RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/R/35 
13 January 2005 
 (05-0134) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27-28 OCTOBER 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es (the "Committee") held its thirty first  
meeting on 27-28 October 2004.  The agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/2416 was adopted with 
amendments. 
2. The Secretariat commented that the number of last minute submissions to the October 
meeting made it difficult to ensure that all documen ts were available to delegates in the correct 
format.  The Secretariat requested that delegat es submit documents well in advance of the Committee 
meeting, so that they could be circulated as form al documents, in the three WTO working languages.  
II. ACTIVITIES OF MEMBERS 
New Zealand's biosecurity strategy 
3. The representative of New Zealand recalled that  Members were informed in October 2001 of 
the development of a biosecurity strategy for Ne w Zealand which aimed to provide direction and 
guidance for all agencies involved in biosecurity.  The strategy was endorsed in August 2003 and the 
recommendations were to form the basis of New Zeala nd's biosecurity system for the next five years. 
4. To support the implementation of the strategy, the existing biosecurity authority within the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry would be r estructured based on three streams of activity; pre-
clearance, post clearance and policy and business de velopment (G/SPS/GEN/517).  The new structure 
would be called Biosecurity New Zealand and woul d come into effect from 1 November 2004.  
Biosecurity New Zealand remained an integral part of  the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.  More 
information could be found on the website  at http//www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/bio-
strategy/index.htm. 
Certification system for solid wood packing materials in Uruguay 
5. The representative of Uruguay reported that Ur uguay continued to ensure conformance with 
certification of wood packing materials.  Members would soon receive the full text of the regulation 
which established the various components of the cer tification system and was applicable to wood 
packing materials accompanying any exports to Uruguay, including those not subject to sanitary and phytosanitary control.  The regulation also affect ed regulated articles and governed the administrative 
requirements for enterprises res ponsible for the packaging.  
6. The representative of Egypt observed that implementation of ISPM 15 was a horizontal issue 
which was being discussed in the Committee on Trade and Environment in the context of 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/35 
Page 2  
 
environmentally preferable goods.  It would be inte resting to note the impediments that developing 
countries faced when exporting such goods.  The representative of Uruguay stated that Uruguay's 
main concern was having adequate time to implement the certification system. 
Solid wood packing materials in the United States 
7. The representative of the United States inform ed the Committee that the United States had 
adopted new requirements for the importation of wood packing material.  This final rule was 
published in the Federal Register on 16 Septem ber 2004 and was available on the APHIS website 
www.aphis.usda.gov.  The requirements would come  into effect on 16 September 2005, giving 
countries sufficient time to implement these ch anges.  The new measures were notified as 
G/SPS/N/USA/705 in May 2003 and were consistent with ISPM 15.  These new requirements applied 
to wood packing material in a ll shipments including shipments of non-agricultural products.  The 
representative of the United States urged Members to ensure that all in terested agencies and 
commercial interests were alerted to these new requirements.  
Solid wood packing materials in Chile 
8. The representative of Chile expressed thanks to those Members who deferred the entry into 
force of ISPM 15 and to the standard-setting orga nizations and Members who provided training on its 
implementation.  Chile's regulations on w ood packing materials had been notified in 
G/SPS/N/CHL/170.  The regulations specified the types of material that would be affected and incorporated the heat and fumigation treatment established by ISPM 15.  The regulation also 
stipulated the requirements for trade markings and exempted certain products from treatment.  Wood 
packing that was used for the import of goods of plant origin and accompanied with a phytosanitary 
certificate would be excepted.  The regulations w ould come into effect on 1 June 2005 and comments 
were invited from Members.  Chile was also in th e process of gaining accreditation in order to certify 
that packing material from Chile complied with ISPM 15. 
Solid wood packing materials in Australia 
9. The representative of Australia stated that th e new import conditions for solid wood packing 
materials were effective on 1 September 2004.  Ho wever, Australia's previous import standards on 
wood packing continued to be app lied in parallel to ensure conti nued market access for counties not 
yet in a position to implement the standard.  Th e new regulations were notified to the WTO as 
G/SPS/N/AUS/164 and addendum.  Removal of bark was required as there were concerns on the 
effectiveness of ISPM 15 in meeting Australia's qua rantine requirements.  This requirement was based 
on data from interceptions of pests in imported prod ucts, the efficacy of fumigation and inspection in 
the presence of bark, as well as the effectiveness of th e standard treatment on certain pests, namely 
pine wilt nematode.  Data was curre ntly being updated and would be ava ilable to interested Members.  
Australia was in the process of finalizing its accreditation system to enable Australian exports to comply with requirements of countries who had already implemented ISPM 15. 
Fruit fly free areas in Costa Rica 
10. The representative of Costa Rica stated that 24,700 square hectares in the west of the country 
was free of the Mediterranean fruit fly.  This was a priority issue for the government as the presence 
of fruit flies imposed costs on producers and affected  Costa Rica's market access.  The representative 
of Costa Rica urged Members to recognize the ar ea-free status as required by Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement. 
 
  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 3 
 
 
Avian influenza situation and control in China 
11. The representative of China stated that the outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(HPAI) first reported on 27 January 2004 in Longa n County, Guangxi Province was now effectively 
under control due to China’s systematic stamping-out  policy.  The last case of HPAI was reported on 
6 July in Anhui Province.  Since the immediate implementation of the stamping-out policy and strict 
quarantine measures there had not being a new outbr eak nor had any case of the human form of HPAI 
been reported.  Restrictions imposed on the in fected areas had been lifted and normal poultry 
production had resumed.  China had also been actively engaged in technical exchanges and 
cooperation programmes with several countries and th e FAO to improve the regional capacity for the 
prevention and control of avian influenza.  The FAO cooperation project on diagnostic laboratory and 
surveillance networks coordination for the control and prevention of avian influenza in East Asia 
would be launched in Beijing on 27-29 November.  Veterinary officials and experts from several 
countries as well as the FAO, WHO, OIE were expected  to attend this meeting.  The representative of 
China requested Members to lift restrictions on Ch ina's poultry exports on the basis of the successful 
control of the avian influenza.  
12. The representative of Thailand expressed support for China's efforts and progress in the 
control and eradication of avian influenza in China. 
Avian influenza in British Colombia, Canada 
13. The representative of Canada reported that th e last infected premises were cleaned and 
disinfected on 18 June.  The incubation period for the avian influenza virus is 21 days and by 9 July, 
there were no additional cases of infection detected .  Therefore, as of 9 July and in accordance with 
OIE guidelines, the identified zone or control area in the Fraser Valley located in the Province of 
British Columbia was no longer infected with the disease.  Bird owners were permitted to restock 
their premises in all regions of the control area and as an additional precaution, a 60-day surveillance 
period was implemented following the cleaning and disinfection of the affected premises.  On 
18 August, the regulation that established the c ontrol area was withdrawn and the movement of 
poultry and poultry products on the domestic markets resumed.  No infected premises were found 
outside the control area.  Canada was free of the hi ghly pathogenic avian influenza and a number of 
Canada’s trading partners had lifted all remaining import restrictions.  The representative of Canada urged the few remaining trading partne rs that have not yet done so to remove their import restrictions 
on poultry and poultr y products from all areas of Canada. 
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status in Canada 
14. The representative of Canada provided an update  on Canada's regulatory response to the 
discovery of a BSE case in Alberta, Canada, in Ma y 2003 and on the associated trade-related issues 
(G/SPS/GEN/530).  Prior to the detection of the BSE case in May 2003, a number of measures were 
implemented to secure the safety of animal and public health and food safety inspection systems such as the enforcement of a ruminant feed ban in 1997 an d mandatory cattle identification system in 2001.  
Additional requirements for the removal of specified  risk material from all cattle slaughtered for 
human food was introduced in July 2003.  In additi on, on 9 July 2004, Canada announced its intention 
to require the removal of bovine specified risk material from the entire animal feed chain to 
supplement the ruminant feed ban established in 1997 .  The draft regulations regarding the removal of 
specified risk material from feed would be notified to Members shortly. 
15. Many of Canada's trading part ners had taken steps to restore market access for beef, meat 
products, genetics and other animal products.  Howe ver, there were a few trading partners who 
continued to restrict access of Canadian products  even though these products were identified by the 
OIE as being safe for trade without restrictions.  The representative of Canada requested those 
Members to immediately remove the restrictions and for all trading partners to restore access for the G/SPS/R/35 
Page 4  
 
full range of edible meat and meat products from cattle based on appropriate certification regarding 
the removal of specified risk material and on liv e animals born after the implementation of the 1999 
ban. 
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Portugal 
16. The representative of the European Communiti es reported that a ban was imposed on all 
exports of live bovine and derived products from Portugal because of the high risks of BSE.  Since 
then, the Portuguese authorities had ta ken steps to manage the disease.  Inspections carried out by EC 
veterinary officials in February 2004 confirmed Po rtugal's compliance with EC standards, which were 
also in conformity with OIE standards.  Portugal was now considered a moderate risk country and the 
European Communities had lifted all restrictions on beef on the hoof and derived products.  Risk 
management and controls continue d to be applied in Portugal as well as in other areas within the 
European Communities. 
EC traceability requirements for thir d countries under the General Food Law 
17. The representative of the Europ ean Communities informed the Committee on the implications 
for third countries of EC regulation 668/2000 on th e traceability requirements for food products which 
would come into force on 1 January 2005.  Artic le 18 of the General Food Law stipulated that 
operators in the field of human or animal feed products were to set up traceability systems that allowed the identification of the immediate supplier and the client.  The EC importer was the first link 
of the applicability of Article 18 and must be ab le to identify the supplier in the third country 
exporting the product.  Article 18 of the General Food Law was not applicable outside the European 
Union.  There was no legal obligation for the th ird country exporter to identify the immediate 
supplier, though this would be welcome. 
Information from the European Communities on Sudan dyes 
18. The representative of the European Communities rais ed concerns that trade in different types 
of food stuffs was being affected because of the fr audulent use of banned colorants, Sudan Red 1, 2, 
3, and 4 which were normally used in plastics a nd other synthetic compounds.  These colorants were 
carcinogenic and were classified as Group 3 by the International Cancer Research Agency.   
19. In June 2003, EC member States were require d to analyze spices for the presence of Sudan 
Red 1.  The results indicated that a wide range of products such as chillies, curry powder and foods 
containing these products were contaminated with Sudan Red 1.  Other banned dyes such as Sudan 
Red 2, 3, 4 and Scarlet Red were also found in a wide range of food prod ucts and spices.  Since 
January 2004, there had been 209 reported cases of contaminated foodstuffs, therefore more 
restrictive measures would be imposed on these substa nces.  There was also a danger that rejected 
shipments of products containing the banned colorant s were being re-sold to  countries whose control 
services could not detect them. 
Information from the European Co mmunities on new MRPL provisions 
20. The representative of the European Communities reported its intention to harmonize criteria 
for the analysis of certain residues in products of  animal origin imported from third countries.  In 
2002, a minimum performance limit was set for certain  prohibited residues in order to achieve the 
health protection levels of the European Communitie s.  This performance limit was not a tolerance 
limit for residues as the residues were non-authori zed substances.  The minimum performance limit 
was the limit that every laboratory must achieve in order to complete the first step in the 
harmonization process.    G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 5 
 
 
21. If the result of an analysis surpassed the mini mum performance limit, it would be considered 
to be in non-conformity with EC legislation.  On the other hand, if the results of the analysis were 
below the minimum performance limit, the pro duct would be accepted within the European 
Communities even though the substance was prohib ited.  The new regulations would also contain 
provisions on actions taken on shipments not in conf ormity with EC legislation.  Members would be 
shortly be notified of these new requirements. 
Accession of the European Communities to the IPPC 
22. The representative of the European  Communities stated that on 19  July 2004, the Agriculture 
Council of the European Union formally adopted a decision concerning the European Communities' 
accession to the International Plant Protection C onvention.  The Agriculture Council had also 
accepted the 1997 amendments to the IPPC Convention.   The standard-setting procedures and rules of 
the IPPC explicitly provided for the participation of organizational structures such as the European 
Communities.  The European Co mmunities' accession to the IPPC  would enable the European 
Communities to fully participate in the developmen t of international standards and to further the 
objectives of harmonization of standards. 
23. The representative of New Zealand stated that a large number of Members had not yet ratified 
the revised text of the IPPC convention, which w ould come into force only when two-thirds of the 
contracting parties had ratified it.  He urged a ll remaining Members to ratify the revised text.  
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in Argentina 
24. The representative of Argentina reported on th e progress of Argentina's national plan to 
eradicate FMD.  The OIE had declared the region north of latitude 42° free of FMD with vaccination 
on 7 July 2003 but this status was suspended on 5 September 2003 due to a single outbreak close to 
the northern border.  The outbreak did not have ep idemiological implications for the rest of the 
country as it was limited to a subsistence farm.  Nevertheless, Argentina implemented control and 
prevention measures recommended by the OIE.  Pr eventative measures such as epidemiological 
investigations and vaccination programmes were implemented as well as border programmes with 
additional monitoring and risk mitigation measures.   Eradication strategies included the culling of 
animals, vaccination, clinical and serological m onitoring and demonstration of the absence of viral 
circulation.   
25. Six months after the detection and implementati on of control measures, the area was free of 
the disease.  Twelve months following the outbreak, inspection of animals suspected of FMD revealed 
that the disease had been eradicated .  Serological sampling conducted in the entire country confirmed 
the absence of the virus and Argen tina was working to get its FMD-free status recognized by the OIE. 
III. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
(a) New Issues 
China's measures on US poultry 
26. The representative of the United States raised concerns over China's nation-wide ban on US 
poultry products following the detection of low pathogeni c avian influenza in the state of Delaware in 
February 2004.  China had not modified its import ban accordingly when highly pathogenic avian influenza was detected in the state of Texas.  The import ban was applied to the entire territory of the 
United States despite the fact that the highly pathog enic avian influenza outbreak was confined to a 
limited area.  The outbreaks were brought under cont rol and eradication, cleaning and disinfection of 
the highly pathogenic infected premises was completed on 23 February 2004. G/SPS/R/35 
Page 6  
 
