RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/18
18 April 2000
(00-1581)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15-16 MARCH 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its
seventeenth meeting on 15-16 March 2000, under the chairmanship of Mr. Attie Swart (South Africa).
The agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/1258 was adopted with amendments.
I. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
(a) Information from Members
(i) Communication from the European Communiti es on the precautionary principle
(G/SPS/GEN/168)
2. The representative of the European Communities introduced a communication on the
precautionary principle adopted by the European Commission on 2 February 2000.  He indicated that
this communication was intended to contribute to the ongoing debate in international fora on theapplication of the precautionary principle.  The European Communities hoped that this
communication would help to build a common understandi ng of how to manage risks in situations of
scientific uncertainty where the scientific evidence was insufficient to conduct a proper risk
assessment, and to dispel fears that the precautionary principle might be used in an arbitrary way or as
a disguised form of trade protectionism.   The European Communities considered that there was a
need to establish guidelines for a correct and reasonable application of this principle internationally.
The precautionary principle should not be invoked to justify arbitrary measures; on the contrary, theEuropean Communities considered that measures based on the precautionary principle must comply
with the general principles of risk management, such as proportionality, non-discrimination, cost-
effectiveness and transparency.
3. The representative of Hong Kong, China welcomed the EC efforts at transparency.  She
indicated that in addition to those mentioned in Appendix 2 of the communication, the AppellateBody had made other observations in the Hormones Ca se with respect to the relationship between the
precautionary principle and the SPS Agreement which Members might wish to consider in the current
discussions.
4. The representative of Australia welcomed the EC commitment to a scientific approach and to
risk assessment, but expressed concern that there appeared to be some qualifications in the paper.  Hehoped that all Members would abide by their obligations under the SPS Agreement and other WTO
agreements in applying the precautionary principle.  He noted that precaution was already
incorporated into the SPS Agreement under Article 5.7 and other Articles, and that precaution was
recognized as a central element in risk analysis in the formulation of both national and international
food safety standards.  The delegate urged all Members to refer to the conclusions from the FAOG/SPS/R/18
Page 2
Conference on International Food Trade Beyond 2000, which had been held in Melbourne, Australia,
in October 1999.  He was interested why additional references to precaution were needed.  He
expressed concern that Members might consider the precautionary principle to override the
obligations of the SPS Agreement and other WTO Agreements.
5. The representative of Canada informed the Committee that Canada dealt with precaution on a
daily basis in operating its science-based system of risk management.  In addition, the SPS Agreement
had a number of relevant provisions, including not only Article 5.7 but also Article 5.5 and others.  In
Canada's view the issue could be better described as managing risks in the area of animal, plant and
human life and health in situations of limited information.  Canada did not share the views expressed
in the paper on the international currency of the precautionary principle and reminded the Committee
that the WTO had a clear system of rights and obligations which were relevant to the issue.  He was
not sure whether the SPS Committee was an appropriate forum for this discussion, but indicated thatthere might be occasions where it would be useful to exchange experiences with this difficult
question.
6. The United States agreed that precaution must not be used as a guise for protectionism and
appreciated the EC efforts to develop guidance for the uniform application of precaution within the
Communities.  Precaution had been a longstanding and essential element in the US regulatory systemfor food, health and safety, manufacturing, and construction.  The United States incorporated
precaution as part of its science-based approach to the development of food safety standards.  In the
US representative's opinion, these precautionary approaches were fully consistent with WTO rules.
He expressed concern regarding the legal basis for the precautionary principle as outlined in the EC
paper.  The United States was still reviewing the document and would soon provide detailed writtencomments and questions to the European Communities.
7. The representative of Bolivia questioned to what extent the EC document differed from the
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  In Bolivia's view, the precautionary principle was already
contained in the SPS Agreement.
8. The representative of Chile commented that the SPS Agreement covered the precautionary
principle in risk management where scientific evidence existed, and also permitted taking provisional
measures, with proper notification, where scientific evidence was not sufficient.  Given the amount of
work before the Committee, she believed that it was not the appropriate time for a major discussion of
the precautionary principle.  She also suggested it might be preferable to study what was happening in
other fora, such as environmental ones.  Because of certain sensitivities in this area, she suggested that
it was not appropriate to tackle the issue in the Committee.
9. The representative of Brazil highlighted that although the document in question was an
internal paper, Brazil was nevertheless concerned because it sought to legitimize guidelines for
recourse to precautionary measures.  These guidelines went beyond the letter and spirit of the SPS
Agreement.  They allowed for too much flexibility  and leeway for discretionary actions.  Thus, the
document lacked the concept of least-restrictive trade measures and of minimizing trade effects when
determining the appropriate level of protection (Article 5.6), and it placed political, consumer andenvironmental concerns on the same level as science when applying SPS measures.  These non-
scientific concerns might be legitimate, but they were subjective.  Negotiators in the Uruguay Round
had worked hard to develop a set of rules that woul d achieve predictability in international trade, and
Brazil would like to retain this predictability and the balance of rights and obligations.  The delegate
of Brazil acknowledged that the European Communities might not be seeking to upset this balance,but she cautioned that loose rules could lead to loose actions by any Member.
10. The representative of Argentina argued that it was not clear that the so-called precautionary
principle was part of customary international law.   Argentina did not believe that the precautionaryG/SPS/R/18
Page 3
approach overrode obligations in the SPS Agreement or in the WTO rules.  Furthermore, according to
the SPS Agreement, nothing prevented governments from acting with precaution.  Article 5.7 enabled
governments to take provisional measures.  Provisi onal, in Argentina's view, did not mean that these
measures should be maintained for as long as scientific information was incomplete or inconclusive,
as the EC document suggested.  In Argentina's view, this could be a reward for inefficient research,and could contradict the condition in Article 5.7 that governments had to seek additional information
and review provisional measures.  No one would disagree about the need to act with precaution.
