G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15  
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
1 March  2023 
(23-1397) Page: 1/47 
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 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 
Secretariat 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 pro visions of 
the SPS  Agreement.3 Since then, the Secretariat has revised document G/SPS/GEN/804  annually to 
provide 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.4 
1.3.  The latest revision of the Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency 
Obligations  of the SPS Agreement  (G/SPS/7/Rev.5 , hereafter the "Recommended Transpa rency 
Procedures ") was circulated on 16 January 2023. This "technical" revision does not include any 
substantive changes to the text. It incorporates updates based on changes in the online tools  
(ePing  SPS&TBT Platform ). 
1.4.  Part A  of the present  docume nt provides an overview of the level of implementation of the 
transparency obligations found in the SPS Agreement  (previously contained in the G/SPS/GEN/804  
document series) and Part B  contains information on STCs  (previously contained in the 
G/SPS/GEN/204  document series) . Additionally, Part C  of the document covers  other 
transparency -related aspects, including the transparency recom mendations of the Fifth Review  of 
the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement  adopted in 20205, 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 new ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform . This new tool integrates all previously available SPS and TBT IT tools (namely the SPS and 
TBT Information Management Systems, SPS IMS and TBT IMS, and the SPS and  TBT Notification 
 
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 6 of G/SPS/7/Rev.5  requesting  the Secretariat to provide an annual report on 
the level of implementation of the transparency provision s of the SPS Agreement and of the recommended 
transparency procedures . 
4 Since 2021, the information previously contained in G/SPS/GEN/804  and G/SPS/GEN/204  and 
revisions has been merged into a single document . 
5 See G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1 . G/SPS/GEN /804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Submission Systems, SPS NSS and TBT NSS), as well as the ePing  alert system. All these separate 
systems were discontinued as the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform went live. Among other functions, 
the ePing  SPS&TBT Platform is now the single entry point to search  specialized and detailed 
information on SPS (and TBT) notific ations, STCs, National Notification Authorities (NNAs) and 
National Enquiry Points (NEPs) contact information, as well as  other documents. It allows for 
advanced searches according to specific criteria and 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 ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform . More information on the new Platform is available in Part C  of the present document . 
1.6.  The Members' transparency toolkit  webpage is regularly  updated to streamline the information 
available. Among o ther features, it  includes a quiz for users to self-assess  their knowledge on 
SPS transparency -related matters.  
1.7.  One key conclusion that can be extracted from this document is that, overall, there is a 
high level of implementation of the SPS transparency obligations  by WTO Members. 
Since  1995: 131 Members (80% of membe rship) have submitted at least one notification; 
161 (98%) and 163  Members (99%) have provided contact information for their SPS NNAs and 
NEPs, respectively.  
1.8.  In addition, for 2022, the following 12 key points  can be highlighted:  
1. 64 Members submitted a record number of 2,172 notifications  of new or modified 
SPS measures, including addenda and corrigenda to both regular and emergency notifications.  
2. A record number of addenda  to regular notifications (553) was submitted, mostly to inform 
of the adoption, p ublication or entry into force  of previously notified regulations.  
3. The East African Community  (EAC) started submitting joint SPS notifications . 
4. Two least developed country (LDC) Members, Tanzania  and Uganda , are among the top 10  
notifiers of regular notifi cations.  
5. As in previous years, the highest share (75%) of regular notifications submitted refer to food 
safety ; 91% of the emergency notifications submitted refer to animal health . 
6. 71% of the 396 emergency notifications submitted in 2022 referred to avian influenza . 
7. The SPS Committee regularly used eAgenda  to add agenda items  and raise concerns.  
8. Members discussed 69 STCs , including 26 new concerns ; 19 Members (12%)  raised at 
least one STC.  
9. 45 STCs  were reported as partial ly resolved or resolved . 
10. The new ePing SPS&TBT Platform  was officially launched . 
11. Of all SPS notifications, 97% were submitted online . 
12. A "notifications clinic " for SPS officials was held for the first time ever in the SPS Committee . 
 G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Contents  
 
1   INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  1 
2   PART A - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS  ............................  4 
2.1   Designation of notification authorities and enquiry points  ................................ ................  4 
2.2   Submission of notifications  ................................ ................................ ..........................  4 
2.2.1   Types of notifications  ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
2.2.2   Notifying Members  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6 
2.2.3   Products covered  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 
2.2.4   Regions/countries affected  ................................ ................................ ......................  12 
2.2.5   Objective and rationale  ................................ ................................ ...........................  13 
2.2.6   Relationship between the objective of the measure and the regions/countries affected  ..... 14 
2.2.7   International standard s, guidelines or recommendations  ................................ ..............  15 
2.2.8   Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force  ................................ ................  18 
2.2.9   Final date for comments  ................................ ................................ .........................  18 
2.2.10    Addenda to regular and emergency notifications  ................................ .......................  20 
2.3   Notification keywords  ................................ ................................ ................................  21 
2.4   COVID -19 related notifications and documents  ................................ .............................  22 
3   PART B - SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ....... 23 
3.1   General overview of specific trade concerns (1995 -2022)  ................................ ...............  24 
3.2   Specific trade concerns considered in 2022  ................................ ................................ ... 30 
3.2.1   Resolution of STCs in 2022  ................................ ................................ ......................  32 
3.2.2   Good offices of the Chair  ................................ ................................ .........................  32 
4   PART C – OTHER TRANSPARENCY -RELATED ASPECTS  ................................ ...............  32 
4.1   Transparency recommendations in the Fifth Review  ................................ .......................  32 
4.2   Technical assistance and workshops  ................................ ................................ ............  33 
4.3   SPS IT tools  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  34 
4.3.1   The new ePing SPS&TBT Platform  ................................ ................................ .............  34 
4.3.2   eAgenda  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  37 
4.4   Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF)  ................................ ........................  37 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2  PART A - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS  
2.1.  Part A of the present document provides an overview of the level of implementation of the 
transparency provisions contained in the SPS Agreement  and the Recommended Transparency 
Procedures in document G/SPS/7/Rev.5 , with a focus on 202 2 (see previous revisions of the 
G/SPS/GEN/804  document series) . 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 requests for documents or other information , provision of comments to notificat ions, 
and of the response to  these comments by the notifying Member, among others).  
2.1  Designation of notification authorities and enquiry points  
2.2.  Paragraph 10 of Annex B  to the SPS Agreement requires Members to designate a single central 
government authority as responsible for the implementation of notification procedures. This agency 
is referred to as the SPS National Notification Authority  (NNA) . As of 31 December 202 2, 161 (98%) 
WTO Members out of 164 had designated such an agency . The Members that have not designated 
NNAs are all  (LDCs).6 In addition, one observer government has designated an NNA.  
2.3.  Paragraph 3 of Annex B  to the SPS Agreement requires that each Member establish a  National  
Enquiry Point (NEP) responsible for the provision of answers to all  reasonable questions and of 
relevant documents. As of 31 Decembe r 2022, 163 (99%) WTO Members out of 164 had provided 
the WTO with the contact information of their NEP. One LDC ha s not yet established an NEP. 
Thirty -three Members have identified more than one SPS  NEP. A total of  24 Members have indicated 
that their NNA and NEP a re the same institution.  In addition, three observer governments have 
provided the WTO with the contact information of their NEP.  
2.4.  In 2022 , 36 Members updated their NNAs and/or N EPs contact details , available  through the  
new ePing SPS&TBT Platform . Through this new Platform, users with notification admin rights are 
responsible for ensuring that the contact details of do mestic NNAs and NEPs are up to date 
(see Section 4.3.1.1.2  for further details). 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 othe r duties, as 
recommended in the Practical Manual for SPS National Notification Authorities and National Enquiry 
Points . Whenev er possible, Members are encouraged to use an institutional email address rather 
than a personal one.7 
2.2  Submission of notifications  
2.5.  Under the SPS Agreement, notifications are used to inform other Members about new or 
modified  regulations that may significa ntly affect trade. Annex B, paragraphs 5 to 8, as well as the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures, elaborate on the notification procedures Members are to 
follow. For ease of reference, the specific sub -topics highlighted below follow the order of items th at 
are contained in the regular and emergency notification formats.  The online submission of 
notifications further improves the quality of the information provided, increasing efficiency and 
allowing for more thorough  searches.  As indicated above, this fun ctionality is currently accessible 
for users with relevant rights through the ePing SPS&TBT Platform  (see further information in 
Section  4.3.1.1.4 ). 
2.2.1   Types of notifications  
2.6.  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 
regular or emergency notification.8 An addendum is used to provide ad ditional 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 original notification such as incorrect 
 
6 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the 
WTO Reference Database  for analytical purposes ( idb@wto.org ). They can be consulted through the ePing 
SPS&TBT Platform  by clicking on  "Facts & figures,  "Definitions of groups" in the top menu bar.  
7 Further recommendations can be fo und in the Practical Manual for SPS NNAs  and NEPs. 
8 See Members' transparency toolkit  and the Recommended Transparency Procedures ( G/SPS/7/Rev.5 ) 
for further elaboration on the different types of notifications.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 5 - 
 
  address detail s. 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 ePing SPS&TBT Platform  
(see Section 4.3.1.1.4 ). 
2.7.  Chart A.1 shows the number of regular and emergency notifications (including addenda and 
corrigenda) submitted per year since 1995. As of 31 December  2022, Members had submitted9 
20,668 regular notifications  (including 200 revisions) , 3,194 emergency notifications  (including 
15 revisions) , 6,764 addenda  and 577 corrigenda , reaching a grand total of 31,832 notifications. 
Despite punctual decreases  in some years, the global trend shows an upward trend in  the total 
number of notifications submi tted per year , reaching in 2022  a historical record number of 
2,172 notifications . Out of these, 1,147  were regular notifications  (including  13 revisions) , 
396 emergency notifications, 612 addenda and 17 corrigenda. Compared to the previous year, 
there  was an increase  in the number of  regular notifications submitted, from  1,006 in 20 21 to 
1,147 in 202 2 (14% increase ), and of emergency notifications , from 268 in 2021 to  396 in 202 2 
(48% increase) . The overall number of addenda submitted increased  from 530 in 202 1 to 612 in 
2022 (16% increase ). However, w hile the number of addenda to regular notifications increased  from 
430 in 202 1 to 553 in 202 2 (29% increase) , the number of addenda to emergency notifications 
showed a sharp decrease , from a historical maximum  of 100 emergency addenda in 2021 to 59 in 
2022 (41% decrease)  (see Section 2.2.10 ). The monthly average of notific ations submitted 
increased from 152 in 202 1 to 181 in 202 2. 
Chart A.1 – Regular and emergency notifications  (incl. revisions) , addenda and corrigenda 
for both types, submitted , and number of Members who have submitted at least one 
notification, per year  
 
2.8.  In June 2002, 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  2022, there have been 10 equivalence notifications  circulated by 
Panama ( one, in 2007), the Dominican Republic ( one, in 2008), and the United States ( five in 2019 
and three in 2022 ). A two-part Thematic Session on Equivalence was held in October 2018 and 
March 2019 within the fram ework of the Fifth Review .10 
 
9 For this Note, submission refers to the date of distribution of the notification by the Secretariat.  
10 The programmes of parts 1 and 2 of the 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 . 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.9.  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 working languages 
of the WTO. These are submitted i n the form of supplements to the original notification. As of 
31 December 202 2, 19 supplement notifications  had been circulated. None have been submitted 
since 2015. The availability of translations has periodically  been discussed in the SPS Committee 
under transparency -related matters.11 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 SPS&TBT Platform , although 
it has not been used for that purpose yet  (see Section 4.3.1  in Part  C). 
2.10.  In October 2004, the SPS Committee adopted a procedure to enhance transparency of special 
and differential treatment (S&D) in favour of de veloping Member s, which included an addendum 
notification format 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 2009  (G/SPS/33/Rev.1 ), and the notification format was 
incorporated in  the previous version of the Recommended Transparency Procedures  
(G/SPS/7/Rev. 4) for ease of reference . No S&D notifications have ever been circulated by 
WTO Members under this procedure . All notification types are summarized in Table A.1 . 
Table  A.1 – SPS notifications submitted by WTO Members  (including equivalence and 
supplement notifications)  
Type of notification  Since 1995  In 202 2 Variation since 
2021 
Regular  (incl. revisions)  20,668  1,147  +14%  
Emergency  (incl. revisions)  3,194  396 +48%  
Addenda to regular  6,661  553 +29%  
Addenda to emergency  715 59 -41% 
Corrigenda to regular  524 14 -18% 
Corrigenda to emergency  70 3 -25% 
Equivalence notifications  10 3 +3 
Supplement notifications  19 0 - 
Total 31,861  2,175   
2.2.2   Notifying Members  
2.11.  As of 31 December 202 2, 131 Members out of 164 ( 80%) had submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO , two more than last year . Several  EU member States have not submitted 
notifications; however, most SPS measures are notified by the European Union on be half of its 
member States.12,13 In addition, 1 3 developing Members  and 11 LDCs have not yet submitted any 
notification. In 202 2, 64 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). 
2.12.  In 2022, the East African Community (EAC) started submitting joint SPS (and TBT) 
notifications through the ePing SPS&TBT Platform . Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda's 
NNAs with the relevant rights can now submit notifications on behalf of each other  for joint EAC draft 
measures . A total of 27 joint notifications have been s ubmitted since August  2022, and the 
corresponding notifications have been circulated with five symbols. Joint submission  of notifications  
further improves regional coordination and streamlines work for both Members and the Secretariat. 
The GCC Standardizat ion Organization (GSO) has been submitting joint notifications since 2001 and 
other Members are also exploring this option to streamline their work.  
 