27. On 20 August 2004, trading partners  were advised that the six-month period prescribed by the 
OIE had elapsed and that the United States was free of highly pathogenic avian influenza.  Despite 
this, China still maintained the ban on poultry produc ts from the entire territory of the United States.  
These restrictions were not scientifically justified and were inconsistent with SPS obligations.  China 
was requested to lift the ban immediately and to ensure that future impl ementation of emergency 
measures were consistent with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. 
28. The representative of Canada noted similar con cerns with China maintaining a comprehensive 
ban when regionalized measures were the appropriate response, and sought a removal of all measures 
with respect to Canada. 
29. The representative of China stated that Chin a had adopted provisiona l emergency measures 
early in 2004 to prevent the entry and spread of low and highly pathogenic avian influenza.  A ban on 
the importation of US poultry and poultry products  was therefore implemented.  China had actively 
communicated with the United States for updates of its avian influenza status.  In August 2004, a team 
of Chinese experts visited the United States to c onduct on-site inspections with the objective of 
regionalizing its ban on avian influenza as well as th e possibility of lifting the ban on US poultry.  A 
risk assessment was being conducted an d a decision would be made based on the outcome of the risk 
assessment.  The actions that China had taken were consistent with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement 
and OIE guidelines and recommendations. 
EC deviation from international standard for wood packing material 
30. The representative of the United States express ed concerns over EC Directive 2004/102 
which affected the importation of wood packing ma terial.  The Directive required the debarking of 
wood used in packing material in addition to the heat and fumigation treatment prescribed by 
ISPM 15.  The representative of the United States r ecalled that the issue of debarking was considered 
by IPPC Members during the development of ISPM 15 where it was determined there was insufficient scientific evidence to justify the debarking requireme nt as an additional risk management measure.  
31. The debarking requirement would disrupt US trade with the European Communities of 
around US$80 billion.  Furthermore, the unjustifie d deviation from ISPM 15 undermined efforts to 
increase international harmonization.  Several other Members had indicated their intention to require 
additional measures beyond what was required by ISPM 15 and the proliferation of different 
requirements for packing material had the potential to impede trade significantly.  The representative 
of the United States requested th e European Communities to reconsider its measures or to postpone 
the implementation of the debarking requirements  until scientific justification was available. 
32. The representative of New Zealand stated that countries or regions shoul d not adopt unilateral 
measures for wood packing material that would cause the disruption of the global implementation of ISPM 15.  However, there might be technical jus tifications for requiring bark-free ISPM 15 compliant 
wood packing material. 
33. The representative of Canada shared the concer ns of the United States on the importance of 
achieving harmonization.  ISPM 15 allowed for the introduction of debarking requirements only 
where it could be scientifically justified.  Count ries that were introducing debarking requirements 
should present a risk analysis or provide scientific justification.  The issue of debarking was under 
review by the international forestry quarantine r esearch group.  The European Communities and those 
counties introducing debarking requirements were requested to reconsider their measures until the 
completion of the international review. 
34. The representatives of China, Mexico and the Philippines shared the concerns of the United 
States and urged Members not to apply measures in excess of ISPM 15 in the absence of any  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 7 
 
 
scientific justification.  The Philippines was in th e process of incorporating ISPM 15 in its national 
legislation and would examine the impact of the EC regulation on Philippines' trade. 
35. The representative of Chile st ated that its measures were  under public consultation and it 
would be pleased to receive comments from Members. 
36. The representative of the European Commun ities stated that EC Directive 2000/29 was 
adopted on 5 October 2004, establishing protective me asures against the introduction and spread of 
harmful organisms to plant and plant products into  the European Communiti es.  These measures were 
notified on 10 November 2003 and would enter into force on 1 March 2005.   
37. There was some flexibility in the requirements for the markings as specified in Annex 2 of 
ISPM 15 and in the conditions required for dunna ge.  For wood packing material manufactured, 
repaired or recycled before 28 February 2005, the re quirements for the markings would not come into 
effect until 31 December 2007.  The requirements for dunnage (except wood less than 6 mm thick) 
and processed wood would not come into effect until 31 December 2007.  These products could be 
made from debarked wood that was free from pests.  The representative of the European Communities 
stated that ISMP 15 allowed for the requirement of  wood packing material to be made from debarked 
wood where this could be scientifically justifie d.  The European Communities had included these 
requirements to ensure protection against future in festation or re-infestation once treatment had been 
completed.  The current regulations were being considered by EC authorities in Brussels and the 
Committee would be informed of any changes. 
India's ban on food grade wax 
38. The representative of the United States stated that on 13 August 2003, India's Ministry of 
Health and Family Welfare published gazette no tification GSR 656 amending the 1955 Prevention of 
Food Adulteration Act by prohibiting the sale of fr esh fruits and vegetables coated with waxes, 
mineral oils and colours.  This amendment threat ened US horticultural exports to India and was not 
notified to the WTO.  The new requirements exceed ed those of the Codex and were adopted without 
scientific justification.  Furthermore, the long shi pping journey to India's ports means that the export 
of US fruits and vegetables without waxing was not  a viable alternative.  Waxing was an essential 
treatment required to maintain shelf life.  India w as requested to notify this measure to the WTO so 
that Members could have the opportuni ty to comment on the regulations. 
39. The representative of India replied that he would inform the relevant authorities of the 
concerns of the United States.  The measure in ques tion had earlier been published in draft form in the 
Ministry of Health notification GSR 852 on 30 Dece mber 2002, inviting comments from all interested 
parties.  The current measure was in force due to  increasing incidents of the use of unsafe wax and 
adulteration of food with harmful chemicals.  This was also a problem with domestic food traders and 
vendors.  The issue of wax coating of fruits and ve getables was being examined by an expert group 
under the auspices of the Ministry of Health.  
Korea's septoria controls on horticultural products 
40. The representative of the Un ited States stated that since April 2004, Korea had banned 
imports of citrus from California  due to concerns of the fungi septoria citri .  The United States was 
working closely with Korean plant health offici als to address this concern although no cases of the 
fungi had been detected in any US shipment of citrus.  The United States had proposed several measures to address Korea's plant health protection concerns and technical discussions would be held 
on 4 November.  The United States hoped that discussions on the protocol would be finalized and 
trade resumed quickly as the harv esting season would shortly begin. G/SPS/R/35 
Page 8  
 
41. The representative from Korea stated that septoria citri  was one of the most serious 
quarantine pests in Korea.  The US proposed prot ocol did not fully address Korea's concerns.  A ban 
was imposed on fruits originating from two particular  areas in the United States where the fungi was 
repeatedly detected. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised 
Japan's official control restrictions 
42. The representative from New Zealand recalled that  the issue of Japan's official control 
restrictions had first been raised in the Committe e in March 2002 but bilateral exchanges had been 
occurring since 1986.  At the last Committee meeti ng Japan had indicated that it had concluded its 
review of its plant quarantine regime and would be  notifying Members of the changes in December 
2004.  The representative of New Zealand asked whet her Japan had adopted the necessary procedures 
to expand its non-quarantine pest list to include th ose pests already present in Japan that were not 
under official control as defined by the IPPC. 
43. The representative of the United States stated th at the United States had also raised similar 
concerns in previous Committee meetings and lo oked forward to reviewing the report on Japan’s 
plant quarantine regime at the end of the year.  The representative of the European Communities 
expressed support for the statements made by New Zealand and the United States and urged Japan to 
align its phytosanitary measures with IPPC definitions and guidelines.   
44. The representative of Japan replied that Member s would be notified of the changes in its 
legislation in December 2004 and amendments would be made no later than March 2005. 
India's import restrictions on almonds 
45. The representative of the United States recalled that India’s requirements for methyl bromide 
fumigation for numerous products from the United Stat es was raised in the l ast Committee meeting.  
The fumigation requirements were adopted in November 2003, but were notified only in 
January 2004, two months after the measure had come  into force.  Bilateral discussions were held 
with India where it was agreed that US alm onds would be allowed under the previous import 
requirements until June 2005.  Phosphine was a proven and effective treatment for quarantine and 
storage pests associated with almonds.  None theless, the United States was conducting further 
research to develop long-term solutions to address India’s concerns. 
46. The representative of India stated that the Un ited States had provided in formation and data on 
the efficacy of phosphine as a fumigant.  However, until field data was available, US almonds would 
be allowed into India subject to fumigation at the port of entry. 
Korea's residue level testing requirements 
47. The representative of the United States raised concerns over Korea's notification 
G/SPS/N/KOR/123 which came into effect in August 2003.  Grains, fruits and vegetables were 
subject to annual MRL test requirements for the pr esence of 196 agricultural chemicals and affected 
US exports.  Amendments were made to G/SPS/N/KOR/123 with the issuance of G/SPS/N/KOR/154 
and 155 in March 2004,  but these amendments did not fully address the concerns of the United States.  
For example, Korea had proposed in G/SPS/N/KO R/154 that imported foods with clean records 
would be exempted from the mandatory laboratory inspections.  However, the proposed exemptions 
had not been put into effect in the final revised regulations.   
48. Furthermore, although Korea had reduced the number of chemicals subject to mandatory 
laboratory inspection from 196 to 47, testing fees of approximately US$500 per test were still applied.   G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 9 
 
 
The testing fee was still twice as large as that initially proposed by the Korean Food and Drug 
Administration in October 2003.  Domestic producer s were only subject to random testing and the 
costs were borne by the Korean government.  The US c oncerns were directly related to distinctions in 
fees between imported goods and like- products produced in Korea in accordance with Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement.  This was a violation of the WTO national treatment principle.  The United States 
had held bilateral consultations w ith Korea and had raised this issue several times in the Committee.  
Korea's efforts to mitigate the trade rest rictive requirements were not sufficient. 
49. The representative of the European Communities sh ared the concerns of the United States as 
the European Communities had also been affected by  Korea's testing requirements.  Korea’s measures 
as notified in G/SPS/N/KOR/123 were still being im plemented and the amendments as notified in 
G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 did not have a proposed im plementation date.  Korea's current testing 
requirements were disproportionate to the risks a nd were discriminatory against imported products.  
The representative of the European Communities re quested Korea to remove these restrictive 
measures and to align them to  international standards. 
50. The representative of Korea stated that it would take some time to revise the relevant 
legislation needed to implement the measures no tified in G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155.  The testing fee 
had been substantially reduced and was now one-third the cost of the previous fee.  However, the fee 
was still two times higher than what was proposed in  October 2003 because the domestic industry was 
concerned that the proposed testing fee was not sufficient to compensate for testing requirements needed to ensure the safety of foods.  Testing fees would be adjusted in th e future when the need 
arose.  Korea applied strict guidelines to domestic products with respect to the use of agro-chemicals 
and did not discriminate between imported and domestically produced  products.  The representative 
of Korea took note of the concerns of the United Stat es, particularly with reference to Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement. 
EC conditions for the importation of bees 
51. The representative of Argentina expressed conti nued concerns over the EC measures for the 
importation of bees, hives, queens with or wit hout attendants, and bee-keeping material.  The 
measures were not justified by scientific eviden ce or a risk assessment and did not take into 
consideration the different pest status of exporti ng countries.  The concerned parasites had not been 
detected in Argentina and recent studies confirmed the absence of the parasites.  Reports of the studies 
were made available to the European Communities and the final version would be submitted to the 
OIE confirming the absence of the parasite in the main exporting regions.  Despite having taken these 
measures, trade in queen bees from Argentina was still restricted.  Argentina urged the European 
Communities for a prompt resolution of the issu e as trade in queen bees was a seasonal activity. 
52. The representative from the European Communities st ated that bilateral discussions were held 
with Argentina where it was explained that these measures were adopted to prevent the introduction 
of two particular bee parasites that were of serious risk to the EC bee population.  The recent 
interception of a contaminated shipment from Port ugal justified the protective measures adopted by 
the European Communities.  Although Argentin a had submitted eight reports, the European 
Communities were still not satisfied that Argentina' s measures were sufficient to guarantee a parasite-
free status.  The reports did not indicate how par ticular geographical and cl imatic conditions would 
permit regionalizing the province of Buenos Aire s.  The European Communities were not in a 
position at this time to relax controls on bee im ports from Argentina.  Information received by the 
European Communities indicated that exports of Argentine bees were not affected during the 2004 
season.  However, the European Communities were pr epared to discuss the impact of its measures on 
international trade with Argentina. 
 G/SPS/R/35 
Page 10  
 
