G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
11 October 2018  
(18-6304) Page: 1/15 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
OVERVIEW REGARDING T HE LEVEL OF IMPLEMEN TATION OF THE TRANSP ARENCY 
PROVISIONS OF THE SP S AGREEMENT  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
Revision  
Contents  
 
1   INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  2 
2   DESIGNATION OF N OTIFICATION AUTHORIT IES AND ENQUIRY POIN TS ....................  3 
3   SUBMISSION OF NO TIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
3.1   Types of notifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
3.2   Notifying Members  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 5 
3.3   Products covered  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  7 
3.4   Regions/countries affected  ................................ ................................ ............................  8 
3.5   Objective and rationale  ................................ ................................ ................................  9 
3.6   International standards, guidelines or recommendations  ................................ ..................  9 
3.7   Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force  ................................ .................... 11 
3.8   Final date for comments  ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 
3.9   Reasons for addenda to regular and emergency notifications  ................................ ........... 12 
4   NOTIFICATION KEY WORDS  ................................ ................................ .......................  13 
5   EFFORTS TO ENHAN CE THE BENEFITS FROM  A TRANSPARENT SYSTE M .....................  14 
6   OTHER ASPECTS RE LATING TO TRANSPAREN CY ................................ ........................  15 
 
 
                                                
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.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  Since the October 2007  workshop on transparency , the Secretariat has been requested to 
prepare an annual overview of the implementation of the tra nsparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement.2 The document provides an overview regarding the level of implementation of the 
transparency obligations found in the SPS Agreement (Article 7 and Annex B) and of the Committee's 
Recommended Procedures for Impleme nting the Tran sparency Obligations of the SPS  Agreement 
(G/SPS/7/Rev. 4). It provides information in areas which the Secretariat is in a position to track (such 
as designation of Enquiry Points/Notification Authorities, circulation of notifications) but doe s not 
include those where the Secretariat is not directly involved (such as provision of comments on 
specific notifications).  
1.2.  In preparing this overview, the Secretariat has largely relied on the SPS Information 
Management System (SPS IMS).3 While some his torical data on notifications dating back to 1995 
has been retrieved from various internal sources and incorporated into the SPS IMS, some of the 
more detailed analysis has only been possible as of July 2007, when the SPS IMS became 
operational. Most of th e analysis contained in this document can be undertaken and updated directly 
by Members or other interested parties as the underlying data is publicly available and searchable 
through the SPS IMS. Hands -on training on using the SPS IMS is regularly provide d in technical 
assistance activities . A new and improved version of the SPS IMS was laun ched at the end of March 
2017. This update, combined with streamlining internal processes in the Secretariat, has enabled 
data analysis to become more automatic than it  has been for past reports. Small discrepancies in 
the data between the current reporting period and past reporting periods  are due to the transition 
to the new system . 
1.3.  The revised Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Tran sparency Obligations of the  
SPS Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3, hereafter the " Recommended  Transparency Procedures") took 
effect on 1  December 2008. Compared to the earlier version of the transparency procedures, which 
had been adopted by the Committee in 2002, the 2008 transparency procedures include d revised 
notification formats which aim to facilitate the provision of clearer and more specific information 
regarding new or modified SPS measures by Members, e.g. regarding conformity with international 
standards, comment periods, and the p eriod between the publication and entry  into force of new 
regulations.  In June 2018, the Secretariat circulated an updated version of the Recommended 
Transparency Procedures  as document G/SPS/7/Rev.4. This revision  does not include any 
substantive changes to the text. It incorporates updates based on changes in the online tools 
(SPS IMS, SPS NSS and ePing) and the notification templates. It also includes text and the 
notification format contained in the Decision on Special and Differential Treatment (G/SPS/33/Rev.1) 
to consolidate all notification recommendations into one document.  
1.4.  The revised Recommended Transparency Procedures also paved the way for the introduction 
during 2011  of a procedure for the on -line submis sion of notifications by Members . The SPS 
Notification Submission System ( SPS NSS)4 assists Members to be more precise in their notifications, 
and speeds up the processing and circulation of notifications to all Members.  A new and improved 
version of the S PS NSS was launched at the end of March 2017 in conjunction with previously -
mentioned launch of the SPS IMS.5 
1.5.  While more information is available with the 2008 formats, there is still room for improvement 
regarding the actual amount and quality of informat ion provided by Members in the various 
notification formats.6 
                                                
2 See G/SPS/R/47, para. 44, for the recommendations arising from the 2007 workshop on transparency. 
See also footnote 4 of G/SPS/7/Rev.4 requesting the Secretariat to provide an annual report on the level of 
implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement and of the recommended transparency 
procedures.  
3 http://spsims.wto.org . 
4 https://nss.wto.org/spsmembers . 
5 See para. 5.3. for more information.  
6 All notification formats can be downloaded from http://www.wto.org/spstran sparency . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2  DESIGNATION OF NOTIF ICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS  
2.1.  Annex B, paragraph 10  of the SPS Agreement obliges Members to designate a single central 
government authority as responsible for the im plementation o f notification procedures. This agency 
is referred to as the "SPS National Notification Authority". As of 15 September  2018, 
157 WTO Members out of 164 had designat ed such an agency , one more than the previous reporting 
period . Those Members which have not designated Notification Authorities include six least 
developed countries (LDCs)  and one developing countr y.7 
2.2.  Annex B, paragraph 3  of the SPS Agreement requires that each Member establish an Enquiry 
Point responsible for the provision of answers to all reasonable questions and of relevant do cuments. 
As of 15 September  2018, 161 WTO Members  out of 164, had provided the WTO with the co ntact 
information of their Enquiry Point. The same three  countries  as last year , all LDCs,  have not yet 
established an Enquiry Point . Thirty  Members have identified more than one SPS Enquiry Point.  
2.3.  The most up -to-date information on Members' Notification Authorities and Enquiry Points can 
be accessed through the SPS IMS by clicking on Search → Enquiry Points/Notification 
Authorities  on the top menu bar.8 
3  SUBMISSION OF NOTIFI CATIONS  
3.1.  Under the SPS Agreement, notifications are used to inform other Members abou t new or 
changed regulations that may significantly affect trade. Annex B, paragraphs 5 to 8, as well as the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures, elaborate on the notification procedures Members are to 
follow. For ease of reference, the specific sub -topics  highlighted below follow the order of items that 
are contained in the regular and emergency notification formats.  
3.1  Types of notifications  
3.2.  The two main types of notifications are regular notifications and emergency notifications. 
In addition, addenda, corri genda, revisions or supplements can be issued subsequent to an original 
regular or emergency notification.9 An addendum is used to provide additional information or 
changes to an original notification, for example if the products covered by the proposed re gulation 
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 an incorrect 
address detail. A revision is used to replace an existing notification, for example if a notified draft 
regulation was substantially redrafted or if a notification contained a large number of errors.  
3.3.  As of 15 September  2018, Members had submitted10 15,823  regular notifications, 
2,103  emergency notifica tions,  5,183  addenda and  416 corrigenda to regular and emergency 
notifications , reaching a  grand total of 23,525  notifications and related documents . During  the 
current reporting period (16 September 2017 through 15 September  2018), Members submitted a 
total of 1,636 notifications, of which 1,185 were regular notifications, 123 emergency notifications, 
313 addenda and 15 corrigenda to regular and emergency notifications.  
3.4.  In April 2004, the Secretariat established a mechanism for Members to inform each other of 
the availability of unofficial translations of notified SPS measures into one of the official languages 
of the WTO. These are submitted in the form of supplements to  the original notification. As of 
15 September  2018, 19 supplement notifications had been circulated. None were submitted in  2018. 
It is interesting to note that the identical mechanism for sharing translations of notified 
TBT regulations, which was launched in January 2008, has already resulted in 251 supplement 
notifications. It is not clear why Members are submitting so few supplement notif ications in the SPS 
area. 
                                                
