Review on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement

List Of Abbreviations

APHRD           Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Directorate

BSE               Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

CBD              Conventional on Biological Diversity

CBPP            Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia

FAO               Food and Agriculture Organization

FMD               Foot and Mouth Disease

GATT              General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

IPPC              International Plant Protection Convection

ISVEE            International Symposium of Veterinary Epidemiology

LDCs             Least Developed Countries

LSD               Lumpy Skin Disease

MoARD          Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

NTBs              Non-Tariff Barriers

OIE                 Office International des Epizooties

RVF                Rift Valley Fever

SPS                Sanitary and Phytosanitary

STDF             Standards and Trade Development Facility

WHO              World Health Organization

WTO               World Trade Organization

Introduction

Food export markets present a somewhat different set of challeng¬es from domestic food safety regulation. Exports of fresh food products such as meat, fish, fruit and vegetables represent a growth opportunity because these products have a high-income elasticity of demand and fewer trade barriers than traditional agricultural exports. Fresh food products are more likely to encounter sanitary and phytosanitary barrier to trade. Delivering safe food to distant markets requires process controls throughout the production pro¬cess and mechanism to certify to buyers that such controls are ef¬fective. Food safety is one of the protective aspects that assuring the condition being safe from any harmful to the consumer when it is prepared and consumed according to its intended use. The food safety has great role in public health and also on international trade [1].

Effective food safety systems are vital to maintain consumer con¬fidence in the food system and to provide a sound regulatory foun¬dation for domestic and international trade in food, which supports economic development. In the last decade, large efforts have been made on the global level towards development and implementa¬tion of food safety management systems to assure food safety in the agri-food chain. This is demonstrated by multiple Codex Ali¬mentarius guidelines and for example in European Union, illus¬trated by the introduction of the General Food Law [2]. However, ensuring food safety to protect public health remains a significant challenge in developing and developed countries even one third of the population of developed countries is affected by food borne diseases and these challenges is likely to be even more widespread in developing countries [3,4]. Food safety challenges differ by region, due to differences in income level, diets, local conditions, and government infrastructures. Here are some trends prevalent in both developed and developing countries that can increase food safety challenges [5].

International trade allows for the rapid transfer of microorganisms and introduction of new and unfamiliar food borne hazard from one country to another. The increased time between processing and consumption of food due to long distance international trav-els leads to additional opportunities for contamination, time or temperature abuse, and increasing the risk of food borne illness [6]. The world livestock and livestock products trade are influ-enced significantly by sanitary and health restrictions imposed by importing countries. Thus, countries are forced to apply stricter measures so that animals and their products exported should meet international sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement require¬ment of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This requires put¬ting in place adequate biosecurity practices. However, due to lack of biocontainment, awareness of the actors and poor biosecurity measures in feedlots, those feedlots are venerable for the intro¬duction and spread of transboundary animal diseases. Due to this fact export-oriented feedlots are repeatedly challenged by trans-boundary animal diseases such as foot and mouth disease (FMD), lumpy skin disease (LSD) and contagious bovine pleuropneumo¬nia (CBPP) [6-8].

The establishment of the WTO and the coming into force of the Agreement on the application of SPS Agreement has a significant impact on international trade in livestock and livestock products. The ultimate sanction is to impose a partial or total ban on imports from countries that fail to meet the required SPS standards. SPS policies are guided by international standards, such as those rec¬ommended by the Office International des Epizooties (OIE). Gen¬erally, the health and hygiene standards adopted by organizations like the OIE are substantially higher than those of the developing countries. Although such controls in the importing countries may reflect legitimate concerns regarding food quality and safety, and protection of animal and human health, the high costs of compli¬ance may prove prohibitive for countries like Ethiopia [9]. Esthete and Abraham, The SPS agreement permits countries to take legiti¬mate measures to protect the life and health of consumers, animals and plants provided such measures can be justified scientifically and do not unnecessarily impede trade [10].

SPS agreement of 1994 provides a framework for resolving dis¬putes about SPS measures under the WTO. There is evidence that this agreement has stimulated activity to reduce SPS barrier to trade, but there remains significant disagreement at the interna¬tional level over the role of science and consumer choice in reg¬ulating risk. The SPS Agreement specifically empowers the OIE as the organization responsible to draft international standards for animal health. The renewed importance conferred by the SPS Agreement on the OIE has spurred the interest of countries across the globe; in 1989, 114 countries were members and by December 1999 membership had reached 155 countries [11]. In Ethiopia, a new Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Directorate (APHRD), under the MoARD, has been mandated to regulate, monitor and control SPS standards for plants, animals and their derivatives at the federal level [12]. The new Directorate will have two separate divisions/departments to handle animals and plants. The organi-zational structure of the Directorate is currently under formation [13]. Poor animal health services coupled with the sporadic out-break of economically important diseases (RVF and FMD) remain major constraints for the marketing of livestock and meat from the Horn in general. Over the last thirty years, available evidence in¬dicates that the allocation of resources for the livestock subsector has been decreasing both in absolute and proportional terms [14]. Therefore, the main objective of this manuscript is to overview the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement.

