Increases in world trade since World War II have heightened the importance ofimport regulations.As the world economy becomes further integrated,sanitary measure disputes are likely to continue,further testing the robustness of the WTO-SPS framework in facilitating both regulatory harmonisation and dispute resolution.
The WTO-SPS framework provides for three different provisions to achieve its goals. The US-Australia meat inspection case was largely influenced by the third provision,the determination of equivalence.The use of international (CAC) guidelines for equivalence determination had not yet been adopted (Moy,1999). Hence the two parties had to rely on their own equivalence procedures.Many are of the opinion that unless standards are developed more quickly, trade disputes are likely to become common.However, the US-Australia experience may in fact provide a model on which such standards may be developed.
The US-Australia process integrated the concerns of the public and other interested parties. The two parties did not ignore the USDA inspectors union's concern that the implementation of a US system similar to that of Australia's Project 2 would threaten government inspector jobs. Australia's modified MSEP prposal ,which added one government inspector to the processing line and provided additional government oversight,
accommodated this concern, paving the way to a favourable equivalence decision. However, this very political issue will continue to haunt Australia as it seeks equivalence designation from the EU. While many countries within the EU are interested in accepting MSEP, other EU members are wary of it; according to an AQIS veterinary inspector, the Australian system is viewed as a threat to the employment prospects of a number of European government veterinarians( WFRR,1999c).
The WTO-SPS framework' influence on regulatory harmonisation and dispute resolution is affected by the involved countries' economic strength. In the US-EU hormone-treated beef dispute,the EU found itself economically robust enough to withstand an unfavourable WTO ruling and tolerate concomitant retaliation from the US (Kastner & Pawsey,2002). As a result, the WTO-SPS framework failed to facilitate regulatory harmonisation. In short, due to the sizable trade relationship between the Australian meat industry and the US consumer market, Australia and the US were keen to collaborate within the equivalence provision of the WTO-SPS framework and pre-empt a possible trade dispute.