RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/R/42 
25 September 2006 
 
 (06-4567) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures    
  
 
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 27-28 JUNE 2006
 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
Table of Contents  
 
Page  
 
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA.............................................................................................3  
II. ACTIVITIES OF MEMBERS.................................................................................................3  
III. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS ...........................................................................................5  
(a) New issues ..................................................................................................................... .............5  
(b) Issues previous ly raised ....................................................................................................... .......7  
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received.......................................................................11  
(d) Information on resolution of issues...........................................................................................1 1 
IV. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS........................................................12  
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT ................12  
(a) Consideration of proposals referred to the Committee .............................................................12  
(b) Report to the General Council .................................................................................................. 14 
(c) Other matters relating to special  and differential treatment......................................................14  
VI. PROPOSAL BY SMALL ECONOMIES .............................................................................15  
(a) Consideration of the proposal .................................................................................................. .15 
(b) Report to the Committee on Trade and Development ..............................................................17  
VII. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4............................................................................................18  
(a) Information from Members on their experiences .....................................................................18  
(b) Information from relevant  observer organizations....................................................................18  
VIII.  PEST- OR DISEASE-FREE AREAS (ARTICLE 6)...........................................................18  
(a) Consideration of new submissions and comments on Secretariat paper 
G/SPS/GEN/640 .................................................................................................................. .....18  
(b) Information from Members on their experiences .....................................................................20  
                                                      
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/42 
Page 2  
 
  (c)
 Information from relevant observer orga nizations .....................................................................21  
IX. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION .......................................................21  
(a) Information from the Secretariat............................................................................................... 21 
(b) Information from Members....................................................................................................... 21 
(c) Information from relevant  observer organizations....................................................................22  
X. ISSUES ARISING FROM THE REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................................... ..22 
(a) Transparency................................................................................................................... ..........22  
(b) Relationship between the SPS Committee and the Codex, IPPC and OIE...............................22  
(c) Undue delays................................................................................................................... ..........23  
(d) Consultations under Article 12.1, use of  good offices, and resolution of trade 
concerns ....................................................................................................................... .............23  
XI. MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ...........................23  
(a) New issues ..................................................................................................................... ...........23  
(b) Issues previous ly raised ....................................................................................................... .....24  
(c) Approval of annual report...................................................................................................... ...24 
(d) Review of the provisional procedure ........................................................................................24  
XII. MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER 
ORGANIZATIONS ................................................................................................................24  
XIII.  OBSERVERS – REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS ................................................25  
XIV.  CALENDAR OF MEETINGS IN 2007 ................................................................................25  
XV. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................2 6 
XVI.  DATE  AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING.................................................................26   G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary M easures (the "Committee") held its thirty-
sixth meeting on 27-28 June 2006.  The agenda propo sed for this meeting, circulated on 16 June 2006 
(WTO/AIR/2848), was adopted with amendments. 
2. The WTO Secretariat apologized for the fact th at due to activities related to the on-going 
Doha Development Agenda negotiations, the Comm ittee was unable to meet at the Centre William 
Rappard and it had not been possible to find venues for the informal meetings that the Committee had 
intended to hold immediately prior to the regular meeting.  A number of Members expressed gratitude 
that the Secretariat had made every effort to en able the regular meeting of the Committee to take 
place, but expressed their serious disappointment that the informal meeting to consider the issue of 
pest- or disease-free areas had been cancelled.   
II. ACTIVITIES OF MEMBERS 
European Communities – Information on non-EC re sidue plans for imports into the European 
Communities 
 3. The representative of the European Communiti es informed Members that the European 
Commission's Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General (DG-SANCO) had recently revised its procedures for the evaluation of residue control plans from all third countries and allocated 
this task to the Food and Veterinary Office (F VO).  A new webpage had been added to the DG 
SANCO website in order to explain to third count ies the elements required for drawing up a residues 
control plan, and the process by which such plans, and the guarantees they offer are assessed in order 
to determine equivalence with EC law.  Third c ountries were encouraged to submit information using 
the relevant templates provided on webpage as this would expedite the evaluation process 
(http://ec.europa.eu/comm./food/food/chemical safety/residues/third-countries-en.htm). 
European Communities – Update on the Avian Influenza Situation 
 4. The representative of the European Communities reported that a total of 13 EC member 
States had been affected by avian influenza outbreaks, all of which had their origins in wild birds.  
While nine cases had affected wild birds exclusively,  commercial flocks had been affected in four 
cases.  There were no human cases.  The comprehe nsive surveillance measures which had helped to 
detect and eradicate the disease had paradoxically al so led some Members to take disproportionately 
restrictive trade measures that were not science-based. 
Brazil – Measures taken on foot and mouth disease (FMD) 
 
5. The representative of Brazil reported that FMD out breaks had been detected in the states of 
Mato Grosso do Sul and Paraná.  In both states, the sl aughter of affected animals had been completed.  
In Mato Grosso do Sul, symptoms compatible wi th FMD had been detected in animals in the 
municipality of Japorâ during inspections in Apr il 2006.  The World Animal Health Organization 
(OIE) had been duly notified of the incident and all bovines from the property as well as surrounding areas had been destroyed.  Animal sentinel, without  vaccination had been introduced in the affected 
states starting in April 2006.  Intensive surveilla nce, inspection and testing efforts as well as 
restrictions on transit of susceptible live animals,  persons, and animal produc ts were on-going.  The 
representative of Brazil called on importing Members to limit their sanitary restrictions to the two 
affected states in accordance w ith international guidelines. G/SPS/R/42 
Page 4  
 
  United States – Actions regarding BSE 
 
6. The representative of the United States stated that  since the first detections of BSE in 1986, 
the international community had gained much experience with the disease and there was a positive 
trend towards the adoption and application of scien ce-based sanitary measures consistent with the 
guidelines of the OIE allowing safe trade in rumina nts and ruminant products.  The United States 
advocated guidelines that reflected scientific assessm ent and recognized that risk mitigation measures, 
when applied appropriately, allowed trade to occur safely. 
7. More than 735,000 cattle had been tested si nce June 2004 under the active surveillance for 
BSE with only two positive detections, in addition to the imported case from 2003.  The prevalence of 
the disease in the United States was less than 1 case per million adu lt cattle.  The United States also 
maintained a comprehensive system of interlocking  safeguards, including the removal of specified 
risk materials from the food supply along with a 1997  ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban.  She called on 
all Members to remove unjustified BSE-related bans on imports of b eef and other ruminant products, 
as well as on live cattle. 
United States – Proposed revisions to the approval process for the importation of fruits and 
vegetables  
8. The representative of the United States indicated  that the US Department of Agriculture's 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APH IS) had announced a proposal to establish criteria 
that would allow for faster, more efficient approva l of fruits and vegetables for importation into the 
United States.  The proposal, which had been no tified in document G/SPS/N/USA/1307, did not affect 
commodities already eligible for importation.  The new process would create a framework for 
approval upon completion of a pest-risk analysis.  Other rulemaking procedures would no longer be required for commodities that met the criteria outlin ed in the proposal.  To be eligible, the US 
authorities needed to be able to mitigate a commodity's  risk by one or more of four measures  (1) port-
of-entry inspection;  (2) application of a pre- approved post-harvest treatment;  (3) a phytosanitary 
certificate attesting that the commodity came from a pest-free area;  (4) a phytosanitary certificate 
attesting that the commodity was free from specific pests.  This new process would allow the United 
States to recognize pest-free areas without having to  conduct full rulemaking.  If adopted as a final 
rule, the proposed changes would expand Members' opportunities to export fresh fruits and vegetables 
to the United States under a faster, more efficient approval process.  The new proposal would impact 
85 per cent of requests for imports.  The United Stat es invited comments on the proposal until 27 July 
2006.  Additional information on the proposed rule and how to comment could be found on the USDA-APHIS website at http: //www.aphis.usda .gov/newsroom/content/2006/04/q56meet.shtml. 
9. The representative of the European Communiti es welcomed the new proposal which could 
facilitate approvals for imports without a le ngthy rule-making process and without lowering 
phytosanitary standards. 
Proposals tabled by the European Communities and NAMA 11 
 
10. The Secretariat informed the Committee that two proposals on a horizontal mechanism to 
solve trade concerns related to non-tariff barrier s had been tabled in the negotiations on non-
agricultural market access.
2  The proposed new mechanism w ould be in addition to existing 
mechanisms such as raising concerns in the rele vant Committees, which according to the proponents 
often did not lead to a solution, and to the formal  dispute settlement procedure, which they saw as 
                                                      
2 Proposal TN/MA/W/11/Add.8, tabled by the European Communities, and proposal 
TN/MA/W/68/Add.1, tabled by Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Philippines, South Africa, 
Tunisia and Venezuela.  G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 5 
 
 
  costly and slow.  The proposed new mechanism w ould be quick and pragmatic, focusing not on legal 
issues or WTO consistency but on resolving a mark et access problem related to non-tariff barriers.  
Participation in the proposed mechanism would be  compulsory, if one Member requested it.  A 
facilitator would receive submissions from the pa rties and conduct fact-finding; proposing a solution 
within 60 days.   Implementation of the propo sed solution would be voluntary, but a Member 
rejecting such a solution would have to explain why.  The procedure would be confidential, and 
would be without prejudice to Members' right to pur sue the same issue through the DSU, in parallel or 
subsequently. 
11. The Secretariat noted that the role of th e SPS Committee in the pr oposed mechanism would 
be to maintain a roster of experts to serve as f acilitators;  act as a forum where Members could submit 
issues to be addressed by the mechan ism;  receive a report on the solution from the facilitator;  and, if 
the Members concerned decided not to implement the proposed solution, receive a report on the reasons.  The proposals had been discussed at info rmal meetings of the negotiating body on non-
agricultural market access in May.  Members had raised questions related to the coverage of the 
proposed mechanism;  its relation to existing mech anisms, including the formal dispute settlement 
procedure and Article 5 of the DSU und similar artic les contained in other agreements;  financial 
implications; and whether solutions would be applied on an MFN basis.  The Secretariat indicated that 
it would follow the discussions and keep the Committee informed. 
Request from the CBD Secret ariat regarding invasive species 
 