However, it was problematic to introduce this so-called principle that could override SPS obligations;
for the sake of precaution, consolidated trade concessions could be removed, impaired or nullified
without compensation.  He emphasized that this was of much concern to developing countries whose
already serious problems in complying with SPS measures in export markets would be made worse by
the "blank cheque" of precaution.
11. The representative of Mexico expressed doubts about the interpretations of WTO provisions
contained in the EC paper, both of the WTO preamble and of the SPS and TBT Agreements.  In
preparing for the Seattle Ministerial Conference, the Mexican delegation had made comments which
he believed were still valid in this regard.
12. The representative of the European Communitie s pointed out that four elements should be
retained from this discussion.  First, this was an exercise in transparency.  Precaution was applied in
many instances by many countries.  The European Communities wanted to inform Members how the
Commission saw this question.  Second, this document did not add to or detract from the SPS
Agreement, and was coherent with the SPS Agreement.  But it might be necessary to have a
development of the Articles in the Agreement that allowed for this principle, precisely to avoidunpredictability.  In that context, it would be useful to have guidelines based on a reasoned and
coherent set of principles.  Third, it was necessary to build a common understanding on how to assess,
manage and communicate risks that science was not yet fully able to evaluate.  Finally, it was
important to have a clear and explicit set of rules to avoid unwarranted recourse to the precautionary
principle, which could serve as a justification for disguised protectionism.  He informed theCommittee that the document on precaution was also available on the europa website
(http://europa.eu.int/).
(ii) Communication from the European Communities on the White Paper on Food Safety
(G/SPS/GEN/169)
13. The representative of the European Commun ities informed the Committee that the European
Union had developed its legal system in the area of food safety over several decades.  It aimed to
harmonize legislation between EC member States in order to facilitate trade, while obtaining andmaintaining a high level of health protection for consumers.  The Commission, however, was
determined to put in place an improved, updated and more effective food safety regime built on the
principles included in the White Paper on Food Safety.  This paper outlined a set of actions designed
to make European Union food safety legislation more coherent, understandable and flexible; to
promote better enforcement of that legislation; and to provide greater transparency to consumers.This strategy included setting up a food safety authority responsible for key tasks such as scientific
advice, information gathering and communication.
(iii) EC Sanitary Status regarding African swine fever and avian influenza
14. The representative of the European Commun ities provided information on an outbreak of
African swine fever which had been reported in the Alentejo region of southern Portugal in November1999.  The Portuguese authorities had immediately taken measures to control and eradicate the
disease, and had carried out an epidemiological investigation on the origin of the outbreak.  On 3
December 1999, the Commission had adopted safeguard measures which basically confirmed theG/SPS/R/18
Page 4
measures introduced by Portugal.  In January, th e Commission Decision was modified to take account
of the favorable evolution of the situation.  Since the original confirmation of African swine fever, no
new outbreaks had been detected.  In accordance with Commission Decision 2000/64/EC, any trade
of pigs, pork or pork products was restricted from an area consisting of seven municipalities in the
region of Alentejo and the Algarve.  From the remaining parts of these two regions, trade was onlyallowed if certain disease-control measures and serological controls were applied.
15. An outbreak of avian influenza had occurred in mid-December in northern Italy.  The
situation in northern Italy had been reviewed dur ing meetings of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
most recently at the meeting held in March 2000.  Following the first outbreaks reported in mid-
December 1999, Italy immediately introduced the protection measures foreseen by EC legislation,
including slaughtering and destruction of animals, cleaning and disinfection of holdings, and
restricted movement of poultry.  In addition, Italy prohibited the export of live poultry, hatching eggsand fresh poultry meat from the affected area.  Clinical and serological testing of poultry was also
imposed in non-affected areas of Italy for live poultry, hatching eggs or day-old chicks destined for
export.  A Commission Decision had reinforced recent actions to avoid indirect transmission of the
disease through means of transport, packaging materials, etc.  The representative of the European
Communities indicated that the Commission Decisions referred to could be obtained from the EC SPSEnquiry Point, or from the EUR-Lex website (http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html).
(iv) Information from the European Communi ties on the Second ASEM-TFAP Seminar on
Quarantine and SPS Measures
16. The representative of the European Communities reported on a seminar jointly organized by
China and the Dutch Government that took place in Beijing on 23-26 November 1999, in theframework of the ASEM Trade Facilitation Action Plan (TFAP).  The seminar focused mainly on the
partners' administrative structure, their import legislation, and inspection and control procedures.
Partners, including non-WTO Members, agreed to recognize the SPS Agreement as the benchmark for
their trade policies, and to refer to the work of international organizations as a basis for sanitary and
phytosanitary measures and relevant import and export certificates.  Partners also agreed to exchangeinformation on relevant legislation and procedures, and to inform each other promptly of changes in
structure and organization.  The seminar emphasized risk analysis as an essential prerequisite for the
determination of trade-related SPS measures.  The Government of the Netherlands had offered to host
the next seminar later this year.  ASEM partners included Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Japan, Korea, as well as the EC member States.
(v) Chile – Progress in the impl ementation of the Agreement
17. The representative of Chile informed the Committee that a cooperation agreement had been
signed between the sanitary services of Chile and Uruguay.  EC technicians had visited Chile to
authorize imports of strawberry plants, and were going to report to the Commission in May.  With
respect to risk assessment, he informed the Committee that at a meeting of the Chilean agricultural
sanitary service (SAG) with APHIS of the United St ates, progress had been made with risk analysis
regarding clementine and tangerine exports to the United States.  Risk analysis for avocados, melons,watermelons and artichokes had also progressed.  Furthermore, experts at the meeting had discussed
alternatives to methyl bromide treatment. Regarding regionalization, he reported that Argentina,
Cuba, Uruguay and Japan now recognized Ch ile's freedom from classical swine fever
(G/SPS/GEN/81).  He expressed hope for recognition by the European Communities and the United
States, and noted that dialogue with Mexico was ongoing after a visit by Mexican technicians.  Noreplies had been received so far from New Zealand, Korea and Canada.  He considered that this case
of regionalization, on which he had reported at each meeting, was a good example of how
administrative matters could delay the recognition process even after technical progress had been
achieved.  The representative of Chile also reported that Chile would henceforth include a chapter onG/SPS/R/18
Page 5
SPS measures in all its trade agreements.  A committee on SPS measures had been set up in the
context of Chile's free trade agreement with Mexico, which would enhance coordination between the
different ministries.  The representative of Chile also thanked Korea for cooperation in the negotiation
of the SPS aspects of a trade agreement between the two countries.
