WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/R/50 
24 July 2008 
 (08-3566) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 
 
REPORT OF THE STDF INFORMATION SESSION ON PRIVATE STANDARDS 
(26 JUNE 2008) 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
 
I. SUMMARY 
1. The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) organized an information session on 
private standards on 26 June 2008.  The aim of the information session was:  (i) to update the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Committee) on recent developments in the 
private standards area;  (ii) to examine  options  for facilitating compliance of developing countries 
with these schemes;  and (iii) to learn a bout ongoing donor initiatives in this area.  
2. Representatives of the Africa Observer Project, the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), 
International Certification and Risk Services (C Mi) and the World Bank made presentations at the 
session.  Issues considered included:  (i) initiatives to make developing countries'  voices heard in the private standards area;  (ii) advancements in the recognition of equivalence between schemes;  
(iii) options to reduce the costs of certification;   and (iv) opportunities to promote dialogue among 
private standard holders, suppliers, certifiers  and other interested parties.     
3. The event built on previous information sessions  held by the SPS Committee in 2006 and 
2007, in particular a Joint UNCTAD/WTO informa tion session on private standards in Geneva on 
27 June 2007.
2  Over 200 participants, mostly from the WTO SPS Committee, attended the session. 
4. The programme for the information session, presentations and a podcast of the plenary 
discussion is available on the SPS gateway of the WTO website . 3   
II. PRESENTATIONS  
5. Mr Johannes Kern, GLOBALGAP's smallholder ambassador and Africa observer since May 
2007, spoke about efforts to make  developing countries' voices heard in the private standards area.4  
His presentation described how the Africa Observer Project, supported by GLOBALGAP, DFID and 
GTZ, was facilitating the involvement of smallholders  in the application and further development of 
GLOBALGAP including through participation in National Technical Working Groups (NTWGs) and 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 Further information on this information session is available at: 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/private_s tandards_june07_e/private_standards_june07_e.htm  
3 This document uses hyperlinks to facilitate el ectronic access to background documents and websites.  
These linkages can only be accessed from an electronic copy of the document from a computer with a reliable 
internet connection.  The documents can also be co nsulted through contacting the respective organizations. 
4 A copy of his powerpoint presentation is available at: 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e /private_standards_june08_e/kern_e.ppt  G/SPS/R/50 
Page 2  
 
  funding for innovative activities.  There were 21 NT WGs in Europe, South America and Asia, which 
included smallholder representatives.  These Gr oups facilitated implementation of GLOBALGAP 
through the adaptation of global criteria to local circumstances.   
6. The Smallholder Task Force had been establishe d at the end of 2007 and included stakeholder 
representatives from across Africa.  On the basis of  a public call for comments, the Task Force had 
received 64 comments and proposals.  These addressed  a broad range of issues related to general 
regulations, control points, compliance criteria and quality management systems.  The proposals were 
discussed with GLOBALGAP at a workshop in Apr il 2008.  Based on its experiences, the Africa 
Observer Project was making efforts to involve re tailers more actively in its work, improve the 
transparency and outcomes of future funding, and collaborate with an UNCTAD project on 
smallholder communications.  A second call for comments was also being prepared. 
7. Mr Kevin Swoffer, Chairman of the Globa l Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) Technical 
Committee, provided an overview of GFSI and rece nt developments in the private standards arena.
5  
GFSI had been formed in 2000 at the request of  food business Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) to 
promote continuous improvement in food safety system s and to ensure confidence in the delivery of 
safe food to consumers.  He noted that a survey of CEOs in 2008 had ranked food safety as their 
number two preoccupation after corporate responsibility.   The three main objectives of GFSI were to:  
(i) promote convergence of food safety standa rds through benchmarking, primarily food 
manufacturing standards;  (ii) achieve improvement s in cost efficiency throughout the food supply 
chain;  and (iii) create a platform for excha nge of experiences.  Emphasizing that convergence 
promoted confidence in food safety and contribute d to comparable audit outcomes, Mr Swoffer 
highlighted the decision in 2007 by major food reta ilers to accept any GFSI-recognized standard from 
any potential supplier, anywhere in the world.   
8. Information was shared on the decision-making st ructure of GFSI.  This structure was built on 
comments from GFSI stakeholder meetings, which were  then reviewed by the Board, subsequently 
elaborated by a technical committee, endorsed by the Board and then communicated to the annual 
CIES Food Safety Conference.  Mr Swoffer outli ned ongoing activities to standardize accreditation 
approaches, develop protocols for small food manufacturers and suppliers, understand concerns 
related to standards development in emerging ma rkets, advance dialogue on food defence and 
bioterrorism, and promote global kn owledge networking and transfer.  In conclusion, he noted GFSI's 
achievements in reduced duplication, continuous  improvements in food management systems and 
standards delivery, cost-efficiencies in supply chains, comparable audit approaches and results, 
increased confidence in sourcing and safer food for consumers. 
9. Mr David Richardson, Managing Director of CMi's, International, Certification and Risk 
Services focused on certification issues. 6  (CMi is the largest independent certifier of GLOBALGAP 
for fresh produce worldwide, with some 20,000 grow ers, and the sole certifier for Tesco's Nature's 
Choice, with some 17,000 producers.)  The presentation addressed the role of certification as a 
systematic and cost-effective approach to supp lier conformity assessment.  Government policy, 
legislation and NGO pressure were recognized as the main factors driving certification.  The speaker observed that large-scale producers tend to cope qu ite well with self-regulatory approaches, however, 
emerging and small-scale producers often found the scope and content of st andards difficult, and 
compliance costs prohibitive.  Current trends toward s broader and more prescriptive standards, which 
ignored variations in production conditions, accentuated these difficulties. 
                                                     
