AVIAN FLU: HONDURAS STILL BANS POULTRY FROM TEN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 TEGUCIGALPA 000705

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EB/TPP/ABT/ATP: BYODER AND AWINTON
STATE FOR WHA/CEN AND WHA/EPSC
STATE PASS USTR FOR MCOLON-PULLANO
GUATEMALA FOR AGATT SHUETE
MANAGUA FOR APHIS ATTACHE SSMITH

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD AMED TBIO PGOV HO OIE
SUBJECT: AVIAN FLU: HONDURAS STILL BANS POULTRY FROM TEN
U.S. STATES

REF: STATE 50349


1. SUMMARY: A new decree has renewed and slightly modified
the ban which Honduras places on poultry exports from
certain U.S. states, citing concerns of high-pathogenic and
low-pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI and LPAI). The decree
implementing the ban was signed on March 5, but only brought
to the Embassy's attention when EconOff delivered reftel
demarche on March 12. Three aspects of the GOH's position
are particularly disturbing. First, the selection of states
subject to the ban seems to have been made arbitrarily,
perhaps even accidentally. Second, the GOH refuses to
recognize any distinction between the high-pathogenic and
low-pathogenic varieties of the disease, contrary to the
guidelines of the World Organization for Animal Health
(OIE). And third, the GOH will give no clear guidance as to
what evidence a state must present for the ban to be lifted.
END SUMMARY.

--------------
Background
--------------


2. Even prior to the recent request for a demarche on the
subject, the Embassy has been engaged with the Honduran
authorities on the issue of unjustifiable restrictions
against U.S. poultry exports. In July 2002, the GOH
declared a ban on poultry products from eleven states,
citing concerns about LPAI and other poultry diseases.
Throughout 2002 and 2003, APHIS representatives and USDA and
Embassy officials communicated regularly with the GOH
official in charge of the issue, Dr. Lizardo Reyes, Director
of the National Agricultural Health Service (SENASA).
Documents from APHIS updated Dr. Reyes on the measures taken
to eradicate LPAI and other diseases in the states subject
to the ban. Finally in February 2004, Dr. Reyes verbally
agreed to write a letter lifting the poultry ban. Embassy
officials were still waiting for the letter when reftel
demarche request arrived.

--------------
A New Ban, With a Revised List of States
--------------


3. On March 12, EconOff and the USDA Agriculture Specialist
delivered reftel demarche to Dr. Reyes, echoing the points
that APHIS and Embassy officials had been making for nearly
two years. Instead of presenting a letter lifting the ban
that he had promised a month earlier, Dr. Reyes gave EmbOffs
a copy of a decree that had been published on March 5,
renewing the ban on poultry products, and slightly altering
the list of states affected. When pressed, Dr. Reyes
acknowledged his earlier promise for a lifting of the ban,
but declared that the discovery of HPAI in Texas in late
February changed matters, and under the new circumstances
the ban would remain.


4. The eleven states covered by the original 2002 ban were:
Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Nevada, New York,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West
Virginia. The ten states covered by the new 2004 ban are:
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Thus, two states, Delaware and New Jersey, have been added
to the list, while three states, Arizona, Nevada and New
York, have been dropped. While Dr. Reyes mentioned other
poultry diseases such as Newcastle disease in our
discussion, the decree itself justifies the ban solely on
the basis of outbreaks of avian flu in the states covered.


5. The addition of Delaware and New Jersey can be explained
by the detection of LPAI in those two states in February,
even though, according to international standards, the
presence of LPAI does not justify trade restrictions. More
disturbing was the fact that Dr. Reyes did not seem to be
acquainted with the contents of his own decree. He was, for
example, plainly unaware that the new decree had dropped
three states which were previously forbidden from exporting
poultry to Honduras (Arizona, Nevada and New York). When
asked why these three states were now considered acceptable,
Reyes stated that there must have been a scientific reason
for the decision, but that he did not have the information
available at the time, and that he would send it to us as
soon as possible. (As of March 22, ten days later, we have
received nothing.)


6. Furthermore, the continued presence of Virginia on the
list of banned states is having a direct impact on potential
U.S. exports to Honduras, as one U.S. company that we know
of is actively interested in exporting poultry from
Virginia, but cannot currently do so.

--------------
No Difference between LPAI and HPAI
--------------


7. In response to the point that the OIE regards LPAI as a
non-reportable disease that should not alter trading
patterns, Dr. Reyes countered with fears that the low-
pathogenic variety of the disease could develop into the
high-pathogenic variety and said that, based on this
possibility, Honduras would treat LPAI and HPAI equally. He
admitted that this was a "unilateral" decision which
contradicts current OIE guidelines, but claimed that at the
next General Session of the OIE International Committee (to
be held in Paris in late May),the OIE will likely change
its guidelines and eliminate the current distinction between
LPAI and HPAI. EconOff countered that, even if this were
true, Honduras should be basing its trade restrictions on
existing international guidelines, not rumors of possible
forthcoming changes to those guidelines.


8. The Honduran policy of equal treatment for the low-
pathogenic and high-pathogenic varieties of avian flu is not
new. Even before the recent decree, Honduran regulations
have required that all poultry imports carry the following
statement in the Remarks section of FSIS Form 9060-5: "All
fresh/frozen poultry meat, including mechanically deboned
meat, comes from an area free of high or low pathogenic
Avian Influenza." Dr. Reyes stressed that, as Honduras is
entirely free of both LPAI and HPAI, a less restrictive ban
which would allow poultry from states with LPAI is a risk
that Honduras cannot take.


9. Dr. Reyes further justified Honduras' ban by presenting
EconOff with copies of the official decrees from Mexico,
which has banned poultry from the same 10 states as
Honduras, and from Guatemala, which has banned poultry from
16 states and the District of Columbia. Dr. Reyes suggested
that Honduras' actions are in line with those being taken by
many other countries as well. He also cited examples of
occasions on which the United States has maintained
restrictions against countries with animal health problems,
such as the case of BSE in Japan. And he reminded EconOff
that Honduras is not permitted to export poultry to the
United States, despite Honduras' assurance that the country
is free of avian flu and other poultry diseases.

--------------
The Way Forward: No Guidance
--------------


10. Dr. Reyes provided no guidance as to how a state can
demonstrate that it is free of LPAI and thus be allowed to
export poultry to Honduras. Documents already presented to
Dr. Reyes by APHIS, which outline the efforts taken to
control and eradicate the disease, have apparently not been
sufficient. EconOff pointed out that in states such as
Maine, Virginia and West Virginia, these efforts concluded
in 2002, and there have been no further outbreaks detected
in these states for nearly two years. Dr. Reyes said only
that "a considerable period of time" must pass for Honduras
to be sure that avian flu has been fully eradicated from a
state, but would not define this length of time.


11. Theoretically, since Arizona, Nevada and New York have
been removed the list of states whose poultry is banned,
other states could follow the same steps that these three
states have taken in order to have the ban removed.
Practically speaking, however, it seems that the three
states were removed from the list by mistake, possibly by
Honduras simply copying the list of states covered by
Mexico's ban.


12. COMMENT: In the context of the CAFTA Working Group on
SPS (sanitary and phyto-sanitary) issues, Honduras agreed to
move to a systems approach, under which CAFTA countries
would agree to accept the sanitary or phyto-sanitary
measures of other CAFTA countries as equivalent to their
own. The CAFTA countries also committed to better
coordination and communication on SPS issues. While of
course CAFTA has not yet entered into force, the GOH's
current position on avian flu, coupled with the fact that
this is not the first time the USDA office has been
frustrated by Dr. Reyes' habit of promising one course of
action then doing the opposite, demonstrates that the GOH
still has some way to go before the principles agreed to in
CAFTA become a reality. END COMMENT.

Palmer