RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/SPS/W/59
6May1996
ORGANIZATION(96-1745)
Committee onSanitary andphytosanitary Measures
CONSISTENCY: ELABORATION OFGUIDELINES
Note bytheChairman
Atthemeeting oftheCommittee on15-16 November 1995, Iagreed toundertake informal
consultations regarding themostappropriate manner inwhich toadvance thework oftheCommittee
withregard totheelaboration ofguidelines tofurther theimplementation ofconsistency interms of
Article 5:5oftheAgreement. Tofocus these consultations, Iinvited Members toconsider anumber
ofquestions (G/SPS/W/45) andprovide responses asappropriate.
Onthebasisoftheseconsultations,Ibelievesomecommonlyacceptedelementsoftheguidelines
canalready beidentified. Other points which some Members havesuggested could beincluded in
theguidelines needfurther consideration.
Asagreed atthemeeting oftheCommittee on20-21 March 1996, thisissue willbeonthe
agenda ofthenextmeeting oftheCommittee tobeheldon29-30 May1996 forgeneral discussion.
Inaddition, Iamprepared toconduct further consultations withMembers whosowish. These Members
should soindicate totheSecretariat attheirearliest convenience (Mrs. G.Stanton, Office 1033, Tel:
41-22-739 5086).
Iwillbeavailable forconsultations inGeneva during thedays28-31 May(excluding, ofcourse,
thetimefortheCommittee meeting). Ifanydelegation sowishes, Iamprepared toconsider alsoother
places andtimes fortheconsultations.G/SPS/W/59
Page2
Report bytheChairman
1. Most Members consulted agreed thatiswasdesirable, ifnotimperative, fortheCommittee
toproceed rapidly withthedevelopment ofguidelines. However, itwasrecognized thattheguidelines
would, initially, needtoberather general andflexible. Some Members preferred tofocus firston
thedevelopment oftherelevant riskassessment procedures andthuspostpone theelaboration ofany
guidelines.
2. Most Members consulted agreed thatconsistency assuchisonlyanobjective, andthatthe
legalobligation istoavoid arbitrary orunjustifiable distinction inthelevels aMember considers to
beappropriateindifferentsituations,ifsuchdistinctionsresultindiscriminationoradisguisedrestriction
oninternational trade. Awidely heldviewwas,however, thatthequestion ofwhether ornotconsistency
isalegalobligation orobjective isnotdecisive. Ifgovernments arenotconsistent intheirdecisions
theyarelikely toviolate oneormore oftheirobligations under theAgreement.
3. Itseems tobeacommon understanding thatpromoting consistency isastep-by-step process.
Several Members thought thatatleastinitially thethree sectors, human, animal andplant, should be
treated separately andsome suggested tostartwithevenmore limited groups ofsimilar products or
risks. Others, however, thought thattheanimal andplant sectors could perhaps behandled jointly.
MostMembers noted thatattheoutset mostriskassessment maybequalitative andcould thengradually
bereplaced bymore quantitative methods.
4. AllMembers consulted stressed theimportance ofapplying consistent riskassessment
methodologies andprocedures within acountry, aswellastheurgent need todevelop andadopt
internationally agreed procedures.
5. FewoftheMembers consulted hadclearviews astowhat"relevant factors" should betaken
intoaccount indeveloping theguidelines, other thanthose already explicitly provided forelsewhere
intheAgreement (ie.,inArticles 2,5:2and5:3). Many considered thatitwasnotnecessary totry
to"list" anysuchfactors, andthatmostunusual concerns (ie.,endangered species) should adequately
betaken intoconsideration intheriskassessment process itself. Forafirstversion oftheguidelines,
thismaybethemost pragmatic approach.
6. Withregard toaddressing "voluntary exposure torisks", many Members thought thatthiswould
inpractice bearather limited exception andprobably havelittletradeimpact. Some Members suggested
thatforafirstapproximation oftheguidelines, itmight besufficient tonotethatinorder toqualify
under thisprovision theconsumers should beaware ofthehigher riskinvolved, andthattheproducts
concerned could bereplaced byproducts withanormal risk. Anydeviations fromconsistency should
beclearly defined andappropriately motivated.
7. Ontherelation between theprovisions ofparagraph 5ofArticle 5andthose inparagraphs 3:1,
3:2and3:3theMembers consulted haddiffering views. Some considered thatpreference should be
given totheapplication ofinternational standards, andthattheprovisions ofconsistency wererelevant
onlyintheabsence ofinternational standards. Others were oftheopinion thatapplication evenof
aninternational standard should beconsistent withtheappropriate levelofprotection established by
thecountry concerned. Most seem toagree, however, thatfromthelegalpoint ofview, bothoptions
areequally justified.
Paragraph 5:4wasnotconsidered asrelevant inthisconnection.G/SPS/W/59
Page3
8. Asonhowtoassess whether aMember hasachieved ornotachieved asufficient degree of
consistency, most Members consulted considered anygeneral guidelines hereaspremature oreven
unnecessary.
9. Onthebasisoftheconsultations, itappears thatatthisstage proposed guidelines should focus
primarily ontheprocedures tobefollowed bygovernments inriskassessment andinthesubsequent
decisions, withtheexpectation thattheapplication ofacoherent internal process willreduce potential
inconsistencies inthedecisions taken. Such guidelines might, forexample, include thefollowing
elements:
- Governments should beencouraged tohaveclearly established andtransparent risk
assessment procedures (whether qualitative orquantitative) foreachsector (human,
animal andplant health) which setoutthefactors tobeexamined intheassessment
ofthebiological risksandtheevaluation oftheeconomic consequences (foranimal
andplant health). Similar procedures should, whenever feasible, beusedforallrisk
assessments within thesector -orselection ofadifferent riskassessment methodology
should bejustifiable (ie.,duetolackofdata,oruseofamoresophisticated methodology
oflimited application, etc.).
- Information onthegeneral riskassessment procedures used, andontheresults ofthese
inspecific situations, should beexchanged among thegovernment agencies responsible
forriskassessment inthedifferent sectors, withtheobjective ofmaking theprocedures
usedinthedifferent sectors gradually more similar.
- Proposeddecisionsonappropriatelevelsofprotectionshouldbecomparedwithprevious
decisions taken within thesamesector, oratleastforsimilar risksorsimilar products.
Comparison oftheproposed decision withtherelevant international standard, orwith
decisions taken bytrading partners facing similar risksituations, could beuseful.
10. TheCommittee should clearly recognize thatanyguidelines which itadopts willneedtobe
periodically reviewed andrevised asnecessary inlightofexperience gained through theimplementation
oftheAgreement andoftheguidelines. Inparticular, asthedevelopment ofriskassessment
methodologiesbytheinternationalorganizationsproceeds,itmaybepossibletostrengthentheguidelines
bymaking reference tothese -orevenbyrecommending thatgovernments usetheinternationally
developedmethodologieswheneverpossible.Likewise,shouldanumberofdisputesorpotentialdisputes
arisewhere thequestion ofconsistency insetting theappropriate levelofprotection isafactor, the
Committee mayneedtoexamine thepossibility ofdeveloping more detailed guidelines toaddress some
oftheapparent problems.