RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/20
16 January 2001
(01-0217)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 8-9 NOVEMBER 2000
Note by the Secretariat
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its
nineteenth meeting on 21-22 June 2000.  The meeting was chaired by Mr. S.I.M. Nayyar (Pakistan).
The agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/1426 was adopted with amendments.
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
(a) Information from Members
(i) Activities of Members
European Communities – Classical swine fever situation in the UK (G/SPS/GEN/215)
2. The representative of the European Communities provided information regarding the situation
in the United Kingdom following an outbreak of classical swine fever on 8 August 2000.  The last
case was confirmed on 4 October, and the situation was now fully under control.  The relevant
statistics are provided in document G/SPS/GEN/215.
European Communities – Legislation on irradiation of food products
3. The representative of the European Communities drew attention to EC Directives 99/2 and
99/3, notified in G/SPS/N/EEC/61, re garding food and food products treated with ionizing radiation.
These Directives entered into force on 20 September 2000.  By 20 March 2001, all irradiated food
products sold on the EC market must comply with the provisions of these Directives.  This meant,
inter alia , that radiation plants in countries which planned to export food products to the European
Communities had to apply for EC approval.
European Communities – Third country residue plans
4. The representative of the European Communities noted that EC legislation required that EC
member States and third countries submit on an annual basis their plans for monitoring  residues in
animals and animal products of prohibited substa nces, veterinary medicines and contaminants,
including pesticides and heavy metals.  All relevant countries were advised of this requirement inMarch 2000, but 43 countries had not yet provided the necessary information.  Imports of products
from these countries would be suspended until they had met the requirements of the EC legislation.
These countries had received information from the European Commission explaining the relevant
procedures.G/SPS/R/20
Page 2
European Communities – Third Asia-Europe Meet ing/Trade Facilitation Action Plan (ASEM-TFAP)
5. The representative of the European Communities reported that the third ASEM-TFAP
workshop, held in The Hague on 11-14 September 2000, focussed on the use of risk analysis to
underpin SPS measures.  The meeting was attended by representatives of eight of the ten Asianpartner countries, 10 European member States, th e European Commission, Codex, OIE, IPPC and the
WTO Secretariat.  A special session was held with participation of the business community.  A work
plan for further Asian-European workshops on food safety and animal and plant health had been
agreed.
European Communities – Technical regional seminar in Iran
6. The representative of the European Communities also reported that a technical seminar would
be held in Iran, financed by the French trust fund for SPS activities.  The seminar, tentatively
scheduled for January 2001, would include 18 countries of the area.  The seminar was being
organized in close cooperation with the WTO Secretariat and would include presentations by the
Codex, OIE and IPPC.
Chile – Activities since the last Committee meeting7. The representative of Chile expressed appreciation that the European Communities had
recently recognized Chile as free from classical swine fever.  Chile anticipated that  Mexico and the
United States would soon approve imports of its pork products.  Since the last meeting of the
Committee, Chile had concluded cooperative agreements on sanitary and phytosanitary issues with
Ecuador and Paraguay.  Chile had participated in bilateral meetings with the United States onequivalence and GMOs;  with Argentina on equivalenc e;  with  Australia, Canada and New Zealand
on how best to implement the SPS Agreement;  and with Peru on recognition of areas free of fruit fly.
The representative of Chile reported that countries involved in the Free Trade Agreement of the
Americas were considering whether to create a specific working group on SPS or whether to include
SPS issues within their agriculture group.  Before the March meeting of the SPS Committee, Chileexpected to hold bilateral meetings on SPS issues with Cuba, Dominican Republic, Brazil and
Argentina.
(b) Specific Trade Concerns
(i) New issues
New Zealand – Indonesia's restrictions on importation of fresh fruit  (G/SPS/GEN/219)
8. The representative of New Zealand noted that Indonesia had imposed restrictions on fresh
fruit from New Zealand since the discovery of two fruit flies in a residential area of New Zealand inMay 1996.  Although New Zealand operated an extensive trapping and surveillance program, no fruit
flies were ever found outside a 200 meter zone around the initial incursion, and no fruit flies were
trapped after three weeks.  New Zealand's ongoing surveillance has not subsequently detected any
other fruit flies.  A number of WTO Members imposed restrictions on New Zealand fruit products
following the initial incursion, but these restrictions were progressively lifted.  However, Indonesiacontinues to impose a prohibition on imports of any fruit produced within a 15-km radius of the
incursion and requires cold treatment of all fruit from other parts of New Zealand, despite numerous
representations by the New Zealand government.  The New Zealand situation and its concerns
regarding Indonesia's measures are detailed in G/SPS/GEN/219.
9. The representative of New Zealand reported that at bilateral consultations held just prior to
the SPS Committee meeting, Indonesia had undertaken to review the information which New ZealandG/SPS/R/20
Page 3
had already provided and to clarify whether it required any further information.  On the basis of these
consultations, New Zealand was confident of a prompt resolution to this problem, which they would
duly report to the Committee.
10. The representative of Indonesia indicated that he had taken note of New Zealand's concerns.
In communications to New Zealand, his government had clarified that they needed furtherdocumentation supporting New Zealand's claim of fr eedom from Mediterranean fruit fly.  However,
Indonesia had no intention of maintaining measures which were not justifiable under the SPS
Agreement and remained open to further consultations in order to achieve an acceptable conclusion.
Thailand – Australia's import restrictions  on durian (G/SPS/GEN/217 and G/SPS/GEN/218)
11. The representative of Thailand reported that since 1991 his country had sought access to the
Australian market for durian.  However, due to Australia's constant requests for additional data,
Australia's risk assessment was delayed and the draft import risk analysis notified only in February1999.  In August 2000, Australia informed Thailand that durian fruit imports would be permitted only
under unduly restrictive conditions, including the requirement that 450 fruit must be cut open and
inspected for each shipment of under 1,000 fruit, the normal size of a consignment.  This 60%
sampling requirement appeared to be excessively trade restrictive and contrary to the SPS Agreement.
Furthermore, the seasonal limitation on shipments, as well as the requirement that fruit come onlyfrom the eastern region of Thailand, did not appear to be justified.  Thailand's concerns were detailed
in G/SPS/GEN/217.
12. The representatives of India, the Philippines and the European Communities indicated that
they were interested in this issue and in further information regarding Australia's SPS measures.
13. The representative of Australia noted that when Thailand initially requested access for durian,
it identified only three anthropod pests and 12 diseases of durian.  There followed a number of
requests for further information from Australia, and responses from Thailand.  In August 1997,
Thailand identified a list of 49 anthropod pests and 16 diseases of durian, and Australia commenced
an import risk analysis.  The representative of Australia stressed that the numerous bilateral contacts
on this matter had resulted in an expansion of the scientific information available.  He noted that itwas difficult for any country, and particularly for developing countries, to have a clear awareness of
the existence and prevalence of all relevant pests and diseases, although this information was critical
for the undertaking of a risk analysis.  This suggested that the SPS Committee and the relevant
international organizations should address the need for better identification of the true pest and
disease status of countries which wish to export their products.
