RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/86  
 
1 June  2017 
(17-2926) Page: 1/38 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETI NG OF 22-23 MARCH 2017  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  4 
2.1.1    Turkey - Update of veterinary health certificate models (G/SPS/GEN/1531)  .....................  4 
2.1.2    Japan – Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  ................................ ................................ ......................  4 
2.1.3   Canada – Update on Safe Food for Canadians Regulation  ................................ ...............  4 
2.1.4    Canada – The Electronic Service Delivery Platform  ................................ ........................  4 
2.1.5    European Union – New EU legislation on plant health (G/SPS/GEN/1541)  ........................  4 
2.1.6    European Union – Update on the Avian Influenza situation  ................................ .............  5 
2.1.7    Russian Federation – Information on the international conference "Food Safety 
and Risk Analysis", to be held in Sochi (Russia) on 18 -19 May 2017  ................................ ..........  5 
2.1.8    Russian Federation  – Possible scenario on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
2.1.9    Russian Federation – Regionalization of the territory of the Russian Federation for 
infectious animal diseas es ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6 
2.1.10    Brazil – Recent measures implemented on animal products  ................................ ..........  6 
2.2   Information from CODEX, IPPC and OIE on relevant a ctivities  ................................ ...........  6 
2.2.1    CODEX  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  6 
2.2.2    Resource mobilisation for the FAO/WHO Codex Trust Fund  ................................ .............  7 
2.2.3    IPPC ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  7 
2.2.4    OIE ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  7 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS ................................ ................................ .......................  7 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  7 
3.1.1    Viet Nam's suspension of groundnut seed imports – Concerns of Senegal  ........................  8 
3.1.2    United States MRLs for chlorpyrifos – Concerns of Israel  ................................ ................  8 
3.1.3    EU non -recognition of regionalization for Avian Influenza – Concerns of the 
Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  8 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ...............................  9 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their r ights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2.1    Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on Japanese foods in response to the nuclear 
power plant accident – Concern s of Japan (No. 387)  ................................ ...............................  9 
3.2.2    China's import restrictions on Japanese foods in response to the nuclear power 
plant accident – Concerns of Japan (No. 354)  ................................ ................................ .........  9 
3.2.3    European Union's revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors – Concerns of Argentina and the United States (No. 382) ................................ ......... 10 
3.2.4    The Russian Federation's Import Restrictions on Processed Fishery Products from 
Estonia and Latvia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  ................................ .............. 11 
3.2.5    The Russian Federation's import restr ictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  ................................ ........................... 12 
3.2.6    China's import ban on fresh mangosteen - Concerns of Indonesia (No. 416)  ................... 12 
3.2.7    General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 
3.2.8    China's import restrictions due to Africa n swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 392)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 13 
3.2.9    Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European  Union (No. 393)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...13 
3.2.10    United States Seafood Import Monitoring Programme - Concerns of China 
(No. 415) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 
3.2.11    China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOs (G/SPS/N/CHN/881) – Concerns of the United States 
(No. 395) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 15 
3.2.12    China's lack of transparency for certain SPS measures – Concerns o f the United 
States (No. 184)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 15 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  ................................ ......... 16 
4   OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE SPS AG REEMENT  ................................ .. 16 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 16 
4.1.1    Madagascar – South Africa's recognition of phytosanitary measures fo r lychee 
imports  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 16 
4.2   Pest- and disease -free areas  ................................ ................................ ........................ 16 
4.2.1    Turkey – New regulation on zones free from notifiable avian in fluenza  ........................... 16 
4.2.2    Turkey - Declaration of freedom from Xylella fastidiosa  ................................ ................ 17 
4.2.3    Senegal – Information on Spodoptera frugip erda ................................ ......................... 17 
4.2.4    Madagascar – Information on pest and disease -free areas  ................................ ............ 17 
4.2.5    European Union – Regionalization  ................................ ................................ .............. 17 
4.2.6    Chile – Avian influenza  ................................ ................................ ............................. 18 
4.2.7    Chile – Recognition of freedom from fruit fly by Viet Nam  ................................ ............. 18 
4.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ............ 18 
4.3.1    Update on the ePing alert system and on the modernization of the SPS IMS and 
NSS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .18 
4.3.2    Report of the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ .................. 19 
4.3.3    Transparency Proposal by Chile and the European Union (G/SPS/W/290)  ....................... 23 
4.4   Special and Differential Treatment  ................................ ................................ ................ 23 
4.5   Monitoring of the use of International Standards  ................................ ............................ 23 
4.5.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 23 G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4.5.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 23 
4.6   Fourth Review (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2, G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2)  ................................ ............. 25 
4.6.1    Report of the informal meeting  ................................ ................................ .................. 26 
4.6.2    The report of the Fourth Review: Options for discussion – Proposal by the Unit ed 
States (G/SPS/W/291)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......28 
5   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  28 
5.1   Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs): Possible next steps for 
consideration by the SPS Committee – Proposal by Kenya, Uganda and the United States 
(G/SPS/W/292)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 28 
6   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  29 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................. 29 
6.1.1    WTO SPS activities (G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.12, G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.7)  ........................... 29 
6.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1538)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................... 31 
6.2.1    Senegal - Assistance received by the mango sector ................................ ...................... 31 
6.2.2    Madagascar – Technical assistance received  ................................ ................................ 31 
6.2.3    Chile – Technical assistance activities  ................................ ................................ ......... 32 
6.2.4    Burkina Faso – Technical assistance received  ................................ .............................. 32 
6.2.5    The Gambia – Technical assistance requested  ................................ ............................. 32 
6.2.6    Togo – Technical assistance received  ................................ ................................ ......... 32 
6.2.7    Nigeria - Technical assistance received  ................................ ................................ .......33 
6.2.8    Mozambique – Technical assistance requested  ................................ ............................. 33 
7   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  ................................ ...... 33 
8   OBSE RVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  33 
8.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ .......33 
8.1.1    CAHFSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 33 
8.1.2    IGAD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 33 
8.1.3    OECD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 34 
8.1.4    OIRSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 34 
8.1.5   IICA ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 34 
8.2   Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  ................................ ....................... 35 
8.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 35 
8.2.2    Outstanding requests  ................................ ................................ ............................... 35 
9   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 35 
9.1   Ecuador – Brazil's measures on shrimp  (STC No. 344)  ................................ .................... 35 
9.2   Chinese Taipei - Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds  ................................ ......... 36 
9.3   Peru – Regulation of the Europea n Parliament and of the Council on Novel Foods  ............... 37 
9.4   United States – Rules for interventions under 'Other Business'  ................................ ......... 37 
9.5   Canada – Next steps on Fourth Review  ................................ ................................ ......... 37 
10   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS ................................ ................................  37 
 G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its 
68th regular meeting on 22 -23 March 2017. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted 
with amendments (WTO/AIR/SPS/14).  
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Turkey - Update of veterinary health certificate models (G/SPS/GEN/1531)  
2.1.  Turkey informed the Committee that a revised veterinary health certificate for import s of dog 
chews, canned and processed pet food entered into force on 1 March 2017  as outlined in 
G/SPS/GEN/1531.  
2.1.2   Japan – Update on the s ituation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  
2.2.  Japan provided an update on the developments since the last Committee  meeting , reporting 
on the most recent data from its food monitoring programme and commenting o n recent press 
articles. The latest data from the monitoring programme showed that the rate of products 
exceeding the Japanese standard limits had decreased and that all the test results, with the 
exception of fungi, wild plants and wild animals, were belo w the Codex guideline level. Japan 
recalled that the International Atomic Energy Agency had on various occasions recognized the 
efforts made by Japan to ensure food safety. Japan expressed concern over certain press articles 
implying that radiation levels measured in the nuclear reactors by recently -developed robots 
provided information on environment contamination, which would illustrat e the danger of traveling 
to Japan or consuming Japanese food. Japan expressed appreciation to the American Nuclear 
Societ y for posting accurate information that could be used by others. Japan also expressed its 
appreciation to Iran, Lebanon, Mauritius, the United Arab Emirates and the United States for either 
lifting or easing import restrictions, and again welcomed visits f rom Members still maintaining 
import restrictions in order to better assess the  current food safety situation.  
2.1.3   Canada – Update on Safe Food for Canadians Regulation  
2.3.  Canada recalled the work undertaken since 2012 to modernize its food safety framework 
(G/SPS/GEN/1524). The draft of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulation (SFCR) consolidated 
existing federal food inspection regulations into one overarching set of requirements. The SFCR 
had been notified in January and comments were welcomed until 21 April 201 7. Canada had held 
numerous consultations with stakeholders, including through an information session on the 
margins of the current Committee  meeting . All comments would be considered and summarized in 
a document that would be circulated before publication  of the final regulation. Further information 
was available on http://www.inspection.gc.ca/safefood . 
2.1.4   Canada – The Electronic Service Delivery Platform  
2.4.  Canada informed Members of the development of the Can adian Food Inspection Agency's 
(CFIA) new electronic service delivery platform, "My CFIA". My CFIA aimed at providing a variety 
of online services such as export certificates, requests for licen ses, permits and registrations. 
Although the existing system w ould be available during  the transition period, Canada encouraged 
stakeholders to create an account during the platform 's phased -in release in 2017. Requirements 
negotiated with foreign bodies would not be affected by the transition towards electronic 
certification. Additional information was av ailable on the CFIA's website.  
2.1.5   European Union – New EU legislation on plant health (G/SPS/GEN/1541)  
2.5.  The European Union provided an overview of its new Plant Health Law which entered into 
force on 13 December 2016 as Regulation (EU) No 2016/2031 and had been notified as 
G/SPS/N/EU/44/Add.2. The regulation constituted a new legal framework for plant health, 
providing comprehensive and clear rules for the prevention of entry into, and spread within, the EU G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 5 - 
 
  territory of p ests injurious to plant health, which would apply from 13 December 2019. The 
Regulation classified all pests in three categories: regulated non -quarantine pests, protected -zone 
quarantine pests and union quarantine pests, amongst which those with the most severe impacts 
would be tagged as "priority pests". The Regulation introduced a new concept of "high risk plants, 
plant products and other objects", whose import would be prohibited until a thorough risk 
assessment had been carried out. Temporary import re strictions could be introduced when there 
was insufficient experience in terms of trade or risks were still unknown. For importation of living 
plant material, the European Union would request that phytosanitary certificates attest compliance 
with EU legisl ation. Additional information on the new Plant Health Law was available on the 
European Commission website and in G/SPS/GEN/1541.  
2.6.  In response to questions from Israel and Nigeria, the European Union indicated that possible 
new import restrictions would be based on science, in compliance with the SPS Agreement. It 
underlined that temporary import restrictions would be followed by a risk ass essment. 
The European Union also noted that the concept of "priority pests" would not be relevant for 
international trad e and remained open to further bilateral discussions.  
2.1.6   European Union – Update on the Avian Influenza situation  
2.7.  The European Union recalled that it was facing its largest epidemic of highly pathogenic avian 
influenza of H5 subtypes following the introductio n in October 2016 of H5N8 by wild birds from 
Asia. The virus subtypes detected during the epidemic were predominantly bird viruses with no 
increased affinity for humans and had affected different wild bird species before spilling over to 
poultry farms in 1 7 EU member States. The European Union provided information on the 
implementation of harmonized disease control measures such as the establishment of protection 
and surveillance zones around outbreak farms. The extent of the zones was established by the 
member States in co -operation with the European Commission which formally adopted the zoning 
by a Commission Decision which was published in the Official Jou rnal of the European Union. 
The European Union emphasized the effectiveness of its disease control me chanisms, which in 
case of outbreaks in areas with high poultry density could give way to additional measures, 
including temporary standstill of all movements, preventive cull ing and bans on restocking. 
The European Union expressed its commitment to provid e timely information to all trading 
partners on the developments of the epidemic as well as to enhance its epidemic preparedness. 
The European Union called on Members to recognize its regionalization measures and encouraged 
their active participation in th e OIE to prevent and control further avian influenza outbreaks.  
2.1.7   Russian Federation – Information on the international conference "Food Safety 
and Risk Analysis", to be held in Sochi (Russia) on 18 -19 May 2017  
2.8.  The Russian Federation recalled the importance of food safety and international standards in 
international trade and informed the Committee of the "Food Safety and Risk Analysis" conference 
jointly organized with the FAO in Sochi, Russia, on 18 -19 May 2017. It was expected that the 
event would attract more than 200 participants from government agencies, international 
organizations, the private sector, consumer groups and the scientific community , in order to 
discuss a variety of food safety -related topics, including risk assessment, management and 
commu nication, food contamination, antibiotic resistance, and capacity -building. The Russian 
Federation and the FAO invited Members to participate in this event.  
2.1.8   Russian Federation – Possible scenario on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region  
2.9.  The Rus sian Federation reiterated the importance of paying close attention to the spread of 
African swine fever (ASF) in Eastern Europe. The Russian Federation noted that its experience and 
position with regards to ASF had played a significant role in encouraging  various response 
mechanisms. Although many such mechanisms, including disease prevention, control, and 
emergency plans were currently in place, they were insufficient to eradicate ASF. Since 2014, the 
disease had spread in many countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland and 
Ukraine, and could affect other EU countries. The Russian Federation highlighted the importance of 
transparency and recalled that the spread of ASF benefitted from the ignorance, negligence or 
organized criminal activ ities of certain pork producers. Despite active research there was currently G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 6 - 
 
