G/SPS/R/103  
 
13 October  2021 
(21-7765) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
  
REPORT  
SPS COMMITTEE WORKSHOP ON RISK ANALYSIS:  
RISK ASSESSMENT, RISK MANAGEMENT, AND RISK COMMUNICATION  
MONDAY, 12 JULY – TUESDAY, 13 JULY 2021  
WTO, CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD, GENEVA  
PARTICIPATION VIA ZOOM  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Secretariat of the World Trade Organization (WTO) organized a workshop on risk assessment, 
risk management, and risk communication  on 12 -13 July 2021, based on a proposal submitted by 
Canada in the context of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Imple mentation of the SPS  Agreement  
(G/SPS/GEN/1769  and G/SPS/GEN/1769/Rev.1 ). The programme was circulated in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1911/Rev.2 . 
The workshop was held  via Zoom , with interpretation in the three official languages of the WTO . 
Mr Gregory MacDonald , Chairperson of the SPS Committee  for the period  2020-2021, moderated 
the workshop.  
A dedicated webpage for the workshop  had been made available ahead of the event, with logistical  
information, the programme, background information o n the speakers, and a catalogue of relevant 
resources  to support governments in building and operationalizing risk analysis frameworks. 
This catalogue include d international standards, guidelines and recommendations, presentations, 
handbooks, guides, tools, links to previous events, and online courses  that participants could consult 
ahead of the workshop . 
Close to  1,300  participants  registered , including interested stakeholder s from Members, the private 
sector, academia, and civil society. Through roundtable discussions, presentations, case studies, 
video clips, poll  question s, and Q&A sessions, the workshop generated exchanges on SPS risk 
analysis, experience sharing, and disc ussions on challenges, best practices , and emerging issues. 
Participants also benefi tted from informal  side sessions, which offered opportunit ies to interact 
informally with speakers.  
Presentations  and videos  from the workshop are available on the workshop's dedicated webpage  
and can be accessed from the "Events, workshops and training" section under t he WTO SPS Gateway  
(http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/events_e.htm ). 
1  OBJECTIVE OF THE WORKSHOP  
1.  The objective of th e workshop was to foster discussions on all aspects of SPS risk analysis  – 
risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication – building on the Thematic 
SPS Workshop on Risk Analysis , held on 13 -14 October 2014 , and the SPS Thematic Session on Risk 
Communication , held on 15 July 2015. The first day of the workshop covered opening remarks 
(session 1),  risk assessment  (session 2),  and risk management  (session 3 ). The second day of the 
workshop covered  risk communication (session 4) and case study presentations  (session 5) . 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/103  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  WORKSHOP SESSIONS  
2.1  Opening session (Session 1)  
2.1.  The opening session of the workshop began wi th a short video clip featuring Mr Robert Griffin  
(former National Coordinator for Agriculture Quarantine Inspection and former Director of the Plant 
Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory at the United States Department of Agriculture  (USDA) ) 
and Ms Gretchen Stanton  (former Secretary of the WTO SPS Committee ). Mr Griffin and 
Ms Stanton provided a few introductory remarks on risk analysis and the SPS Agreement , looking at 
some of the discussions in the WTO  over the years. Providing insight on  the negotiations leading up 
to the SPS  Agreement, Ms Stanto n observed that the concepts of scientific justification and 
risk assessment had been discussed since the early stages of negotiation s and played a critical role 
in the SPS Agreement. Mr Griffin  recalled discussions in previous  WTO workshops, noting that 
discussions had first been focused on risk assessment and had later evolved  to include topical issues 
such as uncertainty in risk assessment and risk management. Mr Griffin also observed  that there 
was room for further development and evolution, in particul ar in the area of risk management.  
2.2.  Ms Camille Fléchet  (WTO Secretariat) provided an overview of the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement  relating  to risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. Ms Fl échet 
outlined t he risk assessment obliga tions in Article 5 of the SPS Agreement and related definitions in 
Annex A of the Agreement . Ms Fléchet  also provided an overview of key takeaways f rom WTO dispute 
settlement reports  on risk assessment , and provisions of the SPS Agreement that incorporate  risk 
management and risk communication principles.  