18. The Chairman encouraged other Members to provide information under this agenda item in
the future.
(b) Follow-up to issues previously raised
(i) Statement from the European Communities on measures related to dioxin
19. The representative of the European Communities drew the attention of the Committee to
document G/SPS/GEN/123/Add.3, containing an update of the dioxin contamination incident that had
occurred in Belgium last year.  All restrictions in the Belgian beef and dairy sectors had been lifted in
July and September 1999, while no restrictions had been necessary on products of animal origin fromother EC member States.  The representative of the European Communities recalled that he had not
criticized trade restrictions put in place by third countries, as at the beginning of the crisis the extent
of contamination had not been clear.  He expressed his appreciation to those Members who had
adjusted their measures according to the information provided by the Commission.  However, many
WTO Members continued to apply more stringent measures, which significantly restricted trade fromBelgium and other EC member States.  In the light of the scientific evidence and the information
provided by the European Communities concerning the scope of the contamination, he found it
increasingly difficult to accept the continuation of these unjustified trade disruptions.  In its document,
the European Communities had outlined a number of notifications related to dioxin contamination for
which they had asked the notifying Members to justify its import measures.  The EuropeanCommunities looked forward to receiving replies from these Members, and would continue to
evaluate measures, whether or not they had been notified to the WTO.  The European Communities
reserved its rights to take any necessary action with regard to unjustified trade barriers, but was
confident that the information provided would enable  Members to adjust their measures to the current
situation.
(c) Specific trade concerns
20. The representative of Chile suggested that follow-up to specific trade concerns should
constitute a separate sub-item on the agenda, similar to the subdivision under item 2 (a) "information
from Members".  When providing this follow-up information under 2 (b) "specific trade concerns",
Members would still have to inform the Member concerned as well as the Secretariat eleven calendar
days in advance of the meeting of their intention to raise the issue.  He also requested the Secretariat
to prepare a summary of the pending issues.
(i) European Communities - Measures affecting imports of gelatin
21. In a joint communication, Brazil and the European Communities informed the Committee that
constructive consultations had taken place regarding Commission Decision 99/724/EC with respect to
animal and public health requirements governing trade in gelatin.  The European Communities was
going to evaluate the relevant documentation provided by Brazil.  Brazil remained optimistic that asolution to both Brazil's and the European Comm unities' concerns would be found soon, and was
impressed by the European Communities' transparent approach to the issue.
22. The representative of the United States indica ted that in its response to US comments, the
European Communities had indicated that the proposed measures were not just for protection against
BSE, but were necessary for general public hygienic purposes.  However, the response had notG/SPS/R/18
Page 6
specified the other risks which the measures were designed to address.  The European Communities
took note of the US intervention, and noted that it had responded to questions received from the
United States.
(ii) India's ban on bovine semen imports from Canada
23. The representative of Canada informed the Committee that despite the fact that Canada was a
reliable BSE-free supplier of high quality bovine semen, India had banned imports of bovine semen
from Canada because of BSE concerns.  Furthermore, the OIE and most veterinarians agreed that BSE
was not transmittable via semen.  In its latest communication with Canada, India had indicated that it
was aware that the existing scientific evidence suggested that the disease was not transmittable
through semen, but noted that ongoing studies might conclude otherwise.  Canada was not aware of
any such studies, and had yet to see a risk assessment that would justify the ban.  Therefore, Canada
saw no scientific justification for the measure and asked that it be withdrawn immediately.  Therepresentative of the United States supported Canada, as all of North America was free of BSE.
24. The representative of India indicated that he had provided an explanation to Canada, which he
would be happy to provide to Members.  The restriction on bovine semen imports had been imposed
to avoid inadvertent introduction of BSE or scrapie into India, where these diseases had not been
reported so far.  He clarified that the measure was not a ban, but a licensing process.  The Governmentof India had prepared a questionnaire for a few other countries and would carry out a risk assessment
based on the responses.  The representative indicated that he would draw his authorities' attention to
Canada's points in order to try to solve this problem bilaterally as soon as possible.
(iii) India's restrictions on semen imports from the European Community
25. The representative of the European Communities again expressed concern about India's
measures on semen imports, which the EC had already raised at the March 1999 Committee meeting.
At that time the European Communities had posed specific questions (G/SPS/R/14, para. 19 and
G/SPS/GEN/113 refer).  Notwithstanding some bilateral contacts and multilateral discussions, no
information had been provided by the Indian authorities regarding the conditions for exporting semen
to India.  The European Communities would evaluate the information it had received from India atthis meeting.  The representative of India regret ted the delay in providing answers to the European
Communities.
(iv) Mexico's import prohibition of Thai milled rice
26. The representative of Thailand regretted having to bring this issue to the attention of the
Committee again.  He noted that the Mexican Government had taken new measures replacing the ban
on the importation of Thai milled rice, which had been notified in G/SPS/N/MEX/153.  However,
Thailand had some concerns regarding these new measures, which included unusual and unnecessaryrequirements such as fumigation at point of entry (G/SPS/GEN/172).  The representative of Mexico
clarified that the Mexican notification corresponded to a draft amendment to a regulation.  He invited
Thailand to comment on this draft during the 60-day comment period which ended on 9 April.  Public
responses to all comments would be published in the official journal.
