WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
20 October 2009 
 (09-5170) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures   
  
 
 
OVERVIEW REGARDING THE LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Revision  
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In October 2007, the Secretariat circulated a background document (G/SPS/GEN/804) 
providing an overview regarding the level of implem entation of the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement.  This document was intended to assist Members in their deliberations during the 
special workshop on transparency held in Octobe r 2007 and also during the Committee's discussions 
under the agenda item on transparency.  As one  of the recommendations of the workshop on 
transparency was for the Secretaria t to circulate such an overview on a regular basis, the Secretariat 
has prepared this third and updated document.2 
2. The document provides an overview regardi ng the level of implementation of the 
transparency obligations found in the SPS Agreement (Article 7 and Annex B)  and of the Committee's 
Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Tran sparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.3).  It provides information in areas wh ich the Secretariat is in a position to track (such 
as designation of Enquiry Points/Notification Author ities, circulation of notifications) but does not 
include those where the Secretariat is not directly involved (such as provision of comments on specific notifications). 
3. In preparing this overview, the Secretaria t has largely relied on the SPS Information 
Management System (SPS IMS), the public ve rsion of which was launched and presented in 
October 2007 during the transparency workshop.
3  While some historical data on notifications dating 
back to 1995 has been retrieved from various inte rnal resources and incorporated into the SPS IMS, 
some of the more detailed analysis has only been possible for the period as of June 2007, when the 
internal version of the SPS IMS became operational.  Unless otherwise indicated, the analysis covers 
the period up until 31 August 2009.  Most of the analysis contained in this document can be 
undertaken and updated directly by Members or othe r interested parties as the underlying data is 
publicly available and searchable through the SPS IMS. 
4. At its meeting of April 2008, the SPS Committee adopted the revised Recommended 
Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Ob ligations of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3, 
                                                      
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 See G/SPS/R/47, para.44 for the recommendations arising from the workshop on transparency. 
3 http://spsims.wto.org  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
Page 2  
 
  hereafter the "2008 Transparency Procedures"), which  took effect on 1 December 2008.
4  Compared 
to the earlier version of the transparency proce dures, which had been adopted by the Committee in 
2002,  the 2008 Transparency Procedures include inter alia  revised notification formats which aim to 
facilitate the provision of clearer and more specif ic information regarding new or modified SPS 
measures by Members, e.g. regarding conformity wi th international standards and the period between 
the publication and entry into force of new regulati ons.  As a result, this year's overview document 
includes some new figures covering the period si nce 1 December 2008.  However, it will only be 
possible to track some trends over time once the re vised formats have been operational for several 
years. 
5. It should also be noted that there is still r oom for improvement regarding the actual amount 
and quality of information provided by Members in th e various notification formats.  This issue could 
be taken up as one of the themes during the ne xt transparency works hop of the SPS Committee, 
scheduled for October 2010.   
II. DESIGNATION OF NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS 
6. Annex B, paragraph 9, of the SPS Agreement obliges Members to designate a single central 
government authority as responsible for the implemen tation of notification procedures.  This agency 
is also referred to as the "SPS Notification Author ity".  As of October 2009, 135 WTO Members out 
of 153, i.e. two more than last year, had designa ted an "SPS Notification Authority".  Those which 
have not include ten least developed countries (LDCs) and eight developing countries.5 
7. Annex B, paragraph 3, of the SPS Agreement re quires that each Member establish an Enquiry 
Point responsible for the provision of answers to all reasonable questions and of relevant documents.  
As of October 2009, 144 WTO Members out of 153, i.e two more than last year, had provided the 
WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point.  Those which have not include eight LDCs and one developing country.
6 
III. SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS 
8. Under the SPS Agreement, notifications are used to inform other Members about new or 
changed regulations that may significantly affect tr ade.  Annex B, paragraphs 5 to 8, as well as the 
2008 Transparency Procedures, elaborate on the notif ication procedures Members are to follow.  For 
ease of reference, the specific sub-topics highlight ed below follow the order of items that are 
contained in the regular and emergency notification formats. 
Types of notifications 
9. The two main types of notifications are regular notifications and emergency notifications.  In 
addition, addenda, corrigenda, revisions or supplemen ts can be issued subsequent to an original 
                                                      
