WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
13 October 2011 
 (11-5032) 
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 fourth 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 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 undert aken and updated directly 
by Members or other interested parties as the unde rlying 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, 
hereafter the "2008 Transparency Procedures"), which  took effect on 1 December 2008.4  Compared 
                                                      
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 ar ising from the 2007 workshop on transparency. 
3 http://spsims.wto.org  
4 See also footnote 4 of G/SPS/7/Rev.3 requesting the Secretariat to provide an annual report on the 
level of implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement and of the recommended transparency procedures. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
Page 2  
 
  to the earlier version of the transparency proce dures, which had been adopted by the Committee in 
2002, the 2008 Transparency Procedures include revised  notification formats wh ich aim to facilitate 
the provision of clearer and more specific information regarding new or modified SPS measures by Members, e.g. regarding conformity with intern ational standards, comment periods, and the period 
between the publication and entry into force of new regulations.   
5. While more information is available with the ne w formats, there is still room for improvement 
regarding the actual amount and quality of information provided by Members in the various 
notification formats.  During 2011, a procedure for the on-line submission of notifications by Members was introduced, based on the new formats.   The SPS Notification Submission System (NSS) 
should assist Members to be more precise in th eir notifications, and speed up the processing and 
circulation of notifications to all Members.
5 
II. DESIGNATION OF NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS 
6. Annex B, paragraph 10, 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 Aut hority".  As of 30 September 2011, 140 WTO Members 
out of 153, i.e. two more than last year, had designated an "SPS Notification Authority".6  Those 
which have not include seven least developed countries (LDCs) and six developing countries.7 
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 30 September 2011, 147 WTO Members out of 153,  i.e. one more than the previous year, had 
provided the WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point.8  Those which have not 
include four LDCs and two developing countries.9 
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 em ergency 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 
regular or emergency notification.10  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 
                                                      
5 See para. 46 for more information. 
6 The two Members are:  Lesotho and Maldives. 
7 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.  The most up-to-date information on Members' notification authorities can be accesse d through the SPS IMS by clicking  on "Enquiry Points/Notification 
Authorities" on the left-hand side menu bar. 
8 The Members is:  Togo. 
9 The most up-to-date information on Members' Enquiry Points can be accessed through the SPS IMS 
by clicking on "Enquiry Points/Notification Authorities" on the left-hand side menu bar. 
10 See the Recommended Procedures for Implementi ng 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.4 
 Page 3 
 
 
  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 30 September 2011, Members had subm itted 9,021 regular notifications, 1,345 
emergency notifications, and 2,980  addenda and corrigenda to regu lar 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 30 
September 2011, 14 supplement notifications had been  circulated.  Only two have been submitted in 
2011.  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 over 233 supplement 
notifications, although only 13 supplem ent notifications were submitted this year.  It is not clear why 
Members are submitting so few supplement notifications in the SPS area.  
12. In addition, in June 2002 the SPS Committe e adopted a special format and recommended 
procedures for the notification of determination of  the recognition of equivalence of sanitary or 
phytosanitary measures.  As of 30 September 2011, tw o equivalence notifications 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 13,349 notifications were submitted 
to the WTO from 1 January 1995 to 30 September 2011.  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 a peak of 1,436 in the year 2010. 
Figure 1 
 G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
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 30 September 2011, 102 Members out of 153 (67 per cent) had submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO.  Members which have not submitted any notification so far include 19 
developing countries, 21 LDCs, and one developed country.  In add ition, a number of EU member 
States have not submitted notifications:  however. most SPS measures are notified by the European 
Union on behalf of all its member States.
11 
16. As can be seen in Figure 2, there has been a steady increase in the number notifications from 
developing country Members (which include LDCs ) over the years.  Not only has the number of 
notifications been growing, but also the share of  total notifications from developing country Members 
(see Figure 3) with a peak of over 67 per cent in th e year 2009.  Compared to the same period of time 
last year, the share of notifications from developing countries has slightly decreased from 68.4 to 67 
per cent, as well as the share from LDCs from 1.2 to 0.1 per cent.  
Figure 2 
 
 
                                                      
11 See G/SPS/GEN/456 for notification procedures fo r the European Union and its member States.   G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Figure 3  
 
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.12 
Figure 4 
 
                                                      
12 The geographical groupings used rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the Integrated 
Database (IDB) for analytical purposes .  The same groupings are used in the WTO Annual Reports.  They can 
be consulted through the SPS IMS by clicking on "def initions of groups" on the left-hand side menu bar. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
Page 6  
 
  18. The Members which have submitted the greatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 30 September 2011, are listed in Table 1, while the Members that have submitted 
the greatest number of notifications in the past year (1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011) are listed in Table 2: 
 
