WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/751 
21 February 2007 
 (07-0705) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
 
ANALYSIS OF REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE OPERATION OF 
ENQUIRY POINTS AND NATIONAL NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The SPS Committee will hold its third special meeting on transparency provisions in 
October 2007.  The first two special meetings were held in November 1999 and October 2003.2 
2. Members have underlined the need to lay th e necessary groundwork in advance of this 
meeting with a view to making it a results-oriente d and problem-solving workshop.  It is expected 
that the meeting will be attended by a large number developing and least-developed country 
representatives thanks to the special funding arrangements.  Therefore, it will be a good opportunity not only to exchange views but also to address a nd resolve more directly the concerns of Members 
with respect to the implementation of transparency obligations. 
3. To help prepare the special meeting, the SPS Committee asked the Secretariat to circulate a 
questionnaire regarding the difficulties Members face  in the effective operation of Enquiry Points 
(EPs) and National Notification Authorities (NNAs) .  The Secretariat distributed the questionnaire 
in December 2006, with a deadline for replies by the end of January 2007.
3 
4. This Note provides an analysis of the repli es received to-date and highlights some notable 
issues.  The replies themselves have not been circulated as WTO documents but they can be 
consulted through the WTO Secretariat. 
5. Members are invited to consider the main  issues emerging from the replies during the 
upcoming informal meeting on transparency to be  held on 27 February 2007, with a view to 
providing inputs for the special meeting in Octobe r.  If the Secretariat receives a significant number 
of additional replies to the Questionnaire and/or if the Committee deems it necessary, a revision of 
this Note will be prepared for the s ubsequent meeting of the Committee. 
II. OVERVIEW OF REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 
6. A total of 50 replies to the questionnaire were received from Members and one Observer.4  As 
can be seen in Figure 1, three of these replies cam e from least-developed country Members, 34 from 
developing and 13 from developed country Members. 
                                                      
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 The reports of these meetings can be found  in G/SPS/R/16 and G/SPS/R/32 respectively. 
3 The questionnaire was circul ated as G/SPS/W/103/Rev.2. 
4 See Attachment 1 for a full list of respondents. G/SPS/GEN/751 
Page 2  
 
   
Figure 1. Development status of respondents to 
questionnaire
13 
Developed 
(26%)3 LDCs
(6 %)
34 
Developing 
(68%)
 
 
7. In terms of regional breakdown, as can be seen in  Figure 2, at least one reply was received 
from each of the seven regional categories, some of which contain more Members than others.  More specifically, three replies were received from North America, 18 from South and Central 
America and the Caribbean, eight from Europe, two from the Commonwealth of Independent States 
(CIS), seven from Africa, one from the Middle East, and 11 from Asia. 
 
Figure 2. Regional breakdown of respondents
6%
36%
16%4%14%2%22%North America
South and Central America
and the Caribbean
Europe
CIS
Afric a
The Middle East
 
 
8. Overall, the issues that stand out can be summarized as follows: 
(a) There is a strong preference for enhanced interaction among EPs and NNAs for the 
purpose of exchanging informa tion and experiences more regularly and directly.  This 
could be accomplished through the creati on of a more close-knit "community", 
possibly using the Internet, and/or thro ugh "twinning" arrangements and visits.  G/SPS/GEN/751 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
(b) There is a strong interest in improving the services of EPs and NNAs, both in 
submitting notifications and in managing a nd responding to incoming notifications.  
To this effect, respondents are in search  of best-practices and well-established 
procedures that work, along with any accomp anying hardware and software tools. 
(c) There is a high level of information flow between the WTO and most EPs/NNAs, 
even if there is room for improvement.  The challenge sometimes seems to be with 
how to utilize the information available for specific purposes. 
(d) Respondents underline the need to raise aw areness regarding the benefits as well as 
obligations arising from transparency provi sions, both at the political level and with 
the private sector. 
(e) In terms of notifications procedure, some  respondents point to difficulties and delays 
in obtaining full texts or summaries of notified measures and would like to see the development of a procedure that might address this problem. 
(f) A large majority of respondents prefer th at Members notify "some" or "all" new or 
changed regulations, whether or not they ar e based on an international standard.  At 
the same time, some respondents point out the voluntary nature of such a possible step while others warn against generating an excessive number of notifications when 
Members are already struggling to keep up with current volumes. 
(g) About a third of EPs do not seem to be in formed regularly of the development or 
adoption of international standards at Codex, the IPPC or the OIE.  The Committee 
may wish to take a closer look at this  problem and identify any steps to enhance 
information flow among the WTO EPs/NNAs, the three sisters, and their national contact points. 
(h) With respect to the provision of HS codes on notifications, the current practice seems 
to be very mixed while most respondents seem to favour more regular provision of 
HS codes, albeit with some caution.   
 
III. DETAILS OF REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 
9. The questionnaire included 15 sections with a to tal of 43 questions, some of which invited 
further comment.  This section looks more closely at replies provided under each of the fifteen 
sections and is best read in conjunction w ith the questionnaire itself (G/SPS/W/103/Rev.2). 
10. Some of the questions required the respondent s to choose out of a predetermined set of 
answers, which was not always possible for the r espondents due to their specific situations, i.e. 
multiple EPs, different procedures for food safety,  animal health and pl ant health, EC member 
States, etc.  Some questions were open-ended.  Wh ere feasible, a statistical analysis has been made 
of the 50 sets of replies received and the ma in points emerging from the comments summarized.   
11. Under Section 1 on  Contact Details, quite a few respondents provided modifications to their 
EP and NNA contact information contained in the most recent Secretariat documents (G/SPS/ENQ/20 and G/SPS/NNA/10, both dated October 2006).  Members should regularly inform 
the Secretariat of changes to their EPs and NNAs. G/SPS/GEN/751 
Page 4  
 
  12. Under Section 2 on  Enquiry Points and National Notification Authorities, 25 respondents 
indicated that their EPs and NNAs are separate agen cies while 19 others indicated that they are 
under the same agency.  The remaining six respondents are EC member States.
5 
13. Under Sections 3 and 4 on Staff and Equipment – Enquiry Point/National Notification 
Authority , it has not been possible to come up with an average figure as to how many staff dedicate 
their time serving these two entities.  Some respondents have highlighted that it is one of many tasks 
of the one or two staff responsible for this task wh ile others have provided names of institutions.  In 
terms of computer facilities, e-mail and word processor seem to be commonly used by all respondents while internet use seems to be slightly  less common (around 70 per cent).  Up to half of 
the respondents have indicated their use of a database. 
14. Under Section 5 on  Notifications, 34 respondents have indicated that the submission of 
notifications is part of a regular procedure fo r developing national SPS regul ations while 12 others 
have indicated that it is not.  (Four did not reply).  As for the comment period provided on notifications, 23 respondents (or half of all those repl ying to this question) have confirmed that it is 
determined by national regulatory procedures while some of the others have referred to the 60-day 
comment period provided for in the rele vant Committee decision (G/SPS/7/Rev.2). 
15. With respect to the provision of HS codes  on notifications, the current practice seems to be 
very mixed.  However, most respondents seem to fa vour more regular provision of HS codes, albeit 
with some caution.  Five respondents have indicated that they already provide HS codes on all of their notifications, 13 have indicated that they  sometimes provide the HS codes, and 17 have 
indicated that they currently do not provide HS c odes but could easily do so if requested.  Another 
five have indicated that they could not easily provide HS codes.  When asked whether they would 
find it useful if other Members provided HS c odes on their notifications, 32 respondents have 
replied in the affirmative and three in the negative with the others providing either no answer or a 
nuanced one.  Some have pointed out the difficulty of providing HS codes while notifying horizontal 
measures affecting additives or packaging, others  have indicated their concerns with increased 
workload and yet others have indicated their pref erence for more precise description of coverage in 
words or the provision of ICS codes instead. 
16. Under Section 6 on International Standards, 33 respondents have indicated that either the 
EP or the NNA (or both) is regularly informed of  the development or a doption of international 
standards by Codex, OIE, and the IPPC.  For 16 othe rs or about a third of all respondents, this seems 
not to be the case.  The Committee may wish to take a closer look at this question and identify steps 
to enhance information flow among the WTO EPs/NNAs , the three sisters, and their national contact 
points. 
17. With respect to notifications, ten respondents have indicated that they only notify those 
regulations that are not based on  international standards , 24 have indicated that they notify all new 
or changed regulations, whether or not they are b ased on an international standard and ten others 
have indicated that they notify some regulations that  are based on international standards, if they are 
of particular interest to trading partners.  On  the other hand, 38 respondents have shown preference 
for the notification by other Members of all new or changed regulations, whether or not they are 
based on an international standard or not and two others have shown preference for the notification 
of some regulations that are based on an internationa l standard, if they are of particular interest to 
                                                     
