Promoting the Effective Participation of SADC Member States in the WTO SPS Committee Brief Highlights of the STDF Paper presented by Dr. Oswald S Chinyamakobvu at the SADC SPS CC Meeting held at the Tlotlo Hotel and Conference Centre, Gaborone, Botswana, 29 31 January 2014
Scope Original intention of PPG: explore options for increased participation of SADC MS in Geneva Committee Meetings (assumption: lack of participation is obstacle to MSs SPS progress), Re-calibrated scope: address institutional capacity that might support and sustain effective participation in Geneva SPS committee meetings (assumption: improved IC, sustainable foundation for future SPS actions and other benefits). Without establishing a basic level of IC, and support intervention is unlikely to be maintained over time.
Scope cont d Ultimately this project preparation grant assessment starts from the assumption that building institutional capacity is a necessary preparatory step to more effective participation in Geneva SPS committee meetings.
Background The Geneva Committee meetings serve to: Raise specific trade related concerns, Inform other countries of SPS related issues, and Provide a forum for countries to engage each other through discussions and proposed procedures that enhance implementation of the agreement.
Background cont d Participation in the WTO SPS Committee by SADC Member States is very low. The study undertaken to identify ways in which there can be more effective participation in the committee meetings by SADC MSs.
Effective participation This is premised on: Technical capacity, Institutional capacity SADC found to be particularly weak on the institutional capacity front; note especially that SPS agreement implementation takes place within Member States, not in Geneva.
Technical capacity Technical capacity refers to consistent execution of actions that follows from science based understanding as detailed in the agreement; Technical capacity refers to consistent execution of actions that follows from science based understanding as detailed in the agreement. Risk assessment, equivalence, harmonization, transparency etc. all serve as examples. Technical capacity is built around specialized knowledge Technical capacity most often resides and is funded within different ministries and specific agencies or departments..
Institutional capacity Institutional capacity is the second component of overall SPS capacity and refers to the country s leadership and commitment of resources, processes and actions to establish and execute SPS prioritized lines of action. It connects across animal, plant and human health and must create a collaborative environment that crosses science disciplines, different ministries and private stakeholders. Institutional capacity incentivizes the sharing of information and rewards concerted action towards achieving prioritized outcomes. institutional capacity requires collective understanding Institutional capacity follows from a prioritized agenda with funding that supersedes typical competition for limited resources between ministries, Institutional capacity is increasingly the greatest limiting obstacle to overall SPS capacity,
Effective participation.. 2 Participation at Geneva meetings only a component of national SPS strategy; For meaningful benefits: Carry out due diligence prior to arrival and also implement follow-up actions as necessary afterwards, Be aware of the rights and obligations as spelled out in the agreement and do not ignore the steps and procedures necessary to realize your desired outcomes.
Implementing the SPS Agreement For a country to implement the SPS Agreement effectively three elements are important: The ability to implement articles of the agreement such as risk analysis, transparency or harmonization (technical), The establishment and compliance of laws, standards and regulations (regulatory), and The existence of a coordinated and prioritized framework across ministries and departments around SPS measures (institutional)
Paragraphs 24, 25 and 45 SPS Annex to the SADC Protocol on Trade approved in 2008, but is being revised, REIS Programme only assisting with the implementation of the SPS Annex; Annex is integral part of SADC Protocol on Trade, SPS officer works closely with FANR counterparts and REIS programme TBT/SPS KE
Lessons from IICA Physical presence and attendance at the SPS Committee is not a sufficient condition for effective implementation of the agreement, Attendance and participation in the SPS committee meeting is more likely to be sustained when it is part of a more comprehensive and ongoing institutional (development) strategy
The Five Metrics 1. Established national SPS agenda and priorities, 2. Individuals with SPS primary responsibility and requisite authorities, 3. Active liaison mechanisms across ministries and the private sector, 4. Fluid communication between capital and Geneva missions, 5. Resources earmarked for continuous engagement including international efforts
SADC against the 5 Metrics: Established national SPS agenda and priorities, Still dwelling on process rather than substantive regional trade and commodity opportunities for particular products, There is generally the understanding of what the agreement says but not necessarily why the agreement is important for its citizens or businesses.
SADC against the 5 Metrics: Individuals with SPS primary responsibility and requisite authorities, All countries had individuals charged with SPS responsibilities but it typically included other responsibilities as well Not many participate at the Geneva committee meetings Debate about where SPS coordination should reside. Resource and bureaucratic challenges being faced.
SADC against the 5 Metrics: Active liaison mechanisms across ministries and the private sector. N-SPS-CC meet for information sharing and awareness creation.. Little evidence of overall strategy development converging towards a national agenda At Geneva level we need to learn to prepare before, and follow up on issues after.
SADC against the 5 Metrics: Fluid communication between capital and Geneva missions Weak communication between capitals and Geneva missions Discontinuity from one event to the next as attendants do not always share information upon return
SADC against the 5 Metrics: Resources earmarked for continuous engagement including international efforts Resources are constrained
July 2013 Workshop outcomes: Options 1. Petition donor community for grant funding. (0) 2. Countries establish the priority of SPS within the national agenda. (2) 3. Countries continue current practices. (0) 4. Investment proposal (4)
Consultant s comments on the options Option 1 would be the best fit for SADC subject to sufficient administrative support and oversight from SADC Secretariat Option 2 prioritizing SPS on the national agenda Option 3 business as usual Option 4 accepting specific obligations in return for financing; however SADC has limited capacity to assist MSs therefore not feasible (NB: REIS assisting with esp awareness raising)
The recommendations Make Geneva attendance part of overall institutional capacity development supported by preparation and follow-through ; Emphasize institutional capacity (rather than technical), all s/h collaboration around a country determined prioritized agenda, Provide more descriptive guidance on institutional capacity, place more emphasis on outcomes rather than on process, Mark progress with incremental steps that are understood by both public and private s/h to help maintain long term momentum Draw from already existing tools (e.g. STDF bulletins and documents, MCDA, IICA 5 metrics etc.)
The recommendations cont d Transition from what to why - shift more attention towards practical dimensions, case studies and examples of sustained institutional capacity that make a difference, Elevate SPS as a priority, Recognize differences in progress, In implementing Option 4 (a) countries should attain a certain level of institutional capacity then (b) apply for investment financing. Given SADC s current structure, obligations and staffing, it should not be assumed that SADC would be the de facto choice to coordinate such an initiative. Leverage other activities - leverage supporting initiatives already underway
What do we do next? the next will need to be more than training and conferences if SADC countries are to make significant improvement
Thank you