G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
13 October 2017  
(17-5561) Page: 1/15 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
OVERVIEW REGARDING T HE LEVEL OF IMPLEMEN TATION OF THE TRANSP ARENCY 
PROVISIONS OF THE SP S AGREEMENT  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
Revision  
Contents  
 
1   INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  2 
2   DESIGNATION OF NOTIF ICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS  ....................  2 
3   SUBMISSION OF NOTIFI CATIONS  ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
3.1   Types of notifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
3.2   Notifying Members  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
3.3   Products covered  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  7 
3.4   Regions/countr ies affected  ................................ ................................ ............................  8 
3.5   Objective and rationale  ................................ ................................ ................................  8 
3.6   International standards, guidelines or recommendations  ................................ ..................  9 
3.7   Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force  ................................ .................... 10 
3.8   Final date for comments  ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 
3.9   Reasons for addenda to regular and emergency notifications  ................................ ........... 12 
4   NOTIFICATION KEYWORD S ................................ ................................ .......................  12 
5   EFFORTS TO ENHANCE T HE BENEFITS FROM A T RANSPARENT SYSTEM  .....................  13 
6   OTHER ASPECTS RELATI NG TO TRANSPARENCY  ................................ ........................  14 
 
 
                                                
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.10  
 
- 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 obligatio ns found in the SPS Agreement (Article 7 and Annex B) and of the 
Committee's Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Tran sparency Obligations of the 
SPS Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3). It provides information in areas which the Secretariat is in a 
position to track (such as designation of Enquiry Points/Notification Authorities, circulation of 
notifications) but does not include those where the Secretariat is not directly involved (such as 
provision of comments on specific notifications).  
1.2.  In preparing this o verview, the Secretariat has largely relied on the SPS Information 
Management System (SPS IMS).3 While some historical data on notifications dating back to 1995 
has been retrieved from various internal 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. Most of the analysis contained in this document can be undertaken and updated 
directly by Members or other interested parties as the underlying data is pub licly available and 
searchable through the SPS IMS. Hands -on training on using the SPS IMS is regularly provided in 
technical assistance activities . A new and 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 automatic than it has been for past reports. 
Small discrepancies in the data between the current reporting period and past reporting periods  
are due to the transi tion to the new system . 
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 2008.4 Compared to the earlier vers ion 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 provision of clearer and more specific 
information regarding new or modif ied 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.  
1.4.  The revised Recommended Transparency Procedures also paved the way for the  introduction 
during 2011  of a procedure for the on -line submission of notifications by Members . The SPS 
Notification Submission System ( SPS NSS)5 assists Members to be more precise in their 
notifications, and speeds up the processing and circulation of no tifications to all Members.  A new 
and improved version of the SPS NSS was launched at the end of March 2017 in conjunction with 
previously -mentioned launch of the SPS IMS.6 
1.5.  While more information is available with the 2008 formats, there is still room for 
improvement regarding the actual amount and quality of information provided by Members in the 
various notification formats.7 
2  DESIGNATION OF NOTIF ICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS  
2.1.  Annex B, paragraph 10, of the SPS Agreement obliges 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 2017, 
156 WTO Members out of 164 had designat ed such an age ncy, two more than the previous 
reporting period . Those Members which have not designated Notification Authorities include 
                                                
2 See G/SPS/R/47, para. 44, for the recommendations arising from the 2 007 workshop on transparency.  
3 http://spsims.wto.org . 
4 See also footnote 4 of G/SPS/7/Rev.3 requesting the Secretariat to provide an annual report on the 
level of implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement and of the recommended 
transparency procedures.  
5 https://nss.wto.org/spsmembers . 
6 See para. 5.3. for more information.  
7 All notification formats can be downloaded from http://www.wto.org/spstran sparency . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 3 - 
 
