G/SPS/R/89  
 
19 March  2018 
(18-1646) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
REPORT  
WORKSHOP ON TRANSPARENCY  
MONDAY, 30  OCTOBER – TUESDAY,  31 OCTOBER 201 7 
WTO, CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD, GENEVA  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Secretariat of the World Trade Organization organized a workshop on the transparency  
provisions of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(SPS Agreement) in Geneva, Switzerland, on 30 and 31 October 201 7. This was the seventh  
SPS workshop on transparency organized by the Secretariat, the first six were held in 1999, 2003, 
2007, 2010, 2012 and 2015 .2 
The workshop was open to all Members, Observer governments and organizations with observer 
status in the SPS Committee. Various funding arrangements made it possible for a number of 
developing country and least developed country ( LDC) participants to attend the workshop.3 
Approximately 150 participants received  hands -on training on how to access and use SPS -related 
information and how to notify their SPS measures. Participants also shared their experiences and 
best practices in conducting public consultations  when developing SPS regulations . 
The programme4 and presentations of the workshop are available from the "Events, workshops 
and training" section under t he WTO SPS Gateway  
(http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/events_e.htm ). 
1  BACKGROUND OF THE WO RKSHOP  
1.1.  The workshop programme was developed in light of the  recent launch of the improved 
versions of the online SPS tools as well as the new ePing SPS/TBT notification ale rt system, 
discussions on  transparency  started as part of the Fourth Review o f the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement , and specific proposals from Members.  
2  OBJECTIVE OF THE WOR KSHOP  
2.1.  The objective of the workshop was to bring together officials  from Member s' SPS National 
Notification Authorities (NNAs), National Enquiry Points  (NEPs) , and other relevant authorities for 
an exchange of experiences , and for hands -on training on the online SPS tools.  More specifically, 
the workshop aimed to:  
 Enhance participant s' knowledge of the  improved versions of the  SPS Information 
Management System (IMS) and the Notification Submission System (NSS) , as well as 
the ePing SPS/TBT notification alert system, through the use of practical exercises;  
                                                
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 The reports of these workshops are contained in documents G/SPS/R/16, G/SPS/R/32, G/SPS/R/47, 
G/SPS/R/60, G/SPS/R/68, G/SPS/R/80 respectively.  
3 The WTO funded, through assistance  from the Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund 
(DDAGTF), the participation of 3 5 government officials (including two speakers)  from developing and least -
developed country Members. Sponsored participants were selected from 206 applications. In addition , the 
African Union made it possible for seven participants from French - and English -speaking Africa to participate in 
the workshop and  meetings of the SPS Committee.  
4 G/SPS/GEN/1568/Rev.2.  G/SPS/R/89  
 
