G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7  
 
6 October 2014  
(14-5616)  Page: 1/13  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
OVERVIEW REGARDING THE LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPARENCY 
PROVISIONS OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Revision 
Contents 
 
1   INTROD UCTION  .......................................................................................................... 2  
2   DESIGNATION OF NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS .................... 2  
3   SUBMISSION OF  NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 3  
3.1   Types of notifications ................................................................................................. 3 
3.2   Notifying Members ..................................................................................................... 4  
3.3   Products covered ....................................................................................................... 6  
3.4   Regions/count ries affected .......................................................................................... 7  
3.5   Objective and rationale .............................................................................................. 7  
3.6   International standards, gu idelines or reco mmendations ................................................. 8  
3.7   Proposed date of adoption /publication/entry into force .................................................... 9  
3.8   Final date  for co mments ............................................................................................ 10 
3.9   Reasons for addenda to regu lar and emergency notifications .......................................... 11 
4   NOTIFICATION KEYWORDS ....................................................................................... 12  
5   RECENT EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRANSPARENT 
SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................ .. 13 
6   OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO TRANSPARENCY ........................................................ 13  
 
 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 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 transparency provisions of the SPS 
Agreement.2 The document provides an overview rega rding 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 Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3). 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 does 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 historical data on notifications dating back to 1995 
has been retrieved from various internal sources and incorporated into the SPS IMS, some of the more detailed analysis has only been possible as of July 2007, when the SPS IMS became 
operational. Most of the 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 provided in 
technical assistance activities. 
1.3.  Revised Recommended Procedures for Implem enting the Transparency Obligations of the SPS 
Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3, hereafter the "Recommended Transparency Procedures") took effect on 1 December 2008.
4 Compared to the earlier version of the transparency procedures, which had 
been adopted by the Committee in 2002, the 2008 Transparency Procedures include revised 
notification formats which aim to facilitate the provision of clearer and more specific information regarding new or modified SPS measures by Member s, e.g. regarding conformity with international 
standards, comment periods, and the period betw een the publication and entry into force of new 
regulations. 
1.4.  The Recommended Transparency Procedures also paved the way for the introduction during 
2011 of a procedure for the on-line submission of notifications by Members. The SPS Notification 
Submission System (SPS NSS) assists Members to  be more precise in their notifications, and 
speeds up the processing and circulation of notifications to all Members.
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 information provided by Members in the 
various notification formats. 
2  DESIGNATION OF NOTIFICATION 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 implementation of notification procedures. This agency is referred to as the "SPS Notification Authority". As of 15 September 2014, 152 WTO 
Members out of 160, three more than last year, ha d designated an "SPS Notification Authority".
6 
Those which have not include six least-developed countries (LDCs) and two developing countries.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 
documents. As of 15 September 2014, 155 WTO Memb ers out of 160, one more than the previous 
year, had provided the WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point.8 Those which have 
                                               
2 See G/SPS/R/47, para. 44, for the recommendations  arising from the 2007 workshop on transparency. 
3 http://spsims.wto.org . 
4 See also footnote 4 of G/SPS/7/Rev.3 requesting th e 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. 
5 See para. 5.3. for more information. 
6 The three Members are Ghana, Tajikistan and Yemen. 
7 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the WTO's 
Integrated Database (IDB) for analyt ical purposes (idb@wto.or g). They can be consulted through the SPS IMS 
by clicking on "definitions of grou ps" on the left-hand side menu bar. 
8 The Member is Yemen. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 3 - 
 
