHA on 7  June 2018. The criteria were the same for biocides as for plant protection products in 
order to ensure a harmonized approach. The European Union recalled that the criteria were based 
on the WHO definition, required consideration of all relevant scientific information , and applied a 
weight of evidence approach. Regarding the proposals for derogation (i.e.  the technical amendment 
to the clause on negligible exposure), discussions with member States would begin soon. In relation 
to import tolerances , the European Union confirmed that the procedures of Regulation (EC) 
No. 396/2005 would apply, including a full risk assessment, followed by a case -by-case decision, 
taking into account the scientific advice and other relevant legitimate factors, in accor dance with 
risk analysis principles. The European Union also explained that the consideration of other legitimate 
factors was not new, as it was already included in Article 14.2(f) of Regulation (EC) No.  396/2005. 
The procedure for import tolerances would be published on the Commission website.  
4.2.15   France's dimethoate -related restrictions on imported cherries - Concerns of the 
United States (No. 422)  
4.87.   The United States reiterated its concern raised in previous SPS Committee meetings regarding 
actions taken by Fr ance in 2016 and 2017 to ban the importation of fresh cherries from the United 
States and other countries that had approved the use of the pestic ide dimethoate on cherries. 
The United States expressed regret that France had renewed this ban for 2018 and no ted its concern 
that a precedent was being set where the decision to restrict imports of commodities was solely 
being based on the authorization of a pesticide in the country of origin, regardless of whether 
pesticide residues were actually present in the imported commodities. The United States indicated 
that it had provided France with usage data, showing that dimethoate had not been used in the 
State of California for over five years. Furthermore, the United States argued that in regions where 
dimethoate might be used, it had been applied as a post -harvest application, which was unlikely to 
result in residues on the fruit. The United States requested France to explain how the health of 
French consumers was enhanced by restricting US cherries that had never  been treated with 
dimethoate and contained no dimethoate residues. The United States further requested France to 
clarify whether less trade restrictive measures had been considered. The  United States noted that 
the ban had been notified as an emergency me asure on 4 May 2018, and invited France to explain 
how the current scientific evidence was insufficient and to identify the actions undertaken over the 
past years to obtain the scientific evidence that could justify the emergency measure. The United 
States  indicated that US cherry producers were able to supply French consumers with high quality 
products that complied with the European food safety standards, and urged France to minimize 
unnecessary trade barriers by ensuring that measures were only applied t o the extent necessary to 
protect health.  
4.88.   Canada echoed the US concern regarding France's renewal of the measure, noting that 
dimethoate was authorized for use in Canada to control a wide number of pests on agricultural crops, 
including cherries. While Can ada acknowledged France's right to take SPS measures, Canada had 
concerns regarding the scientific basis and the unnecessary trade -restrictive nature of the renewed 
measure. Between 2016 to 2018, Canada had submitted comments on France's emergency 
measures , indicating its concerns with the lack of evidence provided by France to demonstrate that 
the current EU MRL was insufficient to protect consumers , and with the lack of consideration of an 
appropriate MRL for dimethoate. Canada noted that if there was a s cientific basis for the zero-
tolerance  approach to dimethoate, WTO Members should only require that the product be free of 
any residues of that substance, and not ban imports from countries that allow the use of the 
substance. Given that this emergency mea sure had been notified for the third time since 2016, 
Canada urged France to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment to determine if the current 
EU MRL was insufficient before implementing the trade restrictive measure. Canada also requested 
that, if the c urrent MRL was found to be insufficient, that France conduct a risk assessment to 
determine a more appropriate MRL.  
4.89.   The European Union explained that France had published on 6 April 2018, a protective 
measure suspending the importation and placing on the m arket of fresh cherries from member 
States or non -EU countries where the use of plant protection products containing the active 
substance dimethoate was authorized for the treatment of cherry trees. The measure had entered 
into force on 11 April 2018 and w ould expire after 12 months. The measure had been notified and 
the French authorities would shortly send a response to the com ments received from Canada. 
The European Union explained that France had justified the measure on the basis of concerns related G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 27 - 
 
  to the unacceptable toxicological risk of certain metabolites. In terms of the next steps, the European 
Union indicated that EFSA would evaluate new studies, particularly in view of the open questions on 
the metabolites, and that an EFSA conclusion was expec ted late r in 2018. Following which, 
the measure would be reviewed in light of the EFSA conclusions.  
4.2.16   China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOs – Concerns of the United States (No. 395)  
4.90.   The United  States reiterated its concern regarding China's biotech approval system and its 
consistency with WTO SPS obligations. The United States expressed its disappointment with the 
lengthy delays and extensive data requirements for product approvals by China, no ting that there 
were currently ten products poised for final adoption, some of which had been under review since 
2011. The United States highlighted Members' obligation under the SPS Agreement to provide 
precise and timely information to applicants on the processing periods, information requirements, 
and also to explain any delays in the process. The United States indicated that in March 2018 it had 
requested China to provide this information to applicants. China had held a meeting of its National 
Biosafety  Committee to review applications, and the results of the meeting were expected within 
270 days. The United States requested China to provide precise and complete information to 
applicants on the results of that meeting, highlighting that any lack of commu nication of these results 
would have a damaging impact on agriculture for the United States, but also on all China's trading 
partners. The United States further expressed its concern regarding the new data requirements 
imposed by China in March 2018 for so me products that were pending final approval. The United 
States urged China to refrain from revising regulations that resulted in increased timelines, 
decreased transparency and predictability. The United States  also requested China to inform all 
applicant s of any new data requirements, to notify these to the WTO, as well as to publish these 
requirements. The United States looked forward to continuing discussions with China on this 
important issue.  
4.91.   China explained that the measure had been amended on the ba sis of scientific assessment 
principles. China indicated that it had notified to  the WTO and trad ing partners a proposed 
amendment, taking into account other countries' practices and Members comments. China indicated 
its willingness to continue bilateral d iscussions with the United States.  
4.2.17   US seafood import monitoring programme - Concerns of China (No.  415)  
4.92.   China reiterated its concern on the Seafood Import Monitoring Programme (SIMP), noting that 
the United States insisted that SIMP aimed to combat illegal , unreported and unregulated (IUU) 
fishing and seafood fraud. However, based on its review, China considered that the requirements of 
the programme were SPS -related, according to the definition of SPS measures in Annex A(1) of the 
SPS Agreement. China also  considered that the traceability of aquaculture products outside the 
United States did not help to prevent IUU fishing and fraud in aquatic products. China understood 
from the TBT Committee meeting that the United States was planning to extend the measure  to 
prawns and abalones in December 2018. China  requested clarification on the rationale for indicating 
that the requirements were not SPS -related , and including additional species into the programme's 
scope of application. China urged the United States to  consider removing aquaculture products and 
delaying the implementation of the measures on prawns and abalones.  
4.93.   The Russian Federation expressed interest in the issue.  
4.94.   The United States thanked China for the bilateral discussions and for its continued inte rest in 
SIMP, which aimed at combating IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The United States underscored that 
the final rule was not an SPS measure and therefore fe ll outside the scope of the SPS Agreement.  
4.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
4.3.1   Ukraine's import restrictions on poultry and poultry products – Information from 
Mexico (No. 315)  
4.95.   Mexico announced that its concern regarding STC 315 on Ukraine's import restrictions on 
poultry and poultry products was now resolved. Me xico expressed its gratitude to Ukraine.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 28 - 
 
