WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
4 October 2012 
 (12-5388) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures   
  
 
OVERVIEW REGARDING THE LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Revision 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In October 2007, the Secretariat circulated a background document (G/SPS/GEN/804) 
providing an overview regarding the level of implem entation of the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement.  This document was intended to assist Members in their deliberations during the 
special workshop on transparency held in October 2007 and also during the Committee's 
discussions under the agenda item on transparency .  The 2007 workshop recommended that the 
Secretariat prepare such an overview on a regular basis. 2  This sixth updated document should 
provide a useful background to the 15-16 October 2012 workshop on transparency. 
2. The document provides an overview regardi ng the level of implementation of the 
transparency obligations found in the SPS Agre ement (Article 7 and Annex B) and of the 
Committee's Recommended Procedures for Implementi ng the Transparency Obligations of the SPS 
Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3).  It provides informatio n in areas which the Secretariat is in a position 
to track (such as designation of Enquiry Poin ts/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). 
3. In preparing this overview, the Secretaria t has largely relied on the SPS Information 
Management System (SPS IMS), the public ve rsion of which was la unched and presented in 
October 2007 during the transparency workshop.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 onl y been possible as of July 2007, when the SPS IMS 
became operational.  Most of the analysis c ontained in this document can be undertaken and 
updated directly by Members or other interested pa rties as the underlying data is publicly available 
and searchable through the SPS IMS.  Hands-on tr aining on using the SPS IMS will be provided as 
part of the October 2012 workshop. 
4. At its meeting of April 2008, the SPS Committee adopted the revised Recommended 
Procedures for Implementing the Transpar ency Obligations of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.3, hereafter the "2008 Transpar ency Procedures"), which  took effect on 
                                                      
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 or obligations under the WTO. 
2 See G/SPS/R/47, para.44 for the recommendati ons arising from the 2007 workshop on 
transparency. 
3 http://spsims.wto.org  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
Page 2  
 
  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 pr ovision of clearer and more specific information 
regarding new or modified SPS measures by Members, e.g. regarding conformity with international standards, comment periods, and the period between the publication and entry into 
force of new regulations.   
5. While more information is available with the new formats, there is still room for 
improvement regarding the actual amount and qualit y of information provided by Members in the 
various notification formats.  During 2011, a pro cedure for the on-line submission of notifications 
by Members was introduced, based on the new formats.  The SPS Notification Submission System 
(NSS) assists Members to be more precise in th eir notifications, and speeds up the processing and 
circulation of notifications to all Members.
5 
II. DESIGNATION OF NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS 
6. Annex B, paragraph 10, of the SPS Agreem ent obliges Members to designate a single 
central government authority as responsible for th e implementation of notif ication procedures.  
This agency is also referred to as the "SPS No tification Authority".  As of 15 September 2012, 
144 WTO Members out of 157, i.e. four more than last year, had designated an "SPS Notification Authority".
6  Those which have not include seven least developed countries (LDCs) and six 
developing countries.7 
7. Annex B, paragraph 3, of the SPS Agreemen t requires that each Member establish an 
Enquiry Point responsible for the provision of answ ers to all reasonable questions and of relevant 
documents.  As of 15 September 2012, 151 WTO Me mbers out of 157, i.e. four more than the 
previous year, had provided the WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point.8  Those 
which have not include four LD Cs and two developing countries.9 
III. SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS 
8. Under the SPS Agreement, notifications are u sed to inform other Members about new or 
changed regulations that may significantly affect tr ade.  Annex B, paragraphs 5 to 8, as well as the 
2008 Transparency Procedures, elaborate on the no tification procedures Members are to follow.  
For ease of reference, the specific sub-topics highlig hted below follow the order of items that are 
contained in the regular and em ergency notification formats. 
 
