RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/84  
 
22 December 2016  
(16-7020) Page: 1/29 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 SUMMARY OF THE MEETI NG OF 27-28 OCTOBER  2016  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  4 
2.1.1    Japan – Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukus hima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  ................................ ................................ ......................  4 
2.1.2    Russian Federation – Possible scenario on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  4 
2.1.3    Ukraine – New import requirements on live animals, food products of animal 
origin, and other products  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 
2.1.4    Australia – Update on BSE country assessments  ................................ ...........................  4 
2.1.5    Peru - Guide to improve the safety of mahi -mahi exports (G/SPS/GEN/1518)  ..................  5 
2.1.6    Canada – Update on safe food for Canadians regulations (G/SPS/GEN/1524)  ...................  5 
2.2   Information from OIE, CODEX and IPPC on relevant activities  ................................ ...........  5 
2.2.1    CODEX (G/SPS/GEN/1520 ) ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
2.2.2    OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1519)  ................................ ................................ .............................  5 
2.2.3    IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/1529)  ................................ ................................ ............................  5 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS ................................ ................................ .......................  6 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  6 
3.1.1    EU MRLs for bitertanol, tebufenpyrad and chlormequat (G/SPS/N/EU/168 ) - 
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  6 
3.1.2    Guatemala's restrictions on egg products - Concerns of Mexico  ................................ ...... 6 
3.1.3    Indonesia's food safety measures affecting horticultural products and animal 
products – Concerns of the Philippines  ................................ ................................ ...................  7 
3.1.4    US seafood import monitoring programme - Concerns of China  ................................ ...... 7 
3.1.5    China's import ban on fresh mangosteen - Concerns of Indonesia  ................................ ... 8 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ...............................  8 
3.2.1    China's import restrictions on Japanese foods in response to the nuclear power 
plant accident – Concerns of Japan (No. 354)  ................................ ................................ .........  8 
3.2.2    Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on Japanese foods in response to the nuclear 
power plant accident – Concerns of Japan (No. 387)  ................................ ...............................  8 
                                                
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/84  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2.3    EU revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors – 
Concerns  of Argentina, China and the United States (No. 382)  ................................ .................  9 
3.2.4    Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Novel Foods - 
Concerns of Peru (No. 238)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .10 
3.2.5    US measures on catfish – Concerns of China and Viet Nam (No. 289)  ............................ 11 
3.2.6    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery pr oducts from 
Estonia and Latvia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  ................................ .............. 12 
3.2.7    China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza – Concerns of 
the European Union and t he United States (No. 406)  ................................ .............................. 12 
3.2.8    General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 13 
3.2.9    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  ................................ ........................... 13 
3.2.10    Brazil's measures on shrimp - Concerns of Ecuador  (No. 344)  ................................ .....14 
3.2.11    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 392)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 14 
3.2.12   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European  Union (No. 393)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...15 
3.2.13    Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of phytosanitary import certificates f or 
avocados (G/SPS/N/CRI/160, G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/CRI/162)  – 
Concerns of Mexico (No. 394)  ................................ ................................ .............................. 15 
3.2.14    India's amendment to its import policy conditions for apples; restriction to  Nhava 
Sheva port - Concerns of New Zealand (No. 397)  ................................ ................................ ...16 
3.2.15    China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOs (G/SPS/N/CHN/881) – Concerns of the United States 
(No. 395) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 16 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16  ................................ ......... 17 
4   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 17 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 17 
4.2   Pest- and disease -free areas  ................................ ................................ ........................ 17 
4.2.1    Mexico - Recognition of areas free of Classical Swine Fever and BSE  .............................. 17 
4.2.2    Mexico – Areas free of fruit flies (G/SPS/GEN/1512) ................................ ..................... 17 
4.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ............ 17 
4.3.1    Update from the Secretariat on the modernization of the SPS IMS and NSS  .................... 17 
4.3.2    Transparency overview (G/SPS/GEN/804/REV.9)  ................................ ......................... 18 
4.3.3    Proposal by Chile and the European Union (G/SPS/W/290)  ................................ ........... 18 
4.4   Special and Differential Treatment  ................................ ................................ ................ 19 
4.5   Monitoring of the use of International Standards  ................................ ............................ 19 
4.5.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 19 
4.5.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 20 
4.6   Fourth Review (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2, G/SPS/W/280/Re v.2) ................................ ............. 20 
4.6.1    Report of the informal meeting  ................................ ................................ .................. 20 
4.7   Chairperson's annual report to the CTG  ................................ ................................ ......... 21 
5   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  22 
5.1   Report on Workshop on Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs)  ................................ ................ 22 G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 3 - 
 
