NOTE:
THIS NEWS ITEM IS DESIGNED TO HELP THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WTO. WHILE EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ENSURE THE
CONTENTS ARE ACCURATE, IT DOES NOT PREJUDICE MEMBER GOVERNMENTS’
POSITIONS. THE OFFICIAL RECORD IS IN THE MEETING’S MINUTES
SEE ALSO:
> Press releases
> News archives
> Pascal
Lamy’s speeches
The
issue of standards demanded by organizations representing supermarket chains
and other bodies is relatively new. The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Committee’s debate is about if and how these private sector standards fall
under the WTO’s SPS Agreement, as well as about the economic implications
for various countries.
This was one of a wide range of topics discussed in three days of informal
and formal meetings of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)
Committee (starting with informal consultations on 27 February). Among the
specific concerns raised were complaints about the length of time some
countries take to assess risk and approve imports, and what some countries
consider to be importing nations’ failure to follow international standards
or to base their actions on science.
The meetings also covered the latest situation on mad cow disease (BSE),
avian influenza, foot and mouth disease and other trade concerns. Again,
several of these specific trade concerns are also related to
“regionalization” — recognizing disease situations in regions within
countries instead of taking measures affecting whole countries. This is a
subject members continued to discuss in its own right.
The committee also considered actions to take following the latest review of
the SPS Agreement, including improving transparency.
Private and commercial standards
This issue was first raised almost two years ago. The debate shifted up a
gear after the committee decided to make it a separate agenda item (it was
previously one among many “specific trade concerns”) and new papers were
circulated by the Secretariat, some governments and observer organizations,
focusing on how standards can impact the trading opportunities of developing
countries.
Some members, such as Chile and the EU, said that private standards can
create trade because exporters meeting the standards can sell their products
more easily — the EU cited the example of Peruvian asparagus sold on EU
markets.
However, some members (e.g. St Vincent and the Grenadines, Bahamas, Egypt,
Cuba, Brazil) said that the proliferation of standards that are set without
consultation poses a challenge for small economies, and private standards
often conflict with those set by governments or international organizations.
Meeting the standards also raises costs, they said.
Some countries, such as Argentina argued that in practice these voluntary
private standards can become compulsory: if a supplier does not comply it is
excluded from the market. A number of countries said the priority should be
to help developing countries comply with official standards. They said there
is a risk of losing sight of official standards if countries focus too much
on private norms.
An information session is now planned before the committee’s next meeting in
June, with EurepGAP and other organizations invited to speak. (“EurepGap”
requirements are “good agricultural practices” — GAP — set by the
Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group —
Eurep.) Also
invited to attend will be the chairperson and Secretariat of the Technical
Barriers to Trade Committee, which deals with product standards that do not
come under SPS.
This issue takes the SPS Committee into comparatively new territory. The
committee generally deals with standards set by international
standards-setting bodies and the mandatory regulations imposed by
governments. But some developing countries have started to raise the
question of standards set by the private sector, such as supermarket chains.
St Vincent and the Grenadines first raised the issue because of private
standards for bananas, which they said were more rigid than international
standards, causing small farmers to suffer.
For this meeting, a number of new documents were circulated. A new 8-page
Secretariat paper (document
G/SPS/GEN/746 of 24 January 2007) looks at
examples of private standards (individual firms’, collective national
schemes and collective international schemes) and the trade issues they
raise, and how these relate to the WTO’s SPS Agreement, particularly
Article 13.
It concludes with issues the SPS Committee might consider.
Among these: the relationship between private and international
standard-setting bodies; what governments might do to live up to their
obligation to ensure private bodies comply with the SPS Agreement; the
relationship with other areas of WTO work such as technical barriers to
trade; and “equivalence” — authorities accepting different measures which
provide the same level of health protection for food, animals and plants,
particularly to help developing countries that use less sophisticated health
and safety technologies.
Other papers circulated were: one from the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development — OECD — (document
G/SPS/GEN/763), on its
research into the costs and benefits of private sector standards; one from
the International Organization for Standardization — ISO — (document
G/SPS/GEN/750)
and two from the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on private
sector standards in general and their effects (G/SPS/GEN/760), and studies
of the implications for fruit and vegetables (G/SPS/GEN/761). Documents were
also circulated by St Vincent and the Grenadines (G/SPS/GEN/766) and the
Bahamas (G/SPS/GEN/764) on their experiences with private standards.
