RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/76  
 
2 December 2014  
(14-7022)  Page: 1/27  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 15 AND 17 OCTOBER 2014 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Table of Contents 
1   ADOPTION OF  THE AGENDA ........................................................................................ 4  
2   INFORMATION ON RE LEVANT ACTI VITIES .................................................................. 4  
2.1   Information from Members ......................................................................................... 4  
2.1.1   Peru - Organization of the 46th Meeting of the Codex Committee on Food 
Hygiene, to be held in Lima on 17-21 November 2014 ............................................................ 4  
2.1.2   Russian Federation – Information regarding amendments to the common sanitary 
epidemiological and hygienic requirements ........................................................................... 4  
2.1.3   Russian Federation – Possible scenario on African swine fever spread in the Eurasian region ............................................................................................................... . 4
 
2.1.4   Japan - Update on the response to TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power 
station accident and on import restrictions on Japanese food regarding radioactive 
nuclides ........................................................................................................................... 5  
2.1.5   European Union - Update on the epidemiological situation of African swine fever .............. 5  
2.1.6   European Union - Information on the launch of public consultation on defining 
criteria for endocr ine disruptors .......................................................................................... 5  
2.1.7   United States – Implementation of th e FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) .......... 6  
2.1.8   Belize – Information on PVS follow-up  mission ............................................................ 6  
2.1.9   Belize – Foot and mouth disease si mulation ................................................................ 6  
2.2   Information from the relevant  SPS standard-setting bodies ............................................. 6  
2.2.1   IPPC .................................................................................................................. ... 6 
2.2.2   CODEX ................................................................................................................. . 7 
2.2.3   OIE ....................................................................................................................... 7  
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.14) ............................................ 7  
3.1   New issues .............................................................................................................. . 7 
3.1.1   Russia's market access requirements for bovine meat in compliance with OIE 
requirements – Concerns of India ........................................................................................ 7  
3.1.2   Russia's restrictions on imports of fruits and vegetables from Poland 
(G/SPS/N/RUS/69) - Concerns of the Europe an Union ............................................................ 7  
3.1.3   Russia's unilateral introduction of new requirements for veterinary certificates – 
Concerns of  Ukraine .......................................................................................................... 8 
3.2   Issues prev iously raised ............................................................................................. 8  
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2.1   Application and modification of the EU Regulation on Novel Foods - Concerns of 
Peru (No.  238) ................................................................................................................ . 8 
3.2.2   Korea's strengthened import restri ctions on food and feeds with regard to 
radionuclides – Concerns of Japan (No. 359) ......................................................................... 9  
3.2.3   China's import restrictions in response to the nuclear power plant accident – 
Concerns of Japa n (No. 354) .............................................................................................. 9  
3.2.4   US high cost of certification for mango exports – Concerns  of India (No. 373)................. 10 
3.2.5   EU phytosanitary measures for citr us black spot – Concerns of South Africa 
(No. 356) ..................................................................................................................... .. 10 
3.2.6   EU ban on mangoes and certain vegetables from India - Concerns of India 
(No. 374) ..................................................................................................................... .. 11 
3.2.7   US measures on catfish – Concerns of Ch ina (No.  289) ............................................... 11 
3.2.8   US non-acceptance of OIE categorizati on of India as "negligible country" for BSE - 
Concerns of In dia (No.  375)  .............................................................................................. 11 
3.2.9   Australia's non-acceptance of OIE categorization of India as "negligible risk 
country" for BSE - Concerns  of India (No. 376) .................................................................... 12 
3.2.10   General import restrictions due to BSE - Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) ..................................................................................................................... .. 12 
3.2.11   India's import conditions for pork and pork products – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 358) ............................................................................................................... 13 
3.2.12   Turkey's requirements for importation of sheep meat – Concerns of Australia 
(No. 340) ..................................................................................................................... .. 13 
3.2.13   EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic products - Concerns of India 
(G/SPS/GEN/1354 ) (No. 374) ............................................................................................ 14 
3.3   Information on resolution of  issues in G/SP S/GEN/204/Re v.14 ........................................ 14 
4   OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS (G/SPS/GEN/804/REV.7) ................. 14  
5   IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT .............................. 15  
6   EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE 4 ........................................................................................ 15  
6.1   Information from Memb ers on their experiences ........................................................... 15 
6.2   Information from releva nt observer or ganizati ons ......................................................... 15 
7   PEST- AND DISEASE-FR EE AREAS - AR TICLE 6 .......................................................... 15  
7.1   Information from Members on  their pest or disease status .............................................. 15 
7.1.1   Brazil – Eradication of cydia pomonella (G /SPS/GEN /1355) .......................................... 15 
7.1.2   Uruguay – Sheep comp artmentalizati on system ......................................................... 15 
7.1.3   Philippines – Rule recognising freedom from Mango Seed Weevil and Mango Pulp 
Weevil ............................................................................................................................ 15 
7.2   Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas .................................................................................................................... ... 16 
7.3   Information from releva nt Observer Or ganizati ons ........................................................ 16 
8   TECHNICAL ASSISTAN CE AND COOP ERATION ........................................................... 16  
8.1   Information fr om the Secr etariat ................................................................................ 16 
8.1.1   WTO SPS activities ................................................................................................. 16 
8.1.2   Report on Worksh op on Risk Analysis ....................................................................... 17 
8.1.3   STDF .................................................................................................................. . 18 
8.2   Informatio n from Members ........................................................................................ 19 G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 3 - 
 
  8.2.1   Technical assistance to deve loping countries pr ovided by Russia ................................... 19 
8.2.2   Belize ................................................................................................................... 19 
8.3   Information from observers ....................................................................................... 19 
9   REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................... 2 0 
9.1   Fourth Review .......................................................................................................... 20 
9.1.1   Report of th e Informal Meeting ................................................................................ 20 
10   MONITORING OF THE USE OF  INTERNATIONAL STANDARD S .................................. 22  
10.1   New Issues ............................................................................................................ 22 
10.2   Issues previously raised ........................................................................................... 22 
11   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS .................................... 22  
11.1   Report of th e Informal Meeting ................................................................................. 22 
12   OBSE RVERS ............................................................................................................. 25  
12.1   Information from observer orga nizations .................................................................... 25 
12.2   Requests for observer status .................................................................................... 25 
12.2.1   New Requests ...................................................................................................... 25 
12.2.2   Outstanding Requests ........................................................................................... 26 
13   CHAIRPERSON'S ANNU AL REPORT TO CTG .............................................................. 26  
14   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 26  
15   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS ................................................................ 26  
 
