REPORT

SPS Committee Thematic workshop on transparency

MONDAY, 18 march – Tuesday, 19 March 2024

WTO, CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD, GeNEVA

Note by the secretariat[1]

As decided by the SPS Committee at its November 2023 meeting, the Secretariat of the World Trade Organization (WTO) organized an SPS Committee Thematic Workshop on Transparency on 18 and 19 March 2024 in Geneva, Switzerland. It aimed to enhance the implementation of SPS transparency provisions by bringing together officials to engage in a technical discussion on SPS transparency-related work and exchange experiences on the use of online transparency tools, including the ePing SPS&TBT Platform (ePing).

The workshop, open to participation by WTO Members and Observers, was of particular interest to government officials in charge of the implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement, i.e. SPS national notification authorities (NNAs) and enquiry points (NEPs). It began on Monday, 18 March, at 15:00 for all interested delegates and continued on Tuesday, 19 March, at 10:00. It was held in a hybrid format, in person and via Zoom, and interpretation was provided in English, French and Spanish. Additional training activities were held for SPS NNAs and NEPs, and other interested officials (in person only) on Monday, 18 March from 10:00 to 13:00 and Tuesday, 18 March from 11:30 to 13:00.

More than 200 persons attended the workshop. The WTO funded the participation of 27 government officials selected from among 126 nominations received from WTO technical assistance beneficiaries. The WTO also funded the participation of five speakers from China, Ecuador, Georgia, Türkiye, and Uganda. The final programme, circulated on 13 March 2024,[2] as well as presentations and recordings of the workshop are available from the WTO SPS Gateway under "Events, workshops and training".

1  Workshop sessions

1.1  Group work on SPS transparency provisions (in person only)

1.1.  The workshop began with interactive training on the transparency provisions in the SPS Agreement. Government officials whose participation was funded by the WTO and other interested delegates were invited to work in groups to discuss a set of transparency-focused questions. The Secretariat presented the answers referring to the relevant provisions where applicable. This session was held in person only and was the first of three training activities aimed at enhancing the work of SPS NNAs and NEPs.

1.2  Group work on the roles and responsibilities of SPS NNAs and NEPs and implementation challenges (in person only)

1.2.  The workshop continued with an in-person interactive exercise tailored to SPS NNAs and NEPs. It focused on the roles and responsibilities of SPS NNAs and NEPs, allowing participants to better understand how these authorities can contribute to addressing trade concerns. Participants, working in groups, were tasked with describing how they would react to an incoming notification from another Member, based on a hypothetical scenario and using some materials provided. The Secretariat presented some ideas on suggested steps, including practical explanations for implementing these actions using ePing and providing references to provisions, recommendations, and Committee decisions relevant to transparency.

1.3  Opening remarks

1.3.  In his opening remarks, Mr Tayutic Mena Retana (Chairperson of the SPS Committee) reminded Members that the SPS Committee usually holds workshops on the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement every two or three years, adding that the March 2024 workshop built on the June 2022 SPS Workshop on Transparency, which introduced the main functions of ePing, launched in July 2022.[3] In addition, he provided an outline of the topics to be discussed under the various agenda items.

1.4  Session 1: Transparency in the SPS Agreement and relevant online tools

1.4.  In this session, Mr Rolando Alcalá and Ms Nazia Mohammed (WTO Secretariat) provided an overview of SPS transparency provisions, transparency-related work undertaken since the Fifth Review of the SPS Agreement, and online transparency tools. The presentation began with an overview of transparency obligations and recommendations, including those related to notification procedures and the responsibilities of NNAs and NEPs. In 2023, 1,994 notifications had been submitted by 65 Members, including addenda and corrigenda to both regular and emergency notifications. Two LDC Members - Tanzania and Uganda - were among the top 10 notifiers of regular SPS notifications. Overall, the highest share (73%) of regular notifications referred to food safety, while 89% of emergency notifications referred to animal health. More facts and figures were available in the latest annual report on the implementation of SPS transparency provisions (G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.16; G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.24).

1.5.  Among the highlights of transparency-related work since 2020 were the deployment of various online tools (ePing, eAgenda, Trade Concerns Database), the latest revision of the Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.5), the collection of resources to facilitate implementation of national SPS coordination mechanisms (G/SPS/GEN/1850/Rev.1) and the SPS Transparency Champions Course. The Secretariat provided a snapshot of transparency-related proposals in the ongoing Sixth Review (G/SPS/GEN/2194/Rev.1). They also presented an overview of online tools and focused on the three main ePing functions, i.e. notifications, search and alert, and communication. While 99% of SPS notifications had been submitted online in 2023, few Members were utilizing the ePing communication functions, such as the national forum.

