WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/162 
20 October 2004 
 (04-4433) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
 
SECOND REVIEW OF THE OPERAT ION AND IMPLEMENTATION  
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Submission by China
 
 
 
 The following communication, received on 18 Octo ber 2004, is being circulated at the request 
of the Delegation of China. 
 
_______________ 
 
 I. INTRODUCTION 
1. China believes that the Second Review of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures ("the Agreement") provi des a valuable opportunity to improve the 
implementation, and if necessary to clarify certain pr ovisions of the Agreement so as to ensure that 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures do not cons titute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable 
discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. 
2. As a developing country Member to the WTO for nearly three years, China’s primary goal is 
to facilitate reducing the negative effect of SPS measures on international trade through more 
consistent and effective implementation of the SPS Agreement by all Members. 
3. China’s concerns on the Second Review include:  (1) regionalization;  (2) transparency;  
(3) technical assistance and special and differential treatment;  and (4) harmonization;  among those, 
transparency, regionalization and related special and differential treatment are the issues of most 
concern for China. 
II. ADAPTATION TO REGIONAL CONDITIONS (ARTICLE 6) 
4. China has noticed that adaptation to regional conditions, including the recognition of pest- or 
disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence, is of significant importance for trade in 
agricultural products.  China highly appreciates th e work that has been done by the SPS Committee 
through the five informal meetings and five form al meetings, and the comprehensive discussions of 
the issue in this regard since March 2003. 
5. However, China realizes that the three difficu lties in recognizing pest- or disease-free areas or 
areas of low pest or disease prevalence identified in the first Review still remain alive, including 
divergences in interpretation and implementation of international guidelines;  an excessively lengthy 
administrative process by importing Members;  and the complexities often involved in risk 
assessment.  In addition, China h as noticed that a few Members pr ohibit existing trade even when 
they have only detected one case of pathogen iden tified from the imported foods of animal origin or G/SPS/W/162 
Page 2  
 
 other agricultural products coming from an exporting country.  These difficulties and facts have a 
significant negative impact on international trade. 
6. In order to facilitate international trade by r ecognizing pest- or disease-free areas or areas of 
low pest or disease prevalence, China would like to put forward the following proposals: 
(a) China proposes to take full advantage of in ternational standards setting organizations, 
such as OIE and IPPC, in recognizing pest- or  disease-free areas and areas of low pest 
or disease prevalence, in order to avoid redundant work, reduce disputes, shorten the recognition period, and lower costs.  Inte rnational organizations  could develop the 
concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence as 
soon as possible, and  develop the standards on pest- or disease-free areas and areas 
of low pest or disease prevalence and the relevant guidelines and procedures for 
recognition regarding certain severe diseases and pests of animals and plants, such as highly pathogenic avian influenza, Newcast le disease, Swine Fever, Mediterranean 
Fruit Fly, Tilletia controversa kuhn  and so on, and could enhance recognition work 
and publish recognized lists of pest- or di sease-free areas and areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence and notify them to all Members through the WTO Secretariat.  
Once certain areas are recognized by OIE/I PPC as pest- or disease-free areas or areas 
of low pest or disease prevalence, the importing Member should not apply for a new recognition individually, nor make any a dditional new requirements for recognition. 
(b) Before the recognition made by OIE or IPPC , in order to facilitate trade, importing 
Members recognize exporting Members’ pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low-
pest or disease prevalence themselves accord ing to the relevant standards, guidelines 
and procedures developed by OIE and IPPC. 
(c) As to the standards, guidelines and proce dures regarding the recognition of pest- or 
disease-free areas and areas of low-pest or di sease prevalence that have not been 
developed by OIE or IPPC, Members shoul d publish their own recognition agencies, 
standards, procedures and estimated time period for each step and notify them to 
Members through the Secretariat.  This will help the exporting Member to confirm whether it complies with the requirements for pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low-pest or disease prevalence of the importing Member.  Importing Members should take into consideration the relevant intern ational standards, guidelines and procedures 
when establishing the recognition standard s and procedures, and should reduce the 
adverse effects on international trade to the minimum level.  Are exporting Members 
should provide the relevant evidence to demonstrate to the importing Member that its areas comply with the importing Member’s reasonable recognition standards and procedures, and accept the necessary inspection and testing by the importing Member upon request. 
(d) The Committee should encourage developed country Members to provide as much 
technical assistance as possible and special and different treatment to developing country Members, including exempting developing country Members as much as possible from the costs incurred in arrangi ng for investigation the experts from the 
developed country Member. 
The Committee should encourage Members to notify the end results of recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas and areas of low-pest or disease prev alence to Members through the WTO Secretariat. 
  G/SPS/W/162 
 Page 3 
 
