G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13  
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
19 March 2021  
(21-2329) Page: 1/52 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
ANNUAL OVERVIEW – IMPLEMENTATION OF SPS TRANSPARENCY  
PROVISIONS AND SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Revision  
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  At its meeting on  15-16 March 2000 , the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(the SPS Committee)  requested that  the Secretariat to prepare a paper summarizing the specific 
trade concerns (STCs) that had been brought to the Committee's attention since 1995.2 Since then, 
the Secr etariat has revised document G/SPS/GEN/204  annually to include new information provided 
by Members.  
1.2.  Similarly, at  the October 2007 Workshop on Transparency,  the Committee requ ested the 
Secretariat to prepare an annual overview of the implementation of the transparency provisions of 
the SPS Agreement.3 Since then, the Secretariat has revised document G/SPS/GEN/804  annually to 
provid e an overview of the level of implementation of the transparency obligations contained in the 
SPS Agreement (Article 7 and Annex B) and of the Committee's Recommended Procedures for 
Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement ( G/SPS/7/Rev.4 ). 
1.3.  In an effort to improve the reports, the last version of each of t hese documents 
(G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.20 ) included more detailed analysis and new 
graphs. In a further attempt to provide a more co mprehensive view of both the implementation of 
transparency provisions and the STCs raised in the Committee, and to align the  periods of time  
covered  (i.e. from January to December), and with the aim of harmonizing reporting practices with 
those of the Com mittee on Technical Barriers to Trade ( TBT), information previously contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/804  and G/SPS/GEN/204  and revisions has been  merged in the present document , as 
announced  at the SPS Committee informal consultations held on 16 September 2020 .4 
1.4.  As such, Part A  of the present  document provides an overview of the level of implementation 
of the transparency obligations found in the SPS Agreement  (previously contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/804 ) and Part B  contains info rmation on STCs  (previously contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/204 ). Additionally, Part C  of the document covers  other transparency related aspects, 
including the transparency recommendations of the Fifth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreement,  detailed information on improved SPS IT tools and the 
transparency -related work of the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF).  
1.5.  In preparing this document, the Secretariat has largely relied on the SPS Information 
Management System (SPS IMS).5 The SPS IMS is a specialized and detailed information source on 
SPS notifications, STCs, National Notification Authorities (NNAs) and National Enquiry Points (NEPs) 
 
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 G/SPS/R/18 , para. 20.  
3 See G/SPS/R/47 , para. 44, for the recommendations arising from the 2007 Workshop on 
Transparency. See also footnote 4 of G/SPS/7/Rev.4  requesting the Secretariat to provide an annual report on 
the level of implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement and of the recommended 
transparency procedures.  
4 JOB/SPS/10 . 
5 http://spsims.wto.org . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 2 - 
 
  contact information, and other SPS  documents. It allows for advanced searches according to  specific 
criteria and also facilitates the creation of custom reports and graphs, which can be shared with 
interested stakeholders. Most of the underlying data for the analysis contained in this document is 
publicly available and searchable through the SP S IMS.  
1.6.  While some historical data on notifications dating back to 1995 has been retrieved from various 
internal sources and incorporated into the SPS IMS, some of the more detailed analys es have only 
been possible as of July 2007, when the SPS IMS became operational. An improved version of the 
SPS IMS was launched at the end of March 2017 , which  combined with streamlin ed internal 
processes in the Secretariat, has enabled data analysis to become m ore automatic than it was for 
past reports.  
1.7.  Some key points are the following:  
a. Overall, there is a high level of implementation of the SPS Agreement transparency 
obligations  by WTO Members . Since 1995: 129 Members ( 79% of membership) have 
submitted at leas t one notification ; 159 (97%) and 162 Members (99%) have provided  
contact information for their SPS NNAs  and NEPs, respectively . 
b. In 2020, Members submitted a record  number of notifications  since 1995 : 
2,122 notifications  of new or changed SPS measures , an all-time high , were submitted by 
63 Members during 20 20, following a consistent upward trend . 
c. A record number of addenda  to regular notifications  (502) were submitted in 2020 , mostly 
communicating information related to the adoption, publication or entry into force  of 
notified  measures . 
d. The share of regular and emergency notifications submitted by developing countries is higher 
than the share submitted by developed countries since 2008 and 2002, respectively . 
e. Asia (28%), followed by North America (27%) and South and Central America and the 
Caribbean  (24%), are the regions that have submitted the highest share of notifications 
since 1995 . 
f. Tanzania, an LDC, is among the top 10 notifiers of regular notifications in 2020 . 
g. In 2020, the highest share ( 68%) of regular notifications submitted refer to food safety; 
84% of the emergency notifications submitted refer to animal health . 
h. The number of TF measures notified in 2020 is more than twice as high as in 2017 . 
i. Between February and December 2020, Members have submitted 55 notifications and 
11 communications informing of SPS COVID -19 related measures . 
j. The number of STCs raised does not follow an increasing trend over time, despite the growth  
in the number of notif ications . 
k. A total of 505 STCs have been raised since 1995 . In 2020, Members discussed 53 specific 
trade concerns  (STCs), including 3 6 new concerns . The number of new STCs raised  in 2020  
is the highest in any one year since 20 03, and the second highest sinc e 1995 , despite the 
fact that only two meetings were held in 2020 . 
l. In 2020, food safety  represent ed 44 % of the STCs raised, other concerns  represent ed 36%, 
plant health account ed for 14% and animal health account ed for 6%. 
m. Since 1995, 65 Members (4 0%) have raised at least one STC in the SPS Committee. In  2020, 
14 Members ( 8.5%) raised at least one STC . 
n. The average number of times STCs have been raised is 2. 7. 
o. Participation of developing countries raising and supporting STCs, as well as ma intaining 
measures subject to STCs, is higher than that of developed countries . 
p. In 2020, 35 STCs were reported as resolved and 42 were reported as partially resolved. 
A total of 200 (40%) of STCs have been reported as resolved, and 71 (14%) as partially 
resolved . 
q. In June 2020, the SPS Committee adopted the Fifth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreement,6 which includes several recommendations on 
transparency . 
r. The number of Members using the SPS Notification Submission System  (SPS NSS) to 
submit notifications increased in 2020 . Of all SPS notifications , 84% were submitted using 
the SPS NSS, up from 75% in 201 . 
s. Use of ePing  is also increasing. The number of subscribers grew to 12,360  from 
182 countries at the end of 20 20, up from 8,821  from 179 countries at the end of 201 9. 
 
6 G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1 . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 3 - 
 
  ePing contains new features that allow exchanges among users with admin rights , enhancing 
its usefulness as a tool for domestic and international coordination . 
t. In June 2020, the  SPS Committee used the eAgenda  platform for the first time. A total of 
207 users from 71 Members have requested access and added interventions, raised STCs 
and uploaded statements before the meeting, significantly enhancing transparency in the 
Committee m eeting . 
u. A new integrated search engine is now  available allowing Members to search for SPS and 
TBT STCs . 
 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Contents  
 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT  ................................ ................................ .............................  1 
1   INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  1 
2   PART A - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS  ............................  5 
2.1   DESIGNATION OF NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS  .............................  5 
2.2   SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ..................  5 
2.2.1    Types of notifications  ................................ ................................ ................................  5 
2.2.2    Notifying Members  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7 
2.2.3    Products covered  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....12 
2.2.4    Regions/countries affected  ................................ ................................ ........................ 13 
2.2.5    Objective an d rationale  ................................ ................................ ............................. 13 
2.2.6    Relationship between the objective of the measure and the regions/countries affected  .....15 
2.2.7    International standards, guidelines or recommendations ................................ ............... 16 
2.2.8    Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force  ................................ ................. 19 
2.2.9    Final date for comments  ................................ ................................ ........................... 20 
2.2.10    Addenda to regular and emergency notifications  ................................ ........................ 21 
2.3   NOTIFICATION KEYWORDS  ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 
2.4   COVID -19 RELATED NOTIFICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS  ................................ .................. 23 
3   PART B - SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ....... 24 
3.1   General overview of specific trade concerns (1995 -2020)  ................................ ................ 25 
3.2   Specific trade concerns considered in 2020  ................................ ................................ ....32 
3.2.1    Resolution of STCs in 2020  ................................ ................................ ....................... 34 
4   PART C – OTHER TRANSPARENCY RELATED ASPECTS  ................................ ................  34 
4.1   Transparency recommendations in the Fifth Re view ................................ ........................ 34 
4.2   Improvement of SPS IT tools and materials  ................................ ................................ ...35 
4.2.1    SPS Notification Submission System (SPS NSS)  ................................ ........................... 35 
4.2.2    ePing  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 36 
4.2.3    Increased Committee transparency through the use of eAgenda  ................................ ....37 
4.2.4    Trade concerns database  ................................ ................................ .......................... 37 
4.2.5    Practical Manual on the Operation of NNAs and NEPs  ................................ .................... 38 
4.3   Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF)  ................................ .......................... 38 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2  PART A - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS  
2.1.  Part A provides an overview regarding the level of implementation of the transparency 
provisions contained in the SPS Agreement  and the Recommended Transparency Procedures in 
document G/SPS/7/Rev.4 , with a focus on 2020 (previously contained in G/SPS/GEN/804 ). It does 
not include information on areas where the Secretariat is not directly involved (such as publication 
of a notice of a regulation at an early stage, Members' response to reque sts for documents or other 
information and provision of comments to notifications, and taking into account of these comments 
by the notifying Member, among others).  
2.2.  In June 2018, the Secretariat circulated an updated version of the Recommended Transparency  
Procedures as document G/SPS/ 7/Rev.4 . This revision does not include any substantive changes to 
the text. It includes updates in the notification templates as well as the notification format contained 
in the Decision on Special and Differential Treatment ( G/SPS/33/Rev.1 ) to consolidate all notification 
recommendations into one document. It also incorpora tes updates based on changes in the online 
tools (SPS  IMS, SPS NSS and ePing).  Further information on these  and other IT tools , as well as on  
other transparency resources , is available in Part C  of the present document.  
2.1  DESIGNATION OF NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS  
2.3.  Annex B, paragraph 10 of the SPS Agreement obliges Members to designate a single central 
government authority as responsible for the implementation of notification procedu res. This agency 
is referred to as the SPS National Notification Authority  (NNA) . As of 31 December 2020 , 159 (97%) 
WTO Members out of 164 had designated such an agency, two more than in the previous reporting 
period. The Members that have not designed NNAs are all least-developed countries ( LDCs).7 
2.4.  Annex B, paragraph 3 of the SPS Agreement requires that each Member establish an Enquiry 
Point responsible for the provision of answers to all reasonable questions and of relevant documents. 
As of 31 Decembe r 2020, 162 (99%) WTO Members out of 164 had provided the WTO with the 
contact information of their Enquiry Point , one more than last year . Two LDCs have not yet 
established an Enquiry Point. Thirty -four Members have identified more than one SPS  Enquiry Point . 
A total of 21 Members have indicated that their NNA and NEP a re the same institution.  
2.5.  The most up -to-date information on Members' NNAs  and NEPs can be accessed through the 
SPS IMS by clicking on Search → Enquiry Points/Notification Authorities on the top menu bar.8 
This information is also available through ePing.9 It can be useful to have at least two staff members 
trained in NNA/NEP operations  as this allows for absences and commitments of staff to other duties, 
as recommended in the Practical Manual for NNAs/NEPs. Whenever possible, Members are 
encouraged to use an institutional email address rather than a personal one.10 
2.2  SUBMISSION OF NOTIFIC ATIONS  
2.6.  Under the SPS Agreement, notifications are used to inform other Members about new or 
changed regulations that may significantly affect trade. Annex B, paragraphs 5 to 8, as well as the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures, elaborate on the notificati on procedures Members are to 
follow. For ease of reference, the specific sub -topics highlighted below follow the order of items that 
are contained in the regular and emergency notification formats.  
2.2.1   Types of notifications  
2.7.  The two main types of notifications  are regular notifications and emergency notifications. 
In addition, addenda, corrigenda, revisions or supplements can be issued subsequent to an original 
 
7 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the WTO's 
Integrated Database (IDB) for analytical purposes ( idb@wto.org ). They can be consulted through the SPS IMS 
by clicking on "definitions of groups" on the top menu bar. 
8 http://spsims.wto.org/en/EnquiryPointsNotificationAuthorities/Search . 
9 https://www.epinga lert.org/es#/enquiry -points/sps -na. 
10 Recommendations can be found in the Practical Manual for SPS National Notification Authorities and 
National Enquiry Points, available at 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/practical_manual_for_sps_national_notification_authorities_and_
sps_national_enquiry_points_7531_18_e.pdf . See also Section 4.2.5  below.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 6 - 
 
  regular or emergency notification.11 An addendum is used to provide additional information or 
changes  to an original notification, for example if the products covered by the proposed regulation 
have been modified, if the comment period has been extended, or if a notified measure has entered 
into force. A corrigendum is used to correct an error in an origi nal notification such as an incorrect 
address detail. A revision is used to replace an existing notification, for example if a notified draft 
regulation was substantially redrafted or if a notification contained a large number of errors.  All types 
of notifications  can be directly filled in and submitted through the SPS NSS  (see Section 4.2.1 ). 
2.8.  Chart A.1 shows the number of regular and emergency notifications (including addenda and 
corrigenda) submitted per year since 1995.  As of 31 December  2020, Members had submitted12 
18,505 regular notifications, 2, 524 emergency notifications, 6,254 addenda and 552 corrigenda, 
reaching a grand total of 2 7,835 notifications.  Despite punctual decreases some years, the global 
trend shows an annual increase of the total number of notifications submitted per year , reaching  in 
2020, a historical record  number of 2,122 notifications. Out of these,  1,253 were regular 
notifications, 265 emergency notifications, 563 addenda (including 502 to regular and 6 1 to 
emergency notifications) and 41 corrigenda (including 27 to regular and 1 4 to emergency 
notifications). Compared to the previous  year (1 Januar y through 31 December 2019) , there was a n 
increase  in the number of  regular notifications submitted, from  1,119 in 2019 to 1,253 in 2020  
(12% increase) , and of emergency notifications, from 124 in 2019 to 265 in 2020 (114% increase) . 
Interestingly, the overall number of addenda submitted in the same period rose from  427 to 563 
(32% increase) , also reaching a historical maximum  (see Section 2.2.10 ). 
Chart A.1 – Regular and emergency notifications, addenda and corrigenda for both types, 
submitted , and number of Members who have submitted at least one notification, per year  
 
 
2.9.  This historical maximu m is particularly striking in the context of the COVID -19 pandemic 
suffered through 2020  (see Section 2.4 ). Despite the global trade challenges, Members continued 
to fulfil their transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement, submitt ing an average of 
177 notifications per month  (Chart A. 2). 
 
