RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/R/61 
16 February 2011 
 (11-0798) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 20-21 OCTOBER 2010 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Table of contents  
 
Page  
 
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA.............................................................................................3  
II. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES ................................................................3  
(a) Information from Members....................................................................................................... ..3 
(b) Information from Observer Organizations..................................................................................4  
III. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS ...........................................................................................5  
(a) New Issues ..................................................................................................................... .............5  
(b) Issues Previous ly Raised....................................................................................................... ......7  
(c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received ....................................................................11  
(d) Information on Resolution of Issues .........................................................................................11  
IV. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS........................................................12  
(a) Interim Report on Workshop on Transparency Provisions.......................................................12  
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT ................14  
(a) Chairman's Report on Transfer of Technology.........................................................................14  
VI. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4............................................................................................14  
(a) Information from Members on their Experiences.....................................................................14  
(b) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations ................................................................14  
VII. PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6........................................................14  
(a) Information from Members on their Pest or Disease Status .....................................................14  
(b) Information from Members on their Experi ences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-
free Areas..................................................................................................................... .............14  
(c) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations ................................................................14  
VIII.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION .......................................................15  
(a) Information from the Secretariat............................................................................................... 15 
                                                      
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/61 
Page 2  
 
  (b)
 Information from Members....................................................................................................... 16 
(c) Information from Observers ..................................................................................................... 17 
IX. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................................... ..18 
(a) Issues Arising from the Second Review ...................................................................................18  
X. MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ...........................21  
(a) New Issues ..................................................................................................................... ...........21  
(b) Issues Previous ly Raised....................................................................................................... ....21  
(c) Adoption of Annual Report  (G/SPS/W/250/Rev.3)..................................................................22  
XI. CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
(G/SPS/W/247/REV.3)............................................................................................................ 22 
(a) Report on Chairman's Consultations.........................................................................................22  
XII. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS (G/SPS/W/78/REV.7).......................................24  
(a) Ad Hoc Observers .....................................................................................................................2 4 
(b) Outstanding Requests........................................................................................................... .....25  
XIII.  CHAIRMAN'S ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS (G/L/943) ................................................................................................................ ..25 
XIV.  OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................2 5 
XV. DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING.....................................................................26  
  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its forty-
ninth regular meeting on 20-21 October 2010.  The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted 
with amendments (WTO/AIR/3631). 
II. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
(a) Information from Members 
2. The representative of the European Union not ed that due to a number of developments, 
including the enlargement of the European Union, various international agre ements, and changes in 
scientific information, an evaluation of the EU  Plant Health Regime was ongoing.  Based on the 
evaluation report, a new Plant Health Law would be developed by the end of 2012.  A background 
document providing more information had been circ ulated and the European Union would notify the 
proposed legislation at the appropriate time. 
3. The representative of Morocco reported that a ne w sanitary and phytosanitary authority, the 
National Office for Food Safety (ONSSA) had been  established.  The ONSSA brought together the 
former bodies in charge of animal health, plant h ealth and of monitoring food products and products 
intended for animal feed.  The ONSSA was also r esponsible for internatio nal relations with all 
international organizations and SPS negotiations with all Members, and served as the SPS enquiry 
point.  The ONSSA was a public agency with legal personality and financial au tonomy attached to the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Marine Fisheries.  The authority was operational since January 2010, and had a website where information related to legisla tion, certification, certification templates and import 
procedures could be found.  Morocco thanked th e European Union for the support provided, in 
particular in the development of a Food Law.  More information was available in G/SPS/GEN/1039 
and at http://www.onssa.gov.ma
.  The representatives of the Eu ropean Union, Guinea and Mali 
congratulated Morocco for that initiative, and th e latter representatives indicated that Morocco's 
experience might be helpful in their own effort s to create a single authority and develop an 
appropriate food law. 
4. The representative of Argentina drew attention to a new pre-Phytosanitary Import 
Authorization (Pre-AFIDI) procedure.  Senasa Resolution No. 569/2010 pu t into effect a new 
management system for products for propagation pur poses (parts of plants or seeds) entering the 
country via Buenos Aires.  Importers of such  products or their representatives could print an 
application for a phytosanitary import author ization approved by Senasa's Plant Quarantine 
Directorate, and generate a pre-AF IDI that could be used for the ups tream processing of phytosanitary 
certificates.  The system would enable the certifying  country to consult the data contained in a pre-
AFIDI document on-line.  The objective of the proce dure was to facilitate the processing of the AFIDI 
for requesting import approval. 
5. The representative of Korea reported that there had been no other outbreaks of foot-and-
mouth disease (FMD) since the one in May 2010.  In September 2010, the World Organization for 
Animal Health (OIE) had recognized Korea status as FMD-free without vaccination. 
6. The representative of Japan provided updated information on the FMD outbreak in Japan.  
Since the confirmation of the first FMD case in Ap ril 2010, the Government of Japan had applied 
control measures based on the OIE Animal Health C ode.  The destruction of all vaccinated animals 
within 10 km of the infected farms had been complete d, with the last cull in July 2010.  No new case 
had been registered since that time and continuous  surveillance was in place.  On 6 October 2010, 
Japan had applied to the OIE for recognition of its  regained FMD-free status.  Japan thanked those G/SPS/R/61 
Page 4  
 
  importers that had already resumed their imports of  beef, and requested other Members to lift their 
suspensions. 
(b) Information from Observer Organizations 
7. The representative of the OIE provided an update of OIE's relevant activities 
(G/SPS/GEN/1043).  The OIE was considering a pr oposal for OIE endorsement of national FMD 
control programmes for members that were working to improve their animal health status.  OIE 
members had an obligation to report information on  animal diseases in a transparent and timely 
manner, especially when there was a change in disease status, and new obligations were being 
introduced regarding reporting on OIE-listed diseas es in wildlife.  The representative of the OIE 
reminded Members that trade bans should not be impo sed in response to the notification of diseases in 
wildlife.  Information was also provided on OIE ac tivities to support the veterinary services of the 
OIE members that chose to follow the OIE PVS pathway.  The OIE had recently published two 
volumes of the OIE Scientific and Technical Review dedicated to the issue of invasive species. 
8. The representative of the International Plan t Protection Convention (IPPC) Secretariat 
presented a revised and more detailed report on IPPC activities during the period of March to 
October 2010 (G/SPS/GEN/1049).  The report included:   information about the Fifth Session of the 
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM-5) and the standards proposed for adoption in 2011;  
the general standard-setting work programme up to  October 2010;  information exchange matters 
covering information on countries' contact points to IPPC, the International Phytosanitary Portal, and 
pest reporting);  the activation of the IPPC dispute settlement system following a first official request;  
the capacity building plan and activities;  resource mob ilization;  and a list of all adopted International 
Standards for Phytosanitary Measur es (ISPMs).  Work on a phytosanitary standard for sea-containers 
was of great importance for many Members.  Funding for an expert group meeting on that issue had been provided by New Zealand, to be held perhaps in September 2011.  However, the sustainability of 
the IPPC's work programme was at risk due to a budget deficit of about $1.2 million for 2011. 
9. The representatives of Australia, the European Union, Senegal, South Africa and the United 
States expressed their appreciation for IPPC's work and their serious concern regarding its financial 
situation. 
10. The representative of Senegal highlighted the im portance of the IPPC Portal for information 
exchange, and indicated that Senegal required assi stance in implementing IPPC standards.  The 
representative of South Africa stated that South Afri ca faced problems with citrus fruit exports to the 
European Union, as approximately 40 per cent of its e xports were restricted due to citrus black spot 
disease.  South Africa considered the EU requirements to  be more restrictive than justified by science, 
and had presented its assessment of th e risks to the European Union. 
11. The representative of Australia welcomed the IPPC's first implementation of its dispute 
settlement procedure.  While Australia recognized the poor financial situation of the IPPC, it was 
concerned that restricting the IPPC standard-se tting activities would create serious backlogs with 
negative impacts on all IPPC parties.  Australia  urged all SPS Committee delegates to express their 
concerns to the FAO to find a solution. 
12. The representative of the European Union shar ed Australia's concerns regarding the IPPC 
standard-setting activities and encouraged other donor s to also provide direct support to the IPPC.  
The representative of the United States also expressed concern for the financial situation of IPPC and 
encouraged all Members to bring this situation to th e attention of their relevant authorities in order to 
find a solution to the problem.  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 5 
 