  5.2   Creation of a Working Group on Implementation - Proposal from Brazil  ............................. 24 
6   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  24 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................. 24 
6.1.1    WTO SPS activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...24 
6.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1516)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 
6.2.1    Technical assistance to developing countries provided by Canada  ................................ ..25 
6.2.2    Technical assistance provided by Australia  ................................ ................................ ..25 
7   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  ................................ ...... 26 
8   OBSER VERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  27 
8.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ .......27 
8.1.1    IICA (G/SPS/GEN/1515)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 27 
8.1.2    SADC (G/SPS/GEN/1517)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 27 
8.1.3    IGAD (G/SPS/GEN/1521)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 27 
8.1.4    OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/1523)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 27 
8.1.5    African Union (G/SPS/GEN/1525)  ................................ ................................ .............. 27 
8.1.6    OECD (G/SPS/GEN/1528)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 27 
8.1.7    ITC (G/SPS/GEN/1530)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 27 
8.2   Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.13)  ................................ ....................... 27 
8.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 27 
8.2.2    Outstanding requests  ................................ ................................ ............................... 28 
9   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 28 
10   DATE AND A GENDA FOR NEXT MEETI NGS................................ ................................  28 
 G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its 
67th regular meeting on 27 -28 October 2016. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted 
with amendments (WTO/AIR/SPS/12/Rev.1).  
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members  on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Japan – Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  
2.1.  Japan provided an update on the d evelopments since the last Committee  meeting , reporting 
on the most recent data from its food monitoring exercise, its ongoing efforts to ensure food 
safety, and the latest assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)  in 
August  2016, which i ndicated that the situation remained stable. Japan recalled  that all the test 
results in 2015, with the exception of wild animal products, had been beneath the Codex guideline 
level. In addition, the assessment by the IAEA had confirmed that Japan's food s upply chain was 
under the effective control of the relevant authorities. Japan expressed its appreciation to French 
Polynesia , Israel, Nepal, New Caledonia,  Qatar and the United States for either lifting or easing 
import restrictions. Lastly, Japan welcome d visits from Members still maintaining import 
restrictions  to better assess  the current food safety situation as well as to benefit from a guided 
tour of the plant site. 
2.1.2   Russian Federation – Possible scenario on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region  
2.2.  The Russian Federation provided an update on the spread of African swine fever (ASF) in 
Eastern Europe. It reported that since the last Committee, ASF had been introduced into the 
Republic of Moldova and was spreading across the Eurasian region as w ell as in Belarus, Estonia, 
Latvia,  Lithuania, Poland, the Russian Federation and Ukraine,  according to OIE data. The Russian 
Federation stressed that there was no cure for ASF , one of the mos t dangerous animal diseases. It 
noted that thousands of domestic  pigs and wild boars had so far been destroyed, despite all 
quarantine measures taken since 2007 when ASF was initially detected in Georgia. Farmers had 
received financial compensation amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. Additionally, live 
animal  exporters had suffered losses due to trade restrictions. The Russian Federation indicated 
that the most dangerous route of transmission of infection was through illegal transboundary 
movement of contaminated products. A global framework for transboundary animal diseases was 
needed to improve transparency and data exchange between veterinary services of affected 
countries in view of controlling the disease spread.  
2.1.3   Ukraine – New import requirements on live animals, food products of animal 
origin , and other p roducts  
2.3.  Ukraine provided information on its new import requirements notified as G/SPS/N/UKR/111. 
An unofficial translation was available in line with the transparency proposal by Chile and the 
European Union. The new regulation, which covered live animals;  reproductive materials of 
animals; food products of animal origin; and products not intended for human consumption, 
including feed, would likely come into force in the second quarter of 2017. Ukraine finally 
highlighted its efforts to strengthen its SPS r egulatory framework and improve transparency.  
2.1.4   Australia – Update on BSE country assessments  
2.4.  Australia provided information on the BSE food safety risk assessment completed for 
Sweden. The assessment undertaken by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSAN Z) indicated 
that Sweden had in place comprehensive and well established controls to prevent the introduction 
and amplification of the BSE agent as well as contamination of the human food supply with the 
agent. Sweden was recommended for category 1 BSE stat us, which meant that heat treated and 
shelf stable beef products originating from cattle born, reared and slaughtered in Sweden could be 
exported to Australia once certification had been agreed . G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.1.5   Peru - Guide to improve the safety of mahi -mahi exports (G/SP S/GEN/1518)  
2.5.  Peru informed Members of the work being done by the National Fisheries Health Service 
(SANIPES) to improve the safety of Peruvian exports of mahi -mahi. SANIPES was established in 
2013 to strengthen the fisheries health authority by enhancing it s technical and scientific 
competitiveness. There was ongoing coordination between SANIPES and the US FDA to facilitate 
marketing of mahi -mahi in the United States. SANIPES had developed a guide for the cooling of 
mahi-mahi products, good practices for con servation , and rating tables for the evaluation of 
freshness. Peru invited Members to direct any questions on the guide and the rating tables to the 
officials whose details could be found in G/SPS/GEN/1518.  
2.1.6   Canada  – Update on safe food for Canadians regula tions (G/SPS/GEN/1524)  
2.6.  Canada recalled the work undertaken since 2012 to modernize its food safety framework. 
Canada informed Members that after several years of consultation it planned to introduce the 
proposed Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) f or domestic and international 
consideration. The draft SFCR would be notified in the coming months and Members would be 
provided with a 90 -day comment period. Canada intended  to hold an information session in 
Geneva on the proposed regulations in early 201 7. Additional information was available in 
G/SPS/GEN/1524.  
2.2  Information from OIE, CODEX and IPPC on relevant activities  
2.2.1   CODEX  (G/SPS/GEN/15 20) 
2.7.  Codex provided an overview of recent and upcoming events. In particular, it reported on the 
Codex Committee on Res idues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) held the week before, in 
Houston, United States. The CCRVDF had forwarded its maximum residue limits and risk 
management recommendations for some veterinary drugs to the Codex Alimentarius Commission 
for final ad option at its next session in 2017. Maximum residue limits for certain drugs would be 
considered in 2018. More information is contained in G/SPS/GEN/1520.  
2.2.2   OIE (G/SPS/GEN/151 9) 
2.8.  The OIE provided an update on developments in standards for terrestrial and aqua tic animals 
and capacity building activities (G/SPS/GEN/1519). Since the last Committee  meeting , its four 
specialist commissions had met to review or develop standards. The full reports of the meetings 
would be available on the OIE website by the end of No vember 2016. Comments were to be 
submitted by the deadlines provided in each report for consideration at a February 2017 meeting. 
Furthermore, the OIE highlighted its capacity building activities, including the OIE PVS Pathway 
Programme and the Regional Fo cal Point Seminars. The OIE highlighted that most developing 
countries had received a PVS evaluation. In addition, Australia had received a PVS evaluation in 
November 2015, Japan in 2016 and Canada would receive it in 2017. Finally, the OIE was planning 
to review the PVS Pathway Programme next year.  
2.2.3   IPPC  (G/SPS/GEN/15 29) 
2.9.  The IPPC provided an update on its recent activities (G/SPS/GEN/1529). In relation with its 
efforts to establish an International Year on Plant Health in 2020, the IPPC would implement five 
thematic years.  The theme for 2016 was "Plant Health and Food Security" and for next year  
it would be  "Plant Health and Trade Facilitation". An initiative to determine how the IPPC could 
contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals had also been imp lemented. As a result of 
the 2014 IPPC Secretariat Enhancement Evaluation, a new oversight body for implementation of 
standards would be established in 2017. The IPPC highlighted its ongoing collaborative work with 
Codex and OIE, and recalled that the upco ming CPM would be held in Incheon, Republic of Korea, 
outside of Rome for the first time.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS 
3.1  New issues  
3.1.  Before the adoption of the agenda, Mexico withdrew its new Specific Trade Concern regarding 
Saudi Arabia's restrictions on honey im ports which had been included on the proposed agenda for 
the meeting, indicating that good progress had been made in bilateral talks.  
3.1.1   EU MRL s for bitertanol, tebufenpyrad and chlormequat (G/SPS/N/EU/168) - 
Concerns of India  
3.2.  India expressed concern s regardi ng proposed am endments to Regulation (EC) No.  396/2005 
to change m aximum residue levels (MRLs) for bitertanol, tebufenpyrad and chlormequat in certain 
products. India had provided detailed comments on the proposed regulation intended to come into 
effect in  February 2017. India highlighted its particular concern with the lowering of MRLs for 
chlormequat in table grapes from 0.05mg/kg to 0.01mg/kg, which would seriously impact Indian 
grape exports to the European Union, which  account ed for almost 25% of India 's grape exports. 
India further noted that according to a  European Food Safety Auth ority (EFSA) study conducted 
in 2010, residue concentrates of chlormequat in table grapes were safe up to 1.06mg/kg. 
Codex  had not fixed any acceptable daily intake limits f or chlormequat in table grapes, but had 
recommended an MRL of 0.05mg per kg. India further highlighted that other countries had set 
higher MRLs for chlormequat in table grapes, such as Australia and New Zealand at 0.75mg/ kg or 
Japan at 0.10mg/k g. The scien tific reference included in the EU notification did not provide any 
specific recommendation on grapes. Thus the proposed lower MRL had no scientific justification, 
was not based on any relevant international standard and wou ld have negative trade effects.  
3.3.  India further expressed its concern with respect to residue levels for bitertanol in wheat , set 
at a default level of 0.01mg/kg  from 0.05 mg/kg . India questioned the rationale behind the 
European Union decision of undertaking a detailed assessment on the Co dex limit. India requested 
the European Union to provide relevant scientific justification in light of Articles 5.4 and 5.8 of the 
SPS Agreement, and to maintain the current MRLs.  India welcomed bilateral discussions.  
3.4.  The European Union recognised Indian p roducers' and regulatory bodies' efforts to comply 
with the existing MRL of 0.05mg/kg for chlormequat . Since 2010  table grapes from India had 
complied with this MRL . For the time being, the European Union had decided to maintain the 
current MRL of 0.05mg/k g in grapes  because the manufacturer had submitted new trial data 
supporting this level , and to review it on the basis of the 2017 JMPR evaluation aimed at 
establishing a Codex standard. In light of the above, the European Union considered that this 
concer n of India had been addressed.  The European Union explained that the default value of 
0.01mg/kg for bitertanol resulted from a recommendation of  the EU reference laboratories and 
not from EFSA 's reasoned opinion. EFSA had highlighted that the l ack of infor mation on the 
toxicological relevance of certain impurities prevented the assessment of Codex levels and the 
inclusion of such levels in the EU  legislation. The same issue had been raised in a previous 
EFSA opinion in 2010. The European Union informed Indi a that it could make a request for an 
import tolerance under Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005  and submit additional data 
that would support re -establishing an MRL and alleviate any conc erns about the metabolites. 
The European Union finally expr essed its openness to bilateral consultations.  
3.1.2   Guatemala's restrictions on egg products - Concerns of Mexico  
3.5.  Mexico expressed its concern on Guatemala's restrictions on egg products. Mexico considered 
the measure to be in violation of fundamental principle s of technical and scientific justification 
based on international standards, principles enshrined in the SPS Agreement and the free trade 
agreement between Mexico and Central America. Mexico noted its preference to promote dialogue; 
however, these efforts  had not been successful. Guatemala continued to impose import restrictions 
on Mexican egg products even though its legislation allowed imports of heat treated avian 
products. Mexico indicated that its egg products exports were significantly affected by th e 
restrictions and requested that Guatemala withdraw its measure in order to resume egg products 
trade between the two countries.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.6.  Guatemala replied that i n October, Guatemala had informed Mexico that it was currently 
conducting a risk assessment and would contact Mexico upon the conclusion of the analysis.  
3.1.3   Indonesia's food safety measures affecting horticultural products and animal 
products – Concerns of the Philippines  
3.7.  The Philippines expressed its concern regarding Indonesia's food safety measures affecti ng 
horticultural products and animal products, and in particular with Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) 
Regulations No.88/2011, No. 42/2012 and No. 04/2015. The Philippines regretted that no progress 
had been made through all bilateral avenues tried so far. Th e Philippines considered the 
regulations to be in violation among others of Articles 2.2, 4, 5.4 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement as 
well as the national treatment principle under Article III of GATT 1994. The measures had no 
scientific justification and were more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve Indonesia's 
appropriate level of protection (ALOP). Exports of horticultural exports had been growing until 
2011, when the measures were first imposed, without posing any serious health or safety risks. 
Furthermore, Indonesia's closure of its main entry port in Jakarta in 2012 heavily impacted on 
Philippine exports of bananas and shallots. Indonesia had unduly delayed the processing of the 
Philippines' applications for recognition of its food safety control s ystem for horticultural products, 
laboratory accreditation and accreditation for animal products, despite follow -up in writing and 
bilateral discussions on numerous occasions. Indonesia's latest measures under MOA Regulation 
No. 04/2015 further overshadowe d efforts to recognise the Philippines' food safety control system. 
The Philippines recognized that some measures, currently being reviewed by dispute settlement 
panels, might not be covered by the SPS Agreement, but noted that the combined effect of both 
SPS and non -SPS measures made Indonesia's system more potently trade restrictive. 
The Philippines  expressed its appreciation for Indonesia's availability on the margins of the current 
Committee meeting and remained committed to continue bilateral discussio ns to resolve this issue.  
3.8.  Indonesia indicated that some regulations at issue were no longer in force. A revision of MoA 
Regulation No. 88/2011 had been notified (G/SPS/N/IDN/94) and implemented in February 2016. 
The regulation set out food safety control s ystems recognition and laboratory registration 
requirements to export fresh foods of plant origin to Indonesia. Since 2012, the Philippines had 
submitted applications for food safety recognition systems for bananas, shallots and pineapples 
and had applied for registration of its food safety testing laboratory in June 2016. However, 
Indonesia was still waiting for additional data necessary for conducting the risk assessment. 
The requirements applied to all WTO Members and, so far, 26  countries had been grant ed access 
to the Indonesian market. Indonesia thanked the Philippines for the explanations received during 
their bilateral talks in the margins of the Committee, and expressed its willingness to continue 
bilateral discussions towards finding a solution.  
3.1.4   US seafood import monitoring programme - Concerns of China  
3.9.  China raised its concern regarding the US Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), 
published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in February 2016. 
China praised US efforts to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood 
fraud. However, China considered the proposed rule to be inconsistent with  a number of key 
principles of the WTO such as transparency , national treatment , scientific justification and  least 
trade restrictiveness . China urged the United States to notify the measure as soon as possible, and 
to provide Members with at least a 60 -day comment period and a 6 -month transition period. 
China  also noted that US traceability requirements and catc h certification for at -risk species 
applied only to imported fish and fish products, and not to domestic products. Additionally, the 
measure was not based on science as it would finally apply  to all imported aquatic products, 
regardless of risk  levels , and  making  no distinctions between aquaculture products and wild 
capture fisheries. China indicated that the regulation required more information than necessary 
and overlapped with other rules, including the International Trade Data System (ITDS), which 
increased costs and generated unnecessary market access delays. China added that the rule would 
do little to combat illegal fishing. China requested more information and expressed its availability 
to work closely with the United States with a view to combating IUU fishing and seafood fraud in a 
WTO consistent manner.  China looked forward to seeing the US notification for this measure.  
3.10.   Chile shared China's concern indicating that it would follow this issue closely and hoped that 
the measure would be notified soon . G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.11.   The United States noted that this issue did not fall under the SPS Agreement. The objective 
of the proposed rule was to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The proposed rule would 
require importers to report certain information upon entry into the Unit ed States to help trace back 
the shipment to the catch or harvest point. The United States further explained that the rule had 
been developed through a transparent process of public notice and comments involving domestic 
and foreign stakeholders, as well a s exporting authorities. The NOAA had received many 
comments, including from China, which were being considered in the first phase of the programme 
covering a reduced list of species. The rule would eventually cover all seafood species in 
subsequent phases . The United States finally highlighted its common objective with China to 
combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud and expressed its interest in a continued engagement on 
this issue.  
3.1.5   China's import ban on fresh mangosteen - Concerns of Indonesia  
3.12.   Indonesia exp ressed its concern regarding China' s import ban on fresh mangosteen fruit 
since February 2013. Indonesia recognized China's right to adopt measures to protect human, 
animal and plant health, but considered the measures to be more trade restrictive than nec essary 
and discriminatory. Indonesia reported that it had taken actions to resolve the alleged pest and 
heavy metal contamination detected on its mangosteen fruits. Such actions included field and 
laboratories verification, as well as negotiations with Chi na on its proposed export protocol. 
Indonesia further expressed its appreciation to China for a field ve rification visit held in 
August  2014, and hoped to receive the report soon. Indonesia requested that China comply with 
Articles 2.3, 5.6, 7, 8 and Annex  C (1a) of the SPS Agreement in order to resume mangosteen 
trade between the two countries, and expressed its willingness to continue bilateral engagement.  
3.13.   China stated that in 2013 it had detected quarantine pests and measured levels of cadmium 
above the level specified in its  standard in Indonesian's mangosteen exports. China said that 
despite several bilateral consultations, the  two sides had not been able to agree on the protocol  
issues yet. China urged Indonesia to continue to work closely with the com petent  authority of 
China  with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory solution  to the pending issue . 
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.2.1   China's import restrictions on Japanese foods in response to the nuclear power 
plant accident – Concerns of Japan (No. 354)  
3.14.   Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by China on Japanese 
food exports in response to the nuclear power plant accident. Japan recalled that there had been 
no easing of China's import restrictions since June 2011, altho ugh an increasing number of 
WTO Members had already lifted or eased their import restrict ions on Japanese foods. 
China's  import ban was still imposed on all types of food and alcoholic beverages from ten 
Japanese prefectures and on various types of food products from the remaining prefectures.  
Japan  expressed its particular concern with regard to the ongoing risk assessment by China. 
Japan  questioned China's endless risk assessment process, which seemed to be continuously held 
at the stage of considering the lates t data submitted. Japan expressed its willingness to invite the 
relevant Chinese authorities to assess first -hand the current food safety situation and visit the 
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.  
3.15.   China thanked Japan for providing information on the la test developments o f its food safety 
controls from July and September 2016. China was currently reviewing the updated information 
and would adjust its measures on the basis of the risk assessment results.  
3.2.2   Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on Japanese fo ods in response to the nuclear 
power plant accident – Concerns of Japan (No. 387)  
3.16.   Japan reiterated its concerns regarding the import ban imposed by Chinese Taipei on food 
from five Japanese prefectures in response to the nuclear power plant accident. The b an was not 
scientifically justifiable as radioactive residues exceeding the regulatory limits were only found in 
certain types of food. Japan recognized Chinese Taipei's commitment to bilateral discussions and 
expressed its willingness to continue cooperat ing with Chinese Taipei towards a satisfactory 
solution.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.17.   Chinese Taipei recalled that a temporary suspension of inspection applications for food 
imported from the Fukushima and other four nearby prefectures was in place since March 2011. 
Food from other pr efectures was inspected for radionuclide residues at port of entry on a batch -
by-batch basis. In May 2015, Chinese Taipei amended its measures to require radioactive 
examination reports for specific food products from several prefectures and adopted flexib le and 
pragmatic methods to allow safe trade of Japanese food products. Chinese Taipei remained 
concerned with radionuclide contaminated water and materials, which continued to leak from the 
plant site. Chinese Taipei highlighted that the measures implemen ted, including import restrictions 
and pre -test certificates, were necessary to address public health concerns. Increased trade 
figures demonstrated that consumers were regaining confidence in the safety of Japanese food 
products. Chinese Taipei reiterated  its commitment to continue monitoring the effectiveness of 
Japan's radionuclide management system and ensure a comprehensive evaluation of its relevant 
surveillance and control measures. Chinese Taipei had appointed an inter -ministerial team to work 
on this issue, including risk communication, and looked forward to further cooperating with Japan.  
3.2.3   EU revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors – 
Concerns of Argentina, China and the United States (No. 382)  
3.18.   Argentina reiterated it s concern with the EU's revised proposal for categorization of 
compounds as endocrine disruptors (EDs), notified in G/SPS/N/EU/166. The EU proposed hazard -
based approach would not efficiently assess risks posed by ED substances to humans and the 
environmen t. In addition, MRLs for phytosanitary products already approved following a rigorous 
European Food Safety Authority risk assessment would now be regulated under a mere risk 
identification approach inconsistent with Codex standards. Argentina further noted  that the 
proposed hazard -based approach was incomplete as it did not include the essential elements of 
risk characterisation, such as potency, severity and reversibility of effects. Such elements were 
necessary to assess risks to humans or the environment  according to the SPS Agreement and the 
World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS). 
Argentina  considered that the impact assessment option selected by the European Commission 
would have significant agriculture, food saf ety, trade and socio -economic impacts. Argentina 
hoped import tolerance derogations for agricultural products would  be applied in a transparent and 
non-discriminatory manner, while avoiding technical obstacles to trade. Argentina requested the 
European Uni on to take countries' comments into account before  adopting the measure. 
Finally,  Argentina thanked the European Union for the information session held the day before, 
welcoming any additional information on the proposal.  
3.19.   China shared the concerns, and hig hlighted that in June 2016 13 Members had sent a joint 
letter to the European Union on this matter. China thanked the European Union for notifying the 
proposed regulation,  and for  holding an information session and bilateral consultations before the 
Commit tee meeting. Considering the potential significant impact of the measure, China requested 
that the European Union fully fulfil the transparency obligation and provide at least a six -month 
transition period between adoption and implementation. China asked the European Union to  
provide replies to the comments submitted  and urged it to consider assessment of actual exposure 
and potency factor s, rather than substances themselves  in its measure as well as to apply existing 
Codex standards to minimize trade impac ts. 
3.20.   The United States expressed its appreciation for the  EU information session and for the 
extension of the comment period for the ED proposals. The United States raised concerns with 
two EU policies related to the approval and use of pla nt protection pro ducts; namely  the 
EU's recent proposal on EDs published on 15 June 2016 (G/SPS/N/EU/166); and the 
reauthorisation of pesticides under Regulation No. 1107/2009. First, the United States  expressed 
its concern that the  EU's proposed approach to EDs would impo se unnecessary trade restrictions 
and asked the European Union to provide the scientific evidence used to justify the establishment 
of definitive criteria to identify EDs. Neither Regulation No. 1107/2009 nor the impact assessment 
published on 15 June iden tified the scientific evidence considered in the development and selection 
of EDs "cut -off" criteria. The United States welcomed a revised proposal, soon to be available, that 
might clarify questions on the derogation process and the application of the WHO /IPCS EDs 
definition. The United States hoped that the updates for the derogation process would define the 
meaning of "negligible risk", include the important aspects of exposure and potency, and follow a 
risk-based approach under which all substances desi gnated as EDs under the WHO/IPCS definition 
would be eligible to be registered provided they met the "negligible risk" standard. The United 
States further hoped that these changes would address its previous questions regarding other G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 10 - 
 