7 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the WTO's 
Integrated Database (IDB) for analytical purposes ( idb@wto.org ). They can be consulted through the SPS IMS 
by clicking on "definitions of groups" on the top menu bar.  
8 http://spsims.wto.org/en/EnquiryPointsNotificationAuthorities/Search . 
9 See the Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.4) for further elaboration on the 
different types of notifications.  
10 For this Note, submission refers to the date of distribution of the notification.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.5.  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 15 September  2018, there have only been two equivalence notifications circulated, 
one from Panama in 2007 and anothe r from the Dominican Republic in 2008.  There  have been no 
new equivalence notifications circulated by W TO Members since  2008.  
3.6.  In October 2004, the SPS Committee  adopted a procedure to enhance transparency of special 
and differential treatment (S&D) in favo ur of developing country Members, which included an 
addendum notification format to inform the Committee on 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 s ubsequently revised in December 200911, and, as mentioned earlier, the notification 
format was incorporated in G/SPS/7/Rev.4 for ease of reference.  No S&D notifications have been 
circulated by WTO Members since 2004.  
3.7.  As can be seen in Chart 1, there has been a general upward trend in the number of notifications 
over the years , although after the peak of 1, 410 notifications in 2010, there ha d been a slight decline 
for the years 2011 -2013. In 2015 , however, the number of  notificat ions reached a new peak of  
1,680 , after which it has again been slightly lower . The yearly analysis also captured  that the number 
of notifications increased  moderately between  2016 and 2017, from 1,392 to 1,480 . The number of 
notifications submit ted by Members continued to increase by 265 additional notifications during the 
period from 16 September 2017 through  15 September 2018 , compared to  the sa me period in the 
previous year  (338 more regular notifications and 73 fewer emergency notifications) . 
Chart  1 – Notifications submitted per year  
 
 
                                                
11 See G/SPS/33/Rev.1.  
02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800
Regular Emergency Addenda CorrigendaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.2  Notifying Members  
3.8.  As of 15 September  2018, 127 Members out of 164 (77%) had submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO. Members which have not submitted any  notification so far include 
13 developing countr ies and 15 LDCs.  In addition, a number of EU  member States have not 
submitted notifications ; however, most SPS measures are notified by the European Union on behalf 
of all its member States .12 
Chart 2 – Notifications by Developing Country Members (including LDCs)  
 
 
3.9.  Chart 2 shows the increase of notifications from developing countries (including LDCs) since 
2000. In correlation with the variation in the number of total notifications submitted since 201 0, 
after the peak in that year the numbers dropped for the years 2011 -2012. Since then, notifications 
have increased again each year reaching a new peak in 2015 , close to the 1 ,200 mark. The share 
of notifications by developing countries and LDCs has varie d somewhat since 2000 (see Chart 3). 
It has consistently been higher than 50% since 2007 . From 16 September 2017 to 15 September 
2018, developing countries' share of total notifications increased by 13% compared to the same 
period in the previous year  (including LDCs) . Indeed, from 1 January to 15 September 2018, the 
share reached its highest peak of 73%  (including LDCs) . For LDCs, a similar upward trend can be 
observed , as their share of total notifications increased to 4.6% during the period from 16 September 
2017 to 15 September 2018, from 3.1% during the same period in the previous year.  
                                                
12 See G/SPS/GEN/456 for notification procedures for the European Union and its member States.  
02004006008001,0001,2001,400
Regular Emergency Addenda CorrigendaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Chart  3 – Share of Total Notifications Submitted by Developing Countries & LDCs 
 
 
3.10.   Looking at the geographic regions from which the notifications  submitted since th e year 2000  
originate, Chart  4 shows that the majority of notifications come from the North America region, 
followed by Asia, and then South and Central America and the Caribbean.13 
Chart  4 – Notifications by Geographical Region  from 2000  to 15 September 2018  
 
                                                
13 The geographical groupings use d rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the Integrated 
Database (IDB) for analytical purposes ( idb@wto.org ). The same groupings are used in the WTO Annual Reports. 
They can be consulted through the SPS IMS by c licking on "definitions of groups" on the top menu bar.  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Developing LDCs
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000
NA SA, CA & the
CarribeanEurope CIS Africa Middle East AsiaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 7 - 
 
   
3.11.   The Members which have submitted the greatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 15 September 2018 are listed in Table 1, while the Members that have submitted 
the greatest number of notifications in the current reporting period  (16 September 2017 to 
15 September  2018) are listed in Table 2.  
Table 1. Members which have submitted the most notifications since 1995  
Regular notifications   Emergency notifications  
Member  Number of 
notifications  Share 
of Total  Member  Number of 
notifications  Share 
of Total  
United States of 
America  2,942 19%  Philippines  225 11% 
Brazil  1,457 9%  Albania  174 8% 
Canada  1,223 8%  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of  172 8% 
China  1,194 8%  New Zealand  129 6% 
Peru 715 5%  United Arab Emirates  98 5% 
European Union  620 4%  United States of 
America  82 4% 
Korea, Republic of  595 4%  Ukraine  81 4% 
Japan  589 4%  Colombia  78 4% 
Chile 533 3%  Peru 72 3% 
Chinese Taipei  472 3%  Russian Federation  72 3% 
New Zealand  453 3%  European Union  68 3% 
Australia  421 3%  Thailand  46 2% 
Mexico  319 2%  Chile 46 2% 
Thailand  221 1%  Australia  37 2% 
Colombia  217 1%  Mexico  37 2% 
 