- 2 - 
 
   Share  best practices and nati onal experiences in conducting public consultations when 
developing SPS regulations ; and 
 Identify possible actions on ways to address issues related to the implementation of the 
transparency provisions.  
2.2.  Overall, the workshop included  highly interactive han ds-on training on the improved SPS IMS 
and NSS applications, as well as the ePing alert system. In addition, t he workshop provided an 
open platform for discussion and sharing of national experience s as well as best practices 
concerning  the implementation o f the transparency provisions, in particular , in conducting public 
consultation s when developing SPS regulations . Presentations were made by the WTO Secretariat, 
the OECD, the World Bank, and developed and developing country Members. A summary of the 
various sessions of the workshop is provided below.  
3  WORKSHOP SESSIONS  
3.1  Session 1: Introduction  
3.1.  The first session of the Workshop started with a presentation by Mr Rolando Alcala  from 
the Secretariat on the overview of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agr eement included in 
Article 7 and Annex B, and of relevant Committee and Ministerial Decisions , in particular , the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) and the Doha Ministerial Decision on 
Implementation -Related Issues and Concerns (WT/MIN(01)/ 17). The Secretariat highlighted  that 
the new edition of the p rocedural step -by-step manual for NNA s and NEPs incorporating  the use of 
the improved online SPS tools, the new ePing alert system, a s well as other general updates would 
be released in early 20 18. 
3.2.   The Secretariat  outline d that transparency was important , for instance , for bringing clarity 
and predictability to the trading system,  for providing advance warning  of changes in regulations , 
or for improving accountability and responsiveness of the r egulatory framework. The main 
transparency obligations  of the SPS Agreement  are to: (i) notify draft SPS regulations; 
(ii) designate a n NNA; (iii) estab lish an NEP to provide answers to all reasonable questions from 
Members ; and (iv) publish SPS regulation s. Beyond obligations, Members can benefit and take 
advanta ge of a transparent system , for example , by disseminating SPS documents to interested 
parties, participat ing in SPS Committee work, raising awareness at the national level on SPS -
related issues  and playing a coordinating role between the WTO  Secretariat , government and the 
domestic private sector . 
3.3.  The Secretariat also provided details on the notification of  SPS regulations, specifically on 
what to notify, when to notify, which notification  formats t o use and the recommended 
transparency procedures as outlined in G/SPS/7/Rev.3. In addition , the institutional arrangements 
for notifications were described, specifically the duties and obligations of NNAs and NEPs. Lastly, 
the Secretariat  provided an over view of the transparency timeline, from the drafting of a 
regulation to its entry into force.  
3.4.  In response to queries , the Secretariat clarified that the process for receiving and responding 
to comments was bilateral . Comments of general interest  could be c irculated through a 
G/SPS/GEN series document. If substantive changes were made to the original notification, a 
revision could be submitted . Furthermore, the Secretariat explained that although counter -
notifications did not exist under the SPS Agreement, i t was possible to raise concerns regarding 
another  Members' measure by raising a specific trade concern in the SPS Committee. One Member 
noted that it usually contacted NEPs to request the notificatio n of SPS measures. Finally, 
the Secretariat confirmed th at special and differential treatment notifications, if submitted, would 
be included in the annual report on the implementation of the transparency provision s. 
3.2  Session 2: WTO Sources of SPS Information  
3.5.  Session 2 provided participants with a detailed overvi ew of different sources of SPS -related 
information  including the SPS Gateway, the WTO Documents Online  application , the WTO 
Integrated Trade Intelligence Portal ( I-TIP), the SPS IMS  and the ePing SPS /TBT notification a lert 
system . These sources were presen ted by two speakers from the WTO Secretariat.  G/SPS/R/89  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.6.  Mr Tim Corrigan , WTO Secretariat, started the presentation with  information  on the 
SPS Gateway , which is accessible through the WTO website and serves as a n entry  point to all 
SPS-related information. In partic ular, it  has web -links to the online SPS tools, documents for 
SPS Committee meetings , Members ' Transparency Toolkit and  training material from SPS training 
events and workshops. Members were also informed that the documents distribution  emailing lists 
maintained by the Secretariat would be replaced by e-Subscriptions , which is a  restricted  email 
alert service  managed  by Documents O nline. Interested Members should contact  their permanent 
mission delegation coordinator to request access.  
3.7.  Mr Corrigan then prov ided an overview of the WTO Documents Online  application, which 
provides access to all official document s circulated by the WTO since 1995. Different search 
interfaces allow retrieving any document, including SPS -related ones. All information is public, 
except for restricted documents, which can be accessed with Members' login names and 
passwords.  Next, a brief introduction to the WTO Integrated Trade Intelligence Portal for Goods  
(I-TIP Goods ) was provided. I -TIP Goods  is a comprehensive, analytical and e asy to use online 
tool, which i s public ally available and provides  a unified point of access to all relevant WTO tr ade 
policy information on goods  covering both tariffs and non-tariff measures (NTMs) , including SPS. 
3.8.  Mr Corrigan then introduced the SPS IMS5, which aims to help NNAs  and NEPs, as well as 
other interested stakeholders, to keep abreast of new or modified SPS  measures. Since 1995, over 
22,000 SPS  notifications had been submitted along with over 4,500 other SPS documents and 
434 specific trade conc erns (STCs). The SPS IMS facilitates streamlined searching and reporting on 
SPS notifications, STCs and other SPS documents  according to a wide range of criteria. It also 
includes the most up -to-date information available to the Secretariat on the contact details of 
Members' NNAs and NEPs. 
3.9.  Mr Corrigan  also provided information on the n ew and improved version of the SPS IMS , 
launched in March 2017 . The new version replaced outdated software , aligned with other systems 
(e.g. the TBT IMS)  and included streamli ned function alities. Other added feature s included  an 
interactive dashboard  particularly  for STCs , which c ould be used to create graphs and charts; a 
customized search function  with SPS -specific keywords to facilitate searching ; and a feature to 
generate reports based on customi zed criteria.  
3.10.   Ms Serra Ayral , WTO Secretariat, presented on ePing.6 Ms Ayral recalled that during the 
2015 October Transparency workshop,  the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 
(UNDESA) had presented on the ePing Toolkit pr oject for accessing SPS and TBT notifications and 
alerts, initiated in light of needs identified in LDCs. In December 2015, the TBT Committee 
requested the WTO Secretariat to develop an online notifications alert system, in co -operation with 
other organiza tions. In response, the WTO Secretariat joined forces with UNDESA and ITC for  the 
development and maintenance of a new SPS/TBT notification alert system called ePing.  
The system, publicly available in English, French and Spanish , was launched in November 2 016. 
3.11.   Ms Ayral highlighted the two core functions of e Ping: ( i) Access to information  – registered 
users could  receive emails alerts of SPS and /or TBT notifications, based on criteria  such as  
products covered or exports markets; and (ii) Communication  – the Enquir y Point Management 
tool and discussion fora facilitate d dialogue among public and private stakeholders.  
3.12.   As of October 2017 , ePing had over 2,700 registered users , with equal representation from  
the public and private sectors.  Australia and Uganda , which pilot -tested the  system, had n ow 
replaced their national outreach systems with ePing. In concluding, Ms Ayral noted  that ePing 
aimed at detecting potential trade problems at an early stage , thus enabling a timely solution.  
Additional information was a vailable in the results of the ePing user survey conducted in February 
2017.7 
3.13.   In response to queries, t he Secretariat clarified that Documents Online  was the princip al 
source of WTO documentation; all other systems drew information from it. However, inform ation 
on STCs and contact information of NNAs and NEPs entered by the Secretariat was only available 
in the SPS IMS .  
                                                
