Abstract
Managing economic globalisation, so as to facilitate trade without diminishing food safety or the protection of human, animal, and plant health, has become one of the greatest global challenges. In-depth coordination among national regulators and policies is crucial for the management and avoidance of health and safety risks, but also for avoiding unnecessary obstacles to international trade flows. The chapter examines and compares the role of different methods for achieving regulatory cooperation in the context of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures at both the international and regional levels. It analyses the successes of, and challenges relating to, SPS regulatory cooperation at the multilateral level and in particular the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) SPS Committee. These efforts are matched to regional cooperative attempts, notably the ambition of recent mega-regional trade agreements. Thereafter, the chapter enquires into the possibility for multilaterising the lessons learnt from these regional regulatory convergence initiatives in an effort to advance cooperation at the WTO level.
Dispute Settlement Lawyer at the World Trade Organization, Appellate Body Secretariat.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Lin 2011, at 642.
- 2.
Thus, RTAs affirm harmonisation towards regional or national, rather than international, standards or refer to the recognition of equivalence following regional standard-setting bodies (Jackson and Vitikala 2016, at 324–329).
- 3.
CETA is a trade agreement between the European Union (EU) and Canada, which is provisionally applied as of 21 September 2017. It will enter definitively into force once the Parliaments in all EU Member States ratify the text according to their respective domestic constitutional requirements.
- 4.
The TPP is a trade agreement between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States (US), and Vietnam. A final agreement was signed on 4 February 2016. However, on 23 January 2017 the US President Trump withdrew the US from the TPP. Presently the TPP’s future remains uncertain, despite several signatories signalling their intentions to rework it without the US.
- 5.
TTIP is a trade agreement negotiated between the EU and the US. Its negotiations are currently stalled. The negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) also include SPS issues as part of the agenda. However, no information on the negotiated drafts is publicly available. The discussion below therefore focuses on the final texts of CETA and TPP, as well as on the EU TTIP proposal.
- 6.
- 7.
WTO 2012, at 178–181.
- 8.
WTO-plus obligations are commitments that build on those already agreed to at the multilateral level (see Horn et al. 2010).
- 9.
While the present analysis is limited to those three RTAs, a comprehensive overview of the provisions in SPS chapters of other RTAs can be found in a recent paper by Jackson and Vitikala (see Jackson and Vitikala 2016).
- 10.
SPS measures are measures taken to protect human, animal or plant life or health from diseases, pests, or contaminants (see 1994 WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 1867 UNTS 493 (‘SPS Agreement’), Annex A.1).
- 11.
Bollyky and Mavroidis 2017, at 10–11.
- 12.
For convenience, the rest of the chapter refers to ‘international standards, guidelines and recommendations’ as ‘international standards’.
- 13.
SPS Agreement, Article 3. The Codex Alimentarius is a collection of internationally recognised standards, codes of practice, guidelines, and other recommendations relating to foods, food production, and food safety. Its texts are developed and maintained by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) with the goal to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the international food trade. The OIE is an intergovernmental organisation coordinating, supporting, and promoting animal disease control. Its main objective is to control epizootic diseases and thus to prevent their spread. The IPPC is an international plant health agreement, originally established in 1952 and revised in 1997, that aims to protect cultivated and wild plants by preventing the introduction and spread of pests.
- 14.
SPS Agreement, Articles 3.3 and 5.1.
- 15.
See ibid., Articles 3.5 and 12.4; WTO SPS Committee, Decision to Extend the Provisional Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, G/SPS/14, 12 July 1999; WTO SPS Committee, Decision to Extend the Provisional Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, G/SPS/17, 19 July 2001; WTO SPS Committee, Decision to Modify and Extend the Provisional Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, G/SPS/25, 1 July 2003; WTO SPS Committee, Revision of the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, Decision of the Committee, G/SPS/11/Rev.1, 15 November 2004; WTO SPS Committee, Decision to Modify and Extend the Provisional Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, G/SPS/40, 5 July 2006. The Procedure has been extended indefinitely.
