G/SPS/R/96  
 
20 November  2019 
(19-7921) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
REPORT  
WORKSHOP ON TRANSPARENCY  AND COORDINATION  
MONDAY, 15 JULY  – TUESDAY,  16 JULY  2019 
WTO, CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD, GENEVA  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Secretariat of the World Trade Organization organized a workshop on SPS transparency  and 
coordination in Geneva, Switzerland, on 15 and 16 July 2019. 
The WTO  funded  the participation of 3 4 government officials from developing country Members 
and Observ ers in the workshop , with the financial assistance of the Doha Development Agenda 
Global Trust Fund  (DDAGTF) .2 Sponsored participants were selected from 109 applications . 
In addition, the WTO covered the participation of four external speakers, and the United States 
and the African Union made it possible for eight and five  participants , respectively, from Africa and 
Central America to attend the workshop and the meetings of the Committe e. More than 
150 participants attended the workshop, including Geneva - and capital -based delegates and 
representatives from intergovernmental organizations.  
The programme3 and presentations of the workshop are available from the "Events, workshops 
and trai ning" section under t he WTO SPS Gateway  
(http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/events_e.htm ). 
1  OBJECTIVE OF THE WOR KSHOP  
1.1.  The objective of this workshop was to bring together Members' officials responsible for 
implementation of the SPS Agreement, as well as experts from regional and international 
organizations, to exchange experiences with transparency -related coordination, and with broader 
domestic coordination mechanisms.4 An area of focus was on the difference in scope between the 
SPS and TBT Agreements, and on notification of measures containing both SPS and TBT elements.5 
2  WORKSHOP SESSIONS  
2.1  Introduction  (Session 1)  
2.1.  Mr Rola ndo Alcala  (WTO Secretariat) provided an overview of the key SPS and TBT 
transparency provisions. In particular, the notification procedures include the notification of draft 
regulations at an early stage, allow ing other Members to comment on the proposed text, 
discuss ing such comments on request, and tak ing the comments and discussions into account in 
finalizing the regulation s. Mr Alcala reviewed the objectives and coverage of the SPS and TBT 
Agreements, related discussions in the respective Committees an d examples of measures notified 
under both agreements. The question of coverage of the SPS/TBT provisions was not new , as 
already back in 1995 -1996 the SPS and TBT Committees, jointly as well as separately, had 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 Since 2016, WTO -funded workshop participants are no longer sponsored to par ticipate in the SPS 
Committee meetings, in addition to their attendance at the workshop.  
3 G/SPS/GEN/1694/Rev.2 . 
4 See submission by  Benin, Burkina Faso, Bur undi, the Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, 
Nigeria, the United States of America and Zambia contained in G/SPS/W/297 . 
5 See submission by Brazil contained in G/SPS/W/312 . G/SPS/R/96  
 