  4.96.   Ukraine indicated that it had held constructive discussions with Mexico and confirmed that the 
issue was resolved.  
5  OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
5.1  Equivalence  
5.1.  No Member provided any information und er this agenda item.  
5.2  Pest-and disease -free areas  
5.2.1   Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/48 (G/SPS/GEN/1618)  
5.2.  The Secretariat introduced the annual report prepared in accordance with the Committee's 
Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Arti cle 6 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/48). 
The report covered the period from 1 April 2017 until 31 March 2018, and was based on information 
provided by Members through notifications and reports provided during the Committee meetings 
(G/SP S/GEN/1618). The Secr etariat further explained that an additional section had been included 
in the report which provided information on the thematic sessions held on regionalizati on in July 
2017 and March 2018.  
5.3.  The Secretariat noted that it was not always obvious to determine in which sections of the 
report to place information provided by Members, as information on a new area free of a pest or 
disease could be an experience, but often implied a request for recognition. The Secretariat recalled 
that Members had been invited to submit suggestions on the format of the report in the July 2017 
Committee meeting, however, no comments had been received. The Secretariat further explained 
that the current report had been structured using the guiding principle that once a Member 
announce d a relatively recent pest/disease -free status, this information had been included under 
the section on requests for recognition. Where Members referred to its pest/disease -free status, 
which had not been recently gained, and only announced as a reminder i n relation to a trade -related 
concern, this information had been included under the section on experiences. In an effort to make 
the report more user -friendly, the Secretariat had also included sub -headings indicating the 
Members providing information, in alphabetical order.  
5.2.2   Information from Members  
5.2.2.1   Mexico – Declaration of an area free from fruit flies of the genus Anastrepha  
(G/SPS/GEN/1616)  
5.4.  Mexico informed the Committee of the declaration of several areas as free from fruit flies of 
the quarantine -significant genus Anastrepha , as circulated in  document G/SPS/GEN/1616. 
These  areas included the  municipalities of San Dimas and the northern and s outh-eastern region of 
the municipality of Pueblo Nuevo in the State of Durango; Burgos and Méndez in the State of 
Tamaulipas; and Monte Escobedo in the State of Zacatecas. Phytosanitary measures would be 
applied according to the Regulation implementing th e Federal Law on Plant Health and the Mexican 
Official Standard (NOM -075-FITO-1997). Mexico further noted that the Decisions declaring the free 
areas had entered into force on 24 April 2018, one day after their publication in the Official Journal, 
and were  available for consultation in Spanish.  
5.2.2.2   South Africa – Update on the listeria  outbreak  
5.5.  South Africa provided an update on the situation surrounding South African food after the 
Listeria outbreak. In December 2017, a listeria outbreak had been declared by t he Minister of Health, 
following an increase in laboratory -confirmed cases of listeria in July 2017. South Africa indicated 
that 91% of the cases were caused by Listeria monocytogenes  sequence type 6 (ST6), and the 
remaining 9% by other sequence types. Aft er extensive investigation of many food processing 
facilities, slaughter houses, farms and other source s of raw materials, the source of the ST6 outbreak 
had been identified as ready -to-eat processed meat products manufactured at a single production 
facility, which received raw materials from many countries. South Africa reported that the facility 
had immediately been closed, follow -up actions had been instituted and affected products had been 
recalled as of 1  March 2018. Over 4000 tons of affected products  had been destroyed by thermal G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 29 - 
 
  treatment or dumping in landfills. Since the recall of products, the number of reported cases per 
week had drastically decreased. South Africa noted that a number of Members had introduced trade 
restrictions on South African food products due to the outbreak, and further observed that in 
July 2018, some had either lifted or eased these trade restrictions. South Africa requested that 
Members observe the provisions of the International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) and lift the  
trade restrictions. Finally, South Africa expressed its willingness to continue bilateral discussions.  
5.2.2.3   Madagascar – OIE recognition of freedom from peste des petits ruminants  
5.6.  Madagascar informed the Committee that it had been officially declared as free f rom peste des 
petits ruminants during the 86th General Session of the World Assembly of OIE Delegates. To date, 
there had never been any suspected cases of the disease in the country. Madagascar thanked all of 
its partners who had provided technical and fi nancial assistance in achieving the outcome, namely 
OIE, FAO, Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) , and SADC through the Africa Solidarity Trus t Fund.  
5.2.2.4   Botswana – Suspected FMD outbreak in Ngamiland (G/SPS/GEN/1622)  
5.7.  Botswana informed Members of the suspected outbr eak of foot and mouth disease in Naune 
Crush, Sehithwa in Ngamiland district. Botswana reported that following information provided by 
farmers, the Department of Veterinary Services had found five animals that showed clinical signs of 
the disease. As a res ult of these findings, the slaughter and movement of all cloven -hoofed animals, 
as well as trade of these animals and their fresh products from the affected areas, had been 
suspended. Botswana further indicated that vaccinations had since commenced and tha t farmers 
had been encouraged to cooperate with Ministry officials to contai n the situation. 
Botswana  expressed its commitment to keep the Committee informed as more information became 
available.  
5.2.2.5   Brazil – Freedom from FMD with vaccination  
5.8.  Brazil drew the C ommittee's attention to OIE Resolution No. 22 of May 2018 regarding the 
recognition of the FMD status of OIE members, highlighting the designation of the entire territory of 
Brazil as an area free of the disease where vaccination was practised, with the ex ception of the State 
of Santa Catarina, which had maintained the status of free zone without vaccination since 2008. 
Brazil also informed the Committee that it expected to be recognized as a FMD -free country without 
vaccination by 2023.  
5.2.2.6   Chile – Recognition  of animal health status and regionalization criteria for 
quarantine pests  
5.9.  Chile informed the Committee that in 2017 it had recognized the FMD status of various 
countries, namely: Paraguay, as FMD -free with vaccination; Nicaragua, as FMD -free without 
vaccination; Peru, as an FMD-free zone without vaccination in 98.36% of the country, and FMD -free 
with vaccination in the remaining 1.64%. In relation to the recent outbreak of low pathogenic avian 
influenza, Chile indicated that a small number of countries had  reacted in a disproportionate manner 
to its non -compulsory notification of the outbreak to the OIE and trading partners. Chile further 
requested Members to be cautious when reviewing notified measures to ensure that they did not 
penalize Members for their  transparent approach.  
5.10.   Chile drew the Committee's attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1615 which provided 
information on its measures aimed at establishing regionalization criteria for quarantine pests in 
Chile. Chile reminded Members that it was the only cou ntry in the region recognized by the IPPC as 
free of all species of fruit fly, despite isolated outbreaks which had been rapidly reported and 
eradicated. Chile further noted that although most of its trading partners had recognized this status, 
which had f acilitated its worldwide exports of fruits and vegetables, a few countries maintained 
certain restrictions and had not recognized the entire ter ritory as fruit fly -free. Chile  urged those 
countries to recognize its status.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 30 - 
 
  5.3  Operation of transparency provisi ons 
5.3.1   Nigeria – Update on SPS notifications (G/SPS/GEN/1614)  
5.11.   Nigeria highlighted transparency as one of the fundamental WTO principles, and underscored 
Members' obligation to notify SPS measures. In this regard, Niger ia provided an update on the 
12 SPS measu res notified to the WTO in May 2018.  
5.3.2   Madagascar – Emergency notification on imports of breeding poultry from avian 
influenza free zones  
5.12.   Madagascar indicated that it had notified an emergency measure, Decree No. 2018 -398, 
adopted on 2 May 2018, which aimed at preventing the introduction of highly pathogenic avian 
influenza. This Decree aimed to facilitate trade in day -old chicks and hatching eggs, as well as animal 
feed products, from areas recognized as HPAI -free for a period of at least 12 months. In addit ion, 
the Decree sought to guarantee the  supply to industrial enterprises of day -old chicks and hatching 
eggs from OIE recognized HPAI -free areas.  
5.4  Special and Differential Treatment  
5.13.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
5.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  
5.5.1   New issues  
5.5.1.1   European Union – ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
5.14.   The European Union noted inconsistencies in the application of the OIE standard in relation to 
African swine fever (ASF) and reminded Members that it had previously raised this issue under the 
agenda item on specific trade concerns, which still had not been addressed by its trading partners. 
The European Union drew Members' attention to the revisions of the OIE Terrestrial Anima l Health 
Code, which had been adopted at the General Assembly in May 2018, and in particular Chapter 15, 
which contained ASF guidelines and clear criteria for the designation of disease -free zones, among 
other guidance. The European Union emphasized that A SF could be effectively managed and safe 
trade guaranteed . The European Union  also remained concerned that the importance of international 
standard -setting bodies in global trade would be undermined if countries ignored these 
recommendations, without provi sion of a scientific justification.  
5.15.   The European Union further highlighted its transparent approach to disease control and 
regionalization measures, which had also been acknowledged by the OIE in the 2018 World  
Assembly. The OIE had also recognized the con tribution of the EU Standing Group of Experts on ASF 
to improving regional dialogue, and had encouraged its members to replicate this model in other 
regions, and for other diseases. The European Union further expressed regret that its trading 
partners were  putting in place unnecessary and unjustified trade restrictions, such as country -wide 
bans and excessive heat treatment requirements. The European Union noted that its member States 
fully complied with international standards and urged other Members to ev aluate import requests 
accordingly, and in line with the SPS Agreement. Finally, the European Union reiterated its 
willingness to cooperate with other Members.  
5.5.2   Issues previously raised  
5.5.2.1   European Union – HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
5.16.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding in consistencies in the use of 
OIE standards o n regionalization in relation to HPAI outbreaks. The European Union highlighted its 
strict and transparent system of control, and ackno wledged that many Members recognized 
EU regionalization measures for HPAI. The European Union further explained that it applied the same 
policies and guarantees to its intra -European Union trade, as to its exports to non -European Union G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 31 - 
 