2.2  Risk assessment (Session 2)  
2.3.  The workshop continued with two roundtable s to explore the concept of  risk assessment and 
how to operationalize risk assessment from a trade policy perspective and to share experiences on 
building technical capacities, including currently available training tools to help participants 
understand and manage some of the challe nges associated with risk assessment.  
2.4.  The first roundtable was moderated by Ms Marlynne Hopper  (Secretariat  of the Standards 
and Trade Development Facility (STDF) ). In this roundtable, Mr Tom Heilandt (Codex ), 
Dr Francisco D'Alessio  (OIE), Dr Sophie von Dobschuetz  (FAO), and Dr Magda Sachana  
(OECD ) discussed relevant international standards and selected international tools , with reference 
to the workshop's catalogue of relev ant resources . 
2.5.  Mr Heilandt presented the Codex general guidance on risk analysis , as well as Codex specific 
guidance to help countries in their risk assessment activities in particular areas. In this context, 
Mr Heilandt reminded  participants  that risk ass essments conducted by FAO and WHO  were reflected 
in Codex  standards , but that Codex had also developed guidance  to help countries conduct their own  
risk assessment s. Dr D'Alessio presented OIE standards on import risk analysis  in the OIE Terr estrial  
and Aquatic Codes , which include  principles and recommendations to conduct risk assessment s, and 
other  relevant OIE guidance on import risk analysis. Dr D'Alessio underlined the importance of the 
OIE list of diseases and OIE report ing obligations in  the context of  hazard identification, as well as 
the importance of OIE specific standards on animal health surveillance and status, regionali zation, 
and general measures for disease control and prevention in the context of  risk assessment s. 
Dr von Dobschuetz  discuss ed the FAO -OIE-WHO tripartite on One Health , focusing on  the FAO-OIE-
WHO Tripartite Joint Risk Assessment Operational Tool  to address health risks arising from animal 
diseases in an interdisciplinary manner . Dr von Dobschuetz also presented the new One  Health High 
Level Expert Panel  and its advisory role to support the provision of evidence -based scientific and 
policy advice to address the challenges raised by One Health . Finally, Dr Sachana  presented SPS 
voluntary guidance developed in the areas of chemicals and pesticides , and how they can assist in 
risk assessment activities . 
2.6.  The speakers also discussed risk assessment challenges  in the context of the COVID -19 
pandemic , and more generally emerging  diseases . In addition, new trends and developments in risk 
assessment  were outlined , such as enhanced coordination and collaboration among sectors and 
agencies . Finally, the speakers highlighted available support to help developing countries implement 
existing gui dance  and tools , and facilitate SPS risk assessments.  G/SPS/R/103  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.7.  The second roundtable focused on  Member perspectives on risk assessment. The roundtable 
was moderated by Ms Lucy Namu  (Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS)) and included 
the following speakers: Ms Anastasia Alvizou  (European Commission Directorate General Health 
and Food Safety), Dr Knut G. Berdal  (Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Norway), Ms Alison  Neeley  
(USDA ), Dr Lei Zhang  (China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment), and Dr Karima 
Zouine  (Risk Assessment and Legal Affairs Directorate, Morocco).  
2.8.  The speakers shared experiences on risk assessment, the use of international standards to 
assist in risk assessment activities , and reliance on international and regional risk assessments. 
In particular, Ms Neeley discussed relevant IPPC standards as used in the United States, such as  
ISPM 2 which provid es a framework for pest risk analysis , ISPM 11 and  ISMP 26 on how to conduct 
pest risk analysis and describing various stages of pest risk analysis , and ISPM 5 , a glossary to help 
countries understand and us e key  terms  and assist in  communication within domestic agencies as 
well as  with trading partners. Dr Berdal then presented the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food 
and Environment's use of risk assessment principles and methodology  as reflected in international 
standards (including those from Codex, IPPC , and OIE ), and Norway's use of international and 
regional assessments . Dr Berdal also discussed Norway's reliance on risk assessments conducted by  
other countries, highlighting  the importance of harmonization in risk assessments in different areas 
(e.g. micro -organisms , pesticide residues, genetically modified organisms ( GMOs ), food additives, 
and natural toxins). Dr Zouine highlighted the need for increased regional cooperation and for 
additional  regional risk assessments , in particular  to assist  developing  countries  make use of existing 
skills and resources.  
