RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/SPS/W/33
13November 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-3510)
Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures
Special Joint SPS/TBT Meeting onTransparency Procedures
Report bytheChairman
1. On6-7November 1995, aspecial jointmeeting oftheSPSCommittee andtheTBTCommittee
onthesubject ofinformation procedures (notification andenquiry points) washeldashadbeenagreed
(G/SPS/R/1 paragraph 13andG/TBT/M/2, paragraph 58).Thepurpose ofthemeeting wastostimulate
adiscussion ontheprocedural aspects ofinformation exchange required bytheSPSandTBT
Agreements. Themeeting provided anopportunity toraisequestions anddiscuss thepractical problems
anddifficulties Members mayhaveencountered inimplementing thetransparency provisions ofthe
Agreements. Itwasagreed thatnoformal decisions would betaken atthismeeting, butthatany
proposals emanating from thediscussions would bebrought totheattention ofthetwoCommittees,
respectively, attheirregular meetings. Thatisthepurpose ofthisreport, which Isubmit onmyown
responsibility.
2. Thespecialmeetingaddressedseparatelytherequirementsongovernmentstoprovidenotifications
ofproposed regulations andtherequirement toestablish anEnquiry Point torespond torequests for
information.Itwasnotedthatthenotificationobligationswereaninter-governmentalprocedure,whereas
Enquiry Points were open toallinterested parties. TheSecretariat presented, withrespect toeach
agenda item, theprovisions ofthetwoagreements andanyrelevant recommendations which havebeen
agreed bytherespective Committees. Toaddress thedifference incoverage oftheTBTandSPS
Agreements, theSecretariat made apresentation, thegraphs ofwhich areavailable indocument
G/SPS/W/32.
3. With respect tothenotification formats, thefollowing suggestions were made atthespecial
meeting:
a. thatthenotification format seekseparately information regarding thedateofadoption
andthedateofentry intoforce ofaproposed regulation;
b. thatthelanguage(s)inwhichnotifieddocumentsareavailablebeindicatedontheformat;
c. thattheauthority oragency designated tohandle comments about thenotification be
identified ontheformat; and
d. thattheCommittee(s) consider thepossibility ofdeveloping asingle format forboth
SPSandTBTnotifications.
4. TheSPSCommittee mayalsowishtoconsider developing guidelines regarding atwhich stage
ofdevelopment aproposed regulation should benotified, inparallel withtherecommendations of
theTBTCommittee (G/TBT/1/Rev.1, page14,paragraph 2).G/SPS/W/33
Page2
5. Itwasrecognized thatsome regulations might contain elements relevant toboththeTBTand
SPSAgreements. Ifthiswerethecase,itwassuggested thatthereweretwoapproaches which Members
could follow innotifying theproposed regulation. Members could submit asingle notification tothe
Secretariat (either forSPSorTBT), tobedistributed asbothanSPSandTBTnotification, which clearly
indicated which elements oftheproposed regulation weresanitary orphytosanitary measures, andwhich
elements were subject totheTBTAgreement. Alternatively, Members could submit twoseparate
notifications, oneunder theSPSAgreement andanother under theTBTAgreement, eachofwhich
would contain onlythose elements oftheproposed regulation covered bytherespective Agreement.
6. TheSecretariatindicatedthatdelaysinitsprocessingofnotificationscouldbeavoidedifMembers
ensured thatthenotification formats werefilledoutcompletely andcorrectly. IfMembers could provide
theirnotifications inmore thanoneoftheWTO working languages, theywereencouraged tosubmit
these alsototheSecretariat.
7. Withrespect tothedistribution ofnotifications bytheSecretariat, itwassuggested thatMembers
beabletodesignate asingle address, whether inGeneva orcapitals, towhich SPSnotifications would
bedirectly mailed --asisdonewithTBTnotifications.
8. Thepossibility ofmaking notifications accessible through Internet, inorder tomake themmore
rapidly available, wasalsodiscussed. Thismight, however, require thatthenotifications bederestricted.
Most participants supported theideaofde-restricting notifications, particularly ifthiswould permit
theirelectronic distribution viaInternet, butsome Members suggested thattheCommittee should await
adoptionofgeneralWTOguidelinesregardingtheclassificationofdocuments,currentlybeingconsidered
bytheGeneral Council, andoneMember expressed substantive concern about making notifications
unrestricted andavailable tothepublic. Itwasrecalled thatbothAgreements require governments
topublish notice inanational publication ofaproposed regulation.
9. Inprocessing requests forbasic documents mentioned innotifications, itwassuggested that
Members useFAX facilities totheextent possible, andthattheyacknowledge receipt ofrequested
documents. Members werealsoencouraged togivefavourable consideration torequests forextension
ofcomment periods, inview ofdelays often experienced inreceiving andtranslating therelevant
documents.
10. With regard totheoperation ofEnquiry Points, thefollowing suggestions were made:
a. thattheE-mail addresses, where available, beincluded onanyrevised listofEnquiry
Points;
b. thatthelistofEnquiry Points (G/SPS/ENQ/3) bemade available asanunrestricted
document;
c. thatMembers useFAX facilities torespond torequests fordocuments totheextent
possible;
d. thatMembers acknowledge receipt ofdocuments theyhaverequested from Enquiry
Points; andG/SPS/W/33
Page3
e. thattheSecretariat prepare abrochure which would provide apractical description
ofthefunctions ofEnquiry Points andhighlight thebasic requirements and
recommendations inthisregard.
11. Theneedfortechnical assistance toenable developing countries toestablish andensure the
effective operation ofanEnquiry Point wasraised, anddeveloping country Members wereencouraged
tomake known theirneeds inthisregard.
12. TheSecretariat provided information regarding theoperation oftheCentral Registry of
Notifications, andontheWorking Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures.
13. Itwasapparent from thediscussions thatsuchspecial meetings, whether ofonecommittee
alone orjointly, provide avaluable opportunity toadvance theimplementation ofthetransparency
provisions, andhence thefunctioning ofbothAgreements. Inthisregard, asuggestion wasmade that
anysuchspecial meetings should bescheduled tocoincide more closely witharegular meeting ofthe
Committee(s).