12. The Secretariat also brought to the attention of the Committee a query from the Secretariat of 
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).  The concern was whether and how to address the 
possible lack of international standards regarding invasive species that were not pests of plants 
covered by the IPPC but were rather of animal origin.  A CBD expert group meeting in 2005 had 
posed a number of questions as to whether such i nvasive species would fall under the current or an 
extended mandate of the OIE or whether new inst ruments were required.  The representative of 
Canada suggested that the Committee invite the CB D Secretariat to make a presentation on this issue 
at the margins of the October 2007 meeting.  Th e representative of the European Communities 
strongly supported this suggestion, which was agr eed by the Committee.  The representatives of the 
United States and Brazil stated concerns about ov erloading the agenda for the October meeting. 
III. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
(a) New issues 
US import restrictions on wooden Christmas trees – Concerns of China 
 
13. The representative of China expressed their con cerns regarding the US decision to stop the 
importation of artificial Christmas trees from Chin a, although only one enterprise had violated the 
quarantine treatment requirement which had resulted in the detection of live long-horn beetles in its 
consignment.  This exceptional incident did not i ndicate a defect of the whole Chinese system.  The 
strict measure taken by the United States did not respect the WTO rules on minimizing the impact on trade and had caused great losses for Chinese enterpris es and had also affected the US Christmas tree 
market.  Furthermore, there was an undue delay in  the way the issue was dealt with by the United 
States.  The Chinese Government had spared no e ffort to take corrective measures regarding the 
whole system, including the enhancement of supervis ion of the quarantine and inspection system and 
receiving US inspectors in several provinces in February 2006.  Although the experts had indicated 
their satisfaction with the improvements, no formal response had been received from the United States.   G/SPS/R/42 
Page 6  
 
  14. The representative of the United States replied that between 22 February 2002 and 22 October 
2005, during routine 2 percent inspections at US po rts of entry, the United States had intercepted 
quarantine significant pests on wood handicraft products shipped from China 418 times, including on artificial Christmas trees, trellis towers, other ho me and garden wood décor, and craft items.  These 
interceptions had not abated.  The plant quaran tine authorities of the United States and China had 
maintained an on-going dialogue regarding such in terceptions.  This wood boring pest was closely 
related to the Asian longhorned bee tle which had been introduced in to the United States in shipments 
of wood packing material from China and was now being eradicated in Chicago and New York.  The 
United States had spent in excess of US$200 million on its ongoing eradication effort.  Although the United States had requested China to provide an ac tion plan to address the infestations, no response 
had been received.  On 1 April 2005, the United St ates had adopted emergency measures to suspend 
the importation of wood handicraft items from China, including artificial Christmas trees, that contained wooden logs, limbs, branches, or twigs gr eater than one centimetre in diameter and with 
intact bark.  Manufactured items that had been heat  treated or fumigated with methyl bromide and had 
100 percent of the bark removed were not subject to  the import suspension, so the US measure was no 
more trade-restrictive than necessary.  When its ass essment of the risk of continued intr oduction of 
quarantine pests on manufactured wood commoditi es from China was completed, this would be 
shared with China's plan t quarantine authorities. 
India's biotech labelling and import approval pr ocess regulations – Concerns of the United States 
15. The representative of the United States referre d to India's two notifications to the TBT 
Committee affecting trade in biotechnology produc ts.  The Ministry of Commerce and Industry's 
"Supplement to the Government of India's Fore ign Trade Policy, Condition 18" (G/TBT/N/IND/17) 
would require that its Genetic Engineering Appr oval Committee (GEAC) provide pre-approval of 
imports.  The Ministry of Health and Family We lfare's proposed mandatory labelling requirement for 
biotechnology products (G/TBT/N/IND/12) would al so require pre-approval by the GEAC.  The 
United States requested that these measures be no tified to the SPS Committee to allow an opportunity 
for comments and that their implementation be delayed until a number of issues could be resolved.  In 
particular, the United States was concerned about:  th e lack of clarity with regard to the scope and 
process of the proposed measures and their scientific ju stification;  what procedures would be in place 
for pre-approval of imports and once approved, wh at procedures would be in place domestically and 
at the ports for enforcement;  and what was the scope and the  justification to require that the process 
of production be included on the label.  Without cl arification of these questions, US exports to India 
would be negatively affected.   The representatives  of Argentina and Brazil, shared the concerns 
raised by United States and asked that Members be  given an opportunity to comment on the measures 
before their adoption.  The representative of Cana da indicated that Canada would provide comments 
on the relevant TBT notifications and also invite d India to notify its measures to the SPS Committee 
and take into account comments of other Members.  She noted that one of the measures notified 
would enter into force only one day after the final date for comments. 
16. The representative of India took note of the con cerns raised and stressed that the proposed 
regulation on pre-approvals was not new as it had al ready been notified in 1989.  The purpose of the 
current proposal was to make the requirements ma ndatory.  The objective of the mandatory labelling 
requirement was to provide correct information to co nsumers about the nature of the food.  India was 
committed to following the transparency requirement s and would consider notifying the relevant 
measures to the SPS Committee and would take into  account comments received before the measures 
entered into force.   
Dominican Republic tolerance levels for soil c ontent on potato tubers - Concerns of Canada 
17. The representative of Canada stated that Ca nada had been negatively affected by the 
unacceptably low tolerance levels set by the Domi nican Republic for soil content on potato tubers  G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 7 
 
 
  which were ten times lower than those indicated in the international standard .  This measure seemed 
to target Canada as other exporters  were not subject to the same requirement, which was impossible to 
meet and was not based on a risk assessment.  Despit e numerous efforts at the bilateral level and an 
invitation extended to the Dominican Republic to vi sit the potato production sites, the issue remained 
unresolved.  Canada urged the Domini can Republic to amend its toleran ce level to bring it in line with 
international practice. 
18. The representative of the Dominican Republic replied that the measure was not 
discriminatory as it applied to all countries exporti ng to the Dominican Republic, where there was a 
risk of introduction of nematodes.  An official co mmunication had been sent to Canada in this regard 
and they hoped to resolve the issue promptly. 
(b) Issues previously raised 
Bolivia's slaughter of imported breeding ca ttle – Concern of Mexico (no. 205 – 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6)  
19. The representative of Mexico recalled that this  concern had been raised at the previous 
meeting of the SPS Committee.  A Mexican associati on, FOGAMEX, had been invited to show some 
cattle at a fair in Santa Cruz, Bolivia.  Although the requirements communicated by Bolivia's animal 
health authority (SENASAG) had been fulfilled a nd an import permit had been obtained, when the 
cattle arrived in Bolivia, SENASAG had seized the an imals and ordered that they be returned to 
Mexico.  However, since foot and mouth disease exists in Bolivia while it does not exist in Mexico, it was not possible to return the animals to Mexico.  After weeks of negotiations, and after the Bolivian 
authorities had revoked the import permit although the ca ttle had already arrived, Bolivia decided to 
slaughter the cattle.  Months later, in the contex t of a lawsuit filed by FOGAMEX against SENASAG, 
the Bolivian Supreme Court in Santa Cruz found that SENASAG had withheld the import permits 
without legal basis and ordered SENASAG to cover th e damages.  Formal consultations held in La 
Paz, Bolivia in 2005 had not led to an agreement.  Since then, bilateral efforts had continued to try to 
obtain an official and public apology from th e Bolivian Government and payment for damages 
caused. 
20. The representative of Bolivia indicated that, as explained at the previous meeting, in the 
absence of OIE guidance, the competent Bolivia n authorities had followed national and Andean 
Community sanitary requirements, which required a risk assessment before an import permit was 
issued.  The animal health authorities received  insufficient documentation to carry out a risk 
assessment only two days before the cattle arrived.  According to the Andean regulations, the cattle 
thus had to be slaughtered or re-exported.  After granting a reasonable period to allow the interested 
parties to organize the re-exportation of the cattl e, which had not been possible, the Bolivian 
authorities had slaughtered the cattle to  ensure adequate health protection in Bolivia and in the region.  
The representative of Bolivia emphasized that bila teral efforts were underway to find a mutually 
satisfactory solution to Mexico's concern about  the economic damage suffered by the Mexican 
exporter. 
Import restrictions on EC exports of live birds, me at, meat products and other products due to avian 
influenza – Concern of the European Communities (no. 235 – G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6) 
21. The representative of the European Communities re iterated concerns about certain Members' 
measures to protect against the entry or spread of avian influenza which were not based on scientific 
principles and not in accordance with the SPS Agreement.  Certain WTO Members imposed 
unjustified measures on EC exports of an excessively broad range of poultry products, including heat-
treated ones.  Moreover, only a limited number of EC member States had confirmed cases of avian influenza and many had rapidly regained disease-fre e status.  The European Communities urged on G/SPS/R/42 
Page 8  
 
