WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/SPS/R/66 
23 May 2012 
 (12-2714) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 27-28 MARCH 2012 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Table of contents 
 
Page 
 
I.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ............................................................................................. 3  
II.  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON .......................................................................................... 3  
III. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES ................................................................ 3  
(a)  Information from Members ...................................................................................................... ... 3 
(b)  Information from Observer Organizations .................................................................................. 5  
IV.  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.12) ............................................. 5  
(a)  New Issues .................................................................................................................... .............. 6  
(b)  Issues Previous ly Raised ...................................................................................................... ....... 7 
(c)  Consideration of Specific Notifications Received .................................................................... 14  
(d)  Information on Resolution of Issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 ............................................ 14  
V.  OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS ........................................................ 14  
VI.  IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT ................ 15  
VII. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 ............................................................................................ 15  
(a)  Information from Members on their Experiences ..................................................................... 15  
(b)  Information from Relevant Observer Organizations ................................................................ 15  
VIII. PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 (G/SPS/GEN/1134) ...................... 15  
(a)  Information from Members on their Pest or Disease Status ..................................................... 15  
(b)  Information from Members on their Experi ences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-
free Areas .................................................................................................................... .............. 16  
(c)  Information from Relevant Observer Organizations ................................................................ 16  
IX.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION ....................................................... 16  
(a)  Information from the Secretariat .............................................................................................. . 16 
(b)  Information from Members ...................................................................................................... . 17 
(c)  Information from Observers .................................................................................................... . 17 
X.  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ..................................................................................................................... ... 20 
(a)  Issues Arising from the Second Review (G/SPS/W/259) ......................................................... 20  
(b)  Issues Arising from the Third Review (G/SPS/GEN/1086) ..................................................... 21  
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/66 
Page 2  
 
  XI.  MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ........................... 22  
(a)  New Issues .................................................................................................................... ............ 22  
(b)  Issues Previous ly Raised ...................................................................................................... ..... 23 
XII. CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
(G/SPS/55, G/SPS/W/256, G/SPS/W/261, G/SPS/W/265) .................................................... 23  
(a)  Report on the Informal Meeting ............................................................................................... 23 
XIII. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS ............................................................................ 24  
(a)  Ad hoc Observers .............................................................................................................. ........ 24 
(b)  New or Renewed Requests - Gulf Cooperati on Council Standardization Organization 
(GSO) (G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.3/Rev.1) .................................................................................... 24  
(c)  Outstanding Requests (APCC, AU, CABI, CBD, CITES, COMESA, ECCAS, ICCO, 
IGAD, OIV) .................................................................................................................... .......... 24 
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS ................................................................................................................  25 
XV. DATE AND AGENDA OF NE XT MEETING ..................................................................... 25  
  G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measu res (the "Committee") held its fifty-third 
meeting on 26-29 March 2012.  The Committee was fi rst convened in regular session on 26 March in 
order to elect an interim chairperson for the meet ings, and subsequently continued with informal 
meetings on 26 and 27 March 2012.  The regular ses sion of the Committee was reconvened at 3 p.m. 
on 27 March 2012.  The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with corrections and 
amendments (WTO/AIR/3914 and WTO/AIR/3914/Corr.1). 
2. The Secretariat drew attenti on to the General Council’s deci sion to reduce the costs of 
meetings and of documents (see WT/BFA/128).  A main  cost of meetings was interpretation and costs 
could be reduced if meetings star ted on time.  Paper copies of documen ts circulated in advance of the 
meeting would no longer be routinely provided and de legates were expected to bring their own copies 
of documents for the meetings.  The Secretariat provided information on how to electronically access restricted and public documents.  The Committee agr eed that SPS notifications, summary reports of 
the Committee's regular meetings, and the annual list of SPS-related documen ts would no longer be 
circulated in paper copy, although these docum ents would still be produced and available 
electronically.  The Committee also agreed that the monthly summary list of SPS notifications, and 
periodic information documents such as membership  in WTO, Codex, IPPC and OIE and fulfillment 
of obligations to identify a notification authorit y and enquiry point, would no longer be produced 
(G/SPS/INF/18).  The information contained in th ese documents was available electronically from the 
SPS-IMS.  The October 2012 Workshop on Transparency Provisions would provide further assistance in using the SPS online tools. 
II. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON 
3. Ms Miriam Chaves of Argentina was electe d as the interim chairperson for the SPS 
Committee.  The Committee expressed its gratitude to the previous chairperson, Mr Deny Kurnia, 
who had returned to Indonesia at the end of 2011. 
III. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
(a) Information from Members 
4. The European Union reported on the det ection in Schmallenberg, Germany, in 
November 2011, of a virus affecting ruminants, namely cattle, sheep and goats in Europe.  The 
"Schmallenberg virus" (SBV) is transmitted by in sects and is therefore unlikely to occur during the 
winter months.  It had been detected, to date, also in Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the 
Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom.  The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had 
provided scientific and technical advice which indicated that the impact of this virus on animal health 
was limited and that there was no evidence that th is virus could cause illness in humans.  SBV was 
similar to the Akabane virus found in Asia, Africa and Australia, which was not an OIE-listed disease, 
not notifiable in the European Union and not subject to specific OIE standards or restrictions.  The European Union did not apply any trade restrictions in relation to the Orthobunyviruses , and urged its 
trading partners not to take disproportionate or unjustified measures against EU exports of ruminants 
and their products.  Norway shared the concerns expressed by the European Union and urged trading 
partners to follow the OIE's recommendati on in relation to new and existing diseases. 
5. Japan reported that the area afflicted by th e March 2011 nuclear plant accident had made 
steady advances in reconstruction and supply chains had been completely restored.  The reactors had 
reached a condition equivalent to a cold shutdown, br inging the accident to a conclusion.  In order to 
ensure food safety and consumer confidence, new standards for maximum levels for radioactive 
cesium in foods, which were stricter than Japan's existing rules, had been notified  G/SPS/R/66 
Page 4  
 
  (G/SPS/N/JPN/287)  and would be introduced in April 2012.  Import restrictions had been lifted 
completely by Canada and Chile.  Japan requested  those Members that continued to impose severe 
restrictions to take measures based on scientific prin ciples in line with the SPS Agreement.  Japan was 
providing timely information to its trading partners, and distributed  additional background 
documentation to the Committee. 
6. The Philippines provided details on the St andards Harmonization and SPS Conformity 
component of a development cooperation initiati ve with the European Union (G/SPS/GEN/1154). 
Results of this component included:  (i) on-going de velopment of the Philippine Rapid Alert System;  
(ii) successful compliance by the Philippines' Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) 
with EU requirements (BFAR passed the EU F ood and Veterinary Office audit in June 2011);  
(iii) indexing of SPS-related measures and issuances in a coherent manner (issuances can be retrieved 
electronically through the SPS e-portal:  http://spsissuances.da.gov.ph );  and (iv) a draft Food Safety 
Act, which had been filed with the Congress and woul d put in place a farm-to-fork regulatory system 
to ensure a high level of food safety as well as fair  trade.  The Philippines' online application, 
processing, approval and release of "SPS Import Cl earances" was now operational.  The European 
Union welcomed the Philippines' on-going effort s to upgrade its SPS systems, harmonize its 
requirements with international standards and promote transparency.  The European Union would 
cooperate in on-going efforts and encouraged th e Philippines to notify to the WTO any upcoming 
legislation that may have an impact on trade.  
7. The United States reported that on 16 March 2012, the USDA Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) published a proposed rule  which would bring its BSE import regulations 
in line with the OIE standards (G/SPS/N/USA/2340) .  The deadline for Members to submit comments 
was 15 May 2012.  All trading partners were urged to review their import restrictions with respect to 
ruminants and ruminant products including beef and products such as tallow, and to adopt measures 
consistent with the OIE BSE guidelines.  The Europ ean Union welcomed the move to align US import 
conditions with OIE standards and hoped that a f ast implementation of these import conditions would 
result in real market acce ss for EU beef exports.  
8. New Zealand indicated that the Ministry of Ag riculture and Forestry (MAF) had merged with 
the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and the Ministry of Fisheries in 2011 (G/SPS/GEN/1142).  
The new ministry would be called the Ministry fo r Primary Industries, with responsibility for all 
government work across the agricultural, horticultural,  fisheries and aquaculture, forestry and food 
sectors, including imports and exports.  The ne w ministry would continue to have primary 
responsibility for food safety and biosecurity.  The new name would come into effect on 
30 April 2012 and administrative changes (e.g. brands , official seals and logos) would run through to 
mid-2013. 
9. Cameroon was not present at the meeting to provide information on the maximum limits of 
lead, cadmium and mercury applicable  to cocoa and cocoa by-products. 
10. Chile provided an overview on its use of compartmentalization for managing SPS risks 
(G/SPS/GEN/1147).  Chile was free from the main pests and diseases of global significance that 
limited exports and wanted to base its procedures on the OIE guidelines.  In the animal health area, 
Chile was moving forward to implement compartm entalization as the result of a public-private 
endeavour with the support of the OIE.  In December 2011, the legal instrument was issued 
establishing compartmentalization as a tool for health management and the first compartment was 
approved for swine production in January 2012. 
11. The European Union congratulated Zimbabwe on its first SPS notification.  The Secretariat 
thanked Zimbabwe for using the new online SPS Notification Submission System (SPS-NSS) and 
invited other Members to do the same.  G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (b) Information from Observer Organizations 
12. The OIE outlined in particular the texts proposed for adoption at the 80th General Session in 
May 2012 (G/SPS/GEN/1141).  It was proposed to  include African Horse Sickness among the 
diseases for which the OIE can prov ide official recognition of disease free status, and to adopt new 
standards for veterinary legislation.  The OI E also highlighted its collaboration with other 
international standard-setting bodies and a proposal  for "mutual recognition" between OIE and Codex 
standards would be considered at the April 2012 meeting of the Codex Committee on General 
Principles.  
13. The IPPC observed that the Seventh Session of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures 
(CPM-7), on 19-23 March 2012, celebrated its 60th anniversary with a half-day symposium 
(G/SPS/GEN/1151).  The Strategic Framework for 2012-2019 and a resource mobilization strategy 
were adopted at CPM-7, in addition a communication st rategy is to be develope d.  The new Near East 
Plant Protection Organization (NEPO) was recognized .  Six standards were adopted, including two 
new standards, some revisions a nd two diagnostic protocols.  The Codex and OIE had contributed to 
the process of revising the IPPC standard setting pr ocedures, one example of the collaborative efforts 
among the international standard-setting bodies.  IPPC's new Online Comment System (OCS) was 
operational and interest has been shown by the OIE and Codex Secretariats, which could result in the 
further extension of the system.  Discussions on IPPC 's electronic certification system (ePhyto) would 
further continue this year.  Recent efforts to  increase advocacy and public awareness of the 
importance of plant health included the developmen t of a video, which was shown outside the SPS 
meeting room.  The IPPC proposed to present information and documents to the SPS Committee 
under specific agenda items.  Korea congratulated IPPC on its 60th anniversary and supported the 
Strategic Framework's contribution to the safety of food production; protection of the environment 
and biodiversity from plant pests;  and the facilitation of trade and capacity development of Members.  
The European Union also congratulated IPPC on its 60th anniversary and further recognized the 
importance of its work, including the advocacy it ha d undertaken in recent years to find additional 
financing to allow it to continue standard setting in the field of plant health. 
14. Codex indicated that summaries of the seven Codex meetings held since October 2011, as 
well as direct links to the reports, were available in G/SPS/GEN/1150.   Codex highlighted the on-
going development of its strategi c plan, including the process for circulating the draft plan and 
receiving comments from Members, leading up to its final adoption by the Codex Commission in 
2013.  Codex echoed the comments of OIE and I PPC regarding their collaborative activities and 
underscored the importance of combining resources in  the context of scarce resources.  Celebrations 
are to be planned next year in honour of the Codex's 50th anniversary. 
15. New Zealand recalled that the workshop on the relationship between the SPS Committee and 
ISSBs in October 2009 had recommended considera tion of the reports on activities of the Three 
Sisters early in the Committee's agenda (G/SPS /R/57).  New Zealand, supported by Canada, 
suggested that it would, however, be more appropr iate for other organizations to report under other 
agenda items.  India questioned whether there shoul d be a distinction between the Three Sisters and 
other observer organizations with regard to Comm ittee procedures.  Australia, Chile, the European 
Union and the United States also supported the pro posal by New Zealand, noting that there was a 
distinction between the Three Sisters and other observer organizations in the Committee, and 
suggested that information from other observer orga nizations be welcomed under the agenda item on 
technical assistance or on observers. 
IV. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.12) 
16. The Chairperson recalled that this agenda ite m was designed to allow Members to raise any 
specific trade concerns they may have with respect  to the implementation of the SPS Agreement.  She G/SPS/R/66 
Page 6  
 
