Prague,
15 April 2001
Dr
Mike M o o r e
Director General
World Trade Organization
154, Rue de Lausanne
1211
Geneva 21
SWITZERLAND
------------------------
Re: Abolition of the WTO Agreement on Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Dear Dr Moore,
many thanks
for your letter of 16 March 2001 answering my letter of 31 January 2001 about
the WTO Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS).
I should like to stress again that my letters refer only to "Sanitary
measures" components of the SPS.
1) I should never write to you if the WTO itself
would analyze negative impacts of the SPS, inform governments and apply adequate
correcting actions ! I only
fulfilled my moral duty, as former United Nations officer responsible for
international animal health programmes, to inform you about alarming
consequences of the SPS.
2) Apparently, you have other information than I have.
I am convinced that in case of having complex true information on the SPS
consequences, you would react differently.
3) I have been monitoring animal health and diseases
development in the world for decades. Rapid worsening of animal health
situation due to transmissible diseases spreading through international
trade was the reason why I decided to write to International Office of
Epizootics (OIE) in Paris. I was asking Director General of the OIE several
times to stop implementing SPS anti-medical policy and to return to original
role to protect consistently animal health, what the OIE was founded for.
However, the SPS converted the OIE in a subordinate position to the WTO,
which plays in this case decisive role and has basic responsibility
for negative consequences of benevolent and risky international trade in
animals and their products. This can be documented by the OIE Code, where you
can find sentences such as: "The Code thus forms an integral part of
the regulatory reference system established by the WTO."
4) Director General of the OIE wrote me in his letter
of 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 you as to Director General of
the organization where the problem started !
5) My intention is to support the defense of global
animal and human population health and the protection of results achieved in
this field by all previous generations. The only tool I have is to warn
relevant international organizations about catastrophic development of animal
diseases situation in the world, to point out to main causes and to recommend
solutions hoping in follow-up rectifying actions. I cannot do more. Rectification depends upon mentioned
international organizations.
6) I should like to stress that my letter was prepared
after very careful study of the WTO documents and official information reported
by the country governments. The letter presented facts and t r u t h
and not my personal impressions or imaginations. I cannot change the
truth, which is independent of opinions of persons and organizations. The truth
can be kept under wraps only for a short period. Your letter doesn't express
any interest to take into serious consideration these facts and the truth.
7) It is not my personal invention that the SPS
application has caused catastrophic negative consequences. This is objective
fact. It is not my fault that the WTO and other international organizations
involved have not presented to member country governments any sound analysis of
the negative impacts of the SPS. Now, I
understand better why the governments didn't receive, before the SPS approval,
any analysis of expected disease spreading risks.
8) On the one hand veterinary services are able to
recover health and save life of many diseased animals and on the other hand at
the same time several times more animals become sick due to diseases
spreading, mainly through international and national trade.
9) I have never called in question the formal
procedure of the ratification of the SPS. I am concerned only with
professional aspects, i.e. with negative impacts of the SPS application
conducing to transmissible diseases spreading through legal international
trade. This should not be concealed again as in 1994.
10) Your statement about the SPS doesn't correspond
with its whole text. You mentioned that the SPS "recognizes the right
of governments..". You didn't mention other words
changing the sense, such as "provided that such measures are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement.". The SPS
becomes "transparent" when studying very carefully its text and its
application through the OIE Code. Decisive criteria for the evaluation of any
document of this type are the impacts of its practical implementation and not
theory, impressions or unfounded opinions.
11) Analyzing rapidly worsening of animal health
situation in the world, as never before, I found the SPS as the main causal
factor negatively influencing other organizations and member country
governments. The SPS started a "chain reaction" providing, for the
first time in the history, legal framework conducing to benevolent risky trade
officially admitting and even supporting diseases spreading.
12) SPS follow-up complex to "facilitate
trade" at the expense of animal and human health consisted, inter
alia, in:
a) as the consequence of the WTO/OIE Agreement,
fundamental change of the OIE policy against its original function to protect
rigorously animal health, what the OIE has been financed for; the SPS converted the OIE Code from useful
recommendations into imposed obligatory benevolent, i.e. risky import
conditions;
b) changes of international animal health information
system which instead to provide more data to member countries (for "risk
assessment") was reduced ad
absurdum in comparison with before-SPS system: "blinding"
importing country governments by deliberately concealing the grades of diseases
occurrence and their dynamics in exporting countries; abolition of regular
reporting cases "only in imported animals", etc.; devaluated
information prevented many importing country governments from correct decisions
on import conditions and measures;
c) theoretical "risk assessment" methodology
confusing importing countries was "combined" with lack of necessary information for it;
the SPS doesn't respect that there are also countries sending no reports (in
1999 about one fourth) or sending them irregularly or incomplete;
d) relative reduction of government veterinary
services capacities to cope effectively with rapidly increasing requirements
for disease control and health inspection of trade;
e) creating international atmosphere for accepting
dangerous philosophy "trade first" while "quality, i.e. health,
only second".
13) You have mentioned the developing countries.
I am sorry to inform you that during 1995-2000 number of officially reported
cases of disease introduction through international trade in animal commodities
in developing countries was higher than in developed ones ! Developing
countries reported also more cases of disease reintroduction. The reports of
diseases "recognized in country for the first time" have similar
proportion. During the same period animal commodity import in developing countries
was only a half of size of developed countries import. A lot (it could be the
majority) of newly introduced and spread diseases are becoming unmanageable,
mainly in developing countries.