Table 2. Members which have submitted the most notifications in the past year  
(16 September 2017  – 15 September  2018 ) 
Regular notifications   Emergency notifications  
Member  Number of 
notifications  Share 
of Total  Member  Number of 
notifications  Share 
of Total  
Brazil  126 11%  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of  49 40% 
Canada  73 6%  United Arab Emirates  14 11% 
Japan  69 6%  Philippines  12 10% 
United States of 
America  68 6%  Chile 8 7% 
Peru 63 5%  New Zealand  7 6% 
Montenegro  49 4%  Kuwait, the State of  5 4% 
Kenya  48 4%  Kazakhstan  4 3% 
European Union  40 3%  Russian Federation  4 3% 
Korea, Republic of  40 3%  Madagascar  2 2% 
Mexico  33 3%  Mauritius  2 2% 
 
3.3  Products covered  
3.12.   In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex B of 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 prov ide the relevant HS codes. Most  Members 
have indicated they would welcome the provision of these codes by their trading partners.14 
                                                
14 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 poi nt. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 8 - 
 
  However, identifying relevant HS codes is one of the main difficulties  encountered by Members when 
filling in a notification according to the latest questionnaire on transparency.15 
3.13.   Since 1995 the WTO's Central Registry of Notifications (CRN) has been assigning, to the extent 
possible, the relevant HS codes for all notificati ons where these are not provided by the Member .16 
The SPS NSS also facilitates the inclusion of HS (and ICS) codes by submitting Members through a 
built-in search function.  
3.14.   While being only indicative, Table 3 shows the products at the two -digit level of HS  codes that 
are most often covered by regular and emergency notifications.  
Table 3. HS Codes assigned to notifications  
Regular notifications  
HS 
Code  Description  Number  Share of 
Total  
(02) Meat and edible meat offal  1,466 9% 
(06) Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; 
cut flowers and ornamental foliage  1,437 9% 
(08) Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons  1,324 8% 
(04) Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible 
products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or 
included Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or 
melons  1,261 8% 
(01) Live animals  1,206 8% 
Emergency notifications  
HS 
Code  Description  Number  Share of 
Total  
(01) Live animals  1,207 57% 
(02) Meat and edible meat offal  1,187 56% 
(04) Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible 
products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or 
included  784 37% 
(05) Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or 
included  523 25% 
(23) Residues and waste from the food industries; 
prepared animal fodder  258 12% 
 
3.4  Regions/countries affected  
3.15.   The Recommended Transparency Procedures call on Members to identify the regions or 
countries which are most likely to be affected by the measure being notified. They include a data 
entry option for this item whereby Members are invited to either select the tick box for "a ll trading 
partners" or provide information on specific regions or c ountries likely to be affected.  
3.16.   An assessment of notifications submitted in the period between 16 September 2017 and 
15 September 2018 indicate s that 16% of regular notifications have iden tified a specific group of 
countries or a region, while 84% of regular notifications have selected the tick box for "all trading 
partners" . In contrast, 90% of emergency notifications have identified a specific group of countries 
or a region , and only 10% of emergency notifications indicate "all trading partners" . This reflects the 
fact that emergency actions are frequently taken in response to dis ease outbreaks in specific 
countries, territories, or regions.  
3.17.   The comprehension and work of other Members woul d be facilitated if more specificity were 
provided by notifying Members on regions or countries likely to be affected. It is understandable , 
                                                
