Search

Four trade disputes concerning animal diseases have undergone the formal dispute resolution procedure of the World Trade Organization (WTO). These cases clarify a number of provisions of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). A national measure that contradicts a standard set by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), for example by prohibiting a product that is permitted under the OIE standard, is not 'based on' that standard. Such a measure must be based on an appropriate risk assessment. For animal diseases, this means not only assessing the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of the disease, and the associated biological and economic consequences, but also assessing each feasible mitigation measure. Any mitigation measure imposed must be rationally supported by the risk assessment. A highly trade-restrictive measure, such as a ban, is more easily justified if the identified risk is high. A measure imposed to protect health cannot impose stricter requirements on one product than on another with a similar level of risk. A WTO Member acts inconsistently with the SPS Agreement if an alternative measure, which is technically and economically feasible and restricts trade less, would achieve the desired level of protection. Countries must adapt their SPS requirements to reflect the disease risk of the area or zone from which a product comes and for which it is destined. Procedures to assess risk and determine the disease status of a region must be completed without unjustified delays, and only the information necessary for this can be requested of the exporter.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) play an important role in supporting efforts to facilitate the safe trade of animals and animal products by promoting international regulatory cooperation among their Members. International regulatory cooperation is embedded in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and is an integral part of the work of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee. The OIE plays a crucial part in this cooperation, as the OIE is the WTO reference organisation for international standards related to animal health and zoonoses. The SPS Agreement encourages governments to apply national sanitary measures that are consistent with OIE standards, particularly when making decisions on the importation of animals and animal products. This principle of harmonisation is key to integrating the reference frameworks of the WTO SPS Agreement and the OIE standards. This paper describes international regulatory cooperation, the principle of harmonisation and its expressions, and, finally, the various ways in which the WTO and the OIE cooperate towards the achievement of their goals.

International trade in animals and animal products results in economic, social and scientific benefits. The risk of the transmission of diseases that affect both animal and human health through the movement of animals and animal products can be controlled by import health requirements. The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) is recognised by the World Trade Organization as the standard-setting body for international animal health standards covering the safe trade of animals and animal products. To ensure the safe trade of animals and animal products, without unnecessary restrictions, countries should harmonise their import health requirements with OIE standards. Governments should refer to the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Aquatic Animal Health Code, Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, and Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals, standards that have been robustly developed to account for countries' differences in animal health status. Nevertheless, any determination of equivalence or requirement to achieve a higher level of protection should be based on risk analysis. Even though the use of OIE standards in veterinary certificates has benefits, there are several challenges that countries may encounter, such as legislative processes or inter-agency controls slowing down the flexibility of adopting import standards. Some countries may also encounter difficulties in meeting the standards due to operational practicalities. Although private standards have not been significantly involved in regulating animal health, this may present challenges to the universality and fairness of international standards in the future. Lastly, it is important to stay up to date with technology, such as electronic certification, that enhances the certification system for international trade to ensure the authenticity and efficiency of certification.

This paper was written to give veterinarians and decision-makers an overview of World Trade Organization (WTO) findings relevant to animal welfare. The article has a practical focus and does not attempt to provide a legal analysis of WTO dispute settlement. The author has simplified very technical legal language so that the paper will be useful to a broader audience. The global trade rules comprise a series of legal agreements that came into effect in 1995, when the WTO was established. The overarching objective of the WTO is to promote international trade by avoiding unjustified discrimination between trading partners. The harmonisation of national measures with relevant international standards is encouraged by the WTO to facilitate safe trade. The broad objective of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) is to promote global improvements in animal health and welfare, and veterinary public health. To this end, the OIE sets intergovernmental standards and works to strengthen the capacities of Members to implement them. The OIE standards are recognised as WTO references with respect to animal health and zoonotic diseases and a significant number of WTO disputes have addressed the relevance of these OIE standards to international trade measures. In addition to animal health standards, the OIE also sets standards for animal welfare, and has implemented regional and global strategies to encourage their adoption by Members. In comparison with measures to protect animal health or food safety, few WTO disputes have considered animal welfare related measures. A lack of WTO case law has contributed to uncertainty about the consistency of WTO animal welfare measures. This paper considers some WTO disputes and findings relevant to animal welfare. The outcomes of these disputes suggest that WTO Panels and the Appellate Body are prepared to accept the right of Members to regulate for animal welfare purposes, providing that they respect the established WTO disciplines. This article draws two main conclusions. Firstly, regardless of whether measures are adopted to protect animal welfare or animal health, for WTO consistency, they must not result in unjustifiable, arbitrary or unnecessary discrimination. Secondly, regardless of how the WTO deals with animal welfare, governments must respond to the growing interest of consumers in farm animal welfare. The OIE standards, as recognised references for trading countries and the WTO, will continue to be influential in relation to global trade in animal products. It is important that the OIE update its animal welfare standards regularly, to ensure that they are consistent with latest scientific understanding and appropriate to consumer expectations for ethical food production.

