G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6  
 
7 October 2013  
(13-5417)  Page: 1/13  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
OVERVIEW REGARDING THE LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPARENCY 
PROVISIONS OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Revision 
Contents 
1   INTROD UCTION  .......................................................................................................... 2  
2   DESIGNATION OF NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS .................... 2  
3   SUBMISSION OF  NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 3  
3.1   Types of notifications ................................................................................................. 3 
3.2   Notifying Members ..................................................................................................... 4  
3.3   Products covered ....................................................................................................... 6  
3.4   Regions/count ries affected .......................................................................................... 7  
3.5   Objective and rationale .............................................................................................. 7  
3.6   International standards, gu idelines or reco mmendations ................................................. 8  
3.7   Proposed date of adopti on/publication/entr y into force ................................................... 10 
3.8   Final date  for co mments ............................................................................................ 10 
3.9   Reasons for addenda to regu lar and emergency notifications .......................................... 11 
3.10   Notificati on keywords .............................................................................................. 12 
4   RECENT EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRANSPARENT 
SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................ .. 12 
5   OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO TRANSPARENCY ........................................................ 13  
 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1.  Since an October 2007 workshop on transparency, the Secretariat has been requested to 
prepare an annual overview of the implementation  of the transparency provisions of the SPS 
Agreement.2 The document provides an overview rega rding 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 Transparency 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 overview, the Secretariat has largely relied on the SPS Information 
Management System (SPS IMS).
3 While some historical data on notifications dating back to 1995 
has been retrieved from various internal 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 publicly available and searchable through the SPS IMS. Hands-on training  on using the SPS IMS is regularly provided in 
technical assistance activities. 
1.3.  Revised Recommended Procedures for Implem enting the Transparency Obligations of the SPS 
Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3, hereafter the "2008 Transparency Procedures") took effect on 
1 December 2008.
4 Compared to the earlier version of the transparency procedures, which had 
been adopted by the Committee in 2002, the 2008 Transparency Procedures include revised 
notification formats which aim to facilitate the provision of clearer and more specific information regarding new or modified SPS measures by Member s, e.g. regarding conformity with international 
standards, comment periods, and the period betw een the publication and entry into force of new 
regulations. 
1.4.  The 2008 Transparency Procedures also paved the way for the introduction during 2011 of a 
procedure for the on-line submission of notificati ons by Members. The SPS Notification Submission 
System (NSS) assists Members to be more prec ise in their notifications, and speeds up the 
processing and circulation of notifications to all Members.
5 
1.5.  While more information is available with the 2008 formats, there is still room for 
improvement regarding the actual amount and quality of information provided by Members in the 
various notification formats. 
2  DESIGNATION OF NOTIFICATION 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 of notification procedures. This agency is referred to as the "SPS Notification Authority". As of 15 September 2013, 149 WTO 
Members out of 159, five more than last year, had designated an "SPS Notification Authority".
6 
Those which have not include six least-developed countries (LDCs) and four developing countries.7 
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 2013, 154 WTO Members out of 159, three more than the 
                                               
2 See G/SPS/R/47, para. 44, for the recommendations  arising from the 2007 workshop on transparency. 
3 http://spsims.wto.org  
4 See also footnote 4 of G/SPS/7/Rev.3 requesting th e 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 See para. 4.5. for more information. 
6 The five Members are: Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Montenegro and the 
Russian Federation. 
7 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the WTO's 
Integrated Database (IDB) for analytic al purposes. They can be consulted through the SPS IMS by clicking on 
"definitions of groups" on th e left-hand side menu bar. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 3 - 
 
  previous year, had provided the WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point.8 Those 
which have not include four LDCs and one developing country. 26 Members have identified more than one SPS Enquiry Point. 
2.3.  The most up-to-date information on Members' Notification Authorities and Enquiry Points can 
be accessed through the SPS IMS by clicking on "E nquiry Points/Notification Authorities" on the 
left-hand side menu bar. 
3  SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1.  Under the SPS Agreement, notifications are used to inform other Members about new or 
changed regulations that may significantly affect trad e. Annex B, paragraphs 5 to 8, as well as the 
2008 Transparency Procedures, elaborate on the notification procedures Members are to follow. For ease of reference, the specific sub-topics high lighted 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 noti fications are regular notifications and emergency notifications. In 
addition, addenda, corrigenda, revisions or supplem ents can be issued subsequent to an original 
regular or emergency notification.
9 An addendum is used to provide additional information or 
changes to an original notification, for example if  the products covered by the proposed regulation 
have been modified, or if the comment period has been extended, or if a notified measure has 
entered into force. A corrigendum is used to correct an error in an original notification such as an incorrect address detail. A 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 2013, Members had submitted 10,643 regular notifications, 
1,489 emergency notifications, and 3,670 addenda and corrigenda to regular and emergency 
notifications. For the past year (15 September 2012 through 15 September 2013), Members 
submitted a total of 1,267 notifications, of which 851 regular notifications, 69 emergency 
notifications, 345 addenda and corrigenda to regular and emergency notifications and two 
supplements. 
3.4.  In April 2004, the Secretariat established a mechanism for Members to inform each other of 
the availability of unofficial translations of notifi ed 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 2013, 17 supplement notifications had been circulated. Only one was submitted in 
2013. 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 241 supplement 
notifications, although only four more supplement notifications were submitted this year. It is not 
clear why Members are submitting so few supplement notifications in the SPS area. 
3.5.  In addition, in June 2002 the SPS Committee adopted a special format and recommended 
procedures for the notification of determination of the recognition of equivalence of sanitary or 
phytosanitary measures. As of 15 September 2013, there have only been two equivalence notifications circulated, one from Panama in 2007 and another from the Dominican Republic in 2008. 
3.6.  Considering all types of notifications togeth er, a total of 15,821 notifications were submitted 
to the WTO from 1 January 1995 to 15 September 201 3. As can be seen in Chart 1, there has 
been a general upward trend in the number of no tifications over the years, with the total number 
of notifications reaching a peak of 1,410 in the year 2010. However, the number of notifications 
submitted decreased in 2011 and 2012. The number of notifications appears to be on the rise again in 2013, if notifications during the period from mid-September 2012 through mid-September 
2013 are compared with the same period of the previous years. 
                                               
8 The three Members are: Congo, Lao People's Democratic Republic and Tajikistan. 
9 See the Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS 
Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) for further elaboratio n on the different types of notifications. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Chart 1 – Notifications submitted per year 
02004006008001000120014001600
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 15/09/13Regular Notification Addenda/  Corrigenda Emergency  Notification
 
 
3.2  Notifying Members 
3.7.  As of 15 September 2013, 108 Members out of 159 (68%) had submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO. Members which have not submitted any notification so far include 20 developing countries, 22 LDCs, and one developed country. In addition, a number of EU member States have not submitted notification s; however, most SPS measures are notified by 
the European Union on behalf of all its member States.
10 
Chart 2 – Notifications by Developing  Country Members (including LDCs) 
01002003004005006007008009001000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201215/09/13No. of Notifications
Addenda/Corrigenda Emergency Regular
 
                                               
10 See G/SPS/GEN/456 for notification procedures for the European Union and its member States. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.8.  Chart 2 shows a drop in the number of notifications from developing countries (which include 
LDCs) since 2010, although this number appears to be on the rise again in 2003, if notifications during the period from mid-September 2012 thro ugh mid-September 2013 are compared with the 
same period of the previous years. The share of total notifications from developing country 
Members (see Chart 3) continues to be high, with  a peak of over 68% in the year 2009. Compared 
to the same period of time last year, the share of notifications from developing countries has increased from 56 to 63%, while the share from LDCs showed a marked increase from 0.4 to 
2.8%. 
Chart 3 – Share of Total Notifications Submitted by Developing Country Members 
(including LDCs) 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 15/09/13 
 
3.9.  Looking at the geographic regions from whic h the notifications originate, Chart 4 shows that 
the majority of notifications come from the North America region, followed by Asia, and then South 
and Central America and the Caribbean.11 
Chart 4 – Notifications by Geographical Region 
NA
SA, CA and the 
Caribbean
Europe
CIS AfricaMiddle EastAsia
0100020003000400050006000
 
