WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/147
1 December 1999
(99-5180)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
TRANSPARENCY ISSUES AFTER 5 YEARS OF IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT
Presentation made by the United States at the Special Meeting
of the SPS Committee on Transparency Provisions
held on 9 November 1999G/SPS/GEN/147
Page 2
Transparency Issues After FiveTransparency Issues After Five
Years of Implementation of the SPSYears of Implementation of the SPS
AgreementAgreement
Donna Roberts
USDA/US Mission to the WTO
Research supported by the World Bank's Agriculture and the
WTO 2000 Negotiations  ProjectG/SPS/GEN/147
Page 3Outline of presentationOutline of presentation
/g108Why were SPS transparency provisions
adopted?  Why are these provisions important
to DCs?
/g108Compliance with transparency obligations:two indicators
/g108Impacts of transparency in the past five years:
examples of “compliance” and “policing”
effects
/g108Why universal compliance is important
/g108Concluding remarksG/SPS/GEN/147
Page 4
Why transparency provisions?Why transparency provisions?
/g108Dynamic nature of scientific discovery
and technological in novations routinely
spawn regulatory changes which create
compliance uncertainty for exporters
/g108Transparency aids ‘decentralized
policing’ of measures, possibly leading
to subsequent challenge or proposed
modificationsG/SPS/GEN/147
Page 5SPS transparency is important toSPS transparency is important to
DC’s because . . .DC’s because . . .
/g108expansion of agricult ural exports is key
to growth in many DCs
/g108 SPS measures affects market access
for all agricultural products, and always
willG/SPS/GEN/147
Page 6
Lower Income
Upper Income
Lower Middle IncomeUpper Middle Income
Not NotifiedMost WTO Members have notifiedMost WTO Members have notified
enquiry points and enquiry points and NNAsNNAsMost WTO Members have notifiedMost WTO Members have notified
enquiry points and enquiry points and NNAsNNAs
Members  notifying:G/SPS/GEN/147
Page 7The number of notifications isThe number of notifications is
increasing each yearincreasing each year
Cumulative total of SPS notifications
020040060080010001200
1995 1996 1997 1998Lower
Lower Middle
Upper Middle
UpperG/SPS/GEN/147
Page 8
First effect:  facilitating exporters’First effect:  facilitating exporters’
compliance effortscompliance efforts
/g108Example:
•   HACCP regulationsG/SPS/GEN/147
Page 9Second effect: fosteringSecond effect: fostering
‘decentralized policing’‘decentralized policing’
/g108Examples of modifications
• Modification of proposed ban on imports of fruit
from countries with fire blight
•Modification of proposed MRLs for aflatoxin in
raw groundnutsG/SPS/GEN/147
Page 10
Transparency underpins ‘crossTransparency underpins ‘cross
notification’ in SPS Committeenotification’ in SPS Committee
10% 1%
17%72%
1%
35%4%
60%
Upper Middle IncomeUpper Income Lower Middle Income
Lower IncomeComplaints by:
Complaints against:G/SPS/GEN/147
Page 11Transparency improves DC’s abilityTransparency improves DC’s ability
to exercise WTO rightsto exercise WTO rights
Complaints against upper income countries
020406080100120
# Complaints 
# Co-compla
inantsLower
Lower Middle
Upper Middle
UpperG/SPS/GEN/147
Page 12
Trade patterns show importance ofTrade patterns show importance of
universal complianceuniversal compliance
Developed
CountriesDeveloping
Countries
billions of $US
DevelopedExports To: $212 $92
Developing
Exports To:$159 $128Trade in agricultural, forest ry and fishery products, 1997G/SPS/GEN/147
Page 13
____________Conclusions: benefits ofConclusions: benefits of
transparency provisions for transparency provisions for DCsDCs
/g108‘Compliance effect’ can minimize
disruption & expedite technology transfer
/g108‘Policing effect’ can prevent  trade disputes
for Members with few resources to pursueformal complaints
/g108Beyond direct effects, transparency canalso provide systemic information that aidsregulatory reforms &  improves targeting oftechnical assistance