G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
10 October  2016 
(16-5457) 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 NOTIF ICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS  ....................  2 
3   SUBMISSION OF NOTIFI CATIONS  ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
3.1   Types of notifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
3.2   Notifying Members  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
3.3   Products covered  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  7 
3.4   Regions/countries affected  ................................ ................................ ............................  8 
3.5   Objective and rationale  ................................ ................................ ................................  8 
3.6   International standards, guidelines or  recommendations  ................................ ..................  9 
3.7   Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force  ................................ .................... 10 
3.8   Final date for comments  ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 
3.9   Reasons for addenda to regular and emergency notifications  ................................ ........... 12 
4   NOTIFICATION KEYWORD S ................................ ................................ .......................  13 
5   EFFORTS TO ENHANCE T HE BENEFITS FROM A T RANSPARENT SYSTEM  .....................  14 
6   OTHER ASPECTS RELATI NG TO TRANSPARENCY  ................................ ........................  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 t he WTO.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 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 leve l 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 Tran sparency 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 comment s 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 sourc es 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 Implementing the Tran sparency Obligations of the 
SPS Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3, hereafter the " Recommended  Transparency Procedures") took 
effect on 1  December 2008.4 Compared to the earlier version of the transparency procedures, 
which had been adopted by the Committee in 2002, t he 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 Members, e.g. regarding conformity with 
international standards, c omment periods, and the period between the publication and entry  into 
force of new regulations.  
1.4.  The Recommended Transparency Procedures also paved the way for the introduction d uring 
2011 of a procedure for the on -line submission of notifications by Member s. 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 i s still room for 
improvement regarding the actual amount and quality of information provided by Members in the 
various notification formats.6 
2  DESIGNATION OF NOTIF ICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS  
2.1.  Annex B, paragraph 10, of the SPS Agreement obliges Mem bers to designate a single central 
government authority as responsible for the implementation o f notification procedures. 
This agency is referred to as the "SPS Notification Authority". As of 15 September 2016, 
154 WTO Members out of 164 had designat ed suc h an agency . As compared to last year, one new 
WTO Member , Kazakhstan,  has entered the list. Those Members which have not designated 
Notification Authorities include s even least developed countries (LDCs)  and three  developing 
countr ies.7 It should be noted  that these are the same eight countries as last year, to which are 
added  two new WTO Member s, Afghanistan and Liberia.  
                                                
2 See G/SPS/R/47, para. 44 , for the recomm endations arising from the 2007 workshop on transparency.  
3 http://spsims.wto.org . 
4 See also footnote 4 of G/SPS/7/Rev.3 requesting the Secretariat to provide an annu al 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 i nformation.  
6 All notification formats can be downloaded from 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm . 
7 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the WTO's 
Integrated Database (IDB) fo r analytical purposes  (idb@wto.org ). They can be consulted through the SPS IMS 
by clicking on "definitions of groups" o n the left -hand side menu bar.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 3 - 
 
  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 2016, 158 WTO Members  out of 164, one more than the previous 
year, had provided the WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point.8 The same four 
countries as last year  have not yet established an Enquiry Point , in addition to two new 
WTO Members , Afghanistan and Liberia ; they  include five LDCs and one developing countr y. 
30 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 "Enquiry Points/Notification Authorities" on the 
left-hand side menu bar.  
3  SUBMISSION OF NOTIFI CATIONS  
3.1.  Under the SPS Agreement, notifications are used to inform other Members about 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 s pecific 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 additi on, addenda, corrigenda, 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 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 revisio n 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 2016, Members had submitted10 13,786  regular notifications, 
1,784 emergency notifications, and 4,919  addenda and corrigenda to regular and emergency 
notifications. For the past year (15 September 2015 through 15 September 2016), Members 
submitted a total of 1,453 notifications, of which 1,011  regular notifications, 65 emergency 
notifications, and 377 addenda and 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 2016, 19 supplement notifications had been circulated. None was submitted in 
2016. It is interesting to note tha t the identical mechanism for sharing translations of notified 
TBT regulations, which was launched in January 2008, has already resulted in 250 supplement 
notifications, although only one new  supplement notification  was submitted this year. It is not 
clear why Members are submitting so few supplement notif ications in the SPS area.  
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 phytosan itary 
measures. As of 15 September 2016, 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 W TO Members sinc e 2008.  
3.6.  In October 2004, the Secretariat adopted a procedure to enhance transparency of special and 
differential treatment (S&D) in favour of developing country Members, which included an 
addendum notification format to inform the Committee on a Member's d ecision on whether and 
how S&D may be provided in reference to a specific request. The procedure and  addendum  
                                                