  substances that trigger  "cut-off" criteria such as carcinogenic, mutagenic  or toxic for reproduction 
(CMR ) substances. The United States further stressed the importance of non -discrimination in the 
implementation of this measure, and requested that the European Union implement g uidelines and 
processes for risk assessment that were consistent for all substances, in addition to pursuing a 
transparent and predictable approach throughout the risk management process. The United States 
noted two key questions that had previously been r aised regarding these proposals and were yet 
to be addressed:  (i) the possibility to file an application for an import tolerance, based on a risk 
assessment, for a substance designated as an ED and not authorize d under EU regulation; 
and (ii) the list of s ubstances the European Union expected to be identified as EDs under the 
WHO/IPCS definition as well as specific information regarding when and how potency and exposure 
would be taken into consideration.  
3.21.   Second, the United States again expressed its concern s with EU Regulation No. 1107/2009. 
The United States reiterated that in the European Union, original approvals appeared to be for ten 
years , while renewals were for 15 years. Substances approved before 2009 would therefore be 
scheduled to be renewed in 20 19, and the process would begin in 2016. The United States also 
highlighted that under Regulation No. 1107/2009, pesticides approved for several years and 
determined to be safe under a risk -based system would no longer be subject to a risk assessment 
if a pre-determined hazard criterion was identified. The United States asked the European Union to 
explain how the hazard -based "cut -off" criteria would be applied in practice to substances 
undergoing the renewal process. The United States also raised concerns with the important trade 
impact that the regulation might have in the future, and requested that the measure be based on 
a risk assessment. The United States finally highlighted the need for close collaboration with 
trading partners and expressed its commi tment to continue working with the European Union on 
this issue.  
3.22.   Australia , Brazil, Canada,  Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, 
Egypt, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Paraguay, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, 
Uruguay a nd Viet  Nam shared the concern s expressed by Argentina, China and the United States. 
They highlighted, inter alia , the significance of the issue and the potential negative trade impact 
while also recognising the European Union's  right to protect its citize ns. They expressed concern 
over the hazard -based approach and called on the European Union to adopt a risk -based approach. 
They all expressed their appreciation to the European Union for the information session held the 
day before.  
3.23.   The European Union referred to the information session that had taken place prior to the 
Committee meeting and where experts from the European Commission had provided detailed 
information and answered questions from WTO Members on all the  elements of the proposals. 
The European U nion informed the Committee that a compilation of the responses to comments 
received  would be circulated and noted that regarding implementation and practical consequences, 
uncertainty remained as to if and when the proposal would be adopted . The European Union would 
continue to be as transparent as possible on the matter, and take proportionate and appropriate 
decisions in compliance with international obligations. The proposals were going through the 
relevant regulatory procedures and the European Union would consider all the comments received . 
3.2.4   Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Novel Foods - 
Concerns of Peru (No. 238)  
3.24.   Peru recalled its concern regarding the new EU Regulation No. 2015/2283 on novel foods, 
which like its predecessor  Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, restricted the entry into the European 
market of traditional biodiversity products not marketed in the European Union before 
15 May 1997. Peru considered both regulations not to be based on scientific evidence and a risk 
assess ment and therefore to be inconsistent with Articles 2, 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement. 
As an example, Peru invited Members to review the case of products  of stevia , a species native to 
the tropical region of South America used as a sweetener, described in G/SPS/GEN/1526. 
In particular, Peru urged the European Union to consider its comments on the implications of 
implementing its regulation, which constituted an unjustified barrier to trade with negative impacts 
on small farmers and producers.  
3.25.   Colombia rec ognized the European Union's  right to protect its population, but highlighted 
the burden and high costs its small producers would face in complying with the regulation. 
Colombia urged the European Union to take into account the concerns raised.  Costa Rica G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 11 - 
 
  highlighted that novel foods were a tool for fostering rural development and SMEs growth in 
countries largely depending on trade of biodiversity products. Guatemala also shared the concerns, 
and noted that this type of measures  discouraged trade of biodive rsity products. The measure 
jeopardized Guatemala's free trade agreements negotiated with the purpose of diversifying its 
exports.  Ecuador requested that the European Union provide the necessary scientific justification 
for the regulation. Ecuador also hig hlighted the need to consider special and differential treatment 
as well as technical cooperation activities.  
3.26.   The European Union recalled that the new regulation had been adopted and would apply 
from January 2018. Implementation rules on administrative and  scientific requirements for 
applicants would be finalized by the end of 2017  and duly notified under the SPS Agreement . 
In addition, two European Food Safety Authority guidance documents for applicants seeking 
authorisation and for notifications of tradit ional foods would be published in November. 
The guidance documents had been subject to public consultation and had been discussed with 
stakeholders, including non -EU countries, in April 2016. T echnical reports on the outcome of these 
consultations would be  published . The Eur opean Union was confident that the new regulation was 
consistent with the SPS Agreement. As it was not possible to anticipate potential risks associated 
with novel foods or processing methods in one comprehensive risk assessment, the hig h-level of 
food safety pursued in the European Union could only be achieved through a pre -market approval 
scheme, in accordance with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. The European Union 
considered the new regulation to be in line with special and  differential treatment , as it provided 
for a simplified and faster procedure for traditional biodiversity products, including stevia. 
The European Union indicated that Peru's application on stevia had not been approved due to lack 
of information. Concerni ng the 25 -year period of consumption, it translated to roughly one 
generation, which was on the lower end of the recommended spectrum.  The European Union 
remained committed to continue working with Members and addressing their concerns on this 
issue.  
3.2.5   US me asures on catfish – Concerns of China and Viet Nam (No. 289)  
3.27.   China again raised its concern regarding the US regulation on mandatory inspection of 
catfish and catfish products, which transferred the regulatory food safety oversight of catfish from 
FDA to t he Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA  and accorded unjustified 
discriminatory treatment to siluriformes and their products . China drew Members' attention to 
document G/SPS/GEN/1527 which provided further information on this issue. The US reg ulation 
had taken effect on 1 March 2016 and applied terrestrial animal meat inspection procedures to 
siluriformes (including catfish) and derivate products. China stated that the regulation was not 
based on scientific principles or on a risk assessment. Referring to  the results of various 
US government reports, China argued that catfish did not pose a higher risk compared with other 
aquatic products, and that the effectiveness of the FSIS siluriformes inspection program me was 
uncertain. China stated that t he US regulation failed to respect international norms and imposed 
unnecessary restriction s to trade, causing important financial losses  to its industry  and affecting 
tens of thousands of jobs. China again urged the United States to consider the comments i t had 
provided and bring its measure in to full compliance with the provisions of the WTO Agreements.  
3.28.   Viet Nam shared China's concerns and also argued that the measure was not based on 
scientific research or on a risk assessment. Viet Nam declared that it h ad exported catfish to the 
United States for nearly 20 years without raising any food safety concern s, and that the 2012 
USDA FSIS risk assessment report had concluded that "illness from catfish [was] an uncommon 
event." Viet Nam indicated that it felt enc ouraged by the US Senate action on 25 May 2016 to pass 
a resolution to overturn the USDA p rogramme, as well as the letters recently signed by the 
majority of the House of Representatives to support the Senate resolution. Viet Nam expected that 
the US admin istration would take similar steps and remove the programme, which otherwise 
would fail to comply with the SPS Agreement.  
3.29.   Thailand echoed the concerns expressed by China and Viet Nam, recalling  that the 
programme was not supported by a risk assessment and violated various articles of the 
SPS Agreement.  
3.30.   The United States reiterated its commitment to working with its trading partners during the 
implementation of the measure in order to ensure a smooth transition and avoid disrupting 
imports following the new rule. The United States reminded  Members  that FSIS had been G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 12 - 
 