 G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its sixty-first 
regular meeting on 15 and 17 October 2014. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with amendments (WTO/AIR/4363). 
2  INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
2.1  Information from Members 2.1.1  Peru - Organization of the 46th Meet ing of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, 
to be held in Lima on 17-21 November 2014 
2.1.  Peru informed Members that Peru's national Codex committee was co-sponsoring the meeting 
of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene in November 2014 in cooperation with the United States (G/SPS/GEN/1362). This would enhance Peru's participation in Codex and contribute to 
strengthening capacities. Co-sponsoring would also enable Peru's delegates to participate more 
effectively in this year's session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, with a focus on prioritizing risk-oriented preventive measures aimed at ensuring food safety. 
2.1.2  Russian Federation – Information regarding amendments to the common sanitary 
epidemiological and hygienic requirements 
2.2.  Russian provided information on current efforts to amend the common  sanitary requirements 
of its Customs Union, with a focus on pesticide residue levels in food products. So far, 
20 maximum residue levels (MRLs) for twelve active ingredients in pesticides had been harmonized with international standards and had undergone public consultations as an amendment to Annex 15.1 of Chapter II of the co mmon sanitary requirements. Russia had notified 
these draft amendments in G/SPS/N/RUS/50. All comments received were being studied by the 
Eurasian Economic Commission and competent Cu stoms Union authorities, and a revised draft 
document would be submitted for further approval. Russia would continue to inform WTO Members 
of progress in this regard. 
2.3.  Ukraine thanked Russia for the informatio n provided and requested further clarification 
regarding the two questions submitted to Russia in June. Malaysia informed the Committee of its 
concerns regarding Russia's new peroxide value (PV) of palm oil of 0.9 meq/kg (notified through 
G/SPS/N/RUS/50), which was lower than the international standards. Malaysia was of the view that a maximum level of 10 meq/kg should be maintained, in line the standard established by the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils. A PV of 0.9 meq/kg was too trade restrictive and would not 
reflect actual trade practices. Malaysia requested Russia to provide the relevant scientific risk 
assessment justifying its lower peroxide value. Russia thanked Ukraine and Malaysia and expressed its readiness to engage in bilateral discussions on this issue. 
2.1.3  Russian Federation – Possible scenar io on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region 
2.4.  The Russian Federation drew Members' attention to the African swine fever (ASF) situation 
within the Eurasian region, which continued to pose risks of economic and social losses. These 
risks were aggravated by disagreements between  the European Union and Russia; co-operation 
and confidence would be needed in order to find a solution. In Russia's view, EU veterinary services and those of other countries in the region had underestimated the risk, resulting in 
154 outbreaks reported to the OIE by Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Estonia. The EU focus on 
maintaining trade led to health risks for EU countries and for Russia. Russia expressed concern about the spread of ASF in Estonia and Latvia and resulting risks for ASF introduction to the 
Kaliningrad and Leningrad regions of Russia, and about the lack of information available on the 
efficiency of monitoring programmes implemente d in the Transcaucasia region. Russia suggested 
the establishment of an international standing wo rking group comprising scientists from affected 
countries with practical experience in ASF control. Russia had proposed to hold a special meeting 
for international experts, for example in Minsk. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.1.4  Japan - Update on the response to  TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power 
station accident and on import restrictions  on Japanese food regarding radioactive 
nuclides 
2.5.  Japan provided an update on the situatio n of Japanese foods following the nuclear power 
station accident. Japan highlighted the continuous implementation of its rigorous monitoring 
programme for seafood products, both at the production site and in market distribution. The latest monitoring data indicated that levels of contamination in more than 99% of food items were below 
the standard limits. Strict measures prevented th at food that exceeded the standard limits be 
distributed on the domestic market or exported. Japan also drew Members' attention to the latest IAEA assessment from September 2014, which found that Japan's current measures to address radionuclide contamination were appropriate. Japan thanked Members who had removed their 
import restrictions on Japanese food products, and hoped that remaining restrictions would be 
removed as soon as possible. 
2.1.5  European Union - Update on the epid emiological situation of African swine fever 
2.6.  The European Union informed the Committee about the current epidemiological status of ASF 
within its borders. The European Union noted that 131 cases of ASF in wild boar had been reported 
in Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Estonia, and 40 outbreaks among domestic pigs in Lithuania, 
Latvia and Poland. The European Union highlight ed that ASF cases within EU borders were 
unrelated to legal trade of animals and animal prod ucts and, instead, the vast majority of cases 
arose as a result of infected wild boar moving across its borders with Belarus, or through the suspected illegal introduction of infected produc ts. The European Union also highlighted a recent 
case of ASF in northern Estonia, close to the border with Russia, where no link had been found 
with other outbreaks in the European Union. This finding suggested that Russia was not only an indirect source of ASF introduction into the European Union via Belarus, but also a direct one. This 
highlighted Russia's failure to control the spread  of ASF in its territory, leading to repeated 
introductions into neighbouring countries. The Eu ropean Union emphasized that affected member 
States applied stringent control measures in close cooperation with the European Commission and 
that EU regionalization measures (EU Decision No. 2014/178/EU) were in line with international 
standards and had proven effective in containing the disease within limited areas. EU member States also ensured transparency by submitting immediate notifications to the OIE and to the EU Animal Disease Information System. In addition, the European Commission had sent 
73 communications to the EU's key trading partners with information on ASF and on control 
measures and restrictions put in place. The Euro pean Union expressed concern that its repeated 
requests for information on the surveillance and control measures taken by Belarus and Russia had 
not been answered. The European Union provided information on its efforts to enhance 
collaboration within the OIE and FAO framework, starting with the regular sharing of surveillance data and reinforced controls between neighbouring countries. A first meeting had taken place in 
Bern on 22 September 2014 with the intention to establish a Standing Group of Experts on ASF 
under the umbrella of the Global Framework for the progressive control of Transboundary Animal Diseases. 
2.1.6  European Union - Information on the launch of public consultation on defining 
criteria for endocrine disruptors 
2.7.  The European Union provided information about the launch of its public consultation process 
on defining the criteria for identifying endocrin e disruptors on 26 September 2014. The European 
Union highlighted that the usual consultation pe riod of twelve weeks had been extended until 
16 January 2015 to allow sufficient time for stakeholders to provide comments. Relevant 
information and instructions on how to submit contributions were available on the European Commission website, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1365. The European Union further informed 
Members that a feedback report assessing all contributions would be issued, and would support 
the EU legislative work as appropriate. 
2.8.  Mexico thanked the European Union for the circulation of its document and noted that the 
included hyperlink was inaccessible. The United States thanked the European Union for providing 
an extended consultation period, and requested further details on how communications from 
Members would be taken into account, and whether the feedback report would be publically available in addition to the impact assessment. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.9.  The European Union replied that the hyperlink in its document would be checked.2 The 
European Union promised to verify whether the feedback report would be published separately. The European Union also noted that it had not submitted a WTO notification but an invitation to Members to participate directly in the public consultation. 
2.1.7  United States – Implementation of th e FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) 
2.10.  The United States reported on progress of the Food and Drug Administration's 
implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). FDA had published four FSMA-
related supplemental proposed rules in the Federal Register on 29 September 2014.
3 These 
proposals contained changes to four of the rules previously proposed in 2013: Produce Safety, Preventive Controls for Human Food, Preventive Controls for Animal Food, and the Foreign Supplier Verification Program. The proposed revisions were based on public comments submitted 
electronically during the comment period. The United States assured Members that the proposed 
changes were science-based, provided flexibility to  the industry, and were the result of extensive 
dialogue between FDA and domestic and international stakeholders. The United States drew 
Members' attention to the final deadline of 15 December 2014 to submit comments through 
http://www.regulations.gov . 
2.1.8  Belize – Information on PVS follow-up mission 
2.11.  Belize thanked the OIE for a follow-up mi ssion conducted during July 2014 following the 
2008 Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) eval uation, which also included the application of 
the PVS aquatic evaluation (G/SPS/GEN/1372). The OIE's reports had been received on 10 October 2014 and were currently under review. 
2.1.9  Belize – Foot and mouth disease simulation 
2.12.  Belize further informed the Committee of a Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) simulation 
workshop held in Belize in September 2014 (G/SPS/GEN/1372). The programme of the workshop 
had included the review and finalization of a draft FMD procedural manual, presentations on 
procedures contained in the manual, and visits to four cattle farms with a hypothetical FMD case. The simulation had been held in collaboration with the Belize Agricultural Health Authority, the 
Inter-American Development Bank, FAO, the Pan American Health Organization and the Centro 
Panamericano de Fiebre Aftosa. 
2.2  Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies 2.2.1  IPPC 
2.13.  The IPPC provided a report on its recent activities (G/SPS/GEN/1370). At a meeting of the 
Strategic Planning Group during October 2014, pa rticipants had prepared briefing papers on a 
long-term forecast for the IPPC, as a foundation for the IPPC strategic plan. The Standards 
Committee had approved specifications to be submitted for member consultation on the 
authorization of entities other than national plant protection organizations to perform phytosanitary actions, guidance on pest risk management, and guidelines for phytosanitary import 
regulations. The IPPC also provided information on its efforts to encourage Members to develop 
their national contact points and reporting obligations, which had allowed the IPPC to successfully update its database of official contact points; and on the creation of the ePhyto webpage, which 
would enhance the IPPC's functioning, reduce the number of fraudulent certificates being issued, 
assist in trade facilitation, and assist in developing a global system that could be used in future 
collaborations with the OIE and Codex. The IPPC also reported on a co-project with the STDF 
designed to develop a pool of qualified experts to serve as facilitators of the Phytosanitary 
Capacity Evaluation (PCE) tool. The IPPC informed the Committee about a case initiated under the 
IPPC dispute settlement process, for which it had issued a call for technical experts on citrus black spot, with responses due by 31 October 2014. 
                                               
2 G/SPS/GEN/1364/Add.1. 
3 G/SPS/N/USA/2502/Add.5, G/SPS/N/USA/2503/Add.5, G/SPS/N/USA/2569/Add.2, and 
G/SPS/N/USA/2593/Add.2. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.2.2  CODEX 
2.14.  The Chairperson drew attention to a written report submitted by Codex (G/SPS/GEN/1368). 2.2.3  OIE 2.15.  The Chairperson also drew attention to a report submitted by the OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1364). 
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.14) 
3.1  New issues 3.1.1  Russia's market access requirements for bovine meat in compliance with OIE 
requirements – Concerns of India 
3.1.  India reported on progress achieved bilaterally to resolve this concern, and thanked Russia 
for its support. Russia expressed confidence that the issue would be resolved soon. 
3.1.2  Russia's restrictions on imports of fruits and vegetables from Poland 
(G/SPS/N/RUS/69) - Concerns of the European Union 
3.2.  The European Union raised its concern regarding Russia's temporary restrictions on imports 
of certain fruits and vegetables from Poland, taken for phytosanitary and other reasons. These 
restrictions had been introduced as of 1 August 2014, and notified as G/SPS/N/RUS/69. The 
European Union questioned the consistency of this trade restriction with international principles, and whether it was supported by a risk assessment. Given the low rate of Polish phytosanitary 
non-compliance compared to the total number of consignments exported to Russia, the measures 
taken by Russia were disproportionate and more trade restrictive than necessary for the pests Frankliniella occidentalis  and Grapholita molesta . The Russian measures were not transparent, 
since the Russian Federal Service had not provided regular notifications of interceptions to Poland 
in accordance with the IPPC and ISPM 13. Russia had not replied to EU requests for information on 
scope and methods of pest monitoring. The European Union reminded Russia of the principle of non-discrimination, which required that measures applied on exporting countries should not be 
more stringent than measures applied to the same pests within the importing country. Despite 
numerous invitations to establish an effective system of data exchange with Russia, many 
notifications were received with delay, thus hampering official investigations to enable appropriate 
corrective actions. The European Union was confident that the Polish phytosanitary certification 
system was effective and fully consistent with international standards, and underlined that the Polish National Plant Protection Organization had taken further measures to eliminate cases of non-compliance and was ready to demonstrate their effectiveness in a systems audit. Moreover, 
the European Union noted that in many cases the MRLs applied by Russia for nitrates and 
pesticides were far below those set by Codex Alimentarius. In some cases the findings of Russian laboratories could not be confirmed by Poland, which would be the subject of a meeting between 
Polish and Russian laboratory experts. The European Union requested Russia to immediately repeal 
its measures and to align them with international standards and its WTO obligations. 
3.3.  Russia enquired whether a National Plant Pr otection Organization existed at EU level, and 
whether Poland had delegated powers to the European Commission to discuss the ban. The 
Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phyt osanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor) had 
repeatedly notified both the European Commission's Directorate-General for Health and Consumers and the Polish State Plant Health and Seed Inspection Service about the non-
compliance of Polish commodities with Russian  phytosanitary requirements. Since 2008 the 
phytosanitary status of commodities imported from Poland was insufficient, which had led to increasing numbers of interceptions every year, suggesting that Polish pest control might not be 
sufficient. Moreover, there had been several violations of international and Russian phytosanitary 
requirements of high risk commodities from Poland in 2013. To avoid such situations, 
two meetings with Poland had been held in 2013 and 2014, at which Poland had promised to 
undertake actions to prevent phytosanitary certification of contaminated products and to issue 
phytosanitary certificates in accordance with international requirements. The Russian Federation noted, however, that Poland had not taken thes e actions, although certain Polish products 
imported to Russia had posed a public health threat due to pesticide residues and nitrates levels G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 8 - 
 