 
5 A copy of his powerpoint presentation is available at:  
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/p rivate_standards_june08_e/swoffer_e.ppt   A background paper and 
newsletter were circulated during the information sessio n.  Copies are available at www.ciesfoodsafety.com  
6 A copy of his powerpoint presentation is available at: 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/pri vate_standards_june08_e/richardson_e.ppt   G/SPS/R/50 
 Page 3 
 
 
  10. While recognizing that harmonization generally  reduced certification costs, Mr Richardson 
expressed concerns that more generic standards w ould result in some standards being applied to 
sectors where they were not relevant.  Greater competition between standards was put forward as 
another means to reduce costs, provided a robus t benchmarking process was in place to ensure 
equivalence in outcomes and permit flex ibility in demonstrating compliance. 
11. The presentation also explored possible alterna tives to certification, which could provide a 
more practical and affordable model for small- scale producers while ensuring equivalent assurance 
outcomes.  The use of risk-b ased approaches for sampling and assessment activities, practical 
interpretation of standards to minimize unreas onable demands and opportunities for adding value 
were proposed.  It was noted that activity-specifi c and intervention-based standards were already 
developed for livestock and poultry disease risk mana gement according to a risk-based approach.  
Based on an evaluation of sources of  risk, opportunities to develop an index of compliance to enable 
different producers to achieve compliance in different  ways were discussed.  It was suggested that 
more attention was needed for education and trai ning activities to raise awareness about compliance 
and show how it can be achieved.  Recognizing tr ends towards co-regulatory approaches in Europe, 
the presentation discussed opportunities for public sector bodies in developing countries to support the 
private sector to achieve assurance objectives.   
12. Mr John Lamb, Senior Agri-business Specialist at the World Bank, discussed opportunities to 
promote dialogue and information exchange on compliance between private standards holders, 
suppliers, certifiers and other interested parties, specifically through the recently established Trade 
Standards Practitioners' Network (TSPN).7  The goal of the TSPN w as to build a community of 
practice to actively promote adoption of improved environmental and food safety standards within 
developing countries and to share learning and expe riences.  The World Bank had provided an initial 
grant of $750,000 for a three-year period to get TSPN up and running. 
13. The TSPN’s objectives were to: (i) better enable developing countries to participate in and 
take advantage of standards-based markets; ( ii) organize research policy dialogues and create a 
standards information clearing house; and (iii) provid e a platform for identifying and replicating better 
practices in development assistance related to st andards management.  To achieve these objectives, 
work was planned on knowledge sharing and dissemin ation; priority setting and donor coordination; 
national policy reform and capacity building;  a nd global advocacy.  This presentation discussed the 
findings of World Bank research on costs of complian ce.  This research underlined the importance of 
considering the net returns, rather than just the costs, of complianc e and the risks associated with both 
the costs and the returns.   
14. In the World Bank's view, private standards were not inherently incompatible with SPS 
principles and might effectively work in tandem with public standards.  This work further pointed to 
the need for a clearer distinction between invest ment and operating costs of compliance since some 
investments were necessary to meet basic hygi ene requirements and these produced a number of 
valuable spill-over effects and positive externalities at the farm-level.  Reference was also made to the 
fact that many activities to promote compliance were  effectively subsidized by donors, governments 
and others in export market. 
III. DISCUSSIONS  
15. The growing importance of private standards in international trade and the nature of their 
relationship with international st andards, including the three standard-setting bodies recognized by the 
SPS Agreement, was discussed.  Two particular issues were raised as potential matters of concern for 
                                                      
