WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 
31 October 2008 
 (08-5350) 
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 second 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.2, hereafter the "2002 Transparency Pr ocedures").  It provides information in areas 
which the Secretariat is in a position to track (s uch as designation of Enquiry Points/Notification 
Authorities, circulation of notifications) but does not include those where the Secretariat is not 
directly involved (such as provision of comments on specific notifications). 
3. 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 will take effect as of 1 December 2008.3  The 
2008 Transparency Procedures include revised notific ation formats aimed at facilitating the provision 
of clearer and more specific information regarding new or modified SPS measures by Members.  Therefore, future updates of this overview should be able to include information on some aspects 
which, are currently difficult to track. 
4. 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 
                                                     
 
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 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.1 
Page 2  
 
  October 2007 during the transparency workshop.
4  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.5  It is also worth noting that most of the analysis 
contained in this document can be undertaken and updated directly by Members or other interested 
parties as the underlying data is publicly av ailable and searchable through the SPS IMS. 
II. DESIGNATION OF NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES AND ENQUIRY POINTS 
5. Annex B, paragraph 9, of the SPS Agreement obliges Members to designate a single central 
government authority as responsible for the implem entation of notification procedures.  As of 
October 2008, among the 153 WTO Members, 133 Me mbers had designated a "notification 
authority".  Those which have not include 13 least  developed countries (LDCs) and seven developing 
countries.6 
6. 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 2008, of the 153 WTO Members,  142 had provided the WTO with the contact 
information of their Enquiry Point.  Those whic h have not include ten LD Cs and one developing 
country.7 
III. SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS 
7. 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 
2002 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 
8. The two main types of notifications are regular notifications and emergency notifications.  In 
addition, addenda, corrigenda or revisions can be issued subsequent to an original regular or 
emergency notification.8  As of 31 August 2008, Members had submitted: 
• 6,416 regular notifications; 
• 1,628 addenda/corrigenda to regular notifications;  
• 1,042 emergency notifications;  and 
• 326 addenda/corrigenda to these. 
                                                      
4 http://spsims.wto.org  
5 With a few exceptions, the analysis covers the period up until 31 August 2008. 
6 See G/SPS/NNA/14 for the latest list of Notification Authorities circulated as an official document by 
the WTO Secretariat in October 2008.  The most up-to -date information on Members' notification authorities 
can be accessed through the SPS IMS. 
7 See G/SPS/ENQ/24 for the latest list of Enquiry Poin ts circulated as an official document by the 
WTO Secretariat in October 2008.  The most up-to-dat e information on Members' Enquiry Points can be 
accessed through the SPS IMS. 
8 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.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  9. The Committee has also adopted a special format and recommended procedures for the 
notification of determination of the recognition of equivalence of sanitary or phytosanitary measures.  
Furthermore, the Secretariat has established a mech anism for Members to inform each other of the 
availability of unofficial translations of notified measures into one of the official languages of the 
WTO.  These are submitted in the form of supplements to the original notification.  As of 31 August, 
two equivalence and 12 supplement not ifications had been circulated. 
10. Considering all types of notifications together, a total of 9,426 notifications were submitted to 
the WTO as of 31 August 2008.  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 1,196 for the 
year 2007. 
11. 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 measures are indeed being notified to the WTO.  The specific 
trade concerns raised at meetings of the SPS Co mmittee still regularly include failures to notify 
measures. 
Figure 1 
Notifications Submitted per Year
0200400600800100012001400
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
(Aug)
Regular Notification Addenda/Corrigenda Emergency Notification
 
Notifying Members 
12. Out of the 153 WTO Members, 98 (64 per cent) have to date submitted at least one 
notification to the WTO.  Excluding all EC member States, those which have not include 46 developing countries of which 23 are LDCs. 
13. As can be seen in Figure 2, the share of notifications submitted by developed country 
Members reaches 55 per cent while the share of t hose by developing country  Members is 43 per cent.
9  
                                                      
9 The categories of level of development rely on WTO working definitions as identified in the 
Integrated Database (IDB ) for analytical purposes. 
 G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  A very small share comes from LDCs.  As can be se en in Figure 3, there has been a steady increase in 
notifications from developing country Members over the years. 
 