  countries. In additi on, regular audit reports were published on the European Commission website, 
which ensured that trading partners could be fully aware of the animal health sit uation in all 
EU member States.  
5.17.   The European Union expressed regret that some Members applied coun try-wide bans 
whenever there was an outbreak, noting that this type of measure was not science -based and that 
there was no justification to maintain such bans after EU member States had regained freedom from 
the disease, according to OIE standards. The Eur opean Union acknowledged OIE's ongoing work in 
distinguishing between HPAI and low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI), which avoided unjustified 
barriers to trade due to LPAI outbreaks. The European Union regretted that its comprehensive 
surveillance progra mmes and transparent approach resulted in trading partners imposing unjustified 
restrictions. The  European Union reiterated its call for Members to respect their regionalization 
obligations and to lift all existing unjustified bans and restrictions, as wel l as to refrain from imposing 
trade restrictions in cases where HPAI was detected in wild birds, and low pathogenic avian influenza 
in poultry. The European Union reiterated its willingness to continue discussions on regionalization, 
to ensure the implemen tation of OIE standards.  
5.18.   The Russian Federation echoed the European Union's call for Members to observe the OIE 
standard on HPAI. The Russian Federation underscored its transparent approach in reporting its 
epizootic situation to WAHIS, and indicated that it provided its trading partners with information to 
support its regionalization requests that far exceeded the requirements of the Terrestrial Code 
guidelines. The Russian Federation further noted that its regionalization measures for diseases such 
as HPA I, were in some respects more stringent than those provided for under the Terrestrial Code. 
Nevertheless, some Members continued to apply country -wide bans which lacked scientific 
justification. The Russian Federation urged members to lift unjustified bans  on poultry products and 
to respect the regionalization principles provided for in the Terrestrial Code and the SPS Agreement.  
5.19.   Ukraine supported the concerns raised, noting that despite having been recognized as free of 
HPAI by the OIE, certain Members had  maintained their import restrictions on poultry products. 
Detailed information on the measures taken and its surveillance strategy had been transmitted to 
all its trading partners. Ukraine called on Members to respect OIE standards  and the regionalization  
principle, and to lift restrictions from the whole territory of Ukraine.  
5.20.   The United States supported the concerns raised by the European Union, and reminded 
Members that the OIE guidelines for HPAI had contributed greatly to facilitating safe trade in liv e 
poultry and poultry products. The United States indicated that it was free of HPAI, according to OIE 
guidelines, and further encouraged trading partners to remove any HPAI -related restrictions on 
imports of live poultry and poultry products from the Unit ed States.  
5.5.2.2   United States – BSE restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
5.21.   The United States reiterated its commitment to aligning its import regulations governing BSE 
with OIE guidelines. In this regard, the USDA's Animal and Plant Hea lth Inspection Service (APHIS) 
had published a Notice in the Federal Register on 24 April 2018 that advised the public of the 
preliminary concurrence with the OIE BSE risk designations for four regions, and solicited public 
comment by 25 June 2018. The fou r regions designated by the OIE as negligible risk for BSE included 
Croatia, Poland, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The United States indicated that its action had 
demonstrated that it had put in place a process to align its regulations with the OIE intern ational 
standard for BSE. The United States noted that it was also recognized as negligible risk for BSE by 
the OIE, yet still faced some restrictions on certain meat exports. The United States urged Members 
to remove any remaining BSE -related import prohi bitions on US bovines and bovine products. The 
United States also reminded Members that certain products such as protein -free tallow and blood 
products were deemed safe by the OIE regardless of a country's BSE risk status and thus should not 
be subject to BSE-related import restrictions.  
5.5.2.3   United States – ISPM 38 on international movement of seeds  
5.22.   The United States thanked Indonesia and Nigeria for drawing Members' attention to ISPM 38 
on the international movement of seeds in the March 2018 SPS Committee mee ting. ISPM 38, which 
had been adopted by the IPPC in April 2017, provided guidance to assist national plant protection G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 32 - 
 
  organizations (NPPOs) in identifying, assessing and managing pest risks associated with the 
international movement of seeds (as a commodi ty class). In addition, the standard provided 
guidance on other topics such as procedures to establish phytosanitary import requirements to 
facilitate the international movement of seeds; and a list of acceptable phytosanitary treatments 
that included crop  treatment, seed treatment, systems approach and prohibition.  The United States 
highlighted the importance of systems approaches, as they provided the opportunity to implement 
risk reduction measures along the entire seed supply chain. The United States ec hoed Indonesia's 
and Nigeria's view that ISPM 38 was particularly timely given the rapid growth of the international 
seed trade and its increasing complexity. The United States also informed Members that a 
hemispheric workshop was being planned for early 2 019, through the North American Plant 
Protection Organization (NAPPO), along with the United States, Canada and Mexico to focus on the 
effective implementation of ISPM 38. The United States encouraged Members to fully implement 
ISPM 38 to ensure a harmoniz ed approach for managing phytosanitary risks and to facilitate the 
safe international movement of seeds in commerce. In addition, the United States invited Members 
and the IPPC to provide any reports or updates on the implementation of this standard.  
5.23.   Austr alia echoed the importance of ISPM 38 in helping Members undertake risk analysis and 
to apply justified measures , only to the extent necessary to achieve their ALOP. Australia indicated 
that it had reviewed the risks posed by a number of vegetable seeds, w ith a particular focus on 
seed-transmitted disease risks, the results of which had been published on its website. 
Australia  stated that regulators needed to clearly define import requirements and ensure that they 
were technically justified, as an internati onal clean seed trading system managing both seed quality 
and health would significantly facilitate the safe trade in clean seeds. Australia  encouraged countries 
and seed companies to progress that concept as a platform for harmonization of measures and 
facilitating safe trade in seeds, in recognition of ISPM 38 guidelines.  
5.24.   Canada reminded Members that seeds could act as a pathway for the introduction of plant 
pests into countries, and outlined the important guidance provided by ISPM 38 in helping NPPOs to 
identify, assess and manage pest risks for the international movement of seeds. Canada highlighted 
its active role in the development of ISPM 38, and noted its involvement in the organization of the 
NAPPO workshop. This workshop was targeted at regulatory agencies in NAPPO countries, other 
regional plant protection organizations from the Americas, as well as the seed industry and technical 
experts , in order to ensure the proper implementation of the standard at the national and regional 
level.  
5.25.   The IPPC info rmed the Committee that it was working closely with the International Seed 
Federation to implement the new standard. An IPPC regional workshop was also being organized in 
2018 on how to implement the standards, among other topics.  
5.5.3   Annual report in accordan ce with G/SPS/11/Rev.1 (G/SPS/GEN/1617)  
5.26.   The Secretariat introduced the Annual Report on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization, as contained in G/SPS/GEN/1617. The report reflected the issues that 
had been discussed under this agenda item over the past year, both on new issues raised and issues 
previously raised for further discussion. The Secretariat indicated that, in accordance with the 
monitoring procedure, it would bring these issues to the attention of the three sister org anizations, 
who would be invited to report on any developments on these and other issues raised in the past.  
5.27.   Indonesia welcomed the report and appreciated the Secretariat's work in its preparation. 
Specifically, Indonesia drew Members' attention to the iss ue of risk management related to the global 
movement in plant seeds, which it had raised in the last Committee meeting and which had been 
included in the report. Indonesia expressed its appreciation to the Secretariat for ensuring the 
inclusion of this iss ue in the report, despite the confusion Indonesia had experienced regarding the 
change in deadlines to submit agenda items for the March 20 18 Committee meeting. 
Indonesia  further encouraged the Secretariat to continue to find ways to ensure that the voice of all 
Members was heard and formally recorded.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 33 - 
 
