market access issues for agricultural trade lecture 2

Market Access Issues Market Access Issues for Agricultural Tradefor Agricultural TradeMarket Access Issues Market Access Issues for Agricultural Tradefor Agricultural Trade

Lecture 2Lecture 2

Major Barriers for trade in Agriculture

• Agricultural Subsidies• Agricultural tariff• Standards (stringent / less accessible / non-

transparent)• Testing and Certification requirements: Eco-

labeling• Marketing barriers

Recent EU Moves• Earlier support provided to many crops including cereals

and dairy products under Common Agricultural Policy• In 1999, the CAP budget was US $ 50 bn, almost 45 percent

of community expenditure.• Forced to reform CAP since 2003 - decoupling• Total PSE under Single Farm payment has been increased

from €1.4 bn in 2004 to €32.4 bn in 2007.• EC claims that 80% of its subsidies are now under Green

Box.• However, EC continues to subsidize exports of a range of

agriculture products, including processed agricultural products.

• Payments based on output or on current areas / animal numbers are provided to wheat, rice, sugar, cotton, protein crops (peas, field beans, lupins, starch), potatoes, livestock (bovine animals, sheep and goats), milk, olives, nuts, wine, raisins, seeds, tobacco, hops and bio-fuel crops.

• BLUE Box in strict sense or AMBER Box??

Recent EU Moves ..• Currently, all farmers receiving more than €5,000 per year in

direct aid have their payments reduced by 5%. • In November 2008, a "cross-compliance" rule was introduced

under which, aid to farmers would be linked to the respect of environmental, animal welfare, and food quality standards.

• In case of non-compliance, farmers would face reductions in their support.

• In EU 10% of the tariffs are still non-ad valorem rates, which apply on agricultural goods, many of which are also subject to tariff quotas.

• EU has 91 tariff quotas on agricultural products - licensing system based on: first-come-first-served (for 28 tariff quotas), historic imports (for 20), and mixed allocation methods (for 43).

• TRQ in EU covers - millet, chemically pure fructose, boneless high quality meat, fowls, dairy products, fruits, vegetables etc.

Tariff Rate Quota: 3 % of the domestic consumption in the base period (1986-88) to be imported at lower tariff rates, increasing to 5 % at the end of the implementation period (6 or 10 years for developed and developing countries respectively).

TRQ on Select Marine Products - EU

Total Producer Support Estimate (PSE) in EU (€ million)

Support is declining quite slowly in EU. The support measures are especially high for sugar and meat.

EU at WTO Disputes • Complaint by Australia (DS265), Brazil (DS266)

and Thailand (DS283) on EU export subsidy on sugar – March 14, 2003.

• The Panel noted that the EU action go beyond their annual commitment levels since 1995, especially during 2000-01 – October 15, 2004.

• The Appellate Body upheld the Panel ruling and noted that EU has acted inconsistently with its obligations – April 28, 2005.

• However, EU was not forthcoming with a reasonable period and the parties had to go for arbitration. The arbitration report was released on October 28, 2005.

The parties were unable to reach agreement on a reasonable period of time for implementation. The WTO arbitrator finally determined that the reasonable period of time would be 12 months and 3 days.

US Moves• The AMS in the US has declined from the late Nineties

level in recent times, and the country claims that all subsidy now comes under GREEN Box.

• US subsidy on Cotton has been criticized by WTO, and it had to reduce the subsidy level.

• Farm Act (2002) - The direct payments would be based on historical acreages and yields – move to BLUE Box.

• Five crops (corn, rice, soybean, upland cotton and wheat), received approximately 93 percent of all commodity payments programme.

• Export Subsidy for 13 products are currently being reduced (Wheat and wheat flour, coarse grains, rice, vegetable oils, butter and butter oil, skim milk powder, cheese, other milk products, bovine meat, pigmeat, poultry meat, live dairy cattle, and eggs).

US Moves ..• Current Programmes - Export Credit

Guarantee Program (known as GSM-102) and the Facility Guarantee Program (FGP) – repayment of a portion of the capital and part of interest for three years.

• Annual average export covered by these schemes (2005-2007) - US$1.8 billion.

• The earlier programmes like Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), and the Supplier Credit Guarantee Program has however been discontinued in 2005.

EU ExperienceTitle Farm Bill

Measure Subsidies to Agriculture and Fisheries

Third Country

United States of America

Description In June 2008 the US passed the 2008 Farm Act. Key features include:

1.New support scheme for arable crops known as the Average Crop Revenue Election programme (ACRE). Where traditionally most US support schemes compensate farmers in case of commodity price drop, ACRE compensates farmers for a drop in income. In order to participate in ACRE, producers must accept a reduction both in price linked support and in the decoupled support that they receive. Since ACRE uses product specific parameters in the establishment in the level of support, it should be considered a trade distorting Amber Box programme.2.A countercyclical programme in the dairy sector allowing direct payments to producers, when milk prices drop. The programme , initially created in the 2002 Bill was intended to expire, but is extended under the 2008 Act.3.A slight increase of some reference commodity prices (loan rate, target price) used in the calculation of price linked support. This implies, compared to previous reference prices, a higher compensation if prices drop.

State of Play

US 2002 Farm Bill was criticized on the ground of: (a) the potential for the crop subsidies to depress world prices; (b) the counter-cyclical nature of price linked support, which shields US producers from the market and (c) the risk that the US could eventually exceed its WTO limit of $19.1 billion production-linked support (the AMS limit). These criticisms have been ignored in the 2008 Farm Act. Instead the new ACRE scheme creates yet another tier of countercyclical support, albeit this time income related.

Barrier id 020074

Barrier Status Monitoring solution

US AMS Figures (US$ billion)

0

5

10

15

20

251

99

9

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

AMS commitment Current total AMS

US notified to WTO that the recent increase is caused by higher expenditures on domestic food aid, particularly the Food Stamp programme.

US Moves .. • In US around 195 tariff lines are subject to

tariff quotas. The simple average out-of-quota MFN tariff in 2007 was almost 42%; the in-quota average was 9.1%.

• Close to 91% of out-of-quota tariffs are non-ad valorem, compared with almost 28% of in-quota tariffs.

• The TRQ is granted on first come, first served basis, "historical" importers or on the basis of lottery, depending on the particular good.

• The TRQ is often not filled, which indicates stringency in non-transparent trade measures.

TRQ on Select Products - US

U.S. government spends close to $1.68 billion a year buying and storing excess sugar to maintain artificially high domestic prices. Tariff-rate quotas for raw cane sugar are allocated on a country-by-country basis among 41 countries in total, while those for refined sugar are allocated on a global first-come, first-served basis. Although sugar can enter US market in excess of the TRQ, a prohibitive duty of close to 16 cents per pound is imposed.

SPS Measures• High standards were being justified on the

grounds that they are necessary for the health and safety of the residents of the importing country.

• The problems are cumulated owing to the presence of the terms like ‘appropriate level’, ‘sufficient scientific evidence’, ‘reasonable period of time’, ‘required domestic standard’ etc. in SPS Agreement.

• Aflatoxin debate in EU – effect on African nut export.

• Seafood ban in India.

TBT Measures• Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) measures on the

other hand requires adoption of unnecessarily stringent production process or packaging and labelling requirements, the absence of which in no circumstances degrades the product quality.

• Can be linked with environment as well.• Shrimp-turtle debate.• Azo dye ban in Germany – 74 dyes were banned in

India. • Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) in

US.• Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction

of Chemical substances (REACH) in EU.

TBT Requirements• Certification systems • Process inspection • National Enquiry Points • Packaging and Labelling • International Standards • Tests etc.• Storage • Environmental systems • Accreditation (labs & Personnel) • Local Content scheme

Multilateral Environmental Agreements

• There are around 300 MEAs, among which about 30 of them address the trade-environment interface. Six of them are of particular importance.

