WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/450
31 October 2003
(03-5798)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
THAILAND'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS UNDER
THE SPS AGREEMENT1
Communication from Anut Visetrojana2
International Framework
1. As a Member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Thailand must comply with the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "SPS Agreement").
2. All SPS measures which may, directly or indirectly, affect international trade shall be
developed and applied in accordance with the provision of the SPS Agreement as provided for underArticle 1.
3. Under Article 2, WTO Members have the right to impose SPS measures necessary for the
protection of human, animal or plant life or health.  The exercise of this right is, however, constrained
by the obligation to ensure that SPS measures do not create arbitrary or unjustified barriers to trade.
Specifically, measures put in place by a Member must be based, under Article 3, either on relevantinternational standards, guidelines or recommenda tions set out, in particular, by Codex, OIE and
IPPC, or if Members introduce measures that provide higher levels of protection than would otherwise
be achieved by measures based on international standards, upon a scientific justification.  Having
determined an appropriate measure at a higher level of protection, Members shall ensure under
Article 5 that their SPS measures are based on risk assessment.
4. Even though WTO Members are obliged to exercise their basic right in compliance with the
relevant provisions mentioned above, negative effects on international trade are foreseeable.  In orderto further minimize negative trade effects, the obligations on transparency under Article 7 require
Members to notify changes in, and provide information on, their SPS measures.  In this regard, each
Member shall designate a single National Notification Authority for implementation in accordance
with the procedures as well as a National Enquiry Point to respond to all reasonable enquiries from
interested Members as provided for in Annex B of the SPS Agreement.
Establishment of National Notification and Enquiry Point
5. Since the SPS Agreement entered into force with the establishment of the WTO on
1 January 1995, Thailand has adopted a policy of a single authority responsible for both the SPS
Notification Authority and Enquiry Point.  From the first day of its implementation, Thailand'sauthority responsible for TBT matters has also been in charge of SPS Enquiry Point, namely, the
Thailand Industrial Standard Institute (TISI) under the Ministry of Industry (MOI).  When Thailand
was launching the Government's comprehensive restructuring programme in 2002, the SPS Enquiry
                                                     
1 Presentation at the Special Meeting of the SP S Committee on the Operation of Enquiry Points,
Geneva, Switzerland, 31 October 2003.
2 Delegation from the National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards, Thailand.G/SPS/GEN/450
Page 2
Point was then transferred to the National Bure au of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards
(ACFS), which was newly established under the Mi nistry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC).
The ACFS was also mandated as a national Enquiry Point for the three sisters organization of
international standards - Codex, OIE and IPPC.  This development aims to consolidate and strengthen
the work on agricultural and food standards and control measures among the various agenciesconsistent with international standards, so as  to ensure the commitment to, and execution of,
Thailand's rights and obligations as regards the relevant international agreements and related bodies
pertaining to the development of agricultural and food standards and trade related issues.
1. Regulatory Bodies
6. The National Committee for Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards was established
following the Cabinet Resolution when the Government launched its restructuring programme.  ThisCommittee comprises representatives from different law-enforcing authorities related to agricultural
and food standards and SPS-related issues.  These laws and regulations under the supervision of the
Committee are, in particular, but not limited to:
1. Food Act BE 2522 (1979)
2. Animal Epidemic Act BE 2499(1956)  amended BE 2542 (1999)
3. Plant Quarantine Act BE 2507 (1964) amended BE 2542 (1999)
4. Animal Feed Control Act BE 2525 (1972) amended BE 2542 (1999)
5. Hazardous Substance Act BE 2535 (1992)
6. Fertilizer Act BE 2518 (1975)
7. Plant Variety Act BE 2518 (1975) amended BE 2525 (1992)
7. The ACFS is designated as a secretariat of the National Committee working in coordination
with policy divisions and law enforcement of the various agencies relating to SPS matters, as well as
the operation of the National Notification Authority and Enquiry Point.
2. Operation of Notification Authority and Enquiry Point
8. The function of Thailand's Notification Authority and Enquiry Point are as follows:
(a) notify to WTO proposed SPS/TBT measures relating to agricultural and food
standards once issued by relevant authorities of Thailand.
(b) contact relevant authorities in order to reply to queries from other countries,
including replying to Members who provide comments.
