SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 14-16 october 2015
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT[1]
1 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA. 5
2 INFORMATION ON
RELEVANT ACTIVITIES. 5
2.1 Information from Members. 5
2.1.1 Morocco – Creation of departments for
risk assessment and for SPS measures and market access within the National Food
Safety Office (ONSSA) 5
2.1.2 Australia – Update on BSE country
assessments. 5
2.1.3 Peru – Actions to improve fisheries
health taken by the National Fisheries Health Agency (G/SPS/GEN/1445) 6
2.1.4 Japan - Update on the situation
surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant
accident 6
2.1.5 United States - Update on
implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act 6
2.1.6 Korea – Introduction of the SPS support
website (G/SPS/GEN/1447) 6
2.1.7 European Union – Report on public
consultation on defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors (G/SPS/GEN/1448) 7
2.1.8 Argentina – Structure of the National
Animal Health and Agrifood Quality Service of the Argentine Republic; Current
situation (G/SPS/GEN/1455) 7
2.1.9 Russian Federation – Results of the
regional workshop on food standards within CCEURO. 7
2.1.10 Russian Federation – Possible scenario
on African swine fever spread in the Eurasian region 8
2.1.11 Indonesia - Food safety control on
importation and exportation of fresh food of plant origin 8
2.1.12 Antigua and Barbuda – Report on
progress made in the establishment of the National SPS Committee and update of
legislation to facilitate compliance with the WTO SPS Agreement
(G/SPS/GEN/1460) 8
2.1.13 Belize – Update on activities taken at
the national level to strengthen the food safety system 9
2.1.14 Grenada – Update on SPS-related
legislative agenda. 9
2.1.15 Bahamas – Update on SPS-related bills. 9
2.2 Information from the relevant SPS
standard-setting bodies. 9
2.2.1 CODEX (G/SPS/GEN/1443) 9
2.2.2 IPPC. 10
2.2.3 OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1438 and G/SPS/GEN/1440) 10
3 SPECIFIC TRADE
CONCERNS. 11
3.1 New issues. 11
3.1.1 India's amendment to its import policy
conditions for apples; Restriction to Nhava Sheva port – Concerns of Chile and
New Zealand. 11
3.1.2 Viet Nam's restrictions on fruit due to
fruit flies – Concerns of Chile. 11
3.1.3 Viet Nam's restrictions on plant
products – Concerns of Chile. 12
3.1.4 Undue delays in the start of
Australia's risk analysis for avocados – Concerns of Chile. 12
3.1.5 Undue delays in Viet Nam's approval
process for dairy and meat products – Concerns of Chile 13
3.1.6 Undue delays in Australia's approval
process for chicken meat – Concerns of Chile. 13
3.1.7 India's amended standards for food
additives – Concerns of the European Union. 13
3.2 Issues previously raised. 14
3.2.1 Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council on novel foods - Concerns of Peru (G/SPS/GEN/1444) (No. 238) 14
3.2.2 Chinese import regime, including
quarantine and testing procedures for fish - Concerns of Norway (No. 319) 15
3.2.3 US measures on catfish – Concerns of
China (No. 289) 15
3.2.4 The Russian Federation's import restrictions
on processed fishery products from Estonia and Latvia – Concerns of the
European Union (No. 390) 16
3.2.5 Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on
Japanese foods in response to the nuclear power plant accident - Concerns of
Japan (No. 387) 17
3.2.6 China's import restrictions on Japanese
foods in response to the nuclear power plant accident - Concerns of Japan (No.
354) 17
3.2.7 EU revised proposal for categorization
of compounds as endocrine disruptors – Concerns of Argentina and the United
States (No. 382) 17
3.2.8 EU proposal to amend Regulation (EC)
No. 1829/2003 to allow EU member States to restrict or prohibit the use of
genetically modified food and feed (G/TBT/N/EU/284) – Concerns of Argentina and
the United States (No. 396) 18
3.2.9 China's proposed amendments to the
implementation regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs
(G/SPS/N/CHN/881) – Concerns of the United States (No. 395) 19
3.2.10 EU withdrawal of equivalence for
processed organic products – Concerns of India (No. 378) 19
3.2.11 Mexico's measures on imports of
hibiscus flowers – Concerns of Nigeria (No. 386) 20
3.2.12 US high cost of certification for
mango exports – Concerns of India (No. 373) 20
3.2.13 EU ban on certain vegetables from
India – Concerns of India (No. 374) 21
3.2.14 Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing
of phytosanitary import certificates for avocados – Concerns of Mexico (No.
394) 21
3.2.15 Malaysia's import restrictions on
plants and plant products – Concerns of Brazil (No. 294) 21
3.2.16 US proposed rule for user fees for
agricultural quarantine and inspection services – Concerns of Mexico (No. 388) 22
3.2.17 US non acceptance of OIE
categorization of India as "negligible risk country" for BSE -
Concerns of India (No. 375) 22
3.2.18 General import restrictions due to BSE
– Concerns of the European Union (No. 193) 22
3.2.19 China's import restrictions due to
African swine fever – Concerns of the European Union (No. 392) 22
3.2.20 Korea's import restrictions due to
African swine fever – Concerns of the European Union (No. 393) 23
3.2.21 India's import conditions for pork and
pork products – Concerns of the European Union (No. 358) 23
3.2.22 EU phytosanitary measures for citrus
black spot – Concerns of South Africa (No. 356) 23
3.3 Information on resolution of issues in
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15. 24
3.4 Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/61. 24
4 application of limits
of detection for pesticide residues – submission from India (g/sps/w/284). 24
5 operation of
transparency provisions. 26
5.1 Report on Workshop on Transparency. 26
6 IMPLEMENTATION OF
SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT. 28
7 EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE
4. 28
7.1 Information from Members on their
experiences. 28
7.2 Information from relevant observer
organizations. 28
8 PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE
AREAS - ARTICLE 6. 29
8.1 Information from Members on their pest or
disease status. 29
8.1.1 Morocco – Freedom from African horse
sickness. 29
8.1.2 Nigeria – Avian Influenza situation. 29
8.1.3 Brazil – National programme against
fruit flies. 29
8.1.4 Mexico – Information on pest- or
disease-free areas. 29
8.1.5 Burkina Faso – Avian influenza
situation. 30
8.1.6 Canada – Status free of notifiable
avian influenza. 30
8.1.7 Ecuador – Update on the national project
for fruit fly control 30
8.1.8 Guatemala - Update on classical swine
fever 30
8.1.9 India – Official control programme for
foot and mouth disease. 30
8.2 Information from Members on their
experiences in recognition of pest- or disease-free areas 30
8.2.1 Indonesia – Recognition of pest-free
areas for California, United States and Srisaket province, Thailand 30
8.3 Information from relevant observer
organizations. 31
9 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
AND COOPERATION.. 31
9.1 Information from the Secretariat 31
9.1.1 WTO SPS activities. 31
9.1.2 STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1439) 32
9.2 Information from Members. 33
9.2.1 Nigeria - Technical assistance received. 33
9.2.2 Technical assistance provided by the
United States. 33
9.2.3 Burkina Faso – Assistance for fruit fly
control 34
9.2.4 Burkina Faso – Assistance received from
AU-IBAR. 34
9.2.5 Zambia - Technical assistance received
(G/SPS/GEN/1450) 34
9.2.6 Jamaica – Report on technical
assistance (G/SPS/GEN/1449) 35
9.2.7 Belize – Report on technical assistance
and cooperation. 35
9.2.8 Barbados – Report on technical
assistance. 35
9.3 Information from observer organizations. 35
9.3.1 OIE – Update on the PVS programme. 35
9.3.2 IICA - Technical assistance activities. 35
9.3.3 OIRSA – Relevant activities. 36
9.3.4 Intergovernmental Authority on
Development (IGAD) 36
10 REVIEW OF THE
OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT. 36
10.1 United States – Presentation of a paper
on risk communication resources. 36
10.2 Fourth Review.. 36
10.2.1 Adoption of the report of the Fourth
Review (G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2) and adoption of the Catalogue of Instruments
(G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2) 36
11 MONITORING OF THE USE
OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS. 37
11.1 New Issues. 37
11.1.1 Burkina Faso – Lack of a Codex
standard for imidacloprid in sesame. 37
11.1.2 Belize – Deviations from the use of
international standards. 37
11.2 Issues previously raised. 38
11.2.1 United States – Use of the Codex
international standard on glyphosate. 38
12 Concerns with private
and commercial standards. 38
13 OBSERVERS. 38
13.1 Information from observer organizations. 38
13.1.1 OECD. 38
13.1.2 ITC. 39
13.1.3 African Union Commission. 39
13.1.4 ECOWAS. 39
13.2 Requests for observer status
(G/SPS/W/78/Rev.13) 39
13.2.1 New requests. 39
13.2.2 Outstanding requests. 39
14 chairperson's annual
report to ctg.. 40
15 OTHER BUSINESS. 40
16 DATE AND AGENDA FOR
NEXT MEETINGS. 40
1.1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the
"Committee") held its sixty-fourth regular meeting on 14-16 October
2015. A couple of Members expressed concerns regarding the formulation of
agenda item 4, suggesting it could have been included under a more general
agenda item. India clarified that it preferred to keep item 4 as a separate
agenda item, but agreed to the suggestion to add "Submission by
India" to its title. India also indicated that a new specific trade
concern included under agenda item 3.1, "India's amendment to its import
policy conditions for apples; Restriction to Nhava Sheva port – Concerns of
Chile and New Zealand", was not an SPS issue. India would therefore not
provide a response.
1.2. The Committee agreed to add a new standing item titled "Cross-cutting
issues" to its agenda starting at the first meeting in 2016, to
accommodate issues such as document G/SPS/W/284 from India and other similar
topics that did not fit under the other agenda items. The proposed agenda for
the meeting was adopted with amendments (WTO/AIR/SPS/6).
2.1. Morocco recalled that it had established its National Food Safety
Office (ONSSA) in 2009, which consisted of two departments, one for
veterinarian services and the other for monitoring phytosanitary products.
Given that these departments had been undertaking their own risk assessments
over the four years of operation, Morocco had found it necessary to ensure that
the decisions taken by ONSSA were carried out in a credible and scientific
manner. In response, Morocco had created two new departments within ONSSA in
order to further monitor SPS actions at the national level, one which focused
on SPS risk assessment and the other on SPS measures and market access. Morocco
outlined the responsibilities of the risk assessment department, which included
the collection of data and documentation necessary for monitoring SPS risks, as
well as undertaking surveys and risk assessments in an objective, independent
and transparent manner. In addition, Morocco highlighted the various
responsibilities of the department for SPS measures and market access, which
included coordinating SPS negotiations, monitoring the implementation of SPS
Agreements between Morocco and its trading partners, and providing technical
requirements necessary for the granting of market access.
2.2. Morocco underscored the importance of undertaking risk assessments
and indicated interest in having access to risk assessment studies conducted by
other countries, as well as the data used to carry out these studies. Morocco
requested the Committee to find a way to facilitate sharing of these data.
Morocco also supported the US proposal (G/SPS/GEN/1401) to provide assistance
in building risk analysis capacity for LDCs and to establish a programme to facilitate
the exchange of data, experiences and strategies related to risk analysis.
2.3. Australia provided information on the BSE food safety risk
assessment which was completed for Argentina. This risk assessment was carried
out under the Australian Government's BSE food safety policy 2009, which
required that all countries exporting or seeking to export beef or beef
products to Australia have a food safety risk assessment undertaken by Food
Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). The results of the risk assessment
indicated that Argentina had comprehensive and well-established controls to
prevent the introduction and amplification of the BSE agent within the cattle
population and to prevent contamination of the human food supply with the BSE
agent. The assessment concluded that no cases of BSE had been found in
Argentina. Therefore, Argentina was recommended Category 1 BSE status, which
meant that trade in retorted beef products originating from cattle born,
reared, and slaughtered in Argentina could continue. A copy of the BSE
assessment was available on the FSANZ website (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au).
Australia also informed the Committee that imports of fresh beef (chilled or
frozen) were not permitted at this stage and that Argentina had to apply to the
Australian Department of Agriculture for an import risk analysis.
2.4. The Chairperson drew attention to a written report submitted by Peru
(G/SPS/GEN/1445).
2.5. Japan provided an update on the developments since the last SPS
Committee, highlighting that the recent assessment by the International Atomic
Energy Agency had acknowledged that Japan had a comprehensive system in place
which prevented products with radionuclides in excess of the regulatory limits
from entering the food supply chain. Japan further indicated that the rate of
products exceeding the limit values of radionuclides had drastically decreased
during the fiscal years 2012 to 2014. Japan expressed its appreciation that the
Russian Federation and the United States had eased their import restrictions on
Japanese food, and more generally acknowledged that increasingly countries and
regions were either lifting or easing their import restrictions. Japan
reiterated its determination to continue its efforts to remove the remaining
import restrictions.
2.6. In response to New Zealand's request for clarification on the limit
value of radionuclides, Japan indicated that the limit was 100 Bq/kg.
2.7. The United States provided an update on the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Two of the seven key
FSMA rules had been finalized. The two final rules, which focused on preventive
controls for human and animal food, helped to better address food safety
hazards by putting greater emphasis on the prevention of food-borne illness and
establishing a nationally-integrated food safety system in partnership with
state and local authorities. Furthermore, the rules modernized current good
manufacturing practices for human food facilities and, for the first time,
established these requirements for most animal food facilities. The rules also
required human and animal food facilities to develop and implement written food
safety plans that identified hazards that could compromise the safety of their
products. Additionally, the rules outlined steps the facility would take to
prevent or significantly minimize the risk those hazards presented. These rules
would apply equally to foreign firms importing into the United States, as well
as to domestic firms producing human and animal food regulated by the FDA. The
two rules had been published in the Federal Register and notified to the WTO as
G/SPS/N/USA/2502/Add.6 and G/SPS/N/USA/2593/Add.3.
2.8. The United States informed the Committee that all seven foundational
FSMA rules would be finalized in 2016 and would include rules for product
safety, foreign supplier verification, third party accreditation, intentional
adulteration, and sanitary transportation. The United States further noted that
full implementation of the rules would take time. Accordingly, the FDA had set
phased compliance dates, depending on the size of the business, in order to
give industry time to comply. This process would take place between late summer
of 2016 and late summer of 2019. More information on FSMA was available
from the following website: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm459719.htm.
The United States also expressed its appreciation to delegates for their
participation in the FDA briefing session on FSMA which had been held on the
margins of the SPS Committee meeting.
2.9. Korea provided information on its SPS support website, which had
been developed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA)
and first introduced in 2013 in order to provide statistical data on WTO SPS
notifications to MAFRA personnel. Korea highlighted several features of the
website which included: an e-mail service which forwarded selected SPS notifications
to users; a response record control service which helped users to respond to
notifications; and a preliminary notice service that alerted users to provide
timely comments for the period 2014-2015. In addition, MAFRA planned to make
the website available to the public in both Korean and English in 2016, as well
as to use the website to gather opinions from experts in related industries,
academia and research institutes. The SPS support website was available via: https://www.koreasps.kr.
