G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8  
 
7 October 2015  
(15-5222)  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 ....................................................................................................... 7  
3.4   Regions/count ries affected .......................................................................................... 8  
3.5   Objective and rationale .............................................................................................. 8  
3.6   International standards, gu idelines or reco mmendations ................................................. 9  
3.7   Proposed date of adopti on/publication/entr y into force ................................................... 10 
3.8   Final date  for co mments ............................................................................................ 11 
3.9   Reasons for addenda to regu lar and emergency notifications .......................................... 12 
4   NOTIFICATION KEYWORDS ....................................................................................... 12  
5   EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRANSPARENT SYSTEM ..................... 13  
6   OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO TRANSPARENCY ........................................................ 14  
 
 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1.  Since the October 2007 workshop on transparency, the Secretariat has been requested to 
prepare an annual overview of the implementati on 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.  Since this year the WTO is celebrating its 20-year anniversary, charts and statistics reflect 
information from 1995 until 2015, when possible. 
1.3.  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. 
1.4.  Revised Recommended Procedures for Impl ementing the Transparency 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 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 Members, e.g. regarding conformity with 
international standards, comment periods, and the period between the publication and entry into 
force of new regulations. 
1.5.  The 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) assists Members to  be more precise in their notifications, and 
speeds up the processing and circulation of notifications to all Members.5 
1.6.  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 Notifica tion Authority". As of 15 September 2015, 
153 WTO Members out of 161 had designated such an agency. Those which have not include five least-developed countries (LDCs) and three developing countries.
6 It should be noted that while 
the number of countries which do not have this authority remained the same as last year, some 
changes occurred with Guinea designating an SPS Notification Authority, while the new WTO Member Seychelles entered the list of those without an authority. 
                                               
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. 5.3. for more information. 
6 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 grou ps" on the left-hand side menu bar. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8 
 
- 3 - 
 
  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 2015, 157 WTO Memb ers out of 161, two more than the previous 
year, had provided the WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point.7 Those which have 
not include three LDCs and one developing country. 29 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 
Recommended Transparency Procedures, 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. 
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.
8 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 2015, Members had submitted
9 12,771 regular notifications, 
1,725 emergency notifications, and 4,545 addenda and corrigenda to regular and emergency 
notifications. For the past year (15 September 2014 through 15 September 2015), Members 
submitted a total of 1,761 notifications, of which 1,167 regular notifications, 138 emergency notifications, 455 addenda and corrigenda to  regular and emergency notifications and one 
supplement. 
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 2015, 19 supplement notifications had been circulated. Only one was submitted in 
2015. 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 248 supplement 
notifications, although only four new 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 2015, there have only been two equivalence 
notifications circulated, one from Panama in 2007 and another from the Dominican Republic in 2008. There have been no new equivalence notifications circulated by WTO Members since 2008. 
3.6.  Considering all types of notifications togeth er, a total of 19,062 notifications were submitted 
to the WTO from 1 January 1995 to 15 September 201 5. As can be seen in Chart 1, there has 
been a general upward trend in the number of noti fications over the past 20 years, although since 
the peak of 1,410 notifications in 2010, there has been a slight decline for the years 2011-2013. 
                                               
7 These Members are Chad and Montenegro. 
8 See the Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) for further elaboration on the 
different types of notifications. 
9 For this Note, submission refers  to the date of circulation. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8 
 
- 4 - 
 
  In 2014, however, the number of notifications reached a new peak of 1,633. The number of 
notifications continues to be on the rise in 2015,  with 276 more notifications made for the period 
from mid-September 2014 through mid-September 2015 than for the same period in the previous 
year. 
Chart 1 – Notifications submitted per year 
 
 
3.2  Notifying Members 
3.7.  As of 15 September 2015, 119 Members out of 161 (69%) had submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO. Members which have not submitted any notification so far include 
15 developing countries, 17 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 
                                               
10 See G/SPS/GEN/456 for notification procedures for the European Union and its member States. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Chart 2 – Notifications by Developing  Country Members (including LDCs) 
 
 
3.8.   Chart 2 shows the steady increase of no tifications from developing countries (including 
LDCs) since 1995. 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 2011-2013. Despite 
this, a new peak was reached in 2014, for the first time surpassing the 1,000 mark. The share of 
notifications by developing countries has varied somewhat since 1995 (see Chart 3). It has consistently been higher than 50% since 2007, reaching its highest peak of 68% in 2009. Although this percentage has declined somewhat since then, in 2012 it began to steadily increase again and 
continues to be on the rise in 2015. From mid-September 2014 through mid-September 2015, 
developing countries made up a 7.5% larger share of  total notifications than for the same period in 
the previous year. The share of notifications from LDCs has never been higher than its 2.1% peak 
in 2013, though for the year 2015 through mid-September this share has risen to 1.4%, which in 
nominal terms represents an increase from 10 to 18 notifications from the previous year. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Chart 3 – Share of Total Notifications Submitted by Developing Country Members 
(including LDCs) 
 
 
3.9.  Looking at the geographic regions from whic h the notifications originate, Chart 4 shows that 
over the past 20 years 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 from 1995 to mid-September 2015 
 
 
3.10.  The Members which have submitted the gr eatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 15 September 2015, are listed in Table 1, while the Members that have submitted the greatest number of notifications in the past year (15 September 2014 to 
15 September 2015) are listed in Table 2. 
                                               
11 The geographical groupings used rely on WTO work ing definitions as identified in the Integrated 
Database (IDB) for analytical purposes ( idb@wto.org ). The same groupings are used in the WTO Annual 
Reports. They can be consulted through the SPS IMS by clic king on "definitions of groups" on the left-hand side 
menu bar. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8 
 
- 7 - 
 
  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 of 
America 2,695  21%  Philippines 180  10% 
China 1,115  9%  Albania 160  10% 
Brazil 1,083  8%  New Zealand 113  7% 
Canada 963  8%  United States of 
America 83  5% 
Peru 555  4%  Colombia 76  5% 
European Union 496  4%  Ukraine 72  4% 
Korea, Republic of 496  4%  European Union 64  4% 
Chile 479  4%  Peru 63  4% 
Japan 412  3%  Russian Federation 53  3% 
New Zealand 412  3%  Thailand 45  2% 
Chinese Taipei 370  3%  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of 41  2% 
Australia 341  3%  United Arab Emirates 41  2% 
Mexico 255  2%  Chile 37  2% 
Thailand 197  2%  Mexico 37  2% 
Colombia 184  1%  Canada 32  2% 
 
Table 2. Members which have submitted th e most notifications in the past year 
(15 September 2014 – 15 September 2015) 
Regular Notifications  Emergency Notifications 
Member Number of 
notifications Share 
of Total Member Number of 
notifications Share 
of Total  
China 320  27%  Philippines 26  19% 
Brazil 91  8%  Russian Federation 16  12% 
Canada 83  7%  United Arab Emirates 16  12% 
United States of 
America 83  7%  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of 15  11% 
Japan 63  5%  Jordan 8  6% 
Peru 59  5%  Chinese Taipei 6  4% 
European Union 46  4%  Costa Rica 6  4% 
Chinese Taipei 39  3%  Albania 4  3% 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of 36  3%  Morocco 4  3% 
Korea, Republic of 31  3%  New Zealand 3  2% 
 
3.3  Products covered 
3.11.  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 provide the relevant HS codes. Most Members have indicated they would welcome th e 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 the 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.8 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Table 3. HS Codes assigned to notifications 
Regular notifications 
 
HS 
Code Description Number Share of 
Total 
(06) Live trees and other plants 1,159 10% 
(02) Meat and edible meat offal 1,116 10% 
(01) Live animals 987 9% 
(04) Dairy produce, birds' eggs, natural honey, edible 
products of origin not elsewhere specified or included 884 8% 
(08) Edible fruit and nuts, peel of  citrus fruit or melons  843 8% 
 
Emergency notifications 
 
HS 
Code Description Number Share of 
Total 
(01) Live animals  973 25% 
(02) Meat and edible meat offal 970 25% 
(04) Dairy produce, birds' eggs, natural honey, edible 
products of origin not elsewhere specified or included 579 15% 
(05) Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or 
included 436 11% 
(23) Residues and waste from the food industries, prepared 
animal fodder 241 6% 
 
