RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/SPS/R/4
29April 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-1686)
Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OFTHE MEETING HELD ON
20-21 March 1996
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheCommittee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures ("theSPSCommittee") helditsfourth
meeting on20-21 March 1996 under thechairmanship ofAmbassador KariBergholm (Finland).
2. Theagenda proposed inWTO/AIR/293, withadditions, wasadopted.
Observers
3. TheChairman welcomed observers fromtheCodex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), OIE
(Office International desEpizooties), IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention), FAO (Food
andAgriculture Organization), andWHO (World Health Organization).
4. TheSPSCommittee granted observer status totheUNCTAD (theUnited Nations Conference
onTrade andDevelopment) onanadhocbasis. Withrespect totheOECD, adecision onobservership
wasdeferred intheabsence ofaspecific request. Pending theadoption offormal guidelines bythe
General Council relating toregional inter-governmental organizations andnon-governmental
organizations, nofurther action wastaken ontherequests forobserver status fromtheInter-American
Institute forAgricultural Cooperation (IICA) andtheInternational SeedFederation (FIS).
Rules ofProcedures
5. Adraftproposal fortheRules ofProcedure fortheSPSCommittee hadbeendiscussed by
interested Members ataninformal meeting on16February 1996. TheProposed Rules ofProcedure
(G/SPS/W/48)werebasedonthepreviouslyagreedWorkingProceduresoftheSPSCommittee(G/SPS/1)
andcomplemented bytheRules ofProcedure forthemeetings oftheGeneral Council (WT/L/79),
except where these would notbeappropriate.
6. TherepresentativeofIndiaexpressedconcernaboutthemannerinwhichstatementsbyindividual
countries might bereflected intheRecords oftheSPSCommittee meetings asproposed inRule36,
andcould notagree totheadoption oftheProposed Rules ofProcedure atthistime. TheChairman
noted thatintheabsence ofagreed Rules ofProcedures, theexisting Working Procedures fortheSPS
Committee remained valid.G/SPS/R/4
Page2
Implementation oftheAgreement
7. TherepresentativeofChileinformedtheSPSCommitteethatChileandtheEuropeanCommunity
were currently negotiating onmatters relevant totheimplementation oftheSPSAgreement.
Matters ofinterest arising from thework ofObserver Organizations
8. Therepresentative oftheWHO pointed outthatthehealth sector, atthenational level, was
notalways fully informed oftheimplications andconsequences ofthenewWTO agreements
(G/SPS/W/56). Tofurther theobjective ofstrengthening coordination between theappropriate
government branches, aspecial information meeting would beorganized on20May1996 forthe
delegates attending thesession oftheWorld Health Assembly. Several Members agreed withtheneed
toensure thatnational health agencies gaveappropriate attention tothework oftheWHO withregard
tofoodstandards.
9. Therepresentative oftheIPPC informed theSPSCommittee thatwork onninenewstandards
hadcommenced andthat, hopefully, twoorthree ofthese would beadopted bythenextFAO
Conference. Furthermore, areview oftheInternational Plant Protection Convention wascurrently
underway. Issues fordiscussion included: thescope (coverage) oftheConvention, potential new
obligations resulting fromtheSPSAgreement andthepossible establishment ofaCommission. The
finaltextoftheamended Convention could besubmitted totheFAO Conference inend-1997.
10. Therepresentative oftheOIEreported thattheOIECommittee onFishDiseases hadproposed
changes totheInternational Sanitary Code forAquatic Animals. Subject toadoption bytheInternational
Committee oftheOIE,anewversion ofthecodewould beavailable bytheendof1997. Alsoplanned
for1997wasarevision ofthefirstedition oftheDiagnostic Manual fordiseases affecting fishmolluscs
andcrustaceans. Additionally, twodocuments werebeing drafted thatwereofrelevance tothework
oftheSPSCommittee.Inthefirstdocument,relatedtorecommendationsregardingthefutureorientation
oftheactivities oftheOIE, itwassuggested thattheOIEfocus onthree mainareas: (i)international
standardization, (ii)zoosanitary information and(iii)thestrengthening ofcooperation withnational
veterinary services. Thesecond report would address thetechnical application ofOIEStandards by
Member states inthecontext oftheSPSAgreement.
11. TherepresentativeoftheCodexreportedthattheFebruary1996meetingoftheCodexCommittee
onFood Import andExport Inspection Certification Systems (CCFICS) hadadvanced guidelines for
theexchange ofinformation between countries onrejections ofimported foods toStep8foradoption
bytheCodexAlimentariusCommission.Secondly,theCCFICShadadvancedguidelinesforthedesign,
operation, assessment andaccreditation ofFoodImport andExport Inspection andCertification Systems
toStep5,forcomments bymember Governments. Thelatter document particularly concerned matters
regarding riskanalysis andtheuseoftheHACCP system inthatprocess. Itwasnoted thatthefull
report oftheCCFICS meeting would beavailable through Members 'Codex Contact Points. TheSPS
Committee wasalsoinformed thattheFAOandtheWHO wereplanning toholdajointriskmanagement
consultation inearly 1997.
Transparency
Consideration ofSpecific Notifications Received
12. TheChairman reminded theSPSCommittee thatinaccordance withparagraph 3oftheworking
procedures(G/SPS/1),aMember"whichproposestoraiseanymatterrelatingtoaparticularnotificationG/SPS/R/4
Page3
inthecourse ofameeting shallgivenotice ofitsintention tothenotifying Member concerned and
theSecretariat, together withanoutline ofitsconcerns, asfaraspossible inadvance ofthemeeting".
13. OneMember noted thelackofadequate identification oftariffnumbers inmany notifications,
andexpressed concern thatthiscould result indifficulties incaseofdisputes. Itwasalsoobserved
thatmore precision wasneeded withregard tothecontent, objective andrationale oftheproposed
measures, aswellastheidentification oftheagency ornational authority responsible fortheprovision
ofdocumentation. Concern wasalsoexpressed thatthe60daytime-period allowed forcomments
wasnotalways respected, thatinnumerous cases measures were implemented prior tonotification,
andthatformany notifications thedateofentry intoforce wasnotstated. Agencies responsible for
theprovision ofinformation wererequested toactwithin therecommended time-periods soastoavoid
inthefuture thesignificant delays often experienced.
14. TheSPSCommittee considered theProposed Modifications totheRecommended Notification
Procedures (G/SPS/W/47). Although most Members agreed withtheproposed modifications, the
representatives ofKorea andEgypt stated thattheycould notaccept Point B-"Timing ofNotifications".
Theyindicatedthattherecommendationonthispointneededtobemoreflexibleinordertoaccommodate
national legislative procedures. Other Members stressed thedesirability tokeep thenotification
procedures fortheSPSandTBTCommittees assimilar aspossible andnoted thattheproposed provision
wasidentical tothetextalready adopted bytheTBT Committee. They considered thatthe
recommendation wellreflected theobligation inAnnex B,paragraph 5(b)oftheSPSAgreement. The
SPSCommittee agreed torevert tothisissue atitsnextmeeting.
15. Therepresentative ofJapan indicated hisgovernment 'sacceptance oftherecommended
proceduresontheunderstandingthatwithregardtoPointE(c),"Handlingofcommentsonnotifications",
theextension ofthecomment period shallnotapply when thenotifying country provides copies of
documents ifrequested, and,inthecaseofvoluminous documents, provides uponrequest summaries
inEnglish ofthedocuments concerned.
Operation ofEnquiry Points
16. Therepresentative ofJapan noted thatsome SPSenquiries hadbeendirected tooneoftheTBT
Enquiry Points (Japan External Trade Organization), causing confusion anddelays. Members were
urged tosubmit SPSenquiries onlytotheSPSEnquiry Point aslisted inG/SPS/ENQ/3/Rev.1.
