US embassy cable - 04TEGUCIGALPA705

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