8 Kazakhstan.  
9 See the Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/R ev.3) for further elaboration on the 
different types of notifications.  
10 For this N ote, submission refers to the date of distribution . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 4 - 
 
  notification format were subsequently revised in December 2009.11 No S&D notifications have been 
circulated by WTO Members since 2004.  
3.7.  Considering all types of notifications together, a total of 20,510 notifications were submitt ed 
to the WTO from 1 January 1995 to 15 September 2016. As can be seen in Chart 1, there has 
been a general upward trend in the number of notifications over the years , althoug h since the 
peak of 1, 410 notifications in 2010, there has been a slight decline for the years 2011 -2013. In 
2015, however, the number of notificat ions reached a new peak of 1,681 . As opposed to the 
previous year, t he number of notifications has dropped  in 2016, with 308 less notifications during 
the period from mid -September 201 5 through mid -September 201 6 than during the same period 
in the previous year.  
Chart  1 – Notifications submitted per year  
 
 
3.2  Notifying Members  
3.8.  As of 15 September 2016, 122 Members o ut of 164 (74%) had submitted at least one 
notification to the WT O. Members which have not submitted any  notification so far include 
18 developing countries, 15 LDCs, and one developed country.  In addition, a number of 
EU member States have not submitted n otifications; however, most  SPS measures are notified by 
the European Union on behalf of all its member States.12 
                                                
11 See G/SPS/33/Rev.1.  
12 See G/SPS/GEN/456 for notification procedures for the European Union and its member States.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Chart 2 – Notifications by Developing Country Members (including LDCs)  
 
 
3.9.   Chart 2 shows the increase of notifications from developing countrie s (including LDCs) since 
2000. In correlation with the variation in the number of total notifications submitted since 2010, 
after the peak in that year the numbers dropped for the years 2011 -2012. Since then, notifications 
have increased again each year re aching a new peak in 2015 , close to the 1 ,200 mark. The share 
of notifications by developing countries has varied somewhat since 2000 (see Chart 3). 
It has consistently been higher than 50% since 2007,  reaching its highest peak of 70% in 2015 , 
following a steady increase since 2012 . From mid -Septe mber 201 5 through mid -September  2016, 
developing countries made up a 6.4% smaller  share  of total  notifications than for the same period 
in the previous year. The shar e of notifications from LDCs had  never been high er than its 
2.1%  peak in 2013 until the current nine months period, as from the year 201 6 through 
mid-September this share has risen to 3.3%. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Chart  3 – Share of Total Notifications Submitted by Developing Country Members 
(including LDCs)  
 
 
3.10.   Looking at the geographic regions from which the notifications originate, Chart  4 shows that 
over the past 16 years 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 – Notifi cations by Geographical Region  from 2000  to mid -September 2016  
 
 
                                                
13 The geographical groupings used 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 consul ted through the SPS IMS by clicking on "definitions of groups" on the left -hand side 
menu bar.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.11.   The Members which have submitted the greatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 15 September 2016 are listed in Table 1, while the Members that have 
submitted the greates t number of notifications in the past year (15 September 2015 to 
15 September 2016) are listed in Table 2.  
Table 1. Members which have submitted the most notifications since 1995  
Regular Notifications   Emergency Notifications  
Member  Number of 
notification s Share 
of Total  Member  Number of 
notifications  Share 
of Total  
United States of 
America  2,810 20%  Philippines  185 10% 
Brazil  1,213 9%  Albania  166 9% 
China  1,162 8%  New Zealand  116 7% 
Canada  1,069 8%  United States of 
America  83 5% 
Peru 605 4%  Colombia  76 4% 
Korea, Republic of  527 4%  Ukraine  74 4% 
European Union  523 4%  European Union  65 4% 
Chile 497 4%  Peru 64 4% 
Japan  462 3%  Russian Federation  62 3% 
New Zealand  426 3%  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of  58 3% 
Chinese Taipei  414 3%  United Arab Emi rates 51 3% 
Australia  369 3%  Thailand  46 3% 
Mexico  267 2%  Chile 37 2% 
Thailand  209 2%  Mexico  37 2% 
Colombia  188 1%  Australia  32 2% 
 
