RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.11 
14 June 2005  
 (05-2490) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 9-10 MARCH 2005 
 
Note by the Secretariat
2 
 
Revision  
 
 
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its thirty-
second  meeting on 9-10 March 2005.  The agenda  proposed in WTO/AIR/2523 was adopted with 
amendments. 
2. The Secretariat reminded Members of the importance of ensuring that documents were 
submitted well in advance of the Committee meeting, so that they could be circulated as formal 
documents, in the three WTO working languages..  
II. ACTIVITIES OF MEMBERS 
FMD situation in Argentina 
 3. The representative of Argentina presented the main actions carried out by his country's 
sanitary authorities (SENASA) with respect to cont rol and eradication of FMD.  These measures 
included vaccination, epidemiological vigilance a nd control of imports of susceptible animals and 
products.  Vaccination was obligatory and carried out twice a year north of the Rio Negro and in the 
province of Neuquen, with vaccines officially controlled by SENASA.  
4. In 2004, all suspected cases of FMD were c linically proven negative.  SENASA annually 
implements serological testing to detect the viral activity of FMD and to estimate the immunity level 
conferred by vaccination.  The 20 04 results confirmed the absence of viral activity throughout the 
territory.  In October 2004, SENASA carried out a series of preventive measures aimed at closely 
controlling FMD within the northern region including  the Provinces of Jujuy, Salta and Formosa. 
5. In January 2005, the area north of parallel 42 was granted the status of an "area free of FMD 
with vaccination" by the Scientific Commission fo r Animal Diseases of the OIE.  The rest of 
Argentina, that is south of parallel 42°, has had the status of "FMD-free without vaccination" since 
May 2002. 
BSE in Canada 
 6. The representative of Canada explained that Canada's regulatory safeguards measures, fully 
compliant with the OIE standards, includes the enfo rcement of a feed ban, the removal of specified 
risk materials (SRMs) from human food supply, me asures related to the meat inspection system and 
                                                     
 
1 In English only. 
2 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/36/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
an enhanced BSE surveillance programme.  The e ffectiveness of the feed ban had recently been 
confirmed by comprehensive audits carried out by the Canadian Food Inspec tion Agency and the US 
Department of Agriculture (USDA),  Canada's su rveillance programme is aimed at maximizing the 
likelihood of detecting BSE and ensuring that sampling is representative.  It is targeted to high risk 
areas and the test method protocol was designed to  provide for the highest sensitivity achievable.  
Suspicious samples are forwarded to the National B SE Reference Laboratory for confirmatory testing 
using an OIE officially recognized testing method fo r BSE.  The financial reimbursements offered to 
producers have resulted in a very high  level of cooperation in ensuring all high risk animals are tested.  
From December 2003 to March 2005,  only two additional cases of BSE had been detected in old 
animals. 
7. The representative of Canada recalled that in  early February 2005, Canada had notified 
proposed amendments to its BSE Import Prohibiti on Order currently regulating imports from the 
United States.  A draft comprehensive import polic y for BSE that would apply to imports from all 
countries would be notified soon. 
8. He further stressed the profound disappointment  of his government when the USDA rule 
"BSE : Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of Commodities" published in January 2005, under 
which Canada was correctly assessed as a minimal risk region for BSE, was prevented from being 
implemented by a US District Court injunction.  Canada urged the US health authorities to resolve this issue in an expeditious manner. 
BSE in the United States 
 