  not include four LDCs and one developing country. 26 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 "E nquiry Points/Notification Authorities" on the 
left-hand side menu bar. 
3  SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS 3.1.  Under the SPS Agreement, notifications are used to inform other Members about new or 
changed regulations that may significantly affect trad e. 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 noti fications are regular notifications and emergency notifications. In 
addition, addenda, corrigenda, revisions or supplem ents 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 regulation 
have been modified, or 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 2014, Members had submitted
10 11,61211 regular notifications, 
1,589 emergency notifications, and 4,084 addenda and corrigenda to regular and emergency notifications. For the past year (15 September 2013 through 15 September 2014), Members 
submitted a total of 1,485 notifications, of which 974 regular notifications, 98 emergency 
notifications, 412 addenda and corrigenda to  regular and emergency notifications and one 
supplement. 
3.4.  In April 2004, the Secretariat established a mechanism for Members to inform each other of 
the availability of unofficial translations of notifi ed 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 2013, 18 supplement notifications had been circulated. Only one was submitted in 
2014. 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 245 supplement notifications, although only four more supplement notifications were submitted this year. It is not 
clear why Members are submitting so few supplement notifications in the SPS area. 
3.5.  In addition, 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 2014, there have only been two equivalence 
notifications circulated, one from Panama in 2007 and another from the Dominican Republic in 2008. There have been no new equivalence notifications circulated by WTO Members since 2008. 
3.6.  Considering all types of notifications togeth er, a total of 17,305 notifications were submitted 
to the WTO from 1 January 1995 to 15 September 201 4. As can be seen in Chart 1, there has 
been a general upward trend in the number of no tifications over the years, with the total number 
of notifications reaching a peak of 1,410 in the year 2010. However, the number of notifications 
submitted subsequently decreased until 2012 and increased again in 2013. The number of 
notifications appears to be on the rise also in 2014 when comparing notifications for the period from mid-September 2013 through mid-September 2014 to the same period of the previous years. 
                                               
9 See the Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) for further elaboration on the 
different types of notifications. 
10 For this Note, submission refers  to the date of circulation.  
11 Including two notifications from one acceding country.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Chart 1 – Notifications submitted per year 
 
 
3.2  Notifying Members 
3.7.  As of 15 September 2014, 111 Members out of 160 (69%) had submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO. Members which have not submitted any notification so far include 
19 developing countries, 21 LDCs, and one developed country. In addition, a number of 
EU member States have not submitted notification s; 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) 
 
 
                                               
12 See G/SPS/GEN/456 for notification procedures for the European Union and its member States. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.8.  Chart 2 shows an increase of notification s from developing countries (including LDCs) in 
2013, after a drop of this number in 2011 and 2012. The number of notifications from developing countries appears to continue to rise in 2014, when comparing notifications for the period from mid-September 2013 through mid-September 2014 to the same period of the previous years. The 
share of total notifications from developing country Members (see Chart 3) continues to be high, 
with a peak of over 68% in the year 2009. Compared to the same period of time last year, the share of notifications from developing countries has slightly increased from 63% to 64%, while the 
share from LDCs showed a marked increase in 2013 (from 0.4% to 2.8%) but dropped again to 
0.4% by 15 September 2014. 
Chart 3 – Share of Total Notifications Submitted by Developing Country Members 
(including LDCs) 
 
 
3.9.  Looking at the geographic regions from whic h the notifications 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 
 
                                               
13 The geographical groupings used rely on WTO work ing 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 clic king on "definitions of groups" on the left-hand side 
menu bar. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.10.  The Members which have submitted the gr eatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 15 September 2014, are listed in Table 1, while the Members that have submitted the greatest number of notifications in the past year (15 September 2013 to 15 September 2014) are listed in Table 2. 
Table 1. Members which have submitte d 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 2,614 23%  Albania 156 10% 
Brazil 992 9%  Philippines 154 10% 
Canada 880 8%  New Zealand 110 7% 
China 796 7%  United States 84 5% 
Peru 497 4%  Colombia 75 5% 
Korea, Rep. of 464 4%  Ukraine 70 4% 
Chile 451 4%  Peru 64 4% 
European Union 451 4%  European Union 62 4% 
New Zealand 403 3%  Thailand 42 3% 
Japan 350 3%  Russian Federation 38 2% 
Chinese Taipei 330 3%  Mexico 37 2% 
Australia 318 3%  Chile 35 2% 
Mexico 229 2%  China 31 2% 
Thailand 194 2%  Canada 31 2% 
Colombia 182 2%  Australia 29 2% 
 