  six least developed countries (LDCs)  and two developing countr ies.8 It should be noted that these 
are the same eight Members  as last year.  
2.2.  Annex B, paragraph 3, of the SPS Agreement requires that each Member establish an Enquiry 
Point responsible for the provision of answers to all reasonable questions and of relevant 
documents. As of 15 September 2017, 161 WTO Members  out of 164, three  more than the 
previous year,  had provided the WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point. The same 
three  countries  as last year , all LDCs,  have not yet established an Enquiry Point . Thirty  Members 
have identified more than one SPS Enqui ry Point.  
2.3.  The most up -to-date information on Members' Notification Authorities and Enquiry Points can 
be accessed through the SPS IMS by clicking on Search → Enquiry Points/Notification 
Authorities  on the top menu bar.9 
3  SUBMISSION OF NOTIFI CATIONS  
3.1.  Under the SPS Agreement, notifications are used to inform other Members about new or 
changed regulations that may significantly affect trade. Annex B, paragraphs 5 to 8, as well as the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures, elaborate on the notification proc edures 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.  
3.1  Types of notifications  
3.2.  The two main types of notifications are re gular notifications and emergency notifications. 
In addition, addenda, corrigenda, revisions 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 o riginal 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 noti fication 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.  As of 15 September 2017, Members had submitted11 14,633  regular notifications, 
1,978  emergency notifications, 4,876  addenda and  401 corrigenda to regular and emergency 
notifications , with the grand total being 21,888 . During  the current reporting period 
(16 September 2016 through 15 September 2017), Members submitted a total of 
1,397  notifications, of which 849 regular notifications, 195 emergency notifications, 327 addenda 
and 26 corrigenda to regular and emergency notifications.  
3.4.  In April 2004, the Secretariat established a mechanism for Members to inform each other of 
the availability of unofficial translations of notified SPS measures into one of the official languages 
of the WTO. These are submitted in the form of supplements to the original notification. As of 
15 Septem ber 2017, 19 supplement notifications had been circulated. None were submitted in 
2017. It is interesting to note that the identical mechanism for sharing translations of notified 
TBT regulations, which was launched in January 2008, has already resulted in 251 supplement 
notifications. It is not clear w hy Members are submitting so few supplement notif ications in the 
SPS area.  
3.5.  In June 2002 , the SPS Committee adopted a special format and recommended procedures for 
the notification of determination of the recognition of equivalence of sanitary or phytosanitary 
measures. As of 15 September 2017, there have only been two equivalence notifications 
                                                
8 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 consulted through the SPS IMS 
by clicking on "definitions of groups" on the top menu bar.  
9 http://spsims.wto.org/en/EnquiryPoints NotificationAuthorities/Search . 
10 See the Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) for further elaboration on the 
different types of notifications.  
11 For this Note, submission refers to the date of distribution.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 4 - 
 
  circulated, one from Panama in 2007 and anothe r from the Dominican Republic in 2008.  There 
have been no new equivalence notifications circulated by W TO Members since  2008.  
3.6.  In October 2004, the SPS Committee  adopted a procedure to enhance transparency of 
special and differential treatment (S&D) in favo ur of developing country Members, 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 s ubsequently revised in December 2009.12 No S&D notifications have been 
circulated by WTO Members since 2004.  
3.7.  As can be seen in Chart 1, there has been a general upward trend in the number of 
notifications over the years , although since the peak of 1, 410 notifications in 2010, there has been 
a slight decline for the years 2011 -2013. In 2015 , however, the number of notificat ions reached a 
new peak of 1,681 . The number of notifications continued to decline in 2017, with 352 fewer 
notifications during the period from 16 September 2016 to 15 September 2017 than during the 
same period in the previous year.  
Chart  1 – Notifications submitted per year  
 
 
 
3.2  Notifying Members  
3.8.  As of 15 September 2017, 125 Members out of 164 (76%) had submitted at least one 
notification to the WT O. Members which have not submitted any  notification so far include 
14 developing countries, 16 LDCs, and one developed country.  In addition, a number of 
EU member States have not submitted notifications; h owever, most  SPS measures are notified by 
the European Union on behalf of all its member States.13 
                                                
12 See G/SPS/33/Rev.1.  
13 See G/SPS /GEN/456 for notification procedures for the European Union and its member States.  020040060080010001200140016001800
Regular Emergency Addenda CorrigendaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Chart 2 – Notifications by Developing Country Members (including LDCs)  
 
