RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/71  
 
28 August 2013  
(13-4577)  Page: 1/23  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 27-28 JUNE 2013 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Table of contents 
1   ADOPTION OF  THE AGENDA ........................................................................................ 3  
2   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON ................................................................................ 3  
3   INFORMATION ON RE LEVANT ACTI VITIES .................................................................. 3  
3.1   Information from Members ......................................................................................... 3  
3.2   Information from relevant  standard-setti ng bodies ......................................................... 4  
4   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.13) ............................................ 5  
4.1   New Trad e Concerns .................................................................................................. 5  
4.2   Issues prev iously raised ............................................................................................. 8  
4.3   Consideration of specif ic notification s received .............................................................. 12 
4.4   Information on resolution of  issues in G/SP S/GEN/204/Re v.13 ........................................ 12 
5   OPERATION OF TRANSP ARENCY PROVISIONS .......................................................... 12  
6   IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT .............................. 13  
7   EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 ....................................................................................... 13  
7.1   Information from memb ers on their experiences ........................................................... 13 
7.2   Information from releva nt observer or ganizati ons ......................................................... 13 
8   PEST- AND DISEASE-FR EE AREAS – AR TICLE 6 ......................................................... 14  
8.1   Annual report on implementa tion of Article 6 (G/SPS/GEN/1245) ..................................... 14 
8.2   Information from Members on  their pest or disease status .............................................. 14 
8.3   Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas .................................................................................................................... ... 14 
8.4   Information from releva nt observer or ganizati ons ......................................................... 15 
9   TECHNICAL ASSISTAN CE AND CO-O PERATION.......................................................... 15  
9.1   Information fr om the Secr etariat ................................................................................ 15 
9.2   Informatio n from Members ........................................................................................ 16 
9.3   Information from observers ....................................................................................... 16 
10   REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................... 1 7 
10.1   Issues arising fr om the Second Review ...................................................................... 17 
10.2   Preparation for Fourth Review ................................................................................... 18 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 2 - 
 
  11   MONITORING OF THE USE OF  INTERNATIONAL STANDARD S .................................. 19  
11.1   New Issues ............................................................................................................ 19 
11.2   Issues previously raised ........................................................................................... 19 
11.3   Adoption of the Annual Report (G/SPS/W/269) ............................................................ 19 
12   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS .................................... 19  
12.1   Report on th e informal meeting ................................................................................ 19 
13   OBSE RVERS ............................................................................................................. 21  
13.1   Information from Observer Orga nizations ................................................................... 21 
13.2   Requests for Observer Status ................................................................................... 21 
14   CHAIRPERSON'S ANNUAL REPORT TO  THE COUNCIL FOR TR ADE IN GOODS ........... 21  
15   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 21  
16   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS ................................................................ 21  
 G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanit ary Measures (the "Committee") held its fifty-
seventh regular meeting on 27-28 June 2013. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with amendments (WTO/AIR/4148). 
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON 
2.1.  Ms Maria Araceli Albarece of the Philippines was re-elected as Chairperson of the SPS 
Committee. 
3  INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
3.1  Information from Members 3.1.1  Australia – Release of draft biosec urity regulations and inspector-general of 
biosecurity regulations for comment 
3.1.  Australia provided an update on its re forms to the Australian biosecurity system. The 
Biosecurity and Inspector-General of Biosecurity Bills  were introduced to the Australian Parliament 
on 28 November 2012 and remained within the Parliamentary process. Draft regulations related to 
the Biosecurity Import Risk Analyses and the Inspector-General of Biosecurity were released for 
discussion in May 2013 and notified to the WTO on 28 May 2013 as G/SPS/N/AUS/319. Australia invited Members to review and comment upon the draft regulations. Once the primary legislation 
had passed through Parliament, the draft regulations would be open to comment and review for a 
proposed 60-day consultation period, during which Members could provide additional comments. Australia would notify trading partners via SPS notifi cation of this period. The anticipated repeal of 
the Quarantine Act of 1908 would not affect the va l i d i t y  o f  e x i s t i n g  I m p o r t  R i s k  A n a l y s e s ,  n o r  
would it require a Biosecurity Impact Risk Analysis  to be completed where an Import Risk Analysis 
already exists. Import permits issued under the Quarantine Act would remain valid for the duration of the permit. 
3.1.2  Australia – Update on retiring the Australian quarantine and inspection service 
(AQIS) brand 
3.2.  Australia provided an update on its retire ment of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection 
Service ("AQIS") brand. In its place, trading partners would have started to see an Australian 
Government crest and the words "Department of Agricu lture, Fisheries, and Forestry". As a part of 
this transition process, all AQIS e-mail addresses were retired on 15 May 2013, and replaced with the DAFF format [name.surname@daff. gov.au]. Trading partners had been notified of the changes 
made to the paper used for electronic certificates, which include the new use of an Australian 
Government watermark in place of the AQIS watermark. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) would continue to oversee all work related to biosecurity, agriculture, 
fisheries, forestry, food production, and food safe ty sectors. Staff and their individual roles and 
responsibilities held under the AQIS brand would remain the same under DAFF. The change would not alter the legal basis or competent authority under which audits, inspections and certifications 
are undertaken, nor would it prompt any changes related to imports. All import permits would 
continue to be issued by the Australian government and all currently issued AQIS permits would remain valid for the duration of the permit. Australia expected all changes to be finalised within 2013. 
3.3.  Chile questioned whether an agreement between its Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG) and 
AQIS would need to be updated due to this chan ge, or if the agreement would remain enforceable 
as is. Australia responded, subject to confirmati on, that it expected that the agreement would 
continue. 
3.1.3  European Union – Update on the fraud case related to the labelling of horse meat 
in meat products 
3.4.  The European Union provided updates on the fraud case related to non-labelled horse meat in 
food products. The European Union established an  expansive testing plan to detect both horse G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 4 - 
 
