G/SPS/GEN/1402
20 March 2015
(15-1602)  Page: 1/18
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures   
 
ANALYSIS OF THE REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON 
TRANSPARENCY UNDER THE SPS AGREEMENT 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1.  In the context of the Fourth Review of  the Operation and Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement, Chile, the European Union, Morocco an d Norway submitted a joint proposal for actions 
related to the implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS/W/278). The joint proposal highlights specific modifications to the Recommended 
Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) aimi ng primarily at improving the quality and 
completeness of SPS notifications. Several Memb ers expressed their concerns about changing the 
notification formats and the Recommended Transparency Procedures without first undertaking a 
diagnosis of Members' needs and difficulties. 
1.2.  Consequently, at its meeting in October 2014, the SPS Committee agreed that the 
Secretariat develop a questionnaire on transparency . Such questionnaire could also help identify 
problems encountered by Members that could be addressed within an on-going project aiming at improving and modernizing the SPS IMS and NSS a pplications. Members were invited to suggest 
questions for inclusion in the questionnaire, an d the Secretariat took these suggestions into 
account in preparing the questionnaire. 
1.3.  The questionnaire (G/SPS/GEN/1382) was circulated on 2 February 2015, and Members were 
invited to submit their responses by 20 Februa ry 2015. The deadline was subsequently extended 
by one week. The Secretariat received 108 responses to the questionnaire. This Note provides an 
analysis of the responses to the questionnaire. 
2  OVERVIEW OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 
2.1.  The questionnaire was open to any entity in charge of Members' SPS transparency 
obligations; thus multiple responses from the same Member were allowed. Excluding one questionnaire submitted by the private sector, a total of 108 completed questionnaires were 
received, from 93 Members and one Observer Government.
2 
2.2.  As can be seen in Figure 1, 23% of the replies came from least-developed, 56% from 
developing, and 20% from developed country Members. 
2.3.  In terms of the regional breakdown, as shown in Figure 2, at least one reply was received 
from each of the seven regional categories3, some of which contain more Members than others. 
More specifically, three replies were received from North America, 22 from South and Central America and the Caribbean, eight from Europe, two from the Commonwealth of Independent 
States (CIS), 32 from Africa, six from the Middle East, and 23 from Asia. With regard to the 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. 
2 See the attachment for a fu ll list of respondents. 
3 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 consulted through the SPS IMS by clic king on "definitions of groups" on the left-hand side 
menu bar. G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 2 - 
 
  European Union, we received one questionna ire from the NNA and NEP of the European 
Commission, and several questionnaires from the Enquiry Points of individual EU member States. 
Figure 1 - Development status of respondents to questionnaire 
Developed countries
20%
Developing 
countries
56%Least developed 
countries
23%
 
 
Figure 2 - Regional breakdown of respondents 
North America
3%
South and Central 
America and 
Caribbean
20%
Europe
19%
CIS
2%Africa
30%The Middle East
6%Asia
21%
 
 
2.4.  A large majority of the questionnaires we re submitted online (Figure 3). Only 15% of the 
total responses were sent to the Secretariat in Word format by e-mail. 
Figure 3 - Type of submission 
Online
85%Word document
15%
 
 G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.5.  An online version of the analysis to the responses can be found at the following link: 
http://goo.gl/ZmemfC . The following section analyses the responses to the questionnaire by 
reporting the statistics for all multiple choice questions and briefly summarising the written 
comments associated to each question. For interested Members, the open-text replies can be 
consulted either online or through the WTO Secretariat, by requesting them from: 
spscommittee@wto.org . 
2.6.  Please note that, since many questions al lowed for multiple responses, the total number of 
replies does not always add up to 108. 
3  ANALYSIS OF THE REPL IES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 
3.1.  For ease of reference, the analysis of the replies to the questionnaire reported hereafter will 
follow the structure and numbering of the original questionnaire. 
1  CONTACT DETAILS 
1.1. Who is filling in this questionnaire? 
0 2 04 06 0SPS National Enquiry Point (NEP)
SPS National Notification Authority (NNA)
NNA & NEP
Other48
29
19
12
 
