• Are SPS measures protectionist?
• Available evidence
• Restrictions on trade from developing countries

Are SPS measures protectionist?

SPS measures should apply equally to goods produced domestically or imports, and so are not strictly trade barriers (unless there are particular health risks in the producing country, e.g. foot and mouth disease in cattle).  Nevertheless, whether they were explicitly designed to do so or not, many SPS measures create greater problems for importers rather than domestic producers, who as Bourke and Leitch note, have ‘easier access to testing procedures, greater information, less documentation to complete and easier access to organisations controlling the system (1998: 4).  SPS measures can impede trade through unjustified different requirements in different markets, unnecessary costly or time-consuming tests and duplicative conformity assessment procedures (Zarrilli, 1999: 1).
 

Available Evidence

There has been little research to date on the effects of regulations and compliance on trade flows, particularly in terms of quantifying these effects.  The most rigorous studies focus on the US market (Henson and Loader, 2000: 8).  Henson and Loader have undertaken an initial survey on the implications of SPS measures for developing countries.  They report that SPS measures are more significant in terms of impeding a country’s ability to export agricultural and food products than tariffs, though many of responding countries are subject to low tariffs because they are part of the Lomé convention (2000: 11).
 

Restrictions on trade from developing countries

There are a number of ways in which trade may be restricted, particularly in trade from developing countries:

a) The process by which regulations and standards are set and implemented
b) The capability and capacity of exporting countries in the south
 

a) The process by which regulations and standards are set and implemented

• level of standard: SPS measures should be based on international standards or a  national standard based a risk assessment;
• time between when a regulation announced and its implementation;
• mutual recognition: control systems for monitoring in developing are not always recognised in the north often on account of different production and marketing in the less developed countries.

• Information: developing countries tend to lack complete information on the number of measures that affect their exports, the nature of these measures and their application.  To ensure compliance information about SPS measures is needed in a timely and accurate fashion.  Uncertainty arises from rapidly changing requirements in overseas markets.  Some requirements change as a result of result of harmonisation when regional trade agreements are established (Roberts et al, 1999: 6), others arise as a result of enhanced public awareness.  Exporters have complained about the inconsistent application of procedures by importers (UNCTAD and FIELD, 1999: 18). 

• Scientific and technical knowledge: Developing countries often lack the relevant scientific knowledge and equipment for testing and verification procedures. There may be a lack of scientific data for specific thresholds and limits.  The EU is moving towards process-based controls enforced by a competent authority, which is regarded as more onerous than identifying whether safe limits have been breached (Henson and Loader, 2000: 12). 

• Resources: Limited expertise to undertake relevant tests is an associated issue.  Exports may be rejected at the border because of microbiological spoilage or contamination, despite examination prior to export.  The cost of compliance and implementation of procedures such as HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) especially in fish and meat processing can be prohibitive, though do leap dividends in the long-run.

• Ability of many exporters to meet stringent standards: there are often problems apparent with basic hygiene in the production process, never mind more sophisticated testing for heavy metals or pesticide residues.

• Administrative issues: Walker suggests that to be effective reducing risks requires two separate components: ‘the application of good agricultural production/ and/or manufacturing practices, and the identification of hazards and control measures at critical points along the food chain’.  These activities are logically the domain of two separate ministries, and there tend to arise problems in co-ordinating the two equally important components (Walker, 1999). There is frequently therefore a limited ability to respond to new or changed measures in the time permitted and/or the cost of doing so was perceived to be prohibitively high