World Trade Organization (WTO) Members have developed a framework of rules and guidance for veterinary control, inspection and approval procedures for international trade in animals and animal products. The core of this guidance can be found in Article 8 and Annex C of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), which help Members to achieve the twin objectives of ensuring animal health and facilitating safe trade through their detailed disciplines. The issue of veterinary control, inspection and approval procedures frequently surfaces on the agenda of the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures when Members discuss trade concerns or decide to explore this topic in periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement. The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (2017), which was crafted to further expedite the movement and clearance of goods, brought additional structure to the design and operation of border procedures, including veterinary control procedures. The entry into force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement also increased, in many cases, the visibility and resources allocated to the operation of border controls, including international assistance. These processes provide further opportunities to enhance the profile of veterinary and other SPS agencies besides that of Customs, and to improve coordination among these various agencies and organisations.

This article describes the development of Guatemala's animal health legislation since the country signed the international agreement establishing the World Organisation for Animal Health (then Office International des Epizooties) in 1924. This includes the evolution of the legislative framework, with the adoption of the Guatemalan Animal Health Code in 1936, the adoption of the Animal Health Law in 1947 and its conversion into the Plant and Animal Health Law and implementing regulations in 1998. This article also analyses changes in the operational and administrative structure of the competent animal health authority - the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food - in 1978, 1998 and 2010, until the Trade Facilitation Agreement of the World Trade Organization was approved in 2017. It also discusses the role of the Ministry of Economy, through the Foreign Trade Administration Directorate, in boosting the enforcement of sanitary and phytosanitary measures through the National Technical Committee for Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.

The livestock and poultry industries in the Philippines have been continuously growing for the past six years, as reflected in the Philippine Statistics Authority annual reports from 2013 to 2018. To augment supplies and ensure food sufficiency, as well as to fulfil trade agreements, the government has adopted a policy of importing some livestock commodities. Currently, the Philippines imports about 20% of its total meat requirements, and this figure is expected to increase over the next few years. Private traders and companies could import buffalo meat without restriction until 1996, when the Department of Agriculture (DA) intervened by sending inspection missions to exporting countries due to the concerns of the livestock industry about the foot and mouth disease challenges during that time. But, at that point, there were still no clear rules, regulations or standards governing the importation of meat and meat products into the Philippines. By 2003, as outbreaks of transboundary animal diseases were occurring in the region (avian influenza as well as foot and mouth disease), the government saw the need to protect its borders from the entry, establishment and spread of animal diseases. Measures were needed to prevent the introduction of disease-carrying, contaminated or adulterated meat and meat products that could endanger the lives and health of Filipino consumers and, consequently, have potentially serious economic impacts on the livestock industry and other allied industries. As more and more requests were received to import meat and meat products, and as various stakeholder groups began to question why increasing numbers of imports were being allowed into the country, the DA began to shift to a risk-based policy rather than a policy of 100% inspection. The Philippine Government ensured that there was a legal basis as well as a scientific basis for orders governing the importation of meat and live animals. As the country shifts to a risk-based policy, making the public understand why it is implementing this policy remains a major challenge. Other areas that need to be developed and strengthened include quarantine and border security procedures, certification programmes, identification and traceability, export procedures, periodic auditing schemes, animal health programmes, capacities for risk analysis, and provincial border controls, which can be set by local governments to allow provinces to protect their locality.