15 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.  
16 This information is available in the SPS IMS ( http:// spsims.wto.org ). G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 9 - 
 
  however, that Members may be hesitant to specifically identify potentially affected countries or 
regions for fear o f not accurately assessing who might be affected  when submitting notifications . 
3.5  Objective and rationale  
3.18.   In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex B of 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 ob jectives correspond to the definition of an SPS measure in 
Annex A, paragraph 1 of the SPS Agreement.  
3.19.   Table 4 indicates the total number and share of each objective as cited in regular and 
emergency notifications. It must be noted, however, that many notif ications identify more than one 
objective. Therefore, the table below specifies the total number of times the specific objective was 
assigned regardless of whether the notifications identified multiple objectives.  
3.20.   For regular notifications the most frequen tly cited objective is food safety , followed by plant 
protection and animal health,  while for emergency not ifications it is animal health , followed by food 
safety and protect humans from animal /plant pest or disease . 
Table 4. "Objectives" of notified SPS m easures in the period between  16 September 2017  
– 15 September 2018  
Regular notifications    
 Notifications  Share  
Food Safety  855 72% 
Plant Protection  202 17% 
Animal Health  144 12% 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease  98 8% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests  98 8% 
Emergency notifications    
 Notifications  Share  
Animal Health  72 59% 
Food Safety  65 53% 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease  23 19% 
Plant Protection  18 15% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests   11 9% 
 
3.6  International standards, guidelines or recommendations  
3.21.   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, IPPC or the OIE. 
Nonetheless, the Recommended Transparency Procedures encourage Members to notify  all 
regulations that are based on, conform to, or are substantially the same as an international standard, 
guideline or recommendation, if they are expected to have a significant impact on trade of other 
Members. The notification formats also seek more pr ecision from Members regarding relevant 
standards and the conformity of t he notified measure with these.  
3.22.   With respect to regular notifications circulated from 16 September 2017 to 15 September  
2018, Chart 5 indicates that in 56% of the cases, Members have not identified an international 
standard as being relevant to the new measure being notified , while 27% have referred to Codex, 
12% to the IPPC and 5% to the OIE . 
3.23.   When it comes to emergency notification s for the same period, Chart  6 shows that only 
14% of emergency notifications have not identified an international standard as being relevant to 
the measure being notified, whereas 69%, 12% and 5% have referred to the OIE, IPPC and  Codex 
respectively as having a relevant international  standard. It is reassuring to note that the relevant 
international standards address many emergency situations, thus providing invaluable guidance to 
governments on how to protect health in the face of emergencies.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Chart  5 - Regular Notifications referrin g to a relevant international standard  
 
 
Chart  6 - Emergency Notifications referring to a relevant international standard  
 
 
3.24.   The notification formats include a n entry asking whether the proposed regulation conforms to 
the relevant international standard. During the period from 16 September 2017 to 15  September  
2018, of the 50% of regular notifications identifying a relevant international standard regarding the 
measure, 88% indicated that the proposed regulation conformed to that rel evant international 
standard. For the same period, nearly all (9 8%) of emergency  notifications identifying a relevant 
international standard indicated that the proposed regulation conformed to the r elevant international 
standard.  None
56%Codex
27%IPPC
12%OIE
5%
OIE
69% None
14%IPPC
12%Codex
5%G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.7  Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force  
3.25.   In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement, Members are 
obliged to ensure that all SPS regulations which have been a dopted are published promptly. 
Except  in urgent circumstances, Members are also obliged to allow a reasonable interval between 
the publication of a measure and its entry into force. Paragraph 3.2 of the Doha Decision on 
Implementation -Related Issues and Concerns states that this interval "shall be understood to mean 
normally a pe riod of not less than 6 months".17 
3.26.   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 includes a default checkbox for 
a six-month interval between the publication and entry into force of a new measure.  
3.27.   For the period from 16 September 2017 through 15 September 2018, 25% (298) of regular 
notifications included a  specific date for adoption, 21% (253) for publication, and 20% (239) for 
entry into force . 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.  During the reporting period , 247 regular notifications 
(21%) had selected the checkbox for a six -month interval between the publication and entry into 
force of a measure.  
3.28.   Regarding the regula r notification s that indicated a specific date of entry into force, 29% (69) 
indicate a delay between the date of distribution and the proposed date of entry into force  that 
averaged 1 23 days. This average masks  a very wide range, as the periods in the not ifications varied 
from 1 to 618 days. The remaining notifications,  71% (170), indicated a date of entry into force 
prior to the date of distribution  of the notification , and 36% (62) of these concerned measures 
identified as trade facilitating.  
3.29.   As provided 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. During the period of 
16 September 2017 to 15 September 2018, about  50% of the addenda indicated the  adoption, 
publication or entry into force of regulations as shown in Table 6  on reasons for addenda to 
notifications . 
3.8  Final date for comments  
3.30.   Annex B, parag raph 5 of the SPS Agreement provides that notifications should take place at 
an early stage, when amendments can still be introduced and comments taken into account. 
The Recommended Transparency Procedures state that the comment period provided for regular 
notifications  should last at least 60 days . Where domestic regulatory mechanisms allow, the 60 -day 
comment period should normally begin with the circulation  of the notification by the 
WTO Secretariat. The notification formats also offer a checkbox  option for such a 60 -day comment 
period to encourage Members to follow this recommendation.18 Between 16 September 2017 and 
15 September 2018, this checkbox was selected in 56% (661) of regular  notifications.  
3.31.   An analysis of the notifications issued during the period from 16 September 2017 through 
15 September 2018 shows that around 23% of notifications have not provided a comment period  
(see Table 5).  For those that do provide comment periods, these average 54 days when calculated 
as the difference between the date of circulation of the notification  and the final date for comments. 
On average, d evelop ed country Members provide d longer  average  comment period s than developing 
country Members  (60 and 52 days respectively ). The overall average comment period for  all 
Members  increased slightly (54 this year compared to 52 the year before).  
                                                
