WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 
18 June 2007 
 (07-2572) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
 
ANALYSIS OF REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE OPERATION OF 
ENQUIRY POINTS AND NATIONAL NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Revision  
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The SPS Committee will hold its third special meeting on transparency provisions in 
October 2007.  The first two special meetings were held in November 1999 and October 2003.2 
2. Members have underlined the need to lay th e necessary groundwork in advance of this 
meeting with a view to making it a results-oriented and problem-solving workshop.   It is expected that 
the meeting will be attended by a large nu mber developing and least-developed country 
representatives thanks to the special funding arrang ements.  Therefore, it will be a good opportunity 
not only to exchange views but also to address and resolve more directly the concerns of Members 
with respect to the implementation of transparency obligations. 
3. To help prepare the special meeting, the SPS Committee asked the Secretariat to circulate a 
questionnaire regarding the difficulties Members face in the effective operation of Enquiry Points 
(EPs) and National Notification Authorities (NNAs).  The Secretariat distributed the questionnaire in 
December 2006, with a deadline for replies by the end of January 2007.3 
4. The first Note circulated by the Secretariat provi ded an analysis of the 50 replies received by 
mid-February and highlighted some notable issues.4  The Committee held a preliminary discussion of 
this Note during its informal  meeting on 27 February 2007.5  Those Members who had not responded 
to the questionnaire were invited to do so in order to  enable the Secretariat to prepare a revision of the 
Note in advance of the subseque nt meeting of the Committee.  
5. This Revision incorporates the eight additional replies that were received by mid-June.  
Overall, the current results reinfor ce the main tendencies that were evident in the first version of this 
Note.  More details are provided in the sections below. 
6. The replies themselves have not been circ ulated as WTO documents but they can be 
consulted either electronically through the SPS secti on of the WTO Members' Website (as agreed to 
by the Committee during its meeting in February 2007)  or in hard copy through the WTO Secretariat. 
                                                      
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. 
2 The reports of these meetings can be found  in G/SPS/R/16 and G/SPS/R/32 respectively. 
3 The questionnaire was circul ated as G/SPS/W/103/Rev.2. 
4 The Note was circulated as G/SPS/GEN/751. 
5 For a summary of that discussion, please see section IV of document G/SPS/R/44. G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  7. Members are invited to consider the main  issues emerging from the replies during the 
upcoming informal meeting on transparency to be held on 26 June 2007, with a view to providing inputs for the special meeting on transparency scheduled for 15 October 2007.   
8. It is hoped that the process of filling out the questionnaire has also led to further 
communication and reflections at the national level among relevant agencies, possibly going beyond 
the issues that are specifically c overed in the questionnaire.   
II. OVERVIEW OF REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 
9. A total of 58 replies to the questionnaire were received from Members and one Observer.
6  As 
can be seen in Figure 1, three of these replies ca me from least-developed country Members, 41 from 
developing and 14 from developed country Members. 
 
Figure 1. Development status of respondents to questionnaire
Developed
24%
Developing
71%LDC
5%
 
 
10. In terms of regional breakdown, as can be seen in  Figure 2, at least one reply was received 
from each of the seven regional categories, some of  which contain more Members than others.  More 
specifically, three replies were received from North America, 23 from South and Central America and 
the Caribbean, nine from Europe, two from the Co mmonwealth of Independent States (CIS), eight 
from Africa, one from the Middle East, and 12 from Asia. 
 
                                                      
6 See Attachment 1 for a full list of respondents.  G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Figure 2. Regional breakdown of respondents
North America
5%
South and Central America and 
the Caribbean
39%
Europe
16%CIS
3%Africa
14%The Middle East
2%Asia
21%
 
