Brazil's report on actions to enhance transparency

Communication from Brazil

The following communication, received on 9 July 2024, is the statement made by Brazil under Item 6.c. at the 26-28 June 2024 WTO SPS Committee, and is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of Brazil.

_______________

1.  Brazil would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the principle of transparency and its implementation by Members. As each Member recognizes, transparency in the adoption or change of sanitary measures is of paramount importance to achieve the establishment of a multilateral framework of rules and disciplines to guide the development, adoption, and enforcement of sanitary and phytosanitary measures in order to minimize their negative effects on trade, as stated in the introductory section of the SPS Agreement.

2.  The recent outbreak of avian influenza is a major concern for each Member of this organization, and as such, it has triggered several sanitary measures and corresponding notifications. In 2024 alone, there were more than 50 notifications in this regard. However, this situation revealed some divergences in the application of the SPS Agreement and Decision _G/SPS/7/Rev.5. Some Members made notifications of restrictions due to concerns about avian influenza, but did no notifications when these restrictions were lifted.

3.  In addition to the lack of transparency, the absence of a new notification informing the removal of the measure can be detrimental to exporting Members. It makes exports less predictable, as exporters are not sure whether or not the measure has been lifted, and it may give the impression that the importing Member is still uncertain about the safety of the exporting Members' products. Several countries use notifications as an input into their risk analysis and decision-making processes. Therefore, the absence of a notification may have a negative impact on the exporting Member without any sanitary justification.

4.  It should be recalled that the SPS Agreement, the Decision of the Committee on Transparency, and the practice of the Committee are clear that any change in sanitary measures should be notified.

5.  Article 7 establishes the following: "Members shall notify changes in their sanitary or phytosanitary measures and shall provide information on their sanitary or phytosanitary measures in accordance with the provisions of Annex B." In this sense, when a measure is lifted, there is a change. Therefore, the notification is mandatory and not discretionary.

6.  This excerpt alone is enough to make the case for notifications when suspensions are lifted. Nevertheless, the Committee's decisions have addressed this issue to make them more practical and less controversial. Paragraph 2.32 states that: "Members should notify changes in the status of a notified SPS regulation. The issuance of an addendum allows Members to track the status of a SPS regulation via its unique notification number." Brazil emphasizes the idea of tracking the status of a SPS regulation, one of the most important innovations that the SPS Agreement has brought to international trade. The same paragraph emphasizes that even the extension of sanitary measures in place should be informed.

7.  Even in cases that the measure initially notified has a defined course of action, such as setting an end date for the ban, this should be notified to the Committee either in the case of an extension or in the case of the actual application of the end date. The text of decision _G/SPS/7/Rev.5 also suggests that trade facilitation measures do not give a new deadline for comments and cites the lifting of an import ban as an example, as can be seen in paragraph 2.8 of the said decision. As a result of this understanding, it can be seen in the templates provided on Annex B-2 of the decision checkbox for withdrawal of regulations.

8.  Another proof of the understanding of the notification of the lifting of bans is that several Members diligently notify this Committee of every lifting of a ban. Only in 2024, there were more than 13 of such notifications from Members such as the Kingdom Saudi Arabia, Japan, the Philippines, the State of Kuwait, and Singapore.

9.  Brazil invites all Members that do not notify the lifting of bans and other changes to review their practices and bring them into conformity with the SPS Agreement. We also invite other Members that have difficulties with this issue to bring their cases and experience to the Committee.

__________