 
  13. The representative of the IPPC thanked Member s for their support, a nd in particular, the 
European Union for its financial support.  I PPC members had repeated ly sought increased 
contributions, but as this was not forthcoming, e xpenditures on many activities would have to come 
from extra-budgetary sources. 
14. The representative of Codex reported on th e outcome of the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission's meeting of 5-9 July 2010 and drew  attention to forthcoming Codex meetings 
(G/SPS/GEN/1054).  Codex also provided a list of sta ndards and related texts that had been adopted 
by the 33rd session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. 
III. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
(a) New Issues 
(i) Indonesia's Import Restrictions on Beef and Rec ognition of the Principle of Regionalization - 
Concerns of Brazil 
15. The representative of Brazil expressed concer ns over Indonesia's Regulation 82/200, which 
did not seem to comply with Article 6 of the SPS Ag reement.  Indonesia had notified revisions to the 
law which would have permitted recognition of di sease-free regions, and the authorities had engaged 
in bilateral discussions regarding imports of m eat from Brazil.  In August 2010, however, the 
Indonesian courts had annulled that aspect of th e legislation.  Brazil expected the Indonesian 
authorities to take all necessary measures to revise th e law, and to notify this to the WTO.  Brazil 
already had OIE recognition of its FMD-free status. 
16. The representative of Indonesia observed that the country had about 7,000  islands, and it had 
taken Indonesia almost 100 years to eradicate FMD.  The Government had sought to develop 
regulations that were consistent with international standards, but  these had been challenged in the 
constitutional court.  Imports from regions where FMD had not been completely eradicated were 
therefore prohibited. 
(ii) EU Maximum Residue Levels of Pesticides - Concerns of India 
17. The representative of India referred to three EU  notifications on the adoption of MRLs for 
certain pesticides (G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.2, G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.10 and G/SPS/N/EEC/382) 
within the framework of the EU Revised Plan t Protection Regulation 1107/2009.  EC Regulation 
396/2005 established the legislative framework for MRLs of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant 
and animal origin, which was notified by the European Commission in April 2005.  India was concerned that the MRLs for a number of chemicals were set at the "limit of detection" (LOD).  This was the residue limit which could be detected using analytical methods/testing procedures available in 
Europe.  Different climatic conditions in India re quired a different use of pesticides in agricultural 
production.  No scientific evidence had been provide d to justify the setting of the MRL at the LOD, 
especially for imported products.  For some substa nces, the MRLs in EU cereals was much higher 
than the approved level of the same substance in ri ce.  The setting of MRLs at the LOD had impacted 
India's exports of agricultural products to the Eu ropean Union, and India requested the European 
Union to provide the validated testing methods it used  to arrive at the LOD as well as the scientific 
basis and risk assessment for the MRLs.  India consid ered that the EU MRLs resulted in the violation 
of Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1 and 5.4 of the SPS Agreement. 
18. The representative of Thailand shared India's concerns, observing that in the recent EU 
notifications the proposed MRLs for some chemicals were much lower than the levels set by Codex.  
The representatives of Brazil and Pakistan also shar ed India's concerns about the EU procedure for 
establishing MRLs. G/SPS/R/61 
Page 6  
 
  19. The representative of the European Union expl ained that the new legislation on pesticide 
residues was in place since 1 September 2008.  MR Ls had undergone a common EU consumer intake 
assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to make sure that all classes of 
consumers, including vulnerable ones such as babies and children, were sufficiently protected.  The 
validated analytical methods used by the Europ ean Union could be found on the website of the EU 
Reference Laboratories for Residues of Pesticides.  The model used for estimating the dietary intake 
of 27 EU consumer groups was available on the EFSA website.  The risk assessment methodology 
used for setting the MRLs came from the framewo rk established by the Codex Alimentarius, as 
described by a 2002 Joint FAO/W HO Meeting on Pesticide Residues' 
(JMPR) report.  An LOD was 
set when there was a safety concern for consumers fr om the use of a pesticide at high levels or when 
there was no authorized use on a specific crop within  the European Union or third countries.  The 
proposed revision of the EU MRLs had been notif ied to the WTO in 2003, 2005 and 2007, and all 
WTO Members and stakeholders had also been info rmed about all the individual values that were 
proposed.  The MRLs were fixed and published in  the Official Journal if no reaction to the 
notifications had been received.  Nevertheless, a pplicants in and outside the European Union could 
apply to have import tolerances set for higher MRLs in specific cases.  Although the European Union 
was aware of the different geo-climatic conditions in India, data on the safety of imported products 
was still necessary. 
(iii) Japan's Prohibition of Certain Fo od Additives - Concerns of India 
20. The representative of India expressed concerns  over Japan's proposed withdrawal of 80 food 
additives in May 2011, which had been notified to the WTO in July (G/SPS/N/JPN/255).  The 
decision to prohibit the use of these additives was a pparently based on a survey and the analysis of 
public comments.  The survey cons idered the sale, manufacturing, import, processing, use, storage 
and display of such substances in Japan's market .  India was concerned that the requirements of 
Article 2 of the SPS Agreement had not been full y considered, as the survey did not provide any 
indications that the additives were hazardous to  human health, nor had a risk assessment been 
undertaken by the Japanese authorities, and internati onal standards had not been followed.  Of the 80 
food additives to be withdrawn, at least 33 substances were allo wed in other countries, including 
Korea and the United States, in line with Codex or country specific standards.  India urged Japan to 
follow the provisions of the SPS Agreement before d eciding to prohibit the use of the food additives, 
and suggested that Codex could be requested to  examine the risks associated with those food 
additives. 
21. The representative of Japan recalled that acco rding to the revision of the Japanese Food 
Sanitation Law in 1995, natural additives became subject  to prior approval by the Ministry of Health, 
Labour and Welfare.  Therefore, whether natural or  synthetic, no additive could be used unless it was 
approved by the Ministry.  The concept of "exi sting food additives" was established in 1995 and 
referred to substances that were derived from natu ral origin and that had been used before 1995 
without prior approval.  However, their safety had not been verified or examined based on a safety 
assessment, and Japan would be systematically verify ing the safety of existing food additives.  Japan 
considered that it was justifiable to eliminate t hose substances for which there was no actual use or 
distribution in Japan, and hence not lead to any rest riction of trade.  Japan had previously directly 
contacted embassies and trade groups in response to re quests received on this issue.  In 2009, Japan 
had carried out a survey on 125 substances and, based on the survey results, had prohibited these 
80 additives since they were no longer in use in the domestic market.  S hould Members nevertheless 
have further comments on this notification, these should be submitted by 17 November 2010 at the 
latest.  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (iv) Brazil's Restrictions on Bovines and Bubalin es for Reproduction - Concerns of Colombia 
22. The representative of Colombia expressed concer n that the entry into force of Brazil's new 
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA) standard 46 would nullify the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding re garding bovines and bubalines and semen of bubalines from 
Colombia.  Brazil's recognition of the FMD-free st atus of Colombia was not forthcoming.  The 
Brazilian authorities had requested more informa tion following the 2003 and 2006 recognition of the 
FMD-free status of Colombia.  This information ha d been sent and discussed in bilateral meetings in 
2007.  In 2008, MAPA had indicated a need for a ne w verification visit, but had failed to carry out 
this visit.  In bilateral meetings held in the margins of this SPS Committee meeting, Brazil had 
proposed a new quarantine procedure which Colombia  hoped would lead to the resolution of this 
problem. 
23. The representative of Brazil indicated that the b ilateral meeting had been a useful opportunity 
to clarify some issues and resume discussions.  Br azilian sanitary authorities had concluded that the 
new quarantine station on the Island of Cananea in the state of Sao Paolo, which had recently started 
its operations, could provide  additional guarantees as regarded th e sanitary controls for Colombia's 
exports to Brazil.  If Colombia's exports of live ca ttle and buffalos were subject to certain procedures 
at that station, it would facilitate the solution of the matter.  Brazil's requirements were due to the 
existence in Colombia of a certain strain of the v esicular stomatitis virus which affected bovines.  This 
virus was exotic to Brazil, and of ma jor concern in the Mercosur region. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised 
(i) General Import Restrictions due to BS E - Concerns of the European Union 
24. The representative of the European Union noted that restrictions of imports due to BSE 
remained of great concern and urged Member s to lift any unnecessary, disproportionate and 
discriminatory restrictions.  A number of WTO Members continued to impose unjustified import 
restrictions, such as allowing imports only from countri es that had a negligible risk status according to 
the OIE classification or where no cases of BSE had been notified at all.  There had been, however, 
some positive developments.  The Philippines had ann ounced the lifting of import restrictions on beef 
from most of EU member States, and Egypt was now allowing imports of de-boned beef from animals younger than 48 months.  The European Union urge d Members to quickly align their requirements 
with the OIE standards, and to establish fair, non-di scriminatory, transparent and scientifically sound 
import requirements. 
(ii) India's Restrictions due to Avian In fluenza - Concerns of the United States 
25. The representative of the United States indicated that India stood alone among the world's 
leading trading partners with respect to the scope of the bans it imposed and the severity of its avian 
influenza (AI)-related import requirements.  India's bans and import requirements were not in keeping 
with the OIE established standards.  India continue d to maintain the AI bans as emergency measures, 
and prohibited the import of live pigs and a wide  range of avian species and products without 
providing a scientific justification for exceeding th e international standards.  Despite repeated 
requests, India had not provided its risk assess ment until the October 2010 SPS Committee meeting.  
Moreover, India had failed repeatedly to notify its A I-related import restrictions in a timely manner.  
In March 2010, India had announced a new extens ion of its emergency measures, and also that 
products from countries reporting any notifiable AI in domesticated or wild birds would be banned.  
Those new measures had not been notified to the WTO. 
26. The representative of the European Union shar ed the US concerns about the emergency 
measures taken by India and the lack of transparency.  India had failed to provide an opportunity for G/SPS/R/61 
Page 8  
 
  WTO Members to comment before measures were put in place.  India had not made public the 
outcome of the last review of its import c onditions on AI, although it had reported to the SPS 
Committee that this took place every six months.  The European Union called on India to share its risk 
assessment or other scientific justification for its import measures, and to recognise the principle of 
regionalization as foreseen under the SPS Agreement. 
27. The representative of India recalled that it ha d continuously explained the reasons for its 
measures, and changes to these.  At the last Commit tee meeting, India had reported on the lifting of 
the ban on imports of pork products , although imports of live pig w as still prohibited from AI positive 
countries.  Processed poultry and poultry meat products were allowed from AI positive countries 
subject to certain conformity assessment requirement s, thereby facilitating trade while continuing to 
protect human and animal health.  India remained  concerned that low pathogenic avian influenza 
(LPAI) had the potential to mutate into highly pathogen ic strains.  India noted that Article 10.4.1 of 
the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code prohi bited trade in poultry and its products from LPAI 
positive countries.  India had provided its risk as sessment on avian influenza directly to the United 
States, and was willing to share it with other Members upon request. 
28. The representative of the OIE expressed an interest in receiving India's risk assessment.  She 
stressed that the OIE standards did not justify trade restrictions on the basis of reports of LPAI in wild 
birds.  AI was widespread in wild birds and the OI E requested that this be notified so as to provide 
valuable data, but did not recommend any trade restrictions on this basis. 
(iii) Venezuelan Suspension of Inspec tion and of Emission of Phyt o- and Zoo-Sanitary Certificates 
- Concerns of Colombia 
29. The representative of Colombia reported that the issue of sanitary restrictions had been 
discussed in a meeting between the Presidents of Venezuela and Colombia as part of the 
normalization of trade relations between the two c ountries.  Colombia hoped that expeditious progress 
would be made, so that a resolution might be reported to the Committee in March 2011. 
30. The representative of Venezuela confirmed that  bilateral contacts had been established 
between the two countries and that reports would be  provided on the progress made in resolving this 
issue. 
(iv) EC Regulation No. 1099/ 2009 of 24 September 2009 - Concerns of India 
31. The representative of India expressed concern that the EU regulation contained animal 
welfare requirements that would be trade restrictiv e, and as the slaughter of animals was a sanitary 
issue, this measure should be notified to the WT O.  Although the regulation was based on OIE 
standards, only those OIE standards that had the ob jective to control animal health, including ante- 
and post- mortem inspections, fell within the sc ope of the SPS Agreement.  The new regulation 
introduced animal welfare requirements beyond those that had been in place since 1993, and therefore 
the European Union should notify the regulation to the WTO and give Members time to submit 
comments.  India asked:  how trade issues would be linked with animal welfare issues;  how 
equivalence of measures would be assessed;  wh ether the provisions of Article 12 of the EU 
regulation were in line with any WTO agreements;  and whether Article 5 of the regulation would 
require that all establishments exporting meat r eceive a prior clearance from the European Union. 
32. The representative of Viet Nam noted that it shared  India's concerns, in particular relating to 
fishery products. 
33. The representative of the European Union indicat ed that the regulation was based on scientific 
findings, in particular two scientific opinions by  the European Food Safety Authority in 2004 and  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 9 
 
 
  2006.  These scientific opinions were publicly availabl e and had been provided to India.  As a major 
importer of meat products, and as a result of consumer preferences, the European Union required that 
certain animal welfare conditions be met at the time of slaughter.  The measures contained in Article 12 of Regulation 1099/2009 were not more trad e restrictive than tho se currently enforced.  
There was no obligation for countries to apply the sam e or identical measures, but measures that were 
equivalent in achieving the same aims were acceptabl e.  The principle of equivalence had existed and 
been applied since 1993.  The regulation took into account the international animal welfare standards 
on the slaughter of animals developed by the OIE.  It was the role of the EU Food and Veterinary 
Office to evaluate the equivalence of measures im plemented in countries exporting to the European 
Union.  The European Union welcomed collaborati on between experts on animal welfare, as in the 
ongoing bilateral agreement with India, to exch ange technical knowledge and achieve a common 
understanding on equivalency. 
(v) Turkey's Restrictions on Products Derived from  Biotechnology - Concerns of the United 
States 
34. The representative of the United States welcomed Turkey's notification of the implementation 
of its new biotech measures, however the developm ent and implementation of the law had not been 
transparent nor timely.  The United States appreciated the valuable trade in agricultural products with 
Turkey and wished to re-establis h market access for the previously approved products without delay.  
The United States remained concerned that the syst em prohibited the presence of biotech products in 
products for infants and children, as well as the cu ltivation of biotechnology without reference to a 
risk assessment or scientific ev idence.  The United States sought clarifications on the process and 
criteria used to evaluate approval decisions, and encouraged Turkey to establish written procedures 
outlining those processes and criteria, as well as to confirm that they were based on science. 
35. The representative of Argentina expressed con cern that the Turkish standards were not 
consistent with the SPS Agreem ent or Codex standards, and were unfavourable to modern 
biotechnology products.  The representative of Cana da stated that the new law had to take into 
account scientific assessments and not be more trade restrictive than necessary.  Canada also urged 
Turkey to consider delaying the implementation of the regulation for six months until at least 
February 26, 2011. 
36. The representative of Turkey stat ed that Turkey had notified in  2009 and 2010 its legislation 
related to biosafety issues whose objectives were to establish a biosafety protection system for human, 
animal and plant health against risks emerging from GMOs and GMO-based products.  Previous 
Turkish legislations and the Cartagena Protocol had been used as reference documents, as well as EU 
accession documents.  There were around 12,000 protect ed species in Turkey, 3,700 of those being 
only endemic to Turkey.  More than 700 agricultu ral products could be naturally grown in Turkey, 
therefore it was critical for Turkey to protect its ri ch biodiversity from the risks arising from biotech 
products.  Turkey had endeavoured to address the co ncerns raised by various Members regarding its 
notifications, including issues caused by mistranslation.  Turkey indicated that it would draft and 
notify secondary regulations to the WTO, to cl arify misunderstandings.  Turkey welcomed the 
opinions of its trading partners to improve its le gislations.  The representative of Turkey further 
asserted that the implementation of its legislation was science-based and fully complied with WTO and other international rules, as well as with the Ca rtagena Biosafety Protocol.  In addition, Turkey 
expressed that no particular trade restriction had b een reported during the prep aration and adoption of 
the legislation or after its enforcement. 
(vi) 
Japan's Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels - Concerns of Ecuador 
37. The representative of Ecuador raised c oncerns over Japan's 2006 Food Health Act 
establishing new MRLs for food products of pl ant and animal origin, intended for human G/SPS/R/61 
Page 10  
 
  consumption.  Products with con centrations of residues above those limits could not be imported, 
processed, used or stored for sale in Japan.  The Food Health Act established a list of 158 chemicals 
and their corresponding MRL for food, and substances.  The establishment of such stringent limits 
had meant that shipments of Ecuadorian cocoa in which 24D was present had been rejected by Japan, 
causing significant costs to Ecuador cocoa exporters  and producers.  Despite constructive bilateral 
discussions, no solution had been fo und, and Ecuador requested more  information on the process used 
by Japan to set its MRLs measures and asked for swif t notification by Japan of anomalies or lack of 
compliance with cocoa exports regulations. 
38. The representative of Japan stated that b ased on the Japanese Positive List System, the 
Ministry oh Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) established individual MRLs in food commodities 
through safety evaluations and residue studies.  Jap an adopted Codex MRLs as Japanese MRLs where 
the necessary requirements were met.  If Ecuador wanted Japan to establish MRLs for specific 
pesticides, an application had to be submitted to  the MHLW.  In addition, Japan would consider 
relevant applications for modifications  and revise current MRLs as appropriate. 
(vii) EU Artificial Colour Warning Labe ls- Concerns of the United States 
39. The representative of the United States reit erated its concerns about EC Regulation 
1333/2008 on food additives.  Article 24 of the Regulation required warning statements on food 
products that contained one or mo re of six colour additives:  Sunset Yellow (E110), Quinoline Yellow 
(E104), Carmoisine (E122), Allura Red (E129), Tart razine (E102), and Ponceau 4R (E124).  The 
United States continued to be concerned with th e scientific basis of the regulation, its potential 
negative impact on international trade, and the transp arency of its adoption.  Most of these six colour 
additives were widely used by the food industry in  products such as confecti onaries and beverages.  
When the draft regulation was notified to the WTO (G/SPS/N/EEC/291), it did not contain the provision on warning statements, and the United States was not aware of an addendum to the original 
notification.  Scientific evaluations from the Univ ersity of Southampton in 2007 and the European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2009 did not substa ntiate a link between the individual colours and 
possible behavioural effects in children.  The Un ited States was also concerned that even though 
EFSA was unable to substantiate a link, the Europe an Union implemented the measure in July 2010, 
disregarding available pertinent information from re levant international organizations, such as the 
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.   The United States requested information 
from the European Union on any further expansion of  the list of additives to be subjected to the 
warning labels. 
40. The representative of the European Union clarified that the new EU regulatory regime on 
artificial colorants used in food products was not an import ban but only introduced certain specific 
labelling provisions.  The labelling requirements ha d entered into force in July 2010 and had not 
shown any noticeable effect on trade.  A transitiona l period of 18 months for implementation had been 
provided, allowing industry time to comply.  The European Union would continue the evaluation, 
through EFSA, of all food additives to avoid any un necessary trade disruption.  The representative of 
the European union pointed out that at its Marc h 2010 session, the Codex Alimentarius Commission 
had postponed the decision to adopt new provisions for one of the Southampton colours, Ponceau 4R 
in soybean-based beverages due to safety concerns .  Until new elements demonstrated the absence of 
adverse effects of Southampton colorants, the European Union's position would remain unchanged.  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received 
(i) Brazil's Notification on Labelling of Produc ts of Animal Origin (G/SPS/N/BRA/654)- 
Concerns of the European Union 
41. The representative of the European Union we lcomed the postponement till January 2011 of 
the entry into force of Brazil's labelling provisions, but noted that the new labelling requirements were 
not based on science, and could affect a wide range  of products exported to Brazil.  The European 
Union sought clarifications from Brazil on the sanit ary risks the labelling requirements intended to 
address. 
42. The representative of Brazil stated that the draft legislation on labelling requirements for 
imported products of animal origin reflected require ments that had been in place since 1998.  Due to 
the high number of comments received on the draft legislation, Brazil had extended the deadline for 
comments until November 2010.  The draft legislation was supposed to enter into force in January 2011.  Brazil hoped that further bilate ral technical exchanges of information would 
successfully address the European Union concerns. 
(ii) Brazil's Measures on Canned Sardines (GSPS/N/BRA/666)- Concerns of Morocco 
43. The representative of Morocco stressed the importance of the fish sector for Morocco's 
economy, and in particular canned sardines whic h represented 94 per cent of their canned fish.  
Although Brazil's notification did not identify hea lth concerns, in Morocco's view the notified 
measure was more restrictive of trade than necessary.   The notified measure was also in contradiction 
with the Codex's principle of identification of sardi nes species, and Codex had to be referred to when 
adopting measures.  Brazil's notified measure coul d seriously restrict canned sardine exports from 
Morocco and constituted unfair competition at the globa l level.  Morocco also considered that the 
measure was in contradiction with Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement and sought reactions 
from other Members, especially from the European Union as a major importer of canned sardines. 
44. The representative of the European Union supporte d the concerns of Morocco, and noted that 
Brazil's deadline for comments was 40 days and not the recommended 60 days.  Brazil's requirements 
were not in line with the relevant Codex standard s and the European Union urged Brazil to align its 
measures with the relevant international standards. 
45. The representative of Brazil reported that the draf t legislation had been also notified to the 
TBT Committee.  All comments received would be duly taken into account a nd Brazil was willing to 
hold any technical meetings considered necessar y by Morocco.  Brazil did not understand how a 
measure that would be less trade restrictive than  one based on an international measure could be 
considered to be a barrier to trade.  While Brazi l's list of species that could be used for canned 
sardines was shorter than the Codex list, according to  Article 5 of the draft legislation the Brazilian 
list was not exhaustive. 
46. The representative of Peru recalled that there had been a previous case between Peru and the 
European Union on the denomination of sardin es which had also involved Codex standards. 
(d) Information on Resolution of Issues 
47. The representative of the European Union presente d an updated list on specific trade concerns 
raised in the SPS Committee (G/SPS/GEN/1051).  The updated list contained 14 issues that the 
European Union considered as having been resolv ed.  The European Union encouraged Members to 
update the list of specific trade concerns raised  in the Committee, and congratulated its trading 
partners on the cooperation on those issues.  The Chai rman urged other Members to systematically go G/SPS/R/61 
Page 12  
 