11 See the Recommended Transparency Procedures ( G/SPS/7/Rev.4 ) for further elaboration on the 
different types of notifications.  
12 For this Note, submission refers to the date of distribution of the notification by the Secretariat.  
020406080100120140160
05001,0001,5002,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
 Regular  Emergency  Addenda  Corrigenda Members who have submitted at least one notificationG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Chart A. 2 – Regular and emergency notifications, addenda and corrigenda for both types, 
submitted in 2020  
 
 
2.10.   In June 20 02, the SPS Committee adopted a special format and recommended procedures for 
the notification of determination of the recognition of equivalence of sanitary or phytosanitary 
measures. As of 31 December  2020, there have been seven equivalence notifications circulated by 
Panama ( one, in 2007), the Dominican Republic ( one, in 2008), and the United States ( five, in 2019). 
The most recent notification s were submitted following the two -part Thematic Session on 
Equivalence held in October  2018 and March 2019 within the framework of the Fifth Review13, at the 
end of 2019.  
2.11.   In April 2004, the Secretariat established a mechanism for Members to inform each other of 
the availability of unofficial translations of notified SPS measures into one of  the official languages 
of the WTO. These are submitted in the form of supplements to the original notification. As of 
31 December 2020 , 19 supplement notifications had been circulated. None have been submitted 
since 2015. The availability of translations is periodically  discussed in the SPS Committee under 
transparency -related matters.14 Interestingly,  the same  mechanism for sharing translations of 
notified TBT  regulations, launched in January 2008, has resulted in 251  supplement notifications, 
although , similarly to SPS, it has not been used since  2016.  In this context , it is worth  highlight ing 
that Members can also  share  unofficial translations through the ePing alert system , although it has 
not been used for that purpose yet  (see Section 4.2.2  in Part C ). 
2.12.   In October 2004, the SPS Committee adopted a procedure to enhance transparency of special 
and differential treatment (S&D) in favour of developing country Members, which included an 
addendum notification fo rmat to inform the Committee o f a Member's decision on whether and how 
S&D may be provided in reference to a specific request. The procedure and addendum notification 
format were subsequently revised in December 200915, and, as mentioned earlier, the notif ication 
format was incorporated in G/SPS/7/Rev.4  for ease of reference. No S&D notifications have been 
circulated by WTO Members since 2004.  
2.2.2   Notifying Members  
2.13.   As of 31 December 2020 , 129 Members out of 164 ( 79%) had submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO. Members which have not  yet submitted any notification include 
14 developing countries and 1 3 LDCs. In addition, a number of EU member States have not 
submitted notifications; however, most SPS measures are notified by the European Union on behalf 
 
13 The programmes of parts 1 and 2 of th e Thematic Session are contained in G/SPS/GEN/1640/Rev.1  
and G/SPS/GEN/1675/Rev.1 , respectively, and the reports in G/SPS/R/93  and G/SPS/R/94 . Presentations of 
both sessions are available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/events_e.htm . 
14 See for example the reports of the Fo urth Review and the 2017 Workshop on Transparency in 
G/SPS/62  and G/SPS/R/89 , respectively.  
15 See G/SPS/ 33/Rev.1 . 
050100150200250300
Regular Emergency Addenda CorrigendaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 8 - 
 
  of all its member States.16,17 In 2020, 63 Members submitted at least one notification.  The number 
of Members submitting notifications each year has considerably increased since 1995, and has 
remained relatively stable over the last few years ( Chart A.1 ). 
2.14.   Charts A.3 and A.4 show the number of regular and emergency notifications, respectively, 
and the percentage of notifications by Members' development status. Chart A.3 shows that the share 
of regular notifications submitted b y developing countries has been rising since 2000 and, since 
2008, is higher than that of regular notifications submitted by developed countries. The share of 
notifications from LDCs is very low, fluctuating between 0% and a peak of 4.9% reached in 2017. 
It has remained at that level since then. Chart A.4 shows that the percentage of emergency 
notifications submitted by developing countries has been greater than 50% since 2002. Furthermore, 
the difference in percentage is m uch larger than in the case of regular notifications.  
2.15.   In 2020, both for regular and emergency notifications, we can observe a decrease in the 
percentage submitted by developed country Members and an increase in the case of developing 
country Members. While  both changes are small, it is interesting to note that the trend is the opposite 
to the one observed in 2019.  
Chart  A.3 – Number of regular notifications and percentage by development status  
 
 
Chart A.4 – Number of emergency notifications and percentage by development status  
 
 
16 See G/SPS/GEN/456  for notification procedures for the European Union and its member States.  
17 The information provided by the European Union covers its 28 member States from 1  July 2013 until 
31 January  2020. The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union as of 1  February  2020. The 
European Union and the United Kingdom have communicated that during the transition period, which ends on 
31 December  2020, the European Union SPS regime continued to apply in the United Kingdom.  See documents 
WT/GC/206  and G/SPS/GEN/1767 . 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800
Regular Addenda Corrigenda Developed (%) Developing (%) LDCs (%)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
050100150200250300
Emergency Addenda Corrigenda Developed (%) Developing (%) LDCs (%)G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.16.   Looking at the geographic regions from which the notifications submitted since the year 1995 
originate, Chart A.5  shows that the largest share  of notifications come from Asia, followed by the 
North America region, and then S outh and Central America and the Caribbean.18 
Chart A.5 – Notifications by geographical region from 1995 to 31 December 2020  
 
 
2.17.   The Members wh o have submitted the greatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 31 December 2020  are listed in Charts A.6 and A.7, while the Members that have 
submitted the greatest number of notifications in the current reporting period (1 January through 
31 December 2020 ) are listed in Charts A.8 and A.9. In all four charts, bars show the number of 
notifications by type and values above the bars represent the corresponding percentage with respect 
to the total number of notifications (regular, Charts A.6 and A.8, and emergency, Charts  A.7 and 
A.9) submitted . 
Chart A.6 - Ten Members which have submitted the most regular notifications since 1995  
 
 
 
18 The geographical groupings used rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the Integrated 
Database (IDB) for analytical purposes ( idb@wto.org ). The same groupings are used in the WTO Annual Reports. 
They can be consulted through the SPS IMS by clicking on "definitions of groups" on the top menu bar.  
27% North America
24% SA, CA & the Caribbean10% Europe2%CIS3%Africa6%Middle 
East28% Asia
18%
10%
9%
6%5%
4%4% 3% 3%
3%
05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500
United
States of
AmericaCanada Brazil European
UnionChina Peru Japan Chinese
TaipeiChile Korea,
Republic of
Regular Addenda CorrigendaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Chart A.7 - Ten Members which have submitted the most emergency notifications since 
1995  
 
 
Chart A.8 - Members which have submitted the most regular notifications between 
1 January and 31 December 2020  
 
 
Chart A.9 - Members which have submitted the most emergency  notifications between 
1 January and 31 December 2020  
 
13%
9%
6% 6%5%
4%4%3% 3% 3%
050100150200250300350400
Philippines Saudi
Arabia,
Kingdom ofAlbania United
Arab
EmiratesNew
ZealandRussian
FederationThailandia European
UnionUnited
States of
AmericaColombia
Emergency Addenda Corrigenda
23%
8%
7% 7%
5%
4% 4% 4% 3%3%
050100150200250300350400450
Brazil Japan European
UnionCanada United
States of
AmericaChinese
TaipeiTanzania Chile Peru China
Regular Addenda Corrigenda
19%
13%12%
8% 8%
7%6%6%
3%
2%
010203040506070
Thailand Philippines United Arab
EmiratesJapan Saudi Arabia,
Kingdom ofRussian
FederationKuwait, the
State ofKazakhstan New Zealand Australia
Emergency Addenda CorrigendaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.18.   Regarding regular notifications submitted until 31 December 2020 , one Member (Tanzania) 
among the top 10 notifying Members in 20 20 (Chart A.8 ) does not appear among the top notifying 
Members for the period since 1995 ( Chart A.6 ), suggesting that it notified at a level above their 
historical trend. For emergency notifications, six of the top 10 notifying Members (Thailand, 
Philippi nes, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Russian Federation and  New Zealand) remain the 
same in 20 20 (Chart A.9 ) as compared to the period since 1995 ( Chart A.7 ). 
2.19.   When looking at the break -down according to the type of notification, all charts show that 
some of th e top 10 notifiers submit large number s of addenda to regular notifications , e.g. to provide 
information on a regulation's entry into force. Others  submit high numbers of regular notif ications 
but fewer follow -up addenda. The overall data on the use of addenda are shown in Section 2.2.10 . 
2.20.   Charts A.10 and A.11 take a closer look at the top five notifying Members in 2020 . Chart A.10  
shows that the annual volume of regular notifications submitted over the past ten years by the top 
five notifiers in 2020 (Brazil, Japan, the European Union, Canada and the United States, Chart A.8 ) 
is relatively stable and, apart  from a few exceptions, the se Members  have been among the top 
10 notifiers since 2010.  On the contrary, Chart A.11  shows that the number of emergency measures 
notified by the top notifiers vary considerably over time. Only the Philippines, the United Arab 
Emirates  and Saudi Arabia have consistently been among the top 10 since 2010 , the number of their 
notifications varying considerably, as we can see in the peak observed in 201 7. On the other hand,  
Japan and Thailand have not always been included in this group.  
Chart A.10 – Regular notifications (including addenda and corrigenda) submitted by 
Brazil, Japan, the European Union, Canada and the United States during 2010 -2020  
 
 
Chart A.11 – Emergency notifications (including addenda and corrigenda) submitted by 
Thailand, Philippines, United Arab Emirates, Japan and Saudi Arabia during 2010 -2020  
 
050100150200250300350400450
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Brazil Japan European Union Canada United States
0102030405060708090
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Thailand Philippines United Arab Emirates Japan Saudi Arabia, Kingdom ofG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 12 - 
 
  2.2.3   Products covered  
2.21.   In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex B of th e SPS Agreement and the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures, Members are required to identify the products to be 
covered by a new or changed SPS measure and should provide the relevant HS codes. Most  Members 
have indicated they would welcome the provision of these codes by their trading partners.19 
However, identifying relevant HS codes is one of the main difficulties encountered by Members when 
filling in a notification according to the latest questionnaire on transparency.20 
2.22.   Since 1995 the WTO's Central R egistry of Notifications (CRN) has been assigning, to the extent 
possible, the relevant HS codes for all notifications where these are not provided by the Member.21 
The SPS NSS facilitates the inclusion of HS (and ICS) codes by submitting Members through a  built-in 
search function, providing more accurate information.  In September 2020, the SPS NSS (and also 
the TBT NSS) was improved to include all HS versions available  from a drop -down list  
(see Section  4.2.1 in Part C ). This update  was aimed at increasing  accuracy in the products covered 
and facilitat ing the retrieval of the relevant HS classification , further improving the quality of 
notifications . 
2.23.   While only indicative, Charts A.12 and A.13 show the products at the two -digit HS codes level 
that are most often covered by regular and emergency notifications since 1995. Note that only 
HS codes referred to in 4% of notifications or more are represented, and that some code descriptions 
have been shortened for graphic reasons.  
Chart A.12 - HS Codes assigned to regular notifications  
 
 
Chart A.13 - HS Codes assigned to emergency notifications  
 
 
2.24.   It is interesting to note that regular notifications refer to a larger variety of HS codes in 
similarly high percentages  (13 different codes are referred to in 4% of notifications or more , the 
highest percentage, of 9%, corresponding to HS Code  02 - Meat and edible meat offal). On the 
contrary , emergency notifications mainly refer to animal -related HS codes , and these represent  
higher percentages  of emergency notifications  (9 different codes are referred to in 4% of notifications 
or more , the highest percentages corresponding to  HS Code 01 - Live animals, referred to in 54%  of 
 
19 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on th e Operation of Enquiry Points and National 
Notification Authorities, ( G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 , paras. 11 and 18) for further elaboration on this point.  
20 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on Transparency under the SPS Agreement, 
(G/SPS/GEN/1402 , para. 2.1) for further  elaboration on this point.  
21 This information is available in the SPS IMS ( http://spsims.wto.org ) for tracking purposes only.  
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
02 - Meat and edible meat offal
08 - Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons
06 - Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage
04 - Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not…
01 - Live animals
07 - Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers
12 - Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; industrial or…
10 - Cereals
03 - Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates
05 - Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included
09 - Coffee, tea, mate and spices
23 - Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder
15 - Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their cleavage products; prepared edible fats;…
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
01 - Live animals
02 - Meat and edible meat offal
04 - Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or…
05 - Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included
23 - Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder
06 - Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage
08 - Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons
16 - Preparations of meat, of fish or of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates
07 - Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubersG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 13 - 
 
  notifications, and 02 - Meat and edible meat offal, referred to in 53% of notifications) . These data 
confirm  results shown in Chart A.15 related  to the objective of notificat ions. 
2.2.4   Regions/countries affected  
2.25.   The Recommended Transparency Procedures call on Members to identify the regions or 
countries which are most likely to be affected by the measure being notified. They include a data 
entry option for this item whereby Members  are invited to either select the checkbox for "all trading 
partners" or provide information on specific regions or countries likely to be affected.  
2.26.   An assessment of notifications submitted in 2020 indicates that 1 88 regular notifications 
(15%, which repre sents 6% less tha n in 2019) identified a specific group of countries or a region, 
while in 1,064 regular notifications (8 5%), the "all trading partners" checkbox  was selected. 
In contrast, 227 emergency notifications ( 86%, an increase of 9% with respect to 2019) identified 
a specific group of countries or a region, and only 38 emergency notifications ( 14%) identified  
"all trading partners". Interestingly, 36 (19%) of the 188 regular notifications and 138 (61%) of the 
227 emergency notificat ions affecting specific regions or countries include the keyword 
regionalization. This reflects the fact that emergency actions are frequently taken in response to 
disease or pest outbreaks in specific countries, territories, or regions. A total of 208 (92%) of these 
227 emergency notifications included animal health among the keywords , while 60 (26%) included 
food safety and 60 (26%) plant health.22  
2.27.   In other words, as shown in Chart A. 14, 97% of notifications affecting all trading partners are 
regular notifications and only 3% are emergency notifications. Regarding notifications affecting 
specific regions or countries, 45% are regular notifications and 55% are emergency notifications.  
Chart A. 14 - Percentage of  regular and emergency notifications affecting all trading 
partners or specific regions or countries  
 
 
2.2.5   Objective and rationale  
2.28.   In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement and the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures, Members are a lso required to state the objective and 
rationale of proposed regulations by selecting one of the following five options: food safety, animal 
health, plant protection, protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease, and protect territory 
from other damag e from pests. These objectives correspond to the definition of an SPS measure in 
Annex A, paragraph 1 of the SPS Agreement.  
2.29.   Chart A.1 5 indicates the share of each objective as cited in regular and emergency 
notifications. It must be noted, however, that many notifications identify more than one objective. 
Therefore, Chart A.15  refers to the percentage of times the specific objective was assigned 
regardless of whether the notifications identified multiple objectives.  
 