 
3.9.   Chart 2 shows the increase of notifications from developing countries (including LD Cs) since 
2000. In correlation with the variation in the number of total notifications submitted since 2010, 
after the peak in that year the numbers dropped for the years 2011 -2012. Since then, notifications 
have increased again each year reaching a new pe ak in 2015 , close to the 1 ,200 mark. The share 
of notifications by developing countries has varied somewhat since 2000 (see Chart 3). 
It has consistently been higher than 50% since 2007,  reaching its highest peak of 70% in 2015 , 
following a steady increase  since 2012 . From 16 Septe mber 2016 to 15 September  2017, 
developing countries ' share of total notifications  increased by 3%  compared to  the same period in 
the previous year. The shar e of notifications from LDCs decreased only slightly to 3.2% from 3.3% 
the previous year.  
Chart  3 – Share of Total Notifications Submitted by Developing Country Members 
(including LDCs)  
 0200400600800100012001400
Regular Emergency Addenda Corrigenda
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.10.   Looking at the geographic regions from which the notifications originate, Chart  4 shows that 
since 2000  the majority of notifications come fr om the North America region, followed by Asia, and 
then South and Central America and the Caribbean.14 
Chart  4 – Notifications by Geographical Region  from 2000  to 15 September 2017  
 
 
3.11.   The Members which have submitted the greatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 15 September 2017 are listed in Table 1, while the Members that have 
submitted the greatest number of notifications in the current reporting period  (16 September 2016 
to 15  September 2017) 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  Member  Number of 
notifications  Share 
of Total  
United States of 
America  2873 20%  Philippines  214 11% 
Brazil  1331 9%  Albania  174 9% 
China  1167 8%  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of  124 6% 
Canada  1149 8%  New Zealand  122 6% 
Peru 651 4%  United Arab Emirates  83 4% 
European Union  577 4%  United States of 
America  82 4% 
Korea, Republic of  556 4%  Ukraine  80 4% 
Japan  520 4%  Colombia  78 4% 
Chile 518 4%  Peru 70 4% 
Chinese Taipei  450 3%  Russian Federation  68 3% 
New Zealand  440 3%  European Union  66 3% 
Australia  401 3%  Thailand  46 2% 
Mexico  287 2%  Chile 38 2% 
Thailand  211 1%  Mexico  37 2% 
Colombia  195 1%  Australia  36 2% 
                                                
14 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. 01000200030004000500060007000
NA SA, CA &
the
CarribeanEurope CIS Africa Middle East AsiaG/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 7 - 
 
   
Table 2. Members which have submitted the most notifications in the past year  
(16 September 2016 – 15 September 2017 ) 
Regular Notifications   Emergency Notifications  
Member  Number of 
notifications  Share 
of Total  Member  Number of 
notifications  Share 
of Total  
Brazil  118 14%  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of  66 34% 
Canada  80 9%  United Arab Emirates  32 16% 
United States of 
America  63 7%  Philippines  29 15% 
Japan  58 7%  Albania  8 4% 
European Union  55 6%  New Zealand  6 3% 
Peru 49 6%  Peru 6 3% 
Chinese Taipei  38 4%  Ukraine  6 3% 
India 36 4%  Russian Federation  6 3% 
Australia  32 4%  South Africa  5 3% 
Korea, Republic of  27 3%  Madagascar  5 3% 
 
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 provision of these codes by their trading 
partners.15 However, identifying relevant HS codes is one of the main difficulties  encountered by 
Members when filling in a notification according to the latest questionna ire on transparency.16 
3.13.   Since 1995 the WTO's Central Registry of Notifications (CRN) has been assigning, to the 
extent possible, the relevant HS codes for all notifications  where these are not provided by the 
Member .17 The SPS NSS also facilitates the inclusi on of HS (and ICS) codes by submitting 
Members through a built -in search function.  
3.14.   While being only indicative, Table 3 shows the products at the two -digit level of HS codes 
that are most often covered by regular and emergency notifications.  
Table 3. HS Co des assigned to notifications  
Regular notifications  
 
HS 
Code  Description  Number  Share of 
Total  
(02) Meat and edible meat offal  1,328 9% 
(06) Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; 
cut flowers and ornamental foliage  1,322 
9% 
(01) Live animals  1,111 8% 
(08) Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons  1,092 7% 
(04) Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible 
products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or 
included  1,079 7% 
 
                                                
15 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.  
16 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on Transparency under the SPS Agreement, 
(G/SPS/GEN/1402, para. 2.1) for further elabo ration on this point.  
17 This information is available in the SPS IMS ( http://spsims.wto.org ). G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Emergency notifications  
 