(d) Consideration of specific notifications received
(i) Iceland's notification on meat and meat products (G/SPS/N/ISL/1)
27. Argentina expressed interest in this notification, which announced the possibility to export
meat without heat treatment to Iceland, since it op ened the market to higher quality beef.  The
representative of Argentina asked for additional clarification.  The representative of Iceland confirmedG/SPS/R/18
Page 7
that meat could be imported into Iceland without heat treatment, provided all necessary certificates
and documents were submitted.  The new regulation took into account both the favorable disease
situation in Iceland and the disease situation of the exporting country.  The new regulation was more
transparent, and eased the existing restrictive measures on meat products.
28. The representative of Canada drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the
Icelandic measure was adopted on 10 May 1999, entered into force on 10 May 1999, and the final day
for comments was 10 May 1999, but it had been notified only on 16 December 1999.  In addition, it
was impossible to tell from the notification what the measure was about.  The Committee had spent a
lot of time on the notification requirements.  All Members should try to provide as much information
as possible on notifications, including what they we re addressing and why, and give other Members a
reasonable amount of time for comment.
(e) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
29. The Chairman noted that the most recent list of enquiry points had been circulated as
G/SPS/ENQ/10, and the latest list of national notification authorities as G/SPS/GEN/167.  Monthly
lists of notifications received since the previous Committee meeting were contained in
G/SPS/GEN/153, G/SPS/GEN/160, G/SPS/GEN/163 and G/SPS/GEN/166.  He also informed the
Committee that additional responses had been received from Members to the questionnaire on theirSPS-related websites, which had been included in G/SPS/GEN/144/Rev.1.
30. The representative of Switzerland suggested that in the title of a notification, the Secretariat
could include information from point 6, so that it  would read, for example, "Notification (animal
health)".  This would enhance transparency, considering the large number of SPS notifications
circulated.
31. The Secretariat reported that 37 WTO Members were not in compliance with their obligations
of identifying SPS enquiry points and national notification authorities.  Of these 37 Members, 23 were
least-developed countries, for whom the obligation had only come into effect on 1 January 2000, and
five of those 23 had notified one of these institut ions, but not both.  What was of more concern was
that there were 14 Members for whom this obligation had taken effect five years ago, and who had notyet notified both an enquiry point and a national notification authority; five had notified one or the
other.  The Secretariat intended to send letters to all those Members who were not yet fully in
compliance with these obligations.  The Secretariat hoped that the handbook it had prepared on the
implementation of the transparency provisions would be helpful to these countries.
32. At the last meeting, the Secretariat had announced that it would establish direct links from the
WTO homepage to the various websites Members had included in their response to the questionnaire
on SPS-related websites.  There had been a delay in creating these links because the WTO homepagewas being revised, and it was therefore more prudent to wait for the end of the renovation.
33. Regarding the lists of notifications that the Secretariat was circulating each month, the
Secretariat regretted to note that there were still considerable delays in translation of both notifications
and lists.  In response to Canada's point on late notifications made after a measure had entered into
force, and which were not emergency actions, the Secretariat explained that it was sometimesconsulted by Members who wondered whether to notif y a measure that had already come into effect,
since a Member could be criticized for not providing a comment period.  In such cases, the Secretariat
recommended notifying in the interest of transparency, since it was better to know late than not to
know at all that a measure had come into effect.  Of course it was desirable that there be less such
cases.  Finally, delegates had received a final draft of the handbook on transparency, which would bepublished soon as a WTO Secretariat publication.  If any Member wanted to provide final comments,
they would be accepted until the end of March 2000.G/SPS/R/18
Page 8
34. The representative of Chile indicated that some of the notifications mentioned in the monthly
notification lists were neither available on the web, nor had they been mailed electronically. For
example, the list of notifications of October 1999 , circulated as G/SPS/GEN/140, included Canadian
notifications numbers 60-74, as well as US notifications numbers 187-194.  The Secretariat responded
that although there were considerable delays in translation, the notifications should have beenavailable in the language in which they were received.  If the notifications were not on the website,
there was some error that the Secretariat would look into.  Members who had subscribed to the
electronic mailing list should automatically receive  notifications electronically in the original
language, unless there was some technical difficulty.
35. The representative of the European Communities asked if the Secretariat could transmit all
documents by electronic mail, which would be very helpful for some delegations.  The Secretariat
indicated it would examine this possibility.  The Secretariat was also looking into posting unrestricteddocuments on the SPS website before SPS Committee meetings.
II.  SPS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
36. The Chairman recalled that the document on the SPS Agreement and developing countries
prepared by the Secretariat (G/SPS/W/93) had been discussed at several Committee meetings.  In this
context, Egypt and Guatemala had made statements which had subsequently been circulated asG/SPS/GEN/128 and 157, respectively.  The Chairman announced that he had consulted with several
delegations on how to structure this agenda item in order to more effectively focus discussions in the
future.  It had been suggested that discussion could concentrate on one or two particular topics at each
meeting.  Members and observers could then provide background information, specific concerns and
examples on this topic.  To refresh the Committee's memory, he recalled that the topics raisedincluded equivalence, transparency and timeframes for notification and implementation, participation
in standard-setting, mutual recognition agreements, and domestic regulatory infrastructure.  He asked
Members to comment on this approach, and to identify useful topics on which to focus.
37. Several Members voiced their support for this approach.  Supported by Pakistan, the
representative of Egypt suggested inviting an expert  to speak on the selected topic.  Possible topics
were identified in G/SPS/GEN/128, including equivalence and special and differential treatment.  The
representative of India suggested identifying the discussion topics at the preceding meeting, in order
to have three months for preparation.  To add structure to discussions, he asked the Secretariat to
compile Members' submissions and concerns referring to the selected topics.  The representatives of
Canada and New Zealand stressed the importance of finding a practical way to discuss problems and
solutions. New Zealand suggested that one topic per meeting would be sufficient if the Committee
wanted an in-depth discussion.
