RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/SPS/W/5
2May1995
ORGANIZATION(95-1129)
Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures Original: English
NOTES ONCONSISTENCY INRISK MANAGEMENT
Thefollowing notes were prepared bythedelegation ofAustralia ,attherequest ofthe
Secretariat, tofacilitate discussion ofthisissueatthemeeting oftheCommittee on29-30 March 1995.
_______________
Background
1. Article5.5oftheAgreementontheApplicationofSanitaryandPhytosanitaryMeasuresrequires
asfollows:
"With theobjective ofachieving consistency intheapplication oftheconcept ofappropriate
levelofsanitary andphytosanitary protection against riskstohuman lifeorhealth, ortoanimal
andplant lifeorhealth, eachMember shallavoid arbitrary orunjustifiable distinctions inthe
levels itconsiders tobeappropriate indifferent situations, ifsuch distinctions result in
discrimination oradisguised restriction oninternational trade. Members shallcooperate, in
accordancewithparagraphs1,2and3ofArticle12,todevelopguidelinestofurtherthepractical
implementation ofthisprovision. Indeveloping theguidelines, theCommittee shalltakeinto
account allrelevant factors, including theexceptional character ofhuman health riskstowhich
people voluntarily expose themselves."
2. EssentiallyArticle5.5meansthatthesanitaryandphytosanitarymeasureswhichaWTOMember
adopts should reflect aconsistent approach tothemanagement ofassessed risks. Theassessment of
risksisrequired byArticle 5.1:
"Members shallensure thattheirsanitary orphytosanitary measures arebased onanassessment,
asappropriate tothecircumstances, oftheriskstohuman, animal orplant lifeorhealth ..."
Issues forconsideration
3. TheSPSAgreement envisages thatthemeasures putintoplace andmaintained byaMember
willeither bebased oninternational standards, guidelines orrecommendations ortheymustbebased
onriskassessment andaconsistent approach tomanagement ofassessed risks. Themanagement of
assessed riskswillgenerally taketheformofsetting astandard orapplying some other measure which
willensure thattheMember 'sappropriate levelofsanitary orphytosanitary protection isachieved.
4. Itisclearthatthetestofconsistency inriskmanagement plays acrucial roleinensuring that
SPSmeasures arenotusedasarbitrary orunjustified barriers totrade. Ifsuchconsistency werenot
required, itwould beopentoaMember toarbitrarily establish theappropriate levelofprotection in
anindividual instance, soastoprotect adomestic industry against import competition whenever there
isassessed tobeapest,disease orother risk,however small, associated withtheimported product.G/SPS/W/5
Page2
5. Consequently there aretwomain issues forconsideration:
(i) What methods andprocedures canbeadopted byMembers toensure (oratleastto
assist) theirachievement oftheobjective ofconsistency inriskmanagement?
(ii) What criteria ortestscanbeapplied exposttoindicate whether consistency hasbeen
achieved?
Examination ofthese issues should leadtosome suggestions onhowguidelines might bedeveloped
asanticipated inArticle 5.5.
Approaches atthenational level
6. Various means could beusedbyaMember topromote consistency initsmanagement ofsanitary
orphytosanitary risk.
7. Firstly, therelevant authorities oftheMember government could define andpublish general
statementsconcerningthepolicyobjectivesoftheMember'ssanitaryorphytosanitarymeasures.Usually
suchstatements willbequalitative rather thanquantitative, butnevertheless theycanserve toguide
theconsistent implementation ofpolicy overtimewhile alsoincreasing thetransparency ofthe
sanitary/phytosanitary régime toother countries.
8. Secondly, theMember 'sauthorities could adopt astandard approach toriskassessment. The
standard approach would involve systematically working through adefined series ofstepswhich would
cover, interalia,thespecific matters mentioned inparagraphs 5.2and5.3oftheSPSAgreement.
Ideally themethodology forriskassessment adopted byaMember should parallel themethodology
usedand/or recommended byrelevant international standard-setting organizations, butitwould not
benecessary forallMembers tousethesame methodology. Forcertain kinds ofassessment itmay
bepossible tousequantitative methods, which would assist consistency intheestablishment ofmeasures.
9. TheusebyaMember ofastandard approach toriskassessment would allow thepresentation
ofresults andadvice totheriskmanagement decision makers inaconsistent manner.
10. Thirdly, aMember could establish mechanisms toensure thatthere isahighdegree of
consultation andcoordination between those making riskmanagement decisions orrecommendations
inthedifferent fields ofsanitary/phytosanitary control, forexample, asbetween theauthorities
responsible foranimal quarantine andthose responsible forplantquarantine, tofacilitate aconsistent
approach.
11. Fourthly, itcould behelpful foraMember toestablish aprotocol forthemaking ofrisk
management decisions which required, interalia,consideration ofwhether theproposed decision was
consistent withprevious decisions toestablish measures, particularly those measures most directly
comparable. Itmight alsobehelpful fortherelevant authorities toconsider whattheauthorities of
other countries haddecided todotomanage similar risksinsimilar circumstances -forexample, in
establishing aquarantine measure toaddress riskscreated bytheoutbreak ofananimal disease ofmajor
significance inacountry which traded relevant products toanumber ofother countries.
12. Fifthly, aMember might choose toestablish asource ofindependent expert advice onthe
application ofSPSmeasures whose mandate would include commenting ontheconsistency ofrisk
management asreflected inmeasures.G/SPS/W/5
Page3
13. Finally, aMember could establish amechanism forensuring thatmeasures already inplace
arereviewed bytheresponsible authorities atappropriate intervals andadjusted iftheyreflect risk
management which isnolonger inaccordance withthenational norm.
Approaches attheinternational level
14. AlthoughalloftheMembersoftheWTOhavetheobligationofmanagingsanitary/phytosanitary
risks inaconsistent way, itmayonoccasion occur thatoneMember maynotbesatisfied thatthis
obligation hasbeenfullymetbyanother Member, inrespect ofaparticular measure. Inthefirstinstance
theMember whoisnotsatisfied mayseekanexplanation ofthereasons forthemeasure, inaccordance
withparagraph 5.8oftheSPSAgreement. Ultimately theMember maychoose toresort totheformal
WTO procedures forconsultation anddispute settlement. Thekeyquestion ishowitmaybedetermined
insuchcircumstances whether there hasbeeninconsistency inthemanagement ofrisk.
15. Theperception ofinconsistency mayarisebecause, forexample, aMember mayhavechosen
tobasesome ofitsmeasures inaparticular field(such astolerances forpesticide residues infoodstuffs)
onrelevant international standards, buttouseamore conservative measure (i.e.atolerance lessthan
therelevant Codex standard) inacertain instance. Another example might bewhere aMember has
adopted amuch more restrictive attitude thanother Members totrade inacommodity withwhich a
certainanimaldiseaseriskisassociated,eventhoughtheMember'sanimalquarantinerégimeisordinarily
inaccordance withother, likecountries 'régimes.
16. Even ifthere isnocomparison which canbedrawn withinternational standards orwiththe
practices ofthirdcountries, anexporting Member mayfeelthatthemeasure applied byanimporting
Member withrespect toaparticular commodity which could betraded between thetwoparties isunduly
restrictive initsapproach tocontrolling assessed SPSriskbycomparison withtheapproach taken by
theimporting Member inrespect ofother commodities intrade between thetwoparties.
17. Inthecaseofanyofthese examples theMember maybeabletopoint tospecific reasons why
ithasadopted itsmeasures. These explanations maydemonstrate thattheperceived inconsistency is
attributabletofactorsotherthantheriskmanagementdecision.Suchfactorscouldincludetheavailability
ofnewscientific evidence about thenature orextent oftheSPSriskinvolved, orsome specific aspect
ofthesituation intheimporting country.
18. Ifexplanation along these lines cannot beprovided, itisconceivable thataWTO dispute
settlement panel mayultimately havetoadjudicate onwhether thereisstrong evidence ofinconsistency
ofriskmanagement, contrary totheprovisions ofArticle 5oftheSPSAgreement. Several ofthe
testswhich might beapplied byapanel areforeshadowed inthepreceding paragraphs.
Other issues
19. Oneother matter which needs tobeaddressed inassociation withthetopic ofconsistency in
riskmanagement ishowtheburden ofproof isdistributed between theparties toadisagreement. This
paper hasnotaddressed thatissue.
20. Norhasthepaper addressed howtotakeintoaccount "theexceptional character ofhuman
health riskstowhich people voluntarily expose themselves". Inthiscontext itwillalsoberelevant
toconsider whether, andhow, consistency isachievable between themanagement ofriskstohuman
health andthemanagement ofriskstoanimal andplant lifeorhealth.G/SPS/W/5
Page4
Recommendations
21. Itissuggested thattheCommittee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures might:
(i) Consider anddiscuss theissues raised inrelation totheimplementation ofparagraph 5.5
oftheAgreement;
(ii) Identify those aspects ofthetopic onwhich further work isrequired;
(iii) Decide howthatwork istobecarried out.