5 http://spsims.wto.org/ . 
6 www.epingalert.org . 
7 G/SPS/GEN/1569 and G/TBT/GEN/227/Rev.1.  G/SPS/R/89  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.3  Session 3: Practical Session on the Use of the Improved SPS IMS  
3.14.   Participants were able to try out  the improved  SPS IMS system in working sessions held in 
English, French and Spanish. In these groups, participants were able to familiari ze themselves with 
the different functions of the system by being given a hypothetical scenario of a cocoa exporting 
country wishing to obtain relevant informa tion. This included conducting searches of:  
a. SPS notifications : participants learned how to look for a specific notification , how to find 
notifications made by a specific country , how to find notifications covering a specific 
product , how to find notificati ons relating to a specific issue (e.g. contaminants) , and 
how to customi ze a search;  
b. SPS documents : participants learned how to fin d documents produced by the 
WTO Secretariat , how to find documents submitted by Members and Observer 
Organizations , and how t o find documents concerning a specific  issue (e.g. private 
standards);  
c. Specific trade concerns (STC s): participants learned how to access information related to 
an STC, how to identify STCs raised in relation to specific Members  or products; and  
d. Informatio n on NNAs and NEPs: participants learned how to create contact lists of NNAs 
and NEPs with the use of the predefined reports function , and how to find their contact 
details (e.g.  address and phone number).  
3.4  Session 4: Practical Session on the use of ePing  
3.15.   In the same groups,  participants were able to familiariz e themselves with the different 
features of the ePing SPS/TBT notification alert system. More specifically, participants engaged in 
the following:  
a. Registering and receiving notification alerts, includi ng how to define e -mail and topic 
preferences;  
b. Searching notifications and creating filters for additional alerts , including saving the 
search criteria as a filter (e.g. food safety related notifications from Australia on 
salmon);  
c. Exploring additional fea tures related to notifications (e.g. accessing notifications in 
multiple languages, file sharing, favourites list and notification sharing ); and  
d. Using the Enquiry Point Management Tool  to activate discussion for a, sharing files  
(e.g. translations)  and manag ing national users.  
3.16.   In response to questions, the Secretariat clarified that NNAs and NEPs could request ePing 
administrator's rights by e -mail. While the interface remained available in English, French and 
Spanish, users could use their local language to share files or communicate through the national 
discussion fora. Additional training on ePing could be requested through the ITTC Division of the 
WTO.  
3.5  Session 5: New Trade Facilitation Obligations in the SPS Area  
3.17.   Ms Sun Hydén Biney , Senior Trade Policy Adv isor for SPS issues at the S wedish National 
Board of Trade , gave an overview of a study  undertaken by the Board on the new obligations in 
the SPS area arising out of the WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation  (TFA) , which came into effect 
on 17 April 2017 .8 In the introduction, Ms Biney highlighted that th e TFA  allowed for its stepwise 
implementation by developing country Members according to their capacities and assistance 
needs . The main purpose of the TFA was to reduce inefficiencies and costs related to in formation 
requirements and control procedures. Ms Biney recalled that even though there were overlapping 
areas between the TF and SPS Agreements, it was clearly stated in the TFA that nothing it 
                                                