9. The representative of the United States provide d information on actions that the US food 
safety and animal health agencies had taken to stre ngthen consumer confidence in the safety of US 
beef products. The United States had started to address BSE issues prior to the detection of a single case of BSE, in December 2003, when a ruminant-to -ruminant feed ban was implemented in 1995.  In 
2002, the United States had conducted a risk asses sment which documented that necessary and 
sufficient controls were in place to ensure that should BSE be detected in the United States, the 
spreading of the disease would be efficiently circumscribed. 
10. In December 2003, a single case of BSE was detected in Washington State from a cow of 
Canadian origin.  In January 2004, the US Secretary of Agriculture appointed an international panel of 
scientific experts to review the risk of BSE in th e United States and implemented additional safeguard 
measures (G/SPS/N/USA/844).  Following the reco mmendations of the international panel, a 
comprehensive, scientifically based BSE surveilla nce programme was implemented in June 2004 to 
test as many high risk animals as possible.  As of 6 March 2005, over 263,000 high-risk animals have 
been tested and all tests have proven negative.  The United States determined that if 268,500 high-risk animals were tested, the plan would be able to de tect the presence of as few as five targeted, high-risk 
cattle with BSE at a 99 per cent confidence level. 
11. On 14 July 2004, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an interim final rule on the 
use of materials derived from cattle in human food and cosmetics, aimed at minimizing human exposure to materials likely to contain the BSE agent (G/SPS/N/USA/933).  The same day, the FDA 
proposed another rule on record keeping require ments for human food and cosmetics manufactured 
from or containing material from cattle (G/SPS/N/USA/934). 
12. In January 2005, the United States published a final rule establishing science-based criteria 
for recognizing geographic regions presenting minimu m risk of introducing BSE into the United 
States and providing risk mitigation measures.  Un der that final rule, Canada was designated as a 
minimal risk region for BSE.  In January 2005, fo llowing the report of tw o additional cases of BSE in 
Canada, a technical team from the United States i nvestigated the efficacy of Canada's ruminant-to-
ruminant feed ban and found that Canada's feed ban was efficient in reducing the risk of transmission  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
of BSE.  On 2 March 2005, the minimum risk rule  was challenged in a US federal court one week 
prior to its implementation and was therefore suspended.  
13. The representative of the European Communiti es underlined that the European Communities 
had not changed its policy towards imports of beef products from either the United States or Canada 
as a consequence of the BSE cases, as the European  Communities recognized that the most important 
risk management measures had been taken.  Howeve r, Canadian and US risk management measures 
were less comprehensive than those of the Europ ean Communities, as had been described during the 
workshop held the previous day.  The Eu ropean Communities hoped that once Canada's 
comprehensive import policy for BSE was implemente d, EC exports of beef products to Canada 
would recommence.  Similarly, when the US minimu m risk rule entered into  force, the European 
Communities should be recognized as a minimum risk  region.  He further urged all other third 
countries to adopt a more science-based appro ach towards import measures for beef products. 
EC traceability requirements for third countries  
14. The representative of the Eur opean Communities recalled that  at the SPS Committee meeting 
of October 2004 , information had been provided on the traceability provisions as laid down under the 
General Food Law Regulation of 2002.  A documen t had been distributed through WTO on this 
specific issue in February 2005 (G/SPS/GEN/539). 
III. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
(a) New Issues 
EC food and feed hygiene rules 
15. The representative of Canada sought clarifications from the European Communities on the 
requirements that would apply to third countries when  the new food and feed hygiene rules come into 
force on 1 January 2006 (Regulations 852/2004, 85 3/2004 and 854/2004).  Canada was specifically 
concerned about traceability and record keeping fo r bulk commodities, registration of all food 
establishments (production, processing and distribution)  and animal welfare.  He further invited the 
European Communities to solicit comments from th ird countries sufficiently in advance of the 
implementation date so that the comments coul d be incorporated into the final measures. 
16. The representative of the United States asked how the proposed requirement that all food 
imports be produced under an "HACCP-based" system would be implemented and questioned whether an HACCP-like food safety system would have  to be applied for lower-risk foods such as 
confections and snack foods.  He also questioned if all foods exported to the European Communities 
would have to be accompanied by a government-issu ed health certificate.  He encouraged the 
European Communities to provide more formal expl anations of the nature and scope of the rules 
applying to exporting countries in the near future. 
17. The representative of Jamaica agreed with Cana da and United States on the need for further 
clarifications from the European Communities;  Jamaica was expecting significant difficulties in 
meeting these requirements.  
18. The representative of the European Communiti es recalled that a document clarifying the 
traceability provisions of the new body of legisl ation had been circulated in February 2005 
(G/SPS/GEN/539).  This document clearly explained that the traceability provisions were not extraterritorial and that the essential aim of the re gulation was that each link in the chain of supply 
could be identified in the event of product recalls.  It was not the intention to use this new hygiene 
legislation to address the issue of animal welfar e as, which the European  Communities considered 
should not be mixed up with food safety concerns.  The requirement for an "HACCP-based" food G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
system would vary according to the risk posed by  the food.  Bilateral discussions with the US 
authorities on the issue of establishment' registratio n were continuing.  A seminar open to all third 
countries would be held in Brussels, most likely in June 2005, to fully explain the consequences of the 
entry into force of the food and feed hygiene rules.  At that o ccasion, comprehensive documentation 
and guidelines would be provided on how th e regulation would apply in practice. 
Japan's amendment protocol on MRLs for pesticides, veterinary drugs and feed additives 
19. The representative of China reported that the issu e of Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and 
Welfare amendment to the maximum residue limits (M RLs) for pesticides, veterinary drugs and feed 
additives had been discussed in a bilateral meeting.   Although the measure had not yet been notified 
to the SPS Committee, Japan had sought the opinion of the relevant departments and business 
communities of China on the proposed amendment in  2004.  China was concerned that the proposed 
adoption of a single standard limit of 0.1ppm for the cl ose to 700 types of pesticides, veterinary drugs 
and feed additives for which no specific residue limit  had been established would jeopardize Chinese 
exports of vegetables to Japan.  Although China resp ected the right of Japan to protect public health, it 
expected that in doing so Japan would, as specified  in the SPS Agreement, assess the possible impact 
of such an amendment on exports to Japan, pr ovide opportunities to discu ss the results of this 
assessment and consider solutions to minimize its impact.  China also expected that Japan would 
provide the science-based risk assessment that had led to the amendment of the MRLs.  Should there 
be any notification in the future on this issue, Japan should provide a comment period of at least 60 
days as of the date of distribution and extend this  upon request.  The representative of China further 
requested that, when specifying th e time for the formal implementation of the proposed amendment, 
Japan provide an adequate adaptation period in acco rdance with the decision at the Doha ministerial 
meeting.  Finally, the representative of China sought  clarifications on the Japanese detection method 
for residues. 
20. The representative of the Philippines supported Ch ina's concerns on this issue and requested 
relevant information from Japan in order to assess the possible implications of this proposed 
amendment on the Philippines' exports to Japan. 
21. The representative of Japan clarified that th e Japan's new positive list system, based on the 
revised Food Sanitation Law, was aimed at regul ating the distribution of foods that contained 
agricultural chemicals, veterinary drugs and feed additives for which no MRLs had yet been 
established.  Before the positive list system would ente r into force, the Ministry of Health, Labour and 
Welfare would review the compliance of its pr ovisional MRLs with the Codex Alimentarius 
standards.  China's concerns on comment and im plementation periods would be reported to the 
relevant Japanese authorities.  
EC directives on residual pesticide tole rance and inspection methods for tea 
22. The representative of China recalled that in Ju ly 2001, the European Communities had issued 
a directive on residual pesticide tolerance and insp ection methods for tea in which the EC maximum 
residue limits (MRLs) for seven types of pesticides were higher than those of the Codex standards.  
When previously discussing that issue bilaterally, China had requested, unsuccessfully, to be provided 
with the scientific evidence and risk assessment justifying these MRLs.  The representative of China 
also urged the European Communities to apply its  detection method for residues on diluted tea as 
opposed to dry tea leaves, in whic h pesticide level were much higher, as the imported of dry tea 
leaves were mainly destined to be consumed as diluted drinks. 
23. The representative of India supported the points raised by China and observed that India had 
already raised this issue bilaterally with the Eu ropean Communities on previous occasions.  India was 
concerned that tea was being singled out for rigi d residual limits while other competing products 
consumed in larger quantities in Eu ropean Communities were not affected.  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
24. The representative of the European Communities clarified that the current regulation on 
MRLs for pesticides was a combination of EC and member States MRLs.  The European Communities was in the process of adopting a new regulation on MRLs for pesticides in all food and 
feedstuffs that would harmonize all EC member stat es' national legislation a nd would likely enter into 
force in mid 2006.  The EC inspection methods fo r tea were based on the existing Codex methods.  
Should any Member wish to change the Codex methods  to provide for testing of liquid tea instead of 
the dry leaves, they would have to provide Codex with the scientific  evidence supporting that request.  
He recalled that this issued had already been di scussed bilaterally with China and in 2001 China had 
been invited to submit an example of the Chin ese methodology to set MRLs for liquid tea.  The 
European Communities was willing to pursue discu ssions on this issue at a bilateral meeting 
scheduled to take place shortly in Beijing.  In rela tion to India's concern, there was no intention to 
discriminate against tea in relation with any other beverages.  He recalled that at the October SPS 
Committee meeting, several Members had argued that  the EC regulation on Ocratoxin A in coffee 
was discriminating against coffee in favour of other beverages.  
Panama's inspection regime 
25. The representative of the United States stated that Panama had broadened its establishment 
inspection requirements to most food processing estab lishments in January 2 005, without notifying 
the WTO and providing interested Members an opportunity to comment.  This was in contradiction with Article 7 and Annex B of th e SPS Agreement.  In addition, Panama had not provided any risk 
assessment that supported these new measures, desp ite formal requests by the United States,.  In 
accordance with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, the risk assessment should describe the factors 
considered, the procedures used and the level of ri sk determined to be acceptable, and the measures 
based on this risk assessment should be no more tr ade restrictive than required to achieve the 
appropriate level of health protection.  
26. The representative of Canada recalled that Canada  also had experienced problems in the past 
with the establishment-by-establishment accreditation approach used by Panama.  He urged Panama 
to consider the quicker and less expensive alternative approach of systems approval. 
27. The representative of Panama pointed out that this was the first time, since the 
implementation of Panama's inspec tion regime for the inspection of food establishments in1995, that 
an issue in relation with this system had been rais ed within the WTO.  This regime had been notified 
to the SPS Committee and Member provided an opportunity to comment on it (G/SPS/N/PAN/1, G/SPS/N/PAN/28 and G/SPS/N/PAN/37).  Panama's legi slation required that imports of animals and 
animal products from countries affected by exotic illn esses be subject to a risk analysis carried out by 
the Panamanian health authorities because Panama, as a hub for world tr ade transit, was exposed to a 
greater risk of illness from exotic animals and plants.  
Guatemala's restrictions on imports of chicken meat 
Guatemala's restrictions on the transit of avocados 
28. The representative of Mexico recalled that his country had raised two concerns on 
Guatemala's restrictions on imports, one on chicken m eat and one regarding the transit of avocados.  
Important progress had been made recently by Guatemala in trying to find solutions to both problems, and Mexico would continue to monitor the issues bilaterally and in the context of the Regional 
Organization for Agricultural Health (OIRSA). 
29. The representative of Guatemala confirmed Guat emala's willingness to continue working on 
these issues with Mexico.  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
Japan's restrictions on beef  imports  
30. The Ambassador of the United States emphasized the United States' extraordinary concerns 
regarding Japan's continuing restrictions on US beef  based on the detection, in December 2003, of a 
single case of BSE in an imported cow.  She recalled the United States' ongoing cooperation with 
Japan, over the past 14 months, to resolve all scientific and health concerns about the safety of US 
beef.,  The October 2004 bilateral agreement on a fra mework to allow the resumption of US beef 
exports to Japan  required the United States to provide all the scientific information requested by 
Japan and to allow access for Japan ese technical officials to US facilities.  Effective firewalls had 
been in place for many years to prevent the establis hment and spread of BSE within the United States, 
that in response to the single case of BSE, the United States had implemented several additional 
regulatory measures to further strengthen existin g safeguards, had completed a comprehensive 
epidemiological investigation and taken many other actions described in para graphs 10 to 14 above, 
and given that there had been no indigenous cases of   BSE reported, there was sufficient scientific 
evidence for Japan to immediately remove restricti ons on US beef and beef products. . She concluded 
by strongly encouraging Japan to act i mmediately to remove these restrictions.  
31. The representative of Japan indicat ed that the BSE issue was a challenge equally shared by 
exporters and importers.  Despite these difficulties,  Japan had addressed the US beef issue as one of 
the most important policy agenda items for the Jap anese government.  He recalled that in October 
2004, Japan and the United States had agreed on a fra mework to resume the two-way trade in beef, 
subject to their respective domestic approval processes including deliberation by their food safety commissions.  The Japanese food safety commission, an independent risk assessment entity, was now 
conducting this risk assessment on domestic BSE me asures and after its completion, based on the 
conclusions of the assessment, risk management entities would assess the risk of US beef  imports.  
Greece's inspection and testing procedures for imported wheat 
32. The representative of Canada emphasized his c ountry’s concerns regarding Greece's new 
inspection and testing requirements  for imports of grains from third countries.  These were introduced 
in August 2004 and exceeded existing EC require ments by requiring the testing of 100% of 
shipments.  Greece had provided no scientific rationa le to justify the introduction of these measures 
and Canada considered the Greek measures to be inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.  These 
measures had already created significant costs and l ong delays for imports of Canadian wheat, thus 
jeopardizing Canada's access to the Greek market.  Canada's concerns had already been, unsuccessfully, expressed on numerous occasions to both Greek and EC officials, including at 
technical level, and he urged Greece to review these requirements without further delay.  
33. The representative of the European Communities stated that the Commission had been in 
extensive bilateral contacts with both Canadian and Gr eek authorities in an effort to find a solution.  
Greece was in the process of adjusting three major as pects of the ministerial decision with the aim of 
bringing its measure into full compliance with th e SPS Agreement.  In particular, Greek authorities 
were considering the repeal of the provisions establishing additional quality criteria, the re-
establishment of the normal EC requirements with regards to testing, sampling and inspection procedures and the removing of any provisions that might be viewed as discriminatory against imported products.  
Australia's restrictions on imports of fresh grapes 
34. The representative of Chile recalled that concer ns regarding the undue delays experienced by 
Chilean exporters of fresh grapes for the approval of their exports to Australia had already been raised 
at the October 2004 meeting of the Committee.  These delays were contrary to the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement, notably Article 5.4 and Annex C.  This concern dated back to 1998, when the 
Chilean Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG)  had requested the Australian Department of  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry  (AFFA) to carry out studies in order to establish requirements for 
the exports of Chilean fresh grapes and other fresh food to Australia.  Since 1998, the request had gone through various stages, but the worse occurre d in 2004 when, due to the restructuring of the 
Biosecurity Australia agency responsible for the a pproval of the import risk analyses (IRAs), the IRA 
for Chilean fresh grapes was revised.  In February  2005, the draft text of the new IRA for Chilean 
fresh grapes was published and subjected to a 45-day consultation period.  The representative of Chile 
underlined Chile's serious concerns that this IRA would not be finalized in time for  the October 
export period for Chilean fresh grapes. 
35. The representative of the European Communities supported Chile's concerns recalling that the 
European Communities was facing similar problems fo r various food products.  He urged Australia to 
ensure that its sanitary and phytosanitary me asures were taken exclusively for sanitary and 
phytosanitary reasons and without undue delays.  
36. The representative of Australia clarified that, in October 2004, the Australian government had 
announced that Biosecurity Australia would become a prescribed agency to give it a greater degree of 
independence from the operations of the Australian G overnment Department of Agriculture, Fisheries 
and Forestry.  Subsequently, all draft IRAs, in cluding the one on Chilean fresh grapes, would be 
reviewed and reissued by Biosecurity Australia.  Biosecurity Australia had become a prescribed 
agency in December 2004 and shortly after had review ed and reissued several of the draft IRAs.  Two 
of these IRAs (G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.1 and G/SPS/ N/AUS/153/Add.1) had recently been released 
for public comments, while the revised draft IR A on importation of fresh grapes from Chile was 
currently available for public co mments on Biosecurity Australia's website and in the process of being 
notified to the SPS Committee.  
United States restrictions on Ya pears imports 
37. The representative of China reported that, at th e end of 2003, the United States Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had suspended imports of Ya pears from China on the grounds that new species of the fungus Alternaria sp . had been found in the Chinese pears.  The 
Chinese Government had undertaken cooperative st udies with their United States counterparts and 
finally obtained a result satisfactory to both Chin ese and US specialists.  However, US authorities had 
not yet made any decision based on the above re sults and imports of pears from China were still 
suspended. 
38. The representative of the Europ ean Communities noted that  the European Communities was 
also experiencing lengthy  decision-making procedur es when trying to export some plant products to 
the United States, and he invited the United States to  review its internal administrative procedures. 
39. The representative of the United States clarified that imports of Ya pears from China were 
suspended in December 2003 due to rep eated detections of the exotic fungus Alternaria sp .and that 
imports of these pears had already been suspended in previous years for a similar problem. I In May 
2004, the Chinese authorities had been provided with  a document describing the status of this 
organism as a pest of quarantine significance and th e United States had been working closely with the 
Chinese authorities to develop conditions that w ould allow the reopening of the market while 
providing appropriate plant protection for the Unite d States.  After several bilateral discussions, 
agreement had been reached in November 2004 on a work plan stipulating that Chinese scientists 
would cooperate with US scientis ts to develop possible measures to mitigate the fungus.  A protocol 
had bee agreed in December 2004 to enable a test sh ipment of Ya pears to be imported for research 
purposes into the United States to evaluate the va rious mitigation measures..  Unfortunately, the 
collaborative research showed that even with all th e mitigation measures in place, the infestation rate 
still significantly exceeded the one specified in the work plan of November 2004.  Alternaria sp . was 
a newly identified species not known to exist in th e United States, and a better understanding of this 
organism was necessary to develop appropriate  mitigation measures.  The United States was G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
committed to continue its collaborative efforts with China to identify measures that could reduce the 
level of infestation to an acceptable leve l so that the market might be reopened. 
EC plant health directive 
40. The representative of the United States indicated that, although he appreciated that the aims of 
the new EC plant health Directive 2000/29/EC, as amended, and Regula tion 1756/2004, were to 
harmonize criteria within the European Communitie s and to reduce phytosanitary inspection levels, 
under these new rules it appeared that the inspectio n rates would significantly increase in relation to 
previous years.  The United States questioned the vali dity of such an increase in controls given that it 
had been exporting substantial volumes of fresh products to the European Communities for many 
years with no reported interceptions of harmful orga nisms.  The increase in inspections was likely to 
disrupt trade by slowing the release of products to  importers, thus increasing the potential for spoilage 
and damage   The United States was also seeking clarification on how EC member States had provided the data on imported consignments and inspections , as required under Regulation 
1756/2004. 
41. The representative of the Europ ean Communities clarified that the overall purpose of the new 
Regulation was to reduce the level of phytosanitary controls on imports of certain plants, plants 
products and other objects listed in part B of A nnex V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC.  However, 
there would be a period of adjustment in moving towards this new system during which controls 
would likely increase.  A bilateral meeting had been  scheduled the previous day in Brussels with 
representatives of the US industry to discuss the imp act of the legislation and EC authorities were  
making as quick a transition as possible to the new system of controls, taking into account the past 
record of  US fresh produce exports.  
Thailand's Regulation 11 
42. The representative of the United States observed that, in response to extensive comments on 
Thailand's Ministry of Public Health Regulation N° 11, notified as G/SPS/N/THA/116, Thailand had delayed its implementation from December 2004  to March 2005, but had not addressed the 
substantive issues raised by the United States.  Ma ny US fresh food products had been categorized in 
that Regulation as high risk with no scientific basis.  As a result, burdensome and costly testing and certification of compliance with pathogen requireme nts, and pesticides and heavy metals residue 
levels were now required for US exports to en ter the market.  He urged Thailand to suspend 
implementation of the Regulation until a science-based  risk assessment for each product affected had 
been conducted.  The date of entry into force of the Regulation was only a few weeks away, and US 
exporters were not prepared to meet these requi rements. Significant trade disruption and losses were 
likely. 
43. The representative of New Zealand also  expressed concerns about the testing and 
certification requirements of Regulation 11 and stat ed that the Regulation was inconsistent with 
Articles 2.2, 2.3., 3.3, and  5, and paragraph 5 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement.  She requested 
Thailand to further delay the entry into force of the regulation in order to  substantially amend it . 
44. The representative of Thailand indicated that  he would convey the US and New Zealand 
concerns to the relevant Thai authorities.  The Regul ation was part of a national strategic plan on food 
aimed at strengthening control measures for the safet y and quality of Thai food from farm to table or 
export markets.  The Regulation was not  intended to discriminate against imports in relation with 
domestic food products.   G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
Bolivia's slaughter of imported breeding cattle 
45. The representative of Mexico stated that Bolivia had slaughtered a number of Mexican cows 
in 2004 on the grounds that Mexico was a high-risk count ry for BSE.  Mexico considered this to be in 
breach of Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5, 6 and Annex C of th e SPS Agreement.  BSE was classified as an exotic 
illness in Mexico and had been included in both the immediate reporting list and, since 1994, in the 
programme for the training and dissemination of in formation regarding exotic illnesses of the United 
States-Mexican Commission for the Prevention of FMD and other exotic illnesses of Animals (CPA).  At the end of 1996, the Mexican animal health authorities had implemented an epidemiological 
surveillance programme for BSE, based on the OIE recommendations, aimed at controlling the 
occurrence of BSE in the country and preventing its entry into the country even though Mexico had 
prohibited the import of animals and animal produc ts from countries affected by BSE since 1991.  
Under that programme, each region of the country ha d a coordinator, reporting to the CPA,  who was 
responsible for the training and monitori ng of the personnel in slaughter houses. 
46. The representative of Mexico also clarified that Mexico had in place a National Animal 
Health Emergency Mechanism (DINESA) to  respon d to any potential outbreak of BSE and a plan 
had been elaborated by the CPA to eradicate BSE as quickly as possible.  He recalled the free from 
BSE status of his country and concluded that  the issue with Bolivia had been resolved. 
47. The representative of Bolivia clarified that the Mexican cattle had been  exported to Bolivia 
for an agricultural fair and had arrived at Bolivia's airport without the relevant animal health permit.  
As a result, the Bolivian health authorities had require d the re-exportation or the disposal of the cattle.  
Following a reasonable period of time during which the Mexican authorities had not reacted, the cattle 
had been slaughtered.  
(b) Issues previously raised 
Indonesia - FMD restrictions 
48. The representative of Argentina recalled that the issue of Indonesia's unjustified restrictions 
on meat from Argentina had been raised in the Committee since October 2001.  He considered the 
requirements imposed by Indonesia to be inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 3.3 of the SPS 
Agreement.  Indonesia required that bovine pro ducts come from areas free from FMD for the past 
twelve months, and where vaccination had not been  carried out in the pr evious three consecutive 
years in accordance.  Not only did these requirements exceed the provisions of the Terrestrial Animal 
Health Code of the OIE, but they were even less justified now that Argentin a had recovered its status 
of free from FMD with vaccination in the region north of latitude 42°.  The representative of 
Argentina requested Indonesia to take the relevant ac tions to bring its national legislation in line with 
the recommendations of the OIE or else present a risk  assessment that justifies their requirements. 
49. The representative of Indonesia noted that he w ould transmit the concerns of Argentina to the 
capital so that the appropriate officials could r espond as soon as possible.  However his understanding 
was that Indonesia had submitted a protocol for th e  approval and inspection for export of meat 
products from Argentina  and was  waiting for the response from Argentina. 
Panama – FMD restrictions 
50. The representative of Argentina recalled that at  the October 2004 meeting he had reported a 
bilateral agreement whereby officials from Panama would carry out a visit to establish the safety of 
Argentina's milk products.  Panama and Argentina had agreed that this visit would be carried out as 
soon as possible so that the trade of these products c ould be permitted.  However, despite the fact that 
Argentina reiterated an invitation last month, the visit has not taken place and Argentina dairy 
products continued to be  to unjus tly prevented from entering Panama.  Argentina considered that the G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 10  
 