Specific trade concerns: resolved or withdrawn
India’s restrictions for avian influenza: the US withdrew its concerns
because of revisions in Indian measures.
Japan’s import restrictions: Ecuador and China withdrew their concerns,
Ecuador’s about cocoa and China’s about heat-processed straw and forage for
feed, after bilateral consultations in the margins of the committee meeting
allowed progress to be made in resolving these problems.
Panama’s import licences for agricultural products: Canada reported that
this had been resolved with no further complaints from its exporters
Panama’s measures on milk and tomato products: Panama said this had been
resolved (although the country raising the concerns, Costa Rica, has not
confirmed this yet).
Specific trade concerns: unresolved
Australia’s measures on apples and prawn: New Zealand’s long-running
complaint continues about the length of time Australia is taking to approve
apple imports, again supported by the US and EU. New Zealand said the latest
risk assessment proposed increased requirements on imports that are not
supported by scientific evidence. Thailand, China and other southeast Asian
countries raised a similar complaint about Australia’s proposed changes to
quarantine and control measures on prawns.
Separately, Australia announced draft changes to its import risk assessment
(IRA) procedures to make them more predictable and to include timetables —
24 months for a “normal” IRA and 36 months for a “special” IRA — but with
provisions that allow the authorities to stop the clock in certain
circumstances. However, at least some members said they remain sceptical
about this.
EU restrictions on US poultry exports: The US is concerned that its poultry
treated with antimicrobial solutions cannot enter the EU. The EU reported
continuing difficulties at the technical level in convincing its member
states and consumers that the treatment should be permitted. It continued to
argue that the treatment is unnecessary and that US poultry could meet EU
requirements by other means.
Republic of Korea on meat: Canada raised its concern about restrictions on
beef, which it said did not observe guidelines of the World Organisation for
Animal Health (OIE) on mad cow disease (BSE); Brazil complained about
Korea’s failure to recognize some regions of Brazil as being free from
foot-and-mouth disease, also in contrast with the OIE guidelines. Korea
asked for more information and defended its right to go beyond international
standards.
China’s restrictions for dioxin: the EU complained that its pig products
were still restricted even though the problem of dioxin in feed had been
limited to a few countries and resolved a long time ago. China said it is
reviewing the situation.
A number of other new and unresolved issues were also discussed (see
P.S. below)
Updates
China informed members about its new Green Food Certification. The US said it has draft a risk analysis on products from cloned animals, where preliminary conclusions are that some of these should be allowed to be sold without restriction as no human health or animal health risks have been identified. However, the US stressed that products will continue to be kept out of the market since this is only the beginning of a regulatory process.
Transparency
Members generally feel that transparency has improved, with the increased
flow of more, a wider range, and better quality information on the measures
that governments impose. A number of problems remain, and they are preparing
to discuss these in the next meeting in June and in a special meeting in
October.
Among the problems faced particularly by developing countries: relating
governments’ SPS measures to any existing international standards and how
and whether to include information on this in notifications; including other
potentially useful information in the notifications such as the categories
(or customs “HS” coding) of products involved; coordinating within
governments so that authorities dealing with SPS are kept informed by their
colleagues dealing with international standards; and finding the resources
to deal with the increasing flow of notifications from other members.
A new Secretariat document,
G/SPS/GEN/751, analyses members’ replies to a
questionnaire on the operation of governments’ “enquiry points” and
“national notification authorities”, two key players in SPS transparency.
The Secretariat is also working on a new searchable database designed to
make the notified information easier to submit and to analyse.
Regionalization
Some members reported they are still consulting in small groups on this
issue, which they consider to be important. They asked for more time to
reach agreement on a proposal for the SPS Committee. The issue will be
discussed again in June.
The key concept here is recognition that an exporting region (part of a
country or a border-straddling zone) is disease-free or pest-free (or has a
lower incidence). It is often raised under a specific trade concern as well
as being discussed as a subject in its own right. A group of members have
proposed that the SPS Committee develop guidelines to implement this
concept, but others have opposed this approach. (The issues are
outlined in a Secretariat paper,
G/SPS/GEN/640/Rev.1.