Table 2. Members which have submitted the most notifications in the past year  
(15 September 2015 – 15 September 2016) 
Regular Notifications   Emergency Notifications  
Member  Number of 
notifications  Share 
of Total  Member  Number of 
notifications  Share 
of Total  
Brazil  131 13%  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of  17 26% 
United States of 
America  111 11%  United Arab Emirates  10 15% 
Canada  104 10%  Russian Federation  9 14% 
Japan  50 5%  Albania  6 9% 
Peru 47 5%  Philippines  5 8% 
China  46 5%  Kazakhstan  3 5% 
Chinese Taipei  43 4%  New Zealand  3 5% 
India 41 4%  Ukraine  2 3% 
Korea, Republic of  32 3%  Egypt  1 2% 
Philippines  31 3%  European Union  1 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 p rovide the relevant HS codes. 
Most Members have indicated they would welcome the provision of these codes by their trading 
partners.14 However, identifying relevant HS codes is one of the main difficulties  encountered by 
Members when filling in a notificati on according to the latest questionnaire on transparency.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 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.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 8 - 
 
  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 notifications  where these are not provided by the 
Member .16 
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  Shar e of 
Total  
(06) Live trees and other plants  1,250 9% 
(02) Meat and edible meat offal  1,227 9% 
(01) Live animals  1,067 8% 
(04) Dairy produce, birds' eggs, natural honey, edible 
products of origin not elsewhere specified or included  993 7% 
(08) Edible f ruit and nuts, peel of citrus fruit or melons  941 7% 
 
Emergency notifications  
 
HS 
Code  Description  Number  Share of 
Total  
(02) Meat and edible meat offal  1,008 57% 
(01) Live animals  1,007 56% 
(04) Dairy produce, birds' eggs, natural honey, edible 
products of origin not elsewhere specified or included  612 34% 
(05) Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or 
included  461 26% 
(23) Residues and waste from the food industries, prepared 
animal fodder  244 14% 
 
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 
modified data entry option for this item whereby Members are invited to either select th e tick box 
for "all 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 15 September 2015 and 
15 September 2016 indicate s that 14% of regular notifi cations have identified a specific group of 
countries or a region, while 86% of regular notifications have selected the tick box for "all trading 
partners" . In contrast, 92% of emergency notifications have identified a specific group of countries 
or a regi on, and only 8% of emergency notifications 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.  
3.17.   The comprehension and work of ot her 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  
3.18.   In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement and the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures, Members are also requ ired to state the objective and 
rationale of proposed regulations by selecting one of the following five options: food safety, animal 
                                                
16 This information is available in the SPS IMS.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 9 - 
 
  health, plant protection, protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease, and protect territory 
from other damage from p ests. These objectives 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, t hat 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.  
3.20.   For regular notifications th e most frequently cited objective is food safety , while for 
emergency not ifications it is animal health.  
Table 4. "Objectives" of notified SPS measures in the period between  15 September 
2015 - 15 September 2016 
Regular Notifications    
 Notifications  Shar e 
Food Safety  751 74% 
Plant Protection  180 18% 
Animal Health  112 11% 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease  67 7% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests  58 6% 
Emergency Notifications    
 Notifications  Share  
Animal Health  42 65% 
Food Safety  21 32% 
Plant Protection  12 18% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests  5 8% 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease  0 0% 
 
3.6  International standards, guidelines or recommendations  
3.21.   The SPS Agreement does not require Members to not ify 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, o r 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 to get more precision from Members 
regarding relevant st andards and the conformity of t he notified measure with these.  
3.22.   With respect to regular notifications circulated from 15 September 2015 to 15 September 
2016, Chart 5 indicates that in 55% of the cases, Members have not identified an international 
standard a s being relevant to the new measure being notified , while 24% have referred to Codex, 
15% to the IPPC and 6% to the OIE . 
3.23.   When it comes to emergency notification s for the same period, Chart  6 shows that only 
3% of emergency notifications have not identified  an international standard as being relevant to 
the measure being notified, whereas 75%, 20% and 2% 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.9  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Chart  5 - Regular Notifications referring to a relevant international standard  
 
