9October2002全球化中的动植检规定问题GretchenH.Stanton高级顾问WTO农业及日用品分部政府
有权在必要时限制国际贸易来保护人类及动植物健康，? 然而…然而，这将导致贸易争端以科学依据为基础，政府必须能指
出对健康的危害或采取预防措施各政府必须统一健康保护标准政府必须行使最小贸易限制手段，以实现健康保护标准各政府必须透明化所采取
的措施基本措施科学合理性—假定和谐性一致性等效性无疾病区透明度技术援助/特殊处理科学合理性—问题
怎样判断是否基于科学准则如何判断科学依据是否充分科学依据来源于哪里使用的何种风险评估体系风险评估需要那些要素科学合
理性—说明欧共体荷尔蒙争议(WT/DS18和48)理论不确定性不在需考虑的风险之列（不确定性存在是因为科学永远不能完
全证明某一物质在将来也不会对健康产生负面影响）科学合理性—说明澳大利亚大马哈鱼争议(WT/DS18)科学合理性—
说明日本多样性测试(WT/DS76)预防措施—问题预防还是保护？科学依据何时才算充足的？多长审查时间合理？怎
样与预防原则比较预警—说明日本多样性测试WT/DS76）在相关科学信息不足的情况下，采取措施以已知信息为基础采取
措施各成员国必须积极寻求必要的附加信息各成员国必须在适当时期内调整其措施协调性-问题发展中国家参与标准制定国际
标准是否适当高于国际标准？关于本国处理的问题协调性—说明欧共体荷尔蒙问题（WT/DS26和48）基于国际标准不意味着
等同与国际标准（与国际一致）各国有权施加更严格的要求，但是必须论证此要求是以风险评估为基础协调性—说明 一致性
—问题 合理保护标准（ALOP）与合理风险标准相同国家有制定标准的自主权—但不制定合理保护标准很难一贯采用合理保护
标准，也很难保持一致一致性—说明欧共体荷尔蒙及澳大利亚大马哈鱼问题三测试不同情况下适用的保护标准也不同差异是随意
的，无法辨识的差异会导致国际贸易中歧视及隐蔽性限制各成员国应公开其合理保护标准成员国应比较不同措施所导致的不同的
保护标准，以避免任意或无法辨识的差异所有负责实施ALOP 标准的当局应清楚其国内ALOP政策各主管当局应相互了解对方事务
一致性—指导方针（接上）须采取共同的方法和一贯的程序对获得合理保护标准的方法进行评估如果合理保护标准发生变化，需
重新考虑现有措施，以达到两者一致需不断考虑和修改现有措施，以求与合理保护标准一致等效性—问题等效性范围—系统、产品、
程序及措施？产品进口国的合理报话标准是什么？产品进口国是否执行了风险评估？什么是客观论证？论证标准有哪些？等效性—说
明委员会指导方针(G/SPS/19)应措施或系统要求执行进口国鉴定风险并阐明合理保护标准进口商品国提供其措施的风险评估
或技术论述六个月内解决问题等效性指南—接上思考成功贸易的历史经验对发展中国家的可能技术援助要求等效性测定当
等效性被认可时，需发布通告SPS委员会应了解双边等效性协定或方案促进Codex，OIE及IPPC等国际组织中的等效性指导方针的
制定工作进一步工作规划（G/SPS/20）负责食品监督及认证系统的Codex委员会已制定了等效性协定的指导原则该
委员会正在起草卫生措施等效性的评价方针委员会强调进口商品国提供进等效比较的客观基础的重要性无疫病状况—问题需多少论证
证明合理？是否OIE或IPPC的认可足够？怎样对待一国内的乡村地方病区域透明度—问题通告的性质及及时性对不充足
的信息或时间加以说明解释所面临的困难有效处理质询要点的问题国内协调不佳透明度—说明推荐程序G/SPSP/7/Re
v.2及等效性通告透明度手册—修订版?日本多样性测试进沟所需的行政程序也应通告技术援助—问题很多发展中国家既无
法质疑它国的SPS措施,也不能完全验证其自己的手段是正当的技术援助提供者之间合作的需要特殊及差别对待的范畴 G/SPS
/W/113andG/SPS/GEN/295/add.特殊处理—说明多哈有关措施实施的部长决议（WT/MINC01
）/17条款10.2,措施逐步采取，通常有6个月的期附件B.2从措施的公布到实施，应有六个月时间差DG继续与OIE,联
合国粮食农业组织(FAO)、世界卫生组织(WHO)和世界银行合作联合声明(WT/MIN(01)/ST/97，WB/WTO新机构)
展望未来—问题怎样诠释最小贸易限制风险评估的优先性预防原则的说明及政府管理的灵活性转基因生物扩散型物种地区标准
的作用TheSPSAgreement,likeotherWTOagreements,establishesbo
thrightsandobligationsongovernments.Thebasicrightrecogn
izedbytheSPSAgreementisthatgovernmentshavetherightto
restrictinternationaltradewhenitisnecessarytoprotecthuma
n,animalorplanthealth.Thismeansthathealthprotectiontak
espriorityovertrade.However,governmentscanrestricttradei
nthenameofhealthprotectiononlyiftheyhaveidentifiedapo
tentialrisktohealth,ortakenatemporarymeasureifscientifi
cevidenceislacking.Andevenwhenatraderestrictionisjust
ifiedtohealthprotectionreasons,themeasuretakenbythegove
rnmentmustbenomorerestrictivetotradethanwhatisneededt
oprotecthealth.Transparency,thatisopenessandinformation
aboutthemeasure,isalsoabasicrequirementoftheSPSAgreeme
nt.EachofthebasicprovisionsoftheSPSagreementraisesques
tions.Someofthesequestionshavebeenanswered,atleasttos
omeextent,throughrulingsofWTOdisputesettlementpanelsand
theappellatebody,orthroughdecisionsandrecommendationsbyt
heSPSCommittee.Rulingsofapanel,ifnotreversedbytheApp
ellateBody,areconsideredtobelegalinterpretationsoftheag
