1. Dr. Jose Joseph Professor College of Agriculture Padannakkad
AGREEMENT ON SPS MEASURES WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TRADE IN AGRICULTURE
Dr. Jose Joseph Professor College of Agriculture Padannakkad

2. SPS Measures
All countries maintain measures to ensure that food is safe for consumers and to prevent spread of pests and diseases among animals and plants These measures are generally known as Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures The Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures sets out basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards

3. All Phytosanitary Measures
Scope of SPS Agreement
All Sanitary Measures
All Phytosanitary Measures
Human and Animal Health
Plant Health
SPS Measures

4. Two major issues in the implementation of agreement on sps measures
The right to protect human, animal and plant life or health
Avoiding unnecessary and disguised trade barriers

5. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Defined as any measure applied to Protect human or animal life or health from risks arising from additives, toxins , contaminants or disease causing organisms in foods, beverages or feed stuff Protect human life or health from diseases carried by animals, plants or products there of Protect animal or plant life or health from entry, establishment or spread of pests, diseases, disease carrying organisms or disease causing organisms Prevent or limit other damage by entry, establishment or spread of pests with in the territory

6. SPS Measures “Animal” includes wild fauna and fish
“Plants” include forest and wild flora
“Parasites” include weeds
“Contaminants” include pesticide residues, veterinary drug residues and extraneous matter

7. RESIDUES
Substances having pharmacological action (both prohibited and permitted substances) (SUBSTANCES HAVING ANABOLIC EFFECT AND UNAUTHORISED SUBSTANCES, VETERINARY DRUGS AND CONTAMINANTS)
Metabolites of substances
Substances transmitted to animal products (Heavy metals, pesticides, toxins, PCBs, dioxins, etc.)
Substances formed by biological action (bacterial toxins, aflatoxins, etc.)

8. ARTICLE 14 OF AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE
“Members agree to give effect to the application of Sanitary and Phyto Sanitary measures”
The right of governments to restrict trade when necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health was also recognized under the GATT (in article XXCb)
Modeled on TBT that had been negotiated in GATT Tokyo Round ( )
Spin off from TBT

9. Types of SPS Measures End product criteria
Process & production methods
Testing methods
Sampling
Inspection
Certification & approval procedures
Risk assessment methods
Quarantine treatments related to transportation of animals or plants
Packaging & labeling requirements related to food safety

10. Non-discrimination and scientific justification ( Article2.2)
WTO
based on scientific principles
Members shall ensure that any SPS measure is:
applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health (least trade restrictive)
not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence
except as provided for in Article 5.7

11. SPS AGREEMENT
Article 3.1
To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a basis as possible, members shall base their sanitary or phytosanitary measures on international standards, guide lines or recommendations, where they exist (Harmonization)
Article 3.2
Conformity to SPS measures as per international standards as recommend above shall be deemed to be necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health

12. HARMONIZATION ( ARTICLE 3)
Standard-setting organizations
food safety
CODEX
plant health
IPPC
animal health
OIE
Codex = Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission
OIE = International Office of the Epizootics
IPPC = International Plant Protection Convention (FAO)

13. Concept of Equivalence ( Article4)
If the exporting country objectively demonstrates that its measures achieve the same ALOP as the importing country
Members shall
Accept SPS measures of other Members as equivalent even if they differ from their own or from those who are trading in the same product

14. Option for setting Higher Standards- (Article 3.3)
If there is scientific justification, countries can maintain or introduce higher standards of SPS Measures than what is stipulated by the International Standard Setting Agencies or a measure a member decides to be appropriate as determined by risk assessment as stipulated under Article 5.2

15. Precautionary Measures ( Article 5.7)
Exception: Provisional measures Article 5.7
Precautionary Measures ( Article 5.7)
Members may provisionally adopt SPS measures
when relevant scientific information is insufficient
on the basis of available pertinent information
In such circumstances, Members shall
seeks to obtain additional information to assess risk
review the measure within a reasonable period of time

16. Transparency Article 7 & Annex B
Establish an Enquiry Point
AND
designate a Notification Authority
Members shall
notify other Members of new or changed
SPS regulations when
no international standard exists OR
the new regulation is different than the international standard
regulation may have significant effect on trade
AND

17. Transparency -Notification obligations Article 7
Members are required to notify all sanitary and phytosanitary regulations which are adopted or proposed to be adopted
Notifications made in the event of non-existence of an international standard or where substantially different from it or where there is a significant effect on trade
Provisions also exist for emergency notifications when urgent problems of health protection arise
Contd…

18. Transparency –Notifications
Made through the National Notification Authority to the SPS/TBT Committee
‘Enquiry Points’ to be notified by each Member to disseminate information about existing and proposed SPS regulations, control and inspection procedures, quarantine treatment
Provision of ‘Emergency Notification’
Notifications as per prescribed format

19. How is risk assessment done?
SPS measures to be based on
Assessment of risks to human, animal or plant life or health, taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by international organizations.
Available scientific evidences; process and production methods; inspection & sampling methods; prevalence of specified disease or pests; existence of pests/disease-free areas etc Relevant economic factors & cost effectiveness of alternate approaches
Avoid arbitrary/unjustifiable distinctions in the levels in different situations if these result in disguised restrictions (Article 5)

20. Scientific Justification of SPS Measures
Measures based on a risk assessment
(Article 5 & 2)
Measures conform to international standards
(Article 3)

21. Pest and Disease Free Areas ( Article 6)
Based on geographical, epidemiological surveillance and other factors, members can declare certain territories as pest and disease free areas Provide evidence and demonstrate that such areas are and will remain pest and disease free areas.