 
5 The European Communities had provided furthe r information on the operational procedures 
of the European Communities and its member Stat es regarding transparency obligations under the 
SPS Agreement in document G/SPS/GEN/456. 
  G/SPS/GEN/751 
 Page 5 
 
 
  trading partners.  Eight respondents have specifically indicated a preference for notifying "only" 
those regulations that are not based on an interna tional standard.  These respondents note the need to 
avoid an excessive number of notifications and to first ensure that Members comply with their obligations under Annex B.  The Committee ma y wish to examine this question further. 
18. Under Section 7 on Handling Requests for Full Texts  of proposed and adopted regulations, 
19 respondents have indicated that it is the EP, seven  have indicated that it is the NNA and 22 others 
have indicated that it is both which have this res ponsibility.  In terms of having a complete inventory 
of proposed and adopted sanitary and phytosanitary regulations, 18 have indicated that their EP has 
an inventory, three have indicated that their NNA have it and nine have indicated that both their EP 
and NNA have an inventory.  Fifteen other respondents have indicated that they do not keep an 
inventory.  As for copies of full texts of proposed  and adopted regulations, 16 have indicated that 
their EP keeps them, five have indicated that th eir NNA keeps them and 14 others have indicated 
that both entities keep them.  On the other hand, 12 respondents have indicated that neither the EP 
nor the NNA keeps them.   
19. The specific sub-question with respect to prov iding summaries of SPS measures in one of the 
official languages of the WTO was not applicable  to many respondents as their working language 
was one of the three official languages of the WTO.   However, six respondents indicated that they 
could not provide such summaries.  Considering the various comments made on the difficulties in obtaining full texts or summaries of notified measu res, the Committee may wish to look into ways 
of facilitating access to these. 
20. Under Section 8 on Handling other Requests for Information , 28 respondents have 
indicated that questions addressed to the EP are answ ered directly by the EP.  With respect to the 
time that it may take to respond to queries, the period indicated by the respondents varies from one to 60 days, with a very rough estimate of about a week on average. 
21. Under Section 9 on Interagency Communication and Coordination , EPs of 44 respondents 
and NNAs of 40 respondents have been described as having regular contact with officials in the 
relevant ministries.   
22. Under Section 10 on SPS Documents/Committee Meetings , almost all respondents have 
indicated that their EP receives other Members' SPS notifications.  Thirty-six have indicated that 
their EP receives the monthly summary of notifica tions (which seem to be highly appreciated by 
Members) and 40 have indicated that they recei ve copies of other SPS documents.  Twenty-one EP 
representatives follow the work of the SPS Commi ttee by attending the SPS Committee meetings 
while 18 others follow it through other means.  Eight  EPs seem not to be following the Committee at 
all.  As for contacts with EP of other Members,  21 have indicated that they have regular contact 
while 24 have indicated that they do not.  In ten cases, either the EP or the NNA did not have a copy 
of the WTO Handbook on Transparency.  Overall, in light of these results and of comments complementing the replies, it would seem that there is a good level of information flow even if there 
is room for improvement.  The challenge seems to be to utilize the information available for specific 
purposes.  The complementary comments indicate a strong preference for establishing stronger links 
among EPs/NNAs, either through the creation of a community, possibly using an internet forum 
and/or through establishing twinning arrangements. 
23. Under Section 11 on Other Services , 15 respondents have indicate d that their EP regularly 
provides information about other countries' impor t requirements to domestic producers/exporters 
while 21 others have indicated that they do so wh en requested.  For 13 others, this service does not 
seem to be provided.  As for providing comment s on other Members' SPS notifications, only 20 EPs 
seem to be involved in this exercise.  With resp ect to the provision of information about national 
import requirements to national producers/impor ters/experts, 14 EPs are described as doing it G/SPS/GEN/751 
Page 6  
 