Figure 2 
Development Status of Notif ying Members 
as of August 31, 2008
55.76%43.87%0.37%
Developed Developing Least Developed
 
 
Figure 3 
Notifications by developing countries per year
0100200300400500600700
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
(Aug)No. of Notifications
Regular Emergency Addenda/Corrigenda
  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  14. 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.
10 
 
Figure 4 
Notifications by Geographical Region
NA
SA, CA and 
the Caribbean
CISMiddle East
AfricaAsia
Europe
05001000150020002500300035004000
 
15. The Members which have submitted the greatest number of notifications as of 
31 August 2008, including all formats, are the following: 
Table 1.  Members which have submitted the most notifications 
 
Member  No. of 
NotificationsShare of 
Total 
United States 2,669 28.3% 
Brazil 607 6.4% 
European Communities 567 6.0% 
Canada 526 5.6% 
New Zealand 508 5.4% 
Korea 342 3.6% 
Chile 315 3.3% 
China 278 2.9% 
Australia 263 2.8% 
Mexico 237 2.5% 
 
                                                      
10 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's Annual Reports. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
  Products covered 
16. In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of  Annex B of the SPS Agreement and the 2002 
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, few provide the specific HS  codes.  It is interesting to note, however, that 
most Members indicated they would welcome the provision of these codes by their trading partners.
11 
17. 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.12  While being only 
indicative, an assessment at the two-digit level shows that the products covered by regular and 
emergency notifications most often fall under the following categories: 
Table 2.  HS Codes assigned to notifications 
 
Regular 
HS Code Description Share of total 
(38) miscellaneous chemical products  (in particular pesticides) 15% 
(02) meat and edible meat offal 13% (08) edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons 9% (07) edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers 8% 
   
Emergency 
HS Code Description Share of total 
(02) meat and edible meat offal 27% 
(01) live animals 24% 
(04) dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of 
animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included 11% 
(05) products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included 10% 
 
Regions/countries affected 
18. The 2002 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 to Augus t 2008 indicate that only 28 per cent have 
identified a specific group of countries or a region, while others contain general references such as 
"all trading partners", "all countries", etc.  Some 13 per cent of all regular a nd emergency notifications 
have left this box blank. 
19. The 2008 Transparency Procedures include a m odified entry option for this item whereby 
Members are invited to either check a box ("all trad ing partners") if no specific region or country can 
be identified or otherwise provide more specific in formation.  On the one hand, the work of other 
Members would be facilitated if more specificity was provided by notifying Members.  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. 
                                                      
11 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. 
12 This information is now available in the SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS).  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Objective and Rationale 
20. In accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of  Annex B of the SPS Agreement and the 2002 
Transparency Procedures, Members are also required to state the objective and rationale of proposed 
regulations.  Looking at the notifications subm itted from June 2007 to Au gust 2008 shows that 
roughly one third have referred to food safety and about one quarter to plant protection as one of the 
objectives.  Animal health and zoonoses combined acc ount for about one third of objectives.  It must 
be noted, however, that many notifications identif y more than one objective.  Therefore, the table 
below specifies the total number of times the sp ecific objective was assigned regardless of whether 
notifications had multiple entries or not. 
Table 3. "Objectives" of notified SPS measures (June 2007-August 2008) 
 
  Total for Jun 2007-Aug 2008 Share over 15 month period 
Food Safety 670 35.2% 
Animal Health 215 11.3% 
Plant Protection 485 25.4% 
Protect humans from animal 
(Zoonosis) / plant pest or disease 402 21.1% 
Protect territory from other 
damage from pests 134 7.0% 
 
International Standards, Guidelines or Recommendations 
21. The SPS Agreement does not require Members to notify a measure if its content is 
substantially the same as that of an internati onal standard.  Nonetheless, the 2002 Transparency 
Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.2) ask Members to indicate wh ether a relevant international standard exists 
and if so, to describe how the notifie d measure deviates from that standard. 
22. Figure 5 suggests that most regular notificati ons relate to measures which are not covered 
directly by international standards.  Still, ther e have been exceptions.  Fo r example, more than 90 
notifications relating to IPPC's ISPM 15 have been circulated.13 
23. At the same time, Figure 6 shows that almost  68 per cent of emergency notifications during 
the 15-month period under analysis referred to the OIE as having a relevant international standard. 
                                                      
13 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.1 
Page 8  
 
  Figure 5 
Regular Notifcations referrin g to a relevant 
international standard
Codex 
16%
IPPC
12%
OIE
11%None
61%
 
 
Figure 6 
Emer gency Notifications referrin g to a relevant 
international standard
Codex 
8% IPPC
12%
OIE
68%None
12%
 
24. The 2008 Transparency Procedures encourage Me mbers 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.  The Secretariat has been requ ested to include details 
on these aspects in its regular transparency overview documents.14 
                                                      
14 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para. 8.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Final date for comments 
25. 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 2002 
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 15-month period of June 2007 
to August 2008 shows, in Table 4, that 28 per cen t of notifications have not provided a comment 
period.  For those that do provide comment peri ods, these average 49 days when calculated as the 
difference between the deadline for final date fo r comments and the date of circulation of the 
notification.  A more detailed analysis of the da ta shows that developing country Members provide a 
longer comment period on average than developed c ountry Members (51 days compared to 46 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. 
26. It should be noted that no comment period need be provided in the case of trade liberating 
measures.  In addition, as there is no obligation to  notify measures based on the relevant international 
standards, no comment period 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 relevant international standard. 
27. The 2008 Transparency Procedures have further elaborated on the 60-day comment period.  
Where domestic regulatory mechanism allow, the 60- day comment period should normally begin with 
the circulation of the notification by the WTO Secr etariat.  The revised formats also offer a checkbox 
option for such a 60-day comment period to enc ourage Members to follow this recommendation.
15  
The next overview document will pr ovide an update on this aspect. 
 
