 Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures and Agricultural Trade: A Survey of Issues and Concerns raised in the WTO's SPS CommitteeInternational Trade from University Library of Munich, Germany Abstract: This document presents a descriptive overview of issues related to trade and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, as observed during the implementation of the SPS Agreement. It aims to provide background information on activities in the WTO's SPS Committee during the period 1995-2001, determine the participation of different country groups, and help to identify issues that might warrant further investigation in the context of analysis on the trade and economic effects of SPS measures. Attendance at regular meetings of the SPS Committee has varied from 44 to 70 different delegations. Most OECD countries have always been represented. Yet, half to two-thirds of all WTO members, including a large number of developing country members, have not participated in the discussions at SPS Committee meetings. Indeed, 47 WTO members, including 43 developing countries, did not have a representative at any of the 12 meetings for which information on attendance is available. During regular meetings of the SPS Committee, a total of 105 specific trade concerns have been discussed. Raising an issue makes it possible for countries to attract attention to a particular concern, which might help to avoid disputes between trading partners or potential future trade problems. Of all the specific issues, 27 related to food safety, 38 to animal health, 37 to plant health, and 3 to other SPS issues. Specific trade concerns have been expressed about SPS measures in all 30 OECD countries, and in 18 non-OECD countries, including 15 developing countries. Conversely, 29 OECD countries and 38 non-OECD countries, including 35 developing countries, have raised issues or supported complaints about SPS practices of other WTO members. Fruits, vegetables, and flowers and livestock and livestock products were the product groups most often subject to concerns. In almost a third of all cases, at least a partial solution to the specific trade concern raised was subsequently reported to the SPS Committee. Yet, there might be a number of other concerns that have been resolved through technical exchanges between the affected parties, without this outcome being reported back to the WTO. Even though the transparency disciplines of the SPS Agreement are obligatory for WTO membership, not all countries have so far complied concerning the provision of information on national notification authorities and SPS enquiry points. All OECD countries have reported an enquiry point to the WTO since 1995 and designated notification authorities since 1997, but a significant number of developing countries had not provided this information by the end of 2001. Nevertheless, the number of countries submitting SPS notifications and the number of notified SPS measures increased considerably between 1995 and the end of 2001. All 30 OECD members and 49 non-OECD countries have submitted notifications, with more than two-thirds of the more than 2400 notified SPS measures being reported by OECD countries. More than half of the notified measures were intended to ensure food safety. Up to the end of 2001, there had been nineteen disputes concerning alleged violations of the SPS Agreement. Of these, two had been resolved following consultations, seven had led to the establishment of panels (which in four cases led to the subsequent resolution of the dispute), and ten were still pending. OECD countries have been prominently involved in these SPS disputes. In 16 of the 19 cases, both the country raising an issue and the country concerned were OECD-30 members. In two cases, a developing country invoked dispute settlement procedures against import practices in an OECD country, and in one case developing countries were both the complaining party and the party complained about. Some observers have noted that there seem to be a number of cases where either the substantive obligations of the SPS Agreement or bilateral exchanges in its institutional framework have contributed to regulatory reform. These policy changes might have come about anyway as a result of findings by regulatory scientists that import protocols could be designed in ways to reduce risks to acceptable levels. But the framework of SPS disciplines might have provided assurance that other countries would review their rules and procedures according to the same principles. JEL-codes: F1 F2 (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wpa:wuwpit:0401004 Access Statistics for this paper More papers in International Trade from University Library of Munich, Germany |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.