G/SPS/W/292  
 
8 March  2017 
(17-1382) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
WORKSHOP ON PESTICID E MAXIMUM RESIDUE LE VELS (MRLS):  
POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS FOR CONSIDERATION BY  THE SPS COMMITTEE  
SUBMISSION BY KENYA,  UGANDA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AME RICA 
The follow ing communication, received on 8  March  2017, is being circulated at the r equest of the 
Delegation s of Kenya , Uganda  and the United States of America . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Kenya, Uganda and the United States appreciate the in -depth examination of the impact of 
pesticide MRL -related issues on international trade at the Workshop on Pesticide MRLs held on 
24-25 October 2016 for WTO SPS Committee Members.1 We thank the Secretariat of the 
Committee for its efforts to organize the workshop. Discussions in the Committee on MRL -related 
concerns, as well as the views provided at the worksho p by experts from a wide range of countries 
and organizations, confirm the central importance of risk analysis – including assessing, managing 
and communicating risks associated with pesticide use – to protecting  public health and the 
environment, while en abling the safe use of plant protection products and facilitating international 
trade.  
Workshop participants also confirmed there is a broad range of MRL -related issues that are 
currently having a significant impact on trade in food and agricultural produc ts. We believe that 
the SPS Committee can play a constructive role in addressing these trade -related concerns. 
Indeed, several Members expressed the need to continue to advance work in the Committee on 
trade -related issues on MRLs at the meeting of the Com mittee on 27 -28 October 2016. To initiate 
discussion on how the Committee might advance our work on trade -related MRL issues, we offer 
the following suggestions for Members ' consideration.  
1  ENABLE JMPR TO BETTE R RESPOND TO INCREAS ED DEMAND AND MONITO R 
PROGR ESS ON NEW CODEX MRL S 
1.1.  First, we heard from workshop participants that, despite the significant efforts to date by the 
Joint Meeting of Experts on Pesticide Residues from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 
and the World Health Organization (WHO), k nown as "JMPR", to streamline procedures and to 
manage the process of scientific review as efficiently as possible, the number of nominations put 
forward by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) for evaluation of new compounds 
and new uses, as w ell as for periodic re -evaluations of existing MRLs, by the JMPR far exceeds its 
current capacity. Further, the absence of MRLs for use in traded products is a significant concern, 
particularly for specialty crop and minor use products, and for agricultura l products produced in 
developing countries.  
1.2.  Participants in the workshop also discussed options to enable additional efficiencies in the 
Codex process to help maintain the relevance of Codex MRLs to all Member countries and, in turn, 
facilitate countries'  abilities to adopt Codex MRLs.  
1.3.  We believe the Committee should encourage Members, as a matter of some urgency, to 
approach their Codex representatives to highlight the trade issues raised during the MRL workshop 
                                                
1 Presentations from the Workshop on Pe sticide Maximum Residue Levels are available online via the 
following web link: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop_oct16_e/wkshop_oct16_e.htm . G/SPS/W/292  
 