  Members to base their measures on scientific prin ciples and apply the concept of regionalization 
rather than banning imports from all EC member States. 
Japan's positive list system for pesticides, vet erinary drugs and food additives MRLs – Concerns of 
China (no. 212 - G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6) 
22. The representative of China noted that Japan's positive list system for agricultural chemical 
residues in food had entered into force on 29 May 20 06.  While recognizing Japan's right to revise its 
residue standards to safeguard the health of its citizens, China was concerned since Japan was the 
largest importer of food from China.  Japan had only published testing methods for 553 agricultural chemicals;  testing methods for another 200 chemical s were still lacking, which could seriously affect 
efforts of developing country Members to study th ese methods.  In addition, Japan was not following 
the Codex guidelines for judging test results.  Ch ina requested Japan to publish all testing methods, 
notify them, offer a 60 day comment period, provide a six month transitional period before they entered into force and offer technical training and education to China. 
23. The representative of China ask ed Japan to explain why it had started implementing the 
positive list system in December 2005 by requiring that  rice be tested according to the new MRLs, 
well ahead of the May 2006 implementation date.  Th is had raised costs for Chinese rice exports and 
interrupted trade, since farmers had no time to adjust  their chemical use.  From January to June 2006, 
on three occasions, China had been given only two weeks to comment on certain MRLs, which was 
too short.  China requested an explanation of the relationship between these MRLs and the positive 
list system.  In China's view, these changes should be  notified to the WTO.  Finally, the representative 
of China noted that both the Japanese and English ve rsions of the positive list system contained many 
editing errors and that therefore there were consta nt changes and asked Japan to provide a clear and 
comprehensive list of MRLs for agricultural chemicals at  an early date.  Previous efforts to resolve the 
problems had not succeeded, and China urged Japan to  address China's concerns in a scientific way. 
24. The representative of Japan confirmed that its positive list system for agricultural chemicals 
including pesticides, veterinary drugs and feed additives had taken effect on 29 May 2006.  For the 
establishment of provisional MRLs, Japan had taken into account Codex standards;  existing residue 
levels for pesticides set under the Agricultural Chem icals Regulation Law or li mits of determination 
for veterinary drugs set under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law;  and MRLs set by other countries 
where residue standards were based upon the toxi cological data required by the Joint WHO/FAO 
Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Joint WHO/FAO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR).  Since these MRLs had been es tablished through a globally accepted approach, 
Japan believed them to be consistent with WTO prin ciples.  Japan used a toxicological threshold of 
1.5 μg/day to determine the uniform limit, based on JECFA, US FDA and JMPR evaluations.  The 
uniform limit had been set at 0.01 ppm, based on the food consumption patterns of the Japanese 
population.  Japan had published analytical methods for 623 substances and woul d continue to finalize 
and publish the remaining analytical methods for ot her substances.  When Japan newly established or 
amended standards, including MRLs, under the Food Sanitation Law, these were explained to foreign 
embassies in advance of WTO notification.  After this meeting, comments were requested within two 
weeks, after which the notification was sent to WTO, with a 60-day comment period. 
Japan's import suspension on heat-processed straw and forage for feed – Concern of China (no. 221- 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6) 
25. The representative of China stated  that Japan's measures with regard to import of straw and 
forage for feed required unnecessary additional ass urances, exceeding the OIE standard.  There was 
no risk of transmission of any disease after straw and forage were heat-treated at a temperature of 80 degrees or more for at least 10 minutes.  Japan was using the FMD situation in China as an excuse for 
trade restrictions and was not applying the con cept of zoning/regionalization as there were no new  G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 9 
 
 
  cases of FMD in the counties where straw and fora ge were produced.  China requested Japan to 
consider the complaints of the Chinese industry as well as of Japanese importers and to amend its 
unscientific and unnecessary trade restricti ons following OIE standards and WTO rules. 
26. The representative of Japan replied that any straw and forage other than rice straw were 
permitted for importation into Japan on the condition that pests were not detected in the process of 
import inspection.  Regardless of its use in Japan , the importation of rice straw was prohibited from 
all countries other than Korea, Democratic Peopl e's Republic of Korea and Chinese Taipei.  If rice 
straw went through disinfection treatment, such as heat treatment with water vapour, it could be 
imported into Japan.  In order to prevent the intr oduction of FMD into Japan, imports of heat-treated 
straw and forage for feed from China were pe rmitted only if there was no FMD infection around the 
areas where raw materials were produced, processed and stored and appropria te heat treatment was 
carried out.  Japan had to suspend the importation of heat-treated rice straw in May 2005 after repeated violations of the requirements detected at some ports of entry into Japan.  In addition, China 
had officially notified to the OIE the spread of the infected area and the increase in the number of 
areas of foot and mouth disease.  Japan had not r eceived sufficient data from the China to support the 
claim that rice straw was produced in disease-free areas.  Once the data requirements were complete, 
Japan would review the situation to decide whethe r the import suspension could be lifted and whether 
any other pre-export measures were necessary. 
Guatemala's restrictions on poultry meat products and sub-products (includi ng eggs) – Concern of 
Mexico (no. 210 – G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6) 
27. The representative of Mexico raised concerns related to Guatemala's import prohibition on 
poultry meat products and sub-products (including eggs).  The long delays with which Guatemala's 
Ministry of Agriculture (MAGA) had responded to  the multiple requests for importation of such 
products from Mexico violated the timeframes established by Guatemal an authorities.  In April 2005, 
Mexico had sent MAGA the model zoosanitary certif icates for approval, acco mpanied by information 
on avian diseases in Mexico.  Although in Nove mber 2005, during a meeting of a bilateral SPS 
technical expert group, Guatemalan authorities ha d committed to carry out a risk assessment and 
provide a response, no response had yet been receive d.  During January and February 2006, Mexico 
had asked Guatemala to remove restrictions impor ted in response to an alleged outbreak of low 
pathogenic avian influenza, taking into account OIE guidance.  At the same time, Mexico requested 
information on Guatemala's avian influenza situati on in order to open Mexico's market for poultry 
products from Guatemala.  Bilateral meetings  had been held in the margins of the 34
th meeting of the 
SPS Committee.  In June 2006, Mexico had received a communication from MAGA indicating that 
due to the difference in sanitary status between the two countries, Guatemala would not lift its import 
restrictions on poultry products and sub-products from Mexico.  At the same time, Guatemala 
declined to respond to Mexico's questionnaire on Gu atemala's avian influenza situation.  Mexico 
considered that Guatemala's actions violated th e OIE Code and the SPS Agreement, and hoped that 
Guatemala would soon respond to Mexico's request s, allowing trade of poultry products and sub-
products between both countries. 
28. The representative of the European Communiti es indicated that exports from EC member 
States to Guatemala had been disrupted because of avian influenza concerns.  The European 
Communities emphasized that such measures should be proportional to the risk, taking into account Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  The European Co mmunities intended to pursue the issue bilaterally. 
29. The representative of Guatemala indicated his c ountry would work bilaterally to resolve the 
issue related to EC exports. G/SPS/R/42 
Page 10  
 
  Israel's lack of phytosanitary import legislation – Concerns of the European Communities (no. 232 – 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev. 6) 
30. The representative of the European  Communities raised again concerns related to Israel's lack 
of phytosanitary import legislation.  The legisla tion was still at a draft stage, although efforts were 
being made to publish the final legislation.  The European Communities invited Israel to finally adopt 
this legislation. 
31. The representative of Israel explained that the plant protection and inspection services of 
Israel were revising and modifying Israel's import regulations for plants and plant products.  The 
regulations had existed since 1971, and had been revi sed and modified since then to comply with the 
SPS Agreement.  Various products and commodities were allowed according to their phytosanitary 
risk and imports permits for new products were granted after a pest risk analysis.  The revision 
process, which required attention to hundreds of pr oducts, was taking longer than expected.  The 
import requirements for most products were alread y specified in the import permits and could be 
found on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, but the interagency legislative process had not yet been completed.  The Ministry of Agriculture was expected to send its final draft phytosanitary import 
legislation to the Ministry of Justice within w eeks; then the draft would be sent to the Israeli 
Parliament.  Israel's plant protection and inspection services were doing their utmost to facilitate trade with the European Communities and with other trading partners. 
Australia's import restrictions on New Zealand Apples – Concerns of New Zealand (no. 217 - 
G/SPS/GEN/204 Rev.6) 
32. The representative of New Zealand provided an update of its concern regarding Australian 
restriction on apples.  New Zealand had commented on a draft risk assessment.  Contrary to evidence 
considered in the Japan – Apples  case, Australia maintained that matu re apples were a vector for fire 
blight.  New Zealand was of the view that volume estimates in the risk assessment should contain only New Zealand exports.  Biosecurity Australia had indicated that the process might conclude at the 
end of 2006.  If this problem - which had existed fo r four years - could not be resolved bilaterally, 
New Zealand would not rule out other WTO actions.  
33. The representative of the United States reiterated th e request that Australia revise its approach 
in light of the scientific evidence and of WTO jurisprudence. 
34. The representative of Australia indicated that 40 submissions commenting on the draft import 
risk assessment had been received, and that some technical exchange was continuing.  The draft 
import risk assessment took into account Australia's a ppropriate level of protection; fire blight was 
only one of the pests of concern.  The final report would be reviewed by an eminent scientist group to 
ensure that stakeholder comments ha d been properly taken into account. 
EC novel food regulation – Concerns of Peru 
 