Table 1.  Members which have submitted the most notifications since 1995 
Regular Notifications Emergency Notifications 
Member No. Share of 
Total   Member No. Share of 
Total 
United States 2192 25.1%   Albania 125 9.4% 
Brazil 775 8.9%   Philippines 114 8.6% 
China 592 6.8%   New Zealand 102 7.7% 
Canada 567 6.5%   United States 84 6.3% 
Korea, Republic of 378 4.3%   Colombia 73 5.5% 
European Union 370 4.2%   Peru 61 4.6% 
New Zealand 365 4.2%   Ukraine 56 4.2% 
Chile 346 4.0%   European Union 49 3.7% 
Peru 337 3.9%   Thailand 40 3.0% 
Japan 269 3.1%   Mexico 36 2.7% 
Australia 254 2.9%   Canada 29 2.2% 
Taipei, Chinese 248 2.8%   Chile 27 2.0% 
Mexico 192 2.2%   China 27 2.0% 
Thailand 174 2.0%   Kenya 27 2.0% 
Colombia 159 1.8%   Latvia 24 1.8% 
Argentina 137 1.6%   Australia 24 1.8% 
Bahrain, Kingdom of 110 1.3%   Korea, Republic of 22 1.7% 
Costa Rica 98 1.1%   Singapore 19 1.4% 
Philippines 92 1.1%   Argentina 19 1.4% 
El Salvador 90 1.0%   Jordan 17 1.3%  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Table 2.  Members which have submitted th e most notifications in the past year 
(1 October 2010 –30 September 2011) 
 
Regular Notifications Emergency Notifications 
Member No. Share of 
Total Member No. Share of 
Total 
United States 175 18.5% Ukraine 30 26.3% 
China 161 17.1% Colombia 15 13.2% 
Brazil 114 12.1% Philippines 12 10.5% 
Canada 83 8.8% Albania 10 8.8% 
Peru 44 4.7% United States 8 7.0% 
Chile 36 3.8% Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 6 5.3% 
Taipei, Chinese 28 3.0% China 5 4.4% 
European Union 23 2.4% Thailand 5 4.4% 
Japan 23 2.4% Chinese Taipei 4 3.5% 
Bahrain, Kingdom of 22 2.3% Chile 3 2.6% 
Australia 21 2.2%  Bahrain, Kingdom of 2 1.8% 
New Zealand 20 2.1%  Brazil 2 1.8% 
 
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.  Most Members have indicated they 
would welcome the provision of these codes by their trading partners.13 
20. Since 1995 the WTO's Central Registry of Notifications (CRN) has been assigning, to the 
extent possible, the relevant HS codes for all notifications.14   
21. While being only indicative, Table 3 shows the pr oducts, at the two-digit level of HS codes, 
that are most often covered by re gular and emergency notifications. 
Table 3.  HS Codes assigned to notifications 
Regular notifications 
HS 
Code Description Share of total 
(02) meat and edible meat offal 22.0% 
(01) live animals 13.8% 
(08) edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons 8.0% 
(04) dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal 
origin, not elsewhere specified or included 7.4% 
(07) edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers  6.2% 
                                                      
13 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. 
14 This information is now available in the SPS IMS. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
Page 8  
 
  Emergency notifications 
HS 
Code Description Share of total 
(02) meat and edible meat offal 31.9% 
(01) live animals 30.1% 
(04) dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal 
origin, not elsewhere specified or included 10.5% 
(05) Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included 7.9% 
(23) residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal and 
animal fodder  5.4% 
 
Regions/countries affected  
22. The Transparency Procedures call on Members to  identify the regions or countries which are 
most likely to be affected by the measure being no tified.  An assessment of notifications submitted in 
the period between 1 July 2007 and 1 October 2011 indicate that  around 13 per cent of regular 
notifications have identified a specific group of countries or a region, while the remaining contain general references such as "all trading partners", "all countries", etc.  In contrast, almost 54 per cent of 
emergency notifications have identified a specific gr oup of countries or a region.  During this same 
period, around 31 per cent of all regular and emerge ncy notifications have left this box blank.   
23. 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.  In the year between 1 July 2010 and 
30 September 2011, around 82 per cent of regular no tifications have selected the tick box for "all 
trading partners", while the share is only roughl y 11 per cent for emergency notifications.  This 
reflects the fact that emergency actions are fre quently taken in response to disease outbreaks in 
specific countries, territories, or regions. 
24. The comprehension and work of other Members wo uld be facilitated if more specificity were 
provided by notifying Members on regions or countries likely to be affected.  It is understandable, 
however, that when submitting notifications, Memb ers may be hesitant to specifically identify 
potentially affected countries or regions for fear of not accurately assessing who might be affected. 
Objective and rationale 
25. 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. 
26. Table 4 indicates the total number and share of each objective as cited in regular and 
emergency notifications.  It must be noted, however , that many notifications identify more than one 
objective.  Therefore, the table below specifies th e total number of times the specific objective was 
assigned regardless of whether the notifi cations identified multiple objectives. 
27. For regular notifications, the most frequent ly cited objective is food safety, while for 
emergency notifications it is animal health.   G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Table 4. "Objectives" of notified SPS measures in the period between 
1 July 2007 - 30 September 2010  
Regular Notifications 
  Notifications Share over period 
Food Safety 2,362 37.7% 
Animal Health 527 8.4% 
Plant Protection 1001 16.0% 
Protect humans from animal / plant pest or disease 2,054 32.8% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests 323 5.2% 
Emergency Notifications 
  Notifications Share over period 
Food Safety 172 20.2% 
Animal Health 304 35.6% 
Plant Protection 79 9.3% 
Protect humans from animal / plant pest or disease 235 27.6% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests 63 7.4% 
 
