Simon PadillaSTDF Secretariat
[email protected] www.standardsfacility.org
Good Regulatory Practices and Streamlining SPS Procedures
Goal
Increased capacity of
developing countries to
implement international
standards and gain and
maintain market access
Vision
Sustainable economic
growth, poverty reduction,
food security and
environmental protection in
developing countries
Good regulatory practice (GRP) refers to internationally recognized processes and procedures that can be used to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of domestic regulations.
GRP includes administrative procedures that govern intragovernmental coordination of rulemaking activity, impact assessment, participation and accountability.
What is Good Regulatory Practice?
Why is GRP Important?
1) GRP helps create a stable and enabling regulatory environment for investment, trade, and entrepreneurship, and thus supports healthy economies and regional competitiveness.
2) GRP has economic as well as other benefits– it can “boost productivity and job creation” while protecting the environment, public health, safety, and security.
• Whole of government approach
• Open government, including transparency and public participation
• Active regulatory oversight
• Integrate regulatory impact analysis as early as possible
• Ex-post regulatory evaluation against clearly define goals
• Publish reports on the performance of regulatory policy and reform programs
12 OECD Recommendation on Regulatory
Policy and Governance
2012 OECD Recommendation on Regulatory
Policy and Governance
• Organization of regulatory agencies
• Administrative and judicial review
• Risk and regulation
• Regulatory coherence across levels of Government
• Regulatory management capacity at sub-national level
• International regulatory cooperation
• International coordination of rulemaking, the ability to manage regulatory reform and coordinate with trade and competition officials (whole government approach).
• Regulatory impact assessment (RIA), the capacity to ensure that better policy options are selected by creating a consistent framework for assessing the potential impacts of government action, including impacts on trade.
• Public consultation mechanisms to improve transparency and accountability, such as “publication for comment” and other practices that allow broad access, high quality of consultation mechanisms.
Three Common Elements of GRP
Realities on the ground
SPS measures may result in
justifiable transaction costs
based on the need to protect health
but
Ineffective and inefficient SPS
controls disrupt trade more than
necessary, and sometimes result in
poor health protection
9
Entered into force on 22 February 2017
Applies to all relevant border agencies
Goal: Expedite movement, release & clearance of goods
Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA)
“SPS-or TBT -plus”
Provide advance rulings besides tariff
classification and origin
(TF Art. 3)
Publish wide range of information related to
import/export requirements and procedures
(TF Art. 1)
Border Agency Cooperation
(TF Art. 8)
Inform on detention of goods and facilitate
test procedures
(TF Art. 5)Allow pre-arrival
processing / Publish average release times
(TF Art. 7)
Freedom of transit: Limit formalities and documentation requirements
(TF Art. 11)
Review and publish fees and charges
(TF Art. 6)
Review and reduce import/export transit
formalities
(TF Art. 10)
Relationship between TFA and SPS Agreement Secretariat background note (11 October 2018)
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/tf_sps_e.pdf
SPS procedural obstacles persist
Limited information
Multiple inspections
Lack of coordination at borders
Complex and lengthy procedures
Excessive document requirements
No complaints / appeal procedures
Arbitrariness, unpredictability
Use international standards
Improve transparency
Streamline SPS processes
Use risk-based approaches
Border agency collaboration
SPS e-Cert and Single Windows
Win-win opportunities to facilitate safe trade
Towards paperless trade: SPS e-cert
• How electronic SPS certification can contribute
significantly to facilitating safe trade
• STDF seminars and projects:
– STDF seminar on SPS e-Cert, Geneva, June 2016
www.standardsfacility.org/SPS-eCert
– Transitioning from paper-based to automated SPS
systems, Geneva, July 2017:
www.standardsfacility.org/A4T_Review_2017
– ePhyto (FAO/IPPC, WBG, WCO, CITES, CFIA, USDA, private
sector)
– eVet project (OIE/FAO/WB) E-cert
The ePhyto Solution (STDF/PG/504)
• ePhyto is the electronic equivalent of a paper
phytosanitary certificate (ISPM 12)
• Improved security and reduced potential for
fraudulent certificates
• Efficiencies in the arrival and clearance of plants
and plant products
• Avoids bilateral agreements required for direct
NPPO to NPPO transfer of electronic certificates
See more: http://standardsfacility.org/PG-504
What is the ePhyto Solution
The ePhyto Solution is a system managed by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), and designed, developed and hosted by the United Nations International computing Centre (UNICC).
The ePhyto Solution is funded by the STDF and Donor Countries.
The system has 3 core components: Harmonization, the Hub and the Generic ePhyto National System
Challenges in implementing e-SPS certificates
• Weaknesses in existing paper-based systems
• Inadequate legislative framework
• Lack of political will
• Limited collaboration (public-private sector)
• Lack of standardized exchange protocols
• High costs
• IT infrastructure
Cherry on the cake?
• e-Cert is most effective when countries already have effective paper-based SPS certification systems, including functioning institutions and adequate legislation
• e-Cert does not solve systematic failures in national SPS import / export control systems
• Avoid risk that automation delivers the cherry, without the cake!
Source: M. Pikart, UNECE, STDF Seminar on e-cert, 2016
The STDF is currently supported by: