Sanitary And Phytosanitary Measures Agreement Research Articles

PREVENTING RETALIATION IN TRADE BY HARMONIZING THE MEASURES

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement as a globally-accepted legal document within the World Trade Organization (WTO) is very important in ensuring food traded across the boundaries is safe for consumers and also protecting animal and plant from diseases and pests. Therefore, SPS Agreement's role within the international trade is very crucial. This paper evaluates "Indonesia-China candy case" that closely related to the implementation of the SPS Agreement. It is concluded that Indonesia as a member of WTO has declared and proven that Indonesia national regulations on food safety comply with international standard. On the other hand, China should show its compliance with international standard, or in case it has other standard that considered better than international standard China obliges to proof it's scientifically better and accepted. This paper argues that harmonization as a core principle found in the SPS Agreement should be considered by all states in enacting their national regulation on food safety.

KETERKAITAN KEAMANAN PANGAN DAN WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION DALAM ASPEK KULTURAL, ILMU PENGETAHUAN DAN TEKNOLOGI

Recently, international trade regime has rejected cultural perceptions of what is safe to eat, overturning millennial of tradition. In WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), science has been used as the arbiter in resolving disputes related to food safety. However, the SPS Agreement is under attack by many parties, critics cite concern on ethical, local culture, unpredictably changing technology, etc. The WTO-SPS approach is increasingly challenged for its balance in favor of economic consideration towards its a unique cultural identities. Food as culture and food as commerce. Dispute on Beef Hormones is the ideal example on this matter. The local perception of food and food safety, evolution of food production technologies, and security aspects of food, then being explored, in order to analyze the relationship between SPS Agreement, food tradition, science and technology. At the end, it is realized that no matter how strong the faith in science and economics, it is unwise to dismiss the deeply-rooted beliefs of many people in the world.

Combating unjustified sanitary and phytosanitary measures in the African tripartite free trade area (SADC–EAC–COMESA): SPS-Plus or SPS-Minus?

Sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) are incessant non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to trade in both intra and extra-African trade. New SPS measures are now set up in the African Tripartite Free Trade Area (TFTA) that amalgamate three existing regional economic communities (RECs): The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the South African Development Community (SADC), and the East African Community (EAC). This article compares and contrasts the SPS measures obligations as set out in Annex 15 of the TFTA to the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). Additionally, the application of ‘abusive SPS measures based on minority science’ as non-tariff trade barriers to both internal and external African trade especially on agricultural products is analysed. An increase in transparency and accountability in the formulation of NTBs monitoring mechanisms in the COMESA, SADC, and EAC would address this ever present problem. The TFTA in Annex 15 is a case of SPS-Minus as it has a number of serious shortcomings including the lack of important obligations of sufficient risk assessment, non-discrimination, equivalence, the precautionary principle, and specific reference to consultations and dispute settlement. Notwithstanding these omissions, the TFTA has the potential for great achievement in the curbing of NTBs generally and unjustified SPS measures specifically because of the monitoring, transparency, and harmonisation obligations. If the Tripartite mandate, however, turns out to be like most other ‘loose’ integration efforts in Africa, then there is reason to believe that the NTB monitoring and reporting mechanism is not going to bear much fruit.

Overcoming the SPS concerns of the Bangladesh fisheries and aquaculture sector

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to address the challenges developing countries face in attempting to balance sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) health and safety measures against concerns about protectionism, illustrated by the impact of trade barriers on the fisheries and aquaculture sector in Bangladesh. The paper then provides recommendations to overcome the effects of these trade barriers.Design/methodology/approachThe author uses a close doctrinal approach for the first three parts of the paper by analysing the provisions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) SPS Agreement and the effect of those provisions in creating domestic compliance gaps in the Bangladeshi fisheries and aquaculture sector. A qualitative approach is then adopted in suggesting potential reforms and future directions to assist the Bangladeshi fisheries and aquaculture sector overcome SPS trade barrier issues.FindingsTo overcome the market access issues created by SPS trade barriers, Bangladesh and other developing countries require multilateral assistance, accommodation by trading partners and internal reforms. This includes reforming internal governance structures, improving trade participation and negotiation, increasing infrastructure investment and learning from similar countries who have improved their supply chain management.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper will have significant implications by contributing to law and policy reform debates involving international trade law and domestic compliance gaps. It will also assist other developing countries that experience SPS trade barriers to learn from the experience of the Bangladeshi fisheries and aquaculture sector.Practical implicationsThis paper has practical implications by providing recommendations for how Bangladesh can overcome SPS trade barriers and improve its market access. This will help Bangladesh integrate into the global trading system by enhancing its participation in the SPS framework.Social implicationsBy addressing and providing recommendations for the SPS trade barrier challenges faced by Bangladesh fishery and aquaculture sector, this paper provides a framework to improve the economic development and global competitiveness of the industry. This will contribute the gross domestic product growth and help increase the overall living standards of the people involved in the fisheries and aquaculture business in Bangladesh.Originality/valueThis paper is an original work that has not been published elsewhere. It is the first time a paper has dealt with the legal, policy and compliance challenges faced by the fisheries and aquaculture sector in Bangladesh.

The WTO Korea Fishery Products Importation Restriction Dispute: The Radionuclides Case of South Korea with Japan

After the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Korea adopted Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) measures to restrict the importation of certain food products from Japan. In September 2013, Korea extended the scope of its import bans to all fishery products caught in eight Japanese prefectures, and laid out additional testing and certification requirements regarding the presence of cesium and iodine in all food products from Japan that were not previously subjected to import bans. Japan requested consultations with Korea regarding such measures and these consultations held on 24 and 25 June 2015 but failed to reach a mutually agreed solution. Japan request the establishment of a Panel and so, On 8 February 2016, the Director-General identified the composed the panel. Because of the request for consultations and establishment of a Panel, Japan claimed that the South Korea’s measures were inconsistent with certain articles of the SPS Agreement. This Study analyzes the WTO disputes relative to the Radionuclides case of South Korea with Japan, Specifically, such disputes involved cases of some major legal issue involving certain article 2(2), 2(3), 5(1), 5(2), 5(5) and 5(6) of the SPS Agreement through some WTO dispute cases.

IMPACTOS DO SURTO DE FEBRE AFTOSA DE 2005 SOBRE AS EXPORTAÇÕES DE CARNE BOVINA BRASILEIRA

Resumo A febre aftosa é uma barreira sanitária no comércio internacional e implica elevados investimentos para seu controle e graves prejuízos em casos de surto. Este trabalho investigou os impactos causados pela febre aftosa nas exportações de carne bovina in natura do Brasil após o surto de 2005, além do cumprimento do Princípio da Regionalização do Acordo sobre a Aplicação de Medidas Sanitárias e Fitossanitárias (SPS) pelos países membros da OMC, que compunham a lista dos 10 maiores importadores dessa carne em 2004. Foi realizada análise descritiva das exportações de carne bovina congelada e resfriada (carne bovina in natura), considerando-se os anos de 2004 a 2006, para os 10 maiores importadores desses produtos do Brasil e do mundo em 2004. Verificou-se que o surto não impediu o aumento das exportações de carne bovina in natura do Brasil, mas impactou negativamente as exportações do Mato Grosso do Sul e Paraná. A doença não causou impacto nas exportações para os Estados Unidos, Japão e México. Arábia Saudita, Rússia e Irã não eram Membros da OMC em outubro de 2005 e, portanto, não tinham a obrigação de respeitar o Princípio da Regionalização, ainda que a Rússia o tenha feito. Dentre os demais grandes importadores de 2004, os Países Baixos, Egito, Itália, Reino Unido, França, Alemanha e Espanha respeitaram o Princípio da Regionalização do Acordo SPS. O Chile não respeitou o Princípio da Regionalização e a ocorrência da doença fechou aquele mercado à carne bovina brasileira in natura.