  no vaccine against ASF. The Russian Federation expressed its commitment to participate in 
international efforts to fight ASF.  
2.10.   The European Union again expressed its discomfort wit h the use of this agenda item for 
purposes other than providing information to Members on relevant activities. The European Union 
stated that the Russian Federation's repeated references to EU member States and speculations on 
which EU countries would be n ext affected by ASF were neither pertinent nor appropriate. 
Furthermore, the European Union noted that the Russian Federation's repeated statements on this 
topic were not the reason for understanding its importance. As stated in the past, the European 
Union was confident in the effectiveness of its ASF -related measures as well as in its participation 
and leadership in international cooperation and response against ASF.  
2.1.9   Russian Federation – Regionalization of the territory of the Russian Federation for 
infec tious animal diseases  
2.11.   The Russian Federation informed Members that its Federal Service for Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhozdnadzor) had adopted a decision establishing statuses for 
infectious animal diseases, which had entered into for ce on 1 February 2017, pursuant to Ministry 
of Agriculture Order No. 635. The Russian Federation explained that 3,000 zones of its territory 
would be divided into the following infectious animal disease s categories: disease -free, 
non-identified, and diseas e-affected. In addition, these zones would be subdivided into regions 
with or without vaccination for transboundary animal diseases, including ASF, lump and skin 
disease, and foot and mouth disease. The Russian Federation further noted that the decision 
provided requirements for movements of live animals and animal products between regions with 
different animal health statuses and that these statuses could change over time. The Russian 
Federation indicated that the decision applied basic regionalization cri teria to disease -free zones 
which complied with the OIE Code provisions, but also included certain more stringent criteria such 
as the possibility to designate an exception zone within a disease -free region. Further details on 
the regionalization system of  the Russian Federation and Geographic Information System (GIS)  
maps were available on the Rosselkhozdnadzor's website.  
2.1.10   Brazil – Recent measures implemented on animal products  
2.12.   Brazil provided information on the recent disclosure of irregular practices by t he Ministry of 
Agriculture regarding the certification of meat and meat products . The Brazilian authorities had 
either halted or were re -auditing the processing facilities allegedly involved in irregularities, while 
their export authorizations had been pre ventively suspended. Brazil recalled its high ranking 
among animal protein exporters world -wide, which required frequent and strict audits to access 
demanding markets. It relied on solid inspection services as well as food quality and safety  control 
progra mmes. While recognizing the seriousness of certain auditors' misconduct, Brazil underlined 
that such misconduct did not reflect Brazil's overarching agriculture and livestock inspection 
systems. Brazil reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and cooperat ion with all trading 
partners, including through the Brazilian Mission in Geneva, and called upon Members not to resort 
to measures which would constitute arbitrary restrictions on international trade.  More information 
was available in document G/SPS/GEN/1 545. 
2.2  Information from CODEX, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
2.2.1   CODEX  
2.13.   Codex provided an overview of recent and upcoming events as contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1540. Codex noted that Members' participation in hosting or co -hosting these events 
allowed for consid erable budgetary savings. Codex explained that it constituted the middle pillar of 
the joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme and its activities were essentially divided between 
scientific advice and capacity building. Codex expressed appreciation and inte rest in 
the Committee discussions on possible follow -up actions to the Thematic Workshop on Pesticide 
MRLs. On capacity building, Codex informed that, after twelve years, it was currently renewing the 
Trust F und and welcomed contributions.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.2.2   Resource mobilis ation for the FAO/WHO Codex Trust Fund  
2.14.   The WHO provided information on the new edition of the FAO/WHO Codex Trust Fund ("the 
Trust Fund")  and raised awareness on the need for further donations. The Trust Fund supported all 
Codex capacity -building activitie s and relied on voluntary contributions, as opposed to the 
scientific advisory activities financed through regular contributions. A first edition of the Trust Fund 
had focused on delegates' participation in Codex meetings. The second Trust Fund launched in  
January 2016 focused on building capacity in countries with weaker national Codex structures to 
increase their participation in the development of standards and other areas of Codex scientific 
advisory work. The Trust Fund was currently facing funding dif ficulties for the period 2017 -2019. 
WHO strongly encouraged Members to help raise awareness within their governments of this food 
safety and development instrument. The Trust Fund secretariat stood ready to work with all 
interested parties to secure new co ntributions. Further information is available in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1534.  
2.15.   Canada, Chile, the European Union, Japan, Nigeria and Senegal expressed high appreciation 
of the work of the Trust Fund and strongly encouraged Members who had not done so to make 
contributions to fund Codex capacity -building activities.  
2.2.3   IPPC  
2.16.   The IPPC provided an update on its recent and upcoming activities (G/SPS/GEN/1533). 
It highlighted ten major achievements of 2016, and recalled that the 2017 annual theme was 
"Plant Health and Tr ade Facilitation". The IPPC expressed its gratitude to the Republic of Korea for 
hosting the upcoming 12th Session of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) on the 
occasion of its 65th anniversary and encouraged Member s to participate in this event . 
2.17.   In response to comments and questions from Kenya, Nigeria and Senegal, the IPPC 
highlighted that the ePhyto project illustrated the importance of e -certification to fill the gap 
between developed and developing countries. It noted that ePhyto was a tool or recommendation, 
not a standard, and would need to be implemented with additional measures and procedures to 
improve the trade facilitating process. The IPPC recalled that the ePhyto pilot project involved  
16 developing and developed countries, and expre ssed appreciation of Kenya's high implication in 
this project. The IPPC highlighted that it would organize comprehensive side events at CPM -12 on 
ePhyto as a tool to promote safe and fast trade.  
2.2.4   OIE 
2.18.   The OIE updated the Committee on recent developments in i ts standard -setting work and its 
capacity building activities as outlined in G/SPS/GEN/1543. It noted that specific chapters of the 
Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes as well as the Glossary would be proposed for adoption at the 
upcoming General Session of the World Assembly of Delegates  in May  2017. The OIE also 
highlighted work of the ad -hoc group  on antimicrobial resistanc e. Finally the OIE informed 
the Committee that the World Assembly would consider the adop tion of a new procedure for 
the selection and nomi nation of experts to the specialist commissions.  
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS 
3.1  New issues  
3.1.  Two new specific trade concerns (STCs) which had been included in the proposed agenda for 
the meeting were withdrawn following bilateral consultations. These were: (1) Sene gal's concern 
regarding India's fumigation requirements for cashew nuts; and (2) Japan's concern regarding 
Thailand 's import restrictions on plant products.  
3.2.  The Secretariat drew attention to the recently released annual compilation of STCs 
(G/SPS/GEN/204/R ev.17). The report compiled all STCs raised in the SPS Committee during 2016. 
A total of 37 STCs had been discussed, of which 13 were new STCs, and 24 had been  previously 
raised . Three STCs had been reported as resolved or partially resolved.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.1.1   Viet Nam's su spension of groundnut seed imports – Concerns of Senegal  
3.3.  Senegal noted that, as of 11 July 2016, Viet Nam had suspended its imports of groundnut 
seeds from Senegal following Decision No. 2838/QD -BNN-BVTV, due to the detection of two 
destructive pests in gr oundnut seeds exported to Viet Nam. Senegal confirmed that one fumigation 
company had not respected pre -fumigation procedures and its quarantine authorities had taken 
corrective measures, including strengthening procedures for issuing quality certificates and 
establishing a roadmap to further protect plant health. Senegal appealed to Viet Nam, which was a 
major importer of Senegalese groundnut seeds, to undertake a risk analysis of their measures and 
remained open to bilateral discussion.  
3.4.  Viet Nam stated t hat between February and June 2016 it had intercepted 48 containers of 
groundnut seeds infected with two regulated quarantine pests absent from its territory. Viet Nam 
noted  that despite alerting the Senegalese authorities of the detection of incompliant 
consignments, Senegal had not tightened its controls  sufficiently . Viet Nam's temporary 
suspension was in compliance with IPPC and domestic regulation and was aimed at preventing the 
spread of the two pests in its territory. As bilaterally notified, Viet Na m encouraged Senegal to 
improve cooperation and provide technical reports to assess the situation. Viet Nam welcomed 
further bilateral discussion to resolve the matter.  
3.1.2   United States  MRLs for chlorpyrifos – Concerns of Israel  
3.5.  Israel expressed its concern r egarding the United States proposed rule to withdraw its food 
pesticide residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos. Following the notification of the proposed text in 
November 2016 (G/SPS/N/USA/2912), Israel had submitted comments to the United States and 
discuss ed the issue bilaterally at various fora. Israel explained that chlorpyrifos was produced in 
Israel, used on some 20 major crops exported to the United States, and considered an efficient 
and cost -effective broad spectrum pesticide. It was less disruptive to beneficial insects than 
alternative pesticides and a good rotational option. Also, for several important pests, growers had 
limited or no viable alternatives to chlorpyrifos. Israel noted that the United States' decision was 
based on three studies condu cted in residential areas using chlorpyrifos for indoor pest control, 
which could cause hand -to-mouth contact as well as dermal or inhalation exposure. According to 
Israel, the results of these studies did not suggest that the relevant Codex MRLs (insectic ide 
ID-17) were unsafe for agricultural products. Israel believed that the United States' deviation from 
the existing international standard was not scientifically justified. The United States needed to 
develop individual risk assessments on the use of chlorpyrifos for each agricultural crop of concern, 
taking into account all available scientific evidence as well as the objective to minimi ze negative 
trade effects.  
3.6.  Ecuador echoed Israel's concern, underlining that chlorpyrifos was broadly used worldwide 
and in Ecuador since 1989 on a variety of crops, including bananas  majorly exported to 
the United  States. Ecuador called for the United States to scientifically justify its measure and 
highlight the risks to human health, considering that the measure seemed  to be based on studies 
carried out on the agricultural use of chlorpyrifos. Ecuador also asked if the United States would 
undertake individual risk assessments for different agricultural products based on Codex 
standards. Finally, Ecuador expressed a spec ial concern with the adoption date of 31 March 2017 
and the strong effects that it would have on trade.  
3.7.  The United States confirmed that all comments received would be considered by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in finalizing the propos ed meas ure. While the United 
States appreciated that many comments called on EPA to base its residue levels on Codex 
standards, it recalled  the right of Members, in line with the SPS Agreement, to carry out their own 
risk assessment s. Further information on the scientific assessments used was available in 
G/SPS/N/USA/2912 .  
3.1.3   EU non -recognition of regionalization for Avian Influenza – Concerns of the 
Russian Federation  
3.8.  The Russian Federation expressed its concern with the EU's non -recognition of Russian 
regionalizat ion for avian influenza since November 2016. The Russian Federation had been 
affected by an outbreak of avian influenza and had applied regionalization to guarantee trade of G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 9 - 
 
  poultry products in compliance with both its WTO commitments and OIE standards. Wh ile the 
Russian Federation recognized EU regionalization for avian influenza, the European Union banned 
imports of poultry products from the entire Russian territory, despite establishing zones of control 
and monitoring as well as promptly sharing informat ion with the European Union. The Russian 
Federation voiced its special concern with the European Union's stringent interpretation of certain 
articles from the OIE Terrestrial Code, especially its requirement to submit virus isolates to the EU 
reference lab oratory. In September 2014, following an avian i nfluenza outbreak in Altai, 
the European Union had refused to resume exports until the virus isolate was sent to the EU 
reference laboratory. The Russian Federation noted that it systematically sent virus iso lates to its 
national reference laboratory, which complied with OIE standards. It did not object to submitting 
the virus isolates to the EU reference laboratory, but considered the mandatory nature of the 
requirement unnecessarily trade -restrictive. In Sep tember 2016, the EU and Russian reference 
laboratories had signed a memorandum of understanding on the transfer of materials and had 
since exchanged virus isolates. The Russian Federation hoped that this cooperation would facilitate 
trade and lead to the E U recognition of Russian regionalization for avian influenza.  
3.9.  The European Union responded that it was in contact with Russia in order to acquire the 
relevant information necessary to assess Russia's request for regionalization. The evaluation of the 
Russi an Federation's request for recognition of regionalization would be completed as soon as all 
necessary information had been received in line with OIE guidelines. The European Union 
welcomed further bilateral discussion on this matter.  
3.2  Issues previously rai sed 
3.2.1   Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on Japanese foods in response to the nuclear 
power plant accident – Concerns of Japan (No. 387)  
3.10.   Japan again raised its concern regarding Chinese Taipei's import ban on food from five 
Japanese prefectures in response  to the nuclear power plant acc ident. Japan recognized 
Chinese  Taipei's efforts since August 2016 , including  on-site visits to farms and food processing 
plants as well as to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Chinese Taipei had considered 
lifting t he ban but was still in the process of informing the public. In November 2016, it had held 
public hearings which had been allegedly held in a hasty manner . Additional hearings that had 
been scheduled to take place before January 2017 had been delayed. Mean while, Chinese Taipei 
had introduced new labelling requirements after finding that certain food products contained soy 
sauce from the five prefectures subject to the import ban, in spite of testing negative for 
radionuclide residues and being regularly imp orted by Chinese Taipei. Japan urged Chinese Taipei 
to adopt measures that were cons istent with the WTO Agreements.  
3.11.   Chinese Taipei recalled that it had reviewed its current measure s following its 
cross-ministerial expert delegation visit to Japan in August  2016. Chinese Taipei referred to 
previous statements and reiterated its willingness to cooperate with Japan to solve this issue 
bilaterally.  
3.2.2   China's import restrictions on Japanese foods in response to the nuclear power 
plant accident – Concerns of Japan (No. 354)  
3.12.   Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by China on Japanese 
food exports in response to the nuclear power plant accident. Japan recalled that China 's import 
restrictions on Japanese products since June 2011 were am ongst the most stringent measures, 
while an increasing number of WTO Members had already lifted or eased their import restrictions 
on Japanese foods. China's import ban was still imposed on all types of food and alcoholic 
beverages from ten Japanese prefec tures and on various types of food products from the 
remaining prefectures. Japan expressed its particular concern with China 's ongoing risk 
assessment. In November 2016, it had again submitted a large amount of documentation for 
China 's risk assessment pr ocess, which seemed to be continuously held at the stage of considering 
the latest data submitted. In addition, Japan called upon China to communicate science -based 
information on food safety matters to avoid misleading interpretations by the public on the  safety 
of Japanese foods.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.13.   China recalled that it had imposed a ban on import s of certain high -risk products from ten 
nuclear -contaminated areas in Japan after the power plant accident in 2011, in full compliance 
with the SPS Agreement. China  took note of the Japanese and international media reports, 
comments and studies that generally believe d  that the Japanese government lacked effective 
means to deal with radioactive waste, the discharge of which posed risks to the marine 
environment and public health , that information  disclosure was not transparent  and that food 
safety related data were not sufficiently convincing . According to a report released in February 
2017, radiation at the nuclear reactor was at its highest since the 2011 meltdown. China urged 
Japan to promptly communicate accurate and reliable food safety information. The consequences 
of radioactive leaks on the marine environment, food safety and human health concerned all 
neighbouring Member s, not only Japan. China noted that food safety risk a ssessment could be a 
lengthy process, especially on such a technical and complex topic . China urged  Japan to take  
effective  measures to ensure its food safe ty, while continu ing bilateral cooperat ion towards finding 
a solution.  
3.14.   Japan recalled that the matte r at hand w ere the levels of radionuclides in food, which 
according to its measures were safe, and therefore China's attention should focus on food safety 
instead of environmental matters.  
3.15.   China responded that f ood safety  was threatened by nume rous contami nants  which c ould 
originate from environmental pollution , and that food safety risk assessment involve d the process 
of identifying, analyzing and characterizing a food -related health risk, including risks that m ight 
arise from contaminated water, soil and other aspects of the environment.  China  encouraged 
Japan  to disclose all factual  and accurate information on this issue.  
3.2.3   European Union's  revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors – Concerns of Argentina and the United States  (No. 382)  
3.16.   The United States reiterated its concern regarding the European Union's proposal for 
categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (E Ds) and amending Regulation 
No. 1107/2009, which would require the withdrawal of existing authorizations f or certain 
substances without a risk assessment. The United States thanked the European Union for their 
written responses, while noting that they did not provide scientific justification for the 
establishment of hazard -based criteria. While the proposed cr iteria for identifying EDs did not 
consider potency and exposure factors, they would still be used to both identify hazard and deny 
authorization for certain pesticides. The United States again asked the European Union to explain 
how the hazard -based "cut -off" criteria would be applied in practice to pesticides determined to be 
safe under a risk -based approach and undergoing the renewal process. In particular, the United 
States expressed concerns with the European Union setting MRLs at low default levels wi thout 
scientific justification for substances no longer approved under the hazard -based approach.  
3.17.   The United States also expressed its concern with the European Union's decision in 
December 2016 to split the proposal into two stand -alone policies: a propos al to establish criteria 
for identifying EDs; and another one to amend the derogation criteria from "negligible exposure" to 
"negligible risk". The split approach could impact more importantly on trade if the two policies 
were not finalized simultaneously.  In this context, the United States asked if it would be possible 
to file an import tolerance for a substance designated as ED or carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic 
for reproduction (CMR), and which did not benefit from the European Union's derogation. 
The United States again urged the European Union to base its SPS mea sures on a transparent and 
risk-based approach and highlighted that the proposal would severely impact trade while 
marginally improving human or environmental health. The United States indicat ed that it would 
provide additional written questions regarding the proposed derogation process.  
3.18.   Argentina echoed the statement made by the United States , emphasizing that 
the European  Union's proposed hazard -based approach would not efficiently assess ris ks posed by 
ED substances and did not include essential elements of risk characterization such as potency, 
severity and reversibility of effects. Argentina questioned the selection of criteria under option 2 
rather than option 4, which would have been less  trade burdensome while guaranteeing a similar 
level of human health protection. It shared the concern voiced by the United States regarding 
the European Union's recent decision to split the original draft regulation notified in 
G/SPS/N/EU/166 into two pro posals, leaving out the derogation process. If the European Union G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 11 - 
 