Indonesia's restrictions on the importation of certain products due to FMD 
53. The representative of Argentina reported that Indonesia continued to prohibit imports of 
Argentine bee.  Indonesia required the country of origin to be free from FMD 12 months preceding the shipment and without vaccination over the past  three consecutive years.  These requirements 
exceeded OIE guidelines and recommendations.  The re presentative of Argentina requested Indonesia 
to comply with OIE recommendations or submit a risk analysis to justify its measures. 
54. The representative from Brazil shared Argen tina's concerns.  Indonesia had prohibited 
imports of soybean and soybean products from FMD-free areas with vaccination in Brazil.  
Indonesia's measures were inconsistent with OIE guidelines and recommendations and Article 6 of 
the SPS Agreement. 
55. The representative of Indonesia explained that  any country wishing to export to Indonesia 
must be free of FMD and rinderpest as stipulated in  the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture Decree 
1992.  Countries meeting these requirements were allowe d to export to Indonesia.  With respect to 
Argentina, imports were allowed when Argentina was declared FMD-free in 2000.  However, imports 
were suspended when there was an outbreak of the disease.  Argentina and Brazil had not been 
declared FMD-free without vaccination by the OIE.  The same conditions also applied to soybean and 
soybean products and imports would be allowe d into Indonesia once the outbreaks were brought 
under control. 
Panama's restrictions on dairy products 
56. The representative of Argentina informed the Committee that he had received positive news 
on the issue of Panama’s restrictions on dairy pr oducts and was hopeful of a resolution by the next 
Committee meeting. 
57. The representative of Panama stated that bila teral consultations were  held with Argentina 
prior to the Committee meeting and he w as optimistic of resolving the issue. 
United Arab Emirates' and Qatar's impo rt restrictions on Spanish olive oil 
58. The representative of the European Communities st ated that bilateral c onsultations were held 
with several Gulf countries prior to the meeting to  address restrictions imposed on Spanish olive oil 
by the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Bahr ain and Kuwait.  The European Communities were 
hopeful for a prompt resolution of the issue and woul d also be holding bilateral meetings with Oman 
and Kuwait.  The issue of contaminated Spanish olive oil was a one-off incident that occurred in 
2001.  The concerned EC State had the situation under control within a month of the incident 
happening and now exported to more than 70 countries world-wide. 
India's restrictions on live birds, fresh meat and other animal products due to avian influenza 
59. The representative of the European Communities expressed concerns that India continued to 
impose a ban on some live animals and a range of products of animal orig in due to the risk of entry of 
highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) into India.  India issued two notifications, on 7 July and on 
6 August, informing Members of the relaxation of th e ban for a range of products.  However, the ban 
was disproportionate to the risk and there was no sci entific basis for some of the measures imposed by 
India.  The ban should be confined to regions affected by the disease fo llowing OIE guidelines and 
recommendations.  The European Communities have b een declared by the OIE as being free of HPAI 
and safeguard measures had been put in place to prot ect and maintain this sanitary status.  India was 
requested to review its ban a nd bring its measures into confor mity with the SPS Agreement.  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 11 
 
 
60. The representative of India stated that the ba n was a temporary measure which was enforced 
due to the outbreak of avian influenza throughout th e world.  The prevalence of the family-based 
poultry industry and the significant numbers involved in the industry would make it impossible to control the disease if it spread to India.  The s ituation had been under constant review since the 
imposition of the ban in February 2004.  The ban on imports of poultry with  vaccination and specific 
pathogen free eggs was lifted in July 2004.  A subse quent review by an expert group resulted in the 
continuation of the ban on imports of certain pr oducts such as live and raw poultry and pig meat.  
Processed products from HPAI infected countries were allowed into India, however, and the situation 
continued to be monitored.  
(c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received 
EC regulation on Ocratoxin A in coffee (G/SPS/N/EEC/247) 
61. The representative of Colombia reported that the European Communities had responded to 
Colombia's questions in G/SPS/GEN/475.  The EC response was contai ned in G/SPS/GEN/490 and 
explained that Germany was able to set maximum le vels of Ocratoxin A (OTA) in roasted and soluble 
coffee as harmonized EC standards were not yet established.  On 1 September 2004, the European 
Communities issued G/SPS/N/EEC/247, notifying Member s of the EC proposal to establish levels for 
OTA in roasted and soluble coffee. 
62. Colombia continued to be concerned about th e impact of the measures on the marketing of 
coffee in Europe and had raised several questi ons as outlined in G/SPS/GEN/515.  The European 
Communities were asked to explain why OTA levels were set for coffee when coffee contributed only 
8 per cent of the intake of OTA in the European di et compared with cereals and cereal products which 
contributed 50 per cent of the intake of OTA.  Scie ntific justification for the levels of OTA set for 
coffee was requested from the Europ ean Communities, as well as an explanation of the method used 
to determine the OTA levels.  The European Comm unities were also requested to explain why the 
OTA levels for coffee and cereals and cereal products  were the same when the intake of OTA was 
higher in cereals and cereal products than in coffee.   Moreover, if the OTA levels for beer were 
indirectly controlled by its main input, malt, why were not the OTA levels for soluble coffee 
indirectly controlled by its main input, roasted coff ee.  Finally, the European Communities were asked 
to explain why there was a need to protect public  health with regards to coffee and not beer. 
63. The representative from Colombia suggested th at the European Communities consult studies 
on OTA toxicology as a starting point in establishing maximum OTA levels in green coffee.  The entire production chain would need to be regulated  when establishing maximum levels of OTA for 
green coffee which would be both impractical and counterproductive as additional infrastructure and 
storage facilities would be needed.  Furthermore, th e risks of formation of mycotoxins were increased 
during prolonged periods of storage due to the condensation and re-humidification process in the 
beans.  OTA levels should not be set until there w as scientific justification.  The representative of 
Colombia called on the Codex Alimentarius to co nsider the issue of maximum levels of OTA in 
coffee in the joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). 
64. The representatives of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile , Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El 
Salvador, Guatemala, Kenya and Pe ru supported the statements made  by Colombia and requested a 
copy of the EC response to the questions posed by Colombia.  The representative of Chile stated that 
the Committee should include this issue under the pr ocedure to monitor the use of international 
standards. 
65. The representative of the Codex Alimentarius reported that little progress had been made on 
this issue in Codex since the March meeting of the SPS Committee.  Codex had not established 
Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for green and ro asted coffee but had been working to establish 
MRLs in cereals for several years.  However, this w as still at the elaboration stage due to the lack of G/SPS/R/35 
Page 12  
 
consensus on the numerical limits. The Codex Committee for Food Additives and Contaminants 
(CCFAC) had requested JECFA to include the risk  assessments on OTA for evaluation by 2006.  At 
the last meeting of the CCFAC, a suggestion was made to include new work in Codex on the development of a code of practice to reduce myco toxin contamination in coffee and cocoa.  This 
proposal will be discussed at the next CCFAC meeting in April 2005. 
66. The representative of the European Commun ities explained that once EC harmonized 
standards were established, national standards ceased to be effective.  From the perspective of the 
exporting country, the EC harmonized standards had the advantage of being lower than the national 
standards of many member States.  The European Communities would make available its response to Colombia’s questions through the Secretariat a nd the European Commission’s website contained 
information on the methodology used to determine the level of OTA in coffee.   
67. The EC draft regulation covered ground and roasted coffee but not green and soluble coffee.  
MRLs for OTA had already been established for grains  and its by-products and ra isins.  Furthermore, 
MRLs for OTAs for wine and wine based beverag es had been proposed.  While studies had concluded 
that cereals and cereal-based products were the ma in sources of consumer exposure to OTA, wine, 
grape juice and roasted and soluble coffee also cont ributed significantly to consumer exposure.  The 
European Communities would reassess its decision on th e basis of the results of the toxicology studies 
on OTA that would be available in 2006. 
EC's regulation on aflatoxins and Ocratoxin A in foods for infants and young children 
(G/SPS/N/EEC/223/Add.1) 
68. The representative of China raised concerns over EC notification G/SPS/N/EEC/223 and 
addendum on aflatoxins and OTA in foods for in fants and young children.  Studies conducted by 
JEFCA concluded that the acceptable level of risk was the same when the level of aflatoxin B1 was 
reduced from 20 to 10 mg/kg and when the level of af latoxin M1 was reduced from 0.5 to 0.05 mg/kg.  
Any further reductions of the levels of aflatoxins  B1 and M1 would have no significant impact on 
public health safety.  Furthermore, JECFA, in its 37
th Session, had established a weekly intake of 
OTA of 112 mg/kg.  This minimum intake was subsequently lowered to 100 mg/kg at the 44th Session 
of JECFA and remained unchanged in the 56th Session based on results of risk assessments carried out 
on OTA levels in cereals and cereal based products .  The European Communities was requested to 
provide scientific justification for its measures and to consider the impact of the measures on 
international trade. 
69. The representative of the European Communities stated that the EC regulation amending 
Commission regulation 466/2001 concerning aflato xins and OTA in foods for infants and young 
children applied to products placed in EC market s and was effective from 1 November 2004.  China 
had not submitted comments during the comment pe riod, nevertheless, China's comments would be 
taken into account and a written response would be provided.  The JECFA studies referenced above 
were based on intake levels of a dults, rather then on intake levels of infants.  The European 
Communities had therefore considered it necessary to establish maximum levels of aflatoxins of B1, 
M1 and OTA for infants and young children.  These maximum levels were achievable and 
substantiated by data.  Furthermor e they had little trade implications, as finished foods for infants and 
young children were not traded in significant amounts.  
Japan’s standards and sp ecifications for food additives (G/SPS/N/JPN/121) 
70. The representative of China drew attention to Japan's notification G/SPS/N/JPN/121 on 
proposed MRLs for the fungicide boscalid.  The products affected by the proposed MRL included 
products of animal origin although the use of boscalid  was applicable to only a few products such as 
soybean and fruits.  Furthermore, MRLs for boscalid varied for different products, e.g., the MRL for 
strawberries was 15 ppm while the MRL for other pr oducts was 3.5 ppm.  The representative of China  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 13 
 
 
requested Japan to explain these differences in MRLs and to provide scientific evidence to justify the 
establishment of MRLs for boscalid. 
71. The representative of Japan stated that its measu res were based, in part, on the standards 
adopted by the US Environment Protection Agency  (EPA) for boscalid, including the products that 
were affected by the MRL.  As boscalid was a newl y registered agricultural chemical in Japan, MRLs 
needed to be established to ensure food safety.  Domestic data was also taken into account in 
establishing the MRL and this explained why there were some differences in the MRLs between 
Japan and the United States.  
US rule on materials derived from cattle (G /SPS/N/USA/933) and record-keeping requirements 
(G/SPS/N/USA/934) 
72. The representative of Argentina stated that notification G/SPS/N/USA/933 and 934 were 
published as regular notifications but were of im mediate and compulsory implementation despite 
giving a timeframe for comments.  Furthermore, Ar gentina was recognized as free of BSE but had to 
comply with the same requirements imposed on coun tries affected with BSE.  The United States was 
requested to recognize the different disease status  of Members as required in Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement. 
73. The representative of China raised concerns over US measures notified in G/SPS/N/USA/933 
and 934.  The product description in the notification was too general and the HS tariff codes for the 
products covered by the two measures should be in cluded.  The notifications broadly included all 
trading partners exporting human food or cosmetics to the United States without taking into account 
the BSE status of different countries or regions.  It was not necessary to restrict products from 
countries free of BSE nor should manufac turers be required to keep re levant records.  These measures 
impeded international trade and the United States  should provide scientific justification for its 
deviation from international standards and modify its measures accordingly. 
74.  The representative of the United States explained that notification G/SPS/N/USA/933 
prohibited the use of materials derived from cattle in human food, including dietary supplements, and 
in cosmetics.  Prohibited cattle materials included specified risk materials such as brain and spinal 
tissue, small intestine of all cattle, material fro m nonambulatory disabled cattle, material from cattle 
not inspected and passed for human consumption and mechanically separated beef.  These restrictions 
were put in place to reduce the risk associated w ith BSE and the human disease variant Creutzfeldt-
Jakob disease.  The FDA issued an interim final ru le effective immediately with a 90-day comment 
period ending on 12 October 2004 a nd would consider modifications on the final rule based on 
comments received.  The requirements of prohibited cattle materials were im posed without exceptions 
to any products or ingredients of products manuf actured in or imported into the United States.  
However, the United States recognized that a count ry’s BSE status might merit consideration as the 
final rule was being developed.  To this eff ect, the United States was seeking comments on the issue 
of equivalence as it related to BSE risk manage ment requirements as well as on standards to apply 
when determining another country’s  BSE status, providing an exemption for BSE free countries.  The 
FDA and USDA were working to develop a harmoni zed US position on exempting other countries 
from respective requirements related to BSE which mi ght be based, at least in part, on a country’s 
BSE status as determined by the OIE. 
75. Notification G/SPS/N/USA/934 was issued at  the same time as G/SPS/N/USA/933 and 
required manufacturers and processors of human food and cosmetics that were manufactured from, 
processed with or otherwise contained material from cattle to establish and maintain records 
demonstrating that foods and cosmetics were in co mpliance with the interim final rule.  The comment 
period of the proposed record-keeping rule ende d on 13 August and the comments were currently 
being reviewed.  The United States would notify th e Committee of any chang es incorporated in the G/SPS/R/35 
Page 14  
 
