Prague,
3 May 2001
Dr S. J u t z i
Director
Animal Production and Health Division
Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 R o m e
I T A L Y
-------------------------------------
Re: Abolition of the WTO Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Letter to DG WTO
Dear Dr Jutzi,
many
thank for your letter of 6 March 2001 reacting to my letter to DG WTO of 31
January 2001 which copy was sent for information to DG FAO. I appreciate
comments expressing your views on international trade in animals and their
products.
1) I am concerned about the protection of
global animal and human health and maintenance of disease control results
achieved by previous generations.
The only tool I have is to warn relevant international organizations
about catastrophic development of animal diseases in the world, to point out to
main causes and to recommend solutions hoping in rectifying actions. I cannot
do more.
2) I have been studying animal diseases
development in the world during more than forty years. Several years ago, I
found out alarming worsening of animal health situation, mainly due to transmissible
diseases spreading through international trade. I recognized that the WTO
SPS initiated the policy of "facilitating trade" to the detriment of
animal and human health. The WTO has the main responsibility for
negative consequences of risky international trade in animals and their raw
products. The SPS converted the OIE into subordinate position to the WTO. This
was the reason why I was asking several times DG OIE to stop implementing SPS policy
"trade first, health second" and to return to its original
role: to protect consistently animal population health, what the OIE was
founded and has been financed for. DG
OIE wrote me on 16 January 2001: "I am not in a position to criticize,
for diplomatic reasons...an Agreement supported by the governments of 135
countries." Therefore, I wrote myself to Director General of the
organization where the problem started!
3) Analyzing rapidly aggravating animal health
situation in the world as never, I identified the SPS as the main causal
factor negatively influencing other organizations and member country
governments. The SPS is providing, for the first time in the history, legal
framework conducing to benevolent risky trade officially admitting diseases
spreading. I would never write to
the WTO if this organization itself would analyze negative impacts of its SPS,
inform governments and apply appropriate measures! I could use my time for something else.
4) Veterinary services recover health and save
life of many sick animals, solving mostly local problems. However,
simultaneously many times more animals become sick due to diseases
spreading mainly through international and national trade. We are confronted
with global crisis of theory and practice of veterinary medicine which main
historical mission is to promote, protect and restore health of animal
populations in the world. I hope that nobody wants next generations to
blame us for permitting animal diseases to spread as never, with negative
multiplying and long-term up to lasting public health, economic, ecological,
social and animal welfare consequences. Solution of incessantly deteriorating
situation will be much more difficult than the "work" of mythological
Sisyphus whose infinite task was always of the same size.
5) Practical results have proved that the measures
to protect specific diseases free populations and territories, under new
conditions and requirements, are far from being sufficient. Preventive
measures, instead to be more complex and more demanding than any time before,
were reduced due to incredible underestimation of disease risks, following SPS
false concept. Actual critical situation calls for reconsideration of
international animal health policy!
Analyses of worldwide situation, its causes and trends represent basis
for global policy.
6) I hope that we all agree that animal health
belongs among the basic preconditions for favorable sustainable development
of livestock production, conservation and use of animal genetic resources, animal
trade and food security (wholesome food of animal origin) as well as for
protection of humans against diseases transmissible from animals. Improvement
of animal health indirectly helps to the "reduction of poverty". I
don't believe that the FAO changed its Constitution and Basic Functions
applied also on animal health and started accepting diseases spreading
through legal international trade according to WTO SPS, which is clearly
against the FAO policy.
7) I hope that the FAO Constitution, Article
I - Functions of the Organization: "1) The Organization shall
collect, analyze, interpret and disseminate information related to nutrition,
food and agriculture...." is still valid also for animal health. One
of the SPS follow-up to "facilitate trade" was the unjustifiable
major reduction (deliberately concealing) of data to be reported on diseases
status needed for importing countries to evaluate the risks. Importing
country governments were stripped of reports on grades of diseases occurrence
and their dynamics in exporting countries. Regular reporting of cases
"only in imported animals (quarantine)" and "recognized in
country for the first time" was abolished, making analysis of animal
diseases spreading through international trade much more difficult. It was an
integral component of SPS follow-up actions according to dangerous philosophy
"what does it matter what starting risk was?" when we have risk
management tools (very often imperfect). Reduced information prevented many
importing countries from correct decisions on import conditions to avoid
diseases introduction. Note 1).
I must
reiterate that internationally available after-SPS annual data about
diseases status are incomplete, confusing and camouflaging the true situation.
These misleading data, used for misleading "risk assessment" to
"facilitate trade", have also contributed to disease spreading. This
is other example of SPS negative consequence being not in compliance with the
FAO policy.