 
3.2.  The large majority of questionnaires was submitted by National Notification Authorities 
(NNA), National Enquiry Points (NEP) or both NNA  and NEP in conjunction. Only 12 questionnaires 
were completed by different government entities, ma inly under Ministries of Agriculture, Livestock, 
Fishery, or Trade and Industry. 
1.2. Is the contact information of your NNA  and NEP available on the SPS IMS up to 
date? 
0 2 04 06 0Yes, it is up to date
No, it is out of date
Unanswered60
41
7
 
 
3.3.  40% of respondents4 indicated that the information about their NNA and NEP available in the 
SPS IMS needed to be updated, highlighting the importance of keeping this information up-to-date by informing the SPS Secretariat of any changes. All changes communicated to the Secretariat in 
response to the questionnaire are being updated in the SPS IMS. 
                                               
4 Percentages are calculated by dividing the given numb er of preferences assigned to a specific choice of 
the question by the total number of responses to that  question, excluding the number of blank responses. G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2  FILLING-IN AND SUBMITTING NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1. What are the main difficulties you encounter when filling in a notification? 
02 0 4 0Identifying whether the notified SPS regulation
conforms to an Int'l Standard
Identifying relevant HS codes
Identifying whether the notified SPS regulation is
trade facilitating
Choosing the appropriate type of notification
(regular, emergency, addendum, revision,…
Identifying relevant International Standards
Other:
Unanswered42
38
35
31
29
8
21
 
2.2. Do you notify online through the SPS No tification Submission System (SPS NSS)? 
458
46
0 2 04 06 0No
Yes
UnansweredDeveloped countries
Developing countries
Least-developed countries
 
2.3. If not, why? 
02 0 4 0 6 0We do not have a reliable internet connection
Our internal regulatory procedures do not allow us to
notify online
We were not aware of this possibility
Other:
Unanswered11
8
8
36
52
 
 
3.4.  Half the respondents indicated that they do not notify online through the SPS Notification Submission System. For the time being 62 Member s have requested access to the SPS NSS, of 
which only 32 Members actively notify online. The reasons reported for not notifying online are 
equally distributed among unreliable internet connection, internal regulatory procedures that do G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 5 - 
 
  not allow for the possibility of notifying online, an d the lack of awareness of the possibility to do 
so. Those who chose Other  in response to this question also indicated very similar reasons. 
2.4. What are your specific suggestions wi th regard to modernizing/improving the SPS 
Notification Submission System (SPS NSS)? 
3.5.  Respondents submitted 60 comments with specific suggestions on how to improve the 
SPS NSS. The most frequent suggestions include: a more user-friendly, simplified interface; the possibility of jumping from one field to another whil e filling in the notification; automatic saving of 
each field once completed; an assisted search function for HS codes; rich text; and a confirmation 
message of receipt of the notification. Since the Secretariat is currently updating and improving 
the SPS NSS, all relevant comments have been taken into account and will be addressed, if 
possible. A few respondents have also identified the need for more capacity building and training 
of the officers responsible for notifications. 
2.5. What are the support tools you use to fill in a notification? 
0 2 04 06 0Recommended procedures: G/SPS/7/Rev.3
Procedural Step-by-step Manual for SPS NNA & NEP
I do not fill in notifications
None
Other:
Unanswered60
58
19
12
12
5
 
2.6. When you are not able to provide a 60-da y comment period, this is mostly because: 
0 1 02 03 04 0Administrative delays reduce the time available for
comments
Our national regulatory procedures foresee a
different time-frame for the comment period
Other:
Unanswered40
23
35
21
 
 
3.6.  Unfortunately, most of the 35 respondents who chose Other  did not further specify the 
reasons for not providing the recommended 60-day comment period. G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.7. The Committee recommends that a notifying Member should grant requests for 
extension of a comment period via an addend um to the original notification. When you 
grant such an extension of the comment pe riod, is this granted to all Members? 
0 2 04 06 0Yes, to all Members
Only to those specifically requesting the extension
Only to developing country Members
Other:
Unanswered:50
19
2
26
11
 
 
3.7.  Of the respondents selecting Other,  11 indicated that the question was not applicable to 
them, either because they had never granted an extension, or because they were not responsible 
for notifying. Seven responses came from EU me mber States, specifying that in general the 
European Union notifies the extension of a comment  period via an addendum to all WTO Members. 
However, in a few cases, the extensions were granted only to the requesting Member, in particular 
if only one Member requested it. Four other Members who chose Other  reiterated that they usually 
grant such extensions only to the Members that request it. 
3  QUALITY OF NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1. Are you, in general, satisfied with the quality and completeness of information 
provided by Members in their SPS notifications? 
0 2 04 06 0Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied
Rather dissatisfied
Not satisfied at all
Unanswered56
23
157
3
4Developed
countries
Developingcountries
Least-developed
countries
 
