Advertisement

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Issues: Where Does the WTO Go from Here?

  • Suzanne D. Thornsbury
Chapter
  • 137 Downloads
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 20)

Abstract

The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) governs regulations designed to mitigate potential negative externalities associated with the movement of products across national borders that might adversely impact human, animal, or plant health or life. When legitimate externalities or other market failures are addressed, such technical barriers have the potential to increase national welfare, even without consideration of terms-of-trade effects. All nations employ a wide range of standards and regulations to govern sales of agricultural products in national markets, the majority of which are considered justified commercial limitations.ii Governments may also impose technical barriers to isolate domestic producers from international competition. In these cases, under small-country assumptions, technical barriers are welfare-decreasing policies.

Keywords

World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Uruguay Round Technical Barrier Agricultural Trade 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott, F.L. 1997. “The Intersection of Law and Trade in the WTO System: Economics and the Transition to a Hard Law System,” in Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade, D. Orden and D. Roberts, eds., Chapter 3, St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.Google Scholar
  2. Bhagwati, J. 1996. “Trade and the Environment: Exploring the Critical Linkages,” in Agriculture, Trade and the Environment. M. Bredahl, N. Ballenger, J. Dunmore, and T. Roe, eds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  3. James, S. 2000. “An Economic Analysis of Food Safety Issues Following the SPS Agreement: Lessons from the Hormones Dispute.” Policy Discussion Paper No. 0005, Centre for International Economic Studies, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia (February).Google Scholar
  4. Josling, T. 1998. Agricultural Trade Policy: Completing the Reform. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  5. Josling, T. 2000. “Issues in the WTO Agricultural Negotiations: An Overview.” Paper presented at the Global Agricultural Trade in the New Millennium Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana (25–26 May).Google Scholar
  6. Kopp, R., A. Krupnick, and M. Toman. 1997. “Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Reform: An Assessment of the Science and the Art.” Discussion Paper 97–19, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC (January).Google Scholar
  7. Roberts, D. 1998. “Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Trade Regulations.” Journal of International Economic Law 2: 377–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Roberts, D., D. Orden, and T. Josling. 1999. “WTO Disciplines on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Barriers to Agricultural Trade: Progress, Prospects, and Implications for Developing Countries.” Invited Paper presented at the 1999 World Bank Global Conference on Agriculture and the New Trade Agenda from a Development Perspective: Interests and Options in the WTO Negotiations, Geneva, Switzerland (1–2 October).Google Scholar
  9. Sykes, A.O. 1995. Product Standards for Internationally Integrated Goods Markets. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Thornsbury, S., D. Roberts, K. DeRemer, and D. Orden. 1999. “A First Step in Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade,” in G.H. Peters and J. Von Braun, eds., pp. 453–463. Food Security, Diversification, and Resource Management: Refocusing the Role of Agriculture? Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  11. USDA/APHIS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). 1998. Proposed Rule for Importation of Grapefruit, Lemons, and Oranges from Argentina, Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC: USDA/APHIS (November).Google Scholar
  12. USDA/ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service). 1999. “U.S. and State Farm Income Data.” Internet website: http://www.econ.ag.giv/briefing/farmincome/finfidmy.htm
  13. USDA/FAS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service). 2000. Republic of Korea, Citrus, Semi-Annual Report. GAIN Report KS0054, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. WTO (World Trade Organization). 2000. Declaration of the Ministers of Trade of the Least-Developed Countries, Seattle, 20 November 1999. WT/L/343, Geneva, Switzerland (9 February).Google Scholar
  15. WTO (World Trade Organization). 1999. The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. WTO/GC (World Trade Organization, General Council). 1999. E.C. Approach on Agriculture. WT/GC/W/273, Geneva Switzerland (27 July).Google Scholar
  17. WTO/SPS (World Trade Organization, Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures). 2000. Documents and Notifications Circulated During 1999. G/SPS/GEN/171, Geneva, Switzerland (15 March).Google Scholar
  18. WTO/SPS (World Trade Organization, Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures). 1999a. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. G/SPS/12, Geneva, Switzerland (11 March).Google Scholar
  19. WTO/SPS (World Trade Organization, Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures). 1999b. Membership in WTO and International Standard-Setting Bodies. G/SPS/GEN/49/Rev.1, Geneva, Switzerland (7 May).Google Scholar
  20. WTO/SPS (World Trade Organization, Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures). 1998. Notification. G/SPS/N/USA/132, Geneva, Switzerland (28 August).Google Scholar
  21. WTO/TPR. (World Trade Organization, Trade Policy Review Body). 2000. Trade Policy Review: United States. WT/TPR/M/56/Add. 1, Geneva, Switzerland (9 March).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suzanne D. Thornsbury
    • 1
  1. 1.University of FloridaUSA

Personalised recommendations