Literature Review

Concepts of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement

The SPS agreement, which was negotiated during the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Traffic and Trade (GATT), came into force with the foundation of the World Trade Organiza¬tion (WTO) in 1995. The SPS agreement was primarily concerned with food safety and animal and plant health regulation, as well as health and international trade in general. In the last 50 years, international trade and tourism have grown dramatically. This has resulted in an upsurge in the transportation of potentially harmful products. The SPS Agreement recognizes the necessity for WTO members to defend themselves from the risks posed by pests and illnesses entering their countries, while simultaneously attempting to minimize any negative consequences of SPS trade restrictions [15]. The World Trade Organization (WTO) emerged from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and was founded in 1947 as an international platform to promote free trade between its 151 member states. The Agreement on the Application of San¬itary and Phytosanitary Measures, which contained a requirement that quarantine limitations have a scientific foundation, was one of the outcomes of the 1986-1994 Uruguay Round of GATT ne-gotiations. This became known as the SPS Agreement, and it has had a significant impact on the application of phytosanitary trade restrictions [16].

The SPS Agreement establishes a set of ground rules for trade measures to protect human, animal, or plant health, with the goal of ensuring that such measures do not generate unfair trade barri¬ers. This agreement addresses a sensitive area of regulation, broad¬ly speaking, measures to safeguard human, animal, or plant health from food-borne risks or risks from plant or animal pests and illnesses that may harm international trade directly or indirectly. Because traded items, particularly in the food and agricultural sec¬tors, might introduce dangers to human, animal, and plant health in the importing country, governments frequently regulate to protect against these risks, which are referred to as SPS concerns. Even if such rules are not employed for protectionist motives, they are likely to operate as barriers to market access for the exporting country. This is because SPS regulations may be designed or ad¬ministered in an overly trade-restrictive manner, imposing unjusti¬fied restrictions on food and agricultural exports [17].

SPS agreements comprise transparency, equivalence, risk assess-ment, harmonization, regionalization, the role of national sover- eignty, and dispute settlement [18]. The SPS Agreement defines harmonization as the creation, recognition, and application of common sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and it encourages countries to actively participate in the development of internation¬al standards through relevant international bodies. However, the agreement recognizes that different measures may achieve the ap-propriate level of protection deemed by the importing country and allows the establishment of bilateral and multilateral agreements on the recognition of equivalence of specified measures, which is enshrined in the concept of equivalence. All changes to SPS im¬plementation should be publicized and made available to the WTO and trading partners, guaranteeing openness [19].

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

SPS measures are classified as sanitary for human and animal life and phytosanitary for plant life and health by WTO members. The WTO members' agreement establishes the essential guidelines for food safety as well as animal and plant health standards. The applicability of SPS measures should not be based on arbitrary distinctions between nations with similar conditions. The GATT's main goal had always been to cut tariffs, and the deal that preceded the SPS agreement was a huge failure to tackle the difficulties, resulting in the creation of a new independent agreement or con¬cept known as the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. The SPS agreement was an ambitious attempt to deal with the NTBs that arose from the cross-national differences in technical standards without diminishing governments' prerogative to implement mea-sures to guard against diseases and pests [20].

SPS measures may be related to product criteria, processes and production methods, testing, inspection, certification approval pro¬cedures, quarantine treatments, animal transport, packaging and labelling requirements, which are directly related to food safety [21]. According to the SPS Agreement, an SPS measure is any measure taken to protect animal or plant life or health within the territory from risks posed by pests, diseases, disease-carrying or¬ganisms, or disease-causing organisms; to protect human or an¬imal life or health within the territory of the member from risks posed by additives, contaminants, toxins, or disease-causing or-ganisms in foods, beverages, or feedstuffs; or to protect human or animal life or health within the territory of the member from contaminations [21,22].

Phytosanitary measures apply to pests that have been quarantined or are not quarantined, as well as pests that have been legislatively classified, nominated, or gazetted. If commerce is to be allowed to flow, the influence of phytosanitary controls on trade must be man¬aged. Regular pest management strategies can be used, as well as novel ones, to allow quarantine restrictions to act as a filter for un-desired pest organisms. These measures can come from a variety of places and can be applied to both the pre-harvest and post-har-vest stages of crop production. Over the last three centuries, phy¬tosanitary practices have become a more significant component of pest management in the production and selling of agricultural commodities. Through migration, commerce, and travel, man has boosted the natural distribution of commercial crop plants and oth¬ers since antiquity. Many linked plant pests' distribution patterns are similar to old land and marine travel and commerce routes [23]. Some pest plants are now cosmopolitan in their distribution, while others have yet to reach their full dispersal potential for one reason or another. Phytosanitary measures can be a cost-effective component of holistic pest management in that some pest plants are now cosmopolitan in their distribution, while others have yet to reach their full dispersal potential for one reason or another. Although phytosanitary barriers cannot guarantee that a pest will not enter, risk management can limit the likelihood of entry and establishment to acceptable levels [24,25].

The Sps Committee

The SPS Committee was formed to oversee the Agreement's im-plementation and to offer a venue for discussion of any trade issues relating to SPS measures (Article 12). The SPS Committee, like other WTO bodies, allows all WTO members to participate in its work and decision-making. The SPS Committee is a WTO-creat-ed special committee that oversees the implementation of the SPS Agreement. It considers compliance and assesses the impact on trade. It is primarily a forum for member countries to exchange in¬formation on SPS Sham and Narayana Kumar, [26]. Codex, OIE, and IPPC, as well as a number of other international and regional intergovernmental organizations involved in food safety, animal health, and plant protection, have been admitted as observers by the SPS Committee. The CBD Secretariat is presently consider¬ing a request for observer status. The SPS Committee meets three times a year, generally at the World Trade Organization's head¬quarters in Geneva. The SPS Committee reviews virtually all of the provisions of the Agreement at its meetings, in addition to considering specific trade concerns raised by governments, with standing agenda items on monitoring the use of international stan¬dards, transparency, equivalence, regionalization, technical assis¬tance, and special and differential treatment [27].