2.10. The European Union informed the Committee that in July 2015, it had
published the report of its public consultation on defining criteria for
identifying endocrine disruptors in the context of the implementation of the
Plant Protection Product Regulation and the Biocidal Products Regulation. The
summary of the report (G/SPS/GEN/1448) contained information on the
consultation process, its objectives, number and type of respondents,
respondents' contributions, as well as an overview of the type and size of
impacts that may occur if a chemical would be identified as an endocrine
disruptor. The European Union highlighted that the outcome of the public
consultation had provided useful input for an impact assessment process that
would address the economic, environmental and health impacts of the different
policy options. In addition to the online consultation, the European Union had
gathered stakeholder views through an international conference held in Brussels
in June 2015. The next public event, a technical meeting on the methodology
used for evidence screening of chemicals, would take place in Brussels in
November 2015 and would also be web-streamed. Members were invited to read
the full report on the public consultation which was available on the website
of the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety of the European
Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/docs/2015_public_consultation_report_en.pdf.
2.11. Argentina provided an overview of the Structure of its National
Animal Health and Agrifood Quality Service (SENASA), highlighting that SENASA
was the authority responsible for establishing national policies on animal and
plant health, as well as food quality and safety. SENASA performed its
functions across the entire nation through an extensive field network, which
allowed it to maintain contact with agricultural producers and other interested
parties on an ongoing basis. Argentina further explained that 75% of SENASA's
staff formed part of the national field network, which provided a unique
capacity to control and supervise the agriculture production sector and to
ensure early detection of phytosanitary problems and emerging epidemics. In
addition, the operational implementation of activities was facilitated by the division
of the territory into 15 regional centres, according to each region's
production and technical characteristics. As a result of the health policies
implemented, SENASA had achieved official international recognition for
Argentina as: a foot and mouth disease-free country, with areas with and
without vaccination; a negligible BSE-risk country; and a country free from
peste des petits ruminants, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia and African horse
sickness. In addition, the Patagonia region and the central and southern oases
of the province of Mendoza had been officially recognized as fruit fly-free
areas. Additional information could be found at: http://www.senasa.gov.ar/.
2.12. Morocco queried whether SENASA was also responsible for the control
and certification of fishery products for export. In response, Argentina
indicated that this area fell under SENASA's responsibility and that a more
detailed written response could also be provided.
2.13. The Russian Federation informed the Committee of the regional
workshop on food standards which was jointly held in collaboration with the
Russian Federation Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights
Protection and Human Well-being, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
and the World Health Organization (WHO) in St Petersburg on 17-18 September
2015. This workshop was targeted at members of the FAO/WHO Coordinating
Committee for Europe (CCEURO) and was aimed at increasing cooperation between
the Russian Federation and Codex Alimentarius. The participants of the workshop
discussed ways to ensure microbiological food safety with the aim of improving
trade relations between CCEURO members. Some of the topics that were covered in
the workshop included laboratory support for surveillance activities and risk
analysis. The Russian Federation indicated that it would continue to inform the
Committee of relevant activities undertaken in cooperation with Codex.
2.14. The Russian Federation provided an update of the spread of African
swine fever (ASF) in the Eurasia region, noting that several ASF cases had been
reported in the past year and a half. In the Russian Federation's view, the
affected countries had not been prepared to manage the disease or to halt its
rapid spread. The high density of the wild boar population alongside
small-scale pig production with low biosecurity levels and improper disposal
methods of ASF-infected carcasses by veterinarians were contributing factors.
The Russian Federation also noted the several expansions of the European
Union's quarantine borders as a result of the rapid spread of ASF, while
highlighting concerns with the effectiveness of the anti-epidemic measures
recommended by the European Commission to contain the outbreaks and eliminate
the factors of disease spread. The Russian Federation further expressed
concern at the number of outbreaks in the Baltic States and in Ukraine, which
posed a threat to biosafety in neighbouring countries. In the Russian
Federation's view, the large number of potential virus carriers, such as wild
boars, facilitated the spread of ASF in the region and contributes to ASF
introduction into new zones, alongside other factors such as small-scale pig
farming. As such, the Russian Federation expected the spread of the disease to
continue through direct contact and border trade in unprocessed pork products.
2.15. The European Union reiterated its view that the use of the agenda
item for purposes other than providing information to Members on relevant
activities was inappropriate and stated that, because of the ongoing dispute
settlement case, it would not respond to the Russian Federation's allegations.
The European Union recalled some of the information previously presented to the
Committee, highlighting that the European Union applied regionalization in
accordance with OIE principles. Moreover, the European Union stated that the
effectiveness of its measures had been demonstrated by the limited geographical
spread of the disease in terms of distance from the source and by the
occurrence of all new findings of the disease within the restricted areas
covered by regionalization measures. The European Union further informed the
Committee that the increase in the number of ASF-infected animals over the
summer reflected similar seasonal trends in 2014 and had already been
anticipated by the Commission Services. The 2015 European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) report had confirmed this seasonal situation, as well as the
effectiveness of the EU measures. The European Union indicated that it was
currently reviewing its strategy for wild boar management and updating its
biosecurity requirements in order to incorporate the latest scientific findings
of the EFSA report. All relevant information was available on the website of
the Commission Services. Finally, the European Union called on other Members to
show the same level of transparency and reiterated its commitment to work
collaboratively with all trading partners in a transparent manner to
control the spread of ASF.
2.16. Indonesia informed Members of the amendment of its Regulation on
Food Safety Control on Importation and Exportation of Fresh Food of Plant
Origin, as notified under G/SPS/N/IDN/94. The objective of the regulation
included strengthening consumer protection from hazardous food and simplifying
Indonesia's food safety control system. The regulation was revised in order to
ensure that exporting countries complied with the additional safety
requirements, such as the registration of food safety testing laboratories or
the submission of applications for recognition of a country's food safety
control system. Indonesia was currently assessing the registrations and
applications submitted by several trading partners and encouraged other Members
to undertake these steps in order to avoid potential disruptions in trade as a
result of the new food safety control mechanism. The revised regulation would
be implemented in February 2016.
2.17. Antigua and Barbuda provided information on progress made in the
establishment of its national SPS committee, highlighting that cabinet approval
had been received to formalize a coordinating mechanism for agricultural health
and food safety. The objective of this mechanism would be to foster functional
synergies among SPS-related government agencies and between the agencies and
the private sector. In addition, a programme budget had also been approved to
support the management of national SPS systems. Antigua and Barbuda further
updated the Committee on pending or adopted SPS-related legislation, indicating
that the Plant Protection Act, which mandated the NPPO to implement the IPPC
and the SPS Agreement, had entered into force in March 2013. In addition, the
Animal Health and Food Safety Bills were at advanced stages of revision and
were expected to be adopted by Parliament within the next 12 months. Antigua
and Barbuda expressed its appreciation for the support received from various
regional and international organizations which had enabled it to establish
effective national framework and support systems to implement the SPS
Agreement.
2.18. Belize provided an update on four training activities taken at the
national level to strengthen its food safety system and which were targeted at
personnel from the Public Health Department, quarantine and food safety
inspectors, as well as laboratory technicians. The first activity focused on
training public health and food safety officers in the inspection of live
animals at slaughterhouses and post-mortem procedures. This training was
intended to modernize and enhance the existing inspection practices at
slaughterhouses and to harmonize both ante- and post-mortem inspection
procedures. The objective of the second activity was to train officials on the
EU legislative framework pertaining to inspections of food processing
facilities and procedures for inspection, with a special focus on poultry meat,
poultry meat products and fish. The third activity sought to enhance the
diagnostic services utilized in the national surveillance programmes and the export
certification process, by training food microbiology laboratory technicians in microbiological
methods for meat. The last activity focused on training quarantine inspectors
to conduct risk-based inspections at points of entry.
2.19. Grenada informed the Committee
that a new Food Safety Act had been passed by the Ministry of Health in 2015.
This Act combined several previous legislations and as a result, with respect
to food safety issues Grenada was now operating under one single Act. In
addition, Grenada was currently in the process of reviewing its Plant
Protection Act and Animal Disease Control Act, as part of activities under the
10th European Development Fund (EDF) SPS Project. Following the
review process, the draft acts would subsequently be submitted to Parliament
for enactment. Grenada expressed its appreciation to the Inter-American
Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) and the European Union for
providing an opportunity to undertake these activities under the EDF SPS project.
2.20. The Bahamas provided an update on its SPS-related legislation which
was aimed at facilitating the implementation of the SPS Agreement. With the
support from FAO, four bills had been drafted: (i) Agriculture Health and Food
Safety Bill; (ii) Animal Health and Production Bill; (iii) Plant Health Bill;
and (iv) Food Safety and Quality Bill. The Bahamas indicated that these draft
bills were intended to institutionalize SPS responsibilities and that they
would subsequently be sent to cabinet for adoption. The Bahamas further
highlighted that the development of these bills was a direct result of the
experiences gained through IICA's SPS Initiative for the Americas. The Bahamas
expressed its appreciation for the support received from donor countries and
organizations, while underscoring the need to allow for the passage of time in
order to see concrete results of donor assistance, as the results were not
always immediately apparent.
2.21. Codex informed the Committee of upcoming meetings which included the
Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, which would discuss the development of new
Guidelines for the Control of Nontyphoidal Salmonella spp.
in Beef and Pork, and revision of the General Principles of Food Hygiene and
its HAACP annex.
2.22. Codex also introduced the successor initiative to the existing Codex
Trust Fund, explaining that the current Trust Fund would expire in December 2015
and that the parent organizations of Codex had decided to start a successor
initiative in 2016. Codex appealed to WTO Members to contribute and support the
successor initiative, while underscoring the important role of the current
Trust Fund in enabling and training Codex members to effectively participate in
its meetings, both in terms of quantity and quality. Codex drew Members'
attention to Article 3 of the SPS Agreement which called for the active
involvement of WTO Members in Codex work. Codex further explained that the
successor initiative would not only build on the work of the current Trust
Fund, but it would also shift focus of the Fund from supporting the physical
participation of members in Codex meetings, to building sustainable national capacity
to engage in Codex work. The successor Fund would last another 12 years and
would achieve its focus by engaging in multi-year projects that were tailored
to meet the specific needs of countries. Codex emphasized that investment
in the national capacity of countries contributed to having truly global food
safety standards that benefit all. Finally, Codex requested Members to assist
in disseminating information on its call for action event which would take
place on 18-19 November in Geneva, in order to mobilize all stakeholders and
supporters of the initiative.
2.23. Morocco reiterated the important role of the Codex Trust Fund in
allowing LDCs to participate in Codex activities and urged developed and donor
countries to support the initiative.
2.24. The Chairperson drew attention to a written report submitted by IPPC
(G/SPS/GEN/1459).
2.25. The OIE provided information on the relevance of the OIE standards
and related procedures in relation to two recent WTO disputes (G/SPS/GEN/1438).
In addition, the OIE updated the Committee on developments in the OIE
standard-setting work programme (G/SPS/GEN/1440), including an update on the
recent meetings of specialist commissions and the development of glossary
definitions for OIE standards and guidelines. The OIE further reported on its
work to develop criteria on the definition of safe commodities, as well as the
ongoing revision of the current Terrestrial Code
chapter on African swine fever and Burkholderia Mallei
(Glanders). In terms of upcoming activities, the OIE indicated that it
would start work on developing definitions and standards on zoning,
vaccination, vaccination programmes, emergency vaccination and routine
vaccination. The OIE further noted that there was much work to be done in
standards development to assist the application of vaccinations, which was
increasingly being used as an effective disease control tool. The OIE concluded
by updating the Committee on the Global Health Security Agenda High Level
Meeting which took place in Korea in September 2015.
2.26. The United States expressed appreciation for the information
provided by the OIE in G/SPS/GEN/1438, which illustrated how the OIE's standard
setting activities helped resolve trade disputes and facilitate safe trade in
live animals and livestock products. The United States highlighted several
aspects of the paper that were particularly relevant to the effective
functioning of the SPS Agreement. These aspects included, among others: the
implementation of adopted standards and participation in the development of
these standards; access to expertise and knowledge of scientists from the OIE's
global network of reference centres and laboratories; and development of
standards and guidance on regionalization.
2.27. Argentina also extended appreciation for the work of the OIE in
relation to safe trade and animal health, while underscoring the important role
played by the OIE in developing scientifically sound and transparent standards,
as well as in the evolving process of standard-setting. The European Union
thanked the OIE for its document (G/SPS/GEN/1438) and more broadly for its work
in establishing standards for animal health and safe trade which brought
clarity and predictability to the process. The European Union further
underscored its commitment to providing financial assistance to the OIE in
order to facilitate broad participation of developing countries in the OIE's
work. The European Union encouraged Members to use the OIE standards actively,
in particular the standards on regionalization, which facilitated trade by
ensuring measures were limited to what was necessary and justified.
2.28. In response, the OIE thanked the delegates for their positive
comments and recalled that the OIE was a member-driven organization which
welcomed the participation of its members.
3.1. Before the adoption of the agenda, Senegal withdrew two new Specific
Trade Concerns which had been included on the proposed agenda for the meeting,
indicating that good progress had been made in bilateral talks. These were its
concerns regarding: (i) access to the Lebanese and Tunisian markets for
mangoes; and (ii) access to the Russian market for cherry tomatoes
(G/SPS/GEN/1451).
3.2. New Zealand raised concerns regarding India's amendment to its
import policy that limited the entry of apple imports to the Nhava Sheva Port
of Mumbai, with all other ports consequently closed. Historically, New
Zealand's apple exports had been able to enter India through six ports and as
result, the process of restricting entry to only one port had caused
congestion. New Zealand further observed that this measure had neither
been notified to the WTO nor was justified and was in breach of Articles 5 and
7 of the SPS Agreement. While New Zealand thanked India for the bilateral
discussions to date, it also urged India to notify its amended measure to the
WTO and to provide the rationale for its decision to limit port access, as well
as the time-frame for this measure.
3.3. Chile shared New Zealand's concerns and further requested India to
provide the reasoning and scientific basis for only allowing apple imports from
a single port. In addition, Chile requested an explanation of the rationale
regarding: the absence of a notification to the WTO, in conformity with Article
7 and Annex B; compliance with Article 8 and Annex C; and the justification for
applying an emergency measure in relation to Articles 5.4 and 5.5 of the SPS
Agreement.
3.4. The United States and the European Union supported this concern,
emphasizing the need for clarification of the objective of the measure and
urged India to notify the measure immediately. The United States noted that
given the urgency of the announcement and the restrictiveness of the measure,
it was left to speculate that the measure had been implemented due to an
SPS concern. The United States was concerned that the single port in India
could not meet the storage and infrastructure requirements required to handle
the volume of US apple exports to India expected this year. Similarly, the
European Union indicated concerns about the potential increase in
transportation costs. The United States requested that India provide a cogent
explanation of its reasons consistent with its WTO obligations for resorting to
this action.
3.5. India had indicated at the beginning of the meeting, when the agenda
was adopted, that it would not respond to this concern, as it was not an
SPS-related issue. After Members expressed their concerns, India reiterated
that the measure in question was not an SPS measure and as such, could not be
in violation of the SPS Agreement. India emphasized that the agricultural
nature of the products covered did not automatically make the measure itself an
SPS measure, as defined in Annex A of the SPS Agreement.
3.6. Chile noted that in situation such as this one, a Member could place
on record its view that a measure on which a specific trade concern had been raised
was not covered by the SPS Agreement. It was not necessary to raise this
before the adoption of the agenda. Chile further indicated that a response such
as India's was legitimate and asked that the response be included in the
record. In addition, Chile queried whether the measure would fall under Import
Licensing or another agreement.
3.7. Chile expressed concerns about Viet Nam's restrictions on its
horticultural products due to fruit fly. In August 2015, Viet Nam had informed
Chile of its suspension of fruit imports, as Chile was not recognized as free
of fruit flies and would not regain its status until Viet Nam was able to carry
out a PRA. Chile explained that since 1980, it had operated a fruit fly programme
administered by the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), through
which Chile maintained the National Fruit Fly Detection System (SNDMF). SNDMF
ensured that Chile was free from the Mediterranean fruit fly and from other
exotic fruit flies of economic significance, based on the IPPC guidelines.
Chile had eradicated fruit flies from each of the outbreak areas for three
biological life cycles of the insects. Currently, there were two Mediterranean
fruit fly outbreaks in Chile, for which a timely corrective action plan had
been initiated to achieve eradication. Chile indicated that since it had
taken action to eradicate the pest, there had been no exports of fruit from the
pest-infected areas and all fruit exports were inspected prior to shipping. As
such, Chile considered Viet Nam's measure to be disproportionate and without
scientific basis, and urged Viet Nam to comply with the SPS Agreement, in
particular with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 6. Finally, Chile
thanked Viet Nam for the bilateral discussions held and expressed its
willingness to continue to address the issue in a positive manner.
3.8. Viet Nam replied that the temporary suspension of issuing import
permits, due to Mediterranean fruit flies, was aimed at protecting Viet Nam's plant
health from risks arising from pests. Chile had experienced outbreaks of
Mediterranean fruit flies from March to May 2015. In October 2014, Viet
Nam's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development had published the list of
pests, where fruit flies had been assigned to quarantine pest group 1. This
group listed high risk pests that had never been previously introduced into
Viet Nam. The Circular had been notified to the WTO (G/SPS/N/VNM/63 and
G/SPS/N/VNM/63/Add.1) and Viet Nam further noted that the temporary suspension
was aligned with ISPM 11. Although Viet Nam had sent official letters to Chile
requesting more information on the outbreaks in order to carry out a PRA and
other regulatory quarantine procedures, Viet Nam had not yet received adequate
information to start the process. Viet Nam requested that Chile work closely
with the competent authorities in Viet Nam to resume the discussions.
3.9. Chile raised a concern on Viet Nam's restrictions on the entry of
kiwis, apples, cherries and grapes. Chile explained that it had a history of
exporting fruits to Viet Nam and that during that time it had never received
notifications of detected pests in its exported products. Since 2011, Chile had
been submitting phytosanitary information on these fruits in order for Viet Nam
to develop pest risk analyses (PRAs). Two regulations, among others, had been
subsequently notified by Viet Nam in 2014 (G/SPS/N/VNM/53 and G/SPS/N/VNM/56),
which outlined new regulations for PRAs. In February 2015, Viet Nam shared the
PRA for Chilean fruit products but Chile noted several inaccuracies in the
document, related to the listed pests. Chile subsequently requested that Viet
Nam provide responses to its comments, as well as confirmation that exports of
the four fruits could continue while the respective PRAs and a bilateral
agreement for conditions of exports were being completed. Inspectors from Viet
Nam were subsequently invited to perform a verification of the production and
export systems of Chilean fruit products. However, in the same month, Chile
received Viet Nam's response to its comments with a 60-day deadline to respond.
In particular, Chile was concerned about the new measures which required
radiation treatment of fruit, as this had never been required in the history of
its trade with Viet Nam or by any other Member. Chile asked Viet Nam to
consider its commitments under the SPS Agreement and expressed its willingness
to continue bilateral discussions in order to agree on new measures that would
provide appropriate phytosanitary security without affecting normal trade.
3.10. Viet Nam responded that it was revising its regulations in order to
comply with international practices. It had circulated G/SPS/N/VNM/53 and
G/SPS/N/VNM/53/Add.1 in order to notify Members about the Circular from Viet
Nam's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development regarding the list of
regulated articles and regulated articles subject to PRA, prior to importation
into Viet Nam. Viet Nam noted that import permits would continue to be issued
for commodities that had historic trade to Viet Nam and that Chilean export of
vegetables for human consumption had been authorized, and were not impacted by
this regulation. Viet Nam highlighted that the PRA had already been completed
and that it was awaiting Chile's response. Viet Nam further indicated its
willingness to discuss and resolve any issue arising from implementation of the
new regulation.
3.11. Chile raised concerns in relation to delays in gaining market access
to Australia for its avocado exports. Chile explained that in 2006, it had
requested market entry requirements for avocados into Australia, which resulted
in Australia placing it on List B for pest risk assessment (PRA), which is of
lower priority. In 2011, Australia informed Chile that it had begun the process
of developing a PRA for Chilean avocados, and an inspection visit took place
the following year. However, in 2013 Australia reported that the PRA had not
started due to a lack of resources. Chile further noted that it had
communicated its interest in starting the PRA on several occasions, with no
progress made. Chile affirmed that it was free from major pests of economic
importance for plant products and urged Australia to begin its PRA in
conformity with the SPS Agreement, in particular with Articles 2.2, 5.4 and
Annex C (1a).
3.12. Australia responded that it had identified over 30 pests and
diseases of quarantine concern to Australia, associated with avocados from
Chile. Due to the large number of pests and diseases and the complexity of the
import risk analysis (IRA) work and progress, Australia could not start the
formal IRA until sufficient resources were available.
3.13. Chile raised its concern regarding undue delays in Viet Nam's
approval process for meat and dairy products, noting that while it had
expressed interest in exporting dairy and meat products to Viet Nam from 2009,
a response was only received in 2011 from Viet Nam's Official Veterinary
Service requesting more information. Chile further explained that it had
submitted all the necessary information, along with proposals for sanitary
export certificates for the specified products in 2012. This resulted in Viet
Nam approving the certificates for dairy products in February 2015. While
Chile expressed its appreciation for this result, it indicated that it still
had not received authorization for the list of certificates which would allow
exports from the dairy sector. In relation to meat products, Chile informed the
Committee that although Viet Nam had communicated its approval of 10 meat
processing establishments in 2013, the approval of the respective certificates was
still under review by Viet Nam. Chile outlined the various steps it had taken
to provide new, updated and previously submitted information to Viet Nam based
on its several requests, as recently as in July 2015. Chile underscored that
while it had not received any reply during this period, it had been informed by
capital officials that a recent communication had been received from Viet
Nam. Chile affirmed that its animal health conditions were optimal, free from
major diseases that could limit exports and that the quality of its sanitary
health services guaranteed this status. Chile appreciated the positive
bilateral relationship with Viet Nam and hoped that the issue would be rapidly
resolved, in accordance with Articles 2.2, 5 and 6, and Annex C (1a) of the SPS
Agreement.
3.14. Chile expressed concerns in relation to the Australian Government's
delays in approving Chilean exports of poultry products. Chile had first
expressed interest in gaining access to the Australian poultry meat market in
2008, subsequent to which a formal request was submitted in June 2013 to the
Department of Agriculture. Since then, Chile had taken several actions in order
to gain access to the Australian market, which included reaffirming its
interest in April 2014, at the request of Australia. Chile noted that it had
once again indicated its interest to export poultry meat to Australia at a
bilateral meeting on the Free Trade Agreement held in October 2014, following
which Chile had been requested to submit information on Australian importers
that would import poultry from Chile, in order to start the assessment process.
Noting its optimal animal health conditions and efficient sanitary health
services, Chile requested Australia to comply with the obligations of the SPS
Agreement, particularly in relation to Articles 2.2, 5.4, 6, and Annex C (1a).
3.15. Australia responded that its Generic Import Risk
Analysis Report for Chicken Meat (chicken meat IRA) for the
importation of chicken meat from all countries, including Chile, had been
released in 2008. The IRA recommended that the importation of chicken meat be
permitted, subject to import conditions for nine disease agents of biosecurity
concerns such as notifiable avian influenza virus, among others. Australia
invited Chile to provide a proposed health certificate for the export of
chicken meat to Australia based on the import conditions in the chicken meat
IRA.
3.16. The European Union raised its concerns on India's Draft Food Safety
and Standard Amendment Regulation, as detailed in G/SPS/N/IND/108. The European
Union welcomed the user-friendly and simple approach to the listing of food
additives in food products, as well as the hierarchical listing of food
additives. However, the European Union observed that the regulation needed
further clarification and improvement in several areas. The draft regulation
recommended maximum levels of additives only where Codex had set such levels in
the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA). The European Union noted that
the GSFA had expressly stated that a lack of reference to a particular additive
or to a particular use of an additive in a food in GSFA did not imply that the
non-listed additive was unsafe or unsuitable for use. The European Union
further noted that the GSFA was neither complete nor exhaustive and that many
Members had implemented maximum levels of additives on a scientific basis where
no Codex standard existed. In addition, for wines and spirits, in the European
Union's view, India had not taken into consideration the adoption of standards
by other international standard-setting bodies, such as the International
Organization for Vine and Wine (OIV). In this regard, the European Union
outlined several steps that India could take to avoid unnecessarily disrupting
trade, such as setting standards that took into account the safety of products
and benefits for consumers, which were proportionate, necessary, as well as
scientifically and technologically justified. The European Union requested
India to take into account all of its comments, including any additional
comments submitted after the 4 October deadline, and welcomed a written response
from India at the earliest convenience. The European Union further urged India
to notify the measure to the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade.
3.17. The United States supported the concern and highlighted that
although it supported aligning food standards to Codex, the Codex standard was
not designed to be a comprehensive standard for all additives commonly used in
the production of wine and distilled spirits. The standard did not include some
main additives commonly used in the production of these beverages. The United
States indicated that it had submitted comments and urged India to take these
comments into account in finalizing the measure. Chile also supported the
concern and noted that it would submit comments to India.
3.18. India responded that it had notified the measure in August 2015 and
had provided time for comments until 4 October 2015. India hoped that the
concerned Members had submitted their comments in writing, so that the concerns
could be addressed appropriately by the authorities.
3.19. Peru reiterated its concerns on the EU proposed novel foods
regulation, as notified in G/SPS/N/EU/64. Peru asserted that the proposed
regulation was not compatible with Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS
Agreement, since the ban on the marketing of traditional biodiversity products
was not justified by scientific evidence (G/SPS/GEN/1444). Peru observed that
there was no scientific justification to require exporters to demonstrate
safety of each product they wished to export to the European market and
emphasized that Peru's traditional biodiversity products with high export potential
were being affected by the European Union's current regulation. Peru gave the
example of ornamental fish, which were of high importance for vulnerable
regions of Peru and exported to over 80 countries, but would be subject to
restrictions in the EU market due to this regulation. The proposed regulation
did not take into account the needs of developing countries regarding access for
biodiversity products and generated high barriers to trade in the European
market. Peru requested that the European Union respond to the questions it had
submitted. Peru invited the European Union to provide information on the
upcoming vote by the European Parliament on this regulation, as well as details
on the content of the project, and future steps.
3.20. Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and
Guatemala supported the concern and requested additional information on the
scientific justification of the regulation. They also requested
information on the discussions and voting process in the European Parliament,
and on its adoption.
3.21. The European Union recalled that the co-legislators, European
Parliament and Council, had made progress in the negotiations on the regulation
and expressed hope that the novel foods legislation could be adopted in the
current year. The European Union confirmed that it would hold a special
information session to present the new regulation once finalized. After its
adoption, a document containing detailed guidance for applicants on the
information to be presented would be prepared and subject to public
consultation. In responding to the specific queries raised, the European Union
indicated that it was not possible to anticipate the potential risks associated
with all novel foods, production processes and methods and to address them in
an all-encompassing risk assessment. The high level of food safety pursued in
the European Union could only be achieved on a case-by-case basis within the
framework of a pre-market approval system, in accordance with Article 8
and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. The European Union noted that the proposed
regulation was in line with the SPS Agreement as it was based on scientific
risk assessment. In addition, the regulation complied with Article 10 on
special and differential treatment because it introduced a simplified procedure
for the placement of traditional biodiversity foods on the EU market, once
their history of safe use in third countries had been demonstrated if no safety
concerns based on scientific evidence had been raised. The European Union queried
Peru's example of ornamental fish, which was not considered food in the
European Union. In addition, the European Union highlighted that Peru
currently exported ornamental fish to the European Union on a regular basis.
3.22. Peru commented that the regulation would limit its exports to the
European Union and requested that Peru be informed ex-ante and not ex-post on
this issue. The European Union indicated that information would be provided on
the final text and on the practicalities of the regulation, once available. The
European Union underscored the objective of the regulation which was to shorten
and simplify the current process, especially for traditional foods.
3.23. Norway raised concerns on China's new import control regime for
Norwegian seafood, which included extensive testing for up to 40 substances and
resulted in a prolonged quarantine period for consignments and increased costs.
This regime applied not only to salmon, but to all kinds of seafood from
Norway, leading to a severe reduction in trade. Norway indicated that it had
not received adequate information from China, despite submitting several
requests through various diplomatic channels over the last six months. In
addition, Norwegian food safety authorities had not received any reports on
findings that could warrant such an increase in testing. While supporting
the right of Members to implement food safety measures, Norway was of the view
that the changes in import control routines had not been implemented in a
transparent, predictable and non-discriminatory manner. Norway requested China
to provide qualified information on its import control and quarantine procedure
regimes as soon as possible. In‑depth bilateral technical consultations
with China would be necessary to address the full range of food safety issues
regarding seafood trade, and Norway was willing to work with China to address
this issue.
3.24. China explained that it had provided a detailed explanation and
clarification during the last Committee meeting and invited Norway to recall
the minutes of the last meeting. China further expressed its willingness to
continue to work with Norway on this issue.
3.25. China raised its concern regarding the US regulation on Mandatory
Inspection of Catfish and Catfish Products, which transferred the regulatory
food safety oversight of catfish from FDA to the Food Safety Inspection Service
(FSIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The 2014 US
Farm Bill had extended the product range covered through this transfer from
catfish to all Siluriformes fish. China observed that the USDA had previously
been responsible for meat, poultry and processed eggs, while FDA had been in
charge of other food products, including aquatic products. As such, China
queried the application of terrestrial animal meat inspection procedures to
aquatic products, highlighting that this approach was without precedent worldwide.
China further noted that there was no evidence showing that Siluriformes fish
posed a higher food-borne risk than other aquatic products and thus queried the
rationale for changing the regulatory responsibility from FDA to USDA only for
Siluriformes fish instead of all aquatic products. In addition, China
believed that the US measure was not based on a scientific risk assessment in
accordance with Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement. China noted that the
distinction between Siluriformes fish and other aquatic products could also
result in a disguised restriction on international trade and as such, China
urged the United States to base its regulation on relevant international
standards or on a scientific risk assessment.
3.26. The United States replied that its measure had been published in
February 2011 and notified to the SPS Committee in G/SPS/N/USA/2171. In
particular, the United States noted the previous exchanges with China regarding
the statutory details that underpinned this proposed rule, which remained unchanged.