 
11. Overall, the issues that stand out can be summarized as follows: 
(a) There is a strong preference for enhanced interaction among EPs and NNAs for the 
purpose of exchanging informa tion and experiences more regularly and directly.  This 
could be accomplished through the creati on of a more close-knit "community", 
possibly using the Internet, and/or thro ugh twinning or mentoring arrangements and 
visits. 
(b) There is a strong interest in improving the services of EPs and NNAs, both in 
submitting notifications and in managing a nd responding to incoming notifications.  
To this effect, respondents are in search  of best-practices and well-established 
procedures that work, along with any accomp anying hardware and software tools. 
(c) There is a high level of information flow between the WTO and most EPs/NNAs, 
even if there is room for improvement.  The challenge sometimes seems to be with 
how to utilize the information available for specific purposes. 
(d) Respondents underline the need to raise aw areness regarding the benefits as well as 
obligations arising from transparency provi sions, both at the political level and with 
the private sector. 
(e) In terms of notifications procedure, some  respondents point to difficulties and delays 
in obtaining full texts or summaries of notified measures and would like to see the 
development of a procedure that might address this problem. 
(f) A large majority of respondents prefer th at Members notify "some" or "all" new or 
changed regulations, whether or not they ar e based on an international standard.  At 
the same time, some respondents point out the voluntary nature of such a possible step while others warn against generating an excessive number of notifications when 
Members are already struggling to keep up with current volumes. G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  (g) About a third of EPs do not seem to be in formed regularly of the development or 
adoption of international standards at Codex, the IPPC or the OIE.  The Committee may wish to take a closer look at this  problem and identify any steps to enhance 
information flow among the WTO EPs/NNAs, the three sisters, and their national contact points. 
(h) With respect to the provision of HS codes on notifications, the current practice seems 
to be very mixed while most respondents seem to favour more regular provision of 
HS codes, albeit with some caution.   
(i) As for the reasons behind the absence of any notifications under the Procedure to 
Enhance Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment adopted by the 
Committee (G/SPS/33), a significant number of respondents point to the difficulties 
developing country Members face in screen ing notifications, an issue the Committee 
may wish to dwell on further. 
 
III. DETAILS OF REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 
12. The questionnaire included 15 sections with a to tal of 43 questions, some of which invited 
further comment.  This section looks more closely at replies provided under each of the fifteen 
sections and is best read in conjunction w ith the questionnaire itself (G/SPS/W/103/Rev.2). 
13. Some of the questions required the responde nts to choose from a predetermined set of 
answers, which was not always possible for the r espondents due to their specific situations, i.e. 
multiple EPs, different procedures fo r food safety, animal health and plant health, EC member States, 
etc.  Some questions were open-ended.  Where feasibl e, a statistical analysis has been made of the 58 
sets of replies received and the main points emerging from the comments summarized. 
14. Under Section 1  on Contact Details, quite a few respondents provided modifications to their 
EP and NNA contact information contained in the mo st recent Secretariat documents (G/SPS/ENQ/20 
and G/SPS/NNA/10, both dated October 2006).  Member s should regularly inform the Secretariat of 
changes to their EPs and NNAs. 
15. Under Section 2  on Enquiry Points and National Notification Authorities, 29 respondents 
indicate that their EPs and NNAs are separate agenci es while 22 others indicate that they are under the 
same agency.  The remaining seven  respondents are EC member States.
7 
16. Under Sections 3 and 4 on Staff and Equipment – Enquiry Point/National Notification 
Authority , it has not been possible to come up with an  average figure as to how many staff dedicate 
their time to serving these two entities.  Some respondent s highlight that it is one of many tasks of the 
one or two staff responsible for Enquiry Point and/ or Notification Authority,  while others provide 
names of institutions.  In terms of computer fa cilities, e-mail and word processor seem to be 
commonly used by all respondents while internet use seems to be slightly less common (around 70 per cent).  More than half of the respon dents  indicate their use of a database. 
17. Under Section 5 on Notifications, 40 respondents indicate that the submission of 
notifications is part of their regular procedure fo r developing national SPS regulations while 13 others 
indicate that it is not.  As for the comment pe riod provided on notificati ons, 26 respondents confirm 
                                                     
