WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/1044 
8 October 2010 
 (10-5172) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
EU NOTIFICATION AUTHORITY AND ENQUIRY POINT FOR THE SPS AGREEMENT:  
EXPERIENCE AFTER THE REVISION OF  THE TRANSPARENCY GUIDELINES  
OF DECEMBER 2008 
 
Workshop on the Transparency Provisions of the SPS Agreement -
  
Geneva, 19 and 22 October 2010 - Reflection Note  
   The following communication, received on 6 October 2010, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of the European Union
. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. FOREWORD 
1. In view of the Workshop on Transparency organized by the WTO/SPS Secretariat in the 
margins of the forthcoming SPS Committee, the European Union would like to update its 
submissions1 prepared for previous transparency workshops. 
2. As a result of the important revision made to notification formats from 1 December 2008, as 
explained in document G/ SPS/7/Rev.3 (20 June 2008)2, the EU SPS Notification Authority and 
Enquiry Point (EU SPS NA/EP) has prepared a st udy on notifications from 1 December 2008 to 
31 July 2010.  Particular reference is made to one of the main modifications, namely:  the wider scope 
under point 8 which refers to the existence of inte rnational standards covering the measure in question 
and deviation from, or conformity with, these relevant standards. 
3. The aim of this paper is two-fold:  
(a) to highlight the importance of correctly filling out point 8 to help other interested 
parties to verify the likely effect of the pr oposed legislation on their external trade.  
The study will also look at EU practice in this regard; 
(b) to point out the lack of transparency in import requirements of plant health 
regulations and to encourage WTO Members to work further in this field. 
                                                      
1 Background:  In 2003 the European Union (then the European Communities) submitted a document 
explaining SPS operational procedures, how the European Commission works in coordination with its member States and what were the main activities undertaken since January 2000 (G/SPS/GE N/456 of 5 December 2003, 
"The EC Notification Authority and Enquiry Point for the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures:  Operational Procedures and Recent Experience").  In 2007, the European Union 
presented complementary information outlining the experience gained in meeting its obligations on transparency 
(G/SPS/N/GEN/803 of 10 October 2007 "The EC Notification Authority and Enquiry Point for the SPS 
Agreement:  Experience acquired in the opera tional procedures and recent experience"). 
2 G/SPS/7/Rev.3 (20 June 2008) "Recommended Pr ocedures for Implementing the Transparency 
Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Ar ticle 7) as of 1 December 2008". G/SPS/GEN/1044 
Page 2  
 
  II. INFORMATION ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS INVOLVED IN EU LEGAL 
PROPOSALS 
4. In the document "Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations 
of the SPS Agreement (Article 7) as of 1 Decemb er 2008" (G/SPS/7/Rev.3), the new agreed format 
for notifications has been improved providing a more  complete source of information concerning the 
origin of the measures, their scientific basis and the possible effect on international trade. 
5. One of the main improvements accomplished by  the revision of the notification model was 
the new format of point 8.  Point 8 needs to be  filled out more comprehe nsively to help everybody 
understand the scope and modifications ma de in a new or changed measure. 
 
6. The most important requirement is to point out  the existence, or not, of an international 
standard and, if relevant, to explain the r easons for deviating from an existing standard. 
7. Based on the database managed by the WTO/SPS Secretariat "SPS Information Management 
System (SPS IMS)"
3, the EU SPS NA/EP has prepared a short study of the compliance with 
International Standard Setting Bodies (ISSB) of the no tifications issued since the date of coming into 
effect of the revised notification formats, 1 De cember 2008, until 31 July 2010.  (See Annex I for a 
detailed breakdown of data.)  
8. The total number of notifications issued  (regular, addenda, revision, corrigenda and 
emergency) amounted to 2,201 documen ts.  Reference to internationa l standards is only necessary for 
regular and revised notifications, so only these have been taken into account for the study.  In total 
1,337 notifications contained information on point 8 on ISSB. 
9. For information on notifications issued by Me mber, during the period studied, China notified 
the highest number of drafts (191), followed by Br azil (155), United States (143), Canada (108), Peru 
(104) and Bahrain (72).  The European Union (EU) notified 46 proposals (see Annex I, Figure 1).  
10. Out of all the studied notifications, 792 notifications (59%) have not specified if they are in 
conformity with any international standard; 205 (15%) do not follow any existing international 
standard; and 340 (25%) are in compliance with existing international standards.  Of the 205 
proposals not following the relevant international standard, 103 did not give  any explanation or reason 
for the deviation (see Annex I, Table 2). 
                                                      