4 See also footnote 4 of G/SPS/7/Rev.3 requesting the Secretariat to provide an annual report on the 
level of implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement and of the recommended 
transparency procedures. 
5 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the WTO's 
Integrated Database (IDB) for analy tical purposes.  They can be consulte d through the SPS IMS by clicking on 
"definitions of groups" on the left-hand side menu bar.   See G/SPS/NNA/15 for the latest list of Notification 
Authorities circulated as an official document by the WTO Secretariat in October 2009.  The most up-to-date 
information on Members' notification author ities can be accessed through the SPS IMS. 
6 See G/SPS/ENQ/25 for the latest list of Enquiry Poin ts circulated as an official document by the 
WTO Secretariat in October 2009.  The most up-to-dat e information on Members' Enquiry Points can be 
accessed through the SPS IMS.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  regular or emergency notification.7  An addendum is used to provide additional information or 
changes to an original notification, for example if  the products covered by the proposed regulation has 
been modified or if the comment period has been ex tended.  A corrigendum is used to correct an error 
in an original notification such as an incorrect addr ess detail.  A revision is used to replace an existing 
notification, for example if a notified draft regulatio n was substantially redrafted or if a notification 
contained a large number of errors. 
10. As of 31 August 2009, Members had submitted 7, 060 regular notifications, 1,150 emergency 
notifications, and 2,306 addenda and corrigenda  to regular and emergency notifications. 
11. In April 2004, the Secretariat est ablished a mechanism for Member s to inform each other of 
the availability of unofficial translations of notifie d SPS measures into one of the official languages of 
the WTO.  These are submitted in the form of supplem ents to the original notification.  As of 31 
August 2009, 14 supplement notifica tions had been circulated, two of which were submitted during 
the past year. It is interesting to note that the id entical mechanism for sharing translations of notified 
TBT regulations, which was launched in January 2008, has already resulted in 179 supplement 
notifications.  Members may wish to discuss why th ere have not been more supplement notifications 
in the SPS area.  
12. In addition, the SPS Committee adopted a spec ial format and recommended procedures for 
the notification of determination of the recogniti on of equivalence of sanitary or phytosanitary 
measures.  As of 31 August 2009, two equivalence no tifications were circulated, one from Panama in 
2007 and another from the Dominican Republic in 2008. 
13. Considering all types of notifications together, a total of 10,532 notifications were submitted 
to the WTO between 1 January 1995 and 31 August 2009.  As can be seen in Figure 1, there has been 
an upward trend in the number of notifications over the years, with the total number of notifications 
reaching 1,273 for the year 2008. 
Figure 1 
Notifications Submitted per Year
0200400600800100012001400
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
(August )
Regular Notification Addenda/Corrigenda Emergency Notification
 
                                                      
7 See the Recommended Procedures  for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS 
Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3) for further elabora tion on the different ty pes of notifications. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
Page 4  
 
  14. While the increase in notifications could be re garded as a sign of enhanced transparency, it 
should be kept in mind that these statistics on notif ications do not necessarily provide an indication of 
the extent to which new or changed SPS me asures are indeed being notified to the WTO.  
Notifying Members 
15. As of October 2009, 101 Members out of 153 (66 per cent) have submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO.  This figure was 98 in October 2008, meaning that three additional Members 
(Former Yugoslav Republic of M acedonia, Swaziland, and Ukraine) have submitted at least one 
notification during the past year.  Members which ha ve not submitted any notification so far include 
20 developing countries and 23 LDCs as we ll as a number of EC member states.
8 
16. As can be seen in Figure 2, the share of notifications submitted by developed country 
Members reaches 54 per cent while the share of thos e by developing country Members is 45 per cent.  
A very small share comes from LDCs.  Compared to last year, the share of notifications from developing countries has increased by two per cent wh ile the share from LDCs has remained constant. 
As can be seen in Figure 3, there has been a stea dy increase in notifications from developing country 
Members over the years.  
Figure 2 
Development Status of Notif ying Mem ber s 
as of 31 August 2009
53.81%45.83%0.36%
Developed Developing Least Developed
 
