OIE 12, rue de Prony Paris France Tel.: 33 (0) Fax: 33 (0)

Transcription

1 73 SG/9 Original: English IMPLEMENTATION OF OIE STANDARDS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SPS AGREEMENT Gideon Brückner Director Veterinary Services, Agriculture Western Cape, Private Bag X1, Elsenburg 7607, South Africa Summary: Member Countries of the OIE are increasingly under pressure to improve delivery of veterinary services as a prerequisite for entering the competitive arena of international trade in animals and animal products. The demands for compliance to international sanitary standards have also put increasing pressure on the financial, human and technological resources of Member Countries to either work towards compliance with standards or maintaining compliance. The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS Agreement) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the guidelines and recommendations of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Terrestrial Code), are interlinked and have a direct bearing on the eventual acceptance or refusal of animals or products of animal origin by importing countries. The response to a recent questionnaire distributed to the 167 OIE Member Countries revealed that although there is general satisfaction with the intent and understanding of both the Terrestrial Code and the SPS Agreement to facilitate international trade, specific concerns related to both developed and developing countries need to be addressed to make the Terrestrial Code and the SPS Agreement more relevant as reference documents in international negotiations for trade in animals and animal products. The purpose of the questionnaire was to assess the perception and experiences of OIE Member Countries in applying the underlying principles, guidelines and recommendations of both the Terrestrial Code and the SPS Agreement in the trade of animals and animal products. A particular focus was on the application of the rights and obligations embedded in both the Terrestrial Code and SPS Agreement and to what extent Member Countries consider the application thereof as facilitating or hindering the trade in animals and animal products. The questionnaire also tried to assess those aspects in both the Terrestrial Code and SPS Agreement that need either to be reviewed or improved to facilitate the use thereof by Member Countries in the international trade in animals and animal products. 1. Introduction The underlying intent and sentiment in the formulation of the SPS Agreement was to facilitate international trade in animals and plants as well as their products while preventing importation of pathogens which can endanger human, animal or plant life. An important concept embedded within the Agreement is to ensure that governments of countries do not use sanitary measures related to the import of animals and animal products as unjustified trade barriers to protect their own domestic livestock industries from competitive imports. To enable a scientifically justifiable baseline for consistency in decision-making, Member Countries are required to base their decisions on international standards where they exist or otherwise to justify their decision using OIE 12, rue de Prony Paris France Tel.: 33 (0) Fax: 33 (0) oie@oie.int

2 science-based risk analysis if an international standard does not exist or if the sanitary standard set by the importing country is higher than an international standard. The SPS Agreement acknowledges the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Terrestrial Code) as an international reference for sanitary standards for the trade in terrestrial animals and their products. The primary focus of the Terrestrial Code is on animal health matters including zoonosis related to international trade i.e. to set guidelines and recommendations to minimise the risk for the spread or introduction of disease or pathogens to animals and humans through the trade in animals and animal products. Diagnostic methods and vaccine standards for terrestrial animals are covered in the Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. The underlying sentiment of the Terrestrial Code is to guide decision-making for international trade by: Allowing importing countries to request adherence and compliance to certain requirements in respect of sanitary standards by the exporting country. The main purpose is to protect their own industries i.e. by setting an appropriate level of protection (ALOP) to safeguard the health of the human and animal populations in their country and thereby not endangering their own export status. Allowing exporting countries to use the guidelines and recommendations of the Terrestrial Code to set standards for national sanitary measures to enable acceptance for their animals and animal products in the export market. OIE standards, guidelines and recommendations applicable to international trade of aquatic animals and their products are contained in the Aquatic Animal Health Code. Diagnostic methods and vaccine standards related to aquatic animal diseases are covered in the Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animal Diseases. Some of the observations in this presentation apply equally well to the Aquatic Animal Health Code A questionnaire was recently distributed to the 167 OIE Member Countries to assess the perception and experiences of Member Countries in applying the underlying principles, guidelines and recommendations of both the Terrestrial Code and the SPS Agreement in the trade of animals and animal products. A particular focus was on the application of the rights and obligations embedded in both the Terrestrial Code and SPS Agreement and to what extent Member Countries consider the application thereof as facilitating or hindering the trade in animals and animal products. The questionnaire also tried to assess those aspects in both the Terrestrial Code