South Africa seeks panel reviews of EU measures affecting imports of citrus fruit

DS613: European Union – Measures Concerning the Importation of Citrus Fruit from South Africa

DS624: European Union – Additional Measures Concerning the Importation of Citrus Fruit from South Africa

South Africa submitted two requests for panels in disputes it initiated concerning European Union regulations governing the importation of citrus fruits, which impact imports from South Africa.  The measures in question concern import restrictions imposed by the EU to control spread of the insect Thaumatotibia leucotreta, or False Codling Moth, and the fungus P. citricarpa, known as “citrus black spot." Consultations with the EU aimed at resolving the dispute took place but did not resolve in a mutually agreed solution.

South Africa said that in both cases, the EU measures were not based on scientific principles, are maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, and are more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve the EU's appropriate level of protection. South Africa also said the EU failed to account for regional differences with regards to pest risk in the application of the measures.  The measures are having a severe impact on South Africa's citrus exports, which provide jobs to more than 140,000 people in the country, it added.  Moreover, the measures affect other countries in the region that depend on South Africa's infrastructure for their citrus fruit exports.

South Africa said it needed to ensure that its rights are safeguarded through WTO dispute settlement procedures but that it is open to continued talks with the EU in order to secure a mutually agreed solution.

The European Union said it regretted South Africa's decision to pursue panel proceedings in the two cases but maintained that its pest control measures are entirely justified and that it would succeed in any dispute proceedings.  The EU added that it was not ready at this meeting to agree to the requests for panels from South Africa.

The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to these matters, should a requesting member wish to do so.

DS597 United States – Origin Marking Requirement (Hong Kong, China)

For the 11th time, the United States raised the matter of the panel ruling in DS597 at a DSB meeting. The US said it was raising the matter again as a result of recent developments in Hong Kong, China regarding free speech and human rights. The US referred back to its previous statements regarding its position on essential security and its reasons for placing this item on the DSB agenda.

Hong Kong, China said the US once again raising this matter at the DSB was an abuse of WTO rules. Previous WTO panels have dismissed US claims that invoking national security in defense of a trade-restrictive measure is entirely self-judging.  Any objections should be heard by the WTO's Appellate Body, which remains blocked due to the US refusal to allow appointment of new Appellate Body members, said Hong Kong, China.

China reiterated its firm belief that a restored appeal mechanism is the proper place to address claims of error made by the panel and rejected in the strongest terms what it said was US interference in the internal affairs of another WTO member.

Appellate Body appointments

Colombia, speaking on behalf of 130 members, introduced for the 77th time the group's proposal to start the selection processes for filling vacancies on the Appellate Body. The extensive number of members submitting the proposal reflects a common concern over the current situation in the Appellate Body which is seriously affecting the overall WTO dispute settlement system against the best interest of members, Colombia said for the group.

The United States repeated that it does not support the proposed decision to commence the appointment of Appellate Body members as its longstanding concerns with WTO dispute settlement remain unaddressed.

Twenty-five members then took the floor to comment. Many of these members referred to their previous statements made on this matter at earlier DSB meetings and underlined the urgent need to meet the mandates set out at the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12) and MC13 to conduct discussions, with the view to having a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all members by 2024. Several welcomed the start of the formal dispute settlement reform process and the appointment of co-coordinators to assist the facilitator, Ambassador Usha Dwarka Canabady of Mauritius, in her work.

Colombia said that on behalf of the 130 members it regretted that for the 77th occasion members have not been able to launch the selection processes. Ongoing conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should not prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully, and members shall comply with their obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies as they arise, Colombia said for the group.

The DSB chair, Ambassador Saqer Abdullah Almoqbel (Saudi Arabia), concluded by expressing his full support for the facilitator in her efforts towards achieving a positive outcome within the mandated time frame.

Surveillance of implementation

The United States presented status reports with regard to DS184, "US — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan",  DS160, "United States — Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act", DS464, "United States — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Large Residential Washers from Korea", and DS471,"United States — Certain Methodologies and their Application to Anti-Dumping Proceedings Involving China."

The European Union presented a status report with regard to DS291, "EC — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products."

Indonesia presented its status reports in DS477 and DS478, "Indonesia — Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal Products." 

Next meeting

The next regular DSB meeting will take place on 26 July 2024.

Share