RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/R/39/Corr.11 
10 April 2006 
 (06-1673) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
   
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 24 OCTOBER 2005, 
RESUMED ON 1-2 FEBRUARY 2006 
 
Note by the Secretariat
2 
 
Corrigendum  
  
The following corrections are made  to the summary report of the 34
th regular meeting of the 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es held 24 October 2005 and 1-2 February 2006. 
__________ 
 
 The text of paragraph 18 should read as follows : 
18. The representative of the OIE expressed support for Canada's efforts.  Taking into account the 
important increase in the level of knowledge about BSE, the OIE had refined the chapter on BSE to a 
more simple and scientific approach which had been  adopted by OIE member countries in May 2005.  
The OIE strongly encouraged Members to use these standards. 
 The text of paragraph 47 should read as follows : 
47. The European Communities was currently fr ee from AI and had rapidly taken effective 
safeguard measures to protect and maintain this status.  A fourth WTO Member had banned imports 
of the same poultry products from the entire world.  According to OIE rules and the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement, bans on bird products should only a pply to regions affected by HPAI.  The European 
Communities urged these four Members to bring their legislation into compliance with international 
rules and Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement and lift the ban.   
The following new paragraphs should be in serted immediately following paragraph 60: 
Japan's positive list system  60bis The representative of China recalled her country's concerns about Japan's final draft of its 
positive list system for agriculture chemical residues in food.  Japan notified its final draft in June 
2005, and although China appreciated that Japan  had accepted some of China's comments, many 
concerns remained unaddressed.  China requested that Japan provide at least 18 months for 
developing country Members to adjust their app lications of the agricultural chemicals, conduct 
training activities and provide guidance to farmers, and undertake the necessary laboratory 
                                                     
 
1 In English only. 
2 This document has been prepared  under the Secretariat's own respon sibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/39/Corr.1 
Page 2  
 
  preparations.  Although Japan had pu blished drafts of its positive list system three times over the past 
three years, the number of MRLs and products covered varied each time.  The third draft had 
identified 10,000 items more than the first two drafts , and over 50,000 MRL items were listed in total.  
This compared with existing MRLs on only 2,470 items.  Furthermore,  certain pesticides remained in 
the soil for some time after their use, and techni cally a 2-year adaptation period was necessary.  In 
addition, Japan had published only part of the tes ting methods to be used, and many were illustrated 
only by flow charts that rendered their application difficult.  China suggested that Japan should notify 
all of the relevant testing met hods and provide Members an opportunity to comment.  Where Japan 
did not have appropriate testing methods, it should not restrict impor ts nor should it require trading 
partners to test and certify MRLs.  China was c oncerned that the planned implementation of this 
measure could adversely affect its annua l $7 billion of food exports to Japan. 
 60ter The representative of Japan noted that his country had notified and modified the 
implementation of this system three times since 2003, and sought comments from trading partners.  
The final version identifying the provisional MRLs  was published on 29 November 2005, and Japan 
had provided six months before entry into force on  29 May 2006.  Japan considered that this was 
sufficient time to allow the smooth implementati on of the measure, taking into account the numerous 
previous consultations with trading partners.  Japan had developed analytical methods for 529 
substances and published these.  It would continue  to develop analytical methods for additional 
substances and would make these public when finali zed.  Japan was prepared to provide China with 
technical advice on analytical methods if so requested.  
 
The text of paragraph 84 should read as follows : 
84. The representative of the OIE observed that OIE standards were developed by experts and 
agreed and adopted by the International Committee  of all OIE member countries.  The OIE was not 
mandated to police the implementation of these standa rds, but strongly encouraged member countries 
to base their national measures on them.  Any member country believing that a standard was 
inadequate had the opportunity to request the OIE to  review the standard.  Members were free to use 
the standards in the way they believed suitable fo r their situation as long as they could justify any 
departure from the standard. 
The text of paragraph 141 should read as follows : 
141. The representative of the OIE stated that OIE was keen to advance the development of 
standards for regionalization.  The OIE mandate wa s to develop and publish international standards 
but not to police the implementation of standards.   The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code and 
Aquatic Animal Health Code chapters on z oning and compartmentalization were adopted 
international standards on regionaliza tion that should form part of the basis for discussions.  To date, 
no comments on the existing international standards ha d been received by the OIE.  These standards 
were modified as a result of the discussions in the SPS Committee during 2005, and they contained 
guidance to Member countries on how to establish a region or zone or compartment, and how to 
pursue agreement on distinct disease status with trading partners.  Progress on the standards could only occur through contributions from Members.  By March, both the Terrestrial Code Commission and the Aquatic Code Commission would have he ld meetings at which comments from Member 
countries on those standards would be addressed.  The OIE General Session in May provided another 
occasion to discuss those standards. 
 The text of paragraph 142 should read as follows : 
142. The representative of the OIE noted that document G/SPS/GEN/625 described OIE's activities 
in zoning and compartmentalization.  OIE co nsidered these concepts as synonymous with 
regionalization because they all involved separation of  subpopulations of animals based on a distinct  G/SPS/R/39/Corr.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  health status.  Subpopulation coul d be separated by natural or artif icial barriers or, in the case of 
compartments, by management.  OIE currently ga ve official recognition for four diseases.  The 
General Session in May would discuss future OIE activ ities in this regard and with regard to the 
evaluation of veterinary services.  OIE had been  asked to identify the options for progressing on 
regionalization and the implications including res ource and legal implications.  The IPPC list in 
Annex 1 of G/SPS/GEN/626 laid out many of the i ssues.  OIE was developing further concepts of 
compartmentalization that could be a valuable tool  for developing countries to improve their disease 
status.  
The text of paragraph 168 should read as follows:  
168. The European Communities emphasized that the le vel of interest generated by this workshop 
illustrated the need for more such workshops providing opportunities for experts from various 
countries to meet and exchange views, and invited th e IPPC to organize further activities of this kind.  
The representative of Canada expressed hope that this workshop would be tter enable developing 
countries to conduct pest risk assessment and manage risks more effectively.  Canada also hoped that 
similar workshops would be held in a variety of lo cations in the future and would further benefit from 
STDF funding.  The representative of Trinidad a nd Tobago mentioned that his region had benefited 
from three workshops organized by the IPPC last year, one on development of standards, one on the 
difficulties to implement standards and an informatio n exchange on the use of the IPPC portal.  The 
representative of Chinese Taipei expressed disappoint ment that Chinese Taipei had been denied the 
opportunity to participate in the workshop, howev er he commended Canada for having provided a 
briefing to officials from Chinese Taipei following the event. 
 
__________