G/SPS/GEN/2140   
7 July 2023 
(23-4637) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: Spanish  
 
  
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS – EUROPEAN UNION MAXIMUM RESIDUE LEVELS (MRLS),  
EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS AND IMPORT TOLERANCES  
FOR CERTAIN PESTICIDES TO ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL  
OUTCOMES IN THIRD COUNTRIES  
– STC NOS. 448, 382 AND 534 
COMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA, ECUADOR, GUATEMALA AND PARAGUAY  
The following communication, received on 6  July 2023, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of Colombia , Ecuador , Guatem ala and Paraguay . 
 
_______________  
 
 
The delegations of Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Paraguay would like to ask the 
European  Union (EU) the following questions, covering trade concerns Nos. 448, 382 and 532:  
According to the minutes of the Standing Com mittee on Plants, Animals and Food and  Feed (PAFF) 
of 10-11 May 2023, " [t]he Commission presented Revision  4 of the draft Regulation, which clarifies 
that the MRLs for tricyclazole should be set in Annex  II to Regulation (EC) No  396/2005. [The 
Commission] proposes modifying the MRL for tricyclazole in rice from 0.01*  mg/kg to 0.09  mg/kg, 
based on an import tolerance request based on a Brazilian GAP, for which EFSA confirmed that the 
proposed MRL is fully supported by data and safe for consumers ". Despite th is, several EU member 
States did not support the draft Regulation presented by the Commission, and no qualified majority 
was reached. The following reasons were given by those member States voting against the measure: 
(i) the non -acceptability of import to lerances for substances no longer approved in the EU; and 
(ii) a negative impact on the competitiveness of European rice farmers that are deprived of using 
the same tools as third countries for effective control of certain pests.  
1.  In the light of the above , could the EU please indicate:  
a) Which Annex(es) of Regulation (EC) No  396/2005 did the Commission propose to amend? 
We note that the text of the minutes of the PAFF refers to Annex  II (EU MRLs), but the title 
of the minutes refers to Annex  III (Temporary MRLs).  
b) In practical terms, what is the difference between Annex  II and Annex  III of 
Regulation  (EC) No 396/2005?  
c) How are temporary MRLs established? What is their period of validity?  
d) When an import tolerance i s accepted, does this generate a new EU MRL that is set in 
Annex  II to Regulation (EC) No  396/2005?  
e) If an import tolerance is accepted for a given substance and crop, what MRL applies to 
domestic crops in the EU?  
f) If an import tolerance is granted and an em ergency authorization is granted by a member 
State:  
− Is the establishment of a temporary MRL necessary — as indicated in item  11 of the 
emergency authorization notification form — or does the MRL set for the import tolerance 
apply?  
− If the MRL for import tol erance is applied, is the product authorized to be placed on the 
market throughout the EU?  G/SPS/GEN/2140  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.  If an import tolerance is proposed for an MRL  that " is fully supported by data and safe for 
consumers ", how would rejecting such an import tolerance because of  "a negative impact on the 
competitiveness of European producers " be compatible with the obligations of the SPS  Agreement?  
3.  With respect to MRLs set with the objective of protecting human health, if member States do not 
vote in favour of import tolerances, how ca n the Commission argue that requesting import tolerances 
is a feasible way forward for MRLs set with environmental outcomes (e.g. neonicotinoid substances)?  
4.  In response to repeated challenges to the excessive use of emergency authorizations by member 
State s, the EU indicated, in this and other committees and councils at the WTO, that in light of the 
ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 19  January  2023 (Case  C-162/21), 
member States may no longer grant emergency authorizations for p lant protection products 
containing banned neonicotinoids. In this regard, we note the following:  
a) There are a number of emergency authorizations that were approved before  the CJEU 
judgment, but whose application covers a period subsequent  to that ruling. W ill these 
emergency authorizations remain valid for the entire period for which they were approved, 
in light of the CJEU judgment?  
b) On 4 April 2023, subsequent to the CJEU ruling, the Czech  Republic granted an emergency 
authorization for the banned substanc e thiamethoxam between 20  April 2023 and 
16 July 2023, using as justification and as a mitigation measure  that " the product will only 
be used on the crop intended for export to countries outside the European Union ". 
i. How can the export of the crop for which thiamethoxam has been used be considered a 
mitigation measure that protects European pollinators?  
ii. How is the emergency authorization granted by the Czech  Republic compatible with the 
outcome that the European Union claims to pursue with Regulation (E U) No  2023/334, 
i.e. to protect pollinator populations worldwide?  
iii. Regulation (EU)  No 2023/334 refers to the ban of outdoor  uses of clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam in the Union and sets MRLs  for these substances. At what point and in 
what way does it take into account the fact that the imported products may have been 
produced in greenhouses ? 
5.  We remind the EU that it has not yet responded to the questions submitted in document 
G/SPS/GEN/2076 , dated 2  November  2022.  
__________