14. With regard to the conditions established for import of fresh durian fruit from Thailand, the
representative of Australia noted that these had been discussed with the Thai government while still ata draft stage.  He explained the justification for Australia's requirements on cutting of fruit, seasonal
shipments, and restricting imports to durian from the eastern region of Thailand.  The delegate
acknowledged that the conditions were very strict, but justified based on the pest and disease situation
of Thailand.  Nonetheless, these conditions would be reviewed after one year of trade.  The detailed
response by Australia is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/218.
European Communities – Panama's restrictio ns on milk powder imports (G/SPS/GEN/220)
15. The representative of the European Communities indicated that Denmark had exported infant
milk powder formula since 1994 to Panama and to other countries without any sanitary problem.  As
far as the European Communities were aware, the relevant regulations in Panama had not changed.
However, since April 2000 the Panamanian authorities had delayed issuing the necessary importpermits and certificates for the import of milk powder for human consumption, resulting in a de factoG/SPS/R/20
Page 4
ban on these products.  No explanation had been provided in response to EC requests, and no
notification submitted to the WTO.  The representative of the European Communities requested a
response by Panama to the questions contained in G/SPS/GEN/220.
16. The representative of Panama agreed to submit the questions to his capital, and indicated the
willingness of Panama to consult with the European Communities on this matter.
Issues raised by Indonesia
17. The Chairman recalled that Indonesia had withdr awn its request to bring three issues to the
attention of the Committee under this agenda item, following bilateral consultations with these
countries just prior to the meeting of the SPS Committee.  These consultations had been with regard
to Japan's import prohibition on sugarcane top and corncob, French import restrictions on aquatic
ornamental plants, and Singapore's import restricti ons on ornamental plants.  The representative of
Indonesia had reported that the consultations with Singapore had resulted in a resolution to this latterproblem.  The Chairman noted that the expected resolution of these issues, following bilateral
consultations, was an indication that the SPS Agreement and the Committee were functioning
effectively.
(ii) Issues previously raised
Canada – Indian restrictions on bovine semen18. The representative of Canada observed that this was the third meeting of the Committee at
which this issue had been raised.  The restrictions imposed by India were purportedly due to concerns
regarding BSE, however Canada was BSE-free and prohibited the feeding of any ruminant material to
ruminants.  Furthermore, the OIE and other veteri nary bodies agreed that BSE was not transmitted by
semen.  In September 2000, the Indian government authorities indicated that they intended to continuethis unjustified prohibition, despite the lack of any risk assessment for their measure.  The
representative of the European Communities indicated that they shared most of Canada's concerns
regarding India's measures on bovine semen, and requested to be informed of Canada's proposal to
India and India's reaction.
19. The representative of India stated that his auth orities considered resolution of this issue to be
important, and detailed bilateral consultations were ongoing.  The Indian Animal Husbandry
Commission had met on 11 September 2000 and had noted the findings of the EC Scientific Steering
Committee (SSC) that in the absence of infectivity studies of semen, embryos, foetal tissues, milk and
colostrums in bovines and caprines, and in the absence of all the necessary experimental and
epidemiological data, precise estimates of the risks could not be made.  The SSC had recommended
further research regarding testing of infectivity of these products.  The SSC was also of the view that
field data on the occurrence of BSE in countries where it could occur as a result of semen andembryos was not available and therefore could not be appraised.
20. The representative of India further reported that his country's expert committee was aware
that under the present OIE standards even BSE-infected countries could export semen.  India had
sought detailed technical information from the OIE regarding the basis and criteria applied for
determining that BSE was not transmitted by semen, as well as information on the criteria fordetermining if a country or zone was free from BSE.  However, to date no reply had been received
from the OIE.  Finally, the representative of India observed that because of the reverence of cattle in
his country, the introduction of BSE had to be avoided at all costs as it would not be possible to
slaughter infected animals.G/SPS/R/20
Page 5
21. The representative of the European Communitie s observed that India was referring to a
scientific opinion which had been published in 1998.  Subsequently, there had been a number of
meetings of various OIE committees and of th e OIE Code Commission which had confirmed the
current OIE recommendations.
22. The representative of the OIE indicated that the issue of bovine semen had been examined on
various occasions at the OIE, and the results of these examinations had been provided to India and
any other country seeking such information.  Howeve r, the OIE was prepared to again send India all
of the relevant information desired.
Thailand – Mexico's prohibition of Thai milled rice (G/SPS/GEN/216)
23. The representative of Thailand stressed that this issue had been raised repeatedly since
October 1997.  Thailand had made every effort to find resolution to this problem, and though at times
it seemed as though a solution was close, the issue was still unresolved.  At the last meeting, Mexicohad indicated that the Mexican phytosanitary committee would meet in July and August 2000 to
consider comments made to the proposal to eliminate the import prohibition on rice from Thailand.
However, Thailand had not been informed of the status of the matter, and in particular the expected
date of amendment of the relevant Mexican standard.  The details of the Thai statement are contained
in document G/SPS/GEN/216.
24. The representative of Mexico replied that he had no further information at this time.
25. The representative of the European Communities suggested that it would be useful to devise a
way for the Committee to study those cases which were raised repeatedly without resolution.  The
Chairman indicated that, if both parties agreed, he was always prepared to offer his good offices to
Members to assist in the resolution of specific trade concerns.
European Communities – Argentine restrictions on  imports of bovine semen
26. The representative of the European Communities stated that Argentina was applying import
restrictions on bovine semen that went well beyond international recommendations and were not
justified.  The OIE Animal Health Code clearly indicated that no BSE-related restrictions were
necessary for bovine semen.  The European Communities would continue to pursue this issuebilaterally, and was hopeful of a resolution.
27. The representative of Switzerland indicated that  they were very interested in any issues
related to bovine semen and BSE, since Swiss exports faced similar unjustified obstacles to trade by
several Members.
28. The representative of Argentina replied that his country had notified, in advance, their
regulation in document G/SPS/N/ARG/47, which wa s subsequently revised following comments by
the European Communities and others (G/SPS/N/ARG/Rev.1).  This regulation established criterianot  only in relation to BSE concerns but also to  two other diseases.  Argentina had resolved the
problems identified bilaterally by many EC member States, in particular Germany and France.
Furthermore, an Argentine veterinary mission would be visiting various EC member States early in
December and was prepared to also address this issue at that time.
Summary of Specific Trade Concerns (G/SPS/GEN/204)29. The Chairman observed that the specific issues that had been raised were of interest to many
Members, not just the one which had brought the matter to the attention of the Committee.  The
Committee had repeatedly encouraged Members to provide follow-up information regardingG/SPS/R/20
Page 6
previously raised issues, reporting on their resolution or any continuing problems.  As requested by
the Committee, the Secretariat had prepared a summary of specific trade concerns brought to the
attention of the Committee (G/SPS/GEN/204).
30. The Secretariat noted that the document included  all specific trade issues raised in the
Committee since March 1995, whether under the agenda item on specific trade concerns, with respectto specific notifications, or as "Other Business".   The information in the document was summarized
from meeting reports, and included resolutions which had been reported to the Committee.  The
document categorized issues according to whether they involved food safety, animal health or plant
protection, with issues relevant to both food safety and animal health included in the section on food
safety.  A separate section included issues related to BSE.  Issues were indexed according to the
Member maintaining the measure.