  which neither complied with Russian nor EU standards. Given these systematic violations and 
failure to prevent the problems, Russia imposed science- and risk-based temporary restrictions on imports of certain regulated Polish commodities. Russia reminded Members that it had harmonized its plant quarantine legislation with the principles  of international standards at Russia's accession 
to the WTO. Accordingly, the Russian Federation  requested the European Union to specify the 
concrete clause, article or section of the SPS Ag reement, IPPC, ISPM or other documents violated 
by Russian measures. 
3.1.3  Russia's unilateral introduction of new requirements for veterinary certificates – 
Concerns of Ukraine 
3.4.  Ukraine raised concerns regarding Russia's unilateral introduction of new requirements for 
veterinary certificates for Ukrainian goods subject to veterinary supervision on 1 September 2014. 
Ukraine doubted the compliance of Russia's measures with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement. 
Ukraine requested that Russia comply with its obligations, particularly those relating to equivalence and consultations. To avoid misunderstandings on the interpretation of laboratory 
tests, Ukraine had previously proposed research under bilateral governmental supervision on 
subjects including mutual recognition of laboratory results and joint laboratory assessments, as well as the validation and accreditation of methods that differ at the level of standards application. 
Ukraine informed the Committee that on 11 August 2014 the Ukraine State Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Service had sent revised forms of veterinary certificates in Russian to Rosselkhoznadzor. In response, Rosselkhoznadzor had informed the Ukraine about a large number 
of inconsistencies in the certificate forms. Ukraine pointed to Russia's obligations within the 
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which provided that parties agree bilaterally on 
sample forms of veterinary certificates for imported products of animal origin. Ukraine urged Russia to explain its non-implementation of Ar ticle 14 of the CIS Agreement and its accession 
commitments. Ukraine expressed its openness for full cooperation with Russia to resolve this 
concern in the interest of trade. 
3.5.  Russia clarified that a veterinary certificate was a legally binding document used by exporting 
countries to confirm the safety of its products and compliance with the veterinary requirements of 
the importing country. While Ukraine, as a member of CIS, had thus far used a simplified form of the veterinary certificate, difficulties arose when Ukraine signed the EU-Ukraine Association 
Agreement. This agreement covered, inter alia, the implementation of EU SPS legislation. The 
resulting reconstruction of Ukraine's current veterinary and phytosanitary control system had not 
been notified to Rosselkhoznadzor, constituting a violation of WTO transparency principles. During trilateral consultations between Russia, Ukraine and the European Union to discuss the Association 
Agreement's economic implications for Russia, Ukraine had proposed the development of a co-
operation road map with Rosselkhoznadzor, the first point of which was to shift to the system of international veterinary certificates. Howeve r, according to an agreement reached on 
12 September 2014, Ukraine could enjoy the privil eges of CIS membership – and therefore use 
the simplified veterinary certificates – until 31 December 2015. Russia had provided comments on the new draft certificates submitted by Ukraine on 1 September 2014, correcting a number of mistakes. Russia expressed surprise at Ukraine's concern, since the change in certificates related 
to Ukraine's own proposal, and since Ukraine was able  to use the simplified veterinary certificates 
until the end of 2015. 
3.2  Issues previously raised 
3.2.1  Application and modification of the EU  Regulation on Novel Foods - Concerns of 
Peru (No. 238) 
3.6.  Peru restated its concerns over the pr oposed amendment of EU Regulation No. 258/97
4 
(G/SPS/GEN/1361). Peru referred to its earlier comments on how to facilitate access to the EU 
market for biodiversity products from developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1335), highlighting concerns on the proposed definitions of: (i) "novel food"; (ii) "traditional food from third country"; and (iii) "history of safe food use in a third count ry". Peru requested the European Union to revise 
the definitions to establish criteria that would allow traditional biodiversity products from 
developing countries timely access to the EU market. Furthermore, Peru addressed Article 9 of the proposed amendment, which sets forth the proced ure for authorizing the placement of novel food 
                                               
4 Notified as G/SPS/N/EU /64, G/SPS/N/EU/64/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/EU/64/Add.2. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 9 - 
 
  on the EU market, requiring the exporter to presen t scientific evidence demonstrating the safety of 
the novel food in question. Peru challenged the consistency of EU's proposed Regulation with 
Articles 2.2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, which require the importing Member to adopt the least 
trade-restrictive measure, based on a risk a ssessment, and requested the European Union to 
provide the underpinning scientific basis. 
3.7.  Colombia and Guatemala expressed their support for Peru's concerns. 3.8.  The European Union informed the Committee that Members' comments on the new proposed 
Regulation were being transmitted to the Eu ropean Parliament and European Council for 
consideration before its final adoption. Regarding Peru's comments on Article 9, the European Union recalled that one of the main objectives of the proposed Regulation was to facilitate and streamline the authorization of novel foods from third countries. European Commission 
Recommendation 97/618/EC reflected the scientific considerations underpinning the draft 
legislation. As it was not possible to anticipate the potential risks associated with novel foods production processes, the European Union noted that a high level of food safety could only be 
achieved by putting in place a pre-market approval system, compatible with Article 8 and Annex C 
of the SPS Agreement. The Europe an Union expressed its confidence that the proposed Regulation 
was consistent with the SPS Agreement since it provided unified, simplified and shortened 
authorization procedures. The European Union reit erated its commitment to work closely with all 
Members to address their concerns and to provid e detailed guidance to applicants regarding the 
authorization and notification procedures. 
3.2.2  Korea's strengthened import restrict ions on food and feeds with regard to 
radionuclides – Concerns of Japan (No. 359) 
3.9.  Japan reiterated its concern regarding Korea's import restrictions on fishery and food 
products, as these bans and additional testing requirements for radionuclides were non-
transparent, not based on science, discriminatory and more trade-restrictive than necessary. 
Japan had held numerous bilateral meetings and provided detailed information to Korea, and sought to use the tools set forth in the SPS Agreement to reach an amicable solution. While Korea 
had recently started to provide some responses to  Japan's questions raised under Articles 4, 5.8 
and 7 of the SPS Agreement, these were insufficient. Yet, Japan welcomed Korea's indication that it was conducting a review, and its clarification on the appropriate level of protection underpinning its measures in relation to the radionuclide thresholds established in Codex STAN 193-1995. Japan 
was concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding Korea's review of the measures taken 
between 2011 and 2013, and encouraged Korea to  provide more information on its review 
meetings and timeframes. Japan hoped that this review would include an objective, transparent 
and science-based reassessment of Korea's measures in accordance with international standards, 
such as Codex Working Principle CAC/GL 62-2007. Japan reiterated that if Korea continued ignoring Japan's requests, Japan would have no choice but to resort to other actions under the 
WTO. 
3.10.  Korea clarified that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, 
to protect human health and food safety from radioactive contamination. Korea had been seeking to obtain additional information for a more objective and science-based risk assessment, but 
received insufficient data from Japan. The latest technical meeting had been held on 
18 September 2014. Korea was willing to conduct additional expert meetings and hoped for full co-operation with Japan to finalize its review process and resolve this issue. 
3.2.3  China's import restrictions in resp onse to the nuclear power plant accident – 
Concerns of Japan (No. 354) 
3.11.  Japan recalled its concern over import restrictions by China on Japanese food exports , 
following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. Japan regretted that no progress had been made 
since the July 2014 SPS Committee Meeting, as China maintained a ban on products from ten Japanese prefectures. This ban might not be based on international standards and be more trade-restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of protection. In June 2013, Japan had 
provided China with monitoring results that had demonstrated that Japan's food was safe for 
human consumption. Moreover, Japan raised its concern that additional prefectures were also subject to import bans on vegetables, fruits, te a, milk, medicinal plants and related products. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 10 - 
 
  While China had announced in 2011 that it would lift the import ban on those products, it had 
since been reluctant to do so, although Japan had proposed pre-test certificates. Japan was concerned that China deliberately avoided any progre ss on this issue, raising the doubt that China 
was applying its measures in a manner which might constitute a disguised restriction on 
international trade. Japan requested China to imme diately accept Japan's pre-test certificates, and 
to lift the import ban without further delay. 
3.12.   China explained that TEPCO's nuclear power station incident, which had brought great 
losses to Japan, had posed serious threats to food safety. China had imposed corresponding 
measures on agricultural and marine products from Japan, based on risk assessment in compliance with international practice. China had already adjusted the inspection and quarantine measures for Japanese food and agricultural products, and cont inued to apply restrictions only for high-risk 
products from seriously polluted regions. Following Japan's request, China was currently analyzing 
the technical data provided and would review the measures accordingly. 
3.2.4  US high cost of cert ification for mango exports – Concerns of India (No. 373) 
3.13.  India reiterated its concern regarding the high cost of certification for mango exports to the 
United States. Since 2007 India had been granted access to export mangoes to the United States 
on the basis that they would be irradiated, under the supervision of US inspectors, to mitigate the 
risk of fruit flies and stone weev il and noted they had shipped 1,600 metric tons of mangos to the 
United States. India noted that bearing the high cost of certification rendered its mangoes uncompetitive. While a trust fund had been created, India had suggested preclearance by the National Plant Protection Authorities, which had not been agreed on. In previous meetings, the 
United States had offered irradiation upon arrival which, however, would result in an economically 
unfeasible situation. Taking into account the past seven years of Indian mango exports to the United States, India requested mutual recognition of equivalence of mango certification and 
conformity assessment procedures in order to redu ce costs and to facilitate trade, as had been 
done for organic certification. 
3.14.  The Dominican Republic expressed its support for India's concern and requested further 
information from the United States on the costs of import procedures. 
3.15.  The United States recalled that India had been the first country to export irradiated 
mangoes to the United States. While the value of Indian mango exports had risen every year since, the United States had attempted to accommodate India's concern by amending its 
legislation for irradiation upon importation to lower the costs of clearance. The United States 
reiterated that it was looking forward to receiving further proposals from India on how to lower the costs of mango clearance. 
3.2.5  EU phytosanitary measures for citrus  black spot – Concer ns of South Africa 
(No. 356) 
3.16.  South Africa recalled that it had previously raised concerns over restrictive EU requirements 
for citrus fruit. Despite comments submitted by South Africa's as well as by an international group 
of scientific experts, the European Food Safety Au thority had released its final risk assessment on 
citrus black spot in February 2014, maintaining it s opinion that commercial citrus fruit from areas 
where citrus black spot was present presented a risk to the European Union. Based on this 
conclusion, the European Commission Standing Committee on Plant Health had decided on 
additional import measures for citrus fruit from South Africa, which had taken effect in July 2014. 
In South Africa's opinion, these significantly more stringent measures were unjustified restrictions 
on trade, and were disproportionate to any possi ble risk to the European Union. The measures 
implied additional costs and had severe negative influence on South Africa's citrus industry. South Africa had voluntarily suspended exports from certain areas for the rest of 2014, and had 
asked the secretariat of the International Plant Prot ection Convention (IPPC) to establish an expert 
committee in line with Article XIII of the IPPC to provide an independent science-based opinion. South Africa had been engaging with the European Union for 22 years without a successful outcome. South Africa would again review its citrus black spot risk management system for the 
2015 export season, and would continue to strengthen its citrus industry. South Africa upheld its 
science-based opinion that EU phytosanitary import requirements in respect of citrus black spot for fresh consumption fruit were more stringent than technically justifiable. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.17.  The European Union stressed that the measures were in place to prevent the entry of citrus 
black spot, since there had been an increasing number of interceptions in 2014. The European Union was currently free from citrus black spot, and the disease would have severe socio-economic implications if imported. The European Food Safety Authority had established a scientific panel and 
was in the process of organizing a dialogue. The European Union acknowledged South Africa's 
efforts to remedy the situation and expressed its willingness to comply with its responsibilities under the IPPC dispute resolution process, but was also looking forward to a bilateral dialogue with 
officials from South Africa. 
3.2.6  EU ban on mangoes and certain vege tables from India - Concerns of India 
(No. 374) 
3.18.  India reiterated its concern regarding the EU ban on its exports of mangoes and four other 
vegetables on the grounds of increasing numbers of interceptions of harmful pests and organisms. 
India had informed the European Union of various measures taken to reduce the interceptions, such as treating mangoes with hot water against fr uit flies. EU authorities had agreed to visit the 
Indian pack houses and the systems in place, an d India requested the European Union to remove 
the restrictions at the earliest. 
3.19.  The European Union explained that its measures had been introduced in April 2014 due to 
the growing number of interceptions of five problematic commodities at the EU border. Several 
meetings had been held with India to discuss problems related to insufficient phytosanitary export checks and inadequate certification systems. In 2010 and 2013 the EU Food and Veterinary Office had undertaken two missions to India, which had revealed significant shortcomings in the 
certification system of plants. The European Union clarified that the current temporary ban was in 
force until the end of 2015, and that an audit re port would be released in the next few weeks. 
Before reviewing the ban, the European Union was looking forward to sufficient guarantees from 
India that it would take effective corrective measures. 
3.2.7  US measures on catfish – Concerns of China (No. 289) 3.20.  China recalled that in March 2011, the United States had notified its regulations for 
mandatory inspection of catfish and catfish products, intending to transfer the regulatory 
responsibility from the Food and Drug Administra tion (FDA) to the US Department of Agriculture 
(USDA). In 2014, USDA had been mandated to draft rules concerning the requirements for inspection of catfish and catfish products, which had included catfish regulation with that of 
terrestrial animal meat products. The biological characteristics, farming, processing and inspection 
of catfish products, however, were different from that of terrestrial animal meat products. The OIE 
had established terrestrial and aquatic animal health codes respectively, and there was no 
evidence that catfish products had higher food safety risks than other aquatic products. China 
raised its concern that USDA's inspection programme imposed additional costs on foreign catfish producers by requiring equivalence programmes. China believed that the inspection programme 
was a trade barrier and violated US obligations under WTO agreements. China urged the United 
States to adjust its mandatory inspection measure based on science, and to implement catfish inspection under the management regulations of aquatic products instead of terrestrial animal meat products. 
3.21.  The United States explained that the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 had 
mandated that catfish be regulated under the Federa l Meat Inspection Act. The Agricultural Act of 
2014 had made the Food Safety and Inspection Se rvice (FSIS) responsible for fish safety and 
inspection. The United States noted that FSIS was currently working on finalizing the catfish 
inspection rules, and that trading partners would be  notified as soon as these rules were finalized. 
3.2.8  US non-acceptance of OIE categorizati on of India as "negligible country" for BSE - 
Concerns of India (No. 375) 
3.22.  India restated its concern that the United States did not accept the OIE categorization of 
India as a negligible risk country for BSE. India recalled that OIE defined the standards for six diseases including BSE, and that India followed these standards in line with the SPS 
Agreement. India reminded Members to apply OIE designations instead of conducting their own 
national assessments, and noted that the United States had chosen to disregard the OIE G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 12 - 
 