  would follow the normal practice of first giving the floor to the Member(s) raising the issue, then 
open the floor to other delegates who wished to address the same issue before inviting the Member 
whose measure was being discussed to respond. 
(a) New Issues 
(i) China’s Testing Methods for Food Additives – Concerns of India 
17. India indicated that it had concerns with th e 133 notifications issued by China in July, 
November and December 2011, proposing testing methods for identifying the physical and chemical 
index of substances in food products.  India ha d responded to the notifications seeking additional 
information, including clarification on the purpose of the testing methods, and requested China to provide the scientific methodology used for setting these regulations. 
18. China explained that it had not received India' s questions in advance but would convey these 
to the relevant authorities, and proposed bilateral technical communications. 
(ii) Indonesia’s Port Closure – Concerns of the United States 
19. The United States raised concerns about Indon esia’s plan to close several entry ports for 
imports of fruit and vegetables, including the ma in port of Jakarta (Tanjung Priok), originally 
scheduled for 19 March, but postponed until 19 June 2012.  The port closure would threaten 
90 per cent of fresh fruit and vegetable exports to  Indonesia, and the port closure measure was not 
done in a transparent manner.  The United States i ndicated its willingness to work with Indonesia to 
resolve any legitimate phytosanitary concerns I ndonesia had with respect to fruit and vegetable 
imports, while also facilitating trade in these produc ts. The United States urged Indonesia to notify 
these trade restrictions to the Committee and to  provide scientific evidence to support them. 
20. The European Union agreed that unnecessary trade disruption would occur from the port 
closure and recalled that any SPS measure should be no more trade restrictive than required and in 
line with the SPS Agreement.  The European Union similarly encourag ed Indonesia to notify its draft 
measures to the WTO and to allow sufficient time  for formal comments from trading partners and 
related discussions. 
21. Australia  also expressed concerns with  Indonesia's revised horticultural regulation, which was 
of major commercial interest to Australian e xporters, and indicated its willingness to work 
collaboratively with Indonesia to r esolve this issue.  Chile indicated  that it was closely following the 
concern and awaited the notification of Indonesia in order to work bilaterally on the issue. 
22. Canada voiced concern that similar port clos ures could occur in the future for other 
commodities, for example, food of animal origin, which could have a negative impact on Canada’s 
exports to Indonesia. 
23. New Zealand noted particular concerns that th e Jakarta seaport had not been included on the 
list of accepted entry points as 90 per cent of NZ hortic ulture exports entered through that port.  The 
port closures would result in higher costs and longer transport times, affecting the quality, value and 
shelf life of the perishable horticultural products .  New Zealand requested justification for the 
implementation of this regula tion and while noting Indonesia’s comments regarding port capacity, 
observed that restricting the number of ports for horticulture imports would compound the problem by 
diverting trade to fewer and smaller ports.  A lthough the delay in the implementation of the 
regulations was welcomed, New Zealand requested that the regulations be rescinded as trade to 
Indonesia would otherwise not be viable.  New Z ealand looked forward to working constructively 
with Indonesia and highlighted the need for a transp arent approach.  G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 7 
 
 
  24. South Africa joined with other Members to requ est that Indonesia notify this regulation to the 
Committee with the necessary reasoning and documenta tion.  South Africa indicated its willingness to 
cooperate with Indonesia to find a solution. 
25. Indonesia reported that the Ministry of Agricu lture had published new regulations No. 15 and 
No. 16 of 2012, which postponed the enforcement of regulations No. 89 and No. 90 from 19 March 
until 19 June 2012.  The postponement of enforcemen t of the regulations was in order to provide 
sufficient time for stakeholders and trading partne rs to set up infrastructure such as warehouses, cold 
storage and transportation, so as to prevent distortion in the distribution of fresh fruits and vegetables.  
Both new regulations provided specific policies for several ports.  As of 19 June 2012, all horticulture 
products should only enter through four ports -- th e Belawan Sea Port in Medan, Makassar Sea Port, 
Tanjung Sea Port in Surabaya and Soekarno-Hatta Airport in Jakarta -- and should no longer enter 
through the Port of Jakarta (Tanjun Priok).  The rationale for these new regulations was based on:  (i) the identification of 19 cases threatening Indonesi a's agriculture by the quarantine inspection and 
food security at Tanjung Priok;  (ii) the limited ability of the quarantine and food safety laboratory to conduct examinations at Tanjung Priok;  (iii) the ab sence of quarantine installations at entry ports; and 
(iv) inadequate number of quarantine inspectors in re lation to the number of products to be examined.  
Indonesia indicated that it would notify and circulate the regulation as soon as possible. 
(iii) EU Limits of Aluminum in Flour Products  (G/SPS/N/EEC/341) – Concerns of China 
26. China expressed concerns about EU limits on aluminum content in flour products 
(EC669/2009 and EC887/2010) , and excessive testing.  The strict  requirement by the European Union 
had impacted China’s exports of flour products.  The current EU standard based on a 2008 EFSA 
recommendation which sets out a maximum aluminum content of 10mg/kg, so as to ensure that the 
weekly intake of aluminum is below 1mg/kg of bod y weight.  However, in 2011, JECFA changed this 
weekly intake of aluminum to 2mg/kg of body we ight.  China urged the Eu ropean Union to reassess 
the EU limits for aluminum content in flour pro ducts on the basis of the new data from JECFA, as 
unnecessary restrictions on international trade, on the premise of safety grounds, should be avoided.  
27. The European Union highlighted the health ri sks of aluminum, whose use as a food additive 
had been prohibited based on th e 2008 EFSA opinion.  A low tole rance had been established for 
naturally occurring aluminum in flour.  When th e level of aluminum detected in food exceeds 
10mg/kg, it is a clear indication that a food additive  containing aluminum has been used.  In 2011, 
there were 35 notifications in the EU rapid alert system for food and feed (RASSF) on high levels of 
aluminum in noodles from China, with levels up to 50mg/kg.  Since October 2010, dried noodles from 
China had been subjected to an increased control frequency of 10 per cent, which would continue 
until there was a clear indication that Chinese noodl e manufacturers were no longer using additives 
containing aluminum. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised 
(i) Import Restrictions Due to BSE – Conc erns of the European Union (No. 193) 
28. The European Union recalled that it had repeated ly raised concerns about the continued bans 
or restrictive conditions on bovine  products from EU member States - allegedly because of BSE - that 
did not respect the international standards as requi red by the SPS Agreement.  The OIE standard on 
BSE provided details regarding th e disease and conditions for the safe trade of bovine products.  
Despite the long history of this concern, no Member  had ever provided a scientific risk assessment 
that would justify any deviation from the interna tional standard.  The European Union urged, in 
particular, China, Japan and South Korea to bring their requirements into lin e with the international 
standards and the SPS Agreement, and Australia to  quickly finalize its assessment process.  The 
recent steps by the United States to align its import conditions with the OIE standard were welcomed, G/SPS/R/66 
Page 8  
 
  and a fast implementation of conditions in line with  OIE standards is expected.  The European Union 
urged all Members to fully align their BSE-relate d requirements with the OIE standards and thus 
establish fair, non-discriminatory, transparent and scientifically justified requirements. 
29. Korea indicated its willingness to continue  bilateral discussions on this issue. 
30. China recalled its cooperation with the European Union, including in 2011 a joint BSE 
prevention and control training that resulted in a productive exchange on the relevant science and 
technology, and the standards of the OIE.  A lthough no consensus was reached on certain issues, 
China would continue to bilateral discuss ions on the relevant technical issues. 
31. Japan reported that it had already started discu ssions with the European Union, and that its 
Food Safety Commission Risk Assessment Body was requested in December 2011 to conduct a risk 
assessment on beef imports from France and the Neth erlands.  This risk assessment was conducted in 
a neutral and fair manner on the basis of scientific  data.  The Food Safety Commission would assess 
the risk of beef from the other EU member Stat es when the necessary information was verified, 
including through onsite investig ation and collection of data. 
(ii) Chinese Taipei’s Prohibition on Ractopamine in Beef and Pork – Concerns of the United 
States (No. 275) 
32. The United States observed that ractopamine wa s approved for use in the United States and 
25 other countries.  The safety of ractopamine ha d been confirmed by JECFA, which is jointly 
administered by the FAO and WHO.  In 2007, Ch inese Taipei had conducted its own risk assessment, 
based on the scientific evidence and determined ract opamine was safe for use in various meat and 
meat products. That same year, Chinese Taipei notified its intention to implement MRLs for 
ractopamine use (G/SPS/N/TPKM/114).  However, to  date Chinese Taipei had failed to implement 
this MRL, resulting in significant trade barriers to US exports of meat and meat products.  The United 
States urged Chinese Taipei to immediately implem ent the MRL it had notified in 2007, and to, along 
with all Members, ensure that measures were based on science. 
33. Canada shared the US concerns.  Based on a comprehensive risk assessment, Canada had 
approved the use of ractopamine in animal producti on.  Although Codex had not yet adopted MRLs 
for ractopamine, Canada was of the view that th e scientific work conducted by JECFA fully supported 
their adoption.  Canada was encouraged by Chin ese Taipei’s establishment of a cross-departmental 
task force in early 2012 to consult with stakehol ders and to provide expert scientific opinion on 
ractopamine. To avoid further unnecessary trade disr uptions, Canada requested that Chinese Taipei  
proceed as soon as possible with the adoption of MRLs  for ractopamine for meat and meat products as 
notified to the Committee in 2007. 
34. Brazil highlighted its concern that MRLs for r actopamine had not yet b een adopted by Codex, 
despite the technical justifications available regarding the use of ractopamine.  
35. Chinese Taipei took note of the remarks, which it would convey to its competent authorities.  
(iii) China’s Requirement for Registration and Su pervision of Foreign Enterprises – Concerns of 
India (No. 324) 
36. India expressed concerns with China's no tification on the registration of foreign 
manufacturers of imported food  (G/SPS/N/CHN/472).  Foreign manufacturers of foods listed in a 
"Catalogue of Registration of Foreign Manufacturers of Imported Foods" would not be able to export 
their products to China without registration.  India had submitted comments on the notification, 
requesting information on the issue date of th is catalogue, registration fees and processing times.  G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Although China had indicated that the notified meas ure was not new, the current process was more 
stringent than the 2002 regulation.  
37. The European Union noted that it had previously  raised this concern and had provided written 
comments to China.  While appreciating China's clar ifications, the European Union supported India’s 
call for greater clarity and additional information on th e process.  In particular, certain aspects of the 
registration process had not yet been outlined nor guidelines provided on the detailed process to be 
undertaken by exporters of products, with indicativ e timelines.  The European Union urged China to 
consider provide an appropriate transitional time period for tradi ng partners to follow this new 
requirement. 
38. China explained that the notified measure was an amendment of the General Order No. 16, 
which was issued and implemented in 2002.  Th e measure was notified to the WTO and comments 
were received and reviewed by China.  The measu re provided a regulatory framework similar to the 
original regulation and only overseas production enterprises listed in this catalogue needed to register in accordance with the requirements.  The date of  entry into force of the regulation was March 2012 
and the official implementation would have a suffici ent transitional period.  China would take into 
account India's comments and urged other concerned parties to raise their issues with the designated 
Chinese department as early as possible in order to facilitate the preparation of a detailed response. 
(iv) Viet Nam’s Ban on Offals – Concerns of the European Union and the United States (No. 314) 
39. The European Union expressed its continuing c oncerns with Viet Nam's ban on imported 
offals, and particularly white offals.  The ban, in place since July 2010, seriously affected EU exports 
of offal.  Although Viet Nam had previously stated  that the temporary measure was to protect human 
health, it had not yet provided a risk assessment.  Th is measure had affected EU exports but there was 
no indication of any safety problems with EU offals.  The ban was neither justified nor proportionate 
and since there were no similar measures on domestic offal, the measure discriminated against foreign 
imports.  The European Union urged Viet Nam to  immediately lift any remaining restrictions on 
imports of offals. 
40. The United States shared the EU concerns a nd observed that the measure had not been 
notified nor information provided to trading partners  to support the purported safety concerns.  While 
the ban had been lifted on red offal, all other o ffal products, known as white offal, such as stomachs 
and intestines, remained banned.  Viet Nam was urged to provide a scientific assessment or to 
immediately lift the ban on all offal. 
41. Viet Nam reiterated that the temporary measure was geared at protecting human health from 
high risks from contaminants, toxins or disease-causing or ganisms in food.  In light of the concerns of 
trading partners and to facilitate the trade of f ood products, including offal, Viet Nam had issued a 
number of documents, such as Food Safety laws, to  facilitate the control and regulation of food 
imports.  The ban on red offal had been lifted and th e ban on white offal remained because of the lack 
of a clear definition of offal in international sta ndards.  Viet Nam's experts were working in close 
cooperation with trading partners to clearly define offal and to discuss other related issues in order to 
find appropriate solutions. However, as a developing  country with limited resources, the Vietnamese 
authorities needed time to collect information for ri sk assessments.  Viet Nam urged interested trading 
partners to provide relevant info rmation and technical cooperation to  facilitate the completion of the 
research process. 
(v) Japan’s Prohibition of Certain Food Add itives – Concerns of India (No. 307) 
42. India recalled that in July 2010, Japan had no tified the withdrawal of 80 food additives from 
the List of Existing Food Additives , thereby prohibiting their use (G/SPS/N/JPN/255).  Although this G/SPS/R/66 
Page 10  
 
  list was shortened to 55 additives in February 2011,  it includes eight substances currently used by 
Indian food manufacturers.  India remained concer ned that food additives we re being prohibited on 
the basis that they were not in use in Japan, despite the fact that they did not constitute health risks.  
This hindered exports of food cont aining these substances to Japan w ithout sufficient justification.  
India recalled that Japan had previously stated that if an application were filed providing evidence that 
a withdrawn substance was still in use in the Japan ese market, the list would be updated.  India could 
provide a list of Members who permitted these subs tances.  Clarification was also sought regarding 
the database used by Japan in prohibiting these products, and the process for updating the list. 
43. Japan explained that it had been waiting for the complete application from India since 
June 2011.  India should apply for approval of the sp ecific substances of interest to its exporters, and 
Japan was willing to explain the detailed a pplication process in bilateral meetings. 
(vi) China’s Quarantine and Testing Procedures fo r Salmon – Concerns of Norway (No. 319) 
44. Norway reiterated concerns about the new t esting and quarantine measures introduced by 
China in December 2010, directed specifically at  fresh, chilled salmon from Norway.  These measures 
were further strengthened in Febr uary 2011 by the implementation of  AQSIQ Order No. 9 and had led 
to a dramatic reduction in the volume of Norway’s exports of fresh salmon to China.  SPS measures 
should be supported by a scientifically based risk analysis, but to date, Norway had not received a 
copy of China's risk assessment on salmon.  Norway  urged China to agree on a date for bilateral 
consultations at an expert level as soon as possible. 
45. The European Union supported the need for tr ansparency and good communication in this 
matter, and underscored the importanc e of open and direct contact with  trading partners on measures 
of concern. 
46. China clarified that since 2010, the entry an d exit inspection and quarantine bureaus in China 
had detected fish lice, pathogenic micro-organism s and excess chemical residues, among other issues, 
in imported salmon.  To protect consumers and th e safety of the Chinese fishing industry, China had 
strengthened the inspection and quarantine of impor ted salmon, based on The Administrative Measure 
for Inspection, Quarantine and Supervision on Impor t and Export of Feed and Feed Additives, its 
revision and amendments relating to aquatic produc ts.  These had been notified to the WTO.  The 
measures taken were covered by these regulations without any new elements and therefore China had 
no obligation to further notify.  These import inspect ion and quarantine procedures were not aimed at 
any particular Member, but quarantine issues were detected in numerous shipments of salmon from 
Norway.  China was willing to adjust the releva nt measures once Norway had addressed the quality 
issues.  
(vii) US Default MRLs, Limits of Determination or  Limits of Quantification on Basmati Rice – 
Concerns of India (No. 328) 
47. India stated that in September 2011, Indian cons ignments of basmati rice were stalled at US 
ports for presence of the fungicide Tricyclazole in  excess of the prescribed limit.  The US tolerance 
was at the Limit of Quantification, and consignmen ts were being rejected for Tricyclazole residues 
exceeding 0.01 ppm.  India recalled that at the SPS Committee meeting in October 2011, the US authorities had provided a response indicating the lack of tolerances by the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for Tricyclazole in rice,  and had noted that Codex had not established a 
maximum residue level (MRL) for Tricyclazole in any food.  The United States had further reported 
that tolerances for rice had been  established for three alternative f ungicides and encouraged India to 
use one of those alternatives or work with the EPA  to establish a tolerance for Tricyclazole.  India 
argued, however, that under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement scientific justification should be 
provided for fixing any MRL for pesticides and that  a Limit of Detection requirement must be  G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 11 
 
 
  justified.  Tricyclazole was registered and used in  the European Union, Chin a and Japan for rice, with 
MRLs of 1 ppm, 2 ppm and 3 ppm, respectively.  According to Article 5.7, Members could adopt the 
standards of other countries when there was no rele vant international standard.  India urged the 
Committee to invite the Codex Alimentarius Commi ssion to examine the scientific basis of the US 
measure, under Article 12.6.  US authorities had ag reed to bilateral discussions and India urged the 
United States to allow imports based on the domest ic standard of the exporting country, until both 
countries were able to finalize the MRL based on scientific justification. 
48. The United States replied that under the US Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a food was 
deemed adulterated if it contained a pesticide for which there was no Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA)-established tolerance or exemption, and food that was adulterated would be refused 
admission into the United States.  Several firms and products had been added to Food and Drug 
Administration's (FDA) Import Alert #99-08, "Deten tion without Physical Examination of Processed 
Foods due to Illegal Pesticide Residues", afte r FDA found residues of Tricyclazole and other 
pesticides at unapproved levels in shipments of ba smati rice.  When a shipment was detained, the 
importer had the opportunity to demonstrate that the individual shipment did not contain the residue, 
and the FDA usually accepted private laboratory analys is as evidence that there were no residues.  To 
date, multiple shipments had been released in cases where approved laboratory findings demonstrated 
compliance with US tolerances, and one firm had been removed from Import Alert.  Since the last Committee meeting, more chemicals without US tolera nces had been detected in Indian basmati rice 
shipments into the United States.  This raised fundamental concerns as to whether good agricultural 
practices were in place, rather than indiscriminat e use of pesticides.  One of the manufacturers of 
Tricyclazole had submitted a petition to the EPA in February 2011 to establish an import tolerance on 
basmati rice.  The United States encouraged India to continue working with FDA and EPA to address 
the concerns of the Import Alert, and the presence of Tricyclazole and other pesticides. 
49. India reiterated its request under Article 12.6 for the Committee to  invite Codex Alimentarius 
Commission to consider the scientific basis of the US  measure, since no standards currently existed in 
relation to the issue.  The Chair stated that I ndia’s request under Article 12.6 would require separate 
consideration and reminded India that the Committee would need to take a decision by consensus on 
this issue.  The Chair invited India to submit its request in writing, for consideration by the Committee 
at the next regular session.  New Zealand asked th at India give a detailed account of the background 
of this issue in its request under Article 12.6.   
(viii) Application and Modification of the EU Re gulation on Novel Foods (G/SPS/GEN/1137) – 
Concerns of Peru (No. 328) 
50. Peru recalled its previously raised concerns  about the EU Novel Foods regulation (258/97) 
that restricted foods which were not market ed in the European Union before May 1997 
(G/SPS/GEN/1137).  The Regulation did not distinguish  between foods and ingredients that were new 
in the strict sense and traditional products derived from the biodiversity of developing countries.  The 
EU measures were unnecessary and ex cessive as they applied to produc ts that had a history of safe 
consumption in other markets and presented no risk for consumer health.  Recalling the provisions of 
the SPS Agreement, Peru urged the European Uni on to refrain from applying Regulation No. 258/97 
to traditional products with a history of safe consumption outside the EU market. 
51. Cuba supported the concerns of Peru and indicated that the measure was discriminatory.  
Colombia also supported Peru’s concerns a nd urged the European Union to accelerate the 
modification of the regulation on novel foods, highli ghting the unnecessary and unjustified effect that 
the delay was having on the access of traditional produc ts to the EU market.  Argentina, Brazil, Chile 
and Paraguay indicated that they shared the con cerns and were closely following the issue.  G/SPS/R/66 
Page 12  
 
  52. The European Union explained that foods were  considered novel under Regulation 258/97 if 
they were derived from new technological processes or if they had no significant history of 
consumption in Europe.  Revision of the novel foods ru les had started in January 2008 in an effort to 
facilitate applications for novel food authorizations and to simplify EU market access for traditional 
foodstuffs with a history of safe use.  However, the co-legislators had not agreed to the proposed 
revision and the European Commission was explorin g ways to allow a revised novel food regulation 
to be adopted.  The European Union would make pub lic the steps it was taking in this regard.  Any 
new regulation would contain a centralized and qui cker authorization procedure for novel foods and 
specific measures for traditional foods fro m third countries to access EU markets. 
(ix) China's Hygiene Standard for Distilled Spirits  and Integrated Alcoholic Beverages - 
Concerns of Mexico (No. 278) 
53. Mexico recalled that in February 2009 it first ra ised its concerns regarding the maximum level 
established for methanol on alcoholic beverages and th e lack of nomenclature classification that could 
cover tequila in China's hygiene standard for dis tilled spirits and integrated  alcoholic beverages.  
Mexico had held various bilatera l meetings to discuss this is sue, and in September 2011 had 
submitted comments on China's notification G/SPS/N/C HN/377.  Mexico requested that the Chinese 
requirement be modified to reflect the maximu m level of methanol permitted under the Mexican 
Standard for Tequila, 3.0 g/l ethanol 100 AA.  This  would allow tequila and other beverages produced 
from agave to access the Chinese market.  Studies confirmed that  the methanol limits proposed by 
Mexico did not pose a health risk. 
54. The United States supported the concerns raised by Mexico, and requested China to provide a 
risk assessment to justify the measure, as well as an  explanation of the regulation and the expected 
date of entry into force.  The United States also asked China to provide a one year transition period 
for companies to comply with the regulation on ce China had provided its risk assessment and had 
notified the final measure to the WTO.  The Eur opean Union echoed these concerns, and noted that 
the measure created unnecessary barriers to  trade, and was not based on science. 
55. China observed that bilateral meetings had taken place with Mexico and noted that the 
standard was based on Chinese consumption habits.  China would take Members' comments into 
consideration and keep them informed. 
(x) EU MRLs for Pesticides - Concerns of India (No. 306) 
56. India recalled that it had raised this concern at four previous meetings, and reiterated that no 
Member should set MRLs without scientific jus tification.  India welcomed the EU MRL for 
Isoprothiolane in rice, and sought clarification on the status of an import licence application for 
Tricyclazole by Dow Agro Sciences.  India urged the European Union to replace default MRLs for a 
variety of pesticides, as the default levels of 0. 01 mg/kg, meant that imported foodstuffs containing 
even the smallest trace of pesticides (e.g., Cerband azim) were banned in the European Union.  India 
requested the scientific justification for fixing any MR Ls at the level of detection, and recalled that 
under Article 12.6 the Committee could invite a rele vant international body, such as Codex, to 
examine the scientific basis of a standard set by the European Union.  
57. Pakistan stressed the importance of this issue for developing countries, and expressed hope 
that it would be soon resolved. 
58. The European Union recalled that in Septem ber 2008 it had introduced a new legislative 
framework on pesticide residues (Regulation EC 396/2005) under which many pesticides MRLs had 
been set at the default level in order not to hinder tr ade.  Trading partners that felt that a higher MRL 
was necessary should submit an application, with the appropriate scientific justification.  The  G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 13 
 
 
  European Union would set a higher MRL where this was scientifically justified, as had been done for 
Isoprothiolane, where the MRL in rice had been rai sed to 5 mg/kg from its default level.  This was 
done on the basis of a scientific opinion from EFSA, which sated that authorized use at that level 
would not pose a public health concern.  The European Union also noted that EFSA strongly 
recommended that studies be carried out to investig ate the effect of processing on the nature of 
Isoprothiolane residues.  Following a decision by th e EU member States, it was agreed that the MRL 
would therefore be fixed on a temporary basis on th e understanding that it may be reviewed in the 
light of the results of the requested study on processing. 
(xi) South Africa's Import Restrictions on Pork Meat - Concerns of Brazil (No. 287)  
59. Brazil recalled that in 2005, South Africa im posed a ban on Brazilian exports of swine and 
bovine meat due to an outbreak of FMD in some Brazilian states.  Brazil had provided information 
and responded to all questions sent by South Africa,  and after intense negotiations, exports of bovine 
meat were authorized in February 2010.  Brazil had held bilateral meetings a nd had sent four technical 
missions to South Africa.  Although Brazil had answer ed all questions in relation to the control of 
swine disease, the repeated questions from S outh Africa had become a major and unnecessary 
obstacle to trade.  The ban was unjustified as the FM D status of Brazil was higher than that of South 
Africa, and Brazil requested South Africa to promptly adapt its measures to the requirements foreseen in the SPS Agreement, so that exports of the affected products could resume soon.  
60. South Africa stated that the concerns raised by Brazil were important to both countries and 
that it was committed to solve the issue.  Since 2005, South Africa had experienced outbreaks of 
devastating animal diseases in the pig population,  which were costly to eradicate.  Porcine, 
reproductive and respiratory syndrome and classica l swine fever had been eradicated from South 
Africa, which would seek advice from the OIE on how to proceed on certain imports while continuing to ensure the protection of its pig herd health.  South Africa was in the final stages of developing an 
effective health certificate for the import of po rk, and remained willing to continue bilateral 
discussions with Brazil and other interested countries.
  
