WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/498
18 June 2004
(04-2657)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original: English
REPORT OF THE ANALYSIS ON SPS NOTIFICATIONS IN 2003
Submission by China
The following submission, dated 17 June 2004, is being circulated at the request of the
Delegation of China.
_______________
Background
1. Transparency is one of the fundamental principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
According to the provisions in the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and in the
Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement
(G/SPS/7/Rev.2), as well as the relevant resolutions made at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Meeting, in
order to solicit comments, Members must notify their trading partners, through the WTO Secretariat,
of proposed SPS measures which could affect international trade significantly and which are either
not based on, or deviate from, existing international standards. The comment period should not be
less than 60 days. Members issuing the measures should take into consideration comments submitted
by other Members and results of bilateral consultations. The period from the date of publication to
the date of implementation should not be less than six months.
2. Based on the Report of the Analysis on SPS Notifications in 2002 (G/SPS/GEN/378) made by
China after collecting and analyzing all SPS notifications throughout the year of 2002, China
submitted the Proposal for Amending the Recommended Transparency Procedures Relating to the
Comment Period of SPS Notifications (G/SPS/W/131 and Corr.1).
3. In order to encourage WTO Members to fulfil their obligations of transparency, China is
willing to support the SPS Committee to conduct continuous careful discussion on this matter. For
this purpose, China prepared the report herein, after collecting and analyzing SPS notifications of
WTO members in 2003.
General Introduction
4. There were 146 Members of the WTO up to 31 December 2003. In 2003, 46 Members (31.5
per cent) submitted a total of 856 SPS notifications, among which, there were 621 routine
notifications (72.55 per cent), 67 notifications of emergency measures (7.8 per cent), 130 addenda
(15.2 per cent), 9 revisions (1.1 per cent), and 29 corrigenda (3.4 per cent) (See Figure 1).G/SPS/GEN/498
Page 2
Types of Notifications
62167130929Routine Notifications
Notifications of Emergency
Measures
Addenda
Revisions
Corrigenda
Figure 1
5. The numbers and shares of the SPS routine and emergency notifications submitted by WTO
Members are described in Table 1.
Table 1- NOTIFICATIONS IN GENERAL
Member TotalShare in
TotalRoutine Emergency
Num. Share Num. Share
United States 190 22.20% 183 96.32% 7 3.68%
New Zealand 76 8.88% 64 84.21% 12 15.79%
European
Communities49 5.72% 46 93.88% 3 6.12%
Chile 47 5.49% 42 89.36% 5 10.64%
Canada 37 4.32% 34 91.89% 3 8.11%
China 28 3.27% 26 92.86% 2 7.14%
Korea 27 3.15% 25 92.59% 2 7.41%
Peru 22 2.57% 16 72.73% 6 27.27%
Japan 19 2.22% 18 94.74% 1 5.26%
Nicaragua 18 2.10% 18 100.00% 0 0.00%
Brazil 17 1.99% 15 88.24% 2 11.76%
Thailand 16 1.87% 15 93.75% 1 6.25%
Mexico 14 1.64% 10 71.43% 4 28.57%
Australia 13 1.52% 13 100.00% 0 0.00%
Bulgaria 12 1.40% 12 100.00% 0 0.00%
Guatemala 11 1.29% 11 100.00% 0 0.00%G/SPS/GEN/498
Page 3
Member TotalShare in
TotalRoutine Emergency
Num. Share Num. Share
Chinese Taipei 11 1.29% 11 100.00% 0 0.00%
Venezuela 11 1.29% 11 100.00% 0 0.00%
El Salvador 9 1.05% 9 100.00% 0 0.00%
Georgia 5 0.58% 5 100.00% 0 0.00%
Colombia 4 0.47% 3 75.00% 1 25.00%
Hungary 4 0.47% 3 75.00% 1 25.00%
Norway 4 0.47% 4 100.00% 0 0.00%
Philippines 4 0.47% 1 25.00% 3 75.00%
Slovenia 4 0.47% 4 100.00% 0 0.00%
Germany 3 0.35% 3 100.00% 0 0.00%
France 3 0.35% 2 66.67% 1 33.33%
Malaysia 3 0.35% 0 0.00% 3 100.00%
Singapore 3 0.35% 3 100.00% 0 0.00%
Trinidad and Tobago 3 0.35% 0 0.00% 3 100.00%
South Africa 3 0.35% 3 100.00% 0 0.00%
Jordan 2 0.23% 1 50.00% 1 50.00%
Mauritius 2 0.23% 1 50.00% 1 50.00%
Netherlands 2 0.23% 2 100.00% 0 0.00%
