G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
17 October 2019  
(19-6829) Page: 1/17 
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 N OTIFICATION AUTHORIT IES AND ENQUIRY POIN TS ....................  3 
3   SUBMISSION OF NO TIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
3.1   Types of notifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 
3.2   Notifying Members  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 5 
3.3   Products covered  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  8 
3.4   Regions/countries affected  ................................ ................................ ............................  9 
3.5   Objective and rationale  ................................ ................................ ................................  9 
3.5.1    Relationship between the objective of the measure and the regions/countries affected  .... 10 
3.6   International standards, guidelines or recommendations  ................................ ................  11 
3.7   Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force  ................................ ...................  13 
3.8   Final date for comments  ................................ ................................ .............................  13 
3.9   Reason s for addenda to regular and emergency notifications  ................................ ..........  15 
4   NOTIFICATION KEY WORDS  ................................ ................................ .......................  15 
5   OTHER TRANSPAREN CY-RELATED ASPECTS  ................................ ..............................  16 
 
 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice to 
the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 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 level of implementation of the 
transparency obligations found in the SPS Agreement (Article 7 and Annex B) and of the Committee's 
Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Tran sparency Obligations of the S PS Agreement 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.4 ). It does not include information in areas w here the Secretariat is not directly 
involved (such as provision of comments on specific notifications , publication of a notice of a 
regulation at an early stage, Members' response to requests for documents or other information and 
provision of comments to  notifications, and taking into account of th ese comments by the notifying 
Member, among others ). 
1.2.  In preparing this overview, the Secretariat has largely relied on the SPS Information 
Management System (SPS IMS).3 The SPS IMS is a specialized and detailed information source on 
SPS notifications, specific trade concerns, National Notification Authorities (NNAs) and National 
Enquiry Point s (NEPs) contact information, and other SPS  documents.  It allows for advanced 
searches according to specific criteria and also facilitates the creation of custom reports and graphs, 
which can be shared with interested stakeholders. Most of the underlying data for the analysis 
contained in this document is publ icly available and searchable through the SPS IMS. While some 
historical data on notifications dating back to 1995 has been retrieved from various internal sources 
and incorporated into the SPS IMS, some of the more detailed analysis has only been possible  as of 
July 2007, when the SPS IMS became operational. An improved version of the SPS IMS was laun ched 
at the end of March 2017. This update, combined with streamlining internal processes in the 
Secretariat, has enabled data analysis to become more automat ic than it has been for past reports.  
1.3.  The 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. Compared to the earlier version of the transparency procedures, which 
had been adopted by the Committee in 2002, the 2008 transparency procedures include d 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 wit h international 
standards, comment periods, and the period between the publication and entry  into force of new 
regulations.  In June 2018, the Secretariat circulated an updated version of the Recommended 
Transparency Procedures as document G/SPS/7/Rev.4 . This revision does not include any 
substantive changes to t he text. It includes updates in the notification templates as well as  the 
notification format contained in the Decision on Special and Differential Treatment ( G/SPS/33/Rev.1 ) 
to consolidate all notification recommendations into one document.  It also incorporates updates 
based on changes in the online tools (SPS  IMS, SPS NSS a nd ePing) . 
1.4.  The SPS Notification Submission System ( SPS NSS)4 is an online platform where WTO Members 
can directly complete and submit notifications. The system assists Members to be more precise in 
their notifications, and speeds up the processing of notif ications , making documents accessible to 
the membership much more quickly . A new and improved version of the SPS NSS was launched at 
the end of March 2017 in conjunction with the previously -mentioned launch of the improved 
SPS IMS.5 An increased use of the  SPS NSS will further improve the amount and the quality of 
information provided by Members in the various notification formats6, as well as the accuracy of the 
information available in the SPS IMS.  Interested Members may request login names and access 
passwords for their NNAs  from the Secretariat.7 
                                                
