WTO SPS COMMITTEE FOCUSES ON REGIONALISATION, S&D

At its 9-10 March meeting in Geneva, the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) considered the issue of recognising regions -- both within and across national borders -- for the purposes of applying health-related measures. However, WTO Members were unable to agree on guidelines for the implementation of such regional recognition; discussions on the issue will continue at the Committee's next meeting, scheduled for 29-30 June.

The Committee agreed to try to complete reports on the issue of special and differential treatment (S&D) for developing countries as well as on the review of the SPS Agreement during the June meeting. Finally, the Secretariat's round-up of the Committee's work confirmed that animal health concerns have dominated SPS discussions since 1995, pointing in particular to foot-and-mouth disease and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, commonly known as 'mad cow disease').

Guidelines divide regionalisation debate

Following informal consultations earlier in the week, the Committee continued its discussions on Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, which requires Members to adapt their sanitary or phytosanitary measures to specific geographic areas rather than to national borders, so as to take into account considerations such as the prevalence of pests or diseases within countries. Several Members complained about the lack of implementation of this requirement, specifically with regards to recognising pest-and disease-free regions within countries. Canada, the EU and Argentina gave examples of how limited and localised outbreaks of a disease could lead to a general ban on imports from a country as a whole. Members also raised concerns about the tedious procedures of obtaining pest-free status.

In an attempt to accelerate the implementation of Article 6, a draft decision on a work programme was circulated prior to the meeting. The work programme, based on recent submissions by Chile (G/SPS/W/171) and Australia (G/SPS/W/172), would co-ordinate the information gathered from Members as well as from international expert organisations invited to share their views on whether guidelines for importing countries to improve implementation are necessary. The proposed work programme would also set out to clarify the SPS Committee's role in relation to scientific organisations. Further, implementation of Article 6 would be included as a standing item on the Committee's agenda. Although the draft decision was not adopted, Members agreed to re-examine the issue at the next meeting.

Members are largely divided on the question of where and how to develop these guidelines for implementation. Chile and other Latin American countries want such guidelines to be developed in the SPS Committee itself, whereas other countries including the US believe that they should be developed by expert bodies that already deal with regionalisation such as the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) and the FAO's Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Proponents of the latter approach argue that it would avoid duplication and inconsistency. The EU and some other Members are concerned that the process of developing guidelines would delay, rather than hasten, the implementation of Article 6.

Positive and pragmatic S&D discussions

The Doha mandate requires Members to review all special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions with a view to strengthening them and making them "more precise, effective and operational". The task was initially given to the Committee on Trade and Development, which subsequently delegated certain S&D proposals to the relevant WTO bodies. The July Package (WT/L/579) stipulates that the WTO bodies should consider the proposals and report their recommendations to the General Council by July 2005. Proposals before the SPS Committee have focused on clarifying and amending the SPS Agreement's provisions on technical assistance and S&D.

Members' proposals differed widely in terms of their expectations for S&D, particularly with regard to linking new obligations to technical assistance. SPS Chair Gregg Young of the US characterised the informal discussions in the run-up to the meeting as "very positive and pragmatic... with broad-based and constructive participation". Sources reported that in spite of the gap in Members' expectations, the discussions suggested that Members are genuinely willing to focus on issues they can agree upon.

In addition to reporting to the General Council on S&D, the SPS Committee agreed to aim to approve a draft report on the second review of the SPS Agreement at its June meeting. Transparency and clarification of definitions figure among the issues discussed in the report. The review also includes a summary of the experiences with technical assistance in relation to the SPS Agreement, as reported by developing countries.

Secretariat round-up and specific trade concerns

In its latest round-up of the SPS Committee's work (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5), the Secretariat established that "animal health and zoonoses" represent 40 percent of the concerns raised in the body since 1995. This was reflected during the meeting, with the US and Canada describing the measures they had undertaken to deal with BSE. Various other countries also reported on foot and mouth disease.

The Secretariat further noted that developing countries have actively reported trade concerns to the SPS Committee, raising 101 of the 246 issues brought before it. Most of these were developing country complaints against measures imposed by developed country governments. However, issues raised between neighbouring developing countries also figured in the list of specific trade concerns.

ICTSD reporting.