8 https://www.kommers.se/In -English/Publications/2017/New -Trade -Facilitation -obligations -in-the-SPS-
area/ . G/SPS/R/89  
 
- 5 - 
 
  contained should be interpreted  as diminishing  Members' rights and obligations under the SPS 
Agreement.9 
3.18.   The study anal yzed 25 SPS -related components of the TFA , some a dding  new obligations, 
others reinstating and/or clarifying existing obligations in the SPS Agreement.  The 25 components 
could be categorized into fi ve pillars: Transparency,  Simplification, Harmonization , Standardiz ation 
and Coordination . For example, the obligations of reviewing formalities and document 
requirements, ensuring consistent and uniform application throughout a Member  and periodic 
review of fees and charges f ell under the standardization  pillar, whereas the obligations to allow 
for SPS pre-shipment inspections , and to permit importer s to return rejected consignments or 
send them to another destination within  a reasonable p eriod of time wou ld be categoriz ed under 
the simplification pillar.  
3.19.   Ms Biney addressed three possible ways to facilitate  implementation of these obligations: 
(i) raise awareness of SPS controls ; (ii) formalize cooperation, consultation and coordination  
between customs and  SPS border authorities ; and (iii) adopt a business perspective when 
producing information. To illustrate practical implications of the TF  and SPS Agreement s, Ms Biney 
presented the procedure to import cut flowers from Ethiopia into Sweden , highlighting po ssible 
areas for improvement.  
3.20.   In response to questions, the Sec retariat clarified that the TFA required  the establishment of 
a national committee to facilitate domestic coordination and implementation of its provisions, 
whereas such an obligation did  not exist in the SPS Agreement.  
3.6  Session 6: Implementation of the Transparency Provisions  
3.21.   Mr Rolando Alcala , WTO Secretariat, presented on Members' level of implementation of 
the transparency provisions and recommendations based on the latest annual report circu lated in 
document G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10 . Charts, graphics and statistics were used to reflect information 
from 1995 until mid -September 2017.  
3.22.   In terms of notifications, one could observe a  general upward trend in the number of 
notifications over the years , and in particular from developing country Members. Considering all 
types of notifications together, as of mid -September 2017, Members had submitted a total of 
21,888 notifications since 1995, 55% of which had been  submitted by developing country 
Members.  Two Members had notified for the first time in 2017: Rwanda and Seychelles.  
3.23.   Considering the relevance of international standards, the Secretariat recalled that the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures encouraged Members to notify all regulations that were 
based on, conformed to, or were substantially the same as an international standard, guideline or 
recommendation, if they were expected to have a significant impact on trade of other Members. 
Between 16 September  2016 and 15 September  2017, almost  50% of the  regular notifications and 
more than 90% of the emergency notifications had identified a relevant  international standard , of 
which 87% and 99 % respectively had indicated conformity of the measure with the relevant 
standard.  
3.24.   During the past year, approximat ely a quarter of regular notifications  had provided specific 
dates in the fields "proposed date of publication", "proposed date of adoption" and "proposed date 
of entry into force". The recommended 60 -day comment period checkbox had been selected in 
47% of regular notifications.10 
3.7  Session 7: Overview of the Improved SPS NSS  
3.25.   This session focused on the fulfilment of one of the obligations contained in the 
transparency provisions: notifying SPS measures, whether new or modified. The Secretariat noted  
that noti fications were mostly  submitted by e-mail or through the SPS Notification Submission 
System (SPS NSS). The system made the processing of notifications easier and substantially faster 
                                                
