© ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/ims                                                                                 ...
© ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/ims             VIEWPOINT              Impact of SPS measures – Kenya               ...
© ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/ims                                                                                 ...
© ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/ims             VIEWPOINT                                                           ...
Note: This publication has been made available by CSEND.org with the agrement of the author.                        The Ce...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

20090305 ims 22000 06 e1

215

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
215
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

20090305 ims 22000 06 e1

  1. 1. © ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/ims VIEWPOINTHardly a day goes by than 2,6 million peo- While obviously necessary,without the media ple. 1) each measure taken to ensurereporting on the dif- food safety and to ensure Efficient and har-ficult negotiations against food-related illness- monized measuresw i t h i n t h e Wo r l d es has potentially devastat- to ensure safe andTrade Organization ing impacts on the export- adequate food sup-(WTO) and the threat ing countries, especially from ply chains and foodto international trade developing and poor regions management are ofshould there be no success- of the world. by Raymond Saner and paramount importance to theful conclusion to the Doha The importance and poten- Ricardo Guilherme citizens of all countries. ForRound. tial negative impact of food example, the worldwide con-The problem most often report- cerns linked to genetically safety measures is even high-ed centers around marketaccess for agricultural prod- ISO 22000’s modified organisms and plants, avian flu or foot-and-mouth er in developing countries, since the share of agricultureucts from developing countriesthat cannot pass the prohibi- potential disease are examples of how such concerns affect our dai- in GDP, as well as with regard to total population engaged intively high level of tariffs of theindustrialized countries. impact on ly lives. To respond to such concerns, agriculture, represents major proportions in many of theseMany of the developing coun-tries suffer from deep pover- world trade safety measures have been developed by different inter- often very poor countries (see Table 1).ty. The only products they cansell are agricultural products. in agricultural national organizations like the Food and Agriculture Organ- 1) “The Sixth Framework Programme – new researchDeveloped countries, on the products ization (FAO), the World opportunities for SMEs ”, atother hand, are justifiably wor- http://sme.cordis.lu/thematic/ Health Organization (WHO), home.cfmried about health risks due to the WTO and ISO. (as of 7 December 2005).food poisoning and other food-related illnesses. The situationseems impossible to solve. Country Share of Share of totalHowever, ISO 22000, Food agriculture populationsafety management systems – Raymond Saner is Director of in GDP engaged inRequirements for any organ- the Centre for Socio-Eco-Nomic agricultureization in the food chain, has Development (CSEND), an inde- pendent, non-governmental Bangladesh 30,0 59,6the potential to bridge someof the gaps between the rich organization based in Geneva, India 27,0 56,8importing and the poor would- Switzerland, specializing in capa- city building, organizational Kenya 29,0 77,1be exporting countries. reform and institutional develop- Pakistan 26,0 52,6 ment, and of its research andFood safety and Senegal 18,0 75,0 development branch, Diplomacyinternational trade Dialogue. Developing countries (average) 26,3 50,4To give an idea of the global Ricardo Guilherme is associateimportance of the food and Table 1 – The importance of agriculture to wealth and employment trade researcher at CSEND,agriculture sector, we can note in developing countries. specializing in trade law.that the European food indus-try alone represents a sector FAO, “ Agriculture, Trade and Food Security : Issues and Options in the E-mail saner@csend.org WTO Negotiations from the Perspective of Developing Countries ”,valued at USD 700 billion dol- Web www.csend.org Geneva, 2000, Volume II (GDP data taken from World Bank, Worldlars and employment for more Web www.diplomacydialogue.org Development Report, 1998/99). ISO Management Systems – March-April 2006 5