11 See for example the reports of the Fourth Review and the 2017 Workshop on Transparency  in 
G/SPS/62  and G/SPS/R/89 , respectively.  
12 See G/SPS/GEN/456  for notification procedures for the European Union and its member States.  
13 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 communicated that durin g the transition period, which ended 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 . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.13.  Charts A.2 and A.3 show the number of regular and emergency notifications  (including 
addenda and corrigenda) , respectively, and the percentage of notifications by Members' 
development status. Chart A.2  shows  that the share of regular notifications submitted by developing 
Members  has been rising since 2000 and, since 2008, is higher than that of regular notifications 
submitted by developed Members . The share of notifications from LDCs is overall very low, but has 
been increasing over the last few years, reaching a historical maximum  of 17% in 202 2, mainly due 
to the high number of notifications submitted by Uganda  (132, Chart A.9 ) and  Tanzania  (70). 
Chart  A.3 shows that the percentage of emergency notifications submitted by developing Members 
has been greater than 50% since 2002. While in general, t he difference in percentage  of emergency 
notifications  between developed and developing Members is much larger th an in the case of regular 
notifications , in 202 2, we observe a significant decrease in the difference in percentage of emergency 
notifications between developed and developing Members , mainly due to the high number of 
emergency notifications submitted by J apan (174, Chart A.10 ). 
Chart  A.2 – Number of regular notifications and percentage by development status  
 
Chart A.3 – Number of emergency notifications and percentage by development status  
 
2.14.  Looking at the geographic regions from which the notifications submitted since the year 1995 
originate, Chart A.4  shows that the largest share  of notifications come from Asia (29%), followed by 
the North America region (2 5%) and then by South and Central America and the Caribbean (2 4%).14 
 
14 The geographical  groupings used rely  on WTO working definitions as identified in the WTO Reference 
Database  for analytical purposes ( idb@wto.org ). The same groupings are used in the WTO Annual Reports. 
They can be consulted through the ePing SPS&TBT Platfor m by clicking on  "Facts & figures",  "Definitions of 
groups" in the top menu bar.  
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Chart A.4 – Notifications by geographical region since  1995  
 
2.15.  When comparing the percentage of notifications submitted in 202 2 to the average submitted 
by the different regions between 1995 and 202 1, we can observe a striking reduction in the case of 
North America (from 2 6% until the end of 202 1 to 10% in 202 2) and a moderate reduction  for 
South  America, Central America and the Caribbean (from 2 5% to 19%). In contrast , an increase 
was observed in the case of Asia (from 28% to 3 4%) and the Middle East region (from 6% to 9%). 
On average, African Members quadrupled  the percentage of notifications (from 4% to 16%) 
(Chart  A.5). As mentioned before, i n the case of Africa, Uganda (132) and Tanzania ( 70) are the 
Members that have most contributed to  the high er percentage of notifications in 202 2, including 
EAC joint notifications.  In the case of Asia, Japan (354) and Thailand  (140)  have most contributed 
to the high er percentage.  For the Middle East region, the main notifiers are United Arab Emirates 
(52) and Saudi Arabia (50), including GSO joint notificatio ns. 
Chart A. 5 – Comparison between notifications submitted by geographical re gion in the 
period 1995 -2021 and in 202 2 
 
2.16.  The Members wh o have submitted the greatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) since 1995  are listed in Charts A.6 and A.7, while the Members that have submitted the 
greatest number of notifications in 2022 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 re spect to the total number of notifications (regular, Charts A.6 and A.8, and 
emergency, Charts  A.7 and A.9) submitted . 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Chart A.6 - Ten Members who have submitted the most regular notifications since 1995  
(percentage with respect to total of regular notifications)  
 
Chart A.7 - Ten Members who have submitted the most emergency notifications since 
1995  (percentage with respect to total of emergency  notifications)  
 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Chart A.8 - Members which have submitted the most regular notifications in 2022 
(percentage with respect to total of regular notifications)  
 
Chart A.9 - Members which have submitted the most emergency notifications in 2022 
(percentage with respect to total of emergency notifications)  
 
2.17.  In 2022 (Chart A.8), Brazil submitted 1 3% of all regular notifications circulated. Tanzania is 
among the top 10 notifying Members for the third consecutive year . Until 31 December 2019, 
Tanzania had submitted a total of 29 notifications. In 2020 , 2021 and 2022  Tanzania submitted 72 , 
60 and 70 notifications, respectively , suggesting that it is notify ing at a level above their historical 
trend.  In addition, another LDC, Uganda, is among the top notifying Members for the first time. 
Until 31 December 2021, Uganda had submitted a total of 177 notifications. In 2022, 
Uganda  submitted 132, i.e. 43% of all regular notifications submitted since 1995.  For emergency 
notifications (Chart  A.9), Japan and  Thailand submitted about two thirds of all emergency 
notifications circulated. Japan , with 174 of the 458 (38%) emergency notifications circulated  in 2022 , 
mostly related to  avian influenza  (Box 1 ), is now among the top 10 Members who have submitted 
the most emergency notifications since 1995 (Chart  A.9). The United Kingdom replaced Australia in 
the top 10 notifying Members, while the other nine of the top 10 notifying Members remain the same 
as in 202 1. 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.18.  When looking at the break -down  according to the type of notification, the data  show that 
some of th e top 10 notifiers submit large number s of addenda to notifications , e.g. to provide 
information on the modification of the content of a previously notified regulation , or on its entry into 
force. Others  submit high numbers of notifications but fewer follow -up addenda. The overall data on 
the use of addenda are shown in Section 2.2.10 . 
2.2.3   Products covered  
2.19.  In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex B to the 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.15 
However, identifying relevant HS codes is one of the main difficulties encountered by Members when 
filling in a notification according to the more recent questionnaire on transparency.16 
2.20.  Since 1995 , the WTO's Central Registry of Notifications (CRN) has been assigning, to the 
extent possible, the relevant HS codes for all notifications where these are not provided by 
Member s.17 The online submission of notificat ions through the ePing SPS&TBT Platform  facilitates 
the inclusion of HS (and ICS) codes by submitting Members through a built -in search function, 
providing more accurate information.  Since  September 2020, Members can specify the relevant 
codes from all HS versions, which are available  from a drop -down list  when submitting notifications 
online (see Section  4.3.1.1.4 ). This update was aimed at increasi ng accuracy in the products covered 
and facilitat ing the retrieval of the relevant HS codes , further improving the quality of notifications . 
2.21.  While only indicative, Charts A.10 and A.11 show the products at the two -digit HS codes level 
that are most often c overed by regular and emergency notifications since 1995. Note that only 
HS codes referred to in more than 3 % of notifications are represented and that some code 
descriptions have been shortened for presentation  purposes . 
Chart A.10 - HS codes most frequently assigned to regular notifications  since 1995  
 
 
15 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Operation of Enquiry Points and National 
Notification Authorities, ( G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 , paras. 11 and 18) for further elaboration on this point.  
16 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.  
17 This information is available in the ePing SPS&TBT Platform  for tracking purposes only.  
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Chart A.11 - HS codes most frequently assigned to emergency notifications  since 1995  
 
2.22.  It is interesting to note that regular notifications refer to a larger variety of HS codes in 
similarly high percentages  (10 different codes are referred to in  more than 3% of notifications, 
the highest percentage of 9% corresponding to HS  code 02 - Meat and edible meat offal  and 
HS code 08 - Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons ). In contrast , emergency 
notifications mainly refer to animal -related HS codes , and these represent  higher percentages  of 
emergency notifications  (9 different codes are referred to in more than 3 % of notifications and three  
of these are above 30%; the highest percentages corresponding to HS code  02 - Meat and edible 
meat offal , referred to in 61% of notifications, and to HS code 01 - Live animals , referred to in 59% 
of notifications) . These data are consistent with  results s hown in Chart A.13  related to the objective 
of notifications.  
2.2.4   Regions/countries affected  
2.23.  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. Since December 2008, 
the notification templates  include a data entry option for this item where by Members are invited to 
either select the checkbox for "all trading partners" or provide information on specific regions or 
countries likely to be affected.  
2.24.  Since 2008, the vast majority  of notifications affecting all trading partners are regular 
notific ations and only a small percentage  are emergency notifications. Interestingly, Chart A.12  
shows a marked shift of pattern between 2008 to 202 1 and 202 2. An assessment of notifications 
submitted in 2022 indicates that 140 regular notifications ( 12%, 4 perce ntage  points less than in 
2021) identified a specific group of countries or a region, while in 1,007  regular notifications (8 8%, 
which represents 4 percentage points  less than in 202 1), the "all trading partners" checkbox was 
selected. In contrast, 376 emergency notifications ( 95%, an increase of 1 percentage  point with 
respect to 2021) identified a specific group of countries or a region, and only 20 emergency 
notifications ( 5%, 1 percentage  point less than in 202 1) identified  "all trading partners". Out of all 
notifications affecting specific regions or countries, 27% are regular notifications and 73% are 
emergency notifications  (in 2021 , 39% were regular notifications and 61% were emergency 
notifications) . While the overall pattern is maintained, Chart A.12  shows a share of emergency 
notifications affecting specific regions or countries 7 percentage  points higher than the average for 
2008-2021. 
2.25.  Interestingly, of the notifications submitted in  2022 affecting specific regions or countries, 
16 (11%) of the 1 40 regular notifications and 216 (57%) of the 376 emergency notifications 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 
212 (98%) of these 216 emergency notifications had the objective of protecting animal health. 
More detailed information on the objective of measures in relation to the af fected partners is 
available in Chart A.16 . 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Chart A. 12 - Percentage of regular and emergency notifications affecting all trading 
partners or specific regions or countries  
 
2.2.5   Objective and rationale  
2.26.  In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex B to the SPS Agreement and 
the Recommended Transparency Procedures , Members are also 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 damage from pests. These objectives correspond to the definition of an SPS measure in 
Annex A, paragraph 1 , to the SPS Agreement.  
2.27.  Chart A.13  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.1 4 refers to the percentage of times a specific objective was as signed regardless 
of whether the notifications identified multiple objectives.  
Chart A.13 - Objectives of notified SPS measures (excluding addenda and corrigenda) 
in 2022 
 
2.28.  For regular notifications , the most frequently cited objective is food safety  (75%), followed 
by plant protection  (18%) and animal health ( 13%), while for emergency notifications it is animal 
health  (91%), followed by food safety (16%) and protection of humans from animal/plant pest or 
disease  (12%). The overall patterns have not fluctuated much  since 1995. However, 
some  differences are remarkable between 2021 and 2022: concerning regular notifications, one can 
observe an increase of 10 percentage points in the share  of notifications citing the objective of  food 
safety  and of 6  percentage points  in the share of notifications citing the objective of protection of 
humans from animal/plant pest or disease , together with a decrease of 8 percentage  points in the 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 14 - 
 
  share  of notifications related to plant health  (Chart  A.14); regarding emergency notifications, 
the most striking differences  are a decrease of 9, 7 and 4  percentage points  in the share of 
notifications citing the objectives of food safety, of protection of humans from animal/plant pest or 
disease, and of plant health, respectively. (Chart A.15 ). 
Chart A. 14 - Objectives of regular SPS measures (excluding addenda and corrigend a) 
notified in  the last five years  
 
Chart A. 15 - Objectives of emergency SPS measures (excluding addenda and corrigenda)  
notified in the last five years  
 
2.2.6   Relationship between the objective of the measure and the regions/countries 
affected  
2.29.  Chart A.16  represent s the objectives of regular and emergency notifications in relation to 
trading partners likely to be affected (i.e., all trading partners vs specific regions/countries) , 
since 2008, when revised notification formats were adopted , making these data  available . 
2.30.  In the case of notifications affecting all trading partners since 20 08, food safety is the 
objective most frequently identified in regular notifications ( 84%), while plant protection  is the most 
frequent objective in emergency notifications ( 52%). In the case of notifications likely to affect 
specific regions/countries since 2008, plant protection is the objective most frequently identified in 
regular notifications ( 67%), while animal  health is the most frequent objective in emergency 
notifications ( 83%). 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Chart A.16 - Objectives of regular and emergency notifications (excluding addenda and 
corrigenda)  by affected Members  since 2008  
 
2.2.6.1   Relationship between the objective of the measure and the development status 
of the notifying Member  
2.31.  Chart A.17  shows a detailed analysis of the objective of the measures and the development 
status of the notifying Members  since 2008 . In the case of developed Members, the most striking 
result refe rs to plant protection measures, represent ing 60% of all emergency measure s related to  
plant protection . Developing Members  (including LDCs)  submit ted 80% or more of emergency 
notifications  related to each of the four other objectives , i.e., food safety, animal health, 
the protect ion of  animal health and humans from animal/plant pests or diseases , and the protection 
of the territory from other damage from pests . 
Chart A. 17 - Objectives of regular and emergency notifications (excluding addenda and 
corrigenda) by development status  since 2008  
 
2.2.7   International standards, guidelines or recommendations  
2.32.  The SPS Agreement does not require Members to notify a measure if its content is 
substantially the same as that of an international standard adopted by Codex, WOAH (founded as 
OIE) or IPPC. Nonetheless, the Recommended Transparency Procedures encourage Mem bers to 
notify all regulations that are based on, conform to, or are substantially the same as an  international 
standard, guideline or recommendation, if they are expected to have a significant impact on trade 
of other Members. The notification formats als o seek more precision from Members regarding 
relevant standards and the conformity of the notified measure with these.  
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.33.  With respect to regular notifications circulated in 2022, Chart A.18  shows that in 53% of the 
cases, Members have not identified an international standard as being relevant to the notified 
measure , while 28% (25% in 2021) have referred to  Codex, 12%  (19% in 2021)  to IPPC and 7% 
(same as  in 2021) to WOAH . This information seems consistent with the objectives identified for 
regular notifications ( Chart  A.13). 
Chart A.18 - Regular notifications referring to a relevant international standar d in 202 2 
 
2.34.  When it comes to emergency notifications, Chart A.19  shows that in only 1% of the cases  
(5% in 2021) , no relevant international standard ha d been identified, whereas 93%, 5% and 1% 
referred to WOAH, IPPC and Codex  standards , respectively  (89%, 6% and 0%, respectively, in 
2021).  This is consistent with the inf ormation provided in Chart A.13 , showing that animal health is 
the most frequently identified objective in emergency notifications.  
Chart A.19 - Emergency notifications referring to a relevant international standard  in 202 2 
 
2.35.  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 , i.e. its content might not b e substantially the same as 
the content of the international standard . Therefore, in the notification formats Members are required 
to identify whether the proposed regulation conforms to the relevant international standard. In 2022, 
of the 47% of regular n otifications identifying a relevant international standard for the measure, 
75% indicated that the proposed regulation conformed to that relevant international standard. 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Out of the regular notifications that indicated that the notified regulation did not c onform to a 
relevant international standard, all but four referred to Codex standards . For the same period, nearly 
all (98%) emergency notifications identifying a relevant international standard indicated that the 
proposed regulation conformed to the relev ant international standard. This further confirms 
the relevance of the standards set by the three international standard -setting bodies  recognized by 
the SPS Agreement  when addressing emergency situations.  
2.36.  Chart A.2 0 and Chart A.2 1 show conformity with international standards of measures notified 
by developed and developing Members  (including  LDCs), respectively. Out of all regular notifications 
submitted by developed Members since 2008, measures are reported to conform to international 
standards in 14% (for Codex) , 5% (for WOAH)  and 7% (for IPPC)  of the cases . For developing 
Members, conformity to IPPC standards is reported in a significantly higher share of their regular 
notifications, 15%, as compared to developed Members.  
2.37.  Out of all emergency notifications  submitted by developed Members , measures are reported 
to conform to international standards in 2% ( for Codex), 55% ( for WOAH) and 23%  (for IPPC) of 
the cases. For developing Members, conformity to international standards of their notified 
emergency measures  is significantly higher for WOAH ( 75%) and significantly lower for IPPC ( 5%) 
standards , as compared to developed Members . 
Chart A.2 0 – Conformity with international standards of measures notified by developed 
Members  since 2008 (excluding addenda)  
 
Chart A.2 1 – Conformity with international standards of measures notified by developing 
Members  (including  LDCs ) since 2008 (excluding addenda)  
 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 18 - 
 
  2.2.8   Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force  
2.38.  In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Annex B to the SPS Agreement, 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 betw een 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".18 
2.39.  The regular notification format contained in the Recommended Transparency Procedures 
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 incl udes a default checkbox for 
a six-month interval between the publication and entry into force of a new measure. For each of 
these items, Members submitting notifications online through the ePing SPS&TBT Platform  can e asily 
enter dates  from a calendar , allowing for a more accurate analysis.  
2.40.  For 2022, about  34% of the regular notifications identified either a specific date or a wider 
period (months or quarters, mainly) for adoption  (compared to 5 5% in 2021 ), while in the  remaining 
66%, the date of adoption was still to be determined. This illustrates that, at the time of notification, 
Members are not always able to foresee the exact date of adoption of a regulation.  
2.41.  During the reporting  period, 285 regular notifications ( 25%, compared to 31% in 2021 ) 
indicated a specific date of publication. Of these, 216 (76%, compared to 29%  in 2021 ) had been 
published on the day, or prior to the date of distribution of the notification, and 74 of these concerned 
measures identified as trade facilitating. Regarding the interval between publication of the measure 
and its entry into force, 256 regular notifications ( 22%, compared to 13% in 2021 ) had selected the 
checkbox for a six -month interval provided in the notification format. A total  of 314 notifications 
provided a specific date of entry into force. Of these, only five provided a period of six months or 
more and , of the remaining , 73 provided one day or more. A total of 833 notifications did not provide 
a specific  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 comments received on the 
proposed measure may affect the dates of adoption, publication and entry into force.  
2.42.  As provide d for in the Recommended Transparency Procedures, notifying Members sometimes 
follow up on their original notification with an addendum to alert Members to the adoption, 
publication, or entry into force of a previously notified proposed measure. About 77% of the addenda  
submitted in 202 2 indicated the  adoption, publication or entry into force of regulations as shown in 
Chart A.24  (see Section 2.2.10 ). 
2.2.9   Final date for comments  
2.43.  Paragraph 5 of Annex B  to 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 r egular 
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 o ption for such a 60 -day comment 
period to encourage Members to follow this recommendation.19 Members submitting notifications 
online can easily enter the final date for comments from a calendar, allowing for a more accurate 
analysis. A total of 674 (59%, same share as in 2021 ) regular notifications  submitted in 202 2 used 
the checkbox to provide  a 60-day comment period . 
2.44.  An analysis of the notifications issued during 2022 shows that 903 (79%) provided a comment 
period, ranging from a minimum of 2 day to a ma ximum of 96 days, with an average of 5 7 days 
(calculated as the difference between the date of circulation of the notification and the final date for 
comments; see Table A.2 ). More specifically, 741 regular notifications ( 65%) provided a comment 
period of 60 or more days. On average, developed Member s provided 5 5 days for comments and 
developing Members (including LDCs) 58 days.  
  
 
18 WT/MIN(01)/17 ; see also para. 4.3 of G/SPS/7/Rev.5 . 
19 See G/SPS/7/Rev.5 , para. 2.8.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Table A.2. Comment period provided in regular notifications (20 22) 
All Members  
  No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  1,147 - 
Comment period available  903 79% 
Comment period not indicated/not available  242 21% 
Comment period ends before or equal to distribution date  2 <1% 
Average length (in days)  57 
Developed Member s 
  No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  344 - 
Comment period available  213 62% 
Comment period not indicated/not available  130 38% 
Comment period ends before or equal to distribution date  1 <1% 
Average length (in days)  55 
Developing Member s 
  No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  803 - 
Comment period available  690 86% 
Comment period not indicated/not available  112 14% 
Comment period ends before or equal to distribution date  1 <1% 
Average length (in days)  58 
 
2.45.  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 2022, 414 (36%) regular notifications have been identified to  be trade facilitating. 
Of these, 324 (78%) still provided a comment period, of which 291 (90%) provided a comment 
period  of 60 days or more . In addition,  159 (45%) of the 414 indicated  conformity with a relevant 
international standard  and, of these,  97 (61%) still provided a comment period , which in 78 (80%) 
was of 60 days or more . It is interesting to note that most of the trade facilitating measures refer to 
food safety (Chart A.22 ).20 
Chart A. 22 – Number of trade facilitating regular measures, per objective  
 
 
20 It must be noted that many notifications identify more than one objective.  
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 20 - 
 
  2.46.  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 difficulties to access the full text of 
the regulations, only summarized in the notifications. Members  have also pointed out that the 
process of obtaining  the texts of regulations reduces the period actually available for providing 
comments . 
2.47.  Since February 2008, 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. The  submitted text 
is then made electronically accessible to other Members through a hyperlink in  the no tification 
format.21 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 option . Through the 
submission of notifications functionalit y of the ePing SPS&TBT Platform, Members can upload 
documents , that become  automatically available for all Members through the Platform . In 2022, 
around 1,078 regular notifications ( 94%) and 180 emergency notifications ( 45%), submitted  by 
60 Members, included  a link to 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 notifications  
2.48.  Since 1995, Members have been submitting increasing  number s of addenda to regular and 
emergency notifications , as shown in Chart A.23 . This increase has led to an historical maximum in 
2022, reaching a total of 612 (553 regular and 59 emergency) addenda (see Chart A.1 ). 
2.49.  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.23 . 
In total, 70 and 49 Members have su bmitted, at least once, addenda to regular and emergency 
notifications, respectively . In 2022, 34 and 13 Members have submitted addenda to regular and 
emergency notifications, respectively . 
Chart A. 23 - Evolution of the number of addenda and number of Members submitting  
addenda to  regular and emergency notifications22 
 
2.50.  According to the Recommended Transparency Procedures, Members are asked to select  
the reason for an addendum  from a list of options. Chart A.24  shows the share of each option for 
2022. Note that the "Notification of adoption, publication, or entry into force of regulation" is a n 
option available  for addenda to regular notifications only. Also , the format for addenda to regular 
notifications include s 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 ba n or the inclusion of a new country in the list of affected regions.  It is interesting 
 
21 See G/SPS/7/Rev.5 , para. 2. 17 and Annex C.  
22 Please note the different scales of the axis.  
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 21 - 
 
  to note that the large majority ( 77%) of addenda to regular notifications inform o f the adoption, 
publication, or entry into force of regulation while, for emergency not ifications, 36% inform o f the 
modification of content and/or scope of previously notified draft regulation  and almost half (4 7%) 
refer to "Other" reasons . 
Chart A.24 - Reasons for addenda (percentage)  in 202 223 
 
2.51.  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.  
2.3  Notification keywords  
2.52.  In the ePing SPS&TBT Platform , notifications 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 2 003, 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 other  notification subjects, specific animal and plant d iseases , etc. 
2.53.  As shown in Chart A.25 , the keywords which have been most frequently assigned to regular 
notifications, in descending order for the current reporting period, are 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 diseases24, zoonoses, 
avian  influenza and pest- or disease - free regions/regionalization. It must be noted that most of  
the notification s are assigned more than one keyword. The COVID -19 SPS keyword created in 2020 
was assigned to two emergency notifications only (see Section 2.4 ). 
Chart A.25 - Keywords of notified regular and emergency SPS measures in 2022 (number)  
 
 
23 Each notification can have multiple entries for the reasons for addenda.  
24 "Animal health" and "Animal diseases" keywords have been merged into "Animal health/animal 
diseases".  Both keywords were assigned to the same notifications in 2022.  
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 22 - 
 
  2.4  COVID -19 related notifications and documents  
2.54.  During the COVID -19 pandemic, Members have continue d to fulfil their transparency 
obligations, including the notification of specific COVID -19 related SPS measures. The WTO created 
the dedicated website COVID -19 and world trade to inform of trade -related developments in light of 
the pandemic. In 2020 , the 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 t ext of the notification. This keyword can be searched for in the  ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform  and in DocsOnLine . 
 
