I will use a case to explore where we are, and comment on alternatives already mentioned here. It should be seen as an example. Many other examples exist, some more complex and difficult, others simpler.

The case I would like to explore is trade of pork, pig meat. I will not speak about barriers created after influenza A(H1N1) pandemic. These are too simple and should not even exist. Every sanitary authority should know this virus is spread from person-to-person. There are no known instances of people getting infected by exposure to pigs or even less pork. Unfortunately barriers do exist.

I will talk about barriers for pork relative to foot and mouth disease. Brazil encounters barriers for pork in all of the major pork importing countries with one exception - Russia, which is not a WTO member, or a good example.

Even though there has not been any occurrence of FMD in commercial pig farms for two decades, the Brazilian pork industry still faces major restrictions due to the presence of FMD in cattle.  Moreover, some countries fail to recognize the principle of regionalization. The use of systematic vaccination in cattle has also been a matter of much confusion given concerns about risks to pigs since these are a fully susceptible species to FMD. Brazil does not vaccinate pigs.

The majority of South American countries have made great strides against FMD with the assistance of  OIE guidelines. Two decades ago, Brazil experienced thousands of FMD outbreaks in cattle; today the region only has a small number of minor cases spaced a couple of years always in cattle, never pigs.

This progress was achieved by creating and expanding regions free from outbreaks through the vaccination of cattle herds. The science based regionalization concept was essential for this progress.  Included in the SPS Agreement all countries agree in theory to the concept. The prospect of improved market access provided an important incentive.

A large region of Brazil has been certified by OIE as free from FMD with vaccination. This intermediate sanitary status, free but still vaccinating, according to the OIE provides assurances that products from such regions are safe. This status, however, is not recognized by major importers of pork or beef. This provides the first illustration that the scientific guidelines from the OIE are not accepted.

A risk assessment prepared jointly by the Brazilian Agriculture Ministry, private sector professionals and Professors from the University of Brasilia and Colorado State University was constructed to assess the likelihood of the occurrence of contamination with the FMD virus in pork. The results for a planned scenario indicated that on average, an exportation of a 100-ton of swine meat contaminated with FMD will occur in every 1 in 40 million times. Even at the 95 percentile, the probability of exporting contaminated meat is smaller than one in ten millions. Given the projection of export of pork, the annual probability that at least one batch of export pork contaminated with FMD virus will be 1 in every 2000 years.

This study was not enough. We were unable to catch the attention of veterinary authorities from the larger importers although measures should be based on a sound risk assessment.  Another point to further develop.

In May 2007 a small region of Brazil, the Santa Catarina State, obtained from the OIE  the status of FMD free without vaccination. Following this recognition by the international animal health organization that this region of Brazil had eradicated FMD, Brazil requested that importers remove their trade barriers in the case of products from Santa Catarina.

Japan followed up by dispatching two scientists to Brazil in November 2007. Their initial findings were positive.  It took the Japanese veterinary authority one year to send a lengthy questionnaire. Brazil provided responses, which are presently being examined in Tokyo. We may still have additional issues to answer and when they feel completely informed they will schedule a veterinary mission. We have to admit that the Japanese approach is professional. It is transparent. But it is not fast!  How many more months or years we still need to open the market is not yet clear. Another good point to consider.

The US sent a veterinary mission to Santa Catarina in April 2008. We have heard that they were also satisfied and their mission report was ready by December. A proposed rule will be open for public comment after publication in the Federal Register which is now being drafted. The US rulemaking process required also an economic impact study of the sanitary measure. After the 60 day period for public comments closes, it will take many months, eventually 18 or more months, to respond to the comments. Again, this is a transparent process.  It is also slow.   Up to December 2008, it was based on animal science. 2009 can been seen as a normal delay. But it appears that entering 2010, or 2011, to be based more on political science.

The European Union will be in Brazil next month. They have a strong and competent veterinary service. The reports of their veterinary missions are good technical documents. I personally follow these reports to know what our Government is doing wrong so I can work with them to undertake corrections. It makes obvious sense to follow science-based recommendations.  The problem, though, is that European science sometimes differs from North-American science or other sciences. To export to Europe you must follow requirements dictated by European science - period. Do not try to explain that this may not be universally accepted science. As demonstrated by the small number of WTO SPS cases, the disputes usually pertain to different scientific understandings.  A major point to be developed.

South Korea is the third largest pork importer. In 2007 they would not even consider talking with Brazil about pork trade. They did not accept the regionalization concept in their legislation. Brazil raised this issue periodically at  SPS Committee meetings.  Finally Korea approved  a new legislation incorporating regionalization. They have now sent a questionnaire that has been answered by Brazil and we are waiting for the next step. Let us remember that the SPS is Agreement, the basis for regionalization, is from 1994.

Mexico, the fourth largest market, has found it even more difficult to talk with Brazil about this issue. Thanks to a request by Brazil for  mediation the Chairman in the SPS Committee, Brazil was able to arrange a technical meeting last July in Mexico City. Just a meeting. No progress.

Clearly greater accountability and responsiveness is required to resolve such issues on a more timely basis. 

The SPS Agreement was clearly a major improvement. We have made some important progress, but not enough, considering that the Agreement is now 15 years old.

We need clearer time frames. Not to obtain final approval. Everyone has the right to be careful.  But there should be mandatory, clearly spelled out timeframes for countries to respond expeditiously and comprehensively to formal requests from exporters. If nothing happens we would be building a dispute case, brick by brick.

Transparency can become our most important ally. Greater pressure needs to be exerted on  veterinary services. They have to understand that the status quo is not acceptable. And barriers to trade have to be based on science, animal science with international recognition.