2.9.  The speakers also shared experiences on  building capacity and  discussed challenges in risk 
assessment activities  pertaining to the availability  and quality of data a s well as those relating to  
evaluating uncertainty . In particular, Dr Zhang described efforts in the field of food safety to promote 
the sharing of data among departments and existing guidelines in China regarding  the collection of 
data, evaluating data quality, and evaluating uncer tainty.  Dr Zhang also discussed  certain measures 
taken in China to ensure the independence  of risk assessments . Dr Zouine subsequently  highlight ed 
restructuring efforts in the field of food safety for the deployment of independent risk assessment 
processes  in Morocco. Ms Neel ey stressed  the importance of transparency and sharing information 
among trading partners to facilitate pest risk analysis and address some of the  risk assessment  
challenges . Ms Alvizou followed to discuss  the new Regulation (EU) 2019/1 381, which aims at: 
increasing the transparency of EU risk assessment in the food chain ; strengthening the reliability, 
objectivity and independence of studies used by the European Food Safety Authority  (EFSA – 
the EU risk assessment body ); ensuring engagement of stakeholders early on in the risk assessment 
process ; and addressing resource constraints through the promotion of partnerships between 
national risk scientific organi zations and EFSA.  
2.10.  Following these two roundtables, participants ha d an opportunity to interact informally and 
raise follow -up questions with speakers on the topic of risk assessment in two informal one -hour 
Zoom side sessions. One side session was made available to exchange with the relevant international 
organizations a nd a second side session to exchange with Members that participated in the second 
roundtable.  
2.3  Risk management (Session 3)  
2.11.  Through two roundtables, this  session explored the concept of risk management, including 
the evaluation of risk management options, im plementation, monitoring and review, and related 
issues concerning the implementation of relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement. Additionally, 
challenges with risk management were explored, such as identifying and evaluating risk 
management options.  
2.12.  The first roundtable, which was moderated by Dr Delia Grace  (International Livestock 
Research Institute, Kenya), focused on  the perspectives of the international standard -setting bodies . 
Dr Hilde Kruse  (Codex ), Mr M asahiro Sai  (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), 
Japan and Steward of the IPPC Standards Committee), Ms Joanne Wilson  (Ministry for Primary 
Industries, New Zealand and Steward of the IPPC Standards Committee), and Dr Francisco 
D'Alessio  (OIE) shared information on international standards and guidance  developed by the 
international standard -setting bodies  on risk management  and support provided to Members . 
Ms Wilson addressed  existing IPPC guidance for pest risk management, including general and spe cific 
guidance , and introduced the IPPC  e-learning module on pest risk analysis. Mr Sai discussed how G/SPS/R/103  
 
- 4 - 
 
  IPPC standards c ould be used to guide an efficient risk management process , in particular looking 
at commodity -specific standards . Mr Sai  also presented  current IPPC work to develop  new guidance 
on pest risk management in order to harmonize risk management options and additional commodity -
specific  standards . Dr D'Alessio  discussed  the horizontal chapters in the OIE  Terrestrial  and Aquatic 
Codes,  as well as  disease -specific chapters  which provid ed the OIE standard framework  for risk 
management.  Dr D'Alessio also provided information on OIE programme s to help countries  
implement standards and OIE capacity building activities , discussing the OIE  Performance of 
Veterinary Services pathway, strategies to work on priority topics, the OIE World Animal Health 
Information System  (OIE-WAHIS) , and the Global Burden of Animal Diseases programme.  Dr Kruse 
then detailed  Codex  food standards a nd related texts , highlighting the scientific -based process 
leading up to the development of Codex standards.  
2.13.  In addition to presenting existing Codex, IPPC, and OIE guidance on risk management, 
the speakers explored areas for further work  as well as innovative approaches in risk management , 
and emerging issues . In this context, food fraud, climate change, e -commerce, novel foods  (such as 
alternative protein sources) , and new technologies  were discussed . For example, IPPC efforts in the 
area of e -commerce  were detailed , including its  informal network of e -Commerce experts , 
the interagency network involving CITES  and WCO, and the development of a new IPPC guide on 
e-Commerce.  Finally, speakers discussed efforts to enhance country participatio n in their activities, 
including the Codex Trust Fund  to boost knowledge and skills , and build strong national capacity to 
engage in Codex work ; OIE trainings and network of focal points ; the OIE observatory to provide 
insight on how countries  implement st andards ; the Global Burden of Animal Diseases programme ; 
and IPPC regional workshops  and innovative approaches in virtual meetings . 