- 16.
WTO SPS Committee, Revision of the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, Decision of the SPS Committee, 2004.
- 17.
Ibid., paras 6–10.
- 18.
SPS Agreement, Article 12.2.
- 19.
Ibid., Article 4.
- 20.
Ibid., Article 4.2.
- 21.
WTO SPS Committee, Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, G/SPS/19/Rev.2, 23 July 2004. The Decision clarifies that equivalence can be accepted for specific measures related to certain products or on a systems-wide basis. The exporting and importing Members need to enter into a dialogue in order to identify and compare their SPS measures. Specifically, the importing Member should explain the objective and rationale of its SPS measure, identify the risks it intends to address, indicate its ALOP, and provide the relevant risk assessment, whereas the exporting Member should provide appropriate science-based and technical information to support its demonstration that its measure achieves the importing Member’s ALOP (including reference to relevant international standards or risk assessments) and reasonable access to the importing Member for inspection, testing, etc. The equivalence procedure should be accelerated for products historically imported from the exporting Member, since confidence in the regulatory procedures of that Member has been developed. The importing Member should recognise the measures as equivalent if the exporting Member demonstrates, by way of an approach established by a relevant international organisation, that its measure has the same effect in achieving the objective as the importing Member’s measure.
- 22.
See Codex Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems, CAC/GL 53-2003 (see Codex Principles and Guidelines for National Food Control Systems, CAC/GL 82-2013; Codex Principles for Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification, CAC/GL 20-1995; Codex Guidelines for the Design, Operation, Assessment and Accreditation of Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems, CAC/GL 26-1997; Codex Guidelines for Food Import Control Systems, CAC/GL 47-2003; Codex Guidelines for the Exchange of Information between Countries on Rejections of Imported Foods, CAC/GL 25-1997); OIE guidelines for reaching a judgement of the equivalence of sanitary measures (OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, A 243, Chapter 5, Section 5.3); and IPPC Guidelines for the Determination and Recognition of Equivalence of Phytosanitary Measures, ISPM No. 24 (see also IPPC Phytosanitary Principles for the Protection of Plants and the Application of Phytosanitary Measures in International Trade, ISPM No. 1). The three sets of guidelines are similar in design, proposing the ALOP as the main basis of comparison between different measures, recognising that it is the responsibility of the exporting country to demonstrate that it can achieve the importing country's ALOP, and encouraging the basing of measures on international standards in order to facilitate decisions on equivalence (Elvestand and Veggeland 2005, at 26–38; Schroder 2011, at 114–115).
- 23.
Risk analysis is a systematic way of gathering and evaluating information that leads to recommendations concerning an identified hazard. The process consists of several steps, including: (i) risk assessment, which takes into account the probability and consequences of the hazard occurring, as well as the degree of uncertainty involved (as defined by the Codex, the IPPC, and the OIE); and (ii) risk management, which involves identifying and implementing the best option for reducing or eliminating the likelihood of the hazard occurring.
- 24.
SPS Agreement, Article 5. Annex A to the SPS Agreement defines risk assessment as ‘[t]he evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease within the territory of an importing Member according to the sanitary or phytosanitary measures which might be applied, and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences; or the evaluation of the potential for adverse effects on human or animal health arising from the presence of additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in food, beverages or feedstuffs.’
- 25.
Ibid., Article 5.7. In such circumstances, Members shall seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk and review the SPS measure accordingly within a reasonable period of time.
- 26.
Ibid., Articles 5.4–5.5.
- 27.
WTO SPS Committee, Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 5, G/SPS/15, 18 July 2000. The international standard-setting organisations have also elaborated guidelines for the conduct of risk analysis. See Codex Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for Application by Governments, CAC/GL 62-2007; OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Chapters 2.1 and 6.10 (Entitled respectively Import Risk Analysis and Risk analysis for antimicrobial resistance arising from the use of antimicrobial agents in animals); and several IPPC standards (IPPC Framework for Pest Risk Analysis (2007), ISPM No. 2; IPPC Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests (2013), ISPM No. 11; IPPC Pest Risk Analysis for Regulated Non-Quarantine Pests (2004), ISPM No. 21).