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (1975) – e.g. - Tiger.

• Montreal protocol on substances depleting ozone layer (1987) – e.g. - CFCs.

• Basel Convention on transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal (1992) – e.g. – electronic waste.

• Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000) – precautionary principle.• Rotterdam convention on the prior informed consent (PIC)

procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (1998) – e.g. DDT, asbetos.

• Stockholm convention on elimination of production, use, import and export of 12 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) – e.g. DDT, Aldrin.

Types of Eco-labels

• Type I - voluntary, multiple criteria based environment-related information on the overall environmental quality or characteristics of a product, based on third-party certification.

• Type II - informative environmental self-declaration claims made by manufacturers, importers, distributors.

• Type III - quantified product information labels based on independent verification using pre-set indices.

US Practice• General acceptance of International Standards.• The recognized exceptions that justify a departure from an international

standard include national security requirements; prevention of deceptive practices; protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment; fundamental climatic or other geographical factors; and fundamental technological problems.

• The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 directs federal government agencies to adopt "voluntary consensus standards" in lieu of government-developed standards as a means to carry out policy objectives, except when doing so would be inconsistent with the law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are standards developed by domestic or international organizations using agreed-upon procedures. Such procedures must meet criteria for openness, balance, and due process, and must provide for an appeal process.

• Federal agencies have adopted nearly 2,500 private-sector standards, which include voluntary consensus standards. In fiscal year 2003, federal government agencies substituted 185 private-sector standards for government-developed standards.

Cost of Eco-Labeling

Programme / Country

Costs in Local Currency / US Dollars (Rounded off)Application

chargesAnnual license fee (% of sales of the labelled

product)

Annual license fee limits Compliance costs (materials, technology, testing and verification)

Minimum Maximum

BLUE ANGELGermany

€ 153.39 + VAT / > US $ 190

None € 178.95 / US $ 221

€ 2034.94 / US $ 2515

Extra

ECOMARK Japan

Y21,000/-US $ 192

Not specified Not specified Not specified Extra

GREEN LABEL Thailand

THB 1000 / US $ 24

- One time payment of THB 5000 / US $ 121 (for two years)

Extra

ENVIRONMENTAL LABELINGSouth Korea

None Proportional to annual turnover

KRW 1000000 / US $ 873

KRW 5000000 / US $ 4361

Extra

NORDIC SWAN

Denmark DKK 3500 / US $ 582

0.4% Not specified DKK 250000 / US $ 41559

Extra

Norway NOK 12000 / US $ 1810

0.4% NOK 10000 / US $ 1509

NOK 300000 / US $ 45258

Extra

Sweden SEK 18000 / US $ 2452

0.3% SEK 9000 / US $ 1226

SEK 350000 / US $ 47690

Extra

Tanzania’s Major Agricultural ExportsHS Product Share in Export

(%)

1 Live animals 0.059

2 Meat and edible meat offal 0.085

3 Fish products 7.744

4 Dairy prods 0.032

5 Products of animal origin 0.183

6 Live tree & other plant 1.152

7 Edible vegetables 2.717

8 Edible fruit and nuts 1.404

9 Coffee, tea, matï and spices 7.695

10 Cereals 2.221

11 Prod.mill.indust; malt; starches; inulin; wheat gluten 1.977

12 Oil seed, oleagi fruits; miscell grain, seed, fruit etc 2.229

15 Animal/veg fats & oils 0.938

16 Prep of meat, fish or crustaceans, molluscs etc 0.007

17 Sugars and sugar confectionery. 1.138

18 Cocoa and cocoa preparations. 0.676

19 Prep. of cereal, flour, starch/milk 0.111

20 Prep of vegetable, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants 0.162

21 Miscellaneous edible preparations. 0.127

22 Beverages, spirits and vinegar. 0.278

24 Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes 4.522

Tanzania’s Export Direction: Live Animals (1)

Country Share (%)

USA 7.23

Netherlands 6.10

South Africa 4.54

Kenya 2.73

Germany 2.61

Italy 1.92

Japan 1.10

Russian Fed 1.00

Singapore 0.95

Belgium 0.60

Canada 0.49

EU Policy• In 2007, the European Commission submitted proposals

for a Common Animal Health Policy for 2007-13. • The action plan is aimed at improving precautionary

measures, disease surveillance, and controls and research, to reduce the incidence of animal diseases and minimize the impact of outbreaks.

• For imports, a risk-based approach would target higher risk consignments (products/countries) and assist in the selection of containers to be examined.

• Closer cooperation between customs and veterinarians is also envisaged, as well as modernization of the EC's traceability system for live animals (from animal passports and national databases, to an EC‑wide electronic identification system).

South Africa: Often ban import from countries if suspect presence of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) disease. In January 2004, South Africa, in accordance with World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) standards, exempted non-risk products such as hides, skins, wool, and mohair from US from the ban.

EU Experience

Title China- Live bovines, bovine products and derivates

Measure Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures

Third Country China

Description• The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Code) contains standards,

guidelines and recommendations to be used by national veterinary authorities to prevent the introduction of infectious agents pathogenic for animals and humans into the importing country during trade of animals and animal products, while avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers. The OIE has drawn up recommendations under which trade should continue based on countries risk category.

• However, in Article 11.6.1 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code-2008 it is clearly stated that Veterinary Authorities should not require any BSE related conditions, regardless of the BSE risk status of the cattle population of the exporting country, zone or compartment for deboned skeletal muscle meat (excluding mechanically separated meat) from cattle 30 months of age or less, which were not subjected to a stunning process prior to slaughter, with a device injecting compressed air or gas into the cranial cavity or to a pithing process, and which passed ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections and which has been prepared in a manner to avoid contamination with tissues listed in Article 11.6.14.

• China does not respect this recommendation and therefore bans bovines and their meat and meat products if originating from a BSE affected country.

State of PlaySo far, none of the dossiers submitted by the EU Member States have been evaluated.

Barrier id 040039

Barrier Status Ongoing

EU Experience

Title China- Live bovines, bovine products and derivates


Third Country China

Description• Pre-listing is a key tool to facilitate market access and trade flows. In a nutshell,

the importing country accepts pre-listing of establishments that can export, based on the guarantees of the competent authorities of the exporting countries – the importing country does not have to carry out lengthy and costly inspections of each and every establishment, but instead carries out a performance based audit of the competent authority of the exporting country.

• China, like many other third countries, requires an inspection of companies in the exporting country before those can start exports. This is to ensure, in particular, that the companies (establishments) comply with the import requirements for the product concerned.

• The methods and frequency of the inspections / audits by third countries in EU Member States vary. Often, the third country requires regular visits (e.g. every 2 years) of each and every EU establishment. Typically, the inspection resources of the importing country are limited with the obvious effect that approval is heavily delayed (up to 10 years).

State of Play

A proposal on the pre-listing procedure was submitted via the EC Delegation in Beijing to China in December 2008. Although this issue has been raised repeatedly, the China National Certification and Accreditation Administration (CNCA) has so far only offered pre-listing for aquaculture.

Barrier id 050022


Tanzania’s Export Direction: Meat Products (2)

Country Share (%)

Kuwait 96.94

South Africa 1.77

Comoros 0.78

Oman 0.47

Slovakia 0.05

Kuwait (GCC) Policy on Food Products

• The GCC shelf life standard establishes mandatory expiration periods for 22 perishable products or product categories such as chilled meats, chilled offal, fresh dairy products, baby foods, fruit juices, and table eggs.

• This standard also establishes voluntary expiration periods for a range of frozen and processed products.

• Manufacturers have the option of using the actual expiry period in lieu of the voluntary expiration periods established in the standard.