38. The representatives of Chile, Egypt and India indicated a preference for special and
differential treatment as the first topic.  Chile explained that there was still a lot of progress to make
with equivalence, and there were not many concrete examples.  The work of the relevant international
scientific organizations on this topic was just beginning.
39. The representatives of Canada and the United States suggested that the discussions should be
held at informal meetings, as well as at the form al meeting of the Committee, to allow a more candid
exchange.  Egypt, Chile and India expressed concern that some of the fruits of the discussion might be
lost if they took place in informal mode.  If an expert were invited for the discussion, the Committee
could switch to an informal mode for the necessary period of time.
40. The Committee decided to have a practical discussion on special and differential treatment at
the next formal Committee meeting.  The Chairman stressed that it would be very useful if papers
were submitted in advance, and if Members identified practical problems and considerations.  HeG/SPS/R/18
Page 9
asked the Secretariat to prepare a paper compiling Members' past contributions on the chosen topic,
and invited the observers to contribute their views as well.
III. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION
41. The Chairman noted that additional replies to the questionnaire on technical assistance
(G/SPS/W/101) had been included in document G/SPS/GEN/143/Rev.1.
42. The representative of the European Communities informed the Committee about French
participation in a workshop in Senegal on food security in Africa.  The seminar had taken place in
January, and had been organized in association with the World Bank, FAO, and the Senegalese
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock.  Eleven sub-Saharan African countries participated in the
workshop.  Besides presentations from the international standard-setting organizations, working
groups had dealt with official control systems, training, and coordination needs within
administrations.  Several African countries had expressed a desire for regional harmonization ofsanitary regulations.  Five main topics were discussed: public and private sector roles; laws, standards
and regulations; modernization of institutions; operational and technical needs; and risk analysis and
the role of science.  The World Bank had announced that a compilation of all documents related to the
workshop would become available on paper and on CD-ROM before the end of March.
43. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago stated that the highest SPS standards had to be
considered in any technical assistance programme to permit access to the world's major markets.  In
Trinidad and Tobago's view the EC standards were currently the highest, and once they were fulfilled,
countries should have no problems accessing other markets.  The representative identified her
country's technical assistance needs in the SPS area as including (i) the revision of quarantine
legislation to accommodate implementation of pest risk analysis and pest-free area data as traderegulatory mechanisms, (ii) the formulation of methodologies for pest risk analysis and the
establishment of pest-free areas, (iii) the determination of pesticide residues and acceptable tolerance
levels of pests and diseases, (iv) the design of policies and management systems for standard setting
in the areas of human, plant and animal health, (v) the preparation of policies, regulations and systems
for environmental preservation, (vi) training of personnel, setting-up of laboratories and upgrading ofequipment and technology, (vii) epidemiological surveillance procedures, and (viii) impact risk
assessment.
44. The Secretariat reported on its technical assistance activities since the previous meeting.  It
had held national seminars in Bahrain, Jordan, Burkina Faso and Malaysia.  Direct assistance had
been provided to Macedonia in its accession process.   The Secretariat had also participated in two
regional events: the workshop on food safety strategies for West Africa that the European
Communities had mentioned, and the Manila Forum on Food Fortification Policy, organized by theAsian Development Bank in cooperation with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) and the
Micronutrient Initiative.  Furthermore, in conjunction with the Codex CCFICS meeting in Adelaide in
February, the Secretariat held a seminar on the implementation of the SPS Agreement.  There were
several activities planned for the near future, including an SPS seminar for Gulf countries in Dubai at
the end of March, and national seminars in Mali, Côte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Jamaica and Lebanon.In April, the Secretariat would participate in a US-Hungary joint training session in Budapest.  The
Secretariat was planning a risk assessment workshop to be held immediately preceding the June
meeting, with the cooperation of the three sisters.   The Secretariat was currently exploring ways to
fund the participation of some least-developed countries.  Finally, a regional seminar was foreseen in
southern Africa, to be held back to back w ith the meeting of the Codex Regional Coordinating
Committee for Africa.
45. The representative of Canada provided a brief list of Canada's technical assistance activities.
This list included a variety of activities conducted by several agencies, including the Food InspectionG/SPS/R/18
Page 10
Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the Depa rtment of Health, and the development assistance
agency.  Canada was currently reviewing and refocusing some of its activities in this area, and would
like to receive reactions from countries as to which activities were more effective than others.
46. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire indicated a need for technical assistance in the preparation
of standards in the areas of food safety and chemical products.  She announced that in the near futurean SPS seminar would be held in her country.
47. The representative of the IPPC informed the Committee that a working group of the Interim
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures had met on 6-10 March in Bangkok, Thailand, to review
progress with the pilot project initiated by New Zealand for the evaluation of national phytosanitary
capacity, and to elaborate on the role of the Interim Commission in the area of technical assistance.  It
was noted that the Interim Commission had no financial resources for technical assistance but
benefited from the combined experience, expertise, and willingness to cooperate among its Members.The pilot project undertaken by New Zealand was an example of how the Interim Commission could
play a significant role in technical assistance.  It  was noted that this unique initiative provided the
means for both developing and developed country Members to identify strengths and weaknesses in
their national phytosanitary systems and to develop strategies for improvement, whether through
technical assistance or other means.  The working group strongly endorsed the pilot project andrecommended that it be continued and expanded.  The working group would meet again in October
2000 to finalize recommendations for the Interim Commission.
48. The representative of Codex informed the Committee about a regional workshop on risk
analysis which had been held in Thailand in December, in conjunction with the Regional
Coordinating Committee for Asia.  Another regional workshop, either on the administration of CodexContact Points or on food control systems, was planned for November 2000 in Uganda in conjunction
with the Regional Coordinating Committee for Africa.  In addition to regional workshops, Codex was
working on projects in individual countries.  A workshop on the administration of Codex structures
was planned in Syria in April.  This was part of a project of updating legislation and harmonization
with international standards.  In Africa, Codex workshops were scheduled in Cameroun in April andin Tanzania in May. In Senegal, Codex had also participated in the workshop on food safety which the
European Communities had mentioned, and carried out a project on street-vended food.