  5.6  Fifth Review  
5.6.1   Report of the Informal Meeting  
5.28.   The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the informal meeting 
held on 11 July 2018 (JOB/SPS/2), paper copies of which had been circulated to Members during 
the formal meeting. The Chairperson recalled, as had been explained by the previous Chairperson 
in the informal meeting, that the report would not be read out in the meeting as normally done. 
Instead, a slightly different way of reporting on the Fifth Review would be adopted, similar to the 
procedure used by the TBT Committee , in the context of the Eig hth Triennial Review of the 
TBT Agreement. This new reporting procedure entailed circulating paper copies of the draft report 
to delegations during the meeting, as well as the electronic distribution of the draft report after the  
formal meeting, to facilitate Members' review of the draft report and submission of comments. 
Following which, the Chairperson would take Members' comments into account when preparing the 
final version of the report, which would be circulated as a restric ted document. The  Chairperson 
invited Members to make comments on the draft report either during the meeting, or to send them 
to the Secretariat by the deadline of Friday, 20 July 2018.  
5.29.   The previous Chairperson, Marcial Espínola, reminded the Committee tha t the new reporting 
procedure was being used on a trial basis. He also reiterated the deadline of 20 July 2018 for the 
submission of Members' comments, explaining that the submitted comments would be reviewed and 
included in the final version of the report . In addition, he underscored that the new reporting 
procedure would create a useful record of the discussion of all the proposals su bmitted under the 
Fifth Review.  
5.30.   The United States welcomed the new process for documenting the discussions in the informal 
meeting and requested further clarification on the process moving forward, in particular whether 
Members would be advised of the entirety of the submitted comments or whether a revised version 
of the report would be circulated.  
5.31.   In response, the Secretaria t explained the nature of the document, highlighting that it was 
the previous Chairperson's report of the informal meeting, issued on his own responsibility. Members 
would have the opportunity to submit comments, such as factual errors or omissions in the report, 
and the Chairperson would take these into account before issuing a final version of the report.  
5.32.   Peru requested the Secretariat to clarify the process for drafting the Chairperson's report of 
the informal meeting, in view of the fact that  Members were identified by name in the report and 
that the report had a document symbol.  
5.33.   The Secretariat reminded Members of the new format for the Chairpersons' report of the 
informal meeting on the Fifth Review, explaining that the previous Chairperson had sought to test 
the reporting procedure being used in the ongoing TBT Triennial Review. This report would identify 
Members, to have a useful record of the discussions, which would then be updated at the next 
informal meeting, and subsequently form the b asis for the Fifth Review Report. The  Chairperson's 
report would then be circulated as a restricted document.  
5.34.   The Secretariat also reminded Members that several proposals for workshops or thematic 
sessions had been discussed in the informal meeting, namely : equivalence, national SPS 
committees, notifications under the SPS vs TBT Agreement, and regionalization. A few Members had 
expressed preliminary thoughts on how to prioritize the topics, and the Chairperson had proposed 
that the issue could again be addr essed at the formal meeting for further discussion and to decide 
in what order to take up the topics. In addition, the Secretariat recalled that Members had also 
exchanged views on which topics would be best suited for a thematic session or for a workshop.  
5.35.   Belize reminded the Committee that in the informal meeting it had indicated its support for 
having a workshop or a thematic session on strengthening national SPS committees. However, it 
had also noted that, based on previous Committee discussions, it had become clear that it was not 
always possible for Members to have a national SPS Committee. Instead, importance should be 
placed on how to encourage national coordination. In this regard, Belize asked that their statement 
be reflected in the Chairperson's r eport. Belize also queried how the Committee would address the 
situation of whether to focus on national SPS committees or national coordination.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 34 - 
 
  5.36.   The Chairperson indicated that Belize's statement would be reflected in the report. 
The Chairperson also recal led the clarification provided in the informal meeting that the SPS 
Agreement did not make spe cific reference to national SPS committees. As such, the Chairperson 
noted that the focus could be on the broader topic of national coordination . 
5.37.   Canada indicated  its support for a workshop on equivalence, to encourage wider participation, 
and also bearing in mind the interest expressed by Members. Canada also conveyed its willingness 
to consider a thematic session on equivalence. Madagascar also indicated its supp ort for holding a 
workshop on topics such as equivalence, regionalization (which would cover both animal and plant 
health issues), and national SPS Committees, as these topics required more time and discussion. 
However, in its view transparency could be di scussed in a thematic session.  
5.38.   Mexico reiterated its support for organizing workshops on issues such as equivalence, 
regionalization and transparency, which in its view were directly related to the implementation of 
the SPS Agreement. In relation to the to pic of national SPS committees, Mexico indicated its support 
for a thematic session.  
5.39.   Chile supported the transparency workshop as proposed by Brazil, highlighting that other 
related topics could also be considered and welcoming the funding of transparency contact points. 
In relation to thematic sessions, Chile suggested the topics of equivalence and national committees. 
Chile noted that equivalence was a broad topic and that it would be challenging to identify officials 
to participate. Concerning regionaliz ation, Chile suggested having Members exchange experiences 
under the relevant agenda item in the regular Committee meeting.  
5.40.   Brazil indicated its appreciation for the new reporting procedure, and echoed the importance 
of addressing the issues of equivalence  and transparency. Brazil proposed to hold a workshop on 
transparency and notification procedures, and asked the Secretariat whether there was a possibility 
of organizing a back -to-back session of the SPS and TBT Committees. In Brazil's view, this would 
provide an opportunity to reach many focal points and stakeholders.  
5.41.   The Secretariat indicated that the TBT meeting dates for 2019 had not yet been determined, 
but that given early indications, it seemed possible that the TBT Committee could be held back to 
back with the SPS  Committee meeting in November 2019. In addition, the Secretariat informed the 
Committee that the TBT Committee was planning to organize a works hop on transparency in 
November 2019. 
5.42.   Kenya expressed appreciation for the new and innova tive r eporting procedure. 
Kenya  suggested that the Committee take a focused approach to experience -sharing on SPS issues 
which would allow as many delegates as possible  to participate and share experiences , especially 
those from developing countries and LDCs. Ke nya noted that SPS coordination was a cross -cutting 
issue, and that developing countries and LDCs needed assistance on not ifications, among other 
topics.  
5.43.   The United States indicated its flexibility on how to approach the various topics. In particular, 
the United States queried whether it would be possible to have two workshops before the conclusion 
of the Fifth Review and whether the topics of transparency and coordination could be combined, 
given their cross -cutting nature.  
5.44.   The Secretariat explained that it would be difficult for the Committee to have two workshops 
before the end of the Review period, given the existing timeline for finalizing the Fifth Review by 
March 2020, and since only one workshop could be funded each year through the WTO Global Trust  
Fund. In relation to transparency and coordination, the Secretariat recalled that these subjects had 
been addressed in one  workshop before,  which had facilitated the participation and funding of 
enquiry points, who also play ed an important role in coordin ation at the national level.  
5.45.   Nigeria suggested that national SPS coordination through SPS committees could be addressed 
in a workshop. This would enable delegates from developing countries and LDCs to strengthen their 
coordination activities and deepen the ir understanding. Nigeria indicated that a workshop would also 
be important for transparency and regionalization issues.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 35 - 
 
  5.46.   The European Union expressed its flexibility on the format and on the timing, as long as the 
four topics were addressed. The European Union sought clarification on whether the workshop on 
transparency would take place in 2019, as usual. If this was the case, then it would solve the problem 
of deciding the topic for the workshop.  
5.47.   The Secretariat explained that the SPS Committee normally held a workshop on transparency 
every two or three years. The last one was held in 2017, so the next one could take place in 2019 
or 2020.  
5.48.   The OIE updated the Committee on its activities related to some of the proposals presented 
by the European Union and  the United States. In particular, the OIE highlighted several ideas 
following the results of the OIE survey, such as broadening the range of capacity building activities 
and development of tools; exploring the development of a high -level communication str ategy; 
providing more detailed guidance on how national labelling frameworks should address SPS 
principles to facilitate market access (e.g. zoning and compartmentalization, official recognition of 
disease status); and organizing one -day workshops back -to-back with regional commission meetings 
on the OIE standard setting process, among others. The OIE also noted that the proposals submitted 
by Australia and Canada were in line with the OIE's view on the need to expand existing guidance 
in the area of equiva lence. The OIE welcomed further discussions in the SPS Committee that would 
assist in this area. In relation to the proposals for a transparency workshop, the OIE indicated its 
interest in participating, given the obligation for OIE members to notify disea se outbreaks and the 
potential negative impact on trade.  
5.49.   The Chairperson provided a summary of Members' responses, indicating that although further 
consultations would take place, Members had expressed interest in holding a workshop on 
transparency and coo rdination in 2019, and a thematic session on e quivalence in October 2018.  
5.50.   The European Union sought clarification on whether the Chairperson's intervention was a 
specific proposal for the Committee on the timing and topics to be covered. The Chairperson c larified 
that it was a summary of the proposals heard from Members, for further reaction by Members.  
5.51.   Nigeria indicated its interest in capacity building in relation to how Members assess and 
respond to notifications. Nigeria noted the capacity constraints at the national level in the area of 
transparency and national coordination, and queried whether these areas could be fully addressed 
within the context of a workshop. The Secretariat suggested that a workshop on transparency and 
coordination could help in  that regard, and further invited Nigeria to request a national seminar to 
address any specific needs on the subject.  
5.52.   The United States queried whether further consultations would be held or whether the 
Committee needed to make a decision during the curren t meeting. The Chairperson clarified that 
there would be a further opportunity for consultations and that Members could also s ubmit comments 
by 31 July 2018.  
5.53.   Mexico agreed with having a deadline at the end of the month for Members to express their 
preferen ces. Chile also agreed with the Chairperson's proposal, and reminded the Committee to 
include the topic of regionalization for animal and plant health, so that Members could share 
experiences.  
5.54.   The European Union queried whether regionalization would be add ressed through other 
avenues, such as through informal meetings. In response, the Chairperson confirmed that 
regionalization could be addressed as part of the regular agenda or informal meetings.  
5.55.   Brazil indicated its appreciation for the deadline and thank ed the Secretariat for the 
information provided on a possible TBT workshop on transparency that could be held back to back 
with the SPS Committee. Brazil requested that the workshop on transparency and coordination also 
cover the issue of SPS -TBT notificat ions. The Chairperson indicated that this would be considered in 
discussions with TBT colleagues.  
6  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
6.1.  No issue was raised under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 36 - 
 
