WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.3 
7 October 2010 
 (10-5130) 
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.3 
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 revi sed 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 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.   
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 15 September 2010, 138 WTO Members 
out of 153, i.e. three more than last year, had designated an "SPS Notification Authority".
5  Those 
which have not include nine least developed countries (LDCs) and six developing countries.6 
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 15 September 2010, 146 WTO Members out of 153, i.e. two more than the previous year, had provided the WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point.
7  Those which have not 
include six LDCs and one developing country.8 
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 
regular or emergency notification.9  An addendum is used to provide additional information or 
changes to an original notification, for example if  the products covered by the proposed regulation 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. 
                                                      
5 The three Members are:  Democratic Repub lic of Congo, Namibia and Sierra Leone. 
6 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. 
7 The two Members are:  Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone. 
8 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. 
9 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.3 
 Page 3 
 
 
  10. As of 15 September 2010, Members had subm itted 8,020 regular notifications, 1,227 
emergency notifications, and 2,591  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 suppl ements to the original notification.  As of 
15 September 2010, 12 supplement not ifications had been circulated.  None have been submitted in 
2010.  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 200 supplement 
notifications, with over 25 submitted this year al one.  Members may wish to discuss why there have 
not been more 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 15 September 2010, 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 11,622 notifications were submitted 
to the WTO from 1 January 1995 to 30 June 2010.  As can be seen in Figure 1, there has been an 
upward trend in the number of notifications over th e years, with the total number of notifications 
reaching a peak of 1,266 in the year 2008. 
Figure 1 
Notifications Submitted per Year
0200400600800100012001400
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
(June)
Regular Notification Addenda/Corrigenda Emergency Notification
 
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.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.3 
Page 4  
 
  Notifying Members 
15. As of 15 September 2010, 103 Members out of 153 (67 per cent) had submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO.  This figure was 101 in October 2009, meaning that two additional Members 
(Gambia and Saudi Arabia) have submitted at least one notification during the past year.  Members 
which have not submitted any notification so far in clude 19 developing coun tries and 22 LDCs as 
well as a number of EU member States.
10 
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 de veloping country Members  
(see Figure 3). Compared to last year, the shar e of notifications from developing countries has 
increased from 68 to 73 per cent, while the share fro m LDCs has increased from 0.2 to 1.5 per cent.  
Figure 2 
Notifications by Developing Country Members (including LDCs) 
0100200300400500600700800900
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
(June)No. of Notifications
Regular Emergency Addenda/Corrigenda
 
 
                                                      
10 See G/SPS/GEN/456 for notification procedures fo r the European Union and its member States.   G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.3 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Figure 3  
Share of Total Notifications Submitted by Developing Country Members (including 
LDCs)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
(June)
 
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.
11 
Figure 4 
Notifications by Geographical Region
EuropeAsia
AfricaMiddle East
CISSA, CA and the 
CaribbeanNA
050010001500200025003000350040004500
 
18. The Members which have submitted the greatest number of notifications (regular and 
emergency) as of 30 June 2010, ar e listed in Table 1, while the Members that have submitted the 
greatest number of notifications in the past year (1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010) are listed in Table 2: 
                                                      
11 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.3 
Page 6  
 
  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 1967 25.0%  Albania 115 9.4% 
Brazil 642 8.2%  Philippines 102 8.3% 
Canada 459 5.8%  New Zealand 101 8.3% 
China 422 5.4%  United States 76 6.2% 
New Zealand 344 4.4%  Peru 58 4.7% 
Korea, Republic of 344 4.4%  Colombia 55 4.5% 
European Union 336 4.3%  European Union 46 3.8% 
Chile 305 3.9%  Mexico 36 2.9% 
Peru 284 3.6%  Thailand 34 2.8% 
Japan 237 3.0%  Canada 28 2.3% 
Australia 228 2.9%  Kenya 27 2.2% 
Chinese Taipei 197 2.5%  Ukraine 25 2.0% 
Mexico 188 2.4%  Latvia 24 2.0% 
Thailand 161 2.0%  Chile 23 1.9% 
Colombia 144 1.8%  Australia 23 1.9% 
Argentina 122 1.6%  China 22 1.8% 
Bahrain 88 1.1%  Korea, Republic of 22 1.8% 
Costa Rica 84 1.1%  Singapore 19 1.6% 
Philippines 82 1.0%  Argentina 18 1.5% 
El Salvador 82 1.0%  Jordan 17 1.4% 
Table 2.  Members which have submitted th e most notifications in the past year 
(1 July 2009 – 30 June 2010) 
Regular Notifications  Emergency Notifications 
Member No. Share 
of Total  Member No. Share of 
Total 
China 185 19.7%  Ukraine 24 27.0% 
Brazil 112 11.9%  Philippines 14 15.7% 
Peru 101 10.7%  Albania 8 9.0% 
United States 100 10.6%  United States 7 7.9% 
Canada 59 6.3%  Australia 6 6.7% 
Bahrain 43 4.6%  Colombia 5 5.6% 
European Union 32 3.4%  Costa Rica 5 5.6% 
Korea, Republic of 29 3.1%  Thailand 4 4.5% 
Dominican Republic 27 2.9%  Panama 2 2.2% 
Chinese Taipei 24 2.6%  Kuwait 2 2.2% 
Chile 23 2.4%  Jordan 2 2.2%  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.3 
 Page 7 
 