 
3.8.  The overall trend shows a high level of sati sfaction among Members, 60% of whom identified 
themselves as very or rather satisfied with the quality and completeness of information provided in 
SPS notifications. There appears to be a correlation between Members' development status and their level of satisfaction, with a somewhat lowe r level of satisfaction among developed country 
Members. G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.2. What problems do you encounter, if any? 
02 0 4 0No link to the text of the notified measure is
provided
Regulations that negatively affect trade are
categorised as trade facilitating & no comment…
The relevant international standard is not identified
The text in the "title" and the "description of content"
boxes of the notification is the same
An irrelevant international standard is identified
Other:
Unanswered53
35
34
31
22
36
19
 
 
3.9.  Only nine respondents who chose Other  provided further information, all referring to the lack 
of translation of the notified measure into one of the WTO working languages. Many also flagged 
that hyperlinks to notified texts provided in notifications often do not function. 
3.3. In light of the recommendation in the Recommended Transparency Procedures 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.3) to provide 60 days for comments on a notified regulation, are you in general satisfied with the comment period  granted by other Members for REGULAR 
notifications? 
02 0 4 0Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied
Rather dissatisfied
Not satisfied at all
Unanswered42
2320
16
2
5Developed
countries
Developingcountries
Least-developedcountries
 G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.4. Annex B of the SPS Agreement requir es immediate notification of emergency 
regulations. Are you, in general, sati sfied with the timeliness of EMERGENCY 
notifications? 
0 1 02 03 04 05 0Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied
Rather dissatisfied
Not satisfied at all
Unanswered49
2017
17
1
4Developed
countries
Developing
countries
Least-developedcountries
 
 
3.10.  The replies to questions 3.3 and 3.4 indicate that generally respondents appear to be 
satisfied with the comment periods granted for re gular notifications, and with the timeliness of 
emergency notifications. For both questions, the majority of the respondents chose the two 
highest options (rather satisfied and very satisfied) - in 60% of cases for regular notifications and 
in 63% of cases for emergency notifications. However, as for question 3.1, the level of satisfaction seems to be correlated to Members' development status, with a lower level of satisfaction among developed country Members.  
3.5. The WTO Secretariat assigns keywords to notifications. These keywords can be used 
to conduct searches in the SPS IMS. Are you satisfied with the list of keywords? 
02 0 4 0Yes
Some keywords are missing
Some keywords are unclear/confusing
We didn't know about the keywords
Some keywords are obsolete
Other:
Unanswered45
2525
15
3
17
5
 
 
3.11.  While around one third of the respondents in dicated that they are satisfied with the list of 
keywords, the remaining two thirds suggest there is room for improvement. G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 9 - 
 
  4  RECEIVING NOTIFICATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP 
4.1. How do you receive/search for ot her Members' WTO SPS notifications? 
0 2 04 06 0We receive them through the Secretariat's mailing
list
We search the SPS IMS when needed
We search the WTO Documents Online application
when needed
We regularly search the SPS IMS for new
notifications
We regularly search the WTO Documents Online
application for new notifications
We do not receive/search for notifications
We search the I-TIP portal
Other:
Unanswered:63
55
40
33
28
7
5
17
2
 
 
3.12.  Only eight out of the 17 respondents choosing Other  further explained how they usually 
receive/search for other Members' WTO SPS notifications. Five of these are EU member States reporting that they receive notifications through the European Union database. 
4.2. Do you identify relevant SPS notifica tions and bring them to the attention of 
interested national stakeholders? 
02 0 4 0 6 0Yes, systematically
Yes, sometimes
Rarely
Never
Unanswered60
27
10
9
2
 
 G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 10 - 
 
  If yes, how do you bring SPS notifications to the attention of the interested 
stakeholders? 
02 0 4 0 6 0Through emails
Through an alert mechanism
Through a website
We circulate summary tables that we
create through the SPS IMS
Through a newsletter
Other:
Unanswered:78
1313
9
6
26
13
 