- 28.
SPS Agreement, Article 6.
- 29.
WTO SPS Committee, Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, G/SPS/48, 16 May 2008. Determinations should consider the strength and credibility of the veterinary or phytosanitary infrastructure of the exporting Member in accordance with the importing Member’s ALOP, while the exporting Member should be able to demonstrate ability to maintain freedom from specified pests or diseases. The Guidelines also set out the obligation of the importing Member to enter, upon request, into discussions with the exporting Member and the typical administrative steps in the recognition process, including provision of documentation by the exporting Member, conduct of on-site verifications by the importing Members, and its evaluation resulting in recognition or non-recognition of the area. The IPPC and the OIE have also provided guidance for countries seeking to establish, or to be recognised for, pest- or disease-free status. The IPPC has several directly relevant standards (ISPM No. 4, 22, 26, 29 and 30) and a number of supporting standards (ISPM No. 6, 8 and 9). The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code describes the requirements for obtaining disease-free status including requirements for surveillance and monitoring based on the concept of geographic zones (Chapter 4.3 on zoning and compartmentalisation). The OIE has also adopted a number of resolutions related to recognition of disease-free areas (see WTO SPS Committee, Report on OIE Activities to the Meeting of the SPS Committee to be Held on 24–25 June 2008, G/SPS/GEN/853, 20 June 2008, Annexes).
- 30.
SPS Agreement, Article 7.
- 31.
The phrase ‘reasonable interval’ is understood to mean normally a period of no less than 6 months (Doha WTO Ministerial 2001, Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, WT/MIN(01)/17, 20 November 2001, para 3.2).
- 32.
SPS Agreement, Annex B.
- 33.
Where urgent problems of health protection arise or threaten to arise for a Member, it may omit these steps, provided that it immediately notifies other Members of the regulation and allows them to make comments and takes them into account.
- 34.
WTO SPS Committee, Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7), G/SPS/7/Rev.3, 20 June 2008.
- 35.
The SPS Committee has also set out formats for the notification of proposals and adopted SPS measures. The Procedures discuss the concept of ‘significant effect on trade of other Members’, timeliness of notifications, requesting and providing documents including their translation, handling of comments, and notifications of determination of the recognition of equivalence of SPS measures.
- 36.
SPS Agreement, Article 8 and Annex C thereto.
- 37.
Ibid., Article 12.3.
- 38.
Ibid., Article 12.2.
- 39.
WTO SPS Committee, Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement, Report adopted by the SPS Committee on 18 March 2010, G/SPS/53, 3 May 2010, at 25–26. The ‘good offices’ of the SPS Chairperson have been solicited by Members on several, although not numerous, occasions (see WTO SPS Committee, Ad Hoc Consultations and Resolution of Trade Concerns, Note by the Secretariat, G/SPS/GEN/781, 15 June 2007).
- 40.
WTO SPS Committee, Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate the Resolution of Specific Sanitary or Phytosanitary Issues among Members in Accordance with Article 12.2, Decision adopted by the SPS Committee on 9 July 2014, G/SPS/61, 8 September 2014. Essentially, one Member requests consultations with another Member in writing, identifying the measure to be consulted on, the reasons for requesting consultations and a description of the concern, as well as other relevant information. The responding Member should provide a written response within 30 days, accepting or rejecting the request for consultations. The consulting Members agree on a Facilitator, normally the Chairperson of the Committee, and a schedule and normally complete the consultations within 180 days. The Facilitator prepares and issues a written factual report on the consultations. All documents remain confidential, unless otherwise agreed by the consulting Members.
- 41.
Bollyky and Mavroidis 2017, at 13.
- 42.
2016 Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member Stats, of the other part, OJ L 11/23 (‘CETA’), Article 5.5(1)(c). See also European Union (2015) TTIP Textual Proposal: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), text made public 7 January 2015 (‘TTIP’), http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_153026.pdf, accessed 6 December 2017, Articles 10(5) and (7).