FSIS would continue to work to finalize its rule on fish inspection. The United
States assured Members that it had closely reviewed the comments provided by
its trading partners and that the final rule would be consistent with its
international obligations.
3.27. The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian
Federation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and
Latvia, allegedly due to deficiencies in the safety systems. The European Union
stated that the measure had been notified a month after implementation as an
emergency measure. This was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and in contravention
of the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments, which included not to
suspend exports from groups of establishments without first having provided the
technical information and scientific justification of the risks detected, and
not to take such measures before the expiry of the timeframe provided for the
adoption of corrective measures. The Russian Federation had not presented a
risk assessment or provided evidence of immediate risk to consumers caused by
deficiencies in the control systems of Estonia and Latvia, which had been
regularly inspected by the Russian Federation in recent years without having
identified any major problems. The European Union highlighted that Article 2.1
required that measures taken to protect human, animal or plant life or health
must be consistent with the provisions of the Agreement. In addition, the
European Union recalled that Articles 2.2 and 5.6 required measures to be based
on scientific evidence and not to be more trade restrictive than necessary.
Furthermore, the Russian Federation had adopted the ban just one day after
the submission of the preliminary report of the audit to the competent
authorities, in contrast with the reasonable time commitment it made prior to
its accession. The comments provided by Latvia and Estonia on the audits had
not received a response by the Russian Federation, more than three months after
the submission. The European Union indicated its willingness to cooperate
with the Russian Federation on this issue and requested the Russian Federation
to lift the ban, bring its measures in line with international standards, and
respect its WTO obligations.
3.28. The Russian Federation responded that it was justified in imposing
temporary restrictions on fishery products from Latvia and Estonia. Upon
inspection, the Russian authorities found that Latvia and Estonia were unable
to produce safe products that complied with requirements from both importing
and exporting countries. Therefore, the Russian Federation had concluded that the
guarantees provided by the EU veterinary services were not reliable. Many of
these products had continued to be marketed and exported to the Russian
Federation, which called for another round of inspections. The Russian
Federation was cooperating with veterinary services of Latvia and Estonia to
objectively assess the safety systems of fish processing establishments.
Comments on the preliminary report had been received, but Latvian and Estonian
authorities could not show that the withdrawal of potentially hazardous
products was timely and effective enough. The Russian Federation was concerned
that trading partners were not being informed about product safety problems.
The temporary restrictions were in compliance with the international Eurasian
Economic Union legal framework and with international standards. Before
imposing the restrictions, relevant information had been published on the
official website and consultations had been held with Latvian and Estonian
authorities. Final reports of the inspections had just been sent to the
veterinary services. The Russian Federation asked Latvia and Estonia to carry
out their own inspection of the establishments and of their compliance with the
Eurasian Economic Union veterinary requirements. The competent authorities of
Latvia and Estonia had indicated that they did not oppose the Russian
Federation's decisions and the EU representatives had agreed that the
certification of products from Latvia and Estonia to Russia should be
suspended. However, certification had not been suspended. Nevertheless, the
Russian Federation was ready to find a solution on this issue.
3.29. The European Union replied that some of the information which had
been provided by the Russian Federation contradicted EU information,
reiterating that no major problems had been found in the numerous inspections
held by the Russian Federation. Furthermore, the European Union indicated its
concern with the statement that the EU had voluntarily agreed to suspend the
certification of products from Latvia and Estonia, which did not reflect the EU
information. The European Union reiterated the transparency of its own
information and urged the Russian Federation to repeal its measures.
3.30. Japan reiterated its concerns over the import ban imposed by Chinese
Taipei on food from five Japanese prefectures after the accident at TEPCO's
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, as well as over the strengthened
import restrictions imposed since 15 May 2015. Japan stressed that although an
incident where some Japanese food products had been imported with false
labelling was unfortunate, it should be clearly distinguished from the import
ban. Japan noted that Chinese Taipei's import restrictions were not based on
scientific evidence. Japan also questioned the extent to which Japan's
treatment of radioactive contaminated water was relevant to food safety in this
situation. With regard to alleged consumer concerns in Chinese Taipei about
Japanese food safety, Japan noted that there had been a steady increase in food
imports from Japan by Chinese Taipei over the past three years. Japan requested
that Chinese Taipei complete its risk assessment and immediately remove its
measures, even if on a step-by-step basis. Japan also expressed hope that
bilateral consultations would result in a mutually acceptable solution.
3.31. Chinese Taipei confirmed the continued temporary suspension of
inspection applications for food produced in the Fukushima and four other
nearby prefectures since March 2011. According to information published by
Japan, food products were still found to have radioactive residues and, in July
2015, several cases had been confirmed to have levels exceeding the tolerance
levels proposed by Japan. Chinese Taipei reiterated its commitment to bilateral
efforts to find a solution to this matter.
3.32. Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions
imposed by China on Japanese food exports after the accident at TEPCO's
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Japan recalled that despite raising
this concern in each Committee meeting since March 2014, no progress had
been made. Japan regretted that China maintained a ban on products from
ten prefectures without considering the additional information provided on
pre-test certificates in June 2011. Japan stated that since then no substantive
response from China indicating the scientific justification of the ban had been
received. Japan also questioned the duration of the risk assessment currently
being conducted by China, which was taking too long. In September 2015, Japan
had sent an official request to China requesting clarification and justification
of its measures in light of the provisions of the SPS Agreement. Japan strongly
urged China to complete its risk assessment and respond to the official request
to facilitate progress on this concern.
3.33. China stated that it had provided a detailed explanation and
clarification at the last meeting of the Committee. China was currently
conducting a risk assessment on the latest status of nuclear pollution and
would adjust its measures according to the results.
3.34. The United States recalled its concerns about the EU
"roadmap" which outlined possible options for defining criteria to
identify endocrine disruptors, specifically as they related to plant protection
products. It thanked the European Union for its report of the public
consultation held in Brussels in July 2015 (G/SPS/GEN/1448) but questioned the
scientific evidence underlying the options, and the consideration of any
hazard-based "cut off" option instead of risk from actual exposure.
It encouraged the European Union to share information on the methodology used
in developing EU member States' impact assessments. The United States requested
that the European Union recognize risk-based endocrine programmes developed by
other countries. It also requested that the European Union keep the Committee
informed of relevant developments, and encouraged the European Union to publish
the draft legislation, once developed, including any risk and impact
assessments carried out.
3.35. Argentina shared the US concern and reiterated that future actions
should be taken on a case-by-case basis and based on solid scientific evidence
after appropriate risk assessment. Special attention should be given to minimizing
adverse impacts on international trade and especially on trade in agricultural
products, but also to minimizing socioeconomic losses in commodity-producing
countries, in particular developing countries. Argentina also thanked the European
Union for its report of the consultation and requested that the rest of the
process be conducted in a transparent manner inclusive of all relevant
stakeholders.
3.36. Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the Dominican
Republic, Egypt, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria,
Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Viet Nam also spoke about the revised
EU proposal on endocrine disruptors. They encouraged the European Union, inter alia, to follow a risk-based approach, adhere to
relevant international standards and to keep informing the Committee of any
relevant developments.
3.37. The European Union recalled that it was currently conducting an
all-inclusive impact assessment, including impacts on international trade. The
European Union also noted that all the relevant information about the impact
assessment had been made available on their website. The European Union
recalled that two studies were being conducted, one on the identification of
the endocrine disruptors and another on the assessment of impacts. Once, and
if, a legislative proposal were eventually to be made, it would be notified to
the Committee and comments from Members would be taken into account before adoption
of the final regulation.
3.38. Argentina again raised concerns about this amendment, notified in
G/TBT/N/EU/284, which would allow EU member States to restrict or prohibit the
use of genetically modified food and feed approved at EU level. Currently,
member States had the right to restrict or prohibit imports of such products
when there was scientific proof that they represented a risk for health or for
the environment. The new EU proposal would allow EU member States to ban or
restrict the use of these products without requiring scientific evidence. In
the past, the European Union and its member States had attempted to justify
restrictions on use of GMOs for scientific reasons, without success. This new
proposal could be considered as an alternative way to reach the same objective.
The measure would enable EU member States to create unnecessary barriers to
international trade. It would also introduce unpredictability in commodity
trade, and would affect the single market and the free movement of goods in the
European Union. In this regard, Argentina recalled a recent statement by the
Committee on Agriculture of the European Parliament stating that this measure
should be compatible with the international obligations of the European Union
in the WTO and Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU), which prohibits quantitative restrictions on exports between EU
member States and all measures having equivalent effect. Argentina requested
the European Union to withdraw the draft amendment and implement the current EU
legislation on authorization and approval of GMOs throughout the entire
European Union in accordance with multilateral rules.
3.39. The United States shared Argentina's concerns and requested
clarifications on the status of the proposal within the relevant EU bodies. The
United States reported that on 3 September 2015 the European Parliament's
Agriculture and Rural Development Committee (ComAgri) rejected the European
Commission's proposed national 'opt out' system for genetically engineered
imports. ComAgri also urged the Parliament's Environment, Public Health, and
Food Safety Committee (ComEnvi) to reject the proposal. The United States
requested more information on the review procedure of ComEnvi as well as about
the status of an impact statement and legal opinion to be developed by the
European Commission on the behest of the European Parliament. The United States
appreciated the EU efforts to keep the SPS Committee apprised of actions
related to its regulations on approvals of genetically engineered products, including
with respect to Commission withdrawal of its current proposal and any
subsequent actions, such as consideration of alternative proposals that the
Commission may or may not undertake. Finally, the United States recalled the
EC-Biotech (2006) dispute, in which the DSB had found that nine EU member State
bans of biotech products approved at the EU level were inconsistent with the
European Union's obligations under the SPS Agreement. Yet some EU member
States had maintained such bans, and adopted new ones. The United States urged
the European Union not to adopt the proposal.
3.40. Brazil, Canada, Paraguay and Uruguay also shared this concern,
emphasizing the measure's potential negative effect on trade and seeking
additional information.
3.41. The European Union explained that the proposal was not an SPS
measure. It had no relation to the protection of life or health, since
restrictions linked to health risks or to the environment were excluded. As a
consequence, the measure did not fall under the scope of the SPS Agreement and
therefore it had been notified under the TBT Agreement. The European Commission
would reply to the comments received from WTO Members via the TBT channels. The
European Union indicated that it had complied with its transparency obligations
by notifying the legislation, which clearly indicated that EU member States
could not invoke considerations linked to risks to health or protection of the
environment as justification to impose a ban or a restriction on GMOs approved
at the EU-level.
3.42. The United States again raised concerns with China's Proposed
Amendments to the Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of
Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms, which amends the requirements for
the safety assessment for genetically engineered products (notified as
G/SPS/N/CHN/881). The United States appreciated the extensive and productive
bilateral meetings held with Chinese authorities since the July 2015 Committee
meeting. The United States also welcomed China's reaffirmation of the
importance of implementing timely, transparent, predictable, and science-based
approval processes that were based on international standards, as well as China's
commitment to revise and improve its regulation based on comprehensive
consultations with domestic and international stakeholders and to enhance its
capabilities in safety administration and safety approval of agricultural
biotechnology products. The United States noted again that there were 24
products pending at various stages in China's regulatory process – including
seven poised for final adoption that had been pending as long as since 2010,
and requested that China approve these products in a timely and expeditious
fashion. The United States thanked China for its engagement and commitments to
resolving this process.
3.43. Paraguay shared this concern about the inclusion of socio-economic
aspects in the Chinese risk assessment process for GMOs, contrary to Article 5
of SPS Agreement and to the guidance of the relevant international
organizations. Paraguay stated that the measures, which went beyond scientific
principles, could lead to arbitrary or unjustified distinctions, and that the
inclusion of these elements could undermine the production of safe food.
Paraguay therefore requested China to reconsider the amendments to the
regulations.
3.44. China replied that the changes to its regulations aimed to enhance
the management of safety evaluations for agricultural GMOs in response to the
rapid development of biotechnology and social and environmental concerns. The
draft version of these management measures had been notified on 2 June and had
been open to comments until 1 August 2015. China received comments from Australia,
Brazil, Canada and the United States. China thanked Members for their comments
and was now in the process of reviewing and analysing them. Feedback to Members
would be provided through the proper channels. China assured Members that, in
line with the relevant requirements of the SPS Agreement, China's agricultural
GMOs safety evaluation would be based on science, taking into account the
relevant economic factors. China remained ready to continue bilateral
discussions and consultations with interested Members on this issue.
3.45. India recalled its concerns regarding the EU withdrawal of
equivalence for processed organic products, which had previously been recognized
since 2006. EU regulation No. 125/2013, with effect from 1 April 2013, had
removed processed organic products from the equivalence agreement, on the
grounds that the agreement required that all of the ingredients be grown in
India. India noted that no processed organic products containing imported
ingredients were exported to the European Union, and again requested that the
equivalence recognition be restored, since it had withdrawn the 2012 guidelines
that would have permitted use of certain imported ingredients.
3.46. Chile stated that it had a similar agreement with the European
Union; however it was clear this issue was related to TBT measures rather than
SPS measures.
3.47. The European Union restated its opinion that India's concern was not
under the purview of the SPS Committee and expressed willingness to continue
bilateral discussions with Indian authorities in the appropriate framework as
demonstrated by the discussions that had taken place in India earlier in October
2015.
3.48. Nigeria restated its concerns on certain verification procedures
being used by Mexico on imported hibiscus flowers from Nigeria. Following the
Mexican quarantine authorities' request to change the certificate, Nigeria had
developed an online platform to generate electronic phytosanitary certificates
and had held bilateral discussions with Mexico's quarantine authority. The
validation procedures were causing delays for Nigeria's exports of hibiscus
flowers and significant losses in some cases. Nigeria also expressed further
concern that sesame had now been included in the list of validation requests
from Mexico. Nigeria thanked Mexico for the bilateral meeting on the margins of
the Committee meeting and for reassurances of Mexico's efforts to resolve this
issue as soon as possible. Nigeria stated that it was prepared to utilize the
procedures for good offices of the Chairperson as contained in G/SPS/61 should
its concerns remain unaddressed by Mexico.
3.49. Burkina Faso echoed Nigeria's concern as a producer of hibiscus and
in the interest of facilitating trade of this product. Senegal also shared the
concern, noting the importance of following guidelines for documentation and
certificates to prevent any delays.
3.50. Mexico noted that at the outset the issue had been that false SPS
certificates had accompanied hibiscus shipments from Nigeria. Both countries
had exchanged documentation and had decided to improve communication and coordination
at the national level, set up contact points and seek out the best way to
address the concerns raised. Mexico also noted that hibiscus trade had not been
stopped entirely. Delays had been due to the review and validation of the
certificates.
3.51. India restated its concerns about the high cost of certification for
mango exports to the United States. Since April 2007, India had been granted
access to export mangoes to the United States on the basis that its mangoes
would first be irradiated, under the supervision of US inspectors. India
noted the high cost of certification that it had to bear, which amounted to
approximately 12% of the FOB costs per metric ton of mangoes exported to the
United States. India recalled that in a bilateral meeting held in March 2015,
the United States had offered the possibility of irradiation upon arrival, and
India had requested circulation of the corresponding draft work plan.