  through all the specific trade concer ns raised in the Committee to id entify those they considered as 
having been settled. 
IV. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS  
48. The Chairman indicated that notifications received since the last meeting of the SPS 
Committee were summarized on a monthly basis in G/SPS/GEN/1036, G/SPS/GEN/1037, 
G/SPS/GEN/1040 and G/SPS/GEN/1042. 
49. The Secretariat reminded the Committee that th e paper copies of the National Notification 
Authorities and of National Enquiry Points were upda ted only once every year, but that the electronic 
lists were constantly update d and available through the SPS In formation Management System 
(SPS IMS).  The Secretariat invited Members to subm it the most recent contact information so that it 
could be included in the SPS IMS. 
(a) Interim Report on Workshop on Transparency Provisions 
50. The Chairman reported that the first day of  the Workshop on Transparency took place on 
Monday, 18 October and had followed the programme  contained in G/SPS/GEN/1021/Rev.1.  Thanks 
to various funding arrangements and special projects,  there had been a high level of participation from 
developing countries and LDCs.  The second part of  the workshop would continue on Friday with 
hand-on training on the SPS IMS, as well as on a demo version of the new system for online submission of SPS notifications. 
51. During Monday's session, the Secretariat had presented an overview of the implementation of 
the transparency provisions (G/SPS/GEN/804.Rev.3) as well as information on available tools such as 
the mentoring mechanism, the SPS IMS and the new online system.  Nineteen Members were 
currently matched up with nine mentors, and a ll had received a questionnaire on how the mechanism 
was functioning.  Recommendations had included the need for setting concrete objectives and 
timetables, and that Members receiving mentoring should be more proactive in identifying their needs.  The Secretariat had noted that the online notification submission syst em would be launched at 
the beginning of next year. 
52. Seven Members had presented their experiences in relation to the transparency provisions, 
addressing topics such as the importance of notifyi ng, tracking notifications, national coordination 
mechanisms, awareness raising and bilateral tech nical assistance projects.  The importance of 
information exchange between the public and privat e sector to help promote transparency had been 
underlined.  Examples of SPS Notification Alert system s had also been showcased.  One presentation 
had highlighted the assistance one Member had rece ived from another on the establishment of an 
National Notification Authority and Enquiry point.  The proactive stance that the Member had taken 
in identifying needs and in seeking assistance had b een highlighted as a key component in the success 
of the bilateral project. 
53. Morocco and the European Union ha d presented documents G/SPS/GEN/1047 and 
G/SPS/GEN/1044, respectively.  Moro cco had described several of the recent measures they had 
taken to implement the SPS transparency obliga tions, while the European Union had shared its 
analysis regarding the use of the 2008 transparency fo rmats.  In that regard, the European Union had 
suggested that Members increase their efforts to identify the appropriate international standard 
relevant to the measure being notified, and to gi ve a clear explanation of any deviation from the 
international standard.  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 13 
 
 
  54. The STDF Secretariat had also given a brief update on projects that aimed to improve SPS 
coordination at the national a nd regional level, as well as to  improve coordination between 
government agencies and the private sector. 
55. During the question and answer session, some delegates had suggested that Members with 
limited financial resources could optimize resourc es if the national notification authority and the 
enquiry point were the same body.  It had also been  highlighted that one could run a successful SPS 
contact point with as little as one staff member with  a computer and reliable internet connections.  
56. During the afternoon breakout sessions, Members had identified possible solutions to 
common concerns regarding the implementa tion of the transparency provisions. 
57. The recommendations arising from the breakout sessions had included: 
(i) The development of a best practices guide on the implementation of the transparency 
provisions, such as national coordination mechanisms and the operation of NNAs and Enquiry Points.  Some suggested that that  could be preceded by a questionnaire 
and/or a meeting on the margins of the SPS Committee to identify themes to include in the guide;  
(ii) Further training on the SPS Information Management System; 
(iii) Encourage Members to provide the text of regulations through the Secretariat’s 
facility for uploading PDF files; 
(iv) Encourage Members to circulate translations of regulations; 
(v) Members should make better use of the mentoring mechanism by using the SPS 
Committee meetings to have face-to-face meetings with their partners to discuss 
concrete timelines and project proposals; 
(vi) Members should not be overambitious, but would benefit from taking small simple 
steps when creating a well-functioning national transparency mechanism; 
(vii) SPS Contact points should better filter incoming notifications, for example on the 
basis of product lists, in order to have a more targeted distribution to relevant 
stakeholders;  and 
(viii) The step-by-step procedural manual was very useful and could be more widely 
disseminated, perhaps by emailing an electronic version to every SPS Enquiry Point. 
58. In concluding his summary, the Chairman noted that the workshop would continue on 
Friday, 22 October and that the Secretariat would prepare a full report on the workshop (G/SPS/R/60).  
The presentations would be made available on the WTO SPS Gateway site. 
59. The Secretariat noted that the Friday sessi on of the workshop would focus on hand-on 
training, including on the submission of on line notifications and on the use of the SPS IMS. 
60. The representative of Chile expressed concern with emergency measures that remained 
"permanent".  The European Union document G/SPS/GEN/1044 represented a good basis for discussion of box 8 of the notification form.  Chile noted that document G/SPS/GEN/1044 showed 
that more than a half of notifications had not comp lied with an internationa l standard.  Chile stressed 
the need for better information on the use of inte rnational standards and on reasons for deviation from 
international standards. G/SPS/R/61 
Page 14  
 