  DNA and phenylbutazone, an anti-inflammatory drug only permitted in the European Union for use 
in animals not intended for human consumption. Ab out 5% of all tested products contained horse 
DNA and of those approximately 0.5% were cont aminated with phenylbutazone. These results 
represented a very small portion of the total EU production. Furthermore, no meat was found unfit 
for human consumption, which confirms that this was a matter of food fraud and not food safety. 
The European Union would continue to work towards restoring the trust and confidence of both consumers and trading partners. 
3.5.  Benin stated that developing countries lack ed adequate resources to test imports of horse 
meat and asked if the European Union would provide testing assistance to assure the quality and safety of the meat imported by Benin and other developing nations. The European Union responded that it would offer technical assistan ce to those countries in need upon request. 
3.1.4  European Union – "Smarter rules for sa fer food" proposals on animal health, plant 
health, plant propagating materials an d official controls (G/SPS/GEN/1252) 
3.6.  The European Union provided information on four legislative proposals, the so-called 
"Smarter rules for safer food" package which was issued on 6 May 2013. The proposed draft 
legislation consolidated close to 70 pieces of legislation into four clear, basic, science and risk-based rules. These changes were notified in G/SPS/EU/43, G/SPS/EU/44, G/SPS/EU/45 and 
G/SPS/EU/46. Proposals on plant reproductive mate rial and official controls were also notified 
under the TBT Agreement, in G/TBT/N/EU/116 and G/TBT/N/EU/117. A more detailed communication was provided in G/SPS/GEN/1252. Du e to the detailed nature of the proposals, the 
European Union had doubled the standard comment period to 120 days and invited Members to 
submit comments for review. 
3.1.5  Passage of the Philippine Food Safety Act 3.7.  The Philippines drew attention to the Food Sa fety Act, passed by the Philippine Congress on 
5 June 2013. The Act set out the regulatory fr amework under which all food businesses in the 
country must operate. The Act further provided the basis for regulations that would be issued by competent authorities to ensure the safety of f ood consumed and/or produced in the Philippines. 
3.1.6  Korea – Update on government reorganization 
3.8.  Korea provided updates on its reshuffling of government agencies overseeing SPS-related 
issues, described in G/SPS/GEN/1242. The chan ges expanded the roles of the Ministry of 
Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs in the animal health and phytosanitary sectors; the Ministry of 
Food and Drug Safety in food safety; and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries in aquatic health. 
The acronyms of the above ministries had also been changed and these would be phased-in over 
time. 
3.2  Information from relevant standard-setting bodies 
3.2.1  IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/1247) 3.9.  The IPPC highlighted its written report (G/SPS/GEN/1247) and encouraged Members to more 
actively participate in the standards-setting process. The information that Members shared within 
the SPS Committee was often relevant to their obligations under the IPPC, and should also be reported to the IPPC. The IPPC had develope d a new communication strategy, and was also 
pursuing further interaction with the Codex and OIE. Lastly, the IPPC reported that Afghanistan 
had become its 179
th Member on 5 June 2013. 
3.2.2  CODEX 3.10.  The Codex was not represented at the meeting, but had provided a written report 
(G/SPS/GEN/1260). G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.2.3  OIE 
3.11.  The OIE noted that its written report (G/SPS/GEN/1255) reported on the adoption of nine 
new chapters in the land and aquatic animal health codes, as well as an additional paper on BSE risks. The OIE had made several website updates and asked Members to review the OIE's online 
reporting procedures as they were differe nt from those of the IPPC and Codex. 
4  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.13) 4.1  New Trade Concerns 
4.1.1  EU temperature treatment requirements  for imports of processed meat products – 
Concerns of Russia 
4.1.  Russia raised concerns about the EU requirement that bovine and porcine meat products be 
heat-treated to 80 degrees Celsius and asked that the European Union bring its requirements in 
line with international standards, which only required heat-treatment to 70 degrees Celsius. 
Russia urged the European Union to finalize the le gislative process under way that would bring the 
EU requirements into line with OIE recommendations. 
4.2.  The European Union noted that it was free from African Swine Fever (except for one island) 
and Foot and Mouth Disease, both of which occu r in Russia. The heat-treatment requirement of 
80 degrees Celsius was applied to prevent the intr oduction of both diseases via the import of 
animal products. The request of Russia to use heat treatment to 70 degrees Celsius for a minimum 
of thirty minutes for previously deboned and defatted meats was in line with OIE standards for the inactivation of Foot and Mouth Disease, but not for African Swine Fever. The European Union would thus amend its measures only in the case of species that are not susceptible to African 
Swine Fever. The process of amending the existing  import rules, to thereby meet the request of 
Russia, had already begun, and a proposal was expected to be adopted soon. 
4.1.2  US proposed rule on good manufacturi ng process and hazard analysis and risk-
based preventive controls for human food – Concerns of China 
4.3.  China raised concerns with the US proposed  rule on "Current Good Manufacturing Practice 
and Hazard Analysis and Risk-based Preventive Controls for Human Food", notified in 
G/SPS/N/USA/2502 and G/SPS/N/USA/2503. Part 117, Subpart C, regarding the preventive 
control measures put in place and monitored by  operators of food enterprises, exceeded 
international standards without scientific justification and was therefore in contravention of the SPS Agreement. The overbroad nature of this re quirement would result in reduced effectiveness 
and increased labour costs, thus resulting in a ba rrier to trade. China suggested that instead the 
United States should require good manufacturing practices and sanitation standard operating procedures, and furthermore employ the equivalence principle. Additionally, China took issue with 
the inclusion of radioactivity hazard analysis in the draft Part 117.130(b)(4), as the internationally 
recognized HACCP system only required the identification of biological, chemical, and physical hazards. The probability of such a hazard was extremely low and did not justify the cost of running 
such monitoring programs within the food indust ry. The United States could raise the issue of 
inclusion of radioactivity into the HACCP system at the meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to allow for a more thorough discussion. Lastly, the requirement in the draft Part 117.126 that all food enterprises establish a written safety plan, exceeded the requirements 
of HACCP and the Codex standards. As such, Chin a requested that the United States provide a 
scientific basis for these requirements. China su ggested that a more gradual approach to the 
establishment of hazard analysis within food enterprises was appropriate given the varying 
degrees of risk associated with different products and the disparity in resources among countries. 
4.4.  The United States thanked China for its comments and recalled that these measures had 
been notified to the SPS Committee on 30 April 2013, and would be available for comment through 
16 September 2013. The United States urged China and other Members, as well as any other 
interested members of the international communi ty, to provide comments on the proposed rule. 
Comments should be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking portal, available at: http://www.regulations.gov , in order to ensure that those comments became part of the public 
record. The docket numbers for the proposed rule in the eRulemaking portal were: FDA-2011-N-G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 6 - 
 
  0920 for preventive controls for human food, and FDA-2011-N-0921 for produce safety. 
Comments made outside of the public record could not be considered by the FDA in the process of finalizing the proposed rules. 
4.1.3  EU renewal of GMO approvals (EC Re gulation 1829/2003) – Concerns of Argentina 
4.5.  Argentina raised its concerns over the EU renewal procedures and processes for GMO 
approvals. Argentina contended that risk assessm ent reviews should only be undertaken in cases 
of new scientific justification. Further, as the en tire EU approval process took approximately four 
years, granting a licence for only ten years was impractical and without scientific justification. The 
EU process was already overly burdensome and th e new requirements were unclear, adding to the 
heavy burden of seeking GMO approval. Argentina asked the European Union to clarify and rectify 
their GMO approval process. 
4.6.  The European Union responded that it was not intending to adopt legislation as was done for 
the food/feed new authorizations but rather to prepare a guidance document which would 
complement Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation 1829/2003 already providing general guidance on 
the renewal process. The European Food Safety Authority was currently working on this more 
detailed guidance which should be available in autumn 2013, before the first renewal request expected in March 2014. 
4.1.4  Import restrictions in response to th e nuclear power plant accident – Concerns of 
Japan 
4.7.  Japan raised concerns over restrictions on Japanese food exports in the wake of the 
Fukushima incident. Following the incident, Japan had been closely monitoring food products for 
the presence of radionuclides and, as of Apri l 2012, had imposed a food intervention exemption 
level of 1mSv/year – equivalent to the Codex standard. However, the dietary exposure estimates from total diet studies were far below 1 mSv/year across all studies—including those completed in 
Fukushima Prefecture. Based on this scientific data, Japan requested all Members to lift any import 
restrictions on Japanese exports. Japan thanked those Members that had already lifted most or all such measures, but noted that China, Hong Kong, China and Chinese Taipei continued to maintain 
import bans on many Japanese food exports. Japanese foods placed on the market were safe for 
human consumption without any extra control measures; nonetheless, Japan was willing to certify compliance with the radionuclide regulation for each consignment as a provisional measure. Hong Kong, China and Chinese Taipei had already begun to analyse the monitoring data provided 
by Japan, and Japan looked forward to the opport unity the meet with China regarding this trade 
concern. 
4.8.  Chinese Taipei explained that although Ja panese food exports contained acceptable trace 
levels of radionuclides, those levels still raised concern for Chinese Taipei and its consumers, 
consumer protection groups, and legislators. In order to assuage these concerns, Chinese Taipei 
requested further information from Japan, including about its surveillance methodology and control 
measures. Chinese Taipei also requested that foods exported from the five restricted prefectures 
be accompanied by a certificate of origin and a pr e-export laboratory report certifying that they 
had been tested for radioactivity. The relevant supplementary documents had been received from Japan on 13 June 2013 and were under review. Chinese Taipei expressed its desire to continue 
normal communications and co-operation with Japan in the future. 
4.9.  Hong Kong, China explained that its import re strictions were based on public health concerns 
over food imported from the five affected prefectures in Japan. It was waiting for further 
information from Japan in order to fully assess the threat level presented by Japanese imports. 
Hong Kong, China stated that it would continue to monitor information from Japan and other relevant international organizations and would adjust its import measures according to any new 
updates. 
4.10.  China responded that it only restricted the import of products produced in seriously nuclear-
contaminated areas and those products seen as high-risk. The detection of nuclear contamination in food and agricultural products in Japan had b een on-going. China requested that Japan urge its 
relevant departments and enterprises to take measures that would ensure all food and agricultural 
exports were uncontaminated by nuclear matter and could satisfy the Chinese national standards. G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.11.  Japan explained that the detection of nuc lear contamination in agricultural and food 
products noted by China only occurred in products that were not legally released to the market. Japan continued to monitor these products. 
4.1.5  EU import requirements for orchid tissu e culture plantlets in flasks – Concerns of 
Chinese Taipei 
4.12.  Chinese Taipei raised its concerns regard ing the EU import requirements for orchid tissue 
culture plantlets in flasks, contained in 2000/29/EC Annex 4, Points 32.1, 32.3, 34, 36.1, 45.1 and 
36. These required the inspection and pest-free condit ions for up to six pests. However, the risk of 
pests for tissue culture plantlets in flasks produced under sterile conditions – like those produced in Chinese Taipei – was much lower than the risk associated with plantlets raised in greenhouses. The EU requirements were, therefore, not scienti fically justified. Chinese Taipei had asked the 
European Union in October 2012 and January 2013 to amend its regulations based on scientific 
evidence. The European Union responded in Februa ry 2013 that the risk assessment of the pest 
Bemisia tabaci  was on-going and that relevant rules would be amended upon completion of that 
assessment. When the final assessment was published in April 2013, however, it made no mention 
of tissue culture plantlets and no amendments ha d been made. In April 2013, Chinese Taipei had 
reiterated that tissue culture plantlets grown under sterile conditions posed a much lower risk than 
their counterparts grown in greenhouses, and that, specifically, there was no risk of Bemisia tabaci 
in those plantlets grown under sterile conditions. Chinese Taipei explained that the European Union had countered that this issue was not technical, but rather legislative in nature, and had asked Chinese Taipei for additional information on official controls and certification processes related to 
tissue culture plantlets in order to facilitate di scussion among EU experts. Tissue culture plantlets 
from Chinese Taipei were exported worldwide and no other Member required additional inspections 
for insect pests on plants cultivated under sterile conditions. Furthermore, many EU member 
States produced tissue culture plants for export under similar conditions and the techniques and 
procedures for these plants were clearly unders tood. The EU additional requirements placed a 
heavy burden, both in terms of money and labour, on Chinese Taipei, and were not consistent with 
Articles 2.2 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement, as we ll as Articles VII.2.(a) and (g) of the IPPC. 
Chinese Taipei urged the European Union to bring its import requirements in line with existing scientific evidence and risk assessments. 
4.13.  Senegal expressed its surprise at the sugge stion of a pest-risk in plantlets produced under 
sterile conditions, and asked the European Union if pests had been found in such plantlets which 
could justify its measures. 
4.14.  The European Union explained that this i ssue had been the subject of intensive bilateral 
discussions, the most recent of which occurred one week prior to the 57
th SPS Committee meeting. 
The EU policies and procedures had been in pl ace since 2002 and no trade problems had been 
experienced during that time, excluding the pr esent trade concern. The recently published 
assessment of the European Food Safety Authority regarding Bemisia tabaci , a known vector of 
certain plant disease, would be discussed with EU member States in the coming days. The European Union had requested that Chinese Taip ei provide a technical dossier outlining the 
cultivation of orchids in sterile plantlets and additional information regarding official controls and 
the certification process, and understood that this  dossier was forthcoming. Upon its receipt, the 
European Union would be able to fully consider th e issue and work bilaterally with Chinese Taipei 
to develop a successful conclusion to this trade concern. 
4.1.6  European Union – Phytosanitary measur es on citrus black spot – Concerns of 
South Africa 
4.15.  South Africa raised concerns regarding the EU restrictive import measures on South African 
citrus exports infested with citrus black spot. This issue had been on-going since 1992. During the 
July 1997 SPS Committee meeting, South Africa had circulated a statement, G/SPS/GEN/26, in regard to the EU notifications of modifications of phytosanitary measures on citrus black spot (G/SPS/N/EEC/46 and G/SPS/N/EEC/47). At that  time, South Africa contended that the 
EU measures were not scientifically justified and lacked a technical basis, as infested fruit did not 
pose a significant pest risk. Unfortunately the issue remained unresolved. The EU measures not only lacked scientific basis, but had also had an ex cessively negative effect on trade and, as such, 
were in contravention of the SPS Agreement. As previously noted in the SPS Committee, this issue 
had been raised in the context of the IPPC disp ute settlement procedure, and bilateral talks were G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 8 - 
 