Derestriction ofnotifications
17. Therepresentative ofCanada informed theSPSCommittee thaton1March 1996 theTBT
Committee hadagreed tode-restrict TBTnotifications andthelistofEnquiry Points. Itwasproposed
thattheSPSCommitteedolikewise.TheJapaneserepresentativeobjectedtothisproposalonthegrounds
thatgeneral guidelines hadnotyetbeenadopted bytheGeneral Council. Itwasobserved, however,
thatintheabsence ofsuchguidelines theGATT practice applied andindividual committees could thus
decide whether theirdocuments berestricted ornot.Therepresentative ofCanada indicated thathis
government would make aformal proposal inthisregard forconsideration atthenextmeeting ofthe
SPSCommittee.
Monitoring theUseofInternational Standards
18. TheChairman recalled thatArticle 12:4oftheSPSAgreement tasked theCommittee with
thedevelopment ofaprocedure tomonitor theuseofrelevant international standards byMembers.
Inthisregard, theEuropean Community hadprepared apaper entitled "Monitoring theProcess ofG/SPS/R/4
Page4
InternationalHarmonization"(G/SPS/W/51).Inintroducingthepaper,therepresentativeoftheEuropean
Community stressed thattheobjective wastofacilitate thedevelopment ofideasandconcepts inrespect
ofthisprovision oftheSPSAgreement.
19. Inthediscussion oftheECproposal, itwassuggested thatanintroduction beadded toclarify
thelinkbetween theproposed monitoring exercise andtheimpact ontrade liberalization which might
beexpected, tohelpdefine whatinformation theSPSCommittee wasgathering andwhatwould be
donewiththisinformation. Some representatives noted thecrucial importance ofensuring consistency
intheinformation provided byMembers regarding theirapplication ornon-application ofinternational
standards, stressing thedifficulty inclearly ascertaining whether ornotaparticular international standard
wasbeing applied. Thisdepended toalarge degree onthenature ofthestandard itself, asinmany
cases, suchaswiththeCodex Code onGeneral Principles ofFood Hygiene ortheOIEFootandMouth
Disease Standard, evenapparently small departures fromtherecommendations could havesignificant
effects interms ofimpeding trade. Itwassuggested thattheexperiences gained inharmonization among
smaller groups ofcountries could bevaluable forthework oftheSPSCommittee. Onerepresentative
questioned theextent towhich themonitoring exercise asproposed might divert attention andresources
away from theother transparency obligations under theSPSAgreement.
20. Many participants welcomed theideaofapilotproject toestablish thefeasibility, practicality
andcost-effectiveness oftheproposed monitoring exercise. However itwasalsonoted thatitcould
beworthwhile fortheSPSCommittee toconsider otheroptions which might beevenmorecost-effective
andyetmeettheobligations under Article 12:4. Concern wasexpressed thatsubstantive work might
bedelayed bydisagreement onwhatproducts would becovered bythepilotproject. Other delegates
questioned theEC'ssuggestions forthepilotproject, noting thatstandards inrespect ofwhich use
ornon-use might bedifficult tojudge, suchastheOIE'sstandard onFootandMouth Disease, were
better avoided.
21. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community noted thatthestandards theyhadproposed
forapilotproject reflected anattempt tobalance theareasofhuman health, animal health andaconcrete
product category. Abroader selection ofproducts would probably satisfy more delegations andcould
cover anumber ofareas within eachoftheabove mentioned categories.
22. Some delegations questioned theneedtoestablish alistofallrelevant international sanitary
andphytosanitary standards inorder toidentify those which hadamajor tradeimpact. They suggested
thatthere might beother ways ofidentifying themeasures ofinterest without having toestablish a
comprehensive listattheoutset. Itwasobserved thatthevolume oftradeinvolved should beconsidered
inassessing whether astandard, guideline orrecommendation hadamajor trade impact, although
therepresentative oftheEuropean Community noted thatestablishing criteria todefine thevolume
oftrade posed difficulties. Itwassuggested thattherelative importance andinter-relation ofSPSand
TBTmeasures attheborder alsoneeded tobeconsidered. Otherwise itcould occur thatprogress made
onaspecific SPSissue would notleadtofurther trade liberalization because therealconstraint was
aTBTmeasure.