- 43.
TTIP, Article 7(4).
- 44.
Ibid., Article 7(7).
- 45.
Ibid., Article 9(2). The text refers specifically to the Codex Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems (CAC/GL 53-2003) and ISPM No. 24 Guidelines for the determination and recognition of equivalence of phytosanitary measures.
- 46.
Ibid., Article 12(1).
- 47.
Ibid., Article 19.
- 48.
2016 Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (‘TPP’), https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/who-we-are/treaties/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tpp/text-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership, accessed 5 December 2017, Articles 7.7(2), 7.8(1), 7.9(6)(a), 7.10(3), 7.12(3) and 7.12(6).
- 49.
SPS Agreement, Articles 3.2 and 3.4.
- 50.
CETA, Article 5.6(1); TTIP, Article 9(1).
- 51.
CETA, Article 5.6(2) and Annex 5-D.
- 52.
Ibid., Article 5.6(3) and Annex 5-E. See also TTIP, Article 9.
- 53.
CETA, Article 5.7.4(b) and Annex 5-E; TTIP, Article 7(11). The exporting party should provide guarantees that: (a) the import of the product has been authorised by the importing party; (b) the establishment or facility has been approved by the exporting party; (c) the exporting party has the authority to suspend or withdraw the approval of the establishment or facility; and (d) the exporting party has provided relevant information requested by the importing party.
- 54.
TTIP, Article 7(12).
- 55.
Ibid., Article 8. See also CETA, Article 5.9(1); TTIP, Article 12(3); and TPP, Article 7.12 for export certifications.
- 56.
TPP, Article 7.8(6).
- 57.
For instance, in an understanding between Chile and the US regarding salmonid eggs, the parties agree to establish a protocol allowing importation into Chile of salmonid eggs from the compartment in the US state of Washington and to work together on the possibility of Chile permitting importation from any approved compartment in the US state of Maine (TPP, US-CL SPS Letter Exchange regarding Salmonid Eggs).
- 58.
TTIP, Article 7(13).
- 59.
Ibid., Article 7(10).
- 60.
TPP, Articles 7.9(5)–(6).
- 61.
Ibid., Articles 7.9(7) and (10).
- 62.
CETA, Article 5.5(1)(a) and Annex 5-B.
- 63.
Ibid., Articles 5.5(1)(b)–(c) and Annex 5-C. The importing party remains free to apply any additional measure to achieve its ALOP.
- 64.
Ibid., Article 5.5(2).
- 65.
TTIP, Articles 10(2)–(4).
- 66.
Ibid., Article 10(7)(c).
- 67.
TPP, Article 7.7.
- 68.
Ibid., Article 7.7(8).
- 69.
CETA, Articles 5.11(1)–(2).
- 70.
Ibid., Article 5.11(3).
- 71.
TTIP, Article 14.
- 72.
TPP, Article 7.13(5) and (10).
- 73.
Ibid., Article 7.13(11). CETA also provides for the possibility to notify an emergency SPS measure within 24 hours of the party’s decision to implement the measure and the holding of technical consultations to address the measure within 10 days of the notification (CETA, Article 5.13). TTIP further specifies that the importing party should avoid unnecessary trade disruption with regard to consignments already in transport and revise or repeal an emergency measure without undue delay (TTIP, Article 16). TPP requires the party adopting an emergency measure to review its scientific basis within six months, make available the results of the review to any party on request, and continue reviewing it periodically (TPP, Article 7.14).
- 74.
For instance, the OIE requires Members to notify events of epidemiological significance, such as first occurrence or re-occurrence of a listed disease and/or infection in a country, a zone, or a compartment.
- 75.
European Union (2016) TTIP- EU proposal for Chapter: Good Regulatory Practices, text made public 21 March 2016, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/march/tradoc_154380.pdf, accessed 5 December 2017.
- 76.
- 77.
Pérez 2016, at 96–97.
- 78.
CETA, Article 5.8(1).
- 79.