  set to continue on this matter. South Africa was still waiting for the results of an EU pest-risk 
analysis regarding Guignardia citicarpa  that was supposed to have been completed in 2011. 
South Africa urged the European Union to finish it s pest risk analysis and to implement measures 
that had a scientific basis. 
4.16.  Argentina supported South Africa's position, as it was also a large exporter of citrus to the 
European Union. Argentina urged the European Union to complete its risk analysis swiftly and to put in place measures that were scientifically-based and not unduly restrictive of trade. 
4.17.  The European Union confirmed that this matter was the subject of the IPPC's first dispute 
settlement procedure and noted that its territory was free from citrus black spot, hence the restrictions in place reflected the EU desire to maintain this freedom. Detections of citrus black spot on South African fruit sent to the European Union had been on the rise therefore the 
European Union decided that after a certain numbe r of interceptions action may be taken. The 
European Union ensured South Africa of close cooperation before any such decision were made. The European Union underlined that the European Food Safety Authority was assessing whether 
citrus fruit itself could transmit citrus black spot disease. The draft pest-risk analysis should be 
available in July 2013, and would be open to pub lic consultation. The European Union hoped that 
the discussions, both bilaterally and at the IPPC, and the expected forthcoming scientific 
information, would result in a solution that was agreeable to all involved. 
4.2  Issues previously raised 4.2.1  Viet Nam's ban on offals – Concerns of the European Union and the United States 
(No. 314) 
4.18.  The European Union reiterated that Viet Nam's ban on white offal was not proportionate, as 
Viet Nam had confirmed that there were no problems with imports of any offals from the European Union. During previously held bilateral discussions, as well as within the SPS Committee, Viet Nam 
had expressed its intention to lift the ban. Three years on, however, the ban remained. The 
European Union was willing to continue to work towards a resolution to this issue, and urged Viet Nam to rapidly lift  this unjustified ban. 
4.19.  The United States expressed its solidarity with the European Union in regard to Viet Nam's 
ban on selected offal products. This ban raised serious questions about Viet Nam's compliance with its WTO obligations. The United States urged Viet Nam to lift this ban immediately and to ensure that any new regulations were transparent, scien ce-based and not unduly restrictive of trade. 
4.20.  Australia expressed support for the EU and US positions and raised its concern that, without 
a risk-assessment, the ban was unwarranted. Australia appreciated Viet Nam's repeal of the ban on red offal, but urged it to move forw ard in regard to white offal products. 
4.21.  Viet Nam noted that the bans were put in place out of concern for public safety. New import 
measures were being considered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Development and Customs and Viet Nam would look to interested trading partners assist in this process. 
4.2.2  China's quarantine and testing proc edures for salmon – Concerns of Norway 
(No. 319) 
4.22.  Norway reiterated its concern regarding Ch ina's testing and quarantine measures on salmon 
exported from Norway. In addition to these measures, China enforced a licensing system in a 
manner that de facto established quantitative restrictions on the import of salmon from Norway. 
While this system was probably outside the purview of the SPS Committee, it helped to illustrate the overall pattern of restriction. Although Norway  generally had quite fruitful co-operation with 
the Chinese authorities regarding food safety and imports, it had yet to receive a response from 
China despite multiple requests for technical consultations on this issue. Norway recalled that at the SPS Committee meeting in October 2012, China stated that it had requested information from 
Norway regarding the issue of am oebic gill parasite. However, Norway had been unable to verify 
that such a request was ever received by Norwegian authorities. As such, Norway asked China to provide the necessary information in writing so that it could comply with China's request. Norway expressed its desire to move this issue towards positive resolution. G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 9 - 
 
  4.23.  China responded that its entry and exit inspection and quarantine agencies had detected 
carcinogenic microbes and veterinary drug residues in salmon imported from Norway. These products, especially chilled, ready-to-eat salmon, posed a substantial threat to the health of consumers. As such, since 2011, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and 
Quarantine (AQSIQ) had enhanced inspection and quarantine measures on imported salmon from 
all countries and areas. In light of the detection of parasitic infections in salmon in recent years, China would consider adjusting its import measures based on quality and risk analyses of salmon 
to ensure the safety of its consumers. 
4.24.  Norway stated that there was a discrepan cy in Chinese and Norwegian testing results and 
this pointed to the need for co-operation at a technical level. Norway requested that such a 
meeting take place in order to work with China towards a solution. 
4.2.3  EU maximum residue levels of pe sticides – Concerns of India (No. 306) 
4.25.  India raised its concern over the EU ma ximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticides. The 
EU MRLs for imported foods and agricultural products did not follow any international standards 
and had no scientific basis, and were therefore in contravention of the SPS Agreement. India 
requested that the European Union provide scientific justification for its MRLs and that it change those levels that were not scientifically justified. India also requested an update within regard to 
tricyclazole. 
4.26.  The European Union noted India's concern, and regretted that there was little new to say 
with regard to this issue. When there was no use of a particular substance within the European Union and no third country had requested the Europe an Union to set an import tolerance, it was 
the EU practice to set MRLs at the lowest analytical level—the level of determination. This practice 
was widespread and followed elsewhere in the world. With regard to tricyclazole, in 2011 there had been a proposed reduction of the MRL from its cu rrent level of 1 mg/kg to 0.01 mg/kg. A request 
for an import tolerance for rice was filed by one of the manufacturers of tricyclazole upon which 
the European Food Safety Author ity had issued an opinion on 18 April 2013 that the request was 
not properly justified and therefore the European Union was considering lowering the existing MRL 
to the limit of determination (0.01 mg/kg) for rice . The European Union invited India to work with 
the EU authorities to resolve any concerns regarding tricyclazole and MRLs generally. 
4.2.4  Turkey's requirements for importatio n of sheep meat – Concerns of Australia 
(No. 340) 
4.27.  Australia reiterated its concerns regarding Turkey's requirements for the import of sheep 
meat. Australia had been seeking information from Turkey regarding its import measures since April 2011, but despite raising this concern at both the 55
th and 56th SPS Committee meetings, it 
had yet to receive a response. Australia was a safe and reliable supplier of sheep meat to some 
100 countries and had consistently met all relevant international SPS measures for such trade. Turkey's measures appeared to contravene its obligations under the SPS Agreement, including 
Articles 2 and 7 and Annex B. Australia looked  forward to the resolution of this issue. 
4.28.  Turkey responded that it was in the process of aligning its food safety legislation with that of 
the European Union. It had enacted many implementation measurements, but still needed to propose guidelines for sheep and goat meat. Turkey stated that it would send its model health 
certificate for sheep and goat meat to Australia and other interested Members once it was 
prepared. 
4.2.5  China's import conditions related to phthalates – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 345) 
4.29.  The European Union reiterated its concern regarding China's import measures on phthalates 
in spirits and wine. In bilateral discussions China had indicated that the two territories shared the 
same legal framework regarding phthalates. Despite this, there had been a disruption in trade and 
an unnecessary delay of EU consignments into China based on recent measures. China had said it was undertaking a risk assessment on phthalates in food and would base its risk management measures on the results. The European Union was willing to share any scientific information that G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 10 - 
 