and SPS Agreement that need either to be reviewed or improved to facilitate the use thereof by Member Countries in the international trade in animals and animal products. The questionnaire however, mainly assessed the perception and experiences of Member Countries related to the Terrestrial Code. 2. The Terrestrial Animal Health Code as an instrument to help Member Countries to facilitate negotiations for safe trade in animals and animal products The Terrestrial Code is often interpreted by some Member Countries as being too prescriptive and discriminatory against non-compliance leaving a perception of being all-or-none, uncompromising and insensitive to the needs of some countries. There are however, critical issues in the Terrestrial Code that enable and facilitate the process for entry into the export market (1, 2). The importance of standards as outlined in the Terrestrial Code should be appreciated for being based on scientific principles and designed to facilitate information exchange, ensure product quality and to highlight important objectives that are otherwise neglected in the private market such as public health and food safety. Well-defined standards can facilitate trade by reducing transaction and other costs (including costs of information about the quality of goods or services and associated risks), and by improving linkages among trade partners (3). Some of the critical enabling issues in the Terrestrial Code are: Evaluation of Veterinary Services the International Committee of the OIE has given specific attention during the past 3 years to several chapters of the Terrestrial Code dealing with important issues such as risk analysis, evaluation of veterinary services, guidelines for evaluation of veterinary services, zoning and regionalisation and animal disease surveillance. These issues are important variables that should be taken into consideration when conducting import risk analysis but they are also equally important in endorsing the underlying sentiments of harmonisation, transparency and equivalence of the 2 Implementation of OIE Standards in the Framework of the SPS Agreement

3 SPS Agreement. The Terrestrial Code is very explicit on compliance by a Member Country with the fundamental principles of Veterinary Service delivery and recommends that The veterinary Services shall conform to these fundamental principles, regardless of the political, economic or social situation of a country (5). Although this statement might be perceived as very uncompromising, it is important to note that the guidelines for the evaluation of veterinary services allow for a phased-in approach for Member Countries to work towards compliance by initially addressing the critical issues for veterinary service delivery and thereafter establishing a platform for negotiation with importing countries. There are a number of Member Countries that would not be in a position to comply with all the criteria at once. All the criteria might not be of immediate critical importance for compliance and an importing country can therefore negotiate with the exporting country on those issues that are critical for export certification and those that could be addressed at a later stage. This can especially be the case when exports from low income to middle income countries or even among middle income countries are negotiated. This approach can also be considered for trade on a regional basis or in a free trade area where there would be significant advantages in harmonising standards, albeit at a lower level than that recommended under WTO rules but where the process of working towards compliance would at least be initiated (1, 2, 3). What is also important is that the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Veterinary Services should be used as a reference document for identifying specific areas of technical assistance to a potential exporting country to enable progress towards eventual compliance. This also implies that countries should not only rely on external help but must also be willing to undertake periodic self-evaluations to assess the standards of veterinary service delivery (6). A self-evaluation by the Veterinary Services may also help to convince Governments and policy makers to invest more on Veterinary Services to enable them to comply with OIE standards. Guidelines for equivalence The concept of equivalence is contained in an important Chapter in the Terrestrial Code approved during the 71 st General Session of the OIE in May 2003 (5). This Chapter supports Article 4 of the SPS Agreement and the Doha Ministerial Declaration (7) in which the SPS Committee was specifically requested to further the implementation of article 4 of the Agreement as a matter of urgency. It also facilitates a more flexible approach for the interpretation and application of the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Veterinary Services. The Terrestrial Code recognises equivalence by recommending alternative sanitary measures for many diseases. The Guidelines for Equivalence now strengthen and confirm the approach that was already implied previously in Chapters on several diseases described in the Terrestrial Code. The application of this concept encourages Member Countries to base their sanitary measures on OIE standards, guidelines and recommendations and to apply the principle of equivalence that by definition refers to sanitary standards in the exporting country achieving the required level of appropriate protection of the importing country while the sanitary measures of the exporting country need not be a duplication of the exact sanitary measures applied in the importing country. Risk mitigation for trade-sensitive diseases Risk assessment and risk management are key features of the SPS Agreement (1). The risk mitigation procedures that are described for specific diseases in the Terrestrial Code also support this concept