22 Several keywords may be assigned to a single notification.  
0%20%40%60%80%100%
All trading
partnersSpecific regions
or countries
Regular EmergencyG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Chart A.15 - Objectives of notified SPS measures (excluding addenda and corrigenda) in 
the period between 1 January and 31 December 2020  
 
 
2.30.   For regular notifications , the most frequently cited objective is food safety  (68%) , followed 
by animal health (23%) and plant protection  (18%) , while for emergency notifications it is animal 
health  (84%) , followed by food safety (32%) and protection of humans from animal/plant pes t or 
disease  (29%) . The overall patterns remain relatively unchanged since 1995. However, 
some  differences are remarkable between 2019 and 2020: concerning regular notifications, a sharp 
decrease of 13% in the number of notifications related to animal heal th can be observed 
(Chart  A.16); regarding emergency notifications, a 14% increase  in animal health related 
notifications, a 15% decrease  in plant health related notifications and an increase of 13% in the 
number of notifications on p rotect ion of  humans from animal/plant pest or disease  are the most 
striking differences ( Chart A .17). 
Chart A. 16 - Objectives of regular SPS measures (excluding addenda and corrigenda)  
notified in  the last  five years  
 
 
Chart A. 17 - Objectives of emergency SPS measures (excluding addenda and corrigenda) 
notified in the last five years  
 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Food safety Animal health Plant protection Protect humans from
animal/plant pest or
diseaseProtect territory from
other damage from
pests
Regular Emergency
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Food safety Animal health
Plant protection Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease
Protect territory from other damage from pests
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Food safety Animal health
Plant protection Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease
Protect territory from other damage from pestsG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 15 - 
 
  2.2.6   Relationship between the objective of the measure and the regions/countries 
affected  
2.31.   The following Charts A.18 and A.19 represent  the objectives of regular and emergency 
notifications in relation to trading partners likely to be affected (i.e., all trading partners vs specif ic 
regions/countries) , since 2008, when revised notification formats were adopted , making these data 
available .  
2.32.   In the case of notifications affecting all trading partners since 2008 (Chart A.18), food safety 
is the object ive most frequently identified in regular notifications (72%) , while plant protection  is 
the most frequent objective in emergency notifications (34%) . 
Chart A.18 - Objectives of regular and emergency notifications (excluding addenda and 
corrigenda) affecting all trading partners  
 
 
2.33.   In the case of notifications likely to affect specific regions/countries since 2008 ( Chart A.19 ), 
plant protection  is the objective most frequently identi fied in regular notifications ( 53%), while 
animal  health is the most frequent objective in emergency notifications (4 7%). 
Chart A.19 - Objectives of regular and emergency notifications (excluding addenda and 
corrigenda) affecting specific regions/countries  
 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Food safety Animal health Plant protection Protect humans
from animal/plant
pest or diseaseProtect territory
from other damage
from pests
Regular Emergency
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Food safety Animal health Plant protection Protect humans
from animal/plant
pest or diseaseProtect territory
from other damage
from pests
Regular EmergencyG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.2.7   International standards, guidelines or recommendations  
2.34.   The SPS Agreement does not require Members to notify a measure if its content is 
substantially the same as that of an international sta ndard adopted by Codex, IPPC or OIE. 
Nonetheless, the Recommended Transparency Procedures encourage Members to notify all 
regulations that are based on, conform to, or are substantially the same as an international stand ard, 
guideline or recommendation, if they are expected to have a significant impact on trade of other 
Members. The notification formats also seek more precision from Members regarding relevant 
standards and the conformity of the notified measure with these . 
2.35.   With respect to regular notifications circulated in 2020, in 570  (46%)  notifications  Members 
did not  identif y an international standard as being relevant to the new measure being  notified (similar 
to the previous year, 45%) . Chart A.20 shows that relevant international standards identified  were 
Codex ( 428, representing 3 5%), IPPC (156, representing 13%) and OIE ( 96, representing 8%) 
standards. This information seems consistent with  the objectives  identified for regular notifications 
(Chart A.15). 
Chart A.20 – Regular notifications (excluding addenda) referring to a relevant 
international standard  
 
 
2.36.   It is interesting to note that, since 2007, when these data became  available , there seems to 
be an increasing  trend in the share  of regular notifications referring  to international standard s. 
More recently , the number of references to Codex as the relevant international standard seems to 
be increasing, as shown in Chart A.21. 
Chart A. 21 – Evolution of the reference to relevant international standard in regular 
notifications (excluding addenda)  
 
None
46%
Codex
35%IPPC
13%OIE
8%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Codex OIE IPPC NoneG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 17 - 
 
  2.37.   When it comes to emergency notifications circulated in 2020, Chart A. 22 shows that only 
22 emergency notificati ons (8%) have not identified an international standard as being relevant to 
the measure being notified  (as compared to 13% in the previous year).  The relevant international 
standards referred to during the current reporting period were OIE (218, 83%, highe r than the 
67% reached in the previous year) , IPPC (22, 8%, less than half of the percentage observed in 2019  
(18%)) and Codex ( 2, 1%) standards. This  is consistent with the information provided in Chart A.1 5, 
showing that animal health is the most frequently identified objective in emergency notifications.  
Chart A.22 – Emergency notifications (excludi ng addenda) referring to a relevant 
international standard  
 
 
2.38.   For emergency notifications there is a slight overall increase in the references to OIE 
standards over time (Chart A. 23). OIE standards have been consistently referenced in over 60% of 
notifications since 2007, proving that OIE standards continue to provide Members with valuable 
guidance to address many of these emergency situations.  
Chart A. 23 – Evolution of the reference to re levant international standard in emergency 
notifications (excluding addenda)  
 
2.39.   It is important to keep in mind that, even if a notification refers to an international standard, 
the notified measure might not conform to it. Therefore, in the notification fo rmats Members are 
required to identify whether the proposed regulation conforms to the relevant international standard. 
In 2020, of the 5 4% of regular notifications identifying a relevant international standard for the 
measure, 65% indicated that the propo sed regulation conformed to that relevant international 
standard. Out of the regular notifications that indicated that the notified regulation did not conform 
OIE
83%None
8%IPPC
8%Codex
1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Codex OIE IPPC NoneG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 18 - 
 
  to a relevant international standard, all but two referred to Codex Alimentarius  standards . For t he 
same period, nearly all (9 6%) emergency notifications identifying a relevant international standard 
indicated that the proposed regulation conformed to the relevant international standard. This further 
confirms the relevance of the standards set by the three relevant international standard -setting 
bodies when addressing emergency situations.  
2.40.   It is interesting to note that both for regular and emergency notifications, measures notified 
by developing  Members are those that most frequently indicate conform ity with the relevant 
international standards. In the case of regular notifications ( Chart A.24 ), developing Members' 
measures are reported to conform to international standards in 65% (for Codex), 78% (for OIE) and 
81% (for  IPPC)  of the cases . In the case of emergency notifications  (Chart A.25 ), developing 
Members' measures indicate conform ity with international standards in 74% (for Codex), 96% (for 
OIE) and 53% (for IPPC)  of the cases . 
Char t A.24 – Conformity of notified regular measures (excluding addenda) with 
international standards since 1995, per development status  
 
 
Chart A.25 – Conformity of notified emergency measures (excluding addenda) with 
international standards since 1995, per development status  
 
 
2.41.   When looking at the temporal break -down of conformity of measures with relevant 
international standards for the last ten years, Chart A. 26 shows that, for regular measures, 
the global patterns remain mostly unchanged, despite punctual changes at given points in time. 
On the contrary, concerning emergency notifications, Chart A. 27 clearly shows an increasing t rend 
in the identified conformity to OIE standards of notified measures and an overall decreasing trend 
in identified conformity to Codex standards , and to IPPC standards since 2013 . 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Codex OIE IPPC
Developed Developing LDCs
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Codex OIE IPPC
Developed Developing LDCsG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Chart A. 26 – Evolution of conformity to relevant international standard i n regular 
notifications (excluding addenda) over the last ten years  
 
Chart A. 27 – Evolution of conformity to relevant international standard in emergency 
notifications (excluding addenda) over the last ten years  
 
2.2.8   Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force  
2.42.   In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Annex B of the SPS Agreemen t, Members must 
ensure that all SPS regulations which have been adopted are published promptly. Except  in urgent 
circumstances, Members are also obliged to allow a reasonable interval between the publication of 
a measure and its entry into force. Paragraph  3.2 of the Doha Decision on Implementation -Related 
Issues and Concerns states that this interval "shall be understood to mean normally a period of not 
less than 6 months".23 
2.43.   The regular notification format contained in the Recommended Transparency Procedu res 
includes separate fields for entering the "proposed date of publication", the "proposed date of 
adoption" and the "proposed date of entry into force". In addition, it includes a default checkbox for 
a six-month interval between the publication and entr y into force of a new measure. For each of 
these items, the SPS NSS provides a calendar so that Members can easily enter dates, allowing for 
a more accurate analysis.  
2.44.   For 2020, about  50% of the regular notifications identified either a specific date or a w ider 
period (months or quarters, mainly), for adoption , while in the other 50%, the date of adoption was 
still to be determined. This illustrates that, at the moment of notification, Members are not always 
able to foresee the exact date of adoption of a re gulation.  
2.45.   During the reporting  period, 305 regular notifications ( 24%, 7% less than in the previous 
reporting period ) indicated a specific date of publication. Of these, 253 (83%) had been published 
on the day, or prior to the date of distribution of the notification, and 119 (47%) of these concerned 
measures identified as trade facilitating. Regarding the interval between publication of the measure 
and its entry into force, 11 9 regular notifications ( 9.5%) had sele cted the checkbox for a six -month 
interval provided in the notification format. Additionally, 29 4 notifications (2 4%) provided a specific 
date of entry into force. Of these, only ten provided a period of six months or more and , of the 
remaining 2 84, 114  provided one day or more. A total of 840 notifications (6 7%) did not specify the 
 
23 WT/MIN(01)/17 ; see also para. 4. 3 of G/SPS/7/Rev.4 . 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Codex OIE IPPC0%20%40%60%80%100%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Codex OIE IPPCG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 20 - 
 
  proposed date of entry into force. It  should be noted that, in some cases, such dates are not yet 
determined at the time of the notification, as the nature and extent of comment s received on the 
proposed measure may affect the dates of adoption, publication and entry into force.  
2.46.   As provided for in the Recommended Transparency Procedures, notifying Members sometimes 
follow up on their original notification with an addendum to aler t Members to the adoption, 
publication, or entry into force of a previously notified proposed measure. During the period from 
1 January to 31 December 2020 , about 6 5% of the addenda indicated the  adoption, publication or 
entry into force of regulations as shown in Chart 30 (see Section 2.2.10 ). 
2.2.9   Final date for comments  
2.47.   Annex B, paragraph  5 of the SPS Agreement provides that notifications should take place at 
an early stage, when amendments can still be introduced, and comments taken into account. 
The Recommended Transparency Procedures state that the comment period provided for regular 
notifications should last at least 60 days. Where domestic regulatory mechanisms allow, the 60 -day 
comment period should normally begin with the circulation of the notification by the 
WTO Secretariat. The notification formats also offer a checkbox option for  such a 60 -day comment 
period to encourage Members to follow this recommendation.24 The SPS NSS provides a calendar 
so that Members can easily click on the final date for comments. Between 1 January and 
31 December 2020 , 606 (48%) regular notifications  used the checkbox to provide  a 60-day 
comment period . 
2.48.   An analysis of the notifications issued during 2020 shows that 972 (77%) provided a comment 
period, ranging from a minimum of 1 day to a maximum of 1 20 days, with an average of 5 6 days 
(calculated as the d ifference between the date of circulation of the notification and the final date for 
comments; see Table A.1). More specifically, 687 regular notifications ( 55%) provided a comment 
period of 60 or more days. On averag e, developed country Members provided 58  days for comments 
and developing Members (including LDCs) 56 days.  
Table A.1. Comment period provided in regular notifications (20 20) 
All Members  
  No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  1,253  - 
Comment period available  972 77% 
Comment period not indicated/not available  274 22% 
Comment period ends before or equal to distribution date  7 1% 
Average length (in days)  56 
Developed country Members  
  No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  358 - 
Comment period available  206 58% 
Comment period not indicated/not available  148 41% 
Comment period ends before or equal to distribution date  4 1% 
Average length (in days)  58 
Developing country Members  
  No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  895 - 
Comment period available  766 86% 
Comment period not indicated/not available  126 14% 
Comment period ends before or equal to distribution date  3 <1% 
Average length (in days)  55 
2.49.   It should be noted that no comment period needs to be provided in the case of proposed 
measures which facilitate trade and those which are substantially the same as an international 
standard. In 2020, 363 (17%) regular notifications have been identified to be trade facilitating. 
Of these, 1 98 (55%) still provided a comment period, of which 168 (85%) provided a comment 
period  of 60 days or more . In addition, 4 1% of notifications indicating conformity with a relevant 
international standard still provided a comment period , of which 83% w ere of 60 days or more . 
 