  could aid China in this process. Further, the European Union urged China to remain transparent in 
this process and consistent with its own legal framework. 
4.30.  China observed that it had discovered a risk  of phthalates in both domestic and imported 
distilled spirits, and AQSIQ had been monitoring phthalates in imported spirits since January 2013. 
In some of those spirits, China had discovered phthalate levels which exceeded the temporary 
maximum put in place during the investigatory period. Spirits with levels that exceeded the temporary maximum were not permitted onto the Chinese market. China had established expert 
panels to conduct risk assessments on phthalates in food, and an EU-China workshop on risk 
assessments for phthalates in food was held on  17 April 2013. China would continue working with 
the European Union and related Members to find an effective solution to this issue. 
4.2.6  Japan's restrictions on shrimp due to  anti-oxidant residues – Concerns of India 
(No. 342) 
4.31.  India raised its concern over Japan's maximum residue levels (MRLs) of ethoxyquin in 
shrimp. India understood that there had been evidence raising concerns over the genotoxicity of 
ethoxyquin, but did not understand why the MRLs for fish (1 ppm) were higher than those for 
shrimp (0.01 ppm). India had experienced a substantial economic loss due to Japan's MRLs, which were without scientific justification.  
4.32.  Japan reiterated that it set individual MRLs  in food based on scientific data. The MRL in fish 
was based on residue trial data for fish, but there was no such data for shrimp. Furthermore, as there was no Codex standard for ethoxyquin in shrimp, nor had any foreign country requested that Japan set a specific maximum level in shrimp, the uniform limit of 0.01 ppm had been applied. 
Japan was reviewing the uniform limit pursuant to a request for a specific limit from India, 
received September 2012. Multiple reports from Japanese authorities, as well as the European Food Safety Authority, had raised concern about the potential genotoxicity of ethoxyquin. Japan 
that it would continue to review the status of this limit and consider new data and reports as they 
became available. Japan expressed its desire to continue working with India on this issue through bilateral channels. 
4.2.7  Import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union (No. 193) 
4.33.  The European Union reported that the General Session of the OIE had positively evaluated 
and recognised the EU risk status related to BSE. The European Union appreciated Brazil's 
relaxation of its BSE-related import measures and encouraged Brazil to bring these conditions 
further in line with the OIE standard and to notify these changes to allow partners to provide 
comments. Unjustifiable trade restrictions were still in place in a number of other countries and the European Union urged China to base its measure on the OIE standard and lift the ban on EU beef. 
The European Union welcomed the on-going work carried out by Korea and urged Korea to deal 
swiftly with all EU applications. The US and Australia's on-going process to align their BSE import conditions with OIE standards was appreciated and closely followed by the European Union and 
further progress towards real trade market access was now expected without undue delays. 
4.34.  Korea noted that it had been conducting a risk analysis on imported EU beef and had been 
in close dialogue with the European Union on the matter. Korea looked forward to continued co-operation with the European Union to move the process forward in a timely manner. 
4.35.  China recalled that BSE continued to be a very sensitive and highly technical issue for which 
scientific knowledge was still insufficient. A risk analysis was carried out with the co-operation of relevant EU member States, but experts of both parties had failed to reach consensus. Further 
research, communication and discussion were necessary. China expressed its willingness to 
continue cooperating and communicating with EU technical experts. 
4.2.8  EU Court of Justice ruling regardin g pollen derived from GMOs – Concerns of 
Argentina (No. 327) 
4.36.  Argentina reiterated its concern regarding the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of September 
2011 that defined pollen as an ingredient of ho ney, while Codex and the EU Directive 2001/110/EC 
considered pollen as a natural component of honey. In light of this new definition, honey that G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 11 - 
 
  contained GMO-derived pollen was subject to a pre-authorisation process and should be labelled in 
order to be marketed throughout the European Union. The European Commission's proposal to modify Directive 2001/110/EC on honey was being discussed in the EU Parliament and the Council. 
Argentina stressed that the implementation of the ECJ ruling should be based on scientific 
evidence, be the least trade restrictive as possible and be consistent with the WTO SPS 
Agreement. 
4.37.  The United States shared Argentina's concern and noted that the ECJ ruling posed a 
potential barrier to trade. The United States therefore encouraged the European Commission to act 
expeditiously on its intention to amend Council Di rective 1002/110/EC to clarify that pollen was a 
natural constituent of honey, as stated by Codex, and not an ingredient. The United States also encouraged the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH) to vote, at 
the earliest opportunity, to authorise the application to include pollen. 
4.38.  The European Union reported that the pr oposal to amend the Honey Directive was working 
its way through the legislative process. According to  this proposal, pollen would be considered as a 
natural constituent of honey and, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the list of 
ingredients. Nevertheless, the EU GMO legislation would continue to apply and the presence of authorised GMO pollen in honey should continue to be labelled if it exceeded the threshold of 0.9% 
of the total amount of honey. 
4.2.9  Indonesia's port closure (G/SPS/N/IDN/53, G/SPS/N/IDN/54 and 
G/SPS/N/IDN/54/Corr.1) – Concerns of China (No. 330) 
4.39.  China expressed concern with Indonesia's plant inspection and quarantine measures for 
fresh fruit and vegetables that required inspection before export, access into the country only 
through minor ports and quota restrictions. China had established an inspection and quarantine supervision system for its exported fruit and vegetables and had never received any indication 
from Indonesia with regard to pest problems in Chinese fruit. Jakarta's port closure increased 
transport costs, affected the preservation of th e products and reduced market competitiveness. 
China asked Indonesia to cancel the requirement of  third party inspection after mutual recognition 
of the newly established supervision system carried out by competent authorities of China and 
Indonesia. China also encouraged Indonesia to im plement the agreement signed by both parties in 
Jakarta in May 2013 and to conduct field investigations to grant certification for eight kinds of fruit and vegetable products. Finally, China requested that Indonesia eliminate the quotas for fruit and 
vegetable products from China, to promote smooth development of trade between the two 
countries. 
4.40.  The European Union shared the concerns rais ed by China, highlighting that Jakarta's port 
closure significantly increased the costs of export s to Indonesia. Indonesia had claimed that its 
measure was justified by interceptions that posed a serious threat to its plant and consumer protection, however, Indonesia had never report ed interceptions on any EU products. Despite 
several bilateral discussions, the European Union had not received any clarification that would 
justify Indonesia's trade restrictive measures or explain the discriminatory preferential access to the port of Jakarta. The European Union therefore urged Indonesia to lift these unjustified and discriminatory restrictions on EU products. 
4.41.  South Africa also shared China's concerns that Jakarta's port closure and the mandatory use 
of SGS certification hampered trade flows into Indonesia and increased transport and certification costs. Despite submitting all required information with regard to the safety of its exports, South 
Africa had not received a favourable response from Indonesia. South Africa therefore requested 
that Indonesia lift these unjustified and discriminating measures. 
4.42.  Chile, Korea and Chinese Taipei also shared China's concerns and hoped that the problem 
would soon be resolved. Chile reported that it had obtained a bilateral meeting with Indonesia 
after providing all information required on its fruit exports. 
4.43.  Indonesia noted that this issue was in the process of being resolved bilaterally with China. A 
meeting with the Ministry of Agriculture of Indo nesia had taken place on 22 May 2013 and the two 
countries had agreed to complete an extendable protocol of import and export inspection and 
quarantine requirements for agricultural and food products. Indonesia explained that its measures G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 12 - 
 
