The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) chapter on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures is subject to dispute settlement and also contains a "rapid-response mechanism" aimed at dealing with situations where shipments of food or agricultural products are held at the border due to an SPS problem, according to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

Speaking during an Oct. 15 conference call organized by the Council on Foreign Relations, Froman highlighted the rapid-response mechanism as a novel enforcement tool included in the TPP agreement.

He said that, under this mechanism, technical experts can get together immediately and resolve an SPS problem to allow the shipment to clear customs. He also referred to the rapid-response mechanism as a CTC, an apparent acronym for Consultative Technical Committee.

The U.S. in May 2013 tabled a legal text proposal in the SPS chapter that included both a "consultative mechanism" for addressing disputes and a rapid-response mechanism for quickly resolving SPS barriers that block shipments of perishable goods (Inside U.S. Trade May 24, 2013).

Subjecting the SPS chapter to dispute settlement and including a rapid-response mechanism would meet two key demands made by the U.S. food and agriculture industry earlier in the TPP negotiations. The industry had also pushed for strong SPS rules that go beyond those in the World Trade Organization SPS Agreement.

The U.S. had initially been reluctant to support the idea of full dispute settlement for the TPP SPS chapter over fears that it could curtail U.S. regulators.

But the U.S. began to warm up to the idea in early 2014, though industry sources at the time worried that the U.S. in exchange would want to weaken the SPS obligations or carve out certain ones from being challenged under dispute settlement (Inside U.S. Trade March 7, 2014).

A fact sheet on the TPP published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Oct. 8 said the agreement "provides for consultative and dispute settlement mechanisms to resolve SPS issues between governments in a timely fashion."

According to the fact sheet, the TPP "builds on and enhances the rules" of the WTO SPS agreement. It also "promotes the development and application of SPS measures in a risk-based, scientifically sound manner, while ensuring that regulatory agencies in the United States and other TPP member countries are able to protect food safety and plant and animal health," the fact sheet said.

"Provisions of the agreement include enhanced transparency, rapid notification of shipments held at point-of-import, and greater public input in the development of SPS measures," it added.

When the U.S. tabled its rapid-response mechanism in May 2013, one private-sector source said the proposal fell short of industry demands.

The industry proposal for a rapid-response mechanism, circulated in September 2012, had two basic components. The first was a requirement for a TPP government to provide, upon the request of an importer or exporter and within three days, a detailed notification of any measure involving risk detection, assessment and management that stopped a shipment.

A company could present this notification to port authorities in an effort to convince them to release the portion of the shipment that was not found to be in violation of the relevant SPS measure, this source said.

If this initial tool failed to resolve the problem, companies could then move to the second component of the industry proposal, which is an expedited review process by neutral experts that could be triggered at the request of any TPP partner. Under the industry proposal, that review would have to be completed in 15 days.