  7  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  
7.1  Information from the Secretariat  
7.1.1   Report on the Workshop on Control, Inspection  and Approval Procedures (Annex  C) 
7.1.  The Secretariat reported on the Workshop on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures 
(Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement) held on 9 -10 July 2018 (programme  in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1613/Rev.2).5 The WTO Global Trust Fund had sponsored 32 participants selected from 
developing and least -developed countries for the two -day workshop. In addition, the WTO had 
funded the participa tion of four external speakers.  
7.2.  The m ain objective of the workshop had been to bring together officials responsible for 
participation in and implementation of the SPS Agreement, as well as the relevant international 
standard -setting bodies and other international organizations , for discussion  and experience -sharing 
on developments, challenges and practices in implementing Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement.  Through presentations, practical case stories and discussions, the workshop had 
aimed to expand Members' understanding of the rele vant WTO Agreements and provisions; highlight 
the economic rationale for strengthening the implementation of Annex C in order to reduce trade 
transaction costs; and explain how the WTO Trade Facilitation (TF) Agreement linked to and 
complemented the SPS Ag reement.  
7.3.  The workshop had explored the main WTO rules and related jurisprudence on Article 8 and 
Annex C of the SPS Agreement, and had explained the rela tionship between the TF and 
SPS Agreements. Presenters had emphasized that the TFA's requirements to ra tionalize border 
procedures did not undermine Members' ability to enforce SPS measures necessary to protect 
human, animal and plant health. All the workshop sessions had examined SPS controls, inspections 
and approvals through the lens of trade facilitatio n with the  objective to define ways to promote safe 
and efficient trade. Presentations by the World Bank, the STDF, and COMESA had depicted 
experiences on the ground, given estimates on SPS -related trade transaction costs, and identified 
win-win opportunit ies to facilitate safe trade, such as interagency collaboration and increased 
transparency.  
7.4.  Several Members had also shared their experiences. In the field of food safety, the European 
Union had presented its approach to systems -based audits  of exporting c ountries control systems  
as opposed to individual inspections of exporting establishments . The United States had presented 
their risk -based approaches to import procedures and inspections, supported by modern predictive 
models and databases to focus inspec tions on areas of higher risks. Canada had presented their 
risk-based approach to inspections, supported by outcome -based regulations, uniform inspection 
procedures, and risk assessment models to focus inspections on areas of higher risks. China had 
update d participants on its reforms in the inspection and supervision systems for food imports, 
having centralized entry and quality inspection, as well as quarantine under the country's General 
Customs Administration.  
7.5.  The workshop had also benefited from presen tations by Turkey - on its inspection system for 
animal and animal products;  Zambia - on its interagency collaboration for phytosanitary controls 
and document checks;  and Belize - on its experiences with third party certification to access export 
markets. Although the level of resources allocated to SPS controls, inspections and approvals varied 
greatly between countries, it had been recognized that innovative and cooperative approaches, such 
as those implemented in Zambia, could result in functional and ef fective systems.  
7.6.  E-certification had been addressed in a dedicated session of the workshop. First, the IPPC had 
presented its ePhyto project, initially funded by the STDF, to facilitate the electronic exchange of 
phytosanitary certificates through the crea tion of a web -based global system. Then UNCTAD had 
presented Rwanda's case in establishing an e -Portal for facilitating the issuance of SPS certificates. 
Finally, the OIE and Codex had provided an update on their nascent work in the field of electronic 
certification, and Brazil, the European Union and the United States had shared their national 
experiences in implementing e -certification systems. Overall, participants had recognized the 
benefits of e -certification, such as reduced costs, improved security a nd expedited clearance of 
                                                
5 A more detailed summary report of the workshop will be circulated.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 37 - 
 
  commodities. However, it had also been emphasized that a well -functioning e -certification system 
required effective interagency co -operation, political will, and sustainable financing.  
7.7.  Finally, the  workshop had ended with a roundt able, in which representatives from the World 
Bank, UNCTAD, the International Trade Centre, the World Customs Organization, and the WTO's 
Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility had discussed their ongoing capacity building programmes. 
Panelists had pointed out the synergies between SPS and trade facilitation, highlighting opportunities 
to leverage resources available for trade facilitation in order to strengthen the implementation of 
Annex C, as long as SPS agencies were appropriately integrated in trade fac ilitation work and priority 
setting at the national level. All the presentations had been made available on the SPS gateway 
(https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop 910718_e.htm ). 
7.8.  Nigeria expressed its appreciation for the workshop, and highlighted the sessions dedicated to 
understanding the relationship between the SPS Agreement and the Trade Facilitation Agreement, 
as well as to national experience -sharing.  
7.9.  Chile su ggested that the document drafted by the Secretariat in 2014, on the relationship 
between the Trade Facilitation and SPS Agreements (RD/SPS /3/Rev.1), could be updated. 
In addition, Chile noted that the topic of undue delay had been mentioned , but not suffi ciently 
covered . This was an important topic for continued discussion , regarding which delays could be 
justified and how unjustified delays could be reduced.  
7.10.   The European Union expressed its appreciation for the successful workshop, and further 
highlighted  the importance of the Trade Facilitation Agreement and its links with the SPS Agreement. 
In this regard, the  European Union echoed Chile's suggestions to  request the Secretariat to  update 
document RD/SPS/3/Rev.1, and to continue discussions on the issue o f undue delay, which was also 
of particular interest to the European Union.  
7.11.   Belize thanked the Secretariat for funding its participation in the workshop, and also  indicated 
its appreciation for the structure of the workshop and the comprehensive report presented by the 
Secretariat.  
7.12.   The Chairperson  suggested  request ing the Secretariat to update document RD/SPS/3/Rev.1 . 
The Committee agreed  to request  this update.  
7.1.2   WTO SPS activities  
7.13.   The Secretariat provided Members with an overview of the technical assistance activities held 
since the last SPS Committee meeting in March 2018. These activities had included two regional 
workshops for: (i) Arab countries, which was co -organized with the IMF -Middle East Centre for 
Economics and Finance (IMF -CEF), held in Kuwait; and (ii) French -speaking Africa on Agriculture 
and SPS issues, held in Cotonou, Benin. The Secretariat thanked the IMF -CEF for their assistance in 
coordinating the  regional workshop, as well as Kuwait and Benin for hosting the two activities, and 
for all their collaborative efforts in this regard.  
7.14.   The Secretariat also announced that national seminars had been held in Bolivia and Tonga. 
In addition, more general trai ning on the SPS Agreement had also been provided in the following 
activities: two WTO Advanced Trade Policy Courses (in English and Spanish); an Introductory LDC 
Course (in English); three Regional Trade Policy Courses held in  Kazakhstan, Mauritius and 
Côte d'Ivoire; an Advanced TBT Course; a FES Course for journalists (in French); an APEC Workshop 
in Lima; a SASEC Workshop in New Delhi; a  training session for government officials from Pakistan; 
a training session for officials from Afghanistan, organized w ith ITC; a training session organized 
with IICA; and several training sessions held in Geneva with students from the Russian Federation, 
Duke University and the American University Washington College of Law.  
7.15.   The Secretariat drew Members' attention to docum ent G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.8, which provided 
information on all SPS specific technical assistance activities scheduled to take place in 201 8. 
The activities included the Workshop on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures (Annex C of 
the SPS Agreeme nt) whic h had been held on 9 -10 July 2018 in the three official working languages 
of the WTO; and the Advanced Course on the SPS Agreement t o be held (in Spanish) from 
22 October to 9 November 2018. The Secretariat informed the Com mittee that it had received G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 38 - 
 