22. Special and Differential Treatment Article 10
Take account special needs of developing countries when developing SPS measures
Allow longer time frames for compliance with measures for products of special interest to developing countries
Specific & time-limited exceptions on request to comply with Agreement
Facilitate developing country participation in international organizations

23. Technical assistance Article 9
Aim is to adjust to & comply with SPS measures to comply with SPS requirements of importing country & expand market access opportunities
Areas include
Processing technologies
Research & infrastructure
Establishment of regulatory bodies
Form of advice, credits, donations, grants, training, equipment
Source - bilateral or through international organizations

24. SPS Measures and Agricultural Trade
Tariffs are falling , non-tariff barriers are increasing %
tariffs
NTBs ?
1947
2009

25. SPS Measures And Agricultural Trade
Two major issues Genuine food safety and animal and plant health concerns Vs Disguised trade barriers in the form of SPS and TBT Measures Growth of export markets of developing countries is being hampered by high food standards of developed country markets Fish and fish products, meat products, vegetables and fruits and spices are most affected.

26. Major Food Safety Issues
Microbial
Bacterial Pathogens/ toxins, mycotoxins
Chemical
Pesticide residues Veterinary drug residues Heavy metals Food additives
Novel foods
Genetically modified foods

27. SPS Measures And Agricultural Trade
Categories of Standards Imposed End product related standards Production process related standards Testing Standards / Sampling Standards Certification procedures and types of certificates

28. End Product Related Standards
Restrictions on the Quality of a product Different quality standards for same product in different markets Afflatoxin content in ground nut EU General Standards – less than 4 ppb Belgium- maximum level Germany- less than 4 ppb Spain and Netherlands less than 5 ppb Codex standard- 15 ppb Indian standard – 30 ppb

29. U S Blocks indian basmati imports
In November 2011, the FDA refused the import of 100 containers of basmati from a Amritsar based exporter Traces of Tricyclazole varying from to 0.04 ppm found in samples from other exporters also Put four Indian basmati exporters on FDA Import Alert India exports about one lakh tonnes of basmati annually to the USA

30. Sudan Red in Eastern Curry Powder
Complaints of adulteration of curry powder of Eastern Condiments Private Limited from Middle East Countries in December Raids were conducted at the export wing of the company and officials seized 1200 Kgs of chilly powder destined for export to US The chilly powder was adulterated with carcinogenic industrial dye Sudan Red.

31. PRODUCT STANDARDS Japan Salmonella : Absent Afflatoxins: 10 ppb
Sulphur dioxide : Below 30 ppm
Radio nuclide: Below 137 Becquerel/ Kg in food stuffs
( spices not permitted to be sterilized by radio active rays)
Pesticide residues
Trace metals

32. Testing/ Sampling Procedures
Dutch Code for sampling FAO for testing afflatoxin- 20 Kg sample from a lot of tones EU- 3 samples of 10 Kg each from a lot of tones The whole shipment will be rejected even if a single sample exceeds limits EU has changed from single testing to multi testing.

33. Certification
International standards should be complied with while certifying the products Sometimes , certificates are to be provided by independent agencies Certification and import procedures also vary from country to country China insist that a new and original phytosanitary certificate must be accompanied with each consignment of fresh fruits, vegetables or tree nuts Strict packaging and labeling requirements.

34. Production Processes/ Production Methods
Some countries insist on particular production methods and production processes Eurep GAP ( Euro- Retailer Produce Working Group Good Agricultural Practices ), HACCP etc Standards have to be maintained during the entire stages of production and not only at processing stage alone Milk to be imported to EU should be mechanically milked and cows should be kept in farms

35. Some Case Studies on SPS Measures
The US – Japan Apple Fire Blight Case Bacterial disease of apple caused by Erwinia amylovora The disease damages apple trees and cause infected fruits to shrivel and turn in to brown colour The disease exists in parts of the US , but does not exist in Japan Japan introduced a number of SPS Measures for restricting apple imports from other countries

36. The US- Japan Apple Fire Blight Case
Japan’s SPS measures Fruits should come from designated orchards free from fire blight No fire blight host plant exists in the orchard The orchards should be surrounded by a buffer zone free of fire blight The designated orchards and buffer zones should be inspected at least three times in a year The harvested fruits should be subjected to surface chlorine wash and the containers for harvesting and the interior of the packing facilities should be subjected to chlorine treatment Apples for import to Japan should be kept separate and certify that the fruits have been treated Japanese officials should confirm certification and inspect the facilities

37. The US- Japan Apple- Fire blight Case
The US complained against these measures Panel findings Japanese measures violated Article 2.2 of SPS Agreement There is no evidence to show that fresh apple fruits would serve as path way for disease spread The disease has ever been spread through trade of apples Japan argued that theirs is a precautionary measure as permitted under Article Panel rejected the argument- There was sufficient scientific evidence on fire blight disease

38. The EU- US Biotech Products Dispute
The EU Moratorium on approval of biotech products from 1998 onwards At the Member State level measures, a number of States maintained national ban on certain biotech products , even though those products have already been approved by the EC for import and marketing in the EC countries The US complained that EC de facto moratorium on biotech products were inconsistent with Articles 2, 5,7,8 and Annexes B and C of SPS Agreement.

