China: Accreditation of suppliers of certain high-tech products.
Description
On 15 November 2009, China’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), and the Ministry of Finance (MOF) jointly published a new directive related to government procurement titled the “Notification Regarding the Launch of National Indigenous Innovation Product Accreditation Work for 2009.” The directive aims to promote the usage of Chinese products (by creating a directory of accredited products that are eligible for government procurement contracts) and thereby to encourage an increase in innovation and technology development.
This Directive (Number 618) requires that successful applicants to be on the above-mentioned directory be legal entities in China that can demonstrate their ownership of the relevant intellectual property to make a given product. Accreditation is for two to four years and can be renewed. Firms were given 25 days, that is, until 10 December 2010, to comply with this procedure.
The Directive applies to the following high-tech products: Computers and application equipment; Communications products; Modern Office Equipment; Software; New Energy and new energy devices; and High-efficiency and energy-saving products.
At a minimum, this directive creates an accreditation scheme that will discriminate against foreign firms that are not located in China and that seek to supply the listed products.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | |
| Was such evidence identified? | |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: Yes
Date of inception: 15 Nov 2009
GTA Evaluation: Red
Related Measures:
Source:
An English translation of Resolution 618 can be found at http://www.ssd.com/website/pdf/china/Notice_Translation_China_Law_Alert_...
The following memo may be of interest:
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f0a279be-d08c-4892-9a1e-16...
Memo from APSO Worldwide from 9 December 2009. Avaliable from < http://www.israeltrade.org.cn/hebrew/APCO%20Note%20-%20Government%20Procurement%20Market%20to%20Further%20Tighten%20for%20Foreign%20Products%20091209%20(2).pdf >
Government Response:
- 2207 reads
