The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Committee also tentatively agreed on a report concluding its third review of how the SPS Agreement is working. The report, originally due out at the end of 2009, will be formally approved if no one raises further objections by 15 April. (When confirmed, this is expected to be document G/SPS/53.) The report reviews the past four years and identifies areas for the committee's future work.

The committee continued to discuss private sector standards, with some members calling for a clearer interpretation of the relationship between these and the SPS Agreement — whose focus is on government standards.

And with specific trade concerns raised in the committee since 1995 now approaching 300, members continued to comment on each others' measures, including regular topics such as avian influenza, mad cow disease (BSE) and the H1N1 virus.

New observers

The new observers are the Economic Community for West African States (ECOWAS), Community of the Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) and Southern African Development Community (SADC). Like some other observers in the SPS Committee, they will be “ad hoc” — invited meeting by meeting, starting in June — a solution devised because the membership is still deliberating a common approach for observers across all WTO subjects.

Regional organizations that are already observers in the SPS Committee are: Organismo Internacional de Sanidad Agropecuaria (OIRSA), which works among some Latin American countries, and the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), the Latin American Economic System (SELA) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

A number of African countries said they were keen for their three organizations to become observers because the three help countries improve their ability to meet international standards and therefore to export to international markets. Some delegations find it difficult to attend all meetings and therefore the regional observers will also help them keep track of work in the WTO.

And, making these organizations observers also ties in with technical assistance they receive from some developed countries on sanitary and phytosanitary issues.

Specific concerns: overall

One of the SPS Committee's most important functions is to provide an opportunity for members to raise concerns they have about each others' SPS measures. This is the SPS Committee's bread-and-butter work in overseeing the agreement's implementation.

The latest summary of specific trade concerns was presented to this meeting. It says 290 issues were raised from 1995, when the WTO was set up, until the end of last year (2009). This contrasts with 36 formal legal disputes citing the SPS Agreement out of more than 400 formal legal disputes across all subjects brought to the WTO in the same period.

Although a number of concerns raised in the SPS Committee are not potential legal disputes, the committee's discussions are partly seen as a way of avoiding litigation.

The peak year for new cases was 2002, when 42 were first raised in the committee, but the number has stayed below 20 since 2006, with 13 new issues in 2009.

The largest number of cases (40%) are about animal health and among these mad cow disease (BSE), foot and mouth disease, and avian influenza account for over two thirds of issues.

Altogether, 79 cases have solutions reported, 18 have partial solutions reported, and 193 are on-going (or are resolved without being reported to the WTO).

The report shows that developing countries have been active in raising concerns, asking or joining others in asking around half of the issues raised (146.)

Specific concerns: discussed this time

Several issues raised were old ones, raised in previous meetings. Those summarized here tend to be issues that have generated concerns among a number of members.

Australia's new import requirements for beef. Australia described the steps it is taking to revise the requirements and said an import risk analysis will be needed, which will take up to two years. Canada, the EU and the US were disappointed with the 9 March announcement that two years will be needed for fresh beef. They said they had previously understood that this lengthy process would no longer be needed. Australia said the concerns would be taken into account and that it would use scientific methods and those of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), one of the standards-setting bodies recognized by the SPS Agreement.

The EU and Switzerland repeated their more general concern about countries' import restrictions because of BSE, even on products that the OIE considers to be safe.

EU's warning label requirements for artificial colouring: These colourings are used in drinks and confectionary, including those consumed by children. The US, New Zealand and Mexico said the labelling would create alarm when scientific research (including an often-cited study by Southampton University), showed the colouring has no risks. The EU said the Southampton study had aroused pulibc interest leading to the requirement to use warning labels, which are designed to offer consumers choices. Companies have time to adjust because of the 18-month transition period, and European producers would also have to adapt, it said.

Colombia's complaint against Venezuela (no. 290): Colombia repeated its complaint that Venezuela had stopped issuing import certificates, which Colombia said affected virtually all its agricultural exports to Venezuela. Venezuela denied that trade had been disrupted and asked Colombia for copies of the evidence it cited. Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba supported Venezuela and urged the two sides to settle the issue amicably.

India's measures on bird flu (no. 185): The EU and US continued to complain about India's import restrictions for example on pigs and poultry products, which they said were not justified, and do not comply with the standards of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). India repeated that the measures are necessary to protect health.

Other specific trade concerns: Also discussed were: Costa Rica complaining about US restrictions on ornamental plants larger than 18 inches (the US said it is working with Costa Rica to find a science-based solution and is waiting for information from Costa Rica); complaints from Brazil and Japan about Malaysia's import restrictions on plant and plant products, China's concerns about continuing US restrictions on cooked poultry products (no. 256, raised several times).

Private sector standards

Consultations among about 30 members in an ad hoc working group continued earlier in the week. In the committee, Kenya said the provision in the SPS Agreement dealing with this should be clarified.

Since the agreement mainly deals with government measures, some members doubt whether the committee can act on private sector standards. The agreement's Art.13 includes this sentence: “Members shall take such reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure that non-governmental entities within their territories, as well as regional bodies in which relevant entities within their territories are members, comply with the relevant provisions of this Agreement.” But there is no indication of how this should be done.

When first raised in 2005, this issue took the SPS Committee into comparatively new territory — the committee generally deals with standards set by international standards-setting bodies and those imposed by governments. A number of developing countries in particular are concerned that private standards could undermine the disciplines negotiated in the SPS Agreement.

Mediation by the chairperson

Members continued to debate whether to aim for specific rules in SPS until similar guidelines across all issues are agreed under the Doha Round negotiations on non-agricultural market access (NAMA).

The discussion arises because Argentina and the US have proposed guidelines for applying Art.12.2 of the SPS Agreement, which deals with members' consultations to resolve issues. In particular they envisage members using the “good offices” of the chairperson to settle specific trade concerns. India and a number of other developing countries would prefer to wait for the outcome of the NAMA negotiations.