 
                                                      
4 See also footnote 4 of G/SPS/7/Rev.3 requesting the Secretariat to provide an annual report on the 
level of implementation of the transparency provi sions of the SPS Agreement and of the recommended 
transparency procedures. 
5 See para. 46 for more information. 
6 The four Members are:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Samoa and Togo. 
7 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the 
WTO's Integrated Database (IDB) for analytical purpose s.  They can be consulted through the SPS IMS by 
clicking on "definitions of groups" on the left-hand side menu bar.  The most up-to-date information on 
Members' notification authorities can be accessed through the SPS IMS by clicking on "Enquiry 
Points/Notification Authorities" on the left-hand side menu bar. 
8 The four Members are:  Cape Verde, Centra l African Republic, the Russian Federation and 
Samoa. 
9 The most up-to-date informati on on Members' Enquiry Points can be accessed through the SPS 
IMS by clicking on "Enquiry Points/Notificati on Authorities" on the left-hand side menu bar.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
Types of notifications  
9. The two main types of notifications are regular  notifications and emergency notifications.  
In addition, addenda, corrigenda, revi sions or supplements can be issued subsequent to an original 
regular or emergency notification.
10  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.  A corrigendum is used to correct 
an error in an original notificati on such as an incorrect address detail.  A revision is used to replace 
an existing notification, for example if a notified dr aft regulation was substantially redrafted or if a 
notification contained a large number of errors. 
10. As of 15 September 2012, Members had submitted 9,791 regular notifications, 
1,420 emergency notifications, and 3,322 addenda and corrigenda  to regular and emergency 
notifications. 
11. 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 2012, 15 supplemen t notifications had been circulated.  Only one 
was submitted in 2012.  It is interesting to note that the identical mechanism for sharing 
translations of notified TBT regulations, which w as launched in January 2008, has already resulted 
in over 238 supplement notifications, although on ly five more supplement notification were 
submitted this year.  It is not clear why Member s are submitting so few suppl ement notifications in 
the SPS area.  
12. 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 Septembe r 2012, there have only been two equivalence 
notifications circulated, one from Panama in 2007 and another from the Dominican Republic in 
2008. 
13. Considering all types of notifications toge ther, a total of 14,550 notifications were 
submitted to the WTO from 1 January 1995 to 15 Se ptember 2012.  As can be seen in Figure 1, 
there has been a general upward trend in the number  of notifications over the years, with the total 
number of notifications reaching a p eak of 1,436 in the year 2010.  However, for the last two years, 
the number of notifications submitted has experi enced a decrease.  From the year 2010 to 2011 
there was a decrease, although minimal, of 3 per cent in the number of submitted notifications, 
whereas the decrease in 2012 (from January 2012 through 15 September 2012) compared to the 
same period for 2011, was of 13.8 per cent. 
                                                      
10 See the Recommended Procedures for Implementi ng the Transparency Ob ligations of the SPS 
Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) for further elabora tion on the different ty pes of notifications. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
Page 4  
 
   
Figure 1 
 
Notifying Members 
 
14. As of 15 September 2012, 104 Members out of 157 (66 per cent) had submitted at least 
one notification to the WTO.  Members which ha ve not submitted any notification so far include 
20 developing countries, 24 LDCs, and one deve loped country.  In addition, a number of 
EU member States have not submitted notificati ons;  however, most SPS measures are notified by 
the European Union on behalf of all its member States.11 
15. As can be seen in Figure 2, the number of notifications from developing countries (which 
include LDCs) has dropped significantly in the pe riod 1 January - 15 September 2012.  However 
the share of total notifications from developing c ountry Members (see Figure 3) continues to be 
high, with a peak of over 67 per cent in the year 2009.  Compared to the same period of time last 
year, the share of notifications from developing  countries has decreased from 65 to 54 per cent, 
while the share from LDCs showed a slight increase from 0.1 to 0.2 per cent.  
                                                      
11 See G/SPS/GEN/456 for notification procedures fo r the European Union and its member States.   G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Figure 2 
 
 
Figure 3  
 
16. Looking at the geographic regions from which th e notifications originate, Figure 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.
12 
                                                      
12 The geographical groupings used rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the Integrated 
Database (IDB) for analytical purpos es.  The same groupings are used in  the WTO Annual Reports.  They 
can be consulted through the SPS IMS by clicking on "d efinitions of groups" on th e left-hand side menu bar. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
Page 6  
 
  Figure 4 
 
17. The Members which have submitted the greatest  number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 15 September 2012, are listed in Table 1, while the Members that have submitted 
the greatest number of notifications in the past year (15 September 2011 to 15 September 2012) are 
listed in Table 2.  
Table 1.  Members which have submitted the most notifications since 1995 
 
