STC Number - 104

FMD restrictions

Maintained by: Chile
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by: Brazil; United States of America
First date raised: October 2001 G/SPS/R/25, paras. 90-91
Dates subsequently raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 40-41)
June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, para. 126)
Number of times subsequently raised: 2
Relevant documents: G/SPS/N/CHL/102
Products covered: 0201 Meat of bovine animals, fresh or chilled.; 0202 Meat of bovine animals, frozen.
Primary subject keyword: Animal Health
Keywords: Animal health; International Standards / Harmonization; Pest or Disease free Regions / Regionalization
Status: Resolved
Solution: Argentina reported that the issue of Chile's FMD restrictions had been resolved.
Date reported as resolved: 01/03/2004

Extracts from SPS Committee meeting summary reports

Argentina was concerned about Chile's draft regulations on fresh or frozen beef, which categorized countries according two categories: FMD-free with or without vaccination. These draft rules seemed to be more restrictive than the OIE standard, which allowed for the possibility of permitting imports from FMD-infected countries or zones as long as certain risk mitigation procedures had been used. Argentina requested Chile to provide sufficient scientific justification as required by Article 3.3. Chile replied that that it was premature to discuss the issue as the draft regulation had not yet been circulated internationally and a bilateral technical meeting was scheduled for early November. The deadline for public comments had only just passed and comments received had not yet been considered. Chile had not yet been asked to provide a risk assessment by the Argentine authorities.
In March 2002, Argentina referred to Chilean notification G/SPS/N/CHL/102 on fresh and frozen meat controls. It appeared Chile would permit imports from countries in one of two categories: FMD free without vaccination or FMD free with vaccination. The draft Chilean regulation did not allow for the import of fresh or frozen bovine meat from countries with zones infected with FMD. As such, the requirement was more demanding than the OIE Animal Health Code which permitted imports if risk mitigation procedures were followed in countries where FMD was present. Argentina requested Chile to amend its draft regulation to reflect the OIE code, or to show sufficient scientific grounds for not applying the international reference standard. Brazil supported Argentina and the United States stated that they had sent written comments to Chile and hoped that these comments would be taken into account.
Chile explained that the entry into force of the measures in question had been postponed twice to enable other trading partners to make additional comments. Controlling the 1987 outbreak of FMD in Chile had cost $8.5 million and forced the eradication of 30,000 animals ? a considerable cost for Chile. Nevertheless, Chile planned to allow for the possibility of importing from countries not recognized as FMD free by the OIE, on the basis of a risk assessment by the Chilean authorities. In the case of Argentina, Chile had not learnt of the FMD outbreak in that country through their bilateral usual channels so the normal risk analysis procedures could not be applied and emergency measures had had to be instituted.
In June 2002, Argentina reported that progress had been made towards resolving this issue at bilateral meetings.
In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issue of Chile's FMD restrictions had been resolved.