                                               
11 The geographical groupings used rely on WTO work ing definitions as identified in the Integrated 
Database (IDB) for analytical purposes . The same groupings are used in the WTO Annual Reports. They can be 
consulted through the SPS IMS by clicking on "defin itions of groups" on the left-hand side menu bar. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.10.  The Members which have submitted the gr eatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 15 September 2013, are listed in Table 1, while the Members that have submitted the greatest number of notifications in the past year (15 September 2012 to 15 September 2013) are listed in Table 2. 
Table 1. Members which have submitte d 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 2,506 24%  Albania 143 10% 
Brazil 912 9%  Philippines 139 9% 
China 742 7%  New Zealand 107 7% 
Canada 735 7%  United States 84 6% 
Korea 435 4%  Colombia 74 5% 
Peru 431 4%  Ukraine 67 4% 
European Union 416 4%  Peru 64 4% 
Chile 413 4%  European Union  54 4% 
New Zealand 394 4%  Thailand 41 3% 
Japan 308 3%  Mexico 37 2% 
Chinese Taipei 305 3%  Chile 33 2% 
Australia 302 3%  Canada 31 2% 
Mexico 201 2%  China 28 2% 
Thailand 192 2%  Australia 28 2% 
Colombia 178 2%  Kenya 27 2% 
 
Table 2. Members which have submitted th e most notifications in the past year 
(15 September 2012 – 15 September 2013) 
Regular Notifications  Emergency Notifications 
Member Number of 
notifications Share 
of Total  Member Number of 
notifications Share 
of 
Total 
United States 121 14%   Philippines 18 26%  
Peru 93 11%  Russian Federation 11 16% 
Canada 90 11%   Albania 7 10%  
China 86 10%  Ecuador 4 6% 
Brazil 85 10%   Saudi Arabia 4 6%  
Chile 38 4%  European Union 3 4% 
Saudi Arabia 35 4%   Chile 3 4%  
Chinese Taipei 29 3%  Australia 2 3% 
Ecuador 26 3%      
Korea 25 3%     
 
 3.3  Products covered 
3.11.  In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement and the 2008 
Transparency Procedures, Members are required to identify the products to be covered by a new or changed SPS measure and should provide the re levant HS codes. Most Members have indicated 
they would welcome the provision of these codes by their trading partners.
12  
3.12.  Since 1995 the WTO's Central Registry of No tifications (CRN) has been assigning, to the 
extent possible, the relevant HS codes for all no tifications where these are not provided by the 
Member.13 
3.13.  While being only indicative, Table 3 shows th e products, at the two-digit level of HS codes, 
that are most often covered by regular and emergency notifications. 
                                               
12 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. 
13 This information is now available in the SPS IMS. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Table 3. HS Codes assigned to notifications 
Regular notifications 
 
HS 
Code Description Number Share of 
Total 
(02) Meat and edible meat offal 2,698 17% 
(08) Edible fruit and nuts, peel of citrus fruit or melons 1,645 10% 
(07) Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers 1,382 9% 
(10) Cereals 1,245 8% 
(01) Live animals 1,233 8% 
 
Emergency notifications 
 
HS 
Code Description Number Share of 
Total 
(02) Meat and edible meat offal 1,686 32% 
(01) Live animals 1,551 29% 
(04) Dairy produce, birds' eggs, natural honey, edible 
products of origin not elsewhere specified or included 573 11% 
(05) Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or  
included 436 8% 
(23) Residues and waste from the food industries, prepared 
animal fodder 259 5% 
 
