REVUE

SCIENTIFIQUE ET TECHNIQUE
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL
REVIEW
REVISTA
CIENTÍFICA Y TÉCNICA

Ensuring safe trade in animals

and animal products

Assurer la sécurité sanitaire des échanges

internationaux d’animaux et de produits
d’origine animale

Asegurar la seguridad sanitaria del comercio

internacional de animales y sus productos

Edited by
Edité par C. Wolff & A. Hamilton
Editado por

VOL. 39 (1)
APRIL – AVRIL – ABRIL
2020

12, rue de Prony – 75017 Paris – France

Tél. : 33 (0)1 44 15 18 88 – E-mail : oie@oie.int – Fax : 33 (0)1 42 67 09 87
 All OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) publications are protected by international copyright law. Extracts may
be copied, reproduced, translated, adapted or published in journals, documents, books, electronic media and any other
medium destined for the public, for information, educational or commercial purposes, provided prior written permission
has been granted by the OIE. Certain papers may not be subject to copyright law and can therefore be reproduced at will.
If this is the case it will be clearly stated at the beginning of the article.

The designations and denominations employed and the presentation of the material in this Review do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the OIE concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries.

The views expressed in signed articles are solely the responsibility of the authors. The mention of specific companies or
products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or
recommended by the OIE in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

Toutes les publications de l’OIE (Organisation mondiale de la santé animale) sont protégées par un copyright international.
La copie, la reproduction, la traduction, l’adaptation ou la publication d’extraits, dans des journaux, des documents, des
ouvrages ou des supports électroniques et tous autres supports destinés au public, à des fins d’information, didactiques
ou commerciales, requièrent l’obtention préalable d’une autorisation écrite de l’OIE. Certains articles ne sont pas soumis
aux règles de copyright de l’OIE et peuvent être reproduits librement. Lorsque c’est le cas, une mention est ajoutée en
début d’article.

Les désignations et dénominations utilisées et la présentation des données figurant dans la Revue ne reflètent aucune
prise de position de l’OIE quant au statut légal de quelque pays, territoire, ville ou zone que ce soit, à leurs autorités, aux
délimitations de leur territoire ou au tracé de leurs frontières.

Les auteurs sont seuls responsables des opinions exprimées dans les articles signés. La mention de sociétés spécifiques
ou de produits enregistrés par un fabriquant, qu’ils soient ou non protégés par une marque, ne signifie pas que ceux-ci
sont recommandés ou soutenus par l’OIE par rapport à d’autres similaires qui ne seraient pas mentionnés.

Todas las publicaciones de la OIE (Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal) están protegidas por un copyright
internacional. Extractos pueden copiarse, reproducirse, adaptarse o publicarse en publicaciones periódicas, documentos,
libros o medios electrónicos, y en cualquier otro medio destinado al público, con intención informativa, didáctica o
comercial, siempre y cuando se obtenga previamente una autorización escrita por parte de la OIE. Algunos documentos
no están sometidos a las leyes de derecho de autor y, por consiguiente, pueden ser reproducidos libremente. Cuando
sea el caso, se indicará al comienzo del artículo.

Las designaciones y nombres utilizados y la presentación de los datos que figuran en la Revista no constituyen de ningún
modo el reflejo de cualquier opinión por parte de la OIE sobre el estatuto legal de los países, territorios, ciudades o zonas
ni de sus autoridades, fronteras o limitaciones territoriales.

La responsabilidad de las opiniones profesadas en los artículos firmados incumbe exclusivamente a sus autores. La
mención de empresas particulares o de productos manufacturados, sean o no patentados, no implica de ningún modo
que éstos se beneficien del apoyo o de la recomendación de la OIE, en comparación con otros similares que no hayan
sido mencionados.

© OIE 2020
(Organisation mondiale de la santé animale – World Organisation for Animal Health – Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal)
ISSN 0253-1933
ISBN 978-92-95115-56-9
http://dx.doi.org/10.20506/rst.issue.39.1.3056

Le papier choisi pour l’impression de cet ouvrage, étant recyclé à 50 % et exempt à 100 % de chlore et d’acide, ne peut pas nuire à
l’environnement
This book is printed on 50% recycled, 100% chlorine- and acid-free environmentally friendly paper
El papel escogido para la impresión de este libro está reciclado al 50% y no contiene cloro ni ácido, por lo que no puede causar perjuicio al
medio ambiente

Conception maquette / Graphic design / Diseño de la maqueta: J. Prieur – Tous les chemins
Conception couverture / Cover design / Diseño de cubierta: P. Blandin – OIE
Images couverture / Cover images / Ilustraciones de cubierta:
Petites / small / pequeñas: ©Grant Brookes / Unsplash & ©Getty
Grande / large / grande: ©Getty
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1), 2020

Contents – Sommaire – Contenido

Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products
Assurer la sécurité sanitaire des échanges internationaux d’animaux et de produits
d’origine animale
Asegurar la seguridad sanitaria del comercio internacional de animales y sus productos

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Préface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Prólogo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Introduction – Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products . . . . . . . . 15

Introduction – Assurer la sécurité sanitaire des échanges
internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Introducción – Asegurar la seguridad sanitaria del comercio
internacional de animales y sus productos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

International framework – Le cadre international – Marco internacional

C. Wolff & I. Calderón

World Trade Organization agreements: a framework
for trade in animals and animal products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Les accords de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce : un cadre pour les échanges
internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale (résumé) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Los acuerdos de la Organización Mundial del Comercio como marco
de referencia del comercio de animales y productos de origen animal (resumen) . . . . . . . . 32

G. Stanton & G. Prakash

World Trade Organization disputes related to animal diseases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Les différends en lien avec les maladies animales au sein
de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (résumé) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Controversias relacionadas con las enfermedades animales
en la Organización Mundial del Comercio (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

A. Gobind Daswani & K. Bucher

International regulatory cooperation: contribution of the OIE
and the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures and SPS Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Coopération réglementaire internationale : contribution de l’OIE, de l’Accord
sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires et du Comité SPS
de l’OMC (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Cooperación internacional en materia de reglamentación: contribución
de la OIE y del Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias
y Fitosanitarias y el Comité MSF de la OMC (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

K. Bucher, D. Tellechea, F. Caya & J. Stratton

Implementation of OIE international standards: challenges
and opportunities for monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
La mise en œuvre des normes internationales de l’OIE : enjeux et perspectives
pour effectuer un suivi (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Implementación de las normas internacionales de la OIE: desafíos
y oportunidades para efectuar su seguimiento (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

S. Kahn
Animal welfare in the context of World Trade Organization
dispute settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Le bien-être animal dans le contexte du règlement des différends
portés devant l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
El bienestar animal en el contexto del mecanismo de solución
de controversias de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Negotiating market access for animals and animal products – Obtenir l’ouverture des marchés pour les animaux
et les produits d’origine animale – Negociación del acceso a los mercados de los animales y productos de origen
animal
A. Hamilton
Facilitating market access: risk assessment, equivalence
and regionalisation provisions in the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Faciliter l’accès aux marchés : les dispositions de l’Accord sur l’application
des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires relatives à l’évaluation du risque,
à l’équivalence et à la régionalisation (résumé) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Disposiciones sobre determinación del riesgo, equivalencia y regionalización
del Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias
destinadas a facilitar el acceso a los mercados (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

M. Escandor, S. Amurao, I. Santos & C. Benigno

Developing and implementing a protocol for bilateral trade
agreements: the Philippines’ shift to a risk assessment policy
and meeting its challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Conception et mise en œuvre des protocoles d’accord bilatéraux pour le commerce :
la mutation des Philippines vers une politique d’évaluation du risque et les défis
à relever (résumé) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Elaboración y aplicación de un protocolo para acuerdos bilaterales de comercio:
la transición de Filipinas hacia una política de determinación del riesgo,
sus dificultades y posibles soluciones (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

H.I. Maldonado Cáceres

Guatemala: esfuerzos para facilitar el libre comercio
en el marco de la sanidad animal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Guatemala : les efforts pour faciliter le libre-échange et le cadre
de la santé animale (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Guatemala: efforts to facilitate free trade in an animal health context. . . . . 111
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 5

G. Funes, A.L. Merlo, M. Sowul, N. Rendine, X. Melon & A. Marcos

Zonas libres de enfermedades: proceso de reconocimiento
bilateral en América del Sur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Zones indemnes de maladie : processus de reconnaissance
bilatérale en Amérique du Sud (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Disease-free zones: bilateral recognition procedure
in South America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

F. Meliado & P. Widders

Mutual recognition of veterinary testing and inspection
results to facilitate international trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Reconnaissance mutuelle des résultats des analyses et des inspections
vétérinaires afin de faciliter les échanges internationaux (résumé) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Reconocimiento mutuo de los resultados de las pruebas e inspecciones
veterinarias para facilitar el comercio internacional (resumen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

H.M. Vesterinen, A.M. Pérez & K.M. Errecaborde

Building capacity for World Trade Organization dispute
settlement: piloting polarity mapping for trade relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Renforcer les capacités de règlement des différends au sein de l’Organisation
mondiale du commerce : expérimentation de la cartographie des polarités
dans les relations commerciales (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Creación de capacidad para la solución de controversias en la Organización
Mundial del Comercio: aplicación experimental de los mapas de polaridad
a las relaciones comerciales (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

D. Adamson, W. Gilbert, P. Rothman-Ostrow & J. Rushton

The pros and cons of animal health harmonisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Les avantages et les inconvénients de l’harmonisation dans le domaine
de la santé animale (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Ventajas e inconvenientes de la armonización en el ámbito de la sanidad animal
(resumen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

D. Grace & P. Little

Informal trade in livestock and livestock products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Le commerce informel d’animaux d’élevage et de produits d’origine
animale (résumé) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Comercio informal de ganado y productos ganaderos (resumen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
6 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Models for a National Official Assurance System – Modèles de systèmes officiels nationaux
d’assurance – Modelos de sistema nacional de garantía

E. Bonbon
A framework for national official assurance systems with
reference to World Organisation for Animal Health standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Un cadre pour les systèmes officiels nationaux de garantie se référant
aux normes de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (résumé) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Principios generales para los sistemas nacionales de garantía oficial, con referencia
a las normas de la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (resumen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

W.T. Jolly
National official assurance systems for international trade in animals
and animal products, with reference to the standards of the World
Organisation for Animal Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Les systèmes officiels nationaux d’assurance dans le cadre des échanges
internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale et leur lien avec
les normes de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (résumé) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Sistemas nacionales de garantía oficial para el comercio internacional
de animales y productos de origen animal, con referencia a las normas
de la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (resumen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

M. Maja, L. Janse van Rensburg & C. Gerstenberg

Compartmentalisation: an example of a national
official assurance system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Compartimentation : un exemple de système officiel national d’assurance (résumé) . . . . 218
La compartimentación: un ejemplo de sistema nacional de garantía oficial (resumen). . . 219

R.K. Aumüller & E. Coetzer

Animal welfare in GLOBALG.A.P.’s integrated farm assurance
standard for livestock: an industry perspective and example
of a private and globally acting quality assurance system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Le bien-être animal dans la norme de certification intégrée des exploitations
agricoles GLOBALG.A.P. pour les productions animales : le point de vue du secteur
privé et un exemple de système d’assurance qualité privé d’envergure
mondiale (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
El bienestar animal en la norma de aseguramiento integrado de fincas GLOBALG.A.P.
referida a las buenas prácticas pecuarias: un punto de vista industrial y ejemplo
de sistema privado de garantía de calidad aplicado en todo el mundo (resumen). . . . . . . . . 231
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 7

M. Tripoli & J. Schmidhuber

Optimising traceability in trade for live animals and animal
products with digital technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Optimiser la traçabilité des animaux vivants et des produits d’origine animale
faisant l’objet d’échanges internationaux grâce aux technologies numériques
(résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Uso de la tecnología digital para optimizar la trazabilidad en el comercio
de animales vivos y productos de origen animal (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

N. Gibbens
National Veterinary Services and the private sector: the role
of private veterinarians, aquatic animal health professionals
and veterinary para-professionals in animal health and food
safety assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Les Services vétérinaires nationaux et le secteur privé : le rôle des vétérinaires
privés, des professionnels de la santé des animaux aquatiques
et des paraprofessionnels vétérinaires pour garantir la santé animale
et la sécurité sanitaire des aliments (résumé) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Los Servicios Veterinarios nacionales y el sector privado: función de
los veterinarios privados, los profesionales de la sanidad de los animales
acuáticos y los paraprofesionales de veterinaria en la garantía zoosanitaria
y de inocuidad de los alimentos (resumen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Veterinary certification – La certification vétérinaire – Certificación veterinaria

R. Alcala, H. Vitikkala & G. Ferlet

The World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and veterinary
control procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
L’Accord de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce sur l’application
des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires et les procédures de contrôle
vétérinaire (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
El Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias
de la Organización Mundial del Comercio y los procedimientos
de control veterinario (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

A.Tan
Use of the standards of the World Organisation
for Animal Health in veterinary certificates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Le recours aux normes de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale
dans le cadre de la certification vétérinaire (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Utilización de las normas de la Organización Mundial de Sanidad
Animal en los certificados veterinarios (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
8 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

D. Grace
Trust in trade: a global perspective on health certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
La confiance dans le commerce international : une perspective mondiale
sur la certification sanitaire (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Confianza y transacciones comerciales: visión mundial de la certificación
sanitaria (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

B.S. Cooper & P. Loopuyt

eCertification (eCert). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
La certification électronique (eCert) (résumé) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Certificación electrónica (eCert) (resumen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

Transparency – Transparence – Transparencia

P. Cáceres, P. Tizzani, F. Ntsama & R. Mora

The World Organisation for Animal Health: notification
of animal diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
L’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale : notification des maladies
animales (résumé). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Notificación de enfermedades animales a la Organización Mundial
de Sanidad Animal (resumen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

R. Alcala & M.B. Martinez-Hommel

World Trade Organization: notification of sanitary
and phytosanitary measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
L’Organisation mondiale du commerce : notification des mesures
sanitaires et phytosanitaires (résumé) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Organización Mundial del Comercio: notificación de medidas
sanitarias y fitosanitarias (resumen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

Instructions to authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

Instructions aux auteurs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Instrucciones para los autores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

Remerciements / Acknowledgements / Agradecimientos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 9-10

Preface
Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products

The premise of no news is good news is as true for trade in animals and animal products as it is
elsewhere. Every once in a while, however, outbreaks of new and emerging diseases remind us
of the importance of properly functioning health and veterinary systems. Currently, the impact
of the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on public health and all areas of human
activity, including trade and economic growth, is at the forefront of the news. It is a forceful
reminder of the importance of having strong health systems around the world, and of the need
for preparedness to address these types of challenges when they arise.
This epidemic comes after another global event, one which affected animal health: the global
African swine fever (ASF) crisis. The rapid spread of ASF affected many regions, especially in
Europe and Asia, with devastating effects on pig production in several countries, and on the
numerous producers and their families whose income depends on this sector. The effects on
trade have been enormous, and have not been limited to trade in pigs and their products; the
feed sector, other animal proteins and many related products have also been affected. The
pork sector in the People’s Republic of China has been especially hard hit, with the estimated
loss of 100 million pigs; while China’s meat imports increased by 63% in the first 11 months of
2019, compared to the same period the previous year, as Chinese consumers switched from
scarce and expensive pork to other meat.
In such situations, as governments around the world attempt to protect the life and health
of their countries’ animal populations and to minimise the damage to livelihoods, Veterinary
Services around the world need to determine the risks of disease introduction and spread and
what measures to put in place to mitigate these risks. Trade barriers tend to be introduced
quickly in these instances, since there may be limited scientific information upon which to base
risk management, and veterinary and public health protection is the priority. Yet, even once
scientific information becomes available or outbreaks are resolved, these barriers are slow to
be removed, thus magnifying an outbreak’s economic impact.
While it is vital to act quickly to limit the damage caused by such animal disease situations, it
is also important to limit the economic damage caused by unjustified trade restrictions. This is
where World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)
standards play a key role. World Trade Organization agreements, including the Agreement on
the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, require that animal health measures
be based on scientific principles, and strongly encourage the use of international OIE standards
as the basis for national legislation. The OIE standards, based on scientific evidence and
adopted by OIE Members, provide both general and disease-specific guidance to Veterinary
Services, establishing standards for veterinary legislation and the regulatory functions under
the responsibility of the Veterinary Authorities, as well as identifying safe products and
recommending requirements to be adopted to ensure that trade in animals and animal products
is safe.
This issue of the Scientific and Technical Review takes a close look at the interplay between
WTO rules and OIE standards to guide international trade in animals and animal products.
It recognises that, in practice, international trade always starts with a negotiation between
officials from two countries, and that a negotiation proceeds best if both parties have a common
framework through which to understand each other’s expectations. The WTO–OIE framework

doi: 10.20506/rst.39.1.3057
10 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

of trade agreements and international standards serves as the basis for the exchange of
information between exporting and importing countries. It covers the entire chain, from the
overarching systems for risk management in animal production; to understanding the specific
risks associated with trade in a particular commodity and how they should be managed; to
certification that the required risk management has been undertaken in conformity with an
agreed set of risk-based requirements; to the procedures for the actual movement of a
consignment, from its origin to its final destination.
Robust veterinary systems worldwide are essential for managing emerging disease risks
and protecting animal populations and the people who rely on them. They are also essential
for ensuring that trade in animals and animal products proceeds safely and smoothly, thus
contributing to economic growth and development. I hope that this issue will be a resource for
veterinary officials, policy-makers and other interested individuals, contributing to making safe
trade in animals and animal products a reality.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Coordinators of this issue, Ms Christiane
Wolff and Ms Anneke Hamilton, for the considerable work involved in compiling this Review
in coordination with the OIE Publications Unit. I would also like to express my gratitude to all
of the contributing authors who gave of their time to produce such engaging articles for this
publication.
Monique Éloit
Director General
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 11-12

Préface
Assurer la sécurité sanitaire des échanges internationaux
d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale

L’adage « pas de nouvelles, bonnes nouvelles » est vrai dans le domaine des échanges
internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale comme dans tous les domaines.
Néanmoins, de temps à autre, des foyers de maladies nouvelles et émergentes viennent nous
rappeler l’importance du bon fonctionnement des systèmes de santé publique et vétérinaire.
À l’heure où nous écrivons, la maladie due au coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) et son impact sur
la santé publique et sur tous les aspects de l’activité humaine, y compris le commerce et la
croissance économique, sont au premier plan de l’actualité mondiale. Cet événement constitue
un rappel percutant de l’importance d’avoir des systèmes sanitaires solides partout dans le
monde et de la nécessité d’une bonne préparation pour être en mesure de faire face à ce type
de problèmes lorsqu’ils se présentent.
Cette pandémie a été précédée par un autre événement aux dimensions planétaires, qui a
affecté la santé animale : la crise mondiale de la peste porcine africaine (PPA). La PPA s’est
propagée rapidement et a gagné de nombreuses régions, particulièrement en Europe et en Asie,
avec des conséquences dévastatrices pour le secteur porcin d’un grand nombre de pays et pour
les milliers de producteurs affectés et leurs familles qui dépendaient de cette activité. Les effets
sur le commerce ont été considérables et ne se sont pas limités aux échanges internationaux de
porcs et de produits porcins : les fabricants d’aliments pour animaux et les filières de production
de protéines animales et d’autres produits apparentés ont également été affectés. Le secteur
de l’élevage porcin de la République populaire de Chine a été très durement touché, avec des
pertes estimées à 100 millions de porcs morts et une augmentation de 63 % des importations
chinoises de viande pendant les onze premiers mois de 2019 par rapport à la même période de
l’année précédente, à mesure que les consommateurs chinois remplaçaient la viande de porc,
devenue rare et chère, par d’autres produits carnés.
Dans ce type de situations, alors que les gouvernements du monde entier s’efforcent de
protéger la vie et la santé de leurs populations animales et de minimiser la destruction des
moyens de subsistance, les Services vétérinaires nationaux ont pour tâches de déterminer quels
sont les risques d’introduction et de propagation de la maladie et de définir les mesures qui
doivent être mises en place pour atténuer ces risques. La tendance dans ce contexte consiste
souvent à imposer rapidement des barrières au commerce, dans la mesure où l’information
scientifique disponible ne suffit pas toujours à effectuer une gestion informée du risque et où
la protection de la santé publique et de la santé vétérinaire constitue une priorité. Toutefois, en
cas de modification de la situation suite à des éléments scientifiques nouveaux ou à la maîtrise
des foyers, la levée des barrières est souvent très lente à intervenir, ce qui exacerbe d’autant
l’impact économique du foyer.
S’il est vital d’agir rapidement pour limiter les dommages causés par ces épizooties, il est
tout aussi important de limiter les préjudices économiques résultant de restrictions injustifiées
au commerce. C’est sur cet aspect que les règles de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce
(OMC) et les normes de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) jouent un rôle
déterminant. En vertu des accords de l’OMC, notamment l’Accord sur l’application des mesures
sanitaires et phytosanitaires, toute mesure motivée par des considérations de santé animale

doi: 10.20506/rst.39.1.3057
12 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

doit être fondée sur des principes scientifiques et les pays sont fortement encouragés à
s’inspirer des normes internationales de l’OIE pour fonder leur législation nationale en la
matière. Les normes de l’OIE reposent sur des données scientifiques et sont adoptées par
les Membres de l’OIE suite à un vote ; leur but est d’apporter aux Services vétérinaires
des orientations tant sur des questions générales que sur des maladies particulières, en
établissant les principes de la législation vétérinaire et les fonctions réglementaires des
Autorités vétérinaires, mais aussi en dressant la liste des produits exempts de risque et en
formulant des recommandations visant à garantir la sécurité des échanges internationaux
d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale.
Ce numéro de la Revue scientifique et technique étudie de près l’interaction entre les règles
de l’OMC et les normes de l’OIE dans le domaine des échanges internationaux d’animaux
et de produits d’origine animale. Il part du constat factuel qu’une transaction commerciale
commence toujours par une négociation menée par des représentants de deux pays, et
que celle-ci se déroule d’autant mieux que les deux parties disposent d’un cadre commun
leur permettant de percevoir clairement leurs attentes respectives. Le cadre OMC–OIE
constitué par les accords sur le commerce et les normes internationales apporte cette
structure de référence aux échanges d’informations entre le pays exportateur et le pays
importateur. Il recouvre la chaîne complète, à savoir : les systèmes de gestion du risque en
production animale ; l’élucidation des risques spécifiques liés au commerce international
d’une marchandise particulière et les recommandations sur la manière de gérer ces
risques ; la certification attestant que le système de gestion du risque a été mis en œuvre
conformément à un ensemble concerté de dispositions fondées sur le risque ; enfin, les
procédures concrètes appliquées lors du mouvement d’une cargaison particulière depuis
le site de provenance jusqu’à la destination finale.
Il est essentiel d’avoir des systèmes vétérinaires solides dans le monde entier afin de
gérer les risques sanitaires émergents et de protéger les populations animales ainsi que
les personnes dont les revenus dépendent des animaux. Ces systèmes sont également
vitaux pour veiller à la fluidité et à la sécurité sanitaire des échanges internationaux
d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale, ce qui contribue à la croissance économique
et au développement. Je ne doute pas que ce numéro constituera une ressource précieuse
pour les responsables vétérinaires, les décideurs politiques et toute personne désireuse
de s’informer sur ces questions, et qu’il contribuera à faire de la sécurité des échanges
internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale une réalité concrète.
J’aimerais exprimer mes sincères remerciements aux coordinatrices de ce numéro,
Christiane Wolff et Anneke Hamilton pour le travail remarquable qu’elles ont accompli
dans la compilation et la préparation éditoriale du contenu de cette Revue en collaboration
avec l’Unité des publications de l’OIE. J’aimerais également remercier chacun des auteurs
ayant pris part à ce numéro pour le temps qu’ils ont consacré à rédiger leurs stimulantes
analyses en vue de cette publication.
Monique Éloit
Directrice générale
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 13–14

Prólogo
Asegurar la seguridad sanitaria del comercio internacional
de animales y sus productos

La premisa de que «la falta de noticias es una buena noticia» es tan cierta en lo que
respecta al comercio de animales y productos de origen animal como lo es en cualquier
otro ámbito. De vez en cuando, sin embargo, surgen brotes de enfermedades nuevas
o emergentes que nos recuerdan hasta qué punto es importante que los sistemas de salud
pública y veterinaria funcionen correctamente. Ahora mismo es de cadente actualidad
el impacto del brote de enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) en la salud pública
y en todos los ámbitos de la actividad humana. Se trata de un contundente recordatorio
de la importancia de contar con sólidos sistemas de salud en el mundo entero y de la
necesidad de tener hechos los preparativos para afrontar este tipo de problemas cuando
surgen.
Esta epidemia llega después de otro suceso sanitario de dimensión planetaria, en este
caso de carácter zoosanitario: la crisis mundial de peste porcina africana (PPA). La veloz
propagación de la PPA afectó a muy numerosas regiones, especialmente europeas
y asiáticas, y tuvo consecuencias devastadoras para la producción porcina de varios países
y para gran número de productores y familias cuyos ingresos dependían de este sector. Los
efectos en el comercio fueron de enorme calado y, lejos de limitarse al sector del cerdo
y sus derivados, se extendieron también al comercio de piensos, de otras proteínas de
origen animal y de otras muchas mercancias conexas. El sector porcino de la República
Popular de China resultó especialmente dañado: se calcula que se perdieron unos
100 millones de cerdos, a la vez que en los primeros 11 meses de 2019 las importaciones
chinas de productos cárnicos aumentaron en un 63%, en comparación con el mismo
periodo del año anterior, porque los consumidores chinos elegían otras carnes en lugar de
la escasa y onerosa carne porcina.
En este tipo de situaciones, cuando gobiernos del mundo entero pugnan por proteger
la vida y la salud de sus poblaciones animales y por reducir al mínimo la erosión de los
medios de sustento, los Servicios Veterinarios del mundo deben determinar el riesgo
de penetración y propagación de una enfermedad y las medidas que conviene instituir
para mitigar ese riesgo. En tales casos hay tendencia a instaurar rápidamente barreras
comerciales, pues la prioridad estriba en proteger la salud pública y veterinaria y quizá
falten datos científicamente contrastados en los que fundamentar las medidas de gestión
del riesgo. Sin embargo, incluso tras disponer de información científica, o una vez resueltos
los brotes, la retirada de estas barreras discurre con lentitud, cosa que agrava aún más las
consecuencias económicas de un brote.
A la vez que resulta vital actuar con celeridad para limitar los daños ocasionados por
este tipo de problemas zoosanitarios, es igualmente importante limitar los perjuicios
económicos que se derivan de restricciones injustificadas al comercio. Ahí es donde
cumplen una función básica las reglas de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC)
y las normas de la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE). Los acuerdos de la
OMC, en particular el Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias,
exigen que las medidas zoosanitarias reposen en principios científicos e instan vivamente

doi: 10.20506/rst.39.1.3057
14 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

a utilizar las normas internacionales de la OIE como base de la legislación nacional.

Las normas de la OIE, basadas en datos científicos y aprobadas por los Miembros de
la OIE, proporcionan a los Servicios Veterinarios orientaciones (tanto genéricas como
referidas a ciertas enfermedades en concreto) en las cuales se definen modelos de
legislación veterinaria, se indican las funciones de reglamentación que incumben a las
autoridades veterinarias, se determinan los productos que son seguros y se recomienda
la implantación de determinados requisitos para garantizar la seguridad del comercio de
animales y productos de origen animal.
En este número de la Revista Científica y Técnica se examina con detenimiento
la articulación entre las reglas de la OMC y las normas de la OIE para encauzar el
comercio internacional de animales y productos de origen animal. Para ello se parte del
reconocimiento de que, en la práctica, toda transacción comercial internacional empieza
con una negociación entre altos funcionarios de dos países y de que lo ideal, para que
esta negociación discurra de la mejor forma posible, es que ambas partes se atengan
a un sistema de referencia común a través del cual aprehender las expectativas de su
interlocutor. El sistema de referencia que ofrecen los acuerdos comerciales y las normas
internacionales de la OMC y la OIE sienta las bases para que países exportadores y países
importadores intercambien información. Este ordenamiento normativo cubre la totalidad
de la cadena, desde los sistemas generales de gestión del riesgo en producción animal
hasta los riesgos ligados al comercio de una mercancía en concreto y el mejor modo
de manejarlos, o desde el proceso para certificar que se han aplicado las medidas de
gestión del riesgo requeridas (conforme a un conjunto acordado de requisitos basados en
el riesgo) hasta los procedimientos que se aplican al movimiento efectivo de una remesa
(de su lugar origen a su destino final).
La existencia en todo el mundo de robustos sistemas veterinarios es un factor esencial
para gestionar los riesgos ligados a enfermedades emergentes y proteger tanto a las
poblaciones animales como a las personas que de ellas dependen. Estos sistemas son
también un factor determinante para garantizar que el comercio de animales y productos
de origen animal discurra con fluidez y en condiciones de seguridad, contribuyendo así al
desarrollo y el crecimiento económico. Espero que tanto las instancias de planificación
como los responsables públicos veterinarios y demás personas interesadas en el tema
encuentren en este número una útil herramienta, que ayude a hacer realidad el comercio
seguro de animales y productos de origen animal.
Deseo expresar aquí mi sincera gratitud a las señoras Christiane Wolff y Anneke Hamilton
por su ímproba labor de compilación y coordinación de los artículos que forman este
número de la Revista, en colaboración con la Unidad de Publicaciones de la OIE. Vaya
también mi agradecimiento a todos los autores que han dedicado tiempo y esfuerzo a
escribir los interesantes artículos presentados en esta publicación.

Monique Éloit
Directora General

Introduction
Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products
C. Wolff * & A. Hamilton
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Section, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization,
Rue de Lausanne 154, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
*Corresponding author: christiane.wolff@wto.org
Global animal health and world trade are two areas where
international cooperation is essential. As has become
abundantly clear in the current coronavirus pandemic,
diseases move without regard to national boundaries, and
what is true for human diseases also holds true for animal
diseases. Efficient monitoring and control of such diseases
is only possible when Veterinary Services cooperate across
borders to exchange information on disease prevalence,
share experiences on how to control them, and agree on
joint initiatives to avoid their spread, reduce their prevalence
and even eradicate them. Similarly, international trade
works best when exporting and importing countries agree
on a common set of principles, to remove unnecessary trade
barriers, avoid unpleasant surprises, and inform each other
when requirements change.
Early detection and control of animal diseases require
international collaboration, and the World Organisation for
Animal Health (OIE) leads and coordinates this work. When
countries cooperate to understand scientific information on
animal diseases, share data on disease prevalence and spread,
and discuss how best to address and prevent these diseases,
the impact of their coordinated actions is far greater than
could be achieved through individual efforts. This is all the
more important because of the central role animal health
plays in the food and income security of many households,
and in food security and economic development at the
national level. In the same way, at the regional and global
levels, trade in animals and animal products can contribute
to food security by distributing food from surplus to deficit
areas, and can enhance economic prosperity.
To ensure that international trade does not become a means
of transmitting animal diseases across borders, national
Veterinary Services develop requirements for imports of
animals and animal products. While necessary to ensure
safe trade, such requirements can become obstacles to
trade when they are overly burdensome and go beyond
what is necessary to protect animal health. The World
Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement)
doi: 10.20506/rst.39.1.3058
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 15-17
aims to ensure that such requirements, or ‘measures’, are
not overly restrictive to trade (1). For example, under the
SPS Agreement, such measures need to have a scientific
basis, they must be transparent and they must take local
sanitary conditions into account.
Even science-based import requirements can be burdensome
and raise trade costs if they vary from country to country.
Demonstrating compliance with different sets of measures
for each export market can be prohibitively expensive,
especially for small-scale producers and exporters.
Therefore, the SPS Agreement strongly encourages the
harmonisation of sanitary measures across WTO Members,
and it recognises OIE standards as the basis for these
harmonisation efforts in relation to animal health and
zoonoses. While WTO Members can also deviate from OIE
standards, the advantage of adopting national measures
that conform to standards developed by the OIE is that
such measures will be presumed to be consistent with the
SPS Agreement.
In practice, agreeing on the sanitary requirements to be
applied in trade between two countries is not always easy.
Interpreting the science, assessing the risk and agreeing
on risk management measures is often challenging. In
addition, most trade in animals and animal products
requires certification by a Competent Authority, the remit
of which in turn is based on trust between trading partners.
Reaching an agreement among prospective trading
partners, and building the necessary trust, are greatly
facilitated by the existence of an agreed framework to guide
these conversations. The WTO–OIE framework of trade
agreements and international standards serves as the basis
for the exchange of information between exporting and
importing countries. World Trade Organization agreements,
including the SPS Agreement and the Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), as well as
the more recent Trade Facilitation Agreement, define the
legal rights and obligations of trading partners, including
in the areas of non-discrimination and transparency (2, 3).
The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code and Aquatic Animal
16
Health Code provide both science-based disease-specific
standards, for example on safe products that can be traded
regardless of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy status
of the exporting country, and horizontal guidance, such
as on the role of Veterinary Services in managing animal
health, animal welfare and veterinary public health in their
country (4, 5).
This issue presents a series of articles to assist OIE and
WTO Members, and those in the international community
as a whole interested in trade in animals and animal
products, to better understand the frameworks created
by WTO agreements and OIE international standards.
Section One, entitled ‘International framework’, examines
the framework itself, explaining the WTO agreements and
their main provisions, and how these provisions have been
interpreted in disputes related to animal health and welfare.
It also reviews how WTO agreements and OIE standards
relate to good regulatory practices and international
regulatory cooperation, and how the OIE is monitoring the
implementation of its international standards currently, and
intends to in the future.
Section Two, entitled ‘Negotiating market access for animals
and animal products’, again starts with an overview of the
relevant SPS Agreement provisions, including the principles
of equivalence, regionalisation and risk assessment. The
papers in this section explore the practical application of
these concepts in more detail, and related topics, such
as mutual recognition agreements, tools to facilitate
negotiations between trading partners and the impact of the
harmonisation of sanitary measures. The final paper in this
section analyses informal trade, which by its nature does
not necessarily comply with official requirements and can
thus pose significant risks to animal health.
Section Three, entitled ‘Models for a national official
assurance system’, explores in detail the systems essential
to building the trust underlying the relationship between
veterinary authorities in exporting and importing countries.
Papers in this section explain the role of OIE standards in
national assurance systems, and an example relating to
traceability is included. In addition, one paper explains
an example of a private scheme in the area of animal
welfare, and another looks at the accreditation of private
veterinarians.
Section Four, entitled ‘Veterinary certification’, begins with
an explanation of the SPS Agreement’s provisions on control,
inspection and approval systems, including the work of the
SPS Committee in this area, and an account of the relevant
OIE guidance available. Another paper analyses the role of
trust in veterinary certification, while the growing role of
electronic certification systems is the subject of the final
paper in this section.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Finally, Section Five, entitled ‘Transparency’, covers a
concept that plays a central role in trade in animals and
animal products and in both WTO agreements and OIE
work, as it is one of the fundamental principles of the
WTO. One of the aims of the SPS Agreement is to ensure
transparency in the SPS measures applied by WTO
Members, thus facilitating traders’ access to this information,
increasing predictability and avoiding surprises that can
be very costly to exporters. Similarly, the OIE system of
transparency and information exchange on the global
animal disease situation allows veterinary authorities to
avoid disease introduction and spread; it also enables them
to adapt import requirements to the sanitary conditions in
exporting countries and thus avoid unnecessary obstacles
to trade.
The hope of the editors is that readers may find this
collection of articles useful in understanding the
international framework in relation to trade and in seeing
how the disciplines contained in the WTO agreements
build on and complement the international standards
developed by the OIE. While some of the papers take a
more theoretical approach, explaining the (sometimes
rather abstract) concepts and principles, others explain how
these concepts and principles have been implemented in
practice in different regions, by countries at different levels
of development, both from an exporting and an importing
country’s perspective. These examples and experiences
should prove useful to veterinary officials, policy-makers
and other interested readers. They should also assist the
OIE in achieving the objectives of developing international
standards based on the best scientific evidence using
good regulatory practices, and supporting Members with
developing capacities for their implementation.
Acknowledgements
The coordinators/editors wish to express their appreciation
for the excellent collaboration with the OIE. In addition,
they would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance
provided by Ms Shivani Bhatnagar, who worked as an intern
in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Section, Agriculture and
Commodities Division, of the WTO, during the preparation
of this issue.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
References
1. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm (accessed on 24 March 2020).
2. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Contracting
Parties (1979). – Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.
GATT Contracting Parties, Geneva, Switzerland, 26 pp.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/tokyo_tbt_e.
doc (accessed on 24 March 2020).
3. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2014). – Agreement on Trade
Facilitation. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.
wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/tfa-nov14_e.htm (accessed on
24 March 2020).
17
4. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 27th Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/terrestrial-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 24 March 2020).
5. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Aquatic
Animal Health Code, 21st Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at:
www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/aquatic-code/access-online/
(accessed on 24 March 2020).

Introduction
Assurer la sécurité sanitaire des échanges internationaux
d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale
C. Wolff * & A. Hamilton
Section sanitaire et phytosanitaire, Division de l’agriculture et des produits de base, Organisation mondiale du
commerce, rue de Lausanne 154, 1202 Genève, Suisse
* Auteure chargée de la correspondance : christiane.wolff@wto.org
La santé animale mondiale et le commerce international
sont deux domaines où la coopération internationale
est essentielle. Comme la pandémie actuelle due au
coronavirus l’a clairement démontré, les maladies se
propagent sans tenir compte des frontières nationales ; ce
qui est vrai pour les maladies humaines l’est tout autant
pour les maladies animales. Un suivi et un contrôle efficaces
de ces maladies ne sont possibles que si une coopération
est en place entre les Services vétérinaires de part et d’autre
des frontières nationales en vue de partager les informations
sur la prévalence des maladies, de mettre en commun les
expériences en matière de contrôle et de se concerter sur
les initiatives à prendre pour éviter la propagation des
maladies, réduire leur prévalence, voire les éradiquer. De
même, le commerce international fonctionne mieux lorsque
les pays exportateurs et importateurs se mettent d’accord
sur un ensemble de principes communs afin d’éliminer les
obstacles injustifiés au commerce, d’éviter les mauvaises
surprises et de s’informer mutuellement des modifications
apportées aux exigences applicables aux échanges
internationaux.
La détection précoce et la lutte contre les maladies animales
reposent sur la collaboration internationale, sous la conduite
de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) qui
en assure la coordination. Lorsque les pays coopèrent pour
prendre en compte les informations scientifiques sur les
maladies animales, partagent les données sur la prévalence
ou la propagation des maladies et examinent ensemble les
meilleures manières de traiter et de prévenir les foyers,
l’impact de leur action concertée est de loin supérieur
à la somme de ce que chaque pays aurait pu réaliser
individuellement. Cet aspect est d’autant plus important
que la santé animale joue un rôle central dans la sécurité
tant alimentaire que des revenus de très nombreux foyers
ainsi que dans la sécurité alimentaire et le développement
économique des pays à l’échelle nationale. De même, à
l’échelle régionale et mondiale, les échanges internationaux
d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale contribuent à
la sécurité alimentaire en redistribuant l’approvisionnement
de denrées depuis les régions excédentaires vers les zones
doi: 10.20506/rst.39.1.3058
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 19-21
déficitaires, tout en favorisant la prospérité économique.
Afin que les échanges internationaux n’ouvrent pas la voie à
une transmission transfrontalière des maladies animales, les
Services vétérinaires nationaux imposent certaines mesures
aux importations d’animaux et de produits d’origine
animale. Or, si ces mesures sont nécessaires pour garantir
un commerce sûr, elles peuvent aussi constituer des
obstacles au commerce dès lors qu’elles sont excessivement
contraignantes ou excèdent ce qui est requis pour protéger
la santé animale. L’ Accord de l’Organisation mondiale du
commerce (OMC) sur l’application des mesures sanitaires
et phytosanitaires (Accord SPS) a pour but de faire en
sorte que ces exigences ou « mesures » ne restreignent pas
les échanges internationaux plus que nécessaire (1). Par
exemple, en vertu de l’Accord SPS, les mesures doivent être
fondées scientifiquement, elles doivent être transparentes et
elles doivent prendre en compte la situation sanitaire locale.
Toutefois, même lorsqu’elles sont fondées sur la science, des
mesures à l’importation qui varient d’un pays à l’autre se
révèlent souvent contraignantes et induisent des surcoûts
commerciaux. En effet, la démonstration de la conformité
d’un produit avec chaque ensemble de mesures s’appliquant
dans les différents marchés d’exportation a un coût qui peut
être prohibitif, en particulier pour les petits producteurs
et exportateurs. C’est la raison pour laquelle l’Accord SPS
encourage vivement les Membres de l’OMC à harmoniser
leurs mesures sanitaires et à se référer aux normes de l’OIE
dans leurs efforts d’harmonisation dans les domaines de
la santé animale et des zoonoses. Certes, les Membres de
l’OMC sont libres de s’écarter des normes de l’OIE ; mais
l’adoption de mesures nationales conformes aux normes
élaborées par l’OIE présente l’avantage que ces mesures
seront présumées compatibles avec l’Accord SPS.
Dans la pratique, il n’est pas toujours facile de se mettre
d’accord sur les mesures sanitaires à appliquer aux échanges
entre deux pays. Il est parfois délicat d’interpréter les
données scientifiques, d’évaluer le risque et de se concerter
20
sur les mesures permettant de gérer ce risque. En outre,
les échanges d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale
sont généralement soumis à une certification délivrée par
une Autorité compétente, dont le mandat est à son tour
tributaire de la confiance réciproque entre partenaires
commerciaux. L’existence d’un cadre concerté pour mener
à bien les négociations accroît considérablement les chances
de parvenir à un accord entre partenaires commerciaux
potentiels et de construire la confiance nécessaire à cette
fin. Le cadre OMC–OIE constitué par les accords sur le
commerce et les normes internationales apporte cette
structure de référence aux échanges d’informations entre
pays exportateurs et importateurs. Les accords de l’OMC,
notamment l’Accord SPS, l’Accord sur les obstacles
techniques au commerce (Accord OTC) et plus récemment
l’Accord sur la facilitation des échanges définissent les droits
et les obligations des partenaires commerciaux, y compris
en matière de non-discrimination et de transparence (2, 3).
Le Code sanitaire pour les animaux terrestres et le Code
sanitaire pour les animaux aquatiques de l’OIE contiennent
d’une part des normes fondées sur la science applicables à
certaines maladies particulières, par exemple concernant les
marchandises dénuées de risque qui peuvent être exportées
indépendamment du statut du pays exportateur au regard
de l’encéphalopathie spongiforme bovine, et d’autre part des
orientations d’ordre général, par exemple concernant le rôle
des Services vétérinaires dans la gestion de la santé animale,
du bien-être animal et de la santé publique vétérinaire dans
leur pays (4, 5).
Les articles présentés dans ce numéro ont pour but d’aider
les Membres de l’OIE et de l’OMC ainsi que l’ensemble de
la communauté internationale intéressée par le commerce
international d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale à
mieux comprendre le cadre mis en place par les accords
de l’OMC et les normes internationales de l’OIE. La
première partie, intitulé «  Le cadre international  » décrit
ses caractéristiques essentielles en expliquant la nature des
accords de l’OMC et leurs principales dispositions ainsi
que la manière dont ces dernières ont été interprétées lors
de différends liés à des questions sanitaires et de bien-être
animal. Elle fait aussi le point sur l’articulation entre, d’un
côté, les accords de l’OMC et les normes de l’OIE, et de
l’autre, les bonnes pratiques réglementaires et la coopération
réglementaire internationale, ainsi que sur le suivi par l’OIE
de la mise en œuvre de ses normes internationales et son
évolution future.
La deuxième partie, intitulée «  Négocier l’accès des
animaux et des produits d’origine animale aux marchés
internationaux  » approfondit l’examen des dispositions
pertinentes de l’Accord SPS, en particulier les principes
d’équivalence, de régionalisation et d’évaluation du
risque. Les articles de cette section examinent en détail
les applications concrètes de ces concepts et abordent
également quelques sujets connexes tels que les accords
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
de reconnaissance mutuelle, les outils visant à faciliter les
négociations entre partenaires commerciaux et les effets de
l’harmonisation des mesures sanitaires. Le dernier article
de cette section traite du commerce informel, lequel par
nature ne se conforme pas toujours aux exigences officielles
et représente de ce fait un risque significatif pour la santé
animale.
La troisième partie, intitulée « Modèles de systèmes officiels
nationaux d’assurance » est consacrée à l’examen minutieux
des systèmes qui conditionnent la confiance sous-jacente aux
bonnes relations entre les Autorités vétérinaires respectives
des pays exportateurs et importateurs. Les articles de cette
section expliquent l’importance des normes de l’OIE pour
structurer les systèmes nationaux d’assurance, avec un
exemple décrivant un système de traçabilité. Deux autres
articles traitent respectivement d’un dispositif privé de
suivi du bien-être animal et de l’accréditation des
vétérinaires privés.
La quatrième partie, intitulée «  Certification vétérinaire  »
décrit les dispositions de l’Accord SPS relatives aux
systèmes de contrôle, d’inspection et d’autorisation ainsi
que les travaux du Comité SPS dans ce domaine et rend
compte également des orientations pertinentes de l’OIE
sur le sujet. Un autre article analyse l’importance de la
confiance en matière de certification vétérinaire, tandis que
le rôle croissant des systèmes de certification électronique
fait l’objet du dernier article de cette section.
La cinquième et dernière partie, intitulée « Transparence »
recouvre un concept qui joue un rôle central dans les
échanges internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine
animale ainsi que dans les Accords de l’OMC et les travaux
de l’OIE, étant l’un des principes fondamentaux de l’OMC.
L’un des objectifs de l’accord SPS consiste en effet à garantir
la transparence des mesures SPS appliquées par les Membres
de l’OMC en facilitant l’accès des partenaires commerciaux
à l’information, en améliorant la prévisibilité des mesures et
en évitant les mauvaises surprises, qui induisent un surcoût
important pour les exportateurs. De même, le système mis
en place par l’OIE pour plus de transparence et pour un
meilleur partage d’informations sur la situation des maladies
animales dans le monde permet aux Autorités vétérinaires
d’empêcher l’introduction ou la propagation des maladies
animales ; il leur permet également d’adapter les exigences
relatives aux importations à la situation sanitaire des pays
exportateurs et d’éviter ainsi d’imposer des obstacles
injustifiés au commerce.
Les coordinatrices de ce numéro espèrent que ce recueil
d’articles éclairera le lecteur sur le cadre international
entourant le commerce et lui permettra d’observer à quel
point les disciplines incluses dans les accords de l’OMC
s’appuient sur les normes internationales de l’OIE tout en
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 21

les complétant. Si certains articles sont consacrés à l’analyse

théorique de concepts et de principes parfois fort abstraits,
Remerciements
d’autres décrivent la mise en œuvre concrète de ces concepts Les coordinatrices tiennent à exprimer leur gratitude pour
et principes dans des régions et pays différents se trouvant la qualité de la collaboration mise en place par l’OIE.
à divers stades de développement et présentent aussi bien Elles voudraient également remercier Shivani Bhatnagar,
le point de vue des pays exportateurs que celui des pays qui a travaillé comme stagiaire à la Section sanitaire et
importateurs. Nul doute que ces exemples et expériences phytosanitaire de la Division de l’agriculture et des produits
seront utiles aux responsables vétérinaires, aux décideurs de base de l’OMC, pour son aide précieuse lors de la
politiques et à tous les lecteurs s’intéressant à ces questions. préparation de ce numéro.
Ils devraient également apporter à l’OIE un éclairage
précieux pour atteindre ses objectifs d’élaboration de normes
internationales basées sur les données scientifiques les plus
avancées et sur les meilleures pratiques réglementaires, et
pour soutenir les efforts de renforcement des capacités des
Membres en vue de la mise en œuvre de ces normes.

Références
1. Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) (1995) – Accord
sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires.
OMC, Genève (Suisse). Disponible en ligne  : www.wto.org/
french/docs_f/legal_f/15sps_01_f.htm (consulté le 24 mars
2020).
2. Parties contractantes de l’Accord général sur les tarifs
douaniers et le commerce (GATT) (1979). – Accord relatif aux
obstacles techniques au commerce. Parties contractantes du
GATT, Genève (Suisse), 30 pp. Disponible en ligne : www.wto.
org/french/docs_f/legal_f/tokyo_tbt_f.pdf (consulté le 24 mars
2020).
4. Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) (2019). –
Code sanitaire pour les animaux terrestres, 27e édition. OIE,
Paris (France). Disponible en ligne  : www.oie.int/fr/normes/
code-terrestre/acces-en-ligne/ (consulté le 24 mars 2020).
5. Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) (2019). –
Code sanitaire pour les animaux aquatiques, 21e édition. OIE,
Paris (France). Disponible en ligne  : www.oie.int/fr/normes/
code-aquatique/acces-en-ligne/ (consulté le 24 mars 2020).

3. Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) (2014). –

Accord sur la facilitation des échanges. OMC, Genève (Suisse).
Disponible en ligne  : www.wto.org/french/docs_f/legal_f/tfa-
nov14_f.htm (consulté le 24 mars 2020).

Introducción
Asegurar la seguridad sanitaria del comercio internacional
de animales y sus productos
C. Wolff * & A. Hamilton
Sección de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias, División de Agricultura y Productos Básicos, Organización Mundial del
Comercio, Rue de Lausanne 154, 1202 Ginebra (Suiza)
*Autora referente: christiane.wolff@wto.org
La situación zoosanitaria mundial y el comercio a escala
planetaria son dos ámbitos en los que la cooperación
internacional es básica. Como evidencia sobradamente
la actual pandemia de coronavirus, las enfermedades
cruzan sin miramientos las fronteras nacionales, y lo que
vale para las enfermedades humanas también es cierto
para las enfermedades animales: no puede haber labor
eficaz de seguimiento y control de estas enfermedades sin
cooperación transfronteriza entre los Servicios Veterinarios
para intercambiar información sobre la prevalencia de las
enfermedades, compartir su experiencia sobre la forma
de combatirlas y acordar iniciativas conjuntas para evitar
su propagación, reducir su prevalencia e incluso llegar
a erradicarlas. En el mismo orden de ideas, el comercio
internacional funciona de modo idóneo cuando países
exportadores e importadores se ponen de acuerdo en un
conjunto común de principios para eliminar obstáculos
innecesarios al comercio, evitar sorpresas desagradables e
informarse recíprocamente de todo cambio en los requisitos.
La colaboración internacional es indispensable para
detectar y combatir con prontitud las enfermedades
animales, labor que se encarga de dirigir y coordinar la
Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE). Cuando
los países cooperan entre sí para desentrañar la información
científica sobre enfermedades animales, compartir datos
sobre su prevalencia y propagación y discutir el mejor
modo de combatirlas, este quehacer coordinado tiene un
impacto mucho mayor del que se podría conseguir si cada
cual trabajara por su cuenta, hecho tanto más importante
por la trascendencia que tiene la sanidad animal para
la alimentación y los ingresos de muchas familias y para
la seguridad alimentaria y el desarrollo económico de
los países. De modo análogo, el comercio de animales y
productos de origen animal puede contribuir a la seguridad
alimentaria a escala regional y mundial porque permite
distribuir alimentos de las zonas excedentarias a las zonas
deficitarias, favoreciendo también con ello la prosperidad
económica.
doi: 10.20506/rst.39.1.3058
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 23-25
Para asegurar que el comercio internacional no constituya
una vía de transmisión transfronteriza de enfermedades
animales, los Servicios Veterinarios nacionales definen
requisitos para la importación de animales y productos
de origen animal. Tales requisitos, aun siendo necesarios
para garantizar la seguridad del comercio, pueden
llegar a obstaculizarlo cuando resultan excesivamente
gravosos y van más allá de lo necesario para proteger la
salud de los animales. El Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de
Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Acuerdo MSF) de la
Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) tiene por
objetivo garantizar que tales requisitos, o «medidas», no
impongan restricciones excesivas al comercio (1). Según
el Acuerdo MSF, por ejemplo, dichas medidas deben tener
fundamento científico, ser transparentes y tener en cuenta
las condiciones sanitarias locales.
Con todo, incluso cuando están basados en pruebas
científicas, los requisitos de importación pueden resultar
gravosos y encarecer el comercio si varían de un país a
otro. El hecho de tener que demostrar el cumplimiento
de distintos conjuntos de medidas para cada mercado de
exportación puede tener costos prohibitivos, especialmente
para los pequeños productores y exportadores. Por ello en
el Acuerdo MSF se promueve vivamente la armonización
de las medidas sanitarias entre los Miembros de la OMC y
se reconocen las normas de la OIE como referente para esta
labor de armonización en todo lo relativo a sanidad animal y
zoonosis. Aunque los Miembros de la OMC también pueden
dotarse de reglas disconformes con la normativa de la OIE,
la ventaja de adoptar medidas nacionales que se ajusten a
las normas elaboradas por la OIE es que estas medidas serán
consideradas «a priori» acordes con el Acuerdo MSF.
En la práctica, no siempre es fácil que dos países se pongan
de acuerdo sobre los requisitos sanitarios que van a regir el
comercio entre ellos. Interpretar la información científica,
determinar el riesgo y acordar medidas para gestionarlo
resulta a menudo una labor dificultosa. Además, la mayoría
de las transacciones que entrañan comercio de animales
24
y productos de origen animal requieren un certificado
expedido por la autoridad competente, lo que a su vez
depende de la confianza existente entre las partes (los
«socios comerciales»). El proceso para que dos futuribles
socios comerciales lleguen a un acuerdo y se infundan
mutuamente la confianza necesaria se ve facilitado en
gran medida por la existencia de un marco de referencia
convenido en el que inscribir las conversaciones. El sistema
de referencia que ofrecen los acuerdos comerciales y normas
internacionales de la OMC y la OIE sienta las bases para que
países exportadores y países importadores intercambien
información. Los acuerdos de la Organización Mundial del
Comercio, en particular el Acuerdo MSF y el Acuerdo sobre
Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio (Acuerdo OTC), así como
el más reciente Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio,
definen los derechos y deberes jurídicos de los socios
comerciales, sobre todo en materia de no discriminación y
transparencia (2, 3). En el Código Sanitario para los Animales
Terrestres y el Código Sanitario para los Animales Acuáticos de la
OIE se ofrecen a la vez normas científicamente contrastadas
relativas a ciertas enfermedades en concreto, por ejemplo
acerca de la seguridad de los productos con los que se
puede comerciar independientemente de la situación del
país exportador respecto de la encefalopatía espongiforme
bovina, y orientaciones de tipo más general, por ejemplo
sobre la función que incumbe a los Servicios Veterinarios
en la gestión de la sanidad y el bienestar animales y la salud
pública veterinaria en cada país (4, 5).
En este número se presenta un conjunto de artículos que
aspiran a ayudar a los Miembros de la OIE y OMC, así como
a todos los integrantes de la comunidad internacional que
estén interesados en el comercio de animales y productos de
origen animal, a entender mejor los sistemas de referencia
que constituyen los acuerdos de la OMC y las normas
internacionales de la OIE. En la primera sección, dedicada
al sistema de referencia internacional, se examinan los
propios textos de referencia, con explicaciones sobre los
acuerdos de la OMC y sus principales disposiciones y
sobre la interpretación que se ha venido haciendo de tales
disposiciones en controversias relacionadas con la sanidad o
el bienestar de los animales. Además, también se expone la
relación que guardan los acuerdos de la OMC y las normas
de la OIE con las buenas prácticas de reglamentación y con
la cooperación internacional en materia reglamentaria y se
explica cómo la OIE sigue hoy de cerca, y tiene previsto
seguir mañana, la aplicación de sus normas internacionales.
La segunda sección, dedicada a las negociaciones de
acceso a mercados de animales y productos de origen
animal, empieza de nuevo con una exposición general
de las disposiciones pertinentes del Acuerdo MSF, en
particular los principios de equivalencia, regionalización
y determinación del riesgo. Los artículos que forman esta
sección se detienen de modo más detallado en la aplicación
práctica de estos conceptos y en otros temas conexos, como
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
los acuerdos de reconocimiento mutuo, las herramientas
para facilitar las negociaciones entre socios comerciales y
los efectos de la armonización de las medidas sanitarias.
En el último artículo de la sección se analiza el comercio
informal, que por definición no cumple necesariamente los
requisitos oficiales y puede por ello entrañar importantes
riesgos zoosanitarios.
En la tercera sección, dedicada a los modelos existentes de
sistema nacional de garantía oficial, se examinan en detalle
los sistemas esenciales para generar la confianza en que
debe reposar toda relación entre las autoridades veterinarias
de países exportadores y las de países importadores. En los
artículos de esta sección se explica la función que cumplen
las normas de la OIE en los sistemas nacionales de garantía
y se ofrece un ejemplo relacionado con la cuestión de la
trazabilidad. Además, en un artículo se expone el ejemplo de
un sistema privado de bienestar animal y en otro se examina
el tema de la acreditación de los veterinarios privados.
La cuarta sección, que versa sobre la certificación veterinaria,
empieza con una explicación de las disposiciones del
Acuerdo MSF sobre sistemas de control, inspección y
aprobación, incluido el trabajo del Comité MSF en la
materia, y con una relación de las orientaciones de la OIE
que existen al respecto. En otro artículo se analiza el papel
de la confianza en el proceso de certificación veterinaria. El
artículo que cierra la sección está dedicado a los sistemas de
certificación electrónica y su creciente protagonismo.
La quinta sección, por último, gira en torno al concepto
de transparencia, que cumple una función central en el
comercio de animales y productos de origen animal, así
como en los acuerdos de la OMC y en la labor de la OIE,
pues corresponde a uno de los principios fundamentales
de la OMC. Uno de los objetivos que persigue el Acuerdo
MSF es el de garantizar la transparencia de las medidas
sanitarias y fitosanitarias que aplican los Miembros de
la OMC, facilitando con ello el acceso de las partes a
esta información, ofreciéndoles mayor previsibilidad y
evitándoles sorpresas que los exportadores pueden pagar
muy caras. Análogamente, el sistema de transparencia e
intercambio de información de la OIE sobre la situación
zoosanitaria mundial permite a las autoridades veterinarias
evitar la penetración y propagación de enfermedades y a la
vez adaptar los requisitos de importación a las condiciones
sanitarias reinantes en el país exportador, evitando así la
imposición de obstáculos innecesarios al comercio.
Las coordinadoras esperan que este compendio de artículos
resulte útil al lector para comprender el sistema de
referencia internacional en el que se encuadra el comercio
y para entender que las disciplinas contenidas en los
acuerdos de la OMC se basan en las normas internacionales
elaboradas por la OIE, a la vez que las complementan.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 25

Mientras algunos de los artículos adoptan un punto de

vista más teórico, tratando de arrojar luz sobre conceptos y
Agradecimientos
principios a veces algo abstractos, en otros se explica cómo Las coordinadoras/compiladoras desean expresar su
países de distintas regiones y situados en niveles diferentes reconocimiento a la OIE por su excelente colaboración.
de desarrollo han aplicado en la práctica estos conceptos Además, desean agradecer a la Sra. Shivani Bhatnagar, quien
y principios, considerando las cosas desde la perspectiva trabajó como pasante en la Sección Sanitaria y Fitosanitaria,
de un país exportador y desde la de un país importador. División de Agricultura y Productos Básicos, de la OMC, la
Esta suma de ejemplos y experiencias debería ser de valiosa ayuda que les prestó durante la preparación de este
utilidad para responsables públicos veterinarios, instancias número.
de planificación y demás lectores interesados, además de
ayudar a la OIE a cumplir el doble objetivo de elaborar
normas internacionales basadas en la mejor información
científica existente, empleando al efecto buenas prácticas de
reglamentación, y de ayudar a sus Miembros a dotarse de la
capacidad necesaria para aplicar esas normas.

Referencias
1. Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) (1995). – Acuerdo
sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias.
OMC, Ginebra (Suiza). Disponible en: www.wto.org/spanish/
tratop_s/sps_s/spsagr_s.htm (fecha de consulta: 24 de marzo
de 2020).
4. Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) (2019).
– Código Sanitario para los Animales Terrestres, 27ª ed.
OIE, París (Francia). Disponible en: www.oie.int/es/
normas/codigo-terrestre/acceso-en-linea/ (fecha de consulta:
24 de marzo de 2020).

2. Partes Contratantes del Acuerdo General sobre Aranceles
Aduaneros y Comercio (GATT) (1979). – Acuerdo sobre
Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio. Partes Contratantes del
GATT, Ginebra (Suiza), 26 págs. Disponible en: www.wto.org/
spanish/docs_s/legal_s/17-tbt_s.htm (fecha de consulta: 24 de
marzo de 2020).
5. Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) (2019).
– Código Sanitario para los Animales Acuáticos, 21ª ed.
OIE, París (Francia). Disponible en: www.oie.int/es/
normas/codigo-acuatico/acceso-en-linea/ (fecha de consulta:
24 de marzo de 2020).

3. Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) (2014). –

Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio. OMC, Ginebra
(Suiza). Disponible en: www.wto.org/spanish/docs_s/legal_s/
tfa-nov14_s.htm (fecha de consulta: 24 de marzo de 2020).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 27-33

World Trade Organization agreements: a framework

for trade in animals and animal products
C. Wolff* & I. Calderón

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Unit, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization,
Rue de Lausanne 154, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
*Corresponding author: christiane.wolff@wto.org

Summary
This paper will provide an overview of the World Trade Organization’s agreements
on trade in animals and animal products and of the standards developed by
the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) for the same purpose. Together,
these form an international framework for trade in animals and animal products,
which is supplemented by the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). In this paper, the authors introduce the
main provisions of the SPS Agreement, the role of the OIE international standards,
the importance of science and the work of the SPS Committee. The authors also
explore the relevance of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the
Trade Facilitation Agreement.

Keywords
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade – Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) – International standards – Technical barriers to
trade – Trade – Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) – Trade in animals and animal products
– World Organisation of Animal Health (OIE).

What trade rules apply to trade including standards and regulations. During the Uruguay
Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1986–1994),

in animals and animal products?
The World Trade Organization (WTO) deals with the global
rules of trade between nations. Its objective is to ensure that
trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible,
while contributing to sustainable economic growth and
development. World Trade Organization Members negotiate
the trade rules in the form of trade agreements, adopted
by consensus. The WTO also oversees the application of
these rules and monitors the trade policies of its Members.
Its technical assistance programme aims at ensuring that
all Members are aware of their obligations and know how
to benefit from their rights. When there are disagreements
about the rules, Members can resort to the WTO’s dispute
settlement mechanism to find a solution.
Initially, the focus of the WTO’s predecessor, the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), was on customs
duties (tariffs). Today, WTO agreements are much broader,
covering many other types of measures that affect trade,
which led to the establishment of the WTO, the Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(SPS Agreement) (1) was negotiated to establish specific
provisions defining clear, detailed rights and obligations
for food safety, and animal and plant health measures that
affect trade.
The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT
Agreement) (2) was also negotiated, building on the
Standards Code (its predecessor from the GATT era) to
strengthen and clarify the rules that apply to other technical
requirements for products.
Members have the right to adopt and enforce scientifically
based measures that are necessary to protect human, animal
or plant life or health. The SPS Agreement tries to achieve
a balance between this right and the objective of avoiding
unnecessary barriers to trade. This means that Members
must apply such measures only to the extent necessary to
protect human, animal or plant life or health, and without

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3059
28
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries
where similar conditions exist. The SPS Agreement applies
to all types of animal health and plant health measures
intended to achieve these ends, including requirements
for: final products; processing; inspection; certification;
treatment and/or packaging; and labelling; all of which
may affect international trade. More specifically, sanitary
measures are those aimed at protecting:
– human or animal life or health from food-borne risks
(for instance, measures limiting the presence of veterinary
drug residues in meat or dairy products)
– human health from diseases carried by animals or
plants (such as restrictions related to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy or BSE)
– plants and animals (including fish and wild fauna) from
pests or diseases (for instance, measures to prevent the
introduction of African swine fever).
The SPS Agreement applies to all measures that address
health-related risks caused by the challenges mentioned
above. It is the measure’s aim, and not the type of measure,
that defines whether it is covered by the SPS Agreement or
not.
On the other hand, the TBT Agreement applies to
three types of measures:
– mandatory technical regulations that define the
characteristics of products and their related production
processes
– voluntary standards, for example on product packaging
and labelling
– conformity assessment procedures to verify compliance
with the two types of measure given above.
The TBT Agreement covers a wider range of public policy
objectives; for instance: protecting human health and safety
(e.g. safety requirements for microwave ovens or plastic
straws), or protecting the environment (e.g. non-renewal
of an active substance harmful to the environment). The
TBT Agreement does not apply to sanitary or phytosanitary
measures as defined by the SPS Agreement. Nevertheless,
both Agreements apply to measures that affect trade in all
kinds of products, including animals and animal products.
The SPS and TBT Agreements apply to different sets of
measures, and so WTO Members’ obligations are different
under each of these Agreements. It is thus important to
know under which Agreement a measure falls. However, the
two Agreements have some common elements, including
basic obligations on non-discrimination, and on
harmonisation with international standards (see Hamilton
and Adamson et al. in this issue [3, 4]) and transparency
(see Cáceres et al. and Alcala & Martinez-Hommel, this
issue [5, 6]).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
In addition, WTO Members adopted the Trade Facilitation
Agreement (TFA) (7) at the WTO Ministerial Conference in
Bali in 2013, and this new Agreement entered into force in
2017. The objective of the TFA is to ease border procedures
and to facilitate the movement, release and clearance of
goods. It also sets out disciplines for effective cooperation
between Customs and other appropriate authorities on trade
facilitation and customs compliance issues, and contains
provisions for technical assistance and capacity building in
this area. The TFA clearly states that its provisions do not
diminish Members’ rights to take science-based measures
to protect human, animal, and plant health, in accordance
with the SPS Agreement. In other words, while some TFA
provisions contribute towards eliminating unnecessary
obstacles to trade arising from the implementation of SPS
(and TBT) measures, they do not prioritise ease of trade over
protecting animal, plant and human health. To the extent
that some of its provisions contain additional obligations,
these can be regarded as ‘SPS-plus’ or ‘TBT-plus’.
The provisions of the SPS, TBT and TF Agreements are
interconnected, as they apply to closely related measures
governing international trade, including trade in animals and
animal products. For instance, imported animal products
must fulfil certain sanitary requirements to ensure that they
do not present food safety or animal health risks, as covered
by the SPS Agreement. In addition, product labels may
be required to contain certain nutritional information for
consumers, which would be subject to the TBT Agreement.
At the border, inspections will verify the fulfilment of both
the SPS and TBT requirements. These inspections will also
be covered by the SPS and TBT Agreements, respectively,
as well as by TFA provisions to facilitate the movement of
products.
The Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures and
international trade in animals
and animal products
The SPS Agreement sets out rules for animal health
requirements in international trade. It recognises that it can
be necessary to constrain trade to avoid the introduction
or spread of animal diseases, and aims to ensure that any
measure taken to achieve this objective is not applied in an
arbitrary or discriminatory manner or acts as a disguised
restriction on international trade. The SPS Agreement
does not define a specific set of animal health policies that
WTO Members should adopt. Instead, it sets out rules
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
requiring that measures be based on scientific principles and
only be applied to the extent necessary to protect health.
Harmonised import requirements among different markets
reduce the costs associated with compliance at the border
and thus facilitate trade. The SPS Agreement encourages
WTO Members to base their measures on internationally
agreed, science-based standards, guidelines or
recommendations, where they exist. The SPS Agreement
specifically recognises the international standards developed
by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) for
animal health and zoonoses, by the Codex Alimentarius
Commission (CAC) for food safety, and by the International
Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for plant health. These
organisations are sometimes referred to as the ‘three sisters’.
The SPS Agreement also urges WTO Members to play
a full part in these international organisations and their
subsidiary bodies.
The OIE is thus the main technical reference organisation
for animal health topics in the SPS Agreement. Most of the
current 182 Members of the OIE are among the current 164
Members of the WTO. The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health
Code (8) and the Aquatic Animal Health Code (9) detail health
measures that should be used by the Veterinary Services and
other competent authorities of importing and exporting
countries when establishing health regulations. These
measures have been designed to ensure the sanitary safety
of international trade in terrestrial animals (mammals, birds
and bees), aquatic animals (fish, molluscs and crustaceans),
and their products.
Thus, the Terrestrial and Aquatic Code are reference guides
to enable safe trade in animals and animal products and
avoid the introduction or spread of animal diseases and
zoonoses, without imposing unjustified trade restrictions,
in line with WTO objectives.
Exporters need to be aware of the current regulations of
importing countries to fulfil their import requirements. To
ensure that this information is available, thus making the
trading environment predictable for all stakeholders, the
SPS and TBT Agreements impose transparency obligations.
These include the obligation of countries to notify the
WTO of any draft regulations that may have a significant
effect on trade and to establish enquiry points to answer
all reasonable questions from interested Members. (An
enquiry point may be an office in a Ministry or a person
assigned to this role.) As of November 2019, 10% of regular
notifications submitted to the WTO since 1995 referred
to animal health and, of these, 51% indicated conformity
with an OIE standard. Additionally, when urgent problems
involving health protection arise or threaten to arise,
Members submit emergency notifications. As of November
2019, 40% of emergency notifications submitted to the
WTO since 1995 referred to animal health and, of these,
72% indicated conformity with an OIE standard.
29
All SPS and TBT notifications submitted to the WTO since
1995, as well as the contact details of the national enquiry
points, are publicly available online through the Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Information Management System
(SPS IMS) (10) and the Technical Barriers to Trade
Information Management System (TBT IMS) (11),
respectively. Moreover, all interested users can register for
free on the ePing notification alert system (12) to search for
and receive e-mail alerts of new SPS and TBT notifications,
in order to keep track of product requirements in export
markets, and to benefit from discussion forums and file
sharing with other registered users. Likewise, the OIE’s
mission includes ensuring transparency of the global
animal disease situation and so the OIE is the main source
of official information on the disease status of its Members.
The OIE website publishes weekly, up-to-date disease
information reports, as well as detailed country information,
disease control measures, and maps showing where control
measures are implemented (13). These reports are often
used by WTO Members to determine import regulations
(see Cáceres et al. and Alcala & Martinez-Hommel, this
issue [5, 6], for further details on transparency in the OIE
and the WTO, respectively).
Under the SPS Agreement, WTO Members have the right to
determine the level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection
they deem appropriate for their territory (equivalent to the
‘acceptable risk’ in OIE terminology), while minimising
negative trade effects. When they wish to achieve a
higher level of health protection than would be achieved
by international standards, WTO Members may adopt
measures that deviate from those standards. Such measures
must be based on a risk assessment. For animals and animal
products, Members must ensure that the risk assessments
on which they base their measures take into account the
techniques developed by the OIE. Since different methods
may be appropriate in different circumstances, both the
Terrestrial and the Aquatic Code provide recommendations
and principles for conducting transparent and objective
risk analyses for international trade.
If WTO Members base their measures on international
standards, guidelines or recommendations, these measures
are presumed to be consistent with the relevant provisions
of the SPS Agreement and GATT 1994. Additionally, the
SPS Agreement urges WTO Members to accept other
Members’ measures as equivalent, even if they differ from
their own, provided that the exporting Member objectively
demonstrates that these measures achieve the importing
Member’s appropriate level of protection. The OIE Terrestrial
and Aquatic Code can assist in determining whether different
approaches may provide the same level of animal and human
health protection (see Hamilton, this issue [3]).
Animal diseases do not recognise political and geographical
boundaries. The SPS Agreement requires Members
30
to ensure that their SPS measures are adapted to the
characteristics of the areas from which the traded animals
and animal products originate, and to which they are
going to be shipped. The OIE website provides constantly
updated information on the global animal disease situation
which can serve as a basis for these decisions. In addition,
WTO Members must recognise the concept of disease-free
areas and areas of low disease prevalence (see Hamilton,
this issue [3]), which is closely related to the OIE’s official
recognition of disease status, for example, for diseases such
as foot and mouth disease.
Relevant provisions of the
Technical Barriers to Trade
Agreement
As noted above, the TBT Agreement applies to standards and
regulations with a wide range of policy objectives, as well as
to the conformity assessment procedures applied to check
compliance with these standards and regulations. While the
SPS Agreement covers requirements for animal health and
zoonoses, the TBT Agreement deals with other measures on
animals and animal products; for example, animal welfare
or the quality of veterinary pharmaceuticals. Some of the
provisions of the TBT Agreement are very similar to those
of the SPS Agreement, including non-discrimination and
transparency. These two concepts are among the basic
WTO principles common to many agreements.
Similarly to the SPS Agreement, the TBT Agreement also
encourages Members to harmonise their measures with
international standards, while still allowing for deviation
under certain circumstances. The OIE mandate also
includes animal welfare, and OIE animal welfare standards
may be considered relevant international standards in the
context of the TBT Agreement.
In contrast to the SPS Agreement, the TBT Agreement
does not cite specific standard-setting bodies. To help
Members identify which international standards might be
relevant under the TBT Agreement, the TBT Committee has
adopted six principles for the development of international
standards; namely, transparency; openness; impartiality and
consensus; effectiveness and relevance; coherence; and the
development dimension (14).
Relevant provisions of the Trade
Facilitation Agreement
The TFA aims to simplify, modernise and harmonise export
and import processes while safeguarding Members’ rights
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
to introduce regulations to achieve other policy objectives.
It does not diminish the rights and obligations of Members
under the SPS and TBT Agreements, but establishes extra
provisions aimed at improving the transfer of goods
across borders.
In the area of transparency, the TFA contains certain
provisions that are more detailed than those of the SPS and
TBT Agreements. For instance, the TFA specifies that
information on procedures for importation, exportation, and
transit, the forms and documents required, and the contact
information for its enquiry point(s) should be available on
the Internet. The TFA also requires Members to provide
an opportunity for regular consultations between border
agencies and traders, or other interested parties, within the
territory. In addition, the TFA contains protocols for enhanced
controls or inspection of foods, beverages and feedstuffs
when import requirements have been violated, encouraging
Members to base such enhanced controls on risk. The
TFA also covers the opportunity for a second test, upon
request, if a first test of traded products shows adverse results.
Border procedures often include checking compliance with
SPS and TBT requirements. Annex C of the SPS Agreement
sets out provisions for control, inspection and approval
procedures to ensure the fulfilment of SPS requirements.
Similarly, the TBT Agreement urges Members not to apply
conformity assessment procedures ‘more strictly than
necessary’. In addition, the TFA encourages cooperation
between neighbouring countries to coordinate procedures
and simplify formalities and document requirements,
to facilitate cross-border trade. It also emphasises the
importance of cooperation between Customs and
other border authorities and agencies within a country,
including that country’s Veterinary Services, which conduct
inspections at entry points.
The TFA refers to the use of international standards as a basis
for import, export or transit formalities and procedures,
without naming any particular international standards.
Presumably, the OIE standards for these types of procedures
would be considered relevant under the TFA.
The TFA also requires that all WTO Members establish a
National Trade Facilitation Committee. Veterinary Services
of OIE Members are encouraged to take part in their
National Trade Facilitation Committee, to participate in
discussions about the proper implementation of the TFA,
and to ensure cooperation among different border agencies
at the national level.
In regard to developing country (DC) and least developed
country (LDC) Members, the TFA contains detailed,
innovative provisions for special and differential treatment,
as well as for technical assistance. These provisions allow
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
DC and LDC Members to decide when they will be ready to
apply the obligations contained in the Agreement, and what
assistance they will require. Detailed information on these
and other topics related to trade facilitation can be found in
the TFA database (www.tfadatabase.org/).
Work of the Committee
on Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures
The SPS Agreement establishes a Committee on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Committee) to oversee
the implementation of the SPS Agreement and to provide
a regular forum for consultation. The Committee also
discusses specific trade concerns (STCs) raised by Members
and maintains close contact with the three international
standard-setting bodies (the OIE, CAC and IPPC) to secure
scientific and technical advice and to avoid unnecessary
duplication of efforts. About 36% of the STCs submitted
to the SPS Committee relate to animal health. Since
1995, the SPS Committee has developed guidance and
recommendations on the implementation of some of the
main principles of the Agreement (15). Some of these
decisions highlight the important role of the OIE standards
in determining, for instance, the equivalence of measures or
recognition of regionalisation (see Hamilton, this issue [3]).
The function of the SPS Committee is similar to that of the
TBT and TFA Committees.
The OIE secretariat has been an observer in the
SPS Committee since its first meeting of March 1995 and is
invited to speak on any relevant agenda items at meetings.
During Committee meetings, the OIE and the other two
standard-setting bodies provide reports on their relevant
work, and also take the floor to present their technical
assistance activities. In addition, the OIE is specifically
requested to provide information when a Member identifies
the lack of an international standard on a given topic,
or when an existing standard is not being implemented
properly, in the context of the SPS Committee’s procedure
to monitor the process of international harmonisation (16).
The OIE secretariat is also an observer in the TBT Committee.
Likewise, the WTO secretariat attends the General Session
31
of the World Assembly of National Delegates of the OIE to
provide updates on its relevant activities.
Technical assistance
and capacity building
The OIE and the WTO secretariat regularly cooperate in
training activities. Indeed, the SPS Agreement invites
Members to facilitate the provision of technical assistance to
other Members, either bilaterally or through the appropriate
international organisations.
Both the OIE and the WTO are founding partners of the
Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) (www.
standardsfacility.org/), along with the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Bank
Group, and the World Health Organization (WHO). The
objective of the STDF is to help developing countries build
their sanitary and phytosanitary capacity to implement
international standards and gain and maintain access to
international markets. Some of the projects supported by
the STDF specifically aim to help countries to implement
OIE standards and strengthen their national Veterinary
Services, the body that is in charge of the implementation
of OIE standards at the national level. These projects are
intended to enable exporters of animals and animal products
to gain increased access to regional and international
markets.
Conclusions
World Trade Organization agreements, in particular the
SPS Agreement, together with the OIE standards, form an
international framework of trade rules and animal health
standards. These agreements complement one another
and ensure that cross-border trade in animals and animal
products is safe and flows as smoothly as possible. By
following the science-based standards set by the OIE,
WTO Members harmonise their import requirements,
creating a predictable environment that helps to reduce
costs and facilitate trade.
32 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Les accords de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce :

un cadre pour les échanges internationaux d’animaux
et de produits d’origine animale
C. Wolff & I. Calderón

Résumé
Cet article donne une vue d’ensemble des accords de l’Organisation mondiale du
commerce (OMC) relatifs aux échanges internationaux d’animaux et de produits
d’origine animale ainsi que des normes élaborées en la matière par l’Organisation
mondiale de la santé animale (OIE). Ces deux corpus normatifs constituent le
cadre international applicable aux échanges internationaux d’animaux et de
produits d’origine animale, auquel s’ajoute l’Accord de l’OMC sur l’application
des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires (Accord SPS). Les auteurs expliquent
les principales dispositions de l’Accord SPS, le rôle des normes internationales
de l’OIE, l’importance de la science ainsi que la teneur des travaux du Comité SPS.
Ils examinent également la pertinence de l’Accord sur les obstacles techniques
au commerce et de l’Accord sur la facilitation des échanges.

Mots-clés
Accord sur la facilitation des échanges – Accord sur l’application des mesures sanitaires
et phytosanitaires (Accord SPS) – Accord sur les obstacles techniques au commerce –
Commerce international – Échanges internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine
animale – Normes internationales – Obstacles techniques au commerce – Organisation
mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) – Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC).

Los acuerdos de la Organización Mundial del Comercio como marco

de referencia del comercio de animales y productos de origen animal
C. Wolff & I. Calderón

Resumen
Los autores pasan revista a los acuerdos de la Organización Mundial del Comercio
(OMC) que encuadran el comercio de animales y productos de origen animal
y a las normas elaboradas con el mismo objetivo por la Organización Mundial
de Sanidad Animal (OIE). Estos textos forman en conjunto un ordenamiento
internacional en el que se inscribe este comercio y que se complementa con el
Acuerdo de la OMC sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias
(Acuerdo MSF). Los autores exponen las principales disposiciones del Acuerdo
MSF y la función de las normas internacionales de la OIE, así como el papel de la
ciencia al respecto y la labor del Comité de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias
(Comité MSF). Además, examinan la pertinencia del Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos
Técnicos al Comercio y el Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio.

Palabras clave
Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio – Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas
Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Acuerdo MSF) – Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al
Comercio – Comercio – Comercio de animales y productos de origen animal – Normas
internacionales – Obstáculos técnicos al comercio – Organización Mundial del Comercio
(OMC) – Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
References
1. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm (accessed on 1 July 2019).
2. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement
on Technical Barriers to Trade. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_
e.htm (accessed on 1 July 2019).
3. Hamilton A. (2020). – Facilitating market access: risk
assessment, equivalence and regionalisation provisions in the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal
products (C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int.
Epiz., 39 (1), 81–91. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3064.
4. Adamson D., Gilbert W., Rothman-Ostrow P. & Rushton J.
(2020). – The pros and cons of animal health harmonisation.
In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products
(C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.,
39 (1), 173–181. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3070.
5. Cáceres P., Tizzani P., Ntsama F. & Mora R. (2020). – The
World Organisation for Animal Health: notification of animal
diseases. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products
(C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.,
39 (1), 289–297. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3082.
6. Alcala R. & Martinez-Hommel M.B. (2020). – World Trade
Organization: notification of sanitary and phytosanitary
measures. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal
products (C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int.
Epiz., 39 (1), 299–310. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3083.
7.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2017). – Agreement
on Trade Facilitation. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/tfa-nov14_e.
htm (accessed on 1 July 2019).
8. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 27th Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/terrestrial-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 1 July 2019).
9. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Aquatic
Animal Health Code, 21st Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at:
www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/aquatic-code/access-online/
(accessed on 1 July 2019).
33
10. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Information Management System. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://spsims.wto.org/
(accessed on 1 July 2019).
11. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Technical Barriers
to Trade Information Management System. WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland. Available at: http://tbtims.wto.org/ (accessed on
1 July 2019).
12.
World Trade Organization (WTO), International Trade
Centre (ITC) & United Nations Department of Economic
and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (2019). – ePing. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland; ITC, Geneva, Switzerland; & UNDESA,
New York, United States of America. Available at: www.
epingalert.org/en (accessed on 1 July 2019).
13. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Weekly
disease information reports. OIE, Paris, France. Available at:
www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Diseaseinformation/
WI (accessed on 1 July 2019).
14. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2000). – Decision and
recommendations adopted by the WTO Committee on
Technical Barriers to Trade since 1 January 1995: note by the
secretariat, No. G/TBT/1/Rev.14. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
89 pp. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/
SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/TBT/1R14.pdf (accessed on
1 October 2019).
15.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – Committee
on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: major decisions
and documents. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 198 pp.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_major_
decisions18_e.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2019).
16.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2004). – Revision
of the procedure to monitor the process of international
harmonization: Decision of the Committee, No. G/SPS/11/
Rev.1. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 3 pp. Available at: https://
docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/DDFDocuments/43597/
Q/G/SPS/11R1.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 35-45

World Trade Organization disputes related

to animal diseases
G. Stanton (1) & G. Prakash (2)*

(1) 113 Vannah Avenue, Portland, Maine, 04103, United States of America
(2) Ernst & Young India, Golf View Corporate Tower B, Golf Course Road, Sector 42, Gurgaon, 122002, India
*Corresponding author: garima.prakash93@gmail.com

Summary
Four trade disputes concerning animal diseases have undergone the formal
dispute resolution procedure of the World Trade Organization (WTO). These
cases clarify a number of provisions of the Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). A national measure that
contradicts a standard set by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), for
example by prohibiting a product that is permitted under the OIE standard, is not
‘based on’ that standard. Such a measure must be based on an appropriate risk
assessment. For animal diseases, this means not only assessing the likelihood
of entry, establishment or spread of the disease, and the associated biological
and economic consequences, but also assessing each feasible mitigation
measure. Any mitigation measure imposed must be rationally supported by the
risk assessment. A highly trade-restrictive measure, such as a ban, is more easily
justified if the identified risk is high. A measure imposed to protect health cannot
impose stricter requirements on one product than on another with a similar level of
risk. A WTO Member acts inconsistently with the SPS Agreement if an alternative
measure, which is technically and economically feasible and restricts trade
less, would achieve the desired level of protection. Countries must adapt their
SPS requirements to reflect the disease risk of the area or zone from which a
product comes and for which it is destined. Procedures to assess risk and
determine the disease status of a region must be completed without unjustified
delays, and only the information necessary for this can be requested of the
exporter.

Keywords
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement)
– Animal health – Disease-free areas – Dispute settlement – International standard –
Risk assessment – World Trade Organization (WTO).

The World Trade Organization Appellate Body, and are adopted unless there is a consensus
by all WTO Members to reject the ruling. After the adoption

dispute settlement system
Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have
agreed to use the WTO system of settling trade disputes
with fellow Members, instead of taking action unilaterally.
The WTO’s dispute settlement procedure emphasises the
rule of law and makes trade more secure and predictable
(1). The procedure is structured and has timelines. Rulings
are made by a Dispute Settlement Panel and can be appealed
on points of law to a standing Appellate Body. These rulings
of the Panel can be reversed, modified, or upheld by the
of the ruling, defaulting Members have a reasonable period
of time to comply with it. If they do not comply, their
trading partner in the dispute can request WTO
authorisation to impose tariff surcharges on the equivalent
amount of trade against the Member who is not complying.
Dispute settlement is the responsibility of the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB), which includes all WTO Members.
The WTO dispute settlement process is summarised in
Figure 1, below.
Concerns that a trading partner is acting inconsistently
with the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3060
36 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Consultations
(Members may request a panel, if no solution is found within 60 days, or good offices, conciliation or mediation by the WTO Director General)

DSB establishes Panel

(no later than at the 2nd DSB meeting at which the request is on the agenda)

Terms of reference
(standard terms unless special terms agreed within 20 days)
Composition
(Panel members to be agreed within 20 days or appointed by the Director-General on the request of the complainant)

Panel examination
(in general not to exceed 6 months, which can be extended to 9 months; 3 months in cases of urgency)

Expert Review Group or individual experts

Meeting with Parties and Third Parties
(e.g. OIE and veterinary experts)

Panel submits report to Parties for comments

(first the descriptive part, subsequently the complete interim report, which includes the Panel’s findings)

Interim Review Meeting

(if requested)

Panel circulates report to DSB

Appellate Body (AB) Review

(not exceeding 90 days)

DSB adopts report

Panel Report – within 60 days unless appealed
AB Report – within 30 days

DSB monitors implementation of adopted Panel/AB recommendations

(to be implemented within defined ‘reasonable period of time’)

Parties negotiate compensation pending full implementation

DSB authorises suspension of concessions pending full implementation

(60 days after expiry of reasonable period of time)
DSB: Dispute Settlement Body
WTO: World Trade Organization

Fig. 1
The World Trade Organization dispute settlement process

Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) (2) can also
be raised in the SPS Committee, in the form of a specific
trade concern (STC). Each STC, when raised in the
SPS Committee, is allocated a number. Discussion of
an STC is publicly accessible via the SPS Information
Management System (http://spsims.wto.org/). Specific trade
concerns may or may not culminate in a formal dispute at
the WTO. Information related to disputes can be found
on the WTO website (www.wto.org/disputes). All of the
animal-related concerns that have been raised in the formal
dispute settlement process of the WTO (as of 23 March
2019) are listed in Table I, below.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 37

Table I
Animal-related disputes resolved through the World Trade Organization dispute settlement process

Dispute Description Status

DS5; STC 1 USA complaint against the Republic of Korea’s shelf-life Mutually agreed solution notified (1995)
requirements of frozen processed meats and other products
Australia–Salmon (Canada); DS18; STC 8 Import restrictions on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon Panel and AB reports adopted; mutually agreed solution
notified (2000)
Australia–Salmonids (USA); DS21; STC 8 Import restrictions on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon Mutually agreed solution notified (2000)
EC–Hormones (USA); DS26 Prohibition of meat from animals treated with growth-promoting Panel and AB reports adopted (1998); mutually agreed
hormones solution notified (2009)
EC–Hormones (Canada); DS48 Prohibition of meat from animals treated with growth-promoting Panel and AB reports adopted (1998); mutually agreed
hormones solution notified (2011)
DS100 EC complaint against USA restrictions on poultry imports (1997) Panel not established
DS133; STC 4 BSE-related restrictions on cattle and meat (1998) Panel not established
DS144 USA restrictions on movement of Canadian trucks carrying live Panel not established
animals and grains (1998)
DS203 USA complaint against Mexico’s measures affecting trade Panel not established
in live swine (2000)
DS205; STC 77 Thailand’s complaint against Egypt’s GMO-related prohibition Panel not established
on imports of canned tuna with soybean oil (2000)
DS256; STC 76 Hungary’s complaint against Turkey’s restrictions on imports Panel not established
of pet food (BSE) (2002)
DS279 EC complaint against restrictions under India’s export and import Panel not established
policy (2002)
EC–Biotech; DS291; DS292; DS293; USA/Canada/Argentina complaint against EU measures related Panel report adopted (2006); mutually agreed solution
STC 106/110 to GMO approvals (included potential effects on animals) notified (2009)
DS297; STC 166 Hungary’s complaint against Croatia’s restrictions Mutually agreed solution notified (2009)
on live animals and meat products (TSEs).
USA–Continued Suspension; DS320; EU complaint against USA/Canada’s continued suspension Panel and AB reports adopted (2008)
DS321 of obligations in the EC-Hormones dispute
USA–COOL; DS384: DS386; STC 91 of TBT Canada and Mexico’s complaint against USA country Panel and AB reports adopted (2012); no findings under
of origin labelling requirements for meat and other products SPS Agreement

EC–Poultry; DS389; STC 242 USA complaint against EU measures affecting poultry meat Panel composition pending (2009)
and poultry meat products

Korea–Bovine Products; DS391; STC 247 Canada’s complaint against Korea’s measures affecting the Mutually agreed solution reported (2012): Panel report
importation of bovine meat and meat products adopted (2012); no substantive findings
US–Poultry; DS392; STC 257 People’s Republic of China’s complaint against USA measures Panel report adopted (2010)
affecting imports of poultry

EC–Seals; DS400, DS401; STC 222 of TBT Canada/Norway’s complaint against EU animal welfare Panel and Appellate reports adopted (2014); no findings
restrictions on seal products under SPS Agreement
India–Agricultural Products; DS430; USA complaint against India’s import restrictions on poultry Panel and AB reports adopted (2015); Compliance Panel
STC 185 and poultry products due to avian influenza ongoing
USA–Animals; DS447; STC 318 Argentina’s complaint against USA restrictions on beef Panel report adopted (2015)
and other meat products (FMD)
Russia–Pigs; DS475; STC 369 EU complaint against Russia’s measures affecting the Panel and AB reports adopted (2017): Compliance Panel
importation of live pigs, pork, pork products and other ongoing
commodities due to African swine fever
Indonesia–Chicken; DS484; STC 286 Brazil’s complaint against Indonesia’s measures related to Panel report adopted (2017)
products from fowls of Gallus domesticus
Korea–Radionuclides; Japan’s complaint against some of the Republic of Korea’s Panel and AB reports adopted (2019)
DS495; STC 359 measures relating to fisheries, including import restrictions
and certification requirements
Indonesia–Bovine Meat; DS506; STC 305 Brazil’s complaint against Indonesia’s measures related Panel not established
to Bos taurus meat imports (2016)
AB: World Trade Organization Appellate Body EC: European Commission Phytosanitary Measures
BSE: bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known EU: European Union (formerly European Commission) STC: specific trade concern
as ‘mad cow disease’ FMD: foot and mouth disease TBT: the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement
COOL: country of origin labelling GMO: genetically modified organism TSE: transmissible spongiform encephalopathy
DS: dispute settlement number SPS Agreement: Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and USA: United States of America
38
World Trade Organization
disputes on animal diseases
The four disputes concerning animal diseases, described in
more detail below, have provided significant interpretations
of various provisions of the SPS Agreement. Additional
information on the interpretations of the Panel and the
Appellate Body, in these and other WTO disputes, is
available in the WTO Analytical Index, which can be
accessed through the WTO website. A complaint related to
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was litigated at
the WTO (WT/DS391), but the parties reached a mutually
agreed settlement before the report was issued. As a result,
the details of the Panel’s consideration are not available.
The content of the mutually agreed solution is available in
WTO Document No. WT/DS391/8.
Australia – salmon
The first animal disease dispute brought to the
WTO concerned Australia’s ban on imports of fresh
chilled and frozen salmon for human consumption. The
stated purpose of the ban was to avoid the introduction
of exotic fish diseases (3, 4, 5). Australia’s first draft of its
risk assessment report concluded that uncooked, adult,
wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon from Canada and the
United States of America (USA) posed a negligible risk and
should be permitted. A second draft risk assessment report
identified a number of alternative measures for managing
the risk. The final risk assessment report concluded that
imported salmon could possibly introduce 20 exotic
fish diseases and, although the probability was small,
the economic consequences of these diseases could be
great. Australia imposed an import ban and Canada and the
USA challenged that measure.
A major issue in this dispute was whether Australia’s
measures were based on an appropriate risk assessment, in
accordance with the requirement in SPS Article 5.1. This
required, first, a determination of whether an appropriate
risk assessment existed, and, subsequently, whether the
measures taken were based on this assessment. To comply
with the SPS Agreement, the Appellate Body stated that an
animal health risk assessment must:
a) identify the diseases in question, and their associated
biological and economic consequences
b) evaluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of
these diseases, and the associated biological and economic
consequences
c) evaluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of
these diseases after possible mitigation measures are applied.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
The risk assessment can be quantitative or qualitative.
Although Australia’s risk assessment identified the diseases
in question, it did not evaluate the likelihood of their entry,
establishment or spread, in accordance with the second and
third criteria. Moreover, the risk assessment was limited to
adult, wild, ocean-caught Pacific salmon, but all types of
salmon were banned. Australia was therefore found to have
violated Article 5.1.
Another major issue in the dispute was whether Australia
was applying a higher ‘appropriate level of protection’
(ALOP) for salmon than for other products, in comparable
situations, which might introduce the same diseases.
Although Australia banned salmon intended for human
consumption, it allowed the importation of whole frozen
herring for bait without controls, and of live ornamental
fish with few controls. These differences in the measures
applied were concluded to be an expression of differences
in the ALOPs applied in these situations. These differences
were found to be arbitrary or unjustifiable, because bait was
put into the aquatic environment, and live ornamental fish
were often released into the wild, and thus both posed a
higher risk to Australia’s fish population than dead salmon,
imported for human consumption.
The unjustifiable differences in ALOPs, an improper risk
assessment, the major change in conclusions between the draft
risk assessment and the final one, and the lack of restrictions
on the internal movement of salmon within Australia were
together found to constitute discrimination, or a disguised
restriction on international trade. Thus, the dispute resulted in
a finding that Australia had violated Article 5.5, which requires
WTO Members to avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions
in the ALOPs applied in different situations.
After arbitration, Australia was granted eight months to
bring its measure into conformity with the SPS Agreement.
Australia carried out a new risk assessment of salmon
for human consumption and other non-viable marine
finfish (bait), as well as a separate risk assessment for
live ornamental fish. As a result, Australia adopted new
measures on these three categories of fish imports. Imports
of salmon for human consumption were allowed but only
if the salmon were eviscerated, the head and gills removed,
they were washed internally and externally and certified
(the so-called ‘consumer ready’ requirement). In addition,
imports had to be processed in approved premises to this
‘consumer-ready’ state, which also required that the skin be
removed from all products larger than 450 grams.
Canada challenged Australia’s compliance by requesting
that the matter be referred back to the original Panel under
Article 21.5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU),
to evaluate whether the new measure was in compliance
with the SPS Agreement.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
The original Panel was reappointed to evaluate Australia’s
compliance. It concluded that the new risk assessment
complied with the SPS Agreement, but that the consumer-
ready requirement was not based on the risk assessment,
contrary to Article 5.1. Furthermore, the consumer-ready
requirement was found to be contrary to Article 5.6, which
requires the importing country to apply the measure that is
least restrictive to trade, and is technically and economically
feasible, to achieve its ALOP. In this case, a consumer
packaging requirement was found to be less trade restrictive,
as well as both technically and economically feasible, and
would achieve Australia’s ALOP.
India – agricultural products
The USA complained about India’s import prohibition on
poultry products, including meat and eggs, from countries
reporting avian influenza (AI) (6, 7, 8). There were
two major issues in this dispute:
a) whether India’s measure was based on the OIE standard
(Article 3)
b) whether India recognised disease-free areas (Article 6).
The Panel found that India’s measure did not ‘conform
to’ (i.e. completely embody) the relevant international
standard (Chapter 10.4. of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health
Code [Terrestrial Code]) (9), and therefore that India did not
benefit from the presumption of consistency with the SPS
Agreement in Article 3.2.
Moreover, the Panel found that India’s measures were
inconsistent with Article 3.1 because they were not ‘based
on’ this standard. This was because India’s measure banned
imports of poultry and poultry products from countries
reporting AI and did not allow importation from AI-free or
highly pathogenic AI-free zones or compartments of those
countries, in contradiction of the specific requirements of
the Terrestrial Code.
Under Article 6, importing Members have two obligations
related to regionalisation:
a) to adapt SPS measures to regional characteristics
(Article 6.1)
b) to recognise the concept of pest- or disease-free areas and
areas of low pest or disease prevalence (Article 6.2).
Article 6 also obliges the exporting Members to provide
necessary evidence for the existence of pest- or disease-
free areas (Article 6.3). India violated Article 6.2 because
its regulations did not recognise the concept of disease-
free areas and areas of low disease prevalence and instead
imposed a country-wide ban. India failed to ensure that
its measures were adapted to the SPS characteristics of the
39
area from which the product originated and to which it was
destined, violating Article 6.1.
In replying to questions to assist the Panel, the OIE
confirmed that the concepts of zoning and
compartmentalisation under the Terrestrial Code
corresponded to regionalisation under Article 6. The
Panel and Appellate Body clarified that the obligations
to recognise disease-free areas and to adapt measures to
regional characteristics are not triggered by an exporting
Member requesting a designation as pest- or disease-free
and providing evidence of that status. Rather, an importing
Member must recognise these concepts in its domestic
regulatory systems, in accordance with Article 6.2, to
enable it to receive and consider requests for recognition of
disease-free areas under Article 6.3.
India provided no risk assessment upon which
its prohibition was based. Therefore, the Panel
concluded that the measures were inconsistent with
Articles 5.1 and 5.2 (relating to risk assessment), and,
consequently, Article 2.2, because the measure was not
based on scientific evidence. The measure was found to be
discriminatory (violating Article 2.3) because no evidence
was provided to show that low pathogenicity AI was not
already present in India. Moreover, it was found to be more
trade restrictive than required (Article 5.6), as applying
the OIE standards would meet India’s ALOP. Furthermore,
India failed to provide a reasonable interval between the
publication of the ban and its entry into force, which is not
consistent with Article 7 and Annex B.1.
During the Compliance phase of the dispute, India
notified an amendment to the measure. Because the
Compliance Panel has not yet issued its report (as of
October 2019), it remains to be seen if India has complied
with the recommendations of the Panel and Appellate Body
in this dispute. (Additional information on the Compliance
Panel can be accessed at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/
dispu_e/cases_e/ds430_e.htm.)
United States of America – animals
After an outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in
Argentina in 2001, the USA banned imports of all FMD-
susceptible animals and animal products (ruminants and
swine) from Argentina (10, 11). In this dispute, Argentina
challenged:
a) the import ban on fresh beef
b) the failure to recognise certain areas of Argentina as free
of FMD
c) undue delays in recognising the FMD-free status of
a region.
40
As requested by Argentina, the Panel separately examined
the measures banning products from northern Argentina
(recognised by the OIE as being FMD-free, with vaccination)
and Patagonia (recognised as being FMD-free without
vaccination).
The Panel first determined that processing a request for
recognition of a disease-free area is the type of procedure
subject to the obligations in Article 8 and Annex C of the
SPS Agreement, which contains disciplines for control,
inspection and approval procedures.
The Panel then went on to examine the alleged delays in
processing Argentina’s applications for recognition of the
various FMD-free statuses of different regions of Argentina.
With respect to northern Argentina, after a reasonable
start, four years passed with no communication from the
USA about the application. In 2011, the USA stated to the
SPS Committee that it had completed the risk analysis of
northern Argentina and would propose that beef imports be
allowed under certain conditions. However, the USA took
no further action and requested no further information
from Argentina until Argentina requested the establishment
of a WTO Dispute Settlement Panel.
With respect to Patagonia, the USA published a proposed
rule changing the disease status of Patagonia to FMD-free
in 2007. However, a final rule recognising Patagonia as
FMD-free was not published until 2014, during the Panel
proceedings.
The USA argued that the delays were justified by the need
to reconfirm outdated information. The Panel warned that
a WTO Member could not indefinitely postpone finalising
a procedure by invoking the need to reconfirm information
that had become outdated through its own inaction.
Consequently, the Panel concluded that the USA did not
undertake and complete the evaluation of Argentina’s
requests without undue delay, as required by Article 8 and
Annex C(1)(a).
In addition, the USA did not provide explanations as to the
stage of the procedure or the reasons for delays, violating
the fifth requirement of Annex C(1)(b).
The Panel ruled that prohibiting trade in beef from an area
that was FMD-free with vaccination contradicts specific
provisions in Chapter 8.5. of the Terrestrial Code, and thus
the USA measures were not based on the Terrestrial Code,
within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.
The USA measures also contradicted the Terrestrial Code,
Chapter 4.3., because they failed to recognise Patagonia
as an FMD-free zone without vaccination. Given these
contradictions of the Terrestrial Code, both measures were
found to violate Article 3.1.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Although the initial imposition of an import ban in
2001 was based on a risk assessment appropriate to the
circumstances, the Panel noted that Article 5.1 contains
an ongoing obligation to make a further risk assessment
if the situation changes. The Panel found that the
USA’s maintenance of the ban was not based on a risk
assessment, in violation of Article 5.1. The USA could not
claim that this was a provisional measure consistent with
Article 5.7, because it had not sought to obtain additional
information, nor did it review the measure within a
reasonable period of time.
The USA violated Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement
because animals and products from Argentina were treated
differently from imports from other regions with similar
FMD status (e.g. meat from Uruguayan areas that were
FMD-free with vaccination, and animals and products from
areas in Santa Catarina, Brazil, that were FMD-free without
vaccination). Applying protocols to Argentinian products
that were similar to those applied to Uruguayan products
would achieve the USA ALOP, was technically feasible and
significantly less restrictive to trade. The USA measures were
also inconsistent with Article 2.3 because they arbitrarily
and unjustifiably discriminated between countries where
identical or similar conditions prevailed and constituted a
disguised restriction on international trade.
Argentina had provided the evidence necessary to
‘objectively demonstrate’ that Patagonia, as a whole, was
and was likely to remain FMD-free without vaccination,
as required by Article 6.3. The USA’s failure to recognise
Patagonia as FMD-free amounted to a failure to adapt its
measure to the SPS characteristics of the Patagonia region,
which did not accord with Article 6.1.
Russia – pigs
In 2014, the European Union (EU) challenged Russia’s ban
on pigs, pork and other pig products after an outbreak
of African swine fever (ASF) in four EU Member States
(12, 13, 14). Russia banned all pig and pork products
from Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Poland, and imposed
a de facto ban on non-heat-treated products from all other
EU countries (an ‘EU-wide ban’) by not recognising bilateral
veterinary certificates.
As the OIE Terrestrial Code identifies different measures
depending on the ASF disease status of the exporting zone,
and these have clear parallels with Member obligations
under Article 6 (relating to disease-free areas), the Panel
first considered the parties’ claims related to adaptation to
regional conditions and disease-free areas.
The EU had provided the necessary evidence to Russia on:
a) epidemiological surveillance of ASF
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
b) the effectiveness of ASF sanitary controls
c) ecosystems and ASF in wildlife
d) the level of prevalence of ASF.
This evidence was required under Article 6.3 to demonstrate
objectively that ASF did not occur outside the four affected
countries (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Poland).
For the four affected countries, the EU provided evidence of
the effectiveness of its control measures to demonstrate that
the ASF-free areas were likely to remain so. The required
information was provided on:
a) surveillance programmes
b) diagnostic analysis
c) measures for early detection and response, including
movement control
d) eradication of the disease.
The Panel and Appellate Body concluded that the
EU had objectively demonstrated that areas within
Lithuania, Estonia and Poland were ASF-free and were
likely to remain so, consistent with Article 6.3, but had not
done so for Latvia.
The EU-wide ban and the ban on products from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland were found to be in violation
of Article 6.1 because they were not adapted to the SPS
characteristics of the products’ areas of origin, nor (particularly
with respect to Latvia) to the ASF-related characteristics of
Russia, which also had ASF-affected areas. Russia was also
found to be acting inconsistently with Article 6.2, because it
did not provide an effective opportunity for the EU to claim
that areas within its territory were disease free.
Russia’s ban on imports of pigs, pork and pork products
from the EU was not based on the Terrestrial Code, and
therefore was not consistent with Article 3.1, as Russia
did not allow any possibility of imports from disease-
free areas after the first outbreak. Given the uncertainty
as to whether ASF-free areas within Latvia would remain
ASF-free, Russia’s ban of non-treated products from Latvia
was found to be based on the OIE standards.
Russia had required information beyond what
was necessary for the approval procedure,
in breach of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(c),
and there were undue delays in the completion of the
procedure that were inconsistent with Annex C(1)(a).
Russia’s measure did not qualify as a provisional measure
under Article 5.7 because there was sufficient scientific
information available to conduct risk assessments of the
ASF situation in the EU. Furthermore, the bans were not
adopted on the basis of available pertinent information, as
41
required by Article 5.7. Russia did not seek the additional
information necessary for a more objective assessment
of risk and did not review the EU-wide ban within a
reasonable period of time. Russia’s measure was not based
on a risk assessment and did not meet its obligations under
Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.
Since measures based on the Terrestrial Code would provide
a technically and economically feasible and significantly
less-trade-restrictive alternative that still achieved Russia’s
ALOP, Russia was found to have acted inconsistently with
Article 5.6. As Russia banned imports from the EU while
allowing trade from disease-free areas within Russia, the
measures were also found to be discriminatory and contrary
to Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.
The parties agreed that 8.5 months was a reasonable
period of time for Russia to comply. Before this deadline,
Russia issued a new directive that, it claimed, addressed all
measures found to be inconsistent with its WTO obligations
during the dispute. The EU did not agree that Russia had
complied with its obligations, because, it argued, other
measures were imposed which continued to prevent market
access for certain EU pig products into Russia. The original
Panel was reappointed to examine Russia’s compliance,
under Article 21.5 of the DSU, in November 2018. The
Panel’s work is still ongoing, and the report is expected in
the first quarter of 2020.
Conclusions
Clarification of the SPS Agreement evolves through the
interpretations of the Dispute Settlement Panels and
the Appellate Body that arise from formal disputes. The
four disputes that involved animal diseases have added
significant interpretations to various SPS provisions.
The SPS Agreement requires that measures be based on the
relevant international standards (Article 3), or are otherwise
supported by a relevant risk assessment. The AI, FMD
and ASF cases helped to clarify what ‘based on’ means.
In particular, if the national measure contradicts the OIE
standard – for example, if it bans imports of products that
are permitted under the OIE standard – it cannot be said to
be ‘based on’ that standard and thus violates Article 3.1. The
cases to date considered the standards in the OIE Terrestrial
Code, but the Aquatic Animal Health Code would similarly be
considered, where relevant.
Where a measure is not based on the international
standard – either because no relevant standard exists,
or because the country seeks to impose a higher level of
protection than that provided by the international standard
– the measure must be based on a relevant risk assessment.
42
The salmon case established that an animal disease risk
assessment must not only identify the diseases of concern
and their potential biological and economic consequences,
but also evaluate the likelihood of the entry, establishment
or spread of each identified disease and its consequences,
in light of the mitigation measures which may be applied.
Furthermore, there must be a rational relationship between
a measure and the risk assessment. If the assessment
concludes that the risk is negligible, an import prohibition
may be difficult to justify.
In situations where there is insufficient evidence to
undertake a risk assessment, governments may take
provisional measures in accordance with Article 5.7. Earlier
disputes involving phytosanitary measures have concluded
that, to successfully benefit from the exception provided
under Article 5.7, the country imposing the measure must
actively seek the information needed to complete a risk
assessment, and its provisional measures must be reviewed
within a reasonable period of time. The FMD and ASF cases
further clarified what was required for a Member Country
to make use of this exception, including the fact that a
disease outbreak does not necessarily mean that there is
insufficient evidence for a risk assessment, particularly of
a familiar disease.
Article 5.5 requires governments to avoid arbitrary or
unjustified differences in the ALOP they seek to achieve in
different situations, if this would result in discrimination
or disguised trade restrictions. The salmon case clarified
that banning one product while allowing imports of
other products that present higher disease risks violates
Article 5.5 and, as a consequence, the obligation in Article
2.2 that a measure be applied only to the extent necessary
to protect life or health.
Australia’s modified requirements, limiting imports to
‘consumer ready’ packages, were more trade restrictive
than necessary to achieve the ALOP, violating Article 5.6.
India also violated Article 5.6, because applying the OIE
AI standards would have been significantly less restrictive
to trade yet would still have achieved India’s ALOP. The
USA treating Argentina differently from other regions
that had a similar FMD status was more trade restrictive
than necessary (violating Article 5.6), and was also
discriminatory, in violation of Article 2.3. Russia also violated
Article 2.3 because it banned imports from the entire
EU while allowing trade from areas that were free of ASF
within Russia.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
These animal disease cases were the first time that the
provisions of Article 6, requiring that measures be adapted
to the disease status of both importing and exporting areas,
were examined in a trade dispute. The relationship between
the three paragraphs of Article 6, and what was required of
the importing and exporting country in regard to disease-
free areas, was also clarified. India’s regulations did not
recognise the concept of disease-free areas and imposed
import bans on a country-wide basis, in violation of
Articles 6.1 and 6.2. The USA FMD legislation recognised
the concept of disease-free areas, in compliance with
Article 6.2. Argentina provided sufficient evidence to
demonstrate its FMD disease-free status, as required
by Article 6.3, but the USA failed to adapt its measures
appropriately, thus violating Article 6.1. In the ASF case, the
EU demonstrated that disease-free areas in three affected
countries (but not Latvia) were likely to remain disease-
free, and that the rest of the EU was ASF-free. Russia failed
to adapt its measures to this disease-free status, violating
Article 6.1.
Article 8 and Annex C set out requirements to ensure
that control, inspection and approval procedures do not
operate as unjustified barriers to trade. Unjustified delays
in the USA’s approval procedure for Argentina and in
Russia’s recognition of ASF-free areas in the EU violated
Article 8 and Annex C.1(a). The USA’s failure to provide
status reports violated Annex C.1(b), and Russia’s request
for unnecessary information violated Annex C.1(c).
Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement require
transparency in the adoption and implementation of
SPS measures. In the AI dispute, India was found to be
in violation of Article 7 and Annex B.2 because it failed
to provide a reasonable interval of time between the
publication of the SPS measure and its entry into force.
Future animal health trade disputes are likely to build on
these clarifications, which should assist governments in
determining whether a measure may be in violation of their
legal trade obligations as a Member of the WTO.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 43

Les différends en lien avec les maladies animales

au sein de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce
G. Stanton & G. Prakash

Résumé
Quatre différends commerciaux en lien avec des maladies animales ont été soumis
à l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) en vue de déclencher la procédure
formelle de règlement des différends. Ces cas ont permis de clarifier un certain
nombre de dispositions de l’Accord sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et
phytosanitaires (Accord SPS). Ainsi, une mesure nationale contredisant une
norme établie par l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE), par exemple
en interdisant un produit que ladite norme de l’OIE autorise, ne peut en aucun cas
se prévaloir d’être « basée sur » cette norme. Les mesures de ce type doivent
se fonder sur une évaluation appropriée du risque. S’agissant des maladies
animales, cela signifie qu’il faut non seulement évaluer les probabilités d’entrée,
d’établissement ou de dissémination de l’agent causal de la maladie en question,
ainsi que les conséquences biologiques et économiques qui en résultent, mais
aussi évaluer une par une les différentes mesures d’atténuation réalisables.
Toute mesure d’atténuation imposée doit être fondée de manière rationnelle sur
cette évaluation du risque. Les mesures fortement restrictives, par exemple les
interdictions, sont d’autant plus faciles à justifier que le risque identifié est élevé.
Une mesure appliquée pour un produit déterminé dans le but de protéger la santé
ne peut pas imposer de conditions plus strictes que celles portant sur d’autres
produits présentant un niveau de risque similaire. Un membre de l’OMC agirait
de manière incompatible avec l’Accord SPS s’il existe une mesure alternative,
techniquement et économiquement réalisable mais moins contraignante pour le
commerce, qui permettrait d’atteindre le niveau de protection requis. Les pays
doivent adapter leurs exigences sanitaires et phytosanitaires en fonction du
risque de maladie dans les régions ou zones de provenance et de destination du
produit. Les procédures visant à évaluer le risque et à déterminer le statut d’une
région au regard d’une maladie déterminée doivent être menées à terme sans
délai injustifié et elles constituent le seul objet des informations exigibles auprès
du pays exportateur.

Mots-clés
Accord sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires (Accord SPS) –
Évaluation du risque – Norme internationale – Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC)
– Règlement des différends – Santé animale – Zone indemne de maladies.

Controversias relacionadas con las enfermedades animales

en la Organización Mundial del Comercio
G. Stanton & G. Prakash

Resumen
El procedimiento oficial de solución de controversias de la Organización Mundial
del Comercio (OMC) ha sido aplicado a cuatro litigios comerciales relacionados
con enfermedades animales. Estos casos han resultado esclarecedores por lo
que respecta a algunas de las disposiciones del Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación
de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Acuerdo MSF). Si una medida nacional
contraviene una norma dictada por la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal
44 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

(OIE), por ejemplo porque prohíbe un producto que según esa norma debe estar
permitido, no se considera que tal medida está «basada en» la norma en cuestión.
Semejante medida debe reposar en una adecuada determinación del riesgo.
En el caso de las enfermedades animales, ello supone no solo determinar la
probabilidad de penetración, establecimiento o propagación de la patología, así
como sus posibles repercusiones biológicas y económicas, sino también evaluar
cada una de las medidas factibles de mitigación. Toda medida de mitigación que
se imponga debe ser una consecuencia racional del proceso de determinación
del riesgo. Una medida que sea muy restrictiva del comercio, como pueda ser
una prohibición, se justificará más fácilmente cuando se haya determinado
previamente que existe un gran riesgo. Una medida destinada a proteger la salud
no puede imponer a un producto requisitos más estrictos que a otro que entrañe un
nivel parecido de riesgo. Un Miembro de la OMC no estará respetando el Acuerdo
MSF cuando exista una medida alternativa, que sea técnica y económicamente
factible y restrinja en menor medida el comercio, con la que se pueda lograr el
nivel deseado de protección. Los países deben adaptar sus requisitos sanitarios
y fitosanitarios al riesgo de enfermedad reinante en la zona de origen y la zona
de destino del producto en cuestión. Los procedimientos para evaluar el nivel
de riesgo de una región y determinar la situación de una enfermedad en ella
deben ser aplicados sin demoras injustificadas y solo cabe pedir al exportador la
información que sea necesaria para llevar a cabo este proceso.

Palabras clave
Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Acuerdo MSF) –
Determinación del riesgo – Medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias – Norma internacional –
Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) – Sanidad animal – Solución de controversias
– Zonas libres de enfermedad.

References
1. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Annex 2.
Understanding on rules and procedures governing the
settlement of disputes. In Agreement establishing the World
Trade Organization. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 26 pp.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/28-dsu.pdf
(accessed on 9 June 2019).
2. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement
on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
In Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.
WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 16 pp. Available at: http://www.
wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15-sps.pdf (accessed on 9
June 2019).
3. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2010). – Dispute settlement:
Australia – measures affecting importation of salmon,
No. WT/DS18. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at:
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds18_e.htm
(accessed on 29 November 2019).
4. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1998). – Australia:
measures affecting importation of salmon – Report of
the Panel, No. WT/DS18/R. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
206 pp. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/
FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueId
List=11819,29437&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=1&Full
Te x t H a s h = & H a s E n g l i s h R e c o r d = Tr u e & H a s
FrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True (accessed on 9
June 2019).
5. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1998). – Australia:
measures affecting importation of salmon (AB-1998-5)
– Report of the Appellate Body, No. WT/DS18/
AB/R. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at:
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.
aspx?language=E&Catalog ueIdList=6220&CurrentCatalogu
e I d I n d e x = 0 & F u l l Te x t H a s h = & H a s E n g l i s h R e c o rd =
True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True
(accessed on 9 June 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
6.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Dispute
settlement: India – measures concerning the importation of
certain agricultural products, No. WT/DS430. WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/
dispu_e/cases_e/ds430_e.htm (accessed on 29 November
2019).
7. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2014). – India: measures
concerning the importation of certain agricultural products
– Report of the Panel, No. WT/DS430/R. WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland, 212 pp. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/dispu_e/430r_e.pdf (accessed on 9 June 2019).
8. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2015). – India: measures
concerning the importation of certain agricultural products
(AB-2015-2) – Report of the Appellate Body, No. WT/DS430/
AB/R. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 135 pp. Available at: www.
wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/430abr_e.pdf (accessed on
9 June 2019).
9. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). –
Chapter 10.4.: Infection with avian influenza
viruses. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 27th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_avian_influenza_
viruses.htm (accessed on 9 June 2019).
10.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2015). – Dispute
settlement: United States – affecting the importation of
animals, meat and other animal products from Argentina, No.
WT/DS447. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: https://
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds447_e.htm
(accessed on 29 November 2019).
45
11. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2015). – United States:
measures affecting the importation of animals, meat and other
animal products from Argentina – Report of the Panel, No. WT/
DS447/R. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 235 pp. Available at:
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/447r_e.pdf (accessed
on 9 June 2019).
12.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Russian
Federation: measures on the importation of live pigs, pork
and other pig products from the European Union, No. WT/
DS475. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.
org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds475_e.htm (accessed
on 29 November 2019).
13.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2016). – Russian
Federation: measures on the importation of live pigs, pork and
other pig products from the European Union – Report of the
Panel, No. WT/DS475/R. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 381 pp.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/475r_e.
pdf (accessed on 9 June 2019).
14.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2017). – Russian
Federation: measures on the importation of live pigs, pork
and other pig products from the European Union (AB-2016-5)
– Report of the Appellate Body, No. WT/DS475/AB/R. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland, 59 pp. Available at: www.wto.org/
english/tratop_e/dispu_e/475abr_e.pdf (accessed on 9 June
2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 47-55

International regulatory cooperation:

contribution of the OIE and the WTO Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures and SPS Committee
A. Gobind Daswani (1)* & K. Bucher (2)

(1) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Section, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization,
Rue de Lausanne 154, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
(2) World Organisation for Animal Health, 12 rue de Prony, 75017 Paris, France
*Corresponding author: arti.daswani@wto.org

Summary
The World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) play an important role in supporting efforts to facilitate the safe trade
of animals and animal products by promoting international regulatory cooperation
among their Members.
International regulatory cooperation is embedded in the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and is
an integral part of the work of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee. The
OIE plays a crucial part in this cooperation, as the OIE is the WTO reference
organisation for international standards related to animal health and zoonoses.
The SPS Agreement encourages governments to apply national sanitary measures
that are consistent with OIE standards, particularly when making decisions on the
importation of animals and animal products. This principle of harmonisation is key
to integrating the reference frameworks of the WTO SPS Agreement and the OIE
standards.
This paper describes international regulatory cooperation, the principle of
harmonisation and its expressions, and, finally, the various ways in which the
WTO and the OIE cooperate towards the achievement of their goals.