• The standard also exempts a number of products from expiration periods, including salt, white sugar, dried legumes, dried vegetables, spices and certain condiments, tea, rice, vinegar, and fresh fruits and vegetables, including potatoes that have not been peeled or cut.

South African Import RegimeLegislation Products

• Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies, and Stock Remedies Act (Act No. 36 of 1947)

• Agricultural remedies, stock remedies, farm feeds, and fertilizers

• Agricultural Product Standards Act (Act No. 119 of 1990)

• Meat Safety Act (Act No. 40 of 2000)• Liquor Products Act (Act No. 60 of 1989)

• Fruit, vegetables, flowers, red meat, and poultry, dairy products, grains, processed fruits and vegetables, organically produced products, fresh (raw) meat

• Wines, spirits, brandies, whiskies, sacremental liquor, sparkling wines, fortified wines, cream liquor, and certain ciders

• Genetically Modified Organisms Act (Act No. 15 of 1997)

• GM agricultural crops, plants, and animals

• Agricultural Pests Act, 1983 (Act No. 36 of 1983)

• Fruit and vegetables, plants, pathogens, insects, exotic animals (as defined in the Act), growth mediums, infectious items, honey, beeswax and used apiary equipment, and vegetative materials of all fruits and ornamental plants

• Plant Animal Improvement Act (Act No. 53 of 1976)

• Plant Breeders' Rights Act (Act No. 15 of 1976)

• Animal Diseases Act, 1984 (Act No. 35 of 1984)

• Plant animal genetic material• Any animal, animal product (including

meat), parasite, contaminated or infectious thing

US Policy on Poultry, Meat etc.• Before imports of meat, poultry, or egg products are allowed, Food Safety and

Inspection Service (FSIS) evaluates whether a country's regulatory system for these products attains the same level of protection as the United States.

• If the system is deemed equivalent, U.S. regulations are amended to allow for imports. FSIS has published the process whereby it assesses the equivalence of foreign meat and poultry regulatory systems.

• The United States has recognized 34 foreign systems as equivalent to the U.S. meat, poultry, and/or egg products regulatory systems. Only meat, poultry, and egg products from facilities certified by the FSIS-recognized competent authority of the foreign country can be imported into the United States.

• FSIS inspects all shipments of meat, poultry, and egg products at the border. Approximately 10% of the shipments undergo an "intensive random re-inspection", which includes product examinations, microbiological analysis for pathogens, or a test for chemical residues.

• Of the 3,890 million pounds of meat and poultry products imported in fiscal year 2006, around 12.3 million were not admitted because they failed to meet U.S. requirements.

EU Policy on Meat Products• Food of animal origin (including fishery products) is allowed entry

into the EC only if it comes from approved establishments in countries on a EC list of eligible countries. To be listed requires, recognition by the European Commission of the competent veterinary authority in the third country, which must submit an application for approval of the new establishments to the European Commission.

• European Commission does not carry out inspections of each individual establishment. However, it requires and verifies that this authority is in a position to ensure, through inspection and controls, that relevant EC hygiene and health requirements are met throughout the production chain; it must also issue health certificates required for imports into the EC.

• A monitoring system must be in place to verify compliance with EC requirements on residues of veterinary medicines, pesticides, and contaminants.

• For bovine meat, sheep meat, and goat meat, exporting countries must obtain a determination of their BSE-status from the OIE.

EU Policy on Meat, Food Products ..

• For exports of poultry and poultry meat to the EC, salmonella and avian influenza control/surveillance programmes must be in place.

• At approved border inspection posts, imports are subject to documentary check, identity check, and a physical check, depending on the risk profile of the product and the history of previous checks.

• Approved countries must notify outbreaks of avian influenza and Newcastle disease within 24 hours to the EC Commission.

• Imports of meat derived from animals treated with hormonal growth promoters, mechanically recovered meat, and the use of specified risk materials (to reduce the risk of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy) are prohibited.

• The use of antimicrobial treatment on food of animal origin is also prohibited.

EU Policy on Food Products ..• A new system for pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs) in food

entered into force on 1 September 2008. • After finalization of the harmonization process, the overall system is to be

simplified; 500,000 national MRLs are to be replaced by 75,000 harmonized EC MRLs.

• The new MRL regulation covers all agricultural products, including products of animal origin and processed products, intended for human consumption or feed use. MRLs are specified for about 500 pesticides; for non-specified (other) pesticides, a default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg applies.

• The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluates each new proposed MRL and based on the EFSA's opinion, the Commission can issue a regulation to establish a new MRL or amend or remove an existing MRL.

• Ecuador has raised a concern in the SPS Committee regarding the proposed MRL for Ethephon in pineapple.

• The European Commission has established a database on MRLs applicable to each pesticide and agricultural product, accessible at: http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm .

EU ExperienceTitle Maturate Meat Products


Third Country


Description • Imports into the USA of uncooked meat products (e.g. sausage, ham and bacon) have been subject to a long-standing prohibition.

• Following repeated approaches by the EU, US import regulations were modified to permit the import of Parma ham, Serrano hams, Iberian hams, Iberian pork shoulders and Iberian pork loins.

State of Play

The US still applies a prohibition on other types of uncooked meat products despite the fact that meat products may come from disease free regions and that the processing involved should render any risk negligible.

Barrier id 960088

Barrier Status

Ongoing

EU ExperienceTitle Japan- Meat Products


Third Country

Japan

Description • Current Japanese procedures for the upgrade of national disease status are unclear, lengthy and costly.

• In the field of meat products, there is considerable potential to simplify and enhance the transparency of regulations, to accelerate regulatory procedures and to move towards international norms.

• In addition, for some diseases, like Avian Influenza, Japan would not recognize a region as we have defined in the EU legislation, but would define it the region as an "administrative" area.

• This is not acceptable for the EU and not according to the international thinking.

Barrier id 970245


Meat Policy of Korea• Complaint by Australia and the US on various measures

adopted by Korea on Beef (discriminatory treatment of imported beef and subsidization to domestic industry) - 13 April 1999.

• The panel ruled that the supply being limited to specialised imported beef stores and that those stores bear a special sign “Specialized Imported Beef Store”, stringent record-keeping requirements were in violation of Korea’s WTO commitments.

• Korea’s domestic support for beef for 1997 and 1998 was not correctly calculated and exceeded the de minimis level, thereby violating its commitment - 31 July 2000 .

• The Appellate Body maintained the verdict - 11 December 2000.

• The reasonable period was mutually agreed to 8 months, i.e., was to expire on 10 September 2001.

• Korea notified to WTO on 25 September 2001 that it has complied with the verdict by the deadline.

EU Experience Title Russian Federation - Control, inspection and approval procedures


Third Country Russian Federation

Description • Lack of timely information about introduced measures, and lack of scientific justification for decisions further create misunderstandings and compliance problems, as well as strong restriction to trade. The recently introduced regulations that intend to ban progressively the use of frozen meat in the process of manufacturing food products, claim that frozen meat is harmful for human beings. This measure lacks scientific justification and could effectively ban imports of frozen meat and poultry into Russia. Furthermore, the recently introduced new obligations for milk products applicable to EU exporters have only been communicated after their entry into force, thus reducing the time necessary for producers to adapt to the new requirements.

• Recent de-listing of many EU establishments has added more pressure to the meat and fish industry. The inspection procedures often appear non-transparent and inspection reports do not seem to reflect the actual level of hygiene of banned establishments.

• Moreover, Russia seems to require that the exporters produce an express interest of a Russian entity to import the goods in question, which is a clear discretionary limitation of trade that goes beyond the SPS measures.

State of PlayThe Commission continues to engage in the regular dialogue on SPS issues with the Russian authorities, at all appropriate fora.