31. The Chairman noted that many of the 75 or so specific issues which were catalogued in the
document had found resolution, but the Committee had not been informed.  Normally the document
would reflect only information provided in the context of Committee meetings, but Members were
invited on this occasion to provide any corrections and further information in writing to the Secretariat
regarding resolution of the issues identified in document G/SPS/GEN/204 by 16 February 2001.  The
Secretariat would revise the document to more accur ately reflect the current situation regarding these
various trade concerns, and then regularly issue an up-dated version.
32. A number of delegations welcomed the document and indicated that it provided a very useful
reference of the issues that had been brought to the Committee's attention.  The document reflected
the way in which this agenda item was being progre ssively used in order to resolve specific trade
concerns.  Several Members clarified that some of the issues identified in the document had indeedbeen resolved, including the issue raised by Switzerland regarding Australian and New Zealand
restrictions on raw milk cheeses (G/SPS/GEN/204, item 2, paragraphs 4-6) and Uruguay's concerns
with restrictions maintained on bovine meat by Israel (item 30, paragraph 86) and by El Salvador
(item 43, paragraph 105).
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
G/SPS/N/EEC/93 – Wood packing material
33. The representative of Canada drew the Committee's attention to the European Communities'
proposed measures on solid wood packaging material, notified as G/SPS/N/EEC/93.  Canada
recognized that this type of material was widely considered to be at risk of containing plant pests.
However, packaging material was used for a very large volume of products moving in international
trade;  the proposed EC measure would cover 69% of Canada's exports to the European Communities.
Furthermore, as had previously been stressed by the European Communities itself, work wasunderway in the context of the International Pl ant Protection Convention (IPPC) on developing a
comprehensive standard for all countries and all pests, to be completed by July 2002.  The
representative of Canada concurred with the views previously expressed by the European
Communities that it would be best for all countries to focus their efforts on developing an
international standard and refrain from taking unilateral actions in this regard.
34. The representatives of the United States, Korea, Japan and Chile indicated that they shared
many of the concerns raised by Canada regarding the potential negative effects of the proposed EC
measure on very large volumes of trade, and the need to address this through the development of an
international standard.  In particular, the United States considered that it would be impossible to
implement the certification and marking requirements within the time-period set out in the ECnotification.  The representative of Korea st ressed the need for the European Communities to
implement the least trade restrictive measure which woul d be effective, and in this respect to take intoG/SPS/R/20
Page 7
consideration the historic experience of trade withou t pest introduction, the processing of the packing
materials, and the actual pest risks involved.
35. The representative of the European Communities replied that pine wood nematode had been
detected in packing materials in 1998 and 1999, despite the existing EC requirements on wood
packing materials.  The EC Regulatory Committ ee for Plant Health was examining the comments
which had been submitted on the EC notification.  The European Communities was actively
contributing to the IPPC efforts to develop an inte rnational standard, however this did not replace the
need for an emergency measure to protect EC forests.  It was now obvious that the EC measure would
not be finalized and implemented on the 1 January 2000 date as initially proposed, and that bilateral
and multilateral consultations would continue.
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
36. The Chairman indicated that notifications rece ived since the last meeting of the Committee
were summarized, on a monthly basis, in G/SPS/GEN/191, G/SPS/GEN/200, G/SPS/GEN/201,
G/SPS/GEN/205 and G/SPS/GEN/207.  The most recent list of Enquiry Points had been circulated as
G/SPS/ENQ/11, and the latest list of National Notification Authorities had been circulated under a
new document series with the symbol G/SPS/NNA/1.  The list of Members which had identified both
a National Notification Authority and an Enquiry Point was in G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.7.  Additionalresponses to the questionnaire on SPS-related websites were found in G/SPS/GEN/144/Rev.1/Add.2
37. The Secretariat reported that there were now direct links from the WTO SPS home page to
the various SPS-related websites identified by Members.  Members were requested to inform the
Secretariat of any changes in these websites, so that accurate links could be maintained.  The
Secretariat also indicated that a summary report of the risk analysis workshop held in June 2000 hadbeen circulated as G/SPS/GEN/209.  This report included summaries of all the presentations made at
the workshop;  the PowerPoint presentations themselves could be downloaded from the SPS home
page.  Furthermore, a list of participants to the workshop, including their addresses, phone numbers
and e-mail addresses, had been circulated (G/SPS/INF/13).
38. A list of all documents issued since January 1995 as G/SPS/ documents was now also
available from the SPS home page.  This document list identified all SPS-related documents, but did
not provide direct access to these.  Only unrestricted documents would continue to be publicly
available through the WTO documents on-line facility.  The document list could facilitate finding
documents according to country names or subjects, and catalogued the considerable amount of work
that had been done by the SPS Committee.
39. The representative of India suggested that there was a need for the compilation of a database
of all countries' sanitary and phytosanitary legislation and import requirements.  Each country wouldbe responsible for providing information on its own legislation and import requirements on an agreed
uniform, simplified format.  The representative noted that such information was often available at the
national or regional level, but had not been compiled at the international level.  India had raised the
need for such a database in meetings of the C odex Committee on Import and Export Certification and
Inspection Systems (CCFICs), as well as at th e Codex Alimentarius Commission session.  The
representative of India indicated that his country would submit a written proposal to the next regular
meeting of the SPS Committee.
40. Responding to the proposal of India, the representative of Japan noted that there were many
sources of information on SPS measures, including enquiry points and trade missions.  Japan could
not accept a requirement for Members to translate documentation on every SPS measure into the threeWTO working languages.  The representative of the Codex reported that, at the July 1999 session of
the Codex Alimentarius Commission, India had proposed establishing a database on importingG/SPS/R/20
Page 8
country legislation.  However, the FAO Legal Counsel had ruled that the proposed activity was not
within the mandate of the Codex (ALINORM 99/37, paragraph 201).
41. The representative of New Zealand noted that the accuracy and usefulness of notifications
under the SPS Agreement had continued to improve – as had their numbers.  However, several
problems continued:  (i) the description of content was sometimes inadequate (Box 5);  (ii) thedescription of the deviation from international standards was not adequately explained (Box 7);  (iii)
the comment period was often shorter than that recommended in the Committee's notification
procedures (Box 11);  and (iv) measures continued to be notified under the TBT Agreement instead of
the SPS Agreement.  New Zealand appreciated the Secretariat's initiatives in the area of transparency,
in particular:  (i) the Special Meeting on Transparency (9 November 1999, G/SPS/R/16 refers) and the
publication of the SPS Transparency Handbook (available from the Information & Media Relations
Division);  (ii) the e-mail distribution of SPS documents;  (iii) the monthly summary of notifications;(iv) the list of SPS documents; and (iv) the electronic links to Members' SPS-related web-pages,
including notification authorities and national enquiry points.  The latter could probably help in
addressing the issue raised by India.  He encouraged Members to improve the timeliness, accuracy
and appropriateness of notifications made under the SPS Agreement.