requirements imposed by Panama were inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.  .  The representative of 
Argentina asked Panama to take the measures requ ired to make that visit possible as quickly as 
possible so that trade in milk products coul d be re-established in accordance with the 
recommendations of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the OIE. 
51. The representative of Panama took note of the gr eat efforts deployed by Argentina to control 
FMD with vaccinations.  Panama permitted imports of  agricultural products if the country of origin 
showed objectively that its sanitary measures guarant eed the same level of protection as the sanitary 
measures established in the regulations  of Panama.  The legislation in Panama required that imports of 
animal products from countries effected by exotic illn esses be preceded by a ri sk analysis undertaken 
by the Panamanian authorities, based on the methodologies recommended by the international 
organizations of which Panama was a member.   The inspection of establishments in the exporting 
country was part of the process to determine the san itary and phytosanitary situation of the country.  
Panama would be pleased if the Argentine authoriti es developed a plan of actions so that Panama 
could carry out the visits in Argentina. 
Certain Members - Regionalization and recognition of animal disease free status 
52. The representative of the European Communities ag ain drew attention to the fact that some 
WTO Members continued to apply unjustified restri ctions on EC exports of animal products due to 
FMD.  The whole EC territory was officially free of FMD yet some WTO Members failed to recognize this disease free status.  No new outbreaks of  FMD were recorded in the territory of the 
European Communities since 2002 and FMD was under c ontrol and completely eradicated.  The  ban 
was even further unjustified in the case of. Austria,  which had last experienced an FMD outbreak in 
1981, nearly 25 years ago.  Still there were some WTO Members which refuse d to recognize this EC 
member State as free from FMD. resulting in a comple te ban on imports of an imal products from this 
country.  The representative of the European  Communities urged all Members to respect the 
obligations of the SPS Agreement with regard to r ecognition of disease-free status and to remove all 
unjustified import restrictions. 
Certain Members - Regionalization and recognition of animal disease free status 
53. The representative of the European Comm unities expressed concern that some WTO 
Members seemed to simply ignore the provisions on regionalization of the SPS Agreement.  The 
European Communities recognized regionalization of  several WTO member who themselves refused 
to recognize regionalization in the European Comm unities.  The European Communities was in the 
position to demonstrate to importing WTO Member s which regions of the European Communities 
could safely export live pigs, pork meat and pork me at products and which regions could not.  Spain 
was officially free from classical swine fever since Ju ly 2002, according to international standards.  
However some WTO Members continued to apply a ban on imports of pork meat products from this 
EC member State.  
54. The representative of the Europ ean Communities emphasized that according to Article 2 of 
the SPS Agreement, there was no scientific justifi cation to ban imports of  products from a country 
where a disease did not exist.  He urged all Memb ers to respect the obliga tions of the SPS Agreement 
with regard to the recognition of disease free status for classical swine fever and to remove all related 
unjustified import restrictions on live pigs, pork me at and pork meat products not only from Spain but 
from all other EC member States free of the disease.. 
Venezuela – Restrictions on imports of potatoes,  onions, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and meat 
products 
55. The representative of Canada reiterated its long- standing concerns about discretionary import 
licensing being used by the sanitary and phytosanitary  authorities of Venezuela to restrict imports of  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
potatoes, onions and pork from Canada.  However, th ere had recently been two substantive meetings 
with a senior delegation from Caracas and Canada expressed the hope that they would be able to 
report that this issue was successfully be  resolved before the next meeting. 
56. The representative of the United States shared Canada's concerns regarding Venezuela's 
restrictive import licensing and SPS permit regimes,  which also restricted US exports.  The United 
States was specifically raised concerned about:  (1 ) Venezuela's use of SPS permits to enforce quotas 
based on economic rather than scientific justifications ;  (2) the lack of transparency and the apparent 
inconsistency of the import license import permit approval process which resulted in significant 
delays in the issuance of some permits and licences compared to others and which arbitrarily reduced 
the quantity approved for import compared to the re quested amount;  and (3) Venezuela's insistence 
on requiring importers and the users of impor ted products to purchase domestically produced 
commodities in order to gain approval or permission to import.  The United States encouraged Venezuela to renew the bilateral discussions on these issues so that an acceptable resolution could be 
reached. 
57. The representative of Venezuela confirmed that th ey had fruitful consu ltations with Canada  
were hoping to have a satisfactory resolution to this issue in the nearer future.  The results of their 
efforts to resolve this problem and address the conc ern of the United States would be presented at the 
next committee meeting. 
United States - Import restrictions on potted plants from the European Communities 
58. The representative of the European Communiti es reiterated concerns that for more than 
20 years this sector has attempted to obtain better conditions for access to the US market.  Numerous 
bilateral contacts had been devel oped between the EC member States and the US health authorities.  
The most recent visit in May 2003 resulted in a US assessment that EC member States had very high 
SPS standards and were expected to meet US requi rements.  However, the continuing difficulties are 
exemplified by the case of a Danish request for approval to export Schlumbergera to the United 
States.  The initial request for approval was submitted  ten years ago;  the US pest risk assessment 
became available only in June 2004.  The repr esentative of the European Communities urged the 
United States to review its internal administrative procedures in the phytosanita ry field to ensure these 
do not create unjustified trade restriction. 
59. The representative of China shared the concerns  of the European Communities.  In 1980, 
China started to export potted plants in growing media to the United States, and experienced problems 
similar to those of the European  Communities.  For example in 1996 China signed a work plan for 
exporting plants in growing media to the United St ates.  To date, China cannot export to the United 
States, and hoped that this issue c ould be solved without undue delay. 
60. The representative of the United States recogni zed the importance of this issue to the 
European Communities.  The United States has taken a number of steps to ensure that the concerns 
were handled as expeditiously as possible.  The United States was examining how and whether its 
import regulations for nursery stock, including plan ts in growing media, might be changed.  An 
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, had been published in December 2004, and the representative of the United States encouraged all Members to provide comments on that proposal.  
The proposal sought to streamline the specific process questioned by both the European Communities and China.  The United States hoped to publish a pr oposed rule for Schlumbergera from the European 
Communities in the nearer future. 
Japan – Official control restrictions on c itrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables 
61. The representative of New Zealand reiterated concerns that Japan's quarantine systems and 
procedures were not fully in conformity with inte rnational norms and practices.  Specifically, Japan G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 12  
 
applied quarantine measures to pests that were already present in Japan and not under "official 
control" as defined by the IPPC.  New Zealand we lcomed Japan's announcemen t of expanding its non 
quarantine pest list through the addition of 46 pests,  especially as this list included a number of pests 
of specific concern to New Zealand.  New Zeal and encouraged Japan to implement these proposed 
changes in full as soon as its domestic regulator y procedures allowed, and in a manner that 
significantly addressed their concerns.  The representa tive of New Zealand also requested information 
on Japan's proposed timetable for carrying out risk  assessments on other pests of concern to New 
Zealand with a view to their inclusion on Japan's  non-quarantine pest list as soon as practicable.  New 
Zealand appreciated the constructive approach that Japan had shown in seeking to address this issue 
since it was first raised in the Committee. 
62. The representative of the United States shared the concerns of New Zealand that Japan's 
systems and procedures needed to be further mo dified to conform to international norms and 
practices.  The United States was encouraged by  Japan's recent proposals to amend its report 
requirements to provide non quarantine status to several pests currently subject to fumigation and 
hoped to see these changes implemented as soon as possible. 
63. The representative of the European Communiti es expressed similar appreciation for Japan's 
efforts to revise its plant quarantine process so as no t to restrict trade.  The European Communities 
had been also badly affected by Japan's legal requirement for fumigation for non-quarantine pests – 
pests which were present in Japan and not subject to official control. 
64. The representative of Japan pointed out th at his Government had notified the draft 
amendment of the ordinance modifying non- quarantine pest lists in December 2004 
(G/SPS/N/JPN/132).  Comments from Members had been accepted for 60 days between 4 January 
and 4 March 2005.  Under the internal procedur es of Japan, comments were  collected through the 
procedure of public comments between 27 Decem ber 2004 and 25 February 2005 and a public 
hearing meeting was held on 23 February 2005.  These comments were presently under examination 
by the plant quarantine authorities of Japan and it would take approximately one month to amend the 
relevant regulations, if approve d.  The second measure, which w as under consideration, would be 
taken as soon as the relevant work on th e pest risk analyses were completed. 
European Communities – Deviation from international standard for wood packing material 
65. The representative of the United States we lcomed the European Council's vote on 
28 February to delay the debarking requirement contained in Directive 2004/102/EC until 1 March 
2006.  The issue of debarking was considered during the development of ISPM 15 and it was 
determined during those discussions that the ava ilable scientific evidence did not justify requiring 
debarking.  The representative of the United St ates looked forward to working with their EC 
colleagues to develop a science-based resolution of this issue during this one year delay. 
66. The representative of Canada pointed out that no  technical justification existed today for a 
debarking requirement.  Canada a ppreciated the extension until March next year by the European 
Communities.  The representative of Canada hoped th at if a debarking requirement should be found 
necessary it could be done on a multilateral basis within the context of ISPM 15.  Once an 
international standard was developed by the a ppropriate body, if various countries implemented 
different variations of that standard, this undermined  the purpose and intent of the standard.  It created 
considerable challenges for both importers and exporters, particularly those from developing 
countries.  
67. The representative of the Philippines also  welcomed the EC postponement of the 
implementation of such a requirement.  The Philippin es noted that debarking should not be imposed if 
the wood packaging was already on the market or certified to have undergone  the approved treatment 
according to ISPM 15, since this would have been  addressed the phytosanitary concerns associated  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
with wood bark.  The Philippin es asked the European Communities to take the developments in 
international standard settings on this issue into account when they decided whether or not they 
implement their current legislation.  The repr esentative of the Dominican Republic asked the 
European Communities for clarification of this extended period. 
68. The representative of the European Communiti es emphasized that they had acted in full 
compliance with their international obligations in th is particular case.  The problem related to what 
extent ISPM 15 permitted debarking.  The Europ ean Communities had a very good disease status with 
respect to certain nematodes commonly found in wood packaging material else where in the world.  
Notwithstanding the views of EC member States that  this was a valid measure, the Commission, in 
light of protests from many third countries, took a decision to postpone the measure for one year.  The 
Council of Ministers supported the Commission's deci sion to postpone the measure.  Essentially, the 
risk management process overruled the risk assess ment process.  The European Communities now 
had a year to see how matters developed but the issue might arise again. 
India – Non-notification of various SPS measures 
69. The representative of the United States again e xpressed its concern regarding India's actions 
to meet its transparency obliga tions under the SPS Agreement.  D espite the request of the United 
States, India has implemented SPS measures without notifications to the WTO.  This practice led to trade disruptions.  The SPS Agreement obligated Me mbers to notify any new import requirement that 
may have an effect to trade.  In particular, th e Indian Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairy 
implemented import conditions on dairy and pet food products that were imposed during the latter 
part of 2003.  To date these measures had not been  notified.  Such practice continued to raise 
uncertainty among US exporters without any enhancement of food safety.  The United States 
requested that India suspend the implementation of these measures on dairy products and pet food 
until WTO notification was made and a reasonable time was provided to Members for their review 
and comment.  The representative of the European Communities shared the concerns of the United 
States and urged India to comply with the obligations of Article 7. 
70. The representative of India stated that they ha d notified their import regulations to WTO from 
time to time.  However, there had not been clarity  regarding the need to notify sanitary conditions 
related to imports. Since this had been clarified,  India would now take the necessary steps to notify 
such conditions as early as possible. 
Korea – Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing 
71. The representative of the United States reiterated concerns regarding Korea's proposed annual 
MRL test for the presence of 196 agricultural chem icals, which affects imported grains, fruits and 
vegetables (G/SPS/N/KOR/123).  In the initial proposal , the costs of such tests to importers were 
estimated to be between US$1,000- 2,000 per test.  Korea has since proposed exemption from mandatory laboratory inspection for imported food with a clean record.  However, the proposed 
exemption has not been included in the final revised  regulation.  Korea also reduced the number of 
chemicals subject to mandatory laboratory inspec tions from 196 to 47, and the fee for testing to 
approximately US$500.  But the proposed fee is still twice as large as that initially proposed by the 
Korean Food and Drug Administration in Octobe r 2003.  Furthermore, the fee for mandatory 
laboratory inspection remains as a barrier to new products.  Domestic producers are exempt from the 
mandatory testing requirements but they are subj ect to random tests.  However, the Korean 
Government bears all the costs for these tests.  Th e United States has had bilateral consultations with 
Korea for nearly two years, and further consultations are scheduled. 
72. The representatives of the European Communities and of the Philippines shared the concerns 
of the United States.  The representative of the Ph ilippines indicated that the requirements would be G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 14  
 