24 See G/SPS/7/Rev.4 , para. 2.8.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Chart A. 28 – Number of trade facilitating regular measures, per objective  
 
 
2.50.   While Members must notify other WTO Members of draft, new or changed measures, they are 
not required to submit the  text of the relevant regulations along with their notifications. However, 
Members have raised concerns in the SPS Committee regarding the difficulties of accessing the full 
text of notified regulations, which are described only in summarized form in notif ications. 
Members  have also pointed out that the process of obtaining  the texts of regulations reduces the 
period actually available for providing comments.  
2.51.   Since February 2008, in an effort to address these concerns and facilitate access to notified 
draft regulations, Members may, on a voluntary basis, provide the Secretariat with an electronic 
version of the text of the notified draft regulation as an attachment to the notification format. 
The submitted text is then made electronically acces sible to other Members through a hyperlink 
in the notification format.25 Many Members include a hyperlink to their own electronic version of the 
notified regulation as part of the text of the notification, in addition to or instead of the above facility. 
The SPS NSS also allows Members to directly upload documents , that are then automatically 
available for all Members through the SPS IMS . From 1 January through 31 December 2020 , around 
1053 regular notifications ( 84%) and 71 emergency notifications ( 27%), submitted  by 56 Members, 
included  the full text or a summary of the notified draft regulations using this facility. Members may 
wish to remind their notification authorities of the availability of this facility.  
2.2.10   Addenda to regular and emergency notification s 
2.52.   Since 1995, Members have been increasing the number of addenda to regular and emergency 
notifications submitted, as shown in Chart A. 29. This increase has led to an historical maximum in 
2020, re aching a total of 563 (502  regular and 61 emergency) addenda (see Chart A.1 ). 
 
25 See G/SPS/7/Rev.4 , para. 2.8 and Ann ex C. 
050100150200250300350400450500
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Food safety Animal health Plant protection Protect territory Protect humansG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Chart A. 29 - Evolution of the number of addenda and number of Members submitting  
addenda to  regular and emergency notifications26 
 
2.53.   It is also interesting to note that an increasing number of Members are following the good 
practice of submitting addenda to regular and emergency notifications, as shown in Chart A.29 . 
In total, 68 and 48 Members have subm itted, at least once, addenda to regular and emergency 
notifications, respectively.  
2.54.   According to the Recommended Transparency Procedures, Members are asked to select from 
a number of options regarding the reason for an addendum. Chart A.30 shows the share of each 
option for 2020. Note that the "Notification of adoption, publication, or entry into force of regulation" 
is an option available  for addenda to regular notifications only. Also note that the format for addenda 
to regular notifications include the option " withdrawal of proposed regulations ", while emergency 
notifications refer to "withdrawal of regulations ". Other reasons mentioned in the formats  include, 
for instance, lifting an import ban or the inclusion of a new country in the list of affected regions.  
It is interesting to note that the large majority (65%) of addenda to regular notifications inform of 
the notification of adoptio n, publication, or entry into force of regulation while, for emergency 
notifications, almost half (44%) refer to the withdrawal of regulations.  
Chart A.30 – Reasons for addenda (percentage)27 
 
 
2.55.   In addition, Members can notify their decision on special and differential treatment provided 
in reference to a specific request, through another addendum notification format. As previously 
mentioned, no Member has ever notified such a decision to the Committee.  
 
26 Please note the different scales of the axis.  
27 Each notification can have multiple entries for the reasons for addenda.  
051015202530354045
0100200300400500600
Number of regular addenda Number of emergency addenda
Members submitting regular addenda Members submitting emergency addenda
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Modification of final date
for commentsNotification of adoption,
publication, or entry into
force of regulationModification of content
and/or scope of previously
notified draft regulationWithdrawal of proposed
regulationChange in proposed date of
adoption, publication, or
date of entry into force
(Regular)/
Change in period of
application of measure
(Emergency)Other
Regular EmergencyG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 23 - 
 
  2.3  NOTIFICATION KEYWORDS  
2.56.   In the SPS IMS, notif ications can also be categorized according to a list of about 90  predefined 
keywords, which describe issues appearing frequently in notifications. The CRN has assigned these 
keywords since 2003, and they assist searching for notifications in certain areas.  While the keywords 
include the objectives of the notification (e.g. food safety, animal health, plant protection), they also 
include specific notification subjects, such as pesticides, maximum residue limits, avian influenza, 
etc. New keywords were added  in 2020, including African swine fever (ASF) and COVID -19 SPS.  
2.57.   As shown in Chart A.31, the keywords which have been most frequently assigned to regular 
notifications, in descending order for the current reporting period, ar e human health, food safety, 
pesticides, maximum residue limits (MRLs) and plant health . For emergency notifications, the most 
frequent keywords in descending order are animal health, animal diseases, zoonoses, pest- or 
disease - free regions/regionalizatio n and avian influenza . It must be noted, however, that the 
majority of the notifications are assigned more than one keyword. It is interesting to note that 
COVID -19 SPS is among the 15 most frequently assigned keywords (see Section 2.4 ). 
Chart A.31 – Keywords of notified regular and emergency SPS measures from 1 January 
to 31 December 2020  (number)  
 
 
2.4  COVID -19 RELATED NOTIFICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS  
2.58.   During the COVID -19 pandemic, Me mbers have continued to fulfil their transparency 
obligations , notifying their sanitary and phytosanitary measures as well as specific COVID -19 related 
measures. The WTO created a dedicated website to inform of trade -related developments in light of 
the pa ndemic.28 As mentioned above, t he Secretariat created a COVID -19 SPS keyword that was 
assigned  to notifications  and other documents  based on the presence of the words COVID -19, nCOV  
or coronavirus in the text of the notification. This keyword can be searched for in the SPS IMS , in 
the ePing29 and in DocsOnLine .30 
2.59.   In May 2020 , the Secretariat published a technical note  on "Standards, regulations and 
COVID -19 - What actions taken by WT O members? " (SPS and TBT)  that was updated in  December  
2020.31 Additionally, the SPS Committee organi zed an information session on the margins of the 
June Committee meeting32, and also included a dedicated  item in the informal meeting33 prior to the 
November Committee meeting .34 
 
28 COVID -19 and world trade: https://www.wto.org/en glish/tratop_e/covid19_e/covid19_e.htm . 
29 A tutorial on how to create a filter for COVID -19 related SPS and TBT notifications is available here: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob5ou6rYYH0&feature=emb_title . 
30 https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S005.aspx . 
31 The technical note is available here: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/standards_report_e.pdf . 
32 The information of the  SPS Committee information -sharing session on COVID -19 is available here: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_covid_session_24620_e.htm , and the report of the session is 
contained in G/SPS/R/98 . 
33 JOB/SPS/12 . 
34 The report of the November informal meeting is conta ined in the summary report of the Committee 
meeting, G/SPS/R/100 , G/SPS/R/100/Corr.1 , G/SPS/R/100/Corr.2  and G/SPS/R/100/Corr.3 . 
02004006008001000
Regular EmergencyG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 24 - 
 
  2.60.   Between  1 February  and 31 December 2020, Members submitted a total of 55 notifications 
(including addenda and corrigenda) and 11 communications (GEN documents ) informing of 
measures adopted in relation to the COVID -19 pandemic. Nine additional GEN documents have been 
submitted , including statements delivered by Members in the SPS Committee and information 
sessions, as well as a request by 40 Members for the sus pension of the processes and entry into 
force of reductions of MRLs for plant protection products , in light of the COVID -19 pandemic , and 
the corresponding answers  (Chart A. 32). In the first stages of the pandemic , a few em ergency 
measures were notified imposing restrictions on the importation, and sometimes transit, of live 
animals and animal products, or on certain species. While a few other restrictions were notified at 
a later stage, most have already been lifted.  Almost  two-thirds of the measures adopted facilitated 
trade, mainly through the acceptance of electronic copies or scanned certificates , and several of 
these measures have already been extended through addenda to the original notifications . As of 
31 December 202 0, SPS COVID -19 related documents represented 27.5% of all COVID -19 related 
documents submitted by Members to the WTO.  
Chart A. 32 – COVID -19 related notifications and communications  from 1 February  to 
31 December 2020 (number)  
 
3  PART B – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
3.1.  Part B of the present document contains information on STCs (previously contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/204 ), maintaining  the previously assigned numbers according to the chronological order 
of the Committee meetings in which they were first raised, although titles may be update d to reflect 
the latest state of the concern. These numbers serve as unique identifiers and are intended to 
facilitate the tracking of issues raised over time.35 The Secretariat has revised this document 
annually to include new information provided by Members ( G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1  to 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.20 ). As me ntioned above, i n preparing this document, the Secretariat has 
largely relied on the SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS).36 
3.2.  Part B  is divided into two sections:  
• General overview of specific trade concerns (19 95-2020) ; and 
• Specific trade concerns considered in 20 20. 
3.3.  The first section of Part B presents a general overview of STCs , including  summary statistics 
and graphs for all the STCs raised in the SPS  Committee betw een the first r egular meeting of 1995 
and the last regular meeting of 20 20. It provides detailed annual information on the concerns raised 
per meeting, as well as the relation between the number of notifications and the number of concerns. 
In addition , the STCs are categorized as relating to food safety, animal or plant health, or o ther 
 
35 Concerning STCs, o ne "issue" refers to the participation of one Member in a n STC. As such, the 
participation of two Members in raising (or supporting) the same concern would be considered as two issues and, 
likewise, the participation of one single Member in raising (or supporting) two different trade concerns would be 
considered as two issues. Consequently, in this document the number of issues is much higher than the number 
of STCs.  
36 http://spsims.wto.org . 
0510152025
Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Regular Add Reg Emergency Add Emr Corr Emr Communication
(GEN)Communication
(REV)G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 25 - 
 
  concerns. Information is also provided on the participation of Members in STCs, by development 
status, as well as on the average number of times that  STCs are raised.  
3.4.  The second section of Part B contains information regarding all STCs which were rais ed in the 
SPS Committee in 20 20.37 This includes (1) STCs raised for the first time in 20 20 and (2) STCs which 
were previously raised and discussed again in 20 20, resolved in 20 20 or for which substantive action 
occurred under the DSU. Additionally, the ST Cs are also presented by Member responding . 
3.1  General o verview of specific trade concerns  (1995 -2020)  
3.5.  Altogether, 505 STCs have been raised in the 2 6 years between 1995 and the end of 20 20. 
The full list of STCs raised since 1995 can be found in the SPS IMS.38 Chart B.1 shows the number 
of new STCs raised each year, per Committee meeting39, and Chart B.2 shows the number of new 
and previously raised STCs per year.  Despite the fact that only two meetings were held in 2020, 
the number of STCs raised was larger than in previous years, and the number of new STCs raised 
(36) was double  the number raise d in the  previous few years.  
Chart B.1 – Number of new STCs raised since 1995, per Committee meeting  
 
 
Chart B.2 – Number of new and previously raised STCs raised per year since 199540 
 
 
37 This report includes the issues that were considered in the June and November 2020 SPS Committee 
meetings. It would have also normally include d the STCs discus sed in the March 2020 SPS Committee meeting, 
however the meeting was cancelled (see document JOB/SPS/5/Rev.1/Corr.1 ). 
38 http://spsims.wto.org/en/PredefinedReports/ListOfSpecificTradeConcerns . 
39 As stated before, the March 2020 Committee meeting was cancelled (see document 
JOB/SPS/5/Rev.1/Corr.1 ) and, as such, ST Cs in 2020 were only raised in the June and in the November 
Committee meetings.  
40 Please note that the number of times an STC is raised during the year is not taken into account.  
21124 23
13102843
29
2131
1016 16132216 1624
1421
1417 18 1736
298
10123522
27
2320
191913 181219 1916
1218
22 1523 2317
010203040506070
New STCs Previously raised STCs
21124 23
13102843
29
2131
1016 161322
16 1624
1421
1417 18 1736
298
10123522
27
2320
1919
13 181219 1916
1218
22 1523 2323
010203040506070
New STCs Previously raised STCsG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 26 - 
 
  3.6.   Chart B.3 compares new STCs  raised and the number of regular and emergency notifications 
submitted per year . While 2020 has seen an increase in the number of both notifications41 and 
STCs42, the overall trend suggests  that they are not correlated, i.e., overtime,  an increased number 
of notifications does not translate in to a higher number of  STCs. For instance, while 55 COVID -19 
related notifications were submitted in 2020 (see Section 2.4  in Part A), only two COV ID-19 related 
STCs ( only one of them relevant to a notified measure) were raised in 2020, reinforcing the idea 
that increased transparency does not lead to a higher number of concerns raised in the Committee.  
Chart B.3 - Notifications (excluding addenda an d corrigenda) and new STCs raised since 
199543 
 
 
3.7.  Chart B.4 categorizes the 505 STCs raised since 1995 into food safety, animal or plant health, 
or other concerns. Overall, 17 2 (34%) of STCs raised relate to  animal health and zoonoses, 
171 (34%) relate to food safety concerns, 11 6 (23%) relate to plant health, and 46 (9%) relate to 
other issues such as certification  requirements, control or inspection procedures. These statistics are 
summarized in Table  B.1. 
Chart B.4 – STCs by subject (1995 -2020) 
 
 
3.8.  There does not seem to be a clear pattern in the primary subject keywords of new STCs 
submitted  since 1995 , and food safety is the most frequent primary keyword of new STCs raised 
over the last few years, alternating with animal health. Plant health appears  slightly less frequently 
 
41 See Chart A.1 . 
42 See Chart B.1 . 
43 Please note the different scales of the axis.  
05101520253035404550
02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,600
Number of STCsNumber of notifications
Regular notifications Emergency notification New STCs
Animal health
34%Food safety
34%Other
9%
Plant health
23%G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 27 - 
 
  as the primary subject keyword of new STCs since 2000 ( Chart B.5). In 2020, there is a large 
increase in the number of STCs related to food safety and other concerns , compared to 2019  
(see Section 3.2  below ). It is interesting to note that 12 of the 13 new STCs raised in 202 0 that 
related to other concerns include "Control, inspection and approval procedures" among the relevant 
keywords (in 2019, the  three new STCs related to other concerns included this keyword).  
Chart B.5 - Primary subject keywords of new STCs per year  
 
 
3.9.  Comparing the number of times that individual STCs have been raised per year since 1995, 
those relating to food safety and animal health have been raised the greatest number of times , 
on average  2.9 and 2.8 times , respectively . On average , STCs relating to plant health have been 
raised 2.5 times; and STCs relating to other concerns  2.3 times.44 These statistics are summarized 
in Table  B.1. 
3.10.   Charts B.6 to B.9 reflect the number of issues45 raised by Members at SPS Committee 
meetings, which are then numbered under STCs, categorized by development status. As such, the 
same issue can be raised by more than one Member, in which case it is grouped under the same 
STC number. Therefore, the number of issues raised can be larger than the number of STCs. 
Developing country Members are participating actively under the agenda item on STCs. Chart B.6 
indicates that, since  1995, developing country Members have raised 334 issues, compared to 
277 issues raised by developed country Members, and ten issues raised by least -developed country 
Members.46 A developing country Member has supported another Member raising an issue 
470 times, compared to 238 times developed country Membe rs supported an issue, and 22 times 
least-developed country Members supported an issue. A total of 303 issues related to measures 
maintained by a developing country Member, and 2 66 to measures maintained by a developed 
country Member. Two issues have been raised regarding measures maintained by a least -developed 
country Member , one more than in the previous report . 
 
44 The Committee meeting  were the STC  was raised only to inform of its resolution is not taken into 
account in these calculations.  
45 As per footnote 35, o ne "issue" refers to the participation of one Member in a n STC. When three 
Members raise the same concern, it would thus be counted as thre e "issues".  
46 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force. On  29 November 
2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note ( WT/L/779 ) from the Council of the European Union and the Commission 
of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 1  December  2009, the 
European Union replaces and  succeeds the European Community. However, the Europ ean Union is referred to as 
the European Community when an STC was raised or discussed before 1  December 2009. The European Union 
is counted as one Member. Similarly, when one Member speaks on behalf of ASEAN, it is counted as one Member 
only. 
051015202530354045
Food safety Animal health Plant health Other concernsG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Chart B.6 – Number of issues, according to the development status of Members (1995 -
2020) 
 
 
3.11.   When looking at the annual break -down of the number of issues raised and supported by 
Members, we can observe a striking difference between developing and developed country Members , 
in particular,  in the number of developing, compared to developed , Members supporting STCs.  
Participation of developing  country Members has been consistently higher than that of developed 
country Members since 2008 ( Charts  B.7 and B.8). Although there may not be a direct link, a similar 
pattern was observed fo r regular notifications submitted.47 Finally, regarding the development status 
of Members responding to a new STC, we find a similar trend since 2006  (Chart B.9). 
Chart B.7 – New issues according to the development status of the Member raising the 
STC 
 
 
 
47 See Chart A.3 . 
Members raising Members supporting Members responding277
238266334 470303
1022
2
Developed Economies Developing Countries Least-developed countries
4101720
952129
2015 16
710625 7 8 8411
4 411
41521114
5
52220
12
1116
56101318 12 1016
1715
111416
18293
111
4
05101520253035404550
Developed Members Developing Members Least-developed MembersG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 29 - 
 
  Chart B.8 – New issues according to the development status of the Member supporting 
the STC  
 
 
Chart B.9 – New issues according to the development status of the Member responding to 
an STC  
 
3.12.   A total of 65 Members have raised at least one STC since 1995 , and  this figure has not 
changed since 2018 . A total of 74 Members' measures have been subject to an STC  at least once . 
Charts  B.10 and B.11 show the ten Members that have raised the most new concerns and the ten 
Members that have the most measures subject to an STC, respectively, since 1995 up to the last 
Committee meeting in November 20 20. Chart B.10  shows that, i n some cases, more than 85% of 
the STCs raised have been resolved, possibly confirming the  important  role of the Committee as a 
forum for discussion and resolution of trade concerns.  
2 1822
4 51725
161915
4 1710 815
94 36 47 515 2 32226
11025174029
21
22
2961621
11
829
6
533
184242
11
211
151
0102030405060
Developed Members Developing Members Least-developed Members
26
1519
5 527
1418
1019
4 395117 712
74 368 81029
105
10
58
29
16
1214
613101412
9 914
717
111610 92711
05101520253035404550
Developed Members Developing Members Least-developed MembersG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Chart B.10 – Members wh o have raised the most STCs since 1995  
 
Chart B.11 – Members whose measures have been subject to the most STC s since 1995  
 
 
3.13.   Concerning the regions that participate  most in STCs, Chart B. 12 shows that South America, 
Central America and the Caribbean is the region that has raised more STCs since 1995, followed by 
North America. Asia is the region responding to a higher number of STCs, followed by Europe. Finally, 
South America, Central Americ a and the Caribbean is also the region that most frequently support s 
STCs.  No clear correlation can be observed between the number of notifications submitted since 
1995 (see Chart A.5 ) and the number of STCs  raised or supported nor the measures maintained 
subject to an STC.  
020406080100
United
StatesEuropean
UnionArgentina Brazil China Canada India Ecuador Colombia Chile
Not reported Partially resolved Resolved
020406080100120
European
UnionUnited States China Japan Australia India Brazil Indonesia Russian
FederationKorea,
Republic of
Not reported Partially resolved ResolvedG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Chart B. 12 – STCs by geographical region from 1995 to 31 December 2020  
 
3.14.   Chart B.1 3 shows the number of times STCs have been raised since 1995.48 A total o f 
334 (66%) have only been raised one or two times, 116 (23%) ha ve been raised three to five times 
and only 55 (11%) have been raise more than five times. Of the 233 STCs for which no solution has 
been reported, 100 (43%) have only been raised once (exclud ing the 19 raised for the first time in 
the last Committee meeting ). Some of these STCs may have been resolved without the Committee 
being informed. Members can report on the resolution of STCs under the corresponding agenda item 
in the SPS Committee.  
Char t B.1 3 – Average number of times STCs have been raised since 1995  
 
 
3.15.   Chart B.14  shows that out of the 505 STCs raised since 1995, 200 (40%) and 71 (14%) have 
been reported to be resolved and partially resolved, respectively. In the case of the partially resolved 
STCs, trade may have been allowed for selected products or by some of the importing Members 
maintaining the measure(s) in question. No solution s have been reported for the remaining 2 34 
(46%) STCs. Thus, more than 50% of the STCs raised have been resolved  or partially resolved , 
confirming the importance of discussions in the Committee to solve trade concerns.  
 
48 These figures do not include the time the STC was raised in the Committee to report on  its resolution.  
020406080100120140160180
Raising Supporting Responding
Asia Europe SA, CA & Caribbean North America Africa CIS Middle East
11%, raised 
>5 times
23%, raised 
3-5 times66%, raised 
1-2 timesG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Chart B.14 – Resolution of STCs  
 
 
3.16.   On average, resolved STCs were raised 2. 4 times. Of the 200 STCs for which a solution has 
been reported, 85 (42%) relate to animal health, 5 7 (29%) to plant health, 48 (24%) to food safety, 
and 10 (5%) to other concerns. It is interesting to note that STCs  relating to plant health issues 
represent 2 3% of the total number of STCs raised since 1995 ( Chart B.4), while they correspond to 
29% of the STCs reported as resolved. On the contrary, while STCs relate to food safety and a nimal 
health in similar proportion (3 4% in both cases ), STCs relating to animal health represent almost 
double ( 42%) of the STCs reported as resolved compared to those relating to food safety ( 24%). 
These statistics are summarized in Table B.1. 
Table B.1 – Summary of statistics on resolution of STCs , by primary subject keyword  
Primary keyword 
subject  Food safety  Animal health  Plant health  Other concerns  All STCs  
All STCs  171 (34%) 172 (34%) 116 (23%) 46 (9%) 505 
Number of times 
raised (average)  2.9 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.7 
STCs reported as 
Resolved (R)  48 (24%) 85 (42%) 57 (29%) 10 (5%) 200 (40%) 
Number of times 
resolved STCs have 
been raised  2.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.4 
Partially resolved 
(PR) STCs  23 (32%) 27 (38%) 16 (23%) 5 (7%) 60 (14%) 
Number of times 
partially resolved 
STCs have been 
raised  2.7 5.0 3.5 3.8 3.8 
STCs for which no 
solution has been 
reported (NR)  99 (43%) 60 (26%) 43 (18%) 31 (13%) 233 (46%)  
Number of times NR 
STCs have been 
raised  2.9 2.9 2.4 2.0 2.7 
 
3.2  Specific trade concerns considered in 2020 
3.17.   A total of 53 STCs were brought to the attention of the Committee during 20 20, of which 
36 were new STCs ( Table B.2 ) and 17 had been raised previously. In addition, six STCs raised for 
the first time in 20 20 were again discussed in subsequent meetings during the same year 
(Table  B.3). In 2020, 35 STCs were considered as resolved and 42 STCs were  considered as partially 
resolved  (see Section 3.2.1  below) . Substantive action occurred under the DSU in the case of three 
other STCs ( N° 185, N° 369 and N°  394) (Table B.4 ). Finally , STCs according to the Member(s) 
maintaining the measures at issue, by alphabetical order are presented in  Table B.5 . 
234 (46%), no 
solution reported
200 (40%), 
solution reported71 (14%), partial 
solution reportedG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 33 - 
 
  3.18.   The number of new STCs raised  in 2020  is the highest in any one year since 20 03, and the 
second highest since 1995 , despite the fact that only two meetings were held in 2020 . While the 
annual number of notifications  also hit a new record in 2020 ( Chart A.1 ), only ten of the 36 new 
STCs raised in 2020 actually referred to SPS notifications submitted. It is inte resting to note that, 
despite the high number of COVID -19 related SPS notifications ( Chart A.32 ), only two new STCs 
refer to measures imposed by Members in light of the pandemic ( Table B.2 ). 
3.19.   It is interesting to note that, despite the mostly virtual character of the 2020 meetings and 
the fact that delegates were not gathering in Geneva, several STCs were removed before the 
adoption of the agenda  both in the June and November Committee meetings  due to progress in 
bilateral consultations . In particular, in June 2020  the European Union withdrew a n STC regarding 
Malaysia's import restrictions due to African swine fever, and the Russian Federation withdrew its 
support to the STC raised by the United  States on China's administrative measures for registration 
of overseas manufacturers of imported food (26 November 2019) .49 In November 2020, before the 
adoption of the agenda Mexico withdrew a n STC regarding Honduras' import restrictions on animal 
feed.50 
3.20.   Out of the 36 new STCs raised in 20 20, 16 (44%) relate to food safety, 13 (36%) to other 
concerns, 5  (14%) to plant health and  the remaining two STCs ( 6%) relate to animal health and 
zoonoses51, although this category includes issues that are also releva nt from a food safety 
perspective. Chart B.15  shows all new and previous STCs raised in the Committee in 20 20 compared 
to all STCs discussed between 1995 and 201 9, by primary subject keywords assigned.  These data 
show a n increase in the number of new STCs related to food safety, which increased  from 7 (41%) 
in 2019 to 16 (44%) in 2020. More interestingly , STCs related to other concerns rose from 3 (18%) 
in 2019 to 13 (36%) in 2020. These two objectives represent more than 80 % of the new STCs raised 
in 2020.  
Chart B.15 – New and previous STCs raised in 20 20, by primary subject keywords, 
compared to all STCs raised between 1995 and 201 9 (percentage)  
 
 
3.21.   Taking  a closer look at the new STCs  on food safety raised in 2020, it is interesting to note 
that only three developed Members have raised such concerns, compared to ten developing 
Members. The measures  raised  were maintained by one developed Member, seven developing 
Members and one LDC.  MRLs appeared as a keyword in seven (44%) of the 16 STCs.  A more detailed 
analysis of the 13 STCs related to other concerns shows that these were also raised by three 
developed Members and six developing Members on measures maintained by two developed 
Member s and nine developing Members. The keywords most frequently assigned to these STC s were 
control, inspection and approval procedures (12), undue delays (9)  and risk assessment (6).  
 
49 See paragraph 3.1 in document G/SPS/R/99 . 
50 See paragraph 3.1 in document G/SPS/R/100 . 
51 Among the new STCs ra ised in 2020, one refers to foot a nd mouth disease  (489) and one to avian 
influenza (494). The new k eyword African swine fever (ASF) was introduced to be able to track notifications on 
this topic. In 2020, three previously raised STCs  related to ASF (392, 393 and 466). The other animal health 
related previously raised concerns refer to BSE ( 193), avian influenza  (406, 431 and 456), and classical swine 
fever ( 463). 
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Food safety Animal health Plant health Other concerns
Total STCs 1995-2019 2020 (New STCs) 2020 (Previously raised STCs)G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 34 - 
 
  3.22.   In terms of participation, a s mentioned earlier, a total of 53 (new and old)  STCs were 
discussed in 2020. Tables B.2, B.3 and B.4 provide further information on Members ' participation in 
these STCs, i.e. the Members raising and supporting a concern, or maintaining measures subject to 
concerns . It is interesting to note that one52 (3%) of the 36 new STCs and three53 (13%) of the 
17 previously raised STCs in 2020 were simultaneously raised by developing and developed 
Members. Two p reviously raised STCs, raised 5 and 17 times, have gathered the support of 
ten Members or more.54 One measure maintained by a LDC was subject to a new STC raised in 2020.  
3.2.1   Resolution of STCs in 2020  
3.23.   In September 2020 , the Secretariat contacted 44 Members to  seek information regarding the 
status (resolved, partially resolved or not reported as resolved) of the STCs raised by that Member 
that had not been discussed  since the October 2017 Committee meeting. Based on responses 
received from 27 Members , 35 additi onal STCs are now considered as  resolved, and 42 STCs as 
partially resolved. Where an STC has been raised by more than one Member but not all those who 
raised the STC have responded it to be resolved, the STC is considered to be partially resolved. Also, 
in partially resolved STCs, trade may have been allowed for selected products or by some of the 
importing Members maintaining the measure in question.  The results of the exercise were circulated 
to Members55 and presented in the November 2020 SPS Committee meeting.56 Table B.6  contain s a 
list of the STCs reported as resolved in 2020.  
3.24.   The STCs reported as resolved in 2020 referred to animal health (12 STCs, 34% ), food safety 
(11 STCs, 31%), plant health (8 STCs, 23%)  and other concerns  (4 STCs, 11%).  On average, 
these STCs had been raised 2.5 times.  Only three  of these STCs had been raised by more than 
one Member.  Overall, these STCs related to measures maintained by 21 Members.  
4  PART C – OTHER TRANSPARENCY RELATED ASP ECTS  
4.1  Transparency recommendations in the Fifth Review  
4.1.  The Report of the Fifth Review on the O peration and Implementation of the SPS Agreemen t57 
was adopted in the June 2020 Committee meeting. The Report contains the following 
recommendation on Notification Procedures and Transparency (paragraph 7.13):  
a. Members are encouraged to clearly indicate in their SPS Committee notifications when 
a measure h as been notified to another Committee.58 Members should include this 
information under the point of the notification format titled "Other relevant documents 
and language(s) in which these are available".  
4.2.  The Report also contains the following recommendatio ns on National SPS Coordination 
Mechanisms (paragraph 6.7):  
a. Members are encouraged to implement appropriate national coordination mechanisms 
to enable consultation and communication between relevant technical and trade policy 
experts to enable the developm ent of coordinated SPS positions that are consistent with 
the obligations of the SPS Agreement. Members are further encouraged to consider 
ways to strengthen internal coordination on SPS matters.  
b. Members should continue to share experiences on their natio nal coordination 
mechanisms and discuss strategies and approaches to improve SPS coordination and 
engagement at the national level with the aim of strengthening implementation of the 
SPS Agreement, including resolving specific trade concerns.  
 