(xii) US Food Safety Modernization Act - Concerns of India (No. 299). 
61. India recalled that in October 2011 it had rai sed concerns that the US FDA Food Safety 
Modernization Act (FSMA) put extra burden on export ers, leading to higher transaction costs.  India's 
concerns related to:  the registration of foreign f acilities;  the foreign supplier verification programme; 
the voluntary qualified importer programme;  and certif ication and audit.  Various provisions of the 
act did not reflect the core principles of equivale nce and harmonization, and the United States should 
ensure the act was in line with th e SPS Agreement so as not to affect trade.  India urged the United 
States to communicate the timeframe for the issu ance of these regulations, and asked whether the 
regulations would provide for bilateral mutual recognition agreements that could help Indian 
exporters access the US market.  India also requ ested information on how much time would be 
provided to exporters to meet new requirements, as  this would require technical assistance and better 
understanding to ensure all regulations were fully fo llowed.  India also requested clarification about 
the additional costs to exporters for th e registration of foreign suppliers. 
62. China echoed the concerns of India, and reca lled the US document G/TBT/W/349 concerning 
the use of the International Laboratory Accr editation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition 
Arrangement (MRA) and the International Accr editation Forum (IAF) Multilateral Recognition 
Arrangement (MLA) by central government bodies.  China requested confirmation that the US FDA 
had taken concrete steps to accept test results i ssued by testing laboratories from exporting Members 
accredited under the ILAC MRA framework. G/SPS/R/66 
Page 14  
 
  63. The United States recalled that it notified FSMA and certain user fee rates in February and 
October 2011, respectively (G/SPS/N/USA/2156 and a ddenda).  An interim final rule had been 
notified (G/SPS/N/USA/703/Add.3) to amend FD A's regulation on the record availability 
requirements.  The amendment expands  FDA's access authority to records relating to any other article 
of food that the Secretary of Health Human Services  reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a 
similar manner.  Trading partne rs should submit comments on the notified measures.  The United 
States hoped to soon publish proposed rules relating to preventive controls for human foods and 
animal feed, produce safety, foreign supplier veri fication, and third-party accreditation.  The FDA 
would be mindful of the Codex Al imentarius standards, guidelines a nd related texts, while ensuring 
FSMA programmes provided the appropriate level of health protection for US consumers. 
(c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received 
64. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(d) Information on Resolution of Issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
65. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
V. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS 
66. The Secretariat reported that doc uments G/SPS/GEN/1127, G/SPS/GEN/1131, 
G/SPS/GEN/1132, G/SPS/GEN/1133, G/SPS/GEN/ 1135 and G/SPS/GEN/1140 summarized the 
notifications received since the last Committee me eting for the months of September, October, 
November, December, January and February 2011-2 012, respectively.  A list of all SPS documents 
issued in 2011 by Members, Observers and the Secretariat was contained in G/SPS/GEN/1136.  The 
list of Members that had not yet identified an SPS National Notification Authority and/or Enquiry 
Point had been updated in G/SPS/GEN/27/REV.22. 
67. The Secretariat recalled that it no longer produced  paper copies of the c ontact lists of National 
Notification Authorities and National Enquiry Points, but electronic lists were constantly updated and 
available through the SPS Information Management System (IMS) ( http://spsims.wto.org ).  Members 
should verify the accuracy of the lists of Enquiry  Points and National Notification Authorities, to 
ensure that these would receive important documen ts and invitations to training activities.  The 
Secretariat would no longer generate the monthl y summary list of notifications, as Members could 
generate such summary lists through the SPS IMS. 
68. The Secretariat reminded Members of the system for submission of SPS notifications online.  
Notification Authorities were invited to request  a password to access the system and submit 
notifications directly on line.  The system work ed very quickly and Members who often submitted 
many notifications were particularly encouraged to  use it.  About 32 Members had already requested a 
password and 14 Members had actually begun to submit their notifications electronically.  
69. Chile observed that the SPS NSS worked well a nd rapidly, and had helped Chile achieve 
good results. 
70. The Secretariat drew the Committee's atten tion to the upcoming 2012 October Workshop on 
Transparency which would focus on the use of th e SPS Notification Submission System and IMS.  
WTO Global Trust Fund funding would be available for approximately 50 officials from LDCs and developing countries, on the basis of applicati ons from NNAs and ENQs, to participate in this 
workshop.  G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 15 
 
 
  VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
71. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
VII. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 
(a) Information from Members on their Experiences 
72. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(b) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
73. IPPC indicated that it would start an analytical study on the topic of equivalence.  Additional 
information could be found in G/SPS/GEN/1153. 
VIII.  PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 (G/SPS/GEN/1134) 
74. The Secretariat introduced the annual re port on the implementation of Article 6 
(G/SPS/GEN/1134).  The report, covering 2009 through 2011, was based on information provided by 
Members through notifications and at SPS Committ ee meetings.  The repor t summarized Members' 
activities regarding Article 6 on the following categor ies:  (i) requests for recognition of pest- or 
disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prev alence;  (ii) determinations on recognition of 
pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence;   and (iii) Members' experiences 
in the implementation of Article 6 and the provisi on of relevant background information by Members 
on their decisions to other interested Members. 
75. Chile welcomed the annual report, and expressed  concerns regarding the implementation of 
Article 6.  Many Members had inefficient systems in place for the recognition of pest- and disease-
free areas.  For example, there should be an accel erated procedure for the recognition of disease-free 
areas for the four diseases recognized by the OIE, how ever, this did not happen in practice.  Chile 
urged Members to not let bureaucracy get in the way of the objectives of Article 6. 
(a) Information from Members on their Pest or Disease Status 
(i) Paraguay - FMD Status 
76. Paraguay reported that in Septem ber 2011 it notified to the OIE, and other relevant authorities 
and countries, an outbreak of FMD affecting the de partment of San Pedro.  As a precautionary 
measure, the National Service of Quality and An imal Health (SENACSA) had banned exports of 
bovine meat and meat products until the situa tion had been brought under control.  On 
30 December 2011, Paraguay had similarly notified a new outbreak of FMD in the department of San 
Pedro.  SENACSA enacted controls following th e procedures established by international bodies.  
Currently, both outbreaks were under control; epid emiological studies had shown absence of viral 
activity, which had led to the suspension of the sanitary emergency on 16 March 2012.  Paraguay 
thanked the OIE, the Veterinary Committee of th e Cono Sur, the Pan-American Centre on FMD and 
the OIE reference laboratories in Argentina and th e United Kingdom, as well as the European Union, 
for their cooperation in controlling the disease.  Paraguay also thanked the veterinary services of 
Brazil and Russia for re-opening their markets to its products, and Arge ntina and Uruguay for 
allowing the transit of products through their territories. G/SPS/R/66 
Page 16  
 
  (b) Information from Members on their Experiences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-free 
Areas 
77. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(c) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
78. No observer organization provided in formation under this agenda item. 
IX. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
(i) WTO SPS Activities 
79. The Secretariat noted that document G/SPS/ GEN/521/Rev.7 identified all SPS technical 
assistance activities undertaken by the WTO from 1 September 1994 to 31 December 2011.  
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.2 provided detailed informatio n about all the SPS technical assistance activities 
planned for 2012.  The 2012 Advanced SPS Course w ould be held 8 - 26 Oct ober 2012 in Geneva in 
French.  The deadline for submission of applicati ons for WTO funding for the advanced course, for 
the Workshop on Transparency, as well as for three of  the four regional workshops was 1 June 2012.  
The deadline for the regional workshop for Latin America was 10 April 2012.  
80. The Secretariat reported that since the last Committee meeting, three national seminars had 
been held in Samoa, Gabon and Vanuatu, and th ree regional SPS workshops had been held for 
French-speaking Africa (in Mali);  English-speaki ng Africa (in Kenya);  and Arab and Middle East 
countries (in Qatar).  More general training on the SPS Agreement had been provided to participants 
in the Introduction Course for LDCs (Geneva) and the Regional Trade Policy Course for Latin 
America (Colombia).   
81. The Secretariat recalled that the E-Learning course on SPS was available all year long in the 
three WTO official languages.  Completion of the E-Learning course was a prerequisite for 
participation in the Advanced SPS Course, and pref erence was given to applicants who had completed 
the E-Learning course in the selection of participants for the regional training events. 
82. The Philippines thanked the Secretariat for the prompt response to its request for a national 
SPS workshop in the coming months.  All regul atory agencies from the Philippines would be 
participating in the workshop. 
(ii) Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) 
83. The STDF Secretariat reported that the Policy Committee approved the new medium-term 
strategy 2012-2016 in January 2012.  The strategy w as based on the need to further promote increased 
collaboration and interaction among providers of SPS -related technical coopera tion, and to continue 
strengthening the STDF as a knowledge platform fo r information exchange, sharing of experiences 
and identification or dissemination of good practices.  The Policy Committee agreed on some revisions to the Operational Rules;  the majo r revisions were presented in G/SPS/GEN/1144. 
84. In 2012, the STDF would conti nue work on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to 
inform SPS decision making and resource allocation.   The objective was to consolidate the initial 
applications in Mozambique and Zambia, and apply the MCDA tool in one country in Asia.  A 
regional workshop on MCDA would also be organized in Asia.    G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 17 
 
