Both agreements contain some common elements, including basic non-discrimination obligations and similar requirements for the notification of proposed measures and the establishment of information offices (“enquiry points”). However, many of the substantive rules differ. For example, both agreements promote the application of international standards. However, under the SPS Agreement, the only justification for the absence of such food safety and animal/plant health standards is scientific arguments arising from an assessment of potential health risks. On the other hand, under the TBT Convention, governments may decide that international standards are not appropriate for other reasons, including fundamental technological problems or geographical factors. In the Tokyo Round of multilateral trade negotiations (1974-79), an Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade was negotiated (1979 TBT Agreement or “Code of Standards”) (see footnote 2). Although this agreement was not developed primarily to regulate sanitary and phytosanitary measures, it covered technical requirements arising from food safety and animal and plant protection measures, including pesticide residue limits, inspection requirements and labelling. Governments that were members of the 1979 TBT Convention have agreed to apply relevant international standards (such as food safety standards developed by Codex) unless they consider that such standards would not adequately protect health. They also agreed to inform other governments, through the GATT Secretariat, of all technical regulations that are not based on international standards. The 1979 TBT Agreement contained provisions for the settlement of trade disputes arising from the application of food safety and other technical restrictions. The WTO Secretariat has prepared this text to facilitate public understanding of the SPS Agreement. It is not intended to provide a legal interpretation of the Agreement. The decision to open the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations was taken after years of public debate, including debates in national governments.

The decision to negotiate an agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures was taken in 1986 at the launch of the Round. The SPS negotiations were open to the 124 governments that had participated in the Uruguay Round. Many governments were represented by their food safety or animal and plant protection officials. Negotiators also drew on the expertise of international technical organisations such as FAO, Codex and OIE. Although a number of developing countries have excellent food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary services, others do not. For them, the requirements of the SPS Convention pose a challenge to improving the health situation of their people, livestock and crops, which can be difficult for some to meet. As a result of these difficulties, all the requirements of the SPS Agreement, with the exception of those relating to transparency (notification and establishment of enquiry points), have been postponed to 1997 for developing countries and 2000 for least developed countries. This means that these countries are not required to provide a scientific justification of their sanitary or phytosanitary needs before that date. Countries that need longer deadlines, for example to improve their veterinary services or to implement specific obligations under the Agreement, may request the SPS Committee to grant them additional time. The objective of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement is to ensure that measures taken to protect human, animal and plant health are made known to the interested public and trading partners. The agreement requires governments to publish all sanitary and phytosanitary regulations without delay and, at the request of another government, provide an explanation of the reasons for a particular food safety or animal or plant health requirement. Who benefits from the implementation of the PLC agreement? Is the agreement in the interests of developing countries? Given that the provisional objective of GATT was to reduce tariffs, the framework that preceded the SPS Agreement was not sufficiently equipped to address the problems of non-tariff barriers (NTSBs) and the need for an independent agreement to address this issue became crucial.

[4] The SPS Convention is an ambitious attempt to address non-tariff barriers resulting from transboundary differences in technical standards without diminishing the prerogative of governments to take protective measures against diseases and pests. [5] The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, also known as the SPS Or SPS Agreement only, is an international treaty of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It was negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and entered into force with the establishment of the WTO in early 1995. [1] Overall, sanitary and phytosanitary (“SPS”) measures covered by the Agreement are those aimed at protecting human, animal or plant life or health from certain risks. [2] This introduction deals with the text of the SPS Agreement as contained in the Final Act of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, signed in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994. This Agreement and other contents in the Final Act and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, as amended (GATT 1994), form part of the Treaty establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO replaced the GATT as the umbrella organization for international trade. In 2003, the US challenged a series of EU laws restricting the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in a dispute known as EC-Biotech[11], arguing that they were “unjustifiable” and illegal under the SPS agreement. In May 2006, the WTO`s Dispute Settlement Body issued a complex decision that challenged some aspects of EU GMO rules, but rejected many of the claims made by the US. A summary of the decision can be found here. The scope of the two agreements is different.

The SPS Agreement covers all measures whose protection objective is as follows: with the adoption of the WTO Agreement, governments have agreed to be bound by the rules of all related multilateral trade agreements, including the SPS Agreement. .