Transparency of complex regulation: how should WTO trade policy reviews deal with sanitary and phytosanitary policies?

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in ABSTRACTSanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that protect human, animal, and plant health are impeding trade and provoking high-profile disputes. This paper argues that the WTO's Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM) could play an important role in defusing the trade-disrupting potential of SPS regulation. The most promising avenue is to review in greater detail the policy-making procedures that lead to SPS measures. How transparent and independent are countries' risk assessments of health hazards? Which provisions have countries taken to account for trade effects when selecting SPS measures? Do countries give foreign interests adequate possibility to voice their concerns over proposed SPS regulation? If reviews motivate countries to improve their policy-making processes, this will contribute to making SPS regulation less trade restrictive and more effective in protecting health. To reach this objective, special trade policy reviews dedicated exclusively to SPS regulation would have to be introduced as a complement to the current reviews of countries' overall trade policies. Such a move could serve as a model for establishing further issue-specific reviews that address technical barriers to trade, trade in services, and other complex regulatory challenges.

Advancing One Biosecurity to Address the Pandemic Risks of Biological Invasions

“…The effectiveness of regulatory policies addressing the risks from contaminants, deliberate imports, and stowaways differs considerably (Hulme et al 2008 ). The Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures of the World Trade Organization (WTO) aims to protect human, animal, and plant health by reducing the threat of introducing pests and diseases of humans, livestock, and economically important plants as contaminants of traded agricultural commodities (Zahrnt 2011 ). In many cases, the risks to international trade posed by these contaminants of agricultural and forestry products are often mitigated by pre-export treatment (irradiation, heat, fumigation, etc.)…”

Forest Insect Biosecurity: Processes, Patterns, Predictions, Pitfalls

“…Furthermore, there is a long history of nations using false claims of plant health risks to justify protectionist policies (i.e., prohibitions of imports) to protect domestic agro-economies from adverse impacts of competition with imported products (e.g., 29). The SPS Agreement is designed to promote free trade through eliminating protectionist policies by requiring importing countries to present scientific evidence of risk to justify prohibitions on imports (158). The IPPC also serves to promote cooperation on biosecurity by setting international biosecurity standards, requiring national governments to report on pest outbreaks and spread, and sponsoring biosecurity capacity building in countries with developing economies (74,100).…”

Towards meaningful transparency at the WTO: Reinforcing the trade policy review mechanism1

“…Notwithstanding these concerns, several authors have argued at the TPR be expanded in scope to cover trade in environmental goods (Ghosh, 2008), Aid for Trade (Marshall, 2012), sanitary and phytosanitary standards (Zahnrt, 2011) and the empowerment of women (Der Boghossian, 2019).…”