Barrier id 095234


Tanzania’s Export Direction: Fish Products (3)

Country Share (%)

Italy 22.39

Netherlands 18.67

Untd Arab Em 11.87

Germany 9.05

Kenya 6.38

Spain 5.65

Israel 3.93

Australia 3.69

Portugal 3.21

Japan 3.07

Hong Kong 2.98

France+Monac 2.35

Cyprus 1.79

Greece 0.72

China 0.50

USA 0.45

Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of EU

• The European Commission estimates that 88% of the EC fish stocks remain at risk because of over-fishing: Total Allowable Catches (TACs) have consistently been set above scientists' recommendations, and the "days-at-sea" system to control fishing opportunities has proved to be ineffective because of derogations.

• According to the European Court of Auditors, the EC's control and enforcement system of the Common Fisheries Policy is ineffective: catch data are unreliable and incomplete.

• For better management, an EC catch certification scheme will be introduced to improve traceability of all marine fishery products traded with the Community (imports and exports), irrespective of means of transport, and at all stages of the production chain, from the fishing net to the plate.

• Fishery Subsidy.

US - Preventive Measures for checking Hazardous Chemicals (FDA) - Marine

• Making sure that incoming fish have not been harvested from waters that are reasonably likely to contain contaminants above the federal tolerances, action levels, or guidance levels

• Checking incoming consignments are properly tagged or labeled; • Screening incoming consignments are supplied by a licensed harvester or by a

certified dealer; • Receipt of the aquacultural grower's lot-by-lot certification of harvesting from

uncontaminated waters, coupled with appropriate verification; • Review, at time of receipt of aquacultured fish, of environmental chemical

contaminant and pesticide test results of soil and water or fish flesh samples for those contaminants that are reasonably likely to be present, and monitoring of present land use practices in the area immediately surrounding the production area (tests and monitoring may be performed by the aquacultural grower, a State agency, or a third party organization);

• On-farm visits to the aquacultural grower to collect and analyze soil and water samples or fish samples for environmental practices;

• Receipt of evidence (e.g. third party certificate) that the producer operates under a third party- audited Quality Assurance Program for environmental chemical contaminants and pesticides.

FDA Regulations on Marine ProductsDeleterious Substance Level Food Commodity Reference

Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.3 ppm All fish Compliance Policy Guide sec. 575.100

Benzene hexachloride 0.3 ppm Frog legs Compliance Policy Guide sec. 575.100

Chlordane 0.3 ppm All fish Compliance Policy Guide sec. 575.100

Chlordecone 0.3 ppm All fish Crabmeat Compliance Policy Guide sec. 575.100

DDT, TDE, DDE 5.0 ppm All fish Compliance Policy Guide sec. 575.100

Arsenic 76 ppm Crustacea FDA Guidance Document

86 ppm Molluscan bivalves FDA Guidance Document

Cadmium 3 ppm Crustacea FDA Guidance Document


Chromium 12 ppm Crustacea FDA Guidance Document


Lead 1.5 ppm Crustacea FDA Guidance Document

1.7 ppm Molluscan bivalves FDA Guidance Document

Nickel 70 ppm Crustacea FDA Guidance Document


Methyl Mercury 1 ppm All fish Compliance Policy Guide sec. 540.600

Heptachlor / Heptachlor Epoxide 0.3 ppm All fish Compliance Policy Guide sec. 575.100

Mirex 0.1 ppm All fish Compliance Policy Guide sec. 575.100

Seafood Process related HazardsFinished Product Food

Cooked shrimp, crab, lobster, and other fish, including cooked meat, sections, and whole fish, and including surimi-based analog products

Package Type Vacuum packaged (e.g. mechanical vacuum, steam sweep, hot fill), MAP, CAP,hermetically sealed or paked in oil

Method of Distribution and Storage Frozen

Hazards Biological Pathogen growth -temperature abuse

CHP 12

x

C. botulinum growth CHP 13

S. aureus toxin - inadequate drying

CHP 14

S. aureus - batter CHP 15

Pathogen survival through cooking

CHP 16

x

Pathogen survival through pasteurization

CHP 17

Pathogen contamination after pasteurization

CHP 18

Chemical Allergens/ Additives CHP 19

x

Physical Metal inclusion CHP 20

x

Glass inclusion CHP 21

Hazards suggested by FDA

MARKET NAMES

LATIN NAMES

HAZARDS

BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL

Parasites Natural Toxins

Histamine Chemical Drugs

CHP 5 CHP 6 CHP 7 CHP 9 CHP 11

TROUT (Aquaculture

)

Oncorhynchus aguabonita

x x

Oncorhynchus clarki

x x

Oncorhynchus gilae x x

TROUT, RAINBOW or STEELHEAD

Oncorhynchus mykiss

x

TUNA (small)

Allothunnus fallai X x

Auxis spp. X x

Euthynnus spp. x x

CRAB, DUNGENESS

Cancer magister x x

How is monitoring done??Critical Control Point (CCP)

Receiving

Significant Hazard(s)

Environmental chemical contaminants and pesticides

Environmental chemical contaminants and pesticides

Analyses of fish flesh for each delivery that show that levels of environmental chemical contaminants and pesticides that are reasonable likely to be present are below the established tolerances, action levels, or guidance levels (tests may be performed by the aquacultural grower, a State agency, or a trade association)

Monitoring (what)

Levels of environmental chemical contaminants and pesticides in soil and water samples for those contaminants that are reasonably likely to be present

Monitoring (how) Visual

Monitoring (frequency)

Each delivery

Monitoring (who) Quality control staff

Corrective Action(s)

Reject lot, AND Discontinue use of supplier until evidence is obtained that the source of the chemical contamination has been eliminated

Records Test results

Verification Review monitoring and correction action records within one week of preparation

Transparent? Regulation on Food Colour Additive by FDA

web-cite• The Food Additives Status List is provided only as a quick look-up

on the use limitations for a food additive or pesticide chemical. It is possible that mistakes or omissions could have occurred.

• Additionally, there may be cases where the agency has offered interpretations concerning specific provisions of the regulations. For example, in the case of boiler water additives or other minor ingredients, processing aids, or indirect additives, FDA has not objected, in certain cases, to the substitution of ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, or sodium salts for each other when only one is listed in a regulation.

• The Food Additive Status list is updated annually, so it may not reflect the latest information. For all these reasons, take care before advising a firm that the use of a particular food additive is prohibited or otherwise limited.

Environmental Impact Assessment

• Aquatic environment, terrestrial environment, atmospheric environment

• EIC on the basis of human metabolism and environmental depletion mechanisms that occur in the wastewater treatment process (e.g., adsorption, biodegradation and hydrolysis).

• Cradle-to-Grave: Introduction of substances in the environment (manufacture, packaging, end use).

• Energy use and the impact• FDA requires details of assumptions, calculations,

and the basis for these calculations.

US Policy• Under the MMPA, yellowfin tuna from the eastern tropical Pacific can only

be imported if it comes from a country with an "affirmative finding". • Four countries have such a finding: Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, and

Spain. Tuna from these countries can only be labelled as "dolphin safe" if caught without the chase and encirclement of dolphins in the entire trip and without killing or seriously injuring any dolphins in the set in which the tuna was caught.

• The United States also prohibits imports of shrimp and shrimp products harvested with technology that may adversely affect sea turtle species.

• Exempt from the ban are products from countries that have been certified by the Department of State "as having taken certain specific measures to reduce the incidental taking of sea turtles" or as having a fishing environment that does not pose a threat to sea turtles. Certification takes place annually.

• The United States does not maintain a catalogue of technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures. However, technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures, and other final rules are indexed and published in the consolidated Code of Federal Regulations.

