 
  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/499 
18 June 2004 
 
 (04-2658) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   Spanish 
  
 
SUBMISSION BY CHILE ON THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 5 ASSESSMENT 
OF RISK AND DETERMINATION OF  THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF 
PHYTOSANITARY PROTECTION WITH RESPECT TO 
PSEUDOCOCCIDAE IN FRESH FRUIT 
FOR CONSUMPTION 
 
Statement by Chile at the Meeting of 21-25 June 2004
 
   The following communication, dated 16 June 2004, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Chile. 
_______________ 
 
 
1. The Agriculture and Livestock Service, as Ch ile's National Plant Protection Organization, 
recognizes the right of Members to establish the ph ytosanitary measures necessary to ensure plant 
protection and to protect their territory from damage  caused by the entry, est ablishment or spread of 
pests.  It also recognizes that exported fresh fruit can represent a significant pathway for the entry and 
spread of quarantine pests, as confirmed by info rmation in the databases of the Agriculture and 
Livestock Service and other National Plant Protec tion Organizations on the interception of major 
pests. 
2. The Agriculture and Livestock Service also r ecognizes that in the area of plant health in 
general, and specifically as regards the assessment of  phytosanitary risk the competent international 
organization is the International Plant Protection Co nvention, which has issued international standards 
for phytosanitary measures with re spect to pest risk analysis, both for "quarantine" pests and for 
"regulated non-quarantine pests". 
3. Chile would like to express its concern at th e phytosanitary measures adopted by certain 
Member countries in relation to the potential risk  assigned to the presence of insects of the family 
Pseudococcidae  in fresh fruit exported for consumption. 
International Regulations 
 
4. Article VI of the new revised text of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) 
states that: 
 "Contracting parties may require phytosanitary measures for quarantine pests and regulated 
non-quarantine pests, provided that such measures are: 
  (a) No more stringent than measures applie d to the same pests, if present within 
the territory of the importin g contracting party;  and 
 G/SPS/GEN/499 
Page 2  
 
  (b) limited to what is necessary to protect plant health and/or safeguard the 
intended use and can be technically justified by the contracting party concerned. 
  Contracting parties shall not require phytosanitary measures for non-regulated pests." 
 
5. According to the standards approved by the IPPC, only phytosanitary measures designed to 
control quarantine pests  apply to products for consumption. 
6. A quarantine pest  is defined as "a pest of economic  importance to the area endangered 
thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially 
controlled". 
7. Nevertheless, certain Members have adopted measures such as: 
• Rejection of consignments and notification of emergency measures because of dead 
insects of the genus Pseudococcus ; 
 
• Rejection of consignments and emergency measures because of insects identified 
only to the level of genus Pseudococcus , and not to the species level, and regardless 
of the existence in their own territory of the same species that are present in Chile; 
 
• Rejection of consignments because of insects of the family Pseudococcidae  
acknowledged to exist in their territory  only because there are national rules 
establishing phytosanitary measures applicable to "live insects", without carrying out any identification that would make it possible to discriminate according to quarantine status, and failure to submit timely notifications of non-compliance; 
 
• Highly restrictive phytosanitary measures against Pseudococcidae  species present in 
Chile for which there are records and publi cations of unquestionable scientific quality 
establishing their presence in the importing country, and which are not subject to official control.  Moreover, the importing country does not establish the same phytosanitary measures for equal species of  fresh fruit from other Member countries 
which also record the presen ce of the same species of Pseudococcidae  in their 
territories; 
 
• Suspension of producers and packag ing plants for the export season. 
 8. In the introduction of the above phytosanitary measu res is disproportionate to the level of risk 
posed by these insects of the family Pseudococcidae  in exported fresh fruit. 
9. In such cases, decisions are clearly being adopted  that conflict with the international standards 
issued by the IPPC, which is the reference fra mework for the WTO SPS Agreement as regards plant 
health.  According to the IPPC, these exceptions requi re scientific justification if the measures are to 
be maintained.  In practice, this has not happened, with the result that Articles 2.2 and 3.3 of the SPS 
Agreement have been violated.  So has Article 2.3 of  the Agreement, which refers to the principles of 
national treatment and non-discrimination . 
 
    G/SPS/GEN/499 
 Page 3 
 
 
 Risk assessment and adequate level of protection  
 
10. In the light of ISPN No. 11, Rev. 1 (Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests Including 
Analysis of Environmental Risks), the following clar ifications should be made with respect to risk 
assessment of the combination fresh fruit for consumption x presence of Pseudococcidae . 
11. The assessment of the potential for introductio n must take account of both the entry and 
establishment of the pest.  However, the phytosan itary measures introduced by certain countries are 
based only on the probability of entry of the said pest. 
12. In this connection, it is important to bear in  mind the difference between phytosanitary danger 
and phytosanitary risk.  Danger is understood to mean the organism's potential to cause damage, 
direct or indirect, to plants or plant products , while risk is understood to mean the estimated 
probability of occurrence of a dange r and its potential consequences.  In the specific case of insects of 
the family Pseudococcidae  in fresh fruit for consumption, given their phytophagic nature, they can 
only qualify as a phytosanitary danger.  These insects cannot become a risk, since they do not have 
the capacity to spread autonomously from the fruit to the receiving environment. 
13. The international spread of these diseases is th e result of the international movement of 
propagating material, essentially plants – their spread through exported fresh fruit has not been 
expressly documented . 
14. On the basis of the above considerations, certain Member countries have opted not to 
introduce phytosanitary measures fo r these pests in fresh fruit, accepti ng that the risk of introducing 
them by that pathway is minimal, and relying on the easy detection of the insects during routine 
inspection. 
15. Other countries have introduced risk manage ment phytosanitary measures based on the 
inspection of shipments, and accept the phytosanitary certification with  the additional declaration that 
the shipments are free of the pests in  question.  When they are detected in the country of destination, 
the importing Member merely rejects the shipments and notifies the exporting Member. 
16. These measures differ considerably from the cl early more restriction measures ranging from 
the suspension of producers and/or export plants in the country of origin to the suspension of trade in 
certain species. 
These restrictive measures clearly have not taken account  of Articles 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 of the 
SPS Agreement . 
 
17. Chile urges Members that have es tablished measures of this kind to comply with international 
rules, and to reassess their risk analyses without  undue administrative delay and rationalize their 
phytosanitary risk management measures to ensure that they: 
 1. Are in harmony with intern ational standards (Article 3); 
 2. are scientifically justified (Article 5); 
 3. are proportionate to the risk involved (Article 5.4); 
 4. do not discriminate between Members (Article 2.3);  5. are similar or identical to those app lied in their territory and to other Members 
(Article 2.3). 
 
__________ 
 