 3.4  Regions/countries affected 
3.14.  The Transparency Procedures call on Member s to identify the regions or countries which are 
most likely to be affected by the measure being notified. The 2008 Transparency Procedures include a modified data entry option for this item whereby Members are invited to either select the 
tick box for "all trading partners" or provide information on specific regions or countries likely to be 
affected.  
3.15.  An assessment of notifications submitted in the period between 15 September 2012 and 15 
September 2013 indicate that 21% of regular noti fications have identified a specific group of 
countries or a region, while 79% of regular notifications have selected the tick box for "all trading 
partners". In contrast, 87% of emergency notifications have identified a specific group of countries or a region, and only 13% of emergency notification s 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. 
3.16.  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 when submitting notifications, Members may be hesitant to specifically identify potentially affected countries or regions for fear of not accurately  assessing who might be affected. 
3.5  Objective and rationale 
3.17.  In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement and the 2008 
Transparency Procedures, Members are also requ ired to state the objective and rationale of 
proposed regulations by selecting one of the foll owing 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 corre spond to the definition of an SPS measure in 
Annex A, paragraph 1 of the SPS Agreement. 
3.18.  Table 4 indicates the total number and shar e of each objective as cited in regular and 
emergency notifications. It must be noted, howeve r, that many notifications identify more than 
one objective. Therefore, the table below specifies the total number of times the specific objective was assigned regardless of whether the notifications identified multiple objectives. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.19.  For regular notifications, the most frequently cited objective is food safety, while for 
emergency notifications it is animal health.  
Table 4. "Objectives" of notified SPS meas ures in the period between 15 September 
2012 - 15 September 2013 
Regular Notifications   
 Notifications Share 
Food Safety 567 37% 
Animal Health 130 8% 
Plant Protection 181 12% 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease 602 39% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests 68 4% 
Emergency Notifications   
 Notifications Share 
Food Safety 13 13% 
Animal Health 43 42% 
Plant Protection 15 15% 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease 23 22% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests 9 9% 
  3.6  International standards, guidelines or recommendations 
3.20.  The SPS Agreement does not require Members to notify a measure if its content is 
substantially the same as that of an internationa l standard adopted by Codex, IPPC or the OIE. 
Nonetheless, the 2008 Transparency Procedures enco urage 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 
revised formats also seek to get more precision from Members regarding relevant standards and the conformity of the notified measure with these. 
3.21.  With respect to regular notifications circulated from 15 September 2012 to 15 September 
2013, Chart 5 indicates that in 47% of the cases, Members have not identified an international standard as being relevant to the new measure being notified. Of the remaining notifications, 24% have referred to Codex, 12% to the OIE and 17% to the IPPC. 
3.22.  Chart 6 shows that for the same period, only 11% of emergency notifications have not 
identified an international standard as being relevant to the measure being notified, while 61%, 25% and 3% have referred to the OIE, IPPC and Codex as having a relevant international 
standard, respectively. It is reassuring to note that the relevant international standards address so 
many of the emergency situations, thus providing invaluable guidance to governments on how to protect health in the face of emergencies. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Chart 5 - Regular Notifications referring to a relevant international standard 
Codex 
24%
IPPC
17%
OIE
12%None
47%
 
 
 
Chart 6 - Emergency Notifications referrin g to a relevant international standard 
Codex 
3%
IPPC
25%
OIE
61%None
11%
 
 
 