HS 
Code  Description  Number  Share of 
Total  
(01) Live animals  1,155 58% 
(02) Meat and edible meat offal  1,123 57% 
(04) Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible 
products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or 
included  724 37% 
(05) Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or 
included  503 25% 
(23) Residues and waste from the food industries; 
prepared animal fodder  248 13% 
 
3.4  Regions/countries affected  
3.15.   The Recommended Transparency Procedures call on Members to identify the regions or 
countries which are most likely to be affected by the measure being notified. They include a 
modified data entry option for this item whereby Members are invited to either select the tick b ox 
for "all trading partners" or provide information on specific regions or c ountries likely to be 
affected.  
3.16.   An assessment of notifications submitted in the period between 16 September 2016 and 
15 September 2017 indicate s that 15% of regular notifications have identified a specific group of 
countries or a region, while 85% of regular notifications have selected the tick box for "all trading 
partners" . In contrast, 94% of emergency notifications have identified a specific group of countries 
or a region , and only 6% of emergency notifications indicate "all trading partners" . This reflects 
the fact that emergency actions are frequently  taken in response to disease outbreaks in specific 
countries, territories, or regions.  
3.17.   The comprehension and work of other Members would be facilitated if more specificity were 
provided by notifying Members on regions or countries likely to be affected. It is understandable , 
however, that Members may be hesitant to specifically identify potentially affected countries or 
region s for fear of not accurately assessing who might be affected  when submitting notifications . 
3.5  Objective and rationale  
3.18.   In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement and the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures, Members are also 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.  
3.19.   Table 4 indicates the total number and share of each objective as cited in regular and 
emergency notifications. It must be noted, however, that many notifications identify more than 
one objective. Therefore, the table below specifies the total number of times the specific objective 
was assigned regardless of whether the notifications identified multiple objectives.  
3.20.   For regular notifications the mo st frequently cited objective is food safety , while for 
emergency not ifications it is animal health.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Table 4. "Objectives" of notified SPS measures in the period between  16 September 
2016  - 15 September 2017  
Regular Notifications    
 Notifications  Share  
Food Safety  623 74% 
Plant Protection  155 18% 
Animal Health  89 11% 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease  78 9% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests  55 7% 
Emergency Notifications    
 Notifications  Share  
Animal Health  147 77% 
Food Safety  72 38% 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease  50 26% 
 Plant Protection  16 8% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests   14 7% 
 
3.6  International standards, guidelines or recommendations  
3.21.   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 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 to get more precision from Members 
regarding relevant standards and the conformity of t he notified measure with these.  
3.22.   With respect to regular notifications circulated from 16 September 2016 to 15 September 
2017, Chart 5 indicates that in 52% of the cases, Member s have not identified an international 
standard as being relevant to the new measure being notified , while 28% have referred to Codex, 
14% to the IPPC and 6% to the OIE . 
3.23.   When it comes to emergency notification s for the same period, Chart  6 shows that only 
7% of emergency notifications have not identified an international standard as being relevant to 
the measure being notified, whereas 86%, 6% and 1% have referred to the OIE, IPPC and  Codex 
respectively as having a relevant international standard. It is rea ssuring to note that the relevant 
international standards address many emergency situations, thus providing invaluable guidance to 
governments on how to protect health in the face of emergencies.  
Chart  5 - Regular Notifications referring to a relevant inte rnational standard  
 None  
52%  
Codex  
28%  IPPC  
14%  OIE 
6% G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Chart  6 - Emergency Notifications referring to a relevant international standard  
 
 
3.24.   The notification formats include a n entry asking whether the proposed regulation conforms 
to the relevant international standard. During the period from 16 September 2016 to 
15 September 2017, of the 49% of regular notifications identifying a relevant international 
standard regarding the measure, 87% indicated that the proposed regulation conformed to that 
relevant international standard. For the same period, nearly all (99%) of em ergency notifications 
identifying a  relevant international standard indicated that the proposed regulation conformed to 
the relevant international standard.  
3.7  Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force  
3.25.   In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement, Members are 
obliged to ensure that all SPS regulations which have been a dopted are published pr omptly. 
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".18 
3.26.   The regular notification format contained in the Recommended Transparency Procedures 
includes separate fields for entering the "proposed date of publication", the "propos ed 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.  
3.27.   For the period from 16 September 2016 through 15 September  2017, 26% (219) of regular 
notifications included a specific date for adoption, 25% (214) for publication, and 22% (190) for 
entry into force. Thus , the majority of regular notifications do not provide specific dates in these 
three fields. In some cases such dates are not yet determined at the time of the notification, as 
the nature and extent of comments received on the proposed measure may affect th e dates of 
adoption, publication and entry into force. During the same period, only 78 regular notifications 
(9%) had selected the checkbox for a six -month interval between the publication and  entry into 
force of a measure.  
3.28.   Regarding the  regular  notificati ons that indicated a specific date of entry into force, 
46% (87) indicated a delay between the date of distribution and the proposed date of entry into 
force that averaged 106 days. This average masks a very wide range, as the periods in the 
notifications varied from 1 to 946 days. Furthermore, more than half of the notifications, 
52% (99), indicated a date of entry into force prior to the date of document distribution, and 30% 
(57) of these concerned measures were identified as trade facilitating . 
                                                