 
  85. The STDF would also organize a seminar on international trade and invasive alien species, in 
close collaboration with the OIE and IPPC secr etariats.  The seminar would be held on 12-
13 July 2012, immediately following the next SPS Committee meeting.  The seminar should raise 
awareness on the importance of coherence and dial ogue among SPS and environm ental institutions at 
the national level when developing strategies to address invasive alien species, review existing 
technical cooperation programmes and prom ote good practices in this area.   
86. Other STDF work would examine the links betw een SPS and trade facilitation.  This work 
will be based on examples of trade facilitation in  the SPS area, including activities focused on the 
standardization of SPS procedures and information systems to facilitate SPS compliance.  An STDF 
study on national coordination mechan isms, with a focus on Africa, w ill be concluded and published.  
The study provides practical guidelines for the establishment and opera tion of a national SPS 
committee in developing countries.  All STDF pub lications and films are available on the STDF 
website.  Work is under way on th e development of the STDF virtual library, which will facilitate the 
management of all documentation available on SPS capacity building, and should reduce the 
duplication of work. 
87. The STDF secretariat stated that 21 applicati ons for project preparation grants had been 
received, of which ten applications would be discu ssed by the Working Group for a funding decision.  
The next deadline for funding applications was 20 July 2012.  Information on how to request funding 
could be found on the STDF website ( http://www.standardsfacility.org/en/index.htm ) or by contacting 
the STDF secretariat. 
(b) Information from Members 
88. The European Union reported on the techni cal assistance it delivered in 2011 to help 
developing countries build their capacity to  trade their food products (G/SPS/GEN/1139).  
EU assistance was primarily aimed at facilitating the implementation of SPS measures in developing 
countries by transferring technical know-how, putti ng in place infrastructure and giving practical 
assistance in the field.  The Europ ean Union also contributed to the Codex, IPPC and OIE, as well as 
in the STDF.  Substantial development assistance wa s also provided by individual EU member States 
at a bilateral, regional or multilateral level.  Memb ers interested in receiving SPS technical assistance 
should contact the European Commission or the EU delegation present in their country. 
89. Canada reported on the SPS-rela ted technical assistance it delivered to developing countries 
in 2010 (G/SPS/GEN/1149).  Nine SPS-related tec hnical assistance projects targeting various 
geographic regions, including Central America, S outh America, the Caribbean and Asia Pacific 
Region (ACP), and Africa had been delivered or initiated, for a total of approximately Can$10 
million.  
90. The United States indicated that the Joint Ins titute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 
(JIFSAN), established between the US Food and Drug Administration a nd the University of Maryland 
in 1997, was accepting applications for a food saf ety risk analysis integrated summer programme 
geared towards federal agencies, ministries, acad emics, trade and consumer groups, among others.  
Selected participants from around the world would be  invited to Washington, D.C., to learn about 
food safety, risk analysis, management assessment , communication and quantitative risk analysis.  
JIFSAN would provide course tuition for one app licant.  The deadline for applications was 
1 April 2012. 
(c) Information from Observers 
91. IPPC expressed appreciation for the STDF support for a number of IPPC capacity 
development activities.  IPPC was also carrying ou t various activities in collaboration with IICA and G/SPS/R/66 
Page 18  
 
  other entities.  The application of the phytosanitary  capacity evaluation tool (PCE), which identified 
the strengths and weaknesses of the phytosanitary cap acity of countries, was essential before selecting 
any project.  The IPPC website ( http://www.phytosanitary.info ) provided information on various 
regional and country-specific projects, and contai ned resources from both the IPPC secretariat and 
from countries.  It was important to understand the difference between an IPPC technical manual and 
an IPPC standard, and the newly established trust fund for capacity development aimed at providing 
clarity on the budget destined to this type of  activities.  CPM-7 had established a capacity 
development committee which should be operationa l as of 2013.  Additional information on IPPC 
technical assistance activities coul d be found in G/SPS/GEN/1152. 
92. Japan welcomed the success of CPM 7 and noted  outstanding progress on issues such as the 
adoption of the strategic framework 2012-2019, the improvement of the IPPC standard-setting process 
and the establishment of a capacity developmen t committee.  Collaboration among IPPC member 
countries was important in order to mitigate risks of pest incursion, in particular in the context of 
increasing international trade.  Japan considered  capacity building for developing countries as 
essential and welcomed and supported IPPC's initiativ e in this regard;  it would provide US$150,000 
to support activities conducted by the new capacity  development committee.  Japan would also 
support the new committee in terms of human resour ces and encouraged other Members to contribute 
to such an important initiative. 
93. OIE referred to the Invasive Alien Species Workshop organized by the STDF and noted that it 
had convened an expert meeting in November 2011 on this issue, with the participation of the WTO, 
the Convention on Biological Diversity and recognized  experts.  The purpose of the meeting had been 
to discuss and develop guidance documents for OIE members to assess the risk of non-native animal 
species becoming invasive.  The group successfully drafted the guidelines, which were discussed and 
endorsed by the Code Commission and the Scie ntific Commission.  The guidelines would be 
uploaded on the OIE website.  OIE also indicated th at a veterinary legislation guideline was proposed 
for adoption at the OIE General Session in May 2012,  for inclusion in the Terrestrial Animal health 
Code.  
94. Codex recalled that it did not provide capacity bui lding activities, but participated in events 
carried out by FAO and WHO, individually or join tly, or by other entities.  Codex could report on 
these activities in future meetings.  The Codex website  contained useful information on training, such 
as an e-learning course to improve a nd enhance participation in Codex. 
95. OIRSA reported that it had carried out a spec ialized national workshop on food safety in 
Honduras;  provided support for a workshop on banana  and palm quarantine pests in Mexico;  and 
supported the participation of inspectors from OIRSA member countries in a training course in Spain on fishery product safety.  OIRSA had supported re gional trade facilitation through a pre-audit in 
Guatemala on the hygiene and safety of fisherie s products (farmed shrimps).  With regard to 
harmonization and equivalence, OIRS A held a fourth technical meeti ng to review Central American 
Customs Union regulations (RTCAs) on the sanitary registration of foods and microbiological criteria 
for food safety and their equivalence with US regulat ions OIRSA also granted financial and technical 
support to the programme to maintain the northern pa rt of Lake Xolotlán in Nicaragua as an area free 
of the Mediterranean fruit fly.  Additionally, OIRS A provided information on its activities relating to 
prevention, control and eradication, as well as st rengthening of national institutions in order to 
facilitate trade and strategic alliances for the promotion of health and trade (G/SPS/GEN/1148). 
96. IICA announced that this year it was celebrating its 70
th anniversary.  Under contract with the 
IPPC, IICA had developed a new global course on plan t pest risk assessment, available in English and 
Spanish on the IPPC website.  This course was the first module of an advanced training programme 
for plant pest assessment risk consisting of four  modules, funded by the Inter-American Development 
Bank with the participation of the US Department  of Agriculture (USDA/APHIS), IICA and IPPC.   G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 19 
 
 
  The programme promoting the participation of th e Americas in Codex committees, developed by the 
IICA and the USDA in 2009, had been temporarily susp ended due to lack of funds, but was expected 
to be reopened in the second part of 2012.  So fa r, the programme had suppor ted the participation of 
21 countries in 16 meetings of nine Codex committees , allowing an effective level of participation in 
these committees at the national and regional level.  Given the results achieved in strengthening the 
Codex Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean, IICA and the US Codex office 
were developing another project.  See G/SPS/GEN/1146 for additional information. 
97. ISO highlighted the establishment of a 2011-2015 action plan for developing countries which 
had six intended outputs:  (i) increase participation of developing countries in ISO's technical work;  
(ii) build capacity of ISO members and stakeholde rs;  (iii) raise awareness on the benefits of 
international standards;  (iv) institutional strengt hening;  (v) increase of regional cooperation;  and 
(vi) introduction to standardization into the educa tional curricula of universities and schools.  ISO also 
highlighted two regional seminars, the first on fisheries food safety held in Indonesia in September 2011 in cooperation with FAO, Codex, OIE and the GFSI, and an upcoming workshop in 
Kenya on 24 April 2012 involving expertise from Codex and the OIE. 
98. IPPC thanked ISO for providing its comments during the review of the IPPC's standard-
setting process.  IPPC noted that it was important to recall that ISO standards were not necessary for 
the implementation of the international st andards recognized under the SPS Agreement. 
99. SADC reported on the implementation of the SPS Annex to the SADC protocol on trade, 
which derived its basis from the SPS Agreement.  An EU-funded project on food safety capacity 
building and residue control had officially closed  on 15 March 2012.  The overall objective of the 
project was to promote regional trade, regional integration and greater access by SADC exporters to 
EU and world markets for agricultural products.  Th e purpose of the project was to harmonize food 
safety control regulations, guidelines and procedures in  conformity with international requirements in 
order to increase exports while complying with fo od safety requirements.  There were five main 
project outputs:  (i) food safety regulatory framework s at national and regional levels; (ii) regulatory 
frameworks for registration and quality control of cr op protection products and veterinary drugs at 
national and regional levels; (iii) analytical capability of national and regional laboratories 
strengthened and assistance towards accreditati on provided; (iv) enha nced coordination and 
communication between national and regional aut horities involved in regulatory frameworks on SPS 
relevant issues;  and (v) establishment of a ne twork of SPS specialists.  The guidelines for the 
regulation of food safety, and for the regulation of crop protection and veterinary drugs registration, 
had been approved by the Ministries of Agriculture , along with a generic model for the establishment 
of national committees.  The European Union wo uld continue to support SADC's SPS programme 
through the European Development Fund.  SADC also noted that this year it would hold the second meeting of the SADC SPS coordinating committee. 
100. Pakistan drew the Committee's attention to the devastating effects that wheat rust, a plant 
pathogen, could have on food security worldwide.  Pakistan requested clarification from IPPC on 
whether a global monitoring system existed, and how it operated.  Technical assistance was required 
to tackle this pathogen, considered by various scien tists as a threat for food security.  It was now at the 
doorstep of South Asia, with the possibility to spread to China and Australia.   
101. IPPC responded that although pest reporting was an obligation under the IPPC convention, it 
was not well implemented.  Some plant pests c ould have big impacts on food production and a global 
surveillance system was needed.  The Secretariat referred to the Committee's recommendation on 
joint work by Codex, IPPC and OIE on cross-cutti ng issues adopted in October 2011, and suggested 
that IPPC collaborate with OIE to see how the la tter had managed to encourage notifications of 
animal diseases.  The OIE noted its willingness to cooperate with IPPC on how to encourage timely G/SPS/R/66 
Page 20  
 
