DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

SUBJECT:- INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW

PROJECT:- THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY

SUBMITTED BY:- SUBMITTED TO: -

SARANG SRIVASTAVA Dr. PRIYA ANURAGINI

B.A. LL.B. (7TH SEMESTER) ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (LAW)

ENROLLMENT NO.-150101117
Contents
Current issues in SPS ? ....................................................................................................................... 3
FINAL DRAFT ................................................................................................................................... 4
ExpectedOutcomes: ............................................................................................................................ 4
Current issues in SPS ........................................................................................................................... 5
Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Some current issues ............................................................................................................................ 6
Regionalization.................................................................................................................................... 6
Equivalence ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Private sector standards ..................................................................................................................... 7
Special treatment for developing countries ....................................................................................... 7
When talking can produce results ...................................................................................................... 7
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 9
 SYNOPSIS

Introduction
Is our food safe? Are our farmers’ livestock and crops? Or our forests? Or even the crates and
packaging used to ship goods across the world?

Sanitary and phytosanitary measures deal with food safety and animal and plant health. They
aim to ensure that a country’s consumers are being supplied with food that is safe to eat — by
acceptable standards — while also ensuring that strict health and safety regulations are not
being used as an excuse to shield domestic producers from competition.

Objective
The objective of this paper is to study the statutory and fiduciary duties of directors in
companies in light of the immense power of corporate executives which must be regulated for
the purpose of public good as well as the investors. It studies the law which materially tries to
reduce the chances of abuse by Directors.

Research Questions
Current issues in SPS ?
Background of SPS?
Special treatment for developing countries?
 FINAL DRAFT

The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Project, is one component of the 10European
Development Fund (EDF) Programme titled “Support to the Caribbean Forum of ACP States
in the Implementation of Commitments Undertaken under the Economic Partnership
Agreement (EPA)”. The overall objective of the SPS Project is to strengthen the capacity of
CARIFORUM States for international market access through compliance with Europe’s
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, as well as improve capacity for developing
regionally harmonizedSPSmeasures.

ProjectActions:
The SPS Project actions are directed towards creating and/or strengthening Regional
and National SPS systems through systematic focus on alleviating constraints in the areas
of legislation, coordination and capacity building:
- Legislation: Establishment of a sound and comprehensive national and regional legislative
framework for plant and animal health, including fisheries, food safety, and related
environmentalmonitoring;
- Coordination: Development and organization of an efficient responsive institutional
framework and mechanism for coordination of SPS issues at both the national and regional
level; and
- Capacity Building: Development of the human resources to support the SPS regime.
This will aim to improve the capacity of public and private sector stakeholders in areas such
as;
the application of good agricultural, manufacturing and laboratory practices, HACCP and risk
analyses, pest identification and food safety.

ExpectedOutcomes:
Through the implementation of project actions the following outcomes are expected:
- Enhanced Agricultural Health and Food Safety (AHFS) Systems - Strengthened enforcement
of legislation, standards, guidelines, measures for increased production and marketing
of agricultural and fisheries products
- Improved coordination to support the SPS regime - Enhanced institutional capacity
of national and regional regulatory bodies and the private sector to meet SPS requirements of
international trade
- Enhanced trade opportunities within European and other
international markets Implementation:
The Project commenced on September 3, 2013 and is being implemented by the
InterAmerican Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) over 42 months in
collaboration with the following partners:
CARICOM Secretariat (CCS), Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) and the SPS
committee of the Dominican Republic (Comité Nacional para la Aplicación deMedidas
Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias –(CNMSF).

The following CARIFORUM States are the primary beneficiaries of the Project’s
activities:
Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana,
Haiti, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, The
Bahamas and Trinidad and Tobago.

Current issues in SPS

Is our food safe? Are our farmers’ livestock and crops? Or our forests? Or even the crates and
packaging used to ship goods across the world?

Sanitary and phytosanitary measures deal with food safety and animal and plant health. They
aim to ensure that a country’s consumers are being supplied with food that is safe to eat — by
acceptable standards — while also ensuring that strict health and safety regulations are not
being used as an excuse to shield domestic producers from competition.

Definitions
Sanitary = health in general (sometimes animal health)

Phytosanitary = plant health

Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) = food safety and animal and plant health

Background
The SPS Committee’s job is to monitor how countries are applying the SPS Agreementand to
discuss issues that arise from that.
The SPS Agreement tries to sort out genuine cases from those that are potentially excuses for
protectionism. It does this by saying that measures either have to be based on scientific
evidence of risk, or on recognized international standards (see above). If a country applies
international standards, it is less likely to be challenged legally in the WTO than if it sets its
own standards. But countries are free to set their own standards based on science.