Keywords
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement)
– Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Committee) – Harmonisation
– International standards – Trade – World Organisation for Animal Health standards (OIE
standards) – World Trade Organization (WTO).

Introduction protect human, animal or plant life or health’ (1). This

Like its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (1), the World Trade Organization (WTO) was built on
the premise, among others, that trade can raise standards of
living while also protecting and preserving the environment
(2). To achieve these objectives, WTO Members agree to a
set of rules for conducting trade relations in a reciprocal,
non-discriminatory and transparent manner, while still
providing room for special and differential treatment for
developing and least-developed country Members.
General exceptions to the GATT disciplines have been
allowed since 1947, including measures ‘necessary to
general exception was further developed, to a limited
extent, under GATT 1994 (3), and then in two separate
agreements, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) (4) and the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement)
(5), which both came into force in 1995, with the
establishment of the WTO.
The SPS Agreement seeks to strike a balance between the
right of Members to protect animal, plant and human life
and health, on the one hand, and to avoid unnecessary
barriers to trade, on the other. It enshrines general
WTO principles (6), such as transparency (7) and non-

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3061
48
discrimination, as well as science-based principles that
apply specifically to sanitary and phytosanitary measures,
such as regionalisation (8) and equivalence (9), or the way
in which these measures are regulated internationally, such
as harmonisation (10).
This paper explores the principle of harmonisation, and
examines the ways in which the WTO and the World
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) jointly contribute
to promoting international regulatory cooperation (IRC)
among their Members.
International regulatory
cooperation
As the world becomes increasingly interconnected and
complex, countries face a growing challenge to coordinate
their policy tools in addressing global risks. In this
context, IRC is a means for helping countries to achieve
their various policy goals and minimise costs on society
(11). For the purposes of this paper, the authors are
using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development’s working definition of IRC: any agreement,
formal or informal, between countries, to promote some
form of cooperation in the design, monitoring, enforcement,
or ex-post management of regulation (12).
International organisations are important contributors to
IRC. By offering platforms for continuous dialogue, they
facilitate the development of a common language, as well
as comparable approaches and practices. The work done
by the WTO and the OIE offers a valuable contribution by
developing an international framework to help countries
align their regulatory approaches, and establishing global
rules to ensure a fairer, rules-based trading system for
animals and animal products. National governments, for
their part, foster global coherence of these rules by taking
into consideration the relevant international standards and
frameworks for cooperation when adopting their own trade
legislation (13).
The positive effects of IRC on trade have been the subject of
a number of studies (14), including the application of IRC
to the work of the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS Committee) (15).
Harmonisation
Harmonisation can be described as the consideration of
international standards in the development and revision
of a WTO Member’s regulation. This promotes regulatory
convergence, while preserving the Member’s flexibility to
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
regulate domestically (14), in order to achieve its appropriate
level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection or acceptable
level of risk (6). The SPS Agreement encourages Members
to base their SPS measures on international standards,
guidelines or recommendations. It defines the principle
of harmonisation as ‘[t]he establishment, recognition and
application of common sanitary and phytosanitary measures
by different Members’ (4). The SPS Agreement specifically
identifies three standard-setting bodies for this purpose:
the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) for food
safety, the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection
Convention (IPPC) for plant health, and the OIE for animal
health and zoonoses. These bodies are also referred to as the
‘three sisters’.
Harmonisation throughout the regulatory cycle
The disciplines of the SPS Agreement apply throughout
the regulatory cycle, starting with the drafting of a
measure, followed by its publication, implementation and
subsequent review. Through the principle of harmonisation,
the Agreement encourages regulators to consider the
international standardisation process. The SPS Agreement
requires Members to take the least trade-restrictive option
which achieves their appropriate level of protection, taking
into account technical capacity and economic feasibility.
As Members consider international standards in the
development and revision of their legislation, they promote
international regulatory convergence, while still preserving
their flexibility to regulate domestically (14).
The relevant international standard for any particular
measure is the one that covers the appropriate subject matter
and the specific risk that the measure seeks to address. The
domestic measure should build upon or be supported by
the international standard.
While the international standards of the three sisters
are not binding per se (i.e. these international standards
do not require mandatory implementation in national
laws or regulations), the SPS Agreement presumes the
consistency of the measure that conforms to the relevant
international standard. This has been interpreted as not
requiring all elements of the standard to be incorporated
into the measure.
Although harmonisation is encouraged by the SPS
Agreement, it is not an absolute obligation – SPS measures
can also be based on science-based risk assessments, as long
as they follow the relevant provisions of the Agreement.
Members can indeed seek a higher level of protection, as
long as it is scientifically justified. However, this places the
burden of demonstrating consistency with WTO obligations
on the Member applying the divergent measure, as well as
the burden of performing the risk assessment in accordance
with the prescriptions of the relevant standard-setting
organisation.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
The importance attached to the principle of harmonisation
is evidenced by the drafting of the SPS Agreement, which
includes instructions to the SPS Committee to monitor the
use of international standards and to coordinate efforts
with the international standard-setting bodies. It also urges
Members to participate in the work of the international
standard-setting bodies and their subsidiary bodies.
Harmonisation-related transparency obligations
The principle of harmonisation also creates other obligations
related to transparency and justification for the non-use
of international standards. Transparency is essential to
establish trust between trading partners, by achieving a
greater degree of clarity, predictability and information
exchange about trade policies, rules and regulations. In the
area of animal health, transparency about animal diseases
is essential to establish trust and confidence between
Veterinary Services, particularly when making decisions on
the importation of animals and animal products.
World Trade Organization Members must notify their draft
SPS measures that have a significant effect on trade (16),
and which are ‘not substantially the same as the content
of an international standard, guideline or recommendation’
to the WTO (4). Members are also ‘encouraged to notify
measures even when they are based on, conform to, or
are substantially the same as an international standard,
guideline or recommendation, if they are expected to have
a significant impact on trade’ (17).
In regard to international standards, the notification
format for draft measures includes reference as to whether
a relevant international standard exists, and whether the
proposed regulation conforms to it. If not, the Member
is asked to describe, whenever possible, how and why
the proposed regulation deviates from the international
standard, guideline or recommendation (15).
By March 2020, from a total of approximately 26,000 SPS
notifications, more than 2,700 included a reference to OIE
standards. Roughly 80% of those notifications indicated
conformity with the relevant international standard (18).
Even before the SPS transparency framework, the OIE
had the primary mission of ensuring transparency in
reporting important animal health events that occur around
the world, enabling countries to implement appropriate
preventative sanitary measures. The World Animal Health
Information System (WAHIS) is a publicly available
database that contains all this information and is available
to the international community (19).
Benefits of harmonisation
Harmonisation ensures smoother and safer trade. By
reducing regulatory divergence, harmonisation lowers the
49
trade costs that arise from regulatory diversity, making it
easier to comply with different export market requirements.
It also contributes to ‘levelling the playing field’ and works
together with transparency to improve trading relations and
boost trade (20).
In the case of risks associated with animal health and
zoonoses, harmonisation also leads to joint efforts between
countries, reinforcing combined approaches to prevent
and control diseases. Over all, harmonisation enhances
global animal health, given that animal diseases are a
constant transboundary menace/risk. It is also important
to remember that, unlike other trade issues covered by the
WTO framework, animal diseases and zoonoses go through
and beyond borders – e.g. avian influenza or wild boar
carrying African swine fever. Animal health is, by its very
nature, a global effort.
Coordination between the
World Organisation for Animal
Health and the World Trade
Organization
Cooperation between the WTO and the OIE is embedded
in the SPS Agreement. The OIE is introduced in the
Preamble and recognised as the international standard-
setting organisation for measures related to animal health.
Coordination between the OIE and the SPS Committee is
mandated in terms of maintaining ‘close contact’ with the
relevant international organisations, ‘with the objective of
securing the best available scientific and technical advice for
the administration of this Agreement and in order to ensure
that unnecessary duplication of effort is avoided’ (4).
Furthermore, the WTO and the OIE concluded an
agreement ‘to act in collaboration and to consult each
other on questions of mutual interest, in particular those
concerning the sanitary aspect of international trade in
animals and products of animal origin and zoonoses’
(21). This agreement also specifies the participation,
and conditions of such participation, of OIE and WTO
representatives in WTO and OIE meetings, respectively. It
also refers to the submission of questions concerning OIE
standards, guidelines and recommendations; joint technical
assistance activities; and the designation of scientific and
technical experts for SPS-related WTO dispute settlement
proceedings.
In particular, there are five main areas of coordination
between the OIE and the WTO, which are presented below:
– the SPS Committee
– monitoring the process of international harmonisation
50
– specific trade concerns (STCs)
– the WTO dispute settlement process
– the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF).
The close working relationship that has been built by the
OIE and WTO Secretariats over more than 20 years has
resulted in active coordination in these areas, along with an
ongoing informal exchange of information.
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures
The SPS Committee was established by the SPS Agreement to
provide a regular forum for discussing the implementation
of the SPS Agreement, and to further its objectives,
‘in particular with respect to harmonization’ (4).
The SPS Committee holds three meetings a year. The OIE
and the other two standard-setting bodies attend these
meetings as observers and intervene on different agenda
items, such as information sharing. The OIE also presents
the work it has done in the area of trade related to animal
health, which is of particular interest to the SPS Committee.
In addition, these organisations may be asked to provide
relevant information for agenda items that concern
monitoring the use of international standards and STCs.
These two agenda items are explained in more detail below.
In the Fourth Review of the Operation and Implementation of
the SPS Agreement, WTO Members invited the three sisters
to keep the Committee informed on their activities involving
the recognition of equivalence, the recognition of pest- or
disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence,
capacity-building activities, and other work relevant to the
SPS Agreement (22). In the current Fifth Review, several
proposals have been submitted on the work of the three
sisters and their cooperation with the SPS Committee (23).
Monitoring the process of international
harmonisation
Special importance was granted by the drafters of the
SPS Agreement to monitoring the process of international
harmonisation and the use of international standards,
guidelines or recommendations.
Monitoring harmonisation is provided for in Article 12.4
of the Agreement, and further developed by the SPS
Committee, through a specific agenda item and the
production of annual reports (24, 25). This process has
evolved. Initially, Members used the procedure to identify
outdated or missing international standards, and the
three sisters provided information to the SPS Committee
in response. More recently, Members have employed it to
identify where major impacts on trade have resulted from
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
not using international standards. This exercise serves
both to clarify trade concerns and encourage review of
international standards (15).
Members have reaffirmed their commitment to the
monitoring process, and encourage information sharing
about their experiences, or lack of experience, in
implementing international standards (22).
According to the June 2019 Annual Report on the Procedure to
Monitor the Process of International Harmonization, 45 issues
related to international standards had been raised through
this procedure, of which 42% (i.e. 19) were related to OIE
standards (26).
Specific trade concerns
Members can use the SPS Committee as a forum to discuss
trade concerns related to the national measures of other
Members. Through the procedure of raising STCs, Members
can highlight potential inconsistencies between national
measures and the international standards. Of the 452 STCs
raised between 1995 and 2018, 165 were related to animal
health and zoonoses (27).
Specific trade concerns raised by Members in the SPS
Committee may also be relevant sources of information for
the OIE. They can be a signal that countries face difficulties
in implementing OIE standards (28). These STCs deal
mostly with the incorrect interpretation or application of
key concepts in facilitating the safe trade of animals and
animal products, such as regionalisation, or the acceptance
by trading partners of an official OIE decision to recognise
a country or zone’s disease-free status.
World Trade Organization dispute settlement
proceedings
The only WTO Agreement that mandates the consultation
of experts in its dispute settlement proceedings is the SPS
Agreement. To date, every dispute settlement panel with a
mandate that included scientific matters related to animal
health has formally requested the OIE to suggest experts to
be consulted on the subject.
Since 1995, there have been a number of requests for
consultations (the formal initiation of a WTO dispute)
related to animal health issues. However, only in seven cases
did the complainant follow up to request the establishment
of a panel to review the matter. These disputes have been
concluded in as many reports, which provide further
guidance on the applicable SPS disciplines (29).
It is important to note that the number of notifications
that referred to OIE standards between 1995 and
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
March 2020 was around 2,700. Each of these notifications
has the potential to cause trade friction, as each notification
relates to a measure that can affect international trade.
However, of these 2,700, only seven have ended in a
complete dispute settlement proceeding. At some point
in the process, IRC may well have played a role in easing
friction, through the various avenues available to Members
to address SPS-related issues (30).
The Standards and Trade Development Facility
Another area of cooperation between the WTO and the
OIE is the STDF, established in 2001 by the WTO, OIE, the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the
World Bank. The purpose of the STDF is to increase the
capacity of developing countries to implement international
SPS standards, guidelines and recommendations and thus
the ability to open and maintain market access. To achieve
this, the STDF is, on the one hand, a global coordination
platform, knowledge hub and network for SPS capacity
building and, on the other hand, a funding channel
for innovative, cross-cutting SPS projects and project
development (www.standardsfacility.org).
Reinforcing Members’
engagement in international
regulatory cooperation
Enhancing national coordination
The WTO Secretariat conducts a number of technical
assistance activities to encourage and promote national
coordination in the SPS arena. For example, it organises
national and regional workshops to provide training on the
SPS Agreement and its implementation. These workshops
also serve as an opportunity for government officials
working on SPS matters to establish contacts with other
agencies in their own country, as well as relevant officials
and agencies in other countries in their region. Thus, the
workshops facilitate networking, information sharing and
lessons learned on best practice in the implementation of
the SPS Agreement (31). Some of these activities are carried
out jointly with OIE experts, who provide specific training
on matters related to animal health (32). In addition,
some workshops have been specifically dedicated to
transparency-related national coordination, with a focus on
SPS notifications and online tools that can assist officials in
their tasks (33).
The OIE, for its part, has developed the Performance
of Veterinary Services (PVS) Pathway (34), its flagship,
capacity-building programme for the sustainable
51
improvement of national Veterinary Services. The OIE PVS
Tool was introduced in 2006 to improve the governance
and capacity of Veterinary Services.
One of the critical competencies that the tool evaluates is
‘official representation and international collaboration’,
defined as ‘[t]he capability of the V[eterinary] S[ervices] to
regularly and actively participate, coordinate and provide
follow-up on relevant meetings and activities of regional
and international organisations, including the OIE, Codex
Alimentarius Commission, WTO SPS Committee, WHO,
FAO and Regional Economic Communities’.
Participation in the standard-setting process of
the World Organisation for Animal Health
Participation in the OIE standard-setting process is
especially important for developing countries. As Members
can either base their measures on OIE standards or on a
science-based risk assessment, it is developing countries
that rely most heavily on OIE standards, since conducting
their own risk assessments would place considerable
strain on their resources. Furthermore, it is only through
participating in the standard-setting process that Members
can ‘bring to the table’ the particular nuances of their own
animal production system, disease status or trade profile,
making it more likely that the resulting standard will be
more adequate to address their own particular challenges.
In line with this principle, and in regard to the SPS
Agreement, it is the responsibility of Members to participate
in the standard-setting process of the three sisters, ‘within
the limits of their resources (…) to promote within these
organisations the development and periodic review of
standards, guidelines and recommendations with respect
to all aspects of sanitary and phytosanitary measures’.
Moreover, the provision on special and differential treatment
includes a paragraph which requires Members to ‘encourage
and facilitate the active participation of developing country
Members in the relevant international organizations’ (4).
The OIE encourages developing countries to participate in
the OIE standard-setting process by developing advocacy
and training. The OIE has established the Engagement and
Investment Department (formerly the World Animal Health
and Welfare Fund) to support such programmes.
Conclusions
Animal health is a global matter. Two international
organisations, the OIE and the WTO, are working together
to address the challenges it poses to international trade in
animals and animal products.
52 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

With the entry into force of the SPS Agreement, and the
establishment of the SPS Committee, the WTO and the
OIE have been working together to contribute to the
promotion of IRC. The WTO principle of harmonisation,
and the enhanced transparency it brings to SPS measures,
encourages the use of OIE standards.
At a time when constant challenges are posed by animal
health issues to the international trade of animals and
animal products, OIE standards can help Members face
these challenges and make scientifically based decisions on
what sanitary measures to apply. When misunderstandings
or problems arise, the WTO SPS Committee provides a
forum for Members to share experiences and practices,
and to help them arrive at a common understanding of
their WTO commitments and the implementation of OIE
standards.

Coopération réglementaire internationale : contribution de l’OIE, de

l’Accord sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires
et du Comité SPS de l’OMC

A. Gobind Daswani & K. Bucher

Résumé
L’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) et l’Organisation mondiale de la
santé animale (OIE) jouent un rôle majeur dans les efforts déployés pour faciliter
des échanges internationaux sûrs d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale
en encourageant leurs Membres à faire appel à la coopération réglementaire
internationale.
La coopération réglementaire internationale s’inscrit dans l’Accord sur l’application
des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires (Accord SPS) de l’OMC et fait partie
intégrante des travaux du Comité des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires. L’OIE
est un acteur essentiel de cette coopération, étant reconnue par l’OMC comme
l’organisation de référence pour les normes internationales en lien avec la santé
animale et les zoonoses.
L’Accord SPS encourage les gouvernements à faire en sorte que les mesures
sanitaires nationales qu’ils appliquent soient conformes aux normes de l’OIE,
en particulier lorsqu’il s’agit de décisions relatives aux importations d’animaux
et de produits d’origine animale. Ce principe d’harmonisation est essentiel pour
intégrer les cadres de référence que constituent à la fois l’Accord SPS de l’OMC
et les normes de l’OIE.
Cet article décrit la coopération réglementaire internationale, le principe
d’harmonisation et ses traductions concrètes, et, enfin, les diverses modalités de
la coopération entre l’OMC et l’OIE en vue de réaliser leurs objectifs.

Mots-clés
Accord sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires (Accord SPS) – Comité
des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires (Comité SPS) – Commerce – Harmonisation
– Normes de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (normes de l’OIE) – Normes
internationales – Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 53

Cooperación internacional en materia de reglamentación:

contribución de la OIE y del Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de
Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias y el Comité MSF de la OMC
A. Gobind Daswani & K. Bucher

Resumen
La Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) y la Organización Mundial de
Sanidad Animal (OIE), al promover la cooperación internacional entre sus
Miembros sobre cuestiones ligadas a la reglamentación, cumplen una importante
función de apoyo para facilitar el comercio seguro de animales y productos de
origen animal.
La cooperación internacional sobre temas de reglamentación, inscrita en el
Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Acuerdo
MSF), forma parte integrante de la labor del Comité de Medidas Sanitarias y
Fitosanitarias (Comité MSF). La intervención de la OIE es fundamental en esta
cooperación, puesto que es la organización de referencia para la OMC en cuanto
a la normativa internacional sobre sanidad animal y zoonosis.
El Acuerdo MSF promueve que los gobiernos apliquen medidas sanitarias
nacionales acordes con las normas de la OIE, especialmente al adoptar decisiones
sobre la importación de animales y productos de origen animal. Este principio de
armonización es clave para integrar los marcos de referencia que constituyen
tanto el Acuerdo MSF de la OMC como las normas de la OIE.
Las autoras describen la cooperación internacional en materia de reglamentación,
el principio de armonización y sus aplicaciones prácticas y, por último, las diversas
maneras en que la OMC y la OIE colaboran entre sí para cumplir sus objetivos.

Palabras clave
Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Acuerdo MSF) –
Armonización – Comercio – Comité de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Comité MSF) –
Normas internacionales – Normas de la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (normas
de la OIE) – Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

References
1. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (1947). – The
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947). World
Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, Preamble & Article
XX (b). Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/
legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm (accessed on 2 October 2019).
5. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement
2. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Marrakesh
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland, Preamble. Available at: www.wto.org/
english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto_e.htm (accessed on 2 October
2019).
3. – (1979). – Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. UNTS
1186, 276, BISD 26S/8. Available at: http://www.wto.org/
english/docs_e/legal_e/tokyo_tbt_e.doc (accessed on 2
October 2019).
4. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/docs_e/
legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm (accessed on 2 October 2019).
on Technical Barriers to Trade. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.
htm (accessed on 2 October 2019).
6. Wolff C. & Calderón I. (2020). – World Trade Organization
agreements: a framework for trade in animals and animal
products. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products
(C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.,
39 (1), 27–33. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3059.
54
7. Alcala R. & Martinez-Hommel M.B. (2020). – World Trade
Organization: notification of sanitary and phytosanitary
measures. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products
(C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.,
39 (1), 299–310. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3083.
8. Hamilton A. (2020). – Facilitating market access: risk
assessment, equivalence, and regionalisation provisions in
the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products (C. Wolff
& A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1),
81–91. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3064.
9. Meliado F. & Widders P. (2020). – Mutual recognition
of veterinary testing and inspection results to facilitate
international trade. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and
animal products (C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech.
Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1), 143–153. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3068.
10. Adamson D., Gilbert W., Rothman-Ostrow P. & Rushton J.
(2020). – The pros and cons of animal health harmonisation.
In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products
(C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39
(1), 173–181. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3070.
11. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) (2016). – International regulatory co-operation:
the role of international organisations in fostering better
rules of globalisation. OECD, Paris, France, 220 pp.
doi:10.1787/9789264244047-en.
12. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) (2013). – International regulatory co-operation:
addressing global challenges. OECD, Paris, France, 160 pp.
doi:10.1787/9789264200463-en.
13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) (2012). – Recommendation No. 12, Recommendation
of the Council on regulatory policy and governance. OECD,
Paris, France, 35 pp. Available at : www.oecd.org/gov/
regulatory-policy/49990817.pdf (accessed on 29 February
2020).
14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) (2017). – International regulatory co-operation
and trade: understanding the trade costs of regulatory
divergence and the remedies. OECD, Paris, France, 68 pp.
doi:10.1787/9789264275942-en.
15. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) & World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). –
Facilitating trade through regulatory cooperation: the case
of the WTO’s TBT/SPS Agreements and Committees. OECD,
Paris, France, & WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.
doi:10.1787/ad3c655f-en.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
16. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – Practical manual
for SPS national notification authorities and SPS national
enquiry points, 2018 Ed. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
88 pp. Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/
practical_manual_for_sps_national_notification_authorities_
and_sps_national_enquiry_points_7531_18_e.pdf (accessed
on 29 February 2020).
17. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – Recommended
procedures for implementing the transparency obligations of
the SPS Agreement (Article 7). G/SPS/7/Rev.4. WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland, 31 pp. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/imrd/
directdoc.asp?DDFDocuments/q/G/SPS/7R4.pdf (accessed on
29 February 2020).
18. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – Sanitary and
phytosanitary information management system. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://spsims.wto.org/
(accessed on 16 March 2020).
19. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
World Animal Health Information Database (WAHIS)
interface. Available at: .ww.oie.int/wahis_2/public/
wahid.php/Wahidhome/Home/index/newlang/en (accessed
on 11 October 2019).
20. Disdier A., Stone S. & van Tongeren F. (2019). – Trade and
economic effects of IRC: further empirical evidence from SPS
and TBT provisions. OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 224.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), Paris, France, 35 pp. doi:10.1787/8648b6ca-en.
21. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1998). – Agreement
between the World Trade Organization and the Office
International des Epizooties. W/T/L272. WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/
SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/L/272.pdf (accessed on
16 March 2020).
22. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2017). – Review of
the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement.
G/SPS/62. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 47 pp. Available at:
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/decisions06_e.htm
(accessed on 29 February 2020).
23. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Fifth review
of the operation and implementation of the Agreement on
the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev.4. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 8 pp.
Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/direct
doc.aspx?filename=q:/G/SPS/GEN1625R4.pdf (accessed on
29 February 2020).
24. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2004). – Revision of
the procedure to monitor the process of international
harmonization. G/SPS/11/Rev.1. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
3 pp. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/
directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/G/SPS/11R1.pdf (accessed on
29 February 2020).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
25. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2006). – Decision to
modify and extend the provisional procedure to monitor the
process of international harmonization. G/SPS/40. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland, 1 p. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/
dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/G/SPS/40.pdf
(accessed on 29 February 2020).
26. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Annual report
on the procedure to monitor the process of international
harmonization. Note by the Secretariat. G/SPS/GEN/1710.
WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 8 pp. Available at: https://docs.
wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/SPS/
GEN1710.pdf (accessed on 29 February 2020).
27.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Specific
trade concerns. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19. WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland, 151 pp. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/
Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S001.aspx (accessed on 29 February
2020).
28. Bucher K., Tellechea D., Caya F. & Stratton J. (2020). –
Implementation of OIE international standards: challenges
and opportunities for monitoring. In Ensuring safe trade in
animals and animal products (C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1), 57–67. doi:10.20506/
rst.39.1.3062.
29. Stanton G. & Prakash G. (2020). – World Trade Organization
disputes related to animal diseases. In Ensuring safe trade in
animals and animal products (C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1), 35–45. doi:10.20506/
rst.39.1.3060.
55
30. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – Catalogue
of instruments available to WTO Members to manage
SPS issues. G/SPS/63. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 12 pp.
Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.
aspx?filename=q:/G/SPS/63.pdf (accessed on 29 February
2020).
31. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – WTO SPS
technical assistance activities in 2019: general information,
selection process and application form. G/SPS/GEN/997/
Rev.9. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 12 pp. Available at: https://
docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/
SPS/GEN997R9.pdf (accessed on 29 February 2020).
32. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2020). – Sanitary and
phytosanitary measures: information – events, workshops
and training. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.
wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/events_e.htm (accessed on
29 February 2020).
33. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2020). – Thematic SPS
Workshop on Transparency and Coordination. WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/
sps_e/workshop15072019_e.htm (accessed on 29 February
2020).
34. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – OIE
Tool for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services,
PVS Tool, 7th Ed. OIE, Paris, France, 68 pp. Available at: www.
oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Support_to_OIE_Members/docs/
pdf/2019_PVS_Tool_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 29 February
2020).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 57-67

Implementation of OIE international standards:

challenges and opportunities for monitoring
K. Bucher*, D. Tellechea, F. Caya & J. Stratton

World Organisation for Animal Health, 12 rue de Prony, 75017 Paris, France
*Corresponding author: k.bucher@oie.int

Summary
The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) is a major actor in international
cooperation to improve animal health and welfare throughout the world. The
OIE sets international standards to support Member Countries in their efforts to
prevent and control animal diseases, strengthen Veterinary Services and Aquatic
Animal Health Services, and facilitate safe international trade.
Member Countries face many challenges in the implementation of OIE standards.
Poor governance and a lack of resources and technical capacity are often major
constraints. Trade concerns raised at the World Trade Organization (WTO) can
also be a signal that countries are experiencing difficulties in implementing
international standards.
In May 2018, the World Assembly of OIE Delegates adopted a resolution
recommending the establishment of an observatory to monitor the implementation
of OIE standards. This monitoring mechanism will help the OIE to improve its
international standard-setting process and identify the capacity-building needs
of Member Countries.
Monitoring implementation will be challenging as the OIE does not prescribe
a specific procedure for implementing OIE standards. World Organisation for
Animal Health Member Countries use a range of approaches to implement OIE
standards, because of differences in animal health situations, legal frameworks
and procedures, trade profiles, and acceptable levels of risk.
Given this complexity, this article proposes a ‘cross-over’ approach to monitoring
implementation that would require the collection of information from various
trusted sources, such as the World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS),
the OIE Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) Pathway mission reports and the
WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Information Management System database. This
approach aims to document what is currently happening and to identify potential
patterns in Member Country practices when implementing OIE standards.

Keywords
Animal health – Compartmentalisation – Harmonisation – International standards –
Monitoring – Trade – Veterinary Services – World Organisation for Animal Health – Zoning.

Introduction Founded by 28 countries and now comprising

In 1920, when a number of zebu cattle were being exported
from India to Brazil, they stopped in transit in Belgium.
It was after this event that a devastating disease that had
been considered controlled in Europe – rinderpest – re-
emerged. This event triggered the creation in 1924 of the
Office International des Epizooties, the OIE (now the World
Organisation for Animal Health), to fight against the global
spread of animal diseases.
182 Members, the OIE’s objective is to ensure transparency
in reporting significant animal health events around
the world so that countries can implement prevention
measures. In addition, the OIE promotes the sharing and
implementation of the best science-based prevention and
control measures available.
In the search for a common approach, in 1968 the
Member Countries of the OIE adopted the International
Zoo-sanitary Regulation: ‘with a view to working out, in

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3062
58
the general interest, a common doctrine of protection of
the national livestock against the spread of the epizootics
which threaten all the Regions of the World’ (1). Since then,
a core mandate of the OIE has been the development of
international standards based on scientific expertise, using
a participatory and inclusive approach, with final adoption
by the OIE World Assembly of Delegates.
In 1995, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) entered into force
for Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The
aim was to develop a multilateral system that would simplify
and harmonise sanitary and phytosanitary measures,
as well as eliminate all restrictions that lacked a valid
scientific basis. The WTO chose the OIE, together with the
Codex Alimentarius Commission and the International
Plant Protection Convention, as one of the international
standard-setting organisations for the SPS Agreement. The
OIE is the reference organisation for international standards
related to animal health and zoonoses. As signatories to the
SPS Agreement, WTO Members are strongly encouraged to
base their sanitary measures for international trade on the
OIE standards. This process is referred to as ‘harmonisation’.
This paper aims to highlight to what extent the OIE
international standards contribute to the prevention and
control of animal diseases and facilitate safe international
trade, as well as ensuring sustainable Veterinary Services
and Aquatic Animal Health Services. To demonstrate the
benefits of the OIE international standards and improve
their implementation, the authors advocate the collection of
evidence through a monitoring system. This paper identifies
the constraints confronting such a system, but also proposes
an initial approach to better understand the ways in which
Member Countries use the OIE international standards.
Implementation of OIE
standards and the benefits of
harmonisation
The adoption in 1968 of the International Zoo-sanitary
Regulation had two objectives which are still relevant today:
on the one hand, to prevent the dissemination of diseases
throughout the world and, on the other, to provide animal
health guarantees to facilitate trade (1). By meeting these
objectives, the international standards developed by the
OIE also contribute to sustainable economic growth and
food security, two of the Sustainable Development Goals at
the heart of the United Nations 2030 Agenda.
The OIE international standards are now published in
the Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Terrestrial Code) and
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
the Aquatic Animal Health Code (Aquatic Code) (2, 3), the
Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals
(Terrestrial Manual) and the Manual of Diagnostic Tests for
Aquatic Animals (Aquatic Manual) (4, 5). While the initial
goals of disease prevention and safe international trade
continue to be core objectives of the OIE international
standards, new and overarching issues also need to be
addressed. Such issues are a natural consequence of the
complexity of the work of today’s Veterinary Services and
Aquatic Animal Health Services.
Harmonisation, through the implementation of international
standards, provides a common approach: a point of
reference for more consistent development and decision-
making, and more predictable behaviour by countries. In
brief, the implementation of OIE international standards
as a tool for harmonisation provides three major benefits,
which can be linked to different sections of the Terrestrial
and Aquatic Codes and are discussed below, namely:
– robust and sustainable Veterinary Services and Aquatic
Animal Health Services
– improvements to animal health and welfare and
veterinary public health
– facilitation of safe international trade.
Robust and sustainable Veterinary Services
and Aquatic Animal Health Services
The availability of safe food derived from terrestrial and
aquatic animals is directly related to animal health. The
improvement of the animal health situation in a country
is strongly linked to the ability of its national Veterinary
Services to implement relevant programmes and activities
(6). Thus, the OIE considers national Veterinary Services
and Aquatic Animal Health Services to be key players in
safeguarding and improving animal health and preserving
animal resources, all of which contribute to poverty
reduction and food security worldwide (7).
The quality of Veterinary Services and Aquatic Animal
Health Services is essential for the OIE to achieve its central
mission, which is to improve animal health and welfare all
over the world. It is also the basis for providing confidence
in transparent disease reporting and building trust between
trading partners when developing import protocols or
signing a health certificate for animals and animal products
to be exported.
Section 3 of the Terrestrial Code and Aquatic Code includes
standards on the quality of Veterinary Services and Aquatic
Animal Health Services. These standards depend on a set
of factors, including fundamental principles of an ethical,
organisational, legislative, regulatory and technical nature.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Based on these principles and standards, the OIE has
developed the Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS)
Pathway, its flagship capacity-building platform for the
sustainable improvement of national Veterinary Services
or Aquatic Animal Health Services. The PVS Pathway
empowers national Veterinary Services or Aquatic Animal
Health Services by providing them with a comprehensive
understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, using
a globally consistent methodology based on the OIE’s
international standards. It provides a useful and robust
external perspective that can reveal gaps, inefficiencies and
opportunities for innovation. This enables countries to
take ownership of their animal health system and prioritise
improvements.
The PVS Evaluation allows countries to assess the extent to
which their Veterinary Services or Aquatic Animal Health
Services comply with OIE standards. For each of the
45 critical competencies of the PVS Tool, references to the
relevant OIE standards are provided (8). In a PVS Evaluation
report, countries are assigned a level of advancement between
1 and 5 for each of the critical competencies, followed
by a written description of strengths and weaknesses,
accompanied by evidence and recommendations. Such a
structure, with references, provides information on how
effectively standards are being implemented in a country
across its entire veterinary domain, along with guidance for
improvement.
Improved animal health, veterinary public
health and animal welfare
Since its creation in 1924, one of the most important
objectives of the OIE has been to facilitate a common
and clear understanding of the animal health situation
of its Member Countries; specifically in regard to OIE-
listed transboundary animal diseases, including zoonoses.
Sections 1 and 4 of the Terrestrial Code and Aquatic
Code include standards on OIE-listed diseases, Member
Countries’ obligations for notification, and the disease
prevention and control measures that should be undertaken
to manage animal diseases, in order to ensure safe
international trade.
Member Countries have an obligation to notify the presence
or absence of diseases included in the list of OIE notifiable
diseases. This list currently includes 117 terrestrial animal
diseases, many of which are zoonoses, and 29 aquatic animal
diseases. According to Article 1.1.6. of both the Terrestrial
and the Aquatic Codes, countries are required to notify listed
diseases to the OIE and also encouraged to provide other
important animal health information, including the sanitary
measures in place. The World Animal Health Information
System (WAHIS) is the database that contains all of this
information, which is publicly available to the international
community (9).
59
The Terrestrial Code and the Aquatic Code address other
complex and multifaceted issues. Section 6 addresses
veterinary public health, a component of public health that
focuses on the application of veterinary science, especially
with regard to the provision of safe food of animal origin;
the prevention, control and eradication of zoonoses; and
the control of antimicrobial resistance.
The OIE also addresses animal welfare, an issue which is
attracting growing interest from civil society and which
was included in the OIE mandate in 2000 at the request of
Member Countries. Section 7 of the Terrestrial Code and the
Aquatic Code addresses this concern.
Facilitation of safe international trade
Sections 2 and 5 of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes, in
addition to various disease-specific chapters, address aspects
of trade associated with the principles of the SPS Agreement,
particularly risk analysis and regionalisation. Concepts such
as safe commodities, zoning, and compartmentalisation
have been developed to create opportunities for countries
to trade safely.
The concept of safe commodities is related to risk
assessment. An animal product listed as a safe commodity
presents a negligible risk for a particular listed disease.
Thus, the required health measures are limited to general
requirements, without the need for specific risk mitigation
measures against that listed disease, and regardless of the
status of the country or zone of origin for that disease.
Zoning and compartmentalisation are tools that allow
flexibility in the facilitation of safe trade. These concepts
are based on the application of measures to separate
animal subpopulations with different health statuses.
Zoning refers to the separation of animal subpopulations
primarily by geographical barriers (such as mountains or
rivers), or administrative boundaries (such as provinces or
states). Compartmentalisation, on the other hand, is the
separation of animal subpopulations primarily on the basis
of their management and husbandry practices in relation
to biosecurity. A zone or compartment with a specific
animal health status may be recognised for the purposes of
international trade by a bilateral agreement between trading
partners.
The OIE has a long history of processes to identify regions
or areas of low disease prevalence, with the first recognition
of foot and mouth disease-free zones in 1996. Since
then, the OIE has introduced a procedure for the official
recognition of disease-free countries, or zones within
countries, mainly for trade purposes. The procedure for
OIE official recognition is voluntary and currently applies
to six diseases: contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, foot
and mouth disease, peste des petits ruminants, bovine
60
spongiform encephalopathy, African horse sickness, and
classical swine fever.
During the 87th General Session of the World Assembly
of National Delegates of the OIE, held in May 2019,
100 out of 182 Member Countries were recognised as
having an official status as a disease-free country or disease-
free zone for at least one officially recognised OIE disease (10).
The advantage of official status granted by the OIE is that
there is a procedure of assessment of the implementation
of the standards which is independent and conducted
by international experts. The recognition is granted by
adoption by the OIE World Assembly of Delegates.
Another mechanism to inform trading partners about
disease status is to publish a self-declaration from a country
or zone that it is free from a specific disease (excluding the
six previously mentioned). This publication on the OIE
website is also a voluntary mechanism with a standard
operating procedure, in which a Member Country provides
relevant documented evidence of its compliance with the
provisions of the appropriate chapters of the Terrestrial
or Aquatic Code. In this case, responsibility for the self-
declaration lies entirely with the Delegate of the Member
Country concerned.
A questionnaire on the implementation of OIE standards
by OIE Member Countries formed the basis of a Technical
Item presented at the 86th General Session of the OIE
World Assembly of Delegates. According to the responses of
OIE Member Countries, 92% of Members rated the fact of
having their sanitary status officially recognised by the OIE
as ‘very important’, while 60% described the publication
by the OIE of a self-declaration of freedom from disease in
the same way. Self-declaration has been used by 63 Member
Countries since the first publication in 2001 (11).
Challenges in implementing OIE
international standards
Poor implementation due to a lack of good
governance, resourcing and technical capacity
of Veterinary Services and Aquatic Animal
Health Services
The governance and capacity of Veterinary Services or
Aquatic Animal Health Services are often major constraints
in the implementation of OIE standards, whether related to
accurate and transparent disease surveillance and reporting,
animal disease control or eradication strategies, veterinary
public health measures, the establishment of disease-
free regions or compartments, or applying science-based
measures for safe trade.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Taking the example of zoning and compartmentalisation, a
survey of OIE Member Countries in 2018 highlighted the
fact that the implementation of zones and compartments
presents significant operational and technical challenges
(12). These include the lack of capacity to establish or
maintain zones or compartments, inadequate human and
financial resourcing, and difficulties in controlling the
movement of animals, among others. The private sector’s
lack of understanding of these concepts, and/or lack of
necessary investment, was also mentioned. Among the
challenges in the public sector were: lack of acceptance
of the principles of these concepts by decision-makers,
political and commercial considerations, and legal
limitations, among other issues.
On the other hand, from the perspective of importing
countries, 74% of Member Countries cited difficulties in
recognising disease-free zones or compartments, claiming
that the exporting country was not transparent enough or
did not provide the necessary information.
Sanitary and phytosanitary trade concerns
related to animal health issues
The complex international context since the financial crisis
of 2008 has produced an increase in protectionist measures
by many countries, both through tariffs, and, increasingly
during recent years, through non-tariff measures (13, 14).
Non-tariff measures may also include SPS measures. It can
be challenging to distinguish between a legitimate sanitary
measure based on risk and one that has been established
as a protectionist measure (15). Nevertheless, in some
cases, the presentation of specific trade concerns (STCs)
at the SPS Committee can be a signal that some countries
are experiencing difficulties in implementing international
standards.
Every year, the WTO publishes an updated document
reviewing the STCs that have been raised at the
SPS Committee since 1995. In the revision published in
March 2019 (16):
– 452 STCs were raised in the 24 years between 1995 and
the end of 2018;
– 163 STCs were related to animal health and zoonoses.
These were divided into: transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSEs) (30%), foot and mouth disease
(23%), avian influenza (10%), and other animal health
concerns (37%);
– in 2018, 12 STCs involving animal health and zoonoses
were brought to the attention of the SPS Committee. Two
STCs referred to TSEs; two to avian influenza; two STCs
to foot and mouth disease; and the remaining six to other
animal health issues.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 61

A focused study on STCs related to avian influenza

(Fig. 1) aimed to identify the main types of issue raised,
and the effects that these had on the evolution of the
Terrestrial Code. In particular, several STCs raised the
issue of non-acceptance of zoning to facilitate safe trade.
Although a Terrestrial Code chapter containing general
provisions for zoning existed in 1998, specific provisions
for avian influenza were adopted later, in 2005. Thus, it is
noteworthy that the raising of STCs at the SPS Committee
was followed by updates to Chapter 10.4. of the Terrestrial
Code on infection with avian influenza virus. This seems to
show that the continuing development of OIE standards,
in conjunction with the evolution of science, contributes
towards providing solutions to challenges in facilitating
safe trade.
Monitoring the implementation
of OIE international standards
In May 2018, the World Assembly of OIE Delegates
adopted a resolution recommending the establishment
of an observatory to monitor the implementation of OIE
standards (17).
Knowing the extent to which countries implement
international standards and in what manner is an important
step in strategically focusing activities. On the one hand,
the OIE wishes to improve its international standard-setting
process and maintain the relevance and consistency of
these standards with the realities confronting its Member

– Avian influenza (AI) is a listed Introduction of the concept of Introduction of the concept of ‘safe
disease in the Terrestrial Code free zone/compartment in the commodity’ and surveillance strategies
– A free country may prohibit imports specific chapter on AI in the specific chapter on AI
from an infected country

1998 2005 2008

Evolution of the Terrestrial Code

0 1997 2002 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2016 2017 2019
Non acceptance of zoning 1 2 2 1 1 2 1
Non acceptance of ‘safe commodity’ 1 1 3 1 1
Ban due to the occurrence of LPAI 1 2 3 1 2

LPAI: Low pathogenicity avian influenza

Fig. 1
Overview of specific trade concerns raised since 1995 related to avian influenza, and the evolution of the Terrestrial Code
This figure was developed through analysis of 20 specific trade concerns (STCs), selected through a search of the World Trade Organization Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Information Management System. The STC may involve one or more issues related to the standards of the World Organisation of Animal
Health
62
Countries. On the other hand, it must target its capacity-
building activities to identified needs.
Challenges to monitoring
Monitoring the degree to, and the way in which, countries
implement international standards is challenging, especially
when these standards are not mandatory (18). The process
of implementing OIE standards is not defined or prescribed
by the OIE. Member Countries must develop their
own approach as to how to use and implement the OIE
standards, by undertaking risk analyses that are specific to
their own situation. This results in a variety of approaches
among OIE Member Countries, and thus difficulties in
identifying the level of consistency of national measures
with OIE standards (19).
Several factors may explain the variation in approaches
towards establishing sanitary measures. For example,
differences in production systems, traded commodities
and disease-status profiles mean that not all OIE standards
are relevant to each country. In addition, a range of legal
frameworks and procedures, as well as domestic pressures
or constraints on capacity, may influence the extent to and
way in which OIE standards are adopted. In some cases,
a high appropriate level of protection (ALOP), consistent
with the SPS Agreement, may be adopted, if justified by a
scientifically based risk analysis. Therefore, monitoring the
implementation of these standards is neither a linear nor a
simple process.
Monitoring the implementation of standards requires a
clear, transparent and observable form of measurement.
The establishment of sanitary measures through their
incorporation into national or regional legal instruments
provides an observable measure.
In contrast, the way in which the international standard
is used in practice, either in inspection and enforcement
processes or by private companies in their production
process, requires a more complex monitoring procedure.
However, it does have the advantage of measuring the
applicability of OIE standards in the field (20). The OIE PVS
Evaluation processes, or other evaluation or audit measures
relevant to animal health, may also assist in providing some
capacity to assess actual implementation in the field, as
described earlier.
Transparency is crucial for monitoring
The implementation of OIE standards through their
incorporation into national legislation could be monitored
when the elaboration of said legal instruments is through
a transparent procedure, which includes consultation
stages and subsequent publication of the final version.
Primary legal instruments (issued by the legislative body of
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
a government) and secondary legal instruments (issued by
the executive bodies of a government) are usually developed
through a formal process with public consultation and
follow-up stages.
However, in many cases, sanitary measures, such
as requirements for imported commodities, are also
supported by tertiary legal instruments that are less legally
binding, such as norms, procedures and guidelines (12).
In general terms, these instruments may not be subject to
formal development procedures, including transparency
(consultation, publication), and may be less sustainable
over time. Collecting this information, therefore, may prove
more difficult.
Nevertheless, under the WTO SPS Agreement,
each WTO Member has obligations related to
transparency. Transparency is one of the fundamental
principles of the WTO and refers to the aim of achieving
a greater degree of clarity, predictability and information
exchange about the trade policies, rules and regulations of
Member Countries. A specific mechanism exists to achieve
this goal under the SPS Agreement: WTO SPS notifications.
World Trade Organization Members are obliged
to notify the WTO of new or amended SPS regulations
that might have a significant effect on the trade of
other Members and if these measures are not substantially
the same as an international standard.
Cross-over approach to monitor the use of the
OIE international standards
Given the multifaceted nature of implementation, an initial
approach for monitoring the use of OIE standards could be
to investigate the value of different sources of information
and analyse Member Country practices (19).
For the purposes of this paper, the authors conducted a
study on the implementation of regionalisation during
avian influenza outbreaks, using three different sources of
information:
– the procedure developed by the SPS Committee to
monitor the process of international harmonisation, through
a specific agenda item and the production of annual reports
(21, 22);
– the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Information
Management System database, to collect information on
countries’ notified legislation in a standardised template
(23);
– the WAHIS database, to collect information on countries
notifying avian influenza outbreaks (9);
– the publicly available PVS Pathway mission reports (24).
In its annual report published in June 2019, the SPS
Committee summarises discussions by WTO Members
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 63

on unjustified trade barriers applied by some importing
countries due to avian influenza outbreaks (25). These
trade concerns claim non-recognition of the OIE standards
on regionalisation, involving the application of unjustified
country-wide bans.
An analysis of SPS notifications dealing with avian influenza,
in addition to WAHIS data, showed a correlation between
the number of Member Countries notifying outbreaks and
the number of restrictive import measures notified to the
WTO (Fig. 2). An analysis of these restrictive measures,
whether they applied to a country or region, showed that
the proportion of country bans has remained high over the
years, despite the development of OIE standards to address
the application of zoning and compartmentalisation.
The challenges to implementation that were identified
included:
– lack of capacity: three countries adopted country bans
due to avian influenza because they did not recognise the
regionalisation principle when developing import measures.
The PVS Pathway reports identified that one cause could be
a lack of capacity to undertake risk analysis;
– lack of capability: one country had improved its
regulatory practices (more transparency, recognition of the
regionalisation principle in national legislation) but also
showed a lack of capability (in terms of human resources
and experience) to recognise low-risk areas and thus allow
imports.

Positive approaches, however, were also apparent.

To explore this issue more deeply, and to identify to what
extent Member Countries wish to recognise zoning and
compartmentalisation, or have the capacity to do so, publicly
available PVS Pathway mission reports were also reviewed
by a word search for ‘avian influenza’. This search identified
examples of challenges, as well as some positive approaches.
Two countries developed public–private partnerships with
the poultry industry to apply compartments, to avoid the
disruption of international trade in the event of an outbreak
of avian influenza.

50 60

45
50
40

Number of countries notifying AI outbreaks

Number of restriction measures

35
40
30

25 30

20
20
15

10
10
5

0 0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of restriction measures at country level

Number of restriction measures at regional level
Number of countries notifying AI outbreaks
AI: avian influenza

Fig. 2
World Trade Organization sanitary and phytosanitary notifications of restriction measures related to avian influenza between 2007 and
2018
Regular and emergency notifications were selected through a search of the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Information Management System, using
two criteria:
– objective and rationale: ‘animal health’
– keywords: ‘avian influenza’
64 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Three countries with a high ALOP have developed formal
agreements to recognise zoning before outbreaks occur, to
allow trade to continue at a bilateral or regional level. The
PVS Pathway reports highlight that, for these countries,
trust and confidence between national Veterinary Services
underpin their recognition of regionalisation. Indeed, Article
4.4.8. of Chapter 4.4. on zoning and compartmentalisation
in the Terrestrial Code encourages countries to gain
such agreements during ‘peace-time’, i.e. before disease
outbreaks occur, and outlines a process through which
trading partners may recognise such subpopulations.
This suggests that this approach of analysing various
sources of information is a good starting point to identify
challenges and also successful practices in implementing
OIE standards. Such an approach will help to identify the
evidence and indicators that should be monitored in the
future (19).
The OIE has recognised the importance of developing a
mechanism to monitor the implementation of its standards,
with the creation of the OIE Observatory. Identifying
barriers to implementation is likewise a key element that
will assist in developing a more focused strategy to improve
the standard-setting process and to identify relevant
capacity-building activities to support implementation.
To develop a system for monitoring implementation, we
must learn more about the processes of implementation
developed by Member Countries. The objective is to
improve the transparency of national sanitary measures
and ensure a robust and multifactorial method of analysis.
This may include analysing information from a variety
of sources, such as the integration of OIE standards into
national legislation, OIE PVS Pathway reports, WTO
SPS notifications, or reviews of STCs raised at the WTO,
amongst others.

Conclusions
This paper presented the ways in which the OIE international
standards contribute to harmonisation and assist countries
to develop resilient animal health systems to ensure safe
international trade.

La mise en œuvre des normes internationales de l’OIE :

enjeux et perspectives pour effectuer un suivi
K. Bucher, D. Tellechea, F. Caya & J. Stratton

Résumé
L’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) est un acteur majeur de la
coopération internationale œuvrant à l’amélioration de la santé et du bien-être
animal dans le monde. L’OIE élabore des normes internationales visant à soutenir
les efforts déployés par ses Membres pour prévenir et lutter contre les maladies
animales, renforcer les Services vétérinaires et les Services chargés de la santé
des animaux aquatiques, et faciliter un commerce international sûr.
Les Membres rencontrent de nombreuses difficultés lors de la mise en œuvre
des normes de l’OIE. Une mauvaise gouvernance et l’insuffisance des ressources
et des capacités techniques constituent souvent des contraintes majeures. Les
préoccupations commerciales soulevées au sein de l’Organisation mondiale du
commerce (OMC) sont également révélatrices des difficultés rencontrées par les
pays pour mettre en œuvre les normes internationales.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 65

En mai 2018, l’Assemblée mondiale des Délégués de l’OIE a adopté une résolution
recommandant la création d’un observatoire destiné à assurer le suivi de la
mise en œuvre des normes de l’OIE. Grâce à ce mécanisme de suivi, l’OIE sera
à même d’améliorer le processus d’élaboration de ses normes internationales
et d’identifier les besoins de ses Membres en matière de renforcement des
capacités.
Le suivi de la mise en œuvre ne sera pas une tâche facile, dans la mesure où
l’OIE ne prescrit pas de procédure spécifique pour appliquer ses normes. Les
Membres de l’OIE recourent à diverses approches pour mettre en œuvre les
normes de l’OIE, dictées par des différences dans les situations zoosanitaires, les
cadres et procédures juridiques, les profils commerciaux et les niveaux de risque
considérés comme acceptables.
Face à une telle complexité, les auteurs proposent une méthode transversale de
suivi de la mise en œuvre, qui passe par la collecte d’informations auprès de
diverses sources fiables telles que le Système mondial d’information sanitaire
de l’OIE (WAHIS), les rapports de mission du Processus de l’OIE pour évaluer
la Performance des Services vétérinaires (Processus PVS) et la base de
données de l’OMC de gestion des renseignements sanitaires et phytosanitaires.
Cette approche vise à documenter ce qui se fait actuellement et à identifier
d’éventuelles tendances dans les pratiques des Membres en matière de mise en
œuvre des normes de l’OIE.

Mots-clés
Commerce – Compartimentation – Harmonisation – Normes internationales – Organisation
mondiale de la santé animale – Santé animale – Services vétérinaires – Suivi – Zonage.

Implementación de las normas internacionales de la OIE:

desafíos y oportunidades para efectuar su seguimiento
K. Bucher, D. Tellechea, F. Caya & J. Stratton

Resumen
La Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) es uno de los actores principales
de la cooperación internacional para mejorar la sanidad y el bienestar animales
en todo el mundo. La OIE elabora normas internacionales destinadas a apoyar
el esfuerzo de los Países Miembros por prevenir y combatir las enfermedades
animales, fortalecer los Servicios Veterinarios y los Servicios de sanidad de los
animales acuáticos y facilitar un comercio internacional seguro.
Los Países Miembros afrontan numerosos desafíos a la hora de implementar las
normas de la OIE. La insuficiencia de mecanismos de gobernanza y la falta de
recursos y capacidad técnica constituyen a menudo obstáculos de gran calado.
Las preocupaciones comerciales expresadas ante la Organización Mundial del
Comercio (OMC) también pueden ser una señal de las dificultades que afrontan
los países para implementar las normas internacionales.
En mayo de 2018, la Asamblea Mundial de Delegados de la OIE aprobó una
resolución en la que recomendaba la creación de un observatorio para el
seguimiento de la implementación de las normas de la OIE. Este mecanismo
ayudará a la OIE a mejorar su proceso de elaboración de normas internacionales
y a identificar las necesidades de capacidades específicas de los Países
Miembros.
El seguimiento de la implementación no será fácil, pues la OIE no prescribe
ningún procedimiento específico para poner en práctica sus normas. Los Países
66 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Miembros utilizan modalidades distintas debido a las diferencias en cuanto a

situaciones zoosanitarias, ordenamiento y procedimientos jurídicos, perfiles
comerciales y niveles de riesgo aceptables.
Teniendo en cuenta esta compleja situación, los autores proponen aquí un enfoque
«transversal» de seguimiento de la implementación de las normas, que requeriría
reunir información de diversas fuentes fidedignas, como el Sistema Mundial de
Información Zoosanitaria (WAHIS), los informes de las misiones de evaluación de
las prestaciones de los Servicios Veterinarios (Proceso PVS) de la OIE y la base
de datos del sistema de la OMC de gestión de información relativa a las medidas
sanitarias y fitosanitarias. Tal enfoque tiene por objetivo documentar lo que está
ocurriendo actualmente e identificar posibles patrones en las prácticas de los
Países Miembros al implementar las normas de la OIE.

Palabras clave
Armonización – Comercio – Compartimentación – Normas internacionales – Organización
Mundial de Sanidad Animal – Sanidad animal – Seguimiento – Servicios Veterinarios –
Zonificación.

References

1. Office International des Epizooties (OIE) (1968). – Preface.
In International Zoo-sanitary Code. OIE, Paris, France,
234 pp. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.
seam?page=alo&aloId=35531 (accessed on 26 February
2020).
7. Eloit M. (2012). – The global public good concept: a means of
promoting good veterinary governance. In Good governance
and financing of efficient Veterinary Services (L. Msellati, ed.).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 31 (2), 585–590. doi:10.20506/
rst.31.2.2131.

2. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/terrestrial-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 1 July 2019).
3. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Aquatic Animal Health Code, 22nd Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/aquatic-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 1 July 2019).
4. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Manual
of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals,
8th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/
standard-setting/terrestrial-manual/access-online/ (accessed
on 1 July 2019).
5. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Manual
of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals, 7th Ed. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/aquatic-
manual/access-online/ (accessed on 1 July 2019).
6. Bonnet P., Lancelot R., Seegers H. & Martinez D. (2011). –
Contribution of veterinary activities to global food security
for food derived from terrestrial and aquatic animals,
No. 79 SG/9. In Proc. 79th General Session of the World
Assembly of National Delegates of the OIE, 22–27 May,
Paris. OIE, Paris, France, 15 pp. Available at: www.oie.int/
fileadmin/Home/eng/Publications_&_Documentation/docs/
pdf/TT/2011_A_79SG_9.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2019).
8. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – OIE
tool for the evaluation of performance of Veterinary Services:
PVS tool, 7th Ed. OIE, Paris, France, 68 pp. Available at: www.
oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Support_to_OIE_Members/docs/
pdf/2019_PVS_Tool_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 6 September
2019).
9. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – World
animal health information system (WAHIS). Available at:
www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Wahidhome/Home/
index/newlang/en (accessed on 6 September 2019).
10. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Official
disease status. Available at: www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-
the-world/official-disease-status/ (accessed on 6 September
2019).
11. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Self-
declaration. Available at: www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-
world/self-declared-disease-status/ (accessed on 6 September
2019).
12. Khan S. (2018). – Implementation of OIE standards by OIE
Member Countries: state of play and specific capacity building
needs, No. 86 SG/9 A. In 86th General Session of the World
Assembly of National Delegates of the OIE, 20–25 May,
Paris. OIE, Paris, France, 16 pp. Available at: https://web.
oie.int/downld/SG/2018/A_86SG%20A_Technical%20item_
Discussion.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
13. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2012). – World trade
report 2012 – trade and public policies: a closer look at
non-tariff measures in the 21st century. WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland, 252 pp. Available at: www.wto.org/english/res_e/
booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report12_e.pdf (accessed on
6 September 2019).
14. Yalcin E., Felbermayr G. & Kinzius S. (2017). – Hidden
protectionism: non-tariff barriers and implications for
international trade. IFO Institute for Economic Research,
Munich, Germany, 52 pp. Available at: www.ifo.de/DocDL/ifo_
Forschungsberichte_91_2017_Yalcin_etal_Protectionism.pdf
(accessed on 6 September 2019).
15. Horn H., Mavroidis P.C. & Wijkström E.N. (2013). – In the
shadow of the DSU: addressing specific trade concerns in
the WTO SPS and TBT committees. J. World Trade, 47 (4),
729–759. Available at: http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/
30700 (accessed on 6 September 2019).
16. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Specific trade
concerns: note by the secretariat – Revision, No. G/SPS/
GEN/204/Rev.19. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.
aspx?filename=q:/G/SPS/GEN204R19.pdf (accessed on 27
December 2019).
17. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). –
Resolution No. 36: Implementation of OIE standards by
OIE Member Countries – state of play and specific capacity
building needs. In Resolutions: adopted by the World
Assembly of OIE Delegates during their 86th General Session
– 20–25 May. OIE, Paris, France, 60 pp. Available at: www.oie.
int/fileadmin/Home/eng/About_us/docs/pdf/Session/2018/A_
RESO_2018.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2019).
18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) (2016). – International regulatory co-operation:
the role of international organisations in fostering better
rules of globalisation. OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
doi:10.1787/9789264244047-en.
67
19. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) (2020). – Study in support of the World Organisation
for Animal Health future Observatory of standard
implementation. OECD, Paris, France (in press).
20. Combacau J. & Sur S. (2019). – Droit international public,
13th Ed. LGDJ, Paris, France. Available at: www.lgdj.fr/
droit-international-public-9782275045092.html (accessed on
6 September 2019).
21.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2004). – Revision of
the procedure to monitor the process of international
harmonization: Decision of the Committee – Revision,
No. G/SPS/11/Rev.1. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 3 pp.
Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.
aspx?filename=Q:/G/SPS/11R1.pdf (accessed on 27 December
2019).
22. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2006). – Decision to
modify and extend the provisional procedure to monitor
the process of international harmonization, No. G/SPS/40.
WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 1 p. Available at: https://docs.
wto.org/imrd/directdoc.asp?DDFDocuments/q/G/SPS/40.pdf
(accessed on 27 December 2019).
23. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – Sanitary and
phytosanitary information management system. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://spsims.wto.org/
(accessed on 20 September 2018).
24. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – PVS
Pathway: state of play and mission reports. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/solidarity/pvs-pathway-state-of-
play-and-mission-reports/ (accessed on 6 September 2019).
25. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Annual report
on the procedure to monitor the process of international
harmonization: note by the secretariat, No. G/SPS/GEN/1710.
WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 8 pp. Available at: https://docs.
wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/SPS/
GEN1710.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 69-79

Animal welfare in the context of World Trade

Organization dispute settlement
S. Kahn*
Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, 3 Baron-Hay Court, South Perth,
Western Australia 6051, Australia
E-mail: sarah.kahn@dpird.wa.gov.au

*While every effort has been made to be accurate, readers seeking an understanding of legal arguments,
or complete information on the cases mentioned in this paper, should refer to the Dispute Settlement reports
and related analysis available on the World Trade Organization website (www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/
dispu_e/dispu_agreements_index_e.htm).

Summary
This paper was written to give veterinarians and decision-makers an overview of
World Trade Organization (WTO) findings relevant to animal welfare. The article
has a practical focus and does not attempt to provide a legal analysis of WTO
dispute settlement. The author has simplified very technical legal language so
that the paper will be useful to a broader audience.
The global trade rules comprise a series of legal agreements that came into
effect in 1995, when the WTO was established. The overarching objective of
the WTO is to promote international trade by avoiding unjustified discrimination
between trading partners. The harmonisation of national measures with relevant
international standards is encouraged by the WTO to facilitate safe trade.
The broad objective of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) is to promote
global improvements in animal health and welfare, and veterinary public health.
To this end, the OIE sets intergovernmental standards and works to strengthen
the capacities of Members to implement them. The OIE standards are recognised
as WTO references with respect to animal health and zoonotic diseases and a
significant number of WTO disputes have addressed the relevance of these OIE
standards to international trade measures. In addition to animal health standards,
the OIE also sets standards for animal welfare, and has implemented regional and
global strategies to encourage their adoption by Members.
In comparison with measures to protect animal health or food safety, few WTO
disputes have considered animal welfare related measures. A lack of WTO case
law has contributed to uncertainty about the consistency of WTO animal welfare
measures.
This paper considers some WTO disputes and findings relevant to animal welfare.
The outcomes of these disputes suggest that WTO Panels and the Appellate
Body are prepared to accept the right of Members to regulate for animal welfare
purposes, providing that they respect the established WTO disciplines.
This article draws two main conclusions. Firstly, regardless of whether measures
are adopted to protect animal welfare or animal health, for WTO consistency, they
must not result in unjustifiable, arbitrary or unnecessary discrimination.
Secondly, regardless of how the WTO deals with animal welfare, governments
must respond to the growing interest of consumers in farm animal welfare. The
OIE standards, as recognised references for trading countries and the WTO,
will continue to be influential in relation to global trade in animal products. It is
important that the OIE update its animal welfare standards regularly, to ensure
that they are consistent with latest scientific understanding and appropriate to
consumer expectations for ethical food production.

Keywords
Animal welfare – International trade – World Trade Organization (WTO).

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3063
70
Introduction
The obligations and commitments that apply to
the 164 World Trade Organization (WTO) Members
are set out in more than 60 interrelated agreements
and decisions that comprise the legal framework
for international trade (1). Three agreements are
particularly relevant to animal health and welfare. These
are the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(GATT), the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement)
(2, 3, 4).
The purpose of this paper is to give veterinarians and
decision-makers who do not have legal training some
insights into WTO findings in disputes relating to animal
welfare.
Since its founding in 1924, the World Organisation
for Animal Health (OIE) has been responsible for
setting intergovernmental animal health standards
and, since 1995, these standards have been formally
recognised as WTO references in relation to the protection
of animal health and zoonoses (5). In 2002, the OIE was
mandated by its Members to set standards for animal
welfare. The first OIE animal welfare standards were
published in 2005 and, in 2008, participants at the OIE
2nd Global Conference on Animal Welfare recommended
that the OIE’s animal welfare standards should be both
science and ethics based (5, 6). Countries may achieve
the WTO objectives of minimising unnecessary barriers
to trade by harmonising their national measures with
international standards, such as the OIE sanitary
standards (7).
The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding is a legally
binding process for adjudicating disagreements between
WTO Members (1). Dispute settlement panels and the
Appellate Body (AB) of the WTO have considered several
disputes with reference to the SPS Agreement and decisions
have generally favoured countries that implement the OIE
sanitary standards. Participation in standard setting and
implementing adopted standards helps to demonstrate
compliance with WTO obligations in relation to animal
(and human) life and health.
Animal welfare is not covered by the SPS Agreement but,
rather, by the TBT Agreement and the GATT (7). Compared
to disputes concerning measures to protect animal health,
few WTO disputes have focused on the justification of
animal welfare related measures under the WTO rules.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Discussion
Animal welfare – the relevant World Trade
Organization agreements
The GATT and the TBT Agreement are the WTO agreements
of greatest relevance to animal welfare. The SPS Agreement
covers animal health and life but does not cover animal
welfare (7).
The principle of non-discrimination between ‘like’ products
is reflected in many WTO agreements. The definition of
‘likeness’ is, therefore, a key issue. The rules of the GATT
and the TBT Agreement prohibit discrimination between
‘like’ products from different countries, and discrimination
against imported products relative to ‘like’ products of
domestic origin. These principles are referred to as ‘most-
favoured-nation’ (MFN) and ‘national treatment’ rules,
respectively (8).
Trade treaties have provided exceptions for the protection of
humans, animals and plants since the late 19th century (9)
and the WTO rules are no exception: GATT Article XX
provides for exemptions from the general ‘non-
discrimination’ requirements (10). Grounds for exemption
include ‘measures necessary to protect public morals’
(Article XX[a]); ‘measures necessary to protect…animal...
life or health’ (Article XX[b]); and measures ‘relating
to the conservation of an exhaustible natural resource’
(Article XX[g]) (1). While Article XX(a) is clearly pertinent
to animal welfare, the potential to justify welfare-based
regulations by reference to Article XX(b) or XX(g) cannot be
ruled out (8, 11, 12).
GATT Article XX on General Exceptions consists of two
cumulative requirements. For example, in relation to
measures to protect the environment, the justification of
a GATT-inconsistent measure under Article XX requires a
two-tier analysis proving that:
1. The measure falls under at least one of the exceptions (e.g.
paras [b] to [g], two of the ten exceptions under Article XX).
2. The measure satisfies the requirements of the introductory
paragraph (the ‘chapeau’ of Article XX), i.e. that it is not
applied in a manner which would constitute ‘a means of
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries
where the same conditions prevail’, and is not ‘a disguised
restriction on international trade’ (10).
A regulation explicitly aimed at all producers of products
sold on the domestic market, not just foreign producers, is
more likely to satisfy these provisions (9, 12).
The TBT Agreement deals with technical regulations, which
set out mandatory product characteristics, their related
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
processes and production methods (PPMs), and applicable
administrative provisions (13). For example, a technical
regulation may impose requirements in relation to farming
methods that are ‘animal welfare friendly’. Labelling
requirements, whether relating to a product, process or
production method, may also be technical regulations in
themselves, and could include arrangements for labelling
approved food products as ‘animal welfare friendly’. The
TBT Agreement also deals with voluntary product standards,
and with conformity assessment procedures (13).
The relationship between the TBT Agreement and the GATT
is complex. Like the GATT, the TBT Agreement imposes
both national treatment and MFN obligations in relation to
‘like’ products (13). The WTO Appellate Body noted that
the TBT Agreement is intended to ‘further the objectives
of GATT 1994’ and that ‘for a limited class of measures...
the TBT Agreement imposes obligations...that seem to be
different from, and additional to, the obligations imposed
on Members under the GATT 1994’ (13). Nevertheless, the
AB has held that the TBT Agreement should be interpreted
so as to preserve ‘the same kind of balance...that is reflected
in the GATT “right to regulate”’ (14, 15).
In Article 2.2, the TBT Agreement establishes the obligations
of WTO Members when preparing, adopting and applying
technical regulations. In accordance with its first sentence,
WTO Members must ensure that such preparation, adoption
and application is not done ‘with a view to or with the effect
of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade’. In
accordance with the second sentence, they must ensure that
their technical regulations are ‘not…more trade-restrictive
than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective [emphasis
added], taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would
create’. The words ‘[f]or this purpose’ linking the first
and second sentences suggest that the second sentence
informs the scope and meaning of the obligation in the first
sentence (16).
The TBT Agreement contains a non-exhaustive list of
‘legitimate objectives’, including the protection of human
health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the
environment; or prevention of deceptive practices. Animal
welfare is not explicitly mentioned (13).
There are indications that the protection of animal welfare
could be considered a ‘legitimate objective’ within the
meaning of the TBT Agreement. The Panel in EU–Seal
Products concluded so (17, para. 5.140) and WTO
Members notify animal-welfare-related measures to the TBT
Committee. However, uncertainty on this point remains,
because the AB considered that the Seal Regime was not
a TBT measure and, therefore, reversed all the Panel’s
TBT findings and considered them ‘moot and of no legal
effect’ (17, para. 5.70). If animal welfare is not considered
a ‘legitimate objective’, any regulations imposed to achieve
71
this objective might be considered ‘more trade-restrictive
than necessary’.
If a country imposes measures requiring that animal products
sold domestically are produced in a ‘welfare friendly’
production system, countries supplying these products may
complain that the measures are discriminatory. After all,
animal husbandry systems differ from country to country
and public understanding of ‘welfare friendly’ may also vary.
In assessing a claim of discrimination against imported
products, the principal articles of the TBT Agreement
must be considered. Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement
generally forbids discrimination, but cases relevant to the
TBT Agreement show that discriminatory effects stemming
‘exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction
[emphasis added]’ may be considered justifiable (16, 17).
Article 2.2 provides that technical regulations shall not be
more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate
objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would
create. Legitimate objectives may include national security
requirements; the prevention of deceptive practices; the
protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or
health, or the environment (4).
Issues relevant to the legitimacy of regulatory objectives
in the TBT context have been considered by WTO panels
(including the following cases: US [United States] – Tuna II
[Mexico], DS381; US – COOL [Country of Origin Labelling],
DS384; and US – Clove Cigarettes, DS406); and by the AB
(US – Tuna II [Mexico]).
In US – COOL, the panel noted that a legitimate objective
refers to ‘protection of interests that are “justifiable” in the
sense that they are supported by relevant public policies
or other social norms’ (16). In dispute settlement to date,
proving the legitimacy of objectives has been fairly straight
forward but proving the legitimacy of regulatory distinctions
has been more difficult: violations have generally been
found in relation to this element. 
In contrast with the TBT Agreement, the ‘good faith’
provisions in the chapeau of Article XX require consideration
as to whether a measure is applied in a manner that would
constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination
between countries, where the same conditions prevail (16).
The SPS Agreement covers measures whose purpose is to
protect human or animal health from food-borne risks,
human health from animal- or plant-carried diseases,
and animals and plants from pests or diseases, including
technical requirements (termed ‘SPS measures’) (7). The
TBT Agreement covers all technical regulations, voluntary
standards and associated procedures, except SPS measures.
The type of measure determines whether a measure is
72
covered by the TBT Agreement, whereas the purpose of
the measure is relevant in determining whether a measure
is subject to the SPS Agreement (7). For example, labelling
provisions (covered by the TBT Agreement) may be applied
to inform consumers about the way in which a product was
produced, while animal health requirements (covered by
the SPS Agreement) may require a veterinary certificate to
ensure that trade will not lead to spread of animal diseases.
The desirability of harmonising national measures with
international standards is common to the SPS Agreement
and the TBT Agreement. However, the SPS Agreement
specifically names the OIE as one of the three standard-
setting organisations of reference, while the TBT Agreement
does not identify standard-setting organisations of reference
for the purpose of harmonisation (4, 7).
The binding dispute settlement process is an important
element of the WTO rules. A formal request to the WTO for
consultation is the first step in this process (1). The findings
of WTO dispute settlement panels (Panels) and, when
the findings of a Panel are appealed, the WTO Appellate
Body helps Members to understand and interpret WTO
agreements. In contrast to SPS measures, there is very little
WTO case law on animal welfare.
In the period 1995–2019, 50 requests for consultation
related to the SPS Agreement and 55 to the TBT Agreement
(19). Only eight cases that went through the Panel (and,
in all eight cases, the AB) stage have findings relating to
the TBT Agreement. In other cases, the TBT Agreement
was invoked initially, but these claims were not pursued
and did not lead to findings. The reports on two cases,
US – Tuna II (Mexico), DS381, and EC [European Commission]
– Seal Products, DS400/401, contain significant discussion
of measures to protect the health or welfare of animals
(16, 18, 19).
In contrast, the WTO has ruled on several disputes about
animal diseases and related principles (e.g. regionalisation)
with reference to the SPS Agreement. In these cases, evidence
that the measures are consistent with, or based upon, the
OIE standards can help to justify measures, according to the
relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement.
The concerns of animal welfare advocates
The concerns of animal welfare advocates about the WTO
rules reflect the limited WTO jurisprudence relevant to
animal welfare, and the outcome of a case that preceded
the establishment of the WTO (12, 18, 19, 20). In its
(unadopted) decision on US – Tuna (1991), DS21/R, a GATT
Panel found that Article III (national treatment) called ‘for a
comparison of the treatment of imported tuna as a product
with that of domestic tuna as a product’ [emphasis added].
The characteristics of the ‘end product’ were the sole
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
consideration at that time, under pre-WTO GATT rules
(21). Animal welfare advocates do not agree that a product
from animals treated cruelly is ‘like’ a product from a
humane farming system and consider that the WTO should
allow these products to be treated differently (22).
In a 1992 review entitled GATT and the Environment it
was argued that GATT panels, by setting increasingly
stringent tests on an ad hoc basis, were making it difficult
for governments to know if their environmental policies
conformed to the requirements of Article XX and that this
unpredictability was making it difficult for countries to
defend their policies before GATT panels (9). This report
mainly addresses environmental policies but also refers to
the protection of animals (9).
What constitutes a ‘like’ product has since been the subject
of WTO jurisprudence in various contexts, but not with
specific reference to animal welfare (10).
Some World Trade Organization findings relevant
to animal welfare
Discrimination, ‘like’ products, and production
and processing methods
In 2012, the AB considered three TBT-related disputes: US
– Tuna II (Mexico); US – Clove Cigarettes; and US – COOL.
In its reports on these disputes, the AB discussed the need
to balance the goal of trade liberalisation with the sovereign
‘right to regulate’ of governments. The AB found that
discrimination against (or different treatment of) imported
products may be justified if the measures reflect a legitimate
regulatory distinction – i.e. they are non-protectionist (16).
As previously mentioned, the GATT and the TBT
Agreement prohibit discrimination between ‘like’ products.
The determination of whether products are ‘like’ or not is
obviously central to the issue of discrimination and WTO
consistency. Animal welfare advocates have raised many
questions about such determinations, including how the
‘like product’ test is applied in particular cases, how the
case-by-case approach influences policy, and the impact of
the case-by-case approach on the sovereignty and autonomy
of Members (23). Historically, the assessment of ‘likeness’
focused on the physical characteristics of the products
but, in common with much environmental regulation, the
production method may not have a direct effect on the
physical characteristics of the product (24).
Advocates of animal welfare seek to distinguish between
PPMs that are cruel, versus those that are humane. If PPMs
were not considered relevant to a decision on the ‘likeness’
of products, it would be difficult to argue that discrimination
between products was WTO consistent, or to use trade
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
measures to promote welfare friendly production (23). This
important question is clarified in the TBT Agreement, which
makes it clear that both ‘technical regulations’ (mandatory)
and ‘standards’ (voluntary) include ‘product characteristics
or their related processes and production methods’ (13).
In US – Clove Cigarettes, the AB considered that, for
the purposes of the TBT Agreement (Article 2.1), the
determination of whether products are ‘like’ is based on the
traditional Border Tax Adjustments criteria, namely, physical
characteristics, end-uses, consumer tastes and habits, and
tariff classification. By including consumer preferences, this
finding may have provided scope to consider animal welfare
labelling as a legitimate distinction between products, being
a means of identifying consumer-preferred products from
welfare friendly production systems (18).
The AB’s analysis in EC – Asbestos, DS135R, is also relevant.
The AB reversed the Panel’s findings on ‘like’ products,
noting that evidence about the extent to which products
can serve the same end-uses, and consumers are, or would
be, willing to choose one product instead of another to
perform those end-uses, was highly relevant in assessing the
‘likeness’ of those products for the purposes of compliance
with GATT rules on national treatment. The AB concluded:
‘a Panel cannot conclude that products are “like products”
if it does not examine evidence relating to consumers’ tastes
and habits’ (14). This case concerned human health; it is
not directly relevant to animal welfare (22).
In the dispute US – Shrimp, DS58/61, the Panel and the AB
considered the issue of PPM. The measures were intended
to prevent the killing of sea turtles, incidental to catching
shrimp, and the US justified them as measures to protect
the environment. The Panel found that the US measures
were not consistent with the GATT rules and could not
be justified via an exception to the rules under GATT
Article XX(g) (environmental measures). However, the AB
report clarified that WTO rules do allow countries to take
trade action to protect the environment and that measures
to protect sea turtles could potentially be justified under
GATT Article XX(g). The AB found against the US measures,
considering them discriminatory because they recognised
only one particular method of protecting turtles (‘turtle
excluder devices’) and did not accept other equivalent
methods (25).
At the compliance stage in US – Shrimp (Article 21.5), the
AB found that the US had made serious, good faith efforts
to negotiate an international agreement on the protection
of sea turtles. The AB concluded that the new measure no
longer constituted unjustifiable discrimination because it
was flexible enough to accept other methods of protecting
turtles (10, 12).
In the long-running US – Tuna II (Mexico) dispute, the Panel
initially found that the US labelling measures for ‘dolphin
73
safe’ tuna were discriminatory, because they required
a particular method of protecting dolphins. The AB
accepted the legitimacy of the policy objectives underlying
the labelling scheme, which was to ensure accurate
consumer information about whether tuna was caught in
a manner that adversely affects dolphins, and to contribute
to the protection of dolphins (16, 18). However, the AB
found against the US on the grounds that the measures
were applied in a discriminatory manner (16, 23). In the
compliance proceedings, the AB indicated that calibration
analysis was the appropriate tool for Panels to use in their
assessment of whether the modified ‘2016 Tuna Measure’
was consistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.
The AB also agreed that the analysis relevant to the TBT
Agreement could be drawn upon to assess the consistency
of the modified measure with the obligations in the chapeau
of Article XX of GATT. The modified ‘2016 Tuna Measure’
was found to be in conformity with WTO obligations (16).
The final outcomes of these two cases, US – Shrimp and
US – Tuna II (Mexico), support the conclusion that measures
to protect animal welfare can be consistent with WTO
obligations, providing that they are applied in a non-
discriminatory manner (16, 23).
EC – Seal Products: a landmark case for animal
welfare
The WTO dispute EC – Seal products, DS400/401, is
sometimes described as a landmark case, because it
provided the first specific WTO ruling on the relevance
of public morals to measures for the protection of animal
welfare. The EU banned the importation of seal products
due to concern about the cruelty of the seal hunt. Canada
and Norway sought WTO adjudication on the matter in
2009. The Panel and the AB came to different conclusions
about the relevance of the TBT Agreement to the ban on
the importation of seal products, but both agreed that there
was significant public concern in European Union Member
States about the welfare of seals to justify the measures on
moral grounds. In its analysis of obligations under the TBT
Agreement, the Panel found that addressing public morals
in relation to seal welfare was a legitimate objective within
the meaning of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The Panel
recognised the protection of animal welfare as a ‘globally
recognized issue’ and ‘a matter of ethical responsibility for
human beings in general’ (26).
Canada and Norway argued that the ban should not qualify
as ‘moral’ but the Panel accepted evidence provided by the
European Union that the objective of its measures was to
address moral concerns of the European Union public. This
ruling confirmed that animal welfare may be a matter of
right and wrong within a country and can be considered
under the rubric of public morality (27).
74
The AB did not agree that the measure was a technical
regulation and, therefore, found that the TBT Agreement was
not relevant to the dispute. However, the AB was satisfied
that the evidence justified the measures under GATT XX(a)
– for the purpose of protecting public morality. In appealing
the Panel’s findings, Canada criticised the ‘philosophical
consistency’ of the arguments presented by the European
Union. By allowing deer hunting and slaughterhouses,
Canada argued that the European Union was demonstrating
a high level of tolerance for risks to animal welfare and that
this approach should also apply to seal hunting. The AB
rejected this argument, stating that Members have a right
to set the level of protection that they desire, and that they
may do so ‘even when responding to similar interests of
moral concern’ (28).
For reasons relating to inconsistency in the application of
the measure, the AB ruled against the European Union in the
dispute DS400/401. Nonetheless, the AB decision extended
existing jurisprudence on ‘public morals’ to the protection
of animal welfare and set an important legal precedent.
Animal welfare advocates subsequently urged European
Union decision-makers to strengthen their resolve in setting
animal welfare measures (20). However, the implications of
the EC – Seal Products findings are the subject of ongoing
discussion. In setting a ‘morally based’ measure, how can
governments ascertain moral imperatives? What evidence
is needed to comply with the WTO rules? Are surveys of
public opinion valid for this purpose (29)?
Factors that may influence future
animal welfare developments
Global consumption of meat and fish is expected to
increase by 15% between 2018 and 2027, driven mainly
by population growth and lower prices. Global meat
production is projected to be 15% higher in 2027 than in
2018, with developing countries accounting for 76% of the
growth in production. Consumers in developing countries
are expected to increase consumption of beef and sheep
meat and in developing countries it is predicted that the
demand for other animal products, such as poultry, will
increase significantly (30).
Increasing global demand is likely to result in increased
trade in animal products. Increased trade may generate
renewed attention to animal-welfare-related trade measures.
To facilitate safe trade, the WTO encourages countries to
harmonise their trade measures with relevant international
standards. Unlike the SPS Agreement, the GATT and the
TBT Agreement do not refer to specific standard setting
bodies. However, Annex 1 to the TBT Agreement refers to
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
which currently comprises 164 Member countries globally
(31). The ISO definitions and general guidance on standard
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
setting and related matters apply in the TBT Agreement.
In 2011, the OIE signed an official cooperation agreement
with the ISO (31) and in 2016, the ISO published technical
specification ISO/TS 34700:2016 on Animal Welfare
Management. This sets out general requirements and
guidance for organisations in the food supply chain and is
closely aligned with the OIE animal welfare standards (32).
International standards are therefore available for guidance
when setting animal welfare related trade measures.
Scientific understanding and definitions of animal welfare
have evolved since the first OIE standards were published
in 2005. An important scientific development concerns
the understanding of sentience in animals (acknowledged
in the 2017 OIE Global Animal Welfare Strategy) and the
implications this has for animal welfare (5).
Protecting animal health and providing for the community
to have access to safe, affordable food are top priorities
for governments. It makes sense to follow international
standards, in particular when they are based on
comprehensive scientific analysis, as with OIE standards.
In comparison with animal health and food safety, animal
welfare tends to be a lower priority. When food is safe and
affordable, consumers are more likely to become interested
in the issue of social licence. Animal welfare is relevant to
the community’s perception of farmers – i.e. their social
licence. Surveys of public opinion in developed countries
suggest that people who express concerns about farm
animal welfare perceive links between animal welfare,
human health and the environment (12, 33).
Retailers respond to consumer concerns by providing
additional information, which is sometimes extensive (34).
However, some of the information provided in shops and
restaurants can be difficult for consumers to interpret.
Governments may need to regulate standards for farm
animal welfare and food labelling, to ensure that ‘welfare
labels’ on food products are valid.
In developing countries, where it can be a challenge to
obtain safe and affordable food, animal welfare standards
may be considered as a luxury that only wealthy countries
can afford. At the same time, the livestock sector in
developed countries may oppose higher animal welfare
standards due to concerns that the higher costs associated
with ‘welfare friendly’ products will provide an advantage
to products imported from ‘low welfare systems’. The loss
of economic competitiveness has been used to argue against
higher animal welfare standards (35).
The European Union (EU) has extensive legislation on
animal welfare and supports the OIE in its work developing
animal health and welfare standards. In addition to standards
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
for EU Member States, the EU encourages third countries to
implement the OIE standards via the establishment of ‘non-
binding agreements’ that cover animal welfare and other
matters (36). In 2017, the European Commission reported
that several countries had entered into non-binding
agreements, but most were ‘minor players’ in the global
market for animals and animal products. The report noted
‘the promotion of animal welfare standards by means of
trade agreements faces notable limitations under the GATT
principles’ and concluded ‘the impact of animal welfare
related clauses in bilateral agreements ultimately depends
on voluntary cooperation’ (36).
Conclusions
As noted above, the outcomes of three WTO disputes (US
– Shrimp, US – Tuna II [Mexico] and EC –Seal Products) show
that animal welfare measures can be applied in a manner that
is consistent with WTO rules. The TBT and SPS Agreements
make provision for PPMs, which resolves questions raised in
relation to some pre-WTO GATT jurisprudence. The result
of the EC – Seal Products case showed that the GATT ‘public
morals’ clause can be used to justify measures adopted to
protect animal welfare.
These are encouraging developments, but some uncertainty
remains. It is always the case that the findings of panels
and the AB address the specific claims of parties to a
dispute regarding non-compliance with nominated WTO
rules. Precedent is important – but each case is decided
on its merits. The disputes mentioned in this paper may
be relevant to a future analysis of whether animal-welfare-
related measures are WTO-consistent, but findings cannot
simply be extrapolated.
In the EC – Seal Products case, the consistency of the
European Union measures with international standards was
not a key feature, as there is no international standard for
the killing of fur seals. For farm animals, in contrast, there
are animal welfare standards published by the OIE and the
ISO. A WTO Panel on a future dispute concerning animal
derived food products, such as meat and eggs, would likely
consider the consistency of the measures with the standards
set by these reference organisations. There is little WTO
jurisprudence on the animal welfare standards of the OIE
and ISO.
75
One key question is whether a product from a ‘welfare
friendly’ system is ‘like’ a product from a production system
judged to be ‘less humane’ (however ‘humane’ is assessed).
Some consumers prefer a ‘welfare friendly’ product and will
exercise choice if they are given appropriate information. If
consumer preferences for ‘welfare friendly products’ affect
the commercial competitiveness of products offered for sale,
there may be grounds to justify measures that discriminate,
i.e. the products may not be considered ‘like’.
Arguments for and against any proposition in relation to
the WTO Agreements are complex, and the outcomes of
disputes cannot be forecast with precision.
Uncertainty about the WTO-consistency of any type of
measure could be expected to inhibit its use in the trade
context, and animal welfare advocates continue to express
concern about this. In 1995, responding to the concerns
of environmental advocates about the possibility of the
WTO Agreements the capacities of countries to protect the
environment, the WTO Trade and Environment Committee
was formed. This brought environmental and sustainable
development issues into the WTO mainstream. It is unlikely
that there will be similar action on animal welfare, as it is
not a focus of trade disputes.
This paper reaches two key conclusions:
Regardless of whether measures are adopted to protect
animal welfare or animal health, for WTO consistency, they
must not result in unjustifiable, arbitrary or unnecessary
discrimination.
Regardless of how the WTO deals with animal welfare,
governments must respond to the growing interest of
consumers in farm animal welfare. The OIE standards, as
recognised references for trading countries and the WTO,
will continue to be influential in relation to global trade
in animal products. It is important that the OIE update
its animal welfare standards regularly, to ensure that they
are consistent with latest scientific understanding and
appropriate to consumer expectations about ethics in
farming and food production.
76 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Le bien-être animal dans le contexte du règlement des différends

portés devant l’Organisation mondiale du commerce
S. Kahn

Résumé
Cet article vise à donner aux vétérinaires et aux décideurs politiques un aperçu des
conclusions de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) se rapportant au bien-être
animal. L’article a une portée pratique et ne prétend aucunement fournir une analyse
juridique du système de règlement des différends de l’OMC. L’auteure s’exprime dans des
termes simples sans recourir à un langage trop technique ou juridique afin que son texte soit
utile à un large public.
Les règles du commerce mondial sont constituées par un ensemble d’accords juridiques
entrés en vigueur en 1995 lors de la création de l’OMC. L’objectif primordial de l’OMC est de
promouvoir un commerce international sûr en évitant toute discrimination injustifiée entre
partenaires commerciaux. L’OMC encourage les pays à harmoniser leurs mesures nationales
avec les normes internationales pertinentes afin de faciliter les échanges internationaux sûrs.
L’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) a pour vocation principale de soutenir
les améliorations apportées à la santé et au bien-être animal ainsi qu’à la santé publique
vétérinaire dans le monde. À cette fin, l’OIE élabore des normes intergouvernementales et
s’emploie à renforcer les capacités de ses Membres à les mettre en œuvre. Les normes de
l’OIE étant reconnues par l’OMC en tant que références dans le domaine de la santé animale
et des maladies zoonotiques, un nombre significatif de différends portés devant l’OMC
a examiné la pertinence des normes de l’OIE pour les mesures appliquées aux échanges
internationaux. Outre les normes relatives à la santé animale, l’OIE a également élaboré
des normes sur le bien-être animal et lancé un certain nombre de stratégies régionales et
mondiales pour encourager ses Membres à les adopter.
Comparativement aux mesures visant à protéger la santé animale ou la sécurité sanitaire des
aliments, les mesures en lien avec le bien-être animal ont très rarement été invoquées lors
du traitement de différends portés devant l’OMC. Cette absence de jurisprudence au sein de
l’OMC a suscité quelques interrogations sur la cohérence des mesures de l’OMC relevant du
bien-être animal.
L’auteure examine certains différends et conclusions de l’OMC se rapportant au bien-être
animal. Les conclusions sur ces litiges semblent indiquer qu’aussi bien les groupes spéciaux
de l’OMC que son organe d’appel sont disposés à reconnaître le droit des Membres à imposer
des règles relevant du bien-être animal, à condition que les disciplines établies de l’OMC
soient respectées.
L’auteure en tire deux conclusions principales. La première est qu’indépendamment du fait
que le motif des mesures adoptées soit de protéger la santé animale ou le bien-être animal,
l’impératif de cohérence de l’OMC exige qu’elles ne se traduisent pas par une discrimination
injustifiée, arbitraire ou inutile.
La deuxième conclusion est qu’indépendamment du traitement par l’OMC des questions de
bien-être animal, les gouvernements doivent désormais tenir compte de la place croissante
qu’occupe le bien-être des animaux d’élevage dans les préoccupations des consommateurs.
Étant des références reconnues aussi bien pour les pays participant aux échanges
commerciaux que pour l’OMC, les normes de l’OIE continueront à exercer une influence
décisive sur le commerce mondial de produits d’origine animale. Il est important que l’OIE
réactualise régulièrement ses normes de bien-être animal afin de s’assurer qu’elles tiennent
compte des connaissances scientifiques les plus récentes et qu’elles répondent aux attentes
des consommateurs en faveur d’une éthique de la production des denrées alimentaires.

Mots-clés
Bien-être animal – Échanges internationaux – Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 77

El bienestar animal en el contexto del mecanismo de solución

de controversias de la Organización Mundial del Comercio
S. Kahn

Resumen
La autora presenta a veterinarios e instancias decisorias una panorámica de las
conclusiones a las que ha llegado la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) que
de algún modo inciden en la cuestión del bienestar animal, privilegiando sobre todo un
enfoque práctico, esto es, sin tratar de ofrecer un análisis jurídico de la casuística de
solución de controversias de la OMC y simplificando el lenguaje jurídico, tan proclive
a los tecnicismos, para que estas líneas resulten de utilidad a un público más amplio.
Las reglas que rigen el comercio mundial comprenden una serie de acuerdos jurídicos
que entraron en vigor en 1995, cuando se fundó la OMC con el objetivo general de
promover el comercio internacional evitando toda discriminación injustificada entre
socios comerciales. Con el fin de facilitar un comercio seguro, la OMC promueve la
armonización de las medidas nacionales con las normas internacionales pertinentes.
La Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) tiene por objetivo general promover
la mejora a escala mundial de la sanidad y el bienestar animales y de la salud pública
veterinaria. Para ello, la OIE establece normas intergubernamentales y se esfuerza
por dotar a sus Países Miembros de mayor capacidad para aplicarlas. La OMC tiene
reconocidas las normas de la OIE como textos de referencia en materia de sanidad
animal y enfermedades zoonóticas y buen número de las controversias que se han
planteado en la OMC tenían que ver con la pertinencia de esas normas de la OIE con
respecto a una u otra medida de comercio internacional. Además de fijar normas
zoosanitarias, la OIE también establece normas referidas al bienestar de los animales y
ha implantado estrategias regionales y mundiales para alentar a sus Países Miembros
a adoptarlas.
En comparación con las medidas destinadas a proteger la sanidad animal o la inocuidad
de los alimentos, son pocas las controversias de la OMC que han tenido por objeto
medidas relativas al bienestar de los animales. La falta de jurisprudencia de la OMC ha
contribuido a generar incertidumbre sobre la coherencia de las medidas de la OMC en
materia de bienestar animal.
La autora examina algunas de las controversias y conclusiones de la OMC que guardan
algún tipo de relación con el bienestar animal. El desenlace de esas controversias
lleva a pensar que los grupos especiales y el Órgano de Apelación de la OMC están
dispuestos a aceptar el derecho de los Miembros a reglamentar con fines de bienestar
animal, siempre y cuando respeten las disciplinas instauradas por la OMC.
La autora llega a dos conclusiones principales. En primer lugar, con independencia de
que se adopten medidas destinadas a proteger el bienestar de los animales o la sanidad
animal, la coherencia de la propia OMC exige que tales medidas no se traduzcan en
discriminación alguna que sea injustificable, arbitraria o innecesaria.
En segundo lugar, al margen del tratamiento que haga la OMC de la cuestión del bienestar
animal, los gobiernos deben dar respuesta al creciente interés de los consumidores por
el bienestar de los animales de granja. Las normas de la OIE, reconocidas como textos
de referencia para la OMC y los países que intervienen en transacciones comerciales,
seguirán pesando en el comercio mundial de productos de origen animal. Es importante
que la OIE actualice periódicamente sus normas de bienestar animal para que integren
el conocimiento científico más reciente y respondan a las expectativas del consumidor
en cuanto a producción ética de los alimentos.

Palabras clave
Bienestar animal – Comercio internacional – Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).
78
References
1. World Trade Organization (2019). – WTO legal texts. Available
at: www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm (accessed
on 2 June 2019).
2. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (1947). – The
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947). World
Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.
wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm (accessed on
31 March 2020).
3. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm (accessed on 31 March
2020).
4. – (1979). – Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. UNTS,
1186, 276, BISD 26S/8. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
docs_e/legal_e/tokyo_tbt_e.doc (accessed on 31 March 2020).
5. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – OIE
standards on animal welfare. Accessible at: www.oie.int/
en/animal-welfare/an-international-network-of-expertise/
(accessed on 1 June 2019).
6. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2008). –
Recommendations of the 2nd Global Conference on Animal
Welfare. Cairo, Egypt, 20–22 October 2008. OIE, Paris, France,
4pp. Available at: https://oldrpawe.oie.int/fileadmin/doc/eng/
Recommendations/Second_OIE_Global_Conference_on_
AW_in_Egypt_2008.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2018).
7. World Trade Organization (2019). – Understanding the
WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsund_e.
htm (accessed on 14 May 2019).
8. World Trade Organization (2019). – WTO rules and
environmental policies: key GATT disciplines. Available at:
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envt_rules_gatt_e.htm
(accessed 13 May 2019).
9. Charnovitz S. (1992). – GATT and the environment: examining
the issues. Reproduced with permission from: Charnovitz, S.
(1992). – Int. Env. Aff., 4 (3), 203–233. Available at: www.
ciesin.org/docs/008-061/008-061.html (accessed on 25 May
2019).
10.
World Trade Organization (2019). – WTO rules and
environmental policies: GATT exceptions. Available at: www.
wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envt_rules_exceptions_e.
htm (accessed on 17 May 2019).
11. Neilsen L. (2010) – Emotional and legal stakes are High in
the Seals dispute 14(4) Bridges 9 – cited in Kawaru A. (2013)
– Animal Welfare Regulation and International Trade Law:
Developments at the World Trade Organization. In Animal
Law in Australasia (P. Sankoff, S. White & C. Black, eds), 2nd
Ed. The Federation Press, Alexandria, Australia, 316.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
12. Thomas E.M. (2007). – Playing chicken with the WTO:
defencing an animal welfare-based trade restriction under
GATT’s moral exception, Boston Coll. Environ. Aff. Law Rev.,
34, 605–637.
13. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – The WTO
Agreements series: technical barriers to trade. WTO,
Geneva, 156 pp. Available at: www.wto.org/english/res_e/
publications_e/tbttotrade_e.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2019).
14.
World Trade Organization (2001). – WT/DS135/AB/R.
European Communities – measures affecting asbestos and
asbestos-containing products. Available at: www.wto.org/
english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds135_e.htm (accessed on
11 May 2019).
15. Howse R. & Langille J. (2012) – Permitting pluralism: the
seal products dispute and why the WTO should accept
trade restrictions justified by noninstrumental moral values.
Yale J. Int. Law, 37 (2), Article 4. Available at: https://
d i g i t a l c o m m o n s . l a w. y a l e . e d u / c g i / v i e w c o n t e n t .
cgi?article=1418&context=yjil (accessed on 12 March 2020).
16. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Analytical Index
TBT Agreement Article 2 (Jurisprudence). WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland, 36 pp. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/tbt_art2_jur.pdf (accessed on
3 February 2020).
17. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2014). – WT/DS400/R,
WT/DS401/R. European communities – measures prohibiting
the importation and marketing of seal products. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland, Available at: www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds401_e.htm (accessed on 2 May
2019).
18.
Kawharu A. (2013) – Animal welfare regulation and
international trade law: developments at the World Trade
Organization. In Animal Law in Australasia (P. Sankoff,
S. White & C. Black, eds), 2nd Ed. The Federation Press,
Alexandria, Australia, 308–329.
19. Holzer K. (2018). – Addressing tensions and avoiding
disputes: specific trade concerns in the TBT Committee.
Presented to World Trade Organization TBT Committee
21 July 2018. Published as Staff Working Paper ERSD-2018-
11 on 31 October 2018.
20. Offor I.I.H & Walter J. (2017). – GATT Article XX(a) permits
otherwise trade-restrictive animal welfare measures [abstract].
Glob. Trade Cus. J., 12 (4), 158–166. Available at: https://
kluwerlawonline.com/Journals/Global%20Trade%20and%20
Customs%20Journal/679 (accessed on 29 April 2019).
21. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1991). – WT/DS21/R
– 39S/155. United States – restrictions on imports of tuna.
WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/
english/tratop_e/dispu_e/gatt_e/91tuna.pdf (accessed on
13 May 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
22. Stevenson P. (2002) - The World Trade Organization Rules:
a legal analysis of their adverse impact on animal welfare.
Animal L. 8:107–141. Available at: https://law.lclark.edu/live/
files/26579-08estevenson (accessed on 12 May 2020).
23. World Trade Organization (2012). – WT/DS381. United States
— measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale
of tuna and tuna products. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds381_e.htm (accessed on 3 June
2019).
24. Fitzgerald P. L. (2011) – Morality may not be enough to justify
the EU seal products ban: animal welfare meets international
trade law. J. Int. Wildlife Law Pol., 14 (2), 85–136. doi:10.1080
/13880292.2011.583578.
25. World Trade Organization (1998). – Environment 8 - India etc
versus US: ‘shrimp-turtle’. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/envir_e/edis08_e.htm (accessed on 13 May 2019).
26. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2013). – WT/DS400/R,
WT/DS401/R. European Communities – measures prohibiting
the importation and marketing of seal products. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland, para. 7.420. Available at: www.wto.org/
english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds401_e.htm (accessed on
2 April 2019).
27. Howse R., Langille J. & Sykes K. (2014). – Animal welfare,
public morals and trade: the WTO panel report in EC – seal
products. ASIL Insights, 18(2). Available at: www.asil.org/
insights/volume/18/issue/2/animal-welfare-public-morals-
and-trade-wto-panel-report-ec-%E2%80%93-seal (accessed
on 12 March 2020).
28. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2014). – WT/DS400/R,
WT/DS401/R. European communities – measures prohibiting
the importation and marketing of seal products. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland, paras 5.199–5.200. Available at: https://
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds401_e.htm
(accessed on 2 May 2019).
29. Sellheim N.P. (2016). – The legal question of morality: seal
hunting and the European moral standard. Soc. Leg. Stud.,
25(2), 141–161. doi:10.1177/0964663915624343.
79
30. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
and Food and Agriculture Organization (OECD) (2018). –
OECD–FAO agricultural outlook 2018–2027. OECD, Paris,
France, & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy, 112 pp. Available at: www.fao.
org/3/I9166EN/I9166EN.pdf (accessed on 11 March 2020).
31. Espeillac S. (2016). – ISO and OIE collaboration on animal
welfare. OIE 4th Global Conference on Animal Welfare.
Guadalajara, Mexico, 6–8 December 2016. Available at: www.
oie.int/fr/animal-welfare-conf2016/PTT/1.3.%20ISO.pdf
(accessed on 15 December 2018).
32. Tranchard S. (2016). – New ISO specification for better
management of animal welfare worldwide. Available at: www.
iso.org/news/2016/12/Ref2147.html (accessed on 15 May
2019).
33. Futureye (2018). – Australia’s shifting mindset on farm
animal welfare. Futureye Pty Ltd, Windsor, Australia,
103 pp. Available at: www.outbreak.gov.au/sites/default/files/
documents/farm-animal-welfare.pdf (accessed on 11 March
2020).
34. Browne’s Dairy (2019). – Our cows. Available at: https://
brownesdairy.com.au/?s=our+cows (accessed on 19 April
2019).
35. Grethe H. (2007). – High animal welfare standards in the
EU and international trade – how to prevent potential
‘low animal welfare havens’. Food Policy 32 (3), 315–333.
doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.06.001.
36. Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety  (European
Commission)  Economisti Associati (2017). – Study on
the impact of animal welfare international activities, final
report. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 217 pp.
doi:10.2875/745687.
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 81-91

Facilitating market access: risk assessment,

equivalence and regionalisation provisions
in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures
A. Hamilton

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Section, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization, Rue de
Lausanne 154, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
E-mail: Anneke.Hamilton@wto.org

Summary
The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures contains several key provisions that are important
for trade in animals and animal products, namely on risk assessment, equivalence
and regionalisation. The risk assessment provision allows countries to adopt, on
the basis of a risk assessment, measures which achieve a higher level of sanitary
protection than that embodied in existing relevant international standards. The
equivalence provision requires importing countries to acknowledge that, while the
production methods of the exporting country may differ from their own, they may
still provide an equivalent level of health protection. Finally, the regionalisation
provision enables countries to export animals and animal products from disease-
free areas, even if other areas within that country have experienced outbreaks of
a particular animal disease. This paper explores how these provisions, and the
scientific concept of the appropriate level of protection, facilitate trade while at
the same time allowing Members to establish their sanitary measures. This paper
also provides information on the relevant discussions of these provisions within
the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.

Keywords
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement)
– Appropriate level of protection – Disease-free areas – Equivalence – International
standards – Regionalisation – Risk assessment.

Introduction As noted by Wolff and Calderon, the SPS Agreement

Throughout the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS Agreement) there are various provisions
which provide flexibility in trade. This flexibility facilitates
market access for animals and animal products while
safeguarding the right of WTO Members to establish
their sanitary measures. Some of these specific provisions
are contained in Article 4 (equivalence), Article 5 (risk
assessment), and Article 6 (regionalisation) (1). These
provisions are important for trade because they provide
Members with a range of options in the development and
implementation of their sanitary measures, as well as in
meeting the sanitary requirements of their trading partners.
introduces certain obligations that Members are expected
to comply with when they apply sanitary measures (see
Wolff and Calderón, this issue [2]). The Agreement seeks
to strike a balance between governments’ rights to protect
animal health (as well as plant health and food safety)
and their responsibility to ensure that these measures
are not disguised trade restrictions (1). Science is at the
heart of the SPS Agreement, and critical to this principle
is that Members ensure that their sanitary measures are
scientifically justified.
An important concept related to this principle of scientific
justification is that of the appropriate level of protection
(ALOP), also known as the acceptable level of risk. That is,
the level of sanitary protection that governments consider
necessary for their country. This concept of ALOP is key

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3064
82
to implementing the risk assessment and equivalence
provisions, and it is also relevant for the regionalisation
provision. This paper will provide an overview of these
three provisions, including their link to the ALOP concept,
and how these provisions facilitate trade while ensuring that
importing governments are able to establish their sanitary
measures. In addition, this paper will provide information
on the relevant discussions of these provisions within
the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(SPS Committee), which is responsible for implementing
the SPS Agreement.
Appropriate level of protection
Before examining the provisions pertaining to risk
assessment, equivalence and regionalisation, it is first
important to focus on the ALOP concept. This concept
is a central theme related to the scientific underpinning
of the SPS Agreement, which is reflected, either explicitly
or implicitly, in several of its provisions. Annex A.5 of the
SPS Agreement defines ALOP as ‘the level of protection
deemed appropriate by the Member establishing a sanitary
or phytosanitary measure to protect human, animal or plant
life or health within its territory’ (1). In other words, it is the
level of sanitary risk that governments are willing to accept.
What, for example, would be the level of protection that an
importing government would deem appropriate to address
the risks related to imports of animals from trading partners
affected by an outbreak of foot and mouth disease?
The determination of ALOP is an important step in the
decision-making process for governments, and it is one
which should precede the selection and use of sanitary
measures (3). That is, before establishing a sanitary measure
to address a particular risk, importing governments should
first determine the level of sanitary protection that they wish
to achieve. There are numerous factors that governments
should consider when defining this level of protection; for
example, as prescribed by Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement,
they should take into account the objective of minimising
negative trade effects.
Consistency in sanitary and phytosanitary
measures
Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement requires that governments
ensure that their decision on what is an acceptable level of
protection does not arbitrarily vary from one situation to
another, as this could result in discrimination or disguised
trade restrictions (1). In other words, decisions on
acceptable risk levels should be consistent. In practice, this
means that countries cannot ban one product while allowing
imports of another product that presents higher disease
risks. To do so would be to violate the ‘ALOP consistency’
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
obligation of Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement (4).
There are three key questions to ask when determining
whether or not a measure is in violation of the Article:
– Are there differences between the ALOP in current and
other situations?
– Are these differences arbitrary or unjustifiable?
– Do these differences result in discrimination or a
disguised restriction on international trade? (see Fig. 1,
bullet point 2).
If the response to all of these three questions is positive,
then the measure is deemed to violate the consistency
provision of the SPS Agreement. These three questions
have been identified through WTO disputes. Stanton and
Prakash outline several examples of disputes in the animal
health area on what constitutes a violation of Article 5.5 (4).
Guidelines on Article 5.5 of the Agreement on
the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures
The SPS Committee has developed guidelines to assist
Members in the practical implementation of Article 5.5 (3).
These guidelines encourage Members to clearly indicate
their ALOP in order to permit examination of the extent to
which a sanitary measure achieves that level. The guidelines
recognise that, in practice, Members are not always able to
precisely indicate their ALOP for various reasons. However,
in such cases, the ALOP may be derived from the level of
protection embodied in the sanitary measure in place (3).
The guidelines provide an indicative set of considerations
(see Fig. 1) and illustrative clarifications (which are not
intended to be exclusive or complete) to assist governments
in the application of the ALOP concept (i.e. elements to
consider in determining the ALOP), and subsequently its
practical implementation through the selection and use of
sanitary measures (3). The following sections of this paper
will examine how this concept of ALOP is embodied in the
risk assessment, equivalence and regionalisation provisions of
the SPS Agreement and how these provisions facilitate trade.
Risk assessment
Once the ALOP has been determined, a relevant question
that may be posed by governments is: how does the
determination of an ALOP translate into sanitary measures?
Even further, how is the ALOP linked to the risk assessment
provision? Before answering these questions, it is useful
to bear in mind that the SPS Agreement encourages
governments to use the existing standards, guidelines and
recommendations of the World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) in implementing their animal health-related
trade measures. However, the Agreement also recognises
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 83

1. Indicate ALOP in a clear quantitative/qualitative manner (e.g. published statement or other text generally available
to interested parties)

2. Consider: (i) whether there are any differences between the ALOP in current and other situations; (ii) whether such
differences are arbitrary/unjustifiable; and (iii) whether they result in discrimination/disguised restriction on international
trade

3. Establish clear and effective information flow within/between authorities responsible for determining the ALOP

4. Compare proposed ALOP decisions with ALOP decisions previously considered (or taken) in other similar situations

5. Review previous ALOP decisions in light of obligations under Article 5.5 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures, at suitable intervals

6. Examine relevant international standards or decisions taken by other Members of the WTO facing similar risks and situations

7. Consider seeking expert advice in the ALOP decision-making process

8. Clearly identify those situations which justify an exceptional acceptance of a lower ALOP for human health, due to risks
for which consumers voluntarily expose themselves

ALOP: appropriate level of protection

WTO: World Trade Organization
Fig. 1
Indicative considerations in the application of the ‘appropriate level of protection’ concept (3)

that Members may wish to adopt measures which achieve
a higher level of sanitary protection than that embodied
in these standards, guidelines and recommendations (1).
For countries that wish to impose stricter measures, the
Agreement sets out a framework within which Members
can use risk assessments as the scientific justification for
their sanitary measures, while ensuring that their approach
is consistent and not arbitrary.
Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement is the article that gives
Members the right to introduce or maintain animal health
measures which result in a higher level of protection than
that of the relevant OIE standards, provided that there is
scientific justification, based on a risk assessment, for
imposing stricter measures (1). It is the governments’
determination of their ALOP that is critical in determining
whether the particular animal health risk can be addressed
through a measure based on an existing OIE standard or a
measure based on a risk assessment. The risk assessment
is seen to be ‘intricately bound to the ALOP’, as it is ‘the
chosen level of protection [that] affects the scope of the
risk assessment, especially in cases where that level stands
beyond the level set up by [the] internationally recognized
standard’ (5).
As indicated in Figure 2, an animal health measure needs to
be based either on an existing international standard (which
is based on scientific evidence) or on a risk assessment that
takes into account various factors, such as available scientific
evidence. There are several elements that governments must
take into consideration when relying on a risk assessment
as the scientific basis for a measure. Firstly, as outlined in
Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, there is an obligation
to ensure that animal health measures are based on an
appropriate analysis and assessment of the risks, and that they
take into account the risk assessment techniques developed
by the OIE (1). This implies that when establishing its
animal health measures, an importing Member will evaluate
the probability of the disease entering the country, spreading
and causing damage, and the seriousness of the damage.
Damage is measured in both biological and economic terms
(such as lost sales due to the disease or costs of treatment)
(1). The definition of risk assessment for disease risks, i.e.
the evaluation of the probability of disease introduction,
establishment and spread, is provided in Annex A.4 of the
SPS Agreement.
Article 5.2 of the SPS Agreement also similarly outlines the
factors that Members must take into account in undertaking
risk assessments, such as available scientific evidence;
84
International standards,
guidelines or recommendations
(Article 3.1)
OR
Risk Assessment
(Article 5)
Risk assessment exception (Article 5.7)
Insufficient scientific evidence – Introduce provisional measure;
seek to obtain additional information; review SPS measure within a reasonable period of time
SPS: sanitary and phytosanitary
Fig. 2
Scientific justification of animal health-related measures (1)
relevant inspection, sampling and testing methods;
prevalence of specific diseases; and existence of disease-free
areas, among others. In addition, Article 5.3 provides more
detail on the economic factors to be considered in a risk
assessment for disease risks. There are also lessons from
various WTO disputes. In particular, Stanton and Prakash
provide information on WTO disputes that address risk
assessment in the animal health area (4).
Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement gives exporting
Members the right to request an importing government to
explain the reasons for a sanitary measure that constrains
trade and is not based on an international standard (1).
In addition, Annex B.3(c) of the Agreement specifically
indicates that enquiry points (i.e. the agency designated
by a Member to respond to SPS-related questions) should
provide answers to any questions or provide relevant
documents regarding: risk assessment procedures, factors
taken into consideration, and the determination of the
ALOP.
Least-trade-restrictive measures and minimising
negative trade effects
While Article 5.4 encourages Members to determine the
level of sanitary protection that they deem acceptable, it
also states that they should take into account the objective
of minimising negative trade effects when doing so.
Consequently, if there is more than one way to achieve
the level of protection that a Member requires, Article 5.6
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
– Appropriate to the circumstances of SPS risks
– Take into account risk assessment techniques developed
by relevant international organisations
obliges Members to choose the measure that is the least
trade restrictive (1). To fulfil this obligation, Members first
consider whether there is an alternative measure which: a)
is reasonably available, taking into account technical and
economic feasibility; b) achieves the importing Member’s
ALOP; and c) is significantly less trade restrictive than the
existing measure. These elements are considered to be
cumulative, so if an alternative measure meets all three
of these elements, governments are obligated to choose
that measure.
Provisional measures
The SPS Agreement, in Article 5.7, also foresees situations
where governments may need to take measures in
situations where scientific evidence is insufficient
(1). This article contains the only exception in the
SPS Agreement to the requirement that SPS measures
must have a scientific justification (6). Specifically,
Article 5.7 indicates that when scientific evidence is
insufficient to carry out a risk assessment to determine the
safety of trade of particular animals or animal products,
Members can take precautionary measures. However,
as Figure 2 shows, Article 5.7 requires governments, in
cases where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient,
to provisionally adopt measures on the basis of available
information. In addition, Members have the obligation to
seek to obtain additional information for a more objective
assessment of risk, and to review the sanitary measure
within a reasonable period of time.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Specific trade concerns raised in the SPS
Committee, and proposals considered as part
of the Fifth Review of the SPS Agreement
As well as reviewing how governments are complying with
the SPS Agreement, the SPS Committee acts as a forum for
WTO Members to discuss SPS issues that may impact trade,
and risk assessment and related themes are frequently
discussed in the Committee. Of the 452 specific trade
concerns that Members raised between 1995 and 2018,
95 focused on risk assessment. As indicated in Table I, 29%
of those trade concerns on risk assessment were related to
animal health issues.
Table I
Specific trade concerns related to the risk assessment,
equivalence and regionalisation provisions of the SPS
Agreement: number of concerns raised in the SPS Committee
between 1995 and 2018 (7)
Specific trade Risk
Equivalence
concerns in the assessment
(32 concerns)
area of: (95 concerns)
Animal health 29% 28%
Plant health 34% 25%
Food safety 31% 38%
Other concerns 6% 9%
SPS: sanitary and phytosanitary
The Committee is currently reviewing proposals related to
the role of the ALOP and to risk assessment, as outlined in
Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, as well as the practical
implementation of the obligations under Article 5.7 (8).
This is within the context of the ongoing Fifth Review of
the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement,
which is providing an opportunity for Members to assess
how the SPS Agreement is being implemented and whether
there is need for additional or revised guidance on the
provisions of the Agreement (8).
Equivalence
The SPS Agreement requires importing Members to
acknowledge that different production methods or
treatment may provide the same level of health protection
as that resulting from the importing government’s measure
(1). The equivalence provision, as embodied in Article 4
of the SPS Agreement, considers that the risk associated
with imports of a particular product can be lowered to an
acceptable level in several different ways (1). For example,
an importing government may implement a measure which
prescribes the use of a specific production/processing
method for imports of certain animal products, but an
exporting Member may be able to demonstrate that its
85
alternative production/processing methods achieve the
same level of sanitary protection as the measure prescribed
by the importing Member. In this case, the alternative
methods of the exporting Member should be accepted as
equivalent. The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code provides
some illustrative examples of how equivalence may be
achieved ‘by enhanced surveillance and monitoring, by the
use of alternative test, treatment or isolation procedures, or
by combinations of the above’ (9).
Equivalence requires the exporting country to provide
evidence that its measure achieves the level of protection
required by the importing country (1). For this purpose,
the importing country must be given reasonable access,
upon request, to inspect and test the production/processing
methods of the exporting country (1). The equivalence
provision is important for international trade, as it facilitates
market access for a range of animals and animal products,
while ensuring that the ALOP of importing governments is
Regionalisation
maintained.
(39 concerns)
82%
Given that the ALOP is a key concept in the implementation
18% of equivalence, it is important for exporting governments to
0% know how importing governments have defined their ALOP.
0% The previous section of this paper provided a definition of
ALOP, as well as an overview of the general considerations
to be taken into account in applying the ALOP concept
(Fig. 1). This detailed information is relevant for the concept
of equivalence, as an exporting Member has to be aware of
the benchmarked level of protection that its measure needs
to achieve, in order for the importing Member to accept its
exports of animals and or animal products. Article 4.2 of the
Agreement also indicates that Members, upon the request
of another Member(s), must enter into consultations in
order to achieve bilateral and multilateral agreements on
recognition of equivalence.
Decision on equivalence by the SPS Committee
The SPS Committee has adopted a Decision on equivalence
to assist governments in implementing Article 4 on
equivalence (10). This Decision emphasises that equivalence
does not mean duplication i.e. exporting countries are
not required to implement exactly the same measures as
the importing country. Rather, it means that importing
countries must accept alternative measures if they achieve
their ALOP. In addition, the Decision takes into account the
specific concerns raised by developing and least-developed
countries regarding the difficulties they encounter in having
their SPS measures accepted as equivalent by importing
Members. It is important to note that the Decision also
references the Committee guidelines on consistency (refer
to section on ALOP and Fig. 1 in this paper), as these
guidelines serve as a tool to assist Members in determining
equivalence.
86
The Decision on equivalence recognises that equivalence
can be accepted for a specific measure(s) related to a certain
product or particular categories of products, or on a systems-
wide basis. In addition, it suggests that the consideration of
a request for recognition of equivalence must not in itself
be a reason to disrupt or suspend ongoing imports of the
product in question. Several steps are recommended in the
Decision to facilitate the implementation of equivalence
(see Fig. 3). In addition, an expedited procedure for
determining equivalence is also foreseen in situations where
there is historic trade between countries. Members are also
encouraged to notify concluded equivalence agreements to
the SPS Committee. An overview of the SPS notification
obligations and related notification formats is provided by
Alcala and Martinez-Hommel (see Alcalá and Martínez-
Hommel, this issue [11]).
Specific trade concerns raised in the SPS
Committee, and proposals considered as part of
the Fifth Review of the SPS Agreement
As indicated in Table I, 32 specific trade concerns were
raised on equivalence between 1995 and 2018, 28% of
which were related to animal health issues. Within the
context of the ongoing Fifth Review of the SPS Agreement,
the Committee is considering proposals that have been
submitted in relation to reviewing the existing guidance on
equivalence and reinforcing Members’ commitment to enter
into consultations when requested under Article 4.2 (8).
As part of the Review activities, the Committee has also held
a two-part thematic session on equivalence in November
2018 and March 2019 (12, 13).
Exporting Member
A B
Make a request for recognition of equivalence
C – Provide justification based on a risk
Objectively demonstrate equivalence of its SPS
measure by providing:
– Science-based and technical information
to show that it meets importer’s ALOP, e.g.
reference to relevant international standards or
risk assessments
– Reasonable access to importing Member (upon
request) for inspection, testing, etc.
SPS: sanitary and phytosanitary
ALOP: appropriate level of protection
Fig. 3
Recommended steps to facilitate the implementation of equivalence (10)
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Regionalisation
The Agreement foresees a situation where animals
and animal products from disease-free areas of an exporting
country can still be traded, even if other areas within
that country have experienced outbreaks of a particular
animal disease (1). This principle is referred to as
‘regionalisation’ in the WTO context; in the OIE context,
the terms ‘zoning’ and ‘compartmentalisation’ are more
commonly used. As a result of differences in disease
situations or climatic conditions, it may not always be
appropriate to impose the same sanitary requirements
on animals or animal products from different countries
or different areas within countries. In this regard, Article
6.2 of the SPS Agreement obligates Members to recognise
the concept of disease-free areas and areas of low disease
prevalence, which are largely determined by geographic
and other ecological conditions of an ‘area’. An area might
be all of a country, only part of a country, several countries,
or parts of several countries (1).
A practical question for importing governments to consider
in determining whether their sanitary regulations are
compliant with the SPS Agreement is the following: if an
exporting Member were able to demonstrate that a region
of its territory was free of a disease, would the existing
sanitary regulations allow imports of animals or animal
products from that disease-free region of its trading
partner? If not, this would raise questions as to whether the
concept of regionalisation was recognised by that importing
government.
Importing Member
Possibility of an expedited process for historically
Explain objective/rationale of SPS measure;
identify risks to be addressed:
– Indicate desired ALOP
imported products
assessment or on an international standard
– Provide additional information to assist the
exporting Member
D
Analyze the information provided to determine if it
achieves the same ALOP
E
Make a determination
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Similarly, Members also have the obligation, under
Article 6.1, to ensure that their sanitary measures are
adapted to the sanitary characteristics of the area from
which the product originates and to which the product is
destined. This involves taking into account factors such
as the level of prevalence of specific diseases and the
existence of eradication programmes, among others. In
practice, this means that importing governments should
not deny access to goods from disease-free areas, even if
the disease prevails elsewhere in the exporting country (or
countries). The exporting country has the responsibility to
objectively demonstrate the disease-free status that it claims
for the region, as outlined in Article 6.3 (1). To do this,
the exporting country must allow the importing country
reasonable access, upon request, for testing and inspection.
Figure 4 provides an overview of the provisions of Article 6.
In relation to the link between ALOP and the regionalisation
provision, the Appellate Body, in the dispute regarding the
EU complaint against Russia’s measures on the importation
of live pigs, pork and other products due to African swine
fever (Russia – Pigs, DS475), indicates that ‘the importing
Member’s ALOP may inform the nature, quantity, and
quality of the evidence that an exporting Member is
expected to provide’ under Article 6.3 (14). As such, it
would be expected that the exporting Member would need
to know the importing Member’s ALOP in order to meet its
Adapt measures to the SPS
Article 6.1
characteristics of the area
(all or part(s) of a country/several
countries)
Recognise concept
of pest- or disease-free areas
Article 6.2
of low pest/disease
prevalence
Exporting Members
Article 6.3
to provide evidence
SPS: sanitary and phytosanitary
IPPC: International Plant Protection Convention
OIE: World Organisation for Animal Health
Fig. 4
Adaptation to regional conditions, including pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence (Article 6 of the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures) (1)
87
obligations to provide the necessary evidence to objectively
demonstrate its disease-free areas (14). Legal findings from
the Russia – Pigs dispute, as well as other animal health-
related disputes, are further explored by Stanton and
Prakash (see Stanton and Prakash, this issue [4]).
Guidelines on Article 6 of the Agreement on
the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures
The SPS Committee has developed guidelines to assist
Members in implementing the regionalisation provision,
including a suggested process for the evaluation of requests
for the recognition of disease-free areas (15). The guidelines
clearly state in paragraph 19 that ‘Members have the
sovereign right to determine their own processes for the
evaluation of requests for recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas’ (15). Figure 5 provides an overview of the typical
steps involved in the process for making a determination
under Article 6, as outlined in the guidelines.
At the end of the process, if the importing Member decides
to recognise an area as disease-free, it should take the
necessary administrative or legal steps to facilitate trade
from the exporting Member. In addition, it should develop
new regulations or modify existing SPS regulations, as
necessary. In the case where a decision is taken not to
+ … from which the product
originated and to which
+ Assess SPS characteristics of a region:
– prevalence of specific diseases/pests
the product is destined – eradication/control programmes
– criteria/guidelines developed by IPPC/OIE
Determination of areas based
on factors, such as:
+ – geography, ecosystems
– epidemiological surveillance
– effectiveness of SPS controls
+ +
… that such areas are, provide reasonable access, upon request, to
and are likely to remain, importing Member for inspection, testing…
free areas/areas of low
prevalence
88 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Exporting Member Importing Member

A B
Request information on requirements/procedures for Explain requirements and procedures
recognition of disease-free areas (including possible use of a questionnaire)

Possibility of expedited process

Evaluate documentation and provide feedback
C (as well as request additional information, if necessary)
Provide documentation to demonstrate compliance
(and any other relevant supporting information)

F
Evaluate additional information
and provide feedback
E (request further clarifications, if required)
Respond to feedback
(provide clarifications and additional information, as necessary)
G
Conduct on-site verification and provide a report

H
Respond to inspection report I
(provide further clarifications, as necessary) Make a determination

Fig. 5
Typical administrative steps in the process of recognising an area as disease free (15)

recognise areas as disease-free, the importing Member
should provide technical reasons to the exporting Member
so that, if appropriate, the exporting Member can modify
its system with a view to submitting future requests for
recognition.
Specific trade concerns raised in the SPS
Committee, and proposals considered as part of
the Fifth Review of the SPS Agreement
Regionalisation continues to be a regularly discussed topic in
SPS Committee meetings, where Members provide updates
on actions taken to implement regionalisation or inform the
Committee of their disease-free status or areas that have been
recognised. In addition, Members can raise regionalisation-
related trade concerns about measures drafted or adopted
by trading partners. Between 1995 and 2018, 39 specific
trade concerns were raised regarding regionalisation. As
indicated in Table I, animal health issues accounted for the
majority of these regionalisation-related concerns (82%).
For example, some Members have highlighted concerns
with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)
measures of trading partners, noting the inconsistency of
these measures with the OIE international standard, while
at the same time encouraging Members to recognise the
OIE BSE status of trading partners.
Within the context of the ongoing Fifth Review of the
SPS Agreement, Members have included discussions on
regionalisation as part of the process (8). In particular,
there are ongoing discussions in relation to proposals
that have been submitted by Members to promote greater
understanding of the regionalisation provision and to help
Members overcome challenges in its implementation. The
OIE has also provided inputs in this process (16). The
Committee held a thematic session on regionalisation
in the animal health area in July 2017 (17). This session
provided an opportunity for WTO Members to: a) increase
their awareness of regionalisation provisions in the
SPS Agreement and in the relevant OIE standards; and
b) share experiences about the challenges, as well as the
benefits, of implementing regionalisation in practice.
Conclusions
Provisions on risk assessment, equivalence and
regionalisation were included in the SPS Agreement in order
to provide Members with a range of tools to develop and
implement their sanitary measures and meet the sanitary
measures of their trading partners. These provisions are
designed to facilitate trade, while at the same time ensuring
that governments are able to meet their defined ALOP
through implementation of their sanitary measures.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 89

Faciliter l’accès aux marchés : les dispositions de l’Accord sur

l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires relatives
à l’évaluation du risque, à l’équivalence et à la régionalisation

A. Hamilton

Résumé
L’Accord de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) sur l’application
des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires contient d’importantes dispositions
relatives aux échanges internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale
qui concernent les aspects suivants : l’évaluation du risque, l’équivalence et
la régionalisation. La disposition sur l’évaluation du risque permet à un pays
d’adopter des mesures conférant un niveau de protection plus élevé que celui
prévu dans les normes internationales en vigueur, dès lors que cette décision
se fonde sur une évaluation du risque. En vertu du principe d’équivalence, un
pays importateur est tenu de reconnaître que les méthodes de production
appliquées par un pays exportateur peuvent différer de celles qu’il applique lui-
même et apporter néanmoins des garanties de protection sanitaire équivalentes
aux siennes. Enfin, la régionalisation permet aux pays d’exporter des animaux
et des produits d’origine animale à partir des régions de leur territoire qui sont
indemnes de maladies, même si des foyers d’une maladie animale particulière ont
été enregistrés dans d’autres régions. L’auteure explique en quoi ces dispositions
et le concept scientifique de « niveau approprié de protection » facilitent le
commerce tout en permettant aux Membres d’instaurer leurs propres mesures
sanitaires. L’auteure décrit également les discussions dont ces dispositions font
l’objet au sein du Comité des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires.