reement.Inprinciple,theseinterpretationsapplyonlytothe
specificcaseathand,howeverinpracticetheydoestablishpre
cedentsforothersituations.TheSPSCommitteeitselfcannotfo
rmallyinteprettheagreement,althoughitcanrecommendinterpre
tationsforadoptionbytheWTOMinisterialConference.However,
decisionsandrecommendationsoftheCommitteereflectanagreed
understandingamongMembers,andcanbeimportantinadisputep
anel''sjudgementofcomplaincewiththeagreement.Inthisprese
ntationIwillhighlightsomeofthemainissueswhichhavebeen
raised,andidentifyanyofthe"answers"whichhavebeengiveno
verthepast7years.TheseconddisputeinvolvingtheSPSAgreem
entwaswithregardtoanimalhealthprotection,andparticularly
protectionfromfishdiseases.CanadacomplainedthatAustralia
wasnotjustifiedinprohibitingimportsoffreshchilledorfro
zensalmonforhumanconsumptionfromCanada,becausetheriskof
fishdiseaseintroductionwasnegligible.Australiahadunderta
kenadetailedriskassessment,whichwascarefullyexaminedbyt
hedisputesettlementPanelwiththehelpofsomeexpertadvisers
.ThePanelassumedthattheriskassessmentmettherequirement
softheSPSAgreement,butfoundthatthemeasurewasnotbased
onthatriskassessment.Thiswasbecausetheriskassessmentco
ncludedthattherisksofintroducingexoticdiseasesinsalmonf
orhumanconsumptionwereneglible,andbecauseAustraliaapparen
tlyacceptedmuchhigherriskswhenimportinglivefishorbaitf
ish.Whenthepanel''sdecisionwaslegallyappealed,theWTO''sA
ppellateBodyruledthatAustraliahadnotmetthesecondandth
irdrequirementsofariskassessment,becauseitwasnotsuffi
cienttosay“thereisapossibility...”Rather,theevaluatio
nofthelikelihoodrequiredconsiderationofprobability,inthe
faceofeachrisk-mitigationmeasurewhichmightbeused.theva
rietytestingmethodwasnotbasedonsufficientscientificevide
nce(Panel+AB)CompareSPSprovisionsfor"provisional"or"pre
cautionary"actionswiththoseproposedbytheEUandothers.Dis
cussionsinCodexGeneralPrinciplesCommitteeonhowtotakepre
cautionintoaccountinriskanalysis.EUproposalsimilartoA
rt.5.7,plusrequiresthatmeasuremustbeproportional,andmus
tbebasedonapreliminaryriskassessment.Majordifferencere
gardsthequestionofburdenofproof.UndertheSPSAgreement,
legallytheburdenremainsonthecountryinvokingthemeasureto
seek(andifneedbe,develop)theevidencenecessaryforamore
permanentconsideration.IntheEUproposal,theburdenforpro
vidingthescientificevidencefallsheavilyontheexportingcou
ntry.Anotherdifferenceistheextenttowhichsocioeconomicfa
ctorsmaybetakenintoconsideration.anobjectivebasisforcom
parison,accordingtothedraftguideline,mayinclude:thereaso
nfororpurposeofthesanitarymeasurehowthesanitarymeasure
achievesorcontributestoachievementofALOPexpressionofthe
levelofcontrolofthehazardwhichisachievedbythesanitary
measurethescientificbasisforthesanitarymeasureincluding
riskassessmentwhereappropriateThedefinitionofasanitary(h
umanoranimalhealthprotection)orphytosanitary(plantprotect