49. The representative of IICA explained that his organization was a technical cooperation
agency headquartered in Costa Rica with programmes and offices in 34 countries in the Americas.  Its
governing board were the Ministers of agriculture of these countries.  SPS-related activities were
structured in four areas.  The first dealt with updating agricultural health services on a country-by-
country basis, especially in Central America, the Andean and the Caribbean regions, includinginstitutional, judicial and technical elements such  as financial sustainability, technical independence,
regulations and epidemiology.  The second area dealt with the practical application of the SPS
Agreement.  IICA was involved in documentation and use of case studies of the implementation of
specific Articles of the Agreement within the Am ericas, training, support to the OIE Commission for
the Americas, and technical cooperation with the IPPC.  The third area dealt with food safety –regional conferences had been held in Mexico, Colombia and Costa Rica.  Another conference was
planned for the year 2000 in North America.  In March 2000 a meeting on poultry was planned in the
Caribbean with the participation of the public and private sectors.  Other organizations such as the
World Bank, Codex, FAO, OIE, etc. had provided cooperation and sponsorship for some of these
activities.  The fourth area dealt with emerging issues, such as international organic product standardsand livestock traceability.  In all these activities, Agrihealth XXI served as an electronic network for
information sharing, electronic fora, etc. (http://www.iicanet.org/).
50. The representative of the WHO informed the Committee that the WHO's executive board had
requested the Director-General of WHO to provide technical support to developing countries in theG/SPS/R/18
Page 11
areas of health assessment, development of laboratory-based surveillance systems for major food
pathogens and contaminants, and in risk assessment.
IV. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
51. The Chairman noted that no Members had submitted new examples for consideration.  An
update by the OIE of its activities in this area had been circulated as G/SPS/GEN/145/Add.1.  The
representative of Thailand thanked the OIE for its update on standards concerning chicken meat and
infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV).
52. Chile repeated its request that updated lists of international standards be circulated to all
Members.  In 1997, these lists had been circulated as G/SPS/GEN/29, 30 and 31.
V. CONSISTENCY
53. The Chairman informed the Committee that inform al consultation on guidelines to further the
practical implementation of Article 5.5 had come cl ose to conclusion on the basis of a new draft
prepared by the Secretariat.  He introduced a corrigendum to this draft which included a few changes
proposed by Members.  Several delegations suggested minor changes to the text, focussing on
guidelines B2, B4 and B7, as well as the bridging text between parts A and B of the guidelines.
Although adoption at the present meeting was not possible, the Chairman concluded that the
Committee had reached fairly general agreement on the resulting text (G/SPS/W/104 refers), and
would consider it for adoption at the June meeting.
VI. MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER
ORGANIZATIONS
(a) OIE
54. The representative of the OIE reported that since the last SPS Committee meeting, several
OIE Commissions had met in preparation of the 68th General Session which would take place in May.
The Commission of the International Animal Health Code met in January 2000, and its proposals
were contained in a report which OIE members could obtain from the website.  The Commission on
FMD and other Epizootics advanced in its standard-setting activities, and in recognition of certain
members as free from FMD, rinderpest and contag ious bovine pleuropneumonia.  This Commission
was also working on a questionnaire for the recognition of BSE freedom.  The Standards Commission
had almost finished the next edition of the Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines,
which would be published at the end of the year.   The Commission on Fish Diseases was considering
the modernization of a number of chapters of the International Aquatic Animal Health Code, and had
also established an emergency action plan for the aquatic environment.  At the beginning of March, a
meeting on antimicrobial resistance had been held, focussing on risk analysis, harmonization of
laboratory methods, harmonization of surveillance programmes, and guidelines on the prudent use ofantimicrobials in animal production.  All draft standards would be proposed for adoption at the OIE
meeting in May.
(b) WHO
55. The representative of the WHO informed the Committee that the Director-General of WHO
had identified food safety as a second priority area for WHO, and had proposed a WHO food safetyplan for the future.  The document titled Food Sa fety Report of the Director-General (Document
Number EE105/10) and a draft resolution (Docum ent Number EE105/R16) were available on the
WHO website (www.who.org) in the WHO's six work ing languages.  The WHO Executive Board had
identified five major food safety directions.  The first direction was the better evaluation andG/SPS/R/18
Page 12
estimation of the food-borne disease burden.  Second, microbiological risk-assessment was necessary
for decision-making to reduce food-borne illnesses caused by microorganisms.  This topic had been
taken up by the Codex Food Hygiene Committee.  Third, it was important to evaluate the potential
effect on human health from the consumption of  foods produced by biotechnology.  WHO would
provide the scientific basis for this evaluation, including a joint expert consultation with FAO.Fourth, the current working relationship between WHO and FAO under the joint WHO/FAO Food
Standards Programme would be reviewed with a vi ew to increasing WHO's scientific and public
health role in the work of Codex.  Finally, WHO would facilitate open and understandable risk
communication between all parties affected by food-borne risks.  WHO would also work on assisting
governments in crisis management.
56. Regarding the International Health Regulations (IHR),  the WHO representative informed the
Committee that after consultations with members, mu ch conceptual work had been carried out in 1999
and 2000.  The new concepts would affect how members states carried out disease surveillance,
responded to urgent international public health events, and applied public health measures.  They
would also prescribe routine port of entry and port of embarkation inspection and control activities.