  had been adopted to ensure consumer safety, as in the past, exotic quarantine pests were 
intercepted in potatoes imported from one of the Members who had now raised a concern against Indonesia. Indonesia also noted that the port of Jakarta would be re-opened as soon as the port infrastructure and the inspection facilities fo r quarantine and customs agencies were ready. 
4.2.10  EU quarantine measures on certain pi ne trees and other products – Concerns of 
Russia (No. 348) 
4.44.  Russia reiterated its concern that EU Council Directive 2000/29 prohibited imports into the 
European Union of Pinus plants, among others, an d seed potatoes from Russia. Russia claimed 
that the restriction was not based on scienti fic evidence and Russia was not aware of any 
justification for the measure. The EU requirement to provide a technical dossier to obtain a derogation to the restriction was not provided for in any international standard or agreement and 
was therefore considered discriminatory. Given the strong trade impact of the measure, Russia 
urged the European Union to remove its restriction. 
4.45.  The European Union noted that the request of  Russia for a derogation to be able to export 
potatoes and coniferous plants to the European Union had been intensively discussed in a bilateral 
setting, and technical discussions with EU member States had started. Nevertheless, to obtain the derogation, a technical dossier was needed. The EU request for information in order to carry out a 
specific risk assessment on this trade request from Russia was fully legitimate. The European 
Union repeated its engagement to find a satisfactory solution and looked forward to receiving the necessary technical information from Russia that would allow it to proceed. 
4.3  Consideration of specific notifications received 
4.3.1  Costa Rica's MRLs for veterinary me dicines in live animals (G/SPS/N/CRI/136) - 
Concerns of Panama 
4.46.  Panama indicated that Costa Rica had provided replies to its questions just prior to the 
meeting, and that it would review these and provide comments. 
4.47.  Costa Rica encouraged Panama to arrange coordination between the competent authorities 
to work on this issue and to seek an outcome that would be satisfactory to both parties. 
4.4  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
4.4.1  Croatia's restrictions on imports of  pork - Concerns of Slovenia (No. 158) 
4.48.  The European Union reported the resolution of STC No. 158 that had been raised by 
Slovenia in 2003, after Croatia had imposed restrictions on its import of pork. Since the relevant 
EU legislation had already been transposed into Croatia's national law, the European Union was 
pleased to inform that this STC was no longer of concern for either party. 
4.49.  Croatia reported that STC No. 158 had only lasted for several months in 2003 and ended as 
Croatia harmonised its law with the EU legislation at the end of 2003. Croatia also took the 
opportunity to recall that from 1 July 2013, Cr oatia would become an EU Member state. Any 
further communication on SPS-related matters woul d therefore be delivered through the European 
Union. 
5  OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS 5.1.  In the context of the Secretariat's cont inued updating of the SPS-IMS, the Secretariat 
indicated that it would send to each Member a list of Specific Trade Concerns (STCs), which they 
had raised since 1995 and for which no resolution had been notified. Members would be asked to 
inform the Secretariat of any STCs that had been  resolved by Friday, 13 September 2013. At the 
October meeting, the Secretariat would inform the Committee of the status of these STCs and 
would update the SPS-IMS accordingly. STCs raised  by several Members, for which resolution was 
not reported by all Members who had raised the issue, would be marked as "partially resolved". Likewise, where an STC concerned more than one product or more than one measure and some, 
but not all of the concerns had been resolved, it would be identified as "partially resolved". G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 13 - 
 
  5.2.  With a view to improving the quality of SPS notifications, the Secretariat strongly encouraged 
Members to identify the HS code of the product concerned in the notification and to specify the 
names of affected products moving in international trade when notifying pesticides, chemicals and veterinary drug residue limits that were being regulated. 
5.3.  A business case for improvements to the IMS and NNS was under development and any 
suggestions from delegates in this regard would be welcomed until 9 July 2013. 
5.4.  The Secretariat recalled that it no longer produced paper copies of the contact lists of 
National Notification Authorities and National Enquiry Points, but electronic lists were constantly 
updated and available through the SPS Information Management System (IMS) 
(http://spsims.wto.org ). The Secretariat no longer generated a monthly summary list of 
notifications, as Members could generate such li sts through the SPS IMS. The summary identifying 
all documents and notifications issued in 2012 by Members, Observers and the Secretariat had 
been circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1241 and G/SPS/GEN/1241/Corr.1.  
5.5.  Interested delegates could subscribe to any one of three e-mail lists to receive information 
and documentation from the Secretariat. One public list would transmit all unrestricted SPS 
documents, whereas the second list would transmit all unrestricted documents other than notifications. The third list was for SPS delegates only, for the transmission of restricted 
documents, communications from the Chair, faxes, room documents and other non-public 
documentation. Documents were provided through the various e-mail lists in the original language in which they were submitted by Members, and translations of these documents were accessible through the SPS IMS or WTO's Docs-on-line. The Secretariat highlighted the importance of 
Members submitting correct e-mail addresses for the appropriate contact lists in order to receive 
documentation from the Secretariat. 
5.6.  The Secretariat reported that 51 Members had to date requested access to the online 
notification system and that almost 50% of notifications were now submitted online. More detailed 
information as to which countries were using the online system would be provided in the annual report on transparency. 
5.7.  Senegal flagged the lack of understanding  in certain countries as to how the online 
notification procedure worked and specifically referred to the lack of communication between the two entities in charge of notifying: the National Notifying Authority and the National Focal Point. The Secretariat recalled its engagement to provide information and instructions to any Member 
requesting access to the online notification system or seeking further clarification and offered to 
further discuss the issue directly with Senegal. 
6  IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
6.1.  No Member provided information under this agenda item. 
6.2.  The Secretariat drew Member's attention to  the document that had been circulated by the 
Committee on Trade and Development on 14 June 2013 (WT/COMTD/W/196). The document 
provided a useful compilation of all the special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions across 
the various WTO Agreements along with their st ate of implementation. Under request of the 
Committee on Trade and Development, the Secretaria t had provided an update of the discussion of 
S&D provisions in the SPS Agreement, which was included in this document. The document 
covered the six provisions of S&D, including technical assistance, and the related activities carried 
out by the SPS Committee. 
7  EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 
7.1  Information from members on their experiences 
7.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 7.2  Information from releva nt observer organizations 
7.2.  No Observer provided any information under this agenda item. G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 14 - 
 
  8  PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 
8.1  Annual report on implementati on of Article 6 (G/SPS/GEN/1245) 
8.1.  The Secretariat recalled that in April 2008, the Committee had adopted guidelines to further 
the practical implementation of Article 6 (SPS/ 48). The guidelines required the Secretariat to 
prepare an annual report to the Committee on the implementation of Article 6 based on the 
information provided by Members concerning: a) requests for recognition of pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence; b) determinations on whether to recognize a 
pest- or disease-free area or area of low pest  or disease prevalence; and/or c) Members' 
experiences in the implementation of Article 6 and the provision of relevant background 
information by Members on their decisions to ot her interested Members. This year's report 
(G/SPS/GEN/1245) covered 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, and was based on information 
provided by Members through notifications or during SPS Committee meetings. This information 
was frequently provided under the agenda item "Pest- and or Disease-Free Areas - Article 6". Relevant information provided under other agenda items was also included in the report. The 
Secretariat welcomed any comments or suggestions regarding the report. 
8.2  Information from Members on  their pest or disease status 
8.2.1  Australia – Freedom from Highly  Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) 
8.2.  Australia reported that the H7N7 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus had been found in 
November 2012 in one free-range poultry enterprise producing eggs. The OIE had been notified of the occurrence of the virus and Australia had prov ided regular updates on the development of the 
incident. By 20 December 2012, stamping-out operations (including humane destruction, disposal, 
cleansing and disinfection) had been completed and reported to the OIE. No further occurrences of 
the virus had been reported and Australia had on 20 March 2013 again met the requirements of the OIE to be recognised as a country free from HPAI. Australia thanked those trading partners 
that did not apply additional measures or that adopted measures that produced minimal trade 
disruption. Australia requested those Members that were still applying restrictive trade measures in response to this incident to remove these measures and recognise Australia as a country free 
from HPAI. 
8.2.2  Argentina – OIE recognition of FMD freedom 8.3.  Argentina indicated that in May 2013, the OIE had recognised the province of San Juan as 
free from FMD without vaccination (Resolution No.17 of the 81
st OIE General Session). The other 
three FMD-free areas of Argentina were: a) Centro Norte, FMD-free with vaccination; b) Cordon 
Fronterizo, FMD-free with vaccination; c) Patagonia Argentina, FMD-free without vaccination. Argentina would soon provide detailed information on all four FMD-free areas. 
8.2.3  Argentina – OIE recognition of freedom from African Horse Sickness 
8.4.  Argentina reported that in May 2013, the OIE had recognised Argentina as a country free 
from African Horse Sickness (Resolution No. 21 of the 81
st OIE General Session). 
8.2.4  Reporting pest and disease status to the WTO, IPPC and OIE 
8.5.  The Secretariat noted that some Member s had submitted documents providing information 
on the pest and disease status in their territo ries. These documents had been circulated and 
Members could access them online. In this regard, the Secretariat recalled that the IPPC and the 
OIE had recently reminded Members to ensure that this information was also reported to the IPPC 
or the OIE directly, as there was no mechanism in place to automatically transmit the submitted documents from the WTO Secretariat to the IPPC and the OIE, or vice-versa. 
8.3  Information from Members on their expe riences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas 
8.6.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 15 - 
 