3.52. The Dominican Republic shared India's concern and considered the
best option for a solution was to require treatment of the mangoes upon entry
into the United States. Brazil also shared India's concern and noted that US
inspections had nearly double the cost of those conducted by Brazilian
inspectors. Brazil stated that India's options presented a good basis to begin
discussions on a potential solution.
3.53. The United States confirmed that India had exported mangoes every
year since the market was opened in 2007, and the value of those exports had
risen to reach nearly US$2 million in 2014. The United States recalled the
two options that had been discussed in March 2015: (i) expansion of the
current irradiation programme by resolving the substantial deficiencies of the
new irradiation facilities in Vashi and Innova; and (ii) irradiation upon
arrival in the United States. Additional information on the second option had
been sent to India in June 2015. The United States welcomed further engagement
with India to resolve these concerns and would plan a second visit when India's
facilities were ready for certification. The United States noted that only the
irradiation facility at Nasik was currently certified. The United States looked
forward to continue discussions on this issue with India and any other
interested trading partners.
3.54. India recalled its concern regarding the EU ban on exports of
mangoes and four types of vegetables, on the grounds of the increasing number
of interceptions of harmful pests and organisms since May 2014. The ban on
mangoes had been lifted in February 2015; however the ban on vegetables
continued. India had shared an action plan in August 2015 with the European
Union related to the four remaining vegetables included in the ban but had yet
to receive a response. India requested the European Union to review the action
plan and the report of the EU audit to facilitate removing the ban as soon
as possible.
3.55. The European Union confirmed that its measures had been introduced
on 24 April 2014 to prevent the introduction of harmful organisms. The European
Union explained that the ban on mangoes had been lifted in February 2015 based
on the positive feedback received after the visit of EU inspectors and the
confirmation from the Indian competent authorities that they would apply a
specific phytosanitary treatment on mangoes before exportation. Despite the
progress made, many interceptions of harmful organisms were still occurring.
These repeated interceptions raised concerns over the effectiveness of India's
phytosanitary export system. The European Union recalled that the measures were
temporary and would be reviewed before the end of 2015 on the basis of the
evolution of import interceptions and the guarantees provided by the Indian
competent authorities.
3.56. Mexico again raised concerns regarding the emergency measure taken
by Costa Rica's phytosanitary service in April 2015 through resolution DSFE
03-2015, notified to the WTO under G/SPS/N/CRI/160, G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1 and
G/SPS/N/CRI/162. Costa Rica had temporarily suspended the issuing of import
certificates for avocados of various origins because of the supposed presence
of the sun blotch viroid in imported avocados. Costa Rica had affirmed that the
nature of the problem was urgent, but according to Mexico there was no
international regulatory basis for this view. Indeed, the fact that Costa Rica
had declared that its territory was free of a pest could not be a basis for the
implementation of the emergency phytosanitary measure. The consequence was
a complete interruption of trade, and Mexico did not believe that the measure
was legitimate. In Mexico's view the measure was in breach of the SPS Agreement
and the SPS Chapter of the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Latin
America. Mexico requested that Costa Rica immediately remove the ban and
respond in writing to questions it had submitted. Mexico viewed the measures
imposed by Costa Rica as a negative precedent for the application of SPS
measures without adherence to international standards.
3.57. The United States shared this concern and worried that this
suspension on issuing import permits for avocados from eight countries and
Florida was part of a larger attempt to use SPS measures to protect
sensitive domestic industries. In the US view, the measure also raised concerns
regarding its consistency with international standards and guidelines, its
scientific justification and its level of trade restrictiveness.
3.58. Costa Rica reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and to the
multilateral system. It referred to measures taken to protect the country
from the virus and repeated that this pest could cause considerable damage to
the phytosanitary status of its crop. Studies carried out in 2014-2015 by its
SPS authorities had established that Costa Rica was free from the virus. Costa Rica
indicated that Mexico was its main provider of avocados and had reported the
presence of the pest, which demonstrated an imminent risk. The current measure
was temporary, and a risk assessment was under way. Costa Rica remained open to
dialogue regarding the implementation of its SPS measures.
3.59. Brazil again raised concerns related to Malaysia's import
restrictions on plants and plant products due to a regulation on South American
leaf blight disease. Since 2010, when the issue had been raised for the first
time, the measure had remained unchanged on the basis that it was consistent
with Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission (APPPC) phytosanitary
standards. Brazil recalled that the regulation had no scientific justification
and increased exporting costs through unnecessary laboratory analysis. In 2009,
FAO had completed a pest risk analysis and no risks to Malaysia had been
identified. A bilateral meeting had been held in the margins of the Committee meeting
and would be followed by another one in Kuala Lumpur.
3.60. Malaysia reported that it was reviewing import conditions on South
American leaf blight disease and welcomed its bilateral discussions with Brazil
on this matter.
3.61. Mexico recalled its concern on an APHIS proposed rule for user fees
for agricultural quarantine and inspection services. Higher transportation
costs would result in higher prices for customers, threatening the livelihood
of small-scale producers. In Mexico's view the measure violated the GATT, MFN
principle, as well as Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Mexico requested
an update on the draft regulation and urged the United States to take Members'
comments into account as well as to comply with the transparency provisions of
the SPS Agreement.
3.62. The United States explained that the rulemaking process was still
ongoing and that Mexico's comments would be considered before any decision was
taken.
3.63. India restated its concern that the United States did not accept the
OIE categorization of India as a negligible risk country for BSE. India had
shared its OIE dossier with the United States, but had not received any
response yet. India urged the United States to carry out the assessment in
accordance with OIE standards.
3.64. The United States reiterated its commitment to align its import
regulations governing BSE with that of OIE guidelines as reflected in USDA
APHIS final rule published in 2013. It was currently reviewing India's OIE
dossier, and the result would be published and public comments welcomed.
3.65. The European Union reiterated the importance of this long-standing
concern and again urged all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE
standards. The European Union recalled also the international obligations of
WTO Members and its own high level of transparency towards other countries by
providing technical information about the EU animal health and food safety
system. The European Union re-stated that science on BSE is indisputably clear
to allow safe trade of many products and regretted, once more, the fact that
many countries never provided a risk assessment justifying their deviations
from international standards. The European Union looked forward to progress
made with regard to the United States and welcomed the beginning of exports
from one EU member State to China. The European Union also urged China to
complete the procedures that would allow beef imports from all other interested
EU member States. Finally, the European Union urged Australia, Korea and
Ukraine to speed up their import approval procedures.
3.66. The European Union again raised concerns about China's bans due to
African swine fever (ASF). China had imposed a ban on EU pork and pork products
since February 2014 without applying regionalization, and without scientific
justification or clarification on how and when it would recognize the stringent
zoning measures put in place in the European Union to allow the prompt
resumption of safe trade. The European Union had requested several times that
China provide a risk assessment justifying the country-wide ban and the
non-recognition of the EU zoning measures, but China had failed to
respond. The European Union asked China to respect its regionalization
obligations under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of safe products.
3.67. China replied that its measures were entirely based on science and
safety considerations. It was a major pig producer, and as such subject to
great losses in case the disease entered the country. China indicated that the
measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations and stated
that it needed to further evaluate the EU measures, since a number of ASF cases
had still been detected in recent months in the region of Podlaskie, Poland.
3.68. The European Union recalled its concerns regarding Korea's import
restrictions on pork and pork products due to African swine fever (ASF) taken
since February 2014. Korea had continuously received detailed information from
the European Union. Korea's risk assessment process lacked clarity about the
required steps and the use of information provided by the European Union, in
particular on its control, surveillance and monitoring measures. The European
Union called on Korea to respect its regionalization obligations under the SPS
Agreement and to allow trade of safe products. The European Union also restated
its availability to continue working with Korea and any other trading partners
with a view to finding a rapid solution on this matter.
3.69. Korea recalled that it had banned pork and pork products from Poland
since the first case of ASF was reported in February 2014, in agreement with
Poland. At the request of the European Union, Korea had implemented the
necessary steps to assess the current situation in Poland, and hired experts to
that effect. Korea had completed its preliminary assessment after considering
Poland's comments received in May 2015 and had decided to move on to the next
steps. Korea requested that Poland and the European Union take proactive
control measures to prevent the spread of ASF and cooperate fully to expedite
the risk assessment process, which needed to incorporate a distinction between
affected and unaffected areas.
3.70. The European Union recalled its concerns regarding India's import requirements
for pork and pork products, and noted that it had been requesting for many
years that India bring its measures in line with OIE standards. At the July
2015 meeting it had thanked India for the notification on its certificate for
import of pork and pork products (G/SPS/N/IND/98). The European Union
welcomed India's introduction of regionalization and of references to
alternative requirements to the Indian laws, based on OIE and Codex standards.
The European Union urged India to take its comments into account in finalizing
the certificate and to allow imports quickly. The European Union requested that
India provide a solid risk analysis demonstrating, for example, that the
diseases included in the health certificate were transmitted by pork or pork
products and that they posed a significant risk to India. The European Union
asked India to make a series of specific changes to the certificates. The
European Union was concerned because despite repeated requests, it had not
received any scientific justification from India for deviating from the OIE
standards, and because the Indian requirements would unnecessarily and
unjustifiably restrict trade in safe products. The European Union requested
that India notify the health certificate for imports of live pigs. The European
Union welcomed future discussions to allow imports of safe products to India.
3.71. India thanked the European Union and stated that this issue
demonstrated India's commitment to harmonize its regulations with international
standards. India had received comments from Canada and the United States on
G/SPS/N/IND/98 within the 60-day comment period. Consultations on comments
received had concluded in September 2015. India explained that the veterinary
certificates needed to be legally vetted, which could take time.
3.72. South Africa reiterated its concerns regarding restrictive EU import
requirements on citrus fruit. EU measures on citrus black spot (CBS),
implemented since 2014, were significantly more stringent than previous ones,
lacked a scientific basis, implied additional costs and had severe negative
influence on South Africa's citrus industry. South Africa recalled that it had
asked the IPPC secretariat to establish an expert committee in line with
Article XIII of the IPPC to provide an independent science-based opinion. South
Africa urged the IPPC to expedite the process.
3.73. Brazil and Zambia shared South Africa's concern, and Brazil offered
support to help expedite the IPPC process so that it could be concluded with
the necessary urgency.
3.74. The European Union stressed that the measures were in place to
prevent the entry of CBS to EU territory. The strengthening of the requirements
was the result of the risk assessment conducted by EFSA in February 2014 and
the recurring number of interceptions. The European Union noted that there had
been 28 interceptions in 2014 and nine in 2015. Given the circumstances, the
European Union was maintaining its import requirements and would consider
taking further measures. The European Union acknowledged South Africa's efforts
to remedy the situation, however the efforts had not yet resulted in a sufficient
reduction of interceptions. The European Union welcomed bilateral
discussion between the technical bodies to resolve the matter. With regard to
the work in IPPC, the European Union highlighted the importance of the terms of
reference in this first ever IPPC procedure, so as to lay down a solid and
legally sound foundation not only for the current dispute but also for the IPPC
Dispute Settlement Procedure in general. Furthermore, the European Union
signalled its being fully committeed to supporting the IPPC process and that it
would provide its comments on the draft terms of reference.
3.75. The European Union reported that specific trade concern No. 385
(General import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza) could be
considered resolved as a number of Members had lifted their bans.
3.76. The Chairperson thanked the European Union and encouraged Members to
continue informing the Secretariat of any resolved specific trade concerns.
3.77. The Secretariat introduced the Annual Report on the Use of the
Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate the Resolution of Specific Sanitary or
Phytosanitary Issues among Members in Accordance with Article 12.2, as
contained in G/SPS/GEN/1457. The report covered the period from the adoption of
the procedure in July 2014 until the end of September 2015. During this
time-period, no Member had requested consultations under this procedure.
4.1. India introduced its document on the need for measures on detection
of pesticide residues not registered in the country of import for unimpeded
flow of trade (G/SPS/W/284), presented under Other Business at the March and
July meetings of the Committee. The purpose of the paper was to put into
context the persistent problem faced by exporters from developing countries due
to importing countries' application of limits of detection (LoDs) for these
pesticides. India had observed that LoDs were being applied even for substances
where Codex standards existed. India noted that Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the
SPS Agreement applied in this case, and provided examples where the application
of LoDs had a trade impact. The document concluded by suggesting certain steps
in dealing with this issue. India also proposed two corrections to the
document: (i) to delete paragraph 2.2.g; and (ii) in paragraph 2.2.f, to change
from 2 mg/kg to 0.2 mg/kg the Codex prescribed levels for Chlorantraniliprole
in edible offal. The Chairperson requested that India submit an Addendum to the
Secretariat with the proposed changes. India remained open to suggestions
on how to move forward and welcomed further discussions.
4.2. The European Union thanked India for raising this issue and
expressed its view that the Committee should not embark on the task of
producing guidelines on the use of LoD levels for non-registered pesticides in
the importing countries, citing that the SPS Agreement, particularly article 8
and Annex C on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures, already contained relevant
and sufficiently clear provisions on this matter. The European Union also
described the EU pesticide regime and provided a number of practical
examples of its application, including the mechanisms that existed under EU
legislation allowing exporting countries to apply for an import tolerance of a
particular pesticide on a particular food commodity, as well as opportunities
for technical assistance related to pesticides and MRLs.
4.3. Jamaica supported India in calling for the SPS Committee to give
further consideration to the issue of limits of detection, and to evaluate
whether guidelines could be recommended to avoid importing countries resorting
to default LoD levels, with a view to minimizing the adverse impact on trade.
4.4. Argentina supported the proposal and recalled that in 2007 it had
submitted document G/SPS/W/211 on maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides
and their impact on exports of developing countries. In the document, Argentina
had indicated that MRLs are sanitary measures that may affect market access. The
imposition of stricter limits, without scientific justification, or on the
basis of subjective concepts outside the SPS Agreement, constituted a barrier
to trade. Argentina was ready to work with other Members on possible solutions
to the problem.
4.5. Brazil expressed its interest in this issue and stressed the
importance of adhering to the risk assessments developed by Codex and its
expert committees. Brazil remained open on the way forward, while expressing
its concern that the development of guidelines ran the risk of facing
difficulties similar to the disclaimer discussion in the context of the
currently un-adopted Catalogue of Instruments.
4.6. The United States thanked India for its submission and welcomed
discussion of SPS issues of interest to Members in the Committee. It did not
support the development of guidelines by the Committee given the status of
other documents for which adoption had been pending for some time. The United
States described its regulatory approach, the roles of its regulatory agencies,
and stressed the importance of sharing experiences in the following focused
areas as a potential way forward: the current challenges faced by Codex and its
scientific bodies in setting international standards for MRLs; how Members
addressed risk assessment, management and communication, particularly in cases
where no international standards or guidance existed or a higher level of
protection was chosen; the particular problems associated with the development
of MRLs for minor use products for developing countries; and practices and programmes used by government
officials to engage their producer associations to identify and prioritize
pesticides in the context of target export markets. Lastly, the United States
noted that Argentina's submission G/SPS/W/211 contained interesting ideas on
ways to achieve greater transparency.