If indeed the SPS agreement is maintained, developing nations should think about three things as they prepare to participate: First, the function of codex, OIE, and IPPC in establishing internation-ally recognized standards. Many developing countries lack the fi-nancial and technical resources to participate in these international organizations, and it is unclear whether their concerns are always considered. The second concern is the increasing use of process standards for food safety, which makes determining equivalence between countries challenging. Through establishing specified processes from specific countries, equivalent can be established. On a case-by-case basis, it must be determined whether hazards are indeed different for commodities produced in developing coun¬tries. Developing countries must engage in Codex's current talks on risk assessment and equivalence determination to avoid being held to a de facto higher standard. The final question is whether a domestic food safety regulatory framework is becoming a re¬quirement for trade participation. Although some elements of the food safety system are required, developing nations should fight the trend of importing them Scott, [28,29].

The Committee reviews compliance with the agreement, exam¬ines issues having potential trade implications, and works closely with competent technical groups. The Committee also oversees the progress of worldwide harmonization of measures and coordinates efforts in this regard with appropriate organizations under the SPS Agreement. The SPS Committee has established a legal process to protect developing country interests by examining how proposed or finalized SPS policies affect LDCs. The market, WTO legisla¬tion, and development issues are all discussed by the SPS commit¬tee. The private sector can assist suppliers in improving product quality and gaining and maintaining access to high-quality mar¬kets. Other members claim that private standards can be more spe¬cific (requiring lower pesticide residue levels) more prospective (accepting one method of obtaining a certain food safety outcome) than government import restrictions. Many members have raised worry about the price of meeting private standards, as well as the added cost of obtaining a certificate for small-scale producers in underdeveloped nations. The SPS agreement holds importing na-tions' governments accountable for the standards specified in the agreement's scope and set by their private sectors [30].

The Agreement established a committee (hereafter referred to as the SPS Committee) to act as a regular platform for member con¬sultations on food safety and trade-related animal and plant health issues. It convenes regular sessions in Geneva three times a year on average, and may convene informal or special meetings and seminars as needed. The Committee's efforts are aimed at advanc¬ing the implementation of the Agreement's provisions, particularly by supporting standard harmonization. Regular observers include representatives from relevant standard-setting bodies. Members' submissions and declarations on their relevant regulatory process¬es, their use of risk assessment in developing SPS measures, and their status regarding the transmission of illnesses such as BSE, FMD, or fruit flies are all considered by the Committee. Delegates from member nations have the chance to discuss questions and concerns about the implementation of the SPS disciplines during SPS meetings. Effective channels of communication must be es-tablished between the Geneva-based delegation and the govern¬ment's regulatory authorities, who, on their part, must also ensure the efficient gathering, analysis, and transmission of relevant infor¬mation between and among local producers and exporters, as well as national/regional food safety.

Key Provisions of the Sps Agreement

The SPS agreement is a brief document with 14 articles and three appendices. Despite its brevity, it has had far-reaching implica¬tions for veterinary services all around the world. This part exam¬ines the agreement's text, underlining its ramifications and con¬sequences, and underlines epidemiology's role in implementing the agreement's important provisions. The SPS Agreement was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and it became effective when the World Trade Organization was established in 1995. There are 14 articles in all, as well as numerous appendices [31].

General Provisions

The agreement covers all sanitary and phytosanitary regulations that have an impact on international trade. If substantiated by sci¬entific data, sanitary and phytosanitary regulations are solid justi¬fications that can be used to regulate international trade. Because of the accord, SPS regulations are now at the forefront of interna¬tional farm trade negotiations. Veterinary and plant health services have become increasingly important in international trade. Veter¬inary services, on the other hand, must thoroughly appreciate the implications of the SPS agreement and alter their organizational structures and operations to comply with the SPS agreement's ob¬ligations in order to engage successfully in international trade [32].

Basic Rights and Obligations

Article 2 of the SPS Agreement requires technical standards be based upon sufficient scientific evidence and that there be a ratio¬nal and objective relationship between the standard and the sci¬ence. Countries have the right to preserve human, animal, and plant health if the measures taken are scientifically sound and non-discriminatory. Countries can request sanitary measures for diseases that are exotic on their territory or diseases that are un-der government control, but only if the desired measures are also implemented internally in the latter instance. Countries are expect-ed to identify their animal health status based on accurate disease reporting and surveillance in order to create a scientifically based list of their imported animal diseases and declare which diseases are under an official control program in order to implement SPS measures. The World Health Organization (OIE) recently released guidelines for recognizing historical disease freedom, laying out basic criteria by which countries can declare disease freedom from diseases that have never occurred or have ceased to exist with¬out having to conduct extensive, active surveillance. Similarly, the OIE code includes standards for recognizing disease freedom for a limited number of disorders [33].

Most diseases, on the other hand, still lack guidelines for deter-mining disease independence after they have been eradicated. Each country's implementation of SPS measures is expected to be guided by its own set of rules and regulations. This influence has been positive, and it has aided in the development of standards and rules. It has also aided in the formalization of national and region¬al disease control activities. On the other side, several countries still need to develop a systematic, transparent, and open-to-public-comment regulation drafting process [34].