35. The representative of Peru raised further concer ns regarding the EC novel food regulation.  In 
Peru's view, one of the major problems of the EC regulation was that it did not distinguish between 
new foods that had not been consumed before an ywhere, and those that were new only to the 
European Communities, which was th e case for most of the traditional exotic products originating 
from developing countries.  The representative of Peru requested that the European Communities 
provide information showing that it was necessary to  apply this measure to traditional exotic products, 
in accordance with the provisions of the SPS Agreem ent.  Peru considered that the regulation 
constituted an unnecessary and unjustified barrier to tr ade due to the cost and time required to gain 
approval for novel foods, even if they had a history of safe consumption in their countries of origin, 
and requested the exclusion of traditional exotic products from the novel food category.  He also  G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 11 
 
 
  requested that the European Communities explain how  special needs of developing countries had been 
taking into account in accordance with Article  10 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/GEN/713). 
36. The representatives of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Paraguay and the 
Philippines shared the concerns rais ed by Peru.  The representative of Ecuador indicated that a study 
on the impact of the novel food regulation was about to  be finalized.  Preliminary results of this study 
showed that this regulation c ould have negative economic and social consequences for Ecuador's 
production system by having an effect both on curre nt exports and on products  with export potential 
in the European Communities that were currently marketed in other countries (G/SPS/GEN/714).  The 
representatives of Bolivia and Colombia highlighted that some of the products were currently being 
promoted inter alia  by policies supporting alternatives to narc otic crops, some of which were funded 
by the European Communities or its member States.   The representative of the Philippines indicated 
that the effects of the novel food regulation and of EC regulations on genetically modified food were 
still being evaluated. 
37. The representative of the Eur opean Communities stressed that the concerns expressed were 
being taken seriously, and that the novel food regulation was currently under review 
(G/SPS/GEN/699 and 700).  He explained that the or iginal intention of the novel food regulation had 
been trade-creating;  its purpose was to authorize tr ade in novel foods.  In addition, products that had 
already been traded prior to 1997 had been exempted.  The regulation had been targeted mainly at EC 
companies.  The regulation had been successful in that new foods were being approved on the basis of 
safety assessments.  A statement that a product had b een consumed for centuries was not sufficient.  
He highlighted that very few applications for approval of traditional exotic products had been 
received, so that there were very few case studies.  Traditional exotic products was a broad category 
including some items where there had been safety concerns.  In the context of the review of the 
regulation, the representative of the European Co mmunities indicated that it would be helpful to 
receive more information on these products, including a clear definition of the products at issue whether they had been approved in other export market s, and safety-related data  available, as well as 
information on the socio-economic impact. 
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received 
38. No Member raised concerns related to a specific notification. 
(d) Information on resolution of issues 
Mexico's restrictions on the importation of dry beans 
39. The representatives of the United States and of  Mexico informed th e Committee that the 
concern regarding Mexico's restrictions on the impor tation of dry beans had been resolved (no. 164 - 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6) 
US import restrictions on Schlumbergera  and other plants in growing media 
40. The representative of the European Communities i ndicated that the issuance of the US final 
rule on plants in growing media, including Schlumbergera, would resolve this issue (no. 102 - 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6). 
Revision of document G/SPS/GEN/204 
41. The Secretariat drew the attention of the Committee to Revision 6 of document 
G/SPS/GEN/204 on specific trade concerns.  Similar to the previous revision, the document was 
divided in four parts.  The first part contained an  overview and summary tables of all the issues raised G/SPS/R/42 
Page 12  
 
  since 1995.  The second part (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add. 1) included all current issues that had been 
raised during the previous year.  The third part (Add.2) contained those i ssues that were somewhat 
dormant, not having been raised in the previous y ear, while the fourth part (Add.3) contained the 
issues for which a resolution had been reported.  In the current version, each issue had been assigned a 
specific number, in chronological order.  This number would not change and would allow tracking an 
issue through different documents and in the fort hcoming SPS information management system.  The 
Secretariat suggested that when requesting that a previously-raised issue be placed on the agenda, 
Members refer to the relevant number to avoid c onfusion since different Members sometimes referred 
to the same specific trade concern by different names. 
IV. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS 
42. The Chairman drew attention to the most recent list of national notification authorities 
contained in G/SPS/NNA/9 and Add. 1 and 2;  the most recent list of national enquiry points 
contained in G/SPS/ENQ/19 and Add. 1 and 2;  and notifications received since the last meeting of 
the SPS Committee summarized, on a monthly basis, in G/SPS/GEN/694, G/SPS/GEN/595 and G/SPS/GEN/703. 
43. The Secretariat reported on the development of the SPS information management system 
(SPS-IMS) for SPS notifications, specific trade concerns and other Committee documents.  A first phase of this project would help the Secretariat prepare notifications and make better and more efficient use of the information available.  A second phase would enable Members to conduct 
searches that went beyond what was currently possi ble in the Documents Online system on the WTO 
website.  Eventually, Members would be able to  s ubmit notifications online directly.  The Secretariat 
was presently testing the first phase; the second phase would begin when the first phase was fully 
operational.  The Secretariat hoped to be able to demonstrate the functioning of the system at the 
October meeting of the Committee. 
44. The representative of Mexico drew the at tention of the Committee to the national 
standardization programme for 2006.  Mo re details were provided in document 
G/SPS/GEN/491/Add.4. 
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
(a) Consideration of proposals referred to the Committee 
45. The Chairman began by reporting on the informal meeting held on 24 May 2006.  At that 
meeting, the African Group had circulated another revision of their proposal on Article 9.2.  He 
recalled that the revision provided earlier by th e African Group had been welcomed by many 
delegates, and that some had noted its similarity to elements contained in the procedure to enhance 
transparency of special and differential treatment , G/SPS/33.  The Chairman had started the meeting 
on 24 May 2006 with a brief comparison of the African Group proposal and the S&D transparency procedure, and in particular step 6 of that pro cedure.  He had noted, for example, that SPS/33 was 
designed to apply primarily in the context of the no tification and entry into force of a new regulation, 
while the African Group proposal could presumably be used to address problems resulting from long-
standing measures.   
46. Both the adopted procedure and the African Group proposal provided that an importing 
Member, upon request, would examine how the problem identified by the exporting Member could best be resolved and both also identified as possibl e ways to address the problem the change of the 
measure and/or provision of technical assistance.  However, G/SPS/33 also identified the provision of 
special and differential treatment as a third possi ble way to resolve a problem, while the African 
Group had proposed only one element of special a nd differential treatment, which was to assist  G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 13 
 
 
  developing country Members to maintain a nd expand market access opportunities for the product 
involved during a transitional period.  Another diffe rence was that the adopted procedure indicated 
that any change in the measure would be done on an MFN basis, and any provision of special and differential treatment would apply equally to all developing country Members.  Both the adopted 
procedure (in Steps 7 and 8) and the African Group proposal provided for the notification to Members 
of the resolution of the problem.   
47. Finally, the Chairman had noted that the A frican Group proposal indicated that technical 
assistance shall be fully funded and not entail fina ncial obligations on the part of the exporting 
developing country Member.  This issue had not been addressed in the S&D transparency procedure 
adopted by the Committee.  
48. As during the Committee's discussions at the Ma rch 2006 meeting of the Committee, several 
Members had expressed support for the revised A frican Group proposal, while other Members had 
raised questions and comments.  Many Members had been concerned that the language of the 
proposal required that technical assistance be provide d until a resolution was reached.  They had been 
of the view that it would not be possible to reach a resolution in all cases, for example if a disease was 
present in the exporting country that could not be eradicated.  One Member had expressed concern 
that an obligation to provide technical assistance to  resolve any problems might infringe on the right 
of importing countries to take measures to ensure that  products met its appropriate  level of protection.  
The proponents of the proposal had explained that what they were looking for were precisely resolutions to trade problems and that they were trying to move away from "best endeavour" 
language. 
49. Many donors had found that providing fully-funded technical assistance was not the most 
effective way to proceed;  beneficiary contributions  were often useful to enhance ownership of a 
technical assistance activity.  In contrast, the prop onents of the proposal had been of the view that, 
depending on the exporting Member involved, full y funded technical assistance might be appropriate. 
50. One Member had been concerned with the use of the word "consultations" in the revised 
proposal, given the legal implications of that term in the WTO, rather than the phrase "opportunity to 
discuss" used in G/SPS/33.  The African Group had suggested the "consultations" was the appropriate 
word since the importing Member would be requir ed to report on these consultations and since the 
consultation procedure was well established. 
51. A number of Members had observed that th e Procedure established in G/SPS/33 was not 
being used;  some had suggested that the Committe e should analyze why that was the case and look at 
ways of making it more operational.  One Member suggested that a mechanism was required to help 
developing country Members cope with the large number of notifications concerning ever-changing 
requirements.  The Chairman had suggested that the Committee might want to look at the technical 
assistance questionnaire developed by the TBT Committee to see if something similar might be useful for SPS purposes. 
52. In concluding the informal meeting, the A frican Group had indicated that it planned to 
formally submit revisions of their proposals on Ar ticles 9.2 and 10.1 and had invited other Members 
to submit comments and suggestions to their existing proposals.   
53. The Chairman reiterated what he had said in clos ing the informal meeting on 24 May:  that  it 
would be helpful if the African Group submitted its  revised proposal as a Committee document since 
this would allow the Secretariat to translate the proposal into the other two working languages and 
would facilitate the Committee's discussions.  After concluding his report, the Chairman opened the 
floor for discussion. G/SPS/R/42 
Page 14  
 