7 A copy of his powerpoint presentation is available at: 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e /private_standards_june08_e/lamb_e.ppt  G/SPS/R/50 
Page 4  
 
  the SPS Committee:  (i) the continued expansion of private standards and their negative impact on the 
ability of small producers in developing countries to access export markets;  and (ii) the tendency of private standards to surpass international sta ndards developed by the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission, the World Organisation for Animal Health and the International Plant Protection 
Convention (IPPC) and the trend for these schemes to work in isolation from international standard-
setting bodies.   
16. The representative from GFSI provided in formation on ongoing efforts to promote 
harmonization among private standards applied by G FSI member companies.  Benchmarking work on 
four key food safety schemes – the British Re tail Consortium (BRC), International Food 
Standard (IFS), Dutch HACCP and Safe Quality F ood (SQF) – had reached a point of convergence, 
which meant increased confidence in these schemes and comparable audit results.  While some 
participants acknowledged the positive trends towa rds harmonization of private standards and the 
involvement of developing country stakeholders in these schemes, they expressed concern that the 
requirements of private standards went  beyond international standards.   
17. The costs of compliance for small farmers in developing countries was another topic of 
concern for many participants.  They noted that developing countries had no choice but to be able to 
meet these standards in order to gain entry to ex port markets.  Compliance costs were discussed in 
terms of the costs of upgrading supply chains to be ab le to comply with private standards, as well as 
ongoing certification costs.  The Africa Observer project acknowledged these costs and noted that it was compiling best practices in an effort to find opt ions to reduce them.  A few participants noted 
their concern that certification represented a transfer of costs from retailers in import markets to 
producers in developing countries.  In their view the driving force for certification was competition 
and brand differentiation.  In this situation, some questioned whether harmonization of private 
standards could ever be achieved. 
18. A difference of opinion emerged in the discussi on on the costs and benefits of compliance for 
small producers in developing countries.  Some part icipants expressed concern that these costs were 
excessive, effectively  blocking access to developed count ry markets.  In reply, one speaker observed 
that many of these costs were subsidized by don ors and governments and ex porters in developing 
countries were the direct beneficiaries.  The speakers further noted that farmers able to invest in such 
upgrades and certification could take advantage of opportunities to generate higher profits.  
Illustrations were provided from Kenya where farm ers who met private standards were able to 
produce more, and better quality, products with fewer inputs.   
19. In the context of Article 13 of the SPS Agreemen t, one participant ques tioned the appropriate 
role for governments in importing countries in en suring compliance of non-government entities within 
their territories with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement.     
20. The importance of private standards for fresh fruit and vegetables, in comparison with other 
food and agricultural products (e.g. fish and meat  products), was discussed.  It was noted that 
compliance with international and national public sta ndards was an adequate basis for export of fish 
and meat exports.  The rise of private standards for fresh produce  was explained, in part, on the basis 
of more limited food safety risks in this sector in the past and therefore less need for government 
intervention in this area.     
21. Options to reduce the costs of compliance we re also discussed.  One speaker proposed an 
alternative risk-based approach that would permit small producers in developing countries to reduce 
certification costs while ensuring equivalent assura nce outcomes.  The development of a systems-
based process to minimize the expenses associated  with multiple certification for producers that are 
able to meet standards was also suggested.  The speaker underlined the need to facilitate practical  G/SPS/R/50 
 Page 5 
 
 
  interpretation of private standards to enable prod ucers to find more effective ways to comply and 
thereby reduce costs. 
22. Some of the speakers described the emergen ce of co-regulatory approaches based on public-
private partnership in some European countries as a relatively new approach towards compliance.  
Examples were shared from the Netherlands, where national authorities were working closely with 
Dutch HACCP to promote public and private linkages on compliance, and from the United Kingdom 
where  authorities were examining how to pool public and private resources for compliance. 
23. The session discussed future trends in privat e standards.  Some concern was expressed 
regarding the shift of focus in some private sta ndards to incorporate a number of new issues with 
various sustainability claims, which would make it more difficult to differentiate based on risk and 
increased challenges for small producers.  Another topic raised during the information session related 
to the possible impact of private standards on the gl obal increase in food prices.  In this regard, one 
participant emphasized the need to ensure that this did not result in food supplies being solely 
channelled to markets with the highest purchasing power. 
24. The relationship between the Trade Standards Practitioners Network (TSPN), which focuses 
on private standards, and the STDF, whose focus is on public standards, was raised by a participant.  
It was noted that there was agreement that the two should work together closely and continuously.   
25. The discussions highlighted the different views th at persist on private standards.  While some 
approached private standards as an opportunity to en hance quality, others viewed them in terms of an 
obstacle to trade.  Broad agreement emerged on the need to give attention to the negative aspects of 
private standards for small producers, and seek solu tions to address them.  The representative of GFSI 
stressed that GFSI's objective was to ensure a consistent supply of safe food to consumers, and not to 
raise barriers to trade, and reiterated his wish to enhance linkages with public standards and to work 
more closely with international organizations to that end.   
26. General recommendations emerging from the information session included the following: 
• the importance of further work to consider and document the negative effects of private 
standards on the ability of small producers in developing countries to access export markets; 
and 
• the need to promote dialogue and strengthen linkages between private standards schemes and 
international standard-setting bodies. 
__________