final rule.  The United States would include the HS  codes as requested by China via a corrigendum to 
the two notifications. 
EC proposed regulation on maximum residue l evels of pesticides (G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.1) 
76. The representative of Argentina drew attention to EC notification G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add 1 
which aimed to consolidate and simplify existi ng EC directives on maximum residue levels of 
pesticides in products of plant and animal orig in.  The proposed rule would seriously affect 
developing countries' agri-food exports.  Of particul ar concern was the EC default level of zero for 
maximum residue limits set for products that had not  being authorized or when data was unavailable 
to demonstrate the safety of the residues.  This  requirement was implemented for economic reasons 
rather than for food safety considerations.  More over, many of the maximum residue limits set by 
Codex had not been accepted by the European Commun ities, especially those set before 1990.  The 
European Communities should provide scientific ju stification for deviations from international 
standards as well as consider the economic impact of  the implementation of its proposed regulation on 
trading partners. 
77. The representatives of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Mexico, 
Paraguay, and Uruguay echoed the concerns raised by Argentina.  The representatives of Chile and 
Cuba asked what methodology was used in setting the default detection limit.  
78. The representative of the Philippines, on behalf  of ASEAN countries, supported the statement 
made by Argentina and asked why the European  Communities had not adopted relevant Codex 
standards.  The European Communities should pr ovide a risk assessment if a higher level of 
protection than that achieved by the relevant Code x standards was adopted.  Furthermore, developing 
countries lacked the technological and analytical cap ability to comply with the new default approach 
and this could have adverse ec onomic implications for them. 
79. The representative of the European  Communities explained that a listing of all available risk 
assessment documents on approved MRLs had been made, including those MRLs for pesticides 
approved many years ago.  Some of the risk a ssessments were no longer re levant today and so a 
reassessment of the pesticides was needed.  The industry was requested to supply the relevant 
scientific and technical data to carry out these risk  assessments.  However, the industry was no longer 
interested in marketing some of the older pesticid es and were not keen to fund research.  Therefore, 
these pesticides were withdrawn from the list and a residue default level was set for them.  The 
European Communities would, however, allow the use of these pesticides if furnished with relevant 
risk assessments from interested trading partners.  The representative of the European Communities 
requested Argentina to provide its questions in wr iting so that detailed written replies could be 
communicated to all interested Members. 
India's non-notification of various SPS measures 
80. The representative of the United States recalled that he had raised the issue on India’s 
compliance with the transparency obligations in the Committee meetings earlier in the year.  The 
United States remained concerned over the impact of India’s non-notification of its measures on US 
exports.  India's lack of transp arency created uncertainty among exporters.  India was requested to 
notify their SPS measures and to allow a reasonable period of time for comment. 
81. The representative of the European  Communities shared the concer ns of the United States and 
at the same time urged all Members to notify their SPS measures.  A bilateral meeting had been held 
with India and the European Communities were optimistic of improvements in India's transparency 
obligations.   G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 15 
 
 
82. The representative of India stated that India a ttached great importance to the transparency 
provisions of the SPS Agreement and would ensu re that it complied with its obligations. 
Notification by Members of implementation of ISPM 15 
83. The representative of the European Communiti es stated that a number of Members had 
informed the Committee of their intentions to put in place wood packing requirements based on 
ISPM 15.  These wood packing requirements would also cover wooden barrels and casks containing 
distilled spirits or other alcoholic beverages.  Although ISPM 15 was not clear on the coverage of 
products, it provided guidance on products that might  be excluded such as manufactured wood.  The 
wooden barrels and casks typically used to contain distilled spirits and wine were subject to heat 
treatment at 100 degrees centigrade for 40 minutes, exceeding ISPM is guidelines of 56 centigrade for 
30 minutes. 
84. It was apparent that the drafters of ISPM 15 did not intend to cover wooden barrels used to 
contain alcoholic beverages such as spirits.  Some  countries had clearly indicated in their domestic 
legislation that ISPM 15 did not apply to wood en barrels containing spirits.  The European 
Communities noted that the IPPC was organizing a gl obal training workshop in 2005 to explain the 
application of ISPM 15 but requested the IPPC to clarify the matter as soon as possible in order to 
allow trade to continue.   
(d) Information on Resolution of Issues 
EC export restrictions due to BSE 
85. The representative of the European Communitie s informed the Committee that several WTO 
Members had reviewed their bans on EC beef and small bovine ruminant products and replaced them 
with specific requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  The European Communities urged all 
those Members who had not done so to align thei r regulations in accordance with OIE standards. 
86. The representative of the United States noted that some Members were reviewing their import 
restrictions on US beef and also urged all t hose Members who had not done so to align their 
regulations in accordance with OIE standards. 
EC export restrictions due to classical swine fever  
87. The representative of the European Communities recalled that the European Communities had 
on previous occasions requested on Members to adhe re to the principles of regionalization and to 
recognize the disease-free status of EC member States.  Several Members had now removed their restrictions on some EC member States.  The European Communities would provide all necessary information to demonstrate its disease-free status to any WTO Member.   
United States de-listing of France from authorizat ion to export certain meat and meat products 
88. The representative of the European Communiti es reported that the USDA had carried out 
inspections in France and concluded that the Fren ch regulatory system met US requirements and was 
eligible to export meat-based products to the Un ited States.  The European Communities looked 
forward to continued good relations with the United St ates so that in future measures more restrictive 
than necessary were not adopted.   
89. The representative of the United States stated that  a follow-up audit of the headquarters of the 
French Inspection Service, thr ee local offices and four establishments was conducted in September 
and October.  The audit concluded that French  establishments met the US requirements and the 
suspension on French meat-based products was lifted on 15 October 2004. G/SPS/R/35 
Page 16  
 
Switzerland's import requirements on meat and eggs   
90. The representative of Switzerland informed the Committee that item number 150 of document 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 on Switzerland's import requireme nts on meat and eggs had been resolved.  
This trade concern had been raised by the United St ates and substantial changes had been made to the 
regulation to take into account comments recei ved during the public consultation process.  These 
changes were notified to the TBT Committee in 1999 and were no longer considered SPS issues.  The 
representative of the United States concu rred that the issue was resolved.  
Switzerland's measures on wheat, rye and triticale (G/SPS/N/CHE/5) 
91. The representative of Switzerland stated that item number 151 of document 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev4 on Switzerland's measures on wh eat, rye and triticale was raised by Argentina 
in 1997.  This issue was now r esolved as Argentina was free from triticale indica  and therefore the 
measure did not apply to them.  The representati ve of Argentina concurred that the issue was 
resolved. 
IV. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS 
92. The Chairman drew Member's attention to the documents circulated by the Secretariat to 
enhance transparency within the context of the SPS Agreement.  These included the list of National 
Notification Authorities (G/SPS/NNA/7), the list of SPS Enquiry Points (G/SPS/ENQ/17), an update of implementation of transparency obligations (G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.13), and the monthly summaries 
of SPS notifications (G/SPS/GEN/507, 509, 511 and 516). 
93. The Secretariat informed Members that eight supplements on unofficial translations were 
received from Members during the year.  Although the number of notifications to the WTO were 
steadily increasing there were still many Members w ho had not yet notified the WTO of changes in 
their regulations.  Members were therefore urged to comply with their obligations to enhance 
transparency. 
94. In response to a query from the representative of  Kenya as to why a large number of countries 
were not complying with their transparency obliga tions, the Chairman recalled that a special meeting 
on the operation of enquiry points held last Oct ober highlighted some of the issues and problems 
regarding the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement.  In addition, there were numerous 
technical assistance activit ies undertaken by the Secretariat sin ce 1995 that covered the transparency 
provisions.  If these activities were not effective in assisting Members to comply with their 
transparency obligations, then  the Committee might need to consider other solutions. 
95. The Secretariat stated that it was Members' r esponsibility to ensure the implementation of the 
transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement.   A handbook and CD-ROM on how to apply the 
transparency provisions was available to assist Memb ers to meet their transparency obligations.  In 
addition, the Joint Technical Assistance Program (JITAP) would provide training to sixteen African 
countries on the operation of SPS Enquiry Points in 2005. 
96. The representative of Mauritius stated that it was important for developing countries to 
exchange information and experien ces on the implementation of the transparency provisions with 
other developing countries.  To this effect, Maur itius had participated in workshops in several 
Caribbean and African countries on the transparency  provisions, in addition to a video conference 
with several Asian countries.   
97. In response to a question from the representativ e of Antigua and Barbuda as to when was it 
appropriate for a country to notify its measures to th e WTO, the Secretariat replied that this should be  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 17 
 
 
done as early as possible when the draft text of th e regulation was available, so that amendments 
could be incorporated in the draft on the basi s on comments received from trading partners.   
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS  FOR SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL  
(S&D) TREATMENT 
Chairman's report on the informal meeting 
98. The Chairman reported that the Committee had discussed four items during the meeting:  (1) 
the elaboration of the procedure to enhance transp arency of special and differential treatment in 
favour of developing country Members;  (2) th e proposals on special and differential treatment 
referred to the SPS Committee by the General Council;  (3) other special and differential treatment 
proposals;  and (4) plans for an SPS notifi cations/specific trade concerns database. 
99. With respect to the procedure to enhance tran sparency of special and differential treatment, 
the Committee had considered two new proposals.  The representative of Antigua and Barbuda had 
suggested a revision to Step 7 of the Secretariat' s elaboration of the procedure (G/SPS/W/156), while 
Canada had submitted a revised proposal based on discu ssions held with Malaysia in response to the 
concerns they had raised at the June meeting (G/SPS/W/155). 
100. A number of delegates had noted that they could support the changes proposed by Antigua 
and Barbuda, but that this did not substantively alte r the content of the procedure.  Many delegates 
recalled that the Committee had been discussing the doc ument for over two years and that they did not 
wish to delay its adoption any longer.  The repr esentative of Antigua and Barbuda emphasized that 
their primary objective was to facilitate adoption of the procedure, and they were prepared to adopt 
the text as proposed by Canada.  A number of other delegates also indicated that they were ready to 
adopt the text as proposed by Canada. 
101. The representative of Egypt had stated that his country supported adoptio n of the elaboration 
as proposed by Canada, and noted that this was wit hout prejudice to the rights and obligations of 
Members under Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement.  Furthermore, in adopting the Canadian proposal, 
Members reaffirmed that in the preparation and application of SPS measures, Members shall take 
account of the special needs of developing country Members and in particular of the least-developed 
country Members. 
102. The Chairman reported that under the second item, the Committee had discussed the five 
special and differential treatment proposals referre d to the Committee by the General Council.  The 
discussions were structured accord ing to the provision of the S PS Agreement which the proposals 
addressed, as described in the Attachment to document (G/SPS/W/135). 
103. The representative of Mexico had recalled that these proposals on special and differential 
treatment had been discussed in the past within the context of discussions in the CTD and in an 
informal joint CTD/SPS session.  In this regard, th e representative of Mexico noted that it might be 
useful for the Committee to review the previous discu ssions held in order for it to be in better position 
to achieve progress on some of these issues. 
104. The representative of Canada had noted that the Committee could report modest but positive 
progress to the General Council on various aspects of the special and differential treatment proposals 
being discussed.  Concerning the proposal put forward by the African Group, which suggested the creation of a facility within the Global Trust Fund, the representative of Canada had recalled that the 
Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) had been established in September 2002 following 
the commitment made by the Heads of the WHO, the FAO, the WTO, the OIE and the World Bank at 
the Doha Ministerial Conference to enhance the capac ity of developing countries in the standards area 
through cooperation between the relevant  institutions in SPS-related activities. G/SPS/R/35 
Page 18  
 