  54. The representative of Canada noted that the proposal included only three ways to resolve a 
problem.  In Canada's view, this should be an open list to encourage innovative solutions.  In addition, 
the proposal did not reflect past discussions in which the Committee had recognized that special and 
differential treatment could be granted by on e developing country Member to another. 
55. The representative of Egypt indicated that Egypt intended to further contribute to this subject 
in the future. 
(b) Report to the General Council 
56. The Chairman recalled that the Committee was e xpected to complete its consideration of the 
"Category II" S&D proposals and report to the Gene ral Council "with the objective of ensuring that 
clear recommendations for a decision are made no la ter than December 2006".  He indicated that he 
was planning to submit another progress report to the General Council, on his responsibility as 
Chairman of the Committee.  The report would indi cate that the Committee had continued considering 
the proposals and the underlying concerns, and that  the revised proposals informally tabled by the 
African Group had provided a positive stimulus for the discussions.  He would also note that, given the similarities in the revised African Group proposal and the procedure previously adopted by this 
Committee, some Members had suggest ed that it would be useful to focus on how to improve the use 
of the procedure in SPS/33.  He would report th at the Committee had had constructive and quite 
detailed discussions regarding technical assistance, and begun to exchange views on how to ensure 
that technical assistance was effective in addressing the needs of developing countries.  In addition, 
the Workshop on the Implementation of the Agre ement, held on 31 March 2006, had been a very 
useful start to addressing some of the concerns underlying the proposals, covering several of the 
elements listed in paragraph 43 of the Committe e's Report on Special and Differential Treatment 
(G/SPS/35).  It was the Chairman's view that  the Committee had continued to examine these 
proposals in a positive manner, seeking to identify effective and pragmatic means to address the 
underlying problems, but in part due to the paucity of  concrete proposals or revisions to the proposals, 
the Committee was not presently in a position to ma ke any recommendations further to those is 
G/SPS/35. 
57. The Chairman indicated that the Committee would have another opportunity to discuss this 
issue at its October meeting before reporting to the General Council with "clear recommendations for 
a decision". Depending on the contributions receive d by Members, he would convene an informal 
meeting immediately preceding the regular meeting, a nd stressed again that it would be very useful to 
receive contributions in writing from the proponents as well as from other Members, to provide new 
input for the Committee's discussions. 
(c) Other matters relating to special and differential treatment 
58. The representative of the United States introdu ced a paper containing a compilation of ideas 
related to technical assistance and special and di fferential treatment (G/SPS/W/198).  She emphasized 
that the United States was not in favour of changing  the text of the SPS Agreement, but believed that 
technical assistance could help with implementa tion.  Information submitted by Members at the 
workshop on the implementation of the SPS Agreemen t held on 31 March 200 6 provided interesting 
suggestions related to technical assistance program mes, defining priorities and ensuring involvement 
of relevant actors (G/SPS/R/41).  The United Stat es supported the idea of a good practices guide for 
special and differential treatment, as well as the suggestion that the Committee review the SPS 
technical assistance questionnaire, comparing it to a similar one on TBT-related technical assistance.  
The United States looked forward to the Secretar iat paper on technical assistance and suggested 
continuing the discussions during an informal meetin g on special and differential treatment preceding 
the next regular meeting of the SPS Committee.  G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 15 
 
 
  59. The representatives of Canada and of Aust ralia supported the US proposals.  Canada 
considered that a good practices guide for special and differential treatment would complement the 
suggestion contained in the Committee's report on sp ecial and differential treatment (G/SPS/35) to 
develop good regulatory practices.  The representative of Australia indicated that the workshop had 
been useful, resulting in ongoing dialogue with some delegations. 
60. The Secretariat explained that  in fact there had been two questionnaires on TBT-related 
technical assistance.  The first questionnaire had b een circulated after the second triennial review of 
the TBT Agreement to identify technical assistance needs;  53 Members had replied.  In November 
2005, the TBT Committee had adopted a format for the voluntary notification of technical assistance 
needs, with the objective of matching their needs with offers of technical assistance from donors.  
Three Members had notified needs;  to date there had been no counter-notifications from donors.  In 
the SPS Committee, the Secretariat had circulated a first technical assistance questionnaire in July 
1999 (G/SPS/W/101).  In 2001, the Secretariat prepared a second questionnaire (G/SPS/W/113), based on the technical assistance typology discu ssed in October 2000 (G/SPS/GEN/206).  There had 
been 36 replies to this second questionnaire, the late st in November 2004.  The Secretariat had been 
able to provide technical assistance to all Me mbers who had requested it through this second 
questionnaire.  The Secretariat was currently wo rking on a document about Members' technical 
assistance activities based on the WTO/OECD da tabase.  However, there was significant 
underreporting in the database, which had led to dela ys in preparing this document.  While it was 
possible to say that Members submitting requests had received a significant number of technical assistance activities, it was difficult to judge whether th e questionnaire had been the trigger, except in 
the case of the WTO Secretariat, which had ac tively sought to respond to requests in the 
questionnaires.  The Secretariat also informed  the Committee that the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility (STDF) had set up a task force to discuss, inter alia , whether the STDF could 
act as a clearing house for technical assistance. 
VI. PROPOSAL BY SMALL ECONOMIES 
(a) Consideration of the proposal 
61. The Chairman reported that at the informal m eeting held on 24 May 2006, the Committee had 
discussed a proposal submitted by a group of small economies to the Committee on Trade and 
Development Dedicated Session.  Th is proposal, contained in document 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.1, was that there be  explicit recognition that WTO Members may 
designate a regional body to provide technical support as necessary and to carry out the functions 
necessary to assist them in implementing the provis ions of the SPS Agreement.  The proposal also 
stated that Members and the WTO "shall provide tec hnical and financial assistance at mutually agreed 
terms" to support small, vulnerable economies in  fulfilling their rights and obligations under the SPS 
Agreement.  The document identified as the releva nt provisions of the SPS Agreement Article 9 on 
Technical Assistance, and Annex B which contained the transparency procedures.  The Chairman had 
been requested to consult with the SPS Committee regarding its views on this proposal, and to report 
to the Committee on Trade and Development Dedicated Session. 
62. The Chairman first summarized the discussions at that meeting, as he had reported to the 
Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Developmen t Dedicated Session.  A substantial number of 
Members had participated in the informal meeting,  including several of the co-sponsors of the SVE 
proposal.  The proposal had been presented by some  of its co-sponsors, who had also explained the 
consultative process they had been engaged in.  Th ey had stressed that the use of regional bodies in 
the manner proposed would facilitate their impl ementation of the SPS Agreement and enhance 
transparency, without impinging on the rights or obligations of any WTO Member. G/SPS/R/42 
Page 16  
 
  63. A number of Members had welcomed the explan ation and clarifications provided regarding 
the proposal, and the assurance that there was no inten tion to modify the text of the SPS Agreement.  
Several Members had stressed that this was the firs t time this proposal had been considered by the 
SPS Committee, which had the mandate to implem ent the provisions of the Agreement and the 
furtherance of its objectives.  Members had been  particularly concerned regarding the possible 
implications of the proposal on their technical as sistance activities in the SPS area, and a number of 
questions had been raised in this respect.  Th ese questions had included whether the reference to 
designated regional bodies referred to existing bodi es, or to the creation of new regional bodies.  
Further clarification regarding the proposed role  and function of the designated regional bodies had 
been sought, and also whether the proposal would mean that all technical assistance was to be 
channelled only through designated regional bodies.  The representative of Canada had suggested 
textual amendments that would ma ke it explicit that when a Member provided SPS-related technical 
assistance, they should consider the advantages of providing such assistance to a designated regional 
body. 
64. Several Members had questioned the need fo r the explicit recognition contained in the 
proposal, asking whether the co-sponsors in reality f aced any obstacles in using regional bodies in the 
manner they proposed.  It had been suggested that  the co-sponsors should discuss their concerns with 
the three international standard-setting bodies refe rred to in the SPS Agreement, as all of these had 
regional committees that could assist Members in implementing the SPS Agreement.  Questions had 
been raised regarding the effects of this pr oposal on other developing country Members (and in 
particular least developed countri es) in terms of their participation in any "designated" regional 
bodies.  One Member had also sought clarificati on of how "small, vulnerable economies" would be 
defined.  Several Members had noted that the pr oposal was not limited to SVEs, but that any WTO 
Member could designate a regional body to assist its implementation of the SPS Agreement.  In this 
respect, one Member had drawn attention to the recent studies by the World Bank which reported favourably on regional approaches to addressing development problems.   
65. The representatives of Antigua a nd Barbuda and of Barbados ha d provided responses to many 
of the issues raised in the discussions and ha d provided some specific information on regional 
initiatives in the Caribbean.  They had indicated that the proposal did not intend to create new 
regional bodies, but to make use of existing ones.  Although not all members of a regional body might 
use a designated body to assist their implementation of the SPS Agreement, all would be able to 
benefit from the improved knowledge and capacity of the regional body in this regard.  They had 
suggested that the proposal that technical assistan ce be provided on mutually agreed terms ensured 
that the provision of such assist ance to a designated regional body was not mandatory.  Furthermore, 
they considered that WTO technical assistance woul d continue to be provided primarily to Members, 
not to regional bodies.   
66. The co-sponsors of the proposal had furthermor e stressed that there was no intention to 
change the legal text of the SPS Agreement, nor the balance of rights and obligations found therein.  
Explicit recognition of a Member's ability to use a designated regional body to assist their 
implementation of the SPS Agreement was needed to provide legal certainty.  Although a regional 
body could develop SPS measures, assist with the prep arations of SPS notifications and assist with the 
response to queries, each WTO Member would con tinue to be ultimately responsible for submitting 
its SPS notifications, responding to queries from trading partners, etc.   
67. Several Members, while welcoming the clarificat ions provided, had stressed again that this 
was the first time this proposal had been presented before the SPS Committee.  They had noted that 
the current text had led to many  misunderstandings, in particular regarding technical assistance, and 
requested time to further consider the proposal.    G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 17 
 