23. TheSPSCommittee agreed toholdamore substantive discussion onthematter atitsnext
meeting. TheChairman noted thatwhile Article 12:4would bethebasisfortheSPSCommittee 'swork,
itwould beuseful fortheSPSCommittee toalsotakeintoaccount paragraphs 5and6ofArticle 12.G/SPS/R/4
Page5
RiskAssessment
24. Therepresentative ofAustralia drewtheSPSCommittee 'sattention totheconsiderable progress
inthework ofCodex, particularly regarding thespecialized scientific consultations intheareas of
Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) andthesafety offoodadditives. Thecomplex nature ofthework
itself made itdifficult, however, tocommunicate itsimportance andrelevance, through theSPS
Committee, tothepeople involved inthepolitical decision making, andthere wasadanger thatfull
appreciation would notbeattributed toit.Healsonoted theneedtoresolve differences interminology
usedinthecontext oftheCodex, theOIEandtheIPPC withregard toriskassessment andthewhole
riskanalysis system.
Consistency
25. TheChairman expressed hisappreciation fortheresponses hehadreceived withregard tothe
questions onconsistency circulated subsequent tothelastmeeting oftheSPSCommittee (G/SPS/W/45).
Consultations hadbeenheldwithalmost alldelegations thathadsorequested andduring these initial
exchanges ofviews several delegations hadindicated theneedformore timetoconsider howthe
provision ofconsistency (Article 5:5)could bestbeimplemented. TheChairman indicated thathe
would continue hisconsultations withallthose whoexpressed thewishtobeconsulted, andwould
report ontheprogress made atthenextmeeting oftheSPSCommittee.
26. Onerepresentative stressed thatitwasnecessary toengage inthisdiscussion thenational experts
incapitals whoworked with-anddecided upon -SPSissues inapractical setting.
27. Another representative, while agreeing thatthepractical implementation ofriskassessment
wasveryimportant, noted thatthelackofguidelines onconsistency should notbeallowed tolimit
theeffectiveness oftheSPSAgreement inother areas. Hismain concern wasthusoneofapproach
asheconsidered thattheapparent deadlock inwork onthisareawashampering progress bytheSPS
Committee onother issues. Thismaintained thestatus quothatexisted before theUruguay Round
ofalackofrules, tothebenefit ofsome countries andtothedetriment ofothers. Henoted thatamong
those negatively affected washiscountry. Heexpressed hisapprehension thatfurther discussions on
thismatter might notleadtoanyprogress, andsuggested thatoneoption would betobasetheguidelines
onjurisprudence.
28. Thedelegate fromanother country noted thatmany governments wereintheprocess ofdividing
upwork between theareas ofplant, animal andhuman health. Thismade itdifficult toachieve
consistency intheapplication ofSPSmeasures among thedifferent sectors andservices evenwithin
acountry. Noting thatthese services based theirwork onthatoftherelevant international standard
setting organizations, greater consistency wasneeded intheguidelines from these organizations
themselves, notably withregard toterminology. Lastly, heobserved thattheSPSCommittee hadmade
considerable progress andthatitswork withregard toanissueascomplex asconsistency would require
patience andtime.
Identification ofPractices fortheExchange ofInformation
29. Therepresentative ofNewZealand introduced apaper tabled atthelastmeeting oftheSPS
Committee: "Protocol fortheExchange ofInformation: Procedures Established byNewZealand
fortheDevelopment andImplementation ofaPlantImport Health Standard" (G/SPS/W/36). Thepaper
describes howNewZealand develops plant import health standards while meeting theobjective of
facilitating trade. Hestressed thatthefundamental principle wastheneedforboththeimporting andG/SPS/R/4
Page6
theexporting country toexchange andclearly identify information requirements andtheirmutual
obligations.
Development andApplication ofResidue Limits
30. Therepresentative ofAustralia introduced apaper onthe"Development andApplication of
ResidueLimitstoFoodsinTradeunderWTOSPSPrinciples",whichhadbeensubmittedtotheprevious
meeting oftheSPSCommittee (G/SPS/W/34). Thepaper describes theconventional wayinwhich
MaximumResidueLimits(MRLs)aredeveloped,interpretedandappliedinmany,ifnotmost,countries.
