New WTO Deal Promises Safer Global Food

WTO members have reached an apparent consensus on two sets of procedures aimed at strengthening their work on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS, ie, food safety and animal and plant health). One is on recognizing that regions (within a country or spanning borders) are free from diseases or pests, the other is on improving the information they share with each other, a crucially important part of member governments’ work in the WTO. Both were approved conditionally in the WTO SPS Committee’s 2–3 April 2008 meeting, and will be adopted if no one objects within the next few weeks. They encourage WTO members also to notify when they adopt international standards. (If the “regionalization” guidelines are not adopted, their transparency provisions will be inserted into this text.)

Meanwhile, information is increasingly being made available through on-line technology. Members were briefed on further enhancements to the WTO’s SPS Information Management System, a searchable database for all notifications, specific trade concerns raised in the committee and other information, the FAO’s International Portal on Food Safety, Animal and Plant Health and a similar “portal” of the International Plant Protection Convention.

Specific trade concerns (STCs)

Code numbers, eg, “STC229”, identify particular issues and can be used to search the WTO’s SPS Information Management System.

Specific trade concerns: resolved

Canada’s restrictions on enoki mushrooms (STC229): Chinese Taipei said Canada has allowed imports to resume following consultations and Canadian officials’ visits to production sites.

Japan’s import suspension on Chinese heat-processed straw and forage for feed (STC222): China said Japan’s ban has been lifted following consultations and site visits.

Specific trade concerns: new

The EU’s proposed maximum residue levels for ethephon in pineapple: Ecuador, Also discussed were a number of concerns members raised about specific measures other governments have introduced, including some related to issues that have been raised several times before such as avian influenza (“bird flu”), foot and mouth disease, and BSE (“mad cow disease”).

And the meeting heard a warning that standards set by private bodies could undermine the science-based and democratically agreed standards of multilateral organizations and cause difficulties for developing countries.

The caution came from Dr Bernard Vallat, director-general of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in the latest of a series of discussions about standards set by the private sector, in particular supermarket chains and bodies representing them.

This was the first time the head of the OIE has attended a WTO SPS Committee meeting. The multilateral standard-setting organizations he had in mind are in particular, the OIE and the SPS Committee’s two other “sisters” — Codex Alimentarius, which deals with food safety, and the International Plant Protection Convention.

The week began with a workshop on SPS capacity evaluation tools organized under the jointly-run Standards and Trade Development Facility.

The SPS Committee comprises all WTO members and is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the WTO SPS Agreement.

Regionalization

The key concept here is recognition that an exporting region (part of a country or a border-straddling zone) is disease-free or pest-free (or has a lower incidence). When importing countries recognize different situations in different regions, their restrictions on products from areas with disease do not apply to whole countries. It is often raised as a specific trade concern as well as being discussed as a subject in its own right.

The text that members conditionally adopted comes from the work of a small group of countries, coordinated by New Zealand and is a compromise after about one year of work within the group and five years of discussion in the SPS Committee. It has been circulated in document G/SPS/W/218, as non-binding guidelines for implementing regionalization. These include various recommended steps to be taken by an importing and an exporting country discussion a region’s status.

In an informal meeting on 1 April, some countries involved in the group signalled their disappointment that the guidelines are not stronger in trying to avoid “undue delays” in recognizing a region’s status. But others urged them to accept the compromise so that what has been agreed so far can be implemented; the guidelines can be revised in the future on the basis of experience, they said.

The committee formally agreed that if no member objects by 15 May, the guidelines will be adopted. (Officially, the committee has adopted the guidelines “ad referendum")

Transparency

Also adopted provided no one objects — this time by 30 May — are revised recommendations on how governments provide information on new or proposed measures they take on food safety and animal and plant health.

Sharing and commenting on this information is one of the SPS Committee’s most important tasks — members use the committee to ensure that SPS measures comply with the WTO agreement, meaning they are based on science or international standards and are not protectionism in disguise.