  350 applications for the planned technical assistance activities: over 100 applications for the 
Advanced SPS Course; and approximately 250 applications  for the Thematic Workshop. 
The Secretariat further informed Members about the selection process for the activ ities and indicated 
that it was currently in the process of finalizing the selection of candidates for the Advanced SPS 
Course. The Secretariat also drew Member's attention to the Follow -up Session to the 2017 Advanced 
SPS Course which had started on 3 Jul y and would end on 13 July 2018. The 19 participants, together 
with their coaches João Magalhães and Kevin Walker, had been present during the Committee 
meetings.  
7.16.   The Secretariat also informed Members of upcoming national activities that were being 
schedul ed for Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and 
Chinese Taipei. General SPS training would also be included in the WTO Regional Trade Policy Course 
to be held for Asia a nd the Pacific (Bangkok, Thailand) and the Adv anced Trade Policy Course in 
English, in Geneva. In addition, a  Regional SPS Workshop was  being planned with the 
Gulf Co-operation Council Standardization Organization (GSO) in October 2018, at the request of 
this organization. Finally, the E -Learning Cour se on the SPS Agreement was available all year -round 
in the three WTO official languages. Further information on SPS technical assistance could be 
obtained on the WTO website or by contacting the Secretariat.  
7.17.   Nigeria noted the limited funding available for  participation in Geneva -based activities and 
the rotation principle for the selection of candidates. Nigeria also highlighted the resource constraints 
faced by Members in organizing national seminars, and queried whether the WTO would be able to 
assist in  this regard. Nigeria emphasized the importance of regio nal workshops in addressing 
SPS topics, such as coordination, indicating the need for more capacity building activities at the 
regional level for African countries. Nigeria further queried the process  for Members to request 
regional SPS  workshops. Finally, Nigeria observed the increased engagement from the African region 
on SPS issues and underscored the need to sustain that engagement, despite the funding 
constraints.  
7.18.   The Secretariat indicated its wil lingness to discuss any specific requests for regional SPS 
workshops with Nigeria, and also invited Nigeria to contact ITTC in order to discuss its concerns 
regarding the current funding procedures for the organization of national seminars.  
7.1.3   STDF (G/SPS/GEN /1627)  
7.19.   The STDF Secretariat provided an overview of its activities undertaken since March 2018, as 
circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1627. The STDF highlighted the publication of its 2017 Annual 
Report ( http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Annual_Report_2017.pdf ) which 
had been released  in June 2018. The report showed how the STDF partnershi p continued to build 
safe trade and inclusive trade opportunities by supporting developing countries to meet international 
SPS standards and access regional and global markets. This work had primarily focused on areas 
such as electronic certification, publ ic-private collaboration, good regulatory practice, as well as 
project development and implementation.  
7.20.   The STDF also highlighted its work in the area of trade facilitation and SPS. A session had 
been held at the March 2018 STDF working group on single wind ows and the role of SPS agencies. 
In addition, the STDF had participated in the recent Workshop on Annex C, where it had shared 
experiences from its work in facilitating safe trade. A new briefing note had also been published 
(http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/Briefing_Facilitating_safe_trade.pdf ), which 
identified best practices on how to apply SPS measures in a way that ensured heal th protection and 
minimized trade transaction costs.  
7.21.   The STDF provided information on its work on  public -private partnerships in the SPS area, 
indicating that the Working Group had agreed in March 2018 to undertake further work on the 
subject ( http://www.standardsfacility.org/public -private -partnerships ). Finally, the STDF provided 
information on its projects and PPGs, noting that the STDF had approved two new projects an d two 
new PPGs in March 2018. More information was available on the STDF website 
(http://www.standardsfacility.org/ ). The STDF thanked its current donors for their support, and 
encouraged new potential dono rs to support the work of the STDF . G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 39 - 
 
  7.22.   Nigeria acknowledged the good work of the STDF, but also noted the challenges faced in the 
recent past to take advantage of the Facility, due to funding constraints. Nigeria requested further 
assistance from donors in th is regard. In addition, Nigeria noted that a regional approach would be 
complementary to national activities, and encouraged the use of this type of approach to STDF 
projects. Nigeria further underscored the challenges faced in preparing eligible PPGs, due  to 
constraints in technical capacity, and requested assistance in this area . 
7.23.   The STDF indicated that it encouraged regional projects, highlighting that 30 to 40% of its 
resources had been allocated to regional projects. The STDF further underlined that th e purpose of 
the PPG mechanism was to support LDCs  and developing countries  to develop project applications, 
emphasizing that this might take time as the STDF worked with beneficiaries in developing PPGs. 
The STDF invited Nigeria to contact STDF for furthe r information and discussion on preparing PPGs.  
7.2  Information from Members  
7.2.1   Nigeria – Technical assistance received  
7.24.   Nigeria informed Members that it had received technical assistance from UNIDO, with EU -
funded support, to undertake activities leading to the i dentification of all outstanding SPS -related 
regulations for notification. The cooperation with UNIDO was aimed at establishing a sustainable 
SPS-TBT notification system to avoid delays in submitting notifications to the WTO, and also to 
improve the effici ency of the NNA and NEP. Nigeria further acknowledged AU -IBAR's consistent 
support in providing technical guidance, which had facilitated Nig eria's participation in the 
SPS Committee, as well as USDA's support in the review of the Nigerian Food Safety Poli cy. FAO and 
UNIDO, with EU -funding, also continued to support capacity building i n the food safety area. 
Nigeria  further encouraged donors to provide more support to Nigeria and other African Members in 
need of capacity building and infrastructure faciliti es. 
7.2.2   Japan – Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.6)  
7.25.   Japan informed Members about its SPS -related technical assistance provided to developing 
countries between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2018, outlined in document G/SPS/GEN/1160/A dd.6. 
As described in the document, the total value of the assistance provided by Japan amounted to 
approximately 488 million Japanese yen (US$4.4 million), with an accumulated amount of Japanese 
assistance since 1 April 2009 of approximately 6.2 billion J apanese yen (US$56.5 million). Japan 
informed the Committee that it had provided 74 relevant technical assistance programmes, since 
1 April 2009, to more than 50 countries in various regions, including Asia, the Pacific Region, Central 
America, South Ameri ca, Central Asia and Africa. Japan also noted that most of the assistance had 
been carried out by the Japan International Co -operation Agency (JICA), and that it was not only 
directed at individual countries, but also to groups of countries, regions and th e world. In addition, 
the Government of Japan was itself engaged in SPS -related technical assistance for the Asia and 
Pacific region through Official Development Assistance. Finally, Japan expressed its willingness to 
continue providing technical assistanc e to developing Members.  
7.2.3   Senegal – Technical assistance requested from the European Union for 
implementation of the new phytosanitary legislation, in particular Directive 2017/1279 
and Implementing Decision 2018/638 on Spodoptera frugiperda  
7.26.   Senegal noted t he burdensome requirements of the EU phytosanitary legislation, in particular 
Regulation (EU) No. 2016/2031 and Directive (EU) No. 2017/1279, as well as Implementing Decision 
(EU) No. 2018/638 with regards to access to certain agricultural products, in ter ms of risk 
assessment and post -harvest treatment for the monitoring of ce rtain quarantine pests. 
Senegal  noted that while countries undertook steps to strengthen their pest control activities to meet 
the EU phytosanitary requirements, the European Union al so had obligations under Article  9 of the 
SPS Agreement. In particular, Senegal indicated that where substantial investment was needed to 
conform to EU requirements, the European Union should consider granting technical assistance to 
Senegal in order to fa cilitate the preservation or growth in market access for the targeted products. 
The main sectors concerned were mango (for Bactrocera dorsalis ); sweet corn (for Spodoptera 
frugiperda ); and the solanaceous and capsicum family (for Keiferia lycopersicella and Thaumatotibia 
leucotreta ). Senegal called for the support of EU partners (such as COLEACP, among others) in G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 40 - 
 
