（3）搭建联动机制并协同应对SPS措施。要有效应对国外SPS措施，必须多方主体共同介入。一个可行的办法是，建立包括政府部门、行业协会、出口企业、科研人员在内的“四体联动”机制。政府部门负责完善法律法规、建立风险预警机制；行业协会加强行业自律、开展民间外交；出口企业提高产品的质量安全水平、实施多元化策略，降低市场风险；科研人员积极展开研究，为应对SPS措施提供科学依据。政府部门、行业协会、出口企业、科研人员四个主体之间还应加强沟通与合作，一条可以考虑的途径是建立产业联席会议制度。建议由政府的商务等部门牵头，蜂业协会、蜂蜜生产和出口企业、专家学者积极参与，定期通报蜂业安全及风险预警信息、监督生产经营行为、协调解决预警机制建立和贸易壁垒应对等问题，并通过分析和研究，设计和制定应对SPS措施的预案和策略。

①蜂蜜贸易数据来自联合国统计署贸易数据库：http://comtrade.un.org/db/。

②通报数据来自WTO网站：http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/work_and_doc_e.htm。

③扣留数据来自中国技术性贸易措施网站：http://www.tbt-sps.gov.cn/Pages/home.aspx。

④滞后期为1年，因为蜂蜜生产企业进行技术升级、设备更新换代不太可能在很短的时间内完成。

⑤将汇率纳入引力模型主要是考虑到国际金融危机以来货币的比价对贸易的影响越来越大。本来选取欧

盟各国的汇率更有说服力，但自从欧盟货币政策改革以来，欧元成为多数欧盟成员的统一货币，因而这一指

标在不同国家之间变化不大。而且，笔者调研发现，人民币升值对中国的出口产生了重要影响。

⑥不包括克罗地亚，因其2013年7月1日加入欧盟。

宋海英，（2013）“质量安全标准的贸易效应分析：以浙江食品出口日本为例，”《华东经济管理》第5期。

Baier, S. L., and J. H. Bergstrand., （2007）“Do Free Trade Agreements Actually Increase Members’International

Trade?”Journal of International Economics 71（1）, 72-95.

Baldwin, R. E., and J. Harrigan. Zero., （2007）“Quality and Space: Trade Theory and Trade Evidence,”

NBER Working Paper, Cambridge.

Calvin, Linda and Krissoff, Barry., （1998）“Technical Barriers to Trade: A Case Study of Phytosanitary

Barriers and U.S.-Japanese Apple Trade,”Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 23 （2）,

351-366.

Fontagné, L., M. Mimouni, and J-M. Pasteels., （2005）“Estimating the Impact of Environmental SPS and

TBT on International Trade,”Integration and Trade Journal 22, 7-37.

Linders, Gert-Jan M., （2006）“Estimation of the Gravity Equation in the Presence of Zero Flows,”Working

paper, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Liu, L. and Yue, C., （2012）“Investigating the Impact of SPS Standards on Trade Using a VES Model,”

European Review of Agricultural Economics 39（3）, 511-528.

Martin, W. Pham, C. S., （2008）“Estimating the Gravity Model When Zero Trade Flows are Frequent,”

Australia: Mimeograph Document.

Otsuki, T., J. Wilson, and M. Sewadeh., （2001）“What Price Precaution? European Harmonization of Aflatoxin

Regulations and African Groundnut Exports,”European Review of Agricultural Economics 28

（2）, 263-283.

Rose, A. K., （2004）“Do We Really Know that the WTO Increase Trade?”American Economic Review

94 （1）, 98-114.

Silva, S. and Tenreyro, S., （2006）“The Log of Gravity,”The Review of Economics and Statistics 88 （4）,

641-658.

Song, Haiying and Kevin Chen., （2010）“Trade Effects and Compliance Costs of Food Safety Regulations:

the Case of China,”Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia Volume 1, 429-438.

Thilmany, D., and C. Barrett., （1997）“Regulatory Barriers in An Integrating World Food Market,”Review

of Agricultural Economics 19（1）, 91-107.

Wei, Guoxue, Huang, Jikun, and Yang, Jun., （2012）“Honey Safety Standards and its Impacts on China’s

Honey Export,”Journal of Integrative Agriculture 11（4）, 684-693.

Xiong, Bo, and Beghin, John., （2011）“Disentangling the Demand-Enhancing Effect and Trade-Cost Effect

of Technical Measures in Agricultural Trade Among OECD Countries,”Working Paper No. 11019, October,

Iowa State University Department of Economics Ames, Iowa, 50011-1070.

 

Impact of Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures on China’s Honey Export

to EU: An Empirical Panel Data Analysis

SONG Hai-ying JENSEN H. Helen

Abstract: China’s export of honey to the EU market has expanded in recent years as evidenced by increasing export volume, export amount and rising unit export price. However, the potential risks to this export market include high market concentration, severe annual fluctuation, and unstable trade. Furthermore,although the EU market has become increasingly important for China as a destination for honey exports, the EU’s need for China’s honey is not very urgent.The EU importing countries have raised concerns about sanitary and phyto-sanitary(SPS) problems.Under these conditions, a gravity equation model is used in this paper to estimate the impact of SPS measures on China’s honey exports to the EU market. The estimated model uses panel data and related methods to solve the problems of zero trade volume and heteroscedasticity. The results show that SPS measures initiated by EU significantly decrease the export of China’s honey to EU in the short run. But the impact of SPS measures on the export of China’s honey to EU is significantly positive in the long run. Therefore, much attention should be paid and careful comment should be given to every SPS notification.A linkage mechanism should be established to cooperatively deal with SPS measures on the basis of rational treatment to the trade effects of SPS measures.

Keywords: Sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures (SPS); Honey; EU; Gravity Equation