particularly burdensome for developing countries, and asked Korea to take special consideration of 
developing countries exporters. 
73. The representative of Korea noted that the revi sed regulation to implement this measure will 
come into effect this year.  The proposed testing fee was reviewed following a public hearing process.  
Some interested groups expressed the view that the proposed testing fee would not be enough to 
compensate the cost of the necessary testing for fo od safety.  Korea carefully reviewed the various 
opinions which were presented during the public hearing.   On this basis, Korea decided on the level of 
the testing fee.  That level is two times higher th an the proposed one, yet about one fourth the level 
initially proposed.  Korea has a cost compensation sy stem and the level of the testing fee must cover 
the actual cost for testing.  If necessary, the testing fee would be adjusted in the future. 
European Communities – Restrictions on the use of fishmeal  
74. The representative of Norway reiterated con cerns regarding the European Communities 
prohibition on the use of fishmeal in ruminant feed  due to BSE concerns.  The OIE had confirmed that 
there was no scientific evidence to support the vi ew that fish or fishmeal could transmit or 
disseminate the disease, however th e European Communities imposed th e ban to protect from failures 
in its own implementation of rules on animal feed .  A diagnostic method with the necessary sensibility 
was now available, but the safeguard measures were still in place.  The restrictions on the use of 
fishmeal had negative consequences on trade, were not based on scientific evidence and were more 
restrictive than necessary.  Norway requested in formation from the European Communities as to the 
future of the imposed safeguard measures. 
75. The representative of Iceland supported the stat ement made by Norway.  The decision to ban 
the use of fishmeal in feed for ruminants was introdu ced because of fear of cross contamination and of 
fraud in the blending process.  Appropriate t echnology was now available that met all the 
requirements of microscopic identification and estimati on of constituents of animal origin in feed.  It 
was now possible to detect whether animal protei n was present in feed containing fishmeal.  The 
representative of Iceland urged the European Commun ities to reconsider the current ban and to allow 
the use of fishmeal in feed for ruminants. 
76. The representative of Peru asked the European Communities to take into consideration the 
damage this measure caused to developing countries su ch as Peru.  Fish meal was one of Peru's main 
export products.  Chile also shared the concerns of Norway, Iceland and Peru. 
77. The representative of the European Communiti es noted that the Commission had always 
accepted that there was not a scientific  basis to this measure.  It was introduced as a control measure 
to prevent fraud and cross contamination.  Howe ver it had not had serious consequences on trade.  
The measure was modified to allow for continued use of fishmeal for poultry and pigs.  The ban was only applied to feed for ruminants which was only about three per cent of the market.  While the countries concerned had lost one market, they had managed to secure the market for pig and poultry 
feed.  The Commission had researched the test wh ich allowed discrimination between protein of 
mammalian origin and protein of fish origin in meal .  That test removed the main technical scientific 
barrier to the lifting of the measure;  however , it remained very sensitive.  The European 
Communities had succeeded in restoring consumer confidence in the safety of beef.  European 
Consumers did not think that cattle ate fishmeal and the Commission was c oncerned about reopening 
that particular dimension of the dossier.  The representative of the European Communities  hoped to 
be able to report progress in the next Committee meeting.  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
(c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received 
Japan's laws on Safety Insurance and Quality Improvement of Feed and Standards for Feed and Feed 
Additives (G/SPS/N/JPN/128)  
78. The representative of China raised concerns that  Japan's revision of standards for Astaxanthin 
lacked scientific justification.  China was not awar e of any evidence of harmful effects and asked if 
Japan had found Astaxanthin harmful to fish at certain levels.   
79. The representative of Japan stated that sci entific data was insufficient and that no 
international standards had been established so far.   Some Members had regulations to restrict the 
maximum dose of Astaxanthin to be administered to finfish.  Therefore, as a provisional measure, 
Japan had set an upper limit for Astaxanthin, wh ich was added to feeds, based on SPS measures 
applied by other Members.  Japan had taken in to account the technical and economical feasibility 
when deciding the upper limit.  Japan was willing to reconsider its regulation when new international 
standards or scientific evidence on this issue were presented. 
(d) Information on Resolution of Issues 
80. The Secretariat explained that document G/SPS/ GEN/204/Rev.5 was now separated into four 
parts.  Each part was a separate Word document, which facilitated searching through the text.  Part I 
was the overview that provided a number of summar y tables and charts.  Part II contained all the 
issues which had either been raised for the first time in 2004 or have been previously raised or 
previously raised and further discussed in 2004, including where resolution had been reported in 
2004.  Part III contained issues that were not di scussed in the meetings of 2004 and for which no 
resolution had yet been reported.  Part IV contained those issues where a resolution was reported prior 
to 2004. 
Japan – Restrictions on imports of mangoes 
81. The representative of Brazil informed the Committee that on 29 September 2004, Japan 
modified its phytosanitary regulations and establis hed specific norms for the import of mangoes from 
Brazil.  In December 2004, Japan ese inspectors went to Brazil to  examine packing houses.  On 
12 January 2005, the first shipment of Brazilian mangoes was exported to Japan, which marked the 
beginning of a regular flow of exports of mango es to Japan.  To date, eight shipments of mangoes 
(variety Tommy Atkins) had been exported without restrictions. 
82. The representative of Japan noted that the m easure was taken through the appropriate pest 
risk assessment process based on technical data submitted by Brazil.  He thanked the Brazilian 
authorities for their efforts to resolv e this issue in a technical manner. 
China – Measures on US poultry  
83. The representative of the United States recalled that, in the past, China had not recognized 
regionalization with respect to avian influenza, wh ich had adversely affected US poultry exports to 
China.  Since the last committee meeting in Octobe r, China had taken actions and the issue had been 
resolved. 
Korea – Septoria controls  on horticultural products 
84. The representative of the United States reported that this issue had been resolved.  The 
representative of Korea noted that a satisfactory solution had been found in technical meetings. G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 16  
 
IV. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS 
85. The Chairman drew Members' attention to the documents circulated by the Secretariat to 
enhance transparency within the context of the SPS Agreement.  These included the most recent list of 
National Notification Authorities contained in G/SPS/NNA/8 and G/SPS/NNA/8/Add.1, the most recent list of National Enquiry Points contai ned in G/SPS/ENQ/18 and G/SPS/ENQ/18/Add.1, an 
update of Members' implementation of th e transparency provisions contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.13 and notifications received since the last meeting of the SPS Committee 
summarized, on a monthly basis, in G/SPS/GEN/532, G/SPS/GEN/534, G/SPS/GEN/536, G/SPS/GEN/541 and G/SPS/GEN/541/Corr.1. 
86. The Secretariat reported on the status of its development of a database of SPS documents.  
The database would contain information on notifica tions, specific trade concerns, enquiry points and 
national notification authorities, dispute settleme nt reports, technical assistance activities and 
membership in international standard-setting organizat ions.  Funds had been allocated specifically for 
the development of the database, in collaboration w ith the FAO International Portal on Food Safety 
and Animal and Plant Health, the Secretariat had developed a technical specification document.  A 
consultant would work with the SPS staff and with  the WTO information technology group to create 
the structure of the database and the user interface.  This first stage would take several months;  the 
next step was to explore ways to efficiently en ter the necessary documents and information into the 
database. 
87. The Secretariat expressed appreciation to the FAO staff who had assisted with some of the 
concept and planning of this doc ument management system. The project in the first phase would be 
for internal use by the Secretariat.  The intention was to make the database available for Members' use 
in a second phase, due to the amount of documents to be handled and security concerns. 
88. The representative of Malaysia drew attention to Members' interest in the development of this 
database.  Members needed to be kept informed about  the developments so that they would be able to 
fully use the database when available. 
89. The Secretariat encouraged Members to submit their notifications and any documents to be 
circulated to the Secretariat by e-mail since this facilitated the pr ocessing of notifications and other 
submissions. 
90. The representative of Kazakhstan submitted an  information document on its implementation 
of the transparency requirements of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/N/GEN/544). 
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
(a) Chairman's report on the informal meeting 
91. The Chairperson reported that the Committee had held a very positive and pragmatic 
discussion on special and differential treatment  (S&D), with broad-based and constructive 
participation.  Three items were discussed during th e meeting:  (1) the Secretariat's background  paper 
(G/SPS/GEN/543);  (2) the proposals on special a nd differential treatment referred to the SPS 
Committee by the General Council and; (3) Member s' experience under the procedure to enhance 
transparency of special and differential treatment in favour of developing country Members, adopted 
by the Committee in October 2004 (G/SPS/33). 
Background Document G/SPS/GEN/543
 
92. The Secretariat had presented the background docu ment as a basis for  discussion of the S&D 
proposals.  The first part of the document reproduced  the various proposals for ease of reference.  The  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
second part provided a summary of the main points made in previous discussions of these proposals in various meetings of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD).  The third part of the document provided information on va rious developments with respect to technical assistance and 
S&D-related projects undertaken by the WTO Secretar iat, Members and other relevant international 
organizations.  These developments addressed, in pa rt, some of the concerns raised in the S&D 
proposals. 
Proposals referred by the General Council
 
93. The Chairperson had given a brief report on enga ging and useful informal consultations he 
had held on the proposals on S&D treatment since the la st meeting. In this regard, he had noted  that 
all Members showed a desire to focus on a su ccessful, results-oriented outcome, although there 
appeared to be an expectations gap.  
94. A number of Members had shared the view that the most effective way to address the 
concerns underlying the proposals was to enable de veloping and least developed country Members to 
fully make use of the existing provisions of the SPS Agreement rather than to modify the text of the 
Agreement.  While others had agreed that modificat ions of the text of the Agreement should only be 
considered if absolutely necessary, they had stres sed the mandate from Doha to ensure that the S&D 
provisions were made precise, effective and operationa l.  It had been suggested, therefore, that the 
focus of the Committee should be on the development of  clarifications, guidelines or interpretations as 
needed to ensure the implementation of the S&D provisions.  
95. One Member had noted that some of the S&D proposals seemed to assume that SPS measures 
were introduced by other Members with the objective of restricting trade, whereas these measures 
were, as required by the SPS Agreement, taken only wh en needed to protect hea lth.  In this context, 
some of the proposals were untenable.  For example,  paragraph (d) of the African Group's proposal on 
Article 9.2 implied that before putting any SPS measure in place, a Member would have to assess the potential impact of the measure on a very large num ber of possible suppliers.  Should even one such 
assessment be adverse, the Member would not be  able to implement the measure until the least 
prepared supplier would be able to comply w ith the new measure.  This would result in an 
unacceptable delay of perhaps several years before  implementing an SPS measure needed for health 
protection.   
96. A Member had questioned the ability to assess the impact of SPS measures on other 
Members, in particular on those Members that had not yet established an enquiry point.  This example 
showed the need to assist developing and least de veloped country Members to fully comply with 
current provisions of the SPS Agreement for their ow n benefit as well as that of their trading partners. 
97. Another Member had noted that many develope d Members already conducted internal impact 
assessments of potential effects on domestic producers, so it was only a question of expanding the scope of these assessments.  Furthermore, the S&D proposals should not be considered on a "take it or 
leave it" basis, but rather as inputs for discussion.  Although the second part of paragraph (d) of the 
African Group proposal on Article 9.2 might be difficu lt to implement, the first part was feasible if the 
impact assessments included only major suppliers.  
98. One Member had been of the view that the re quest for an impact assessment stemmed from a 
perception of a lack of transparency, although the existing notification process provided an efficient 
way of becoming informed of new SPS measures bei ng considered and for an exchange of comments 
on specific measures prior to their implementation.  Members' basic obligation to notify an enquiry 
point and a national notification au thority constituted tools for a useful and necessary information 
flow.  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 18  
 