The new recommendations will be a third revision of the present set, G/SPS/7/Rev.2. They include new procedures and forms for notifications, details of new on-line databases where the notifications and other relevant information is compiled, and supported by Costa Rica, said the EU’s proposed new maximum residue level of 0.5mg/kg for this plant growth regulator is too low, not based on science and stricter than the international standard of Codex Alimentarius. The EU replied that its own producers would also have to meet the proposed new limit and are also concerned, and invited the two countries to provide scientific evidence to show that the proposed new limit is too strict.

Malaysia’s charges for on-site inspection missions: Brazil — supported by the EU, Australia and New Zealand — complained that Malaysia’s new charge of $30,000 per establishment is exorbitant, particularly since the results are only valid for a year, requiring annual inspections for approvals to be extended. Malaysia said that the costs of inspecting on SPS and Halal grounds has risen considerably, but that the new costs are not in place yet. The comments will be transmitted to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia said.

US regulatory process, including need for economic analysis: Brazil questioned whether SPS regulations should also require economic analysis and whether this would delay or disrupt approval for imports. The US replied that the requirement applies to all new regulations so that the government can assess the economic impact, but that SPS measures are only based on science and risk assessment.

Specific trade concerns: unresolved

Among the issues that have been raised before and remain unresolved.
India’s restrictions on animal products (STC185): This is an on-going concern related to avian influenza raised by the EU, supported by Australia and the US. The EU said although some restrictions have been relaxed, others remain, even though they are not based on science or the standards of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). For example India should not restrict imports of heat treated products, where any virus would have been destroyed, and pigmeat, the EU said. India said the measures are necessary because of the huge risks to livestock and humans on small farms. (The EU had a similar concern over Egypt’s restrictions on heat-treated products)

Private sector standards

Following OIE Director-General Bernard Vallat’s comments on private sector standards, members agreed to consider setting up a small group to work on this issue — they will discuss this in June.

Uruguay and Egypt led a group of developing countries highly critical of private sector standards on the grounds that the standards are arbitrary and can be difficult for developing countries to meet. They said the SPS Agreement obliges governments to ensure non-governmental bodies also respect the agreement. Others said that like it or not, the private sector will continue to set these standards for a variety of issues, ranging from sustainability and organic production to animal welfare. The World Bank, an observer, said research shows that meeting private standards does not always penalize developing countries and in some cases helps them to export.

However members generally agreed with Dr Vallat that the SPS Committee’s focus should be on health and safety issues.

Private sector entities setting up their own standards include supermarket chains and “GLOBALGAP”, previously the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group’s EurepGap — GAP is “good agricultural practices”.

When first raised in 2005, this issue took the SPS Committee into comparatively new territory — the committee generally deals with standards set by international standards-setting bodies and those imposed by governments. Private sector standards were first raised in June 2005 by St Vincent and the Grenadines, because of private standards for bananas. St Vincent and the Grenadines complained that private standards are often more rigid than international standards, causing small farmers to suffer.

Since then the issue has been raised regularly in the SPS Committee, and a workshop on private and commercial standards was organized by the WTO and UNCTAD on Monday 25 June 2007.

Sources : 

2008 WTO NEWS ITEMS on 2 and 3 April 2008

Prosedur Pemasukan Benih Tumbuhan ke Indonesia

PROSEDUR TETAP TINDAKAN KARANTINA TUMBUHAN TERHADAP PEMASUKAN BENIH TUMBUHAN KEDALAM WILAYAH NEGARA REPUBLIK INDONESIA

1. Setiap benih tumbuhan yang dimasukan ke dalam wilayah negara Republik Indonesia wajib :

a. Dilengkapai sertifikat kesehatan tumbuhan (Phytosanitary Certificate) dari Negara Asal dan Negara Transit;
b. Disertai Surat Ijin Pemasukan (SIP) dari Menteri Pertanian atau pejabat yang ditunjuknya;
c. Melalui tempat-tempat pemasukan yang telah ditetapkan;
d. Dilaporkan dan diserahkan kepada petugas Karantina Tumbuhan setibanya di tempat pemasukan untuk keperluan tindakan Karantina Tumbuhan

2. Untuk penerbitan Surat Ijin Pemasukan (SIP) benih Tumbuhan, Menteri Pertanian atau Pejabat yang mengatasnamakannya akan memperhatikan persyaratan teknis karantina dan kelengkapan dokumen yang ditetapkan berdasarkan Analisis Resiko Organisme Pengganggu Tumbuhan (AROPT).