  8.4  Information from releva nt observer organizations 
8.7.  OIE tabled a document describing the OIE BSE risk assessment process that had been in 
place since 2004 (G/SPS/GEN/1256). OIE also indicated that the latest results of the official disease status recognition of OIE members were available for FMD, BSE, contagious bovine 
pleuropneumonia and, for the first time, also for African Horse sickness. This information could be 
found in G/SPS/GEN/1255. 
9  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CO-OPERATION 
9.1  Information from the Secretariat 
9.1.1  WTO SPS activities (G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.3) 9.1.  The Secretariat indicated that since the la st Committee meeting, general training on the SPS 
Agreement had been provided in the following acti vities: a) an Advanced Trade Policy Course (in 
English), held in Geneva; b) a WTO seminar for English-speaking journalists from African and 
Asian countries, held in Geneva; c) a Regional Trade Policy Course for Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus, held in Turkey; and d) a Regional Trade Policy Course for French-
speaking Africa, held in Tunisia. 
9.2.  Upcoming Geneva-based SPS training activities by the WTO Secretariat included: the 
Advanced SPS Course, which would be held in En glish, on 7-25 October 2013; and the Workshop 
on SPS-related Market Access Challenges and Opportunities, on 14 October 2013. Regional 
activities were scheduled in Libreville, Gabon, for French-speaking African countries (17-20 September 2013); and in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, for Arab countries (4-7 November 2013). 
9.3.  Over 700 applications had been received fo r the planned technical assistance activities for 
2013. There had been 254 applications for the Advanced SPS Course; 272 applications for the Workshop on SPS-related Market Access Challenges and Opportunities; 155 applications for the 
Regional SPS Workshop for French-speaking Afri ca; and 70 applications for the Regional SPS 
Workshop for Arab countries. 
9.4.  National seminars were scheduled to be held in: the Philippines (week of 29 July); Haiti (5-
6 November); Honduras (week of 11 November ); and China (week of 25 November). Other 
national seminars were being planned for Laos, Tunisia and Zimbabwe. 
9.5.  The Secretariat highlighted the Follow-up Session to the 2012 Advanced SPS Course, which 
was held 20-28 June and was attended by 21 part icipants from LDCs and developing countries 
who had participated in the Advanced SPS Course in 2012. 
9.6.  The Secretariat recalled that the e-learning course on the SPS Agreement was available year-
round in the three WTO official languages. Furthe r information on SPS-related technical assistance 
could be obtained on the WTO website (under trade-related technical assistance), or by contacting 
the Secretariat for additional clarification and assistance. 
9.1.2  STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1251) 
9.7.  The STDF Secretariat indicated that the study on International Trade and Invasive Alien 
Species (IAS) had been completed. The study compared key provisions of two relevant instruments, the SPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and was not intended to be a legal interpretation. Three key recommendations that emerged from the study 
were highlighted: a) the SPS Committee should consider developing guidance regarding the 
relationship between IAS and the SPS Agreement; b) countries should assess, monitor and manage IAS, where possible, in accordance with the relevant IPPC and OIE standards and 
guidelines; c) increased collaboration among environmental and animal and plant health 
authorities was needed. The study could be consulted at the STDF web page: http://www.standardsfacility.o rg/Files/IAS/STDF_IAS_EN.pdf . G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 16 - 
 
  9.8.  The STDF Secretariat reported on the work shop on the application of the Multi-Criteria 
Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool to inform SPS deci sion-making, which was recently held in Geneva. 
The framework aimed at helping countries in prioritising among a range of SPS investment options to solve identified SPS problems related to specific commodities. Information on MCDA was 
available in a briefing note on the STDF websit e. Since 2011, the framework had been applied in 
ten countries – four of which were with direct STDF involvement. The other MCDA applications were driven by COMESA and USAID. 
9.9.  More information on other STDF activities , including on-going STDF work on SPS and Trade 
Facilitation could be found in G/SPS/GEN/1251. The STDF Secretariat would undergo an external mid-term review later this year for which results should be available in December. The STDF Secretariat would keep the Committee informed about the outcome of the review process. 
9.10.  Belize, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Viet Nam and COMESA thanked the STDF for its assistance 
and support in various activities. Viet Nam recommended that developing countries contact the STDF Secretariat for more guidance and assistance as to how to apply the MCDA in their 
territories. Senegal asked whether it was possible to deliver any of the STDF training sessions in 
French to provide non-English speaking countries with access to relevant information. Belize looked forward to specific recommendations on  how to further enhance the MCDA framework, 
which had proved to be a very effective mechanis m for attracting investments in SPS programmes. 
Burkina Faso asked whether the STDF study cons idered any proposal for destroying IAS in 
environmentally friendly ways that would avoid destroying other species. 
9.11.  The STDF Secretariat explained that the official working language of the STDF was English; 
nonetheless, all the working documents were translated into Spanish and French. The Secretariat 
also noted that the scope of the STDF was not to provide training sessions, as the STDF was a partnership of five organizations (WB, FAO, WHO,  OIE, WTO) together with a number of bilateral 
donors and a number of developing countries experts. Occasionally, the STDF participated in WTO 
training events providing sessions on specific to pics, while partners and donors were encouraged 
to use and disseminate STDF material. With regard  to the study on IAS, the Secretariat explained 
that it did not entail specific recommendations on environmentally friendly measures, as it mainly 
focused on existing frameworks and tools set up by the OIE and the IPPC, and on how they should 
be used. 
9.2  Information from Members 
9.2.1  Technical assistance provided by Japan (G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.1) 
9.12.  Japan reported on the SPS-related technical assistance it had delivered from 1 April 2012 to 
31 March 2013 (G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.1). Since 2009, 37 programmes on technical assistance 
had been provided, targeting more than 30 count ries and amounting to a total of 2.4 billion 
Japanese yen. The overseas aid programme was managed by the Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA). 
9.3  Information from observers 
9.13.  The IPPC reported that the second meet ing of its Capacity Development Committee took 
place on 27-31 May 2013, while the third meeting was planned for mid-November. The phytosanitary technical resources web page ( http://phytosanitary.info ) had migrated to a new IT 
platform. An e-learning course on pest risk analysis was available in English and Spanish and 
would soon be translated into Arabic and Russian . The IPPC was seeking resources to translate the 
course into French. A roster of consultants and self-nominated experts had been launched and was 
available through the phytosanitary.info page. IP PC looked forward to working closely with the 
S T D F  i n  m a k i n g  t h e  b e s t u s e  o f M C D A  i n  t h e  S P S  c o n t e x t .  M or e  i n f o r m a t i o n  o n  I P P C  ac t i v i t i e s  could be found in G/SPS/GEN/1246. 
9.14.  The OIE tabled a document on its recently carried out activities (G/SPS/GEN/1255) and 
highlighted the forthcoming conference on veterinary education and the role of Veterinary Statutory Bodies (VSB) that would take place in Brazil, on 4-6 December 2013. G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 17 - 
 
