The week started with a workshop on transparency: how to take advantage of information from trading partners, and how to make information available to others. Discussions led to a series of suggestions from members, and the Secretariat will follow up on those that require its assistance.

China provided information on further measures to reinforce food safety. The government blacklisted 444 companies that did not follow the local laws, preventing them from exporting. It also enhanced the product supervision capability of the relevant agencies.

Members also conducted China’s “transitional review”, required annually for the first eight years under China’s membership agreement. The European Union welcomed recent efforts by China on improving food safety, but complained the country imposes restrictive measures against Europe's food exports. The US raised questions relating to transparency, some restrictive measures and different rules for local and imported products. China said its authorities need to be convinced that products are safe to be imported, and that the treatment of local and imported products is the same.

Commercial and private standards  back to top

This topic triggered by far the most interventions during the meeting. Several developing countries asked the committee to look into possible solutions for the impact of private standards (not set by governments, but by independent bodies) on their exports to some markets.

At issue is the effect of private standards on some members’ ability to export to certain markets. Private standards are not overseen by governments and are deemed to be voluntary, but some developing country members claim they in fact reduce market access for their products — because they may be more strict, and because of the costs to comply and to certify compliance. It has been discussed in a number of previous meetings, for example in June and March 2007.

The chairperson asked members two questions: is the SPS Committee the right forum to discuss this issue, bearing in mind that many private standards are much broader than SPS, sometimes including environmental or labour provisions? and, what should be the scope of the committee’s work?

Several developing countries said the committee should keep this topic on the agenda. They said private standards are not transparent, as they are not notified to the WTO; and they are created without input from exporters. These developing countries also claimed some standards are restrictions on market access, acting as non-tariff barriers for their products.

Some members argued for a legal interpretation of the SPS Agreement to clarify whether it also applies to standards created by independent bodies, and not only by national authorities. More than 20 developing countries spoke on this issue.

Some developed countries said they doubt whether it is useful to continue discussions. They said the discussions have to be based on concrete examples or proposals by members on what to do.

The EU praised the fact that some standard-setting bodies had already started to change their practices to take into account exporters’ concerns — a result of the committee’s discussions, the EU said.

The US said some of its exporters also faced problems with private standards, but the discussion had to be “member-driven”. Some developing countries agreed with this approach and proposed to bring concrete examples to the committee.

Transparency  back to top

The workshop on transparency was held before the committee meeting. Its objective was to help members improve the way they meet their obligations to be transparent. These obligations include reporting trade restrictions and changes to regulations due to food, plant and animal health concerns.

The WTO receives on average 1,000 notifications each year. Workshop participants focused on ways to manage all that information in a better way, and on when and how to notify their measures. Members also discussed proposals on transparency issues, the preparation of a step-by-step manual for delegations, and possible changes to the recommendations on how to put these obligations into practice (see document G/SPS/W/215).

The workshop included a demonstration of the new SPS Information Management System.

Members showed interest in a proposal by New Zealand on a “mentoring” mechanism mediated by the Secretariat: members who need orientation to manage their notification agency or “enquiry point” would request help; developed and some developing nations would volunteer to be “mentors” and provide guidance. New Zealand stressed this would also develop personal relationships between professionals of the two governments involved. Many members asked for clarifications; some stressed that this should not replace current activities, and that the contacts should remain informal. The Secretariat develop a procedure for mentoring, to be presented at the next meeting.

Members also commented on an earlier proposal by Canada recommending notification of measures that comply with internationally-accepted standards. Opinions were divided between those who welcome this increase in transparency, and those who are concerned that it would increase the notifications burden.

Other recommendations arising from the workshop included: activities to raise awareness at the national level; use of international standards as a point of departure for national legislation; increased regional information exchanges; reinforcement of a recommended 60-day comment period for new legislation.