2.14.  The session concluded with a roundtable on Member perspectives to share successes, 
challenges, considerations, impacts and best practices related to risk management. The roundtable 
was moderated by Professor Steve Hathaway  (New Zealand Food Safety)  and included the 
following speakers: Mr Kuan -Yu Lin  (Ministry of Healt h and Welfare, Chinese Taipei), 
Mr Johnny  Marchan Peña  (National Fisheries Health Agency, Peru), and Mr Taluí Espíndola 
Zanatta  (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, Brazil).  
2.15.  The roundtable began with short video clips to provide a private sector perspective on risk 
management and experience with public -private cooperation. In the first video clip, 
Dr Ludovica  Verzegnassi  (Nestlé) highlighted the important role of the private s ector to help risk 
managers gather evidence to assess the feasibility of different management options. Dr  Verzegnassi 
invited governments to define, within Codex, a process for transparent consultations with the private 
sector to support a faster developme nt of feasible and applicable risk management options for 
existing products , as well as for innovative food products responding to new consumer trends. 
In the second video clip, Dr Chagema Kedera  (COLEACP Coordinator for the New Export Trade 
Programme, Kenya) discussed the importance of transparency and close cooperation between public 
and private stakeholders to ensure effective risk management and foster better  compliance  with 
SPS requirements . Dr Kedera referred to the experience of Kenya's National Taskforce in 
Horticulture, which brought together competent authorities and businesses at CEO level to manage 
risks in value chains. Dr Kedera also highlighted the need for capacity building among pr ivate and 
public sectors.  
2.16.  Following these video clips,  Mr Lin, Mr Marchan Peña , and Mr Espíndola Zanatta shared 
experiences on risk management and discussed challenges and strategies.  They highlighted  the 
importance of transparency and cooperation in risk management, the role of various stakeholders, 
including the private sector,  harmonization based on international standards, and innovation . 
In particular, the speakers recogni zed the private sector as an important source of information for 
risk managers. M r Lin highlighted the need for a clear allocation of responsibilities between risk 
assessors and managers , as well as the importance of effective channels of communication between 
risk assessors and managers , and with all relevant stakeholders. For example , reference was made 
to posting on social media to monitor the feedback from the public on risk management decisions, 
and guidelines to food business operators to facilitate implementation of SPS requirements. 
Mr Marchan  Peña discussed the review of Peru's  risk management processes , which includ ed the 
introduction of technological solutions and strengthening the capacity of technical staff . Mr Marchan 
Peña also highlighted modification s to Peru's certification models to make them more agile . 
Mr Espíndola Zanatta followed to address  pesticide monitoring programmes in Brazil and the 
relevance of Codex guidance in this context. In addition, Mr Espíndola Zanatta identified certain gaps 
in existing international standards, addressing the issue of maximum residue levels (MRLs).  G/SPS/R/103  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.17.  The speakers recognised that risk managers face various  challenges at the domestic level , 
such as dealing with uncertainty, building risk management decisions on SPS risk assessments while 
incorporating other inputs, and engaging  relevant stakeholders in an efficient manner. The speakers 
discussed best practices  and success factors to help address some of these challenges . The need  to 
improve technical capacity and increase the use  of technology  were highlighted . The speakers also  
stressed the  importance of t ransparency , cooperation among government agencies  and with other 
stakeholders , independence of risk managers, using international standards to improve 
risk management at the domestic level, and incorporating inputs other than SPS risk assessment 
results  in risk management decisions, such as economic considerations or consumer habits and 
culture . 
2.4  Risk communication  (Session 4)  
2.18.  This session explored the concept of risk communication, including developing the goals for a 
risk comm unication plan, how to develop a risk communication plan, how to ensure through internal 
and external communications that the results of the risk assessment, risk management options, and 
assumptions and uncertainty of the risk assessment are clearly commun icated to internal and 
external audiences/stakeholders . It also cover ed the importance of forming trust ; working with 
transparency and developing confidence in regulatory decisions; implementing strategies to 
overcome challenges associated with significant institutional capacity and technical constraints; and 
related issues concerning the implementation of r elevant provisions of the SPS Agreement . 