International standards, guidelines or recommendations  
28. 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.   
29. With respect to regular notifications circulated in more than four years from 30 June 2007 to 
30 September 2011, Figure 5 indicates that in 58 pe r cent of the cases, Members have not identified 
an international standard as being relevant to th e new measure being notified.  Of the remaining 
notifications, 20 per cent have referred to Codex, 10 per cent to the OIE and 12 per cent to the IPPC.   
30. Figure 6 shows that for the same period, only 13 per cent of emergency notifications have not 
identified an international standard  as being relevant to the measure  being notified, while 64 per cent, 
15 per cent and 8 per cent have referred to the OIE,  IPPC and Codex as having a relevant international 
standard, respectively.  It is reassuring to note th at the relevant international standards address so 
many of the emergency situations, thus providing  invaluable guidance to governments on how to 
protect health in the face of emergencies. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
Page 10  
 
  Figure 5 
 
 
31. The revised notification formats include a new entry asking whether the proposed regulation 
conforms to the relevant international standa rd.  During the period from 1 December 2008 to 
30 September 2011, 41 per cent of regular notificati ons have stated that a relevant international 
standard from either OIE, IPPC or Codex exists re garding the measure, and of these 27 per cent have 
indicated that the proposed regulation conforms to th at relevant international standard.  For the same 
period, 84 per cent of emergency no tifications have stated that there is a relevant international 
standard from either OIE, IPPC or Codex and of these, 59 per cent have indicated that the proposed 
regulation conforms to the relevant international standard.  
Figure 6 
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Proposed date of adoption/publication/entry into force 
 
32. In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement, Members are 
obliged to ensure that all SPS regulations which ha ve 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 fo rce.  Paragraph 3.2 of the Doha Decision on 
Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns states th at this interval "shall be understood to mean 
normally a period of not less than 6 months".15 
33. The revised regular notification format cont ained in the 2008 Transparency Procedures 
includes separate fields for enteri ng the "proposed date of publication", the "proposed date of 
adoption" and the "proposed date of entry into for ce".  In addition, it includes a default checkbox for a 
six-month interval between the publication and entry into force of a new measure. 
34. For the period from 1 July 2010 through 30 September 2011, 31 per cent of regular 
notifications included a specific date for adoption,  30 per cent for publication, and 29 per cent for 
entry into force.  Thus the majority of regular no tifications do not provide specific dates in these three 
fields.  In some cases, such dates are not yet determ ined 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 67 regular notifications (roughly six 
per cent) had selected the checkbox for a six-month interval between the publication and entry into force of a measure. 
35. As provided for in the 2008 Transparency Pr ocedures, 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 1 July 2010 to 30 September 2011, around 60 per cent of the addenda indicated the adoption, publication or entry into force of regulations as shown in Table 6. 
Final date for comments 
36. 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 notifications issued during the period from 1 July 2010 through 30 September 2011 shows that around 36 per cent of notifications have not provided a 
comment period (see Table 5).  For those that do provide comment periods, these average 54 days 
when calculated as the difference between the date of  circulation of the notification and the deadline 
or final date for comments.   
37. A more detailed analysis shows that devel oping country Members provide a longer comment 
period, on average, than developed country Members (56 days compared to 50 days).  This is the 
reverse of the situation  found last year where developed countries provided longer comment periods 
on average.  It is also important to note the signi ficant progress in recent years for developing country 
Members in terms of the increase in the percentage  of their notifications that provide a comment 
period.  This figure has increased from 62 per cent for the time period analyzed in the first revision of 
this document (June 2007 - August 2008) to the current 76 per cent. 
38. 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 
                                                      