  2. 2. © ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/ims VIEWPOINT Impact of SPS measures – Kenya As the European Union (EU) He went on to say, “ [It must Trade Commissioner, Peter be] confusing for a third coun- The widely publicized case of European Union (EU) restric- Mandelson, has asserted, try to receive one of 25 dif- tions on fish exports from Lake Victoria in Kenya in 1997 “…future challenges in trade ferent national certificates gives us a glimpse of how hard food safety requirements policy [will be] in the so-called for a product that is subject and subsequent import restrictions can impact develop- non-tariff barriers to trade, to to harmonized EU rules ”. He ing countries. which the question of stand- added : “…we must not allow The region of Lake Victoria was responsible in 2001 for ards is crucial … If not man- our standards to be based on over 95 % of all Kenyan fish landings (with Nile perch as aged with care, these meas- prejudice, or as a response to the dominant species), having experienced a population ures can be impediments to pressure groups. The basis for inflow around the lake border of more than 1,2 million trade which are difficult to them has to be sound scientif- people in just two years. It is also worth noting that in the justify.” ic analysis .” 1980’s and 1990’s, Kenyan fishery was almost totally export- oriented, mainly to the EU. However, due to several concerns related to hygiene, salmo- nella detection, pesticide residues and a cholera outbreak Standards and non-tariff barriers in East Africa, the EU practically banned importation of fresh fish from that region in 1997. This caused Nile perch exports to fall from 14 143 tonnes in 1996 to 10 881 tonnes Standards and non-tariff barriers can prove quasi-insur- in 1998, with export value dropping dramatically from USD mountable obstacles when practised against least devel- 43,9 million in 1996 to USD 29 million in 1998. oped countries and small island nations. The case of Jamai- can pepper is an example of how difficult compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) can become. ITC and Commonwealth Secretariat, “ Influencing and Meeting International Standards – Challenges for Developing Countries ”, Jamaican hot pepper is a priority yield suitable for small Geneva, 2003. producers, and directed to both domestic and foreign mar- kets such as the US, Canada and Mexico. However, exports are currently lower than they were a decade ago.Therefore, long-lasting foodsafety problems may result in ISO 22000 has the Among other factors such as marketing and productionvery negative impacts on the potential to bridge problems, food safety issues, like a gall midge infestationeconomies of poor, developing in 1997, prompted the US to demand fumigation on all some of the gapscountries (see box, Impact of peppers exported from Jamaica, including bell and chili between the rich and theSPS measures – Kenya ). peppers (even though the gall midge pest had been only poor countries detected in hot peppers).The same holds true for strin-gent food safety compliance Quick action was taken by the Jamaican government torequirements – such as water the consumers while minimiz- solve the issue, but the comprehensive measures requestedtreatment and fumigation ing negative impacts on food by the US meant only that production costs would increaserequirements, maximum res- producers whenever possible. for Jamaica. To make matters worse, the Jamaican Hot Pep-idue limits of pesticides and Unfortunately, what is legiti- per Task Force and the US Animal and Plant Health Inspec-technical requirements high- mate (food safety) is some- tion Services (APHIS) agreed, in 2002, on a 10-point SPSer than those in international times mixed up with illegiti- system to remove the fumigation requirementsstandards – imposed on poor- mate goals (protectionism of In the event, Jamaica did not implement the system, high-er and smaller nations (see local food producers resulting lighting the considerable problems that US measures havebox, Standards and non-tariff in discrimination against for- caused to Jamaican exporters. As the World Bank says, whilebarriers ). eign food producers). the Jamaican government has been proactive to respondIdeally, food safety measures to the problem, pay-offs were close to zero and exportsshould safeguard the lives of virtually crumbled. Henson, Spencer, and Jaffee, Steve, “Jamaica’s Trade in Ethnic Foods and Other Niche Products: The Impact of Food Safety and Plant Health Standards”, World Bank, 2005.6 ISO Management Systems – March-April 2006