3.23.  The revised notification formats include a new entry asking whether the proposed regulation conforms to the relevant international standard. During the period from 15 September 2012 to 
15 September 2013, of the 53% of regular notifications identifying a relevant international 
standard regarding the measure, 81% indicated th at the proposed regulation conformed to that 
relevant international standard. For the same period, of the 89% of emergency notifications 
identifying a relevant international standard, 97% have indicated that the proposed regulation 
conformed to the relevant international standard. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.7  Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force 
3.24.  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".
14 
3.25.  The revised regular notification format contained in the 2008 Transparency Procedures 
includes separate fields for entering the "propo sed date of publication", the "proposed date of 
adoption" and the "proposed date of entry into forc e". In addition, it includes a default checkbox 
for a six-month interval between the publication and entry into force of a new measure. 
3.26.  For the period from 15 September 2012 through 15 September 2013, 33% (281) of regular 
notifications included a specific date for adoption, 33% (280) for publication, and 32% (276) for entry into force. Thus the majority of regular notifications do not provide specific dates in these 
three fields. In some cases, such dates are not yet determined at the time of the notification, as 
the nature and extent of comments received on the proposed measure may affect the dates of 
adoption, publication and entry into force. During the same period, only 64 regular notifications 
(8%) had selected the checkbox for a six-month interval between the publication and entry into 
force of a measure. 
3.27.  Regarding the regular notifications that indi cated a specific date of entry into force, 38% 
(106) indicated a delay between the date of distribu tion and the proposed date of entry into force 
that averaged 116 days. This average masks a very wide range, as the periods in the notifications 
varied from 6 to 542 days. Furthermore, more than half of the notifications, 62% (170), indicated 
a date of entry into force prior to the date of document distribution, although 46% (79) of these 
concerned measures identified as trade liberalizing. 
3.28.  As provided for in the 2008 Transparency Procedures, notifying Members sometimes follow 
up on their original notification with an Addend um to alert Members to the adoption, publication, 
or entry into force of a previously notified prop osed measure. During the period of 15 September 
2012 to 15 September 2013, around 56% of the addenda indicated the adoption, publication or entry into force of regulations as shown in Table 6. 
3.8  Final date for comments 
3.29.  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 2008 Transparency Procedures state that a 60-day comment period should be provided with 
respect to regular notifications. Where domest ic regulatory mechanisms allow, the 60-day 
comment period should normally begin with th e circulation of the notification by the WTO 
Secretariat. The revised formats also offer a chec kbox option for such a 60-day comment period to 
encourage Members to follow this recommendation.
15 Between 15 September 2012 and 15 
September 2013 this checkbox was selected in 43% of notifications. 
3.30.  An analysis of the notifications issued during the period from 15 September 2012 through 
15 September 2013 shows that around 24% of notifications have not provided a comment period 
(see Table 5). For those that do provide comment pe riods, these average 57 days when calculated 
as the difference between the date of circulation of  the notification and the deadline and final date 
for comments. Developed country Members provide slightly longer comment periods than 
developing country Members. 
3 . 3 1 .   I t  s h o u l d  b e  n o t e d  t h a t  n o  c o m m e n t  p e r i o d  n e e d s  t o  b e  p r o v i d e d  i n  t h e  c a s e  o f  t r a d e  
facilitating measures. The 2008 Transparency Procedures include a new tick box for specifying 
whether the notification concerns a trade facilitating measure. From 15 September 2012 through 
15 September 2013, 21% of notifications have been id entified to be trade facilitating. In addition, 
                                               
14 WT/MIN(01)/17. 
15 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 13. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 11 - 
 
  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 expected for this category of measures.  
Table 5. Comment period provided in re gular notifications (1 December 2008 – 
15 September 2013) 
All Members 
 No. Share 
No. of regular notifications 851 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available 203 24% 
Comment period ends before distribution date 11 1% 
Comment period available 648 76% 
Average comment period  57 
Developed country Members 
 No. Share 
No. of regular notifications 281 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available 61 22% 
Comment period ends before distribution date 0 0% 
Comment period available 220 78% 
Average comment period  59 
Developing country Members 
 No. Share 
No. of regular notifications 570 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available 142 25% 
Comment period ends before distribution date 11 2% 
Comment period available 428 75% 
Average comment period  57 
 
3.32.  While Members are obligated to notify other WTO Members of draft new or changed 
measures, they are not required to submit the text of the relevant regulations along with their notifications. However, Members have raised concerns in the SPS Committee regarding the 
difficulties of accessing the actual text of notified regulations, which are described only in 
summarized form in notifications. Members have also pointed out that the process of receiving the texts of regulations reduces the period actually available for providing comments. 
3.33.  In an effort to address these concerns an d facilitate access to notified draft regulations, 
since February 2008 Members may, on a voluntar y basis, provide the Secretariat with an 
electronic version of the text of the notified regula tion as an attachment to the notification format. 
The submitted text is then electronically accessi ble to other Members through a hyperlink in the 
notification format.
16 From 15 September 2012 through 15 September 2013, around 70% of 
notifications have provided the full text or a summary of their notified regulations using this 
facility. Members may wish to remind their notification authorities of the availability of this facility. 
3.34.  Many Members include a hyperlink to their own electronic version of the notified regulation 
as part of the text of the notification, in addition to or instead of the above facility. 
3.9  Reasons for addenda to regular and emergency notifications 3.35.  The 2008 Transparency Procedures have also added a new feature to the addenda to 
regular and emergency notification formats. Members are asked to select from a number of 
options regarding the reason for the Addendum. Ta ble 6 below shows the share of each option for 
the period from 15 September 2012 to 15 September 2013: 
                                               