  approved the proposal based on this new approach, it would need to notify it, as it would 
constitute a different measure severely impacting on trade without scientific justification.  
3.19.   Austral ia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia,  Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, 
El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nigeria, the 
Philippines, South Africa, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Uruguay and Viet Nam shared the conc erns 
expressed by Argentina and the United States, and called upon the European Union to adopt a 
risk-based approach in compliance with the SPS Agreement. They underlined, inter alia, their 
special concerns over the hazard -based approach, the split of the proposal between identification 
criteria and derogations, and the importance of this issue and its potential negative trade impacts. 
In particular, Canada estimated that the proposed regulation could affect 60% of their plant 
protection products for wheat and soy crops, and up to 75% in the case of canola production. 
Australia and Kenya also noted that under the proposed regulation, many plant protection 
products which presented no alternatives would be banned. Many Members expressed their 
appreciation to t he European Union for their transparency efforts, and Australia encouraged the 
European Union to provide updates on the work of the European Food Safety Authority and 
European Chemicals Agency in reviewing and prioritizing chemicals as EDs.  
3.20.   The European U nion reiterated its commitment to transparency, recalling that it had duly 
notified the proposals and circulated a compilation of the responses to comments received in 
February 2017. The proposals, which were going through the relevant regulatory procedure s, had 
been revised to clarify burden of proof and criteria scope, but no substantial change had been 
introduced to the proposal originally notified. The decision to split the plant protection products 
proposal into two separate texts, one on identificatio n criteria and another on the technical 
amendment to the clause on negligible exposure, was to facilitate decision -making. The European 
Union encouraged Members to share their statements in writing and reiterated its commitment to 
continue informing the Co mmittee of further developments.  
3.2.4   The Russian Federation's Import Restrictions on Processed Fishery Products from 
Estonia and Latvia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390) 
3.21.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian Federation's res trictions 
on imports of processed fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The European Union recalled 
that in June 2015, following an audit carried out in some establishments in Latvia and Estonia, 
Russia had introduced a ban on the import of all fishery  products from those two EU member 
States. The European Union stated that the ban was inconsistent with various provisions of the 
SPS Agreement because it was not based on science, did not respect the necessity principle and 
was more restrictive than neces sary. The European Union also noted that the measures did not 
respect the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments.  
3.22.   The European Union underlined that Latvia and Estonia had acted without delay in response 
to the findings of the Russian Federation in  2015, and had put in place corrective measures within 
the timeframes set by the Russian Federation. Those actions had been brought to the attention of 
the Russian Federation, which carried out subsequent audits in 2016 to verify the corrective 
actions. Th e European Union added that Latvia and Estonia had addressed all the requests from 
the Russian Federation authorities for information or clarification, but the results of their audits 
had not been communicated and the bans remained in place. The European U nion reiterated its 
call to the Russian Federation to repeal the ban while expressing its readiness to work with the 
Russian Federation in a constructive and cooperative manner.  
3.23.   The Russian Federation responded that the temporary restriction imposed on sup plies of 
canned products from a number of fish processing plants in Latvia and Estonia was well founded. 
The Russian Federation had informed the SPS Committee of the matter on numerous occasions: 
The violations in the process of ensuring the safety of fish ery products were caused by systematic 
deficiencies in the work of competent authorities and the establishments of the countries 
concerned as confirmed by the inspections carried out by the experts.  
3.24.   The Russian Federation observed that the attention drawn by the Rosselkhozdnadzor to the 
issue and an additional joint inspection at the fish processing plants of Latvia and Estonia had led 
to positive measures by the veterinary services. However, some matters remained outstanding. 
Pursuant to the relevant proce dures, the results and conclusions of inspections were being G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 12 - 
 
  finalized by the competent authorities of the Eurasian Economic Union (representatives of which 
had also taken part in the inspection). The Russian Federation would transmit the report of the 
inspection to Latvia and Estonia in the near future, and remained prepared to make all the 
necessary efforts to find a solution to the issue.  
3.2.5   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union  (No. 411)  
3.25.   The European Union recalled that since 2013, the Russian Federation had maintained a ban 
on imports of pig, beef and poultry meat from Germany, and a ban on imports of meat and milk 
products from three German federal states. These import restric tions had been implemented due 
to claims by the Russian Federation that German veterinary services had not undertaken proper 
controls on the exports of these products. The European Union (i) reaffirmed that the restrictions 
were inconsistent with several p rovisions of the SPS Agreement; (ii) regretted that, despite the 
work done by the German authorities, after four years the bans sti ll remained in place; and 
(iii) urged the Russian Federation to repeal the measures. Finally, the European Union reaffirmed 
its willingness to cooperate with the Russian authorities.  
3.26.   The Russian Federation recalled that temporary restrictions on supplies of livestock and 
dairy products from Germany were imposed following results of inspections in 2013 and 2015, 
which had reveale d non -compliance with Russian SPS requirements. The Russian Federation 
announced that it was developing an instruction on the compliance of inspections with the 
requirements of the Russian Federation and the Eurasian Economic Union.  
3.27.   The Russian Federation reported that the latest developments had been discussed by the 
Head of the Russian Rosselkhozdnadzor and the State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Food 
and Agriculture of Germany in January 2017 in Berlin, and during the visit of Mr. Helmut Brunner, 
Minister of Food, Agriculture and Forestry of the Land of Bavaria to Moscow in March 2017. 
Following those consultations, technical consultations on the issue with representatives of the 
German Veterinary Services were scheduled for April 2017.  
3.2.6   China's imp ort ban on fresh mangosteen - Concerns of Indonesia (No. 416)  
3.28.   Indonesia reiterated its concern regarding China's import ban on fresh mangosteen fruit 
since 2013. Indonesia recognized China's right to adopt measures to protect human, animal and 
plant health , but noted SPS measures should not be discriminatory nor more trade restrictive than 
necessary. Indonesia reported that it had taken actions to resolve the alleged pest and heavy 
metal contamination detected on its mangosteen fruits. Such actions included  field and 
laboratories verification, as well as accommodating China's Draft Export Protocol.  
3.29.   Indonesia explained that all procedures required for the export of mangosteen fruits to 
China had been completed, and therefore urged a positive response from Ch ina to resolve the 
issue. Indonesia expressed its willingness to continue bilateral engagement.  
3.30.   China stated that in 2013 it had detected quarantine paraputo hispidus and other harmful 
organisms and had measured levels of cadmium in Indonesia's mangosteen exports above the 
level specified in its standard. China noted that following several inspections and consultations, 
China and Indonesia had reached consensus on the Protocol of Phytosanitary Requirements for 
exporting mangosteens from Indonesia to China i n September 2016. China reported that it was 
conducting the relevant internal legal procedures, and urged Indonesia to continue working closely 
with the competent authority of China with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory solution to the 
issue.  
3.2.7   Gene ral import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193)  
3.31.   The European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing concern, recalling its 
conviction that BSE -related science was solid and that the European Union fully followed  the 
relevant OIE standards that guaranteed safe trade. However, some WTO Members kept bans in 
place due to BSE, arguing the need for further assessments before imports could take place and 
which could amount to undue delays and lack of transparency in the  approval procedures, contrary G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 13 - 
 
  to Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. The European Union also stressed the SPS requirement that 
WTO Members not discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail, as 
was the case in European Union member  States, following the strict implementation of the 
European Union's harmonized SPS framework.  
3.32.   The European Union welcomed the recent market access granted by the United States to an 
additional EU member State, and the lifting of China's import ban on prod ucts from some 
EU member States. The European Union urged those and other Members - such as Malaysia and 
Korea - to ensure that beef from the European Union could soon be exported and address the 
backlog of applications submitted by EU member States.  
3.2.8   China 's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 392)  
3.33.   The European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide ban on pork 
products from Poland due to the outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) in ear ly 2014. 
The European Union recalled that China had indicated that its measures were science -based and 
that its laws and regulations prohibited the imports of relevant animals and animal products from 
countries where African swine fever was present, and th at China would evaluate further the 
measures taken by the European Union. The European Union noted that the ban imposed by China 
was not in line with the SPS principle of regionalization and the OIE concept of disease -free zones, 
as confirmed by the Panel Report in Russian Federation — Measures on the Importation of Live 
Pigs, Pork and Other Pig Products from the European Union (DS475) and earlier by the panel on 
India – Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agr icultural Products (DS430). 
The Europ ean Union urged China to provide information on its procedures and its anticipated 
timeline to recognize regionalization. The European Union observed China's lack of transparency 
and that its country -wide ban was not supported by scientific justification. The European Union 
requested China to provide a risk assessment and to respect its obligations under the SPS 
Agreement (namely Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 and Annex C).  
3.34.   The European Union highlighted the adoption by the Dispute Settlement Body of the Panel 
Report, as amended by the Appellate Body Report, on Russia – Pigs (EU) (DS475), in which 
the European -wide and Poland -wide bans on those products were found to be WTO -inconsistent for 
not being based on international standards, nor on a risk assessment and for  failure to adapt SPS 
measures to the disease -free characteristics of some regions. The European Union welcomed the 
establishment of a Working Group between China and Poland to discuss the matter and urged 
China to allow trade of all safe products from dis ease-free zones without further delay.  
3.35.   China noted that before the ASF outbreaks, the trade of pig and pig products between China 
and the European Union had been smooth, and that the bans it imposed on infected Members  were 
based on science and safety cons iderations. China stated that it attached great importance to the 
issue and respected its international obligations and that its measure was non -discriminatory and 
consistent with the SPS Agreement. China reminded Members that it was the largest pig produc er 
in the world and could be subject to great losses if the disease were to enter the country, and that 
the ban had been imposed in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations. China found it 
necessary to conduct a further evaluation of the measures ta ken by the European Union. China 
highlighted the 47 ASF outbreaks reported by the OIE in Poland in 2017, and while China noted 
the measures applied by Poland, it remained cautious on whether the inspection range, sampling 
distribution and wild boars -catchi ng area could control the disease. China encouraged the 
European Union to pursue cooperation within the bilateral technical setting in order to further 
strengthen information exchange.  
3.2.9   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of th e 
European  Union (No. 393)  
3.36.   The European Union stressed the importance of recognition by trading partners of 
regionalization measures and reiterated its concern regarding Korea's import restrictions on pork 
and pork products due to ASF, despite several bila teral meetings. The European Union recalled 
that Korea had performed a preliminary risk -assessment and on -site inspection in Poland in 2014, 
followed by the decision in 2015 to perform a risk assessment. The risk assessment had been 
suspended in August 201 6 following ASF outbreaks in Poland. The European Union requested that G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 14 - 
 
  the risk assessment be pursued, as it had adapted its regionalization measures based on OIE 
standards to ensure that only safe pork products were placed on the EU market and exported to  
countries outside the European Union. The European Union insisted that it had provided Korea with 
the necessary information to demonstrate the existence of di sease -free areas in Poland. 
The European Union therefore urged Korea to respect its obligations u nder the SPS Agreement and 
promptly conclude the import approval procedure based solely on collected information necessary 
to complete the recognition of regionalisation.  
3.37.   Referring again to the dispute Russia – Pigs (EU) (DS475), the European Union highlig hted 
that the Panel had found that the bans in place were neither based on international standards, nor 
on a risk assessment. Moreover, given that the European Union had demonstrated that there were 
regions in Poland which were disease -free and likely to r emain disease -free, the Poland -wide ban 
and the ban on the Baltic States were found to be WTO -inconsistent.  
3.38.   Korea referred to previous statements by China and the Russian Federation, and reiterated 
the highly contagious nature of ASF and the lack of a prev entive vaccine to halt its spread. Korea 
reported that it imported more than 300,000 tonnes of pork meat every year, approximately half 
of which originated from the European Union. Korea further elaborated on the regionalization 
requirement under Article 6 .3 of the SPS Agreement and Article 15.1.3 of the OIE Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code, and recognised that while they were informed that there had been no new 
ASF outbreaks in commercial pig farms, outbreaks of ASF in wild boars had been continuously 
report ed to the OIE as recently as March 2017 in the Polish regions of Podlaskie, Lubelskie and 
Mazowieckie. Korea observed that the ASF -free status had to include the ASF outbreak in wild 
boars, and therefore had requested Poland to redefine its ASF -free areas or zones according to OIE 
regulations. Korea urged the European Union to provide a clearly defined ASF -free region, having 
reviewed the newly affected areas. The same message had been communicated through the 
Korean Embassy in Poland as well as in bilatera l meetings with the European Union on the margins 
of the SPS Committee meetings.  
3.2.10   United States  Seafood Import Monitoring Programme - Concerns of China 
(No. 415) 
3.39.   China raised its concern regarding the US Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), 
published b y the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in February 2016, 
which had entered into effect in January 2017 without being notified to the WTO for comments by 
Members. China stated that the proposed rule was inconsistent with a number of ke y WTO 
principles, such as transparency, national treatment, scientifi c justification and least 
trade -restrictiveness. China also noted that the United States’ trac eability requirements and 
catch -certification for at -risk species applied only to imported fi sh and fish products, and not to 
domestic products. Additionally, the measure was not based on science as it would apply to all 
imported aquatic products, regardless of risk levels and without distinction between aquaculture 
products and wild capture fishe ries. China indicated that the regulation required more information 
than necessary and overlapped with other rules, including the International Trade Data System 
(ITDS), which increased costs and generated unnecessary market access delays. China added that  
the rule would do little to combat illegal fishing and urged the United States to postpone its 
implementation until Members' comments were sought and taken into consideration.  
3.40.   The Russian Federation shared China's concern regarding the US Seafood Monitori ng 
Program, and noted that it had raised the same issue in the Council for Trade in Goods, and 
encouraged cooperation between interested Members. The Philippines and Ecuador registered their 
interest in the matter.  
3.41.   The United States stated that the issue d id not fall under the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
The objective of the proposed rule was to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The proposed 
rule would require importers to report certain information upon entry into the United States, to 
help trace back the shipment to the catch or harvest point, in order to prevent the United States 
market from being used as a place to sell fraudulently marketed seafood or seafood products 
produced from IUU fishing. The rule was explained to be part of a new, comprehensi ve 
seafood -traceability program that also included comparable information requirements for domestic 
fisheries. The United States further explained that the rule had been developed through a 
transparent process of public notice and comments involving domest ic and foreign stakeholders, as 
well as exporting authorities. The United States underlined the rule's one -year implementation G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 15 - 
 
  time-frame, its streamlined requirements for small scale fishers, and an indefinite suspension of 
requirements for shrimp and aba lone. The United States looked forward to a continuing 
engagement with China and other trading partners on the implementation of the rule, and on 
combatting IUU fishing and protecting oceans more broadly.  
3.2.11   China's proposed amendments to the implementation r egulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOs (G/SPS/N/CHN/881) – Concerns of the United States 
(No. 395)  
3.42.   The United States again raised its concern with the approval delay for products of 
agricultural biotechnology and the lack of transparency and predictability in China's agricultural 
biotechnology regulatory process. The United States expressed appreciation for the high level 
bilateral engagement on these issues with China, but regretted that after the revision of its 
regulation some uncertainty r emained with regards to whether and how the revisions would 
translate into shorter and more predictable timelines for biotech approval. The United States also 
noted that some products were still poised for final adoption, and stressed the importance of 
ongoing communication with the products' applicants. The United States encouraged China to take 
action on those pending products in a timely manner. Finally, the United States appreciated 
China's engagement and commitment to support beneficial trade in the pr oducts of agricultural 
biotechnology.  
3.43.   China stated that it attached great importance to safety management of agricultural GMOs, 
and that its GMO safety management had always been based on internationally recognized risk 
analysis principles and scientific i nformation. China recalled that it had notified to the WTO its draft 
amendment to the implementation regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs, and had 
reflected WTO Members' comments in the final rule. China reported that the implementation 
regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs had entered into force on 1 October 2016. 
That amendment would make the GMO safety assessment procedures more streamlined, 
transparent and science -based. With regards to the assessment process, China info rmed 
the United States that the reason why eight applications had not been approved was that they had 
failed to pass the assessment of China's Safety Committee for Agricultural GMOs - the detailed 
reasons had been notified to the applicants in writing. Chi na had asked the United States to 
continue to provide additional necessary information to allow completion of their approval 
procedures, and that its experts were currently conducting assessments based on the 
supplementary information received. China invit ed the United States to make use of bilateral 
mechanisms to further discuss the issue.  
3.2.12   China's lack of transparency for certain SPS measures – Concerns of the United 
States  (No. 184)  
3.44.   The United States reiterated its concern with China's lack of transparenc y for certain SPS 
measures. The United States expressed a particular concern with the lack of notification of China's 
measures related to the implementation of its 2015 Food Safety Law. Further, the United States 
underlined China's State Council publicatio n on 19 October 2016 of the Revised Draft 
Implementing Rules for the 2015 Food Safety Law as well as the Chinese General Administration of 
Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) letter dated 25 April 2016, addressed to 
the United States em bassy and other Diplomatic Missions in Beijing, regarding the new 
requirement for official certification of all food exported to China, with an attestation that the 
imported food meets Chinese laws, regulations, and standards, also known as "Announcement 
#327". The United States noted that this would be inconsistent with relevant Codex guidance, and 
would be a matter of concern under the SPS Agreement. The United States requested that China 
delay the envisaged enforcement date of October 2017of the new cert ificate requirement for 
imported foods, until the concerns of trading partners had been addressed.  
3.45.   The United States urged China to notify both the Revised Draft Implementing Rules and the 
AQSIQ certificate requirement to the WTO, and take its trading part ners' comments into account 
before finalizing the measures. The United States asked that China notify all SPS measures that 
would have an impact on trade, including newly proposed and future measures that it would 
develop to implement the 2015 Food Safety Law. The United States expressed appreciation to 
China for the substantive bilateral dialogue, and looked forward to further cooperation with China 
to improve food safety in a transparent manner that was science -based and least -trade restrictive.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 16 - 
 
