G/SPS/GEN/1697  
15 March  2019 
(19-1611) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original:  Spanish  
 
  
EUROPEAN UNION TRANSITIONAL PERIODS FOR MRLS AND INTERNATIONAL 
CONSULTATIONS – CONCERNS RAISED BY COLOMBIA  
COMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA  
The following communication, received on  14 March  2019, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Colombia . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  As at the recent meeting of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade of 6 March  2019, and 
with a view to facilitating agricultural trade with the Europea n Union, we wish to bring to the 
European Commission's attention an issue that we consider to be of the utmost  importance for the  
agricultural sector worldwide and, in particular, Colombia, and request  that our comments on this 
matter be taken into consideration . 
2.  Colombia wishes to express its g rave concern regarding the "transition periods" granted by the 
European Union for provisions amending maximum residue  limits (MRLs) . While t he 
European  regulation provides for the possibility of establishing " transition periods", there are , in 
practice, increasingly fewer European provisions related to MRLs that include such period s, even 
though they should be the general rule and not the exception, as tends to be the case.  
3.  It should also be noted that in view of harvesting periods  and the times when agrochemicals are 
applied, the six -month period prior to the implementation of the provision, as provided for in the 
SPS Agreement, does not give enough time to make the necessary adjustments to production so as 
to ensure that agricultural products  comply with the new MRLs . For processed and/or frozen 
products, the situation can be even more problematic . 
4.  Transition periods should be examined in a light that differs from  the general rule of a reasonable 
interval  of six months under Annex B.2 of the SPS Agreement (Ministerial Decision WT/MIN(01)/17 ), 
as farmers need more time to adapt  to MRL requirements , since it takes 36 months on average to 
develop  a new phytosanitary pest-control product . Colombia notes, in this r egard, that Article 10.2 
of the SPS Agreement provides for the granting of longer time-frames for compliance with sanitary 
and phytosanitary measures for products of interest to developing country Members, with a view to 
maintaining opportunities for their  exports.  
5.  The European Union  has stated that as soon as the EFSA recommendation ("scientific opinion") 
and SCoPAFF decision are known , countries should be able to predict and make  the relevant  
adjustments, including when this information is not notified to  the WTO . Colombia does not agree 
with this argument, and senses that the E uropean Union  considers notification to the WTO as a mere 
formality , without really taking into account the right of Members  to formulate questions and make 
comments . However,  as set out in Annex B.5(d)  of the SPS Agreement, the European Union  should 
be open to taking into consideration comments and the results of discussions with other Members 
that may result in the adjustment of its regulatory proposal on MRLs . Failing that, th e 
SPS Committee's notification and comment process would lose all value and meaning . G/SPS/GEN/1697  
- 2 - 
  6.  The recent tendency to modify MRLs and provide  ever shorter transition periods  or no transition 
period at all 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 . 
7.  Take for example the current situation regarding the start of the transition period for reducing 
MRLs for the b uprofezin molecule (Commission Regula tion (EU) 2019/91 of 18 January  2019), which 
Colombia has included on the Committee's agenda as specific trade concern No. 448. In Colomb ia's 
case, this regulatory modification affect s the marketing of bananas, which constitute one of the 
country's  main agricultural products . Exports of this product amount to around USD 700 million  and 
account for 80% of fruit exports to the European Union . 
8.  To provide more context, at a SCoPAFF meeting in September  2018, the European Union 
approved  the application of  the minimum detection limit (0.01 mg/kg)  to products treated with 
buprofezin . It established a ten-month period  as of that date  for th e measure  to enter into force . 
This decision was communicated after four months of formalities, and a deferred implementation 
date six months  later was established at the WTO . The provision does not include any transition 
period , and the deferred  implementation dat e does not give  farmers enough time  to find control 
measures that are reliable enough to replace the b uprofezin  molecule . 
9.  Where a molecule is prohibited or its MRL modified to 0.01 mg/kg, this decision should be 
accompanied by efforts made with the parent agrochemical compan y to develop substitute 
molecules . To this end , it would be advisable to conduct  field trials and the necessary scientific and 
environmental studies . This process can take more than 30 months . The new alternative molecules 
must also be registered for sale in the country of origin and it must be ensured that their 
effectiveness for pest control meet s the high  quality standard s required by the European market . 
10.  Given that the procedure for registering a new product in the country of  origin takes around 
30 months, it is impossible to find solutions to farmers' problems in just six months. In order to 
ensure compliance with the regulations established for buprofezin, field dissipation curves must be 
drawn up  during a period of  12 to 18  months  and must take into account varying  conditions in terms 
of humidity, radiation and temperature . 
11.  In light of the foregoing , Colombia is of the view that the WTO should open up a forum for 
technical discussion, one that includes all the countries concerned and sufficient technical, scientific 
and economic arguments, to assess the time-frames  for bringing into force the regulatory changes 
concerning MRLs  and the transition periods , especially when on many oc casions we see  that the 
changes to MRLs reflect the application of the precautionary principle rather than  a risk -based 
analysis . This is to prevent such changes from leading to a level of trade restriction greater than 
that required, which would have a serious economic  impact on producing countries . 
__________