STC Number - 111

FMD restrictions

Maintained by: Indonesia
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by: Brazil
First date raised: October 2001 G/SPS/R/25 paras. 92-93 (véase también el punto 132)
Dates subsequently raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31 paras. 35-36)
June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34 paras. 34-35)
October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35 paras. 53-55)
March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1 paras. 48-49)
June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1 paras 175-176)
October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39 paras. 76-79)
Number of times subsequently raised: 6
Relevant documents: G/SPS/GEN/240
Products covered: 02 Meat and edible meat offal; 07 Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers; 10 Cereals; 0201 Meat of bovine animals, fresh or chilled.; 0202 Meat of bovine animals, frozen.; 1005 Maize (corn).
Primary subject keyword: Animal Health
Keywords: Animal health; International Standards / Harmonization
Status: Not reported
Date reported as resolved:

Extracts from SPS Committee meeting summary reports

In October 2001, Argentina noted it had raised concerns about Indonesia's FMD restrictions on certain products. Although Indonesia had informed Argentina that certain products had been re-classified, the changes had not been implemented and Argentina was still unable to export the products concerned, mainly vegetables and corn. Indonesia stated that the ban on Argentine corn had been lifted as of August 2001. Indonesia looked forward to holding further bilateral discussions.
In October 2003, Argentina recalled that Indonesian restrictions went beyond the OIE recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/240) and included products not affected by FMD, i.e., cereals. Argentina requested Indonesia to provide scientific evidence to justify the measures or else lift the measures. Argentina had provided documentation in an informal bilateral meeting with Indonesia and proposed a visit of experts to resolve the issue. Indonesia stated that FMD was a serious risk as Indonesia was free of the disease. The ban was periodically evaluated and could be temporary. A visit by experts from Indonesia was being considered. Progress on this issue was being made in consultations with Argentina and the Committee would be informed.
In June 2004, Argentina stated that Argentine bovine meat continued to be prohibited despite having made several requests to Indonesia's veterinary service. Indonesia required that bovine products come from areas free from FMD for the past twelve months, and where vaccination had not been carried out in the previous three consecutive years. These measures went beyond official OIE recommendations. Indonesia had not provided any scientific evidence to support these restrictive measures. Indonesia noted that the matter had been discussed in bilateral meetings with Argentina. The importation of ruminants and ruminant products from countries with endemic status or FMD-free with vaccination was prohibited pending further decisions by the Indonesian expert commissions of veterinary public health and animal health.
In October 2004, Argentina reported that Indonesia continued to prohibit imports of Argentine beef. Indonesia was requested to comply with OIE recommendations or submit a risk analysis to justify its measures. Brazil shared Argentina's concerns. Indonesia had prohibited imports of soybean and soybean products from FMD-free areas with vaccination in Brazil. Indonesia's measures were inconsistent with OIE guidelines and recommendations and Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.
Indonesia explained that any country wishing to export to Indonesia must be free of FMD and rinderpest as stipulated in the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture Decree 1992. Countries meeting these requirements were allowed to export to Indonesia. With respect to Argentina, imports were allowed when Argentina was declared FMD-free in 2000. However, imports were suspended when there was an outbreak of the disease. Argentina and Brazil had not been declared FMD-free without vaccination by the OIE. The same conditions also applied to soybean and soybean products and imports would be allowed into Indonesia once the outbreaks were brought under control.
In March 2005, Argentina argued that Indonesia's restrictions were inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreement. Not only did Indonesia's requirements exceed the provisions of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the OIE, but they were even less justified now that Argentina had recovered its status of free from FMD with vaccination in the region north of latitude 42°. Indonesia noted that it had submitted a protocol for the approval and inspection of exports of meat products from Argentina and was waiting for the response from Argentina.
In June 2005, Argentina recalled that Indonesia's requirement that the country of origin had been FMD-free for at least 12 months prior to shipment,and had not vaccinated against the disease in three years, exceeded the OIE Code, especially as Argentina had regained its FMD-free status. Brazil reportedsimilar experienced problems with exports of meat and meat products to Indonesia. Indonesia indicated the concerns would be forwarded to the relevant authorities.
In February 2006, Argentina noted that Indonesian health authorities had been invited to inspect the entire Argentine production chain for meat. Brazil noted that restrictions remained on products such as heat-processed meats, although the technology protected the product from FMD infection.
Indonesia clarified that it had a policy of maximum security for imported products of animal origin based on two criteria, animal health and veterinary public health. The overall objective was to maintain Indonesia's status as a country free from all major diseases such as FMD and BSE, and to protect consumers' health and spiritual comfort through assuring the safety of animals distributed in Indonesia. Indonesia undertook on site reviews of potential exporters in order to collect direct and detailed information as a prerequisite for import authorisation. In December 2005, Indonesia had notified Argentina of its intention to visit Argentina in order to undertake an on site review.