a proposal to evaluate the legitimacy of s anitary and t echnical measures in b razil l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
A proposal to evaluate the legitimacy of S anitary and T echnical measures in B razil PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
A proposal to evaluate the legitimacy of S anitary and T echnical measures in B razil

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 27

A proposal to evaluate the legitimacy of S anitary and T echnical measures in B razil - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 95 Views
  • Uploaded on

A proposal to evaluate the legitimacy of S anitary and T echnical measures in B razil. Sílvia Helena Galvão de Miranda Geraldo Sant’Ana de Camargo Barros San Diego – CA 4-6 th December 2005. Summary. Introduction: Concepts Objectives Important Previous Work Relevance Index

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'A proposal to evaluate the legitimacy of S anitary and T echnical measures in B razil' - tamatha


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
a proposal to evaluate the legitimacy of s anitary and t echnical measures in b razil

A proposal to evaluate the legitimacy of Sanitary and Technical measures in Brazil

Sílvia Helena Galvão de Miranda

Geraldo Sant’Ana de Camargo Barros

San Diego – CA

4-6th December 2005

summary
Summary
  • Introduction:
    • Concepts
  • Objectives
  • Important Previous Work
  • Relevance Index
    • Economic Relevance
    • Legitimacy
      • Legality
      • Consistency
  • Final comments
1 introduction
1 - Introduction
  • LDCs need to develop tools to:
    • antecipate and/or react to sanitary and technical barriers;
    • rationalize decisions on public policies
      • Public and private interests
  • Complexity to define/identify sanitary and technical barriers => establish some criteria to build a ranking of priorities
  • Need to evaluate benefits and costs of sanitary and technical barriers
concepts
Concepts
  • Developed Countries => Sanitary and technical requirements
  • Developing Countries
    • Problems on accessing information and scarcity of trained personnel and financial resources
    • Difficulties to implement necessary changes:
      • Capital investments ($) to meet requirements
      • Technology gap:
        • Availability
        • Technological change in production
      • Technical and financial assistance from Developed Countries
    • Developing Countries: welfare gains from restrictions
2 objectives
2 - Objectives
  • Propose a relevance indexto react to technical and sanitary measures.
    • Which elements should be part of the criteria?
    • Suggest a weighing system of such elements
    • Suggest a checklist to be used by policymakers and trade negotiators
3 important previous work
3 - Important Previous Work
  • Roberts et al. (1999) – two-step classification system for technical barriers
  • WTO Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC, 1998): a questionnaire to evaluate the Consistency of Trade Measures with the SPS Provisions
  • Popper et al (2004): USA National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) checklist as identification criteria for TBT
4 relevance index
4 – Relevance Index

Nature of the measure: a regulation on

    • technical, sanitary regulation,on conformity assessment,or a standard (mandatory or voluntary)
  • Economic Relevance
    • Does the measure have significant impact on trade and other economic variables (employment)?
  • Legitimacy
    • Legality
      • Is the measure nationally and internationally legal?
    • Consistency
      • Is the measure technically and scientifically justifiable?
economic relevance
Economic Relevance
  • Sector’s relevance for the affected Country Trade Balance?
  • Current and potential domestic relevance?
    • Employment and wages
    • national and regional income
  • Relevance for the other country (that proposed the regulation)?
    • within the production structure and interest groups
    • trade relevance of the good
economic relevance checklist
Economic Relevance Checklist
  • Range of the measure and impact on trade balance: specific for a good, set of goods or sector(s) ?
  • Is it a new requirement? Existing but not currently enforced one.
  • Intensity of impact on current and future exports
  • Impact on current and future market prices?
  • Does it affect a traditional trade partner or a new one?
  • Additional costs associated with compliance to new requirements ?
  • Delays in the customs procedures?
  • Immediate or progressive adjustment required?
  • Impact on trade of the country imposing the measure
  • Are there alternative, politically preferred, suppliers to that country?
legality
Legality
  • Adequacy of the measures to the SPS, TBTand WTO provisions?
  • Legality elements:
    • Transparency
    • Non-discrimination among foreign suppliers
    • Non-discrimination between domestic and imported goods
    • Scientific basis
legality checklist
Legality Checklist
  • To what extent the proponent complied with all the legal requirements to implement the measure:

- proper deadlines to consult on the notifications;

- fair deadlines to implement the measure and

- level of compliance with the comments and criticisms from the other WTO members

