The WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) met from 29-30 October to continue its work, with little impact felt from the current impasse of talks at the WTO following the Cancun collapse. Members came close to adopting clarifications on special and differential treatment (S&D) and equivalence, but in the end left the final decision to their next meeting. Also discussed, among other items, were a Mexican proposal on transparency, the US Bioterrorism Act and the EU's proposed food and feed controls.

S&D decision postponed

After adopting a Canadian S&D proposal in principle at the April SPS Committee meeting (see BRIDGES Weekly, 10 April 2003), Members failed to agree on the elaboration of the proposal put forward by the Secretariat (G/SPS/W/132/Rev.1, searchable at http://docsonline.wto.org/). The amended notification procedure would require Members to engage in bilateral consultations if an exporting country identified significant difficulties in complying with proposed regulations, including the option of S&D. Following the consultations, the notifying Member should submit an Addendum to the WTO, specifying the S&D requested and provided (or reasons why S&D was not granted).

The proposal was not adopted due to objections from the US, which submitted suggestions for further changes late in the debate, leading Members to request more time for a final discussion. The US is concerned about the unlimited comment period, which enables Members to submit comments at any time. This would contravene US legislation, under which comments can only be received during set comment periods.

Equivalence for historically traded products

A number of countries expressed disappointment with Members' failure to adopt the clarification of the Decision on Equivalence (G/SPS/19) regarding historically traded products. Equivalence refers to the mutual acceptance of another Member's risk-minimising measures that may differ in process but have an equivalent effect. At the initiative of Argentina, the clarification would aim to speed up the recognition of equivalence of SPS measures for products previously traded, for which information already exists. While Members came close to agreement on a slightly revised version of the Argentine proposal, Malaysia requested more time to consider the text and to revert back to it at the next SPS Committee meeting in March.

Other matters

Members discussed a proposal by Mexico on transparency, aimed at addressing the repeatedly raised concern over the short comment period (60 days) following the notification of a new SPS regulation. To this end, Mexico proposed a pre-notification process, under which Members would follow Mexico's example of informing the Committee in advance of all technical SPS regulations to be prepared in the coming year, thereby allowing Members to become acquainted with the information at a sufficiently early stage. Generally, Mexico noted that Members often failed to meet notification requirements, such as setting a deadline for submissions or providing 60 days for comments. Similar concerns had also been raised by China at the April meeting (see BRIDGES Weekly, 10 April 2003, referenced above). The issue is likely to be taken up at an informal meeting held in conjunction with the next SPS Committee meeting.

Both the US Bioterrorism Act and the EU's proposed food and feed controls raised concerns. Other Members felt they would pose a significant administrative burden and questioned whether such stringent measures were really necessary to achieve the risk management objectives. The US gave a full presentation of the interim rule to implement its Bioterrorism Act, which will require importers to notify the Food and Drug Administration of food, including animal feed, which is imported or offered for import to the US (G/SPS/N/USA/690/Add.2). The interim rule is set to enter into force on 12 December, but changes to the legislation might still occur. While noting that the provisions of the Act were now more workable after the US had taken into account Members' and others' comments, the EC noted that it still had serious concerns, including with regard to the duplication of information requirements.

The US and Canada criticised the EU's proposed food and feed controls -- expected to be implemented in December 2005 -- for requiring control measures that might be appropriate for high risk food, such as meat and poultry, but would be inappropriate for other types of food, such as snacks. The EC countered that the US was in the process of establishing similar requirements, for instance in the Bioterrorism Act. The proposed EU Regulation aims to streamline and reinforce the existing control system for food and feed, inter alia, by introducing operational criteria for competent authorities in member states and by setting tough enforcement measures, while creating a framework to support developing countries in meeting EU import requirements (G/SPS/N/EEC/191).

The next SPS Committee meeting is currently scheduled for 17-18 March 2004.

ICTSD reporting.