1.6.  During the Q&A segment, discussions revolved around the notification of special and differential treatment, extension of comment periods, and trade facilitating measures. To highlight some of the main points - it was noted that while the SPS Agreement does not explicitly refer to trade facilitating measures, the recommended transparency procedures included some examples. The Ugandan speaker explained that one of the criteria used by their government officials to determine if a measure is trade facilitating is its level of alignment with relevant international standards. The Secretariat noted that in accordance with the recommended procedures, comment periods are not required if a measure facilitates trade, but allowing for trading partners' comments is still encouraged. While Members provided information on technical assistance to other Members in the SPS Committee, no Member had ever notified S&D Treatment in accordance with the procedure in G/SPS/33/Rev.1.

1.5  Session 2: Linkages with transparency-related work in the TBT Committee

1.7.  Mr Rolando Alcalá (WTO Secretariat) provided an overview of notifications of SPS and TBT measures and related discussions in the SPS Committee. He explained the differences in coverage between the SPS and TBT Agreements and noted that the SPS Committee had adopted a recommendation to notify cross‑cutting measures under both Agreements. Furthermore, two background notes G/SPS/W/17 and G/SPS/W/32 were still relevant. Through an interactive exercise, participants were challenged to identify whether a measure fell within the scope of the SPS and/or TBT Agreements. In closing, the Secretariat explained that approximately 500 SPS and TBT measures had been notified under both agreements, and some examples were provided.[4]

1.8.  Ms Serra Ayral (WTO Secretariat) presented transparency-related work in the TBT Committee. She noted that the TBT Committee had established a Transparency Working Group in 2022 and was following up on recommendations from the Ninth Triennial Review of the TBT Agreement, including possible ePing enhancements, revised notification guidelines, and the elaboration of a good practice guide on how to comment. She highlighted the new TBT Ministerial Declaration adopted at the WTO's 13^th Ministerial Conference (MC13), which, amongst others, promoted the further development, enhancement, and adoption of digital tools, including ePing.

1.9.  Mr George Opiyo (Uganda) shared his experience in the identification and notification of national and regional measures that contained both SPS and TBT provisions, including in coordination with other countries in the East African Community as well as in the context of the African Organisation for Standardisation (ARSO). Uganda had submitted 432 notifications to both the SPS and TBT Committees, including joint notifications by the East African Community. He explained that ePing's different levels of notification rights made it easier to coordinate the preparation and submission of WTO notifications at the national level.

1.10.  The presentations in this session generated discussion on topics such as clarifying whether a measure is SPS and/or TBT at the time of notifying, low level of activation of the ePing SPS national forum, training on drafting SPS and TBT measures, regional coordination, and linkages between STCs and notifications.

1.6  Session 3: Monitoring the implementation of international standards

1.11.  Mr Farid El Haffar (Codex Secretariat), shared results from surveys carried out to monitor the use and impact of Codex texts e.g. on their reach and the extent to which they meet priority food safety and quality needs, and to better understand barriers impeding their use. In 2023, lack of local implementation capacity was the top global barrier to the use of Codex texts. Also, among the lessons learned from the 2023 survey was that future surveys should be adapted to further delineate the impact of trade, and monitoring and evaluation partnerships with other international organizations and stakeholders should be strengthened. Mr El Haffar noted interest in collaborating with the WTO to use ePing notifications in future work.

1.12.  Dr Laure Weber-Vintzel (WOAH Secretariat) explained WOAH's efforts to monitor the implementation of international standards, including using ePing. WOAH's historical mandate was to improve global transparency in the animal health situation through compulsory reporting of listed animal diseases from WOAH members. The overarching goal of WOAH's Observatory was to improve effectiveness and use of WOAH standards. WOAH Observatory's monitoring report contained 12 sections, including one on WTO notifications, and provided some data on notifications indicating conformity and non-conformity with WOAH standards. Several indicators were based on WTO SPS information, and the quality of reporting was vital and influenced the value of such indicators.

1.13.  Ms Rokhila Madaminova (IPPC Secretariat) highlighted IPPC's Observatory work and its 2024 priorities, as well as IPPC's close collaboration with Codex and WOAH on monitoring matters, sharing best practices, and more. The IPPC Observatory is a system that monitors the implementation of the IPPC, international standards on phytosanitary measures (ISPMs), and recommendations of the Committee on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM). In 2024, the IPPC Observatory's priority activities included developing an EU project on operationalizing the IPPC Observatory, conducting the third IPPC general survey, and conducting a new thematic study on e-commerce. The IPPC Secretariat also participated in a working group with Codex and WOAH, in which they discuss the activities of their respective observatories.

1.14.  In the Q&A segment, there was a discussion on the structure of the ISSB observatories, resource limitations and guidelines for funding, collaboration between the three sisters, and linkages with WTO work. There were also exchanges on addressing trade concerns related to differences in Codex standards, updating Codex-based regulations at the national level, and developing countries' participation in IPPC work, amongst others.

1.7  ePing clinic – Building the operational capacity of NNAs and NEPs (in person only)

1.15.  In this practical session for SPS NNAs and NEPs, the Secretariat explained the different levels of access on ePing, including the functions available to registered users, and notification and outreach admin users. Participants were provided with an explanation of the levels of notification rights, including how to prepare regular notifications on ePing and update the contact information of NNAs and NEPs. In addition, the Secretariat presented the ePing search functions, focusing on the functionalities available to registered users, such as using filters and favourites. Finally, the Secretariat provided a live demonstration of the national and international fora and outreach admin menu, including the features available to outreach admin users (normally NEPs) to communicate with domestic users and other Members.

1.8  Session 4: Preparation and submission of notifications: National perspectives

1.16.  Dr Maia Beruashvili (Georgia) shared her country's experience preparing and submitting SPS notifications to the WTO, noting the importance of ePing in facilitating this process. She also referred to the development of a standard operating procedure for preparing notifications to clarify in which cases and when to prepare notifications in accordance with the SPS Agreement. Although ePing helped ease the notification process, she explained that there were some challenges around translations and the 60-day comment period.

1.17.  Mr Diego Schuch Nakayama (Brazil) presented on preparing and submitting notifications from the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency's (Anvisa) perspective. He noted that Brazil was a top SPS notifier from 1995 to 2024 and that Anvisa regulated sectors representing more than 20% of Brazilian GDP. He also provided the legal framework related to notifications. Demonstrating the Brazilian regulatory process stages, Mr Schuch Nakayama explained that ePing had contributed to improved notification procedures through greater automation, enhanced searches, and user‑friendliness. He also suggested enhanced search functions for NEP contact information.

1.18.  Ms Sally Griffin (New Zealand) started her presentation by referring to the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement, notably Article 7 and Annex B. She then explained New Zealand's policy on notifying and its notification system, highlighting the importance of training and providing links to relevant resources on transparency, submitting notifications, and other general videos. In closing, Ms Griffin discussed challenges related to the submission of SPS or TBT notifications.

1.19.  In the Q&A segment, there was a dialogue on several points, such as the composition of the national SPS committee, technical assistance and training for officials and industry, translations, responding to comments, and submitting SPS/TBT notifications.

1.9   Session 5: Reaching out to national stakeholders and other Members

1.20.  Dr Mohammed Benhaddou (Morocco) presented his country's monitoring and management system for WTO SPS notifications. He discussed how Morocco monitored SPS measures, including through ePing alerts and participation in SPS Committee meetings. He noted that Morocco had a network of focal points by topic, had elaborated procedures for administering food-related SPS/TBT notifications, and encouraged domestic stakeholders to exchange information via the ePing national forum. He noted that Morocco has a digital platform (e-norm) to facilitate communication at the national level.

1.21.  Ms Xianxian Tang (China) presented on promoting better transparency throughout SPS pre‑alerts, focusing on stakeholders. She reported that direct losses from SPS/TBT measures by other Members were estimated at USD 41.8 billion in 2022. According to a 2024 mini survey conducted in China, ePing was one of three online SPS/TBT tracking tools commonly used by Chinese stakeholders, primarily by academia, followed by government officials, and then enterprises. The language gap was the problem most frequently reported by ePing users. China promoted using the international forum to share unofficial translations and was developing smart customs to improve transparency.

1.22.  Mr Andrés Quiróz (Ecuador) presented on compliance with WTO transparency provisions, analysing ePing notifications, and coordinating the work of the WTO SPS and TBT Committees in Ecuador. He noted that ePing was beneficial in allowing industry users to track notifications from other countries, to see whether it affected their sector, and to make observations. He explained the domestic process of reviewing notifications, noting that of 401 registered ePing users in Ecuador, the majority (62%) were from the private sector. He also suggested improving ePing, including its search functions in different languages.

1.23.  Dr Betul Vazgecer (Türkiye) presented her country's transparency and food safety approaches. She shared information on the competent authorities, such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and on Turkish food safety policy, highlighting Türkiye's cooperation with international organizations, including Codex, WOAH, and IPPC. She explained the role of the NNA/NEP in domestic coordination and the drafting and submission of notifications to the WTO, using an example of a Codex food legislation.

1.24.  Ms Priscila Rech Pinto Moser (Brazil) presented the Ministry of Agriculture's (MAPA) perspectives on identifying, preparing, and sharing WTO SPS notifications. MAPA was one of Brazil's enquiry points. Before submitting a notification, several parameters were considered, including the relevance of receiving comments from WTO Members for measures not affecting trade. She also referred to procedures for notifying and publishing Mercosur regulations. Brazil also analysed incoming SPS notifications, particularly those significantly impacting its trade, and provided Portuguese translations to facilitate stakeholder assessment. She also underscored the importance of notifying an addendum when an import restriction was lifted, referring to G/SPS/N/SGP/68/Add.1 as an example.

1.25.  In the Q&A segment, participants raised questions on several topics, including using different online platforms and the link with ePing, translations, training, operations of NNAs and NEPs, publication of notifications, coordination at the national level, and expanding the use of ePing.

1.10  Next steps and closing remarks

1.26.  In his closing remarks, Mr Tayutic Mena Retana (Chairperson of the SPS Committee) noted that proposals on transparency could be put forward in the context of the Sixth Review of the SPS Agreement, and some Members had already put forward proposals. He invited Members to reflect on and engage with this topic further.

__________