Mots-clés
Accord sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires (Accord SPS)
– Équivalence – Évaluation du risque – Niveau approprié de protection – Normes
internationales – Régionalisation – Région indemne de maladie.

Disposiciones sobre determinación del riesgo, equivalencia

y regionalización del Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas
Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias destinadas a facilitar el acceso
a los mercados
A. Hamilton

Resumen
El Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Acuerdo
MSF) de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) contiene varias
disposiciones básicas que son importantes para el comercio de animales y
productos de origen animal, a saber, las relativas a la determinación del riesgo,
a la equivalencia y a la regionalización. La disposición sobre determinación
del riesgo permite que los países, basándose en una determinación del riesgo,
adopten medidas que conlleven un nivel de protección sanitaria mayor que el que
90 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

establecen las normas internacionales existentes en la materia. La disposición

sobre equivalencia exige que los países importadores reconozcan que los
métodos de producción del país exportador, aun pudiendo diferir de los propios,
pueden ofrecer un nivel equivalente de protección sanitaria. La disposición sobre
regionalización, por último, permite que un país exporte animales y productos
de origen animal procedentes de zonas libres de enfermedad aun cuando otras
zonas de ese mismo país hayan sufrido brotes de una enfermedad animal en
particular. La autora explica cómo estas disposiciones y el concepto científico
de «nivel apropiado de protección» facilitan el comercio y a la vez permiten a
los Miembros instaurar sus propias medidas sanitarias. Asimismo, proporciona
información sobre los debates y reflexiones del Comité de Medidas Sanitarias y
Fitosanitarias en torno a estas disposiciones.

Palabras clave
Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Acuerdo MSF)
– Determinación del riesgo – Equivalencia – Nivel apropiado de protección – Normas
internacionales – Regionalización – Zonas libres de enfermedad.

References
1.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2010). – WTO
Agreements series: Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
50 pp. Available at: www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/
agrmntseries4_sps_e.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2019).
2. Wolff C. & Calderón I. (2020). – World Trade Organization
agreements: a framework for trade in animals and animal
products. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal
products (C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int.
Epiz., 39 (1), 27–33. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3059 14 June 2019).
3. World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (2000). – Guidelines to further
the practical implementation of Article 5.5 of the Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
Document No. G/SPS/15. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
7 pp. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/
FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueId
List=22764&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash
= 1 & H a s E n g l i s h R e c o rd = Tr u e & H a s F r e n c h R e c o rd =
True&HasSpanishRecord=True (accessed on 14 June 2019).
4. Stanton G. & Prakash G. (2020). – World Trade Organization
disputes related to animal diseases. In Ensuring safe trade in
animals and animal products (C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1), 35–45. doi:10.20506/
rst.39.1.3060.
5. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – WTO analytical
index: SPS Agreement – Article 5 (Jurisprudence). In WTO
analytical index: guide to WTO law and practice. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland, 72 pp. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/sps_art5_jur.pdf (accessed on
6. World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (2015). – Report: Workshop on
risk analysis, No. G/SPS/R/77. Workshop on risk analysis,
13–14 October 2014, Geneva. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
18 pp. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/imrd/directdoc.
asp?DDFDocuments/q/G/SPS/R77.pdf (accessed on 14 June
2019).
7. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Sanitary and
phytosanitary information management system. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://spsims.wto.org
(accessed on 14 June 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
8. World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (2020). – Review of the
operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement:
draft report of the Committee, No. G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2.
WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 18 pp. Available at: https://
docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.
aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=262254,262227,2619
05,261714,261253,260755,259548,259413,257908,257
842&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=2&FullTextHash=1&Has
EnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanish
Record=True (accessed on 10 March 2020).
9. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 27th Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/terrestrial-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 14 June 2019).
10. World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (2004). – Decision on the
implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,
No. G/SPS/19/Rev.2. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.
aspx?filename=Q:/G/SPS/19R2.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2019).
11. Alcala R. & Martinez-Hommel M.B. (2020). – World Trade
Organization: notification of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
measures. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products
(C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.,
39 (1), 299–310. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3083.
12. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – SPS Committee
thematic session on equivalence (Part 1). WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/
sps_e/workshop301018_e.htm (accessed on 14 June 2019).
91
13. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – SPS Committee
thematic session on equivalence (Part 2). WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/
sps_e/workshop18032019_e.htm (accessed on 14 June 2019).
14.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2017). – Russian
Federation: measures on the importation of live pigs, pork
and other pig products from the European Union (AB-2016-5)
– Report of the Appellate Body, No. WT/DS475/AB/R. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland, 59 pp. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/dispu_e/475abr_e.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2019).
15. World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (2008). – Guidelines to further
the practical implementation of Article 6 of the Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,
No. G/SPS/48. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 6 pp.
Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.
aspx?filename=Q:/G/SPS/48.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2019).
16. World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (2019). – Article 6 of the SPS
Agreement: questions for discussion – comments submitted
by OIE, No. G/SPS/W/311/Add.2. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
4 pp. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/imrd/directdoc.
asp?DDFDocuments/q/G/SPS/W311A2.pdf (accessed on
14 June 2019).
17. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – SPS Committee
thematic session on regionalization. WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/
sps_e/wkshop11july17_e.htm (accessed on 14 June 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 93-100

Developing and implementing a protocol

for bilateral trade agreements:
the Philippines’ shift to a risk assessment
policy and meeting its challenges
M. Escandor (1)*, S. Amurao (2), I. Santos (3) & C. Benigno (4)

(1) Office of the Agriculture Counsellor, Philippine Mission to the World Trade Organization,
80 rue de Lausanne, Geneva 1202, Switzerland
(2) Santolan, Pasig City 1610, the Philippines
(3) Bureau of Animal Industry, Department of Agriculture, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City 1100,
the Philippines
(4) Philippine College of Veterinary Epidemiologists, Bureau of Animal Industry Compound, Visayas Avenue,
Diliman, Quezon City 1100, the Philippines
*Corresponding author: maescandor@gmail.com

Summary
The livestock and poultry industries in the Philippines have been continuously
growing for the past six years, as reflected in the Philippine Statistics Authority
annual reports from 2013 to 2018. To augment supplies and ensure food sufficiency,
as well as to fulfil trade agreements, the government has adopted a policy of
importing some livestock commodities. Currently, the Philippines imports about
20% of its total meat requirements, and this figure is expected to increase over
the next few years.
Private traders and companies could import buffalo meat without restriction until
1996, when the Department of Agriculture (DA) intervened by sending inspection
missions to exporting countries due to the concerns of the livestock industry
about the foot and mouth disease challenges during that time. But, at that point,
there were still no clear rules, regulations or standards governing the importation
of meat and meat products into the Philippines.
By 2003, as outbreaks of transboundary animal diseases were occurring in the
region (avian influenza as well as foot and mouth disease), the government saw
the need to protect its borders from the entry, establishment and spread of animal
diseases. Measures were needed to prevent the introduction of disease-carrying,
contaminated or adulterated meat and meat products that could endanger the
lives and health of Filipino consumers and, consequently, have potentially serious
economic impacts on the livestock industry and other allied industries.
As more and more requests were received to import meat and meat products,
and as various stakeholder groups began to question why increasing numbers of
imports were being allowed into the country, the DA began to shift to a risk-based
policy rather than a policy of 100% inspection. The Philippine Government ensured
that there was a legal basis as well as a scientific basis for orders governing
the importation of meat and live animals. As the country shifts to a risk-based
policy, making the public understand why it is implementing this policy remains
a major challenge. Other areas that need to be developed and strengthened
include quarantine and border security procedures, certification programmes,
identification and traceability, export procedures, periodic auditing schemes,
animal health programmes, capacities for risk analysis, and provincial border
controls, which can be set by local governments to allow provinces to protect
their locality.

Keywords
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) –
Bilateral agreement – Risk-based policy – Trade – World Trade Organization (WTO).

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3065
94
Introduction
The Philippines is an archipelago of approximately
7,100 islands located in South-East Asia. With a burgeoning
human population of more than 108 million according
to the latest United Nations estimates (1), there is great
pressure on the agriculture sector to provide protein-
rich food, predominantly meat and meat products. The
Veterinary Services play an important role in maintaining
the supply of animal protein by ensuring healthy and robust
livestock and poultry production.
The production system in the Philippines is characterised
by a mix of smallholder, semi-intensive and large-
scale livestock enterprises situated around sprouting
urban centres (2). Ninety-seven percent of buffaloes are
maintained on smallholdings as ‘backyard’ stock and
3% are reared on large-scale commercial farms. Backyard
farmers use buffaloes for draft (95%), milk and meat. The
dairy industry is 65% smallholder and 35% commercial
dairy, and approximately 85% of beef cattle are produced
by backyard enterprises. Three-quarters of the swine
population are kept in backyard production systems, but a
rapid scaling-up is under way in the country’s major swine-
producing regions, where commercial farm inventories have
now matched, if not surpassed, backyard pig inventories.
The poultry industry is largely composed of small-scale
backyard enterprises, accounting for 70% of the total
inventory (3), but broiler production is being scaled up to
meet the food demands of an increasingly urban human
population (3). It is worth noting that, as more and more
people move to urban centres, social conflicts are emerging
over the locating of large-scale livestock production facilities
close to residential centres. Pollution control regulations are
being targeted at large-scale livestock producers and are
increasingly being extended to include smallholdings (2).
With the increasing population and corresponding
economic growth, the per capita consumption of meat in
the Philippines is increasing, thus creating a bigger demand
and putting pressure on local livestock raisers to produce
more. To augment supplies and ensure food sufficiency,
as well as to fulfil trade agreements, the government has
adopted a policy of importing some livestock commodities.
Shift to a risk-based policy
Prior to 1996, private traders and companies could import
buffalo meat, mostly from India, without restriction. But, in
1996, the Department of Agriculture (DA) intervened and
began sending inspection missions to exporting countries,
due to the concerns of the livestock industry about foot
and mouth disease challenges at that time. Later, with the
introduction of the Meat Inspection Code of the Philippines
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
in 2003, only accredited meat processors were allowed to
import buffalo meat (4).
In 1996, there were, as yet, no clear rules, regulations or
standards governing the importation of meat and meat
products into the Philippines. Due to the outbreaks of
transboundary animal diseases in the region, such as foot
and mouth disease in the late 1990s and avian influenza in
2003, the government saw the need to protect its borders
from the entry, establishment and spread of animal diseases
that may be introduced by importation of disease-carrying,
contaminated or adulterated meat and meat products. The
government was concerned that such importations might
endanger the lives and health of Filipino consumers and
might also have potentially serious economic impacts on
the livestock, poultry and other allied industries.
Exporting countries tended to question the trade transactions
of the DA because there were different requirements for
each of the exporting countries. Since there were no clear
policies, the requirements were inconsistent, hence decisions
to import were on a case-by-case basis, even if the imports
came from one country. But, as more and more requests were
received to import meat and meat products, and as various
stakeholder groups began to question the trade transactions,
the DA began to shift to a risk-based policy.
Today, the Philippines imports about 20% of its total meat
requirements, and this figure is expected to continue to
increase over the next few years (5). Consequently, there
is a need to strengthen the Philippine import control and
inspection and certification system to prevent entry of
hazardous organisms or substances that may adversely
affect the health of local animal populations and, worse,
human health.
This kind of border control requires bilateral or regional
trading agreements to establish a risk assessment protocol that
is based on the principles of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement and
takes into account the relevant decisions of the WTO SPS
Committee and the relevant World Organisation of Animal
Health (OIE) and Codex Alimentarius standards, guidelines
and recommendations.
At present, the Philippines has no existing multilateral or
regional agreement regarding risk assessment protocols for
the meat trade.
Ensuring a legal basis for
bilateral agreements
Before entering into bilateral trade agreements, the
Philippines ensured that a supporting regulatory framework
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
was developed and passed into law and that the necessary
department orders were issued and implemented. The
following regulatory framework is now applied to bilateral
agreements:
– the Republic Act (RA) 9296, Series of 2003, otherwise
known as the Meat Inspection Code of the Philippines (6)
– the RA 10611, Series of 2013, otherwise known as the
Food Safety Act of 2013 (7).
The Meat Inspection Code of the Philippines mandated the
National Meat Inspection Service (NMIS) to evaluate and
accredit foreign meat establishments (FMEs) in order to
check compliance with hygiene and sanitation standards,
the aim being to protect public and animal health from
diseases of socio-economic importance. Moreover, Section 6
of the same Act provided for the creation of a Meat
Inspection Board (MIB) to assist in the formulation of
policies and guidelines and advise the DA Secretary, as MIB
Chairperson, on all matters pertaining to meat inspection
and meat hygiene.
The Food Safety Act of 2013 provides the legal framework
for the food safety regulatory system in the country, which
includes measures for strengthening good manufacturing
practices (GMPs) and for carrying out audits of Hazard
Analyses and Critical Control Points (HACCP). Under
Section 16 of the Act, the DA is responsible for the
development and enforcement of food safety standards
and regulations for foods in the primary production and
post-harvest stages of the food supply chain. It monitors
compliance and ensures that the relevant requirements of
the law are complied with by farmers, fishers and food
business operators. The Food Safety Act also provides
for the establishment of policies and procedures for the
country’s participation in the activities of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission and for the incorporation of
Codex Alimentarius standards into national regulations, as
overseen by the National Codex Organization.
Implementation on the ground
To support the implementation of the above laws, the
government issued DA Administrative Order No. 26, Series
of 2005, which requires importers wishing to import meat
and meat products from accredited FMEs, whether for
consumption, processing or distribution, to secure sanitary
and phytosanitary import clearance or veterinary quarantine
clearance from the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) (8).
In 2016, the BAI and NMIS crafted DA Administrative
Order 16, ‘Pre-Border Measures for the Export of Meat and
Meat Products to the Philippines’ (9). This provides the
basis for negotiating with countries intending to export
to the Philippines. It imposes stringent measures on
95
exporting countries to ensure that economically devastating
livestock diseases such as foot and mouth disease are not
introduced into the Philippines. To facilitate the verification
and accreditation of FMEs, the DA procedures for foreign
inspection missions have been institutionalised.
On-site inspection and validation of the applicant country
is an important part of risk assessment and is conducted by
a DA Inspection Mission (DAIM) team that is designated
by the DA Secretary. It is composed of two separate teams,
one from the BAI and one from NMIS, and includes
technical experts from border control/quarantine, animal
health and meat inspection. The report of the DAIM team
is submitted and reviewed by the DA Accreditation Review
Body, which then submits appropriate recommendations to
the DA Secretary regarding the application.
The process of accreditation is briefly described below:
1. The interested meat exporter submits a letter to the
DA Secretary to signal their intent to export their product.
The application for accreditation should be endorsed by the
Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) of the exporting country.
2. The application letter should be accompanied by
two fully completed sets of questionnaires. The first of these
(questionnaire A) is completed by the competent veterinary
authority of the exporting country. It covers the disease
situation of the country, its disease surveillance protocol,
its disease prevention and control programme, and the
organisational structure of its veterinary authority. The
second questionnaire (questionnaire B) covers the operation
of meat establishments applying for plant accreditation.
The interested exporter must be the one to complete this
second questionnaire.
3. The CVO should indicate in his or her letter of intent
whether the country is applying for countrywide (several
establishments) or individual company accreditation. Each
type has a different set of requirements.
4. The BAI risk assessment group reviews questionnaire A
and NMIS reviews questionnaire B.
5. The results of the questionnaire reviews are submitted
to the inter-agency Pre-Inspection Committee (PIC), which
is composed of the Assistant Secretary for Livestock, the
Directors of NMIS and BAI, and other officers of the DA.
The PIC then decides on the final list of countries that
qualify for inspection. It also determines whether the BAI
and NMIS teams will conduct the inspection simultaneously
or separately.
6. The BAI inspection team conducts inspections at the
livestock farms, laboratories, livestock markets, quarantine
operations (at international airports and seaports), and
abattoirs or slaughterhouses of the applying exporter. The
NMIS inspection team inspects the meat establishments to
assess compliance with HACCP, GMPs and the food safety
96
standards of the Codex Alimentarius. Costs of foreign
inspection missions, such as international airfares and daily
subsistence allowances, are shouldered by the Philippine
Government, while inland travel costs are covered by the
applicant country.
7. The DAIM team then submits a report with their
recommendations to the DA Accreditation Review Body
within 30 days of their return to the Philippines.
8. The Accreditation Review Body, composed of high-
ranking DA officials, reviews the recommendations and,
after thorough deliberation and consultation with the
members of the DA Mission Team, endorses the list of
qualified countries or individual meat establishments. The
country/establishment then receives official accreditation
from the Secretary of Agriculture. Accreditation is valid for
three years, after which the countries/establishments are re-
audited. Audits can be done earlier as may be warranted by
circumstances.
9. Thereafter, the CVOs of countries that were granted
systems accreditation submit updated animal health
status information and the list of the accredited meat
establishments that were added, de-listed or suspended.
10. Accreditation may be suspended if the agreement is
violated or if there are situations that could pose a risk
to the Philippine livestock industry or to human health
(e.g. disease outbreaks).
To date, the Philippines has allowed 15 countries to export
meat products to the country. The types of meat exported
include pork, chicken, buffalo, lamb and beef. Four of the
15 countries have individual plant accreditations, while the
rest have system accreditation.
Importation of live animals
Department of Agriculture Memorandum Circular No. 12,
Series of 2017, ‘Importation Procedures for Live Animals
into the Philippines’, provides the SPS requirements that
the importer has to comply with before importation will
be allowed (10). After receipt of the letter of intent from
the importer, the BAI Risk Analysis Unit conducts a
desktop risk assessment of the live animals to be imported.
Depending on the health status of the country of origin,
as verified by the OIE World Animal Health Information
System (OIE–WAHIS), and the risk of introduction of
transboundary disease into the Philippines, the application
may be accepted or rejected.
During the inspection mission, the health services of the
exporting country are evaluated, holding and quarantine
facilities are assessed, and the condition of animals is
validated as per agreed terms of importation (e.g. required
animal disease testing and negative results).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
The inspection team submits its findings to the BAI Director
30 days after completion of the inspection mission. If
the inspection report recommends the approval of the
application to import live animals, then the Philippine
Government and the competent veterinary authority of the
exporting country will agree on the international veterinary
certificate (IVC) that will accompany the SPS import
clearance application for the shipment of live animals. If the
live animals to be imported are endangered species under
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a corresponding
CITES import and export permit will be included in the
documentary requirement.
The SPS import clearance document and the IVC together
stipulate the terms and conditions of importation, such
as the different laboratory tests to be conducted prior to
shipment of live animals to the Philippines.
Quarantine measures are strictly applied for imported
animals. These measures include inspection of the designated
quarantine site prior to arrival of the animals, physical
inspection at the port of entry and the implementation of
a 30-day quarantine period during which laboratory test
results certified in the IVC are validated by the national
diagnostic laboratory.
Some examples of trade
agreements and issues raised
Electronic transmission of international
veterinary certificates
With two of its trading partners, the Philippines has trade
agreements that stipulate that the IVC for animals and
animal products will be transmitted electronically. Aside
from enabling the importing country, in this case the
Philippines, to check the health status, it also allows it to
validate the exact volume of the consignments arriving from
the exporting country. Through this system, accuracy and
transparency of shipments are ensured, as it lessens the
risk and chances of misdeclaration of exported goods. This
kind of system also helps when a complaint is made over
questionable shipments, as it helps either the exporting
or importing country to easily track the imports or
exports being investigated for safety or other pertinent and
legal reasons.
The Philippines will negotiate with its 13 other trading
partners to do the same.
In focus: cases of Salmonella in imported meat
In August 2017, the Philippines had food safety concerns
over imported mechanically separated meat (MSM)
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
shipments that were found by the NMIS to contain high
levels of Salmonella. Salmonella is one of the leading causes
of foodborne diseases globally, according to the World
Health Organization. Poultry meat from the exporting
country had already been banned by the United States
of America and the European Union, as they had also
received shipments of contaminated meat. The Philippines
immediately suspended the importation of MSM from the
affected country as a preventive measure. The Salmonella-
tainted shipments were confiscated and destroyed by the
NMIS. The DA sent an inspection mission to the affected
country to undertake necessary food safety inspection
measures. Once the country was able to show that it was in
compliance with the food safety standards of the Philippines
and with international food safety standards, the ban was
lifted in November of the same year.
While the investigation was ongoing, the BAI and NMIS
implemented 100% inspection for Salmonella on all meat
products coming from the affected exporting country until
the issue was resolved.
Export of meat
and meat products
In cases where the Philippines is interested in exporting meat
products, the exporting company in the Philippines writes
to the DA to request market access. In coordination with
the Agricultural Attaché Office and the DA International
Affairs Division, the BAI writes to the CVO of the country to
which the company wishes to export. The letter informs the
country of the company’s intention and enquires about its
requirements for importation. The market access for export
of Philippine products is facilitated when there are existing
partner companies that are interested in importing these
products from the Philippines.
At present, the Philippines exports poultry meat to two
countries and processed meat to 12 countries. Before the
Philippines was accredited as a meat exporter, teams from
the importing countries also conducted interviews with
BAI and NMIS authorities prior to their inspections of meat
establishments intending to export.
Challenges in implementing
a risk-based policy
In spite of the DA implementing a risk-based policy,
local producers are still opposed to imports because of
possible introduction of diseases and also because of
price competition. Equally, there is pressure from local
97
food processors to allow continuous importation, even
from high-risk countries, since they offer the most
competitive prices.
Using a risk-based policy on meat imports ensures that the
imported meat is compliant with the international food
safety standards and thus requires minimal inspection at
the port of entry. The challenge here is how to make local
producers and consumers understand that the products
are under the low-risk category and do not require
100% inspection. The reality is that 100% inspection does
not conform to the prescribed international inspection
practice and is very costly.
The DA continues to inform stakeholders during regular
consultations of what the government is doing to mitigate
risk in importation. As yet, the findings of the foreign
inspection missions have not been published.
The recent outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) created
fear among local pork producers who have invested
heavily in their businesses. They are appealing to the DA to
temporarily stop pork importation from infected countries,
as well as from countries with common boundaries with
ASF-infected countries. The DA is still reviewing the
appeal while continuously monitoring the spread of ASF.
As a member of the WTO and the OIE, the Philippines
will continue to adhere to the WTO SPS Agreement
and to relevant international standards, guidelines and
recommendations while facilitating trade.
Conclusions
As bilateral negotiations expand and protocols are revised,
the Philippine Government needs to address the following
points when undertaking further trade negotiations and
implementing them in ways that would benefit both the
Philippines and the exporting country:
– strengthening quarantine and border security procedures
and activities to address the threat from formal trade and
illegal activities
– developing a comprehensive programme of certification
and biosecurity that is based on reliable information and is
periodically audited
– developing identification and traceability systems for
commercial farms and for breeding farms, particularly those
intending to export
– strengthening auditing procedures for animal products
for export and for urban domestic markets
– increasing the number of sanitary agreements with
trading partners and improving their management
98 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

– organising periodic auditing of information management – enhancing capacities on risk analysis and border controls
and transparency procedures – working together with the pig and poultry industries as
– continuing to implement the zoning approach for disease well as the allied industries.
control programmes

Conception et mise en œuvre des protocoles d’accord bilatéraux

pour le commerce : la mutation des Philippines vers une politique
d’évaluation du risque et les défis à relever
M. Escandor, S. Amurao, I. Santos & C. Benigno

Résumé
Au cours des six dernières années, les secteurs de l’élevage de bétail et de
volailles des Philippines ont enregistré une croissance continue, comme
l’indiquent les rapports annuels de 2013 à 2018 publiés par l’Autorité philippine
des statistiques. Afin d’accroître l’offre, de garantir la suffisance de
l’approvisionnement alimentaire et de respecter ses accords commerciaux, le
gouvernement a adopté une politique de soutien aux importations de certains
produits d’élevage. Les Philippines importent actuellement près de 20 % de la
viande consommée dans le pays, proportion qui devrait augmenter dans les
prochaines années.
Les négociants et entreprises privées ont pu importer de la viande de buffle sans
aucune restriction jusqu’en 1996, date à laquelle le ministère de l’Agriculture est
intervenu en dépêchant des missions d’inspection dans les pays exportateurs afin
de répondre aux préoccupations exprimées par le secteur de l’élevage philippin
face au problème de la fièvre aphteuse. Mais à ce stade, le pays ne s’était
encore doté d’aucune règle, réglementation ou norme régissant clairement les
importations de viande et de produits carnés aux Philippines.
En 2003, face aux foyers de maladies animales transfrontalières survenus dans
la région (influenza aviaire, mais aussi fièvre aphteuse), le gouvernement a pris
acte de la nécessité de protéger ses frontières contre les risques d’introduction,
d’établissement et de propagation de maladies animales. Il fallait donc prendre
des mesures pour empêcher l’introduction de viandes et de produits carnés
susceptibles de véhiculer des maladies et d’être contaminés ou frelatés et pouvant
de ce fait mettre en danger la vie et la santé des consommateurs philippins, voire
entraîner de graves conséquences économiques pour le secteur de l’élevage et
d’autres secteurs connexes.
À mesure que le nombre des demandes d’importations de viande et de produits
carnés augmentait et que plusieurs groupes intéressés ont voulu connaître les
raisons du nombre croissant d’autorisations délivrées à cette fin, le ministère
de l’Agriculture a décidé de passer d’une politique d’inspection de l’intégralité
des importations à une politique fondée sur le risque. Le gouvernement des
Philippines a veillé à fournir un cadre juridique ainsi qu’une base scientifique aux
nouvelles dispositions régissant les importations de viande et d’animaux vivants.
La principale difficulté pour réussir cette mutation vers une politique fondée sur
le risque consiste à faire comprendre au public les raisons de sa mise en œuvre.
D’autres aspects doivent également être développés et renforcés, en particulier
les procédures de quarantaine et de sécurité des frontières, les programmes
de certification, l’identification et la traçabilité, les procédures applicables aux
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 99

exportations, les schémas périodiques d’audit, les programmes de santé animale,

les capacités dédiées à l’analyse du risque et les contrôles aux frontières
provinciales mis en place par les autorités locales pour protéger leur territoire.

Mots-clés
Accord bilatéral – Accord de l’OMC sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et
phytosanitaires – Commerce – Politique basée sur le risque.

Elaboración y aplicación de un protocolo para acuerdos bilaterales

de comercio: la transición de Filipinas hacia una política
de determinación del riesgo, sus dificultades y posibles soluciones

M. Escandor, S. Amurao, I. Santos & C. Benigno

Resumen
Los sectores ganadero y avícola de Filipinas llevan seis años de continuo
crecimiento, como se desprende de los informes anuales del Organismo de
Estadística de Filipinas que cubren de 2013 a 2018. Con objeto de incrementar la
oferta y asegurar la suficiencia alimentaria, y también de cumplir los acuerdos
comerciales que tiene suscritos, el Gobierno ha optado por importar una serie de
productos ligados a la ganadería. Actualmente, el país importa alrededor del 20%
de la carne que necesita, porcentaje que en los próximos años irá previsiblemente
en aumento.
Las empresas e intermediarios privados podían importar sin restricciones carne
de búfalo hasta 1996, cuando el Departamento de Agricultura (DA) intervino
enviando misiones de inspección a los países exportadores en respuesta a la
inquietud expresada por el sector ganadero sobre los problemas que planteaba
a la sazón la fiebre aftosa. Por aquel entonces, sin embargo, aún no había reglas,
reglamentos y normas claros que rigieran la importación a Filipinas de carne y
productos cárnicos.
En 2003, cuando la región estaba sufriendo brotes de enfermedades animales
transfronterizas (influenza aviar y fiebre aftosa), el Gobierno juzgó necesario
proteger sus fronteras de la penetración, implantación y propagación de
enfermedades animales. Se precisaban medidas para evitar la introducción
de carne y productos cárnicos portadores de enfermedades, contaminados
o adulterados que pudieran poner en peligro la vida o la salud del consumidor
filipino y causar, en consecuencia, graves perjuicios económicos a la ganadería
y otros sectores conexos.
A medida que se iban recibiendo cada vez más peticiones para importar carne y
productos cárnicos a la par que diversos interlocutores y colectivos empezaban
a preguntar por qué se permitía la entrada en el país de un número creciente de
importaciones, el DA fue orillando la inspección del 100% de las partidas para
privilegiar en su lugar una política basada en la determinación del riesgo. El
Gobierno filipino se aseguró de que los decretos que regían la importación de
100 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

carne y animales vivos reposaran en sólidas bases jurídicas y científicas. Ahora

que el país está virando hacia una política basada en el riesgo, una de las grandes
dificultades siguen siendo la de hacer entender a la población el porqué de tal
política. Otros ámbitos que es preciso desarrollar y potenciar son, por ejemplo,
los procedimientos de cuarentena y seguridad fronteriza, los programas de
certificación, la identificación y trazabilidad, los procedimientos de exportación,
los dispositivos de auditoría periódica, los programas de sanidad animal, la
capacidad de análisis del riesgo y los controles de las fronteras provinciales que
pueden instaurar los gobiernos locales para que las provincias puedan proteger
su propio territorio.

Palabras clave
Acuerdo bilateral – Acuerdo de la OMC sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y
Fitosanitarias – Comercio – Política basada en el riesgo.

References
1. Worldometers (2019). – Countries in the world by population
(2019). Available at: www.worldometers.info/world-population/
population-by-country/ (accessed on 7 June 2019).
2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) (2013). – GCP/RAS/244/ITA: Environmental animal
health management initiative for enhanced smallholder
production in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, the
Philippines and Vietnam – Project Briefer. FAO, Rome, Italy,
4 pp. Available at: www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/rap/
files/meetings/2013/130918-project_briefer.pdf (accessed on
14 June 2019).
3.
Philippine Statistics Authority (2018). – Livestock and
poultry statistics of the Philippines (2013–2017). Philippine
Statistics Authority, Quezon City, the Philippines, 183 pp.
Available at: https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/LIVESTOCK%
20AND%20POULTRY%20STATISTICS%20of%20the%
20PHILIPPINES%20as%20of%2006%20Mar%202019_V4_0.
pdf (accessed on 8 October 2019).
4. Mogato A.G.A. (2018). – DA to review rules for importing
carabeef. BusinessWorld, 14 May. Available at: www.
bworldonline.com/da-to-review-rules-for-importing-carabeef/
(accessed on 7 June 2019).
7. Government of the Philippines (2013). – Republic Act
No. 10611: an Act to strengthen the food safety regulatory
system in the country to protect consumer health and facilitate
market access of local foods and food products, and for
other purposes. Off. Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines,
23 August. Available at: www.officialgazette.gov.
ph/2013/08/23/republic-act-no-10611/ (accessed on 19 June
2019).
8. Republic of the Philippines Department of Agriculture
(2005). – DA Administrative Order No. 26, Series of 2005:
Revised rules, regulations, and standards governing the
importation of meat and meat products into the Philippines.
Republic of the Philippines Department of Agriculture,
Quezon City, the Philippines, 12 pp. Available at: http://
nmis.gov.ph/attachments/article/195/AO.26.2005.pdf
(accessed on 17 December 2019).
9. Republic of the Philippines Department of Agriculture (2006).
– DA Administrative Order No. 16, Series of 2006: Pre-
border measures for the export of meat and meat products
to the Philippines. Republic of the Philippines Department of
Agriculture, Quezon City, the Philippines, 30 pp. Available
at: http://nmis.gov.ph/attachments/article/204/AO.16.2006%
20(3).pdf (accessed on 17 December 2019).

5. Arcalas J.Y. (2019). – PHL meat imports up by 22.73% in 10. Republic of the Philippines Department of Agriculture

2018 – BAI. BusinessMirror, 14 February. Available at: https:// (2017). – DA Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 2017:
businessmirror.com.ph/2019/02/14/phl-meat-imports-up-22- Importation procedures for live animals into the Philippines.
73-in-2018-bai/ (accessed on 17 September 2019). Republic of the Philippines Department of Agriculture, Quezon
City, the Philippines, 7 pp. Available at: https://members.
6. Government of the Philippines (2004). – Republic Act wto.org/crnattachments/2018/SPS/PHL/18_2356_00_e.pdf
No. 9296: an Act strengthening the meat inspection system (accessed on 17 December 2019).
in the country, ordaining for this purpose a ‘Meat Inspection
Code of the Philippines’ and for other purposes. Off. Gazette
of the Republic of the Philippines, 12 May. Available at: www.
officialgazette.gov.ph/2004/05/12/republic-act-no-9296/
(accessed on 19 June 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 101-109

Guatemala: esfuerzos para facilitar el libre

comercio en el marco de la sanidad animal
H.I. Maldonado Cáceres

Dirección de Administración del Comercio Exterior, Ministerio de Economía, 8.ª Avenida, 10–43 zona 1,
Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala
Email: hmaldonado@mineco.gob.gt

Resumen
En este artículo se explica el desarrollo de la legislación de Guatemala en materia
de sanidad animal desde que el país suscribió el acta de constitución de la
Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal, en 1924.
Dicho desarrollo incluye la evolución del marco legislativo con la aprobación,
a partir del año 1936, del Código Sanitario Guatemalteco, la posterior aprobación
de la Ley de Sanidad Animal, en concreto en 1947, la conversión en Ley de Sanidad
Vegetal y Animal y el Reglamento de 1998.
También se analizan los cambios en la estructura operativa y administrativa
de la autoridad sanitaria competente, el Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería
y Alimentación, en los años 1978, 1998 y 2010, hasta la aprobación del Acuerdo
de Facilitación de Comercio de la Organización Mundial del Comercio en el año
de 2017.
Asimismo, se menciona el papel del Ministerio de Economía, a través de la
Dirección de Administración del Comercio Exterior, para el reforzamiento de
la aplicación de medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias por medio del Comité Técnico
Nacional de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias.

Palabras clave
Comercio – Comité Técnico Nacional MSF – Dirección de Administración del Comercio
Exterior (DACE) – Legislación sanitaria – Ley – Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y
Alimentación (MAGA) – Medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias (MSF) – Organización mundial
del comercio (OMC) – Organización mundial de sanidad animal (OIE) – Reglamento.

Introducción del comercio de animales y sus productos y subproductos

Este artículo tiene por objeto referir los esfuerzos de
Guatemala por facilitar el comercio de mercancías de
origen animal bajo la concepción actual del libre comercio.
Conlleva un análisis de la evolución de la legislación en
materia de sanidad animal asociada a los cambios en los
Servicios Veterinarios oficiales, reflejando cada momento
histórico de transformación a lo largo del intervalo de
tiempo comprendido entre 1924 y 2019.
El análisis principia en 1924 por ser el año en que Guatemala
suscribió, junto con 28 países miembros asociados, el acta
de fundación de la Oficina Internacional de Epizootias
(OIE), denominada actualmente Organización Mundial de
Sanidad Animal (1).
Con la suscripción y adhesión de Guatemala a la OIE, el país
reflejó la pretensión de participar en el concierto mundial
en base a un marco normativo internacional, estimulando
así la transformación y readecuación de su legislación
en materia de sanidad animal a esos nuevos propósitos
y lineamientos internacionales, en concreto con la aparición
de normas sanitarias internas, como el Código Sanitario
de 1936 y la Ley de Sanidad Animal, Decreto legislativo
n.o 463 de 1947 (2).
La aprobación de la primera Ley de Sanidad Animal significó
el inicio del control de las enfermedades «cuarentenarias»
que en aquella época restringían el comercio de bovinos,
principalmente la fiebre aftosa debido a los brotes ocurridos
en el vecino país, México; con esta Ley se declaró de interés
en cuanto a control y erradicación. Por esta razón, esta ley
sanitaria fue muy conservadora, restrictiva y tendente a la
protección del patrimonio ganadero del país; de hecho,
en el momento de redactar se mantiene un resabio de la
misma con la vigencia de un acuerdo presidencial de Juan
José Arévalo de 1946 que «prohíbe hasta nueva disposición,

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3066
102
la importación de toda clase de ganado o sus derivados, así
como de productos agrícolas y objetos capaces de portar
y transmitir la fiebre aftosa» (3).
Paralelamente, se fue fortaleciendo la estructura
de los Servicios Veterinarios bajo una concepción
científica y dirigida al control y erradicación de las
enfermedades de impacto en el patrimonio ganadero; en el
año 1936, se estableció un Departamento de Zootecnia que
funcionaba en la Secretaría de Agricultura y que evolucionó
de tal forma que en la actualidad se conoce como Dirección
de Sanidad Animal, y a su autoridad competente, como
Director (4).
Las instituciones de apoyo académico han sido importantes
a partir de los años 50, puesto que muchos de sus egresados
han sido funcionarios públicos, como, por ejemplo, Ministros
de Agricultura, Directores de Sanidad Animal o técnicos de
campo, lo cual ha permitido un buen posicionamiento del
país a nivel regional en materia sanitaria.
El uso de las instituciones
académicas como estrategia
para el fortalecimiento sanitario
En el año 1921 se fundó la primera escuela técnica de
agricultura, cuyo desarrollo pedagógico fue reconocido en
el año 1979 declarándola constitucionalmente rectora de la
formación de los agrónomos del país (5).
En la década de los 50, el sector académico se fortaleció con
la creación de la Facultad de Agronomía con el objetivo de
preparar agrónomos a un nivel superior de tal forma que
supieran aprovechar los recursos naturales y fueran capaces
de modernizar la agricultura y la ganadería para contribuir
a un desarrollo productivo (6).
En 1962, se fundó la Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y
Zootecnia con la finalidad de preparar los equipos técnicos
y profesionales orientados a la protección y producción
animal, la medicina veterinaria preventiva, y el control
de zoonosis y enfermedades infecciosas de los animales
domésticos de interés económico (7).
Estas instituciones son las formadoras de profesionales en
la teoría y práctica del control de plagas y enfermedades
vegetales y animales — según su especialidad — siendo la
Facultad de Veterinaria la que en la actualidad brinda las
bases teóricas y prácticas de la vigilancia epidemiológica,
el análisis del riesgo y los métodos de diagnóstico y control
de enfermedades de interés económico y zoonótico,
fortaleciendo así la investigación de las enfermedades
animales y la legislación sanitaria.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Cambios en la legislación
sanitaria y en la estructura de
los servicios sanitarios oficiales
Cambios en la legislación sanitaria
El análisis histórico indica que el fortalecimiento de
la sanidad animal de Guatemala principia durante el
gobierno del Presidente Jorge Ubico con la aprobación
del primer Código Sanitario guatemalteco en el año 1936,
y con la creación simultánea de la Dirección General
de Sanidad. A esta Dirección se adscribe la sección de
veterinaria y policía animal y es la que facultó a la Sección
de Veterinaria, Higiene y Sanidad Animal a dictar medidas
para prevenir o combatir las enfermedades de los animales,
identificando y declarando de interés nacional el control de
las enfermedades de los animales transmisibles a la especie
humana, como la rabia, la fiebre carbonosa (o carbunco
bacteriadiano), el aborto infeccioso, o la fiebre aftosa, entre
otras, y prestando particular atención a dicho control.
El aspecto más relevante de ese fortalecimiento fue el
establecimiento de la obligatoriedad de declaración de las
enfermedades que afectaban a los animales, priorizando
la fiebre aftosa, que en esa época constituía un riesgo
para el país. Esta norma sirvió para conocer la presencia
y distribución de las enfermedades de los animales y para
establecer así medidas sanitarias para la vigilancia y control
acordes a las especies y áreas geográficas afectadas. El Código
Sanitario guatemalteco estableció las primeras medidas
cuarentenarias, la inspección, el diagnóstico, la desinfección,
el sacrificio, y la destrucción y aislamiento de animales,
explotaciones y otros locales afectados por enfermedades.
Las medidas aplicadas al ingreso (importación) de animales
procedentes de países con enfermedades de riesgo para la
ganadería del país fueron establecidas en función de las
recomendaciones de la OIE.
Los veterinarios oficiales, los expertos y toda persona que
tuviere conocimiento de un caso confirmado o sospechoso de
enfermedades de declaración obligatoria estaban obligados
a dar aviso a las autoridades sanitarias; dicha obligatoriedad
se mantiene vigente en la legislación sanitaria actual.
Se legisló sobre las condiciones que debían reunir las clínicas
y sanatorios para animales y otros establecimientos, sobre la
forma en que debía efectuarse el transporte y la descarga de
animales, sobre las condiciones de transporte de animales, y
sobre la inspección antemortem y postmortem de animales,
y se requirieron licencias para el funcionamiento de los
rastros. En el ámbito de la inspección higiénico sanitaria, el
Código guatemalteco contemplaba la forma y los términos
de la inspección veterinaria de los animales en los rastros, los
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
casos en que dichas carnes debían ser declaradas impropias
para el consumo humano, el tiempo que las carnes debían
permanecer en los mataderos, los requisitos de refrigeración
a que debían someterse las carnes, el estado de salud que
debían tener los animales destinados a la explotación de
carne y leche, y los medios de diagnóstico que debían
aplicarse a los animales para descartar las enfermedades
indicadas en dicho Código (4).
Es relevante mencionar que la representación inicial
de Guatemala ante la OIE fue otorgada al Ministro de
Agricultura y que, debido a la evolución de la autoridad
sanitaria, dicha representación oficial en la actualidad la
ostenta el Director de la Dirección de Sanidad Animal. El
beneficio de dicha representación consiste en participar en
las discusiones técnicas y científicas para la actualización
del Código Sanitario para los Animales Terrestres de la OIE
(8), determinar el estatus sanitario del país y actualizar las
normas y procedimientos sanitarios que deben incorporarse
en la legislación guatemalteca.
En consecuencia, a lo largo de la línea histórica que se
describe, la OIE ha brindado las bases para que el Código
Sanitario guatemalteco haya evolucionado de tal forma
que en la actualidad se ha convertido en la Ley de Sanidad
Animal, vigente desde 1998.
Cambios en la estructura de los Servicios
Veterinarios de Guatemala
Los Servicios Veterinarios oficiales de Guatemala
han evolucionado a lo largo del periodo aquí descrito,
de tal manera que la Sección de Veterinaria de
1936 se fue transformando, debido al propio desarrollo
del sector pecuario, en un Departamento y, más tarde,
en 1978, llegó a convertirse en una Dirección Técnica
influenciada por el creciente comercio de ganado vivo
y de carne fresca en mercados de Centroamérica, México y
Estados Unidos.
Así pues, el primer cambio en la estructura de los Servicios
Veterinarios Oficiales de la era moderna tuvo lugar con la
creación de la Dirección General de Servicios Pecuarios
(DIGESEPE), que es una dependencia del Ministerio
de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación (MAGA). La
DIGESEPE es responsable de la organización, ejecución,
evaluación y control de los programas y otros servicios
al sector de la sanidad animal. Conforme al Acuerdo
Gubernativo 4-78 (Reglamento del MAGA), el brazo
operativo de la DIGESEPE, denominado Dirección Técnica
de Sanidad Animal, asumió la facultad de establecer los
programas que garantizaron la sanidad del sector pecuario.
Dichos programas se basaron en normas, medidas
cuarentenarias y reglamentos que permitieron, por una
parte, el control y posterior erradicación de enfermedades
103
existentes en el territorio nacional, y por otra, evitar la
introducción de enfermedades exóticas (9).
Entre los años 1970 y 1990, el papel del Estado guatemalteco
en la promoción de las actividades preventivas y curativas
del sector de la sanidad animal fue fundamental para
orientar el desarrollo de la ganadería bovina, avícola y
porcina, puesto que se estableció una infraestructura
diagnóstica sanitaria importante de apoyo al comercio local
e internacional. Se puso en marcha el Programa de Sanidad
Animal (PRODESA) con metas específicas de reducción de
la incidencia de la brucelosis, la tuberculosis y la rabia, y se
logró llegar al 1% o menos.
La infraestructura diagnóstica del PRODESA, financiada
con fondos internacionales, permitió establecer el Sistema
Nacional de Laboratorios de Diagnóstico Veterinario,
constituido por un laboratorio central cercano a la capital
y laboratorios regionales ubicados en los departamentos
de Cobán Alta Verapaz, Petén, Quetzaltenango y Jutiapa,
así como centros de vigilancia epidemiológica ubicados
en puntos estratégicos del interior del país; esta era la
infraestructura sanitaria moderna de la época. Sin embargo,
debido a problemas presupuestarios institucionales y
políticos, en la actualidad esta infraestructura diagnóstica
y de vigilancia ha perdido su funcionalidad (Fig. 1).
En aquella época se ejecutaron otros programas sanitarios,
como el Programa de Control del Gusano Barrenador, que
permitió lograr la erradicación del parásito Cochliomyia
hominivorax del territorio nacional, o el Convenio Antiaftoso
Bilateral, que contó con el apoyo del Departamento
de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos de América e iba
destinado a proteger al país de la fiebre aftosa. En 1979, se
estableció el Sistema de Información en Salud Animal, que
incluía un registro catastral de las explotaciones ganaderas,
asistencia técnica y la estimación de las tasas de morbilidad
y mortalidad de los animales domésticos.
En 1993, con el apoyo de organismos internacionales, la
Dirección Técnica de Sanidad Animal estableció los primeros
requisitos zoosanitarios de importación armonizados para
una región de Centroamérica (México, Panamá, República
Dominicana y Belice), y posteriormente se instauró un
convenio de movilidad interna entre las repúblicas de
Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador y Nicaragua (Convenio
Centroamericano de libre movilidad) (10).
El segundo cambio estructural institucional del MAGA se
efectuó en el año 1998, momento en el que entró en un
proceso de ajuste y transformación creando la Unidad de
Normas y Regulaciones a modo de autoridad competente.
Y el tercer cambio estructural se ejecutó el año
2010 con la desaparición del Viceministerio de Ganadería
y la creación del Viceministerio de Sanidad Agropecuaria
y Regulaciones, VISAR.
104 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

BELICE

Petén

MÉXICO

Mar Caribe

Alta Verapaz
Izabal
Huehuetenango Quiche

Baja Verapaz Zacapa

San Marcos Totonicapan El Progreso

Quetzaltenango Solola Chimaltenango

Chiquimula HONDURAS
Guatemala Jalapa
Sacatepequez
Retalhuleu
Suchitepequez
Jutiapa Centro de vigilancia
Escuintla Santa Rosa
Océano Pacífico Laboratorio

EL SALVADOR Puesto fronterizo

Fuente: VISAR - Laboratorio Sanidad Animal
Guatemala, noviembre 2019/SIGZ/Villalta

Fig. 1
Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación (MAGA). Ubicación geográfica de la infraestructura diagnóstica del Programa de
Sanidad Animal (PRODESA) (1990)

Guatemala y los cambios En 1993, el gobierno de turno elaboró «La Agenda para
la Reactivación y Modernización de la Agricultura»,

estructurales relevantes del fijando como actividad prioritaria el fortalecimiento del

sistema fitozoosanitario, el cual constituyó el marco para

siglo XX destinados a apoyar el la protección del patrimonio productivo del país y para
el apoyo al proceso de apertura comercial agropecuaria.

comercio internacional Dicho fortalecimiento se logró mediante la

En 1991, Guatemala suscribió su adhesión al Acuerdo
General sobre Aranceles Aduaneros y Comercio, antecesor
de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC), y definió
una nueva política agrícola para lograr un desarrollo eficiente
e integral y un crecimiento sostenido de la producción
agropecuaria, basando su impulso en el cumplimiento de la
normativa sanitaria que regía el comercio internacional de
las mercancías de origen animal.
profesionalización de los Servicios Veterinarios oficiales, la
formación continua, y la armonización de las políticas y los
procedimientos sanitarios, fitosanitarios y de inocuidad
de los alimentos (11).
En 1995, Guatemala se convirtió en miembro de la OMC,
por lo que la legislación aplicable al intercambio de animales,
productos y subproductos de origen animal quedó regulada
por el Acuerdo de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias
(Acuerdo MSF) de la OMC y las normas internacionales
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
de las tres hermanas (OIE, Convención Internacional de
Protección Fitosanitaria y Codex Alimentarius) (12).
En 1998, mediante acuerdo legislativo, el Congreso de la
República de Guatemala emitió el Decreto n.o 36-98 Ley
de Sanidad Vegetal y Animal y, posteriormente, el MAGA
emitió el Reglamento de esta Ley; ambos instrumentos
abordan la aplicación de las medidas sanitarias reconocidas
por las entidades normalizadoras mundiales, y se trata de
una ley cuya aplicación sigue vigente en la actualidad (13).
Segundo cambio estructural del Ministerio de
Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación
A partir de las disposiciones del Decreto n.o 36-98 Ley
de Sanidad Vegetal y Animal y de instancias internas que
obligaron a modificar el reglamento orgánico interno
institucional, se procedió a la reestructura del MAGA
creando la Unidad de Normas y Regulaciones (UNR); este
cambio ha sido señalado como el más drástico de la historia
de dicha institución (14).
La Unidad fue concebida con la intención de emitir
normas sanitarias, fitosanitarias y de inocuidad claras y que
cumplieran con los acuerdos y convenios internacionales
o binacionales suscritos por el Estado de Guatemala,
definiendo así el compromiso de país de acatar el
Acuerdo MSF de la OMC y de acordar la integración de
las recomendaciones de la OIE para facilitar el comercio
de mercancías de origen animal. En el seno de la Unidad
se creó el Área Fitozoosanitaria, orientada a la protección
agropecuaria para fortalecer los servicios de inspección
cuarentenaria en puertos, aeropuertos y fronteras.
La vigilancia fitozoosanitaria fue la responsable de establecer
y ejecutar los programas sanitarios y el registro y control de
insumos para uso en animales. Debe señalarse que en julio de
1998 los servicios cuarentenarios implantados en puertos,
aeropuertos y fronteras fueron delegados al Organismo
Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria bajo la
supervisión del MAGA y mediante acuerdo gubernativo,
situación que sigue siendo vigente en la actualidad (15).
Tercer cambio estructural del Ministerio de
Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación
En el año 2010, el MAGA sufrió un tercer cambio en su
estructura técnica administrativa a partir de la aprobación
de un nuevo Reglamento Orgánico Interno, lo cual provocó
la desaparición del Viceministerio de Ganadería y la UNR,
que fueron sustituidos por el VISAR. La finalidad del VISAR
es fortalecer todos los aspectos normativos sanitarios y
fitosanitarios y homologar los cargos de las autoridades
competentes creando la categoría de Director, como la de la
Dirección de Sanidad Animal (16).
105
Esta nueva estructura crea las autoridades competentes
según la especialidad y permite prestar mayor atención al
comercio de animales, de sus productos y subproductos y
de las especies acuícolas (Fig. 2).
El VISAR tiene en ejecución importantes programas
sanitarios para el diagnóstico, el control y la erradicación de
las enfermedades de importancia económica y comercial;
dichos programas están orientados a la protección del
patrimonio pecuario del país, la protección de la salud
humana y la facilitación del comercio.
MINISTRO
VICEMINISTRO
DE SANIDAD
AGROPECUARIA Y
REGULACIONES
DIECCIÓN DE SANIDAD
ANIMAL
VIGILANCIA REGISTRO DE
PROTECCIÓN
EPIDEMIOLÓGICA Y INSUMOS PARA USO
ANÁLISIS DE RIESGO EN ANIMALES
Y SANIDAD PECUARIA
Fig. 2
Organigrama de la Dirección de Sanidad Animal, Viceministerio
de Sanidad Agropecuaria y Regulaciones, Ministerio de
Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación (2010. Vigente)
El robustecimiento de las
normas sanitarias
Los flujos comerciales han incidido para que las autoridades
sanitarias actualicen la normativa sanitaria de acuerdo con
lo que para tal efecto establecen los Códigos de la OIE, cuyas
normas, directrices y recomendaciones son adaptadas para
mantener un nivel adecuado de protección para la salud del
consumidor y la sanidad animal.
Sin lugar a dudas, como se ha descrito, en Guatemala ha
evolucionado el robustecimiento de las normas sanitarias,
lo cual ha propiciado un cambio institucional hacia un ente
normativo capaz de generar la elaboración de normas claras
y estables en el ámbito fitozoosanitario, creando a su vez
programas sanitarios cuyo objetivo es que los hatos, las piaras
106
y las parvadas mantengan un estado adecuado con vistas a la
inocuidad alimentaria y la facilitación del comercio.
En la actualidad, los programas de mayor relevancia son,
en primer lugar, el Programa de Sanidad Avícola, que tiene
por objetivo el control y la erradicación de las enfermedades
aviares que limitan el comercio de aves, huevos y carne de
ave; en segundo lugar, los Programas de Sanidad Acuícola,
Sanidad Bovina y Trazabilidad, entre otros, y en tercer lugar,
el Programa de Sanidad Porcina creado a raíz del brote de
peste porcina clásica (PPC) ocurrido en el año 2011 y que
ha logrado el cometido de controlarla sin que a fecha de
hoy existan casos. Por este motivo, en 2017 se inició la
solicitud de certificación de país libre de la PPC ante la OIE,
un proceso que se encuentra en su parte final y a la espera
de resolución.
La suscripción del Acuerdo
sobre Facilitación del Comercio
En el año 2017, el Congreso de la República de Guatemala
ratificó el Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio de la
OMC mediante el Decreto Legislativo n.o 01-2017, y de
inmediato se constituyó el Comité Nacional de Facilitación
del Comercio (17).
La autoridad responsable de establecer y coordinar dicho
Comité es el Ministerio de Economía, que reúne al MAGA
y al Ministerio de Salud Pública y Asistencia Social,
coordinando así esfuerzos y propiciando la comunicación
y cooperación entre las correspondientes instituciones
públicas y privadas.
El Ministerio de Economía en
el comercio internacional de
mercancías de origen animal
El fortalecimiento institucional en cuanto al comercio
internacional se considera adecuado y oportuno porque
el Ministerio de Economía, específicamente la Dirección
de Administración del Comercio Exterior (DACE), es
el encargado de administrar los acuerdos comerciales
internacionales vigentes para Guatemala, propiciando de
esta forma su óptimo aprovechamiento.
Para lograr sus objetivos, la DACE tiene, entre otras, las
funciones siguientes:
– establecer procedimientos para la administración de los
acuerdos comerciales internacionales de los que Guatemala
forma parte
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
– facilitar el cumplimiento de los compromisos contraídos
y el ejercicio de los derechos derivados de los acuerdos
comerciales internacionales vigentes
– asesorar a los usuarios respecto a la aplicación de los
acuerdos comerciales internacionales
– coordinar procesos informativos y de consulta
interinstitucional e intersectorial
– difundir información relacionada con los acuerdos
comerciales y ser la autoridad investigadora en lo relativo a
prácticas desleales de comercio
– apoyar a las instituciones competentes en los procesos
de solución de controversias en el marco de los acuerdos
comerciales internacionales (18).
El Acuerdo Ministerial n.o 483-2009 establece los Comités
Técnicos Nacionales en el marco de los instrumentos
económico-comerciales internacionales, y es destacable
el Comité Técnico de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias,
que funciona como foro de consulta y asesoría a la DACE
coordinando el intercambio de información sanitaria y
fitosanitaria, y participando en la discusión y recomendación
de medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias y en las preocupaciones
comerciales que se sometan a su consideración (19).
En este Comité, además de representantes de los
Ministerios de Agricultura y Salud y la Superintendencia
de Administración Tributaria, también participa el sector
privado organizado en Cámaras de Comercio, Industria,
Asociación de Exportadores y la Comisión Empresarial de
Negociaciones Comerciales Internacionales (CENCIT).
Actualmente, dichos componentes forman parte del equipo
técnico que está definiendo la Política Nacional de Medidas
Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias de Guatemala.
Conclusiones
Este breve recorrido histórico sobre la evolución normativa
y sanitaria y el soporte de la autoridad competente para
el comercio de animales, sus productos y subproductos,
demuestra que Guatemala ha efectuado cambios
trascendentales desde la firma del acta constitutiva de
la OIE en 1924, atravesando innumerables procesos
organizacionales, funcionales y legislativos comentados
en el presente artículo, y configurando en la actualidad
una estructura técnica, vigorosa, fundamentada técnica
y científicamente y capaz de responder a las exigencias
del libre comercio, la libre movilidad y la facilitación del
comercio.
De hecho, esta evolución ha permitido al país alcanzar
importantes logros en beneficio de la sanidad animal, entre
los cuales recientemente destacan los siguientes:
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 107

– la solicitud de Guatemala ante la OIE de la evaluación
de los Servicios Veterinarios oficiales, llevada a cabo en el
año 2017
– la solicitud de Guatemala ante la OIE de la certificación
de país libre de peste porcina clásica para homologar su
estatus con los de Costa Rica y México, un proceso que
actualmente está en trámite
– la participación activa en el grupo que está planteando
la Política Nacional de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias
(2019).
Probablemente, el trabajo de actualización de la normativa
sanitaria no va con la rapidez que exige el comercio mundial,
pero hay factores estructurales que impiden esa aceleración,
como los siguientes:
– dificultad del Congreso de la República para actualizar la
Ley de Sanidad Animal
– presupuestos institucionales no acordes al interés
sanitario
– alta movilidad del personal profesional
– dificultad para el mantenimiento y mejoramiento de la
estructura sanitaria y diagnóstica
– el avance mundial de algunas enfermedades
transfronterizas que pueden llegar a constituir un riesgo
para el patrimonio pecuario de nuestro país.
y tal como lo estipula el Acuerdo MSF, estas aprobaciones y
definiciones deben basarse en el análisis del riesgo y otras
técnicas que garanticen un nivel adecuado de protección,
a saber: armonización, regionalización, transparencia
y mejora de los procedimientos de control, inspección y
aprobación.
La historia sanitaria descrita demuestra que Guatemala,
con preferencia por el comercio mundial de mercancías
de origen animal, ha efectuado importantes cambios en su
infraestructura y en su organización técnica, administrativa
y regulatoria, todo lo cual lo posiciona entre los principales
países centroamericanos en cuanto a la vigilancia, el control
y la erradicación de las enfermedades animales. Tales
logros han sido posibles gracias a la creación de un soporte
técnico, científico y diagnóstico que brinda confianza al
intercambio comercial. Se han mencionado los esfuerzos
para mejorar las normas sanitarias y para permitir la
importación de productos de origen animal sin transgredir
el estatus sanitario del país, de tal forma que Guatemala
honre, en la medida de sus posibilidades, los compromisos
internacionales adquiridos.
Es evidente que el apoyo de la OIE a la base normativa de
la legislación sanitaria guatemalteca y que le ha valido su
posicionamiento en la región es considerada sumamente
valiosa, relevante y trascendente.

Así pues, hay tareas pendientes para poder avanzar en la

aprobación de normas y procedimientos sanitarios y en
la definición de los requisitos de importación con base
científica. Según las exigencias del comercio mundial,

Guatemala : les efforts pour faciliter le libre-échange et le cadre de

la santé animale
H.I. Maldonado Cáceres

Résumé
L’auteur de cet article explique le développement de la législation vétérinaire au
Guatemala depuis que ce pays a souscrit à l’Arrangement international portant
création de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) en 1924.
Ce développement s’est traduit par une évolution du cadre législatif avec
l’approbation dès 1936 du Code sanitaire guatémaltèque, la promulgation en 1947
de la Loi de santé animale, puis en 1998 sa transformation en Loi de santé végétale
et animale assortie de son Règlement d’application.
108 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

L’auteur analyse également les changements intervenus dans la structure

opérationnelle et administrative de l’autorité sanitaire compétente (ministère de
l’Agriculture, de l’élevage et de l’alimentation) en 1978, en 1998 et en 2010, jusqu’à
l’adoption de l’Accord sur la facilitation des échanges de l’Organisation mondiale
du commerce (OMC) en 2017.
De même, l’auteur mentionne le rôle joué par le ministère de l’Économie et plus
particulièrement par la Direction administrative du commerce extérieur dans le
renforcement de l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires sous la
conduite du Comité technique national des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires.

Mots-clés
Comité technique national SPS – Commerce – Direction du commerce extérieur du
Guatemala (DACE) – Législation sanitaires – Loi – Mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires
(SPS) – Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’élevage et de l’alimentation du Guatemala (MAGA)
– Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) – Organisation mondiale du commerce
(OMC) – Règlement.

Bibliografía
1. Organización mundial de sanidad animal (OIE) (2020). –
Breve historia. OIE, París, Francia. Disponible en: www.
oie.int/es/quienes-somos/breve-historia (fecha de consulta:
8 de enero de 2020).
2. Congreso de la República de Guatemala (1947). – Decreto
del Congreso n.o 463: Ley de Sanidad Animal.
En Recopilación de Leyes de Guatemala, 66-51 (24),
141-337. Disponible en: https://leyes.infile.com/index.php?id=
181&id_publicacion=7280&cmd=login (fecha de consulta
19 de febrero de 2020).
3.
Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación
(Guatemala), Unidad de normas y Regulaciones (1946). –
Acuerdo Gubernativo de fecha 24 de diciembre de 1946.
“Se prohíbe la importación de toda clase de ganado o sus
derivados, así como de productos agrícolas y objetos capaces
de portar o transmitir la fiebre aftosa u otras enfermedades
animales o de fácil difusión.” Disponible en: https://sistemas.
maga.gob.gt/normativas/Normativas?categoriaid=21 (fecha de
consulta 19 de febrero de 2020).
5. Escuela Nacional Central de Agricultura (ENCA) (Guatemala)
(2020). – Historia ENCA. ENCA, Villa Nueva, Guatemala.
Disponible en: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escuela_Nacional
_Central_de_Agricultura_(Guatemala) (fecha de consulta
19 de febrero de 2020).
6. Facultad de Agronomía de la Universidad de San Carlos
de Guatemala (FAUSAC) (2020). – Reseña histórica.
FAUSAC, Ciudad Universitaria, Guatemala. Disponible en:
http://fausac.gt/?page_id=52 (fecha de consulta 19 de febrero
de 2020).
7.
Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia (FMVZ),
Guatemala (2020). – Reseña histórica. FMVZ, Ciudad
Universitaria, Guatemala. Disponible en: http://portal.fmvz.
usac.edu.gt/index.php/resena-historica/ (fecha de consulta: 20
de febrero de 2020).

4. Presidente de la República de Guatemala (1936). – Decreto

8. Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) (2019).
Gubernativo no 1877: Código de sanidad. En Recopilación
de Leyes de Guatemala, LV (59-60), 377-425. Disponible en: – Código Sanitario para los Animales Terrestres, 27.a ed.
https://leyes.infile.com/index.php?id=145&pagina_ OIE, París, Francia. Disponible en: www.oie.int/es/normas-
publicaciones=0&texto_buscador=1877 (fecha de consulta internacionales/codigo-terrestre/acceso-en-linea/ (fecha de
19 de febrero de 2020). consulta: 26 de marzo de 2020).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
9.
Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación
(Guatemala) (1978). – Acuerdo Gubernativo 4-78. Creación
de la Dirección General de Servicios Pecuarios, DIGESEPE,
Guatemala. Disponible en: https://books.google.com.gt/
books?id=1EcqAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=a
cuerdo+gubernativo+maga++DIGESEPE+1978&
source=bl&ots=VZbVA6nphg&si g=ACfU3U2vkPRqoPu9rhvo
VIo7GHz9mY99ZQ&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj
Pp6i92eDnAhXOnuAKHbQJBjYQ6AEwBHoECAoQAQ
#v=onepage&q=acuerdo%20gubernativo%20maga%20%
20DIGESEPE%201978&f=false (fecha de consulta: 20 de
febrero de 2020).
10. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura
(IICA) (1993). – Requisitos zoosanitarios para Centroamérica.
IICA, Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala. Disponible en:
https://books.google.com.gt/books?id=iUQqAAAAYAAJ&
pg=PA50&lpg=PA50& dq=REQUISITOS+ZOOSANITARIOS+
PA R A + C E N T R O + A M % C 3 % 8 9 R I C A + 1 9 9 3 & s o u rc e =
bl&ots=_GzT7QcqT0&sig=ACfU3U3_EgS-mbUyhH_
fyjftMoOpvtjF8w&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_
yd3o3-DnAhWDdt8KHe0nDtUQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#
v=onepage&q=REQUISITOS%20ZOOSANITARIOS%20
PARA%20CENTRO%20AM%C3%89RICA%201993&f=false
(fecha de consulta: 20 de febrero de 2020).
11. Maldonado Cáceres H.I. (2001). – Avance mundial de la fiebre
aftosa: Medidas preventivas en Guatemala. Dirección General
de Investigación, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala,
Ciudad Universitaria, Guatemala, 34 págs. Disponible en:
https://digi.usac.edu.gt/bvirtual/informes/coyuntura/INF-
2001-055.pdf (fecha de consulta: 8 de enero de 2020).
12.
Organización Mundial del Comercio, OMC. (2020). –
Guatemala y la OMC. Disponible en: www.wto.org/spanish/
thewto_s/countries_s/guatemala_s.htm (fecha de consulta:
20 de febrero de 2020).
13. Congreso de la República de Guatemala (1998). – Decreto
no 36-98: Ley de Sanidad Vegetal y Animal. Ministerio de
Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación, Ciudad de Guatemala,
Guatemala, 12 págs. Disponible en: https://sistemas.maga.gob.
gt/normativas/Normativas/Download/502 (fecha de consulta:
8 de enero de 2020).
109
14. Presidente de la República de Guatemala (1998). – Acuerdo
Gubernativo n.o 278-98: Reglamento Orgánico Interno
del Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación.
Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación, Ciudad
de Guatemala, Guatemala, 17 págs. Disponible en: https://
sistemas.maga.gob.gt/normativas/Normativas/Download/486
(fecha de consulta: 8 de enero de 2020).
15.
Presidente de la República de Guatemala (1998). –
Acuerdo Gubernativo n.o 438-98: Delegar en el Organismo
Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria —OIRSA—,
la administración de los servicios de cuarentena vegetal
y animal. Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación,
Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala, 3 págs. Disponible
en: https://sistemas.maga.gob.gt/normativas/Normativas/
Download/451 (fecha de consulta: 8 de enero de 2020).
16. Presidente de la República de Guatemala (1998). – Acuerdo
Gubernativo n.o 338-2010: Reglamento Orgánico Interno
del Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación.
MAGA, Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala, 27 págs.
Disponible en: https://sistemas.maga.gob.gt/normativas/
Normativas/Download/487 (fecha de consulta: 8 de enero de
2020).
17. Congreso de la República de Guatemala (2017). – Decreto n.o
01-2017: Aprobación del protocolo de enmienda del Acuerdo
de Marrakech por el que se establece la Organización Mundial
del Comercio; Acuerdo sobre facilitación del comercio.
Diario de Centro América, CCCVI (51), 1-2. Disponible en:
www.congreso.gob.gt/assets/uploads/info_legislativo/
decretos/2017/01-2017.pdf (fecha de consulta: 8 de enero de
2020).
18. Ministerio de Economía (Guatemala) (2020). – Acerca de
la DACE. Ministerio de Economía, Ciudad de Guatemala,
Guatemala. Disponible en: www.mineco.gob.gt/direcci%C3%
B3n-de-administraci%C3%B3n-del-comercio-exterior-dace
(fecha de consulta: 8 de enero de 2020).
19.
Ministro de Economía (Guatemala) (2009). – Acuerdo
Ministerial n.o 483-2009. Ministerio de Economía, Ciudad de
Guatemala, Guatemala, 10 págs. Disponible en: www.mineco.
gob.gt/sites/default/files/acuerdo_ministerial_no_483-2009_
comites_tecnicos.pdf (fecha de consulta: 20 de febrero de
2020).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 111-118

Guatemala: efforts to facilitate free trade in an

animal health context
H.I. Maldonado Cáceres

Foreign Trade Administration Directorate, Ministry of Economy, 10–43 8th Avenue, Guatemala City zone 1,
Guatemala
E-mail: hmaldonado@mineco.gob.gt

Summary
This article describes the development of Guatemala’s animal health legislation
since the country signed the international agreement establishing the
World Organisation for Animal Health (then Office International des Epizooties)
in 1924.
This includes the evolution of the legislative framework, with the adoption of the
Guatemalan Animal Health Code in 1936, the adoption of the Animal Health Law in
1947 and its conversion into the Plant and Animal Health Law and implementing
regulations in 1998.
This article also analyses changes in the operational and administrative structure
of the competent animal health authority − the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock
and Food − in 1978, 1998 and 2010, until the Trade Facilitation Agreement of the
World Trade Organization was approved in 2017.
It also discusses the role of the Ministry of Economy, through the Foreign
Trade Administration Directorate, in boosting the enforcement of sanitary and
phytosanitary measures through the National Technical Committee for Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures.

Keywords
Animal health legislation – Foreign Trade Administration Directorate (DACE) – Law
– Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food (MAGA) – National Technical Committee
for Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures – Regulation – Sanitary and phytosanitary
measures (SPS) – Trade – World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) – World Trade
Organization (WTO).

Introduction an international regulatory framework, thereby promoting

This article aims to review Guatemala’s efforts to facilitate
trade in animal commodities under the current free trade
approach. It includes an analysis of the evolution of animal
health legislation associated with changes in the official
Veterinary Services, reflecting each historic turning point in
the period from 1924 to 2019.
The analysis begins in 1924, the year when Guatemala,
together with 28 other governments, signed the international
agreement establishing the Office International des
Epizooties (OIE), now the World Organisation for Animal
Health (1).
Guatemala’s signature and accession to the OIE signalled
the country’s intention to participate in world trade in
animals and animal products and by-products based on
the transformation and realignment of its animal health
legislation with these new international goals and guidelines.
Specifically, this saw the emergence of Guatemalan animal
health standards, including the Animal Health Code of
1936 and subsequent Animal Health Law, enacted by
Legislative Decree No. 463 of 1947 (2).
The adoption of the first Animal Health Law signalled
the beginning of control of the quarantinable diseases
that restricted trade in cattle at that time, chiefly, foot and
mouth disease (FMD), owing to outbreaks in neighbouring
Mexico. The Animal Health Law declared a focus on control
and eradication. The law was therefore very conservative
and restrictive and was aimed at protecting the country’s
livestock capital. In fact, vestiges of this law were still in
evidence at the time of writing, with the 1946 presidential
agreement by Juan José Arévalo ‘prohibiting, until further
notice, the importation of all types of livestock and

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3066
112
livestock products, as well as agricultural products and
objects capable of carrying and transmitting foot and mouth
disease’ remaining in force (3).
At the same time, the structure of the Veterinary Services
was strengthened, taking a scientific approach aimed at
controlling and eradicating diseases with an impact on
Guatemala’s livestock capital. In 1936, the Department of
Animal Husbandry was established as part of the Secretariat
of Agriculture, which evolved into the current Animal
Health Directorate, the competent official of which is the
Director (4).
Academic institutions have been important since the 1950s,
with many graduates serving as civil servants, including
agriculture ministers, animal health directors and field
technicians, which has placed the country in a leading
position in the region in the area of animal health.
The use of academic institutions
as a strategy for improving
animal health
In 1921, Guatemala’s first agricultural technical college,
the Central National School of Agriculture, was founded,
the educational advancement of which was recognised in
1979 when it was declared constitutionally responsible for
training the country’s agronomists (5).
In the 1950s, the academic sector was strengthened with
the creation of the Faculty of Agronomy (FAUSAC), tasked
with training top-level agronomists able to harness the
country’s natural resources and to modernise agriculture
and livestock to help boost production (6).
In 1962, the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal
Husbandry (FMVZ) was founded to train technical and
professional teams in the fields of animal welfare and
production, preventive veterinary medicine, and the control
of zoonoses and infectious diseases of domestic animals of
economic interest (7).
These institutions train professionals in the theory
and practice of the control of plant and animal pests
and diseases − according to their specialist field − with
the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine currently providing
the theoretical and practical foundations of epidemiological
surveillance, risk analysis and methods for the diagnosis
and control of diseases of economic and zoonotic interest,
thereby fostering animal disease research and animal
health legislation.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Changes in animal health
legislation and in the structure
of official animal health services
Changes in animal health legislation
A historical analysis shows that animal health in
Guatemala began to improve under President Jorge Ubico’s
administration, with the adoption of the first Guatemalan
Animal Health Code, in 1936, and the simultaneous
creation of the General Directorate for Animal Health.
Attached to this directorate was the Veterinary Medicine and
Animal Health Section, which empowered the Veterinary
Medicine and Animal Health and Hygiene Section to enact
measures for the prevention and control of animal diseases,
identifying and declaring to be in the national interest
the control of animal diseases transmissible to humans,
including rabies, anthrax, brucellosis and FMD, and paying
particular attention to their control.
The most important factor in improving animal health
was the introduction of mandatory notification of animal
diseases, giving priority to FMD, which posed a risk to
the country at that time. Mandatory notification served to
determine the presence and distribution of animal diseases
and thus to establish sanitary measures for surveillance and
control in line with affected species and geographical areas.
The Guatemalan Animal Health Code established the first
quarantine measures, inspection, diagnosis, disinfection,
slaughter, and the destruction and isolation of animals,
farms and other premises infected by diseases. Measures on
the entry (import) of animals from countries with diseases of
risk to Guatemala’s livestock were established in accordance
with OIE recommendations.
Official veterinarians, experts and anyone else who had
knowledge of a confirmed or suspected case of a notifiable
disease were obliged to notify the animal health authorities.
This mandatory notification remains in force in current
animal health legislation.
Legislation was enacted regarding: conditions to be met
by clinics and treatment centres for animals and other
establishments; required methods for transporting and
unloading animals; animal transport conditions; and
ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection of animals. In
addition, licences were required to operate slaughterhouses.
In the area of animal health and hygiene inspection, the
Guatemalan Animal Health Code defined: the form and
terms of veterinary inspection of animals in slaughterhouses;
the cases in which such meat was to be declared unfit for
human consumption; the length of time meat should remain
in the slaughterhouse; refrigeration requirements for meat;
the required health status of meat and dairy animals; and
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
the diagnostic tools to be used on animals to rule out the
diseases listed in the Guatemalan Animal Health Code (4).
Initially, it was the Minister of Agriculture who was
appointed to represent Guatemala to the OIE but, due to
the evolution of the animal health authority, the Director of
the Animal Health Directorate has now become the official
representative. The advantage of such representation is the
ability to take part in technical and scientific discussions
on updating the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (8),
determining country animal disease status and updating
animal health standards and procedures to be incorporated
into Guatemalan legislation.
Accordingly, throughout the historical timeline described
in this article, the OIE provided the basis for enabling the
Guatemalan Animal Health Code to evolve into the current
animal health law, in force since 1998.
Changes in the structure of Guatemala’s
Veterinary Services
Guatemala’s official Veterinary Services evolved over the
period described in this article: due to the development
of the livestock sector itself, the 1936 Veterinary Medicine
Section became a department and, in 1978, went on to
become a technical directorate as a result of growing trade
in live farm animals and fresh meat in markets across
Central America, Mexico and the United States of America.
The first change in the structure of the official Veterinary
Services in modern times took place with the creation of
the General Directorate for Livestock Services (DIGESEPE),
under the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food
(MAGA). DIGESEPE is responsible for the organisation,
implementation, evaluation and control of programmes and
other services in the animal health sector. In accordance with
Government Agreement No. 4-78 (MAGA regulation), the
operational arm of DIGESEPE − the Animal Health Technical
Directorate − was empowered to establish programmes to
ensure the health of the livestock sector. These programmes
were based on standards, quarantine measures and
regulations to, firstly, control and subsequently eradicate
existing diseases within the national territory and, secondly,
prevent the introduction of exotic diseases (9).
Between 1970 and 1990, the role of the Guatemalan
Government in promoting preventive and curative
activities in the animal health sector was key to guiding the
development of cattle, poultry and pig farming, with major
animal disease diagnostic infrastructure being established
to support local and international trade. An animal health
programme (PRODESA) was implemented with the specific
goal of reducing the incidence of brucellosis, tuberculosis
and rabies, which dropped to 1% or less.
113
The internationally funded diagnostic infrastructure of
PRODESA allowed the establishment of a national system
of veterinary diagnostic laboratories, consisting of a central
laboratory close to the capital and regional laboratories
located in the departments of Cobán Alta Verapaz, Petén,
Quetzaltenango and Jutiapa, as well as epidemiological
surveillance centres sited at strategic points in the country’s
interior. This was the modern animal health infrastructure
of the time. However, owing to institutional and political
budgetary problems, this diagnostic and surveillance
infrastructure has now lost its functionality (Fig. 1).
At that time, other animal health programmes were
implemented, including a screwworm control programme,
which resulted in the eradication of the Cochliomyia
hominivorax parasite from the national territory, and a
bilateral FMD agreement, which was supported by the
United States Department of Agriculture and aimed to
protect Guatemala from FMD. In 1979, an animal health
information system was established, which included a
register of livestock farms, technical assistance and estimated
morbidity and mortality rates of domestic animals.
In 1993, with the support of international agencies, the
Animal Health Technical Directorate established the first
animal health requirements for import to be harmonised
across a region of Central America (Belize, Dominican
Republic, Mexico and Panama) and, subsequently, an internal
mobility agreement was concluded between the Republics of
Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua (Central
America-4 Border Control Agreement) (10).
The second structural institutional change in MAGA
took place in 1998, when it embarked on a process of
adjustment and transformation by creating the Standards
and Regulations Unit (UNR) as the Competent Authority.
The third structural change came in 2010, with the abolition
of the Office of the Deputy Minister for Livestock and the
creation of the Office of the Deputy Minister for Agricultural
Health and Regulations (VISAR).
Guatemala and the key
structural changes in the
20th century to support
international trade
In 1991, Guatemala joined the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, the forerunner of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), and defined a new agricultural policy to achieve
efficient and comprehensive development and sustained
growth of agricultural production, based on the country’s
114 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

BELIZE

Peten

MEXICO

Caribbean Sea

Alta Verapaz
Izabal
Huehuetenango Quiche

Baja Verapaz
Zacapa
San Marcos Totonicapan El Progreso

Quetzaltenango Solola Chimaltenango

Chiquimula HONDURAS
Guatemala Jalapa
Sacatepequez
Retalhuleu
Suchitepequez
Jutiapa Surveillance centre
Escuintla Santa Rosa
Pacific Ocean Laboratory

EL SALVADOR Border post

Source: Office of the Deputy Minister for Agricultural Health and
Regulations (VISAR) – Animal health laboratory, Guatemala, November 2019
SIGZ/Villalta
Fig. 1
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food (MAGA): geographical location of diagnostic infrastructure for the PRODESA animal health
programme (1990)

drive to comply with the animal health standards governing
international trade in animal commodities.
In 1993, the government of the day developed an agenda for
the revival and modernisation of agriculture, establishing as
a priority activity the strengthening of the plant and animal
health system, which provided the framework for protecting
the country’s production assets and supporting the process
of trade liberalisation in the agricultural sector. This
strengthening was achieved through: professionalisation
of the official Veterinary Services; continuing education;
and harmonisation of plant health, animal health and food
safety policies and procedures (11).
In 1995, Guatemala became a member of the WTO, after
which the legislation applicable to trade in animals and
animal products and by-products was regulated by the WTO
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS Agreement) and the international standards
of the ’three sisters’ (Codex Alimentarius Commission,
OIE and Secretariat of the International Plant Protection
Convention) (12).
In 1998, by legislative agreement, the Congress of the
Republic of Guatemala enacted Decree No.  36-98 (Plant
and Animal Health Law), after which MAGA issued the
implementing regulations of this law. Both instruments deal
with the application of the sanitary measures recognised by
international standard-setting organisations, and the law is
still in force today (13).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Second structural change in the Ministry
of Agriculture, Livestock and Food
Based on the provisions of Decree No.  36-98 (Plant and
Animal Health Law) and on internal procedures that required
the amendment of MAGA’s fundamental rules of procedure,
the Ministry was restructured, creating the Standards and
Regulations Unit (UNR). This has been described as the
most drastic change in the Ministry’s history (14).
The UNR was tasked with setting clear animal health, plant
health and food safety standards that complied with the
international and bilateral agreements and conventions
concluded by the Guatemalan Government, thus confirming
the country’s commitment to comply with the WTO’s SPS
Agreement and to integrate OIE recommendations on
facilitating trade in animal commodities. A Plant and Animal
Health Section was created within the UNR to protect
agriculture, in order to strengthen quarantine inspection
services at ports, airports and borders.
A Plant and Animal Health Surveillance Section was
responsible for establishing and implementing animal health
programmes and for registering and controlling inputs
for use in animals. A point of note is that, in July 1998,
the administration of quarantine services at ports, airports
and borders was delegated to the Regional International
Organisation for Plant Protection and Animal Health
(Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria,
OIRSA), under MAGA supervision, by government
agreement − a situation that continues today (15).
Third structural change in the Ministry
of Agriculture, Livestock and Food
In 2010, MAGA underwent a third change in its technical
and administrative structure following the adoption of new
fundamental rules of procedure, which led to the abolition
of the Office of the Deputy Minister for Livestock and the
UNR and their replacement with VISAR. The purpose of
VISAR is to strengthen all animal and plant health regulatory
aspects and to standardise the posts of competent officials
by creating the category of director, as in the Animal Health
Directorate (16).
This new structure established Competent Authorities
according to specialist fields and allowed greater attention
to be paid to trade in animals, animal products and by-
products and aquatic species (Fig. 2).
VISAR implements major animal health programmes for the
diagnosis, control and eradication of diseases of economic
and commercial importance. These programmes are
designed to protect the country’s livestock capital, safeguard
human health and facilitate trade.
115
MINISTER
DEPUTY MINISTER FOR
AGRICULTURAL HEALTH
AND REGULATIONS
ANIMAL HEALTH
DIRECTORATE
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL
REGISTER OF INPUTS LIVESTOCK HEALTH AND
SURVEILLANCE AND
FOR USE IN ANIMALS WELFARE
RISK ANALYSIS
Fig. 2
Organisation chart of the Animal Health Directorate, Office of
the Deputy Minister for Agricultural Health and Regulations,
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food (2010; still in force)
Strengthening animal health
standards
Trade flows have prompted the animal health authorities
to update animal health regulations in accordance with
the provisions of the OIE Codes, adapting OIE standards,
guidelines and recommendations to maintain a proper level
of protection for consumer and animal health.
As described above, the strengthening of animal health
standards in Guatemala has certainly evolved, leading to an
institutional shift towards a standard-setting body capable
of developing clear and stable standards for plant and
animal health, in turn creating animal health programmes
designed to maintain the country’s livestock population in a
fit state to ensure food safety and trade facilitation.
The most important programmes at present are: firstly,
the Poultry Health Programme, which aims to control and
eradicate avian diseases limiting trade in live poultry, eggs
and poultry meat; secondly, the Aquatic Health, Cattle
Health and Traceability Programmes, among others; and
thirdly, the Swine Health Programme, established following
an outbreak of classical swine fever in 2011, which has
succeeded in controlling the disease with no further cases
since then. Accordingly, in 2017, Guatemala applied to
the OIE for certification of country freedom from classical
swine fever, a process that is in its final stages and awaiting
a decision.
116
Signing of the Trade Facilitation
Agreement
In 2017, the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala
ratified the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement by means
of Legislative Decree No. 01-2017, and the National Trade
Facilitation Committee was established immediately (17).
The authority responsible for establishing and coordinating
the committee is the Ministry of Economy, which brings
together MAGA and the Ministry of Public Health and Social
Welfare to coordinate efforts and promote communication
and cooperation between the corresponding public and
private institutions.
The Ministry of Economy
in international trade in animal
commodities
Institutional strengthening for international trade is
considered appropriate and timely because the Ministry
of Economy, specifically the Foreign Trade Administration
Directorate (DACE), is responsible for administering the
international trade agreements in force for Guatemala,
thereby promoting their optimum utilisation.
To achieve its objectives, DACE is tasked with the following
duties, among others:
– establishing procedures for the administration of
international trade agreements concluded by Guatemala
– facilitating compliance with the commitments and
exercise of rights derived from current international trade
agreements
– advising users on the application of international trade
agreements
– coordinating inter-agency and cross-sector information
and consultation processes
– disseminating information on trade agreements and
acting as the investigating authority on unfair trade practices
– supporting the competent institutions in dispute
settlement processes within the framework of international
trade agreements (18).
Ministerial Agreement No. 483-2009 established the national
technical committees for international economic and trade
instruments, in particular the National Technical Committee
for Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, which operates as
a consultation and advisory forum for DACE, coordinating
the exchange of animal and plant health information and
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
participating in discussions and recommendations on
sanitary and phytosanitary measures and on any trade
concerns referred for its consideration (19).
Committee members include representatives of the
agriculture and health Ministries and Guatemala’s
Superintendency of Tax Administration (Superintendencia
de Administración Tributaria), as well as the private sector,
organised into chambers of commerce and industry,
the Guatemalan Exporters’ Association (Asociación de
Exportadores) and the Business Centre for International
Trade Negotiations (Comisión Empresarial de Negociaciones
Comerciales Internacionales).
These members are on the technical team currently defining
Guatemala’s national policy for sanitary and phytosanitary
measures.
Conclusions
This brief historical overview of the development of
Guatemala’s regulations and animal health and the support
of the Competent Authority for trade in animals and
animal products and by-products demonstrates that the
country has made far-reaching changes since it signed
the international agreement establishing the OIE in 1924,
undergoing countless organisational, functional and
legislative processes, as described in this article, and now
forming a robust technical structure, with a sound technical
and scientific base, capable of meeting the requirements of
free trade, free movement and trade facilitation.
Indeed, this development has led the country to realise
major achievements in aid of animal health, some of the
most important in recent years being:
– Guatemala’s application to the OIE for the evaluation of
official Veterinary Services, carried out in 2017
– Guatemala’s application to the OIE for certification
of country freedom from classical swine fever in order to
harmonise its disease status with that of Costa Rica and
Mexico, which is currently pending
– active participation in the group developing the national
policy for sanitary and phytosanitary measures (2019).
The work on updating animal health regulations may not
be progressing as fast as world trade demands but there are
structural factors preventing faster progress, including:
– problems in the Congress of the Republic with updating
the Animal Health Law
– institutional budgets out of line with the interests of
animal health
– high turnover of professional staff
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
– problems in maintaining and improving the animal
health and diagnostic structure
– global spread of some transboundary diseases, which
may pose a risk for the country’s livestock capital.
More work therefore remains to be done to progress the
adoption of animal health standards and procedures and
the definition of science-based import requirements.
According to world trade requirements, and as stipulated in
the SPS Agreement, the adoption of animal health standards
and procedures and the definition of science-based import
requirements should be based on risk analysis and other
techniques to guarantee a proper level of protection,
namely: harmonisation, regionalisation, transparency and
improved control, inspection and approval procedures.
The animal health history described in this article
demonstrates that, by prioritising world trade in animal
commodities, Guatemala has made major changes in
its infrastructure and its technical, administrative and
References
1. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2020). – History.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/about-us/
history/ (accessed on 8 January 2020).
2. Congress of the Republic of Guatemala (1947). – Decreto del
Congreso no.  463: ley de sanidad animal. In Recopilación
de leyes de Guatemala, 66-51 (24), 141–337. Available at:
https://leyes.infile.com/index.php?id=181&id_publicacion=
7280&cmd=login (accessed on 19 February 2020).
3. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food (Guatemala),
Unidad de Normas y Regulaciones (1946). – Acuerdo
gubernativo de fecha 24 de diciembre de 1946. «Se prohíbe
la importación de toda clase de ganado o sus derivados, así
como de productos agrícolas y objetos capaces de portar
o transmitir la fiebre aftosa u otras enfermedades animales
o de fácil difusión.» Available at: https://sistemas.maga.
gob.gt/normativas/Normativas?categoriaid=21 (accessed on
19 February 2020).
117
regulatory organisation, all of which positions it as one
of the leading Central American countries in terms of
surveillance, control and eradication of animal diseases.
Such achievements have been made possible by the creation
of a technical, scientific and diagnostic support structure
that gives confidence for trade. Mention has been made
of the efforts to improve animal health standards and
to facilitate the importation of animal products without
undermining the country’s animal disease status, to ensure
that Guatemala honours its international commitments as
far as it is able.
The OIE’s support for the normative basis of Guatemala’s
animal health legislation, which has earned the country its
current standing in the region, is seen as extremely valuable,
important and significant.
4. President of the Republic of Guatemala (1936). – Decreto
gubernativo no.  1877 de fecha 8 de septiembre de 1936:
código de sanidad. In Recopilación de leyes de Guatemala,
LV (59–60), 377–425. Available at: https://leyes.infile.
com/index.php?id=145&pagina_publicaciones=0&texto_
buscador=1877 (accessed on 19 February 2020).
5.
Central National School of Agriculture (ENCA)
(Guatemala) (2020). – Historia ENCA. ENCA, Villa Nueva,
Guatemala. Available at: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Escuela_Nacional_Central_de_Agricultura_(Guatemala)
(accessed on 19 February 2020).
6. Faculty of Agronomy, San Carlos University of Guatemala
(FAUSAC) (2020). – Reseña histórica. FAUSAC, Ciudad
Universitaria, Guatemala. Available at: http://fausac.gt/?page_
id=52 (accessed on 19 February 2020).
118
7.
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry
(FMVZ) (Guatemala) (2020). – Reseña histórica. FMVZ,
Ciudad Universitaria, Guatemala. Available at: http://portal.
fmvz.usac.edu.gt/index.php/resena-historica/ (accessed on
20 February 2020).
8. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 27th Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/terrestrial-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 26 March 2020).
9.
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food (Guatemala)
(1978). – Acuerdo gubernativo 4-78: creación de la
Dirección General de Servicios Pecuarios, DIGESEPE,
Guatemala. Available at: https://books.google.com.gt/books?
id=1EcqAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA22& lpg= PA22&dq=acuerdo
+gubernativo+maga++DIGESEPE+1978&source=bl&ots=
VZbVA6nphg&sig=ACfU3U2vkPRqoPu9rhvoVIo7GH
z9mY99ZQ&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKE wjPp6i92eDnAhXO
nuAKHbQJBjYQ6AEwBHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=
acuerdo%20gubernativo%20maga%20%20DIGESEPE%20
1978&f=false (accessed on 20 February 2020).
10.
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
(IICA) (1993). – Requisitos zoosanitarios para Centroamérica.
IICA, Guatemala City, Guatemala. Available at: https://books.
google.com.gt/books?id=iUQqAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA
50&dq=REQUISITOS+ZOOSANITARI
O S + PA R A + C E N T R O + A M % C 3 % 8 9 R I C A + 1 9 9 3 & s
o u rc e = b l & o t s = _ G z T 7 Q c q T 0 & s i g = A C f U 3 U 3 _ E g S -
mbUyhH_fyjftMoOpvtjF8w&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahU
KEwj_yd3o3-DnAhWDdt8KHe0nDtUQ6AEwAHoECAkQA
Q#v=o nepage&q=REQUISITOS%20ZOOSANITARIOS%20
PARA%20CENTRO%20AM%C3%89RICA%201993&f=false
(accessed on 20 February 2020).
11. Maldonado Cáceres H.I. (2001). – Avance mundial de la fiebre
aftosa: medidas preventivas en Guatemala. Dirección General
de Investigación, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala,
Ciudad Universitaria, Guatemala, 34 pp. Available at: https://
digi.usac.edu.gt/bvirtual/informes/coyuntura/INF-2001-055.
pdf (accessed on 8 January 2020).
12.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2020). – Guatemala
and the WTO. Available at: www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/
countries_e/guatemala_e.htm (accessed on 20  February
2020).
13. Congress of the Republic of Guatemala (1998). – Decreto
no.  36-98: ley de sanidad vegetal y animal. Ministry of
Agriculture, Livestock and Food, Guatemala City, Guatemala,
12  pp. Available at: https://sistemas.maga.gob.gt/normativas/
Normativas/Download/502 (accessed on 8 January 2020).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
14. President of the Republic of Guatemala (1998). – Acuerdo
gubernativo no.  278-98: reglamento orgánico interno
del Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación.
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food, Guatemala
City, Guatemala, 17  pp. Available at: https://sistemas.maga.
gob.gt/normativas/Normativas/Download/486 (accessed on
8 January 2020).
15. President of the Republic of Guatemala (1998). – Acuerdo
gubernativo no. 438-98: delegar en el Organismo Internacional
Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria – OIRSA –, la administración
de los servicios de cuarentena vegetal y animal. Ministry of
Agriculture, Livestock and Food, Guatemala City, Guatemala,
3  pp. Available at: https://sistemas.maga.gob.gt/normativas/
Normativas/Download/451 (accessed on 8 January 2020).
16. President of the Republic of Guatemala (1998). – Acuerdo
gubernativo no.  338-2010: reglamento orgánico interno
del Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación.
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food, Guatemala
City, Guatemala, 27  pp. Available at: https://sistemas.maga.
gob.gt/normativas/Normativas/Download/487 (accessed on
8 January 2020).
17. Congress of the Republic of Guatemala (2017). – Decreto
no.  01-2017: aprobación del protocolo de enmienda del
Acuerdo de Marrakech por el que se establece la Organización
Mundial del Comercio; acuerdo sobre facilitación del comercio.
Diario de Centro América, CCCVI (51), 1–2. Available
at: www.congreso.gob.gt/assets/uploads/info_legislativo/
decretos/2017/01-2017.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2020).
18. Ministry of Economy (Guatemala) (2020). – Acerca de la
DACE. Ministry of Economy, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
Available at: www.mineco.gob.gt/direcci%C3%B3n-de-
administraci%C3%B3n-del-comercio-exterior-dace (accessed
on 8 January 2020).
19.
Ministry of Economy (Guatemala) (2009). – Acuerdo
ministerial no.  483-2009. Ministry of Economy, Guatemala
City, Guatemala, 10 pp. Available at: www.mineco.gob.gt/sites/
default/files/acuerdo_ministerial_no_483-2009_comites_
tecnicos.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2020).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 119-130

Zonas libres de enfermedades: proceso de

reconocimiento bilateral en América del Sur
G. Funes (1)*, A.L. Merlo (2), M. Sowul (2), N. Rendine (2), X. Melon (3) & A. Marcos (4)

(1) Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca, Embajada Argentina ante la UE, Avenue Louise 225, 1050 Bruselas,
Bélgica
(2) Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA), Dirección Nacional de Sanidad Animal
(DNSA), Programa de Fiebre Aftosa, Paseo Colón 367, (1063) Buenos Aires, Argentina
(3) Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA), Dirección Nacional de Sanidad Animal
(DNSA), Paseo Colón 367, (1063) Buenos Aires, Argentina
(4) Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA), Dirección Nacional de Sanidad Animal
(DNSA), Dirección de Epidemiología, Paseo Colón 367, (1063) Buenos Aires, Argentina
*Autor para la correspondencia: gmfunes@magyp.gob.ar

Resumen
Según la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE), la «zonificación» es una
estrategia de gestión del riesgo para avanzar en el control progresivo y la erradicación
de enfermedades animales y para dar garantías al comercio internacional.
Su implementación y eficacia dependen de la calidad de los Servicios Veterinarios.
Erradicar una enfermedad y lograr el reconocimiento de tal situación por parte
de socios comerciales implica recursos e incentiva el desarrollo productivo
y económico. También garantiza la seguridad sanitaria del comercio siempre que se
apliquen las normas de la OIE y se respete el Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas
Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) (Acuerdo
MSF).
Las normas internacionales de la OIE y el Acuerdo MSF establecen disposiciones para
una implementación efectiva de la «zonificación» y el reconocimiento de zonas libres
de enfermedades. Este estatus sanitario posiciona favorablemente a dichas zonas para
exportar sus productos al mercado internacional, pero puede generar restricciones
internas respecto a regiones del mismo país con estatus diferentes.
Lo habitual es que cada país aplique un proceso propio, independientemente del
reconocimiento de la OIE. En general, contemplan una evaluación de la información
y una misión de inspección in situ, pero no existe una armonización entre países ni
respecto a la metodología ni respecto a la información requerida para la evaluación
de riesgos.
Este reconocimiento no implica el permiso automático para exportar cualquier
producto desde esa zona, sino que se debe solicitar la apertura del mercado para
cada producto en cuestión garantizando las condiciones exigidas por el mercado de
destino (análisis del riesgo y certificación sanitaria).
Para beneficiarse de los mercados externos, existen formas de agilizar los
reconocimientos bilaterales de las zonas libres de enfermedades, como los acuerdos
bilaterales veterinarios o los Acuerdos de Libre Comercio, mediante los cuales se
establecen ámbitos y procedimientos claros a implementar por parte de los países
socios comerciales.
El intercambio de información permanente entre los países genera confianza entre
sus Servicios y Autoridades Veterinarias, lo cual redunda en la agilización de estos
procesos.
Se debe reforzar el trabajo de la OIE (Proceso de Prestaciones de los Servicios
Veterinarios [Proceso PVS], Observatorio de la OIE) y del Comité MSF de la OMC
(mecanismos de observancia) para ayudar a los países a implementar la «zonificación». 

Palabras clave
Certificación – Estatus sanitario – Fiebre aftosa – Mercados internacionales – País socio
comercial – Reconocimiento oficial – Servicios Veterinarios – Vigilancia epidemiológica – Zona
libre de enfermedad – Zonificación.