Regular Notifications Emergency Notifications  
Member Number of 
notifications Share of 
Total Members Number of 
notifications Share of 
Total 
United States 2,384 24% Albania 136 10%
Brazil 827 8% Philippines 121 9%
China 656 7% New Zealand 106 7%
Canada 644 7% United States 84 6%
Korea 410 4% Colombia 74 5%
European 
Union 402 4% Ukraine 66 5%
New Zealand 385 4% Peru 63 4%
Peru 379 4% European Union 53 4%
Chile 375 4% Thailand 41 3%
Japan 289 3% Mexico 36 3%
Australia 280 3% Chile 30 2%
Chinese 
Taipei  276 3% Canada 30 2%
Mexico 193 2% China 27 2%
Thailand 177 2% Kenya 27 2%
Colombia 171 2% Australia 26 2%
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Table 2.  Members which have submitted th e most notifications in the past year 
(15 September 2011 – 15 September 2012) 
 
Regular notifications  Emergency notifications 
Member  Number  Share of 
Total   Member  Number  Share of 
Total  
United States 195 24%  Albania 11 14%
Canada 77 10%  Saudi Arabia 10 12%
China 64 8%  Ukraine 10 12%
Brazil 56 7%  Philippines 7 9%
Peru 42 5%  New Zealand 4 5%
Korea 34 4%  Chile 4 5%
European Union 32 4%  Colombia 4 5%
Chile 31 4%  European Union 4 5%
Australia 30 4%  Costa Rica 3 4%
Chinese Taipei  29 4%  Chinese Taipei 3 4%
 
Products covered  
18. In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of A nnex B of the SPS Agreement and the 2008 
Transparency Procedures, Members are required to id entify the products to be covered by a new or 
changed SPS measure and should provide the releva nt HS codes.  Most Members have indicated 
they would welcome the provision of these codes by their trading partners.
13 
19. Since 1995 the WTO's Central Registry of Notif ications (CRN) has been assigning, to the 
extent possible, the relevant HS codes for all notifications.14   
20. While being only indicative, Table 3 shows the products, at the two-digit level of HS 
codes, that are most often covered by  regular and emergency notifications. 
Table 3.  HS Codes assigned to notifications 
 
Regular notifications 
HS 
Code Description Number Share of 
Total 
(02) Meat and edible meat offal 2,399 17% 
(08) Edible fruit and nuts, peel of citrus fruit or melons 1,506 11% 
(07) Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers 1,250 9% 
(01) Live animals 1,156 8% 
(10) Cereals 1,089 8% 
 
                                                      
13 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 fu rther elaboration on this point. 
14 This information is now available in the SPS IMS. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
Page 8  
 
   
Emergency notification 
HS 
Code Description Number Share of 
Total 
(02) Meat and edible meat offal 1,594 32% 
(01) Live animals 1,475 30% 
(04) Dairy produce, birds' eggs, natural honey, edible 
products of origin not elsewhere specified or included 530 11% 
(05) Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified 
or included 393 8% 
(23) Residues and waste from the food industries, 
prepared animal fodder 250 5% 
 
Regions/countries affected  
21. The Transparency Procedures call on Members to  identify the regions or countries which 
are most likely to be affected by the measure being notified.  An assessment of notifications 
submitted in the period between 1 December 2008 and 15 September 2012 indicate that  around 
14 per cent of regular notifications have identifie d a specific group of countries or a region, while 
the remaining contain general references such as "a ll trading partners", "all countries", etc.  In 
contrast, 57 per cent of emergency notifications ha ve identified a specific group of countries or a 
region.  During this same period, around 27 per cent of all regular and emergency notifications 
have left this box blank.   
22. The 2008 Transparency Procedures 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.  Since 1 December 2008, around 
82 per cent of regular notifications have selected the tick box for "all trading partners", while the 
share is only roughly 13 per cent for emergency notifica tions.  This reflects th e fact that emergency 
actions are frequently taken in response to diseas e outbreaks in specific countries, territories, or 
regions. 
23. The comprehension and work of other Member s would be facilitated if more specificity 
were provided by notifying Members on regions or  countries likely to be affected.  It is 
understandable; however, that when submitting no tifications, Members may be hesitant to 
specifically identify potentially affected countries or regions for fear of not accurately assessing 
who might be affected. 
Objective and rationale 
24. In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of A nnex B of the SPS Agreement and the 2008 
Transparency Procedures, Members are also required to state the objective and rationale of 
proposed regulations by selecting one of the follo wing five options:  food safety, animal health, 
plant protection, protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease, and protect territory from other 
damage from pests. 
25. 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 speci fies the total number of times the specific objective 
was assigned regardless of whether the notifications identified multiple objectives.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
 Page 9 
 