 
 
 
   
                                                     
 
8 See G/SPS/GEN/456 for notification procedures for the European Communities and its member 
States.   G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Figure 3  
Notifications by Developing Countries per Year
0100200300400500600700800
1 995 1 996 1 997 1 998 1 999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009(Aug)No. of Notifications
Regular Emergency Addenda/Corrigenda 
17. Looking at the geographic regions from which the notifications originate, Figure 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.
9 
Figure 4 
Notifications by Geographical Region
NA
SA, CA and the 
Caribbean
CISMiddle East
AfricaAsia
Europe
05001000150020002500300035004000
 
 
                                                      
9 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's Annual Reports.  They can 
be consulted through the SPS IMS by clicking on "def initions of groups" on the left-hand side menu bar. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
Page 6  
 
  18. The Members which have submitted the greatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 31 August 2009, are listed in Table 1: 
Table 1.  Members which have submitted the most notifications 
No. Member No. of 
Notifications Share of Total 
1 United States 1,949 23.74% 
2 Brazil 579 7.05% 
3 New Zealand 437 5.32% 
4 Canada 434 5.29% 
5 European 
Communities 363 4.42% 
6 Republic of Korea 347 4.23% 
7 Chile 311 3.79% 
8 China 262 3.19% 
9 Peru 241 2.94% 
10 Australia 238 2.90% 
11 Japan 234 2.85% 
12 Mexico 221 2.69% 
13 Thailand 187 2.28% 
14 Taipei, Chinese 180 2.19% 
15 Colombia 179 2.18% 
16 Philippines 166 2.02% 
17 Argentina 133 1.62% 
18 Albania 122 1.49% 
19 El Salvador 89 1.08% 
20 Costa Rica 84 1.02% 
 
Products covered 
19. 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 relevant HS codes.  While most notifications indicate 
the products to be covered, about a half provide specifi c HS codes.  It is interesting to note, however, 
that most Members have indicated they would welcome the provision of these codes by their trading 
partners.10 
20. Nonetheless, since 1995 the WTO's Central Re gistry of Notifications (CRN) has been 
assigning, to the extent possible, the relevant HS codes for all notifications.11  While being only 
indicative, an assessment at the two-digit level refl ected in Table 2 shows that the products covered by 
regular and emergency notifications most often fall under the following categories: 
 
                                                      
10 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 fu rther elaboration on this point. 
11 This information is now available in the SPS IMS.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Table 2.  HS Codes assigned to notifications 
 
Regular notifications 
HS 
Code Description Share of total 
(38) miscellaneous chemical products (in particular pesticides) 29% 
(06) live trees and other plants; bulbs, ro ots and the like; cut flowers and 
ornamental foliage   5% 
(02) meat and edible meat offal 5% 
(07) edible vegetables and certain rubes and tubers 4% 
   
Emergency notifications 
HS 
Code Description Share of total 
(02) meat and edible meat offal 21% 
(04) dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal 
origin, not elsewhere specified or included 21% 
(01) live animals 19% 
(05) Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included 13% 
 
Regions/countries affected 
21. The 2008 Transparency Procedures also call on Me mbers to identify the regions or countries 
which are most likely to be affected by the measure  being notified.  An assessment of the regular and 
emergency notifications submitted from June 2007 through August 2009 indicate that only 27 per cent 
have identified a specific group of countries or a re gion, while others contain general references such 
as "all trading partners", "all countries", etc.  So me three per cent of all regular and emergency 
notifications have left this box blank. 
22. The 2008 Transparency Procedures include a modified data entry option for this item 
whereby Members are invited to either select th e tick box for "all trading partners" or provide 
information on specific regions or countries likely to be affected.  From December 2008 through 
August 2009, 82 per cent of regular notifications have selected the tick box for "all trading partners", 
while the share is only 16 per cent for emergency notif ications.  This can be expected as emergency 
notifications are frequently taken in response to  disease outbreaks in specific countries or regions. 
23. On the one hand, the work of other Members would be facilitated if more specificity was 
provided by notifying Members on regions or countries likely to be affected.  On the other hand, 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. 
Objective and rationale 
24. In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of  Annex B of the SPS Agreement and the 2008 
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. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
Page 8  
 