EU ExperienceTitle Marine Mammal Protection Act

Measure Registration, Documentation, Customs Procedures

Third Country


DescriptionThe Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 aims to protect marine mammals, particularly dolphins, by progressively reducing the acceptable level of dolphin mortality in U.S. tuna-fishing operations in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) Ocean and providing for sanctions to be taken against other countries which fail to apply similar standards for dolphin protection.

The MMPA requires that countries that wish to import from the ETP must receive an "affirmative finding" from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The criteria for receiving an "affirmative finding" relate to the membership (or launching and completing the accession within six months) to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the need to have a "tuna tracking and verification system" that conforms to the Tuna Tracking and Verification System adopted under the Agreement for International Dolphin Conservation Programme (AIDCP).

Spain was unable to join the IATTC within the 6 month time period. Therefore, it would appear that Spanish tuna products coming from the Eastern Tropical Pacific would not be allowed to enter the U.S. market. Additionally, canned tuna from Spain, not explicitly labelled as coming from outside the ETP would probably be prohibited from entering the U.S. market due to the difficulty to determine the origin of the canned tuna.

State of PlaySpain formally acceded to the IATTC in June 2003. The EU has recently become a full member of the AIDCP and has already introduced into Community Law the System for Tracking and Verification of Tuna.

Barrier id 960062

Barrier Status

Ongoing

EU ExperienceTitle Sanitary measures applied by USA for imports of live bivalve molluscs


Third Country


Description• The USA requires the testing of the water in which bivalve molluscs (e.g. oysters) are

reared for coliforms, whereas the European Union requires testing of the flesh of the bivalve molluscs for Escherichia coli.

• The European Community Reference Laboratory for monitoring bacteriological and viral contamination of bivalve molluscs has studied the two approaches and has confirmed that the same level of protection is achieved.

• The EU claims that the two different approaches achieve the same level of protection, and therefore should be regarded as equivalent, within the framework of Article 4 of the WTO/SPS Agreement (Sanitary and Phytosanitary).

State of Play

• The EC would like the USA to reconsider its approach and to take the necessary steps for allowing imports of EU bivalve molluscs into the USA. The issue has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the USA-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by the European Commission.

• Imports of bivalve molluscs from the USA will continue to be allowed, on a provisional basis, until 01 July 2010. This period would allow to conclude on equivalence of the public health legislation governing the sector.

Barrier id 085114


EU Experience Title Canned Seafood

Measure Standards and Other Technical Requirements

Third Country Canada

Description • According to the Fish Inspection Regulations of Canada, any fish imported into Canada may be subjected on a random basis to several kinds of inspection (Sensory evaluation, Net content determination, Label evaluation, Container integrity evaluation, etc.). Where a type of fish fails to pass a type of inspection, (a) the type of fish, the name of the producer and the type of inspection shall be recorded by the inspector on a mandatory import alert list, and (b) shipments or lots of that type of fish that are produced by that producer and subsequently imported into Canada shall undergo the same type of inspection until four consecutive shipments or lots have passed that type of inspection.

• In discharging its responsibility, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) takes into consideration the requirements of Canadian Acts and Regulations applicable to the inspection of food (among them the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act as it relates to food). It seems that the CFIA judges metal as well as aluminium cans on the same level for the purposes of container integrity and seaming when canned seafood is imported into Canada.

• Certain European exporters are using aluminium containers for exporting canned seafood. Currently easy-to-open aluminium cans are the main can type on the world market. However, aluminium is much softer than metal, therefore it is a much more flexible and sensitive material. Even if the container integrity of cans is ensured by using aluminium and the quality of aluminium cans is high, using metal enables the seafood producer to press the cans much harder in the closing process than when using aluminium. When aluminium cans are checked by the CFIA on the same level of tightness as the metal cans, they break and fail to pass the container integrity evaluation.

• Producers of canned seafood that fail to pass the inspection are recorded in the CFIA´s import alert list, which is a black listing that makes exports to Canada virtually impossible. Once registered on the alert list, producers will have to pass a completely clean inspection for the next four consecutive shipments, where 1250 samples will be drawn from each shipment.

State of Play

This issue has been raised at the EU-Canada Trade Subcommittee of 8 June 2005. It has been agreed that Canada would report back to the Commission on the reason why certain containers from the Member States have been rejected on the basis of the integrity of the container while the contents of the cans were intact. Canada is in particular expected to provide further information on its strict container integrity rules and to explain why it seems to apply its legislation more strictly than corresponding EU and US rules.

Barrier id 000017


Tanzania’s Export Direction: Dairy Products (4)

Country Share (%)

Kenya 21.97

Zambia 17.28

South Africa 15.41

Untd Arab Em 13.77

Rwanda 12.73

Germany 12.41

Belgium 2.43

Uganda 1.48

Oman 1.42

Dem.Rp.Congo 0.36

Burundi 0.32

Netherlands 0.28

Spain 0.12

Untd.Kingdom 0.01

EU Dairy Policy• The EC maintains a number of schemes for the subsidized

disposal of dairy products on the internal market. The subsidies for the industrial use of butter were suspended in April 2007, and the Commission has proposed that the scheme be abolished.

• The subsidies for the industrial use of skimmed milk etc. were reduced to zero in October 2006.

• Under the Health Check, intervention purchases for butter have been limited to 30,000 tonnes per year, and to 109,000 tonnes per year for SMP.

• Direct payments to milk producers have been fully integrated into the Single Payment Scheme since 2007.

• The difference between the EC price for butter and the world market prices was about 30% at the end of 2007.

• MFN tariffs on dairy products average 32.4%, with rates ranging up to 189.7%.

US HACCP – Dairy Products• All milk for pasteurization shall be from herds in Areas

which have a Modified Accredited Advanced Tuberculosis status or greater as determined by the USDA.

• Participation in milk ring testing program at least twice every year and all herds with positive milk ring results shall have the entire herd blood tested within thirty (30) days from the date of the laboratory ring tests.

• Conformity with herd brucellosis test, annual random blood-testing program sufficient to provide a confidence level of 99%, USDA approved bulk milk test etc.

Herd Size and Random Sample Size

HACCP - Dairy Products ..

• Toilet type and functioning – possible defects• Earth-pit privy – possible defects• Milking methods - sanitized efficiently and

satisfactorily• Construction plan of the dairy – closeness of

the processing room and the manure handling activities

• Management of wastage and deposits• Medicinal agent residue avoidance control

measures• Insect and rodent control

EU ExperienceTitle Pasteurised Milk Products (Grade A)


Third Country United States of America

Description Certain dairy products, called "Grade A milk products" which include pasteurised milk and milk based products (fluid milk, cream, cottage cheese and yoghurt), are regulated under a Federal/State cooperative programme administered jointly by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) which is mainly comprised of state dairy regulatory officials. FDA and NCIMS jointly produce a Grade A dairy safety document, entitled the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), which sets forth the rules and inspection requirements to be met by firms who would like to engage in the interstate commerce of Grade A products. Full compliance with the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance is almost impossible for a EU company.

Only two EU firms have been able to make it onto the NCIMS list, considering the requirement to meet all PMO provisions and to finance the ongoing inspections by US state officials. Upon the European Commission request, FDA has agreed to enter into equivalence discussions with the EU and a working plan for these discussions was agreed in October 2005. Several meetings have been held since but progress is limited so far. It is the hope of the European Commission that these discussions can be advanced expeditiously in order to remedy the present situation in which it is extremely difficult to export Grade A milk products into the US.

Barrier id 060104


EU ExperienceTitle Milk and dairy products


Third Country

Russian Federation

Description

• The new obligations for milk products applicable to EU exporters were only communicated after their entry into force, thus reducing the time necessary for producers to adapt to new requirements.