Besides member states, the new IHR would also im pact other stakeholders such as international
shippers, aircraft operators, and international organizations including the International MaritimeOrganization, IATA, and the WTO and its Committees.  The next step in the revision process would
be to test these concepts with the collaborators and stakeholders.  Under the current IHR, member
states had obligations with respect to only three diseases, and instances of conflicts between IHR and
the SPS Agreement had not been evident.  The new IHR, however, would provide a considerably
expanded template for preventing the international spread of a wide range of diseases, which wouldincrease the possibility for conflict.  The key areas of conflict might include (i) contaminated food
products destined for human consumption, for which the WHO had issued directives; (ii) other urgent
international disease events which could disrupt the distribution of food products; and (iii) WHO
dispute rulings, which might interfere with su bsequent WTO actions.  The new IHR would offer
better protection for member states suffering disease outbreaks, by reducing the imposition ofunjustified public health measures, and by reducing the cost of unnecessary protective measures by
other member states through a uniform template for action.  Since almost all WTO Members were
also members of WHO, it was critical to reduce conflict between IHR and the SPS Agreement to a
minimum, and to explore synergies.  The WHO welcomed comments from WTO Members,
preferably early in the review process.
57. The representative of the United States suggested that it might be useful to request the WHO
to present additional information about the IHR at an informal session.  Canada added that it would beuseful if a paper were circulated in advance of the next meeting, outlining some of the issues, and
providing some sense of timing.  The European Communities asked that the informal presentation by
the WHO concentrate not on potential conflicts between IHR and SPS Agreement, but rather on an
explanation of how WHO worked, what its intern al arrangements were, and the nature of the
obligations of its members.  Australia and Chile supported the previous speakers.  The representativeof Australia stated that it was extremely important that countries coordinate the approach they took at
different international organizations.  The representative of Chile especially welcomed the increased
participation of the WHO in the Codex Alimentarius.  The Secretariat was requested to arrange for an
informal meeting of the Committee with the WHO on the IHR, to be held at the time of the next
regular meeting of the Committee.  The OIE requested to be invited to the informal meeting with the
WHO.
(c) Codex
58. The representative of Codex first provided an update on the questions of the SPS Committee
in the context of monitoring the use of internat ional standards.  At its November meeting, the
Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) had considered the questions of bacilli and other organisms inG/SPS/R/18
Page 13
canned/bottled products including jams.  The CCFH drew the attention of the SPS Committee to the
Codex Principles for the Establishment and Applic ation of Microbiological Criteria for Foods, and
recommended that the Committee on Processed Foods and Vegetables proceed with the revision of
the existing standards.  Concerning the question of certification of raw meat products regarding the
absence of pathogens, the CCFH recognized that it was scientifically impossible to provide such
certification, as it concerned only one step of the HACCP system in the framework of risk
management, and recommended adherence to good manufacturing practice as specified in the General
Principles of Food Hygiene.  The report of the meeting of the CCFH was available on the Codex
website.  The CCFH concluded that at this stage there was no need for a specific texts on these two
topics.  The question regarding benzoic acid woul d be addressed in the framework of the general
standard for food additives.  The Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants would meet in
March and proceed with the development of this general standard.  The last question, related totetracycline, would be addressed by the Committee on Veterinary Drug Residues at its meeting at the
end of March.  The Philippines thanked Codex for the update on benzoic acid.
59. Regarding general Codex work, the representati ve reported that the CCFH had also proceeded
with its work on guidelines for management of microbiological risk.  There would be a joint FAO-
WHO expert consultation on microbiological ri sk assessment on 17-20 July 2000.  There would be
another important consultation at the end of May on the safety aspects of biotechnology.  At the time
of the SPS meeting, the Codex task force on foods derived from biotechnology was meeting in Japan.
The Committee on General Principles would discuss working principles for risk analysis from 10-14
April in Paris, including specific discussion of the precautionary principle.  The Committee on
Pesticide Residues would meet in May.
(d) IPPC
60. The representative of the IPPC informed the Committee of working groups that had met to
develop draft standards on notification of interceptions and non-compliance (Finland, December
1999) and pest listing (South Africa, January 2000).  He added that a working group of the Interim
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures had met in Thailand to discuss the role of the InterimCommission in technical assistance, and to begin a strategic planning process for the IPPC.  He noted
that the working group had identified standard settin g as the highest priority for the work programme
of the IPPC and emphasized key objectives of the SPS Agreement, such as increased transparency and
greater participation by developing countries.  A questionnaire formulated by the working group
would be distributed by the IPPC secretariat to members of the Interim Commission as the means to
solicit input for the formulation of a strategic plan to be submitted to the Interim Commission at its
next meeting in April 2001.  In addition, it was noted that the IPPC had planned two meetings of theInterim Standards Committee as a means to bring forward several pending draft standards, and the
Interim Commission had established an open-ended working group to discuss the role of the IPPC
with regard to GMOs, biosafety and invasive species (June 2000 at FAO Headquarters in Rome).
Other working groups for drafting standards included: non-manufactured wood packaging (Canada,
June 2000); regulated non-quarantine pests (Costa Rica, July 2000); systems approaches for riskmanagement (Australia, September 2000); and pest reporting (Slovenia, September 2000).
(e) EFTA
61. The representative of EFTA explained that EFTA was an international intergovernmental
organization celebrating its fortieth anniversary.  One of its tasks was the development of free-trade
agreements with a large number of non-EU countries, particularly in Eastern Europe.  Through theAgreement on an European Economic Area, EFTA was participating closely in the European single
market.  ETFA was also involved with most of the issues dealt with by the SPS Committee, and was
an observer in international organizations such as Codex.G/SPS/R/18
Page 14
(f) OIRSA
62. The representative of OIRSA informed the Committee that OIRSA centered its activities
around plant and animal health, and recently also around food safety.  One of its priorities had been to
support the implementation and practical understanding of the SPS Agreement in the countries of the
Central American region and Mexico.  It carried out diverse seminars and workshops, giving special
attention to the participation of exporters, who would benefit from an understanding of the
Agreement.  OIRSA was also supporting the harmonization of SPS measures in the region and the
preparation of technical studies, and working in the areas of risk assessment methodology,
regionalization, food security, and the modernization and strengthening of national agricultural health
systems.  In addition, OIRSA and the graduate sch ool of the University of Chapingo, Mexico, had
designed and created a Master's programme in sanitary and phytosanitary measures, which was
operational since February.  The curriculum included risk analysis, epidemiological surveillance,agricultural quarantine, plant and animal health, international regulations, food safety and
international trade.