Table 2. Members which have submitted th e most notifications in the past year 
(15 September 2013 – 15 September 2014) 
Regular Notifications  Emergency Notifications 
Member Number of 
notifications Share of 
Total Member Number of 
notifications Share of 
Total 
Canada 145 15%  Russian Federation 27 28% 
United States 111 11%  Philippines 15 15% 
Brazil 78 8%  Albania 13 13% 
Peru 66 7%  United Arab 
Emirates 7 7% 
China 54 6%  European Union 6 6% 
Japan 42 4%  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of 5 5% 
Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of 42 4%  
New Zealand 3 3% 
Chile 39 4%  Ukraine 3 3% 
European Union 33 3%     
Korea, Rep. of 31 3%     
 
3.3  Products covered 
3.11.  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 provide the relevant HS codes. Most 
Members have indicated they would welcome th e provision of these codes by their trading 
partners.14  
3.12.  Since 1995 the WTO's Central Registry of No tifications (CRN) has been assigning, to the 
extent possible, the relevant HS codes for all no tifications where these are not provided by the 
Member.15 
                                               
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 point. 
15 This information is now available in the SPS IMS. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.13.  While being only indicative, Table 3 shows th e 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 3,020 16% 
(08) Edible fruit and nuts, peel of citrus fruit or melons 1,859 10% 
(07) Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers 1,637 9% 
(10) Cereals 1,444 8% 
(12) Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, 
seeds and fruits; industrial or medicinal plants; straw 
and fodder 1,359 7% 
 
Emergency notifications 
 
HS 
Code Description Number Share of 
Total 
(02) Meat and edible meat offal 1,780 30% 
(01) Live animals 1,685 29% 
(04) Dairy produce, birds' eggs, natural honey, edible 
products of origin not elsewhere specified or included 619 11% 
(05) Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or  
included 489 8% 
(23) Residues and waste from the food industries, prepared 
animal fodder 296 5% 
 
 
3.4  Regions/countries affected 
3.14.  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 modified data entry option for this item whereby Members are invited to either select the tick box 
for "all trading partners" or provide information on specific regions or countries likely to be 
affected.  
3.15.  An assessment of notifications submitted in the period between 15 September 2013 and 15 
September 2014 indicates that 18% of regular noti fications have identified a specific group of 
countries or a region, while 82% of regular notifications have selected the tick box for "all trading partners". In contrast, 89% of emergency notifications have identified a specific group of countries 
or a region, and only 11% of emergency notification s indicate "all trading partners". This reflects 
the fact that emergency actions are frequently taken in response to disease outbreaks in specific countries, territories, or regions. 
3.16.  The comprehension and work of other Members would be facilitated if more specificity were 
provided by notifying Members on regions or countries likely to be affected. It is understandable, 
however, that Members may be hesitant to specifically identify potentially affected countries or regions for fear of not accurately assessing who might be affected when submitting notifications. 
3.5  Objective and rationale 
3.17.  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 objectives co rrespond to the definition of an SPS measure in 
Annex A, paragraph 1 of the SPS Agreement. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.18.  Table 4 indicates the total number and shar e of each objective as cited in regular and 
emergency notifications. It must be noted, howeve r, that many notifications 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. 
3.19.  For regular notifications the most frequently cited objective is the protection of humans 
from animal/plant pests or diseases, while for emergency notifications it is animal health.  
Table 4. "Objectives" of notified SPS meas ures in the period between 15 September 
2013 - 15 September 2014 
Regular Notifications   
 Notifications Share 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease  710 40% 
Food Safety  688 39% 
Plant Protection 178 10% 
Animal Health 116 7% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests 72 4% 
Emergency Notifications   
 Notifications Share 
Animal Health  65 37% 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease  41 24% 
Food Safety 30 17% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests 21 12% 
Plant Protection 17 10% 
 