Ibid., Article 5.10(1); TTIP, Article 13(1). For instance, with regard to consignments of ‘Processed animal protein not for human consumption (bulked)’, CETA provides that physical checks should be limited to ‘100% for six consecutive consignments […], if these consecutive tests prove negative, random sampling shall be reduced to 20% of subsequent bulk consignments from the same source.’ If a random sampling proves positive, ‘the competent authority must sample each consignment from the same source until six consecutive tests again prove negative.’
- 80.
TTIP, Article 13.
- 81.
TPP, Article 7.11.
- 82.
TTIP, Article 18; CETA, Article 5.14.
- 83.
TPP, Article 7.17.
- 84.
CETA, Article 5.12; TTIP, Article 15.
- 85.
See above footnote 41.
- 86.
See Trade Leaks (2016) Greenpeace leak of the TTIP SPS chapter, https://trade-leaks.org/ttip/sanitary-and-phytosanitary-measures/, accessed 5 December 2017.
- 87.
Hornsby 2010, at 8.
- 88.
OlavarrÃa 2008, at 256.
- 89.
Downes 2012, at 510.
- 90.
WTO SPS Committee, Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on Transparency under the SPS Agreement, Note by the Secretariat, G/SPS/GEN/1402, 20 March 2015.
- 91.
Wolfe 2013, at 16–18.
- 92.
As of mid-September 2014 (last update available), Members had submitted 11,612 regular notifications, 1,589Â emergency notifications, with the share of notifications submitted by developing country Members (excluding LDCs) reaching 51% which reflects a steady increase over the years (WTO SPS Committee, Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement, Draft Report of the WTO Secretariat, G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2, 6 November 2014, at 7).
- 93.
While IARC focuses on hazard characterization, JMPR performs risk and exposure assessments for regulatory purposes (WTO SPS Committee, Annual Report on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, G/SPS/GEN/1490, 27 May 2016, at 2).
- 94.
See FAO (2017) News Article: Codex Alimentarius Commission, 17–22 July 2017, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1024512/icode/, accessed 5 December 2017. The Procedure has also been used to address horizontal concerns with the increase in the number of SPS measures not based on international standards or with inadequate scientific justification (WTO SPS Committee, Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, Fourteenth Annual Report, G/SPS/59, 31 July 2012, at 1–2).
- 95.
WTO SPS Committee, Annual Report on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, 2016, at 2.
- 96.
WTO SPS Committee, Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, Twelfth Annual Report, G/SPS/54, 3 November 2010, at 2–3. In the latter case, the IPPC recently adopted a Recommendation on Sea Containers and encouraged the industry to develop Joint Industry Guidelines for Cleaning of Containers (see Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Commission on Phytosanitary Measures Recommendation on Sea Containers, CPM-10/2015/1, June 2015; Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Twelfth Session, Sea containers - Complementary Action Plan - Joint Industry Container Cleanliness Guidelines, CPM-2017/INF/05, February 2017).
- 97.
Scott 2007, at 269.
- 98.
WTO SPS Committee, Specific Trade Concerns, Note by the Secretariat, Revision, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17, 7 March 2017, paras 1.7–1.9. No solutions have been reported for the remaining 236 STCs, but some of these may have been resolved without the SPS Committee being made aware of the developments.
- 99.
See WTO SPS Committee, Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, Submission by Sri Lanka, G/SPS/W/187, 21 March 2006.
- 100.
See e.g. Pollack and Shaffer 2009, at 173.
- 101.
See WTO SPS Committee, Sulphur Dioxide in Cinnamon, Letter from the SPS Chairperson and Response from the Codex Alimentarius Commission, G/SPS/GEN/716, 25 July 2006; WTO (2006) News Items, Sri Lankan cinnamon’s future brightens, SPS Committee told, 11–12 October 2006, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news06_e/sps_oct06_e.htm, accessed 5 December 2017.
- 102.
Hornsby 2010, at 7. The author gives the example of the US concerns over EU emergency import requirements between 2000 and 2004 on North American wood-packing as means to prevent the introduction of certain environmentally destructive insects to European forests.
- 103.
WTO (2017) Report on G20 Trade Measures (Mid-October 2016 to Mid-May 2017), 30 June 2017, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/g20_wto_report_june17_e.pdf, accessed 6 December 2017, at 41.
- 104.
Wolfe 2015, at 2.
- 105.
WTO SPS Committee, Specific Trade Concerns, Note by the Secretariat, Revision, 2017, at 100. The Dispute Settlement Body established a panel on 28 September 2015.
- 106.
Ibid., at 50. On 8 March 2017 Mexico requested consultations with Costa Rica with respect to certain measures that allegedly restrict or prohibit the importation of fresh avocados for consumption from Mexico.
- 107.
Ibid., at 85–96.
- 108.
India—Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products, WTO, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS430/AB/R, 4 June 2015 (‘India—Agricultural Products’). See also summary of key findings at WTO (2017) DS430: India—Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products, updated 27 July 2017, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds430_e.htm, accessed 5 December 2017. Recently India has adopted measures to comply with the recommendations and rulings in the dispute.
- 109.
Veggeland 2016, at 32.
- 110.
See O’Connor and Company 2002, at 56.
- 111.
Namely molluscs and exports of EU packaged beef (WTO SPS Committee, Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement, Draft Report of the Committee, Revision, G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2, 6 November 2014, at 4).
- 112.
Schroder 2011, at 119–121.
- 113.
WTO SPS Committee, Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement, 2010, at 3.
- 114.
Ibid.
- 115.
See WTO SPS Committee, SPS Agreement and Developing Countries, Statement by Egypt at the meeting of 7–8 July 1999, G/SPS/GEN/128, 16 July 1999, at 2.
- 116.
See SPS Agreement, Annex A, para 4.
- 117.
Van den Bossche and Zdouc 2013, at 926.
- 118.
Ibid., at 53–71.
- 119.
WTO SPS Committee, Defense of the Scientific Principles of Codex – Ractopamine, Communication of Costa Rica, G/SPS/GEN/1092, 20 June 2011.
- 120.
WTO SPS Committee, Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, G/SPS/56, 7 September 2011.
- 121.
Food Safety News (2012) Codex Adopts Ractopamine Limits for Beef and Pork, 6 July 2012, http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/07/codex-votes-69-67-to-advance-ractopamine-limits-for-beef-and-pork/#.WODGNk-zkdU, accessed 5 December 2017.
- 122.
Council of the European Union (2012) Follow up to the adoption of a standard setting maximum residue levels (MRLs) on ractopamine by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its 35th session – Council conclusions, 22–23 October 2012, http://www.dmia.nl/images/Standard_setting_MRLs_on_ractopamine_-_Council_conclusions_-_22__23_October_201.pdf, accessed 5 December 2017.
- 123.
WTO SPS Committee, Specific Trade Concerns, Note by the Secretariat, Revision, 2017, at 73.
- 124.
See WTO SPS Committee, Annual Report on the Implementation of Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, G/SPS/GEN/1412, 4 June 2015; WTO SPS Committee, Annual Report on the Implementation of Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Note by the Secretariat, G/SPS/GEN/1491, 7 June 2016. Examples include Chile reporting its recognition of some municipalities of Brazil the Patagonia region of Argentina as areas free from South American fruit fly or Indonesia reporting its recognition of Sargodha District of the Punjab province, Pakistan as pest free in kinnow citrus.
- 125.
WTO SPS Committee, Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement, 2010, at 30.
- 126.
Bollyky 2015, at 1.
- 127.
1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1867 UNTS 190 (‘GATT’).
- 128.
Hoekman and Mavroidis 2015, at 13.
- 129.
Bollyky and Mavroidis 2017, at 22.
- 130.
ArvÃus and Jachia 2015, at 10.
- 131.
Hoekman and Mavroidis 2015, at 5.
- 132.
See European Commission (2016) EU proposal to include an article on Anti-Microbial Resistance within the SPS Chapter of TTIP, 6 November 2015, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/november/tradoc_153936.pdf, accessed 6 December 2017.