  3. 3. © ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/ims VIEWPOINTIn conclusion, the EU Trade or recommendations, where Disparities are not limited to In fact, more has to be doneCommissioner underlined the they exist ” 3). transactions between devel- in terms of technical assist-need for a continued push “ for oped and developing coun- ance and capacity building in The Agreement defines theharmonization of SPS prod- tries ; divergences abound even poorer countries, particular- Codex Alimentarius Commis-ucts and process requirements in North-North and South- ly under the Standards and sion as the body responsiblethrough the establishment of South negotiations, corrobo- Trade Development Facility for establishment of standards,international rules.” 2) rating the dire need for har- (STDF)5), a joint initiative by guidelines and recommenda- monization and homogeneous FAO, World Organization for tions related to food safety, treatment of SPS measures in Animal Health (OIE), World the international trading envi- Bank, WHO and WTO. ronment. In a meeting held 29-30 June 2005 4), the WTO Committee on SPS Measures reported specific examples of trade concerns tha t r an ge dHarmonization from Austral-The use of harmonized food food additives, veterinary drug ia’s importsafety measures between mem- and pesticide residues, contam- restrictionsber countries of the WTO, inants, methods of analysis and on apples from New Zealand, ISO 22000 – a feasibleon the basis of international sampling, and codes and guide- the EU and the United States, alternative ?standards developed by inter- lines of hygienic practice. to the EU’s private retailers’national organizations, consti- EurepGap fruit and vegetable The importance of ISO to the Members are able to employ current debate on food safetytutes a main goal of the WTO restrictions against least devel- more stringent levels of protec- is clear. ISO has a long-stand-Agreement on the Application oped countries (LDC’s), or also tion, provided there is sound ing and productive coopera-of Sanitary and Phytosanitary to Japan’s import suspension scientific justification and a tion with the Codex Alimen-Measures ( SPS Agreement ). on heat-processed straw and non-discriminatory assessment tarius Commission with moreThe SPS Agreement attempts of risks. But the fact of the forage for feed due to a foot- and-mouth disease outbreak than 300 ISO standards havingto regulate harmonization matter is that the SPS Agree-when it comes to measures ment sometimes provides for in China. 2) Speech by Peter Mandelson atapplied to protect human, ambivalent flexibility in terms In the same meeting, China the Conference on EU Exports and Sanitary and Phytosanitaryanimal or plant life or health, of applicable food safety meas- asserted that the “volume of Measures, Brussels, 27 May 2005.stating that, “to harmonize ures, thus causing several com- notifications of SPS meas- 3) WTO Agreement on the Applica-sanitary and phytosanitary pliance problems especially in ures posed a significant prob- tion of Sanitary and Phytosanitarymeasures on as wide a basis the case of developing coun- lem for developing countries”, Measures, Article 3.1 (excerpt).as possible, members shall tries’ agricultural exports (see in contradiction with special 4) WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, summary ofbase their sanitary or phy- box, Standards and non-tariff and differential treatment for the meeting held on 29-30 June 2005tosanitary measures on inter- barriers). developing countries, and in (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1), 18 August 2005.national standards, guidelines particular LDC’s. 5) See www.standardsfacility.org. ISO Management Systems – March-April 2006 7
  4. 4. © ISO Management Systems, www.iso.org/ims VIEWPOINT HACCP steps Equivalent coverage by ISObeen adopted by Codex in such By facilitating the implementa- 22000 ? trade and in access to exportareas as food products, water tion of HACCP guidelines and markets.quality, chemistry and con- harmonizing otherwise diverse Hazard Analysis YES ISO 22000 could be the mainformity assessment 6). national regulations, the ISO Critical Control YES conduit for SPS trade facili- 22000 standard might be able Point (CCP)This historically tight cooper- tation, simplifying formalities to respond to legitimate food Determinationation between ISO and Codex connected with importation safety requirements while atmeans that proper harmoniza- CCP Limits YES and exportation, and allowing the same time help reduce thetion of food safety management developing countries to create non-tariff barriers caused by Monitoring YESsystems may not be just a distant more