WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/497
18 June 2004
(04-2650)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original: English/
Spanish
BUILDING CAPACITIES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WTO AGREEMENT
ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES
(SPS AGREEMENT)
Information presented by the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)
The following communication, dated 16 June 2004, is being circulated at the request of the
Inter-American Institute for Co-operation on Agriculture (IICA).
_______________
1. In October 2003, IICA submitted document G/SPS/GEN/427 to the Committee on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (the Committee). This document outlined some of the results obtained
and experiences gained from the implementation of the SPS of the Americas Initiative (the
Initiative).1
2. The countries of the Americas have been involved in this Initiative for almost two years and,
in that time, participation of their capital-based experts in the Committee's meetings has increased
from 15 per cent to 96 per cent (comparing the periods June 2000-June 2002 and October 2002-
June 2004). During that time, we have been able to identify five key actions that differentiate the
physical presence of the countries in the Committee's meetings from a more active participation that
includes ongoing capacity building and effective implementation of the SPS Agreement. These five
actions undertaken by the more active countries are:
They have active liaison mechanisms operating between the public and private sectors
3. Actively participating countries have mechanisms by which public and private institutions
establish and implement an SPS agenda. Both formal and informal mechanisms exist, but the
common trait is their effectiveness. Some countries have created a national SPS committee by decree,
others are in the process of approving the same, and still others have used existing forums to include
the topic of SPS in their discussion agendas, involving the support or participation of cooperation
agencies such as IICA or FAO.
4. One of the countries that is currently in the process of establishing a liaison mechanism
indicated: "The approval of the Executive Agreement for the creation of the National Committee on
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, its rules and implementation, will contribute to efforts to
coordinate and strengthen actions with the different sectors involved, to ensure close communication
1The initiative began with resources provided by the United States Department of Agriculture and IICA. Currently, there is
a steering group comprised of six countries in the Americas. When this document mentions "countries of the Americas," it is
referring to IICA's member countries. Of the 34 member countries, 31 are classified as developing countries and one as a
least developed country.G/SPS/GEN/497
Page 2
and the dissemination of information among them. This will provide numerous benefits, especially
effective monitoring of the SPS Agreement."
They have ongoing, fluid channels of communication between capital institutions and the
mission in Geneva
5. This allows them to anticipate situations of interest to the country and to address them in
timely fashion. It also provides an alternative means of support when capital experts cannot be present
at Committee meetings.
6. One of the countries which participates in the Initiative stated: "… participation in the
WTO/SPS Committee is of key importance, either with the physical presence of capital officials in the
discussions or by providing arguments and information to the mission in Geneva. [….] The
sustainability of active participation is related to the liaison mechanisms that exist between capital
officials and the mission in Geneva."
7. What happens in countries that do not have a permanent mission to the WTO? Some
countries have indicated that effective regional coordination could allow them to develop common
positions and take advantage of the infrastructure of countries that do have a permanent mission in
Geneva.
They have individuals whose main responsibility is the SPS Agreement and its application at the
international level
8. Monitoring, analyzing, communicating, leading and delegating SPS issues requires a core
investment and a minimum structure of human resources that make it possible to take advantage of
and comply with the SPS Agreement. As one country stated: "The importance of SPS issues, and the
diversity of agents involved, warrants systematic and continuous action, and this is not easy to
achieve unless personnel are dedicated to this task."
9. What happens in countries that have not made this investment in human resources? Some
countries have indicated that the demands and challenges of the Initiative have been added to the list
of responsibilities already assigned to their institutions, and that consequently, the effort and resources
earmarked for new duties are insufficient to ensure adequate performance.
Decision makers define and implement specific initiatives related to SPS measures
10. One of the salient characteristics of the countries that are making headway in implementing
the SPS Agreement is that their politicians and decision makers recognize the importance of active
participation in the international forums, and define and implement specific activities to strengthen the
same. One country encouraged the implementation of specific disciplines before the Committee,
considering it of strategic importance for improving its private sector's conditions of access. This was
achieved by defining a policy with the support of national authorities and in coordination with the
private sector.
11. Another country acknowledged the importance of involving decision makers by indicating:
"In the medium term, it will be necessary for national authorities to recognize the importance of these
forums, so that authorization can be obtained and resources allocated to facilitate active
participation in the WTO, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the International Plant
Protection Convention (IPPC) and the Codex Alimentarius."G/SPS/GEN/497
Page 3
Resources are earmarked for continuous participation at the international level .
12. Some of the countries benefiting from the Initiative have begun negotiations and have been
able to ensure that allocations are made in the annual budgets for participation in future meetings.
Others have earmarked resources for specialized training to experts working in this field.
Conclusions
13. Traditionally, developing countries have considered that to make headway in implementing
the SPS Agreement, major investments of money and in technology are required. However, the SPS
of the Americas Initiative has shown that developing countries have within their reach, other options
or actions that allow considerable progress to be made without depending significantly on those two
variables.
14. Five actions distinguish countries that are making the most progress in the area of SPS:
(1) they have active liaison mechanisms operating between the public and private sectors; (2) they
have ongoing, fluid channels of communication between capital institutions and the mission in
Geneva; (3) they have officers whose main responsibility is SPS measures at the international level;
(4) decision makers define and implement initiatives relating to SPS measures; and (5) resources are
earmarked for continuous participation at the international level. The principal characteristic of these
key actions is that they are based on leadership, institution strengthening and an integrated approach.
15. The key for the countries in the future, if they want to take maximum advantage of their
participation in the Committee, foster sustainable implementation of the SPS Agreement, fulfill their
obligations and tap opportunities that arise, is to focus efforts on capacity building, leadership and
appropriate and permanent coordination with the private sector.
16. While this Initiative can provide important support to countries engaged in actions to increase
their participation and the sustainability of the same in international forums, in the long run, the level
of progress achieved will depend more on the priority and attention given by each country.
17. For further information on this Initiative, please contact:
Erick.bolanos@iica.ac.cr (Eric Bolaños) or Kevin.walker@iica.ac.cr (Kevin Walker)
Gregg.Young@usda.gov (Gregg Young) or marianne.mcelroy@fas.usda.gov (Marianne McElroy) or
Henry.Schmick@usda.gov (Henry Schmick)
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)
Agricultural Health and Food Safety
http://agrihealth.ws
__________