Argentina 1 0.12% 1 100.00% 0 0.00%
Belgium 1 0.12% 1 100.00% 0 0.00%
Switzerland 1 0.12% 1 100.00% 0 0.00%
Czech Republic 1 0.12% 0 0.00% 1 100.00%
Spain 1 0.12% 0 0.00% 1 100.00%
Hong Kong, China 1 0.12% 0 0.00% 1 100.00%
Croatia 1 0.12% 1 100.00% 0 0.00%
India 1 0.12% 1 100.00% 0 0.00%
Jamaica 1 0.12% 0 0.00% 1 100.00%
Kenya 1 0.12% 0 0.00% 1 100.00%G/SPS/GEN/498
Page 4
Member TotalShare in
TotalRoutine Emergency
Num. Share Num. Share
Panama 1 0.12% 1 100.00% 0 0.00%
Romania 1 0.12% 1 100.00% 0 0.00%
Total 688 80.37% 621 72.55% 67 7.83%
6. Table 1 shows that the top ten Members in terms of the number of notifications submitted
were: United States (190), New Zealand (76), European Communities (49), Chile (47), Canada (37),
China (28), Korea (27), Peru (22), Japan (19) and Nicaragua (18). The top ten Members submitted a
total of 513 notifications (59.93 per cent of the total).
7. Analysis of the items "Products covered" (Item 3) and "Description of content" (Item 6) in the
notification format showed that the most popular issues covered by routine and emergency
notifications during 2003 included:
Maximum Residu Levels for pesticide, bactericide and chemical/pharmaceutical preparations
used in veterinary medicine, accounting for 234 notifications (34 per cent);
Procedures and requirements for import inspection and quarantine, accounting for 102
notifications (14.8 per cent);
Maximum Levels for Heavy Metal, accounting for 32 notifications (4.7 per cent);
GMOs, accounting for 15 notifications (2.2 per cent);
Risk Assessment, accounting for 11 notifications (1.6 per cent);
BSE, accounting for 11 notifications (1.6 per cent);
Plant propagating material, accounting for 10 notifications (1.5 per cent);
Measures facilitating trade, accounting for 9 notifications (1.3 per cent);
Materials contacted with food, accounting for 7 notifications (1 per cent);
Wood packaging material, accounting for 5 notifications (0.7 per cent);
8. Analysis of the item "Objective and rationale" (Item 7) in routine notifications indicated that,
of all the notifications in 2003, the area of food safety, with 392 notifications (63.12 per cent), ranked
first and protection of human health from animal- or plant-carried diseases took second place with 185
notifications (29.79 per cent). Plant protection was third with 168 notifications (27.05 per cent); and
animal health fourth with 116 notifications (18.68 per cent). There were 36 notifications (5.80 per
cent) dealing with the protection of a country against other damages resulting from pests. (These
numbers are based on multi-selection. See Figure 2.)G/SPS/GEN/498
Page 5
Objectives of Notifications
392
18516811636
Food Safety
Human Health
Plant Protection
Animal Health
Territory Protection
Figure 2
9. According to the provisions in Annex B of the SPS Agreement and the Recommended
Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.2), choosing any international organization in Item 8 means
that a relevant international standard exists and the SPS measure notified is inconsistent with it. The
analysis of Item 8 on "Existence of international standard, guideline or recommendation" indicated
that: out of 267 notified measures based on corresponding international standards, there were 61
notifications based on relevant standards established by the Codex, 92 notifications based on relevant
standards established by OIE and 114 notifications based on relevant standards established by IPPC.
In addition, there were 329 notifications without any reference to relevant international standards.
Some of the main problems can be summarized as:
(i) Most of the notifications did not reflect the difference between the notified measure
and the international standard even if a relevant international standard did exist.
(ii) Some standards established by other international and regional organizations (i.e. the
European Communities) besides the "Three Sisters Organizations" are introduced
when identifying deviations between notified measures and relevant international
standards.
(iii) This item was left blank.
Comment Period and Adapting Period
10. The following definitions will make the analysis easier to comprehend (See Chart 1):
– Date of notification: the date that WTO distributes the notification, i.e., the date at the top
right corner of the notification format.
– Final date for comments: the deadline before which the notifying Member accepts
comments submitted by other Members, see Item 12 of the notification format.
– Proposed date of adoption: the proposed date on which the notifying Member adopts the
notified SPS measure, see Item 10 of the notification format.
– Proposed date of entry into force: the proposed date on which the notified SPS measure
will take effect, see Item 11 of the notification format.
– Comment Period: an interval from the date of issuance of the notification to the final date
for comments. According to the Recommended Transparency Procedures, the comment
period should be normally at least 60 days.G/SPS/GEN/498
Page 6
– Comment-consideration period: an interval from the final date for comments to the
proposed date of adoption.
– Adapting period: an interval from the date of publication of the notified SPS measure to the
date of entry into force, which normally should be not less than six months according to the
Doha Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN (01)/17, para. 3.2).
Chart 1 Four Time Points and Three Intervals
11. The statistics showed that only 142 out of 621 routine notifications (i.e. 22.9 per cent)
allowed at least 60 days for comments, and 297 notifications (47.8 per cent) allowed a comment
period of less than 60 days. The final dates for comments for 72 notifications (11.6 per cent) were at
or earlier than the corresponding date of notification. Under these circumstances, other Members
could not enjoy their right to comment on notifications. Furthermore, 110 notifications did not
identify any final date for comments.
Comment Period for Routine Notifications
142
29772110At Least 60 Days
Less Than 60 Days
The Final Dates For Comments Earlier Than the
Dates of Notification
No Final Dates for Comments
Figure 3
12. According to Paragraph 2 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement: "Except in urgent circumstance,
Members shall allow a reasonable interval between the publication of a SPS regulation and its entry
into force in order to allow time for producers in exporting Members, and particularly in developingDate of
notificationPeriod for Comments
(60 Days)Period for Considering
the Comments
(Not Stated)Adapting
(6 Months)
The end date for
commentsProposed date
of adoptionProposed date
of entry into
forceG/SPS/GEN/498
Page 7
country Members, to adapt their products and methods of production to the requirements of the
importing Member".
13. Article 3.2 of the Doha Ministerial Decision further clarified: " Subject to the conditions
specified in paragraph 2 of Annex B to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures, the phrase "reasonable interval" shall be understood to mean normally a
period of not less than six months".
14. However, the notification format provides boxes only for the proposed date of adoption
(Item 10) and proposed date of entry into force (Item 11); no box for the date of publication is
available. Generally speaking, the date of publication should not be earlier than the date of adoption.
For the sake of our analysis, we assumed that all Members published their SPS measures on the same
day as the measures were adopted. In other words, the date of adoption was regarded as the start of
the adapting period when we conducted the analysis on the implementation of this six-month period
by notifying Members.
15. The statistics showed that only 57 notifications (9.2 per cent of routine notifications) provided
at least six months for adapting, 257 notifications (41.4 per cent) provided an adapting period of less
than six months and 307 notifications (49.4 per cent) did not state the date of adoption and/or the date
of entry into force (See Figure 4).
Adapting Period for Routine Notifications
57
257307At Least 6 Months
Less Than 6 Months
Date of Adoption and/or Date of Entry
Into Force Not Stated
Figure 4
16. Annex B of the SPS Agreement stipulates that comments from other Members should be
considered seriously. Referring to the statistics, only 100 routine notifications (16.1 per cent)
provided at least one day between the final date for comments and the date of adoption for
considering comments from other Members. 444 notifications either did not provide any interval for
the consideration of comments or indicated that the final date for comments and/or the proposed date
of adoption was not available. In 77 notifications, the date of adoption was earlier than the final date
for comments (See Figure 5).G/SPS/GEN/498
Page 8
Period for Consideration of Comments
100
44477
At Least One Day
None
Date of Adoption Earlier Than
the Final Date for Comments
Figure 5
17. The report showed that the notifications from developing country members are comparatively
few, possibly due to the absence of relevant resources, basic establishments and necessary staff
training, as well as absence of relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, it is important for the
developed country Members and this Committee to assist the developing country Members, especially
the least-developed country Members to build up their capacity, including, but not limited to, the
capacity for notifications, to help them fulfil their transparency obligations.
__________