Simon PadillaSTDF Secretariat

simon.padilla@wto.org 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: