RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/R/48 
6 May 2008 
 (08-2131) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
REPORT OF THE STDF WORKSHOP ON  
SPS-RELATED CAPACITY EVALUATION TOOLS
1 
 
31 March 2008 
Note by the Secretariat2 
  
I. SUMMARY 
1. The Standards and Trade Development Facility  (STDF) organized a workshop on SPS-related 
capacity evaluation tools in Geneva on 31 March 2 008, back-to-back with the 2-3 April meeting of 
the SPS Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary M easures (the "SPS Committee").  This was the 
first in a planned series of thematic events organized by the STDF Secretariat.  Document G/SPS/GEN/821
 provided backgr ound information on the tools presen ted and the programme for the 
workshop. 
2. The meeting was open to all Members, observer governments and organizations with observer 
status in the SPS Committee.  Participants incl uded some 200 delegates from the SPS Committee, as 
well as 15 officials from developing countries, whose attendance was funded by the STDF.   
3. The workshop focused on tools that have been developed by international organizations to 
evaluate capacity in the areas of food safety, animal  and plant health.  The objective was to increase 
awareness and knowledge about the purpose and scope of these tools, as well as the experiences and 
results of their practical application. 
4. The day was organized in four sessions with  presentations on capacity evaluation tools 
developed by international organizations.  These include d:  (i) specific tools that address a particular 
thematic component of SPS capacity (e.g. plant health);  (ii) generic tools that look at the SPS system as a whole;  and (iii) related tools that treat one asp ect of the SPS area in  more general settings (e.g. 
the interface between food safety, health and tr ade).  At the end of each session, there were 
opportunities for comments and questions from the floor. 
5. Practical aspects related to the use of the diffe rent tools was the subject of open discussion 
during the final session of the workshop.  Topics addressed included the merits of specific versus generic tools;  the beneficiary's role in the sel ection of tool, its application and end use;  the 
prioritization of needs;  and the scope for collabor ation in the future development and use of these 
tools including the sharing of results. 
                                                     
 
1 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. 
2 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/48 
Page 2  
 
  6. The complete set of presentations, and a pod cast of the discussions, are available on the STDF 
website  and the SPS gateway  on the WTO website.   
II. PRESENTATIONS DURING THE WORKSHOP  
7. Ten presentations on SPS-related ca pacity evaluation tools were introduced at the workshop.  
The first session addressed specific capacity evaluatio n tools for plant protection, veterinary services 
and food safety with presentations by representativ es of the International Plant Protection Convention 
(IPPC) Secretariat, the World Organisation for Anim al Health (OIE), and the Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations (FAO).  The second session focused on general capacity 
evaluation tools with presentations from the World Bank, the Bhutan Agriculture and Food Regulatory Authority, the International Ins titute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) and 
PROMPERU.
3  In the third session, the scope of the di scussion was widened to related approaches to 
capacity evaluation, with presentations from th e World Health Organization (WHO), the United 
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNI DO)  and the Convention on Biological Diversity 
(CBD).   
8. The presentations highlighted how the existing tools are at different stages of development and 
use.  Some have already been tried and tested fo r a number of years.  The IPPC's Phytosanitary 
Capacity Evaluation (PCE) tool was first develope d in 1999 and has been used in 62 countries.  
Similarly, the OIE's tool for evaluation of the pe rformance of veterinary services has been trialled in 
50 countries, with another 55 evaluations in the pipeline.  In contrast, FAO's Guide to Assess 
Biosecurity Capacity is more recent and in the ear ly stages of application, while the WHO trade and 
health tool is still under development.    
9. The presentations further illustrated the different approaches that are being used to evaluate 
SPS-related capacity needs from self-assessment tool s (like the IPPC's tool) to externally-led 
evaluations (such as that used by the OIE) with va riations in-between.  Some approaches are focused 
on capacity to comply with international standard s (such as those of IPPC and OIE) while others 
(such as the FAO and IICA tools) take a broader vi ew including the development of a vision of the 
future state of capacity.  In some cases, the finding s generated by the capacity evaluation tools remain 
confidential while in others they are publicly available.  
III. DISCUSSIONS DURING THE WORKSHOP  
10. During the plenary discussion, several Members described how one or more of the tools 
presented had been applied in their countries.  The resulting outcomes had included:  increased 
awareness among high-level officials about the importance of food safety, animal and/or plant health; 
the development of sectoral and/or cross-sectoral  strategies and action plans for capacity building; 
improvements in the delivery of SPS-related serv ices;  the establishment of national food safety 
committees;  the formulation of project activities and the allocation of resources by government agencies and donors;  and a more harmonized appr oach towards the management of SPS issues.  A 
few Members indicated that application of the tool s had resulted in substan tial benefits linked to 
increased food and agricultural exports.  
11. The proliferation in approaches to SPS capacity evaluation, reflecting growing interest in the 
relationship between SPS and market access, was discu ssed.  It was noted that while the standards of 
three organizations (Codex, IPPC and OIE) are recognized by the SPS Agreement, many more organizations are involved in SPS capacity build ing and have developed accompanying capacity 
evaluation tools.  However, some Members were concerned that this trend raised the risk of 
duplication in evaluations as well as in the desi gn and implementation of s ubsequent capacity building 
                                                     
