|
|
|
|
|
1. Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues fall under the old rubric of "an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure". A failure to apply adequate sanitary guidelines can lead to condemnations, such as "contaminated", "unsafe", "recalled". Such judgements have been applied to several non-citrus fresh fruits and juices in the past few years, resulting in substantial financial losses to individual companies and loss of export markets for fresh fruit. Consumer and national health authority confidence in fresh and processed citrus lies at the heart of a viable and growing citrus trade.
2. International citrus trade has enjoyed a long period relatively free of problems in the sanitary or phytosanitary areas. There is, however, no room for complacency or apathy. SPS issues are extremely important to this industry and they will probably assume increasing importance over the next several years.
3. The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures applies to all sanitary and phytosanitary measures which may, directly or indirectly, affect international trade. The SPS Agreement confirms the right of WTO Members to develop their own measures for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health provided that those SPS measures:
Consequently, the SPS Agreement encourages consistent and transparent decision-making in developing and maintaining SPS measures, which in turn, should help prevent arbitrary decisions.
4. The SPS Agreement acknowledges the importance of harmonizing standards internationally so as to minimize or eliminate the risk of sanitary and phytosanitary standards becoming barriers to trade. In pursuance of harmonization, the SPS Agreement refers to the international standards, guidelines and recommendations of three organizations, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the International Office of Epizootics and the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, established under the New Revised Text of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), as the preferred measures for adoption by WTO members. The secretariats of the Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission and the IPPC are located within FAO.
5. Harmonization of regulations and transparency in the formulation and application of the SPS rules can be expected to provide short- and long-term benefits to both exporters and importers. However, these are not in the form of instantly liberalized trade with marketing opportunities immediately available. What is taking place is the reforming of the marketing system so that members can be protected against arbitrary measures.
6. One of the immediate benefits is the institution of Enquiry Points. From these points countries may determine the present and planned regulations of a trading partner. They may also request information concerning the risk assessment procedures and factors taken into consideration in the construction of regulations. In addition, the Notification system provides for WTO Members to inform other Members if they plan to change their regulations in cases where the changes do not follow international standards (or if such standards do not exist) and/or they are likely to have a significant effect on trade with other Members. This process includes the right to comment on such changes and to request consultation on the comments. A Member which is changing its regulations cannot refuse this consultation.
7. A major benefit of the WTO system is that countries now have access to a neutral dispute settlement system for resolving disagreements over sanitary and phytosanitary measures. It involves a two stage process. The first stage requires the countries concerned to consult among themselves with a view to settling their disagreement. A country may request that its concerns be brought to the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. One of the roles of this Committee is to encourage and facilitate ad hoc consultations or negotiations among countries on specific sanitary and phytosanitary issues. If the disagreement cannot be settled through consultation, the country concerned can proceed to the second stage and ask the WTO Dispute Settlement Body to appoint a panel to hear the dispute.
8. As an example, if an exporting country’s product meets an international standard but entry is refused, the exporting country has access to the WTO dispute settlement process. Firstly, the exporting country would need to provide sufficient argument to show that the importing country’s SPS measure is inconsistent with the SPS Agreement. The Panel will then make a prima facie determination on the matter. If it is favourable to the exporting country, then the burden of proof is on the importing country to disprove the exporting country’s claims.
9. Alternatively, a country may try to resolve the issue through the dispute settlement procedures of the IPPC. This process is complementary to the WTO process and does not prevent a country from taking its concerns to the WTO. Like the WTO process, this procedure requires the countries concerned to consult among themselves with a view to resolving the dispute in the first instance. Unlike the WTO process, a Committee’s recommendations under the IPPC are not binding on the parties.
10. Phytosanitary measures are those which are applied to protect plant life or health within a country from risks arising from the entry, establishment or spread of pests. The IPPC came into force in 1952, was amended in 1979 and revised in 1997. The New Revised Text of the IPPC reflects its relationship with the WTO through the SPS Agreement. It was adopted by the Conference of FAO in November 1997. It is currently awaiting ratification by signatories to the IPPC and is open to adherence by non-signatories to the IPPC. The New Revised Text, among other things, establishes a Commission on Phytosanitary Measures whose functions will include setting international standards for phytosanitary measures.