  • Does the measure discriminate between foreign and domestic suppliers?
  • Does it discriminate among different foreign suppliers?
  • Is there a scientific support for its proposition?Is it from international organisms?
  • Does it refer to theAgreements’ legitimate objectives?
consistency
Consistency
  • Technical and scientific background:
    • IPPC, the IOE and the Codex Alimentarius?
    • Other scientific institutions?
    • Type of risks
      • Sanity: human, animal or plant health
      • Environment
      • Quality attributes
    • Seriousness of the problem intended to be mitigated
      • Lethality
      • Reversibility
      • Mitigating costs
consistency checklist
Consistency checklist
  • What is risk level of not complying with the proposed measure?
  • Is there scientific proof of this risk level and of the necessity of applying the measure?
  • What is the degree of scientific convergence about the issue?
  • Is the scientific basis recognized internationally, or only in a domestically context?
  • Are there lower cost alternatives?Have they already been tried by the affected countries?Do they assure the same requiredlevel of security/safety?
  • Is the required technology available to implement the measure? What are costs (labs, personnel) related to its compliance?
example

Economic Relevance

Example

High impact

Low impact

Medium impact

LEGITIMACY

Legality

Highly

contestable

Partially

contestable

Uncontestable

Consistency

Highly consistent

Inconsistent

Partially consistent

Relevance Index => Government reaction

Requirements

accepted

WTO Dispute

Disputing

Negotiation

Collaborative

Negotiation

weighing system for economic relevance checklist
Weighing system for Economic Relevance Checklist

* The higher the number of points, the higher would be the priority inquestioning to WTO.

weighing system for legality checklist
Weighing system for Legality Checklist

Level of not

-

compliance

Weigh

*

Co

mpletely

legal

0

Close to legality

1

Close to illegality

2

Highly illegal

3

Special case (completely illegal)

4

* The higher the number of points, the higher would be the priority in a questioning to WTO.

weighing system for consistency checklist
Weighing system for Consistency Checklist

Level of con

sistency

Weigh*

Highly consistent

0

Medium consistency

1

Low consistency

2

Highly

in

consistent

3

Special Case (Inconsistent)

4

* The higher the number of points, the higher would be the priority in a questioning to WTO.

example fmd brazil indonesia ban on exports of beef
EXAMPLE –FMD– Brazil – Indonesia ban on exports of beef

Economic Relevance Checklist:

  • beef share in the Brazilian agribusiness exports:
    • i) more than 10% (weigh 3)
    • ii) from 5% to 10% (weigh2)
    • iii) from 1% to 5% (weigh1)
    • iv) less than 1% (weigh0)
slide19
b) Brazilian market-share in Indonesian beef imports
  • more than 50% (weigh 3)
  • from 50% to 30% (weigh 2)
  • from 30% to 10% (weigh 1)
  • less than 10% (weigh 0)
slide20
Legality Checklist:
  • There is no international reference to support the proposed measure (weigh 3)
  • There are some international references to support the measure (weigh 2)  
  • There is almost a consensus about the few international references available to support the technical or sanitary measure (weigh 1)
  • The measure is totally based on the international references (weigh 0)
slide21
Consistency Checklist:

a) risk for human health if the regulation is not adopted :

  • zero probability (weigh 3)
  • low probability (weigh 2)
  • high probability (weigh 1)
  • almost sure (weigh 0)
consistency checklist22
Consistency Checklist:

b) risk for animal health if the regulation is not adopted :

  • zero probability (weigh 3)
  • low probability (weigh 2)
  • high probability (weigh 1)
  • almost sure (weigh 0)
example economic relevance ilegitimacy
Example: Economic Relevance - Ilegitimacy

Low Priority Disputing Negotiation

High Priority Disputing Negotiation

High Priority Collaborative Negotiation

Low Priority Disputing Negotiation

High Priority Disputing Negotiation

5 final coments proposals for addressing these questions
5 - FINAL COMENTS Proposals for addressing these questions

1 - Keep track of the notifications on SPS and TBT

2 - Develop an automatic consulting system of based on a network of agents from scientific institutions, firms and government organisms

3 - Develop criteria to classify – with priority ranks -the private and public demands of actions to solve sanitary and technical complains

4 –Develop detailed studies and strategies for the cases considered relevants.

slide27
Sílvia Helena Galvão de Miranda

smiranda@esalq.usp.br

Geraldo Sant’Ana de Camargo Barros

gscbarro@esalq.usp.br

Phone: 55 – 19 – 3429 8801

http://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br