  regularly, 24 upon request and nine not at all.  In about half the cases, the EP is described as 
providing other services, such as serving as a contact point for the Codex, OIE or IPPC. 
24. Under Section 12 on Technical Assistance , 15 respondents, including a number of 
developing countries, have indicated that they ha ve provided technical a ssistance to EPs and/or 
NNAs.  A total of 29 respondents, including deve loping countries and one LDC, have indicated their 
willingness to provide technical assistance.  With re spect to identifying specific technical assistance 
needs, 24 respondents have indicated that they ha ve done so while an equal number have not.  In 
terms of requesting technical assistance, 11 have requested and received technical assistance, four 
have requested but not received it, six have received but not requested it and 27 (including 13 
developed countries) have neither requested nor re ceived assistance.  Expectations from technical 
assistance include the following:  how to notif y and how to manage incoming notifications, 
guidance on best-practices, visits to other EPs, twinning with other EPs, enhanced intra-EP 
communication, exchange of experiences, prior n eeds assessment, IT tools such as computers and 
databases, awareness-raising, clarification of SPS vs. TBT measures, and risk analysis. 
25. Under Section 13 on Special and Differential Treatment , 42 respondents have indicated 
that they are aware of the Procedure to Enhance Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment 
in Favour of Developing Country Members (G/SPS/ 33).  As for the reasons why no notifications 
had been received under the new procedure, 28 r espondents have indicated that developing country 
Members are unable to screen incoming notifi cations quickly enough, while another 12 have 
indicated that developing country Members are using other channels to request special and 
differential treatment.  Four suggested that the procedure is being used but not being notified. 
26. Under Section 14 on Equivalence , 42 respondents have indicated that they are aware of the 
Committee's Decision on Notification of Determ ination of the Recognition of Equivalence 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.2/Add.1).  With respect to the possible reasons for the lack of any notification of determination of equivalence, the replies are very mixed, and not limited to the options indicated in 
the questionnaire.  Twelve respondents suggested that the Decision is being used but not being 
notified, 19 are of the view that Members are us ing mechanisms other than equivalence to obtain 
market access and 17 believe that Members are unable to reach agreement on the recognition of equivalence in practice.  A number of respondents make reference to regional trade agreements as 
facilitating equivalence.  G/SPS/GEN/751 
 Page 7 
 
 
  ATTACHMENT I 
 
LIST OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 
 
1 Argentina 
2 Armenia 
3 Australia 
4 Austria 
5 Belarus (Observer) 
6 Belize 
7 Benin 
8 Brazil 
9 Cameroon 
10 Canada 
11 Chile 
12 China 
13 Colombia 
14 Costa Rica 
15 Cuba 
16 Czech Republic 
17 Dominica 
18 Dominican Republic 
19 Egypt 
20 El Salvador 
21 European Communities 
22 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
23 Germany 
24 Guatemala 
25 Guyana 
26 Hong Kong, China 
27 Italy 
28 Japan 
29 Kenya 
30 Korea, Republic of 
31 Macao, China 
32 Mauritius 
33 Mexico 
34 Morocco 
35 Nepal 
36 New Zealand 
37 Niger 
38 Pakistan 
39 Panama 
40 Paraguay 
41 Peru 
42 Philippines 
43 Saint Kitts and Nevis 
44 Saint Lucia 
45 Slovak Republic 
46 Spain 
47 Chinese Taipei 
48 Trinidad and Tobago 
49 United States 
50 Unidentified Golf Cooperation Council Member 
__________