employment, increase the use of illegitimate (protec- of CCPsambition, but a viable objective domestic revenue and meet the tionist) SPS measures. Corrective YESafter all under the international necessary poverty reductiontrade framework. ISO 22000 mirrors the HACCP Action Plan and millennium development principles and facilitates their System YES goals in due course 8). practical implementation on a Verification And given proper political will Food safety problems step-by-step basis (see Table 2), by member countries, official may result in very striking a homogeneous balance Documentation YES endorsement of ISO 22000 negative impacts on as a food safety standard for coun- and other ISO standards by the tries and private players alike. Table 2 – Comparison of HACCP andthe economies of poor, SPS Agreement, in cooperationdeveloping countries With its “ food chain/process- ISO 22000. with ISO, national accreditation driven ” approach, ISO 22000 authorities and the STDF initia- ers, may play a crucial role in treats food safety concerns in a tive, would finally enable effec- the attainment of a basic foodAccordingly, at a July 2005 ses- holistic manner that efficiently safety standard for producers tive WTO negotiations on thesion of Codex, several govern- oversees the “ forest ” of safety in developed and developing harmonization of standards.mental delegations underlined requirements, while linking indi- countries. It thus represents a This would ensure that thethe view that ISO’s activities in vidual processes to the whole strategic step towards further food safety interests of mostproviding harmonized interna- system and ensuring objective harmonization of food safety countries do not conflict withtional standards for adoption as measurement of results. demands in the global arena. the capacity-building and mar-national standards are impor- This means that domestic foodtant, and that Codex should con- In other words, ISO 22000 would ket access needs of poorer safety management systemstinue its cooperation with ISO be able to moderate concerns nations. • around the world could be sub-in the relevant areas. The com- related to trade barrier negot- ject to equivalent performance 6) WTO Committee on Sanitaryplementary character of ISO and iations and streamline capacity- and Phytosanitary Measures, state- evaluations. At the same time,Codex denoted the importance building efforts in developing ment by the representative of ISO capacity-building efforts, insteadof an optimized coordination countries. If properly adopt- at the meeting of 29-30 June 2005 of aiming at costly bilateral (G/SPS/GEN/589), 11 July 2005.between the two bodies 7). ed and implemented by coun- compliance initiatives, could One may also mention the newly tries, it would reflect universally published ISO/PAS 28000 specifi-ISO 22000, published on be more easily implemented accepted food safety require- cation or supply chain security1 September 2005, solidifies a in an internationally accepted management systems as an addi- ments, demanding fewer dis-response to an increasingly manner, even if adjustments tional apparatus to foster smooth parate efforts by countries and and coordinated flows of interna-diverse mesh of domestic food to regional conditions are to be producers on tight budgets. tional trade among countries.safety regulations, without side- taken into account. 7) Codex Alimentarius Commission,tracking from the wider scope With the potential for increased Report of the Twenty-Eighth Ses-of the ISO 9001:2000 quality transparency and traceability sion on 4-9 July 2005 (Alinorm ISO 22000 – strategic stepmanagement system standard measures, ISO 22000 is a use- 05/28/41), Rome, 2005.and the Hazard Analysis and ISO 22000, covering HACCP ful tool to address the sensi- 8) See, for instance, Annex E of the Draft Ministerial Text (Doha WorkCritical Control Point (HAC- principles, Codex application tive issue of SPS measures as Programme – Preparations for theCP) parameters adopted by steps and the main require- discriminatory or disguised Sixth Session) of the MinisterialCodex. ments of private food retail- restrictions in international Conference, 2005.8 ISO Management Systems – March-April 2006
  5. 5. Note: This publication has been made available by CSEND.org with the agrement of the author. The Centre for Socio-Eco-Nomic Development (CSEND) aims atpromoting equitable, sustainable and integrated development through dialogue andinstitutional learning.Diplomacy Dialogue is a branch of the Centre for Socio-Eco-Nomic Development(CSEND), a non-profit R&D organization based in Geneva, Switzerland since 1993.

×