 
  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.12 
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.13   
21. While being only indicative, an assessment at th e two-digit level reflected in Table 3 shows 
that the products covered by regular and emergenc y notifications most often fall under the following 
categories: 
Table 3.  HS Codes assigned to notifications 
Regular notifications 
HS 
Code Description Share of total 
(38) miscellaneous chemical products  (in particular pesticides) 28.6% 
(02) meat and edible meat offal 8.3% 
(01) live animals 8.2% 
(04) dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal 
origin, not elsewhere specified or included 6.3% 
(08) edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons 5.9% 
Emergency notifications 
HS 
Code Description Share of total 
(02) meat and edible meat offal 27.4% 
(01) live animals 26.7% 
(04) dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal 
origin, not elsewhere specified or included 14.3% 
(05) Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included 13.4% 
(23) residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal and 
animal fodder  5.3% 
 
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 three years between July 2007 and June 2010 indi cate that only 21 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 count ries", etc.  In contrast, around 83 per cent of 
emergency notifications have identified a specific gr oup of countries or a region.  During this same 
period, around two per cent of all regular and emer gency notifications have left this box blank.   
                                                      
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 fu rther elaboration on this point. 
13 This information is now available in the SPS IMS. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.3 
Page 8  
 
  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 2009 and 
30 June 2010, 76 per cent of regular notifications ha ve selected the tick box for "all trading partners", 
while the share is only 13 per cent for emergency notif ications.  This reflects the fact that emergency 
actions are frequently taken in response to diseas e 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 had multiple entries or not. 
27. 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 measures in the three-year period between  
1 July 2007 - 30 June 2010  
Regular Notifications 
  Notifications Share over 3-year period 
Food Safety 1549 36.9% 
Animal Health 407 9.7% 
Plant Protection 779 18.6% 
Protect humans from animal / plant pest or disease 1211 28.8% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests 252 6.0% 
Emergency Notifications 
  Notifications Share over 3-year period 
Food Safety 129 20.3% 
Animal Health 222 35.0% 
Plant Protection 65 10.2% 
Protect humans from animal / plant pest or disease 168 26.5% 
Protect territory from other damage from pests 51 8.0%  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.3 
 Page 9 
 
 
  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 the three years since 30 June 2007, Figure 5 
indicates that in 58 per cent of the cases, Members ha ve not identified an international standard as 
being relevant to the new measure being notified.  Of the remaining notifications, 20 per cent have 
referred to Codex, 11 per cent to the OIE and 11 per cent to the IPPC.   
30. At the same time, Figure 6 shows that for the same three-year period, only 14 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 
20%
IPPC
11%
OIE
11%None
58%
 
 G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.3 
Page 10  
 
  Figure 6 
Emergency Notifcations referring to a relevant 
international standard
Codex 
6% IPPC
16%
OIE
64%None
14%
 
31. The revised notification formats include a new entry asking whether the proposed regulation 
conforms to the relevant international standard .  During the one-year period from 1 July 2009 to 
30 June 2010, 39 per cent of regular notifications have  stated that a relevant international standard 
from either OIE, IPPC or Codex exists regarding the measure, and of these 62 per cent have indicated 
that the proposed regulation conforms to that releva nt international standard.  For the same period, 88 
per cent of emergency notifications have stated that  there is a relevant international standard from 
either OIE, IPPC or Codex and of these, 77 per cent have indicated that the proposed regulation 
conforms to the relevant international standard.  
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 obliged  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".14 
33. 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. 
34. However, only a limited number of regular notifi cations 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.  As provided for in the 2008 Transparency Procedures, notifying 
Members sometimes follow up on their original notif ication with an Addendum to alert Members to 
the adoption, publication, or entry into force of a previously notified proposed measure. 
                                                      
14 WT/MIN(01)/17.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.3 
 Page 11 
 
 
  35. For the period from July 2009 through June 2010, 50 per cent of regular notifications 
included a specific date for adoption, 45 per cent for publication, and 53 per cent for entry into force.  
During the same period, only 75 regular notifica tions (roughly eight per cent) had selected the 
checkbox for a six-month interval between the pub lication and entry into force of a measure. 
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 notificati ons issued during the one year period of 1 July 2009 
through 30 June 2010 shows that 27 per cent of notif ications have not provided a comment period (see 
Table 4).  For those that do provide comment peri ods, these average 45.3 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 shows th at developed country Members provide a longer 
comment period on average than developing country Members (53.0 days compared to 45.3 days).  However, it is important to note the significant 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 73 per cent. 
37. 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.
15  During the same period, this checkbox has been selected in about eight per cent of 
notifications. 
38. 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 2009 through 
30 June 2010, 13 per cent of notifications have been id entified to be trade facilitating.  In addition, as 
there is no obligation to notify measures if their c ontent is substantially the same as that of an 
international standard, no comment period is e xpected for this category of measures.   
Table 4.  Comment period provided in regular notifications (1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010) 
All Members 
 No.  Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 941 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 252 27% 
Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 1 0% 
Comment Period Available 688 73% 
 Average Comment Period provided 45.3 days 
Developed country Members 
 No.  Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 239 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 64* 27% 
                                                      
15 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para.13. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.3 
Page 12  
 
  Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 0 0% 
Comment Period Available 175 73% 
 Average Comment Period provided 53.0 days 
*Out of the 64 Not indi cated / Not Available: 
23 were trade facilitating measures;  5 specified that comments could be submitted anytime  
Developing country Members 
 No. Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 702 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 188** 27% 
Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 1 0% 
Comment Period Available 513 73% 
 Average Comment Period provided 42.7 days 
**Out of the 188 Not indicated / Not Available:  
21 were trade facilitating measures;  2 specified that comments could be submitted anytime  
 
Text available from 
39. 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 
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.16  From July 2009 through June 2010, around 25 per cent of notifications have 
provided the full text or a summary of their notified regulations using this facility.  There has been 
roughly a two-fold increase in the number of notifications including these attachments when compared to last year.  Members may wish to re mind their notification authorities of the availability 
of this facility. 
40. 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 
41. 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 
July 2009 through June 2010: 
                                                     
 
16 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, pa ra. 22 and Annex C.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.3 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Table 5.  Reasons for addenda17 
Reason for addenda: No. Share 
Modification of final date for comments 51 18.1% 
Notification of adoption, publication or entry into force of regulation 146 51.8% 
Modification of content and/or scope of pr eviously notified draft regulation 39 13.8% 
Withdrawal of proposed regulation 13 4.6% 
Change in proposed date of adoption, publica tion or date of entry into force 1 0.4% 
Change in period of application measures 3 1.1% 
Other: provide brief description 29 10.3% 
 
Notification keywords 
42. 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:  pesticides, maximum residue limits, animal diseases, food additives, and pests.  
For emergency notifications, the most frequent keyw ords in descending order are:  regionalization, 
zoonosis, foot and mouth disease, avian influenza, and BSE. 
IV. RECENT EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRANSPARENT 
SYSTEM 
43. 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.18 
44. 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. 
45. 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.
19  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.  
                                                      
17 Each notification can have multiple entries for the reasons for addenda.   
18 See the Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Operation of Enquiry Points and National 
Notification Authorities (G/SPS/GEN/751/Rev.1) for further elaboration on this issue. 
19 See G/SPS/W/217. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.3 
Page 14  
 
  46. 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.
20 
47. 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 sect or.  The STDF has recently published a scoping 
study in a first attempt to identify and assess the myriad of regional SPS policy frameworks and 
strategies in Africa, in order to avoid multiplicatio n of transparency requirements, and guide future 
work in this area.  The STDF is also leading a study to examine national SPS coordination mechanisms in Africa as a means to identify f actors that contribute to successful coordination 
mechanisms and how they could be replicated elsewhere. 
V. OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO TRANSPARENCY 
48. 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)) 
49. 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. 
 
 
__________  
                                                     
 
20 Go to http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm