A_TAHSC_FEBRUARY 2014_INTRO.pdf (316 Ko)

OIE •12, rue de Prony • 75017 Paris • France
Tel.: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • www.oie.int • [email protected]
Original: English
February 2014
REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE OIE
TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL HEALTH STANDARDS COMMISSION
Paris, 11–20 February 2014
______
The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission (the Code Commission) met at the OIE Headquarters in
Paris from 11 to 20 February 2014. The list of participants is attached as Annex I.
The Code Commission thanked the following Member Countries for providing written comments on draft texts
circulated after the Commission’s September meeting: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Canada, Chile,
China, Chinese Taipei, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, South
Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, the Philippines, the United States of America (USA), Uruguay, the 28 Member States of
the European Union (EU), the African Union–Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) on behalf of the
OIE Delegates of Africa, and the Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria (OIRSA). Comments
were also received from the Comité Veterinario Permanente del Cono Sur (CVP). In addition, the International Embryo
Transfer Society (IETS) and the International Coalition for Farm Animal Welfare (ICFAW) submitted comments.
The Code Commission reviewed Member Countries’ comments that had been submitted by 10 January 2014 and
amended texts in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Terrestrial Code) where appropriate. The amendments
are shown in the usual manner by ‘double underline’ and ‘strikethrough’ and may be found in the Annexes to the report.
Amendments made at the February 2014 meeting are highlighted with a coloured background in order to distinguish
them from those made previously. All Member Countries’ comments were considered by the Code Commission.
However, because of the very large volume of work, the Commission was not able to draft a detailed explanation of the
reasons for accepting or not every proposal received. Member Countries are reminded that if comments are resubmitted
without modification or new justification, the Commission will not, as a rule, repeat previous explanations for
decisions. The Commission encourages Member Countries to refer to previous reports when preparing comments on
longstanding issues. The Commission also draws the attention of Member Countries to those instances where the
Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases (the Scientific Commission) has addressed Member Countries’ comments
and proposed amendments. In such cases, the rationale for such amendments is described in the Scientific
Commission’s report and the Code Commission encourages Member Countries to review its report together with those
of the Scientific Commission and ad hoc groups.
Member Countries should note that texts in Part A of this report are proposed for adoption at the 82nd General Session
in May 2014. Texts in Part B are submitted for comment by Member Countries and comments received will be
addressed during the Commission’s meeting in September 2014. The reports of meetings (Working Group and ad hoc
Groups) and other related documents are attached for information in Part B of this report.
The Code Commission again strongly encourages Member Countries to participate in the development of the OIE’s
international standards by submitting comments on this report, and prepare to participate in the process of adoption at
the General Session. Comments should be submitted as specific proposed text changes, supported by a structured
rationale. Proposed deletions should be indicated in ‘strikethrough’ and proposed additions with ‘double underline’.
Member Countries should not use the automatic ‘track-changes’ function provided by word processing software as such
changes are lost in the process of collating Member Countries’ submissions into the Commission’s working documents.

2
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2014
Comments on this report must reach OIE Headquarters by 8 August 2014 to be considered at the September 2014
meeting of the Code Commission. All comments should be sent to the OIE International Trade Department at:
[e-mail].
A. MEETING WITH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
The Code Commission met Dr Bernard Vallat, the Director General of the OIE, on 11 February 2014 to discuss several
key topics as follows.
1. Coordination among Specialist Commissions
Dr Alejandro Thiermann noted that the participation of the Code Commission members as observers in relevant ad
hoc Group meetings has proven very useful in ensuring early alignment of the work of ad hoc Groups with the
needs of the Code Commission. It was also agreed that the welcome return to scheduling overlapping Scientific
and Code Commission meetings to allow joint meetings in both February and September 2014 will enable greater
cohesion and alignment of the work of both Commissions. Dr Vallat also noted that the imminent appointment of
Deputy Director General Dr Evans will contribute to improve coordination between the Specialist Commissions
and relevant OIE Headquarters’ departments.
2. High health status horse subpopulation
Dr Vallat outlined the background to the current work programme with the Fédération Equestre Internationale
(FEI) and the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA). The expectation is that once the concept
and principles are adopted, more detailed guidelines will be developed as needed. The Code Commission
welcomed this approach and agreed with the importance of highlighting and applying existing standards to
facilitate temporary movement of these high health status horses.
The growing issue of smuggling and necessary controls at border inspection posts was also discussed.
B. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The adopted agenda of the meeting is attached as Annex II.
C. REPORT ON THE JOINT MEETING OF THE CODE COMMISSION AND
THE SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION (14th February)
The Code Commission and the Scientific Commission met together on 14th February to discuss various issues of mutual
interest. The minutes of this joint meeting are attached as Annex III.
D. EXAMINATION OF MEMBER COUNTRY COMMENTS AND
WORK OF RELEVANT EXPERT GROUPS
Item 1. General comments of Member Countries
General comments were received from Australia, Bangladesh, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, and AU-
IBAR.
Under this item, the Code Commission noted Member Countries’ endorsement of the proposals in the report
of the September 2014 meeting.
In response to a Member Country’s comment on the consistency and accuracy of the use of the terms
embryos/oocytes, embryos/ova and embryos throughout the Terrestrial Code, it was agreed that the
International Trade Department would identify where these terms are used, and seek an expert’s advice on
which term is appropriate in each instance for review by the Code Commission at its September 2014
meeting.
A Member Country observed an inconsistency in the way commodities are classified as safe amongst various
chapters of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes. The Code Commission proposed that ‘safe commodities’ in
each chapter should refer to those commodities that, regardless of the specific disease status of the exporting
country or zone, are safe for trade without treatment or with generic treatments such as canning,
pasteurisation, ante- and post-mortem inspection, etc. Commodities that require pathogen specific treatment
are excluded. The Code Commission will take this into consideration as chapters are reviewed, and liaise
with the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Standards Commission (the Aquatic Animals Commission) as
appropriate.
In response to a Member Country’s concern on variations to the cycle of standard development, including
shorter than normal periods for consultation on draft texts, the Code Commission agreed that the OIE should
minimise such irregularities.