105. The representative of Canada had noted that several other proposals addressed 
implementation of Article 10.4 of the SPS Agreemen t, which stated that "Members should encourage 
and facilitate the active participa tion of developing country Member s in the relevant international 
organizations".  In this context,  a number of Trust Funds had been set up and were being implemented 
by the international standard-setting organizations  referenced in the SPS Ag reement to finance the 
participation of delegates from le ast-developed and deve loping country Members to participate in 
standard-setting activities.  Furthermore, the repr esentative of Canada had noted that the USDA had 
contributed to the IICA project that financed the participation of delegate s from the Latin America 
and Caribbean region to attend the SPS Committee me etings.  The representative of the European 
Communities had concurred that progress could be re ported as a result of the financial contributions 
of Members, including the European Communities, to the Codex Trust Fund and other similar funds. 
106. The Chairman had proposed that the Committee continue discussion on these proposals at an 
informal meeting just prior to the March meeti ng, considering the proposals according to the SPS 
provisions to which they related a nd taking note of past discussions. 
107. There was no substantive discussion on item 3 concerning other special and differential 
treatment proposals in the informal meeting. 
108. The Chairman reported that on item 4, the Co mmittee had exchanged views on a possible SPS 
notifications/specific trade concerns database pr oject which could be made available on the WTO 
website. 
109. While recognizing the importance of creating an SPS notifications database, the 
representatives of Ecuador and Mexico had noted that  all Members had to comply first with their 
transparency obligations and that efforts needed to be undertaken to ensure that Members notified 
their proposed SPS regulations.  This would ensure that the information presented in the database 
would be as complete as possible.  The representative of Jamaica had indicated that the creation of such a database would serve as an information tool for developing countries and could help them meet 
their obligations to notify proposed  SPS measures.  The representative of New Zealand had noted that 
it might be useful to undertake a cost/benefit analysis of the advantages of creating an SPS 
notifications database. 
110. The Secretariat had clarified that the SPS notif ications/specific trade concerns database would 
be designed to help the Secretariat better manage the number of notifications and also to link these 
with specific trade concerns raised.  The objective of the consultations had been to seek Members', 
and particularly developing country Members’ views on how such a database could best assist 
Members in managing their SPS-related work. 
111. Following the Chairman’s report, the representativ e of Kenya remarked that the mandate of 
special and differential treatment had not being fu lfilled and therefore the SPS Committee could not 
report on any progress made on this issue to the Ge neral Council.  The Chairman recalled that his 
report clearly reflected that certain Members felt th at they could report positive progress.  This did not 
in any way suggest that the Committee had agre ed that positive progress could be reported to the 
General Council.  The representative of Canada stat ed that he had clearly indicated that modest 
progress could be reported in a limited number of ar eas, particularly with respect to the specific 
elements of the proposal by the African Group. 
(a) Elaboration of the proposal by Canada (G/SPS/W/155) 
112. The Chairman proposed that the Committee adopt the elaboration of the procedure to improve 
the transparency of special and differential treat ment on the basis of Canada's revised proposal.  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 19 
 
 
113. The representatives of the Eur opean Communities, India, Jamaica and Honduras on behalf of 
the Central American region, were in favour of the adoption. 
114. There were no objections and the proposal was adopted by the Committee . 
(b) Issues referred by the General Council  
115. The representative of India recalled that these i ssues were submitted by developing countries 
within the context of the Doha mandate to make the special and differential provisions more precise, 
effective and operational.  The Committee should end eavour to fulfil this manda te and it would not be 
appropriate to report that progress has been made on these issues at this point in time.  Further discussions on this issue should continue in another informal meeting. 
116. The Chairman stated that an informal mee ting next March would be useful and invited 
specific ideas from Members on how to move forward on this issue.  
VI. EQUIVALENCE  (ARTICLE 4) 
(a) Information from Members on their Experiences 
117. No information on Member's experience s was provided under this agenda item. 
(b) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
118. The representative of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) summarized the work 
relating to the Guidelines adopted in 2003, and on the judgement of equivalence of sanitary measures 
associated with food inspection and certification systems that the Codex Commission had agreed to undertake.  This work would take the form of appendices and cover:  (i) an assessment of which 
measures were to be the subject of an equivalence determination;  (ii) th e documentation needed for 
the evaluation of submissions of requests for e quivalence determinations;  (iii) the terms and 
conditions for on-site visits by  importing countries' authorities undertaking a determination of 
equivalence;  (iv) the determination for "an objec tive basis of comparison";  (v) more detail on the 
process of judging equivalence;  and (vi) information relating to technical assistance to be provided by 
importing countries to exporting countries.  Work on the new appendices would be discussed at the Codex Committee on Food Import and Inspection Certif ication System (CCFICS) in Melbourne, in 
December 2004. 
119. The representative of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) reported that the 
IPPC had drafted a standard on Guidelines on the co ncept of equivalence of phytosanitary measures 
and its application in international trade.  The standard had been submitted to all FAO Members for 
comments on 15 June 2004.  The Standards Commi ttee would consider the text and the comments 
made during the month of November and, where a ppropriate, amendments would be introduced.  The 
Standards Committee would then decide whether to submit the standard to the next session of the 
Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM) for consideration and adoption.  The forthcoming session of the ICPM was scheduled to take place in April 2005. 
VII. PEST AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS (ARTICLE 6) 
(a) Report of Informal Meeting 
120. The Chairman reported that at the informal m eeting on the clarification of Article 6, the 
Committee’s discussions had centred ar ound the issues raised in three specific proposals that had been 
put forth by Chile (G/SPS/W/164), New Zealand (G/SPS/W/151) and Peru (G/SPS/W/148) and on the 
Chairman's questions that had been circulated to  Members in advance of the informal meeting. G/SPS/R/35 
Page 20  
 
121. The representative of Peru had observed that many Members encountered implementation 
difficulties in the application of Article 6 a nd proposed, along with other Members, that the 
Committee work on developing clear guidelines on pr ocedures and specific timeframes to address this 
issue.  At the same time, the Co mmittee should, in Peru's view, encourage the OIE and IPPC to pursue 
complementary work in their respective areas of expertise. 
122. The representative of New Zealand had suggested that a continuing and more precise 
identification of the problems faced by some Memb ers on the implementation of Article 6 was an 
important first step which would facilitate identifying  the most appropriate solutions.  In this regard 
Members should exchange as much information as possi ble on their experiences with regionalization.  
However, New Zealand, and other Members, had considered that the development of technical 
standards should be left to the appropriate interna tional standard-setting bodies.  The representative of 
Japan and other Members had noted concerns with the idea of specific timeframes. 
123. The representative of Chile had noted the impor tance of regionalization in facilitating trade 
and that duplication of work in the relevant st andard-setting bodies needed to be avoided. The 
standard-setting bodies should focus on establishi ng technical and scientific guidelines while the 
Committee should focus on the administrative guideli nes such as providing legal certainty for market 
access conditions and guid elines for timeframes. 
124. The Chairman had reported that there was broa d agreement that duplication of work by the 
SPS Committee and the standard-setting bodies needed  to be avoided.  Clearly some aspects of 
regionalization were technically oriented and best d ealt with in the standard-setting bodies.  However, 
there had been a divergence of views on wh ether or not the SPS Committee should establish 
procedural guidelines and timeframes similar to what  had been done for equivalence.  One view was 
that the Committee should deal with trade-related issues such as market ac cess while the standard-
setting bodies should deal with the development of technical standards. 
125. Another view had taken on board the issue of  the sequencing of discussions between the 
Committee and the standard-setting bodies.  While so me delegations suggested that these issues could 
be dealt with concurrently in the Committee and in  the standard-setting bodies, others were of the 
view that the standard-setting bodies should review such procedural aspects first then the Committee 
could proceed.  This could reduce any duplication. 
126. Another concern had been the feasibility of developing general timeframes as suggested in 
some of the proposals. 
127. Furthermore, it had been noted that many deve loping and least-developed countries lacked the 
skilled personnel and infrastructure to  implement and benefit from the concept of regionalization, and 
these countries would require technical assistance. 
128. The Chairman further reported that some Memb ers had proposed to invite the OIE and the 
IPPC to clarify whether there was duplication of th e work being undertaken in the Committee and to 
explain their areas of competence with respect to the Committee’s discussions on regionalization.  
The Committee noted that these organizations ha d already been responsive to the requests and 
concerns of the Committee. 
129. At the informal meeting, the OIE had informed  the Committee of the work undertaken by the 
OIE with respect to regionalization or zoning and comp artmentalization.  A zone referred to a clearly 
defined part of a country while a compartment wa s defined as one or more establishments under a 
common biosecurity management system.  The objectiv es of these two concepts were similar, i.e., the 
recognition of different animal health status.  The OIE was currently working on expanding the 
chapters of the Animal Health Codes on the pr inciples and procedures for recognition of disease-free 
areas.  The draft text would be available after the OIE Code Committee meeting in January 2005.  The  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 21 
 
 
OIE sought information from its Members on their experiences with regionalization.  The OIE 
officially verified and recognized the health stat us for four diseases.  The OIE could include other 
diseases but this had significant financial resource implications.  The OIE had adopted fast-track 
procedure for when there was a change in the status of a disease.  The OIE General Session in 
May 2005 would discuss the issue of the recognition of regionalization.   
130. The Chairman of the ICPM had informed the Committee at the informal meeting that two 
IPPC standards on regionalization had been develo ped:  ISPM 4 on establishment of pest-free areas 
and ISPM 10 on pest-free areas of production.  A third standard on low pest prevalence was expected to be adopted at the ICPM meeting in April 2005.   Regionalization would be a prominent agenda item 
at the next ICPM meeting, and an open-ended work ing group on regionalizati on would be formed to 
also look into the development of pest-free protocol s.  The WTO Secretariat and the OIE were invited 
to participate in this open-ended working group. 
131. In response to the Chairman's questions on rol es and responsibilities, the representative of the 
European Communities had suggested that the st andard-setting bodies should be responsible for 
establishing technical guidelines whereas the Committee should oversee the implementation of 
Article 6.  However, the European Communities ha d concerns about proposals to establish timeframes 
which were in addition to the timeframes prescribed  by the standard-setting bodies when developing 
technical standards.  When the European Communiti es received a request for ma rket access, an initial 
risk assessment was made and access given on that basi s.  In case of a disease or pest outbreak in the 
exporting country, temporary measures were im posed as a safeguard, but these measures were 
normally lifted automatically once th e outbreak was under control.  
132. At the informal meeting, one delegation noted  that Members may have concerns over how a 
particular technical standard had been devel oped in the standard-setting body.  Since the SPS 
Agreement allowed deviations from international st andards, this pointed to another reason why the 
Committee should be involved in the issue of regionalization. 
133. With regard to the Chairman’s questions on tim eframes, the OIE had clarified the differences 
between timeframes that were associated with th e establishment of technical standards and those 
timeframes that were associated with the implemen tation of the standard.  The OIE had developed 
timeframes for the implementation of technical standards. 
134. In terms of the future work of the Committee,  one suggestion had noted that the process for 
Monitoring the Use of International Standards provi ded an ideal forum to discuss the implementation 
issues relating to Article 6 and a means to recomme nd further work by the relevant standard-setting 
organizations on procedural issues.  Another suggest ion had been to maintain a specific agenda item 
on regionalization and for the Committee to address pro cedural issues with a view to the adoption of a 
decision on Article 6 similar to that whic h the Committee had taken on equivalence. 
135. The Chairman concluded that widespread suppor t had been expressed for the organization of 
a workshop to look in detail at the issues surr ounding implementation of regionalization, with the 
participation of the OIE and IPPC.  The Secretar iat had noted the difficulties of organizing such a 
workshop for March 2005, and recalled that the IPPC  and OIE would be advancing their work on 
regionalization in March and May 2005, respectively. 
136. In response to the Chairman’s report, several Members reiterated their different points of 
view as reflected in the report.  One view reca lled that the work being proposed in the Committee 
would deal with the trade-related issues, which were  not currently being dealt with by the standard-
setting bodies, who dealt solely with the development of  technical standards in this area.  These trade-
related issues were considered to  be directly related to the implementation of Article 6 of the 
Agreement.  In this regard, Peru offered to wo rk with interested dele gations to develop a new 
proposal on guidelines related to procedures and time frames.  Some Members expressed interest in G/SPS/R/35 
Page 22  
 
knowing how many Members had responded to the qu estions on Article 6 put forth by the Chairman 
and requested the Secretariat to circulate the responses received. 
137. Several Members reiterated the view that the development of technical standards should be 
left to the appropriate international standard-setting bodies. 
VIII.  UNDUE DELAYS 
138. The representative of Uruguay outlined a number of issues regarding undue delays that many 
exporting Members experienced in the recognition of equivalence and regionalization, specific entry 
conditions, and control, inspec tion and approval procedures (G/SPS/W/160).  The difficulties that 
resulted (excessively long time-limits, exaggera ted requests for information and non-transparent 
procedures) prevented exporting Members from pl anning and managing their production and export 
strategies in a predictable manner.  Given the lack of specificity in the SPS Agreement with regard to 
these issues and the absence of relevant intern ational standards, guidelines and recommendations, 
Uruguay proposed that the Committee develop genera l principles and guidelines on:  time-limits;  
requests for information;  and transparency.  The representative of Uruguay urged the Committee to 
focus its discussions on analyzing the problem an d identifying solutions rather than focusing on 
different ways of implementing solutions. 
139. The representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Paraguay, shared the concerns expressed 
by Uruguay and supported the use of mechanisms within the Committee for resolving these issues.  
Chile supported the additions to  paragraph 1 of Annex C of the SPS Agreement suggested by 
Uruguay.  
140. The representatives of Canada, New Zealand and the Philippines noted that Uruguay had 
raised a number of interesting issues and suggested discussing them further at a later meeting.  The 
representative of the United States noted that Uruguay  had highlighted important issues related to the 
operation and implementation of the SPS Agreemen t including problems concerning the recognition 
of disease-free areas.  The proposal could benef it from the views of both importing and exporting 
Members and it was important that standard-setting bo dies participated in the discussions.  The United 
States would review the contents of the document in more depth and offer further comments as the 
Committee discussed these issues in the future. 
141. The representative of China shared and sup ported many of the concerns expressed by 
Uruguay in the document and noted that it had only been  made available in Spanish.  In response the 
representative of Uruguay indicated that the documen t had been finalized and submitted at the very 
last minute which explained why it had been made available only in Spanish. 
142. The Chairman took note of the fact that th e document had been made available to the 
Committee only in Spanish as well as of the desire  expressed by Members to discuss it further at the 
next meeting.    
IX. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
143. The Secretariat introduced document G/SPS/GEN/521, which listed all SPS technical 
assistance (TA) and training activities undertaken by the Secretariat from 1 September 1994 to 31 August 2004.  Activities listed in the table at tached to the document included information 
regarding:  the type of activity;  the region, venu e and dates;  participating countries;  the language 
used;  as well as whether representatives from the Codex Alimentarius (Codex), the World Organization for Animal Health (O IE), and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) had 
participated in the activity.  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 23 
 