III. THE SPS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
(a) Special and differential treatment
42. The Chairman recalled that in March 2000, the Committee had agreed to focus its discussion
of issues of concern to developing countries by identifying specific issues for consideration at each
meeting of the Committee.  The first issue identifi ed was the implementation of the provisions for
special and differential treatment.  This issue had been discussed at the last Committee meeting, basedon a background paper by the Secretariat (G/SPS/W/ 105).  Although he had invited Members to make
submissions on the subject of special and differential treatment, no such papers had been received by
the Secretariat.  The Chairman encouraged Members to submit specific papers on national
experiences in order to facilitate the discussion by the Committee on the subject of special and
differential treatment.
43. The representative of India noted that the issue of special and differential treatment was an
integral part of the WTO.  India and other Memb ers had made various proposals on the issue during
the course of both formal and informal SPS Committee meetings.  India wished to particularly
emphasise the issue of participation by developing countries in the standard-setting process.  The SPS
Agreement encouraged Members to base their SPS measures on international standards, guidelines
and recommendations.  However, participation by developing countries in international
standardisation activities was limited and ineffective.  As a result, standards were often adoptedwithout taking into account the problems and constr aints faced by developing countries.  In India's
view, the international standard-setting organisations had to ensure the presence of countries at
different levels of development, and from all geographical regions, throughout all phases of standard-
setting.  In this connection, India suggested that any international standard which would form the
basis for an SPS measure only be adopted by consensus.  Moreover, in the formulation of such"mandatory" standards, an agreed minimum number of countries from different regions had to have
participated in the technical work throughout the process relating to its adoption.  Furthermore, he
suggested that the Director-General of the WTO shou ld discuss this issue with the different standard-
setting organisations.
44. The Chairman pointed out that the matter of increased participation by developing countries
in the standard-setting process was under consideration by the General Council in its Special Sessions.
At the meeting of the General Council on 18 October, the Chairman of the General Council hadG/SPS/R/20
Page 9
requested that the Director-General consult with the international standard-setting organisations
regarding participation of developing countries (WT/GC/M/59 and WT/GC/42).
45. The representative of Australia, indicating that he was the Chairman of the Codex Committee
on Food Inspection and Certification Systems (CCF ICS), observed that developing countries made
very important contributions to the work of the Codex.  He mentioned, in particular, the contributionsby Mexico, ASEAN and Latin American countries, as well as by India, to the CCFICS.
46. The representative of the Codex also emphasised that developing countries made a major
contribution to the work of the Codex.  Codex ha d regional coordinating committees which allowed
for discussion of matters that were of particular interest at the regional level.  Although Codex itself
could not provide financial support because of its rules of procedure, FAO and WHO generally
organized workshops on matters related to food safety or food control prior to the regional meetings
and supported the costs of attendance for participants in the workshop.  This allowed developingcountry officials to also participate in the Codex Committee meeting.  Furthermore, developing
countries were preparing more documents for discussion;  and some proposals for standards
originated from the regional co-ordinating committees.  In other areas, developing countries were also
active.  In the context of the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology, India had recently hosted
a working group.  The representative of Codex offered to document the participation of developingcountries, by region, at Codex meetings in the last biennium.
(b) Equivalence
47. The Chairman recalled that the second issue identified for discussion under this agenda item
was equivalence (Article 4).  This had been a topic of discussion in the Special Session of the General
Council on implementation.  The General Council had requested the SPS Committee "…to examinethe concerns of developing countries regarding the equivalence of SPS measures and to come up with
concrete options as to how to deal with them …".  The Committee had considered this matter at an
informal meeting on 7 November 2000.  The Chairman's report to the General Council on the
informal consultations is contained in G/L/423.
48. The representative of India stated that not much progress had been made in respect of
equivalence, whether through bilateral or multilateral agreements,.  India was of the opinion that
developing countries had to be provided with an oppo rtunity to participate in the existing bilateral and
multilateral agreements between developed countries.  As a first step in this direction, India suggested
that Members should be obliged to notify to  the SPS Committee any bilateral agreements on
equivalence of SPS measures.  This would enable the developing countries who were in a position to
comply with those standards to become a party to the existing agreement or to enter into similar
bilateral agreements.
49. The representative of the United States referred to the US paper which had been discussed at
the Committee's informal meeting (G/SPS/GEN/212).  This paper was based on US experience with
equivalence.  He clarified that in considering trade benefits and the administrative requirements that
the United States had encountered in negotiating equivalence agreements, its was the US perception
that the benefits as well as the administrative burden were shared by both partners.
IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION
(a) Jordan's request for technical assistance
50. The representative of Jordan summarised his country's two requests for technical assistance
contained in G/SPS/GEN/199 and /208.  He noted that Jordan had held meetings with representatives
of Australia, Canada, the European Communities, Japan, Norway, and the United States in thisG/SPS/R/20
Page 10
respect.  Jordan would provide a more detailed request in line with suggestions from these countries,
and looked forwards to receiving a positive response.
51. The Chairman expressed his appreciation for what was, in his view, an exemplary request for
technical assistance by Jordan.  Jordan's focussed  approach would help the Secretariat, Members and
the international standard-setting organisations consider the request and target their assistance.  Heencouraged other Members to be equally specifi c and focussed in their requests for technical
assistance.
(b) Technical Assistance Typology
52. The Secretariat introduced a background note on Technical Assistance Typology which it had
been requested to prepare at the June 2000 meeting of the SPS Committee (G/SPS/GEN/206).  The
objective of the document was to help Members identify the types of technical assistance actions
which were most appropriate for them.  The paper classified technical assistance into four broadcategories:  information,  training,  and "soft" and "hard" infrastructure development.
53. The Secretariat noted that it had a significant ro le to play with respect to information-related
technical assistance.  Assistance had to be tailored to the level of understanding of the SPS Agreement
in the target audience, whether this was technical or more policy-oriented.  The Secretariat noted that
there were instances where there was a reasonable understanding of the SPS Agreement at thetechnical level but these officials encountered difficulties due to a lack of understanding and support
at the policy level.  A good understanding of the SPS Agreement and the functioning of the WTO by
the private sector and the media were also important for its smooth implementation.  The specific
trade concerns discussed in the SPS Committee were a good tool to illustrate in a more practical
manner the issues involved in the implementation of the Agreement (G/SPS/GEN/204).  TheSecretariat's paper differentiated between soft infras tructure (training) and hard infrastructure (i.e.
laboratories, equipment) development.  The paper also included some alternative approaches to
technical assistance such as those drawn from the two documents submitted by IICA
(G/SPS/GEN/213 and 214), which focussed on three broad parameters:  (i) the regulatory framework -
the need to modernize laws, decrees, regulations, etc., taking into account international standards,guidelines and recommendations;  (ii) the institutio nal framework – the need to strengthen developing
countries' participation in the international standard-setting bodies and to encourage their technical
independence and financial sustainability;  and (iii) the technical framework – the need for risk
assessment techniques;  quarantine procedures;  emergency systems, etc..  Some of the typical areas
of competence of the standard-setting bodies were listed in an Annex to the document (classified
under food safety, animal health and plant health).
54. The representative of the European Communities stressed the particular importance of
capacity building in developing countries to adopt and apply standards.  The representative of Chile,
likewise, stressed the importance of correctly diagnosing technical assistance needs and solving
internal problems before seeking external technical assistance to facilitate the implementation of the
Agreement.  The representative of Mexico noted the important role of technical assistance in
disseminating information on the Agreement.  He also agreed that implementation of the SPSAgreement depended on adequate availability of "hard" infrastructure, which was relevant, for
instance, in the establishment of disease-free zones (G/SPS/GEN/213, paras. 13-14 refer).
55. Expressing appreciation for the Secretariat's paper, the representative of Canada noted that
technical assistance which was needed to ensure that all parties could benefit from any accord
reached, whether it was the Biosafety Protocol or a specific Codex text.  The typology paper wastimely in that the World Bank had introduced its programme to provide considerable funds for
technical assistance in the SPS and TBT areas at the last meeting of the Committee. The
representative of Canada suggested that the Committee, at its next meeting, should have an exchangeG/SPS/R/20
Page 11
of views on possible recommendations to the World Bank.  The typology paper could form the basis
of such a discussion in that it addressed the relativ e effectiveness and priorities of the different types
of assistance.  In Canada's view there was a need to focus in workshops on the area of "soft"
infrastructure.  It was essential to have institutio nal co-operation between regulatory agencies, and for
regulators in developing countries to observe first-hand the day-to-day work in developed countriesand vice-versa.  Canada urged the World Bank, in planning and implementing its programme, to make
use of the expertise of bodies like the FAO and the WHO, and their regional centres.
56. The representative of Bolivia noted that technical assistance could only be efficient if
institutions were strengthened.  The document pres ented by IICA showed that the main weakness in
Latin America was institutional in nature (G/SPS/GEN/213, para. 15, refers), therefore, this had to be
the focus of technical assistance.  The representative of Chile reiterated the need to address the
institutional framework and recalled that the Secretariat document on typology had emphasised theimportance of technical assistance needs also at the policy level.  These two factors combined posed a
considerable challenge in the area of technical assistance.  Key to addressing the issue was the
involvement of the private sector and financial assistance.  The representative of Venezuela noted
converging understanding regarding the need to focus on the institutional aspects of technical
assistance, in particular in respect of financial and technical sustainability, and supported thesuggestion that this be discussed at a future meeting of the Committee.
57. The representative of Malaysia emphasised the importance of "hard" infra-structure
development.  She stressed the importance of the discussion of technical assistance in the SPS
Committee, and the need for co-ordinated technical assistance between the various agencies, primarily
the IPPC, Codex and OIE.  Technical assistance activities had to be based on the needs and prioritiesof Members.  Malaysia welcomed the paper by th e World Bank (G/SPS/GEN/1 95) on the provision of
financing for infra-structure development.
58. The Committee agreed to continue its discussion of the typology of technical assistance at its
next meeting.
(c) Technical assistance activities by the Secretariat
59. The Secretariat described its technical assistance activities since the March meeting of the
SPS Committee, which included participation in:
− the ASEM-TFAP meeting in the Hague;
− an EU conference in Turkey for the food industry;
− a regional seminar in Uruguay;
− a national seminar in Panama;
− WTO Trade Policy courses;
− the Geneva week briefing for delegates from Members with no permanent representation in
Geneva;
− video conferences in Central America and  Eastern Europe;  and
− the preparation of a CD Rom on the SPS Agreement.
Future plans for technical assistance included missions to Lebanon, Namibia, Iran, Cameroon, China
and Mauritius.
(d) Technical assistance by observer organisations
60. The representative of IICA introduced two documents on the practical application of technical
assistance in different countries so as to enable those offering technical assistance to better understandG/SPS/R/20
Page 12
and orient the programmes to evolving needs, and, conversely, to enable those on the receiving end to
put together a more comprehensive and balanced request.  In the preparation of the documents, the
starting point had been the required infrastructure in order to comply with and benefit from the SPS
Agreement.  Document G/SPS/GEN/214 set forward an approach whereby infrastructure was
characterised as a function of three frameworks:  (i) laws and regulations;  (ii) technology (riskanalysis, surveillance, diagnostic capability);  and (iii) institutional (for example communications,
trace-back, financial sustainability, etc.).  In the Americas, IICA had seen most advances in situations
where both the public and private sector had a well-articulated approach.  Document G/SPS/GEN/213
described the experience in the application of the approach set out in G/SPS/GEN/214 to 33 countries
in the Americas, including some Caribbean countries.  This approach enabled IICA to explain the
variations that were identified.  There was a group of seven countries (reference countries) with
conditions that were favourable to comply and benefit from the SPS Agreement.  The other 26countries faced more difficulties.  An examination of the different frameworks (regulatory,
institutional and technological) showed that the weak link was the institutional framework. Sometimes
there had been substantial investment in the technol ogical framework or in the regulatory framework
which had not been complemented by investments in the institutional framework.  Applying this
analytical approach in the Americas had been practical and not overly expensive; it provided a degreeof orientation and prioritisation.
61. The representative of the WHO noted that the technical assistance of the WHO was mainly
focussed on "soft" infra-structure development.  WHO's primary function in respect of food safety
was to provide scientific input on human health issues for Codex standards.  The WHO had held an
international seminar on risk analysis in September in Buenos Aires where 15 countries participated.A five-day workshop on food safety in the western Pacific region would be held in Manila 13-
17 November 2000.  The objective was to review the food safety situation in the region as well as to
draft a framework of comprehensive national plans of action on food safety. The WHO and FAO
would also hold a one-day workshop on risk assessment focussed on exposure assessment in the end
of November 2000 in Kampala, Uganda.  This wo rkshop would be held in conjunction with the
Codex Regional Co-ordinating Committee for Africa, and the WHO and FAO would provide
financial assistance for some participants.  The representative of the WHO noted that there had been
more requests from countries in respect of technical assistance on microbiological risk assessment.
This was a relatively new field in the area of food safety compared to chemical risk assessment for
food additives or pesticide residues.  The WHO and the FAO had initiated work in this area and it was
the subject of on-going discussions in the C odex Committee on Food Hygiene.  The WHO and the
FAO were planning to strengthen their programme on technical assistance in microbiological riskassessment.
62. The representative of the IPPC reported on a workshop on risk analysis held in Brazil, with
support from the United States.  The workshop included university personnel who, particularly in the
case of Brazil, were cooperating with the national plant protection organization in the completion of
risk analyses.  A second workshop on inspection methodology was held in Argentina with supportfrom the European Communities.  The IPPC Secret ariat would also be participating in a USDA-
sponsored workshop in Russia on risk analysis, and a World Bank workshop on the SPS Agreement to
be held in Namibia.  Under the FAO Umbrel la Programme, workshops had been completed in
Jamaica and Oman, and upcoming workshops were organized for Cameroon, Zambia, Ethiopia, Nepal
and the Philippines.
63. The representative of the IPPC also reported on the second meeting of the Interim
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM) regarding technical assistance.  The Committee was
reminded that the ICPM did not at this point have funding mechanisms for technical assistance but
was focussing on the development of appropriate diagnostic tools to help countries evaluate existing
phytosanitary systems and formulate national strategies for capacity building.  Phytosanitary CapacityEvaluation (PCE) was based on a questionnaire developed over the past two years from a pilot projectG/SPS/R/20
Page 13
initiated by New Zealand.  The application of this tool had recently been expanded to numerous
countries, most notably in the Andean region of Sout h America.  Increasing analysis and consultation
associated with the implementation and improvement of the PCE had indicated that, in many
instances, governments' needed not only technical assistance but also the institutional capacity to
benefit from technical assistance.  This required financial sustainability, appropriate legislation andregulatory structures, continuity of policy, etc.  This experience had highlighted the need to modify
the PCE to help countries also identify institutional constraints.