through the recommendation of alternative sanitary measures that could be used to facilitate the export of an animal or animal product from a country that has for instance not yet achieved the goals for disease freedom on a country or zone basis.. The sanitary measures described for foot and mouth disease (FMD) in the Terrestrial Code provide an excellent example of this approach. A Member Country could for example be either free from FMD or have a zone free from FMD with or without vaccination or could be infected but has embarked on the pathway towards freedom from infection. The acceptance of trade in a variety of products is allowed between countries of different FMD status provided the risk mitigation procedures as described in the Terrestrial Code, are applied and can be given as sanitary guarantees to the importing country. The enabling environment created by this approach permits for instance the export of deboned meat from an infected country to a free country or zone provided specific risk mitigation procedures were applied and can be certified by the exporting country. While the Terrestrial Code therefore strongly encourages Member Countries to harmonise their sanitary measures, it also gives recognition to countries that are in the process of moving towards compliance by making provision for alternative sanitary measures and thereby facilitating trade. The same concept has been applied in the Chapter on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) where the Terrestrial Code lists the products not posing a risk for transmission of BSE irrespective of the BSE status of a country and recommends that countries should authorise without restriction the import and transit through their territory of those listed commodities. Implementation of OIE Standards in the Framework of the SPS Agreement 3

4 3. The SPS Agreement as an instrument to help developing countries work towards compliance with international standards and entering the export market The SPS Agreement has been the subject of several excellent and well documented studies to evaluate the impact of SPS measures especially in developing countries; to offer reasons for the apparent inability of some countries to fully make use of the provisions of the SPS Agreement; to determine the concerns and constraints in the application of the SPS Agreement and to propose potential solutions to the identified problems. However, in several of these studies, the focus has been on seeking reasons for what went wrong and offering generic or general solutions that are already provided for in the Agreement in terms of special and differential treatment. What is really needed is to narrow the focus on specific problems experienced in Member Countries that need to be resolved in a step-wise manner to meet the sanitary standards required for trade. No country can be forced to achieve sustainable compliance overnight. This was obviously one of the driving factors in the signing of the Doha declaration to make provision for flexibility to developing countries by extending the time frame for compliance with SPS measures (7). However, the extension of the time frame is not the real issue, but more important is a clear indication of what is needed in the delay period to strengthen capacities to satisfy the SPS requirements of trade partners. Specifying time periods rather than setting key performance areas that need to be addressed to allow the export of an identified product or animal puts countries under pressure. This could also force them into quick or ad hoc solutions that are essentially temporary in nature and not sustainable to ensure credibility in the export market or moving progressively towards compliance. The SPS Agreement was thus designed to help address the concerns already evident in the pre-uruguay negotiations of countries especially those in the developing world. (1, 2). The Agreement seeks to promote transparency in the standards development process and promote principles of national treatment, nondiscrimination, and use of sound science as the basis for standards. The Agreement aims to: encourage the adoption of measures of scientific principles in the application of standards prevent discrimination between members when identical or similar conditions prevail, and reduce restrictions to international trade promote SPS measures based on international guidelines and common risk assessment techniques encourage standards based on broad-based participation and consensus The Agreement also provides a mechanism for addressing issues related to developing country capacity to meet compliance costs. There was common agreement to facilitate the provision of technical assistance to developing countries through bilateral or international agreements. The technical assistance includes assistance in processing technologies, research and infrastructure, advice, credits, donations and grants for seeking technical expertise, training and equipment and the establishment of national regulatory bodies (2). Following the Doha Ministerial Conference in Qatar in November 2001, the heads of the WTO, FAO, WHO, OIE and the World Bank committed their organizations to work together to strengthen the capacity of developing countries in meeting SPS standards. The establishment of the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) in September 2002, resulted from this joint commitment. (8). The purpose of the STDF, which is managed by the WTO, is to facilitate the collaboration between the partner organizations in enhancing the technical capacity of developing countries. This is to be achieved through the cooperation between the relevant institutions in SPS-related activities, including through the development of joint institutional projects, and provision of STDF-funded projects in developing countries. The STDF will support information exchange, development of databases, tool kits and learning materials on trade-related SPS issues to better coordinate capacity building projects. Furthermore, the STDF will provide funding for pilot projects in capacity building in individual countries or through regional initiatives in direct support of the Doha declaration. Animal health was identified as one of the four categories of the STDF for which assistance should be given to developing countries to facilitate entry into international trade. The STDF has already accepted to finance three projects proposed by the OIE namely; training of OIE Delegates, tools for the evaluation of Veterinary Services and strengthening of Veterinary Services in Africa under the ALive (African Livestock) programme. 4 Implementation of OIE Standards in the Framework of the SPS Agreement