• The new Russian Federal Law no 88 FL of 12/6/2008 on milk and dairy products introduces sanitary requirements which differ from international standards (residue levels of antibiotics, microbiological criteria etc.). This legislation also covers both sanitary and quality requirements, which makes it difficult to interpret and to apply.

• Recently Russia informed about an additional requirement that the establishments shall have valid contracts with Russian importers for milk products supplies.

State of Play

The EC has protested against these requirements, which go even beyond WTO SPS issues (e.g. the requirement for commercial document). EC has also requested information directly and through the WTO accession negotiations and has negotiated a specific transitional period for the requirements in the Federal Law on milk until 1 September 2009.

Barrier id 095236


Tanzania’s Export Direction: Plants (6)

Country Share (%)

Netherlands 84.35

Switz.Liecht 3.80

Kenya 3.78

Norway,Sb,JM 2.90

Germany 1.71

South Africa 0.65

India 0.40

Untd.Kingdom 0.38

Ethiopia 0.37

Spain 0.25

USA 0.23

US Policy• Requests for first-time imports of plants, animals, and their

products must be submitted by the chief plant protection officer or the chief veterinary officer of the exporting country to their U.S. counterpart.

• Requests are made with respect to particular commodities; a risk assessment may be necessary to evaluate these requests. APHIS may consider risk assessments carried out by third parties as part of its evaluation.

• Based on the results of risk assessment, APHIS may allow imports, subject to SPS requirements. These are mostly issued as regulations, and must adhere to the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (section (ix)).

• There are no statutory limitations regarding the duration of the process to approve first-time imports of plants, animals, and their products into the United States. Typically, this process takes between two and three years.

EU Policy• Imports of specified plants and plant products (e.g. fresh

fruit and vegetables) must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, issued by the national plant protection organization of the exporting country.

• Shipments are subject to a plant health check, involving a documentary, identity, and physical check, to ensure compliance with the EC's import requirements.

• Reduced frequency health checks apply to certain products from specific countries of origin, based on risk profiling.

• A plant passport is required for the internal movement of plants and plant material.

• Recently the EC notified a number of emergency measures and other import restrictions on certain plants.

EU ActionsProducts Description of measure WTO

DocumentIsoprene [FL-01.049 (2-methyl-1,3-butadiene)] and food products containing this flavouring substance (ICS 67.220.20)

Delete from the register of allowed substances. These substances have been found to be carcinogens.

G/SPS/N//324,

Plants of the genus Pinus L. and Coast Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), intended for planting, including seeds and cones for propagation purposes (HS 0602 and 1209.99.10)

Suspension of imports. To prevent the introduction and spread of Gibberella circinata Nirenberg & O'Donnell. This organism is the cause of "pine pitch canker".

G/SPS/N//315,

Plants susceptible to red palm weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier))

Suspension of imports. G/SPS/N//314,

Plants and live parts of plants, including seeds, of angel's trumpets (Brugmansia Pers. spp.) and jasmine nightshade (Solanun jasminoides (Paxton))

Suspension of imports. To prevent the introduction and spread of Potato spindle tuber viroid (PSTVd).

G/SPS/N//313,

EU ExperienceTitle

Slow procedures on applications to allow import of new types of plant products


Third Country


Description• New types of plants and plant products cannot be imported into US before the

phytosanitary requirements are decided on by the US plant health authorities and afterwards included in US import legislation. This is required for every type of fruit or vegetable, and for many plants for planting. The procedure may take several years. In particular, EU applications to export have been pending for plants in growing media (some more than 10 years) and for fruits and vegetables (some more than 5 years).

• The legislative process within US will, at the very least, take 1 year, however follows a foreseeable procedure. On the contrary, the prior technical analysis of which requirements the products would have to meet is not conducted within either a reasonable or a foreseeable time frame. In addition, where inter-agency consultations are necessary, no time frame is specified, and the evaluation appears not limited to phytosanitary considerations.

• Due to long pending applications, EU exporters of plants and plant products have practically stopped developing in the US market, while US exporters benefit from a transparent and significantly less restrictive plant quarantine legislation within EU.

State of Play

To facilitate the progress on applications from Member States, EU participates in regular meetings with the US plant health authorities. The EU-US PHTWG was introduced October 2008, and the first task was to list and prioritise the pending applications in order to do a frequent follow up.

Barrier id 105334


EU ExperienceTitle Hardy Nursery Stock


Third Country


Description The US requires a two year post-entry quarantine on an importer’s premises for hardy nursery stock. Its main purpose is believed to be the detection of latent infections by organisms of quarantine concern.

State of Play

The EU considers this measure to be excessive. Although this measure may be justifiable in the case of new or developing trade in specific commodities, the EU considers this not to be the case if the measure is required for long-term trade on a permanent basis.

Barrier id 960082


EU ExperienceTitle Ornamental Plants Established in Growing Media


Third Country


Description

• The separate import into the USA of almost all sorts of plants and growing media (except soil) is permitted.

• However, when the plants are in growing media (i.e. authorised plants in authorised growing media), the import is not permitted, unless a special Pest Risk Assessment (PRA) has been performed by the USDA/APHIS, and furthermore requirements have been set and import legislation updated accordingly.

• The process of obtaining this type of permission has proved to be virtually impossible or extremely slow. Furthermore, the USDA/APHIS phytosanitary risk approach appears to be disproportionate to the low risk involved.

State of Play

The USDA/APHIS has recently stated that it would continue assessing the existing market access applications received from Member States, and engage itself in reviewing/assessing the information received from the European Commission related with new market access applications from Member States.

Barrier id 960081


Tanzania’s Export Direction: Edible Vegetables (7)

Country Share (%)

India 84.33

Untd Arab Em 4.24

Bangladesh 2.36

Untd.Kingdom 2.15

Netherlands 2.04

Kenya 1.65

Rwanda 0.84

Thailand 0.48

South Africa 0.26

Turkey 0.23

Portugal 0.21

Belgium 0.19

USA 0.03

Tanzania’s Export Direction: Edible Fruits (8)

Country Share (%)

USA 33.44

Netherlands 27.36

India 17.22

South Africa 9.07

Indonesia 2.47

Kenya 2.24

Singapore 1.63

Viet Nam 1.14

Germany 1.06

Canada 0.92

Philippines 0.51

Australia 0.41

Untd.Kingdom 0.23

Russian Fed 0.20

US Policy• New import regulations for fruits and vegetables became effective in

August 2007.• The new process applies to fruits and vegetables that are subject to

one or more of five designated phytosanitary measures. It involves the announcement of the availability of a pest-risk analysis in the Federal Register, and the establishment of a 60-day public comment period.

• Barring comments that disprove the findings of the pest-risk analysis, APHIS announces in the Federal Register that it will issue permits for the importation of the product in question.

• Products subject to the notice-based process will no longer be listed individually in the regulations.

• The recognition of pest-free areas will also take place through the notice-based approval process. APHIS will announce in the Federal Register the recognition of an area as free of specified pests, and provide a 60-day public comment period.

• After considering the comments, APHIS will announce the recognition of a pest-free area without issuing regulations.

EU Policy• Special conditions for imports of almonds from the United

States were established in 2007 due to high levels of aflatoxin.

• Almonds and derived products are subject to 100% mandatory testing upon importation into the EC, unless the product was tested for aflatoxin in the United States, in which case testing is limited to approximately 5% at the EC border.

• MRL for several fruits and vegetables.• Uniformity, content requirement in value-added products. • For instance, the pesticide residue limit is 0.01 PPM, 0.03

PPM and 0.10 PPM in UK, Netherlands and Germany respectively, for Aldrin and Diedrin.

EU ExperienceTitle Fruits and vegetables


Third Country


Description Restrictions on the import of certain fruits into the USA are in place, and include - on a country by country basis - Pest Risk Analisys (PRA), stringent inspection programmes, audit of cold treatment for certain varieties.