The WTO Seal Products Case: Doctrinal and Normative Confusion

The negotiators and drafters of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization(WTO), which includes the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947(GATT) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade(TBT), as well as other subagreements dealing with domestic regulation, such as the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures(SPS), did not do a great job of doctrinal integration among the different documents that comprise the WTO Agreement. To be fair, at the end of the Uruguay Round, the hour was late and they may have felt that the basic ideas were sufficiently clear that it could all be sorted out in litigation. But in several contexts, including within the original GATT, the text of which dates from 1947, they covered the same ground in multiple places, without stating clearly how the different norms relate to one another,and without articulating plausible reasons for different treatment. For example, why is different language used for national treatment in three different places within Article III of GATT, and why is that language different from the language that appearsto have the same purpose in the TBT Agreement or in the SPS Agreement?

The Purpose of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)

Among the WTO Agreements, the SPS Agreement provides for the strictest rules on domestic regulatory measures. Governments adopting measures to protect human, animal, and plant life and health have to comply with a plethora of obligations, exceeding the disciplines contained in the GATT and the TBT. Except for cases where scientific evidence is not available, they have to base regulatory measures on a scientific risk assessment, be it their own or one conducted by a third party. Given, on the one hand, the sensitivity of health and environmental concerns and, on the other, the constraints the treaty imposes on governments' ability to address them, the SPS Agreement has been widely criticized for undermining democratic self-government and also for introducing elements of post-discrimination into the world trade order. This article delves into the question whether the criticism is justified. To that end, it examines the purpose of the SPS Agreement on the basis of economic theory and the negotiating history. It shows that much of the criticism is exaggerated and that the SPS Agreement serves, as does every other WTO Agreement (except for the TRIPs), a single purpose: the preservation of market access commitments. This insight has wider implications, as it suggests that the correct application of the SPS should in fact lead neither to an (improper) impediment to democracy nor to a post- discriminatory trade regime.

Reducing Product Standards Heterogeneity through International Standards in the WTO: How Far across the River?

Heterogeneity in product standards across World Trade Organization (WTO) Members adversely affects the international flow of goods and its reduction will increase global economic welfare if legitimate regulatory objectives are not violated. The Uruguay Round has seen the incorporation of international standards in both the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement as a harmonization device. Despite many benefits that international standards may offer, WTO’s attachment to international standards has been subject to various criticisms. This paper intends to offer a detailed analysis of the role of international standards in the TBT and the SPS Agreement. Especially, I will examine whether and to what extent international standards have constrained WTO Members’ regulatory autonomy in setting domestic product standards.

The Role of Science in Risk Regulation under the SPS Agreement

This paper attempts to present a comprehensive and coherent picture of the role performed by science under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement and SPS case law. It argues that the approach adopted by the Appellate Body is predominantly based on a technical paradigm, supplemented, however, with some considerations arising from other paradigms. The paper argues that the approach adopted in the case law is generally compatible with the text of the SPS Agreement and provides a coherent SPS system. However, it also identifies certain areas which lack coherence, as certain standards seem to violate the right of the member states to establish an appropriate level of protection. These are: ascertainability of the risk as a precondition for valid risk assessment; strict specificity of the risk assessment in low-risk situations; the proportionality between the risk identified and the SPS measure; the notion of negligible risks; and the concept of likelihood in the quarantine risk assessments. The paper claims that these standards cannot be generally applied in SPS disputes as, in certain situations, they will result in the violation of the right of member states to establish an appropriate level of SPS protection. Finally, a number of specific issues are highlighted which require further clarification in case law, such as the issue of the quality of minority scientific opinions and the relationship between the insufficiency of scientific evidence and scientific uncertainty. The paper suggests that the ultimate role ascribed to science under the SPS Agreement can be assessed only after an interpretation of those issues is provided by future case law.

EPPO Council Colloquium on the consequences of the SPS Agreement, Berlin (DE), 1998‐09‐17

The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been in force since 1995 and is intended to have a considerable effect on the application of phytosanitary measures worldwide, or their modification if they cannot be accepted as technically justified non‐tariff barriers to trade. The EPPO Council Colloquium set out to examine the impact of the agreement on the NPPOs of EPPO countries. The Colloquium reviewed the objectives of the agreement, its relationship with the Principles of Plant Quarantine and the revised IPPC, its practical consequences for an NPPO, the impact of the transparency and notification obligations, the meaning of‘technical justification’in relation to the agreement, the concept of‘appropriate level of protection’and the conclusions to be drawn.