  designation, which was contrary to accepted international practice among Members. India 
requested the United States to recognize its official OIE BSE status. 
3.23.  The United States reiterated  its commitment to aligning its import regulations governing 
BSE with OIE guidelines. The United States had received India's OIE dossier on 
18 September 2014, and was currently reviewing Indi a's status, with an opportunity for public 
comments. 
3.2.9  Australia's non-acceptance of OIE ca tegorization of India as "negligible risk 
country" for BSE - Concerns of India (No. 376) 
3.24.  India also reiterated its concern regarding Australia's non-acceptance of its OIE 
categorization as negligible risk country for BSE. India noted that Australia had chosen to implement its own categorization process and voiced concerns about the multiplicity of systems, as 
well as the risk that national categorization processes would contradict the OIE's categorization. In 
order to resolve this issue, India requested that Australia accept the OIE categorization. 
3.25.  Australia offered to conduct meetings in Delhi or at the margin of the ongoing SPS 
Committee meeting in order to resolve this issue bilaterally. Australia reserved its right to conduct 
its own risk assessments on the status of India or any other Member, in relation to diseases of biosecurity concern, including BSE, in accordance with its current policies and appropriate level of 
protection. 
3.2.10  General import restrictions due to BSE - Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) 
3.26.  The European Union reiterated the importance of this concern; SPS measures adopted by 
Members had to be based on relevant international standards. Unjustifiable trade restrictions 
relating to BSE were still in place in a number of Members, although OIE standards for safe trade had existed for more than ten years. The Euro pean Union welcomed the growing number of WTO 
Members recognizing the EU control system and th e EU Member States' negligible or controlled 
risk status. The European Union urged all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards. The European Union urged China, the USA and Australia to adjust their BSE 
requirements fully in line with OIE requirements, and to speed up the approval processes of bovine 
and beef products from the European Union. Furthe rmore, China's recent lifting of its ban on live 
cattle imports from one EU member State only suggested differentiation between identical or similar BSE conditions found in several EU member States. The European Union welcomed 
Saudi Arabia's recent lifting of restrictions  on beef imports from the European Union. 
3.27.  The European Union raised, for the first time, similar concerns regarding Turkey's import 
restrictions on beef from the European Union. The European Union had identified in particular 
testing requirements that were unjustifiable and too trade restrictive. The European Union stated 
that it was willing to continue to work closely with Turkey to avoid inconsistencies, and to find a quick, comprehensive and practical solution. 
3.28.  Turkey responded that its bovine import requirements were in line with international rules 
and that there were no unjustified restrictions  on beef imports from the European Union. 
Importation was allowed from EU member States with negligible BSE risk status. 
3.29.  China explained that it had taken a cautious approach to BSE measures to protect public 
health and food safety. In 2014, according to OIE statistics, two BSE cases had occurred in 
Germany and one in Romania, which had raised doubts that the BSE risk was under control in the region. China had engaged in technical exchanges with the European Union and its member States 
to solve relevant technical issues. Since the BSE risk status, prevention and control levels were not 
fully harmonized among EU member States, China had carried out separate risk assessments. China had recently lifted the ban on veal from the Netherlands and had sped up the access 
approval procedures. Regarding BSE-free countries, China had accelerated relevant beef access 
procedures by signing a protocol with Latvia and by agreeing on a draft protocol with Hungary. 
China expressed its willingness to enhance the technical exchanges with the European Union to solve this issue. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.30.  Saudi Arabia thanked the European Union for its comments and co-operation, and 
emphasized that it would not hesitate to facilitate trade with Members. 
3.2.11  India's import conditions for pork an d pork products – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 358) 
3.31.  The European Union recalled its concerns regarding India's import requirements for pork 
and pork products, and noted that it had been requesting India for many years to bring such 
measures in line with the international standards of the OIE. While according to international 
standards veterinary authorities should not require any condition to allow trade of "safe 
commodities", India had imposed trade bans and had never provided any sound scientific justification. The European Union requested that India: (i) require that the exporting country certify freedom only from diseases for which there were OIE standards and not from other 
diseases; (ii) require treatment of pig meat and recognize curing processes in accordance with 
relevant Codex Alimentarius standards; (iii) apply the same conditions to non-heat treated processed pig meat, whether imported or produced  in India; and (iv) provide a sound scientific 
justification for diverging from international standards. While India had promised to review its 
import requirements on multiple occasions, this had not yet led to tangible results. The European Union urged India to respect its obligations  under the SPS Agreement, OIE and Codex 
Alimentarius, and to lift its longstanding barrier to trade immediately. 
3.32.  Canada echoed the concerns of the European Union and emphasized that India had not 
provided any scientific rationale for its deviation from international standards. Canada also noted that India required freedom from several animal diseases for which the OIE did not recommend 
veterinary certification. Canada requested that India provide the Committee with a timeline for 
publishing revised import conditions for pork and pork products. 
3.33.  India noted that the sanitary import re quirements were being revised and that Members 
would be informed in due time. India further explained that the mentioned revision was delayed by 
the recent cases of African swine fever in the European Union. 
3.2.12  Turkey's requirements for importatio n of sheep meat – Concerns of Australia 
(No. 340) 
3.34.  Australia reiterated its concerns over Turk ey's requirements for sheep meat imports, which 
it had raised at each Committee meeting since October 2012. Turkey had indicated that it was in the process of aligning its food safety legislation with that of the European Union. In 
February 2012, Australia had provided Turkey with a draft bilingual sheep meat certificate based 
on EU requirements, but Turkey had neither ac knowledged receipt of the draft certificate nor 
provided advice on its acceptability. Australia enquired when a response would be provided. 
3.35.  The United States shared Australia's concern and noted that importing countries should 
develop science-based standards in a timely manner when certification was required. The United States appreciated Turkey's willingness to work with US authorities to develop new certificates on 
import requirements, and requested that imports not be disrupted during the process of 
developing new standards. 
3.36.  Turkey noted that after bilateral meetings with Australia it had adopted its Law on 
Veterinary Services, Plant Health, Food and Feed, notified as G/SPS/N/TUR/9. Turkey had also 
prepared model health certificates for beef, bovine meat, livestock and fishery products aligned 
with EU standards. Development of a uniform model certificate for other products of animal origin, including sheep and goat meat, was underway. Efforts to determine the appropriate level of 
protection for imports of sheep and goat meat were also in process. Turkey was committed to 
resolving this trade concern, but highlighted th at the first meeting of the Turkey-Australia 
agricultural steering committee planned for October 2014 had been delayed due to the heavy 
schedule of the Australian Minister of Agriculture.  Turkey reiterated its openness for dialogue and 
close co-operation with Australia at different levels. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.2.13  EU withdrawal of equivalence for proc essed organic products - Concerns of India 
(G/SPS/GEN/1354) (No. 374) 
3.37.  The Secretariat informed Members about inaccuracies in document G/SPS/GEN/1354, which 
provided information about SPS and TBT notifications on organic products, and on relevant Codex 
work. These inaccuracies would be corrected and a revised document would be circulated as soon 
as possible (G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1, dated 7 November 2014). 
3.38.  India reiterated its concerns with the EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic 
products, which it had previously recognized since 2006. The equivalence agreement with the 
European Union provided that processed and unprocessed organic food products from India could be exported to the European Union pursuant to certification from the bodies accredited under 
India's National Programme for Organic Products. In order to expand its exports, India had 
published guidelines in September 2012 that would permit certain imported ingredients, such as 
herbs, flavours, additives and colours, to be blended with Indian organic value-added products. These guidelines, which provided that the percenta ge of imported ingredients would be within the 
range of 5%, were shared with the European  Union, who did not comment. However, EU 
Regulation No. 125/2013 had removed processed organic products from the equivalence agreement on the grounds that the agreement requir ed all ingredients to be grown in India. India 
clarified that no processed organic products containing imported ingredients were exported to the 
European Union since its 2012 guidelines had recent ly been withdrawn. India requested that the 
equivalence recognition be restored. 
3.39.  The United States was looking forward to the revised document and expressed its view that 
organic products did not fall under the ambit of the SPS Committee. 
3.40.  The European Union explained that its position that organic production was not covered by 
the SPS Agreement had not changed. Furthermore, as this concern related to a lack of compliance 
with rules of origin, the issue had no relation to SPS or food safety requirements. The European 
Union expressed its willingness to convey India' s concerns to the services of the European 
Commission responsible for organic products. The European Union had contacted the competent 
authority in India to start a dialogue at technical level. 
3.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 3.41.  India thanked the United States and Japan for their co-operation, and reported that two 
specific trade concerns had been resolved: India's concerns regarding US default MRLs, limits of 
determination or limits of quantification on basmati rice (STC 328); and concerns regarding 
Japan's restrictions on shrimp due to anti-oxidant residues (STC 342). 
3.42.  The United States confirmed that STC 328 had been being resolved. The new tolerance 
limits had been notified in G/SPS/N/USA/2679 and had already facilitated trade in basmati rice. 
Japan confirmed that STC 342 was resolved. 
4  OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS (G/SPS/GEN/804/REV.7) 
4.1.  The Secretariat recalled that it no longer produced paper copies of the contact lists of 
National Notification Authorities and National Enquiry Points, but that up to date information was available through the SPS Information Management System (IMS)
5. Members were encouraged to 
verify the contact details of their NNAs and NEPs, since there were plans to circulate a 
questionnaire to these bodies. The Secretariat also drew Members' attention to a guidance 
document received from the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity relating to minimizing the risk of invasive alien species, available through the CBD website. 
4.2.  The Secretariat informed Members that the annual transparency overview for the period from 
15 September 2013 to 15 September 2014 (GEN/804/Rev.7) highlighted that 152 out of 160 Members had designated SPS Notification auth orities - three more than the previous year. 
During this period, 1,485 notifications had been submitted. The Secretariat found that the number 
of notifications submitted in 2014 had increased in comparison to the previous review period; the 
                                               