64. The representative of the Codex noted that the Codex Secretariat had participated in the
workshop on risk analysis organised by the W HO and the Pan-American Health Organisation in
Buenos Aires.  She noted the continued need for training in the field of risk assessment and exposure
assessment. Referring to her previous statement on the involvement of developing countries, she
emphasized the importance of the regional coordination committees whose work helped FAO andWHO identify the needs of countries in different regions of the world.   She informed the Committee
about the forthcoming regional co-ordinating committees for Africa (November 2000), the Near East
(January 2001) and Latin America and the Caribbean (February 2001).  The Codex representative also
reported that the fisheries department of FAO had a very comprehensive programme of technical
assistance, especially on the application of HACCP systems.  There was a major regional project forAfrica which would initiate in December 2000 the upgrading of quality and safety of fishery products.
There would also be a specific project in Morocco on the development of the sea-food industry,
focussing especially on the HACCP component;  a si milar project had been initiated in Laos.  The
Codex offered to submit a paper identifying all the technical assistance programmes currently
scheduled.
65. The representative of OIRSA reported that OIRSA was developing a masters programme on
SPS measures in collaboration with a post-graduate school in Mexico which had now completed
modules on regional standards, epidemiology and risk analysis.  A workshop had been held in
Nicaragua on the procedures for inspection, control and certification in the trade of animal products,
in relation to compliance with Annex C of the SPS Agreement.  Another workshop had been held onthe safety of modern biotechnology and on the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, with participants from
the OIRSA region as well as from North and South America.
66. The representative of the OIE announced that on 17 October 2000, the regional representation
of the OIE for Africa had been formally opened in Bamako, Mali.  This complemented the regional
representations that already existed in four other regions (the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Eastern
Europe, and the Middle East).  The work programme established for the co-ordinator of the Africa
regional representation was primarily directed at the amelioration of epidemiological surveillancenetworks for animal diseases in the different sub-regions of Africa.  This programme would be carried
out with the collaboration of the Pan-African Programme for the Control of Epizootics (PACE). He
also reported on the increased co-operation in As ia between the FAO, the Network of Aquaculture
Centres in Asia-Pacific and the OIE to ensure the he alth security of international trade in aquatic
animal products.  This co-operation had taken the form of better assistance given to Asian countries inrespect of the collection and dissemination of information related to the health status of aquatic
animals in these countries.
67. The Chairman invited all Members and observer organizations to submit in writing their
schedule of planned technical assistance programmes, as this was very helpful to the SPS Committee.G/SPS/R/20
Page 14
V. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
(a) New issues
68. Members were invited to submit, at least 30 days in advance of each regular meeting,
examples of what they considered to be problems with significant trade impact which they believed
were related to the use or non-use of relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations.The Chairman observed that since the adoption of the first annual report on monitoring in July 1999,
no Member had submitted new examples for consideration by the Committee.  He stressed that by not
identifying new concerns, Members were missing an opportunity to inform the standard-setting bodies
of their needs.
(b) Draft second annual report
69. The Chairman recalled that at its last meeting, the Committee had discussed a draft of the
second annual report.  The Committee had requested the Secretariat to revise this draft to includefurther information provided by the relevant standard-setting bodies, and then to circulate the report
for approval on an ad referendum basis.  This had been done by the Secretariat and the report had
been circulated as G/SPS/16.
70. The representative of the Codex provided further information on two items.  There had been
no progress on the issue of tetra-cycline residues in pork and pork products at the last session of theCommittee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs, and it would be discussed again at the next session in
October 2001.  Similarly, the use of benzoic acid  as a preservative was still under discussion and
would be examined again by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants in March 2001.
71. The representative of the OIE noted that the Bureau of the International Animal Health Code
Commission of the OIE had continued its examinati on of  (i) infectious bursal disease (IBD) in
poultry meat;  (ii)  the frequency of health controls to be carried out on bulls at artificial insemination
centres;  and (iii) the problems of certification of origin of animals.  The OIE's deliberations on these
issues were summarized in document G/SPS/GEN/145/Add.2.
VI. MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER
ORGANIZATIONS
(a) OIE
72. The representative of OIE indicated that the report of the Bureau of the International Animal
Health Code Commission of the OIE was now availa ble to member countries through the OIE web
site.  There had been further development of the chapter on obligations and ethics in international
trade and some other points had been reviewed in respect of Bluetongue. In regard to Newcastle
disease, a new approach had been proposed based on the concept of compartmentalization.  A special
ad hoc group had suggested changes to the chapter on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, notably onthe systems of surveillance for this disease.  A new text on another transmissible spongiform
encephalopathy of animals, scrapie, was also submitted to OIE members.  The OIE Foot and Mouth
Disease and Other Epizootics (FMD) Commission had met to identify its future activities and
programme of work.  The FMD Commission was considering more work on the epidemiology of
animal diseases in general, rather than focussing on FMD.  Moreover, the FMD Commission hadexamined requests by countries for recognition of th eir freedom status with regard to certain animal
diseases.  The OIE Fish Diseases Commission would shortly be publishing the International Aquatic
Animal Health Code as well as the Diagnostic Manual for Aquatic Animal Diseases.  The experts of
this Commission had also discussed a wide range of other subjects regarding pathogens of aquatic
animals.G/SPS/R/20
Page 15
(b) Codex
73. The representative of the Codex noted that there had been several Codex meetings since the
last meeting of the SPS Committee;  the meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene was of
most direct SPS interest.  The assessment of microbiological hazards was of high priority to the
Codex, as well as for FAO and WHO.  A joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Risk Assessmentof Microbiological Hazards in Foods had been held and the results published as FAO Food and
Nutrition Paper N° 71, also available on both the FAO and WHO web sites.  It focussed on Listeria
monocyotogenes in ready-to-eat foods and Salmonella spp. in poultry and eggs.  The recommendation
of the consultation had been considered by the Committee on Food Hygiene in October 2000.  There
would be another FAO/WHO consultation on microbiological hazards in 2001.  Moreover, before the
next meeting of the SPS Committee, there would be another meeting of the Committee on Food
Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems in December 2000, and the Committee onAdditives and Contaminants would meet on 12-16 March 2001.
74. The representative of Chile added that following the meeting of the Codex Executive
Committee in June 2000, there was a meeting of the presidents and vice-presidents of Codex to
develop the medium-term plan 2003-2007.  This doc ument, now in circulation, develops the
objectives and strategic approach, including with respect to the relationship between Codex and theSPS and TBT Agreements.
(c) IPPC
75. The representative of the IPPC reported that an expert working group had met in Australia in
July to draft a standard on systems approaches for risk management.  Funding and support for this
meeting was provided by Australia.  A second expert working group had met in Slovenia inSeptember and drafted a standard on pest reporting.  This meeting was accomplished through
collaboration with the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO).  The IPPC
had distributed six documents to governments for consultation in 2000, and governments' comments
on these were to be considered by the Interim Standards Committee (ISC) at its November 2000
meeting.  Documents that were approved by the ISC would be submitted to the Interim Commission
on Phytosanitary Measures for adoption in April 2001.  This could result in as many as four new
standards.
