WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/R/52 
31 October 2008 
 (08-5305) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE GOOD PRACTICE WORKSHOP 
6 OCTOBER 2008 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
I. SUMMARY 
1. The Standards and Trade Development Fac ility (STDF) organized a workshop on good 
practice in technical co-operation in the san itary and phytosanitary (SPS) area,  in collaboration 
with the Organization for Economic Co-operati on and Development (OEC D), on 6 October 2008.  
Some 250 persons participated including delega tes from the SPS Committee and 60 officials from 
developing countries whose attendance was f unded by the WTO Global Trust Fund and STDF. 
2. The idea for a workshop on this  topic originated in the SPS Committee when some Members, 
including Egypt, stressed the importance of ensuring  that SPS-related technical assistance is effective 
and that it actually addresses the need s of the beneficiary countries. 
3. The workshop provided an opportunity to consid er the Paris Principles on Aid Effectiveness 
(Paris Principles) in the context of the highly tech nical area of SPS-related technical co-operation.  
The meeting was timely in view of the High Leve l Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Accra, Ghana in 
September 2008, which assessed the effectiveness of deve lopment assistance in general and agreed on 
the need for further bold steps to refo rm the way aid is given and spent. 
4. The objectives of the workshop were threefold: 
• To review experiences related to good pr actice in SPS-related technical assistance 
projects from three pilot regions and identify those elements of good practice which could 
be replicated in future assistance. 
• To discuss what is required from donors, develo pment agencies and beneficiaries in order 
to disseminate and implement the id entified good practices more widely. 
• To discuss how the positive impact on trad e performance of SPS-related technical 
assistance can be maximized. 
5. The workshop was organized in four sessions.  At the end of each session, there were 
opportunities for comments and questions from the fl oor.  The complete set of presentations and a 
podcast of the discussions are available on the STDF website  and the SPS gateway  on the WTO 
website ( http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/s ps_e/wkshop_oct08_ e/wkshop_oct08_e.htm ). 
                                                      
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. G/SPS/R/52 
Page 2  
 
  6. Suggestions for follow-up work focused on: 
• the development of a framework to assess impacts quickly and relatively easily;  
• the development and use of impact indicators; 
• case studies on how a value-chain approach has enhanced trade performance for particular 
commodities or to consider the cumulative e ffects of technical assistance in the SPS area 
over time; and 
• ongoing co-operation with the EIF to ensure that SPS issues are integrated into national 
development plans and budgetary processes. 
II. BACKGROUND 
7. The STDF/OECD research on good practice was based on a survey (G/SPS/GEN/816 and 
Add.1), which requested WTO Members and OECD contact points to nominate SPS-related projects 
in East Africa, Central America and the Greater Mekong Delta Sub-Region that could be considered 
as examples of good practice.2  A total of 24 projects were nominated by 19 organizations in response 
to this survey.  In-country interviews were then carried out by three consultants from June to August 
2008 to seek the views of beneficiaries on elements  of good practice in the design, implementation, 
outputs and impact of the 24 nominated projects. 
8. The findings of the regional research work ar e presented in three regional research papers 
(G/SPS/GEN/871, G/SPS/GEN/872 and G/SPS/ GEN/874) published in September 2008.3  An 
overview and synthesis of the findings of the regional research on good practice is available in G/SPS/GEN/875. 
9. The good practice research work built on previ ous STDF activities in East Africa, Central 
America and Greater Mekong Sub-Region, carried out within the Aid for Trade Initiative.  This work 
synthesized the results of existing SPS capacity ev aluations, developed an inventory of technical 
assistance, and identified gaps and priorities still not being addressed.  It also brought together providers and beneficiaries of SPS-related technical  assistance at three regional consultations in May 
and June 2008 to discuss the priority needs iden tified and the mobilization of resources to address 
them.  Document G/SPS/GEN/864 provides a detaile d overview of this work and summarizes the 
continuing needs of each region. 
III. PRESENTATIONS  
10. The findings of the regional research work we re presented by Spencer Henson (East Africa), 
Cornelis van der Meer (Greater Mekong Delta Sub-Re gion) and Jason Hafemeister (Central America) 
during the first session of the workshop.  Their presentations highlighted a number of elements of 
good practice in project design and implementation including:  the importance of thorough 
preparation and sound project design;  careful asse ssment and prioritization of needs and the use of 
more consistent and rigorous tools for this purpose;   adequate consideration of absorptive capacity;  
transparency and communication;  flexibility;  involvement of the private sector; attention to 
                                                     
