WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/102
23 November 1998
(98-4671)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
AMENDMENT OF ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE OF
THE PLANT PROTECTION LAW (G/SPS/N/JPN/37)
Statement by the European Communities
at the meeting of 11-12 November 1998
1. The above-mentioned notification concerning a list of non-quarantine pests was issued
23 July 1998, with a period for comment expiring 30 September 1998.  With this proposal the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan intends to list additional non-quarantine pestswhich are not subject to quarantine measures under the Enforcement Ordinance of the Plant
Protection Law.  The European Communities understands from Article 5(2) of this Law that all the
pests which are not included in the relevant list are considered by the Japanese authorities as
quarantine pests.
2. The failure to include in the list non-harmful pests which are of general occurrence also in
Japan leads regularly to products being either refused or submitted to lengthy treatment at
considerable expense.  This is apparently in breach of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, that requires
Members not to discriminate between their own terr itory and that of other Members, should identical
or similar conditions prevail.
3. Furthermore, Japan has established an exemption list of pests rather than a list of quarantine
pests with identified risks and this approach does not appear to be in conformity with provisions of the
SPS Agreement.  Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement stipulates that Members shall ensure thatphytosanitary measures are applied only to the extent necessary to protect plant life or health, are
based on scientific principles and are not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence.
4. In addition, Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement requires Members to base their measures on
international standards, guidelines or recomme ndations where they exist.  Japan indicates that
international standards on which to base the relevant evaluation do not exist.  However, it maintainsthat the relevant proposal has been developed according to guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis.
Presumably, Japan refers to the relevant IPPC guidelines.
5. In accordance with Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, the European Communities would be
grateful to receive the scientific rationale behind the measure and the documents concerning the risk
analysis carried out.
__________