  9.15.  IICA thanked the United States and Canada for their contributions that had enabled IICA to 
continue supporting the programme for participation in Codex Alimentarius meetings. Further information on the IICA's activities could be found in G/SPS/GEN/1249. 
9.16.  The African Union reported on the training-of-trainers for French-speaking countries that 
took place in November 2012 in collaboration wi th the three sisters and the STDF. The African 
Union also indicated that it was planning to organize a workshop for national authorities and inquiry points in November 2013. 
9.17.  The Secretariat noted that training on the SPS Agreement was among the most requested 
of training activities from all WTO Members, but the reduction in contributions to the WTO Global Trust Fund could hamper the ability of the Secretar iat to respond to requests for such training. The 
Secretariat therefore urged donor Members keep this in mind when considering contributions to 
the Global Trust Fund, and encouraged Members who would like training on the SPS Agreement to 
make their requests as early as possible. 
10  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
10.1  Issues arising from the Second Review 
10.1.1  Use of ad hoc consultations (G/SPS/W/259/Rev.6) – Report on informal 
meeting 
10.1.  The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting on ad hoc consultations held on 
26 June 2013. In this meeting, the Chairperson had first recalled that the Committee had been discussing for several years the development of a procedure that would provide more clarity and predictability when requesting the Chairperson's good offices to help Members resolve SPS-related 
differences. Use of the Chair' s good offices was already available to Members under the 
Committee's Rules of Procedure, but had only been used a few times and long time ago. 
10.2.  The Chairperson had reminded Members that after many rounds of Committee discussions 
and many subsequent revisions of G/SPS/W/259, in October 2012 the Committee had decided to 
move the process forward by forming an electron ic working group (e-WG) to continue work in 
between Committee meetings. The e-WG had been open to all Members who had indicated their 
interest before a certain date - 28 Members had responded. To assist the e-WG process, the 
Chairperson had invited volunteer "stewards" on ea ch of the five identified outstanding elements. 
Each steward had worked in an individual capacity, and not as a representative of his or her government. The stewards had used various format s to obtain input from the e-Working Group, 
and the responses from the e-Working Group had pr ovided the basis for stewards to develop their 
compromise texts for each of the five areas. 
10.3.  Despite some initial scepticism, thanks to the hard work and dedication of the stewards and 
the positive engagement and involvement of th e e-Working Group participants, the process had 
resulted in G/SPS/W/259/Rev.5. This document presented a compromise that reflected an evolution of many Members' positions. There had been agreement to consider G/SPS/W/259/Rev.5 
as the basis for future discussions. This text ha d been discussed in detail at the informal meeting 
in March, and Members had been invited to su bmit any comments in writing by 19 April 2013. 
These comments, and those already submitted by members of the e-Working Group, were posted on the Members' website to ensure transparency. 
10.4.  The stewards had further revised their proposed compromises in light of all these 
comments. This process had resulted in a draft document that was circulated to the e-Working Group for comments on 29 May 2013. Comments were received from 11 Members and were 
posted on the Members' Website. 
10.5.  The comments from the e-WG had been very diverse and while some new suggestions had 
been made, in many cases Members had reiterated their previous positions. In light of this, the 
Chairperson had decided, with the assistance of th e Secretariat, to put forward language that she 
thought would be the best solution for bridging the different positions expressed by Members. Not 
every comment from every Member could be taken on  board, although at least one suggestion had G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 18 - 
 
  been accepted from each Member who had subm itted comments. This process had resulted in 
G/SPS/W/259/Rev.6. 
10.6.  At the informal meeting on 26 June 2013, the Chairperson had reminded the Committee 
that Members were not negotiating a legal text, nor were they not creating any new legal 
obligations or a new process. The purpose of their work was simply to spell out a step-by-step 
procedure by which the already existing "good o ffices" process could be more optimally used. 
A concrete procedure would provide a level of comfort on the transparency and predictability of the 
process and this was the result they were trying  to achieve. The Chairperson had therefore asked 
Members to consider whether the draft text added value compared to the status quo, and to be flexible. 
10.7.  A detailed discussion had taken place on G/SPS/W/259/Rev.6 category-by-category. 
Members had a few edits to suggest to the text, but very few substantive concerns had been 
raised. 
10.8.  In terms of the next steps, the Chairperso n had proposed to carefully consider all of the 
comments that had been made on G/SPS/W/259/Rev.6 at this meeting. Suggestions that 
improved the process would be incorporated into a revised document if received by 2 August 2013. The Chairperson might also consult with some of the Members in order to find the best possible 
solution for the remaining unresolved elements. 
10.9.  A revised document (G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7) would be circulated at the beginning of 
September and tabled for adoption at the October meeting. The Chairperson had clarified that she would not be seeking further comments on the revised text. Rather, the Chairperson emphasized 
that it was time to decide whether the proposed procedure added value compared to the status 
quo, keeping in mind that this procedure woul d be reviewed within a short period of time. 
Members should have adequate time until the October meeting to carefully consider the proposed 
text and to come prepared to take a decision in October. 
10.10.  If the Committee were unable to adopt the document in October, then the Chairperson 
would propose to take this issue off the table until there would be a clear indication from Members 
with divergent views that they were ready to move forward on this issue. 
10.11.  In commenting on the Chairperson's oral report, Hong Kong, China indicated that it had 
been unable to attend the 24 June informal meeting and in regard to the draft text suggested: a) clarification of the second part of paragraph 2. 2; and b) to properly define the term 'consulting 
Member' in paragraph 2.6 to avoid confusion on whether this included third party participating 
Members. 
10.12.  The Chairperson reiterated that comments wh ich improved the process, if submitted before 
2 August 2013, would be taken into consideration.  
10.2  Preparation for Fourth Review 10.13.  The Secretariat reminded Members that, in accordance with the decision taken by Ministers 
at the Doha Ministerial meeting, the SPS Committee should review the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement during 2014. The Secretariat offered to prepare a proposal 
on how to proceed in undertaking the next review and subsequently would prepare a background document regarding the implementation of the Agreement and what had changed since the last 
review. It was up to Members to identify what specific issues or proposals they would like to 
discuss during the review. 
10.14.  The Secretariat also drew attention to th e thematic meeting on good regulatory practice 
that the TBT Committee had held during the previo us week and encouraged Members to read the 
report prepared by the TBT Committee on the issue. G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 19 - 
 
  11  MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
11.1  New Issues 11.1.  Brazil highlighted the 50
th anniversary of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the 
importance of Codex standards and the need to ensure that these remained based on scientific 
evidence (G/SPS/GEN/1253). Argentina, Australia, Belize, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, 
Cuba, the Dominican Republic, the European Union, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Switzerland, and the United States also stressed the importance of Codex 
and other international standards. Some Members called for Codex to harmonize private 
standards, which are not always based on science. Several Members also noted the particular relevance of standards for developing countries, and the contribution of the Codex Trust Fund in promoting the participation of developing countries in the body's work. 
11.2.  Argentina and Chile reiterated their proposal that the SPS Committee's monitoring 
procedure adequately reflect how Codex and other standards are used by Members. Argentina drew the Committee's attention to its proposal on the monitoring procedure (G/SPS/W/268) and 
noted that the topic of monitoring the use of in ternational standards could be addressed in the 
context of the Fourth Review of the Operatio n and Implementation of the SPS Agreement. 
11.3.  The observer from the Lebanese Republic noted the lack of a standard on maximum residue 
levels of antibiotics and pesticides in honey, and encouraged Codex to develop such a standard. 
11.2  Issues previously raised 11.4.  The IPPC reported on its Implementation Review and Support System (IRSS) 
(G/SPS/GEN/1259). Seventy-three contracting parties had replied to a survey sent on the 
implementation of the IPPC and ISPMs, and a draft report would be made available at a later 
stage. The IPPC thanked the European Union for it s support during the first cycle of the IRRS. It 
was preparing a concept note outlining the future direction and focus of IRSS work during the next 
cycle, and hoped to make present the recommendations on this to the October 2013 SPS 
Committee meeting. 
11.3  Adoption of the Annual Report (G/SPS/W/269) 
11.5.  The Committee adopted the Fifteenth Annual Report on the procedure to monitor the 
process of international harmonization, with modifications. The adopted report was subsequently circulated as G/SPS/60. 
12  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
12.1  Report on the informal meeting  
12.1.  The Chairperson reported on an informal meeting of SPS-related private standards held on 
Wednesday, 26 June 2013. 
12.2.  At the informal meeting, the Chairperson had recalled that the Committee had agreed to 
develop a working definition of SPS-related private standards in order to set the framework within which it would discuss the issue. Agreed Action 1 (G/SPS/55) did not propose a legal definition, 
but merely sought a framework to limit the scope of issues considered by the Committee. 
12.3.  The Chairperson had also reminded the Committee that, as stated in paragraph 4 of 
G/SPS/55, endorsement of the adopted actions wa s without prejudice to the views of Members 
regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
12.4.  The Chairperson had recalled that in March, the six new proposed definitions tabled by 
Members, as well as her suggested compromise definition, had prompted some constructive discussions. In addition, China had suggested some new wording for a definition which had 
gathered support from several Members. However,  as no consensus had emerged, the Chairperson 
had invited Members to submit revised or new wr itten proposals for a working definition of SPS-
related private standards by 19 April 2013. G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 20 - 
 