5 4. Evaluation of the response by OIE Member Countries on the questionnaire to assess the implementation of OIE standards in the framework of the SPS Agreement The questionnaire that was distributed to OIE Member Countries was designed to help assess how Member Countries experience standards in the Terrestrial Code in the application of rights and obligations described in the SPS Agreement. Some of the responses differed depending on the relevant status of a Member Country i.e. exporting or importing country, industrialised or non-industrialised or developing or developed country. The FAO classification of country status based on Gross National Product (4) was used to indicate and evaluate some of the responses where there was a noticeable difference in response as it would also be important for the International Committee to take note of these concerns and incorporate them for attendance within the OIE Strategic Plan where necessary. The questionnaire which was sent to 167 Member Countries received 106 responses. The following countries responded to the questionnaire: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte-d Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldavia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Taipei China, Tanzania, The Netherlands, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Zimbabwe. 4.1 Application and usage of the Terrestrial Code and the SPS Agreement The overall response to the 12 questions asked under this section was favourable towards the userfriendliness of the Terrestrial Code and SPS Agreement, the utilisation of the Terrestrial Code and SPS Agreement for trade negotiations and applying the principles in setting national sanitary standards. The SPS Agreement was perceived as less user friendly (64% v/s. 84% of the Terrestrial Code) in spite of the fact that the SPS Secretariat conducted 104 technical assistance and training activities during the period 1 September 1994 to 31 August 2004 (9). A total of 91% respondents were in favour of harmonising sanitary standards to facilitate trade but only 69% regarded equivalency as a prerequisite for trade in animals and animal products with a noticeable difference between industrialised countries (64%) and non-industrialised countries (89%). On the question of national sanitary measures being stricter than those recommended in the Terrestrial Code, 47% of respondents indicated stricter measures of which 11% were from non-industrialised countries and 89% from industrialised countries. In response to the question of national sanitary standards being lower than those recommended in the Terrestrial Code, 50% non-industrialised countries and 31% industrialised countries indicated lower standards. A total of 66% respondents indicated that the guidelines and recommendations of the Terrestrial Code, favoured industrialised countries. The response to the usage and application of the Terrestrial Code and SPS Agreement correlates with the response later in the questionnaire where 60% of respondents indicated that more weight should be placed on the usage of OIE standards in international trade negotiations. 66% of countries comprising 83% of non-industrialised countries and 55% of industrialised countries responded to this question. This could indicate that the Terrestrial Code and SPS Agreement are both used for the purpose that they were created for but the marginal to significant difference in response between industrialised and nonindustrialised countries on the usage of the Terrestrial Code for trade negotiations need to be further investigated. 4.2 Guidelines and recommendations of the Terrestrial Code The purpose of this section was to assess the perception of Member Countries as to whether selected standards in the Terrestrial Code are too trade restrictive, not sufficient to protect sanitary status or whether they are acceptable as presented. Respondents were also given the opportunity to indicate their uncertainty to the former options. A total of 19 questions were phrased on a selection of specific concepts in the Terrestrial Code such as guidelines for surveillance and risk assessment for BSE, inactivation of pathogens, the delivery of veterinary services, zoning, compartementalisation and guidelines on specific trade sensitive diseases such as foot and mouth disease, avian influenza, BSE, bluetongue and classical swine fever. For 74% of respondents the measures as currently written in the Terrestrial Code are acceptable with 7% regarding them as too trade restrictive, 8% as not sufficient to Implementation of OIE Standards in the Framework of the SPS Agreement 5