 
 7 The European Communities provided further information on the operational procedures of the 
European Communities and its member States regarding transparency oblig ations under the SPS Agreement in 
document G/SPS/GEN/456. 
  G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  that it is determined by national regulatory proce dures while some of the others refer to the 60-day 
comment period provided for in the rele vant Committee decision (G/SPS/7/Rev.2). 
18. With respect to the provision of HS codes  on notifications, the current practice seems to be 
very mixed.  However, most respondents seem to fa vour more regular provision of HS codes, albeit 
with some caution.  Seven respondents indicate that they already provide HS codes on all of their 
notifications, 15 indicate that they sometimes provide  the HS codes, and twenty indicate that they 
currently do not provide HS cod es but could easily do so if requested.  Another seven indicate that 
they could not easily provide HS codes.  When asked whether they would find it useful if other 
Members provided HS codes on their notifications, 38 respondents reply in the affirmative and four in 
the negative with the others providing either no answer or a nuanced one.  Some point out the 
difficulty of providing HS codes while notifying hor izontal measures affecting additives or packaging, 
others indicate their concerns with increased work load and yet others indicate their preference for 
more precise description of coverage in words or  the provision of ICS codes instead.  The Committee 
may wish to take a closer look at this issue. 
19. Under Section 6 on International Standards, 41 respondents indicate that either the EP or 
the NNA (or both) is regularly informed of the deve lopment or adoption of international standards by 
Codex, OIE, and the IPPC.  For 16 others, this see ms not to be the case.  The Committee may wish to 
take a closer look at this question and identif y steps to enhance information flow among the WTO 
EPs/NNAs, the three referenced standard-setti ng bodies, and their national contact points. 
20. With respect to notifications, 12 respondents indicate that they only notify those regulations 
that are not based on  international standards , 29 indicate that they notify all new or changed 
regulations, whether or not they are based on an inte rnational standard and eight others indicate that 
they notify some regulations that are based on internati onal standards, if they are of particular interest 
to trading partners.  On the other hand, 44 responde nts show a preference for the notification by other 
Members of all new or changed regulations, whet her or not they are based on an international 
standard and two others prefer the notification of some regulations that are based on an international 
standard, if they are of particular interest to tr ading partners.  Nine respondents have a preference for 
notifying "only" those regulations that are not b ased on an international standard.  These respondents 
note the need to avoid an excessive number of notifi cations and to first ensure that Members comply 
with their obligations under Annex B.  The Comm ittee may wish to examine this question further. 
21. Under Section 7  on Handling Requests for Full Texts  of proposed and adopted regulations, 
21 respondents indicate that it is the EP, seven indicate that it is the NNA and 27 others indicate that it 
is both which have this responsibility.  In terms of having a complete inve ntory of proposed and 
adopted sanitary and phytosanitary regulations, 20 indi cate that their EP has an inventory, six indicate 
that their NNA has it and 13 indicate that both their EP and NNA have an inventory.  Fifteen other respondents indicate that they do not keep an inventory.  As for copies of full texts of proposed and adopted regulations, 20 indicate that their EP keeps them, five indicate that their NNA keeps them and 
17 others indicate that both entities keep them.  On the other hand, 13 respondents indicate that 
neither the EP nor the NNA keeps them.   
22. The specific sub-question with respect to prov iding summaries of SPS measures in one of the 
official languages of the WTO was not applicable to  many respondents as their working language was 
one of the three official languages of the WTO.  However, eight respondents indicate that they could not provide such summaries while six others c ould sometimes do it.  Considering the various 
comments made on the difficulties in obtaining full texts or summaries of notified measures, the 
Committee may wish to look into wa ys of facilitating access to these. 
23. Under Section 8 on Handling other Requests for Information , 33 respondents indicate that 
questions addressed to the EP are answered directly by the EP.  With respect to the time that it may G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
  take to respond to queries, the period indicated by  the respondents varies from one to 60 days, with a 
very rough estimate of about a week on average. 
24. Under Section 9  on Interagency Communication and Coordination , EPs of 51 respondents 
and NNAs of 46 respondents are described as having re gular contact with officials in the relevant 
ministries.   
25. Under Section 10 on SPS Documents/Committee Meetings , almost all respondents indicate 
that their EP receives other Members' SPS notificatio ns.  Forty-two indicate that their EP receives the 
monthly summary of notifications (which seems to be highly appreciated by Members) and 41 
indicate that they receive copies of other SPS doc uments.  Twenty-six EP representatives follow the 
work of the SPS Committee by attending the SPS Committee meetings while 20 others follow it 
through other means.  Nine EPs seem not to be fo llowing the Committee at all.  As for contacts with 
EP of other Members,  27 indicate that they have regular contact while 26 indicate that they do not.  In ten cases, neither the EP nor the NNA has a copy of the WTO Handbook on Transparency.  
Overall, in light of these results and of comments co mplementing the replies, it would seem that there 
is a good level of information flow even if there is room for improvement.  The challenge seems to be 
to utilize the information available for specific purposes.  The complementary comments indicate a 
strong preference for establishing stronger links among EPs/NNAs, either through the creation of a community, possibly using an internet forum and/ or through establishing twinning or mentoring 
arrangements. 
26. Under Section 11  on Other Services , 16 respondents indicate that their EP regularly provides 
information about other countries' import require ments to domestic producers/exporters while 25 
others indicate that they do so when requested.  For 16 others, this service does not seem to be 
provided.  As for providing comments on other Members' SPS notifications, only 24 EPs seem to be 
involved in this exercise.  With respect to the provision of information about national import 
requirements to national producers/importers/experts,  16 EPs are described as doing it regularly, 28 
upon request and 11 not at all.  In about half the case s, the EP is described as providing other services, 
such as serving as a contact point for the Codex, OIE or IPPC. 
27. Under Section 12 on Technical Assistance , 18 respondents, including a number of 
developing countries, indicate that they provide technical assistance to EPs and/or NNAs.  A total of 39 respondents, including developing countries and one LDC, indicate their willingness to provide 
technical assistance.  With respect to identifyi ng specific technical assistan ce needs, 30 respondents 
indicate that they have done so while almost an  equal number have not.  In terms of requesting 
technical assistance, 12 have requested and received technical assistance, five have requested but not 
received it, seven have received but not requested it  and 32 (including 14 de veloped countries) have 
neither requested nor received assistance.  Expectations from technical assistance include the following:  how to notify and how to manage in coming notifications, guidance on best-practices, 
visits to other EPs, twinning with other EPs, enhanced intra-EP communication, exchange of 
experiences, prior needs assessment, IT tools such  as computers and databases, awareness-raising, 
clarification of SPS vs. TBT measures, and risk analysis. 
28. Under Section 13 on Special and Differential Treatment , 50 respondents indicate that they 
are aware of the Procedure to Enhance Transparency  of Special and Differential Treatment in Favour 
of Developing Country Members (G/SPS/33).  As for the reasons why no notifications have been received under the new procedure, 30 respondents indicate that developing country Members are 
unable to screen incoming notifications quickly enough, while another 18 indicate that developing 
country Members are using other channels to request special and differential treatment.  Four suggest 
that the procedure is being used but not being notified.  Considering the past efforts of the SPS Committee in adopting the relevant decision and the significant number of respondents pointing to the  G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  difficulties of developing country Members in scre ening notifications, the Committee may wish to 
discuss this matter further.  
29. Under Section 14 on Equivalence , 49 respondents indicate that they are aware of the 
Committee's Decision on Notification of Determ ination of the Recognition of Equivalence 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.2/Add.1).  With respect to the possi ble reasons for the lack of any notification of 
determination of equivalence, the replies are very mixed, and not limited to the options indicated in 
the questionnaire.  13 respondents suggest that the Decision is being used but not being notified, 21 
are of the view that Members are using mechanis ms other than equivalence to obtain market access 
and 21 believe that Members are unable to reach agreement on the recognition of equivalence in 
practice.  A number of respondents make referen ce to regional trade agreements as facilitating 
equivalence. G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
  ATTACHMENT I 
 