11. The IPPC requires countries to establish, within the best of its ability, a national plant protection organization (NPPO). The New Revised Text of the IPPC describes the functions of such an NPPO, as including:
12. In order to minimise interference with international trade, the IPPC requires that countries in exercising their authority to regulate the entry of plant and plant products, ensure, among other things, that:
13. The IPPC ensures accessibility of decision making by requiring countries to communicate, as well as publish, the matters mentioned above to FAO, to relevant regional plant protection organizations and any country directly concerned.
For the export of fresh agricultural produce and planting materials, including citrus, to countries with stringent requirements, infrastructure with the following components is necessary:
An importing country must be satisfied of compliance with its requirements. The importing country NPPO may check:
14. Therefore, the exporting NPPO must have checking systems of its own to ensure that the production and certification procedures operate in a manner that allows the importing country’s requirements to be satisfied.
15. In summary, to meet the requirements of an importing country, there must be cooperation between the government authority of the exporting country and the exporters and producers. These groups need to develop effective and efficient systems so that the NPPO of an importing country has confidence in the production and certification systems. The certification procedure must have conformance checks so that only citrus planting material that meets requirements is exported. Without appropriate infrastructure with official and industry input, there is little likelihood that phytosanitary requirements could be met.
16. Further work remains to be done in the phytosanitary area to:
17. Sanitary requirements involve standards relating to the safety and quality of foodstuffs. The FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius, as the recognized WTO body for food standard formulation, establishes the standards as well as codes of good manufacturing practice and other guidelines to protect the health of the consumer and remove unfair practices in international trade, including those for citrus fruits and juices. Food safety covers the use of additives, veterinary drugs, pesticide residues, contaminants, methods of analysis and sampling and codes and guidelines of hygienic practice.
18. Codex Alimentarius has published a series of standards for citrus, including: 15-1981 for canned grapefruit; 68-1981 for canned mandarin oranges; 80-1981 for citrus marmalade, CAC/RCP 2-1969, a Code of Hygienic Practice for Canned Fruit and Vegetable Products; 64-1981, concentrated orange juice; and 45-1981, orange juice preserved exclusively by physical means. The 23rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (June 1999) will also be considering the adoption of draft Codex Standards for Limes, Mexican Limes and Pomelos. The Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, which is hosted by the Government of Mexico, is also in the process of elaborating proposed draft Codex Standards for Grapefruits and Oranges.
19. As pesticide residues are issues of considerable relevance to fresh fruit trade, the following section concentrates on this set of regulations. Pesticide residues are regulated to provide society and the environment with the maximum possible protection from risks associated with the use of pesticides, but in a manner which poses the minimum limitation to trade. Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) are applied to domestic and imported produce. The establishment of an MRL is a complex process, but in essence involves the assessment of :
20. Since MRLs may vary from country to country, the SPS agreements attempt to facilitate trade by setting rules for the establishment of standards.
21. To adequately deal with pesticide residues a country needs a regulatory system to set and implement MRLs. Exporting countries have to establish private or government agencies to:
22. The resolution of pesticide residue problems is difficult and requires substantial resources. The WTO Agreement recognizes that developing countries may have a problem meeting international SPS regulations because of limited resources. Thus, special and differential treatment is given to developing countries to allow them more time to meet requirements. Developing countries have six years to meet their obligations, while least developed countries have ten years. The exempted countries are not required to provide scientific justification for sanitary or phytosanitary requirements before the end of the phase-in.
23. The CODEX process has established a list of MRLs for citrus fruits. The Annex is a compilation of those applied to citrus fruits as published in volume 2B in the revised CODEX Alimentarius edition of 1996.
24. Working together, exporters and importers have developed three primary methodologies for dealing with sanitary and phytosanitary concerns with horticultural products in international trade: 1) disease-free zones and regions of low risk; 2) increased interceptions at ports of entry; and 3) pre-clearance programmes.
25. This concept specifically suggests that countries should have the opportunity to export from areas which are demonstrated to be free from particular diseases or in which the prevalence of the disease is low even though the disease or pest of concern may exist elsewhere within the national territory. This approach is a recognition of regionalization for many products which in the past required countries to be zero risk in their entirety. The burden of proof that a zone or region is disease-free lies with the exporting country, but a formal methodology for recognition of disease-free areas has not been established.