  25. Table 3 indicates the total number and share of each objective as cited in regular and 
emergency notifications.  It must be noted, however , that many notifications identify more than one 
objective.  Therefore, the table below specifies th e total number of times the specific objective was 
assigned regardless of whether the notifi cations had multiple entries or not. 
26. For regular notifications, the most frequently cited objective is food safety while for 
emergency notifications, it is animal health.  
Table 3. "Objectives" of notified SPS measures (June 2007-August 2009)  
Regular notifications 
  Total number Share over 27 month 
period 
Food Safety 1068 35.6% 
Animal Health 369 12.3% 
Plant Protection 649 21.6% 
Protect humans from animal / plant 
pest or disease 698 23.3% 
Protect territory from other damage 
from pests 218 7.3% 
Emergency notifications 
  Total number Share over 27 month 
period 
Food Safety 119 23.4% 
Animal Health 177 34.8% 
Plant Protection 47 9.2% 
Protect humans from animal / plant 
pest or disease 133 26.1% 
Protect territory from other damage 
from pests 33 6.5% 
 
International standards, guidelines or recommendations 
27. The SPS Agreement does not require Members to notify a measure if its content is 
substantially the same as that of an international standard adopted by Codex, IPPC, or the OIE.  
Nonetheless, the 2008 Transparency Procedures encour age 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 si gnificant 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.   
28. With respect to regular notifications circulated from June 2007 through August 2009, Figure 
5 indicates that in 57 per cent of the cases, Members have not identified an international standard as 
being relevant to the new measur e being notified.  Of the remaining 43 per cent, 17 per cent have 
referred to Codex, 13 per cent to the OIE, and 13  per cent to the IPPC.  Still, there have been  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
 Page 9 
 
 
  exceptions.  For example, more than 90 notific ations relating to IPPC's ISPM 15 have been 
circulated.12 
29. At the same time, Figure 6 shows that for the same 27-month period, only 19 per cent of 
emergency notifications have not  identified an international standa rd as being relevant to the measure 
being notified, while 64 per cent have referred to th e OIE as having a relevant international standard. 
Figure 5 
Regular Notifcations Referring to a Relevant 
International Standard
Codex 
17%
IPPC
13%
OIE
13%None
57%
 
Figure 6 
Emergency Notifcations Referring to a Relevant 
International Standard
Codex 
7% IPPC
14%
OIE
64%None
15%
 
30. The revised notification format includes a new entry asking whether the proposed regulation 
conforms to the relevant international standa rd.  During the period from December 2008 through 
August 2009, 47 per cent of regular notifications have  stated that there is a relevant international 
standard and of these 71 per cent have indicated that  the proposed regulation conforms to the relevant 
international standard.  For the same period,  55 pe r cent of emergency notifications have stated that 
                                                      
12 The IPPC International Standard for Phytosan itary Measures (ISPM) No.15 on Guidelines for 
Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International Trade. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
Page 10  
 