  3.46.   The Europ ean Union echoed the concerns regarding the notification of the new legislation 
development in China.  
3.47.   Japan shared the concern raised by the United States and the European Union, and insisted 
on the need for more information on such a requirement for new o fficial certificates.  
3.48.   China responded that the Chinese government took transparency seriously, fulfilling its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement. China was among Members who had notified the largest 
number of SPS measures, and was the Member who had most frequently provided a 60 -day 
comment period.  Over the past three years, from 2014 to 2016, China had notified a total of 419 
regular SPS measures to the WTO, providing the 60 -day comment period for all the notified 
measures. With specific reference to the two food safety measures flagged by the United States, 
the European Union and Japan, China reported to the Committee that the competent authority of 
China had  already extensively consulted with the relevant stakeholders, including with those from 
the Unite d States, the European Union and Japan, and had reflected a number of comments in the 
revised rules. China commended the active effort of the United States, the European Union and 
Japan in providing comments in the public consultation process. China report ed that it would soon 
notify the food imports certificate requirements, and that the draft Implementing Rules of the Food 
Safety Law had been placed on the 2017 legislative agenda of the State Council of China, with 
ongoing consultations.  
3.49.   China highlighted  that transparency was an important obligation shared by all WTO 
Members. China commented on the lack of transparency by the United States. Referring to data 
from the WTO SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS), it noted that the United States 
had subm itted 110 regular SPS notifications from 2014 to 2016, among which only 11 provided for 
a 60-day comment period. China further noted that a large number of the measures were notified 
as trade -facilitating, often unjustifiably, and  did not provide any comme nt period. China added as 
a systemic issue that the United States did not notify the acts enacted by its Congress, for 
example the US Food Safety Modernization Act, and seldom notified sub -federal laws or state 
regulations. Finally, China encouraged more discussions with the relevant Members with a view to 
further improving transparency in the SPS area.  
3.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1 7 
3.50.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION O F THE S PS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.1   Madagascar – South Africa's recognition of phytosanitary m easures for lychee 
imports  
4.1.  Madagascar announced that the South African Plant P rotection Organization had recognized 
in December 2016 all phytosanitary  measures taken by the Madagascar Plant Protection 
Organization as being equivalent . Madagascar acknowledged that th e effort to b ring its measures 
into conformity  had improved the access of Malagasy fresh lychee s to the South African market . 
Madagascar explained that it had used  a monitoring device for th e fruit fl ies Bactrocera dorsalis 
and Ceratitis malgasa . That initiative ha d been supported by the COMESA Secretariat  in the 
context of the program me for the development of the tripart ite market between COMESA, SADC 
and the EAC. Madagascar express ed its appreciation to all the bodies that had support ed its 
process, particularly the Secretariat of COMESA and other bodies that had provided information as 
well as the WTO Secret ariat for the  technical assistance  granted  to Madagascar  in 2016  which had 
provided another opportunity to foster collaboration with the private sector.  
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas  
4.2.1   Turkey – New regulation on z ones free from notifiable avian influenza  
4.2.  Turkey announced  that the Directive on the Definition and Dec laration of Zones Free from 
Notifiable Avian Influenza Disease ha d been enacted on 16 December  2016, in line with the G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 17 - 
 
  provisions of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  Turkey explained that in  August 2015 the 
OIE ha d notified Turkey as  free of Avian In fluenza , and according to their 2015 -2016 survey, 
it had remained so . Turkey added that, following OIE rules and the migration periods of wild birds, 
it would have bi-annual  surveys and a yearly passive survey. In addition, disease -free zones would 
be updated as required , and routinely  at the beginning of each year.  Finally, Turkey reported that  
detailed information on the new D irective and disease -free zones was available in notification 
G/SPS/N/TUR/82.  
4.2.2   Turkey - Declaration of freedom from Xylella f astidio sa 
4.3.  Turkey announced that in October 2016 , the IPPC web page had published a n official 
declaration that Turkey was free from Xylella fastidiosa . Turkey therefore requested  Members  to 
update their relevant legislation on th at issue. 
4.2.3   Senegal – Information on Spodoptera frugiperda  
4.4.  Senegal reported on the emerging sanitary situation related to the army worm Spodoptera 
frugiperda , its risk of propagation  and its threat to  maize crops . Senegal invited  international 
cooperation for the surveillance , phytosanitary co ntrol and  evaluation of the  progression of the 
invasion of the armyworm, as well as for information campaigns aimed at the general public . 
Senegal reported that it maintained its pest-free status , especially for sweet corn  (its main 
export ). Finally,  Seneg al assured its tradin g partners that no trace of the  armyworm ha d been 
detected in its territory , that it was closely survey ing the situation  and would inform of any 
chang e. 
4.2.4   Madagascar – Information on pest and disease -free areas  
4.5.  Madagascar provided inform ation on the actions  it had  taken since 2016 to protect its 
territory from the introduction of FMD , after it appeared i n neighbouring Mauritius and Rodrigues , 
which had been  notified to the WTO as emergency measures . Madagascar elaborated that, 
alongside the strengthening of border control measures, the surveillance methods in the field had 
been stepped up for three diseases absent from the territory , FMD, rinderpest and contagious 
bovine pneumonia ; as well as border protection from the rapid propagation of  Tuta absoluta . 
Madagascar explained  that, following the FAO information on the appearance of army worms in 
corn crops in South Africa and in other countries members of SADC in January and February 2017, 
it had strengthen ed its surveillance mechanisms give n the importance of its tomato production and 
the high level of risk of this scourge entering its territory . 
4.2.5   European Union – Regionali zation  
4.6.  During the informal meeting, the European Union had expressed its interest in having an 
informal discussion on reg ionalisation. The European Union underlined the importance of the SPS 
Agreement provision on regionalization for international trade in animal and plant products, as 
highlighted by the Committee's agenda items. The European Union considered that an informa l 
discussion could facilitate a better understanding of the challenges faced in the application of 
regionalization principles in international trade, and could thus contribute to the implementation of 
the SPS Agreement. The European Union suggested discuss ing the topic at the informal meeting 
scheduled for July, and inviting the OIE, IPPC and Members to share their views and experiences. 
The European Union offered to circulate a paper on the topic and welcomed Members' comments.  
4.7.  The United States welcomed t he interest of the European Union in an informal discussion on 
regionalization, which was a topic of interest to the United States. The United Sates looked forward 
to a paper from the European Union, with more information on the scope, the goals and the 
elements envisaged for the discussion, in order to provide Members an opportunity to identify their 
particular interests and fully participate in the discussion.The United States also welcomed the use 
of informal settings to delve deeper into issues of mutua l interest to Committee Members, as a 
means to promote a shared understanding. Recognising this as a new exercise, the United States 
encouraged a discussion on the best use of the informal setting and invited Members and the 
Secretariat to seek the means t o best take informal setting discussions to a formal setting, 
together with more standardized procedures.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 18 - 
 
  4.8.  Chile supported the call by the European Union, and proposed including the issue in the 
agenda of an informal Committee meeting as well as in a worksh op. Chile added that it would be 
interested to collect information on the implementation of the Committee guidelines on 
regionalization contained in document G/SPS/48.  
4.9.  The Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada, Egypt and Japan registered their interest in the  
matter and looked forward to the European Union's paper and a potential informal discussion on 
the matter.  
4.10.   The OIE took the floor to welcome the European Union's suggestion and expressed its 
willingness to participate in the discussion.  
4.11.   The Chairperson co ncluded that there was support among Members to discuss 
regionalization at a July informal meeting, preceded by the circulation of a background paper by 
the European Union on the issue. Based on that document and inputs from other Members, the 
Secretariat would organize the informal meeting accordingly.  
4.2.6   Chile – Avian i nfluenza  
4.12.   Chile provided an update on the AI outbreak that had occurred towards the end of 2016 , 
which Chile had notified to the OIE and its trading partners, while it was yet unknown whether the 
strain was of low or high pathogenicity . Chile reported that the affected animals had been 
slaughtered  (350 turkeys ), that s urveillance and biosafety measures had been  heightened ; and 
the movement of animals  and certification for the affected area  was suspended. Chile had updated 
its notification once it received laboratory results, confirming that the outbreak had been of low 
pathogenicity of the type H7 , and stressed that this had been a minor problem , circumscribed to 
only one production plant.  
4.13.   Chile welcomed the fact that trade with  its main trading partners,  namely the European 
Union, the United States, Korea, China and Colombia , had not been affected, since they  had not 
impose d trade restrictions beyond the affected areas . Chile understood the prec autionary 
measures taken by Members  (which Chile had also taken ), but noted that some Members 
maintained precautionary measures despite the lack of problems. Chile noted that there had also 
been cases of erroneous  notifications  which had been corrected  once Chile had communicated the 
low pathogenicity of its AI outbreak , with for instance Peru revising  its notification . In the case of 
Ecuador , Chile observed that document G/SPS/N /ECU/187 notified the AI as of high pathogenicity , 
and that despite Chile's req uests , Ecuador had not re vised its notification. Chile expressed its 
concerns regarding the trade effects of th at notification . Finally, Chile invited Members to visit its 
plants and ensured them of the low pathogenicity of its AI outbreak and of its prese nce in a limited 
area of Chile . 
4.2.7   Chile – Recognition of freedom from fruit fly  by Viet Nam  
4.14.   Chile announced  that in 2016 Viet Nam had recognised Chile as a country free of  fruit fly or 
Mediterranean fly (which had been  eliminated in the country since 1995 ). Chile appreciated that 
this had allowed the entry of Chilean table grapes into the Vietnamese market.  
4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
4.3.1   Update on the ePing alert system and on the modernization of the SPS IMS and 
NSS 
4.15.   The Secretariat presented the ePing SPS/TBT notifications alert system and provided the 
Committee with a brief update on the ongoing IT project aimed to modernize available SPS tools.  
4.16.   On the ePing SPS/TBT notifications alert system, the Secretariat recalled that since the 2015 
October Transp arency Workshop, updates had been provided on the ePing project for accessing 
SPS & TBT notifications and alerts. As planned, ePing had been officially launched in 
November  2016, the result of a tripartite cooperation between the UN Department of Economic 
and Social Affairs (UNDESA), the WTO and the International Trade Centre (ITC). UNDESA had built 
the pilot version of ePing as part of a trade capacity building project for least developed countries. G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 19 - 
 
  The WTO managed the depository of the SPS and TBT notific ations and ITC brought significant 
experience in developing and maintaining online trade -related tools, targeted mainly at SMEs, and 
hosted the IT infrastructure and development. The tripartite cooperation had been formalized 
through a memorandum of unders tanding, signed by the heads of the three organizations.  
4.17.   On the modernization of the SPS platforms, the Secretariat recalled that the project had 
been launched in early 2015. In a first phase, the SPS NSS had been developed and tested by a 
group of Members . During the 2015 October Transparency Workshop, participants had the 
opportunity to use a pilot version of the new SPS NSS system in a hands -on exercise (in three 
language groups). The second phase on enhancements to the SPS IMS had continued during 2016.  
In March and July 2016, the Secretariat had informed the Committee on the advancement of this 
second phase, which included the interoperability of the IMS and NSS applications. During the last 
meeting in October, the Secretariat had updated the Committee on final testing efforts and 
possible launch of the platforms. The Secretariat informed the Committee that the launch of the 
new platforms was expected on 31 March. This meant that the current online notification 
submission system (SPS NSS) would be access ible until 28 Mar ch cob, Geneva time. Between 
28 and 31 March Members would be able to notify offline by submitting notifications as 
attachments to emails sent to the Central Registry of Notifications (CRN). The Secretariat looked 
forward to having the new  SPS IMS and NSS accessible on 31 March. The Secretariat also noted 
that further improvements and fine -tuning would continue, and requested the understanding of 
Members as unexpected issues or bugs could be encountered, which would be fixed as they 
occurre d. The Secretariat further requested Members' feedback during the first months of 
operation. Some features would also need to be finalized (such as the help menu, translation of 
the interfaces into French and Spanish, general design and aesthetics aspects) . When using the 
NSS for the first time, the Secretariat invited NNAs to first submit one or two notifications and wait 
for feedback.  
4.18.   The Secretariat reported that it would soon start the update of the step -by-step procedural 
manual, and thanked New Zealan d's collaboration with this project. Indeed, Sally Jennings, who 
had developed the current version, had confirmed her availability to update the manual.  
4.19.   The Secretariat also expressed its appreciation to the Members who participated in the pilot 
testing of  the new systems, namely: Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, the European Union,  Hong Kong 
China, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, South Africa, 
Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine and the United States. Finally, the Secretariat  thanked the WTO 
ITSD for their support and efforts with this important project (Imed M'tmet, Oliver Murillo and 
Edward Carandang).  
4.20.   Nigeria expressed its appreciation to the Secretariat for the innovative and useful system. 
Nigeria suggested that the ePing  alarm system could include an indication when there was a 
specific deadline for comments and when there wasn't, as well as providing feedback on the 
frequency of the use of the system. In addition, Nigeria encouraged capacity building among 
stakeholders a nd capitals, to enable the effective participation of users.  
4.3.2   Report of the Informal Meeting  
4.3.2.1   Report of the Thematic Session on Notification of Trade -Facilitating Measures  
4.21.   The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to present a short, factual report on the disc ussions 
at the informal meeting on 21 March 2017.  
4.22.   The Secretariat  reported that at the informal meeting, discussions had focused on two of the 
proposals from the joint submission by Chile and the E uropean Union (G/SPS/ W/290), which had 
addressed three main  areas: posting unofficial translations of notified regulations in the 
WTO website; facilitating access to information about SPS measures that were in force, for 
example by setting up an internet platform with links to websites where Members  would  publish 
their SPS measures ; and t he third proposal was to hold a session on trade -facilitating measures, 
which had taken  place on 22 March 2017.  
4.23.   With regards to the proposal to develop an internet platform to facilitate access to SPS 
measures in force, the Secret ariat reported  that the European Union recalled that in October G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 20 - 
 