Specific trade concerns: resolved  back to top

China’s import restrictions on products of animal origin from some European Union members: The EU informed the Committee that Chinese authorities put an end to import restrictions that had been put in place due to alleged dioxin contamination. The EU explained that the concern came up after an isolated incident and that EU authorities took prompt action to correct the issue.

Specific trade concerns: unresolved  back to top

Among the issues that have been raised before and remain unresolved

Cooked poultry: two members — China and the US — raised concerns about import restrictions applied to cooked poultry because of avian influenza risks. They referred to guidelines by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), which state that the cooking process disables the virus. Coincidentally, China and the US were also targets of complaints, together with the European Union. The EU said it was working to lift these restrictions in a few weeks. The US argued that its regulation process could be time consuming, but a decision will be based on science. China said its ban was based on risk analysis, and that it would pass the information given by the US to the relevant authorities.

A number of other new and unresolved issues were also discussed (see P.S. below)

Special treatment for developing countries  back to top

The chairman reported on an informal meeting held on 16 October. Members resumed discussions on two proposals from Egypt: one to amend Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement, tightening obligations to provide special treatment for developing countries; and another to amend the recommendations on how to make special and differential treatment more transparent (G/SPS/33). These proposals were first discussed in the June SPS meeting.

Some governments showed reluctance in amending the agreement (as suggested in the first proposal) because it would change the balance of rights and obligations achieved by the negotiators. Egypt said its primary intention is not to amend the agreement, but to give more precision to special and differential treatment obligations — it suggested other forms such as a decision by the General Council.

Members also briefly discussed proposals made in the Development negotiations (as part of the Doha round) related to granting time-limit exemptions to developing members; and also longer time frames for measures that have impact on developing countries exports (part of the Doha Implementation Decision).

Regionalization  back to top

The concept is that governments, when applying import restrictions due to a pest or disease, should recognize that an exporting region (part of a country or a border-straddling zone) is disease-free or pest-free (or has a lower incidence).

An informal working group trying to bridge differences in views regarding action by the SPS Committee has made progress, but is not ready yet to present a draft and would hold final consultations on the margins of the next meeting. The chair suggested it would be important to bring the consultations back to the Committee so members can decide on how to proceed.

Canada commended a list of members for applying the regionalization concept after it reported an isolated case of avian influenza, and urged others who banned all imports from the country to reconsider.

The World Organization for Animal Health made a presentation during an informal meeting on this theme.

Chairperson: Mr Marinus PC Huige of the Netherlands

Next meetings  back to top

These dates (with informal meetings earlier in the week) could still be changed: 2–3 April 2008

P.S.

These are some of the trade issues or concerns discussed in the meeting or information supplied to the meeting.

Information from members:

• Australia: reform of import risk analysis process and information on an outbreak of equine influenza in Queensland

• China: further measures to reinforce food safety

• US: Recent actions on BSE (“mad cow” disease)

• Paraguay: information on the country’s pesticide registration system, and communications on the exports of cucurbits to Argentina, and exports of palms to Spain

• Canada: measures on avian influenza

• Brazil: information on bilateral with China on meat imports.

New:

• EU and US’s import restrictions on cooked poultry products — concerns of China

• Some members’ import restrictions to beef and beef products in response to blue tongue — concerns of the European Communities

• China’s avian influenza restrictions — concerns of the US

• Chile’s requirements for quarantine treatment of aircraft — concerns of Argentina

• China’s varietal restrictions on apples — Concerns of the US

Raised before:

• US’s restrictions on wooden Christmas trees — concerns of China (no. 241)

• Indonesia’s lack of recognition of pest-free areas (decree 37) — concerns of the US (no. 243)

• Australia’s import restrictions on prawns and prawn products — concerns of Thailand (no. 85, G/SPS/N/AUS/204 and ADD.1)

• India’s export certificate requirements for dairy products — concerns of the US

• India’s avian influenza restrictions — concerns of the US

• El Salvador’s health requirements on poultry, poultry meat and eggs — concerns of the US