  12.5.  Only China and New Zealand had submitted new proposals for a definition, and the 
Chairperson had taken the initiative of asking them to try to develop a joint proposal. She had commended China and New Zealand for their leadership and constructive approach, and proposed to give them time to pursue their efforts so that they could hopefully propose a compromise 
definition by October 2013. 
12.6.  China and New Zealand had presented their pr oposed joint definition and shared details on 
their discussions. They had explained the differe nces reflected in brackets, and the reasoning 
behind their own positions. This prompted a useful discussion. Several Members had taken the 
floor to support the joint effort by China and New Zealand, to flag particular concerns, and to support specific elements from the bracketed port ions of the proposed joint working definition. 
12.7.  Members had agreed to give China and New Zealand time to continue their work on a joint 
proposed definition, taking into account the comments made during the informal meeting and any 
other comments submitted to the Secretariat by 2 August 2013. 
12.8.  Under Action 4, China had noted that it would be useful and relevant when communicating 
with non-governmental entities, that Members make reference to the Code of Good Practice of the 
TBT Agreement and to the TBT Committee's Decision on the "Six Principles" for the preparation of 
international standards. The Code of Good Practice  was particularly useful with regard to private 
standards developed at the national and regional levels, while the Decision was relevant for private 
standards with international ramifications. China had noted that some Members were already communicating with private entities in their terri tories involved in the development, application 
and certification of private standards, including the running of some pilot-projects on private 
schemes. China encouraged other Members to follow suit and to share their experiences. 
12.9.  Regarding China's reference to the Code of Good Practice, Belize had noted the linkages 
between the different recommendations of the ad hoc working group on private standards. Belize 
flagged the need to consider some actions jointl y, noting the link between the implementation of 
Action 4 and proposed Actions 10 and 11, and suggested specific textual changes to Action 4. Some Members had welcomed Belize's suggestion as a good way forward which could facilitate the 
process of implementing Action 4. It had also  been suggested that the Committee could explore 
possibilities to move forward on Action s 6-12 with the help of facilitators. 
12.10.  However, some other Members had noted th at there was no consensus on Actions 6 to 12 
and that the Committee should focus on standard s that harmonized with the standards set by 
Codex, the IPPC and OIE. 
12.11.  On Action 5, Chile had noted the importance of increased awareness about the operations 
of private standard-setting organizations, and flagged that OIE had some experience in that 
regard. The collaboration of both OIE and Codex wi th private standard-setting organizations could 
be important in improving the implementation of f ood safety and other standards, whether official 
or private. The OIE had stated that its 2010 Ge neral Session had addressed the issue of private 
standards, resulting in the development of a Resolution guiding OIE's relations with private 
standard-setting bodies. The OIE provided the text of the Resolution to the Committee. 
12.12.  The Chairperson had encouraged Me mbers to share information regarding the 
implementation of Actions 2 to 5, and invited Beli ze to provide its proposal for further elaboration 
of Action 4 for consideration by the Committee. 
12.13.  UNCTAD had reported on the launch of its UN Forum on Sustainability Standards (UNFSS) 
platform in March 2013 and made a presentation addressing the role of the UNFSS, its added-
value, structure, priority issues and activities, as well as the envisaged pro-active role of 
developing country governments. The presentation  had prompted a lot of interest and questions 
from the Committee. The representative of UNCTAD had noted that more information and contact 
details were available on the UNFSS website ( http://www.unfss.org ). 
12.14.  Commenting on the Chairperson's oral report, China and New Zealand thanked the 
Chairperson for her initiatives towards a working definition of SPS-related private standards. Both China and New Zealand appreciated the comments Members had made at the informal meeting, 
and looked forward to further collaboration. G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 21 - 
 
  13  OBSERVERS 
13.1  Information from Observer Organizations  13.1.  The International Organization for Standardiz ation (ISO) gave an overview of its activities 
(G/SPS/GEN/1248). The ISO also congratulated Codex on its 50
th anniversary, and highlighted 
cooperation with both Codex and the OIE on work related to test methods, other technical 
subjects, and in the organization of joint training sessions. 
13.2.  The African Union (AU) gave an update of  its activities (G/SPS/GEN/1250). It outlined 
several SPS-related meetings it had attended and/or hosted. The AU also noted that the Uganda 
Organic Certification Organization (UgoCert) had made an application, on behalf of organic stakeholders in East Africa, for EU recognition of the East African Organic Products Standards (EAOPS). The African Union Interafrican Phytosanitary Council (AU-IAPSC) was consulting its 
members on certain draft specifications detailed in the report. 
13.3.  The International Regional Organization for Plant and Animal Health (OIRSA), which had 
indicated its inability to attend this meeting, had submitted a written report on its recent activities 
(G/SPS/GEN/1257). 
13.2  Requests for Observer Status 13.4.  The Chairperson recalled the outstanding requests for ad hoc observer status in the SPS 
Committee, from the Convention on Biological Dive rsity (CBD), CABI International, the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV), the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC), and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO). The Chairperson observed that there was no change 
in Members' positions and no consensus at this time to grant ad hoc observer status to any of 
these organizations. 
14  CHAIRPERSON'S ANNUAL REPORT TO  THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
14.1.  The Chairperson noted that she would make a factual annual report, under her own 
responsibility, on the activities of the Committee for consideration by the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) in October. Members could request a draft report from the Secretariat, and provide 
comments by 2 August 2013. 
15  OTHER BUSINESS 15.1.  No Member provided information under this agenda item. 16  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS 
16.1.  The proposed dates for the 2014 meetings of the Committee are: 24-26 March, 8-10 July, 
and 14-16 October (G/SPS/GEN/1262). The dates proposed for the March and July meetings would be back-to-back with tentative meetings of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures and the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission, respectively, in order to facilitate delegates' travel. Argentina 
requested that the secretary of the TBT Commi ttee be informed of the proposed dates for 
SPS Committee meetings, as back-to-back meetin gs with the TBT Committee created difficulties 
for its participation. 
16.2.  The Chairperson recalled that the next meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled 
for 16-18 October 2013. The meeting would be prec eded by a workshop on SPS-related market 
access challenges and opportunities (G/SPS/GEN/1254) on 14 October, as well as informal 
consultations on private standards on 15 October 2013. 
16.3.  The Committee agreed to the following tentative agenda for its October meeting: 1. Adoption of the agenda 
2. Information on relevant activities G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 22 - 
 
  a) Information from Members 
b) Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies 
3. Specific trade concerns 
a) New issues 
b) Issues previously raised 
[(c) Consideration of specific notifications received] 
d) Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
4. Operation of transparency provisions 
5. Implementation of special and differential treatment 6. Equivalence – Article 4 
a) Information from Members on their experiences 
b) Information from relevant Observer organizations 
7. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
a) Information from Members on their pest or disease status 
b) Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or disease-free 
areas 
c) Information from relevant observer organizations 
8. Technical assistance and co-operation 
a) Information from the Secretariat 
i. WTO SPS activities 
ii. Report on Workshop on Market Access 
iii. STDF 
b) Information from Members 
c) Information from Observers 
9. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
a) Issues arising from the Second Review 
i. Use of ad hoc consultations  
b) Issues arising from the Third Review 
c) Fourth Review – Preparatory work 
10. Monitoring of the use of international standards 
a) New issues 
b) Issues previously raised 
11. Concerns with private and commercial standards 
a) Report on informal meeting 
12. Observers 
a) Information from Observer organizations 
b) Request for observer status 
13. Other business G/SPS/R/71 
 
- 23 - 
 
  14. Date and agenda of next meeting 
 
16.4.  Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines: 
 For comments on the draft working proposal on SPS-related private standards (to China and 
New Zealand); for comments on the draft annual re port to the CTG; and on the procedure for 
ad hoc consultations (G/SPS/W/259/Rev.6): Friday, 2 August ;  
 For including an item arising from the Third Review in the agenda for the October Committee 
meeting: Friday, 2 August ;  
 For identifying issues under the monitoring proc edure and requesting that items be put on the 
agenda: Thursday, 3 October ;  
 For distribution of the Airgram and circulation of documents: Friday, 4 October 2013 . 
 
__________