WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/154 
4 October 2004 
 (04-4146) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
   
 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM UNDER PARAGRAPH 18  
OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
 
Questions to China from the European Communities
 
 
 
1. The European Communities is transmitting th e following comments and questions well in 
advance of the meeting of the SPS Committee of 27-28  October 2004, in order for the Chinese 
authorities to reply and to complete any information that may be incomplete. 
2. Once the information to be provided by China in accordance with paragraph 18 and 
Annex 1A of its accession protocol has been recei ved, the European Communities might come back 
with additional questions. 
3. The EC’s comments relate to several res ponses from China contained within G/SPS/GEN/452 
dated 11 November 2003 which was China’s respon se to the 2003 TRM exercise.  The European 
Communities feels the replies do not respond to th e specific questions raised by the European 
Communities last year.  One other issue relates to the difficulties caused by China’s position that it is 
not a member of the OIE which China has repeated in various official contacts with the European 
Communities. 
Transparency 
 
4. The European Communities would like to re-em phasize the importance of transparency with 
regard to the proper functioning of the SPS Agreemen t.   An important aspect of notifying is that 
notification should occur before the measures are adopted so as to leave time for third-country 
comments to be taken into account.  
5. Last year the European Communities referred to several specific examples where the date of 
entry into force for several notifications was befo re the date of notification and therefore it was 
difficult to see how submitted comments could be taken into account.  There have been further 
examples of this during 2004.  For instance, G/SPS/N/CHN/79 was notified in August 2004 with a 
proposed date of adoption, 9 May 2004 and  a propos ed date of entry into force of 1 November 2004. 
In this case, the notified final date for comments, before 30 October 2004, is only the day before the 
date of entry into force. 
• Could China explain how comments we re taken into account under these 
circumstances? 
 
• Can China explain what steps it has undertaken  to ensure that other Member countries 
are given a realistic opportunity to comment  on notified measures in advance of their 
application? 
 G/SPS/W/154 
Page 2  
 
Reference to "Non-membership of OIE" 
 
6. China has taken on a number of occasions th e official position that as a "non-member of 
OIE", it is not involved in the creation of OIE standa rds, and therefore needs time to analyse whether 
these standards are appropriate for China. This  pos ition is not consistent with the obligations under 
Article 3.2 and Article 5 of the SPS Agreement for WTO Members to use relevant international 
standards as a basis for their sanita ry and phytosanitary measures.  
7. In that respect, the European Communities woul d like to recall that China has committed in 
paragraph 2 of the EC-China record of understa nding on SPS measures that "China shall recognize 
the OIE, the Codex Alimentarius and the IPPC as the reference organizations in the relevant fields, as 
provided for by the SPS Agreement", and this regardl ess of China’s participation or not to the works 
of the OIE.  
8. The European Communities would also like to point out that China participates to some 
extent in OIE and  has already in the past made no tifications to the OIE of certain animal diseases, in 
particular in the case of Avian Influenza.  
9. In that context, the European Communities would like to emphasize that the sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures not in accordance with  international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations issued by the WHO, the IPPC and the OIE, and which may have a significant 
impact on trade, shall be justified on the basis of a risk assessment. 
10. The SPS Agreement is based on the respect of  international standards except where a 
scientific evidence justifies a different approach. Th e systematic failure of any Member country to 
respect these standards simply because they do not a ttend the meetings of the relevant organization is 
not compatible with the obligations of WTO membership.   
With this regard: 
 
11. In G/SPS/GEN/452 dated 11 November 2003, Ch ina’s response to the 2003  Transitional 
Review Mechanism, it is stated that : 
 " The Government of China attaches great importa nce to the principle that SPS measures shall 
be based on international standards.  In Dece mber 2001, AQSIQ issued "Regulatory Measures 
Governing the Adoption of International Standards" (AQSIQ Decree No. 10), which 
stipulates clearly the principles and proce dures for adopting international standards." 
• Can China please clarify how on the one hand it claims to comply with Article 3.2 
and Article 5 of the SPS Agreement by respec ting the relevant international standard 
but on the other hand adopts a position as a "non member of the OIE" whereby it has 
to assess these on a case-by-case basis? 
• Has China based the sanitary and phytosan itary measures on risk assessment when 
these measures do not conform to international standard guidelines or recommendations? 
12. The European Communities would like to emphasize  the important detrimental effect to trade 
in relation to the above, firstly in relation to BSE, but also with rega rd to the excessive delays applied 
by China to recognize disease-free status of EC me mber States, sometimes several years after the 
recognition by the OIE and other WTO Members.  
 
BSE related measures  G/SPS/W/154 
 Page 3 
 
 
 
13. The European Communities reiterates the importa nce of Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement 
that obliges Members to base sanitary and phytosan itary measures on scientific principles taking into 
account relevant process and productio n method, relevant inspection and sampling methods.  It is of 
great importance that the scientific basis of measures is justified where appropriate. 
14. Furthermore, The European Communities would lik e to recall China’s commitments as stated 
in paragraph 199 of the Working Party Report on China’s Accession to the WTO which state that: "China would ensure that SPS measures would not  be maintained without sufficient scientific 
evidence". 
15. For example, in the case of BSE related trade, China has not produced any scientific evidence 
supporting the measures it has been adopting.  At th e same time it has not provided any response to 
the conclusions of a panel of Chinese and EC scientif ic experts, nearly two years after these measures 
were adopted, suggesting that its measures do not have any scientific basis. The European 
Communities would like to emphasize the economic im portance of the trade restrictive measures 
adopted by China which affect a wide range of produc ts such as pet food, pork gelatine, fish meal, 
bovine embryos and semen and  cosmetics. 
With this regard: 
 
• Why does China not think that the intern ationally recognized standards (WHO and 
OIE) in connection with ingredients de rived from cattle and sheep tissues coming 
from countries and regions affected by BSE do not fulfil the level of protection set up 
by China? 
 
• Can China explain the scientific basis for deviating from the existing international 
standards, as required in Article 2 of th e SPS Agreement, for the measures introduced 
via G/SPS/N/CHN/3, 4, 6 and 7 which relate to import restrictions on a range of products related to BSE?  
 
• What is the level of protection applied by China to the imports in comparison with the 
level of protection applie d to national production? 
 
• What is the scientific justification for this? 
 
• Has China considered other less trade restrictive alternatives? 
 
 
__________