 
144. Altogether, 104  SPS technical assistance and training activities had been undertaken for the 
period under review.  The Secretariat stated that the number of SPS technical assistance activities had 
increased significantly over time.  Since 2002, over 20 technical assistance activities had been 
undertaken per year.  Overall, 47 regional or s ub-regional workshops, 34 national seminars and 23 
"other" activities had been conducted.  Eighteen pe r cent of the beneficiaries of all SPS TA and 
training activities provided by the Secretariat had been from least-developed countries (LDCs), 77 per 
cent from developing countries, and 5 per cent fro m developed countries.  Since 1994, representatives 
from the international standard-setting organizations had actively participated in the delivery of SPS 
regional workshops undertaken by the Secretariat (Codex had participated in 37, OIE in 34 and the 
IPPC in 32 regional workshops).  The Secretariat thanked the Codex, OIE and IPPC for contributing 
expertise to these TA regional activities.   
145. The Secretariat described past and planned national and regional SPS TA activities. Since the 
last meeting the Secretariat had:  provided training in four national seminars in Yemen, United Arab 
Emirates, Maldives and Turkey;  conducted a regi onal workshop in collaboration with the Joint 
Vienna Institute for Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucuses region in Vienna;  
participated in a regional workshop for francophone  countries from Central and Eastern Africa in 
Madagascar;  conducted a regional workshop for a nu mber of South Asian countries in Bangladesh;  
participated in an OIE/FAO-regional workshop fo r Asia and the Pacific East in Chiang Mai; and 
participated in the WTO Trade Policy Courses held  in Tunisia and Morocco and in a regional TBT 
workshop in Panama.  The Secretariat had also provided training for a SIDA training course on Regulatory and Quality Infrastructure Development fo r Food Safety and Quality in Stockholm.  The 
Secretariat would undertake a national seminar and a regional workshop before the end of the year.  In 
2005, the Secretariat had planned to organize a number of SPS regional workshops in conjunction 
with OIE reference centres within the framework of  an STDF project that aimed to assist the OIE to 
train new delegates. 
146. The Secretariat introduced document G/SPS/GEN/523 which described the adoption of the 
Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) Business Plan and a Call for Proposals.  It was 
noted that the STDF was now fully open fo r business and reference was made to the 
8 December 2004 deadline for the first cycle of STDF funding in 2005.  Document G/SPS/GEN/523 also outlined on-going project activities.  The Secr etariat stated that it proposed to work with 
Members to ensure that their activities were fully re ported in the STDF tec hnical assistance database.  
The Secretariat also requested that Members submit lis ts of experts with part icular expertise in SPS 
capacity building similar to that submitte d by the European Communities in document 
G/SPS/GEN/69.  Finally, the Secretariat made not e of on-going technical assistance activities in the 
SPS area with UNIDO and within the Integrated Fr amework and the Joint Integrated Technical 
Assistance Programme, and committed to report more  fully at the next Committee meeting.   
147. The representative of the European Communities recalled that the Government of France had 
contributed Euro 100,000 to the STDF and that the United Kingdom and the Netherlands had both 
made funding pledges of £350,0 00 and Euro 300,000, respectivel y. The representative of Canada 
welcomed the effective establishment of the STD F and pledged to contribute US$300,000 to this 
initiative.  
148. The Secretariat thanked the Government of Fr ance for its financial contribution to the STDF 
and other Members for their pledges.  
(b) Information from Members 
149.
 The representative of Jamaica provided in formation on a workshop on the practical 
application of ISPM 15 planned to take place in Va ncouver, Canada, in February 2005.  The objective 
of the workshop would be to facilitate the understa nding of ISPM 15 among countries so as to ensure 
implementation of the standard while minimizing disr uption to trade.  Funding would be provided by G/SPS/R/35 
Page 24  
 
the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STD F) with additional contributions from Canada.  
The representative of the IPPC added that the IPPC  had been working closely with Canada in the 
organization of the event. 
150. The representative of Jamaica reported that the first regional workshop on the application of 
ISPM 15 had been hosted by th e North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) in Mexico 
City, Mexico on 22-25 September 2004.  The workshop had been held to identify critical issues and to 
clarify the requirements for implementing ISPM 15 by producers, shippers and other industry 
stakeholders in Mexico and Central America.  
151. The representative of Uruguay reported that the Regional Phytosanitary Committee of the 
Southern Cone (COSAVE), the North American Pl ant Protection Organizati on (NAPPO), and the US 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APH IS/USDA), in cooperation with the IICA offices in 
Canada and Argentina, were orga nizing a workshop on the analysis of international standards on 17-
19 November 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  She indicated that over 500 participants were 
expected to attend.  During the workshop a number of presentations related to the implementation of 
ISPM 15 would take place and she urged Members to participate in these discussions.   
152. The representative of China expressed appreciati on for the technical assistance and capacity 
building activities undertaken by the Secretariat a nd thanked other Members, including Australia, 
Canada, the European Communities and the United St ates for providing further training to Chinese 
officials.  China would host a training workshop on  risk analysis for ASEAN officials in January 2005 
and another one on the prevention and control of avian influenza.   
153. The representative of the European Commun ities commented on a planned workshop on the 
implementation of ISPM 15 scheduled to take pl ace 6-10 December 2004 in Saint Petersburg, Russian 
Federation.  The workshop was being organized by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 
Organization (EPPO) and was intended for European countries, in particular Eastern European and 
former CIS countries.  
154. The representative of Mauritius summarized the de tails related to their experience with the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/GEN/526).  He expressed appreciation for all the 
technical assistance activities organized in the African continent in order to familiarize the developing 
countries of the continent with the benefits of  the SPS Agreement and on how to meet their 
obligations under this Agreement. 
(c) Information from Observers 
155. The representative of the World Bank summarized th e details of their analytical and support 
programme in the SPS area (G/SPS/GEN/520).  Th e World Bank's increasing work on trade in 
developing countries emphasized "behind the border" constraints, especially those relating to standards.  He indicated that the Bank had been dr awing lessons from its current research to improve 
their understanding of the SPS challenges and opportun ities associated with the food and agriculture 
trade of developing countries.  He indicated that he would present the results of the World Bank's 
project on Mainstreaming Standards and Trad e at the next SPS Committee meeting.   
156. The representative of IICA highlighted inform ation provided in document G/SPS/GEN/518 
on IICA's actions aimed at implementing the SPS Agreement in the Americas.   
157. The representative of the OIE stated its full s upport for the regional workshops organized by 
the SPS Secretariat.  
158. The representative of the IPPC reiterated that dr aft phytosanitary standards had been sent for 
country consultations.  The IPPC, in cooperation with regional plant prot ection organizations and  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 25 
 
 
other regional organizations, had organized a numb er of regional workshops to discuss these draft 
standards.  He indicated that the IPPC continued to support the implementation of technical assistance 
projects funded by FAO aimed at establishing a nd evaluating the phytosanitary capacities of 
developing countries and reiterated the IPPC's willingness to participate in the SPS regional 
workshops.  
159. The representative of the Codex provided a report on the FAO/WHO capacity building 
activities for food standards and regulations (G/ SPS/GEN/525).  He highlighted that the FAO and 
WHO were in the process of finalizing a CD-ROM  training package that provided guidance to 
Member countries on how to implement risk analysis principles in relation to food safety.  A second CD-ROM which included educational material on ho w to enhance the participation of Members in 
Codex work was also being finalized.  He indicat ed that the FAO/WHO trust fund to enhance the 
participation of developing countries in the work  of Codex had become operational in April 2004. 
This trust fund had enabled a number of devel oping countries to participate in several Codex 
meetings, including the 27
th Commission Session held in July 2004 .  The deadline for application of 
the trust fund for 2005 was 31 October, and he urge d eligible developing c ountry Members to submit 
their application to the WHO Secretariat through their Codex Contact Point as soon as possible.  He 
thanked donor countries for their financial contri butions to the Trust Fund and called upon those 
donor Members that had not yet contributed to do so in the future.  The representative of the European 
Communities indicated the European Communities' intention to renew their contribution to the 
FAO/WHO Trust Fund in 2005.  
X. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
(a) New Issues 
160. The Chairman recalled that according to the agr eed procedures, Members were to submit, at 
least 30 days in advance of each regular meeting, examples of what they considered to be problems 
with significant trade impact which they believed were related to the use or non-use of relevant 
international standards, guidelines and recommenda tions.  New Zealand had submitted a proposal on 
regionalization to be considered under this agenda item (G/SPS/W/151) .  The Chairman recalled that 
this proposal had been thoroughl y discussed during the informal meeting on regionalization.  The 
representative of New Zealand indicated that thei r proposal had been well discussed.  She reiterated 
New Zealand's suggestion that the issue be  referred to the standard-setting bodies. 
161. The representative of Chile emphasized that the fact that the Committee had been discussing 
the issue of regionalization under a nother agenda item did not mean that it could not be dealt with 
under the agenda item related to the monitoring the u se of international standa rds.  The representative 
of Mexico supported Chile and noted that regionaliza tion had various implications.  He stated that 
while the proposal by New Zealand had been a good starting point, it only dealt with one of the points related to the issue of regionalization. 
162. The representative of Canada suggested that th e Committee submit a request to the standard-
setting bodies at the next meeting once the exact wording had been agreed along the lines of the 
contents of the New Zealand proposal.  Accordi ng to Canada's understanding the Committee had not 
opposed the idea of sending work to the standard- setting bodies, rather the issue under discussion 
revolved around the work that the Committee would be doing in the meantime.  
163. The Chairman noted that there was merit in c onsidering the suggestion made by Canada given 
the inherent nature of the proposal put forward by New Zealand.  The first step would be for Members 
to further identify and clarify sp ecific areas and questions that might  be sent to the standard-setting 
bodies.  With the Committee approval, the Chairman  indicated that he would follow this approach 
without prejudice to the various views held by Me mbers and while discussions continued on the work 
that might be pursued within the Committee. G/SPS/R/35 
Page 26  
 
164. The representative of China summarized a number of concerns related to specific aspects 
concerning the implementation of ISPM 15 on wood packaging.  The Chairman noted China's intention to raise concerns relating to the implemen tation of ISPM 15, as a particular standard to be 
reviewed under this agenda item, at the next SPS Committee meeting. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised 
165. The representative of Canada recalled that in the June 2003 meeting the Secretariat had 
suggested a reduction in the deadline for identifying  issues to be discussed under this agenda item. 
The agreed procedures for monitoring the use of international standards (G/SPS/11) required that 
issues be identified 30 days in advance of a meeting;  the Secretariat had suggested this be reduced to 
ten days.  He noted that this issue had also b een brought up at the June 2004 meeting and suggested 
that the Committee agree to this reduction in orde r to allow Members to better benefit from this 
procedure.  
166. The Chairman recalled that the Committee had previously discussed the issue of harmonizing 
the dates.  The Committee agreed
 to modify the deadline for identif ying issues as established in the 
agreed procedures, from 30 days to ten days. 
XI. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
(a) Report of Informal Meeting 
167. The Chairman reported that at the first informal meeting on the Review of the SPS 
Agreement, the Committee's discussion had benef ited from written submissions by Canada, China, 
the European Communities, New Z ealand, Chinese Taipei and the United States.  In a general 
discussion of issues related to the Review, th e United States had suggested that document 
G/SPS/GEN/510 could serve as the basis for the final Review report produced by the Committee.  The 
United States had proposed that a discussion of specific trade concerns and a description of the work programme that the Committee intended to addres s at future meetings would provide valuable 
additions to the final Review document.  The Chairman noted in resp onse to questions that 
G/SPS/GEN/510 suggested that the Review could incor porate a review of the Consistency Guidelines 
(G/SPS/15).  This might essentially be to report th at no Member had raised any concerns regarding 
these guidelines since their adoption. 
168. The Committee had then discussed the issue of  transparency which Canada, China, the 
European Communities and New Zealand had rai sed in their written submissions.  Delegates 
discussed expanding current recommended notification procedures to enhance transparency, including 
the EC proposal that Members notify the adoption of the final text of SPS regulations.  Argentina had 
suggested that Members could use addenda to no tifications to indicate comments provided on the 
draft regulation text. 
169. The Chairman further reported that Canada, the European Communities and New Zealand had 
proposed that all measures that had a significan t impact on trade, including those based on 
international standards, should be notified.  They highlighted the potential trade disruption associated 
with the implementation of international standards, such as ISPM 15, and reasoned that notification of 
measures based on such standards would provide usef ul information to Members.  Such information 
was not available from the international standard -setting bodies.  The Committee had also discussed 
concerns about expanding notification responsibilities when, at the same time, Members were not yet 
adequately fulfilling their existing notification obligations.  The Secretariat had noted that 
recommended procedures did not constitute legal oblig ations and that full implementation of existing 
recommendations for notifications would greatly enha nce the benefits associated with transparency, 
particularly for developing country Members.  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 27 
 
 
170. In the informal meeting, the representative of  New Zealand had drawn attention to their 
proposal for the development of an SPS database to  facilitate information management by Members 
and the Secretariat.  The Secretariat had noted that  a database would be developed for the Secretariat’s 
use and encouraged delegates to engage in produc tive discussions about how the database could be 
structured to also address Me mbers’ information needs. 
171. The representative of Canada had noted that the body of the Agreement, including Article 7, 
referred to "measures", whereas Annex B required the notification of "regulations", and suggested that 
the Committee might wish to clarify this situati on.  The representative of China had emphasized the 
need to develop a common understanding of notifi cation timelines.  The representative of Egypt had 
expressed a desire to continue  exploring the possibility of ex-ante  notification of special and 
differential treatment.  Other delegates had highli ghted the resource requirements faced by Members 
who needed to translate regulatory texts into lan guages other than English, French and Spanish. 
172. The Committee had then discussed the re lationship between the SPS Committee and 
international standard-setting bodies, an issue that  had been raised by Canada, New Zealand and 
Chinese Taipei in their written submissions.  Th e representative of Chinese Taipei had suggested 
mechanisms for improving Members’ awareness of, and participation in, the work of the international 
standard-setting bodies. The representative of Canada  had noted that such mechanisms to enhance 
Members' participation in the international st andard-setting bodies had been put in place and 
encouraged their use.  Many issues related to this  item had been discussed previously in the informal 
meeting on Regionalization.  
173. Regarding the administration of the implementa tion of the Agreement, the representative of 
New Zealand had suggested that the good offices of the Chairman could be a cost-effective way of 
resolving issues, particularly for developing coun tries.  Moreover, positive results had been reported 
in most cases where issues had been referred to the Chairman.  The United States had also suggested 
expanded use of Article 12.2 of the Agreement, perhaps through increased use of the Committee for 
technical consultations.   
174. The Chairman further reported that although re gionalization had been discussed in a separate 
informal meeting, delegates had highlighted the in ter-relationship between ex isting knowledge of, and 
confidence in, trading partners' regulatory systems and the speed with which recognition of pest- or 
disease-free places of production could be re-established after a pest or disease outbreak.   
175. The representative of the European Communiti es had suggested that a discussion on issues 
related to implementation of contro l measures (Article 8) would be useful, in particular to clarify 
ambiguity regarding who should bear the cost of Me mbers' inspections.  Attention was drawn to the 
increasing number of requests for inspection visits and the resource intensive nature of these visits.   
176. The representative of the United States had sugg ested that the Committee would benefit from 
an in-depth examination of the inter-relationship betw een Articles 2.1 and 5.6 in the application of the 
Agreement by Members.  Another Member had propo sed that the discussion be broadened to include 
Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.4 and 5.4 and the issue of good regulatory practice in general.   
177. In response to the Chairman's report, several Members reiterated their points of view as 
reflected in the report.  In particular, the represen tative of Egypt reiterated th eir desire to continue 
exploring the possibility of ex-ante  notification of special and diffe rential treatment and expressed 
their concerns regarding the recommendation made by a number of Members related to the voluntary 
notification of all SPS regulations, including those that  conform to international standards, guidelines 
or recommendations.   
178. The representative of Malaysia welcomed the a doption of the Canadian proposal to enhance 
transparency of special and differential treatment  in favour of developing countries.  Special and G/SPS/R/35 
Page 28  
 
differential treatment had been considered a vita l aspect of the SPS Agreement.  The Canadian 
proposal demonstrated that there were ways to  address the needs and concerns of developing 
countries and Malaysia hoped that other decisions re lated to special and differential treatment would 
be taken in the future. 
179. The Chairman reminded Members that an informal meeting on the Review of the Operation 
of the SPS Agreement would be scheduled just prior to the March meeting.  He invited Members to 
comment on the proposals made in writing rela ted to the Review by 19 December 2004.  
XII. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF 
ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
180. The Chairman recalled that in accordance with Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of 
the People's Republic of China, the SPS Committee ha d to undertake an annual review for eight years 
of the implementation by China of the SPS Agr eement.  He opened the floor for comments or 
questions from Members. 
181. The representative of the European Communiti es thanked the Chinese authorities for their 
positive move to lift the embargo for some bovine and dairy-based products, such as bovine semen, 
bovine embryo and other protein derivates from bovine.  Therefore, in the document for the 
Transitional Review of China submitted by the European Communities (G/SPS/W/154), some of the 
points or comments were no longer up to date.  The representative of th e European Communities 
indicated that he would make a written correcti on in the form of an addendum to the document 
submitted and the positive moves on these issues woul d accordingly be updated in this document.  
182. The representative of the United States stated that in response to this item, that was 
announced and placed on the agenda as of the last meeting, the United States had submitted a paper 
(G/SPS/W/153) dated 4 October, wh ich provided some information on issues that they had raised with 
China in a number of different fora, including at m eetings of this Committee.  The United States 
considered that the Transitional Review Mechanis m was a useful exercise to gain an improved 
understanding and to clarify important aspects of Chin a's implementations of its  obligations under the 
SPS Agreement.  It was also important to ta ke note, as was done in the opening sentences of 
paragraph 1 of the US paper, that in the view  of the United States, China's implementation had 
markedly improved since the last time the Committee conducted this review.   
183. The representative of the United States indicated that  he was not going to go into details of all 
the issues that were presented in the paper, but would highlight a few.  In many cases China had 
promulgated and implemente d laws without notification to the WT O.  One example of this problem 
was AQSIQ Decree 73, and in the transitional revi ew conducted by the Committee on Agriculture, the 
United States had submitted document G/AG/W/64 a nd Add. 1 to that document, which provided 
written questions concerning a number of decrees,  including AQSIQ 73.  At the 23 September 2004 
Committee on Agriculture transitional review discuss ion, the Chinese delegation indicated that they 
would address the issues and questions that the United States had presented regarding Decree 73 in 
this Committee.  In paragraphs 11-13 of its pa per, the United States had again presented those 
questions for a response from the Chinese delegation. 
184. The representative of the United States further noted that his country was interested in 
continuing discussions with China on its SPS progr ammes.  As was noted earlier by the Chinese 
delegation, the United States had an on-going technical assistance programme with China and looked 
forward to productive discussions and enhanced u nderstanding of their implementation of their SPS 
obligations.   
185. The representative of Chinese Taipei commended China on its effort to meet its accession 
commitment.  Chinese Taipei also wanted to ta ke this opportunity to express concern regarding  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 29 
 
 
China's SPS measures and had raised questions in  document G/S/SPS/W/152, which was circulated 
1 October 2004.  Chinese Taipei looked forward to receive a response from China.   
186. The representative of Australia noted that Austra lia valued its strong relationship with China 
and continued to make efforts to strengthen co mmunication and cooperation with China on SPS 
matters.  Australia appreciated China's efforts to  develop and improve its quarantine and inspection 
systems to ensure that quarantine procedur es were based on sound scientific evidence and 
implemented with appropriate risk management.  While Australia understood the challenges China 
faced, it continued to encourage China to bring its systems fully into compliance with the SPS 
Agreement as quickly as possible, in cluding ensuring consistency and transparency in its development 
and administration of SPS measures, at both a nati onal and provincial level, as well as conformity 
with notification obligations under the SPS Agreem ent.  This would benefit China and all WTO 
Members. 
187. The representative of Australia further observed that Australia had been pleased to offer a 
significant amount of technical assistance to China,  to assist development of its SPS capabilities and 
systems and would continue to do so.  Australia wa s continuing to pursue a number of bilateral SPS 
issues with China, some of a long-standing nature .  The Australian delegation held a constructive 
meeting with the Chinese delegation during the cour se of the week, and had clarified a number of 
market access issues with the Chinese delegation at that time.  Australia looked forward to early 
resolution of these issues to allow bilateral trad e to expand to the mutual benefit of China and 
Australia. 
188. The Chairman asked if any other delegation wish ed to take the floor.  He recalled that in 
accordance with paragraph 18 of the Protocol of A ccession of the People's Republic of China, this 
was simply an opportunity for discussion, and certain ly there were no questions being posed directly 
to any Member here.   
189. The representative of China stated  that China felt obliged to remind Members that since the 
deletion of the three bullet points under agenda Item  11 had been adopted by all Members at the very 
beginning of the meeting, it was obviously inappropr iate to make referen ce to documents invalid 
under this agenda item.  He then invited his coll eague to give some responses to some questions 
raised by Members. 
190. The representative of China noted that since animal and plant epidemics and their spread 
frequently changed, China's quarantine requirements mainly reflected the situation through quarantine 
permits issued to importers.  Once an importer obtained a quarantine permit, if there was no import 
within the validity period or the export country epidemic situation had un dergone a major change, 
then the importer was required to re-apply for a ne w permit.  Importers coul d return the original 
permits to AQSIQ and apply to exch ange it for another new permit.   
191. According to the regulations of the Border An imal and Plant Quarantine Law of the People's 
Republic of China, importers shoul d gather import quarantine permit be fore signing import contracts.  
Exporters could identify China import quarantine requi rements in the trading contracts.  Thus China 
allowed the quarantine authority of an exporting  country or Member to implement quarantine 
measures and to produce quarantine certifications against China's quarantine requirements as written 
in the contract in order to prevent products that  did not meet with China's quarantine requirement 
from being exported to China.  This would also be  beneficial to preventing importers from suffering 
unnecessary losses.   
192. Regarding the bullet point in AQSIQ Decree 73, th e representative of China stated that his 
regulation reiterated the requirements stated in Ar ticle 11 of the Border Animal and Plant Quarantine 
Law which had been in effect since 1 April 1992, and had been notified to the WTO.  This was 
definitely not a new regulation and the purpose of the formulation of this defi nition of this regulation G/SPS/R/35 
Page 30  
 