Table 4. Comment Period Provided in Regular Notifications (June 2007 - August 2008) 
 
All Members 
 No.  Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 1012 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 260 26% Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 19 2% Comment Period Available 733 72%           Average Comment Period provided 48.6 days    
Developed country Members 
 No.  Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 462 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 52* 11% Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 16 3% Comment Period Available 394 85%           Average Comment Period provided 46.4 days    
*Out of the 52 Not indi cated / Not Available:   
            8 were trade facilitating measures   
                                                      
15 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, para.13. G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 
Page 10  
 
            12 specified that comments could be submitted anytime   
   
Developing country Members 
 No. Share 
No. of Regular Notifications 550 - 
Comment Period Not Indicated / Not Available 208** 38% Comment Period Ends before Distribution Date 3 1% Comment Period Available 339 62%           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 bila teral consultations had already taken place   
 
Text available from 
28. 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 accessible to other Members through a hyperlink in the notification 
format.16  From February until October 2008, less than 10 per cent of notificati ons have provided the 
full text or a summary of their notif ied regulations using this facility. 
Issue keywords 
29. With the SPS IMS, notifications can also be cat egorized according to a list of approximately 
60 predefined keywords, which describe issues app earing frequently in notifications.  The CRN has 
assigned these keywords since 2003.  These keywords assist searching for notifications in certain 
areas.  The keywords which have been most freque ntly assigned by the CRN to regular notifications 
are, in descending order:  pesticides, MRLs, pe sts, food additives, and veterinary drugs. For 
emergency notifications the most frequent keywords  are: avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, 
BSE, regionalization, and pests. 
IV. RECENT EFFORTS TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS FROM A TRANSPARENT 
SYSTEM 
30. 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 
                                                     
 
16 See G/SPS/7/Rev.3, pa ra. 22 and Annex C.  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Authorities indicates that this is one of the areas where Members ar e looking for technical assistance 
and guidance on best practices.17 
31. There have been some recent efforts to address this issue.  The public version of the SPS IMS 
was launched in October 2007.  It allows access to most recent information on notifications as well as 
Enquiry Points and National Notification Authorities.  It also includes information on specific trade 
concerns and other SPS documents.  It facilita tes 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 Secretariat has provide d demonstration sessions on the SPS IMS during the 
SPS Committee meetings and during its technical assi stance programmes.  It has also responded to 
ad hoc requests from Members and othe r interested parties for assistance. 
32. 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 countries.
18  The objective of this voluntary proce dure 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 11 Members seeking mentoring assistance have been matched with 6 Members 
offering mentoring assistance. 
33. In addition, New Zealand, with the assistance of Australia as well as the Secretariat, has been 
developing a practical Manual on the operation of E nquiry Points and Notification Authorities.  This 
manual will be available at the latest by ea rly 2009, both on-line and in hard copy. 
V. OTHER ASPECTS RELATING TO TRANSPARENCY 
34. 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 no tice at an early stage regarding proposals 
to introduce a particular regulation?  (Annex B, paragraph 5(a)) 
• To what extent are translations into E nglish, 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)) 
• Are Members publishing their SPS regulations, which have been adopted, promptly?  
Are they providing a reasonable interval – of normally a period of not less than six months - between the publication of an SPS regulation and its entry into force?  (Annex B, paragraph 2 of the SPS Agreem ent and paragraph 3.2 of the Doha 
Decision on Implementation-Related Is sues and Concerns (WT/MIN(01)/17)).
19 
                                                      
17 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. 
18 See G/SPS/W/217. 
19 The revised regular notification format contained in the 2008 Transparency  Procedures includes a 
new field for entering the "proposed date of publication" while maintaining the existing field for the "proposed 
date of entry into force". In addition, it includes a default checkbox for a six-month interval between the G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.1 
Page 12  
 
  35. 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 possible to include 
further details on these questions.  Members are en couraged to complement this overview document 
through submissions to the SPS Committee regarding their own experience in matters related to the 
transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
 
__________  
                                                                                                                                                                    
 
publication and entry into force of a new measure.  These new features might  assist the Secret ariat in including 
some more information on this question in its next overview document.