 
  68. In concluding his report on the May informal meeting, the Chairman noted that he had 
intended to hold a further informal meeting on this  proposal preceding the regular meeting of the SPS 
Committee, but that had not been possible.  
69. The representative of Barbados informed th e Committee that similar proposals had been 
accepted by the TRIPs Council and the TBT Committ ee and asked Members to be guided by that 
acceptance. 
70. The representative of the Unites States explained that her country provided assistance both on 
a regional and on a bilateral basis.  The United St ates considered that regional centres could enhance 
delivery of SPS assistance, and a number of them, in cluding IICA, were already doing so.  However, 
the United States still had questions regarding the "legal certainty" sought by the proponents, what 
recognition of regional bodies would mean within the context of the SPS Agreement, and how the 
work of the regional bodies would be coordinated with existing activities of the OIE, the IPPC and 
Codex.  The representative of the United States encour aged the authors of the proposal to incorporate 
comments and revise the proposal, including also the explanations provided on 24 May. 
71. The representative of St. Vincent and the Gr enadines explained that regional bodies would 
work in the areas of risk assessment and consensu s building.  St. Vincent and the Grenadines agreed 
with the changes to the text regarding the provisi on of technical assistance that Canada had proposed 
on 24 May. 
72. The representative of Colombia supported the proposal, informing the Committee that 
regional bodies of which Colombia was a member, e.g. the Andean Community, already provided assistance with the implementation of the Agreement.   The representative of Colombia asked whether 
the proponents were suggesting changes to th e Secretariat policy for technical assistance. 
73. The representative of the European Commun ities noted agreement with the aim of the 
proposal.  The European Communities, itself a regiona l body, believed that unified forces led to better 
results.  In light of the ongoing negotiations of Economic Partnership Agre ement with SPS chapters, 
and in order to avoid duplication, the repr esentative of the European Communities requested 
information on which specific regional bodies the proponents referred to.  The European 
Communities already provided techni cal assistance to regional bodies. 
74. The representative of Barbados noted that not all proponents had agreed to proposed changes 
in the text.  The proponents would hold another discussion and revise the proposal, as suggested by the United States.  He clarified that the proponents were not seeking to change the mandate of how the 
WTO Secretariat provided technical assistance.  They did not see any inconsistencies with current 
practices.  The Caribbean Food Safety Agency wa s an example of a body that could benefit from 
assistance. 
75. The representative of the Solomon Islands indicat ed that for the Pacific region they had no 
particular regional organization in mind, although there were several candidates.  The proponents 
needed a signal that they could designate regional bodies to help and provide technical assistance.  
(b) Report to the Committee on Trade and Development 
76. The Chairman noted that a number of Me mbers seemed interested in continuing the 
discussions.  He would make a factual report to the Committee on Trade and Development Dedicated 
Session, reporting that there appeared to be a positive sentiment towards the proposal and its 
objectives, but that there remained concerns on the wo rding.  He indicated that, if the proponents so 
wished, discussions could continue at the next Committee meeting. G/SPS/R/42 
Page 18  
 
  VII. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 
(a) Information from Members on their experiences 
77. No Members provided information on ex periences related to equivalence. 
(b) Information from relevant  observer organizations 
78. The representative of the IPPC reminded the Committee that in 2005, the ICPM had approved 
guidelines for the determination and recognition of e quivalence of phytosanitary measures (ISPM 24).  
79. The representative of the OIE recalled that the OI E Terrestrial Animal Health Code contained 
a chapter on equivalence, including a sequence of  steps for the judgement of equivalence.  
VIII.  PEST- OR DISEASE-FREE AREAS (ARTICLE 6) 
(a) Consideration of new submissions and comments on Secretariat paper G/SPS/GEN/640 
80. The representative of Brazil introduced document  G/SPS/W/189 on behalf of its joint authors: 
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay.  The document provided comments on 
the Secretariat's background paper on regionaliza tion (G/SPS/GEN/640), notably section IV of the 
document which dealt with the typical steps for administrative procedures for recognition.  Two 
particular concerns were raised in this rega rd: recognition by international standardization 
organizations should not be re quired for bilateral recognition; and reasonable time-frames for 
fulfilling the various stages of the process and crite ria for bilateral negotiations should be agreed. 
81. The representative of Korea stressed that the Committee should not prejudice the right of 
Members under the SPS Agreement to take meas ures based on risk assessments.  The procedure 
outlined in G/SPS/GEN/640 duplicated the pr ocedures established by the OIE and under 
consideration at IPPC.  Korea was not convinced th at national approval proce dures could be expedited 
on the basis of official recognition by OIE or IPPC.  Although such determinations were useful, they 
could undermine a Member's appropriate level of  protection (ALOP).  Korea opposed placing time 
limits on the recognition process, noting that OIE did not place any time limit on its own recognitions and highlighting the resource burden, both human and financial, which such time limits would imply.  
Another complicating factor was that was the fo rm and the language in which exporters provided 
information.  Korea was of the opinion that r ecognition of regionalizati on should be dealt with 
between importing and exporting Members on a bilateral basis (see G/SPS/W/195). 
82. The representative of Chinese Ta ipei also stressed the responsibility of exporters to provide 
reliable information to importing Members in a timely manner, as the time taken to fulfil each step did 
not depend solely on the importing Member.  As such, the Committee should not require Members to 
complete the recognition process within a certain ti meframe.  The representative also recalled that not 
all Members of the WTO were members of all of the relevant international standards-setting bodies 
(ISSBs).  Expediting decisions on disease freedom, particularly the recovery of free status, on the basis of ISSB recognition was thus problematic. 
83. The representative of the United States referred  to the comparative analysis by New Zealand 
of the steps in G/SPS/GEN/640 and those of the IS SBs, and stressed that the steps mirrored each 
other.  The US view was that the ISSB's own work  was sufficient to guide the Committee's work on a 
multilateral level.  Recognition of freedom by an  ISSB was not a prerequisite for a bilateral 
determination, nor did it forfeit a Member's right to undertake its own risk assessment.  The United 
States suggested that emphasis should be on the bila teral pursuit of regionalization determination in a 
transparent and predictable manner, based on consider ation of relevant facts,  including determinations  G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 19 
 
 
  by IISBs.  There was still some lack of clarity as to the problem which the Committee was being 
asked to address, and the United States proposed th at, in the context of evaluating the current 
procedure for monitoring harmonization, Members might also wish to consider a pilot project. to look 
specifically at Members' use of the regionaliza tion guidelines now being developed.  This would 
further advance understanding of practical probl ems experienced by Members and would also 
complement Members' submissions regarding thei r experiences with regionalization and provide 
useful information for the OIE and IPPC for future modifications of their standards (see 
G/SPS/W/199). 
84. The representative of the European Communiti es shared the view that the SPS Committee 
itself was best placed to address and provide admi nistrative guidance on how to apply the provisions 
of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  Technical is sues should be handled by the ISSBs, but trade 
problems due to administrative issues should be  handled by t6he SPS Committee.  The ultimate 
decision to recognize a pest- or disease-free region remained with the importing Member and very 
much depended on the trust in the competent authority  of the exporting Member.  This trust built on 
the veterinary/phytosanitary system in place a nd previous experience between the Members.  
Consequently, the recognition process varied from on e case to another, hence there was a need for 
predictability and transparency.  To improve pr edictability, the European Communities was is in 
favour of establishing non-binding timeframes for th e purpose of the parties committing themselves to 
provide feedback. 
85. The representative of the European Commun ities supported increased transparency in the 
process, through additional notifications of re cognition of regionalization.  The European 
Communities agreed that recognition by an ISSB of status was not a compulsory first step in the 
recognition process.  Instead the procedure should star t with a formal request for the recognition of a 
pest- or disease-free area initiating a bilateral pr ocess of recognition before continuing steps B 
through J as outlined in G/SPS/GEN/640 (see G/SPS/W/190). 
86. The representative of Japan considered that duplicating the work of the ISSBs had the 
potential to create confusion.  The OIE and IPPC's  work on regionalization contained administrative 
considerations.  Timeframes for decisions woul d differ on a case-by-case basis, so Japan opposed 
establishing timeframes.  There were also resour ce implications of receiving multiple requests for 
regionalization determinati ons, and prioritization of requests was important and should be included in 
the administrative steps in G/SPS/GEN/640 (see G/SPS/W/192).  
87. The representative of New Zealand recalled that both the OIE and IPPC stressed the need to 
avoid undue delay and deliver an outcome within a reasonable peri od of time.  Both encouraged 
transparency and the importance of communicati on throughout the process between importing and 
exporting countries.  In this context, it was uncl ear what was missing from this guidance and needed 
to be treated by the SPS Committee through "administra tive" guidance.  In this context, New Zealand 
considered that it was important for Members to ac tively contribute to the OIE and IPPC standard 
setting processes (see G/SPS/GEN/698). 
88. The representative of Egypt understood the need to  set time limits for the recognition process 
and how this might facilitate trade, but also stre ssed the importance of exporters as well as importers 
respecting the timelines.  Egypt saw value in an expedited process so long as there was no change in 
conditions in the exporting Member .  Egypt was broadly in favour  of work on administrative 
guidelines by the SPS Committee, with technical work  remaining the responsibility of the ISSBs (see 
G/SPS/W/193). 
89. The representative of Australia st ated that her country remained unconvinced of the need for 
the SPS Committee to work on administrative guidelin es given the on-going work by OIE and IPPC.  
Care needed to be taken that this work did not negatively impinge on Members' rights under the G/SPS/R/42 
Page 20  
 