 
Chart  6 - Emergency Notifi cations 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 15 September 2015 to 
15 September 2016, of th e 45% of regular notifications identifying a relevant international 
standard regarding the measure, 80% indicated that the proposed regulation conformed to that 
relevant international standard. For the same period, of the 97% of em ergency notifications 
identifying a  relevant international standard, all indicated that the proposed regulation conformed 
to the r elevant international standard.  
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 Agre ement, 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 fo rce. Paragraph 3.2 of the Doha Decision on G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Implementation -Related Issues and Concerns states that this interval "shall be understood to 
mean normally a period of not less than 6 months".17 
3.26.   The regular notification format contained in the Recommended Transpa rency 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 publica tion and entry into force of a new measure.  
3.27.   For the period from 15 September 2015 through 15 September 2016, 23% (231) of regular 
notifications included a specific date for adoption, 22% (221) for publication, and 23% (228) 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 dat es of 
adoption, publication and entry into force. During the same period, only 101 regular notifications 
(10%) had selected the checkbox for a six -month interval between the publication and  entry into 
force of a measure.  
3.28.   Regarding the  regular  notifications  that indicated a specific date of entry into force, 
38% (95) indicated a delay between the date of distribution and the proposed date of entry into 
force that averaged 98 days. This average masks a very wide range, as the periods in the 
notifications vari ed from 1 to 524 days . Furthermore, more than half of the notifications, 
61% (152), indicated a date of entry into force prior to the date of document distribution, and 
50% (76) of these concerned measures were 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 15 September 2015 to 15 September 2016, around 67% of the addenda  indicated 
the adoption, publication or entry into force of regulations as shown in Table 6.  
3.8  Final date for comments  
3.30.   Annex B, paragraph 5 of the SPS Agreement provides that notifica tions 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 d omestic 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 Member s to follow this recommendation.18 Between 15 September 2015 and 
15 September 2016 this checkbox was selected in 45% (453) of regular  notifications.  
3.31.   An analysis of the notifications issued during the period from 15 September 2015 through 
15 September 2016 shows that around 20% 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 dat e for 
comments. On average, d evelop ed country Members provide d longer  average  comment period s 
than developing country Members  (61 and 51 days respectively ). Yet the overall average comment 
period for all Members remains in the same range as last year (54 this year compared to 55 the 
year before).  
                                                
17 WT/M IN(01)/17.  
18 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 13.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Table 5. Comment period provided in regular notifications  (15 September 2015  – 
15 September 2016 ) 
All Members  
 No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  1,011 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available  192 19% 
Comment period ends before distribution date  10 1% 
Comment period available  819 81% 
Average comment period  54 
Developed country Members  
 No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  674 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available  91 14% 
Comment period en ds before distribution date  2 0.3% 
Comment period available  583 86% 
Average comment period  61 
Developing country Members  
 No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  337 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available  101 30% 
Comment period ends before dist ribution date  8 2.4% 
Comment period available  236 70% 
Average comment period  51 
 
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 whethe r the 
notification concerns a trade facilitating measure. From 15 September 201 5 through 15 September 
2016, 19% of notifications have been identified to be trade facilitating. In addition, as there is no 
obligation to notify  measures if their content is su bstantially the same as that of an international 
standard, no comment period is expected for this category of measures.  
3.33.   While Members are obligated to notify other WTO Members of draft , new or changed 
measures, they are not required to submit the text of t he 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 av ailable for providing comments.  
3.34.   In an effort to address these concerns and facilitate access to notified draft regulations, 
since February 2008 Members may, on a voluntary basis, provide the Secr etariat with an 
electronic version of the text of the notified regulation as an attachment to the notification format. 
The submitted text is then electronically accessible to other Members through a h yperlink in the 
notification format.19 From 15 September 2015 through 15 September 2016, around  85% of all 
notifications  (88% of regular and 43% of emergency notifications)  have provided the full text or 
a summary of their notified regulations using this fa cility. Members may wish to remind their 
notification au thorities 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 th e share 
of each option for the period from 15 September 2015 to 15 September 2016: 
                                                