 
2 The following countries were included in this rese arch:  East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda), 
Central America (Costa Rica, El Salv ador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua  and Panama)  and Greater Mekong 
Delta Sub-region (Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR) and Viet Nam). 
3 The regional research are entitled:  (i) Good Prac tice in SPS-Related Technical Co-operation.  Central 
America Sub-region.  Jason Hafemeister (G/SPS/GEN/874) ;  (ii) Good Practice in SPS-Related Technical Co-
operation.  East Africa Region Report.  Spencer Henson and Oliver Masakure (G/SPS /GEN/871); and (iii) Good 
Practice in SPS-Related Technical Co-operation.  Greater Mekong Sub-Region.  Cornelis van der Meer and 
Laura L. Ignacio (G/SPS/GEN/872).  G/SPS/R/52 
 Page 3 
 
 
  sequencing;  coordination and efforts to ensure linkages with related activities;  a value-chain 
approach, results-based management, etc. 
11. These presentations laid a good basis for three break-out groups during the second session in 
which participants discussed the i ssues raised in the context of their own experiences and considered 
how the OECD Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness could be applied, how to maximize the 
positive trade impact of SPS-related technical co- operation and how good practi ce could be replicated 
more widely.  Nancy Gitonga, Mohammed Sidibe  and Edmundo Toro Vallecillo reported to the 
plenary session on the conclusions arising from the three groups. 
12. In the discussion which followed, Fidelma O'Shaughnessy, EuropeAid made a presentation 
on how the European Commission is working at po licy, strategy and implementation levels to 
accelerate progress on the Paris Principles as a means to enhance the effectiveness of the aid it 
provides. 
13. The third session focused on how to maximize th e positive impact on trade performance of 
SPS-related technical assistance.  Three presentations were made on examples of SPS-related technical co-operation projects, which were particularly successful in gaining or maintaining market 
access: 
• Presentation by Guy Stinglhamber on the Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP) 
implemented by COLEACP, a non-profit inte r-professional association representing the 
collective interests of ACP producers/exporters  and EC importers of  fruits, vegetables, 
flowers and plants. 
• Presentation by Daniel Orellana, Foreign Agriculture Service, United States Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) on the USAID/USDA Programme for Trade Capacity Building on 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Issues under the Central America-Dominican Republic-United 
States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR); and  
• Presentation by Nguyen Huu Dat, Plant Prot ection Department of the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Rural Development, Viet Nam on the results of a project, funded by the 
Japanese International Co-operation Agency (JIC A), that used vapour heat treatment to 
control fruit flies in fresh fruit in Viet Nam as a means to expand market access. 
14. The fourth and final session looked to the futu re and, specifically, how to apply good practice 
to improve the impact and sustainability of availa ble assistance with presentations by Linda Fulponi, 
OECD and Michael Roberts, STDF Secretary. 
IV. DISCUSSIONS  
15. The presentations promoted a lively discussion with more than 23 participants taking the  
floor to ask questions during the course of th e day.  Over half these questions came from 
representatives of least developed countries. 
16. There was broad agreement with the findings of the regional research presented during the 
first session.  The importance of thorough preparati on and a leading role for beneficiaries in project 
design and implementation was emphasized.  W ith regard to the assessment of SPS needs, 
participants from East Africa and Central America referred to the usefulness of the STDF regional consultations in May and June 200 8, which identified outstanding needs and priorities in the SPS area 
on the basis of existing sectoral assessments.  Ther e was consensus on the importance of developing 
local public and private sector capacity to build capacity in the SPS area as a means to enhance 
sustainability. G/SPS/R/52 
Page 4  
 
  17. However, the presentations and discussions acknow ledged that several elements of less than 
good practice persist in SPS-related technical assist ance.  These include fragmented, supply-driven 
assistance, insufficient attention to ownership or absorptive capacity, a curs ory approach to assessing 
and prioritizing needs, inadequate  coordination, limited focus on and involvement of the private 
sector, not enough focus on developing local capaci ty to build capacity, and limited complementary 
investments in infrastructure.  There was agreement that such "bad practices" should be avoided in the 
future. 
18. One of the main conclusions of the workshop re lated to the difficulty of measuring the impact 
of SPS-related projects on trade performance, especially when objectives are likely to be achieved at 
some point in the future or when several overlapping and/or complementary projects contribute in 
different ways towards the achievement of objectives.   In such instance, it can be challenging to 
separate out the impact of different interventions.  It  was also noted that other factors outside the SPS 
area (e.g. freight costs, exchange rates) often in fluence the outcomes of SPS-related capacity building 
activities.  However, in general, this influen ce is not well understood or addressed.  As such, one 
speaker commented that while projects may be eval uated, this does not normally include a rigorous 
assessment of the impact.  Two suggestions were put forward in this regard:  (i) the development of a 
framework to assess impacts quickly and relatively eas ily; and (ii) the development and use of impact 
indicators. 
19. Absorptive capacity, exemplified by differences  in governance, human resources or level of 
market development, etc., was identified as a critic al factor influencing the success of SPS-related 
technical assistance.  The role of absorptive capacity was particul arly evident in regional projects 
where achievements in countries with a certain am ount of pre-existing capacity generally surpassed 
those in countries with less ab sorptive capacity.  There was agreement that project design and 
implementation should pay more attention to the ro le of absorptive capacity in influencing delivery 
and outcomes. 
20. The benefits and challenges of a regional appr oach were also discussed in the context of 
absorptive capacity.  Although there are often di fferences across countries in a region, it was 
considered important to pay ade quate attention to developing re gional capacity and coordination in 
the SPS area as a means to maximize results and enhan ce sustainability in the long-term.  Similarly, it 
was noted that technical assistance could create mark et distortions, both within and across countries in 
a region, affecting competitiveness, a nd that this should be avoided. 
21. Discussions on the SPS hierarchy of functions and the level at which capacity building 
activities should be targeted were related to abso rptive capacity.  There was general agreement that 
donors and beneficiaries should ensure that lower levels of capacity (e.g. application of basic good practices for hygiene and safety) are in place befo re addressing needs further up the SPS hierarchy 
(e.g. technologically-demanding risk analysis func tions or SPS diplomacy).  Nevertheless, it was 
noted that in some instances, in cluding when countries were trying to expand market access, there 
may be a need to work on several levels simultaneously. 
22. There was agreement on the need to strengthe n national ownership in project design and 
implementation in line with the Paris Principles.  However, an interesting question was raised 
regarding the appropriateness of supply-driven assistance in cases where issues are new and/or 
beneficiaries lack awareness of their needs.  It wa s also suggested that external organizations should 
take a strong role in situations where they serve  as an honest broker and bring together different 
stakeholders, often with vested interests.  Weak management capacity in many government authorities 
in beneficiary countries was put forward as one of th e main factors hindering national ownership.    G/SPS/R/52 
 Page 5 
 