  providing infrastructure for post -harvest activities and increasing technical capacity to align products 
with EU requirements.  
7.27.   The European Union indicated that it was aware of Senegal's concerns , which had been 
communicated through COLEACP, within the framework of the Fit for Market (FFM) Programme. 
The European Union informed Members that it had a specific project on integrated pest management 
strategies to counter the threat of invasive fall army worm for food security in Eastern Africa, and 
that it was prepared to explore other options which could benefit Senegal. In this regard, the 
European Union invited Senegal to formulate their needs in a mo re specific manner and to submit 
this request through the EU delegation in Senegal.  
7.28.   Senegal thanked the European Union for the information provided and further indicated that 
it would follow -up on this issue.  
7.2.4   Senegal – Cooperation with Malaysia on a phytos anitary protocol  
7.29.   Senegal expressed its satisfaction with the positive developments in the market access 
request for agricultural products to Malaysia. In June 2018, the Ministry of Agriculture had 
undertaken a mission to Kuala Lumpur to finalize the SPS ma rket access document for agricultural 
products (peanuts, processed mango and cashew nuts). Further to these meetings, Senegal noted 
Malaysia's commitment to finalize Senegal's market access request for peanuts within six months, 
its readiness to take on bo ard a market access request for processed mango and cashew nuts, and 
its willingness to invite Senegal's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Infrastructure to participate in 
the MAHA Agriculture Show (22 November – 2 December 2018).  
7.30.   Malaysia thanked Senegal for the submission of additional information on peanuts. Malaysia 
also recalled that the Department of Agriculture was processing Senegal's application for market 
access and that the pest risk analysis would be co mpleted in due course. Malaysia looked forw ard 
to continued co -operation with Senegal.  
7.2.5   Madagascar – Support for the use of the PIMA tool to set priorities for SPS activities  
7.31.   Madagascar thanked the STDF for the valuable technical assistance it had provided in relation 
to the use of the P -IMA tool fo r prioritization of SPS investments. The project, which had started  in 
the first quarter of 2018, aimed to have agreed priorities for SPS activities by various stakeholders 
and the key value chains identified which require public or private investments, in  order to increase 
international market access.  
7.2.6   Madagascar – Technical assistance received from the European Union and the 
United States  
7.32.   Madagascar provided information on the technical assistance received from the European 
Union for compliance with its ne w SPS regulations. In December 2017, a COLEACP mission in 
Madagascar had launched the new EU programme for ACP countries known as Fit for Market, which 
aimed to strengthen competitiveness and sustainability in the horticulture sector. Information 
sessions were organized for exporting companies and competent authorities on the need to comply 
with the new EU Regulation No. 2016/2031. As part of the implementation of the National Indicative 
Programme (NIP), under the 11th European Development Fund (EDF), more targeted technical 
assistance activities were planned in the food safety,  animal and plant health areas.  
7.33.   Madagascar also informed Members of the technical assistance provided by the United States, 
in relation to the implementation of regulatory texts on fo od safety, under the Food Safety 
Modernization Act. A training of trainers for East African cou ntries had taken place in March 2018, 
in Tanzania, to assist exporting countries in complying with the new US regulations, particularly 
regarding preventive cont rols for food. At the national level, training sessions had also been held 
since mid -June 2018, for more than 70% of the companies export ing foodstuffs to US markets. 
A programme of continuous training and awareness raising was being  established, in order to ensure 
that exporting firms were informed about the regulation. Madagascar further requested the provision 
of USAID's technical support to its exporters, whether implemented by COMESA or the East Africa 
Trade and Investment Hub, to facilitate trade deve lopment.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 41 - 
 
  7.2.7   Belize – Workshop on regional pest risk analysis for khapra beetle ( Trogoderma 
granarium ) (G/SPS/GEN/1636)  
7.34.   Belize informed Members that it had attended a workshop on regional pest risk analysis for 
the khapra beetle ( Trogoderma granarium ) held in Veracruz,  Mexico on 25 -26 June 2018. 
The workshop was followed by an epidemiological simulation exercise which had been conducted in 
and near the Port of Veracruz (27 -29 June 2018). Belize thanked OIRSA for sponsoring its 
participation in both events which  was important in trying to keep the OIRSA region free from the 
pest. 
7.35.   Belize also thanked the WTO for funding its participation, as well as the other 18 participants, 
in the Follow -up session of the 2017 SPS Advanced Course. In addition, Belize expressed i ts 
appreciation to IICA for partially funding its attendance at the Committee meeting.  
8  CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  
8.1.  Belize informed the Committee of its participation in government to government, and 
government to business meetings held in Japan in March 2018, with the support of FAO 
(G/SPS/GEN/1637). Belize thanked the governments of Canada and Japan for the invitation, as well 
as the Global Food Safety Initiative for waiving the registration fee to the Global Food Safety 
Conference. On the margins of the Food Safety Conference, Belize had  had the opportunity to 
express its concerns on issues related to private and commercial standards, and their negative 
impact on exporting companies in Belize.  
8.2.  Belize observed that since concerns with pr ivate and commercial standards had first been 
raised in the SPS Committee in 2005, the following points had been noted by the private sector: (i) 
audits to maintain certification continued to be done annually by the certification bodies; (ii) audits 
by buy ers were now at an average of two per annum; (iii) financial costs associated with the audits 
continued to be the sole responsibility of the exporting company; (iv) the scientific basis for some 
requirements continued to be lacking; and (v) MRLs and limits  for microbiological contaminants were 
still not aligned with those of Codex.  
8.3.  In addition to the Committee Decision on "Actions Regarding SPS -Related Private Standards", 
as contained in G/SPS/55, Belize encouraged Members to: (i) continue discussions with  the 
certification programme owners and buyers in order for them to understand the impact of their 
requirements; (ii) advise certification programme owners and buyers on the importance of basing 
SPS requirements on science and applying them only to the ext ent necessary; (iii) encourage 
participation in the Codex standard -setting process so as to assist certification programme owners 
and buyers to align their requirements; and (iv) encourage the provision of technical support, 
especially to those developing countries where the standards were being applied and exporters were 
most negatively affected.  
8.4.  Finally, Belize reminded Members of the legal obligations contained in Article 13 of the 
SPS Agreement, and in particular drew Members' attention to the second a nd third sentences of 
Article 13. Belize further underscored the need for the development of guidelines for the 
implementation of Article 13, especially given the increased role of the private sector, and urged the 
Committee to make an effort to initiate w ork in that regard. Belize also noted the work being 
undertaken in the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems 
(CCFICS) on "Guidance for Authorities to Assess Third Party Assurance and its Potential to Inform 
National  Food Control System Planning", indicating its hope that this would serve as a catalyst to 
advance the Committee's work and influence the development of guidelines for the implementation 
of Article 13.  
8.5.  Argentina and Brazil thanked Belize for the informatio n provided, and expressed their interest 
in the topic. Argentina further indicated that it would carefully as sess the points made by Belize.  
8.6.  Ecuador recalled that the Committee' discussions on private standards had continued for some 
time and that document  G/SPS/55, which had been adopted by the Committee in March 2011, 
continued to apply. Ecuador further noted that the application of standards and measures by private 
entities could have a disproportionate effect on trade for goods produced and exported by developing 
countries. Ecuador indicated its continued interest in discussing this topic in the Committee, in order G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 42 - 
 