17 WT/MIN(01)/17 and para. 4.3 of G/SPS/7/Rev.4.  
18 See G/SPS/7/Rev.4, para. 2.8.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Table 5. Comment period provided in regular notifications  (16 September 2017  – 
15 September 2018 ) 
All Members  
 No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  1,185 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available  270 22.8%  
Comment period ends before distribution date  30 2.5%  
Comment period available  885 74.7%  
Average length (in days)                           54 
Developed country Members  
 No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  289 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available  88 30.4%  
Comment period ends before distribution date  1 0.3%  
Comment period available  200 69.2%  
Average length (in days)                           60 
Developing country Members  
 No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  896 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available  182 20.3%  
Comment period ends before distribution date  29 3.2%  
Comment period available  685 76.5%  
Average length (in days)                           52 
 
3.32.   It should be noted that no comment period needs to be provided in the case of trade 
facilitating measures. The notification format includes a tick box for specifying whether the 
notification concerns a trade facilitating measure. From 16 September  2017 through 15 September  
2018, 17% of notifications have been identified to be trade facilitating.  In addition, as there is no 
obligation to notify  measures if their content is substantially the same as that of an international 
standard, it is not mandatory to pr ovide a comment period for this category of measures.  
3.33.   While Members must notify other WTO Members of draft , new or changed measures, they are 
not required to submit the text of the relevant regulations along with their notifications. However, 
Members have raised concerns in the SPS Committee regarding the difficulties of accessing the 
actual text of notified regulations, which are described only in summarized form in notifications. 
Members have also pointed out that the process of receiving the texts of reg ulations reduces the 
period actually av ailable for providing comments.  
3.34.   Since February 2008 , in an effort to address these concerns and facilitate access to notified 
draft regulations, Members may, on a voluntary basis, provide the Secr etariat with an electronic 
version of the text of the notified draft regulation as an attachment to the notification format. The 
submitted text is then  made  electronically accessible to other Members through a hyperlink in the 
notification format.19 From 16 September  2017 through 15 September  2018, around  73% of all 
notifications  (82% of regular and 30% of emergency notifications)  have provided 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.  
3.35.   Many Members include a hyperlink to their own electronic version of the notified regulation 
as part of the text of the notification, in addition to or  instead of the above facility.  
3.9  Reasons for  addenda to regular and emergency notifications  
3.36.   According to t he Recommended  Transparency Procedures , Members are asked to select from 
a number of options regarding the reason for an Addendum. Table 6 below shows the share of each 
option for the period from 16 September 2017 to 15 September  2018: 
                                                
19 See G/SPS/7/Rev.4, para. 2.8 and Annex C.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Table 6. Reasons for addenda20 
Reason for addenda:  No. Share  
Notification of adoption, publication, or entry into force of regulation  155 50% 
Other concerns  88 28% 
Modification of content and/or scope of previously notified draft regulation  32 10% 
Withdrawal of proposed regulation  17 6% 
Modification of final date for comments  12 4% 
Change in proposed date of adoption, publication, or entry into force  8 3% 
 