26. In 1995, after a long campaign and substantial investment in the release of sterile flies to counter the Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Medfly), Ceratitis capita, Chile was declared a Medfly free zone. The lack of quarantine and fumigation treatment requirements for Chilean fruit constitutes a tremendous cost savings for Chilean exporters, and is estimated to have permitted a US$500 million increase in total fruit exports between 1995 and 2000.
27. In order to achieve such disease-free recognition, exporters need good infrastructure, as the verification process is lengthy and costly, and importers need to be reassured that declared regions or zones are likely to remain disease-free. In the case of citrus pests, a year of trapping data is needed once a disease-free region has been proposed. Importing countries often co-operate closely in this effort, bearing some of the costs, as it helps them minimize unforeseen outbreaks in their own growing areas. The exporting country often permits the importing country to send its inspectors to evaluate the conditions, regulatory programmes and quarantine procedures that are in place.
28. Importing countries have this option to prevent infected products from entering their territories. If a product is intercepted and found to contain disease-causing agents, the product can be re-exported, fumigated or surrendered for destruction. Re-export can be to the country of origin or to an importing country with lower standards in this regard. Methyl bromide is the usual fumigant, which however can reduce shelf life unless done under controlled cold temperatures. For instance, oranges, tangerines, grapefruit and lemons may be subject to methyl bromide fumigation at US ports of entry if a quarantine pest of significance is detected. Destruction of the product is relatively costly.
29. In and of itself methyl bromide is not an SPS issue, but rather an environmental issue as it is considered a contributor to ozone depletion and is to be phased-out in developed countries by 2001 and in developing countries by 2010. Other methods envisaged as alternatives include pesticide dips, phosphine, controlled atmosphere, vapour heat, hot water dips, forced hot air treatment, cold treatments, polywrapping, coating of fruits and irradiation.
30. Pre-clearance programmes by specifically inspecting and treating products on site in exporting countries prior to shipment, avoid potential conflicts and financial losses at ports of entry. For example, APHIS (Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service) of the United States Department of Agriculture has been working with many Latin American countries to establish programmes to specify the procedures which should be taken to ensure that an export commodity does not carry pests and diseases. Exporters can benefit by expediting the inspection process and reducing the costs of cold storage treatment. They pay for the APHIS inspection services through trust funds. In citrus, pre-clearance programmes in the United States exist for Unshu oranges with Japan, for Mandarin oranges from the Republic of Korea, citrus from Mexico (fumigation or from free zones) and for lemons, clementines and Valencia oranges from Spain. In the case of Chile, as a result of careful strategic planning and investment in targeted research, Chile has successfully argued for lowering the stringency of many requirements through a history of "clean" shipments and compliance with the regulations imposed by importers.
31. As concerns over pesticide and food safety evolve, and as analytic and test capabilities improve, new procedures are adopted by importers. For example, the following monitoring exercise is currently underway in the EC with regard to MRLs on imported oranges. Based on this analysis, consideration may be given to eliminating or modifying these levels, or to changing inspection procedures at ports of entry. The EC performs such monitoring on different imports on an on-going basis.
| Pesticide residue to be analysed | MRL (mg/kg) |
| Oranges | |
| Acephate | 1 |
| Benomyl group | 5 |
| Chlorpyriphos | 0,3 |
| Chlorpyriphos-methyl | (a) |
| Deltamethrin | 0,05 * |
| Maneb group | 2 |
| Imazalil | 5 |
| Iprodione | 0,02 * |
| Methamidophos | 0,2 |
| Permethrin | 0,5 |
| Vinclozolin | 0,05 * |
| Lambda-cyhalothrin | 0,02 * |
| Metalaxyl | (b) |
| Methidathion | 2 |
| Pirmiphos-methyl | 1 |
| Thiabendazol | 6 |
| Diazinon | 0,5 |
| Endosulfan | 1 |
| Mecarbam | 2 |
| Triazophos | (b) |
* Indicates lower limit of analytical determination
(a) Appropriate lower limit of analytical determination from 1 January 1998 unless another level adopted.