Harmonization

The establishment, recognition, and application of common sani-tary and phytosanitary measures are referred to as harmonization. Article 3 calls for WTO members to harmonize SPS standards and requirements by basing national standards on international ones,such as the Codex Alimentarius for food safety, the Internation¬al Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for plant health, and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) for animal health. Countries may implement SPS measures that are stricter than in¬ternational norms if they are scientifically justified and based on a risk assessment. Despite the fact that membership in the reference international organizations is not required, the SPS agreement has resulted in an increase in the number of nations that are members of and actively participate in these organizations. In the case of the OIE, this has resulted in a steady expansion in membership, which today stands at 166 countries [35]. OIE membership is not mandatory for all WTO members (and vice versa). Although OIE membership fees are reasonable, they represent a significant por¬tion of the veterinary services budget for some smaller developing nations, and as a result, these countries are unable to participate in the process of creating standards that they will be required to follow. International or regional organizations have helped some countries pay for their membership. Veterinary epidemiologists are increasingly being asked to contribute to the creation of inter¬national standards. In collaboration of the Scientific Commission, the OIE recently formed an epidemiology group. One of the first responsibilities assigned to this committee is to improve surveil¬lance guidelines and recognize disease freedom [36].

Equivalence

Equivalence means that alternative procedures can be consid¬ered as long as they produce equivalent outcomes. Under Arti¬cle 4, when an exporting member produces a product that meets the importing member’s required level of protection but does so under different regulations or required procedures, the importing member is encouraged to recognize the exporting member’s pro¬cedures as equivalent and accept the product. Exporting countries must defend the procedures' scientific foundations and objective¬ly demonstrate that they meet the importing country's protection requirements. The development of bilateral or multilateral equiv¬alency agreements is promoted among member countries. Equiv¬alence's primary feature is that it focuses on results rather than processes, allowing for greater flexibility in the organization of official veterinary services and allowing countries to focus their attention on critical areas based on resources and priorities. The OIE code includes a sanitary measure equivalent which examines concepts and details a step-by-step process for assessing equiv¬alence. Methods for recognizing equivalence must be developed and established. Epidemiologists play a key role in the develop¬ment of scientific processes that allow for a fair comparison of var¬ious methodologies [37]. The equivalency provision of the agree¬ment is potentially one of its most valuable elements to developing countries, but there are few examples of equivalency having been established [38].

Risk Assessment and Protections

Article 5 requires that standards emerge from an evidence-based scientific assessment of the human, plant, or animal health risk pre¬sented by the importation of a product. Risk assessment, according to the SPS agreement, is the evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment, or spread of a pest or disease within the territory of an importing member according to the sanitary or phytosanitary measures that might be applied and of the associated potential bi¬ological and economic consequences; or the evaluation of the po¬tential for adverse effects on human or animal health arising from the presence of additives, contaminants, toxins, or diseases, and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences; or the evaluation of the potential for adverse [39].

According to article 3, a country has the right to establish SPS measures based on a scientifically sound risk assessment if an in-ternational standard does not exist or does not provide the degree of protection required [40]. It's worth noting that the SPS agree-ment talks about risk assessment, whereas the OIE talks about risk analysis, which includes risk assessment as one of the steps. A prevalent misconception is that if an importing country follows the OIE code's risk-mitigation suggestions, no risk analysis is re-quired. Despite the fact that most countries have already received some form of risk analysis training, according to a recent study among OIE member countries, the majority of countries still re¬quire training in risk analysis methodology.

The OIE collaborating center for animal disease surveillance systems and risk analysis has developed a series of short train¬ing courses on epidemiology and risk analysis and has organized and conducted several training sessions internationally. Similar¬ly, other institutions worldwide are offering short courses on risk analysis. However, there is a lack of formal training opportunities in animal health risk analysis within universities at the graduate or postgraduate levels. Currently, efforts are underway to harmo-nize the approach to risk assessment internationally [41]. The OIE code describes the risk analysis process as consisting of four steps: hazard identification; risk assessment; release assessment; exposure assessment; consequence assessment; risk estimation; risk management; and risk communication . Although a complete risk assessment should include all the relevant steps, the OIE code chapter on risk analysis states that when the results of the release or exposure assessments demonstrate no significant risk, the risk assessment may conclude at this step. These include: identifying the diseases that may be introduced and their associated conse¬quences; evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment, and spread of the diseases identified as hazards as well as the biologic and economic consequences; and evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment, and spread of the diseases according to the SPS measures that might be applied [42,43].

Recognition of Differing Regional Conditions

Article 6 acknowledges that countries have different growing re-gions and certain pests and diseases may not be found in all of them. Article 6 obligates members to recognize and permit the importation of disease-free and pest-free areas within a country. In the past, when a disease agent existed in a country, the entire territory was considered infected. The SPS agreement recognizes that it is possible to consider regions, countries, or zones within countries free from disease or infection based on the epidemiology of the disease and other criteria. This provision is generally known as zoning or regionalization, and is reflected in the OIE code.

Zoning and regionalization require an effective surveillance sys¬tem and good-quality veterinary services both at the national and regional level. When determining the animal health status of a country or zone, consideration of several factors has been suggest¬ed Infrastructure of the veterinary services; disease status of the region; extent of an active disease control program; vaccination status of the region; degree to which the region is separated from adjacent regions of higher risk; extent to which movement of ani¬mals and animal products is controlled from regions of higher risk; level of biosecurity; type and extent of disease surveillance in the region; diagnostic laboratory capabilities. The OIE code initial¬ly developed guidelines for the assessment of veterinary services. Different approaches to zoning and regionalization have been ad¬opted, such as zoning to contain disease outbreaks and zoning of disease-free areas. From a risk point of view, the application of zoning as a reaction to disease incursion is not the same as the application of zoning as a measure of progress in a disease eradi¬cation program. In the first instance, a zone is a way to separate a diseased area in an otherwise disease-free country. In the second, a zone is a way to secure a free area in an otherwise infected coun¬try. A zone that is defined on the grounds of infection is less stable [44].