4.7. China thanked India for raising this issue in the Committee and
urged Members to base their import measures in relation to pesticide residues
on Codex standards, and in the absence of international standards, on
science-based risk assessments. China supported in-depth discussions on this
issue to ensure that Members' import measures did not constitute unnecessary
barriers to international trade.
4.8. Japan associated itself with the statements of the European Union
and the United States in that it was not in favour of developing guidelines.
The issue raised by India was highly complex and required multi-dimensional
consideration. Japan described its 2005 positive list system for agricultural
chemical residues in food, and explained that for unknown agricultural
chemicals without MRLs, a limit of 0.01 ppm was set based on relevant
evaluations, including the ones conducted by scientific committees associated
with international organizations. This had enabled domestic distribution of
foods containing agricultural chemicals which were not used in Japan and
without established MRL, as long as the levels of such chemicals were below the
0.01 ppm limit. Japan also requested a correction to the default limit in para.
2.2.d of document G/SPS/W/284, which should read 0.01 ppm instead of 0.001 ppm.
4.9. Belize, Canada, Chile, Côte d'Ivoire, the Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Kenya and Nigeria also shared the concerns, emphasizing the need for
more exchange and discussion. Australia agreed elements of the paper merited
further discussion and said it was open to a future thematic discussion on
pesticide issues.
4.10. Codex highlighted that where no MRLs existed, Members should provide
data to the relevant scientific bodies to support the elaboration of a Codex
standard. Sustainable funding to support scientific advice was also key in this
area. Codex reminded the Committee that its standards were voluntary and only
became compulsory once written into legislation.
4.11. India thanked Members for their interventions and clarified that the
examples highlighted in G/SPS/W/284 illustrated cases of MRLs fixed at LoD, not
STCs raised in the Committee. India appreciated Members' explanations of
their pesticide regimes and called again upon Members not to resort to LoDs
where there was no international standard. In India's view, the rationale provided
by some Members for why work on this topic should not continue was
insufficient. India looked forward to continued robust technical
discussions.
4.12. The Chairperson suggested that the subject be further explored a
thematic session. He invited Members to submit suggestions for an agenda
for such a thematic session to the Secretariat by 15 January 2016. The first
version of a draft agenda would then be circulated on 30 January for
discussion at the March 2016 meeting.
5.1. The Chairperson reported on the Workshop on Transparency held on
12-13 October (programme in document G/SPS/GEN/1446).[2]
The WTO Global Trust Fund had sponsored 50 participants selected from
developing and least developed countries. In addition, the African Union had
made it possible for 25 participants from French- and English-speaking Africa
to participate in the workshop, and the Inter-American Institute for
Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) had funded the participation of 12 Caribbean
participants. The main objective of the workshop had been to bring together
officials from Members' SPS Enquiry Points, National Notification Authorities
and other relevant authorities for an exchange of experiences and for hands-on
training on the online SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS) and on the
improved SPS Notification Submission System (SPS NSS).
5.2. Session 1 of the workshop had included an overview of the
transparency provisions in the SPS Agreement and the Recommended Transparency
Procedures. Speakers in Session 2 had presented relevant sources of SPS-related
information, including: (i) the new WTO Members' website; (ii) WTO Documents
Online; (iii) the WTO Integrated Trade Intelligence Portal (I-TIP); (iv)
UN-DESA's ePing Toolkit for accessing SPS & TBT notifications and alerts;
and (v) the SPS Gateway on the WTO website and the new version of the SPS IMS
currently under development. The testing platform of the new SPS IMS would be
available in early 2016, and Members would be invited to participate in the
pilot testing group. In Session 3, participants had broken into language groups
for hands-on training on the use of the current SPS IMS system.
5.3. In Session 4, six speakers from developed and developing country
Members had shared national experiences on the implementation of the SPS
transparency provisions: (i) Canada had presented on its experience in tracking,
sorting and distributing SPS notifications; (ii) Burkina Faso had shared its
experience with phytosanitary notifications; (iii) The European Union had
detailed its coordination practices in handling the life cycle of SPS
notifications; (iv) Chile had presented on the functioning of its National
Notification Authority; (v) the United States had shared the US experience
in implementing the SPS obligation to take comments into account; and (vi) the
presentation from New Zealand had highlighted the importance of communication.
Additionally, from the floor, Morocco had provided a brief explanation of
recent institutional changes in order to strengthen coordination and an
overview of its notification system for processing incoming notifications.
Following the presentations there had been many questions and comments on the
topics discussed.
5.4. The second day had begun with an overview of the level of
implementation of the SPS transparency provisions based on the latest
revision of the Secretariat annual transparency report contained in
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8. Since this year the WTO was celebrating its 20th Anniversary,
charts, graphics and statistics reflected information over the last 20 years.
5.5. Then, in Session 6 the Secretariat had presented the improved online
SPS Notification Submission System (SPS NSS) and had thanked the Members who
had participated in the testing of the pilot platform made available after the
July meeting. The new system was more user-friendly, corrected "bugs"
in the current system, and was based on updated technology in line with other
in-house applications such as I-TIP and the TBT NSS. It would also support rich
text format, which was a major limitation for some Members of the current
system. The testing and development of the new SPS NSS would continue after the
October meeting. Several Members had highlighted the advantages of using the
online notification system, such as reducing errors and time required to
fill-in and submit notifications. The Secretariat had confirmed that an updated
procedural manual would be needed and had welcomed any volunteers, thanking
Sally Jennings from New Zealand for having written the old guide. The new SPS
IMS and SPS NSS applications were expected to be finalized and launched during
the first semester of 2016. Like for the SPS IMS, in Session 7,
participants had broken into three language groups and had used the improved
SPS NSS system in a hands-on exercise.
5.6. In the last session participants had engaged in group discussions
based on issues that had emerged from the analysis of the replies to the
transparency questionnaire (G/SPS/GEN/1402), and on how these could be
addressed. Specifically, the following topics had been discussed: (i) difficulties
in filling in notifications; (ii) identifying trade facilitating measures;
(iii) identifying and targeting interested stakeholders; (iv) handling
comments; and (v) dealing with, and obtaining translations for, notified
documents not in one of the WTO languages.
5.7. Participants had come up with a number of innovative suggestions on
how to handle these issues. For example, on solving difficulties in filling in
notifications, there had been suggestions to increase awareness of policy
makers and training, including provision of South-South technical assistance by
Morocco. Regarding identification of trade facilitating measures, including a
brief explanation in the notification format to justify the regulation's trade
facilitating nature, or organizing a thematic session to exchange experiences.
On identifying and targeting interested stakeholders, to establish an
institutional support structure or to develop a legislative framework.
Regarding the handling of comments, to have public consultations to receive
substantive comments or develop operational manuals. Finally, on the difficulty
of obtaining translations, to create an alternative, less official, platform to
share such translations, similar to the IPPC Phytosanitary Resources page.
5.8. Additionally, several participants had underscored the importance of
having motivated and committed individuals to overcome the lack of political
will and to raise awareness among the general public of the importance of SPS
measures.
5.9. Other participants had highlighted the need for well-trained staff
and authorities in charge of SPS notifications, in particular regarding the
online SPS NSS. Lastly, some participants had underscored the need for a robust
institutional framework and inter-agency cooperation to ensure efficient
communication between the SPS authorities responsible for notifications and for
regulation.
5.10. Before concluding, the Secretariat had described the next steps
regarding the development of the new SPS IMS and SPS NSS applications and
participants had highlighted the need for training on the use of the new tools
in the future.
5.11. In concluding his report, the Chairperson indicated that presentations
from sessions 2, 4 and 8 of the workshop had been circulated to the SPS
delegates' mailing list. They would also become available on the SPS Gateway.
5.12. Uganda encouraged Members to use the ePing alert system to inform
relevant stakeholders about notified regulations. The system was currently
being piloted in Uganda.
5.13. New Zealand suggested that the Committee develop a separate webpage
on the SPS Gateway that would contain unofficial translations, resources,
case studies and links to transparency tools, including a disclaimer that
anything on the page would necessarily have been endorsed by the WTO. New
Zealand also offered to update the step-by-step manual on transparency
obligations and welcomed any suggestions or assistance to make this manual useful
to Members. The United States offered support to assist New Zealand. Other Members
also welcomed this offer from New Zealand and expressed interest in
contributing to this initiative.
5.14. Benin, Chile, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, the European Union,
Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Nigeria, Togo, the United
States, AU-IBAR, ECOWAS, and IGAD spoke on this topic, expressing appreciation
for the workshop and stressing the importance of transparency for the
Committee. Algeria requested that Observers receive access to the new SPS NSS
system.
5.15. The Secretariat announced that it would report back on the
feasibility of a new resources page as well as on the possibility for Observers
to have access to the new SPS NSS platform.
6.1. The WTO Secretariat clarified that the implementation of Articles
10.1 and 10.2 of the SPS Agreement had been discussed under this agenda
item several years ago. Two documents had resulted from those discussions, the
Report on Proposals for Special and Differential Treatment (G/SPS/35), and the
Procedure to Enhance Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment in
Favour of Developing Country Members (G/SPS/33/Rev.1).
6.2. The Secretariat reported on a 6 October 2015 informal meeting of the
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development which had considered
special and differential (S&D) proposals submitted by the G90, including on
Articles 10.1 and 10.2 of the SPS Agreement and Article 12.3 of the TBT
Agreement. The proposals were contained in document JOB/DEV/29 -JOB/TNC/51. The
SPS-related proposals referred to (i) early notification by developed countries
of all their SPS and TBT measures; (ii) allowing for longer comment periods
before the adoption of a measure; (iii) longer time frames for compliance with
SPS measures (at least 12 months) for developing countries, in particular LDCs
and SVEs; and (iv) mandatory financial and technical assistance. The Secretariat
reported that Members had expressed divergent views on those proposals. Some
mentioned relevant SPS Committee work, including the Procedure to Enhance
Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment in Favour of Developing
Country Members (G/SPS/33/Rev.1). The Secretariat noted that the SPS
Committee's Report on S&D Proposals (G/SPS/35) adopted ten years ago also
provided relevant background on the underlying concerns, some of which remained
the same.
7.1. Senegal shared its experience in equivalence of procedures for
peanut seed exports to China, based on the agreement on SPS requirements for
peanut exports, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1461. Senegal pointed out that
equivalence had been established by (i) registering all producers and operators
who wanted to enter the market; (ii) mapping of warehouses and harvest
conditioning centres and looking at the post-harvest system; and (iii)
disseminating good production practices. Additional steps taken also included
sending periodic crop reports to the Chinese quarantine services, validating
Senegal's SPS certificates with China, and monitoring pests. Senegal had
conducted extensive assessments to ensure safety of its products, and as a
result, Senegal was the largest exporter of peanut seeds to China in 2014 and
2015 and producers' revenue had improved considerably. Senegal thanked China,
the African Union and SPS standards organizations for supporting this
equivalence initiative.
7.2. China noted that it considered this equivalence agreement with
Senegal to be a good example of constructive bilateral cooperation.
7.3. No observer provided any information under this agenda item.
8.1. Morocco informed the Committee that the Science Commission for
Animal Diseases and the World Assembly of the OIE Delegates had approved the recognition
of Morocco as a country free of African horse sickness, according to the OIE
Terrestrial Code. The recognition was a result of Morocco's veterinary
services' efforts to control and eradicate the disease. This new status would
allow for a more fluid flow of trade and increased participation in
international horse competitions. Morocco thanked the OIE for its help in
achieving the status and noted its readiness to respond to Members' requests of
inspection, as per Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.
8.2. Nigeria updated the Committee on the status of avian influenza in
Nigeria and related control measures (G/SPS/GEN/1441). Although Nigeria
continued to experience sporadic outbreaks of avian influenza, the numbers had
reduced significantly compared to March 2015. Nigeria noted that it was highly
likely that the source of infection for the current resurgence was wild birds.
Although an investigation was on-going, a disease investigation by the
Department of Veterinary Services found that the major risk factors came from
egg and poultry manure merchants and live bird market operators. Nigeria was
working on raising public awareness and sensitizing key public stakeholders in
the industry, in addition to notifying international organizations and putting
in place the modified stamping-out policy. Nigeria also noted that the
inability to effectively enforce movement control regulations had also
contributed to the spread of the virus. Zoning, compartmentalization and
regionalization were currently not being implemented. Nigeria thanked its
development partners for their financial and technical assistance in containing
the disease, and asked for further support from national and regional
governments, as well as from international community and the private sector.
8.3. Brazil presented the National Programme against Fruit Flies launched
by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply to prevent, control
and eradicate fruit flies of economic and quarantine importance
(G/SPS/GEN/1442). The fruit fly was a significant pest for fruit production and
its control could bring important trade benefits for fruit producers and
exporters. The IPPC ISPMs were central pillars in the establishment of control
and eradication strategies. Brazil expected to have new or enlarged areas
free from fruit flies and a decrease in production costs as well as increased
market access opportunities for fruit producers.
8.4. Guyana commended Brazil's efforts and expressed its interest in a
continued collaboration with Brazil in the fight to eradicate fruit flies.
Guyana thanked USAID and IICA for their assistance in providing materials and
funding which enabled Guyana to maintain its national programme.
8.5. Mexico referred to the information contained in various documents it
had circulated to Members,[3]
reporting that it was free of velogenic Newcastle disease. After San Luis
Potosi state had been declared as a zone free of Aujesky's disease, Mexico was
subsequently declared as free of Aujeszky's disease in domestic swine. In
addition, certain communities and municipalities of the state of Puebla had
been declared as areas of low prevalence of Anastrepha fruit flies of quarantine
significance and Rhagoletis pomonella, and a municipality and an
agro-ecological zone of the state of Guerrero had been declared free of small
and large avocado seed weevils and avocado seed moths. Lastly, Mexico provided
updates on its national tick control campaign.
8.6. Burkina Faso reported that highly pathogenic avian influenza, which
had been detected in ten regions of the country in April 2015, was now under
control. Burkina Faso noted that in response to the situation, it had put in
place active surveillance, communication, resource mobilisation, and
compensation measures, with 380 poultry producers in the affected area having
been compensated. These measures had led to the control of 27 outbreaks
throughout the territory. A surveillance process of outbreaks had
confirmed the end of those outbreaks, and as a result, measures restricting
movement had been lifted in nine of the ten areas.
8.7. Canada reported it was considered free of notifiable avian influenza
since 8 October 2015 as per OIE guidelines. Canada explained that its
notifications to the OIE that the province of British Columbia and Ontario were
considered free of notifiable avian influenza were based on the successful
completion of a three-month surveillance period following the eradication of
the disease in domestic poultry. Several trading partners had already begun to
remove trade restrictions imposed on Canadian poultry and poultry products.
Canada asked its trading partners to remove any remaining restrictions in
accordance with science and the OIE guidelines.
8.8. Madagascar highlighted the difficulties of controlling avian influenza
and asked trading partners and international organizations to provide needed
support to eradicate the disease and prevent any further spread in Africa.
8.9. Ecuador reported its positive results in establishing disease free
areas and areas of low prevalence from its 2014 national fruit fly control
programme. In addition to registering two new provinces this year, the project
had been successful in training several thousands of stakeholders. Ecuador
would pursue its initiative to promote national production and access new markets
by guaranteeing the phytosanitary quality of Ecuadorian products. Ecuador noted
that it would conduct pilot activities in 2016 in certain areas affected by Ceratitis capitata.