- 2 - 
 
  and to participate actively in their inter -ministerial discussions on MRL issues. Members should 
encourage national discussions of options that could enable a more productive Codex MRL system. 
Such discussions would take place in the context of national resource availability, and could 
include, inter alia , options for increasing support to JMPR, increasing representative expert 
participation, acceptance of global joint reviews and other forms of support for the scientific bodies 
as well as encouraging program mes to support submission of data from d eveloping countries 
especially on minor crops. The Committee should also invite regular updates from Codex on its 
progress in the evaluation of new compounds and new uses.  
2  STRENGTHEN NOTIFICAT ION PRACTICES FOR GR EATER TRANSPARENCY A ND 
PREDICTABILITY ON MR LS 
2.1.  Second, workshop participants emphasized the need for greater transparency and 
predictability in Members ' regulatory approaches to pesticide registration, in the setting of national 
MRLs and in the adoption of Codex MRLs. Several participants noted that the WTO notification 
process can be a powerful tool for identifying potential trade problems associated with proposed 
MRLs. They stressed that the processes for accepting comments on notifications and for taking 
comments into account are primary vehicles f or reducing and preventing adverse trade impacts 
resulting from new or revoked MRLs.  
2.2.  We believe the SPS Committee should consider ways for WTO Members to provide greater 
transparency and predictability worldwide on MRLs by urging Members to : (1) notify all  changes to 
their MRLs, including changes to MRLs that are based on international standards ; (2) review and 
improve their ability to take the comments of their trading partners meaningfully into account 
when considering proposed changes on MRLs ; and (3) en able public comment on proposed MRLs, 
particularly in advance of revocation of MRLs from sectors likely to be affected.  
3  REPORT TO THE COMMIT TEE ON INTERNATIONAL  AND REGIONAL ACTIVIT IES ON 
MRLS  
3.1.  Third, workshop participants provided important information on harmonization and other 
collaborative activities taking place in international and regional forums other than Codex, such as 
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Asia -Pacific Economic 
Cooperation (APEC), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the East African 
Community (EAC). The goal of these collaborative activities include, inter alia , strengthening food 
safety, public health and environmental protection both domestically and globally; strengthening 
the scie ntific basis and enhancing regulatory efficiency by leveraging the scientific and regulatory 
resources of the international community; minimizing unwarranted trade barriers related to 
pesticide regulatory requirements; and, facilitating trade and competiti on. 
3.2.  Workshop participants also noted many instances in which a creative initiative developed in a 
regional forum has produced benefits worldwide. For example, the OECD MRL calculator and use of 
a common application format, known as the OECD dossier, has be en taken up by JMPR and many 
national authorities, thereby enabl ing greater alignment of MRLs. Further, these tools have also 
enabled these national authorities to work collaboratively to improve the harmonization of MRLs, 
including through Global Joint Re views and regional economic integration efforts, such as those of 
the EAC. Participants also discussed activities on global data generation and Global Joint Reviews 
that are being used as the basis of widely -accepted MRLs by many countries.  
3.3.  Participants no ted the benefits to many developing countries of participation in the Codex 
process and recounted that some developing countries are seeking to dovetail their national and 
regional efforts to those of the OECD, NAFTA and APEC in order to encourage registra tions of new 
substances that could enable greater access to lower -risk chemistries by their producers.  
3.4.  We believe the Committee should welcome efforts by members of these regional initiatives 
and the relevant observer organizations to provide regular updat es to the Committee on their 
harmonization and other collaborative activities on MRLs. Such information could provide the basis 
for other Members to take up creative new MRL -related initiatives at the national and regional 
levels to improve harmonization t o Codex MRLs as well as to regional MRLs where relevant, in 
order to facilitate trade.  G/SPS/W/292  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4  COLLABORATE ON SOLUT IONS FOR MRLS FOR MI NOR USE AND SPECIALT Y CROPS  
4.1.  Fourth, workshop participants noted the need for developing countries to have greater access 
to newer , lower -risk alternative pesticides to replace older pesticides that are not supported by the 
manufacturers, as some of these older pesticides can be the cause of MRL violations in third 
countries. Participants explained the often complex and difficult iss ues involved in enabling greater 
access to low -risk chemistries in developing countries, and suggested that other legitimate factors 
be taken into consideration when analyzing these issues in order to arrive at practical and effective 
solutions. Presentati ons on efforts of the EAC, as well as the capacity building activities on minor 
use associated with the IR -4 progr am of Rutgers University, the U S Department of Agriculture, and 
the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), provided creative and col laborative 
examples of practical ways in which Members have begun to effectively address these issues, 
including through the Global Minor Use Summits.  
4.2.  Participants noted that regulatory approval procedures that are not harmonized with 
international best pr actices (such as the OECD guidance documents on pesticide registration) can 
add unnecessary costs and act as a disincentive to potential registrants. In the case of the EAC, its 
members are working to identify and prioritize products based on grower needs that could be 
registered at the regional level, thereby increasing the attractiveness of th e business case for 
investment.  
4.3.  We believe the SPS Committee should invite Members to explore ways in which their 
domestic regulatory approaches to pesticide registr ation and use can impact – both negatively and 
positively – the incentives of the private sector to invest in registration and stewardship of lower -
risk alternative pesticides in their countries. The SPS Committee should also invite Members to 
evaluate the ir own minor use needs, to consider participating in the Global Minor Use Summit to 
be held in Montreal, Canada on 1-4 October 2017 and to collaborate in global data generation 
activities.  
5  DISCUSS THE ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE IN INC REASING COORDINATION  AND 
HARMONIZATION  
5.1.  Lastly, we note the important role of the Committee conf erred by Article 3.5 of the 
SPS Agreement to monitor the process of international harmonization, and by Article 12.2 to 
sponsor technical consultation and study with the objective of incre asing coordination and 
integration between international and national systems and approaches for establishing tolerances 
for contaminants in foods. We believe the Committee should follow up on the trade -related issues 
outlined above as identified by the ex perts who graciously shared their perspectives with us at the 
workshop.  
5.2.  We invite Members to consider how the Committee could take forward some or all of the 
suggestions identified in this paper, including whether it would be desirable for the Committee to  
issue a statement or the Chair to issue a summary of the workshop that reflects consensus of the 
Committee on one or more of these suggestions. We welcome the views of other Members on 
these suggestions.  
 
__________