  certain Members had suggested that there might be synergies to explore with transparency 
obligations under the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) ; and had proposed to have a brief 
presentation  on such transparency obligations by the Secretariat before continuing discussions on 
how to move forward with the proposal.  
4.24.   The Secretariat also reported that Ms Sheri Rosenow from the Trade Facilitation team in the 
WTO's Market Access Division had explai ned the TFA's publication, advance ruling and notification 
requirements , as co ntained in articles 1 to 3 and S ection II of the TFA. Ms Sheri Rosenow  also 
briefly explained the newly developed TFA Facility D atabase to manage contact information, 
country pro files and more. She also explained that the TFA would apply to all border agencies, 
including those in charge of SPS and TBT  matters . 
4.25.   The Secretariat noted that, in order t o better assess the relationship between the two 
agreements, and in light of the rec ent entry into force of the TFA, some Members had suggested 
that the Secretariat could update the background note on the link between the two agreements  
(RD/SPS/ 3/Rev.1 ), which  had been  circulated in 2014 , but that one Member indicated that it would 
need m ore time to discuss the linkages internally first.  
4.26.   The Secretariat then indicated  that the European Union had reported on the proposal to post 
unofficial transl ations of notified regulations o n the WTO website , and had  recalled that in 
October  2016 Members  had raised complex issues related to the accuracy of translations, liability, 
formality, restricted access and anonymity. The Secretariat  added that, b efore moving ahead with 
the development of a new platform, the European Union and Chile had  felt the nee d to have 
further discussions on the reasons why the current procedure to share notifications through the 
submission of supplements to original notificatio ns was not more frequently used; and t he 
European Union had also referred to the new ePing SPS/TBT no tification alert sy stem as a possible 
alternative.  
4.27.   The Secretariat briefly described the current mechanism for sharing unofficial translations. 
According  to paragraph 28 of the Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3), any 
Member possessing an u nofficial translation should inform the notifying Member of its existence 
and submit it to the Secretariat through a supplement to the original notification. Neither the 
Secretariat nor the Member providing the unofficial translation could be held responsi ble for the 
accuracy or quality of these translations. The Secretariat observed that t his mechanism had rarely 
been used; only 19 supplements had been submit ted since 2004. The Secretariat illustrated 
different options used to share translations through th ese supplements, including one opti on which 
allowed for anonymity.  
4.28.   The Secretariat reported  that Ms Lotte Drieghe from the TBT team, of the Trade and 
Development Division, briefly presented the ePing online SPS and TBT notification alert tool. 
She recalled  that the system, resulting from the cooperation between the UNDESA, the WTO and 
ITC was operational since November 2016. She further explained the system's file sharing option, 
which could be used for sharing unofficial translations by adding them to a no tification.  
4.29.   The Secretariat explained that m any Members had recognized the usefulness of sharing 
translations, in particular for developing countries with limited resources, while they had also 
express ed divergent views on some of the issues mentioned at t he beginning of the discussion, 
such as preserving anonymity, ensuring the accuracy of translations, and on the desirability of 
using existing resources versus developing a new platform. Overall, Members had indicated the 
need for more time to assess the p roposal, while reiterating their interest in continuing the 
discussio ns. 
4.30.   Nigeria requested clarification on the possible update of the  background paper by the 
Secretariat on the linkages between the TFA and the SPS Agreement.  The Secretariat responded 
that one Member had indicated that it needed  more time to d iscuss the linkages internally. The 
Chairperson  concluded that there was no consensus on  updating the background paper.  
4.31.   The European Union reported on the thematic session on the notification of trade -facilitating 
SPS measures  that had been  held on 22 March 2017 , as agreed by the SPS Committee in 
October  2016, based on a joint proposal submitted by the European Union and Chile.  The purpose 
of the session had been  to provide an opportunity for Members to  share experiences on how G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 21 - 
 
  trade -facilitating measures were identified in the notification process. The session had been 
moderated by Gonzalo Ríos from Chile and Carlos Alvarez Antolinez from the  European Union.  
4.32.   The European Union explained that the Secreta riat first provided an overview of the 
notification obligations in the SPS Agreement, specifically Article 7 and paragraphs 5b and 5d of 
Annex B, and explained the current recommendations according to paragraph 13 of 
G/SPS/7/Rev.3, which encouraged Members  to allow a 60 -day comment period, except for 
proposed measures which facilitate trade and those which are substantially the same as an 
international standard. Specific examples of trade facilitating measures were also presented, as 
contained in footnote 5  of G/SPS/7/Rev.3.  
4.33.   The Secretariat had recalled that the majority of Members responded affirmatively to the 
element of the 2015 transparency questionnaire (G/SPS/GEN/1402) which asked whether more 
guidance was needed to further define "trade facilitating m easures". The Secretariat  had also 
provided an overview of some key issues identified by Members in the group discussions held 
during the October 2015 Transparency Workshop, as well as some of the proposed solutions. The 
Secretariat had concluded its prese ntation by providing some statistics on the use of the trade 
facilitating measures (TFMs) box in notifications submitted by Members.  
4.34.   On the sharing of national experiences, the European Union, in its role as moderator, had 
reminded Members of the objective  of the session and noted it would have hoped that more 
Members had come forward to share their experiences.  
4.35.   Carlos Alvarez Antolinez from the European Union had presented o n the practices of 
the European Union on the notification of trade-facilitating SPS  measures . The European Union had 
provided an overview of its notifications for the period 2010 -2016, highlighting that of the 
218 notifications submitted during this period, 60 related to trade facilitating measures (TFMs), 
with most measures frequently c overing feed additives and animal health. Data were also 
presented showing the conformity status of its notified trade facilitating measures with 
international standards (57% of TFMs in conformity), as well as data on the comment period 
provided. In 85% of  the cases, a period of 60 days or more had been provided.  
4.36.   An explanation had been  provided on the E uropean Union's internal procedure for 
submitting notifications and concerns were also highlighted about the potential differences in the 
interpretation of trade facilitating measures, based on the statistics presented which showed the 
high TFM rate by some Members. Several questions/challenges of importance to the issue of trade 
facilitating measures had been  outlined, such as: how to classify measures where  there ha d been 
no prior regulation; how to address the issue of regulations with mixed content, where some 
aspects may be trade facilitating, but others trade restricting; or the issue of less stringent 
measures, which were still stricter than internation al standards.  
4.37.   Several E uropean Union conclusions had also been highlight ed, such as the need for a 
case-by-case approach to trade facilitating measures; the importance of determining whether 
market access was facilitated, as a criterion  for classifying a m easure; and more careful 
consideration of notifications by the NNA.  
4.38.   Comments from Members on the presentation had highlighted the importance of 
transparency both within the context of the SPS Agreement, as well as the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement (TFA). One specific observation had been  made that additional work needed to be 
undertaken with respect to MRLs for minor use crops, in order to facilitate trade to certain 
markets.  
4.39.   Gonzalo Ríos from Chile had presented on  Chile's experience on transparency and 
trade-facilitating SPS m easures . Chile had provided the historical background and context for the 
inclusion of several recommendations in G/SPS/7/Rev.3:  the 60 -day comment period; 
the encouragement to notify all SPS measures, even if identical to the internat ional standard; and 
notification of trade facilitating measures. Chile had acknowledged that since 2008, the number of 
notifications of trade facilitating measures had significantly increas ed, reaching a peak in 2014. 
On the other hand, a study undertaken by Chile had shown that only nine Members accounted for 
83% of TFM notifications ( including  Chile). It had also recognized that those Members were among 
the main notifiers.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 22 - 
 
  4.40.   Chile had outlined the problems that it faced with trade facilitating  measures both  from an 
importer's and exporter' s perspective, and further highlighted that TFMs under the SPS Agreement 
had no relation to the TFA. Transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement were different to 
those under the TFA.  
4.41.   Lastly, Chile had provided some su ggestions on moving forward, including: requesting the 
Member to justify why the measure was trade -facilitating and accordingly adjusting the notification 
format; providing a shorter period for comments, but not eliminating this comment period; and 
renamin g trade facilitating measures, in order to avoid confusion with the TFA.  
4.42.   Julia Doherty from the United States  had presented on the U S experience with 
trade -facilitating measures in notifications. The United States had provided an interesting 
perspective on  the historical background regarding the TFM box by noting the concern had been 
raised in 2008 during the discussions of the third revision of G/SPS/7 that the application of the 
TFM box might give rise to misunderstandings if it was not made clear what wa s meant by a " trade 
facilitating " measure and its scope was not clearly defined. The United States had also reported on 
the results of an internal review of its notification procedures, which confirmed the United States 
as the most frequent user of trade f acilitating measures, and which had shown that U S agencies 
had used the TFM box consistently with footnote 5 of G/SPS/7/Rev.3.  The United States further 
highlighted that the requirement to provide comment periods was dictated by its administrative 
procedur e law.  
4.43.   The review had also included an examination of other Members ' notifications designated as 
trade facilitating and had shown that measures which might appear trade facilitating from one 
Member 's perspective, might not be considered so by another Membe r. The valuable n ature of 
comments in tho se cases had been  underscored. The review had also confirmed that there w ere 
wide divergence across Members on the use of TFM notifications, and had been  unable to identify 
specific benefits associated with checking  this d esignation on the notification.  
4.44.   The United States had further recognized the difficulty for the Committee to agree on 
criteria with the degree of precision and clarity that could support more uniformity in the use of 
the TFM box. It had suggested th at it could be in a position to support the suspension or restriction 
on the use of TFMs, unless the Committee was able to develop and agree on criteria that were fully 
understood and practical for all Members. Finally, the United States had expressed its interest in 
hearing the experiences of other Members, where they ha d developed and implemented clear 
criteria for their own use that could be used as the basis of further discussion in the Committee.  
4.45.   Canada had shared information on its own notification pr actices, highlighting that it had 
used trade facilitatin g measures infrequently. Canada  had further explained that its domestic 
requirements obligated Canada to notify and allow for a 75 -day comment period. In the few cases 
where Canada had notified a trad e facilitating measure, it had been guided by the transparency 
recommendations.  
4.46.   Canada had further noted that there could be confusion in classifying a measure and that 
some of the reflections of the European Union and Chile may be beneficial on a case -by-case basis. 
Canada had shared the views  of the United States  on the usefulness of receiving comments in 
finalizing a regulation.  
4.47.   In the concluding discussion, t he moderators had invited Members to share their views on 
the use of trade facilitating measures  and had welcomed further discussion on this issue. In this 
regard, concern s had been  raised in relation to how Members should deal with a trade facilitating 
measure that was country -specific, for example , a pest risk analysis. It had further been noted 
that it would be useful to have an indication of the type of measures to be classified as trade 
facilitating. The suggestion had also been made for Members to undertake in -depth analyses, 
similar to those presented.  
4.48.   In conclusion, the European Union had highlighted that the intention of the session had not 
been to formulate or agree on precise proposals to be adopted, but to allow for further reflection 
and perhaps revisiting some of the ideas at a later stage, such as possibly within the context of the 
Octob er 2017 Transparency Workshop. Chile had recalled that 80% of questionnaire respondents 
had indicated the need for further guidance on trade facilitating measures.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 23 - 
 
  4.49.   Nigeria expressed its appreciation to the speakers and supported further reflection on this 
matter at  the Transparency W orkshop scheduled for October 2017, particularly on what  
constituted  trade facilitating measures . 
4.3.3   Transparency Proposal by Chile and the European Union (G/SPS/W/290)  
4.50.   The European Union noted the useful discussion that had taken place on the issue at the 
informal meeting, and thanked the Secretariat and Members for their contributions. The European 
Union suggested continuing discussions at the October Transparency Workshop.  
4.51.   The United States suggested that the Secretariat put in p lace a process and a timeline for 
contributions from Members and collaboration on the areas of coverage of the Transparency 
Workshop.  
4.52.   The Secretariat explained that the Committee had considered that transparency was 
considered a useful subject for the Octo ber workshop because of the possibility to fund the 
participation of a number of officials from Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities. Given that 
the new SPS IMS and NSS would be available then, participants would have hands -on training 
sessions on h ow to submit notifications online, and Enquiry Points would learn about the use of the 
ePing tool as a national discussion forum. The Secretariat welcomed suggestions of particular 
topics of interest for other sessions, and proposed the deadline of 31 May 2017, in order to 
prepare a draft programme that could be discussed at the July Committee meeting.  
4.53.   Chile welcomed the opportunity to comment on topics to be covered in the transparency 
workshop and and stressed the relevance of having Notification Authorit ies participate in the 
discussions, given that they were the ones faced with challenges of translations, of assessing 
whether a measure was trade facilitating or not, or how to learn about other countries' measures.  
4.4  Special and Differential Treatment  
4.54.   Niger ia highlighted the importance of the implementation and enforcement of provisions on 
special and differential treatment in the SPS Agreement, for Africa in general and Nigeria in 
particular. Nigeria argued that they were placed at a disadvantage and imbala nce because those 
provisions were not fully enforced, and therefore called for their enforcement.  
4.55.   Madagascar noted the concerns expressed by Members on new regulatory provisions taken 
by the European Union as well  as measures in force on pesticides with en docrine disruptor effects. 
In view of the complexity of these measures and their impact on its economy, Madagascar 
requested that the European Union, as a privileged partner, take into consideration the situation of 
Madagascar in the application of those m easures. Pursuant to Articles 9 and 10 of the SPS 
Agreement, Madagascar requested special and differential treatment together with technical 
assistance to enable it to set up, at a national level, the necessary measures to bring the country 
in line with th e regulation, including a plan towards the progressive withdrawal of pesticides which 
would be banned.  
4.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  
4.5.1   New issues  
4.56.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.5.2   Issues previously raised  
4.5.2.1   Argentina  – Use of the Codex International Standard on Glyphosate  
4.57.   Argentina reiterated its concern that some Members were considering the possibility of 
rescinding the use of glyphosate and thereby no longer apply the Codex MRL. In particular, 
Argentina noted that although the European Commission had approved the extension of the 
authorization for glyphosate use until the end of 2017, there still remained concerns regarding the 
immediate impact on trade of agricultural products if the authorization was not further r enewed. 
Argentina highlighted the JMPR report from May 2016 that had concluded that glyphosate was G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 24 - 
 
  "unlikely to be genotoxic" and "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure 
through diet". A recent European Chemical Agency (ECHA) publicat ion, dated 15 March 2017, had 
also concluded that the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate 
as being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. Argentina noted that the ECHA 
conclusion was in accordance with  previous statements from the European Food Safety Authority 
(EFSA). Argentina recalled the obligations of Article 3 of the SPS Agreement, highlighting that 
Members had the obligation to base their food safety measures on Codex standards or on scientific 
evidence. No scientific evidence had been provided by the European Union to justify deviation from 
the Codex standard. Argentina urged the European Commission  to take into account the 
Codex  standard, the EFSA opinion and the ECHA risk assessment in its next  decision on the 
renewal of the authorization of glyphosate use.  
4.58.   The United States reiterated its concerns over the fact that some Members had already 
taken action, or were considering taking action, to no longer apply the Codex MRL for glyphosate. 
The Uni ted States understood that the measures being considered did not appear to be based on 
international standards or on a risk of exposure. Multiple robust risk assessments had been 
undertaken by international and national authorities (e.g. JMPR, EFSA, ECHA) on glyphosate, none 
of which had found convincing evidence regarding a carcinogenic risk to humans. In addition, 
glyphosate was subject to a periodic registration review by the US Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), in order to ensure that pesticides co ntaining glyphosate continued to meet the 
statutory safety standard for registration. The United States further informed that in 2016 the EPA 
had published a review of all available data on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate, where it 
had proposed  to classify glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses relevant 
for human health risk assessment". This review had included, but also extended beyond, the 
studies reviewed by WHO and the International Agency for Research and Cancer (I ARC) which had 
assigned a classification of "probable human carcinogen" to glyphosate. The EPA review had been 
evaluated by an independent scientific advisory panel, which h ad released its report in 
March  2017. The EPA was now currently reviewing the panel 's report, and other comments, before 
making a final determination on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate. Draft human health 
and ecological risk assessments on glyphosate were also scheduled to be published later in 2017, 
for public comments. The United States underscored the importance of distinguishing between the 
assessments conducted by JMPR, EFSA, ECHA and the pending EPA risk assessment, from the 
report of IARC, which was based on an assessment of hazard only and not on risk. The United 
State s further encouraged all Members to follow Codex glyphosate MRLs or to base SPS measures 
on science -driven risk assessments that incorporate realistic exposure scenarios.  
4.59.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile and New Zealand echoed the concerns of Argentina and  
stressed the importance of following the Codex standard. The fin dings of the JMPR report of 
May 2016 were also noted and Members encouraged to take into account the guidance provided by 
JMPR and CCPR when developing, applying, re -evaluating or reauthorizi ng measures.  
4.60.   The WHO, on behalf of WHO and JMPR, confirmed the JMPR conclusions on glyphosate as 
outlined in the JMPR report of May 2016, and indicated that the process to review glyphosate was 
ongoing. The WHO further explained that JMPR would report to t he CCPR in April 2017, and would 
not request a change in the MRLs for glyphosate.  
4.5.2.2   Senegal – Application of ISPM 13 on notifications of non -compliance  
4.61.   Senegal raised concerns regarding the provisions contained in ISPM 13 on notifications of 
non-compliance, noting that non -conformity in relation to emergency actions was not well 
documented by Members. Senegal observed that in some cases, products that were judged to be 
in conformity by the relevant authority were then destroyed without the relevant exporting 
authority being informed. Senegal indicated that this breached the guidelines outlined in ISPM 13, 
which required the importing party to deliver a range of documentation, in the event of 
destruction, to the relevant competent authority. Senegal emphasized the importance of providing 
this information to the exporting country through the official channels, in order to ensure reliable 
flows of information and to main tain trust between authorities.  
4.62.   Burkina Faso and Seychelles supported Senegal's concern. In par ticular, Burkina Faso 
highlighted its similar experience in receiving late notifications of non -compliance from Enquiry 
Points and in some cases not be ing informed.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 25 - 
 