A new concept for the management of animal health is compart¬mentalization, which is a procedure to define ecologically distinct animal populations of different animal health status. Regionaliza¬tion consists of establishing zones of different animal health status on the basis of either geographical features or production systems. Compartmentalization can be applied in situations where different production systems co-exist such as commercial and subsistence farming. In general, commercial farms are in a better position to control and eradicate disease and maintain their status. Region¬alization has allowed directing resources more efficiently by al¬lowing access to export markets from disease-free areas without the need to achieve eradication in the entire territory of a country [45]. Quantification of the joint probability of detection of all the components of a surveillance system allows reaching a high lev¬el of confidence of the absence of disease higher than any of the components individually. There is also a need to include economic considerations in defining the intensity of surveillance and decid¬ing upon the optimal combination of surveillance components of a system [46].

Transparency

Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement require that all SPS regulations be easily identifiable. It requires WTO Members to freely provide information on their phytosanitary measures and to have a central enquiry point at which questions on SPS regula¬tions will be answered. The transparency provision also includes control and inspection procedures as well as risk assessment. Throughout the process confidentiality of commercial information is maintained. The transparency provision has led many countries to review the process of regulation drafting, resulting in more open processes that allow input from all interested parties. Under the OIE, the concept has been interpreted as transparency in report¬ing the animal health status by member countries. In this respect, surveillance systems are an essential component guaranteeing the quality of the information. International disease reporting guide¬lines are currently being restructured. OIE list A and B diseases will be merged into a single list, this will allow different diseases to ‘gravitate’ according to their relative importance. Countries will need to report on an emergency basis ‘significant epidemiological events. events that have an impact on the animal health status of a country including: occurrence of a disease or strain of a patho¬gen that is considered exotic to the country or zone; reintroduction of a previously eradicated disease; emerging diseases; significant changes in the epidemiology of an existing disease. Countries will also be required to notify periodically the occurrence of all OIE-listed disease.

Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures

The intent is that control, inspection and approval procedures should be transparent, non-discriminatory, timely and scientifical-ly based. This creates the need to revise the adequacy of current procedures including sampling protocols with a view to optimize cost, efficiency and practicality. Epidemiologists can contribute in designing sampling strategies that are scientifically based and statistically sound [47]. In addition to imposing disciplines on the selection of SPS measures, the SPS Agreement also requires that testing and inspection procedures used by governments to enforce these measures do not themselves act as unnecessary trade barri¬ers. The basic requirement is that any such procedures should not be less favorable for imported products than they are for domestic goods, and should be no more than what is necessary to ensure compliance. This applies for time delays, information require¬ments, fees, sampling procedures and siting of facilities Alcala ET.

Technical Assistance

A report by the SPS committee noted that although the SPS agree¬ment had contributed to improving international trading relation¬ships with respect to sanitary and phytosanitary measures, there were several issues regarding the operation and implementation of the agreement that still needed to be resolved. Many developing countries feel that SPS measures are becoming more stringent and are being used as new barriers to trade. International and regional organizations have played and continue to play a crucial role in assisting developing countries to develop the adequate infrastruc¬ture to satisfy the demands of the international market. The WTO and several international organizations have carried out numerous workshops to increase the understanding of the agreement. How¬ever, in order to achieve compliance several countries require as¬sistance and access to funding sources., WTO developed in part¬nership with the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the OIE and the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF). Its objective is to fund projects with the purpose of enhancing the capacity of developing countries to meet SPS standards. One of the first projects funded by the STDF is a project to develop a tool to assess and evalu¬ate national veterinary services capacity to benefit from the SPS agreement.

Special and Differential Treatment

The SPS agreement recognizes that some countries may require longer time-frames for compliance with new SPS measures, as long as the appropriate level of protection is not compromised. Countries may solicit time-limited exceptions to any obligation under the agreement taking into account their financial, trade and development needs [48]. Apparently, the provisions under article 10 have had limited use. The review conducted by the SPS com¬mittee on operation and implementation noted that it had no infor-mation on the extent to which the special and differential treatment had been granted to developing countries. During the period cov¬ered by the review no specific requests for special and differential treatment had had been submitted to the committee. It is likely that many countries lack a clear understanding of the SPS agreement and have not interpreted article 10 as a means to obtain additional time for implementation than what is established in article.

Consultations and Dispute Settlement

Dispute settlement WTO member countries have the right to in¬voke the dispute settlement procedure; however, bilateral settle¬ments are always encouraged. The OIE has set up a procedure for ‘in house’ dispute settlement under the good offices of the Director General Valet and Wilson, The WTO dispute settlement procedure is a lengthy procedure that can be very costly. It often requires legal advice and a continuous presence at WTO’s headquarters. Therefore, it is a procedure best suited for issues that imply large amounts of trade. It is possible that developing countries may not be willing to elevate a dispute to this level due to financial con-straints, leading to an inequitable application of the rights embed¬ded in the SPS agreement. The SPS committee acts as the first forum in which SPS-related disagreements can be discussed once bilateral talks have been exhausted. Often, the fact of raising an issue at the SPS committee level leads to renewed bilateral dis¬cussions resulting in very few disputes needing to go through the entire dispute settlement process. According to the panel, an import risk assessment needs to identify the diseases whose en¬try, establishment or spread a member wants to prevent within its territory, as well as the potential biological and economic conse¬quences associated with the entry, establishment or spread of these diseases; evaluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of these diseases, as well as the associated potential biological and economic consequences; evaluate the likelihood of entry, estab¬lishment or spread of these diseases according to the SPS measures which might be applied.

