sps disputes

SPS DisputesSPS Disputes

Gretchen H. Stanton

Senior Counsellor

Agriculture and Commodities Division

WTO

2

Solving SPS trade disputesSolving SPS trade disputes

• Bilateral Efforts

• SPS Committee – Specific Trade Concerns

• Good Offices by the Chair of the SPS

Committee

• Dispute Settlement of OIE and IPPC

• WTO Dispute Settlement System

3

Dispute Settlement of OIE and IPPCDispute Settlement of OIE and IPPC

Pros:• Technical evaluation only• No involvement of lawyers• Less costly

Cons:• Enforcement difficulties• Not binding

4

WTO Dispute Settlement System - Main StagesWTO Dispute Settlement System - Main Stages

I. Consultation phase

II. Panel review

III. Appellate Body review

IV. Adoption of report

V. Implementation

Good offices,conciliation and mediationpossible at any moment

5

EXPERTS

The Panel ProcessThe Panel Process

Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)

PANEL

AppellateBody(AB)

APPEAL

6

Consu

ltatio

nsPa

nel a

ppoi

ntm

ent

Fina

l rep

ort t

o pa

rties

Fina

l rep

ort t

o M

embe

rs

DSB

ado

pts

appe

als

repo

rt

Dispute timetableDispute timetable

1 Year 3 months

DSB

ado

pts

repo

rt

APPEAL

SPS may be longer...

7

PanelsPanels

• Composition: 3 unbiased individuals

• Procedures:– Detailed working procedures– Consultation of scientific/ technical experts

• Report – Review facts and provide legal analysis– Conclusion regarding consistency of measure

8

Appellate BodyAppellate Body

• Standing body of 7• 3 hear any appeal• Reviews issues of law and legal

interpretations by Panel • Upholds, modifies or reverses Panel

findings • AB decision cannot be appealed

9

Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)

• Establishes panels

• Adopts Panel /Appellate Body reports

• Determines “reasonable period of time”

• Reviews implementation

• Authorizes “retaliation” or “compensation”

10

ComplainantsComplainants

23%

23%

7%6%4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2%

14%

5%

USECCanadaBrazilIndiaMéxicoArgentinaKoreaJapanThailandChileDevelopingDeveloped

11

DefendantsDefendants

25%

22%

5%4%4%

4%

4%

4%

3%

3%

19%

3%

USECIndiaArgentinaCanadaJapanBrazilMéxicoKoreaChileDevelopingDeveloped

12

Most cited agreementsMost cited agreements

37%

10%10%

8%

5%

5%

4%

4%4%

4%2%

7%

GATTSubsidies/CVDAntidumpingAgricultureSafeguardsLincensingTBTSPSTRIMsTRIPsServicesOther

13

31 (+ 2) disputes have invoked 31 (+ 2) disputes have invoked the SPS Agreementthe SPS Agreement

Reports

Adopted (9 + 2)

27% Panel

Established (4)

12%

Consultations - Pending (13)

40%

Agreed Solution (7)

21%

14

SPS DisputesSPS Disputes

• Food safety:– US/Canada vs. EC - Hormones (WT/DS26, 48)– US/Canada/Argentina vs. EC - Biotech (WT/DS291, 292, 293)– EC vs. US/ Canada - Retaliation on Hormones (WT/DS320, 321)

• Animal health:– Canada / US vs. Australia - Salmon (WT/DS18, 21)

• Plant Protection:– US vs Japan - Variety Testing (WT/DS76)– US vs. Japan – Fire blight (WT/DS245)– Philippines vs. Australia - Tropical Fruit (WT/DS270)– New Zealand vs. Australia - Apples (WT/DS367)

15

SPS DisputesSPS Disputes

“Hormones”US & Canada vs. EC

“Salmon” Canada (and US) vs. Australia

“Varietals” US vs. Japan

“Fire blight” US vs. Japan

“GMOS”US, Canada & Argentina vs. EC

16

Hormones – main conclusionsHormones – main conclusions

• Precautionary principle does not override SPS obligations (reflected in Art. 5.7)

• Measures not based on international standards – not justified under Art.3.3– Codex standards for 5 hormones– Art. 3.3 is conditional right– To be consistent with Art. 3.3, must comply with