5 http://spsims.wto.org . G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 15 - 
 
  60-day comment checkbox option was selected in 43% of regular notifications. The number of 
notifications in the past year indicating existence of an international standard constituted 53% of regular notifications, and out of these, 80% indi cated that the measure conformed to the relevant 
standard. For emergency notifications, these rates were significantly higher, at 91% and 94% 
respectively. Lastly, the Secretariat noted a growing number of Members using the SPS online 
system for submitting notifications; 56 Members had requested access to the system, and 31 of these Members had submitted notifications vi a the SPS NSS. Approximately 50% of all 
notifications were submitted via the SPS NSS. 
4.3.  Chile was concerned that in so many notifi cations no international standard was indicated, 
and that a majority of regular notifications did no t comply with international standards. Moreover, 
Chile remained concerned that, despite improvem ents, Members had often not complied with the 
60-day comment period, and that extensions of  comment periods were not always granted. 
5  IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 5.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
6  EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE 4 
6.1  Information from Members on their experiences 6.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
6.2  Information from releva nt observer organizations 
6.2.  No Observer provided any information under this agenda item. 7  PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS - ARTICLE 6 7.1  Information from Members on  their pest or disease status 
7.1.1  Brazil – Eradication of cydia pomonella (G/SPS/GEN/1355) 
7.1.  Brazil announced the eradication of cydia pomonella  from its territory. Notification hereof was 
issued by Normative Instruction No.10, published in the Brazilian Official  Journal on 8 May 2014. 
Brazil informed Members that the eradication of cydia pomonella  was achieved over a ten-year 
period of coordinated action among the public and private sector, following the relevant IPPC 
standards. As of 2011, there had been no detection of cydia pomonella , and Brazil had 
implemented actions to maintain this phytosanitary status. Brazil requested that importing 
Members now remove requirements concerning this pest and allow imports from Brazil. 
7.1.2  Uruguay – Sheep compartmentalization system 7.2.  Uruguay provided information on its compartmentalization procedure for sheep populations, 
in accordance with Chapters 4.3 and 4.4 of th e OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Uruguay 
informed Members that, since 2003, it had been recognized as FMD-free with vaccination. Although vaccination for its sheep population had been suspended since 1988, this neither 
modified nor suspended its status as FMD-free with vaccination. Uruguay informed the Committee 
that, in order to facilitate the access of sheep meat on the bone to international markets that possess FMD-free health status, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries had established a 
programme for the compartmentalization of sheep with the aim of improving sheep production, 
and requested official recognition from the OIE. Uruguay had provided relevant documentation to the OIE and invited health inspectors from various trading partners to visit its sheep compartments. 
7.1.3  Philippines – Rule recognising freedom  from Mango Seed Weevil and Mango Pulp 
Weevil  
7.3.  The Philippines reported on its final rule recognizing the entire Philippines territory as an area 
free from Mango Seed Weevil (MSW) and, with the exception of a small island within the Philippine G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 16 - 
 
  territory, Mango Pulp Weevil (MPW). In achiev ing this, the Philippines implemented a 10 month 
survey across the mango production season, in terms of which 2.6 million fruit was inspected. The results of the survey showed no detection of ei ther MSW or MPW. Moreover, the Philippines was 
pleased to report to the Committee on the United St ates' approval of an irradiation dose of 165 Gy 
as treatment for MPW from the affected island which, when combined with area freedom, had a 
positive impact on the Philippines' exports of ma ngoes to the United States, Hawaii, Guam and the 
Mariana Islands, and would help in securing the Philippines' access to other markets. Lastly, the 
Philippines thanked the United States for their final rule recognizing an area in the Philippines as 
free of MPW.  
7.2  Information from Members on their expe riences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas 
7.4.  Chile raised concerns regarding the underutiliz ation of the guidelines relating to recognition of 
pest and disease-free areas (G/SPS/48) and equivalence (G/SPS/19/Rev.2). The Committee had worked hard on these decisions, and it would be g ood to hear about their application, particularly 
in relation to recognition of a country's particular pest- or disease status. Chile noted that specific 
trade concerns were proof that Members did not always accept international recognition of a country's particular disease status. Chile requested more consistency from Members in their 
recognition of international pest and disease statuses. 
7.5.  The Secretariat encouraged Members to provide information on their experiences in 
requesting the recognition of pest- or disease-free areas, in accordance with the Committee's decision on the recognition of pest- disease-fr ee areas (G/SPS/48). Some of the information 
reported under earlier agenda items referred to such recognition, and it would be helpful if 
Members who had recognized such areas would confirm that this was the case. 
7.3  Information from releva nt Observer Organizations 
7.6.  No Observer provided any information under this agenda item. 
8  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 8.1  Information from the Secretariat 
8.1.1  WTO SPS activities 
8.1.  The Secretariat recalled that documents G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.4 and 
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.4/Add.1 provided an overview  of the planned technical assistance and 
training activities for 2014. Since the last Committee meeting, technical assistance on the 
SPS Agreement had been provided through five national activities held in Tanzania, St. Vincent 
and the Grenadines, Sri Lanka, El Salvador and Ec uador. A regional SPS workshop for Central and 
Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus had been held in Vienna. More general training on 
the SPS Agreement had been provided through (i) an Academic Support University Programme for 
Colombia; (ii) a Training Seminar on the SPS-IMS and SPS-NSS for trainees in the Netherlands Internship Programme; (iii) WTO Advanced Trade Policy courses (in both English and Spanish); 
(iv) WTO Regional Trade Policy Course for Asia and the Pacific (held in India), Latin America (held 
in Ecuador), Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus (held in Turkey); (v) a Training Programme organized by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency for Middle East and North African countries, held in Sweden; and (vi) a WTO/STDF side event held in 
the margins of the July 2014 Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting. 
8.2.  Upcoming Geneva-based activities included regional workshops for the Pacific region, in 
Samoa; and for Latin America, in Uruguay, both to be held in November. National seminars would 
be held in Saudi Arabia and Belarus before the end of the year; additional national seminars for 
Azerbaijan, Egypt, Honduras, Gambia, Mexico, My anmar, Sudan, and Trinidad and Tobago were 
currently being scheduled. More general training on the SPS Agreement would also be provided in 
(i) a Regional Trade Policy Course for Arab countries, to be held in Oman (November); (ii) a WTO 
Workshop on Trade and Public Health, to be held in Geneva (November); (iii) a Training Programme organized by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency for African countries, held in Sweden (19-21 November); and (iv) an AU-IBAR workshop to be held in Kenya G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 17 - 
 
  (1-4 December). In addition, an E-Learning course  on the SPS Agreement was available in English, 
French and Spanish throughout the year. 
8.3.  The Secretariat also drew attention to the 2014 Advanced Course that was currently 
underway, in Spanish. It was the tenth consecutive year that this course had been offered, and 
24 officials from developing and least-developed countries had been selected to participate. 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 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. 
8.4.  El Salvador and St. Vincent and the Gren adines thanked the Secretariat for the training 
activities held in their countries. 
8.1.2  Report on Workshop on Risk Analysis 
8.5.  The Secretariat noted that the Workshop on  Risk Analysis (held on 13 and 14 October 2014) 
had been attended by delegates and non-governmental participants, as well as by 48 sponsored participants selected from developing and least developed countries. The WTO Global Trust Fund 
covered the travel costs for these participants and for many of the speakers. In addition, the Inter-
American Institute for Co-operation on Agriculture (IICA) had co-funded the participation of nine Caribbean participants in this Workshop. The primary objective of the Workshop had been to bring together officials responsible for implementing the SPS Agreement for a technical, in-depth 
discussion of decision-making and communication during the risk analysis process. 
8.6.  Session 1 had set the framework for the su bsequent presentations, focusing on the risk 
assessment provisions (Article 5) of the SPS Agre ement and the important interpretations from the 
outcomes of WTO dispute settlement cases. Spea kers in Session 2 had dealt with current and 
evolving practices in undertaking risk assessments, as well as some of the challenges in dealing 
with uncertainty, data availability and qualitative vs. quantitative risk assessments. In Session 3, 
the IPPC and WHO had presented on the procedur es and guidelines used by those bodies in 
performing risk analysis. Unfortunately, the OIE had not been able to be present at the workshop. Practical experiences in managing risk had been  presented by developed and developing country 
speakers in Session 4. The International Livestock Research Institute and IICA had presented 
information on research and capacity-building activities in Africa and in the Americas respectively, 
as well as the tools available to assist in the risk analysis area, in Session 5. The issue of resource constraints and finding resources to undertake risk assessments had been covered in Session 6. 
The session had included some useful examples an d suggestions on leveraging resources for risk 
assessments, as well as experiences in using new ways to meet the WTO obligation in relation to risk assessment, such as the use of risk assessm ents drafted by parties other than the importing 
country. The challenges of communicating risk to various stakeholders had been discussed in 
Session 7, where practical experiences highlighte d the importance of targeting specific messages 
to various stakeholders, the timing of these messages, how to communicate uncertainty and the use of new communication tools, such as smartpho ne applications, in disseminating information. 
8.7.  In summarizing the key outcomes of the va rious workshop sessions in Session 8, speakers 
had highlighted the rapidly evolving nature of the risk analysis area, indicating that while 
significant progress had been made, there still remained resource challenges, data-sourcing 
issues, communication challenges and issues with the prioritization of the many demands. In 
addition, an open discussion had touched on several aspects of risk analysis in the SPS area – key 
among which was the reminder that, according to  the SPS Agreement, the importing Member had 
the legal obligation to ensure that its measures were based on a risk assessment. A detailed report 
on the workshop would be prepared, and all pres entations would be posted on the SPS gateway 
page.
6 Delayed streaming of the workshop had been  possible through the partnership with IICA, 
who made available its streaming platform. The Secr etariat announced that it would be possible to 
listen to the Workshop and watch video clips on demand via web links to be made available 
through the SPS gateway. 
                                               
6 G/SPS/R/77 (forthcoming); http://www.wto.org/sps . G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 18 - 
 
  8.8.  The United States expressed its satisfaction with the level of interest and participation in the 
risk analysis workshop and noted that the discussions and presentations had touched upon 
(i) challenges Members faced in aligning their legislative and regulatory frameworks with their WTO risk assessment obligations; (ii) increasing opportunities for Members to exchange data and 
information on risk analyses; and (iii) exploring whether Members could benefit from hearing 
about each other's experiences in addressing issu es related to risk assessment, risk management 
and risk communication. The United States advised Members to follow the evolving approaches 
towards risk assessment and risk communication, and noted its willingness to work with other 
Members to explore additional activities that the Committee could undertake in this regard. 
8.9.  South Africa voiced its satisfaction with the risk analysis workshop, particularly in relation to 
the level of participation and engagement among Members, as well as the quality of the 
presentations. Like the United States, South Afri ca noted a number of issues arising from the 
workshop that could be taken up in future discussions. 
8.10.  Belize noted the balanced representation of developed and developing country speakers at 
the Workshop. Belize appreciated the opportunity to share its risk analysis experiences. Similarly, 
the Philippines also thanked the Secretariat and indi cated its interest in future workshops on risk 
assessment. 
8.1.3  STDF 
8.11.  The STDF Secretariat reported on the most  recent activities of the STDF since the last 
SPS Committee meeting in July 2014 (G/SPS/GEN/1357). The STDF informed Members of its continued work on the implementation of SPS meas ures to facilitate safe trade. It encompassed 
regional research in selected countries in Sout hern Africa and East Asia, focusing on how SPS 
measures were implemented for selected agri-food products based on the relevant provisions of 
the SPS Agreement (notably Article 8 and Annex C). The STDF indicated that this work could also 
provide timely inputs towards the inclusion of SPS-related components in broader trade facilitation 
programmes. The STDF also informed Members that the regional research in Asia was completed, and the final report had been distributed to ST DF Working Group members. The STDF indicated 
that the findings from the report on Asian countries would be discussed at the STDF Working 
Group meeting in October 2014. 
8.12.  The STDF further reported that, based on successful past collaborations, the STDF and the 
Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) were prepar ing a joint study analyzing the coverage of SPS 
issues in Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies (DTIS) and identifying good practice for future 
studies and their implementation. Following a preliminary review of all DTIS reports, Cambodia, Tanzania and Senegal had been selected for field studies, whilst an additional 20 DTIS reports 
were selected for desk review. The STDF also informed the Committee that the results of the field 
work in Cambodia would be discussed with STDF Members during the course of the STDF Working 
Group meeting in October 2014.  A total of 63 project preparation grants and 68 projects had been 
approved and funded by the STDF since its incept ion. The STDF noted that the next deadline to 
receive applications was 26 December 2014, and that new applications would be considered at the next STDF Working Group meeting. Lastly, the STDF Secretariat reported on the new STDF website, launched in August 2014, available in  English, French and Spanish. The new website 
allowed the STDF Secretariat to publish, modify  and edit content, and provided an upgraded 
version of the STDF virtual library. 
8.13.  The Philippines provided information on changes to its regulatory agencies' import and 
export control procedures. The STDF study on facilitating safe trade carried out in the Philippines 
had offered further recommendations and best pr actices to enhance the measures already in 
place, promoting the necessary attitude change  among key players in this sector, with the 
objective of reducing costs and maintaining food  safety standards. The Philippines informed 
Members that the project's next steps would be discussed at the STDF Working Group meeting in 
October 2014. 
8.14.  Thailand thanked the STDF for its assistan ce in implementing a project focusing on SPS-
related trade facilitation within Thailand. Thailand had some comments on the final comparison 
report for Asian countries, which it would make ava ilable to the STDF before the final publication of 
the report. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 19 - 
 
  8.15.  Laos indicated that the STDF project on the implementation of SPS measures to facilitate 
safe trade had underscored that trade development would contribute to generating income and reducing poverty. Laos informed the Committee that the project, which was managed by the World Bank, provided assistance for improving SPS regula tions, legislation, and border control measures 
with the aim of increasing health protection and minimizing cross-border transaction costs in Laos. 
Laos informed the Committee that the project was currently undergoing a public consultation period, and announced further progress updates in the future. 
8.16.  IGAD highlighted that, through its region al technical centre, it supported eight member 
states in trans-border disease control, SPS-rela ted issues, and trade enhancement. In particular, 
IGAD informed the Committee of its focus on East African interregional livestock trade and livestock trade with the Middle East. IGAD enquired about the STDF's selection process for 
countries and projects, and noted that the current projects focused primarily on East Asian and 
Southern African countries. IGAD requested consider ation of its members for future STDF projects 
and indicated its interest in collaborating with the STDF. The STDF secretariat explained that 
country selection within Africa and East Asia had been based on expressions of interest in this 
work. The Secretariat indicated its interest in discussing this issue further with IGAD. 
8.2  Information from Members 
8.2.1  Technical assistan ce to developing countries provided by Russia 
8.17.  The Russian Federation informed Members of its status as a donor country to FAO, WHO, 
the United Nations as well as the Three Sisters, in addition to providing technical assistance to more than ten developing countries within the Eurasian region. Russia reported that this technical 
assistance was provided in the fields of food safety and animal and plant health, with the objective 
of fostering a clear understanding of the key SPS provisions in international and bilateral trade agreements within the Eurasian region. Assistance provided included capacity building, workshops, 
mentorship programmes, and training of specialists in an effort to provide for transparent and 
predictable access for Russian exports. These efforts also increased developing countries' capacities to access the benefits of increased agricultural trade with Russia and to understand the 
Russian SPS regulatory system. Russia highlighted that many of its technical assistance activities 
were provided in collaboration with a number of Russian government agencies, including the Ministries of Agriculture and Economic Development. The Russian Federation invited any interested country requiring SPS-related technical assistance to contact the competent Russian authorities. 
8.2.2  Belize 
8.18.  Belize provided information on technical assistance received (G/SPS/GEN/1373). Belize 
expressed gratitude to IICA for a twinning mechanism between the national Codex committees of 
Belize and Costa Rica, which included visits between officials of both countries in order to facilitate 
Belize's hosting of a National Codex Alimentari us workshop. Belize informed Members that the 
objectives of this twinning programme included: (i) strengthening the management capacities of 
Belize's contact point; (ii) identifying strategies and practices that would help improve Belize's 
participation in Codex; and (iii) strengthening internal management to enhance sustainability, participation and science-based decision making. Belize also expressed gratitude towards the European Union for the EDES Programme, which aimed to strengthen food safety systems among 
the ACP countries. Following a mission in June 2014, an action plan had been established to verify 
the status of the Belize food safety system. 
8.19.  Indonesia thanked New Zealand for providing technical assistance. Through a strategic 
framework lasting from 2012 until 2016, New Zealand would provide assistance on agricultural and 
SPS-related development issues. 
8.3  Information from observers 
8.20.  IICA reported on its technical assistance activities (G/SPS/GEN/1359), which included 
supporting the participation of 17 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean in the Codex Commission.  IICA also supported the participation of 20 countries in a Codex colloquium held in August 2014 in Chile, where discussions had centered  on food hygiene, labelling, and inspection 
and certification. Similarly, together with the IPPC secretariat, a regional workshop on G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 20 - 
 
  phytosanitary standards had been held in September 2014 at which proposed phytosanitary 
standards had been discussed. Work currently underway in the Caribbean under the 10th European 
Development Fund included harmonization in the ar eas of animal and plant health and food safety, 
training and good practices for the public and private sectors, and modernization of services. 
8.21.  The African Union (AU) reported on its SPS-related activities (G/SPS/GEN/1363). In 
particular, during its August 2014 meeting, the African Union Commission (AUC) SPS cluster had discussed the implementation of AU SPS progra mmes and a strategy to enhance SPS compliance 
through a value-chain approach. The proposed strategy would also facilitate continental 
consultations for building common positions on SPS standards and structures at regional and national levels. The AU provided information on its African commodities strategy, which would review the state of play of agriculture, mining  and energy commodities in Africa and identify 
national, regional and continental policies. The AUC has also organized training workshops on 
marketing and compliance of organic agricultural  products for the SADC region in Zambia and 
Botswana. The Interafrican Phytosanitary Council had organized two continental meetings to 
enhance the capacity of African NPPOs in building common positions, and to review the draft 
international standards for phytosanitary measures and specifications of the IPPC. 
8.22.   SADC provided information about a region al workshop on SPS information management for 
National Enquiry Points and National Notification  Authorities in Tanzania held in August 2014, 
which focused on enhancing the implementation of transparency obligations in the SPS Agreement. 
The workshop, in which 45 delegates had participat ed, had been supported by the European Union 
through the regional economic integration support programme. The workshop had also been 
attended by regional experts from Botswana, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. SADC also 
received support from FAO for a technical cooperat ion programme on the management of fruit flies 
in Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 
8.23.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to a report from OIRSA contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1367, and a report from ITC circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1369. 
9  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
9.1  Fourth Review 
9.1.1  Report of the Informal Meeting 9.1.  The Chairperson reported on the informal m eeting on the Fourth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreement held on 15 October 2014. At the informal meeting, two 
points had been discussed: (i) the revised draft re port of the Fourth Review; and (ii) outstanding 
proposals related to the Review. The Chairperson had reminded Members that, according to the agreed timetable, the goal had been to adopt th e report of the Fourth Review at the current 
meeting of the Committee. 
9.2.  First, the Committee had taken up the revised draft report of the Fourth Review. Following 
the timetable adopted by the Committee, the Secretariat had circulated the revised draft report 
(G/SPS/W/280/Rev.1) on 18 September 2014, incorporating comments that had been received 
from several Members since the July meeting,  as well as more recent information. 
9.3.  The Secretariat had highlighted the relevant sections affected by changes resulting from 
comments received from Argentina, Canada, China and the European Union, as well as from the 
inclusion of the latest developments in the work of the Committee. 
9.4.  The Chairperson had proposed that the language of the report be reviewed section-by- 
section, with a particular focus on the recommendations. The Secretariat had suggested that 
specific language be included in certain recomme ndations, to reflect the fact that the Committee 
had previously decided to undertake reviews of se veral of its decisions as part of the periodic 
reviews of the SPS Agreement. As these decisions related to the implementation of the Agreement, 
considering them in the context of th e four-year reviews avoided confusion. 
9.5.  Some Members had expressed concerns with overloading the reviews while others had 
suggested that the specific time periods for reviewing certain decisions had been part of the G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 21 - 
 