 
 III. TRANSPARENCY 
7. The transparency  principle is one of the fundamental WTO principles, and the most important 
one of the SPS Agreement.  China notes that mo st of the work done by the SPS Committee focuses on 
promoting the implementation of the transparency principle, including developing  the Handbook of 
How to Apply the Transparency Pr ovisions of the SPS Agreement,  and the  Recommended Procedures 
for Implementing the Transparency Obligations  of the SPS Agreement (Article 7 of the SPS 
Agreement), holding the relevant informal and form al meetings, and making long-term efforts to the 
implementation of the Agreement.  China appreciates all of this work by the SPS Committee. 
8. However, China has noticed that there still ex ist some problems in the implementation of 
transparency obligations among Members.  Ch ina submitted the analysis reports on the SPS 
notifications of WTO Members (G/SPS/GEN/378,  G/SPS/GEN/498) to the Committee in 2002 and 
2003 respectively, and made a proposal (G/SPS/W/131)  on the starting date of the comment period as 
proposed in G/SPS/7/Rev.2 on the basis of the report mentioned above.  China’s analysis reports and 
recommendation received positive comments and f acilitated further discussions concerning the 
implementation of transparency obligations in th e Committee.  Yet, regretfully, some Members did 
not accept the explicit method to calculate the comment period because of their domestic regulations. 
9. According to document G/SPS/GEN/510 prepared by the Secretariat, as of 1 September 2004, 
4,100 notifications on newly deve loped or modified SPS measures had been made, not including 
corrigenda, addenda and revisions.  To fully exercise the right to make comments on these 
notifications, it is fundamentally important to pr ovide sufficient comment period for Members whose 
official language is not a WTO official language (English, France and Spanish) to translate the 
notification forms and related texts and study those.   As one of the recently acceded Members of the 
WTO, the difficulty China faces in respect of th e comment period is even greater.  However, as 
indicated in document G/SPS/GEN/378 and G/SPS/GEN/498, only 22.2 per cent of the 995 regular notifications made in 2002 and 2003 offered co mment periods of 60 or more days, which 
demonstrated the ineffective implementation of the recommendation on providing 60 days for 
Members to make comments.  China proposes that the SPS Committ ee carry out further discussions 
on this issue to ensure that the recommendation be  effectively applied.  The discussions could focus 
on the method of calculating comment period put forward by China, and it would be highly appreciated if Members made other suggestions which serve the same objective. 
10. The Fourth Ministerial Conference decided that  "Reasonable interval" between publication of 
a country’s new SPS measure and its entry into for ce would now be understood to mean, normally, at 
least six months, subject to certain conditions (Im plementation-Related Issues and Concerns Decision 
of 14 November 2001).  Nevertheless, according to  China’s analysis reports (G/SPS/GEN/378 and 
G/SPS/GEN/498), only 6.5 per cent of regular notificati ons satisfied such requi rement while most of 
the notifications provided adjustment periods of less than six months.  China would like the SPS 
Committee to discuss this issue to ensure the decision of the Fourth Ministerial Conference is fully 
implemented. 
11. The fourth Ministerial Conference decided that  where a phased introduction is possible, the 
"longer time-frames" "for developing countries to co mply is now understood to mean, normally, at 
least six months" (Implementation-Related Issues  and Concerns Decision of 14 November 2001).  
China appeals that developed country Members acti vely consider providing another six months for 
adaptation by developing country Members, in ad dition to the at least six months for adaptation 
provided to all Members as mentioned in paragr aph 10, when a developed country Member's 
appropriate level of SPS protecti on allows scope for the phased introduction of new SPS measures. 
 
__________