76. The representative of the IPPC also reported on the 12
th Technical Consultation among
Regional Plant Protection Organizations, hosted by the North American Plant Protection Organization
(NAPPO) in October 2000.  The meeting considered  the harmonization of implementation dates for
measures on wood packing and the development of draft guidelines for the recognition of RPPOs.
The meeting also provided the opportunity for an ad hoc  consultation on the draft standard being
developed for wood packing material.
77. The representative of the IPPC recalled his concerns regarding the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), including the ratification and implementation of the Cartagena Protocol and
initiatives on invasive species.  Diverse interpretations of the precautionary approach raised issues of
concern to the IPPC and presumably also to the WTO.  The IPPC was seeking more activecollaboration with the CBD in areas of mutual interest.  National plant protection organizations from
many countries had reacted positively to the results of the IPPC Open-ended Exploratory Working
Group on Phytosanitary Aspects of GMOs, Biosafety, and Invasive Species (June 2000, Rome)
although these had not yet been adopted by the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures.  The
IPPC Secretariat had attended the meeting of the Global Invasive Species Program (GISP) held in
Cape Town, South Africa in September 2000.  This meeting developed key recommendations for the
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Tec hnological Advice (SBSTTA) of the CBD regarding
draft guiding principles for alien invasive species and strategies for the implementation of CBDG/SPS/R/20
Page 16
provisions on invasive species, including the possibility of developing an international instrument.
The IPPC Secretariat would also attend the first intergovernmental meeting on the implementation of
the Cartagena Protocol set for December 2000, in Montpelier, France.  The IPPC was organizing a
joint meeting with the CBD in January to identify areas for collaboration and was working on a
Memorandum of Understanding with the CBD and arra nging for observer status in relevant meetings
of each organization.  The representative of the IPPC stated that the objective of these efforts was to
encourage mutual understanding and facilitate the implementation of both conventions by countries in
a manner which fully realized the benefits of rights and obligations under each.
78. The representatives of New Zealand, Chile, Canada and the United States welcomed the
IPPC's contacts and collaboration with the CBD.  They stressed the importance of effective
cooperation at the national level between phytosanitary authorities and officials active in areas
covered by the CBD and other environmental  instru ments to ensure that Members adopted consistent
and coordinated positions in these areas.
79. The representative of New Zealand found particularly encouraging the fact that the IPPC was
planning a meeting to investigate opportunities for further standard development with respect to
genetically modified organisms, biosafety and alien invasive species, as they related to phytosanitary
measures.  He applauded the IPPC Secretariat's work in developing a program for collaborativeactivities which might include formal links with the CBD and joint technical assistance. The
representative of Canada also encouraged the IPPC to play an active role in any international work on
invasive species, given its expertise.  The representative of Chile suggested that it would be helpful to
have information from Codex and WHO regarding their coordination with the CBD, especially since
the Cartagena Protocol indicated that it would take into consideration the work of the competentorganizations in the area of human health protection.
80. The representative of the United States reported that his government had ratified the revised
text of the IPPC on 18 October 2000.  He expressed the hope that other Members would soon ratify
this agreement.
(d) WHO
81. The representative of the WHO informed the Committee there would be a Joint FAO/WHO
Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, in January 2001, in Rome.  The expert
consultations would focus, in particular, on the assessment of allergenicity of foods derived from
biotechnology.  The WHO and FAO had jointly esta blished new procedures to improve transparency
in the selection procedure for experts who participated in consultations.  FAO and WHO had
established a roster of experts in microbiological risk assessment and safety assessment of genetically
modified foods from which individuals were select ed to serve at expert consultations.  FAO and
WHO issued a "Call for applications to the roster", which described the essential qualifications of the
applicants, the selection procedures and other relevant information. The rosters were posted on the
respective WHO and FAO websites.
1  He reported that a WHO/PAHO International Seminar on Risk
Analysis and its Use in Food Safety had been held in September, in Buenos Aires.  A WHO
Workshop on a plan of action for food safety in the Western Pacific Region was scheduled forNovember 2000 in Manila.
(e) OIRSA
82. The representative of OIRSA informed the Committee that OIRSA had carried out an
economic study on the eradication of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly and the integrated management of
fruit flies in Central America and Panama.  To facilitate harmonization of regional measures, a
                                                     
1 WHO website:  http://www.who.int/fsf/G/SPS/R/20
Page 17
regional recommendation on poultry and poultry products had been revised and updated.  A regional
recommendation on inspection and approval of processing establishments for animal products had
been developed.  OIRSA's internet site contai ned these regional recommendations and other
information of relevant to animal health (www.oirsa.org.sv).
(f) IICA
83. The representative of the InterAmerican Institute for Agricultural Cooperation (IICA)
reported that the IICA Executive Committee, comprised of the Ministers of Agriculture of the 34
IICA member countries, had met the previous week.  In a session focussed on trade and health, they
had adopted a resolution to strengthen and modernize their national systems of agricultural health.  On
27-30 November 2000, the Fifth Andean Forum on Agricultural Health would be held in Lima,, Peru.
At this meeting, the directors of agricultural heal th in the Andean countries would discuss regional
risk assessments and participation in the international standard-setting organizations, in particular theCodex, OIE and IPPC.  The representative of IICA also informed the Committee that the proceedings
of the 20-22 September 2000 hemispheric conference on dynamic leadership and food safety would
soon be available.
84. The representatives of India and of the European Communities indicated that it would be
useful to receive the information provided by the observer organizations in writing in advance of the
meetings of the SPS Committee, as this would permit Members to carefully examine this important
information, and to prepare questions and comments.  The representative of the United States
suggested that it would be useful if the reports by the observer organizations contained information on
the number of countries which participated in th eir various meetings, so that the Committee could
track the participation of developing countries.
VII. OBSERVERS - REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS (G/SPS/W/78/REV.1,
G/SPS/GEN/178)
85. The Chairman recalled the Committee's decision to grant ad hoc observer status for only one
meeting at a time to a number of observer organizations.  The Committee agreed to invite the ACP
Group, EFTA, IICA, OECD, OIRSA and SELA to its next regular meeting.
86. The Chairman reminded the Committee of a request for observer status from the Asian and
Pacific Coconut Community (APCC).  The information provided by the APCC was summarized in
G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.1 and in G/SPS/GEN/178.
87. The representative of Indonesia, speaking also on behalf of Malaysia, the Philippines and
Thailand, voiced their support for granting observer status to the APCC.  He noted that APCC was the
only intergovernmental body in the world on coconut, and could articulate the common position of all
coconut producing and exporting countries.  As an observer to the SPS Committee, the APCC couldcontribute to the resolution of issues, problems, challenges and opportunities that affected and were
affected by the coconut producing and exporting coun tries.  The Secretariat brought to the attention of
the Committee letters submitted by the government of Fiji supporting observer status for the APCC.
The government of Fiji noted the importance of the coconut industry to its economy, and that
discussions in the SPS Committee on special and differential treatment, equivalence andharmonization could  directly affect the coconut industry.  Fiji was interested in participating, through
APCC representation, in the SPS Committee meetings.