  conducting outreach events such as bilateral technical meetings and regional implementation 
seminars. The United States indicated that any Member interested in hosting an educational 
meeting for t heir national inspection team could contact FSIS.  
3.2.6   The Russian Federation's  import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia and Latvia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  
3.31.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian  Federation's restrictions 
on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, in place since June 2015. The European 
Union declared that this ban was inconsistent with various articles of the SPS Agreement as well as 
with the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments. The European Union called on the 
Russian Federation to promptly share the outcomes of the inspections conducted in the summer  of 
2016. The European Union argued that the withdrawal of some establishments from the auditing 
list di d not, as described by the Russian Federation in previous statements, constitute evidence of 
non-compliance, but were related to delays in carrying out  the audits. The European Union 
reiterated its call on the Russian Federation to remove the ban while exp ressing its readiness to 
cooperate with the Russian Federation in a constructive manner.  
3.32.   The Russian Federation stated that it was ready to cooperate with the competent authorities 
from Estonia and Latvia, and recalled  that systemic deficiencies in the wor k of these authorities 
had led to violation of fishery products safety and given way to the temporary restrictions. 
The Russian Federation however noted that cooperation was in progress and that a number of 
entities had been delisted. Re -inspections had be en conducted by the relevant authorities of the 
Eurasian Economic Union members, and had showed that some positive measures had been taken 
in Estonia and Latvia. However, certain problematic measures relating to the access of dangerous 
products to the mark et had not yet been addressed, and the Russian Federation stated that it was 
waiting for the competent authorities to provide more data. The Russian Federation would inform 
the Latvian and Estonian authorities about the next steps as soon as it received an d considered 
the relevant data.  
3.2.7   China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza – Concerns of 
the European Union and the United States (No. 406)  
3.33.   The United States noted the importance of the OIE guidelines for highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (HPAI) to facilitate safe trade, and indicated that the United States would raise a more 
general concern on the adherence to these guidelines under  agenda item 4(e). The United States 
expressed a specific concern regarding China's HPAI -related res triction on US poultry products, 
recalling  that all HPAI cases in the United States had been successfully resolved in accordance with 
OIE guidelines since 22 April 2016 and that the United States was free of HPAI since June 2016. 
The United States noted th at it had a strong surveillance and r esponse programme for HPAI. 
The United States had engaged with China on numerous occasions: providing regular updates on 
the detection of HPAI, proposing a protocol outlining the management of poultry products if HPAI 
were to be detected , and inviting technical experts from China to review USDA's HPAI surveillance 
programme. In light of the HPAI -free situation, the United States called upon China to lift all 
remaining HPAI -related measures against US poultry products, an d promised to  continue to inform 
Chinese officials about the state of HPAI surveillance.  
3.34.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding China's country -wide bans on several 
EU member States due to HPAI, recalling that it had on previous occasions enc ouraged Members 
to recognize OIE standards and efficiency of the EU's regionalization  measures . The European 
Union noted that China had previously declared that it applied regionalization for low pathogenic 
avian influenza but not HPAI, and that bans might  be lifted after a risk as sessment which would 
only start  once risks were under control. The European Union disagreed with China's previous 
statement that China's measures were compatible with international standards . The European 
Union recalled that almos t all WTO Members confronted with occasional outbreaks of HPAI 
implemented regionalization policies  in their management of the disease . The European Union 
further stated that in full transparency it had provided to China all the necessary evidence to 
demon strate that it had applied the stamping -out policy described in the OIE Code, the existence 
of HPAI-free areas and that such area s were likely to remain disease -free. The European Union 
considered that China's decision not to accept zoning in relation with  HPAI disregarded the 
relevant OIE standard, Article 6 of the SPS Agreement and the Panel report of DS430. G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 13 - 
 
  The European Union called on China to respect its WTO regionalization obligations and remained 
open to work with China to find a rapid solution.  
3.35.   With regards to the EU concerns raised, China noted that the measure had been taken in 
2015 in order to prevent the spread of HPAI into China after several EU member States had 
reported HPAI outbreaks. China indicated that it had been conducting HPAI risk asse ssments with 
the collaboration of the European Union and made adjustments to its measures accordingly. 
China  stated that the disease was still present in some EU member State s, with most recent 
reports in France and Italy. China continued to  perceive the r isk of HPAI in the European Union as 
high and therefore had to take cautious measures  to protect s afety of the poultry industry  and 
health of the whole population.  
3.36.   With regards to the US concerns, China noted that numerous HPAI cases had been found in 
many  US states since December 2014 and that the epidemic still continued in 2016, the latest case 
having been reported in August. China recognized that both the European Union and the United 
States had made use of bilateral channels to conduct technical commun ications, and encouraged 
both Members to continue these discussions with relevant Chinese authorities.  
3.2.8   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193)  
3.37.   The European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing conc ern, recalling its 
conviction that BSE -related science was solid and that the relevant OIE standards guaranteed safe 
trade. On the other hand, the European Union recalled that s ome WTO Members kept 
longstanding , discriminatory and unjustified bans in place  due to BSE  arguing the n eed for a 
further (and often too long) assessment before imports could take place, even for commodities 
(e.g. beef) declared by the OIE  as safe . All of this was  contrary t o various principles of the 
SPS Agreement  and the OIE . On a positive note, the European Union welcomed the recent market 
access granted by the United States to an additional EU member State, as well as the beginning of 
exports to China from some EU member States. The European Union urged  these and other 
Members - such as Australia, Malaysia and South Korea - to swiftly proceed in order to ensure that 
beef from the European Union could be exported and hoped that the backlog of applications 
submitted by EU member States would soon disappear.  
3.2.9   The Russian Federation's  import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No . 411)  
3.38.   The European Union recalled  that since February 2013, the Russian Federation had 
maintained  a ban on imports of pig, beef and poultry meat from Germany, f ollowed by a ban on 
imports of finished meat and milk products from three German federal states: Bavaria, Lower 
Saxony and North Rhine Westphalia. These import restrictions had been implemented due to 
claims by the Russian Federation that German veterinary  services had not undertaken proper 
controls on the exports of such products. The European Union reaffirmed that the restrictions were 
inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement. The European Union noted that the 
German and Russian authoriti es were working on the issue, and expressed hope that their 
discussion would result in positive development s. The European Union argued that there was 
no justification for the restrictions and requested the Russian Federation to promptly repeal these 
measu res. The European Union reaffirmed its willingness to engage in discussions with the Russian 
authorities.  
3.39.   The Russian Federation recalled  that restrictions had been imposed on certain German 
export products following the results of inspections carried out between 2012 and 2015, which 
revealed non -compliance of these products with Russian SPS requirements. The safety guarantee 
for the importation of these products to the Russian Federation had not yet been confirmed. 
The Russian Federation recalled that its Rospotrebnadzor had been involved in developing a 
manual for inspection s containing Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) requirements. The Russian 
Federation indicated that this manual had been sent to Germany for comments and expected 
further cooperation with t he competent German authorities.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.2.10   Brazil's measures on shrimp - Concerns of Ecuador (No. 344)  
3.40.   Ecuador reiterated its concern regarding Brazil's suspension of shrimp imports from 
Ecuador. This measure was in effect since 2000 and aimed at protecting Brazil f rom endemic 
pathologies such as White spot syndrome virus and Yellowhead disease. Both diseases also existed 
in Brazil. Ecuador emphasized the importance of shrimp export s for its economy, recalling  that 
Brazil  had initiated an import risk assessment (IRA)  for Ecuadorian shrimp at the beginning of 
2011. The first of the four steps of the IRA had only been finalized in June 2013, and the second 
step had not yet been concluded. Ecuador insisted that it had provided sufficient information to 
Brazil  throughout this time , and noted that in July 2014 a group of technical experts from Brazil 
had visited various entities in Ecuador. During the last meeting held in July 2016 the Brazilian 
officials in charge of the technical report recognized that the import risk ass essment had exceeded 
the time usually deemed necess ary for such a process. Ecuador  recalled that since 2007 a residues 
and contaminants monitoring plan for all aquaculture establishments had been in place and its 
shrimp products regularly access ed markets with high SPS  standards. Ecuador regretted that 
despite its bilateral engagement with Brazil on the IRA, half of the process had not yet been 
concluded  after six years, and shrimp exports  from Ecuador had been stopped for more than a 
decade. Ecuador reques ted that Brazil swiftly provide the timetable for the remaining steps of the 
IRA, and that the process move forward promptly in order for shrimp exports from Ecuador to 
regain access to the Brazilian market.  
3.41.   Brazil responded that in 2015 its health authori ties requested that specific mandatory 
adjustment measures be implemented at the level of the Official Veterinary Services and private 
sector in Ecuador, and that missing information be shared. Brazil indicated that these measures –
disease -specific monitor ing plans, submission of samples and controls, training of staff and 
notification – were compulsory to allow import s of Ecuadorian shrimp into Brazil. Brazil explained 
that a final report with these various requests had been sent to the competent authoriti es in 
Ecuador,  requesting a structured action plan integrating the mandatory measures within 60 days 
of receipt. However, Brazil reported it received Note 4 -7-0/2015 from Ecuador past the proposed 
timeline and still there was no compliance  with the establi shed requirements, which justified the 
delay. Brazil stated that it was waiting to receive the structured action plan containing the 
requested changes at the official veterinary services and private sector levels. The information in 
this plan would be used  to support the risk assessment phase of the IRA. Favourable results in the 
IRA, along with the finalized adjustment measures, would pave the way for authorizing shrimp 
imports from Ecuador.  
3.2.11   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns  of the 
European Union (No. 392)  
3.42.   The European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide ban on pork 
products from Poland due to the outbreak of African swine  fever (ASF) in early 2014. 
The European Union noted the lack of transparency d emonstrated by China in this case and 
expressed concerns about the prospects of China lifting the ban in the future. The European Union 
noted that it was also an important pig producer and, like China, needed to be prudent regarding 
animal diseases, such a s ASF. The European Union stated that the free flow of pig products on 
its own market had proven, time after time, that it dealt with animal disease outbreaks in an 
effective manner – also for exports. The European Union noted that the ban was not in line with 
the SPS  Agreement's principle of regionalization and the OIE's concept of disease -free zones, as 
confirmed by the panel report in India – Agricultural Products  (DS430). The European Union 
argued that China had not provided information on its procedure s and anticipated timeline to 
recognize regionalization and further urged China to provide this information. The European Union 
declared that the country -wide ban in place was not supported by scientific justification and 
requested China to provide a risk assessment. The European Union urged China to respect its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement (namely Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8) and to allow , without further 
delay,  trade of all safe products from disease -free zones.  
3.43.   China recalled that ASF was one of the mo st serious infectious diseases for pigs, and that 
the bans imposed by China on infected countries were based on science and safety considerations. 
China stated that great importance was attached  to this issue and its international obligations were 
respecte d. China noted that before the ASF outbreaks, the trade of pig and pig products between 
China and the European Union had been smooth. In 2016, ASF outbreaks in domestic and wild 
pigs had been reported in Poland, and as such, China had found it necessary to  conduct a further G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 15 - 
 