99. Another Member had underlined the importan ce for developing countries to develop the 
capacity to incorporate international standards in to their domestic regulatory practices, which would 
facilitate compliance with the SPS requirements of trading partners. 
100. Several Members had shared the view that, as existing S&D provisions were not fully used 
and as the Committee had no information on how Members were implementing the Agreement's 
provisions on S&D, the Committee should establish a mechanism to monitor the implementation of 
the S&D provisions.  Several Members had also obs erved that the procedure in G/SPS/33 provided a 
first step  to document the implementati on of the S&D provisions of the Agreement. 
101. Several Members had given conc rete examples of how they currently operationalized the 
S&D and technical assistance provisions of the Agreem ent.  It was suggested that both the multilateral 
route (e.g., the STDF;  modes within the World Bank study on the challenges and opportunities for 
developing country exports posed by SPS standards)  and the bilateral route of specific technical 
assistance projects, were valid options to addr ess the underlying concerns in these proposals 
102. The Secretariat had noted that there appeared  to be no disagreement that Members had a 
sovereign right to take measures they considered ne cessary for the protection of health.  Furthermore, 
there was widespread understanding of the fact th at many developing country and least-developed 
country Members found it difficult to benefit from the provisions of the SPS Agreement and faced difficulties in meeting the SPS requirements of othe r Members.  This was often due to lack of 
resources, including of sufficiently trained personne l and of technology, a nd lack of knowledge of 
how to obtain specifically targeted technical assistance.  The Secretariat had identified some questions 
the Committee might need to address in order to  make further progress on the proposals.  These 
questions included how to ensure that Members sy stematically took account of developing countries' 
needs;  how these needs could be properly identif ied and by whom;  and how a developing country 
Member could identify the specific technical assistance it might need to meet a new requirement.  Other issues the Committee might address included how developing and least  developed countries 
could make the best use of technical assistance alr eady available and how to make technical assistance 
more effective.  
103. Some Members had called for developed country  Members to be creative and put counter-
proposals on the table. 
104. The Chair had concluded that the discussion in the informal meeting had been pragmatic and 
helpful.  He had noted that he might need to cons ult with Members prior to the June meeting of the 
Committee in order to advance this issue sufficien tly for the Committee to provide  the requested  
recommendations to the General Council at its meeting on 27-28 June 2005. 
Members' experience under the new G/SPS/33 procedure
 
 105. The representative of the European Communities had noted that the recent addendum to its 
notification on the implementation of its ne w procedures for wood packaging materials 
(G/SPS/N/EEC/221/Add.3) included, in part, special a nd differential treatment due  to concerns raised 
by developing country Members.  However, because many of the comments had been received at a late stage in the development of this regulation,  it had been very difficult to take them into 
consideration.  Members were encouraged to ensu re that they submit their comments in a timely 
manner, when a proposed measure was initially notified.  
(b) Issues related to Special and Differential Treatment 
106. In the discussion following the Chairman's repor t of the informal meeting, the representative 
of India stressed that developing countries did not  question the right of Members to maintain SPS 
measures aimed at achieving an appropriate level of  protection for plant, animal and human health.  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
The proposals were submitted in a positive spirit, to enable developing country Members to 
implement the provisions of the SPS Agreement by co mplying fully with its provisions.  There could 
no denying that SPS measures, while aimed at en suring food safety, plant and animal health 
protection, impinged on market access opportunities of Members. The problem became especially 
acute when measures were frequently modified, constraining export opportunities of developing 
country Members.  The proposals, therefore, intended to ensure a commitment from developed 
country Members to extend S&D treatment and tec hnical assistance to developing countries so as to 
enable them to meet the SPS requirements without being handicapped in their export efforts.  While 
India noted the efforts being made by some de veloped country Members to provide technical 
assistance and S&D treatment in the SPS area, th e multilateral obligations in the SPS Agreement 
remained best endeavour clauses.  This was the ge nesis of the Doha mandate on S&D treatment and 
the proposals by some Members. 
107. The background document (G/SPS/GEN/543) helped  Members recollect the state of play on 
this issue. First, as reported, a number of Members expressed the view that it was necessary to make S&D provisions more effective, user friendly and prof itable.  It was clear that a number of Members, 
who were not proponents of the specific propo sals, recognized the necessity for making SPS 
provisions in favour of developing countries mo re precise, effective and operational.  The 
representative of India stressed that the whole Co mmittee, the whole WTO membership, party to the 
Doha mandate, were the proponents, although so me Members had facilitated the work towards 
implementing the Doha mandate by coming out with specific proposals. Therefore, India requested all 
Members, and especially developed country Members, to come forward with specific comments on 
the proposals made by some Members or put forward their own proposals with a view to addressing 
the Doha mandate as reiterated in the July Framework decision.   
108. The representative of India further stated his disagreement with comments by some Members 
that making some provisions mandatory would not serve the purpose. Making best-endeavour 
provisions mandatory would go a long way in ad dressing a number of concerns.  Although everyone 
could agree on the need to increase the use of th e existing provisions, this had little meaning for 
provisions that were only best endeavour in nature. 
109. With regard to the concern raised by some Members that making provisions mandatory would 
imply that a Member’s right to implement scientifically justified SPS measures would become conditional and not automatic as  provided in the SPS Agreement, the representative of India observed 
the tendency of certain Members to go ahead with the implementation of measures that were not  
backed by risk analysis and a reasonable level of ri sk.  A scientific basis had to be supplemented with 
a reasonable or appropriate level of risk for a me asure to be compatible with the SPS Agreement.  
Many of the barriers faced by developing countr ies resulted from some Members implementing  
measures which were either not based on scientific  evidence or, when based  on scientific evidence, 
sought to achieve an unreasonable level of protection.   The ability of certain Members to raise their 
standards higher because of their own higher level of economic and scientific development limited 
exports from developing countries.  
110. The representative of India proposed that the Committee respond with urgency to the Doha 
mandate on S&D operationalization and to the specifi c request by the General Council to meet the 
deadline set in the Framework Agreement.  Rather than making general statements on the S&D issue, 
Members should suggest specific amendments to th e specific proposals put forward or table specific 
proposals of their own.  The representative  of Cuba supported India's declaration. 
111. The representative of Canada noted that his understanding of the African Group's proposal for 
Article 9.2 differed from India.  His understanding  of that proposal was that if all Members who 
import did not provide technical assistance to each and every developing count ry Member interested 
in exporting to that country, then it must immediat ely and unconditionally with draw the measure.  It 
was recalled that such measures were to be put in place to protect human, animal and/or plant life and G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 20  
 
health.  If it did not do so, that importing Member , including developing country Members, would be 
required to compensate all deve loping exporting country Members for any loss resulting directly or 
indirectly from the measure.  The representative of Canada had similar preoccupations with the 
African Group's proposal for Article 10.1.  Constr uctive discussions like those which took place in the 
informal meeting provided a more practical and effective means to move forward. 
112. The representative of the United States agreed with  the statement of Canada.  Proposals such as 
that of the African Group on Article 9.2 would create a significant conflict with Article 2.1 of the SPS Agreement.  The Doha mandate set out important obj ectives and activities for the Committee, and to a 
certain extent it represented a turning point.  The representative of the United States observed that some of the proposals dated back as far as the Seattle Ministerial, and it  might be helpful to reconsider some 
of these very early proposals in the light of Do ha and more recent ad vances on this matter. 
VI. EQUIVALENCE  (ARTICLE 4) 
113. The representative of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX) highlighted the work 
undertaken last December by the Codex Co mmittee on Food Import and Export Inspection and 
Certification Systems (CCFICs).  The CCFICs had reviewed the proposed draft appendices to the 
guidelines on the judgement of equivalence and prio ritized three objectives.  These were:  (i) the 
determination of the specific documentation to be submitted for the evaluation as part of the request 
for equivalence determination;  (ii) the determina tion of what could be considered as an "objective 
basis for comparison" for sanitary measures;  and (iii) the elaboration of details on the process of 
judging equivalence. 
VII. PEST AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS (ARTICLE 6) 
(a) Report of informal meeting 
114. The Chairperson reported that at the informal meeting on the clarification of Article 6 the 
Committee’s discussions had centred around the pr oposals submitted by Chile (G/SPS/W/171) and 
Australia (G/SPS/W/172). 
115. The representative of Chile had proposed that the SPS Committee develop administrative 
guidelines and suggested four actions to further discu ssions while at same time providing mechanisms 
to implement Article 6.  These actions were to invite Members to respond to the Chairperson's 
previously circulated questions as a basis for di scussions; that the Committee await the result of 
discussions in the IPPC (7
th IPCM meeting) and OIE (73rd  General Session) before further discussing 
the development of guidelines;  the development of a notification format for Members to indicate 
when recognition of pest- and disease-free areas was provided;  and the inclusion of a standing agenda 
item for Committee meetings with two additional sub- items on regionalization.  Chile was of the view 
that the last two actions could be implemented immediately. 
116. The representative of Australia had proposed that the Committee seek clarification from the 
IPPC and OIE by submitting specific questions to these organizations to be taken up in their 
respective meetings in April and in May.  Th e responses from these organizations, plus the 
discussions in the proposed June workshop, could assist the Committee in its deliberations on the 
implementation of Article 6. 
117. Members had indicated broad support for the tw o proposals and suggested that a practical 
solution was to be found in the combination of the two proposals.  However, several issues were 
highlighted during the discussions.  These included the frustrations and impatience of Members with 
the practical difficulties in implementing Article 6;  divergent views over the issue of administrative 
guidelines and criteria; and concerns about the resp ective roles of the international standard-setting 
bodies and the SPS Committee.  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
118. A number of Members had proposed that the Committee work on the elaboration of general 
administrative guidelines, without details about timef rames and procedures.  Members needed further 
clarification on Article 6 for its practical implem entation.  The Committee c ould proceed to establish 
general guidelines to trade-related issues while th e IPPC and OIE focused on the technical issues. 
119. Some Members had supported the proposal to submit questions to the IPPC and OIE as their 
responses would help the Committee to determine ga ps and overlaps in the work of the Committee 
and in the work of these organizations.  Those areas  not covered by these organizations, particularly 
the trade-related aspects, should be taken up by th e work of the Committee.  Members had reiterated 
their agreement that duplication of work in th e Committee and in these organizations should be 
avoided. 
120. Several Members had considered that the Committee should await the responses from the 
IPPC and OIE to the Committee's questions be fore proceeding to de velop guidelines.  The 
contributions from the IPPC and OIE could assist to better design any guidelines the Committee might 
decide to develop.  One Member had observed th at while the problems that Members experienced 
with the implementation of Article 6 appeared to be  trade-related, the root of the problem was often 
related to plant or animal health.  Another Member  had noted that the OIE and IPPC have different 
approaches in dealing with regionalization and th erefore it would be difficult for the Committee to 
develop prescriptive guidelines. 
121. One Member had noted that as the SPS Agreem ent allowed Members to set standards higher 
than those set by international standard-setting or ganizations, the Committee should proceed with the 
establishment of administrative guidelines. 
122. Another Member had suggested that the Chairper son's questions plus the inclusion of this 
issue on the agenda of the Committee meetings woul d be a preliminary step to addressing this issue 
which could eventually lead to establishing more sp ecific guidelines.  It was clear that there were 
divergent views on the specificity of the administrative guidelines and on the sequencing of work in this Committee and in the intern ational standard-setting bodies. 
123. The Chairperson had proposed that:  (1) the Co mmittee submit specific questions to the IPPC 
and OIE based on those in the Australian proposal, in time for consideration at their respective 
upcoming meetings;  (2) Members be encouraged to respond to the Chairperson's questions;  (3) the 
issue of regionalization be included as a standing  agenda item for Committee meetings;  and (4) a 
workshop be organized in June to discuss the issues  in more depth.  The Chairperson had proposed 
that a draft work programme, and of the questions to  be submitted to the IPPC and OIE, be circulated 
for consideration at the regular meeting of the Committee. 
124. The Chairperson reported that Members were in  broad agreement with the proposal, but some 
were concerned that the Committee continue to address the issue of establishing general 
administrative guidelines.  It was suggested that the Secretariat  assist in drafting these guidelines. 
125. At the informal meeting, the OIE had explained that regionalization (zoning and 
compartmentalization) was an integral part of the wo rk of the OIE, and was considered with respect to 
each particular disease, depending on the biology of the disease.  The Terrestrial Animal Code 
Commission had also drafted a revised chapter on the principles of zoning and compartmentalization.  This revision incorporated the suggestions of the SPS Committee and was proposed for adoption at 
the next General Session in May 2005.  The OIE was amenable to further addressing the Committee's 
concerns at the General Session.  The OIE w as also working to harmonize its approach on 
regionalization with that of the IPPC, and this issu e would be discussed at its next General Session. 
126. The representative of the IPPC had reported th at the ICPM had taken further steps in 
considering the issue of regionalization, as outlined  in G/SPS/GEN/529.  This issue was on the agenda G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 22  
 
for the next ICPM meeting, 4-11 April 2005.  Th e ICPM had not yet considered the issue of 
administrative timeframes and recognition of pest-free areas but if the Commission agreed, an open-ended working group would be established to consider  this matter.  The OIE and SPS Secretariat were 
invited to attend the April meeting.  The SPS Committee was invited to submit questions for clarification at the next ICPM meeting but should  note the meeting was only a few weeks away.  The 
next ICPM Session would decide further actions  and the follow-up work programme.  The IPPC 
would report on its discussion on regionaliza tion at the SPS Committee meeting in June. 
Official OIE Recognition of Disease-Free Status
 