3. Analisis Resioko Organisme Pengganggu Tumbuhan dilaksanakan dengan berpedoman kepada standar internasional pengaturan Fitosanitari (International Standar for Phytosanitary Measures) yang diterbitkan oleh Sekretariat IPPC (International Plant Protection Convention).

4. Kajian analisis resiko organisme pengganggu tumbuhan meliputi :

a. Kajian awal tentang informasi pengelolaan sertifikasi benih dan sertifikasi kesehatan benih serta situasi organisme pengganggu tumbuhan karantina (OPTK) di Negara Asal;
b. Hasil kajian AROPT merupakan rekomendasi tentang persyaratan teknis yang dikenakan terhadap benih tumbuhan yang akan diimpor dan rekomendasi tersebut disampaikan kepada pejabat yang berwenang memberikan Surat Ijin Pemasukan (SIP).

5. Pemeriksaan Karantina di negara asal dilakukan berdasarkan pertimbangan kesulitan teknis dilakukannya tindakan karantina di tempat pemasukan dan/atau analisis resiko organisme pengganggu tumbuhan di negara asal yang merupakan daerah sebar organisme pengganggu tumbuhan karantina yang beresiko tinggi.

6. Pemeriksaan di negara asal dilakukan oleh petugas Karantina Tumbuhan dan petugas ahli lainnya yang diperlukan.

7. Apabila diperlukan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia dapat melakukan kerjasama bilateral dengan negara pengirim benih, melalui program klarifikasi (pre clearance program).

8. Pemasukan benih tumbuhan yang tidak memenuhi ketentuan dalam prosedur tetap ini ditolak pemasukannya ke dalam wilayah negara Republik Indonesia.

Sumber : Keputusan Kepala badan Karantina Pertanian Nomor : 152/Kpts/PD.540/L/8/03 tanggal 8 Agustus 2003

Prosedur Pemasukan Hasil Tumbuhan ke Indonesia

THE STANDARD PROCEDURES OF PLANT QUARANTINE MEASUREMENT FOR THE ENTRY OF PLANT PRODUCTS INTO THE TERRITORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

1. Any importation of plant products is subject to the following conditions:
a. Importation must be made through designated points of entry;
b. Accompanied by Phytosanitary Certificate issued by the Plant Quarantine Service of the Country of Origin and Country/countries where the consignments are transit;
c. Notified and submitted to Plant Quarantine Inspectors upon arrival of the consignment for quarantine actions

2. Notwithstanding to general condition mentioned above, the importation of the particular plant products are subjected to specific condition based on the Pest Risk Analyzes (PRA).

3. The result of the PRA will determine the status of the introduction and technical requirements which will be needed to the importation of plant products.

4. The plant quarantine inspections in the country of origin (pre-shipment inspection system) will be held based on the technical difficulties of implementation of quarantine action in the entry points and/or the result of PRA shows that the country origin is determined as distribution area of harmful plant pests.

5. The plant quarantine inspections in the country of origin will be performed by the Indonesian Plant Quarantine Inspectors.

6. If needed, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia could make a bilateral cooperation with the exportation country through classified program (pre clearance program).

7. The importation of plant products which are not fullfiled the requirement of the standard procedure should be refused entry into the territory of the Republic of Indonesia.



PROSEDUR TETAP TINDAKAN KARANTINA TUMBUHAN TERHADAP PEMASUKAN HASIL TUMBUHAN DI DALAM WILAYAH NEGARA REPUBLIK INDONESIA

1.Setiap hasil tumbuhan yang dimasukan ke dalam wilayah negara Asal Republik Indonesia wajib :

a.Dilengkapi sertifikat kesehatan tumbuhan dari negara asal dan negara transit;
b.Melalui tempat-tempat pemasukan yang telah ditetapkan;
c.Dilaporkan dan diserahkan kepada petugas karantina tumbuhan setibanya di tempat pemasukan untuk keperluan tindakan karantina tumbuhan.

2.Dalam hal tertentu, terhadap pemasukan hasil tumbuhan ke dalam wilayah negara Republik Indonesia dapat dikenakan kewajiban tambahan berdasarkan analisis resiko organisme pengganggu tumbuhan.

3.Hasil analisis resiko organisme pengganggu tumbuhan akan menentukan status pemasukan dan persyaratan teknis yang diperlukan terhadap pemasukan hasil tumbuhan.

4.Pemeriksaan karantina di negara asal di lakukan berdasarkan pertimbangan kesulitan teknis dilakukannya tindakan karantina di tempat pemasukan dan/atau analisis resiko organisme pengganggu tumbuhan negara asal merupakan daerah sebar organisme pengganggu tumbuhan karantina (OPTK) yang beresiko tinggi.

5.Pemeriksaan di negara asal dilakukan oleh Petugas Karantina Tumbuhan.

6.Apabila diperlukan pemerintah Republik Indonesia dapat melakukan kerjasama bilateral dengan negara pengirim hasil tumbuhan, melalui program klarifikasi (pre clearance program)

7.Pemasukan hasil tumbuhan yang tidak memenuhi ketentuan dalam prosedur tetap ini ditolak pemasukannya ke dalam wilayah negara Republik Indonesia.

Sumber : Keputusan Kepala badan Karantina Pertanian Nomor : 152/Kpts/PD.540/L/8/03 tanggal 8 Agustus 2003.

Gleneagles-Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development 4th Ministerial Meeting Chiba, JAPAN 14-16 March, 2008

Chairs’ Conclusions

The Ministerial Meeting of the Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development was launched at G8 summit at Gleneagles 2005. The first meeting was held in London in Oct. and Nov. 2005, followed by the second meeting in Monterey in Oct. 2006 and the third meeting in Berlin in Sep. 2007.

During the past sessions of the Dialogue, the following general understandings had been shared, with the assistance of the inputs from the IEA and the World Bank;
• Both the development of new technologies and the deployment of existing technologies are equally important. Cooperation between developed and developing countries, and between public and private sectors is essential.
• Future investment is needed on a large scale. A wide range of policies should be implemented in a clear and predictable way in order to mobilize private investment.
• It is necessary to deal with sustainable development and climate change at the same time. Adaptation and reducing emissions from deforestation are also important.

It had been acknowledged that these discussions during the Dialogues in the past are useful inputs and complementary to the process under the UNFCCC for the post-2012 framework.

In order to wrap up these past 2-year discussions and prepare a report to the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit, the 4th meeting was held in Chiba from the 14th to the 16th of March 2008, and focused on the issues on Technology, Finance and Investments, and post-2012 framework.

This meeting was attended by ministers and senior officials responsible for energy and environment issues from G8, from Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, Spain and Slovenia as current presidency of the EU. We were joined by senior officials from international organizations including the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, Regional Development Banks, and business groups from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Nippon Keidanren and the World Economic Forum, non-governmental organizations as well as legislators from the GLOBE.

Regarding the following issues discussed at this Dialogue,

Technology
[Energy Efficiency and Clean Energy]

Acknowledged the importance of improving energy efficiency, as one of the lowest cost and most effective means to immediately reduce GHG emissions, on a global scale including through cooperative sectoral approach, international partnership, and domestic actions for each country.