(b) No MRL fixed at European Community level.
_________________________________________
Source: Official Journal of the European Communities, 9.12.97, L337/16.
32.An additional issue having implications for horticultural trade is increased concern among importing nations over contamination by microbial bacteria and naturally-occurring toxins which may pose dangers to human health. Fresh produce is identified as a vehicle carrying disease-causing pathogens. For example, in the United States, between 1988 and 1992, there were 64 outbreaks of illness and death caused by food-borne disease linked to fruits and vegetables. While there is no clear evidence that health risks due to microbial contamination are greater in imported than in domestically-grown produce, in October 1997, the United States proposed legislation to permit the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to inspect foreign food-safety practices and to halt imports of fruits and vegetables from countries that do not meet United States standards. The United States Government, with input from the domestic and international community, intends to issue guidance on sound agricultural and manufacturing practices for fruits and vegetables in about one year.
33. The harmonization of sanitary and phytosanitary measures is expected to benefit trade in fresh citrus fruits in the longer run. At the same time, adjustments will be required by exporting countries, in particular as they phase-out the use of long-established treatment methods with methyl bromide, and work towards alternatives, because of environmental concerns. It is widely believed that if bans on methyl bromide come into place in developed country markets, then imports of citrus fruits treated with methyl bromide may not be allowed. This situation could present major problems for many developing countries, particularly if the costs incurred in meeting SPS standards (including investment in new treatment plants, etc.) outweigh the benefits for small export volumes.
34. Many factors need to be considered in the successful export of citrus fruit. After obtaining the up-to-date sanitary and phytosanitary requirements of the prospective importing country or countries, the exporter and NPPO of the exporting country have to determine if the same, or other procedures achieving an equivalent level of protection can be put in place so that the product can meet the requirements. For any import requirement but the most simple, considerable effort, expertise and expense may be needed to meet phytosanitary requirements. Given the nutritional benefits, the outlook for citrus fruits is promising. However, in order to be able to derive maximum nutritional advantage from these fruits it is essential that they are safe and wholesome.
35. In light of evolving developments in many countries regarding fresh food safety and residue levels applied to imported citrus, delegates may wish the Secretariat to monitor this situation with a view to reporting on developments to the Group in the future. In light of the importance of the phase-out in the use of methyl bromide, the Group may wish to have a specific up-date on this issue at its next meeting.
| Residue | MRL |
| Captan | 15 (Temporary) |
| Carbaryl | 7 |
| Chlorfenvinphos | 1 |
| Chlorpyrifos | 0.3 |
| 2, 4-D | 2 |
| Dimethoate | 2 |
| Ethion | 2 |
| Fenitrothion | 2 |
| Fenthion | 2 |
| Bromide Ion | 30 |
| Malathion | 4 |
| Mevinphos | 0.2 |
| Monocrotophos | 0.2 |
| Phosalone | 1 |
| Phosphamidon | 0.4 |
| Thiabendazole | 10 Post-harvest treatment |
| Trichlorfon | 0.1 |
| Cyhexatin | 2 |
| Bromopropylate | 5 |
| Thiophanate-Methyl | 10 Post-harvest treatment |
| Chinomethionat | 0.5 |
| Chlorothalonil | 5 |
| Pirimiphos-Methyl | 2 |
| Methomyl | 1 |
| Primicarb | 0.05 (At or about the limit of determination) |
| Phosmet | 5 |
| Fenbutatin Oxide | 5 |
| Imazalil | 5 Post-harvest treatment |
| Propargite | 5 |
| Guazatine | 5 Post-harvest treatment |
| Aldicarb | 0.2 |
| Cypermethrin | 2 |
| Fenvalerate | 2 |
| Permethrin | 0.5 |
| Mecarban | 2 |
| Oxamyl | 5 |
| Phenthoate | 1 |
| Azocyclotin | 2 |
| Diflubenzuron | 1 |
| Isofenphos | 2 |
| Methiocarb | 0.05 ((At or about the limit of determination) |
| Metalaxyl | 5 Post-harvest treatment |
| Clofenfenzine | 0.5 |
| Heptachlor | 0.01 |
Source: FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius, Volume 2B, Revised 1996.