Art.5 (risk assessment)

17

Hormones – main conclusions Hormones – main conclusions

• Measure not based on risk assessment (Art.5.1)– Risk assessments provided did not support prohibition – Quantitative or qualitative risk assessment – Does not exclude factors that cannot be quantitatively assessed

• No violation of Art. 5.5 – must show:– Different levels of protection in different (but comparable)

situations – Different levels are arbitrary or unjustified– Differences result in discrimination or disguised restriction to trade

18

Measures not based on risk assessment (Art. 5.1)

Risk assessments must:• Identify the diseases which a Member wants to

stop from entering• Evaluate the probability of entry, establishment

and dissemination in the case of diseases• As a function of the SPS measures which could

be applied.

Salmon – Main conclusionSalmon – Main conclusion

19

Salmon – Main conclusionsSalmon – Main conclusions

No consistency in level of risk accepted (Art. 5.5)

Permitted importation of other products capable of transmitting some of the same diseases

20

Salmon – ImplementationSalmon – Implementation

“Consumer ready” requirement – packages of less than 450 g.

• Not based on a risk assessment (Art. 5.1)• More trade restrictive than necessary (Art. 5.6)

21

Varietals – Main conclusionsVarietals – Main conclusions

• Measure maintained without sufficient scientific evidence (Art. 2.2)

– Need rational relationship between the scientific evidence and the measure

• Measure not notified (Art. 7 and Annex B)– Administrative procedures which set conditions for

import must be notified

22

Varietals – Main conclusions Varietals – Main conclusions

Measure not justified as provisional measure under Art. 5.7

• Japan did not seek more scientific evidence in order to do risk assessment

• Did not revise measure within “reasonable period of time”

23

Apples – Main conclusions Apples – Main conclusions

• Measure maintained without sufficient scientific evidence (Art. 2.2)– No evidence of transmission of fire blight via mature

apples– Right to take into account risks from human errors or

illegal actions

• Not justified as a provisional measure (Art. 5.7)– Sufficient scientific evidence exists to do risk

assessment– Scientific uncertainty does not justify measure under

Art. 5.7

24

Apples – Main conclusions Apples – Main conclusions

• Measure not based on risk assessment (Art. 5.1)– Risk assessment not specific to risk from imports

of mature apples – Did not take account possible risk mitigation

measures

25

Apples – implementation Apples – implementation

Measure not justified by scientific evidence

(Art. 2.2)

Measure not based on appropriate risk assessment (Art. 5.1)

More trade restrictive than necessary (Art. 5.6)

26

GMOsGMOs

Three claims by complainants:• General moratorium on GM products: GMOs

subject to prior approval but for 5 years, no decision on any application

• Product specific moratorium • EC member states’ safeguard measures -

some GMOs approved by EC but banned by certain EC member states

27

GMOs – Main conclusionsGMOs – Main conclusions

• Protection of biodiversity – under SPS• Food allergens – under SPS• SPS measure: approval procedure – but

existence of prior approval not challenged

Moratorium – found to exist -- application of measure – violation of Annex C

• No violation:

Art. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 7

28

GMOs – Main conclusionsGMOs – Main conclusions

Product Specific Measures• Panel examined 27 specific applications • Failure to complete individual approval

procedures without undue delay for 24 products• Violation: Article 8, Annex C (1) (a)• No violation: Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 7

29

GMOs – Main conclusionsGMOs – Main conclusions

EC member State bans

• Under SPS Agreement• Not based on risk assessments (Art. 5.1)• Sufficient scientific evidence -

(Art. 5.7 inapplicable)

30

GMOs – not consideredGMOs – not considered

• If biotech products pose risk to health or environment

• Right to have prior approval procedure• EC approval legislation• Conformity with Agreement on Technical

Barriers to Trade• If biotech products are “like” conventional

products

31

DISPUTE

Sci. justification ( 5.7) X (5.7) X (5.7) X (5.7)

Harmoniz. X

Risk Assess. X X X X

Consistency X X

Least trade restrictive

X X

Transparency X X

Annex C approvals

X

Not yet examined: equivalence, regionalization

32

Where to get more information? Where to get more information?

Dispute settlement gateway

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e.htm

Panel and Appellate Body report

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm

SPS gateway

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps/_e.htm