  to reach an agreement on the best way to regulate these type s of standards and  ensure compliance 
with Article 13 of the SPS Agreement.  
9  OBSERV ERS 
9.1  Information from observer organizations  
9.1.1   ECOWAS  
9.1.  ECOWAS reported on recent activities of its member States, detailed in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1620. ECOWAS informed the Committee that the recent introduction of the fall 
armyworm (FAW), and the discovery of t he new alien invasive pest in West Africa were growing 
threats of concern to agriculture and food security in 44  countries in the sub -Saharan region, 
including 15 West African countries. ECOWAS highlighted the crop -destroying nature of the pest and 
outline d a number of efforts which had already been undertaken to address the issue. In particular, 
ECOWAS noted that in March 2018, a high -level study tour had taken place in Brazil, which had been 
organized with the support of USAID, in collaboration with USDA,  EMBRAPA, CIMMYT, and the 
Brazilian Cooperation Agency (ABC). Ten member States, as well as international and private sector 
organizations had participated. ECOWAS provided an overview of the objectives of the study tour 
and the existing technologies that had been demonstrated to successfully combat FAW. Several next 
steps were also outlined which included organizing a regional meeting to update member States on 
the outcomes of the study tour and piloting biological control technologies for selected member 
States. Finally, ECOWAS thanked the support provided by USAID, USAID -APHIS, the  European Union 
and AU -IBAR, among other partners, and requested further support for the future implementation 
of SPS -related activities in the ECOWAS region.  
9.2.  Brazil underscored  the serious nature of fall army worm and its impact in Africa. Brazil 
highlighted its experience in dealing with the problem, its on -going technical support to African 
countries to combat fall army worm through an integrated pest approach and the successf ul results 
obtained. Brazil indicated that expanding implementation activities was being considered, together 
with USAID and FAO. Brazil further emphasized that this initiative was a good example of the existing 
tools and technologies which could be used t o address SPS issues being faced in the African region.  
9.3.  The United States reiterated its commitment, in particular USAID's support, to collaborate with 
other partners and countries in addressing this pest, especially in the context of addressing the 
ongoin g issue in Africa.  
9.1.2   OIRSA  
9.4.  OIRSA reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, detailed in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1621. OIRSA indicated that their 2018 -2022 work plan had been approved in January 
2018, with the main objective of supporting its memb er States to improve their SPS conditions and 
status of the OIRSA region, in accordance with WTO, Codex, IPPC and OIE principles. 
OIRSA  highlighted the guidelines to create and articulate a regional agricultural health intelligence 
system that provides upd ated information to assess possible risks that may affect agriculture and 
livestock production. OIRSA also enumerated a number of SPS -related projects and activities being 
undertaken in the region.  
9.1.3   IGAD  
9.5.  The Chairperson drew attention to the report submitte d by IGAD contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1626.  
9.1.4   IICA  
9.6.  IICA reported on its main activities of interest, detailed i n document G/SPS/GEN/1628. 
IICA indicated its continued support to build capacity in its member countries with activities related 
to the multilateral tr ade system. IICA thanked the United States, Canada and New Zealand for the 
technical and financial support provided, as well as the WTO Secretariat for the collaborative work 
undertaken.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 43 - 
 
  9.1.5   ITC 
9.7.  ITC reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, d etailed in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1634.6 ITC provided an update on several of its SPS -related projects for the period 
March -July 2018 which included: (i)  an EU -funded project on advancing Afghan trade; (ii) an STDF -
funded project in Myanmar on food safety and compliance; (iii) an STDF -funded PPG for a feasibility 
study on  value addition in the fruit and vegetable sector in Sri Lanka ; (iv)  an inclusive tourism 
project in Myanmar, funded by the Dutch Government; (v) an STDF -funded project on enabling 
market acces s for agricultural products in Tajikistan; (vi) the Gambia youth empowerment project, 
funded by the European Union ; (vii) a project in Sudan related to WTO accession, financially 
supported by Japan; (viii) a project to provide support to the facilitation o f trade between CEFTA 
parties ; and (ix) the Burundi Market Access Upgrade Programme (MARKUP), funded by the European 
Union . 
9.1.6   The African Union  
9.8.  The African Union (AU) reported on its activities, detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1629. 
The African Union informed  the Committee that the  Executive Council of the African Union Heads of 
States had considered the challenges presented by fall army worm, and that an emergency fund 
was being established for this topic. The African Union Commission and FAO had also signed a 
Technical Cooperation Project in October 2017, focused on the reinforcement of plant health 
governance in Africa through coordinated management of fall army worm. Other awareness activities 
related to fall army worm had been undertaken, such as within th e context of the 
14th Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme Partnership Platform (CAADP), held 
in Gabon.  
9.9.  In relation to animal health, the African Union outlined the various activities undertaken to 
develop an Animal Health Strategy for A frica; develop an African -wide Antimicrobial Resistance 
Framework, in collaboration with the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (ACDC), 
AU-IBAR and other AU technical institutions; and eradicate peste des petits ruminants (PPR) from 
Africa, through the involvement of AU -IBAR, the African Union  Pan-African Vaccine Centre 
(AU-PANVAC), in collaboration with FAO and OIE, through an EU -sponsored project. With respect to 
food safety, AU -IBAR had also organized in 2018, the Annual Pan -African meetin g of National Codex 
Contact Point Officers to prepare common positions that were presented in the 41st session of the 
Codex Alimentarius in July 2018. Finally, AU -IBAR continued to coordinate electronic forum 
discussions on SPS issues prior to WTO SPS Comm ittee meetings and support the participation of 
AU member States in meetings, as well as promote the organization of SPS activities by its member 
States.  
9.10.   ECOWAS thanked the AU for funding its participation in the SPS Committee meeting and the 
Codex Alimen tarius Commission meeting held in July 2018, and underscored the importance of this 
funding support. In addition, ECOWAS recognized AU's support in funding the participation of African 
member States in the Committee meeting.  
9.1.7   CAHFSA  
9.11.   The Chairperson drew att ention to the report submitted by CAHFSA contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1630.  
9.1.8   ISO 
9.12.   The Chairperson drew attention to the report submitted by ISO contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1632.  
                                                
6 Documen t G/SPS/GEN/1634/Rev.1 was subsequently circulated after the Committee meeting.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 44 - 
 
  9.2  Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  
9.2.1   New requests  
9.13.   There were no new reques ts received by the Secretariat.  
9.2.2   Outstanding requests  
9.14.   The Chairperson noted that there was still no consensus on the six outstanding requests for 
observer status for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); CABI International; the Convention 
on Internationa l 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 Internati onal Cocoa Organization (ICCO).  
9.15.   The Chairperson thanked the represe ntatives 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 written reports on their relevant activities in advance 
of the  October 2018 meeting.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
11  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS  
11.1.   The Secretariat drew Members' attention to the proposed dates for the 2019 meetings of the 
SPS Committee, as circulated in document G/S PS/GEN/1619. The 2019 regular meetings of the 
Committee were tentatively scheduled for the week s of 18 March; 8 July; and 4 November 2019. 
The Secretariat noted that the July meeting had been scheduled to be held back -to-back with the 
Codex Alimentarius Co mmission, which would take place in Geneva during the week of 1 July 2019. 
The Secretariat requested Members to indicate whether the tentative dates conflicted with other 
major engagements in other fora . No Member indicated any such conflict in dates.  
11.2.   The next regular meeting of the Committee was tentative ly scheduled for the week of 
29 October 2018 , with an informal meeting and two days of  regular meeting s. In addition, a thematic 
session would possibly take place during this week , subject to Members' agre ement.  This would 
require adding an additional day of meetings. The Committee's meetings that week  would  thus most 
likely last from Tuesday 30 October until Friday 2 November.  The Chairperson informed Members 
that a provisional agenda for the October/Novem ber 2018 meeting would be circulated via e -mail. 
11.3.   Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines:  
• For circulating the draft version of the Chairperson's report of the informal meeting held on 
11 July 2018 to the SPS delegates' list: Friday, 13 July 2018 ; 
• For submitting comments on the Chairperson's report of the informal meeting:7 Friday, 
20 July 2018 ; 
• For submitting comments on the Committee's prioritization of topics for workshops and/or 
thematic sessions,8 including the scheduling of these Co mmittee activities: Tuesday, 
31 July 2018 ;  
• For identifying additional issues to be considered under the Fifth Review:  Monday, 
10 September 2018 ; 
• For submitting papers/proposals under the Fifth Review:  Monday, 10 September 2018 ;9 
• For circulating a revised background document for the Fifth Review: The Secretariat 
explained that since no comments were submitted by Members on the draft background 
                                                
7 Further to the comments received by the deadline of 20 July 2018, a revised version of the 
Chairperson's report (JOB/SPS/2) was circulated on 24 July 2018.  
8 A list of topics  can be found in paragraph 3(c) of the Chairperson's report of the informal meeting 
(JOB/SPS/2).  
9 Further to the submission of new papers/proposals, the  Secretariat will subsequently circulate a 
revised version of G/SPS/GEN/1625, which provides an overvie w of papers and proposals submitted by 
Members.  G/SPS/R/92  
 
- 45 - 
 
  document, a revised version of the document would not be circulated on Monday, 
10 Septemb er 2018, as previously scheduled. Instead, a new opportunity for comments 
would be provided once the background section was incorporated into the Report of the Fifth 
Review as the descriptive section;  
• For submitting comments on papers/proposals received un der the Fifth Review: Monday, 
8 October 2018 ;  
• For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that items be included on the agenda: Thursday, 11 October 2018 ; 
• For the distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 12 O ctober 2018 ; and  
• For circulating a compilation of comments submitted on proposals received under the Fifth 
Review: Monday, 15  October 2018 .10 
 
__________  
                                                
10 Additional deadlines related to the process for the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation 
of the SPS Agreement can be found in G/SPS/W/296/Rev.1.