 3.6  International standards, guidelines or recommendations 
3.20.  The SPS Agreement does not require Members to notify a measure if its content is 
substantially the same as that of an internationa l standard adopted by Codex, IPPC or the OIE. 
Nonetheless, the Recommended Transparency Pr ocedures 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 al so seek to get more precision from Members 
regarding relevant standards and the conformity of the notified measure with these. 
3.21.  With respect to regular notifications circulated from 15 September 2013 to 15 September 
2014, Chart 5 indicates that in 47% of the cases, Members have not identified an international standard as being relevant to the new measure being notified, while 28% have referred to Codex, 
17% to the IPPC and 8% to the OIE. 
3.22.  When it comes to emergency notification for the same period, Chart 6 shows that only 9% 
of emergency notifications have not identified an international standard as being relevant to the 
measure being notified, whereas 63%, 17% and 11% 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.7 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Chart 5 - Regular Notifications referring to a relevant international standard 
 
 
Chart 6 - Emergency Notifications referrin g to a relevant international standard 
 
 
3.23.  The notification formats include an entry asking whether the proposed regulation conforms 
to the relevant international standard. During the period from 15 September 2013 to 
15 September 2014, of the 53% of regular notifications identifying a relevant international standard regarding the measure, 80% indicated th at the proposed regulation conformed to that 
relevant international standard. For the same period, of the 91% of emergency notifications 
identifying a relevant international standard, 94% have indicated that the proposed regulation conformed to the relevant international standard. 
3.7  Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force 
3.24.  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 adopted are published promptly.  Except in urgent circumstances, Members are also  obliged to allow a reasonable interval between 
the publication of a measure and its entry into force. Paragraph 3.2 of the Doha Decision on G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns states that this interval "shall be understood to 
mean normally a period of not less than 6 months".16 
3.25.  The regular notification format contained in the Recommended Transparency Procedures 
includes separate fields for entering the "propo sed date of publication", the "proposed date of 
adoption" and the "proposed date of entry into forc e". In addition, it includes a default checkbox 
for a six-month interval between the publication and entry into force of a new measure. 
3.26.  For the period from 15 September 2013 through 15 September 2014, 29% (287) of regular 
notifications included a specific date for adoption, 30% (292) for publication, and 38% (371) for 
entry into force. Thus, the majority of regular notifications do not provide specific dates in these three fields. 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 same period, only 73 regular notifications 
(8%) had selected the checkbox for a six-month interval between the publication and entry into 
force of a measure. 
3.27.  Regarding the regular notifications that indi cated a specific date of entry into force, 46% 
(169) indicated a delay between the date of distribu tion and the proposed date of entry into force 
that averaged 132 days. This average masks a very wide range, as the periods in the notifications 
varied from 1 to 1,051 days. Furthermore, more than half of the notifications, 54% (202), 
indicated a date of entry into force prior to the date of document distribution, although 49% (100) 
of these concerned measures were identified as trade facilitating. 
3.28.  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 15 September 2013 to 15 September 2014, around 65% of the addenda indicated the 
adoption, publication or entry into force of regulations as shown in Table 6. 
3.8  Final date for comments 3.29.  Annex B, paragraph 5 of the SPS Agreement provides that notifications should take place at 
an early stage, when amendments can still be introduced and comments taken into account. The 
Recommended Transparency Procedures state that a 60-day comment period should be provided with respect to regular notifications. Where dome stic regulatory mechanisms allow, the 60-day 
comment period should normally begin with th e 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.
17 Between 15 September 2013 and 
15 September 2014 this checkbox was selected in 43% (414) of regular notifications. 
3.30.  An analysis of the notifications issued during the period from 15 September 2013 through 
15 September 2014 shows that around 28% of notifications have not provided a comment period (see Table 5). For those that do provide comment pe riods, these average 56 days when calculated 
as the difference between the date of circulation of  the notification and the deadline and final date 
for comments. On average, developed country Members provide longer average comment periods (62 days) than developing country Members (53 days), which would reveal a significant drop of the average comment period in regular notificati ons among developing countries if compared to 
the same period of last year. However, when excluding the regular notifications of one developing 
Member, the average comment period in regular no tifications among all other developing countries 
amounts to 57 days, the same as the previous year. 
3 . 3 1 .   I t  s h o u l d  b e  n o t e d  t h a t  n o  c o m m e n t  p e r i o d  n e e d s  t o  b e  p r o v i d e d  i n  t h e  c a s e  o f  t r a d e  
facilitating measures. The Recommended Transparency Procedures include a tick box for specifying whether the notification concerns a trade facilitating measure. From 15 September 2013 through 
15 September 2014, 24% of notifications have been id entified 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, no comment period is expected for this category of measures.  
                                               