- 133.
OlavarrÃa 2008, at 257.
- 134.
Hüller and Maier 2011, at 273.
- 135.
Pollack and Shaffer 2009, at 172. It is also argued that the problem of scientific uncertainty has been aggravated for the ‘three sisters’ via recognition of these voluntary standards by the SPS Agreement which transformed them into something more than minimum standards and the standard-setting process became ‘highly charged political exercise’ (Cosbey 2000, at 3–6).
- 136.
Aichele et al. 2014, at 47.
- 137.
TTIP, Article 19.
- 138.
Mavroidis 2016, at 21.
- 139.
TPP, Article 7.5(3)(e).
- 140.
The Committee has encouraged Members requiring technical assistance to identify their specific needs in a clear and detailed manner and Members providing technical assistance to keep it informed of specific programmes of assistance (WTO SPS Committee, Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement, 2010, at 10 and 15).
- 141.
de Brito et al. 2016, at 82.
- 142.
Ibid.
- 143.
Torres 2015.
- 144.
In fact, it appears that the number of fully equivalent regulations between the EU and Canada is not so high and most of the regulations require additional conditions in order to be recognised as equivalent (Rudloff 2014, at 6).
- 145.
Mavroidis 2016, at 20.
- 146.
CETA, Article 5.5(1)(c).
- 147.
Downes 2012, at 521–522.
- 148.
Mavroidis 2016, at 19.
- 149.
Wang and Lin 2016, at 132.
- 150.
Mavroidis 2016, at 18.
- 151.
Ibid., at 19.
- 152.
Hoekman and Mavroidis 2015, at 15.
- 153.
Wolfe 2015, at 6.
- 154.
Hornsby 2010, at 9–10. In this regard, Article 5.14(2)(b) of CETA provides that the functions of the Joint Management Committee include providing direction for the identification, prioritisation, management, and resolution of issues.
- 155.
Subramanian 2017.
References
Aichele R, Felbermayr G, Heiland I (2014) Going Deep: The Trade and Welfare Effects of TTIP. CES-IFO Working Paper. http://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp5150.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017
ArvÃus C, Jachia L (2015) Regulatory Cooperation: A Wikihow. E15 Task Force on Regulatory Systems Coherence Think Piece. http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E15-Regulatory-Coherence-Arvius-and-Jachia-Final.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017
Bollyky TJ (2015) A Role for the World Trade Organization on Regulatory Coherence. E15 Task Force on Regulatory Systems Coherence Think Piece. http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E15-Regulatory-Coherence-Bollyky-Final.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017
Bollyky TJ, Mavroidis PC (2017) Trade, Social Preferences and Regulatory Cooperation: The New WTO-Think. Journal of International Economic Law 20(1):1–30
Cosbey A (2000) A Forced Evolution? The Codex Alimentarius Commission, Scientific Uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle. International Institute for Sustainable Development. http://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/forced_evolution_codex.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017
de Brito AC, Kauffmann C, Pelkmans J (2016) The Contribution of Mutual Recognition to International Regulatory Co-operation. OECD Regulatory Policy Working Paper. https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/WP2_Contribution-of-mutual-recognition-to-IRC.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017
Downes C (2012) The Impact of WTO Transparency Rules: Is the 10,000th SPS Notification a Cause for Celebration? – A Case Study of EU Practice. Journal of International Economic Law 15(2):503–524
Elvestand C, Veggeland F (2005) International Trade and Guidelines on Equivalence and Mutual Recognition. Norwegian Agriculture Economics Research Institute Report. http://nilf.no/publikasjoner/Rapporter/2005/R200501Hele.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017
Hoekman B, Mavroidis PC (2015) Regulatory Cooperation and the Trading System: An Issues Paper. E15 Task Force on Regulatory Systems Coherence Background Paper. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/287337/mod_folder/content/0/Hoekman_Mavroidis_Regulation_trade_system_DRAFT_09022015.pdf?forcedownload=1. Accessed 6 December 2017
Horn H, Mavroidis PC, Sapir A (2010) Beyond the WTO? An Anatomy of EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements. Bruegel Blueprint Series. http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/publications/bp_trade_jan09.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017
Hornsby DJ (2010) WTO Effectiveness in Resolving EU-US Trade Conflict. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1646261. Accessed 6 December 2017
