WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/162/Rev.1 
21 December 2004 
 
 (04-5603) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
 
   
 
SECOND REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION  
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Submission by China
 
 
Revision  
 
 
 The following communication, received on 17 December 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 provisions of the Agreement so as to ensure that 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures do not c onstitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable 
discrimination or a disguised rest riction 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 the 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 difficultie s in recognizing pest- or disease-free areas or 
areas of low pest or disease prev alence 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 G/SPS/W/162/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
 assessment.  In addition, China has noticed that a few Members prohibit existing trade even when 
they have only detected one case of pathogen identified from the imported foods of animal origin or 
other agricultural products coming from an export ing country.  These difficulties and facts have a 
significant negative impact on international trade. 
6. In order to facilitate internatio nal trade by recognizing 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 international 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.  International 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, Newcastle disease, Swine Fever, Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Tilletia controversa kuhn  and so on, and could enhance recognition work 
and publish recognized lists of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence and notify them to all Members through the WTO Secretariat.   
(b) Before the recognition made by OIE or I PPC, in order to facilitate trade, importing 
Members recognize exporting Members’ pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low-
pest or disease prevalence themselves acco rding 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 disease prevalence that have not been 
developed by OIE or IPPC, Members should  publish their own recognition agencies, 
standards, procedures and estimated time period for each step and notify them to Members through the Secretariat.  This w ill 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 internat ional standards, guidelines and procedures 
when establishing the recognition standards 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 inspec tion and testing by the importing Member 
upon request. 
(d) The Committee should encourage develope d 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 arranging 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 prevalence to Members through the WTO Secretariat. 
  G/SPS/W/162/Rev.1 
 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 most of the work done by the SPS Committee focuses on 
promoting the implementation of the transp arency principle, including developing  the Handbook of 
How to Apply the Transparency Provisions of the SPS Agreement,  and the  Recommended Procedures 
for Implementing the Transparen cy 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 appr eciates 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.  China 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 re port mentioned above.  Chin a’s analysis reports and 
recommendation received positive comments and facilitated further discussions concerning the 
implementation of transparency obligations in the Committee.  Yet, regretfully, some Members did 
not accept the explicit method to calculate the comm ent 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 developed or modifi ed 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 the 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 comment 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 Committee 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 force would now be understood to mean, normally, at 
least six months, subject to cert ain conditions (Implementation-Rela ted 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 notifications satisfied such requirement 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 decisi on 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 comply 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 actively consider providing another six months for adaptation by developing country Members, in addition to the at least six months for adaptation 
provided to all Members as mentioned in paragraph 10, when a developed country Member's 
appropriate level of SPS protectio n allows scope for the phased introduction of new SPS measures. G/SPS/W/162/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
 IV. DEFINITIONS 
12. The Agreement did not give definitions of some words such as "sufficient scientific evidence" 
(Article 2.2), "the extent necessary " (Article 2.2), "base … on", "con form to" (Article 3.2), "arbitrary 
or unjustifiable distinctions" (Article 5.5), which may lead to different understandings.  We suggest 
that the Committee clarify or explain the above mentioned words so as to facilitate the understanding 
and implementation of the Agreement by Members. 
__________