9 Paragraph 6 of Article 24 of the TF Agreement.  
10 Annex  B, paragraph 5 of the SPS Agreement provides that notifications should take place at an early 
stage, when amendments can st ill be introduced and comments taken into account. The Recommended 
Transparency Procedures state that a 60 -day comment period should be provided.  G/SPS/R/89  
 
- 6 - 
 
  for both, Members and the Secretariat. Notifications were also more accur ate and complete. As of 
September 2017 , 78 Members had  been given access to this system and 41  had used it at least 
once.  
3.26.   The Secretariat presented the improved SPS NSS , which  was more user -friendly, replaced 
outdated software from the previous version , was based on updated technology in line with other 
in-house applications such as the SPS/TBT IMSs, and ha d streamlined functionalities . This was 
followed by a step -by-step explanation of how to draft and submit a notification through the 
system.  
3.27.   The Secreta riat informed that the SPS IMS and SPS NSS user's guide s would be released in 
the three WTO working languages  in 2018 . 
3.8  Session 8: Practical Session on the use of the improved SPS NSS  
3.28.   As with the SPS IMS and ePing systems , participants had the opportunity t o use the 
improved  SPS NSS in a hands -on exercise in three language groups. Participants used the training  
site to produce a fictional regular notification based on the hypothetical scenario of a government 
seeking to harmonize maximum levels of food addit ives in cocoa with the relevant international 
standard . 
3.9  Session 9: Sharing of National Experiences  and Best Practices in Public 
Consultations  
3.29.   The second day  of the Workshop  started with a two-part session  on sharing national 
experiences and best practices in public consultations. Part I highlighted  relevant international 
work on models and mechanisms for public consultations in SPS  rulemaking , and Part II focused 
on sharing domestic experiences in conducting public consultations.  
3.30.   Part I  started with Ms Mar iana Karttunen , Policy Analyst , Regulatory Policy Division, 
Public Governance Directorate, OECD , present ing on Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Policy . 
Ms Karttunen noted that stakeholder engagement was a key pillar in policy making  to ensure  
quality . Although it could be perceived as a process slowing down government activities, 
Ms Karttunen highlighted that public consultations helped  getting well -informed inputs to address 
citizens' needs, improving compliance and strengthening decision -making legitimacy. 
She elaborated on stakeholder i dentif ication  and on the most effective process es or combin ed 
processes to engage them. Ms Karttunen also shed light on ways to engage with stakeholders 
throughout the regulatory policy cycle, not only at initial or fin al stage s. In conclusion,  she 
highlighted the  importan ce of effective and meaningful stakeholder engagement for evidence -
based policy making.  
3.31.   Mr Alfredo Gonzalez Briseno , Regulatory Governance Specialist, World Bank Group 
presented on Online Public Consult ations: From Concept to Implementation with results that 
Matter . Mr Briseno started with an overview of the World Bank Group's Good Regulatory Practices 
Program , which focusse d on three main concepts ; transparency, dialogue and effectiveness ; and 
include d online tools  intended to support general public participation in rulemaking. Benefits of 
online public consultation included : it was a cost-effective way of reaching broader audiences ; 
readily available round -the-clock; and left online evidence of the cons ultation process. To promote 
public use of Members ' websites for notice and comments, Mr Briseno suggested increasing 
awareness about these websites, offering simpler ways of participation for example through social 
media, simplifying information , and ensuring the transparency of the process.  
3.32.   Ms Roziana Othman , Senior Manager, Smart Regulation, Malaysia Productivity 
Corporation, presented on Malaysia's Experiences in Establishing a Mechanism for Public 
Consulta tion in the Rule Making Process , providing both  a national perspective and an APEC 
perspective . Ms Othman explained  Malaysia's regulatory reform since 2005, aimed at develop ing 
and implement ing domestic  regulations  to reinforce accountability, transparency and evidence 
based decision -making in the rule -making process.  Ms Othman highlighted the main issues and 
challenges faced by Malaysia and other APEC Economies, and presented some of the 
recommendations resulting from the implementation of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) tool 
and the 2016 final  report on Good Regulatory Practices (GRP) in APEC. In particular , to collaborat e G/SPS/R/89  
 
