Members also continued to comment on each others’ measures, including on regular topics such as avian influenza, mad cow disease (BSE), and foot and mouth disease — and now the H1N1 virus. They undertook the latest annual review of how China is implementing its SPS obligations under its membership agreement. They held further discussions on private sector standards, and moved towards completing the third review of how the SPS Agreement is working.

 

Some detail

Transparency

Special and differential treatment. Strengthening information on special treatment for developing countries is one of several transparency topics discussed under several agenda items. Members tentatively agreed to a revision, which includes suggestions for further changes submitted by Egypt and the US during the week. (The previous version is document G/SPS/W/224/Rev.5 of 20 October, which includes an outline of the procedure’s origins; the latest revision should be issued shortly.)

The procedure’s aim is to ensure consultations take place in response to requests for special treatment or technical assistance. This would happen when a developing exporting country is concerned about problems that may arise from a new SPS measure. A procedure has already existed since 2003; the revision formalizes it, and clarifies when it can be used

Exchanges between the countries concerned would normally take place during the period allowed for comment before the measure takes effect, but possible steps are also envisaged after the measure has entered into force. Possible outcomes of these exchanges could be modifications to the measure, allowing developing countries more time to meet the requirements, or technical assistance to help them meet the standards.

Members would be encouraged “to make full use of this procedure and thereby to also contribute to enhanced transparency with respect to special and differential treatment and /or technical assistance being offered or provided on request.”

But the text would also note that the SPS Committee “recognizes that this procedure does not fully address the issue of special and differential treatment, but that it is one step in improving the implementation of the special and differential treatment provisions of the [SPS] Agreement. The Committee agrees to consider other proposals and possible actions.”


Transparency in general. Sharing information and allowing comment on measures dealing with food safety and animal and plant health are among the committee’s key functions. The committee also received the latest overview of how transparency provisions are being implemented (G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2).

The document shows that by the end of August over 10,000 notifications of all types have been received since the WTO was set up in 1995. By far the largest notifier is the US, with almost 2,000 regular and emergency notifications, almost 24% of the total of 7,060 for these two categories.

“It should be noted that there is still room for improvements regarding the actual amount of information provided by members in the various notification formats,” the paper says. This issue could be taken up as one of the themes during the next transparency workshop of the SPS Committee, scheduled for October 2010.

The WTO Secretariat is also introducing improvements to its database on SPS information, the SPS Information Management System.

 

Specific concerns

One of the SPS Committee’s most important functions is to provide an opportunity for members to raise concerns they have about each others’ SPS measures. This is the SPS Committee’s bread-and-butter work in overseeing the agreement’s implementation. Code numbers, eg, “no. 278”, identify particular issues and can be used to search the WTO’s SPS Information Management System.

Several issues raised were old ones, raised in previous meetings. Those summarized here tend to be issues that have generated concerns among a number of members. The full list of issues on the agenda is under “P.S.” below

Ukraine’s new measures on animals and animal products. Ukraine’s intention to revise its regulations in January, including inspections of exporters’ facilities, aroused comments from the EU, Canada, Norway, the US and Iceland, who were concerned about the short time before the new measures take effect and the possibility that trade could be disrupted. Ukraine said the period for comment remains open until 30 November, comments will be taken into account, and it hopes the final outcome will give comfort to its trading partners.

H1N1 influenza — trade restrictions: Mexico, Canada, the EU and US complained about countries continuing to restrict imports of live pigs and pork products even though the expert agencies (WHO, FAO, World Organization for Animal Health or OIE) stress that properly treated products are safe. Australia, Japan, Chile, Brazil, New Zealand and the OIE supported them.

Ghana said that more information should have been supplied by international organizations and the media because without it governments had to yield to political pressure from alarmed public opinion. The WTO Secretariat pointed out that relevant international organizations were quick to issue statements and that unusually the WTO joined them on one occasion.

China said that it had introduced some emergency measures, using provisions of the SPS Agreement (Art.5 on precautions), but its measures were regionalized (on products from specific regions rather than whole territories), and that it is continuing to review the measures. It urged members to supply information. Jordan also said some measures had been lifted and others are being reviewed.

India’s measures on bird flu (no. 185): The EU and US continued to complain about India’s import restrictions for example on pigs, which they said were not justified, were untransparent and do not comply with the standards of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). India repeated that the measures are necessary and said it was still waiting for replies to its requests for information. The OIE noted that this issue had been raised several times and offered to discuss it with delegations.

The EU’s ‘novel foods’ regulation (no. 238): Another issue that has been raised several times since mainly Latin American countries first complained in March 2006. Peru — supported by Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia and Mexico — again complained that the regulation affects exports arising from countries’ biodiversity and it shifts the burden of proof on whether a product is safe to the supplier. The EU said a more flexible revision is being prepared and could take effect from July 2010.

Other specific trade concerns: Also discussed were China’s concerns about continuing US restrictions on cooked poultry products (no. 256), and (under “other business”) Colombia’s complaint about Venezuela ceasing to issue import certificates, which Colombia said affected virtually all its agricultural exports to Venezuela. Venezuela asked for the statement in writing so it could consult Caracas, and suggested bilateral talks might be more useful.