  V. IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
(a) Chairman's Report on Transfer of Technology 
61. The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to a request he had received from the Chairman 
of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology for information regarding any 
consideration of that issue by the SPS Committee.  In his response, the Chairman had noted that 
although there had been no explicit discussions of that in the SPS Committee, there was ample 
opportunity for Members to raise trade problems that related to technology transfer, both with respect 
to trade concerns and in the context of technical ass istance.  Copies of both letters were available in 
the package of documents Members had received for the meeting. 
62. The representative of Cuba noted that the consid eration of special and differential treatment, 
and of technology transfer, was not sufficiently discussed in the SPS Committee.  Cuba valued the 
technical assistance it received bilaterally or fr om international organiza tions and Cuba hoped to 
receive more technical assistance relating to technolo gy transfer.  Cuba recalled that in its proposal 
TN/CTD/W/32 it had suggested that technology tran sfer be provided to help developing countries 
deal with the TBT and SPS restrictions on their exports.  Cuba supported all possible actions or 
initiatives in the provision of special and differential tr eatment, in the widest possible sense, in light of 
the need for adequate resources to ca rry out appropriate technical tests. 
VI. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 
(a) Information from Members on their Experiences 
63. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(b) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
64. No observer organization provided any information under this agenda item. 
VII. PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 
(a) Information from Members on their Pest or Disease Status 
65. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(b) Information from Members on their Experiences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-free 
Areas 
66. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(c) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
67. The IPPC representative reported that IPPC was collecting information on pest free areas via 
the IPP (International Phytosanitary Portal).  A number of countries had already provided that 
information, and IPPC encouraged countries to provide information on their pest lists. 
68. The representative of the OIE reported that OIE had started work on granting an official 
recognition status from a fifth disease, namely African Horse Sickness, that could be important in the international movement of horses and competitions .  The OIE also reported on a new pathway for 
recognition of national FMD control programmes.  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 15 
 
 
  VIII.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
(i) WTO SPS Activities 
69. The Secretariat referred Members to document G/SPS/GEN/997 presented at the March 2010 
meeting of the Committee, which included the ne w procedures for dissemination of and information 
on the Secretariat's technical assistance activities.  The Secretariat noted the positive outcome of that 
process, with around 400 applications received by the deadline from 98 countries and a total of 420 participants registered in the e-learning courses.  The Secretariat also drew Members attention to 
the Advanced SPS Course currently underway, and to two upcoming Regional SPS Seminars 
scheduled for November:  (i) for Latin American count ries to be held in Peru in collaboration with the 
Inter-American Development Bank and IICA;  and (ii)  for Asia, Pacific, Central Asia and Central 
Europe countries to be held in Sri Lanka. 
70. Since the last SPS Committee meeting, the Secret ariat had delivered four national seminars in 
Argentina, China, Nigeria, and Samoa.  The Secret ariat also announced that the SPS e-learning course 
would be available throughout the year, starting in 2011. 
71. The representatives of Argentina, China, and El  Salvador thanked the Secretariat for the 
national seminars organized in their respective countries. 
(ii) Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) 
72. The Secretariat provided an update on the opera tion of the Standards and Trade Development 
Facility (STDF) (G/SPS/GEN/1046).  The STDF Secretariat indicated that work had started on SPS indicators to support the identification and application of indicators to measure the performance of 
national SPS systems.  That work had three ma in objectives:  (i) to sensitize the SPS community 
about the importance of managing for results and, more specifically, about the value and role of 
indicators;  (ii) to identify, pilot test and refi ne a representative set of indicators to measure the 
performance of a national SPS system;  and (iii) to develop guidance materials to promote the use of indicators within results-based manageme nt frameworks for national SPS systems. 
73. The Secretariat reported on the technical working meeting on SPS indicators the STDF held 
in Geneva on 1 July 2010, in collaboration with  the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD).  Over 80 participants a ttended the meeting, including 16 experts from 
developing countries whose participation was funded  by the STDF.  Participants discussed a draft 
STDF/OECD working paper on the topic and, in particular, a preliminary set of indicators. 
74. The Secretariat underlined that the STDF wo rk on SPS indicators was "work-in-progress".  
The draft working paper had been revised on the basi s of discussions at the technical meeting and was 
available on the STDF website.  A proposal to carry out pilot testing work on SPS indicators at country level would be discussed by the Working Group on 22 October.  SPS agencies in developing 
countries that were interested to participate in this exercise were encouraged to contact the STDF 
Secretariat. 
75. The Secretariat reported on the 4-5 October 20 10, STDF workshop in the Hague, on the role 
of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in e nhancing SPS capacity, in collaboration with the 
Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV) and the World Bank Institute.  
Over 100 representatives from government agencies, international and regiona l organizations, donors, 
research institutes and the private sector had particip ated in the workshop.  Thirty-one representatives 
from developing countries were funded by the STDF.  The STDF was preparing a two-page briefing G/SPS/R/61 
Page 16  
 
  on the conclusions and recommendations of the wo rkshop as part of its regular series of STDF 
Briefing Notes and that all the presentations ma de at the workshop were available on the STDF 
website. 
76. The Secretariat drew attention to the STDF pilot testing work initiated on the use of the multi-
criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach to inform decision-making on SPS capacity building and 
resource allocation.  That work was to be first implemented in two African developing countries.  
In 2011, one developing country in Asia and one  in Latin America were to be included.  The 
Secretariat also indicated that the STDF had publis hed a scoping study at the request of the African 
Union Commission (AUC), in a first attempt to iden tify and assess the myriad of regional SPS policy 
frameworks and strategies in Africa and guide future  work in that area.  The study was available on 
the STDF website.  A parallel scoping study on the establishment and functioning of national SPS 
coordination mechanisms in Africa was underway  and scheduled to be completed in 2011. 
77. The Secretariat indicated that the STDF we bsite had been redesigned, giving it a more 
contemporary look and making it more user-friendly.  Translation in French and in Spanish would be 
available by November 2010.  Likewise, the STDF film, "Trading Safely", was being translated in 
Russian, Arabic and Chinese and woul d be available by the end of 2010. 
78. The Secretariat also reported that at the STDF Working Group meeting on 2 July 2010, two 
Project Preparation Grants had been approved an d three new projects had been approved for funding 
by the STDF.  The next deadline for the submissi on of applications for STD F projects was 7 January 
2011.  Applicants were strongly encouraged to read  the "Guidance Note for Applicants" available on 
the STDF website. 
79. Brazil thanked the STDF for the Workshop on Publ ic-Private Partnership and for the useful 
exchange of experience and the examples shared on the issue of capacity building in the area of SPS. 
(b) Information from Members 
(i) Technical Assistance Activities of the European Union 
80. The representative of the European Union highli ghted the importance of the ongoing work by 
the three International Standard-Setting Bodies to  further harmonize SPS measures, and invited all 
Members to be actively engaged in the ISSBs.  Th e European Union had contributed for many years 
to the OIE, Codex and IPPC Trust Funds to supp ort specifically the participation of developing 
countries, and would continue to provide such fi nancial support.  The European Union planned to 
contribute 3,6 million euros to two projects:  (i) IPPC's Implementation Review and Support System;  
and (ii) a pilot study under the Codex Trust Fu nd to enhance the scientific/technical data from 
developing countries and countries with economies in  transition in support of the standard-setting 
process.  In that regard, the European Union calle d on other possible donors to support both the work 
of the IPPC and that of the Codex.  
81. The representative of Guinea thanked the Eur opean Union for the t echnical assistance it 
provided through the three Sisters, and encouraged  other Members to support capacity building for 
developing countries. 
(ii) Cooperation provided by Brazil to Cape Verde's Agency for Regulation of Food and 
Pharmaceuticals (ARFP) 
82. The representative of Brazil reported on a two-year cooperation project aimed at 
strengthening ARFP's institutional capacity as a na tional regulator of the pharmaceutical and food 
sectors in Cape Verde.  The cooperation project w as a fruitful opportunity to consolidate relations  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 17 
 
 
  between Brazil and Cape Verde and Brazil expressed  its satisfaction regarding the implementation 
and the results of the project. 
(iii) Technical Assistance Activities of Chile in the Area of Horizontal Cooperation for Cattle and 
Health 
83. The representative of Chile reported on horizontal  cooperation for cattle and health, and noted 
that a document and a web page were also availabl e on that issue. Some activities had taken place in 
Santiago de Chile and in Costa Rica since the last m eeting of the Committee.  Work with El Salvador 
on a food safety programme had also begun.  Fi nally, the representative of Chile reported on the 
support it had received from the FAO on capacity building for food safety. 
(iv) Technical Assistance Activities of Australia 
84. The representative of Australia provided an update on SPS-related technical assistance and 
cooperation delivered to developing coun tries between January 2008 and June 2009 
(G/SPS/GEN/717/Add.2).  Australia had offered assist ance offered to 31 countries mainly in the Asia-
Pacific Region and also in Africa and the Middl e East, through 163 projects amounting to over 
82 million dollars.  In addition to assisting WTO Members to comply with SPS measures in their 
export markets and to enhance their capacity to  implement their own science-based SPS risk 
assessment processes, Australia woul d continue supporting the work of  International Standard-Setting 
Bodies.  Australia noted that since the last reporting period, Australia had pursued its technical assistance activities, including, most recently, a Pl ant Pest Risk Analysis workshop in Viet Nam. 
(c) Information from Observers 
85. The representative of Codex highlighted the wo rk of the Codex Trust Fund relating to the 
participation of Members in standard-setting.  C odex thanked all the countri es which had contributed 
to the Trust Fund, and noted that at the last session of the Commission, the Mid Term Review had been presented, including the objectives, achievemen ts and future perspectives of the Trust Fund.  
Codex also informed the Committee that a recent Workshop on Codex and Risk Analysis had been 
organised by the FAO, WHO, European union and the Government of Poland, in Poland.  Codex 
drew attention to: a forthcoming Coordinating Committee for Asia, together with a three-day 
Workshop organised by FAO and WHO; and a Wo rkshop for Latin America and the Caribbean 
planned for November 2010.  The initiative of the WHO Office for Europe on Antimicrobial 
Resistance in food safety for Europe, was also highlighted by Codex. 
86. The representative of the OIE informed th e Committee on its technical assistance to 
veterinary services to comply with OIE standard s and the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/GEN1043).  The 
OIE indicated that 193 requests for missions relati ng to the PVS pathway had been registered as at 
24 September 2010 and 136 missions had been carri ed out, including PVS evaluation, gap analysis 
and veterinary legislation.  The OIE had amended the tool for the assessment of capacity of aquatic 
animal health services, and a Global Conference w ould be held in June 2011, in Panama, on the 
contribution of the aquatic animal health programme to food security. 
87. The representative of Belize thanked the OIE for the application of the PVS tool and the Gap 
Analysis on the veterinary services in Belize.  Th e report would assist Belize in identifying the key 
areas that needed further strengthening and in soliciting further assistance from Members. 
88. The representative of the IPPC thanked the Secretariat for the cooperation in capacity 
building workshops and highlighted that an incr easing number of countries had been working with 
IPPC in areas of common interest to build s ynergies. The IPPC observed that many technical 
assistance requests did not address identified capacity n eeds or priorities.  The IPPC noted that the G/SPS/R/61 
Page 18  
 
  Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation Tool was the be st way to ensure better coordinated and more 
sustainable technical assistance.  The representative of the IPPC referred the Committee to document 
G/SPS/GEN/1049 which listed all of its technical assistance activities. 
89. The representative of IICA provided informati on on IICA's SPS-related technical assistance 
activities (G/SPS/GEN/1045) and reported on the conclu sion of the STDF 108 Project and on its main 
outcomes.  It was also noted that IICA had begu n using the audit manual for national notification 
systems in Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Peru and Paraguay, and would continue using that 
methodology in other countries when needed. 
90. The representative of OIRSA provided information on specific projects and technical 
assistance activities and highlighted several of the OIRSA projects detailed in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1050. 
91. The representative of the Dominican Republic thanked IICA and OIRSA for the technical 
cooperation activities held in the Dominican Republic and also for the coopera tion of experts who had 
visited the region to manage certain pests. 
92. The representative of SADC thanked the Committee for having granted SADC ad hoc 
observer status at the March 2010 meeting.  The representative of SADC reported on the 
implementation of the Capacity Building in Residue Control Project funded by the European Union, and through which it had assisted most of the SA DC member states set up national SPS committees.  
SADC would next look into the setting up of a regional SPS committee.  SADC thanked the STDF 
Secretariat for its visit to the SADC Secretar iat when several cooperation possibilities had been 
discussed. 
93. The representative of ITC provided information on specific projects and technical assistance 
activities, and also highlighted several projects ca rried out in cooperation with other organizations 
(G/SPS/GEN/1053). 
IX. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT 
(a) Issues Arising from the Second Review 
(i) Use of Ad Hoc Consultations (G/SPS/W/243/Rev.3) 
94. The Chairman reported on the informal meeti ng on the recommended procedure to encourage 
and facilitate ad hoc  consultations under Article 12.2 of the SPS Agreement, held on 
19 October 2010. 
95. He recalled that the use of the Good Offi ces of the SPS Chairman was included in the 
Committee's Working Procedures and it had been used in the past.  While many Members wanted to 
establish a procedure that could assist in the r esolution of SPS-related trade problems, some had 
proposed an SPS-specific process while others pr eferred to await the outcome of the ongoing 
negotiations in NAMA of a Horizontal Mechanism on non-tariff barriers. 
96. During the informal meeting, the Committee ha d considered three issues:  (i) a revised 
proposal for a specific mechanism on the use of th e Good Offices of the SPS Chairman, contained in 
G/SPS/W/243/Rev.3;  (ii) a non-paper by India, Norway, the Philippines and Switzerland, which was sent to Members via fax on 13 September 2010;  a nd (iii) a document from Brazil that compared the 
proposed SPS mechanism, the NAMA Horizontal M echanism, consideration of SPS Specific Trade 
Concerns, and bilateral meetings (G/SPS/GEN/1052).  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 19 
 
 
  97. The Chairman had encouraged Members to cons ider three questions during the discussions:  
(i) whether Members were discussing alternativ e mechanisms, complementary mechanisms, or 
sequential mechanisms;  (ii) whether the adopti on of a specific SPS mechanism would prejudice the 
ongoing negotiations on the NAMA Horizontal Mechanis m;  and (iii) whether the SPS mechanism on 
ad hoc  consultations could be considered to be an interim procedure until the broader NAMA 
Horizontal Mechanism were adopted. 
98. The Secretariat had introduced the third revision of the draft proposal of an SPS mechanism 
contained in G/SPS/W/243/Rev.3.  The third re vision included comments and suggestions provided 
by Members during the June meeting of the SPS Committee, in addition to written comments and 
suggestions submitted by Argentina,  Canada and the United States.  In addition, the introduction 
section had been modified to highlight the Committee' s conclusions in the context of the three reviews 
of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement. 
99. Switzerland, India, the Philippines and Norway had presented their non-paper and views 
during the informal meeting.  They had stress ed their willingness to engage in a constructive 
discussion aimed at achieving an effective and work able mechanism to solve SPS-related problems.  
In this respect, Switzerland had raised questions on:   (i) the experience of Members that had utilized 
the Chairman's Good Offices in the past, including on  the role of the Chairman in those procedures;  
(ii) the rationale for the procedure being confidentia l;  (iii) whether there was any difference between 
"ad hoc  consultations" and "Good Offices of the SPS Chai rman";  (iv) what role was proposed for the 
Chairman in G/SPS/W/243/Rev.3;  and (v) the re lationship between the SPS mechanism vis-à-vis the 
DSU procedures.  Switzerland had also requested further clarification on which comments had been 
kept or removed from G/SPS/W/243/Rev.3. 
100. While no Member had objected to discussing the elaboration of procedures on ad hoc  
consultations by the SPS Chairman, many Member s had urged that the discussions focus on the 
proposed text in G/SPS/W/243/Rev.3, which offere d an inexpensive, voluntary, flexible, and 
confidential mechanism.  Some Members had also  recalled that the Committee had a mandate to 
negotiate such a procedure, which woul d in any case be reviewed periodically. 
101. Brazil had presented its comparison table of th e different mechanisms to solve SPS-related 
concerns (G/SPS/GEN/1052).  According to Braz il's analysis, the proposed NAMA Horizontal 
Mechanism appeared to be more comprehensive, and the discussion at a more mature stage, than the 
work in the SPS Committee.  Brazil had proposed  to consolidate all the comments on the SPS 
mechanism to date, to more clearly  identify divergences in views. 
102. Several Members had maintained that the m echanisms in discussion should be considered 
complementary to each other, as a single tool could not address all the problems related to SPS.  It had 
also been suggested that the discussions in the SPS Committee should take into account the provisions on special and differential treatment. 
103. Given the differing views of Members, the Chairman had suggested that the Committee 
follow a two-track approach  to advance its work. 
104. First, a new revision of G/SPS/W/243 could be pr epared by the Secretariat.  This document 
had been discussed for more than one year, and Members had been given seven different 
opportunities to comment on the draft over time.  Ma ny comments had been made during that period, 
many of which may have been superseded by the de velopment of the discussions.  To ensure that the 
new revision included all the releva nt suggestions by Members, the Chairman invited Members to 
ensure that their comments on G/SPS/W/243/Rev.3 in cluded all the suggestions they believed were 
still relevant.  That is, Members should comme nt on G/SPS/W/243/Rev.3 as though this had been a 
new proposal, repeating, if necessary, comments they might have made previously. G/SPS/R/61 
Page 20  
 
  105. Also, the Secretariat would prepare a paper that described the use of ad hoc  consultations in 
previous cases, based on the information that Cana da and the United States had offered to provide on 
their experiences during those consultations. 
106. Members could also, if they so wished, subm it other proposals for consideration by the 
Committee. 
107. Based on this additional information, the Chai rman hoped that the Committee would be able 
to set the level of ambition which would guide its work on this matter. 
108. In concluding his report on the informal meeti ng, the Chairman invited Members to submit all 
of their comments on the issue before the end of th e year, so that a revised document compiling all the 
comments to date could be prepared and circulated  before the March 2011 meeting of the Committee. 
109. In commenting on the Chairman's report of th e informal meeting, the representative of 
Hong Kong, China stressed the importance of im plementing the various recommendations agreed 
following the Second Review of the SPS Agreement, in particular the one relating to Article 12.2.  It 
was time for all Members to c onsider the proposal on the table and adopt it expeditiously as a 
workable and practicable way to assist Members in resolving specifi c SPS issues.  The latest proposal 
took into consideration Members' comments in ma ny previous discussions, and offered a reasonable 
solution with adequate flexibility,  as the basis for further discussion.   He encouraged other Members 
to submit any further suggestions to the Secretaria t with a view to adopting the proposal.  While 
Hong Kong, China agreed with India, Norway, the Philippines and Switzerland that the deliberations 
at the SPS Committee should not adversely affect th e NAMA negotiations, the reverse was also true.  
Hong Kong, China would study carefully the helpful comparison table prepared by Brazil, and looked 
forward to further engagement on this subject as soon as possible. 
110. The representative of El Salvador stated that the ad hoc  consultations were extremely 
beneficial because all Members could express their concerns.  Brazil's table was very useful, and El Salvador hoped that Members would be ready to reach a decision at the next meeting in 
March 2011. 
111. The representative of India requested more preci sion regarding the three questions raised by 
the Chairman in his report, and suggested that it woul d be useful to have an informal meeting before 
the March meeting to discuss these and move forward. 
112. The Chairman observed that the three questions  would be discussed again in March 2011, as 
no decisions had yet been made.  The Secretaria t would revise document G/SPS/W/243 to include all 
the relevant comments and suggesti ons submitted by Members before the end of the year, and at the 
same time would also prepare a paper describing the use of ad hoc  consultations in previous cases, 
based on the information offered by Members on thei r experiences.  An informal meeting would be 
organised before the next SPS Committee meeting and he remained open to meet with delegates or 
provide a sort of good office to facilitate the pro cess.  The Committee needed  to decide in which 
direction it was going to move forward on this issue. 
(ii) Issues Arising from the Third Review 
113. The Chairman reported on the informal meeting on issues arising from the Third Review of 
the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement, held on 19 October 2010. 
114. The Chairman recalled that the Committee had adopted the report of the Third Review in 
March 2010, which had been circulated in documen t G/SPS/53.  The report identified several issues 
where the Committee had ag reed to further work.  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 21 
 