 127. At the informal meeting, the representative of  the OIE had described the OIE procedures for 
official recognition of member countries' health stat us with respect to four diseases: foot and mouth 
disease (FMD), rinderpest, contagious bovi ne pleuropneumonia and bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE).  Applicant countries had to de monstrate their compliance with all the relevant 
provision of the Terrestrial Code and Manual with respect to the disease for which free status was sought, either of the whole country, or for a zone or compartment within the country.  The OIE could 
make available the dossiers of the applicant country, which coul d permit WTO Members to decide 
whether to accept the OIE official recognition of the status of any particular zone.  Although the OIE 
relied extensively on documentati on provided by the member country seeking official recognition, the 
OIE also considered unofficial sources of information.  An ad hoc  group established by the Scientific 
Commission usually questioned representatives from th e applicant country.  Furthermore, the report 
of the Scientific Commission was circulated to a ll Member countries for a 60-day comment period.  It 
was possible that the application be rejected by the International Committee.  Once official 
recognition was given, the OIE considered this to be equivalent to an OIE standard.  However, a 
recognized member country was required to subm it information every year to document its 
maintenance of its disease-free status. 
(b) Discussion of the draft work program 
128. The representative of Paraguay stated that th e work programme proposed by the Chair failed 
to reflect some of the concerns expressed in the informal meeting.  Members' request that the 
Committee draft general guidelines on regionalizati on was not conditional on holding the proposed 
June workshop nor on any consu ltations with the international standard-setting organizations.  
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, C uba, Peru and Uruguay supported the view that the 
main purpose of a work programme was the elaboration of guidelines and it was for Members to 
discuss how general or how specific the guidelines should be.  They suggested that the Committee 
should begin work on general guidelines without delay.   
129. The representatives of Australia, Canada and  the United States indicated that they could 
accept a work programme which provided for the "possi ble" elaboration of general guidelines.  The 
United States remained firmly convinced that the international standa rd-setting bodies had the 
primary responsibility as well as the technical capac ity for developing guidelin es on regionalization.  
Furthermore, the international standard-setting bodi es had demonstrated their responsiveness to the 
concerns of the SPS Committee in the past.  The r esponsibility of the Committee would be to identify 
gaps or other problems for the international st andard-setting bodies to address as needed.  The 
representative of the United States expressed doubts th at the Committee could develop over-arching 
guidelines that would be of assistance to Member s over and above what the IPPC and OIE could 
provide.  Nevertheless, the United States was willin g to adopt the proposed work programme in the 
spirit of moving the issue forward.  The United Stat es also sought clarification on the types of issues 
that would be raised under the Specific Trade Concerns agenda item should regionalization be 
included as a standing item of the agenda of the Committee.    G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
130. The representative of Australia st ressed that any guidelines to be elaborated should be broad 
and general.  Although quick progr ess was being made in addressing the practical implementation of 
Article 6, Members needed time to consult with their capital. 
131. The representative of the European Communities noted that the Chairperson had previously 
invited Members to provide practical examples of regionalization as a way of progressing this issue.  
Members' submissions to date had not addressed practical issues.  She also sought clarification on 
what avenue to use when raising concerns over the lack of recognition of regionalization as there was 
already an Agenda item, Specific Trade Con cerns, accommodating these concerns.  Although the 
European Communities had no objections to the draf ting of general administrative guidelines by the 
SPS Committee, it was concerned that this not result in delays in achieving the practical 
implementation of Article 6.   
132. The representative of Japan stated that his country could accept the draft work programme 
with the proposed amendments but opposed the incl usion of working on specific time frames and 
guidelines.  The representative of Chile noted that  his government's suggestion that the Committee 
consider the inclusion of specific timeframes in  any guidelines had been put forward only as a 
possibility to be considered by the Committee, not as a definitive proposal. 
133. The representative of the OIE stated that some  of the issues raised in the draft work 
programme were addressed in the OIE's revised  chapter on zoning and compartmentalization as 
outlined in G/SPS/GEN/552.  The SPS Committee was i nvited to comment on the revised guidelines.  
Furthermore, the OIE published on its website the official recognition of Member’s animal health 
status as well as information on regionalization and zoning with regards to Member's animal health 
status of various diseases. 
134. The representative of the IPPC stated that the ICPM would meet on 4-7 April 2005 and would 
address some of the concerns expressed by the SPS Committee. 
135. The Chairperson remarked that Members' di vergent views on whether the Committee should 
develop guidelines on the implementation of Arti cle 6 had been apparent since the previous 
Committee meetings.  He had proposed a work prog ramme with the hope that this would allow the 
Committee to make some progress relating to the im plementation of Article 6 while leaving open the 
issue regarding eventual guidelin es.  However the Chairperson conc luded that there was no consensus 
in the Committee to adopt the draft work programme.   
VIII.  UNDUE DELAYS 
136. The representative of Uruguay drew attenti on to documents G/SPS/W/160 and G/SPS/W/169 
which outlined Uruguay's frustrations and concerns over delays experienced by their agricultural 
exporters due to excessively slow decision ma king, exaggerated inform ation requirements and 
bureaucratic and non-transparent administrative pr ocedures.  These actions created uncertainty and 
potential economic harm.  The lack of specificity in the SPS Agreement, as well as the absence of 
relevant international guidelines with  regards to these issues, meant th at the only recourse available to 
affected Members was the WTO dispute resolution pro cedure.  In order to create more predictability 
and legal certainty in the trading environment,  Uruguay proposed that the SPS Committee discuss 
"undue delays" in the context of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the SPS Agreement.  Following the 
Committee's discussions, the international stand-setti ng bodies could be requested to develop specific 
relevant guidelines. 
137. Many Members expressed support for Uruguay's proposals.  The representative of Chile noted 
that the issue of undue delays was a cross-cutti ng issue affecting all operational aspects of the SPS 
Agreement.  The United States suggested that di scussions on undue delays would be enhanced if 
Members gave practical examples of the delays they have encountered with respect to Articles 4, 5, 6 G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 24  
 
and 8.  Several Members supporte d the suggestion of Canada that  discussion of undue delays be 
included in the work programme emanating from the Review.  
138. The representative of India commented that "reasonable period of time" must first be defined 
and that this was to be determined on a case -by-case basis.  Furthermore, undue demands for 
information should also be addressed by the Committee. 
IX. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
139. The Secretariat reported that since last Octobe r, the Secretariat had provided training for 
regional workshops in Bangladesh and Singapore and a national workshop in Tonga.  There were six 
regional activities scheduled for 2 005, and national activities planne d for Chinese Taipei, India and 
Lesotho.  In addition, a new initiative financed by  the STDF and in collaboration with the OIE would 
address the problem of high turn-over of staff within governments as this also affected the work of the 
standard-setting organizations.  The first part of the project was to produce a training pack for new 
delegates and provide additional training within th e regional workshops.  Members, interested in 
holding a national workshop, were reminded to communicate their request to the Director of 
Technical Cooperation. 
140. The Secretariat also reported that the STDF was coordinating its activities with the Joint 
Technical Assistance Program (JITAP) to carry out  a programme to strengthen reference centres and 
national enquiry points in sixteen African countries as well as conducting a training of trainers course.  
In addition, the United Nations Industrial Deve lopment Organization (UNIDO) and the WTO had 
formed a strategic partnership for the purpose of  implementing the Doha Development Agenda and 
ensuring that developing and least-developed countries we re integrated into world trade.   An update 
of the activities undertaken by the two organizations was described in document JOB (05)/28. 
141. The Secretariat drew attention to document G/SPS/GEN/545.  The integrated framework (IF) 
was a process that aimed to provide a coordinated response to technical assistance activities for LDCs.  The Diagnostic Trade Integration Study (DTIS) w as one of a four-part process of the IF and its 
purpose was to identify constraints to traders in sectors of greatest export potential.  The document 
described where SPS issues have risen within the DTIS of selected countries, but it was not an 
exhaustive identification of SPS needs.  The Secret ariat was working with the World Bank and its 
STDF partners to address identified needs. 
142. The Secretariat also gave an update on the STD F.  With regards to financing, Denmark, 
France, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom had contributed to the STDF budget, and donations 
were pledged by Canada.  Document G/SPS/GEN/ 523 provided information on the projects that had 
been supported by the STDF.  The next deadline for receiving proposals for STDF projects was 1 July 2005.   
143. The Secretariat reported that the WTO Training Institute would offer a specialized trade 
policy course on the SPS Agreement from 31 October to 11 November 2005 in Spanish.  It was the 
intention of the Secretariat to subsequently o ffer this course also in English and in French. 
144. The Chairperson noted that 67 Members had not  notified the WTO of any changes to their 
SPS regulations and that 104 Members had notified 10 or less notifications since 1995.  He asked 
what types of technical assistance was availabl e from the WTO to facilitate the establishment of 
enquiry points in Members.  The Secretariat obser ved that the issue of transparency was covered 
systematically in the technical assistance activities provided by the S ecretariat.  Between the period 
1995-2004, the Secretariat had undertaken 36 regi onal workshops and 34 national workshops on the 
SPS Agreement, including transparency.  General tr aining on notifications were provided by other  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
divisions as well.  In addition, a  project was being funded by JITAP and STDF on model methodologies for national SPS enquiry points to improve coordination between government 
departments as well as the Codex, OIE and IPPC national contact points.  
145. The representative of Pakistan asked how success of a particular technical assistance activity 
was measured.  The Secretariat replied that a pe rformance evaluation form (PEF) was completed by 
participants at the end of every  activity.  Howe ver, for the longer term impact, it was incumbent on 
the participants themselves to apply the acquire d knowledge.  The specialized SPS course would try 
to address this issue by requiring participants to develop a project that they could implement upon 
their return to their countries. 
(b) Information from Members 
146. The representative of the European Communiti es reported on its upcoming training course on 
aflatoxins for developing countries.  Problems with c ontaminants, particularly aflatoxins continued to 
occur frequently, adversely affecti ng international trade.  To assist developing countries improve their 
food safety standards and thereby facilitate interna tional trade and improve their export capacity, the 
European Communities had organized a training course on 3-12 May 2005 in the United Kingdom.  
The course was designed for laboratory specialists, and training on the EC legislation as well as on 
advanced laboratory skills would be provided.  The European Communities ha d also recently sent two 
EC experts to Bolivia to audit the Bolivian system of certification for exports of Brazil nuts to the European Communities, and to provide technical  advice to help Bolivia comply with the SPS 
measures in their export markets. 
147. The representative of Jamaica reported on th e regional workshop on the SPS Agreement held 
in Kingston, Jamaica, on 16-18 February and on th e IPPC workshop on the practical application of 
ISPM 15 held in Vancouver, Cana da, 28 February to 4 March.  The SPS workshop was organized by 
the WTO, the Inter-American Development Bank Ins titute for the Integration of Latin America and 
the Caribbean, CARICOM and the Jamaican Ministries of Agriculture and Foreign Affairs.  Sixty  
participants attended from 14 Caribbean countries.   Representatives from the Caribbean Regional 
Organization for Standards and Quality, the FAO, OIE,  Codex, IPPC and IICA also participated.  The 
workshop covered the main areas of the SPS Agre ement in the form of presentations, general 
discussions, group work and case studies.  One of  the recommendations emerging from the workshop 
was the need for establishing MRLs for non-traditional crops, and participants we re urged to highlight 
this concern in the international arena.  Participan ts considered the workshop to be very informative 
and timely. 
148. The IPPC workshop aimed to: provide informa tion and guidance to national plant protection 
organizations (NPPOs) to implement ISPM 15;  faci litate the discussion and analysis of difficulties 
NPPOs faced in the implementation of the standard;  and build consensus on how implementation issues might be resolved in a consistent ma nner worldwide.  One hundred and seventy-five 
participants representing 85 national governments at tended the workshop.  Funding for the workshop 
was provided through the STDF, the Canadian Gove rnment and the packaging industry of several 
countries.  Presentations were made by representatives  of countries that had implemented ISPM 15 or 
were compliant with export requirements of countri es that had implemented ISPM 15, the IPPC and 
the wood packing industry.  Important linkages we re established between the various countries and 
industry representatives and the workshop was considered very useful and practical. 
149. The representative of New Zealand drew atten tion to document G/SPS/GEN/352/Rev.1 which 
provided updated information on New Zealand's technical assistance activities.  In particular, attention 
was drawn to the heat treatment facility in Tonga and the phytosanitary capacity building project in 
the Mekong region.  Phase 1 of the phytosanitary capacity building project in the Mekong region had funded the installation of nationa l phytosanitary databases as well as the establishment of national 
plant protection organizations in Cambodia,  Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.  NZAID was currently G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 26  
 
