equivalence - Cclac.org

EQUIVALENCE OF CONTROL
SYSTEMS
ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN FOOD
SAFETY AND TRADE
Dr. Maya Piñeiro, Ph.D.
Senior Officer
Food Quality and Standards Service
Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division
AGNS, FAO
1

THE PROBLEM OF ANY
MEASURE TO BE ADOPTED
It should balance opposing requirements
between:
Regulatory autonomy at domestic level, and
• Promoting social objectives (Health, Food
Security)
• Facilitating trade
• Not hiding protectionist practices
2

EQUIVALENCE
Equivalence was last defined in 2004 for the SPS
Agreement as:
Mutual acceptance of another
member’s standards which, although
different, have the same effect.
3

EQUIVALENCE AND MUTUAL
RECOGNITION
• Equivalence: recognizing that different
control systems can reach the same
objective: it normally refers to specific
sanitary or phytosanitary measures.
• Mutual Recognition: two trading
countries recognize one another’s
control procedures as valid: they may
cover all foods or specific foods.
4

EQUIVALENCE
Equivalence is about obtaining the same
results rather than to the methods used to
do this: for example, accepting different
measures that achieve the importing
country’s appropriate level of protection.
Equivalence is thus a different concept
than mutual recognition, certification,
conformity or harmonization.
5

EQUIVALENCE
‣ The SPS Agreement makes a general
reference to equivalence for sanitary and
phytosanitary measures.
‣ The TBT Agreement assumes that the
international standards it promotes are
already equivalent, and so technical
regulations and conformity assessment
procedures should, if based on such
international standards, be considered
equivalent.
6

EQUIVALENCE
‣ The concept means recognizing that the
same objective (the Appropriate Level of
Protection - ALOP) can be reached with
different measures.
‣ Operationally, procedures should be set
and adopted to confirm that the same
objective is reached.
‣ OBC (Objective Basis of Comparison)
Tools to demonstrate ALOP equivalence.
‣ Its scope needs to be extended to
individual products or product groups.
7

EQUIVALENCE IN THE SPS
AGREEMENT
The SPS Agreement makes explicit reference to
equivalence in Article 4, Equivalence
1. “Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary
measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these
measures differ from their own or from those used by other
Members trading in the same product, if the exporting
Member objectively demonstrates to the importing Member
that its measures achieve the importing Member's
appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection.
For this purpose, reasonable access shall be given, upon
request, to the importing Member for inspection, testing
and other relevant procedures
2. Members shall, upon request, enter into consultations with
the aim of achieving bilateral and multilateral agreements
on recognition of the equivalence of specified sanitary or
phytosanitary measures”
8

EQUIVALENCE IN THE TBT
AGREEMENT
The TBT Agreement makes indirect reference to equivalence:
‣ Art. 2.7 “Members shall give positive consideration to
accepting as equivalent technical regulations of other
Members, even if these regulations differ from their own,
provided they are satisfied that these regulations
adequately fulfil the objectives of their own regulations”.
‣ Art. 6.1 “Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs
3 and 4, Members shall ensure, whenever possible, that
results of conformity assessment procedures in other
Members are accepted, even when those procedures differ
from their own, provided they are satisfied that those
procedures offer an assurance of conformity with
applicable technical regulations or standards equivalent to
their own procedures. It is recognized that prior
consultations may be necessary in order to arrive at a
mutually satisfactory understanding regarding, in
particular…”
9

HOW IS EQUIVALENCE
ACHIEVED
‣ The SPS Agreement recommends “Members
shall, upon request, enter into consultations with
the aim of achieving bilateral and multilateral
agreements on recognition of the equivalence of
specified sanitary or phytosanitary measures.”
(Art. 4.2)
‣ The TBT Agreement states “Members are
encouraged, at the request of other Members, to
be willing to enter into negotiations for the
conclusion of agreements for the mutual
recognition of results of each other's conformity
assessment procedures.” (Art. 6.3)
10

HOW IS EQUIVALENCE
ACHIEVED
‣ The Agreements provide no specific
guidance other than parties’ implicit
willingness to facilitate trade.
‣ For this reason, the Codex Alimentarius
Commission has developed guidelines for
the measures provided for in the SPS
Agreement.
‣ At the WTO, some members and
multilateral organizations have made
suggestions and comments.
11