 
  115. At the meeting in June, Members had been i nvited to submit proposals on those issues which 
they believed should receive priority for further work.  At the informal meeting on 19 October 2010, 
three proposals had been discussed, tabled by Japan, Canada and Argentina, on proposed priorities for 
the work of the Committee arising from the Third Review. 
116. Japan and Canada had introduced thei r respective submissions, G/SPS/W/251 and 
G/SPS/W/253,  on the cooperation between the SPS Committee and the three Sisters.  The proposals 
were based on the recommendations from the Oct ober 2009 workshop on the relationship between the 
Committee and the three Sisters.  Japan had em phasized in particular the need to improve 
coordination, both at national and global levels.  Canada had highlighted issues relating to the 
strategic plans of ISSBs on future work and the need  to share information on the use or lack of use of 
international standards. 
117. Members had welcomed the proposals by Canada and Japan on issues related to the 
relationship between the SPS Committee and the three Sisters.  The OIE had also welcomed the suggestions made by Japan and Canada to look at  ways to improve the collaboration between the 
Committee and the three Sisters, and amongst the three Sisters. 
118. Argentina had introduced its proposal (G/SPS/W/ 252) and had specifically flagged the need 
for the Committee to further discuss issues related to monitoring the use of international standards, 
and Annex C on control, inspec tion and approval procedures. 
119. While a number of Members had welcomed th e proposals from Argentina as a good basis for 
further debate on issues arising from the Third Review, some had flagged the need for care in 
attempting to clarify terms in Annex C. 
120. The discussions had shown support to first focus on (i) the cooperation between the SPS 
Committee and the three Sisters, as  proposed by Japan and Canada;  (ii) improving the procedure for 
monitoring the use of international standards;  and (iii) discussions of Article 8 and Annex C on 
control and inspection, as proposed by Argentina. 
121. In concluding his report on the informal mee ting, the Chairman invited Members to submit, 
well in advance of the next meeting of the Co mmittee, specific comments and proposals on the three 
issues prioritized for consideration.  He proposed that the specific inputs received be discussed at an 
informal meeting in the margins of the March Committee meeting. 
122. No Members had further comments on this agenda item. 
X. MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
(a) New Issues 
123. No Member raised any new problems which they  believed related to the use or non-use of 
relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised 
124. No Member or observer organizations provided further information on any of the issues 
previously raised under this agenda item. G/SPS/R/61 
Page 22  
 
  (c) Adoption of Annual Report (G/SPS/W/250/Rev.3) 
125. The Chairman recalled that the Committee had adopted the draft Twelfth Annual Report on 
the Procedure to Monitor the Process of Internationa l Harmonization at its June meeting, subject to its 
revision to include information arising from discussions  at that meeting.  The revised report had been 
circulated with a deadline for comments.  As comments had been submitted by China and the United 
States, a new revision had been circulated, with a new deadline for comments.  Japan had proposed 
further modifications to the draft report, which were reflected in G/SPS/W/250/Rev.3. 
126. The Committee adopted the Twelfth Annual Repor t on the Procedure to Monitor the Process 
of International Harmonization, subsequently circulated as G/SPS/54. 
XI. CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
(G/SPS/W/247/REV.3) 
(a) Report on Chairman's Consultations 
127. The Chairman reported that the ad hoc  working group on SPS-related private standards had 
held its seventh meeting on 19 October 2010 a nd had focused its discussion on document 
G/SPS/W/274/Rev.3 entitled "Possible Actions for the SPS Committee Regarding SPS-Related 
Private Standards".  This document had been revised by the Secretariat after the last meeting of the 
working group in June 2010. 
128. The Chairman reported that the meeting had been  very constructive.  The working group had 
neared consensus on the first six proposed actions, pe nding some further modifications to their texts.  
In general terms, those six actions would define  the scope of the discussions on SPS-related private 
standards and promote information exchange among various entities with a stake in the evolution of 
SPS-related private standards, within existing resources. 
129. There had been some discussion on the remaining Actions, in particular Action 7, on which 
Members continued to have divergent views.  Me mbers had different opinions on the applicability of 
the SPS Agreement to SPS-related private sta ndards and on any role the SPS Committee could 
formally play in this area.  Some Members were  of the view that "any" SPS requirements affecting 
"market access" fell under the responsibility of Member  governments, especially if they deviated from 
international standards.  Others were of the vi ew that commercial requirements affecting "shelf-
access", which were often tailored to consumer pref erences, were not controlled by governments and 
therefore did not fall under the purview of the SPS Agreement. 
130. In light of these discussions, the Secretariat w ould prepare the working group's report to the 
SPS Committee, in consultation with the participants  of the working group, for consideration at the 
March 2011 meeting of the SPS Committee.  The re port would forward specific actions to the SPS 
Committee for endorsement.  In addition, it would list the remaining proposed actions, on which the 
working group could not reach consensus, along with  a brief explanation of the main differences of 
opinion. 
131. In concluding his report on the meeting of the working group, the Chairman indicated that the 
report should bring to a conclusi on the mandate of the current ad hoc  working group.  Therefore, in 
March the Committee would need to consider the process and format for any future discussions on 
SPS-related private standards. 
132. In commenting on the Chairman's report, the re presentative of El Salvador expressed concern 
about the impact of private standards on exports fro m developing countries.  While Members have the 
right to take SPS measures for the protection of hu man, animal, plant life or health, such measures  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 23 
 
 
  had to be based on science and not on commercial considerations.  Private standards went beyond the 
standards, guidelines and recommendations developed by the relevant international organizations.  
El Salvador requested that the Secretariat conti nue to present studies and organize workshops on this 
matter. 
133. The representative of India indicated that he would provide comments on document 
G/SPS/W/274/Rev.3 at the next meeting, however th e Chairman recalled that the revised version of 
the document would be circulated prior to the ne xt meeting, and invited India to comment on the 
revised version. 
134. The representative of Cuba shared the concer ns raised by El Salvador about the trade 
restrictive effects of private standards that exceeded  the international standards or national standards 
to protect human health.  Priority should be gi ven to enriching official  standards based on risk 
assessments.  The representatives of Ecuador and Colo mbia noted the effect of private standards on 
market access and development, particularly of sm all and medium enterprises which could not afford 
the cost of private certification.  The Committee and the three Sisters needed to take into account 
these new barriers to market access.  Colombia s uggested that the SPS Committee adopt actions to 
support the work of public entities. 
135. The representative of Senegal observed that most developing countries were not able to 
regularly participate in the SPS Committee meetings  and other relevant activities to allow a better 
understanding of that issue.  SPS-related private st andard represented a major problem for developing 
countries, and a major constraint to trade.  The representative of Guinea said that developing countries 
struggled to comply with international standards because they lacked technical resources and testing 
laboratories, and were often excluded from markets.  It was important that appropriate attention be 
paid to this issue. 
136. The representatives of Venezuela and the Domini can Republic opined that actions 7 through 
12 were of key importance, and these should be discu ssed.  The Dominican Republic noted that those 
actions related to the clarification also of Article 13.  Venezuela stressed the need to take into account 
the need for special and differential treatment. 
137. The representative of the OIE stated that they were looking for practical solutions to these 
concerns.  It was important to be clear about the role  of official versus private standards, because both 
had a role, and these should not be confused.  The OIE was taking steps to promote compatibility and avoid conflicts between private and official standards.  The OIE was concerned that the Fisheries Sub-
Committee of the FAO Committee on Agriculture ha d produced agriculture certification guidelines 
that mixed up the roles of official and private standard s.  Training on the different roles of official and 
private standards could perhaps be provided thro ugh STDF projects.  To increase transparency about 
schemes, the OIE was specifically seeking examples of private standards that imposed sanitary 
standards in excess of official standards.  Food safety was essential and should not be used as a marketing tool. 
138. The representative of Codex agreed that all food should be safe and that food safety claims 
should not be used for marketing purposes without re ally adding more safety .  Codex welcomed the 
ongoing work between FAO, OECD and UNCTAD, but it was difficult to find the necessary factual 
information.  The issue of private standards w ould be discussed in the Codex regional coordinating 
committees, and Members were encouraged to par ticipate in those meetings.  The FAO Committee on 
Agriculture was also considering the issue of private standards in relation to market access. 
139. The representative of Morocco asked that more attention be given to the difficulties faced by 
developing countries in complying with the official standards, let alone the private standards, in importing markets.  The costs of compliance and of certification with different private standards was G/SPS/R/61 
Page 24  
 