6 protect the sanitary status and 9% being uncertain.. Responses to certain questions were in fact highly, significant the most notable being the response towards the acceptability of the concept of compartementalisation. Although the overall response was that only 3% of respondents regard compartementalisation as too trade restrictive note should be taken of the degree of uncertainty that still exists on this concept. While the 3% represents 17% of non-industrialised countries regarding this concept as too trade restrictive, none of the industrialised countries share this opinion. The overall acceptability of this concept was 50% with a 20% uncertainty. These figures can be regarded as significant, as one of the key benefits in applying compartementalisation is to facilitate entry into the export market especially for developing and non-industrialised countries that cannot afford to sustain costs associated with the creation of disease free countries or zones. The response could also indicate that the concept is not yet well understood and need to be debated and explained in more practical detail to Member Countries. Non-industrialised countries (17% of respondents) regard the guidelines for foot and mouth disease as too trade restrictive while 12% of overall respondents are of the opinion that the guidelines for bluetongue are too trade restrictive. For BSE 16% regard the guidelines as too trade restrictive with 20% regarding it as not sufficient to protect the sanitary status with an overall acceptability of 52% of the current guidelines and recommendations. More or less the same tendency is noticeable in the response to the guidelines for surveillance and risk assessment for BSE: 17% regard it as too trade restrictive, 13% as not sufficiently protecting sanitary status, 57% acceptability and 13% uncertainty. It is also significant that for Rinderpest a total of 6% regard the guidelines as too trade restrictive but of these respondents, 22% are from non-industrialised countries and 8% from industrialised countries. It can be concluded that for most of the issues related to trade sensitive diseases, Member Countries are of the opinion that the Terrestrial Code supports the application of the measures within the sentiment of the SPS Agreement. However, for those diseases such as BSE, foot and mouth disease and rinderpest being of more trade relevance to non-industrialised countries, the OIE need to possibly reconsider the current guidelines and concepts such as compartementalisation, need to be more clearly defined as a trade facilitating measure. 4.3 Frequency of use of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code and SPS Agreement This section aimed at assessing access to the Terrestrial Code and SPS Agreement in finding out how frequently both documents are used as reference material and the most common means of accessing them.. The Terrestrial Code is used daily by 53% of respondents, on a monthly interval by 30% and infrequently by 18%. The SPS Agreement is used by 24% daily, 32% monthly and 44% infrequently. It was assuring to note that 80% of respondents consult both the hard copy and electronic version of the Terrestrial Code with 18% only using only the hard copy of which 39% from non-industrialised countries. 4.4 Participation in international standard setting and attendance of meetings of OIE and SPS Committee A total of 86% of all respondents have a delegate present at each session of the OIE General Session. Of these, 61% are from non-industrialised and 90% from industrialised countries. However, only 58% of respondents regularly attend the meetings of the SPS Committee and of these, 67% are from industrialised countries and 11% from non-industrialised countries. The main reasons given for nonattendance are lack of funds (61% from non-industrialised countries). Where meetings of the SPS committee are attended, the delegation in 26% of responses include a veterinarian, in 11%, a plant health specialist, in 25%, a trade specialist and in 21%, a combination thereof. From the responses it appears unfortunate that some OIE Member Countries are either not in the position to attend or fail to fully realise the importance of linking the setting of standards for trade (at meetings of the International Committee of the OIE) with monitoring and evaluating the practical application of the standards (at meetings of the SPS Committee). The importance of debating standards within the meeting of the International Committee of the OIE would become much more relevant to many Member Countries of the OIE once they realise that the application of what they have debated and voted for within the OIE General Session, might manifest differently or be interpreted otherwise in the real situation. The SPS Secretariat of the WTO has in collaboration with the OIE, done some steering work to facilitate attendance at both meetings by OIE Member Countries. Regular attendance at meetings and follow up of deliberations are thus important to ensure country representation and participation in debates. By ensuring continuity in the attendance of both the meetings of the International Committee of the OIE and those of the SPS Committee could effectively contribute to the quality and focus of debates in the development of international standards during meetings of the OIE International Committee. 6 Implementation of OIE Standards in the Framework of the SPS Agreement

7 4.5 Ability to comply with the requirements of the SPS Agreement This section of 10 questions was aimed at assessing the experience and exposure of OIE Member Countries in the application of the SPS Agreement as it relates to trade negotiations and how importantly they rate adherence to such requirements. The questions focused specifically on the Articles within the SPS Agreement such as consistency in the application of sanitary measures, the scientific basis for sanitary measures, discrimination between trade partners, inconsistency with the Terrestrial Code, setting of appropriate level of protection by importing countries, measures for acceptance of equivalence, the role of risk assessment, non-transparency and the rigid application of import requirements. The overall response indicates that 53% of respondents regard these issues as important. 