  evaluation of the measures taken by the European Union. China reminded Members that it was the 
largest pig producer in the world and could be subject to great losses if the disease were to enter 
the country, and that the ban had been imp osed in line with relevant Chinese laws and 
regulations. China  reported  that a technical group had been established to deal with this issue, and 
encouraged the European Union to continue exchanging information within the bilateral setting in 
order to enhan ce mutual understanding.  
3.2.12   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European  Union (No. 393)  
3.44.   The European Union stressed the importance of the recognition of regionalization measures 
by trading partners, and in that context re iterated its concern regarding Korea's import restrictions 
on pork and pork products due to ASF. The European Union recalled  that Korea had performed a 
preliminary risk -assessment and on -site inspection in 2014, followed by the decision in 2015 to 
perform a risk analysis. The risk analysis had been suspended in August 2016 following 
FMD outbreaks in Poland. The European Union considered that the risk assessment ought to be 
pursued, as the European Union had  (as always)  adapted its regionaliz ation measures i n line with 
OIE standards to ensure that only safe pork products w ere placed o n the EU market  and exported 
to countries outside the European Union . The European Union insisted that it had provided Korea 
with the necessary information to demonstrate the exi stence of disease -free areas in Poland and 
that they were likely to remain so. The European Union therefore urged Korea to respect its 
obligations under Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the SPS Agreement and to continue and conclude quickly 
the import approval proce dure by continuing the risk analysis, tak ing into account the information 
that had been collected before its suspension, limit ing the information  requests to what was 
necessary  and provid ing, in a transparent manner, a timeline for concluding the analysis.  
3.45.   Korea recalled the highly contagious nature of ASF and the lack of a preventive vaccine to 
halt its spread, while underscoring that it remained ASF -free. Korea confirmed that it had 
suspended the risk assessment procedure for recognition of ASF regionaliz ation following the 2016 
outbreak of various cases in Poland in pig farms. Two additional areas were affected by this 
outbreak, and Korea declared that the suspension would hold until the newly affected areas 
recovered their ASF free status in accordance w ith the OIE standards. Korea notified Poland in 
October 2016 that it could resume the import risk analysis procedures if the Polish government 
requested them for specific regions free from ASF. Korea noted that in light of the possible causes 
of ASF stated  by the European Commission Animal Health Regulatory Committee, the Polish 
government needed to further review its biosecurity measures. Korea hoped that Poland would 
succeed in controlling the spread of ASF, and indicated that it would cooperate to resume  the 
process soon.  
3.2.13   Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of phytosanitary import certificates for 
avocados (G/SPS/N/CRI/160, G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1  and G/SPS/N/CRI/162)  – 
Concerns of Mexico (No. 394)  
3.46.   Mexico reiterated its concern regarding Costa Rica's sus pension of the issuing of 
phytosanitary certificates for avocado imports originating from Mexico. Mexico considered the 
measure to be in violation of fundamental principles of technical and scientific justification based 
on international standards, most -favoured nation, proportionality and transparency principles as 
enshrined in the SPS Agreement and the SPS Chapter of the Free Trade Agreement between 
Mexico and Latin America. Mexico noted its preference to promote dialogue between authorities in 
various co nsultative formats; however, these efforts had not been successful as no response had 
been received from Costa Rican authorities in regard to the issue. Mexico indicated that its 
avocado exports continued to be significantly affected by the restrictions im posed by Costa Rica 
and further reiterated its request for Costa Rica to immediately withdraw its measure in order to 
resume avocado trade between the two countries.  
3.47.   The United States shared Mexico's concerns and asked Costa Rica to take steps to 
recommenc e issuing phytosanitary import permits since the suspension was not consistent with 
international standards and guidelines, nor scientifically justified.  Guatemala supported Mexico's 
concerns and expressed a systemic interest in this issue.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 16 - 
 
  3.48.   Costa Rica reca lled that the suspension concerned measures proposed to minimize the risk 
of introduction of the avocado sun blotch  viroid. A pest risk analysis (PRA) had been notified in 
July 2015 (SPS/N/CRI/162), providing 60 days for comments. Costa Rica indicated that  in 
November 2015 it had circulated a revised PRA, taking into account some of the comments that it 
had received during the comment period. However, Mexican authorities had indicated that they 
disagreed with the findings and measures established by this re vised PRA. Costa Rica explained 
that it had therefore broadened the review of the PRA, including an extensive work at the 
laboratory level. Costa Rica would notify the final PRA and the definitive measures once this work 
was completed. Costa Rica reaffirme d its commitment to find a mutually satisfactory solution for 
both sides.  
3.2.14   India's amendment to its import policy conditions for apples; restriction to 
Nhava Sheva port - Concerns of New Zealand (No . 397)  
3.49.   New Zealand recalled that this concern had been rais ed in October 2015 following India's 
amendment to its import policy. This policy limited the entry of imported apples into India to one 
port instead of six. New Zealand explained that in January 2016, India had amended its import 
policy conditions for appl es and re -allowed entry into most of its ports. However, two ports were 
still not permitted to receive apple shipments, including Tuticorin which was the third most used 
port previous to the amendment. New Zealand queried as to why the two ports remained c losed 
and urged India to allow apples to be imported through them. New Zealand looked forward to 
further bilateral discussion on this issue in order to pave the way toward a solution.  
3.50.   The United States echoed New Zealand's concern and noted that it had exp ressed it in this 
and other WTO bodies.  
3.51.   India took note  of the concern raised by New Zealand and indicated that the issue was 
currently being examined in consultations with the administrative ministry and authorities. 
India expressed its appreciation for t he bilateral exchanges with New Zealand and looked forward 
to continued engagement on this issue.  
3.2.15   China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOs (G/SPS/N/CHN/881) – Concerns of the United States 
(No. 395)  
3.52.   The United States again raised its concern with the approval delay for products of 
agricultural biotechnology in China, and sought an update from China on its revised regulation on 
safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. The United States expressed a ppreciation for the bilateral 
dialogue that had taken place between Chinese and US officials, including the US -China strategic 
and economic dialogue held in Beijing in June 2016, and looked forward to the implementation of 
concrete action by China to ensur e greater transparency and timeliness, and to rely on science -
based risk  assessment as the only criterion  for the evaluation biotech products. The United States 
noted that China had taken a number of steps forward, including the issuance in July 2016 of it s 
final revision of the regulation and the first meeting of its reconstituted national biosafety 
committee. The United States indicated that some uncertainty remained with regards to how these 
steps would translate into shorter and more predictable timelin es for biotech approval. The United 
States also noted with some urgency that some products were still poised for final adoption, and 
stressed the importance of ongoing communication with these products' applicants. The United 
States encouraged China to tak e action on these pending products in a timely manner.  
3.53.   China stated that it attached great importance to safety management of agricultural GMOs 
and its GMO safety management had always been based on internationally  recognized risk analysis 
principles and s cientific information. China recalled that it had notified its draft amendment to the 
implementation regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs to the WTO in June 2015. 
The comments received during the 60 -day comment period were taken into caref ul consideration 
in finalizing the regulation. After fulfilling the WTO transparency requirements fully, t he final rules 
entered into force on 1 October 2016. This amendment aimed at making the GMO safety 
assessment procedure more streamlined, transparent and science -based. With regards to the 
delay of the assessment process, China informed the United States that three out of the 
11 applications submitted by the United States had been approved. During the process, 
China  always kept the procedure transparent  and had provided the United States with the detailed G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 17 - 
 
  reasons for the non -approval of the eight pending applications . China had asked the United States 
to continue to provide additional necessary information to  allow completion of their approval 
procedure s. China noted that after having received the supplementary information requested , its 
experts were currently conducting assessments. China invited the United States to make use of 
bilateral mechanisms in order to further discuss this issue.  
3.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16  
3.54.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION O F THE SPS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas  
4.2.1   Mexico - Recognition of areas free of Classical Swine Fever and BSE  
4.2.  Mexico informed the Committee that the 84th G eneral Assembly of the OIE (May 2016), 
it had recognized Mexico as a country free of contagious bovine pleuropneumonia  and as a country 
with negl igible BSE risk. Mexico indicated that these recognitions added to the previously -obtained 
statuses of country free from classical swine fever (CSF) , peste des petits ruminants , and foot and 
mouth disease  without vaccination. Mexico expressed its appreciat ion to Costa Rica for recognizing 
its status as a country free from CSF and BSE, and to  Canada for its recognition as a country free 
from CSF. Mexico invited all Members to recognize the statuses granted by the OIE.  
4.2.2   Mexico – Areas free of fruit flies (G/SP S/GEN/1512)  
4.3.  Mexico informed the Committee that the central -western region of the municipality of 
Coatepec Harinas in the State of Mexico was declared as an area free of fruit flies of the 
quarantine -significant genus Anastrepha . 
4.3  Operation of transparency p rovisions  
4.3.1   Update from the Secretariat on the modernization of the SPS IMS and NSS  
4.4.  The Secretariat provided update s on two IT projects: (i) the ePing SPS/TBT notifications alert 
system; and (ii) the enhancement of the SPS tools.  
4.5.  The Secretariat recalled tha t the UNDESA  ePing t oolkit project for accessing SPS and TBT 
notifications and alerts had been presented during the Workshop on Transparency in October 
2015. The WTO Secretariat had been collaborating with UNDESA and ITC to build on the existing 
SPS/TBT no tification alert system, and a tripartite MOU had been signed. The alert system would 
be formally launched on 8 November during the TBT Committee  meetings , with hands -on training 
sessions being held in the margins of the TBT Committee. The ePing applicatio n could be publicly 
accessed at  http://www.epingalert.org . 
4.6.  Regarding the SPS tools, the Secretariat reminded the Committee that an update had been 
provided during the October 2015 transparency workshop on the two -phase IT project launched in 
2015, aimed at enhancing the SPS IMS and SPS  NSS tools. In phase I, the new SPS NSS had been 
developed and tested by a pilot group of volunteer Members. Phase II, which had begun in early 
September 2016, focussed on the SPS IMS and the same pilot group was invited to test it along 
with a few new added volunteer Members. The pilot group in phase II was asked to test both the 
IMS and NSS applications in order to verify their inter -operability, as well as the functioning of the 
new IMS. The Secretariat thanked all Members who tested the platforms and provided helpful 
comments for the further development of the tools. The Secretariat shared its hope that the new 
platforms would be launched before the end of the year, once the pending issues relating to 
certain specific functions, translations and design aesthetics were solved. The Secretariat provided 
a preview of the new IMS and NSS platforms through a live demonstration.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 18 - 
 