- 2 - 
 
  discussed how to identify and notify measures  that may contain SPS and TBT elements .6 He 
recalled that the SPS Committee had adopted a recommendation to notify cross -cutting measures 
under both Agreements.7 Through an interactive exercise, participants were challenged to define 
whether a measure fell within the scope of one or both Agreements.  
2.2.  Subsequently, Ms Serra Ayral, also from the WTO Secretariat, outlined the TBT 
transparency provisions and recalled the transparency -related recommendations adopted during 
the Eight Triennial Review  of the TBT Agreement .8 Ms Ayral ended the session with a  brief report 
on the TBT Committee Thematic Session on Transpar ency held in June 20199, which also 
addressed SPS/TBT notifications , and the announcement that t he next TBT Committee Thematic 
Session on Transparency would be held in May 2020.  
2.2  Implementation of the transparency provisions: Members' experience with SPS/TB T 
notifications  (Session 2 ) 
2.3.  The workshop pursued with presentations by Brazil, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Canada and 
Uganda on their experience in implementing the transparency provisions with SPS/TBT 
notifications.  
2.4.  Mr Diogo Penha Soares, Health Regulatory Agency, and Ms Naiana Campos Gil Ferreira 
Santiago , Ministry of Agriculture, shared Brazil 's experience in notifying regulations containing 
both SPS and TBT elements on one hand, and handling incoming SPS and TBT notifications on the 
other hand. They both noted coordinat ion challenges arising from having SPS and TBT notification 
authorities hosted in different ministries. The speakers presented examples of notifications made 
to both the SPS and TBT Committees , and referred to the Practical  Manual on the Operation of 
NNAs and NEP s10, which provided useful guidance in that regard.  
2.5.  Mr Minoru Iijima  (Japan)  explained that  NNAs and NEPs for both SPS and TBT matters were 
hosted at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , which f acilitat ed inter-agency coordination.  Mr Iijima  
showed examples of regulations with overlapp ing coverage, which had been notified under both 
the SPS and TBT Agreements with the same content.  
2.6.  Mr Hung -Jen Liao  explained Chinese Taipei 's coordination mechanism for SPS/TBT 
notifications . The International Economic and Trade Coordination Mechanism  overs aw 17 sub -
working groups in charge of specific issues , including SPS and TBT.  The SPS sub -working group 
was managed by the Bureau of Animal an d Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine  and host ed the 
NNA and NEP, while the Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection  dealt with TBT matters . 
Several measures ha d been notified to both the SPS and TBT Committees since 2014 , such as  the 
"Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation ", enacted to govern food sanitation, safety and quality, 
and protect citizens ' health . 
2.7.  Ms Emma Pagotto  shared Canada 's experience submitting and receiving  notifications of 
regulations  containing both SPS and TBT elements.  Ms Pagotto explained that the Canadian Food 
Inspection Agency (CFIA) performs the tasks of the  Notification Authority and Enquiry Point  for 
both SPS and TBT measures. This creates a "single window " for the delivery of  transparency 
requirements under the SPS and TBT Agreements. The Notification Authority and Enquiry Point  and 
regulators work together to identify issues requir ing notification and to prepare  such notifications.  
When determining whether to notify a propose d regulation, CFIA assesses whether elements in the 
regulation fall  under the SPS or TBT Agreement . For regulations notified  to both Committees , she 
made a "best practice " suggestion for Members to indicate in their notification if the notification 
had been notified to another Committee; for example, in the Description of Content Section , 
Members could include a sentence to the effect of "This regulation has been notified under the TBT 
Agreement ( G/TBT/N/)  and SPS Agreement ( G/SPS/N/) ". 
                                                