  Agreement.  Australia was of the view that Memb ers should work through the relevant ISSBs on this 
question.  The representative of Saudi Arabia shared this view. 
90. The representative of Grenada recalled that an exporting Member could begin the process of 
recognition from a standpoint of the non-existence of the pest or disease within the country or territory.  As such, the administrative process for achieving bilateral recognition was typically 
preceded by a country eradicating the disease or pest  in question, or by providing scientific evidence 
of its non existence.  Once this non-existence ha d been demonstrated, then  the recognition process 
could be expedited.  Where the exporting a nd importing Members decided to use a different 
procedure from that established by  the relevant ISSB, the procedure should be mutually agreed and 
include timeframes for each step, although steps shou ld only be undertaken if scientifically necessary 
(see G/SPS/W/194). 
91. The representative of Thailand expressed concern that the establishment of timeframes could 
actually prolong the recognition process.  It was im portant for the Committee to avoid duplication 
with the work of the ISSBs. 
92. The representative of Chile noted that regi onalization was a problem which the Committee 
was a long way away from resolving.  All agreed that  the work of the ISSBs should be strengthened in 
relation to this question of recognition of pest or disease freedom, but it was clear that most problems actually arose at an administrative level.  While it  was appropriate to keep OIE and IPPC focused on 
the technical aspects, they should not be distract ed by also focusing on administrative issues.  
Recognition of freedom by an ISSB did not necessarily  lead to an automatic recognition of freedom 
by an importing Member, but it should be a basis fo r an expedited process.  More transparency would 
be particularly useful to obtain a better idea of the reasons for delays  in recognition..  The 
representative of Argentina supported Chile, remarki ng that the Committee had a wide remit and the 
task proposed by Chile and others was en tirely appropriate for the Committee.   
93. The representatives of Colombia, Honduras, Peru  and Belize also supported Committee work 
on administrative guidelines, including timeframes.  Honduras placed this work in the context of 
market access issues for fruit and vegetable exports  to the United States.  Belize also stressed how 
such work fitted its own market access needs and realities.  The representative of South Africa 
stressed that this issue was essentially one of non-co mpliance with international standards.  He also 
stressed the costs to developing country Members of maintaining such regions or zones as pest free.  
94. The representative of China underlined the useful ness of the presentations from the ISSBs at 
the enhanced informal meeting on regionalizati on on 30-31 January 2006.  The representatives of 
Argentina and Brazil agreed and suggested that such  enhanced informals be held on a regular basis. 
95. The Chairman underlined the breadth of the dialogue on this topic, citing the various 
documents which had been tabled and the large numb er of Members involved in the debate.  From his 
reading of the discussion, there was agreement among Members of the need for a procedure.  Most 
Members conceded a role for the Committee in this procedure and all recognised the value of the 
procedures being put in place by the ISSBs and the n eed to avoid overlap with those procedures.  In 
conclusion, the Chairman requested Members to submit further written comments on this topic by early September to allow the Secretariat to upda te G/SPS/GEN/640.  A further informal meeting on 
this topic would be held prior to the October Committee meeting. 
(b) Information from Members on their experiences  
96. The representative of Chile informed the Comm ittee that the OIE had formally recognised 
Chile as provisionally free of BSE at its meeting in  May 2006.  He requested Members to take this 
fact into consideration.  G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 21 
 
 
  (c) Information from relevant observer organizations  
97. The representative of the IPPC reported a draft ISPM on "Recognition of pest-free areas and 
areas of low pest prevalence" had been develope d, and was currently out for country comment (see 
G/SPS/GEN/707).  The IPPC Secretariat was organizing a series of seven regional workshops on draft ISPMs, to be held in July-August 2006 and to which representatives from developing countries that 
are Members of the CPM would be invited.  Comments on draft ISPMs would be considered by the 
Standards Committee at their November 2006 meeti ng, with the possibility of draft ISPMs going 
forward for approval at the Second Session of the CP M in March 2007.  It had also been decided to 
undertake a feasibility study on the international rec ognition of pest-free areas, which would take into 
account legal, technical and economical factors and assess feasibility and sust ainability of such a 
system.  Terms of reference for the working grou p were adopted at the first CPM and included in 
document G/SPS/GEN/707.  Finally, the IPPC Secretariat was in the final stages of preparing a questionnaire on the establishment and use of pest-free areas. 
98. The representative of the OIE recalled that the Te rrestrial Animal Health Code had undergone 
a major revision in 2005.  The relevant chapters had been revised in May 2006, but amendments had 
been minor.  The OIE recalled that there was no tim eframe included in its procedure, as recognition 
could be a matter of long discussion of a number of  factors including the credibility of information 
and the quality of the veterinary services in the exporting country.  If any Member wished the OIE to include a timeframe, a request to this effect would need to be made to the OIE.  
IX. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
99. The Secretariat recalled that a regional workshop and a national seminar had been held in 
Egypt, and a national seminar held din Angola, since the last Committee meeting.  The Secretariat had 
also provided Geneva-based training for official s from Vietnam and Bhutan, as well as training for 
officials in a WHO course.  Looking ahead, regiona l activities in the CIS and Colombia were planned 
in the coming months along with national seminars  in Bulgaria, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Mexico.  
Another two-week specialized training course on SPS wa s also planned for October in English.  The 
2007 technical assistance plan was being put together  by the Secretariat and included three regional 
workshops and well as a specialised SPS training cour se to be held in French.  Provision was also 
being requested for a special SPS meeting on transparen cy and an e-learning course.  The Secretary of 
the Committee requested Members to respect the deadlines for activities, recalling that various 
problems had been encountered as a result of late re turns.  The Secretariat planned to circulate a 
document on technical assistance flows before the next meeting.  Also, a compilation of basic 
documents and decisions was being prepared, as had been requested. 
100. Reporting on recent developments in the Standa rds and Trade Development Facility (STDF), 
the Secretariat recalled that the Working Group and Policy Committee had met on 8 and 9 June.  At that meeting, a decision had been taken to establish a Task Force to map out a medium term strategy 
for the STDF.  The first meeting of th e Task Force was scheduled for 29 June. 
(b) Information from Members 
101. The representative of the European Commun ities provided information on an SPS seminar 
organized on 2-5 May for 32 administrators from African countries which concentrated on meeting 
EC requirements for fish imports.  In addition, a course on residues in products of animal origin had been organized, as well as a training course on  aflatoxin. G/SPS/R/42 
Page 22  
 
  102. The representative of Australia informed the Committee that it had submitted a paper to the 
WTO Secretariat outlining technical assistance activities from January 2003 to December 2005;  
during this period Australian assistance had involved  250 projects to 44 countries with a value in 
excess of Aus$50 million (see G/SPS/GEN/717).  The re presentative of Japan recalled two technical 
assistance projects it had recently organized on OIE issues and on ISPMs for countries in the Asian 
region.  The representative of Colombia informed  the Committee of the work of its Centre for 
Phytosanitary Excellence (see G/SPS/GEN/702).  
(c) Information from relevant  observer organizations  
103. The representative of the OIE recalled that an overview of its forthcoming activities could be 
found in document G/SPS/GEN/650/Rev.1.  The repr esentative of the IPPC drew attention to 
document G/SPS/GEN/705  which listed its forthcoming activities. 
X. ISSUES ARISING FROM THE REVIEW  OF THE OPERATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT 
(a) Transparency 
104. Introducing its joint paper with Austra lia and New Zealand (G/SPS/W/197), the 
representative of the United States indicated that  a common concern underlying many of the issues 
raised in the Review was less than full implem entation of the transparency provisions of the SPS 
Agreement.  Recalling the aims of the transparency  provisions, she noted that more work should be 
done by all Members to address transparency, starti ng with a self-assessment by each Member of their 
procedures in light of the Handbook on Transparency .  The Committee should focus on strengthening 
the enquiry points of developing country Members and in particular assist those 18 Members who had 
not yet established an enquiry point or the 59 per cen t that had only notified once.  The representative 
of Australia made a brief supporting statement indi cating that it had started a self-evaluation of the 
implementation of transparency processes and was al ready benefitting from this in terms of improving 
coordination and engagement with  stakeholders.  The representati ve of the European Communities 
supported these proposals. 
105. The representative of Argentina was concerned that other work by the Committee not be 
subordinated to further work on transparency , on which the Committee had already accomplished 
much.  The representative of Chile drew attention to the problems created by the persistent failure of 
Members to indicate how a notified measure diffe red from the relevant international standard. 
106. The Secretary of the Committee observed that  problems with the implementation of the 
current provisions were evident.  The periodic special meeting of the Committee on implementation 
of the transparency provisions was tentatively planned for 2007, and might be held jointly with the 
TBT Committee special meeting of enquiry points.  One matter for consideration were the formats 
and procedures agreed by the Committee, another w as how to assist Members to fully implement any 
agreed procedures.  This latter was an area in wh ich the Secretariat had no direct experience, and 
assistance should be provided by Members with well-functioning enquiry points.  
(b) Relationship between the SPS Committ ee and the Codex, IPPC and OIE 
107. The representative of New Zealand stressed the importance of avoiding duplication with the 
work of the standard-setting bodies, and to this end the need to clarify the ro les and responsibilities of 
each organization (G/SPS/W/206).  New Zealand suggested that it could be useful to consider the SPS Committee's role on many issues as more administrative than technical or scientific, or more high-level versus operational guidance.  The SPS Committ ee could examine how to promote the effective 
use of the international standard-setting bodies to further the implementation of the SPS Agreement.   G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 23 
 