2.19.  A first set of presentations explored relevant Codex, IPPC, and OIE international standards, 
guidelines or recommendations relating to risk communication and the role of the international 
standard -setting bodies in risk communication. Other available international and regional guidance 
on risk communication were also discussed.  
2.20.  Dr Sarah Cahill  (Codex)  presented on  developing standards and the importance of building 
communities in risk communication . The presentation explored available Codex guideline s and 
procedural manuals, including the Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety . Listening to 
the concerns of Members and particular stakeholders , as well as maintaining a reciprocal 
communication  were also highlighted as important element s of risk communication. Dr Cahill 
concluded by exploring  the advantages of building engagement with countries , such as increasing 
awareness and understanding of the work of Codex  and building the trust and confidence needed 
for effective risk communication . 
2.21.  Ms Sarah Brunel  (IPPC) presented  on phytosanitary risk communication and the importance 
of having an interactive process with relevant stakeholders. The objectives and different components 
of pest risk communication were  presented , as well as the principles of  a good pest risk 
communication which included  aspects related to cooperation, transparency, respect, 
responsiveness,  and commitment. Key factors of a successful risk communication were also 
discuss ed. These included planning, understanding the nature of the risk, identifying the needs of 
stakeholders,  and understanding the responsibilities of  National Plant Protection Organizations  
(NPPOs ). In concluding, Ms  Brunel shared information on IPPC tools , such as the International 
Phytosanitary Portal.  
2.22.  Dr Francisco D'Alessio  (OIE) presented on risk communication and OIE international 
standards, activities , and tools. Dr D'Alessio shared information on the principles  of risk 
communication reflected in the risk analysis chapters of the OIE Terr estrial  and Aquatic Codes . 
The participation of the private sector and relevant stakeholders in risk communication activities w as 
outlined as a critical element  in the process . The OIE-WAHIS  and the  OIE Animal Health Status  portal  
were presented as two key initiatives in the context of import risk analysis. Dr D'Alessio concluded 
by presenting OIE  capacity building activities , which included  training of national focal points and 
e-learning modules.  
2.23.  Dr Markus Lipp  (FAO) presented on the challenges posed by risk communication for food 
safety. Dr Lipp highlighted that food safety risks existed along every step of the supply chain, and 
that the audience for risk communication therefore  included consumers, media, risk managers, 
assessors,  and producers. The complex aspect of food safety was also highlighted. This was due to 
the different sources of hazards , which included chemical, microbiological, physical  and radiological  
sources . Dr Lipp stressed the need to continue to use science as the foundation for G/SPS/R/103  
 
- 6 - 
 
  risk communication and further noted that risk communication should not rest solely on  the idea 
that scientific facts  would convince  an audience , but should also take into consideration  the 
emotional aspect of food.   
2.24.  Dr Hong Jin  (Food Standards Australia New Zealand) shared  information on  APEC's project 
to develop a F ood Safety Risk Communication (FSRC) F ramework.  The project identif ied the 
challenges faced by competent authorities in risk communication, review ed the recent 
communication efforts  developed by  competent authorities and converted international best 
practices to principles of effective food safety risk communication. The APEC FSRC  Framework 
include d a series of guidelines covering aspects related to implementation, monitoring and review, 
crisis food safety risk communication and social media engagement.  
2.25.  In a second set of presentations, Members focused on exploring and discus sing effective 
communication between and among risk assessors and risk managers. In this context, 
Dr Wei-Chih Cheng  (Ministry of Health and Welfare, Chinese Taipei) shared Chinese Taipei's 
experience on risk communication based on scenario assumption.  Dr Cheng stressed th e importance 
of risk analysis for food safety  and highlighted the different roles of risk assessors and risk managers. 
Hazard, probability and consequence were defined as the three key elements of risk assessment 
based on scenario assumptio n. Dr Cheng introduced the LARGE method, a five-step process for risk 
assessors and risk managers which consisted  in listening ; asking ; repeating  and digesting the 
information ; gathering and transforming the information for future use ; and providing examples to 
convey the information . Dr Cheng  concluded by presenting the Plan-Do-Check -Act cycle (PDCA) , 
employed by risk managers . 