2 See G/SPS/R/47 , para. 44, for the recommendations arising from the 2007 Workshop on 
Transparency. See also footnote 4 of G/SPS/7/Rev.4  requesting the Secretariat to provide an annual report on 
the level of implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement and of the recommended 
transparency procedures.  
3 http://spsims.wto.org . 
4 https://nss.wto.or g/spsmembers . 
5 See para. 5.3. for more information.  
6 All notification formats can be downloaded from http://www.wto.org/spstran sparency . 
7 Two different user names and passwords are provided (a submittin g user name and a secondary  user 
name). Only the submitting user name  allows to officially submit  the notification to the CRN, but the secondary 
user name allows other individuals to enter information and review the draft notification.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.5.  ePing8 is a publicly available notification alert system. It covers both SPS notifications and 
notifications submitted under the Agreement on Technical B arriers to Trade (TBT). Subscribers 
receive email alerts regarding SPS & TBT notifications covering particular products and/or markets 
of interest to them. In addition, users can search and share notifications, upload additional 
information and related doc uments, as well as participate in discussion forums. ePing also offers an 
Enquiry Point Management Tool to facilitate domestic as well as international information sharing 
and discussion. The system is expected to help public and private stakeholders, in p articular small 
and medium enterprises, to track, consult and comment on measures that are being developed and 
adapt as necessary to changing regulatory conditions.  
1.6.  A practical manual on the operation of NNAs and NEPs , first circulated in 20119, includes 
guidance for governments to facilitate the implementation of the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement. While it may be especially useful for developing and least-developed countries 
(LDCs), it may also be a helpful reference for countries that are a cceding to the WTO and establishing 
NNAs and NEPs, as well as WTO Members in general. This manual was revised in 2018 to reflect the 
new versions of the SPS IMS and NSS platforms and the ePing alert system, and to streamline the 
content. The updated versio n of the manual is available in English, French and Spanish on the 
SPS gateway of the WTO website.10 Hard copies can be requested from the Secretariat.  
2  DESIGNATION OF NOTIF ICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS  
2.1.  Annex B, paragraph 10  of the SPS Agreement obl iges Members to designate a single central 
government authority as responsible for the implementation o f notification procedures. This agency 
is referred to as the SPS National Notification Authority. As of 15 September  2019, 
159 WTO Members out of 164 had designat ed such an agency , two more than  in the previous 
reporting period . The Members that have not designed Notification Authorities are all LDCs .11 
2.2.  Annex B, paragraph 3  of the SPS Agreement requires that each Member establish an En quiry 
Point responsible for the provision of answers to all reasonable questions and of relevant do cuments. 
As of 15 September  2019, 161 WTO Members out of 164 had provided the WTO with the contact 
information of their Enquiry Point. The same three Members  as the two previous years , all LDCs,  
have not yet established an Enquiry Point . Thirty -four Members have identified more than one 
SPS Enquiry Point.  
2.3.  The most u p-to-date information on Members' Notification Authorities and Enquiry Points can 
be accessed through the SPS IMS by clicking on Search → Enquiry Points/Notification Authorities  on 
the top menu bar.12 It can be useful to have at least two staff members trained in NNA/NEP 
operations as this allows for absences and commitments of staff to other duties , as recommended 
in the Practical Manual for NNAs/NEPs . Whenever possible, Members are encouraged to use an 
institutional email address rather than a personal one.  
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 Proc edures, elaborate on the notification procedures Members are to 
follow. For ease of reference, the specific sub -topics highlighted below follow the order of items that 
are contained in the regular and emergency notification formats.  
                                                
8 http://www.epingalert.org . 
9 The original version of the manual was written by Ms Sally Jennings, Ministry for Primary Industries, 
New Zealand, with contributions by the Department of Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity Australia and the 
WTO Secretariat.  
10 Practical Manual for SPS National Notification Authorities and SPS National Enquiry Points can be 
downloaded from:  http://www.wto.org/spstransparency . 
11 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the WTO's 
Integrated Database (IDB) for analytical purposes ( idb@wto.org ). They can be consulte d through the SPS IMS 
by clicking on "definitions of groups" on the top menu bar.  
12 http://spsims.wto.org/en/EnquiryPointsNotificationAuthorities/Search . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.1  Types of notifications  
3.2.  The two main types of notifications are regular notifications and emergency notifications. 
In addition, addenda, corrigenda, revisions or supplements can be issued subsequent to an original 
regular or emergency notification.13 An addendum is u sed to provide additional information or 
changes to an original notification, for example if the products covered by the proposed regulation 
have been modified , if the comment period has been extended , or if a notified measure has entered 
into force . A corrigendum is used to correct an error in an original notification such as an incorrect 
address detail. A revision is used to replace an existing notification, for example if a notified draft 
regulation was substantially redrafted or if a notification  contained a large number of errors.  
3.3.  Chart 1 show s the number of regular and emergency notifications (including addenda and 
corrigenda) submitted per year  since 1995 . As of 15 September  2019, Members had submitted14 
16,925 regular notifications, 2,210 emerg ency notifications , 5,535 addenda and  432 corrigenda , 
reaching a  grand total of 25,102  notifications . Despite punctual decreases some years, the global 
trend shows an annual increase of the total number of notifications submitted per year.  In 2018, 
the combined number of regular and emergency notifications reached a new high of 1,323. 
During  the current reporting period (1 January through 15 September  2019), Members submitted a 
total of 1,144 notifications, of which 789 were regular notifications, 69 emergency notifications, 
273 addenda (including 257 to regular and 16 to emergency notifications) and 13 corrigenda  
(including 12  to regular and  1 to emergency notifications ). Compared to the same period in the 
previous year15, there was a slight decrease in the number of both regular,  98 (11%)  less, and 
emergency, 15 (18%) less . Interestingly, the overall number of addenda submitted in the same 
period rose from 210 to 27 3 (30% increase) ; however , this overall figure hides a sharp increase in 
the number of addenda to regular notifications provided (89 more, representing an increase of 65%) 
and a sharp decrease in the number of emergency addenda (26 less, representing a decrease of 
62%). 
Chart  1 – Regular and emergency n otifications , addenda  and corrigenda for both types , 
submitted per year  
 