See also February 2006
news item)
Special and differential treatment
This was the subject of another informal consultation, and the chairperson
reported on the discussion, which took place informally on 27 February and
again during a break in the formal meeting on 1 March.
Egypt circulated an unofficial paper describing its examination of the issue
and its preparations for making proposals, based partly on WTO dispute
rulings. Egypt is concerned that provisions on special treatment for
developing countries in the SPS Agreement (particularly Article 10.1) might
not be as effective and enforceable in practice as desired or as needed by
developing countries.
The words used in the agreement can sound “mandatory” but because the
provisions do not specify the action to be taken, they leave open the
question of what countries are required to do, Egypt’s paper says. It argues
that the same is true for provisions dealing with technical assistance
because the wording simply calls for countries to try their best without
spelling out how to achieve that.
Egypt said that its document is a starting point for discussions, and asked
for informal consultations on the issue before the next committee meeting in
June.
Several countries, mostly developing (including Kenya, Turkey, Cuba and
China), supported the paper and the call for consultations. The EU, Japan,
New Zealand and others said this discussion should not reduce members’
ability to protect human, animal and plant health, which puts the SPS
Agreement in a different category from some other agreements, such as
anti-dumping. Some suggested developing countries do not make full use of
the technical assistance that is available. Some members said they would
oppose changes to the SPS agreement because it represents a delicate balance
between health protection and trade liberalization.
After the second review
In an informal meeting on 27 February,
members considered how to move ahead on issues raised in the
second review of the implementation of the
agreement,
concluded in 2005. The chairperson reported that out of an original list of
about 15 subjects, the agreement was to focus first on six subjects.
Four of these are already regular agenda items: transparency,
regionalization, special and differential treatment for developing countries
and technical assistance (with a particular focus on assessing how effective
current assistance is). The other issues are using ad hoc consultations and
the “good offices” of the chair to help resolve specific trade issues; and
relations with international standard-setting bodies, their own
relationships with each other, and monitoring the use of international
standards in SPS measures.
Next meetings
These dates (with informals earlier in the week) could still be changed:
27–28 June 2007
17–18 October 2007
These are some of the trade issues or concerns discussed in the meeting or information supplied to the meeting.
Information from members:
Administration of green food certification in China
Australia — reform of the import risk analysis process
Chinese Taipei — change in formatting of the veterinary and phytosanitary certificates (G/SPS/GEN/744)
United States FDA “ALERT” initiative on food safety from farm to fork, and FDA risk assessment regarding cloned animals
Update on the bluetongue disease situation in the EU
Report from Brazil on the foot and mouth disease situation in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul
Information from Panama on freedom from Mediterranean fruit flies in the azuero peninsula
New:
China’s import restrictions on products of animal origin from some EU member states due to alleged dioxin contamination — concerns of the European communities
Korea’s measures related to access for beef products — concerns of Canada
Korea’s application of regionalization and scientific standards on bovine and pig meat “in natura” — concerns of brazil
Raised before:
Australia’s import restrictions on apples — concerns of New Zealand
Indonesia’s lack of recognition of pest-free areas — concerns of the US
Israel’s lack of phytosanitary import legislation — concerns of the EU
Certain members’ BSE-related import restrictions — concerns of the US
Japan’s import suspension of heat-processed straw and forage for feed — concerns of China
Indonesia’s legislation on importation of live animals and meat products (regionalization and foot and mouth disease) — concerns of Brazil
India’s restrictions due to avian influenza — concern of the US
EU restrictions on US poultry exports — concerns of the US
Find out more …
WTO website SPS gateway
WTO documents
(To search for documents cited here, insert the document number in the “symbol” field)
Chairperson: Mr Juan Antonio DORANTES, Mexico (his final meeting. A successor has not yet been chosen).
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact [email protected] giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.
This meeting’s magic number
913
… the number of SPS notifications submitted by WTO members in 2006.
Among the top notifiers in 2006: US (300 — the US is revising its
pesticide residue levels), Brazil (116), Chile (44), Chinese Taipei
(30). But as one delegation said “it’s the quality that counts” (some
members notify a package of measures in a single notification).
Numbers based on document G/SPS/GEN/755