ACHIEVIING EQUIVALENCE
‣ Equivalence agreements (treaties, exchange of
correspondence and memoranda of
understanding) are necessary to facilitate trade,
reducing costs for consumers.
‣ There remain a large number of challenges
associated with the judgement of equivalence.
‣ There are relatively few operational agreements
on recognition.
‣ Work needs to be continued.
12

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN
ACHIEVING
EQUIVALENCE
“equality” instead of “equivalence”
It is inappropriate to request the exporting
country to demonstrate that its measure is
equal to that of the importing country.
Rather, it should demonstrate it is
equivalent in order to achieve the required
level of protection.
13

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN
ACHIEVING
EQUIVALENCE
Achieveing equivalence may require significant
resources and lengthy negotiations with high
administrative costs.
‣ It is worth remembering that equivalence is a
trade facilitation measure;
‣ As such, it should be as cost-effective as
possible;
‣ Product lists need to be analyzed on a bilateral
basis, taking into consideration associated risk
levels and stressing the history, confirmed by
historical records including rejections.
14

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN
ACHIEVING
EQUIVALENCE
The importing country should set its appropriate level of
protection, and the exporting country should satisfactorily
demonstrate that it can achieve it with its own measures
This implies:
‣ Very clear identification of the level of protection required
by the importing country;
‣ Explanation of the purpose of the measure and
identification of the risk it intends to avoid;
‣ Provision of scientific information supporting the
recognition of equivalence;
‣ Provision of technical assistance to help identify and
implement measures recognized as equivalent.
15

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN
ACHIEVING
EQUIVALENCE
International guidance on equivalence
need to be available so that the
principle may be applied consistently
The CAC (CCFICS) has prepared
guidelines, but active ongoing
participation of Member Countries in the
development of these texts is essential.
16

EQUIVALENCE AND CODEX
• The adopted “Principles for Food Import
and Export Inspection and Certification”
state:
“Countries should recognize that different
inspection/certification systems may be
capable of meeting the same objective,
and are therefore equivalent. The
obligation to demonstrate equivalence
rests with the exporting country.”
17

EQUIVALENCE AND CODEX
• The “Guidelines for the Design, Operation,
Assessment and Accreditation of Food Import and
Export Inspection and Certification Systems” state:
“The recognition of equivalence of inspection and
certification should be facilitated where it can be
objectively demonstrated that there is an
appropriate system for inspection and certification
of food by the exporting country in accordance with
these guidelines.”
18

EQUIVALENCE AND CODEX
• The “Guidelines for the Development of
Equivalence Agreements…”
• Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of
Sanitary Measures Associated with Food
Inspection and Certification Systems (2003)
• Appendices being prepared
19

EQUIVALENCE AND CODEX
The guidelines also state that :
• The same food produced in different places
may result in different hazards;
• Control methodologies may be different but
they should produce the same results;
• Imported and domestic food control should
be designed to ensure the same level or
protection;
• Unnecessary control duplication should be
avoided.
20

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN
ACHIEVING
EQUIVALENCE
Transparency in equivalence
agreements and confidence in the
equivalence judgment process is
needed
Contact Points could provide information
on concluded agreements as well as the
terms and criteria adopted.
21

SOME REQUIREMENTS TO REACH
EQUIVALENCE AGREEMENTS
‣ The (legal and regulatory) infrastructure, specific
requirements (facilities, equipment, processes,
procedures and tests ), scope and required levels
of protection need to be available.
‣ Difficulties may be encountered during
negotiations and eventually hinder progress at
some stage, particularly when analyzing facilities;
assessing laboratories and systems for efficient,
qualified inspection; and performing audits and
early warning systems.
22

CONSIDERATIONS
‣ Reaching a balance between a more structured
approach and another providing more flexible
options also facilitating trade: exchange of
correspondence or MOU,
‣ Defining the scope (including individual products
or sectors),
‣ Clearly defining the involved parties,
‣ Bearing in mind the history,
‣ Access is not necessarily limited, for some
countries, to equivalence agreements, except for
sensitive sectors (meat and poultry).
23

BENEFITS OF AGREEMENTS ON
MUTUAL RECOGNITION
• Assuring consumers of an appropriate level
of protection,
• Better joint use of resources,
• Trade facilitation and elimination of delays at
ports of entry,
• Less dependence on routine inspections
• Harmonization of food regulations and
control systems,
• Quick solutions to problems
24

CONCLUSION
• Agreements on mutual recognition and
equivalence have the potential to
facilitate trade and reduce costs
• A number of challenges associated with
how to judge equivalence
• CCFICS actively works on the
development of guidelines on these
matters
25