3.4.  In June 2002, the SPS Committee adopted a special format and recommended procedures for 
the notification of determination of the recognition of equivalence of sanitary or phytosanitary 
measures. As of 15 September 2019, there have only been t hree equivalence notifications circulated 
from Panama  (2007), the Dominican Republic ( 2008), and the United States (2019) . The most recent 
notification was submitted  followi ng the two -part Thematic Session on Equivalence held in October 
2018 and March 2019 within the framework of the Fifth Review .16 
                                                
13 See the Recomme nded Transparency Procedures ( G/SPS/7/Rev.4 ) for further elaboration on the 
different types of notifications.  
14 For this Note, submission refers to the date of distribution of the notification by the Secretariat.  
15 1 January through 15 September 2018.  
16 The programmes of parts 1 and 2 of the Thematic Session are contained in G/SPS/GEN/1640/Rev.1  
and G/SPS/GEN/1675/Rev.1 , respectively, and the reports in G/SPS/R/93  and G/SPS/R/94 . Presentations of 
both sessions are available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/events_e.h tm.  
02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800
Regular Emergency Addenda CorrigendaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.5.  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 201 9, 19 supplement notifications had been circulated. None have been submitted 
since 2015. The availability of translations is regularly discussed in t he SPS Committee under 
transparency -related matters .17 It is interesting to note that the identical mechanism for sharing 
translations of notified TBT  regulations, which  was launched in January 2008, has resulted in 
251 supplement notifications , the last one in 20 16. 
3.6.  In October 2004, the SPS Committee adopted a procedure to enhance transparency of special 
and differential treatment (S&D) in favour of developing country Me mbers, which included an 
addendum notification format to inform the Committee on a Member's decision on whether and how 
S&D may be provided in reference to a specific request. The procedure and addendum notification 
format were subsequently revised in Dece mber 200918, and, as mentioned earlier, the notification 
format was incorporated in G/SPS/7/Rev.4  for ease of reference. No S&D notifications have been 
circulated by WTO Members since 2004 . 
3.2  Notifying Members  
3.7.  As of 15 September  2019, 128 Members out of 164 (78%) had submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO. Members which have not yet submitted any  notification include 
12 developing countries  and 15 LDCs.  In addition, a number of EU  member States have not 
submitted notifications ; however, most SPS measures  are notified by the European Union on behalf 
of all its member States .19 
3.8.  Charts 2 and 3 show the number  of regular and emergency notifications, respectively, and the 
percentage of notifications by Members'  development status. Both for regular and emergency  
notifications, we can observe an increase in the percentage submitted by developing country 
Members and a decrease in the case of developed country Members, which is much sharper for 
emergency than for regular notifications. Chart 2 shows that the share of regular notifications 
submitted by developing countries has been raising since 2000 and, since 200 8, is higher than that 
of regular notifications s ubmitted by develop ed countrie s. The share of notifications from LDCs is 
very low, fluctuating between 0% and a peak of 4.9% reached in 2017 . It has remained at that level 
since then. Chart 3 shows that the percentage of emergency notifications submitted b y developing 
countries  has been  greater than 50% since 200 2. Furthermore, the difference in percentage is much 
larger than in the case of regular notifications . 
Chart 2 – Number of regular notifications and percentage by devel opment status  
 