2.55.  Between February 2020  and December  2022, Members submitted a total of 131 documents 
informing of measures adopted in relation to the COVID -19 pandemic . In 2022, the number of 
COVID -19 SPS documents  was significantly lower  than in the previous two years. A total of  seven  
notifications ( two emergency notifications and five addenda to regular notifications ) and four 
communications ( three  GEN document s and an addendum to a previous GEN document ) were 
submitted in 2022 (Chart A.26 ). The emergency notifications submitted in 20 22 established a 
temporary ban on keeping minks and a temporary suspension on commercial imports of live 
hamsters on grounds of COVID -19. The addenda to regular notifications amended or extended 
previously notified measures. The three  GEN documents circula ted contain the statement s delivered 
by a Member in the SPS Committee on a COVID -19 relate d concern. The addendum to a previous 
communication repealed the provisions set out during the pandemic , which established facilities for 
the submission of original p hytosanitary export certificates. The two temporary restrictions imposed 
in 202 2 were subsequently lifted through addenda to the original notifications, issued in 2023. 
Likewise , most of the restrictions on the importation, and sometimes transit, of live animals and 
animal products, or on certain species imposed in 2020 have already b een lifted. Almost  two-thirds 
of the measures adopted facilitated trade, mainly through the acceptance of electronic copies or 
scanned certificates . While s everal of these measures were extended through addenda to the original Box 1. Avian influenza  
The keyword "avian influenza " was assigned to 281* (71%) of the 396 emergency notifications submitted 
in 202 2. When comparing the number of outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI)* notified per 
year through the OIE-WAHIS system  with the SPS  notifications submitted to the WTO, we observe that since 
2019 an increase  in the  number of outbreak s notified to the WOAH  coincides with an increase in  the number 
of measures notified  to the WTO in relation to avian influenza . 
Despite the high number of outbreaks of HPAI notified to the WOAH  and the measures notified by 
WTO Members in relation to this disease, since 1995 only 21 of the 5 58 (3.8%) STCs raised in the Committee 
were assigned the keyword "avian influenza ", correspon ding to 1 0% of "animal health /animal diseases " 
related STCs . Members have also raised issues on the use of the WOAH  standard for HPAI under the agenda 
item "Monitoring of the use of international standards " in the SPS Committee meetings . 
Number of regular and emergency notifcations and number of new HPAI outbreaks notified to 
the OIE  
 
*166 (58%) o ut of 281  were submit ted by one Member.  
**Please note that data in the OIE -WAHIS refer to HPAI while the keyword avian influenza assigned to WTO SPS 
notifications refers to both HPAI and low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI).  
0500100015002000250030003500400045005000
050100150200250300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Regular notifications Emergency notifications New HPAI outbreaks (WOAH)G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 23 - 
 
  notifications , Members have n ot recently informed of further extensions of their trade facilitating 
measures . As of 31  December 202 2, SPS COVID -19 related documents represented 2 7% of all 
COVID -19 related documents submitted by Members to the WTO.  The last SPS COVID -19 document 
was su bmitted on 16 January  2023. 
2.56.  In light of the acceleration of the use and development of methods to conduct remote 
assessments, such as audits and inspections, in agricultural and food supply chains, a Member 
proposed to hold a t hematic session on the use of remote ( virtual) audit and verification in regulatory 
frameworks  that was held on the margins of the 2022 June Committee meeting.25 
Chart A. 26 – Objective of COVID -19 related SPS notifications and communications  from 
1 February  2020  to 31  December 2022 (number)  
 
2.57.  In May 2020, the Secretariat published a technical note on " Standards, regulations and 
COVID -19 - What actions taken by WTO members? " (SPS and TB T) that was updated in December 
2020. In June 2020, the SPS Committee organized an information -sharing  session on COVID -19 on 
the margins of the Committee meeting26 and, since then, it has included a dedicated item in all 
informal meetings prior to the regular Committee meetings.27 At the June 2022 Committee meeting, 
the Chairperson noted that there had not been interventions under this agenda item in recent 
meetings and the Committee agreed to delete this agenda item for the following  SPS Committee 
meeting.28 
2.58.  A report to the Council  for Trade in Goods circulated in December 2022 summarizes the 
SPS COVID -19 related actions undertaken by the SPS Committee.29 
3  PART B - SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
3.1.  Part B of the present document contains information on STCs, maintaining the previously 
assigned numbers according to the chronological order of the Committee meetings in which they 
were first raised, although titles may be updated to reflect the latest st ate of the concern. 
These  numbers serve as unique identifiers and are intended to facilitate the tracking of issues raised 
over time. The Secretariat has revised this report  annually to include new information provided by 
Members (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1  to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.22 ). As mentioned above, i n preparing 
this report , the Secretariat has largely relied on the ePing SPS&TBT Platform . More detailed searches 
have been undertaken in the Trade Concerns Database (TCD) . 
3.2.  Part B  is divided into two sections:  
• General overview of specific trade concerns (19 95-2022); and 
• Specific trade concerns considered in 202 2. 
 
25 The dedicated  page and the recordings of the sessions are available here: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/thematic_session_21jun22_e.htm . 
26 The report of the informatio n-sharing session is contained in G/SPS/R/98 . 
27 The reports on the SPS Committee informal meetings held in March  and June 2022 are contained in 
Annex A of documen t G/SPS/R/105  and Annex C of document G/SPS/R/107 , respectively.  
28 See sec tion 6.3 of the summary report of the June 2022 Committee meeting  in document  
G/SPS/R/107 . 
29 The report is contained in document G/L/1477; G/SPS/66 . 
051015202530
Restrictions Lifting of restrictions TF measures Extension of TF measures Interruption of TF measures Other types of documentsG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 24 - 
 
  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 regular meeting of 1995 
and the last regular meeting of 20 22. It provides detailed 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 a re categorized by their primary subject keyword ( food safety, animal or plant 
health, or other concerns ). Information is also provided on the participation of Members in STCs, 
by development status, on the average number of times that STCs are raised, as well as  on reported 
status of resolution . 
3.4.  The second section of Part B contains information regarding all STCs which were raised in the 
SPS Committee in 20 22 (Section 3.2 ). This includes STCs raised for the first  time in 20 22, 
STCs which were previously raised and discussed again in 20 22 and STCs resolved in 2022. 
Information is also provided on the first request  for the use of the  Good Offices of the Chair under 
Article 12.2 of the SPS Agreement and the ad hoc  consultations procedure , as well as on  STCs for 
which substantive action occurred under the  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU ). All STCs 
discussed in 202 2 are presented by responding Member  (Table B.2 ). 
3.1  General overview of specific trade concerns  (1995 -2022)30 
3.5.  Altogether, 558 STCs have been raised between 1995 and the end of 20 22. The full list of STCs 
raised since 1995 can be found in the  Trade Concerns Database . Chart B.1 shows the number of 
new STCs raised each year, per Committee meeting, and Chart B.2 shows the number of new and 
previously raised STCs per year.  A total of 26 new STCs were raised in the three SPS Committee 
meetings held in 202 2. As in previous years, t his number is higher than the average  since 1995, 
although still lower than the high number of new STCs raised in 2020 (36), despite the fact that only 
two meeti ngs were held in 2020.31 
3.6.  In 2022, 53 previously raised STCs were discussed again  (including 10 new STCs raised again 
in the same year) , the highest number since 1995 (specific information on STCs discussed in 2022 
is available in Section 3.2 ). Although it may be early to say, there appears to be an emerging upward 
trend in the total number of STCs discussed each year. A total of 39 STCs were discussed in 2018 
and in 2019, while 53, 64 and 69 STCs were discussed in 2020, 2021 and 2022, respectively.32 
In 2020, this increase seem s to be related to a higher number of new STCs but, in 2021 and 2022, 
the increase was primarily due to a higher number of previously raised ST Cs. The increase coincides 
with the introduction of virtual/hybrid meetings since 2020 and could indicate that the possibility for 
capital -based officials to participate virtually in meetings facilitates the raising of STCs.  The increase 
also coincides wit h the introduction of the eAgenda system, which may also facilitate the raising of 
STCs.  Whether this trend continues will have to be confirmed in subsequent years.  
 
30 Small  discrepancies in the dat a between the current reporting period and past reporting periods are 
due to the transition to the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform . 
31 The March 2020 Committee meeting was cancelled due to the COVID -19 pandemic (see document 
JOB/SPS/5/Rev.1/Corr.1 ). 
32 New STCs raised again in the same year are not considered, unlike in Chart B.2 . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Chart B.1 – Number  of new STCs raised since 1995, per Committee meeting  
 
Chart B.2 – Numbe r of new and previously raised STCs discussed per year since 199533 
 
3.7.  It is interesting to note that , although both numbers of STCs and of notifications34 have grown 
in recent years, there does not seem to be a clear correlation between the number of notifications 
and the number of new STCs raised. Only 2 18 (39%) STCs referred to a notified measure; 
specifically, 18 5 STCs referred to a regular notification while 33 STCs referred to an emergency 
notification. Additional ly, 20 STCs referred to a TBT notification and seven STCs raised in the 
TBT Committee refer red to a notification submitted to the SPS Committee. This reinforce s the idea 
that increased transparency does not  necessarily  lead to a highe r number of concerns r aised in the 
Committee.  
3.8.  Chart B.3  categorizes the 558 STCs raised since 1995 into food safety, animal or plant health, 
or other concerns. Overall, 188 (33%) of STCs raised relate primarily to food safety , 182 (33%) to 
animal health /animal diseases (animal health) , 123 (22%) to plant health, and 65 (12%) to other 
issues such as certification requirements, or control , inspection or approval procedures.35 A closer 
 
33 Please note that the number  of times an STC is raised during the year is not taken into account.  New 
STCs raised again in the same year are also included in the total of previously raised STCs.  
34 See Chart A.1 . 
35 Many STCs concern both food safety, a nimal or plant health and control, inspection or approval 
procedures. Where this is the case, the primary subject keywor d "food safety ", "animal  health/animal diseases"  
or "plant health " has been assigned. In addition, the keyword "control, inspection and approval procedures"  
has also  been assigned to such STCs.  
2112423
13
102843
29
2131
1016 161322
16 1624
1421
1417181736
2726
March/April June/July October/November
21124 23
13102843
29
2131
1016 16132216 1624
14211417 18 1736
27 26
131221
12
94035
34
2222
152115 201322 2016
1728
242127262250 53
New STCs Previously raised STCsG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 26 - 
 
  look at the primary objectives of STCs raised in 2022  compared to previous years  shows a change 
of pattern compared to the aggregated data ( Chart  B.12). On average, STCs have been raised three  
times, with concerns related to plant health being raised slight less  frequently , on average, than 
concern s with other primary objectives. These statistics are summarized in Table  B.1. 
Chart B.3 – STCs by subject (1995 -2022) 
 
3.9.  There does not seem to be a clear pattern in the primary subject keywords (food safety, animal 
health, plant health or other concerns) of new STCs submitted  since 1995 . Overall, f ood safety has 
been the most frequent primary keyword of new STCs raised in recent  years , alternating with animal 
health. Compared to the previous years, in 2021 -22 there was a decrease in the number of STC s 
relate d to food safety and other concerns, and a slight increase in  STCs related to animal and plant 
health. In general, plant he alth has been  the le ast frequently assigned primary subject keyword of 
new STCs since 2000 ( Chart B.4 ). 
Chart B.4 - Primary subject keywords of new STCs per year  
 
3.10.  Chart  B.5 reflects the  participation of Members in the 558  STCs36 raised since 1995 , according 
to the ir development status, regardless of how often  the same STC was discussed  in the Committee . 
 
