G/TBT/W/695   
26 November  2019 
(19-8095) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original: Spanish  
 
  
EUROPEAN UNION – TRANSITIONAL PERIODS FO R MAXIMUM PESTICIDE 
RESIDUE  LIMITS AND I NTERNATIONAL CONSULT ATIONS  
STATEMENT BY COLOMBI A TO THE COMMITTEE O N TECHNICAL BARRIERS  TO TRADE  
13 TO 15 NOVEMBER  2019 
The following communication, dated  13 November  2019, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of  Colombia . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  Colombia wishes to  reiterate its grave concern regarding the "transition periods" granted by the 
European Union prior to the entry into force of provisions amending maximum residue limits (MRLs) , 
in light of the fact that, t o date, the EU has not provided an alternative tha t would resolve this issue 
for fruit and vegetable producers in Latin America.   
2.  It is important to emphasi ze that th e foregoing  is problematic as , taking into account harvesting 
periods and the times when agrochemicals are applied, the six -month period does not often give 
countries enough time to make the adjustments to production that are required to ensure compliance 
with new MRLs for agricultural products. For processed and/or frozen products, the situation can be 
even more problematic.  
3.  The European regu lation provides for the possibility of establishing "transition periods", however, 
there are increasingly fewer European provisions related to MRLs that include such a period . 
Transition periods should be examined in a light that differs from the general r ule suggested by the 
WTO (six months), as farmers need more time to adapt, since it takes 36 months on average to 
develop a new phytosanitary pest control product.   
4.  The EU has stated that , as soon as the EFSA recommendation and SCoPAFF decision are known, 
countries should be able to "predict and make the relevant adjustments ", even when this information 
is not notified to the WTO. Colombia disagrees with this argument, as these are different bodies . We 
observe that, according to this argument,  the EU considers that notification to the WTO  is simply "a 
formality", but does not really take into account the "right" of other countries to engage in  
discussions or consultations, during which the  Commission  should  be open to taking into 
consideration various technical arguments that may result in the adjustment of its regulatory 
proposal on MRLs.  
5.  It is important to take into account the fact that imported products must comply with the 
EU's MRLs at the time of arrival of the goods, as, according to the European Commission, only when 
they are already in European territory can compliance with MRLs be verified.  This constitutes de facto 
discrimination with respect to European products, as in this context, if an MRL is modified, 
Colombian  products will have to comply with that MRL several weeks before the actual date of entry 
into force of the provision in order to ensure that products comply with the new regulations when 
they reach the EU. This violates the principle of national treatment and the MFN obligat ion, which 
are set out in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
6.  The recent tendency to modify MRLs and provide ever shorter transition periods poses an 
additional challenge to farmers for whom an ever-reduced  number of pest and disease control 
alternatives are available. Furthermore, it is not feasible for countries to replace the molecules to 
which a detection limit (0.01 mg/kg) is applied within a period of six months.  G/TBT/W/695  
 
- 2 - 
 
  7.  Where a molecule is prohibited or its MRL modif ied to 0.01 mg/kg, efforts should be made with 
the parent agrochemical company to develop substitute molecules. To this end, it would be advisable 
to conduct field trials and the necessary scientific and environmental studies , which can take more 
than 30 m onths  in some cases . The new alternative molecules must also be registered for sale in 
the country of origin and their effectiveness for pest control must meet the high quality standards 
required by the European market.  
8.  In light of the foregoing, Colombia requests the EU to assess the time periods for bringing into 
force the regulatory changes concerning MRLs , and to grant countries an extension of at least 
12 additional months for the entry into force of the new MRLs for several of the molecules used in 
Latin American countri es, so as to prevent them from becoming unnecessary technical barriers to 
trade and from having an economic impact on producing countries.  
__________