2.26.  Ms Madeline Beal  (United States Environmental Prot ection Agency (EPA) ) introduced  the 
SALT framework employed by EPA on risk communication , compris ing four sections: strategy, action, 
learning , and tools. The strategy section  focused on five steps: taking stock, setting goals, aligning 
the objectives to these goals, and matching tactics and platforms to those objectives. The action 
section explore d factors known to impact the implementation of risk communication activities and  
focuse d on tactics for an effective communication message. The learning section relied on a reflective 
practice model. Lastly, the tools section support ed the overall framework with available guides and 
trainings. In concluding, Ms Beal highlighted the im portance of building trust and the key role of 
science in the process.  
2.27.  The final set of presentations on risk communication focused on Member experiences with 
translating risk assessment and risk management into communication messages, including 
communicat ing uncertainty and leveraging new communication tools.  
2.28.  Ms Andrée -Anne Girard  (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) shared Canada's experience 
on African swine fever  (ASF)  risk communication. A risk assessment for A SF had identified five main 
risk pathways for the introduction of the disease , including inadequate farm biosecurity standards, 
international travellers, and contaminated animal feed. On this basis, d ifferent  groups w ere targeted 
with risk communication  messages , which had to be adapted a ccordingly. E mploying a variety of 
tools to reach these groups, such as the use of  social media, w as highlighted as a key action taken 
by Canada in the process. To conclude, Ms  Girard stressed the important role of collaboration and 
partnerships to share r isk information and prevent the introduction of ASF in the country . 
2.29.  Ms Yuqiong Deng  (General Administration of Customs of China) shared China's experience 
on risk communication and gelatin trade with the European Union . In 2012 , due to reported 
unsanitary actions of certain domestic enterprises, the European Union had removed Chinese gelatin 
enterprises from the list of third-party  suppliers  and requested registration approval to resume 
export s. A consistent and effective internal risk communicati on between export enterprises and 
customs authorities was noted as a n important element  in restoring trade . Concernin g external 
risk communication, bilateral consultations  and the exchange of risk -related information between 
China and the Europe an Union were highlighted as two of the key elements that helped restor e 
gelatin trade.  
2.30.  Ms Anastasia  Alvizou  (European Commission Directorate General Health and Food Safety) 
presented the recent developments of the E uropean Union's legal framework on risk communication.  
A new EU regulation on the transparency and sustainability of risk assessment in the food chain had 
been adopted in 2019  which  includ ed, for the first-time, specific provisions on risk communication. G/SPS/R/103  
 
- 7 - 
 
  The new law set out general objectives and principles , including those related to accurate and 
transparent information. Ms Alvizou explained that t he risk communication plan to be adopted would 
identify key facto rs in regard to risk communication activities, appropriate tools and channels of 
risk communication , and the appropriate mechanism of coordination amongst risk assessors and 
risk managers.  
2.31.  Ms Laura Whitlock  (United States Centers for Disease Control and Pr evention  (CDC) ) 
explored the use of real -time data to communicate real -time risk for multistate foodborne outbreaks.  
Ms Whitlock explained that a  set of questions were considered before releasing information to the 
public  regarding ongoing  foodborne outbreak s. The level of public health concern  (low or high) and 
the specificity of the public health concern (low, medium , or high) were the two primary 
considerations  in select ing the appropriate scenario and communication tools. Ms Whitlock provided 
further  information on CDC 's communication templates  (food safety alert and investigation notice ). 
2.32.  Following the set of presentations, participants had an opportunity to interact informally and 
raise follow -up questions with speakers on the topic of  risk communication  in two informal one -hour 
Zoom side sessions. One side session was made available to exchange with speakers from Codex, 
IPPC, OIE, FAO and Food Standards Australia New Zealand; and a second side session to exchange 
with Members.  
2.5  Case stu dies (Session 5)  
2.33.  Through case studies, th is session explored practical examples of experiences undertaking 
risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication for SPS issues , and examined how 
these  three components of risk analysis were interlinked . 