  consensus for their adoption. The additional recommendations suggested by the Secretariat would 
be added in the next revision of the draft repo rt of the Fourth Review, with the inclusion of 
information regarding previous agreements to cond uct the reviews of each individual decision as 
part of the four-year reviews of the SPS Agreement. Furthermore, Members had agreed on 
changes to the sections on transparency and technical assistance. 
9.6.  However, the Committee had not reached consensus on two specific recommendations. 
These were (i) the fourth recommendation under the transparency section; and (ii) the 
second recommendation under the SPS-related private standards section. 
9.7.  The Chairperson had proposed that the Secretariat circulate a further revision of the draft 
report, reflecting the changes agreed upon by Members and updating figures in the report. She had invited Members to submit comments on the ne w revision of the document in writing by the 
end of the year, for discussion and hopefully for adoption at the Committee's next meeting in 
March 2015. 
9.8.  Next, the Committee had discussed the outstand ing proposals submitted in the context of the 
Fourth Review. Canada had presented its revised joint proposal with Kenya on a catalogue of 
instruments available to WTO Members to manage SPS issues (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.1), which incorporated comments received by Members since our last meeting in July. In particular, useful 
inputs from the European Union had been taken into consideration. The instruments were now 
grouped by thematic areas in a progressive manner starting from bilateral contacts up to the use of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Kenya had highlighted that the Catalogue regrouped 
all instruments available with their corresponding  document references. It also referred to the 
work of the Three Sisters, which were invited to submit comments. 
9.9.  Several Members had highlighted the usef ulness of such a compendium of instruments 
available to address SPS-related trade issues, an d had expressed their interest in reviewing it 
before its adoption. The Secretariat had clarified that once adopted it would become a reference 
document endorsed by the Committee in the series G/SPS/#. 
9.10.  The Chairperson had suggested that comments on the catalogue of instruments be 
submitted by 28 November 2014, and had invited Ca nada and Kenya to prepare a revision of the 
document, if needed, by 20 February 2015, for endorsement at the March 2015 meeting. 
9.11.  The second document under discussion, on transparency, was a joint proposal submitted by 
the European Union, Chile, Morocco and Norway  (G/SPS/W/278). The European Union had thanked 
Argentina, Canada, China, India and the United States for their comments. The proponents had 
noted that there seemed to be a general agre ement on the importance of the transparency 
provisions and the need to improve their implementation before considering a revision of the 
current Recommended Transparency Procedures as contained in G/SPS/7/Rev.3. The objective of 
the proposal was not to increase the administrative  burden, in particular for developing or least 
developed countries, but rather to improve the qu ality and completeness of notifications. The 
proponents were open to considering alternative approaches on how to move forward with this 
issue, in particular in preparation of the October 2015 transparency workshop. 
9.12.  Several Members, including those who had submitted written comments, had re-iterated 
their concerns about changing the notificati on formats and the Recommended Transparency 
Procedures without first undertaking a diagnosis of the needs and difficulties of Members. 
Changing the formats and procedures could be a long and resource-consuming process. 
9.13.  The Secretariat had suggested that such  a diagnosis could be carried out through a 
questionnaire, similarly to what had been done for past transparency workshops. It was also 
possible that some of the problems encountered by Members could be addressed within an on-going project that aimed to improve and mo dernize the SPS IMS and NSS applications. 
9.14.  There had been no objections to this proposal and, in closing the informal meeting, the 
Chairperson had suggested inviting Members to submit suggested questions for inclusion in the questionnaire by 28 November 2014. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 22 - 
 
  9.15.  The Chairperson noted that it had been clear at the informal meeting that the Committee 
would not be in a position to finalize the Fourth Review at its October 2014 meeting, and reiterated 
the suggestion that the Secretariat prepare a revisi on of the draft report to reflect all the changes 
agreed upon at the informal meeting. The Chairperson requested that the Secretariat suggest 
creative new wording for the two recommendations on which no consensus was reached, and 
invited Members to submit comments on the next revision to the Secretariat in writing before the end of the year, to be discussed at an informal  meeting prior to the next Committee meeting in 
March 2015. 
9.16.  The Chairperson also recalled that some Members had indicated that they needed more time 
to consider the joint submission by Canada and Kenya on a Catalogue of Instruments Available to 
WTO Members to Manage SPS Issues (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.1). She reiterated her suggestion that 
Members submit their comments by 28 November  2014, and that Canada and Kenya prepare a 
revision of the documented, if needed, by 20 Fe bruary 2015, for endorsement at the meeting in 
March 2015. 
9.17.  The Chairperson requested that the Secretariat develop a questionnaire to assess Members' 
needs and difficulties faced in the implementati on of the transparency provisions of the SPS 
Agreement. To help the Secretariat, the Chairp erson encouraged interested Members to submit 
suggested questions for inclusion in the questionnaire by 28 November 2014. The Secretariat 
would then circulate the questionnaire to Enquiry Po ints and National Notification Authorities, and 
report on the responses received at the meeting in March 2015. 
10  MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
10.1  New Issues 
10.1.  No Member raised any new issues under this agenda item. 10.2  Issues previously raised 
10.2.  No Member raised any issues under this agenda item. 
11  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 11.1  Report of the Informal Meeting 
11.1.  The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting on SPS-related private standards held on 
16 October 2014. At the informal meeting, the Chairperson had recalled that the Committee had agreed to develop a working definition of SPS-related private standards in order to set the framework for its discussions. Agreed Action 1 (G /SPS/55) did not propose a legal definition, but 
merely sought a framework to limit the scope of issues considered by the Committee. 
11.2.  The Chairperson had also reminded the Committee that, as stated in paragraph 4 of 
G/SPS/55, endorsement of the adopted actions had been without prejudice to the views of 
Members regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
11.3.  Regarding the proposed working definiti on of an SPS-related private standard, the 
Chairperson had recalled that in July, the Committee had agreed that Members would submit by 
5 September 2014 any comments they had on the draft definition in G/SPS/W/276 and regarding 
elements of other existing definitions in document G/SPS/GEN/1334/Rev.1 that could be incorporated into the co-stewards definition. It had also been agreed that  the electronic working 
group (e-WG) would circulate its report on a compromise working definition to the Committee by 
the end of September, for consideration at the present meeting. 
11.4.  The co-stewards had circulated a report on the work of the e-WG in document 
G/SPS/W/281, dated 30 September 2014. As the co-stewards had not been able to consult the e-
WG on the latest revision of the definition, they had put forward a revised draft working definition 
of an SPS-related private standard on their own responsibility. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 23 - 
 
  11.5.   The Chairperson had noted that the co-stewards had organized a meeting of the e-WG on 
Tuesday 14 October 2014, which had provided a useful opportunity to discuss the rationale behind the co-stewards proposed definition, and had help ed further narrow the differences amongst e-WG 
members. 
11.6.  The Chairperson had acknowledged the leadership and constructive approach shown by 
China and New Zealand as co-stewards, and the considerable effort invested, in their personal capacity, into coming up with compromise language for a working definition. She had also thanked 
all of the members of the e-WG: Argentina, Austra lia, Belize, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, 
the European Union, Japan, Singapore and the United States, for their engagement. 
11.7.  The co-stewards had introduced their repo rt on the work of the e-WG, and had presented 
the proposed working definition of an SPS-relate d private standard contained therein. They had 
explained their consideration of the comments and suggestions submitted by e-WG members and 
Cuba, and had detailed the rationale in developing the draft definition contained in G/SPS/W/281. 
11.8.   The co-stewards had also reported on the e-WG meeting of 14 October 2014 and had 
referred to a room document circulated at that me eting with two options for the working definition. 
While the proposed definition was the same, one version had incorporated a disclaimer as part of the text of the Decision, and the other as a footnote. 
11.9.  The proposed text had been: 
The working definition of an SPS-related private standard is: "An SPS-related private 
standard is a written requirement or condition, or a set of written requirements or conditions, related to food safety, or animal or plant life or health that may be used in 
commercial transactions and that is applied by a non-governmental entity that is not 
exercising governmental authority". 
The proposed disclaimer, whether a footnote or in the text of the decision was: "This 
working definition is without prejudice to the rights and obligations of Members, or the 
views of Members on the scope of the WTO Ag reement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures". 
11.10.  The co-stewards had reported that it had been clarified during the e-WG meeting that, in 
the WTO context, there appeared to be no difference, in terms of legal weight or legal value, if the text was in a footnote attached to the main decision text or if it was rather located in the main body of the decision itself. 
11.11.  It had been also noted that "working definition" had yet to be interpreted in WTO 
jurisprudence and that the term "working definition" related to work for a specific purpose, and would be a definition used for the work of the SPS Committee, designed to limit discussions to 
SPS-related private standards only. 
11.12.  The co-stewards had reported that some e-WG members had sought further clarifications 
and had signaled either support for, or some outstanding concerns with, the co-stewards proposed 
textual options. Several had indicated their need to revert to their capital before taking any formal 
decision. 
11.13.  The co-stewards had concluded their report by noting that the information discussed at the 
meeting had been forwarded to the e-WG and that they hoped that e-WG members would revert 
to the co-stewards, within a timeline to be agreed, so that discussions on a working definition 
could be successfully concluded by the March 2015 meeting of the Committee. 
11.14.  Following the co-stewards' reports, various Members had taken the floor to thank China 
and New Zealand for their leadership, and had stressed the need for the Committee to adopt a 
working definition of SPS-related private standards. Some Members had indicated their readiness to support the co-stewards' proposed working definition, with one Member stating its specific 
preference for one of the proposed options, an d another Member suggesting a textual revision. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 24 - 
 