19% of Member Countries never experienced any problems, 5% had continuous problems and 58% encountered problems only infrequently. Most of the problems are encountered in respect of inconsistency between sanitary measures and the SPS Agreement (62%), importing countries requiring a higher level of sanitary protection than that recommended by the Terrestrial Code (64%), inconsistency of national standards with those recommended by the Terrestrial Code (66%) and the importing country not accepting equivalence of sanitary measures applied in the exporting country (60%). The response to this section confirms the observation from previous sections of the questionnaire that non-industrialised countries regard the recommendations and guidelines of the Terrestrial Code as a golden standard in international trade negotiations. On the question of sanitary measures not based on scientific principles, 50% of the responses in the affirmative are from non-industrialised countries v/s. 21% from industrialised countries. In response to the question on the level of appropriate protection by the importing country being higher than that recommended in the Terrestrial Code, 28% of respondents are from non-industrialised countries v/s. 6% from industrialised countries. 4.6 Ease of understanding and possible changes to the Terrestrial Code to align and ease the application of the SPS Agreement Although the majority of respondents indicate that they find the Terrestrial Code user friendly, the response to the seven questions in this section suggested that changes or revision of some of the sections in the Terrestrial Code are needed. Changes and revision of the different Terrestrial Code chapters being a continuous process undertaken by the Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission (the Code Commission), the suggestion by respondents for changes, is not new. The seven questions covered issues such as guidelines for the evaluation of veterinary services, guidelines for import risk analysis, format of the Chapters on animal diseases, general principles for zoning, equivalence and surveillance for specific diseases. The responses indicate that 46% of respondents require no change, 29% feel that changes could facilitate trade, 15% consider that changes are important and 13% consider that they are not important. However, it might be worthwhile to investigate the need for changes in more detail i.e. how should the chapters on animal diseases and import risk analysis be formatted? Considering the lengthy and detailed process that is followed before the final adoption of a chapter, it might be worthwhile to consider guidelines to Member Countries for evaluating changes to Chapters that are distributed for comments before submission to the International Committee for adoption. It is also noteworthy that there appears to be general satisfaction with the chapter on the guidelines for the evaluation of veterinary services (57% suggested no significant changes necessary) and the format of the chapters on animal diseases (49% suggested no change) although 30% indicated that some changes could facilitate trade. 4.7 The need for more specific information on the safety of commodities and products for trade irrespective of the disease status The aim of this section was to establish the need for specific information on products or commodities that could be traded without restriction such as already applied in the chapter on BSE. The Terrestrial Code was not regarded as user friendly by 49% of respondents in respect of certification requirements for a single commodity where more than one disease in the exporting country pose a risk. In response to the question for the need of a separate chapter to indicate the safety for trade of specific products regardless of the presence of certain diseases, 77% respondents react in the affirmative while 77% also indicate the Implementation of OIE Standards in the Framework of the SPS Agreement 7

8 need for a chapter to indicate the risk mitigation procedures that could be applied on specific products to render it safe for trade. The need for commodity specific information was already raised at the joint meeting of the Regional Commissions for Africa and the Middle East held in October 2004 in Cairo, Egypt. The Code Commission has taken note of this concern and is considering as to whether to create a separate chapter in the Terrestrial Code or to incorporate the principles by listing safe commodities within each disease chapter. 4.8 Limiting factors to fully apply the requirements of the Terrestrial Code in accordance with the requirements of the SPS Agreement A total of 14 questions were asked with the aim of assessing the relative importance and impact of some of the possible limiting factors such as lack of financial and human resources, lack of technical assistance, lack of expertise, inappropriate legislative mandate and the threat of transboundary animal diseases. The responses from non-industrialised and least developing countries are particularly relevant as indications are that in spite of concerted efforts by the OIE and other international organisations; critical problems preventing these countries to fully participate in the international trade in animals and animal products still exist. A total of 72% respondents from non-industrialised and least developing countries indicate lack of financial and human resources as a limiting factor, lack of infrastructure (67%), lack of technical assistance (61%), lack of expertise to do import risk analysis (61%) and inappropriate legislative mandate (66%). The Doha Ministerial Declaration (7) also echoed these concerns resulting in the joint declaration by the WTO, FAO, WHO, OIE and the World Bank committing their organizations to work together to strengthen the capacity of developing countries in meeting SPS standards. 