  4.7.  The European Union congratulated the Secretariat for the work a nd efforts it had put in the 
conception and development of the new platforms. The European Union asked if graphs of 
notifications or STCs by individual Members could be obtained by using the graph tool function. 
The European Union underlined that, if feasi ble, country -specific graphing functions would be of 
great value.  
4.8.  The Secretariat explained  that no such option existed as of yet, but it could bring the 
suggestion forward to the developers. The Secretariat was in the process of developing additional 
graphs for notifications and comments such as these would be very useful.  
4.9.  Colombia requested more information on the Secretariat's outreach and training plan for 
Members on the new SPS IMS and SPS  NSS. 
4.10.   The Secretariat explained that various training programmes  would be organized at the 
regional and national levels, as well as in Geneva. The Secretariat also planned to update the step -
by-step manual with the possible help of New Zealand, as had been offered during the Workshop 
on Transparency in October 2015. Ha nds-on sessions on the margins of the March Committee 
meeting could also allow delegates to familiarize themselves with the new tools and to pose 
questions. The Secretariat reminded the Committee that the new system would be much more 
user-friendly than th e previous one and would offer more search and analytical functionalities.  
4.11.   New Zealand indicated that it would follow up with colleagues in capital regarding the 
update of the step -by-step manual.  
4.3.2   Transparency overview (G/SPS/GEN/804/REV.9)  
4.12.   The Secretariat  presented  some key numbers from the annual transparency overview for 
the period from 15 September 2015 to 15 September 2016 (G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9). During this 
period, 1,453 notifications had been submitted. The number of notifications in the past year 
indicating existence of an international standard constituted 45% of regular notifications, and out 
of these, 80% indicated that the measure conformed to the relevant standard. For emergency 
notifications, these rates were significantly higher, at 97% and 100 % respectively. The 60 -day 
comment checkbox option was selected in 45% of regular notifications. Lastly, the Secretariat 
noted that 71 Members had requested access to the SPS  NSS, the online system for submitting 
notifications, and 40 of these Members had submitted notifications via the SPS -NSS. More than 
50% of all notificat ions were submitted via the SPS NSS. 
4.3.3   Proposal by Chile and the European Union (G/SPS/W/290)  
4.13.   The Chairperson reported  on discussions of the  proposal on transparency by Chile and t he 
European Union (G/SPS/W/290) held at the  informal meeting on 26  October 2016. Chile had taken 
the floor to introduce the proposal developed as a follow -up to discussions from the Fourth Review 
and the 2015 Workshop on Transparency. The proposal had outlined th ree main areas, namely:  
 posting unofficial translations of notified regulations in the WTO website;  
 holding an informal discussion on notification of trade -facilitating m easures in 2017; 
and 
 setting up a platform to share, on a voluntary basis, access to M embers' SPS regulatory 
measures.  
4.14.   Many Members had welcomed the proposals put forth by Chile and the European Union; 
some had indicated that they were still studying the document. In general, t he proposals had been 
received as very practical and of great in terest.  
4.15.   Regarding the proposal to develop a platform for sharing unofficial translations of notified 
regulations, many Members had indicated that this would be very useful, since preparing 
translations was costly and consumed a large share of the time -period available for comments. 
This was especially problematic for developing Members . Some Members had highlighted details 
that still needed to be discussed, particularly around the proce ss of posting translations, 
the quality of translations, and management of various sites and platforms. The Secretariat had 
explained the current procedures for submitting supplements to notifications to share unofficial 
translations, as outlined in paragraph 28 of the Recommended Transparency Procedures G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 19 - 
 
  (G/SPS/7/Rev.3 ). The S ecretariat was prepared  to work with Members to develop a platform to 
share unofficial translations, if the Committee requested it, and was interested in ensuring that 
such a new platform would be used more than the current mechanism.  
4.16.   Regarding the proposa l to hold an informal discussion on how Members identified trade -
facilitating measures when notifying , Members had been open to share experiences on  this. 
Some  Members had indicated that further discussion would be needed before moving forward on 
developin g a definition or guidance on this topic, but none had been opposed to holding a meeting 
on this topic in 2017.  
4.17.   Regarding the proposal to establish a central platform for links to Members' websites 
containing information on final regulations, certain Membe rs had highlighted the fact that there 
might  be synergies to explore with obligations under the Trade Facilitation Agreement, which 
contained transparency provisions that went beyond those cont ained in the SPS Agreement. 
One Member had indicated that a bac kground note that had been prepared by the Secretariat was 
useful in this context, but needed to be updated.  
4.18.   The Chairperson had suggested that the Committee continue the discussion in the regular 
Committee meeting, with a view to outlining the next steps and possibly moving ahead with some 
of the proposals. In particular, the Committee might be able to move ahead with the planning of a 
meeting to exchange experiences on how Members determined which regulations to notify as 
trade -facilitating measures.  
4.19.   Chile and the European Union endorsed the Chairperson's report and indicated that they 
would jointly refine the proposal with the help of the Secretariat in order to provide a more 
detailed document for circulation to the Committee at a later stage.  
4.20.   At the req uest of the Chairperson, t he Secretariat indicated that one  option was to organize 
the Workshop on Transparency at the October 2017 meeting a nd include discussions on 
notification of trade -facilitating measures as part of one or various sessions. A second option was 
to organize a thematic session on trade -facilitating measures in the margins of the March 2017 
meeting,  either in addition to or instead of  a Workshop on Transparency in October 2017.  
The Secretariat explained that for a Workshop on Transparency , it would probably be in a position 
to finance the participation of 25 to 50 participants from developing and least developed Members.  
4.21.   The United States expressed support for the proposal made by Chile and the European 
Union. The United States preferred h olding the thematic discussion on trade -facilitating measures 
in March and a Workshop on Transparency in October 2017.  
4.22.   China also indicated a preference for holding the information session on trade -facilitating 
measures as soon as possible. Regarding the s haring of unofficial translations, China indicat ed its 
openness to the sharing of unofficial translations but expressed concerns regarding the ir accuracy , 
and legal implications  this may have in the context of  a dispute.  
4.23.   The Chairperson noted the Committee 's agreement to hold a session on trade -facilitating 
measures in the margins of the March 2017 Committee meeting  and a Workshop on Transparency 
in October 2017. The Chairperson also noted that Chile and the European Union would revise and 
resubmit their pr oposals, including that on unofficial translations. The Chairperson invited  
Members to inform the Secretariat by 31 January 2017 if they were willing to share current 
practices for identifying trade -facilitating measures at  the March 2017 thematic session.  
4.4  Special and Differential Treatment  
4.24.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  
4.5.1   New issues  
4.25.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.5.2   Issues previously raised  
4.5.2.1   United States – BSE restrictions not consistent with the OIE International 
Standard  
4.26.   The United States announced that in August 2016 the USDA Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) had published a Notice in the Federal Register that finalized the 
recognition of the OIE's negligible BSE risk designation for 14 countries. The United States noted 
that it was also recognized as negligible risk for BSE by the OIE, yet faced many restrictions on 
certain meat exports, inconsistent with this status. Some of these trade r estrictions had been lifted 
in the past years and the United States called for the remaining BSE -related import prohibitions to 
be removed. The United States 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.  
4.5.2.2   United States – HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE International 
Standard  
4.27.   The United States reminded Members that in Ap ril 2016 it had regained country -wide 
freedom from HPAI consistent with the OIE guidelines. The United States highlighted the 
importance of the stamping out and surveillance policies encouraged by the OIE guidelines as 
effective means towards guaranteed er adication of HPAI. Some AI -related restrictions on imports 
from the United States had been recently lifted, and the United States acknowledged Ecuador, 
Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey for their efforts. The United States urged Members to swiftly 
lift all remaining HPAI -related restrictions on US exports.  
4.5.2.3   United States – Use of the Codex International Standard on Glyphosate  
4.28.   The United States reiterated concern s over the fact that some Members had already taken 
action, or were considering taking action, to  no longer apply th e Codex MRL for glyphosate. 
The measures being considered did not appear to be based on international standards or on risk of 
exposure. The United States recalled  that a JMPR report from May 2016 had concluded that 
glyphosate was "unlike ly to be genotoxic" and "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from 
exposure through diet." It was therefore important to distinguish these findings from that of IARC, 
which were based on hazard and not risk. The US EPA had recently published its review on 
glyphosate using all available data and would be seeking external peer review from a scientific 
advisory panel under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The US EPA review 
had classified glyphosate as "not likely to be carcino genic to humans at doses relevant for human 
health risk assessment." The US EPA was currently in the process of rescheduling the meeting of 
the fifth scientific advisory panel to ensure additional epidemiological expertise would be available 
to the panel. The United States stressed the importance of following international standards and 
basing SPS measures on risk as sessments, recalling Article 12. 4 of the SPS Agreement and the 
direction given in G/SPS/11/Rev.2. The United States invited Members to think of  how the 
Committee could provide greater understanding of how risk -based regulation of pesticides could 
ensure food safety in trade.  
4.29.   Argentina, Australia , Brazil, Canada and New Zealand echoed the concern of the United 
States and stressed the importance o f aligning national  MRLs for glyphosate with the relevant 
Codex standard.  
4.6  Fourth Review (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2, G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2)  
4.6.1   Report of the informal meeting  
4.30.   The Chairperson continued to report on  the informal meeting that had been held on 
26 October 2016 . 
Catalogue of Instruments  
4.31.   The Chairperson recalled that in her  fax of 25 October, she had informed Members about 
her consultations. The idea of her consultations had been to sepa rate the discussions around G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 21 - 
 
  the Catalogue of Instruments and the Fourth Review , with the former having seemed the easier of 
the two issues on which to reach consensus. The issue of contention had not been the substance of 
the Catalogue, but the need to add a disclaimer to clarify its legal status. The Chairperson had felt 
that the  Committee had been very close to a convergence  on the basis of language coming from 
a previous proposal, but it had not been possible to resolve the remaining differences.  
4.32.   Members had reaffirmed that the substance of the Catalo gue had not been at issue. It was 
a very useful document to the Membership as a whole, and especially for delegates and officials 
who might be less familiar with the tools and instruments available to resolve SPS -related issues. 
Certain Members had reported that they had already made  use of it. It  was only the issue of the 
disclaimer on which opinions were divided. While some Members had felt that a strong disclaimer 
denied the value of the work of the Committee and was not needed, others had indicated that they  
needed such a disclaimer  for comfort, to clarify the legal status of the document. Many Members 
had highlighted that they had demonstrated their flexibility, moving from their initial positions to 
allow the Committee to move on and adopt this useful document. Some Members had also raised 
concerns that this impasse was discouraging future work and productive discussions on other 
issues.  
4.33.   The Chairperson had concluded by encouraging Members to continue consulting on the 
margins of the Committee meeting in the hope of a possible solut ion before the close of the 
meeting.  
Fourth Review  
4.34.   Regarding the Fourth Review, the Chairperson had opened the floor for any new positions as 
her consultations had focused only on the Catalogue.  
4.35.   The United States, in an effort to stimulate discussion, had proposed three options on 
potential ways forward. The first option was the status quo of remaining deadlocked on the 
paragraph in question. In the US view, this option was in conflict with decision of MC10 on 
reinvigorating the work of regular bodies. The second option proposed by the United States was to 
rewrite the private standards section of the Report of the Fourth Review to reflect the depth of 
engagement and discussion that had taken place, concisely describing the views and the 
engagement on all sid es. This option could possibly include  setting a deadline for completion of the 
work. The third option was to skip adoption of the Fourth Review altogether and start afresh with 
the Fifth Review, but on the basis of a new process for conducting and complet ing the Review. 
The United States had emphasized that these options were not  mutually exclusive and were a 
starting point for more discussions.  
4.36.   Members had acknowledged that the discussions had been locked for too long and had 
welcomed that new ideas and a pproaches had been put forward. The options proposed by the 
United States were indeed not mutually exclusive. Certain Members had highlighted that the work 
already conducted in these areas should not be lost; several Members had put efforts into trying to 
bridge the differences, and coming up with new proposals. The Committee should bear this in mind 
in moving forward.  
4.37.   In closing, the Chairperson had proposed to continue consulting while being mindful of the 
new options proposed. The Chairperson had also su ggested that the Committee could request the 
Secretariat to provide information on how the TBT Committee conduct ed its reviews, to further 
stimulate discussions around new processes for the future.  
4.38.   Pakistan highlighted the importance of the Catalogue and h oped that  there could be 
convergence on the issue by the next Committee meeting.  
4.7  Chairperson's annual report to the CTG  
4.39.   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 mid -November. Members could request a draft report from the Secretariat, and 
provide comments by 31 October 2016.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 22 - 
 
