RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/16
20 January 2000
(00-0243)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SPS COMMITTEE
ON THE TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT
9 November 1999
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "SPS Committee") held a
Special Meeting on the transparency provisions of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (the "SPS Agreement") on 9 November 1999.  Mr. Attie Swart (South Africa)
chaired the meeting.  The programme for the meeting is attached (Annex 1).
I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
2. The Chairman recalled that in the autumn of 1995, the Secretariats of the SPS and TBT
Committees had jointly organized a meeting focusing  on the transparency provision of both the TBT
and SPS Agreements.  At that time, the objective had been to introduce the provisions of these
agreements, which were then new, and outline the differences between them.  The emphasis in thecurrent meeting was on implementation rather than on the basics.  He noted that after 1 January 2000,
the provisions of the SPS Agreement, including the transparency provisions, would be binding also on
least developed country Members of the WTO.
3. The purpose of the meeting was to have an in-depth discussion of problems and concerns
relating in particular to notifications and the functioning of enquiry points and notification authorities.
Officials from the enquiry points and notification authorities of all Members had been invited.  The
Secretariat had sponsored
1 the participation of officials from the eight LDCs (Bangladesh, Burkina
Faso, Djibouti, Madagascar, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia) which had notified either their
enquiry point or notification authority to the WTO, or both.  The Chairman welcomed the substantial
and important participation by capital-based de legations from developing and least developed
countries.
4. During the meeting the Secretariat made two presentations, one on the definition of SPS
measures vis-à-vis TBT measures and the other on transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement.2
Donna Roberts of the United States Permanent Mi ssion to the WTO spoke about the implementation
of the SPS Agreement's transparency provision over the past five years, with particular emphasis on
developing countries.3  Under the programme item "case studies" several Members, including many
developing countries, made presentations on the manner in which they had implemented the
                                                     
1 The Norwegian Trust Fund was used.
2 The slides used by the Secretariat are contained in documents G/SPS/GEN/148 and 151.  The presentation on the transparency
provisions was based on the Annex of G/SPS/12.  This Annex contains the currently valid Recommended Notification Procedures, to gether
with the formats for regular and emergency notifications.  It has subsequently been circulated as G/SPS/7/Rev.1.
3 Slides contained in G/SPS/GEN/147.G/SPS/R/16
Page 2
transparency provisions: Chile (G/SPS/GEN/154)4, New Zealand (G/SPS/GEN/161), Thailand
(G/SPS/GEN/155), the European Communities (G/ SPS/GEN/149), Malawi (G/SPS/GEN/150), South
Africa, Zambia (G/SPS/GEN/156) and the United States.  Finally, the Committee discussed a draft
handbook on how to implement the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement.
5. The Chairman stressed that this was a s pecial  meeting of the SPS Committee and that he
would report on the outcome of the meeting at the Committee's regular session the following day.
This summary report presents the main issues raised during the meeting.
II. ISSUES
1. Setting up an enquiry point or notification authority
6. Several Members noted that setting up a notification authority and enquiry point was not
necessarily very resource demanding.  Some countries had not hired additional staff at all and did not
even employ one person on a full time basis.  Others indicated that up to seven officers staffed acombined notification authority and enquiry point.  The majority of Members to make presentations
had combined the institutions.  But there existed also examples of countries with several enquiry
points – each with separate areas of responsibility (food safety, animal health and plant health) – and a
separate notification authority.  In some cases the same institutions serviced both the SPS and TBT
Committees.  The basic equipment needed include d a computer with basic database and word-
processing software, a phone, a fax machine, a telephone and, preferably, access to Internet and
e-mail.
2. Domestic coordination
7. Members noted that the implementation of the SPS Agreement affected many different areas
of competence in Members' governments.  In particular, two points were stressed:  (i) coordinationamong different government bodies affected by the implementation of the SPS Agreement's; and (ii)
the link between policy people and technical people.
8. A major concern expressed by several developing countries was the need for domestic
coordination among the various actors and institutions within a country involved in the
implementation of SPS requirements.  As the SPS Agreement covered several areas (food safety,animal health and plant health), potentially many  agencies, institutions, departments or ministries
were involved.  Examples raised included proposed regulations emanating from a forestry research
institute on imports of plant products;  from the ministry of health on food safety;  and from an
institute on national parks and wildlife on imports of animals.  All these institutions were not
necessarily aware that regulations with a potential affect on trade would have to be notified to the
WTO.  Hence, there was in many countries the need for finding better ways of coordination.  Some
governments dealt with this problem by creating national "SPS committees" or "national coordinationcommittees".  Such a cross-cutting forum acted as a coordinator between different national institutions
proposing regulations that could affect trading partners.  This body could also liase with the three
relevant international standard-setting bodies (the Codex, OIE and IPPC).
