In the wake of the WTO, the traditional barriers to trade such as tariffs and quotas are on the wane. However, these barriers are being replaced with what are commonly called non-tariff barriers (NTBs).

The NTBs include anti-dumping and countervailing duties, and health, environment and social standards. The present, article looks at health and environment standards and the way these are being used by developed countries to restrict exports from less developed countries (LDCs).

The basic purpose of health and safety standards is to protect human, animal and plant life as well as preserve the environment. Both domestic and imported products have to conform to these standards.

For instance, the food or drug that people consume must be safe for their health. A country's right to protect its consumers and environment against substandard products, both local and foreign, is undeniable. The problem arises, however, when these standards are used to distort trade.

The standards also convey information to the buyer about product quality. When customers buy products compatible with certain standards, they are absolutely certain that the product has the characteristics they are looking for.

For instance, when a manufacturer of consumer durables purchases the components of his products from another manufacturer who is ISO (International Standardisation Organization) certified, he can put his trust in the quality of the components.

The health and safety standards are covered by two WTO agreements: the agreement on technical barriers to trade (TBT) and the agreement on the application of sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures (SPS).

The TBT agreement deals with regulations or standards pertaining to product characteristics, process and production methods (PPMs) bearing upon product quality, and product packaging and labelling.

Member countries are entitled to adopt the standards they deem adequate to protect life or environment or safeguard consumer interests and take measures to ensure their standards are met. Though the agreement encourages countries to adopt international standards, the same are not binding.

A distinction is made between mandatory and optional standards. The former embody government regulations, while the latter embody requirements of customers. However, in practical terms, the distinction is not much relevant, because every supplier has to fulfil the, requirements of his prospective buyer failing which he may be thrown out of the market.

The objectives for which countries can enforce technical regulations include national security, prevention, of deceptive practices, protection of human animal and plant life and environment preservation. However, the agreement makes it a point to ensure that these standards or regulations do not become an obstacle to international trade.

Moreover, these standards have to be applied in conformity with both the MFN and national treatment principles so that there is no discrimination among imported products by origin or between imported products on one hand and those produced domestically on the other in terms of regulations. The regulations as much as possible have to have a scientific basis and should not unnecessarily obstruct international trade.

Regulations enforced under the SPS agreement are meant to protect human, animal and plant life from food-borne diseases, human beings from animal or plant carried diseases and animals and plants from pests and diseases.

There is some difference between SPS and TOT regulations: One, SPS regulations are applicable only to agriculture products, whereas TBT regulations apply to both industrial and agricultural products. Two, SPS regulations cannot be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence.

In case of TBT regulations, the use of scientific evidence is contingent upon the objective. If the purpose is to ensure health and safety, the regulations have to be based on scientific evidence.

However, if the objective is national security or protection against deceptive practices, the condition of scientific evidence is not mandatory. Three, whereas TBT regulations have to be applied on the basis-of MFN principle, in case of the SPS regulations, a departure can be made from MFN principle subject to the level of prevalence of specific diseases in the exporting country. However, SPS regulations about food safety have to be applied on MFN basis.

The WTO acknowledges its members' right to protect the environment. According to Article XX of the GATS, now part of the WTO, a country can restrict imports "to protect human, animal, or plant life or health" provided It does not amount to a disguised trade restriction.

Reference in this connection may be made to the well-known shrimp-turtle case. A few years back, the USA put ban on import of shrimps from Pakistan, India, Malaysia and Thailand on the ground that in these countries fishermen killed sea turtles--an endangered species while netting shrimps.

The ban was imposed under the US Endangered Species Act 1973. The aggrieved countries challenged the ban in the WTO. In its ruling, the WTO appellate body declared that under Article XX of the GATT, countries were entitled to protect environment and human animal and plant life.

However, the body maintained, the ban imposed by the USA was unwarranted because the regulations to protect the environment were applied in a non-discriminatory fashion: the USA provided technical assistance to the fishermen in the Caribbeans to use turtle-excluder device.

However, no such assistance was provided to the complainant countries. The significance of the WTO body ruling is that countries can restrict imports for environment preservation, provided such restrictions are applied on MFN or non-discriminatory basis.

Though attempts are being made to harmonise standards at international level, so as to ensure predictability and transparency in their application, the fact remains that countries have different standards.

The industrial countries have more strict standards than developing and less developed counties. Moreover, buyers are wont to applying social and environmental requirements identical to those in vogue in their own countries.

This creates problems for exporters as social and environment conditions differ from country to country. Even for identical products, there are different standards. When it comes to complying with standards or regulations, developing countries face two types of problems: In the first place, it is difficult for them to keep track of fast changing standards.

Secondly, developing countries by and large are deficient in the capacity to comply with standards particularly, when their export markets are developed countries. The result is that their export sales are seriously affected.

According to a UNDP report, developing countries' exports to the USA and the EU have been restricted for failure to comply with "dubious" environmental or technical standards. Moreover, the report continues, tests conducted to establish that the exports are standard compliant can cost as much as 20 per cent of the value of the merchandise, which funds-scarce developing countries can hardly afford.

The report mentions, for instance, that the rules imposed by the USA on imports to pre-empt terrorism, requiring prior notice to the US Food and Drug Administration, have proved enormously complex. Small exporters in particular have been unable to comply in time with such regulations.

Environment and safety standards are thus becoming a serious obstacle to international trade, particularly to market access for developing countries. In the garb of protecting their environment, the rich, industrial countries have found a new tool of protecting their domestic industries, which is against the very spirit of free trade espoused by the WTO.

Developing nations, either do not have the means to conform to these standards, or, where they do conform, the cost of conformity becomes so high that it affects their price competitiveness.

It is not that developing countries are less concerned about the environment than developed countries. But the former lack the means for environment preservation. Penalising them, by denying them market access, because their products do not measure up to the difficult environment standards of developed countries will further reduce their capacity to preserve the environment.

What developing countries need is technical and financial assistance from developed countries to beef up their capacity to grapple with environment issues. For instance, in the shrimp-turtle case, the USA should first have provided turtle excluder device to fishermen from Pakistan and other complainant countries, as it did in case of the counties of the Caribbeans, if it was really concerned about the environment.

The TBT and SPS agreements have special significance for Pakistan. Nearly 55 per cent of Pakistan's exports are destined to the USA and the EU, which have very high health and safety standards.

With the reduction of tariffs, these standards, along with anti-dumping, are likely to become the most serious barriers to the country's attempts to increase or even maintain its market share in the EU and the USA.

What therefore is needed is greater awareness among exporters about the importance of complying with health and safety standards in their existing and target export markets.