36 STCs can be raised , supported  or responded to by more than one Member, which explains the 
apparent double -counting shown in Chart B.5 compared with the overall count of the 558 STCs raised since 
1995.  
051015202530354045
Food safety Animal health Plant health Other concernsG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 27 - 
 
  A developing Member has participated 376 times in STCs as a raising Member, compared to 315 
times in the case of a developed Member and 10 times for a least developed Member.  A developing 
Member has  participated 512 times in STCs as a Member supporting a concern  raised by other 
Members , compared to 272  times  and 24 times  for a developed Me mber and a least developed 
Member, respectively. Finally, 323 times the concern raised related to measures maintained by a 
developing Member, compared to 301 times and two times to measures maintained by a developed 
Member and a least developed Member, res pectivel y. 
Chart B.5 – Participation of Members in STCs  according to the ir development status , since 
1995  
 
3.11.  A total of 6 6 Members (4 0% of the membership) have raised at least one STC since 1995.  
This includes  19 developed Members (including eight EU  member States ), 43 developing Members 
and four LDCs. A total of 7 8 Members have supported at least one STC since 1995 (1 4 developed  
Members -including three EU member States ; 50 developing Members and 14 LDCs) . A total of 
68 Members' measures have been subj ect to an STC at least once ( 16 developed  Members , including 
six EU member States ; 50 developing and two LDCs). These numbers confirm that developing 
Members and LDCs are very active in the SPS  Committee.  
3.12.  Charts  B.6 and B.7 show the 10 Members that have raised the highest number of  new 
concerns and the 10 Members that have responded  to the highest number of STCs, respectively, 
since 1995 up to the last Committee meeting in November 20 22. Out of the 10  Members that have 
raised the highest  number of STCs since 1995, three are developed Members and the remaining 
seven are developing Members . When it comes to Members responding to STCs, five are developed 
and five are developing  Members . Chart B.6  shows that, in some cases, more  than 90% of t he STCs 
raised have been resolved or partially resolved.37 
 
37 Members can report on the resolution of STCs under the corresponding agenda item in the 
SPS Committee. Where  an STC has been raised by more than one Member but not all those who raised the 
STC have reported it to be resolved, the STC is considered to be partially resolved. Also, for partially resolved 
STCs, for the concern may have been resolved for selected pro ducts or by some of the importing Members 
maintaining the measure in question.  
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Chart B.6 - Members  who have raised the most STCs since 1995  
 
 
Chart B.7 - Members  responding to the most STC s since 1995  
 
 
3.13.  South America, Central America and the Caribbean is the region that has raised more STCs 
since 1995, followed by North America  and Asia (both 26%) . Asia is the region responding to a 
higher number of STCs  (35%) , followed by Europe  (28%) . Finally, South America, Central America 
and the Caribbean is also the region that most frequently support s STCs (53%)  (Chart B.8 ). It is 
interesting to note that animal health is the primary objective of the majority of concerns raised by 
North America (47%) , as well as South America, Central America and the Caribbean (38%) , 
while the m ajority of concerns (47%) raised by Asian Members relate to food safety.  
Chart B. 8 – Number  of STCs by geographical region since 1995  
 
020406080100120
European
UnionUnited
States of
AmericaChina Brazil Argentina India Canada Mexico Ecuador Colombia
Not reported Partially resolved Resolved
020406080100120140
European
UnionUnited States
of AmericaChina Japan India Australia Russian
FederationBrazil Korea Indonesia
Not reported Partially resolved Resolved
020406080100120140160180200
Raising Supporting Responding
Asia Europe SA, CA & Caribbean North America Africa CIS Middle EastG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 29 - 
 
  3.14.  Chart B.9  refers to  the average number of times STCs have been raised since 1995.38 A total 
of 352 (63%) have only been raised one or two times, 1 08 (19%) ha ve been raised three to 
five times and 98 (18%) have been raise d more than five times. Of the 2 51 STCs for which no 
solution has been reported, 1 01 (40%) have only been raised once (excluding the 10 raised for the 
first time at the November 202 2 Committee meeting ). This suggests that following the raising of an 
STC in the Committee, Members may engage in bilateral discussions, and s ome of these STCs may 
even have been resolved without the Committee being informed.  
Chart B. 9 - Average  number of times STCs have been raised since 1995  
 
 
3.15.  Chart B.10  shows that out of the 558 STCs raised since 1995,  228 (41%) and 79 (14%) have 
been reported to be resolved and partially resolved, respectively. In the case of the  partially resolved 
STCs, the concern may have been resolved  for selected products or by some of the importing 
Members maintaining the measure(s) in question. No solutions have been reported for the remaining 
251 (45%) STCs. Thus, more than 5 5% of the STCs raised have been resolved  or partially resolved . 
Specifically, 53% of STCs raised by developing Members  and LDCs  are considered to be resolved or 
partially resolved . These data  confirm the importance of the Committee for the resolution of  trade  
concerns.  
Chart B.10 – Resolution  of STCs  
 
3.16.  On average, resolved STC s were raised 2. 2 times. Of the 228 STCs for which a solution has 
been reported, 89 (39%) relate to animal health, 65 (29%) to plant health, 58 (25%) to food safety, 
and 16 (7%) to other concerns. It is interesting to note that STCs relating to food safety and animal 
health issues  each represent 33%  of the total number of STCs raised since 1995 ( Chart B.3 ), 
while they correspond to 25% and 39%, respectively,  of the total STCs reported as resolved. 
 
38 These figures do not include the time the STC was raised in the Committee to report on its resolution.  
18%, raised >5 times
19%, raised 3 -5 
times63%, raised 
1-2 times
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 30 - 
 
  STCs related to plant health and other concerns represent 22% and 12% of the total,  and constitute 
29% and 7% of the resolved STCs, respectively . These statistics are summariz ed 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  188 (33%) 182 (33%) 123 (22%) 65 (12%) 558 
Number of times 
raised (average)  3 3.1 2.7 2.9 3 
STCs reported as 
resolved (R)  58 (25%) 89 (39%) 65 (29%) 16 (7%) 228 (41%) 
Partially resolved 
(PR) STCs  26 (33%) 33 (42%) 14 (18%) 6 (8%) 79 (14%) 
STCs for which no 
solution has been 
reported (NR)  104 (41%) 60 (24%) 44 (18%) 43 (17%) 251 (45%) 
 
3.17.  In 2022, the list of keywords assigned to STCs was reduced to streamline searches.  
Chart  B.11 shows that a large number of STCs discussed are related to human health and food 
safety. Other keywords frequently assigned are animal health and international 
standards/harmonization . 
Chart B.1 1 – Keywords  assigned to STCs  
 
 
3.2  Specific trade concerns considered in 2022 
3.18.  Despite the hybrid character of the 2022 meetings and the fact that some delegates were not 
gathering in Geneva, several STCs were removed either before the adoption of the agenda or during 
the Committee meetings due to progress in bilateral consultations.  In particular, in March  2022 
China withdrew three new STCs: 1) Concerns regarding EU detection of bitter ginseng alkaloids in 
honey; 2) Thailand's suspension of imports of live poultry, pigs and their carcasses; and 3) Brazil's 
0 50 100 150 200 250Newcastle DiseaseOther animal health (OAH)BluetongueCOVID-19 SPSClassical Swine FeverAfrican Swine Fever (ASF)Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE)Other damage from pestsGood Offices/Consultations/Dispute SettlementGenetically modified organisms (GMOs)Appropriate level of protectionAvian InfluenzaOther concernsBovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Foot and mouth diseaseEquivalenceMaximum residue limits (MRLs)TransparencyPest- or Disease- free Regions / RegionalizationZoonosesSufficiency of scientific evidencePlant healthControl, Inspection and Approval ProceduresRisk assessmentInternational Standards / HarmonizationAnimal health / Animal diseasesFood safetyHuman healthG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 31 - 
 
  frequent adjustments of tec hnical regulations affecting fishery trade.39 In November 2022, before 
the adoption of the agenda, India withdrew two new STCs: 1) Japan's compulsory inspection of 
farmed shrimps; and 2) Canada's SPS notification ( G/SPS/N/CAN/1366/Rev.1 ) pertaining to aquatic 
animals requirement of zoosanitary certificate. Regarding previously raised STCs, Brazil withdrew 
the concern "US undue delays in opening its citrus market (ID 542) ", and China did not raise the 
concern "EU regulatory approach to maximum levels for contamin ants (ID 519)", that was only 
raised by Canada.40 
3.19.  A total of 69 STCs  were brought to the attention of the Committee during 20 22, of which 
26 were new STCs and 43 had been raised previously (Table B.2 ). In addition, t en STCs raised for 
the first time in 2022 were again discussed in subsequent  meetings during the same year , bringing 
the number of previously raised STCs considered in this document to 53 . In 2022, 31 STC were 
considered as resolved and another  14 as partially resolved  (see Section 3.2.1  below) . In 2022, 
substantive action occurred under the DSU in the case of five STCs (IDs 185, 356, 394, 432 and 
495) (Table B. 3). 
3.20.  The number of new STCs raised in 2022 (26) is similar to that of  2021 (27), but smaller than 
in 2020  (36), despite the fact that only two meetings were held that year (Chart B.1 ).41 It is 
interesting to note that, in 2022, only eight Members raised new STCs, compared to 14 Members in 
2021.  On the other hand, the 5 3 STCs previou sly raised discussed  again  in 202 2 represent a 
historical maximum  (Chart B.2 ). Eighteen Members raised a previously raised STC, compared to 
20 Members in 2021. Only 12 (27%) of these 5 3 STCs were raised for the first time more than three 
years ago. Half of these 5 3 STCs have been discussed five times or less since they were first raised. 
One of these STCs  has been raised 4 6 times.  
3.21.  Despite the high number of notifications circulated every year (Chart A.1 ), only seven42 of the 
26 new STCs raised in 202 2 referred  specifically  to SPS notifications , which were submitted in 2021 
or 2022. For instance , while 131 COVID -19 related SPS notifications  and documents had been 
submitted since the beginning of the  pandemic  until December 2022 (Chart A.26 ), only two new 
COVID -19 related STCs have been raised in the Committee since the beginning of the pandemic, 
and only one of these has been raised  again  in 2022 .43 
3.22.  As mentioned earlier, a total of 6 9 (new and previously raised)  STCs were discussed in 202 2. 
Table B.2  provides further information on Members' participation in these STCs, i.e. the Members 
raising, supporting or responding to concerns. In 202 2, 19 Members (1 2% of the membership ) 
raised at least one STC, including eight Members that raised  at least one new STC and 18 that raised  
at least one previously raised STC. Of these  19, six (32%) are developed Member s and the remaining 
13 (68%) are developing Members . Seven  previously raised STCs, discussed  three times or more , 
have gathered the support of 10 Members or more.44 Concerning Members responding, the 26 new 
STCs were raised against measures maintained by 1 3 Members ( four developed and nine developing 
Members ). The  53 previously discussed STCs were raised against m easures maintained by 
21 Members, including t hree developed and 1 8 developing Members . Additionally, one STC was 
raised again against measures maintained by  at least 15  Members.  
3.23.  Out of the 26 new STCs raised in 20 22, nine (35%) relate primarily to food safety ; seven 
(27%) refer to animal health and zoonoses45, noting that this category includes issues that are also 
relevant from a food safety perspective; six (23%) refer to other concerns; and four (15%) refer  to 
plant health . Chart  B.12 shows all new and previous STCs raised in the Committee in 20 22 compared 
to all STCs discussed between 1995 and 20 21, by primary subject keywords assigned.  In 2022, w e 
can see a sharp increase in the STCs relate d to other concerns, which mainly refer to issues related 
 
39 See paragraph 3.1 of the summary report of the March 2022 SPS Committe e meeting ( G/SPS/R/105 ). 
These three STCs had been included in the annotated draft agenda circulated as JOB/SPS/19 . 
40 See paragraph 3.1 of the summary report of the March 2022 SPS Committee meeting ( G/SPS/R/108 ). 
These three STCs had been included in the annotated draft agenda circulated  as JOB/SPS/23 . 
41 The March 2020 Committee meeting was cancelled due to the COVID -19 pandemic (see document 
JOB/SPS/5/Rev.1/Corr.1 ). 
42 These STCs were 533, 536, 537, 540, 545, 548 and 550. 
43 These STCs were 487 (raised seven times since 2020)  and 488 (raised once in 2020 ). 
44 STCs 382, 446, 448, 485, 487, 501 and 534. 
45 Among the new STCs raised in 2022 with animal health as a p rimary keyword, ASF (544), avian 
influenza (556 and 558), BSE (538 and 543), classical swine fever (538), and foot and mouth disease (555) 
are the major diseases of concern . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 32 - 
 
  to control, inspection and approval procedures , and  a decrease in the percentage of new STCs 
relatin g to the other three primary objectives, compared with the period 1995 -2021. 
Chart B.12 – New and previous STCs raised in 2022, by primary subject keywords, 
compared to all STCs  raised between 1995 and 20 21 (percentage)  
 