9. For some Members, the enquiry point and notification authorities already to some extent
functioned as coordinating platforms.  Officials running these institutions were directly involved inimplementing and applying the SPS Agreement in that they were also involved with preparatory work
ahead of SPS Committee meetings and other SPS related work.  The usefulness of having those
                                                     
4 The representative of Chile also drew the Committee's attention to documents G/SPS/W/38 and W/39 from 1995 which list,
inter alia , bilateral agreements to which Chile is party and give a description, in more detail, of the implementation of the transparenc y
provisions of the SPS Agreement in Chile.G/SPS/R/16
Page 3
responsible for the implementation of the transp arency provisions involved in implementing SPS
policy and following the work of the WTO SPS Committee was emphasized repeatedly by
delegations.  This did not mean that the notification authority and the enquiry point staff had to
personally have technical competence in all SPS areas.  For instance, whilst it was the responsibility
of a notification authority to respond to a request for information from another Member concerning anotified regulation, the notification authority itself did not need to have the answer to the question
posed.  It did, however, need to know how and from  whom to get the answer.  Likewise, it did not
necessarily have to be within the competence of notification authority officials to fill in the
notification format for a proposed new or changed regulation.  This could be the duty of, for example,
a national standard-setting body responsible for developing that standard.  Nevertheless, it would
remain the responsibility of the notification authority to ensure that a notification be issued whenever
a new measure was proposed that affected trade (or an old one changed).  The notification authoritywould also typically be involved in checking the consistency and accuracy of notifications coming
from different sectors of the country.  In these cases, the notification authority served as a bridge
between the work of the national standard-setting entities and the WTO SPS Committee.   The
Chairman noted that a good way of strengthening th is "bridge" between policy and technical agencies
was the participation in the Committee, at least for one meeting, of a senior capital based official.
3. E-mail and Internet
10. Several Members stressed the desirability to increase the use of electronic means of
communication (e-mail and Internet) at enquiry points and notification authorities.  The Chairman
noted that transparency generally worked in favour of many developing countries and that electronic
means were becoming an increasingly important tool to further this aim.  Whilst it was true thatelectronic means of communication posed infrastructural problems for many developing countries, it
could also be one of the cheapest ways of making a vast leap forward.  Nevertheless, it would also be
important to maintain a parallel alternative means of communication for those unable to use e-mail or
the Internet.
11. The Secretariat noted that it had recently established an e-mail list to which Members could
subscribe in order to receive notifications via e-mail (for information on how to subscribe see
Annex 2 to this report).  At the time of the mee ting, notifications were being sent out twice a week.
Parallel to this, the Secretariat maintained its usual practice of circulating notifications.  Paper copies
of notifications were provided to the missions of WTO Members.  It was up to each individual
mission to forward the notifications to their enquiry points or notification authorities in capitals.
Alternatively, upon request, the Secretariat could al so mail notifications to a single address in the
capital.
12. The Secretariat stressed the importance of keeping the lists of enquiry points
5 and notification
authorities6 up to date.  This could be done by informing the Secretariat about any change in contact
details via fax, e-mail or letter.  The Secretariat recalled that it had circulated a questionnaire after the
last SPS Committee meeting to request Members to identify any relevant web-sites where there was
information relevant to SPS measures.  The responses have been put together in a compilationdocument contained in G/SPS/GEN/144.
13. The United States presented a proposal on "Voluntary transparency".  The idea was to
enhance the distribution of information via the Internet.  The term "voluntary" was used as the
proposal did not pertain to any obligation under the SPS Agreement.  While currently there was some
sharing of comments on notified documents and translations of these, most Members did not know
                                                     
5 G/SPS/ENQ series.  The latest at the time of writing:  G/SPS/ENQ/9, dated 3 November 1999.
6 The latest list at the time of writing:  G/SPS/GEN/141, dated 3 November 1999.G/SPS/R/16
Page 4
that this information existed.  The proposal was inte nded to help Members to be kept informed about
who was volunteering information on what.  This could be done by making a very brief indication in
the existing notification formats or directly on the document put on the Internet as a hyper-link.  The
full proposal is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/152.
4. Technical Assistance
14. Many developing countries stressed the need for continued technical assistance.  Particularly
in the areas of risk assessment there was a lack of know-how and laboratory equipment. The general
knowledge of the WTO agreements was not high in most LDCs.  Only those institutions directly
involved with WTO matters were aware of obligations and requirements.  There was a need for
regular  seminars on implementation of the SPS Agreement.