8.10. Guatemala provided information on technical provisions to eradicate
classical swine fever without a vaccination campaign. The eradication process
had begun in early 2014 and would be completed by November 2015. The programme,
based on OIE guidelines, would enable the development of the pig farming sector
and strengthen the presence of pig farming in international trade.
8.11. India informed the Committee that in May 2015, the OIE had
recognized India as having an official control programme for FMD in accordance
with the OIE Terrestrial Code.
8.12. Indonesia reported that its National Plant Protection Organization
(NPPO) had recognized California as a pest free area for nine species of fruit
flies, including Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha fraterculus. The Indonesian NPPO also recognized
Srisaket province of Thailand as free of the nematodes Ditylenchus
destructor and fungi Urocystis cepulae
for shallot production.
8.13. The United States noted that the recognition, which applied to over
20 fresh fruit commodities grown in California, had been accompanied by an
assessment and verification visit by Indonesian officials to the United States
in June 2015.
8.14. Chile welcomed Indonesia's reporting on its recognition of pest-free
areas of other Members and flagged the need to hear about more experiences on
such recognitions. Chile noted that it had recently returned to being pest-free
after eradicating Ceratitis capitata, and looked
forward to a fruitful meeting on that issue with Indonesia in November 2015.
8.15. Thailand thanked Indonesia for its cooperation.
8.16. No observer organization provided any information under this item.
9.1. The WTO Secretariat provided an overview of the technical assistance
activities held since the July SPS Committee meeting. Six national SPS seminars
had been held in: Algeria; the Dominican Republic; Macao, China; Paraguay;
Chinese Taipei; and Uganda. More general training on the SPS Agreement had
also been provided in the following activities: two WTO Regional Trade Policy
Courses held for Latin America (in Ecuador) and for Central and Eastern Europe,
Central Asia and the Caucasus (in Turkey); a WTO Intermediate Course for LDCs
in English (in Geneva); an Academic Course held by the India Institute for
Foreign Trade; an International Customs Law Academy Conference on "WTO Agreements on Trade In Goods: Customs-Related Issues"
(in Geneva); a Symposium organized by the International Association for
Food Protection (in the United States); and the European College of Veterinary
Medicine's Annual Scientific Conference entitled "The
Challenges of Cross-Border Trade" (in Serbia).
9.2. The Secretariat further provided an overview of the remaining WTO
SPS activities scheduled for 2015, as identified in G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.5. The
upcoming activities included regional SPS workshops for: the Caribbean
region (organized with the CARICOM Secretariat) to be held in Belize on 27-30
October; Asia (organized with UNESCAP), covering both SPS and TBT, to be held
in Bangkok, Thailand, on 10-13 November; and the Arab region, to be held in
Kuwait on 25‑28 January 2016. The Secretariat further announced that
national seminars would also be held for Iran, Oman and Sudan before the end of
the year. Additional seminars for Egypt and Madagascar were currently being
scheduled. More general training on the SPS Agreement would also be provided
in: (i) WTO Regional Trade Policy Courses to be held for Asia and the Pacific
in Thailand (October), and for the Arab region in Oman (November); (ii) a WTO
Advanced Trade Policy Course in French to be held in Geneva (October); (iii)
Training Programmes organized by the Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency to be held in Stockholm (October and November); (iv) a
Graduate Institute Course on Trade, Diplomacy and
Public Health to be held in Geneva (18 November); and (v) an
IICA Technical Forum on "The Trade Facilitation
Agreement and its relation to SPS measures" (October), with participation
via videoconference.
9.3. The Secretariat also drew Members' attention to the 2015 Advanced
Course that was currently underway, in English. This was the eleventh
consecutive year that this course had been offered, and 23 officials from
developing and least-developed countries had been selected to participate. This
was a unique activity since it not only focused on transmitting knowledge on
the SPS Agreement and the SPS Committee, but also on identifying actions to
address specific implementation challenges and opportunities at the national
level. Throughout the course, each participant developed an action plan, to be
implemented upon their return to their countries. This implementation was
monitored by coaches, and through a follow-up session about nine months after
the course. The Secretariat thanked the Chairperson and the delegates who had
shared their knowledge and experiences during the Advanced Course, as well as
the participating organizations (Codex, IPPC, OIE, ACWL, ITC), WTO and STDF
colleagues, and the external consultants, Mr João Magalhães and Mr Kevin
Walker.
9.4. The Secretariat recalled that the E-Learning Course on the SPS
Agreement was available year-round in the three WTO official languages. Further
information on SPS technical assistance activities could be obtained on the WTO
website (under trade-related technical assistance) or by contacting the
Secretariat for additional clarification and assistance.
9.5. Nigeria thanked the Secretariat for the detailed report on technical
assistance and pointed out that national activities had cost implications that
posed limitations for countries to receive assistance. Nigeria suggested that
the financial costs related to receiving technical assistance should also be
covered by the WTO. Nigeria also noted that the Secretariat should increase the
number of participants to the SPS Advanced Course to enable entry level
professionals to gain training, whether or not the country had benefitted from
the training previously.
9.6. Chinese Taipei noted its appreciation for the SPS workshop held in
Taipei in July 2015, and Yemen thanked the Secretariat for its efforts in
providing useful technical assistance for Yemen.
9.7. Senegal noted its disappointment about the cancellation of a planned
Agriculture and SPS workshop scheduled for October 2015 in Benin. Senegal
regretted the missed opportunity to train more junior staff.
9.8. Côte d'Ivoire regretted the insufficient number of training courses
offered in French, compared to English, which constituted a handicap for Côte
d'Ivoire.
9.9. Paraguay thanked the Secretariat for the recent national workshop
that had trained 35 participants working in the SPS area and committed to
ensure that the activity had multiplying effects to meet its objectives.
9.10. The secretariat of the Standards and Trade Development Facility
(STDF) informed Members about its activities since the July Committee meeting
and upcoming activities, as detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1439. The STDF secretariat
highlighted key work areas of the STDF and the outcome of the STDF Working
Group which took place on 12 and 13 October 2015.
9.11. First, the STDF secretariat was working with partners on
finalization of the SPS market access prioritization (SPS-MAP) tool. By helping
developing countries prioritize SPS investment options for market access, the
framework aimed to enhance the economic efficiency of SPS investment
decisions in developing countries; promote more transparent decision-making;
and encourage dialogue among public and private stakeholders. The framework had
already been applied in several countries with good results, and was most
recently used in Zambia. More information on the final framework would be made
available at the March 2016 Committee meeting.
9.12. Second, a joint study was being undertaken by the STDF Secretariat
with the Secretariat of the Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF). The objective
of this study was to explore how the Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies
(DTIS), which were extensive analytical documents that underpinned the EIF
programme, addressed SPS issues and constraints. A draft working document
presented in the STDF Working Group earlier this week was received positively.
The final study would be published early 2016.
9.13. Third, the STDF had undertaken a number of activities on trade
facilitation in the SPS context: the launch of the first in a series of
three short STDF films which focused on practices of Chile, Peru and Colombia;
participation in the 5th WTO/OECD Global Review of Aid for Trade in
June and July 2015; and research work in South East Asia and Southern Africa on
implementation of SPS measures. The recommendations and lessons drawn from
these activities were discussed in the STDF Working Group. They would be
summarized and distributed at the March 2016 Committee meeting.
9.14. Fourth, an informal information session on e-certification in the
SPS area had been held during the STDF Working Group. The session had been
extremely interesting and the STDF secretariat had been instructed to prepare
an information seminar on this topic in 2016 for a broader audience, potentially
on the margins of the SPS Committee next July. More information would be
provided in March 2016.
9.15. Lastly, the Working Group had approved three Project Preparation
Grants (PPG) benefitting Togo, Tanzania and Mongolia. One additional PPG would
aim to develop a project looking at the "spill-over" effects of
trade-related food safety projects on the domestic health situation. Regional
projects had been approved for Central American countries, working on
accreditation of laboratory diagnostic tests for animal diseases; and selected
Asia and Pacific countries to establish streamlined information systems for
pest surveillance and reporting. A project had also been approved to set up and
test a global e-phyto hub to facilitate the exchange of electronic phytosanitary
certificates.
9.16. The Working Group had approved over $3 million in STDF funding,
which could not be covered by the current level of funding. The STDF secretariat
thanked all current donors and partners for their contributions and highlighted
the need for new additional contributions.
9.17. While praising the work of the STDF, Nigeria also highlighted
specific difficulties to fulfil approval requirements for PPGs. More
information was needed to guide countries submitting projects. Nigeria,
supported by Morocco, also requested that information shared during the Working
Group on SPS electronic certification be made available to all Members.
9.18. Zambia reported on the usefulness of the SPS Market Access
Prioritisation (MAP) tool in identifying priority areas for funding. Zambia
thanked the STDF secretariat for its recommendations on the implementation of
SPS measures to facilitate trade research.
9.19. Morocco enquired about the criteria used by the STDF for funding
projects. The STDF secretariat clarified that information on criteria for
projects was available on the STDF website, including a guidance note for
applicants available in English, Spanish and French. Interested countries were
encouraged to send to the Secretariat a concept note on their proposed project.
Finally, the Secretariat would make the presentations on electronic
certification available on the STDF website and keep the Committee informed on
any upcoming related event.
9.20. Togo thanked the STDF for the assistance provided in the drafting
process of its successful grant request to set up a national SPS strategy.
9.21. Nigeria acknowledged the technical assistance received from the
Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR), the WTO and the European
Union to help with participation in the Committee and with more effective notification.
The United States had provided assistance for the review of Nigeria's national
food safety policy, for which implementation had begun. Nigeria also reported
on the support received from the STDF including on shea butter and assessment
of chemical residues in food. Nigeria had applied for additional STDF support
and hoped its applications would be approved.
9.22. The United States presented a compendium of the assistance provided
between October 2012 and September 2014, as detailed in
G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.11. Since 2005, the United States had provided over $13
billion to support developing countries expand trade through greater integration
into the rules-based global trading system and the implementation of the SPS
and Trade Facilitation Agreements. In the context of the 20th anniversary of
the WTO, there were noteworthy changes in the trade and development landscape,
including in the relationship between official development assistance and
private flows into developing countries, composition of donors, and private
sector engagement. In addition to welcoming the growing international support
for the concept of "mutual accountability", the United States strived
to ensure results-orientation by focusing on programmes that were educational,
implementable and reproducible. The United States was dedicated to promoting sustainable
capacity building programmes, such as those that strengthened the ability of
countries to "pay-it-forward," and looked forward to closely working
with the STDF and the SPS Committee on cross-cutting SPS technical assistance
issues.
9.23. Burkina Faso recalled that some countries in West Africa had raised
concerns on the effect of fruit flies in mango trade during the March 2015
Committee meeting. There had been recent efforts to address this issue,
including through workshops on control methods of fruit flies in West Africa
and on methodology and programming validation for the regional fruit fly plan.
Burkina Faso thanked the United States, the Economic Community of West African
States (ECOWAS) and the European Union for their support in that regard.
Burkina Faso asked that assistance be extended to other products in Burkina
Faso as well as to the whole of Africa, in particular West Africa, for all
fruits and vegetables impacted by fruit flies. Given the negative effect of
fruit flies on production and exports, combatting the pest at the continental
level was paramount.
9.24. Benin and Nigeria supported Burkina Faso's suggestion to extend
fruit fly assistance to West Africa. Benin highlighted that fruit flies had
destroyed much of its mango production, particularly in the North, affecting
large numbers of producers. Nigeria noted that fruit flies were hurting
Nigeria's orange sector.
9.25. Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire, Kenya, Madagascar, Niger, Senegal, Togo, and
Zambia also supported Burkina Faso's statement, calling for help in their fight
against fruit flies to realize trade potentials. Côte d'Ivoire added that that
while fruit fly was a global problem, the effect was more serious in Africa. In
Côte d'Ivoire, for instance, there were areas where mango production was the
sole source of income. Therefore, technical assistance should focus more on
rural areas. Kenya emphasized that fruit flies negatively impacted both
exporting and importing countries and called for a coordinated approach in
addressing the issue. Burundi thanked the African Union for its financial
support, while Togo and Niger thanked donor countries for their support in SPS
training.
9.26. The African Union stated that it was ready to support its member
states to address the issue of fruit flies. The African Union had a plant
health management strategy in place which would operate from 2015 to 2025 and
looked forward to working with other partners in coordinating that initiative
at the continental level.
9.27. The ECOWAS Commission reported that it had adopted a regional
approach to tackle fruit flies and thanked the European Union and the French
Development Agency for their support. The first ECOWAS member states that
would benefit from the project were Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia,
Ghana, Guinea, Mali and Senegal.
9.28. The WTO Secretariat encouraged interested Members were encouraged to
approach the STDF Secretariat since the STDF had several related projects in
Africa.
9.29. Burkina Faso thanked AU-IBAR for its technical assistance to African
countries, which helped improve transparency and participation in WTO SPS
activities. The preparatory meetings organized by the African Union had been
helpful for Burkina Faso's participation in the Committee discussions. In that
regard, the WTO Secretariat's involvement in some of those preparatory
activities had also been highly appreciated.
9.30. Zambia thanked AU-IBAR for making it possible for Zambia to
participate in the SPS Committee meeting and for the capacity-building activities.
Zambia also provided an update on the technical assistance received. Regional
plant health projects included, among others, a COMESA trade facilitation
project funded by the STDF to reduce costs associated with SPS measures
for selected food commodities, and a fruit fly project funded by FAO to
harmonize fruit fly approaches in Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Country specific updates included the recently approved PPG from the STDF,
which aimed at strengthening phytosanitary capacity in the horticulture
industry; newly gained market access to South Africa for grapes and pure honey;
and on-going development of the NPPO website to enhance transparency. Zambia
had also received support from the World Bank for animal health disease
surveillance and control, improvements in infrastructure, and support to small-scale
livestock farmers.
9.31. Madagascar endorsed Zambia's statement on technical assistance
received to promote regional trade. Madagascar noted its appreciation for the
support given by the WTO Secretariat, the African Union and the European Union
in capacity building for both public and private sectors and in enabling Madagascar
to participate more effectively in the SPS Committee.
9.32. Jamaica thanked IICA and the United States for facilitating a recent
workshop on "Requirements for exporting food to the US market – Focus on
the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)". The workshop had helped
strengthen the country's capacity to face challenges and opportunities arising
from FSMA. Over 120 representatives from public and private sectors, producers,
exporters and academia had benefited from the workshop. In addition, Jamaica
informed the Committee that the Caribbean region also experienced fruit fly
problems and suggested an inter-continental approach to address the issue.
9.33. Belize informed the Committee that three activities conducted in
2015 to strengthen the food safety system in Belize were direct results of the
EU-ACP Development of Food Safety Systems (EDES) and thanked the European Union
for its support. Belize had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Europe-Africa-Caribbean-Pacific Liaison Committee (COLEACP) and EDES, which
defined the partnership framework between Belize and EDES to set up an action
plan. Belize also thanked IICA and the European Union for funding its
participation in the SPS Committee and for training laboratory personnel under
the 10th EDF SPS Project. Finally, Belize thanked USDA for
supporting a surveillance programme in Belize, which had been very effective in
maintaining Belize free of certain pests. An operation facility was being
constructed to further enhance the effectiveness of the programme with funds
from the USDA and counterparts in Belize.