                                                
17 See for example the reports of the Fourth Review and the 2017 Workshop on Transparency in 
G/SPS/62  and G/SPS/R/89 , respectively.  
18 See G/SPS/33/Rev.1 . 
19 See G/SPS/GEN/456  for notification procedures for the European Union and its m ember States.  
0102030405060708090100
02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,600
Regular Addenda Corrigenda Developed (%) Developing (%) LDCs (%)G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Chart 3 – Number  of emergency notifications and percentage by development status  
 
3.9.  Looking at the geographic regions from which the notifications  submitted since the year 1995 
originate, Chart  4 shows that the majority of notifications come from the North America re gion, 
followed by Asia, and then South and Central America and the Caribbean.20 Overall, this trend is 
maintained throughout the years.  
Chart  4 – Notifications by geographical region  from 1995 to 15 September 2019 
 
3.10.   The Members which have submitted the greatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 15 September 2019 are listed in Charts 5 and 6 , while the Members that have 
submitted the greatest number of notifications in the current reporting period  (1 January  through  
15 September 201 9) are listed in Chart s 7 and 8 . In all four charts , bars show the number of 
notifications by type and values above the bars represent the corresponding  percentage with respect 
to the total number of notifications ( regular , Charts 5 and 7, and emergency, Charts 6 and 8 ) 
submitted.  
                                                
20 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 clicking on "definitions of groups" on the top menu bar.  
0102030405060708090100
050100150200250300
Emergency Addenda Corrigenda Developed (%) Developing (%) LCD (%)
29% North America
24% SA, CA & the Caribbean9%Europe2%CIS3%Africa5%Middle 
East28% AsiaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Chart 5  - Ten Members which have submitted the most regular notifications since 1995  
 
Chart 6  - Ten Members which have submitted the most emergency notifications since 1995  
 
Chart 7 - Members which  have submitted the most regular notifications between 1 January  
and 15 September  2019 
 
19%
10%
9%
6%5%
4% 4%3%3% 3%
05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500
United
States of
AmericaCanada Brazil China European
UnionPeru Chinese
TaipeiChile Japan Korea,
Republic of
Regular Addenda Corrigenda
13%
9%
7%
5%5%
4%4% 4%4%3%
050100150200250300350400
Philippines Saudi Arabia,
Kingdom ofAlbania New Zealand United Arab
EmiratesRussian
FederationColombia United
States of
AmericaEuropean
UnionUkraine
Regular Addenda Corrigenda
10%
9%
7%
7%
6%
5%
4%4%
3% 3%
020406080100120
Japan Brazil European
UnionCanada United
States of
AmericaPeru Chinese
TaipeiKorea,
Republic ofUganda Chile
Regular Addenda CorrigendaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Chart 8 - Members which  have submitted the most emergency notifications between 
1 January and 15 September 2019  
 
3.11.   Regarding regular notifications  submitted until 15 September 2019, one Member among the 
top 10 notifying Members in 201 9 (Chart 7) does not appear among the top notifying Members for 
the period since 1995 (Chart 5), suggesting  that it notified at a level above their historical trend.  For 
emergency  notifications, interestingly, with the exception of one Member, the top six notifying 
Members remain the same in 2019 as compared to the period since 1995 (Charts 8 and 6 
respectively).  
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 prov ide the relevant HS codes. Most  Members 
have indicated they would welcome the provisio n of these codes by their trading partners.21 
However, identifying relevant HS codes is one of the main difficulties  encountered by Members when 
filling in a notification according to the latest questionnaire on transparency.22 
3.13.   Since 1995 the WTO's Central R egistry 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 .23 
The SPS NSS also facilitates the inclusion of HS (and ICS) codes by submitting Members through a 
built-in search function , providing more accurate information . 
3.14.   While only indicative, Chart s 9 and 10  show the products at the two -digit HS codes level that 
are most often covered by regular and emergency notifications  since 1995 . Note that only HS codes 
referred to in 4% of notifications or more are represented, and that some code descriptions have 
been shortened for graphic reasons.  
                                                
21 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.  
22 See the Analys is of Replies to the Questionnaire on Transparency under the SPS Agreement, 
(G/SPS/GEN/1402 , para. 2.1) for further elaboration on this point.  
23 This information is available in the SPS IMS ( http://spsims.wto.org ). 
16%
12% 12%
10%
9%
8%
5% 5%
5% 4%
0246810121416
Philippines Saudi Arabia,
Kingdom ofKazakhstan New Zealand United Arab
EmiratesRussian
FederationColombia Australia Canada Costa Rica
Regular Addenda CorrigendaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Chart 9 - HS Codes assigned to regular notifications  
 
Chart 10 - HS Codes assigned to emergency notifications  
 
3.15.   It is interesting to note that, while regular notifications refer to a larger variety of HS codes 
in similarly high percentages, emergency notifications mainly refer to animal -related HS codes in 
higher percentage s, confirming results shown in Chart 11 related to the objective of notifications  
(see below) . 
3.4  Regions/ countries affected  
3.16.   The Recommended Transparency Procedures call on Members to identify the regions or 
countries which are most likely to be aff ected by the measure being notified. They include a data 
entry option for this item whereby Members are invited to either select the check box for "all trading 
partners" or provide information on specific regions or c ountries likely to be affected.  
3.17.   An asses sment of notifications submitted in the period between 1 January  and 15  September 
2019 indicate s that 170 regular notifications  (22%)  have identified a specific group of countries or 
a region,  while 61 9 regular notifications  (78%)  have identified "all trading partners" being affected 
(by select ing the check box for "all trading partners" ). In contrast, 51 emergency notifications  (74% ) 
have identified a specific group of countries or  a region , and only 18 emergency notifications  (26%) 
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.  
3.5  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 required to state the objective and 
rationale of proposed regulations by selecting one of the following five options: food safety, animal 
health, plant protection, protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease, and protect territory 
from other damage from pests.  These objectives correspond to the definition of an SPS measure in 
Annex A, paragraph 1 of the SPS Agreement.  
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
02 - Meat and edible meat offal
06 -Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; …
08 - Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons
04 -Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, …
01 - Live animals
07 - Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers
12 -Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; …
10 - Cereals
03 - Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates
05 - Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
01 - Live animals
02 - Meat and edible meat offal
04 -Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal …
05 - Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included
23 - Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder
06 -Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; …
08 - Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons
07 - Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers
16 -Preparations of meat, of fish or of crustaceans, molluscs or …G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.19.   Chart 11 indicates the share of each objective as cited in regular and emergency notifications. 
It must be noted, however, that many notifications identify more than one objective. Therefore, the 
Chart below refers to the  percentage of times the specific objective was assigned regardless of 
whether the notifications identified multiple objectives.  
3.20.   For regular notifications the most frequently cited objective is food safety , followed by animal 
health and plant protection,  while for emergency not ifications it is anima l health , followed by food 
safety and plant protection . 
Chart 11 - Objectives of notified SPS measures  (excluding  addenda and corrigenda) in the 
period between  1 January  and 15 September 2019 
 
3.5.1   Relationship between the objective of the measure and the regions /countries  
affected  
3.21.   The following Charts  12 to 15 represent the objectives of regular and emergency notifications 
in relation to affected trading partners  (i.e., all trading partners likely to be affected vs specific 
regions /countries likely to be affected ). Note that these data are only available since 2008 , when 
revised notification formats were adopted  (that year was excluded due to the low utilisation of this 
checkbox).  Also n ote that, in all cases  except for regular notifications affecting all t rading partners , 
the number of notifications affecting specific regions /countries  is relatively low, especially in the case 
of emergency notifications affecting all trading partners.  
3.22.   In the case of regular notifications (Charts 12 and 13) there is a striki ng differen ce between 
the objective  most frequently identified  in relation to  the affected trading partners . Food safety is 
the most frequent ly identified  objective in measures affecting all trading partners while plant health 
is the most frequent  objective in measures affecting specific regions /countries . 
Chart 12 - Objectives of regular notifications affecting all trading partners  
 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Food safety Animal health Plant protection Protect humans from
animal/plant pest or
diseaseProtect territory from
other damage from
pests
Regular Emergency
01002003004005006007008009001,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Food safety Animal health Plant protection Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease Protect territory from other damage from pestsG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Chart 13 - Objectives of regular notifications affecting specific regions /countries  
 
3.23.   Results related to emergency notifications (Charts 14 and 15) do not show a clear pattern in 
the case of notifications affecting all trading partners whereas, in the case of emergency notifications  
affecting specific regions /countries , animal health , followed by  protection of humans f rom 
animal/plant pest or disease and food safety are the main objectives cited by notifications.  
Chart 14 - Objectives of emergency notifications affecting all trading partners  
 
Chart 15 - Objectives of emergency notifications affecting specific regions /countries  
 