31. ManyparticipantsendorsedthemainprinciplesoftheAustralianpaper,namelytheharmonization
ofnational approaches forsetting MRLs, andthebenefit ofusing Codex standards tothisend.However,
onerepresentative expressed concern withregard tohowuptodatecertain Codex MRLs (inrelation
topesticides) werewithcurrent Good Agricultural Practices. Another delegate noted theimportance
ofalsotaking intoaccount changing dietary patterns, totheextent theseaffected exposure topesticides
through foods, when establishing MRLs. Asuggestion wasmade thatwhen governments required
more stringent tolerances forresidue limits, itmight beuseful ifthejustification forthose be
demonstrated intheCodex itself. Ontheimportance oftheintegrity ofnational decision making
processes intheestablishment of"theappropriate levelofprotection", itwasstressed thattheobjective
wastoprotect human health firstandforemost, buttodosoinawaythatwasleastlikely toimpede
trade unnecessarily.
32. Several participants noted thevastnumber ofapplied foodstandards forwhich there wasno
international standard andtheneedtoconsider theimplications ofthis. Onedelegation underlined
thatthesetting ofMRLs wasbased onlarge quantities ofscientifically established dataandthatthe
gathering ofsuchdatawasacostly burden ifrequired oftheimporting country. Another representative
accentuated theneedforimporting countries totakeintoaccount theGood Agricultural Practices of
exporting countries andnoted thathiscountry routinely requested supporting datafortheestablishment
ofMRLs onimports. Therepresentative ofAustralia responded thattheexistence ofsufficient scientific
information asabasis fortheformulation ofstandards wasanobligation under theSPSAgreement.
Regarding whowasresponsible forproviding thatinformation, inpractice, although notnecessarily
feasible under allcircumstances, thecountry which hadtheinformation, especially theexporting party,
should provide theinformation.
33. Cases werenoted where governments setloworevenzerotolerance levels forchemicals, not
because thesubstance inquestion constituted ariskforhuman health, butbecause thedomestic process
ofregistration andestablishment ofappropriate tolerance levels inlinewithnational Good Agricultural
Practices hadnotbeendeveloped. Theneedforamechanism wasstressed whereby anassessment
could quickly becarried out,astheuseoftheadditive orthepesticide might beentirely legitimate
andsafe,merely notconsidered. Mercosur countries haddecided that,forproducts which hadnot
beenbanned fortoxicological reasons nationally, Codex tolerances would bethereference totheextent
theyexisted. Another representative supported theviewthatwhere therewasnoMRL fixed, itwould
beappropriate tofixatemporary tolerance levelinorder toavoid anunnecessary interference with
trade. TheSPSCommittee 'sattention wasdrawn tothedifficulties thatcertain Members encountered
withregard totheactual analysis involved indetermining theresidues thatmayexistinimported foods.
Thehigh-level andcostly technology involved wasprobably onereason whylimits were setatzero
orclose tozerotolerance.
34. Withregard tocases where adetection ofaresidue levelinviolation ofaMembers 'standard
wasmade,severalparticipantsquestionedtheappropriatenessofrequiringMemberstoreviewestablishedG/SPS/R/4
Page7
practices orprotocols inorder toensure proportionate action. Inviewofthealready existing notification
obligations under theSPSAgreement, thiscould become anadditional encumbrance. Australia indicated
thatitwasnotsuggesting aburdensome newreview system, butrather aperiodic reconsideration of
Members 'established practices orprotocols inrelation towhatwasdonewhere violated residue levels
were detected.
35. Thefullstatements made under thisitembyCanada andtheUnited States arecontained in
documents G/SPS/W/54 andG/SPS/W/55, respectively.
Other SPSIssues
36. Therepresentative ofChile introduced apaper about thedeclaration ofChile asacountry free
offruitflyinDecember 1995 (G/SPS/W/52). TheSPSCommittee wasinformed thatsupport was
being given toaction undertaken byPeruagainst fruit-fly intheTacna region ofthecountry (southern
province bordering onChile).