Administration

The SPS committee has the task of maintaining close contact with the international standard setting organizations (OIE, IPPC and Codex Alimentarius) as well as promoting and monitoring har¬monization and the use of international standards, guidelines and recommendations.

Implementation

Signatory countries are responsible to comply with all obligations of the agreement and have the responsibility to implement all the provisions. Furthermore, countries should ensure that non-central-ized government bodies, non-governmental entities and regional bodies comply and act in a manner consistent with the provisions of the agreement. Countries should establish open working rela-tionships with industry and consumer groups to promote the un-derstanding of the SPS agreement and its implications. Clearly, the implementation of the SPS agreement in the animal health arena requires significant epidemiological input. The International So-ciety on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics (ISVEE) could serve as a forum for communication and coordination for such ef¬forts. The ISVEE forum can be expanded to include application of epidemiologic methods and engagement of staff members of veterinary services [49].

Final provisions

Countries agreed to comply with the agreement within 2 years af-ter its inception, however upon request to WTO countries could have up to 5 years for implementation. The delays applied to all provisions of the agreement with the exception of the transparency provision (article 7) and the right of a country to request an ex-planation if a measure, not based on an international standard, is perceived as a barrier to trade. These periods expired on 1 January 1997 and 2000, respectively, therefore, all WTO member countries have the obligation to comply with the agreement. It is important to recall that countries may request additional time for the imple-mentation of the agreement under article 10.3.

Challenges with Sps Agreement

The SPS Agreement has opened vast opportunities for veterinary epidemiologists. Still, the solutions required to facilitate safe trade call for an integrated multidisciplinary approach including other disciplines such as economics, statistics, geography and geograph-ic information systems, ecology, sociology and politics. Epidemi-ologists have always dealt with the concept of health and disease in populations; however, the promotion of international trade presents an additional challenge, it requires a shift from herd-level epide¬miology to a much larger scale that encompasses zones, countries and regions. There is a need to develop new methods to determine the disease status of countries and zones as prevalence approaches zero methods to be applied when an area (zone, country or region) is to be declared free from disease. An additional challenge is the quantitative integration of the results for the evaluation of veter¬inary services into the risk analysis process. Although, there is a widespread recognition that the quality of the veterinary services is linked to the level of risk, at present, there is lack of methods to assess this relationship in a quantitative way [50-61].

SPS measures are no longer used to restrict trade after the suc¬cessful negotiation of the SPS agreement and explanation offered in subsequent dispute settlement cases, but there is a challenge during measures. The first difficulty is the length of time it takes to settle a problem. Currently, if one member believes another is maintaining a standard that is incompatible with the WTO SPS commitments, bilateral negotiations or discussions are used to remedy the issue. Due to scheduling and resource constraints, only one or two sessions may be organized per year, relying on infor¬mation exchange between meetings. It's easy for such a process to drag on for two years or more without making any progress, or with just enough development to give both parties the impression that progress is being made on some of the technical challenges. If the member contesting the other's standard chooses to abandon the bilateral negotiating process after a few years of little progress and takes the disagreement to the WTO, the member defending its standard is likely to halt any ongoing bilateral talks on the matter until the WTO case is settled. Exporters seeking market access must consider the time it takes to obtain a favorable opinion in the WTO and then comply with that decision.

The ambiguity of the SPS Agreement is a second barrier to its ef¬ficacy. If members are given the flexibility to maintain an import restriction in the absence of scientific evidence and in violation of international standards, or to restrict imports in the absence of a product-specific risk, global trade will revert to pre-WTO days, when countries could impose import restrictions on the basis of whim.

Conclusion and Recommendation

The SPS Agreement establishes a set of ground rules for trade measures to protect human, animal, or plant health, with the goal of ensuring that such measures do not generate unfair trade bar¬riers. This agreement addresses a sensitive area of regulation: measures to safeguard human, animal, or plant health from food¬borne risks or risks from plant or animal pests and illnesses that may harm international trade. The SPS Agreement has opened vast opportunities for veterinary epidemiologists. For epidemiolo¬gists, the concept of health and disease in populations has always been central to their work. However, the promotion of internation¬al trade presents an additional challenge. It requires a shift from herd-level epidemiology to a much larger scale that encompasses zones, countries, and regions. SPS measures are no longer used to restrict trade during control and prevention of diseases, but there are challenges concerning the time and ambiguity of the effec¬tiveness of SPS agreements. For this reason, ensuring food safety remains a challenge in developed and developing countries, and food safety challenges differ by region due to differences in in-come level, government infrastructure, and local conditions. Even though challenges are common, SPS agreements play an important role in reducing unnecessary trade barriers and avoiding hazard cross-contamination through the exportation of animals, plants, and their byproducts. Therefore, depending on the above conclu-sions, the following recommendation should be forwarded:

• All countries should participate in the SPS agreement to improve their food safety

• The occurrence of challenges among the committee should be solved with negotiations

• The risk assessment should be conducted as per the agreement

• The SPS measures should be carried out with the territories to reduce transboundary diseases

• International trade in contaminated plants, animals and byprod¬ucts should be avoided