Highlighted the necessity of technology deployment and transfer to developing countries.

Acknowledged the importance of capacity building and discussed the role of IPR (Intellectual Property Rights).

Noted that countries which decided to choose the option for nuclear energy recognized the contribution of nuclear power to emission reduction while those which decided otherwise expressed their concern about security.

Noted the importance of renewable energy.

[Innovative Technology]

Exchanged information on international initiatives to develop innovative technologies.

Shared the necessity of expanding and strengthening international cooperation and sharing road maps on technology RD & D.

Emphasized the importance of CCS.

[Sectoral Approach]

Provided experiences based on sectoral approach (e.g., APP).

Discussed the effectiveness of sectoral approach and recognized the necessity to continue　further discussion in order to reach common understanding.

Emphasized the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capability in the context of sectoral approach.

[The Role of the IEA]

Appreciate the work of IEA and pointed out challenges to be addressed (including data collection and the future role of IEA).

[Activities by Private Sector]

Appreciated business initiatives for implementation of sector-based activities (including data collection).

Finance
[International Financial Mechanism for Mitigation and Adaptation]

Appreciated the work of the World Bank and Regional Development Banks under the framework for clean energy and development and encouraged them to continue and enhanced these efforts.

Appreciated the initiatives by Japan, UK and US to create a new multilateral fund for climate change in collaboration with the World Bank.

Exchanged views on governance of international funding arrangements.

Acknowledged to coordinate various existing and new funds in order to avoid duplication.

Recognized the need to prioritize financial support for adaptation to the most vulnerable countries such as Least Developed Countries and Small Islands Developing States.

Noted the importance of exploring innovative financial mechanisms.

Noted a Multinational Fund for Climate Change to support mitigation and adaptation activities proposed by Mexico.

Noted the necessity of scaling up CDM while recognizing the need for improvement.

Acknowledged the importance of mainstreaming mitigation and adaptation into development policy.

Recognized the importance of maximizing co-benefits (e.g. air pollution reduction) in financial assistance.

Reaffirmed the necessity to give appropriate incentives for preventing deforestation and forest degradation.

[Mobilization of Private Investment]

Recognized the importance of mobilization of private investment and the role of governments to remove the obstacles for investment.

Discussed the relationship between carbon markets and private investments.

Post-2012 Framework

[Long-term Goal]

Acknowledged the importance of sharing a long-term goal.

Shared the common understanding of the necessity to move toward sustainable low-carbon societies.

Pointed out the necessity to identify a long-term policy which functions as a reliable and clear signal to the private sector.

[Mid-term Goal]

Reaffirmed the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities as a premise of the discussion.

Noted the necessity to take into consideration the change of global situation from 1992 to 2008.

Recognized to necessity to ensure equity to realize sustainable development and effective emission reduction.

Shared the necessity to continue substantial discussion on sectoral approach, with the understanding that it does not replace quantified national target for GHGs emissions reductions.

[Global Actions]

Noted developed countries will take the lead in combating climate change while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them.

Acknowledged developing countries will take measurable, reportable and verifiable actions with support from developed countries.

Shared that adaptation and mitigation are equally important, and technology and finance are necessary ways to achieve them.

Recognized in particular the unique role that the countries at the Gleneagles Dialogue can play in terms of initiatives and cooperation leading to emission reduction.

Noted the importance of carbon market role.

Acknowledged the importance of counter measures for deforestation and forest degradation particularly for developing countries.

[Road to Copenhagen]

Appreciated the fruits of this dialogue (substantial contribution to the agreement on Bali Action Plan) and expected it to become a useful contribution to the discussion in the AWGLCA under the Convention.

Highlighted the value of this dialogue and other such dialogues in contributing to a successful outcome in Copenhagen.

Manajemen Sumber Air Antisipasi Perubahan iklim

Dalam rangka mengamati penanganan sumber air akibat perubahan iklim telah dilaksanakan Special Symposium ”Climate Change and Water”-Towards the 1st Asia-Pacific Water Summit and Beyond- yang diselenggarakan oleh Japan Water Forum di JETRO Headquarters Tokyo, Ark Mori Building 5F, Tokyo.