  4.5.2.3   United States – BSE restrictions not consistent with the OIE International 
Standard  
4.63.   The Uni ted States reiterated its concerns that some Members maintained unjustified BSE 
restrictions that were inconsistent with the OIE international standards. The United States 
reiterated its commitment to aligning its import regulations governing BSE OIE guide lines and 
further recalled that at the October 2016 Committee  meeting , it had announced that the USDA 's 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had published a Notice in the Federal Register 
that finalized the recognition of the OIE 's BSE neglig ible risk des ignations for 14 countries. 
The United States indicated that APHIS had published another Notic e in the Federal Register on 
23 January 2017, which indicated the preliminary concurrence with the OIE 's risk designation for 
seven  countries (Costa Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Mexico, Namibia, Romania and Spain) as 
negligible risk for BSE, and solicited comments on this proposed action by 24 March 2017. 
The United States noted that it was also recognized as negligible risk for BSE by the OIE, yet faced 
numerous unjustified restrictions on certain meat exports . The United States reminded Members 
that certain products such as protein -free tallow and blood products were deemed safe by the OIE 
regardless of a country's BSE risk status and thus should not be subject to BSE -related import 
restrictions.  
4.5.2.4   United States - Phytosanitary certificate requirements for processed food 
products  
4.64.   The United States reiterated its concerns, previously raised in the March and July 2016 
Committee  meetings , regarding Members' us e of phytosanitary certificate requirements for 
processed products, as set out in ISPM 32 on 'Categorization of Commodities according to their 
Pest Risk'. The United States recalled that it had outlined the key provisions of the standard  and 
highlighted th e category of commodities defined as having been processed to the point where they 
did not remain capable of being infested with quarantine pests. The United States explained that in 
such cases, no phytosanitary measures should be required, and that such a  commodity should not 
be deemed to require phytosanitary certification. The United States noted an increasing trend, 
where Members continued to require phytosanitary certifications for products sufficiently processed 
to mitigate any pest risk (e.g. dehydra ted pot atoes, frozen blueberries). The  United States urged 
Members to follow the international standards, as set out in ISPM 32, in order to facilitat e safe 
trade in plant products.  
4.65.   Canada shared the concerns of the United States and encouraged Members to use 
international standards when establishing phytosanitary measures, and to support the principles as 
set out in ISPM 32. Canada highlighted that this standard encouraged Members to take into 
account several factors, such as the method and the level of pr ocessing of the products prior to 
export, and the intended use of the commodity in establish ing phytosanitary requirements.  
4.66.   Chile supported the concerns of the United States, noting that certifications were sometimes 
required in bilateral trade which went beyond the necessary authorizations, creating additional 
burden s and infringing international standards. Australia and Mexico similarly echoed the concerns 
raised and encouraged Members to refer to IPPC ISPM 32 for guidance on the processed products 
that d id not require phytosanitary certificates in trade.  
4.6  Fourth Review (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2, G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2)  
4.67.   The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the draft report of the Fourth Review 
(G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2) had been waiting to be adopted for two years. He also recalled that in 
March 2015, Egypt had presented three suggestions for additions to the report, contained in 
document G/SPS/W/282. The Committee had accepted two of these suggestions, adding a 
recommendation in Section 11 on the use of ad hoc consulta tions, and another recommendation in 
Section 12, on cooperation with the three sister organizations. A third recommendation, on private 
standards, required further work, along with other comments on the section of the Fourth Review 
Report on private standa rds. The Chairperson noted that at the October 2016 Committee meeting, 
the United States had orally presented a few options on how to move forward on the Fourth 
Review. The United States had subsequently submitted these suggestions in writing, and they had  
been circulated as document G/SPS/W/291. The Chairperson indicated that this proposal had been 
discussed at the informal meeting on Tuesday 21 March 2017.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 26 - 
 
  4.6.1   Report of the informal meeting  
4.68.   The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to present a short, factual r eport on the discussions 
at the informal meeting on 21 March 2017.  
4.69.   The Secretariat reported that several Members had highlighted the usefulness of the 
Catalogue. Regarding the need for a disclaimer, some Members had supported inserting language 
to clarify the legal value of the document, or to clarify that the Catalogue was a reference 
document only, with no binding value. One Member had raised a systemic concern regarding the 
inclusion of disclaimer language, as disclaimers could differ between documents, leading to 
confusion in their legal interpretation. Some had highlighted that the disclaimer was not 
necessary, since documents adopted at the level of the SPS Committee were not legally binding 
and did not impose obligations on Members. The inclusion of a  disclaimer would not prevent these 
documents from being considered in dispute settlement proceedings. Some had indicated that they 
were prepared to continue discussions based on language circulate d by previous Chairpersons. 
The proponents, Canada and Keny a, had also signaled their flexibility regarding the inclusion of a 
disclaimer.  
4.70.   Regarding the Fourth Review, the United States had presented its proposal, which was 
intended to stimulate discussions to help find a way forward on the adoption of the Report of the 
Fourth Review. The proposal had presented three options. The first option was the status quo, 
i.e. that the adoption of the Fourth Review remain deadlocked. The second option was to ask the 
Secretariat to revise Section 14 on SPS -related private sta ndards, to describe the differing views 
and the depth of engagement on all sides. The third option was to skip the Fourth Review and 
begin the Fifth, with a modified process to facilitate reaching an agreement.  
4.71.   Regarding the first option, several Members h ad considered it would ignore the important 
work that had been done in the Committee. On the third option, some Members had noted that 
continuing in such fashion did not have precedent and would not benefit the clarity of the process. 
Many Members had been  open to discuss the second option, highlighting that only few issues 
remained to be resolved. Some had indicated their views on how Section 14 of the report should 
be modified, and what should be the fate of the first and third recommendations.  
4.72.   Certain Me mbers had observed that the issue of private standards was being discussed in 
other fora, but some had indicated a preference for keeping it on the agenda of the SPS 
Committee in the hope of finding a solution.  
4.73.   One Member had raised the matter of defining a time -frame for the adoption of the Fourth 
Review, while another had preferred to have a timetable of meetings to work towards said 
adoption, without setting a deadline.  
4.74.   The Chairperson thanked the Secretariat for its factual report of the informal meetin g and 
opened the floor for any comments.  
4.75.   Brazil reminded the Committee that it had raised systemic concerns on including a 
disclaimer in the Catalogue of Instruments. Brazil also recalled its intervention during the informal 
meeting, where it had read out  previously circulated disclaimer language, which in its view had 
gathered support at the October 2016 SPS Committee. Brazil suggested the circulation of this 
disclaimer language for consideration by Members: " This catalogue of instruments is intended 
[only] as a reference document to help Members address and manage SPS issues. It neither adds 
to nor detracts from the existing rights and obligations of Members under the SPS Agreement or 
any other WTO agreement ". Despite its concerns expressed in previous me etings, Brazil indicated 
its willingness to work on the basis of this text, if acceptable to Members. On the Fourth Review, 
Brazil reiterated its concerns with private standards and stressed that more work was needed. 
Brazil thanked the United States for i ts proposal and confirmed its support for option 2, but further 
suggested to also keep the first and third bullets of paragraph 14.20, as adopted 
recommendations, with the understanding that they built on the work of the Third Review. Brazil 
indicated its willingness to engage in discussions with Members in order to reach a solution.  
4.76.   Canada proposed that the Secretariat recirculate the disclaimer language on the Catalogue 
of Instruments, in order to allow Members to reflect, with a view to moving forward du ring the G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 27 - 
 
  next meeting. Canada looked forward to engaging in a discussion on this topic. Regarding the 
Fourth Review, Canada expressed its appreciation for the United States ' proposal and expressed its 
interest in working with Brazil, and other Members, to try to find a way forward specifically around 
the language from paragraph 14.20.  
4.77.   Nigeria reiterated its support for option 2 of the U nited States proposal and expressed its 
interest in working on the disclaimer text indicated by Brazil. Benin also recalled  its intervention in 
the informal meeting, along with other African countries, where it had supported option 2, and 
underscored the importance of maintaining the issue of private standards on the Committee's 
agenda until the issue was resolved.  
4.78.   India recal led the Committee's previous work on the disclaimer language for the Catalogue 
of Instruments, highlighting the need for effective language to clarify the legal status of the 
document. India proposed that its previously submitted disclaimer language also b e circulated, 
along with th e language indicated by Brazil.  
4.79.   The United States reiterated its flexibility and its willingness to work with other Members to 
find a way forward on the disclaimer issue, provided that the disclaimers met certain legal criteria. 
On the Fourth Review, the United States expressed its appreciation for Members' engagement at 
the informal meeting and acknowledged the significant move tow ards consensus, based on 
option  2. The United States noted Brazil's suggestion and expressed its wil lingness to work with 
Brazil and other Members,  request ing guidance from the Chairperson on the timeline for 
subsequent discussions, with the hope of adopting the report in July.  
4.80.   El Salvador indicated its continued interested in the discussions on private  standards and 
signaled its willingness to discuss option 2 of the U nited States proposal.  
4.81.   Kenya expressed its appreciation for the constructive comments provided by Members, 
particularly on the Catalogue , and indicated its willingness to jointly work on c ommon language for 
the disclaimer. Kenya also acknowledged the U nited States proposal as a good way to move 
forward and indicated its commitment to addressing th e impasse on private standards.  
4.82.   Argentina invited the Secretariat to circulate the factual repo rts on the informal meeting for 
the benefit of Members that were not present. Argentina further reiterated its position that the 
inclusion of a disclaimer in the Catalogue of Instruments was not necessary . However , it indicated 
its flexibility to collabora tively find compromise language in order to move forward. Argentina 
expressed its appreciation for the U nited States proposal on the Fourth Review, noting its support 
for the spirit of option 2, indicating that a revised Section 14 could reflect the differ ent positions, 
as well as include information on the Committee's work undertaken on private standards and areas 
of consensus. Argentina indicated its willingness t o work with interested Members.  
4.83.   Chile, the European Union and Mexico reiterated their positio n that disclaimer language for 
the Catalogue of Instruments was unnecessary, but indicated their flexibility to review language 
proposals, in order f or the document to be approved.  
4.84.   Chile also indicated its appreciation for the U nited States proposal on the  Fourth Review and 
expressed support for option 2, while suggesting that option 3 be undertaken within the context of 
the Fifth Review. The European Union, Mexico, New Zealand and Norway also welcomed option 2 
of the U nited States proposal and further expr essed interest in contributing to this discussion.  
4.85.   The Chairperson requested the Secretariat to circulate the factual report on the informal 
meeting to Members through the SPS contact list, as well as a compilation of all of the previously 
proposed languag e for the legal disclaimer for the Catalogue of Instruments. Lastly, the 
Chairperson recalled Members' support for option 2 of the U nited States proposal for the Fourth 
Review, as well as Brazil's additional suggestion for paragraph 14.20. In this regard, he invited 
interested Members to consult with each other and to submit by 31 May 2017, an agreed draft text 
for the second recommendation of paragraph 14.20 of the Fourth Review Report. Following this, he 
would provide the following suggestions to the inco ming Chairper son on how to move forward: 
(i) hold informal consultations during the first or second week of June to determine whether there 
was consensus on the submitted draft text; (ii) if there was consensus, request the Secretariat to 
draft a new versi on of the report (G/SPS/W/280/Rev.3), changing only the second bullet of G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 28 - 
 
  paragraph 14.20; (iii) discuss G/SPS/W/280/Rev.3 in an informal meeting before the July SPS 
meeting; and (iv) put forward document G/SPS/W/280/Rev.3 for adoption during the July SPS 
Committee. The Committee agreed  to move forward on this basis.  
4.6.2   The report of the Fourth Review: Options for discussion – Proposal by the United 
States (G/SPS/W/291)  
4.86.   The Chairperson reminded the Committee that this agenda item had been taken up under 
the previous agenda item.  
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1  Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs): Possible next steps for 
consideration by the SPS Committee – Proposal by Kenya, Uganda and the United States 
(G/SPS/W/292)  
5.1.  The Chairperson reminded Members that f ollowing the Workshop on Pesticide Maximum 
Residue Levels in October 2016, Kenya, Uganda and the United States had presented a proposal 
on possible next steps for consideration by the SPS Committee. The Chairperson indicated that this 
proposal had been dis cussed at the informal meeting on Tuesday 21 March 2017 and  invited the 
Secretariat to present a short, factual report on the discussions.  
5.2.  The Secretariat  had reported that regarding the follow -up to the Workshop on Pesticide MRLs, 
it was in the process of  preparing a summary report of the Workshop, but that it had not been 
finalized as yet. The United States had then taken the floor to introduce the proposal on possible 
next steps for consideration by the SPS Committee (G/SPS/W/292) jointly submitted with Kenya 
and Uganda. The proposal had suggested five main follow -up actions for Members to consider, in 
order to advance the Committee 's work on trade -related MRLs, namely: (a) enabling JMPR to 
better respond to increased demand and monitoring progress on new  Codex MRLs; 
(b) strengthening notification practices for greater transparency and predictability on MRLs; 
(c) reporting to the Committee on international and regional activities on MRLs; (d) collaborating 
on solutions for MRLs for minor use and specialty crops; and  (e) discussing the role of 
the Committee in increasing coordination and harmonization. In rel ation to the last proposal, 
the United States had also highlighted that if there was consensus in the Committee on any of the 
proposed suggestions, the Chairperson  could issue a state ment reflecting this consensus.  
5.3.  Several Members had taken the floor to signal their support for the proposal, highlighting 
that the areas mentioned were of interest for many Members and that the suggestions would 
assist in im proving market access for agricultural exports. Some Members had indicated that they 
were in the process of reviewing the document  and consulting with their capitals, and that they 
would need additional time to finalize these deliberations with a view to p roviding comments at a 
later stage. Several Members had made preliminary suggestions to further improve the proposal.  
5.4.  Regarding the proposal related to JMPR, several Members had highlighted the importance of 
strengthening coordination with Codex, especiall y in relation to improving the Codex MRL system 
and JMPR 's work, as well as supporting the initiatives undertaken by FAO and WHO to ensure the 
funding of scientific advice. In addition, Members had called for further reflection on concrete 
actions to impro ve the efficiency of JMPR and to address issues related to its capacity constraints.  
5.5.  On the proposal related to strengthening notification practices, many Members had 
underscored the role of transparency  in managing trade risks, while some  had made suggest ions 
on how to implement the suggested actions . Some Members had observed that while the 
SPS Agreement did not require notifying all changes in MRLs, the SPS Committee had encouraged 
Members to do so through the Recommended Transparency Procedures in G/SPS /7/Rev.3. Some 
had suggested repeating this recommendation in any document issued by the Committee. S ome 
Members had also expressed concern that one suggestion in the joint proposal, related to enabling 
public comments outside the framework of the SPS Comm ittee, could result in lengthy delays.  
5.6.  Regarding the proposal related to reports on international and regional MRL activities , one 
Member had suggested that these reports should not only be limited to the organizations 
referenced in the proposal.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 29 - 
 