9.34. Barbados thanked the European Union for the funding provided under
the 10th EDF SPS Project, which was being implemented by IICA and
had facilitated Barbados' attendance in the WTO Workshop on Transparency. Given
that Barbados was currently in the process of modernising its agricultural
health and food control system, attendance in the workshop had been useful and facilitated
greater understanding of the transparency obligations, in particular of
notification procedures. Barbados also thanked IICA for its cooperation to date
and future collaborations.
9.35. OIE drew the Committee's attention to the summary on the PVS
programme annexed to OIE report G/SPS/GEN/1440. The OIE noted that almost 75
per cent of its members had completed the PVS evaluations, demonstrating the
global applicability of the tool to both developing and developed countries.
The OIE encouraged Members to check the website and approach the OIE for more
information.
9.36. IICA reported on its technical assistance activities, as detailed in
G/SPS/GEN/1452. Working with USDA FAS, FDA and USAID, IICA was implementing a
multi-phase technical cooperation programme to raise awareness about FSMA in
Latin America and the Caribbean. IICA had also organized events to promote
effective participation in Codex, including a Codex Colloquium on the Committees
on Food Hygiene, Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, and Nutrition and Foods for
Special Dietary Uses in Uruguay. To date, IICA had supported participation in 8
Codex Committees for 40 delegates from 21 countries thanks to US funding.
IICA, ORISA and USDA FAS had conducted workshops in Panama and Ecuador to
strengthen the capacity of government officials to respond to emergencies
through the instant command system. Efforts to improve legislation,
coordination and technical capacity in the Caribbean region implemented by IICA
under the EU-supported 10th EDF SPS Project included supporting avian
influenza preparedness, delivering a plant quarantine course and reviewing
draft IPPC standards. The EDF funding was also used to support participation of
12 countries in the October 2015 SPS Committee meeting and Workshop on
Transparency.
9.37. Saint Kitts and Nevis thanked IICA and the European Union for the
support of the 10th EDF Project. Under the project, three
participants had been sent to pursue studies in public veterinary health, which
helped address a major concern of technical staff shortage. Saint Kitts and
Nevis planned to review and update its legislative framework, and conduct a PVS
evaluation of domestic veterinary services and an abattoir assessment.
9.38. Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and the
Bahamas also thanked IICA and the EDF programme for facilitating their
participation in the SPS Committee and the Transparency Workshop. The Bahamas
noted that while the benefits and results of technical assistance were not
always reaped immediately, they were nevertheless important and appreciated.
9.39. The Chairperson drew attention to a report submitted by OIRSA
contained in G/SPS/GEN/1458.
9.40. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) provided
information on the technical assistance given to its member states. IGAD had
successfully organized a joint regional training event with the WTO on SPS, TBT
and trade facilitation. In an effort to support national and regional SPS
committees, IGAD had helped Ethiopia establish its national SPS committee and
organize training on SPS measures. Furthermore, IGAD was ready to develop a
regional SPS strategy with an action plan. Once the strategy was ready to be
evaluated, it would be presented to member states to help align policies
globally. IGAD had also organized a regional meeting on grades and standards to
review implementation, share experiences, and agree on a harmonization roadmap
of current grades and standards on live animal and animal products.
10.1. The United States presented a compendium on practical resources that
Members could access on risk communication, contained in G/SPS/GEN/1456.
Recalling the significant interest in risk communication during the October
2014 Workshop on Risk Analysis and the thematic session held in July 2015, the
United States had compiled a list of useful information and strategies
collected from various international organizations, US government agencies and
research organizations. In particular, the United States highlighted a
compendium put together by US National Academy of Science, which looked at
factors that influenced how people absorbed information. For further
information, the United States referred Members to the hyperlinks listed in the
document. The United States welcomed further discussions on risk analysis and
the sharing of information and experiences.
10.2. The Chairperson recalled that during the July meeting, the Committee
had not reached consensus on the draft report of the Fourth Review
(G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2) or on the Catalogue of Instruments Available to WTO Members
to Manage SPS Issues (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2). The Chairperson had noted that
Members seemed to have reached an impasse and had invited them to explore new
options to bridge differences, including through a broader reflection on the
nature of the Committee's work.
10.3. On 9 September, the Chairperson had held consultations on these
subjects, and China had made a new proposal for one of the outstanding
paragraphs of the Review Report, suggesting new language for the second bullet
point in paragraph 14.20 of document G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2. The Secretariat had
circulated this new language in an email, and the Chairperson had invited
Members to comment by 18 September.
10.4. The European Union, Norway and Switzerland had submitted new
proposals for paragraph 14.20 by this date, and they had been circulated to delegates
by email, along with other comments received.
10.5. Unfortunately, Members views remained profoundly divided. The Chairperson
recalled that the Committee had been expected to adopt this Report one year
ago, in October 2014. The Ministerial Conference had instructed the
Committee to review the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement every
four years, and the last review had concluded in March 2010 – almost five years
ago.
10.6. Regarding the Catalogue, while Members agreed that it was a useful
document; views were divided about the inclusion of language to clarify the
legal status of this document, the so-called disclaimer. No new views or
suggestions on how to bridge the differences had emerged during the
consultations held on 9 September, or in the comments submitted subsequently. Since
no agreement had been reached, the issue would remain on the agenda for the
next meeting. The Chairperson urged Members to find ways to bridge the
differences.
10.7. The Chairperson reported that at the brief informal meeting held on
15 October, he had suggested addressing the Review Report, and more
specifically the recommendations in para. 14.20 on future work regarding
SPS-related private standards, together with the working definition of
SPS-related private standards and possible future actions. In his view, these
three issues were linked and could only be resolved together. The Chairperson requested
that Members consider the proposed text that had been distributed at the
informal meeting, and noted that he might convene intersessional informal
meetings or consultations to continue the dialogue and prepare the ground for a
possible resolution at the March 2016 meeting.
11.1. Burkina Faso explained that a lack of a Codex standard for
imidacloprid in sesame seed had caused barriers to trade by leaving it up to
each country to define its own maximum residue level. Burkina Faso had received
two official notifications that its exports of sesame to Japan had been
intercepted. Japan had taken interest in the sesame problem and had granted
technical assistance to set good crop practices and determine maximum sesame
contamination by the pesticide and the waiting period. Burkina Faso noted the
need for Codex to adopt a standard on sesame and establish MRLs for pesticides
in view of increasing transparency.
11.2. Chile, Madagascar, Morocco, Nigeria, Paraguay and Senegal and
supported Burkina Faso's statement. Noting the importance of sesame as an
export commodity, Madagascar called on other partners and organizations to financially
support Codex work on this issue so that an MRL for sesame could be
established. Nigeria noted that its olive oil exports to the US had been
returned due to detection of pesticides, for which MRLs had not been set by Codex.
Senegal noted the difficulty in conducting risk assessments in the absence such
standards. Paraguay encouraged Codex to start work on MRLs for sesame and chia.
11.3. Codex acknowledged that it had not set any MRLs for sesame seeds and
recommended that the issue also be brought to the attention of CCPR and JNPR.
This issue was a good example of the gaps in Codex standards that had been
mentioned in earlier Committee discussions.
11.4. Belize expressed its concern regarding Members' deviations from the
use of international standards in the application of measures in international
trade. In this regard, Belize asked whether this was a result of a gap in the
international standard setting process, which in turn caused some countries to
apply measures that were far more stringent than the recommendations set by
Codex, the OIE and the IPPC. Members consistently applying measures that
deviated from the recommendations called into question not only the efficacy of
the international standard setting processes but even the relevance of the
bodies recognised in the SPS Agreement. Belize noted that if the
international standard setting process caused problems that led to such
deviations, this SPS Committee's agenda item was the most appropriate place to
identify and discuss the issue.
11.5. Paraguay noted its agreement with Belize and thanked Japan for
providing technical assistance to overcome issues regarding MRLs in sesame.
11.6. The United States expressed concern that some Members had taken
action, or were considering taking action, to restrict the use of glyphosate,
an active ingredient in many commonly used pesticides, due to an assessment
from the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declaring the
compound as probably carcinogenic. The United States noted that IARC's findings
were based on an assessment of hazard and not risk, and urged Members to base
their SPS measures for glyphosate on the Codex standard, or on a risk
assessment that included realistic exposure scenarios and considered all
available data.
11.7. Brazil, Canada, China and Paraguay supported the United States'
concern and stressed the importance of following the standard set out by Codex.
They also recalled the differences in the mandates of IARC and of the Joint
FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) vis-à-vis
hazard identification and risk assessment for regulatory purposes.
11.8. Codex informed the Committee that a WHO task force had reviewed the
IARC report and had recommended that JMPR conduct a full re-evaluation of
glyphosate under their field of competence, most likely by May 2016. Once the
final evaluation was complete, it would go to the Codex Committee on Pesticide
Residues (CCPR) for consideration. Codex also highlighted the importance of
risk communication, as the mere establishment of a hazard should not mean that trade
should be restricted.
12.1. The Chairperson recalled that at the July 2015 meeting the Committee
had agreed that the electronic working group developing would take a cooling
off period from its efforts to develop a working definition of the term
"SPS-related private standard", which was Action 1 adopted by the
Committee in G/SPS/55.
12.2. The Chairperson, as stated in the brief informal session held on 15
October, reiterated that the three issues (the working definition; the
recommendations related to private standards in the Review Report; and the
Committee's future work on that issue) were linked and could only be resolved
together. He asked Members to consider the text he had distributed at the
informal meeting. The Chairperson noted that he might convene intersessional
informal meetings or consultations to continue the dialogue and prepare the
ground for a possible resolution at the March 2016 meeting.
13.1. The OECD provided a report on recent activities of interest to the
SPS Committee (G/SPS/GEN/1454) that included an update on its horizontal work
on international regulatory co-operation, which entailed close collaboration
among the trade, agriculture and regulatory divisions. The trade aspect of the
project contained three parts, namely a theoretical framework, case studies on
existing regulatory cooperation initiatives and a practical tool (the IRC
Diagnostic Tool), all of which related to and built on each other. The
Diagnostic Tool would rely on the principles developed by the theoretical framework
and the practices highlighted from the case studies.
13.2. The ITC provided a report on recent activities of interest to the
SPS Committee (G/SPS/GEN/1462) which included an update on multiple on-going
projects and the status of its work on non-tariff measures and impact stories.
More information was available on the ITC website: http://www.intracen.org/exporters/quality-management/.
13.3. The African Union Commission (AUC) provided a report on recent
activities of interest to the SPS Committee (G/SPS/GEN/1453) that included
updates on events convened by the AUC, African Union Interafrican Phytosanitary
Council (AU-IAPSC) and the African Union Interafrican Bureau For Animal
Resources (AU-IBAR).
13.4. ECOWAS provided an update on activities conducted to support the
establishment of national SPS committees and sensitization workshops. ECOWAS
had also taken over animal health networks established by FAO in the region,
including accreditation structures for veterinary drugs and biologicals in the
region with the view to implementing one seamless accreditation structure for
the ECOWAS region. ECOWAS had developed an aflatoxin action plan as a result of
its work with the Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA) project.
Finally, ECOWAS updated the Committee on the SPS-related aspects of an Economic
Partnership Agreement with the European Union.
13.5. There were no new requests received by the Secretariat.
13.6. The Chairperson proposed that, as had been done the previous year,
the SPS Committee invite the organizations with ad hoc observer status to
participate in all SPS Committee meetings in 2016 - with the exception of any
closed meeting - unless any Member objected to the participation of any of
these observers in advance of a meeting. It was so agreed.
13.7. The Chairperson also reminded the Committee that in 2012, it had
agreed that if for any one-year period an ad hoc observer organization did not
attend any meetings of the SPS Committee, its observer status would lapse,
but only after the Secretariat had contacted the observer organization and
received confirmation that it was no longer interested in maintaining its
observer status. The Chairperson requested that the Secretariat verify after
the current meeting whether any ad hoc observer organizations had not attended
a single Committee meeting in 2015. He also requested that the Secretariat contact
any such organizations and seek information regarding their continuing interest
to participate in the SPS Committee.
13.8. The Chairperson noted that there was still no consensus on the six
outstanding requests for observer status from the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD); CABI International; the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the Organisation
Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific Coconut
Community (APCC); and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO).
13.9. The Chairperson informed the observer organizations that their
contributions to the work of the SPS Committee and their assistance to Members
were highly appreciated, and that the Committee looked forward to their continued
participation in all unrestricted meetings during 2016. The Chairperson once
again encouraged observers to provide written reports on their relevant
activities in advance of the March 2016 meeting.
14.1. The Chairperson noted that he would make a factual annual report,
under his own responsibility, on the activities of the Committee for
consideration by the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) in mid-November. Members
could request a draft report from the Secretariat, and provide comments by 26
October 2015.
15.1. No Member took the floor under this agenda item.
16.1. The next regular meeting of the Committee is tentatively scheduled
for 16 and 17 March 2016.
16.2. The European Union requested that the October 2016 meeting be moved
to November to allow more time between the July and October meetings. Brazil
noted that a TBT Committee meeting was scheduled the second week of November,
and suggested instead to hold the SPS Committee during the last week of
October 2016, to allow at least one week between the meetings of the SPS and
TBT committees. The Secretariat was to review the various options and report
back to the Committee.
16.3. The Committee agreed to the following tentative agenda for its
upcoming regular meeting:
1. Adoption of the agenda
2. Information
on relevant activities
a. Information
from Members
b. Information from the relevant SPS
standard-setting bodies
3. Specific
trade concerns
a. New
issues
b. Issues
previously raised
[c. Consideration
of specific notifications received]
d. Information on resolution of issues in
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16
4. Operation of transparency provisions
5. Cross-cutting issues
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
i. WTO
SPS Activities
ii. STDF
b. Information
from Members
c. Information from Observer organizations
10. Review
of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement
a. Fourth review
11. Monitoring
the use of international standards
a. New
issues
b. Issues previously raised
12. Concerns with private and commercial standards
13. Observers
a. Information
from Observer organizations
b. Requests
for observer status
i. New
requests
ii. Outstanding requests
14. Election of the Chairperson
15. Other business
16. Date and agenda of next meeting
16.4. Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines:
• For
submitting comments on the Chairperson's draft annual report: Monday, 26 October 2015;
·
For submitting
suggestions for the agenda of the thematic session on pesticide residues: Friday, 15 January 2016;
• For
identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for
requesting that items be put on the agenda: Thursday,
3 March 2016;
• For the distribution of the
Airgram: Friday, 4 March 2016.
__________
[1] This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own
responsibility and is without prejudice to the positions of Members or to their
rights and obligations under the WTO.
[2] A more detailed summary report of the workshop has been circulated
as document G/SPS/R/80.
[3] G/SPS/GEN/1425, G/SPS/GEN/1406, G/SPS/GEN/1424, G/SPS/GEN/1409 and
G/SPS/GEN/1408.