16 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 22 and Annex C. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 12 - 
 
  Table 6. Reasons for addenda17 
Reason for addenda: No. Share 
Modification of final da te for comments 55 17% 
Notification of adoption, publication, or entry into force of 
regulation 184 56% 
Modification of content and/or scope of previously notified draft 
regulation 41 12% 
Withdrawal of proposed regulation 15 5% 
Change in proposed date of adop tion, publication, or date of 
entry into force 16 5% 
Other 18 5% 
 
 
3.10  Notification keywords 
3.36.  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. These keywords assist searching for notifications in certain areas. The keywords which have been most frequently assigned to regular 
notifications, in descending order, are: human health, food safety, pesticides, plant health, 
maximum residue limits and animal health. For emergency notifications, the most frequent keywords in descending order are: animal heal th, animal diseases, regionalization, zoonoses, 
human health and food safety. 
4  RECENT EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRANSPARENT SYSTEM 
4.1.  In light of the steadily increasing volume of documents, managing the flow of notifications, 
coordinating at the national level, and benefiting from a transparent system has become a 
challenge for many Members. This is one of the areas where Members have sought technical 
assistance and guidance on best practices.
18 
4.2.  The SPS IMS was launched in October 2007 largely to address this issue. Its trilingual 
interface allows access to the most recent information on notifications as well as on Enquiry Points 
and National Notification Authorities. It also includes information on specific trade concerns and other SPS documents. It facilitates the conduct of  searches according to specific needs/interests 
and also the preparation of reports/summaries which can be shared with interested stakeholders. 
4.3.  Since 2011, the SPS NSS allows National Notification Authorities to fill out and submit SPS 
notifications online. The SPS NSS allows for more accurate and complete notifications, and a substantial reduction in the time required for th e WTO to circulate them. Interested Members may 
request login names and access passwords for their National Notification Authorities from the 
Secretariat. To date, 51 Members have requeste d access to the system, and 30 of these have 
officially submitted notifications via the SPS NSS 
4.4.  The WTO Secretariat provides training on  the SPS IMS and NSS as part of its technical 
assistance programmes. A transparency workshop in October 2012 provided highly interactive, 
"hands-on" training on the use of the SPS IMS and SPS NSS. 
4.5.  In addition, a practical Manual on the operat ion of Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities 
has been developed. It includes guidance on how to prepare a notification, how to manage 
incoming notifications, how to alert stakeholders, and how to draft some standard letters. The manual is available in English, French and Spanish. Hard copies can be requested from the WTO 
Secretariat and electronic copies can be downloaded from the SPS gateway of the WTO website.
19 
4.6.  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 
                                               
17 Each notification can have multiple  entries for the reasons for addenda. 
18 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. 
19 Go to http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e /sps_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm . G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.6 
 
- 13 - 
 
  level, as well as strengthening linkages between government agencies and the private sector. The 
STDF published a scoping study that identifies and assesses the myriad of regional SPS policy frameworks and strategies in Africa, in order to avoid multiplication of transparency requirements, 
and guide future work in this area.
20 The STDF also completed a study to examine national SPS 
coordination mechanisms in Africa as a means to identify factors that contribute to successful 
coordination and provide suggestions and guidan ce to support the further establishment and 
operation of SPS coordination mechanisms in the future.21 
5  OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO TRANSPARENCY 
5.1.  As indicated in the introduction, there are a number of areas where the Secretariat is not in a 
position to provide an overview. These in clude questions such as the following: 
a. To what extent are Members publishing a noti ce 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)) 
d. To what extent are Members providing comments on notifications, and to what extent 
are these taken into account? (Annex B, paragraph 5(d)) 
5.2.  These are areas where Members have occasi onally 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. 
__________ 
 
 
                                               
20 http://www.standardsfacility.org/Files/Publications/STDF_Regional_SPS_Stategies_in_Africa 
_EN.pdf  
21http://www.standardsfacility.org/Files/Publications/STDF_NationalSPSCoordinationMechanisms_EN.pdf