References

1. Unnevehr, L., & Hirschhorn, N. (2000). Food safety issues in the developing world (Vol. 469). World Bank Publications.
2. Powers, C. M., Bolgla, L. A., Callaghan, M. J., Collins, N., & Sheehan, F. T. (2012). Patellofemoral pain: proximal, distal, and local factors—2nd international research retreat, August 31–September 2, 2011, Ghent, Belgium. journal of orthopae­dic & sports physical therapy, 42(6), A1-A54.
3. Hester, R. E., & Harrison, R. M. (Eds.). (2001). Food safety and food quality (Vol. 15). Royal Society of Chemistry.
4. WHO (2008). Food Safety Issues, Terrorist Threats to Food, Guidance for Establishing and Strengthening Prevention and Response Systems. Department of Food Safety, Zoonoses and Foodborne Disease Cluster on Health Security and Environ­ment, May 2008.
5. Rocourt, J., Moy, G., Vierk, K., & Schlundt, J. (2003). The Present State of Foodborne Disease in OECD Countries (on­line). Food Safety Department, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
6. Alemayehu, G., Zewde, G., & Admassu, B. (2012). Risk as­sessments of lumpy skin diseases in Borena bull market chain and its implication for livelihoods and international trade. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 45, 1153-1159.
7. Alemayehu, G., Zewde, G., & Admassu, B. (2013). Risk as­sessments of lumpy skin diseases in Borena bull market chain and its implication for livelihoods and international trade. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 45, 1153-1159.
8. Kassaye , D., & Molla, W. (2012). Seroprevalence of conta­gious bovine pleuropneumonia at export quarantine centers in and around Adama, Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 45, 275-279.
9. Murray, N. (2004). Handbook on import risk analysis for an­imals and animal products: quantitative risk assessment (Vol. 2). Office international des épizooties.
10. Eshetu, E., and Abraham, Z. (2016). Review on live animal and meat export marketing system in Ethiopia: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Scientific and Innovative Research, 5, 59-64.
11. Prévost, D., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The World Trade Organization: legal, economic and political anal­ysis, 231-370.
12. Vallat, B., & Wilson, D. W. (2003). The obligations of Mem­ber Countries of the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) in the Organisation of Veterinary Services. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics), 22(2), 547-559
13. Aklilu, Y. (2008). Livestock marketing in Kenya and Ethio­pia: a review of policies and practice. Feinstein International Center, Addis Ababa, 38.
14. Katariya, D. (2020). A Critical Study on Sanitary and Phy­tosanitary Agreement and its Impact on Developing Coun-tries.Amity Univeristy Rajasthan, India Vol. 3,191
15. Otte, M. J., Nugent, R., & McLeod, A. (2004). Transboundary animal diseases: Assessment of socio-economic impacts and institutional responses. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Or­ganization (FAO), 119-26.
16. Obeng, I. (2020). Sanitary and Phytosanitary Export Mea­surement Requirements: The case of cocoa, cashew. Geneva: CUTS International, Geneva.
17. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission, World Health Organization, & Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. (2007). Codex Alimentarius: Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems. Food & Agri­culture Org.
18. Johnson, R. (2014). Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and re­lated non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade. Congressional Research Service.
19. Siméon, M. (2006). Sanitary and phytosanitary measures and food safety: challenges and opportunities for developing countries. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz, 25, 701-712.
20. Thorn, C., & Carlson, M. (1999). The agreement on the appli­cation of sanitary and phytosanitary measures and the agree­ment on technical barriers to trade. Law & Pol'y Int'l Bus., 31, 841
21. Chillaud, T. (2020). The World Trade Organisation agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Re­vue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizoot-ics), 15(2), 733-751.
22. Waterworth, T. (2017). Help or hindrance? a critical analysis of the agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and its effects on developing countries
23. Shyam, S. S., & Narayanakumar, R. (2012). World trade agreement and Indian fisheries paradigms: A policy outlook
24. Grant, J. H., Peterson, E., & Ramniceanu, R. (2015). Assess­ing the impact of SPS regulations on US fresh fruit and vege­table exports. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Econom­ics, 144-163.
25. Hoekman, B. M., & Mavroidis, P. C. (2015). World Trade Or­ganization (WTO): law, economics, and politics. Routledge.
26. Chumber, S. K., Kaushik, K., & Savy, S. (2005). Bacteriolog­ical analysis of street foods in Pune. Editorial Board Vol. 51 No. 2 April-June 2007, 51(2), 83-136.
27. Nagata, J. (2015). Tools for Evaluating the Human Health Risks Associated with Microbial Contamination of Apples (Doctoral dissertation).
28. Kassaye , D., & Molla, W. (2012). Seroprevalence of conta­gious bovine pleuropneumonia at export quarantine centers in and around Adama, Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 45, 275-279
29. Zepeda, C., Salman, M., Thiermann, A., Kellar, J., Rojas, H., & Willeberg, P. (2005). The role of veterinary epidemiology and veterinary services in complying with the World Trade Organization SPS agreement. Preventive veterinary medicine, 67(2-3), 125-140.
30. Scott, J. (2009). The WTO agreement on sanitary and phy­tosanitary measures: a commentary. OUP Catalogue.
31. Scott, J. (2009). The WTO agreement on sanitary and phy­tosanitary measures: a commentary. OUP Catalogue.
32. Epps, T. (2013). Pre-market approval systems and the SPS Agreement. In Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO (pp. 304-331). Edward Elgar Publishing