 
  26. For regular notifications, the most frequent ly cited objective is food safety, while for 
emergency notifications it is animal health.  
Table 4. "Objectives" of notified SPS measures in the period between 
15 September 2009 - 15 September 2012 
 
Regular Notifications 
  Notifications Share over 3 year 
period 
Food Safety 1,939 38.9% 
Animal Health 283 5.7% 
Plant Protection 615 12.3% 
Protect humans from animal / 
plant pest or disease 1,98039.8% 
Protect territory from other 
damage from pests 1643.3% 
Emergency Notifications 
  Notifications Share over 3 year 
period 
Food Safety 69 14.7% 
Animal Health 184 39.2% 
Plant Protection 43 9.2% 
Protect humans from animal / 
plant pest or disease 13729.2% 
Protect territory from other 
damage from pests 367.7% 
 
International standards, guidelines or recommendations 
 
27. The SPS Agreement does not require Members to notify a measure if its content is 
substantially the same as that of an international standard adopted by Codex, IPPC or the OIE.  
Nonetheless, the 2008 Transparency Procedures enc ourage 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 si gnificant impact on trade of other Members.  The 
revised formats also seek to get more precision from Members regarding relevant standards and the conformity of the notified measure with these.   
28. With respect to regular notifications circ ulated from 12 December 2008 to 15 September 
2012, Figure 5 indicates that in 57 per cent of the cases, Members have not identified an international standard as being relevant to the new measure bei ng notified.  Of the remaining 
notifications, 21 per cent have referred to Code x, 10 per cent to the OIE and 12 per cent to the 
IPPC.   
29. Figure 6 shows that for the same period, only  13 per cent of emergency notifications have 
not identified an international standard as being relevant to the measure being notified, while 65 
per cent, 14 per cent and 8 per cent have referred to  the OIE, IPPC and Codex as having a relevant 
international standard, respectively.  It is reassuri ng to note that the relevant  international standards 
address so many of the emergency situations, t hus providing invaluable guidance to governments 
on how to protect health in the face of emergencies. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
Page 10  
 
  Figure 5 
 
 
Figure 6 
 
30. The revised notification formats include a new entry asking whether the proposed 
regulation conforms to the relevant inte rnational standard.  During the period from 
1 December 2008 to 15 September 2012, of the 43 pe r cent of regular notifications identifying a 
relevant international standard regarding the measure, 28 per cent indicated that the proposed 
regulation conformed to that relevant internationa l standard.  For the same period, of the 87 per 
cent of emergency notifications identifying a rele vant international standard, 60 per cent have 
indicated that the proposed regulation conforme d to the relevant international standard.   G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force 
 
31. 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 
Implementation-Related Issues and C oncerns states that this interval "shall be understood to mean 
normally a period of not less than 6 months".15 
32. The revised regular notification format cont ained in the 2008 Transparency Procedures 
includes separate fields for entering the "proposed  date of publication", the "proposed date of 
adoption" and the "proposed date of entry into fo rce".  In addition, it includes a default checkbox 
for a six-month interval between the publica tion and entry into force of a new measure. 
33. For the period from 1 December 2008 through 15 September 2012, 34 per cent (1,095) of 
regular notifications included a specific date for adoption, 32 per cent (1,018) for publication, and 
36 per cent (1,142) 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 co mments received on the proposed measure may affect 
the dates of adoption, publication and entry into force.  During the same period, only 202 regular notifications (six per cent) had selected the checkbox for a six-month interval between the 
publication and entry into force of a measure.   
34. Regarding the notifications that indicated a sp ecific date of entry into force, 43 per cent 
(493) indicated a delay between the date of distri bution and the proposed date of entry into force 
that averaged 80 days.  This average masks a very  wide range, as the periods in the notifications 
varied from 1 to 455 days.  Furthermore, more than half of the notifications, 57 per cent (649), 
indicated a date of entry into force prior to the date of document distribution, although 32 per cent (213) of these concerned measures identified as trade liberalizing.   
35. As provided for in the 2008 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 
1 December 2008 to 15 September 2012, around 58 per cent of the addenda indicated the adoption, publication or entry into force of regulations as shown in Table 6. 
Final date for comments 
36. Annex B, paragraph 5 of the SPS Agreement pr ovides that notifications should take place 
at an early stage, when amendments can still be introduced and comments taken into account.  The 
2008 Transparency Procedures state that a 60-day comment period should be provided with respect 
to regular notifications.  Where domestic re gulatory mechanisms allow, the 60-day comment 
period should normally begin with the circulation of  the notification by the WTO Secretariat.  The 
revised formats also offer a checkbox option fo r such a 60-day comment period to encourage 
Members to follow this recommendation.
16  This checkbox has been selected in about 37 per cent 
of notifications. 
37. An analysis of the notifications issued during the period from 1 December 2008 through 
15 September 2012 shows that around 26 per cent of notifications have not provided a comment 
period (see Table 5).  For those that do provide  comment periods, these average 50 days when 
                                                      
15 WT/MIN(01)/17. 
16 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para.13. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
Page 12  
 
  calculated as the difference between the date of ci rculation of the notification and the deadline and 
final date for comments.  Both developing co untry Members and developed country Members 
provide about the same length comment period.    
38. It should be noted that no comment period needs to be provided in the case of trade 
facilitating measures.  The 2008 Transparency Pr ocedures include a new tick box for specifying 
whether the notification concerns a trade fac ilitating measure.  From 1 December 2008 through 
15 September 2012, 22 per cent of not ifications have been identified to be trade facilitating.  In 
addition, as there is no obligation to notify measures if their conten t is substantially the same as 
that of an international standard, no comment peri od is expected for this category of measures.   
Table 5.  Comment period provided in regular notifications 
(1 December 2008 - 15 September 2012) 
All members 
  No. Share 
No. of regular Notifications 3,202 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated/Not Available 844 26.4% 
Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 26 0.8% 
Comment Period Available 2,358 73.6% 
Average comment Period Provided  50.06 
Developed country Members 
  No. Share 
No. of regular Notifications 1,166 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated/Not Available 317 27.2% 
Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 19 1.63% 
Comment Period Available 849 72.8% 
Average comment Period Provided 50.16 
Developing country Members 
  No. Share 
No. of regular Notifications 2,019 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated/Not Available 521 25.80% 
Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 7 0.35% 
Comment Period Available 1,498 74.20% 
Average comment Period Provided 49.96 
 
39. 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 repe atedly 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.  Memb ers have also pointed out that the process of 
receiving the texts of regulations reduces the peri od actually available for providing comments.   
40. In an effort to address these concerns and f acilitate access to notified draft regulations, the 
Secretariat launched a new facility on 1 Februa ry 2008.  Members may, on a voluntary basis, 
provide the Secretariat with an electronic versi on of the text of the notified regulation as an  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
 Page 13 
 
 
  attachment to the notification format.  The submitte d text is then electronically accessible to other 
Members through a hyperlink in the notification format.17  From 15 September 2011 through 
15 September 2012, around 88 per cent of notifications  have provided the full text or a summary of 
their notified regulations using this facility.  There has been a considerable increase (23 per cent) in 
the percentage of notifications including these a ttachments when compared to last year's 65 per 
cent.  Members may wish to remind their notificati on authorities of the availability of this facility. 
41. 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.  
Reasons for addenda to regular  and emergency notifications 
 
42. The 2008 Transparency Procedures have also added a new feature to the addenda to 
regular and emergency notification formats.  Members are asked to select from a number of options regarding the reason for the Addendum.  Ta ble 6 below shows the share of each option for 
the period from December 2008 to 15 September 2012: 
 
Table 6.  Reasons for addenda
18 
Reason for addenda: No. Share 
Modification of final date for comments  192 16%
Notification of adoption, publication, or entry into force of regulation 687 56%
Modification of content and/or sc ope of previously notified draft 
regulation 150 12%
Withdrawal of proposed regulation  45 4%
Change in proposed date of adoption, publication, or date of entry into 
force 30 2%
Other 113 9%
 
Notification keywords 
 
43. With the SPS IMS, all notifications can al so be categorized according to a list of 
approximately 70 predefined keywords, which describe issues appearing frequently in notifications.  The CRN has assigned these keywor ds since 2003.  These keywords assist searching 
for notifications in certain areas.  The keywords  which have been most frequently assigned to 
regular notifications, in descending order, are:  hu man health, food safety, pesticides, plant health, 
maximum residue limits and animal health.  Fo r emergency notifications, the most frequent 
keywords in descending order are:  animal health , animal diseases, human health, regionalization, 
food safety and zoonoses. 
IV. RECENT EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRANSPARENT 
SYSTEM 
44. 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 has 
become a challenge for many Me mbers.  The replies to a Ques tionnaire in 2007 on the Operation 
                                                      
17 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, pa ra. 22 and Annex C. 
18 Each notification can have multiple entries for the reasons for addenda.   G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
Page 14  
 
  of Enquiry Points and National No tification Authorities indicates that this is one of the areas where 
Members are seeking technical assistance and guidance on best practices.
19 
45. There have been efforts to address this issu e.  The public version of the SPS IMS was 
launched in October 2007.  Its trilingual interface al lows access to the most recent information on 
notifications as well as on Enquiry Points and Natio nal 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 .  The WTO Secretariat has been providing 
demonstration sessions on the SPS IMS during the SPS Committee meetings and during its 
technical assistance programmes.  It has also responded to ad hoc requests from Members and 
other interested parties for assistance.  Mo re recently, the WTO Secretariat organized a 
transparency workshop in the margins of the Oc tober 2012 SPS Committee meeting intended to be 
a highly interactive, "hands-on" training event fo cussing in particular on the use of the SPS IMS 
and SPS NSS. 
46. At the March 2011 meeting, the Secretaria t launched the SPS NSS which 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 the 
WTO to circulate them.  The system was made available to Members on 1 June 2011.  Interested Members may request login names and access passwords for their National Notification 
Authorities from the Secretariat.  To date, 37 Memb ers have requested and been given access to the 
system, and 23 of these have officially submitted notifications via the SPS NSS. 
47. The Secretariat has also established a mentoring mechanism which aims to bring together 
those individuals who are fulfilling the functions of Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities in different Members.
20  The objective of this voluntary procedure is to assist Members in not only 
implementing their obligations with respect to th e transparency provisions but also in benefiting 
from their rights.  So far 19 Members seeking mentoring assistance have been matched with nine 
Members offering mentoring assistance.  Members offering mentoring assistance are Argentina, 
Australia, Chile, China, Colombia, European Communities, New Zealand, Switzerland and the 
United States.  
48. In addition, New Zealand, with the assistance of Australia and the Secretariat, has 
developed a practical Manual on the operation of E nquiry Points and Notification Authorities.  It 
includes guidance on how to prepare a notification, how to manage incoming notifications, how to 
alert stakeholders, and how to draft some standa rd letters.  This manual is now 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.21 
49. The training and technical assistance activities of the WTO Secretariat on the SPS 
Agreement also devote a significant amount of time to transparency issues .  In addition, the 
Standards and Trade Development Facility (STD F) has funded various projects to increase 
transparency by enhancing inter-agency coordination at a national and/or regional level, as well as 
strengthening linkages between government agenci es and the private sector.  The STDF published 
a scoping study that identifies and assesses the myriad of regional SPS policy frameworks and 
strategies in Africa, in order to avoid multiplicati on of transparency requirements, and guide future 
                                                      
19 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. 
20 See G/SPS/W/217 and G/SPS/GEN/1097. 
21 Go to http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm .  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.5 
 Page 15 
 
 
  work in this area.22  The STDF also completed a study to examine national SPS coordination 
mechanisms in Africa as a means to identify fact ors that contribute to successful coordination and 
provide suggestions and guidance to support th e further establishment and operation of SPS 
coordination mechanisms in the future.23 
V. OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO TRANSPARENCY 
50. As indicated in the introduction, there are a nu mber of areas where the Secretariat is not in 
a position to provide an overview.  These include questions such as the following: 
 To what extent are Members publishing a no tice at an early stage regarding proposals 
to introduce a particular regulation?  (Annex B, paragraph 5(a)) 
 To what extent are translations into English, French or Spanish of proposed 
regulations available? (Annex B, paragraph 8) 
 How quickly do Members respond to requests for documents or other information?  
(Annex B, paragraphs 3 and 5(c)) 
 To what extent are Members providing comments on notifications, and to what extent 
are these taken into account? (Annex B, paragraph 5(d)) 
51. 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. 
__________  
                                                      
22 http://www.standardsfacility.org/Files/Publica tions/STDF_Regional_SPS_Stategies_in_Africa 
_EN.pdf  
23 http://www.standardsfacility.org/Files/Publications/STDF_NationalSPSCoordinationMechanisms 
_EN.pdf