3.6  International standards, guidelines or recommendations  
3.24.   The SPS Agreement does not require Members to notify a measure if its content is 
substantially the same as that of an inter national 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, or are substantially the same as an international standard, 
guideline or recommendation, if they are expected to have a significant impact on trade of other 
Members. The notification formats also seek more precision from Members regarding relevant 
standards and the conformity of t he notified measure with these.  
3.25.   With respect to regular notifications circulated from 1 January  to 15 September  2019, 
Members have n ot identified an international standard as being relevant to the new measure being 
notified in 340 of the cases  (42%). In the same period of the previous year, no international standard 
was indicated in 59% of the regular notifications. Chart 1 6 shows that  relevant international 
050100150200
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Food safety Animal health Plant protection Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease Protect territory from other damage from pests
051015
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Food safety Animal health Plant protection Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease Protect territory from other damage from pests
020406080100120140
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Food safety Animal health Plant protection Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease Protect territory from other damage from pestsG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 12 - 
 
  standard s indicated  were Codex ( 273, representing 30%), OIE ( 130, representing 16%) and IPPC 
(94, representing 12%) standards . This information may relate to the objectives identified for regular 
notifications ( Chart 11). 
3.26.   When it co mes to emergency notification s for the same period, Chart  17 shows that only 
10 emergency notifications (14%) have not identified an international standard as being relevant to 
the measure being notified, similar to the percentage observed in the same period the previous year. 
The relevant international standards referred to during the current reporting period wer e Codex 
(1, representing 1%), IPPC ( 14, representing 20%) and OIE ( 44, representing 64%) standards . 
This is consistent with the information provided in Chart 11, showing that animal health is the most 
frequently identified objective in emergency notificati ons. Thus, OIE provides Members with valuable 
guidance to address many of these emergency situations . 
Chart  16 - Regular notifications (excluding addenda) referring to a relevant international 
standard  
 
Chart  17 - Emergency notifications (excluding addenda) referring to a relevant 
international standard  
 
None
42%
Codex
30%OIE
16%IPPC
12%
OIE
64%IPPC
20%None
15%Codex
1%G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.27.   It is important to keep in mind that, even if a notification refers to an international standard, 
the notified measure might not conform to it. Therefore, in t he notification formats Memb ers are 
required to identify whether the proposed regulation conforms to the relevant international standard. 
During the period from 1 January  to 15  September  2019, of the 58% of regular notifications 
identifying a relevant international standard for the m easure , 80% indicated that the proposed 
regulation conformed to that relevant international standard. Out of the regular notification s that 
did not conform to a relevant international standard, only two referred to OIE standards while the 
rest referred to Codex Alimentarius. For the same period, nearly all ( 97%) of emergency notifications 
identifying a relevant international standard indicated that the proposed re gulation conformed to the 
relevant international standard.  
3.7  Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force  
3.28.   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 Concerns states that this interval "shall be understood to mean 
normally a period of not less than 6 months".24 
3.29.   The regular notification format contained in the Recommended Transparency 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 publication and entry into force of a new measure.  For each of 
these items, t he SPS NSS provides a calendar so that Members can easily enter dates , allowing for 
a more accurate analysis.  
3.30.   For the period from 1 January  through 15 September 2019, the date of adoption in about 
38% of the regular notifications was still to be determined , while less than 50% identified either a 
specific date or a wider period (months or quarters, mainly), for adoption. This illustrates that, at 
the moment of notification, Members  are not always able  to foresee the exact date of adoption of a 
regulation.  
3.31.   During the reporting period , 262 notifications  (33%)  indicated a specific date of publication . 
Of these, 192  (73%) had been  published prior to the date  of distribution of the notification , and 
73 (38%) of these concerned measures identified as tra de facilitating . Regarding the interval 
between publication of the measure and its entry into force , 111  regular notifications (14%) had 
selected the checkbox for a six -month interval provided in the notification format . Additionally, 
209 of the notificati ons (26%) provide d a specific date of entry into force . Of these, only seven 
provided a period of six months or more  and the remaining 202 provided a period of less than six 
months. A total of 469 notifications (60%) did not specif y the proposed date of entry into force . 
It should be noted that, i n some  cases,  such dates are not yet determined at the time of the 
notification, as the nature and extent of comments received on the proposed measure may affect 
the dates of adoption, publi cation and entry into force.  
3.32.   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 previousl y notified proposed measure. During the period from 
1 January  to 15 September 2019, about 63% of the addenda indicated the  adoption, publication or 
entry into force of regu lations as shown in Chart 18 on reasons for addenda to  regular  notifications  
(see below) . 
3.8  Final date for comments  
3.33.   Annex B, paragraph 5 of the SPS Agreement provides that notifications should take place at 
an early stage, when amendments can still be introduced , and comments taken into account. 
The Recommended Transpa rency Procedures state that the comment period provided for regular 
notifications  should last at least 60 days . Where domestic regulatory mechanisms allow, the 60 -day 
comment period should normally begin with the circulation  of the notification by the 
                                                
24 WT/MIN(01)/17  and para. 4.3 of G/SPS/7/Rev.4 . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 14 - 
 
  WTO Secretariat. The notification formats also offer a checkbox option for such a 60 -day comment 
period to encourage Members to follow this recommendation .25 The SPS NSS provides a calendar 
so that Members can easily click on the final date for comments. Betwee n 1 January and 
15 September 2019, a 60-day comment period was provided in 393 regular  notifications  (50%) . 
3.34.   An analysis of the notifications issued during the period from 1 January  through 15  September 
2019 shows that  606 (77%) provided a comment period , ranging from a  minimum  of 2 days to a 
maximum of 174 days, with an average of 55 days (calculated as the difference between the date 
of circulation of the notification and the final date for comments ; see Table 1). More specifically, 
438 regular no tifications (56%)  provided a comment period of 60 or more days. On average, 
develop ed and developing (including least -developed) country Members provide d similar  comment 
period s (56 and 55 days respectively ). 
Table 1. Comment period provided in regular notifications  (1 January  – 15 September 
2019 ) 
All Members  
  No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  789 - 
Comment period available  606 77% 
Comment period not indicated/not available  183 23% 
Average length (in days)  55 
Developed country Members  
  No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  260 - 
Comment period available  162 62% 
Comment period not indicated/not available  98 38% 
Average length (in days)  56 
Developing country Members  
  No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  529 - 
Comment period available  444 84% 
Comment period not indicated/not available  85 16% 
Average length (in days)  55 
 
3.35.   It should be noted that no comment period needs to be provided in the case of proposed 
measures which facilitate trade and those which are substantially the same as an international 
standard. From 1 January  through 15 September  2019, 222 notifications (28%) have been identified 
to be trade facilitating . Of these,  128 (58%) still provided a comment period , of which  85 (38%) 
provided a 60 -day comment period . In addition, 54% of notifications indicating conformity with a 
relevant internationa l standard still provided a 60 -day comment period.  
3.36.   While Members must 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 rai sed 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 regula tions reduces the 
period actually av ailable for providing comments.  
3.37.   Since February 2008, i n an effort to address these concerns and facilitate access to notified 
draft regulations, Members may, on a voluntary basis, provide the Secretariat with an electron ic 
version of the text of the notified draft regulation as an attachment to the notification format. 
                                                
25 See G/SPS/7/Rev.4 , para. 2.8.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 15 - 
 
  The submitted text is then  made  electronically accessible to other Members through a hyperlink in 
the notification format.26 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. 
The SPS NSS also allows Members to directly upload documents. From 1 Janua ry through 
15 September  2019, around  672 regular  notifications  (79%)  and 45 emergency notifications  (65%) 
have provided the full text or a  summary of the notified draft regulations using this facility. Members 
may wish to remind their notification authorit ies of the availability of this facility.  
3.9  Reasons for addenda to regular and emergency notifications  
3.38.   According to t he Recommended Transparency Procedures , Members are asked to select from 
a number of options regarding the reason for an addendum . Chart 18 below shows the share of each 
option for the period from 1 January  to 15 September  2019. Note that the "Notification of adoption, 
publication, or entry into force of regulation" is a reason for addenda to regular notifications only.  
Also note that regular  notifications refer to withdrawal of proposed regulations while emergency 
notifications refer to withdrawal of regulations. Other reasons include, for instance , lifting an import 
ban or the inclusion of a new country in the list of affected regions.  
Chart  18 - Reasons for addenda  (percentage)27 
 
3.39.   In addition, Members can notify their decision on special and differential treatment provided 
in reference to a specific request, through another addendum notification format. As previously 
mentioned, n o Member has  ever notified such a decision to the Committee . 
4  NOTIFICATION KEYWORD S 
4.1.  With the SPS IMS, all notifications can also be categorized according to a list of about  
90 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 inclu de specific notification subjects , such as pesticides, maximum residue 
limits, avian influenza, etc. 
4.2.  As shown in Chart  19, the keywords which have been most frequently assigned to regular 
notifications, in descending order for the current reporting period , are: human health, food safety, 
animal health , maximum residue limits (MRLs) and pesticides . For emergency notifications , the most 
frequent keywords in descending order are: animal diseases, animal health, human health , food 
safety  and pest or disease free regions/regionalization . It must be noted, however, that the majority 
of the notifications are assigned more than one k eyword. The Chart  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.  
                                                