- 7 - 
 
  with international organizations  on the  development of innovative public consultation  mechanism s 
and to build on existing consultation methods and international transparency principles to improve  
effectiveness of the consultation process . 
3.33.   In response to queries and comments , the speakers  clarified  that various mechanisms  could  
be adopted  for online public consultations , such as  filling out questionnaires or using blogs to 
comment  on the proposed measure.  Options also depended on the stage of the regulatory process 
at which consultations were taking place.  For Members that were still in the initial stages of 
integrating public consultation in policy -making  processes , one key recomm endation was to find 
ways to align domestic consultation processes with those required by the WTO in order to 
maximize the benefits of comments received from abroad. Having a single, unified website or 
portal also was highlighted as being useful in conduct ing and managing a consultative process.  
Other suggestions included overcoming the fear of receiving negative feedback and incorporating 
regulatory impact assessment tools into policy -making.   
3.34.   Part II  of this session was conducted in a round table setting and speakers shared their 
experiences in conducting public consultations when developing SPS regulations.  More specifically, 
the discussion revolved around the following  topics : (i) functioning of the  process ; (ii) stakeholders 
involved (public and private ); and (iii) channels used to disseminate information . 
3.35.   Ms Kristen Hendricks , Food Safety and Inspection Service  (FSIS), US Department of 
Agriculture,  described the process of public consultations in the United States, which  entail ed 
publication of draft me asure s in the federal register  (http://www.regulations.gov ), as well as 
notification to the WTO as appropriate.  Usually, a 60 -day comment period was provided with 
possible extension in certain circumstances. All s takeholders were encouraged to comment and all 
comments were weighed on their merit irrespective of their source. The final measure was also 
published together with an explanation on  how comments had been considered. Ms Hendricks 
stressed the importance of  a publicly available s ingle website in this process . 
3.36.   Mr Edgar Osmar Gomez Garavito , Negotiating Advisor on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures , Ministry of Economy, Guatemala,  explained the process of developing regulations  in 
Central America. The Central  American Integration Council of Ministers adopt ed an annual action 
plan, which include d draft regulations  for negotiat ion among the six Central American Countries 
and adoption of final text s by consensus . Central American regulations, replacing national o nes, 
were then individually notified to the WTO  on similar dates . National and WTO consultations took 
place in parallel. Informatio n on measure s was made available through news items and publication 
on the website of relevant ministries. A matrix of all co mments received was prepared and made 
publicly available. The measure was finali zed after thorough discussions of comments received in 
the Council of Ministers . 
3.37.   Ms Zhang Rong , Senior Agronomist, AQSIQ , acting as WTO/SPS National Notification and 
Enquiry Centre, provided an  overview of the public consultation process in  drafting regulations  in 
China . At the drafting stage , all stakeholders , public and private, were invited to submit comments 
in writ ing or orally during meeting s. Subsequently , at the review s tage, public consultations were 
carried out during  symposiums, discussion meetings and oral hearings. Draft regulation s 
considered to have  a significant effect on trade  were also notified to the WTO. For new or revised 
food safety regulation s, engagement o f stakeholders was of prime importance ; standard -setting 
organizations were invited to provide comments ; and draft texts  published on the website of the  
National Health and Family Planning Commission  for comme nts. 
3.38.   Ms Tugba Adiguzel Kargin , European Union E xpert, General Directorate of EU and Foreign 
Affairs, Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock,  highlighted that the two main regulations that 
laid down the process of drafting legislations in Turkey require d public consultations. Relevant 
stakeholders ( public, private, academia, NGOs ) were consulted at various stages of the drafting 
process. Food safety regulations represented 95% of Turkish SPS notifications. The two-stage 
process  consisted of : (i) drafting  legislation by sub -committees including  releva nt stakeholders ; 
and (ii) enactment by the National Food Codex Commission , including representatives from  the 
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, universities, national s tandard -setting institutions and 
NGOs. Ms Kargin explained that the Minister sent letters of invitation to stakeholders  to participate 
in the sub-committee s. The f inal legislation was published  on the Ministry's website and 
disseminated to the target audience through official letters,  the internet, the office of the press G/SPS/R/89  
 