3.2.1   Resolution of STCs in 2022 
3.24.  In September 2022, the Secretariat contacted 37 Members to seek information regarding the 
status (resolved, partially resolved or not resolved) of their specific trade concerns (STCs) that had 
not been raised since November 2020. Based on responses receive d from 18 Members, 31 STCs 
could be  considered as resolved, and 14 STCs as partially resolved.46 The STCs reported as resolved 
in 202 2 referred to food safety (nine STCs, 30%), animal health (eight STCs, 26%), plant health 
(seven  STCs, 2 2%) and other concerns ( seven  STCs, 22%). On average, these STCs had been raised 
1.5 times. Only three of these STCs had been raised by more than one Member. Overall, these STCs 
related to measures maintained by 1 6 Members.  The results of the exercise were circulated to  
Members  in document  G/SPS/GEN/2062/Rev.1  and presented in the November 2022 
SPS Committee meeting.47 
3.2.2   Good offices of the Chair  
3.25.  In 2022, Brazil requested the Good Offices of the Chair under Article 12.2 of the 
SPS Agreement and the ad hoc  consultations procedure  (G/SPS/61 ) regarding issues pertaining to 
the export of swine meat to Mexico, which were related to three previously discussed STCs ( IDs 263, 
271 and 489). STC ID 489 was raised in all three SPS Committee meetings held in 2022 ( Table B.2 ). 
3.26.  On 27 October 2022, Mexico provided a response in accordance with paragraph 2.3 of the 
ad hoc consultations procedure. Mexico rejected the request because it had publ ished the 
requirements to be met for the importation of pork from Brazil to Mexico and thus was of the view 
that it was not necessary to continue with the Good Offices of the Chair. Brazil's request and Mexico's 
response to the request were circulated in d ocuments G/SPS/GEN/2078  and G/SPS/GEN/2079 . 
4  PART C – OTHER TRANSPARENCY -RELATED ASPECTS  
4.1  Transparency recommendations in the Fifth Review  
4.1.  The Report of the Fifth Review on the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement48 
was adopted at the June 2020 Committee meeting. The Report contains the following 
recommendation on Notification Procedures and Transparency (paragraph 7.13):  
 
46 As per footnote 37, where an STC has been raised by more than one Member but not all those who 
raised the STC have reported it to be resolved, the STC is considered to be partially resolved. STCs where 
trade may have been allowed for selected products or by some of the importing Members maintaining the 
measure in question, but not by all, are also considered partially resolved.  
47 See Section 3. 3 of the summ ary report of the November 2022 Committee meeting, G/SPS/R/108 . 
48 G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1 . 
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Food safety Animal health Plant health Other concerns
Total new STCs 1995-2021 2022 (New STCs) 2022 (Previously raised STCs)G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 33 - 
 
  a. Members are encouraged to clearly indicate in their SPS Committee notifications when 
a measure has been notifie d to another Committee.49 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 recommendations 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 development of coordina ted 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 national 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.  
c. The Committee requests the Se cretariat 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 additional resources as  suggested by Members.50 
4.2  Technical assistance and workshops  
4.3.  In light of the steadily increasing volume of documents  circulated , managing the flow of 
notifications, and coordinating at the national level on SPS matters  is a challenge for many Members. 
This is one of the areas where Members have sought technical assistance and guidance on best 
practices.51 
4.4.  The WTO Secretariat regularly provides hands -on training on all its tools , as part of its technical 
assistance programmes.52 Some Members significantly inc rease their notification activity following a 
dedicated training on transparency . Similarly, some Members have updated the contact details of 
their NNAs and NEPs available in the ePing  SPS&TBT Platform  (see Section 4.3.1.1.2 ) following 
dedicated trainings , further facilitating communication between Members.  
4.5.  Additionally, t ransparency workshops, usually organized every other year, have provided highly 
interactive training on the use of the SPS IT tools . Likewise, these dedicated trainings have also led 
to an increased use of these tools . A Workshop on Transparency was organized on 20 June 2022, 
aimed at provid ing an update on recent developments related to transparency and present the main 
functions of the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform , including the notification and outreach/communication 
functionalities. In addition, a "notifications clinic" afforded SPS notification authorities and enqu iry 
points the possibility to address any concerns on the use of the notification submission functionalities 
of the ePing SPS&TBT Platform , in direct consultation with the Secretariat.53 
4.6.  A new SPS Transparency Champions Course , inspired by the longstanding flagship Advanced 
SPS Course,  is currently on -going.  A similar course is also offered in the TBT area.  This is a 
comprehensive capacity building programme, p iloted by the SPS (and TBT ) team, offering officials  
from NNAs and NEPs an opportunity to gain knowledge and practical skills  to implement as well as 
benefit from  the WTO's transparency framework . The goal of this programme is to bring about 
concrete and sustainable results  in operationali zing the  transparency framework of the WTO.  
 
49 Please refer to section 2.7 of the Reco mmended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency 
Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7) in document G/SPS/7/Rev.5 , which makes reference to notifying 
a regulation containing SPS and TBT measures under both the SPS and TBT Agreements.  
50 See document G/SPS/GEN/1850/Rev.1 . 
51 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Operation of Enqu iry Points and National 
Notification Authorities ( G/SPS/GEN/751/Re v.1) for further elaboration on this issue.  
52 See the latest version of the G/SPS/GEN/521  document series.  
53 Information on this workshop, including the programme, the presentations and the recording of the 
session, is available in https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop_transpa rency_20jun22_e.htm . 
The report is contained in document G/SPS/R/106 . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 34 - 
 
  The first week of the course , which benefitted 18  government officials from 13 English -speaking 
African countries, successfully enhanc ed participants' understanding of the transparency provisions 
of the SPS Agree ment, allowed for the exchange of information and experiences regarding the 
implementation of SPS transparency provisions, and facilitated the discussion of key challenges and 
ideas to improve the transparency framework in participants' countries. The part icipants have 
continued to work on the elaboration of action plans to address challenges/difficulties encountered 
in their respective countries , have met  in virtual sessions from October to November 2022, and were 
invited to virtually attend the November 2 022 SPS Committee meetings. They are expected to return 
to Geneva in 2023, to follow up on the implementation of their action plans, subject to the 
submission of periodic progress reports.54 
4.7.  All the information from previous workshops and thematic sessions on transparency  and 
dedicated trainings organized by the Secretariat  is available in the revamped Members' transparency 
toolkit  on the SPS gateway.  
4.3  SPS IT tools  
4.3.1   The new ePing SPS&TBT Platform  
4.8.  The new ePing SPS&TBT Platform  integrate s all SPS and TBT transparency tools, as well as the 
ePing alert system,  into a single platform. The Platform allows search es of SPS (and TBT)  
notifications, specific trade concerns, as well as contact information of NNAs and NEPs . 
Registered  users benefit from additional features, including receiving email alerts on notifications on 
products and/or markets of inter est. Officials with additional rights can use the ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform to submit notifications to the WTO , updat e NNA and NEP contact details,  and, on a voluntary 
basis, disseminate their comments/replies on notifications.55 Extracting data from a single  source 
reduc es errors and maintenance costs. Additionally, under the single sign -on system recently 
developed by the WTO Secretariat, users can access all WTO databases to which they have rights 
with a single set of credentials. The following paragraphs s ummarize the functions that are integrated 
in the ePing SPS&TBT Platform.56 New training materials will be developed in due course.  
4.9.  Since the beginning of the project  in 2021 , the SPS (and TBT ) Committee ha s been regularly 
informed of progress made in the development of the Platform. SPS (and TBT ) delegates  participated 
in the pilot testing phase carried out in the first quarter of 2022 . On the SPS side, feedback received 
from 48 Members was considered for improvement of the Platform. In March 2022, the Platform 
went live in beta version and numerous sessions were undertaken to train interested Members on 
the use of the Platform, namely on the online submission of notifications and 
communication/ outreach functions. The ePing SPS&TBT Platform  was officially launched  on 13 July 
2022, with the participation of senior officials from the three ePing p artner agencies, 
the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), the International Trade Center (ITC) 
and the WTO.57 
4.3.1.1   Functionalities  
4.3.1.1.1   Notifications and STCs  
4.10.  The new Platform integrate s and improve s the search functions for notifications  and STCs 
previously  availa ble in the SPS IMS , and allows searches across both SPS and TBT domains. 
Since  notifications are increasingl y being submitted online (see Section 4.3.1.1.4 ), the information 
available is more complete and harmonized, further improving the quality of searches. Members can 
register to the Platform to have access to additional features , such as saving filters, defining favourite 
documents , or access ing chats previously available in  the ePing alert system.  
 
54 See WTO | 2022 News items - DG Okonjo -Iweala stresses importance of SPS, TBT transparency to 
facilitate trade . 
55 For more information, see the Members' transparency toolkit page: WTO | Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures – members' transparency toolkit . 
56 Currently, the Practical Manual for NNAs and NEPs , first circulated in 2011 and revised in 2018, offers 
guidance for governments to facilitate the implementation of the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement. The Secretariat  has prepared an  updated  overview of the SPS and TBT IT tools . 
These  materials will be reviewed in light of the on -going development on IT tools.  
57 See G/SPS/GEN/2058 ; G/TBT/GEN/336 . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 35 - 
 
  4.11.  For searches on STCs, the ePing SPS&TBT Platform  mirror s the data contained  in the WTO 
Trade Concerns Database (TCD) , available to Members since February 2021 .58 This advanced  
analytical tool for STCs integrates concerns raised in the SPS, TBT and Market A ccess  committees . 
It may incorporate concerns raised in other WTO  bodies in the future . The mirroring  of the  TCD in 
the new Platform allows for data to be extracted from a single source, ensuring consistency and 
reducing maintenance costs and errors. For more advanced searches, the ePing SPS&TBT P latform 
will redirect users to the TC D, which contains more granular information, o rganized on a per meeting 
basis, facilitating in-depth  analysis and reporting. The TCD includes  Member s' profiles and allows 
users to explore and visualize results by objectives, keywords, and HS  codes, among other options. 
This analytical tool is fed from  the data available in eAgenda  and has been manually completed with 
historical data on trade concerns available in the summary reports of the SPS Committee meetings, 
previously  searchable through the SPS  IMS. The ePing SPS&TBT P latform also includes the possibility  
to search both notifications and STCs  at the same time.  
4.12.  For searches on other SPS documents , users are currently redirected to the SPS IMS. 
This feature should  be fully integrated in the Platform in the first quarter of 2023.  
4.3.1.1.2   Contact details of NNAs and NEPs  
4.13.  Contact details of NNAs and NEPs , previously  available in the SPS IMS and ePing  alert system , 
are also  available in the new Platform.  Members are responsible, through their notification admin 
(see Section 4.3.1.1.4 ), of updating their contact details.  
4.3.1.1.3   Outreach /Communication  function  
4.14.  The functions previously  available in the ePing alert system  have been  integrated and 
enhanced in the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform . As such, the new Platform include s a publicly available 
alert system for SPS  and TBT  notification s. By filling a registration form, users can identify  particular 
products and/or markets of interest and subscribe to receive email alerts regarding SPS and 
TBT notifications. In addition, users  continue to be able to share notifications, upload additional 
information and related documents, as well as partici pate in discussion forums. As in the previous 
alert system, a n NNA/NEP  management tool is available to facilitate domestic as well as international 
information sharing and discussion  on notifications . Users with outreach  rights also have access to 
a chat f unction to discuss topics of their choice, whether related to  a specific  notification  or not . 
As such, the Platform  continue s to help public and private stakeholders, in  particular small and 
medium enterprises, to track, consult and comment on measures tha t are being developed and 
adapt as necessary to changing regulatory conditions.  
4.15.  In 2021, the Secretariat undertook a survey to get better insights on the use of the ePing  alert 
system , and how  it could  be improved. The results of the survey reflect ed an overall user satisfaction 
as well as some concrete suggestions for further improvements , including  the development of an 
ePing mobile application.59 Such mobile application was made available on the Plat form in the second 
half of 2022, and allows users to access some of the functionalities of the Platform.  
4.16.  As of 31 December 202 2, the number of subscribers had grown  to over 19,500 (including 
over 7,790 users from private sector) from 187 countries, up from  15,443 users (including 
6,204 users from the private sector) from 18 4 countries at the end  of 202 1. Some of these users 
registered after a TA activity had been delivered in their country or their region, confirming the 
efficiency of TA  activities to spread the word about the ePing SPS&TBT Platform  and get users started 
with the registration process and the subscription to receive email alerts. 76% of users receive daily 
or weekly email alerts of SPS  and/or TBT notifications. 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, 399 ePing Outreach admin users were registered on the Platform , 
covering 1 33 countries and territories. In  the case of SPS, a  total of 1 95 Outreach admin user s from 
89 countries were registered.  
 