had been described in his previous response and was not the meaning understood by some of the 
Members.  Since this regulation's first implementation twelve years ago, the fact was that this law had 
not received any complaints or concerns from impor ters or exporters whic h included those from the 
Members which had just raised the oral questions. 
193. The representative of China added a few words about the initial response his colleague had 
just given.  First he expressed his thanks to the de legations that had just taken the floor, and that had 
just made interventions, for their interests in Chin a's policies. China was grateful to the technical 
assistance efforts provided by the United States and Australia to China in this regard.  As a new 
Member China believed efforts of this kind were ve ry useful and very welcome.  He believed that 
with the technical assistance continuing to be provi ded by those Members, China's regulatory regime 
for SPS-elated measures would continue to improve. 
194. The representative of China further noted that some Member's intervention referred to some 
documents that he thought the Committee had agreed at  the beginning of this session to delete, and so 
he wondered what was the validity of those documents  being mentioned here and being included in a 
deliberation or consideration by this Committee fo r this session.  He said it was difficult for his 
delegation to consider how to form  appropriate responses at this moment to those invalid documents 
that were not supposed to be included in the deli berations of this session.  He noted that in the 
intervention by the United States the representative of  the United States referred to the discussion in 
the Committee on Agriculture which took place last month, and of course China later on had taken 
every opportunity, bilaterally and mu ltilaterally at various le vels, at national, mini sterial, departmental 
and divisional levels to try to exchange view s with their US colleagues on those issues.  The 
representative of China took this opportunity to report  to the Committee that just prior to this session 
China had held SPS bilateral consultations with the United States, and he believed that the discussions 
in that session had already covered some of the c oncerns and questions on issues raised by the United 
States.  The representative of China said further that hi s country was prepared to continue to have this 
dialogue and exchange of information with thei r US colleagues on a continuous basis to further 
explore the ways of how to enhance mutual unde rstanding and how to deepen clarification on 
understanding of certain issues and regulations.  He  promised that his delegation was prepared to 
work as closely as before with the US delegation in this regard.   
195. The representative of China concluded by expr essing his deep and special thanks to the 
Chairman and the Secretariat staff for their great effo rts in preparations for this session.  He said he 
was deeply impressed by the Chairman's professiona l competence and dedication and hard work and 
wished him good luck in most succes sfully chairing this session.   
196. The Chairman thanked the representative of China and asked whether he wanted the 
Chairman to expand on the question that had been posed.  He queried whether it had been a question 
to the Chairman or just a rhetorical question that c ould be left in the air in terms of the procedural 
aspects.  The Chairman indicated that he was in the hands of the representative of China regarding 
how he would like that handled. 
197. The representative of China indicated that it c ould be understood either way, but to save 
labour, one could assume that it could be deemed to be a rhetorical question. 
198. The Chairman noted that he was trying to work as carefully as possible to assure that things 
were well understood.  He asked if any ot her delegation wished to take the floor. 
199. The representative of the United States tha nked the Chinese delegation for the information 
that they had just provided, and noted that his c ountry too looked forward to continuing to build and 
enhance their SPS relationships and to develop a d eeper understanding of China's implementation of 
its SPS obligations.  The United States took note that so me of the issues that were in their paper, some 
of the questions, the rather specific questions, in th eir paper had not been addressed and that it would  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 31 
 
 
be the intention of the United States to continue to work with China to understand the response that 
the Chinese government had to these particular questi ons.  Many of these issues would be more fully 
developed and addressed through the on-going dialogue and the United States would continue in that 
matter.   
200. The representative of China said that he appreciat ed very much the intervention just made by 
the delegate of the United States.  He believed th at besides this TRM exercise, other avenues of 
dialogue were also open and China was, like the Un ited States, ready to continue this dialogue and 
exchange on all those issues of concern to the Un ited States.  The representative of China made it 
clear that some of those issues raised in the US paper China believed were legitimate, were 
understandable.  China was prepared to work through dialogue with the United States to be able to get 
clearer answers and improve upon China's practice wher e necessary.  China wa s determined to make 
efforts in that direction.   
201. The Chairman stated that he would make a shor t factual report on the transitional review to 
the Council for Trade in Goods (circulated as G/SPS/34). 
 
XIII.  MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER 
ORGANIZATIONS 
202. The Chairman indicated that an updated list of the relevant inte rnational standards of the OIE 
(G/SPS/GEN/512), IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/513), and Codex (G/SPS/GEN/514) had been circulated for the consideration of the Committee. 
(a) Information from Codex  
203. The representative of Codex highlighted a numbe r of issues related to the activities of the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission (G/SPS/GEN/519).  He indicated that the 27
th Session of the Codex 
Commission held in Geneva in July 2004 had ad opted 20 new standards (listed in Appendix I of 
G/SPS/GEN/519).  In addition, the Commission had ag reed to commence work on a number of issues, 
including: (i) principles for electronic certificati on; (ii) guidelines for risk-based inspection of 
imported foods;  (iii) sampling plans for aflatoxins  in almonds, Brazil nuts, hazel nuts and pistachios; 
and (iv) a revision of the existing Code of Practice for Foods for Infants and Children.  He listed the 
forthcoming Codex meetings  and recalled that within the framework of the 21st Session of the Codex 
Committee on General Principles (8-12 November in  Paris), an informal working group meeting 
would be held on 7 November to discuss the draft Codex Guideline on risk analysis principles. He indicated that the issue of acceptance of Codex sta ndards would also be cons idered during the General 
Principles meeting.  Finally, he informed that Ukraine had become the 171
st Member of the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission. 
(b) Information from IPPC 
204. The representative of the IPPC reported on activ ities undertaken by the IPPC since the last 
Committee meeting.  Four expert groups had met on various standards and guidelines for pest risk 
analysis, efficacy of measures, the Glossary and revi ew of ISPM 1.  Two new technical groups with 
longer life spans were also formed for diagnostics a nd fruit flies.  Five standards had been sent for 
country consultations, in addition to the IPPC Gl ossary – these were:  consignments in transit, 
inspection, revision of ISPM 3, guidelines on equivalence and requirements for the establishment, maintenance and verification of areas of low pest prevalence.  Comments received would be 
considered next month and the Standards Comm ittee would make recommendations on the adoption 
of the standards to the Inte rim Commission in April 2005. G/SPS/R/35 
Page 32  
 
205. In addition to these activities, a new version of  the international phytosanitary portal was 
launched in June.  The strategic direction and busin ess plan of the IPPC were also discussed in July, 
and in October an informal working group met to discuss the strategic planning and technical 
assistance activities of the IPPC.  The informal working group also made recommendations on the 
role of the IPPC in relation to re gionalization.  The IPPC had also established a Trus t Fund to enhance 
the participation of developing countries in its st andard-setting activities.  Canada, New Zealand and 
the European Communities had contributed funds making it possible for many developing countries to participate in the last session of the IPCM.  Furthe rmore, the United States and Japan contributed their 
expertise to developing countries. 
(c) Information from OIRSA 
206. The representative of the International Regiona l Organization for Plant and Animal Health 
(OIRSA) highlighted its recent capacity building activities as listed in G/SPS/GEN/524.  He drew attention to activities held on GAP, the stamping out of classical sine fever, low pest prevalence and zoning for fruit fly infestation in a number of central American countries. 
(d) Information from WHO  
207. The representative of the WHO summarized details regarding the revision of the International 
Health Regulations (IHRs) (G/SPS/GEN/522).  The ex tensive consultation process in the elaboration 
of IHRs was approaching its conclusion with a further draft revision being submitted to the 
Intergovernmental Working Group in November 2004.  It was hoped that a final draft would be ready 
in time for the World Health Assembly in May 20 05.  In addition to reporting where changes had 
been made to the draft IHRs, the WHO representativ e stated that a legal review of the IHRs had 
reported that there did not appear to be conflict with the SPS Agreement, but instead considerable 
synergy, notably with respect to the drafting of specific provisions of the IHRs.   
(d) Information from OIE  
208. The representative of the OIE recalled that the list of updated international OIE standards and 
their contents were in G/SPS/GEN/512.  These sta ndards were updated each year at the May General 
Session by all Members.  At present, the OIE was reviewing standards on a number of animal 
diseases, including BSE and avian influenza, as well as some animal welfare standards.  He indicated 
that the OIE had begun working on harmonizing standa rds between the Aquatic Animal Code and the 
Terrestrial Animal Code, to make it easier for Me mbers to implement those standards.  All countries 
had been invited to comment on all drafts of new or revised standards prior to the meetings of the 
technical commissions in January.  He thanked the WHO for the opportunity to submit comments on 
the revision of International Health Regulations  related to work of other intergovernmental 
organizations. 
XIV.  OBSERVERS – REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS 
209. 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. 
210. 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).  
211. The European Communities indicated their con tinued support for observer status of these 
three organizations.  G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 33 
 
 
XV. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL OF TRADE IN GOODS 
212. The Chairman announced his intention to make a brief, factual annual report on the activities 
of the SPS Committee in 2004 for consideration by th e Council for Trade in Goods.  The report would 
provide information on the main work undertaken at th e meetings held in 2004.  He indicated that he 
would draw attention to the adoption of the clar ification on the Decision on Equivalence and of the 
final adoption of the procedure for transparency of special and differential treatment, the progress 
made on Pest- and Disease- Free Areas (Article 6), as well as the adoption of the procedures and timeline for the Review of the SPS Agreement.  In addition, the report would mention the large 
number of specific trade concerns discussed, and provide an overview of discussions under other 
agenda items.   
213. The Chairman indicated that copies of the draft report to the Council on Trade in Goods were 
available from the Secretariat, and asked interest ed delegations to submit their comments to the 
Secretariat by Tuesday, 2 November 2004.  The report to the Council on Trade in Goods was 
circulated as G/L/709. 
XVI.  OTHER BUSINESS 
Paraguay – Information on new SPS agencies  
214. The representative of Paraguay informed the Committee of the establishment of two new 
public SPS agencies responsible for animal and plant health within the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Livestock.  The National Service for Animal Qua lity and Health had been created by Law No. 2426 
on 28 July 2004, and the National Service for Plant and Seed Quality and Health had been created by 
Law No. 2459 on 4 October 2004.  These new agencies would be fully operational by February and 
April 2005, respectively.  The text of both laws were available at the following website: 
http://www.paraguaygobierno.gov.py
, and could also be obtained by request at the following e-mail 
addresses:  sseg_ pct @teleseruf.com.py and ddvsec@telesurf.com.py. 
Paraguay – FMD status  
215. The representative of Paraguay provided informatio n on the national plan for eradication of 
FMD.  He summarized details regarding the latest certified vaccinations of herds and informed that 
Paraguay had adopted new modalities for vaccination as part of a regional coordinated action to 
combat FMD.  He indicated that according to the results of active and seriological surveillance there 
had been no further detections of FMD virus since th e last outbreak in July 2003.  Health authorities 
were preparing a request to the OIE to regain the status of a country free of FMD with vaccination.  
Chile – Australia's restrictions on table grapes 
216. The representative of Chile stated that his gove rnment in 1998 had requested Australia to 
indicate their market access requirements for tabl e grapes.  Following initial meetings between the 
regulatory agencies, Chile understood that the impo rt risk analysis would last approximately 12 
months.  A number of technical meetings had sinc e taken place but despite having provided all the 
technical information required, no solution had be en reached.  The representative of Chile raised 
concerns regarding undue delays and changes in  the procedures undertaken by Australia.  The 
representative of Australia noted the concerns expres sed by Chile and indicated their commitment to 
work with Chile to finalize their import risk analysis as quickly as possible.   
Peru – FMD status 
217. The representative of Peru summarized details of  the situation and control efforts relating to 
FMD in his country.  Since the most recent outbreak of  the type O virus in the Lima department on 11 G/SPS/R/35 
Page 34  
 
June 2004, the health situation in Peru relating to FMD was the following:  97 per cent of the national 
territory was free of FMD without vaccination;  2. 8 per cent was free of FMD with vaccination;  and 
0.2 per cent was in the process of regaining its condition as free of FMD with vaccination.  This 
information had been provided to the OIE in J une, as well as to the SPS Committee.  The government 
had adopted comprehensive sanitary measures to cont rol and eradicate the FMD virus.  He indicated 
that in the last quarter of 2003, Peru had request ed the OIE to recognize ten departments, constituting 
about 40 per cent of the national territory, as FMD di sease-free areas and that this status was being 
assessed.  
Venezuela – Barbados's restrictions on citrus 
218. The representative of Venezuela informed the Co mmittee that in the last two years Barbados 
had applied restrictions to shipments of citrus from his country without having undertaken inspection 
procedures demonstrating the existence of any pests or diseases.  Several bilateral consultations had 
taken place but no solution had been reached.  He  requested Barbados to explain why these 
restrictions on citrus from Venezu ela continued to be applied. 
219. The representative of Barbados stated that the actions taken by his country were consistent 
with their Plant Pest and Disease Import Control Act and paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement.  He indicated his country's willingness to  discuss the issue further bilaterally and within 
the framework of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations between CARI COM and Venezuela.  
He noted that at the last meeting both parties had ag reed to allow SPS experts to visit and inspect each 
other's countries and Venezuela had offered to cover part of the costs.  The CARICOM secretariat had 
since informed Venezuela of the nominations it ha d received for the visit, but no arrangements had 
been put in place for this visit.   
XVII.  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING 
220. The Chairman recalled the tentative calendar for Committee meetings in 2005. 
7-8 March   Informals 
9-10 March  SPS Committee meeting 
 
27-28 June  Informals 
29-30 June  SPS Committee meeting 
 
24-25 October  Informals 
26-27 October  SPS Committee meeting 
 
221. The next regular meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for 9-10 March 2005, 
with informal meetings scheduled for 7-8 March .  Informal meetings would be held on special and 
differential treatment, regionalization and on the Re view of the Agreement.  The Committee agreed 
on the following provisional agenda for its next meeting:   G/SPS/R/35 
 Page 35 
 
 
AGENDA FOR MEETING OF 9-10 MARCH 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.4 
 5. Operation of transparency provisions 
 6. Implementation of special and differential treatment  7 Equivalence – Article 4   (a) Information from Members on their experiences 
  (b) Information from 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 
222. The following deadlines are rele vant for the next meeting: 
(i) For sending comments in writing on the proposals made by Members in the context of 
the Review:   19 December 2004.  
(ii) For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure:  
24 February 2005 . 
(iii) For requesting that items be put on the agenda:  24 February 2005 . 
(iv) For the distribution of the airgram:  25 February 2005 . 
__________