3.37.   In addition, Members can notify their decision on whether and how special and differential 
treatment was  provided in reference to  a specific request, through another addendum notification 
format. No Member has ever notified such a decision to the Committee.  
4  NOTIFICATION KEYWORD S 
4.1.  With the SPS IMS, all notifications can also be categorized according to a list of approximately 
70 pred efined keywords, which describe issues appearing frequently in notifications. The CRN has 
assigned these keywords since 2003 , and they assist searching for notifications in certain areas. 
While the keywords include the objectives of the notification (e.g.,  food safety, animal health, plant 
protection), they also include additional specificity, such as pesticides, maximum residues levels, 
avian influenza, etc. 
4.2.  As shown in Table 7, 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 diseases, animal hea lth, human health and food 
safety . It must be noted, however, that the majority of the notifications are assigned more than one 
keyword. The table below specifies the total number of times the specific keyword was assigned, 
regardless of whether this objective was specifically identif ied in the notification itself.  
Table 7.  "Keywords " of notified SPS measures (16 September 2017 – 15 September 
2018 ) 
Regular notifications  Notifications  
  
Human health  893 
Food safety  855 
Pesticides  298 
Maximum residue limits (MRLs)  281 
Plant health  253 
Pests 149 
Animal health  140 
Territory protection  96 
Animal diseases  68 
Contaminants  65 
Emergency notifications  Notifications  
  
Animal diseases  89 
Animal health  85 
Human health  63 
Food safety  62 
Zoonoses  53 
Pest or Disease free Regions / Regionalization  53 
Avian Influenza  43 
Plant health  16 
Pests 15 
Territory protection  12 
 
                                                
20 Each notification can have multiple entries for the reasons for addenda.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 14 - 
 
  5  EFFORTS TO ENHANCE T HE BENEFITS FROM A T RANSPARENT SYSTEM  
5.1.  In light of  the steadily increasing volume of documents, managing the flow of notifications, and 
coordinating at the national level, benefiting from a transparent system is a challenge for many 
Members. This is one of the areas where Members have sought  technical ass istance and guidance 
on best practices.21 Below are some examples of information resources, tools and guidance related 
to implementing the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement.  
5.2.  The SPS IMS is a specialized and detailed information  source on SPS notifications, specific trade 
concerns, National Notification Authorities  & Enquiry Point  contact information, and other 
SPS documents. It allows for advanced searches  according to specific criteria  and also facilitates the 
creation of custo m reports and graphs , which can be shared with interested stakeholders . 
5.3.  The SPS NSS is an online platform where WTO Members can directly complete and submit 
notifications. Submission through the SPS NSS allows for notifications to be processed more 
accurat ely and efficiently by the WTO Secretariat, making notifications accessible to the membership 
much more quickly. Interested Members may request login names and access passwords for their 
National Notification Authorities from the Secretariat.22 To date, 80 Members have requested access 
to the system, and 42 of these have officially submitted notifications via the SPS NSS . 
5.4.  The WTO Secretariat provides training on the SPS IMS and NSS as part of  its technical 
assistance programmes . According to the 2015 questio nnaire on transparency, a majority of 
Members express ed a need for technical assistance in order to enhance their transparency 
mechanisms, and Members that received such technical assistance reported it  to be  very useful.23 
Transparency workshop s, usually organized every other year,  provide  highly interactive, "hands -on" 
training on the  use of the SPS IMS and SPS NSS . The last one was held in Geneva on 30 and 
31 October 2017 .24 The next one , on transparency and coordination,  is expected to take place in 
July 2019.  
5.5.  In addition, a practical manual on the operation of Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities 
includes guidance for governments to facilitate the implementation of the  transparency provisions 
of the SPS Agreement. While it may be especially useful  for developing and least -developed countries 
(LDCs), it may also be  a helpful reference for countries  that are acceding to the WTO and establishing 
NNAs and NEPs, as  well as WTO Members in general.  This manual has been revised to include the 
new SPS IMS a nd NSS platforms, the ePing alert system, and to streamline the content. The updated 
version of the manual was made  available in English  on the SPS gateway of the WTO website on 
11 October 2018 .25 The French and Spanish  versions will follow as soon as available . Hard copies 
can be requested from the WTO Secretariat . 
5.6.  ePing26 is a publicly available notification alert system. It covers both SPS notifications as well 
as notifications submitted under the Agreement on Technica l Barriers to Trade (TBT). Subscribers 
are able to receive email alerts regarding SPS & TBT notifications covering particular products and/or 
markets of interest to them. In addition, users can search and share notifications, upload additional 
information and related documents, as well as participate in discussion forums. ePing also offers an 
Enquiry Point Management Tool to facilitate domestic as well as international information sharing 
and discussion.  The system is expected to help public and private sta keholders, in particular small 
and medium enterprises, to track, consult and comment on measures that are being developed and 
adapt as necessary to changing regulatory conditions.  
5.7.  The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) has funded various proje cts to increase 
transparency by enhancing inter -agency coordination at the national and/or regional level, as well 
                                                