working on the design of Phase 2, which would focu s on developing SPS legislation in each country.  
The overall goal of the project was to enhance plant protection capacities in the Mekong region in 
order to reduce crop losses and poverty while promo ting trade and rural income generation.  NZAID 
was coordinating with AUSAID to design similar projects for other countries. 
150. The representative of China expressed appr eciation to the WTO, the United States and 
Australia for providing training to Chinese officials on SPS issues.  The Chinese Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs and ASEAN Secretariat had sponsored a tr aining course in Beijing on 4-14 December on pest 
risk analysis for 26 representatives from 9 ASEAN countries. 
151. The representative of Japan reported that 2,695 tr ainees in the field of agriculture, fisheries 
and forests were accepted from 115 countries duri ng 2003.  A further 569 Japanese experts were 
dispatched to 62 countries through the Japan Intern ational Co-operation Agency (JICA).  A seminar 
had also been conducted for administrative offi cers engaged in food sanitation in the ASEAN 
countries.  In addition, Japanese expertise was lent  to Thailand for the operation of heat treatment 
facilities and diagnostics of avian influenza.  Jap an was also collaborating with the FAO for the 
provision of emergency ground aid for the prevention of avian influenza.  Furthermore, Japan had 
made contributions to the OIE to conduct semina rs and training courses in Asia on BSE and other 
infectious diseases such as FMD.  
(c) Information from Observers 
152. The representative of the IPPC stated that t echnical co-operation was provided through the 
FAO plant protection project.  Most of the projects financed by FAO had a duration of 2 years and a budget up to US$400,000.  Currently, phytosanitary cap acity building projects were being provided to 
several countries, including projects on surveillan ce, containment and identification of phytosanitary 
options on certain types of fruit flies in several  African countries.  The IPPC was also assisting 
Bahrain in the execution of a unilateral trust fund for phytosanitary capacity building.  In addition, the 
IPPC had sponsored a workshop on the practical app lication of ISPM 15 in Vancouver.  A series of 
workshops to build capacities for countries to par ticipate in the information exchange program 
through the international phytosanitary portal were also being conducted.   
153. The representative of Codex reported on the FAO/WHO Trust Fund for enhanced 
participation in Codex, which w as launched in 2003 and became opera tional in April 2004.  The Trust 
Fund was intended to further the improvement of gl obal public health and food security by promoting 
the provision of accessibility to safe and adequately  nutritious food, and thereby contributing to the 
reduction of food-borne diseases.  This objective woul d be realised by helping regulators and food 
experts from developing countries participate in the international standard-setting work of Codex.  
During 2003-2005, the Trust Fund received a cont ribution of approximately US$2.7 million from 
donors.  Ninety participants representing 75 countries  benefited from the Trus t Fund in 2004.  As a 
follow up to this project, the FAO/WHO was planning to hold an informal meeting of both donor and 
beneficiary countries in conjunction with the 28
th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 
July 2005. 
154. The representative of the ITC recalled the distribution in 2004 of the joint 
ITC/Commonwealth Secretariat publication on Infl uencing and Meeting International Standards: 
Challenges for Developing Countries, Volume 1.  The second volume had be en published and would 
soon be distributed to WTO Geneva-based Missions  and the National SPS/TBT Enquiry Points of 
WTO Members.  In addition, a regional workshop on  the business implications of the SPS Agreement  
was organized for the private sector in Cairo unde r the World TradeNet program in 2004.  The ITC 
had also organized two EC-sponsored national wo rkshops on the significance of the SPS Agreement 
for businesses in Bangladesh.    G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
155. The ITC/Commonwealth Secretariat would also conduct a workshop on standards on 22-
23 June 2005 in Geneva.  The joint ITC/Commonwea lth publication would be used as a reference for 
the workshop.  The workshop intended to review a nd implement the recommendations outlined in the 
publication.  Participants from 24 countries would be invited along with officials from the Geneva-
based Missions of selected countries, internationa l standard-setting bodies, the WTO, UNCTAD, and 
the  World Bank.  The ITC would also participate in two regional workshops on the SPS Agreement  
organized by JITAP.  The first workshop would be held on 19-21 July in Zambia for English-speaking 
countries while the second workshop would be held  in November in Mali for French-speaking 
countries. 
156. The representative of the OIE noted that its technical assistance activities for 2004 and 2005 
were detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/550.  The OIE would continue to participate in the regional 
SPS workshops.  The STDF funded project on Train the Trainers would kick-off with a pilot workshop organised by the OIE for regional represent atives.  Furthermore, a joint OIE/IICA project 
funded by STDF on the development of a veterina ry capacity evaluation tool was underway in the 
Americas.   
157. The representative of IICA dr ew attention to document G/ SPS/GEN/549 which detailed 
IICA's technical assistance activities.  The SPS Init iative of the Americas was focused on greater 
national implementation of the SPS Agreement and gr eater participation in the SPS Committee.  The 
SPS Initiative would continue for 2005 but not as a perm anent source of financing but rather a bridge 
to help countries build long-term sustainability in  the implementation of the SPS Agreement.  IICA 
continued to provide assistance to the Codex Co mmittee for Latin America and the Caribbean and 
also provided support to the WTO regional SPS works hop held recently in Jamaica.  Furthermore, 
IICA would be providing technical assistance to  the WTO/SPS workshop which would be held in 
Central America, as well as assisting with the WT O's specialized course on the SPS Agreement.  
Specific courses held in the Caribbean region on  issues such as national quarantine, the SPS 
Agreement and on GAP were provided by the IICA. 
158. The representative of Canada encouraged recipi ent countries of technical assistance to make 
similar reports to the SPS Committee.  Recipient countries could report on whether or not the technical assistance activity provided to them fulfille d their expectations.  This would assist in better 
articulation of technical assistance needs and in mo re effective technical assistance being  provided. 
159. The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenad ines remarked that the IICA initiative and the 
SPS workshop held in Jamaica in February were of pr actical use to their officials.  As a result of the 
technical assistance, St. Vincent a nd the Grenadines were able to est ablish their national enquiry point 
and notification authority and had submitted their first SPS notification in January 2005. 
160. The representative of Peru commented that th e IICA initiative had permitted experts from his  
capital to effectively participate in the SPS Committ ee meetings.  The representative of Belize stated 
that the IICA initiative and the regional SPS workshop held in Jamaica had assisted Belize to better 
understand and implement the SPS Agreement.  The representative of Colombia reported that IICA 
initiative had been a catalyst in bringing together  the public and private sector to better address SPS 
issues.  As a result, a project proposal to improve  government policies related to SPS issues was soon 
to be approved by the World Bank.  The IICA in itiative had an impact in generating structural 
changes in the short and medium-term and strengthened SPS-related capacities. 
161. The representative of Panama suggested that it w ould be useful to have a list of donors as well 
as a list of recipient countries of technical assist ance.  The representative of Honduras suggested that 
recipient countries also indicate how many people we re trained over time.  The IICA initiative and the 
Codex Trust Fund had assisted Honduras to access e xport markets.  The representative of Ecuador 
supported Canada's suggestion that recipient c ountries report to the SPS Committee on the technical 
assistance received. G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 28  
 
162. The representatives of Paraguay, Antigua a nd Barbuda, Uruguay, Bolivia, Dominican 
Republic, Haiti and Venezuela commented on the eff ectiveness of the IICA initiative.  Antigua and 
Barbuda stated that a member of its SPS steer ing committee had attended the WTO/SPS workshop in 
Jamaica. 
163. The Chairperson remarked that in light of the previous discussions and information sessions 
on technical assistance activities, the Committee shoul d consider how it could ensure that future 
technical assistance activities were more effectiv e and efficient.  He encouraged Members to 
document their experiences and circulate this info rmation prior to the Committee meeting to ensure 
more fruitful discussions on this issue. 
X. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
(a) New Issues 
164. The representative of Mauritius drew the Comm ittee's attention to the problems small 
developing countries faced with the implementation of ISPM 15, particularly the heat treatment 
requirements for wood packing material for export.  Mauritius had already initiated a program for a 
heat treatment facility but required more time for th e full implementation of ISPM 15.  In this regard, 
Mauritius was seeking a 4 year moratorium for implementing the ISPM 15 guidelines from the IPPC 
and from those Members who had adopted the guidelin es.  Members were requested to give positive 
consideration to the use of phosphine fumigation treatment as an equivalent treatment during the 
interim period.  The European Communities' efforts to take into considera tion developing countries' 
concerns as reflected in G/SPS/N/EEC/221/Add3 w as welcomed and other Members were urged to 
show similar consideration. 
165. The representative of China highlighted problem s concerning the effectiveness of ISPM 15 in 
controlling pine wood nematode.  A study conducted by a Sino-Korean research group in March 2003 
on pine wood nematode disinfection by methyl bromide fumigation concluded that the nematode 
could not be effectively eradicated.  This study was presented to the IPPC in April 2003 and in 
November 2004 for the IPPC's consideration for ame ndment of the methyl bromide fumigation index.  
The representative of the IPPC commented that a te chnical  panel would be meeting during the week 
and would be considering the data  submitted by China.     
(b) Issues Previously Raised 
166. There were no issues raised under this agenda item. 
167. The Chairperson suggested that Members should make better use of the monitoring procedure 
when raising specific trade concerns that were relevant  to this agenda item.  The Secretariat stated that 
trade concerns raised under this agenda item or  in other business were reflected in G/SPS/GEN/204. 
XI. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
(a) Report of Informal Meeting 
168. The Chairperson reported that at the informal me eting on the review of the operation of the 
SPS Agreement, the Secretariat had presented docum ent G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1.  This revision of the 
background document included suggestions and issu es raised by Members that had broad agreement 
in the October 2004 Committee meeting.  In addition,  it included updated information through the end 
of 2004 on notifications and specific trade concerns.  Members had suggested that this document be 
further revised to include other issues raised in  the context of the Review and a proposed work 
programme for the Committee.  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
169. The Committee's informal discussions on the Re view had benefited from new submissions by 
the representatives of Argentina, Chile, China, and New Zealand.  In the discussion on transparency, 
several Members had stressed the time requirement s necessary to translate the texts of notified 
measures into non-official WTO languages, and recommended the comment period be extended.  
170. The Chairperson reported that Members had emphasized the importance of seeking 
mechanisms to improve implementation of the existi ng transparency obligations.  In this context, 
some Members were reluctant to support a r ecommendation that Members notify measures that 
complied with international standards.  However,  the representative of Canada had noted that 
notification of ISPM 15, while not officially re quired, provided essential information for trading 
partners seeking to avoid disruptions in trade.  The Secretariat had recalled that neither the OIE nor 
the IPPC had a mechanism to capture information about the national appli cation of international 
standards, and while the Codex had a notification mechanism, the mechanis m was not used.  Using 
the well-established and active SPS notification system to enhance transparency regarding the use of 
international standards could be an efficient option. 
171. The Secretariat had noted that previous modifications to make the notification format more 
specific had led to improvements in the quality of the information submitted on these forms.  The 
Committee might want to consider whether to include a box on the notification format that 
specifically indicated the comment period would be 60-days as of the date of circulation of the notification, and if not, request Members to identify whether a 60-day period was not provided because the notified measure was trade liberalizing.  
172. The representative of Mexico had observed that although the recommendations by the 
Committee on transparency did not establish legal obligations under the SPS Agreement, they 
nonetheless could be taken into considerati on in the context of dispute settlement. 
173. The representative of Canada had suggested that  clarification of the definition of measures 
and regulations to be notif ied could be addressed at the June meeting and included in the report of the 
Review, by reference to specific existing Committee recommendations on transparency as well as 
possible additional clarifications. 
174. In the discussion on Article 8 and Annex C, th e representative of the European Communities 
had drawn attention to the fact that the Europ ean Communities bore the high costs of undertaking 
inspections in third countries to verify comp liance with EC requirements, whereas many other 
Members charged the interested exporting Member fo r such inspections.  The new EC food and feed 
regulation included a provision by which third count ries could be charged for the costs of inspection 
by the European Communities.  The representative of the European Communities had suggested that 
the Committee discuss the possib ility of developing common pr actices in this regard.   
175. Commenting on the issue of enhanced use of th e good offices of the chair, the representative 
of Australia recalled that the DSB and the in ternational standard-setting bodies also included 
provisions to encourage conciliation and resolution of trade differences.   
176. The Chairperson further reported that several  Members had suggested that the Committee 
could, in the future, focus on clarifying the rela tionship among various articles of the Agreement, with 
priority placed on the examination of the relationshi p between Articles 2.1 and 5.6 relating to no more 
trade restrictive than necessary.  It was noted that the work of the Committee would benefit from 
specific submissions from Members regarding their experiences and concerns.   
177. Delegates had noted that by further clarifyi ng the relationship between the Committee and the 
international standards-setting bodies, the Committ ee could avoid duplication of effort in the 
development of its work programme.   G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 30  
 