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3067
120
Introducción
La «zonificación» es una estrategia de gestión del riesgo
que, al separar subpoblaciones animales en función de
su estatus sanitario, sirve para dos propósitos principales
según la definición de «zona» del Glosario del Código
Sanitario para los Animales Terrestres (Código Terrestre) de
la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) (1):
a) avanzar progresivamente en el control y la erradicación
de enfermedades animales, y b) dar garantías sanitarias a los
mercados de exportación.
El motivo de aplicar el concepto de zonificación es que
permite una clara diferenciación epidemiológica entre los
animales que pertenecen a una zona geográfica específica
y los que No. La efectividad de la implementación de la
zonificación depende de varios aspectos técnicos, como
la epidemiología de la(s) enfermedad(es) en cuestión,
la estructura y distribución de la población animal, la
infraestructura del país, las medidas de bioseguridad que
puedan aplicarse, la situación sanitaria en áreas adyacentes
y la vigilancia necesaria dentro y fuera de las zonas. Y
todo ello está relacionado con la eficiencia de los Servicios
Veterinarios (2).
El rol de los Servicios Veterinarios es de suma importancia,
puesto que actúan como garantes de la condición sanitaria
de las zonas libres y como aval del comercio internacional a
través de la certificación sanitaria de los requisitos exigidos
por los diferentes mercados. Al aplicar la zonificación, tanto
la Autoridad Veterinaria como el sector privado tienen
responsabilidades específicas.
Erradicar una enfermedad de un país o de parte de su
territorio (zona) y lograr el reconocimiento de tal situación
por parte de los socios comerciales incentiva el desarrollo
productivo y económico, y a la vez garantiza la seguridad
sanitaria del comercio siempre que se apliquen las normas
internacionales de la OIE y se respeten las obligaciones
del Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y
Fitosanitarias de la Organización Mundial del Comercio
(OMC).
La identificación y el reconocimiento nacional de una
zona con un estatus sanitario diferencial es un proceso que
puede implicar varios años de trabajo y grandes inversiones
en recursos humanos y financieros (3). En este sentido,
la previsibilidad, la confianza y la credibilidad entre los
países socios comerciales, incluidos la transparencia y el
intercambio de información, son factores clave para que el
proceso de reconocimiento de zonas libres sea efectivo y
rápido.
El presente artículo intenta describir, de forma práctica,
el proceso de reconocimiento de una zona libre de fiebre
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
aftosa en que no se aplica la vacunación. Se describe tanto
el proceso interno, con las etapas del establecimiento de
una zona libre, como el posterior proceso de negociación y
reconocimiento de una zona libre (en este caso, Patagonia
Norte A de Argentina) por parte de un país socio comercial,
lo cual mejora el posicionamiento de dicha zona en los
mercados internacionales.
Disposiciones de la Organización
Mundial de Sanidad Animal
El Capítulo 4.4. del Código Terrestre establece las normas
específicas para que los Miembros implementen la
«zonificación» de manera efectiva. A su vez, en el Capítulo
1.4. del Código Terrestre, sobre vigilancia sanitaria, se
establecen las disposiciones aplicables a la demostración
del estatus «libre de enfermedad». Complementariamente,
existen disposiciones particulares dentro de los capítulos
específicos de cada enfermedad de la lista de la OIE, como
es el caso de los Artículos 8.8.2. y 8.8.3. del Código Terrestre,
sobre fiebre aftosa.
La OIE cuenta con un procedimiento de reconocimiento
oficial de país o zona libre de peste bovina, peste equina
africana, peste porcina clásica, fiebre aftosa, encefalopatía
espongiforme bovina (EEB), pleuroneumonía contagiosa
bovina y peste de los pequeños rumiantes. Para lograr este
reconocimiento, los países deben enviar información a la
OIE para que sea evaluada (4). Los capítulos 1.7. a 1.12. del
Código Terrestre establecen los respectivos cuestionarios y la
información que debe ser presentada a la OIE para solicitar
el reconocimiento oficial de «libre» de dichas enfermedades
o, en el caso de la EEB, la determinación de la «categoría
de riesgo».
En el proceso de reconocimiento oficial del estatus
sanitario de los Miembros por parte de la OIE, expertos
internacionales de renombre llevan a cabo, por medios
científicos, una evaluación exhaustiva, objetiva y
transparente de toda la información relevante presentada
por el país interesado; dicha evaluación se lleva a cabo de
acuerdo a un procedimiento operacional normalizado y
dando garantías y confianza a los socios comerciales y a la
comunidad internacional.
Para las demás enfermedades de la lista de la OIE no existe
un reconocimiento oficial, pero para ser considerados
libres de una enfermedad, los países pueden efectuar una
autodeclaración de país, zona o compartimiento como
resultado del cumplimiento con las recomendaciones de
la OIE (5). El país puede solicitar a la OIE que publique
esta autodeclaración, aunque la responsabilidad de la
información recae por completo en el país que la envía (6).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
El Artículo 5.3.7. del Código Terrestre, sobre los
procedimientos de la OIE relacionados con el Acuerdo
MSF de la OMC, describe la secuencia de pasos necesarios
para establecer una zona libre de enfermedad y lograr su
reconocimiento bilateral por parte de los demás países con
fines de comercio internacional.
Los países deberán reconocer de forma inmediata a sus
Miembros los estatus respecto a enfermedades que gocen de
reconocimiento oficial por parte de la OIE. Para las demás
enfermedades, el reconocimiento bilateral del estatus
sanitario se basará en el intercambio y la evaluación de
información entre países socios comerciales. Paralelamente,
según las disposiciones del Título 3 del Código Terrestre,
en un proceso de reconocimiento bilateral de una zona
libre, además de los aspectos específicos relacionados con
la enfermedad, la calidad de los Servicios Veterinarios
constituye un aspecto fundamental a tener en cuenta
para la correcta implementación de la zonificación y el
mantenimiento de las zonas libres.
Proceso de Prestaciones de los Servicios
Veterinarios
La OIE ha desarrollado el Proceso de Prestaciones de los
Servicios Veterinarios (Proceso PVS) a fin de fortalecer las
capacidades y la calidad de los Servicios Veterinarios de sus
Miembros en cuanto a su desempeño respecto a las normas
internacionales de la OIE. La mejora de los Servicios
Veterinarios redundará en una correcta implementación
de la regionalización de las enfermedades animales y
del reconocimiento internacional de zonas libres de
enfermedades con vistas al comercio internacional.
Observatorio de la Organización Mundial
de Sanidad Animal
En mayo de 2018, la Asamblea Mundial de Delegados de
la OIE recomendó la creación de un observatorio para
monitorear la implementación de las normas internacionales
de la OIE.
El Observatorio de la OIE es un mecanismo continuo
y sistemático de observación y análisis de las prácticas
de los Miembros en cuanto a la implementación de las
normas internacionales de la OIE. La información que
se obtenga a través del Observatorio apunta a mejorar el
proceso de elaboración de normas internacionales de la OIE
y a identificar las necesidades específicas de capacitación
de los Miembros para una armonización y mejora de la
implementación de dichas normas internacionales, incluido
el establecimiento de zonas libres de enfermedades y su
reconocimiento por parte de los demás países con vistas al
comercio internacional.
121
Disposiciones del Acuerdo
sobre la Aplicación de Medidas
Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias
El Acuerdo MSF define lo que significa «zona libre de plagas
o enfermedades» y en su Artículo 6 se refiere a la adaptación
de las medidas sanitarias para el comercio a las condiciones
regionales (situación sanitaria) del lugar de origen de los
productos, incluidas las zonas libres de enfermedades. Por
este motivo, los miembros de la OMC deben reconocer las
zonas libres de enfermedades de los países que exportan
animales o productos de origen animal.
En este contexto, el Acuerdo MSF reconoce a la OIE
como organismo de normalización de referencia a nivel
internacional en materia de sanidad animal, incluido su
mandato para reconocer las zonas libres de enfermedades,
lo cual implica una vinculación jurídica entre la OIE y la
OMC en este ámbito.
A fin de ayudar a los miembros de la OMC en la aplicación
del Artículo 6 del Acuerdo MSF, el Comité MSF ha clarificado
la interpretación del mismo a través de «Directrices que
fomenten la implementación práctica del Artículo 6 del
Acuerdo MSF por parte de los países» (7).
El Artículo 6.3. del Acuerdo MSF establece que, para obtener
este reconocimiento de zona libre de enfermedad por parte
de los socios comerciales, los Miembros exportadores de la
OMC deben presentar las pruebas y evidencias necesarias
que respalden tal condición. Asimismo, deben dar acceso
al Miembro importador para que realice inspecciones in
situ o pruebas que verifiquen tal condición. A su vez, el
Miembro importador debe proceder a la evaluación sin
demoras indebidas y sin discriminación con respecto a otros
países, y teniendo en cuenta todo conocimiento pertinente
y experiencias previas con las autoridades del Miembro
exportador.
Etapas previas al
reconocimiento bilateral de una
«zona libre de fiebre aftosa en
que no se aplica la vacunación»
Se describe aquí el proceso general interno necesario para
establecer la zona libre, incluido el reconocimiento oficial
por parte de la OIE (teniendo en cuenta que la fiebre aftosa
es una de las siete enfermedades para las cuales la OIE
122
otorga reconocimiento oficial del estatus sanitario) previo
al reconocimiento bilateral por parte de un socio comercial.
Etapa I: Consenso interno entre todas las partes
interesadas
Lograr consenso interno entre todas las partes
interesadas, entre las que se encuentran las instituciones
gubernamentales (nacionales, provinciales y municipales)
vinculadas a los controles, el sector productivo (ganaderos e
industria) y los Servicios Veterinarios, incluida la profesión
veterinaria privada, es fundamental para establecer los pros
y los contras de la situación.
Esto es necesario porque, al establecer una zona libre de una
enfermedad, si bien esta se posiciona favorablemente frente al
mercado internacional por su mejora en el estatus sanitario,
se generan también algunas dificultades y restricciones
internas (por ejemplo, restricción de movimientos de
animales y productos de origen animal entre regiones con
estatus sanitarios diferentes). Esta situación puede dar
lugar a presiones de posibles desplazamientos ilegales entre
las zonas de estatus sanitarios diferentes generados por
diferenciales en los precios de los productos.
En este contexto, desempeñan un rol esencial las barreras
y los controles sanitarios que se implementen a fin de
preservar el estatus de la zona libre.
Etapa II: Evaluación del estatus sanitario de la
población animal y medidas de prevención en la
zona candidata a ser declarada libre
El primer principio básico para establecer una zona es contar
con una definición clara de la subpoblación animal que
pertenece a dicha zona. Esto significa que debe concretarse
la extensión de la zona, incluidos sus límites geográficos (2).
El Código Terrestre establece en su Artículo 1.4.6. los
criterios y las normas relativos a la vigilancia epidemiológica
destinada a demostrar el estatus de «libre de enfermedad,
infección o infestación». A su vez, en los capítulos
correspondientes a las enfermedades específicas, existen
disposiciones particulares aplicables a la demostración de
ausencia de cada una de las enfermedades.
Entre las acciones a efectuar se encuentran las siguientes:
- La actualización del registro de los establecimientos
ganaderos, identificando los de mayor riesgo de introducción
y difusión de la enfermedad, la actualización del registro
de existencias de animales domésticos susceptibles y la
estimación de la cantidad de ejemplares de las especies
salvajes.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
En Argentina, en la zona libre de fiebre aftosa con
vacunación, la actualización de las existencias de animales
se realiza en cada campaña de vacunación mediante el
registro en el sistema de gestión sanitaria. Además, el sistema
registra los movimientos de animales y las altas y bajas de
cada establecimiento. Así, se actualiza periódicamente la
totalidad de los predios y las existencias ganaderas.
En la zona libre sin vacunación, los establecimientos
realizan una actualización anual, incluida la declaración de
sus existencias. Además, el sistema registra los movimientos
de animales y las altas y bajas de cada establecimiento.
- La aplicación del sistema de gestión sanitaria, incluidas
una correcta identificación y trazabilidad animal que
permita identificar el origen y la pertenencia de la población
animal de la zona en cuestión y posibilite el rastreo de los
movimientos.
- La evaluación y refuerzo del Plan de Bioseguridad, con
las siguientes acciones:
Actualización y registro de mataderos, concentraciones
ganaderas y basurales, así como una evaluación de las
condiciones de bioseguridad de los restos de comida
domiciliarios y de comercios que podrían desviarse para la
alimentación de cerdos, y una evaluación de los controles
fronterizos y las barreras sanitarias que separan la zona
candidata a ser declarada libre de otras zonas con un estatus
sanitario diferente.
Si se considera apropiado o necesario, se debe plantear la
posibilidad de crear una zona de protección.
- La vigilancia epidemiológica, con las siguientes acciones:
- Realización de estudios seroepidemiológicos en la
población susceptible.
- Realización de actividades de vigilancia clínica de
animales susceptibles, domésticos y salvajes.
- Realización de actividades de capacitación/
concientización dirigidas a los Servicios Veterinarios, otras
instituciones y organismos gubernamentales nacionales,
provinciales y municipales, las fuerzas de seguridad, los
productores, la industria y el público general respecto de la
importancia de la fiebre aftosa, así como del rol que estos
desempeñan en la prevención, la detección temprana y la
contención y tratamiento de los focos de esta enfermedad.
Etapa III: Suspensión de la vacunación
En función de la evolución del Plan de Erradicación de la
fiebre aftosa, se plantea la posibilidad de incorporar zonas
en las que no se aplica la vacunación con el fin de ampliar
las zonas libres sin vacunación a la mayor parte del territorio
nacional.
Una vez efectuadas las acciones de la Etapa II, y si del análisis
de la información obtenida de la vigilancia epidemiológica y
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
de los factores de riesgo surgen indicadores que garanticen
la ausencia de infección y la prevención de ingreso del
agente patógeno, se decide suspender la vacunación.
Se prohíbe que en la zona candidata ingresen animales
vacunados y se ajustan los controles y mecanismos de
prevención, incluidas las medidas de mitigación establecidas
en el Código Terrestre para el ingreso de productos, con el
fin de mantener en el tiempo la condición de «libre sin
vacunación».
Etapa IV: Transición entre el cese de la
vacunación y la solicitud de reconocimiento
oficial a la Organización Mundial de Sanidad
Animal
Mientras dure el periodo exigido de 12 meses desde el cese
de la vacunación para el reconocimiento oficial por parte
de la OIE, se continúa la vigilancia epidemiológica en la
zona (Artículos 8.8.40. al 8.8.42. del Código Terrestre) para
ratificar la ausencia de infección.
Se fortalecen las barreras sanitarias y los controles fronterizos
y se continúan las campañas de concientización al público
respecto a las restricciones sanitarias en los puestos de
ingreso a la zona libre.
Etapa V: Solicitud de reconocimiento oficial a la
Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal
Se lleva a cabo una compilación de la información y se
elabora el informe final de acuerdo con el Artículo 1.11.3.
del Código Terrestre (zona libre de infección por el virus de
la fiebre aftosa en que no se aplica la vacunación) para la
solicitud del reconocimiento oficial a la OIE al cumplirse un
año de la suspensión de la vacunación.
El Grupo ad hoc de la OIE para la fiebre aftosa y la Comisión
Científica para las Enfermedades de los Animales evalúan
la información remitida por el país para su aprobación
técnica, con el fin de que pueda ser presentada a la Asamblea
Mundial de Delegados de la OIE para que se apruebe el
«reconocimiento oficial por parte de la OIE».
Etapa VI: Reconocimiento oficial por parte de la
Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal
En la Sesión General de la Asamblea Mundial de Delegados
de la OIE (Sesión General), los Delegados aprueban el
reconocimiento oficial de «zona libre de infección por el
virus de la fiebre aftosa en que no se aplica la vacunación».
Etapa VII: Reconfirmación anual de la condición de
«libre» ante la OIE.
123
Etapa VIII: Comunicación y solicitud de reconocimiento
bilateral a países socios comerciales.
Regionalización/zonificación de
la República Argentina respecto
a la fiebre aftosa
Como resultado de la aplicación de las estrategias definidas
en el Plan Nacional de Erradicación de la Fiebre Aftosa,
establecido mediante la Resolución del SENASA n.º 5/2001,
la totalidad del territorio de la República Argentina  posee el
estatus de libre de fiebre aftosa, otorgado por la OIE.
Según las estrategias aplicadas, el territorio nacional se
divide en cinco zonas (libres de fiebre aftosa):
– dos zonas libres de fiebre aftosa con vacunación:
- Centro-Norte;
- Cordón Fronterizo
– y tres zonas libres de fiebre aftosa sin vacunación:
- Patagonia (Patagonia Norte B y Sur);
- Valles de Calingasta;
- Patagonia Norte A
La Argentina ha ido ampliado el área libre de fiebre aftosa en
que no se aplica la vacunación, mejorando paulatinamente
el estatus sanitario del ganado nacional.
Patagonia Sur obtuvo el reconocimiento oficial de zona
libre de fiebre aftosa en que no se aplica la vacunación en
2002 (70ª Sesión General). En 2007 (75.ª Sesión General),
Patagonia Norte B obtuvo el mismo reconocimiento por
parte de la OIE y, posteriormente, en 2008, obtuvo el
reconocimiento bilateral por parte de la UE, ampliándose
la zona libre sin vacunación mediante la unificación con
Patagonia Sur, de tal forma que se conformó una zona única
(Patagonia)
Patagonia Norte A
Patagonia Norte A comprende partes de territorios de
3 provincias (Río Negro, Neuquén y Buenos Aires) y está
delimitada por accidentes geográficos naturales (ríos),
rutas y límites políticos interprovinciales según los cuales
funciona un sistema de barreras sanitarias con pasos y
puestos de control que la separan de las otras zonas.
Patagonia Norte A, si bien formaba parte de la zona
«Centro Norte» (libre de fiebre aftosa con vacunación),
124
Mendoza
La Pampa
Buenos Aires
Chile
Neuquén
Río Negro Océano Atlántico
Fig.1
Patagonia Norte A
Zona libre con vacunación Centro-Norte
Zona libre sin vacunación Patagonia Norte A
Zona libre sin vacunación Patagonia
mantuvo controles más estrictos de ingreso de animales y
productos a fin de proteger a la Patagonia libre sin
vacunación. Ello se implementó mediante un sistema de
barreras sanitarias y puestos de control montado en las rutas
de acceso a la zona, así como en los accidentes geográficos
(ríos) y los límites políticos que permiten la separación
efectiva de esta zona.
En 2013, mediante resolución ministerial (Resolución
del MAGyP n.º 141/2013) (8), el SENASA ejecutó las
medidas necesarias en Patagonia Norte A para lograr el
estatus de «zona libre de fiebre aftosa en que no se aplica
la vacunación», así como su reconocimiento internacional.
En marzo 2013, se aplicó la última campaña de vacunación
antiaftosa en Patagonia Norte A, momento a partir del cual,
y partiendo de la base de los resultados de la vigilancia
epidemiológica, se prohibió la vacunación y el ingreso de
animales vacunados a dicha zona.
Reconocimiento oficial por parte
de la Organización Mundial de
Sanidad Animal
En octubre de 2013, la Argentina remitió a la OIE el
dossier para el reconocimiento oficial de Patagonia Norte
A como «zona libre de fiebre aftosa en que no se aplica la
vacunación» en base a las provisiones de la versión 2012
del Código Terrestre.
Hasta ese momento, Patagonia Norte A integraba la zona
«Centro-Norte» reconocida como «zona libre de fiebre
aftosa con vacunación».
En noviembre de 2013, el dossier fue analizado por el
Grupo ad hoc sobre la fiebre aftosa. En febrero 2014, la
Comisión Científica para las Enfermedades de los Animales
examinó y apoyó la recomendación del Grupo ad hoc para
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
el reconocimiento de Patagonia Norte A como nueva zona
libre de fiebre aftosa en que no se aplica la vacunación,
llegando a la conclusión de que cumplía los requisitos
N establecidos en el Código Terrestre.
En mayo de 2014, en la Sesión General, la Asamblea Mundial
de Delegados de la OIE aprobó, mediante la «Resolución
n.º  15: Reconocimiento de la situación sanitaria de los
Miembros respecto a la fiebre aftosa» (9), el reconocimiento
oficial de Patagonia Norte A como zona libre de fiebre aftosa
en que no se aplica la vacunación.
Reconocimiento bilateral
(por parte de socios
comerciales) de Patagonia Norte
A como «zona libre de fiebre
aftosa en que no se aplica la
vacunación»
En esta sección, se describe cómo fue el proceso del
reconocimiento por parte de la Unión Europea (UE) (y otros
mercados) de las condiciones establecidas en Patagonia
Norte A como «zona libre de fiebre aftosa en que no se
aplica la vacunación».
La secuencia de etapas y acciones se puede enmarcar
dentro de lo establecido en el Artículo 5.3.7. del Código
Terrestre «Etapas para establecer una zona y para obtener
su reconocimiento a efectos del comercio internacional»,
incluidos aspectos que a su vez se alinean con las «Directrices
para fomentar la aplicación práctica del artículo 6 del
Acuerdo MSF» (7).
Proceso y criterio general de la Unión Europea
para el reconocimiento de zonas libres e
información general requerida para evaluar la
solicitud (puntos 14.a. y 14.b. de las Directrices)
Los criterios según los cuales la UE establece listas de
terceros países o partes (regiones o zonas) de los mismos
autorizados a exportar animales o productos de origen
animal al mercado de la UE, así como los respectivos
requisitos, se basan en la condición o estatus sanitario de
dichos países o partes de los mismos y en las garantías que
los Servicios Veterinarios del país de origen ofrecen respecto
al cumplimiento de las condiciones de importación de los
productos. Uno de estos criterios es la situación sanitaria
respecto a la fiebre aftosa.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
La Directiva del Consejo de la UE n.º  2002/99/CE establece,
entre otros aspectos, los criterios y condiciones aplicables a
la importación de productos de origen animal para consumo
humano desde terceros países a la UE.
El Artículo 8 de esta Directiva indica que se establecerán
listas de terceros países o partes (zonas o regiones) desde los
cuales estén permitidas las importaciones de determinados
productos de origen animal. En concordancia con el
Artículo 6.2. del Acuerdo MSF de la OMC, las referidas
listas se establecen evaluando, entre otros aspectos,
la legislación y las garantías que ofrecen los Servicios
Veterinarios, la situación zoosanitaria, la prevención y
control de las enfermedades animales, los resultados
de auditorías comunitarias efectuadas al tercer país, los
antecedentes del país tercero en cuanto a exportación del
producto en cuestión y la notificación por parte del país
tercero de su situación sanitaria a la OIE. Por lo tanto, los
países interesados en exportar desde alguna zona libre a la
UE productos de origen animal deben brindar información
sobre estos aspectos para que sea evaluada.
La Directiva también establece que la UE debe efectuar una
auditoría que demuestre que las autoridades veterinarias del
país tercero ofrecen garantías adecuadas del cumplimiento
de la legislación comunitaria.
Si la evaluación de la información provista por el país tercero
y la conclusión de la auditoría resultan satisfactorios, la
Comisión Europea propone modificar la regionalización del
país interesado para incluir la nueva zona a la referida lista.
Esta propuesta debe ser adoptada, a través de sus
procedimientos internos, por el Comité Permanente de
Vegetales, Animales, Alimentos y Piensos (CoPAFF) y, si es
aprobada, por el Colegio de Comisarios. Y por último, la
UE publica en su Diario Oficial la nueva regionalización del
país interesado.
Bajo este enfoque están establecidas las listas de terceros
países o zonas en el Reglamento (UE) n.º  206/2010. La
regionalización establecida para la Argentina se basa
principalmente en si se aplica o no vacunación antiaftosa.
De acuerdo a su nivel de protección, y siguiendo los
dictámenes de la Autoridad Europea de Seguridad
Alimentaria (EFSA), las regiones sin vacunación antiaftosa
pueden exportar ciertos productos al mercado de la UE
en unas condiciones en las cuales no está autorizada la
exportación de los mismos desde las zonas con vacunación
antiaftosa; así, por ejemplo, la carne ovina, la carne bovina
con hueso y el semen bovino (o embriones fecundados
con dicho semen) deben provenir de países o zonas en los
cuales no se aplica la vacunación antiaftosa. En este sentido,
uno de los criterios de inclusión de un país o zona en la
lista del Anexo I de la Decisión n.º  2011/630/EU relativa
125
a la importación de semen bovino a la UE es que figure en
las regiones sin vacunación antiaftosa contempladas en el
Reglamento n.º  206/2010.
Solicitud de reconocimiento de un área libre
de enfermedades. Proceso general
e información requerida para dicho
reconocimiento (punto 13 de las Directrices,
y Artículos 5.3.7.1.b. y 5.3.7.1.c.i. del Código
Terrestre)
Partiendo de la base del reconocimiento oficial de Patagonia
Norte A por parte de la OIE en mayo de 2014 como zona
libre de fiebre aftosa en que no se aplica la vacunación,
la Argentina solicitó en agosto de 2014 a las autoridades
competentes europeas el reconocimiento bilateral para
que se modificara la regionalización establecida por la UE
en el Reglamento (UE) 206/2010; en dicho Reglamento,
se establecen listas de terceros países, o partes de países,
autorizados a introducir en la UE determinados animales
o carne fresca y los correspondientes requisitos de
certificación veterinaria.
El objetivo principal de la solicitud fue poder exportar
a la UE, en las mismas condiciones que Patagonia Sur y
que Patagonia Norte B (Región AR2 del Reglamento UE
206/2010), carne ovina y carne bovina sin necesidad de las
garantías adicionales de deshuesado, madurado y medición
del pH exigidas para las carnes bovinas que se exportan a la
UE desde las zonas con vacunación antiaftosa.
A su vez, esto facilitaría en el futuro la apertura del mercado
europeo a otros productos (como semen y embriones
bovinos) procedentes de Patagonia Norte A.
Como parte de la solicitud, en agosto de 2014, la Argentina
remitió a la Comisión Europea el dossier técnico que se
presentó a la OIE para solicitar el reconocimiento oficial.
Posteriormente, en septiembre de 2017, y a la espera de
la misión de auditoría a la zona, se remitió a la Dirección
General Salud y Seguridad Alimentaria de la Comisión
Europea (DG SANTÉ) información actualizada sobre
el plan de bioseguridad, incluidos los controles y las
barreras sanitarias en la Patagonia y los resultados de la
vigilancia epidemiológica relativa a la fiebre aftosa en
Patagonia Norte A.
Conocimiento de la Unión Europea sobre
la credibilidad de la infraestructura veterinaria
de la República Argentina (puntos 8 y 9 de las
Directrices)
La UE efectúa periódicamente auditorías a los sistemas de
control y certificación veterinaria de los terceros países que
126
exportan productos a dicho mercado. Esta práctica brinda
a los servicios comunitarios un conocimiento general de las
capacidades y funcionamiento de los Servicios Veterinarios
del tercer país en cuestión (Argentina, en este caso), más
allá de las cuestiones específicas relativas a la determinación
de la condición o estatus sanitario de una zona.
Solo a título ilustrativo, destacar que entre 2014 y 2019
la UE efectuó 14 misiones de inspección para auditar los
Servicios Veterinarios y Fitosanitarios de la Argentina
La UE ha otorgado el prelistado a la Argentina, lo cual
implica que es la Autoridad Veterinaria argentina quien
determina qué establecimientos están habilitados para
exportar productos a la UE. La base de este otorgamiento es
el conocimiento y la confianza, en términos generales, de la
UE en los Servicios Veterinarios de Argentina.
En cuanto al reconocimiento de Patagonia Norte A, se
produjo un proceso similar al que tuvo lugar cuando la UE
reconoció la región Patagonia Norte B en agosto de 2008,
que gozaba de una condición sanitaria similar y que había
sido reconocida oficialmente por la OIE como libre de fiebre
aftosa sin vacunación en mayo de 2007. Las características
de esta región y los sistemas de barreras y controles que
la separan de otras zonas son similares a los de Patagonia
Norte A. Por lo tanto, este antecedente debería tenerse en
cuenta durante el proceso bilateral relativo a Patagonia
Norte A.
Evaluación in situ por parte de la Unión Europea
de los procedimientos o sistemas de control de
Patagonia Norte A para reconocer su situación
sanitaria (libre de fiebre aftosa sin vacunación)
(Artículo 5.3.7., ítem 1.c.ii. del Código Terrestre)
Entre los procedimientos necesarios para la regionalización
de los terceros países, la UE debe llevar a cabo una
auditoría que demuestre que las autoridades veterinarias
competentes ofrecen garantías suficientes del cumplimiento
de la legislación comunitaria (11). En dicha auditoría, la UE
verifica que la información provista y las medidas descriptas
se encuentran en implementación y verifica la efectividad
de los controles que aseguren las garantías requeridas.
En el momento de enviar la información inicial, la Argentina
solicitó a la UE que, una vez analizada, incluya en su
Plan Anual de misiones a terceros países una auditoría a
Patagonia Norte A.
La Argentina solicitó a la UE que, hasta tanto la misión
de inspección se efectivice, la UE reconociera a Patagonia
Norte A en las mismas condiciones que al resto de la
Patagonia, reconocimiento que quedaría sujeto a una
auditoría posterior.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Asimismo, ante la necesidad de efectuar movimientos entre
Patagonia Norte A y el resto de la Patagonia (ambas con el
mismo estatus sanitario), la Argentina solicitó que mientras
la UE no efectuara dicha auditoría se pudiera flexibilizar la
barrera entre Patagonia Norte A y las zonas ubicadas más
al sur. Esta flexibilización sería aplicable al movimiento de
animales y productos en el circuito doméstico y sin cruces
con el circuito de exportación a la UE desde el resto de la
Patagonia, con el fin de no comprometer las garantías de
dichas exportaciones.
Misión de auditoría de la Dirección General
Salud y Seguridad Alimentaria de la Comisión
Europea
En marzo de 2018, la DG SANTÉ efectuó la misión de
auditoría a Patagonia Norte A.
En mayo de 2018, la UE remitió el informe de dicha misión,
en el que se encontraban 4 recomendaciones basadas en los
hallazgos. Estas recomendaciones guardaban relación con:
1. Asegurar la permanencia mínima requerida de los
animales en la región AR2 previa a la faena;
2. Mejorar la capacidad de supervisión de los Servicios
Veterinarios;
3. Mejorar los controles del sistema de trazabilidad y los
movimientos en Patagonia Norte A;
4. Asegurar la fiabilidad de los resultados de las técnicas de
laboratorio relativas a la fiebre aftosa.
En junio de 2018, el SENASA presentó a la DG SANTÉ
un Plan de Acciones correctivas en respuesta a estas
recomendaciones.
Solicitud de información complementaria
(Artículo 5.3.7., ítem 1.e.ii. del Código Terrestre)
El informe final de la auditoría fue remido por la UE en
julio de 2018. Si bien el plan de acción presentado por el
SENASA fue considerado «Satisfactorio», la UE solicitó a
la Argentina un informe del seguimiento y el avance de la
implementación de dichas acciones correctivas.
En febrero de 2019, el SENASA envió información
adicional sobre el seguimiento de las acciones correctivas.
La UE consideró satisfactorias las acciones relacionadas
con las recomendaciones 1, 2 y 3, quedando a la espera de
documentación de apoyo relativa a las pruebas diagnósticas.
Esta información fue posteriormente remitida por Argentina
en marzo de 2019 y la UE la consideró satisfactoria.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Reconocimiento de la zona por parte
de la Unión Europea (Artículo 5.3.7.,
ítem 1.e.i. del Código Terrestre)
Finalizada la evaluación de la información presentada por
Argentina y teniendo en cuenta el resultado de la misión
de auditoría a Patagonia Norte A y las acciones correctivas
implementadas por Argentina, en abril de 2019, CoPAFF
una propuesta de modificación de la regionalización para
Argentina, que figuraría en el Reglamento n.º 206/2010.
Dicho Comité aprobó la propuesta de la Comisión, la cual
fue posteriormente adoptada en el ámbito del Colegio de
Comisarios.
El 8 de julio de 2019, la Unión Europea publicó en su
Diario Oficial el Reglamento (UE) 2019/1162 (11), en el
cual figura la modificación de la regionalización establecida
para la Argentina en el Reglamento n.º 206/2010, de tal
forma que la región Patagonia Norte A puede exportar los
mismos productos y en las mismas condiciones, con los
mismos requisitos y con la misma certificación sanitaria
que el resto de la Patagonia, lo que implica de hecho el
reconocimiento por parte de la UE de esta región como
zona libre de fiebre aftosa en que no se aplica la vacunación.
El Reglamento, y por ende la nueva regionalización para la
Argentina, entró en vigor el 28 de julio de 2019 dando por
concluido el proceso.
Reconocimiento de Patagonia Norte A como
«zona libre de fiebre aftosa en que no se aplica
la vacunación» por parte de otros mercados
De forma similar, y paralelamente al reconocimiento
bilateral por parte de la UE, la Argentina ha presentado la
misma solicitud y se han iniciado procesos similares con
otros mercados.
Japón
En junio de 2018, y con posterioridad a una auditoría
realizada en marzo de 2017, el mercado japonés
quedó abierto para la importación de carne bovina y carne
ovina procedente de cualquier punto de la Patagonia
(incluida Patagonia Norte A) una vez reconocida esta
región como «libre de fiebre aftosa sin vacunación» y tras
acordar el protocolo y el certificado sanitario. El proceso
se había iniciado en 2005 para Patagonia Sur y Patagonia
Norte B, sumándose al mismo Patagonia Norte A en
mayo de 2016 tras el reconocimiento oficial por parte de la
OIE en 2014.
Chile
Argentina presentó a Chile la solicitud de reconocimiento
de Patagonia Norte A en septiembre de 2016. Chile efectuó
127
la misión de auditoría en marzo de 2017 y envió el informe
de misión con observaciones, que fueron contestadas por
el SENASA. Chile comunicó que efectuará una nueva visita
de re-inspección. El proceso de reconocimiento aún no ha
finalizado.
Estados Unidos de América
EE.UU. reconoció en agosto de 2014 a Patagonia Sur
y Patagonia Norte B como zonas libres de fiebre aftosa
(EE.UU. solo reconoce como libres de fiebre aftosa a
las zonas en que no se aplica la vacunación). Argentina
presentó la solicitud de reconocimiento de Patagonia
Norte A en junio de 2017 y envió la información solicitada
por EE.UU. para el análisis del riesgo. EE.UU. efectuó la
misión de auditoría en abril de 2018 y ya ha finalizado
el informe preliminar de análisis del riesgo. El próximo
paso sería publicarlo en el Federal Register (notificación de
disponibilidad de reconocimiento de Patagonia Norte A)
para que se puedan efectuar comentarios públicos durante
60 días. Posteriormente, tendría lugar la adopción de la
norma definitiva con dicho reconocimiento. El proceso de
reconocimiento aún no ha finalizado.
Conclusiones
En cuanto al reconocimiento bilateral o la adopción por
parte de los países importadores del reconocimiento oficial
de zonas libres otorgado por la OIE, es necesario destacar
lo siguiente:
En general, los países importadores aplican un proceso
de evaluación propio e independiente del reconocimiento
oficial por parte de la OIE. Este proceso generalmente
incluye inspecciones o auditorías in situ.
En estos procesos bilaterales, no existe una armonización
ni de las etapas o enfoques ni de la información requerida
por los países para su evaluación del riesgo y la toma de la
decisión final.
Las visitas de inspección requieren una logística y
disponibilidad de recursos, lo cual implica una priorización
que permita compatibilizar dichas visitas con las actividades
de rutina de los Servicios Veterinarios. A veces, estas
misiones pueden tardar varios años en realizarse.
Los largos periodos de tiempo del proceso requieren no
solo gestionar recursos técnicos y económicos tanto del país
exportador como del importador (escasos principalmente
en países en vías de desarrollo), sino también, y con
frecuencia, actualizar y ampliar la información.
Estas solicitudes de información adicional y las demoras
en el proceso crean imprevisibilidad y causan dificultades
128 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

internas derivadas de las restricciones entre zonas de un
mismo país debidas a diferencias entre los respectivos
estatus sanitarios y al hecho de que algunas, por lo tanto,
no gozan de los beneficios de comerciar con mercados
externos.
A partir del reconocimiento bilateral de la zona libre,
algunos países implementan inspecciones o evaluaciones
adicionales para habilitar establecimientos exportadores,
como, por ejemplo, la República Popular China y Rusia (no
es el caso de la UE, que otorga el pre-listing en base a las
garantías brindadas por los Servicios Veterinarios del país
exportador).
Una vez concluido de forma favorable el análisis del riesgo
y tomada la decisión de reconocer la zona como libre, la
necesidad de realizar trámites jurídicos y administrativos
internos en cada país (adopción de instrumentos normativos)
prolonga aún más los plazos para la implementación efectiva
del comercio.
Los reconocimientos de zonas libres no implican el acceso
automático a cualquier producto, sino que generalmente
se debe solicitar la apertura del mercado por producto
garantizando las condiciones específicas exigidas por
el mercado de destino (análisis del riesgo y acuerdo de
certificado sanitario).
- Con el establecimiento, por parte de los países socios
comerciales, de procesos paralelos, recíprocos y simultáneos
de reconocimiento de zonas libres de enfermedades (aún
cuando se trate de enfermedades diferentes), lo cual llevaría
a una situación de «ganar-ganar».
- Procediendo al reconocimiento y a la apertura efectiva
del mercado cuando se demore la misión de auditoría,
acciones que quedarían sujetas a una auditoría ex post.
- Promoviendo en los foros multilaterales correspondientes
(OIE, Comité MSF) la adopción automática, por parte de los
países, de los reconocimientos oficiales de la OIE del estatus
sanitario de los terceros países o zonas de los mismos, y la
efectiva apertura del mercado sin demoras indebidas.
- Propiciando, en la medida de lo posible, la armonización
de las solicitudes de información (cuestionarios) y los
procedimientos de reconocimiento del estatus sanitario
de los países o zonas de los mismos, teniendo en cuenta
la validez de las herramientas disponibles, como los
informes de auditorías anteriores, informes PVS de la OIE o
reconocimientos otorgados por otros países.
- Reforzando los mecanismos y las instancias de
observancia y vigilancia del funcionamiento y la aplicación
del Acuerdo MSF de la OMC, y promoviendo actividades
de capacitación y colaboración entre miembros en este
ámbito, por ejemplo, a través del Fondo para la Aplicación
de Normas y el Fomento del Comercio (STDF).

Recomendaciones Agradecimiento y reconocimiento

Los autores del presente artículo desean agradecer y
Se podrían implementar sistemas que mejoren o agilicen los
reconocer al Dr. Bernardo Cosentino (Q.E.P.D. – 2015),
reconocimientos bilaterales de zonas libres de enfermedades,
ex Director de Epidemiología del SENASA, quien lideró
principalmente para las que la OIE reconoce oficialmente:
la estrategia y el trabajo técnico que permitió, en primer
- A través de acuerdos bilaterales veterinarios o en el lugar, que Patagonia Norte A alcanzara el estatus de «zona
marco de Acuerdos de Libre Comercio, estableciendo libre de fiebre aftosa en que no se aplica la vacunación»,
procedimientos y plazos claros que deberían ser y en segundo lugar, el reconocimiento internacional de
implementados por los países socios comerciales para el dicho estatus, tanto por parte de la OIE como de los socios
reconocimiento de zonas libres de enfermedades. Dichos comerciales de la República Argentina.
Acuerdos generalmente cuentan con estructuras (comités)
que ofrecen un marco para el seguimiento de estos
procedimientos y la resolución técnica en caso de conflictos.
- Promoviendo el diálogo, la transparencia y el intercambio
de información permanentes entre los socios comerciales, a
fin de generar confianza entre sus Servicios y Autoridades
Veterinarias.
- Continuando el proceso PVS de la OIE para reforzar
las capacidades de los Servicios Veterinarios con el fin
de establecer zonas libres de enfermedades y lograr su
reconocimiento para el comercio internacional.
- Identificando, a través del Observatorio de Normas de la
OIE, los factores limitantes del proceso de reconocimiento
oficial, e incorporando dicho reconocimiento en la relación
comercial entre los Miembros de la OIE.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 129

Zones indemnes de maladie : processus de reconnaissance

bilatérale en Amérique du Sud
G. Funes, A.L. Merlo, M. Sowul, N. Rendine, X. Melon & A. Marcos

Résumé
D’après l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE), le «  zonage  » est
une stratégie de gestion du risque permettant d’avancer sur la voie du contrôle
progressif des maladies animales et de leur éradication tout en fournissant des
garanties dans le cadre des échanges internationaux. Sa mise en œuvre et son
efficacité sont tributaires de la qualité des Services vétérinaires.
Si l’éradication réussie d’une maladie et la reconnaissance du statut indemne
par les partenaires commerciaux mobilisent des ressources, elles constituent
également une incitation majeure au développement productif et économique.
En outre, elles garantissent la sécurité sanitaire des échanges internationaux,
à condition d’appliquer les normes de l’OIE et de respecter les dispositions de
l’Accord sur l’application des sanitaires et phytosanitaires (Accord SPS) de
l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC).
L’OIE et l’Accord SPS établissent des dispositions pour la mise en œuvre effective
du « zonage » et la reconnaissance des zones indemnes de maladies. Ce statut
sanitaire place les zones qui en bénéficient en position favorable pour exporter
leurs produits vers les marchés internationaux, mais il peut aussi entraîner des
restrictions au niveau national par rapport aux zones du pays dotées d’un statut
différent.
Il est d’usage que chaque pays applique ses propres procédures indépendamment
de la reconnaissance par l’OIE. Cela passe généralement par une évaluation de
l’information fournie et par une mission d’inspection in situ, mais ni la méthodologie
ni les informations requises pour mener à bien l’évaluation du risque n’ont fait
l’objet d’une harmonisation de la part des pays.
La reconnaissance d’une zone indemne ne vaut pas autorisation automatique
d’exporter tout produit à partir de cette zone, car il faut encore, pour chaque
produit, solliciter l’ouverture du marché et présenter des garanties démontrant
que les conditions imposées par le marché de destination sont satisfaites (analyse
du risque et certification sanitaire).
Des méthodes existent pour bénéficier des marchés extérieurs en accélérant
les reconnaissances bilatérales des zones indemnes de maladies  ; il s’agit
notamment des accords vétérinaires bilatéraux ou des accords de libre-échange,
qui définissent clairement les cadres d’application et les procédures à mettre en
place par les pays partenaires commerciaux.
L’échange permanent d’informations entre les pays partenaires favorise la
confiance entre leurs Services et Autorités vétérinaires respectifs, ce qui facilite
d’autant ces procédures.
Il convient de renforcer les travaux de l’OIE (Processus d’évaluation des
performances des Services vétérinaires [Processus PVS], Observatoire des
normes de l’OMC) et du Comité SPS de l’OMC (mécanismes d’évaluation de la
conformité) afin d’aider les pays à mettre en œuvre le « zonage ».
 
Mots-clés
Certification – Fièvre aphteuse – Marchés internationaux – Pays partenaires commerciaux
– Reconnaissance officielle – Services vétérinaires – Statut sanitaire – Surveillance
épidémiologique – Zonage – Zone indemne de maladie.
130
Referencias
1. Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) (2019).
– Código Sanitario para los Animales Terrestres. Glosario.
OIE, París, Francia. Disponible en: www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=2&htmfile=glossaire.htm (fecha de consulta:
5 de agosto de 2019).
2. Bruschke C. & Vallat B. (2008). – OIE standards and
guidelines related to trade and poultry diseases. In Poultry
in the 21st century. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epi., 27 (3), 631.
doi:10.20506/rst.27.3.1824.
3. Organización Mundial de Comercio (OMC) (2005). – G/
SPS/GEN/606 Communication from Argentina on Article
6 of the Agreement on the application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures. OMC, Ginebra, Suiza. Disponible
en: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_
S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=58283
&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex0&FullTe xtHash=1&HasEnglish
Record= True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=
True (fecha de consulta: 9 de junio de 2019).
4. Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) (2019).
– Reconocimiento oficial del estatus sanitario. OIE, París,
Francia. Disponible en: www.oie.int/es/sanidad-animal-en-el-
mundo/estatus-sanitario-oficial/procedimientos-y-politicas-
oficiales/ (fecha de consulta: 30 de julio de 2019).
5. Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) (2019). –
Procedimiento de autodeclaración de “libre de enfermedad”.
OIE, París, Francia. Disponible en: www.oie.int/es/sanidad-
animal-en-el-mundo/autodeclaracion-de-estatus-para-una-
enfermedad/ (fecha de consulta: 30 de julio de 2019).
6. Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) (2019).
– Procedimiento para la solicitud de una publicación OIE
sobre la autodeclaración libre de enfermedad. OIE, París,
Francia. Disponible en: en: www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/
Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/Self-declarations/ES_
Procedure_self_declaration.pdf (fecha de consulta: 30 de julio
de 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
7. Organización Mundial de Comercio (OMC) (2008). – G/
SPS/48 Guidelines to further the practical implementation of
Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures. OMC, Ginebra, Suiza. Disponible
en: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.
aspx?FullTextHash= 1&MetaCollection=WTO&SymbolList=
%22G/SPS/48%22+OR+%22G/SPS/48*%22 (fecha de consulta:
10 de agosto de 2019).
8. Argentina, Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca.
Resolución no 141/2013 Estatus Sanitario. Normas
Reglamentarias. SENASA. Página web: http://servicios.infoleg.
gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/205000-209999/208979/
norma.htm (fecha de consulta: 10 de agosto de 2019).
9. Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) (2014). –
Resolución n.° 15. Reconocimiento de la situación sanitaria
de los Países Miembros respecto a la fiebre aftosa. In Informe
Final 82.ª Sesión General OIE, Mayo 2014 (páginas 147 y
148). Disponible en: www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/esp/About_
us/docs/pdf/E_IF_2014_public.pdf (fecha de consulta:10 de
agosto de 2019).
10.
Consejo Europeo (2002). – Directiva 2002/99/CE del
Consejo de 16 de diciembre de 2002 por la que se establecen
las normas zoosanitarias aplicables a la producción,
transformación, distribución e introducción de los
productos de origen animal destinados al consumo humano.
Disponible en: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/
TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02002L0099-20130802&qid=156717
0105793&from=ES (fecha de consulta: 15 de agosto de 2019).
11. Comisión Europea (2019). – Reglamento de Ejecución
(UE) 2019/1162 de la Comisión. Off. J. Eur. Union,
L182. Disponible en: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R1162&from=ES (fecha de
consulta: 15 de agosto de 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 131-141

Disease-free zones: bilateral recognition

procedure in South America
G. Funes (1)*, A.L. Merlo (2), M. Sowul (2), N. Rendine (2), X. Melon (3) & A. Marcos (4)

(1) Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Embassy of Argentina to the European Union, Avenue Louise 225,
1050 Brussels, Belgium
(2) National Health and Agrifood Quality Service (SENASA), National Animal Health Directorate (DNSA),
Foot and Mouth Disease Programme, Paseo Colón 367, (1063) Buenos Aires, Argentina
(3) National Health and Agrifood Quality Service (SENASA), National Animal Health Directorate (DNSA),
Paseo Colón 367, (1063) Buenos Aires, Argentina
(4) National Health and Agrifood Quality Service (SENASA), National Animal Health Directorate (DNSA),
Epidemiology Department, Paseo Colón 367, (1063) Buenos Aires, Argentina
*Corresponding author: gmfunes@magyp.gob.ar

Summary
According to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), zoning is a risk
management strategy for achieving the progressive control and eradication of animal
diseases, and for providing guarantees for international trade. The implementation and
effectiveness of zoning relies on the quality of Veterinary Services.
Eradicating a disease and securing trading partners’ recognition of this disease-free
status demands resources, and promotes economic and fruitful development. It also
guarantees the sanitary safety of trade, provided that OIE standards are applied and
the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) is complied with.
The OIE international standards and the SPS Agreement lay down provisions for the
effective implementation of zoning and the recognition of disease-free zones. Although
animal-disease-free statuses place such zones in a favourable position with regard
to exporting their products to the international market, they can create internal
restrictions between regions of the same country with differing statuses.
As a general rule, each importing country implements its own evaluation procedure,
independent of OIE official recognition. While this usually provides for information
evaluation and an on-site inspection mission, there is no harmonisation between
countries regarding the methodology or the information required for risk assessment.
Recognition of a disease-free zone does not imply automatic permission to export any
product from that zone. Firstly, it is necessary to request that the market be opened for
each product in question, guaranteeing the conditions demanded by the target market
(risk analysis and animal health certification).
To benefit from external markets, there are ways of speeding up bilateral recognition of
disease-free zones, such as bilateral veterinary agreements or free trade agreements
that establish clear areas and procedures to be implemented by trading partner
countries.
The ongoing exchange of information among countries builds trust among their
Veterinary Services and authorities, which leads to expedited recognition procedures.
The work of the OIE (Pathway for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary
Services [PVS Pathway], OIE Observatory) and the WTO Committee on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Committee) (enforcement mechanisms) should be
strengthened to assist countries in implementing zoning. 

Keywords
Animal disease status – Certification – Disease-free zone – Epidemiological surveillance –
Foot and mouth disease – International markets – Official recognition – Trading partner country
– Veterinary Services – Zoning.

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3067
132
Introduction
Zoning is a risk management strategy which, by separating
animal subpopulations based on their health status, serves
two main purposes in accordance with the definition of a
zone as set out in the glossary of the World Organisation
for Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code
(Terrestrial Code) (1): a)  to work towards the progressive
control and eradication of animal diseases; and b) to provide
export markets with animal health guarantees.
The reason for applying the zoning concept is that it
allows a clear epidemiological differentiation to be made
between animals that belong to a specific geographical
area and those that do not. The effective implementation
of zoning is influenced by several technical issues, such as
the epidemiology of the disease(s) in question, the structure
and distribution of the animal population, the country and
infrastructure factors, the biosecurity measures which may
be applicable, the health status of animals in adjacent areas,
and the necessary surveillance inside and outside the zones,
all of which are linked to the efficiency of the Veterinary
Services (2).
Veterinary Services play a crucial role as guarantors of
the animal health status of disease-free zones and of
international trade through animal health certification of
the requirements demanded by different markets. In the
application of zoning, both the veterinary authority and the
private sector have specific responsibilities.
Eradicating a disease from a country, or part of that
country (zone), and securing trading partners’ recognition
of this disease-free status promotes economic and fruitful
development, while at the same time guaranteeing the
sanitary safety of trade, provided that OIE international
standards are applied and the obligations of the WTO
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS Agreement) are complied with.
The identification and national recognition of a zone with a
differential animal disease status is a process that can involve
several years of work and major investments in human and
financial resources (3). Thus, predictability, confidence
and credibility among trading partner countries, including
transparency and exchange of information, are key factors
in ensuring a rapid and effective process for the recognition
of disease-free zones.
This article aims to describe, in practical terms, the
procedure for the recognition of freedom from foot and
mouth disease (FMD) for a zone where vaccination is not
practised. It describes both the internal procedure, with the
steps involved in establishing a disease-free zone, and the
subsequent process for the negotiation and recognition of
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
a disease-free zone (in this case, Northern Patagonia  A in
Argentina) by a trading partner country, which improves
the standing of that zone in international markets.
Provisions of the World
Organisation for Animal Health
Chapter  4.4. of the Terrestrial Code establishes specific
standards to enable Members to implement zoning
effectively. Chapter  1.4. of the Terrestrial Code, on animal
health surveillance, establishes the provisions applicable for
the demonstration of disease freedom. In addition, there
are special provisions within the specific chapters on each
OIE-listed disease, as in Articles  8.8.2. and 8.8.3. of the
Terrestrial Code on foot and mouth disease.
The OIE has a procedure for the official recognition of a
country or zone as being free from rinderpest, African
horse sickness, classical swine fever, contagious bovine
pleuropneumonia, foot and mouth disease and peste
des petits ruminants, and of their bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) risk status. To secure this recognition,
countries must send information to the OIE for evaluation
(4). Chapters 1.7. to 1.12. of the Terrestrial Code establish
the respective questionnaires and the information that must
be submitted to the OIE to apply for official recognition
as being free from the said diseases or, in the case of BSE,
determination of the risk category.
In the procedure for official recognition by the OIE of the
disease status of Members, renowned international experts
use scientific means to conduct an exhaustive, objective
and transparent evaluation of all the relevant information
submitted by the applicant country. This evaluation
is carried out in accordance with standard operating
procedures, giving guarantees and confidence to trading
partners and the international community.
While there is no official recognition for the other OIE-listed
diseases, to be considered free from a disease, countries
can make a self-declaration of freedom for a country,
zone or compartment as a result of compliance with OIE
recommendations (5). The country may request the OIE
to publish this self-declaration, although responsibility for
the information it contains lies entirely with the submitting
country (6).
Article  5.3.7. of the Terrestrial Code, on OIE procedures
relevant to the WTO SPS Agreement, describes the sequence
of steps to be taken in establishing a disease-free zone and
securing its bilateral recognition by other countries for
international trade purposes.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Countries should immediately recognise any disease status
of Members that has been officially recognised by the OIE.
For other diseases, bilateral recognition of animal disease
status will be based on the exchange and evaluation of
information among trading partner countries. Moreover,
in accordance with Section  3 of the Terrestrial Code, in
any procedure for the bilateral recognition of a disease-
free zone, in addition to the specific aspects relating to the
disease in question, a key factor to be considered in the
proper implementation of zoning and the maintenance of
disease-free zones is the quality of Veterinary Services.
Pathway for the Evaluation of Performance of
Veterinary Services
The OIE has developed the Pathway for the Evaluation
of Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS Pathway) to
build the capacity and enhance the quality of its Members’
Veterinary Services in terms of their performance with
respect to OIE international standards. The improvement
of Veterinary Services will result in proper implementation
of animal disease regionalisation and the international
recognition of disease-free zones for the purposes of
international trade.
OIE Observatory
In May 2018, the World Assembly of Delegates of the
OIE recommended the establishment of an observatory
to monitor the implementation of OIE international
standards.
The OIE Observatory is a mechanism for the continuous and
systematic monitoring and analysis of Members’ practices
with regard to implementing OIE international standards.
The information obtained through the Observatory is
intended to improve the OIE international standard-setting
process and to identify the specific capacity-building
needs of Members in order to harmonise and improve the
implementation of OIE international standards, including
the establishment of disease-free zones and their recognition
by other countries for the purposes of international trade.
Provisions of the Agreement on
the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures
The SPS Agreement defines what is meant by a ‘pest- or
disease-free area’ and Article  6 of the Agreement refers to
the adaptation of sanitary measures for trade to regional
conditions (animal health status) in the place of origin
of products, including disease-free areas. World Trade
133
Organization Members must therefore recognise disease-
free areas in countries exporting animals or animal products.
In this context, the SPS Agreement recognises the OIE as
the reference international standard-setting body for animal
health, including its mandate to recognise disease-free
zones, which creates a legal obligation between the OIE and
WTO in this area.
To assist WTO Members in applying Article  6 of the SPS
Agreement, the SPS Committee has clarified its interpretation
in Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article
6 of the Agreement (7).
Article  6.3 of the SPS Agreement provides that, to obtain
this recognition of a disease-free zone by trading partners,
exporting WTO Members shall provide the necessary
evidence to support disease freedom. An exporting Member
must also give the importing Member access to carry out
on-site inspections or testing to verify freedom. In turn,
the importing Member must proceed with the evaluation
without undue delay and without discrimination with
respect to other countries, and taking into account all
relevant knowledge and previous experience with the
authorities of the exporting Member.
Steps leading to bilateral
recognition of a ‘foot and
mouth disease-free zone where
vaccination is not practised’
Below is a description of the general internal procedure
necessary to establish a disease-free zone, including official
recognition by the OIE (bearing in mind that foot and
mouth disease is one of the seven diseases for which the
OIE grants official recognition of disease status), leading to
bilateral recognition by a trading partner.
Step I: Internal consensus among all
stakeholders
Achieving internal consensus among all stakeholders  −
including national, provincial and municipal government
institutions involved in controls, the production sector
(livestock producers and industry), the Veterinary Services
and the private veterinary sector − is crucial to ascertaining
the pros and cons of the situation.
Stakeholder consensus is necessary because, although the
establishment of a disease-free zone places that zone in a
favourable position in the international market because
134
of its improved animal disease status, it also creates some
internal difficulties and constraints (such as restrictions on
the movement of animals and animal products between
regions with differing animal disease status). This may
give rise to illegal movements between zones with differing
animal disease status because of product price differentials.
In this context, sanitary barriers and controls, which are
implemented in order to preserve the status of the disease-
free zone, play an essential role.
Step II: Evaluation of the disease status
of the animal population and prevention
measures in a zone applying to be declared free
The first basic principle in defining a zone is to clearly
define the animal subpopulation belonging to that zone.
This means that the extent of the zone, including its
geographical limits, must be determined (2).
Article 1.4.6. of the Terrestrial Code establishes the criteria
and standards for epidemiological surveillance to
demonstrate freedom from a disease, infection or infestation.
In addition, the chapters on specific diseases contain special
provisions on demonstrating the absence of each disease.
Below are some of the actions to be carried out.
- Updating the register of livestock farms, identifying
those at highest risk of disease introduction and spread,
updating the stock register of susceptible domestic animals
and estimating the numbers of wildlife species.
In Argentina, in the FMD-free zone where vaccination
is practised, animal stocks are updated during each
vaccination campaign by recording them in the animal
health management system. The system also records animal
movements and each farm’s arrivals and departures. Thus,
information on all farms and livestock is updated regularly.
In the disease-free zone where vaccination is not practised,
farms carry out annual updating, including declaring their
stocks. The system also records animal movements and
each farm’s arrivals and departures.
- The implementation of an animal health management
system, including proper animal identification and
traceability to allow for the origin and ownership of the
animal population in the zone in question to be identified
and enabling movements to be tracked.
- The evaluation and strengthening of the biosecurity
plan, with the following actions:
Updating and registration of slaughterhouses, livestock
concentrations and landfills, as well as an evaluation of the
biosecurity conditions of household and commercial food
waste that could be diverted to feed pigs, and an evaluation
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
of border controls and sanitary barriers that separate the
zone applying to be declared free from other zones with a
different animal disease status.
If deemed appropriate or necessary, the possibility of
establishing a protection zone should be considered.
- Epidemiological surveillance, with the following actions:
- Sero-epidemiological surveys of the susceptible
population.
- Clinical surveillance of susceptible domestic and
wild animals.
- Training/awareness activities for Veterinary Services,
other national, provincial and municipal government
agencies and institutions, the security forces, producers,
industry and the general public on the importance of
foot and mouth disease, as well as on their role in the
prevention, early detection, containment and treatment of
FMD outbreaks.
Step III: Cessation of vaccination
Depending on the evolution of the national foot and
mouth disease eradication plan, consideration is given to
the possibility of incorporating zones where vaccination is
not practised in order to expand disease-free zones where
vaccination is not practised to most of the national territory.
After completing the actions in Step II, and if the indicators
emerging from an analysis of the epidemiological
surveillance information and risk factors guarantee the
absence of infection and the prevention of entry of the
pathogen, the decision is made to cease vaccination.
Vaccinated animals are prohibited from entering the zone
applying to be declared free, and controls and prevention
mechanisms are adjusted, including the mitigation measures
established in the Terrestrial Code for the entry of products,
in order to maintain, over time, the status of a disease-free
zone where vaccination is not practised.
Step IV: Transition between the cessation
of vaccination and an application for official
recognition by the World Organisation for
Animal Health
Over the 12-month period from cessation of vaccination
required to secure OIE official recognition, epidemiological
surveillance continues in the zone (Articles 8.8.40. to
8.8.42. of the Terrestrial Code) to confirm the absence of
infection.
Sanitary barriers and border controls are reinforced and
public awareness campaigns on sanitary restrictions at
points of entry into the disease-free zone continue.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Step V: Application for official recognition
by the World Organisation for Animal Health
The information is compiled and a final report is prepared
in accordance with Article  1.11.3. of the Terrestrial Code
(zone free from infection with foot and mouth disease virus
where vaccination is not practised) for an application for
OIE official recognition 12  months after the cessation of
vaccination.
The OIE Ad hoc Group on Foot and Mouth Disease and
the OIE Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases evaluate
the information submitted by the country for technical
approval, to enable it to be submitted to the World Assembly
of Delegates of the OIE for approval of official recognition
by the OIE.
Step VI: Official recognition by the World
Organisation for Animal Health
At the General Session of the World Assembly of Delegates
of the OIE (General Session), Delegates approve the official
recognition of a zone free from infection with foot and
mouth disease virus where vaccination is not practised.
Step VII: Annual reconfirmation of freedom to the OIE.
Step VIII: Communication and application for bilateral
recognition by trading partner countries.
Regionalisation/zoning of the
Argentine Republic for foot and
mouth disease
As a result of implementing the strategies defined in the
national foot and mouth disease eradication plan, established
by National Health and Agrifood Quality Service (SENASA)
Resolution No. 5/2001, the entire territory of the Argentine
Republic was granted official FMD freedom by the OIE.
In line with the control strategies, the national territory was
divided into the following five FMD-free zones:
– two FMD-free zones where vaccination is practised:
- North Central zone
- border zone.
- three FMD-free zones where vaccination is not practised:
- Patagonia (Northern Patagonia B and Southern
Patagonia)
- Calingasta Valley
- Northern Patagonia A.
135
Argentina has been expanding the FMD-free zone where
vaccination is not practised, gradually improving the
disease status of the national livestock population.
Southern Patagonia was officially recognised as an FMD-
free zone where vaccination is not practised in 2002 (at
the 70th General Session). Northern Patagonia B received
the same OIE recognition at the 75th General Session in
2007 and, in 2008, it went on to obtain bilateral recognition
from the European Union, expanding the disease-free zone
where vaccination is not practised by merging it with
Southern Patagonia to form a single zone (Patagonia).
Northern Patagonia A
Northern Patagonia A includes parts of territories in three
provinces (Río Negro, Neuquén and Buenos Aires) and is
bordered by natural geographical features (rivers), roads
and interprovincial political boundaries where a system of
sanitary barriers is in operation with crossing points and
checkpoints that separate it from other zones.
Even though Northern Patagonia A was part of the North
Central FMD-free zone where vaccination is practised, it
Mendoza
La Pampa Buenos Aires
Chile
Neuquén
N
Río Negro Atlantic Ocean
Fig.1
Northern Patagonia A
North Central foot and mouth disease-free zone where vaccination is practised
Northern Patagonia A foot and mouth disease-free zone where vaccination is not
practised
Patagonia foot and mouth disease-free zone where vaccination is not practised
maintained stricter controls on the entry of animals and
products in order to protect the Patagonia free zone where
vaccination is not practised. This was implemented through
a system of sanitary barriers and checkpoints sited on
access routes to the zone, as well as at geographical features
(rivers) and political boundaries that allow the effective
separation of this zone.
In 2013, SENASA, by means of Resolution No. 141/2013
of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries
(8), implemented the necessary measures in Northern
Patagonia A to secure the status of an FMD-free zone where
vaccination is not practised, as well as its international
136
recognition. In March 2013, the last FMD vaccination
campaign was carried out in Northern Patagonia  A, after
which, based on epidemiological surveillance results, both
vaccination and the entry of vaccinated animals into the
zone were prohibited.
Official recognition by the World
Organisation for Animal Health
In October 2013, Argentina submitted an application to the
OIE for official recognition of Northern Patagonia A as an
FMD-free zone where vaccination is not practised, based on
the provisions of the 2012 edition of the Terrestrial Code.
Until then, Northern Patagonia  A had been part of the
North Central zone, recognised as an FMD-free zone where
vaccination is practised.
In November 2013, the application dossier was analysed by
the Ad hoc Group on Foot and Mouth Disease. In February
2014, the Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases
examined and endorsed the Ad hoc Group’s recommendation
for the recognition of Northern Patagonia  A as a new
FMD-free zone where vaccination is not practised, after
concluding that it met the requirements of the Terrestrial
Code.
At the General Session in May 2014, the World Assembly of
OIE Delegates, through Resolution No. 15 on recognition of
the foot and mouth disease status of Members (9), approved
the official recognition of Northern Patagonia A as an FMD-
free zone where vaccination is not practised.
Bilateral recognition (by
trading partners) of Northern
Patagonia A as a foot and
mouth disease-free zone where
vaccination is not practised
This section describes the procedure for recognition by the
European Union (EU) (and other markets) of the conditions
established in Northern Patagonia A as an FMD-free zone
where vaccination is not practised.
The series of actions is provided for in Article 5.3.7. of the
Terrestrial Code on the sequence of steps to be taken in
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
establishing a zone and having it recognised for international
trade purposes, including aspects that are also aligned
with the Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of
Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (7).
General process and criteria used by the
European Union for the recognition of disease-
free areas and general information required to
evaluate requests for recognition (points 14 [a]
and 14 [b] of the Guidelines)
The criteria used by the European Union to establish lists
of third countries or parts (regions or zones) of countries
authorised to export animals or animal products to the EU
market, as well as the respective requirements, are based
on the animal disease status of such countries or parts of
countries and on the guarantees provided by the Veterinary
Services of the country of origin regarding compliance with
the import requirements for the products. One of these
criteria is the FMD status.
Council of the EU Directive No. 2002/99/EC establishes,
among other aspects, the criteria and conditions applicable
to the introduction into the European Union of animal
products for human consumption from third countries.
Article 8 of the Directive states that lists shall be compiled of
third countries or parts of countries (zones or regions) from
which imports of specific products of animal origin are
permitted. In accordance with Article 6.2. of the WTO SPS
Agreement, these lists are drawn up by evaluating, among
other aspects, the legislation and guarantees provided by
the Veterinary Services, the animal health situation, animal
disease prevention and control, the results of Community
audits carried out in the third country, any experience of
exporting the product in question from the third country
and the third country’s notification of its disease status to
the OIE. Countries interested in exporting animal products
from a disease-free zone to the European Union must
therefore provide information on these aspects in order to
be evaluated.
The Directive also states that the European Union must carry
out an audit that demonstrates that the veterinary authority
of the third country provides appropriate guarantees with
regard to compliance with Community legislation.
If the evaluation of the information provided by the third
country and the audit findings are satisfactory, the European
Commission issues a proposal to amend the country’s
regionalisation to include the new zone in the previously
mentioned list.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Through its internal procedures, this proposal is submitted
for adoption first to the Standing Committee on Plants,
Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF Committee), then, if
approved, to the College of Commissioners. Lastly, the
European Union publishes the country’s new regionalisation
in its Official Journal.
Under this approach, the lists of third countries or zones are
laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No. 206/2010.
The regionalisation established for Argentina is based
primarily on whether or not FMD vaccination is practised.
Depending on their level of protection and in accordance
with the rulings of the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA), regions where FMD vaccination is not practised
may export certain products to the European Union
market, whereas the same products are not authorised for
export from zones where FMD vaccination is practised. For
example, sheep meat, beef on the bone and bovine semen (or
embryos fertilised with bovine semen) may come only from
countries or zones where FMD vaccination is not practised.
Thus, one of the criteria for the inclusion of a country or
zone in the list in Annex  I of Commission Implementing
Decision No. 2011/630/EU on imports into the European
Union of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species
is that the zone should be one of the regions where FMD
vaccination is not practised, referred to in Regulation
No. 206/2010.
Request for recognition of a disease-free area.
General process and information required for
such recognition (point 13 of the Guidelines,
and Articles 5.3.7.1 [b] and 5.3.7.1 [c] i of the
Terrestrial Code)
Based on the official recognition of Northern Patagonia  A
by the OIE in May 2014 as an FMD-free zone where
vaccination is not practised, in August 2014, Argentina
requested the European authorities responsible for bilateral
recognition to amend the regionalisation established by
the European Union in Commission Regulation (EU)
No. 206/2010 laying down lists of third countries or parts
thereof authorised for the introduction into the European
Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary
certification requirements.
The main purpose of the request was to obtain authorisation
to export sheep and bovine meat to the European Union
under the same conditions as Southern Patagonia and
Northern Patagonia  B (region AR-2 of Commission
Regulation [EU] No.  206/2010), without the need for
supplementary guarantees regarding de-boning, maturation
and pH measurement required for bovine meat exported to
the European Union from zones where FMD vaccination
is practised.
137
This was expected to facilitate the future opening of
the European market to other products from Northern
Patagonia A (such as bovine semen and embryos).
As part of the request, in August 2014, Argentina sent
the European Commission the technical dossier it had
submitted to the OIE to secure official recognition.
Then, in September 2017, pending an audit mission to
the zone, Argentina submitted updated information on the
biosecurity plan to the Directorate-General for Health and
Food Safety of the European Commission (DG  SANTÉ),
including controls and sanitary barriers in Patagonia and
the results of epidemiological surveillance for foot and
mouth disease in Northern Patagonia A.
European Union knowledge of the credibility
of the Argentine Republic’s veterinary
infrastructure (points 8 and 9 of the Guidelines)
The European Union periodically audits the control and
veterinary certification systems of third countries that
export products to its market. This provides Community
services with a general understanding of the capabilities
and operation of the Veterinary Services of the third country
in question (in this case Argentina), above and beyond the
specific issues relating to the determination of a zone’s
animal disease status.
For instance, between 2014 and 2019 the European Union
carried out 14  inspection missions to audit Argentina’s
Veterinary and Plant Health Services.
The European Union has granted Argentina pre-listing,
meaning that it is the Argentine veterinary authority that
determines which farms are approved to export products
to the European Union. This decision is based on the
European Union’s knowledge and confidence, in general, in
Argentina’s Veterinary Services.
For the recognition of Northern Patagonia A, the procedure
was similar to the one used when the European Union
recognised the Northern Patagonia  B region in August
2008, which enjoyed a similar animal health status and
had been officially recognised by the OIE as an FMD-free
zone where vaccination is not practised in May 2007. The
characteristics of the Northern Patagonia  B region and
the barrier and control systems separating it from other
zones are similar to those of Northern Patagonia  A. This
should therefore be taken into account during the bilateral
procedure relating to Northern Patagonia A.
138
On-site evaluation by the European Union
of control procedures or systems in Northern
Patagonia A for recognising its status as a foot
and mouth disease-free zone where vaccination
is not practised (Article 5.3.7., item 1 [c] ii of the
Terrestrial Code)
One of the required procedures for the regionalisation of
third countries is a European Union audit demonstrating
that the competent veterinary authority provides appropriate
guarantees as regards compliance with Community
legislation (10). In this audit, the European Union checks
that the information provided and the measures described
are being implemented and verifies the effectiveness of the
controls underpinning the required guarantees.
When it sent the initial information, Argentina requested
the European Union, after it had analysed the information,
to include an audit of Northern Patagonia A in its annual
plan of missions to third countries.
Argentina requested the European Union, pending the
inspection mission, to recognise Northern Patagonia  A
under the same conditions as the rest of Patagonia, with
such recognition being subject to a subsequent audit.
Given the need to conduct movements between Northern
Patagonia  A and the rest of Patagonia (which shares the
same animal disease status), Argentina also requested the
European Union, pending the audit, to ease the barrier
between Northern Patagonia A and more southerly zones.
This easing would be applicable to the movement of animals
and products within the domestic channel, not intersecting
with the channel of exports from the rest of Patagonia to
the European Union, in order to avoid compromising the
guarantees of such exports.
Audit mission by the Directorate-General
for Health and Food Safety of the European
Commission
In March 2018, DG SANTÉ conducted an audit mission to
Northern Patagonia A.
In May 2018, the European Union sent the report of that
mission, containing four recommendations based on the
findings. These recommendations were to:
1. ensure that animals stay in the AR-2 region for the
required minimum period prior to slaughter
2. improve the supervisory capacity of the Veterinary
Services
3.
improve controls of the traceability system and
movements in Northern Patagonia A
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
4. ensure the reliability of results from foot and mouth
disease-related laboratory techniques.
In June 2018, SENASA submitted a corrective action plan
to DG SANTÉ in response to these recommendations.
Request for further information
(Article 5.3.7., item 1 [e] ii of the Terrestrial Code)
The European Union sent the final audit report in July
2018. Even though it considered the action plan submitted
by SENASA to be satisfactory, the European Union
requested Argentina to provide a report on the monitoring
of and progress with the implementation of the aforesaid
corrective actions.
In February 2019, SENASA submitted supplementary
information on the follow-up of the corrective actions.
The European Union found the actions relating to
recommendations 1, 2 and 3 to be satisfactory but awaited
supporting documentation on diagnostic tests. Argentina
submitted this information in March 2019 and the European
Union found it to be satisfactory.
Recognition of the zone by the European Union
(Article 5.3.7., item 1 [e] i of the Terrestrial Code)
After evaluating the information submitted by Argentina
and taking into account the outcome of the audit mission
to Northern Patagonia  A and the corrective actions
implemented by Argentina, in April 2019 the European
Commission submitted a proposal to the PAFF Committee
to amend the regionalisation for Argentina, which would
appear in Regulation No. 206/2010.
The PAFF Committee approved the Commission’s proposal,
which was subsequently adopted by the College of
Commissioners.
On 8  July 2019, the European Union published in its
Official Journal Commission Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2019/1162 (11), containing the amended
regionalisation established for Argentina in Regulation
No.  206/2010, enabling the Northern Patagonia  A
region to export the same products, under the same
conditions, with the same requirements and the same
animal health certification, as the rest of Patagonia, implying
the European Union’s de facto recognition of this region as
an FMD-free zone where vaccination is not practised. The
regulation, and hence the new regionalisation for Argentina,
came into force on 28 July 2019, bringing the procedure to
a close.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Recognition by other markets of Northern
Patagonia A as a foot and mouth disease-free
zone where vaccination is not practised
In parallel with bilateral recognition by the European
Union, Argentina submitted the same request and initiated
similar procedures with other markets.
Japan
In June 2018, following an audit in March 2017, the
Japanese market was opened for imports of bovine and
ovine meat from any part of Patagonia (including Northern
Patagonia A), once this region was recognised as FMD-free
where vaccination is not practised and after agreeing on the
protocol and the animal health certificate. The procedure
had begun in 2005 for Southern Patagonia and Northern
Patagonia B, with Northern Patagonia A being included in
May 2016 following official recognition by the OIE in 2014.
Chile
In September 2016, Argentina submitted a request to Chile
for recognition of Northern Patagonia A. Chile conducted
an audit mission in March 2017 and sent the mission report
with comments, which were answered by SENASA. Chile
announced that it would carry out a new inspection visit.
The recognition procedure is not yet complete.
United States of America
In August 2014, the United States of America (USA)
recognised Southern Patagonia and Northern Patagonia  B
as FMD-free zones (the USA recognises as FMD-free only
those zones where vaccination is not practised). Argentina
submitted a request for recognition of Northern Patagonia A
in June 2017 and sent the information requested by the
USA for risk analysis. The USA conducted an audit mission
in April 2018 and has already completed the preliminary
risk analysis report. The next step would be to publish it in
the Federal Register (notice of availability of the recognition
of Northern Patagonia A) to enable public comments to be
made over a 60-day period. This would be followed by the
adoption of the final rule with the said recognition. The
recognition procedure is not yet complete.
Conclusions
On the issue of bilateral recognition or the adoption by
importing countries of the OIE official recognition of
disease-free zones, the following points need to be borne
in mind.
As a general rule, importing countries implement their
own evaluation procedure independent of OIE official
139
recognition. This procedure usually includes on-site
inspections or audits.
In such bilateral procedures, there is no harmonisation
of either the steps or approaches or of the information
required by countries for their risk assessment and final
decision-making.
Inspection visits involve logistics and require the availability
of resources, which means setting priorities to fit such visits
in with routine Veterinary Service activities. In some cases,
inspection missions may take several years to complete.
The long lead times of the procedure make it necessary not
only to manage the technical and economic resources of
both the exporting and importing countries (which may be
scarce, particularly in developing countries) but also, very
often, to update and expand information.
These requests for supplementary information and delays
in the procedure create unpredictability and cause internal
difficulties because of restrictions between zones within the
same country due to their differing animal disease status
and the fact that some zones do not enjoy the benefits of
trading with external markets.
Following bilateral recognition of a disease-free zone, some
countries, such as the People’s Republic of China and Russia,
implement additional inspections or evaluations to approve
farms for export (this is not the case with the European
Union, which grants pre-listing based on the guarantees
provided by the exporting country’s Veterinary Services).
After the risk analysis has concluded satisfactorily and the
decision has been taken to recognise a zone as free, lead
times for trade to actually commence are further prolonged
by the need for each country to carry out internal legal
and administrative formalities (adoption of regulatory
instruments).
The recognition of a disease-free zone does not imply
automatic access for any product. Firstly, it is usually
necessary to request the market to be opened for each
product, guaranteeing the specific conditions demanded by
the target market (risk analysis and agreement on an animal
health certificate).
Recommendations
The following means could be implemented to improve
or speed up bilateral recognition of disease-free zones,
primarily those officially recognised by the OIE:
- bilateral veterinary agreements or free trade agreements
that establish clear procedures and timelines to be
implemented by trading partner countries for the recognition
140
of disease-free zones. Such agreements usually provide for
structures (committees) as a framework for monitoring
these procedures and for the technical resolution of any
disputes;
- promoting dialogue, transparency and the ongoing
exchange of information among trading partners, in order to
build trust among their Veterinary Services and authorities;
- continuing the OIE PVS Pathway to build the capacity of
Veterinary Services for establishing disease-free zones and
securing their recognition for international trade;
- using the OIE Standards Observatory to identify the
constraints of the official recognition procedure and
incorporating this recognition into the trading relationship
between OIE Members;
- the establishment, by trading partner countries, of
parallel, reciprocal and simultaneous procedures for the
recognition of disease-free zones (even when dealing with
different diseases), which would create a win-win situation;
- proceeding with recognition and effective opening of
the market when an audit mission is delayed, which would
both be subject to an ex-post audit;
- promoting in the relevant multilateral forums (OIE, SPS
Committee) the automatic adoption, by countries, of OIE
official recognition of the animal disease status of third
countries or their zones, and the effective opening of the
market without undue delay;
References
1. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Terrestrial
Animal Health Code. Glossary. OIE, Paris, France. Available
at: www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=glossaire.
htm (accessed on 5 August 2019).
2. Bruschke C. & Vallat B. (2008). – OIE standards and
guidelines related to trade and poultry diseases. In Poultry
in the 21st century. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 27 (3), 631.
doi:10.20506/rst.27.3.1824.
3.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2005). – G/SPS/
GEN/606. Communication from Argentina on Article 6
of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/
FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=58283
& C u r r e n t C a t a l o g u e I d I n d e x = 0 & F u l l Te x t H a s h =
1&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&Has
SpanishRecord=True (accessed on 9 June 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
- promoting, as far as possible, the harmonisation of
requests for information (questionnaires) and procedures
for recognising the animal disease status of countries or
their zones, taking into account the validity of the tools
available, such as previous audit reports, OIE PVS reports
or recognition granted by other countries;
- strengthening mechanisms and institutions for
enforcement and monitoring the operation and
implementation of the WTO SPS Agreement, and promoting
training activities and collaboration among Members in
this field, for example through the Standards and Trade
Development Facility.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge and thank Dr Bernardo
Cosentino (who died in 2015), the former Director of
Epidemiology at SENASA, who spearheaded the strategy
and technical work that led, first, to Northern Patagonia A
achieving the status of an FMD-free zone where vaccination
is not practised and, second, to international recognition
of that status by both the OIE and the Argentine Republic’s
trading partners.
4. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Official
recognition of disease status. OIE, Paris, France. Available at:
https://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/official-
disease-status/official-recognition-policy-and-procedures/
(accessed on 30 July 2019).
5. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Self-declaration of disease freedom. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at: https://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-
the-world/self-declared-disease-status/ (accessed on 30  July
2019).
6. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Procedure for the application for the publication by the
OIE of a self-declaration of disease freedom. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at: https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/
Home/eng/Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/Self-
declarations/EN_Procedure_self_declaration.pdf (accessed on
30 July 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 141

7. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2008). – G/SPS/48.
Guidelines to further the practical implementation of
Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_
S_S006.aspx?FullTextHash=1&MetaCollection=WTO&
SymbolList=%22G/SPS/48%22+OR+%22G/SPS/48*%
22 (accessed on 10 August 2019).
8. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (Argentina).
(2013). – Resolution No. 141/2013: Health status:
regulatory standards. SENASA, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/
anexos/205000-209999/208979/norma.htm (accessed on 10
August 2019).
10. European Council (2002). – Council Directive 2002/99/
EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health
rules governing the production, processing, distribution
and introduction of products of animal origin for human
consumption. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002L0099&from=EN
(accessed on 15 August 2019).
11. European Commission (2019). – Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2019/1162 of 1 July 2019. Off. J. Eur. Union,
L182. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R1162&from=EN (accessed
on 15 August 2019).

9. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2014). –

Resolution No. 15. Recognition of the Foot and Mouth Disease
Status of Member Countries. In Final report of the 82nd OIE
General Session, May 2014. OIE, Paris, France, 147–148.
Available at: www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/About_us/
docs/pdf/A_FR_2014_public.pdf (accessed on 10  August
2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 143-153

Mutual recognition of veterinary testing and

inspection results to facilitate international trade
F. Meliado (1)* & P. Widders (2)
(1) Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization (WTO), Centre William Rappard, Rue de
Lausanne, 154, PO Box 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
(2) 5 Carmen Place, Dolan’s Bay, NSW 2229, Australia
*Corresponding author: fabrizio.meliado@wto.org

Summary
For a country to have confidence in the health status of the animals or animal
goods it is importing, it must also have confidence in the performance of the
exporting country’s Veterinary Service. An exporting country’s Veterinary Service
may be judged by its management of the health status of its animal population and
by the governance of its export process. Effectiveness in both arenas provides
prospective importing countries with confidence in the sanitary status of that
nation’s exports and facilitates international trade.
Assessing the performance of Veterinary Services across borders, however, can
be a complex process, which depends on building trust and exchanging information
between independent jurisdictions and the relevant scientific and regulatory
authorities. In this paper, the authors introduce some of the fundamental facts
and concepts of regulatory cooperation at the multilateral and bilateral level. They
also discuss why such initiatives matter when attempting to increase safe trade in
animals and animal products. In addition, the authors address ways in which such
cooperation could be undertaken more effectively; specifically, by supporting the
implementation of the health standards set by the World Organisation for Animal
Health while facilitating the seamless flow of animal goods. The authors conclude
by presenting a case study of the trade in animals and animal products between
Australia and New Zealand, as an example of best practice in international
regulatory cooperation leading to more and safer trade.

Keywords
Accreditation – Australia – Case study – Mutual recognition – New Zealand – Trade
facilitation – Veterinary Services – World Trade Organization.

Introduction In this paper, the authors will examine multilateral

Mutual recognition of veterinary testing and inspection
results between trading partners falls within the broader
concept of trade regulatory cooperation. Accordingly,
when an exporting country is setting national norms at
various stages of its legislative process, it must take into
consideration the concerns expressed by its international
trading partners. These legislative stages include the design
and setting of national standards, their application and their
enforcement. Trade regulatory cooperation thus involves
particular technical or sanitary/phytosanitary measures, the
relevant standards, procedures for assessing how well such
standards are being met, and international cooperation on
scientific matters. Regulatory cooperation is addressed in
more detail in this issue by Gobind Daswani and Bucher (1).
frameworks for regulatory cooperation, overseen by bodies
such as the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)
Committee within the World Trade Organization (WTO),
the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the
International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC)
and the International Accreditation Forum. They will
also discuss a variety of bilateral arrangements – between
countries but also between sub-national organisations
in different jurisdictions – in which countries mutually
recognise veterinary testing and inspection results, often in
quite specific and operational terms.
To study various implications of mutual recognition
arrangements, and the way in which they facilitate trade
of the products governed by OIE standards, the authors

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3068
144
introduce some of the fundamental facts and concepts
of regulatory cooperation at the multilateral and bilateral
level. They discuss why such activities are important in
the growth of safe trade, and address ways in which such
cooperation could be framed more specifically to support
the implementation of OIE standards while still facilitating
the seamless flow of these goods. In this context, the authors
present a case study involving the regulatory cooperation
arrangements between Australia and New Zealand, with a
focus on mutual recognition of veterinary test results.
Multilateral and bilateral/
regional frameworks for
regulatory cooperation
At the multilateral level, with the entry into force of the
WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), ‘and the
establishment of the SPS Committee, the WTO and
the OIE have been working together and contributing to the
promotion of IRC [international regulatory cooperation].
The WTO principle of harmonisation, and the enhanced
transparency it brings to SPS measures, encourages the use
of OIE standards’ (see Gobind Daswani & Bucher, this issue
[1], for an extensive discussion).
At the bilateral and regional levels, the continual expansion of
trade links, through bilateral and regional free trade agreements
(FTAs), attests to the world’s growing interconnectedness.
However, in different parts of the world, countries may have
their own specific norms, which, in the modern context,
can hamper coordinated policy action. Moreover, the
acknowledgement that international cooperation can lead to
welfare gains does not automatically translate into cooperative
behaviour when setting such norms (2, 3).
The rationale behind the creation of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, for instance, was that
less than ideal outcomes, due to lack of coordination between
countries, could be remedied through reciprocally beneficial
trade liberalisation (4). Under GATT, the basic principle to
address non-tariff barriers was non-discrimination, and the
overarching goal was to impose disciplines on regulatory
barriers, to ensure that policy instruments would not be
used as a substitute for tariffs (5).
Non-discrimination, however, does not address the merits
of regulatory intervention. This is why the WTO aims to
go beyond non-discrimination. Indeed, the WTO has
introduced two new types of agreement to achieve that
goal: the SPS Agreement and the Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) (6).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
One important change implied in these agreements is that
they address the quality of regulatory intervention (for
example, by requiring that trade-related SPS measures be
based on international standards or a risk assessment).
Hence, the SPS Agreement and the TBT Agreement require
more than the mere scrutiny of measures based on their
discriminatory impacts (1, 5).
In parallel with these developments, there has been
huge growth in bilateral and regional trade agreements
worldwide (from 27 FTAs in force and notified to the WTO
in 1995, to 304 as of February 2020). Scholars highlight the
fact that FTAs conducive to cooperation and harmonisation
are more often concluded between homogeneous, ‘like-
minded’ countries (2).
Examples of effective regulatory cooperation councils
include those of the United States of America (USA), Canada,
and Mexico (7). Accounts of the USA–Canada Regulatory
Cooperation Council (RCC) remain positive, showing the
effectiveness of the RCC in discussing and consulting on
standards and reducing or eliminating friction caused by
regulatory divergence (8).
There is also a long history of regulatory cooperation
between the USA and the European Union (EU), exemplified
by the Transatlantic Economic Partnership (1998) (9), the
EU/US Positive Economic Agenda (2002) (10), the EU/US
Economic Initiative (2005) (11) and the Framework for
Enhancing Transatlantic Economic Integration (2007) (12).
These initiatives have reportedly helped considerably in
reducing trade tensions.
Mutual recognition and
conformity assessment
Conformity assessment is defined by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) as a ‘demonstration that
specified requirements relating to a product, process, system,
person, or body are fulfilled’ (13). This demonstration
includes health, safety, and performance requirements that
are assessed through processes such as certification, testing
and inspection in relation to the appropriate standards.
Accreditation – i.e. the process by which an entity is
recognised as a reliable certifier of conformity – is a
delicate step in this process. The key principle is that
accreditation bodies, which, in many cases, are entrusted
by the government to carry out their functions, must be
independent of the conformity assessment body being
accredited. So, in the context of this paper, the conformity
assessment body would be a country’s Veterinary Services
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
assessing a specific product’s conformity with a given OIE
standard. These processes can be important in facilitating
trade, but they can also constitute additional barriers to
trade when cross-border actions are not coordinated and
optimised.
Various types of regulatory cooperation can be used to
overcome obstacles due to conformity assessments. They
range from information exchange and building trust to
more intricate mutual recognition of conformity assessment
procedures. Such examples of cooperation between
countries may be set out in mutual recognition agreements
(MRAs), increasingly being used by governments as a
cooperative tool. Mutual recognition agreements enable
accredited test results, inspection reports, and certificates of
compliance to be accepted by the accreditation authorities
of the MRA’s parties throughout the world.
Mutual recognition agreements range from recognition of
conformity assessments, to equivalent standards, to full
harmonisation of conformity assessment procedures and
standards. They are also encouraged by the TBT Agreement,
in its article entitled, ‘Recognition of Conformity Assessment
by Central Government Bodies’ (Article 6) (14).
Correia de Brito et al. (15) studied mutual recognition
provisions in a sample of 99 FTAs concluded by Australia,
Canada, the EU, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Japan,
Mexico, New Zealand, and the USA. They found that
78 of these FTAs contained either provisions or a whole
chapter related to regulatory cooperation. Examples of such
cooperation included acceptance that equivalent regulations
in an exporting country would meet the regulatory
objectives of the importing country, and mutual recognition
of the validity of conformity assessment procedures, among
others. Correia de Brito et al. noted that one-third of the
FTAs included provisions to accept technical regulations
in one country as being equivalent to differing technical
regulations in another. This was also the case in the FTAs
concluded between Australia and New Zealand, which the
authors will discuss in greater detail in the final section of
this paper (see ‘Trade facilitation: the case of Australia and
New Zealand’, below).
As explained by Hamilton (16), the SPS Agreement contains
an article on recognising equivalence, complemented by a
2001 decision of the SPS Committee to ‘make operational
the provisions of Article 4 of the [SPS Agreement]’. Article
4.1 of the SPS Agreement reads as follows:
Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary
measures of other Members as equivalent, even if
these measures differ from their own or from those
used by other Members trading in the same product,
145
if the exporting Member objectively demonstrates
to the importing Member that its measures
achieve the importing Member’s appropriate level
of sanitary or phytosanitary protection. For this
purpose, reasonable access shall be given, upon
request, to the importing Member for inspection,
testing and other relevant procedures [17].
Mirroring this language, some FTAs include provisions that
recognise the equivalence of SPS standards under certain
conditions. For example, the EU–Canada Comprehensive
and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) has a chapter
on SPS measures (Chapter 5), in which Article 5.6 on
equivalence imports the language of Article 4.1 of the
WTO SPS Agreement (18). Furthermore, Annex 5-D
and Annex 5-E to CETA set out specific guidelines and
conditions applicable to recognising equivalence.
Scientific collaboration to
increase safe trade
Some FTAs include provisions on collaboration between
laboratories. For example, in the EU–Korea FTA, these
provisions cover conformity assessment and accreditation,
with a dedicated article on this topic, in which the parties
undertake:
to exchange information on accreditation
policy, and to consider how to make best use of
international standards for accreditation, and
international agreements involving the Parties’
accreditation bodies, for example, through the
mechanisms of the International Laboratory
Accreditation Cooperation and the International
Accreditation Forum [Article 4.6, b] [19].
In the same FTA, Chapter 6 on customs and trade facilitation
sets out a commitment to ‘intensify[ing] cooperation between
their customs laboratories and scientific departments and to
working towards the harmonization of customs laboratories
methods’ (Article 6.13) (19).
Laboratory equipment is included in the tariff schedules
of both the EU–Caribbean Forum and the EU–Korea
FTAs. The FTA concluded between the EU and
Colombia and Peru highlights the parties’ commitment
to scientific cooperation in its chapter on
cooperation and trade facilitation, by stating that this
commitment includes:
identifying, developing and promoting initiatives
that facilitate trade taking their respective experience
146
into consideration. These initiatives may include,
among others: (i) the exchange of information,
experience and data, scientific and technological
cooperation and the use of good regulatory practices
[Article 75] [20].
Furthermore, this FTA includes a whole chapter on
technology transfer (Chapter 5), stating that:
Particular attention shall be paid to the conditions
necessary to create an adequate enabling
environment for the promotion of lasting relations
between the scientific communities of the Parties,
the intensification of activities to promote linkage,
innovation and technology transfer between the
Parties, including issues such as the relevant legal
framework and development of human capital
[Article 255] [20].
Some FTAs negotiated by the People’s Republic of
China (China) also include provisions for
scientific collaboration. This is the case in the
China–Australia FTA, which foresees possible cooperation
between the parties by ‘conducting possible joint research
projects on diseases and pest prevention, surveillance and
control strategies and on other scientific issues, including
in the area of food safety, relating to SPS measures’
(Article 5.6) (21).
The China–Korea FTA is more straightforward
on collaboration between laboratories. Its chapter on
SPS measures (Chapter 5) contains an article on
technical cooperation, which states that such
cooperation includes: ‘strengthening cooperation
with respect to, inter alia, risk analysis methodology,
disease/pest control methods, laboratory testing
techniques, and exchange of information on domestic
regulations’ (Article 5.4) (22). A relatively similar provision
can be found in the China–Costa Rica FTA SPS chapter
(Chapter 6), which states in its article on technical
cooperation that:
The Parties agree to strengthen bilateral technical
cooperation on sanitary and phytosanitary issues,
with a view to enhancing the mutual understanding
of the regulatory systems of the Parties and facilitating
access to each other’s markets, with respect to, inter
alia, laboratory testing techniques, disease/pest
control methods and risk analysis methodology. The
Parties agree to explore cooperation programs on
technical assistance and capacity building, including
but not limited to training programs and exchange
visits [Article 66] [23].
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
The relationship between
national accreditation
procedures and Veterinary
Services
The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code describes the
evaluation of Veterinary Services as an important pillar in
providing stability to international trade in animals and
animal-related products (24). Many importing countries
view the evaluation of the Veterinary Services of the
exporting country as a vital component of their import risk
analysis. The key purpose is to confirm that the Veterinary
Services of the exporting country have the capability to
ensure effective control of the sanitary and zoosanitary
status of animals and animal products throughout the
export process.
Good governance is the key to competence, integrity
and confidence in any organisation, and transparency in
evaluating the governance of the export process fosters
mutual trust among the Veterinary Services of trading
partners. Accreditation is a valuable tool used by many
OIE Members to confirm good governance of the various
functions of their Veterinary Services. It provides confidence
that the procedures and functions in place are achieving the
outcomes expected and required by an effective Veterinary
Service.
Accreditation is commonly used for laboratories that
provide diagnostics, surveillance, quality assurance or
export testing. In many countries, inspection activities
conducted by individuals or other agencies are also
accredited. The quality of services provided at various points
in a supply chain may also be subject to accreditation. For
example, during the export of animals or animal products,
accreditation may cover transportation, animal welfare and
artificial breeding, among other functions. Accreditation of
laboratories or other service providers may be conducted
by third-party providers, or by the Veterinary Services
themselves. In order to promote confidence in accredited
organisations and their services, it is critical that the
accreditation process be comprehensive and transparent.
Accreditation, supported by an effective audit regime,
can ensure that the results of laboratory procedures or
inspection activities accurately reflect the sanitary status
of commodities. The use of accredited service providers in
national diagnostic and surveillance activities can provide
confidence to Member Countries and their Veterinary
Services, in regard to the endemic disease situation in
their own country. Additionally, the results of an effective
accreditation and audit system can also support international
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
trade, by providing confidence to trading partners that the
sanitary status of export commodities has been properly
assessed.
The International Laboratory
Accreditation Cooperation
mutual recognition arrangement:
an overview
The International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
is the international organisation for accreditation bodies
involved in assessing and accrediting inspection agencies
and laboratories that undertake calibration and testing,
including medical testing (25).
The adoption of international standards (e.g. ISO/IEC
17025) has helped countries to apply a uniform approach
to assessing the competence of their laboratories and
inspection bodies. Uniformity allows countries with ISO/
IEC-based accreditation systems to establish agreements
based on mutual evaluation and acceptance of the other’s
accreditation systems. Mutual recognition agreements, as
discussed above, are crucial for the acceptance of calibration,
test and inspection results between countries. Furthermore,
the system of international MRAs has enabled accredited
laboratories and inspection bodies to achieve international
acknowledgement, thus allowing the calibration, test and
inspection results accompanying exported goods and
services to be more readily accepted in overseas markets.
World Organisation for Animal
Health standards and guidelines
supporting mutual recognition
The OIE develops and publishes standards, in the form of
the Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Terrestrial Code) and the
Aquatic Animal Health Code (Aquatic Code) (26), that support
animal health safety in the international trade of terrestrial
and aquatic animals, and their products. The OIE Manual of
Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals (Terrestrial
Manual) (27) and the Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic
Animals (Aquatic Manual) (28) provide a harmonised
approach to disease diagnosis by describing internationally
agreed-upon laboratory diagnostic techniques. The OIE
network of world and regional reference laboratories
underpins this harmonisation, through adherence to OIE
standards, sharing of reference materials and support for
training and participation in proficiency testing.
147
Since the OIE is identified by the WTO as the reference
organisation for standards related to animal health and
zoonoses, the standards, guidelines, recommendations and
methods described in these OIE publications underpin
international agreements and MRAs for international trade
in animals and animal products.
Both the Terrestrial Code and the Aquatic Code include
guidelines for the performance and evaluation of Veterinary
Services, and the implementation and evaluation of quality
systems. The results from these evaluations can inform
international trade risk analyses for animals and animal-
derived products, to which official sanitary or zoosanitary
controls apply. The role of international standards, evaluation
and accreditation methodologies in facilitating international
trade in animals and animal products can be highlighted by
a review of the processes operating in Australia and New
Zealand, which are the focus of the next section.
Trade facilitation: the case
of Australia and New Zealand
Trade between Australia and New Zealand is underpinned
by the Australia–New Zealand Closer Economic Relations
Trade Agreement (ANZCERTA) (29), one of the most
comprehensive, bilateral free-trade agreements in existence.
The agreement covers substantially all trade in goods
between the two countries, including agricultural products.
Its central provision is the creation of a WTO-consistent
Free Trade Area encompassing Australia and New Zealand.
The Veterinary Services of Australia and New Zealand
operate under the respective supervision of the Australian
government Department of Agriculture, Water and
the Environment (DAWE) (formerly the Department
of Agriculture and Water Resources [DAWR]) (www.
agriculture.gov.au) and the New Zealand government
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (https://www.mpi.
govt.nz/). Both countries’ Veterinary Services rely on
accreditation or approval to confirm the quality of service
delivery across a range of agencies and activities, including
veterinary laboratories, slaughterhouses and meat-
processing facilities, laboratory animal facilities, artificial
breeding establishments or teams, private veterinarians,
and transport companies. Such accreditation or approval
may be conducted by independent third-party agencies, or
by the Veterinary Services themselves.
The performance of veterinary laboratories is closely
monitored in both countries; in Australia by the Animal
Health Committee (30) and in New Zealand by the MPI.
The latter also has observer status on Australia’s Animal
Health Committee. This oversight covers key aspects of
148
laboratory performance; specifically, accreditation and
approval, standardisation of testing, and quality assurance
of test outcomes.
Veterinary laboratories must be accredited to participate
in government programmes, including export testing. In
Australia this is carried out by the National Association
of Testing Authorities (NATA) (31) and in New Zealand
by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) (32).
These are independent bodies that provide accreditation
to organisations, including veterinary laboratories, that
operate competently to agreed standards when performing
testing, measurement, examination, calibration and related
activities (31). Both agencies are full signatory members
of ILAC. Accreditation by NATA or IANZ aims to provide
assurance to the market that accredited organisations are
worthy of confidence, and that the activities covered by
accreditation can be accepted and need not be duplicated
(31).
A memorandum of understanding between the Australian
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (now the
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment)
and NATA (33) underpins the close liaison between the
two bodies. In New Zealand, MPI prescribes requirements
for laboratories providing testing services under each of
its laboratory programmes (dairy laboratory approval and
export testing), including the requirement for accreditation
by IANZ against the appropriate ISO standard (34).
The Ministry for Primary Industries also mandates that
any laboratory testing required for the export of animals
or animal products must be conducted in a laboratory
that is approved by MPI under its Recognised Laboratory
Programme (35). A consolidated list of tests for animal
products is maintained by MPI as part of this programme.
The test methodologies used by veterinary laboratories
in Australia and New Zealand are standardised through
the Australian and New Zealand Standard Diagnostic
Procedures (ANZSDP) (36). The Australian Department of
Agriculture, Water and the Environment also maintains a
list of Australian Standard Diagnostic Procedures that covers
assays not yet incorporated into the ANZSDP. The ANZSDP
describes tests and the availability of reagents, for terrestrial
as well as aquatic animal diseases, that are consistent with
the relevant OIE Manuals.
Quality assurance of test outcomes for veterinary
laboratories in Australia and New Zealand is monitored
by the Australian National Quality Assurance Program
(ANQAP) (37). This programme is an internationally
accredited provider of proficiency-testing programmes for
veterinary laboratory testing, and is managed by a state
government department in Victoria, Australia. The scope of
the programme has been progressively extended to include,
in 2017, 31 government and private veterinary laboratories
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
across six countries, covering 47 different tests for terrestrial
animal diseases (38). The programme aims to ensure
consistent testing quality across participating laboratories
through proficiency-testing programmes for tests important
to national disease control programmes, quarantine and
export health certification. The OIE’s network of reference
laboratories coordinates similar programmes of laboratory
proficiency testing on a regional basis; for example, as
managed under the LabNet programme in the OIE Sub-
Regional Representation for South-East Asia.
In Australia, non-government veterinarians may participate
in a range of state or federal government programmes,
including market assurance programmes and the preparation
of live animals or animal reproductive material for export.
Eligibility to participate in such programmes is dependent
on a two-step accreditation and approval process. The initial
step is for private veterinarians to become accredited under
the Accreditation Program for Australian Veterinarians
(APAV). This is the national programme designed to integrate
non-government veterinary practitioners into the national
animal health system to support the international standing
of Australia’s animal health service capability (39). It is
coordinated by Animal Health Australia, which maintains
a database of APAV-accredited veterinarians, to support
their employment by governments or industries with
responsibility for APAV operational programmes. One such
programme, relevant to international trade, is the Australian
Government Accredited Veterinarian programme. This
programme is administered by the Australian Government,
and accreditation is essential for veterinarians preparing
livestock for export from Australia (40).
Accreditation programmes such as those operating in
Australia and New Zealand provide vital support to
Veterinary Services, principally through the confidence that
can be attached to diagnostic, surveillance and inspection
activities. Early detection is the key to most disease control
and eradication programmes, whether for endemic or exotic
infections. Thus, quality assurance for laboratory testing
that follows carefully designed sampling or surveillance
activities is fundamental to the effective and efficient
deployment of Veterinary Services resources for disease
response strategies. Similarly, the accuracy of test results,
and the confidence placed in such results, underpins safe
trade in live animals and animal products. When importing
countries have confidence in the performance of laboratory
testing and veterinary inspection in an exporting country,
the need for duplication of those activities is minimised or
eliminated, thereby optimising the efficiency of trade and
reducing costs for both exporters and importers. This is
sometimes described as ‘regulatory economies of scale’.
While both Australia and New Zealand are free of many
of the diseases, infections and infestations listed by the
OIE, the different health status of each country’s animal
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
populations justifies sanitary restrictions for animals and
animal products moving between the two countries. Trade
in some animal species may be prohibited in both directions
on the basis of excessive disease risks (e.g. cattle, camelids),
in one direction (deer to Australia), or may be permitted
in both directions (sheep, horses, companion animals),
subject to animal health conditions including laboratory
testing (41, 42).
The process for international movement of animals and
animal products between Australia and New Zealand
adheres to the relevant OIE Code, with international
veterinary certificates issued that document compliance with
the relevant import conditions. Where laboratory testing is
required, sampling and testing are undertaken under the
supervision of an official veterinarian at laboratories within
the exporting country (or, where relevant, at international
laboratories) that are approved and accredited, and perform
tests under the systems described above.
As per the OIE Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes, the importing
country accepts a consignment on the evidence of its health
status, as documented by the international veterinary
certificate (and supported by inspection, in the case of live
animals). Re-testing of the consignment in the importing
country is not routinely undertaken. Where issues of
non-compliance with the import conditions are identified
(for example, problems relating to infection, animal
identification, or incorrect certification), the importing
country retains the discretion to manage the consignment
accordingly, including through quarantine, treatment,
testing or re-export.
The bilateral trade in horses provides a case in point. No
laboratory testing is required to import horses to Australia
from New Zealand (testing may be required for horses
that originate from third countries). However, since New
Zealand is free from both equine infectious anaemia and
equine viral arteritis, laboratory testing for both infections
is required before horses can be imported to New Zealand
from Australia. New Zealand accepts testing conducted in
Australia, with the result that, in both countries, imported
horses are released at the border based on inspection and the
provision of a valid international veterinary certificate. This
process minimises regulatory barriers while appropriately
addressing disease risks, thereby reducing costs for the
industry and supporting animal welfare.
This process supports a least-cost approach to international
trade while safeguarding the health status of each country’s
animal population, and is underpinned by the systems of
accreditation and/or approval of laboratory testing and
inspection services outlined above. These systems also
provide confidence to each country’s Veterinary Services
that the animal health status of their trading partner is
adequately monitored and reported.
149
Conclusions
The performance of an exporting country’s Veterinary
Services, particularly in terms of overseeing the sanitary
status of the country’s animal population and governance
of the export process, can facilitate international trade by
providing confidence to prospective importing countries.
Compliance with international standards and guidelines,
validated by the internationally accepted accreditation of
laboratory and export service providers, adds powerful
support to this process.
Accreditation of laboratory testing for exports of animals
and animal products can remove the need for duplication
of that testing by an importing country. This minimises the
costs of testing within the value chain, and thus aids price
competitiveness of the exported commodity in international
markets.
Moreover, it also removes the risk, inherent when
laboratory testing is duplicated in an importing country, of
the need for decision-making when tests carried out in the
importing country return positive results for commodities
that tested negative in the exporting country, before export.
Since few, if any, laboratory tests are 100% specific, each
round of laboratory testing applied to a commodity will,
by definition, probably return some false-positive results.
Importing countries that conduct duplicate testing may
therefore be faced with a decision about the fate of an
imported consignment, based on false-positive results.
In practice, resolution of such issues involves communication
between the importing and exporting countries’ Veterinary
Services, usually followed by an investigation of the sourcing
and testing of the product in the exporting country. Since
the consignment is usually held in the importing country
pending the outcome of such investigations, this process
involves significant additional procedures as well as welfare
considerations when live animals are involved. By accepting
without duplication the pre-export testing conducted
by an appropriately accredited veterinary laboratory, an
importing country can avoid unnecessary import barriers
and minimise costs.
Clearly, an importing country retains the discretion to further
investigate the sanitary status of the imported commodity
if significant concerns are identified (e.g. evidence of
infection, inaccurate certification), but such investigations
should be the exception rather than the rule, and should
always involve communication with the Veterinary Services
of the exporting country.
150 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Reconnaissance mutuelle des résultats des analyses

et des inspections vétérinaires afin
de faciliter les échanges internationaux
F. Meliado & P. Widders

Résumé
La confiance qu’un pays peut avoir dans le statut sanitaire des animaux et
des produits d’origine animale qu’il importe dépend de sa confiance dans les
performances des Services vétérinaires nationaux du pays exportateur. La
performance de ces Services peut être déterminée par le statut sanitaire des
populations animales du pays exportateur et par la gouvernance des procédures
à l’exportation qui y sont appliquées. L’efficacité dans ces deux domaines permet
aux pays importateurs potentiels de se fier au statut sanitaire des produits
exportés et facilite les échanges internationaux.
L’évaluation de la performance des Services vétérinaires d’un pays étranger est
toutefois un processus complexe qui requiert la mise en place d’un climat de
confiance et un échange approprié d’informations entre les pays et entre leurs
autorités scientifiques et réglementaires compétentes. Les auteurs présentent
certains faits et concepts essentiels en matière de coopération réglementaire
au niveau multilatéral et bilatéral. Ils expliquent également le bien-fondé de
ces initiatives au regard des objectifs de sécurité des échanges internationaux
d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale. En outre, les auteurs expliquent
comment mener à bien plus efficacement cette coopération, à savoir, en soutenant
la mise en œuvre des normes sanitaires élaborées par l’Organisation mondiale
de la santé animale tout en facilitant la fluidité des échanges de marchandises
d’origine animale. Ils concluent en présentant une étude de cas concernant
les échanges d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale entre l’Australie
et la Nouvelle-Zélande, à titre d’exemple de bonnes pratiques en matière
de coopération réglementaire internationale garantissant plus d’échanges
commerciaux et un commerce plus sûr.

Mots-clés
Accréditation – Australie – Étude de cas – Facilitation du commerce – Nouvelle-Zélande –
Organisation mondiale du commerce – Reconnaissance mutuelle – Services vétérinaires.

Reconocimiento mutuo de los resultados de las pruebas e

inspecciones veterinarias para facilitar el comercio internacional
F. Meliado & P. Widders

Resumen
Para que un país tenga confianza en el buen estado sanitario de los animales o
productos de origen animal que está importando es preciso que también confíe
en la eficacia de los Servicios Veterinarios del país exportador, cuyo desempeño
puede ser juzgado por el estado de salud de sus poblaciones animales y por las
estructuras y procedimientos que rigen el proceso de exportación. La eficacia en
ambos terrenos lleva a los eventuales países importadores a confiar en el estado
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 151

sanitario de los productos que exporta esa nación y facilita con ello el comercio
internacional.
La evaluación transfronteriza de la eficacia de los Servicios Veterinarios,
sin embargo, puede ser un proceso complejo, que reposa en la creación de
vínculos de confianza y en el intercambio de información entre jurisdicciones
independientes y las autoridades científicas y reguladoras competentes. Los
autores presentan aquí algunos de los hechos y conceptos fundamentales de
la cooperación multilateral y bilateral en materia reglamentaria y explican por
qué tales iniciativas son importantes cuando se aspira a potenciar el comercio
seguro de animales y productos de origen animal. También exponen fórmulas para
cooperar más eficazmente en la materia, que pasan concretamente por respaldar
la aplicación de las normas sanitarias dictadas por la Organización Mundial de
Sanidad Animal y facilitar a la vez la circulación ininterrumpida de mercancías
de origen animal. Por último, presentan un estudio centrado en el comercio
de animales y productos de origen animal entre Australia y Nueva Zelanda,
tomándolo como ejemplo de práctica óptima de cooperación internacional en
materia reglamentaria que ha traído consigo un comercio más intenso y seguro
entre ambos países.

Palabras clave
Acreditación – Australia – Estudio monográfico – Facilitación del comercio – Nueva
Zelanda – Organización Mundial del Comercio – Reconocimiento mutuo – Servicios
Veterinarios.

References
1. Gobind Daswani A. & Bucher K. (2020). – International
regulatory cooperation: contribution of the OIE and the WTO
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures and SPS Committee. In Ensuring safe trade in
animals and animal products (C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1), 47–55. doi:10.20506/
rst.39.1.3061.
2. Bollyky T.J. & Mavroidis P.C. (2016). – Trade, social
preferences, and regulatory cooperation: the new WTO-
think. European University Institute (EUI) Department of
Law Research Paper No. 47; Columbia Law and Economics
Working Paper No. 546. EUI, Florence, Italy, & Columbia
Law School, New York, United States of America, 37 pp.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.2836937.
3.
Kauffmann C. & Malyshev N. (2015). – International
regulatory co-operation: the menu of approaches.
E15 Task Force on Regulatory Systems Coherence – think
piece. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable
Development, Geneva, Switzerland, & World Economic
Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, 14 pp. Available at: http://
e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/E15-
Regulatory-Kauffmann-and-Malyshev-final.pdf (accessed on
10 October 2019).
4. Bagwell K. & Staiger R.W. (2002). – Economic theory and
the interpretation of GATT/WTO. Am. Econ., 46 (2), 3–19.
doi:10.1177/056943450204600201.
5. Mavroidis P.C. (2016). – Regulatory cooperation: lessons
from the WTO and the world trade regime. E15 Task Force
on Regulatory Systems Coherence – policy options paper.
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development,
Geneva, Switzerland, & World Economic Forum, Geneva,
Switzerland, 20 pp. Available at: http://e15initiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/E15_no16_Regulatory_final_REV_
x1.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2019).
6. Marceau G.Z. & Trachtman J.P. (2014). – A map of the
World Trade Organization law of domestic regulation of
goods: the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. J. World Trade,
48 (2), 351–432. Available at: www.kluwerlawonline.com/
abstract.php?area=Journals&id=TRAD2014013# (accessed on
28 October 2019).
7. Steger D.P. (2012). – Institutions for regulatory cooperation
in ‘new generation’ economic and trade agreements. Leg.
Issues Econ. Integrat., 39 (1), 109–126. doi:10.2139/
ssrn.1947421.
8.
Wolfe R.W. (2014). – Canadian trade policy in a
G-Zero world: preferential negotiations as a natural experiment.
In Redesigning Canadian trade policies for new global realities
(S. Tapp, A. Van Assche & R. Wolfe, eds). Institute for Research
on Public Policy, Montreal, Canada, 46 pp. Available at:
https://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AOTS6-wolfe.
pdf (accessed on 28 October 2019).
152
9. European Union (EU) (1998). – Resolution on the ‘Transatlantic
Economic Partnership’ between the European Union and
the United States (COM(98) 0125 C4-0271/98). Off. J. Eur.
Union, C 379, 07/12/1998, 0094. Available at: https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:51998IP0387
(accessed on 12 February 2020).
10. European Commission (EC) (2002). – EU and US agree to
launch Positive Economic Agenda at EU–US Summit. Press
release MEMO/02/85, 3 May. EC, Brussels, Belgium, 1p.
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/
detail/en/MEMO_02_85 (accessed on 12 February 2020).
11. European Union (EU) (2005). – The European Union and
United States initiative to enhance transatlantic economic
integration and growth. Press release, 20 June 2005. EU,
Brussels, Belgium. Available at: www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/
communiques/2005/06/20ue-us03/index.html (accessed on
12 February 2020).
12. European Union (EU) (2007). – Framework for advancing
transatlantic economic integration between the European
Union and the United States of America. EU, Brussels,
Belgium, 11 pp. Available at: www.eeas.europa.eu/archives/
docs/docs/framework_trans_economic_integration07_en.pdf
(accessed on 12 February 2020).
13.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) &
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO) (2010). – Building trust: the conformity assessment
toolbox. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 192 pp. Available at:
www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/casco_
building-trust.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2019).
14. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement
on Technical Barriers to Trade. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.
htm (accessed on 1 July 2019).
15. Correia de Brito A., Kauffmann C. & Pelkmans J. (2016).
– The contribution of mutual recognition to international
regulatory co-operation, OECD Regulatory Policy Working
Papers No. 2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) Publishing, Paris, France.
doi:10.1787/5jm56fqsfxmx-en.
16. Hamilton A. (2020). – Facilitating market access: risk
assessment, equivalence and regionalisation provisions in the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal
products (C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int.
Epiz., 39 (1), 81–91. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3064.
17. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2020). – The WTO
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS Agreement). WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/
spsagr_e.htm (accessed on 21 January 2020).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
18.
European Commission (EC) (2017). – Comprehensive
economic and trade agreement (CETA) between Canada,
of the one part, and the European Union and its Member
States, of the other part. Off. J. Eur. Union, L 11, 23–1079.
Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
EN/TXT/?uri=uriser v:OJ.L_.2017.011.01.0023.01.
ENG&toc=OJ:L:2017:011:TOC (accessed on 18 February
2020).
19. European Commission (EC) (2011). – Free trade agreement
between the European Union and its Member States, of the one
part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part. Off. J. Eur. Union,
L 127, 6–1343. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2011:127:FULL&from=EN
(accessed on 21 January 2020).
20. European Commission (EC) (2012). – Trade agreement
between the European Union and its Member States, of the one
part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part. Off. J. Eur. Union,
L 354, 3–2607. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2012:354:FULL&from=EN
(accessed on 21 January 2020).
21.
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
(DAWR) (Australia) (2015). – Free trade agreement
between the Government of Australia and the
Government of the People’s Republic of China. DAWR,
Canberra, Australia, 163 pp. Available at: https://
dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/chafta/official-
documents/Documents/chafta-agreement-text.pdf (accessed
on 21 January 2020).
22. Ministry of Commerce (People’s Republic of China) (2015). –
Free trade agreement between the Government of the People’s
Republic of China and the Government of the Republic
of Korea. Ministry of Commerce, Beijing, China, 216 pp.
Available at: http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/korea/annex/xdzw_
en.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2020).
23. Ministry of Commerce (People’s Republic of China) (2010). –
Free trade agreement between the Government of the People’s
Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of
Costa Rica. Ministry of Commerce, Beijing, China. Available
at: http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/topic/encosta.shtml (accessed on
21 January 2020).
24. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 27th Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/terrestrial-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 13 June 2019).
25. International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC)
(2019). – ILAC Mutual Recognition Agreement and signatories.
ILAC, Sydney, Australia. Available at: www.ilac.org/ilac-mra-
and-signatories (accessed on 22 May 2019).
26. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Aquatic Animal Health Code, 22nd Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/aquatic-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 10 October 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
27. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Manual
of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, 8th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/
terrestrial-manual/access-online/ (accessed on 10 October
2019).
28. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2016). – Manual
of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Aquatic Animals, 7th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/standard-setting/
aquatic-manual/access-online/ (accessed on 10 October 2019).
29. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) (Australia)
(2019). – Australia–New Zealand Closer Economic Relations
Trade Agreement. DFAT, Canberra, Australia. Available at:
www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/anzcerta/Pages/
australia-new-zealand-closer-economic-relations-trade-
agreement.aspx (accessed on 12 June 2019).
30. Department of Agriculture (Australia) (2019). – Animal Health
Committee (AHC). Department of Agriculture, Canberra,
Australia. Available at: www.agriculture.gov.au/animal/health/
committees/ahc (accessed on 22 May 2019).
31. National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) (2019). –
Global Trading Network. NATA, Sydney, Australia. Available
at: https://www.nata.com.au/about-nata/global-trading-
network (accessed on 22 May 2019).
32. International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) (2019). –
About IANZ. IANZ, Auckland, New Zealand. Available at:
www.ianz.govt.nz/about/about-ianz/ (accessed on 22 May 2019).
33. National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) (2017). –
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of
Agriculture and Water Resources and NATA. NATA, Sydney,
Australia, 4 pp. Available at: www.nata.com.au/phocadownload/
government/MoU183_199_DeptAgricultureWaterResources_
SectorLifeSciences.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2019).
34. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (New Zealand) (2017).
– Laboratories. MPI, Wellington, New Zealand. Available
at: www.mpi.govt.nz/protection-and-response/laboratories/
(accessed on 13 June 2019).
35.
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (New Zealand)
(2019). – Recognised laboratory programme export tests for
live animals. MPI, Wellington, New Zealand. Available at:
www.mpi.govt.nz/exporting/exporting-requirements/meet-
n e w - z e a l a n d - s t a n d a r d s - f o r- e x p o r t / r e c o g n i s e d -
laboratory-programme-export-tests-for-live-animals/
(accessed on 13 June 2019).
153
36. Department of Agriculture (Australia) (2019). – Diagnostic
procedures for animal health laboratories. Department of
Agriculture, Canberra, Australia. Available at: www.agriculture.
gov.au/animal/health/laboratories/procedures (accessed on
13 June 2019).
37. Department of Agriculture (Australia) (2019). – Australia’s
Animal Health Laboratories. Department of Agriculture,
Canberra, Australia. Available at: www.agriculture.gov.au/
animal/health/system/lab-network (accessed on 13 June
2019).
38. Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and
Resources (Victoria, Australia) (DEJTR) (2019). – Australian
National Quality Assurance Program [ANQAP]: interlaboratory
veterinary proficiency testing – 2017 Annual Report. DEJTR –
ANQAP, Bundoora, Australia, 56 pp. Available at: www.anqap.
com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017-ANQAP-
Annual-Report.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2019).
39. Animal Health Australia (2019). – Accreditation Program for
Australian Veterinarians (APAV). Animal Health Australia,
Canberra, Australia. Available at: www.animalhealthaustralia.
com.au/training/veterinary-training/accreditation-program-
for-australian-veterinarians-apav/ (accessed on 22 May 2019).
40. Department of Agriculture (Australia) (2019). – Australian
Government accredited veterinarians (AAVs). Department
of Agriculture, Canberra, Australia. Available at: www.
agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled-goods/live-animals/
livestock/information-exporters-industry/vet (accessed on
13 June 2019).
41. Department of Agriculture (Australia) (2019). – Importing live
animals and reproductive material. Department of Agriculture,
Canberra, Australia. Available at: www.agriculture.gov.au/
import/goods/live-animals (accessed on 13 June 2019).
42. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (New Zealand) (2019).
– Import health standards (IHS). MPI, Wellington, New
Zealand. Available at: www.biosecurity.govt.nz/law-and-
policy/requirements/ihs-import-health-standards/ (accessed
on 13 June 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 155-171

Building capacity for World Trade Organization

dispute settlement: piloting polarity mapping
for trade relations
H.M. Vesterinen*, A.M. Pérez & K.M. Errecaborde

Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota ,

1954 Buford Avenue, St Paul, MN 55108-6009, United States of America
*Corresponding author: veste012@umn.edu

Summary
Trade disputes have been on the rise in recent decades. Resolving these
disputes can be challenging, even when relying on the World Trade Organization
(WTO) formal dispute settlement system. Polarity mapping, a visual framework
for understanding the challenges of organisational collaboration, could help
to provide structure to these negotiations. This paper describes how polarity
mapping was adapted to support or mitigate trade disputes related to the trade
of animals or animal products. A three-step process allowed stakeholders to:
identify the conditions affecting a trade relationship, use polarity mapping
to identify priorities and challenges for continued trade relationships, and outline
an action plan to support these relationships in the event of a disease outbreak.
The tool was then tested, using an exploratory case study methodology. Polarity
mapping was found to be both useful and practical for investigating how to
improve trade relationships. The case-study participants were able to identify
strategies, choices and decisions that moved them towards a more sustainable
trade relationship. Further testing and iterative development of the tool in
a current, real-life trade dispute would be beneficial. The hope is that, in the future,
a simple tool such as polarity mapping could be used either to plan pre-emptively
for trade challenges and thereby prevent disputes, or to provide a method for
consultation within the formal WTO dispute settlement process.

Keywords
Dispute settlement – Facilitation – Negotiation – Polarity mapping – Tools – Trade barriers
– World Trade Organization.

Introduction and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). The OIE

One of the missions of the World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) is to safeguard world trade by publishing health
standards for international trade in animals and animal
products (1). These OIE standards are annually revised by
OIE Members and captured in documents referred to as the
‘OIE Codes and Manuals’: the Terrestrial Animal Health Code,
the Aquatic Animal Health Code, the Manual of Diagnostic
Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, and the Manual
of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals (2, 3, 4, 5).
These standards are recognised by the World Trade
Organization (WTO) as its reference norms for the trade of
animals and animal products, through one of the WTO’s core
documents: the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
Codes and Manuals are intended to serve as science-based
principles, which are implemented through democratic
and transparent procedures. However, sometimes there are
disagreements in the interpretation of these rules between
trade partners, which may result in trade disputes.
Resolving trade disputes is one of the core functions of the
WTO. The dispute settlement process has three main stages
that are intended to facilitate opportunities for settling the
case. The first stage is consultation between the parties.
The second stage is adjudication or judgement by a Panel
and, if needed, by the Appellate Body, which can uphold,
modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of
the Panel. The third stage is the implementation of the
ruling, including possible countermeasures (6). The WTO’s
dispute settlement system provides sovereign states with a

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3069
156
system for binding, third-party adjudication of disputes, a
relatively rare opportunity in public international law.
There have been more disputes initiated since the founding
of the WTO in 1995 than in the previous 47 years of
the organisation’s predecessor, the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade. The significant rise in dispute
numbers in the last 25 years, compared to the almost
50 previous years, can be at least partially attributed to the
reform of the dispute settlement system at the time of the
WTO’s founding. The reformed dispute settlement system
provides a more efficient platform for resolving trade
disputes than its predecessor, by making consultation a
mandatory step, establishing strict timelines, and making
the system more automatic (7). Simultaneously, the
complexity of trade agreements and the legal theory behind
them has been constantly increasing, making disputes
increasingly lengthy. Additionally, Members now have the
ability to appeal the Panel’s decisions, a right they use more
often than anticipated (8).
Of the more than 500 cases filed with the WTO since
1995, over half have never reached the Panel adjudication
stage. Instead, they were either resolved in the first stage
of consultation with the parties in dispute, or the parties
decided not to pursue the case further even though it
remained unresolved (8). While formal sanctions are a
part of the dispute settlement system, it has been argued
that the value of dispute resolution cases may lie more
in clarifying the rules and filling in missing terms than
in sanctioning non-compliant trade partners (9). The
process of consultation and negotiation for WTO dispute
resolutions is confidential, but it is reasonable to assume that
it relies primarily on verbal negotiations with little formal
structure (10).
Before a case escalates to a formal trade dispute, Members
are able to hold bilateral consultations in the margins of
meetings of the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee
(SPS Committee). These topics can also be raised as specific
trade concerns (STCs) at the SPS Committee meeting itself.
Since 1995, about 20,000 new or changed SPS regulations
have been notified, with over 450 STCs discussed in the
SPS Committee. Of these, only 14 have been brought to the
WTO dispute settlement mechanism, and progressed to at
least the Panel report stage (11). It is expected that most of
these discussions rely on traditional verbal discussion and
meeting procedures.
Additionally, the SPS Committee adopted a mediation
procedure in 2014 and the OIE has its own dispute
mediation mechanism, as described in Article 5.3.8. (2, 4,
12) of both the Terrestrial and the Aquatic Animal Health
Code. Both mediation mechanisms provide an alternative
pathway for trade dispute discussions outside the formal
WTO system, but they do not provide guidelines or tools
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
that would support and facilitate the negotiation itself,
and, again, rely rather on general information sharing and
investigative procedures.
In this article, the authors propose that new facilitation tools
created to improve negotiation could support the process
of dispute settlement, both at the formal consultation stage
and in discussions beforehand, thus reducing the number
of cases that are escalated to WTO Panel hearings and
binding legal rulings. Specifically, the authors hypothesise
that polarity mapping could help to provide structure to
trade consultations and discussions in the context of the
SPS Agreement.
Polarity mapping
Polarity mapping is a visual framework for understanding
the challenges inherent in organisational collaboration and
partnership (13, 14). It may be useful when applied to the
interdependent challenges of trade negotiations, providing
a formal, structured approach to value-based dispute
negotiation. It offers a platform to consider the interests and
values of each stakeholder separately, to engage in dialogue
that builds a relationship, to confront different viewpoints
directly, and to appeal to overarching values, all practical
strategic steps that can tone down particularly contentious
negotiations, with the ultimate goal of helping to move
disputes forwards in a constructive manner (15). It may
also be a useful tool in developing so-called ‘peacetime
agreements’, where, during a period of trade uninterrupted
by serious disease concerns, trade partners can agree on
the appropriate actions to take in the event of a disease
outbreak.
The concept of polarity thinking recognises the phenomenon
of interdependent poles. An example of interdependent
poles, or pairs, can be seen with organisational choices such
as excellent service versus cost-effectiveness, innovation
versus efficiency, and quality versus deadlines. In all of
these examples, neither side of the pair can be eliminated
because, arguably, one needs both in order to have an
effective strategy in the long run. Interdependencies like
these are a common and necessary part of striving for
organisational and personal success. Johnson characterised
such interdependence as an energy system that flows
between the two poles, causing tension in the system (13).
This energy system requires management and balancing,
not exclusive solutions. An example of a polarity map is
given in Figure 1.
The tensions inherent in trade negotiations between an
importer and an exporter can be viewed as interdependent
poles that may benefit from polarity thinking. Any two
WTO Members can be considered as interdependent poles.
Their efforts and energies must be aligned to support a
sustainable trade relationship. Tensions between these
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 157

Polarity map

Action steps Stop disease outbreak Action steps

– Inform, engage and – Strong surveillance

Values Values
activate community – Early intervention
– Viable farms – Open interstate trade
– Build trust – Stop movement
– Resilient community – Continued economical
– Provide social support – Quarantine
– Continued production growth
structures
(i.e. mental health – Market opportunities
support, collaborative
groups and education)

Local Interstate
and
livelihood commerce

Early warnings Fears Fears Early warnings

– Decreased production – Closed
– Community mistrust – Desolate countryside interstate trade – Continued disease
– Stakeholder frustration – Socially excluded – Recession spread
– Stakeholder communities – Decreased partnerships – Wide and continued
disengagement opportunities media coverage
– Surplus or lack of
products

Endemic disease
Fig. 1
A polarity map developed by the authors to illustrate the paradox and interdependency of local livelihoods and international commerce
in the face of a foreign animal disease outbreak
Map template adapted from Polarity Partnerships LLC (16)

partners should be expected and must be addressed and

managed rather than solved. When importers and exporters
are looked on as interdependent poles, this can help parties
to focus on identifying shared management strategies that
support both partners.
The authors hypothesise that applying polarity mapping
to trade disputes related to animal health or supply chain
challenges would offer WTO Members an opportunity to
either plan pre-emptively for trade challenges that may
arise (and thereby prevent disputes) or provide a method
for consultation within the formal WTO dispute settlement
process. The basic principles of polarity mapping, applied
to the structure of the SPS Agreement, and the results of
applying the tool to a hypothetical scenario are offered
here, along with a discussion of lessons learned through the
process. The authors hope that this document will help OIE
and WTO Members and relevant constituencies to set up an
objective mechanism to prevent or settle disputes related to
international animal health standards and trade in animals
and animal products.
Methods
Because the authors were not aware of attempts to apply
polarity mapping to trade negotiations, especially in the
realm of animals and animal products, they adapted general
polarity-mapping tools and combined them with other
facilitation techniques in an attempt to design a new tool
for trade discussions. This tool is intended to be used in
a setting where the trade partner or partners are helped
through the process by a facilitator, who is trained in
participatory leadership and group facilitation (17, 18).
The tool was tested in an in-service training environment to
understand how well it functions in practice, what should
be modified, and what possible limitations it might have, as
well as to gain external feedback.
Applying polarity mapping to trade relations
To adapt polarity mapping to trade dispute negotiations,
the authors developed three consecutive steps that ‘walk’
the parties through the process of polarity mapping. The
158
authors have successfully adapted other tools to the realm
of multisectoral health decision-making and were able to
draw on this previous experience (19). The developed
steps are visualised in Figure 2. The template developed to
support the exercise on polarity mapping for trade relations
can be found in Appendix 1.
Step 1: Identify a disease that seriously impacts trade
and outline key trade relationships
The authors used a modified, single-round version of the
Delphi method, a systematic interactive forecasting tool that
relies on structured communication techniques (20). Each
representative of the trade partners is asked to answer three
questions (Appendix 1), in written form, this is followed
by an open discussion among the representatives. The
questioning process is led by the facilitators of the exercise
and the intention is to reach consensus around the issues.
Next, the representatives are asked to identify the primary
trading partner affected by the disease and to review the trade
history associated with the problem. A simple stakeholder
mapping tool adapted from policy field analysis is used to
identify the stakeholders (21). First, representatives are
individually asked to think of potential stakeholders at the
local, national and international level. Next, they share their
list with others by collecting the identified stakeholders on
a whiteboard or flip chart. A series of lines is then drawn
between the stakeholders to indicate how funding and
political influence connect the stakeholders and to show
the local, national and/or international level at which each
of these players operates. This structured stakeholder
identification process helps the participants to conduct a
Goal:
resolved or prevented trade dispute
Step 2
Mapping to identify the most important steps for
maintaining trade relations
Step 1
Identify a disease that seriously impacts trade
and outline key trade relationships
Starting conditions:
Member nation wishing to improve overseas trade or to better understand a challenging
trade relationship
Fig. 2
The three steps of polarity mapping for trade relations
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
more complete analysis of the needs, goals and fears related
to trade partnerships. In addition, the multisectoral nature
of this step allows participants to visualise the complete
system at work and identify all of the organisations that
influence decisions around trade relationships.
Step 2: Mapping to identify the most important steps
for maintaining trade relations
A simple polarity-mapping tool was developed to help
stakeholders to voice actions and positions that they find
both supportive and challenging in terms of effective
trade relations between the countries in question. A
mapping template was developed to provide a platform for
stakeholders to identify practices that both sides agree to be
supportive, as well as actions that could have unintended
consequences and thus are not as useful. The developed
polarity map template, together with an example, is
illustrated in Figure 3. The polarity map is meant to be
filled in either solely, by one trade partner, through a role-
playing exercise, or jointly, by both trade partners, with
help from a skilled facilitator.
Step 3: Creating an action plan to support trade
relationships that meet both partners’ needs
To allow the trade partners to develop action plans for
the positive practices identified during mapping, a simple
method was developed. This process asks the representatives
of the trade partners to prioritise the identified practices
and to ‘brainstorm’ possible solutions to those needs.
Funding and resources can then be targeted toward efforts
that support the goal of a healthy and productive trade
Step 3
Creating an action plan to support trade
relationships that meet both partners’ needs
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 159

Country A Shared goals for trade partnership: Country B

Exporter • Maintain productive and respectful trade relationships Importer
• React appropriately in light of evidence available
• Maintain strong communication and partnership in light of newly available
information, etc.