14) The question is not to "allow too much
trade" or not. The problem is to allow and support fair trade based
upon quality aspects, i.e. trade with "healthy animals" and
"wholesome products". Unfortunately, these terms the SPS doesn't know
at all.
15) You have mentioned foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)
disaster. The
FMD spread from United Kingdom into other countries through legal trade with
international veterinary certificates according to SPS and OIE Code provisions.
Negative global impact of the FMD is also the consequence of SPS risky policy.
This is only one of many similar cases demonstrating fiasco of the SPS. Further
countries have already stopped to respect it as unrealistic document. The fundament of international trade is the
matter of trust in exporting country reports, certificates, etc. The trust
is easy to loose and very difficult to recover and restart the export. I
remember the conflict in 1999 when France refused to import British beef (in
spite of outside dictate based upon the SPS), not trusting in its BSE
innocuousness.
16) United Kingdom has been known as the country
"number one" in the world as far as anti-FMD preparedness is
concerned, having world reference laboratory for the FMD, training thousands of
foreign fellows in veterinary epidemiology (Reading, Edinburgh), providing a lot
of international experts advising organizations and countries how to control
diseases, having veterinary service with above-average material, financial and
political support, having competent farmers, etc.. What about other countries,
firstly developing ones, where the conditions for disease control are by far
not so favorable ?
17) This FMD case has demonstrated once more enormous
complexity, diversity and dynamics of the diseases as biological phenomena,
which the SPS doesn't respect at all. This FMD case has shown once more the
difficulties to control introduced diseases. The FMD belongs among diseases
with clinical symptoms easier to detect in comparison with the majority of
important diseases. How many more examples of disease spreading through trade,
having also backfiring impact on global trade, the WTO needs to start
rectifying its policy in this field ?
18) You are right that in the past there were
also diseases outbreaks. However, the conditions for diseases spreading were
different (trade of minor size and intensity, shorter distances, smaller
number of origin and destination places, etc.) and consequences were not so
dramatic as today. Country governments could decide without outside dictate.
That time no one international organization was officially admitting or even
supporting disease spreading through international trade as today the WTO
through its SPS. This is fundamental difference !
19) You write "The SPS Agreement now provides
a forum for governments to discuss appropriate responses to such disease
outbreaks". Such forum is nothing new. There are also other
organizations, the FAO and the OIE, dealing for decades with animal disease
outbreaks of international importance and providing forum for governments to
discuss responses to such situation. Similarly, the WHO deals with outbreaks of
animal diseases transmissible to man. I am now confused. Which organization
is the responsible one for global animal health policy and for the
consequences of disease spreading through international trade ?
20) It seems that the WTO is not interested to know
SPS consequences (often irreparable) of animal and human health, ecological,
economical and social character. I cannot believe that you would support
man-made spreading of diseases, including transmissible to man, through legal
international trade.
21) Consequences of the introduction, reintroduction
and first appearance of diseases in a country are generally known. To import
them is easy, however to discover them in time and to control them is
difficult; to eradicate them is not always possible. What about the losses and
other consequences including negative impact on future export ? What about poor
developing countries having not yet government veterinary services to be
able to cope with new situation and defend their territory ? Government
veterinary services are weak when comparing them with rapidly increasing trade
requirements. In some countries, mainly developing ones, these services
instead to be strengthened, were reduced due to pressure from other international
organizations. In some countries these services are able to carry out only
administrative tasks and not to control effectively the diseases and to create
health conditions for export.
22) The SPS asks countries for risk assessment,
however the WTO doesn't carry out the risk assessment of its own SPS policy.
The SPS asks for scientific justifications of import conditions, however the
WTO ignores scientific justification of the SPS not respecting the
reality, facts and the difference between theory and practice.
23) It is obvious that "the WTO Secretariat
itself has no authority to either create or abolish internationally developed
agreements such as the SPS Agreement" and that "WTO Members
alone may make such a decision, on consensus basis." However, the
Secretariat can act immediately, i.e. to inform the Member countries about
critical situation suggesting adequate rectifying solution. Emergency calls
for immediate practical actions ! From your letter I understand that the WTO,
instead of reconsidering and change its policy in this particular field, will
continue to apply the same strategy as up to the present, irrespective of
accumulated experience.
24) International organizations should cooperate to be
able to assist member countries as best as possible. Cooperation (including
an eventual new agreement) between the WTO and the OIE as two
inter-government organizations will be welcome, but only if based
upon the principle "quality first", in our case "health
first"; trade yes but only with healthy animals and wholesome products,
i.e. with pathogen free commodities. In this case the WTO could play very
important role when supporting health protection and disease control programmes to achieve the
best possible sanitary quality of exporting commodities and thus to
facilitate the trade.
25) 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 needlessly complicated international trade. For
animal health aspects of animal commodities trade, the OIE Code will be
sufficient when no more admitting diseases spreading and after updating to
fit to the new conditions !
26) Let the country governments to decide themselves,
respecting WTO general principles of fair trade and following OIE
recommendations as before the SPS, i.e. freely, without any dictate from
outside !
Conclusion:
I am sorry to
conclude that your letter didn't invalidate a single argument or statement
I wrote in my letter of 31 January 2001 !
It is up to
you to what extent my arguments will be considered and recommendations
implemented.
May I ask you
to send copies of my both letters to all member country governments for
information and comments ? I think that this will be fair step in the right
direction.
Primum
non nocere !
Yours
sincerely,
Prof. Dr Vaclav K o u b a , DrSc.
Former Chief, Animal Health Service,
Food and Agriculture
Organization
of the United
Nations
P.B. 516, 17000
Praha 7
Czech
Republic