18 WT/MIN(01)/17.  OIE 
86%  None  
7% IPPC  
6% Codex  
1% G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.29.   As provided for in the Recommended Transparency Procedures, notifying Members 
sometimes follow up on their original notification with an addendum to alert Members to the 
adoption, publication, or entry into force of a previously notified proposed measure. During the 
period of 16 September 2016 to 15 September 2017, around 64% of the addenda  indicated 
the adoption, publication or entry into force of regulations as shown in Table 6.  
3.8  Final date for comments  
3.30.   Annex B, paragraph 5 of the SPS Agreement provides th at notifications should take place at 
an early stage, when amendments can still be introduced and comments taken into account. 
The Recommended Transparency Procedures state that a 60 -day comment period should be 
provided with respect to regular notificatio ns. Where domestic regulatory mechanisms allow, the 
60-day comment period should normally begin with the circulation  of the notification by the 
WTO Secretariat. The notification formats also offer a checkbox option for such a 60 -day comment 
period to encou rage Members to follow this recommendation.19 Between 16 September 2016 and 
15 September 2017 this checkbox was selected in 47% (399) of regular  notifications.  
3.31.   An analysis of the notifications issued during the period from 16 September 2016 through 
15 September 2017 shows that around 19% of notifications have not provided a comment period 
(see Table 5). For those that do provide comment periods, these average 54 days when calculated 
as the difference between the date of circulation of the not ification  and the final date for 
comments. On average, d evelop ed country Members provide d longer  average  comment period s 
than developing country Members  (60 and 48 days respectively ). The overall average comment 
period for all Members decreased slightly  (52 this year compared to 54 the year before).  
Table 5. Comment period provided in regular notifications  (16 September 2016 – 
15 September 2017 ) 
All Members  
 No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  849 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available  158 19% 
Comment period ends before distribution date  4 0.4% 
Comment period available  689 81% 
Average comment period  52 
Developed country Members  
 No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  305 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available  86 28% 
Comment period  ends before distribution date  2 0.6% 
Comment period available  218 71% 
Average comment period  60 
Developing country Members  
 No. Share  
No. of regular notifications  544 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available  72 13% 
Comment period ends before distribution date  2 0.4% 
Comment period available  471 87% 
Average comment period  48 
 
3.32.   It should be noted that no comment period needs to be provided in the case of trade 
facilitating measures. The notification format includes a tick box for specifying whether the 
notification concerns a trade facilitating measure. From 16 September 2016 through 15 September 
2017, 17% of notifications have been identified to be trade facilitating. In addition, as there is no 
obligation to notify  measures if their content is substantially the same as that of an international 
standard, no comment period is expe cted for this category of measures.  
3.33.   While Members are obligated to notify other WTO Members of draft , new or changed 
measures, they are not required to submit the text of the relevant regulations along with their 
                                                
19 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 13.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 12 - 
 