3.4  Regions/countries affected 
3.14.  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 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 2014 and 
15 September 2015 indicates that 14% of regular noti fications have identified a specific group of 
countries or a region, while 86% of regular notifications have selected the tick box for "all trading 
partners". In contrast, 88% of emergency notifications have identified a specific group of countries or a region, and only 12% 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 Members may be hesitant to specifically identify potentially affected countries or regions for fear of not accurately assessing who might be affected when submitting notifications. 
3.5  Objective and rationale 
3.17.  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 co rrespond 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.8 
 
- 9 - 
 
  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 
2014 - 15 September 2015 
Regular Notifications   
 Notifications Share 
Food Safety 919 64% 
Plant Protection 191 13% 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease 144 10% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests 98 7% 
Animal Health 87 6% 
Emergency Notifications   
 Notifications Share 
Animal Health 90 41% 
Protect humans from animal/plant pest or disease 54 25% 
Food Safety 52 24% 
Plant Protection 24 11% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests 0 0% 
 
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 Recommended Transparency Pr ocedures 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 al so 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 2014 to 15 September 
2015, 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, while 36% have referred to Codex, 12% to the IPPC and 5% to the OIE. 
3.22.  When it comes to emergency notification for the same period, Chart 6 shows that only 5% 
of emergency notifications have not identified an international standard as being relevant to the 
measure being notified, whereas 74%, 18% and 3% have referred to the OIE, IPPC and Codex respectively as having a relevant international standard. It is reassuring 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 international standard 
 G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8 
 
- 10 - 
 
   
Chart 6 - Emergency Notifications referrin g to a relevant international standard 
 
 
3.23.  The notification formats include an entry asking whether the proposed regulation conforms 
to the relevant international standard. During the period from 15 September 2014 to 15 September 2015, of the 53% of regular notifications identifying a relevant international 
standard regarding the measure, 64% indicated th at the proposed regulation conformed to that 
relevant international standard. For the same period, of the 95% of emergency notifications identifying a relevant international standard, 99% have indicated that the proposed regulation 
conformed to the relevant international standard. 
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 oblig ed 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 regular notification format contained in the Recommended 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 2014 through 15 September 2015, 21% (243) of regular 
notifications included a specific date for adoption, 18% (214) for publication, and 21% (249) 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 59 regular notifications 
(5%) 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, 44% 
(107) indicated a delay between the date of distribu tion and the proposed date of entry into force 
that averaged 119 days. This average masks a very wide range, as the periods in the notifications 
varied from 1 to 1,092 days. Furthermore, more than half of the notifications, 51% (126), 
indicated a date of entry into force prior to the date of document distribution, and 49% (62) of 
these concerned measures were identified as trade facilitating. 
                                               
14 WT/MIN(01)/17. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8 
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.28.  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 15 September 2014 to 15 September 2015, around 61% 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 
Recommended Transparency Procedures state that a 60-day comment period should be provided with respect to regular notifications. Where dome stic 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 o ffer a checkbox option for such a 60-day comment 
period to encourage Members to follow this recommendation.
15 Between 15 September 2014 and 
15 September 2015 this checkbox was selected in 58% (680) of regular notifications. 
3.30.  An analysis of the notifications issued during the period from 15 September 2014 through 
15 September 2015 shows that around 17% of notifications have not provided a comment period (see Table 5). For those that do provide comment pe riods, these average 55 days when calculated 
as the difference between the date of circulation of the notification and the final date for 
comments. On average, developed and developi ng country Members provided similar average 
comment periods (57 and 55 days respectively). These numbers are within the same range as those for the same period last year, which is reflected in the average comment period for all 
members (55 this year compar ed to 56 the year before). 
Table 5. Comment period provided in re gular notifications (15 September 2014 – 
15 September 2015) 
All Members 
 No. Share 
No. of regular notifications 1,167 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available 201 17% 
Comment period ends before distribution date 5 0.4% 
Comment period available 967 83% 
Average comment period  55 
Developed country Members 
 No. Share 
No. of regular notifications 312 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available 92 29% 
Comment period ends before distribution date 1 0.3% 
Comment period available 220 71% 
Average comment period 57 
Developing country Members 
 No. Share 
No. of regular notifications 855 - 
Comment period not indicated/not available 109 13% 
Comment period ends before distribution date 4 0.5% 
Comment period available 746 87% 
Average comment period 55 
 
