G/TBT/W/663  
19 July 2019 
(19-4806) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original:  Spanish  
 
  
EUROPEAN UNION – AMENDMENTS TO DIRECTIVE  2009/28/EC,  
RENEWABLE ENERGY DIR ECTIVE  
STATEMENT BY COLOMBI A TO THE COMMITTEE O N TECHNICAL BARRIERS  TO TRADE  
20 AND 21 JUNE 2019  
The following communication, dated 18  July 2019, is being circulated at the request of the delegation 
of Colombia . 
_______________  
 
 
1.  Colombia reitera tes its concern previously expressed in documents G/TBT/W/465 , G/TBT/W/576  
y G/TBT/W/602  regarding D irectiv e (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
on the  promotion of the use of energy  from renewable resources , particular ly regarding the 
delegated act for identifying high ILUC (indirect land use change) r isk biofuels  and the criteria for 
certifying low ILUC risk biofuels published by the European Commission, emphasizing the effect that 
this could have on our exports and the resulting social impact.  
2.  Our country appreciates the intention of the European Union (EU) to ad opt a public policy to 
protect the environment through the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources.  
3.  However, Colombia expresses concern  since the implementation of the policy should be 
undertaken in a manner that is not more restrictive than necessary and does not subsequently create 
an unnecessary obstacle  to trade . In our view, th is Directive, which seeks t o eliminate palm oil -based 
biofuels as of 2030 , would be inconsistent with the national treatment and MFN obligations contained 
in Articl e 2.1 of the TBT  Agreement and in Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
4.  This measure would have a major  impact in Colombia since it involves  a sector on which over 
170,000 jobs depend . Moreover, palm oil is our third biggest export product to the EU, after coffee 
and bananas, with a market sha re of around 10 %. 
5.  This Directive draws attention to the establishment of criteria for applying the ILUC methodology, 
which does not have a valid scientific basis at present for measuring the environmental impact of an 
activity, unlike methodologies such as the LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) or the CF (Carbon Footprint), 
which have been validated and tested internationally.  
6.  Secondly, it is important to emphasize that, as regards the classification of high ILUC risk biofu els, 
the considerations are not technically appropriate, taking account of the fact that : (i) deforestation 
linked to these commodities is not always high in all producing countries ; and (ii)  there are countries, 
such as ours, which have land available for  increasing the area for agriculture without causing 
deforestation, which was established in the definition of our agricultural boundaries .1 In addition, 
certification based on this methodology could result in unjustified costs given that measurement 
criteria are variable and do not generate reliable results.  
7.  Despite the fact that the delegated act seeks to establish risk criteria according to the crop 
concerned, preambular paragraph number 8 clearly indicates that, in order to establish these high 
ILUC ris k criteria, account needs to be taken of the reference made in the annex "Worldwide 
production expansion of food and feed crop" . In this regard, the cultivation of palm oil would be 
excluded from the outset by the excessive growth indicated there, without any more detailed 
                                                
1 Decision 261 of June  2018.  G/TBT/W/663  
- 2 - 
  classification indicators being presented to ensure that the process is effective and applied in the 
same manner in relation to other crops of EU relevance, such as rapeseed.  
8.  Moreover, the document suggests that biofuels, bioliquids and b iomass fuels can only be certified 
as low -risk if they comply with certain specified criteria . In this case, some of these criteria applied 
to small producers (smallholders), defined as "farmers independently conducting an agricultural 
activity on a holdin g with an agricultural area of less than 2 -5 hectares for which they hold ownership 
or lease rights", are of great interest and also a source of concern . In this regard, Colombia considers 
that this classification has no technical or scientific basis and i s far removed from the Directive's 
purpose and its conservationist justification, since the fact that the activity is carried out by a small 
producer does not mean that there has been no change in land use in that area or that there has 
been an adverse imp act on forests or the environment . Furthermore, the definition of small producer 
differs in each country, according to economic and social conditions.  
9.  Furthermore, we refer to the findings of the Panel in Brazil  – Retreaded Tyres2, which concluded 
that in order to comply with Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994, it is necessary to establish the existence 
of not only environmental risks in general but also direct risks that can arise for human, animal or 
plant life or health . It is theref ore clear that this measure is designed to address other concerns, 
including environmental issues, and overlooks the link to other variables that are taken into account 
in this Article, even being discriminatory since there is evidence of an environmental impact on other 
activities that have not been regulated.  
10.  In addition , it makes no sense to ascribe the causes of environmental problems , the 
conservation  and promotion of renewable  energies, exclusively  to certain crops for which regulat ion 
is sought  while excluding products that may be equally connected to deforestation and climate 
change  from the scope of regulation . 
11.  Colombia considers that this measure discriminates de facto , in view of the terms of Article 2.1 
of the TBT Agreement and Articles I and III  of the GATT, between like products of different foreign 
origins and like products of foreign and national origin.  
12.  Colombia consider s that  the EU,  with measures of this type , is promoting non -tariff barriers to 
trade that lack any scientific basis and are designed in a discriminatory manner to restrict trade in 
products originating from developing countries . 
13.  Moreover , the Directiv e discourages the use of biofuels made from sustainable palm oil, and 
would have a disproportionately negative impact in Colombia, which is a producer of palm oil . We 
would therefore be grateful if the EU would explain how it reconciles this discriminatory treatment 
against palm oil -producing countries with its WTO obligations on national and MFN treatment.  
14.  Lastly, Colombia thanks  the EU for the bilateral meeting and appreciates this opportunity to 
make comments . We look forward to the EU's replies to our questions.  
__________  
                                                
2 Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres  
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/332r_e.pdf .