 
3 Peru Export and Tourism Promotion Board.  G/SPS/R/48 
 Page 3 
 
 
  activities.  The resource implications, particul arly for small countries, of a large number of 
evaluations and the challenges of managing all th e information generated was also underlined.   
12. The choice of which tool to use in which situation was one of the main topics of the discussion.  
Several Members noted that this would depend on th e country's particular situation.  Experiences 
were shared from South America and Africa about how  elements of different tools had been adapted 
and used together, based on the Memb er's needs, with positive results.   
13. Some Members urged organizations to acknowledge  the findings of capacity evaluations that 
had been performed by other organizations or using different tools, and to focus on common 
objectives such as the achievement of improvements to service delivery or improvements in the food 
safety, and animal and plant health situation.  
14. The importance of an active role for beneficiarie s in the selection and use of tools to evaluate 
SPS capacity was highlighted.  Members agreed on the necessity of ensuring political commitment 
and buy-in of all the concerned stakeholders, incl uding the private sector, to ensure ownership and 
sustainability of follow-up actions.  Examples were  shared of cases wher e the use of the tools 
presented had promoted inter-agency collaboration and facilitated agreement on priorities at the 
national level.   
15. Members recognized that a large amount of data was being generated through capacity 
assessments but that compilation and exchange of th e results had been limited to date.  This had 
reduced opportunities for the findings to be take n on board by other organizations.  There was 
agreement about the need to make the results of completed capacity evaluations more widely 
available, both at the country level and internationally.   
16. Some Members expressed concern that limited attention had been given to monitoring the 
impact of capacity evaluations in generating results such as improved trade performance, or enhanced 
human health, disease or pest status, etc.  Examini ng the impact of capacity evaluations was identified 
as an important area for future work.   
17. Another of the main topics discussed concerne d the scope for collaboration and cooperation in 
the future development and use of these tools.  Broad agreement emerged on the need to strive 
towards harmonization of approaches to capac ity evaluation while respecting the needs of 
beneficiaries, as a means to optimize the use of av ailable resources.  One Member asked if there was 
scope to take the best components of all three approaches and develop an overarching tool.   
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 
18. The general recommendations emerging from the workshop included the following: 
• improve coordination to reduce duplication in capacity evaluation and follow-up 
activities; 
• promote harmonization in the future developm ent and application of capacity evaluation 
tools; 
• make the findings of completed and planned capacity evaluations more widely available; 
and 
• identify ways to monitor the impact of capacity evaluations in generating results. 
__________