8) I do not know under which conditions the
information system of FAO/OIE/WHO Animal Health Yearbook was transferred to the
OIE (after the SPS coming in force) and how far the FAO is now involved. Common
annual "FAO/OIE/WHO Questionnaire" is being sent as before to all
countries. Collected data are published in OIE World Animal Health
yearbook and on OIE Internet pages. I do not understand why the OIE in these
voluminous yearbooks doesn't mention not even one word that the programme is
common, and why the names of the FAO and WHO have disappeared at all.
The FAO was producing the FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook always as common
publication. It seems that the OIE, as SPS implementing agency for
"facilitating trade", was given "free hand" to manipulate
with the information system, which is so important for international trade.
Note 2). I don't believe that the FAO in the field
of animal health has given up one of its basic function.
9) To your "worldwide trade in
livestock and meat rose about 35 % over the decade from 1989 from about US$ 38
billion to 51 billion": Unfortunately, during this decade public
veterinary services, necessary for increased trade and diseases control,
instead to be strengthened, were left unchanged or even reduced due to
"economic reasons" (lack of money in spite of enormous profit from
trade) and due to pressure from certain international organizations.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1) After my protest against
significant reduction of disease occurrence information, DG OIE answered me on
30 October 1998 that it was the result of discussions by eminent specialists
on risk analysis to can standardize risk probability. From one
"+" ?!? Where are the OIE
standards for risk probability from "+", e.g. for FMD risk ?!
Note 2) During after-SPS
"reform" the OIE eliminated the term "Brucella melitensis"
from the OIE Code as well from the OIE Lists of diseases, in spite of the fact
that this agent belongs among the most important zoonoses (also for AGAH
programme). My several protests were left without answer.
10) I appreciate your recognition that animal
diseases per se are the greatest constraints to international trade in
livestock and their products. However, according to the SPS the greatest
constraints are preventive measures of importing countries trying to avoid
diseases introduction.
11) To your "The positive economic and
food security impacts of the WTO/SPS on developing countries may not yet be
evident": Unfortunately, the negative impact on animal health is
evident. During 1995-2000 number of reported cases of disease introduction
through international trade in animal commodities was higher in developing
countries than in developed countries. Developing countries reported also
more cases of disease reappearance (after several years reporting as specific
disease free) and historically first cases of animal diseases. This negative
impact of the SPS on developing countries is clearly against the FAO policy.
12) To your statements "Most
investigated cases of historically new disease introduction, disease spread or
re-infestation can be attributed to illegal movement of diseased
livestock" and "... the majority of global livestock trade
occurs outside of the SPS Agreement and the Office International des Epizooties
(OIE) standards": Please, would you be so kind as to let me know where
the data confirming these statements can be found ? The member country
governments have not received any global analysis of this type from any of
relevant international organizations. If you are right, than is the question
why to have, additionally to traditional and sufficient FAO/WHO Codex
Alimentarius and the OIE Code, an unrealistic and detrimental theoretical
document such as the SPS, which is not respected even by international
traders ?
My
letter is dealing with disease spreading through legal trade with
standard international certificates according to the SPS and OIE Code (latest
example: foot-and-mouth disease from the UK to France and Netherlands). Your
statement calls in question SPS system of "disease free areas",
self-declared by exporting countries (without international inspection), based
upon particular territory isolation and border control. If the governments are
not able to control effectively its state frontiers, how they can control the
borders of these areas? Similar question arises for self-declaration of
"country specific disease free with exception of infected areas
in..." used by some countries in OIE documents (Internet).
13) To some your examples of disease spread:
During 1995-2000 the bluetongue introduction was officially reported to the OIE
only once - by legally imported sheep.
BSE, as emerging disease, convincingly proves risky imports in spite of
international veterinary certificates corresponding with the SPS and OIE "measures",
but not guaranteeing the quality, i.e. animal health or meat wholesomeness.
14) To your "FAO's divisions...consider
that national regulatory services, such as the veterinary... are potentionally
strengthened under these global agreements..": The problem is not only
regulatory one. The problem is in field practice, where non-public services
decide about the certificates, measures and trade control. Therefore, I was
always stressing the need for strengthening public veterinary services,
independent on producers and businessmen, defending the health in the interest
of the country society. Note 3). The SPS has not influenced the
strengthening these services, e.g., in terms of manpower, equipment,
facilities, budget, etc. It's exactly the opposite. The SPS represents a part
of international "policy" to minimize government services and their
impacts, i.e. to minimize (somewhere ad absurdum) independent
on-the-spot control of animal trade and diseases. This "policy" has
been debilitating non substitutable role of public services in
protecting animal and human health.
15) To your "nothing in the WTO/SPS
Agreement prevents countries from controlling or eradicating these
diseases.": This is truth. However, why to control and eradicate
diseases which requires a lot of work and resources, when the countries can
export under SPS benevolence also without these programmes. Why to spent a lot
of funds for diseases control and eradication, when eventual "export of
disease" has not for the exporters any financial consequences or only
minimal in comparison with the consequences of exporting deficient industrial
commodities? The situation in diseases spreading by export/import has become
alarming. Very few successfully finished national eradication programmes
are unable to compensate it.