26 See G/SPS/7/Rev.4 , para.  2.8 and Annex C.  
27 Each notification can have multiple entries for the reasons for addenda.  
010203040506070
Modification of final date
for commentsNotification of adoption,
publication, or entry into
force of regulationModification of content
and/or scope of previously
notified draft regulationWithdrawal of proposed
regulationChange in proposed date
of adoption, publication,
or date of entry into force
(Regular)/
Change in period of
application of measure
(Emergency)Other
Regular EmergencyG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Chart 19 - Keywords of notified regular and emergency SPS measures from  1 January  to 
15 September 2019  (number ) 
 
5  OTHER TRANSPARENCY -RELATED  ASPECTS  
5.1.  In light of  the steadily increasing volume of documents, managing the flow of notifications, and 
coordinating at the national level  to be able to  benefit 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.28 Section 1 presents the main information resources  currently available 
for SPS transparency purposes (SPS IMS, SPS NNS and ePing). Below is additional information and 
some other examples of tools and guidan ce related to implementing the transparency provisions of 
the SPS Agreement.  The WTO Secretariat regularly provides hands -on training on the SPS IMS , 
SPS NSS and ePing as part of  its technical assistance programmes . According to the 2015 
questionnaire on transparency, a majority of Members express ed a need for technical assistance in 
order to enhance their transparency mechanisms, and Members that received such technical 
assistance reported it  to be  very useful .29 Some Members significantl y increase their notification 
record following a dedicated training on transparency.  Additionally, t ransparency workshop s, usually 
organized every other year,  provide  highly interactive  training on the  use of the SPS IMS , SPS NSS  
and ePing . The last Worksh op focusing exclusively on transparency was held in Geneva on 30 and 
31 October 2017 .30 Within the framework of the Fifth Review, a Workshop on Transparency and 
Coordination  took place on 15 and 16 July 2019, in the margins of the SPS Committee meeting .31 
All the information from previous workshops and thematic sessions is available at the SPS gateway 
on transparency.32 
5.2.  The use of available tools is constantly increasing. To date, 8 5 Members have requested access 
to the SPS NSS , and 4 6 of these hav e officially submitted notifications through  the system . 
From 1 January to 15 September 2019, about 75% of notifications were submitted via the SPS NSS.  
5.3.  Currently, almost  8,000  users from both public and private sector are registered to receive 
notification alerts through  ePing. Some  additional functionalities , such as the national and 
international discussion fora, are also of interest to many  Members.  
5.4.  The Standards and Trade Developm ent Facility (STDF) has funded various projects to increase 
transparency by enhancing inter -agency coordination at the national and/or regional level, as well 
                                                
28 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.  
29 See th e 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.  
30 The report of this Workshop is contained in document G/SPS/R/89 . 
31 The programme of the Workshop is contained in G/SPS/GEN/1694/Rev.2 . A report of the Workshop 
can be found in G/SPS/R/95 . 
32 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm . 
0100200300400500600
Regular EmergencyG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12  
 
- 17 - 
 
  as strengthening linkages between government agencies and the private sector. The STDF is 
current ly carrying out work on the use of Good Regulatory Practice (GRP) to support the development 
and implementation of SPS measures. One of the objectives of GRP is to improve the quality of 
regulations and ensure that regulatory outcomes are effective, transp arent, inclusive and sustained. 
More information on this ongoing work can be found on the STDF website.33 WTO Members are 
invited to contact the STDF Secretariat ( stdfsecretariat@wto.org ) to obtain further info rmation on 
the work carried out by the Facility . 
5.5.  The analysis provided in this document shows a global increasing trend in the number of 
notifications over the years and interesting data concerning the use of notifications by Members 
according to their dev elopment status, the type of notification and the information provided . 
Members occasionally share  their experiences on other transparency -related areas within the 
SPS Committee  and in the activities organized in the margins of the meeting, although this 
information cannot be consistently analy zed and conclusions cannot be extrapolated.  Members are 
encouraged to complement this overview document through submissions to the SPS Committee 
regarding their own experience in matters related to the transparency pr ovisions of the SPS 
Agreement.  
 
__________  
                                                
33 http://www.standardsfacility.org/good -regulatory -practice .