 
  New Zealand clarified that problems with the intern ational standards arose be cause:  (1) a relevant 
standard might not have yet been de veloped;  (2) the standard was not  being used for specific reasons;  
or (3) the standard was inappropriate because it w as not providing the guidance needed by Members. 
108. The representative of Chile noted the growing num ber of international standards of relevance 
to the SPS Agreement, but the difficulties created by l ack of information regarding the extent of use 
of these standards  (G/SPS/W/203).  It would be helpful if Members notified when they were applying 
an international standard as a na tional requirement, and otherwise if they clearly explained how their 
national requirements differed from in ternational standards.  This la tter information could be brought 
to the attention of the relevant standard-setting bodies for their understanding of the use of their 
standards and the reasons for their non-use. 
(c) Undue delays 
109. The representative of Colombia noted that the issue of undue delays had been discussed in 
broad terms by various Members.  Colombia proposed that the Committee consider adopting a 
specific procedure that could ensure the undue delays were avoided (G/SPS/W/201), 
110. The representative of Chile identified a number of processes that often led to undue delays in 
granting market access, including extensive public hear ings, repeated re-analysis of risk assessments, 
and decisions by independent e xpert groups with no recourse for appeal (G/SPS/W/202).  He 
suggested that the SPS Committee could monitor th e situation, through information from Members 
about specific undue delays.  The representa tive of Costa Rica supported these suggestions 
111. The representative of Honduras noted that dela ys often occurred because of coordination 
problems, in particular with Member s who were part of a customs union. 
(d) Consultations under Article 12.1, use of good offices, and resolution of trade concerns 
112. The representative of Chile proposed a speci fic procedure for addressing specific trade 
problems, including through the use of Article 5.8 an d the raising of issues as specific trade concerns 
at meetings of the Committee (G/SPS/W/204).  The procedure would also provide, where necessary, 
for the use of the Chairman's Good Offices.  Chile al so suggested that it would also be helpful for the 
Committee to clarify the relationship between the SPS Committee, the WTO dispute settlement 
procedures and the dispute settlement procedures of the IPPC and OIE. 
113. The representative of Costa Rica noted that Ch ile's proposal provided a useful basis for 
further work, which could be of interest gi ve the costly nature of WTO disputes.   
114. The representative of the IPPC offered to provid e a description of the IPPC dispute settlement 
procedure for examination by the Committee, but noted  that the procedure had not been used to date. 
115. The Chairman suggested that, if Members were interested, the issues arising from the Review 
could be further discussed at an informal meeting immediately preceding the next regular meeting of 
the Committee. 
XI. MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
(a) New issues 
116. No Member raised any new issue under this agenda item. G/SPS/R/42 
Page 24  
 
  (b) Issues previously raised 
117. No further information was provided on issues previously raised. 
(c) Approval of annual report 
118. The representative of Argentina drew attention to the issue his country had raised at the 
previous meeting regarding the use of the OIE standa rd for foot and mouth disease, and asked that this 
issue also be included in the annual report.  
119. The Committee adopted
 the eighth annual report on the monitoring of the use of international 
standards, based on the draft contained in doc ument G/SPS/W/196 with the changes requested by 
Members and updated information from the sta ndard-setting organizations.  The report was 
subsequently circulated as G/SPS/42. 
(d) Review of the provisional procedure 
120. The Committee reviewed the operation of the provisional procedure based on the document 
prepared by the Secretariat (G/SPS/W/200).   
121. The Committee decided  to extend the provisional procedure indefinitely.  The Committee 
also decided  that it will review the operation of the provisional procedure as an integral part of its 
periodic Review of the Operation and Implementa tion of the Agreement under Article 12.7, with a 
view to deciding whether to continue with the same  procedure, amend it or de velop another one.  The 
next such Review is to be completed in 2009, and every four years subsequently.  The Committee 
furthermore encouraged Members to make use of th is procedure to address their concerns regarding 
specific international standards or the need for su ch standards.  The decision of the Committee was 
subsequently circulated as G/SPS/40. 
XII. MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER 
ORGANIZATIONS 
122. The representative of the Codex Alimentarius hi ghlighted recent developments described in 
more detail in G/SPS/GEN/701.  In particular , the Codex Committee on Food Additives and 
Contaminants had proposed the establishment of a maximum level for sulphur dioxide in herbs and 
spices, including cinnamon, for adoption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its meeting 
immediately following the meeting of the SPS Committee.   This responded to a request on this matter 
by the SPS Committee in the context of the monitoring of the use of international standards.  Other 
work by Codex committees addressed, inter alia , aflatoxin levels in various nuts, lead in fish, dioxin 
contamination, pesticide residues for a number of pes ticides, and methods of analysis for the detection 
and identification of foods derived from biotechnology.   
123. The representative of the IPPC drew attention to the Expert Working Group that was being 
convened to consider defining the term "appropriate level of protection" for purposes of phytosanitary 
measures, and encouraged Members to ensure that a ppropriate experts were involved.  He noted that 
the WTO Secretariat was also invited to participate in this expert group.  The representative further 
noted the progress in work on the development of a standard for pest-free areas in fruit flies, and 
upcoming work on invasive species.  He indicated that with the exhaustion of arrears funding, the 
total budget for the IPPC secretariat was 40 per cent lo wer than the previous year, and the number of 
staff had been reduced from 9 to only 5 professionals , which made it difficult to respond to the needs 
of all Members.    G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 25 
 
 
  124. The representative of OIE drew attention to re levant work prepared for, and resulting from, 
the Annual Session in May (G/SPS/GEN/708).  In par ticular, the surveillance procedures for BSE had 
been modified, and the OIE would begin to officia lly recognize three categories of BSE-status.  The 
chapter of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code w ith regard to swine fever had been modified to 
include the concept of regionalization.  With respect  to avian influenza, revisions required notification 
of highly pathogenic avian influenza also in wild birds, whereas low pathogenic strains were to be 
notified only if they occurred in domesticated poultry.   The OIE would hold a seminar in July on the 
use of the Performance, Vision and Strategy  (PVS) Instrument for the evaluation of the veterinary 
services of OIE member countries. 
125. The representative of Canada endorsed the revised chapter on BSE, including the 
identification of a list of products which could be safely traded irrespective of the BSE status of a 
country and strongly encouraged Members to base their measures on this international standard. 
126. The representative of IICA reported that the SPS Initiative for the Americas had supported the 
participation of a total of 200 capital-based e xperts from 27 countries in 12 meetings of the SPS 
Committee since 2002.  Ninety-four per cent of IIC A member countries now had operational national 
committees to oversee the implementation of the SPS Agreement, compared to only 21 per cent in 
2002.  IICA had participated in the first special ized trade policy course on the SPS Agreement in 
October 2005, and would also participate in the follow-up workshop to this course immediately 
following the SPS Committee meeting.  Further info rmation on relevant IICA activities was contained 
in G/SPS/GEN/704 
127. The representative of OIRSA indicated that he would submit a document regarding the 
relevant activities of his organization, which w as subsequently circulated as G/SPS/GEN/709.   
XIII.  OBSERVERS – REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS 
128. The Committee agreed to invite those organiza tions who had been granted observer status on 
an ad hoc, meeting-by-meeting basis to participate in its next meeting.  The Committee also decided 
to invite all observer organizations to participate in its next informal m eetings on 9 to 11 October 
2006.   
129. The Committee was unable to reach any decision with regard to the requests for observer 
status from the Office International de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV), from the Asian and Pacific Coconut 
Community (APCC), and from the Convention on Biodive rsity (CBD), and agreed to revert to this 
matter at its next meeting.   
XIV.  CALENDAR OF MEETINGS IN 2007 
130. The Committee adopted the following provisional schedule for regular meetings during 2007, 
with the understanding that the regular meetings of the Committee would normally be scheduled for 
two full days, and preceded on each occasion by one or more informal meetings: 
 5 to 9 March 2007  25 to 29 June 2007  15 to 19 October 2007 
131. The representative of Canada suggested th at, following the October 2006 meeting of the 
Committee, the Committee should consider whether it should regularly schedule five days for its 
meetings.  G/SPS/R/42 
Page 26  
 
  XV. OTHER BUSINESS 
132. The representative of Paraguay reported on bilate ral agreements reached with Argentina for 
the suppression of a cotton pest, as well as to permit the export of cucurbita moschata  from Paraguay 
to Argentina (G/SPS/GEN/711).  In addition, with re gard to animal health matters, Paraguay had been 
recognized by the OIE as provisionally free of BSE.  Paraguay had recently revised its import policies 
with regard to certain products from countries affect ed by avian influenza.  Following an outbreak of 
FMD in 2002, Paraguay had been recertified by the OIE as a country free of FMD with vaccination in 
May 2006, and continued vaccination of all bovine animals.  As of January 2006, Paraguay had 
applied a system of traceability for all individual animals (G/SPS/GEN/712). 
133. The representative of Canada indicated th at on 26 June, Canada had announced the 
imposition of an enhanced ban,  banning cattle tissues capable of  transmitting bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE) from all animal  feeds, pet foods and fertilizer s, in order to accelerate the 
control of BSE. 
XVI.  DATE  AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING 
134. The Committee agreed on the following provisional agenda for its next meeting. 
PROPOSED AGENDA FOR MEETING OF 11-13 OCTOBER 2006 
 
1. Adoption of agenda 
2. Activities of Members 3. Specific trade concerns  (a) New issues 
 (b) Issues previously raised 
 (c) Consideration of specific notifications received  (d) Information on resolution of issues in 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6 
4. Operation of transparency provisions 
5. Implementation of special and differential treatment 
 (a) Report on informal meeting 
 (b) Other matters relating to S&D 
6. Equivalence – Article 4  (a) Information from Members on their experiences 
 (b) Information from rele vant observer organizations 
7. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
 (a) Report on informal meeting 
 (b) Information from Members on their experiences  (c) Information from rele vant observer organizations 
8. Technical assistance and cooperation 
 (a) Information from the Secretariat 
 (b) Information from Members  (c) Information from observers  G/SPS/R/42 
 Page 27 
 
 
  9. Issues arising from the Review 
10. Monitoring of the use of international standards  (a) New issues 
 (b) Issues previously raised 
11. Transitional Review under Para graph 18 of the Protocol of 
Accession of the People's Republic of China 
12. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer 
organizations 
13. Observers – Request for observer status 14. Chairperson's annual report to the Council for Trade in 
Goods 
15. Other business 16. Date and agenda of next meeting 
135. The following deadlines are releva nt for the next meeting:  
(i) For identifying new issues for considera tion under the monitoring procedure:  
28 September 2006
 
(ii) For requesting that items be put on the agenda :  28 September 2006  
(iii) For the distribution of the airgram:  29 September 2006.  
__________