 SPS issues are becoming more important as tariff barriers fall

 Food producers, particularly in developing countries, are becoming increasingly
concerned that their attempts to export to richer markets are being hampered by SPS
measures. At issue are genuine risks versus protectionism in disguise
 Individual private sector exporters tend to assume that the real motive for importing
countries’ SPS measures is really protectionism — to protect producers rather than
consumers, livestock or crops.
 But there are genuine needs to have SPS measures.

Some current issues

The specific trade measures that are most frequently discussed in the committee tend to deal
with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease), avian influenza (bird flu),
foot and mouth disease, and various plant diseases and pests such as fruit flies. The most
common complaints are that importing countries are not following the international standards.
Long delays in completing risk assessments or allowing imports is another frequent complaint.
One of the WTO SPS Committee’s key roles is to act as a means for members to share
information. They have to notify each other through the WTO when they are introducing new
or changed import requirements. Normally this has to be notified in advance so that other
countries have a chance to comment.
A lot of information is provided this way. Over 10,000 food safety, plant and animal health
requirements have been notified, and a growing number of countries are actively providing the
information.
However, not all countries are providing advance warnings, and complaints about insufficient
transparency are common.

Regionalization
The key issue here is recognition that an exporting region within a country is disease-free or
pest-free. Geographically larger members in particular (the EU, Brazil, Canada, etc) object to
blanket bans on all their exports when a disease exists only in some regions.
The SPS Committee has developed guidelines to help governments implement this concept
without too much delay, clarifying who (the exporting or importing country) does what, and
setting out a process to follow.
Equivalence
Equivalence is when governments recognize other countries’ measures as acceptable even if
they are different from their own, so long as an equivalent level of protection is provided. The
idea is simple and is a requirement in the SPS Agreement. Much more difficult is how to do it.
Years of discussion have led to guidelines, which then required clarifying. Some recognition
of equivalence is in place, but members will always feel that their trading partners can do more.
Developing countries in particular say the actions they are taking on their exports provide levels
of protection that are not recognized as equivalent to importing developed countries’
requirements.

Private sector standards

The committee generally deals with standards set by international standards-setting bodies and
those imposed by governments. But some developing countries have started to raise the
question of standards set by the private sector, such as supermarket chains. The committee has
agreed to take some action to reduce potential negative effects of private standards
This issue was first raised in June 2005 because of private standards for bananas. Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines said private standards are often more rigid than international standards,
causing small farmers to suffer. It has been discussed regularly since then.
The complaint: several developing countries say that the proliferation of standards that are set
without consultation poses a challenge for small economies. They say private standards often
conflict with those set by governments or international organizations and meeting them also
raises costs.
The counter argument is that exporters can improve their sales by meeting private sector
standards.

Special treatment for developing countries

Debate continues on how and when to be lenient to poorer countries (for example, giving them
more time to implement new measures) without endangering consumers and farming in
importing countries. The committee has agreed on a procedure for developing countries to ask
for special treatment or technical assistance when they face requirements they find difficult to
meet
The discussion includes the question of technical assistance to help countries meet standards.
To some extent the issue is related to “equivalence” — accepting that alternative methods of
testing and alternative measures can provide a level of protection that is equivalent to methods
used in the importing country.
When talking can produce results
The SPS Committee’s role as an information clearing house has helped defuse some disputes.
A couple of examples:
Cinnamon. The committee helped Sri Lanka and the EU sort out a problem when the EU started
to block imports of Sri Lankan cinnamon treated with sulphur dioxide. The reason was because
no Codex standard existed on this, even though it did for ginger. The committee asked Codex
to move quickly to develop a standard, and the EU agreed to allow imports of cinnamon from
Sri Lanka cinnamon on the new Codex standard.
Aflatoxin. The EU’s tightened regulations on aflatoxin (a cancer-causing substance produced
by mould) contaminating a number of products. Discussion in the SPS Committee and in
Brussels led to the EU modifying the proposed regulation and providing technical assistance
for some developing country exporters.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_issues_e.htm
 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm
 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255645994_The_WTO_Agreement_on_the_Appl
ication_of_Sanitary_and_Phytosanitary_Measures_SPS
 https://caricom.org/projects/detail/the-10th-edf-sanitary-and-phytosanitary-measures-
project