WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/22
15 November 2002
(02-6341)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
ON CHINA'S TRANSITIONAL REVIEW
The present report is submitted on the responsibility of the Chairperson, Mrs. Alberto-Chau
Huu, as agreed by the Committee at its regular meeting on 7-8 November 2002.
_______________
1. The Committee held its first annual Transitional Review under paragraph 18 of the Protocol
of the Accession of the People's Republic of China at the regular meeting on 7-8 November 2002
(WT/L/432 refers).
2. Questions and/or comments to China were submitted by the Separate Customs Territory of
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, the European Communities and the United States in advance ofthe review (G/SPS/W/124 to 126, respectively).  There was opportunity for other Members to make
statements or raise questions at the meeting.  China provided oral responses to the comments and
questions by Members.
3. The statements that were made in the context of the Committee's review will be reflected in
the Summary Report of the November meeting by the Secretariat (to be circulated as G/SPS/R/28).
The excerpt from this report regarding the Committee's review is attached.
_______________G/SPS/22
Page 2
ATTACHMENT
Excerpt from the summary report of the SPS Committee meeting held on 7-8 November 2002
(G/SPS/R/28)
VIII.  TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF
ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
The Chairperson recalled that at the June 2002 meeting of the Committee, Members had been
invited to raise relevant questions to China well in advance of the November Committee meeting.
China had indicated that it might also address questions to other Members regarding their SPS
measures.  Chinese Taipei, the European Communities and the United States had submitted questionsin advance (G/SPS/W/124, 125 and 126 respectively).
The representative of China made a statement on China's SPS-related activities since
accession.  Fulfilling China's commitments had been a challenging task, however China applied SPS
measures only to the extent necessary to protect life or health, and had made every effort to base itsSPS measures on international standards, guidelines and recommendations.  Where there was
deviation between international standards and Chinese SPS measures, sufficient scientific
justifications could be provided.
Immediately after accession, the Chinese government had established China's WTO
Notification and Enquiry Center under the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation
(MOFTEC).  MOFTEC served as the focal point to fulfill notification obligations, including SPS
notifications, and to provide trade-related information in response to enquiries from individuals,
enterprises and WTO Members. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement, the
International Standard and Technical Regulation Center of the General Administration of QualitySupervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) had been designated to be China's SPS enquiry
point.  This institutional arrangement reflected the importance China attached to transparency, and
had ensured timely notifications of SPS-related measures.  Detailed information regarding the  China
WTO Notification and Enquiry Center and China's SPS enquiry point  had been provided to the WTO
in early 2002.
China had begun to sift its existing SPS-related laws, regulations and administrative measures
well before accession, resulting in 140 SPS notifications made in February and March 2002, pursuant
to Article 14 of China’s Protocol of Accession.  Aside from the notifications, China also promptly
responded to questions regarding those notifications by supplying relevant SPS documents upon
request.  With regard to new SPS measures, China had also faithfully fulfilled its obligations under
the SPS Agreement.  Pursuant to Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, China had notified 15new or revised SPS measures.  Comments from other WTO Members on these notified measures had
been taken into account and responsible authorities had tried their best to reflect these comments, if
reasonable and justifiable, in the final adoption of the SPS measures.  For example, following
comments and information from the European Communities and the Netherlands on China’s import
ban on Dutch products of animal origin due to chloramphenicol contamination (G/SPS/N/CHN/5),
China had allowed some products such as certain kinds of sea fishes, sea molluscs, edible eggs and
egg products to be imported.  China also published promptly its newly adopted or revised SPS
regulations and measures, as required by Annex B of the SPS Agreement, in the “Gazette of the
Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation” and the “Gazette of the General
Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine”.  These new SPS regulations andmeasures were also available at the websites of the AQSIQ, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of
Health, and the SPS Enquiry Point.G/SPS/22
Page 3
The representative of China emphasized that, because of the great challenges related to
accession, capacity building had been of the utmost importance, particularly in technical fields such as
the SPS Agreement.  A series of materials had been translated and published in the Chinese language,
and seminars and training courses had been organized for officials at various levels. China expressed
its appreciation to the Secretariat, other intern ational organizations and WTO Members for their
support in this respect.