4.9 Miscellaneous questions related to the use of the Terrestrial Code to facilitate the application of the SPS Agreement 5. Conclusion On the question of the national implementation of the Terrestrial Code standards for export purposes, 83% respondents indicate that they would have benefits on the national animal disease and veterinary public health situation. On improving the quality and reliability of certification by the Veterinary Services of exporting countries through the voluntary participation in an international accreditation scheme facilitated by the OIE, 70% respondents indicate their agreement to this concept. On aspects related to the SPS Agreement, 60% respondents indicate that more weight should be placed on OIE standards (83% of respondents from non-industrialised and developing countries and 55% from developed countries); 51% respondents indicate that more emphasis is needed on risk analysis and 68% respondents indicate that animal welfare standards should be introduced into the SPS Agreement. The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures has since the signing of the Marrakech Agreement in 1994, been the subject of debate as to whether it succeeds in facilitating international trade in animals, plants and their products without endangering human, plant or animal life. Likewise, the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code has come under scrutiny as an international standard reference document of the SPS Agreement for trade in animals and animal products. Member Countries of the OIE have indicated overwhelmingly in the questionnaire circulated to 167 Member Countries, that they attach high value to the Terrestrial Code as setting and recommending international standards for trade in animals and animal products and that the applications of the standards contained in the Terrestrial Code should even be further strengthened and recognised in international trade decision-making. The authoritive role played by both the Terrestrial Code and the SPS Agreement can only be fully realised if users recognise that new technological developments demanded by the ever-changing international trade environment, are regularly taken into account during the continuous review of the standards... Responses to the questionnaire indicate that there is a need, not so much for change, but for taking note of new needs that have developed over time and which Member Countries feel should receive attention. The most notable are the need to more clearly assess the 8 Implementation of OIE Standards in the Framework of the SPS Agreement

9 safety of products for trade and a clearer definition of new concepts such as compartmentalisation. It is also evident from the responses that the competitive environment of international trade still results in 58% of Member Countries experiencing inconsistency and non-adherence with the application of the SPS Agreement by trade partners. It is thus not surprising that 83% of respondents indicated their support for more weight and recognition of the Terrestrial Code in the application of the SPS Agreement. The OIE through its International Committee should take note of these concerns and apply the mandate they have in both the OIE and the SPS Committee, to facilitate inclusion of changes if and when necessary but even more importantly to ensure integration and harmonisation between the OIE Terrestrial Code and the application of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement. 6. References 1. Brückner GK, An evaluation of the alternatives and possibilities for countries in sub-saharan Africa to meet the sanitary standards for entry into the international trade in animals and animal products. African Union/Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources, Nairobi, Kenya,. Consultancy AU-IBAR, pp Brückner GK, Working towards compliance with international standards. Rev. sci. Off. int. Epiz., 2004, 23 (1), Henson S., Loader R., Swinbank A., Bredahl M. & Lux N. (2000). Impact of sanitary and phytosanitary measures on developing countries. Centre for Food Economics Research, University of Reading, Reading, UK, 51 pp. 4. FAO (2002). World Agriculture towards 2015/2030. Summary report, Rome, 97 pp. 5. OIE. (2003). Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Thirteen edition, OIE, Paris, 55 pp. 6. Vallat, B and Wilson, D. (2002). The obligations of OIE Member Countries in the organisation of Veterinary Services. In: proceedings of the OIE Seminar: Organisations of Veterinary Services and Food Safety, Tunis: September 2002, OIE, World Trade Organization (2001). Doha WTO Ministerial 2001: Ministerial declaration. 8. World Trade Organisation (2002). Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF). G/SPS/GEN/ World Trade Organization (2004). Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: SPS Technical Assistance and Training Activities (1 September 1994 to 31 August 2004). G/SPS/GEN/521. Implementation of OIE Standards in the Framework of the SPS Agreement 9

10

11 World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), 2005 This document has been prepared by specialists convened by the OIE. Pending adoption by the International Committee of the OIE, the views expressed herein can only be construed as those of these specialists. All OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) publications are protected by international copyright law. Extracts may be copied, reproduced, translated, adapted or published in journals, documents, books, electronic media and any other medium destined for the public, for information, educational or commercial purposes, provided prior written permission has been granted by the OIE. The designations and denominations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the OIE concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries. The views expressed in signed articles are solely the responsibility of the authors. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by the OIE in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.