37. Therepresentative ofUruguay expressed concern withregard tothescope oftheInternational
PlantProtection Convention (IPPC) inrelation tothatoftheSPSAgreement. Itwasnoted thatwhereas
theSPSAgreement covered quarantine typepestsandother pestswhich affected plantlifeandhealth,
thelatter wereinacertain manner excluded fromtheIPPC, oratleastnotdealtwithexplicitly. Yet
non-quarantine typepestscould alsohaveasignificant impact oninternational trade. Uruguay informed
theSPSCommittee thatMercosur haddeveloped definitions forthese harmful pests notcovered by
international standards andwasattempting todevelop specific standards. Contrary toquarantine pests,
acertain leveloftolerance forharmful pestscould beaccepted. Uruguay indicated thatitwould submit
apaper onthissubject forconsideration atthenextmeeting oftheSPSCommittee.
38. Several delegations stressed theimportance ofthematter raised byUruguay. Theobserver
from theIPPC informed theSPSCommittee thatthiswasoneofthemajor points tobediscussed at
anexpert consultation oftheIPPC thefollowing week. Heindicated thathewould endeavour toprovide
awritten report oftheIPPC expert meeting prior tothenextmeeting oftheSPSCommittee.
Technical Assistance
39. TheSecretariat reported onitstechnical assistance activities, including:
(i) Regional seminars organized incooperation withtheCodex, OIEandtheIPPC.Twoadditional
seminars wereplanned: oneinPrague (Central andEastern European countries) andthesecond
inMoscow. TheSecretariat expressed itsgratitude totheGovernment oftheUnited States
formaking theorganization andparticipation ofgovernment officials possible forthese two
seminars. TheSPSCommittee 'sattention wasdrawn tothefactthatthere were regions in
theworld requesting suchseminars butthatthere wasalackoffunding forgovernments -as
wellasSecretariat -participation.
(ii) Seminars organized byother organizations .TheSecretariat continued toparticipate actively
andtotheextentpossibleinseminarsorganizedbyotherorganizations,someonaninternational,
others onaregional scale. TheAPEC wascurrently organizing suchaseminar inManila.
(iii) National seminars andworkshops .TheSecretariat 'sability torespond positively torequests
fornational seminars isconstrained bylimited resources. IfMembers andorganizations would
provide theSPSCommittee regularly withinformation about workshops andseminars ofwhichG/SPS/R/4
Page8
theywereaware, theSecretariat, when unable todirectly provide assistance atanational level,
could advise governments onpossible alternatives intheirproximity.
(iv) Meetings withdelegations .TheSecretariat hadheldseveral briefings ontheSPSAgreement
withinterested delegations inGeneva. These hadfocused mainly ontheobligations and
transparency provisions oftheAgreement. Additional information sessions, intended tofocus
onthebasicobligations oftheAgreement andsome ofitsspecific terms andprovisions, would
soonbeorganized.
40. Therepresentative ofIndia suggested thataregional seminar beorganized inNewDelhi for
thebenefit oftheAsian developing countries intheregion. Likewise, theCuban delegation requested
technical assistance intheareaoftheSPSAgreement.
41. Therepresentative oftheUnited States informed theSPSCommittee about theAPEC SPS
Seminar tobeheldinManila (Philippines) on15-16 May1996. Eighteen countries hadbeeninvited
todiscuss issues associated withtheimplementation oftheAgreement andtheparticipation oftheWTO
Secretariat hadbeenrequested. Itwasalsonoted thattheAPEC group hadbeenrunning aseries of
programmes intheAsian region coordinated byJapan. Oneofthese activities, assisted byAustralia,
hadbeentoconduct asurvey ofAPEC Member countries 'conformity withCodex standards. Afurther
project wasabout tobegin onthedevelopment ofaconsistent food-recall system withCodex standards
asabasis.
42. Chile informed theSPSCommittee thatithadparticipated inseveral meetings, including the
American Summit meeting, withthepurpose ofstudying thepractical implementation andtechnical
assistance requirements oftheSPSAgreement.