The representative of China indicated that his general introduction had addressed some of the
questions raised by Members in advance of the meeting.  China had categorized the remaining
questions and would provide responses by subject.  Regarding harmonization, China had taken many
steps to base its SPS measures on international standards.  First, Article 10 of the "Law on
Standardization of the People’s Republic of China" stipulated that relevant international standardsshould be taken into account while developing national standards.  Second, in 2001, the
Standardization Committee of the People’s Republic of China (SAC) within AQSIQ had been
established.  This Committee was specifically responsible for the administration of standardization in
the whole country, for promoting an active participat ion in international standard-setting activities and
for alignment of national standards to international standards.
Third, AQSIQ had promulgated "Rules on Manage ment of Adopting International Standards"
in Decree No.10 in 2001.  The Rules stipulated explicitly the principle and procedures for adopting
international standards:  (i) determine if Codex, OIE or IPPC have adopted a related international
standard;  (ii) if a relevant international standard  existed, the Chinese standard should be the same or
equivalent to it, except in cases where there was suff icient scientific evidence;  (iii) a working plan for
adopting the international standard should be presented to SAC;  (iv) after the proposed standard was
ready, it should be published for public comments and the relevant organizations or specific standard
committees proposing the standard should take in to account the comments from the public; (v) the
proposed standard should be notified to Members for comments if it was not based on existinginternational standards and had a significant effect on international trade, and the comments from
Members should be taken into account;  and (vi) the standards should be released after being adopted.
Fourth, in July 2002, SAC had worked out a target for adoption of international standards.  By
the end of 2005, the ratio of national standards based on international standards should reach 70 per
cent on the whole and 75-80 per cent in important fields such as SPS.  Fifth, to conform to
international standards, existing standards were bein g reviewed and modified.  The Ministry of Health
was reviewing dozens of food safety standards which were not in conformity with Codex standards.
Regarding consistency, the representative of China noted that China was a centralized
country, and the constitution and the current legal and standard system could effectively ensure
nationwide uniform implementation of laws, regulations, national standards and the WTO Agreement.Local SPS regulations and standards which did not conform to national laws, regulations and
standards, as well as to the WTO Agreement, would be withdrawn by the central Government.
On risk assessment, the representative of China explained that at the beginning of the 1990s,
China had participated in the drafting of the international standard of phytosanitary measuresregarding pest risk analysis.  China was one of the first developing country Members to conduct pest
risk analysis.  New SPS measures had been developed and import bans on a variety of agricultural
products had been lifted based on risk assessments.  In 2001, the National SPS Risk Assessment
Committee led by AQSIQ had been established to promote the development of risk assessment in
China in accordance with international standards.  In concluding his statement, the representative of
China indicated that the interim review process was a useful forum for clarification and information
exchange.G/SPS/22
Page 4
Several Members acknowledged the efforts required of China to comply with its WTO
obligations, expressed their appreciation for the information provided and requested written copies of
the statement.  The representative of Chinese Taip ei indicated that in its written questions it had
requested clarification of the quarantine procedures for imported fresh fruits.  He was not sure this
question had been addressed in China's statement.  Chinese Taipei indicated that China's smoothimplementation of its commitments was in the best interest of all Members, including China itself.
The representative of the European Communities indicated that it had raised a number of
issues whose clarification would be mutually advantageous to facilitate trade.  The European
Communities recognized that China might require time to reflect on these questions and looked
forward to a written response to the EC questions.
The representative of New Zealand noted the steps China was taking to meet key principles of
the SPS Agreement, including harmonization, equivalence, risk assessment and transparency. New
Zealand encouraged China to remedy those areas where China was not in compliance with its WTO
commitments, and to ensure that any new measures introduced were consistent with its obligations
under the SPS Agreement.  New Zealand looked forwar d to continuing a fruitful exchange of views
on SPS matters, in both bilateral and multilateral contexts.
The representative of the United States noted that many of its questions had been addressed in
China's statement, including those regarding pest risk assessment and harmonization.  The United
States had also raised specific questions, for example related to quarantine inspection permits and rawmeat and poultry standards.  The United States hoped that China could provide a response to these
questions in sufficient time for the review mechanism to be completed by the SPS Committee before
the end of 2002.