(c) monitor notifications through the WTO website on a daily basis and
preliminarily evaluate if the measures notified affect Thailand and, if so,
forward such notifications to stakeholders within the country for further
comments.
(d) contact enquiry points of other countries for full texts and relevant documents
if requested by domestic stakeholders and submit Thailand's comments on
such notifications.
(e) set up an inventory of texts and related information of notified SPS/TBT
measures for further reference.
(f) provide all other correspondence both inside and outside the country.G/SPS/GEN/450
Page 3
9. In order to carry out all above functions more effectively, ACFS has assigned both scientific
and technical staff to supervise and operate related functions under the focal points and has also
installed a communication system, i.e. telephone, facsimile, and computerized systems at the focal
unit.
10. This infrastructure contributes to a more efficient daily operation of the focal unit;  the
computerized system can link up with sources of information from all over the world, most
importantly, information available on the WTO website as well as the WTO Members' website.
Difficulties
11. The difficulties that Thailand has experienced so far in implementing the transparency
provisions can be identified as follows:
1. Participation in the Notification Process of WTO Members
12. Since Thailand is a major exporting country of agricultural and food products, we have to
monitor and review all notified SPS measures from WTO Members.  It is, therefore very important
for us to indicate if the notified measures will negatively affect our trade and to submit our comments
accordingly.  We strongly believe this is also a major concern of other exporting developing countries.But we are constrained to participate in the notification process.  There are two possible factors
inhibiting such participation :
(i) Short Comment Period  - 60 days is the recommended period for submitting any
comments.  It is often difficult for countries affected by measures to comment, in
particular developing countries, due to:
(a) the actual comment period is often less than 60 days.(b) the large number of notifications being circulated each day/week which
require different levels of expertise in reviewing both the justification of themeasures, as well as the negative effect on export products.  Developing countries can
hardly afford such diverse expertise.
(ii) Limitation of Scientific Information  - Thailand would like to focus on SPS
measures imposed by Members which provide a higher level of protection than would
be achieved by international standards, or where an international standard does not
exist.
Based on our experience, the scientific information provided to support these
measures is very limited and, in some cases, both the scientific and technical
clarification from countries is also limited.  It is, therefore, burdensome for Thailand
to provide comments in a very short period of time, as compared to the long periodrequired to complete a scientific risk assessment.G/SPS/GEN/450
Page 4
2. Capacity to establish Appropriate Level of SPS Protection
13. Thailand, like other developing countries, is very much dependent on international standards,
guidelines and recommendations as references to establishing its own SPS protection.  It is also aware
that the development of international standards is moving at a very slow pace as compared to the
growing trade volume, as well as related food safety concerns.  In particular, risk assessment and risk
management are not adequately established by international standards bodies to help capacity building
of developing countries so as to establish an appropriate level of SPS protection.
Recommendations
14. SPS measures, by their nature, may result in restriction on trade.  All Members accept the fact
that some trade restriction may be necessary to ensure SPS protection.  But SPS restrictions which arenot actually required for health reasons can be a very effective projectionist device and, because of
their technical complexity, a particularly deceptive and difficult barrier to challenge.  In this regard,
Thailand is of the view that building up comparative advantage of both importing and exporting
countries could minimize the negative effect on trade, in particular, the effective implementation of
transparency provisions under SPS Agreement.  Therefore, Thailand would like to provide theappropriate recommendation as follows:
1. Domestic Area
- Establish a communication system within the focal point and the country network, in
particular, a computerized system which would encourage more effectiveparticipation of developing Members in the notification process.
- Encourage networking among stakeholders as well as building their awareness for
their greater contribution in  providing scie ntific evidence and assessing the impact on
trade caused by the notified measures.
- Encourage and support more scientific works by the government in the areas of food
safety, animals and plant health to strengthen the capacity to establish appropriate
level of SPS protection based on scientific justification.
2. International Cooperation
- Capacity building on risk assessment is urgently needed by developing countries.
This could be provided as technical assistance from developed Members or from the
international standard setting agencies, i.e. Codex, OIE, and IPPC.
- Continued support to developing Members on scientific research by developed
Members in the areas of food safety, animal and plant health should be deemed a
priority in terms of both relevant expertise required and available funding.
- If risk assessment is to be involved in any proposed measures which are likely to
affect developing countries, it should be identified and notified at an early stage of therisk assessment process so to encourage the developing countries' participation in
providing comments.
__________