  5.7.  On the pr oposal related to solutions for MRLs, several Members had emphasized the 
importance of generating data for minor use crops, in order to faci litate the development of 
Codex  MRLs and to further support the work of existing projects  being carried out by sever al 
organizations. One Member had requested that these project initiatives be extended to other 
African countries that also required data. Another suggestion had related to assessing the potential 
impact of paragraph 4.3 of the proposal, while continuing di scussions on this paragraph. Canada 
had highlighted the Global Minor Use Summit, which would be he ld in Montreal from 
1-4 October  2017.  
5.8.  Regarding the proposal related to the role of the Committee in increasing coordination and 
harmonization, several views  had been expressed on how to move forward. Some Members had 
been in favour of issuing a summary, which could include suggestions on a way forward if there 
was consensus by the Committee, although some Members had indicated the need for more time 
for inter nal consultations. Overall, Members had expressed interest in continuing discussions on 
the proposal.  
5.9.  India had also reminded Members of the proposals made in document G/SPS/W/284, 
highlighting the issues faced by exporters from developing countries in rel ation to the application 
of limits of detection (LOD) in importing countries.  
5.10.   In concluding the discussion at the informal meeting, the United States had indicated that it 
looked forward to additional discussions on how to take the proposals forward, incl uding on the 
consensus vehicle.  
5.11.   The United States expressed its appreciation for Members ' support and engagement at 
the informal meeting and reiterated its commitment to concretely move the proposal forward in 
the Committee. In particular, the United State s welcomed a process where Members could submit 
comments, following which additional consultations could be h eld with the co -sponsors of 
the proposal in order to determine the best consensus vehicle, for subsequent discussion during 
the next Committee meet ing.  
5.12.   The Chairperson invited Members to submit written comments on the proposal by 
31 May 2017.  
5.13.   The WHO welcomed the proposal for follow -up work on pes ticide MRLs. In relation to 
the JMPR recommendation, the WHO encouraged Members to have their national e xperts apply to 
serve as experts to the JMPR process.  
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities (G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.12, G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.7)  
6.1.  The Secretariat drew the Committee's attention to G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.1 2, which provided 
an overview of all SPS specific technical assistance activities undertaken by the WTO Secretariat 
from 1 September 1994 to 31 December 2016. The document presented the number and type of 
activities delivered each year, including informati on such as the regions covered, languages used 
and participation of the international standard -setting bodies and much more. The document 
showed that since 1994, there had been 364 SPS -specific TA activities, with an overall 
participation of more than 14,0 00 persons. In 2016, 19 SPS -related training activities had been 
undertaken: four regional workshops; 9 national seminars; an Advanced SPS Course; a Thematic 
Workshop on Pesticide MRLs; and four c ourses organized by other organizations.  
6.2.  The Secretariat als o indicated that document G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.7 provided information on 
the planned technical assistance activities for 2017. The activities included the Advanced Course 
on the SPS Agreement (to be held in English) in October, and a Thematic Workshop on 
Transparency to be held on the margins of the October SPS Committee meeting. The deadline for 
officials from least -developed and developing countries to apply for funding to participate in these 
two activities was 9 June 2017. Additional details on the dates o f these planned activities, 
eligibility criteria, pre -requisites and application processes could be found in the document.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 30 - 
 
  6.3.  The Secretariat also reminded Members of its approach to deliver more effective and 
demand -driven regional workshops, which would ent ail working collaboratively with regional 
organizations to address SPS -related training needs identified within various regions. Using this 
approach, the Secretariat would schedule regional SPS workshops in 2017, upon request from 
regional organizations or  a Member in conjunction with a regional organization. On this basis, 
regional SPS workshops were scheduled to take place in two  regions: (i) Latin America 
(co-organized with the Inter -American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture) – to be held in 
Costa Rica, during the week of 12 June 2017,2 with a focus on goo d regulatory practice; and 
(ii) Arab countries (co -organized with the IMF -Middle East Centre for Economics and Finance) – to 
be held in Kuwait, during the week of 19 November 2017. Two other SPS regional workshops were 
being planned with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the GCC 
Standardization Organization (GSO), at the request of these organizations.  
6.4.  The Secretariat provided an overview of the activities held since the la st SPS Committee 
meeting in October 2016. These activities included: four national seminars held in Comoros, 
Guatemala, Peru and Sri Lanka; and two regional workshops held in Singapore. Specifically, the 
first regional workshop focused on trade facilitatio n, TBT and SPS issues, and the second focused 
on Agriculture and SPS issues. More general training on the SPS Agreement had also been 
provided in the following activities: WTO Advanced and Regional Trade Policy Courses; SPS 
Training Programme organized by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency 
(SIDA);  Training of Trainers' Regional Workshop on the e -Ping System in Uganda, organized under 
the EAC and US Cooperation Agreement on SPS and TBT Measures; and the Americas Pesticide 
Workshop organ ized by Canada, IICA and USDA, held in Ecuador in March 2017. The Secretariat 
thanked Canada for inviting and funding the WTO's participation in the Pesticide Workshop, 
acknowledging the very informative nature of the activity, which had provided another u seful 
opportunity for the Secretariat to highlight Members' SPS obligations in relation to pesticide MRLs.  
6.5.  In response to a question from Nigeria, t he Secretariat responded to a question from one 
Member that the ePing system had been operational since Nove mber 2016 and encouraged 
Members to provide feedback. Several training activities had been organized under the EAC and 
US Co -operation Agreement on SPS and TBT Measures, in which the WTO had participated. In 
particular, the Secretariat highlighted the Trai ning of Trainers' Regional Workshop held in Uganda 
at the end of 2016, as an example of specific training provided to WTO Members.  
6.6.  The Secretariat also informed Members of upcoming national activities that were being 
scheduled for Bangladesh, Botswana, Col ombia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Liberia, Pakistan, Paraguay 
and Tunisia. The E -Learning Course on the SPS Agreement was available all year -round in the 
three WTO working languages. Further information on SPS technical assistance activities could be 
obtained on the WTO website or by contacting the Secretariat.  
6.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1538)  
6.7.  The STDF Secretariat provided an overview of its activities, as circulated in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1538, as well as an update on decisions made by the STDF Working Group that had 
met on 20-21 March 2017.  
6.8.  Building on the trade facilitation research that had been previously undertaken by the STDF, 
the subject of good regulatory practice in the SPS area had been i dentified for future work. 
This included examining the tools, processes and me thods to ensure that regulations were fit for 
purpose. The STDF also observed that more work could be done in the area of transparency in 
order to facilitate trade, noting the challenges associated with obtaining information on SPS 
regulations in many deve loping countries. An outcome of the work to be undertaken on good 
regulatory practice could also focus on the further elaboration of a checklist, already implemented 
by the SPS team, which assists regulators to verify whether their measures were consistent  with 
the SPS Agreement.  
6.9.  A step -wise approach had been agreed by the Working Group in moving forward on the work 
on good regulatory practice. The first step would entail identifying examples of good regulatory 
practice, in particular in developing countrie s, through an informal survey to be circulated through 
                                                
2 The date of this activity was subsequently changed to the week of 19 June 2017.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 31 - 
 
  the SPS Committee distribution list. The survey would be developed in the coming weeks, with a 
core group of interested STDF partners: FAO, OIE, IPPC, Codex, the World Bank, WTO, as well as 
the United States and the European Commission as donor Members. The OECD had also expressed 
its interest in being involved. The STDF encouraged the participation of Members in this survey, 
and indicated that additional information would be further communicated.  
6.10.   Two r ecent STDF briefing notes were highlighted. The first briefing note  described how STDF 
projects were improving the private sector's capacity to implement SPS me asures and to take 
advantage of trade opportunities. The private sector's contribution to STDF projects, whether 
financial or through specific expertise and knowledge, was also acknowledged. The second briefing 
note focused on the impact of STDF projects on women, especially through value chain projects.  
6.11.   The STDF noted the increased interest in the SPS market access prioritization tool 
(SPS-MAP), which was a tool  that provided a framework to assist developing countries to prioritize 
SPS investment options for market access, enhance the dialogue between public and private 
sector, and improve transparency in the decision -making process on SPS priorities. Specificall y, 
the STDF Working Group had recently approved a proposal submitted by Madagascar, to apply this 
framework. Another proposal was also under preparation by COMESA to use this tool. The results 
of this work  would feed into the Comprehensive Africa Agricultu re Development Programme 
(CAADP).  
6.12.   The Working Group had approved five Project Preparation Gr ants (PPGs) benefitting 
Burkina  Faso, Cameroon, Guinea, Madagascar and Sri Lanka. Four project grants had also been 
approved benefitting Costa Rica, Ethiopia and Ta jikistan, as well as a global project that would 
support developing countries to implement a systems approach in pest risk management, related 
to ISPM  14. 
6.13.   Some of the upcoming STDF events included a side session focusing on electronic SPS 
certification dur ing the Sixth Global Review of Aid for Trade (11 -13 July 2017). In addition, an 
event jointly organized by Canada and France, in collaborat ion with STDF, to be held on 
27 March  2017, where the results of three STDF projects in West Africa would be presente d, in 
celebration of the International Day of the Francophonie.  
6.14.   Lastly, the STDF noted that information about how to apply for funding, and the eligibility 
criteria were available in G/SPS/GEN/1538 and on the STDF website. The next deadline for 
submission of applications was 4 August 2017. The STDF highlighted that applications continued to 
be welcomed, however, the funding situation was still critical. This meant that the STDF would not 
be in a position to approve and finance any new projects at the next W orking Group in 
October  2017, unless ne w funding became available.  
6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   Senegal - Assistance received by the mango sector  
6.15.   Senegal acknowledged the technical assistance received from the Enhanced Integrated 
Framework (EIF) in the mango s ector, as well as the support provided by ECOWAS regional 
projects in dealing with the fruit fly issue. Considerable results had been achieved under these 
projects, such as capacity building to support stakeholders in this sector and the development of a 
quality control plan for companies. Senegal indicated that more work remained in order to 
promote the potential of this sector, and appealed for additional support from partners. The impact 
of private standards on the sector was also highlighted. Senegal in dicated its appreciation for the 
support provided by the STDF, the European Union, the Enhanced Integrated Framework, the 
African Union, as well as the SPS Secretariat.  
6.2.2   Madagascar – Technical assistance received  
6.16.   Madagascar acknowledged the follow -up action s taken by the United States in response to 
its technical assistance request submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in relation 
to the implementation of FSMA. Information sessions were held via videoconference with FDA 
representatives, organi zed through the U nited States embassy and the chamber of commerce in 
Madagascar, and targeted at exporters and national authorities. In relation to the requirement for G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 32 - 
 
  national certification bodies to be accredited by the FDA, Madagascar requested further technical 
assistance from the FDA, so that certification bodies could conform to its regulatory provisions, 
and ensure access to the U nited States market.  
6.2.3   Chile – Technical assistance activities  
6.17.   Chile provided an update on its international cooperation act ivities in the Central American 
and CARICOM regions, particularly in the area of phytosanitary c ertification, border control, 
e-certification and agricultural policy. These activities were aimed at boosting triangular 
cooperation in the region and were mai nly financed by the United States, as well as the European 
Union. Activities would also be carried out in other geographical regions, such as the Pacific (Fiji) 
and Africa (Mozambique). Chile highlighted the participation of several countries in the activi ties 
that had been organized.  
6.2.4   Burkina Faso – Technical assistance received  
6.18.   Burkina Faso informed the Committee that it had received technical assistance to combat 
fruit flies, under a regional project funded by several organizations, including the European  Union 
and ECOWAS. This assistance was aimed at building capacity in order to reduce the negative 
effects of fruit flies and gain market access to the European Union, e.g. training of phytosanitary 
inspectors on official controls. Burkina Faso also recogni zed the technical support provided by the 
EIF in the development of export guidelines for sesame, which had facilitated the export of quality 
sesame seeds, as well as the assistance provided by the African Union to participate in the 
SPS Committee.  
6.2.5   The Gam bia – Technical assistance requested  
6.19.   The Gambia requested support to generate data on contaminants in various foods in order 
to support Codex work in setting MRLs, such as methylmercury in fish, lead in food and inorganic 
arsenic in rice. The Gambia observ ed that the MRL of 0.35mg/kg for inorganic arsenic in husked 
rice had been adopted at the 39th Codex Alimentarius Commission, but noted that limited data 
from only one African country had been used in the process. This MRL would be revised after three 
years, and in this regard, the Gambia requested Members' support in generating data to facilitate 
its effective participation in the revision of the MRL. The Gambia also highlighted that there had 
been no inputs from Africa in the discussions on Codex MRLs  for lead or methylmercury. 
The Gambia requested that JECFA evaluate the impact of different MRL scenarios on trade and 
health. The Gambia acknowledged the STDF support provided to Africa in the data generation 
process for pesticide residues on minor crops for  JMPR evaluation. The Gambia underscored the 
need to generate similar data for inorganic arsenic, lead and methylmercury to ensure increased 
public health protection and to facilitate trade.  
6.20.   Ghana, Guinea, Madagascar and Seychelles supported The Gambia's r equest for assistance  
in generating data to establish MRLs for the identified contaminants. The Chairperson noted the 
requests and invited potentia l donors to provide assistance.  
6.2.6   Togo – Technical assistance received  
6.21.   Togo acknowledged the ongoing technical assistance provided by the EIF, which had 
strengthened Togo's production and trading capacity in the soya sector, through training 
undertaken in workshops on product quality standards and on the SPS Agreement. Togo indicated 
its appreciation for STDF suppo rt, recalling that at the Working Group in October 2015, its request 
for a project preparation grant (PPG) to develop a national SPS strategy had been approved. This 
had led to the subsequent validation of the national SPS strategy by stakeholders, at a wo rkshop 
held in October 2016. Within the context of implementing this national strategy, Togo had applied 
for a STDF project grant aimed at strengthening SPS controls, in order to improve market access 
for agriculture, fishery and food products. Togo hoped for a positive outcome on its application . 
Togo also expressed its appreciation for the technical and financial assistance provided by the 
Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources of the African Union (AU -IBAR).  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 33 - 
 