LIST OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 
 
1 Argentina 
2 Armenia 
3 Australia 
4 Austria 
5 Belarus (Observer) 
6 Belize 
7 Benin 
8 Brazil 
9 Cameroon 
10 Canada 
11 Chile 
12 China 
13 Colombia 
14 Costa Rica 
15 Cuba 
16 Czech Republic 
17 Dominica 
18 Dominican Republic 
19 Egypt 
20 El Salvador 
21 European Communities 
22 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
23 Germany 
24 Grenada 
25 Guatemala 
26 Guyana 
27 Honduras 
28 Hong Kong, China 
29 India 
30 Italy 
31 Jamaica 
32 Japan 
33 Kenya 
34 Korea, Republic of 
35 Macao, China 
36 Mauritius 
37 Mexico 
38 Morocco 
39 Nepal 
40 Netherlands 
41 New Zealand 
42 Niger 
43 Pakistan 
44 Panama 
45 Paraguay 
46 Peru 
47 Philippines 
48 Saint Kitts and Nevis 
49 Saint Lucia 
50 Saint Vincent an d the Grenadines 
51 Slovak Republic  G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  52 South Africa 
53 Spain 
54 Chinese Taipei 
55 Trinidad and Tobago 
56 United States 
57 Uruguay 
58 Unidentified Golf Cooperation Council Member 
 
  
__________