  notifications. However, Members have raised  concerns in the SPS Committee regarding the 
difficulties of accessing the actual text of notified regulations, which are described only in 
summarized form in notifications. Members have also pointed out that the process of receiving the 
texts of regulatio ns reduces the period actually av ailable for providing comments.  
3.34.   In an effort to address these concerns and facilitate access to notified draft regulations, 
since February 2008 Members may, on a voluntary basis, provide the Secr etariat with an 
electronic version of the text of the notified draft regulation as an attachment to the notification 
format. The submitted text is then electronically accessible to other Members through a hyperlink 
in the notification format.20 From 16 September  2016 through 15 September 2017, around  72% of 
all notifications  (81% of regular and 33% of emergency notifications)  have provided the full text or 
a summary of their notified draft regulations using this facility. Members may wish to remind their 
notification au thorities of the availability of this facility.  
3.35.   Many Members include a hyperlink to their own electronic version of the notified regulation 
as part of the text of the notification, in addition to or  instead of the above facility.  
3.9  Reasons for ad denda to regular and emergency notifications  
3.36.   According to t he Recommended  Transparency Procedures , Members are asked to select 
from a number of options regarding the reason for an Addendum. Table 6 below shows the share 
of each option for the period from 16 September 2016 to 15 September 2017: 
Table 6. Reasons for addenda21 
Reason for addenda:  No. Share  
Notification of adoption, publication, or entry into force of regulation  208 64% 
Modification of content and/or scope of previously notified draft regulation  48 15% 
Other concerns  36 11% 
Modification of final date for comments  20 6% 
Withdrawal of proposed regulation  14 4% 
Change in proposed date of adoption, publication, or date of entry into force  10 3% 
 
3.37.   In addition, Members can notify their decision on whether and how special and differential 
treatment was  provided in reference to a specific request, through another addendum notification 
format. No 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 
approximately 70 predefined keywords, which describe issues appearing frequently in notifications. 
The CRN has assigned these keywords since 2003 , and they assist searching for notifications in 
certain areas. While the keywords include the objectives of the notification (e.g., food safety, 
animal health, plant protection), they also include additional specificity, such as pesticides, 
maximum residues levels, avian influenza, etc. 
4.2.  As shown in Table 7, the keywords which have been most frequently assigned to regular 
notifications, in descending order for the current reporting period , are: human health, food safety, 
pesticides, maximum residue limits (MRL s) and plant health. For emergency notifications, the most 
frequent keywords in descending order are: animal diseases, animal health, avian influenza , 
zoonoses and pest or disease free regions. It must be noted, however, that the majority of the 
notificati ons are assigned more than one keyword. Therefore, the table below specifies the total 
number of times the specific keyword was assigned, regardless of whether this objective was 
specifically identif ied in the notification itself.  
                                                
20 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 22 and Annex C.  
21 Each notification can have mult iple entries for the reasons for addenda.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Table 7.  "Keywords " of no tified SPS measures (16 September 2015 - 15 September 
2017)  
Regular Notifications   
 Notifications  
Human health  642 
Food safety  635 
Pesticides  299 
Maximum residue limits (MRLs)  251 
Plant health  171 
Pests  109 
Animal health  86 
Food additives  75 
Contaminants  55 
Animal feed  53 
Emergency Notifications   
 Notifications  
Animal diseases  173 
Animal health  170 
Avian Influenza  138 
Zoonoses   137 
Pest or Disease free Regions / Regionalization  126 
Human health  111 
Food safety  111 
Plant health  15 
Pests  13 
Foot and mouth disease  11 
 
5  EFFORTS TO ENHANCE T HE BENEFITS FROM A T RANSPARENT SYSTEM  
5.1.  In light of the steadily increasing volume of documents, managing the flow of notifications, 
and coordinating at the national level, benefiting from a transparent system is a challenge for 
many Members. This is one of the areas where Members have sought  technical assistance and 
guidance on best practices.22 Below are some examples of information resour ces, tools and 
guidance related to implementing the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement.  
5.2.  The SPS IMS is a specialized and detailed information  source on SPS notifications, specific 
trade c oncerns, National Notification Authorities  & Enquiry Point  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 . 
5.3.  The SPS NSS is an online platfor m where WTO Members can directly complete and submit 
notifications. Submission through the SPS NSS allows for notifications to be processed more 
accurately and efficiently by the WTO Secretariat, making notifications accessible to the 
membership much more quickly. Interested Members may request login names and access 
passwords for their National Notification Authorities from the Secretariat.23 To date , 79 Members  
have requested access to the system, and 42 of these have officially submitted notifications via  the 
SPS NSS . 
5.4.  The WTO Secretariat provides training on the SPS IMS and NSS as part of  its technical 
assistance programmes . According to the latest questionnaire on transparency, a majority of 
Members express a need for technical assistance in order to enha nce their transparency 
mechanisms, and Members that have received technical assistance reported to have found it very 
useful.24 Transparency workshop s, usually organized every other year25, provide  highly interactive, 
                                                