State of Play

• Member States have exchanged several letters over the years with the USDA/APHIS requesting the access to the USA market of certain fruits. Applications have been pending for years, avaiting PRA, setting of requirements and update of import legislation.

• Several Member States have been unsuccessful in getting information from USDA/APHIS on the status of their applications, or achieved no progress at all. The European Commission has provided USDA/APHIS with a prioritised list of applications from Member States.

• The USDA/APHIS has recently provided information on the status of applications on the EU-list, including which information would be needed to handle the applications.

Barrier id 040059

Barrier Status

Ongoing

EU ExperienceTitle Bioterrorism Act


Third Country United States of America

Description• The US Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act was

signed into law on 12 June 2002. The measure is intended to address security risk surrounding the supply of foodstuffs. The implementation of the so-called Bioterrorism Act (BTA) necessitates the registration of all foreign facilities that supply food to the US, prior notification of all shipments to the US, record-keeping by foreign enterprises to allow traceability of foods, and procedures for the administrative detention of suspect foods.

• The measures cover all the main food exports to the US, beverages (including wines and spirits), processed foods, dairy products, and fruit and vegetables. Deliveries by international mail by private individuals are exempted, but foreign mail order companies are still subject to these burdens. The additional red-tape resulting from the implementation of the BTA does affect EU agri-food businesses in particular small and medium enterprises.

• Registration of facilities - requires every "food facility" from which foods are exported to the US to be registered with the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA). Food facilities are also required to identify their US agent, which implies that they must have a US agent in order to be registered.

• The prior notice measure requires that every shipment to the US must be preceded by advance notice of no more than 5 days and at latest by eight hours (if by sea) or by four hours (if by air) before arrival. Products imported from unregistered food facilities or for which inadequate notice is given cannot be imported and will be removed to secure storage.

Barrier id 040003


EU ExperienceTitle Japan- Fresh fruit and vegetables - All Import issues


Third Country

Japan

Description• The basic problem relates to the Japanese approval procedures for imports of new

varieties and types of fresh fruit and vegetables. These procedures are very long (2-3 years), costly and lacking in transparency.

• There is considerable potential to simplify and enhance the transparency of regulations, to accelerate regulatory procedures and to move towards international norms.

• The procedures for authorisation of imports of the mandarine variety Clementina from Spain into Japan constitute a good example in this request. It is noted that other Spanish products with similar phytosanitary properties (Navel Oranges) have already been granted approval for import into Japan. A second example relates to the Spanish request for authorisation of imports of the orange variety Salustina.

State of Play

• Also, Japan operates a system of zero tolerance for all pests not included on its list of non-quarantine organisms. This list is incomplete and many common insects which are present both in Europe and Japan, such as aphids and mites, are not included on this list.

• This means that fruit and vegetables which have such non-harmful insects on them are treated by Japan in the same way as if they were infested by harmful organisms and have to undergo needless fumigation.

Barrier id 970244


Tanzania’s Export Direction: Coffee, Tea (9)

Country Share (%)

Germany 28.66

Kenya 13.85

Italy 7.83

Japan 7.77

Netherlands 6.51

USA,PR,USVI 6.27

Belgium 5.19

Untd Arab Em 4.43

Untd.Kingdom 4.39

South Africa 2.09

Pakistan 1.80

Israel 1.38

Spain 1.30

Sweden 1.11

Finland 0.95

Tanzania’s Export Direction: Cereals (10)

Country Share (%)

Uganda 40.74

Russian Fed 12.15

Congo 10.88

Kenya 10.06

Argentina 9.61

Burundi 5.04

China 3.52

Comoros 2.51

South Africa 2.06

Untd Arab Em 0.86

Dem.Rp.Congo 0.67

India 0.40

Rwanda 0.35

Viet Nam 0.31

Malawi 0.29

Tanzania’s Export Direction: Oilseed etc. (12)

Country Share (%)

Japan 22.26

Untd Arab Em 19.75

Netherlands 17.31

China 15.91

Indonesia 6.23

India 3.52

France+Monac 2.40

USA,PR,USVI 2.20

Denmark 1.53

Pakistan 1.52

Kenya 1.41

Singapore 1.26

Italy 0.76

Spain 0.52

Philippines 0.43

Tanzania’s Export Direction: Beverages etc. (22)

Country Share (%)

Kenya 45.15

Dem.Rp.Congo 36.02

Untd.Kingdom 4.38

Uganda 2.07

India 2.01

Sudan 2.00

Mozambique 1.30

South Africa 1.28

Untd Arab Em 1.24

Netherlands 1.22

Switz.Liecht 1.21

Comoros 0.52

USA 0.34

Russian Fed 0.18

China 0.00

EU Policy • The EC wine market has been suffering from chronic overproduction. The

distillation of wine into spirits and liqueur wines has traditionally been the main instrument of surplus disposal, whereby distillers are partly compensated for the high local raw material price they are obliged to pay in the form of a guaranteed producer price for wine.

• In 2000-04, some 21 million hectolitres of wine per year (around 13% of production) were subsidized to make them competitive for the production of alcoholic beverages, notably Brandy (8-12 million hl), Cognac (4.4 million hl), and Vermouth (2.2 million hl).

• Two large distillation support programmes (potable alcohol distillation and "crisis" distillation) will be phased out by 2012.

• The distillation of by-products of winemaking remains obligatory, to avoid over-pressing and a deterioration of wine quality; the distillation is subsidized.

• The distillation subsidies for "dual-purpose" grape varieties to produce, inter alia, Cognac, and to remove a wine surplus in the Charentes region of France, were abolished by the 2008 reform.

• In some wine areas, the natural alcoholic strength may be increased by the addition of dry sugaring or by addition of concentrated grape must. In order to compensate for the higher price of the latter, Community support is being granted until 2012.

As a result of the reforms, the wine subsector has been integrated into the Single Payment Scheme.

EU ExperienceTitle Special Sweet Wines - Level of Sulphur Dioxide


Third Country

China

Description In 2006 China notified, under the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) procedure, a new Standard on Wine imposing for "other types of wines" (within which sweet wines are included) an unnecessarily strict level of sulphur dioxide (i.e. 250 mg/L). This new level is below that permitted by international and EU standards and is at a level where exports from the EC would in some cases no longer be possible.

State of Play

Bilateral meetings with Chinese Ministry of Health (MoH) and AQSIQ (Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine).

Barrier id 085122

Barrier Status

Ongoing

EU ExperienceTitle Wines and Spirits Import Barriers

Measure Tariffs and Duties

Third Country

Russian Federation

Description• Licences for white spirits: Russia has repeatedly confirmed its intention

to remove the so-called "White Spirits Licence", which is an unnecessary duplicate, but has failed to do so.

• Reporting system for excise stamps: there is a mandatory requirement that importers must report on the use of each individual sequential excise stamp, tracking it at all stages from wholesaler to retailer through the 'United Federal Automatic Information system' (UFAIS) bar coding system (which adds up to hundreds of pages in written reports submitted to customs). This slows down importation and has a significant financial impact. The system is discriminatory as local producers are only required to report on product serial numbers.

• Additional second guarantee: despite being abolished by Government Resolution 699 in November 2007, Russian customs are still asking for additional documents and guarantees.

State of PlayA revised Resolution removing a number of duplicate licences has been prepared, but not yet presented to the Duma.

Barrier id 085119

Barrier Status

Ongoing

India at DSB on Wine Tariff Issues• DS 380 – EU - sales tax etc. imposed by Goa, Karnataka,

Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are discriminatory in nature and driving imports down.

• DS 360 – by US – imposition of “additional duties” on imports of wine and spirit {HS 2204, 2205, 2206 and 2208} is WTO-inconsistent. The Panel however concluded that the US failed to establish that SAD imposed by is inconsistent with WTO provisions. The Appellate Body broadly concluded with this view.