58 The WTO TCD was launched in  beta version in the margins of the February 2021 TBT Committee 
meeting and presented to the SPS Committee at its March 2021 meeting.  
59 See G/SPS/GEN/1933 ; G/TBT/GEN/317 . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 36 - 
 
  4.3.1.1.4   Online s ubmission of notifications  
4.17.  The online submission of notifications, previously available through the SPS NSS, has been 
integrated in the ePing SPS&TBT Platform . The submission of notifications through the new Platform 
provides the same functions  as the SPS  NSS, with improved and streamlined processes. 
Since  March  2022, Members with the relevant rights can easily and accurately complete and submit 
all SPS notification formats via the Platform. Increased online submission helps improving the 
amount  and quality of information provided by Members in the various notification formats, as well 
as the information available for searches. For instance, a mong other features, the Platform includes 
all versions of the Harmonized System (HS)  nomenclature . Also, notifications submitted online can 
be faster processed by the Secretariat and circulated to Members.  Some regional groupings are 
currently submitting joint notifications through the ePing SPS&TBT Platform, circulated in one 
multi-symbol notification, and several other regions are exploring the possibility of doing so.  
4.18.  Online submission of notifications is  restricted. Upon registration, users  may be granted with 
the following types of rights : notification drafting rights, allowing the user to draft a notification but 
not to submit it to the WTO ; or notification submission rights, allow ing the user to draft and submit 
notifications to the WTO. Within a Member, these rights are granted by the notification admin, who 
can draft and submit notifications , grant these rights to the relevant users, and update the contact 
details for their NNAs and NEPs . Members shou ld contact the Secretariat ( spscommittee@wto.org ) 
to designate the SPS n otification admin (s) to be granted with admin rights . To date, 101 users  have 
received SPS notification admin rights . A total of 203 users benefit from  drafting rights and 136 from 
submission rights.  
4.19.  Since the creation of the decommissioned SPS NSS, the number of Members  submitting 
notifications online has constantly increased.  A total of 65 Members  have officially subm itted 
notifications through the Platform . Following the Secretariat 's initiative to promote online submission 
of notification s, in 202 2 two additional Members have started notifying online . In 2022, about 97% 
of notifications  (7% more than in 202 1), by 51 Members,  were submitted online . Since 2017, 
the percentage of SPS notifications submitted through the online platform has risen from 45% 
in 2017 to 97% in 202 2 (Chart C.1 ). 
Chart C.1 – Percentage of notifications submitted via the SPS NSS since 201 7, and number 
of Members using the system per year60 
 
4.20.  The Secretariat has provided training on online submission of notifications in numerous 
transparency activities delivered in 202261, as well as in the dedicated "notifications clinic", 
held virtually during the June 2022 SPS Workshop on Transparency.62 This session, held for the first 
time ever for SPS officials, afforded SPS notification authorities and enquiry points the possibility to 
 
60 For comparison , Chart A.1  shows the number of Members who have submitted at least one 
notification in a given year.  
61 See the latest version of the G/SPS/GEN/521  document series.  
62 Information on the Workshop on Transparency is available in the dedicated webpage: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop_transparency_20jun22_e.htm . 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 37 - 
 
  address any concerns on the use of the notification sub mission functionalities of the ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform, in direct consultation with the Secretariat.  
4.3.1.1.5   Facts and Figures  
4.21.  Under the Facts & figures  tab of the ePing SPS&TBT Platform , users can visualize premade 
graphics a nd statistics  for one specific Member or globally.  Member profiles  displays  the NNA and 
NEP(s) contact details, graphics  and data of the Member's notification activity , HS codes associated 
with SPS notifications , and Member's involvement in STCs . Users can also access trade policy review 
data if available, and other SPS documents. The notifications  tab allows users to view a wide range 
of notifications statistics. For more  specific information on STCs, the site redirects users to the TCD. 
4.3.2   eAgenda  
4.22.  The eAgenda  platform , launched in 2020,  is a collaborative online tool meant  to support the 
work of  WTO bodies, including the  SPS Committee . The SPS eAgenda 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.  While it will remain 
a stand -alone tool, eAgenda users can reach the system from the ne w ePing SPS&TBT Platform  
benefitting from the single sign -on system, without having to log in again.  
4.23.  The SPS eAgenda was pilot  tested in February 2020 by nine Members and actively used for 
the first time during the Ju ne 2020 SPS Committee meeting . Since November 2020, t he SPS eAgenda 
tool is regularly used by most Members to add agenda items, raise STCs and upload  statements . 
In 2022, most agenda items and STCs raised were included directly by Members in  eAgenda, 
increasing transparency ahead of the meeting and leading to efficiency gains in the preparation of 
the annotated draft agenda by the Secretariat.  
4.24.  Since March 2021, Members have the possibility to support STCs and other agenda items 
through eAgenda until they ar e discussed in the formal meeting, provided that these STCs and 
agenda items were already raised by another Member before the established deadline. As per the 
usual procedure, Members are also able to support items orally during the Committee meeting. 
Members can add other items to the agenda (apart from STCs and items under monitoring of the 
use of international standards) at the beginning of the formal meeting, before adoption of the 
agenda. Only Members who take the floor during the meeting are reflected in eAgenda (for example, 
included as supporting Member) and their oral statements recorded in the summary report  of the 
meeting . Most Mem bers upload written  versions , sometimes  more detailed,  of the oral interventions 
made in SPS Committee meeting s. Registered users have the possibility to download statements, 
complementing the summary reports prepared by the Secretariat.  
4.25.  As of 31 December 202 2, 334 users from 79 Members we re registered in SPS  eAgenda, 
of which 138 (41%) had reading rights only, allowing them to consult the proposed agenda for the 
meeting without being able to raise items nor upload statements.  The Secretariat remains available 
to provide additional training upon request.  
4.4  Standards and Trade Development Facil ity (STDF)  
4.26.  In 2021, the STDF  launched a new practical guide on the use of Good Regulatory Practices 
(GRPs)63 to strengthen and improve the design, development and review of SPS measures. In 2022, 
the STDF also produced French  and Spanish  versions of the guide. The GRP guide includes a focus 
on transparency, which is a cross -cutting principle of GRPs and relevant throughout the regulatory 
lifecycle of SPS measures. It is embodied in various GRPs, such as stakeholder engagement (e.g., 
consultations), information dissemination, or cooperation and coordination mechanisms. The guide 
also provides an overview of the transparency tools available to help with consultations, information 
dissemination, publ ication, notifications, etc. WTO Members are encouraged to consult and use the 
new STDF guide in efforts to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and overall 
fitness -for-purpose of their SPS measures.  
 
63 French and Spanish versions, and a short STDF Briefing Note on GRPs, will become ava ilable shortly.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 38 - 
 
  4.27.  As part of its ongoing work on Trade Facilitation , the STDF has identified a number of 
experiences, lessons and good practices to improve the implementation of SPS controls in a way 
that facilitates safe trade, while minimizin g transaction costs. This work has underlined the 
importance of transparency on SPS measures. For example, improving clarity on control, inspection 
and approval procedures is a simple step that can produce big benefits. If producers and traders are 
to impl ement SPS  measures, they need to understand what they are. Publication of SPS regulations, 
forms and fees (preferably online) will open up markets and support good governance. This STDF 
work also highlighted the importance of regular public -private dialogu e so that businesses (including 
MSMEs) know what is required of them, including when SPS regulations or procedures change.  
4.28.  Finally, STDF's P-IMA framework  offers an evidence -based approach to inform and improve 
SPS planning and decision -making processes and link SPS investments to public policy goals such 
as export growth, agricultural productivity or poverty reduction. In this process, P -IMA encourages 
public-private dialogue, boosts transparency and accountability, and improves the economic 
efficiency of investment decisions. Many other projects developed and financed by the STDF have 
also resulted in increased transparency levels by promoting inter -agency  coordination at the national 
and/or regional level, and by strengthening linkages between government agencies and the private 
sector.  
4.29.  Delegates are invited to contact the STDF Secretariat ( stdfsecretariat@wto .org) to obtain 
further information on the work carried out by the Facility.  
  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 39 - Table B.2 – STCs (new or previously raised ) discussed and resolved in the SPS Committee  in 202 2, organized in alphabetical order  of Members 
responding to the concern64 
The table below contains all the STCs, new an d previously raised, that were discussed in 202 2, organized alphabet ically by responding Member. The full list of 
STCs can be accessed here. 
Member 
responding  STC 
ID In 202 2 Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
Argentina  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
Australia  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
Bolivia  530 Subsequently 
raised  Bolivia's import restrictions 
on agricultural and livestock 
products  Peru  Plant health  03/11/2021  
(3 times)  NR 
Brazil  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
China  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
China  392 Subsequently 
raised  China's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  European Union   Animal health  15/07/2015  
(15 times)  NR 
China  406 Subsequently 
raised  China's import restrictions 
due to highly pathogenic 
avian influenza  European Union; 
United States  European Union  Animal health  16/03/2016  
(17 times)  NR 
China  485 Subsequently 
raised  China's administrative 
measures for registration of 
overseas manufacturers of 
imported food 
(26 November 2019)  Australia; Canada; 
European Union; 
Japan; United State s Canada; 
European  Union; Japan; 
Republic of Korea; 
Norway; Philippines; 
Senegal; Switzerland; 
Chinese Taipei ; 
Thailand; 
United  Kingdom  Other concerns  24/06/2020  
(7 times)  NR 
China  487 Subsequently 
raised  China's actions related to 
COVID -19 that affect trade 
in food and agricultural 
products  Australia; Canada; 
European Union; India; 
Russian Federation; 
Chinese Taipei; 
United  States  Australia; Brazil; 
European Union; India; 
Japan; Kenya; Mexico; 
New Zealand; Norway; 
Paraguay; 
Russian  Federation; 
Switzerland; 
Chinese  Taipei; 
United  Kingdom  Food safety  05/11/2020  
(6 times)  NR 
 