39. The EU- US Biotech Products Dispute
Dispute settlement Body of WTO based on panel reports ruled that the EU de facto moratorium on biotech products between 1998 and 2003 was inconsistent with obligations under Annex C (i) a, the first clause and article 8. ( unnecessary delay in approval procedures ) The EU de facto moratorium led to unnecessary delays on the completion of EC approval procedures Regarding ban at the Member State Level Sufficient scientific evidence was available to carry out risk assessment. (Article 2.2) Hence this can not be considered as a precautionary measure.

40. The US- EU Beef Hormone Case
The European Community prohibited importation and marketing of meat and meat products treated with 6 hormones used for growth purpose First the US and then Canada complained that the EU Measure violated Articles 2,3 and 5 of SPS Agreement The ban by EC was based on a claim that hormone treated meat may be carcinogenic in nature Codex states that these hormones when used under sound veterinary practices do not pose risks to human health.

41. The EU-US Beef Hormone Case
Panels were constituted for the purpose of dispute settlement Appellate Body released its report on January 16, AB rejected a number of findings of the panel However , it affirmed that EU’s beef hormone policy violated Article 3.3 of SPS Agreement (Higher standards should be based on risk assessment as provided under Article5.) The Appellate Body ruled against the ban on importation and marketing of hormone treated meat.

42. Japan Varietals or Codling Moth Case
Japan wanted to prevent the introduction of codling moth Cydia pomonela considered to be a pest of fruits Japan introduced a procedure of testing each variety of fruit import from the US Japan insisted for quarantine treatment for each subsequent fruit variety even if earlier varieties of the same fruit had been cleared for entry in to Japan The fruits affected were apples, cherries, pears, plum etc.

43. Japan Varietals or Codling Moth Case
US complained that the Japanese measures were against Article 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.7, 7 and Annex B Varietal testing requirements for subsequent varieties of the same fruit was time consuming and slow down US fruit exports to Japan The Appellate Body ruled on February 22,1999 that Japans’ measures were not in conformity with SPS measures Measure should be based on scientific evidence(Article5.2), Should not be trade restrictive (Article 5.6) and be transparent in implementation ( Article and Annex B)

44. Australian Salmon Case
Australia restricted the import of Pacific Salmon from other countries from 1975 onwards They published the final version of Australian import risk analysis in According to this, they prohibited the import of fresh, chilled or frozen adult, wild ocean caught Pacific Salmon ( uncooked) How ever Australia allowed import of salmon products if they went through a process of heat treatment at 35 degree Celsius for a period of 7 hours This was for preventing spread of diseases.

45. Australian Salmon Case
Canada complained before the WTO and pointed out that Australia allowed import of import of live ornamental fish and herring in whole frozen form which are also considered as hosts to harmful disease agents Dual policy of Australia is against SPS rules Chances of introduction of diseases were negligible if imports were restricted to headless, eviscerated (disembowelled) salmon instead of heat treatment

46. Australian Salmon Case
There was no published evidence of heat treatment reducing the risk of disease spread Canada also pointed out the thermal stability of a number of pathogens of high quarantine importance at relatively low temperature ranges The WTO Appellate Body concluded that the SPS Measures of Australia were violative of Articles 5.1 and 5.5 of SPS Agreement. ( Risk assessment , arbitrary and unjustifiable measure at different levels )

47. Newer Issues in SPS Implementation
Private Standards SPS Measures are generally set by international standard setting bodies or by the national governments Beyond these standards, multi national super market retail chains have started developing standards which are higher than international standards or standards set by national governments The issue was first started by Saint Vincent and Grenadines on standards on banana in 2005.

48. Newer Issues in SPS Implementation
Transparency Even though over SPS standards on food safety , plant and animal health have been notified till October 31, 2011,not all countries are giving advanced warning regarding SPS changes Complaints about insufficient transparency are common Special Treatment for Developing Countries Developing countries are asked to adopt higher SPS Measures with out providing adequate time or technical assistance Example. US Food Safety Modernization Act.

49. Newer Issues in SPS Implementation
Issues regarding GM Crops- GM Pollens in Honey The European Court of Justice recently ruled that pollen found in honey should be considered as an ingredient rather than a natural constituent Pollen from GM plants have to be approved as an ingredient India’s Measures Against Avian Flu(avian influenza) India’s import ban on pork is being continuously opposed by EU and the US Risk assessment by India is inadequate No evidence to show that pigs transmit the disease.

50. Thank you