G/TBT/W/601  
14 March  2019 
(19-1595) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original:  Spanish  
 
  
EUROPEAN UNION – TRANSITIONAL PERIOD S FOR MAXIMUM PESTIC IDE 
RESIDUE  LIMITS AND INTERNATI ONAL CONSULTATIONS  
STATEMENT BY COLOMBI A TO THE COMMITTEE O N TECHNICAL BARRIERS  TO TRADE  
6 AND 7 MARCH 2019  
The following communication, dated 1 4 March  2019, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Colombia . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  On this occasion, and with  a view to facilitating agricultural trade with the European 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 in Latin America and, in particular, Colombia, and request  that 
comments on this matter be taken into consideration . 
2.  Colombia wishe s to express its gr ave concern regarding the "transition periods" granted by the 
European  Union prior to the entry into force of provisions amending maximum residue  limits (MRLs) . 
The foregoing is problematic as, taking into account harvesting periods  and the times when 
agrochemicals are applied, the six -month period provided for in the TBT Agreement does not often 
give countries enough time to make the adjustments to production that are required to ensure 
compliance with new MRLs for agricultural prod ucts. For processed and/or frozen products, the 
situation can be even more problematic . 
3.  The European regulation provides for the possibility of establishing "transition periods", however, 
there are increasingly fewer European provisions related to MRLs tha t include such a period, even 
though  the establishment of such periods should be the general rule (and not the exception, as tends 
to be the case) . Transition periods should be examined in a light that differs from  the general rule 
suggested by the WTO (si x months according to Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement), 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 ("scientific op inion") 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 EU considers notifica tion to the WTO as "a formality" , without really taking into 
account the "right" of other countries to contribute to discussion s or submit questions . As set out in 
Article  2.9.4  of the Agreement, the EU should be open to taking into consideration technical 
arguments and comments that may result in the adjustment of its regulatory proposal on MRLs . 
5.  Account should also be taken of the fact  that imported products must comply with th e 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 a n MRL is modified, Colombian 
products will have to comply with that MRL s everal  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 obligation , which are  set out in 
Article  2.1 of the TBT Agreement and Article s I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 . G/TBT/W/601  
- 2 - 
  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 . 
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). In 
Colombia's case, this regulatory modif ication would affect 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, a t a SCoPAFF meeting in September  2018, the EU gave the go -ahead 
to apply  the minimum detection limit (0.01 mg/kg)  to products treated with buprofezin . It 
established a 10 -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 transition period of six months  was established 
at the WTO . This transition period is too short for farmers to be able 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, efforts should be 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 env ironmental studies (which can take more 
than 30  months) . The new alternative molecules must also be registered for sale in the country of 
origin and the ir effectiveness for pest control must meet 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 buprofezi n, field dissipation curves must be 
drawn up  for 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 
techn ical discussion, one that includes all the countries concerned and sufficient technical, scientific 
and economic arguments, to assess the transition periods for bringing into force the regulatory 
changes concerning MRLs, so as to prevent them from becoming  unnecessary technical barriers to 
trade and from having an  economic impact on producing countries . 
12.  Furthermore, and in view of the adverse impact that the buprofezin  modification will have on 
banana exports, we request the EU to grant an extension of at least six additional months  for the 
entry into force of the new MRLs for this molecule . This will provide  more time for the completion of 
the analyses  and field tests that are needed  to find alternative pest control solutions for farmers . 
__________