(g) IICA
63. The representative of IICA highlighted the co ntinuing and growing need for information of
the private sector.  In this context, IICA was work ing on specific initiatives such as the Panamerican
Veterinary Congress, which had a fifty year history and convened about 2000 veterinarians every two
years.  In September, the Congress would meet in Panama and include a session on the role of
veterinarians in the implementation of the SPS Agreement.  In December there would also be a world
buiatrics congress in Uruguay including a similar session.  Recently, IICA hosted a group of leaders
in veterinary medicine from Canada, the United St ates and Europe to look at specific elements in
veterinary medicine and their link to SPS.  IICA was also working on the enhancement of enquiry
points, since only a handful of these enquiry points had websites.  IICA was making available server
space and a template for a more complete enquiry point, but the content and maintenance of the
information on the website would be the responsibility of each country.
VII. OBSERVERS
64. The Committee agreed to invite all ad hoc observers (ACP Group, EFTA, IICA, OECD,
OIRSA,  SELA) to the regular meeting of the SPS Committee in June.
65. The Chairman recalled that at its last meetin g, the Committee had not been able to reach a
consensus on the OIV's request for observer status.  On the basis of information provided in advance
of the meeting, it appeared that the Members concerned were not yet in a position to join a consensus
on the matter.  The United States confirmed that its position had not changed.  The representative of
the European Communities called the attention of the Committee to the additional information
provided by the OIV (G/SPS/GEN/164), which was modifying its internal decision-making
procedures and voting systems.  He thanked the Secretariat for the special attention given to this
matter in the report of the previous meeting (G/SPS/R/17 and Corr.1, paras. 74-80), which accurately
reflected the positions taken at that meeting.  The representative of the European Communities did not
agree with the approach taken by the Committee with respect to the request for observer status by the
OIV.  In his opinion the OIV was treated differently than other organizations.  He hoped that this
would not create a precedent, and that by the next meeting the United States would have changed its
view, particularly since the OIV would meet to discuss its changes during the week prior to the next
Committee meeting.  The representative of Australia observed that it appeared that no consensus
would be reached at the present meeting on granting ad hoc observer status to the OIV.  SomeMembers had expressed legitimate concerns about the OIV, and legitimate efforts were being made to
address these concerns, which hopefully would allow the Committee to reconsider its request in the
future.G/SPS/R/18
Page 15
66. The Chairman informed the Committee that the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community
(APCC) had requested observer status in the SPS Committee.  The Secretariat had summarized the
information provided by the APCC regarding their membership, objectives and mandate, and
reciprocity (G/SPS/121/Add.1).  Since many delegates had not had sufficient time to consider this
information, he proposed considering this matter at the next meeting.  The representative of NewZealand requested that more information be sought from the APCC regarding its interest in
phytosanitary areas.  The document referred to quality standards, production methods and consumer
requirements, but there seemed to be little reference to phytosanitary issues.  The Secretariat agreed to
seek additional information.
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS
67. The representative of the Philippines brought to the attention of the Committee its serious
concern with the restrictive phytosanitary measures applied by Australia to certain tropical freshfruits.  Major Philippine exports including mangoes, bananas and pineapples, which were widely
accepted by other importing countries, continued to face restrictions in Australia.  It seemed that
Australian regulations refused to recognize the phytosanitary protocol, which, following rigorous
scientific tests, had been considered adequate by other countries.  The Philippines believed that
Australia's phytosanitary measures effectively rendered access to the Australian market for theseproducts difficult, if not impossible.  Bilateral in formal consultations were being held on the matter.
The representative of Australia confirmed that consultations were being held.  He clarified that in
response to a request for access, Australia conducted an open, transparent and consultative process of
scientific risk assessment and risk management with  a view to minimizing the risk of introduction of
diseases not currently present in Australia. The representatives of Thailand and Malaysia alsoexpressed concern regarding Australia's phytosanitary measures on tropical fresh fruit imports.
Thailand had had bilateral consultations with Australia, and would continue an exchange of views.
68. The representative of the United States informed the Committee that on 30 December 1999 it
had published its final rule to allow the importation of rhododendrons under conditions designed to
prevent the introduction of dangerous plant pests.
IX. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON
69. The Chairman informed the Committee that  informal consultations regarding the
chairmanship of the SPS and other Committees were still under way.  Therefore, he proposed to
reconvene the Committee for a very brief meeting as soon as the Committee was in a position to make
a decision regarding the new chairperson.
70. The delegates and the Secretariat thanked Mr. Attie Swart for his excellent work as chairman
of the Committee.  His ability to speak and listen well combined with his wit had allowed him tomake much progress on difficult subjects.  He would certainly be missed.
X. DATE AND AGENDA OF THE NEXT MEETING
71. The next regular meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 21-22 June 2000.  The
Committee agreed on the following tentative agenda:
1. Proposed agenda
2. Implementation of the Agreement
(a) Information from Members
(i) Activities of Members
(ii) Follow-up to issues previously raisedG/SPS/R/18
Page 16
(b) Specific trade concerns
(i) New issues
(ii) Issues previously raised
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
3. SPS Agreement and developing countries
(a) Implementation of the provisions for special and differential treatment
4. Technical assistance and cooperation
5. Monitoring of the use of international standards
6. Adoption of Article 5.5 Guidelines
7. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
8 Observers - Requests for observer status9. Other business
10. Date and agenda of next meeting
72. The Chairman reminded delegates that the deadlines for requesting the inclusion of specific
items on the agenda, or receiving submissions from Members under the respective agenda items, wereas follows:
Specific trade concerns 8 June 2000Airgram 9 June 2000Agenda item 3:  Monitoring procedure - new specific examples 22 May 2000
__________