88. The representative of Canada indicated that his country appreciated the interest of the APCC
in the work of the Committee.  However he was concerned with establishing a precedent by accepting
a regional, commodity-specific body.  He suggested that the Committee reflect on this issue ininformal discussions prior to its next meeting.  The representative of the European Communities notedG/SPS/R/20
Page 18
that it would be appropriate for the Committee to revi ew the criteria for the granting of observer status
which the Committee had previously adopted (G/SPS/W/98), to see whether any modifications were
warranted in light of the intervening experience of the Committee with observers.  The Committee
agreed to discuss this issue first at an informal meeting, and also at its next regular meeting.
89. The Chairman recalled that the request from the Office International de la Vigne et du Vin
(OIV) was still on the table.  He noted that no further progress had been made on this issue at the
March and June 2000 meetings of the Committee.  The OIV had provided copies of the resolutions
which had been adopted at its General Assembly on 23 June 2000.  These were voluminous
documents, currently available only in French, and could be consulted in the offices of the Secretariat.
The representative of the United States reaffirmed their opposition to granting observer status to the
OIV until it had adopted and implemented modifications to its transparency and decision-making
process.  The representative of the European Communities indicated that it maintained its position,stated in the last three meetings of the Committee, supporting observer status for the OIV.  The
Committee agreed to revert to this matter at its next meeting.
VIII.  REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
90. The Chairman indicated that the annual report of the activities of the Committee had to be
submitted to the Council for Trade in Goods before its meeting on 15 November 2000.  The draftreport by the Chairman was available for examination by Members, and he would take into account to
the greatest extent possible any suggestions provided by Members by 10 November 2000.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
(a) Australia –Re-structuring of services
91. The representative of Australia reported that import risk analysis and its related activities
were no longer being conducted by the Australian Qu arantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) but by a
new unit within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry called Biosecurity Australia.
The same staff and procedures would be involved, but the Australian government wanted to identify
the import risk assessment functions as independent of the other work of AQIS.  The responsibilities
of Mr. Digby Gascoine would be assumed, at le ast in the short term, by Dr. Simon Hearn, and
Dr. David Wilson would continue to represent Australia at meetings of the SPS Committee.
(b) Australia – Workshop on the economics of quarantine
92. The representative of Australia informed the Committee of a 2-day workshop held in
Melbourne in October on the economics of quarantine.  The workshop explored issues such as how to
incorporate economic factors into quarantine risk analysis, how costs and benefits might be weighed
with regard to the appropriate level of protection, and environment and food safety.  Participants
included academics, government regulatory officials, the World Bank and the WTO Secretariat.  Theproceedings of the workshop will be published early in 2001 and copies available from Biosecurity
Australia.  
(c) Australia– Public forum on the SPS Agreement
93. The representative of Australia also reported about a meeting in September in Canberra that
was designed to raise awareness in Australia among industry, various non-governmentalorganizations, stakeholders and other areas of government about the SPS Agreement, the impact it has
on Australian trade, and the rights and obligations of Australia as a member of the WTO.  The
meeting attracted over 200 participants, and speakers included the WTO Secretariat.  The proceedings
of the meeting should be available in December 2000.G/SPS/R/20
Page 19
(d) Chile – Poultry meat trade with Bolivia
94. The representative of Chile reported that in August 2000, Chile consulted with the authorities of
Bolivia, in the context of Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, regarding their requirements on poultry
meat imports with respect to Inclusion body hepatitis.  This disease is endemic to Bolivia and
restrictions on imports from Chile were not justified.  Chile hoped that this issue would soon beresolved.  The representative of Bolivia indicated that he would transmit this information to his
authorities.
(e) European Communities – Australia's notification on methyl bromide
95. The representative of the European Communities noted concerns with Australia's proposed
introduction of minimum standards for fumigation with methyl bromide, which had been notified in
June (G/SPS/N/AUS/118).  The new regulation requires a minimum temperature of 10 degrees for
fumigation.  This new measure could significantly c onstrain EC exports, and he requested additional
information on the Australian risk assessment and any other relevant evidence which could justify this
requirement.
96. The representative of Australia responded that the proposed standard was the result of
quarantine breaches involving ineffective fumigation treatment of various imported goods.  To
improve the efficacy of fumigation prior to export, Australia developed a standard reflecting bestpractice guidelines in the use of methyl bromide.  Australia was still considering the comments it had
received on its notification of this proposed measure, and implementation of the new measure would
be delayed until early 2001.  With regard to the minimum temperature requirement, this was based on
expert advice and reflected the minimum temperature requirement established by the European Plant
Protection Organization.
(f) European Communities – Adoption of EC proposal
97. The representative of the European Co mmunities informed the Committee that on 8
November 2000, the European Commission adopted a proposal of regulation addressed to the
European Parliament laying down fundamental prin ciples of food law and the establishment of a
European Food Authority.  This was the centrepiece of a proactive food policy covering the entirefood chain from the farm to the fork, providing an effective and high level of protection to human
health while facilitating international trade.  The draft proposal could be consulted on the web page of
the European Commission.
(g) United States – Seminar on poultry inspection
98. The representative of the United States brought to the Committee's attention an annual meat
and poultry inspection seminar for foreign officials which would be sponsored by the US Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.  The seminar was designed to assist Membersunderstanding of the US inspection system and of HAACP.  This was the 15
th time the United States
offered the seminar, and each year some 30 countries were represented.  The seminar would be
presented from 8-25 January and again from 19 February through 8 March 2001, in College Station,
Texas.
X. DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
99. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 14-15 March 2001.  The Committee
agreed on the following tentative agenda:
1. Adoption of agendaG/SPS/R/20
Page 20
2. Implementation of the Agreement
(a) Information from Members
(i) Activities of Members
(b) Specific trade concerns
(i) New issues(ii) Issues previously raised
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
3. SPS Agreement and developing countries
(a) Implementation of the provisions for special and differential treatment(b) Equivalence – Article 4
4. Technical assistance and cooperation
(a) Identification of technical assistance needs (G/SPS/GEN/206)
5. Monitoring of the use of international standards6. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations7. Observers – Requests for observer status
8. Election of Chairperson
9. Other business10. Date and agenda of next meeting
100. The Chairman reminded delegates of the following deadlines for:
• identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure:  Friday,
9 February 2001;
• specific information regarding equivalence:  Friday, 15 February 2001 ;
• correcting references to specific issues raised in document G/SPS/GEN/204:  Friday,
16 February 2001;
• requesting that items be put on the agenda: Thursday, 1 March 2001;
• distribution of the airgram:  Friday, 2 March 2001;
101. The Chairman observed that both Mr. Digby Gascoine of Australia and Mr. Marco Castellina
of the European Communities were leaving their current positions and would no longer participate in
the work of the SPS Committee.  The former chairman of the Committee, many delegates and the
Secretariat expressed their appreciation for the contributions that both of these representatives hadmade to the work of the SPS Committee.  Mr. Gascoine had participated in the negotiation of the SPS
Agreement since 1989, and subsequently in the work of the Committee, and the depth of his
knowledge and his constructive approach to addressing SPS issues would be missed.
102. The Committee meeting was adjourned.
__________