3
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2014
In response to a Member Country’s observation on the inconsistent use of the terms ‘disinsection’
‘disinsectisation’, and ‘disinfestation’ in the Terrestrial Code, the Commission recognised each of these
terms has a specific meaning and requested the International Trade Department to review where these terms
are used in the Terrestrial Code, and provide recommendations for appropriate amendments for the Code
Commission to consider at its September 2014 meeting. The Code Commission recognised that the title of
Chapter 4.13. should be ‘disinsection’ rather than ‘disinsectisation’, as this is the term used by WHO, IATA
and numerous other organisations, and proposes that amendment.
Item 2. Horizontal issues
a) User’s Guide
Comments were received from Argentina, Australia, China, EU, New Zealand, Switzerland, and AU-IBAR.
In response to a Member Country’s comment requesting definition of the term ‘standard’, the Code
Commission recalled the clarification of this issue made in the report of the February 2013 Code
Commission report as follows:
“While recognising that the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the
World Trade Organization does not make a legal distinction between the terms standards, guidelines and
recommendations, the Commission considered that there should be clear differentiation when they are used
in the OIE texts: ‘standards’ means any texts which have been subjected to the official procedure of the OIE
for adoption by the World Assembly of Delegates, and thus are found in Codes and Manuals, while
‘guidelines’ and ‘recommendations’ are used for other texts published by the OIE Headquarters”.
The Commission accepted a Member Country’s suggestion to amend point 2 of the introduction to use the
active voice and improve readability, but rejected Member Countries’ suggestion to replace “ones” with
“pathogenic agents” in the same point as inferior syntax.
The Commission accepted Member Countries’ suggestion to delete unnecessary words from the end of
point 3 of the introduction.
The Commission accepted the OIE Headquarters’ suggestion to insert new point 5 into the introduction to
remind readers that the Terrestrial Code is available on the OIE website.
The Code Commission made additional changes to improve harmonisation with the Aquatic Animal Health
Code (the Aquatic Code) where appropriate.
A Member Country’s comment on the use of the Terrestrial Code triggered a discussion on those instances in
which there are no recommendations on a specific issue in the Terrestrial Code. The Code Commission
considered that the absence of recommendations does not mean that measures may not be applied. For
example, the absence of a recommendation on trade in a particular chapter does not mean that the commodity
in question should not be traded. Also, absence of an entire chapter on a specific disease does not mean a
Member Country may not apply animal health measures relevant to the disease in question to protect its
territory. However, such measures should be based on a risk analysis. The Code Commission drafted a new
point 4 in Section A to clarify this point.
With respect to point 4 of Section B, the Code Commission agreed with Member Countries’ view that the
meaning of ‘to justify import measures which result in a higher level of protection than would be achieved by
measures based on existing OIE trade standards’ is not clear. The Code Commission revised the text to
clarify that its focus is on the extent to which different measures restrict trade.
The Code Commission did not accept a Member Country’s proposal to change ‘disinsection’ to
‘disinfestation’ in point 6 of Section B as these terms are not synonyms. ‘Disinsection’ is a broader term than
‘disinfestation’.
In response to Member Countries’ comments, the Code Commission modified the language of points 9 and
10 of Section B to improve clarity and readability, and accepted a Member Country’s suggestion to correct
the Spanish version of point 10.