  However, other Members had noted that they still had particular concerns with the suggested 
language and that more work was needed to re ach a consensus on the co-stewards definition. 
11.15.  The Committee had agreed to give the co-stewards and the e-WG more time to pursue 
their efforts in trying to bridge differences and co me up with a compromise working definition that 
could be presented for consideration and adoption by the Committee as soon as possible. 
11.16.  Regarding the implementation of Actions 2 to 5, under Action 2, Chile had referred to the 
OIE's continued cooperation with private standard-setting bodies to ensure that their standards 
were aligned with OIE standards. The OIE, and in particular Codex, should increase the 
participation of private standard-setting bodies as observers in their standard-setting processes. The collaboration of the Three Sisters with priv ate standards-setting bodies would help improve 
private standard-setting bodies' credibility with  regards to transparency and a science-based 
approach, and would also help improve the implemen tation of official science-based food safety 
and other standards. 
11.17.  Under Action 3, the Secretariat had noted that there had not been any recent relevant 
developments in other WTO fora, but that it would continue to liaise with the TBT and Trade and 
Environment Committees, and report back any relevant work. 
11.18.  Under Action 5, New Zealand had highlighted the importance of the word "explore", and 
sought an update on the implementation of this action. The Secretariat had noted that 
international standards were at the center of SPS training activities, such as regional seminars undertaken with the participation of Codex, IPPC and OIE. The Secretariat had recalled that one of 
the most valuable materials it used was the STDF film on Trading Safely, which showed the 
importance of standards in gaining or re-entering markets. The Secretariat had also noted that 
Codex had developed brochures, as well as a promotional video in the context of its 50
th anniversary, on the role Codex standards could play in ensuring the trade of safe food. While 
both financial and human resources were limited, dissemination efforts would continue. 
11.19.  Regarding the implementation of proposed  Actions 6 to 12, Belize, supported by Brazil, 
had indicated that it continued to support the es tablishment of a working group that could further 
work on actions 6 to 12.  Belize had also noted specific linkages between some of the proposed 
actions identified in G/SPS/W/256 and had referred to its earlier submissions in that regard. 
11.20.  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines had note d the changing nature of private standards and 
of the concerns relating to them, and that actions 6 to 12 should be kept on the Committee's 
agenda. The United States had noted that there wa s no consensus on Actions 6 to 12 and that the 
Committee should focus its time and effort in agreeing on a working definition of SPS-related private standards. 
11.21.  Regarding other information on SPS-related private standards, Belize had referred to its 
document G/SPS/GEN/1240, which flagged the prol iferation of SPS-related private standards and 
noted that access requirements applied by SPS-related private standard-setting bodies went 
beyond, and undermined the relevance of, national and international standards. 
11.22.  At a recent Belize Food Safety Department  workshop on Good Agricultural Practices, the 
private sector had shared a variety of concerns related to market access and which challenged their financial viability. Those concerns related to: the increasing costs associated with 
certification; the difficulties with different schemes with conflicting requirements, and the 
increasing number of audits.  Belize had noted that the private sector had also questioned the relevance of national food safety authorities, as a number of specific exampl es showed that official 
requirements were not the basis for market access. 
11.23.  Belize had registered its concern regarding the evolution in food safety certification 
requirements, as governments were responsible for setting SPS measures, with guidance from 
international standards.  Belize had noted that a country’s appropriate level of protection should 
not be set by the private sector, and stressed that the SPS Committee had a vital role to play in addressing the issues related to private standards and their impact on international trade. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 25 - 
 
  12  OBSERVERS 
12.1  Information from observer organizations 12.1.  GSO provided a report on relevant activities (G/SPS/GEN/1360). As a non-profit 
organization, GSO was an umbrella for the Gulf Co-operation Council's work on standards, 
metrology, conformity assessment and accreditat ion. GSO informed Members that, through its 
technical committees and working groups, GSO developed standards and technical regulations that were based on international standards, and so ught to address consumer and environmental 
protection, industry (import and export) requirem ents and health requirements. To date, GSO had 
issued more than 1200 standards and technical re gulations in the food and agriculture sector 
alone, and its member states actively submitte d notifications to the SPS Committee. GSO also 
provided information on the working group for halaal food, which established technical regulations 
and guidelines for halaal food certification bodies. 
12.2.  ITC provided information on various projects implemented since April 2014 
(G/SPS/GEN/1369). In the Gambia, an EIF project focused on improving the exports of 
groundnuts, cashew nuts and sesame through the implementing HACCP procedures in selected 
enterprises, reducing the presence of aflotoxins in groundnuts, and enhancing the local capacities in the area of food safety. In Nigeria, ITC supe rvised STDF projects implemented by the Nigerian 
Export Promotion Council aimed at improving compliance with SPS measures for shea butter and 
sesame. In Sri Lanka, ITC provided assistance to improve the safety and quality of fruits and vegetables, training officers from the Department  of Agriculture and assessing laboratory testing 
capacities within the agricultural sector. In Fiji, ITC continued to provide assistance to improve key 
services for non-sugar agriculture. A second programme, in collaboration with the European Union, 
focused on the livestock sector. In Zimbabwe, an EU funded programme focused on trade and 
private sector development in the form of (i) ca pacity building of conformity assessment services 
for pesticide residue testing, and (ii) an assessment of laboratory testing for aflatoxin, pesticide 
residues and vitamins. ITC also provided information on a High Level Regional Round Table discussion on non-tariff measures ("NTM") hindering trade within the Arab region, held in Tunis in 
April 2014, ITC presentations at the WTO Advanced Course on the SPS Agreement in October 
2014; and new NTM surveys in Bangladesh and the Philippines, which aimed to increase transparency and promote an understanding of NTMs in order to facilitate long-term trade. 
12.3.  IGAD reported on its SPS-related projects, including (i) livestock projects, supported by the 
African Union; (ii) SPS standard-setting projec ts, undertaken in conjunction with the European 
Union; and (iii) the regional SPS committee meeting scheduled for November. IGAD also highlighted its role in establishing a national SPS committee in South Sudan, and informed 
Members of its ongoing efforts to provide technical assistance, training on compliance, and sharing 
of good practices with its member states. 
12.4.  SADC notified the Committee of its participation in a trilateral workshop on food safety 
exports systems held in September 2014 in South Africa. Sponsored by New Zealand and 
South Africa, the workshop focused on enhancing regional and international trade in food and agricultural products by addressing challenges  facing the region. It had been attended by 
regulatory and industry representatives from 15 SADC member states. SADC also notified the 
Committee of its participation in the inaugural meeting for the continental working group, held in 
August 2014 in South Africa, which focused on mainstreaming SPS matters in the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) framework. 
12.5.  The Chairperson thanked all the organization s that had provided useful information to the 
Committee under this and other agenda items, and encouraged them to submit their reports in writing in advance of the March 2015 meeting to permit delegates to carefully read them before 
the meeting. 
12.2  Requests for observer status 12.2.1  New Requests 12.6.  There were no new requests received by the Secretariat. G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 26 - 
 
  12.2.2  Outstanding Requests 
12.7.  The Chairperson proposed that, as had been done the previous year, the SPS Committee 
invite the organizations with ad hoc observer status to participate in all SPS Committee meetings in 2015 - 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. 
12.8.  The Secretariat informed Members that five organizations with ad hoc observer status had 
not attended a single Committee meeting in 2014: the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-
SAD); the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS); the European Free Trade 
Association (EFTA); the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); and the West African Economic and Monetary Un ion (WAEMU). The Chairperson requested the 
Secretariat to contact these organizations to seek information regarding their continuing interest 
to participate as observers in the SPS Committee. 
12.9.  The Chairperson noted that there was still no consensus on the six outstanding requests for 
observer status from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); CABI International; the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered  Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the 
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC); and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO). 
12.10.  The Chairperson informed the observer orga nizations that their contributions to the work 
of the SPS Committee and their assistance to Members were highly appreciated and the Committee looked forward to their continued participation in all unrestricted meetings during 2015. The Chairperson once again encouraged the observers to provide written reports on their 
relevant activities in advance of the March 2015 meeting. 
13  CHAIRPERSON'S ANNUAL REPORT TO CTG 13.1.  The Chairperson noted that she would make a factual annual report, under her own 
responsibility, on the activities of the Committee for consideration by the Council for Trade in 
Goods (CTG) in mid-November. Members could request a draft report from the Secretariat, and provide comments by 29 October 2014. 
14  OTHER BUSINESS 
14.1.  No Member provided information under this agenda item. 15  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS 15.1.  The next meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for 25 and 26 March 2015, 
with informal meetings on 24 March 2015. 
15.2.  The Committee agreed to the following tentative agenda for its March 2015 meeting: 
1. Adoption of the agenda 
2. Information on relevant activities 
a. Information from Members 
b. Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies 
3. Specific trade concerns 
a. New issues 
b. Issues previously raised 
[c. Consideration of specific notifications received] 
d. Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
4. Operation of transparency provisions 
5. Implementation of special and differential treatment 
6. Equivalence – Article 4 G/SPS/R/76 
 
- 27 - 
 
  a. Information from Members on their experiences 
b. Information from relevant Observer organizations 
7. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
a. Information from Members on their pest or disease status 
b. Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or 
disease-free areas 
c. Information from relevant Observer organizations 
8. Technical assistance and cooperation 
a. Information from the Secretariat 
i. WTO SPS activities 
ii. STDF 
b. Information from Members 
c. Information from Observer organizations 
9. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
a. Fourth Review 
i. Report of the informal meeting 
ii. Adoption of Report of Fourth Review 
10. Monitoring of the use of international standards 
a. New issues 
b. Issues previously raised 
11. Concerns with private and commercial standards 
a. Report on informal meeting 
12. Observers 
a. Information from Observer organizations 
b. Request for observer status 
i. New requests 
ii. Outstanding requests 
13. Election of the Chairperson 
14. Other business 
15. Date and agenda of next meeting 
15.3.  Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines: 
 For comments or suggestions on the draft annual report of the Committee: 
29 October 2014 ; 
 For comments on the Catalogue of Inst ruments (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.1), and for 
submission of suggested questions for the tran sparency questionnaire to be prepared by 
the Secretariat: 28 November 2014 ; 
 For comments on the Revised Report of the Fourth Review (G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2): the 
end of 2014 ; 
 For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure, and for 
requesting that items be put on the agenda: Thursday, 12 March 2015 ; 
 For the distribution of the Airgram, and for circulation of documents for the March 
meeting: 13 March 2015 . 
 
__________