3 The European Union would like to thank the WTO/ SPS Secretariat for the effo rt in developing and 
putting into place the database SPS Information Manage ment System (SPS IMS) that allows a complete 
breakdown of all the documents and re cords relevant under the SPS Agreement.   Without it, this study could not 
become reality.  See:  http://spsims.wto.org/default.aspx . 8. Existence of 
international standard, guideline or 
recommendation If a relevant international sta ndard, guideline or recommendation 
exists, put a cross in the box provided for the appropriate 
standard-setting organization and gi ve the appropriate reference of 
the existing standard, guideline or recommendation, e.g., Codex 
standard number, ISPM number, OIE Code chapter.  Indicate 
whether the proposed regulation conforms to the relevant international standard and if not, describe, whenever possible, how and why the proposed regulation deviates from the 
international standard, guideline or recommendation.  If no 
international standard, guideline or recommendation exists, put a 
cross in the box "none".   G/SPS/GEN/1044 
 Page 3 
 
 
  11. Concerning the ISSB (see Annex I, Table 3).: 
(a) 759 did not identify any ISSB as relevant for the measure;  
(b) 304 identified Codex as relevant; 
(c) 117 identified OIE as relevant and  
(d) 137 identified International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) as relevant.  
(e) 20 identified a different standard (such as EU  or other governments' legislative acts, 
Gulf Cooperation Council Standardization Organization (GSO), Cartagena Protocol 
on Biosafety, WHO documents etc.).  
12. The European Union has in five instances i ssued SPS notifications informing WTO Members 
about new measures that deviate from existing international standards.  One notification 
G/SPS/N/EEC/338, is not relevant4 and the deviation found in the ot her four is explained fully and 
supported by scientific assessment.  Of the four  notifications, only one (G/SPS/N/EEC/372) received 
comments from other WTO Members.  They we re replied to in full (see Annex II). 
13. This data shows that WTO Members need to in crease their efforts to look for the appropriate 
international standard relevant to the measure, and in  the case of any deviation, it is necessary to give 
an appropriate description about how and why this w as decided upon, as per point 8 of the notification 
format request. 
III. PUBLICATION OF IMPORT REQU IREMENTS CONCERNING SPS 
14. Access to information about SPS import requirement s is key in trade facilitation, and is of 
great interest to both importers and exporters.  Howeve r, a lack of transparency in this area is one of 
the major barriers to trade, particularly for plants and plant products where this is possibly the most 
substantial barrier within the SPS area.  According to  the agreements within IPPC, lists of regulated 
pests, as well as import requirements for regulated plant products, should be available; either 
published or on request.  The European Union has published its plant health import requirements on 
"Europa" portal.5  The European Union would encourage all WTO Members, who have not already 
published information on regulated p ests and/or import requirements for plants and plant products, to 
do so. 
15. The IPPC webpage provides all the means for pub lication, either of the legislation or by 
virtue of a link to a national webpage.  The Europ ean Union welcomes this initiative.  Some countries 
have published databases, providi ng the import requirements for re gulated plant products.  Others, 
even if not all members of IPPC, have made availa ble links to lists of regulated products and the 
related requirements.  Furthermore, lists of re gulated pests have been published, on the IPPC 
webpage, by a considerable number of the members of the IPPC.  
16. Publication of import requirements adds signifi cantly to transparency.  However, publication 
requires prior assessment of risks and mitigating measures.  The European Union would encourage 
trading partners to take on this task, enabling th em to publish import requirements, rather than to 
provide this information only in import permits.  
                                                      
4 Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/338 found no  reference in any ISSB, but, in correctly stated that it did not 
conform to an existing standard. 
5 European Union on plant issues  http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/index_en.htm . G/SPS/GEN/1044 
Page 4  
 
  17. Technical assistance may be useful within this area.  The European Union has already 
committed to provide financial support to set up the IPPC helpdesk.
6 The European Union would 
encourage other WTO Members to also contribute to this worthwhile project to ensure its long term 
viability.  
18. The European Union would like to announce that besides the information already published 
on EU web pages7, a database covering the phytosanitary impor t requirements will be available in the 
near future.  
IV. CLOSING REMARKS 
19. The EU SPS EP/NA ensures a tran sparent procedure in submitting proposals, responding to 
comments of other Members, explaining legislativ e initiatives and distributing legal texts.  The 
European Union refers to scientific assessments  to justify its legal proposals, and provides 
consultation periods to receive trading partners' co ncerns.  The European Union would be happy to 
share this expertise with other Members. 
                                                      