The representative of Chile highlighted that Chile had agreements on animal and plant health
with China to further the principles of the SPS Agreement, and was working on the recognition on
pest-free areas in accordance with Article 6.  Recently Chinese technicians had visited Chile to certify
its condition as free from fruit flies.  There had been great progress on the technical level, and Chile
was awaiting administrative progress to finalize the recognition process.
The representative of Australia emphasized the positive SPS relationship between Australia
and China.  Australia was bilaterally pursuing several issues regarding access for some animal andplant products to China.  There were a number of outstanding bilateral issues whose solution had been
protracted, but Australia remained hopeful that they would soon be sorted out.  Australia appreciated
China's commitment to address systemic challenges in its implementation of the SPS Agreement
related to consistency, transparency, the use of international standards, the use of least trade-
restrictive measures and matters related to non-discrimination.  Australia had been pleased to beamongst those assisting China in its SPS training programmes and would soon welcome a visit by
Chinese quarantine authorities for work on SPS matters.
The representative of Thailand informed the Committee of concerns similar to those
expressed by Chinese Taipei regarding the delays in receiving import permits for agriculturalproducts, especially fresh fruits.  Thailand's exports of fresh fruit and vegetables to China had
declined after China's accession to WTO.  Thailand requested written explanations from China.
The representative of China replied to some of the comments raised by Members.  Regarding
the US question on meat standards related to Escherichia Coli  and other bacteria, China's standards in
Article 10 of its food sanitation law provided that meat and other food must not be contaminated by
disease-causing organisms.  The procedures for obtaining import quarantine permits had been notified
according to Article 14 of the Protocol of Accession.  Importers in China filled out application forms
and sent them to the local quarantine bureau for a first consideration.  If the permits were for importsG/SPS/22
Page 5
of specific animals, plants or foods, the quarantine permit covered a combination of disease and food
safety issues.  If there was any prohibition on imports from overseas, the importers need not go
further.  Otherwise, the application form woul d subsequently be submitted to AQSIQ for final
approval.  There was no limit on the amounts of products covered by one application.  In the case of
fresh fruit, the same system applied.  Furthermore, there was no restriction on which ports couldimport fruits unless there were no inspection facilities or unless agreed bilaterally.
Regarding four US meat plants, from December 2001 until March 2002, China had twice
found E. coli O157 on meat from two plants, and had also twice found other disease-causing
organisms on meat from the other two plants.  Chin a had immediately notified US authorities and was
working on lifting the bans on products from these four plants.  China looked forward to receiving
responses from its US counterparts and was confident that the problem could be solved throughbilateral discussions.
Regarding the US concerns about treatment of Alaskan logs, the representative of China
explained that imports of logs were permitted from countries that did not have appropriate facilities
for log treatment on condition that the arrival port s in China had these treatment facilities and the
capability to address risks of pests entering into China.  Pest species in logs imported from Russia
were similar to those in China, and logs exported from Russia could be treated at the border in the
north of China.  Logs from Alaska could so far not be treated in the same manner due to a high risk of
pest introduction since Alaska had a different ecosystem from China.  However, relevant Chinese
ports did not yet have the necessary treatment facilities.  Chinese and US experts were currentlydiscussing these issues.  The United States had agreed to establish a research project for log treatment
in Alaska, for example by dipping the logs in sea water.  China was expecting to hear good news from
the project.
More generally, China appreciated the encouragement, understanding and patience expressed
by its trading partners, and confirmed that it would make efforts to continue its implementation of the
commitments in its Protocol of Accession and in the SPS Agreement.  China's statement would be
made available to Members in writing.  China looked forward to further cooperation with Members.
If any questions had remained unanswered they could be addressed through the normal channels of
the SPS Committee, which provided for efficient cooperation.
The Chairperson announced that she would make a short factual report on the transitional
review to the Council for Trade in Goods.  The Chai rperson briefly outlined the content of this report
(subsequently circulated as G/SPS/22).
__________