 
  23. The benefits of a value-chain approach to maximize the impact of technical assistance on 
trade performance emerged as a key conclusion, particularly in the research findings from Central America.  A value-chain approach was put forwar d as a way to strengthen the regulatory framework 
for SPS management and increase the capacity of the private sector in the context of genuine market 
opportunities and constraints.  Some speakers a nd participants commented on the importance of 
developing incentives and cost-sharing mechanisms as a means to enhance the outcomes and impact 
of available assistance.  It was noted that cost-s haring and beneficiary par ticipation had been an 
integral part of the PIP and had encouraged a mo re efficient use of resources and improved results. 
24. Concerns about equity in the availability and allocation of resources for SPS-related technical 
assistance were raised by some participants.  Some  participants expressed concern that technical 
assistance activities tend to focus on countries that al ready have some of the basic foundations of an 
SPS system in place rather than countries with lowe r levels of capacity.  Similarly, participants 
highlighted the need to ensure that small-scal e producers are also targeted in capacity building 
activities.  Some participants observed that PIP had successfully worked down the supply chain in 
order to effectively reach small-scale producers. 
25. Another concern raised related to the tendency for SPS-related technical assistance to be 
poorly integrated into broader development assist ance.  It was further noted that SPS-related 
assistance does not generally reflect milestones for development co-operation such as the Millennium 
Development Goals or the Paris Principles.  This was partly linked to a reliance in project design on 
experts with very technical backgrounds who do not always give due attention to the broader political-
economy, international development goals or the in fluence of other factors in the broader country 
environment. 
26. In terms of sustainability, the need to ensu re demand for functions and services developed 
through technical assistance was highlighted.  In so me countries and/or situations, it was noted that 
regulatory powers are used to generate artificia l demand for health certificates or mandatory tests 
which are not required by the market.  Some spea kers noted that it was good practice to separate 
regulatory powers and service provision.  Similarly, comments were made regarding the limitations of 
providing training on advanced techniques (e.g. soph isticated laboratory diagnosis methods) when the 
facilities and equipment necessary to utilize these skills  were unavailable within countries.  In this 
context, the value of combining assistance for skills  development, instituti on building and equipment 
was noted. 
27. The importance of political support and commitme nt was also raised in the context of 
sustainability.  In this regard, some particip ants expressed concerns about limited high-level 
awareness of the need for and benefits of SPS cap acity, and the relationship between SPS issues and 
economic development, public health, etc. 
28. While there was recognition that the Paris Pr inciples provided a good framework to improve 
the delivery, impact and sustainability of techni cal assistance, there was less clarity about how 
practically to implement good practices on the grou nd.  In addition, it was observed that beyond a 
small number of officials in planning or intern ational co-operation departments there was generally 
limited awareness or knowledge about these principl es in beneficiary countries.  Suggestions for 
follow-up work focused on: 
(i) the need to increase awareness about th e Paris Principles and good practices in SPS-
related technical assistance; 
(ii) the development of a framework and indi cators to assess impacts relatively quickly 
and easily; G/SPS/R/52 
Page 6  
 
  (iii) case studies on how a value-chain approach  has enhanced trade performance for 
particular commodities or to consider the cumulative effects of technical assistance in 
the SPS area over time; and 
(iv) ongoing co-operation with the EIF to ensure that SPS issues are integrated into 
national development plans and budgetary processes. 
__________