6 More information is available in b ackground notes G/SPS/W/17 , G/SPS/W/32 , and G/SPS/W/33 . 
7 G/SPS/Rev.4, para. 2.39.  
8 See G/TBT/41 . 
9 See programme in G/TBT/GEN/264/Rev.1 . 
10 The Practical Manual for SPS National Notification Authorities and SPS National Enquiry Point s can be 
downloaded from:  http://www.wto.org/spstransparency . G/SPS/R/96  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.8.  Mr George Opiyo  (Uganda)  explained that given  the growing number of regulations 
containing both SPS and TBT elements, the  decision ha d been taken to concurrently  notify draft 
measures to the SPS and TBT Committees  when regulations me t the criteria for notification  under 
both Agreements . To date, 81  draft TBT measures ha d been notified  to the SPS and TBT 
Committees . 
2.3  Tools and sources of SPS/TBT information  (Session 3)  
2.9.  Mr Rolando Alcala (WTO Secretariat ) provided an overview of SPS/TBT sources of 
information, including: WTO Documents Online11 and the e-Subscription12 service for delegates to 
receive official WTO documents ; the SPS/TBT Gateways on the WTO website; and the SPS/TBT 
Information Management Systems (SPS IMS13 and TBT IMS14) for searches and reports on 
notifications, STCs, and contact details of Enquiry Points /Notification Authorities. In addition, the 
Secretariat provided an update on the ePing system15, which includes two main functionalities: 
an email alert mechanism to track relevant notifications; and a communication platform to 
facilitate domestic and inte rnational discussion and coordination on distributed notifications. 
Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities were encouraged to request admin rights, to manage 
ePing at the domestic level. Further training on ePing functionalities could be provided in t he 
margins of the November 2019 SPS Committee meeting, in case of interest.  
2.10.   Mr Christian Knebel  (UNCTAD ) presented the UNCTAD Non -tariff Measures (NTM) 
programme16, covering a broad spectrum of measures including but not limited to SPS and TBT 
measures. Data collection is at the heart of this project which applies the following "value chain": 
definition and classification of NTMs, data collection, data dissemination, research and analysis, 
and support to policy making. Providing some insights into the analys is, the presenter pointed out 
that SPS and TBT measures were the most common and costly NTMs, with lack of transparency 
being a major cost factor. For agri -food products, c ompliance with SPS measures invoke d a price 
increase of on average over 14 % of the p roduct price, which was more than all other NTMs 
combined. Some  price increases were inevitable due to, for example, intrinsic costs of product 
safety. However, other costs were avoidable, such as information costs due to a lack of regulatory 
transparency.  The global NTM transparency initiative aim ed to address these transparency 
challenges. The data collection was not based solely on notifications but on careful reading of 
regulations in a country and the classification of products affected and measures co ntained in the 
regulation. Data collection was comprehensive, but represented a stocktaking exercise at a certain 
point in time, including also information from SPS and TBT notifications.  
2.11.   Mr Mathieu Loridan  (ITC) introduced  The Global Trade Helpdesk17, a single entry point for 
trade -related information. Mr Loridan explained that many international organizations undertake 
endeavours to improve the trade -related information flow to help SMEs and other trade 
stakeholders benefit from an open inte rnational trade system.  The Global Trade Helpdesk aimed to 
combine in one online platform dispersed and complex information contained in other international 
organizations' databases, and translate it into business language. A beta version was publicly 
available, and the final version would be launched at the 2020 WTO Ministerial Conference.  
2.4  Sharing of Members' experiences: Transparency -related coordination  (Session 4 ) 
2.12.   This session covered transparency -related coordination mechanisms including tools such as 
the use of ePing and other systems. It also cover ed Members' experiences in using these systems 
to ensure the notification of all SPS/TBT regulations and to exchange information.  
2.13.   Mr George Opiyo (Uganda)  and Mr John Heaslip  (Australia) , who participated in the pilot 
phase of ePing's coordination functions , presented on the advantages as compared to prior 
notification distribution mechanisms, and efforts undertaken to promote the system and engage 
                                                
11 https://docs.wto.org /. 
12 This tool is availa ble at https://docs.wt o.org/  only for Members with a personal WTO account.  
13 http://spsims.wto.org .  
14 http://tbtim s.wto.org .  
15 http://www.epingalert.org . 
16 http://www.unctad.org/NTM . 
17 http://www.globaltradehelpdesk.org/ . G/SPS/R/96  
 