  5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1  Report on Workshop on Maximum Residue Levels ( MRLs ) 
5.1.  The Chairper son reminded Members that a  special SPS thematic workshop had been 
organized by the Secretariat to focus on p esticide maximum residue levels . The Chairperson  
invited the Secretariat to report on the workshop . 
5.2.  The Secretariat recalled  that Members had been invited at several stages of the process to 
make comments on the programme  for the workshop , as well as to put forward names of 
speakers. The final programme had been circu lated in G/SPS/GEN/1514/Rev.1.  The WTO Global 
Trust Fund had made it possible to cov er the costs of travel for sev eral of the speakers and for 
27 participants from developing and least -developed countries. Sponsored participants had been 
selected from over 300 applications. The workshop had also been attended by the participants of 
the 20 16 edition of the Advanced SPS Course, as well as interested delegates and a few non -
governmental representatives who had participated as speakers in the workshop.  
5.3.  The objective of the workshop had been to bring together officials responsible for 
participa tion in and implementation of the SPS Agreement, as well as the relevant international 
standard -setting organization and scientific bodies for an in depth discussion, at a technical level, 
on pesticide maximum residue levels. More specifically , the objecti ves were for participants  to: 
a. Review the SPS Agreement and MRLs, including the relevant provisions of the 
Agreement and jurisprudence;  
b. Review the Codex approach to establishing MRLs. This include d relevant information on 
the respective work of Codex and sc ientific bodies, such as the Codex Committee on 
Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residue s 
(JMPR);  
c. Be exposed to the relevant international, regional and bilateral work being undertaken 
on pesticide residues; and  
d. Discuss experiences in complying with MRLs and establishing MRLs, including information 
on their domestic regulatory and legal infrastructures.  
5.4.  Throughout these two days, workshop participants benefit ed from detailed presentations, as 
well as discussions. In order  to set the framework for the subsequent discussions, the Secretariat's 
presentation in Session 1 had focused on the relevance of the SPS Agreement to Pesticide MRLs, 
with particular reference to Annex A, as well as Article 8 and Annex C. Other relevant pr ovisions of 
the Agreement had been identified, in addition to some key lessons learned from MRL -related 
jurisprudence and some statistics on MRL -related notifications and specific trade concerns.  
5.5.  Speakers in Session 2 had dealt with the Codex approach to e stablishing pesticide MR Ls. 
In addition to the Codex Secretariat, representatives from relevant scientific bodies such as the 
Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide 
Residues (JMPR) had outlined their respect ive work and how their activities contributed overall to 
the Codex process for establishing MRLs.  
5.6.  In Session 3 , speakers had shared information on the ongoing regional work being 
undertaken by OECD, APEC and EAC to harmonize MRLs. In particular, the genera l work 
programme, guidelines and residue definitions had been outlined.  Several speakers had also 
addressed the issue of establishing MRLs for minor -use crops in Session 3. The importance of 
capacity building and collaborative efforts had been highlighted through the work of projects being 
carried out at an international and regional level. In addition, Brazil's experience in establishing 
legislation for minor -use crops had been presented.  
5.7.  In Session 4, speakers had explained their domestic regulatory and l egal infrastructures for 
establishing MRLs, and also had provided insights into their approach to risk assessment and risk 
management where no international standards exist, or where an existing international standard 
was not used. Members had shared their  practical experiences in implementing and complying with 
Codex MRLs in Session 5, highlighting some of the challenges and difficulties encountered.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 23 - 
 
  5.8.  In Session 6, speakers from the private sector had engaged in a panel discussion which had 
provided insight s into the various ways that the private sector can be involved in the 
establishment of MRLs, as well as the challenges encountered in the coordination and 
communication process. The impact of default MRLs and MRL expiration on agricultural trade had 
also been presented in Session 7 . 
5.9.  In summarizing the key outcomes of the various workshop sessions in Session 8, speakers 
had highlighted the constraints and challenges from a developed and developing country 
perspective. In general, there had been rich discuss ions with many questions and comments 
made , and experiences shared.  A detailed report o f the workshop would be prepared, and all 
presentations would be posted on the SPS gateway page.2 
5.10.   Many Members expressed their appreciation for the workshop.  
5.11.   The United States also expressed its appreciation for the workshop , which had  highlighted 
the importance of trade -related MRL issues being faced by Members . The United States made  
suggestions for future work  by the SPS Committee  in four topic areas. The first suggest ion related 
to the enhancement of the Codex MRL system, urging Members to engage their Codex 
representatives and participate in inter -ministerial discussions on CCPR issues to consider  options 
to enable a more productive Codex MRL system. The second sugges tion related to transparency 
and predictability in Members' regulato ry approaches. The  United States urged Members to review 
their administrative procedures on notifying  and commenting on MRLs  in order  to improve 
transparency, as well as to take into accou nt private sector input s in advance of MRL withdrawals. 
Thirdly, the United States welcomed the harmonization efforts being undertaken by APEC, NAFTA, 
OECD and EAC, which had been  shared in the workshop. The United States proposed that these 
types of updat es should take place regularly during Committee meetings , with the aim of inspiring 
similar harmonization initiatives at the regional level. The fourth area related to greater access  of 
developing countries  to newer, alternative pesticides that can replace  older pesticides , as thes e 
could be the root of some MRL -related trade issues. The United States invited Members to consider 
ways in which their regulatory frameworks can impact the investment incentives of the private 
sector. The United States, in this r egard, also encouraged Members to evaluate their own minor 
use needs and to consider attending the 2017 Global Minor Use Summit to be held in Montreal , 
Canada. In terms of next steps, the United States proposed that a statement by the Committee be 
drafted in support of this work , but deferred to the Chair and other Members as to the desirability 
and appropriate means to transmit this message.  
5.12.   The Chairperson underscored  the relevance of the workshop and highlighted the need for 
adequate follow -up action on the part of the Committee. She invited Members to share their 
observations on the workshop and/or to comment on the US proposal s. 
5.13.   Canada  recalled that the workshop  had highlighted both what works well , as well as  some 
problem areas to address, which were c overed by the US proposal.  Canada  underscored the need 
to have increased collaboration, coordination and communication in order to manage the impact of 
different MRLs on agricultural  trade. Canada  further expressed its support for the US proposals on 
increasing transparency, encouraging updates on harmonization efforts within the Committee, and 
supporting Members' increased engagement  in the Codex process in order  to improve its 
efficiency . 
5.14.   Uganda echoed the comments made by the United States and Canada and  emphasiz ed the 
major challenges faced by developing countries in this area. Uganda supported the suggestions  for 
future work.  
5.15.   Chile highlight ed the importance of the  topic within the Committee . Given the investment 
made in this workshop  by all parties , follow-up activities were needed. Chile requested that the 
United States and other delegations circulate their ideas in writing to allow further study and 
consideration  by Members . Chile indicated that its initial reaction to  the US proposals was positive 
and further underscored that any follow -up work would be beneficial  for developing countries.  
                                                
2 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop_oct16_e/wkshop_oct16_e.htm . G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 24 - 
 
  5.16.   Kenya expressed its broad support for the US proposal, while highlighting several areas of 
concern for developing countries. In particular, a gricultur al trade conti nued to be impacted by the 
absence of Codex MRLs and the use of default MRLs. Kenya further highlighted that this challenge 
was augmented by the absence of  alternative chemicals, especially for minor use and specialty 
crops. Other concerns included the inc reased need for international and regional harmonization, 
greater involvement in data generation efforts and increased transparency in the data review 
process.  
5.17.   The European Union indicated that  ideas proposed by the United States seemed interesting 
and req uested  that an appropriate time  period  be allotted to process the content of the workshop 
and to appraise potential follow -up activities. The European Union supported circulating any 
proposals in writing to facilitate this  review . 
5.18.   Argentina , Brazil, Domini can Republic, India, Mexico, New Zealand, and Zambia  also took 
the floor and stress ed the significance of the topic for developing countries, agree d that follow -up 
activities were needed, and request ed more time for consultation and review of potential fol low-up 
activities with experts in capital.  
5.19.   The Chairperson noted that the Committee was in full agreement that follow -up activities 
were needed  on this topic . The Chairperson requested th at the  United States,  and any other 
interested Member , submit their proposals in writing. On this  basis, informal consultations could be 
held before the next Committee meeting.  
5.2  Creation of a Working Group on Implementation - Proposal from Brazil  
5.20.   Brazil provided an update on its proposal  for the creation of a working group o n the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement . Brazil was still reflecting on how to structure t his group  in 
order  to ensure there was no overlap with existing practices. A written proposal that would also 
incorporate ideas from other Members  was expected to be ready in advance of the March 2017 
meeting.  
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities   
6.1.  The Secretariat recalled that document s G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.6 and 
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.6/Add.1 provided an overview of the te chnical assistance and training 
activities  planned  for 2016. Since the last Committee meeting, technical assistance on the 
SPS Agreement ha d been provided through three national seminars held in Guinea , Egypt and 
Tajikistan . In addition, a joint TBT and SP S Workshop on Regulations, Standards and Health had 
been held, as well as the Workshop on Pesticide MRLs. More general training on the 
SPS Agreement had also been provided through the WTO A dvanced Trade Policy Course 
(in Spanish ); a SIDA workshop in Stockh olm; and two Regional Trade Policy Courses held for Latin 
America , in Ecuador ; and fo r Asia and the Pacific , in Thailand . 
6.2.  The Secretariat further announced that national seminars would be  held for Angola , Comoros  
and Guatemala before the end of the year . National Seminars were also being scheduled for: 
Bangladesh, Jordan, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru and Tunisia . The following upcoming activities would 
also include general SPS training: the WTO Regional Trade Policy Course for the Arab region in 
Oman  (8-10 Nove mber) ; and two Regional Workshops to be held in Singapore. Specifically, 
one would focus on Trade Facil itation, TBT and SPS issues (30  November – 2 December), and the 
second would focus on Ag riculture and SPS issues (28 -30 November).  
6.3.  The S ecretariat also d rew Members' attention to the 2016 Advanced  Course that was 
currently underway, in French. It was the twelfth consecutive year that this course had been 
offered, and 25 officials from developing and least -developed countries had been selected to 
participat e. This was a unique activity since it not only focused on transmitting knowledge on the 
SPS Agreement and the SPS Committee, but also on identifying actions to address specific 
implementation challenges and opportunities at the national level. Throughout the course, each G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 25 - 
 
  participant developed an action plan, to be implemented upon their return to their countries. 
This implementation was monitored by coaches, and through a follow -up session about nine 
months after the course. The Secretariat thanked the Cha irperson and the delegates who had 
shared their knowledge and experiences during the Advanced Course, as well as the participating 
organizations (Codex, IPPC, OIE, ACWL, ITC), WTO and STDF colleagues, and the external 
consultants, Mr João Magalhães and Ms Gretchen Stanton.  
6.4.  The Secretariat recalled that the E -Learning course on the SPS Agreement was available 
year-round in the three WTO working  languag es. Further information on SPS technical a ssistance 
activities could be obta ined on the WTO website (under t rade-related technical assistance), or by 
contacting the Secretariat for additional clarification and assistance.  
6.5.  Egypt took the floor to highlight the recent national workshop held in Cairo and expressed its 
appreciation for the Secretariat's efforts in o rganizing and delivering this workshop . 
6.1.2   STDF  (G/SPS /GEN/1 516) 
6.6.  The STDF provided an overview of its activities , as described  in document G/SPS/GEN/1516 . 
The STDF Working Group had recently met and approved a new work plan for 2017 -2018. 
The STDF would conti nue to fund collaborative and innovative SPS projects . The STDF also  recalled 
that, earlier in the week, participants of the Workshop on  Pesticide  MRLs had been informed  about 
several Global Minor Use projects funded by the STDF in  various regions , in coll aboration with 
other partners. The STDF would also continue to fund project preparations grants , with greater 
focus placed on further improving the quality of proposals through the develo pment of trai ning 
manuals, working with the EIF and focused sessions during national SPS seminars . 
6.7.  Other highlights of the 2017 -2018 work  plan were to continue promoting the use of the PIMA 
framework to assist developing countries in prioritizing SPS investments for market access , as well 
as building on recent work undertak en on electronic SPS certification. Members of the Working 
Group had also started discussion s on new wo rk for the STDF to undertake in the years to come, 
with a focus on good regulatory practices in the SPS area and the role of the private sector.  
6.8.  More gen erally, a specific focus would be placed on further strengthening STDF's work on 
outreach and communications to convey the results and impact of the STDF, increase its visibility, 
and to attract additional and much -needed donor contributions to support its  work. 
A communication plan, adopted by the Working Group, was available on the STDF website.  
6.9.  The STDF noted that information about ongoing projects and project preparation grants, the 
process to apply for funding, and the eligibility criteria were availab le in G/SPS/GEN/1 516 and on 
the STDF website  (http://www.standardsfacility.org ). The next deadline for the submission of 
applicat ions would be 26 December 2016.  
6.10.   The Chairperson noted the important work of th e STDF and stressed the need for new 
donors to come  forth, in order  to allow STDF  to continue its excellent work.  
6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   Technical assistance to developing countries provided by Canada  
6.11.   Canada  provided information on its technical assistan ce to developing countries in calendar 
year 2015. Canada delivered or initiated a total of 20 SPS -related technical assistance projects 
targeting various geographic regions. More information could be found in G/SPS/GEN/1522 . 
6.2.2   Technical assistance provided b y Australia  
6.12.   Australia provided information on its technical assistance to developing countries from 
July 2013 to June 2015. The aggregate value of the official development technical assistance 
during the reporting period exceeded 35 million  Australian doll ars. Full details  on Australia's 
technical assistance  could be found in G/SPS/GEN/717/Add.5.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 26 - 
 