22 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.  
23 Two different user names an d passwords are provided (a submitting  user name and a secondary  user 
name). Only the submitting user name allows to officially submitting the notification to the CRN, but the 
secondary user name allows other individuals to enter information and review the draft notification.  
24 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questi onnaire on Transparency under the SPS Agreement, 
(G/SPS/GEN/1402, paras. 3.29 and 3.30) for further elaboration on this point.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 14 - 
 
  "hands -on" training on the  use of the SP S IMS and SPS NSS . The next transparency workshop will 
take place on 30 -31 October 2017.   
5.5.  In addition, a practical Manual on the operation of Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities  
includes guidance on how to prepare a notification, how to manage incoming notifications, how to 
alert stakeholders, and how to draft some standard letters. Th e manual is available in English, 
French and Spanish. Hard copies can be requested from the WTO Secretariat and electronic copies 
can be downloaded from the SPS ga teway of the WTO website .26 This manual, last updated in 
2011, has been undergoing revision  in 2017 to include the new SPS IMS and NSS platforms , the 
ePing alert system,  and to streamline the content. A draft of the revised manual will be shared 
with Member s during the upcoming SPS Committee week (30 October – 3 November 2017), with 
the overall aim of finalizing before the end of 2017.  
5.6.  ePing27 is a publically available SPS & Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) notification alert 
system. Subscribers are able to 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 documents, 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 particular small and medium enterpris es, to track, consult and comment 
on measures that are being developed and adapt as necessary to changing regulatory conditions.  
5.7.  The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) has funded various projects to 
increase transparency by enhancing inter -agency coordination at the national and/or regional 
level, as well as strengthening linkages between government agencies and the private sector. 
The STDF has develo ped a framework called P -IMA28 that helps countries prioritize and make 
choices between competin g SPS capacity building needs. It seeks to move towards greater 
efficiency in the use of scarce resources and to enhance the transparency and accountability of 
resource allocation decisions. This framework uses a multi -criteria decision analysis (MCDA) 
approach as well as computer software to help derive priorities. P -IMA has been applied in over ten 
countries and has been very successful in promoting and creating linkages between th e public and 
private sector. In 2012, the STDF completed a study to examine  national SPS coordination 
mechanisms in Africa to identify factors that contribute to successful coordination and provide 
guidance on the establishment and operation of  SPS coordination mechanisms .29 The study 
indicates that strengthening coordination amon g relevant government institutions at the national 
and sub -national level, and with the private sector, reduces information gaps, promotes synergies 
in the implementation of SPS measures and enhances the effectiveness of available resources. 
WTO Members ar e invited to contact the STDF Secretariat to obtain further information on any o f 
the above -mentioned points.30 
6  OTHER ASPECTS RELATI NG TO TRANSPARENCY  
6.1.  As indicated in the introduction, there are a number of areas where the Secretariat is not in a 
position t o provide an overview. These include questions such as the following:  
a. To what extent are Members publishing a notice at an early stage regarding proposals to 
introduce a particular regulation? (Annex B, paragraph 5(a))  
b. To what extent are translations into English, French or Spanish of proposed regulations 
available? (Annex B, paragraph 8)  
c. How quickly do Members respond to requests for documents or other information? 
(Annex B, paragraphs 3 and 5(c))  
                                                                                                                                                  
25 The report of the 2015 transparency workshop is in document G/SPS/R/80.  
26 The Procedural Step -by-step Manual for SPS National N otifications Authorities & National Enquiry 
Points can be downloaded from:  http://www.wto.org/spstransparency . 
27 http://www.epingalert.org  
28  http://www.standardsfacility.org/prioritizing -sps-investments -market -access -p-ima. 
29 
http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_NationalSPSCoordinationMechanisms_EN_0.pdf . 
30 The STDF Secretariat can be reached at stdfsecretariat@wto.org . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 
- 15 - 
 
  d. To what extent are Members providing comments on notificati ons, and to what extent 
are these taken into account? (Annex B, paragraph 5(d))  
6.2.  These are areas where Members have occasionally shared  their experiences with the 
SPS Committee. However, as this information is not provided systematically, it has not been 
possible to include further details on these questions. Members are encouraged to complement this 
overview document through submissions to the SPS Committee regarding their own experience in 
matters related to the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement . 
 
__________