EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

• Establishment and maintenance of databases and information systems on
international standards and SPS requirements of trading partners.
• Establishment of national notification authorities and/or enquiry points (see below).
The broad picture is of fundamental weaknesses in the food safety and plant and animal
health management capacity of ACP countries, which is confirmed by other more ad hoc
assessments of SPS capacity in these countries (for example: CTA, 2003; Integrated
Framework, 2005 and 2006; Molins and Gitonga, 2006; Molins and Masaga, 2006; Molins
and Bulega, 2006). This suggests that, while a number of countries have faced particular
problems with food and feed exports to the EU, as indicated by the analysis of detention
data and specific trade concerns detailed above, these represent the ‘tip of the iceberg’ in
terms of the impact of EU SPS requirements on ACP countries. It is likely that weaknesses
in core elements of SPS capacity undermine the ability of existing and potential exporters to
comply and/or erodes their competitiveness more broadly. The crux of the issue, therefore,
is capacity-building.
3. SPS measures in EU trade agreements
The EU has signed a number of free trade agreements with developing countries that
include provisions relating to SPS measures (Rudloff and Simons, 2006):
• Mediterranean Association Agreements (MED) with Tunisia (1995), Morocco (1996),
Jordon (1997), Palestinian Authority (1997), Algeria (2001) and Lebanon (2002). 160
• Trade, Development and Technical Cooperation Agreement (TDCA) with South
Africa (1999).
• Economic Partnership, Coordination and Cooperation Agreement with Mexico
(1997).
• EU-Chile Association Agreement (2002).
Given the rights and obligations laid down by the SPS Agreement, these agreements mainly
focus on procedural issues in relations between the parties. Emphasis is put on facilitating
the application of the SPS Agreement by fostering consistent application of SPS measures
through common understanding of WTO provisions and harmonisation through consistency
with international standards and/or mutual recognition provisions. These acts not only to
formalise commitments to the SPS Agreement, but also affords flexibility in dealing with
disagreements between the parties; disputes can be settled through the free trade
agreement or through the WTO. Only very rarely do these agreements contain individual
provisions that go beyond WTO commitments on SPS measures, and where this does occur
(notably the EU-Chile Association Agreement as described below) this is through productspecific
supplements that detail procedural provisions.
There are significant differences in the degree and manner in which these free trade
agreements cover SPS measures, reflecting both the time at which these agreements were
entered into and (more importantly) the level of economic development of the developing
country partner. Both the TCDA and MED agreements contain very limited and ‘shallow
provisions on SPS measures, mainly reaffirming existing commitments under the WTO, with
an overall emphasis on the harmonisation of SPS measures as an overall target and
cooperation. There is no explicit commitment in these agreements for the provision of
technical assistance. The agreement with Mexico broadly has the same provisions, but
crucially establishes a joint committee on SPS measures to facilitate information exchange,
to provide a forum to identify and address problems arising from the application of SPS
measures and to explore provisions for the application of regionalisation and the assessment
160 A MED was also signed with Israel in 1995.
231