64 Please note that a hyperlink in the ID number redirects to the corresponding STC in the Trade Concerns Database .  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 40 - Member 
responding  STC 
ID In 202 2 Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
China  506 Subsequently 
raised  China's proposed new health 
certificate format for shrimp 
imports  India  Other concerns  25/03/2021  
(4 times) NR 
China  510 Subsequently 
raised  China's restrictions on 
bovine meat imports  India  Animal health  25/03/2021  
(2 times) NR 
China  516 Subsequently 
raised  China 's delay in approving 
requests for new listing and 
reinstatement of export 
establishments  Australia; Canada ; 
European Union  Canada; 
European  Union; 
United  Kingdom  Other concerns  25/03/2021  
(5 times)  NR 
China  524 Subsequently 
raised  Concerns with transparency, 
delays and due process 
associated with China's 
import requirements for 
agricultural goods  Australia  Russian Federation  Other concerns  14/07/2021  
(4 times) NR 
China  531 New China's import restrictions 
on fishery products  Mexico   Other concerns  03/11/2021  
(0 times)  NR 
China  532 Subsequently 
raised  China's import suspension of 
fresh fruits  Chinese Taipei   Plant health  03/11/2021  
(3 times)  NR 
Ecuador  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
Ecuador  498 Subsequently 
raised  Ecuador's import restrictions 
on grapes and onions  Peru  Food safety  05/11/2020  
(6 times)  NR 
Egypt  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
Egypt  547 New Egypt's Customs Circular 
Decision No. 4060: 
Radioactivity checks on 
imported food  European Union   Other concerns  22/06/2022  
(0 times)  NR  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 41 - Member 
responding  STC 
ID In 202 2 Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
European 
Union  382 Subsequently 
raised  European Union legislation 
on endocrine disruptors  Argentina; China; 
Dominican Republic; 
Ecuador; Guatemala; 
India; Panama; 
Paraguay; United 
States  Argentina; Australia; 
Benin; Brazil; 
Burkina  Faso; Burundi; 
Canada; Central African 
Republic; Chile; China; 
Colombia; Costa Rica; 
Dominican  Republic; 
Ecuador; Egypt; 
El Salvador; 
The Gambia; Ghana; 
Guatemala; Guinea; 
Honduras; India ; 
Indonesia; Israel; 
Jamaica; Kenya; 
Republic of Korea; 
Madagascar; Malaysia; 
Mexico; Mozambique; 
New Zealand; Nigeria; 
Pakistan; Panama; 
Paraguay; Peru; 
Philippines; 
Russian  Federation; 
Senegal; Sierra Leone; 
South  Africa; Chinese 
Taipei; Thailand; Togo; 
United  States; Uruguay; 
Viet Nam; Zambia; 
Certain  Members  Food safety  25/03/2014  
(23 times)  NR 
European 
Union  446 Subsequently 
raised  EU review of legislation on 
veterinary medicinal 
products  Argentina; United 
States  Argentina; Australia; 
Brazil; Canada; Chile; 
Colombia; Japan; 
Norway; Paraguay; 
Uruguay  Food safety  12/07/2018  
(9 times)  NR 
European 
Union  448 Subsequently 
raised  EU MRLs for alpha -
cypermethrin, buprofezin, 
chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, 
chlorpyrifos -methyl, 
diflubenzuron, 
ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, 
imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, 
mancozeb, molinate, 
picoxystrobin and 
tepraloxydim  Colombia; Costa Rica; 
Côte d'Ivoire; 
Dominican Republic; 
Ecuador; Guatemala; 
India; Panama; 
Paraguay; United 
States  Argentina; Australia; 
Brazil; Canada; Chile; 
Colombia; Costa Rica; 
Dominican Republic; 
Ecuador; El Salvador; 
Guatemala; Honduras; 
Indonesia; Japan; 
Kenya; Malaysia; 
Nicaragua; Panama; 
Paraguay; Peru; Food safety  01/11/2018  
(11 times)  NR  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 42 - Member 
responding  STC 
ID In 202 2 Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
Philippines; 
Russian  Federation; 
Türkiye; United States; 
Uruguay; Certain 
Members  
European 
Union  503 Subsequently 
raised  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 Amendi ng Regulation 
(EC) N° 1881/2006 as 
regards maximum levels of 
cadmium in foodstuff  Peru Colombia; Ecuador; 
Indonesia; Malaysia  Food safety  05/11/2020  
(6 times)  NR 
European 
Union  504 Subsequently 
raised  Proposed new EU rules on 
composite products  Australia; China; 
Russian Federation; 
Chinese Taipei  China; Japan; Malaysia; 
New Zealand; 
Philippines; 
Russian Federation; 
Chinese  Taipei; 
United  States  Other concerns  05/11/2020  
(5 times)  NR 
European 
Union  518 Subsequently 
raised  EU's classification of 
'anthraquinone' as a 
pesticide and the MRL for 
imported tea  India  Food safety  14/07/2021  
(3 times)  NR 
European 
Union  519 Subsequently 
raised  EU regulatory approach to 
maximum levels for 
contaminants  Canada  Brazil; Ecuador; 
United  States  Food safety  14/07/2021  
(4 times)  NR 
European 
Union  526 Subsequently 
raised  EU delays in authorizing 
imports of Samgyetang 
(Korean ginseng 
chicken  soup)  Korea   Other concerns  03/11/2021  
(3 times)  
 NR 
European 
Union  533 New (subsequently 
raised  in 2022)  EU restrictions on spice 
imports and other food 
products due to European 
Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2021/2246 
of 15 December 2021  India  Food safety  22/06/2022  
(1 time)  NR 
European 
Union  534 New (subsequently 
raised  in 2022)  EU import tolerances for 
certain pesticides to achieve 
environmental outcomes in 
third countries  Australia; China  Argentina; Brazil; 
Canada; Colombia; 
Costa Rica; Ecuador; 
Guatemala; Kenya; Other concerns  23/03/2022  
(2 times)  NR  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 43 - Member 
responding  STC 
ID In 202 2 Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
Japan; New Zealand; 
Paraguay; 
United  States; Uruguay  
European 
Union  535 New (subsequently 
raised  in 2022)  EU restrictions on the 
importation of collagen for 
human consumption  China   Food safety  22/06/2022  
(1 time)  NR 
European 
Union  536 New EU residue limits of ethylene 
oxide and dichloroethanol  China   Food safety  22/06/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
European 
Union  543 New (subsequently 
raised  in 2022)  EU recognition of Mexico as 
a country with OIE negligible 
BSE risk  Mexico  Brazil  Animal health  22/06/2022  
(1 time)  NR 
European 
Union  545 New (subsequently 
raised  in 2022)  EU regulation on animal 
health/official certificates for 
animal origin foods  China   Other concerns  22/06/2022  
(1 time)  NR 
European 
Union  546 New EU notifications of matrine 
and oxymatrine in honey  China   Food safety  22/06/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
European 
Union  549 New EU regulation No. 396/2005 
setting pesticide MRLs in 
food and feed of plant and 
animal origin  India Argentina; Brazil; 
China; Colombia; 
Costa  Rica; Guatemala; 
Israel ; Paraguay; 
Uruguay  Other concerns  09/11/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
European 
Union  550 New EU Commission proposal for 
reduction of the current MRL 
for "nicotine" for imported 
tea from India 
(G/SPS/N/EU/581)  India  Food safety  09/11/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
European 
Union  551 New EU Regulations 2021/405 
and 2017/185 on vitamin D3  China   Other concerns  09/11/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
European 
Union  552 New EU increased sampling 
frequency for inspection of 
farmed shrimps and newly 
listed fishery establishments 
not permitted to export 
aquaculture products  India  Other co ncerns  09/11/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
European 
Union  558 New EU import restrictions on 
ostrich meat  South Africa   Animal health  09/11/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
Guatemala  413 Subsequently 
raised  Guatemala's restrictions on 
egg products  Mexico   Food safety  27/10/2016  
(9 times)  NR 
India 373 Subsequently 
raised  US high cost of certification 
for mango exports  United States  Brazil; Dominican 
Republic  Plant health  9/07/2014  
(4 times)  NR  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 44 - Member 
responding  STC 
ID In 202 2 Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
India 484 Subsequently 
raised  India's approval procedures 
for animal products  Russian Federation   Other concerns  24/06/2020  
(5 times)  NR 
India 497 Subsequently 
raised  India's import requirements 
for pulses  Canada  Russian Federation  Plant health  05/11/2020  
(5 times)  NR 
India 501 Subsequently 
raised  India's requirement for 
certificate for Non -GM origin 
and GM -free status  China; European 
Union; United States  Argentina; Australia; 
Brazil; Canada; Chile; 
European Union; Japan; 
New Zealand; Paraguay; 
Russian Federation; 
Thailand; Türkiye; 
Uruguay  Food safety  05/11/2020  
(6 times)  NR 
India 553 New India's Draft Food Safety 
and Standards (Import) 
Amendment Regulation  European Union  Canada; New Zealand  Other concerns  09/11/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
India 554 New India's Order related to 
requirement of health 
certificate accompanied with 
imported food consignment 
of milk, pork, fish and 
related products  European Union  Canada; Chile;  Japan; 
New Zealand ; Norway  Other concerns  09/11/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
Indonesia  441 Subsequently 
raised  Indonesia's approval 
procedures for animal and 
plant products  European Union; 
Russian Federation  Brazil; Philippines; 
United States  Other concerns  12/07/2018  
(12 times)  NR 
Indonesia  537 New (subsequently 
raised in 2022)  Indonesia's draft regulation 
on heavy metals 
contaminants in processed 
food China   Food safety  23/03/2022  
(1 times)  NR 
Japan  556 New Japan's approval procedures 
for poultry products  Russian Federation   Animal health  09/11/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
Jordan  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
Korea, 
Republic of  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
Korea, 
Republic of  490 Subsequently 
raised  Korea's lack of progress on 
pending applications for 
authorization of beef 
imports  European Union  Russian Federation  Other concerns  05/11/2020  
(3 times)  NR 
Korea, 
Republic of  557 New Korea's requirement of a 
health certificate with a 
declaration of aquatic 
disease status  India  Other concerns  09/11/2022  
(0 times)  NR  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 45 - Member 
responding  STC 
ID In 202 2 Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
Malaysia  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
Mexico  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
Mexico  489 Subsequently 
raised  Mexico's import restrictions 
on pork  Brazil   Animal health  05/11/2020  
(6 times)  NR 
Morocco  548 New Morocco 's import ban on 
ornamental plants  European Union   Plant health  22/06/2022  
(0 times) NR 
Namibia  555 New Namibia's approval 
procedures for beef and 
meat of small ruminants  Russian Federation   Animal health  09/11/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
Nigeria  523 New Nigeria's import restrictions 
on meat, pork, poultry, milk 
and dairy products, genetic 
material and live cattle  Brazil   Other concerns  14/07/2021  
(2 times)  NR 
Panama  509 Subsequently 
raised  Panama's undue delays in 
the renewal of 
authorizations for plants of 
fishery and livestock 
enterprises  Peru; European Union  Chile; Costa Rica; 
European Union  Other concerns  25/03/2021  
(5 times)  NR 
Panama  512 Subsequently 
raised  Panama's restrictions 
regarding the procedure to 
regain access for Peruvian 
potatoes and onions  Peru Costa Rica  Other concerns  25/03/2021  
(5 times)  NR 
Peru 193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
Peru 544 New (subsequently 
raised in 2022)  Peru's non -application of 
regionalization for African 
swine fever  European Union  Brazil  Animal health  22/06/2022  
(1 times)  NR 
Philippines  466 Subsequently 
raised  The Philippines' trade 
restrictions on imports of 
meat European Union; 
Russian Federation  Russian Federation  Animal health  07/11/2019  
(8 times)  NR 
Qatar  529 Subsequently 
raised  Qatar's new import rules for 
dairy products  European Union  New Zealand  Food safety  03/11/2021  
(3 times)  NR 
Russian 
Federation  508 Subsequently 
raised  Russian Federation - 
Procedures for authorizing 
units eligible for export of 
fish and fish products to 
Eurasian Customs Union  India  Other concerns  25/03/2021  
(2 times)  NR 
Russian 
Federation  525 Subsequently 
raised  The Russian Federation's 
classification of tea as "fruits 
and vegetables"  India  Food safety  14/07/2021  
(3 times)  NR  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 46 - Member 
responding  STC 
ID In 202 2 Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
Russian 
Federation  540 New Russian Federation's 
SPS notification 
G/SPS/N/RUS/241  regarding 
eleven new quarantine pests  India  Plant health  23/03/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
Russian 
Federation  541 New Russian Federation's 
phytosanitary certificate 
requirements for groundnut 
and sesame seeds  India  Plant health  23/03/2022  
(0 times)  NR 
Saudi 
Arabia, 
Kingdom of  486 Subsequently 
raised  Saudi Arabia's temporary 
suspension of Brazilian 
poultry exporting 
establishments  Brazil  Ukraine  Food safety  24/06/2020  
(7 times)  NR 
South Africa  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
South Africa  431 Subsequently 
raised  South Africa's import 
restrictions on poultry due 
to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza  European Union   Animal health  02/11/2017  
(13 times)  NR 
Chinese 
Taipei  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
Chinese 
Taipei  521 Subsequently 
raised  Chinese Taipei's import 
restrictions on poultry  Brazil   Other concerns  14/07/2021  
(4 times) NR 
Chinese 
Taipei  538 New (subsequently 
raised in 2022)  Chinese Taipei's new 
procedure for the 
recognition of infectious 
animal disease -free status of 
a foreign country  European Union   Animal  health  23/03/2022  
(2 times)  NR 
Thailand  527 Subsequently 
raised  Delays in Thailand's 
approval procedures for 
animal products  Russian Federation   Other concerns  03/11/2021  
(1 time)  NR 
Thailand  539 New (subsequently 
raised in 2022)  Thailand's sanitary 
requirements on "wet blue" 
leather imports  Brazil   Other concerns  23/03/2022  
(2 times)  NR 
United 
States  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
United 
States  439 Subsequently 
raised  US import restrictions on 
apples and pears  European Union   Plant health  01/03/2018  
(13 times)  NR 
United 
States  471 Subsequently 
raised  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  
(7 times)  NR  
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.15 • G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.23  
 
- 47 - Member 
responding  STC 
ID In 202 2 Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
United 
States  493 Subsequently 
raised  Non-publication of US final 
rule on importation of 
sheep, goats and certain 
other ruminants  European Union   Other concerns  05/11/2020  
(5 times)  NR 
United 
States  542 New (subsequently 
raised in 2022)  US undue delays in opening 
its citrus market  Brazil   Plant health  22/06/2022  
(1 time)  NR 
Certain 
Members  193 Subsequently 
raised  General import restrictions 
due to BSE  European Union; 
United States  Canada; Switzerland; 
United States; Uruguay  Animal health  01/06/2004  
(45 times)  PR* 
* STC 193 is considered as resolved for Philippines; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Singapore; Türkiye ; and Ukraine.  
Table B.3 - STCs where substantive action occurred under the DSU in 202265 
STC ID b Title Member(s) raising  Member(s) 
supporting  Member(s) 
responding  Primary 
subject 
keyword  First raised 
(subsequently 
raised)  Status  
185 Restrictions due to avian influenza  European Union; 
United States  Australia; Canada; 
European Union; 
Switzerland; 
United  States  India Animal health  17/03/2004  
(16 times)  PR / 
DS 430 
        
356 EU phytosanitary measures on citrus 
black spot  South Africa  Argentina; Brazil; 
Zambia  European Union  Plant Health  26/06/2013  
(5 times)  NR /  
DS 613  
394 Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing 
of phytosanitary import certificates for 
avocados  Guatemala; Mexico  Ghana; Guatemala; 
South Africa; 
United  States ; 
Venezuela  Costa  Rica Plant health  15/07/2015  
(4 times)  NR / 
DS 524 
432 EU restrictions on poultry meat due to 
Salmonella detection  Brazil   European Union  Food safety  02/11/2017  
(3 times)  NR /  
DS 607  
495 Panama's import restrictions on 
animal and plant products  Colombia; Costa Rica   Panama  Other concerns  05/11/2020  
(0 times)  NR /  
DS 599  
b Panel proceedings occurred in the context of the WTO dispute settlement system. For more information, see https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm . 
 
__________  
 
65 Please note that a hyperlink in the ID number redirects to the corresponding STC in the TCD for further details on the concern.