Steps needed to maintain effective partnership in the event

of an outbreak in Country A:

Goal: Positive Strategies from Exporter:
Open trade 1. Country A is communicating risk
– profitable effectively to maintain trust
exports 2. Country A has effective internal product
market
controls that are clearly described
publicly
3. Country A responds appropriately to
emerging issues and communicates
openly about them
Positive Strategies from Importer: Goal:
1. Country B clearly states what level of Open trade
risk is unacceptable – valued
2. Country B is attempting to understand imports
market
the disease risk, given Country A’s
current mitigation strategies, and
how this compares with the current
risk from other outside partners
3. Country B has scientifically sound
import rules that are applied without
bias

Steps that will prevent effective trade partnership in the event

of an outbreak in Country A:

Fear: Negative Action from Exporter: Negative Action from Importer: Fear:
Closed 1. Country A does not communicate risk 1. Country B has unclear and Closed trade
trade – effectively contradictory requirements for – lack of
declining 2. Country A does not provide appropriate imports valued
exports assurances or transparency of process 2. Country B does not maintain imports
and reporting consistency in applying the same
3. Country A does not respond rules to all importing partners/
appropriately to emerging risks countries
3. Country B over-generalises regional
situations, applying elevated risk
even to areas in low-risk regions

Shared fears for trade partnership:

• Breakdown of communication
• Mistrust and misinformation
• Tense relationships that impact other trading commodities

Fig. 3
Example polarity map: maintaining Country A trade relations with Country B in the event of a disease outbreak in Country A

relationship. A final analysis can identify common goals, Case study

suggest action for pre-emptive and ‘just-in-time’ planning
and supply a prioritised list of needs to meet shared goals.
An example of the developed action plan template filled
with sample needs and solutions is outlined in Table I.
Given the limited empirical evidence available to
understand how polarity mapping could be applied to
trade disputes, a case-study methodology was employed.
Case-study methods are suitable, and often preferred, for
160
Table I
Example of an action-planning template: prioritised needs and proposed solutions
Position/action/policy needed to support continued
Priority
relationship in the event of disease outbreak
1 Trade partner needs to understand risks
2 Trade partner needs to demonstrate capacity to identify,
characterise, and manage threats
3 Trade partner needs to demonstrate capacity to supply
an appropriate volume of the product with a certain
frequency and at a given cost
4. Trade partners need to communicate pro-actively,
with transparency and intentionality, in the event
of a disease outbreak
OIE: World Organisation for Animal Health
WTO: World Trade Organization
research focused on context-driven, real-life events that
ask questions like ‘How?’ and ‘Why?’ (22). Because trade
negotiations can be highly sensitive, with political impacts,
the authors wanted to do the initial testing for the tool in
a low-impact setting in which there was no active trade
dispute. For the sake of anonymity, and to allow the reader
to concentrate on the methodology of the tool rather than
the individual issues of a specific trade relationship, the
trade partners in this case study will be referred to only as
‘Exporter’ and ‘Importer’.
Case selection
An opportunity to test the tool was found in June 2019,
when the Center for Animal Health and Food Safety
(CAHFS) at the University of Minnesota designed and
delivered a training programme for overseas Fellows on
avian influenza (AI) virus (AIV) surveillance and response.
This training was part of the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS)
Cochran Fellowship programme, which provides short-
term training opportunities to agricultural professionals
from middle-income countries, emerging markets, and
emerging democracies (23). The case study reflects the first
two days of this ten-day training programme. The goal of
this portion of the training was to untangle the complexity
of trade policy for priority diseases.
In fact, CAHFS was particularly well placed to deliver this
training for several reasons. First, CAHFS is one of five OIE
Collaborating Centres that focus on building the capacity
of Veterinary Services for the OIE advanced competencies.
Second, Minnesota is the largest turkey-producing state in
the United States of America (USA), accounting for 18%
of total turkey production. The state was hit hard by the
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Is the issue
regulated by
Resolution proposed
OIE and WTO
agreements?
Yes Exporting country to conduct a pre-emptive risk assessment for the
importing country that can be provided immediately in the event of an
outbreak
Yes Importing country to audit critical points for the management of
hazards and risks in the value chain of the exporting country
No Exporting country to zone or compartmentalise an animal disease
outbreak, ensuring continued exports from other parts of the
production system
No Trade partners establish a regular plan for communication as outbreak
response evolves
2015 outbreak of highly pathogenic AI, an unprecedented
foreign animal disease event in the USA during which
232 outbreaks were reported from 21 states. The disease
affected 49.6 million birds and resulted in economic
losses of US$ 950 million in total. Thus, CAHFS has both
the expertise required to understand agricultural trade
regulations and recent knowledge of how foreign animal
disease events can influence that trade.
The exporter country was represented in the case study
by a team of private- and public-sector partners from the
Veterinary Services and poultry industry of a middle-
income country. As this was part of a training programme
targeted to specific partners, the middle-income importer
country did not have any representatives in the exercise,
causing some potential bias. The polarity-mapping exercise
was implemented and assisted by the three authors, acting
as facilitators.
Case implementation
Participants were first ‘walked through’ the three-step
methodology designed for polarity mapping for trade
relations. The concept of polarity mapping was introduced
through a slideshow presentation. Once the participants felt
comfortable with the concept of polarity mapping, they were
given blank templates (Appendix 1) to work on together,
and assisted through the three steps of polarity mapping
for trade negotiations. Facilitators led the discussion by first
allowing participants from the exporter country to consider
an outbreak of AI in their country, and how it would affect
them as an exporter of poultry products. The participants
then identified a few examples of countries that receive their
products and eventually identified a hypothetical scenario
for a specific importing partner country. As part of the
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 161

stakeholder analysis, participants were given an overview,

explaining how intergovernmental organisations set policies
and frameworks for trade, including a brief introduction
to four primary intergovernmental organisations that
operate at the human–animal–trade interface: the OIE,
WTO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), and the World Health Organization
(WHO). Participants then worked with the facilitators to
fully develop a policy field analysis and identify all those
stakeholders who would be affected by an outbreak of AI.
The facilitators then asked participants from the exporting
country to break into groups. One group acted as
representatives of the exporting country while the other
group role-played the importers. The facilitators then took
the participants through the polarity-mapping process,
beginning the discussion with the questions ‘What do we all
want?’ and ‘What do we all most fear?’ Finally, with the map
completed, participants worked together to identify some
steps that would pre-emptively support positive strategies
to sustain the trade relationship in an event of AI.
The facilitators took field notes during the process, enabling
the identification of key challenges and opportunities for
using polarity mapping as a trade negotiation tool.
Results
The main result from this activity was the final trade
polarity map developed by the Exporter and outlined
in Table II. The Exporter representatives found the tool
useful for investigating how to improve trade relationships.
The participants were able to identify strategies, choices,
and decisions that could move both the Importer and the
Exporter towards a sustained trade relationship, while also
identifying those that would result in a break-down. There
were three primary lessons learned:
a) system externalities may affect the effectiveness of the
mitigation strategies identified
b) polarity mapping assists participants to consider pre-
emptive mitigation strategies
c) supportive strategies go beyond the SPS Agreement and
health standards for international trade in animals and
animal products.
System externalities
Midway through the mapping process, the group suggested
that there were externalities that affect the system, but are
not clearly addressed by the current tool. For example,
an outbreak can spread unpredictably and yet the tool

Table II
Polarity map for a hypothetical case of highly pathogenic avian influenza in the exporting country

What do we all want?

– Healthy animals
– Safe food supply
– Reliable, strong and sustainable relationships with trade partners
– Money & growth
– Affordable products

Positive strategies for importer: Positive strategies for exporter:

1. Communicate clearly and transparently what level of risk is acceptable
for you and what demands you have for the food (e.g. halal, disease free)
2. Make import acceptance/denial decision fairly and communicate reasons
behind decision
3. Conduct independent inspections and audits
1. Communicate about risk transparently and pro-actively
2. Conduct risk assessments and share them with partners
3. Develop and use risk mitigation strategies, for example zoning/
regionalisation

Negative actions of importer: Negative actions of exporter:

1. Strict/unrealistic requests (e.g. extra tests, extra vaccinations, 1. Does not communicate about current animal health status & disease risk
certifications, etc.) openly
2. Vague and contradictory trade decisions
3. Expectation that the exporter can afford to pay the investment costs
incurred from quickly increasing production volume

What do we all fear?

– Infectious diseases (e.g. highly pathogenic avian influenza)
– Food safety issues, scandals, threats to supply or demand: importer fears for the sustainability of their own production
– Opportunity cost: ‘You don’t want to be in a trade situation that relies on only one partner, as if anything happens you’ve got no back-up’
– Volatile markets: sudden close of trade and subsequent excess/lack of produce
162
assumes a fixed situation. The group also recognised that
some actions and strategies do not clearly fit into any one
quadrant of the polarity map.
To address this feedback, the authors added an additional
sheet to accompany the polarity map, called ‘System
externalities’, available at Appendix 2. This sheet can be
used to collect any thoughts, events, actions or strategies
that do not clearly fit into the polarity map, but that seem
to be influential. Additionally, the authors propose to test
the toolkit in the future with representatives from both
trade partners present, as sometimes role-playing causes
confusion about accountability and responsibility.
Pre-emptive mitigation strategies
The polarity map was developed to explore the relationship
between the Exporter and the Importer, but, during the
case study, the Exporter began to explore how the tool
could help it to prepare for other hypothetical scenarios
with many other potential trade partners. Although the tool
did not initially address system externalities, as discussed
above, participants still felt that the tool allowed them to
create ideas that could assist planning and preparedness
with multiple trade partners. For example, as outlined
in Table II, the Exporter could invest in well-developed
strategies for zoning and regionalisation, while also
conducting risk assessments. When done pre-emptively,
these evidence-based resources, when in line with the
SPS Agreement, could be shared openly and transparently
with multiple trade partners. This would go a long way to
sustaining a relationship with importers in an event such as
an AI outbreak.
For regulated issues, it became evident that a risk analysis,
according to the standards provided by the OIE, followed
by an audit of critical points identified in the analysis,
should give trade partners enough confidence to establish
a trade relationship, leaving room, if necessary, to begin a
discussion on alternative measures to mitigate risks.
Going beyond the Agreement on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and
international standards
As participants contributed to the development of the
polarity map, they were able to identify issues that are
regulated by the SPS Agreement and OIE standards.
However, they were also able to pinpoint concerns related to
cultural and political issues that may equally influence their
relationship with a trade partner. These social externalities,
even though abstract, may have a profound effect on the
willingness of the trade partners to accept the regulated
conditions. In the case study, discussing these cultural,
political and historical matters proved to be valuable, as
it allowed the Exporter to think beyond the minimum
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
standard of compliance and truly address the concerns that
an importing partner may have in the event of an outbreak
such as AI. For example, it was found that the historical
context of trade reliability, related – for example – to the
level of trust already existing between Member Country
authorities or the proven reliability of supply, may change
the dynamics of the relationship and encourage mitigation
strategies that go beyond the baseline agreements laid out
by intergovernmental organisations.
Discussion
The WTO SPS Agreement and the international standards
developed by the OIE provide a regulatory framework for
trade in animals and animal products between Members.
However, trade partners may have different interpretations
of the application of those standards and agreements, which
may cause disputes. In this paper, the authors have proposed
and illustrated the application of polarity mapping to help
trade partners to reach agreement and settle disputes in the
context of trade in animals and animal products.
This three-step tool, polarity mapping for trade relationships,
provides a mechanism to identify common goals and define
concerns, separate regulated from unregulated issues,
and aid the process of identifying, understanding, and
implementing solutions to these issues. Consequently, the
tool may serve as an objective mechanism to dissect the
factors underlying the dispute.
There are some limitations associated with the application
of the tool, especially its ability to bring forth all underlying
challenges and possible solutions. First, polarity mapping
relies heavily on the stakeholders present, and thus on
who is invited to the table by the facilitators or country
representatives. Diplomatic realities might prevent technical
experts with vital knowledge of the country’s situation
from attending, and thus the resolutions and action plans
developed through the tool might be not as powerful in
practice as in theory. This issue could be mitigated by
preceding the polarity-mapping exercise with effective
stakeholder identification.
Second, the participants’ ability to voice what they sincerely
see as the main issues relies heavily on the discussion
culture and trust surrounding the mapping exercise. If
the participants do not feel empowered to speak about
the issues they know, the power of the discussion will be
diminished, and solutions will fall short. Expert facilitation
will mitigate this, to a point. Having facilitators skilled in
participatory leadership, cultural sensitivity and group
dynamics will significantly increase the likelihood of open
discussion.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 163

In the future, participants may benefit from the development
of formal rules that delineate what can be shared in
the room, and what can be shared with an ‘outsider’ to
the discussion. For example, a known rule, such as the
‘Chatham House rule’, could be applied to polarity mapping
for trade relationships, to support pre-emptive planning in
which multiple partners participate. The Chatham House
rule states that: ‘When a meeting, or part thereof, is held
under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use
the information received, but neither the identity nor the
affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant,
may be revealed’ (24).
The authors believe that, if participants are aware of these
limitations and attempts are made to mitigate them, polarity
mapping can be an effective and practical aid for trade
dispute negotiations.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the tool presented here provides a method to
dissect trade disputes and investigate solutions that support
sustainable trade relationships. The successful experimental
case study speaks to the tool’s practicality. The results of
this study show that adapted polarity mapping can provide
a platform to consider the interests and values of both
trade partners and to explore different viewpoints, helping
discussions to move forwards in a constructive manner.
Future work should be directed towards testing the tool
in real-life settings with both trade partners present, and
should involve a variety of technical and cultural challenges,
including an active trade dispute situation, in order to
validate its application in the field.
Acknowledgements
The case study was supported by funding provided by
the United States Department of Agriculture Foreign
Agriculture Service and awarded to the Center for Animal
Health and Food Safety at the University of Minnesota, for
the implementation of the Cochran Fellowship training
programme. The authors would also like to acknowledge Dr
M. Sol Perez Aguirreburualde, deputy director of CAHFS,
and the Cochran Fellows for the constructive comments
provided during training, which helped to solidify the ideas
for this paper. Finally, thanks to CAHFS staff for the support
provided in the implementation of the training.

Renforcer les capacités de règlement des différends au sein

de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce : expérimentation
de la cartographie des polarités dans les relations commerciales
H.M. Vesterinen, A.M. Pérez & K.M. Errecaborde

Résumé
Nous assistons depuis quelques décennies à une intensification des litiges en
matière commerciale. La résolution de ces différends est une tâche difficile, même
en recourant au système formel de règlement des différends de l’Organisation
mondiale du commerce (OMC). La cartographie des polarités (méthode générant
une représentation visuelle des difficultés rencontrées lors de la collaboration
organisationnelle) pourrait contribuer à structurer ces négociations. Les
auteurs expliquent comment la méthode des cartes des polarités a été adaptée
afin d’étayer ou d’atténuer les différends commerciaux relatifs aux échanges
internationaux d’animaux ou de produits d’origine animale. Dans la procédure en
trois étapes qui leur a été proposée, les parties prenantes ont pu identifier les
circonstances affectant une relation commerciale déterminée, utiliser la carte
des polarités pour définir les priorités et les obstacles à la poursuite de ces
relations commerciales et concevoir un plan d’action permettant de maintenir ces
relations en cas de foyer de maladie. Dans un deuxième temps, l’outil a été testé
en appliquant une méthodologie d’exploration d’études de cas. La cartographie
des polarités s’est révélée une méthode à la fois utile et concrète pour
rechercher les moyens d’améliorer les relations commerciales. Les participants
164 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

aux études de cas ont pu déterminer quelles étaient les stratégies, les choix et
les décisions susceptibles de les faire avancer vers des relations commerciales
plus durables. Les auteurs estiment qu’il serait judicieux de continuer à tester
l’outil lors d’applications itératives dans le contexte de différends commerciaux
réels en cours de traitement. Ils espèrent qu’un outil aussi simple que les cartes
des polarités puisse être utilisé à l’avenir, soit pour traiter de manière préventive
les difficultés liées au commerce international afin d’éviter les différends, soit
pour fournir un éclairage aux consultations dans le cadre du système formel de
règlement des différends de l’OMC.

Mots-clés
Barrières au commerce – Cartographie des polarités – Facilitation – Négociation –
Organisation mondiale du commerce – Outils – Règlement des différends.

Creación de capacidad para la solución de controversias

en la Organización Mundial del Comercio: aplicación experimental
de los mapas de polaridad a las relaciones comerciales
H.M. Vesterinen, A.M. Pérez & K.M. Errecaborde

Resumen
De unos decenios a esta parte, las controversias comerciales han ido en
aumento. Resolver estos litigios puede ser harto complicado, aun pasando por
el sistema oficial de solución de controversias de la Organización Mundial del
Comercio (OMC). La elaboración de mapas de polaridad, que plasman en un
esquema visual las dificultades de la colaboración organizativa, podría ser de
ayuda para estructurar esas negociaciones. Los autores explican cómo se adaptó
la elaboración de mapas de polaridad al objetivo de ayudar a resolver o paliar
controversias relacionadas con el comercio de animales o productos de origen
animal. Pasando por un proceso en tres etapas, los interlocutores pudieron:
determinar las condiciones que afectan a la relación comercial; utilizar un mapa
de polaridad para determinar las prioridades y los obstáculos para la continuidad
de sus relaciones comerciales; y esbozar un plan de acción para afianzar esas
relaciones en caso de brote infeccioso. Después se ensayó la herramienta
empleando un método de estudio exploratorio de casos prácticos. La elaboración
de mapas de polaridad fue juzgada a la vez útil y práctica para estudiar la manera
de mejorar las relaciones comerciales. Los participantes en el estudio pudieron
distinguir las estrategias, opciones y decisiones que los conducían a una relación
comercial más duradera. Sería provechoso poder ensayar la herramienta
y someterla a un proceso de desarrollo iterativo aplicándola a una controversia
comercial real que esté hoy abierta. La esperanza para el futuro reside en
poder emplear una herramienta tan sencilla como los mapas de polaridad bien
preventivamente, para anticipar, y con ello evitar, problemas comerciales,
o bien como método de consulta integrado en el proceso oficial de solución de
controversias de la OMC.

Palabras clave
Facilitación – Herramientas – Mapas de polaridad – Negociación – Obstáculos al comercio
– Organización Mundial del Comercio – Solución de controversias.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
References
1. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Objectives. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/
about-us/our-missions/ (accessed on 19 September 2019).
2.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019).
– Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 28th Ed. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/international-
standard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-online/ (accessed on
23 October 2019).
3. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Manual
of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals,  Article 12.2, No. G/SPS/61. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 3 pp.
8th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.
int/en/standard-setting/terrestrial-manual/access-online/
(accessed on 23 October 2019).
4. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Aquatic Animal Health Code, 22nd Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/aquatic-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 23 October 2019).
5. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2016). –
Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals, 7th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/
standard-setting/aquatic-manual/access-online/ (accessed on
23 October 2019).
6.
World Trade Organization (WTO) Secretariat (2017). –
A handbook on the WTO dispute settlement system, 2nd Ed.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
doi:10.1017/9781108265423.
7. Alter K.J. (2003). – Resolving or exacerbating disputes?
The WTO’s new dispute resolution system. Int. Aff., 79 (4),
783–800. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.00336.
8.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Tenth
WTO Ministerial Conference, Nairobi, 2015: briefing note
– dispute settlement. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available
at: www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc10_e/briefing_
notes_e/brief_disputes_e.htm (accessed on 19 September
2019).
9. Sykes A.O. & Schwartz W.F. (2002). – The economic
structure of renegotiation and dispute resolution in the WTO/
GATT system, John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics
Working Paper No. 143. University of Chicago Law School,
Chicago, United States of America, 38 pp. Available at:
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1507&context=law_and_economics (accessed on
19 September 2019).
10. McBride J. & Chatzky A. (2018). – Backgrounder: how are
trade disputes resolved? Council on Foreign Relations, New
York, United States of America. Available at: www.cfr.org/
backgrounder/how-are-trade-disputes-resolved (accessed on
19 September 2019).
165
11. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) & World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). –
Facilitating trade through regulatory cooperation: the case
of the WTO’s TBT/SPS Agreements and Committees. OECD
Publishing, Paris, France, & WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
104 pp. Available at: www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_
e/tbtsps19_e.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2019).
12. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2014). – Procedure to
encourage and facilitate the resolution of specific sanitary
or phytosanitary issues among Members in accordance with
Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.
aspx?filename=q:/g/sps/61.pdf (accessed on 23 Oct 2019).
13. Johnson B. (1996). – Polarity management: identifying and
managing unsolvable problems, 2nd Ed. HRD Press, Amherst,
United States of America, 292 pp.
14. Johnson B. (2014). – Reflections: a perspective on paradox
and its application to modern management. J. Appl. Behav. Sci.,
50 (2), 206–212. doi:10.1177/0021886314524909.
15. Susskind L. & Rose A.Z. (2010). – How to negotiate
when values are at stake. Consensus Building Institute,
Cambridge, United States of America. Reprinted, with
permission, from the October issue of Negotiation, a
monthly newsletter published by the Program on Negotiation
at Harvard Law School. Available at: www.cbi.org/
article/2010/how-to-negotiate-when-values-are-at-stake/
(accessed on 19 September 2019).
16. Polarity Partnerships (2019). – Resource portal. Polarity
Partnerships, Sacramento, United States of America. Available
at: www.assessmypolarities.com/ (accessed on 19 September
2019).
17. Preston M.G. & Heintz R.K. (1949). – Effects of participatory
vs. supervisory leadership on group judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc.
Psych., 44 (3), 345–355. doi:10.1037/h0059914.
18. Hare A.P. (1953). – Small group discussions with participatory
and supervisory leadership. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psych., 48 (2),
273–275. doi:10.1037/h0054398.
19. Vesterinen H.M., Dutcher T.V. […] & Pelican K.M. (2019).
– Strengthening multi-sectoral collaboration on critical health
issues: One Health systems mapping and analysis resource
toolkit (OH–SMART) for operationalizing One Health. PLOS
ONE, 14 (7), e0219197. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219197.
20. Loo R. (2002). – The Delphi method: a powerful tool
for strategic management. Policing, 25 (4), 762–769.
doi:10.1108/13639510210450677.
21. Sandfort J. & Stone M. (2018). – Analyzing policy fields:
helping students understand complex state and local contexts.
J. Pub. Aff. Educ., 14 (2), 129–148. doi:10.1080/15236803.
2008.12001516.
166 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

22. Yin R.K. (2014). – Case study research design and methods, 24.
Chatham House (2019). – Chatham House rule.
5th Ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, United States of America, Chatham House, London, United Kingdom. Available at:
315 pp. www.chathamhouse.org/chatham-house-rule (accessed on
20 September 2019).
23. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign

Agricultural Service (2019). – Cochran Fellowship Program.
USDA, Washington, DC, United States of America. Available
at: www.fas.usda.gov/programs/cochran-fellowship-program
(accessed on 19 September 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 167

Appendix 1
Polarity mapping for trade relations - exercise template
168 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 169
170 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 171

Appendix 2
Polarity mapping for trade relations - system externalities exercise template
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 173-181

The pros and cons of animal health harmonisation

D. Adamson (1, 2), W. Gilbert (2), P. Rothman-Ostrow (2) & J. Rushton (2, 3)*#

(1) Centre for Global Food and Resources, Faculty of the Professions, The University of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney
Street, SA 5005, Australia
(2) Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, 8 West Derby Street,
Liverpool, L69 7BE, United Kingdom
(3) Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Food Systems, University of Liverpool, IC2 Building, Liverpool, L3 5RF,
United Kingdom
*Corresponding author: jrushton@liverpool.ac.uk
#
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not in any way be attributed to the
World Organisation for Animal Health or the World Trade Organization.

Summary
It has been argued that the global harmonisation of animal health procedures,
regulations and responses will improve animal health and provide economic
benefits. Harmonisation of regulations can be driven by trade reform, such as
multilateral or bilateral agreements, or as a response to private quality assurance
programmes.
At an international level, trade reform is currently focused on reducing the costs of
trading between countries. To achieve this, bilateral agreements, where possible,
are harmonising regulations throughout all sectors of the economy. However,
as with any new developments, there are both positive and negative outcomes
that should be explored to understand the net effect of these changes on animal
health, the economy and society.
In this article, the authors debate the economic foundations of harmonisation,
explore alternative methods to achieve it, and discuss its pros and cons to more
fully understand the opportunity costs from countries adopting the same level of
risk to animal health.

Keywords
Animal health – Harmonisation – Regulation – Trade – Unintended consequences.

Introduction harmonisation has become central to the World Trade

With major gains from tariff reform being realised, trade
reform policy has shifted its focus towards the removal of
non-tariff barriers and the harmonisation of regulations to
increase the economic gains from trade integration. As the
differences in regulatory frameworks between countries
decrease, the costs of doing business between those
countries also decrease, and a wider range of goods can
enter the market at lower prices, thus benefiting consumers.
This is the law of comparative advantage that underpins
free trade (1).
Organization (WTO) and the quest for economic growth.
Additionally, the adoption of private regulations can enable
some individuals to take advantage of niche markets and
higher prices by meeting social preferences (3).
However, the gains from harmonisation have been
challenged by two central arguments. The first states that
analyses typically only search for a positive impact on one
sector of an economy from harmonisation (4), and fail to
consider the complex spillover effects (both positive and
negative) that this change may have across all sectors of
society and the economy (5, 6, 7).

Harmonisation of regulations can provide real economic The second explains that trade is about ‘games of power’
and social gains, especially in countries where regulations and that a country’s hegemony can influence the level of
and institutions are lax (2). Therefore, the drive for harmonisation to benefit its own economy and not that of its

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3070
174
trade partners (8). Thus, a failure to understand the complex
changes from harmonisation, i.e. information asymmetry,
may lead to regulatory capture (9) and to a country
adopting a level of risk (e.g. attitudes to antibiotic use,
food health standards) that was unpalatable to its residents
before harmonisation (10, 11). As Hassoun (12) reflects, the
design and implementation of harmonisation may actually
reinforce conditions of poverty and inequality within a
country. Not every country has enjoyed harmonisation, and
the cost of re-establishing a country’s independence to set
its own regulations comes at a cost. By the end of 2020,
it is predicted that the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) economy
will have lost £ 200 billion in four years during ‘Brexit’, the
departure of the UK from the European Union (EU) (13).
Animal health harmonisation creates both positive and
negative effects on a country, but its true impact may
only be fully realised once harmonisation has been either
implemented or removed. Therefore, careful debate before
either the implementation or the dissolution of harmonised
regulations is required, to consider the wider impacts
on society. The discussion is complex, as animal health
harmonisation applies equally to:
− production inputs, e.g. the registration of pharmaceuticals,
feedstuffs
− regulated husbandry practices, e.g. cage size, animal
welfare practices, and slaughter protocols
Country 1
SL2
Price of beef
PH
P1
Q2 Q1
Quantity of beef
D1 : demand for beef in Country 2 Q1 : quantity of beef bought in Country 1
DL : demand for beef in Country 1 Q2 : quantity of beef bought in Country 1 after harmonisation
P1 : price of beef in Country 1 QA : quantity of beef bought in Country 2
P2 : price of beef in Country 2 QB  : quantity of beef bought in Country 2 after harmonisation
PH : price of beef after harmonisation SL1 : domestic beef supply in Country 1
Fig. 1
How trade harmonisation changes market prices, production and demand
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
− output definitions, e.g. what age is veal?
− protocols for international animal health emergencies,
e.g. defined rules to apportion costs and responsibilities
when dealing with animal diseases, their prevention,
detection, and treatment (14).
To explore this multifaceted problem, this article first
outlines the basic economic foundations associated with
harmonisation, then debates how harmonisation can
occur via alternative government agreements and private
interventions. The pros and cons from harmonisation are
then examined and final comments provided.
Harmonisation and trade
The economics of harmonisation and trade focus on the
impacts on producers and consumers. Let us consider the
case of two countries (Country 1 and Country 2) seeking to
harmonise regulations on beef health requirements (Fig. 1).
Country 1 has lower animal health standards and production
costs. In this country, producers can sell a kilogram (kg) of
beef at a certain price P1. At this price, consumers will buy
Q1 kgs of beef. Country 2 has more stringent animal health
regulations, and producers must charge P2 to remain viable,
but at this price consumers in Country 2 will only buy QA
kilograms of beef.
Country 2
SN1 SN2
SL1 P2
Price of beef
D1
DL
QA QB
Quantity of beef
SL2 : domestic beef supply in Country 1 after harmonisation
SN1 : domestic beef supply in Country 2
SN2 : domestic beef supply in Country 2 after harmonisation
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
If the costs of harmonisation allow beef to be sold at
PH/kg, then regulations have increased Country 1’s costs
and decreased Country 2’s costs. Now the quantity of beef
consumed in Country 1 falls to Q2 while in Country 2,
the quantity of beef being bought increases to QB. In this
example, there are winners and losers in harmonisation, and
economics can provide an understanding of the likelihood
of these impacts across society.
What the basic story of harmonisation neglects is: who
sets the standards and second-round effects of change? For
example, if standards were set to Country 2 levels, Country 1
may not be able to produce any beef. Alternatively, if
Country 1’s standards were adopted, they may introduce a
level of risk that results in adverse animal and human health
impacts from outbreaks of exotic disease (10). Additionally,
second-round effects of change can negatively affect profits,
leading to structural change in the production sector and
labour redistribution (15, 16, 17).
Both theoretically and practically, these are vital issues in
the harmonisation of animal health regulations. The next
section explores the private or public mechanisms that set
in motion the process of harmonisation.
Harmonisation standards: public
versus private?
Harmonisation can be implemented in three ways. The
first is via multilateral agreements through the WTO; the
second is via bilateral agreements (between two countries)
or plurilateral agreements (among three or more countries);
and the third is through the introduction of private
standards.
Multilateral trade agreements: the World Trade
Organization Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
With 164 Member Countries and 24 observer nations
(www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.
htm#observer), the WTO provides a unified platform for
negotiations to develop rules for trade in goods, services
and intellectual property, and to deal with disputes. Central
to the discussion here is the argument that an individual
country’s control is diminished in a larger group and as
these processes unfold (18).
The WTO recognises several relevant international
standard-setting bodies as responsible for developing the
global standards for trade harmonisation in the areas of
animal and plant health and food safety. This is enshrined
in the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
175
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), which was
adopted in 1995 (19). This Agreement sets out the rights
and obligations (and exceptions) for WTO Members with
respect to measures that address animal and plant health
risks, and food safety risks. Specifically, the SPS Agreement
relies on three international standard-setting bodies (also
known as the ‘Three Sisters’ of this Agreement) for developing
SPS-related standards, guidelines and recommendations:
− the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), which
specifies animal-health-related standards
− the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection
Convention (IPPC), which specifies plant health standards
− the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which specifies
food-safety-related standards, including acceptable levels of
chemical use in food production systems (e.g. maximum
residue limits).
In this respect, the SPS Agreement views harmonisation
as the procedure by which countries base their SPS
regulations on the international standards, guidelines or
recommendations developed by the Three Sisters, and the
Agreement encourages countries in this process.
Although the Three Sisters set the standards, each country
can still set its own appropriate level of protection (ALOP)
and standards if it bases these adjustments on science. The
ALOP is the level of risk to a country’s economy, ecosystem
and human population that a country is willing to accept
from being involved in trade.
Bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements
Reaching consensus in multilateral agreements is a laborious
process and countries engage in bilateral/plurilateral
agreements, often called ‘Free Trade Agreements’ (FTAs), to
avoid protracted negotiations.
However, harmonising animal health and food safety
regulations through this bilateral/plurilateral process can
result in a set of mutually agreed regulations that differ from
those recognised under the SPS Agreement.
In this situation, the ALOP among countries is harmonised
and, in certain situations, the regulatory authority can
move away from public institutions towards corporate
power. Labonté et al. (7) detail the impact of the Agreement
between the United States of America (USA), the United
Mexican States and Canada (USMCA) on Mexico and
Canada and the transfer of power to USA corporations in
the public health sector. Moreover, the desire to harmonise
with the US ALOP resulted in the removal of Canada’s right
to use dispute settlement to resolve investor state disputes.
176
Redirection towards corporate control may create outcomes
where those who set the risk are not responsible for dealing
with the negative outcomes from that risk. It is within
bilateral/plurilateral settings that ‘games of power’ become
evident and are pivotal in strategically manipulating the
outcome of the deal (8). Consequently, rarely do FTAs lead
to free trade. Rather, FTAs stipulate a set of conditions that
solidify advantage to one or more countries at the expense
of another.
Private standards
Private standards or quality assurance programmes can
be ‘top down’ (e.g. from an oligopolistic purchaser) (20),
or ‘bottom up’ (e.g. determined by consumer
preferences) (3, 21). Such standard-setting programmes
operate as a signalling mechanism between
producers, retailers and consumers (22). While
social expectations may drive private standards and
provide incentives for producers to meet the desires of
the public, they are not regulations (23). Nevertheless,
failure to comply with these private standards may still
result in some form of penalty, such as receiving a lower
price or being denied market access. Private standards are
considered a ‘mixed blessing’, as they can both enhance the
SPS Agreement and, in some situations, be considered a
barrier to trade (24, 25).
In countries with weak institutions, the adoption
of basic private standards may provide significant
gains in terms of economic activity and animal
welfare (26), but in countries with strong institutions, the
gains are likely to be lesser. In some situations, private
standards can be a response to creative marketing, when
a lack of information or misinformation is used to gain a
greater share of a market through fear. The 2016 hormone-
free beef promotion from fast-food chain Hungry Jack’s is
one such example (27).
Why harmonise?
Central to the debate about harmonisation is the question:
‘why would a country be willing to give up the sovereign
right to set its own regulations?’ Whose regulations should
countries adopt and are these standards higher or lower
than those set by the international standard-setting bodies
recognised by the WTO SPS Agreement? Moreover, do
all signatories of a trade deal benefit equally? The way in
which harmonisation is put into practice has a considerable
influence on the benefits that may or may not accrue. To
harmonise or not to harmonise is thus a problematic choice.
In the following section, the authors outline the common
pros and cons of harmonisation in both the public and
private sector.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Possible positive effects of
animal health harmonisation
The five points below summarise the harmonisation debate,
when harmonisation is defined only as the removal of
barriers. In some cases, harmonisation can lead to more
regulation but that possibility is not examined here.
a) The harmonisation of regulations and the cutting of red
tape will improve efficiency (28) and reduce costs (29).
This argument relies on the comparative advantages in
reducing compliance, labour and paper work costs once
harmonisation has occurred, as well as ‘unpleasant surprises’
that may cause delays in access to markets or consignments
being refused. However, harmonisation may also lead to
decreased competition in the long run. For example, if
domestic conditions before harmonisation allowed the
development of monopolies and oligopolies, then those
companies may go out of business once regulations are
harmonised. If that occurs, there is a possibility that the
surviving company/companies may revert to monopolistic
or oligopolistic behaviour in the long term (30).
b) Government regulatory institutions and legal frameworks
are unable to keep pace with improvements in technology.
If a multilateral regulation and verification process were
adopted (i.e. if an object passed the regulations standards
in one country, it would automatically pass the regulations
in another country), the rate at which new goods enter
the market would increase, and all cost savings could be
diverted into further research or price reductions.
This argument ‘sells’ the idea that the next miracle cure is
on the horizon (31), or that regulations are preventing a
new practice which could unshackle current production
constraints (32).
c) The cost of developing good institutions can be prohibitive
for some countries and their limited public funds would be
better allocated to some other activity. In other words, if a
country with good institutions deems the practice safe, then
a country with under-resourced institutions can benefit
from adopting the findings of other countries. In this case,
the opportunity cost of having sound science should not
be put in the way of helping resource-strapped countries
gain from the introduction of good veterinary practices and
drugs (33).
In such circumstances, harmonisation can be of particular
benefit if there are few animal health products currently
being used. By understanding the concepts of diminishing
marginal benefits, there are significant gains from the
introduction of basic animal health inputs to production.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
d) Greater market certainty, freedom and profits will
encourage a new wave of funding, leading to potential
new cures in areas where little research is currently being
undertaken (34).
e) Clearly defined and harmonious procedures and cost-
sharing mechanisms for dealing with emergency veterinary
responses will reduce the costs of dealing with emergency
outbreaks. A potential pooling of resources may take place,
reducing the costs of monitoring and enforcement.
By harmonising procedures, not only should the time
required to deal with an emergency issue be reduced, but
disruption in trade should also be minimised, as attitudes to
risk are homogeneous, and disputes avoided.
The arguments for harmonisation via private standards may
be theoretically compelling at a basic level, as they demand
the removal of unnecessary government interference in the
market, and assert that, by creating a level playing field, the
best provider will emerge victorious in a competitive market.
In such a classical foundation, two key assumptions must
hold: markets must be perfect and private institutions must
be fundamentally more efficient than government agencies.
These assumptions are based more on faith than on fact.
Health, food safety and animal welfare are a combination of
both private and public goods, and those markets are prone
to market failure and under-investment (35). Consequently,
rules and regulations are designed not only to address those
market failures (36), but to reflect society’s expectations,
minimise the risk of adverse events, and, in part, ensure
there is some balance between those who create the risks
and those who are severely affected by adverse events (9).
Gray (11) suggests that applying static neo-classical
economic models to the question of regulatory integration
supports harmonisation, in that it facilitates the free
movement of direct investment, technology and labour,
but ignores the cost of diminishing a nation’s right to self-
governance and wider social settings. This includes animal
health. It is therefore prudent to also examine the potential
negative impacts of harmonisation.
Possible negative effects of
harmonisation
A series of studies have challenged the argument that greater
deregulation is always beneficial.
a) The harmonisation of ALOP implies that all countries
share the same opportunity costs (35) and have the same
values and attitudes to the precautionary principle. (This
177
is patently not the case. For example, Europe and the USA
have opposing views on the use of growth-promoting
hormones in animal production.) The precautionary
principle suggests that, in cases where there is a risk but
insufficient information, waiting to collect new information
provides net social gains (37). Regulations are designed to
collect data, prevent the concentration of market power,
avoid unintended consequences and reflect society’s values
(9). Before harmonisation is sought, decision-makers need
to truly understand the changes caused to all sectors of the
economy before they can determine its benefits.
b) In the case of public health, the reduction in regulations
has not led to an expansion of private research funding or
necessarily to a reduction in costs. Rather, Baker et. al. (5)
found that harmonisation of intellectual property rights
reduced economic welfare, due to the decreasing number
of pharmaceutical firms, which enabled them to increase
their prices. With the global animal health pharmaceutical
market dominated by ten key firms, and high ‘up-front’
fixed costs as the barrier to entry (38), harmonisation may
lead to fewer firms, resulting in higher animal health costs.
c) Whiting (39) suggested that a consistent ALOP can lead to
the freedom of animal movement between countries, which
could introduce exotic diseases into naïve populations. This
issue was raised with regard to the trade deal between the
USA and Canada, with the threat of anaplasmosis spilling
over into the Canadian herd.
d) Adamson (10) highlighted the danger of hegemonic
relationships in harmonisation by taking the example of a
small country which is also a net exporter. He used Australia
as the net exporting ‘small country’ (with a domestic market
of 24.5 million people), and noted that 80–90% of Australia’s
agricultural income is derived from export earnings. Thus,
if market access is denied, the domestic population cannot
consume the excess production, leading to price reductions.
In this case, not only is the industry that is denied market
access in trouble, but all industry substitutes are also affected
as they suddenly face competition at a much lower price. In
extreme situations, this could lead to a sudden reduction in
national herd size, and a long-term loss of export markets
to competitors.
Conclusions
While there can be great gains from harmonisation, the
choice to harmonise is a sovereign right. The benefits and
risks of harmonisation are not constant across countries,
nor are all regulations a burden on society. It is up to
individual countries to determine if their regulations should
be harmonised. Further, the level of risk that a country is
willing to accept from harmonisation needs to be debated
in a public forum.
178 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

The desire to harmonise may originate with net exporters, net

importers, or those countries aiming to gain market access
Acknowledgements
for goods. Considering the specifics of the production sector The authors wish to express their appreciation for the
involved, the risk of adverse or unintended consequences suggestions and insights provided by anonymous referees,
and the potential redistributive effects is essential, as not all whose efforts have greatly improved this article.
countries and not all economies are the same. Care must be
taken to consider who is setting the standards, and which
countries bear the cost of adopting harmonised standards.

Les avantages et les inconvénients de l’harmonisation

dans le domaine de la santé animale
D. Adamson, W. Gilbert, P. Rothman-Ostrow & J. Rushton

Résumé
Il a souvent été avancé qu’en matière de santé animale, l’harmonisation des
procédures, des réglementations et des interventions à l’échelle mondiale
améliore la situation zoosanitaire globale tout en apportant des bénéfices
économiques aux pays. Une telle harmonisation réglementaire peut être le fruit
d’une réforme du commerce, notamment par le biais d’accords multilatéraux ou
bilatéraux, ou bien constituer une réponse aux programmes d’assurance qualité
privés.
Au niveau international, la réforme du commerce est actuellement centrée sur
la réduction des coûts qu’il entraîne pour les pays. Dans cette perspective, des
accords bilatéraux sont conclus chaque fois que possible afin d’harmoniser les
réglementations dans tous les secteurs de l’économie. Néanmoins, comme dans
toute évolution nouvelle, il en résulte des retombées aussi bien positives que
négatives qu’il convient d’analyser afin de bien comprendre l’incidence nette de
ces changements sur la santé animale, l’économie et la société.
Après avoir débattu des fondements économiques de l’harmonisation, les auteurs
examinent les méthodes alternatives qui permettent d’obtenir le même résultat ;
ils font aussi le point sur les avantages et les inconvénients de l’harmonisation
afin de mieux comprendre le coût d’opportunité qu’elle induit pour les pays
adoptant le même niveau de risque en santé animale.

Mots-clés
Échanges internationaux – Effets indésirables – Harmonisation – Réglementation – Santé
animale.

Ventajas e inconvenientes de la armonización en el ámbito

de la sanidad animal
D. Adamson, W. Gilbert, P. Rothman-Ostrow & J. Rushton

Resumen
Se ha postulado que la armonización mundial de los procedimientos, reglamentos
y respuestas en materia de sanidad animal redundará en un mejor estado sanitario
de los animales y reportará beneficios económicos. El impulso para proceder
a una armonización reglamentaria puede tener su origen en una reforma del
comercio, a raíz por ejemplo de acuerdos multilaterales o bilaterales, o responder
a programas privados de garantía de la calidad.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 179

A escala internacional, la reforma de los mecanismos comerciales apunta ahora

básicamente a reducir los costos del comercio entre países. Para lograrlo se
suscriben acuerdos bilaterales que, cuando es posible, entrañan una armonización
reglamentaria en todos los sectores de la economía. Sin embargo, como ocurre
con todas las novedades, ello tiene repercusiones positivas y negativas, que
conviene analizar para aprehender el efecto neto de estos cambios en la sanidad
animal, la economía y la sociedad.
Los autores examinan los fundamentos económicos de la armonización, plantean
métodos alternativos para llevarla adelante y dan cuenta de sus ventajas e
inconvenientes para conocer mejor los costos de oportunidad que trae consigo
la adopción de un mismo nivel de riesgo zoosanitario por parte de los países.

Palabras clave
Armonización – Comercio – Consecuencias imprevistas – Reglamentación – Sanidad
animal.

References
1. Tiebout C.M. (1956). – A pure theory of local expenditures.
J. Polit. Econ., 64 (5), 416–424. doi:10.1086/257839.
2.
Surak J.G. (2010). – Chapter 20. Harmonization of
international standards. In Ensuring global food safety
(C.E. Boisrobert, A. Stjepanovic, S. Oh & H.L.M. Lelieveld,
eds). Academic Press, San Diego, United States of America,
339–351.
3. Olynk Widmar N.J. (2018). – Social license to operate.
In How to feed the world (J. Eise & K. Foster, eds). Island
Press, Washington, DC, United States of America, 165–175.
4. De Frahan B.H. & Vancauteren M. (2006). – Harmonisation of
food regulations and trade in the Single Market: evidence from
disaggregated data. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ., 33 (3), 337–360.
doi:10.1093/eurrag/jbl015.
5. Baker D., Jayadev A. & Stiglitz J.E. (2017). – Innovation,
intellectual property, and development: a better set of
approaches for the 21st century. In AccessIBSA: innovation &
access to medicines in India, Brazil & South Africa. AccessIBSA,
New York, United States of America. doi:10.7916/d8-xg80-
ct59.
6. Gleeson D. & Friel S. (2013). – Emerging threats to public
health from regional trade agreements. Lancet, 381 (9876),
1507–1509. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60312-8.
7. Labonté R., Crosbie E., Gleeson D. & McNamara C. (2019).
– USMCA (NAFTA 2.0): tightening the constraints on the
right to regulate for public health. Globaliz. Hlth, 15 (1), 35.
doi:10.1186/s12992-019-0476-8.
9. Laffont J.-J. & Tirole J. (1991). – The politics of government
decision-making: a theory of regulatory capture. Quart. J.
Econ., 106 (4), 1089–1127. doi:10.2307/2937958.
10. Adamson D. (2016). – Pandora’s box and the level playing
field: food safety and regulations. Farm Pol. J., 13 (3), 33–41.
11. Gray H.P. (1993). – Economic integration and nationhood:
an extension. J. Econ. Integr., 8 (1), 58–67. doi:10.11130/
jei.1993.8.1.58.
12. Hassoun N. (2011). – Free trade, poverty, and inequality.
J. Moral Philos., 8 (1), 5. doi:10.1163/174552411X549390.
13. O’Brien F. (2020). – $170 billion and counting: the cost of
Brexit for the UK. Available at: www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-
brexit-for-the-u-k (accessed on 24 January 2020).
14. European Communities (EC) (2007). – A new animal
health strategy for the European Union (2007–2013) where
‘prevention is better than cure’. Office for Official Publications
of the EC, Luxembourg, 28 pp. Available at: https://
ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/ah_policy_
strategy_2007-13_en.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2020).
15. Bartel A.P. & Thomas L.G. (1987). – Predation through
regulation: the wage and profit effects of the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration and the Environmental Protection
Agency. J. Law Econ., 30 (2), 239–264. doi:10.1086/467137.

8. Abbott P.C. & Panu K.S.K. (1996). – Implications of game 16. Wacziarg R. & Wallack J.S. (2004). – Trade liberalization and
theory for international agricultural trade. Am. J. Agric. Econ., intersectoral labor movements. J. Int. Econ., 64 (2), 411–439.
78 (3), 738–744. doi:10.2307/1243297. doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2003.10.001.
180
17. Revenga A. (1997). – Employment and wage effects of trade
liberalization: the case of Mexican manufacturing. J. Labor
Econ., 15 (S3), S20–S43. doi:10.1086/209875.
18. Lindeque J. & McGuire S. (2007). – The United States and
trade disputes in the World Trade Organization: hegemony
constrained or confirmed? Manag. Int. Rev., 47 (5), 725–744.
doi:10.1007/s11575-007-0042-0.
19. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm (accessed on 1 April 2020).
20. J Sainsbury plc (2018). – Animal health & welfare report 2018.
J Sainsbury plc, London, United Kingdom, 17 pp. Available
at: www.j-sainsburys.co.uk/~/media/Files/S/Sainsburys/
animal%20health%20welfare%20report-2018.pdf (accessed
on 22 April 2020).
21. Regmi A. (2001). – Changing structure of global food
consumption and trade: introduction. In Changing structure
of global food consumption and trade (A. Regni, ed.).
Agriculture and Trade Report WRS-01-1. Market and Trade
Economics Division, Economic Research Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, United States
of America, 1–13. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/
publications/40303/14983_wrs011_1_.pdf?v=0 (accessed on
22 April 2020).
22. More S.J., Hanlon A., Marchewka J. & Boyle L. (2017).
– Private animal health and welfare standards in quality
assurance programmes: a review and proposed framework
for critical evaluation. Vet. Rec., 180 (25), 612. doi:10.1136/
vr.104107.
23. Dumbrell N. (2018). – To what extent should society
determine the right to farm? [abstract]. Farm Pol. J., 15 (4),
19–26. Available at: www.farminstitute.org.au/publications/
journal/farm-policy-journal-summer-2018 (accessed on
22 April 2020).
24. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010). –
Resolution No. 26: Roles of public and private standards
in animal health and animal welfare. Presented
at the 78th General Session of the World Assembly
of Delegates of the OIE, 23–28 May, Paris,
France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.
seam?page=alo&aloId=21400&menu=DO7&cid=1070
(accessed on 22 April 2020).
25.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2020). – Private
standards are a mixed blessing, committee hears. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
news_e/news07_e/sps_28feb_1march07_e.htm (accessed on
22 April 2020).
26. Fulponi L. (2007). – The globalization of private standards
and the agri-food system. In Global supply chains, standards
and the poor: how the globalization of food systems and
standards affects rural development and poverty (J. Swinnen,
ed.). CAB International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United
Kingdom, 5–18. Available at: www.econbiz.de/Record/the-
globalization-of-private-standards-and-the-agri-food-system-
fulponi-linda/10003550030 (accessed on 22 April 2020).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
27. Locke S. (2016). – Accusations fast food giant Hungry Jack’s
is feeding consumers fears over added hormones. ABC
Rural News, 2 March. Available at: www.abc.net.au/news/
rural/2016-03-02/consumers-lap-up-hormone-free-hungry-
jacks/7213992 (accessed on 22 April 2020).
28. Australian Government Productivity Commission (2016). –
Regulation of Australian agriculture: draft report. Australian
Government, Canberra, Australia, 576 pp. Available at: www.
pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/agriculture#report (accessed
on 22 April 2020).
29. Institute of Medicine (United States of America) (2013). –
International regulatory harmonization amid globalization
of drug development: workshop summary. National Academies
Press, Washington, DC, United States of America. Available
at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK153504/ (accessed on
22 April 2020).
30. MacLaren D. & Josling T.E. (1999). – Competition policy
and international agricultural trade. Working Paper Series
No. 99–7. International Agricultural Trade Research
Consortium, St Paul, Minnesota, United States
of America. Available at: http://ctrc.sice.oas.org/compol/
Articles/Josling_1999.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2020).
31. HealthforAnimals & Oxford Analytica (2016). – Innovation
in animal health: historic success, current challenges
& future opportunities. HealthforAnimals, Brussels, Belgium,
& Oxford Analytica, Oxford, United Kingdom, 52 pp. Available
at: www.worldvet.org/uploads/news/docs/healthforanimals_
report_2015_innovation_in_animal_health.pdf (accessed on
22 April 2020).
32. Bricher J.L. (2010). – Chapter 1. Ensuring global food
safety: a public health priority and a global responsibility. In
Ensuring global food safety (C.E. Boisrobert, A. Stjepanovic,
S. Oh & H.L.M. Lelieveld, eds). Academic Press, San Diego,
United States of America, 1–4.
33. Rothman-Ostrow P., Gilbert W. & Rushton J. (2019). –
Economic background to veterinary product. In Options
assessment for regional regulatory harmonisation for livestock
products in sub-Saharan Africa. University of Liverpool,
United Kingdom, 10–15.
34. Bain J.S. (1956). – Barriers to new competition: their character
and consequences in manufacturing industries. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of
America, 329 pp.
35. Quiggin J. (2019). – Economics in two lessons: why markets
work so well, and why they can fail so badly. Princeton
University Press, New Jersey, United States of America,
408 pp.
36. Bromley D.W. (1989). – Entitlements, missing markets,
and environmental uncertainty. J. Environ. Econ. Manag.,
17 (2), 181–194. doi: 10.1016/0095-0696(89)90031-4.
37. Grant S. & Quiggin J. (2013). – Bounded awareness,
heuristics and the precautionary principle. J. Econ. Behav. Org.,
93 (1), 17–31. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2013.07.007.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 181

38. Tisdell C.A. & Adamson D. (2017). – The importance

39. Whiting T. (2005). – Anaplasmosis, animal welfare, and

of fixed costs in animal health systems. In bilateral trade between Canada and the USA. Can. Vet. J.,
The economics of animal health (J. Rushton, ed.). 46 (10), 935–941. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 36 (1), 49–56. doi: 10.20506/ pmc/articles/PMC2834507/pdf/16454388.pdf (accessed on
rst.36.1.2608. 22 April 2020).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 183-192

Informal trade in livestock and livestock products

D. Grace (1, 2)* & P. Little (3)
(1) Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent
ME4 4TB, United Kingdom
(2 International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 30709, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
(3) Department of Anthropology, Emory University, 1557 Dickey Drive, Atlanta, GA 30322,
United States of America
*Corresponding author: d.grace@cgiar.org

Summary
Informal trade in livestock and livestock products is of special concern because
of the risk of spreading animal and human diseases. At the same time, informal
trade can contribute to people’s livelihoods and food security, especially in low-
and middle-income countries. Informal trade may involve legal or illegal products.
It may be domestic (or internal) or involve neighbouring countries; it may take
place within a region or between distant countries. Entrepôt trade (or ‘re-exports’)
is a significant form of informal trade in livestock products. Pastoral mobility often
entails movement across boundaries for trade and much of this is also informal.
There are important economic, social, political, and environmental drivers for
informal trade which make it difficult to eliminate. Informal livestock trade may
be largely ignored by the authorities, implicitly encouraged, made less attractive,
forcibly suppressed, or actively engaged with, in an attempt to mitigate its risks
and enhance its benefits. To identify the optimal management approach, it is
crucial to understand the importance and characteristics of informal trade, its
benefits and risks, and the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of different strategies
to address it. The authors describe a case study from East Africa to explore some
of the issues raised by informal trade.

Keywords
Case study – East Africa – Entrepôt trade – Informal trade – Livestock – Livestock products
– Low- and middle-income countries – Re-exports.

Introduction while a number of factors are involved, livestock trade

Trade has existed since the dawn of humanity and, at one
time, all trade was informal. The consensus holds that
countries open to trade grow more rapidly, and that this
growth is broadly (although not inevitably) associated with
positive development outcomes (1). At the same time, trade
brings risks and externalities.
Trade in livestock and livestock products (afterwards referred
to as ‘livestock trade’) is of special concern because of the
risk of spreading animal and human diseases. The last half-
century has seen a continuous increase in livestock trade,
mainly as the result of rapid growth in the consumption
of livestock products. In recent years, the growth in the
demand for animal-sourced food has come mainly from the
rapidly expanding economies among developing countries
(2). This growth is driven by increasing global incomes,
urbanisation and changing dietary preferences (3). There
have also been dramatic shifts in disease patterns and,
(both formal and informal) has been responsible for many
of these shifts. In some cases, this has been confirmed by
identifying the point of introduction of the disease and, in
other cases, DNA analysis indicates that the diseases under
investigation have been spread by trade (4).
While formal livestock trade is well documented and
generally promoted, informal trade (which comprises trade
in legal and illegal products) is much less well understood
and occupies a more ambiguous position. Yet, informal trade
can be more important to economies and livelihoods than
formal trade, and understanding it is key to maximising its
benefits and minimising its risks. Although formal trading
activities always carry some risk for the spread of disease,
informal trade is believed to pose a relatively higher risk for
the spread of well-known diseases, such as African swine
fever, and the emergence of new diseases, such as highly
pathogenic avian influenza (5).

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3071
184
The first section of this paper sets out some definitions
and distinctions that have proved useful in discussing
informal livestock trade. It then summarises information
on the nature and extent of informal trade in livestock and
livestock products, as well as trends. A case study from
the Horn of Africa is also presented, to illustrate some of
the themes of the paper. The next section summarises the
challenges and opportunities offered by informal trade, and
options for addressing it. Finally, conclusions are drawn and
recommendations made.
Informal trade: definitions
and distinctions
Formal cross-border trade entails the movement of goods
into or out of a country through channels that are subject
to official control or oversight, usually with some form of
declaration to the government authorities on both sides
of the border about the consignment in transit (6). This
provides an opportunity to conduct inspections to ensure
sanitary and phytosanitary compliance, to gather data useful
for economic planning and to collect fees. Most countries
have negotiated and signed the World Trade Organization
(WTO) agreements dealing with the rules of formal trade.
Under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the WTO sets out
a framework of rules and disciplines to guide its Members in
developing and enforcing policies on food safety (bacterial
contaminants, pesticides, inspection, and labelling). The
SPS Agreement also deals with animal (zoosanitary) and
plant (phytosanitary) health, with respect to pests and
diseases that might enter a country through trade.
The term ‘informal’, as applied to economic activities, was
first used in a 1972 report by the International Labour Office
(7). Since then, it has been used and defined in different
ways in different domains. For example, in food safety, the
informal sector has been considered with the ‘traditional
sector’, ‘wet markets’ and other sectors escaping systematic
sanitary inspection (8). Informality implies unregulated,
but may also have connotations of scale.
‘Informal trade’ has been defined as unorganised, small-
scale, local trade which does not appear in the Customs
record (6). However, the reality is more complicated. In some
cases, informal trade may not appear in official records but
have tacit or explicit official approval. For example, traders
may pass through official border posts, pay a crossing fee
to the immigration office, and even pay a duty on imports.
Informal trade may meet some but not all regulations: for
example, traders may pay fees to local authorities, but not
taxes. Trade may also go through official channels, but be
unrecorded to reduce Customs fees, using practices such as
under-invoicing, misclassification or misdeclaration.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
In contrast, some unrecognised trade occurs outside
official border points, avoiding Customs entirely. This is
referred to as smuggling. Moreover, informal trade is not
always small scale and local, but can also be large scale and
long distance.
It is useful to distinguish between informal trade in
legal goods and informal trade in illegal or illicit goods.
Illegal livestock goods generally include those that are
adulterated or expired, those that are traded despite disease-
related bans, and endangered species or their parts, which
are not permitted to be traded. Adding to this complexity,
goods which enter a country legally may be illegally
disposed of, for example, food waste from planes and ships
being used to feed pigs. This practice has been linked to
disease entry in many countries, notably of African swine
fever, but also foot and mouth disease and classical swine
fever (4).
In addition, large amounts of livestock products may pass
within and between countries informally and illegally, but
without being traded. In the case of cross-border movement,
these ‘personal imports’ are moved across borders in small
amounts by foreign workers, recent immigrants or tourists.
They are mainly traditional foods and their trade reflects
culturally enrooted consumption patterns. Livestock and
bushmeat products are often implicated and present a
grave risk to the livestock sector in countries where many
transboundary diseases have been eradicated. Nearly
12,000 tonnes of livestock products may enter the United
Kingdom by this route each year and several thousand
tonnes may enter Germany (9, 10).
Informal trade may be domestic (or internal), between
neighbouring countries, within regions or beyond. Animals
on the hoof are especially easy to move across land borders.
Pastoral systems often occur in remote and difficult-to-
access geographies (e.g. northern Kenya or northern Mali),
and pastoral mobility often involves moving animals across
boundaries for grazing and water but also for trade, with
much of this being informal (11). Entrepôt trade or ‘re-
exporting’ goods is a significant form of informal trade. Re-
exports are goods imported legally through formal channels
into countries with low trade barriers, and then shipped
unofficially in large volumes to neighbouring countries with
higher barriers, with minimal or no processing, apart from
transport services.
Given this complexity, it is useful for decision-makers to
have an agreed definition of informal and illegal trade
within the context of their country’s circumstances, and to
identify which types are important for their situation.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Character and extent of informal
livestock trade
For obvious reasons, it is difficult to estimate the nature and
extent of informal livestock trade. Some studies consider
informal trade without disaggregating to commodities, and
these often estimate that, for many developing countries,
informal trade is a major route. For example, around
30% to 40% of all intra-African cross-border trade is
classified as informal (12). It is conducted mainly by
individual traders; in West Africa, many of these are
women, but men dominate in East Africa. Widespread and
systematic cross-border trade has persisted for decades
in the Greater Mekong sub-region (13). In Central Asia,
bazaars have a major role in supporting informal, cross-
border trade. Bangladesh’s informal trade with the South
Asian Association for Regional Cooperation countries is
equivalent to about one-third of its formal trade (14).
Agricultural products, including livestock, are over-
represented among items traded informally, but such
products are only some of the many commodities moved
informally across borders. This means that it is difficult to
treat informal livestock trade outside the context of porous
borders open to mass movements of people and goods.
There are fewer studies that specifically examine
informal livestock trade, but those that do exist indicate
the large scale and broad scope of this trade (Table I).
Informal trade can fluctuate rapidly, and these studies
represent snapshots in time. While generalisations are
difficult, trade in live animals is riskier than trade in
livestock products (especially chilled). Trade from countries
with a relatively high investment in Veterinary Services is
less risky, as is trade from countries with fewer notifiable
diseases.
Transmission risk increases with the volume of trade,
and decreases with both the distance between source and
Table I
Examples of documented informal trade in livestock
Destination Article traded Extent of informal trade per year
Bangladesh Live cattle From India, estimated at US$ 620 to 660 million
People’s Republic of China Beef 0.5 million tonnes of formal imports and 1 million tonnes of informal imports
Nigeria Frozen chicken 70% of frozen chicken
Vietnam Spent hens 23 million hens a year, mostly from China
West Africa Live cattle Around 30,000 cattle cross borders between Mali, Burkina Faso and Côte d’Ivoire
Southern Africa Live cattle 90% of intra-regional trade
185
destination areas, and the biosecurity measures applied in
both places. Importantly, if borders are porous and easy to
cross, and if diseases are present in wildlife or transmitted
by vectors, then trade is unlikely to present any additional
risk because the distribution of disease reflects the
availability of ecological niches and is not much influenced
by official control activities. Where disease risks are the
same in the exporting and importing country, under the
WTO SPS Agreement mentioned above, SPS measures may
be unjustified (but may still be carried out by importers,
and so become a motivator for informal trade).
The benefits, risks and trends of this trade are highly
context-specific but, in general, are under-studied and
poorly understood. A possible exception is ruminant trade
in the Horn of Africa. Box 1 summarises several decades of
research by the authors and others.
Drivers of informal livestock
trade
The majority of informal livestock trade can be understood
by identifying the underlying drivers, and this can also help
in deciding what should be done about it. To analyse the
drivers of informal livestock trade, a political, economic,
socio-cultural, technological, ecological, and legal (PESTEL)
analysis was conducted.
Economic and political drivers of informal trade
Economic factors are probably the most important drivers
of informal trade. Costs can be reduced by evading export
and import duties, but also by avoiding the direct costs
of compliance with regulations (e.g. payment of border
agency fees, documentation or certification costs, etc.), as
well as the indirect costs associated with waiting times and
unpredictable procedures at the border and the costs of
getting to border posts.
References
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
186
Box 1
Case study: Horn of Africa
Livestock trade represents one of the few economic success stories
in the Horn of Africa. Annual exports from the Horn are estimated
at close to US$ 1 billion (20). Around 50% to 60% of livestock from
northern Somalia (including Somaliland) are informally sourced
from Ethiopia and they often follow trade corridors based on clan
relations (21). This informal cross-border trade is vital to the formal
export business in Somalia, which exports more than four million
live animals in some years (22). The destination market is mainly
the Middle East and is heavily concentrated in the annual Haj
season. The trade also contributes to a large import business, as
many export traders either sell foreign exchange to importers or
themselves import food, clothes and other products through Somali
ports. Many of these products are then informally traded across the
border to Ethiopia.
The loss of tax and market revenues to Ethiopia due to informal
cross-border trade has been a strong point of contention for both
the government and official livestock exporters. The latter complain
that they cannot compete with the informal market prices, have
problems sourcing animals for their export abattoirs, and are unable
to fill shipments because of informal market flows across borders.
In an attempt to work with informal traders and trade, the Ethiopian
Government has licensed and permitted some large wholesalers
to bring in crucial food products, such as wheat flour and cooking
oil, at little or no tax. The government has also allowed licensed
Ethiopian traders to sell a small number of livestock (equivalent to
60 small ruminants or six cattle per month) at border markets (23).
Despite these efforts, the number of livestock allowed to be traded
is very small, and informal movements of large numbers of livestock
continue. The Ethiopian Government has resorted to harsher
sanctions, such as large fines and arrests, against those who are
caught conducting informal livestock trade to Somalia.
In recent years, export trade from the Horn of Africa, especially
Somalia, has been strongly impacted by import bans due to animal
diseases, especially Rift Valley fever. This greatly affected both
formal and informal trade in the 2000s, most recently during 2017
and 2018. As a result of its lack of formal veterinary institutions,
trade from Somalia was particularly severely affected by these bans.
Tariffs and duties represent the economic manifestation
of national policies. Neighbouring countries may have
large differences in levels of protection, as a result of
divergent development strategies. In West Africa, there is
a distinction between countries that wish to increase their
own production (and hence try to protect their industries
by reducing access to imported products), and those that
prefer to rely on trade and maintain low import duties to
promote entrepôt activities. This fosters informal movement
from countries with low duties into those with high. For
example, nearly all of Benin’s frozen poultry imports move
informally to Nigeria (24).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Even in the absence of tariffs, the value of livestock varies
geographically. Some countries experience higher costs in
producing livestock, creating demand for goods produced
more cheaply elsewhere. As countries become richer, local
demand for lower-value products, such as edible offal, may
decline, making external markets more attractive (25). In
addition, input and output price instability characterises
many livestock production systems. The reasons for this are
complex, but fluctuations in price drive flows of animals
and products across borders, often informally.
Economic and political factors also co-exist when price
differentials are combined with import bans, making formal
trade impossible. Thus, informal trade often becomes a
substitute. For example, the People’s Republic of China
(China) banned imports of pork from Vietnam because of
foot and mouth disease. The higher price in China drove
smuggling of as many as 10,000 pigs per day (26). Imports
of frozen poultry have been banned by Nigeria since the
2000s. Poultry imports into Benin have surged from a few
United States dollars per person in the late 1990s to nearly
US$ 30 in 2011. Nearly all of Benin’s imports are intended
for Nigeria (24).
Technological drivers of informal trade
Technological differences, due to the capacity of the livestock
sector, can also drive informal trade. For example, some
countries lack the capacity to produce livestock inputs, such
as day-old chicks of improved breeds (27). Informal trade
flows are also driven by infrastructure. For example, Nigerian
seaports have struggled to match the lower costs of Cotonou
(Benin) and Lomé (Togo). This contributes to the previously
mentioned widespread smuggling of goods, in which goods
are imported legally into low-tax countries and unofficially
re-exported to countries with higher import duties (e.g. the
movement of frozen chicken from Benin to Nigeria).
Socio-cultural drivers of informal trade
Socio-cultural factors are both drivers and enablers of
informal trade. In many regions, livestock trade is often
managed by kinship and social networks that span borders.
These kinship groups both undermine and substitute
for weak official institutions, providing an informal but
effective system of property rights. New networks are also
being created as immigrants use family or business links
to bring culturally preferred products from their home
countries. This has been linked with the introduction of
disease (28). Differential tastes across borders can be as
powerful an incentive as differential prices: Vietnamese
consumers prefer meat ducks, while Chinese consumers
create a high demand for spent layer ducks. As a result, in
the last few years, most spent ducks from one Vietnamese
province were informally traded to China (29). Distrust of
domestic products is also said to drive some informal trade;
after melamine in milk was found to have killed infants in
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
China, there was a large demand from Chinese consumers
for milk from other countries. Cultural practices can also
affect livestock movements: for example, bans on cattle
slaughter in India result in an outflow of animals (much
of it informal). Many cultures have festivals in which the
demand for livestock may vastly increase, such as Chinese
New Year or Eid al-Adha: where formal channels cannot
meet this, informal channels will.
Products that are illegal may be more difficult to market
through formal channels. Stock theft is common when
security is low and often occurs across borders. Products
may also be illegal because they come from endangered
(protected) species. For example, Banteng (a rare cattle
breed native to Indonesia) are considered endangered,
but high levels of illegal trade in Banteng cattle parts
(mainly horns) appear to be driving a further decline in the
population.
Livestock products that are unfit for human consumption
are also illegal and tend to move to the least demanding
markets. A study found that, despite a national import
prohibition of Chinese milk products and unlabelled milk
powder in Tanzania, 6% of milk powder samples were
contaminated with melamine (22). Not all fraudulent
products are unsafe. There are financial incentives to
replace more expensive products with cheaper substitutes;
for example, substituting pork for beef or horsemeat for
ruminant meat. This is usually illegal on fraud, rather than
health, grounds. During the spring of 2013, horsemeat
was identified across Europe in many ready-meal products
that were labelled as 100% beef, although some products
contained up to 100% horsemeat (30).
Several drivers, including socio-cultural ones, negatively
influence the performance of border posts and Customs,
hence fostering informal trade. Several studies have
revealed harassment, bribery, inefficiency and dereliction
of duty as examples – these indicate a management and
work culture antagonistic to formal trade. In other cases,
national policies may lead to strict requirements for credit
and foreign exchange, also discouraging formal trade.
Inadequate infrastructure leads to delays that add to the
costs of formal trade, and so makes informal channels more
attractive.
Ecological drivers of informal trade
Some environments and market systems are conducive to
informal trade. Long borders running through remote areas
are difficult to police, and may also impose high transaction
costs on traders wishing to bring goods through legal border
posts. Extreme weather events can also lead to voluntary
or involuntary movement of cattle across borders, much of
which may be uncontrolled.
187
Managing informal livestock trade
In most regions, the short-to-medium-term benefits of
informal trade are significant in terms of greater food
security, reduced instability in food prices, increased
income, and employment opportunities. Many of the
beneficiaries are from vulnerable groups, such as women
and pastoralists. In the long term, however, informal trade
has disadvantages. The challenges presented by informal
livestock trade are clear. Informal trade reduces government
revenue; obscures valuable data for economic and livestock
sector development; evades sanitary inspection, thus
facilitating the entry of both transboundary diseases and
products harmful to health; and may contribute to poor
overall governance.
Authorities have different approaches for addressing informal
livestock trade, which may be influenced by the type and
risk of the trade, its perceived benefits and the capacity
and resources available. These vary from ignoring the
trade, implicitly encouraging it, making it less attractive,
forcibly suppressing it, or working with informal traders to
mitigate risks and enhance benefits. To identify the optimal
management approach, countries need to understand the
importance and characteristics of informal trade, its benefits
and risks, and the feasibility and cost effectiveness of different
strategies for addressing it. Actions appropriate for a small,
rich, island nation with good animal health status might
be unsuitable for a large, poor country with a long porous
border, separating countries of comparable health status.
Attempts to curb informal trade through legislation and
enforcement have had mixed success and have been
plagued by unintended and undesirable consequences.
For example, antagonistic relations between traders and
officials discourage disease reporting, even though the
most effective way of dealing with disease incursions is
the prompt reporting of livestock disease to authorities,
followed by a rapid response (31).
Where cattle rustling is carried out by terrorist groups, it
may be considered organised trans-national crime requiring
military intervention. When livestock move along age-old
trade routes established before the borders themselves, a
different response is required. Rather than the use of force,
there is increased interest in improving border security by
performance management and reducing corruption. This
approach can include training, the use of technology, and
attempts to change culture. The World Bank Charter for
Cross-Border Traders lays down a basic set of rights and
obligations for traders and officials (12), using a mirror
approach: each right of the former corresponds to an
obligation for the latter, and vice versa. It also includes
a credible complaints mechanism for traders, in which
violations can be reported via toll-free hotlines (32).
188
Many studies have concluded that, especially when
countries lack the resources or motivation to impose
punitive measures, it is better to make formal trade more
attractive to traders by way of incentives than to use force
to disrupt informal trade. Providing market infrastructure
in an attempt to encourage formal trade has been a popular
intervention, especially in East Africa. This has included
installing weigh bridges and establishing holding and
quarantine grounds. However, marketing infrastructure
is rarely mentioned as a priority by farmers and traders,
and on-the-ground studies find that they are rarely used or
maintained as intended (33).
More success has come through making compliance easier.
The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
(COMESA) supports a simplified trade regime, reducing
the cost of compliance for low-value transactions. It is
also funding trade information desks, which assist traders
in crossing borders. In other regions, countries have
implemented simplified processes. For example, traders
from Kazakhstan are allowed visa-free entry into China for
one day and do not have to pay duty on small amounts
of goods. Over all, better coordination of animal health
requirements across borders can also facilitate formal
trade as stakeholders are not required to meet different
requirements or complete redundant forms.
Technologies can lower the cost of formalisation. For
example, market information can be made available by
mobile phone. They can also help to improve accountability.
Moreover, the mechanism for reporting, monitoring and
eliminating non-tariff barriers, implemented by COMESA,
allows stakeholders to report and monitor responses to
problems they encounter while conducting regional trade
(www.tradebarriers.org).
Better disease control would remove the risks from
much livestock trade and have many other benefits,
such as improving productivity. This can be supported
by progressive control of transboundary diseases. The
eradication of rinderpest is a notable example, but there are
also initiatives to manage foot and mouth disease and peste
des petits ruminants more effectively. Another strategy is for
authorities to promote trade in less risky products. Informal
exports of frozen carcasses are much less risky than informal
export of live ducks (33). The installation of quarantine
stations in the 2000s supported the re-establishment of
trade between the Horn of Africa and the Saudi peninsula.
Conclusions
In terms of official policy discourse, many general
assumptions are held about cross-border livestock trade;
namely, the following:
– informal trade is a minor activity
– informal livestock trade is a special case
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
– formal and informal market chains are independent of
each other
– informal trade generates few public revenues and benefits
for a country
– informal trade represents a high risk of disease
introduction.
The evidence suggests that, for many regions, the truth is
more complicated. Informal livestock trade is significant
and forms part of massive movements across borders. It
intersects with formal trade, delivers substantial benefits and
does not always increase the risk of disease transmission.
Informal trade has been variously viewed as the first step
towards becoming formal, a dynamic and viable alternative
to formality, or a problematic sector that needs to be
reduced. As such, there has been much debate on the extent
to which informal trade should be suppressed, encouraged
or formalised.
An evidence- and risk-based approach to informal livestock
trade is recommended by the authors. This should take
into account the risks of disease spread, and of entry
of unsafe products, as well as options for management.
Dangerous and fraudulent trade should be curbed, while
safer trade supporting livelihoods and economies may be
gradually formalised. The WTO SPS regulations aim to
enable safe trade and countries could benefit by following
their guidance. The private sector, formal and informal,
is responsible for most movement of livestock and their
products; it should be consulted and involved in efforts to
facilitate and formalise trade.
This implies a multi-stakeholder approach, which involves
Veterinary Authorities, Customs, other Ministries, traders
and perhaps also consumers and farmer representatives. An
evidence-based and nuanced approach is needed, which
can distinguish between safe and risky, legal and illegal, and
net-harmful and net-beneficial trade, as well as prioritising
the most important problems.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge support for the
writing of this paper from the Consultative Group for
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Research
Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health, led by
the International Food Policy Research Institute, and the
CGIAR Research Program on Livestock, led by the
International Livestock Research Institute. The authors also
wish to thank Emily Kalonzi for research support.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 189

Le commerce informel d’animaux d’élevage

et de produits d’origine animale
D. Grace & P. Little

Résumé
Le commerce informel d’animaux d’élevage et de produits d’origine animale
est un sujet particulièrement préoccupant en raison du risque de propagation
de maladies animales et humaines associé à cette activité. En même temps,
le commerce informel apporte aux populations des moyens de subsistance
et contribue à leur sécurité alimentaire, en particulier dans les pays à revenu
faible et intermédiaire. Le commerce informel peut porter sur des produits
licites ou illicites. Il peut être domestique (marché intérieur) ou inclure les pays
avoisinants ; il peut se dérouler dans une même région ou bien entre pays distants.
La réexportation (ou recours aux entrepôts francs) constitue une modalité
importante du commerce informel de produits issus de l’élevage. Le pastoralisme,
qui se caractérise par sa mobilité, entraîne souvent des mouvements
transfrontaliers en vue de transactions commerciales dont une grande partie
est également informelle. Il existe d’importants moteurs économiques, sociaux,
politiques et environnementaux qui favorisent le commerce informel et le rendent
difficile à éliminer. Les réponses déployées par les pouvoirs publics face au
commerce informel d’animaux d’élevage sont diverses  : l’ignorer, l’encourager
implicitement, le rendre moins attractif, le réprimer par la force, ou l’accompagner
de manière active, le but étant d’atténuer les risques ou d’optimiser les
bénéfices qui lui sont associés. Pour définir la meilleure approche de gestion,
il est indispensable de bien comprendre l’importance et les caractéristiques
du commerce informel, ses bénéfices et ses risques, ainsi que la faisabilité des
différentes stratégies d’intervention et leur efficacité au regard de leur coût. Les
auteurs décrivent une étude menée en Afrique de l’Est qui permet d’analyser
certaines questions soulevées par le commerce informel.

Mots-clés
Afrique de l’Est – Animaux d’élevage – Commerce de réexportation – Commerce informel
– Entrepôts francs – Étude de cas – Pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire – Produits
d’origine animale.

Comercio informal de ganado y productos ganaderos

D. Grace & P. Little

Resumen
El comercio informal de ganado y productos ganaderos suscita especial
inquietud porque trae consigo el riesgo de propagación de enfermedades
animales y humanas. Al mismo tiempo, puede contribuir al sustento y a la
seguridad alimentaria de las personas, especialmente en los países de renta baja
y de renta media. Este tipo de comercio puede tratar con productos legales o
ilegales. A veces las transacciones son internas (nacionales), a veces interesan
a países contiguos y otras veces tienen lugar dentro de una gran región o entre
países distantes. El comercio de reexportación (o uso de puertos francos) es
una de las formas importantes que reviste el comercio informal de productos
190 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

ganaderos. La movilidad propia de las poblaciones que viven del pastoreo las
lleva a menudo a cruzar fronteras para entablar transacciones comerciales que
son mayoritariamente informales. El comercio informal obedece a importantes
factores económicos, sociales, políticos y ambientales que lo alimentan y hacen
difícil eliminarlo. La postura de las autoridades respecto del comercio informal
de ganado es muy variable: a veces se desentienden en gran medida de él, otras
veces lo alientan tácitamente, en ocasiones adoptan medidas para restarle
atractivo o lo reprimen por la fuerza e incluso a veces participan activamente en
él, tratando así de mitigar los riesgos que entraña y de potenciar sus beneficios.
Para determinar la forma idónea de manejar el fenómeno del comercio informal
es básico aprehender su importancia y características, sus ventajas y riesgos y
la viabilidad y relación costo-eficacia de las distintas posturas que se pueden
adoptar ante él. Los autores parten de un estudio monográfico realizado en el
África Oriental para abordar algunos de los interrogantes que suscita el comercio
informal.

Palabras clave
África Oriental – Comercio informal – Estudio monográfico – Ganado– Países de renta
baja o renta media – Productos ganaderos – Puertos francos – Reexportaciones.

References
1. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition
(HLPE) (2015). – Water for food security and nutrition:
a report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security
and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security –
HLPE Report No. 9. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, Italy, 129 pp. Available at: www.fao.
org/3/a-av045e.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2019).
2. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition
(HLPE) (2016). – Sustainable agricultural development for
food security and nutrition: what roles for livestock? A report
by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and
Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security – HLPE
Report No. 10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, Italy, 140 pp. Available at: www.fao.
org/3/a-i5795e.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2019).
3. Popkin B.M., Adair L.S. & Ng S.W. (2012). – Global nutrition
transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing
countries. Nutr. Rev., 70 (1), 3–21. doi:10.1111/j.1753-
4887.2011.00456.x.
4. Beltran-Alcrudo D., Falco J.R., Raizman E. & Dietze K.
(2019). – Transboundary spread of pig diseases: the role
of international trade and travel. BMC Vet. Res., 15 (1), 64.
doi:10.1186/s12917-019-1800-5.
5. Mur L., Martínez-López B., Martínez-Avilés M., Costard S.,
Wieland B., Pfeiffer D.U. & Sánchez-Vizcaíno J.M. (2012). –
Quantitative risk assessment for the introduction of African
swine fever virus into the European Union by legal import
of live pigs. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 59 (2), 134–144.
doi:10.1111/j.1865-1682.2011.01253.x.
6. Hoffmann L.K. & Melly P. (2018). – Incentives and constraints
of informal trade between Nigeria and its neighbours. West
African Papers No. 16. OECD Publishing, Paris, France,
26 pp. doi:10.1787/7aa64379-en.
7. International Labour Office (ILO) (1972). – Employment,
incomes and equality: a strategy for increasing
productive employment in Kenya. ILO, Geneva,
Switzerland, 593 pp. Available at: www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/
ilo/1972/72B09_608_engl.pdf (accessed on 27 December
2019).
8. Grace D., Makita K., Kang’ethe E.K. & Bonfoh B. (2010). –
Safe food, fair food: participatory risk analysis for improving
the safety of informally produced and marketed food in
sub-Saharan Africa. Rev. Afr. Santé Prod. Anim., 8 (S), 3–11.
Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/4175 (accessed on
17 February 2020).
9. Jansen W., Merkle M., Daun A., Flor M., Grabowski N.T.
& Klein G. (2016). – The quantity and quality of illegally
imported products of animal origin in personal consignments
into the European Union seized at two German airports
between 2010 and 2014. PLoS One, 11 (2), e0150023.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150023.
10. Hartnett E., Adkin A., Seaman M., Cooper J., Watson E.,
Coburn H., England T., Marooney C., Cox A. &
Wooldridge M. (2007). – A quantitative assessment of
the risks from illegally imported meat contaminated
with foot and mouth disease virus to Great Britain.
Risk Anal., 27 (1), 187–202. doi:10.1111/j.1539-
6924.2006.00869.x.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
11. Davies J., Ogali C., Slobodian L., Roba G. & Ouedraogo R.
(2018). – Crossing boundaries: legal and policy arrangements
for cross-border pastoralism (G. Velasco-Gil & N. Maru, eds).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy, & International Union for Conservation of Nature,
Gland, Switzerland, 110 pp. doi:10.18356/c5c480fe-en.
12. Koroma S., Nimarkoh J., You N., Ogalo V. & Owino B. (2017).
– Formalization of informal trade in Africa: trends, experiences
and socio-economic impacts. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Africa,
Accra, Ghana, 38 pp. Available at: www.fao.org/3/a-i7101e.
pdf (accessed on 27 December 2019).
13. Smith P., Lüthi N.B., Huachun L., Oo K.N., Phonvisay S.,
Premashthira S., Abila R., Widders P., Kukreja K. &
Miller C. (2015). – Movement pathways and market chains
of large ruminants in the Greater Mekong Sub-region.
Technical report. World Organisation for Animal Health,
Paris, France, 66 pp. Available at: www.researchgate.net/
publication/291304145_Movement_pathways_and_market_
chains_of_large_ruminants_in_the_Greater_Mekong_Sub-
region (accessed on 22 February 2019).
14. Rahman M. & Bari E. (2018). – Bangladesh’s formal
and informal agricultural trade with SAARC countries:
emerging trends and policy challenges. CPD Working
Paper 114. Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), Dhaka,
Bangladesh, 38 pp. Available at: https://cpd.org.bd/
wp-content/uploads/2018/08/CPD-Working-Paper-114-
Bangladesh%E2%80%99s-Formal-and-Informal-Agricultural-
Trade-with-SAARRC-Countries.pdf (accessed on 27 December
2019).
15. Dong X., Waldron S., Brown C. & Zhang J. (2018). – Price
transmission in regional beef markets: Australia, China
and Southeast Asia. Emirates J. Food Agric., 30 (2), 99–106.
doi:10.9755/ejfa.2018.v30.i2.1601.
16. Okon A. (2017). – ‘70% of frozen chicken consumed in
Nigeria is smuggled.’ The Punch, 22 September. Available at:
https://punchng.com/70-of-frozen-chicken-consumed-in-
nigeria-is-smuggled/ (accessed on 27 December 2019).
17. Desvaux S., Nguyen C.O., Vu D.T., Henriquez C., Ky V.D.,
Roger F., Fenwick S. & Goutard F. (2016). – Risk of introduction
in northern Vietnam of HPAI viruses from China: description,
patterns and drivers of illegal poultry trade. Transbound. Emerg.
Dis., 63 (4), 389–397. doi:10.1111/tbed.12279.
18. Kanoute Y.B. (2018). – Neglected zoonotic diseases and
cross-border livestock movements in northern Côte d’ Ivoire:
towards local and regional integrated control. PhD thesis,
University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland, 140 pp. Available at:
http://edoc.unibas.ch/diss/DissB_12575 (accessed on
27 December 2019).
19. Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)
(2009). – COMESA annual report 2009. COMESA, Lusaka,
Zambia, 104 pp. Available at: www.comesa.int/wp-content/
uploads/2019/02/2009-Comesa-Annual-Repport.pdf
(accessed on 27 December 2019).
191
20. Catley A., Lind J. & Scoones I. (2012). – Development at
the margins: pathways of change in the Horn of Africa.
In Pastoralism and development in Africa: dynamic change
at the margins, 1st Ed. (A. Catley, J. Lind & I. Scoones,
eds). Routledge, Abington, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.
doi:10.4324/9780203105979.
21. Umar A. & Baluch B. (2007). – Risk taking for a living: trade
and marketing in the Somali region of Ethiopia. A study by
the UN OCHA Pastoralist Communication Initiative Project.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UN OCHA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 118 pp. Available
at: www.pastoralists.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Risk-
Taking.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2020).
22. Little P.D., Tiki W. & Debsu D.N. (2015). – Formal or informal,
legal or illegal: cross-border livestock trade in the Horn of
Africa. J. Borderl. Stud., 30 (3), 405–421. doi:10.1080/088656
55.2015.1068206.
23. Desta S.W., Behan A., Sebsibe A. & Guerne Bleich E. (2011).
– Assessment of cross border informal livestock trade in
Somali Region, Main Report [unpublished manuscript].
FAO Regional Initiative in Support to Vulnerable Pastoralists
and Agro-Pastoralists in the Horn of Africa. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome,
Italy.
24. Benjamin N., Golub S. & Mbaye A.A. (2015). – Informality,
trade policies and smuggling in West Africa. J. Borderl. Stud.,
30 (3), 381–394. doi:10.1080/08865655.2015.1068203.
25. Emmer T.L., Heft-Neal S., Otte J. & Roland-Holst D. (2015).
– Livestock movement and disease risk in the Greater Mekong
sub-region – a rapid assessment: ADB Project Document.
Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila, the Philippines,
38 pp. Available at: http://bearecon.com/portfolio-data/adb-
lits/adb-lits-rapid-assessment.pdf (accessed on 27 December
2019).
26. Zhang H. (2019). – When food crosses borders: paradigm shifts
in China’s food sectors and implications for Vietnam. In Food
anxiety in globalising Vietnam (J. Ehlert & N.K. Faltmann,
eds). Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. doi:10.1007/978-981-
13-0743-0.
27. Hinrichs C.C. (2014). – Transitions to sustainability: a change
in thinking about food systems change? Agric. Human Values,
31 (1), 143–155. doi:10.1007/s10460-014-9479-5.
28. Hinrichs C.C. (2003). – The practice and politics of food
system localization. J. Rural Stud., 19 (1), 33–45. doi:10.1016/
S0743-0167(02)00040-2.
29. Meyer A., Dinh T.X., Van Nhu T., Pham L.T., Newman S.,
Nguyen T.T.T., Pfeiffer D.U. & Vergne T. (2017). – Movement
and contact patterns of long-distance free-grazing ducks
and avian influenza persistence in Vietnam. PLoS One,
12 (6), e0178241. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178241.
192 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

30. Walker M.J., Burns M. & Burns D.T. (2013). – Horse meat 33. Little P.D. (2009). – Hidden value on the hoof: cross-
in beef products – species substitution. J. Assoc. Public Anal., border livestock trade in eastern Africa – Policy Brief
41, 67–106. Available at: www.apajournal.org.uk/2013_0067- No. 2, Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
0106.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2019). (COMESA) Comprehensive African Agriculture Development
Programme. COMESA, Lusaka, Zambia, 4 pp. Available
31. Grace D. (2014). – The business case for One Health.
at: https://fic.tufts.edu/pacaps-project/Pastoralism%20&%20
Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res., 81 (2), E1–E6. doi:10.4102/ojvr. Policy/COMESA%20CAADP%20Policy%20Brief%202%20
v81i2.725. Cross%20Border%20Livestock%20Trade.pdf (accessed on
27 December 2019).
32. Soprano C. (2014). – A step toward formalization: the

Charter for Cross-Border Traders. On The trade post: making
international trade work for development, 19 August.
World Bank, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Available at: http://blogs.worldbank.org/trade/step-toward-
formalization-charter-cross-border-traders (accessed on
27 December 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 193-200

A framework for national official assurance

systems with reference to World Organisation
for Animal Health standards
E. Bonbon
Animal Health Service, Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
E-mail: etienne.bonbon@fao.org

Summary
With the expansion and intensification of international trade in animals and animal
products in the last decades, the risk of the spread of transboundary animal
diseases has increased. Veterinary Authorities may take legitimate measures at
import to protect their territories’ animal and human populations, and may require
official assurances for imported animals or animal products. These measures
have often led to overly stringent restrictions or even wide embargoes that may
have a counterproductive effect. In order to avoid unjustified barriers to trade, the
World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures recognises the standards of the World Organisation for
Animal Health (OIE) as the international references to be followed for animal health
measures. The OIE standards provide for scientifically based recommendations
for risk mitigation measures before and after international movements, depending
on the disease and the commodity. They also provide for import risk analysis and
bilateral equivalence methodologies, as well as certification rules and border
inspection procedures. In order to provide confidence that trade requirements
are met, exporting countries’ Veterinary Authorities need to implement national
assurance systems. For that reason, OIE Members should primarily follow the
OIE standards for quality Veterinary Services. Veterinary Authorities are invited
to use the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Terrestrial Code), Aquatic Animal
Health Code, Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals,
and Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals to build capable services and
implement sound and effective measures. The User’s Guide of the Terrestrial Code
lists the elements that are essential to achieving this.

Keywords
Animal health – Certification – International trade – Veterinary Services – World
Organisation for Animal Health standards (OIE standards).

Introduction: international trade international markets closer together. Since 2000, trade in
agri-food products has grown strongly – more strongly than

in agricultural products in the preceding decade – as world markets responded to

Increased agricultural trade is recognised as a vital means
of alleviating poverty and stimulating international growth.
Trade undoubtedly plays a crucial role in delivering food
to consumers worldwide. It has helped to provide greater
choice in consumer goods and has played a role in reducing
food insecurity across the globe. Over the past decade,
international agricultural and food markets have witnessed
a number of changes, which have brought domestic and
a more rules-based trading environment, falling tariffs, and
reductions in trade-distorting producer support. Global
agricultural production has also continued to increase,
driven by rapid growth in a number of developing regions,
in particular those of Asia and South America (1).
Despite being an essential activity to ensure worldwide
food security, international trade in animals and animal
products has become a sensitive issue for both developed
and developing countries, as it potentially poses a

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3072
194
significant risk for the international spread of animal and
human pathogens. Outbreaks can result in a high impact
on livestock production, widespread consumer alarm,
disruption of trade, and severe effects on incomes, not to
mention the potential human cost of illnesses and deaths
arising from zoonotic animal diseases.
Risk mitigation measures: World
Trade Organization Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures and
international standards
All governments have put in place regulatory measures
legitimately aimed at the protection of human and animal
health in their territories from risks posed by imported
animals and animal products. These sanitary measures are
part of the package of so-called sanitary and phytosanitary
(SPS) measures and can take many forms, such as quarantine
requirements and inspection or certification requirements
or even outright bans on potentially hazardous products.
However, it is widely acknowledged that SPS measures can
have significant negative effects on trade flows.
Since the first official sanitary measures at import were
implemented, and for most of the 20th century, one of the
most prominent means of preventing the introduction of
disease through trade has been a policy of risk avoidance
(i.e. a ‘zero-risk’ approach to trade). The driving philosophy
behind this approach is captured in a phrase widely used
in past decades by animal health officials: ‘if in doubt, keep
it out’. Although the ‘zero-risk’ approach has prevented
disease introductions, it is widely understood that it has
often led to unnecessarily stringent measures that have
frequently had no scientific basis and were in fact used as
barriers to trade (2). The application of import controls that
follow the dictum that there should be ‘zero risk’ associated
with the introduction of animals and animal products
often implies that no importations can take place. Such an
approach is now well-recognised as both domestically and
globally counterproductive (3).
In all areas of safety, risk may be reduced to an unimportant
or even negligible level – but scientifically it is impossible
to reduce it to ‘zero’. Scientific evidence cannot prove
the absence of risk, rather, it gives some certainty of the
potential for the absence of risk. Moreover, nature does
not respect political boundaries, and a disease can pass a
political boundary without being noticed, with or without
international trade. On the other hand, unnecessary
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
restrictive trade measures can lead to smuggling as a
means of getting around such barriers, which can seriously
threaten agricultural security – the opposite of the intended
effect. These restrictive measures can also lead to a country
finding itself isolated from overseas market opportunities,
while the reality is that international travel and trade are
important factors of our current global community, and
risks will always be present (no matter how small).
In short, trade implies risk, which should be considered
and accepted up to a certain level; on the other hand, a
lack of officially regulated trade also implies risk because
it stimulates informal, unregulated trade (3). The notion of
‘acceptable risk’ has been debated for a long time, especially
within the framework of the World Trade Organization
(WTO). In April 1994, the Final Act of the Uruguay
Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was signed; this
led to the creation of the WTO in January 1995. Among
the agreements included in the treaty that established the
WTO is the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement), which
concerns the application of food safety, and animal and plant
health regulations. The SPS Agreement does not prescribe
a specific method to determine the acceptable level of risk,
also termed the appropriate level of protection (ALOP).
However, the Agreement provides general guidance on the
principles that should be taken into account in determining
the ALOP, such as the objective of minimising negative
trade effects (for more information on ALOP, please refer
to Hamilton, this issue [4]). Regardless of the method used
to determine the ALOP, a country must be consistent in its
application and should try to minimise the negative effects
on international trade (5).
The question is how to ensure that a country is being supplied
with animals and products that are safe – by the standards
it considers appropriate – and at the same time, that strict
health and safety regulations are not being used as an excuse
for protecting domestic production. The SPS Agreement
sets out the basic rules on how governments can apply SPS
measures without creating unjustified sanitary barriers to
inhibit trade. The main goal of the SPS Agreement is to allow
trade of agricultural products while recognising the right
of countries to protect human, animal and plant health.
It defines harmonisation as the establishment, recognition
and application of common sanitary and phytosanitary
measures and encourages countries to participate actively
in the development of international standards through the
relevant international organisations (5). The SPS Agreement
specifically designates the World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) as the international reference organisation
responsible for establishing international standards,
guidelines and recommendations related to animal health,
with the main purpose of facilitating safe international
trade in terrestrial and aquatic animals and their products.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
The renewed importance conferred on the OIE by the SPS
Agreement has spurred the interest of countries across the
globe. In 1989, 114 countries were Members; by December
1999, membership had reached 155 countries, and by May
2019, the number of Members was 182.
National official assurance
systems
Veterinary Authorities, responsible for the prevention
and control of animal diseases, also aim to facilitate safe
international trade in animals and animal products. Traded
animals or animal products must be proven to have met
all applicable conditions required by the exporting and
importing countries. This implies having the necessary
official assurances to provide confidence, thereby allowing
trade to occur.
Moreover, the claims made on official assurances must
be substantiated in order to maintain trade relations and
the reputation of the exporting Veterinary Authority. This
is achieved through national systems implemented by the
Veterinary Authorities, allowing information relating to the
assurances to be verified.
Animals or animal products exported with an official
assurance are in fact certified to be covered by a risk
assessment and management programme. This is part of the
official assurance system, implemented by the Veterinary
Service under the overall responsibility of the Veterinary
Authority, that demonstrates their eligibility for export.
World Organisation for Animal
Health standards: quality of
Veterinary Services
As a result of the empowerment of the OIE to establish
international reference standards for animal health, the
capability of countries to respect those standards, both at
import and at export, is a key condition for their ability
to build trust and participate in the international trade
of animals and animal products. In the OIE standards,
official assurance systems for trade in animals and their
products primarily depend on quality Veterinary Services
(or Aquatic Animal Health Services for aquatic animals).
The safety of international trade and the reliability of
veterinary certification is widely based on the capability
of national Veterinary Services to identify and manage the
animal health risks at the source of exported animals or
products. Thus, the performance of Veterinary Services is
195
an important element assuring safe international trade. Not
only must the Veterinary Services be capable of promptly
and efficiently detecting and managing OIE listed diseases,
including those that present food safety and other public
health risks, they must also provide effective sanitary
guarantees via international veterinary certificates. The
maintenance of confidence between trading partners relies
on consistent performance in these, and other, aspects (6).
In this context, the evaluation of the Veterinary Service
in the exporting country is of utmost importance. The
Veterinary Service should have the ability to provide
appropriate services within their country and to provide
reliable epidemiological data and information to other
countries. In 1993, the OIE published the first guidelines
for the evaluation of Veterinary Services, including a
model questionnaire used for self-evaluation of a national
Veterinary Service. These guidelines were incorporated into
the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Terrestrial Code) in
2002 and later a more structured Performance of Veterinary
Services (PVS) Evaluation Tool was developed. During the
period from 2006 to 2010, the OIE progressively developed
the OIE PVS Pathway, from the PVS Evaluation alone,
followed by the PVS Gap Analysis, to a comprehensive,
staged approach providing a series of sequential capacity
building activities for the systematic strengthening of
Veterinary Services. The PVS Pathway has since proven to
be an unmitigated success and the numbers testify to this;
currently 140 countries are actively engaged. The rationale
behind this evaluation is twofold: to assist the national
authorities in the decision-making process regarding
priorities to be given to their own Veterinary Services,
and to assist in the process of risk assessment related to
international trade in animals and animal products. In
both cases, the evaluation is to demonstrate the Veterinary
Service’s ability to effectively control the health status of the
national herd and the sanitary status of animal commodities
marketed. In 2013, a similar tool was developed for the
evaluation of Aquatic Animal Health Services.
The PVS Pathway process includes the evaluation
of resources, management capability, legislative and
administrative support, and performance history, among
other areas. However, the main issue remains one of
trust: the confidence of trading partners in each other’s
competence and integrity.
The standards for quality Veterinary Services and their
evaluation are found in the OIE Terrestrial Code, in the
chapters of Section 3 (7). The User’s Guide of the Terrestrial
Code states that
The standards in the chapters of Section 3 are designed
for the establishment, maintenance and evaluation of
Veterinary Services, including veterinary legislation
and communication. These standards are intended to
assist the Veterinary Services of Member Countries to
196
meet their objectives of improving terrestrial animal
health and welfare and veterinary public health, as
well as to establish and maintain confidence in their
international veterinary certificates.
Article 3.1.1. of the Terrestrial Code specifically states (inter
alia) that
the quality of the Veterinary Services depends on a
set of factors, which include fundamental principles
of an ethical, organisational, legislative, regulatory
and technical nature…  Compliance with these
fundamental principles by the Veterinary Services of
a Member Country is important to the establishment
and maintenance of confidence in its international
veterinary certificates by the Veterinary Services of
other Member Countries.
Moreover, trust is built upon transparency and possible
checks. Article 3.1.3. states that
every Member Country should recognise the right of
another Member Country to undertake, or request it
to undertake, an evaluation of its Veterinary Services
where the initiating Member Country is an actual or
a prospective importer or exporter of commodities
and where the evaluation is to be a component of a
risk analysis process which is to be used to determine
or review sanitary measures which apply to such
trade… A Member Country undertaking evaluation
should be able to justify any measure taken as a
consequence of its evaluation.
World Organisation for Animal
Health standards: conditions
for trade
Official assurance systems for trade in animals and their
products are based on trust in the quality of Veterinary
Services, which can be built and evaluated by following
the recommendations of the Terrestrial Code. Nevertheless,
specific recommendations linked to international veterinary
certification are also set out in the Terrestrial Code. These
recommendations include both disease-specific and generic
recommendations.
The Terrestrial Code covers the most important diseases
(OIE listed diseases) and provides recommendations on
a wide range of issues such as surveillance, risk analysis,
zoning/regionalisation, disease prevention and control,
and conditions for safe trade (7). The User’s Guide of the
Terrestrial Code states that
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Veterinary Authorities should use the standards in
the Terrestrial Code to set up measures providing
for early detection, internal reporting, notification,
control or eradication of pathogenic agents,
including zoonotic ones, in terrestrial animals
(mammals, birds, reptiles and bees) and preventing
their spread via international trade in animals and
animal products, while avoiding unjustified sanitary
barriers to trade.
There are chapters for the majority of OIE listed diseases.
In each of them, articles describe conditions for trade of
specific animals or products, which are applicable to all
182 Members of the OIE. Although the OIE aims to
include a chapter for each OIE listed disease, not all OIE
listed diseases have yet been covered by a specific chapter.
This is work in progress, depending on available scientific
knowledge and the priorities set by the World Assembly of
Delegates of the OIE.
The User’s Guide of the Terrestrial Code states that
The standards in each of the chapters of Sections 8
to 15 are designed to prevent the pathogenic agents
of OIE listed diseases, infections or infestations from
being introduced into an importing country. The
standards take into account the nature of the traded
commodity, the animal health status of the exporting
country, zone or compartment, and the risk reduction
measures applicable to each commodity.
These conditions are considered to mitigate the risks
at importation to a globally acceptable level, if applied
correctly. If an importing country chooses to adopt more
stringent conditions, it must provide a scientific justification
and base its decision on a risk analysis:
Animal health measures related to international
trade should be based on OIE standards. A Member
Country may authorise the importation of animals or
animal products into its territory under conditions
different from those recommended by the Terrestrial
Code. To scientifically justify more stringent
measures, the importing country should conduct a
risk analysis in accordance with OIE standards, as
described in Chapter 2.1.
Moreover, the User’s Guide states that the disease specific
conditions ‘assume that the agent is either not present in the
importing country or is the subject of a control or eradication
programme’. In other words, a country may impose sanitary
measures at import only if the disease of concern is exotic
or if it is under an official control programme. Furthermore,
measures can be applied to trading countries only if they are
also required within the importing country.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
World Organisation for Animal
Health standards: conditions for
certification
In addition to disease-specific risk mitigation measures, the
OIE standards provide recommendations for measures for
trade in general. Section 5 of the Terrestrial Code describes
the methods to be used by trading partners to define and
agree upon animal health conditions applicable to animals
and products to be exported, and by the exporting country
to certify their compliance to these conditions (7).
Section 5 of the Terrestrial Code is a crucial element of any
national official assurance system for trade of animals and
their products. Chapters 5.1. to 5.3. describe the obligations
and ethical responsibilities of importing and exporting
countries in international trade. Veterinary Authorities and
all veterinarians directly involved in international trade
should be familiar with these chapters (7). Chapter 5.3. also
recognises the SPS Agreement, details the determination of
the equivalence of sanitary measures of trading partners
and provides for an OIE informal procedure for dispute
mediation.
More specifically, Chapters 5.1. and 5.2. give guidance to
Members on what a veterinary certificate is, how to draft it
and how to certify that its conditions are met. The Terrestrial
Code User’s Guide states that
An international veterinary certificate is an official
document that the Veterinary Authority of an
exporting country issues in accordance with Chapters
5.1. and 5.2. It lists animal health requirements
and, where appropriate, public health requirements
for the exported commodity. The quality of the
exporting country’s Veterinary Services is essential in
providing assurances to trading partners regarding
the safety of exported animals and products. This
includes the Veterinary Services’ ethical approach
to the provision of veterinary certificates and their
history in meeting their notification obligations.
International veterinary certificates underpin
international trade and provide assurances to the
importing country regarding the health status of the
animals and products imported.
197
Chapter 5.2. is the most important chapter of the Terrestrial
Code in relation to official veterinary certification. It states
that ‘the professional integrity of the certifying veterinarian
should be respected and safeguarded’, and lists conditions
under which certifying veterinarians should be authorised
and should perform the certification. It also describes the
preparation of international veterinary certificates in order
to prevent possible fraud, misuse, misunderstanding or
misinterpretation. Chapter 5.4. indicates the procedures
before and at departure of exported animals or products.
Chapters 5.10. to 5.13. provide for model veterinary
certificates for international trade.
Conclusions
Veterinary Authorities have a unique responsibility in
setting and implementing national official assurance
systems for international trade. The OIE standards, when
implemented correctly, play an essential role in ensuring the
safe international trade of live animals and animal products.
Therefore, Veterinary Authorities should base trustworthy
veterinary certification on applying the OIE standards at
each stage of establishing their assurance system. First,
in building and maintaining quality Veterinary Services;
then in organising a reliable, coherent and comprehensive
certification system, and conducting transparent and
objective risk analysis; and finally, in following the disease-
specific recommendations on trade of animals and animal
products. Establishing and maintaining confidence
among trading partners is partly dependent on Veterinary
Authorities fulfilling their obligations regarding animal
disease notification to the OIE, and on applying the OIE
recommendations regarding surveillance, prevention and
control, as well as animal health measures and procedures
at import and export.
198 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Un cadre pour les systèmes officiels nationaux de garantie se

référant aux normes de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé
animale
E. Bonbon

Résumé
L’expansion et l’intensification des échanges internationaux d’animaux et de
produits d’origine animale enregistrées au cours des dernières décennies se
sont accompagnées d’une augmentation du risque de propagation des maladies
animales transfrontalières. Les Autorités vétérinaires sont en droit de prendre
des mesures à l’importation afin de protéger les populations animales et
humaines du territoire national, de même qu’elles peuvent exiger des garanties
officielles concernant les animaux ou produits d’origine animale importés.
Ces mesures se sont souvent traduites par des restrictions au commerce
excessivement rigoureuses, voire des embargos de grande ampleur aux
effets parfois contreproductifs. Dans le but d’éviter les obstacles injustifiés au
commerce, l’Accord de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce sur l’application
des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires reconnaît les normes de l’Organisation
mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) comme la référence internationale pour les
mesures en lien avec la santé animale. Les normes de l’OIE comportent des
recommandations basées sur la science concernant les mesures d’atténuation
du risque à appliquer avant et après les mouvements internationaux en fonction
de la maladie et de la marchandise considérées. Ces normes prévoient également
des méthodologies pour l’analyse du risque à l’importation et la détermination
d’équivalences bilatérales ainsi que des règles de certification et des procédures
d’inspection aux frontières. Afin d’apporter l’assurance que les dispositions liées
au commerce international sont respectées, les Autorités vétérinaires des pays
exportateurs sont tenues de mettre en place des systèmes nationaux de garantie.
C’est la raison pour laquelle les Membres de l’OIE devraient suivre en priorité
les normes de l’OIE relatives à la qualité des Services vétérinaires. Les Autorités
vétérinaires sont invitées à s’appuyer sur le Code sanitaire pour les animaux
terrestres (Code terrestre), le Code sanitaire pour les animaux aquatiques, le
Manuel des tests de diagnostic et des vaccins pour les animaux terrestres et le
Manuel des tests de diagnostic pour les animaux aquatiques de l’OIE pour mettre
en place des services performants et appliquer des mesures solides et efficaces.
Les éléments essentiels à prendre en compte à cette fin sont indiqués dans le
Guide de l’utilisateur du Code terrestre.

Mots-clés
Certification – Commerce international – Normes de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé
animale (normes de l’OIE) – Santé animale – Services vétérinaires.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 199

Principios generales para los sistemas nacionales de garantía

oficial, con referencia a las normas de la Organización Mundial
de Sanidad Animal
E. Bonbon

Resumen
La expansión e intensificación que de unos decenios a esta parte conoce el
comercio internacional de animales y productos de origen animal se acompaña
de un creciente riesgo de propagación transfronteriza de enfermedades
animales. Las autoridades veterinarias están legitimadas para imponer a las
importaciones requisitos destinados a proteger a las poblaciones animales
y humanas presentes en su territorio y, en este sentido, pueden exigir que los
animales o productos de origen animal importados se acompañen de una garantía
sanitaria oficial. A menudo este tipo de medidas han derivado en restricciones
excesivamente rigurosas o incluso en embargos de mayor calado que pueden
resultar contraproducentes. Para evitar obstáculos injustificados al comercio,
en el Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias de la
Organización Mundial del Comercio se reconocen las normas de la Organización
Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) como referencia internacional por lo que
respecta a las medidas de carácter zoosanitario. Las normas de la OIE contienen
recomendaciones científicamente fundamentadas para la aplicación de medidas
de mitigación del riesgo antes y después de un desplazamiento internacional,
dependiendo de la enfermedad y el producto de que se trate. También presentan
métodos para analizar el riesgo de importación y establecer equivalencias
bilaterales, así como reglas de certificación y procedimientos de inspección
aduanera. Para infundir confianza en el respeto de los requisitos comerciales,
las autoridades veterinarias de los países exportadores deben instituir sistemas
nacionales de garantía. Este es el motivo por el que los Miembros de la OIE
deberían seguir ante todo las normas de la OIE referidas a la calidad de los
Servicios Veterinarios. Se invita a las autoridades veterinarias a utilizar el Código
Sanitario para los Animales Terrestres (Código Terrestre), el Código Sanitario
para los Animales Acuáticos, el Manual de las Pruebas de Diagnóstico y de las
Vacunas para los Animales Terrestres y el Manual de Pruebas de Diagnóstico
para los Animales Acuáticos, publicaciones todas ellas de la OIE, para dotarse de
servicios capaces y aplicar medidas coherentes y eficaces. En la Guía del usuario
que acompaña al Código Terrestre se relacionan los elementos esenciales
para lograrlo.

Palabras clave
Certificación – Comercio internacional – Normas de la Organización Mundial de Sanidad
Animal (normas de la OIE) – Sanidad animal – Servicios Veterinarios.
200 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

References
1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) (2019). – The changing landscape of agricultural
markets and trade. OECD, Paris, France. Available at:
www.oecd.org/agriculture/topics/agricultural-trade (accessed
on 16 July 2019).
5. World Trade Organisation (WTO) (1998). – Understanding
the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/
english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsund_e.htm (accessed on 16 July
2019).

2. Zepeda C., Salman M. & Ruppanner R. (2001). – International
trade, animal health and veterinary epidemiology: challenges
and opportunities. Prev. Vet. Med., 48 (4) 261–271.
doi:10.1016/S0167-5877(00)00200-2.
3. Kellar J.A. (1993). – The application of risk analysis
to international trade in animals and animal products.
In Risk analysis, animal health and trade (R.S. Morley, ed.).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 12 (4), 1023–1044. doi:10.20506/
rst.12.4.745.
6. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2009). –
International trade: rights and obligations of OIE Members.
OIE, Paris, France, 12 pp. Available at: www.oie.int/fileadmin/
Home/eng/Internationa_Standard_Setting/docs/pdf/A_Right_
and_obligations_March2009.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2019).
7. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 27th Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/standard-setting/terrestrial-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 16 July 2019).

4. Hamilton A. (2020). – Facilitating market access: risk

assessment, equivalence and regionalisation provisions in the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal
products (C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int.
Epiz., 39 (1) 81–91. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3064.
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 201-211

National official assurance systems for

international trade in animals and animal
products, with reference to the standards
of the World Organisation for Animal Health
W.T. Jolly

New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, Charles Fergusson Building, 34–38 Bowen St, Pipitea, Wellington,
New Zealand
E-mail: bill.jolly@mpi.govt.nz

Summary
In the context of trade, national official assurance systems are the mechanism
through which countries provide official assurance to other countries that their
products are safe to trade. Regardless of the form in which it is conveyed, an official
assurance, for the most part, is a statement from one competent authority to another
about the conformity of a consignment with agreed requirements. Effectively,
one government is providing a level of guarantee to the other government about
matters such as the disease or pest status that exists nationally or regionally and/
or about the risk management activities that have been undertaken as relevant to
the traded consignment. Accordingly, the degree of confidence that the importing
competent authority has in the ethics, competence and capability of the exporting
country’s competent authority is central to how much trust the importing country
places in the official assurances from the exporting country.
The World Organisation for Animal Health Terrestrial Animal Health Code and
Aquatic Animal Health Code (Section 5 of both) set out veterinary certificate
requirements relating to animal health and zoonoses for both importing and
exporting countries engaging in the trade of animals and animal products.
These requirements are supplemented by the guidance developed by the Codex
Committee on Food Inspection and Certification Systems, which covers the
inspection and certification system requirements related to food safety and other
non-health-related technical matters (e.g. composition, grade or organic status),
as relevant to the international trade in food.
This review discusses the need for countries to further align the form and
content of their official assurance requirements with the relevant international
standards and recommendations. It also notes, however, that there is currently
a paucity of recommended standardised attestations. It highlights the increasing
movement towards electronic certification and the potential this brings for
further amalgamation of different certificate types and the coordination of
border clearance processes. The basic components and principles that apply to
national official assurance systems are identified and explained. Lastly, future
trends and challenges for national official assurance systems, such as the
impact of electronic commerce and regional distribution hubs, and the increasing
recognition of containment zones and/or risk mitigations, such as treatments, are
discussed.

Keywords
Assurance – Border – Certificates – Clearance – Electronic certification – Electronic
commerce – Export – Official – Systems – Trade – Verification.

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3073
202
Introduction
The basis for most official assurances starts with a positive
verification of some required group of attributes. These
attributes can, for example, be associated with how the
commodity was processed, the status of a region from where
an animal was sourced, or the results of some tests on the
animal or final product. At the simplest level, the level and
type of verification allows statements to be made about the
commodity’s compliance with the exporting country’s own
laws. Importing competent authorities may, where justified,
also seek additional official assurances with respect to
a consignment coming from a region with a defined
disease or pest status or it having been produced within a
system of controls that assures the acceptable status of the
consignment. Such status confirmations usually deal with
issues such as disease or pest freedom or treatment status,
food safety controls, or other agreed fitness-for-purpose
attributes.
Ideally, official assurances should be high-level outcome-
focused statements, such as those that reference compliance
with an agreed protocol, rather than have each procedural
or testing requirement having its own specific attestation.
For example, veterinary certificates for the importation
of animals and animal products into the European Union
(EU) from New Zealand reference the ‘Agreement between
the European Community and New Zealand on sanitary
measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal
products’, which recognises the relevant New Zealand
standards and requirements as being equivalent to those of
the EU (1).
Generic certification clauses attesting to the consignment
being sourced or produced in conformity with the relevant
international standards and recommendations often have
the greatest utility. For example, New Zealand’s preferred
animal-health-related export attestation is: ‘I hereby certify
that [the products] were derived from regions/animals
which were considered free of diseases of concern to the
OIE [World Organisation for Animal Health], relevant to
the trade in these products’.
National official assurance systems should verify that the
required outcomes are appropriately assured, based on a
review of the supporting evidence that the control system is
operating as intended. What constitutes an appropriate level
of control and what level of oversight or type of evidence
is expected is often the subject of bilateral negotiations.
However, most national official assurance systems rely on
competent authorities, or a third party recognised by the
competent authority, undertaking performance-based
verification of the business operator’s documented quality
assurance systems. The performance-based verification
usually includes physical reality checks on the establishments
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
and people undertaking the defined activities, but may also
include a remote review of records such as animal health
surveillance results or product process control records. The
New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries has laid out its
practices in the Animal Product Notice: Export Verification
Requirements of May 2018, whereby the frequency and
intensity of verification of export establishments is classified
into seven steps (2). Initially, checks are carried out relatively
frequently (e.g. every two weeks), but over time and with
demonstrated compliant performance these may extend out
to every three months. Should an establishment perform
sub-optimally, then the Ministry reverts back to more
frequent and intensive verification.
Official certifiers should only certify matters that are
within their own knowledge at the time of signing the
certificate, or those that have been separately attested by
another independent competent party. All parties involved
in the verification and certification process should have no
conflict of interest; they must have no involvement in the
commercial aspects of the animals or animal products being
certified and be independent of the commercial parties.
Assurances solely dealing with conformity with the
exporting country’s legislative requirements should not, in
theory, be required unless the country’s legislation allows
export of non-conforming products. Similarly, certificate
attestations as to a country’s notified animal health status
for OIE-listed diseases are also, arguably, redundant if the
exporting country has a history of consistently abiding by
its international notification obligations. In addition, as
clearly stated in OIE guidance, countries should not have to
certify regional freedom from diseases that are not spread by
the commodity in question, or which are not under official
control in the importing country.
Lastly, national official assurance systems should be
based on the performance-based verification of a series
of integrated controls. The frequency and intensity of
verification should vary according to the performance
of exporting establishments and the confidence that the
competent authority has in the establishment’s people and
quality assurance framework. Poorer-performing businesses
should be subjected to increased controls and tighter,
more frequent verification, whereas those businesses that
repeatedly demonstrate compliance and responsibility
should be rewarded with less intensive and less frequent
verification. National official assurance systems based
on testing a sample of the exported consignment tend to
be the least efficient and least effective type of assurance
system. End-product testing schemes often struggle to test
enough samples for the appropriate range of attributes
to provide statistical confidence, and exports are delayed
while results are awaited. This is especially so where there is
inherent within-production-run variation for the attributes
being tested for (e.g. it is often the case for microbiological
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
results). In contrast, being able to verify that an already
validated process has consistently been operated inside the
pre-established acceptable operational parameters provides
greater assurance that all batches will be compliant, which
means that there is no need to wait for a representative
sample of each batch to be tested separately post-production.
As part of the discussion of national official assurance
systems, it is important to consider the form and content
of certificates (official assurances), the digital transfer of
these, and the principles and trends that should apply to
attestations.
Coordination of border clearance
Countries that signed the World Trade Organization’s
(WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) (3), which
came into force in February 2017, have agreed to
progressively digitalise, as far as practical, all of their border
documents and clearance processes. The OIE and the
Codex Alimentarius Commission (4) have already agreed
common certification templates for food products. These
templates are in line with the standards developed by the
United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and E-Business
(UN/CEFACT) (5). Both the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health
Code (Terrestrial Code) (6) and the Aquatic Animal Health
Code (Aquatic Code) (7) also have UN/CEFACT-consistent
model templates for the international trade in live animals,
hatching eggs and aquatic animals.
The UN/CEFACT e-Cert SPS XML data standard (8) has
been fully mapped against the World Customs Organization
(WCO) data model 3 standard (9) so as to ensure
interoperability between sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)
messaging and Customs clearance processes. Coordination
between border agencies can be further facilitated through
the use of standardised codes such as the country codes
of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
the point of entry codes of the United Nations Code for
Trade and Transport Locations (10), and the goods codes
of the WCO Harmonized Commodity Description and
Coding System.
Maximising the coordination between border agencies so as
to facilitate timely border clearance is a key commitment that
countries have signed up to under the WTO TFA. Inclusion
of import permit numbers on certificates, where these are
used and are available ahead of time, can also assist border
agencies to more easily link the various documents or data
sets required by the different border agencies, especially
when they are supplied electronically.
203
Form and content of certificates
Official assurances on certificates are statements from one
competent authority to another about the conformity of a
consignment with agreed requirements. They should not
require the attachment, or supply in parallel by commercial
parties, of ancillary evidence for any aspect covered by the
official assurance. Neither should there be any requirement
to attach information already verified in the exporting
country, such as certificates of analysis or copies of foreign
import certificates. Similarly, exporting countries should
not have to provide actual numerical values of test results,
as official assurances are only issued if the exporting country
has already verified that the results fall within the range of
what is acceptable for the importing country.
Regardless of the form in which an official assurance is
transmitted (e.g. paper or digital), the exporting country
must ensure that it has security features that allow its
authenticity to be unequivocally validated. Unfortunately,
traditional security features, such as government seals and
wet signatures, no longer provide much of a guarantee
as they are easily counterfeited. Secure electronic storage
in the country of origin, with appropriately encrypted
digital transmission between governments, is far more
secure. Alternatively, countries may provide the importing
government with secure user identification and password-
controlled Web-based access to their original electronic
versions so as to allow the direct verification of the
authenticity of paper copies.
Digital transfer of official
assurances
Standardisation by the OIE and Codex Alimentarius
Commission of the common data elements associated with
commonly traded animal products has already allowed for
the merging of what historically were often separate animal
health and food safety certificates into a single certificate.
Some countries, such as New Zealand, have gone further
and are now linking and storing data associated with
multiple other certificate types within a single electronic
platform e.g. linking a combination of animal health, food
safety, country of origin, composition, grade, quota, organic,
or halal assurances. This has allowed multiple types of
assurances, all linked to the same consignment details, to
be digitally exchanged between countries that have a border
clearance system that allows all parties involved in trade to
share information via a single location (a ‘single-window’
system) (11).
In such situations, each assurance type (e.g. sanitary, halal
or organic) is still separately approved by each respective
204
competent authority within the exporting country, with
the final overarching digital document not being approved
and made live for transfer as a whole until all appropriate
authorisations have been given. The totality of government
assurances associated with a consignment are then
exchanged between the exporting and importing country
as a single integrated data stream without the unnecessary
duplication of any common data elements. Internal central
clearance house processes within the importing country are
then responsible for ensuring the relevant border agencies
see and scrutinise the information relevant to their parts of
the clearance process before the consignment is released.
With the increased digitalisation of export and import
processes, there is an opportunity for other countries to
consider merging all of their official assurance outputs
for each consignment into a single digitally transmittable
certificate. This will go a long way towards increasing
efficiencies, not just for the exporting and importing
governments, but also for the commercial parties involved
in the trade. It will also give further impetus to international
single-window initiatives and help countries to meet their
commitments under the WTO TFA. In this regard, it is
noted that Article 4.1 of the WTO TFA states:
Members shall endeavour to establish or maintain a single
window, enabling traders to submit documentation
and/or data requirements for importation, exportation,
or transit of goods through a single entry point to
the participating authorities or agencies. After the
examination by the participating authorities or agencies
of the documentation and/or data, the results shall be
notified to the applicants through the single window in
a timely manner [3].
Attestations
Once countries agree on the data elements that must
be included in their various official assurances, the
next challenge is to further rationalise and harmonise
the wording in the attestations. For the most part, the
OIE has mainly developed attestations associated with
specific diseases. These cover those situations where the
trading countries may have a different status or where it
is otherwise recommended that a specific risk mitigation
activity associated with a specific disease be confirmed as
having occurred.
What tends to be lacking are recommendations with respect
to more general attestations that cover the conformity of the
consignment with all of the relevant conditions of trade,
as recommended by the OIE, for a specific commodity.
Consequently, many countries still require official assurances
with multiple, overly detailed attestations covering a wide
range of diseases and/or treatments.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Simple attestations that confirm the conformity of a
consignment with agreed requirements can actually
provide a higher level of assurance. Similarly, attestations
that confirm that the product was derived from regions or
animals that were considered free of diseases of concern
to the OIE, as relevant to the trade in those products, can
also provide more comprehensive coverage. The OIE has
made a little progress here for several diseases, and the
recommended attestation now cross-references the Codex
Alimentarius Commission meat inspection standard, stating
that the consignment ‘has been produced in accordance
with the Codex Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat
(CAC/RCP 58-2005)’.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission has also attempted to
standardise the attestations on several certificate templates,
such as the model certificates for milk and milk products
(12) and for fish and fish products (13). However, there
has not been a great uptake of these recommendations to
date and, again, many countries have their own customised
requirements.
The more customised and country-specific that importing
country market-access requirements and associated
attestations are, the more exporting country national
official assurance systems potentially have to identify and
separate different streams of commodities according to their
different country eligibilities. While this may be appropriate
in certain circumstances, often it is more of an artefact of
importing countries overly specifying procedures rather
than a reflection of any inherent difference in the risk status
of the different commodity streams. Such approaches can
add unnecessary cost and inflexibility to national official
assurance systems. Furthermore, they can cause problems
for subsequent manufacturing countries (second countries)
where the final importing countries (third countries) require
country-specific certification attestations not just for the
final product but also for each of the component ingredients.
While the ingredients may have met the requirements
for the first country to export them directly to the third
countries, the second country may have negotiated different
requirements with one or more of these third countries, thus
creating problems. In such cases, the problem caused by the
potential mismatch of the attestations needed to facilitate
the desired onward certification is somewhat artefactual
and is not reflective of whether the ingredients are eligible
or not for those third countries.
One possible solution to remove some of this complexity is
for the original exporting country, on request, to list those
countries for which the ingredients are also eligible for it to
certify the direct export to. For example, indicating that at
the time of export the products listed were also eligible for
certification to the countries listed. Similar to the general
attestations discussed above, this actually provides a more
appropriate and higher level of assurance than if the original
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
exporting country replicated all the specific attestations that
the second exporting country is required to make to one
or more third countries. This is because it is not possible
to automatically assume that eligibility requirements for
products produced in two different countries will be the
same. Such additional onward certification attestations
may be included on the original official assurance, or,
where necessary, may be provided in supplementary official
assurance documentation.
The OIE Terrestrial Code and Aquatic Code both state that,
to maximise harmonisation of the sanitary aspects of
international trade, the import requirements of Members
should be aligned with, or based on, the standards and
recommendations of the OIE. If there are no relevant
standards, or if the importing country chooses a level of
protection requiring measures more stringent than the
standards of the OIE, then these need to be based on
and justified by a relevant import risk analysis. Both the
Terrestrial Code and Aquatic Code also emphasise that
importing countries should not include requirements for
the exclusion of pathogenic agents or aquatic or animal
diseases that are present in the importing country and are
not subject to any official control programme. Furthermore,
the measures imposed on imports to manage the risks
posed by a pathogenic agent or disease should not be more
stringent (in terms of the required level of control) than
those applied as part of the official control programme
operating within the importing country.
Members similarly have an obligation under the WTO
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures to base their food safety import requirements
on the relevant international standards and guidance
promulgated by the Codex Alimentarius Commission,
again, unless they have a risk assessment justifying their
higher level of protection. In such situations, importing
countries cannot require an outcome in excess of what they
are achieving domestically from the application of their
controls.
National official assurance
systems supporting certificates
Competent authorities are responsible for ensuring that
they appropriately regulate the areas subject to official
assurances. National official assurance systems should
conform to the relevant parts of Chapters 3 and 5 of the
OIE Terrestrial Code or the relevant Codex Alimentarius
Commission standards (14, 15). Competent authorities are
ultimately accountable for the credibility and integrity of
any official assurance provided. The safety of international
trade in animals and animal products depends on a
205
combination of factors that should be taken into account to
ensure unimpeded trade, without incurring unacceptable
risks to human and animal health.
Documented specifications and approval
processes
Competent authorities need to ensure that all specifications
and processes are clearly documented and the responsibilities
of all parties are unambiguously described. This includes
any additional importing country requirements as agreed.
The specifications need to cover both the requirements
that must be met by the commercial parties and those that
must be met by the parties undertaking the verification or
providing the certification.
Competent authorities of exporting countries should
not rely on certifying officials individually interpreting
the meaning of certification clauses. The basis on which
officials can certify that the requirements of the clause have
been met, or not, should be covered in the supporting
documentation guiding the certifying officials.
Competent authority programmes
National official assurance systems need to have the ability
to identify and control the movement or separation and
segregation of animals or animal products of different status
with respect to export eligibility. While not essential, national
animal, herd or flock identification and tracking systems are
helpful tools in this regard. Similarly, national requirements
providing for appropriate product identification, product
tracking and recall ability are desirable. Proprietary systems,
such as company inventories or integrated supply chain
information, can also be used where their integrity can be
verified. Commercial records that utilise technologies such
as blockchain (time-stamped series of immutable records of
data that are managed by a cluster of computers not owned
by any single commercial party) or global data standards
such as Global Standards 1 (GS1) barcodes are useful in
this regard.
Competent authorities need to have the authority and
capability to collect national or regional surveillance
information if they are to provide credible assurances
on national or regional animal health status. Similarly,
competent authorities need to be able to ensure that there
are sufficient official controls to ensure that the identity,
condition and integrity of lots of animals or products can
be maintained up until the point of export.
While parts of assessments may be done by officially
approved evaluators or national accreditation bodies (NABs),
competent authorities are accountable for making the final
decision on approvals of such things as establishments or
officially approved agencies, treatments and methods.
206
Quality assurance frameworks
All parties involved in the export need to operate in
accordance with documented procedures under an
appropriate quality assurance framework. The commercial
party is responsible for demonstrating how its documented
quality assurance programme will, on an ongoing basis,
ensure conformity with all the relevant requirements
of the exporting country’s competent authority. This
programme should then be subject to an appropriate level
of independent performance-based verification.
In this regard, while the competent authority is ultimately
accountable for any official assurances provided, it is
common for it to use a range of officially approved agencies
and persons to undertake specific evaluation or verification
activities. The officially approved agencies and persons
should themselves be required to operate inside a quality
assurance framework. Similarly, where the verification is
carried out by government officials, they too should be
subject to the same quality assurance requirements. While
accreditation to quality assurance standards provides a
useful basic competency standard, competent authorities
should also still be accountable for making the final decision
on the approval of such things as establishments or officially
approved agencies, treatments or methods.
Quality assurance frameworks such as ISO Guides 17020
or 17065 for verifiers and ISO Guide 17025 for laboratories
provide a good basis for confidence in the ongoing
competence and likely consistency of the accredited parties.
The NABs accrediting national conformity assessment
bodies to these standards should be members of either the
International Accreditation Forum (IAF) or the International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). Both IAF
and ILAC peer review their members in accordance with
ISO 17011 to ensure that there is an appropriate level of
correlation and comparability between countries.
Performance-based verification
The commercial party requesting the export certification
is responsible for meeting all specified requirements and
operating an appropriate quality assurance system which
provides evidence of its compliance. The competent
authority should have a transparent verification policy
with respect to required methodologies and the frequency
of verification. The verification policy should also cover
expectations to do with reporting of any significant non-
compliances, completion of corrective actions, and the
reporting of any illegal activity.
The level and extent of verification audits applied should
be performance driven, with well-performing commercial
operations subject to less frequent and less extensive
audits. Well-performing routine activities that are subject
to minimal day-to-day system variation, such as product
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
storage or standardised processing activities, can be audited
less frequently, e.g. every three to six months. Ensuring any
test results are within agreed parameters is a verification
activity.
Control over official certifiers
Exporting competent authorities are accountable for
authorising the form and content of official certificates and
for approving which official certifiers are authorised to
sign or approve. Competent authorities should ensure that
certifying officials only certify matters that are within their
own knowledge when the certificates are signed (paper
certificates) or approved (e-certificates), or that have been
separately attested to by another competent party.
Certifying officials need to have appropriate qualifications
(e.g. animal-health-related clauses should be approved by
veterinarians), should be subject to appropriate official
assurance system training, and should operate under
enforceable codes of ethical conduct. The products or
animals being certified need to be under sufficient official
controls during the period covered by the official assurance
so as to ensure that their identity, condition and integrity
are appropriately assured and maintained up until the point
of export.
System oversight and audit
To ensure that the system is operating as intended,
competent authorities must ensure that appropriate checks
and balances are in place, that surveillance auditing is carried
out correctly and, where necessary, that enforcement action
is undertaken. The competent authority should ensure that
either the whole or parts of a national official assurance
system are subjected to a systems audit by auditors not
otherwise involved in the routine verification or certification
activities. Importing competent authorities should focus
any review of an exporting competent authority’s system on
how its internal system-audit programme provides ongoing
assurance as to the effectiveness and integrity of its national
official assurance system.
Official analysis methods
Officially approved laboratories should use internationally
validated methods where possible or methods validated to
internationally accepted performance criteria. Wherever
possible, laboratories should regularly participate in inter-
laboratory comparison programmes. Such programmes are
run by organisations independent of the laboratories and
require the participating laboratories to all analyse the same
standardised samples. The results from each laboratory are
then statistically compared with the others to identify how
competent each laboratory is in performing the analysis.
Exporting and importing countries should ensure that
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
the results achieved by their respective laboratories are
calibrated in order to help avoid potential disputes. Where
there is potential for varying interpretation, consideration
should be given to the use of internationally recognised
reference laboratories. Epidemiological evidence should also
be used in the interpretation of results where the expected
prevalence of the disease in question is very low and the
specificity of the test is less than 100%. This is because the
chances of false-positive results increase in such situations.
Accountability
As previously stated, competent authorities are accountable
for making the final decision on approvals of establishments
and officially recognised agencies, treatments and methods.
While accreditation to ISO standards provides a useful basis
for approval in whole or in part, competent authorities still
need to ensure that all officially recognised agencies or
persons are directly accountable to them with respect to
any functions they perform on their behalf. The competent
authority remains accountable for the credibility and
integrity of all approvals and official assurances given, as
well as for any subsequent follow-up communications
(e.g. country establishment eligibility lists, replacement
certificates or notifications of changed risk status) or any
enforcement actions.
Future trends and challenges
for national official assurance
systems
The one certainty moving towards the future is that change
and innovation will continue to occur. Consequently, if
international trade is to continue to help feed the world’s
ever-changing international demographics, the national
official assurance systems of today and the expectations of
importing countries will need to change. They will need
to adapt to new food safety challenges, emerging animal
diseases, new technologies and more complex distribution
channels.
Impact of electronic commerce and regional
distribution hubs
Electronic commerce and more complex supply chains are
already causing challenges. Countries need to recognise
that electronic commerce platforms and the emergence of
regional distribution hubs are likely to significantly change
the way some commodities are traded.
National official assurance systems and importing country
expectations will need to adapt to meet the potential
207
challenges associated with these changes if the associated
risks are to be appropriately managed without overly
restricting trade. Without a new approach, it is likely that
the mail and small parcel distribution channels will be
overwhelmed by the growing volume of such trade.
A new approach could involve a greater reliance on
systemic official assurances for exports sourced from certain
businesses, thus obviating the need for consignment-based
official assurances for each of the multiple small transactions.
Similarly, importing countries could expedite the border
clearance of products sold on those platforms that promote
the importing country’s requirements and both identify and
pre-segregate those low-risk compliant products from those
potentially requiring more scrutiny.
Regional distribution hubs are commonly used for most
other forms of commerce but are generally still not
accepted for the trade in animal products. The use of such
regional distribution hubs can lead to significant supply
chain efficiencies and reduce the time taken to fill orders
for product from countries that are otherwise distant from
the final market. There needs to be a greater acceptance by
importing competent authorities of the ability of a second
competent authority to be able to oversee the repacking
of new export consignments of a product removed from
its original shipping containers and stored in that second
country. This should be readily achievable through a process
whereby the first country certifies the third country’s
eligibilities and the second country provides appropriate
oversight over the security, identity and storage conditions
of the product that is stored and repacked into new export
consignments under its watch.
Increasing use of containment zones and
recognition of treatments
The increased likelihood of more diseases, such as highly
pathogenic avian influenza or African swine fever, crossing
over from wild populations to commercial farms into the
future may mean country freedom may become more of a
transient concept. The greater recognition of risk mitigation
treatments and the use of containment zones to allow
continued trade in safe commodities during outbreaks of
such diseases will need to become more commonplace.
Countries will need to adapt their certification requirements
to recognise that both the concept of regionalisation and the
use of treatments or inspections can achieve the same level
of protection.
Conclusions
National official control systems will need to continue to
be based on appropriate documented quality assurance
systems and verifiable evidence. Process control systems
208 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

and performance-based verification will increasingly be core
concepts in the future, rather than assurances based on end-
product inspection or testing regimes. However, national
official control systems will also have to adapt to take into
account changes in technology and emerging challenges.
E-commerce, regional distribution hubs and distributed
ledger-based traceability systems (such as blockchain) will
require countries to rethink their essential requirements and
consider how these could be met differently in the future.
In these considerations, it will be important that importing
countries focus their certification requirements on only that
which is necessary to manage quantifiable risks rather than
the theoretical presence of hazards.
Reliance on the use of paper certificates to convey official
assurances will increasingly become an outdated concept.
The future is not just about consolidating all official
documents into a single data flow, but also the merging of
this information with commercial data.
If national official assurance systems are to remain relevant
and fit for purpose into the future, commercial and official
assurance systems will need to continue to converge.
Traceability systems that record market access eligibility
and those that record other commercial attributes will
increasingly be linked. The power of digitalisation should
not only allow for greater confidence in the integrity of the
information flows but also for greater efficiencies in the
processing of that information and consequent clearance of
consignments at borders.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank G.W. Clarke, Team Manager,
of Large Animal Export Assurance at the New Zealand
Ministry for Primary Industries.

Les systèmes officiels nationaux d’assurance dans le cadre

des échanges internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine
animale et leur lien avec les normes de l’Organisation mondiale
de la santé animale
W.T. Jolly

Résumé
Les systèmes officiels nationaux d’assurance mis en place dans le cadre des
échanges internationaux constituent un mécanisme grâce auquel les pays
apportent à d’autres pays une garantie officielle concernant la sécurité des
produits qu’ils proposent à l’exportation. Indépendamment de la manière dont
elle est délivrée, la garantie officielle est généralement une déclaration émise
par une autorité compétente à l’intention de l’autorité compétente d’un autre
pays, attestant la conformité d’une cargaison donnée au regard de prescriptions
préalablement convenues. Concrètement, le premier gouvernement fournit au
deuxième des garanties déterminées sur des aspects tels que la situation des
maladies ou des infestations dans le territoire national ou dans une région du
pays et/ou sur les activités de gestion du risque conduites en raison de leur
pertinence pour la cargaison faisant l’objet de l’échange. De ce fait, c’est la
confiance de l’autorité compétente du pays importateur vis-à-vis de l’éthique,
des compétences et des capacités de l’autorité compétente du pays exportateur
qui va déterminer l’aptitude du pays importateur à se fier aux garanties officielles
délivrées par le pays exportateur.
Le Code sanitaire pour les animaux terrestres et le Code sanitaire pour les
animaux aquatiques de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale contiennent
(dans leur section 5 respective) des dispositions sur les certificats vétérinaires en
matière de santé animale et de zoonoses qui s’appliquent aux pays importateurs
et exportateurs engagés dans des échanges internationaux d’animaux et de
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 209

produits d’origine animale. Ces exigences sont complétées par les orientations
élaborées par le Comité du Codex sur les systèmes d’inspection et de certification
des importations et des exportations alimentaires, qui regroupent les exigences
de ces systèmes en lien avec la sécurité sanitaire des aliments et avec d’autres
aspects techniques non sanitaires (tels que la composition, la classe alimentaire
ou le statut de certification biologique des aliments) qui revêtent une pertinence
particulière pour les échanges internationaux des denrées alimentaires.
L’auteur fait le point sur la nécessité pour les pays de procéder à une
harmonisation des exigences officielles d’assurance au regard des normes
et recommandations internationales en la matière, tant sur la forme que sur le
contenu. Il observe toutefois que les certificats standardisés ayant fait l’objet
d’une recommandation sont encore rares. Il souligne la tendance croissante en
faveur de la certification électronique, modalité qui pourrait ouvrir la voie à une
meilleure intégration des certificats de différents types et à une coordination des
procédures de dédouanement. L’auteur décrit et explique les composantes et
les principes essentiels régissant les systèmes officiels nationaux d’assurance.
Enfin, il examine les tendances et les défis futurs dans ce domaine, notamment
les conséquences du commerce électronique et des plateformes régionales de
distribution ainsi que la reconnaissance accrue des zones de confinement et/ou
des mesures d’atténuation du risque par le traitement du risque.

Mots-clés
Assurance – Certification électronique – Certificats – Commerce électronique –
Dédouanement – Échanges internationaux – Exportation – Frontière – Officiel – Systèmes
– Vérification.

Sistemas nacionales de garantía oficial para el comercio

internacional de animales y productos de origen animal,
con referencia a las normas de la Organización Mundial de
Sanidad Animal
W.T. Jolly

Resumen
En el ámbito del comercio, los sistemas nacionales de garantía oficial son el
mecanismo por el que los países garantizan oficialmente a otros países que sus
productos ofrecen condiciones de seguridad para el comercio. Con independencia
del canal que se utilice, una garantía oficial suele ser una declaración en la
que una autoridad competente señala a otra que una determinada remesa o
mercancía cumple los requisitos convenidos. En la práctica, un gobierno está
ofreciendo al otro gobierno un determinado nivel de garantía en relación con
aspectos como la situación de una enfermedad o plaga que pueda existir en el
país o la región y/o las actividades de gestión del riesgo efectuadas que tengan
que ver con la remesa de que se trate. Por consiguiente, la confianza que la
autoridad competente del país importador deposite en la ética, la competencia
y la capacidad de la autoridad competente del país exportador es un elemento
básico, que determina cuanta confianza merecen al país importador las garantías
oficiales del país exportador.
En el Código Sanitario para los Animales Terrestres y el Código Sanitario
para los Animales Acuáticos de la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal
(concretamente, en el título 5 de ambos) se establecen los requisitos de
210 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

certificación veterinaria en materia de sanidad animal y zoonosis que deben

cumplir los países, tanto importadores como exportadores, que toman parte
en el comercio de animales y productos de origen animal. Estos requisitos se
complementan con las orientaciones elaboradas por el Comité del Codex sobre
Sistemas de Inspección y Certificación de Importaciones y Exportaciones de
Alimentos, que cubren los requisitos aplicables a los sistemas de inspección y
certificación en materia de inocuidad de los alimentos y otros aspectos técnicos
de carácter no sanitario (p.ej. composición, grado o condición de producto
«ecológico») que puedan tener incidencia en el comercio internacional de
alimentos.
El autor expone la necesidad de que los países armonicen aún más sus requisitos
de garantía oficial, tanto en la forma como en el fondo, con las normas y
recomendaciones internacionales al respecto, aunque a la vez también señala
que a día de hoy existen pocos certificados normalizados recomendados.
Asimismo, destaca la creciente tendencia a emplear la certificación electrónica
y las posibilidades que ello ofrece para aglutinar en mayor medida diferentes
tipos de certificado y coordinar los procesos de despacho fronterizo. Después
relaciona y explica los componentes y principios básicos que se aplican a los
sistemas nacionales de garantía oficial. Por último, expone las tendencias y
dificultades que en el futuro pueden afectar a estos sistemas, como la repercusión
del comercio electrónico y los centros de distribución regional, y se refiere al
creciente predicamento de las zonas de contención y/o medidas de mitigación
del riesgo, como puedan ser los tratamientos.

Palabras clave
Certificación electrónica – Certificados – Comercio – Comercio electrónico – Despacho –
Exportación – Frontera – Garantía – Oficial – Sistemas – Verificación.

References
1. European Union (1997). – 97/132/EC: Council Decision of
17 December 1996 on the conclusion of the Agreement
between the European Community and New Zealand on
sanitary measures applicable to trade in live animals and
animal products. Off. J. Eur. Commun., L 57, 26.2.1997, p. 4.
2.
New Zealand Government (2018). – Animal Product
Notice: Export Verification Requirements. Ministry for
Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand. Available at:
www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/11428/direct (accessed on
28 February 2020).
3. World Trade Organisation (WTO) (2013). – Trade Facilitation
Agreement. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.
wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/tradfa_e.htm (accessed on
31 July 2019).
4. Codex Alimentarius Commission (2001). – Guidelines for
design, production, issuance and use of generic official certificates
(CAC/GL 38-2001). Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, Italy,
17 pp. Available at: www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-
proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.
fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXG%
2B38-2001%252FCXG_038e.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2019).
5. United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and E-Business
(UN/CEFACT) (2019). – UN/CEFACT. United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at:
www.unece.org/cefact.html (accessed on 31 July 2019).
6. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 5.10. Model veterinary certificates for international
trade in live animals, hatching eggs and products
of animal origin. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code,
28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_certif_live_animals.htm
(accessed on 31 July 2019).
7. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Chapter
5.11. Model health certificates for international trade in live
aquatic animals and products of animal origin. In Aquatic
Animal Health Code. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.
int/index.php?id=171&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_model_certifs_
aqua_ani_and_prod.htm (accessed on 31 July 2019).
8. United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and E-Business
(UN/CEFACT) (2019). – The UN/CEFACT e-Cert SPS
XML data standard: Agriculture – Electronic SPS Certificate
(eCERT). Streamlined presentation of UN/CEFACT standards.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.unece.org/uncefact/
mainstandards.html (accessed on 31 July 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 211

9. World Customs Organization (WCO) (2019). – WCO data
model. WCO, Brussels, Belgium. Available at: www.wcoomd.
org/en/topics/facilitation/instrument-and-tools/tools/data-
model.aspx (accessed on 31 July 2019).
10. United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and E-Business
(UN/CEFACT) (2019). – UN/LOCODE. United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available at: www.unece.org/cefact/locode/welcome.html
(accessed on 31 July 2019).
11. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
(2019). – Trade facilitation implementation guide: the single
window concept. UNECE, Geneva, Switzerland. Available
at: tfig.unece.org/contents/single-window-for-trade.htm
(accessed on 31 July 2019).
12. Codex Alimentarius Commission (2008). – Model export
certificate for milk and milk products (CAC/GL 67-2008).
Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, Italy, 5 pp.
Available at: www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-
proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.
fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252
FCXG%2B67-2008%252FCXG_067e.pdf (accessed on
16 December 2019).
14. Codex Alimentarius Commission (1995). – Principles for food
import and export inspection and certification (CAC/GL 20-
1995). Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, Italy, 5 pp.
Available at: www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-
proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.
fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252F
CXG%2B20-1995%252FCXG_020e.pdf (accessed on 16
December 2019).
15.
Codex Alimentarius Commission (2010). – Guidelines
for the design, operation, assessment and accreditation
of food import and export inspection and certification
systems (CAC/GL 26-1997). Codex Alimentarius
Commission, Rome, Italy, 25 pp. Available at: www.
fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/
en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.
fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252
FCXG%2B26-1997%252FCXG_026e.pdf (accessed on
16 December 2019).

13.
Codex Alimentarius Commission (2004). – Model
certificate for fish and fishery products (CAC/GL 48-2004).
Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, Italy, 6 pp.
Available at: www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-
proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.
fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252
FCXG%2B48-2004%252FCXG_048e.pdf (accessed on
16 December 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 213-221

Compartmentalisation: an example of a national

official assurance system
M. Maja*, L. Janse van Rensburg & C. Gerstenberg

Directorate for Animal Health, Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development,
Delpen Building, Cnr Annie Botha and Union Streets, Riviera, 0084 Pretoria, South Africa
*Corresponding author: mpho.maja@dalrrd.gov.za

Summary
In South Africa’s experience, compartmentalisation has been extremely effective
in maintaining an animal subpopulation of a specific health status, based on
segregation and biosecurity management. Compartmentalisation promotes
animal disease control and underwrites a national official assurance system that
provides zoosanitary trade guarantees for animals and animal products. South
Africa started to develop the concept of compartmentalisation during the 1950s
for the pig sector, due to African swine fever being endemic in wildlife in the
north of the country, where certain biosecurity measures were used to protect
domestic pigs. Compartmentalisation protocols were formalised and officially
published from 2001 as voluntary systems, first for the pig industry and later for
the poultry (chicken and ostrich) industry.
South Africa uses five basic principles for animal health compartmentalisation,
namely, segregation, biosecurity, record-keeping, surveillance and official
inspection. These are applied in line with the World Organisation for Animal Health
Terrestrial Animal Health Code guidelines. Industry and the farmer bear the costs
of compartmentalisation and, in turn, obtain not only animal disease protection but
also trade advantages due to health assurances. Compartmentalisation ensures
optimal use of government resources as the expenses for animal disease control
are shared with private industries. International acceptance and standardisation
of compartments is advocated as a measure to provide assurances for disease
freedom, based on risk-specific mitigation measures.

Keywords
Animal health – Biosecurity – Compartment – Disease freedom – South Africa – Trade.

Introduction A compartment may be regarded as an ‘island’, on which

The concept of compartmentalisation is based on biosecurity
management practices. It is not new, as the principle of
separating animals of differing health status has been
used for many years in certain countries (1). The specific
term ‘compartmentalisation’ has, however, only been used
since the 1990s. Compartmentalisation provides countries
with an alternative means of establishing and maintaining
subpopulations with a specific health status within their
territory if, for whatever reason, country or zonal freedom
is not obtainable or practical (2). Compartments of animal
subpopulations serve at least two purposes: they efficiently
prevent and control diseases and they also underwrite the
provision of zoosanitary trade assurances (3, 4, 5).
the animal population has a specific health status for
specific diseases, regardless of the health status of the
animal populations outside the ‘island’. ‘Island’ integrity
is maintained by physical separation (by barriers, such as
fencing and walls) and biosecurity management practices
(through standard operating procedures or SOPs, for
example, controlled access and feed sources, etc.) which are
tailor made to exclude disease. The main requirement for a
compartment is that it must represent a clearly recognisable
subpopulation, without any epidemiological links to other
populations, except those of a similar health status (2, 5).
In setting animal health standards for international trade in
animals and animal products, as contained in the regularly
updated Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Terrestrial Code) (1),

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3074
214
the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)
traditionally applied the concept of country freedom from
animal diseases and later zonal freedom (2, 3). In 2003,
the definition of a compartment was added to the Terrestrial
Code (6), expanding the definition of risk from purely
geographical boundaries to include all epidemiological
factors of an animal disease (4). In 2004, the concept of
compartmentalisation was introduced into the chapters
on ‘Notification and epidemiological information’, ‘Risk
analysis’, ‘Zoning and regionalisation’, ‘Highly pathogenic
avian influenza’ and some bee diseases (7). From 2005
to 2015, more detail was added to the concept and
implementation of compartmentalisation and its application
in various disease chapters of the OIE Terrestrial Code (8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18).
Principles of
compartmentalisation
South Africa uses the five basic principles for
compartmentalisation from Chapter 4.5. of the OIE
Terrestrial Code (19; updated in 20):
– segregation
– biosecurity
– record-keeping
– surveillance
– government inspection.
Segregation
A farming unit to be compartmentalised must have a
specific location and be physically demarcated by barriers
between the animals inside and the disease threats outside,
such as other animals, vectors or people – this is to prevent
unauthorised direct and indirect contact. Barriers should be
disease-specific. For example, for African swine fever (ASF),
prevention piggeries need pig-proof fencing, high enough
to prevent human entry and with a solid base to prevent
pigs and wildlife from digging underneath. In addition, the
compartment requires pig-proof buildings with herding
passages to prevent direct access of pigs to the perimeter
fence at all times. The requirements for segregation must
comply with the principles laid down in paragraphs 1 and
2 of Article 4.4.3. of the OIE Terrestrial Code (19).
Biosecurity
In line with paragraph 3 of Article 4.4.3. of the OIE
Terrestrial Code (19), biosecurity measures are paramount
in preventing disease entry into compartments. These
management practices are documented in SOPs and
adherence is recorded for auditing purposes. The
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
biosecurity measures should address all possible pathways
of disease entry, including animals, people, vehicles and
equipment, feed and bedding, water sources and pest
control. Education and training of workers must ensure that
everybody implementing biosecurity measures not only
knows what to do, but also why (2).
Record-keeping
Record-keeping is essential to provide proof of ongoing
compartment integrity, and should include production
parameters, feed sources, surveillance, births, morbidities,
mortalities, visitors, medications, vaccinations, training
and all implemented biosecurity procedures. Records are
also needed for traceability, in line with paragraph 4 of
Article 4.4.3. of the OIE Terrestrial Code (19). All animals
within a compartment need to be identified (on the basis of
their herd/flock, their batch, or as individual animals) and all
movements in and out of the compartment must be recorded,
controlled and supervised by the Veterinary Authority (2,
5). Changes in herd/flock performance parameters and any
increase in mortalities and/or morbidities provide a first
indication of animal health challenges.
Surveillance
In order to guarantee effective biosecurity, a consulting
veterinarian should visit the compartment frequently to
check all records and for clinical signs of any disease, as
well as any increase of mortalities or morbidities. This
passive surveillance represents the first step in establishing
that no disease has been introduced and serves as a means
of early detection of any irregularity.
The absence of disease can be confirmed by appropriate
laboratory testing of a representative number of animals
in the compartment, especially for diseases that may not
be clinically obvious. A competent laboratory, audited by
the national authority, should perform tests appropriate
for the intended purpose, according to the OIE Manual for
Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals (21), and
validated for the species in question.
Government inspection
Effective compartmentalisation requires close collaboration
between the private sector, which operates the
compartments, and the government authority, which
formalises the standards and is responsible for monitoring
and auditing them (5). Compartments for trade purposes
must be officially approved and under the direct control of
the Veterinary Authority (2). Regular official inspections are
required for trade assurances, including checks for physical
compliance and record audits for procedural compliance.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
South Africa: history of pig
compartments
South Africa started to develop the concept of
compartmentalisation during the 1950s, in the pig-farming
sector (22). The sylvatic cycle of ASF between warthogs and
soft ticks was endemic to the northern parts of the country
and thus this region had been recognised in legislation as an
ASF-controlled area in 1935. Certain biosecurity measures
were known to protect domestic pigs from ASF, despite its
endemicity in wildlife, and so these were made compulsory
for pig owners farming pigs within the ASF-controlled area.
The prescribed biosecurity measures for ASF in the
controlled area evolved over the years and enabled even
large commercial piggeries to operate successfully. Pig pens
had to be secured with cement flooring and sturdy walls,
surrounded by a second outer barrier of pig-proof fencing
that was at least 1.3 m high, and anchored in the ground
with concrete to prevent digging by warthogs. Swill feeding
was prohibited and good record-keeping of animal numbers,
morbidity, mortality and movements was required.
Such piggeries were officially inspected by government
Veterinary Services. Once approved, they could source
pigs only from other approved piggeries or from outside
the ASF-controlled area. These piggeries were, in essence,
compartments and enjoyed the advantage of being able
to slaughter and even market their products outside the
ASF-controlled area (22). This approach became essential
around the year 2000, when the largest pig abattoir in the
ASF-controlled area stopped slaughtering pigs, and the
finisher animals from large commercial piggeries in the
controlled area thus had to be transported for slaughter into
the ‘ASF-free’ area.
The official African Swine Fever Protocol (available from
the authors on request), which came into effect on 1 April
2001, described in detail the biosecurity and veterinary
supervision requirements for so-called ‘approved’ and
‘accredited’ piggeries in the ASF-controlled area. Since then
large numbers of pigs from such ‘compartments’ in the ASF-
endemic area have been slaughtered and even sold live in
the rest of the country without ever causing an outbreak.
In 2003, discussions with the pig industry explored the idea
of expanding the concept of specific-disease-free, especially
ASF-free, pig compartments to access pork export markets in
countries that were not satisfied with guarantees provided by
zoning alone. The concept was discussed at the sidelines of
the 15th Conference of the OIE Regional Commission
for Africa in February 2003 in Maputo (Mozambique)
for proposal to the OIE Scientific Commission for
Animal Diseases and Terrestrial Animal Health Standards
215
Commission. A draft compartmentalisation protocol was
developed between the South African Veterinary Authorities
and the pig industry in 2004 (available from the authors on
request).
In 2005, an outbreak of classical swine fever (CSF) in South
Africa resulted in trade bans. This created somewhat of a
crisis as South Africa is the main supplier of pork to the
whole Southern African Development Community (SADC)
region. Although the CSF outbreak was confined to the
south of the country, South Africa chose to implement
compartmentalisation, rather than regionalisation, because
of the difficulty of ensuring movement controls between
large zones, as well as the nature of the pig industry, which
has large commercial farms within the Eastern (ECP)
and Western Cape Provinces (WCP), both of which were
affected. Fortunately, both government and industry were
already familiar with the concept of compartmentalisation
and rapidly developed a Procedures Manual: CSF-Free
Compartment, implemented on 1 October 2005 (available
from the authors on request). This initiative provided for
officially approved compartments throughout the country.
The proposal of export from compartments was welcomed
by regional trade partners, allowing South Africa to re-open
its export of pig products, and even some pigs, rapidly and
safely. The fact that the concept of compartmentalisation
had been accepted by the OIE in 2004, and added into the
Terrestrial Code chapter on classical swine fever in 2005,
greatly facilitated trade negotiations.
The initial serological testing protocol for pig compartments
in 2005 only made provision for CSF. This was expanded
to include porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome
(PRRS), foot and mouth disease (FMD) and ASF, in response
to trade concerns after several outbreaks of these diseases
in South Africa in subsequent years. The adaptation of
serological test protocols, according to the prevailing
disease risks, was rapidly accepted by South Africa’s regional
trade partners after each outbreak, thus ensuring virtually
uninterrupted trade of pork in the region. Sometimes, there
was a slight delay in cases where compartment testing for
certain diseases (e.g. FMD or ASF) had been suspended
during times of zone freedom and had to be re-established
before the resumption of trade.
In short, South Africa’s pig industry embraced the concept
of laboratory testing and financially supported it. As a
result, this incentivised compartmentalisation and the
industry’s willingness to ‘take ownership’ of laboratory
testing have assisted the pig industry to create further trade
opportunities.
Compartmentalisation required export abattoirs to change
their systems and either slaughter only from approved
compartments, or have a time and space separation between
animals from approved compartments and those from other
sources. The welcome ‘knock-on’ effect was that this created
216
an incentive for most pig farms to upgrade their biosecurity,
to enable continued access to the large abattoirs.
The wide-scale adoption of compartmentalisation in the
commercial pig industry hugely facilitated South Africa’s
control of the CSF outbreak in 2005, as well as all subsequent
pig disease outbreaks. This was due to compartmentalisation
reducing the risk of virtually all diseases in the commercial
pig sector, as well as the risk of disease spread via large pork
abattoirs. Protecting the majority of pigs in South Africa
in compartments enables additional control efforts to be
concentrated on informal and semi-commercial pig sectors
during outbreaks.
South Africa’s requirements for pig compartments are
published in an official Veterinary Procedural Notice (VPN),
which includes standards and templates for inspections by
veterinary officials (23). Pig compartments are regularly
visited by designated private veterinarians, inspected at
least annually by the Provincial Veterinary Authority and,
upon compliance and proposal, officially approved by the
National Veterinary Authority. This provides assurances of
general biosecurity standards, with specific reference to
freedom from FMD, ASF, CSF and PRRS, and can easily be
adapted to address prevailing disease risks, as necessary.
South Africa: a history of poultry
(chicken and farmed ratite)
compartments
In 2004, South Africa experienced its first outbreak of
highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in ostriches in
the ECP and WCP. As in the case of pig disease outbreaks,
compartmentalisation was considered to be more practical
than regionalisation for controlling this disease and
providing the required guarantees for continued trade.
Although chickens were not affected by the 2004 HPAI
outbreak, trade bans included all poultry and unprocessed
poultry products.
In a situation similar to that affecting pork during the
2005 CSF outbreak, South Africa − being a major supplier
of poultry meat and day-old chicks to the SADC region,
and especially neighbouring countries − required a rapid
solution to ensure safe and uninterrupted trade. Fortunately,
the country and the region were already familiar with
the compartment concept, assisted by the addition of
compartmentalisation to the HPAI chapter of the Terrestrial
Code in the same year (7). South Africa rapidly adapted
the protocols being developed for pigs to chicken farms.
Regional trade partners embraced the concept and rapidly
re-opened imports of chicken meat and day-old chicks
from official chicken compartments in South Africa.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Subsequently, South Africa’s chicken compartments have
been used to successfully maintain regional trade of chicken
meat and day-old chicks during further unrelated HPAI
outbreaks in ostriches, as well as the ongoing 2017 HPAI
H5N8 outbreak, which initially also involved chickens.
South Africa’s chicken compartment protocol is reviewed
regularly and published as VPN 44: Standard for the
Inspection of Poultry Farms for Export (24).
Compartmentalisation also assisted with disease control
and eradication, as well as the provision of trade
guarantees during various HPAI outbreaks in ostriches.
Initial acceptance of the biosecurity requirements was
slow because ostriches can only be farmed ‘free range’. A
collaborative effort from industry specialists, government
officials and international experts yielded a set of
equivalent biosecurity measures that were tailor-made
for ostrich husbandry and allowed the industry to ‘buy
into’ the concept. The gradual and regularly reviewed
implementation of ostrich compartments, with limited
movement, repeated laboratory testing, and progressive
slaughter of flocks from serologically positive farms,
enabled South Africa to re-declare freedom from HPAI
to the OIE on three occasions, after unrelated HPAI
outbreaks in ostriches in 2004, 2006 and 2011, as well as
to resume exports of farmed ratite meat to the European
Union (EU). The first formalised 2006 Ostrich Protocol
(available from the authors on request) was substantially
revised and improved by the 2012 VPN 04: Standard for
the Requirements, Registration, Maintenance of Registration
and Official Control of Ostrich Compartments in South Africa,
which is currently being used to facilitate eradication of
the 2017 HPAI H5N8 outbreak and underwrite continued
exports of heat-treated, farmed ratite meat to the EU (25).
During HPAI outbreaks, the ‘free-range’ farming of ostriches
precludes exports of fresh ratite meat to the EU, even from
compartments. However, since 2014, the EU has accepted
continued exports of fresh farmed ratite meat from ‘super-
compartments’ during HPAI outbreaks. These so-called
‘closed ratite holdings’ comply with stringent biosecurity
measures over and above those required in the 2012
Ostrich VPN 04, including being further than 100 km from
the nearest HPAI outbreak and increased surveillance in a
10-km radius of the holding.
Compartment requirements:
disease, husbandry and species-
specific factors
Adapting compartmentalisation to diseases for which
assurances are needed requires a risk-analysis approach,
identifying potential routes of introduction with stipulation
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
of all relevant risk mitigation measures in an official
protocol. In addition to disease-specific and environmental
factors (2), South Africa’s experience shows that species-
specific elements also require consideration because of
considerable husbandry differences between, for example,
pigs versus cattle or chickens versus ostriches, despite the
latter two both being classified as poultry.
Flexibility with regard to the diseases for which the
compartment is tested enables adaptation to the prevailing
disease situation and the sensitivity of individual trade
partners. Including tests for a disease that is not currently
present in the surrounding country or zone obviously
increases costs to the industry, but avoids trade delays
while such testing is introduced after the outbreak of such
a disease in the future. Industry consultation is essential
in weighing up the relative economic impacts of ongoing
laboratory costs versus trade interruptions due to outbreaks.
Government guarantees:
the role of the competent
authorities
For compartmentalisation to be accepted, the Veterinary
Authority has to provide confidence in the integrity of the
system (2). This requires official oversight of the biosecurity
and surveillance of compartments. The central competent
authority of a country has the responsibility for approving
all compartments to ensure a uniform standard. In South
Africa, the standards are developed in collaboration with the
relevant industry body and then legalised by the national
competent authority in a signed and published official VPN.
In South Africa, dedicated private veterinarians regularly
visit every compartment. The provincial competent
authority thus receives feedback on continued compliance.
A provincial official also visits every compartment at least
annually, followed by a recommendation to the national
authority for registration or re-registration. Based upon
such provincial recommendations, the national authority
approves, registers or re-registers all compartments and,
in the case of non-compliance, handles suspensions or
de-registrations – all of which are subject to further ad
hoc audits. The national authority further conducts all
international trade negotiations.
Compartments for trade
purposes
Traditionally, trade in animals and their products has been
based on country or zone freedom from certain diseases.
217
Where country freedom is not possible, the alternative of
free zones requires large areas with defined borders and
movement control of all susceptible species, which may be
detrimental to free-ranging wildlife and the environment
(26). Zones come at a huge expense to government, with
taxpayers contributing to benefit only a few farmers in the
‘free’ zone whilst disadvantaging farmers in the ‘infected’
zone with regard to markets and movement restrictions.
The concept of compartmentalisation, on the other hand,
encourages all beneficiaries to pay for the measures required
to achieve an advantageous, disease-free trade status. This
‘user-pays’ principle thus relieves the public purse of some
of the expenditure required for animal disease control and
the provision of trade guarantees for large commercial
enterprises.
For compartmentalisation to be successful, support
from the relevant livestock industry body is absolutely
essential. Complete ‘buy-in’ also allows the industry
to explore additional trade opportunities and even to
integrate compartments for animal health into ‘private
standards’ for quality assurance that may also include
welfare, environmental stewardship and other management
practices.
Compartmentalisation:
challenges and limitations
A cost−benefit analysis is required to determine the
feasibility of compartmentalisation for various farm types
and sizes, factoring in any resultant trade benefits (27).
Compartmentalisation may not be possible for small-scale
or subsistence farmers despite its disease control advantages
because of costs.
In South Africa, compartmentalisation is a voluntary system.
The farmer pays for implementing the requirements, and in
turn obtains animal disease protection and health assurances
for trade. In this ‘win−win’ situation, farmers who invest
in animal health and pay for compartmentalisation are
rewarded with marketing advantages, while the country as
a whole benefits from improved disease control at a lesser
cost to government.
Despite the OIE Terrestrial Code defining
compartmentalisation and its implementation, and
including it as an option in many disease chapters, several
countries remain unfamiliar with the concept and are
hesitant to enter into trade with disease-free compartments.
There is no independent accreditation mechanism, such as
for country or zone freedom of certain diseases (26), and the
absence of an internationally recognised system for approving
and auditing compartments remains a weakness (3).
218 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

As a result, South Africa has unfortunately not been very

successful in implementing compartmentalisation for
imports. When imports are restricted, due to disease
outbreaks in exporting countries, South Africa consistently
offers continuation of trade, based on compartmentalisation
in accordance with the appropriate chapter of the Terrestrial
Code. The only success has been with the United Kingdom,
which implemented compartments for specified-pathogen-
free poultry so that South Africa could import hatching eggs
during HPAI outbreaks.
Some countries expect trade partners to accept general
country standards of biosecurity, with all holdings being
eligible for export, despite obviously different biosecurity
levels in different parts of that country. In contrast, South
Africa encourages official compartmentalisation, not
only to reward the most compliant farmers with export
opportunities, but also to achieve further overall benefits
by providing incentives for better industry biosecurity
standards, facilitating trade guarantees on a ‘user-pays’ basis
and promoting cost-effective disease control.
The OIE could assist further by promoting
compartmentalisation as health assurance for animal
subpopulations. Pro-forma inspection lists, sanctioned
by the OIE, may provide confidence when evaluating
compartmentalisation systems and their ability to provide
an appropriate level of protection. These lists could be
contained in an OIE standard procedure (3) or included as
part of the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services
(PVS tool) (5). Indeed, the recently established OIE Ad Hoc
Group on Compartmentalisation for African Swine Fever
aims to do exactly that, and it is hoped that this initiative
may eventually be extended to other diseases.
Conclusions
Members of the OIE have undertaken to facilitate the safe
trade of animals and their products and compartmentalisation
is a suitable tool to provide animal health assurances. In
South Africa’s experience, compartmentalisation has been
found to be extremely effective in maintaining animal
subpopulations of a specific health status, based on
segregation and biosecurity management. Disease-free
compartments are able to trade in animals and animal
products, despite the absence of country or zonal freedom
from diseases, due to the guarantees provided by official
controls.
Compartmentalisation makes optimal use of government
resources as the expenses for animal disease control are
shared with private industries, which in turn benefit from
trade advantages. To counter some of the hesitation in the
international acceptance of compartmentalisation to provide
trade assurances, the establishment of an independent
accreditation system should be prioritised.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge all members of
the National and Provincial Veterinary Services, as well
as the pig, chicken and ostrich industries, who, together,
have made compartmentalisation a success story for
South Africa.

Compartimentation : un exemple de système officiel national

d’assurance
M. Maja, L. Janse van Rensburg & C. Gerstenberg

Résumé
D’après l’expérience de l’Afrique du Sud en matière de compartimentation, celle-
ci s’est révélée extrêmement efficace pour préserver le statut sanitaire de sous-
populations animales données grâce à l’application de mesures de ségrégation
et de gestion de la biosécurité. La compartimentation favorise le contrôle des
maladies animales et participe à un système officiel national d’assurance visant
à apporter des garanties sanitaires aux échanges d’animaux et de produits
d’origine animale. L’Afrique du Sud a commencé à expérimenter le concept de
compartimentation dans les années 1950 en l’appliquant au secteur porcin qui
se trouvait menacé par la peste porcine africaine présente à l’état endémique
dans la faune sauvage des régions du nord du pays, à travers des mesures de
biosécurité spécifiques mises en place pour protéger les porcs domestiques. Des
protocoles de compartimentation ont été officiellement adoptés et publiés à partir
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 219

de 2001 sous forme de systèmes basés sur le volontariat, destinés en premier lieu
au secteur porcin puis au secteur avicole (élevages de poulets et d’autruches).
La compartimentation appliquée en Afrique du Sud fait appel à cinq principes
fondamentaux, à savoir la ségrégation, la biosécurité, la tenue de registres
d’élevage, la surveillance et l’inspection officielle. Ces principes sont mis en
œuvre conformément aux lignes directrices du Code sanitaire pour les animaux
terrestres de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale. Les coûts de la
compartimentation sont pris en charge par le secteur privé et les éleveurs, qui à
leur tour en retirent non seulement une protection contre les maladies animales
mais aussi des avantages compétitifs grâce aux garanties sanitaires qu’ils sont
en mesure d’apporter à leurs partenaires commerciaux. La compartimentation
garantit une utilisation optimale des ressources publiques car les dépenses liées
au contrôle des maladies animales sont partagées avec le secteur privé. Les
auteurs plaident en faveur d’une reconnaissance et normalisation internationales
des compartiments en tant que méthode permettant de garantir le statut indemne
de maladie sur la base de mesures spécifiques d’atténuation des risques.

Mots-clés
Absence de maladie – Afrique du Sud – Biosécurité – Commerce international –
Compartiment – Santé animale.

La compartimentación: un ejemplo de sistema nacional

de garantía oficial
M. Maja, L. Janse van Rensburg & C. Gerstenberg

Resumen
Su propia experiencia lleva a Sudáfrica a concluir que la compartimentación ha
resultado sumamente eficaz para preservar el estado sanitario de determinadas
subpoblaciones animales con medidas de segregación y seguridad biológica. La
compartimentación facilita el control de enfermedades animales y trae aparejado
un sistema nacional de garantía oficial por el cual los animales y productos de
origen animal destinados al comercio se acompañan de una garantía zoosanitaria.
Sudáfrica empezó a desarrollar el concepto de compartimentación en el decenio
de 1950 para aplicarlo al sector porcino, dado que la peste porcina africana
era endémica en la fauna salvaje del norte del país, donde se aplicaron ciertas
medidas de seguridad biológica para proteger a los cerdos domésticos. En 2001
se formalizaron y publicaron oficialmente protocolos de compartimentación con
carácter de sistema voluntario, primero para el sector porcino y algo después
para el de producción avícola (pollos y avestruces).
Sudáfrica aplica cinco principios básicos para la compartimentación zoosanitaria,
a saber, segregación, seguridad biológica, mantenimiento de registros, vigilancia
e inspección oficial, siguiendo las pautas marcadas por la Organización Mundial
de Sanidad Animal en su Código Sanitario para los Animales Terrestres. Los costos
de la compartimentación recaen en industriales y productores, quienes a cambio
salen ganando no solo con la protección contra enfermedades animales, sino
también con las ventajas comerciales que les procuran las garantías sanitarias.
La compartimentación asegura un uso óptimo de los recursos del Gobierno, toda
vez que este comparte con el sector privado los gastos de la lucha zoosanitaria.
Los autores proponen que a escala internacional se acepte y se estandarice el uso
220
de compartimentos como medida de garantía de la ausencia de enfermedades,
partiendo para ello de medidas de mitigación adaptadas específicamente a cada
tipo de riesgo.
Palabras clave
Ausencia de enfermedad – Comercio internacional – Compartimento – Sanidad animal –
Seguridad biológica – Sudáfrica.
References
1. Brückner G.K. (2009). – The role of the World Organisation
for Animal Health (OIE) to facilitate the international trade in
animals and animal products. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res., 76 (1),
141–146. doi:10.4102/ojvr.v76i1.78.
2. Scott A., Zepeda C., Garber L., Smith J., Swayne D., Rhorer A.,
Kellar J., Shimshony A., Batho H., Caporale V. & Giovanni A.
(2006). – The concept of compartmentalisation. Rev. Sci. Tech.
Off. Int. Epiz., 25 (3), 873–879. doi:10.20506/rst.25.3.1702.
3. Gemmeke E.A.A.C., Batho H., Bonbon E., De Leeuw P.W. &
Bruschke C. (2008). – Compartmentalisation and zoning: the
Dutch perspective. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 27 (3), 679–
688. doi:10.20506/rst.27.3.1830.
4. Modisane B.M. (2009). – Field services: eradication and
control of animal diseases. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res., 76 (1),
115–121. doi:10.4102/ojvr.v76i1.74.
5. Ratananakorn L. & Wilson D. (2011). – Zoning and
compartmentalisation as risk mitigation measures: an example
from poultry production. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 30 (1),
297–307. doi:10.20506/rst.30.1.2029.
6.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2003).
– Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 12th Ed. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.
seam?page=alo&aloId=23740&menu=DO16&cid=1015
(accessed on 20 May 2020).
7.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2004).
– Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 13th Ed. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.
seam?page=alo&aloId=23734&menu=DO16&cid=1015
(accessed on 20 May 2020).
8.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2005).
– Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 14th Ed. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.
seam?page=alo&aloId=23329&menu=DO16&cid=1015
(accessed on 20 May 2020).
9.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2006).
– Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 15th Ed. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/
index.seam?page=alo&aloId=23327&fonds=0&menu
=DO16&cid=1069 (accessed on 20 May 2020).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
10.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2007).
– Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 16th Ed. OIE,
Paris, France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/
portal/index.seam?page=alo&aloId=23733&fon
ds=0&menu=DO16&cid=1069 (accessed on 20 May 2020).
11.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2008).
– Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Vol. 1, 17th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: https://doc.oie.
int/dyn/portal/index.seam?page=alo&aloId=2373
1&fonds=0&menu=DO16&cid=1069 (accessed on 20 May
2020).
1 2.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)
(2008). – Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Vol. 2,
17th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: https://
doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.seam?page=alo&aloId=
23732&fonds=0&menu=DO16&cid=1069 (accessed on
20 May 2020).
13. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2009). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Vol. 1, 18th Ed. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.
seam?page=alo&aloId=23758&fonds=0&menu=DO16&
cid=1069 (accessed on 20 May 2020).
14.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2009).
– Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Vol. 2, 18th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/
dyn/portal/index.seam?page=alo&aloId=23762&
fonds=0&menu=DO16&cid=1069 (accessed on 20 May 2020).
15. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2010). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Vol. 2, 19th Ed. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.
seam?page=alo&aloId=23856&fonds=0&menu=DO16&cid=
1069 (accessed on 20 May 2020).
16.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2013).
– Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Vol. 2, 22nd Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/
portal/index.seam?page=alo&aloId=24232&fonds=0&
menu=DO16&cid=1152 (accessed on 20 May 2020).
17.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2014). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Vol. 2, 23rd Ed. OIE,
Paris, France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/
portal/index.seam?page=alo&aloId=24371&fonds=
0&menu=DO16&cid=1186 (accessed on 20 May 2020).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
18.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2015).
– Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Vol. 2, 24th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/
dyn/portal/index.seam?page=alo&aloId=32657&
fonds=0&menu=DO16&cid=1186 (accessed on 20 May
2020).
19.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018).
– Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Vol. 2, 27th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/
dyn/portal/index.seam?page=alo&aloId=38678&
fonds=0&menu=DO16&cid=1222 (accessed on 20 May
2020).
20. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/standard-setting/terrestrial-code/
(accessed on 11 April 2020).
21. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Manual
of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, 8th
Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-
setting/terrestrial-manual/ (accessed on 9 April 2020).
22. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF)
(2019). – Annual reports. DAFF, Pretoria, South Africa. Available
at: www.nda.agric.za/vetweb/History/H_Annual_reports_Index.
htm (accessed on 15 May 2019).
23. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF)
(2011). – Veterinary Procedural Notice (VPN) 39: Standards
for the registration of a veterinary approved pig compartment.
DAFF, Pretoria, South Africa. Available at: https://www.daff.
gov.za/vetweb/VPN%20&%20SOP/VPN-39-2011-01%20
Pig%20compartments.pdf.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2019).
221
24. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF)
(2012). – Veterinary Procedural Notice (VPN) 44: Standard
for the inspection of poultry farms for export. DAFF, Pretoria,
South Africa. Available at: www.nda.agric.za/vetweb/VPN%20
&%20SOP/VPN%2044.2012-01%20Standard%20for%20
the%20inspection%20of%20poultry%20farms%20for%20
export.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2019).
25. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF)
(2012). – Veterinary Procedural Notice (VPN) 04: Standard for
the requirements, registration, maintenance of registration and
official control of ostrich compartments in South Africa. DAFF,
Pretoria, South Africa. Available at: www.nda.agric.za/vetweb/
VPN%20&%20SOP/004-VPN%2004%20Standards%20
for%20the%20registration%20of%20ostrich%20farm%20
for%20export.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2019).
26. Thomson G.R., Penrith M.-L., Atkinson M.W., Atkinson S.J.,
Cassidy D. & Osofsky S.A. (2013). – Balancing livestock
production and wildlife conservation in and around southern
Africa’s transfrontier conservation areas. Transbound Emerg.
Dis., 60 (6), 492–506. doi:10.1111/tbed.12175.
27. Fasina F.O., Lazarus D.D., Spencer B.T., Makinde A.A. &
Bastos A.D.S. (2012). – Cost implications of African swine
fever in smallholder farrow-to-finish units: economic
benefits of disease prevention through biosecurity.
Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 59 (3), 244–255. doi:10.1111/j.1865-
1682.2011.01261.x.
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 223-233

Animal welfare in GLOBALG.A.P.’s integrated

farm assurance standard for livestock: an industry
perspective and example of a private and globally
acting quality assurance system
R.K. Aumüller*# & E. Coetzer

GLOBALG.A.P., Spichernstrasse 55, 50672 Cologne, Germany

*Corresponding author: aumueller@globalgap.org

#
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not in any way be attributed to the
World Organisation for Animal Health or the World Trade Organization.

Summary
In recent decades, animal welfare in livestock production has been elevated to
a topic of global interest. To meet growing requirements from consumers and
society, governments have emphasised animal welfare in legislation. Retailers
have integrated this topic into their quality assurance systems for the management
of their supply chains.
The challenge is to avoid conflicts between applicable national legislation and
industry standards for quality assurance of livestock production with regard to
animal welfare requirements. Where possible and applicable, private schemes
refer to local animal welfare legislation, and offer the possibility to integrate animal
welfare criteria that go beyond the legislation. Where animal welfare legislation is
not in place, the private schemes set the rules. One of the main purposes of private
schemes is to grant international market access to certified livestock producers.
This paper presents the GLOBALG.A.P. integrated farm assurance (IFA) standard
for livestock production and the GLOBALG.A.P. livestock transport standard as
examples of private and globally acting quality assurance systems. Both standards
integrate food safety, traceability, sustainability and animal welfare criteria.
Animal welfare criteria are a fundamental part of IFA and, on average, account
for 35% of the control points applicable to livestock. In the livestock transport
standard, this accounts for 61% of the control points.
Defined processes for accreditation and standard setting safeguard the reliability,
feasibility and integrity of accredited third-party certification schemes.
The GLOBALG.A.P. system also includes voluntary animal welfare add-on
standards to demonstrate compliance with higher animal welfare requirements
than those contained in the basic IFA standard. The possibility to customise
products to the demands and requirements from specific markets and supply
chains increases market access.
Market access for producers irrespective of size is possible via single producer
or group certification. Group certification offers the best opportunities for
smallholders. For local supply chains the Primary Farm Assurance standard,
based on parts of the GLOBALG.A.P. IFA standard, is a capacity-building tool. It
is preferred by customers who do not require the full IFA standard because of
local conditions, or because they source from producers who cannot immediately
achieve full GLOBALG.A.P. certification.

Keywords
Animal welfare – GLOBALG.A.P. – Private standards – Quality assurance.

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3075
224
Introduction
Animal welfare in livestock production has become a critical
global topic in recent decades. The awareness of the public,
authorities and the industry is growing quickly. Buyer
and consumer decisions are being influenced by concerns
expressed by society and a greater interest in the story
behind the livestock products that provide animal protein
for human nutrition.
The correlation between the rise of intensive livestock
production systems and growing societal concerns about
animal welfare is notable. This trend, which became
prominent in Western Europe in the 1970s, has become
widespread (1).
At the international level, organisations such as the
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and
International Finance Corporation have integrated animal
welfare into their agendas and policies. The OIE’s work on
international animal welfare standards aims to develop the
capacity of Veterinary Services, improve communication
with governments, raise awareness, and support Members
in the implementation of the standards. The international
standards serve as guidance for OIE Members, assisting them
in the development of national legislation. Such legislation,
as it applies to internationally traded products, needs to
comply with World Trade Organization Agreements.
The European Union (EU) deals permanently with issues
of animal welfare and animal protection and how the
conditions of farmed livestock species during their lifetime
and grow-out cycles can be improved in line with the
latest scientific knowledge. Numerous EU directives and
regulations on animal welfare have been published, and
EU Member States are required to integrate the directives
into their national legislation.
At the country level in the EU, programmes for the
improvement of farm animal welfare have been implemented
and enforced through legislation. Individual countries such
as Germany have declared animal welfare as a national
objective and integrated it into their constitutions.
This paper presents the animal welfare components of
two GLOBALG.A.P. standards, their relationship with
national legislation, and the modalities available to facilitate
compliance. It represents an industry perspective and
outlines the requirements for supply chain partners to
comply with when delivering GLOBALG.A.P. certified
livestock products to the market. The authors are
consultants with GLOBALG.A.P. and present an insider’s
view of the logic and functioning of the standards.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Industry standards for animal
welfare used to manage supply
chains
Growing societal concern has a lasting effect on consumer
behaviour when purchasing products originating from
farmed animals and destined for human consumption. In
order to meet these consumer demands, the food industry
started to integrate animal welfare criteria and animal
welfare standards into its quality assurance schemes and
purchasing policies. Compliance of livestock producers with
these industry standards evolved to become a condition for
acceptance of livestock products by the purchasers. Supply
chains in industrialised countries became very prescriptive
for domestic producers, and producers in non-industrialised,
developing and emerging countries were forced to follow
these animal welfare rules in order to access export markets.
The initial goal of the industry was to have a standard for
food safety that would reduce the health risks associated
with products in supermarkets. Due to public demand
and triggered also by competition, many retailers added
animal welfare criteria to their quality assurance standards.
The criteria developed for animal welfare were related to
both ethics and science, whereas food safety criteria were
exclusively science-based. Across both topics, the related
control points and compliance criteria (CPCCs) also needed
to be science- and evidence-based. For animal welfare, the
principles of the five freedoms of animal welfare were the
fundamental requirements that started to be integrated in the
industry standards. Roundtables with stakeholders, technical
committees and scientific experts as well as producers,
discussed and agreed on practical criteria for animal welfare.
The criteria include resource-based outcomes, referring to the
husbandry systems, and animal-based outcomes, referring
to the reactions of the animals themselves. The economics
of the audit and the impact of control points on producers
dictated the definition of the criteria and the requirements
for compliance.
The industry standards have always had the auditability
of the CPCCs in mind. This means that the standards are
resource-based and outcome-based, and relate to detailed
documentation, permanent records and implemented
processes that can be assessed and audited in a reasonable time.
National animal welfare
legislation and private schemes
– no conflict
Compliance with national legislation in the country of
production is a fundamental prerequisite for producer
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
compliance with the animal welfare requirements of industry
standards. In the case of the legislation in the country of
production being more stringent for specific criteria than
the industry standards, then the prevailing legislation
must be followed in order to comply with the standard.
In the case of the requirements for specific criteria in the
industry standards being more stringent than those in the
legislation of the country of production, then the producers
have to comply with the industry requirements in order to
achieve compliance and certification according to a defined
industry standard that integrates animal welfare. If there is
no national legislation for specific animal welfare criteria,
then the requirements for assessment, verification and
compliance are dictated by the relevant industry standard.
The GLOBALG.A.P. integrated farm assurance (IFA) and
livestock transport standards are examples of international
industry-led quality assurance standards that integrate
animal welfare.
GLOBALG.A.P. and
its operational goals
GLOBALG.A.P. is one of the world’s leading farm assurance
programmes, translating customer requirements into good
agricultural practice in a rapidly growing list of countries
– currently more than 135. Its goal is to achieve safe and
sustainable agricultural production to benefit farmers,
retailers and consumers throughout the world. In addition
to animal welfare, the GLOBALG.A.P. IFA standard for
livestock covers food safety and traceability, environmental
outcomes (including biodiversity), and workers’ health,
safety and welfare. Quality management systems and
hazard analysis and critical control points are integral parts
of the standard. It demands, among other things, greater
efficiency in production, improved business performance,
and reduced waste of vital resources.
GLOBALG.A.P.’s operational
structure, traceability
and integrity
GLOBALG.A.P. is governed by a board of elected producer
and retailer representatives. The standards are developed
and defined by various technical committees, focus groups
and the certification body committee. The technical
committees consist of equal numbers of GLOBALG.A.P.
producer/trader and retailer/food service members to
ensure that the requirements set by the customers are
achievable by the producers. Members of these committees,
elected by their peers, represent the stakeholders before the
225
GLOBALG.A.P. board. National technical working groups
(NTWGs) support the work of the committees on a local
level. The standard setting process is governed by the
technical committees and the standard development team,
following extensive stakeholder and public consultation
procedures (2).
The GLOBALG.A.P. database is an integral and fundamental
part of the business. Based on defined access rules, it provides
information to the public, the members and the producers.
Every single producer that joins the GLOBALG.A.P.
system is assigned a unique identification number, the
GLOBALG.A.P. number (GGN), which is required for all
agricultural products coming from GLOBALG.A.P. certified
production and provides traceability along the supply
chain. Live verification of certification status is available on
the GLOBALG.A.P. database once the GGN is known (3).
Animal welfare requirements
in the livestock modules
of the integrated farm
assurance standard
The GLOBALG.A.P. IFA standard has a modular structure
(Fig. 1). For the assessment of a dairy producer, for example,
four modules are applicable: all farm base, livestock base,
ruminant base (cattle and sheep) and dairy sub-scope,
integrating a total of 246 CPCCs.
The IFA standard has a holistic approach and offers a
baseline certification to producers who want to show their
commitment to and compliance with good agricultural
practices applicable to food safety, environmental
sustainability, worker health and safety, traceability, and, for
the livestock standards, animal welfare.
The welfare criteria included in the IFA standard are
science-based, and the majority are outcome-based. Within
the livestock base module, applicable for all farm animal
species defined in the GLOBALG.A.P. product list, a total of
27% of the 64 CPCCs are related to animal welfare. Within
the specific modules of the IFA standard for ruminants,
dairy cows, calves and young beef, pigs, and turkeys, the
percentages of CPCCs related to animal welfare are 74%,
41%, 54%, 55%, 55%, and 57%, respectively.
The animal welfare requirements of the IFA standard are
closely related to EU legislation, but may go beyond legal
requirements, for example, in relation to stocking densities
and environmental enrichments (Fig 2). Slaughterhouses
use outcome-based welfare criteria and carcase monitoring
226 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Fig. 1
Modular structure of the GLOBALG.A.P. integrated farm assurance standard

to provide feedback to producers and to the farms’ attending

veterinary surgeons, to support continuous review and
improvement of animal welfare at the farm level.

Good animal health is an integral part of animal welfare. The

IFA standard requires producers to contract a veterinarian
to set up a mandatory and producer-specific veterinary
health plan, implemented in the daily farming practices.
This creates a permanent obligation for the veterinarian
to advise the livestock producers on animal health and
welfare issues. The IFA standard also requires veterinary
supervision, recording and monitoring of the responsible
use of prescribed pharmaceuticals, especially antimicrobials.
This contributes to the goals of the One Health approach to
reducing antimicrobial resistance, as set out by the World
Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations and the OIE, and as committed to by
GLOBALG.A.P.

In addition, GLOBALG.A.P. incorporates a number of

practices in line with the United Nations Sustainable Fig. 2
Development Goals (SDGs). Various CPCCs of the IFA Environmental enrichments for broiler chickens. © R. Aumüller
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 227

standard ensure that farm animals are carefully selected

for environmental fitness and raised under animal welfare Customised animal welfare add-
friendly conditions. This supports SDG 15: life on land (4).
on standards for the industry
Industry perspectives and specific demands are fulfilled by
Animal welfare requirements in customised add-on standards (Fig. 5). The Centraal Bureau
Levensmiddelenhandel, the umbrella organisation of Dutch
the livestock transport standard retailers, developed the sustainable meat initiative add-on
standard jointly with GLOBALG.A.P. for the certification of
The GLOBALG.A.P. livestock transport standard integrates Dutch pig production and pork destined exclusively for the
the latest legislation and requirements outlined by the Dutch market. It can only be assessed on top of the IFA
European Union authorities for livestock transport.
Ten sections with 36 CPCCs plus 15 annexes lay down
the requirements for animal welfare friendly transport.
A total of 61% of the control points are directly related
to animal welfare (5). All critical issues such as fitness of
animals for transport; loading ramps; handling of animals at
loading (Fig. 3), during transport (Fig. 4) and at unloading;
stocking rates during transport; ventilation and temperature
monitoring; and navigation systems are addressed. The
drivers’ training and competence must be documented and
follow the certificate of professional competence and best
practice pursuant to Article 17 of EU Directive 1/2005.

The scope of the standard is for road vehicle transport. It

excludes transport by aeroplanes and ships, with the exception
of roll-on and roll-off ferries. It applies to all operators
and vehicles transporting animals for a distance of more than Fig. 3
65 km, and to all third-party transport for distances less than Truck loading for transport of broiler chickens. © R. Aumüller
65 km. Farmers transporting livestock for distances less than
65 km must comply with the requirements outlined in the IFA
livestock base section 9. This requires that any transport of
animals must be carried out to ensure appropriate handling,
loading and transport conditions.

As of January 2012, the transport of all animals in the

GLOBALG.A.P. system must only be carried out by operators
and their vehicles certified according to the GLOBALG.A.P.
livestock transport standard or benchmarked schemes.

Voluntary add-on standards

modules for finishing pigs and
broiler chickens
Based on market demand, the GLOBALG.A.P. animal
welfare add-on modules for the voluntary certification of
finishing pig (6) and broiler chicken (7) production were
developed in a multi-stakeholder process. These add-ons
address higher welfare requirements than those already
covered by the applicable scopes and sub-scopes of the IFA Fig. 4
standard for livestock. Transport of slaughter pigs. © R. Aumüller
228
Fig. 5
The GLOBALG.A.P. add-on standards
standard or for successfully GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarked
schemes. It has been operating since 2015 and is composed
of three modules, entitled animal health, animal welfare,
and environment and conservation. The animal welfare
module contains 18 control points, addressing the housing,
facilities, and handling of pigs during the production cycle.
System rules, certification
bodies, assessment
and certification
Standards are based on system rules that outline the
relationship, the mutual obligations and the procedures to
be followed by the scheme owner, the certification bodies
and the producers that undergo the assessment and the
certification. In the case of GLOBALG.A.P., the general
regulations of IFA and the specific rules for the livestock
transport standard and the add-on standards define this.
The GLOBALG.A.P. general regulations consist of
three parts: part I contains general rules for all stakeholders
interested in the system; part II corresponds to group
certification rules that explain the requirements for group
certification; and part III consists of the certification body
and accreditation rules (8, 9, 10).
The auditors of approved certification bodies that intend
to assess production facilities must have product-related
professional experience and follow training courses. For
livestock trainings on animal welfare and in addition to
the classes, preferred teaching methods include visits of
livestock production farms with assessments of existing
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
welfare practices. After passing the exam and receiving
approval from GLOBALG.A.P., auditors are entitled to
conduct the assessments for the livestock scopes and sub-
scopes of IFA.
It is mandatory for certified producers in the GLOBALG.A.P.
system to renew their assessment and certification annually.
Accreditation
and third-party auditing
Accreditation provides assurance that goods and services
meet essential requirements, fostering consumer trust
and competitiveness among those that deliver the service.
Increasingly, retailers and other customers, government
agencies, and scheme owners are specifying accreditation in
order to demonstrate technical competence and impartiality
of conformance services. Accreditation enhances confidence
between buyers and sellers as it mitigates risk.
GLOBALG.A.P. requires certification bodies to sign licence
agreements with GLOBALG.A.P. and to be accredited
in compliance with the International Organization for
Standardization and the International Electrotechnical
Commission standard, ISO/IEC 17065. The accreditation
body to which the certification body applies must be
a signatory of the International Accreditation Forum
multilateral recognition arrangement (MLA) for product
certification with GLOBALG.A.P. sub-scope of the MLA
(level 4 and 5) (11). The purpose of the MLA is to ensure
mutual recognition of accredited certification between
signatories to the MLA, and subsequent acceptance of
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
accredited certification in many markets based on one
accreditation. This reduces costs and adds value to
businesses and consumers (12).
The accreditation is a conformity assessment with
requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and
services. These requirements are focused on the consistent,
independent delivery of the service (audit) as described
by the rules of the scheme owner (GLOBALG.A.P.) by an
independent third party.
Accredited certification bodies provide additional
assurances of the auditors’ competence, independence and
reliability to users of standards, since they are subject to
regular, impartial audits by an accreditation body.
The major difference between first-, second- and third-party
certification is the relationship between the customer and
the certifying body. Third-party certification, as described
above, accredited or not, involves a fully independent
assessment declaring that the specified requirements of
the scheme have been met. In second-party certification,
there is less independence, as a body to which the producer
belongs provides the assurance. In first-party certification,
there is no independence; the producer provides assurances
of meeting the scheme’s requirements.
Group certification
for smallholders
Any producer of primary agricultural products covered by
the GLOBALG.A.P. standards may apply for GLOBALG.A.P.
certification. Producers can apply for certification either as
individuals or as members of a group. Group certification
in the primary production sector can be an effective way
to implement and maintain a food safety programme for
producers who can organise into groups. By design, the
key features of an effective multi-site organisation or group
include the following elements:
– The group is structured such that the central management
is responsible for ensuring that all members are compliant
with the standard. The central management assumes the
responsibility of many central tasks that are too burdensome
for smallholders to implement.
– To monitor compliance, all group members, as well as
the quality management system, are subject to an annual
audit by the group’s central management (internal audits).
– To ensure effective operation of the central management,
annual on-site audits by the certification body are required.
The square root of the number of group members is
inspected annually by the certification body. This sampling
of producers in a group makes this option economically
feasible for smallholders.
229
In the case of group certification, the members are not
individually certified but are linked to the group certificate.
Individual producers, not belonging to a group, receive
their own certificate and are able to trade individually (13).
Market access
GLOBALG.A.P. has also developed a generic standard,
called primary farm assurance (PFA), which can serve as a
template to assist retail customers in setting requirements
for their suppliers. The generic PFA covers primarily food
safety elements.
Primary farm assurance is a cost-effective solution for the
emerging market where certification is initially expensive
to implement because there is no accredited certification.
Primary farm assurance is an assessment of the customised
GLOBALG.A.P. IFA standard and can be conducted by a
second party (retailer, produce marketing organisation, farm
assurer, etc.) or by an independent third party (certification
body/inspection body that does not necessarily have
accreditation for a GLOBALG.A.P. standard).
Primary farm assurance is a sub-set of a GLOBALG.A.P. IFA
standard, and preferred by customers who do not require
the full IFA standard because of local conditions, and
those who source from producers who cannot immediately
achieve full GLOBALG.A.P. IFA certification.
Capacity building in the form of training on good agricultural
practices is advised when implementing PFA because it is
not a certification standard and is an entry level assessment
to assist producers to work towards certification.
Another concept that GLOBALG.A.P. has implemented to
facilitate market access at the local level is the formation of
NTWGs. These groups aid the adoption of GLOBALG.A.P.’s
universal standard at the national level. National technical
working groups identify specific local adaptation and
implementation challenges and develop guidelines, known as
national interpretation guidelines. These provide guidance to
certification bodies and producers on how best to implement
GLOBALG.A.P. CPCCs at the national level (14).
Conclusions
Legislation and private standards have reacted to the public’s
growing demand for the implementation of improved
animal welfare in livestock production.
The two systems interact but are not in conflict with each
other. Rather, they may complement each other in situations
230 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

where one is lacking. Country legislation prevails over
private standard requirements where the legislation is more
demanding. On the other hand, private quality assurance
schemes may require more than legislation does, in order
to comply with the requirements of specific supply chain
demands and to help achieve market access in local and
export markets.
The GLOBALG.A.P. IFA and livestock transport standards
are examples of how private schemes are organised,
maintained and operated, and how they provide the
tools for independent third-party certification of livestock
producers via accredited certification bodies.
41% and 74% of the IFA CPCCs, depending on livestock
species. In the GLOBALG.A.P. livestock transport standard,
61% of all CPCCs are directly related to animal welfare
criteria.
Voluntary add-on standards offer the possibility of
customisation to demonstrate compliance of producers
with higher welfare requirements than those demanded by
legislation or by the IFA standard.
Specific PFA capacity-building programmes for smallholders
and for markets in developing and emerging countries offer
a tool for market access.

Specific standards for the assessment of on-farm livestock

production and for livestock transport are mandatory to
achieve certification according to the IFA standard. Animal
welfare criteria are well-integrated into the checklists for the
assessment of livestock producers and account for between

Le bien-être animal dans la norme de certification intégrée

des exploitations agricoles GLOBALG.A.P. pour les productions
animales : le point de vue du secteur privé et un exemple de
système d’assurance qualité privé d’envergure mondiale
R.K. Aumüller & E. Coetzer

Résumé
Au cours des dernières décennies, la question du bien-être animal en production
animale est devenue un sujet d’intérêt mondial. Afin de répondre aux attentes
croissantes des consommateurs et de la société, les gouvernements ont accordé une
plus grande importance au bien-être animal dans la législation. Les distributeurs ont
intégré cette exigence dans les systèmes d’assurance qualité mis en place dans le
cadre de la gestion de leurs chaînes d’approvisionnement.
Le défi consiste à éviter les incompatibilités entre la législation nationale et les normes
privées d’assurance qualité du secteur de la production animale en ce qui concerne
le bien-être animal et les dispositions s’y rapportant. Si possible et chaque fois que de
besoin, les systèmes privés se réfèrent à la législation locale sur le bien-être animal
tout en proposant des critères supplémentaires permettant d’aller au-delà de cette
législation. Lorsqu’aucune législation n’est en place en matière de bien-être animal, ce
sont les systèmes privés qui fixent les règles. Ces instruments privés ont pour principal
objet d’ouvrir aux éleveurs l’accès des marchés internationaux.
Les auteurs présentent deux exemples de systèmes d’assurance qualité privés
d’envergure mondiale  : la norme GLOBALG.A.P. de certification intégrée des
exploitations agricoles (integrated farm assurance : IFA) pour les productions animales
et la norme GLOBALG.A.P. pour le transport des animaux d’élevage. Ces deux normes
associent des critères de sécurité sanitaire des aliments, de traçabilité, de durabilité
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 231

et de bien-être animal. Les critères de bien-être animal sont un aspect fondamental

de l’IFA et représentent 35 % des points de contrôle de cette certification relatifs aux
animaux d’élevage. Ils représentent 61 % des points de contrôle prévus par la norme
sur le transport des animaux d’élevage.
La fiabilité, la faisabilité et l’intégrité des systèmes de certification par des tiers sont
garanties par des procédures bien définies d’accréditation et d’élaboration des normes.
Le système GLOBALG.A.P. inclut également des normes complémentaires de bien-
être animal fondées sur le volontariat, qui visent un niveau d’exigences en la matière
plus élevé que celui de la norme IFA de base. La possibilité de personnaliser les
produits en fonction des demandes et des exigences des marchés et des chaînes
d’approvisionnement spécifiques améliore l’accès aux marchés.
La certification individuelle ou groupée des producteurs leur permet d’accéder aux
marchés, quelle que soit la taille des exploitations. La certification groupée offre les
meilleures perspectives aux petits exploitants. Basée sur les principaux aspects de la
norme GLOBALG.A.P. IFA, la norme de certification de base (primary farm assurance)
pour les distributeurs locaux est un outil de renforcement des capacités. Elle est celle
que choisissent les clients qui n’ont pas besoin de la norme IFA dans son intégralité,
soit du fait de la situation locale, soit parce que leurs propres fournisseurs ne sont pas
encore en mesure d’obtenir la certification GLOBALG.A.P. complète.

Mots-clés
Assurance qualité – Bien-être animal – GLOBALG.A.P. – Normes privées.

El bienestar animal en la norma de aseguramiento integrado de

fincas GLOBALG.A.P. referida a las buenas prácticas pecuarias: un
punto de vista industrial y ejemplo de sistema privado de garantía
de calidad aplicado en todo el mundo
R.K. Aumüller & E. Coetzer

Resumen
En los últimos decenios, la cuestión del bienestar animal en los procesos de producción
ganadera ha sido erigida en tema de interés mundial. Para responder a las crecientes
exigencias de los consumidores y la sociedad, los gobiernos, al legislar, han hecho
énfasis en el bienestar animal. Los minoristas han integrado la cuestión en sus
sistemas de garantía de calidad respecto de la gestión de sus cadenas de suministro.
La dificultad estriba en evitar conflictos entre la legislación nacional aplicable y las
normas de garantía de calidad de la producción pecuaria de la propia industria en lo
tocante a los requisitos de bienestar animal. Cuando es factible y aplicable, los sistemas
privados remiten a la legislación local de bienestar animal y ofrecen la posibilidad de
integrar criterios de bienestar animal que vayan más allá de las exigencias legislativas.
Cuando no hay legislación en materia de bienestar animal, son los sistemas privados
los que dictan las reglas. Uno de los principales objetivos de estos sistemas es el de
dar acceso a los mercados internacionales a los productores ganaderos certificados.
Los autores presentan la norma GLOBALG.A.P. de Aseguramiento Integrado de
Fincas (integrated farm assurance: IFA) referida a la producción pecuaria y la norma
GLOBALG.A.P. relativa al transporte de ganado como sendos ejemplos de sistemas de
garantía de calidad de carácter privado que se aplican en todo el mundo. Ambas normas
232 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

incorporan criterios de inocuidad de los alimentos, trazabilidad, sostenibilidad y

bienestar animal. Los criterios de bienestar animal son una parte fundamental del
aseguramiento integrado de fincas y suponen en promedio un 35% de los puntos
de control aplicables al ganado. En cuanto a la norma de transporte de ganado,
estos criterios representan un 61% de los puntos de control.
Los procesos definidos de acreditación y elaboración de normas protegen la
fiabilidad, viabilidad e integridad de los dispositivos de certificación por terceros
acreditados.
El sistema GLOBALG.A.P. también incluye normas suplementarias de bienestar
animal de carácter voluntario para demostrar que se cumplen requisitos de
bienestar animal más estrictos que los establecidos en la norma IFA básica. La
posibilidad de adaptar los productos a las demandas y exigencias de un mercado
o una cadena de suministro en particular incrementa el acceso a los mercados.
Los productores, con independencia de su tamaño, pueden acceder a los
mercados por medio de una certificación individual o de una certificación
colectiva. Esta última es la que ofrece mejores oportunidades a los pequeños
productores. En el caso de cadenas de suministro de dimensión local, la norma
de Aseguramiento Primario de Fincas (primary farm assurance), basada en
ciertas partes de la norma GLOBALG.A.P IFA, constituye una herramienta de
creación de capacidad. La prefieren clientes que, por las condiciones locales o
porque se abastecen de productores que no pueden obtener inmediatamente la
certificación GLOBALG.A.P. completa, no exigen el cumplimiento de la totalidad
de la norma IFA.

Palabras clave
Bienestar animal – Garantía de calidad – GLOBALG.A.P. – Normas privadas.

References
1. Fraser D. (2014). – The globalisation of farm animal welfare.
In Animal welfare: focusing on the future (D.J. Mellor
& A.C.D. Bayvel, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 33 (1),
33–38. doi:10.20506/rst.33.1.2267.
2. GLOBALG.A.P. (2019). – GLOBALG.A.P. incorporation and
governance. GLOBALG.A.P., Cologne, Germany. Available at:
https://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/who-we-are/governance/
(accessed on 30 June 2019).
3. GLOBALG.A.P. (2019). – The GLOBALG.A.P. database:
managing complexity the easy way. GLOBALG.A.P., Cologne,
Germany, 8 pp. Available at: www.globalgap.org/.content/.
galleries/documents/181024_Database_Booklet_web_en.pdf
(accessed on 30 June 2019).
4.
GLOBALG.A.P. (2019). – GLOBALG.A.P.: Sustainable
Development Goals. GLOBALG.A.P., Cologne, Germany,
15 pp. Available at: www.globalgap.org/.content/.galleries/
documents/190621_SDG_Slides_web.pdf (accessed on
30 June 2019).
5. GLOBALG.A.P. (2011). – Livestock transport standard:
control points and compliance criteria. GLOBALG.A.P.,
Cologne, Germany, 30 pp. Available at: www.globalgap.org/.
content/.galleries/documents/111004_gg_cpcc_transport_
final_version_1_Oct11_en.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2019).
6. GLOBALG.A.P. (2013). – Animal welfare add-on module
for pigs/finishers: control points and compliance criteria.
GLOBALG.A.P., Cologne, Germany, 8 pp. Available at: www.
globalgap.org/.content/.galleries/documents/130215_gg_add-
on_aw_py_cpcc_v1_0_en.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2019).
7. GLOBALG.A.P. (2013). – Animal welfare add-on module
for poultry/broiler chicken: control points and compliance
criteria. GLOBALG.A.P., Cologne, Germany, 7 pp. Available at:
www.globalgap.org/.content/.galleries/documents/130215_
gg_add-on_aw_py_cpcc_v1_0_en.pdf (accessed on 30 June
2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 233

8. GLOBALG.A.P. (2019). – GLOBALG.A.P. general regulations: part I
– general requirements. GLOBALG.A.P., Cologne, Germany, 35 pp.
Available at: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-
d&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalgap.org%2Fcontent%2F.
galleries%2Fdocuments%2F190201_GG_GR_Part-I_V5_2_
en.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2019).
9. GLOBALG.A.P. (2019). – GLOBALG.A.P. general regulations:
part II – quality management system rules. GLOBALG.A.P.,
Cologne, Germany, 16 pp. Available at: www.globalgap.org/.
content/.galleries/documents/190201_GG_GR_Part-II_V5_2_
en.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2019).
10. GLOBALG.A.P. (2019). – GLOBALG.A.P. general regulations:
part III – certification body and accreditation rules.
GLOBALG.A.P., Cologne, Germany, 37 pp. Available at: www.
globalgap.org/.content/.galleries/documents/190201_GG_
GR_Part-III_V5_2_en.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2019).
12. International Accreditation Forum (IAF) (2019). – The
purpose of the MLA. IAF, Chelsea, Quebec, Canada. Available
at: www.iaf.nu/articles/Purpose/15 (accessed on 30 June
2019).
13. GLOBALG.A.P. (2019). – GLOBALG.A.P. general regulations.
Part II: quality management system rules. GLOBALG.A.P.,
Cologne, Germany, 37 pp. Available at: www.globalgap.org/.
content/.galleries/documents/190201_GG_GR_Part-II_V5_2_
en.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2019).
14.
GLOBALG.A.P. (2019). – The GLOBALG.A.P. national
technical working groups (NTGW). GLOBALG.A.P., Cologne,
Germany. Available at: www.globalgap.org/uk_en/who-we-
are/ntwgs/ (accessed on 30 June 2019).

1 1.
GLOBALG.A.P. (2019). – GLOBALG.A.P. general
regulations: part III – certification body and accreditation
rules. GLOBALG.A.P., Cologne, Germany, p. 6, section
2.3a). Available at: www.globalgap.org/.content/.galleries/
documents/190201_GG_GR_Part-III_V5_2_en.pdf (accessed
on 30 June 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 235-244

Optimising traceability in trade for live animals

and animal products with digital technologies
M. Tripoli * & J. Schmidhuber

Trade and Markets Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di
Caracalla, Rome 00153, Italy
*Corresponding author: mischa.tripoli@fao.org

Summary
Sound animal traceability systems and supply chain management rely on data
and information to respond to outcomes that will both protect animal and human
health and facilitate trade. Digital technologies present opportunities and new
methods for identifying and tracking animals, collecting more data, integrating
communication flows, sharing data securely in supply chains, and analysing data
to inform decisions and predict outcomes. Together, these technologies drive more
efficient, productive and traceable supply chains, which can help to build more
effective animal traceability systems. In addition, they can improve monitoring
of, and response to, animal disease, food safety risks and food fraud risks;
ensure compliance with animal health and food safety standards; simplify border
procedures; facilitate trade with less friction; and raise consumer awareness. As
the cost of these technologies decline and they become more accessible, the
implementation of a digitally enabled animal traceability system will require an
increase in supply chain capacity, improvements in digital infrastructure, and the
development of a regulatory framework of standards and policies. Ensuring that
these requirements are met will require strong commitment from governments,
intergovernmental organisations and the wider animal health community.

Keywords
Animal health – Big data – Blockchain – Digital technology – Food safety – Identification
– Predictive analytics – Remote sensing – Traceability – Trade facilitation.

Introduction However, meaningful farm-to-fork traceability is

In its standards and guidelines, the World Organisation for
Animal Health (OIE) stresses the importance of national
animal traceability systems for animal health management
systems, disease control and prevention, animal production
food safety and the certification of exports (1, 2). In
addition, consumers demand traceability and expect
increasingly detailed information about the food they
purchase, including information about its origins, the
production practices and inputs used, the animal welfare
standards adhered to during the production process, and
the product’s composition and safety. Moreover, producers
cannot access international markets without sound animal
traceability systems, whereby live animals and animal
products are traced and linked to one another throughout
the value chain from birth to final good. These systems are
key for effective animal health management systems, quality
assurance, and efficient trade.
challenging to achieve and is lacking in many parts of
the world. It requires a well-organised supply chain,
adequate government oversight, and efficient and secure
means to collect, register and share data throughout the
supply chain. Digitisation helps to increase efficiency
in supply chain management by facilitating quick and
accurate data exchange. However, many countries still do
not have data on animal traceability in paper or electronic
format, with only 28%, 26% and 23% of OIE Members
reported to maintain records on animal traceability,
identification, and movement, respectively (3).
Even when animal traceability systems are in place, overall,
they are still largely inefficient. For example, paper reports
sent by mail are still frequently used by many countries
in animal health management systems, and only 57%
of OIE Members that do have traceability data maintain
them in electronic format (3). Despite progress in some
parts of the world, there is the need for greater digitisation
and digitalisation in animal traceability. Currently, legacy

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3076
236
systems that do exist for animal traceability use centralised
databases, which are largely inefficient, insecure and costly.
They use numerous paper documents to indicate change of
ownership and to link products to animals after slaughter.
These systems use various intermediaries, accrue substantial
costs for checking and verifying documentation, and are
susceptible to error in tracking livestock and products from
production to retail.
In the last decade, several innovations and digital technologies
have emerged that are changing the way we produce, trade
and consume food, including animals and animal products,
and are enabling more efficient, productive and traceable
supply chains. They include digital technologies such as
the Internet of things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and
distributed ledger technologies (DLTs), which use a shared
digital database rather than store data in a centralised ledger.
A blockchain, which is a growing list of records (‘blocks’) of
unmodifiable transaction data, is just one example of a DLT.
These technologies provide new opportunities for animal
traceability systems, supply chain management and trade
facilitation by collecting data throughout the production,
processing and distribution processes; registering and
sharing data securely and immutably in a single platform;
and analysing data for predictive and data-driven decision-
making. Smart contracts, which are digital contracts that
are executed automatically when predefined conditions
are met, also provide substantial efficiency gains. This
paper assesses the contribution of emerging innovations
and digital technologies to the improvement of animal
traceability systems and their ability to prevent and control
animal disease, manage food safety risks and facilitate trade.
Understanding animal
traceability legacy systems
Animal traceability systems are the basis for tracking the
life cycle of livestock through supply chains from birth to
final product. The key components of animal traceability
systems include the ability to identify individual and
homogeneous groups of animals, the ability to track their
movements and identify their specific location, and the
capacity to link animals to specific products and record the
information in appropriate registers (2). Countries need to
develop their own animal traceability systems in accordance
with international standards and obligations. Traceability
systems also need adequate rules, regulations and incentives
to guide supply chain actors and facilitate stakeholder buy-
in, such as legal frameworks for animal recording systems
(i.e. methods of animal identification, recordkeeping,
roles and responsibilities), standard operating procedures,
minimum mandatory data, data confidentiality, monitoring,
inspection and enforcement.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Animal traceability begins with animal identification. When
they are purchased, each animal or herd is identified by
unique markers and registered in a national database so
that their movements throughout the supply chain can be
recorded. National Veterinary Services are responsible for
monitoring, inspecting and controlling the movement of
animals, animal products and potential diseases through the
data registered on the database. They are also responsible
for carrying out on-farm inspections. Animal identifiers
take many forms (4, 5), including:
– notches in body parts
– branding
– tattoos
– tags (ears, tails and other parts of the body)
– electronic devices (radio frequency identification [RFID]
tags, boluses, implants and electronic ear tags)
– DNA testing
– animal passports.
Identification devices, data collection, and management
methods vary in terms of effectiveness. Visual tags are
one of the most widely used identifiers for cattle, pigs and
sheep since they are inexpensive to obtain; however, they
are often regarded as difficult to read and labour-intensive,
resulting in increased costs (4, 6). Notching, branding and
tattoos are also inexpensive identification methods and have
been well-utilised around the world; however, they also are
considered to be unreliable means for identifying animals
(7). Electronic identification (EID), which uses devices such
as RFID tags, boluses and implants, is an effective means
of animal identification. Radio frequency identification
devices allow large amounts of data to be stored, provide an
easily retrievable production history, and are cost-effective.
The main challenge for animal traceability systems is
to maintain traceability throughout the production and
food chain without losing identification and the link
between live animals and final products. As yet, none of
the commercially available unique identifiers can maintain
traceability throughout the animal product life cycle, with
the exception of DNA testing.
Another challenge is the lack of available data on animal
traceability, animal identification and animal movement in
many countries around the world, particularly in developing
countries. In many countries, poor communication between
national Veterinary Services, food safety agencies, producers
and other supply chain actors is quite common. Too often,
small and subsistence farms do not participate in national
animal traceability systems, where they exist, as they
tend to be cost-prohibitive. In countries that lack vertical
integration, there is an added need for strong traceability
systems that are inclusive of subsistence farming.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Data on the identified animals is typically registered in
an electronic database or paper-based manual database.
Despite increasing availability of information technologies,
paper-based data management activities and reporting are
still widely prevalent around the world (3). Some of the
most common constraints for the adoption of information
technologies are the complexity of electronic data transfers,
a reluctance to share data, and poor data quality (3).
Confidentiality and security are major concerns for producers
and need to be taken into account in the development
of national databases (3, 6). To increase efficiency and
help facilitate the adoption of digital technologies in the
livestock sector, animal traceability systems need better
tools that build trust amongst producers and enable secure
data- sharing and unbiased data collection.
Digital technologies for animal
traceability and trade facilitation
Digital technologies, such as IoT, DLT, big data analytics
and AI, present opportunities to improve animal traceability
systems by addressing the need for better methods of
collecting, analysing and sharing data in supply chains.
Combined, these technologies form an innovation package
that observes, measures, records, analyses and responds
to data gathered in supply chains, in order to maximise
output, minimise inputs and optimise information flows.
These technologies can improve methods for farm-to-fork
traceability by strengthening animal disease control and
prevention, better managing food safety risks, ensuring
compliance with animal production and food standards,
simplifying border procedures and facilitating trade.
Product–process links: ensuring product
authenticity with effective tools for animal
identification
Product data alone does not provide reliable traceability.
There is also a need for tools (known as product–process
links) that establish an immutable link between the data
(stored in a database or DLT) and the physical product to
ensure product authenticity (8). For decades, researchers
have searched for viable identification methods that
maintain traceability throughout the supply chain. It was
suggested decades ago that future traceability systems
would ensure error-free traceability by using a combination
of methods: electronic identification for live animals,
electronic labels for animal products, and DNA testing for
auditing the production process (4, 9). Today, technologies
such as RFID and DNA analysis are economically viable and
are the most secure traceability methods available, making
flawless farm-to-fork traceability a reality. RFID identifiers
enable automatic reading, minimal handling of animals,
237
and easy identification before slaughter, while DNA testing
at the beginning of the animal’s life cycle (to generate a
reference sample) and at the end before packaging allows
for a valuable farm-to-fork verification tool that ensures
the link between products, carcase and live animal. One
estimate found that random DNA testing at a spot-check
rate of 5% to 10% costs a few cents per kilogramme (10).
In addition, with the increased use of genomics in animal
breeding, much of the animal genetic data is already
available to confirm animal identification. There are already
a number of commercially available DNA tests for animal
traceability that are being adopted by large meat production
companies (11).
Other identification techniques are being developed
that could compete with RFID identifiers, such as facial
recognition. The use of AI and imaging is a potentially cost-
effective method to identify an animal individually based on
facial recognition, hide patterns or other unique features.
The potential of this technology has generated significant
interest, and will likely be increasingly adopted in the near
future. Imaging could replace EIDs, but animal traceability
systems would still need to use DNA testing as a means of
linking live animals to the final food product.
Secure and immutable data sharing
In addition to live animal and product identification, animal
traceability systems require a secure, fast, digital database
to record and share data and information with national
authorities and ensure data exchange throughout the
supply chain. Blockchain and other DLTs (which are shared
databases that feature these characteristics) can serve as a
foundational technology to record, store and share data in a
secure and immutable manner (see [8] for more information
on DLTs). DLTs are not a panacea for all database problems,
but they provide advantages for recordkeeping.
Distributed ledger technologies provide a single database
for all supply chain actors to register and exchange data
efficiently and transparently related to the change of
ownership, movement, animal production, animal health,
animal welfare, and any other data of value (Fig. 1). The
data collected from animal production processes and
registered on a DLT provides an auditable production
history for regulatory compliance and consumer
awareness. The production history stored on DLTs can
populate digital documents, and DLTs enable the sharing
of digital documents in supply chains, such as export
certificates, change of ownership documents, and other
documentation needed for animal traceability. DLTs also
support smart contracts, which are executed automatically
when predefined conditions are met. Smart contracts allow
close to real-time payment terms for the settlement of
transactions related to live animals and animal products in
supply chains. The high level of efficiency and traceability
238 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Capacity development activities on biosecurity and using animal traceability protocols and new workflows
Education

Reference Verification DNA test

Reference
DNA test Verification DNA test
DNA test

Manufacturer Supplier Farmer Processor Distributor Customs Retailer Consumer

Supply chain workflow

Vaccines, – Agriculture and – Farm registration – Government- – Stores and – In case of – Runs machine – Scans QR
antibiotics are livestock inputs completed via inspected facility transports meat international learning-based code via app
produced and are sold to mobile app gets data on cow, products from trade, receives forecasting – Gets full
manufacturer producers – Cow is identified prepares animal suppliers to digital – Adapts orders information
enters and registered with RFID tag products and adds retailers, certifications and promotions on the animal
production on DLT QR code to restaurants – Uploads data on accordingly product such
– Uploads data
data on DLT – Breeder or packaging and importers holding times, as where and
on feed, – Uploads data
farmer enters veterinary – Uploads data – Uploads data testing results on delivery how it was
data on offspring reports, facility on storage and on shipment and Customs- details, inventory produced,
quality and conditions, slaughter and delivery clearing details metrics and processed and
conditions, sanitation and conditions, details, storage – Allows entry for sanitation transported
sanitation and food safety food safety and transport products and measures
transportation measures, other compliance, conditions, and Customs duties – Provides app for
details certifications and lot number, warehouse and are end consumers
farm location certifications vehicle food safety automatically
and QR codes and sanitation dispersed by
measures smart contract
Data analysis

Real-time animal health, food safety and food adulteration surveillance

Reports on animal movements

Reports on supply chain
Forecasting disease, food safety and adulteration risks and vulnerability actor performance

Reports on veterinary medicine usage

DLT: distributed ledger technology

RFID: radio frequency identification
QR: quick response

Fig. 1
Animal traceability system using digital technologies

in data sharing that is achieved through DLTs can facilitate collect data remotely in real-time on an individual animal
trade (8, 12) and improve communication to prevent and or group of animals to monitor animal welfare and health
control disease and manage food safety risks. status, and optimise farm management, hence improving
the quality of collected data. Animal health and welfare
Confidentiality is often a concern of farmers. Distributed data may include information on body temperature, heart
ledger technologies can allow users to share data with rate, animal movements and behaviour, stress levels,
specific participants in the network that they choose and animal sounds (such as coughing), analytes (e.g. protein
show the other users only that the transaction was executed. and enzyme levels) and disease pathogens (13, 14). These
This allows the national authorities to access animal data, indicators can be used to detect early signs of animal disease
while maintaining producer confidentiality. before clinical onset. Behavioural data, such as feeding
patterns and movement, in addition to other data such as
Remote and manual data collection for data- animal weight, can be used to optimise feeding and animal
performance. Data collected manually or automatically
driven decision-making
through mobile and other devices can include information
The ability to capture vast amounts of animal data by using about types of animal feed, veterinary medicines, laboratory
IoT sensors and by manually inputting data into mobile tests, and other information on animal health and product
devices provides enormous value for animal production quality. This data can support farm management decisions,
and trade. IoT sensors, robots and biosensors are able to animal disease surveillance and control, food safety risk
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
assessment and export certification. It can also be used
to prove that certain claims about a product, e.g. that it is
organic, free-range, grass-fed, hormone-free or antibiotic-
free, are accurate.
Predictive analytics for animal disease, food
safety and food fraud surveillance
Artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML) methods
can be used to create models that analyse data to identify
hidden patterns and predict future outcomes. The massive
amount of data collected from remote sensors, mobile
devices and the internet (crowdsourced data) can feed
these analytical models to predict future events in supply
chains, such as an animal disease outbreak, contamination
of food products, food fraud and non-compliance with
international standards and other trade rules. For example,
AI is able to correlate animal and human behaviour with
disease outbreaks (15). Through devices such as motion
sensors, it can collect and analyse behavioural data to detect
if cattle are ill, less productive or ready to breed (14, 16).
In addition, infectious disease outbreaks can be associated
with digital behaviour patterns, e.g. web searches and social
media use (13, 15). These examples show how AI can help
detect and predict the spread of animal disease, allowing
authorities to adopt timely response measures.
Artificial intelligence can also be used as a monitoring
tool to predict and detect foodborne disease outbreaks,
contaminated products, food fraud and adulteration that
may violate trade rules or present a threat to public health. A
variety of different types of data can be analysed, including
supply chain data (production, processing, movement and
storage data), historical detection data (food fraud and
food safety non-compliance data) and the internet and
social media. This variety of data helps us to learn from
past incidents of non-compliance or to learn from reactions
on the internet, in order to predict future outcomes. By
better understanding which products typically contain
foodborne disease, contaminants or adulterants, future spot
inspections can be better targeted. Analytical tools driven by
AI have the ability to inform data-driven decision-making
to protect animal and human health.
The path to implementation
Not all farmers will have the capacity to adopt all of these
digital technologies. However, the digital technologies that
administer the basics of animal traceability systems, e.g.
EID for animal identification and a DLT-enabled database
for recording animal data, can be used with internet and
a mobile device. Even without EID, the low technological
requirements of a DLT-based traceability system make it
accessible for small-scale producers, and a powerful tool to
prevent and control animal disease.
239
One example of a company that provides farm-to-fork
traceability using digital technology is TE-Foods, a global
company headquartered in Germany. The company is using
DLT as a means to integrate supply chain actors in emerging
and developing countries. TE-Foods offers a complete
animal traceability system with solutions for supply chain
actors with varying levels of technological readiness. With
the growing threat of African swine fever (ASF) in eastern
Asia, TE-Foods is using its blockchain-based animal
traceability system and mobile phones to establish direct
communication between national authorities and supply
chain actors for data collection, assessment and response
(17). TE-Foods’ livestock management system provides
governments with real-time information on livestock
status, disseminates practical educational material amongst
farmers, enables governments to respond quickly in
case of an epidemic outbreak (through epidemic zones,
checkpoints and culling activities), manages complementary
reporting activities to prevent disease spread (e.g. reporting
on truck cleaning and feeding sources), and mitigates the
damage from the disease by using the reported cases to
plan subsidies and communicate relevant information (17).
This system provides authorities with a tool to control and
minimise the spread of ASF.
In the short-term, remote sensors, robots and biosensors
may be the most economically viable options for medium-
to large-scale producers using more intensive livestock
systems. As costs continue to decrease and the efficiency
gains become undeniable, farmers will likely be more
willing to invest in these technologies. Software for data-
driven decision-making is commercially available and will
continue to decline in cost along with remote sensors.
One example of software that is available is a mobile voice-
to-data capture service called AgVoice Global. It enables
farmers to collect data by capturing their verbal observations,
which are used for populating reports and data analytics.
It can improve farmer efficiency, productivity and accuracy
during inspections by speeding up data collection by
1.5 to 2.5 times (18). Dairy farmers are already piloting the
technology for milk inspection.
Another example is a technology named IDA (intelligent
dairy farming assistant), which uses a neck-mounted
motion sensor, cloud server, data access points and AI
to assist farmers in running an efficient farm. It collects
and transmits data on cow movements and behaviours to
an AI-powered farm management service that provides
recommendations and alerts on the cow’s health, feeding,
productivity and breeding, often before they become
apparent to a human (16, 19). IDA aims to protect animal
welfare, increase animal productivity and minimise inputs
such as veterinary and labour costs. For example, it claims
to reduce antibiotic usage by 50% through more efficient
application (19).
240
In addition, new detection tools using AI and electrochemical
sensors are under development to test the taste of food
products for quality assessments. The electronic tongue
uses combinatorial sensing to identify different chemicals
in liquids, in order to build a fingerprint of its chemical
composition. Hypertaste is one e-tongue technology that
tests and identifies liquids to confirm their safety and
authenticity in less than a minute. After identifying the
liquid, the technology sends its digital fingerprint to a
cloud server, where a trained ML algorithm compares it to
a database of known authentic liquids, and reports back to
the mobile app to determine the validity of the liquid (20,
21). The e-tongue is easy to use for liquids such as milk,
eggs, yogurt and honey, but laborious for solids (22).
Roles and challenges for implementing digital
technologies in animal supply chains
Despite the current implementation of DLT and other
digital technologies in animal traceability systems, there
are still challenges ahead in bringing all actors together to
adopt them. Farmers are at the beginning of the chain and
are the most important to enable end-to-end traceability.
The role of farmers will be to use their mobile devices
and accompanying technologies to identify animals and
to collect and register animal data in the supporting DLT
user interface. Slaughterhouses and meat processors also
play an important role in maintaining animal identification
as the animal moves to carcase and products. Similarly,
these actors are responsible for registering data throughout
the slaughter-to-product process. All of these actors face
challenges related to the cost of using high-technology
animal identifiers (such as EIDs and DNA testing), remote
sensors and devices, and DLT animal traceability systems.
In addition, some farmers and processors face capacity
challenges related to obtaining the digital skills and
understanding how to use these technologies in a systematic
way in order to maintain end-to-end traceability.
Veterinary Services and other national authorities are
responsible for providing extension services that build
farmers’ capacity to follow the appropriate protocol for using
the different technologies in animal traceability systems.
National authorities may also consider subsidising some
elements of these technologies to facilitate their adoption.
In addition, as e-certification becomes more accessible,
national authorities will be able to issue electronic
veterinary certificates, health certificates, and certificates
of origin for exports. National authorities should also play
a role in establishing the DLT-traceability system with a
private service provider, with each country developing their
own preferred features. When working with the private
sector, national authorities should ensure DLT-based
traceability systems are interoperable with legacy systems
and other DLT modules such as disease control and trade
facilitation. In addition, public institutions, together with
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
international bodies such as the OIE, should provide the
required regulatory framework, including standards for the
use of DLT and other technologies. They should also ensure
that regulations on animal traceability are compatible with
using digital technologies. Effective policy frameworks
with incentives are instrumental in supporting technology
uptake and scalability.
Animal traceability systems based on DLT could also include
trade facilitation modules to enable digital trade (for all trade
documentation, including trade finance documentation)
and to maintain transparency and traceability throughout
international trade. With the inclusion of export certificates
as digital documents, customs officials can anticipate and
resolve documentation issues before shipments arrive
in ports or at border crossings. In case of any issue, the
respective customs officials can check their national animal
traceability system to address the issue at hand and provide
evidence for any compliance issues through its auditable
production history. To enable such a system, national
authorities will need to establish the appropriate legislation
and regulation to adapt to electronic documents; and
ports, terminals and customs agencies should take steps to
become more digitally enabled (23). Such steps will result
in less friction in trade. Future trade rules should establish
which party is held accountable for adverse impacts on
public health and/or trade in the unlikely event that an AI
predictive model provides faulty information that leads to a
flawed food safety decision.
Customers benefit from better awareness of the origins and
safety of their food, and this is what enhanced traceability
and transparency of animal products provides. Ultimately,
consumers pay a premium to receive these benefits, but this
is essential for such a system to function in a sustainable
manner.
Conclusions
Animal traceability is multifunctional and the basis for a
productive, safe and prosperous livestock sector. It helps
prevent and control animal disease, manage food safety,
certify exports and facilitate trade to protect human
health and animal welfare. DLTs, remote sensing, AI and
ML, and other supporting technologies are tools that can
spur digitalisation in animal traceability systems, bringing
greater efficiency and effectiveness in collecting, analysing
and sharing data. The benefits of a technology-enabled
animal traceability system are substantial. It provides better
accuracy in farm-to-fork traceability; improves monitoring
of, and response to, animal disease, food safety risks and
fraud through predictive models and fast, integrated
information flows; improves compliance with animal and
food safety standards, thanks to the auditable production
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 241

history; facilitates trade with less friction; and raises
consumer awareness.
The implementation of a technology-enabled animal
traceability system will require strong commitment
from governments, intergovernmental organisations, the
private sector and the wider animal health community. All
parties must work together to create an effective enabling
environment that spurs innovation, business development,
digital trade and the adoption of technology in animal
traceability systems. Such an environment should include
aspects such as policy and public sector support, access to
finance, human capital development and improved digital
infrastructure.
Governments must create policies that incentivise the
adoption of, and regulate the use of, technology in livestock
value chains. They should develop regulations governing
data sharing, data privacy, the use of technologies, and
security and competition issues. Fiscal incentives can help
facilitate access to digital technology, as well as encourage
innovation and business development. Governments must
also update their legal infrastructure to enable digital
trade by, for example, adopting and accepting electronic
trade documents such as certificates of origin and health,
bills of lading and other relevant documents. In addition,
simplifying bureaucratic processes related to registering
animal identifiers, exchanging animal health reports and
issuing licenses and export certificates is important to
facilitate technological uptake and trade.
Intergovernmental organisations, such as the OIE and the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
should support governments by raising awareness,
disseminating research, providing policy guidance, and
developing guidelines on developing and implementing
digital technologies in animal traceability systems. It will
be important to identify whether there is a need to update
OIE standards to account for the role of digital technologies
in animal health. It is also the responsibility of the private
sector to participate in digital solutions by reforming
their paper-based processes and updating their systems
to integrate digital workflows. Building the capacity of
supply chain actors and government officials is essential.
The public sector, technology service providers, universities
and supply chain actors must work together to strengthen
human capital throughout the sector.
Stimulating private and public investments in technology
start-ups, livestock value chains and digital infrastructure
is key for technological uptake. It is important to address
the financial constraints for access to credit. Digital
technologies, including new impact financing models,
are increasing access to finance by tackling some of the
bottlenecks that hinder lenders’ abilities to serve small and
medium-sized enterprises.
Introducing new ways of doing business in livestock
supply chains is no easy task. Only through cooperation
and coordination between regulators, businesses, support
institutions and the wider animal health community can we
optimise animal traceability and facilitate trade.

Optimiser la traçabilité des animaux vivants et des produits

d’origine animale faisant l’objet d’échanges internationaux grâce
aux technologies numériques
M. Tripoli & J. Schmidhuber

Résumé
Les systèmes fiables de traçabilité et de gestion des chaînes d’approvisionnement
dépendent des données et de l’information pour élaborer des réponses permettant
de protéger la santé publique et la santé animale tout en facilitant le commerce
international. Les technologies numériques offrent de nouvelles perspectives
et méthodologies pour identifier et tracer les animaux, collecter un plus grand
volume de données, intégrer les flux de communication, partager les données de
manière sécurisée tout au long des chaînes d’approvisionnement et analyser les
242 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

données afin de prendre des décisions en connaissance de cause et d’anticiper

leurs conséquences. Prises ensemble, ces technologies favorisent une meilleure
efficience, productivité et traçabilité des chaînes d’approvisionnement, ce qui à
son tour permet de concevoir des systèmes de traçabilité animale plus efficaces.
En outre, elles renforcent les capacités de surveillance et de réponse en cas
de maladies animales, de risques pour la sécurité sanitaire des aliments ou de
fraude alimentaire ; leur utilisation contribue également à garantir la conformité
aux normes de santé animale et de sécurité sanitaire des aliments, simplifie les
procédures de contrôle aux frontières, facilite un commerce international moins
conflictuel et participe à la sensibilisation des consommateurs. Ces technologies
étant désormais moins onéreuses et plus faciles d’accès, les seules conditions
pour mettre en œuvre un système de traçabilité animale basé sur le numérique
sont d’augmenter les capacités des chaînes d’approvisionnement, d’améliorer
l’infrastructure numérique et de mettre en place un cadre réglementaire intégrant
les normes et les politiques en la matière. Un engagement fort de la part des
gouvernements, des organisations intergouvernementales et plus largement de
la communauté de la santé animale sera nécessaire pour que ces conditions
soient réunies.

Mots-clés
Analyse prédictive – Chaîne de blocs de données – Facilitation des échanges –
Mégadonnées – Santé animale – Sécurité sanitaire des aliments – Technologie numérique
– Télédétection – Traçabilité.

Uso de la tecnología digital para optimizar la trazabilidad

en el comercio de animales vivos y productos de origen animal
M. Tripoli & J. Schmidhuber

Resumen
La solidez de los sistemas de trazabilidad de animales y de gestión de las cadenas
de suministro pasa por contar con datos e información cuya explotación dé
lugar a una respuesta que a la vez proteja la salud animal y humana y facilite el
comercio. Las tecnologías digitales abren posibilidades y traen consigo nuevos
métodos para identificar y rastrear a los animales, obtener un mayor volumen
de datos, integrar los circuitos de comunicación, compartir datos de forma
segura en distintos eslabones de las cadenas de suministro y analizar estos
datos para fundamentar decisiones y predecir los resultados. En conjunto, estas
tecnologías dan lugar a cadenas de suministro más eficientes, productivas y
fáciles de rastrear, lo que a su vez puede ayudar a instituir sistemas más eficaces
de trazabilidad de animales. Además, pueden servir para: mejorar la vigilancia
de las enfermedades animales y los riesgos de inocuidad de los alimentos y de
fraude alimentario y la respuesta a tales enfermedades y riesgos; garantizar el
cumplimiento de las normas de sanidad animal e inocuidad de los alimentos;
simplificar los procedimientos aduaneros; facilitar un comercio más fluido;
y sensibilizar a los consumidores. A medida que el costo de estas tecnologías
vaya bajando y sea cada vez más fácil acceder a ellas, la implantación de un
sistema digital de trazabilidad de animales exigirá una mayor capacidad de la
cadena de suministro, una mejor infraestructura digital y la elaboración de un
ordenamiento de normas y políticas que regule la cuestión. Para que todas estas
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
condiciones se cumplan hará falta el firme empeño de gobiernos, organizaciones
intergubernamentales y el conjunto de profesionales de la sanidad animal.
Palabras clave
Analítica predictiva – Cadena de bloques – Facilitación del comercio – Identificación
– Inocuidad de los alimentos – Macrodatos – Sanidad animal – Tecnología digital –
Teledetección – Trazabilidad.
References
1. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 28th Ed. Vol. I: General
provisions. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/
standard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-online/ (accessed on
12 July 2019).
2. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2008). – Animal
identification and product traceability from the farm to fork
must be progressively implemented worldwide. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/for-the-media/press-
releases/detail/article/animal-identification-and-product-
traceability-from-the-farm-to-the-fork-must-be-progressively-
imple/ (accessed on 12 July 2019).
3. Beckham T.R. & Holmstrom L.K. (2015). – The use of
information technology in animal health management,
disease reporting, surveillance, and emergency
response. Technical item presented at the 83rd
General Session of the World Assembly of National
Delegates of the OIE, 24–29 May, Paris, France.
In Compendium of technical items presented to the World
Assembly of Delegates or to the OIE Regional Commissions.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/
index.seam?page=alo&aloId=33045&fonds=0&cid=2029
(accessed 19 July 2019).
4. Britt A.G., Bell C.M., Evers K. & Paskin R.D. (2013). – Linking
live animals and products: traceability. In Coordinating
surveillance policies in animal health and food safety ‘from
farm to fork’ (S.A. Slorach, ed.). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.,
32 (2), 571–582. doi:10.20506/rst.32.2.2238.
5.
Edwards J.E. (2004). – The importance of livestock
identification and movement control to the promotion
of animal disease and facilitation of trade. Technical item
presented at the 72nd General Session of the World Assembly
of National Delegates of the OIE, 23–28 May, Paris, France.
In Compendium of technical items presented to the World
Assembly of Delegates or to the OIE Regional Commissions.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/
index.seam?page=alo&aloId=22856&fonds=0&cid=2029
(accessed on 12 July 2019).
6. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2018).
– Animal disease traceability: summary of program reviews
and proposed directions from state-federal working group.
USDA, Washington DC, United States of America, 30 pp.
Available at: www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/
adt-summary-program-review.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2019).
243
7. Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)
(2009). – Improving trade in livestock commodities by
COMESA: the challenge of animal traceability – Policy
brief No. 6. COMESA, Lusaka, Zambia. Available at: www.
agri-learning-ethiopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/
Traceability-Policy-Brief-6.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2019).
8. Tripoli M. & Schmidhuber J. (2018). – Emerging opportunities
for the application of blockchain in the agri-food industry.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy; & International Centre for Trade and Sustainable
Development, Geneva, Switzerland, 40 pp. Available at:
www.fao.org/3/CA1335EN/ca1335en.pdf (accessed on
12 July 2019).
9. Caporale V., Giovannini A., Di Francesco C. & Calistri P.
(2001). – Importance of the traceability of animals and animal
products in epidemiology. In Traceability of animals and
animal products (H.A. MacDaniel & M.K. Sheridan, eds).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 20 (2), 372–378. doi:10.20506/
rst.20.2.1279.
10. Leese S. (2013). – DNA-based identification system ensures
meat traceability. Scientist Live, 1 April. Available at: www.
scientistlive.com/content/9679 (accessed on 12 July 2019).
11. Schouten R. (2019). – Tyson takes next step in traceability.
Food Business News, 14 March. Available at: www.
foodbusinessnews.net/articles/13480-tyson-takes-next-step-
in-traceability (accessed on 12 July 2019).
12. Tripoli M. & Schmidhuber J. (2019). – How can blockchain’s
general architecture enhance trade facilitation in agricultural
supply chains? Trade policy brief No. 33. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy,
2 pp. Available at: www.fao.org/3/CA2885EN/ca2885en.pdf
(accessed on 12 July 2019).
13. Holmstrom L.K. & Beckham T.R. (2017). – Technologies
for capturing and analysing animal health data in the near
real time. In Biological threat reduction (T. Beckham, ed.).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 36 (2), 525–538. doi:10.20506/
rst.36.2.2671.
14. Neethirajan S. (2017). – Recent advances in wearable
sensors for animal health management. Sens. Biosensing Res.,
12, 15–29. doi:10.1016/j.sbsr.2016.11.004.
244
15. Wong Z.S.Y., Zhou J. & Zhang Q. (2019). – Artificial
intelligence for infectious disease big data analytics. Inf. Dis.
& Health, 24 (1), 44–48. doi:10.1016/j.idh.2018.10.002.
16. Nakashima R. (2018). – Farmers using artificial intelligence
to monitor cows’ health, breeding availability. The Globe and
Mail, 15 April. Available at: www.theglobeandmail.com/
business/article-farmers-using-artificial-intelligence-to-
monitor-cows-health/ (accessed on 29 July 2019).
17. TE-FOOD (2019). – TE-FOOD offers governments the
solution to mitigate the effects of the deadly African swine fever
outbreak. Medium, 7 March. Available at: https://medium.com/
te-food/te-food-offers-governments-the-solution-to-mitigate-
the-effects-of-the-deadly-african-swine-fever-71a92d180ab9
(accessed on 29 July 2019).
18. AgVoice (2019). – AgVoice [a voice-to-data service for food
and agriculture professionals]. AgVoice, Norcross, United
States of America. Available at: https://agvoiceglobal.com/
(accessed on 1 December 2019).
19. IDA (2019). – IDA [intelligent dairy-farming assistant].
IDA, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Available at: https://ida.io/
(accessed on 7 August 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
20. Ruch P.W., Hu R., Capua L., Temiz Y., Paredes S., Marin A.L.,
Carmona J.B., Cox A., Nakamura E. & Matsumoto K. (2019).
– A portable potentiometric electronic tongue leveraging
smartphone and cloud platforms. Paper presented at the 18th
International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose
(ISOEN), 26–29 May 2019, Fukuoka, Japan. International
Society for Olfaction & Chemical Sensing, Dijon, France; &
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), New
York, New York, United States of America, 3 pp. Available at:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1907/1907.06641.pdf
(accessed on 29 July 2019).
21. Ruch P. (2019). – Hypertaste: an AI-assisted e-tongue for
fast and portable fingerprinting of complex liquids. IBM,
Zurich, Switzerland. Available at: www.ibm.com/blogs/
research/2019/07/hypertaste-ai-assisted-etongue/ (accessed
on 29 July 2019).
22. Di Rosa A.R., Leone F., Cheli F. & Chiofalo V. (2017). – Fusion
of electronic nose, electronic tongue and computer vision for
animal food authentication and quality assessment – A review.
J. Food Eng., 210, 62–75. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.04.024.
23. R3 Global Trade Strategy Forum (2019). – Can blockchain
future-proof supply chains? A Brexit case study. R3, London,
United Kingdom, 31 pp. Available at: www.r3.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/R3_Brexit_SupplyChain-1-1.pdf
(accessed on 12 July 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 245-252

National Veterinary Services and the private

sector: the role of private veterinarians, aquatic
animal health professionals and veterinary
para-professionals in animal health and food
safety assurance
N. Gibbens

Itinerant Vets Ltd, West Barn, Wepham, Arundel, West Sussex BN18 9RD, United Kingdom
E-mail: itinerant.vets@gmail.com

Summary
Establishing trust in national systems for assurance of animal health and food
safety is a key step in any importing country’s consideration of whether a
potential trading partner can meet its appropriate level of protection. Private
veterinarians, veterinary para-professionals (VPPs) and aquatic animal health
professionals (AAHPs) play a crucial role in national Veterinary Services,
formally or informally, and across the whole spectrum of national animal and
public health activities. Private veterinarians, AAHPs or VPPs are engaged as
part of the national Veterinary Services and in various forms of public–private
partnerships (PPPs) in many countries worldwide. In many cases, authorised
private veterinarians, AAHPs and VPPs enable the national Veterinary or Aquatic
Animal Health Services as a whole to do more work over a wider geographical
area and thus have a greater impact than publicly employed professionals
working alone. The deployment of private veterinarians, AAHPs and VPPs directly
or in PPP arrangements strengthens national services and enhances their ability
to deliver reliable animal health and food safety assurance. To ensure that
private veterinarians, AAHPs and VPPs deliver to their full potential, effective and
efficient systems for training, accreditation, monitoring and audit are essential.
This article draws on data from published OIE Performance of Veterinary Services
evaluations (from 2007 to the present) and unpublished responses to the OIE 2017
questionnaire on PPPs, to draw insights into the use and accreditation of private
veterinarians, AAHPs and VPPs globally.

Keywords
Accreditation – Aquatic animal health professional – Assurance – Audit – Monitoring
– National Veterinary Services – Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) – Private
veterinarian – Public–private partnership (PPP) – Veterinary para-professional.

Introduction In accordance with the World Trade Organization (WTO)

Effective national systems of assurance of animal health,
food safety and export certification are essential to enable
international trade. The private sector plays a key role in
delivering the national systems in many countries worldwide.
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS Agreement), countries must ensure that
their SPS-related import measures for animals and animal
products are science-based (1). Sanitary and phytosanitary
measures must either be based on an import risk analysis or
on the animal health standards set by the World Organisation

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3077
246
for Animal Health (OIE) and, where relevant, the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (for food safety). Assessment of
the relevant national assurance systems in the exporting
country is a key part of that risk analysis. The OIE provides
guidelines on import risk analysis (2, 3) and on evaluating
Veterinary Services/Aquatic Animal Health Services (4, 5) in
the Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Terrestrial Code) and the
Aquatic Animal Health Code (Aquatic Code). These guidelines
enable importing countries to have confidence in the quality
of those services and the assurances on terrestrial or aquatic
animal health status or export health certification that they
support.
The OIE defines Veterinary and Aquatic Animal Health
Services (6) as the public and private-sector organisations
and individuals that implement animal health and welfare
measures and other standards and recommendations of
the Terrestrial Code and the Aquatic Code. The OIE definition
also states that the private-sector organisations and animal
health professionals/para-professionals that work within
the national Veterinary Services are normally accredited
or approved by the Veterinary Authority to deliver the
delegated functions.
The level and scope of involvement of the private sector in
national Veterinary Services varies widely across the world.
The involvement of the private sector is greater in developed
trading nations than in countries where the capacity of the
public sector is limited.
There is potential to improve Veterinary Services by greater
involvement of the private sector, provided that it is carefully
managed in line with OIE guidelines. Guidance from the
OIE on the evaluation of Veterinary Services (4) and the
OIE Tool for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary
Services (PVS Tool [7, 8]) provide for an assessment of the
involvement of the private sector.
In particular, the PVS Tool is used to assess areas of
relative strength and weakness within a particular national
Veterinary Service against relevant international standards.
This tool uses ‘critical competencies’ (CCs) to evaluate
performance, each of which has five levels of advancement,
with level 5 being the highest. Critical Competency III-4
assesses the extent to which Veterinary Services have the
authority and the capability to authorise the private sector
or non-governmental organisations to carry out official
tasks on their behalf, usually via a formal agreement (i.e.
public–private partnership) (see Section III-4 of Chapter III
in the PVS Tool [8]). The OIE has also promoted greater
partnership with the private sector by producing the OIE
PPP Handbook: Guidelines for Public–Private Partnerships in
the Veterinary Domain (PPP Handbook) (9).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Current deployment of private
veterinarians, aquatic animal
health professionals and
veterinary para-professionals
For the purposes of this article, two sources of data were
reviewed to assess the current deployment of private
veterinarians, AAHPs and VPPs:
a) published reports of OIE assessments of national
Veterinary Services
b) unpublished responses to a 2017 OIE questionnaire
(sent to its Members) on the application of public–private
partnerships.
Evidence from Performance of Veterinary
Services evaluations
Data were extracted from the most recent PVS evaluation
for 41 different countries, looking specifically at CC III-4 on
accreditation/authorisation/delegation, and cross-checking
with CC IV-4 on international certification (with reference
to the sixth edition of the PVS Tool, 2013 [7]). Countries
voluntarily request PVS evaluations and these are published
only if the country agrees. The motivation for requesting
an evaluation varies; for example, a country may wish to
support the development of its Veterinary Services from a
low baseline or undertake an assurance check on a mature
and well-developed service. Consequently, the data do
not equally represent the OIE regions, and countries vary
significantly in levels of advancement across regions. This
is, therefore, not a comprehensive global survey, but rather
an overview to gain insights from the available data.
In gathering the data for this paper, the relevant sections
of each country report (the sections on CCs III-4 and IV-4)
were scanned for references to the involvement of the private
sector. If such references were found, they were examined
further to determine whether the sector was involved in
food safety activities (normally ante- and post-mortem
inspection), animal health controls/surveillance, or export
certification. Support for export certification was recorded if
private veterinarians or aquatic animal health professionals
were found to be directly certifying or providing supporting
assurance to public-sector veterinarians or aquatic animal
health professionals specifically in support of export
certification.
The PVS evaluation reports are a snapshot in history and
some date back as far as 12 years ago, so they may not fully
reflect the current position; however, the results give an
indicative overview of the global situation. The results are
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 247

Table I
Summary data from Performance of Veterinary Services evaluations of Critical Competency III-4 on accreditation/authorisation/
delegation

No. of countries with No. of countries No. of countries with

No. of private vets
private veterinarians/ with private-sector private-sector entities
OIE region No. of countries directly supporting
AAHPs/VPPs involved entities in food safety in animal health
export certification
in PPPs assurance role assurance role
Africa 16 7 1 6 1
Americas 12 9 3 9 2
Asia and the Pacific 6 4 2 4 1
Europe 4 3 3 3 0
Middle East 3 2 0 2 0
Total 41 25 9 24 4

AAHP: aquatic animal health professional

PPP: public–private partnership
VPP: veterinary para-professional

summarised by OIE region in Table I. Low numbers and a

lack of homogeneity in the sample mean that comparisons
between regions should not be made.
Out of 41 countries, 25 showed some involvement of the
private sector. This was mostly in relation to animal health
activities (24), with fewer than half in relation to food safety
(nine) and only four in relation to export certification.
Levels of advancement for CC III-4 were not recorded for all
countries. In some cases, this was because private activity
was not in place, but the reason was not always specified.
Advancement level 1 was recorded in some cases where
private activity was legally permitted but not in place,
and others where it was happening but with little control.
Advancement level 5 corresponds to effective delegation
to the private sector, with full implementation of OIE
recommendations on training, authorisation/accreditation
and audit (see Box 1 for a definition of the various levels).
Of 38 available records of advancement level, seven were
at level 1, seven at level 2, fourteen at level 3, six at level
4 and four at level 5. Advancement levels for CC III-4 are
indicated in Table II.
Published PVS evaluations show that the private sector
contributes to national Veterinary Services in more than
half the countries considered, but that the type and
extent of activity varies, as does the level of oversight and
assurance. The importance of an effective assurance system
is discussed later in this paper.
Box 1
Levels of advancement for Critical Competency III-4
Source: OIE Performance of Veterinary Services Tool (7)
III-4 Accreditation/authorisation/delegation
‘The authority and capability of the public sector of the VS to accredit/
authorise/delegate to private sector or NGO expertise (e.g. private
veterinarians and laboratories, animal welfare NGOs), to carry out official
tasks on its behalf, usually via a formal agreement (i.e. public–private
partnership)’
1. The public sector of the VS has neither the authority nor the capability
to accredit/authorise/delegate official tasks to the private sector or
NGOs.
2. The public sector of the VS has the authority and capability to
accredit/authorise/delegate official tasks to the private sector or
NGOs, but there are no current accreditation/authorisation/delegation
activities.
3. The public sector of the VS develops accreditation/authorisation/
delegation programmes for certain tasks using formal agreements, but
these activities are not routinely reviewed.
4. The public sector of the VS develops and implements accreditation/
authorisation/delegation programmes using formal agreements, and
these activities are routinely reviewed to maintain standards and
manage performance.
5. The public sector of the VS carries out audits of its accreditation/
authorisation/delegation programmes, in order to maintain the trust of
their trading partners and other stakeholders.
NGO: non-governmental organisation
VS: Veterinary Services

Evidence from a 2017 public–private partnership the development of OIE guidelines to promote and support
questionnaire greater uptake of PPPs to strengthen Veterinary Services.

In 2017, the OIE surveyed its then 181 Members about Countries were asked about their experience of PPPs and
their experience with PPPs in the veterinary domain to identify one or two successful examples of the use of
(10). The evidence gathered from this survey has supported PPPs in their country. The scope of this questionnaire was
248 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Table II
Country levels of advancement: PVS evaluation of Critical Competency III-4 on accreditation/authorisation/delegation

PVS records: advancement

Europe Asia/Pacific Americas Africa Middle East Total
levels for CC III-4

Countries at advancement level 1 1 2 1 2 1 7

Countries at advancement level 2 0 0 1 6 0 7
Countries at advancement level 3 3 1 1 7 2 14
Countries at advancement level 4 0 1 5 0 0 6
Countries at advancement level 5 0 1 3 0 0 4

CC: Critical Competency

PVS: Performance of Veterinary Services

the whole of the veterinary domain. The OIE defines the
veterinary domain as, ‘all the activities that are directly or
indirectly related to animals [terrestrial and aquatic], their
products and by-products, which help to protect, maintain
and improve the health and welfare of humans, including
by means of the protection of animal health and animal
welfare, and food safety’ (Article 3.4.2. of the Terrestrial
Code [11]). The information drawn from this survey is,
therefore, not a specific or comprehensive survey of the
use of private veterinarians, AAHPs or VPPs in assurance;
rather, the examples given provide a further insight into
how they are used across the veterinary domain.
The approach to extracting data from the questionnaire
was similar to that used with the PVS evaluation reports.
Each PPP example provided by countries was scanned
for references to the involvement of veterinarians, AAHPs
or VPPs from the private sector and, more specifically, to
their involvement in food safety activities (normally ante-
and post-mortem inspection), animal health controls/
surveillance, or export certification. Support for export
certification was recorded if the private veterinarians
or AAHPs were directly certifying or providing specific
supporting assurances to public-sector veterinarians or
AAHPs.
The results of the questionnaire are summarised by
OIE region in Table III. Again, low numbers and a lack
of homogeneity in the sample mean that comparisons
between regions should not be made. Thirty-seven of
57 PPP examples provided by the public sector in the
75 countries that responded to the questionnaire related to
Veterinary or Aquatic Animal Health Services. Consistent
with the evidence from PVS evaluations, most private-sector
involvement was in relation to animal health activities, with
31 PPPs involving the private sector in these activities.
Seven PPPs included private-sector involvement in food
safety activities and the same number of PPPs involved the
private sector in export certification.

Table III
Summary data from the 2017 public–private partnership questionnaire on involvement of private-sector veterinarians, aquatic animal
health professionals or veterinary para-professionals in national Veterinary Services

Countries
Countries in which the PPPs in which PPPs in which the PPPs in which private
that Countries that
PPP example relates to the private sector private sector has veterinarians provide
OIE region responded gave a PPP
Veterinary and Aquatic has a role in food a role in animal direct support for export
to the example
Animal Health Services safety assurance health assurance certification
questionnaire
Africa 19 11 4 1 3 1
Americas 17 16 9 0 8 2
Asia and the Pacific 10 8 6 2 5 2
Europe 22 17 14 4 11 2
Middle East 7 5 4 0 4 0
Total 75 57 37 7 31 7

AAHP: aquatic animal health professional

PPP: public–private partnership
VPP: veterinary para-professional
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Overall deployment of private veterinarians,
aquatic animal health professionals and
veterinary para-professionals
The evidence available from PVS evaluations and the
PPP questionnaire shows that veterinarians, AAHPs and
VPPs from the private sector are contributing to national
Veterinary Services across all OIE regions and in more
than half the countries considered. The activities in which
they are involved include: disease control activities such as
vaccination and passive and active surveillance programmes;
food safety work such as ante- and post-mortem checks and
abattoir supervision; and export certification. All of these
activities contribute to the quality of Veterinary Services and
their ability to provide assurance to importing countries.
The private sector is deployed through a range of systems.
Direct authorisation and payment for defined tasks is
established in many countries and is often referred to as the
‘sanitary mandate’. The ‘sanitary mandate’ is often central to
disease control programmes and surveillance systems, but
we often overlook the fact that it is also a key part of the
ability of national Veterinary Services to provide assurance
to trading partners.
Private veterinarians, AAHPs and VPPs may also be
deployed in PPP programmes agreed between governments
and private-sector companies. The OIE PPP Handbook
provides useful guidance on best practice in setting up and
operating PPPs in the veterinary domain and on the range
of approaches that can be used.
Ensuring the quality and
reliability of assurances
provided by private
veterinarians, aquatic animal
health professionals and
veterinary para-professionals
To give confidence to importing countries, national
Veterinary Services must be of sufficient quality and
coverage, in terms of the scope of relevant activities and
geographical presence, to assure disease status and food
safety. This is true of both public and private entities, and
the OIE PVS Tool looks at both elements. The levels of
advancement for CC III-4 in the 2019 PVS Tool (Table II)
correspond to those in the earlier versions of the assessment
tool, which has evolved over time. They capture the key
elements of good practice for effective delegation to the
private sector.
249
The more advanced levels can be summarised as follows:
– Advancement level 3: formal training is carried out and
authorisation/accreditation programmes are in place, with
contracts or agreements to specify the work to be done and
to set standards
– Advancement level 4: there are oversight and review
programmes in place to maintain standards and manage
performance
– Advancement level 5: audits of accreditation/authorisation/
delegation programmes are carried out to maintain the trust
of trading partners and other stakeholders.
The published OIE PVS evaluation reports show that only
24 of 38 countries are at level 3 or above, and only 10 of
those are at level 4 or 5. Importing countries make their
own judgements on what is acceptable, but it is likely that
they will expect at least level 4, as it provides evidence of
assurance through audit. This shows that if the use of private-
sector veterinarians, AAHPs or VPPs is to be accepted as
part of national assurance systems for international trade,
significant effort is needed to ensure effective governance,
oversight and quality assurance.
Conclusions
Public Veterinary Services working alone rarely have a large
enough workforce to deliver a comprehensive national
assurance system for animal health and welfare and food
safety, either in terms of volume of activity or geographic
coverage. However, by partnering with the private sector,
Veterinary Services can establish effective national assurance
systems that are able to underpin international trade. Such
deployment of the private sector is a positive aspect of
national Veterinary and Aquatic Animal Health Services,
provided there are effective systems of accreditation and
audit in place. Greater recognition of the value of private-
sector involvement and how this can be harnessed to good
effect is needed. This should encourage more countries to
draw on the previously untapped potential of the private
sector to provide improved national Veterinary Services.
Countries in all parts of the world and at all levels of
economic development draw on the private sector to carry
out key roles, either completely or in conjunction with
the government services. More than half (25/41) of the
countries with published PVS evaluations use private-sector
veterinarians, AAHPs or VPPs in their national Veterinary
Services. However, there is clearly potential for the private
sector to be used in more countries to strengthen national
assurance systems and support international trade. In the
PPP questionnaires, some countries indicated that enabling
international trade was one of the key motivating factors
250 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

in their decision to establish a PPP, and this may be an The OIE supports the involvement of the private sector in
important driver in many countries as their animal and food national Veterinary and Aquatic Animal Health Services by
production systems develop. providing guidance on the quality and evaluation of those
services, supplemented by the PVS Tool. Further guidance
To be effective, private-sector support for national on developing public–private partnerships in the veterinary
Veterinary Services must be carefully set up with good domain is available in the OIE PPP Handbook.
governance and oversight to assure quality of outcomes.
Countries with limited resources and the greatest need to
develop their national Veterinary Services have much to Acknowledgements
gain from private-sector engagement. However, this would The author would like to thank Dr Isabelle Dieuzy-Labaye
require prioritisation of scarce public-sector resources (OIE) and Dr Marisa Peyre (CIRAD [French Agricultural
to set up governance and systems to enssure sustainable Research Centre for International Development]) for access
private-sector delivery, and this may be a limiting factor. to the database of responses to the 2017 OIE questionnaire
Only ten of the 31 countries whose PVS evaluations showed on public–private partnership.
that they were delegating/authorising/accrediting private
veterinarians, AAHPs or VPPs (or had the potential to do so)
Dr John Stratton (OIE) is also thanked for his advice on the
had reached an advancement level that would be likely to
use of data from PVS evaluations.
give confidence to international trading partners (i.e. level 4
or above). The potential for countries with existing systems
of delegation/authorisation/accreditation to export animals
or animal products could be improved by strengthening
governance and oversight.

Les Services vétérinaires nationaux et le secteur privé : le rôle

des vétérinaires privés, des professionnels de la santé des animaux
aquatiques et des paraprofessionnels vétérinaires pour garantir
la santé animale et la sécurité sanitaire des aliments
N. Gibbens

Résumé
La confiance dans les systèmes nationaux qui visent à garantir la situation
de la santé animale et de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments d’un pays est une
condition essentielle pour que les pays importateurs puissent considérer qu’un
partenaire commercial potentiel est (ou n’est pas) en mesure de garantir le
niveau de protection approprié. Les vétérinaires privés, les paraprofessionnels
vétérinaires et les professionnels de la santé des animaux aquatiques jouent un
rôle crucial au sein des Services vétérinaires nationaux, de manière formelle
ou informelle, ainsi que dans le large spectre d’activités en lien avec la santé
animale et la santé publique au niveau national. Dans plusieurs pays du monde, les
vétérinaires privés, les professionnels de la santé des animaux aquatiques et les
paraprofessionnels vétérinaires interviennent en tant que partie intégrante des
Services vétérinaires nationaux et, à ce titre, ils prennent part à diverses formes
de partenariats public–privé (PPP). Dans bien des cas, l’action des vétérinaires
privés habilités, des professionnels de la santé des animaux aquatiques et des
paraprofessionnels vétérinaires accroît les capacités d’intervention globale des
Services vétérinaires nationaux et des Services chargés de la santé des animaux
aquatiques, qui peuvent ainsi agir davantage, couvrir un territoire géographique
plus vaste et avoir un meilleur impact que si les agents de l’État travaillaient sans
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 251

ce soutien. Le déploiement de ces acteurs privés lors d’interventions directes

ou à travers des PPP renforce les services nationaux et accroît leur capacité à
fournir des garanties fiables en matière de santé animale et de sécurité sanitaire
des aliments. Il est essentiel de disposer de systèmes efficaces et efficients
de formation, d’accréditation, de supervision et d’audit afin de s’assurer que
les prestations des vétérinaires privés, des professionnels de la santé des
animaux aquatiques et des paraprofessionnels vétérinaires réalisent pleinement
leur potentiel. L’auteur s’appuie sur les données des rapports d’évaluation des
performances des Services vétérinaires (PVS) publiés depuis 2007 et sur les
réponses (non publiées) fournies par les Membres lors d’une enquête relative
aux PPP réalisée par l’OIE en 2017 pour apporter un éclairage sur le recours aux
vétérinaires privés, aux professionnels de la santé des animaux aquatiques et aux
paraprofessionnels vétérinaires ainsi que sur les modalités de leur accréditation.

Mots-clés
Accréditation – Assurance – Audit – Paraprofessionnel vétérinaire – Partenariat public–
privé (PPP) – Performances des Services vétérinaires (PVS) – Professionnel de la santé des
animaux aquatiques – Services vétérinaires nationaux – Surveillance – Vétérinaire privé.

Los Servicios Veterinarios nacionales y el sector privado: función

de los veterinarios privados, los profesionales de la sanidad
de los animales acuáticos y los paraprofesionales de veterinaria
en la garantía zoosanitaria y de inocuidad de los alimentos
N. Gibbens

Resumen
La confianza en los sistemas nacionales que expiden garantías zoosanitarias y
de inocuidad de los alimentos es un elemento clave cuando un país importador
se plantea si un eventual socio comercial está en condiciones de ofrecer
el nivel de protección que se le exige. Los veterinarios del sector privado, los
paraprofesionales de veterinaria (PPV) y los profesionales de la sanidad de
los animales acuáticos (PSAA) cumplen una función básica en los Servicios
Veterinarios nacionales, ya sea oficial u oficiosamente, y en todo el espectro
de actividades de sanidad animal y salud pública que despliegan los países. En
muchos países del mundo, estos tres cuerpos de profesionales privados trabajan
adscritos a los Servicios Veterinarios nacionales o participan en su labor con
arreglo a diversas fórmulas de asociación publicoprivada. En muchos casos, la
participación de veterinarios privados, PSAA y PPV debidamente autorizados
permite a los Servicios Veterinarios o de Sanidad de los Animales Acuáticos de
un país realizar en conjunto una labor más vasta en una zona geográfica más
extensa y, con ello, obtener resultados que no podrían conseguir únicamente con
los empleados del sector público. El despliegue de veterinarios privados, PSAA y
PPV, ya sea directamente o en virtud de acuerdos de colaboración publicoprivada,
refuerza a los servicios nacionales y los habilita para ofrecer garantías fiables en
materia de sanidad animal e inocuidad de los alimentos. Ahora bien, para que el
trabajo de estos profesionales del sector privado depare el máximo rendimiento es
esencial disponer de sistemas eficaces y eficientes de formación, certificación,
252 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

supervisión y auditoría. El autor, partiendo de los datos de las evaluaciones

publicadas por la OIE de la eficacia de los Servicios Veterinarios (Proceso
PVS) de 2007 a la actualidad y de las respuestas (no publicadas) al cuestionario
distribuido por la OIE en 2017 sobre las asociaciones publicoprivadas, extrae una
serie de conclusiones sobre el empleo y la certificación en todo el mundo de
veterinarios privados, PSAA y PPV.

Palabras clave
Asociación publicoprivada – Auditoría – Certificación – Eficacia de los Servicios
Veterinarios – Garantía – Paraprofesionales de veterinaria – Profesionales de la sanidad
de los animales acuáticos – Servicios Veterinarios nacionales – Supervisión – Veterinarios
del sector privado.

References
1. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm (accessed on 5 February
2020).
2. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 2.1. Import risk analysis, Article 2.1.1. In Terrestrial
Animal Health Code, 28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available
at: www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_
import_risk_analysis.htm (accessed on 3 July 2019).
3. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 2.1. Import risk analysis, Article 2.1.1. In Aquatic
Animal Health Code, 22nd Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available
at: www.oie.int/index.php?id=171&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_
import_risk_analysis.htm (accessed on 3 July 2019).
4. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 3.2. Evaluation of Veterinary Services, Article
3.2.5. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 28th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_eval_vet_serv.htm
(accessed on 3 July 2019).
11. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
5. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 3.1. Quality of Aquatic Animal Health Services,
Article 3.1.5. In Aquatic Animal Health Code, 22nd Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/index.
php?id=171&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_quality_aahs.htm
(accessed on 3 July 2019).
7. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2013). – OIE
Tool for the Evaluation of the Performance of Veterinary
Services (OIE PVS Tool), 6th Ed. OIE, Paris, France, 70 pp.
Available at: www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Support_to_
OIE_Members/pdf/PVS_A_Tool_Final_Edition_2013.pdf
(accessed on 3 July 2019).
8. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – OIE
Tool for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services
Tool (PVS Tool), 7th Ed. OIE, Paris, France, 68 pp. Available
at: www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Support_to_OIE_
Members/docs/pdf/2019_PVS_Tool_FINAL.pdf (accessed on
3 July 2019).
9. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – The
OIE PPP handbook: guidelines for public–private partnerships
in the veterinary domain. OIE, Paris, France, 64 pp. Available
at: www.oie.int/publicprivatepartnerships/ppp/en/Handbook_
en.html (accessed on 3 July 2019).
10. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Public–
private partnerships in the veterinary domain [webpage]. OIE,
Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/for-the-media/oie-
public-private-partnerships/ (accessed on 3 July 2019).
Chapter 3.4. Veterinary Legislation, Article 3.4.2. In Terrestrial
Animal Health Code, 28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at:
www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_vet_
legislation.htm (accessed on 7 May 2020).

6. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –

Glossary. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 28th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=glossaire.htm#terme_services_
veterinaires (accessed on 3 July 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 253-261

The World Trade Organization Agreement on

the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures and veterinary control procedures
R. Alcala (1)*, H. Vitikkala (2) & G. Ferlet (3)

(1) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Section, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade
Organization, Rue de Lausanne 154, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
(2) 6 avenue de France, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
(3) 30 avenue Bosquet, 75007 Paris, France
*Corresponding author: rolando.alcala@wto.org

Summary
World Trade Organization (WTO) Members have developed a framework of rules
and guidance for veterinary control, inspection and approval procedures for
international trade in animals and animal products. The core of this guidance can
be found in Article 8 and Annex C of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), which help Members to achieve
the twin objectives of ensuring animal health and facilitating safe trade through
their detailed disciplines. The issue of veterinary control, inspection and approval
procedures frequently surfaces on the agenda of the Committee on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures when Members discuss trade concerns or decide to
explore this topic in periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement.
The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (2017), which was crafted to further
expedite the movement and clearance of goods, brought additional structure
to the design and operation of border procedures, including veterinary control
procedures. The entry into force of the Trade Facilitation Agreement also
increased, in many cases, the visibility and resources allocated to the operation
of border controls, including international assistance. These processes provide
further opportunities to enhance the profile of veterinary and other SPS agencies
besides that of Customs, and to improve coordination among these various
agencies and organisations.

Keywords
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) –
Animal health – Control – Inspection and approval procedures – Veterinary health control
procedures – World Trade Organization (WTO) – World Trade Organization Committee on
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures – WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement.

Introduction: overview of the international trade fulfil their food safety, and animal and
plant health requirements. In the veterinary field, such

relevant legal provisions and procedures are crucially important in preventing the
introduction of human and animal diseases transmitted by

disputes on control, inspection

and approval procedures
Authorities all over the world operate control, inspection
and approval procedures to verify that goods moving in
animals and animal products. However, if implemented
inappropriately, they can quickly become unnecessary
barriers to market access.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS
Agreement) seeks to prevent this by placing disciplines on

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3078
254
the control, inspection and approval procedures carried out
by WTO Members. The central provision is Article 8 of the
SPS Agreement, which reads:
Members shall observe the provisions of Annex C in
the operation of control, inspection and approval
procedures, including national systems for approving
the use of additives or for establishing tolerances
for contaminants in foods, beverages or feedstuffs,
and otherwise ensure that their procedures are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement [1].
The last clause of Article 8 makes it clear that control,
inspection and approval procedures must, in the first
place, be consistent with the SPS Agreement. As such, they
must comply with all the requirements of the Agreement
– among others, they should be based on the World
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) standards, and other
relevant international guidance, and not restrict trade any
more than is necessary. In addition, Article 8 states that
such procedures must also comply with Annex C to the SPS
Agreement, which contains an additional set of disciplines
dedicated exclusively to the operation of control, inspection
and approval procedures.
Annex C casts a wide net over the types of procedures to
which it applies. Indeed, it explicitly sets obligations on
the operation of ‘any procedure to check and ensure the
fulfilment of sanitary and phytosanitary measures’ (1).
By way of example, and as stated in footnote 7 to
Annex C(1), procedures used for sampling, testing and
certification purposes fall under Annex C. In the veterinary
field, these may include, for instance, visual inspections,
laboratory tests, or document checks on veterinary health
certificates.
Moreover, WTO dispute settlement panels, which are
ad hoc expert groups convened to rule on trade disputes
between WTO Members, have repeatedly emphasised that
Annex C covers a broad variety of procedures. For example,
the Dispute Settlement Panel in ‘US – Animals (2015)’
found that Annex C applied to procedures that aimed to
determine the disease status of certain geographical areas,
rejecting the claim by the United States of America (USA)
that it covered control, inspection and approval procedures
for products only (2). This dispute concerned, in part,
the USA’s processes for reviewing Argentina’s request to
authorise the import of beef from northern Argentina, and
to recognise Patagonia as being free from foot and mouth
disease. In ‘US – Poultry (2010)’, the Dispute Settlement
Panel noted that Annex C may apply regardless of the name
or characterisation given to a measure, rejecting a claim that
because the measure at issue was called an ‘equivalence
determination process’, only Article 4 of the Agreement (on
equivalence) ought to apply (3). This dispute concerned,
in part, the USA’ s approval procedures for permitting the
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
importation of poultry products from the People’s Republic
of China (China).
Key obligations in control, inspection
and approval procedures
Annex C(1) sets out detailed requirements for
control, inspection and approval procedures in nine
enumerated sub-paragraphs. These requirements
aim to ensure that such procedures are not unduly
long or burdensome for trade in food, animal and plant
products, and that they do not discriminate against imports
of such products. In addition, Annex C(1) urges Members
to adhere to international standards when operating prior
approval systems – also called ‘positive list’ systems – for
additives or contaminants in food. In such systems, market
access is pending while a final determination is being
made on a new substance. (Products which contain
substances that do not feature on the importing Member’s
approved list of additives and contaminants are otherwise
not allowed to enter.)
No undue delay
The first clause of Annex C(1)(a) requires WTO Members
to undertake and complete control, inspection and approval
procedures without undue delay. This has been understood
as a good faith obligation, instructing Members to proceed
with their approval procedures as promptly as possible,
taking account of the need to check and ensure the fulfilment
of their relevant SPS requirements (see, for example, panel
report in ‘EC – Biotech [2006]’) (4). The Appellate Body, a
standing body of seven experts that hears appeals on reports
issued by dispute settlement panels, explained the notion
of undue delay in the dispute ‘Australia – Apples (2010)’.
It stated that Annex C(1)(a) required Members to complete
their procedures ‘with appropriate dispatch, that is, that
they do not involve periods of time that are unwarranted, or
otherwise excessive, disproportionate or unjustifiable’ (5).
Generally speaking, the practice of WTO dispute settlement
adjudicators has been to evaluate, on a case-by-case basis,
whether there is legitimate justification for an incurred
delay, rather than merely concentrating on the absolute
length of the delay itself.
Non-discrimination
The second clause of Annex C(1)(a) requires WTO Members
to undertake and complete procedures to check and ensure
the fulfilment of SPS measures ‘in no less favorable manner
for imported products than for like domestic products’. This
amounts to non-discrimination in the treatment of national
and foreign products, a central concept of WTO rules that
has been labelled the ‘national treatment obligation’. First
enshrined in Article III: 4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT), the obligation subsequently found its
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
way into various other WTO agreements, including Annex C
of the SPS Agreement (6).
To determine whether products are ‘like’, WTO case law
has developed a generic ‘likeness test’, under Article III: 4 of
the GATT. The test is based on several criteria: the physical
properties of the products; the extent to which they are
capable of serving the same or similar end uses; the extent
to which consumers perceive and treat the products as an
alternative means of performing particular functions to
satisfy a particular want or demand; and the international
classification of the products for tariff purposes. The Panel
in ‘Korea – Radionuclides (2019)’ confirmed that: ‘the same
likeness criteria under Article III: 4 of the GATT 1994 are
appropriate for an analysis under Annex C(1)(a)’ (7).
Importantly, though, demonstrating likeness is not enough
without a finding of less favourable treatment. The Panel
in the dispute ‘EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech
Products (2006)’ added nuance to the discussion. It
decided that the differential treatment of like products, or
an unfavourable result in a market access application for
an imported product, could not by itself demonstrate less
favourable treatment, if the importing Member’s conduct
was ‘explained by factors or circumstances unrelated to
the foreign origin of the product’ (8). (The case was never
appealed, meaning this Panel finding was never confirmed
or rejected by the Appellate Body.)
Operation of procedures
Annex C(1) contains further conditions intended to facilitate
the operation of control, inspection and approval procedures.
Firstly, it lays down requirements for transparency and
information exchange, stipulating that processing periods
must be published; that authorities must promptly examine
the completeness of the documentation, inform the exporter
of all deficiencies identified, and transmit the results so that
corrective action may be taken if necessary. Even when the
application has deficiencies, the authorities must proceed as
far as practicable, if the applicant so requests. Furthermore,
the authorities must inform the applicant of the current
stage of the procedure, with possible delays being duly
communicated (sub-para. b).
Annex C(1) also brings the principles of necessity and
proportionality into play in the operation of control,
inspection and approval procedures. Information
requirements must be ‘limited to what is necessary’
(sub-para. c), while sampling must be ‘reasonable and
necessary’ (sub-para. e). In addition, Annex C(1) prohibits
discrimination against imported products in regard to
confidentiality of information and protection of commercial
interests. Imported products must benefit from such
confidentiality and protection just as much as domestic
ones do (sub-para. d). As for the application of fees on
255
imported products, they must be ‘equitable’ in relation
to those charged on like products made domestically or
imported from other Members (sub-para. f).
Work of the World Trade
Organization and the Standards
and Trade Development Facility
The World Trade Organization Committee
on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Control, inspection and approval procedures have frequently
surfaced in the work of the SPS Committee. The topic was
first discussed, although briefly, in the Second Review of the
Operation and Implementation of the Agreement in 2005 (9).
Upon suggestion from the (then) European Communities,
it was recommended that the Committee should look at the
most effective way to facilitate the implementation of Article 8
and Annex C, with a particular focus on clarifying who
should bear the costs of inspection visits and conformity
assessment procedures among Members. The proposal
stemmed from an increase in the number of requests for
inspection visits from WTO Members and the strain this was
placing on some Members, due to the resource-intensive
nature of such visits.
The Third Review of the SPS Agreement in 2010 (10)
gave rise to a lengthier discussion, with the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), OIE and Secretariat
of the international Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) –
commonly referred to as the ‘Three Sisters’ – explaining their
role in developing international guidance on audits and
inspections. (The SPS Agreement explicitly recognises the
international standards, guidelines and recommendations
developed by these three organisations, with whom the
SPS Committee works closely.) China, India and Mercosur
wrote proposals (11, 12, 13) aimed at initiating discussions
to clarify the meaning of certain terms in Annex C and to
identify the typical steps in control, inspection and approval
procedures. Some Members, however, saw little point in
defining the broad terms of Annex C, since their meaning
was meant to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Others
pointed out that technical issues should be left to the
standard-setting bodies.
In the end, the Committee settled for more general
recommendations which encouraged Members to provide
information about their experiences in implementing
Article 8 and Annex C, and to make specific suggestions
of problems encountered during that process for the
Committee to consider. The Three Sisters were also invited
to continue collaborating with the Committee in the area of
border procedures and to further develop their guidelines.
256
Following up on this last point, a Committee Decision in
October 2011 encouraged joint work by two or all three
of the Sisters on ‘cross-cutting issues such as, inter alia,
certification, inspection, approval procedures and/or risk
analysis’ (14).
In March 2014, the margins of the SPS Committee meeting
saw the organisation of a thematic session, entitled
‘Implementing SPS Measures to Facilitate Safe Trade’. The
session, held by the Standards and Trade Development
Facility (STDF), looked at the recommendations of three
regional studies conducted in Africa, Asia and Latin
America to assess similarities and differences in reconciling
trade facilitation and SPS controls (15). The STDF was
established jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, OIE, World Bank Group, World
Health Organization and WTO, as well as the Codex and
IPPC Secretariats, as a global partner in capacity building
for SPS. The STDF provides seed funding to prepare and
carry out collaborative or innovative SPS projects (e.g. the
development of e-veterinary certificates). The STDF also
identifies and disseminates good practice on topics that cut
across the areas of food safety, animal and plant health, and
trade, including pioneering work on control, inspection
and approval procedures.
A thematic workshop on control, inspection and approval
procedures (Annex C of the SPS Agreement), held at the
WTO in July 2018, provided further opportunities to
discuss these issues in the Committee (16). Through
presentations, practical case studies and discussions, the
workshop allowed Members to exchange experiences,
challenges and best practices. Relevant provisions from
the WTO Agreements and case law were reviewed, and
the implications of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement
(TFA) for SPS border procedures were spelled out. The
workshop also endeavoured to stress the often-overlooked
economic rationale for strengthening the implementation
of Annex C, to reduce trade transaction costs. Taking the
floor on this occasion, the OIE representative explained
the provisions in Section 5 of both the OIE Terrestrial
Animal Health Code and Aquatic Animal Health Code, which
contain the key animal health standards, relevant import/
export procedures, and veterinary certification provisions
(17, 18). The role that the OIE Observatory could play was
highlighted as well, since this initiative specifically aims to
identify and address the challenges that countries face when
implementing OIE standards (16).
Disagreements among WTO Members over issues of
control, inspection and approval procedures have, over
time, given rise to specific trade concerns (STCs) in these
areas. Such STCs make up approximately 20% of all STCs
raised in the SPS arena since the creation of the WTO.
The majority of these STCs were raised by Members who
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
are developing countries, although developed country
Members follow closely behind. (Some STCs were raised
jointly by developed and developing country Members.)
A claim raised by the European Union in the July 2018
Committee meeting (and again in the November 2018
meeting), regarding alleged undue delays and lack of
transparency in Indonesia’s approval procedures for animal
products (19), provides a recent illustration. The European
Union contended in this STC that Indonesian import
approval procedures and standard processing periods
remained unknown to European Union exporters, whose
export applications failed to receive any feedback. In
response to this, Indonesia stressed that it was still in the
process of building capacity in the areas in question but that
it had already set up an online system to help monitor the
process of obtaining import approvals for animal products.
Another recent example of a relevant STC in the context
of Annex C pertains to concerns raised by the USA in the
November 2018 meeting about Thailand’s food-safety-
inspection fees for imports of uncooked meat, poultry and
meat offal (20). In this case, the USA claimed that the fees
were both significantly higher than Thailand’s corresponding
domestic slaughtering fees and disproportionate to the
cost of services rendered. To this, Thailand responded that
inspection service fees for domestic products were charged
to domestic business operators along each step of the food
production chain; the end result being that the combined
cost of the fees borne by domestic producers was higher
than the import inspection fees.
Work of the Standards and Trade Development
Facility
Activities related to control, inspection and approval
procedures are regularly organised by various actors. Recent
examples include regional border agency cooperation
workshops held in southern Africa (2018), and the
Caribbean and Latin America (2019). The STDF facilitated
the organisation of these workshops, and financing was partly
channelled through the WTO, via the Trade Facilitation
Agreement Facility – a platform established to assist
developing and least-developed countries in implementing
the TFA, the latest multilateral WTO Agreement (see ‘The
relevance of the Trade Facilitation Agreement for veterinary
procedures’, below).
Additionally, a 2018 STDF briefing note, entitled ‘Facilitating
safe trade: protecting health, reducing SPS trade costs’ (21),
identified a range of options that Members have at their
disposal to make trade flow more smoothly and quickly,
while still ensuring that animal health requirements are met.
These options include the following recommendations:
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
– Control, inspection and approval procedures should
not cause unnecessary delays, costs or uncertainty as SPS
agencies protect animal health.
– Members are encouraged to use OIE international
standards, improve transparency, streamline animal health
processes and employ risk-based approaches.
– Automation and modern techniques (electronic
certification; single windows, i.e. single-entry points for
data; automated predictive models; etc.), coupled with
modernised legislation and regulation, can greatly expedite
and improve the integrity and efficiency of animal health
control, inspection and approval procedures.
– Discussion among national SPS agencies, including
animal health agencies, and with national Customs
Authorities, is vital to promote synergies. Sanitary and
phytosanitary agencies should have a seat in national trade
facilitation committees.
– E-certification can improve the transparency and integrity
of veterinary certificates and reduce transaction costs and
clearance times. The OIE is at an early stage of reviewing
gaps in standards and guidelines on electronic certification,
and has established a reference group to look at developing
a versatile electronic veterinary certification scheme for
potential use in single-window systems. The Secretariat of
the IPPC is a step ahead, having already adopted a standard
with detailed guidance for the contracting parties on
electronic phytosanitary certification (called ePhyto).
The relevance of the Trade
Facilitation Agreement for
veterinary procedures
After almost ten years of negotiations, the TFA was concluded
in December 2013 at the Bali Ministerial Conference, and
entered into force on 22 February 2017, following its
ratification by two-thirds of the WTO Membership.
Trade facilitation could be described as simplifying
international trade procedures in order to move goods
through borders more efficiently. It aims to expedite the
movement, release and clearance of goods and to reduce
trade transaction costs.
The provisions of the TFA are laid out in three sections.
Section I contains a series of provisions covering border-
related procedures, processes and other disciplines. Section II
of the Agreement contains special and differential treatment
provisions that link the requirement to carry out these
provisions with the capacity of developing and least-
developed Members to do so. Section III includes a number
257
of provisions related to the overall implementation of the
Agreement, including institutional arrangements, such
as the establishment of the WTO Committee on Trade
Facilitation and national committees to aid domestic
coordination and implementation of the Agreement. While
most provisions of the TFA will be implemented by Customs
Authorities, some provisions apply to other agencies that
deal with international trade, including SPS agencies. The
TFA is therefore relevant to the provisions on SPS control,
inspection and approval procedures contained in Annex C
to the SPS Agreement, given that many of these procedures
are implemented at the border.
The TFA adds additional disciplines to cut through ‘red
tape’ and reduce administrative burdens at the border,
without diminishing the right to enact measures to protect
animal health. Thus, effective animal health systems
and trade facilitation need not contradict each other. For
example, TFA disciplines and Annex C provisions both
require that control, inspection and approval procedures
be undertaken without undue delay, and that they do not
differentiate between imported and domestic products.
Trade Facilitation Agreement disciplines go a step further
by requiring governments to set up pre-arrival processing,
publish average release times, and publish online
information on import/export requirements and fees.
The above and other possible intersections between the
TFA and the SPS Agreement are, however, addressed in
the final provisions of the TFA, contained in section III.
Article 24.6 states that ‘nothing in this Agreement shall
be construed as diminishing the rights and obligations of
Members under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to
Trade and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures’ (22). This provision would
seem to allow for areas in which the TFA goes beyond
the SPS Agreement, enabling the TFA to facilitate trade in
goods subject to SPS controls (for example, by streamlining
SPS measures and their application), without diminishing
the Members’ existing right to take science-based measures
to protect human, animal or plant life or health within their
territories. More information on the relationship between
the TFA and SPS Agreement can be found in a background
note prepared by the WTO Secretariat (23) and on the
WTO trade facilitation webpage (24).
Compliance with not only veterinary but also food safety
requirements, and challenges arising at and behind the
border, are often complex. Adequate capacity to control
animal health risks is crucial to protect both animal and
public health. It is also essential to enable exporters in
developing countries to gain and maintain access to
foreign markets. Repeated rejections of shipments for non-
compliance with animal health requirements result in stricter
scrutiny by importing countries, increased transaction
costs, damaged reputations and a loss of confidence in the
exporting country’s Competent Authorities.
258 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Conclusions gains in health protection and trade facilitation. The WTO

Ultimately, border controls are as efficient as their weakest
link. Customs offices have traditionally benefited from
larger investments in building capacity in this area than
SPS agencies, and it is now crucial to optimise the resources
available for SPS capacity development, including for
animal health purposes. There are indications that this
process is under way. Regulatory authorities in some
countries have launched various initiatives to harmonise,
simplify and enhance the implementation of veterinary
control, inspection and approval procedures to achieve
TFA represents a unique opportunity to add impetus to the
process by leveraging resources and support. But this will
require veterinary agencies to be properly integrated into
trade facilitation projects and involved in the formulation of
national priorities. At the end of the day, improved animal
health protection and smoother trade flows should not be
seen as conflicting ambitions locked in a zero-sum game.
Rather, they should be understood as twin objectives made
to go hand in hand, since streamlined, efficient and risk-
based veterinary border controls will naturally pave the way
towards them both.

L’Accord de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce sur l’application

des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires et les procédures de
contrôle vétérinaire
R. Alcala, H. Vitikkala & G. Ferlet

Résumé
Les Membres de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) ont mis en
place un cadre de règles et de directives concernant les procédures de
contrôle vétérinaire, d’inspection et d’autorisation applicables aux échanges
internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale. L’article 8 et l’annexe
C de l’Accord sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires (Accord
SPS) constituent le cœur de ce dispositif destiné à aider les Membres à réaliser
leur double objectif de protection de la santé animale et de facilitation d’un
commerce sûr, grâce à un ensemble de disciplines définies de manière détaillée.
La question des procédures de contrôle vétérinaire, d’inspection et d’autorisation
refait régulièrement surface dans les délibérations du Comité des mesures
sanitaires et phytosanitaires, par exemple lorsque les Membres abordent de
nouveaux sujets d’inquiétude liés au commerce ou décident de réexaminer cet
aspect à l’occasion des révisions périodiques de l’Accord SPS.
Conçu pour accélérer le mouvement et le dédouanement des marchandises,
l’Accord de l’OMC sur la facilitation des échanges (2017) s’est traduit par un meilleur
agencement de la conception et de la mise en œuvre concrète des procédures
appliquées aux frontières, en particulier les procédures de contrôle vétérinaire.
Dans bien des cas, l’entrée en vigueur de l’Accord sur la facilitation des échanges
a également amélioré la visibilité des opérations de contrôle aux frontières ainsi
que les ressources qui leur sont allouées, y compris dans le contexte de l’aide
internationale. Ces processus ouvrent de nouvelles perspectives pour renforcer
le profil non seulement des autorités douanières mais aussi des organismes
chargés de la santé animale et des agences sanitaires et phytosanitaires et pour
améliorer la coordination entre ces différentes agences et organisations.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 259

Mots-clés
Accord de l’OMC sur la facilitation des échanges – Accord SPS de l’OMC – Accord sur
l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires (Accord SPS) – Comité des mesures
sanitaires et phytosanitaires de l’OMC – Contrôle – Organisation mondiale du commerce
(OMC) – Procédures de contrôle vétérinaire – Procédures d’inspection et d’autorisation –
Santé animale.

El Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias

y Fitosanitarias de la Organización Mundial del Comercio
y los procedimientos de control veterinario
R. Alcala, H. Vitikkala & G. Ferlet

Resumen
Los Miembros de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) han elaborado
un marco de referencia con reglas y pautas referidas a los procedimientos
veterinarios de control, inspección y aprobación para el comercio internacional
de animales y productos de origen animal. Los elementos básicos de estas
orientaciones figuran en el artículo 8 y el Anexo C del Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación
de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Acuerdo MSF), que ayudan a los Miembros
a cumplir dos objetivos indisociables: asegurar la sanidad animal y facilitar un
comercio seguro gracias a las detalladas disciplinas que contienen. En el Comité
de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias se abordan a menudo cuestiones relativas
a los procedimientos veterinarios de control, inspección y aprobación, cuando
los Miembros tratan problemas comerciales o deciden estudiar el tema como
parte del proceso de examen periódico del Acuerdo MSF.
El Acuerdo de la OMC sobre Facilitación del Comercio (2017), elaborado con
objeto de acelerar el movimiento de bienes y la correspondiente expedición
de autorizaciones, introdujo una nueva estructura en la configuración y el
funcionamiento de los procedimientos aduaneros, incluidos los de control
veterinario. En muchos casos, la entrada en vigor del Acuerdo sobre Facilitación
del Comercio también otorgó más protagonismo a la aplicación de controles
fronterizos y llevó a destinarle un mayor volumen de recursos, entre otras
cosas a través de la asistencia internacional. Estos procesos abren nuevas
posibilidades para potenciar la función de los Servicios Veterinarios y otros
servicios relacionados con las cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias, además de
los de aduanas, y para mejorar la coordinación entre estos diversos servicios,
organismos y organizaciones.

Palabras clave
Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Acuerdo MSF) –
Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio de la OMC – Acuerdo MSF de la OMC – Comité
de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias de la OMC – Comité MSF de la OMC – Control
– Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) – Procedimientos de control veterinario –
Procedimientos de inspección y aprobación – Sanidad animal.
260
References
1. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm (accessed on 28 January
2020).
2. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2015). – WT/DS447/R.
United States: measures affecting the importation of animals,
meat and other animal products from Argentina. Report of
the Panel. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, para. 7.69. Available
at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.
aspx?DataSource=Cat&query=@Symbol=WT/DS447/R*&La
nguage=English&Context=ScriptedSearches&languageUICha
nged=true (accessed on 28 January 2020).
3. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2010). – WT/DS392/R.
United States: certain measures affecting imports of poultry
from China. Report of the Panel. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
para. 7.372. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/
SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/DS/392R.pdf (accessed
on 28 January 2020).
4. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2006). – WT/DS291/R,
WT/DS292/R & WT/DS293/R. European Communities:
measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech
products. Report of the Panel. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
paras 7.1494–7.1502. Available at: https://docs.wto.
org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/
DS/293R-04.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2020).
5. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2010). – WT/DS367/
AB/R. Australia’s: measures affecting the importation of apples
from New Zealand. Report of the Appellate Body. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland, para. 437. Available at: https://docs.
wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/
DS/367ABR.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2019).
6.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. [Must be read with
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947.] Available
at: www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm
(accessed on 11 March 2020).
7. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – WT/DS495/R.
Korea: import bans, and testing and certification requirements
for radionuclides. Report of the Panel. WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland, para. 7.393. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/
dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/DS/495R.
pdf (accessed on 28 January 2020).
8. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2006). – WT/DS291/R,
WT/DS292/R & WT/DS293/R. European Communities:
measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech
products. Report of the Panel. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland,
para. 7.2408. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/
Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/DS/293R-05.pdf
(accessed on 28 January 2020).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
9. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2005). – G/SPS/36.
Review of the operation and implementation of the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/
FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=
3 6 3 1 8 & C u r r e n t C a t a l o g u e I d I n d e x = 0 & F u l l Te x t H
ash=1&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&
HasSpanishRecord=True (accessed on 4 August 2019).
10. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2010). – G/SPS/53. Review
of the operation and implementation of the SPS
Agreement. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: https:
//docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_
S 0 0 9 - D P. a s p x ? l a n g u a g e = E & C a t a l o g u e I d L i s t =
32344,53273,31071,36394,109701,76026
,95548,92286,80499,94831&CurrentCatalogueIdInde
x = 6 & F u l l Te x t H a s h = 1 & H a s E n g l i s h R e c o rd = Tr u e &
HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True (accessed
on 4 August 2019).
11. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2009). – G/SPS/W/234 and
Add.1. Third review of the WTO/SPS Agreement: proposal by
China. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: https://docs.
wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.aspx?FullTextH
ash=1&MetaCollection=WTO&SymbolList=%22G/
SPS/W/23%22+OR+%22G/SPS/W/23*%22 (accessed on
28 January 2020).
12. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2009). – G/SPS/W/236/
Rev.1. Third Review of the WTO SPS Agreement: proposal by
India. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 3 pp. Available at: https://
docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/G/
SPS/W236R1.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2020).
13. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2009). – G/SPS/W/244.
Control inspection and approval procedures: communication
from Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay).
WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 3 pp. Available at: https://docs.
wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/G/SPS/
W244.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2020).
14. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2011). – G/SPS/58. Joint
work by Codex, IPPC and OIE on cross-cutting issues: decision
of the Committee. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at:
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/
F E _ S _ S 0 0 9 - D P. a s p x ? l a n g u a g e = E & C a t a l o g u e I d L
ist=31071&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&F
u l l Te x t H a s h = 1 & H a s E n g l i s h R e c o r d = Tr u e & H a s
FrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True (accessed on
4 August 2019).
15. Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) (2020). –
Facilitating safe trade. STDF, Geneva, Switzerland. Available
at: www.standardsfacility.org/facilitating-safe-trade (accessed
on 28 January 2020).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
16. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – SPS Committee
thematic workshop on control, inspection and approval
procedures (Annex C). WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available
at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop910718_
e.htm (accessed on 28 January 2020).
17. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 27th Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/terrestrial-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 26 March 2020).
18. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Aquatic Animal Health Code, 22nd Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/aquatic-code/
(accessed on 26 March 2020).
19.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – STC
Number 441. Indonesia’s approval procedures for animal
products. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://
spsims.wto.org/en/SpecificTradeConcerns/View/441 (accessed
on 28 January 2020).
20. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – STC Number
451. Thailand’s import fees related to approval procedures
for live animals and/or animal products (G/SPS/N/THA/243).
WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://spsims.
wto.org/en/SpecificTradeConcerns/View/451 (accessed on
28 January 2020).
261
21. Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) (2018). –
Facilitating safe trade: protecting health, reducing SPS trade
costs. STDF, Geneva, Switzerland, 4 pp. Available at: www.
standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/Briefing_Facilitating_
safe_trade.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2020).
22. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2017). – Agreement on Trade
Facilitation. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.
wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/tfa-nov14_e.htm (accessed on
28 January 2020).
23. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – The relationship
between the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(SPS Agreement). WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 9 pp.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/tf_sps_e.pdf
(accessed on 13 January 2020).
24. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2020). – Trade facilitation.
WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/tradfa_e/tradfa_e.htm (accessed on 13 January 2020).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 263-271

Use of the standards of the World Organisation

for Animal Health in veterinary certificates
A. Tan

Animal and Veterinary Service, National Parks Board, 52 Jurong Gateway Road, #09–01, Singapore 608550,
Singapore
E-mail: alwyn_tan@nparks.gov.sg

Summary
International trade in animals and animal products results in economic, social and
scientific benefits. The risk of the transmission of diseases that affect both animal
and human health through the movement of animals and animal products can
be controlled by import health requirements. The World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) is recognised by the World Trade Organization as the standard-setting
body for international animal health standards covering the safe trade of animals
and animal products. To ensure the safe trade of animals and animal products,
without unnecessary restrictions, countries should harmonise their import health
requirements with OIE standards. Governments should refer to the OIE Terrestrial
Animal Health Code, Aquatic Animal Health Code, Manual of Diagnostic Tests
and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, and Manual of Diagnostic Tests for
Aquatic Animals, standards that have been robustly developed to account for
countries’ differences in animal health status. Nevertheless, any determination
of equivalence or requirement to achieve a higher level of protection should be
based on risk analysis.
Even though the use of OIE standards in veterinary certificates has benefits,
there are several challenges that countries may encounter, such as legislative
processes or inter-agency controls slowing down the flexibility of adopting
import standards. Some countries may also encounter difficulties in meeting the
standards due to operational practicalities. Although private standards have not
been significantly involved in regulating animal health, this may present challenges
to the universality and fairness of international standards in the future. Lastly, it is
important to stay up to date with technology, such as electronic certification, that
enhances the certification system for international trade to ensure the authenticity
and efficiency of certification.

Keywords
Import requirements – Veterinary certificates – Veterinary conditions – World Organisation
for Animal Health standards (OIE standards) – World Trade Organization (WTO).

Introduction from an increasing number of supply chains and increasing

In an increasingly globalised world, the animals or animal
products originating in one country are frequently reared,
processed or eaten in another. International trade and
facilitating market access to live animals and animal products
are important mechanisms for the economic growth and
development of countries (1, 2). Exporting countries
benefit by building stronger value chains, reducing poverty
and increasing standards of animal and public health, food
safety and food security, while importing countries benefit
access to a stable supply of safe animals and animal
products, including food.
Apart from the trade in animals and animal products as food,
the movement of companion animals between countries
has become more common in the modern world as people
relocate between countries for personal or work purposes.
In addition, trade in laboratory animals and animal
pathogens is an important activity that supports medical
and veterinary scientific research thus bringing about
numerous benefits to public and animal health (3). Other

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3079
264
important cross-border movement of animals includes the
transport of horses for competitions and zoological species
for conservation programmes.
Regardless of its purpose, trade in live animals and animal
products risks the transmission of animal disease pathogens
between countries. To mitigate the risk of disease incursion,
importing countries set animal and public health import
requirements. These requirements need to be certified by
the Veterinary Authority of the exporting country through
an official document known as an ‘international veterinary
health certificate’.
Under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(SPS Agreement), the WTO recognises the OIE as the
reference organisation responsible for the development of
international animal health standards for safe trade in live
animals and animal products (4). The SPS Agreement calls
for Members to set import requirements based on OIE
standards in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Terrestrial
Code) and Aquatic Animal Health Code (Aquatic Code).
However, if relevant standards are not available or if an
importing country adopts a higher level of protection than
that provided in the Terrestrial Code or Aquatic Code, then
a scientific risk analysis should be performed to determine
the risk a particular commodity poses and the import
requirements that could be applied to reduce this risk to an
acceptable level (5).
The process of establishing import requirements for a
particular commodity usually involves negotiation and
consultation between importing and exporting countries,
and is determined by a risk-analysis process. The outcome
may be a combination of health measures in the OIE
Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes and additional risk-mitigating
measures determined by the importing country (6).
To ensure safe trade in live animals and animal products,
import requirements need to be applied to manage risks to
human and animal health. At the same time, such measures
should not be more restrictive than those required to reduce
the risk to an acceptable level.
Standards of the World
Organisation for Animal Health
used in veterinary certificates
The OIE develops and publishes two types of standards: the
Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes, and the Manual of Diagnostic
Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals (Terrestrial
Manual) and Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
(Aquatic Manual). The process for developing and updating
the standards is robust and science based. Standards can
only be adopted through a transparent process, by consensus
or vote of Members at the annual General Session of the
World Assembly of OIE Delegates (General Session). Prior
to submission of the standards to the General Session for
adoption, the relevant OIE Specialist Commission reviews
draft standards that are prepared by ad hoc Groups or
permanent Working Groups of experts selected from all OIE
regions. Comments on the draft standards are also sought
from Members through their Delegates, the private sector
and non-governmental organisations, and are addressed
during the Specialist Commission meetings and published
in a report (7). The two-year routine cycle for developing
or updating OIE standards ensures adequate opportunities
for scientific inquiry and stakeholder consultation such
that the adopted standards are scientifically sound and
representative of all regions.
The benefits of applying OIE standards in veterinary
certificates can be seen, for example, in the case of Singapore.
Being a city state with minimal agricultural production,
Singapore imports almost 90% of its food, including meat
products (8). Despite the large volume of animal products
imported, by applying OIE standards on import health
requirements, Singapore has remained free of most major
OIE-listed animal diseases, such as foot and mouth disease
(FMD), bovine spongiform encephalopathy and avian
influenza (9). Furthermore, by recognising the concept of
regionalisation for animal diseases, in accordance with OIE
standards, the safe import of animal products from disease-
free areas in countries with outbreaks of animal diseases can
continue, further strengthening Singapore’s food security.
Terrestrial Animal Health Code and Aquatic
Animal Health Code of the World Organisation
for Animal Health
The OIE Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes are OIE trade
standards aimed at ensuring the safe international trade
of animals and animal products. They detail the import
health requirements for the trade of live animals and animal
products used to prevent the transfer of animal or zoonotic
pathogens (6). These import requirements consider an
appropriate level of protection for the importing country,
the nature of the commodity and the animal health status of
the exporting country (10). For example, the import of meat
products from FMD-free countries where vaccination is not
practised requires health certification that the meat comes
from animals free from FMD without vaccination Whereas
the import of meat products from FMD-infected countries
requires that the meat is treated with heat or drying after
salting to inactivate any FMD virus potentially present in
the commodity (11). These measures provide a safe and
balanced approach to safeguarding the health status of the
importing country while maintaining trade access.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for
Terrestrial Animals and Manual of Diagnostic
Tests for Aquatic Animals of the World
Organisation for Animal Health
The OIE Terrestrial and Aquatic Manuals provide
internationally agreed laboratory diagnostic methods for
animal diseases that are fit for international trade health
certification for animals and disease surveillance (12). The
prescribed diagnostic methods are relevant in assessing
the adequacy of disease surveillance systems in the
exporting country, and should also be those used as part
of import health requirements for trade. For example, the
recommendation on the import of dogs, cats and ferrets
from countries infected with rabies requires that the animals
are vaccinated against rabies with a vaccine produced in
accordance with the Terrestrial Manual. Outlined in the
Terrestrial Manual are the characteristics of the vaccine
seed, the method of manufacture and regulatory approval
requirements. Following vaccination, the animals are also
required to be subjected to a rabies antibody titration test
to confirm seroconversion following vaccination. Similarly,
the Terrestrial Manual recommends that only the fluorescent
antibody virus neutralisation test or rapid fluorescent
focus inhibition test are acceptable serological tests for
measuring antibody responses prior to international trade
of animals (13). Hence, the OIE Codes and Manuals should
be referenced when determining the import requirements
of animals and animal products.
Format of veterinary certificates
The format of veterinary certificates should generally
include relevant information on the consignment, including
details of:
– the consignor
– the consignee
– the country of export
– the country of import
– the type and quantity of the commodity
– identification of the consignment
– health certification
– endorsement by the official veterinarian of the exporting
country.
The OIE provides general model veterinary certificates
for international trade in live animals, hatching eggs and
animal products (14). More specific model certificates are
available for commodities such as dogs, cats and ferrets
from countries infected with rabies and laboratory animals,
while it also provides model passports for international
movement of competition horses (3, 15, 16).
265
The specific model certificates take into consideration more
complex health certification, such as the duration, vaccine
product and rabies-antibody test result requirement to
ensure that susceptible companion animals exported from
rabies-infected countries are protected and free from rabies
prior to export.
The model passport for international movement of
competition horses is similar to existing equine passports
used for equestrian and horseracing events and its use
would reduce the duplication of information required in a
veterinary certificate.
The specific model certificate for laboratory animals takes
into account specific pathogen free (SPF) and non-SPF
laboratory animals.
As a safeguard against fraudulent certification, certificates
should be designed to use unique identification numbers
and paper certificates should bear the signature of the
certifying veterinarian and stamp of the Veterinary Authority.
The colour of the ink used for signature and stamp should
be different to that used in the printed certificate, and any
deletions to the text of the certificate should also be signed
and stamped. Certificates should be easily understandable
and written in simple terms, using the language of the
importing country, if required (17).
As countries and businesses advance in terms of digital
transformation, the importance of electronic veterinary
(e-veterinary) certification has become increasingly
important. E-veterinary certification, compared to paper-
based veterinary certification, allows for improved efficiency,
reduced administrative costs and enhanced authenticity of
information (17, 18). In relation to this, in 2018, the OIE
implemented a project funded by the WTO Standards and
Trade Development Facility to develop a framework to
facilitate e-veterinary certification for international trade
(19). The project aimed to harmonise and simplify the
use of e-veterinary certification and guide countries on
establishing e-veterinary certification systems to further
enhance the safe trade of animals and animal products in an
increasingly digitised world.
Determining health measures in
veterinary certificates
Responsibility of importing countries
Due to differences in the animal health situation and animal
health systems of countries, the OIE Terrestrial and Aquatic
Codes offer various animal health measures to ensure the
safe trade of live animals and animal products (10).
266
In general, according to the WTO SPS Agreement,
importing countries should align their requirements with
the recommendations in the relevant OIE standards. If such
recommendations do not exist, or if the country chooses
a higher level of protection that requires more stringent
health measures, or, if the country would like to determine
the equivalence of import requirements, an import risk
analysis should be conducted.
Nevertheless, the import requirements should not include
diseases that cannot be transmitted by non-susceptible
species and commodities, non-OIE listed diseases, and
diseases that are present in the country of import and not
subject to any official control programme. Any exception
should be justified through an import risk analysis.
With regard to live animals or animal products for
consumption, relevant food safety import requirements
would apply in accordance with the standards set by
the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Such import
requirements include maximum residue limits for veterinary
drugs and microbiological guidelines for food derived from
animals, such as meat (20).
Responsibility of exporting countries
To ensure trust in veterinary health certificates, something
that enables the safe trade of live animals and animal
products, certification should be based on strict ethical
standards and professional integrity. The Veterinary Services
of exporting countries should ensure sound fundamental
principles in the areas of ethics, organisation, legislation,
regulation and technical knowledge. Moreover, claims
regarding the health status of countries should be based on
sound epidemiological surveillance (21).
To ensure that the prerequisites of a quality Veterinary
Service are met, the importing country usually consults the
exporting country to collect information on the exporting
country’s animal health situation, the structure of their
Veterinary Services, technical information on the laboratory
tests and on the vaccines used and disease surveillance
systems used (10).
The Veterinary Authority of the exporting country is
accountable for all veterinary certificates issued and should
ensure official procedures, training and monitoring are in
place to ensure that certifying veterinarians are performing
their functions responsibly (10).
Dispute resolution
Even though importing and exporting countries may
exercise best efforts to comply with their obligations as
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Members of the OIE and WTO for the trade of live animals
and animal products, conflicts may occur where import
requirements may be viewed as unjustified. A country
may decide to lodge an informal or formal complaint with
the OIE or WTO, respectively, regarding another country
which it feels is not meeting its obligations.
The OIE offers a voluntary dispute settlement mechanism
to mediate trade conflicts between Members. The Director
General of the OIE recommends that experts serve
as mediators, using a science-based approach to find
alternative solutions to resolve the conflict. Both parties in
the dispute are required to agree to the terms of reference
and scope of the dispute before the OIE initiates the process.
The outcome of the OIE mediation is confidential and
non-binding (5).
The WTO trade dispute settlement is a structured process
that is based on a system of clearly defined rules and focuses
on prompt settlement. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB),
comprising all WTO Members, establishes a panel of experts
to consider the case and monitors the implementation of
rulings and recommendations. The process of consideration
by the panel resembles a court and all panel rulings are
automatically adopted unless the DSB reaches a consensus
to reject a ruling. The DSB may authorise retaliation against
a country that does not comply with a ruling (22).
Challenges on the use of
the standards of the World
Organisation for Animal Health
in veterinary certificates
Firstly, despite the measures put in place by the WTO
and OIE to facilitate safe trade in live animals and animal
products by supporting countries in their efforts to adopt OIE
standards in veterinary certificates, some countries may be
hesitant to engage fully in the process. Reasons for this could
include legal and administrative barriers to making changes
to import requirements. For example, some countries have
import requirements prescribed in their legislation and
making legislative amendments would require political
approval, which could involve lengthy approval procedures.
Other countries may require memoranda of understanding
to establish import requirements and making changes to
such agreements would require legal drafting and even
country visits, which may take even longer to arrange.
Some countries overcome this by defining general powers
to set import requirements in their legislation, thus the
details of the import requirements can be set or amended by
the Competent Authority, allowing for ease and flexibility
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
in amending specific requirements to align with new
international standards and scientific information.
Secondly, the import of live animals or animal products may
be regulated by multiple Competent Authorities. In some
countries, the import of animal products for consumption
falls under the purview of two competent agencies, one
for animal health and one for food safety. Similarly, the
import of aquatic animals or animal products may fall
under the purview of a Competent Authority that is not
under the purview of an OIE Delegate. In such cases, close
coordination is required between Competent Authorities to
address differences in priorities in import standards. This
could be achieved through the establishment of inter-agency
committees, frameworks for inter-agency cooperation or
other similar tools to encourage multi-agency collaboration
and consultation.
Thirdly, the implementation of import requirements in
accordance with OIE standards may cause unexpected
logistical challenges to the exporting country. For example,
to import live birds other than poultry, the OIE Terrestrial
Code recommends that the birds are subjected to a diagnostic
test for avian influenza not more than 14 days prior to
shipment (23). This is most likely to be a straightforward
scenario for a small country with easy access to animal-
holding premises and diagnostic laboratories. In larger
countries, however, the transportation of samples to a
national laboratory could take days, and could be further
exacerbated if the Veterinary Service requires a government
veterinarian to personally collect the samples from the
birds, turning each export into a stressful timeline that
needs to be met. Exporting countries encountering such a
challenge may negotiate for the recognition of equivalence
of sanitary measures with importing countries to achieve
the same level of protection (5).
Fourthly, there has been discussion on private standards, and
the potential benefits of increased market access that they
bring to some producers, and the inadvertent discrimination
and barriers that they bring to others. Even though animal
health has not featured strongly in private standards (24),
countries should remain vigilant. Increased use of such
standards could potentially cause further disruption to the
use of OIE standards in veterinary certificates.
267
Lastly, there are numerous benefits for businesses and
Competent Authorities to the use of electronic certification
in terms of fraud prevention, improved efficiency,
reduced clearance times and reduced administrative
costs. Furthermore, technological advancements in areas
such as blockchain may further enhance the security and
efficiency of electronic certification. However, the rate of
adoption of electronic certification has been moderate,
perhaps due to the lack of awareness or resources (25).
In this regard, more efforts can be made to help countries
to adopt the information technology infrastructure and
processes necessary to implement electronic certification,
and developers to adopt new technologies that will enhance
electronic certification systems.
Conclusions
The use of OIE standards in veterinary certificates ensures
the safe trade of live animals and animal products,
protecting against risks to human and animal health, and
preventing overly restrictive import requirements. The OIE
has developed a robust and flexible process to develop and
update standards, and this should give Members confidence
to apply OIE standards in controlling risks to public and
animal health with regard to the import of live animals and
animal products.
While Members have focused considerable resources on
developing and complying with OIE standards, more
resources should also be dedicated to leveraging technology,
for example, using e-veterinary certification, which will be a
game changer in ensuring authenticity and efficiency in the
safe trade of live animals and animal products in the future.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Drs Chua Tze Hoong and
Chang Siow Foong from the Animal and Veterinary Service,
National Parks Board, Singapore, for their guidance on
writing and detailed review and editing of this paper.
268 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Le recours aux normes de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé

animale dans le cadre de la certification vétérinaire
A. Tan

Résumé
Le commerce international d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale génère
des bénéfices tant économiques que sociaux et scientifiques. Le risque de
transmission de maladies affectant la santé animale et humaine à travers les
mouvements d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale peut être maîtrisé en
imposant des mesures sanitaires à l’importation. L’Organisation mondiale de
la santé animale (OIE) est reconnue par l’Organisation mondiale du commerce
comme l’organisme de référence pour l’élaboration des normes internationales
de santé animale couvrant les échanges internationaux sans risque d’animaux et
de produits d’origine animale. Afin de garantir la sécurité du commerce d’animaux
et de produits d’origine animale sans imposer de restrictions inutiles, les pays
sont encouragés à harmoniser leurs mesures sanitaires à l’importation avec
les normes de l’OIE. Pour ce faire, les gouvernements devraient se référer aux
normes contenues dans le Code sanitaire pour les animaux terrestres, le Code
sanitaire pour les animaux aquatiques, le Manuel des tests de diagnostic et des
vaccins pour les animaux terrestres et le Manuel des tests de diagnostic pour
les animaux aquatiques de l’OIE, qui ont été élaborées de manière à répondre
à la diversité des pays au regard de leur statut sanitaire. Il conviendra toutefois
de recourir à l’analyse du risque pour déterminer l’équivalence entre certaines
mesures ou pour exiger qu’un pays garantisse un niveau plus élevé de protection.
Même si le recours aux normes de l’OIE est bénéfique pour l’établissement
des certificats vétérinaires, les pays continuent à rencontrer des difficultés, en
particulier du fait des procédures législatives ou des contrôles inter-agences qui
ralentissent l’adaptabilité des normes à l’importation. Certains pays ne parviennent
pas à s’aligner sur les normes en raison de contraintes opérationnelles. Bien qu’à ce
jour les normes privées n’aient pas joué de rôle significatif dans la réglementation
de la santé animale, leur participation future risque de compromettre le caractère
universel et équitable des normes internationales. Enfin, il est primordial de se
maintenir à jour au plan technologique en recourant par exemple à la certification
électronique afin d’améliorer le système de certification dans le cadre des
échanges internationaux tout en garantissant l’authenticité des certificats et
l’efficience de la certification.

Mots-clés
Certificats vétérinaires – Exigences en matière d’importation – Mesures de santé animale
– Normes de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (normes de l’OIE) – Organisation
mondiale du commerce (OMC).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 269

Utilización de las normas de la Organización Mundial de Sanidad

Animal en los certificados veterinarios
A. Tan

Resumen
El comercio internacional de animales y productos de origen animal depara
beneficios económicos, sociales y científicos. La imposición de requisitos
sanitarios a las importaciones sirve para controlar el riesgo de que el movimiento de
animales y productos de origen animal sea canal de transmisión de enfermedades
tanto animales como humanas. La Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE)
ha sido reconocida por la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) como el
organismo habilitado para dictar normas zoosanitarias internacionales que rijan
un comercio seguro de animales y productos de origen animal. Para garantizar
que estas transacciones comerciales discurran en condiciones de seguridad sin
que ello se acompañe de restricciones innecesarias es preciso que los países
armonicen los requisitos sanitarios aplicados a las importaciones con las normas
de la OIE. Para hacerlo los gobiernos deben remitirse al Código Sanitario para los
Animales Terrestres, el Código Sanitario para los Animales Acuáticos, el Manual
de las Pruebas de Diagnóstico y de las Vacunas para los Animales Terrestres
y el Manual de Pruebas de Diagnóstico para los Animales Acuáticos de la OIE,
normas todas ellas cuyo robusto proceso de elaboración apunta a tener en
cuenta las heterogéneas realidades zoosanitarias de los países. Ello no obstante,
toda determinación de equivalencia o todo requisito impuesto para gozar de un
mayor nivel de protección deben reposar en un análisis de riesgos.
Pese a las ventajas que entraña el uso de las normas de la OIE en los
certificados veterinarios, los países pueden tropezar con problemas de diversa
índole, por ejemplo, el hecho de que los procesos legislativos o los controles
interinstitucionales resten celeridad y flexibilidad al proceso de implantar
normas de importación. Algunos países también pueden tener dificultades para
cumplir las normas debido a factores prácticos que compliquen su aplicación.
Por otro lado, aunque hasta ahora las normas privadas no han tenido gran peso
en la reglamentación zoosanitaria, quizá en el futuro puedan llegar a erosionar
el carácter universal e imparcial de las normas internacionales. Por último, es
importante ir integrando los avances tecnológicos, con dispositivos como el de la
certificación electrónica, que mejora el sistema de certificación para el comercio
internacional asegurando la autenticidad de los certificados y haciendo más
eficiente el proceso para expedirlos.

Palabras clave
Certificados veterinarios – Condiciones veterinarias – Normas de la Organización Mundial
de Sanidad Animal (Normas de la OIE) – Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) –
Requisitos de importación.
270
References
1. Msellati L., Commault J. & Dehove A. (2012). – Good
veterinary governance: definition, measurement and
challenges. In Good governance and financing of efficient
Veterinary Services (L. Msellati, ed.). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int.
Epiz., 31 (2), 413–430. doi:10.20506/rst.31.2.2130.
2. Martin W. & Debucquet D.L. (2018). – Opinion: open
trade is crucial for food security and development. Devex,
15 May. Available at: www.devex.com/news/opinion-open-
trade-is-crucial-for-food-security-and-development-92709
(accessed on 3 June 2019).
3. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 5.13. Model veterinary certificate for international
trade in laboratory animals. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code,
28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_certify_labo_ani.htm
(accessed on 3 June 2019).
4. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – The WTO
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS Agreement). WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.
htm (accessed on 3 June 2019).
5. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 5.3. OIE procedures relevant to the agreement of
the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures of
the World Trade Organization. In Terrestrial Animal Health
Code, 28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/
index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_procedures_SPS_
agreement.htm (accessed on 3 June 2019).
6.
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2006).
– The OIE international standards. OIE, Paris, France,
13 pp. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.
seam?page=alo&aloId=17062 (accessed on 3 June 2019).
7. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Specialist commissions. OIE, Paris, France. Available at:
www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/overview/introduction-to-
specialist-commissions/ (accessed on 3 June 2019).
8. Tortajada C. & Kumar T. (2015). – Singapore’s impressive
food security. The Diplomat, 6 September. Available at: https://
thediplomat.com/2015/09/singapores-impressive-food-
security/ (accessed on 3 June 2019).
9. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Official disease status. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.
oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/official-disease-status/
(accessed on 3 June 2019).
10. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 5.1. General obligations related to certification.
In Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 28th Ed. OIE,
Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_certification_general.
htm (accessed on 3 June 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
11. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 8.8. Infection with foot and mouth disease
virus. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 28th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm (accessed on
3 June 2019).
12. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Manual
of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals. OIE,
Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/
terrestrial-manual/access-online/ (accessed on 3 June 2019).
13. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). –
Chapter 3.1.17. Rabies (infection with rabies virus
and other lyssaviruses). In Manual of Diagnostic
Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, 8th Ed.
OIE, Paris, France, 35 pp. Available at: www.oie.int/
fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/3.01.17_
RABIES.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2019).
14. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 5.10. Model veterinary certificate for international
trade in live animals, hatching eggs and products of
animal origin. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 28th
Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_certif_live_animals.htm
(accessed on 3 June 2019).
15. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 5.11. Model veterinary certificate for international
movement of dogs, cats and ferrets originating from countries
considered infected with rabies. In Terrestrial Animal Health
Code, 28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/
index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_certif_rabies.htm
(accessed on 3 June 2019).
16. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 5.12. Model passport for international movement
of competition horses. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code,
28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_certif_compet_horses.
htm (accessed on 3 June 2019).
17. Cooper B.S. & Loopuyt P. (2020). – eCertification (eCert). In
Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products (C. Wolff
& A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1), 283–
288. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3081.
18. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – Chapter
5.2. Certification procedures. In Terrestrial Animal Health
Code, 28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.
int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_certification_
procedures.htm (accessed on 3 June 2019).
19. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). –
Development of a framework to facilitate e-veterinary
certification for international trade on the basis of a single
window system (Project STDF/PG/609). OIE News, July–
August. Available at: www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/
About_us/OIEnews/NL-AUG-2018-STDF-eVet-Cert-Project-
MS.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2019).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
20. Codex Alimentarius Commission (2018). – Maximum residue
limits (MRLs) and risk management recommendations (RMRs)
for residues of veterinary drugs in foods – CX/MRL 2-2018. FAO,
Rome, Italy, and WHO, Geneva, Switzerland, 46 pp. Available at:
www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=
1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%25
Fsites252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXM%2B2%
252FMRL2e.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2019).
21. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 3.1. Veterinary Services. In Terrestrial Animal Health
Code, 28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.
int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_vet_serv.htm
(accessed on 3 June 2019).
22.
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2019). – Dispute
settlement. Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/
dispu_e/dispu_e.htm (accessed on 3 June 2019).
271
23. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Chapter 10.4. Infection with avian influenza viruses. In Terrestrial
Animal Health Code, 28th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available
at: www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_
avian_influenza_viruses.htm (accessed on 3 June 2019).
24. Wolff C. (2008). – Private standards and the WTO committee
on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Presented at
76th General Session of the World Assembly of OIE
Delegates, 25–30 May, 2008, Paris, France. World Organisation
for Animal Health (OIE), Paris, France, 7 pp. Available at:
www.oie.int/doc/ged/D6061.PDF (accessed on 3 June 2019).
25. Stokes P. (2017). – Background paper: electronic sanitary and
phytosanitary (SPS) certificates in the context of paperless
trade. Standards and Trade Development Facility, Geneva,
Switzerland, 27 pp. Available at: www.standardsfacility.org/
sites/default/files/SPS_Ecert_Backgroundpaper.pdf (accessed
on 3 June 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 273-281

Trust in trade: a global perspective on health

certification
D. Grace (1,2)

(1) Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB,
United Kingdom
(2) International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 30709, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
E-mail: d.randolph@cgiar.org

Summary
Trade in livestock and livestock products can bring about great benefits, but
also substantial risk to animal and human health with high economic, social and
environmental impacts. Livestock products are also especially vulnerable to food
fraud. In order to mitigate risk and prevent fraud, most animal trade requires
health certification by a competent authority, backed by systems and processes
that create trust and confidence in importers. Among Veterinary Services which
have undergone a structured assessment of performance, most find the need to
improve their authority and/or capability for health certificates and for transparent
disease reporting. Health certification is trusted when it is legal, carried out by an
adequately performing authority, implemented by competent persons, supported
by technical evidence, and validated by third parties and when the process is
transparent, predictable and free from conflict of interest. The large and growing
trade in animals and their products is a testimony to the effectiveness of the
current process and the trust of importers. Nonetheless, there is considerable
scope for further improvement especially by improving the legal framework,
building capacity of Veterinary Services, increasing trust in signing authorities,
validating the certification process, and making the process of certification more
efficient and predictable.

Keywords
International trade – Livestock – Livestock products – Sanitary and phytosanitary –
Veterinary health certification.

Introduction This article focuses on trust in the health certification

Many countries wish to trade in animals and animal source
foods or in products that are closely related to animals, such
as feed or animal bedding. (Hereafter, these are referred to as
‘animal trade items’ and trade in these products is referred
to as ‘animal trade’.) Animal trade brings great benefits, but
also substantial risks. Among the most serious of these risks
are those related to animal and human health. In order to
mitigate risk, most animal trade requires certification by a
competent authority (CA), backed by systems and processes
that deliver trust and confidence to the importing country.
International veterinary health certificates (hereafter,
health certificates) are official documents drawn up by the
exporting country to meet the requirements of the importing
country and have a central role in furthering safe animal
trade. Additional or different rules may apply to animal items
imported for research, medical or museum purposes. These
imports would not necessarily be considered ‘trade’, since
they would not necessarily involve commercial transactions.
process for animal trade. It briefly describes the role
of health certification and then discusses the types of
problems health certification is intended to avoid, including
introduction and spread of animal diseases and different
types of animal trade fraud. Next, the article sets out the
elements of credible and trustworthy health certification
and makes recommendations as to how each element can
be further strengthened.
Role of health certificates
in international trade
Countries undertake measures, referred to as sanitary and
phytosanitary (SPS) measures, to manage the entry of animal
trade items to ensure that food is safe for consumers and to
prevent the spread of pests or diseases in animals and plants.
Examples of SPS measures include the following: specific

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3080
274
product or processing standards, requirements for products
to be produced in disease-free areas, quarantine and
inspection procedures, sampling and testing requirements,
setting residue limits for pesticides and drugs in foods, and
prohibitions on certain food additives.
The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) entered into force
with the establishment of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) on 1 January 1995. The SPS Agreement restricts
WTO members from the use of unjustified SPS measures
but allows legitimate measures to reduce risks from
importation. The World Organisation for Animal Health
(OIE) is recognised by the SPS Agreement as the reference
point for standards related to animal health. The OIE
Terrestrial Animal Health Code and Aquatic Animal Health Code
set out legitimate SPS measures which can then be verified
in animal health certificates, facilitating agricultural trade.
The OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial
Animals and Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals
also outline testing methods, which are used to standardise
the tests used for health certification. In addition, the
OIE Tool for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary
Services (OIE PVS Tool) can assure trading partners of the
quality of Veterinary Services that are responsible for health
certification.
The importing country bears the risk, and so sets out
the requirements for import relevant to disease risk (in
compliance with the SPS Agreement). Most countries require
the animal trade item to be accompanied by an official health
certificate from the CA. The designated CA depends on the
country and the animal trade item. For example, in the
United States of America (USA), export health certificates
for live animals are issued by the United States Department
of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
and export health certificates for fish and seafood are issued
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
of the United States Department of Commerce. Health
certificates may attest to different aspects of production,
treatments, processing or procedures, and usually require
the item to have been examined and found to be acceptable.
Model certificates are provided by the OIE.
In addition, importing countries often require that
exports should take place from ‘officially approved’
establishments or facilities, or that the exporting country
must be on a list of countries authorised to export the
category of products concerned. As well as a health
certificate issued by the CA, there are likely to be additional
sets of requirements for exporters. These may include
requirements for traceability, wholesomeness, animal
welfare, and transport. Importing country requirements
may change according to need, for example, if there is an
outbreak of disease.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Veterinary certification as a tool to reduce health
risk and fraud in international animal trade
Before the widespread use of SPS controls, there were few
barriers to the spread of animal and foodborne disease. The
result was many well-documented plagues of devastating
impact (1). For example:
– sheep murrain (probably sheep pox or mange) is reported
to have killed sheep on every farm in England in the
13th century;
– cattle plague (rinderpest) entered Europe with the Hun
invasions of the 6th century and followed every major war
until the last century. It devastated African livestock and
wildlife in the last century leading to famine, human deaths,
and permanent loss of livelihood;
– lung plague (contagious bovine pleuropneumonia)
spread around the world during the globalisation of the
steam age, with disastrous effects. The USA was infected
twice in the 19th century, and the post of Secretary of State
for Agriculture was created specifically for the control of
this disease.
Health certification, along with other types of certification
and audit, is also an important mechanism to prevent
illegal and fraudulent trade. Traded animals and animal
products are liable to many types of fraud conducted by
unscrupulous people for economic gain (Table I). Food
fraud, when inferior products are substituted for superior
ones without informing consumers, affects consumer
livelihoods, their trust in producers and retailers, and
their psychological well-being if they consume food which
they consider unacceptable (e.g. pork in several cultures
and religions) or unethical (e.g. endangered species).
Moreover, food fraud can negatively impact health and
nutrition security by directly reducing availability of food,
and indirectly by damaging the agri-food sector economy
and hence access to food. In some (but not all) cases the
fraudulent food may contain hazards to health. Globally,
food fraud costs tens of billions of dollars a year (2). Milk,
fish and meat are among the products most vulnerable to
food fraud (3). Veterinary Services are often responsible for
meat inspection, and sometimes responsible for inspection
of food and food establishments. As such, they should
be aware of the different types of food fraud so they can
contribute to detection and response activities.
Certification processes
of OIE Members
The OIE PVS Tool sets out a series of critical competencies in
four main areas including ‘access to international markets’.
This provides information on the Performance of Veterinary
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 275

Table I
Practices related to animal trade item fraud (adapted from [4])

Term Definition

Adulteration The product or a component of the finished product is fraudulent; a substance or an impurity is present in food. For example, when cheaper
horse meat is added to bovine meat

Artificial Enhances a product’s attributes by use of an unapproved additive, for example, addition of melamine to enhance nitrogen content of milk
enhancement

Concealment Hiding the low quality of ingredients, for example, when flour is added to milk that has been adulterated with water to make milk thicker

Counterfeiting Mimicking aspects of a food, including contents and label, for example, selling non-descript ham as Parma Ham

Diversion The sale or distribution of legitimate products outside of intended markets, for example, when human drugs are used to treat animals

Dilution Addition of a cheaper ingredient to increase the overall weight or volume of a product, for example, adding powdered milk and water to milk

Document fraud Making, use and possession of false documents with the intent to sell, market or otherwise vouch for a fraudulent or substandard product

Over-run Legitimate product is made in excess of production agreements

Removal Intentional omission of an authentic or valuable ingredient, for example, not including eggs in a product sold as egg custard

Simulation Illegitimate product is designed to look like but not exactly copy the legitimate product. Some argue that liquid products made with cereals,
legumes or nuts should not be sold under the name ‘milk’

Substitution Replacing an authentic product or component with an inferior one, for example, using liquid eggs instead of whole eggs

Tampering Legitimate product and packaging are used in a fraudulent way, for example the sell-by date is altered

Theft Legitimate product is stolen and passed off as legitimately procured

Trans-shipment Goods are moved through an intermediary country before being shipped to their final destination, thereby masking their true origin

Unlawful Slaughtering or preparing meat and related products in unapproved premises or using unauthorised techniques
processing

Waste diversion Unlawfully diverting food, drink or feed meant for disposal, back into the supply chain, for example, when food waste from ships or planes
are fed to animals

Services (PVS) in international certification, as well as the
transparency that increases trust in certification. Considering
countries with a rating of 1 or 2 to be inadequate, a rating of
3 to be adequate, and ratings equal to 4 or 5 as satisfactory,
the majority of OIE Members for which PVS evaluation
reports are available need to improve their international
certification processes (Table II). This may underestimate
the problem, as there may be a tendency for Members with
higher capacity to participate in PVS evaluations.
Most major importers have systems for capturing
information on import rejections. All European Union
Member States plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland are
required to make a notification through the Rapid Alert
System for Food and Feed in the case of border rejections
(https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/rasff_en). This provides
information on both the commodity and cause of rejection.
An analysis of rejections between mid-2014 and mid-2019
suggests that rejections due to poor management procedures
(such as missing labels or inadequate documentation) are
a minority, comprising only 14% of rejections, whereas
86% were due to the presence of hazards. Only 14% of
fish rejections and 3% of livestock rejections were due to
poor or inadequate process control (that is, were not related
to the presence of hazards). This suggests that the export
processes are generally well managed, but it is more difficult
to control hazards.
276
Table II
World Organisation for Animal Health Members’ ratings relevant
to certification for access to international markets
Inadequate Adequate Satisfactory
International 48 28 19
certification (a)
Transparency (b) 40 36 19
a) International certification: the authority and capability of the Veterinary Services to
certify animals, animal products, services and processes under their mandate, in accordance
with the national legislation and regulations, and international standards.
b) Transparency: the authority and capability of the Veterinary Services to notify the World
Organisation for Animal Health of its sanitary status and other relevant matters (and to notify
the World Trade Organization Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures where
applicable), in accordance with established procedures.
Building trust in health
certification
Trust is usually defined as a positive expectation that the other
party will act honestly and benevolently, reducing fear that
one may be exploited (5). Health certification is considered
trustworthy when it is legal, carried out by an adequately
performing authority, implemented by competent persons,
supported by technical evidence and validated by third
parties, and when the process is transparent, predictable
and free from conflict of interest. In this section, these
elements are covered in depth and recommendations are
made for building trust in each domain.
However, more fundamentally, credibility of certificates
is influenced by general patterns of trust both within and
between societies. Based on the World Values Survey (6),
trust is highest in the Netherlands and Scandinavia,
intermediate in the USA, Central Europe, and Southern
Europe, and lowest in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Literature suggests that trust is greater between countries
when there are similarities in languages, religions, physical
appearance, and incomes of their inhabitants, and if they
are geographically close and with an extensive history of
peace (7). For example, one study found that a shared
religion was associated with an increase of 22% in trade (8).
While there is convergence to global norms, cultural
values seem relatively stable over time, although tending
to become more individualistic, less hierarchical, and more
indulgent (9). As for most social traits, trust has a low to
moderate hereditability (10) and thus has biological, as well
as social, roots.
It is often considered that trust emerges from the complex
interplay of bio-eco-social factors and cannot be created
by decree from the apex of a society (11). However,
trust levels are not static and can change in response to
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
societal trends. Currently, the People’s Republic of China is
undertaking an interesting initiative to build societal trust
and trustworthiness by establishing a ‘Social Credit System’
which applies both to enterprises and individuals. Under
this system, promise-keeping behaviour is rewarded, and
trust-breaking behaviour punished.
Legal framework for health certification
The operation of health certification needs to be supported
by legislation in both importing and exporting countries.
The legal framework establishes the CA and mandates it to
carry out the tasks required. These may include requiring
documentation, inspecting premises, conducting sampling,
charging fees for inspection, appointing accredited
laboratories, and confiscating animal trade items.
In most countries, a legal framework exists under which
formal trade can occur. However, the difficulties cited in
conducting animal trade and the substantial volume of
informal trade (see Grace and Little, this issue [12]) suggest
areas for improvement. An OIE Technical Item Questionnaire
on national implementation of OIE standards reported
that forty-two Members (29% of those who responded)
considered the legal framework to present challenges to
participation in legal trade, including regulatory processes
that were complex or lengthy (13).
There are several options for improving legal frameworks.
The United Nations Industrial Development Organization
undertakes evaluations at the request of countries, to
identify challenges at the level of government policy and
the regulatory framework. Development projects have
supported several countries to revise or introduce laws and
regulations to ensure they reflect international obligations
and national priorities, assign responsibilities and authority
appropriately, and provide enforcement powers (14). The
European Union also supports the participation of African
nations in SPS organisations. Regional harmonisation can
also support updating of legal frameworks as part of the
process for promoting intra-regional trade. The Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has a service
that provides legal advice, including model legislation. The
OIE also has developed a methodology for evaluating and
improving veterinary legislative frameworks. The Standards
and Trade Development Facility (STDF) is a co-ordinating
and financing mechanism housed within WTO which
provides a wide range of SPS support.
Adequately performing authorities
Credible animal trade item certification requires a national
Veterinary Service that is able to perform adequately. This
includes being able to assess the disease situation and the
health status and safety of traded items, as well as the
adequacy of their production. This creates ‘competence
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
trust’, helping assure importers that they will not face
undue risk or cost. Basic information on human resources
of Veterinary Services is available from the OIE World
Animal Health Information System. The OIE PVS Tool sets
out a series of critical competencies in four main areas:
a) human, physical and financial resources
b) technical authority and capability
c) interaction with stakeholders
d) market access.
Each critical competency has levels of advancement and
a sophisticated process has been developed to evaluate
capacity with the support of accredited experts. An
important part of Veterinary Service performance is the
ability to run or support veterinary diagnostic laboratories
(VDL) which can provide necessary testing for animals to
be exported. VDL also support disease surveillance which
allows Veterinary Services to monitor which diseases are
absent or present, and report disease status to the OIE.
The process associated with the OIE PVS Tool also acts as
a diagnostic, identifying areas of weakness and offering a
pathway for Veterinary Services to continuously improve
competence and performance. Repeated PVS Pathway
missions can show improvement. However, improving
performance of Veterinary Services requires investments,
especially in low and middle-income countries (LMICs)
where there is often considerable under-investment. Some
specific initiatives exist which aim to build capacities of
LMICs to implement SPS standards. The STDF has also
developed various tools to assess SPS capacity and to
identify SPS priorities in given value chains. For example,
following a ban on fisheries exports from Uganda to the
European Union, the STDF supported the CA of Uganda
and a private laboratory (Chemistar) to improve testing
and diagnosis of fisheries products to regain and maintain
access to the European market (15).
Other organisations support building Veterinary Service
capacity more broadly, such as the African Union’s Inter-
African Bureau of Animal Resources. Over the last half-
century, many donor projects have also delivered capacity
building for Veterinary Services, some with a focus on SPS
and trade. Capacity-building projects may be general or
targeted to a specific export value chain (for example, export
of chilled beef from Ethiopia). A recent study identified
286 donor-funded projects focused on trade or overseas/
regional market access in sub-Saharan Africa between
2010 and 2017 (16). The European Commission, the
United States Agency for International Development, and
the World Bank were the most active public funders.
Many other organisations have mandates or initiatives
to support trade from LMICs including trade in animal
products. The WTO’s central mandate with respect to the
277
SPS Agreement is to enable safe trade. Its training and
technical assistance mainly focus on governments’
understanding of their rights and obligations under the
SPS Agreement, and on their ability to participate in the
SPS Committee. Other organisations or initiatives have a
broader mandate, which encompasses trade. These include:
the African Union, CGIAR, the Forum for Agricultural
Research in Africa, and the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development.
Credibility of signee
Health certificates for animal trade items are usually signed
by veterinarians, often directly employed by the CA. As
such, the safeguard offered by professional ethics is another
trust-building mechanism. In most countries, veterinarians
are members of a regulated profession. This means that the
national veterinary statutory body acts as the guarantor of the
technical, scientific and ethical competence of its members,
establishing a code of professional conduct to which
members are bound (17). A Code of Professional Conduct
is a mechanism for building public trust in the profession
and in some cases, they may give detailed guidance on
certification. For example, the Code of Professional Conduct
of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (in the United
Kingdom) sets out ten principles of certification that relate
to, for example, what can be certified, avoiding conflict of
interest, and the need to date certificates (18). As well as
legal implications, improper certification may constitute
professional misconduct and attract penalties, an additional
deterrent to dishonest certification.
The veterinary profession is in general seen as credible and
ensuring public confidence in the veterinary profession is a
stated objective of many professional associations. However,
in regions or countries where societal trust is generally low,
certificates may be more credible if the ability to sign health
certificates is limited to veterinarians in specific roles.
An OIE Member survey found that in most OIE regions,
veterinary health certificates could only be signed by a few
designated officials working for the government (Table III).
There was considerable variation by region, but only in
Europe was it common for all official veterinarians to be
entitled to sign health certificates. In only 13 countries were
non-veterinarians entitled to sign health certificates (mainly
fisheries experts, other designated officials or authorities).
Validation
Both countries that certify exports of food and those
importing countries which rely on export certificates
should take measures to assure the validity of certification.
Validation measures by exporting countries may include
achieving confidence that official or officially-recognised
inspection systems have verified that the product or process
referred to in the certificate conforms with requirements.
278 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Table III
People entitled to sign health certificates (percentage of countries indicating people entitled)

Total %
Person(s) with signature authority Africa Americas AAP Europe ME
for all regions (a)

Only the Chief Veterinary Officer 19 18 19 11 40 18

A few specifically designated official veterinarians employed by the

69 77 68 50 70 64
Veterinary Authority

A few specifically designated officials employed by the AAHS 36 18 13 13 40 21

All official veterinarians employed by the Veterinary Authority 19 18 13 39 0 23

All officials employed by AAHS 0 0 0 0 0 0

Private veterinarians officially approved or accredited by the Veterinary 8 9 0 11 0 7

Authority or AAHS

Other (please specify) 6 14 32 13 20 16

AAHS: Aquatic Animal Health Services

AAP: Asia and the Pacific
ME: Middle East
a) Members could check more than one category so percentages are greater than 100.

Validation mechanisms by importing countries may include
point of entry inspection systems, audit of exporting
inspection systems, visits to inspect facilities, and ensuring
that certificates themselves are authentic and accurate. In
2018, most Members had received either a few (29%) or many
(48%) bilateral audit visits from importing countries (13).
Validation can help build ‘goodwill trust’, that is, trust
in trading partners’ care and benevolence, which can
foster further investment in the trading relationship and
commitment to mutually acceptable outcomes.
Process of certification
‘Predictability trust’ emphasises the trust in the consistency
of trading partners’ behaviours to provide sufficient
knowledge for other trading partners to make predictions
and judgements from past experiences. Consistent, efficient,
transparent processes for health certification would be
expected to promote international trade. Notification
of changes in such processes and publication of all such
procedures, which is required by the WTO SPS and Trade
Facilitation Agreements, can contribute to enhancing
predictability.
Making clear protocols available through information
communication technology such as electronic forms and
networked databases has the potential to both reduce
transaction costs and increase the transparency and honesty
of certification processes. However, while around a fifth of
OIE Members (22%) accept the use of electronic certificates
when importing animal trade items, it is important to note
that for nearly half (48%), the process is still based on paper
certificates (Table IV) (S. Kahn, unpublished data).
The use of standard templates would also promote
transparency and simplicity. In 2017, more than half of
OIE Members (54%) reported using international
standards or protocols for data exchange in
their veterinary health certificates for imports
(S. Kahn, unpublished data). Moreover, 42% of
OIE Members reported that they systematically used
the OIE model health certificate, with greatest use by
countries in the OIE Middle East region (Table V).
Conclusions
Veterinary health certification is a key instrument for
reducing health risk and fraud in international trade of
animals and their products. It is widely used among OIE
Members, although many see the need to improve their
authority and capacity for health certification. The large and
growing trade in animals and their products is a testimony
to the effectiveness of the process and the trust of importers.
Nonetheless, there is considerable scope to further build
trust in health certificates, especially by improving the
legal framework, building capacity of Veterinary Services,
increasing trust in signing authorities, validating the
certification process, and making the process of certification
more efficient and predictable.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 279

Table IV
Process for importing commodities as reported by World Organisation for Animal Health Members (in percentage (a))

Electronic transmission Electronic transmission

Region Entirely electronic Paper certificate
of file and paper copies

Africa 3 6 25 67

Americas 0 5 27 68

Asia and the Pacific 6 13 26 55

Europe 61 4 15 20

Middle East 10 0 50 40

Total % for all regions 22 6 24 48

a) Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.

Table V
Use of World Organisation for Animal Health model health
Acknowledgements
certificates as reported by Members (in percentage (a)) The author would like to acknowledge support to the
writing of this paper from the CGIAR Research Program on
Region Systematically Sometimes Never Agriculture for Nutrition and Health led by International
Food Policy Research Institute and the CGIAR Research
Africa 69 22 8
Program on Livestock led by the International Livestock
Americas 23 41 36 Research Institute. This paper includes additional analysis of
Asia and the
a Technical Item Questionnaire developed with permission
42 42 16 of the OIE and the author (13). The author also wishes to
Pacific
thank Emily Kalonzi for research support.
Europe 24 7 70

Middle East 70 30 0

Total % for
42 25 33
all regions

a) Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.

La confiance dans le commerce international : une perspective

mondiale sur la certification sanitaire
D. Grace

Résumé
Si les échanges internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale peuvent
être très bénéfiques, ils représentent aussi un risque non négligeable pour la
santé animale et publique, dont l’impact économique, social et environnemental
est parfois conséquent. Il y a également un risque élevé de fraude alimentaire
associé aux produits issus de l’élevage. Afin d’atténuer ces risques et de prévenir
les fraudes, les échanges internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine
animale sont généralement soumis à une certification sanitaire délivrée par
l’autorité compétente et soutenue par des systèmes et des processus destinés
à créer la confiance chez les importateurs. La plupart des Services vétérinaires
qui ont entrepris une évaluation structurée de leurs performances ont pu
constater la nécessité d’améliorer leur autorité et/ou leurs capacités en matière
de certification sanitaire et de notification transparente des maladies. Plusieurs
facteurs conditionnent la confiance dans la certification sanitaire : que celle-ci
280 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

soit encadrée par la loi ; qu’elle soit effectuée par une autorité reconnue ; que les
personnes chargées de sa mise en œuvre soient qualifiées ; qu’elle soit soutenue
par des données techniques probantes ; qu’elle soit validée par des tiers
indépendants. En outre, l’ensemble du processus doit être transparent, prévisible
et exempt de conflits d’intérêts. L’importance et la croissance du commerce
international d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale témoignent de l’efficacité
actuelle du processus et de la confiance des importateurs. Néanmoins, il subsiste
encore une marge notable d’amélioration, qui concerne le cadre juridique, le
renforcement des capacités des Services vétérinaires, la confiance dans les
instances décisionnaires, la validation du processus de certification et l’efficience
et prévisibilité du processus lui-même.

Mots-clés
Animaux d’élevage – Certification vétérinaire – Commerce international – Mesures
sanitaires et phytosanitaires – Produits d’origine animale.

Confianza y transacciones comerciales: visión mundial

de la certificación sanitaria
D. Grace

Resumen
El comercio de ganado y productos ganaderos puede traer consigo grandes
beneficios, pero también un importante riesgo sanitario y zoosanitario, con posibles
y profundas repercusiones económicas, sociales y ambientales. Los productos
ganaderos también son especialmente vulnerables al fraude alimentario. Con
objeto de mitigar el riesgo y de prevenir posibles fraudes, la mayor parte de los
intercambios comerciales con animales se acompañan de la exigencia de un
certificado sanitario expedido por una autoridad competente y respaldado por
sistemas y procesos que inspiren confianza a los importadores. La mayoría de los
Servicios Veterinarios que han pasado por un proceso de evaluación estructurada
de su eficacia llegaron a la conclusión de que debían dotarse de mayor autoridad
y/o capacidad para expedir certificados sanitarios y notificar enfermedades
con transparencia. Para que un proceso de certificación sanitaria sea digno de
confianza debe ajustarse a derecho, estar en manos de una autoridad que trabaje
con la debida eficacia y a cargo de personal competente, venir avalado por datos
técnicos y validado por terceras partes, ser transparente y previsible y estar
exento de conflictos de intereses. El enorme y creciente volumen del comercio
de animales y productos de origen animal da testimonio de la eficacia del actual
proceso y de la confianza que merece a los importadores. Sin embargo, aún
hay mucho margen para progresar, sobre todo perfeccionando el ordenamiento
jurídico, potenciando la capacidad de los Servicios Veterinarios, mejorando el
nivel de confianza que inspiran las autoridades signatarias, validando el proceso
de certificación y logrando que este sea más eficiente y previsible.

Palabras clave
Certificación sanitaria veterinaria – Comercio internacional – Ganado – Medidas sanitarias
y fitosanitarias – Productos ganaderos.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
References
1. Grace D. & McDermott J. (2012). – Livestock epidemic.
Chapter 31. In Handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction,
1st Ed (B. Wisner, J.C. Gaillard & I. Kelman, eds). Routledge,
Abingdon, United Kingdom. doi:10.4324/9780203844236.
2. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) & Safe Supply of Affordable
Food Everywhere (SSAFE) (2015). – Food fraud vulnerability
assessment: think like a criminal to fight food fraud. PwC,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands; & SSAFE, Washington DC,
United States of America, 8 pp. Available at: http://www.
pwc.nl/nl/assets/documents/pwc-food-fraud-vulnerability-
assessment.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2020).
3. Grace D. (2019). – Food fraud. In Encyclopedia of food
security and sustainability, Vol. 1: general and global situation
(P. Ferranti, E.M. Berry, J.R. Anderson, eds). Elsevier,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 238–248. doi:10.1016/B978-0-
08-100596-5.21577-1.
4. Tsimidou M.Z., Ordoudi S.A., Nenadis N. & Mourtzinos I.
(2016). – Food fraud. In Encyclopedia of food and health
(B. Caballero, P.M. Finglas & F. Toldrá, eds). Elsevier,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 35–42. doi:10.1016/B978-0-
12-384947-2.00010-6.
5. De Cremer D. (2015). – Understanding trust, in China and
the West. Harv. Bus. Rev., 11 February. Available at: https://
hbr.org/2015/02/understanding-trust-in-china-and-the-west
(accessed on 17 January 2020).
6. Ortiz-Ospina E. & Roser M. (2020). – Trust. Our World
in Data. Oxford, United Kingdom. Available at: https://
ourworldindata.org/trust (accessed on 17 January 2020).
7. Guiso L., Sapienza P. & Zingales L. (2006). – Does culture
affect economic outcomes? J. Econ. Perspect., 20 (2), 23–48.
doi:10.1257/jep.20.2.23.
8. Linders G.-J.M., Slangen A., de Groot H.L.F. & Beugelsdijk
S. (2005). – Cultural and institutional determinants of
bilateral trade flows. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper
No. 05-074/3. Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands. doi:10.2139/ssrn.775504.
9. Beugelsdijk S., Kostova T. & Roth K. (2017). – An overview
of Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in
international business since 2006. J. Int. Bus. Stud., 48 (1),
30–47. doi:10.1057/s41267-016-0038-8.
10. Wootton R.E., Davis O.S.P., Mottershaw A.L., Wang R.A.H. &
Haworth C.M.A. (2016). – Exploring the genetic etiology of
trust in adolescents: combined twin and DNA analyses. Twin
Res. Hum. Genet., 19 (6), 638–646. doi:10.1017/thg.2016.84.
11. Truell J. (2006). – China’s social capital deficit. Global China
Center, Charlottesville, United States of America. Available at:
www.globalchinacenter.org/analysis/2006/04/01/chinas-social-
capital-deficit?rq=Social%20Capital%20Deficit (accessed on
17 January 2020).
281
12. Grace D. & Little P. (2020). Informal trade in livestock
and livestock products. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and
animal products (C. Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech.
Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 183–192. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3071.
13. Kahn S., Bucher K. & Tellechea D. (2018). – Implementation
of OIE standards by OIE Member Countries: state of play and
specific capacity building needs – Descriptive analysis of the
questionnaire. Technical Item for the 86th General Session
of the World Assembly of World Organisation for Animal
Health (OIE) Delegates, Paris, 20–25 May 2018. OIE, Paris,
France, 29 pp. Available at: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/
Home/eng/Publications_%26_Documentation/docs/pdf/
TT/2018_A_86SG_9B.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2020).
14.
Day R., Tambi E. & Odularu G.O.A. (2012). – An
analysis of compliance with selected sanitary and
phytosanitary measures in Eastern and Southern Africa.
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, Accra, Ghana,
68 pp. Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/
Gbadebo_Odularu2/publication/301323733_An_
Analysis_of_Compliance_with_Selected_Sanitary_and_
Phytosanitary_Measures_in_Eastern_and_Southern_Africa/
links/5712808608ae4ef745261710/An-Analysis-of-
Compliance-with-Selected-Sanitary-and-Phytosanitary-
Measures-in-Eastern-and-Southern-Africa.pdf (accessed on
17 January 2020).
15. Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) & Inter-
American Development Bank (IADB) (2012). – Public–private
partnerships to enhance SPS capacity: what can we learn from
this collaborative approach? STDF, Geneva, Switzerland; &
IADB, Washington DC, United States of America.
Available at: http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/
files/STDF_PublicPrivatePartnerships_EN_1.pdf (accessed on
17 January 2020).
16. Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP) (2019). – Food
safety in Africa: past endeavors and future directions.
GFSP, Washington DC, United States of America, 84 pp.
Available at: http://www.gfsp.org/sites/gfsp/files/public/
GFSP%20Report_Food%20Safety%20in%20Africa-web.pdf
(accessed on 17 January 2020).
17. Magalhães-Sant’Ana M., More S.J., Morton D.B., Osborne M.
& Hanlon A. (2015). – What do European veterinary codes
of conduct actually say and mean? A case study approach.
Vet. Rec., 176 (25), 654. doi:10.1136/vr.103005.
18.
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) (2019).
– 21. Certification. Available at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/
setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-
conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/supporting-guidance/
certification/ (accessed on 17 January 2020).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 283-288

eCertification (eCert)
B.S. Cooper (1)* & P. Loopuyt (2)
(1) Compliance Controls Branch, Compliance Division, Australian Government Department of Agriculture,
Water and the Environment, 18 Marcus Clarke St, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
(2) SANTE/G5 (Alerts, Traceability and Committees), Directorate General for Health and Food Safety, European
Commission, Rue Breydel 4, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
*Corresponding author: barbara.cooper@awe.gov.au

Summary
Veterinary certificates have been an integral component of animal and animal
product trade for many years. These certificates are agreed to by trading partners
during bilateral or multilateral negotiations on the trade of animals and animal
products, and provide assurance that goods are free from specific diseases.
Many countries seek to implement or adopt a more streamlined and secure
method of information exchange, with some implementing the electronic
exchange of certificates for cross-border trade. Such an exchange of data has
many advantages over its paper counterpart, including a streamlined business
process, better accessibility to information (particularly in advance of shipment
arrival) and the reduction of fraudulent certificates.
Although there are some challenges related to this initiative and important
considerations to be taken into account for its implementation, many countries
are becoming aware of its efficiencies, leading to more productive and mutually
beneficial trading-partner relationships.

Keywords
electronic certification (eCert) – Trade – Veterinary certificate.

Introduction authority for agricultural commodities, including animals

and animal products.

Veterinary certificates have been an integral part of the trade

of animals and animal products for decades. Most countries
use veterinary certificates to ensure that the animal product
is free from certain diseases and meets the requirements set
by the importing country authority. Certificates are agreed
upon by trading partners as part of bilateral or multilateral
negotiations on the export and import of animals and
animal products.
Electronic certification (eCert) in agricultural trade, is the
exchange of certificate information between government
organisations. This information can be downloaded onto a
specific platform designed for viewing veterinary certificates
or viewed on a website. The United Nations Centre for
Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT)
eCert standard for traded agricultural commodities is
the agreed data standard used by most countries to
support the electronic exchange of certificate information.
The UN/CEFACT eCert standard defines the structure
of the message contained in the certificate and the
information to be included in it. This message is sent from
the exporting country authority to the importing country
eCertification and its benefits
Moving to electronic certification and replacing the paper-
based exchange of veterinary certificates results in many
benefits for trade, which are summarised in Table I.
One of these benefits is the relatively short timeframe for
eCert processes in comparison to those for paper. This
shorter timeframe for the eCert process is highlighted in
Figure 1.
eCertification information
system design
The use of standards in international trade is widely
recognised by trading partners as being beneficial to
both governments and traders. The standardisation of

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3081
284
Table I
Advantages of electronic certification over paper certificates
Electronic certification
Rapid and direct information exchange between governments, allowing
certificates to be viewed quickly after issuance and prior to arrival of goods at
their destination
Information protected by firewalls, passwords and encryption. Information access
profiled and limited to a need-to-know basis
Importing countries can manage resourcing needs and risks more effectively due
to electronic certification arriving well ahead of animals/animal products
Online resolution of veterinary certification inaccuracies due to government
officials having direct access to each other via eCertification
Fig. 1
Timeframe comparison between paper certificate and eCertification processes (1)
information exchange is equally important to streamline the
exchange process between trading partners. Standard-setting
bodies, such as the World Organisation for Animal Health
(OIE), UN/CEFACT, the International Plant Protection
Convention and the Codex Alimentarius Commission, have
standardised aspects of certificate information to support
eCert certificate exchanges. This helps to facilitate eCert
implementation across multiple trading partners.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Paper certificates
Require handling by many components of the supply chain, including exporters,
transporters, financial providers and importers, prior to arrival at their destination
Higher risk of forgery and fraudulent certification
Resource management is subject to the paper veterinary certificates arriving with
the consignments – risk management utilised less efficiently as a result
Problems with veterinary certification are less efficiently resolved as several
intermediaries are involved who must be contacted separately
United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and
Electronic Business: data standard, information
exchange methods and security
The UN/CEFACT data standard standardises data elements
and message structures to support and streamline
information exchange between trading partners.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
The eXtensible Markup Language (XML) schema describes
the structure of a sanitary and phytosanitary measures XML
document and is used to input information into a veterinary
certificate. Owing to the fact that there are multiple versions
of XML, a working version is usually agreed upon between
trading partners before an eCert trading partner agreement
is enacted.
Electronic veterinary certificates can be shared between
government organisations in a variety of ways. These
include:
– secure/multipurpose Internet mail extensions (SMIME):
government officials will check their import system inboxes
each day for e-mails containing electronic veterinary
certification;
– simple object access protocol (SOAP) interface: with
their user logons and passwords, government officials can
download a batch of electronic veterinary certificates;
– eCert website: with their user logons and passwords,
import government officials can perform a search on the
exporting country authority’s eCert website.
There are different security requirements for specific
messages and electronic exchanges of veterinary
certification. The level of security applied to the message
must be considered by both parties accessing the
information and should meet the security requirements
of individual government organisations. Some examples
of security requirements applied by parties exchanging
electronic certificates include:
– firewalls: a network security system that monitors and
controls incoming and outgoing network traffic
– passwords: an alphanumeric string that must be used to
gain admission to a place
– encryption: the process of encoding a message or
information in a way that only authorised parties can access
it
– digital signatures: a process that guarantees the contents
of a message have not been altered in transit
– authentication verification (non-repudiation): a service
that provides proof of the origin of data and its integrity
or the degree to which actions or events can be proven to
have taken place, so that the events or actions cannot be
denied later.
eCertification implementation
considerations
There are a number of issues that must be considered prior
to the implementation of an eCert agreement between
trading partners. These include:
285
– the determination of whether a formal agreement is
required with a trading partner on the use of eCert; if so, an
agreement will need to be drafted;
– the identification and implementation of any legislative
changes required as a result of the removal of paper-based
certificates;
– the establishment and ongoing management of a secure,
efficient and user-friendly information exchange system;
– the identification of the type of certificate to be exchanged
using eCert;
– the implementation of a trial period for eCert transition;
– the identification of official contact points within
government for troubleshooting;
– the development of processes and procedures to manage
and clear consignments through the implementation of
eCert.
Table II below summarises the organisational resources
required for eCert implementation. It is particularly
important to consider the legal requirements for electronic
veterinary certificates in individual countries or groups of
countries. For example, in the countries of the European
Union, non-repudiation (similar to a digital signature) is
required to support the legality of a document. This is a
legal requirement that has been adopted by a number of
other countries to support paperless exchanges.
Table II
Organisational resources required for eCertification
implementation
Resource
Details
type
People Government officials across trading partner nations
Business owners
Information system developers (with knowledge of
eXtensible Markup Language [XML] and information
mapping)
Information system designers (who can design and build
information exchange methodologies)
Quarantine/biosecurity inspectors
Legislation experts
Equipment Laptops, tablets or computer terminals
Software Establishment of an efficient, effective, user-friendly
information system
Ongoing management of the information system
Training
Logon identification details issued by exchange partners
Knowledge of biosecurity risks at the border
Assessment of electronic veterinary certificates
Training of officers to use the information exchange system
Preparation eCertification agreement between trading partner nations
286 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Table III
eCertification abbreviation/acronym table

Abbreviation/
Name
United Nations Centre for Trade
Facilitation and Electronic
Business
World Organisation for Animal
Health
International Plant Protection
Convention
Codex Alimentarius Commission
eXtensible Markup Language
Definition
Acronym
UN/CEFACT The UN/CEFACT is a subsidiary, intergovernmental body of the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe, which serves as a focal point within the United Nations Economic and Social Council for trade
facilitation recommendations and electronic business standards.
It has a global membership of experts from intergovernmental organisations, individual country authorities and
the private sector
OIE The OIE is an intergovernmental organisation coordinating, supporting and promoting animal disease control
IPPC The IPPC is a multilateral treaty overseen by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. It
aims to secure coordinated, effective action to prevent and control the introduction and spread of plant and
plant-product pests
Codex The Codex is a collection of internationally recognised standards, codes of practice, guidelines, and other
recommendations relating to foods, food production and food safety.
The Commission’s main goals are to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in international
food trade
XML XML is a mark-up language that defines a set of rules for encoding documents in a format that is both human-
readable and machine-readable.
XML is commonly used with electronic certification

As with the implementation of any policy reform, important
keys to the successful implementation of eCert include
adequate planning, training and resource allocation.
When first implementing eCert, it is important to choose
an established and trusted trading partner with similar
government approaches and choice of language.
use of SMIME (creation of an inbox to receive e-mails of
eCerts) or SOAP (interface through which to download
batches of eCerts). These solutions address connectivity
issues since the certificate information is first retained on
a secure website and then downloaded into the importing
country’s system.

Lessons learned
A number of countries from Asia, Africa, Europe, and North
and South America have already become aware of the benefits
of eCert in comparison with paper veterinary certificates.
However, as with any major reform, these countries have
experienced some challenges in implementing the initiative.
Nonetheless, it is through these challenges that important
lessons have been learned.
Internet connectivity
In some countries, Internet connectivity is unreliable at
inspection ports. This can make it difficult in the early
stages of proof of concept, when paper certificates are
compared to the Web version of an eCert, to make sure
that all information/data has been provided. The lack of
a dedicated and reliable Internet connection may hinder
access to the Web version of the eCert, therefore proving
eCert less efficient than paper certificates. However,
solutions have been identified for this issue, such as the
Changes
The support for, commitment to or momentum of an
eCert project can change over time as governments change
and individuals switch jobs or leave organisations. This is
inevitable, but persistence, along with good timing, can
help to ensure success.
Legislation
Some countries have specific requirements in their national
or jurisdictional legislation for the exchange of electronic
information, such as signing arrangements or security
protocols. With effective planning and communication,
legislation can be amended accordingly in a timely manner
to facilitate the implementation of the eCert initiative.
Mapping
Information system mapping, including the use and
interpretation of XML, has been a challenge for some
countries. Adequate resourcing for this issue will reduce
the risk of failure.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 287

Conclusions Members should consider the use of eCert agreements

as a fundamental component of their trading partner
relationships for agricultural trade.
Paperless trading and electronic systems are used in many
trade areas and more and more countries are becoming
involved. Despite some of the challenges associated with
eCert’s implementation, government organisations of OIE

La certification électronique (eCert)

B.S. Cooper & P. Loopuyt

Résumé
Les certificats vétérinaires sont une composante essentielle des échanges
internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale depuis de
nombreuses années. Il s’agit de certificats approuvés préalablement par les
partenaires commerciaux lors de négociations bilatérales ou multilatérales
relatives aux échanges d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale et qui
apportent la garantie que les marchandises échangées sont indemnes de
certaines maladies spécifiées.
Plusieurs pays ont cherché à mettre en œuvre ou à valider une procédure
d’échange d’informations à la fois plus simple et plus sûre ; parmi eux certains
ont mis en place un système de certification électronique pour les échanges
transfrontaliers. Ce type de transmission de données présente de nombreux
avantages par rapport à la délivrance de certificats papier : un processus
opérationnel rationalisé, un meilleur accès à l’information (en particulier avant
l’arrivée d’une cargaison) et un nombre réduit de certificats frauduleux.
Bien que certains problèmes en lien avec cette initiative restent encore à
résoudre et que plusieurs aspects importants devront être pris en compte lors de
sa mise en œuvre, un nombre croissant de pays prennent conscience du fait que
les performances d’un tel système contribueront à des relations plus productives
et mutuellement bénéfiques entre partenaires commerciaux.

Mots-clés
Certificat vétérinaire – Certification électronique (eCert) – Échanges internationaux.

Certificación electrónica (eCert)

B.S. Cooper & P. Loopuyt

Resumen
Hace ya muchos años que los certificados veterinarios son un componente
intrínseco del comercio de animales y productos de origen animal. Estos
certificados, acordados por las partes en el curso de negociaciones bilaterales
o multilaterales sobre ese tipo de comercio, aportan la garantía de que las
mercancías están exentas de una u otra enfermedad.
288 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Muchos países están tratando de aplicar o adoptar un método más ágil y seguro
para intercambiar información, y algunos están implantando el intercambio de
certificados por vía electrónica para operaciones comerciales transfronterizas.
Esta modalidad de transmisión de datos presenta muchas ventajas con respecto
al uso del papel, en particular porque agiliza los procesos de trabajo, facilita el
acceso a la información (en particular, antes de que llegue la mercancía) y reduce
los casos de certificados fraudulentos.
Aunque esta iniciativa no deja de presentar dificultades y hay importantes
consideraciones que es preciso tener en cuenta para llevarla adelante, muchos
países van cobrando conciencia de que trae consigo procesos más eficientes y
se traduce en relaciones más productivas y mutuamente beneficiosas entre los
socios comerciales.

Palabras clave
Certificación electrónica (eCert) – Certificado veterinario – Comercio.

References
1. Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (Australia)
(2018). – Timeframe comparison between paper certificate
and eCertification processes [figure]. Australian Government
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment,
Canberra, Australia.
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 289-297

The World Organisation for Animal Health:

notification of animal diseases
P. Cáceres*, P. Tizzani, F. Ntsama & R. Mora

World Animal Health Information and Analysis Department, World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE),
12 rue de Prony, 75017, Paris, France
*Corresponding author: p.caceres@oie.int

Summary
In a globalised world, accurate, complete and timely notification of the presence
of animal diseases plays a crucial role in international trade. It allows countries at
risk to take appropriate action to prevent the spread of transboundary diseases or
minimise their impact, and thus mitigate the associated risks to animal and public
health. In this context, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) is responsible
for rapidly and transparently sharing accurate and complete information on
the global animal health situation. To do so, it collects, verifies, validates and
disseminates the animal health information provided by its Members. Information
on animal diseases, including zoonoses, is notified to the OIE in compliance with
legally binding instruments between the OIE and its Members. Since the creation
of the OIE in 1924, the type of animal disease information to be notified and the
communication channels for its subsequent distribution to Members have been
standardised and improved over time, taking advantage of the available tools
and methods of mass dissemination of information. The continuous improvement
of the OIE disease notification process has had positive effects, both in terms
of animal disease prevention, control and eradication at a global level, and by
facilitating the international trade of animals, their products and by-products.

Keywords
Animal disease notification – Information dissemination – International trade of animals
– Transparency – World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS) – World Organisation
for Animal Health (OIE).

Introduction WAHIS, the OIE’s World Animal Health Information System

(1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Since the creation of the World Organisation for Animal

Health (OIE) in 1924, one of its main missions has been
to ensure transparency of the global animal health situation
and improve knowledge of animal diseases, including
those transmissible to humans (i.e. zoonoses). To enable
the OIE to fulfil this mission, its Members are required to
notify the OIE of all relevant information on their animal
health situation, in compliance with the provisions of the
OIE’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Terrestrial Code) and
Aquatic Animal Health Code (Aquatic Code). The information
submitted to the OIE on events involving OIE-listed diseases
and emerging diseases is then verified, translated into the
OIE’s official languages and made publicly available through
The OIE is the only international organisation with
a global legal framework allowing it to request, collect and
share global animal health information among its Members
(1, 2, 6). Since 1995, the standards established by the OIE
have been recognised by the World Trade Organization
(WTO) and its Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) as science-
based reference standards for international trade to prevent
and control animal diseases, including zoonoses (7, 8, 9).
These standards, which allow the worldwide harmonisation
of sanitary measures, enable OIE Members to protect
themselves from the introduction of animal diseases and
pathogens, while avoiding the implementation of unjustified

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3082
290
barriers to the international trade of animals, their products
and by-products.
The notification of animal diseases (including zoonoses) to
the OIE by its Members plays an important role in facilitating
safe trade in animals and animal products. Accurate and
timely communication of animal disease information by
OIE Members is an indication of their national capacity
for disease prevention, control and eradication. When this
information is transferred to the OIE for dissemination, it
allows countries at risk to take appropriate action in a timely
manner, to prevent or prepare for the transboundary spread
of diseases and thereby mitigate the associated animal and
public health risks.
Over the years, the number of countries and territories
notifying their animal disease situation to the OIE has
increased considerably. This has led the OIE to improve its
mechanisms for supplying global animal health information
by extensively developing and improving the sensitivity
of the disease notification process, and by enhancing its
dissemination through different platforms (10, 11). In
particular, the sensitivity of the system (which, in this case,
refers to the capacity of WAHIS to identify the reporting
countries that have tested positive for the presence of a
specific disease) has been improved through the OIE’s
active search for and verification of rumours circulating in
the media and other sources of information.
This article briefly summarises the legally binding
mechanisms for disease notification to the OIE, the evolution
of animal disease notification at the international level, the
mechanisms that the OIE has implemented to improve
the transparency and sensitivity of disease reporting, and
the benefits of transparent, accurate and timely disease
notification for international trade.
Legally binding mechanisms for
animal disease notification at
the international level
One of the primary reasons for creating the OIE was the
exchange of information on animal diseases among its
Members (6, 12). The notification obligations of Members
are set out in the OIE’s Organic Statutes (Articles 4 and 5),
as well as in Chapter 1.1. of both the Terrestrial Code and
the Aquatic Code (4, 5, 10, 12). Accordingly, each Member
undertakes to report the animal diseases that it detects in
its territory. The OIE has a duty to disclose and disseminate
this information among Members, to provide them with the
information they need to take appropriate action to prevent
the transboundary spread of OIE-listed and emerging
animal diseases, including zoonoses (3, 4, 5, 6).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Evolution of disease notification
to the World Organisation
for Animal Health in a global
context
The requirements relating to animal disease notification to
the OIE have evolved over time. One of the major changes
has been the increase in the number of notifiable animal
diseases. When the OIE was created, the founding Members
agreed to report information on nine diseases (anthrax,
contagious pleuropneumonia, dourine, foot and mouth
disease, glanders, rabies, rinderpest, sheep pox and swine
fever) (10, 12, 13). In May 1964, the diseases notifiable to the
OIE were split into two lists. List A consisted of 16 diseases
that required monthly reporting and List B comprised
40 diseases to be reported on an annual basis (11, 14). With
time, more diseases were added to these lists. In May 2004,
to comply with resolutions passed by the World Assembly
of the OIE and recommendations issued by OIE Regional
Commissions, Lists A and B were merged into a single list
of notifiable animal diseases (15). As of 2020, 117 diseases,
infections and infestations are listed by the OIE.
Another important quantitative change relates to the
number of countries reporting information. Initially,
28 founding Members reported their sanitary situation to
the OIE. As of 2020, a total of 182 Members are required
to report their animal health situation to the OIE. In addition,
some Members have overseas territories that provide their
own separate sanitary information. Furthermore, some non-
members have requested permission to report their sanitary
situation to the OIE, for the sake of transparency and to
facilitate their access to wider and more diverse international
markets for animals, their products and by-products. As a
result, considering OIE Members and non-members, the
total number of reporting countries and territories reached
206 in 2020, representing the best possible worldwide
coverage of official animal disease information.
In line with its mission to ensure transparency in the
global animal health situation, the OIE has implemented
various platforms designed to improve the collection and
dissemination of animal health information worldwide.
The time frame for notifying the different categories of
disease events to the OIE is defined in Article 1.1.3. of
both the Terrestrial Code and the Aquatic Code. In the case
of events that require immediate notification, Members
have an obligation to inform the OIE within 24 hours of
confirmation of the event. In the case of diseases where the
situation is considered stable, information is submitted on
a biannual basis. Information on zoonoses and a summary
of the capacities of their Veterinary Services are among
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
the elements that Members provide in an annual report
(3, 4, 5, 6).
During the early years of the OIE, governments sent
telegrams, telexes and letters to notify relevant events to the
OIE. Since then, the disease notification system has evolved
considerably, and, with it, access to the information. The
OIE used to employ different types of reports to disseminate
information. For List A diseases, alert messages were sent
within 24 hours to the countries at risk and other countries
were informed on a weekly basis; in addition, a monthly
report was published through the OIE Bulletin (16, 17).
In 1981 the OIE launched World Animal Health, an annual
publication in paper format presenting a compilation
of annual animal health information for each Member,
including animal population statistics and a summary of the
capacities of its Veterinary Services.
After the introduction of the Internet in the early 1990s,
the OIE used the HandiStatus II platform as the main tool
to gather data between 1996 and 2004. Then, in 2005,
all Members were connected to a central server, when the
tool named the World Animal Health Information System
(WAHIS) was launched. This is currently the official
platform to capture and disseminate global animal health
data.
In 2015, the publication World Animal Health was replaced
by a publicly accessible online version. Also, in 2016, to
facilitate access to the alert messages published on the
WAHIS interface, the OIE launched the WAHIS Alerts mobile
application and, by 2018, more than 11,200 downloads of
the application had been recorded. As described below, the
OIE is currently undertaking a modernisation project that
will see the light of day this year, 2020, with the launch
of OIE–WAHIS and the accompanying new version of the
WAHIS Alerts mobile application (18).
Development of OIE–WAHIS, the OIE’s new information
system, began in 2016. In addition to the many improvements
to the current platform, OIE–WAHIS will provide high-
quality and reliable geospatial data, interconnection with
other regional/international information systems and
epidemiological data. Dashboards will allow different types
of users to obtain detailed information in approachable
formats, according to their needs. Finally, the WAHIS
Alerts mobile application will be updated to allow faster
dissemination of disease alerts and provide instant
access to disease notifications. These enhancements are
expected to have a significant impact on the timeliness
and quality of data published by the OIE, thereby
improving the quality of inputs for the risk assessments
carried out by stakeholders involved in the international
trade of animals, their products and by-products. This new
platform will be released in a scalable pattern, through
291
releases that will be progressively adapted to meet the needs
of the disease notification scheme.
Mechanisms to improve the
sensitivity of disease notification
to the World Organisation for
Animal Health
On an international scale, disease notification relies on an
early-alert surveillance system and reliable information-
sharing at the national level between the various stakeholders.
Indeed, national Veterinary Services and public health
authorities; local, national and reference laboratories;
Customs and border control services; producers; and other
stakeholders all have an important role to play in the early
detection and timely notification of diseases at the national
level, which will determine the quality of information
communicated at the international level.
The OIE believes that the majority of Members who do
not rapidly report the occurrence of notifiable diseases are
unable, rather than unwilling, to do so (19). Therefore, the
OIE has developed and implemented several mechanisms to
target key actors, to maintain and improve the notification
of animal diseases.
Training and support services
Training in the practical use of the reporting system
(WAHIS) and in critical areas of disease notification has
been carried out every year since 2006. Training is mainly
targeted at OIE Focal Points for Animal Disease Notification,
the OIE’s national contact points for disease reporting. In
terms of support services, the OIE offers direct support
to the Veterinary Services of its Members. This includes
providing clarification of notification requirements,
as well as raising Members’ awareness of their obligations
for disease notification to the OIE. The OIE’s Regional and
Sub-Regional Representations can also provide support in
the use of the reporting system (10).
Active search for unofficial information
Since 2002, the OIE has operated an active search system
for unofficial information and rumours on the occurrence of
threats to animal and public health (11, 19). Currently, this
active search system (also called ‘rumour tracking’ or ‘informal
signal-tracking system’) retrieves information from different
sources by using two platforms for automatic search: the
Australian government’s International Biosecurity Intelligence
System (IBIS) and the World Health Organization (WHO)
292
Epidemic Intelligence from Open Source (EIOS) system. In
addition, the active search system harvests information from
the formal communications of the Network of OIE Reference
Laboratories and Collaborating Centres.
The findings of this active search are compared with the
information reported spontaneously by Members through
WAHIS and, when necessary, verification is sought from the
Member concerned for the purposes of official confirmation
and potential notification (3, 6, 11, 19).
In this respect, it is also important to emphasise the
close collaboration that exists between the OIE and other
international organisations. Within the framework of the
Tripartite collaboration, the OIE is working with the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
and WHO, through the Global Early Warning System
(GLEWS), to detect high-risk and emergency situations
as early as possible and support coordinated responses at
the human–animal interface. Among its other activities,
the GLEWS network shares information between the three
organisations to ensure transparency and promote disease
notification. This collaboration has proved crucial in the
case of various disease events, most recently the Rift Valley
fever outbreaks in 2018.
Performance of Veterinary Services Pathway
Based on its mission to improve animal health and welfare
worldwide, the OIE has developed the Performance of
Veterinary Services (PVS) Pathway, the Organisation’s
flagship capacity-building programme for the sustainable
improvement of national Veterinary Services and their
compliance with OIE international standards. The PVS
Pathway empowers Veterinary Services by providing them
with a comprehensive understanding of their strengths and
weaknesses, using a consistent and globally recognised
methodology. Evaluation and other missions are proposed
to OIE Members as part of the PVS Pathway and are carried
out by OIE-certified experts.
Among the critical competencies that experts analyse during
such missions, the transparency competency is particularly
relevant to animal disease notification to the OIE. Since
2018, to help PVS Pathway experts to assess the accuracy
and timeliness with which Members fulfil their notification
responsibilities, the OIE World Animal Health Information
and Analysis Department has been providing them with a
report that measures an array of indicators. These indicators
serve as a tool to guide the experts’ evaluation of how well
Members are fulfilling their notification obligations.
As a result of these mechanisms, the number of immediate
notifications and follow-up reports sent to the OIE has
significantly increased since 2005. For example, the
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
number of immediate notifications that Members submitted
to the OIE increased from 91 in 2005 to 332 in 2018,
with a statistically significant upward trend (Spearman’s
rank correlation test, rho  =  0.7, p  <  0.01). Similarly, the
number of follow-up reports that Members submitted
increased from 164 in 2005 to 1,746 in 2017, and then
decreased slightly to 1,655 in 2018. This overall increase
is remarkable (Spearman’s rank correlation test, rho = 0.9,
p  <  0.01), corresponding to a ten-fold increase in the
number of follow-up reports submitted by Members over a
period of 13 years (Fig. 1).
Moreover, the timeliness of report submission during
the period 2005 to 2018 was very satisfactory. Over all,
the median time for countries to submit an immediate
notification after confirmation of an event was three days.
However, for diseases with a particularly high impact, such
as highly pathogenic avian influenza and African swine
fever, the median time was only two days.
Benefits of transparent
and timely animal disease
notification for international
trade
In an increasingly globalised world, the growth of all kinds
of cross-border flows and the capacity for people and goods
to travel long distances in a very short time, as well as human
encroachment into previously isolated ecosystems, have
increased the risk of spreading pathogenic agents and led
to the rise of emerging and re-emerging diseases. Meeting
these challenges requires a good level of surveillance and
transparency, in terms of animal disease notification, on the
part of countries that produce and trade products of animal
origin (1, 20).
During the past few decades, global outbreaks of diseases
such as foot and mouth disease, bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, and avian influenza, as well as the more
recent spread of lumpy skin disease and African swine
fever, have had unprecedented consequences for livestock
keepers, food security, and access to markets and trade
(21, 22, 23, 24). While the international notification of a
disease outbreak may have economic or political impacts
(e.g. closure of markets and decline in tourism), a failure
to notify will have major adverse consequences at both the
national and international level (e.g. loss of credibility with
trading partners and the international community, lack of
response to the disease outbreak within the affected country
and a delay in obtaining financial support to control the
disease) (1). The fight against animal diseases is, of course,
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
350
300
250
Number of IN
200
150
100
50
0 0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Immediate notifications
IN: immediate notifications
FUR: follow-up reports
Fig. 1
Number of early warning reports submitted by Members of the World Organisation for Animal Health, by year, from 2005 to 2018:
immediate notifications and follow-up reports
a major animal health issue, but animal diseases can also
have implications for public health, as well as economic
and political impacts on the countries involved, and
their neighbours.
In this context, surveillance data and early notification and
surveillance systems play an important role in controlling
and preventing the spread of diseases (2, 25, 26, 27).
Timely disease notification to the OIE is particularly
important to give countries at risk the time to take the
necessary precautions, by enhancing their biosecurity
and surveillance and, where applicable, implementing
preventive vaccination. Ensuring the transparency of a
country’s animal health situation, in accordance with
OIE international standards, is the responsibility of the
national Veterinary Services or competent authority and
fundamental for fair and safe international trade in animals
and animal products, building credibility and trust between
trading partners. Accurate and timely reporting has a direct
impact on national and international trade of animals and
animal products, enabling early warning and preparedness,
and the possibility of redirecting limited resources to the
implementation of measures to prevent disease spread
(1, 9, 10).
On both sides of the trading chain, countries need to
evaluate a complex and interconnected set of elements,
whether to assess their access to international markets or to
protect their borders from potentially dangerous incoming
goods. Moreover, accurate international reporting makes
it possible to identify disease trends, which are the basis
293
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
Number of FUR
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Follow-up reports
for determining animal health strategies and priorities,
as well as resource allocation. For this purpose, decision-
and policy-makers, donors and international organisations
rely on comprehensive and trusted online platforms, such
as WAHIS, to provide them with the up-to-date information
they need to prioritise the provision of technical support to
countries requesting assistance (1, 10).
Notification is also used to monitor the progress of
a country’s disease programme and its ability to maintain its
disease-free status (10). For this purpose, the OIE offers its
Members two mechanisms to declare freedom from a disease:
publication of a self-declaration of freedom, and official
recognition of disease status and endorsement of national
official control programmes. In regard to the declaration of
freedom, OIE Members can request publication of a claim
of freedom from a disease, upon providing documented
evidence of compliance. This procedure does not involve
approval by the OIE and, consequently, its publication does
not imply endorsement of the claim.
On the other hand, after a rigorous procedure, the OIE
can grant official disease status to its Members for six OIE-
listed diseases, as well as endorse that Member’s national
control programme. Both mechanisms are voluntary and
can be applied at the country, zone or compartment level.
When a Member applies to one of these mechanisms, one
of the prerequisites for acceptance is an evaluation of the
Member’s record in notifying its animal disease situation to
the OIE (4, 5).
294
Transparent reporting behaviour is therefore essential for
OIE Members requesting official disease status, as well as
for the annual reconfirmation of that status. For the latter,
timely detection, reporting and communication of disease
occurrence is compulsory, as is the notification of any change
in the epidemiological situation of the disease concerned, or
of other significant events. Timely and accurate reporting
allows neighbouring countries as well as stakeholders to
prepare by taking actions to prevent disease spread (4).
Notification by Members also allows the OIE to monitor
the application of disease control and preventive measures.
This is particularly the case for information available in
immediate notifications and six-monthly reports (details
of surveillance, zoning, compartmentalisation, vaccination,
etc.). This information also helps the OIE to monitor
how well national measures are being implemented in
accordance with the Terrestrial Code and the Aquatic
Code. Indeed, in May 2018, the World Assembly of OIE
Delegates adopted a resolution to establish an observatory
on the implementation of OIE standards by Members (28).
Monitoring, identifying and analysing the difficulties faced
by Members will enable the OIE to ensure more effective
implementation of its standards.
Finally, in the context of international trade, importing
countries need timely and updated information to evaluate
the animal disease situation of the exporting country.
According to the provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement,
Members apply sanitary requirements to their imports
based on OIE standards or on a risk assessment (2, 7,
9). In particular, in the Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes, the
OIE recommends that the process of import risk analysis
take into consideration the results of an evaluation of the
Veterinary Services of the exporting country, as well as its
zoning, compartmentalisation and surveillance systems for
animal health monitoring (4, 5). In this sense, notification
and transparency help to make information available
and build trust, and are key in helping countries to take
advantage of the provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Conclusions
Through nearly a century of experience in the notification
and dissemination of information on animal diseases, the
OIE has standardised and evolved its notification processes
and improved the speed of access to information worldwide,
adapting its systems to the available tools and technologies.
Timely notification of disease outbreaks through WAHIS,
in compliance with OIE international standards, has
multiple benefits for OIE Members and the international
community. These benefits are not, however, limited to the
ability to coordinate a rapid response to prevent further
spread of diseases. They also include the facilitation of safe
trade in animals, their products and by-products. Timely
and accurate disease notification provides the information
needed to determine temporal and geographical disease
trends for the purposes of risk analysis and disease
prevention and control. Crucially, the quality of a country’s
disease reporting helps to establish the credibility of its
Veterinary Services, thereby facilitating market access.
Moreover, OIE Members are clearly aware of these benefits,
as demonstrated by the increase in the number of disease
notifications over the years.
The OIE is preparing for a major technological leap in disease
notification with the 2020 launch of its new OIE–WAHIS
platform. Among its many benefits, OIE-WAHIS will allow
better access to information on animal diseases, improve
visualisation of spatial location of disease data, include
the possibility of interoperability with other platforms and
provide easy access to information at the national level.
Over all, this will lead to a quantitative and qualitative
improvement in the notification of animal diseases as we
know it today.
Acknowledgements
The authors are particularly grateful for the assistance given
by Drs M. Stone, F. Caya and K. Bucher during the revision
of this article.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 295

L’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale : notification des

maladies animales
P. Cáceres, P. Tizzani, F. Ntsama & R. Mora

Résumé
Dans un contexte de mondialisation, la notification exacte, complète et rapide
de la présence des maladies animales joue un rôle crucial dans les échanges
internationaux. Elle permet aux pays vulnérables de prendre les mesures
appropriées pour empêcher la propagation des maladies transfrontalières ou pour
en minimiser l’impact et atténuer ainsi les risques qu’elles représentent pour la
santé animale et la santé publique. Dans ce contexte, l’Organisation mondiale de
la santé animale (OIE) est responsable d’assurer un partage rapide et transparent
d’informations exactes et complètes sur la situation de la santé animale dans
le monde. L’OIE s’acquitte de cette tâche à travers la collecte, la vérification,
la validation et la diffusion des informations fournies par les Membres sur leur
situation zoosanitaire. L’information sur les maladies animales, zoonoses incluses,
est notifiée à l’OIE conformément aux instruments juridiquement contraignants
mis en place entre l’OIE et ses Membres. Depuis la création de l’OIE en 1924, tant
le type d’informations sanitaires à notifier que les canaux utilisés pour diffuser
ces informations aux Membres ont peu à peu fait l’objet d’une normalisation et
ont été perfectionnés à la faveur de l’évolution des outils et des méthodes de
dissémination de masse de l’information. L’amélioration continue des procédures
de notification des maladies à l’OIE a eu des effets positifs tant sur la prévention,
le contrôle et l’éradication des maladies animales à l’échelle mondiale que sur
la facilitation des échanges internationaux d’animaux et de produits et sous-
produits d’origine animale.

Mots-clés
Diffusion de l’information – Échanges internationaux d’animaux – Notification des
maladies animales – Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) – Système mondial
d’information sanitaire de l’OIE (WAHIS) – Transparence.

Notificación de enfermedades animales a la Organización Mundial

de Sanidad Animal

P. Cáceres, P. Tizzani, F. Ntsama & R. Mora

Resumen
En un planeta mundializado, la notificación exacta, completa y puntual de la
presencia de enfermedades animales cumple una función básica en el comercio
internacional, pues permite a los países expuestos a riesgo adoptar medidas
apropiadas para prevenir la propagación de enfermedades transfronterizas
o reducir al mínimo sus consecuencias, y con ello mitigar los consiguientes
riesgos zoosanitarios y de salud pública. En este ámbito, la Organización
Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) tiene la responsabilidad de compartir de
forma rápida y transparente información exacta y completa sobre la situación
zoosanitaria mundial. Para hacerlo reúne, verifica, valida y difunde la información
sobre enfermedades animales, incluidas las zoonosis, que le hacen llegar sus
Miembros en cumplimiento de los acuerdos jurídicamente vinculantes que
la OIE tiene suscritos con ellos. Desde 1924, año de creación de la OIE, se ha
296 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

ido estandarizando y definiendo cada vez con más precisión el tipo de datos
zoosanitarios que se deben notificar y se han ido mejorando los canales de
comunicación por los que luego se distribuye esta información a los Miembros,
aprovechando los instrumentos y métodos existentes de difusión masiva
de información. El perfeccionamiento continuo del proceso de notificación
de enfermedades de la OIE ha tenido efectos positivos, por lo que respecta a
la vez a prevenir, controlar y erradicar enfermedades animales en el mundo y
a facilitar el comercio internacional de animales, productos de origen animal
y productos derivados de ellos.

Palabras clave
Comercio internacional de animales – Difusión de información – Notificación de
enfermedades animales – Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) – Sistema
Mundial de Información Zoosanitaria (WAHIS) – Transparencia.

References
1. Vallat B., Thiermann A., Ben Jebara K. & Dehove A. (2013).
– Notification of animal and human diseases: the global legal
basis. In Coordinating surveillance policies in animal health
and food safety ‘from farm to fork’ (S.A. Slorach, ed.). Rev.
Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 32 (2), 331–335. doi:10.20506/
rst.32.2.2234.
2. Angot J.-L. (2009). – Surveillance et contrôle des risques
d’importation des maladies infectieuses animales : le rôle
de l’OIE et des services vétérinaires. Bull. Acad. Nat. Méd.,
193 (8), 1861–1869. doi:10.1016/S0001-4079(19)32419-7.
3. Ben Jebara K., Cáceres P., Berlingieri F. & Weber-Vintzel L.
(2012). – Ten years’ work on the World Organisation for
Animal Health (OIE) worldwide animal disease notification
system. Prev. Vet. Med., 107 (3–4), 149–159. doi:10.1016/j.
prevetmed.2012.08.008.
4. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). –
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 27th Ed. OIE, Paris, France.
Available at: www.oie.int/en/international-standard-setting/
terrestrial-code/access-online/ (accessed on 4 June 2019).
11. Ben Jebara K. & Shimshony A. (2006). – International
5. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Aquatic
Animal Health Code, 21st Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at:
www.oie.int/en/international-standard-setting/aquatic-code/
access-online/ (accessed on 4 June 2019).
8. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
The standards established by the OIE are recognised by
the WTO as international reference standards. OIE, Paris,
France. Available at www.90.oie.int/en/Dates-to-remember/
TIMELINE/April/The-standards-established-by-the-OIE-are-
recognised-by-the-WTO-as-international-reference-standards
(accessed on 14 June 2019).
9. Vallat B. & Wilson D.W. (2003). – The obligations of Member
Countries of the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health)
in the organisation of Veterinary Services. In Veterinary
Services: organisation, quality assurance and evaluation
(E. Correa Melo & F. Gerster, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.,
22 (2), 547–552. doi: 10.20506/rst.22.2.1416.
10. Cáceres P., Mapitse N., Vergara P., Meske M. & Tizzani P.
(2017). – Notification of animal disease information to the
OIE. In WAHIS is modernising: be a partner in the project.
Bull. OIE, 2017 (2), 2637. doi:10.20506/bull.2017.2.2637.
monitoring and surveillance of animal diseases using official
and unofficial sources. Vet. Ital., 42 (4), 431–441. Available
at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20429076# (accessed on
28 December 2019).

6. Cáceres P., Awada L., Barboza P., Lopez-Gatell H. & Tizzani P.

12. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (1924). –

(2017). – The World Organisation for Animal Health and
Appendix to the International Agreement for the Creation of
the World Health Organization: intergovernmental disease
an Office International des Epizooties in Paris: organic statutes
information and reporting systems and their role in early
of the Office International des Epizooties. OIE, Paris, France.
warning. In Biological threat reduction (T. Beckham, ed.).
Available at: www.oie.int/en/about-us/key-texts/basic-texts/
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 36 (2), 539–548. doi:10.20506/
organic-statutes/ (accessed on 4 June 2019).
rst.36.2.2672.

7. Thiermann A.B. (2005). – Globalization, international trade 13. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (1927). – Statuts
and animal health: the new roles of OIE. Prev. Vet. Med. organiques de l’Office International des Épizooties. Bull. OIE,
67 (2–3), 101–108. 1927 (1), 5. OIE, Paris, France.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
14. Vittoz R. (1964). – Report of the Director on the Scientific
and Technical Activities of the Office International des
Epizooties from May 1963 to May 1964. Bull. Off. Int. Epiz.,
LXII (1), 1568–1575. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/
portal/index.seam?page=alo&aloId=37013&cid=4289
(accessed on 4 March 2020).
15. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2004). –
Resolution No. XXXI. Date for the implementation of the OIE
single list of animal diseases and the new notification system.
In Proc. 72nd General Session of the OIE, 27 May, Paris. OIE,
Paris, France, 71. Available at: https://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/
index.seam?page=alo&fonds=0&aloId=20952&cid=4294
(accessed on 4 March 2020).
16. Chillaud T. (1985). – Le système d’information sanitaire
de l’Office international des épizooties. Épidémiol. santé
anim., 8, 67–75. Available at: http://aeema.vet-alfort.fr/
images/1985-08/08.007.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2019).
17. Chillaud T. (1996). – Le système international de déclaration
des maladies animales de l’Office international des épizooties.
Épidémiol. santé anim., 29, 1–8. Available at: http://aeema.vet-
alfort.fr/images/1996-29/29.003.pdf (accessed on 14 June
2019).
18. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). – The
OIE–WAHIS project. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.
oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/the-OIE-WAHIS-
project/ (accessed on 28 June 2019).
19.
Thiermann A.B. (2010). – International animal health
regulations and the World Animal Health Information
System. In Infectious disease movement in a borderless world:
workshop summary. National Academies Press, Washington
DC, United States of America, 246–256. Available at: www.
nap.edu/read/12758/chapter/7#246 (accessed on 20 June
2019).
20.
Dufour B. & Hendrikx P. (2011). – Surveillance
épidémiologique en santé animale, 3rd Ed. Editions
Quae, Versailles, France. Available at: www.quae.com/
produit/658/9782759217564/surveillance-epidemiologique-
en-sante-animale (accessed on 28 December 2019).
21. Tekola B., Myers L., Lubroth J., Plee L., Calistri P. & Pinto J.
(2017). – International health threats and global early warning
and response mechanisms. In Biological threat reduction
(T. Beckham, ed.). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 36 (2), 657–
670. doi:10.20506/rst.36.2.2683.
297
22. Beltran-Alcrudo D., Falco J.R., Raizman E. & Dietze K.
(2019). – Transboundary spread of pig diseases: the role of
international trade and travel. BMC Vet. Res., 15, Article
No. 64. doi:10.1186/s12917-019-1800-5.
23. Lesdos-Cauhapé C. & Besson D. (2007). – Les crises sanitaires
dans la filière viande – Impact fort à court terme, plus limité à
long terme. INSEE Première, 1166. Available at: www.insee.fr/
fr/statistiques/1280765 (accessed on 6 June 2019).
24. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). –
Current animal health situation worldwide: analysis of events
and trends. In Final report 2018: 86th General Session,
Paris, 20–25 May. OIE, Paris, France, 90–102. Available at:
https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/About_us/docs/pdf/
Session/2018/A_FR_2018.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2019).
25. Blajan L. & Welte V.R. (1988). – L’information, un préalable
aux actions vétérinaires. In Veterinary information systems.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 7 (3), 445–495. doi:10.20506/
rst.7.3.363.
26. Chavernac D., Hendrikx P., Le Bel S. & Lancelot R. (2015).
– Les nouvelles technologies de l’information appliquées à la
vigilance en santé animale. Bull. épidémiol. santé anim. aliment.,
66, 51–54. Available at: https://be.anses.fr/sites/default/files/
BEP-mg-BE66-art14_0.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2019).
27. Cardoen S., De Clercq K., Vanholme L., De Winter P., Thiry E.
& Van Huffel X. (2017). – Preparedness activities and research
needs in addressing emerging infectious animal and zoonotic
diseases. In Biological threat reduction (T. Beckham, ed.).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 36 (2), 557–568. doi:10.20506/
rst.36.2.2674.
28. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2019). –
Observatory on implementation of OIE standards. OIE,
Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/
overview/oie-observatory/ (accessed on 24 June 2019).
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 299-310

World Trade Organization: notification of sanitary

and phytosanitary measures
R. Alcala (1)* & M.B. Martinez-Hommel (2)

(1) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures section, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade
Organization, Rue de Lausanne 154, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
(2) Agriculture section, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization, Rue de Lausanne 154,
1202 Geneva, Switzerland
*Corresponding author: rolando.alcala@wto.org

Summary
This paper provides an overview of the importance of transparency at the World
Trade Organization, a basic principle that translates into notification obligations.
In particular, the paper details the related obligations under the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, and how it applies to trade
in animals and animal products.

Keywords
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) – Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) – Animal – Animal
product – International standards – Non-tariff measure (NTM) – Notification – Trade –
Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) – Transparency – World Organisation for Animal Health
standards (OIE standards).

Notifications at the World Trade disclose any governmental regulation affecting Members,
as well as private persons and enterprises. One of the
Organization: a core element of objectives of the GATT Contracting Parties was to achieve
a greater degree of clarity, predictability and information

transparency about trade policies, to enable a more stable trading

At the World Trade Organization (WTO), transparency
is a means to ensure that all core principles of the WTO,
including the non-discrimination (national treatment) and
the most-favoured nation principles, are implemented.
Transparency is a building block to achieve greater
liberalisation of international trade through negotiations
among WTO Members, because trading partners need to be
fully informed of each other’s domestic trade-related laws
and regulations. It also allows Members to monitor whether
other Members are living up to their WTO commitments
and respecting the rules.
The concept of transparency – and review – is embodied
in Article X of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) 1947, which sets out the obligation for Contracting
Parties (the original name of GATT Members) to fully
environment. This objective was pursued through several
rounds of multilateral trade negotiations, including the
Uruguay Round that culminated in the establishment of the
WTO in 1995, and the signing of new trade agreements,
such as the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).
At the WTO, the implementation of transparency and review
is mainly achieved through two tools: a) peer surveillance
and b) notifications.
On the one hand, the WTO scrutinises each Member’s trade
policies through trade policy reviews, a peer examination
which allows Members to have a comprehensive overview
of trade policies and practices. In addition, in the wake of
the global financial and economic crisis that began in 2008,
the WTO Secretariat was tasked by Members to prepare
regular reports that monitor updates on the latest trends in

doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3083
300 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

the implementation of new trade and trade-related measures

and on important developments in trade policy-making.
Transparency and notification
On the other hand, each Member must provide timely
obligations under the
information to the WTO (i.e. to its membership) on specific
measures and policies that may affect trade with/of other
Agreement on the Application
Members. This is done through the notification process.
Compliance with notification requirements is an essential
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
element to enhance transparency. Policies reported through
notification are scrutinised by WTO Members during the
Measures
meetings held by the Committees established under each Implementation of transparency provisions
specific WTO agreement.
The WTO SPS Agreement covers a wide array of measures
The objective of notifications is to provide information on aimed to:
trade-related policies, which allows the membership to – protect human or animal life or health from foodborne
make sure that other Members comply with their specific risks
obligations under each agreement, in accordance with a – protect human health from plant- or animal-carried
specified timeline. In particular, certain agreements, such as diseases
the WTO SPS Agreement and the Agreement on Technical – protect plant and animal health from pests or diseases
Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), require Members to
– prevent other damage from the entry, establishment or
submit an ex ante notification, i.e. to notify other Members
spread of pests.
of a measure or policy under consideration at the domestic
level. For other WTO agreements, such as the Agreement
on Agriculture, this notification requirement relates to Veterinary legislation related to animal health or safety is
policies that are already implemented (in addition to other thus covered by the provisions of the SPS Agreement.
ex ante notification requirements).
Under the SPS Agreement, as for most of the WTO
agreements, the foundation of transparency rests on
Hence, transparency practices are not just a concept: their
notifications, and related obligations are contained in
observance can have a real impact and facilitate trade. Under
Article 7 and Annex B of the Agreement (2). The SPS
the SPS Agreement, notification requirements can help to
Committee, which oversees the implementation of the
ensure that SPS measures are not used as disguised barriers
SPS Agreement, has adopted recommended procedures
to trade or are not more trade restrictive than necessary. For
for implementing the transparency obligations of the SPS
other WTO agreements, notification requirements also serve
Agreement (recommended transparency procedures), which
to prevent measures that have a trade-distorting effect – or
include guidance on the different types of notification,
that affect Members’ ability to trade – from being adopted,
requesting/providing documents related to a notification
and to monitor them when they are already in place. This is
and the handling of comments, among other topics (3).
of particular importance given the large number of policies These recommended procedures have undergone several
that are not merely tariffs, such as non-automatic import revisions in light of Members’ experience and proposals
licensing, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, (last revision circulated in 2018).
and technical barriers to trade (TBT). While necessary to
achieve specific policy objectives, these trade instruments,
The main transparency-related obligations of the SPS
referred to as non-tariff measures (NTMs), are, by nature,
Agreement are outlined in the following paragraphs. Reference
less transparent than tariffs, costly and can hinder the
is also made to the additional disciplines of transparency
smooth flow of trade. under the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA).

A recent joint publication by the United Nations Conference

on Trade and Development and the World Bank shows that,
among all NTMs, TBT and SPS measures account for the
majority of the incidence and effect of NTMs: of all globally
recorded NTMs, TBT and SPS measures represent 41% and
35%, respectively. The study also concludes that enhanced
transparency is a means of reducing the cost of NTMs, by
helping traders to find information on requirements and
procedures (1).
Notification of sanitary and phytosanitary measures
One of the important features of the SPS Agreement is
a requirement for prior notification of proposed SPS
measures. All WTO Members are required to notify other
Members of proposed changes in domestic regulations
when these regulations might have a significant effect on
trade, whether trade facilitating or trade restricting, and are
not based on an international standard, or when the content
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
of the draft regulation is not substantially the same as the
relevant international standard (or if the relevant standard
does not exist). However, the recommended transparency
procedures encourage the notification of all new or draft
regulations even when these conform to international
standards. Although this recommendation does not alter
the legal obligations of WTO Members, it may enhance
transparency regarding the application of standards,
guidelines and recommendations adopted by the World
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).
Notifying at an early stage enables Members to take into
account comments from other WTO Members by amending
the proposed law/regulation. Any WTO Member proposing
to introduce new SPS measures is required to:
a) publish a notice at an early stage in such a manner as to
enable interested Members to become acquainted with the
proposal;
b) provide copies of the draft measure on request (or make
it available on the Internet);
c) allow reasonable time for other WTO Members to
submit comments in writing;
d) discuss these comments on request;
e) take the related comments and results of the discussions
into account;
f) explain to the submitting Member how it plans to take
their comments into account;
g) where appropriate, provide additional relevant
information on the proposed SPS measures concerned;
h) provide the submitting Member with a copy of the
corresponding SPS measures as adopted, or information
that no corresponding SPS measures will be adopted for
the time being (paras 3, 5 and 6 of Annex B of the SPS
Agreement; paras 2.17 and 2.26 of the recommended
transparency procedures).
Furthermore, a ‘reasonable’ period needs to be provided
for submission, discussion and consideration of comments.
Members should normally allow at least 60 calendar
days for comments, except for proposed measures that
facilitate trade and those that are substantially the same as
an international standard (para. 2.8 of the recommended
transparency procedures). Trade-facilitating measures could
include, inter alia, the recognition of a disease-free area,
the lifting of a ban on imports imposed due to a disease
outbreak, or the simplification or elimination of certain
certification/approval procedures.
A notification should normally be made well before the
entry into force of the relevant measure, except when urgent
problems of health protection arise, or threaten to arise, for
the Member concerned. Any regulation brought into force
301
in urgent circumstances must be notified immediately and a
rationale for the urgent action is to be provided.
Publication of sanitary and phytosanitary regulations
The publication of regulations is a fundamental component
of transparency under the SPS Agreement. In that respect,
Members are obliged to:
– ensure that all SPS regulations which have been adopted
are published promptly in such a manner as to enable
interested Members to become acquainted with them.
Regulations to be published include laws, decrees or
ordinances that are applicable generally;
– except in urgent circumstances, allow a reasonable interval
between the publication of a sanitary or phytosanitary
regulation and its entry into force in order to allow time for
producers in exporting Member countries, and particularly
in developing-country Members, to adapt their products
and methods of production to the requirements of the
importing Member (paras 1 and 2 of Annex B to the SPS
Agreement).
This ‘reasonable interval’ shall be understood to mean
normally a period of at least six months, as agreed in the
Doha Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and
Concerns (4). Members are also encouraged to publish SPS
regulations on the Internet when possible. Publication on
the Internet has a number of advantages and benefits to
Members over more traditional methods, because it:
– allows for greater transparency
– makes it easier for Members to obtain documents
– reduces the amount of work involved in processing and
fulfilling document requests (para. 4.5 of the recommended
transparency procedures).
Figure 1 summarises the timeline for SPS notifications, as
explained above.
Designation of the national notification authority
and national enquiry point
Members are obliged to: a) identify a single central
government authority, the national notification authority
(NNA) (para. 10 of Annex B to the SPS Agreement), which
is responsible for the implementation of the SPS notification
requirements, and b) establish a national enquiry point
(NEP), which is responsible for answering all reasonable
SPS-related questions and providing relevant documents.
The NEP may be requested to respond to or provide
documents regarding adopted or proposed SPS measures,
including regulations, control, inspection and approval
procedures, quarantine treatment and risk assessment
procedures, among others (para. 3 of Annex B to the SPS
Agreement).
302
Initiation of a regulation Publication of a notice
Publication Adoption of
of the regulation the regulation
Entry into force
Minimum of 6 months
of the regulation
Fig. 1
Timeline for sanitary and phytosanitary notifications
The NEP should also provide, upon request, information
on participation in any bilateral or multilateral equivalence
agreements and arrangements.
Additional guidance on the implementation of the SPS
transparency provisions, including the operation of the
SPS NNAs and NEPs, can be found in the practical manual
for SPS national notification authorities and SPS national
enquiry points (5).
Transparency-related provisions under the Trade
Facilitation Agreement
Finally, the WTO TFA, which entered into force on
22 February 2017, adds additional disciplines on
transparency, which go beyond the SPS Agreement. The WTO
Secretariat prepared a document explaining the relationship
between the Trade Facilitation (TF) and SPS Agreements,
highlighting TF provisions that seem to go beyond the SPS
Agreement (6). For example, on publication and availability
of information, it includes the obligation to publish SPS
regulations on the Internet; as discussed earlier, this is also
encouraged in the recommended transparency procedures.
Implementation: overview of notification
statistics
Information presented in this section has been extracted
from the SPS information management system (SPS IMS),
which is a database that provides access to SPS-related
documents and information (7).
The two main types of notification are regular notifications
and emergency notifications. In addition, addenda,
corrigenda, revisions or translation supplements can be
issued subsequent to an original regular or emergency
notification.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)
Minimum of of 60 days
Notification to other Draft text upon request
Members (or website)
Receive
End of comment period
and discuss comments
In the period 2008 to 2018, a total of 11,445 SPS
notifications were submitted to the WTO; that is,
10,280 regular SPS measures and 1,165 emergency ones.
Figure 2 shows a general upward trend in the number of
notifications over the years.
As mentioned earlier, SPS measures can be applied to
protect human, animal and plant life or the territory of a
Member against certain risks. In the notification templates,
Members are required to state the objective and rationale of
proposed SPS regulations by selecting one, or several, of the
following five options:
– food safety (protecting human health from food-borne
risks)
– animal health (protecting animals from diseases or from
foodborne risks)
– plant protection (protecting plants from pests or diseases)
– protecting human health from animal/plant pests or
diseases
– protecting territory from other damage from pests.
Table  I indicates the total number and share of each
objective as cited in regular and emergency notifications.
It must be noted, however, that many notifications identify
more than one objective. Therefore, Table  I specifies the
total number of times the specific objective was assigned,
regardless of whether the notifications identified multiple
objectives. During the period 2008 to 2018, 12% of regular
notifications cited the objective of animal health.
Over all, the number (and share) of regular notifications
related to animal health circulated per year remained
relatively stable, as shown in Figure  3 (on average
115 notifications per year; a maximum of 170, circulated in
2008, and minimum of 70, circulated in 2010).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 303

Table I 70 predefined keywords, which describe issues appearing

‘Objectives’ of notified sanitary and phytosanitary measures in frequently in notifications. While the keywords include the
the period between 2008 and 2018 objectives of the notified regulation (e.g. food safety, animal
Number of health, plant protection), they also include additional
Notification type Share
notifications specificity, such as animal diseases, zoonoses, foot and
Regular notifications mouth disease, avian influenza, etc. Most of the notifications
Food safety 7,294 72% are assigned more than one keyword.
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or 4,185 41%
disease Table  II specifies the total number (and share) of times a
Plant protection 2,144 21% specific keyword was assigned. As shown in the table, the
Animal health 1,260 12% first five keywords that have been most frequently assigned
Protect territory from other damage from pests 794 8% to regular notifications, in descending order for the current
Emergency notifications
reporting period, are: human health, food safety, pesticides,
maximum residue limits (MRLs) and plant health.
Animal health 791 69%
Food safety 448 39%
For emergency notifications, the situation is the opposite.
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or 436 38%
disease
Figure  4 shows that, for each year in the period under
review, the majority of emergency notifications were related
Plant protection 178 16%
to animal health. Table  I shows that 69% of emergency
Protect territory from other damage from pests 127 11%
notifications cited the objective of animal health, thus
it was the most frequently cited objective (on average
72 emergency notifications per year; a maximum of 130,
Food safety is a predominant objective: the vast majority circulated in 2017, and minimum of 53, circulated in
of regular measures notified are related to human health 2012). Most such emergency measures are probably
and food safety, and in many notifications both keywords implemented in response to animal disease outbreaks in
were identified. With the SPS IMS, all notifications can exporting countries. Furthermore, in Table II, the top four
also be categorised according to a list of approximately keywords assigned to emergency notifications relate to

1,400
1,323
1,281
121
1,166 114
1,200
1,106
1,064 111
1,020 1,036
No. of sanitary and phytosanitary notifications

84 185
1,000 945 99
105
892
868 84
106 80
800
744
76

600 1,167 1,202

1,055
980
915 937 921
861
400 786 788
668

200

0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year

Regular Emergency

Fig. 2
Number of sanitary and phytosanitary notifications per year, 2008–2018
304 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

1,400 25%

1,202
1,200 1,167
20%
1,055
1,000 980
915 937 921

Share of regular notifications

861
No. of regular notifications

15%
800 786 788

688

600
10%

400

5%
200 170
126 129 142
107 108 97 92 113 99 97 109
67 50 70 73 73 73 60 54 56 63

0 0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Regular notifications related to animal health Share of regular notifications related to animal health
referencing an OIE standard, guideline Share of regular notifications related to animal health
or recommendation which refer to the OIE
Regular notifications related to animal health
Total of regular notifications
OIE: World Organisation for Animal Health
Fig. 3
Regular notifications related to animal health and referring to the World Organisation for Animal Health (2008–2018)

animals: animal health, animal diseases, pest- or disease-free The annual analysis shows that in 2008 the share of regular
regions/regionalisation and zoonoses. Two other keywords notifications related to animal health that referred to the
related to animal diseases are listed among the top ten OIE reached a peak of 14%, after which it dropped to 5% in
keywords: avian influenza and foot and mouth disease. 2010, before increasing again to 11% in 2013. Since then, it
has consistently decreased until reaching a minimum of 5%
As mentioned earlier, the SPS Agreement does not require
again in 2018 (Fig. 3).
Members to notify a regulation if its content is substantially
the same as that of an international standard adopted by
For emergency notifications, the situation is reversed. For the
the OIE. Nonetheless, the recommended transparency
same period, only 12% of emergency notifications indicated
procedures encourage Members to notify all regulations
that no international standard exists that is relevant to the
that are based on, conform to or are substantially the same
measure notified, whereas 70%, 13% and 5% referred to the
as an international standard, guideline or recommendation
OIE, IPPC and Codex international standards, respectively,
if they are expected to have a significant impact on trade of
other Members. The notification templates also seek more as relevant, as shown in Figure 6. This information suggests
precision from Members regarding relevant standards and that the relevant international standards are applicable in
whether the notified regulation conforms to them. many emergency situations, in particular for animal health,
and therefore provide invaluable guidance to governments
With respect to regular notifications circulated in the period on how to protect health in the face of emergencies, such as
2008 to 2018, in 53% of the cases Members indicated disease outbreaks.
that no relevant standard exists that is applicable to the
new measure being notified, while 26% of notifications The annual analysis (Fig.  4) shows that the share of
referred to the Codex Alimentarius (Codex), 13% to the emergency notifications related to animal health and
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and 8% referring to the OIE remained high, fluctuating between
to the OIE, as shown in Figure 5. 58% and 68% over the ten-year period.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 305

Table II safety concerns in animal products and zoonoses. This

Top 10 ‘keywords’ in notified sanitary and phytosanitary information can be extracted by searching by objectives and
measures (2008–2018) products. Figures 7 and 8 include regular and emergency
Number of notifications citing the objectives of food safety, animal
Notification type Share
notifications health or protection of humans from animal/plant pests
Regular notifications or diseases (zoonoses) that are related to animal products
Human health 7,661 75% (9). This research was done using the ‘search notifications’
Food safety 7,407 72% function of the SPS IMS application. The selected products
Pesticides 3,009 29% were: HS codes 01–05, 15, 16, 23, 30 and 33 (Products
Maximum residue limits (MRLs) 2,627 26% [HS codes] filter); and ‘animal*’ or ‘feed*’ or ‘fish*’ or ‘meat*’
Plant health 2,383 23% or ‘veterinary’ or ‘livestock’ (Products [free text field] filter).
Pests 1,347 13%
Food additives 1,337 13% It is interesting to note that, since 2008, the share of regular
Animal health 1,276 12% notifications related to animal health, food safety concerns
Territory protection 792 8% in animal products or zoonoses that refer to OIE standards
Contaminants 589 6%
has consistently been lower than 14% (Fig. 7). In addition,
Emergency notifications
since 2013, this share has decreased each year, from 11%
Animal health 865 74%
to 5% in 2018. For many of these notifications, the relevant
identified standard would be a Codex standard. Since 2014,
Animal diseases 849 73%
the share of regular notifications related to animal health,
Pest- or disease-free regions/regionalisation 570 49%
food safety concerns in animal products or zoonoses that
Zoonoses 471 40%
refer to the Codex has been higher than the share of those
Human health 467 40%
notifications referring to the OIE, fluctuating between 7%
Food safety 439 38%
and 14%.
Avian influenza 414 36%
Plant health 185 16% This observation does not apply for emergency notifications.
Pests 168 14% Since 2008, the share of emergency notifications related
Foot and mouth disease 158 14% to animal health, food safety concerns in animal products
or zoonoses that refer to OIE standards has consistently
been equal to or above 61% (Fig. 8). For the period under
In addition to identifying the relevant standard, the review, the share of emergency notifications related to
notification templates include a section asking whether the animal health, food safety concerns in animal products or
proposed regulation conforms to the relevant international zoonoses that refer to the Codex remains low, fluctuating
standard. The SPS measures that conform to international between 0% and 7%. As observed in Figure 4, the majority
standards are presumed to be consistent with the SPS of emergency notifications relate predominantly to animal
Agreement. According to WTO jurisprudence, an SPS
health concerns and are based on an OIE standard.
measure that conforms to an international standard
is a measure that embodies the international standard This brief analysis shows that, while the number of
completely or, in other words, the measure is (almost)
notifications (regular and emergency) related to animal
identical to the international standard (8). During the
health concerns remains stable over time, in emergency
period 2008 to 2018, of the 8% of regular notifications
situations the vast majority of notifications not only relate to
identifying an OIE standard relevant to the measure, 79%
animal health concerns, but also identify an OIE standard
indicated that the proposed regulation conformed to that
OIE international standard. For the same period, of the 70% as being relevant. When considering public health concerns
of emergency notifications identifying an OIE standard, related to animal products or zoonoses, in addition to
82% indicated that the proposed regulation conformed to animal health concerns, Members find relevant guidance in
the OIE standard. Interestingly, the share of both regular Codex standards, mainly for regular notifications. For the
and emergency notifications indicating conformity to the most part, emergency notifications relate to outbreaks of
identified OIE standard is similar, at about 80%. animal diseases.

It is important to note that providing information on the

Public health aspects
Finally, veterinary legislation can often encompass public
health aspects. In addition to animal-health-related
measures, one can look at notifications related to food
pest or disease situation in a Member Country to the SPS
Committee does not substitute for the legal obligation to
submit certain information to the OIE (see Cáceres et al.,
this issue [9]).
306 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

200 80%

185
180
70%

160
60%
140

Share of emergency notifications

130
No. of emergency notifications

123 121 50%

120 114
111
106 105
100 99 40%

84 84
80 81
80 76 74
73 71 30%
68 67 69 67 68 70
63 63 64
60 55 57 56
53 51
49 20%
46
40

10%
20

0 0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Emergency notifications related to animal health Share of emergency notifications related to animal health
referencing an OIE standard, guideline or recommendation Share of emergency notifications related
Emergency notifications related to animal health to animal health which refer to the OIE
Total of emergency notifications
OIE: World Organisation for Animal Health

Fig. 4
Emergency notifications related to animal health and referring to the World Organisation for Animal Health (2008–2018)

Main online resources The SPS/TBT IMS and ePing are better suited to assist
in tracking SPS/TBT notifications and other documents
because they are tailored to the SPS/TBT areas of work. The
There are a number of resources on the Internet that facilitate SPS/TBT IMS build upon the information in Documents
Members’ access to SPS- and TBT-related information. These Online, allowing more advanced searching and reporting
include the WTO Secretariat’s Documents Online facility capabilities. Nonetheless, Documents Online remains
(http://docs.wto.org), SPS/TBT information management another useful source when performing broader searches for
systems (SPS IMS; TBT IMS) (http://spsims.wto.org; http:// SPS/TBT-related notifications and other WTO documents.
tbtims.wto.org) and ePing (www.epingalert.org), each of
which is further explained below. Sanitary and phytosanitary and technical
barriers to trade Information Management
World Trade Organization Documents Online Systems
The WTO Documents Online database provides access The SPS IMS (like the TBT IMS for TBT-related information)
to all official WTO documentation across various WTO is a specialised and detailed information source on SPS
trade topics. As notifications (and other SPS/TBT-related notifications, specific trade concerns and other SPS
documents) are official WTO documents, they are also documents. In addition, the most up-to-date information
searchable through this source. on Members’ notification authorities and enquiry points
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 307

IPPC
IPPC None
13% Codex
13% 12%
5%
OIE
8%

None
53%

Codex
26%

OIE
Codex: Codex Alimentarius 70%
IPPC: International Plant Protection Convention Codex: Codex Alimentarius
OIE: World Organisation for Animal Health IPPC: International Plant Protection Convention
Fig. 5 OIE: World Organisation for Animal Health

Regular notifications referencing an international standard Fig. 6

(2008–2018) Emergency notifications referencing an international standard
(2008–2018)

1,400 40%

1,202 35%
1,200 1,167

1,055
937 30%
1,000 980
915 921
861

Share of regular notifications

25%
No. of regular notifications

800 786 788

688 20%

600
15%
421
400
254 10%
292 287
260
241 241 197 235
200 170 197
130 133 5%
113 95 118
71 79 85 77 55
40 42 48 50 47 70 52 75 57 55 58 66

0 0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Regular notifications related to animal health, food safety Share of regular notifications related to animal health,
or zoonoses referencing a Codex standard, guideline food safety or zoonoses
or recommendation Share of regular notifications related to animal health,
Regular notifications related to animal health, food safety or food safety or zoonoses which refer to the OIE
zoonoses referencing an OIE standard, guideline or recommendation Share of regular notifications related to animal health,
Regular notifications related to animal health, food safety food safety or zoonoses which refer to the Codex
or zoonoses and animal products
Total of regular notifications

Codex: Codex Alimentarius

OIE: World Organisation for Animal Health
Fig. 7
Regular notifications related to animal health, food safety or zoonoses and referring to the World Organisation for Animal Health and
Codex Alimentarius (2008–2018)
308 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

200 90%
185

180 80%

160 158
70%
146
140

Share of emergency notifications

60%
No. of emergency notifications

121
120 114
111
106 105 50%
102
100 99

84 84 86 86 40%
81 80 82 80
80 76 77 77 79
70 70
65 64 63 30%
59 60
60 55
50 52
46
20%
40

20 10%

7 2 7 7
0 3 3 0 0 3 3
0 0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Emergency notifications related to animal health, food safety or zoonoses referencing a Codex standard, guideline or recommendation
Emergency notifications related to animal health, food safety or zoonoses referencing an OIE standard, guideline or recommendation
Emergency notifications related to animal health, food safety or zoonoses and animal products
Total emergency notifications
Share of emergency notifications related to animal health, food safety or zoonoses
Share of emergency notifications related to animal health, food safety or zoonoses which refer to OIE
Share of emergency notifications related to animal health, food safety or zoonoses which refer to Codex

Codex: Codex Alimentarius

OIE: World Organisation for Animal Health
Fig. 8
Emergency notifications related to animal health, food safety or zoonoses and referring to the World Organisation for Animal Health and
Codex Alimentarius (2008–2018)

can be accessed through the SPS IMS at: http://spsims.wto. contacted for more information on the use of this service to
org/en/EnquiryPointsNotificationAuthorities/Search. receive SPS notifications or other SPS-related documents.

As seen earlier, the SPS and TBT IMS, which build upon the
information in Documents Online, allow more advanced
ePing
searching and reporting capabilities, including the creation The ePing SPS/TBT notification alert system, a collaboration
of custom reports and graphs. among the International Trade Centre, the United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs and WTO,
Accessing e-Subscriptions enables timely access to new official veterinary requirements
E-Subscriptions is an e-mail alert service, available through and other regulations.
Documents Online, through which WTO Members can
receive an e-mail alert whenever new WTO documents By registering on ePing, users can receive daily or weekly
matching specified interests are circulated. In order to use this e-mail alerts containing SPS/TBT notifications covering
service, a personal WTO account is needed. In this regard, products/markets of interest to them. In addition, ePing’s
delegation coordinators of WTO missions in Geneva can be Web-based platform allows users to search for specific
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 309

SPS/TBT notifications based on criteria such as notifying
Member, products covered and objectives of the measure
(notification data in ePing are fed automatically from the
SPS and TBT IMS); ePing can also serve to keep abreast
of a Member’s own notifications. Furthermore, awareness
of regulatory trends in other markets can assist regulators
as they in turn develop measures to address similar policy
objectives.
Through its enquiry point management tool, ePing
provides additional functionalities for officially designated
NNAs/NEPs, allowing them to manage information and
communicate with domestic stakeholders.
Ultimately, ePing facilitates dialogue between the public
and private sectors in addressing potential trade problems
at an early stage.
Conclusions
Traders in many countries report difficulties in finding
information on SPS requirements and procedures, applicable
fees, waiting times and document requirements for imports.
In the absence of easily accessible information, they may
find themselves forced to rely on personal contacts, e.g. with
relevant industry associations and government officials,
to obtain such information, resulting in high information
costs. Making sure that relevant stakeholders, including
producers, traders and consumers, have simple access to
information on animal health measures and procedures can
enhance compliance and lower trade costs.
Improving transparency of animal health or safety
requirements and procedures offers one relatively easy
way to enhance the governance and implementation of
animal health measures and facilitate trade. This includes
publishing the relevant regulations, ideally on the Internet,
and sending notifications, as required by the SPS Agreement,
as well as other related agreements such as the TBT and TF
Agreements.
Improvement of the online SPS notification system, as
well as the development of recent initiatives such as ePing
and other similar systems, should further help Members
to better fulfil their SPS transparency obligations. Beyond
obligations, Members can take advantage of a transparent
system, for example by disseminating SPS documents to
interested parties, participating in SPS Committee work,
raising awareness at the national level on SPS-related issues
and playing a coordinating role in interactions among
the WTO Secretariat, relevant government Ministries
and the domestic private sector. Regular public–private
dialogue is crucial to keep businesses informed of market-
access requirements – including when animal health and
safety regulations or procedures change, in which case
government authorities are encouraged to consult the
business community and other relevant stakeholders to
identify the best course of action.

L’Organisation mondiale du commerce : notification des mesures

sanitaires et phytosanitaires
R. Alcala & M.B. Martinez-Hommel

Résumé
Les auteurs offrent une vue d’ensemble du rôle joué par la transparence au sein
de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce, principe de base qui se traduit par une
obligation de notification. En particulier, ils précisent les obligations prévues en
vertu de l’Accord sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires et la
manière dont ce principe s’applique aux échanges internationaux d’animaux et
de produits d’origine animale.

Mots-clés
Accord sur la facilitation des échanges – Accord sur l’application des mesures sanitaires
et phytosanitaires (Accord SPS) – Accord sur les obstacles techniques au commerce
(Accord OTC) – Animal – Commerce international – Mesure non tarifaire (MNT) – Normes
internationales – Normes de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (normes de
l’OIE) – Notification – Produit d’origine animale – Transparence.
310 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Organización Mundial del Comercio: notificación de medidas

sanitarias y fitosanitarias
R. Alcala & M.B. Martinez-Hommel

Resumen
Los autores explican la importancia que dentro de la Organización Mundial
del Comercio reviste la transparencia, un principio básico que se traduce en
obligaciones de notificación. En particular, describen en detalle las obligaciones
que en este sentido impone el Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias
y Fitosanitarias y cómo se aplica dicho principio al comercio de animales
y productos de origen animal.

Palabras clave
Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio – Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas
Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (Acuerdo MSF) – Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio
(Acuerdo OTC) – Animal – Comercio – Medida no arancelaria (MNA) – Normas de la
Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (normas de la OIE) – Normas internacionales
– Notificación – Producto de origen animal – Transparencia.

References
1. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) & World Bank (2018). – The unseen impact of
non-tariff measures: insights from a new database. UNCTAD,
Geneva, Switzerland, 35 pp. Available at: https://unctad.org/
en/PublicationsLibrary/ditctab2018d2_en.pdf (accessed on
9 July 2019).
2. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995). – Agreement on
the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
WTO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.wto.
org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm (accessed on
27 January 2020).
3. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – Recommended
procedures for implementing the transparency obligations of
the SPS Agreement (Article 7). G/SPS/7/Rev.4. WTO, Geneva,
Switzerland, 31  pp. Available at: http://docsonline.wto.
org/imrd/directdoc.asp?DDFDocuments/t/G/SPS/7R4.docx
(accessed on 9 July 2019).
4. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2001). – Implementation-
related issues and concerns. WT/MIN(01)/17. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland, paragraph 3.2. Available at: https://
docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?
language=E&CatalogueIdList=35625,33346,18756,
37254,17243&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=2&FullTextHash=
(accessed on 27 February 2020).
5. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – Practical manual
for SPS national notification authorities and SPS national
enquiry points, 2018 Ed. WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 88 pp.
Available at: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/practical_
manual_for_sps_national_notification_authorities_and
_sps_national_enquiry_points_7531_18_e.pdf (accessed on
27 February 2020).
6. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2018). – The relationship
between the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS
Agreement). WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 9  pp. Available at:
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/tf_sps_e.pdf (accessed on
9 July 2019).
7. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2020). – Sanitary and
phytosanitary information management system. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://spsims.wto.org
(accessed on 27 February 2020).
8. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1998). – EC measures
concerning meat and meat products (hormones). Report of
the Appellate Body. WT/DS/26/AB/R, WT/DS/48/AB/R. WTO,
Geneva, Switzerland, para.  170. Available at: www.wto.org/
english/tratop_e/dispu_e/hormab.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2019).
9. Cáceres P., Tizzani P., Ntsama F. & Mora R. (2020). – The
World Organisation for Animal Health: notification of animal
diseases. In Ensuring safe trade in animals and animal products
(C.  Wolff & A. Hamilton, eds). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.,
39 (1), 289–297. doi:10.20506/rst.39.1.3082.
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 311-316

Instructions to authors

Aims and scope of the Review

The Review is the principal scientific and technical publication of the OIE and it helps to fulfil
one of the key objectives of the Organisation, namely: to collect, analyse and disseminate
veterinary scientific information.

The Review presents a variety of information on veterinary activities, notably those that involve
international cooperation in the fields of both animal and public health.

Another objective of the Review is to inform readers of the activities of the Organisation and
of its Members.

The Review is indexed in numerous databases, including Medline, CABI databases and Clarivate
Analytics Web of Science.

Content
Two of the three issues published in each volume are devoted to a specific theme. For these
two issues, an internationally renowned expert is invited to act as editor, and specialists in the
field are asked to contribute papers, thereby providing readers with a comprehensive overview
of the topic under discussion.

The third issue each year is a plurithematic issue. The Managing Editor of the Review welcomes
contributions on a broad range of animal health and welfare issues of global interest. The types of
contributions accepted for the Review, and some examples of relevant topics, are provided below.

Reviews

Reviews offer detailed studies on a specific and topical subject, such as the epizootiology,
diagnosis, treatment and control of those animal diseases or zoonoses of greatest importance
to the international community. Other subjects which may be covered include: animal welfare,
the responsible use of antimicrobials, food safety, the administration of Veterinary Services,
legislation, information systems, animal health and economics.

Original articles

These may be papers on research or on the diagnosis, control and treatment of animal diseases,
epidemiology and food safety and they should be of interest internationally. Original articles
may also cover other issues relating to international cooperation between Veterinary Services.

Communications

The subject matter in this section is identical to that of original articles, but communications are
shorter in length or discuss a more limited aspect or area. Furthermore, the content need not be
original but may review published work.

Reports

These summarise the proceedings of scientific and technical meetings held by the OIE or other
organisations.
312 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Conditions for accepting manuscripts

Contributors to the Review undertake to submit articles which have not been published elsewhere,
either in part or in full, and which do not require prior authorisation for publication by the OIE. In
submitting a manuscript, the authors agree for the copyright of their article to be transferred to the OIE
if and when the article is accepted for publication (the Advisory Editorial Board will, however, consider
all requests made by authors for permission to reproduce articles). Authors must complete a form
indicating that they agree to these conditions and this form must be submitted with their manuscript.
The agreement form is available to download from the OIE website (www.oie.int).

Manuscripts may be submitted in any one of the three official languages of the OIE: English, French
or Spanish. The Advisory Editorial Board may decide to publish certain articles in all three languages.
Authors not writing in their primary language are encouraged to seek professional editorial assistance
prior to submitting their manuscript.

The first (or corresponding) author receives immediate notification of receipt of the article. The
manuscript is then submitted for appraisal to the Scientific and Technical Committee. The author is
subsequently advised of the decision of the Board.

If the article is accepted, it will be revised by a copy editor, who will contact the author about any
changes made to the manuscript. A response from authors within a week is essential at this stage.

It is the responsibility of the first author to ensure that all co-authors concur with changes made prior
to publication.

For the plurithematic issue of the Review, once the edited version of the paper has been finalised and
approved by the authors, it will be posted on the OIE website. This document will also be formatted
and prepared for printing.

If the article is written in English, the printed version will include summaries in French and Spanish.
If it is written in French, the article will be translated into English and will include a summary in
Spanish. Similarly, if the article is written in Spanish, it will be translated into English and will include
a summary in French.

Referee suggestions: The Editor will consider suggestions from the authors about who could
review the article. Authors can propose the names of up to four independent reviewers (please
provide complete contact details, including an e-mail address). Ideally, these reviewers should be
internationally recognised and come from a variety of different countries and not from the same
country as the authors. The final choice of reviewers rests with the Editor.

Presentation of manuscripts
Authors should send their manuscript by e-mail to: publications.unit@oie.int
All pages should be numbered and the various sections should be arranged in the following order:
1. Title, names and addresses of authors
2. Summary and keywords
3. Text
4. Acknowledgements (if applicable)
5. References
6. Tables
7. Figures.
Guidelines are given below for the preparation of manuscripts. For concrete examples, authors are
invited to consult a recent issue of the Review.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 313

1. Title, names and addresses of authors

The title should be concise (no more than 70 characters) and should not contain abbreviations.
Standard terminology should be used in the title to facilitate information retrieval and indexing;
for example, ‘Epidemiological survey of blackleg in cattle in France’ (topic, disease, species,
country).

The family names of authors should be preceded by their initials and followed by a superscript
bracketed Arabic number. The corresponding author should be identified with an asterisk and an
e-mail address supplied. The full address of each author should be given below the list of names,
as follows:
H. Jones (1), M.L. Smith (2) & M. Webber (2)*
(1) Department of Animal Studies, Centre for Environmental Research, 12 Wellbeck Street, London WI SO4,
United Kingdom
(2) Institute of Veterinary Research, 4 Portsmouth Road, Southampton SO4 6NW, United Kingdom
*Corresponding author: m.webber@ivr.org

2. Summary and keywords

The Summary should provide an outline of the entire text, including the principal findings and
conclusions. It should be written in the original language and not exceed 250 words. The OIE will
have the summaries translated into the other two official languages of the Organisation. Five to
ten keywords should be provided after the summary.

3. Text
Manuscripts should not exceed 4,000 words (14 to 16 typed pages). When an author wishes to
submit a paper of greater length, agreement should first be sought from the Editor. Unnecessarily
long paragraphs should be avoided. In general, paragraphs should not be longer than 200 words
(or 20 lines). Experimental work and epidemiological studies should be presented using the
following standard layout: introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusions,
and references.

Units of measurement should be expressed using the metric system and, where appropriate,
SI units. New diagnostic methods should be described in sufficient detail (e.g. reference standard,
nature of the antiserum or antigen, specificity, sensitivity, etc.). Details of well-known methods
or those already described in an international journal or review need not be included, but a
reference should be provided.

Veterinary drugs, reagents and laboratory materials should be referred to in the text by the
generic name (and, only if necessary, the commercial name).

Abbreviations and acronyms should be defined the first time they are used. Footnotes cannot be
used; all details should be incorporated in the main text.

Tables and figures should be mentioned in the text at the place where the author wishes them
to be included.

Authors are asked to refer to the most recent international nomenclature published by recognised
international scientific societies. The names of all species referred to in the text must be followed
by their Latin name in brackets and in italics.

Useful reference works include:

Mammal Species of the World, Third Edition, 2005, Johns Hopkins University Press
HBW and BirdLife International Checklist of Birds of the World, 2014, Lynx Edicions
314 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Virus Taxonomy – Classification and Nomenclature of Viruses – The Online (10th) Report
of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, 2016 (talk.ictvonline.org)
List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature – Available at: www.bacterio.
cict.fr
Index of Bacterial and Yeast Nomenclatural Changes, 1992.

4. Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements may be made to persons who have contributed substantially to the article.
Authors are responsible for obtaining permission from the persons acknowledged by name.

5. References
Authors can access the OIE reference style using reference management software.

– EndNote

From the list of styles offered by the software, select ‘OIE Scientific and Technical Review’.

If the list has not been updated recently, you can download the style here: http://endnote.com/
downloads/style/oie-scientific-and-technical-review.

– Zotero, Mendeley and Papers

From the list of styles offered by the software, select ‘World Organisation for Animal Health –
Scientific and Technical Review’.

For Zotero, if the list has not been updated recently, you can download the style here: www.
zotero.org/styles/world-organisation-for-animal-health-scientific-and-technical-review.

References to the literature should be made by number and enclosed in brackets. They should
be numbered in order of citation. References in tables and figures should be numbered as
though the tables and figures were part of the text, i.e. they should continue the sequence of
numbers in the text at the point where the table is first mentioned. All published documents that
are referred to in the text, tables or figures must be included in the reference list. The numbered
references should be listed in order of citation.

For an article on research, it is recommended that the number of references be limited to 50. For
review articles, this number may be doubled.

Authors are requested to verify the accuracy of all references before submitting the paper and
to check that all of these have been cited in the text. The names of journals and reviews should
be abbreviated unambiguously. If in doubt, the full title should be given. For examples of title
abbreviations and the bibliographical format used in the Review, authors are advised to consult
the reference sections of recent issues.

Unpublished data and personal communications should be referred to in the body of the text
and not in the list of references. Authors are required to obtain approval from sources quoted as
unpublished data and personal communications before the paper is submitted for publication.

References to OIE standards (e.g. the Terrestrial Animal Health Code) should be listed under
World Organisation for Animal Health, for example:
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2016). – Terrestrial Animal Health Code,
25th Ed. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/international-standard-
setting/terrestrial-code/access-online/ (accessed on 23 March 2016).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 315

(If you are submitting your paper in French or Spanish, OIE references should be listed under
Organisation/Organización.)
Each reference should list the names – followed by the initials – of authors, the year of
publication, the full title of the article, the journal name, the volume number, the issue number,
the page numbers and, when available, the digital object identifier (DOI), as shown in the
examples below.
– Article from a journal or review:
Narrod C., Zinsstag J. & Tiongco M. (2012). – A One Health framework for estimating the
economic costs of zoonotic diseases on society. EcoHealth, 9 (2), 150–162. doi:10.1007/
s10393-012-0747-9.
Morse S.S. (2004). – Factors and determinants of disease emergence. In Emerging
zoonoses and pathogens of public health concern (L.J. King, ed.). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int.
Epiz., 23 (2), 443–451. doi:10.20506/rst.23.2.1494.

– Article in press:
de La Rocque S., Caya F. [...] & Chungong S. (2019). – One Health within the International
Health Regulations Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. In Successes and remaining
challenges within the One Health approach (C. Barton Behravesh & J.R. Sinclair, eds).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 38 (1) (in press). doi:10.20506/rst.38.1.2962.

– Chapter of a book or conference report (for conference reports, please include the name and
location of the publisher as well as the dates and location of the conference):
Read P., Cousins C. & Murray R. (1992). – Assessment of the immunogenicity of different
strains of Bacteroides nodosus. ln Proc. 4th Symposium on sheep diseases (P. Morris &
G. Roberts, eds), 12–14 February 1991, Paris. Vigier, Paris, France, 894–897.

– Book or published report (please include a website address for online reports):

Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP) (2019). – Food safety in Africa: past endeavors
and future directions. GFSP, Washington DC, United States of America, 84 pp. Available
at: www.gfsp.org/sites/gfsp/files/public/GFSP%20Report_Food%20Safety%20in%20
Africa-web.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2020).

– When citing information obtained from the Internet, authors are requested to include a DOI.
If no DOI exists, please include a link to the webpage where the document can be consulted
and include the date on which the information was accessed. Internet references should refer
to a particular document or to specific data. (NB: Website addresses provided for general
information should be included in the body of the text, not in the reference section.) References
to webpages must include the date on which they were last accessed:

World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2016). – Risks associated with the use of
antimicrobials in animals worldwide. OIE, Paris, France. Available at: www.oie.int/en/
for-the-media/editorials/detail/article/risks-associated-with-the-use-of-antimicrobials-
in-animals-worldwide/ (accessed on 20 April 2016).

– References to electronic versions of paper publications should, where possible, be treated

as any other paper publication and include the usual publishing details in addition to the Web
address:
European Commission (EC) (2006). – Commission Decision of 14 November
2006 concerning minimum requirements for the collection of information during the
inspections of production sites on which certain animals are kept for farming purposes
Off. J. Eur. Union, L 314, 39–47. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:314:0039:0047:EN:PDF (accessed on 15 March 2017).
316 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

6. Tables
Tables should be given titles and assigned Roman numerals. Each table should be presented on a separate page at the end of
the text. All columns should be headed, with individual values replaced, as far as possible, by mean values and standard
deviations. Notes, comments or explanations relating to numerical values should be indicated using superscript letters
(e.g. (a), (b), (c), (d)) and table footnotes. Abbreviations which are not widely used should be explained. Tables should
illustrate, not duplicate, information in the text.

7. Figures
The use of figures is strongly encouraged if they provide additional information not already contained in the text.
Graphs, diagrams, drawings, maps and photographs are all considered figures. They should be numbered using
Arabic numerals in the order in which they are cited in the text.
Graphs must be submitted in Excel® or PowerPoint® format (giving the data used to create the figures as well as the
figures themselves). Diagrams, drawings and maps should be submitted in a format which allows for the figures to
be edited, i.e. .eps, .ai (Illustrator®) or .fr (Freehand®). Digital photographs should be sent in one of
the following formats: .jpg, .tiff or .eps. They should be between 455 and 2,055 pixels wide (8.35 cm – 17.4 cm) and
have a resolution of no less than 300 dots per inch (dpi).
Each figure should be sent in a separate file and the corresponding title should be presented on a separate page
at the end of the manuscript. Titles should be self-explanatory and legends must fully explain the figure, so that
the need to refer back to the text is minimised. The subject, site and date should be given, where possible. This
information can be completed by providing units, sources and explanatory notes. Maps should include the scale.

Dissemination of Review articles

A copy of the final article, for the author’s personal use, will be e-mailed to him or her once the issue in which it is
included has been finalised.
One month after publication, details of Review articles (e.g. authors, title, summary, keywords,  DOI) will
be available on the OIE’s documentary database (http://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.seam;jsessionid=
882019259e687597c4ce110325b8) and PubMed.
Full articles will be freely available for download 12 months after their publication from the OIE documentary
database and PubMed.

Complimentary copies of the Review

The corresponding author will receive a complimentary copy of the issue in which his/her paper is published.
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 317–322

Instructions aux auteurs

Objectifs de la Revue
La Revue est la principale publication scientifique et technique de l’OIE ; elle aide à remplir
l’un des objectifs clés de l’Organisation, à savoir : collecter, analyser et diffuser l’information
scientifique vétérinaire.

La Revue diffuse des informations relatives aux activités vétérinaires pouvant notamment
impliquer une coopération internationale en matière de santé animale, mais aussi de santé
publique.

Elle a également pour objet de faire connaître à ses lecteurs les actions conduites par
l’Organisation et ses Membres.

La Revue est indexée dans de nombreuses bases de données, dont Medline, CABI et Clarivate
Analytics Web of Science.

Contenu
Deux des trois numéros publiés dans chaque volume sont thématiques. Un expert de renom
international est invité à assumer la responsabilité éditoriale de ces numéros thématiques
et des spécialistes du domaine considéré sont invités à soumettre des contributions afin de
proposer aux lecteurs un ensemble de textes couvrant les différents aspects du sujet traité.
Le troisième numéro de chaque année est plurithématique. La Rédaction accueille favorablement
les contributions dédiées à diverses questions en lien avec la santé et le bien-être animal dans
une perspective mondiale. Les types de contributions acceptées pour la Revue, sont décrits ci-
après, avec quelques exemples de sujets pertinents.

Synthèses
Les synthèses présentent des mises au point détaillées sur un thème spécifique d’actualité, par
exemple l’épizootiologie, le diagnostic, le traitement et la prophylaxie des maladies animales ou
zoonoses les plus importantes pour la communauté internationale. Les synthèses peuvent aussi
traiter de sujets tels que le bien-être animal, l’utilisation responsable des agents, la sécurité
sanitaire des aliments, l’administration des Services vétérinaires, la législation, les systèmes
d’information, l’économie de la santé animale.

Articles originaux
Ces articles peuvent être des rapports de recherche, des comptes rendus d’expériences dans
les domaines du diagnostic, de l’épidémiologie, de la prophylaxie et du traitement des maladies
animales ainsi que dans celui de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments. Ces travaux doivent
présenter un intérêt international. Les articles originaux peuvent traiter de tout autre sujet en
rapport avec la coopération internationale des Services vétérinaires.

Communications
Les thèmes traités sous cette rubrique sont identiques à ceux des articles originaux, mais les
communications sont de longueur moindre ou sont consacrées à un aspect plus limité de ces
sujets. Par ailleurs, leur contenu peut ne pas être original mais se référer à des travaux publiés.

Rapports
Il s’agit de brefs comptes rendus de réunions scientifiques et techniques de l’OIE ou d’autres
organisations.
318 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Conditions d’acceptation des manuscrits

Les auteurs s’engagent à soumettre à la Revue des articles qui n’ont pas été publiés ailleurs,
en partie ou en totalité, et dont la publication par l’OIE ne nécessite pas une autorisation
préalable. En soumettant leur manuscrit, les auteurs acceptent que le copyright de leur article
soit transféré à l’OIE lorsqu’il est accepté pour publication. Cependant, le Comité consultatif
de rédaction prend en considération toute demande des auteurs pour une éventuelle reproduction
de leur article. Les auteurs sont priés de signer un formulaire par lequel ils approuvent les présentes
conditions et de le joindre à leur manuscrit. Le formulaire est téléchargeable à partir du site web de
l’OIE (www.oie.int).

Les manuscrits peuvent être rédigés dans l’une des trois langues officielles de l’OIE : français, anglais
ou espagnol. Le Comité consultatif de rédaction se réserve le droit de faire paraître certains articles
dans les trois langues officielles de l’OIE. Les auteurs ne rédigeant pas dans leur langue maternelle
sont invités à faire relire leur manuscrit par un réviseur professionnel avant de l’adresser à l’OIE.

Un accusé de réception est adressé au premier auteur (ou à l’auteur chargé de la correspondance
avec l’OIE), dès l’arrivée de son manuscrit. Celui-ci est ensuite soumis à l’appréciation d’experts du
Comité scientifique et technique de la Revue, dont l’avis sera communiqué à l’auteur.

En cas d’acceptation de l’article, le premier auteur est consulté par le réviseur chargé de la
préparation éditoriale de celui-ci au sujet de toute modification proposée. Il est essentiel à cette
étape que les auteurs adressent leur réponse dans la semaine qui suit.

Le premier auteur (ou l’auteur chargé de la correspondance avec l’OIE) est prié d’informer les autres
auteurs des modifications apportées au texte avant la publication de celui-ci.

Pour le numéro plurithématique de la Revue, dès réception de la version révisée dûment finalisée et
approuvée par les auteurs, l’article sera mis en ligne sur le site web de l’OIE. Il sera ensuite formaté
et préparé pour être publié.

Lorsque l’article original est en anglais la version imprimée comprend la traduction du résumé en
français et en espagnol ;  lorsque l’article original est en français, il est intégralement traduit en
anglais et comporte un résumé en espagnol ; de même pour l’article original en espagnol qui sera
intégralement traduit en anglais et comportera un résumé en français.

Suggestions concernant la révision par des pairs : la Rédaction examine volontiers toute
proposition émanant des auteurs qui peuvent suggérer quatre noms de réviseurs indépendants
(coordonnées détaillées et adresse e-mail). Ces réviseurs doivent si possible ne pas être du
même pays que l’auteur, être reconnus internationalement, et représenter une large répartition
géographique. Le choix final des réviseurs appartient à la Rédaction.

Présentation des manuscrits

Les auteurs doivent adresser leur manuscrit par e-mail à l’adresse publications.unit@oie.int
Chaque page doit être numérotée et les éléments disposés dans l’ordre suivant :
1. Titre, noms et adresses des auteurs
2. Résumé et mots-clés
3. Texte
4. Remerciements (s’il y a lieu)
5. Bibliographie
6. Tableaux
7. Figures.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 319

Les auteurs trouveront ci-après des instructions pour la préparation de leurs manuscrits.
La consultation d’un numéro récent de la Revue leur fournira des exemples concrets.

1. Titre, noms et adresses des auteurs

Le titre de l’article doit être concis et ne pas dépasser 70 caractères. Il ne doit pas contenir
d’abréviations. Pour faciliter la recherche de l’information et l’indexation, il convient d’utiliser
dans le titre la terminologie courante. Exemple : « Enquête épidémiologique sur le charbon
symptomatique chez les bovins en France » (sujet, maladie, espèce, pays).

Les noms des auteurs doivent être précédés des initiales de leurs prénoms et suivis d’un
exposant (chiffres arabes entre parenthèses). L’auteur chargé de la correspondance doit être
identifié par un astérisque et doit fournir une adresse e-mail. L’adresse complète de chaque
auteur doit être indiquée à la suite des noms d’auteurs, comme suit :

J.-P. Dupont (1), R.L. Calvey (2) & M. Sansom (2)*

(1) Laboratoire d’immunopathologie, Centre national de recherches vétérinaires, B.P. 495, 36120 Basse-Ville, France
(2) Institut supérieur de recherches en immunologie, 14, rue de Paris, 98150 Froment Cedex, France
* Auteur chargé de la correspondance : m.sansom@ivr.org

2. Résumé et mots-clés
Le résumé, rédigé dans la langue originale, ne doit pas dépasser 250 mots. Il présentera la
méthodologie, les principaux résultats et les conclusions de l’étude, en reflétant l’essentiel du
contenu de l’article. Il sera traduit dans les deux autres langues officielles par les soins de l’OIE.
Le résumé sera suivi de cinq à dix mots-clés.

3. Texte
La longueur d’un manuscrit ne doit pas dépasser 4 000 mots (14 à 16 pages dactylographiées).
Les auteurs souhaitant publier un article plus long doivent obtenir l’accord préalable de la
Rédaction. Dans la mesure du possible, les paragraphes comporteront, au plus, une vingtaine
de lignes (200 mots environ). Les travaux expérimentaux et les enquêtes épidémiologiques
seront présentés selon le plan standard suivant : introduction, matériels et méthodes, résultats,
discussion, conclusions, bibliographie.

Les unités de mesure seront exprimées en utilisant le système métrique et, si nécessaire, les
unités SI. Les nouvelles méthodes de diagnostic seront décrites avec des détails suffisants (par
exemple : standard de référence, nature de l’antisérum ou de l’antigène, spécificité, sensibilité,
etc.). Les méthodes connues ou déjà décrites dans un journal ou une revue d’audience
internationale seront simplement mentionnées avec leurs références.

Les médicaments vétérinaires, réactifs et matériels de laboratoire seront désignés dans le texte
par leur nom générique (et, éventuellement, leur nom commercial si cette précision s’avère
nécessaire).

Les abréviations et les acronymes seront définis lors de leur première citation. Le texte ne doit
pas comporter de notes de bas de page. Les précisions souhaitées peuvent être incorporées
dans le texte.

Les tableaux et les figures seront mentionnés dans le texte à l’emplacement souhaité par
l’auteur pour leur insertion.

Les auteurs sont invités à se référer aux nomenclatures internationales les plus récentes
publiées par les sociétés scientifiques internationales reconnues. Les noms d’espèces (animales,
bactériennes, virales, etc.) doivent être obligatoirement suivis de leur dénomination latine entre
parenthèse et en italique.
320 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Nomenclature : quelques ouvrages de référence :

Mammal Species of the World, 3e édition, 2005, Johns Hopkins University Press
HBW and BirdLife International Checklist of Birds of the World, 2014, Lynx Edicions
Virus Taxonomy – Classification and Nomenclature of Viruses – The Online (10th) Report of
the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, 2016 (talk.ictvonline.org)
List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature – Site Web :
www.bacterio.cict.fr.
Index of Bacterial and Yeast Nomenclatural Changes, 1992.

4. Remerciements
Les auteurs peuvent adresser des remerciements aux personnes ayant apporté une contribution
substantielle à l’article. Il incombe aux auteurs d’obtenir des personnes dont ils citent le nom
l’autorisation de le faire.

5. Bibliographie

Des styles de citation adaptés à l’OIE sont disponibles pour les auteurs utilisant un outil de citation.

– EndNote

Dans la liste des styles de citation proposés par votre logiciel, sélectionner le style de citation «
OIE Scientific and Technical Review ».

S’agissant de Zotero, si la liste n’a pas été actualisée récemment, le style peut être téléchargé à
cette adresse : http://endnote.com/downloads/style/oie-scientific-and-technical-review.

– Zotero, Mendeley et Papers

Dans la liste des styles de citation proposés par votre logiciel, sélectionner « World Organisation
for Animal Health - Scientific and Technical Review ».

Si la liste n’a pas été actualisée récemment, le style peut S’agissant de Zotero, si être téléchargé
à cette adresse : www.zotero.org/styles/world-organisation-for-animal-health-scientific-and-
technical-review.

Toutes les références bibliographiques citées dans le texte doivent figurer dans cette section. Dans la
bibliographie, les références seront classées dans l’ordre de leur citation dans le texte et numérotées
dans cet ordre. Les références bibliographiques citées dans le texte doivent être signalées par un
numéro entre parenthèses. Les références incluses dans les tableaux et figures sont citées de la
même manière, en continuité avec la numérotation du texte dans lequel ils ou elles s’insèrent.

Pour un article de recherche, il est recommandé de limiter à 50 le nombre des références ; ce

nombre pourra être doublé pour un article de synthèse.

Avant de soumettre leur article, les auteurs sont priés de contrôler l’exactitude de toutes les
références et de vérifier que toutes sont citées dans le texte. Les noms des journaux et revues
seront abrégés sans ambiguïté. En cas d’équivoque possible, ils seront retranscrits intégralement.
Des exemples de titres abrégés et de présentation des références selon les normes de la Revue
peuvent être trouvés dans les bibliographies de numéros récents.

Les données non publiées et les communications personnelles seront citées dans le corps du
texte et non dans la bibliographie. Avant de soumettre leur article, les auteurs sont priés d’obtenir
auprès des personnes ou organismes concernés l’autorisation de citer les sources non publiées ou
les communications personnelles.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 321

Les publications collectives ou normatives de l’OIE (le Code sanitaire pour les animaux terrestres
par exemple) doivent être citées avec comme nom d’auteur l’Organisation mondiale de la santé
animale. Par exemple :

Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) (2016). – Code sanitaire pour les animaux
terrestres, 25e éd. OIE, Paris, France. Disponible en ligne : www.oie.int/fr/normes-
internationales/code-terrestre/acces-en-ligne/ (consulté le 10 décembre 2016).
Dans les bibliographies des articles rédigés en anglais, elles sont citées sous « World Organisation
for Animal Health » et pour les articles rédigés en espagnol, sous «Organización Mundial de
Sanidad Animal».
Chaque référence doit indiquer les noms suivis des initiales de les auteurs, l’année de publication,
le titre complet de l’article, le nom du périodique, le volume, le numéro, les pages et si possible le
numéro d’identifiant numérique (DOI), conformément aux exemples ci-après.
– Article de journal ou de revue :

Narrod C., Zinsstag J. & Tiongco M. (2012). – A One Health framework for estimating the
economic costs of zoonotic diseases on society. EcoHealth, 9 (2), 150–162. doi:10.1007/
s10393-012-0747-9.

Morse S.S. (2004). – Factors and determinants of disease emergence. In Zoonoses et

agents pathogènes émergents importants de la santé publique (L.J. King, édit.). Rev. Sci.
Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 23 (2), 443-451. doi:10.20506/rst.23.2.1494.
– Article sous presse :
de La Rocque S., Caya F. [...] & Chungong S. (2019). – One Health within the International
Health Regulations Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. In Réussites et défis à relever
selon l’approche Une seule santé (C. Barton Behravesh & J.R. Sinclair, édit.). Rev. Sci.
Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 38 (1) (sous presse). doi:10.20506/rst.38.1.2962.
– Chapitre du livre ou rapport de conférence (pour les rapports de conférences, il convient
d’indiquer également l’éditeur et le lieu de publication, ainsi que le lieu et les dates de la
conférence) :
Raimond P., Cousin C. & Mouthon R. (1992). – Évaluation du pouvoir immunogène de
diverses souches de Bacteroides nodosus. ln Comptes rendus du 4e Symposium sur les
maladies ovines (P. Morice & P. Raimond, édit.), Paris, 12-14 février 1991. Vigier, Paris,
France, 894-897.
– Livre ou rapport publié (préciser l’adresse du site web pour les rapports en ligne) :
Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP) (2019). – Food safety in Africa: past endeavors and
future directions. GFSP, Washington DC  (États-Unis d’Amérique), 84 pp. Disponible en
ligne : www.gfsp.org/sites/gfsp/files/public/GFSP%20Report_Food%20Safety%20in%20
Africa-web.pdf (consulté le 17 janvier 2020).
– Les références à des informations disponibles sur Internet doivent comporter le DOI. S’il
n’existe pas de DOI, veuillez fournir le lien vers la page web où le document peut être consulté
et préciser la date à laquelle vous avez accédé à l’information. Les références doivent porter sur
des documents identifiables. (Les pages d’accueil des sites Internet contenant des informations
générales ou régulièrement mises à jour ne constituent pas des références bibliographiques.) Les
références aux pages web doivent indiquer la date à laquelle elles ont été consultées pour la
dernière fois.
Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) (2016). – Risques liés à l’usage des
antimicrobiens chez l’animal au niveau mondial. OIE, Paris, France. Disponible en ligne :
www.oie.int/fr/pour-les-medias/editoriaux/detail/article/risks-associated-with-the-use-
of-antimicrobials-in-animals-worldwide/ (consulté le 20 avril 2016).
– Lorsqu’un document existe en version électronique et en version papier, il convient de
fournir les données bibliographiques complètes de la version papier ainsi que les références
de la version électronique :
322 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Commission européenne (EC) (2006). – Décision de la Commission du 14 novembre

2006 concernant les exigences minimales relatives à la collecte d’informations lors
des inspections de sites de production de certains animaux d’élevage. J. Off. Union
Eur., L 314, 39–47. Disponible en ligne : www.eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=OJ:L:2006:314:0039:0047:fr:pdf (consulté le 15 mars 2017).

6. Tableaux
Chaque tableau doit porter un titre et être numéroté avec un chiffre romain. Les tableaux seront
présentés sur des pages séparées à la fin du texte. Chaque colonne sera désignée par un intitulé.
Les valeurs individuelles seront autant que possible remplacées par leurs moyennes et leurs écarts
types. Les notes, commentaires ou précisions sur les données numériques seront annoncés par de
petites lettres en exposant (par exemple : (a), (b), (c), (d)) et leur texte donné en note sous le tableau. Les
abréviations d’usage peu courant seront explicitées. Les tableaux doivent illustrer les informations
contenues dans le texte et non faire double emploi avec celles-ci.

7. Figures
Les auteurs sont vivement encouragés à proposer des figures pour illustrer leur article, sous réserve
cependant que la figure apporte un complément d’information. Les photographies, diagrammes,
graphiques, schémas et cartes géographiques sont considérés comme des figures. Les figures seront
numérotées en chiffres arabes dans l’ordre de leur citation dans le texte.
La Rédaction accepte pour publication les figures réalisées en formats Excel® et PowerPoint®
et comportant les données numériques pertinentes. Les diagrammes, les cartes et les
dessins devront être enregistrés dans des formats acceptant les retouches : par exemple,
fichiers .eps, .ai (Illustrator®) ou .fr (Freehand®). Les photographies numériques devront être
enregistrées sous un format .jpg, .tiff ou .eps, largeur comprise entre 455 et 2 055 pixels
(soit 8,35 cm – 17,4 cm), résolution minimale 300 dpi (points par pouce).
Les figures seront présentées dans un fichier séparé et leur titre figurera sur une page séparée en fin
d’article. Le titre doit être suffisamment explicite pour éviter au lecteur de se reporter au texte et les
légendes doivent être claires et complètes. L’objet, le lieu et la date seront mentionnés si possible.
Ces informations peuvent être complétées par l’indication des unités de mesures et des sources et
par des notes explicatives. Les cartes seront dotées d’une échelle.

Diffusion des articles de la Revue

Une copie de l’article définitif est envoyée par courrier électronique à l’auteur, pour son usage
personnel, au moment de la finalisation du numéro de la Revue dans lequel l’article est publié.
Un mois après la publication du numéro, les informations bibliographiques détaillées des
articles qui le composent (nom des auteurs, titre, résumés, mots-clés, DOI) sont enregistrées
et consultables dans la base documentaire de l’OIE (http://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.
seam;jsessionid=882019259e687597c4ce110325b8) ainsi que dans PubMed.
Le texte intégral des article est consultable et téléchargeable gratuitement à partir de la base
documentaire de l’OIE et de PubMed 12 mois après la publication du numéro.

Exemplaires de la Revue à titre gracieux

L’auteur chargé de la correspondance recevra un exemplaire du numéro de la Revue où est parue sa
contribution.
 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2020, 39 (1), 323–328

Instrucciones para los autores

Objetivos de la Revista
La Revista, principal publicación científica y técnica de la OIE, ayuda a cumplir uno de los
objetivos fundamentales de la Organización, a saber: recopilar, analizar y difundir la información
científica veterinaria.

La Revista difunde muy diversa información relativa a las actividades veterinarias, en particular
las que pueden implicar una cooperación internacional tanto en materia de sanidad animal
como de salud pública.

Otro de sus objetivos estriba en dar a conocer a sus lectores las actividades de la Organización
y de sus Países Miembros.

La Revista está repertoriada en numerosas bases de datos, entre otras Medline, CABI y Clarivate
Analytics Web of Science.

Contenido
Dos de los tres números publicados en cada volumen están consagrados a un tema específico.
Para estos dos números se designa a un experto de renombre internacional, quien asume la
responsabilidad editorial. Así mismo, se solicita la contribución de especialistas en el campo
con el objeto de ofrecer un panorama completo sobre el tema tratado.

El tercer número cada año es pluritemático. El Jefe de redacción de la Revista agradece las
contribuciones que tratan de varios temas de salud y bienestar animal de interés mundial.Los
tipos de contribuciones aceptados para la Revista, y algunos ejemplos de temas relevantes, se
proporcionan a continuación.

Síntesis
Las síntesis presentan estudios completos sobre un tema específico de actualidad, como, por
ejemplo, la epizootiología, el diagnóstico, el tratamiento y el control de las enfermedades
animales o zoonosis de mayor trascendencia para la comunidad internacional. Además, esta
sección puede abordar también otros temas como bienestar animal, uso responsable de agentes
antimicrobianos, seguridad sanitaria de los alimentos, administración de Servicios Veterinarios,
legislación, sistemas de información o economía en sanidad animal.

Artículos originales
Estos artículos pueden tratar de investigación, técnicas de diagnóstico, experiencias
y resultados en los campos del tratamiento y del control de enfermedades animales,
epidemiología y seguridad sanitaria de los alimentos y deben ser de interés internacional, pero
también pueden referirse a otros temas vinculados con la cooperación internacional de los
Servicios Veterinarios.

Comunicaciones
Los temas tratados en esta sección coinciden con el desarrollado en los artículos originales, pero
las comunicaciones son de menor longitud o, en todo caso, abordan un aspecto más limitado del
asunto. Por otra parte, su contenido puede no ser original y referirse a trabajos ya publicados.

Informes
Se trata de breves reseñas de reuniones científicas y técnicas de la OIE o de otros organismos.
324 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Condiciones para la aceptación de manuscritos

Los autores se comprometen a entregar a la Revista artículos que no hayan sido publicados
antes, ni parcialmente ni en su totalidad, y cuya publicación por la OIE no requiera autorización
previa. Al someter su manuscrito, y únicamente en caso de ser aceptado para publicación,
los autores aceptan que el copyright de su artículo sea transferido a la OIE. No obstante, el
Consejo Consultivo de Redacción considerará todas las solicitudes de autorización por parte de
los autores con fines de reproducción de sus artículos. Los autores deben completar y anexar a
su manuscrito un formulario en el que confirman aprobar las condiciones expuestas más arriba.
El formulario se puede descargar a partir del sitio web de la OIE (www.oie.int).

Los manuscritos pueden ser presentados en cualquiera de los tres idiomas oficiales de la OIE:
español, francés o inglés. El Consejo Consultivo de Redacción puede optar por publicar ciertos
artículos en los tres idiomas. Se recomienda a los autores que no escriban en su lengua materna
que acudan a un relector profesional antes de enviar su artículo a la OIE.

El primer autor (o el autor encargado de la correspondencia con la OIE), recibe de inmediato

un acuse de recibo de su manuscrito, el cual es sometido luego a la apreciación del Comité
Científico y Técnico de la Revista, cuya decisión se comunica posteriormente al autor.

Si el artículo es aceptado será revisado por un corrector, que se pondrá en contacto con el autor
si estima necesario introducir cambios en el manuscrito. Es esencial que en esta etapa los
autores respondan a la redacción en el plazo de una semana.

Se ruega al primer autor que informe a los demás autores sobre los cambios efectuados en el
texto antes de su publicación.

Para los artículos de los números pluritemáticos de la Revista, una vez finalizada y aprobada
por los autores, la versión editada del documento se publicará en el sitio web de la OIE. A
continuación será formateada y preparada para su publicación.

Cuando el artículo original está escrito en inglés, se incluye la traducción del resumen en francés
y español; si está escrito en francés, el artículo será traducido al inglés y se acompañará de un
resumen en español. Del mismo modo, si el artículo está escrito en español, será traducido al
inglés y se acompañará de un resumen en francés.

Propuestas relativas a los revisores independientes. La redacción toma en consideración

las propuestas presentadas por los autores que pueden sugerir hasta cuatro nombres de
revisores independientes para revisar su artículo (con sus datos completos y dirección
de correo electrónico). En la medida de lo posible estos revisores han de ser reconocidos a
nivel internacional, proceder de un país distinto del de los autores y representar una extensa
distribución geográfica. La elección final de las revisores recae en el Jefe de redacción

Presentación de manuscritos
Los autores deben enviar su manuscrito por correo electrónico a la dirección
publications.unit@oie.int

Todas las páginas deben ir numeradas y la presentación ha de respetar el siguiente orden:

1. Título, nombre y dirección de los autores
2. Resumen y palabras clave
3. Texto
4. Agradecimientos (si procede)
5. Bibliografía
6. Cuadros
7. Figuras.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 325

A continuación, se presentan algunas directivas para la preparación de los manuscritos. Para

quienes deseen ejemplos concretos, se sugiere consultar un número reciente de la Revista.

1. Título, nombre y dirección de los autores

El título del artículo debe ser corto (máximo 70 caracteres) y no incluir abreviaturas. Para facilitar
la búsqueda de información, debe utilizarse una terminología estándar. Por ejemplo: «Encuesta
epidemiológica sobre el carbunco sintomático de los bovinos en Francia» (tema, enfermedad,
especie, país).

Los apellidos de los autores deben ser precedidos de las iniciales de sus nombres y seguidos por
un superíndice (números arábigos entre paréntesis). El autor encargado de la correspondencia
debe ser identificado con un asterisco y debe proporcionar un e-mail. La dirección completa de
cada autor debe indicarse a continuación de los nombres de los autores, de la siguiente manera:

M.L. Bastos (1), J.C. Esteban (2) & D. Tamborenea (2)*

(1) Laboratorio de Inmunopatología, Centro Nacional de Sanidad Animal, Mansilla 2923, 4025 Buenos
Aires, Argentina
(2) Centro de Inmunopatología, Facultad de Agronomía y Veterinaria, Avda. Centenario 203, Montevideo,
Uruguay
* Autor encargado de la correspondencia: d.tamborrenea@fagro.edu.uy

2. Resumen y palabras clave

El resumen, redactado en el idioma original y de 250 palabras como máximo, debe reflejar la
metodología, los resultados principales y las conclusiones del estudio y dar a conocer lo esencial
de su contenido. A continuación del resumen, el autor incluirá entre cinco y diez palabras clave.
La OIE se encargará de traducir el resumen en los dos otros idiomas oficiales de la Organización.

3. Texto
La extensión de los manuscritos no debe ser superior a 4.000 palabras (14-16 páginas
mecanografiadas). Si desea publicar un artículo más largo, el autor deberá solicitar la aprobación
de la Redacción. Los párrafos no deberán ser demasiado largos; en general, no sobrepasarán
las 20 líneas (200 palabras). Los trabajos experimentales y estudios epidemiológicos se
presentarán según la siguiente estructura: introducción, materiales y métodos, resultados,
discusión, conclusiones, bibliografía.

Las unidades de medida se expresarán en el sistema métrico y, cuando sea necesario, en

unidades SI. Las técnicas de diagnóstico nuevas se describirán con detalle suficiente (por
ejemplo: estándar de referencia, tipo de antisuero o antígeno, especificidad, sensibilidad, etc.).
Las técnicas conocidas o ya descritas en un periódico o revista de audiencia internacional no
se describirán, sino que se mencionarán con las referencias bibliográficas correspondientes.

Los medicamentos veterinarios, reactivos y materiales de laboratorio se designarán en el texto

por su nombre genérico (y, ocasionalmente, su nombre comercial si esa información resulta
pertinente).

Las abreviaturas y acrónimos deberán explicarse la primera vez que se utilicen. Las notas se
incorporarán al texto.

Los autores deberán indicar en qué parte del texto desean que se incluyan los cuadros y figuras.

Se recomienda a los autores consultar las nomenclaturas internacionales recientes publicadas

por instituciones científicas reconocidas. Los nombres de especies vendrán seguidos por su
nombre latín entre paréntesis y en letra cursiva.
326 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

Los autores podrán consultar al respecto las siguientes obras de referencia:

Mammal Species of the World, 3.a edición, 2005, Johns Hopkins University Press
HBW and BirdLife International Checklist of Birds of the World, 2014, Lynx Edicions
Virus Taxonomy – Classification and Nomenclature of Viruses – The Online (10th) Report
of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, 2016 (talk.ictvonline.org)
List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature, sitio web: www.bacterio.
cict.fr
Index of Bacterial and Yeast Nomenclatural Changes, 1992.

4. Agradecimientos
Se podrán incluir agradecimientos a las personas cuya contribución para la realización
del artículo haya sido fundamental. Cada autor se encargará de obtener la correspondiente
autorización para citar a dichas personas.

5. Bibliografía
Los autores pueden adaptar sus citas al estilo de la OIE con el uso de aplicaciones informáticas
de citas.

– EndNote

En la lista de estilos de citas que ofrece el software, seleccionar el estilo «OIE Scientific and
Technical Review».

Si la lista no ha sido actualizada recientemente, se puede también descargar en: http://endnote.

com/downloads/style/oie-scientific-and-technical-review.

– Zotero, Mendeley y Papers

En la lista de estilos de citas que ofrece el software, seleccionar el estilo «World Organisation
for Animal Health - Scientific and Technical Review».

En el caso de Zotero, si la lista no ha sido actualizada recientemente, se puede también

descargar en: www.zotero.org/styles/world-organisation-for-animal-health-scientific-and-
technical-review.

Todas las referencias bibliográficas mencionadas en el texto deben incluirse en esta sección.
En la bibliografía, las referencias se numerarán siguiendo el orden de aparición en el artículo.
En el texto, las referencias bibliográficas se indicarán mediante el respectivo número entre
paréntesis. Las referencias incluidas en los Cuadros y Figuras deben presentarse de la misma
manera, siguiendo la numeración del texto en el que se insertan.

Para un artículo de investigación, se recomienda limitarse a cincuenta referencias. Tratándose

de artículos de síntesis, este número podrá duplicarse.

Antes de entregar su artículo, se ruega a los autores que comprueben la exactitud de las
referencias y verifiquen que todas vengan citadas en el texto. Los nombres de periódicos y
revistas deberán abreviarse sin ambigüedad posible. En caso de duda, se escribirá el título
completo. Para tener ejemplos de abreviaturas de títulos y del formato bibliográfico utilizado en
la Revista, se sugiere a los autores consultar un número reciente.

Los datos aún no publicados y las comunicaciones personales se citarán en el cuerpo del
texto y no en la bibliografía. Antes de enviar el artículo los autores deberán haber obtenido la
autorización de citar estos datos y comunicaciones personales.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 327

Las publicaciones colectivas o normativas de la OIE (por ejemplo el Código Sanitario para los
Animales Terrestres) deben clasificarse bajo Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal. Por
ejemplo:

Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) (2016). – Código Sanitario para los
Animales Terrestres, 25.a ed. OIE, París, Francia. Disponible en: www.oie.int/es/normas-
internacionales/codigo-terrestre/acceso-en-linea/ (fecha de consulta: 10 de diciembre
de 2016).

(En los artículos redactados en inglés se clasifican bajo «World Organisation for Animal Health»
y en los artículos redactados en francés, bajo « Organisation mondiale de la santé animale ».)

Cada referencia debe incluir los apellidos, seguidos de las iniciales de sus nombres, de los
autores, el año de publicación, el título completo, el nombre del periódico o revista, el volumen,
el número, las páginas y si posible el identificador de objeto digital (DOI), de acuerdo con los
ejemplos siguientes.

– Artículo de periódico o de revista:

Narrod C., Zinsstag J. & Tiongco M. (2012). – A One Health framework for estimating the
economic costs of zoonotic diseases on society. EcoHealth, 9 (2), 150–162. doi:10.1007/
s10393-012-0747-9.
Morse S.S. (2004). – Factors and determinants of disease emergence. En Zoonosis y
patógenos emergentes de importancia para la salud pública (L.J. King, coord.). Rev. Sci.
Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 23 (2), 443-451. doi:10.20506/rst.23.2.1494.

– Artículo en prensa:
de La Rocque S., Caya F. [...] & Chungong S. (2019). – One Health within the International
Health Regulations Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. En Éxitos y problemas por
resolver desde la óptica de Una sola salud (C. Barton Behravesh & J.R. Sinclair, coords.).
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 38 (1) (en prensa). doi:10.20506/rst.38.1.2962.

– Capítulo de un libro o informe de conferencia (para un informe de conferencia, indicar

la editorial, el lugar de publicación, así como el lugar donde se celebró la conferencia y sus
fechas):
Castilla D. & Diaz Arredondo G.H. (1992). – Evaluación del poder inmunógeno de varias
cepas de Bacteroides nodosus. En Actas del IV Simposio sobre enfermedades ovinas
(P. Laurentín & E. Ramírez, coord.), Madrid, 12-14 de febrero de 1991. Galerna, Madrid,
España, 894-897.

– Libro o informe publicado (indicar la dirección del sitio web para informes en línea):
Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP) (2019). – Food safety in Africa: past endeavors
and future directions. GFSP, Washington DC, Estados Unidos de América, 84 págs.
Disponible en: www.gfsp.org/sites/gfsp/files/public/GFSP%20Report_Food%20
Safety%20in%20Africa-web.pdf (fecha de consulta: 17 de enero 2020).

– Los autores que desean citar documentos descargados de Internet deben indicar la fecha
en que han consultado la información u ofrecer un identificador DOI. Las referencias deben
remitir a un documento en particular o a datos específicos. (La página principal de un sitio web,
sin referencia a un documento particular, no se considerará una referencia bibliográfica.) Las
referencias a las páginas web deben incluir la fecha en la que se consultaron por última vez.
Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) (2016). – Riesgos relacionados con el
uso de antimicrobianos en los animales a nivel mundial. OIE, París, Francia. Disponible
en: www.oie.int/es/para-los-periodistas/editoriales/detalle/article/risks-associated-
with-the-use-of-antimicrobials-in-animals-worldwide/ (fecha de consulta: 20 de abril
de 2016).
328 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

– Las referencias a documentos que existen en forma electrónica y en versión papel incluirán,
en lo posible, todas las indicaciones bibliográficas habituales.
Comisión Europea (CE) (2006). – Decisión de la Comisión del 14 de noviembre de
2006 por la que se establecen requisitos mínimos para la recogida de información
durante la inspección de unidades de producción en las que se mantengan determinados
animales con fines ganaderos. D. Of. Unión Europea, L 314, 39-47. Disponible en: www.
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:314:0039:0047:es:pdf
(fecha de consulta: 15 de marzo de 2017).

6. Cuadros
Cada cuadro debe tener un título y un número romano y presentarse en una página
separada al final del texto. Cada columna tendrá su propio encabezamiento y los
valores individuales se reemplazarán, en la medida de lo posible, por sus promedios
y sus desviaciones estándar. Para los comentarios, notas y precisiones relativos
a los datos numéricos, se utilizará como llamada una letra minúscula en exponente
(por ejemplo: (a), (b), (c), (d)) que remitirá al texto al pie del cuadro. Las abreviaturas poco usuales
deberán explicarse. Los cuadros deben ilustrar, y no repetir, la información contenida en el texto.

7. Figuras
Se recomienda a los autores utilizar figuras para ilustrar su artículo. Se consideran figuras
los diagramas, gráficos, fotografías, dibujos y mapas. Las figuras se numerarán con números
arábigos, en el orden en que son citadas en el texto.
La Redacción aceptará publicar únicamente los gráficos realizados en Excel® y PowerPoint®,
siempre que se acompañen de la planilla de cálculo asociada. Los diagramas, así
como los dibujos y mapas deberán presentarse en formato de dibujo trazable, como
por ejemplo: .eps editable, .ai (Illustrator®), .fr (Freehand®). Las fotografías digitales
deberán entregarse en formato .jpg, .tiff o .eps. Con un ancho de entre 455 y 2 055 píxeles
(8,35 cm – 17,4 cm) y una resolución de no menos de 300 dpi (puntos por pulgada).
Todas las figuras se adjuntarán en un fichero aparte; los títulos vendrán indicados al final del
artículo en una página separada. Los títulos deben ser explícitos, de manera que el lector no
tenga que buscar su significado en el texto. Las leyendas deben ser plenamente explicativas.
Cada vez que sea posible, se indicarán el objeto, el lugar y la fecha, pudiendo completarse esta
información con unidades de medida, fuentes y notas explicativas. Los mapas deben incluir la
indicación de su escala.

Distribución de los artículos de la Revista

Una vez ultimado el número de la Revista en el que el autor publique un artículo, se le enviará
por correo electrónico una copia del artículo en su versión definitiva.
Un mes después de la publicación los datos bibliográficos de los artículos de la Revista (autores,
título, resumen, palabras clave, DOI…) estarán disponibles en la base de datos documentales de
la OIE (http://doc.oie.int/dyn/portal/index.seam;jsessionid=882019259e687597c4ce110325b8)
y en PubMed.
Transcurridos 12 meses desde la publicación será posible descargar el contenido íntegro de los
artículos desde la base de datos documentales de la OIE y desde PubMed.

Ejemplares de cortesía de la Revista

El autor encargado de la correspondencia recibirá un ejemplar del número de la Revista en el
que su artículo haya sido publicado.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1) 329

Acknowledgements/Remerciements/Agradecimientos
Ensuring safe trade Assurer la sécurité Asegurar la seguridad
in animals and animal sanitaire des échanges sanitaria del comercio
products internationaux d’animaux internacional de animales
et de produits d’origine y sus productos
animale
Scientific and Technical Review, Revue scientifique et technique, Revista científica y técnica,
Vol. 39 (1), April 2020 Vol. 39 (1), avril 2020 Vol. 39 (1), abril de 2020

Editors/Rédacteurs/Redactores
Christiane Wolff, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Unit, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization,
Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Anneke Hamilton, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Unit, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization,
Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza

Reviewers/Réviseurs/Revisores
Rolando Alcalá, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Katherine Armistead Comer, formerly Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/
Suiza
Serra Ayral, Trade and Environment Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Shivani Bhatnagar, formerly Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Isabel Calderón, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Guillaume Ferlet, European Union Trade Policy Unit, French Treasury, France/France/Francia (formerly, World Trade Organization,
Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza)
Marisa Goldstein, Legal Affairs Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Marlynne Hopper, Standards and Trade Development Facility, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Lee Ann Jackson, Agro-Food Trade and Markets Division, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, France/
France/Francia (formerly, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza)
Kenza Le Mentec, Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Lauro Locks, Trade and Environment Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
João Magalhães, Independent Consultant, formerly World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Marie-Bel Martinez-Hommel, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Devin McDaniels, Trade and Environment Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Fabrizio Meliado, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Simón Padilla, Standards and Trade Development Facility, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Daniel Ramos, Trade and Environment Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Melvin Spreij, Standards and Trade Development Facility, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Gretchen Stanton, Independent Consultant, formerly Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization,
Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
Hanna Vitikkala, Agriculture and Commodities Division, World Trade Organization, Switzerland/Suisse/Suiza
330 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 39 (1)

The Scientific and Technical Review of the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) is
published every four months for the use of the veterinary and medical professions, and especially
for national Veterinary Services. It includes reviews, original articles, communications and
reports, as well as summaries of meetings of regional or world interest. Depending on their
content, these documents may be published in three languages (English, French and Spanish).
The Editorial Committee welcomes articles from individuals, national Veterinary Services and
research institutes. Priority is given to the following areas: animal health information systems,
epizootioIogy, diagnostic methods, animal disease surveillance or control programmes,
veterinary public health and international veterinary cooperation. Particular consideration is
given to the economic and public health consequences of animal diseases.

▪
La Revue scientifique et technique de l’OIE (Organisation mondiale de la santé animale) est
un périodique destiné à l’information des Services vétérinaires gouvernementaux et, plus
généralement, de la communauté scientifique internationale, médicale et vétérinaire. Sa
périodicité est de trois numéros par an. Elle publie des synthèses, des articles originaux et des
communications, ainsi que des rapports et comptes rendus de réunions d’intérêt régional ou
mondial. En fonction de leur contenu, ces documents peuvent paraître en trois langues (français,
anglais, espagnol). La Rédaction accepte les articles qui émanent des Services vétérinaires
nationaux et des Instituts de recherche, ou sont rédigés par un auteur à titre individuel, et qui
traitent en priorité des domaines suivants : systèmes d’information zoosanitaire, épizootiologie,
méthodes de diagnostic, programmes de surveillance ou de lutte contre les maladies animales,
santé publique vétérinaire, coopération vétérinaire internationale. Une attention particulière est
réservée aux répercussions des maladies animales sur l’économie et la santé publique.

▪
La Revista científica y técnica de la OIE (Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal) es una
publicación periódica de información dirigida a los Servicios Veterinarios gubernamentales y,
más en general, a la comunidad científica internacional, médica y veterinaria. Su periodicidad
es de tres números por año. Publica síntesis, artículos originales y comunicaciones, así como
informes y reseñas de reuniones de interés regional o mundial. En función de sus respectivos
contenidos, estos textos pueden aparecer en tres idiomas: español, francés e inglés. La
Redacción acepta artículos, sea procedentes de Servicios Veterinarios nacionales y de Institutos
de investigación, sea escritos por un autor a título individual, que, prioritariamente, traten
acerca de los temas siguientes: sistemas de información zoosanitaria, epizootiología, métodos
de diagnóstico, programas de vigilancia o de lucha contra las enfermedades animales, salud
pública veterinaria, y cooperación veterinaria internacional. Se presta particular atención a las
repercusiones de las enfermedades animales en la economía y la salud pública.

▪▪▪▪▪▪

Directrice de la publication : M. Éloit

Directeur de la rédaction : M. Thibier