  7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  
7.1.  The Chair indicated that this agenda item was closely linked to the discussions on the Fourth 
Review of the SPS Agre ement , which had been discussed under  an earlier agenda item.  The Chair 
further invited any Member or Observer to take the floor on other matters relating to private and 
commercial standards.  
7.2.  China indicated that  three panel sessions related to private sta ndards had been  held during 
the 2016 WTO Public F orum, and requested that  the S ecretariat share the content of the se 
discussions with  the Committee.  
7.3.  In accordance with Action 3 in G/SPS/55, the Secretariat confirmed  that three sessions 
related to private s tandards  had taken place during the WTO Public Forum . The Secretariat shared 
with the Committee the focus of these sessions , which had  dealt with  private standards and 
transparency ; with standards, regulation and SMEs in relation to private standards ; and with 
sustainability  standards and their relationship with governmental regulatory actions and inclusive  
trade . The Secretariat invited Members to visit the WTO Public Forum page on the WTO website  
(https://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/public_forum16_e/public_forum16_e.htm ) in order to 
access the podcasts of the sessions . 
7.4.  China shared its observations  on the three core messages from the Public Forum sessions . 
Firstly,  China stated that  private standards could constitute serious barriers to trade for SMEs  in 
developing and developed Members  and could be challenged under the relevant WTO  Agreements , 
including the SPS Agreement . Secondly, there was a strong necessity to br ing private standards  
within the WTO rules framework , irrespective of Membe rs' views  on the scope s of the relevant 
WTO agreements . In this regard, China noted that the re was an increasing  number of  standards 
which were  affecting trade and being used in sup port of public policy objectives , which could 
conflict with the internationally recognized principles of standard -setting, e.g. transparency and 
non-discrimination . Thirdly, governments needed  to play a proactive role in amplifying the 
potential benefits o f private standards , while  addressing their concerns  about the proliferation, 
credibility, legitimacy and compliance costs of private standards.  In light of these core messages, 
China invited Members to further reflect on their positions on private standar ds in the 
SPS Committee . 
7.5.  The European Union requested clarification on whether the messages put forth by China 
constitut ed the  official  conclusions of the relevant Public Forum sessions and also queried  the 
profile of  participants taking  part in these sess ions. In response, the Chairperson noted that 
China's comments reflected its  own conclusions on the Public Forum. The Secretariat further 
clarified the nature of the WTO Public Forum, highlighting that participation was open to all 
interested stakeholders,  such as representatives from academia, civil society, NGOs  and producer 
groups. The Secretariat also noted that Public Forum session s could be organized by the 
WTO Secretariat or by various stakeholder groups, and in particular , the sessions on private 
standards had been organized by different organizations and/or interested parties.  
7.6.  China thanked Members for their interest and further clarified that it  did not find official 
conclusions  provided by any of the organizers of the three panel sessions and that  its intervention 
was based on its own observation s. China adde d that speakers at the three panel sessions had a 
wide range of backgrounds, with some coming from international organizations such as UNCTAD, 
ITC, WTO, ISO, ISEAL Alliance and IISD, some from academia such as the Columbia Universit y of 
the United States,  Queen's College of Canada, the German Development Institute a nd Brazilian 
Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV), and others from a law firm and WTO Members. China invited the 
European Union and other  interested Members to v isit the official website of the WTO Public Forum 
2016 for details.  
7.7.  Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India and Pakistan  appreciated the information provided by 
China and by the Secretariat. P rivate standards had an impact on trade , and particularly on SMEs.  
They encouraged continued  discussion on private standards within the SPS Committee. Pakistan 
suggested that discussions  on private standards take place on the margins of  the next 
information -sharing session and workshop  of the C ommittee in March and October 2017. These 
discussions could focus on the link between private standards and transparency , information  
sharing, trade facilitation , as well as  the cost of compliance and  challenges for SMEs.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 27 - 
 
  8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from observe r organizations  
8.1.1   IICA  (G/SPS/GEN/1515)  
8.1.  IICA provided an update on its activities of interest to the Committee, described in more 
detail in document G/SPS/GEN/1515 . Highlights included the conclusion of a regional SPS project 
to develop draft model legislati on, the establishment of an antimicrobial resistance surveillance 
system, and continued work to improve the understanding of FSMA in interested countries.  
8.2.  IICA also drew attention, on behalf of OIRSA, to an on -going virtual train -the-trainer course 
on GAP s and HACCP , jointly developed by IICA and OIRSA. More information on this course was 
available in G/SPS/GEN/1523.  
8.1.2   SADC  (G/SPS/GEN/1517)  
8.3.  SADC provided an update on its activities  and events of interest to the Committee, described 
in more det ail in document G/SPS/GEN/1517 . 
8.1.3   IGAD  (G/SPS/GEN/1521)  
8.4.  IGAD reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee  through  document 
G/SPS/GEN/1521.  Highlights included updates on regional SPS, animal welfare and disease -
eradication strategies.  
8.1.4   OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/15 23) 
8.5.  The Chairperson drew attention to a report submitted by OIRSA contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1523.  
8.1.5   African Union  (G/SPS/GEN/1525)  
8.6.  The African Union provided information  on its activities of interest to the Committee in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1525  that included updates o n events convened by the A frican Union 
Commission (AUC) , the A U Interafrican Bureau f or Animal Resources (AU -IBAR) and the 
AU Interafrican Phytosanitary Council (AU -IAPSC).  
8.1.6   OECD (G/SPS/GEN/1528)  
8.7.  The Chairperson drew attention to a report submitted by OECD contained in 
G/SPS /GEN/1528.  
8.1.7   ITC (G/SPS/GEN/1530)  
8.8.  The Chairperson drew attention to a report submitted by ITC contained in G/SPS/GEN/1530.  
8.2  Requests for observer status  (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.13)  
8.2.1   New reque sts 
8.2.1.1   Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (C AHFSA) 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.17)  
8.9.  The Chairperson recalled that the Secretariat  had received a new request  for ad hoc observer 
status  from the Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA) and that the 
information received from CAHFSA had been presented in document (G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.17). 
The Chairperson also re called that at the last Committee meeting , some Members had req uested 
more time to consider this  request.  G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 28 - 
 
  8.10.   Barbados and Haiti  took the floor in support of CAHFSA's request for observer sta tus. 
8.11.   The Committee  agreed  to grant  CAHFSA  ad hoc  observer status  in the SPS Committee . 
8.2.2   Outstanding requests  
8.12.   The Chairperson proposed that, as had been done the previous year, the SPS Committee 
invite the organiz ations with ad hoc observer status to partici pate in all SPS Committee meetings 
in 2017 - with the exception of any closed meeting - unless any Member objected to the 
participation of any of these observers in advance of a meeting. It was so agreed . 
8.13.   The Chairperson also reminded the Committee that in  2012, it had agreed that if for any 
one-year period an ad hoc observer organization did not attend any meetings of the 
SPS Committee, its observer status would lapse, but only after the Secretariat had contacted the 
observer organization and received conf irmation that it was no longer interested in maintaining its 
observer status. The Chairperson requested that the Secretariat verify after the current meeting 
whether any ad hoc observer organizations had not attended a single Committee meeting in 2016 . 
She also requested that the Secretariat contact any such organizations and seek information 
regarding their continuing interest to pa rticipate in the SPS Committee.  
8.14.   The Chairperson noted that there was still no consensus on the six outstanding requests for 
observer status from the Commission for Biological Diversity  (CBD); CABI International; 
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); 
the Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV), the Asian and Pa cific Coconut 
Community (APPC); and the International Cocoa Organisation (ICCO).  
8.15.   The Chairperson thanked the representatives of observer organizations for their 
contributions to the work of th e Committee and for their assistance to Members.  
9  OTHER BUSINESS  
9.1.  Panama expressed its concerns with India's measures related to requirements for teak tree 
wood to be fumigated with methyl bromide, as notified in G/SPS/N/IND/149. Panama wished to 
bring this issue to the at tention of the Committee at the earliest opportun ity. Panama requested 
further information from India on its pest risk analysis which was used as a basis for the 
measures , as well as  a list of approved quaran tine treatments for the identified products. Panama 
further requested India to consider  granting a one-year extension in order to undertake  
implementation -related prepar ations,  linked to  human resource  capacity  and technology 
requirements. Panama further indicated that its  comments would also be transmitted to India's  
IPPC focal point.  
9.2.  Ecuador express ed interest in this subject and would be awaiting further developments . 
9.3.  India stated that it had no prior notice of this issue and  as such was not in a position to 
respond. India further  indicated its willingness to engage in bilateral discussion s. 
10  DATE AN D AGENDA FOR NEXT ME ETING S 
10.1.   The next regular meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for 22-23 March 
2017, with an informal meeting on 2 1 March  2017. The Secretariat also indicated a slight shift in 
the dates for the July 2017 meeting, which woul d see the regular meeting of the Committee being 
moved back by one day to 13 -14 July 2017, in order to accommodate the Aid for Trade Review 
which would take place during the same week.  
10.2.   Brazil encouraged Members to continue using the current structure of th e agenda for 
forthcoming meetings , as it had shown to be useful  and had contributed to more fluid discussions . G/SPS/R/84  
 
- 29 - 
 
  10.3.   The Committee agreed to the following tentative agenda for its upcoming regular meeting:  
1. Adoption of the agenda  
2. Information sharing  
a. Information from Members on relevant activities  
b. Information from OIE, Codex and IPPC on relevant activities  
3. Specific trade concerns  
a. New issues  
b. Issues previously raised  
c. Information on resolution of issues  
4. Operation and implementation of the SP S Agreement  
a. Equivalence  
b. Pest- or disease -free areas  
c. Opera tion of transparency provisions  
d. Special and differential treatment  
e. Monitoring the  use of international standards  
i. New issues  
ii. Issues previously raised  
f. Fourth Review  
5. Cross -cutting issues  
6. Technical assistance and cooperation  
a. Information from the Secretariat  
i. WTO SPS activities  
ii. STDF  
b. Information from Members  
7. Concerns with private and commercial standards  
8. Observers  
a. Information from Observer organizations  
b. Requests for observer status  
9. Other business  
10. Date and agenda of next meeting  
10.4.   Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines : 
• For submitting  comments or suggestions on the Chairperson's draft annual report : 
Monday, 31 October  2016; 
• For expressing interest in sharing experiences on trade -facilitating measures during the 
2017 March  thematic session: Tuesday, 31 January 2017  
• For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that item s be put  on the agenda: Thursday, 9 March 2017 ; 
• For the distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 10 March  2017. 
 
__________