  notifications.  OIE was continuously conducting tr aining of national focal points responsible for 
disease notifications.   
X. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT 
(a) Issues Arising from the Second Review (G/SPS/W/259) 
(i) Use of Ad Hoc Consultations – Report on Informal Meeting 
102. The Chairperson provided an oral report of the informal meeting on the use of ad hoc 
consultations held on 26 Ma rch 2012.  At the informal meeting the Chair had recalled that prior to the 
October 2011 meeting, the Secretariat had been  asked to prepare a revision of document 
G/SPS/W/259, which reflected the various propo sals and comments received from Members.  In 
October, the Committee had begun a detaile d discussion of this revised document, 
G/SPS/W/259/Rev.1.  At the end of the October meeting, the Committee had finished discussing the 
preamble and the beginning of the text, up to pa ragraph 5, when time ran out.  The Chairman had 
requested that the Secretariat reflect the outcome  of those discussions in a new version of the 
document, which had been circulated with the symbol G/SPS/W/259/Rev.2.  This revised document 
had been the basis for the work at the informal meeting on ad hoc consultations on 26 March 2012. 
103. Several Members had made further comments with respect to the title, preamble and the 
beginning of the text, up to paragraph 5.  Discussion took place on paragraphs 5 to 16 of the 
document.  However, Members had mostly expressed  their preference for one set of alternative 
phrases or another, and did not reach consensus on these paragraphs.  As such, the next revised document would look very similar to the previous one. 
104. Based on these discussions, the Secretariat had b een asked to produce a new revision of the 
document that reflected the outcome of the informal  meeting on ad hoc consul tations, up to paragraph 
16.  At least one Member had indicated that they  would submit proposals to merge some paragraphs.  
These and any other proposed changes to the text s hould be submitted to the Secretariat by 15 May, 
and would be included in the new revision.  The revised version of G/SPS/W/259 would be the basis 
for work at the next informal meeting, to be held on the margins of the July 2012 meetings.  
105. The Chairperson had encouraged Members with  differing views to meet before the next 
meeting to seek solutions on the five main areas that  were to be resolved regarding this procedure, 
namely:  (i) the nature of the procedure – whethe r mandatory or voluntary;  (ii) issues regarding 
transparency and confidentiality;  (iii) the role of the facilitator;  (iv) time frames for each stage of the 
procedure;  and (v) the relationship between  the procedure for the SPS Committee and other 
initiatives which were on-going in the context of th e Doha negotiations.  The Chairperson emphasized 
that it would be very difficult for the discussions to progress without the dedicated efforts of Members to find a common view on the procedure before the next meeting.  
 
106. In commenting on the report of the informal meeting, Chile proposed the creation of an 
electronic working group, that could be composed  of representatives from Argentina, the European 
Union, India, Switzerland and the United States, and le d by either the Chairperson or the Secretariat, 
with the purpose of resolving differences.  Chile suggested that the electronic working group would 
facilitate communication with capital-based officials.  
107. India, echoed by Brazil, proposed holdi ng intercessional discussions instead.  The 
Chairperson noted her availability and that of the Secretariat to assist Members in whatever manner 
they preferred.   G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 21 
 
 
  (b) Issues Arising from the Third Review (G/SPS/GEN/1086) 
108. The Secretariat drew attention to two documents  related to actions that had been undertaken 
on issues identified in the Third Review, namely:  (i) the Decision of the Committee on Joint Work by 
Codex, IPPC and OIE on Cross-Cutting Issues (G/SPS/58); and (ii) the Summary Report of the Workshop on SPS Coordination at the National and Regional Levels he ld on 17 October 2011 
(G/SPS/R/65). 
(ii) Report on the Informal Meeting 
109. The Chairperson reported on the informal m eeting of 26 March 2012 on issues arising from 
the Third Review of the Operation and Implemen tation of the SPS Agreement.  At the informal 
meeting, the Chairperson had recalled that at th e March 2010 meeting, the Committee had adopted the 
report of the Third Review, contained in G/SPS/53.   The report identified several issues where the 
Committee had agreed to further work.   
110. In October 2010, Members had agreed to prioritize three issues for further work: 
(i) cooperation between the SPS Committee and the Three Sisters;  (ii) improving the procedure for monitoring the use of international standards;  a nd (iii) control, inspecti on and approval procedures 
(Article 8 and Annex C).  The purpose of the in formal meeting on 26 March 2012 had been to discuss 
these three issues, however, no new proposals had been submitted.  
111. On cooperation between the SPS Committee and the Three Sisters, Japan had recalled the 
recommendation from the October 2011 workshop on na tional and regional coordination, that the 
Committee develop guidelines or a manual of good pr actices on coordination.  The Secretariat had 
drawn attention to the STDF study of various natio nal coordination mechanisms in Africa (a summary 
of which could be found in the STDF Briefing No  8) and had suggested that Members consider 
whether this study could serve as a basis for the guidelines or manual on good practices.  
112. The Secretariat had also noted other activities that responded to a number of 
recommendations that had been refere nced in the Third Review, namely:  
 The provision by the Three Sisters of information regarding their strategic planning, and in 
particular the information provided by the IPPC on its strategic plan at the current meeting;  
and the OIE report (G/SPS/GEN/1141) highlighti ng decisions to be taken at its General 
Session in May.  Codex had also indicated th at it would provide information on its new 
strategic plan, currently under development, at the July meeting.  
 The continuation of joint technical assistance ac tivities with the Three Sisters in the SPS 
regional workshops scheduled fo r 2012, although e xpansion of joint activities was difficult 
due to budget cuts in WTO technical assistance. 
 The dissemination of information regarding the activities of the Three Sisters, and in 
particular the IPPC video, which had been shown outside the meeting room.  
113. On improving the procedure to monitor the use of international standards, the Chairperson 
had invited Members to provide e xplanations for their lack of use of the current agenda item on 
monitoring international standards.  
114. With respect to control, inspection and a pproval procedures (Artic le 8 and Annex C), 
Members had been invited to share information on their experiences, as done by the European Union 
in June 2011, through the submission of documents regarding their own procedures.  G/SPS/R/66 
Page 22  
 
  115. The Chairperson had concluded the informal meeting by noting that if Members submitted 
specific proposals on these three issues by 15 May 2012, an informal meeting in July could be 
envisaged.  However, in the absence of any new i nputs, there would be no reason to hold such a 
meeting. 
XI. MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
(a) New Issues 
(i) SPS Measures and International Standards, Guidelines and Recommendations:  Joint 
Communication from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines and the United States 
116. Brazil briefly introduced a joint submission on SPS Measures and International Standards, 
Guidelines and Recommendations on behalf of the co-sponsors (G/SPS/GEN/1143/Rev.2).  The 
document raised concerns with the increase in th e number of SPS measures that were not based on 
international standards, guidelines and recomme ndations or that had inadequate scientific 
justification.  These measures often unduly restrict ed trade and appeared to be associated with 
objectives not deemed as legitimate under international trade rules.  Given these concerns and in order 
to fulfil the objectives of the SPS Agreement, the subm ission aimed at reconfirming:  (i) the need for 
science-based international guidelines, standards a nd recommendations;  (ii) the need to support and 
strengthen confidence in SPS interna tional standard-setting bodies;  and (iii) the need for sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures which resulted in a higher le vel of protection than would be achieved by 
measures based on the relevant international st andards, guidelines and recommendations to be 
established on the basis of science. 
117. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia , Costa Rica, the European Union, Mexico, 
Paraguay, the Philippines, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States all supported the 
communication and in particular the importance of elaborating standards based on science.  Argentina 
emphasized that this issue particularly affected developing countries and small producers.  Chile recalled its proposal to improve the manner in  which the Committee monitored the process of 
international harmonization referred to in Article 3.5.  The Philippines stressed the importance of 
complying with the principles of the SPS Agreem ent to limit loss of consumer confidence and of 
suppliers' credibility following an outbreak.  The Un ited States referred to other factors such as 
consumer preferences, which should not be taken into consideration in  the elaboration of international 
standards.  The European Union drew attention to its strong support of the three standard-setting 
bodies and of the importance it attached, as the worl d's largest importer and exporter of agricultural 
products and foods, to food safety. 
118. India requested clarification on the issue of consumer preferences and referred to Article 13 
of the SPS Agreement and the need for Members'  to ensure that non-governmental bodies also 
complied with the Agreement.   
119. The IPPC reported on the Implementation Review and Support System (IRSS), put in place in 
2011 with support from the European Union (G/S PS/GEN/1153).  The IRSS facilitated the analysis 
and review of standards' implementation.  A Helpdesk facility, which included frequently asked 
questions, had been developed.  In addition, a gl obal series of IRSS works hops had been conducted to 
review implementation and the resulting recommendati ons were being considered.  The IRSS had led 
to the activation of the dispute settlement mechanism, and was exp ected to bridge all activities under 
the IPPC framework.  G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 23 
 