16) DG WTO wrote me on 16 March 2001: "The
SPS Agreement now provides a forum for governments to discuss appropriate
responses to such disease outbreaks". It looks that before the SPS no
international organization had been providing a forum for governments to
discuss appropriate responses to disease outbreaks. Of course, this is not
truth. The member country governments should be informed correctly which
organization is responsible for global animal health policy. I hope that the FAO is still responsible
within the United Nations for all fields of food and agriculture global policy,
including animal health.
17) The fundament of international trade is trust
in exporting country reports, certificates, etc.. How the import refusal due to
distrust can be "scientifically justify", as required by the SPS? The
trust is easy to loose and very difficult to be recovered for restarting the
export. I remember the conflict in 1999 when French government, responsible for
the protection of animal and human health, refused to import British beef (in
spite of outside dictate based upon the SPS), not trusting, due to previous
experience, in its BSE innocuousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Note 3) Example: "Guidelines for
strengthening animal health services in developing countries", FAO, 1991,
141 pp.
18) The SPS introduced a not transparent term
"low disease prevalence" to can export also from infected
territories. This is further demonstration that the SPS is admitting export of
disease agent carriers, which often cannot be detected by current diagnostic
methods. How importing countries can "scientifically" justify the
refuse of these risky commodities and trust in accompanying veterinary
certificates ?
19) I
know very well, as former Technical Director of national veterinary service and
Chief Epizootiologist responsible for
country protection and disease control, what "diseases import"
signifies. I know, how it is relatively easy to import diseases and how it
is not easy to discover them in time and how it is difficult up to impossible to eradicate them. Many
imported and spread diseases become unmanageable, mainly in developing
countries.
20) I
fully agree with your statement "National veterinary services are
experiencing particular difficulties as the volume of livestock trade
increases... Difficulties arise from national veterinary services' inability to
regulate cross-border trade... national authorities have difficulty supervising
accredited veterinarians...". Public services of many
countries, namely developing ones, where disease situation is usually very
complex, are not yet able to cope effectively with local and introduced
diseases complicating also the export.
As I have mentioned above, in some countries public veterinary services,
instead to be strengthened, were reduced. In some countries these
services, after being "dismantled" their fragile organizational
structure, became almost defenseless and can carry out only administrative
tasks. To find out if the service is able to cope effectively with the trade
and diseases, you can evaluate, for example, average number of animals and
animal trade size per one public service veterinarian (data in FAO and OIE
statistical documents). Only well staffed, trained and equipped public services
can cope with new problems of animal trade and country population health.
Supervising not always reliable accredited veterinarians, whose understandable
priority is personal profit, is difficult also in many developed countries.
21) Benevolence of the SPS makes the situation
worse due to reduced support to public veterinary service, which is sometimes not
welcome by the traders (conflict of interests). They often see it as an
obstacle for their business due to imposing stricter discipline than
non-government specialists as far as health requirements are concerned.
23) You ask for more information about my
arguments, particularly those in the Annex item 1. All data as reported by
country governments on disease introduction, etc. are available in the OIE World Animal Health
(Reports and Tables) complemented by OIE Internet pages. Quoted texts are
available in the SPS, OIE Code and other OIE publications as referred in my
letter. Some arguments are based upon my personal international experience. The
SPS becomes "transparent" only when studying in detail also
implementation documents, e.g., comparing before-SPS and after-SPS policy and Code of the OIE.
24) Why the countries have to import
commodities which they do not want, due to animal and human health risks, and
then after diseases import to "chase" after them? Profiting
businessmen are trading without risk to cover losses caused by this kind of
"export". Let importing country authorities, responsible for
animal and human health protection, to have the right to decide about the
import (what, from where and under which conditions, including eventual
professionally reasonable compromises) without any dictate from outside. Let
importing and exporting country governments to decide themselves, freely as
before the SPS, applying WTO general principles of fair trade and following
OIE recommendations as minimum health requirements.
25) I would like to stress that the only
criterion for the usefulness of the SPS is its practical impact and not theory,
impressions or unfounded opinions. This document and SPS follow-up OIE Code
contain parts admitting disease spreading, which is clearly against the FAO
policy.
26) The WTO has other documents for
international trade policy applicable on all commodities including
animals and their products. The superfluous and damaging SPS, contributing to
diseases spreading, has unnecessarily complicated international trade. Updated
pre-SPS OIE Code and excellent Standards for Diagnostic Tests together with the
FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius are sufficient for the health aspects solutions of
trade in animals and their products !
In
conclusion: my self-explanatory letter to DG WTO presents facts
and truth which I cannot change.
All arguments and statements in the letter remain valid.
Primum
non nocere !
Yours sincerely,
V. K o u b a
Former Chief, Animal
Health Service
Animal Production and
Health Division
FAO
Copy: DG FAO