- 8 - 
 
  counsello r and  through  press releases. Comments received were reviewed, and reasons for 
considering them (or not ) provided.  
3.39.   Dr Nurten Aksu , Engineer, General Directorate of Food and Control, Ministry of Food 
Agriculture and Livestock,  listed out a few challenges f aced by Turk ey in public consultations: 
(i) the time-consuming nature  of evaluating comment s received; (ii) differentiating objective 
comments from opinion s motivated by other interests ; and (iii) difficulties in reaching out to 
relevant experts that need ed to be involved in the drafting process . 
3.40.   In a second round of discussion s, speakers  focused on ways to e valuate the public 
consultations process . 
3.41.   Mr Jay Mitchell , Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service  (APHIS), US Department of 
Agriculture, noted that  success of public consultations re lied on  accountability and transparency. 
The United States highly value d comments received.  Two examples illustrate d successful 
consultation s by improv ing draft legislatio n: (i) the amendment of the underlying risk analys is and 
pest lists for the import of avocados from Mexico;  and (ii) the chang e of record keeping 
requirements on establishments and retail stores grind ing raw beef products.  
3.42.   Ms Zhang  observed that, for ministry level or for national food safety standards , comments 
received and reasons f or considering them (or not ) were included in an explanation note, which 
was a key element for passing legislation . Mr Garavito noted that a large number of observations 
received could indicate the need for  significant changes  in the draft measure.  Dr Aksu  noted that 
indicators of success were the number, the content and the usefulness of the comments received, 
and Ms Kargin  highlighted that the key to fruitful public consultations was awareness amongst 
stakeholders . The use of  new techniques could help to overcome challenges earlier identified.  
3.43.   During a  question  and answer session , comments were made on several topics, such as: 
(i) government criteria to distinguish evidence -based comments from others  and carrying out 
backgroun d research when contradictory comments were received; (ii) the importance of building 
trust with stakeholders; (iii)  remuneration of technical experts for drafting or reviewing 
regulations; and (iv) challenges in reconciling public consultations with WTO o bligations . 
3.10  Session 10: What Actions Could Improve the Implementation and Benefits of SPS 
Transparency Provisions  
3.44.   In this session, brief presentations were made on three topics , after which the participants 
broke into three groups to further discuss one or  more of these topics.  
3.45.   Ms Sally Jennings , Senior Policy Analyst  at the Ministry for Primary Industries  in New 
Zealand,  presented on Decision criteria: what to notify and when . She explained that a notification 
was made to the WTO when ever an international standard or guideline did not exist, the content of 
the SPS regulation was not substantially the same as that of an international standard , guideline 
or recommendation and if the measure ha d a significant  effect on trade. Moreover, the timeline 
prescribed in the SPS Agreement need ed to be followed if and when a notification was sent. 
In case of doubt on whether a particular measure should be notified or not, Ms Jennings advised to 
notify it anyway . 
3.46.   Ms Roxana Inés Vera Muñoz, Sub-departmental Chief  at the  International Affairs  Division  
of the Chilean Agricultur al and Livestock Service, presented on How to manage the volume of 
notifications on which to comment , based on  Chile's experience. Ms Muñoz  explained that different 
authorities coordinate d amongst thems elves to share information. A specific department ha d been 
created  to manage notifications -related matters , including  filtering, circulating and  follow ing-up on 
notifications  of interest to public and private stakeholders , and receiving comments on Chilean  
notifications . 
3.47.   Ms Kristina Hartling , Deputy Director, Trade Agreements Division, Canadian Food 
Inspection Agency, presented on Consultations with government and non -government 
stakeholders on foreign SPS notifications . Ms Hartling stressed that transparen cy through 
collaboration with trading partners, federal departments, industry and consumer s was key to G/SPS/R/89  
 