 

Mediation by the chairperson

Brazil has thrown a new proposal into the mix. A compromise draft is on the table (G/SPS/W/243). It attempts to bridge the gap between those who oppose guidelines for SPS when members are negotiating similar guidelines across all issues under the Doha Round negotiations on non-agricultural market access (NAMA), and those who think that guidelines in SPS would be useful at least until the NAMA version takes effect. If accepted, the compromise would set up the SPS guidelines only until the Doha Round NAMA deal takes effect. But members continued to differ on this.

Brazil said its proposal is based on its experience in trying and failing to set up mediation from the chairperson for one of its concerns. The proposal, G/SPS/W/248, envisages mandatory participation at least in a first meeting.

The discussion arises because Argentina and the US have proposed guidelines for applying Art.12.2 of the SPS Agreement, which deals with members’ consultations to resolve issues. In particular they envisage members using the “good offices” of the chairperson to settle specific trade concerns.

Although the “good offices” are provided in the committee’s rules of procedure, they have only been used three times in the past.
  

Private sector standards

Consultations among about 30 members in an ad hoc working group continued earlier in the week, and will continue next year. Members disagreed in the SPS Committee on whether this should be a fixed agenda item or not. (In practice members are free to propose agenda items for each meeting anyway.)

Mercosur (Argentina speaking) has circulated a new document on the legal framework for private standards in the WTO — G/SPS/W/246. It suggests that the committee: establish guidelines for how governments could implement their obligations on this, and add items to the committee’s agenda for monitoring private standards and to allow members to raise specific concerns.

The committee had previously agreed to identify possible actions to reduce negative effects on trade, and actions suggested by members will be considered further at the next meeting.

When first raised in 2005, this issue took the SPS Committee into comparatively new territory — the committee generally deals with standards set by intergovernmental standards-setting bodies and those imposed by governments. Although the agreement says that governments should ensure that non-governmental entities should comply with the agreement, there is no indication of how this should be done. A number of developing countries in particular are concerned that private standards could undermine the disciplines negotiated in the SPS Agreement (see also SPS news archives)

 

China’s transitional review

The questions in this seventh review came from the US in document G/SPS/GEN/963, and from the EU (G/SPS/GEN/968). The questions dealt with BSE-related restrictions, avian influenza (“bird flu”), pathogen standards (eg, for salmonella), residue standards for ractopamine (a beta-agonist drug mixed with feed to make pigs produce leaner meat), plant health standards, and China’s failure to notify its new food safety law.

China clarified and defended some measures and referred to bilateral talks it has been holding.

The transitional reviews are required annually for the first eight years under China’s membership agreement, and once more after about 10 years.

Other subjects

These included: reviews of the SPS Agreement, and information from international standard-setting bodies and other observer organizations.

Chairperson: Ms Miriam Chaves of Argentina

Next meetings

These dates (with informal meetings on other days in the week) could still be changed:

• 17—18 March 2010

• 30 June—1 July 2010

• 20—21 October 2010

P.S.

These are some of the trade issues or concerns on the meeting’s agenda or information supplied to the meeting.

Activities of members

• Zambia — reports on pest survey programmes (G/SPS/GEN/965)

• Argentina — national prevention programme for huanglongbing (yellow dragon disease)

• China — administration system for export poultry and poultry products

• US — FDA Food Registry

Specific trade concerns
New

• US import restrictions on fresh pork meat and beef — concerns of Brazil

• Indonesian import restrictions on poultry meat — concerns of Brazil

• South African import restrictions on fresh pork meat and beef — concerns of Brazil

• Ukraine import measures on animals and animal products — concerns of the EU

• US measures on catfish — concerns of China

Previously raised

Code numbers, eg, “no. 278”, identify particular issues and can be used to search the WTO’s SPS Information Management System.

• Import restrictions relating to influenza a/h1n1 — concerns of Mexico, Canada, EU and US

• China’s hygienic standard for distilled spirits and integrated alcoholic beverages G/SPS/N/CHN/111) — concerns of Mexico (no. 278)

• Mexico’s restrictions on imports of swine meat, lack of recognition of disease-free status and lack of response to request for use of chairperson’s good offices — concerns of Brazil (no. 271)

• US import restrictions on cooked poultry products from China — concerns of China (no. 256)

• India’s restrictions due to avian influenza — concerns of the EU and US (no. 185)

• Indonesia’s meat import conditions — concerns of the EU

• Import restrictions due to BSE — concerns of the EU (no. 193)

• US rule on importation of wooden handicrafts (G/SPS/N/USA/1921) — concerns of China

• Japan’s pesticide maximum residue level (MRL) enforcement system — concerns of China (no. 267)

• Application and modification of the EU regulation on novel foods — concerns of Peru (no. 238)

Information from members on their pest or disease status

• Costa Rica — freedom from classical swine fever (G/SPS/GEN/966)

Monitoring of the use of international standards

• Brazil — lack of adoption of minimum residue levels for ractopamine by Codex