 
3.13.  Only five respondents who chose Other  provided further explanation, indicating that they 
informed stakeholders through physical documents; national committees; a dedicated website; 
publications on SPS issues; and e-mails.  
4.3. What are the most important difficultie s you are encountering in the identification 
of relevant notifications and in their distribution to relevant stakeholders? 
02 0 4 0 6 0Difficulties in dealing with the large volume of
notifications received/published
We receive no reactions from the stakeholders
to whom we send notifications
Difficulties in identifying which notifications are
of interest to us
Difficulties in identifying the potentially
interested stakeholders
Other:
Unanswered:64
39
32
29
27
11
 
 
3.14.  Among those who chose Other,  various respondents mentioned the difficulty of identifying 
relevant stakeholders to whom notifications should be sent, due to a lack of clarity in the title and the description of the content, especially when appropriate keywords were missing. Given the volume of notifications received, missing titles or inadequate descriptions increased the difficulty of 
identifying the interested parties. G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.4. Do you use the SPS Information Manageme nt System (SPS IMS) to search for other 
SPS documents, specific trade concer ns, or addresses of NNAs and NEPs? 
02 0 4 0 6 0Sometimes
Yes, often
Never
Unanswered:60
36
9
3
 
4.5. What are your specific suggestions wi th regard to modernizing/improving the SPS 
Information management System (SPS IMS)? 
3.15.  Respondents submitted 54 suggestions on how to improve the SPS IMS. The issues most 
frequently identified by respondents are: the need  for a simplified, more user-friendly interface; 
direct linkages between a given notification and pu blicly available comments to it; the creation of a 
publicly available alert system; a more "intellige nt" search engine that would identify documents 
even if the words entered were not exact; and the addition of keywords and search terms. Around 
ten respondents also highlighted the need for capacity building and training in this area. 
5  REGULATORY DIALOGUE 
5.1. Are you, in general, satisfied with the availability of information from your trading 
partners with regard to their SPS regulations currently in force? 
0 1 02 03 04 05 0Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied
Rather dissatisfied
Not satisfied at all
Unanswered47
34
156
4
2Developed
countries
Developingcountries
Least-developed
countries
 
 
3.16.  Of all respondents, 50% expressed their satisf action with the availability of information with 
regard to SPS regulations currently in force in their trading partners, by indicating that they were 
very or rather satisfied. 18% expressed dissati sfaction (by choosing rather dissatisfied or not 
satisfied at all) and the remaining 32% remained neutral. Once more, there seems to be a correlation between Members' development status and their level of satisfaction. G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.2. Is there, in your country, a dedicated website where all SPS regulations currently in 
force are available to the public? 
02 0 4 0 6 0No
Yes65
43
 
If not, would it be possible to make  them available on such a website? 
02 0 4 0It would be difficult to set up and maintain a website
Yes
It would be difficult to find all the relevant texts
Other
Unanswered:38
24
9
16
44
 
 
3.17.  The majority of respondents choosing Other  reported that their SPS regulations are 
available online, but they are to be found on several different websites because several ministries, institutions and stakeholders are involved. A couple of respondents indicated that they were in the process of creating an integrated dedicated website for such regulations. 
5.3. In case your government's official language is not one of the WTO's working 
languages (English, French and Spanish), is th e NEP/NNA able to provide translations of 
the documents or, in case of voluminous docu ments, of summaries of the documents, in 
one of these languages? If not, why? 
02 0 4 0No
Sometimes
Yes, the Enquiry Point
Yes, the Notification Authority
Unanswered:37
23
13
10
25
 
 
3.18.  Among those indicating their inability to provide translation of documents, 18 respondents 
noted that the question did not apply to them, since their national language was one of the WTO's working languages. The remaining nine respondents referred to lack of capacity, or of human and financial resources. G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 13 - 
 
  5.4. How do you usually obtain translations of other Members' notified SPS regulations? 
02 0We rarely/never obtain translations
Officially, from the notifying Member
Informally, from other Members
Through "Google translator" or another internet
service
Other
Unanswered:33
29
29
29
30
9
 
 
3.19.  Only nine out of the 30 respondents choosing Other  further explained how they usually 
obtain translations. Five of them are EU member States reporting that they rely on the European 
Union for translations. 
5.5. Do you usually encounter difficulties in  obtaining translations of other Members' 
notified SPS regulations? 
 
02 0 4 0Sometimes
Yes
No
Unanswered:40
35
24
9
 
5.6. How satisfied are you with the handling of your comments on other Members' 
notified regulations? 
02 0We rarely/never comment on other Members'
notified regulations
Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied
Rather dissatisfied
Not satisfied at all
Unanswered27
25
24
216
1
4Developed
countries
Developing
countries
Least-
developed
countries
 G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 14 - 
 
   
3.20.  Once more, the satisfaction level shows correlation with Members' development status. However, there is no clear overall trend. Almost 30% of the respondents expressed satisfaction by 
choosing very or rather satisfied; 23% indicated th at they were neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied; 
and 21% indicated the two lowest choices of satisfaction. Another 26% indicated that they had 
rarely or never commented on othe r Members' notified regulations. 
5.7. What problems do you encounter, if any? 
02 0 4 0None
No explanation is provided on how my comments
were taken into account
No reply/acknowledgment is provided to my
comments
No justification is provided on why my comments
were not taken into account
My comments are not taken into account
Comment periods are not extended even if
requested
Other:
Unanswered:37
31
28
24
23
18
16
11
 
 
3.21.  Half of the respondents choosing Other  indicated that the question was not applicable; while 
the other half identified three main issues: the inconsistency of the replies to the comments; the impossibility to take comments into account since measures were notified when it was already too late to amend them; and language issues, when the notifying Member and the Member 
commenting on the notification do not share a common language. 
6  RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRANSPARENCY 
OBLIGATIONS OF THE SPS AGREEMENT (G/SPS/7/REV.3) 
6.1. Do you find the Recommended Transpar ency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) useful? 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 15 - 
 
  3.22.  76% of respondents considered the Recommended Transparency Procedures useful. For 
more details on individual opinions of Members, please refer to the written comments in the online version of the analysis to the responses to the questionnaire at the following link: http://goo.gl/ZmemfC . 
6.2. Which parts of the Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) do 
you find the most useful? 
3.23.  69 respondents provided comments under this question. Approximately half of them 
indicated that the document as a whole was very useful. Many attached special importance to the 
chapter on "Recommended Notification Procedures", and in particular to sections B (Timing of notifications), D (Providing documents related to a notification) and F (Addenda, revisions and corrigenda). Several comments also highlighted the usefulness of the templates included in 
Annexes A and B. 
And which parts are the least useful? 
3.24.  Of the 40 respondents that replied to this question, 33 indicated that it would be difficult to 
identify least useful parts, since the whole do cument was very useful. The remaining comments 
identified the following parts as the least useful: Requesting for documents; Transparency procedure format; and Context of notification. One comment referred to the joint proposal for 
improvement of the transparency procedures by Chile, the European Union, Morocco and Norway 
(G/SPS/W/278), and another comment highlighted the need to clarify how to deal with notifications of emergency measures that eventually become permanent. 
6.3. When notifying "trade facilitating" measures, no comment period has to be 
provided. Do you believe that more guidance  is needed in G/SPS/7/Rev.3 to further 
define the term "trade facilitating"? 
0 2 04 06 0Yes
No
Unanswered:74
19
15
 
 
3.25.  A majority of 80% of the respondents believe that more guidance is needed to further 
define the term "trade facilitating", and a few comments underlined the need for a common understanding of the term to ensure uniformity of use. 
6.4. Are there any other sections of G/SPS/7/ Rev.3 that should be clarified/revised? If 
yes, please specify. 
02 0 4 0 6 0No
Yes
Unanswered:62
30
16
 
 
3.26.  Ten EU member States that took the surv ey expressed their support for the joint proposal 
by Chile, the European Union, Morocco and Norw ay on how to further improve the Recommended 
Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/W/278). Other Members flagged the need to further clarify what G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 16 - 
 
  should be done when a notified measure is finally not adopted; what to do after notifying an 
emergency measure; and what should be done when a notified regulation is in a non-WTO language, among others. 
7  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
7.1. Would you be willing to provide technica l assistance to Enquiry Points and/or to 
National Notification Authorit ies? If yes, in what form? 
02 0 4 0No
Yes, to least-developed countries
Yes, to developing countries
Unanswered:43
43
32
15Developed
countires
Developingcountires
Least-developed
countries
 
 
3.27.  It is worth noting that five out of the six developed country Members indicating their non-
willingness to provide technical assistance are Enquiry Points of EU member States, who delegate 
the provision of technical assistance to the European Union. The European Union itself indicated its willingness to provide technical assistance. 
3.28.  Respondents indicated their willingness to provide the following types of technical assistance 
(or to receive it, in some cases): exchange of information through special fora; sharing of experiences; online or on-site training; workshops by the Secretariat; traineeships; visits or study 
tours to the Enquiry Point and Notification Authority of the trainer country; and virtual mentoring 
by e-mails and by phone. 
7.2. Do your NEP and/or NNA need technical assistance? If yes, please describe briefly 
the type of technical assistance you would need. 
0 2 04 06 0Yes
No
Unanswered:68
36
4Developed countries
Developing
countries
Least-developed
countries
 
 
3.29.  Regarding the type of technical assistance that Members would need, the examples most 
frequently identified by the respondents are: training courses; assistance in the creation of 
dedicated websites and alert mechanisms; laboratory infrastructures; and financial resources for computers and reliable internet connections. G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 17 - 
 
  7.3. Have you requested technical assist ance for your NEP and/or NNA? Have you 
received technical assistance? 
02 0 4 0 6 0Neither received nor requested
Requested and received
Requested, but not receivedReceived, but not requested
Unanswered:67
23
8
7
3Developed
countries
Developingcountries
Least-developedcountries
 
If you have received technica l assistance for your NEP an d/or NNA, was it useful? And 
why? 
3.30.  Members that received technical assistance reported to have found it very useful, as it 
improved their knowledge and their ability to do their job. Some respondents noted that due to 
constant turnover of government officials responsi ble for the SPS NNA and NEP, additional training 
was often needed. 
8  FINAL COMMENTS 
8.1. Do you have any other comments/suggest ions with respect to transparency in the 
context of the SPS Agreement? 
3.31.  Comments to this final question were very diverse, ranging from the need for more 
technical assistance to specific suggestions for improvements and some new proposals. A full list 
of the comments can be found online, under section 8 of the analysis to the responses of the 
Transparency Questionnaire: http://goo.gl/ZmemfC . 
 G/SPS/GEN/1402 
 
- 18 - 
 
  ATTACHMENT 
LIST OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 
 
 
1 Antigua and Barbuda 
2 Argentina 
3 Australia 
4 Austria 
5 Bahrain, Kingdom of 
6 Bangladesh 
7 Belize 
8 Benin 
9 Brazil 
10 Bulgaria 
11 Burkina Faso 
12 Burundi 
13 Cabo Verde 
14 Canada 
15 Chile 
16 China 
17 Colombia 
18 Costa Rica 
19 Côte d'Ivoire 
20 Croatia 
21 Cuba 
22 Czech Republic 
23 Dominican Republic 
24 Ecuador 
25 Egypt 
26 El Salvador 
27 European Union 
28 France 
29 The Gambia 
30 Germany 
31 Ghana 
32 Guinea 
33 Guyana 34 Honduras 
35 Hong Kong, China 
36 Indonesia 
37 Ireland 
38 Israel 
39 Jamaica 
40 Japan 
41 Jordan 
42 Kenya 
43 Korea, Republic of  
44 Kyrgyz Republic 
45 Latvia 
46 Lesotho 
47 Macao, China 
48 Madagascar 
49 Malawi 
50 Malaysia 
51 Mali 
52 Malta 
53 Mauritius 
54 Mexico 
55 Montenegro 
56 Myanmar 
57 Nepal 
58 New Zealand 
59 Nicaragua 
60 Nigeria 
61 Norway 
62 Panama 
63 Peru 
64 Philippines 
65 Portugal 
66 Saint Lucia  67 Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines  
68 Samoa 
69 Saudi Arabia, Kingdom 
of 
70 Senegal 
71 Singapore 
72 Slovak Republic 
73 South Africa 
74 Spain 
75 Sri Lanka 
76 Sudan 
77 Swaziland 
78 Sweden 
79 Switzerland 
80 Chinese Taipei 
81 Tanzania 
82 Thailand 
83 The former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia
84 Tunisia 
85 Turkey 
86 Uganda 
87 Ukraine 
88 United Arab Emirates 
89 United States of 
America 
90 Uruguay 
91 Viet Nam 
92 Yemen 
93 Zambia 
94 Zimbabwe 
 
 
__________