. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/W/118
12 March 2002
(02-1249)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
COMMENTS ON TRANSPARENCY
AND IN PARTICULAR ON G/SPS/W/112 NEW ZEALAND PROPOSAL
FOR REVIEW OF THE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE
Submission by the European Communities
1. The European Communities submits hereby some  comments and suggestions with regard to
the notification procedure as foreseen in Article 7 and Annex B of the Agreement on the Application
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  The purpose of this document is twofold.  This document
includes both some general comments on the notification procedure as it stands as well as some
comments on G/SPS/W/112 submitted by New Zealand.
2. First of all, in line with the request from the SPS Secretariat in November 2001 last, the
European Communities hereby reconfirms the co-ordinates of the EC enquiry point and Notification
Authority.
European Communities:
European Commission
Directorate General for Health and Consumer ProtectionDirectorate E,
Unit E/3: International Food, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Questions
Head of Unit: Jens Nymand-Christensen
Rue Froissart 101, 4/64
1049 Brussels (Belgium)
Telephone: + (322) 299 50 26/295 84 20
Telefax: + (322) 296 27 92 /299 80 90E-mail/Internet: sps@cec.eu.int
A. G
ENERAL COMMENTS ON THE CURRENT NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE
3. Some countries, although they are not developing countries, send notifications in their own
language which is different from the three official WTO languages.  It is often difficult and requiresadditional efforts to obtain a version in one of the three official WTO languages and therefore
transparency of the notification process is hampered.
4. The European Communities always sends replies to comments from any other WTO Member
but does not always receive replies to its own comments.  The European Communities feels that some
defined rules should be established for this, or that at least the current rules be systematically applied.It is suggested that if no formal obligation to reply to comments is envisaged then at least the intention
thereof is reflected or a receipt acknowledgement is sent.
5. The European Communities suggests standardiz ing the format of comments for ease of
reference.G/SPS/W/118
Page 2
6. The European Communities suggests further clar ification on the reasons for an emergency
notification especially as regards the explanation on the rationale behind it.  A concise justification
should be provided which clearly points to the nature of the urgent problem.
7. Furthermore, the European Communities would like to emphasize that before modifying or
extending the notification procedure substantially, the current procedures should be fully applied.  It isrecognized that in view of the increasing amount of notifications during the last year, the full
implementation of all notification requirements is highly demanding and requires the necessary
human resources.  In increasing the requirements even further, this might lead to total obscurity
instead of clarification.
B. C
OMMENTS ON DOCUMENT G/SPS/W/112 SUBMITTED BY NEW ZEALAND (NZ)
8. The NZ proposals are very much welcomed by the European Communities, although it should
be emphasized that the existing rules should first be fully applied before any modifications are made(see paragraph 7 above).  The above-mentioned rules of good practice are therefore considered
priorities.
9. The NZ proposal on clarification of addenda, corrigenda and revisions is very much
welcomed by the European Communities.  Especially the distinction between addenda and revisions
should be clarified, and the period for comments clearly defined in order to avoid never-endingextension periods.  In this respect, a new comment period should be granted for revisions (not
necessarily 30 days), however without any extensions.  No comment period should be granted when
the revision takes into account the previous comments.
10. The inclusion of "risk analysis" on page 9, point 8.C in the NZ proposal is very much
welcomed, although it is felt that this terminology should be replaced by "risk assessment".
11. On point 41 under G "Regulations that contain both SPS or TBT measures", the European
Communities suggests to have less imperative wording.  The idea is of course sustained, but de facto
it does not make any difference legally whether it is notified under both agreements or not, because it
is left to the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding to decide under which agreement the issue will
be pursued.
__________