19 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 22 and Annex C.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Table 6. Reasons for addenda20 
Reason for addenda:  No. Share  
Notification of adoption, publication, or entry into force of regulation   242 67% 
Other: provide brief descrip tion 48 13% 
Modification of content and/or scope of previously notified draft regulation  39 11% 
Modification of final date for comments  20 6% 
Change in proposed date of adoption, publication, or date of entry into force  9 3% 
Withdrawal of proposed re gulation  5 1% 
 
3.37.   In addition, Members can notify their decision on whether and how S&D may be provided in 
reference to a specific request, through another addendum notification format. No Member has 
ever notified such a decision to the Committee.  
4  NOTIFICA TION 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 (MRLs) and plant health. For emergency notifica tions, the most frequent 
keywords in descending order are: animal diseases, animal health, pest or disease free regions, 
zoonoses and avian influenza. It must be noted, however, that the majority of the notifications are 
assigned more than one keyword. The refore, 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 in the period between 1 5 September 2015 
- 15 September 2016 
Regular Notifications   
 Notifications  
Human health  754 
Food safety  737 
Pesticides  337 
Maximum residue limits (MRLs)  307 
Plant health  184 
Pests  159 
Animal health  108 
Food additives  106 
Animal diseases  65 
Territory protection  59 
Emergency Notifications   
 Notifications  
Animal diseases  47 
Animal health  44 
Pest or Disease free Regions  38 
Zoonoses  27 
Avian Influenza  26 
Food safety  21 
Human health  21 
Pests  13 
Plant health  13 
Foot and mouth disease  5 
 
                                                
20 Each notification can have multiple entries for the reasons for addenda.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 14 - 
 
  5  EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRAN SPARENT 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.21 
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 noti fications 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 prepara tion of reports/summaries which can be shared with interested stakeholders.  
5.3.  Since 2011, the SPS NSS allows National Notification Authori ties to fill out and submit 
SPS notifications online. The SPS NSS allows for more accurate and complete notifications, a nd a 
substantial reduction in the time required for the WTO to circulate them. Interested Members may 
request login names and access passwords for their National Notification Authorities from the 
Secretariat.22 To date , 71 Members  have requested access to t he system, and 40 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 latest questionnaire on transparency, a majori ty of 
Members express a need for technical assistance in order to enhance their transparency 
mechanisms, and Members that have received technical assistance reported to have found it very 
useful.23 Transparency workshop s organized in October 2012 and 2015 provided  highly interactive, 
"hands -on" training on the  use of the SPS IMS and SPS NSS . The last workshop  also provided an 
occasion to present the on -going project to improve and modernize t he SPS IMS and NSS 
applications24, planned to be launched by the end  of 2016.  
5.5.  In addition, a practical Manual on the operation 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 le tters. Th e manual is available in English, 
French and Spanish. Hard copies can be requested from the WTO Secretariat and electronic copies 
can be downloaded from the SPS gateway of the WTO website .25 
5.6.  The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) has f unded 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. 
The STDF has develo ped a framework called P -IMA26 that helps countries 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 decisi ons. This framework uses a multi -criteria decision analysis (MCDA) 
approach as well as computer software to help derive priorities. P -IMA has been applied in over ten 
countries and has been very successful in promoting and creating linkages between th e pub lic and 
private sector. 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 establishment and operation of  SPS coordination  mechanisms .27 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 
                                                
21 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Operation of Enquiry Points and Nation al 
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 submitting  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 Transparency under the SPS Agreement, 
(G/SPS/GEN/1402, paras. 3 .29 and 3.30) for further elaboration on this point.  
24 See report on the transparency workshop in document G/SPS/R/80.  
25 The Procedural Step -by-step Manual for SPS National Notifications Authorities & National Enquiry 
Points can be downloaded from:  http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm . 
26  http:// www.standardsfacility.org/prioritizing -sps-investments -market -access -p-ima. 
27 
http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Nat ionalSPSCoordinationMechanisms_EN_0.pdf . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9  
 
- 15 - 
 
  in the implementation of SPS measures  and enhances the effectiveness of available resources. 
WTO Members are invited to contact the STDF Secretariat to obtain further information on any o f 
the above -mentioned points.28 
6  OTHER ASPECTS RELATI NG TO TRANSPARENCY  
6.1.  As indicated in the introduction, th ere 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 proposals to 
introduce a particular regul ation? (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 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.  
 
__________  
                                                
28 stdfsecretariat@wto.org .