Hüller T, Maier ML (2011) Fixing the Codex? Global Food-Safety Governance under Review. In: Joergers C, Petersmann EU (eds) Constitutionalism, Multilevel Trade Governance and International Economic Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, 267–299
Jackson LA, Vitikala H (2016) Cross-Cutting Issues in Regional Trade Agreements: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. In: Acharya R (ed) Regional Trade Agreements and the Multilateral Trading System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 230–315
Lin C (2011) Global Food Safety: Exploring Key Elements for an International Regulatory Safety. Virginia Journal of International Law 51(3):637–696
Mavroidis PC (2016) Regulatory Cooperation: Lessons from the WTO and the Worlds Trade Regime. E15 Task Force on Regulatory Systems Coherence Policy Options Paper. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/E15/WEF_Regulatory_Cooperation_Lessons_WTO_WTR_report_2015_1401.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017
O’Connor and Company (2002) Equivalence of SPS Measures and WTO Law. O’Connor and Company, Brussels
OECD (2013) International Regulatory Co-Operation: Addressing Global Challenges. OECD Publishing, Paris
OlavarrÃa HR (2008) Implementation of OIE International Standards by OIE Members. OIE Conference 2008:251–260
Pérez D (2016) Identifying Regulations Affecting International Trade and Investment: Better Classification Could Improve Regulatory Cooperation. The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center Working Paper. https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Identifying%20Regulations%20Affecting%20International%20Trade%20and%20Investment_PerezD_11_10_1.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017
Pollack MA, Shaffer GC (2009) When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Goods. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Rudloff B (2014) Food Standards in Trade Agreements: Differing Regulatory Traditions in the EU and the US and Tips for the TTIP. German Institute for International and Security Affairs SWP Comments. https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2014C49_rff.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017
Schroder HZ (2011) Harmonization, Equivalence and Mutual Recognition of Standards in WTO Law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Scott J (2007) The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Subramanian A (2017) The WTO Reborn? Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/wto-trade-multilateralism-revival-by-arvind-subramanian-2017-02. Accessed 12 December 2017
Torres LF (2015) The Role of Mutual Recognition Agreements as Trade Facilitators for Developing Countries. The Governance Post. https://www.hertie-school.org/the-governance-post/2015/12/the-role-of-mutual-recognition-agreements-as-trade-facilitators-for-developing-countries. Accessed 12 December 2017
Van den Bossche P, Zdouc W (2013) The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization. Cambridge University Press, New York
Veggeland F (2016) TTIP – Regulatory Cooperation on Food and Health Issues. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs Working Paper. https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/2424986. Accessed 6 December 2017
Wang M, Lin CF (2016) Towards a Bottom-Up SPS Cooperation: An Analysis of Regulatory Convergence in Food Safety Regimes. Trade, Law and Development 8(1):117–136
Wolfe R (2013) Letting the Sun Shine in at the WTO: How Transparency Brings the Trading System to Life. WTO Staff Working Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2229741. Accessed 6 December 2017
Wolfe R (2015) How Can We Know (More) About the Trade Effects of Regulation? E15 Task Force on Regulatory Systems Coherence Think Piece. http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/E15-Regulatory-Wolfe-final.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2017
WTO (2012) World Trade Report 2012: Trade and Public Policies: A Closer Look at Non-Tariff Measures in the 21st Century. World Trade Organization, Geneva
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chobanova, S. (2018). International Regulatory Cooperation in the Field of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Drawing Multilateral Lessons from the Regional Dimension. In: Amtenbrink, F., Prévost, D., Wessel, R. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2017. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 48. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-243-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-243-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-242-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-243-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)