 
  (b) Issues Previously Raised  
120. No Member or observer organizations provided further information on any of the issues 
previously raised under this agenda item. 
XII. CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS (G/SPS/55, 
G/SPS/W/256, G/SPS/W/261, G/SPS/W/265) 
(a) Report on the Informal Meeting 
121. The Chairperson provided an oral report of the informal meeting on the agreed actions with 
respect to SPS-related private st andards and other identified actions , held on 27 March 2012.  At the 
informal meeting, the Chairperson had recalled that at the October meeting of the Committee, Members had been invited to (i) submit specific proposals on a working definition of SPS-related 
private standards by 13 January 2012, and (ii) comment on the proposed definitions received and 
submit proposals on the implementation of Actions 2 to 5, by 10 February 2012.  The proposed 
working definitions had been compiled and circ ulated electronically by the Secretariat on 
23 January 2012.  Comments on the proposed working definitions and proposals on the 
implementation of Actions 2 to 5 had also be en compiled and circulated electronically on 
23 February 2012. 
122. At the informal meeting, the Secretariat had introduced the compilation documents as well as 
the draft working definition in document G/ SPS/W/265, which was based on the proposals and 
comments by Members.  The Chairperson had in vited the Committee to first discuss the draft 
proposed working definition and the additi onal elements identified by Members. 
123. These discussions had been very constructive, and the Chairperson had asked the Secretariat 
to prepare and circulate a revised draft of work ing document G/SPS/W/265 to reflect the comments 
made, for consideration by the Committee at an info rmal meeting to be held on the margins of the 
July 2012 meetings.  
124. Regarding the implementation of Actions 2 to 5, China had proposed that their 
implementation be advanced at the same time as the discussions of a working definition of SPS-
related private standards. 
125. On Action 2, it had been noted that mechanis ms to exchange information between the SPS 
Committee and the Three Sisters were already in pl ace, and functioning.  The Three Sisters had the 
opportunity to provide relevant information under various agenda items at meetings of the SPS 
Committee.  Likewise, WTO staff attended Codex, IPPC and OIE meetings and provided information 
on relevant developments in the SPS Committee. 
126. With regards to Action 3, some Members had b een of the view that the Secretariat could 
report on developments in other WTO fora concerni ng private standards on an ad hoc basis, while 
others had preferred to have a st anding agenda item.  The Secretariat had indicated its willingness to 
provide information on the occasional discussions in  the TBT and Trade and Environment committees 
on private standards. 
127. New Zealand had noted that the implementation of Action 4 was up to individual Members.  
Argentina had suggested that it could be useful  if Members would inform the Committee of any 
relevant actions they had taken, under the agenda  item on "Information on relevant activities" or under 
"Concerns with private SPS-related standards". G/SPS/R/66 
Page 24  
 
  128. On Action 5, New Zealand had highlighted th e importance of the word "explore", and had 
observed that the implementation of  this action had to be consider ed in light of current budgetary 
constraints. 
129. Under other matters, ISO had informed Member s that a brochure on international standards 
and private standards had been published and was av ailable on their website.  The IPPC had indicated 
that private standards had not been identified as a pr oblem in the plant health area, and that it would 
not undertake work on this matter unless its governi ng body included the issue in its work programme 
and additional resources were available. 
130. Chile had welcomed additional c ooperation with the Three Sisters, given the complexity of 
the issue and limited governmental resources.  Also, increased participation of private entities as 
observers in the meetings of the Three Sisters w ould help with implementing science based standards. 
XIII.  REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS 
131. The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting the Secretariat presented a background 
document (G/SPS/GEN/1112), which described th e working procedures of the SPS Committee 
regarding the granting of observer status, and categor ized the organizations requesting observer status 
in the SPS Committee at that time.  The Secretaria t indicated that observer organizations had been 
reminded that according to the existing criteria, an observer organization would lose its status if it did 
not participate in a meeting of the Committee with in a 12-month period of time.  Four out of the 
eleven ad hoc observer organizati ons had responded that they woul d participate in the March 2012 
meeting, however these were not the same four orga nizations actually attending the meeting.  Also, 
the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (AP CC), the Standardization Organization of the 
Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GSO) and the Office international de la vigne et 
du vin (OIV), whose outstanding requests were rather da ted, had been invited to reaffirm their interest 
and provide an updated background document.  Interest was reaffirmed by APCC and GSO, but only 
the latter had submitted updated information as requ ested.  The Convention on Biological Diversity 
(CBD), another long standing applicant, had reaffirmed its interest in 2011. 
(a) Ad hoc Observers 
132. The Committee agreed to invite all of the ad  hoc observers to participate in the next 
Committee meetings, both formal and informal. 
(b) New or Renewed Requests - Gulf Cooperation Council Standardization Organization (GSO) 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.3/Rev.1) 
133. The Secretariat outlined the renewed re quest from the Gulf Cooperation Council 
Standardization Organization (GSO ) as contained in GEN/121/Add.3/ Rev.1:  Yemen had been added 
to the list of members. 
(c) Outstanding Requests (APCC, AU, CABI, CBD , CITES, COMESA, ECCAS, ICCO, IGAD, 
OIV) 
134. The Chairperson proposed that substantive discussions on the 11 outstanding requests for 
observer status be scheduled for an informal meet ing on the margins of the next regular meeting.  
New Zealand noted that the proposed meeting could also provide an opportunity to consider 
guidelines regarding the role of observer organiza tions, as discussed during the previous meeting of 
the Committee.  The European Union supported both the proposal of organising the informal meeting 
in July and of considering the developmen t of guidelines on the role of observers.  G/SPS/R/66 
 Page 25 
 
 
  135. The Chairperson requested the Secretariat to prepare a background document and an agenda 
to be circulated in anticipation of the July meeti ng.  New Zealand and other Members were invited to 
submit their comments and views on the role of obser vers in advance, to facilitate the discussions. 
136. The Committee considered the African Union's (AU) request for observer status, recalling 
that a large number of delegations had very strongly supported it at the previous meeting.  Canada 
expressed its support for applications for observer status for organizations whose work impacts 
directly on the SPS Committee.  However, based on the background information currently provided 
by the AU (G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.14), Canada was not in a position to support the AU.  Canada 
requested that the Secretariat solicit additional in formation from the AU that clearly articulates the 
relationship between the AU and the SPS Committee, and allows for a better understanding of its 
relationship with the African Re gional Economic Communities (RECs). 
XIV.  OTHER BUSINESS 
137. No issues were raised under this agenda item. 
XV. DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING 
138. The Secretariat flagged that the dates for the ne xt meeting of the Committee had been slightly 
changed:  the regular meeting of  the Committee would be held on 10 and 11 July .  Informal meetings 
on ad hoc consultations, private standards and obser vers would be scheduled on 9 July 2012.  The 
informal meetings on ad hoc consultations and on private standards were open for participation by 
observer organizations, however the in formal meeting on observers was not. 
139. An STDF seminar on international trade and I nvasive Alien Species would be held on 12-
13 July.  The SPS Committee meeting was scheduled to immediately follow the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission meeting in Rome to facilitate pa rticipation of delegates in both meetings. 
140. The Committee agreed to the following tent ative agenda for its next meeting: 
1. Adoption of the agenda 
2. Election of the Chairperson 
3. Information on relevant activities 
(a) Information from Members 
(b) Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies 
4. Specific trade concerns 
(a) New issues 
(b) Issues previously raised 
[(c) Consideration of specific notifications received] 
(d) Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
5. Operation of transparency provisions 
6. Implementation of special and differential treatment 
7. Equivalence – Article 4 
(a) Information from Members on their experiences 
(b) Information from relevant  Observer organizations 
8. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
(a) Information from Members on their pest or disease status G/SPS/R/66 
Page 26  
 
  (b) Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or 
disease-free areas 
(c) Information from relevant  observer organizations 
9. Technical assistance and cooperation 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
(i) WTO SPS activities 
(ii) STDF 
(b) Information from Members 
(c) Information from Observers 
10. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
(a) Issues arising from the Second Review 
(i) Use of ad hoc consultations – Report on informal meeting 
[(b) Issues arising from the Third Review] 
11. Monitoring of the use of international standards 
(a) New issues 
(b) Issues previously raised 
(c) Adoption of annual report 
12. Concerns with private and commercial standards 
(a) Report on informal meeting 
13. Observers 
(a) Information from Observer organizations 
(b) Request for observer status 
(i) Ad hoc Observers 
(ii) New requests 
(iii) Outstanding requests 
14. Other business 
15. Date and agenda of next meeting 
141. The Secretariat noted that agenda items 4 (c ) and 10 (b) would be included in the proposed 
agenda only if a Member raised an issue.   
142. Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines: 
 For applications to participate in the La tin America Regional workshop (co-organized 
with the Inter-American Development Bank – IDB):  Tuesday, 10 April;  
 Any comments on ad hoc consultations and issues arising from the Third Review 
must be provided before:  Tuesday, 15 May ; 
 For applications to participate in WTO f unded activities, including the transparency 
workshop, the Advanced Course on th e SPS Agreement, and three Regional 
workshops:  Friday, 1 June;  
 For requesting the inclusion of items on the agenda:  Thursday, 28 June;  
 For the distribution of the Airgram and th e circulation of documents for discussion 
during the July meeting:  Friday, 29 June.  
__________