EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

Specific provisions
While the final and interim agreements share a considerable amount of common language,
they differ significantly in the range and scope of their specific provisions. Broadly, where
specific provisions have been agreed, the language tends to be rather vague and noncommittal,
the final agreement between the EC and CARIFORUM is testament to this point
(ECLAC, 2008). At the same time, there are some notable instances where specific
provisions, for example related to equivalence or regional harmonisation are given more
prominence and/or make firmer commitments.
Competent Authority
The EU’s approach to the control of food safety in imports of food and feed from Third
Countries has increasingly relied on the recognition of an approved component authority in
the exporting country. Such a system has been in place for some time in the case of food of
animal origin and for phytosanitary controls (European Commission, 2006). While, imports of
many foods of non-animal origin are not subject to controls by an approved component
authority, it is evident that Regulation (EC) 882/2004 puts greater emphasis on the ability of
Third Countries to demonstrate that their food controls are equivalent to those in the EU and
provides for the inspection of these systems by the European Commission. This suggests
that component authorities in Third Countries will play an increasing role for exports to the
EU of all food and feed products.
All of the final or interim agreements make reference to a designated competent authority for
the implementation of SPS measures, that the parties are required to specify and
communicate to each other. The component authority is charged with the implementation of
the measures defined in the EPA, as they apply to SPS measures.
Regionalisation
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement specifies that WTO Members must adapt their SPS
measures to reflect the area from which a product is originated and/or to which it is destined,
whether a country in its entirety or only part of a country. Specifically, they must recognise
the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest- or disease-prevalence
and adapt their SPS measures accordingly. This requirement is typically referred to as
‘regionalisation’.
In assessing the characteristics of a particular region, WTO Members must take into account
the level of prevalence of specific diseases or pests, the existence of eradication or control
programmes and appropriate criteria or guidelines developed by relevant international
organisations. In 2008, the SPS Committee adopted guidelines to facilitate the recognition
of pest- or disease-free areas. 163 Critically, under the SPS Agreement the onus is on
exporting countries to provide the necessary evidence in order to demonstrate objectively to
importing countries that particular regions are free of pertinent pests or diseases and are
likely to remain that way. Importing countries must be permitted reasonable access to
undertake inspections, testing and the like to confirm conditions in the area.
A number of the interim agreements, namely between the EU and Ghana, Cote d’ Ivoire,
Central Africa and SADC, make reference to the concept of regionalisation, although
referring to it as ‘zoning’. For example, Article 60 Part 4 of the SADC interim agreement
specifies:
163 Document G/SPS/48.
238