Challenges and Benefits of Equivalence Recognition

Transcription

1 2018/SCSC/WKSP4/011 Session: 6 Challenges and Benefits of Equivalence Recognition Submitted by: Australia Workshop on Trade Facilitation Through the Recognition of Food Safety Systems Equivalence Lima, Peru June 2018

2 Challenges and benefits of equivalence recognition Brett Hughes Director China and Non-Tariff Measures Slava Zeman Director - Food and Animal By products Chris Williams Assistant Director Non-Tariff Measures 22 June 2018

3 In this presentation o Why, when and how to negotiate equivalence o Australia s systems covered by equivalence negotiations o Examples of existing agreements/arrangements in place o Benefits and challenges of equivalence recognition 2

4 Why negotiate equivalence Equivalence can address a range of Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) such as: - reducing costs for importers, exporters and government authorities; - removing duplication of processes; - reducing certification and audit assessment; and - reducing testing and border inspection for both the exporting and importing authorities and or businesses. 3

5 When to negotiate equivalence (1) Codex guidance CAC/GL (Guidelines on the Judgment of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems) : Decision to commence a system equivalence negotiation may involve these considerations: System equivalence is an appropriate mechanism Prerequisite requirements (a system exists) are sufficiently met Likelihood of success (exporting country s National Food Control System or a relevant part capable to achieving importing country s objectives) Potential trade facilitation and resource savings justify the cost and resource implications of the process Sufficient resources available and commitment by both countries to undertake the process. 4

6 When to negotiate equivalence (2) our possible considerations CAC/GL : A system equivalence is an appropriate mechanism The prerequisite requirements (a system exists) are sufficiently met There is a likelihood of success (exporting country s NFCS or a relevant part capable to achieving importing country s objectives) The potential trade facilitation and resource savings justify the cost and resource implications of the process There are sufficient resources available and commitment by both countries to undertake the process. Our possible considerations: Volume / value of trade potentially covered Difficulty in trading with the importing country Other market access priorities with the importing country Is this the highest priority given market access issues with other countries Can the desired objective be resolved/achieved through another mechanism e.g. plurilateral forums (ASEAN, Mercosur ) 5

7 How to negotiate Equivalence Agreements/Arrangements Mutual or Unilateral system equivalence - unilateral can still provide mutual benefits (e.g. reduced regulator compliance costs) Prescriptive vs non-prescriptive agreements/arrangements - non-prescriptive can provide opportunities for flexibility and adjustment - prescriptive locks in agreed outcomes Tangible outcomes vs opportunities to work together - Fixed benefits and work plans (e.g. reduced inspection rates) - Opportunities to capacity build and harmonise systems Mechanisms for review - reviews to only occur when systems change - reviews at set intervals or with a sunset clause - too frequent reviews can overburden parties and increase costs, reducing benefits 6

8 Examples of Australia s food control system elements considered in equivalency agreements/arrangements Food standards Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code developed by FSANZ, including: product, primary production and processing standards packaging/ labelling requirements methods of risk assessment State/Territory food regulation (requires compliance with the Food Standards Code etc) product testing food processing establishment / primary producer licensing / registration approval processes, regular inspection auditing Auditor/inspector skills Laboratory testing, laboratory capabilities Where relevant, export and food import regulation 7

9 Recognition of food control system equivalence Unilateral e.g. Taiwan TFDA recognised Australia DAWRs dairy export inspection system Mutual e.g. Australia DAWR and USA FDA recognised each other s food control systems 8

10 Examples of existing equivalence recognition arrangements Australia DAWR USA FDA Food Safety Recognition Arrangement Taiwan TFDA recognition of Australia s export systems for dairy Indonesia Country Recognition Agreement (plant products) Organics (i.e. not food safety but quality; however, similar principles & processes apply): Taiwan Switzerland for plant and plant products Japan for plant and plant products EU for plant and plant products 9

11 Benefits of systems equivalence Australian experience Dependent on the scope of the negotiated arrangement (foods and system elements covered, authorities involved etc) reduced border intervention (reduced inspection, testing) on arrival to the importing country leading to faster and cheaper import clearance; reduction or no in-country audits of Australian food manufacturers; and access to certain ports of entry and or import pathways. These remove duplication of processes, which in turn reduce costs to exporters, importers and government authorities. 10

12 Benefits of systems equivalence Australian imports Dependent on the scope of the negotiated arrangement (foods and system elements covered, authorities involved etc). reduced border intervention (reduced inspection, testing) on arrival to Australia leading to faster and cheaper import clearance, reduced staffing by Australian authorities etc.; reduction in cost for foreign food producers; confidence in the produce being exported to Australia; and access to greater selection o f produce at lower cost for consumers. 11

13 Challenges of systems equivalence Equivalence process could be undefined and Ad hoc given lack of system, experience and or knowledge Difficulty understanding foreign country NFCS Resource burden to compile information, data and audit to demonstrate equivalence Review by foreign country could be lengthy/costly with no guaranteed recognition Dependant on agreement, tangible outcomes may not be achievable Mutual recognition may not be achievable given system differences Outcomes may not be the same for both parties 12

14 Summary Equivalence is beneficial but not always appropriate There may be other options to improve access conditions If equivalence is deemed appropriate, then use international - CCFICS guidelines Australia has already negotiated equivalency recognition (both system and measure specific) with several countries for a range of exports Australia understands benefits of equivalence recognition whether for exported or imported produce Equivalence is one way to address the impact of NTMs 13

15 THANK YOU QUESTIONS? 14