16 WT/MIN(01)/17. 
17 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 13. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Table 5. Comment period provided in re gular notifications (1 December 2008 – 
15 September 2014) 
All Members 
 No. Share 
No. of regular notifications 974 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available 273 28% 
Comment period ends before distribution date 4 0,4% 
Comment period available 701 72% 
Average comment period  56 
Developed country Members 
 No. Share 
No. of regular notifications 361 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available 114 32% 
Comment period ends before distribution date 0 0% 
Comment period available 247 68% 
Average comment period 62 
Developing country Members 
 No. Share 
No. of regular notifications 607 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available 157 26% 
Comment period ends before distribution date 4 1% 
Comment period available 450 74% 
Average comment period 53 
 3.32.  While Members are obligated to 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 regulations reduces the period actually available for providing comments. 
3.33.  In an effort to address these concerns an d facilitate access to notified draft regulations, 
since February 2008 Members may, on a voluntar y basis, provide the Secretariat with an 
electronic version of the text of the notified regula tion as an attachment to the notification format. 
The submitted text is then electronically accessi ble to other Members through a hyperlink in the 
notification format.
18 From 15 September 2013 through 15 September 2014, around 72% of all 
notifications (75% of regular and 48% of emergency notifications) have provided the full text or a 
summary of their notified regulations using this facility. Members may wish to remind their 
notification authorities of the availability of this facility. 
3.34.  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 3.35.  According to the 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 15 September 2013 to 15 September 2014: 
                                               
18 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 22 and Annex C. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 12 - 
 
  Table 6. Reasons for addenda19 
Reason for addenda: No. Share 
Notification of adoption, publication, or entry into force of 
regulation  269 65% 
Modification of final date for comments  43 10% 
Modification of content and/or scope of previously notified draft 
regulation 35 8% 
Withdrawal of proposed regulation 14 3% 
Change in proposed date of adop tion, publication, or date of 
entry into force 7 2% 
Other 45 11% 
 
 
4  NOTIFICATION KEYWORDS 
4.1.  With the SPS IMS, all notifications can also be categorized according to a list of 
approximately 70 predefined keywords, which describe issues appearing frequently in notifications. 
The CRN has assigned these keywords since 2003, and they assist searching for notifications in certain areas. While the keywords include the objectives of the notification (e.g., food safety, 
animal health, plant protection), they also include additional specificity, such as pesticides, 
maximum residues levels, etc. 
4.2.  As shown in Table 7, the keywords which have been most frequently assigned to regular 
notifications, in descending order for the past year, are: human health, food safety, pesticides, 
maximum residue limits and plant health. For emergency notifications, the most frequent 
keywords in descending order are: animal health, animal diseases, pest or disease free regions, human health and food safety. It must be noted,  however, that many notifications are assigned 
more than one keyword. Therefore, the table belo w specifies the total number of times the specific 
keyword was assigned, regardless of whether this objective was specifically identified in the notification itself.  
Table 7. "Keywords" of notified SPS measur es in the period between 15 September 2013 
- 15 September 2014 
Regular Notifications  
 Notifications 
Human health 705 
Food safety 691 
Pesticides 320 
Maximum residue limits (MRLs) 315 
Plant health 202 
Pests  152 
Animal health 115 
Food additives 112 
Territory protection 69 
Labelling 51 
Emergency Notifications  
 Notifications  
Animal health 66 
Animal diseases 62 
Pest or Disease free Regions 40 
Human health 26 
Food safety 25 
Zoonoses  23 
Avian Influenza 20 
Pests 18 
Plant health 18 
Territory protection 18 
 
                                               
19 Each notification can have multiple  entries for the reasons for addenda. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 13 - 
 
  5  RECENT EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRANSPARENT SYSTEM 
5.1.  In light of the steadily increasing volume of documents, managing the flow of notifications, 
coordinating at the national level, and benefiting from a transparent system is a challenge for many Members. This is one of the areas where Members have sought technical assistance and 
guidance on best practices.
20 
5.2.  The SPS IMS was launched in October 2007 largely to address this issue. Its trilingual 
interface allows access to the most recent information on notifications as well as on Enquiry Points 
and National Notification Authorities. It also includes information on specific trade concerns and 
other SPS documents. It facilitates the conduct of  searches according to specific needs/interests 
and also the preparation of reports/summaries which can be shared with interested stakeholders. 
5.3.  Since 2011, the SPS NSS allows National Notification Authorities to fill out and submit SPS 
notifications online. The SPS NSS allows for more accurate and complete notifications, and a 
substantial reduction in the time required for th e WTO to circulate them. Interested Members may 
request login names and access passwords for their National Notification Authorities from the 
Secretariat.21 To date, 56 Members have requested access to the system, and 31 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. A transparency workshop in October 2012 provided highly interactive, 
"hands-on" training on the use of the SPS IMS and SPS NSS. 
5.5.  In addition, a practical Manual on the operat ion of Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities 
includes guidance on how to prepare a notification, how to manage incoming notifications, how to 
alert stakeholders, and how to draft some standard letters. The manual is available in English, 
French and Spanish. Hard copies can be requeste d from the WTO Secretariat and electronic copies 
can be downloaded from the SPS gateway of the WTO website.22 
5.6.  The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) has funded various projects to 
increase transparency by enhancing inter-agency coordination at the national and/or regional level, as well as strengthening linkages between government agencies and the private sector. In 
2011, the STDF developed a decision support tool named SPS Market Access Prioritization (MAP).
23 
This tool, based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), helps countries prioritize and make choices between competing SPS capacity building needs in the context of resource constraints. 
SPS-MAP has been applied in over 10 countries and has been very successful in promoting and 
creating linkages between the public and private sector. In 2012, the STDF completed a study to 
examine national SPS coordination mechanisms in Africa as a means to identify factors that contribute to successful coordination and provide suggestions and guidance to support the further 
establishment and operation of SPS coordination mechanisms in the future.
24 
6  OTHER ASPECTS RELATING 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 in clude questions such as the following: 
a. To what extent are Members publishing a noti ce at an early stage regarding proposals to 
introduce a particular regulation? (Annex B, paragraph 5(a)) 
                                               
20 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Operation of Enquiry Points and National 
Notification Authorities (G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1)  for further elaboration on this issue. 
21 Two different user names and passwords are provided (a submitting  user name and a 
secondary  user name). Only the submitting user na me allows to officially submitting the 
notification to the CRN, but the secondary user name allows other individuals to enter information and review the draft notification.
 
22 The Procedural Step-by-step Manual for SPS Nation al Notifications Authorities & National Enquiry 
Points can be downloaded from: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_ e/sps_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm . 
23 http://www.standardsfacility.org/sps-market-access-prioritization .  
24 http://www.standardsfacili ty.org/stdf-publications.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7 
 
- 14 - 
 
  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 occasi onally shared their experiences 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 Committee regarding their own experience in matters related to the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
__________