- 9 - 
 
  foster safe and predictable trade. Canada use d a two -phased approach – immediate outreach 
followed by targeted stakeholder s' consultations.  
3.48.   Participants engaged in group discussions on the above -mentioned topics. These discussions 
proceeded in four groups (two in English, one  in French and one in Spanish). Each group was 
assigned two topics for discussion. Rapporteurs from each group reported on the main i ssues 
identified and possible solutions to the plenary.  
3.49.   English -speaking group A first discussed Decision criteria: what and when to notify . 
The group agreed that consistent training and capacity building could be a solution to the biggest 
challenge , i.e. lack of awareness and means to notify. Secondly, the group discussed How to 
manage the volume of notifications on which to comment . The main issue identified  was the lack 
of clarity of certain notification s or missing information, such as translations  of measures in non -
WTO languages or the full text of the measure. As a possible solution, Members should encourage 
stakeholders to make use of readily available online tools like the SPS IMS, ePing, e -training 
materials and set up SPS coordination groups inclu ding NEPs. 
3.50.   English -speaking group B first discussed Consultations with government and non -
government stakeholders on foreign SPS notifications . The group identified some of the main 
issues, including how to best engage with industry, how to tackle the lack of comments from 
stakeholders, how to handle  inputs from stakeholders not in line with domestic practice , and how 
to access notified text s and translations. Possible  solutions included: (i) organizing meetings with 
stakeholder s to collect their comments ; (ii) encouraging stakeholders to use existing  information 
systems to track measures; and (iii) encouraging Members to develop a single window for 
information sharing. Secondly, the group discussed Decision criteria: what and when to notify . 
It was suggeste d that, in case of doubt on whether to notify a measure that might not have a 
"significant" impact on trade, to notify it anyway.  
3.51.   The French -speaking group discussed Consultations with government and non -government 
stakeholders on foreign SPS notifications . The issues included lack of coordination between 
different SPS actors, the large volume of notifications and/or comments, insufficient technical staff, 
identification of stakeholders and lack of financial resources. Possible solutions included 
encouragin g the use of ePing, identifying stakeholders at the national level, strengthening 
SPS actors' capacity , and enhancing communication.  
3.52.   The Spanish -speaking group discussed  How to manage the volume of notifications on which 
to comment . Issues identified included missing relevant notification s, wasting time for collecting 
and providing  comments due to government bureaucracy, and difficulties  in obtaining translat ions. 
Then, t he group presented p ossible solutions to these issues : filtering notifications based on  
business relationship s, using STDF materials , requesting time extensions for submitting comments 
and encouraging Members to provide unofficial translations.  
3.53.   The group presentations were followed by questions and comments which generated 
interesting discus sions on some of the possible solutions identified.  
3.54.   In his concluding remarks, the Chairperson highlighted the high level of participation and 
interaction in all sessions of the workshop. He announced his intention to provide a brief report of 
the workshop  to the SPS Committee. He invited participants to reflect on the suggestions made, 
which could inform future discussions in the Committee.  
 
__________