Kata perubahan iklim dunia untuk masa mendatang tidak tepat. Karena perubahan terjadi secara drastis pada saat tertentu. Perubahan dimaksud merupakan suatu yang jelas dan dapat diukur dengan cepat. Sedangkan perubahan pada iklim tidak seperti dimaksud tersebut, sehingga kata yang paling tepat atau realistis adalah evolusi iklim.

Evolusi iklim dan efek yang ditimbulkannya terhadap air telah diketahui oleh manusia. Manusia telah tahu bagaimana untuk beradaptasi terhadap perubahan ini. Evolusi iklim bukan merupakan penyebab pertama kekurangan air. Manusia telah belajar keadaan alam ini setiap hari sehingga tentunya manusia dapat mengetahui alam ini secara baik.

Kekurangan air diakibatkan oleh pertumbuhan demografis, pertumbuhan populasi penduduk yang alami serta penyebaran penduduk yang tidak merata pada permukaan planet. Pertambahan satu milyar lebih manusia setiap 10 – 12 tahun akan menjadi masalah yang tidak mudah mengambil jalan keluarnya, dan dapat menyebabkan tertundanya pencapaian sasaran pengembangan melinium. Ditambah lagi sebagian besar dari populasi yang banyak ini bertempat tinggal di kota-kota besar dan di daerah pantai, hal ini telah menciptakan wilayah baru yang sulit memperoleh sumber air.

Di kota-kota tersebut ketersediaan air tidak sesuai dengan kebutuhan manusia akibat evolusi ini. Banyak kota-kota besar yang telah atau akan menderita kekurangan air selama abad ini akibat tidak terdapat peraturan mengenai langkah-langkah yang harus diambil untuk menangani masalah genting secara cepat. Pada dewasa ini, strategi yang penting adalah memetakan sumber air dan pertumbuhan penduduk.

Apabila kegiatan manusia tidak memperhatikan mutu air akan menimbulkan masalah kehidupan manusia. Kegiatan utama seperti kegiatan yang dilakukan dalam bidang perindustrian dan pertanian. Kegiatan yang dikhawatirkan adalah kegiatan yang dapat menimbulkan kontaminasi air yang dapat mengancam terpenuhinya kebutuhan air yang berasal dari sumber air alami tanpa perlakuan dan pemurnian. Hal tersebut akan menyebabkan kesulitan mendapatkan air dalam jumlah banyak.

Hal-hal yang perlu dilakukan dalam rangka penghemat air adalah menghentikan pembuangan sampah dalam segala bentuknya. Artinya semua sampah harus didaur ulang untuk diambil manfaat sebanyak-banyaknya. Kita harus melakukan usaha penggunaan air lebih sedikit mungkin dimanapun berada dan untuk kegiatan apapun.

Beberapa tindakan yang perlu dilakukan secara bersama-sama oleh pemerintah, swasta dan masyarakat umum adalah sebagai berikut:

a.Mencegah terjadinya kerusakan kronis tempat sumber air melalui pencegahan polusi air terhadap bahan kimia dan bahan lain yang menimbulkan rusaknya kualitas air sungai dan mata air.

b.Mencegah dan memerangi polusi akibat kecelakaan transportasi, kebakaran, ledakan, kerusakan pipa dan sebagainya.

c.Menjaga dan mengawasi tempat pengolahan sumber air bersih.

d.Memonitor sumber air secara berkala baik mutu maupun jumlah air di setiap sumber air.

e.Mengatur sumber air dengan cara menjaga fasilitas umum, dan mengatur pemenuhan kebutuhan air untuk jangka waktu lama.

f.Menghemat penggunaan air dengan cara mencegah hilangnya air pada saluran air dan memonitor penggunaan air PAM (ledeng).