  there is a relevant international standard and of  these, 50 per cent have indicated that the proposed 
regulation conforms to the relevant international standard.  
Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force 
31. 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 and except 
in urgent circumstances, to allow a reasonable in terval between the publication of a measure and its 
entry into force.  Paragraph 3.2 of the D oha Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and 
Concerns
13 states that this interval "shall be understood to mean normally a period of not less than 6 
months". 
32. The revised regular notification format cont ained in the 2008 Transparency Procedures 
includes a new field for entering the "proposed date  of publication" while maintaining the existing 
fields for the "proposed date of adoption" and "propo sed date of entry into force".  In addition, it 
includes a default checkbox for a six- month interval between the publication and entry into force of a 
new measure. 
33. However,  for various reasons, only a limited num ber of regular notifications provide specific 
dates in these three fields.  In some cases, such dates are not yet determined at the time of the 
notification.  As provided for in the 2008 Tran sparency Procedures, no tifying 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 measure. 
34. For the period from December 2008 through August 2009, 33 per cent of notifications 
included a specific date for adoption, 26 per cent for publication, and 35 per cent for entry into force.  
During the same period, only 26 notifications (six per cent) had selected the checkbox for a six month 
interval between the publication and entry into force of a measure. 
Final date for comments 
35. Annex B, paragraph 5 of the SPS Agreement provi des that notifications should take place at 
an early stage, when amendments can still be in troduced and comments taken into account.  The 2008 
Transparency Procedures state that a 60-day comment period should be provided with respect to 
regular notifications.  An analysis of the notifi cations issued during the 27-month period of June 2007 
through August 2009 shows, in Table 4, that 26 pe r cent of notifications have not provided a comment 
period.  For those that do provide comment peri ods, these average 49.8 days when calculated as the 
difference between the date of circulation of the notification and the deadline or final date for 
comments.  A more detailed analysis of the data  shows that developing country Members provide a 
longer comment period on average than developed c ountry Members (51 days compared to 49 days).  
However, it is important to note that as a percenta ge of their total regular notifications, developing 
country Members specify a comment period at a lo wer frequency than developed country Members. 
36. The 2008 Transparency Procedures have further elaborated on the 60-day comment period.  
Where domestic regulatory mechanisms allow, the 60-day comment period should normally begin 
with the circulation of the notification by the WT O Secretariat.  The revised formats also offer a 
checkbox option for such a 60-day comment peri od to encourage Members to follow this 
recommendation.14  During the period from December 2008 through August 2009, this checkbox has 
been selected in 34 per cent of notifications. 
                                                      
13 WT/MIN(01)/17. 
14 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para.13.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
 Page 11 
 
 
  37. It should be noted that no comment period needs to be provided in the case of trade 
facilitating measures. The 2008 Transparency Pro cedures include a new tick box for specifying 
whether the notification concerns a trade facilita ting measure.  From De cember 2008 through August 
2009, 19 per cent of notifications have been identified to be trade facilitating.  In addition, as there is 
no obligation to notify measures if their  content of which is substantially the same as that of an 
international standard, no comment pe riod is expected for this category of measures.  The table below 
lists the number of notifications that didn't have a comment period but specified that the measure was 
trade facilitating or based on the re levant international standard. 
Table 4.  Comment period provided in regular otifications (June 2007-August 2009) 
All Members 
 No.  Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 1,655 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 434 26% 
Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 21 1% 
Comment Period Available 1,203 73% 
 Average Comment Period provided 49.8 days 
Developed country Members 
 No.  Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 650 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 73* 11% 
Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 17 3% 
Comment Period Available 562 86% 
 Average Comment Period provided 49.4 days 
*Out of the 73 Not indi cated / Not Available: 
8 were trade facilitating measures; 20 specified that comments could be submitted anytime  
Developing country Members 
 No. Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 1,005 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 361** 36% 
Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 4 0% 
Comment Period Available 641 64% 
 Average Comment Period provided 51.2 days 
**Out of the 208 Not indicated / Not Available:  
2 were trade facilitating measures; 4 specified that measures  were based on international standards; 3 specified that 
bilateral consultation had already taken place; 3 specified that comments could be submitted anytime  
 
Text available from 
38. 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 repeatedly raised concerns in the SPS Committee regarding 
the difficulties of accessing the actual text of noti fied regulations, which are described only in 
summarized form in notifications.  Members have al so pointed out that the process of receiving the 
texts of regulations reduces the period actually ava ilable for providing comments.  In an effort to 
address these concerns and facilitate access to notif ied draft regulations, the Secretariat launched a G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
Page 12  
 
  new facility on 1 February 2008.  Members may, on a voluntary 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 accessible to other Members throug h a hyperlink in the 
notification format.
15  From February 2008 through August 200 9, about 13 per cent of notifications 
have provided the full text or a summary of their notified regulations using this facility.  Members 
may wish to remind their notification author ities of the availability of this facility. 
39. Some Members include an hyperlink to their ow n electronic version of the notified regulation 
as part of the text of the notification.  
Reasons for addenda to regular  and emergency notifications 
40. The 2008 Transparency Procedures have also adde d a new feature to the addenda to regular 
and emergency notification formats.  Members are as ked to select from a number of options regarding 
the reason for the Addendum.  Table 5 below s hows the share of each option for the period from 
December 2008 through August 2009: 
Table 5.  Reasons for addenda 
Reason for addenda: No. Share % 
Modification of final date for comments 31 14.4
Notification of adoption, publication or entry into force of regulation 124 57.4
Modification of content and/or scope of previously notified draft regulation 38 17.6 
Withdrawal of proposed regulation 10 4.6
Change in proposed date of adoption, publi cation or date of entry into force 9 4.2
Change in period of application measures 1 0.5
 