5. Implementation – five years on
15. On the implementation of the SPS Agreement to date, Donna Roberts of the US Permanent
mission to the WTO, noted that the ongoing process of scientific change made it inevitable that
governments over time would change existing or establish new SPS measures.  This underlined the
importance of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement.  The transparency provisions
created an extensive system of monitoring in the absence of which many developing countries would
have little means of securing pertinent information on changes in import requirements.
16. In the first four years of implementation, 85 of 94 Members who have that obligation, had
notified their notification authority and enquiry point.  Notifications had increased steadily since
1995, and in particular, notifications from developing countries had increased in recent years.  Using
the SPS Committee as a forum for discussion, over 80 interventions on separate issues had been
made.  Whilst most issues were matters among developed countries, over the last two years anincreasing number of developing countries raised specific trade concerns, particularly related to their
trade with developed countries.  To the extent trade concerns could be addressed and solved in the
framework of the SPS Committee itself, this was less costly than pursuing the formal dispute
settlement mechanisms.  This was one of the benefits flowing from active participation in the SPS
Committee.
III. DRAFT HANDBOOK ON THE TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS
17. The Chairman informed the SPS Committee that the Technical Cooperation and Training
Division  had launched a project on developing a handbook offering practical guidance to developing
and least developed countries on how to go about fulfilling the transparency obligations of the SPS
Agreement.  This had been done in response to requests from several developing and least developed
countries.  Similar requests had also surfaced at a number of SPS technical cooperation seminars,
most recently in Namibia in July 1999.  The aim was to publish the Handbook as a WTO publicationearly in the year 2000.  The purpose of the discussion at the meeting was to solicit comments and
suggestions on the draft at hand. The Chairman recognized the substantial contribution of New
Zealand in developing the draft.
18. The Secretariat introduced the draft handbook.  It was emphasized that the document
represented "work in progress".  The objective was to include in the final version of the handbook:  (i)case studies of how Members operated their enquiry points and notification authorities; (ii) sample
letters from these authorities (i.e., the acknowledgement of receipt of comments); and (iii) examples
of text used for filling out the notification formats.  The Secretariat emphasized that the document
should not be seen as an interpretation of the SPS Agreement;  it was a document that was for
guidance for Members and did not prejudice Members rights under the WTO Agreements.  Astatement to this effect would be included in the text of the final version of the handbook.G/SPS/R/16
Page 5
19. In general, Members noted that the Handbook was potentially a useful document and stressed
the importance of examples and a user-friendly presentation.  Some Members made specific
proposals.  New Zealand stressed that the handbook would also be a good way for Members to realize
how they could "get the most out of" their enquiry points and notification authorities;  the
transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement included rights and benefits, and not only obligations.
20. Members were invited to provide further comments on the draft by 15 December 1999.G/SPS/R/16
Page 6
IV. ANNEX 1 – THE PROGRAMME
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SPS COMMITTEE
ON SPS TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS
TUESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 1999
PROGRAMME
ROOM D,  9.30 a.m.
A. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN
Chairman of the SPS Committee, Mr. Attie Swart
B. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPS AND TBT MEASURES
WTO Secretariat,  Erik Wijkström
C. THE TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS OF THE SPS AGREEMENT
WTO Secretariat,  Christiane Wolff
D. TRANSPARENCY ISSUES  -  AFTER 5 YEARS OF IMPLEMENTATION
Donna Roberts, Senior Economist, Economic Research Service, USDA
E. CASE STUDIES  –
ENQUIRY POINTS / NATIONAL NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES
Presentations by delegations
F. DRAFT HANDBOOK ON THE OPERATION OF ENQUIRY POINTS AND
NATIONAL  NOTIFICATION AUTHORITIES -  PRESENTATION AND
DISCUSSION
G. CONCLUSION AND BRIEFING ON THE UPCOMING SPS COMMITTEE
MEETING
WTO Secretariat, Gretchen StantonG/SPS/R/16
Page 7
V. ANNEX 2 – ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS
ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF SPS NOTIFICATIONS
*********************** HOW TO SUBSCRIBE ************************
To subscribe to the list, send an e-mail message to
"listproc@list.unicc.org" with the following in the body
of the message (leave the subject line blank):
SUBSCRIBE SPS your full name
Example:  SUBSCRIBE SPS mickey mouse
Your e-mail address will be automatically registered.
****************** HOW TO GET OFF THE LIST **********************
To unsubscribe from the list, send an e-mail message
to "listproc@list.unicc.org" with the following in the body of
the message (leave the subject line blank)
UNSUBSCRIBE SPS your full name
Example:  UNSUBSCRIBE SPS mickey mouse
Your e-mail address will be automatically removed from
the list.
*********** HOW TO AMEND THE ADDRESS ON THE LIST ********
To amend your address on the list you will have to unsubscribe
the previous address from the list and to subscribe the new one
(as explained above).
__________