43. NewZealand drew theSPSCommittee 'sattention toitsbilateral assistance programme with
thePeople 'sRepublic ofChina. Aseminar would beheldinBeijing inearlyApril forChinese officials
aimed atproviding them withanunderstanding oftheWTO SPSAgreement.
44. Therepresentative oftheCodex informed theSPSCommittee ontheconsiderable number of
technical assistance programmes provided bytheFAOfocusing ontrade aspects andcompliance with
theSPSandTBTAgreementsindevelopingcountries.Theprogrammeswereaimedatassessingexisting
food-control systems andrecommending ways inwhich these could beimproved forthepurpose of
meeting multilateral trade requirements. Itwasnoted thattheCodex, inthecontext oftheSPS
Agreement, participated inWTO regional seminars, seminars organized byother organizations (such
astheWorld Bank), andworkshops sponsored bytheFAO centred ontheSPSAgreement.
45. Therepresentative oftheIPPC noted thattherewasaneedforfollow upoftheWTO seminars
interms ofestablishing appropriate infra-structure inthecountries inquestion suchas,forexample,
adequate plantquarantine services. Henoted thatassistance intheareaofplantquarantine wascurrently
verylimited andthattheattention ofmajor donor agencies needed tobedrawn tothematter.
Report totheMinisterial Conference
46. TheChairman noted thateachWTO Committee would berequested tosubmit areport for
consideration bytheMinisterial Conference meeting inSingapore inDecember 1996. Itwasagreed
thattheChairman would begin informal consultations withrespect tothenature ofthisreport andany
other preparatory work which might beappropriate.G/SPS/R/4
Page9
Other Business
47. Brazil drew theSPSCommittee 'sattention toamatter regarding thenon-issuance ofimport
licencesforexportsofBraziliangelatinetoNorway.BrazilhadtraditionallyexportedgelatinetoNorway
exclusively fromthesouthern states ofParaná, RioGrande doSulandSãoPaulo. However, in1991,
Norway hadhalted theissuance ofimport licences forBrazilian gelatine onthegrounds oftheexistence
ofFootandMouthDisease(FMD)inBrazil.ConsultationswithNorwegianauthoritieshadbeeninitiated
inthesecond quarter of1995. Although Norwegian authorities hadreportedly declared thattheproblem
wasresolved, import licences continued tobedenied. Therepresentative ofNorway stated that,in
thecontext ofrecent changes toimport regulations, thebanonimports ofgelatine fromBrazil would
belifted. ThetwoMembers agreed tocontinue theirconsultations onthismatter.
48. Onadifferent matter, therepresentative ofBrazil informed theSPSCommittee thatBrazil
would behosting thefirstinternational conference onFMD.
49. Therepresentative ofArgentina indicated thatArgentina hadconsidered themanner bywhich
theworkoftheSPSCommittee could befurthered. Sixconcrete suggestions werepresented (contained
indocument G/SPS/W/53) forconsideration atthenextmeeting oftheSPSCommittee.
Election ofChairperson
50. TheSPSCommittee wasinformed thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods hadappointed
Ambassador KariBergholm (Finland) asChairman oftheSPSCommittee foranother year.
Date andAgenda ofnextMeeting
51. Thefollowing provisional agenda forthemeeting ofthe29-30 May1996(tentative date)was
agreed:
A. Adoption oftheagenda
B. Observers
C. Rules ofProcedure
D. Implementation oftheAgreement --information from Members
E. Transparency Provisions:
(i) Consideration ofspecific notifications received
(ii) Proposed modifications tothenotification formats, guidelines andprocedures
(iii) Anyother matters related totheoperation oftransparency provisions
F. Monitoring ofuseofinternational standards
[Risk assessment (general approach anddescription ofactual cases ofriskassessment]G/SPS/R/4
Page10
G. Consistency
[Identification ofpractices forexchange ofinformation]
H. Development andapplication ofresidue limits
[Other SPSissues]
I. Work programme oftheSPSCommittee
J. Technical assistance
K. Preparatory work forSingapore
L. Matters ofinterest arising from thework ofobserver organizations
(i) Revision ofIPPC (injurious pests)
M. Other business
N. Agenda ofnextmeeting