15 WT/MIN(01)/17. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
Page 12  
 
  checkbox option for such a 60-day comment peri od to encourage Members to follow this 
recommendation.
16  During the same period, this checkbox h as been selected in about 43 per cent of 
notifications. 
39. It should be noted that no comment period needs to be provided in the case of trade 
facilitating measures.  The 2008 Transparency Pr ocedures include a new tick box for specifying 
whether the notification concerns a trade fac ilitating measure.  From 1 July 2010 through 
30 September 2011, 23 per cent 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 expected for this category of measures.   
Table 5 .  Comment period provided in regular notifications (1 July 2010 - 30 September 2011) 
All Members 
 No.  Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 1157 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 314 36.2% 
Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 8 0.9% 
Comment Period Available 843 72.9% 
 Average Comment Period provided 54.04 
Developed country Members 
 No.  Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 448 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 142 16.4% 
Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 4 0.5% 
Comment Period Available 306 68.3% 
 Average Comment Period provided 50.06 
*Out of the 112 Not indicated / Not Available: 
60 were trade facilitating measures;  8 specified that comments could be submitted anytime 
Developing country Members 
 No. Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 709 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 172 19.8% 
Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 4 0.5% 
Comment Period Available 537 75.7% 
 Average Comment Period provided 55.98 
**Out of the 149 Not indicated / Not Available:  
61 were trade facilitating measures;  14 specified that comments could be submitted anytime  
 
Text available from 
 40. 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 
                                                      
16 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para.13.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
 Page 13 
 
 
  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 
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.17  From 1 July 2010 through 30 June 2011, around 79 per cent of notifications 
have provided the full text or a summary of their notified regulations using this facility.  There has 
been roughly a three-fold increase in the percentage  of notifications including these attachments when 
compared to last year's 25 per cent.  Members may wish to remind their notification authorities of the 
availability of this facility. 
41. Some Members include a 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 
 42. 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 6 below s hows the share of each option for the period from 
July 2010 through September 2011: 
 
Table 6.  Reasons for addenda
18 
Reason for addenda: No. Share 
Modification of final date for comments 65 14.3% 
Notification of adoption, publication or entry into force of regulation 271 59.7% 
Modification of content and/or scope of pr eviously notified draft regulation 45 9.9% 
Withdrawal of proposed regulation 22 4.8% 
Change in proposed date of adoption, publica tion or date of entry into force 9 2.0% 
Others 42 9.3% 
 
Notification keywords 
 
43. With the SPS IMS, all notifications can al so be categorized according to a list of 
approximately 70 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 been most frequently assigned to regular notifications, in 
descending order, are:  human health, food safety, pesticides, plant health, maximum residue limits, 
animal health and food additives.  For emergenc y notifications, the most frequent keywords in 
descending order are:  animal health, animal diseases, regionalization, human health, food safety, 
zoonoses, food and mouth disease. 
                                                      
17 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, pa ra. 22 and Annex C. 
18 Each notification can have multiple entries for the reasons for addenda.   G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
Page 14  
 
  IV. RECENT EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRANSPARENT 
SYSTEM 
44. In light of the steadily increasing volume of doc uments, managing 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 Operation of E nquiry Points and National 
Notification Authorities indicates that this is one of the areas where Members are seeking technical 
assistance and guidance on best practices.
19 
45. 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. 
46. At the March 2011 meeting, the Secretariat launched the new SPS Notification Submission 
System (SPS NSS) which allows National Notif ication Authorities to fill out and submit SPS 
notifications online.  The SPS NSS allows for mo re accurate and complete notifications, and a 
substantial reduction in the time required for the WTO to circulate them.  The system was made 
available to Members on 1 June 2011 upon request.  Interested Members are requested to send an e-
mail to the Secretariat so that their National Notif ication Authorities can receive their login names and 
access passwords.  To date, 23 Members have request ed and been given access to the system, and ten 
of these have officially submitted notifications via the SPS NSS. 
47. 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.
20  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 19 Members seeking mentoring assistance have been matched with nine Members offering mentoring assistance.  Members offering mentoring assistance are Argentina, Australia, 
Chile, China, Colombia, European Communities, Ne w Zealand, Switzerland and the United States.  
48. 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.
21 
49. 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 projects 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 sect or.  The STDF published a scoping study that  
identifies and assesses the myriad of regional SPS polic y frameworks and strategies in Africa, in order 
                                                      
19 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. 
20 See G/SPS/W/217. 
21 Go to http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm .  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.4 
 Page 15 
 
 
  to avoid multiplication of transparency requirements, and guide future work in this area.  The STDF is 
also completing a study to examine national SPS co ordination mechanisms in Africa as a means to 
identify factors that contribute to successful c oordination mechanisms and how they could be 
replicated elsewhere. 
V. OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO TRANSPARENCY 
50. 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)) 
51. 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. 
__________