ion)measureisquitelimitedintheSPSAgreement.Manypotenti
althreatstohumanhealth,includingfrompoornutrition,areno
tcoveredbythisagreement,althoughtheWTO''sAgreeementonTec
hnicalBarrierstoTrademayberelevant.TheSPSAgreementdo
escovermostfoodsafetyconcerns,andmostplantandanimalhea
lthmeasures.Importantly,italsocoversactionstakentoprote
ctacountryfrominvasivespecies,andmayalsoberelevanttom
easuresdesignedtorestrictlivingmodifiedorganismsfromspre
ad.ItisimportanttonotethattheSPSAgreementdoesnotappl
yonlytoagriculturalandfoodproducts.Restrictionsoncerami
cdishwarethatcontainsleadpaintwhichmaycontaminatefoodar
ealsoSPSmeasures,asarerestrictionsonlotionsorcosmetics
producedwithpotentiallybovine-derivedingredientswhichmight
containBSE.ThebasicrequriementsunderlyingtheSPSAgreement
isthattheremustbeascientificjustificationforimposinga
measuretoprotecthealthwhichhastheeffectofhinderingtrade
.Article2.2requiresthatmembers"enusre"thatanymeasureis
appliedonlytotheextentnecessarytoprotecthealth,isbased
onscientificprinciplesandisnotmaintainedwithoutsufficien
tscientificevidence.Thisimmediatelyraisesanumberofque
stions,someofwhichareincludedinthisslide.TheAgreement
essentiallyprovidesgovernmentswithtwooptionsfordemonstrati
ngascientificjustification--eithertheymakeuseoftheinte
rnationallydevelopedstandards,ortheybasethemeasureonari
skassessment.AndsincetheAgreementencouragesthefirstopti
on,wewillexaminethatinmoredetailinafewmoments.Thefi
rstdisputebroughttotheWTO''sformaldisputesettlementmechan
ismwhichconcernedaviolationoftheSPSAgreementwasthebeef
hormonescase.TheEuropeanUnionprohibitstheimportorsale
ofmeatfromcattlewhichhavebeentreatedwithgrowth-promoting
hormones,arguingthatthisresultedinunacceptableriskstohu
manhealth.TheUSandCanadacomplainedthatthisprohibition
ignoredtheinternationalstandardwhichallowedfortheuseoft
hesehormones,andthattherewasnoscientificevidencethatthe
properuseofthesehormonespresentedarisktohumanhealth.
Thebasic,finaldecisioninthiscasewasthattheEUhadtheri
ghttorequiremorethantheCodexstandard,butonlyifitcould
justifyitsrequirementonthebasisofariskassessment.And
allofthescientificdataandassessmentswhichtheEUpresented
hadconcludedthattherewasnorisktohumanhealthfromtheco
nsumptionofbeefifthehormoneswerecorrectlyused.Therefore
theEUwasfoundtobeviolatingtheSPSAgreement.Oneimporta
ntelementoftherulingsinthiscasewasthatariskassessmentdoesnothavetobequantitative,butcanbequalitative.However,"real"riskshavetobeidentified,notjusttheoreticalrisks.什么是SPS？SPS协定—附件A保护:人类或动物生命使其免受起于添加剂,污染物,食物中有毒或携带病菌的有机物,饮料及饲料的风险来自于:人类生命使其免受起于动植物携带的病害(人畜共患病);动物或植物生命使其免受起于有害物,病害,或携带病害的有机物一个国家使国家免受由有害物的进入,生长及传播引起的损失三项测试(三重要求) 1. 识别疾病2. 评估疾病传入、发病和传播的可能性3. 参考SPS规定中可适用的方法需在措施和科学依据间建立合理的关联具体问题具体对待标准制定机构食品安全CODEX植物健康IPPC动物健康OIECodex=联合国粮食农业组织(FAO)/世界卫生组织(WHO)Codex营养联合委员会OIE=国际动物流行病办公室IPPC=国际植物保护大会(FAO)协调性?委员会监督国际标准的使用—实行的程序—G/sps/11一致性—说明委员会指南(G/SPS/15)等效性—Codex的近况 |
|
