WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/821 
18 February 2008 
 (08-0702) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
 
OVERVIEW OF SPS CAPAC ITY EVALUATION TOOLS 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
1. On 31 March 2008, the STDF will organize the fi rst in a series of thematic workshops.  The 
topic for this workshop is how to evaluate SPS ne eds.  A variety of SPS capacity evaluation tools 
have been developed.  These can be split into three broad categories:  (i) specific tools (e.g. looking 
exclusively at a particular thematic area, for exampl e plant health),  (ii) generic tools (which look at 
the SPS system as a whole) and (iii) related tools which treat one aspect of the SPS area in a more 
general setting (e.g. the interface between food saf ety, health and trade).  The tools discussed are 
those which have been developed by international organizations.2  The workshop will also provide an 
opportunity to learn about other approaches and evalua tion tools which may exist.  A draft agenda for 
the workshop is provided in the Attachment of this document. 
SPECIFIC TOOLS 
 
Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation Tool 
 
2. One of the first SPS evaluation tools develope d, the Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation 
(PCE), originated from a pilot project conducted by New Zealand in 1999.  The project developed a 
questionnaire for the assessment of phytosanitary cap abilities, to identify needs and priorities.  The 
original questionnaire was piloted in six countri es (Cook Islands, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Indonesia, 
Bangladesh and Viet Nam).  By the time of the last meeting of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) in April 2007, the PCE had been a pplied in more than 60 countries world-wide. 
                                                     
 
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 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. G/SPS/GEN/821 
Page 2  
 
  Countries where the PCE has been applied (November 2006) 
 
Antigua and Barbuda 
Bahrain 
Barbados 
Belize 
Benin 
Bhutan Bolivia 
Burkina Faso 
Cambodia Colombia 
Costa Rica 
Cote d'Ivoire Dominica 
Dominican Republic 
Ecuador El Salvador Estonia  
Gabon 
Grenada 
Guatemala 
Guinea Bissau 
Guyana Haiti 
Honduras 
India Iran 
Jamaica 
Kenya Kuwait 
Lao People's 
  Democratic Rep. Mali Mexico 
Myanmar 
Nepal 
Nicaragua 
Niger 
Nigeria Oman 
Panama 
Peru Qatar 
Saint Lucia 
Saudi Arabia Senegal 
St Lucia 
St. Kitts and Nevis St. Vincent and the  
  Grenadines  
Sudan 
Suriname 
Swaziland 
Tanzania Bahamas 
The Gambia 
Togo Trinidad and Tobago 
Uganda 
United Arab Emirates Venezuela 
Viet Nam 
Zambia 
 
3. The PCE comprises 614 questions in 11 modules, and empty matrices for strengths, 
weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis.  This facilitates the prioritizing of actions and 
the construction of a logical framework.  The primary focus is to examine the capacity of the National 
Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) in relation to implementation of International Standards for 
Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and the rights and responsibilities described in the International 
Plant Protection Convention.  It has been agreed th at PCE results should be kept confidential, unless a 
country wishes to use or present their PCE results externally. 
4. At the CPM in 2007, a review of the PCE was presented by CABI Africa .  The report noted 
the positive impacts of the PCE with respect to its intended use, in particul ar on national strategic 
planning, justification for budgetary allocation, le gal frameworks, training and awareness raising.  
Recommendations made by CABI will be discussed at the forthcoming CPM on 7–11 April 2008 .  
For the forthcoming discussion on the PCE at the CPM meeting, see document CPM 2008/4 at the IPPC website:  https://www.ippc.int/IPP
. 
Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services 
 
5. In 2003, the OIE began collaboration with th e Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on 
Agriculture (IICA) on capacity evaluation tools.  The OIE, with funding from the STDF and the 
World Bank,  developed the OIE Tool for the Evaluation of Perfo rmance of Veterinary Services (OIE 
PVS Tool) .  Standards of performance for national veterinary services have been in the OIE 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Code) for more than ten years, b ased on the recognition by 
members that OIE standards are important to sup port the capability of national veterinary services.  
6. The OIE PVS Tool is designed to help veteri nary services establish their level of performance 
relative to the quality standards in the Code;  to  identify gaps and weaknesses;  and to establish 
priorities for strategic initiatives to improve performan ce in key areas of veterinary services' activities.  
In the follow-up to a PVS Evaluation, the OIE works with members to develop proposals for 
investment by national and international donors to su pport projects to strengthen veterinary services.    G/SPS/GEN/821 
 Page 3 
 
 
  7. The OIE-PVS Tool contains four fundamental components: 
(a) human, physical and financial resources, in cluding the capacity to attract resources 
and retain professionals with appropria te technical and leadership skills;  
(b) technical authority and capability to a ddress current and new issues, including 
prevention and control of biological disasters based on scientific principles; 
(c) sustained interaction with stakeholders, to stay on course and carry out relevant joint 
programmes and services;  and 
(d) ability to access markets through complian ce with existing standards and the 
implementation of new disciplines, such as the harmonization of standards, equivalence, zoning and compartmentalization. 
8. For each critical competency, qualitative levels of advancement are described.  The criteria 
for advancement are based on critical competencies set out in the Code Chapter 1.3.3.
 on the 
Evaluation of Veterinary Services and Chapter 1.3.4 . on the Guidelines for the Evaluation of 
Veterinary Services.  OIE is also examining exte nding the PVS Tool to provide a similar framework 
for evaluating aquatic animal health services.   
9. OIE PVS Evaluations are conducted at the request  of an OIE member and performed by OIE-
trained and certified experts, us ing the Manual for PVS Assessors to guide each step in the PVS 
review.  The OIE does not publish or distribute the report without formal authorization from the member.  To date, nine OIE members have given their agreement to a conditional release of PVS 
reports.  The OIE is also producing guidelines for members requesting or considering a PVS 
Evaluation.  The OIE aims to evaluate 105 OIE members within three years, using resources in the 
OIE Animal Health and Welfare Fund.  Some 46 ev aluations are currently on-going or completed. 
Guidelines to assess capacity-building need s for national food control systems 
 
10. FAO’s Guidelines assist countries to identify their capacity-building needs in the core 
components of a national food control system.  The Guidelines focus on government agencies and food control authorities responsible for food safety and quality.  They are based on a methodology for 
self-assessment of capacity-building needs and intern ationally accepted benchmarks and principles for 
each of the core components of a national food control system.  The five modules of the Guidelines cover needs assessment in:  (i) food co ntrol management;  (ii) food legislation;  (iii) food inspection;  
(iv) official food control laboratories;  and (v) food safety and quality information, education and 
communication.  Two guidelines have been published:  strengthening national food control systems: 
Guidelines to assess capaci ty-building needs (2006) and Strengthe ning national food control systems:  
A quick guide to assess capacity-building needs (2007). 
11. For more information, consult FAO webpage:  
http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/agns/capacity_en.asp
. 
GENERIC APPROACHES 
 
FAO Biosecurity Toolkit 
 
12. Biosecurity is a strategic and integrated appro ach to analyzing and managing relevant risks to 
human, animal and plant life and health and associat ed risks to the environment.  It is built on a 
recognition of the critical linkages between sector s and the potential for hazards to move across 
sectors, potentially with far-reaching cross-sectoral con sequences.  As such, bio security is thus central 
to the need to comply with the SPS Agreement. G/SPS/GEN/821 
Page 4  
 
  13. FAO’s Biosecurity Toolkit
 has been developed to support countries in developing and 
implementing national biosecurity frameworks in acco rdance with their international obligations and 
particular needs.  It presents the benefits of a harmonized and integrated approach to Biosecurity, and 
illustrates the experiences of countries that ha ve recently adopted such an approach.  
14. The toolkit was published in 2007 and comprises three separate but related parts.  The first 
part, Biosecurity principles and components, is an  introductory text provid ing a contemporary context 
for the development and implementation of a harmon ized and integrated biosecurity approach across 
all sectors.  The second part is a guide to assess biosecurity capacity, which offers a process for 
assessing dimensions of biosecurity capacity across all sectors and sector organizations.  The third part, an overview and framework manual for biosecu rity risk analysis, presents a generic framework 
to structure and guide the application of  risk analysis principles in biosecurity . 
15. Three regional workshops (in Asia, South America and Africa) and an international training 
of trainers' course based on this Toolkit we re held by FAO in 2007 and early 2008. 
Food safety and agricultural health action plans 
 
16. In 2005, the World Bank published a report on " Food Safety and Agricultural Health 
Standards, Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Country Exports ".  This study noted that the 
capacity to comply with SPS requirements is a component of the overall competitiveness in agricultural trade.  In line with this conclusion, the World Bank has increasingly integrated SPS issues 
into its operational work.  Studies on agricultural competitiveness for Bangladesh, India and Pakistan 
looked at SPS issues affecting horticulture, fish, meat  and livestock products.  This trend was likewise 
reflected in recent Diagnostic Trade Integrati on Studies conducted as part of the Integrated 
Framework process  (Lao P.D.R., Niger, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia) – with the inclusion of SPS 
capacity among the factors affecting a count ry’s performance in agricultural trade. 
17. Another World Bank activity has been the prepar ation of national strategies to build SPS 
capacity.  Such stand-alone SPS action plans have been developed for Armenia, Lao P.D.R., Moldova, Viet Nam and Zambia.  The five action pl ans deal with the cross-cutting nature and the 
different institutions involved in managing SPS risks.  They aim to provide a comprehensive approach 
that looks at SPS capacity in both the public and private sectors for food safety, animal and plant 
health.  The assessments identify gaps and weakne sses and discusses them in the light of estimated 
investment costs, existing and emerging hazards, domestic issues and trade performance.  The country-based reports and action plans are available from the World Bank SPS work 
website. 
Performance, Vision, Strategy - IICA 
 
18. IICA developed the Performance, Vision, Strategy  (PVS) approach in collaboration with OIE, 
but has extended it beyond just the animal health area .  Four different versions of the PVS have been 
developed to evaluate: 
(a) national veterinary services  (in a strategic partnership with the OIE);  
(b) national food safety services  (in partnership with the World Health Organization) and 
its Regional Office for the Americas (PAHO/WHO);  
(c) internationalization of government services (with support from the STDF);  and,  
(d) national plant health protection organizations  (applied in several countries).  
  G/SPS/GEN/821 
 Page 5 
 
 
  19. More than a diagnostic tool, the PVS is meant to be a process geared to th e future that can be 
used in a passive or active mode, depending on the le vel of interest and commitment of the users and 
the official services to improve national services over time.  In the passive mode, the PVS instrument 
raises awareness, improves understanding, and teaches the different participating sectors the basic 
components and critical competencies needed for na tional food safety services to function adequately.  
In this mode, the instrument can also be used to develop a shared vision, foster dialogue, and adopt a 
common language for discussion. 
20. In the active mode, performance is assessed, differences are explored, and priorities are 
established.  Leadership from the public sector is cr itical to success.  It is in the active mode that 
actions happen, investments are made, and commitments  are fulfilled.  Continuity of the PVS process 
is assured when a true partnership exists between the official and the private sectors.  For more 
information, see the IICA agricultural health homepage . 
Cost-benefit analysis and SPS-related investment:  STDF project 
 
21. An early project approved for STDF funding exam ined the use of cost-benefit analysis to 
decide between different priorities for investments in SPS capacity building.  The project was piloted 
in two Members, Peru and Uganda.  It involved th e development of a generic cost-benefit analysis 
methodology and in-depth survey of the public a nd private sectors in both Members to examine SPS 
constraints.  From this survey, a limited group of products and markets were chosen for further in-
depth analysis and application of the cost-benef it analysis.  SPS requirements for these products and 
markets were examined and a cost-benefit ratio fo r compliance was calculated.  Within the generic 
cost-benefit analysis, consideration was given to di rect benefits (e.g. increased export revenue) and to 
indirect benefits (e.g. increased employment, povert y alleviation, improved consumer health, etc.) – 
although the latter proved difficult to quantify.   
22. Conservative scenarios were used for export market  growth.  The first scenario used was one 
of zero growth from 2005 export market revenues - re flecting the continuing SPS investment needed 
to maintain current market access.  A second scenario  of five per cent growth per annum on top of 
2005 export market revenues was used.  In Uganda, two products were selected for the cost-benefit 
analysis: fish and honey.  For honey, the cost-ben efit analysis showed rates of return in export 
revenue of between US$60 per US$1 invested (u sing the no-growth scenario) and US$89 for US$1 
invested in SPS infrastructure (using the five per cent growth scenario).  Returns on investment in 
fisheries were lower, at between US$4 and US $5 per US$1 invested, although the export revenues 
generated were four times larg er in absolute terms.   
23. One objective of the project had been to use th e cost-benefit analysis to assist policy makers 
in determining where the highest rates of return on SPS investment could be achieved and to direct 
resources accordingly.  However, during the analysis it became clear that methodological problems made recommending specific investment s difficult.  Investments in particular elements of the national 
SPS infrastructure can benefit multiple export products.   For example, a laboratory properly equipped 
for residue monitoring could provide tests results for both fish and honey exporters.  The approach used focused on specific products rath er than specific investments, and so made tracing the impact of 
specific investment decisions impossible.   
24. The outcome of the analysis has been to gene rate useful "headline" numbers with which to 
examine the case for more public and private inv estment in SPS infrastructure.  PROMPERU, the 
Peru Export and Tourism Promotion Board, is curre ntly working on updating the cost-benefit analysis 
undertaken with a view to presenting the resu lts to the national authorities and donors.  G/SPS/GEN/821 
Page 6  
 
  RELATED TOOLS 
 
Conformity assurance infrastructure - UNIDO 
 
25. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) uses a multifaceted 
approach to make SPS compliance measures effectiv e in developing countries.  This involves support 
for enterprises in the agro-industr ial sector, assistance to government s and trade associations, as well 
as the development of the conformity assurance infr astructure.  With respect to the conformity 
assurance infrastructure, UNIDO has strategic partne rships with international standards measurement 
and accreditation bodies, including the Internatio nal Organization for Standardization (ISO), 
International Laboratory Accredita tion Cooperation (ILAC), Interna tional Accreditation Forum (IAF), 
International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIP M) and the International Organization of Legal 
Metrology (OIML).   
26. UNIDO’s approach starts from what it cons iders the necessary conformity assurance 
infrastructure including: 
(a) A National Standards Institute to formulat e, harmonize and disseminate standards, 
including international ISO/IEC standards and for market surveillance for consumer 
protection; 
(b) National microbiology and chemical testing laboratories providing credible testing 
services; 
(c) A National Metrology Institute to est ablish measurement units and provide 
measurement traceability and testing for en terprises to assure precision manufacture 
and quality; 
(d) National Certification capacity to certify enterprises for ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and 
ISO 22000, train internal auditors to carry out the audits and ensure international 
acceptance of its certification;  and 
(e) A National Accreditation Board to accredit testing laboratories using ISO 17025, 
accredit certification bodies and inspection bodies and to have its own accreditation capabilities accepted internationally. 
For more details, see UNIDO’s Trade Capacity-Build ing Programme: SPS Compliance
. 
 
Diagnostic tool for analysis and assessment of trade and health 
 
27. WHO is working to develop a new trade and hea lth diagnostic tool.  This project stems from a 
resolution adopted at the 59th WHO Health Assembly  resolution to assist WHO members to 
understand the implications of internat ional trade agreements for health.  The tool aims to help health 
and trade ministries more systematically assess trade a nd health issues, to empower health ministries 
to give better advice to their trade counterparts a nd to enhance health policy input into the trade 
community, particularly in such areas as the In tegrated Framework, trade policy reviews and aid 
initiatives to bolster trade capacities in developing countries. 
28. The tool is based on five components which highlight the relationship between trade and 
health:  (i) the impact of trade policies and trade lib eralization on health;  (ii) trade in health-related 
products, including medicines and related intellectual property related issues;  (iii) trade in products 
hazardous to health;  (iv) trade in health service s (e-commerce, health tourism, foreign direct 
investment in health, cross border movement of he alth professionals);  and (v) trade in foodstuffs.  
Pilot studies have been undertaken in China, Cost a Rica, Brazil, India, Malaysia, Thailand, South 
Africa and Viet Nam to help develop a set of questions that could be used as a tool to identify  G/SPS/GEN/821 
 Page 7 
 