21 See the Analysis of Replies to the Que stionnaire on the Operation of Enquiry Points and National 
Notification Authorities (G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1) for further elaboration on this issue.  
22 Two different user names and passwords are provided (a submitting  user name and a secondary  user 
name). Only the submitting user name  allows to officially submit  the notification to the CRN, but the secondary 
user name allows other individuals to enter information and review the draft notification.  
23 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on Transparenc y under the SPS Agreement, 
(G/SPS/GEN/1402, paras. 3.29 and 3.30) for further elaboration on this point.  
24 The report of this workshop is contained in document G/SPS/R/89.  
25 Practical Manual for SPS National Notifications Authorities and SPS National Enquiry Points can be 
downloaded from:  http://www.wto.org/spstransparency . 
26 http://www.epingalert.org . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11  
 
- 15 - 
 
  as strengthening linkages between government agencies and the private sector. The STDF has 
devel oped a framework called P -IMA27 that helps cou ntries prioritize and make choices between 
competing SPS capacity building needs. It seeks to move towards greater efficiency in the use of 
scarce resources and to enhance the transparency and accountability of resource allocation 
decisions. This framework  uses a multi -criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach as well as 
computer software to help derive priorities. Experiences from developing countries where the 
framework has been applied show that the process has also been helpful in promoting and creatin g 
linkages between the public and private sector. P -IMA will soon be applied in a number of countries 
in Africa, under an STDF -funded project in partnership with the Common Market for Eastern and 
Southern African States (COMESA).28 It is also applied throug h project preparation grants in 
Madagascar29 and Tajikistan.30  
5.8.  In 2012, the STDF completed a study to examine national SPS coordination mechanisms in 
Africa to identify factors that contribute to successful coordination and provide guidance on the 
establish ment and operation of SPS coordination mechanisms.31 The study indicates that 
strengthening coordination among relevant government institutions at the national and sub -national 
level, and with the private sector, reduces information gaps, promotes synergies  in the 
implementation of SPS measures and enhances the effectivene ss of available resources. 
More recently, attention is also being given to participation of SPS authorities in National Trade 
Facilitation Committees, under the WTO Trade Facilitation Agree ment (TFA). WTO Members are 
invited to contact the STDF Secretariat ( stdfsecretariat@wto.org ) to obtain further information on 
any of the above -mentioned points.  
6  OTHER ASPECTS RELATI NG TO TRANSPARENCY  
6.1.  As indicated in the introduction, there are a number of areas where the Secretariat is not in a 
position to provide an overview. These include questions such as the following:  
a. To what extent are Members publishing a notice at an early stage regarding propo sals to 
introduce a particular regulation? (Annex B, paragraph 5(a))  
b. To what extent are translations into English, French or Spanish of proposed regulations 
available? (Annex B, paragraph 8)  
c. How quickly do Members respond to requests for documents or other  information? (Annex 
B, paragraphs 3 and 5(c))  
d. To what extent are Members providing comments on notifications, and to what extent are 
these taken into account? (Annex B, paragraph 5(d))  
6.2.  These are areas where Members have occasionally shared  their experienc es with the 
SPS Committee. However, as this information is not provided systematically, it has not been possible 
to include further details on these questions. Members are encouraged to complement this overview 
document through submissions to the SPS Commi ttee regarding their own experience in matters 
related to the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement.  
 
__________  
                                                
27 http://www.standardsfacility.org/prioritizing -sps-investments -market -access -p-ima. 
28 http://www.standardsfacility.org/PG -606. 
29 http://www.standardsfacility.org/PPG -575. 
30 http://www.standardsfacility.org/PPG -561. 
31 
http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_NationalSPSCoordinationMechanisms_EN_0.pdf .