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 notification format includes a tick box for specifying whether the 
notification concerns a trade facilitating measure. From 15 September 2013 through 15 September 
2014, 19% 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 expect ed for this category of measures. 
                                               
15 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 13. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8 
 
- 12 - 
 
  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 2014 through 15 September 2015, around 88% of all 
notifications (91% of regular and 70% of emergency 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.  According to the 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 15 September 2014 to 15 September 2015: 
Table 6. Reasons for addenda
17 
Reason for addenda: No. Share 
Notification of adoption, publication, or entry into force of regulation  270  61% 
Modification of content and/or scope of  previously notified draft regulation  90  20% 
Other: provide brief description  40  9% 
Modification of final date for comments   32  7% 
Withdrawal of proposed regulation   9  2% 
Other  3  1% 
 
4  NOTIFICATION KEYWORDS 
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, etc. 
4.2.  As shown in Table 7, the keywords which have been most frequently assigned to regular 
notifications, in descending order for the past year , are: human health, food safety, food additives, 
pesticides and maximum residue limits (MRLs). For emergency notifications, the most frequent 
keywords in descending order are: animal health, animal diseases, pest or disease free regions, avian influenza and zoonoses. It must be noted, ho wever, that the majority of the notifications are 
assigned more than one keyword. Therefore, th e table below specifies the total number of times 
the specific keyword was assigned, regardless of whether this objective was specifically identified 
in the notification itself. 
                                               
16 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 22 and Annex C. 
17 Each notification can have multiple  entries for the reasons for addenda. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Table 7. "Keywords" of notified SPS measur es in the period between 15 September 2014 
- 15 September 2015 
Regular Notifications  
 Notifications 
Human health 927 
Food safety 921 
Food additives 341 
Pesticides 281 
Maximum residue limits (MRLs) 264 
Plant health 217 
Pests 192 
Territory protection 98 
Animal health 89 
Contaminants 67 
Emergency Notifications  
 Notifications  
Animal health 85 
Animal diseases 96 
Pest or Disease free Regions 77 
Avian Influenza 70 
Zoonoses 69 
Human health 54 
Food safety 51 
Plant health 25 
Pests 23 
Territory protection 14 
 
5  EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRANSPARENT SYSTEM 
5.1.  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 is a challenge for many Members. This is one of the areas where Members have sought technical assistance and guidance on best practices.
18 
5.2.  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. 
5.3.  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.
19 To date, 66 Members have requested access to the system, and 37 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. A transparency workshop in October 2012 provided highly interactive, 
"hands-on" training on the use of the SPS IMS an d SPS NSS, and another such workshop will be 
held in October 2015. 
5.5.  In addition, a practical Manual on the operat ion 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. The manual is available in English, 
                                               
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 Two different user names and 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 en ter information and review the draft notification.
 G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8 
 
- 14 - 
 
  French and Spanish. Hard copies can be requeste d from the WTO Secretariat and electronic copies 
can be downloaded from the SPS gateway of the WTO website.20 
5.6.  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 
level, as well as strengthening linkages between government agencies and the private sector. In 
2011, the STDF developed a decision support tool named SPS Market Access Prioritization (MAP).21 
This tool, based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), helps countries prioritize and make 
choices between competing SPS capacity building needs in the context of resource constraints. 
SPS-MAP has been applied in over 10 countries and has been very successful in promoting and 
creating linkages between the public and private sector. In 2012, the STDF 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 guidance to support the further 
establishment and operation of SPS coordination mechanisms in the future.
22 
6  OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO TRANSPARENCY 
6.1.  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)) 
6.2.  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 The Procedural Step-by-step Manual for SPS Nation al Notifications Authorities & National Enquiry 
Points can be downloaded from: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_ e/sps_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm . 
21 http://www.standardsfacility.org/sps-market-access-prioritization . 
22 http://www.standardsfacili ty.org/stdf-publications.