6 The financial contributions for the coming three y ears (2011-2013) dedicated to IPPC are a total of 
€1,300,000.00:  €400,000.00 to support the IPPC helpdesk and €900,000.00 to support travel of delegates from 
developing countries to attend IPPC meetings. 
7 Find below several links to relevant EU web pages: 
 EU export helpdesk http://exporthelp.europa.eu/index_en.html  
 EU pesticides database http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm  
 EU on plant issues http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/index_en.htm . G/SPS/GEN/1044 
Page 5 
 
 
 ANNEX I 
 
Detailed Breakdown of Data  
  Table 1: Concerning ISSB conformity (WTO  Members from 01/12/2008 to 31/07/2010) 
 
Documents issued:  2,201;   Regular/revision notifications
1: 1,337  
 Identifying ISSB of reference
  
 
  CODEX  304 (23%)   OIE   117 (9%)   IPPC   137 (10%)   Other/No reply   20 (1%) 
  NONE   759 (57%) 
 
Figure 1:  By notifying Member  
 
191
155143
108104
72
56 56
4643 413630 27229
050100150200250
CHN BRA USA CAN PER BHR KOR TPKM EEC DOM CHL JPN COL NZL OTHERSSPS Notifications WTO December 2008 to July 2010
 
 
                                                      
1 Only regular and revision notifications are taken into account, no emergency measures, addenda or 
corrigenda. G/SPS/GEN/1044 
Page 6  
 
 Table 2: Identifying Conformity to any International Standard  (Total of 1,337) 
   Not Specified  792 (59%)   No Conformity  205 (15%)   Yes   340 (25%) 
 
Table 3: By ISSB of reference/Compliance (See Figure 2) 
 
By ISSB of reference/Compliance  
 YES NO Not Specified Total 
CODEX 161 44% 104 89% 39 49% 304 54% 
OIE 90 25% 10 9% 17 22% 117 21% 
IPPC 111 31% 3 3% 23 29% 137 25% 
TOTAL 362  117  79  558  
 
Figure 2 
CODEX
OIE
IPPC0%25%50%75%100%Relation Relevant ISSB/Conformity  Dec/2008-Jul/2010
Not Specified
NON
YES
 
  
  G/SPS/GEN/1044
 Page 7ANNEX II 
 
EU SPS Notifications which Imply Deviati ons from Existing International Standards  
 
 
Document Symbol Date of 
distribution International standa rd, guideline or recommendation Confo rmity with Intern ational Standard 
G/SPS/N/EEC/338  24/12/2008 None  No (The European Union should have not ticked this point.  As no 
reference was found to any ISSB, it was incorrectly stated that the measure did not conform to an existing standard).  
G/SPS/N/EEC/342 23/06/2009 Codex Alimentarius Commission, CAC/RCP 15 - 1976, World 
Organization for Animal Health, Chapter 2.10.2 of the OIE 
Terrestrial Code.  No, control of all Salmonella serotypes. 
G/SPS/N/EEC/358 6/10/2009 Codex Alimentarius Commission, General Standard on Food 
Additives (GSFA) Provisions for Neotame. No, some maximum levels are different from GSFA provisions 
following discussions with the industry, manufacturers and 
EU member States, in particular taking into consideration 
technological needs. 
G/SPS/N/EEC/361 4/12/2 009 Codex Alimentarius Commission, GFSA No, the GSFA is currently under development.  There are some 
deviations from GSFA in the eventual directive to be adopted which may be expected to reflect the particular circumstances of 
additive uses in the European Union (good manufacturing 
practice, technological need, consumer considerations). 
G/SPS/N/EEC/372 15/03/2010 Codex Alimentarius Commission, Standard for live and raw 
bivalve molluscs CODEX STAN 292-2008. No, new scientific advice has demonstrated the need to review the 
EU approach as regards marine biotoxins.  Major shortcomings of 
the mouse bioassay were in particular identified which justified the proposed changes.  The European Union intends to contribute 
to the on-going discussions at Codex level at the working group in 
charge of the draft list of methods for the determination of 
biotoxins in bivalve molluscs. 
__________