52 STC 478. 
53 STCs 382, 446 and 448. 
54 STCs 448 and 382 respectively.  
55 RD/SPS/114 . 
56 G/SPS/R/100 , G/SPS/R/100/Corr.1 , G/SPS/R/100/Corr.2  and G/SPS/R/100/Corr.3 . 
57 G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1 . 
58 Please refer to section 2.7 of the  Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency 
Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7) in document G/SPS/7/Rev.4 , which also makes reference to 
notifying a regulation containing SPS and TBT measures under both the SPS and TBT Agreements.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 35 - 
 
  c. The Committee  requests the Secretariat to prepare a collection of resources that can be 
useful for Members in implementing their national coordination mechanisms, starting 
with those mentioned at the 2019 Workshop on Transparency and Coordination, and 
including additio nal resources as suggested by Members.  
4.3.  Following the recommendation in paragraph 6.7 c), the Secretariat prepared a compilation 
document59 that was presented in the November informal Committee meeting for Members to 
provide comments.  
4.2  Improvement of SPS IT tools  and materials  
4.4.  In light of the steadily increasing volume of documents, managing the flow of notifications, and 
coordinating at the national level to be able to benefit from a transparent system is a challenge for 
many Members. This is one of the area s where Members have sought technical assistance and 
guidance on best practices.60 This section  presents the main IT tools and transparency related  
resources currently available for SPS transparency purposes. The WTO Secretariat regularly provides 
hands -on training on all its tools , as part of its technical assistance programmes.61 According to the 
2015 questionnaire on transparency, a majority of Members expressed a need for technical 
assistance in order to enhance their transparency mechanisms, and Member s that received such 
technical assistance reported it to be very useful.62 Some Members significantly increase their 
notification activity  following a dedicated training on transparency. Additionally, transparency 
workshops, usually organized every other y ear, have provided highly interactive training on the use 
of the SPS IMS, SPS NSS and ePing. The last Workshop focusing exclusively on transparency was 
held in Geneva on 30 and 31  October 2017.63 Within the framework of the Fifth Review, a Workshop 
on Tran sparency and Coordination took place on 15 and 16 July 2019, in the margins of the 
SPS Committee meeting.64 All the information from previous workshops and thematic sessions is 
available at the SPS webpage  on transparency.65 
4.2.1   SPS Notification Submission Sys tem (SPS NSS ) 
4.5.  The SPS NSS66 is an online platform where WTO Members can directly complete and submit 
notifications. The system assists Members to be more precise in their notifications, and speeds up 
the processing of notifications, making documents accessible to the membership much  more quickly. 
A new and improved version of the SPS NSS was launched at the end of March 2017 in conjunction 
with the previously -mentioned launch of the improved SPS  IMS.67 In 2020, the SPS NSS was further 
improved to include all versions of the Harmonize d System (HS). Increased use of the SPS NSS 
helps improv ing the amount and the quality of information provided by Members in the various 
notification formats68, as well as the accuracy of the information available in the SPS IMS. 
Interested  Members may req uest login names and access passwords for their NNAs , as well as 
personalised training,  from the Secretariat.69 A new audio -visual  guide explaining the use of the NSS 
is available for Members.70 
4.6.  The use of SPS NSS  is constantly increasing. To date, 96 Members have received credentials  
access to the SPS NSS, and 50 of these have officially submitted notifications through the system. 
 
59 The document was circulated as  G/SPS/GEN/1850 , and subsequ ently revised to take on board 
comments received  (G/SPS/GEN/1850/Rev.1 ). 
60 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Operation of Enquiry Points and National 
Notification Authorities ( G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 ) for further elaboration on this issue.  
61 See document G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.15  and G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.15/Add.1 . 
62 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questio nnaire on Transparency under the SPS Agreement, 
(G/SPS/GEN/1402 , paras. 3.29 and 3.30) for further elaboration on this point.  
63 The report of this Workshop is contained in document G/SPS/R/89 . 
64 The programme of the Workshop is contained in G/SPS/GEN/1694/Rev.2 . A report of the Workshop 
can be found in G/SPS/R/96 . 
65 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm . 
66 https://nss.wto.org/ spsmembers . 
67 See para. 1.6.   above.  
68 All notification formats can directly be filled in from the SPS NSS.  
69 Two different usernames and passwords are provided (a submitting  username and a secondary  
username). Only the submitting username allows to officially submit the notification to the CRN, but the 
secondary username allows other individuals to enter information and review the draft notification.  
70 The audio guide, in English only, is available h ere: 
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1L6qQPTJej5l_ONXfN4HQQMPFfzVE -3ah. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 36 - 
 
  In 2020, the Secretariat took the initiative to promote the use of the SPS NSS among  the most 
frequent notifiers. Additionally, in 2020 the Secretariat has delivered national and regional virtual  
training  activities to help Members notify online using the  SPS NSS .71 From 1 January to 
31 December 2020 , about 84% of notifications were submi tted via the SPS NS S, and 2 Members 
have submitted their first SPS notification through the NSS in that period. Since 2017, 
the percentage of SPS notifications submitted through the online platform has risen from 45% in 
2017 to 84% in 2020 ( Chart C.1 ). 
Chart C.1 – Percentage of notifications submitted via the SPS NSS since 2017 , and number 
of Members using the system per year72 
 
4.2.2   ePing  
4.7.  ePing73 is a publicly available notification alert system. It covers both SPS notifications and 
notifications submitted under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). Subscribers 
receive email alerts regarding SPS & TBT notifications covering particular products and/or markets 
of interest to them. In addition, users can s earch and share notifications, upload additional 
information and related documents, as well as participate in discussion forums. ePing also offers an 
Enquiry Point Management Tool to facilitate domestic as well as international information sharing 
and disc ussion. The system is expected to help public and private stakeholders, in particular small 
and medium enterprises, to track, consult and comment on measures that are being developed and 
adapt as necessary to changing regulatory conditions. In 2020, ePing was continuously updated to 
include new features requested by Members. The latest improvement includes a chat function for 
users with admin rights to discuss on topics of their choice, regardless of a given notification.  
4.8.  As of 31 December 2020, the n umber of subscribers grew to 12,360  (including 4,932 users 
from private sector) from 182 countries , up from 8,821 (including 3,230 users from the private 
sector) from 179 countries at the end of 201 9. For the first time, in 2020  more people from the 
privat e sector registered on ePing than from the public sector.  Some of these users registered after 
a TA activity had been delivered in its country or its region, confirming the efficiency of TA activities 
to spread the word around ePing and get users started o n the registration process  and the 
subscription to receive email alerts . Some  additional functionalities, such as the national and 
international discussion fora and the chat for users with admin rights, are also of interest to many 
Members. In total, there  are 234 ePing admin users registered on ePing, covering 107 countries and 
territories. In the case of SPS, at least one admin user is registered f or 71 countries.  
4.9.  During the COVID -19 pandemic, the keywords COVID -19 SPS and COVID -19 TBT were created 
and as signed to relevant notifications, and ePing users are able to search for these notifications and 
also receive alerts by email.74 
 
71 See G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.16 . 
72 For comparison, Chart A.1  shows th e number of Members who have submitted at least one 
notification in a given year.  
73 http://www.epingalert.org . 
74 A tutorial on how to create a filter for COVID -19 related SPS and TBT notifications is available here: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob5ou6rYYH0&feature=emb_title . 
34394339
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
2017 2018 2019 2020G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 37 - 
 
  4.2.3   Increased Committee transparency through the use of eAgenda  
4.10.   The eAgenda is a collaborative online platform developed by the WTO  to support the work of 
the SPS and TBT Committees . This new platform  allows Members, ahead of a meeting, to insert 
interventions under any item in the proposed agenda, including to raise and support STCs.  
Members  can also upload statements that are shared  with all users in real time, significantly 
contributing to increas ed transparency prior to the meeting.  
4.11.   The SPS eAgenda was pilot -tested in February 2020 by nine Members and actively  used for 
the first time during the June 2020 SPS Committee meeting, which combined an in -person oral 
meeting with a written procedure.75 A report on the use of eAgenda for the June 2020 meeting, 
as well as the feedback provided by Members after the pilot test, was circulated in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1818 . The SPS eAgenda platform was subsequently used f or the November 2020 
meeting.  
4.12.   During the informal SPS Committee consultations held on 16 September 202076, 15 Members 
took the floor to provide feedback on the use of the SPS eAgenda platform during the June 2020 
SPS Committee. Overall, Members found the S PS eAgenda user friendly and agreed that the use of 
the platform increased transparency, facilitated their work and was a good complement to the oral 
interventions. Some Members also highlighted that the SPS eAgenda was a good repository of 
information fro m past meetings.  
4.13.   Members also provided suggestions on how to improve the system, including the following: 
add a link in the web to the corresponding meeting in eAgenda to facilitate access to documents; 
facilitate the extraction of the annotated draft agen da from the eAgenda; include the possibility to 
add interventions under an item raised by another Member, even if not co -sponsoring the 
intervention; include contact details from delegations; harmonise SPS and TBT eAgenda as much as 
possible; include the p ossibility to download all statements in batch; include the thematic sessions 
and informal sessions in the platform; include information of when statements are updated; and add 
hyperlinks to relevant documents referenced in discussions. The Chair noted tha t some of these 
improvements had already been implemented and that the feasibility of suggestions would be 
analy zed by the Secretariat.  
4.14.   As of 31 December 2020, 207 users from 71 Members we re registered in SPS eAgenda, 
of which 77 (37%)  had reading rights only, allowing them to consult the proposed agenda for the 
meeting without being able to raise items nor upload statements.  
4.15.   In 2020, the Secretariat provided training on eAgenda , and also delivered a refresher course 
in October 2020 to expl ain the updates introduced.77 The Secretariat remains available to provide 
additional training upon request.  
4.2.4   Trade concerns database  
4.16.   In an attempt to provide a stronger analytical tool for STCs, a trade concerns database78 was 
created , integrating concerns  raised in SPS and TBT  Committees . This responds to Members' 
requests on the integration of SPS and TBT IT tools. The website provides a more powerful, 
user-friendly graphic interface for the analysis and visualisation of  data already available , and will 
allow Members to perform more targeted and advanced searches . This database contains 
information on trade concerns, raised since 1995, currently available in the summary reports of the 
Committee meetings, which is already searchable through the SPS I MS. Th e information contained 
in this database is more granular, organized in a per meeting basis, facilitating more thorough 
analysis and reporting. This analytical tool is fed from the data available in eAgenda and has been 
manually completed with histor ical data available in the SPS IMS. The database provides Member 
profiles and allows users to explore and visualize results by objectives, keywords, and HS codes, 
among other options.  
 
75 JOB/SPS/7 . 
76 JOB/SPS/10 . 
77 G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.16 . 
78 The website is available here: https://tradeconcerns.wto.org/en . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 38 - 
 
  4.17.   This website was first launched in beta version for SPS and TBT trade co ncerns in 
February  2021, on the margins of the TBT Committee, and will also be presented in the upcoming 
SPS March Committee meeting. The database can be further improved to include trade concerns 
discussed in other Committees . 
4.2.5   Practical Manual on the Operation of NNAs and NEPs  
4.18.   The Practical Manual on the Operation of NNAs and NEPs, first circulated in 201179, includes 
guidance for governments to facilitate the implementation of the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement. While it may be especially us eful for developing and least -developed countries 
(LDCs), it may also be a helpful reference for countries that are acceding to the WTO and establishing 
NNAs and NEPs, as well as WTO Members in general. This manual was revised in 2018 to reflect the 
new ve rsions of the SPS IMS and NSS platforms and the ePing alert system, and to streamline the 
content. The updated version of the manual is available in English, French and Spanish on the 
SPS gateway of the WTO website.80 The Secretariat has prepared a leaflet  summarizing the 
transparency tools available. The leaflet is available in the English, French and Spanish on the 
SPS gateway.81 
4.3  Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF)  
4.19.   Many projects developed and financed by the Standards and Trade Development Facility 
(STDF)82 have enhanced transparency by promoting inter -agency coordination at the national and/or 
regional level, and strengthening linkages between government agencies an d the private sector. 
STDF's P-IMA frame work83 offers an evidence -based approach to inform and improve SPS planning 
and decision -making processes. It helps to link SPS investments to public policy goals including 
export growth, agricultural productivity an d poverty reduction. In the process, P -IMA encourages 
public -private dialogue, boosts transparency and accountability, and improves the economic 
efficiency of investment decisions.  
4.20.   Also relevant is STDF's recent work on Trade Facilitation84, which identifi ed experiences, 
lessons and good practices to improve the implementation of SPS controls in a way that facilitates 
safe trade, while minimizing transaction costs.  This work highlighted the importance of transparency 
on SPS measures. To implement SPS measur es, traders need to understand what they are. 
Improving clarity on control, inspection and approval procedures is a simple step that is likely to 
produce big benefits. Publishing SPS regulations, forms and fees, preferably online, opens up access 
and suppo rts good governance. Regular public -private dialogue lets businesses know what is 
required, including when SPS regulations or procedures change.  
4.21.   The STDF is currently developing a practical guide on the use of Good Regulatory Practice 
(GRP)85 to improve an d strengthen the design, development and review of SPS measures. It is hoped 
that the guide will help SPS regulators in developing countries make greater use of GRPs and 
enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and overall fitness -for-purpose of th eir 
SPS measures. Delegates are invited to contact the STDF Secretariat ( stdfsecretariat@wto.org ) to 
obtain further information on the work carried out by the Facility.  
 
79 The original version of the manual was written by Ms Sally Jennings, Ministry for Primary Industries, 
New Zealand, with contributions by the Department of Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity  Australia and the 
WTO Secretariat.  
80 The Practical Manual for SPS National Notification Authorities and SPS National Enquiry Points can be 
downloaded from: http://www.wto.org/spstransparency . 
81 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_practical_manual_for_sps_national_  
notification_flyer_bat.pdf . 
82 https://www.standardsfacility.org/ . 
83 https://www.standardsfacility.org/prioritizing -sps-investments -market -access -p-ima. 
84 https://www.standardsfacility.org/facilitating -safe-trade . 
85 https://www.standardsfacility. org/good -regulatory -practice .  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 39 - Table B.2 – STCs  raised for the first time in 20 2086 
STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Member(s) 
responding  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status87 
470 Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on 
imports of fresh citrus fruits due to sweet 
orange scab  Japan  Chile Thailand  Plant health  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
471 US non -recognition of the pest -free status 
in the European Union for Asian longhorn 
beetle and citrus longhorn beetle  European Union   United States of 
America  Plant health  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
472 India's fumigation requirements for grain 
and other products  Russian Federation  Canada  India Plant health  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
473 Nepal 's import ban on energy drinks  Thailand   Nepal  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
474 Modification of EU MRLs for plant 
protection products: Chlorpyrifos and 
Chlorpyrifos -methyl  Colombia; Ecuador  Dominican Republic; 
Egypt; Guatemala; 
Honduras; Indo nesia; 
Paraguay; Peru  European Union  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
475 Modification of EU MRLs  for plant 
protection products: Mancozeb  Colombia; Costa Rica; 
Côte d'Ivoire; 
Ecuador; Paraguay  Brazil; Chile; 
Guatemala; 
Honduras; Mexico; 
Nicaragua; Panama; 
Peru European Union  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
476 Thailand's draft notification of Ministry of 
Industry's List of Hazardous Substances 
and Ministry of Public Health Re: Food 
Containing Pesticide Residues (No.3)  United States of 
America  Canada; Colombia; 
Japan  Thailand  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
477 General import restrictions on chocolate 
and cocoa products due to maximum 
levels of cadmium  Peru Colombia; Ecuador  Certain Members  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 time s) NR 
478 Viet Nam's National Technical Regulation 
on Animal Feeds - Maximum Allowable 
Limits of Safety Indicators in Animal Feeds 
and Ingredients for Production of Aquatic 
Feeds (Circular No. 04/2020/TT -BNNPTNT) 
and Decree 13/2020 Detailing the Law on 
Animal Husbandry  Brazil  Argentina; United 
States of America  Viet Nam  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
479 India's new requirements for animal feed 
in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 
2006 (dated 27 January 2020)  United States of 
America   India Food safety  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
480 Guatemala's import restrictions on bovine 
and swine meat  Mexico   Guatemala  Other concerns  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
481 Costa Rica's import restrictions on swine 
meat products  Mexico   Costa Rica  Other concerns  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  PR 
482 Peru's import restrictions on pork  Brazil   Peru Other concerns  24/06/2020  NR 
 
86 Please note that a hyperlink in the ID number redirects to the corresponding STC in the SPS IMS for further details on the co ncern.  
87 NR: Not reported; PR: Partially resolved; R: Resolved.   
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 40 - STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Member(s) 
responding  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status87 
(0 times)  
483 Costa Rica's import restriction on dairy 
and dairy products  Mexico   Costa Rica  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
484 India's approval procedures for animal 
products  Russian Federation   India Other concerns  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
485 China's administrative measures for 
registration of overseas manufacturers of 
imported food (26 November 2019)  United States of 
America  European Union; 
Japan; Switzerland; 
Thailand  China  Other concerns  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
486 Saudi Arabia's temporary suspension of 
Brazilian poultry exporting establishments  Brazil  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
487 China's actions related to COVID -19 that 
affect trade in food and agricultural 
products  Canada; United States 
of America  Australia; Brazil; 
Paraguay; United 
Kingdom; Mexico  China   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
488 Philippines' ban on poultry imports due to 
COVID -19 Brazil   Philippines   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
489 Mexico's import restrictions on pork  Brazil   Mexico   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
490 Korea's lack of progress on pending 
applications for authorization of beef 
imports  European Union  Russian Federation  Korea   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
491 Delays in Malaysia's approval procedures 
for meat and dairy imports  Russian Federation   Malaysia   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
492 Honduras' import restrictions on 
pasteurized dairy products  Mexico   Honduras   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
493 Non-publication of US final rule on 
importation of sheep, goats and certain 
other ruminants  European Union   United States   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
494 HPAI-related restrictions by China, the 
European Union and Kazakhstan  Ukraine   China; European 
Union; Kazakhstan   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
495 Panama's import restrictions on animal 
and plant products  Costa Rica; Colombia   Panama   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
496 Chinese Taipei 's phytosanitary risk 
assessment procedure on imports of fresh 
vegetables and fruits  Ukraine   Chinese Taipei   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
497 India's import requirements for pulses  Canada  Russian Federation  India  05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
498 Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes 
and onions  Peru  Ecuador   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
499 Request for information on the EU Farm to 
Fork Strategy  Colombia  Dominican Republic; 
Ecuador; Guatemala; 
Indonesia; Paraguay; 
Peru European Union   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
500 EU proposal requiring residue testing of 
casings  Australia  Ukraine  European Union   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 41 - STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Member(s) 
responding  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status87 
501 India's requirement for certificate for Non -
GM origin and GM -free status  United States of 
America  Argentina; Australia; 
Brazil; Canada; Chile; 
Japan; New Zealand;  
Paraguay; Uruguay  India  05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
502 EU restriction on highly refined products 
imported from China  China   European Union   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
503 EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and 
cocoa products due to the application of 
the Commission Regulation (EU) N° 
488/2014 of 12 May 2014 Amending 
Regulation (EC) N° 1881/2006 as regards 
maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff  Peru Colombia; Indonesia  European Union   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
504 Proposed new EU rules on composite 
products  Australia  Russian Federation; 
Japan; New Zealand; 
Chinese Taipei; United 
States of America  European Union   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
505 China's recognition of equivalence for third 
parties introduced as part of Phase 1 of 
the Economic and Trade Agreement 
between the Unit ed States and China  Australia   China   05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR 
  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 42 - Table B.3 – STCs  previously raised and discussed again in 20 2088 
STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Member(s) 
responding  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status19 
193 General import restrictions due to BSE  European Union; 
United States of 
America  Canada; Switzerland; 
Uruguay  Certain Members  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(39 times)  PR 
382 European Union revised proposal for 
categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors  Argentina; China; 
Dominican Republic; 
Ecuador; Guatemala; 
India; Panama; 
Paraguay; United 
States of America  Australia; Benin; 
Brazil; Burkina Faso; 
Burundi; Canada; 
Central African 
Republic; Chile; 
Colombia; Costa Rica; 
Dominican Republic; 
Egypt; El Salvador; 
The Gambia; Ghana; 
Guinea; Guatemala; 
Honduras; Indonesia; 
Jamaica; Kenya; 
Korea, Republic  of; 
Madagascar; 
Malaysia; Mexico; 
New Zealand; Nigeria; 
Pakistan; Peru; 
Philippines; Senegal; 
Sierra Leone; South 
Africa; Chinese Taipei; 
Thailand; Togo; 
Uruguay; Viet Nam; 
Zambia  European Union  Food safety  25/03/2014  
(17 times)  NR 
392 China's import restrictions due to African 
swine fever  European Union   China  Animal health  15/07/2015  
(9 times)  NR 
393 Korea's import restrictions due to African 
swine fever  European Union  Russian Federation  Korea, Republic of  Animal health  15/07/2015  
(9 times)  NR 
406 China's import restrictions due to Highly 
Pathogenic Avian Influenza  European Union; 
United States of 
America   China  Animal health  16/03/2016  
(11 times)  NR 
413 Guatemala's restrictions on egg products  Mexico   Guatemala  Food safety  27/10/2016  
(4 times)  NR 
431 South Africa's import restrictions on 
poultry due to Highly Pathogenic Avian 
Influenza  European Union   South Africa  Animal health  02/11/2017  
(7 times)  NR 
439 US import restrictions on apples and 
pears  European Union   United States of 
America  Plant health  01/03/2018  
(7 times)  NR 
 
88 Please note that a hyperlink in t he ID number redirects to the corresponding STC in the SPS IMS for further details on the concern.   
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 43 - STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Member(s) 
responding  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status19 
441 Lack of transparency and undue delays in 
Indonesia's approval procedures for 
animal products  European Union  Brazil  Indonesia  Other concerns  12/07/2018  
(6 times)  NR 
446 EU review of legislation on veterinary 
medicinal products  Argentina; United 
States of America  Australia; Brazil; 
Canada; Chile; 
Colombia; Japan; 
Paraguay  European Union  Food safety  12/07/2018  
(3 times)  NR 
447 New EU definition of the fungicide folpet  China   European Union  Food safety  12/07/2018  
(6 times)  NR 
448 EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, 
diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, 
glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, 
molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim  Colombia; Costa Rica; 
Côte d'Ivoire; 
Dominican Republic; 
Ecuador; Guatemala; 
India; Panama; 
Paraguay; United 
States of America  Argentina; Australia; 
Brazil; Canada; Chile; 
Dominican Republic; 
El Salvador; 
Honduras; Indonesia 
Nicaragua; Peru; 
Philippines; Turkey; 
Uruguay  European Union  Food safety  01/11/2018  
(5 times)  NR 
456 Korea's import restrictions on poultry due 
to highly pathogenic avian influenza  European Union  Russian Federation  Korea, Republic of  Animal health  21/03/2019  
(1 times)  NR 
459 New EU MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin  China  Paraguay  European Union  Food safety  18/07/2019  
(3 times)  NR 
463 Ukraine's restrictions on swine products  Brazil   Ukraine  Animal health  18/07/2019  
(3 times)  NR 
466 The Philippines' trade restrictions on 
imports of meat  European Union   Philippines  Animal health  07/11/2019  
(2 times)  NR 
469 EU Regulation on high risk plants 
(Regulation (EU) 2016/2031)  Israel  Canada; Kenya; 
United States of 
America  European Union  Plant health  07/11/2019  
(1 time)  NR 
470a Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on 
imports of fresh citrus fruits due to sweet 
orange scab  Japan  Chile Thailand  Plant health  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
471a US non -recognition of the pest -free status 
in the European Union for Asian longhorn 
beetle and citrus longhorn beetle  European Union   United States of 
America  Plant health  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
472a India's fumigation requirements for grain 
and other products  Russian Federation  Canada  India Plant health  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
479a India's new requirements for animal feed 
in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 
2006 (dated 27 January 2020)  United States of 
America   India Food safety  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
485a China's administrative measures for 
registration of overseas manufacturers of 
imported food (26 November 2019)  United States of 
America  European Union; 
Japan; Switzerland; 
Thailand  China  Other concerns  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
486a Saudi Arabia's temporary suspension of 
Brazilian poultry exporting establishments  Brazil   Saudi Arabia  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  NR 
a STCs raised for the first time in 2020 and discussed again in subsequent meetings during the same year.    
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 44 - Table B.4 – STCs where substantive action occurred under the DSU in 202089 
STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Member(s) 
responding  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
185b India's import restrictions on agricultural 
products  European Union; 
United States  Australia; Canada; 
China  India Animal health  01/03/2004  
(16 times)  PR / 
DS 430 
369b Russia's measures on live pigs and pork 
products due to African Swine Fever  European Union   Russian Federation  Animal health  25/03/2014  
(0 times)  NR / 
DS 475 
394b Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of 
phytosanitary import certificates for 
avocados  Guatemala; Mexico   Costa Rica  Plant health  15/07/2015  
(4 times)  NR / 
DS 524 
b Panel proceedings occurred in the context of the WTO dispute settlement system. For more information, see https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/disp u_e/dispu_e.htm . 
 
89 Please note that a hyperlink in the ID number redirects to the corresponding STC in the SPS IMS for further details on the co ncern.   
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 45 - Table B.5 – Members responding to STCs  (new or old) in 2020, in alphabetical order90 
Member 
responding  STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  
China  193 General import restrictions due to BSE  European Union; United States of 
America  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(39 times)  
China  392 China's import restrictions due to African swine fever  European Union  Animal health  15/07/2015  
(9 times)  
China  406 China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza  European Union; United States of 
America  Animal health  16/03/2016  
(11 times)  
China  485c China's administrative measures for registration of overseas 
manufacturers of imported food (26 November 2019)  United States of America  Other 
concerns  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  
China  487 China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and 
agricultural products  Canada; United States of America  Food safety  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
China  494 HPAI-related restrictions by China, the European Union and 
Kazakhstan  Ukraine  Animal health  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
China  505 China's recognition of equivalence for third parties introduced as part 
of Phase 1 of the Economic and Trade Agreement between the 
United States and China  Austral ia Other 
concerns  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
Costa Rica  481c Costa Rica's import restrictions on swine meat products  Mexico  Other 
concerns  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  
Costa Rica  483c Costa Rica's import restriction on dairy and dairy products  Mexico  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  
Ecuador  498 Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions  Peru Food safety  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
European Union  382 European Union legislation on endocrine disruptors  Argentina; China; Dominican 
Republic; Ecuador; Guatemala; 
India; Panama; Paraguay; United 
States of America  Food safety  25/03/2014  
(17 times)  
European Union  446 EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products  Argentina; United States of America  Food safety  12/07/2018  
(3 times)  
European Union  447 New EU definition of the fungicide folpet  China  Food safety  12/07/2018  
(6 times)  
European Union  448 EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, 
ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, molinate, 
picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim  Colombia; Costa Rica; Côte 
d'Ivoire; Dominican Republic; 
Ecuador; Guatemala; India; 
Panama; Paraguay; United States 
of America  Food safety  01/11/2018  
(5 times)  
European Union  459 New EU MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin  China  Food safety  18/07/2019  
(3 times)  
European Union  469 EU Regulation on high risk plants (Regulation (EU) 2016/2031)  Israel  Plant health  07/11/2019  
(1 time)  
 
90 Please note that a hy perlink in the ID number redirects to the corresponding STC in the SPS IMS for further details on the concern.   
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 46 - Member 
responding  STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  
European Union  474c Modification of EU MRLs  for plant protection products: Chlorpyrifos 
and Chlorpyrifos -methyl  Colombia; Ecuador  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  
European Union  475c Modification of EU MRLs for plant protection products: Mancozeb  Colombia; Costa Rica; Côte 
d'Ivoire; Ecuador; Paraguay  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  
European Union  494 HPAI-related restrictions by China, the European Union and 
Kazakhstan  Ukraine  Animal health  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
European Union  499 Request for information on the EU Farm to Fork Strategy  Colombia  Food safety  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
European Union  500 EU proposal requiring residue testing of casings  Australia  Food safety  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
European Union  502 EU restriction on highly refined products imported from China  China  Other 
concerns  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
European Union  503 EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to 
the application of the Commission Regulation (EU) N° 488/2014 of 
12 May 2014 Amending Regulation  (EC) N° 1881/2006 as regards 
maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff  Peru Food safety  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
European Union  504 Proposed new EU rules on composite products  Australia  Other 
concerns  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
Guatemala  413 Guatemala's restrictions on egg products  Mexico  Food safety  27/10/2016  
(4 times)  
Guatemala  480c Guatemala's import restrictions on bovine and swine meat  Mexico  Other 
concerns  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  
Honduras  492 Honduras' import restrictions on pasteurized dairy products  Mexico  Other 
concerns  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
India 497 India's import requirements for pulses  Canada  Plant health  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
India 472c India's fumigation requirements for grain and other products  Canada  Plant health  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  
India 479c India's new requirements for animal feed in the Food Safety and 
Standards Act, 2006 (dated 27 January 2020)  United States of America  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  
India 484c India's approval procedures for animal products  Russian Federation  Other 
concerns  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  
India 501 India's requirement for certificate for Non -GM origin and GM -free 
status  United States of America  Food safety  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
Indonesia  441 Lack of transparency and undue delays in Indonesia's approval 
procedures for animal products  European Union  Other 
concerns  12/07/2018  
(6 times)  
Japan  193 General import restrictions due to BSE  European Union; United States of 
America  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(39 times)  
Kazakhstan  494 HPAI-related restrictions by China, the European Union and 
Kazakhstan  Ukraine  Animal health  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
Korea, Republic of  456 Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza  European Union  Animal health  21/03/2019  
(1 time)   
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 47 - Member 
responding  STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  
Korea, Republic of  193 General import restrictions due to BSE  European Union; United States of 
America  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(39 times)  
Korea, Republic of  393 Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever  European Union  Animal health  30/06/2015  
(9 times)  
Korea, Republic of  490 Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of 
beef imports  European Union  Other 
concerns  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
Malaysia  491 Delays in Malaysia's approval procedures for meat and dairy imports  Russian Federation  Other 
concerns  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
Mexico  489 Mexico's import restrictions on pork  Brazil  Animal health  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
Nepal  473c Nepal 's import ban on energy drinks  Thailand  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  
Panama  495 Panama's import restrictions on animal and plant products  Colombia; Costa Rica  Other 
concerns  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
Peru 477c General import restrictions on chocolate and cocoa products due to 
maximum levels of cadmium  Peru Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  
Peru 482c Peru's import restrictions on pork  Brazil  Other 
concerns  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  
Philippines  466 The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat  European Union  Animal health  07/11/2019  
(2 times)  
Philippines  488 Philippines' ban on poultry imports due to COVID -19 Brazil  Food safety  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of  486c Saudi Arabia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting 
establishments  Brazil  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  
South Africa  431 South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza  European Union  Animal health  02/11/2017  
(7 times)  
Chinese Taipei  193 General import restrictions due to BSE  European Union; United States of 
America  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(39 times)  
Chinese Taipei  496 Chinese Taipei 's phytosanitary risk assessment procedure on imports 
of fresh vegetables and fruits  Ukraine  Plant health  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
Thailand  470c Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on imports of fresh citrus fruits 
due to sweet orange scab  Japan  Plant health  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  
Thailand  476c Thailand's draft notification of Ministry of Industry's List of 
Hazardous Substances and Ministry of Public Health Re: Food 
Containing Pesticide Residues (No.3)  United States of America  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  
Ukraine  463 Ukraine's restrictions on swine products  Brazil  Animal health  18/07/2019  
(3 times)  
United States of 
America  193 General import restrictions due to BSE  European Union; United States of 
America  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(39 times)  
United States of 
America  439 US import restrictions on apples and pears  European Union  Plant health  01/03/2018  
(7 times)  
United States of 
America  471c US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European Union for 
Asian longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle  European Union  Plant health  24/06/2020  
(1 time)  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 48 - Member 
responding  STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  
United States of 
America  493 Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and 
certain other ruminants  European Union  Other 
concerns  5/11/2020  
(0 times)  
Viet Nam  478c Viet Nam's National Technical Regulation on Animal Feeds - 
Maximum Allowable Limits of Safety Indicators in Animal Feeds and 
Ingredients for Production of Aquatic Feeds (Circular No. 
04/2020/TT -BNNPTNT) and Decree 13/2020 Detailing the Law on 
Animal Husbandry  Argentina; United States of America  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  
Certain Members  193 General import restrictions due to BSE  European Union; United States of 
America  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(39 times)  
c STCs raised for the first time in 2020.  
   
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 49 - Table B.6 – STCs reported as resolved or partially resolved in 2020  
STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) responding  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
1 Shelf-life requirements  Australia; Canada; United 
States of America  Korea, Republic of  Food safety  26/06/1995  
(8 times)  R* 
7 Regionalization in relation to animal health  European Union  United States of America  Animal health  29/05/1996  
(0 times)  R 
15 Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE  European Union  Canada  Animal health  19/03/1997  
(0 times)  R 
21 Fresh fruit and vegetables  Australia ; United States of 
America  Indonesia  Plant health  19/07/1997  
(0 times)  PR 
40 Trade restrictions in response to cholera  Tanzania  European Union  Food safety  12/03/1998  
(1 time)  R* 
44 Measures related to BSE  European Union  United States of America  Animal health  12/03/1998  
(1 time)  PR 
46 Import prohibition of coconut palms and related products  Philippines  Brazil  Plant health  10/06/1998  
(1 time)  PR 
58 Notification on refrigeration and labelling requirements 
for shell eggs  European Union  United States of America  Food safety  11/11/1998  
(0 times)  R 
70 Import conditions for pork meat and products  European Union  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  Animal health  07/07/1999  
(0 times)  PR 
72 Measures regarding canned tuna in oil  Philippines  Belgium; European Union  Food safety  10/11/1999  
(1 time)  PR 
84 Import restrictions affecting BSE -free countries  Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech 
Republic; Estonia; Latvia; 
Poland; Romania; Slovak 
Republic; Slovenia  Argentina; Australia; 
Canada; Kore a, Republic 
of; New Zealand; United 
States of America  Animal health  14/03/2001  
(1 time)  PR 
97 Restrictions on the use of fishmeal  Chile; Norway ; Peru  European Union  Animal health  10/07/2001  
(4 times)  PR 
99 Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top  Indonesia  Japan  Animal health  10/07/2001  
(3 times)  PR 
102 Import restrictions on potted plants  European Union  United States of America  Plant health  10/07/2001  
(6 times)  PR 
103 FMD-related import restrictions  Argentina; European Union  Unspecified  Animal health  10/07/2001  
(3 times)  PR 
111 FMD restrictions  Argentina  Indonesia  Animal health  31/10/2001  
(6 times)  PR 
119 Notification on Chinese fruit imports  China  Philippines  Plant health  19/03/2002  
(0 times)  R* 
120 Restrictions on pigmeat  European Union  United States of America  Animal health  19/03/2002  
(1 time)  R 
130 Restrictions on shellfish  Indonesia  European Union  Food safety  26/06/2002  
(1 time)  R  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 50 - STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) responding  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
131 Pesticide and antibiotic limits in honey (EC Directive 
96/23/EC)  Cuba European Union  Food safety  25/06/2002  
(1 time)  R 
133 Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits 
and vegetables  New Zealand;  United States 
of America  Japan  Plant health  25/06/2002  
(8 times)  PR 
147 Regulation on food additives  European Union  Japan  Food safety  7/11/2002  
(0 times)  PR 
148 Amendmen t of the food sanitation law  China  Japan  Food safety  7/11/2002  
(0 times)  PR 
152 Restrictions on melons  Mexico  United States of America  Food safety  7/11/2002  
(0 times)  R 
161 EC Directive 2001/661/EC regarding foot and mouth 
disease  South Africa  European Union  Animal health  2/04/2003  
(0 times)  R 
163 Restrictions on Austrian products  European Union  Mexico  Animal health  2/04/2003  
(1 time)  PR 
170 Live animals and animal products  Australia  European Union  Animal health  24/06/2003  
(0 times)  R 
178 Revision of standards and specifications for food and 
additives  China  Japan  Food safety  30/10/2003  
(0 times)  PR 
185 Restrictions due to avian influenza  European Union ; United 
States of America  India Animal health  17/03/2004  
(16 times)  PR 
186 Phytosanitary import restrictions  European Union ; United 
States of America  India Plant health  17/03/2004  
(2 times)  PR 
195 Restrictions on citrus  Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic 
of Barbados  Plant health  27/10/2004  
(2 times)  R 
198 Regulation on aflatoxins and Ocratoxin A in foods for 
infants and young children  China  European Union  Food safety  27/10/2004  
(0 times)  PR 
201 Standards and specifications for food additives (boscalid)  China  Japan  Food safety  27/10/2004  
(0 times)  PR 
203 Rule on materials derived from cattle and record -keeping 
requirements  Argentina; China  United States of America  Animal health  27/10/2004  
(0 times)  PR 
205 Slaughter of imported breeding cattle  Mexico  Bolivia, Plurinational 
State of  Animal health  09/03/2005  
(2 times)  R 
210 Restrictions on imports of chicken meat  Mexico  Guatemala  Animal health  09/03/2005  
(3 times)  R 
211 Restrictions on the transit of avocados  Mexico  Guatemala  Plant health  09/03/2005  
(0 times)  R 
217 Import restrictions on apples  New Zealand  Australia  Plant health  29/06/2005  
(6 times)  R 
224 Restrictions on EC exports of plant and animal products  European Union  Japan  Other 
concerns  29/06/2005  
(1 time)  PR 
234 Suspension of importation of live poultry and poultry 
carcasses  Mexico  Thailand  Animal health  24/10/2005  
(0 times)  R  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 51 - STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) responding  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
249 Reform of Australia's IRA process  European Union  Australia  Other 
concerns  28/06/2006  
(0 times)  R 
258 Import restrictions on beef and beef products due to Blue 
Tongue disease  European Union  Unspecified  Animal health  18/10/2007  
(0 times)  PR 
269 Restrictions on apples  China  United States of America  Plant health  24/06/2008  
(3 times)  R 
272 Rapid Alert System regarding mango imports  Senegal  European Union  Food safety  24/06/2008  
(0 times)  R 
279 Import restrictions on pork products relating to Influenza 
A/H1N1  Canada ; European Union; 
Mexico ; United States of 
America  Armenia; Bahrain, 
Kingdom of; China; 
Gabon; Indonesia ; 
Jordan; Suriname  Animal health  23/06/2009  
(1 time)  PR 
280 New meat import conditions  European Union  Indonesia  Animal health  23/06/2009  
(1 time)  PR 
282 Measures on food products containing meat, poultry or 
processed egg products  China  United States of America  Food safety  24/06/2009  
(0 times)  PR 
289 Measures on catfish  China ; Viet Nam  United States of America  Other 
concerns  28/10/2009  
(8 times)  PR 
296 SPS notification practices  European Union  China  Other 
concerns  23/06/2010  
(0 times)  PR 
299 US 2009 Food Safety Enhancement Act  China ; India  United States of America  Food safety  29/06/2010  
(4 times)  PR 
310 Measures on canned sardines  Morocco  Brazil  Food safety  20/10/2010  
(0 times)  R 
314 Ban on offals  European Union ; United 
States of America  Viet Nam  Food safety  30/03/2011  
(8 times)  PR 
319 Chinese quarantine and testing procedures for salmon  Norway  China  Food safety  30/06/2011  
(7 times)  R 
322 Polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware  China ; Hong Kong, China  European Union  Food safety  30/03/2011  
(2 times)  PR 
323 Import restrictions on pork and pork products  European Union  Malaysia  Food safety  19/10/2011  
(2 times)  PR 
330 Indonesia's port closures  Chile; China; European 
Union; New Zealand;  United 
States of America  Indonesia  Plant health  27/03/2012  
(7 times)  PR** 
331 EU limits of aluminium in flour products  China  European Union  Food safety  27/03/2012  
(0 times)  PR 
332 Restrictions related to FMD  Argentina  Japan  Animal health  10/07/2012  
(1 time)  PR 
333 Trade restrictive measures due to the Schmallenberg 
Virus European Union  Unspecified  Animal health  10/07/2012  
(0 times)  PR 
338 Import ban on live animals from the EU  European Union  Russian Federation  Animal health  18/10/2012  
(0 times)  PR  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.13 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  
 
- 52 - STC 
number  Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) responding  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
339 Restrictions on tomatoes  Senegal  United States of America  Plant health  18/10/2012  
(0 times)  PR 
340 Requirements for importation of sheep meat  Australia  Turkey  Animal health  18/10/2012  
(7 times)  R 
347 Import restrictions on apples, pears and citrus  Argentina  India Plant health  21/03/2013  
(0 times)  PR 
351 EU temperature treatment requirements for imports of 
processed meat products  Russian Federation  European Union  Animal health  27/06/2013  
(2 times)  R 
352 US proposed rule on good manufacturing practice for 
human food  China  United States of America  Food safety  27/06/2013  
(0 times)  PR 
355 EU import requirements for orchid tissue culture plantlets 
in flasks  Chinese Taipei  European Union  Plant health  27/06/2013  
(0 times)  R 
365 Import conditions on poultry  European Union  Saudi Arabia  Food safety  16/10/2013  
(0 times)  R 
371 India's import requirements for blueberries and avocados  Chile India Plant health  09/07/2014  
(0 times)  R 
377 Brazil's regulation on international certificates for fish and 
fishery products  China  Brazil  Animal health  09/07/2014  
(0 times)  R 
388 US proposed rule for user fees for agricultural quarantine 
and inspection services  Mexico  United States of America  Other 
concerns  26/03/2015  
(2 times)  R 
389 Chinese import regime, including quarantine and testing 
procedures for fish  Norway  China  Food safety  15/07/2015  
(1 time)  R 
397 India's amendment to its import policy conditions for 
apples; Restriction to Nhava Sheva port  Chile; New Zealand  India Other 
concerns  14/10/2015  
(2 times)  R* 
400 Undue delays in the start of Australia's risk analysis for 
avocados  Chile Australia  Plant health  14/10/2015  
(0 times)  R 
401 Undue delays in Viet Nam's approval process for dairy 
and meat products  Chile Viet Nam  Animal health  14/10/2015  
(0 times)  PR 
405 China's import restrictions due to Schmallenberg virus  European Union  China  Animal health  16/03/2016  
(0 times)  PR 
416 China's import ban on fresh mangosteen  Indonesia  China  Food safety  27/10/2016  
(2 times)  R 
481 Costa Rica's import restrictions on swine meat products  Mexico  Costa Rica  Other 
concerns  24/06/2020  
(0 times)  PR 
* Status changed from "Partially resolved" to "Resolved".  
** This STC has been reported as resolved by Chile and New Zealand (2020), and the United States (2013). The European Union and China has reported it as partially resolved 
(2020).  
__________