• DS 352 – by EU – imposition of duties” on imports of wine and spirit - later panel proceedings suspended and EU joined DS 360.

• DS 150 – by EC – imposition of measures like Special Customs Duty and the Special Additional Duty. The EC claimed that the aggregate value of tariffs resulting from the addition of the different duties applied by India exceed it’s WTO bound rates for several categories. No panel formed.

• Why wine and spirit?? Bound rate is 150 percent, and the applied rate is quite close to it. Hence SAD does not have a margin.

• What about other areas??

India: SPS legislation and implementing

agencies Legislation Subject Implementing agency

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Food safety and quality Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Food Processing, Ministry of Health

- Fruit Products Order, 1955 Quality of processed fruit products

Ministry of Food Processing

- Meat Food Products Order, 1973

Quality of processed meat products

Ministry of Food Processing (up to 2004 Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture)

- Milk and Milk Products Order, 1973 (last amended 1992)

Quality of milk and milk products

Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fishing, Ministry of Agriculture

Essential Commodities Act, 1955

Consumer protection State government agencies

Livestock Importation Act, 1898 (amended in 2001)

Procedures for import of livestock

Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fishing, Ministry of Agriculture

Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914

Procedures for import of plants and plant materials

Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

Regulation of import, manufacture, and sales of drugs

Ministry of Health

Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963

Regulation of quality control for exports

Exports Inspection Council, Ministry of Commerce and Industry

The Food Safety and Standards Act has been notified in 2008.

Certification for Primary Imports

• Imports of primary agricultural material require a phytosanitary import permit, issued by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation under the Plants, Fruit and Seeds (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003.

• Imports of plants or plant products into India (with the exception of those listed under Schedule VII of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order 2003) require a permit issued under this Order. The permit is issued only after completion of a pest risk analysis.

• The analysis is based on a comparison of pest profiles in the exporting country and India in line with the IPPC guidelines on pest risk analysis; the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation is assisted by research institutes, such as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), in conducting this analysis.

• The permit is valid for six months and permits multiple shipments of imports.

• All imports of plants, plant material, and other plant products must be carried out through designated sea and airports and land frontier stations.

• Any fumigation for imported plants and seeds must be carried out by an approved agency at the importer's cost.

• Appeals against decisions by the inspection authority may be made to the Plant Protection Advisor within seven days of communication from the inspection authority. A second appeal cannot be made.

Certification for Livestock• Imports of livestock and meat products are

regulated, respectively, under the Livestock Importation Act, 1898 (amended last in 2001) and the Meat Food Products Order, 1973.

• An import permit issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Ministry of Agriculture is necessary for import.

• The livestock permit is valid for six months and can be used for multiple consignments.

• However, the stringent requirements for granting permits raise costs.

• All imports of livestock must enter through designated ports.

India: Issues raised by partners at WTO• Restrictions on imports of live birds, fresh poultry meat, and meat products, due

to avian influenza in 2008. • Presence of more stringent maximum residue levels on imported dairy products

than it does for domestic products.• Ban on the use of food grade wax under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. • India finally permitted two varieties of edible waxes to be used for coating fresh

fruits up to the level of GMP subject to labelling of the type of wax used and the best before date.

• Lateness of India's notifications on new fumigation requirements to WTO.• Non-notification of various SPS measures (e.g. raw hides and skins), Licensing

requirements etc.• Many cases the comment period has been around 30 days, while both the SPS

and TBT Committees have recommend that WTO Members provide a minimum of 60 days for comments to be submitted on notified measures when possible.

• US claims that the license application requires excessive details, quantity limitations are set on specific part numbers, the delay between application and grant of the license is long and creates uncertainty.

• Another Claim: Import restriction on US poultry, poultry products, live horses, pet food, pork, swine, and many dairy products are NOT based on international standard or scientific analysis.

US exports of products derived from genetically engineered commodities are effectively banned, except for soybean oil.

EU ExperienceTitle The Lacey Act Amendments


Third Country


Description • The Lacey Act, initially adopted in 1900, is the United States’ oldest national wildlife protection statute and serves as an anti-trafficking law protecting a broad range of wildlife and wild plants.

• In May 2008, the Lacey Act was amended to extend its scope to all plants, including timber or associated wood products with the objective to combat illegal logging. The amendment added a new requirement for an import declaration, which will oblige importers of covered plants and plant products to list shipment information along with information such as plant scientific name and country of harvest to prove compliance with the Lacey Act requirements.

State of Play

The Commission's main concerns included issues related to the extensive scope and implementation. Specifically, the scope of the declaration, covering a wide range of products that lack an identifiable connection, or realistic possibility of a link to illegal logging, should be reduced in order ensure the efficiency and the relevance of the proposed legislation for actually combating illegal logging. The European Commission is also concerned that some of the plant declaration requirements, such as value of imports and quantity of the plants, would duplicate information already provided by importers during the customs clearance process.

Barrier id 095204

Barrier Status

Ongoing

EU ExperienceTitle Japan- MRL revision under Food Sanitation Law


Third Country

Japan

Description The Japanese government undertook to review its regulations in this area. As a result, a review of substances to establish Maximum Residual Levels (MRL) is now taking place. While progress is being made, the speed of addressing these issues is slow.

State of Play

The EU has submitted to Japan its MRLs currently approved in the EU and invited Japan to take these into account. Upon Japanese request additional information has been provided.

Barrier id 970255


EU ExperienceTitle Japan- Food Additives


Third Country

Japan

Description• Many food additives of worldwide common use, which are recognised as being safe by

international food safety bodies such as the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), remain prohibited in Japan. This has been a long-standing trade irritant as EU exporters have not been able to export certain processed food to Japan or would need to modify the recipies accordingly.

• Japanese list of accepted food additives is not in line with the applicable international standards set up at the CODEX Alimentarius and does not accept additives recognized as safe by food safety evaluation bodies such as the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), the EC Scientific Committee on Food or the European Food Safety Authority. Japan did not provide scientific evidence to support its deviation from Codex standards and is thus not in line with the SPS Agreement (mainly Article 5.8).

• In 2002, the EU and Japan agreed on a list of 46 priority food additives that the Japanese would approve in an accelerated pace. Currently, 19 additives from this list are still pending approval. Although numerous additives have recently been approved, the overall length of the approval procedure still is unacceptable from EU's point of view, as all recently approved substances have already been assessed by international bodies. Normally, acceptance of international approved standards should allow for faster approval.

State of PlayRequests on alignment of its legislation to the international standards are regularly voiced yearly in the EU-Japan Regulatory Reform Dialogue and in the bilateral meetings held in the margins of the SPS-WTO Committee in Geneva as well as other bilateral Trade meetings with Japan.

Barrier id 970254


EU Experience Title Russian Federation - antibiotic and pesticide residues


Third Country

Russian Federation

Description • While many pesticides and veterinary medicines are recognised as being not harmful for animals and humans by international bodies (with permitted MRL's ) and are widely used in several countries worldwide are not permitted in Russia. Even for allowed substances, Russia applies very strict Maximum Residue Limits (MRL's) which are far lower than the recognised limits set by international bodies.

• These limits are sometimes at such a low level, that even laboratory analysis could not quantify them and thus they correspond to a practical ban. In addition, an extrapolation to pesticides from one group of commodities to another group of commodities without any scientific basis.

• Many of Russia's MRLs diverge from the relevant international standards and lack scientific science-based explanations for the low levels set.

State of Play

The Commission continues to engage in the regular dialogue on SPS issues with the Russian authorities, at all appropriate fora.

Barrier id 095233

Barrier Status

Ongoing

market access issues for agricultural trade lecture 2

Documents