178. Delegates did not discuss proposals on special and differential treatment or regionalization as 
informal meetings on these two topics were held th e following day.  With respect to other topics in 
G/SPS/GEN/510/Rev.1 not covered by the four new submissions, Brazil had commented that the 
Committee's decision on the implementation of equi valence (G/SPS/19/Rev.2) could provide another 
mechanism through which the special needs of developing countries could be addressed.  The 
representative of Djibouti had stressed the importa nce of differentiating between least-developed and 
developing country Members with respect to their need for special and differential treatment and 
technical assistance. 
179. The representative of Uruguay had summarize d the main points in G/SPS/W/169 regarding 
undue delays, emphasizing the need to broadly consid er this issue in the context of SPS Agreement, 
rather than to confine discussion on this topic to a narrow subset of issues.  Many Members had 
supported Uruguay’s proposal to encourage discussion of this subject, and some had suggested this 
could most appropriately be done in the context of the Review. 
180. In concluding his report, the Chairperson remi nded the Committee that the first draft of the 
report of the Review was to be circulated by mid-April 2005, and Members were to submit their 
comments on this draft in writing by 10 June.  The Committee was scheduled to adopt its report on 
the Review at the 29-30 June 2005 Committee meeting.   A number of Members had suggested that 
the report should identify issues for fu rther consideration by the Committee. 
(b) Specific issues 
181. The representative of China introduced docum ent G/SPS/W/162/Rev.1.  China supported the 
proposal that Members should notify all SPS measu res, including those based on international 
standards.  However, developing country Members should be given special and differential treatment 
in the form of extended time periods to adjust to  or implement the international standards.  In 
addition, more emphasis should be placed on Artic le 12.2 as a useful mechanism for Members to 
negotiate and discuss trade concerns without the n eed to resort to the long and costly dispute 
settlement mechanism. 
182. The representative of Chile stated that doc ument G/SPS/W/171 outlined Chile's position on 
what had been achieved and what s hould be done within the contex t of the Review process.  Chile 
would prepare a working paper based on this document.  With respect to the issue on the administration of the SPS Agreement, good pr ogress had been made on drafting guidelines for 
equivalency, consistency,  and monitoring of international sta ndards.  The drafting of guidelines for 
other principles should continue, but it was important  that Members implement the guidelines as well.  
Chile expressed concern that Members could not learn from each other's experiences if no Member 
notified their experiences on equivalence. 
183. The representative of Mexico recalled that good regulatory practices should also be 
considered under the Review process, and requested  that Member's comments on the draft report be 
made known to other Members. 
XII. MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER 
ORGANIZATIONS 
184. The Chairman indicated that an updated list of the relevant inte rnational standards of the OIE 
(G/SPS/GEN/552) and Codex (G/SPS/GEN/546) had been  circulated for the consideration of the 
Committee.  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
(a) Information from Codex 
185. The representative of Codex provided an update on the Codex sessions that had occurred 
since the last SPS Committee meeting as well as on the forth coming Codex sessions (G/SPS/GEN/546).  In particular, attention was drawn to the 22
nd Session of the Codex Committee on 
General Principles, which would discuss the proposed draft working principles for risk analysis for 
food safety;  the 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which would consider the 
request to initiate new work on developing prin ciples for the application of traceability/product 
tracing in the context of food import and export in spection and certification systems; and the final 
report of the review of Codex committee structure and mandates of Codex committees and task forces which would be presented to the 56
th Session of the Executive Committee and the 28th Codex 
Alimentarius Commission. 
(b) Information from IPPC 
186. The representative of the IPPC reported that the Standards Committee met on 8-12 and 15-
19 November 2004 to consider count ry comments on draft standards, and submitted three standards to 
the ICPM for adoption.  The Standards Committee ha d also established working groups and renewed 
specifications for new standards.  At the last ICPM session, several technical panels were established.  
The technical panel for Phytosanitary Treatment me t for the first time in December 2004.  The 
technical panel for Forests and Quarantine Issues was currently meeting and would consider ISPM 15.  
With regards to information exchange, the Internatio nal Phytosanitary Portal had been reviewed and a 
new version, now available in French and Spanis h, was released on 28 September 2004.  A series of 
workshops would be conducted to familiarise Members with the Portal so that they could fulfil their 
reporting obligations to the IPPC. 
187. During the past year, 10 countries had joined the IPPC and 20 countries had accepted the 
1997 amendments.  Altogether, th ere were 136 Member countries of the IPPC of which 74 Members 
had accepted the 1997 amendments.  Once a further 17 countries adopted the 1997 amendments, the 
Interim Commission of Phytosanitary Measures woul d cease to exist.  Instead a new Commission of 
Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) would be formed a nd unlike the current ICPM, membership would be 
limited to those countries that had signed on to the revised Convention as well as the original 
Convention.  Members would have new obligatio ns only when two thirds of the Members had 
adopted the revised Convention. 
(c) Information from OIRSA 
188. The representative of OIRSA summarised its te chnical assistance activities as outlined in 
document G/SPS/GEN/553.  With regards to training and dissemination of information in agricultural 
health and trade issues, OIRSA had: organized a re gional seminar in Guatemala on the traceability of 
animals and food of animal and plant origin; organi zed seminars in El Salvador on the monitoring of 
dairy products and good practices for the production of honey; and participated in the Regional 
Congress on Organic Production.  OIRSA also supported the technological Master's degree 
programme in sanitary and phytosanitary measures of  the Postgraduate College of Mexico as well as 
the National Programme for the Control and Eradica tion of Classical Swine Fever in El Salvador.  
Furthermore, OIRSA supported the IPPC regional wo rkshop on the review of draft International 
Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and provided computer equipment to strengthen the 
Nicaraguan and Costa Rican quarantine information systems. 
(d) Information from OIE 
189. The representative of the OIE drew attention to document G/SPS/GEN/552 which outlined 
the new or revised standards proposed for adoption at the 73rd General Session of the OIE to be held 
in May 2005.  Of particular relevance to th e SPS Committee was the OIE's proposal to revise the G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 32  
 
chapter on zoning or compartmentalization, whic h addressed many of the concerns of the SPS 
Committee, as well as its work on animal identific ation and traceability.  The OIE working group on 
animal production food safety included two representativ es from Codex to ensure that the work of the 
two organizations complemented each other.  New procedures for disease notification for both 
terrestrial and aquatic animals were before the General Session. 
XIII.  OBSERVERS – REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS 
190. The Committee agreed to invite the organizati ons with current ad hoc observer status to 
participate in the next meeting of the Co mmittee (ACP Group, EFTA, IICA, OECD, OIRSA and 
SELA).  The Committee also invited all interested  observer organizations to participate in the 
informal meetings to be held in conn ection with the next Committee meeting. 
191. The Committee took no decision regarding the re quests for observer status from the Office 
International de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV), the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC), and 
the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD).  
XIV.  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON 
192. The Committee agreed to postpone the election of the Chairperson of the Committee until the 
next Committee meeting in June.  
XV. OTHER BUSINESS 
Paraguay – Report on status of animal diseases 
 
193. The representative of Paraguay reported on the st atus of FMD, BSE, classical swine fever and 
Newcastle disease in Paraguay.  With regard s to FMD, Paraguay's eradication programme 
commenced in 1992.  FMD outbreaks in 1994 were eradicated by May 1997 and Paraguay was 
recognized as FMD free with vaccination.  This status was revoked in 2002 because of an outbreak at 
the border with Brazil.  Another outbreak in 2003 lead  Paraguay to revise its eradication program.  In 
January 2005, Paraguay regained its  FMD free with vaccination status. 
194. With regard to BSE, in July 2002 the Scien tific Committee of the European Communities had 
categorized Paraguay as geographic risk 1, define d as highly improbable for domestic cattle to be 
clinically or pre-clinically infected with the cau sal agent.  In February 2005, Paraguay submitted the 
required documentation to the OIE requesting re cognition of BSE free status.  The OIE would 
consider the documentation at its September meeti ng and a technical report would be presented to the 
Scientific Committee on 16-20 January 2006. 
195. On classical swine fever, Paraguay had emba rked on an eradication programme since 1998 
and monitoring surveillance was implemented sin ce 2003.  No outbreaks of the disease had occurred 
since 1996.  In the Western region, 3 major divisions were certified as disease free without vaccination.  While 14 divisions of the Eastern region had not experienced any outbreaks of the disease, vaccination was being administered.  Paraguay had been free of Newcastle disease since 11 December 2000 and had put in place a  monitoring system to control imports. 
Peru – Report on the FMD situation 
 
196. The representative of Peru inform ed the Committee that currently 97.6 per cent of the national 
territory was free of FMD without vaccination and 2.4 per cent  was free of FMD with vaccination.  In 
March 2004, Peru submitted requi red documentation to the OIE requesting recognition of the 
southern part of the country as FMD free without  vaccination.  On 13-19 January 2005, the OIE 
Scientific Committee recommended that an ad hoc  group evaluate Peru's reports.  After the  G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
consultation period with Member countries, the Sc ientific Committee would  put forward a resolution 
on a list of countries with FMD free regions at the 73rd OIE General Session in May 2005. 
Panama – Report on Mediterranean fruit fly situation 
 
197. The representative of Panama reported on the on-going project in Panama to declare the 
peninsula of Azuero free of Mediterranean fruit fl y.  Since 1986, nationwide monitoring systems had 
been set up in the area of Azuero.  Three provinces,  Los Santos, Herrera and part of Veraguas have 
neither reported nor observed the presence of these p ests.  In October 2004, the Director of Plant 
Sanitation requested USDA, APHIS to initiate the process of declaration of Mediterranean fruit fly 
free area.  Panama must now ensure that it meets APHIS requirements for expor ts to the United States 
which may take more than two years to achieve.  APHIS and the Ministry for Agricultural 
Development (MIDA) undertook a joint sampling project  in the Azuero region issued a report on 11 
February 2005.   
Panama – Information on traceability 
 
198. The representative of Panama reported that the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal 
Husbandry set up a fund to implement traceability.  A pilot project for bovine in the province of Darién would be extended nationwide.  Significant progress was made regarding the identification of 
animal stocks and the movement of cattle from bi rth to slaughter.  A decr ee to set up a national 
commission for traceability for farm and animal husbandry products was being prepared . 
European Communities – New MRL harmonized approach 
 199. The representative of the European Communiti es stated that it would shortly provide a 
document on the new harmonized EC approach fo r maximum residue levels (G/SPS/GEN/557).  
XVI.  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING 
200. The next regular meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for 29-30 June 2005, 
with informal meetings scheduled for 27-28 June .  Informal meetings would be held on special and 
differential treatment, the Review of the operation of the SPS Agreement and regionalization.   The 
Committee agreed on the following provisional agenda for its next meeting:  
 
AGENDA FOR MEETING OF 29-30 JUNE 2005 
 
 1. Proposed agenda 
 2. Election of the Chairperson 
 3. Activities of Members  4. Specific trade concerns 
 (a) New issues  (b) Issues previously raised 
  (c) Consideration of specific notifications received 
  (d) Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5  5. Operation of transparency provisions  6. Implementation of special and differential treatment 
 7 Equivalence – Article 4 G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 
Page 34  
 
  (a) Information from Members on their experiences 
  (b) Information from rele vant observer organizations 
 8. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
 9. Technical assistance and cooperation   (a) Information from the Secretariat   (b) Information from Members 
  (c) Information from observers 
 10. Monitoring the use of international standards   (a) New issues   (b) Issues previously raised  11. Review of the operation of the SPS Agreement  
 12. Matters of interest arising fro m the work of observer organizations 
 13. Observers - Requests for observer status  14. Other business  15. Date and agenda of next meeting 
201. The following deadlines are rele vant for the next meeting: 
(i) For sending comments in writing on the draft report of the Review of 
operation of the SPS Agreement:  10 June 2005
  
(ii)  For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure:  
(iii) 15 June 2005  
(iv) For requesting that items be put on the agenda:  16 June 2005  
(v) For the distribution of the airgram:  17 June 2005  
__________