  very high, and the SPS Committee and the three Sister s needed to help developing countries to find a 
solution.  The representative of Mali observed th at private standards added costs, which many 
developing countries could not afford, resu lting in more barriers to their exports. 
140. The representative of Chile believed that this w as not only an issue for developing countries, 
but it was more systemic.  The role of private standa rds needed to be clarified, as they continued to 
proliferate, and it would be useful to explore wa ys to ensure the complementarity of the private 
standards with those of Codex and OIE. 
141. The representative of Brazil shared the concerns of Codex and the OIE on the role of the SPS 
Committee and governments concerning private standards.  The SPS Committee should develop 
guidelines regarding costs, transportation issues, the role of private versus official standards, and 
identify ways to deal with the proliferation of st andards.  The SPS Committee should give a signal for 
other fora to follow.  The FAO fisheries gui delines addressed issues such as climate change, 
environmental protection, animal welfare and social issues, and made clear the need for this Committee to assume its responsibility on the issue.  Brazil appreciated the constructive approach of 
Members, and looked forward to the final report of the ad hoc  working group. 
142. The representatives of Uruguay and Belize shar ed the view that the Committee had an 
important role to play regarding private sta ndards.  Belize looked forward to moving beyond 
discussions of whether the issue fell within the Co mmittee's mandate, to discuss concrete actions the 
Committee could take to address the issue of pr ivate standards, at its March 2011 meeting. 
143. The representative of Peru, with support from Argentina, the Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador and Mexico, suggested that an inform al meeting be held in March to discuss private 
standards, so that the Committee could move rapi dly to identify practical actions.  Argentina 
suggested that for the actions on which there was consensus, the discu ssions could focus on the 
procedure to put these into place.   For the remaining actions, th e discussions could focus on their 
content. 
144. The representative of New Zealand observed that private standards also affected exports from 
developed countries, such as New Zealand horticultu ral products.  However, New Zealand was not 
convinced that the SPS Committee was th e right place to address these problems. 
145. The representative of South Africa said his country was badly affected by private standards.  
However, it was important to consider the complexity of market access and the effects of stringent requirements, whether official or private.  South Africa suggested that it would be useful to discuss 
Article 13, its drafting history and intention, th e definition of "non-governmental entities", etc. 
146. The Chairman recalled that the ad hoc  working group should issue its report on possible 
actions for consideration by the Committee at the meeting in March and he hoped that the Committee 
would be in a position to agree on certain courses of action at that time.  He would explore the 
possibility of convening an informal meeting where the Committee could discuss how to move forward on agreed actions, and further consider the other possible actions. 
XII. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS (G/SPS/W/78/REV.7) 
(a) Ad Hoc Observers 
147. The Committee agreed to invite all of the ad hoc  observers to participate in the next 
Committee meeting, including the informal meetings.  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 25 
 
 
  (b) Outstanding Requests  
(i) Renewed Request from CBD (G/SPS/GEN/121/ADD.2/Rev.1) 
148. The Secretariat reported that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) had renewed its 
request for observer status in  the Committee (G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.2/Rev.1).  The Secretariat 
suggested that the participation of the CBD could be useful for the Committee, in particular in light of 
their work on alien invasive species.  The Secretar iat already participated in virtual and physical 
meetings on the work of the CBD. 
149. The representative of the European Union sup ported granting observer status to the CBD.  
There was already close cooperation between the I PPC and the CBD, and their participation in the 
SPS Committee would create synergies and facilitate implementation of the relevant international 
standards and guidelines. 
150. The representatives of Canada, Pakistan, Peru and Norway also supported granting observer 
status to the CBD. 
151. The representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Paragua y and the United States indicated that they 
needed more time to analyse the application by the CBD. 
152. The Chairman concluded that given the lack of consensus to grant ad hoc  observer status to 
the CBD at this time, the Committee would revert to this request at its next regular meeting. 
153. There was no change in the position of Members with respect to the pending requests for 
observer status from the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APPC), International Vine and Wine 
Office (OIV) and the Gulf Customs Council Standa rdization Organization (GSO).  The Committee 
decided to revert to these outstanding requests at the next regular meeting. 
XIII.  CHAIRMAN'S ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/L/943) 
154. The Chairman noted that it was usual at this time of the year for the Chairman to provide, 
under his own responsibility, a brief, factual annua l report on the activities of this Committee for 
consideration by the Council for Tr ade in Goods (CTG).  A draft of the Chairman's annual report had 
been provided to all delegations.  The annual re port would provide information on the main work 
undertaken at the meetings in 2010, including specifi c trade concerns and other issues discussed, as 
well as on the implementation of the transparency provisions.  The report would highlight, in particular, the adoption of the report on the Third Re view of the Operation a nd Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement, and draw attention to the workshop on transparency. 
155. Members were invited to submit any comments th ey might have on the draft annual report by 
5 November 2010.  The report was subsequent ly submitted to the CTG as document G/L/943. 
XIV.  OTHER BUSINESS 
156. Chile reported that Albania restricted impor ts of poultry products from Chile allegedly 
because of avian influenza.  However, no avian influenza had been found in Chile since 2002.  If 
Albania's concern was with regard to the A1/ H1N1  virus, Chile noted that there was no scientific 
evidence that this virus was spre ad by poultry products.  Chile therefore requested that Albania 
remove these emergency measures. G/SPS/R/61 
Page 26  
 
  157. The representative of the United States supporte d Chile's request and urged all Members to 
remove any trade restrictions that had been imposed due to H1N1. 
158. The representative of Albania indicated that th is information would be transmitted to his 
authorities, who would reply to Chile shortly. 
159. The representative of Chile indicated that Croa tia had also imposed restrictions on poultry 
products from Chile allegedly because of avian influe nza.  As there had been no avian influenza in 
Chile since 2002, there was no scientific basis for these restrictions.  Furthermore, Croatia had not notified those measures to the WTO.  Chile requ ested Croatia to remove those measures without 
delay. 
160. The representative of Croatia responded that the measures had been introduced in 2009 on the 
basis of an OIE warning about an emerging disease situation in Chile.  However, the emergency 
measure had expired after six mont hs, and had been formally abolis hed in August.  This would be 
notified to the WTO shortly. 
161. The representative of Chile expressed concern that  Members should not introduce restrictions 
in reaction to information provided to the OIE fo r purposes of transparency.  He encouraged all 
Members to be more transparent about their measures. 
162. The representative of Nicaragua raised concerns  regarding Mexican restrictions on its beef 
exports because of BSE-related concerns.  Nicaragua had requested Mexico to recognize its status as a 
"controlled risk" country, in line with its submissi on to the OIE.  In addition, Mexico failed to 
approve Nicaraguan slaughterhouses, despite the fact that these had been approved by other countries. 
163. The representative of the OIE stressed that accord ing to the OIE standard, de-boned beef was 
a safe commodity with regard to BSE, irrespective of the BSE status of a country. 
164. The representative of Mexico indicated that his country was willing to work bilaterally with 
the government of Nicaragua to resolve those difficulties. 
XV. DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING 
165. The Chairman recalled that the next meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for 
30-31 March 2011
.  Informal consultations regarding the use of ad hoc  consultations and the work 
plan on issues arising from the Third Review were scheduled to immediately precede the next Committee meeting. 
166. The Committee agreed to the tentative cale ndar of SPS Committee meetings for 2011, as 
follows:  the weeks of 28 March, 27 June , and 17 October (G/SPS/GEN/1035/Rev.2). 
167. The Committee agreed on the following tent ative agenda for its next meeting: 
1. Adoption of the agenda 
2. Election of Chairperson 
3. Information on relevant activities 
(a) Information from Members 
(b) Information from Observer organizations 
4. Specific trade concerns 
(a) New issues  G/SPS/R/61 
 Page 27 
 
 
  (b) Issues previously raised 
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received 
(d) Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.11 
5. Operation of transparency provisions 
6. Implementation of special and differential treatment 
7. Equivalence – Article 4 
(a) Information from Members on their experiences 
(b) Information from relevant  Observer organizations 
8. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
(a) Information from Members on their pest or disease status 
(b) Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or 
 disease-free areas 
(c) Information from relevant  observer organizations 
9. Technical assistance and cooperation 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
(b) Information from Members 
(c) Information from Observers 
10. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
(a) Issues arising from the Second Review 
(i) Use of ad hoc consultations – Report on informal meeting 
(b) Issues arising from the Third Review 
(i) Report on informal meeting 
11. Monitoring of the use of international standards 
(a) New issues 
(b) Issues previously raised 
12. Concerns with private and commercial standards 
(a) Report of the ad hoc Working Group 
13. Observers – Request for observer status 
14. Other business 
15. Date and agenda of next meeting 
168. Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines: 
(i) For submitting comments on the propo sed recommended procedure for ad hoc  
consultations (G/SPS/W/243/Rev.3):  Friday, 17 December ; 
(ii) For submitting specific comments and proposal s on the three issues prioritized for 
consideration under the Third Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement  (G/SPS/53):  Friday, 17 December ; 
(iii) For identifying new issues for considera tion under the monitoring procedure, AND 
for requesting that items be put on the agenda:  Thursday, 17 March 2011 ; 
(iv) For the distribution of the Airgram:   Friday, 18 March 2011 . 
__________