  6.2.7   Nigeria - Technical assistance received  
6.22.   Nigeria acknowledged the support provided by AU -IBAR on several SPS -related activities, 
which had led to increased expertise and understanding of the SPS Committee's functions, as well 
as contributed to effective participation in the SPS Committee. Nigeria al so acknowledged the 
support provided by the USDA – through its review of Nigeria's food policy; FAO – through support 
in sensitizing Nigeria's Food Safety Management Committee members; and the European Union – 
through support of a quality infrastructure pr ogramme, via a project called 'Zero Rejects'. In 
addition, GIZ had supported the finalization of the last notification submitted to the WTO, with EU 
support.  
6.2.8   Mozambique – Technical assistance requested  
6.23.   Mozambique indicated its appreciation for the ongoing support provided by the 
African  Union, as well as several countries and partners in various technical areas. Mozambique 
expressed its concern regarding the available languages for WTO technical assistance, highlighting 
that as a Portuguese -speaking country , it faced difficulties in participating in, as well as 
requesting, WTO technical assistance activities. Mozambique acknowledged that Portuguese was 
not an official WTO language, but also highlighted that several countries faced a similar issue. 
Mozambique  requested the support of Members in addressing this issue, such as by assisting with 
the funding of interpr etation services for workshops.  
6.24.   The Chairperson took note of the request and invited potential donor s to assist with this 
request.  
7  CONCERNS WITH PRI VATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
7.1.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that this agenda item was closely linked to the 
discussions on the Review of the SPS Agreement, which had already been discussed under a 
previous agenda item. Members were invited to take  the floor on other matters relating to this 
agenda item.  
7.2.  Nigeria reiterated its position on private and commercial standards, noting that these 
standards negatively affected African exports, as well as compromised the ability of developing 
countries to co mpete with multinational companies in developed countries. Nigeria observed that 
most African countries, and other developing countries, were still experiencing difficulties in 
meeting international standards and that private standards would compound these  difficulties, as 
well as present additional barriers to trade.  
7.3.  Senegal  supported Nigeria's statement.  
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1.  The Chairperson welcomed CAHFSA, as it was attending its first Committee meeting, since it 
had been granted observer status in October 2016.  
8.1  Information from observer organizations  
8.1.1   CAHFSA  
8.2.  CAHFSA provided an overview of its mandate, as well as an update on its activities of interest 
to the Committee, described in more detail in document G/SPS/GEN/1537. Highlights included its 
work in developing re gional standards for value -added products, activities undertaken with respect 
to risk analysis in the animal and plant health area, and the dev elopment of a procedure for 
SPS-related trade dis pute settlement within CARICOM.  
8.1.2   IGAD  
8.3.  IGAD reported on recent act ivities of interest to the Committee through document 
G/SPS/GEN/1532. Highlights included updates on its regional SPS strategy, as well as animal G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 34 - 
 
  welfare and disease -eradication strategies. IGAD also indicated that it would be jointly organizing 
with the W TO Secretariat a regional SPS workshop for IGAD members in 2017.  
8.1.3   OECD  
8.4.  OECD provided information on its work on trade -related international regulatory cooperation 
as contained in G/SPS/GEN/1535. OECD reminded the Committee of the information previously 
provided, in the October 2016 SPS Committee, on the Theoretical Framework for Trade -Related 
International Regulatory Co -operation  (G/SPS/GEN/1528). This work on international regulatory 
cooperation was also presented during the OECD side session which took pla ce on the margins of 
the Committee meeting. The OECD drew the attention of the Committee to the recent publication 
on non -tariff measures and global value chains, available at 
http://dx.doi.org/10.17 87/5jlpq80ts8f2 -en. Recent work on international regulatory cooperation 
included the publication of " International Regulatory Cooperation: The Role of International 
Organizations in Fostering Bet ter Rules of Globalisation ". The OECD also provided an update on the 
joint meeting of the Regulatory Policy Committee and the Trade Committee on trade and 
intern ational regulatory cooperation.  
8.5.  The United States indicated that given the interest expressed in the harmonization work of 
OECD during the Workshop on Pesticide MRLs, future reports from the OECD on their pesticide 
harmon ization work would be welcomed.  
8.1.4   OIRSA  
8.6.  OIRSA reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee through document 
G/SPS/GEN /1536. OIRSA recalled that in the strategic plan of 2015 -2017, regional and 
international activities had been undertaken to tackle animal and  plant quarantine issues. 
OIRSA  also highlighted its technical assistance work including the organization of worksh ops held 
in the region on trade issues, as well as several online courses.  
8.1.5   IICA  
8.7.  IICA reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee through document 
G/SPS/GEN/1542. IICA indicated that the CARIFORUM SPS project would be concluded at the end 
of March 2017 and acknowledged the financial support provided by the European Union  under the 
10th EDF. The project had developed model bills on plant and animal health, and food safety which 
had been validated and sent to the CARICOM Secretariat for endorsem ent. It was expected that 
this work would result in increased international and regional trade, as well as market access. In 
addition, national coordination mechanisms had been developed for ten countries, as well as a 
regional mechanism had been created t o improve coordination across agricultural health and food 
safety groups and agencies. The Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA) 
had been operationalized and regional SPS bodies had been strengthened.  
8.8.  IICA noted the various capacity  building activities that had been provided to more than 2,000 
regulatory and private sector actors in areas such as surveillance, traceability, risk analysis, and 
antimicrobial resistance. In addition, more than 50 knowledge products on key animal health and 
food safety issues had been developed. A follow -up workshop on Pesticides in the Americas: 
Exploring Commercial and Regulatory Matters had also been held in Quito, Ecuador on 6 March 
2017, which had brought together 51 delegates representing 18 countri es in Latin America, the 
Caribbean and Asia. IICA had also hosted a Codex Colloquium, immediately following the 
workshop to prepare CCLAC delegates for several Codex Committees dealing with pesticide 
residues, additives and contaminants (i.e. CCPR, CCCF an d CCFA). IICA expressed appreciation to 
Canada and the United States for the support provided and to the SPS Secretariat for their 
participation.  
8.9.  IICA highlighted its work with USDA, FDA and USAID in building capacity to support the 
implementation of FSMA,  including training on preventative controls and future activities in relation 
to produce safety rules. Finally, IICA announced that it would be hos ting a strategy session on 
25-26 April 2017, to address recent proposals to the OIE Terrestrial Animal Healt h Code.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 35 - 
 
  8.2  Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  
8.2.1   New requests  
8.10.    There were no new requests received by the  Secretariat.  
8.2.2   Outstanding requests  
8.11.   The Chairperson reminded the Committee that in 2012, it  had agreed that if for any 
one-year period an ad hoc  observer organization did not  attend any meetings of the SPS 
Committee, its observer status would lapse, but only after the Secretariat had contacted the 
observer organization and received confirmation that it was no longer interested in maintaining its 
observer status. The Chairperson recalled that in the October 2016 meeting, the Secretariat had 
been requested to verify whether any ad hoc observer organizations had not attended a single 
Committee meeting in 2016. The Secretariat had also been requested t o contact any such 
organizations and seek information regarding their continuing interest to participate in the 
SPS Committee.  
8.12.   The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had contacted the two ad hoc observer 
organizations that did not attend any meetin gs of the SPS Committee during 2016, to request 
confirmation of their continuing interest to participate as an ad hoc observer in the meetings of the 
SPS Committee . These two Observers had confirmed their interest in maintaining their ad hoc 
observer statu s in the Committee. The Secretariat suggested that the current list of organizations 
benefitting from ad hoc observer status in the Committee remain unchanged. The Secretariat 
further drew the Committee's attention to the updated list of observer organizat ions available in 
G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14, which included the Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency 
(CAHFSA), following the granting of ad hoc observer status at the October 2016 meeting.  
8.13.   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 (APPC); and the Internati onal Cocoa Organisation (ICCO).  
8.14.   The Chairperson informed the observer organizations that their contributions to the work of 
the SPS Committee and their assistance to Members  were highly appreciated, and that the 
Committee looked forward to their continued participation in all unrestricted meetings during 
2017. The Chairperson further encouraged observers to provide written reports on their relevant 
activities in ad vance of th e July 2017 meeting.  
9  OTHER BUSINESS  
9.1  Ecuador – Brazil's measures on shrimp  (STC No. 344)  
9.1.  Ecuador referred to  its previously raised concern regarding Brazil's suspension of shrimp 
imports from Ecuador following the implementati on of Regulation No. 39/99 on 4  November 1999. 
Shrimp imports were subject to authorization, once a prior risk analysis had been undertaken by 
the Animal Protection Department in Brazil. Ecuador argued  that the measure was not based on 
scientific evidence or on a risk assessment, as req uired by Articles 2.2. and 5.1 of the SPS 
Agreement. Ecuador acknowledged Members' right under Article 5.7 to adopt provisional 
measures, but highlighted the obligation to obtain the necessary additional information for a more 
objective risk assessment and  to review the measure in a reasonable period of time , whereas  the 
measure at issue did not take into account Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement or the OIE 
recommendations, particularly those in Chapters 2.2.2 and 2.2.7 of the Manual of Diagno stic Tests 
for Aquatic Animals.  
9.2.  Ecuador recalled that the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture had established a general procedure 
for undertaking import risk analysis of fish and fish products, as well as aquatic animals and 
propagating materials (Regulation No. 14). Ecuad or insisted that it had provided sufficient 
information to Brazil, and noted that a group of technical experts from Brazil had visited various 
entities in Ecuador. Ecuador underscored that it had implemented a series of measures to G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 36 - 
 
  guarantee the quality of  its shrimp, however, no import risk assessment had been undertaken up 
to the last Committee meeting in October 2016. Ecuador highlig hted the obligation under 
Annex  C(1) of the SPS Agreement for Members to carry out a risk assessment with no undue 
delay.  
9.3.  Ecuador had been informed by its Embassy in Brasilia o f the circulation of 
Memorandum -Circular 6/2017/DSA -SDA/SDA/MAPA of February 2017, which established a series 
of animal health requirements for the import of shrimps. Ecuador welcomed this decision which  
would clarify the conditions under which shrimps could access their market, however, it was 
currently awaiting official confirmation of this information and further requested Brazil to provide 
this confirmation in a timely manner. Ecuador also raised a se ries of questions, which it requested 
Brazil to transmit to it competent authority, in relation to the product coverage of the Circular and 
authorization procedures, among others. Ecuador had also learnt of an Executive Decision to 
transfer the Aquaculture  and Fisheries Secretariat of the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of 
Industry, Foreign Trade and Services. Ecuador expressed its concern that these administrative 
changes could  result in undue delays, similar to delays experienced in 2015 due to th e transfer of 
responsibilities to the Ministry of Agriculture.  
9.4.  Brazil indicated that it was un able to provide a complete response, since it had not been 
aware of the content of Ecuador's intervention. However, Brazil  noted that the process for 
the authoriz ation of shrimps from Ecuador was in its final phase and underscored that the process 
had taken into consideration the submissions from Ecuador, as well as all available scientific 
evidence. Brazil requested Ecuador to submit a written copy of its question s for onward 
communication to its capital.  
9.2  Chinese Taipei - Thailand 's import restriction on papaya seeds  
9.5.  Chinese Taipei referred to  Thailand's import restrictions on papaya seeds . It observed that 
although a risk assessment had been conducted 9 years ago,  and despite repeated requests, no 
proper response had been received from Thailand. Prior to 2008, papaya seeds had been exported 
to Thailand. Chinese Taipei observed that Thailand itself did not attribute the ban on papaya seeds 
to any pest issue in Chine se Taipei, but was simply the result of a regulatory amendment in 2007. 
Thailand had requested detailed information for conducting a risk assessment prior to reopening its 
market . However, Chinese Taipei argued that this approach was inconsistent with IPPC  ISPM No.2 
Framework for Pest Risk Analysis . 
9.6.  Chinese Taipei had provided detailed historical records of trade, as well as a pest list, in 
response to Thailand's request in April 2008. Additional data on papaya seed varieties had also 
been requested in June  2010 and promptly provided. Since then, Chinese Taipei had sought on 
multiple occasions an update on the progress of the risk assessment, without  substantive 
response. In March 2016, Thailand further requested supplementary information on three kinds of 
pests with a risk of being spread by the papaya seed trade: Candidatus phytoplasma solani , 
Tobacco ringspot virus  and Tomato spotted wilt virus . In response, Chinese Taipei had provided in 
August 2016 scientific evidence showing that there was no record of these pests being spread 
through the trade of papaya seed, and that these pests had never been found in papaya seeds in 
its territory. Discussions had taken place on the margins of the SPS Committee and Chinese Taipei 
indicated that the dossiers of scienti fic evidence, requested in October 2017, had now been 
received and would be reviewed by Chinese Taipei's experts, following which feedback would 
shortly be provided to Thailand's competent authority. Chinese Taipei also indicated that it looked 
forward to receiving the import protocols.   
9.7.  Chinese Taipei underscored its efforts to provide the relevant information in a timely manner 
and urged Thailand to move forward or to provide proper scientific justification, arguing  that 
Thailand's restrictions were incon sistent with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, as well as 
Article 7.2 of the International Plant Protection Convention. Chinese Taipei encouraged Thailand to 
comply with its WTO commitments, in particular Articles 5.6 and 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, and to 
re-open its market to papaya seeds without further undue delay.  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 37 - 
 
  9.3  Peru – Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Novel Foods  
9.8.  Peru referred to its previously raised concern regarding the EU Regulation on novel foods 
which restricted  the entry into the European market of traditional biodiversity products not 
marketed in the European Union before  15 May 1997. This concern had previously been raised in 
several SPS Committee meetings. Peru outlined that although the European Union had no tified the 
modifications to the regulation, through bilateral channels, as well as through EFSA, to date no 
information had been circulated regarding the conformity of these regulations to the SPS 
Agreement. Peru argued that implementation of this regulati on constituted an unjustified barrier to 
the Peruvian food trade and urged the European Union to provide the scientific justification 
underpinning the regulation, as well as to align its regulation with the SPS Agreement. Peru 
reserved the right to include  this concern on the agenda of the next Committee meeting.  
9.4  United States – Rules for interventions under 'Other Business'  
9.9.  The United States recalled the strict rules for Members' intervention under the agenda item 
"Other Business", highlighting that the Ge neral Council's rules, which also applied to the 
Committee, clearly stated, inter alia,  that Members' representatives should not take the floor with 
long interventions, particularly on substantive issues and that any request should be in the manner 
of "for  your information", as well as notified well in advance, if  it involved other Members. 
The United States urged the Committee to respect these rules.  
9.10.   The Chairperson echoed the intervention of the United States, highlighting that "Other 
Business" was not m eant to be used for substantive discussions or to intervene on issues for which 
the deadline to be included in the Airgram had been missed . The Chairperson also urged the 
Committee to respect the rul es of procedures on this issue.  
9.5  Canada – Next steps on Fo urth Review  
9.11.   Canada queried the next steps for the Fourth Review. In response, the Chairperson recalled 
that the Committee had agreed on a deadline of 31 May  2017 for the submission of draft 
language. Several delegations, such as Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Kenya and the United States, 
had expressed their willingness to work on draft language. On this basis, the Chairperson invited 
interested Members to work together to develop and submit ideally one common draft suggestion 
to the Secretariat in order to fina lize the report in a timely manner. This language would be 
subsequently circulated through the SPS contact list. The Chairperson also indicated that it would 
suggest to the incoming Chairperson to hold an informal consultation to determine whether the 
suggested language would be acceptable, following which, the Secretariat would be requested to 
prepare a revised version of the Fourth Review Report, if there was consensus on the language.  
10  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS  
10.1.   The next regular meeting of the Comm ittee was tentatively scheduled for 13 -14 July 2017, 
with informal meeting s on 11-12 July 2017. The Secretariat recalled that the Committee had 
planned to hold an informal thematic session on regionalization and depending on the stage of the 
discussions, i nformal meetings would also be held on the Fourth Review and the Catalogue of 
Instruments.  
10.2.   The Secretariat further indicated that the Codex Alimentarius Commission was scheduled to 
take place the week after SPS Committee meeting, in Geneva. The Aid for Tra de Review, with the 
theme " Promoting Connectivity ", would also take place during the same week as the 
SPS Committee. The Secretariat encouraged Members to attend and indicated that it would 
circulate the programme for the Aid for Trade Review to the Commit tee mailing list, as soon as it 
was made available.  
10.3.   The Committee agreed to the following tentative agenda for its upcoming regular meeting:  
1. Adoption of the agenda  
2. Election of the Chairperson  
3. Information sharing  G/SPS/R/86  
 
- 38 - 
 
  a. Information from Members on rele vant activities  
b. Information from OIE, Codex and IPPC on relevant activities  
4. Specific trade concerns  
a. New issues  
b. Issues previously raised  
c. Information on resolution of issues  
5. Operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement  
a. Equivalence  
b. Pest- or disease -free areas  
c. Operation of transparency provisions  
d. Special and differential treatment  
e. Monitoring the use of international standards  
i. New issues  
ii. Issues previously raised  
f. Fourth Review  
6. Cross -cutting issues  
7. Technica l assistance and cooperation  
a. Information from the Secretariat  
i. WTO SPS activities  
ii. STDF  
b. Information from Members  
8. Concerns with private and commercial standards  
9. Observers  
a. Information from Observer organizations  
b. Requests for observer s tatus 
10. Other business  
11. Date and agenda of next meeting  
10.4.   Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines:  
• For submitting suggestions on the transparency workshop: Wednesday, 31 May 2017 ; 
• For submitting comments on the proposal for follow -up to the workshop on Pesticide 
MRLs submitted by Kenya, Uganda and United States: Wednesday, 31 May 2017 ; 
• For submitting suggested language, by a group of interested Members, on 
recommendation 2 of paragraph 14.20 of the Fourth Review Report 
(G/SPS/W/2 80/Rev.2), based on Members' consultations and the US proposal 
(G/SPS/W/291) for onward circulation to SPS delegates: Wednesday, 31 May 2017;  
• For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that items be put  on the agenda: Thursday, 29 June 2017 ; 
• For the distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 30 June 2017 . 
 
__________