- 4 - 
 
  the private sector, especially SMEs, through newsletters, p artnering with private sector 
associations, and presentations at existing events.  
2.14.   Mr Deng Jie presented institutional efforts undertaken to improve compliance with SPS 
transparency provisions, through the establishment of a domestic coordination mechanism.  
The three main pillars were: (i) a solid legal basis; (ii) clear -cut assignment of responsibilities; and 
(iii) persistent transparency advocacy. Mr Deng Jie concluded by discussing challenges faced with 
such a coordination  mechanism and possible solutions . 
2.15.   Ms Sally Jennings  (New Zealand)  explained how training could contribute to better 
transparency and coordination, highlighting the need of a training strategy, the importance of 
building trust with stakeholders and using technology. In concluding, Ms Jenn ings also noted the 
importance of ensuring the resourc ing of  the right people and appropriate time for effective and 
efficient training implementation . 
2.5  Guidelines and available tools for domestic coordination  (Session 5 ) 
2.16.   Day two began with a roundtable moderated by Ms Christiane Wolff  (WTO Secretariat), in 
which Ms Sheri Rosenow  (WTO Secretariat ), Ms Pamela Ugaz  (UNCTAD ), Ms Roshan Khan  
(STDF), and Ms Delilah Cabb Ayala  (Belize) , broaden ed the perspective  to incorporate 
experiences from the trade facilitation area, and from the use of the STDF's P -IMA tool.  Unlike the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), the SPS Agreement did not require the establishment of 
national committees. However, many Members found it useful. While c ommittees were easy to 
create, they were difficult to maintain. National SPS committees could play a role in facilitating 
implementation of the SPS Agreement, by creating awareness and promoti ng coordinated 
approaches . Some  challenges included engaging the  private sector and building trust. Lessons 
learnt included being inclusive, developing long -term planning  while prioritizing urgent matters, 
using quick successes for win ning stakeholders' buy -in, and making use of the wealth of resources 
available, for e xample through the TFA Facility. Speakers stressed the need for political backing 
and a formal structure.  SPS agencies had an important role to play in setting  workplans and 
streamlining procedures. While the P -IMA tool primarily aimed to help SPS officials prioritize SPS -
related investment decisions, coordination played an important role in ensuring an efficient 
allocation of SPS resources. Ms Cabb Ayala recount ed Belize's  experience with both P -IMA and 
UNCTAD's national trade facilitation committee programme and how these projects had 
compl emented each other, allowing for sustained and fruitful public -private dialogue. Panellists 
and participants noted the syner gies between capacity building for trade facilitation committees 
and national SPS committees.  
2.6  Sharing domestic coordination experiences  (Session 6 ) 
2.17.   This session explored the use of domestic coordination mechanisms for purposes broader 
than transparency -related coordination, including developing strategies to prevent and resolve SPS 
trade concerns and establishing Members' positions and priorities.  
2.18.   Ms Annie Bourque  provided an overview of Canada 's domestic SPS coordination 
mechanisms  used to develop position s and strategies for international initiatives , including  WTO 
activities , as well as formulating approaches to resolve trade concerns.  In advance of  
SPS Committee  meetings, regular consultations were held with technical and trade policy experts 
to achieve consensus on policy work , bilateral meetings , and interventions to raise during the 
formal meeting. As a result of th ese domestic SPS coordination mechanisms, Canada 's SPS 
positions and strategies were consistent with its regulatory approach, refle cted its trade interests, 
and took into consideration stakeholder s' perspectives.  
2.19.   Mr Marcelo Valverde  (Peru) presented the work of the multiagency group for WTO 
SPS Committee issues . To enhance coordination , the public and private sector s discussed domestic  
positions, specific trade concerns, bilateral meetings and other  issues before SPS  Committee 
meetings. Post SPS Committee coordination  meeting s were also held. As a big exporter of 
agricultural products, the private sector was well informed on SPS matters . Coordination  at the  
technical, commercial  and SPS level s was important, as well as transparency and consistency in 
Peru's  positions held in various fora.  G/SPS/R/96  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.20.   Mr Philip Njoroge  explained Kenya's institutional framework for addressing SPS issues. 
Exchange of information and domestic coordination was facilitated through a national  SPS 
committee, including representatives from public and private sectors, as well as academia.  Among 
others, the committee  reviewed and submitted notifications,  develop ed procedures , including best 
practices , and participate d in multilateral and regional work on SPS matters . The committee also 
cooperated  at the EAC and African continent  levels . 
2.21.   Ms Mara Burr provided an overview of the i nternational framework for transparency 
provisions , having their roots in several treaties and agreements, including the WTO Agreements , 
and explained the US legal framework supporting the notification process to the WTO.  Ms Burr 