2.34.  Dr Alan MacLeod  (Department for Environment, Food , and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom ) 
presented the tools, resources and key challenges regarding pest risk analys is. Dr MacLeod outlined 
that t he pest risk analysis process started with an init iation phase identif ying the organism causing 
the threat to the plant resources, followed by a risk assessment phase to gather evidence and 
interpret  the results . The process continued with risk management measures detailing the different 
phytosanitary opt ions considered. The tools and resources needed to conduct a pest risk analysis 
were also discussed . In addition, c ase stud y examples  on Thrips palmi  and Acidovorax citrulli  were 
presented where different pathways and potentially affected crops were identified. In concluding, 
Dr MacLeod explained the challenges within the pest risk assessment process , including those 
related to data availability . 
2.35.  Ms Amy Philpott  (Watson Green LLC, United States) discussed  the public -private aspect of 
risk communication.  Public -private partnerships referred to  the collaboration between government 
and food industry operators to use  risk communication for the protect ion of  public health. Ms Philpott 
remarked  on the differences in commun ication strategies between both sectors, but  highlighted that 
there was a shared goal of protecting public health and relying on consumer trust.  Trust was defined  
as a key principle in risk communication. In concluding, Ms  Philpott indicated there was  a potential 
for the public and private sector s to work together on risk communication.  
2.36.  Ms Yi -Tzu Weng  (Council of Agriculture, Chinese Taipei) presented Chinese Taipei's policy 
for strengthening risk management measures for international mail articles of plant products. 
From 2016 to 2018 , the growing e -commerce market had increased  international mail of plant 
regulated articles . This represented a  challenge to the prevention of entry of unauthorized goods 
and the spread of pest into the territory.  To reduce quarantine risk, Chinese Taipei  had amended in 
2018 its Plant Protection and Quarantine Act. The new regulation did not allow  plant regulated 
articles to be sent by mail, apart from recipients who  had applied to the plant quarantine authority 
for approval of entry in advance. An online application permit system had also been established. 
Ms Weng explained that the measure had decreased the non -compliance rate of plant items.  
2.37.  Dr Fu -Kuan Juan  (Council of Agriculture, Chinese Taipei) shared Chinese Taipei's experience 
on border control against ASF. Chinese Taipei's risk assessment focused on man-made  factors and 
pathways for the introduction of the d isease, such as airports and seaports. The risk pathways 
included inbound passengers, imported goods, and smuggling. The presentation  covered the 
prevention and control measures of ASF. Concerning  risk communication, Dr Juan explained that a G/SPS/R/103  
 
- 8 - 
 
  core team had been established to manage public communication, communication with international 
organizations , and cross -department cooperation . 
2.38.  Dr Lilian de Luna  (Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada ) presented the 
provisions of  risk assess ment, risk manag ement , and risk communica tion in the Joint Review of 
pesticides , i.e. a formal  pesticide registration  process involving two or more countries. Dr de Luna 
explained that timelines were negotiated in advance, the workloa d was divided among the 
participating countries , and data evaluations were exchanged and peer -reviewed by the different 
jurisdictions  and used as the basis for the independent risk assessment and regulatory decision. 
The benefits and eligibility criteria for Joint Reviews were also covered in the presentation . 
2.39.  Ms Barbara Gallani  (EFSA) presented on the international initiative on trust . The initiative  
was an opportunity to foster  cooperation between national and regional bod ies to tackle  the issue of 
trust. Ms Gallani explained that the initiative had s tarted with a webinar in 2020  and had continued  
with a poster session in 2021 . The webinar presentations had covered the different layers of trust , 
the differences between trust and confidence, and the importance of shared values in 
risk communication. Workshops on trust were envisioned for 2022.  
2.40.  The workshop closed with concluding remarks by the workshop's moderator, 
Mr Gregory  MacDonald , who noted that the workshop had highlighted very clearly the links 
between risk assessment and risk management activities, and the need for risk assessors and ri sk 
managers to coordinate. The discussions had also made clear that other actors had key roles to play 
in SPS risk analysis , including other government agencies, but also private sector actors and 
consumer groups. Mr MacDonald noted  that the importance of forming trust, working with 
transparency, and developing confidence in regulatory decisions had been at the heart of many of 
the interventions.  
__________