Notification keywords 
41. With the SPS IMS, all notifications can al so be categorized according to a list of 
approximately 60 predefined keywords, which describ e issues appearing frequently in notifications.  
The CRN has assigned these keywords since 2003.  Th ese keywords assist searching for notifications 
in certain areas.  The keywords which have b een most frequently assigned by the CRN to regular 
notifications are:  pesticides, maximum residue limi ts, quarantine measures, food additives, pests, and 
risk assessment.  For emergency notifications, the most frequent keywords are:  avian influenza, 
regionalization, foot and mouth disease, quarantine measures, pests, and BSE. 
IV. RECENT EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRANSPARENT 
SYSTEM 
42. In light of the steadily increasing volumes, managi ng the flow of notifications, coordinating at 
the national level, and benefiting from a transparent system has become a challenge for Members.  
The replies to a Questionnaire in 2007 on the Opera tion of Enquiry Points and National Notification 
Authorities indicates that this is one of the areas where Members ar e looking for technical assistance 
and guidance on best practices.16 
                                                      
15 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, pa ra. 22 and Annex C. 
16 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Operation of Enquiry Points and National 
Notification Authorities (G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1) fo r  further elaboration on this issue.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
 Page 13 
 
 
  43. There have been some recent efforts to address this issue.  The public version of the SPS IMS 
was launched in October 2007.  Its trilingual interface  allows access to the mo st recent information on 
notifications as well as on Enquiry Points and Nati onal 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.  The WTO S ecretariat has provided demo nstration sessions on the 
SPS IMS during the SPS Committee meetings and during its technical assistance programmes.  It has 
also responded to ad hoc requests from Members and other interested parties for assistance. 
44. The Secretariat has also established a mentor ing mechanism which aims to bring together 
those individuals who are fulfilling the functions of Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities in 
different Members.17  The objective of this voluntary procedure is to assist Members in not only 
implementing their obligations with respect to the tr ansparency provisions but also in benefiting from 
their rights.  So far 18 Members seeking mentoring assistance have been matched with 9 Members offering mentoring assistance.  Members offering mentoring assistance are Argentina, Australia, 
Chile, China, Colombia, European Communities, Ne w Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States.  
45. In addition, New Zealand, with the assistance of  Australia and the Secretariat, has  developed 
a practical Manual on the operation of Enquiry Poin ts and Notification Authorities.  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.  This manual is now 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.
18 
46. The training and technical assistance activities of the WTO Secretariat on the SPS Agreement 
also devote a significant amount of time to transparen cy issues.  In addition, the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility (STDF) has funded various pr ojects to increase transparency by enhancing 
inter-agency coordination at a national and/or regional level, as well as strengthening linkages 
between government agencies and the private sector.  The STDF is also leading a study to examine 
national SPS coordination mechanisms in Africa as a means to identify factors that contribute to 
successful coordination mechanisms and how they could be replicated elsewhere. 
V. OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO TRANSPARENCY 
47. As indicated in the introduction, there are a numb er of areas where the Secretariat is not in a 
position to provide an overview.  These in clude questions such as the following: 
• 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)) 
• To what extent are translations into English,  French or Spanish of proposed regulations 
available? (Annex B, paragraph 8) 
• How quickly do Members respond to requests for documents or other information?  
(Annex B, paragraphs 3 and 5(c)) 
• To what extent are Members providing comments on notifications, and to what extent are 
these taken into account? (Annex B, paragraph 5(d)) 
                                                      
17 See G/SPS/W/217. 
18 Go to http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.2 
Page 14  
 
  48. These are areas where Members have occasionally  shared their experiences with the SPS 
Committee.  However, as this information is not pr ovided 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 Committ ee regarding their own experience in matters 
related to the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
__________