further detailed the US rule making process , which includes an interagency review and comment 
process , public notice of proposed rules and review of comments received after notification to the 
WTO, among others.  Ms Burr highlighted the importance o f public outreach and private sector  
scrutiny , and concluded by noting that US FDA supported transparency efforts through 
partnerships with the STDF, APEC, WHO and the Global Food Safety Partnership.  
2.22.   Mr Abdoulaye Ndiaye  (Senegal) explained that SPS matters , including development and 
notification of SPS measures,  were coordinated through the national SPS  committee created in 
2015 with the support of the African Union  (AU). Subsequently, a  food security domestic strategy 
had been developed , and  a phytosanitary risk analysis system created with UEMOA support . 
Positions were formulated at the domestic and AU levels. A system for preventing trade disputes 
was in place, through different mechanisms upstream (compliance with SPS requiremen ts), and 
downstream (audit of notifications and corrective measures) . This system ha d allowed the country 
to improve market opportunities for  fisheries and agricultural products , regulatory  transparency , 
and participation in the work of the WTO . 
2.7  Regional/International initiatives to support domestic coordination  (Session 7 ) 
2.23.   Mr John Oppong -Otoo  (African Union ) presented on efforts undertaken to facilitate 
domestic and regional SPS coordination and increase participation of African countries in the work 
of standard -setting bodies  and the SPS Committee. These efforts also aimed at  building synerg ies 
to resolve food safety, animal and plant health issues; and promot ing dialogue with ot her regional 
blocs for mutual support during standard -setting  activities . Examples of coordination activities 
undertaken include d: supporting electronic forum/physical meetings to discuss specific trade 
concerns prior to SPS Committee meetings ; supporting physical participation of AU member States 
in the meetings of Codex, OIE and the SPS Committee ; and conducting training  activities  to 
strengthen domestic SPS coordination mechanisms . 
2.24.   Dr Benoit Gnonlonfin  presented on ECOWAS coordination efforts and implementation of 
transparency provisions in the region. Dr Gnonlonfin pointed out some of the challenges faced, 
including  limitations in terms of  knowledge , awareness and ownership of SPS issues; cooperation 
between the notification authority and other government authorities ; and  compliance with SPS 
transparency provisions. Possible solutions included increas ing training on SPS transparency 
provisions, revitalizing the functioning of the national SPS committees , establishing monitoring and 
management systems within the notification authorities, and increas ing advocacy and sensitization 
of high -level authorities or decision makers on the importance of SPS . 
2.25.   Mr Erick Bolaños  (IICA) presented on best practices and le ssons learnt from domestic 
coordination  initiatives implemented in the Latin America and Caribbean  region.  Lessons learnt 
showed that leadership was fundamental to develop and maintain processes of change; internal 
and regional coordination was key to have  sustainable processes; financial resources  were not the 
main limitation; and that technical cooperation needed to be coordinated.  Mr Bolaños concluded 
with possible best practices to consider when establishing a national SPS committee, which 
included  the capacity to interact with different actors (public and private); to facilitate periodic 
training to all actors involved; the capacity to identify and resolve issues, and disseminate results 
on a permanent basis; and have a strong solid focal point.  
2.26.   Ms Roxa na Inés Vera Muñoz  (Chile)  presented the action plan for strengthening the 
National Notification Authorities (NNAs) of the Pacific Alliance  (Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico)  
developed in the context of the WTO Advanced SPS Course.  The objective of the plan was to 
improve implementation of SPS transparency provisions . Ms Vera Muñoz highlighted  that the G/SPS/R/96  
 
- 6 - 
 
  functioning of the NNA was key to implement SPS transparency provisions ; contact networks 
favour ed cooperation  and synergies between peers ; and strategic alliances helped Members 
increase participation in  transparency processes . 
2.27.   Ms Megan  Crowe  presented APEC's experience in e ncouraging transparency in food safety 
regulatory syste ms through the Food Safety Cooperation Forum (FSCF) and its Partnership 
Training Institute Network ( PTIN). The FSCF focuse s on food safety capacity building and 
regulatory dialogue and  encourage s compliance with SPS and TBT provisions,  as well as alignment 
with Codex standards. The PTIN is a public-private partnership model for improving food safety 
and facilitating trade in the APEC region , working with FSCF regulators to deliver capacity building.  
The FSCF PTIN priority is to achieve fewer food s afety incidents and trade disputes through 
stronger food safety systems and improved understanding of regulatory compliance. Ms Crowe 
concluded  with three  key takeaways : public comment s lead to food safety regulations  with better 
fit for purpose ; the private sector can provide unique technical and scientific information and 
production knowledge ; and the u se of web portals/the internet/other technology for sharing 
notifications electronically helps to share information widely . 
 
__________