 
  capacity constraints, as well as a "how to" hand book on addressing these problems.  Preliminary 
results of these studies were discussed at meetings  in New Delhi and Ottawa in March and October 
2007.  For more information, see the WHO Globalization, Trade and Health  webpage. 
National capacity self assessment  - Convention on Biodiversity 
 29. In compliance with Article 6 of the Conven tion on Biodiversity, signatories should prepare 
and implement National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs).  To assist parties in this 
undertaking, a Biodiversity Planning Support Programme
 (BPSP) was established by the United 
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and th e United Nations Environmental Programme 
(UNEP) in 1999, with financial support fro m the Global Environment Facility (GEF).  A Guide to 
Developing a Biodiversity Strategy from a Sustainable Development Perspective  was published in 
2000. 
30. Another CBD technical cooperation programme is the Capacity Development Initiative  
(CDI).  The CDI is a strategic partnership between  the UNDP and the GEF Secretariat.  Through this 
initiative, a national capacity self assessment (NCSA) has been developed to provide countries with 
the opportunity to identify priority capacity needs in order to effectively address cross-cutting global 
environmental issues.  Countries are encouraged to develop a plan of action to achieve global 
environmental management objectives in the context of the three Conventions relevant for NCSAs: 
the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change and the United Nations Convention to Co mbat Desertification. The NCSA Operational 
Guidelines ( English , Spanish , French ), a national capacity self assessment resource kit  and other 
background information can be found at the CBD website:  http://www.cbd.int . 
31. The CBD has organized coordination meeti ngs for government agencies, relevant 
organizations and donors involved in implementing and/or funding biosafety capacity-building 
activities to, inter alia :  (i) share information and experiences;  (ii) identify key biosafety capacity-
building issues, priority needs and gaps and discuss ways to address them;  (iii) identify overlaps and 
potential opportunities for collaboration between existi ng activities;  and (iv) facilitate exchange of 
views in order to improve the planning and deliv ery of capacity-building activities. A fourth such 
meeting will be held in New Delhi on 11-13 February 2008 .  The New Delhi meeting will consider 
measures for enhancing capacity building and guidan ce to facilitate consideration of socio-economic 
in decision-making regarding living modified organisms (LMOs) and LMO identification and 
documentation requirements. G/SPS/GEN/821 
Page 8  
 
  ATTACHMENT 
 
STDF Workshop on SPS Capacity Evaluation Tools - 31 March 2008 
 
Draft Agenda
 
 
 
10.00  Opening remarks 
 
10.10  Session 1:  Specific capacity evaluation tools  
 
• Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation , Mr Jeffrey Jones, Technical Assistance 
Officer, International Plant Protection Convention Secretariat 
 
• Tool for the Evaluation of Performan ce of Veterinary Services (OIE-PVS), 
Ms Sarah Kahn, Chef de Service, In ternational Trade Department, World 
Organization for Animal Health 
 
• Strengthening National Food Control Sy stems : Guidelines to Assess Capacity-
Building Needs , Ms Masami T. Takeuchi, Associate Professional Officer, Food 
Quality and Standards Service, Food and Agriculture Organization 
 
• Discussion  
 
11.30  Session 2:  General SPS capacity evaluation tools 
 
• Food Safety and Agricultural Health Action Plans , Mr John Lamb, Senior 
Agribusiness Specialist, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World 
Bank  
• Biosecurity Capacity Evaluation, Mr Sithar Dorjee, Bhutan Agriculture and Food 
Regulatory Authority 
 
• Performance Vision Strategy , Mr Ricardo Molins, Director, Agricultural Health and 
Food Safety, Inter-American Institu te for Cooperation on Agriculture 
 
• Cost-benefit analysis and SPS planning, Mr Michael Roberts, Secretary , STDF  
 
• Discussion 
 
13.00  Lunch 
 15.00  Session 3:  Related approaches and tools of interest  
 
• Trade and Health Evaluation, Ms Corinna Hawkes , Research Fellow, Food 
Consumption and Nutrition Division, Intern ational Food Policy Research Institute  
 
• Evaluation of Standards Metrology and Quality Infrastructure, Ms Muge Dolun, 
Associate Industrial Development Officer, United Nation  Industrial Development 
Organization 
  G/SPS/GEN/821 
 Page 9 
 
 
  • Biosafety Capacity Evaluation , Mr Erie Tamala, Programme Officer, Convention 
on Biodiversity 
 
• Discussion 
 16.30  Session 4:  Which tool for what purpose?  
 
  Open discussion of issues arising, in particular: 
 
• Merits of specific vs generic tools; 
• Role of beneficiary in choice of tool, application and end use, in particular 
public dissemination of results vs . internal confidential usage; 
• How to prioritize needs ?  How to turn evaluations into action – either 
through domestic resources or external assistance? 
• Scope for collaboration and coope ration between organizations in 
development and use of tools as well as sharing of  results. 
17.45  Closing remarks 
 
__________