The WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) at its meeting on 19-21 March adopted revised recommendations for notification procedures, thereby resolving one of the outstanding implementation issues submitted by Brazil at the last SPS Committee meeting in October 2001. In addition, several Members raised concerns regarding China's and the EU's biotechnology rules with discussions largely mirroring those in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) last week.

Members improve transparency

As part of their efforts to improve transparency of notification procedures for SPS measures, Members adopted revised guidelines for implementing the transparency obligations set out in Article 7 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.2; available soon at http://docsonline.wto.org). Inter alia, the guidelines state that in cases where previously notified measures are changed so as to apply to different products and/or countries, they should be re-notified. Another 60 days should be allowed for comments if many countries are affected by the changes. Originally put forward by New Zealand, the recommendation responds to an implementation proposal submitted by Brazil which had called for measures to be re-notified if they "may have negative effects on trade opportunities of developing countries" (G/SPS/W/108; see BRIDGES Weekly).

Brazil had put forward the proposal following a dispute with Canada in February last year over Canada's ban on imports of Brazilian beef due to BSE concerns (see BRIDGES Weekly, 13 February 2001). The ban had been based on a previously notified regulation, which was newly applied to Brazil, and had therefore not been notified to the WTO. Both Canada and Brazil agreed at the SPS Committee meeting that the issue had now been resolved with the adoption of the recommendations.

One issue, however, remained outstanding regarding a last-minute proposal by Egypt to include a box in the notification form for countries to state what special and differential treatment (S&D) measures were included to facilitate compliance with the notified SPS measure. The proposal was supported by a number of developing countries who argued that it would encourage developed countries to build in leniency for developing countries, such as longer time periods for compliance. While developed countries, including the US, Canada and the EU, generally agreed that the proposal should be considered in more detail, they questioned whether such a box would actually encourage S&D. The issue will be taken up again during an informal meeting on transparency prior to the next SPS Committee meeting.

Regarding ongoing discussions on furthering implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement on the equivalence of SPS measures in different Member States -- mandated in the Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 adopted in October 2001 -- the Committee adopted a work programme setting out the main issues for discussion in 2002 and 2003. Members furthermore discussed guidelines for the notification of equivalence agreements which will be taken up again at the next meeting.

EU, China biotech rules again discussed

Following similar discussions at last week's TBT Committee meeting (see BRIDGES Weekly, 19 March 2002), several countries raised concerns regarding China's and the EU's biotechnology regulations. The debate largely mirrored that in the TBT Committee meeting, but focused more on food safety issues. In addition, the continued EU de facto moratorium on the approval of new genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was placed on the agenda as a separate item. In this context, the US -- supported by Canada and Argentina -- highlighted the growing level of frustration with the moratorium and said that they were considering their options in the WTO. They also pointed out that the European Commission had the authority and responsibility to convince EU member states to restart the approval process.

Regarding China's regulation on the import of GMOs -- which was scheduled to enter into force on 21 March, but were temporarily waived allowing for a transition period of nine months (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 21 March 2002) -- the US, Canada, Argentina and Australia again criticised China for not notifying the measure and questioned the regulation's compatibility with WTO rules. China defended the regulation, arguing it was responding to growing consumer concerns over food safety in the country. It remained unclear, however, whether the regulation had by now been notified at the WTO. As one of the conditions for accession, China is required to notify all existing SPS measures at the WTO.

SPS Committee meetings in 2003 are currently scheduled for 18-20 June and 7-8 November, along with informal meetings on transparency and equivalence.

ICTSD Internal Files.