4
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2014
The Code Commission accepted Member Countries’ suggestions to improve wording and grammar of the
text in Section C on Notification, Diagnostic tests and vaccines, and Prevention and control. It rejected a
Member Country’s suggestion to add ‘infestations’ to the text on Prevention and control for Chapters 4.5. to
4.11. since these chapters deal with semen and embryos for which only ‘diseases’ and ‘infections’ are
relevant.
The Code Commission accepted a Member Country’s suggestion to split the text in Section C 3 on
Prevention and Control referring to Chapters 6.4. and 6.5. into separate sentences and delete an unnecessary
phrase from the end of the sentence referring to Chapter 6.5.
The Code Commission agreed with a Member Country’s comment on the first paragraph of Section C 4 on
Trade requirements to improve the structure of the sentence. It also accepted another comment on the text
with respect to safe commodities to use stronger and more direct wording about expectations.
In Section C 5 on International Veterinary Certificates, the Code Commission accepted, but modified,
Member Countries’ comments to improve sentence structure, grammar and readability.
Similarly, the Code Commission accepted, but modified, a Member Country’s suggestion to improve
sentence structure in the text in Section C 6 on Guidance notes for importers and exporters.
The revised User’s Guide is attached as Annex IV to be presented for adoption at the 82nd General Session in
May 2014.
b) General obligations related to certification
The Code Commission accepted the OIE Headquarters’ suggestion to reword Article 5.1.2. points 1 and 2 to
improve clarity.
The revised Chapter 5.1., as attached in Annex V, is presented for adoption at the 82nd General Session in
May 2014.
c) Harmonisation of articles on disease status determination
The Commission agreed with the OIE Headquarters’ suggestion to harmonise currently inconsistent language
in various chapters introducing the criteria to be applied to determine the disease status of a country or zone.
It decided to use ‘should be determined on the basis of’ instead of other phrases for the recommendation to
the Veterinary Authority and to use ‘is’ instead of ‘should be’ for the criteria, which are facts. These
amendments will be incorporated as and when other changes are proposed in the relevant chapters.
Item 3 Glossary
Comments were received from Argentina, Belarus, Chile, EU, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Russia,
Switzerland, USA and OIRSA.
The Code Commission accepted Member Countries’ suggestions to improve the clarity and specificity of the
definition of emerging disease, but rejected one comment suggesting the additions of further text to specify
the types of changes of a known pathogenic agent as too restrictive. Similarly it rejected Member Countries’
suggestion to replace ‘pathogenic’ with ‘aetiologic’, which it considered a less specific adjective.
The Code Commission accepted the OIE Headquarters’ suggestion to add ‘scientific’ to the definition of risk
assessment.
For the definition of ‘stamping out’ the Code Commission accepted a Member Country’s suggestion to
replace ‘premises’ with ‘establishment’ (which is defined in the glossary), and suggested improvements to
the Spanish version but rejected a Member Country’s suggestion to add ‘Total’ to the term ‘Stamping out’ as
unnecessary since ‘modified stamping out’ is defined.

5
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2014
In response to Member Countries’ divergent and irreconcilable comments on the definition of ‘veterinarian’,
the Code Commission noted that none of the proposed changes could be applied to all Member Countries,
given that many Member Countries do not yet have Veterinary Statutory Bodies or education requirements
for veterinarians specified in legislation. The Code Commission also noted that this issue is likely to be
considered further in progressing the recommendation from the 2013 OIE Global Conference on Veterinary
Education and the Role of the Veterinary Statutory Body to develop a global register of Veterinary Education
Establishments. Considering these points, the Code Commission decided not to propose any change to the
current definition of ‘veterinarian’.
The revised Glossary is attached as Annex VI to be presented for adoption at the 82nd General Session in
May 2014.
Item 4 Notification of diseases, infections, infestations and epidemiological information (Chapter 1.1.)
Comments were received from Argentina, Australia, EU, New Zealand, South Africa, Switzerland, USA and
AU-IBAR.
The Code Commission accepted Member Countries’ suggestion to differentiate obligatory notification and
voluntary information in the title of Chapter 1.1.
It also accepted Member Countries’ suggestion to add reference to Article 1.1.3. bis to Articles 1.1.2. point 2,
and 5.
The Code Commission accepted Member Countries’ suggestions to re-arrange the wording of Article 1.1.2.
points 4 and 5 to improve readability.
The Code Commission decided to refer Member Countries’ questions and comments on the formatting of
reports to the OIE Information Department to review and report back to the September 2014 meeting of the
Commission.
The Code Commission rejected Member Countries’ suggestion to replace the word ‘unusual’ with ‘novel’ or
‘new’ in Article 1.1.3. point e as too restrictive given that new or novel may be interpreted as the first
occurrence only at either global or individual country level.
The Code Commission rejected Member Countries’ suggestion to split Article 1.1.3. point d into two
paragraphs as unnecessary.
The Code Commission rejected a Member Country’s suggestion to require notification in Article 1.1.3. bis
point 1 within 24 hours, since an emerging disease is extremely unlikely to be recognised as such within
24 hours of first occurrence. The Code Commission reflected that it can take weeks or months before it is
realised that an observed disease is new and emerging as described in the glossary. It also noted that the
WAHIS notification system ensures all Member Countries are notified of a new emerging disease report as
soon as the information is confirmed.
The Code Commission accepted a Member Country’s suggestion to re-format Article 1.1.3. bis point 2 to
improve readability.
The Code Commission rejected Member Countries’ suggestion to reference ‘event closure’ in Article 1.1.3.
bis point 2, since this situation is included in the existing provisions referencing ‘eradication’ or ‘sufficiently
stable’.
Similarly, the Code Commission rejected as unnecessary a Member Country’s suggestion to add to this
chapter language already provided in the WAHIS instructions.
The revised Chapter 1.1. is attached as Annex VII to be presented for adoption at the 82nd General Session in
May 2014.