G/C/W/767/Rev.1  
 
1 November 2019  
(19-7362) Page: 1/2 
Council for Trade in Goods  Original: English  
 
 
EUROPEAN UNION – IMPLEMENTATION OF NON -TARIFF BARRIERS  
ON AGRICULTURAL PROD UCTS  
COMMUNICATION FROM A RGENTINA, AUSTRALIA,  BRAZIL, CANADA, COL OMBIA, COSTA RICA, 
CÔTE D'IVOIRE, DOMIN ICAN REPUBLIC, ECUAD OR, GUATEMALA, HONDU RAS, JAMAICA, 
MALAYSIA, NICARAGUA,  PANAMA, PARAGUAY, P ERU, UNITED STATES, AND URUGUAY  
Revision  
The following communic ation is being circulated at the request of the Delegations of Argentina, 
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire,  Dominican Republic, Ecuador, 
Guatemala, Honduras,  Jamaica,  Malaysia, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the United Sta tes, 
and Uruguay.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. In order to face the challenge of producing more food in a safer and sustainable way, farmers 
must be able to access the full range of safe tools and technologies that are available for agricultural 
production. Yet, our farmers ' choice of safe tools is increasingly undermined by regulatory barriers 
that are not founded on internationally agreed risk analysis principles and do not take into account 
alternative approaches to meeting regulatory objectives. This is alread y having a substantial 
negative impact on the production, and trade of, safe food and agricultural products, an impact that 
is likely to increase in the future.  
 
2. We are raising concerns in the Council for Trade in Goods because the EU has begun to 
imple ment measures that effectively prohibit the use of a number of substances that are required 
for safe and sustainable agricultural production and have been assessed and authorized for use by 
many WTO  Members. The EU has moved forward with the implementation  of its measures, which 
were first enacted in 2009, even though other Members have, over the years, repeatedly expressed 
concerns in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)  Committees 
regarding the overly restrictive impa ct of these measures on the trade of agricultural goods.  
 
3. We believe in protecting human health and facilitating trade, both goals recognized under the 
WTO Agreements. To ensure a balanced approach, the international community has determined 
standards t hat follow the principle of evidence and science -based risk assessments, allowing 
WTO Members to achieve an appropriate level of protection, while at the same time ensuring that 
such measures are not more trade -restrictive than necessary. However, the EU i s diverging from 
those standards by incorporating a hazard -based approach to the approval and renewal of plant 
protection product authorizations for certain substances. This is creating a high degree of uncertainty 
with respect to how import tolerances wil l be considered and set for authorization decisions in the 
EU. 
 
4. Despite repeated requests in the TBT and SPS  Committees over the past four  years, the EU  
has not identified either the level of protection being sought or the specific pathways of exposure or 
risks that it seeks to mitigate, to justify the trade impact of these restrictions. The EU has not taken 
into consideration the comments of other WTO  Members on draft regulations. It has also ignored 
requests to complete science -based risk assessments b efore the implementation of these measures; 
to take into account risk assessment techniques developed by international organizations and to 
articulate how risks would be assessed. In addition, the EU has not clarified, despite multiple G/C/W/767/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  requests to do so, h ow it intends to consider applications for import tolerances for those substances 
that are being assessed following hazard -based criteria.  
 
5. In implementing these measures, it appears that the EU is unilaterally attempting to impose 
its own domestic regu latory approach onto its trading partners. As a result, the EU is effectively 
prohibiting the use of critical tools to manage pests and resistance, while damaging the livelihood of 
farmers beyond its borders, especially those in developing countries and LD Cs. Agricultural 
production varies by region and what works in Europe may not be appropriate in other climates and 
regions. The EU 's insistence that farmers around the world will find "alternatives " rings hollow for 
many of the EU 's trading partners who kn ow that, in most cases, viable alternatives simply do not 
exist or in fact may carry higher risks to use than the substances effectively banned by the EU.  
 
6. Most Members that use these substances do not have the capacity to develop viable and 
economicall y feasible alternatives to use in their production systems. Even if those alternatives were 
to be developed elsewhere, the process for registration and approval would take more time than the 
grace period established by the EU. In addition, the EU has not e ven considered Members ' requests 
for additional transition periods in order to adapt to these regulations.  The EU 's implementation of 
these measures is already impacting global agricultural production and trade in key products such 
as bananas, grapes, cere als and tree nuts. This disruption threatens to escalate significantly in the 
coming years if the EU does not change its current approach.  
 
7. The EU 's implementation of these measures will disproportionately affect farmers in 
developing countries and LDCs , and the livelihood of millions of families whose income and 
sustenance depends on agriculture. This, in turn, will also affect Members ' ability to achieve goals 
related to food security and sustainable development. Therefore, we ask the EU to re -evaluate  its 
hazard -based approach to the approval and renewal of plant protection product authorizations; to 
confirm that import tolerances will continue to be established on the basis of internationally accepted 
approaches for risk assessment; and to cease to im plement those measures that unnecessarily and 
inappropriately restrict international trade.  
 
8. We urge the EU to provide additional information on the process and timelines to set import 
tolerances for active substances which are not re -authorized in the EU, as well as applicable 
transition periods for MRLs. Additionally, we strongly encourage the EU to establish a transparent, 
predictable and commercially viable import tolerance process for plant protection products which 
have not been re -approved that in cludes a risk assessment, taking into account risk assessment 
techniques developed by the relevant international organizations. We encourage the EU to engage 
meaningfully with trading partners on this issue.  
 
__________