33. Wolff, C. (2009). Private standards and the WTO Commit­tee on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Compendium of technical items presented to the International Committee or to Regional Commissions of the OIE, 2008, 71-123.
34. Johanson, D., and Bryant, W. (1996). Eliminating Phytosani­tary Trade Barriers: The Effects of the Uruguay Round Agree­ments on California Agricultural Exports. San Joaquin Agric.L. Rev., 6, 1
35. Zepeda S. (2003). Risk analysis: a decision support tool for the control and prevention of animal diseases. In Compendi­um of technical items presented to the international committee or to regional commissions 2001-2002 (pp. 251-271). Office International des Épizooties
36. Cameron, A. R., Martin, P. A. J., Greiner, M., & Barfod, K. (2003, November). The use of scenario-tree modelling using multiple complex data sources to demonstrate Danish free­dom from classical swine fever. In Electronic Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics (ISVEE).
37. Lanye, Z. (2003). The Effects to the WTO Dispute Settlement Panel and Appellate Body Reports: Is the Dispute Settlement Body Resolving Specific Disputes Only or Making Precedent at the Same Time. Temp. Int'l & Comp. LJ, 17, 221
38. Marabelli, R., & Caporale, V. (2003). The role of official vet­erinary services in dealing with new social challenges: ani­mal health and protection, food safety, and the environment. Revue scientifique et technique-office international des epizo­oties, 22(2), 363-383
39. OIE, (2003e). Report of the meeting of the OIE ad hoc Group on Terrestrial Animal Disease/Pathogenic Agent Notification. OIE, Paris, 10–12 September, 2003
40. STDF, (2003). Standards and Trade Development Facility. Background, Available at.
41. WHO (2002). WHO global strategy for food safety. Safer food for better health. Food Safety Programme-2002. World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland.
42. WTO, (1995). Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. World Trade Organization
43. OIE, (2003a). OIE Members and Official Delegates. World Organization for Animal Health (Office International des Epi­zooties), Paris.
44. Tambi, E. N., Maina, O. W., & Bessin, R. (2004). Animal and animal products trade in Africa: new development perspec­tives in international trade for Africa. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 14(4), 49-67
45. Lennings, N. (2011). Appellate body report, Australia-mea-sures affecting the importation of apples from New Zealand, WTO Doc WT/DS367/AB/R (29 November 2010). Australian International Law Journal, 18, 241-249.
46. Ahl, A. S., Acree, J. A., Gipson, P. S., McDowell, R. M., Mill­er, L., & McElvaine, M. D. (1993). Standardization of nomen­clature for animal health risk analysis. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics), 12(4), 1045-1053.
47. Rollet, V. (2021). Taiwan’s Participation in the World Organ­isation for Animal Health (oie): Modalities, Utility, and Chal­lenges. International Journal of Taiwan Studies, 5(1), 112-144.
48. Davey, W. J. (2001). Has the WTO dispute settlement system exceeded its authority? A consideration of deference shown by the system to member government decisions and its use of issue-avoidance techniques. Journal of International Econom­ic Law, 4(1), 79-110.
49. O’Connor and Co.(2002). SPS Measures and Non-tariff Barriers to Trade under the WTO and Cotonou Agreements. Paper presented to CTA International Seminar on ‘Meeting the Challenge of Effective ACP Participation in Agricultural Trade Negotiations: The Role of Information and Communi-cation’. Brussels, November.
50. Schaftenaar, W. (2002). Use of vaccination against foot and mouth disease in zoo animals, endangered species and excep­tionally valuable animals. Revue scientifique et technique-Of-fice international des épizooties, 21(3), 613-619
51. Schaftenaar, W. (2002). Use of vaccination against foot and mouth disease in zoo animals, endangered species and excep­tionally valuable animals. Revue scientifique et technique-Of-fice international des épizooties, 21(3), 613-619
52. Zepeda, C., Salman, M., & Ruppanner, R. (2001). Internation­al trade, animal health and veterinary epidemiology: challeng­es and opportunities. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 48(4), 261-271.
53. Hasler, B., Garza, M., Bisdorff, B., Léger, A., Tavornpanich, S., Peyre, M., and Stärk, K. D. (2019). Assessing the Adop­tion of Recommended Standards, Novel Approaches, and Best Practices for Animal Health Surveillance by Decision Makers in Europe. Frontiers in veterinary science, 375.
54. Adachi A. (2017). Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Mea­sures. Status Report on Agricultural Trade between Cambo­dia, the Lao PDR, Viet Nam and China.
55. Burros, M. (1997). Clinton to battle food borne illness. New York Times, 24
56. Cannon, R. M. (2002). Demonstrating disease freedom— combining confidence levels. Preventive veterinary medicine,52(3-4), 227-249.
57. Ayalew, H., Birhanu, A., & Asrade, B. (2013). Review on food safety system: Ethiopian perspective. Afr J Food Sci, 7(12), 431-40.
58. Ayalew, H., Birhanu, A., & Asrade, B. (2013). Review on food safety system: Ethiopian perspective. Afr J Food Sci, 7(12), 431-40.
59. Van den Bossche, P. (2008). The law and policy of the World Trade Organization: text, cases and materials. CambridgeUniversity Press.
60. Victor, N., Peter, C., Raphael, K., Tendekayi, G. H., Jephris, G., Taole, M., & Portia, P. R. (2017). Microbiological quali­ty of selected dried fruits and vegetables in Maseru, Lesotho. African Journal of Microbiology Research, 11(5), 185-193.
61. Fergusson, I. F. (2008, August). World trade organization negotiations: the Doha development agenda. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RE­SEARCH SERVICE.